This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," July 26, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Hannity, thanks so much. Fascinating hour with Roseanne.


INGRAHAM: I've got to watch the last half, I only saw the first half because I had to work for the second half

HANNITY: Well, why didn't you watch the second half?

INGRAHAM: I'm going to watch it tonight when I get back, but it was wild from beginning to end. So good job. That's like dealing with like a feral -- you know some kind of feral, wild deal, that was cool.

HANNITY: All right.

INGRAHAM: So congrats on that, Sean.

HANNITY: All right, have a great show, we'll see you tomorrow.

INGRAHAM: All right, and good evening. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is 'The Ingraham Angle.'

We have a phenomenal show lined up for tonight. We have breaking news on that 2016 Trump Tower meeting with supposedly Russian agents, you know Natalia Veselnitskaya, lawyer-gal. So we'll talk to you about that. Plus a stunning turn of events in the impeachment campaign against Rod Rosenstein by the House GOP. Wait until you hear who Auntie Maxine claims is driving her anti-Trump crusade. And a major warning to Democrats. Why they may be dead-wrong again about the polls ahead of the midterms.

But first, when the inmates run the immigration asylum. That's the focus of tonight's Angle. Today was the court-imposed deadline for the Trump administration to reunite families who were separated due to that DOJ zero- tolerance approach to illegal immigration. Of course, all the usual suspects in the media painted a grim picture.


UNIDENTFIED MALE: They're indicative of these emotional pains and struggles these families have been dealing with over the last several weeks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I met two children from two different families. One a 7-year-old boy who loves the superhero Flash and the other an 11-year-old girl who has to help her father operate his smartphone and likes to play basketball. They are normal kids in almost every way, normal kids dealing with a very difficult situation.


INGRAHAM: Tonight the administration announced 1412 children have been delivered to parents in immigration custody, which took hundreds of staffers apparently to carry out. Lord knows how much money it took. But the fact that this ever happened drove the left to cry Trump's a heartless guy.


DANA BASH, CNN: A practice that's been called heartless and cruel by Republicans who almost never speak out.

MIKE BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC: They are being held, and they're being held against their will. This is a Trump policy that is blatantly cruel.

REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: Most of Donald Trump's base wouldn't tolerate seeing white children treated like that.


INGRAHAM: Reverend Al -- histrionics aside, the White House's hands were tied, remember -- by the 2015 ruling by Obama judge Dolly Gee, ordering that even children who cross the border with parents have to be released from custody in 20 days. That meant either Trump continued that old policy of catch and release, family units caught entering the country illegally, or parents were detained separately from their minor children, because the children had to be released.

The administration chose the latter path which led to well -- mostly Democrat-led protests across America which ultimately drove the White House back to back down. It was a total mess. Congress had the chance to change the law, close the loopholes. And let's face it, they could've tightened the asylum process and expedited the deportation hearings. But they chose to do nada. How brave.


REP. PAUL RYAN, R—WISC., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We have a broken immigration system. It doesn't work for anybody. Least of which to control our border. And so when we get to the moment where we're actually solving this problem, which I would prefer sooner rather than later, I really think it's going to gravitate around these four pillars.


INGRAHAM: But then came a typical sneak move that we expect from Democrats, but not from the president's own party. Before running to the airport today for their working August recess, the House held a sneaky vote on a Homeland Security appropriations bill that will only end up adding to our problems at the border. The amendment basically codifies DACA and was the brainchild of Congressman David Price, a Democrat from North Carolina. But it wasn't just David Price. GOP Congressman Kevin Yoder, the all-important Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, was also in full support of the idea.

Especially this part that made it easier for illegal immigrants to claim asylum. If they credibly fear gang-related or domestic violence. Yoder claims he was moved to change his position on asylum due to the influence of his mother. He said today, "As a son of a social worker, I have great compassion for the victims of domestic violence anywhere, especially as it concerns those nations that turn a blind eye of crimes of domestic violence."

Well, forgive me, congressman, and I appreciate your personal story, but your family history shouldn't be allowed to thwart the president's immigration agenda. And frankly, imperil the party's prospects in the midterms. Until 2016, asylum was traditionally reserved for those in fear of persecution for things like their religious, their political or their ethnic background. Not due to one's fear of crime or the threat of domestic abuse in his or her home, as horrible as that is.

But as a new barometer for asylum status is whether a foreigner feels safe in his or her home country, we should -- might as well through the borders wide open. It doesn't matter if you have a wall or no wall. Hundreds of millions of asylum requests are going to come pouring in. Now, it's worth remembering the Center for Immigration Studies estimates if this House language, like that in the Gang of Eight Bill, were to prevail in the Senate, we could be looking at 32 million new voting-age adults living in the United States by the year 2036. Democrats want desperately to replace America's more conservative electorate with foreign, younger, usually more socially liberal voters.

What does that mean? I'll tell you one thing it means -- no more Donald Trumps. And big business will revel of course, in the glut of low-skilled workers in the midst of what they claim is a labor crunch. They also won't have to raise wages much, right? Which is what they are starting to do now, they're having to do it to fill these jobs. And that means more profit for themselves. But beyond the all the tears, the meltdowns and a lot of sad stories -- some sob stories -- it's critical for Republicans not to cave to the Democrats on immigration. This is just a desperate play by the resistance because Trump is beating them on the economy.


ELIZABETH MACDONALD, FBN HOST: The future is pointing north. Up 232 points. The market's loving this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we're on our way -- we back up, maybe to the January highs.

MACDONALD: Wow, we may have 5 percent GDP growth coming Friday.


INGRAHAM: Because their phony Russia collusion pipedream is crumbling.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is just not a lot in the Trump collusion bucket to look at.


INGRAHAM: And because they are incapable of separating the president from his base.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: According to the new NBC news "Wall Street Journal" poll, 88 percent of Republicans approve of the job President Trump is doing. The only president with a higher approval rating was in their own party at this point in their presidency, it was President George W. Bush less than a year after 9/11.


INGRAHAM: Now is not the time for Republicans to give in on immigration enforcement or melt because of the cheap, emotional media games. By the way, games that are only reserved for non-citizens. It was President Trump's get tough approach on immigration, his relentless focus on the American worker, the American family, that helped him win the election against all odds. Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Giving into the melodrama of the moment is not the way to go.

In fact, that will end up further burdening the American taxpayer, who was already fed up with a political system that sometimes makes them feel like second-class citizens. I know, Mr. President, you will not let them down. And that is the Angle.

Joining me now for reaction is immigration attorney Michael Wildes who is the author of the new book "Safe Haven in America: Battles to Open the Golden Door." Our friend Alan Dershowitz wrote the forward. And Dinesh D'Souza, a filmmaker whose new movie, "Death of a Nation" is in theaters August 3, we're all looking forward to that.

His accompanying book comes out on the same day. All right guys, a lot to unpack. Dinesh let's start with you. This is the kind of story I think Republicans always have a hard time with because nobody likes to see a child crying, because he or she misses his mother or his father. It tugs at everybody's heartstrings. Mine. I am a mom. You're a dad. It has hard stuff to see, but this problem was brought on by politicians who refused to do the work they were supposed to do. And now the American people, as usual, are supposed to pick up the tab. Your reaction to all of this?

DINESH D'SOUZA, FILMAKER, "DEATH OF A NATION": Well, I think on the one hand, there is grief, but there is also the manipulation of grief. The politics, if you could call it -- moist eyes. This isn't just the Democratic Party. It's also the media which frames these images. And so it's not that the Republicans are insensitive. The Republicans are scared of being portrayed as insensitive. And the Democrats are using that charge, even though at heart, they know it's fake.

And what I mean by that is look, we live in a Hobbesian world in which a lot of these problems, gang violence, domestic violence, these are epidemic -- particularly you know the favelas in Brazil, the slums of Bombay, all over China. These are global problems. America has never taken the position that our doors are open worldwide to anybody who is suffering from these problems.

We create very carefully carved out exceptions, for example, political persecution or as you said earlier, religious persecution. And that is it. But the Democrats are using the fact that they are able to dramatize these problems on our border to create a kind of emotional stampede. And then Republicans feel politically defensive, run for the exits, in the kind of familiar invertebrate fashion.

INGRAHAM: Well yeah, this Kevin Yoder, congressman, I don't know him from Adam. But you know he brings this story -- his mother was a social worker. Well that's interesting and I'm glad she was a social worker, but that has nothing to do with our U.S. Immigration policy. And for some reason, like Donald Trump had him on Air Force One last week. Like he's a great guy, he's giving me $5 billion for the wall. Five billion dollars for the wall is not going to matter if we have tens of millions of people all across the country, we have 45 countries, Michael Wilde, where domestic abuse generally not recognized as crime.

Forty-five countries. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar, Haiti, it goes on and on and on where women do not get the same rights as women here in the United States and other developed countries against men who abuse them. So does that mean all of them can apply under Kevin Yoder's, David Price's new idea about asylum? That is madness.

MICHAEL WILDE, AUTHOR, "SAFE HAVEN IN AMERICA: BATTLES TO OPEN THE GOLDEN DOOR: Thank you Laura for having me on. Forgive my personal attire. I am running for mayor in New Jersey and there was an event in my community and I came over here to join you. Look, I'm a law professor and adjunct at a law school. Political asylum is actually sacred law. And historically domestic violence has not yielded itself for a long time as the basis for political asylum.

There's an old battle cry between persecution and prosecution. If you are being persecuted, you apply for asylum at our door. If you are in fear of prosecution or you have issues with your home country, it's not America's business, and we have economic challenges for our own citizenry. So domestic violence is less of a case.

But gang violence is a different predicate for asylum. Because there you have countries that enable narcos and all the drug traffickers and they take no action. And Muslim countries throughout the world where women are being abused in relationships where the government codifies it under Sharia law and so forth. So the real question is should America's golden doors be slammed shut when there are people that are trying to protect themselves?

INGRAHAM: Well I do know this. Dinesh -- I do I know we have Iraqi Christians, Syrian Christians, people throughout the Middle East who have been waiting for years. The classic case of ethnic cleansing, religious cleansing taking place in central African republics, Sudan and throughout the Middle East.

And we've taken in -- I mean Dinesh you might know better -- I mean very few. And yet, just because you show up at our southern border and you know, NBC is there to cover your -- you know, the sad story, that suddenly America -- Americans are going to say okay, we're going to change our whole system, and we are going to throw open the door to every criminal victim in the world. And let me just read this, then I want you to react. Credible fear applications since 2007 -- 5,171 applications for credible fear asylum request. 2016 -- 91,786. An increase of 1675%. Do you think there is any fraud there, Dinesh?

D'SOUZA: Well you know, I would like to step back for a moment and look at this a slightly different way. I mean the founders looked at America as a kind of moral community. A group of people who have a common set of values and a common destiny. Almost in some senses like an extended family. If someone came banging on your door and said listen, I am in fear because I'm being chased by a gang, I would submit that the ordinary person would be a little skeptical before giving them "asylum," before saying come in. You can move in because you have a credible fear. It's now become our responsibility.

Most people would say wait a minute. I have a direct obligation to my own. As for others, coming in from the outside, I am sympathetic. But on the other hand, it's not necessarily my problem. At the very least, our democratic system has to go through the legislative process to decide what we do with such people. So ultimately the decision is with Congress, but this idea that somehow because the media dramatizes a hard-left story, that the idea that somehow the Republicans have to run for cover, this is just in a sense political theater.

WILDES: Laura, if I may --

INGRAHAM: Michael, we have a 311,000 applicant backlog as of January of this year. We have an overall backlog of 700,000 in general immigration applications in our immigration courts. Jeff Sessions said last month or the month before, we're trying to make progress, but just we can't keep up with it. At some point, it swamps the whole system, costing a huge amount of money, that most people watching the show tonight are like, I don't want to pay for this. Out of money here -- go ahead, you can close it out.

WILDES: Thank you. Two points. First, we all agree, with the gentleman speaking, Congress should set the policy. We don't want the attorney general or the cops, the ICE agents to be executing on asylum law. That should be in the courts. And certainly they should have set up enough judges to adjudicate these cases, so you don't have children without representation and you don't have families being separated.

The real issue here is a few weeks ago you said if the Republicans aren't going to work with the Democrats, then do nothing. Here they are beginning to work with each other, but you are not liking what they are doing. But guess what. Congress, it's their job. We all agree, all three of us, that they have to fix this.

INGRAHAM: Why did they have no vote on this then, Mike? Why no vote? Why are they running out of town for their August recess? They did this sneak vote and they run out of town, no one comes. New called all these Democrats today, none of them would come on the show, nor would Congressman Yoder.

WILDES: I have always been disappointed in members of Congress.

INGRAHAM: They are all afraid. They don't want to defend this --

WILDES: Yeah because they feel they're never going to get re-elected if they're strong on immigration.

INGRAHAM: It's indefensible.

WILDES: They feel they'll never get re-elected.

INGRAHAM: It's indefensible. Yeah. They are running home to vacation or campaigns. They do not want to defend. We are out of time, guys. We are out of time.


INGRAHAM: We'll do a longer segment, Michael Cohen by the way, is reportedly claiming tonight that Donald Trump knew of the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians ahead of time. But there may be one big problem with Cohen's allegations. Details next.


INGRAHAM: Breaking tonight, Michael Cohen, President Trump's former attorney, claiming the president knew in advance about that Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 in which Russians were supposedly going to offer campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton, that according to CNN. Of course, in their breathless coverage, they seem to be ignoring the important nugget. Quote, to be clear, these sources said Cohen does not have evidence such as audio recordings to corroborate his claims.

But he is willing to attest to his account. Here now to react, former U.S. Attorney and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Kim Strassel. Welcome to both of you. Andy let's start with you here. Boy, it seems like Michael Cohen has gotten very talkative, a lot of stuff coming out over the last few days. What do you make of this latest claim?

ANDREW MCCARTHY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think he's had a change in posture over the last number of weeks. The retention of Lanny Davis certainly was an indicator of that. I think the big problem he will have, if this is his version of events is apparently he has talked about this before in prior testimony and prior interviews and evidently did not cough this up.

I have always thought that if Mueller believes that Cohen was somehow the key to proving a collusion case against Trump, there is no way he lets fact case walk to the southern district of New York. I would be surprised if this links up to anything that is serious in the way of collusion, like an espionage conspiracy. But look, the Trump Tower meeting is bad. It's not collusion in the sense that they were, that they opened the investigation over it. But nobody -- no one's going to look good in this.

INGRAHAM: But Andy -- Andy hold on. Andy. Andy. As we talk about this, I think we forget Hillary Clinton paid for dirt that was assembled by the Russians in the form of the Steele dossier. She actually went further than meeting with someone. Her people paid for it. They got dirt and it ended up making it all the way through the U.S. government. So it's like big deal.

MCCARTHY: Look Laura. No, I don't think it's bad if campaigns are turning to foreign governments for dirt. It's not collusion. It's not something that's impeachable. It's icky. But that's what this is.

INGRAHAM: Kimberly, let's go to you on this. Rudy Giuliani was on CNN as this came out and he had a comment about the, well, the veracity of Mr. Cohen. Let's watch.


RUDY GIULIANI, DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: There's nobody I know that knows him that hasn't warned me that if his back us up against the wall, he will lie like crazy, because he's lied all his life.


INGRAHAM: Wow, a war of words. That seems like probably only still (ph) Cohen to release more information.

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, COLUMNIST, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, just the kind of guy you want as a lawyer, right?


STRASSEL: But -- look I think the issue here is you've got to decide whether or not you believe CNN reporting. There has been a lot of breathless reporting out there that has turned out not to be correct. Then, even if it is correct, you have to decide if you believe Mr. Cohen now versus what as Andy said he might've said in the past. And whether or not there is any evidence, which apparently there is not in which case this may come down to a case of he said versus three other he says, saying the opposite.

But I mean, what Andy said is true, it kind of looks icky, but the bigger point here is, is there a crime?

STRASSEL: Because obviously it was not a crime for Trump, Jr. to meet with this Russian national and find out what she had to talk about. It's also not a crime for Mr. Trump to have had prior knowledge of it either. Mr. Trump Sr., the president. The question, has he ever under oath that he didn't know? Was he in any situation where he might be viewed as having lied to federal law enforcement? I'm not sure that's the case. It's another potentially bad headline if it's true, but I'm not necessarily sure it's any legal jeopardy.

INGRAHAM: Andy, the Veselnitskaya woman was there to push the Magnitsky Act. She was trying to get him to push Congress on that Magnitsky Act because of Russian adoptions. I mean the whole thing, it has nothing to do with Hillary. So it was a big scam, a big play and -- sounds like they were played in that meeting. Jared was bored, I think he got up and walked out or Manafort walked out. And so it was a big nothing. If this is where they are now, Andy, on this level -- and we're going to get to the Twitter issue in a moment -- what does this tell you about the state of the Mueller investigation?

MCCARTHY: It seems to me the Mueller investigation is winding down to a conclusion. That investigation or that indictment that they brought recently against the 12 Russians who are actually intelligence officers, I don't think that's the kind of thing you should indict. Putting that aside, if you read the indictment and the logic of it, it kind of excludes the possibility that there could have been the kind of espionage conspiracy that everybody was so whipped up about that caused the investigation to start in the first place and lead to Mueller's appointment. So if it is winding down, I sure hope it's winding down, because it seems like it ought to.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, a report out today that Mueller is looking through the president's tweets.

MCCARTHY: I mean who thought he wasn't? Who thought he wasn't? I have been looking at them too. Kim, have you been looking at them? I've been looking at them --

STRASSEL: I've been looking at them too.

INGRAHAM: I gotta play this for you guys. Preet Bharara, of course, former U.S. attorney southern district, Preet Bharara was on CNN today with Wolf Blitzer and they were all excited about the tweet story. Let's watch.


PREET BHARARA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: The tweets he sends late at night and early in the morning, and often out of anger, I think go some way to showing what is state of mind was and to prove obstruction --

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And I'm quoting Giuliani now -- "If you're going to obstruct justice, you do it quietly and secretly, not out in public." What do you make of it?

BHARARA: Well -- you know -- yes. What Rudy Giuliani says is the norm. This president likes to break norms and maybe he likes to violate the law in ways that break norms as well.


INGRAHAM: Kimberly?

STRASSEL: The cheerleading here is extraordinary. But we have been witnessing this now for going on two years, and as I just said, headline after headline saying oh, definitely collusion. And then oh, obstruction of justice. And really it will only be a few weeks now. And look what Mueller is looking at this point.

And nothing has come of it so far. Other than those indictments we've had related to charges that have nothing to do with either of those two central topics or anything that the press is actively pressing for. So I mean I agree with Andy.

I would wish that if Mueller has decided that -- Trump is not a target, that he's not going down the road, that even if he is still wrapping up his probe, that he'd feel he had a duty to tell the country the president is no longer a target so people can start to move on.

INGRAHAM: Andy, Turley said this is where they are looking over tweets, then this is like the dregs. Like this is -- I mean it's just ridiculous. I'm sorry. Now we are in tweets? And what -- you know, interviews? This is all public stuff. How are you obstructing an investigation with public comments? I don't -- I'm not following that. I guess it's possible, but I don't follow it.

MCCARTHY: Well -- the whole thing is preposterous because with due respect to Preet, past state of mind or a criminal state of mind is irrelevant unless you've done something that can actually amount to obstruction. The president cannot obstruct justice by taking lawful actions that are within his constitutional prerogative, like pardoning people or firing Comey, or weighing in on whether somebody should be prosecuted which prosecutors across the country do that every day.

INGRAHAM: Or complaining that Jeff Sessions didn't recuse himself. That's not obstructing justice. It's an opinion. It's craziness.

MCCARTHY: Yeah, I understand the style problem. Like they don't like the way Trump goes about things. But you still have to kind of prove the thing that's a crime, before you start worrying about what somebody's state of mind was.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, but a former U.S. Attorney in New York like Preet Bharara should know better. I mean, I know he is on CNN, but you've got to know you can't say that on television. All right, fantastic conversation, guys. Thank you so much. I want everyone to stay there because we have some big breaking news out of North Korea we're going to bring you in just a matter of moments.


INGRAHAM: Some breaking news out of North Korea. The White House saying a U.S. Air Force plane has now left North Korea containing the remains of fallen U.S. service members from the Korean War. Approximately 5,300 American soldiers' remains have not yet returned home from that war. It's an important, very positive first step as the U.S. and North Korea continue negotiations on denuclearization.

And in other news, mad Maxine is at it again. She has moved on from calling for her acolytes to attack Trump officials wherever they are to now saying her opposition to all things Trump comes from a higher power.


REP. MAXINE WATERS—CALIF.: We never dreamed we'd have someone in the White House who was so divisive, who could not tell the truth, and who was intent on not making America great again, but taking America down.

And I know that I am here to do the work that I've been sent to do, and as the pastor said to me when I came in this morning, when God sends you to do something, you just do it.


INGRAHAM: Her own version of the crusades. This latest language comes after Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against her inciting violence against the Trump cabinet. Let's bring in that man behind the effort, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. Tom, I know you have been all over this call to declassify these FISA documents as well, but now you're on onto the Maxine story. Is this kind of a publicity stunt for Judicial Watch or is this a real thing?

TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: I saw her call on people to get a crowd together if you see a cabinet member of the Trump team, if they are at department stores or restaurants or a gas station, get a crowd together, push back and tell them they are not welcome. That is kind of inciting a riot. We filed this complaint. It's really easy to figure out whether or not comments like that reflect credibly on the House, which is the rule. And of course they won't do anything about it. There was another member said that maybe we should censure her. That has gone nowhere.

INGRAHAM: How has that gone nowhere? Is it because she is kind of an icon to the left. She is protected in her own way and she is elderly, so you don't want to make her a bigger story, is that the reason no one wants to move on censuring her? She was, without saying it explicitly, she was saying get them.

FITTON: I think it is fear-based decision-making by the Republican leadership.

INGRAHAM: We want to hear the audio and then we want to hear what you have to say. Let's watch.


WATERS: People do want to see us be stronger and more forceful and to confront them on these policies.

If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get up and you create a crowd, and you push back on them.


WATERS: They have got to absolutely harass them until they decide that they are going to tell the president no, I can't hang with you.


INGRAHAM: I like how the NBC anchors just sit there, they are like mannequins. They don't say anything. They're like, wait a second, congresswoman, are you -- there is no pushback by these people on these other networks. Imagine if a conservative said that about other people?

FITTON: And harass public officials. But the House is going to let her use her position in the House to really attack people in inappropriate ways and incite violence. I think it is inciting violence and I would like the House to grapple with it. And as I said, it is fear-based decision-making by the house.

INGRAHAM: You are being nice. They are wimps. They are wimpy.

FITTON: They don't want to confront Maxine Waters. They don't want to confront Rod Rosenstein.

INGRAHAM: They're afraid of this asylum ting. Now on this asylum issue, you have Congressman Yoder who threw Trump $5 billion for the wall and he wants to institutionalize DACA, codify DACA, and open up asylum to anyone who claims a criminal element in this country or her country, gang or domestic violence. How are we supposed to verify that? That was never asylum. It was racial or ethnic or religious or political persecution. And now it is if my country is too violent.

FITTON: If you have a bad home life, you get asylum.

INGRAHAM: But these are Republicans doing this because they are afraid of the emotional arguments.

FITTON: The reason immigration is controversial here in Washington D.C. is because politicians want to do something none of the people want them to do. It's always going to be controversial. The voters have to be alerted and then they'll push back.

INGRAHAM: Tom Fitton, thanks so much.

And joining us now with more on this growing threat is former House oversight chairman Jason Chaffetz who has had many threats directed against him personally while he was in Congress. We are also joined by Democratic strategist and radio talk show host Garland Nixon. Great to see both of you.

Jason, let's start with you. Things have gotten way out of hand. When we can't have a person walk into a restaurant wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat without being verbally assaulted, in some cases physically assaulted. If you support the president in a high school, you are called a racist, hater, xenophobe. So there is free speech but there is not free speech. And I think there are a lot of people who are just afraid.

JASON CHAFFETZ, FORMER HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: And they should be. After the Gabby Giffords incident, after Steve Scalise was shot and almost killed, also other members that were targeted because they were Republicans, then you have House members on the Democratic side of the aisle basically, like Maxine Waters, inciting people to violence. This is the face of what the Democrats are putting up. It is the resistance movement. It's Antifa. It's targeted, it's aggressive, it's a scorched earth.

And I have got to tell you, I was on the receiving end of lots of it. My family was subjected to things they should never be subjected to. Diane Black just in the last few days had somebody who was arrested for being aggressive against her. It's a very real threat and people are going to get hurt.

INGRAHAM: Garland, this is one of the types of calls, and I know Democrats can hate stuff too. I'm not saying it's just Republicans. But since Trump, it has asked gotten worse. This is what Jason was subjected to. Let's listen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I suggest you prepare for the battle mother -- and the apocalypse, because we're going to hunt your -- down, wrap a rope around your neck, and hang you from a lamppost, you worthless piece of dog --


INGRAHAM: That's just -- Garland, your reaction to the climate we are living in right now.

GARLAND NIXON: I think it's terrible. But it really isn't new. In fact, I had some friends for years that worked for John Conyers, and I was aware of some very nasty calls that he got on a regular basis. So this isn't new. But I disagree with it.

But let's not have a short memory. Let's not forget that President Trump during the election was inciting people -- at his rallies --

INGRAHAM: That one comment? One comment. That's all you have is that one punch him in the face comment.

NIXON: I am not here to defend anyone who is inciting violence because I disagree with it, but let's not try to pretend there is one party who has ever pushed this.

INGRAHAM: Have you seen a concerted effort on the part of conservative activists to attack people in public places? Someone is eating with his or her child or family, just having a quiet dinner, and shouting at them, screaming, demanding and prattling on about all these points. That's just not right.

NIXON: Right, and I absolutely agree.

INGRAHAM: That is all left-wing resistance dingbat stuff.

NIXON: I absolutely disagree with that because I'm a person, I am a King-esque person so I believe in nonviolence. But let's not forget with Michele Bachmann and the lock and load, this is not new. There has been dangerous rhetoric for many, many years, and hopefully both parties and both sides will learn to calm this down. It doesn't seem like that is happening. But I oppose it, and I think the people both sides of the aisle should step up to the plate and oppose this.


CHAFFETZ: Those are nice words, but I don't see Democrats who actually will call out Maxine Waters. If I do it as a Republican, then I will get accused of just being a partisan. But when she does that, I don't see a Democrat who ever stands up and says, you know what, that's wrong. And through all the campaign, with all the Trump and the rhetoric, it's a different scenario and someone is heckling the president, the candidate then, in front of tens of thousands of people. It may not be excusable in your mind, but I went to Trump rallies out there. I've been with the NRA rallies, and you don't see this kind of stuff. And I don't see the Democrats stepping up and taking some ownership and saying, you know what folks, you have got to tone it down.

NIXON: President Trump said to beat people up and he would pay the bills, and he would come there --

INGRAHAM: That was one time. It wasn't smart to say. It wasn't smart, but it was someone causing a huge ruckus just to get on camera, and it got the better of him in the moment. This was not a concerted effort by a candidate.

CHAFFETZ: I had Debra Messing of all people called me out on Twitter saying that we should take him down. What does that mean? You want to take some people down. It's unbelievable the number of celebrities that will also engage in taking them down, using language. Look at the cover of the latest magazines. Cutting off Donald Trump's head and then mocking it with comedy. This is really aggressive stuff.

INGRAHAM: Again, we can say this morning, noon, and night, but if conservatives spoke like they do on a regular basis, physically approached people like they do on a regular basis, they will be holding candlelight vigils. The left melt on stuff like this, but they can do it. Maxine Waters can say these things with complete and utter impunity. And we are supposed to say oh, it's just Maxine. It's ridiculous. If you are a Democrat, it's like Maxine, you are out of line. You are out of line. The passion may be out there but you are out of line. You sound like a complete buffoon.

NIXON: I don't think it's with impunity because right now you're exercising your right to go after her. And I am saying --

INGRAHAM: Her colleagues. She is the toast of the town. She is all over Democrat politics, Garland. She is everywhere. Wasn't she at the Oscars? She was at the Grammys. The woman is like the cause celebrity in the Democratic Party. But we'll see if anything happens. But we hope nothing violent happens because that would be the real tragedy of all of this. Thank you so much to both of this.

And coming up, the media on the left obsess over the so-called blue wave in the upcoming midterm, but they could be making a miscalculation of epic proportions. We will tell you why, up next.


INGRAHAM: The left is very giddy about the prospect of a blue wave in November, and they are devouring any little tidbit of information that helps confirm that narrative. Case in point, a new NBC/Marist poll indicating sagging approval for President Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. His critics couldn't get enough of it.


JOHN KING, CNN: Look at his approval rating in those states right now in these new NBC/Marist polls, 36 percent, 36 percent, 38 percent. That is bad news for Republicans.

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC: Donald Trump is now getting crushed in polling in Michigan and Wisconsin, which is part of why he offered a partial surrender today in his chair for with Europe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president has no coattails. You used the right word, devastating. They are in trouble right in the president's base.


INGRAHAM: But the Democrats could be in for a rude awakening come November. Joining us now, someone with a warning to those folks, Democratic pollster Mark Penn, along with Tom Bevan, the publisher of Real Clear Politics. Gentlemen, great to see you tonight. Mark, let's start with you. It's commonly thought that most pollsters were wrong before the last election. However, on the popular vote, they were pretty close, where they not, with Hillary Clinton, two percent, three percent. But they missed it in key states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, which is kind of the whole shooting match. But nevertheless, when I saw them going total frothy on the Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan deal, what do we think now?

MARK PENN, FORMER CLINTON CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: In 2016, the only person to action call the Electoral College right was Kellyanne Conway who was left off the set as she correctly predicted it. So my point about these pools is, what happened in the election was the analysis was bad. And what I see now is the questions are bad. They are usually slanted, anti-Trump questions, so they don't see the narrative here, which this is a divided country. It's close.

I think there is a blue edge, but it is way too early to say there's a blue wave. And you have to be very careful because these polls very rarely put the Trump messaging and for testing. They don't ask about sanctuary cities. They don't ask about using tariff as a wedge. They ask easy, layup questions designed to prove points they are making.

INGRAHAM: Tom, the questions are things like, do you support ripping babies out of the arms of mothers after they have crossed the border? No one is going to say yes, I favor that. But if you asked the question this way, should people be able to cross our border illegally and then get various benefits for having done so, and they will say what? No, we don't want that. What of this and where are we right now?

TOM BEVAN, REAL CLEAR POLITICS CO-FOUNDER: I think Mark makes a great point in that it's the numbers, but it's also the framing. Let me just give you an example. The NBC News/"Wall Street Journal" poll that came out after the Helsinki summit and voters disapproved of that, and that was a headline. But the actual story, the real headline was that Trump's approval rating had reached an all-time high for his presidency, 45 percent. It had actually ticked up.

And so the framing around that was all negative despite the fact there was good news for Trump in there. In the last week or two, the Democratic lead advantage in the generic ballot has ticked actually in favor of Republicans by about a point. But I also agree with Mark. The problem in 2016 was not the polls. It was the pundits. And you would've thought that if we, the journalists --

INGRAHAM: Don't look at me.

BEVAN: Exactly -- had learned anything from 2016, it would be not to overinterpret, not to jump to conclusions. Again, there is still three months left before the election. And the other thing is that the economy is doing pretty well, and Trump gets good marks on the economy. Over 50 percent in most polls, job approval rating on the economy, and it's the number one issue for voters.

INGRAHAM: That is still key. And by the way, everyone focuses, Mark, on the approval ratings if it's not over 50. It should be over 50. OK, fine. But he won the presidency with an approval rating of 36 percent. So could it be they are not wild about some of the stuff he does personally but they like the results he gets for the American worker? Could that be may be where we end up if he ends up having a positive effect in some of these races?

PENN: His personal rating in the Harvard CAPS Harris poll we are just coming out with is 41. His approval on the economy and terrorism is around 55. And so, are voters going to focus on what's going on with the economy or on what he does personally? That has always been the big question on Trump. Clearly on Election Day they focused a lot more on the issues. We don't know what's going to happen this time. That's what makes it so fascinating. That's why pundits have to be careful. When you look at these high approval ratings on the core issues, that means the president has got to be doing something right. There is a storyline here that you've got to see, because if you miss it and you are a Democrat, boy, you will miss the whole election again.

INGRAHAM: Tom, I was talking to Hannity about this right before the election when we were both predicting Trump was going to win, and then right after the election. And we both said thank goodness we host radio shows, because we hear this stuff day after day after day. People say they are all conservatives listening. No, they are not. It's a really interesting cross-section of the country. I know liberals will laugh if they are watching this. Listen and then you will learn every now and then. Just listen.

But people were saying we don't care about this Billy Bush tape. We don't care about Stormy Daniels. We don't care about -- they thought he might be kind of a bully but he is our bully. And we are tired of being bullied by the experts and the consultants and the corrupt class. He's going to fight for us. That's what they were telling us on the radio. And still to this day they are saying that.

Now, maybe it won't add up to much in November. I don't know. But I can tell you, I do a daily focus group. And my listening audience, they are not listening to this. They don't care about this Mueller stuff. They don't care about any of this Cohen tape. They are like let's move on to the next topic. Let's talk about immigration. Tom, close it out.

BEVAN: That's exactly right. Another interesting statistic. In 2016, Donald Trump got 90 percent of Republican votes on Election Day. His approval rating in that "Wall Street Journal" poll is 88 percent. On Election Day, he only got nine percent of Democrats, and nine percent of Democrats give him a favorable job approval rating.

So we have been in a state of suspended political animation since the campaign. Despite all the controversy that surrounds the president, partisans on the other side have not budged. There's been some wiggle room by independents in the middle, and that might actually be what it comes down to on Election Day in November.

INGRAHAM: Guys, thanks so much.

And coming up, Demi Lovato's overdose exposing another tragic cold truth of celebrity life. We'll explain after this.


INGRAHAM: The overdose of music superstar Demi Lovato is casting another harsh spotlight on the false allure and the dangers of celebrity. TMZ reporting tonight that Lovato recently surrounded herself with a new group of so-called friends. And on Tuesday night, they decided to go on a binger. The group apparently knew things could get bad with Lovato. TMZ saying they had an emergency medication called Narcan on hand. It is used to revive someone after overdosing.

But this story follows an all-too-familiar pattern. Let's face it, incredibly talented people surrounding themselves with hangers on and enablers. And often this ends in tragedy. Joining is not analyze is counselor, drug counselor Sonya Veytsman. Sonya, we have had so many instances of people with immense talent who weren't found alive. From Belushi to of course Prince and the list goes on and on and on going back decades and decades. And now this. What is your take?

SONYA VEYTSMAN, CELEBRITY DRUG COUNSELOR: There's a misconception that fame or wealth can serve as a buffer against vulnerability for a mental illness or addiction, and it doesn't. So psychologists have come up with a hypothesis called diathesis stress model which sort of explains why certain vulnerabilities emerge. And it talks about genetic predisposition combined with any sort of environmental stress, and when it reaches a combination, it reaches a certain threshold, then mental illness or addiction can emerge. And in this specific case of Demi, she from what I know has been pretty vocal about her father having history of substance abuse.

INGRAHAM: But Sonya, I've got to ask about this. You counsel people who have drug problems. When you have a drug problem, and she has been very vocal about her own problems. She said -- talked about her problems going back to 19 years of age. I was going to an airport. I had a spray bottle filled with vodka. It was just 9:00 in the morning. She said she was throwing up in her car. She said she was about to get on a plane to L.A. to the sober living house she was staying at. And then she said I had all the help in the world but I didn't want it. Then the story of course about her friends out there partying with her with the Narcan. They know that she is vulnerable. And presumably they are not totally dumb people, though they sound pretty dumb. They know she could end up dead. And this is who she is hanging out with. I don't know, her family has tried to intervene unsuccessfully. But who are these friends? Who are they?

VEYTSMAN: Part of managing drug addiction is certainly avoiding triggers. So that people that abuse and people that would be a bad influence are people that are also under the influence of some sort of substance and don't have good judgment. A big part of addiction is ambivalence. So the new models of treatment really try to address that, things like harm reduction and motivational interviewing, which looks to basically help people reconcile or address or resolve some of that ambivalence. So whenever someone is abusing drugs, typically there is a lot of conflict within them about continuing the drug use or whatever substance, and --

INGRAHAM: I've got to say I don't really understand. I am trying to follow what you are saying on that, but drug ambivalence? She has an addiction problem. Here's ambivalence. There shouldn't be any, OK.

VEYTSMAN: It's not that simple.

INGRAHAM: I know, nothing is that simple. But if you are an addict, the number one thing you have to do is what? This is your line of work. You have to not be with people who enable you, correct?

VEYTSMAN: Right, but then there is something called secondary gain which talks about the benefit of using or doing something. So anyone that is abusing is actually gaining a benefit from it, and the benefit might be escape, it might be numbing the pain. That's probably the reason that striving them to do it. So sometimes that driver dependence outweighs their desire to change. And so that's why relapse is so common.

INGRAHAM: So what are the chances of relapse? We are almost out of time. If you go sober, relapse, chances, what percentage?

VEYTSMAN: They're very high. It's a very high likelihood. Counselors prepare are usually their patients for the likelihood of relapse.

INGRAHAM: Sonya, thank you so much. Sad situation. We certainly wish her and her family the best. We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: I want to say thank you to this president, Donald Trump, getting some of our war dead at least back from the Korean War tonight. People thought it wasn't going to be possible. Well, it's happening, and it wouldn't have happened without his leadership.

My surrogate dad Chuck Carlson served in the Korean War, and I know he's watching tonight. We want to always honor your troops. We think of you every day. Thank you for your service to this country.

Remember, tweet me @IngrahamAngle. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team is up next. Shannon, have a great show.

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.