Kellyanne Conway on growing calls to abolish ICE

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," June 29, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening from Washington, I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle." A big slate of stories tonight to wrap up what was an incredibly eventful week. Democrats have lunged even further to the left as a potential 2020 candidate has now joined the calls to abolish Immigration Customs Enforcement, otherwise known as ICE Is this really where the party is headed? Plus we're going to tell you why President Trump may actually announce his Supreme Court pick sooner than previously thought and how Democrats are plotting to sabotage any nominee, not matter who it is. And Friday Follies with Raymond Arroyo exposes the music the Rite Aid was using to drive away vagrants. And we'll also discuss Michael Moore's call for physical, political engagement, what the heck is that?

Plus we begin tonight with the rushed politicization in the wake of tragedy. Earlier today the President commented on the horrific shooting at the Capital Gazette Newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: This attack shocked the conscience of our nation and filled our hearts with grief. Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job.


INGRAHAM: Well we can all agree on that. Here's what we know so far. The shooter killed five people, wounded two owing to a grudge he had, apparently, with the paper going back a decade. But if you were watching other networks that might have not been your takeaway.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it's worth pointing out that we've had a constant rhetoric coming from the President that the press is the enemy of the people

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have seen a spike in threats against us since Donald Trump's election.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We joined the ranks of Russia and third world nations where reporters' lives aren't safe

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This rhetoric, while not directly responsible, is really ratcheting up threats against journalists

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is just unfortunate that in 2018 that's where our mind goes, and in fairness, part if it goes there because the President has declared that the media is the enemy of the people.


INGRAHAM: Now this over the top kind of talk didn't just come out of thin air. The left for the past week, especially, have been using outrage of the border crisis to stir up strong emotions against the administration, maybe register people to vote as well. And with that has come a virtual call to replace call political dialogue, real debate, with physical confrontation.


REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: If you see anybody from that cabinet you push back on them and you tell them that they are not welcome anymore, anywhere

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We should not be terrorizing families and children.

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tearing migrant children away from their parents, reportedly in some cases, holding those children as hostages.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is a cost to being an accomplice to this cruel, deceitful administration.

WATERS: They are going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the President, "No, I can't hang with you"


INGRAHAM: Well when true evil strikes as it did tragically in Annapolis, Maryland yesterday, perhaps some deep breaths from all sides are in order. Well Molly Hemingway wrote a piece in the Federalist today about this media phenomenon, she joins us along with Howie Kurtz, Fox News Host of Media Buzz, Sundays at 11 am and in LA, Attorney Anthony Talls. Great to see all of you. Molly, let's start with you, I mean the rush to judgement blaming Trump reminded of what happened in the wake of the Gaby Gifford shooting.

We saw Sarah Palin blamed, her website had cross hairs over I guess, political districts. New York Times still raises that even thought that had nothing to do with nutbag Jared Loughner who was a psychopath. New York Times still used that debunked theory from an editorial from June last year to the Congressional baseball game. So this pushing of the theories that Conservatives, or now in this case, Trump, is responsible for this crazy person who had a grudge, frankly, it's nothing new.

MOLLY HEMINGWAY, FOX NEWS COMMENTATOR: Well and it's just so bad to do speculation, in general, in the absence of facts. It was bad enough to see many people in the media trying to blame Donald Trump before anybody knew what was happening. What was really alarming was that they kept with it even after the facts came out showing that there was no correlation between Donald Trump's very strong criticism of the media and the shooting at the newspaper in Annapolis. And that's really bad for the media themselves because they are under attack by a President who does have strong criticism of them and it played right into the hands by creating a false narrative about the shooting.

INGRAHAM: How the shooting obviously has been under a lot of pressure, shrinking staffs, budgetary constraints, and now this. They've had a very cantankerous relationship with the President, they're approval numbers are way down and now this, I'm going to ask Kellyanne Conway about this in a few moments but your takeaway.

HOWARD KURTZ, FOX NEWS HOST: This is reprehensible. It's guilt by association and it's being spread by journalists who want to blame Donald Trump for everything including rain storms and rush hour traffic. Now, I don't agree that the President should be calling the press the enemy of the American people but Laura, it is an absurd stretch to go from that to this blood on his hands claim which is a blood liable.

INGRAHAM: Anthony your reaction to the rush to blame this President, maybe you agree with some of the critics.

ANTHONY TALL, ATTORNEY: I agree that the President's rhetoric does not help the environment. Is he directly to blame? No, but it's just like to old story where you have the mother cat who has three legs and she hobbles and then all of her kittens start hobbling. That's what the President had fed this country. He's fed this country a lot of rhetoric and people out there pick on it and we've become kittens and we start following the thigs that become not pretty palatable in our country. So no, there's not blood directly on the President's hand but to say that the environment isn't so toxic that it could lead to something like this is not true as well.

INGRAHAM: We had Michael Bloomeberg speculating that the Times Square attempted bombing that it could have been someone with a political grudge, let's say someone who was against Obamacare. I went back and watched that golden oldie before the show so, again, the speculation, it always seems to go against the Conservatives.

HEMINGWAY: That's what I think people find so frustrating. I mean I do agree that the way people talk can create bad atmospheres.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, we all need to clean it up.

HEMINGWAY: A year ago we had the Republicans on the baseball field shot at by an activist who was motivated by political--

INGRAHAM: Bernie Sanders enthusiast.

HEMINGWAY: And we didn't have these lengthy conversations about uncivil rhetoric or a media complex that gets people upset about everything all the time, whether that played a role. If you're going to claim that rhetoric plays a role, you need to be consistent about it, no matter who is the target or victim.

INGRAHAM: Howy a lot of folks are going back to this quaint old idea that the press should be calling balls and strikes. And for a lot of us who've witnessed just how this has been covered, this Presidency has been covered from day 1. The press doesn't seem to be doing its job many cases, some great reports out there, but today we had Jim Acosta, shouting as the President was doing his speech, I guess on the anniversary of the tax bill. Do we have the tape on that? Yeah, let's watch.


JIM ACOSTA, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR CNN: Will you stop calling the press the enemy of the people, sir? Mr President, will you stop calling the press the enemy of the people, sir?


INGRAHAM: You get the sense that they're just doing it because they know it's going to be clipped, it's going to be a YouTube moment. I mean, at some point he's not going to say, "Oh, you in the back, way in the back, I'll answer you". He's not going to do that.

KURTZ: Well too many organizations are playing to an anti-Trump audience. Now, unfortunately, some of these guys--

INGRAHAM: A shrinking audience, Howie.

KURTZ: Yeah that's true. Unfortunately, after some of these mass shooters I have seen some people on the right and the left sometimes try to score partisan points. I don't like it on either side, it's been weaponized against President Trump. And here's what's really sad Laura, five people who came to work everyday in Annapolis to try to serve their community, taking risks as journalists because you write things that make people angry, they're dead. And that's being overshadowed by all this political rhetoric and the attempt to tie President Trump, whether you like his rhetoric or not, to this blood shed is really sad, truly.

INGRAHAM: Anthony over the weekend you saw the clip we played, and now pretty much everyone has seen, of Maxine Waters and she used words like go out and harass them. Basically telling people driving them out of public, driving people out of public places, gas stations with their families, now it didn't matter get up in their faces, push them back, push back on them, that kind of rhetoric. What about that? What about what that says to the hundreds of thousands of protesters out there against I.C.E and against Senators, I guess, whoever voted for Trump? Is that healthy?

TALL: No that's not healthy at all. But I think Maxine Waters' point was to protest. I think she was very unartful in explaining herself and I want to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she wasn't calling for any violence--

INGRAHAM: Well she's a 70 plus year old woman. She's been in politics since 1992. You're telling me she didn't understand what she was saying in front of that microphone? She knows exactly what she's saying. This is about registering people to vote, about keeping a perpetual state of outrage among as the economy is improving and economies are expanding. I think she knows exactly what she was saying because she's been saying a version of it, Anthony, for years and years and years. I would say decades, she been saying a version of what she said Saturday.

TALL: Well like I said, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt but I understand where you're coming from. But I do want to say that she never said, there was not any specific language and there's nothing wrong with protests. I don't agree with harassing individuals at restaurants. I don't agree with getting in someone's face, blocking their way, you know their right of passage but--

KURTZ: But Maxine Waters used that word harassment. Her words were harassment.

INGRAHAM: She used that word and when I hear harassment--

TALL: But she's calling for legal, she did use that word harassment, she did.

INGRAHAM: She knows. Well, I go back to Alinksy's rules, I read that today just for fun, you know, bathroom reading. Keep the pressure on, rule eight, always change your tactics, don't become old news. If you push a negative hard enough it'll break through into the other side. You see a lot of that in the protests culture today, Molly. It's high pitched and it's sustained and it's, "This is what you need to do" and it's Linda Sarsour, everyone's Linda Sarsour now.

HEMINGWAY: And it's one thing for political activists to do it, it's one thing for the media to enable it as well or cheering on some of these mob attacks. And it really is important that we have some shared space so we can have discussions about important issues such as the border enforcement and what not. We don't have a media environment that creating a place to push back and respond in a civil manner.

INGRAHAM: Have a real debate and real conversation and everybody needs to ratchet down the rhetoric. I think we can all agree on that. Thanks so much guys. WBAL TV in Baltimore is now reporting that the assailant stalked, harassed and sued a woman who warned police, "He will be your next mass shooter". The woman said the suspect had become fixated on her for no obvious reason and that she had to change her name, move three times and sleep with a gun. That has been going on for years, long before Trump so what's stopping them from pursuing these leads and how can we fix that problem in the criminal justice system.

Let's ask Dr Ron Martinelli, forensic criminologist and forensic expert. Ron when I heard that interview, just as a women, as someone who's so much into victim's rights, that was so upsetting. But apparently for whatever reason, authorities' couldn't do anything. I don't know if she's tried to get a restraining order, we didn't hear anything about that, why couldn't they have done more if he was stalking her in that manner?

RON MARTINELLI, FORENSIC CRIMINOLOGIST: Well there's a couple of things. First of all there's a predicate United States Supreme Court case law called Elonis versus the United States, and by the way, extremely surprising decision was an eight to one landslide with poor Justice Clarence Thomas being thrown out in the deep end of the swimming pool there. Where the other eight justices made a decision that overturned a conviction where the FBI had arrested Mr Elonis for making a series of internet threats of violence against his ex-wife.

And the Supreme Court said that this was a mens rea crime which, you know, is a crime with a specific intent and because there was not evidence that he specifically intended to harm or kill his wife, they overturned that conviction. That's pretty scary out there, especially when you see the kind of major motives for active shooting which is was I do a lot of studying and investigating in, the top one is mental health and the second one revenge. And I think the forensic facts in the Annapolis shooting is going to be pretty clear that this was a revenge type act of shooting. Now going back to the woman which was your initial question--

INGRAHAM: Well it seemed like the pieces weren't put together. He was stalking a woman, clearly had violent tendencies.

MARTINELLI: They may not have been enough evidence and the police have to have significant evidence these days to be able to go out and arrest somebody. But you know what Laura, there's more than one way to skin this cat. Every single state in the United States have mental health laws that basically the elements of taking someone into voluntary custody is that they're gravely disabled, a danger to themselves and a danger to others. Not all three, but they have to meet one of those elements.

INGRAHAM: Yeah Ron, thank you so much. There's so much to unpack here and our experts are going to explain the Democrats sudden sprint to the far left on the issue of immigration. And Kellyanne Conway weighs in on all these issues coming up.

To learn how far the Democrats have shifted from the mainstream on immigration, let's compare the old Kirsten Gillibrand to the latest iteration. Now before she was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton as Senator for New York in 2009 Congresswoman Gillibrand opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. She opposed a proposal to let illegal immigrant to obtain drivers' licenses in New York. She supported making English the official language of the United States. Well now let's fast forward to last night.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y.: I don't think I.C.E today is working as intended--

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN NEWS ANCHOR: Well you think we should get rid of the agency?

GILLIBRAND: I believe that it has become a deportation force and I think you should separate the criminal justice from the immigration issues. And I think you should reimagine I.C.E under a new agency with a very different mission and take those two missions out. And that's why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works.


INGRAHAM: Well two things are clear about Gillibrand's about face on immigration, she's clearly running for President in 2020, no doubt about it. And more Democrats now see the radical proposal to abolish I.C.E, well that's a winning issue and it sounds better than saying, "I'm for open borders". Well are they right? Let's debate that with Conservative Union President, Matt Schlapp and former DNC Deputy Press Secretary Jose Aristimuno. Jose, let's start with you. I'm wondering if this is the right gamble for the Democrats.

I watched Chuck Schumer after Maxine waters last weekend come out on Monday and I remember when Chuck Schumer, this is how long I've been around. I remember when he ran for Congress, okay in like 1986 or whenever that was, he's a pretty wily cat, he's pretty smart and he thought that Waters was getting too heated in her rhetoric and so forth. And I imagine he's worried about this as well because Democrats still have to attract blue collars, just regular people who aren't all that political. When they hear abolish I.C.E, they hear abolish safety, are you worried about that?

JOSE ARISTIMUNO, FOMRER DNC PRESS SECRETARY: It's a good point you bring forth and as a Democrat I can tell you this. I don't necessarily think that we need to abolish I.C.E once and for all but I do think in the last couple of years, especially under the Trump administration, I do agree with the Senator, it has become a deportation force. So we need to make sure, at least we are not going to abolish it completely, let's have a conversation where the resources should be implemented when it comes to ICE

INGRAHAM: Let's talk Matt about what has been happening with members of Congress there is a Congressman Pramilla Jayapal who was this big protest yesterday on Capitol Hill, they took over the Hart Senate office building. They arrested 500 people, that's what the Capitol police was up to yesterday and I want you to listen closely to what she said.


REP. PRAMILLA JAYAPAL, D-WA.: I have been working on immigration issues for 20 years and the enforcement functions which need to be here as we do have immigration laws, they do need to be enforced. But those functions don't need to be in an agency that has become a rogue agency that literally has no accountability to Congress around the hundreds of millions of dollars that we spend.


INGRAHAM: Has no accountability Matt, is that a kind of Conservative twist on what sounds like a radical idea. You want agencies to be accountable to somebody. So that's the new thing, they're rogue, they've gone rogue, deportation force, kids in cages et cetera.

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Yeah I.C.E did all the same things under President Obama Laura, but you never read any of these stories. You never read about this rogue agency that was somehow out of bounds. And by the way, they get all their money from Congress and they're the executive branch. Congress has oversight on them and they should do that aggressively. But the fact is is this, you'd rather have recreated I.C.E under the Bush years because at the end of the day you have to have some part of the federal government that enforces our borders, whether you are going to enforce it or not.

And when you enforce the border, it come down to individual personal stories and the left will try to make it sound like we're being cruel and somehow inhumane. But the fact is when you come over the border and we haven't vetted them, it hurt immigrant communities. When people get to cut in line, they're cutting in line over other people from countries who are waiting in line to come here legally so it's actually these immigrant communities that are hurt when we don't enforce our borders.

INGRAHAM: Well they also, Jose, help with human trafficking, stopping drugs from coming into the country, they have a lot on their plate. And, again, I feel it and see it that the energy in the Democratic Party is on the far left. It's like the Bernie crowd, take over the Hart Senate office building, march up, get your plastic cuffs on, make the photo, tweet it, selfie. I've got to say, just as a matter of political analysis, I don't get it. How is that a political strategy for expanding your base?

ARISTIMUNO: Well a few things and Matt brought forth a good point forth. And he's saying that we are talking about I.C.E as bring an agency that's gone wrong and this sort of thing. Look, there are I.C.E former officials who have come forth and said we ned to do something about this agency because you said it, I.C.E as an agency, their supposed to be going against transnational crime organizations.

INGRAHAM: Well they also deport people like Obama deported people. Were you talking that back then when Obama was deporting people?

ARISTIMUNO: I was talking about that so--

INGRAHAM: Okay so maybe the other networks weren't.

ARISTIMUNO: But look, why don't we, and I've said this time and time again on your show, if we care so much about this country and we care about all the immigrants here, right now all they have is amnesty. The 11 million who are in this country right now? They have amnesty.

INGRAHAM: Well we're going to have another million if we don't have an I.C.E force that's able to deport people who cross our border illegally, get deportation orders and have to go home. Do you feel like any of them can go home or no? Should any of them be deported?

ARISTIMUNO: A hundred percent. If you're an MS-13 gang member--

INGRAHAM: So only that?

ARISTIMUNO: No, if you're a real criminal, you've committed serious crimes, rapes, violence, what have you--

INGRAHAM: In your minds crossing the order itself, you cross the border, maybe bring somebody else's kid with you, maybe you come with a group of people should you be sent home?

ARISTIMUNO: You should at least go before a judge and see if you have a case for asylum, which by the way right now, President Trump and Jeff Sessions are trying to change-

INGRAHAM: The courts have already determined due process does not require a judge if you cross the border illegally. It doesn't require an immediate hearing.

ARISTIMUNO: It's basic human rights, it's basic human rights.

INGRAHAM: Okay, Matt here's one other thing then we got to go. This poll that came out yesterday, 84 percent according to the Mark Penn Poll that he just did, said that you arrest illegal immigrants for crimes that should be required to notify the immigration authorities, take them into custody, that's an anti-sanctuary cities mind-set that's clearly in the voting public. Now, I think people very uncomfortable about large scale deportations, I don't think a lot people want to see that but they do want to see crime, Jose said, they do want to see crime tackled and dealt with. And the idea of just letting people who cross the border illegally can stay, I don't see the big grounds for that among the fringe.

SCHLAPP: Yeah so for Republicans and Conservatives, immigration is about the law, for Democrats it's about emotion. And if you want to look at the politics of immigration, there are two things that are absolutely right, Mark Penn's study shows it, which is this concept of us not being aware of the criminals that live amongst us and this concept of sanctuary cities which are now sanctuary counties and states, that is bad politics all over it. The other thing is that most Americans, almost 50 percent of them when compared to all the options they believe that an adult who crossed the border illegally, simply should be sent home immediately. The politics of the extreme left on this Democratic Party on immigration might sound good to their base, it's going to help Republicans come November.

INGRAHAM: All right gentlemen, we'll see. It could go either way, perhaps but we'll see, thank you so much. And now let's get reaction to the growing calls to abolish I.C.E from Kellyanne Conway, she's the counsellor to President Trump. Kellyanne thanks so much for being with us tonight.


INGRAHAM: This s wild. I have not seen anything like this like we saw yesterday where we had 675 people storm into the Hart Senate office building wearing the tin foil blankets, 500 getting arrested. We had sitting Congresswomen and Senators, basically they're getting arrested as well or sympathizing and agreeing, "Abolish I.C.E". How concerned is the administration that this could actually galvanize the Democrats to turn out to vote in November?

CONWAY: Well folks should be concerned if it actually ever came to pass Laura because the Immigration Customs and Enforcement Agency in this nation is there to enforce all immigration laws, not just deportation as Senator Gillibrand incorrectly and inaccurately states. They're there to protect all these law and you know what I.C.E did just last year? They arrested 33,000 criminal aliens who committed all kinds of crimes that would be mind-numbing to your audience. They also seized almost 2,400 pounds of sentinel--

INGRAHAM: I think they're okay with that, Kellyanne I think they're fine with that. I think they want it to be reconceived and taken out of DHs, for more accountability, they say it's all gone rogue.

CONWAY: Yeah, they want it both ways and they can't. Sorry, I'm not buying it, they want to pick and choose the acronyms. I disagree with that, there's no evidence that they believe that you can "Reimagine it", this is not the ‘It's a small world attraction at Disneyland', you're not reimagining ICE You're letting them do their jobs keeping criminal aliens out by enforcing all the immigration laws at their places of work and our places of education, at the welfare offices. I believe Laura, that when you get passed the talker, abolish I.C.E, which is becoming the leftward lurch for the Democratic Party it seems including this week. If you get past that, do they really know what they're saying? To me it spans a spectrum of from the ignorant to the irrational, if you listen to what their actually saying. And they are trying to outflank each other on the left for 2020 as well.

They should not be politicizing this at a time when these are very serious matters. Also I think some of these folks who have a right to protest I guess, unless they were arrested, some of them are calling really for anarchy over authority so we should listen. They can't have it both ways, they can't pick and choose what they want to happen on the altar of a convenient political soundbite and yet at the same time pretend that I.C.E did not detect and take secure enough sentinel last year, synthetic oxime, 50 times potency of morphine. They can't pretend that I.C.E didn't protect, that was enough to kill every American, enough Sentinel, last year, they seized to kill Americans.

INGRAHAM: Kellyanne, I want to move onto what happened yesterday. Obviously horrific shooting in Annapolis, another heartbreaker. Guy with a vendetta against the newspaper, filed a defamation claim, he seems completely like a total whack job, stalked another woman. The President has obviously has had a pretty difficult relationship with the press. The press has been wildly unfair to this administration on issue after issue yet the language the President has used against the press has led a lot of people in the press to say, "Look, this didn't cause what happened but deranged people can get triggered by this type of constant drumbeat that they're the enemy of the state et cetera, et cetera, the worst problem that the country has". Is the President reconsidering some of that language in light of what happened yesterday?

CONWAY: Well the President did on of the things he does best today Laura, at his Tax and Jobs Act six month anniversary, he paused at the very beginning to express sympathy and grief for the victims and their families and outrage over what happened. And when you read a lot of the print coverage that I've read today, it's very clear that people at the paper said that if this person, the shooter, ever comes in here call 911.

The former editor said that he had never met anybody so angry as a journalist in his life, so they knew that this guy was bad news for them and he sued them unsuccessfully years ago. And he went back yesterday to commit the ultimate act of violence. Violence should not be an occupation hazard, the (remunerator) of your life should not be an occupational hazard, if you work in this administration, if you work in journalism, if you work anywhere. And that I think it what the President is saying.

I'm somebody who's called for temping down the rhetoric for a very long time. But those who call for it sometimes if you listen carefully enough and you look on social media feeds, they give license sometimes to something I think that's a little bit hotter than covering the next story or reporting the "facts". But this President, as he is one to do calls out violence and evil for what it is, including what happened to those five innocent Americans yesterday.

INGRAHAM: I get it whether someone is calling the President evil or Nazi, this ridiculous ridiculous rhetoric of horrible stuff that they've called him. And then enemies of the state, I don't really like any of it, and I think that it all can be cleaned up. You can have a tough relationship, aggressive relationship. That's fine. It should be tough and fair. But I just think all of it has gotten way out of line.

CONWAY: I completely agree. I have been saying it for a very long time. And I think you and I are speaking as very tough women, but also mothers and people who just want folks to disagree respectfully as our press secretary said last week.

INGRAHAM: Kellyanne, we have one more really important topic, which is of course what's going to happen in Helsinki which is the meeting between the president and Vladimir Putin. I happen to think it's a great idea to engage with a major world power regardless of our adversarial relationship with them at times. But listen to what happened today with Joy Reid and others. Let's watch.


JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Well, it's official. Donald Trump is finally getting one of the things that he seemed to want the most. Trump is scheduled to hold a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: The president today again cited Vladimir Putin's assurances that Russia definitely didn't intervene in our presidential election. Why don't we believe him when he says so?

The White House also today confirmed a one on one summit between President Trump and Vladimir Putin to take place next month in Helsinki. Hold on to your Alaska.


INGRAHAM: Kellyanne, your reaction? They used to want us to talk to the Soviets back in the 70s and 80s, let's all get along with the Soviets. Now we can never meet with Putin, apparently.

CONWAY: There has been a big switch there because Donald Trump's name is involved. And of course, Laura, this is very simple. This is a president who just came off a historic summit with Kim in Singapore trying to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. He pulled us out of the Iran deal, so their nuclear capability is -- this is somebody who has already expelled Russian officials from this country and put sanctions on Russia when it's been necessary, and also pushed back on Vladimir Putin when he was propping up Assad not once, but twice in gassing his people.

So this president who unlike our last president is transparent about wanting to meet with President Putin. The last president whispered in a hot mic, hey, after the next election I will have some flexibility. So if there are national security concerns, things these two countries can work on together, then the president is willing to hear that. But he does it transparently for all the world to see. And I think it's been another very successful week for this president between the six month anniversary of the tax cuts, the ability to fill another Supreme Court vacancy through the retirement of Justice Kennedy, the announcement of another major summit with another world leader. This is a president who is trying to bring peace and prosperity to all the world beginning here at home, and he's succeeding.

INGRAHAM: Kellyanne Conway, thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate it.

And up next, Michael Moore calls for Democrats to get physical, Harvard discriminates against Asians, and Rite Aid was using a famous singer to keep the homeless away? Raymond arroyo will explain it all.


JACKIE IBANEZ, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, and live from America's news headquarters, I'm Jackie Ibanez in New York.

President Trump plans to announce his Supreme Court nominee July 9th. The president also telling reporters today that he's narrowed the list of potential nominees to about five, including two women. He also plans to interview one or two candidates this weekend. Mr. Trump is moving quickly to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. The 81-year-old announced his retirement Wednesday. The president says he won't ask possible nominees about Roe verses Wade. That the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion in this country.

Sentencing for former national security adviser Michael Flynn was delayed again. Special counsel Robert Mueller wants to wait at least two months before scheduling a sentencing date. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI agents investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

I'm Jackie Ibanez. Now back to "The Ingraham Angle." For all of you headlines, log on to Have a great Friday night.

INGRAHAM: Time now, wait for it, "Friday Follies."

Why is the "s" falling off at the end? I don't understand that. But anyway, I love that. Filmmaker Michael Moore sat down with Stephen Colbert last night to push a new documentary, and he also of course demonized the president. And then he went a step further. Joining me to discuss this and the music that is making young loiterers cry, bad joke, is FOX News contributor, "New York Times" bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" children series, Raymond Arroyo. So Raymond, what the heck did two cheeseburgers say?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Michael Moore is pushing a new documentary. And he said this about the president. And listen to the way in which he described the policies of President Trump.


MICHAEL MOORE, DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER: I am as civil as any eagle scout, Catholic altar boy could be when confronted with the devil. We are not talking about political differences. We are talking about thousands of children kidnapped from their parents and put in jail.


ARROYO: The devil, he's kidnapping children and putting them in jail.

INGRAHAM: Black sites.

ARROYO: Now people disagreed with the drone strikes of President Obama, the black sites of President Bush, and they both separated families. No one ever painted in these stark, violent terms, because when you hear that, you think this leader must be removed and by any means necessary. And this is where Moore I think crossed a line culturally that we should be very, very weary of. Watch.


MICHAEL MOORE, DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER: The only way that we are going to stop this is we are all going to have to put our bodies on the line. You are going to have to be willing to do this.


ARROYO: If Michael Moore is putting his body on the line it's going to be a big line.

INGRAHAM: Finally a border wall, a cheap border wall.

ARROYO: This could be a compromise. We could send Michael Moore to the border and they'd only have to raise --

INGRAHAM: I think he's looking good now. He's lost a lot.

ARROYO: My problem is he's demonizing a leader. I don't care which body it is. For him to say put bodies on the line, that has an edge of violence that I think should worry all of us.

INGRAHAM: Harvard, seems like they have a little anti-Asian bias. This is weird. A Harvard student alumni group is suing the university for its admissions policy. They claim that Harvard puts a finger on the finishing against Asian admissions, why?

ARROYO: To promote diversity. Diversity is the highest value. They want to keep a balance in the student body.

INGRAHAM: Too many Asians getting in.

ARROYO: And Asians score highest in grades, extracurriculars, and in the SAT scores. So they have something they call personal ratings in the admissions office at Harvard. We'll put it up on the full screen. This is the marks against Asian Americans. They are less likable, Harvard says, less helpful, less courageous, less kind, not as widely respected, and least positive personalities. I don't know where they're getting this.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second, aren't we supposed to not make generalizations about one group of people?

ARROYO: When you're trying to keep them out of the student body you can. It made me think of Elaine Chao who, remember, went after those protestors on her husband's behalf this week. She looked pretty courageous and helpful to me. I think they are going to win this lawsuit against Harvard.

INGRAHAM: Elaine Chao saying stay away from my husband. She's tough. Tiger wife. Tiger wife.

Now we have one more topic, and that is --

ARROYO: Rite Aid.

INGRAHAM: Rite Aid, yes. They have been trying a new tactic to rid their stores of bums, vagrants, and hobos. Can you say that anymore? Tell me about it.

ARROYO: They're turning to the one who writes the songs that make the vagrants flee. He writes the songs outside your pharmacy.

INGRAHAM: Dr. Seuss?

ARROYO: Barry Manilow. They are blaring Barry Manilow. That's Barry Manilow, not Dr. Seuss. They are blare Barry Manilow, and guess what. It's keeping the bums away. Here's the problem. The neighbors are now complaining. Some say I have a mild migraine because I'm hearing Manilow from sun up to sun down. And some are complaining on social media about it like this.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Another night of Barry Manilow.


ARROYO: But it may be the right tune at the wrong time because it is keeping them away. The neighbors who called Rite Air, they are telling them would you rather panhandlers or Manilow. I've been thinking, what's the chemistry that is making this work? Why is this repelling vagrants, this music?

INGRAHAM: I don't understand this at all.

ARROYO: Here is what I think it is. He has romantic, tuneful songs, many of them are based on classical pieces which people don't realize. I think it's so opposite to the chaotic, awful culture that we have that it drives the people away. But I'll bet a lot of people walking into Rite Aid kind of like to bop along.

INGRAHAM: Let's be honest. Raymond took his college age son --

ARROYO: My whole family came with me once to see Barry Manilow.

INGRAHAM: To Barry Maniolow.

ARROYO: They had a great time.

INGRAHAM: Mandy, she came and she gave without taking. And then I turned her away. Oh, Mandy.

ARROYO: One thing is clear. Looks like we made it


INGRAHAM: All right, Trump hasn't picked a Supreme Court nominee yet, but the Democrats are already pulling some serious shenanigans. We're going to tell you about it next.


INGRAHAM: Very exciting, President Trump today on Air Force One, he declared that he will indeed announce a nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on July 9th. Democrats have insisted it would be illegitimate to consider any nominee until after the November midterms, and now Senator Cory Booker is offering the latest lame excuse.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: The president of the United States right now is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. I believe that this committee should or can -- do not believe this committee should or can in good conscience consider a nominee put forward by this president until that investigation is concluded.


INGRAHAM: Let's debate how and when the nomination process should proceed with attorney Harmeet Dhillon, the RNC committeewoman from California, and Democratic strategist Michael Starr Hopkins. Great to see both of you. All right, Harmeet, let's start with you here. The president actually spoke today on this subject with Maria Bartiromo, and I want you to react. Let's watch.


MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK: Are you going to ask nominees beforehand how they will vote on Roe verses Wade?

TRUMP: That's a big one, and probably not. They're all saying don't do that. You don't do that. You shouldn't do that. But I'm putting conservative people on. And I'm very proud of Neil Gorsech. He has been outstanding. His opinions are so well- written, so brilliant. And I'm going to try and do something like that. But I don't think I'm going to be so specific.


INGRAHAM: The concern, of course, on the left is this is a run on Roe. This is going to eviscerate Roe. That's how you are going to get women to turn out in the midterms. They're going to be outraged. He didn't go for the litmus test, though. You've got to think he almost wanted to go for it, but he didn't.

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY: He didn't, and that's exactly right. You're not supposed to do that, and it's not appropriate even for a sitting judge or a candidate to say how they would vote on a specific issue because each case has to be taken on its merits. But it isn't just Roe, Laura. I just got an e-mail from Nancy Pelosi who is my member of Congress with the hysteria that we're talking about rolling back LGBT rights, we're talking about Roe v. Wade, we're talking about the rights of the disabled. We're talking about the rights of women. It's going to be dystopia if the president gets to appoint another Supreme Court justice. And guess what, they said all of those same things with Neil Gorsuch and none of that happened. This is the Democratic playbook we see every time.

INGRAHAM: Michael, Senator Feinstein back last year was grilling Amy Coney Barrett who is now on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on her, it sounded like it was on her Catholicism. I wanted to play it and your reaction. Let's watch.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.


INGRAHAM: She's the mother of several children. She's a Roman Catholic. And clearly that's what Feinstein was getting at, clearly getting at the issue of abortion. Obviously she's confirmed and right now it looks like she's the number one or number two possible pick for President Trump. How is this going to go down, Mike?

MICHAEL STARR HOPKINS, ATTORNEY: Listen, I know a lot of Catholics that struggle with the idea of being prochoice. But here I take the president at his own word. When the president appeared on Chris Matthews on MSNBC, he said he thought that women who had abortions should be punished. And so when we talk about rolling back the protections of Roe verses Wade, that's a realistic thing that could happen. And in 2018 you are talking about Justice Kennedy now resigning and a more conservative member of the court stepping up.

The president has already talked about loyalty pledges. And so I think when you are talking about a Supreme Court justice who can decide issues such as whether or not a president can pardon himself, whether or not a president has to comply with a subpoena, this president has put himself in that position where now Democrats have to say we need to wait and let the will of the voters decide.

INGRAHAM: Pretty much everyone on that list, Harmeet, the list is long, but whether it's Tom Hardiman or Brett Kavanaugh, whether it's Joan Larsen, or Amy, these are all topnotch legal mind. These are stellar academics and jurists. There's no doubt about it. It's like someone opposing Kagan. Opposing Kagan was ridiculous. She is incredible smart. I don't agree with a lot of her opinions. But the idea of opposing Elena Kagan was ridiculous. Obama had an opportunity to put someone on who shared his judicial philosophy, and he did.

DHILLON: She's highly qualified, and we don't play the same games that the other side does.

HOPKINS: Merrick Garland.

DHILLON: But the laws need to be made in Congress, and signed by the president and ruled on by the courts, not made by the judges. And that's really a problem here. When you see Cory Booker going full Venezuela with this hysteria that maybe we should just suspend the normal rules and allow this frivolous complaint against the president who is, by the way, not under criminal investigation. That's false.

HOPKINS: How is that false?

DHILLON: The president is not under criminal investigation.

HOPKINS: We don't know that because the can't be indicted. So therefore he can't be the target of an investigation.

DHILLON: That's a sideshow. And by the way, if you want to play by those rules, Democrats, think about what happens when you have the White House. Do you want frivolous complaints against your president.

HOPKINS: I do agree with that.

DHILLON: Secondly, and number two, there is a real human cost, Laura, to having a split on the Supreme Court where there is a vacancy. That means a lot of cases, death penalty cases, other cases simply don't get herd because there isn't a quorum.

HOPKINS: That's literally what Mitch McConnell did 18 months before the election.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, what Michael is getting at is, look, Mitch McConnell didn't move forward on a vote on Merrick Garland. Conservatives cheered it, allowed for this opening, allowed obviously for Gorsuch to go on the court, and now we have another opening. So the Democrats were he didn't play by the same old rulebook. So we are going to make up rules, I don't know.

HOPKINS: You act like the Biden rule is something that is written into law. It's something that Biden suggested when he was a senator. He said the will of the voters should be heard. And the same thing that could be during a presidential election can now be said during congressional midterm elections. The will of the voters should be decided.

DHILLON: No, because it's always a congressional election. It's congressional year-round. That same ruling does not apply. We had a lame duck president in the last situation and we don't have a lame duck president. We have a sitting president.

HOPKINS: We have a president who lost the popular vote, so therefore he wasn't even elected by the majority.

DHILLON: That's not how our constitution is written. So go back and read the constitution and then come back.

HOPKINS: I got the same law degree you got.

INGRAHAM: Michael, I've got to say, the Electoral College issue, that argument has been raised since, I think it was 1996, 1998, 2000. People have been raising that issue of the Electoral College. Hillary talked about it.

DHILLON: Get the votes and amend the constitution if you don't like it.

INGRAHAM: We are a representative republic. We are not a pure democracy. Our framers understood that we didn't want to be ruled by two states.

HOPKINS: I think that we should look at the totality of the circumstances.

INGRAHAM: But I don't think most people want to be ruled by California and New York. God knows I don't. But it was a great conversation. You are both much smarter than I am, so I'm glad to have you on.

And we give you an inside look at the deplorable conditions of an illegal immigrant stash house. What even is that? That's next.


INGRAHAM: It was a nice house in a neighborhood in Laredo, Texas. But what border patrol agents found inside was shocking -- 62 illegal immigrants crammed inside a one-bedroom home. Agents give a CBS news crew permission to film inside the stash house after the June 12th raid.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The conditions were so bad, they would call 9-11, that's how we were able to uncover some of the stash houses, because somebody is so desperate to get out that they are willing to call the police and law enforcement authorities to rescue them.


INGRAHAM: Unbelievable. Let's get more of the inside story on stash houses, you may not have heard of it before, from Michael Cutler. He's a retired senior special agent with Immigration and Naturalization Service, a predecessor to ICE.

All right, Michael, it's great to see you. This was a wild story to look at this. But this is nothing new. It got a lot of attention a couple of weeks ago. But these stash houses, and I want you to explain exactly what they are, how they are set up, are not just confined, are they, to border states?

MICHAEL CUTLER, SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT, INS (RET): No, they are not. I always make a point we are a country of 50 border states. In fact a Fairfax County police officer just pulled a car over with a bunch of illegal aliens that he was moving to Maryland and New York.

I was part of the anti-smuggling unit in New York, and one of the things I found and we found were stash houses in New York City. You go into a quiet neighborhood, whether it was Long Island, whether it was Brooklyn, not just from Latin American countries, either. Asian organized crime. Criminals treat people the way they do drugs. And today in fact we have narcotics trafficking organizations smuggling aliens. It's a professional smuggling operation. And they look at people no differently than a load of drugs. And they hold these people hostage.

Many of those kids, by the way, coming across the border that the president was trying to stop from continuing are being put in these so-called care of these pernicious, sociopathic smugglers. If you put a child into the care of these people, shouldn't you face criminal prosecution for endangering the welfare of those children? I think that really was the motivation behind Jeff Sessions and President Trump. And let's remember what the 9-11 commission said. Border security is national security.

INGRAHAM: Michael, I think it's not compassionate at all to dangle carrots across the border and say, OK, if you come with a child, we'll keep you united and we'll just release you into the country because that encourages more money going to the cartels, the traffickers, enriches them, and makes our country more dangerous, and endangers the lives of the migrants coming up. It's horrible.

CUTLER: And they're children. I wrote an article for "Front Page" magazine. I said a child is not a substitute for a visa. When you say that you can come here with a child and not go to jail if you have a child, you are going to have people grabbing children from other people and claiming that they are their kids. Think about that.

INGRAHAM: Michael, what you hear from the left consistently, this is a loop happening all day long. You are putting kid in cages. Trump is, basically we are torturing them by keeping them separated. We're kidnapping them. The list goes on. So the criminal becomes the administration.


INGRAHAM: That's where we are today.

CUTLER: Under the Obama administration, you had the smuggling organizations permitted to bring people into the United States knowing that the would be reunited with illegal alien parents in the United States. What sense does that make? And by the way, we admit more lawful immigrants than the rest of the world combined. We spend $14 billion a year on border security. Why would you legalize aliens and say it doesn't matter how you come here, why pay a toll if you can get on the road for free?

INGRAHAM: People are fed up, Michael. Thank you so much. Your expertise is needed. And 167 stash houses, by the way, in 2018 alone just in the Rio Grande valley. So my friends, this is something we're going to stay on. We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: Wow, it is expected to be one of the busiest travel weekends in history. So stay safe everybody as summer kicks in full swing. We're staying home. We're not going anywhere, and I'm so excited about it.

I'll be right back here on Monday. It is shaping up to be another can't miss show and can't miss week. And in the meantime, tell us how we're doing on Twitter. We love reading your tweets, even the mean ones. Come on, you have got to keep them creative.

And that's all of the time we have tonight. Time now for Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.