Laura Ingraham: Anatomy of a freak out

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," July 18, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Oh he's more horrible than yesterday and the day before. They've overreached. All right, we'll always be balanced, we're not to destroy Trump media. Let not your heart be troubled, it's time. Ingraham, take over.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You know what they need Hannity? They need an ism song like racism, sexism, xenophobiaism.

HANNITY: That's the whole playbook. Every election is the same.

INGRAHAM: Well but guess what Hannity the Bush's use those same things too protectionist, isolationist and they use that to describe a lot of Trump's polices too. So the establishment is striking back. They're gleeful about these polls.

HANNITY: They're so desperate. Give me one policy and this is not a trick question, one thing that they are offering the American people to make the country better, safer more prosperous, one thing?

INGRAHAM: The left is doing nothing. All they have is the resistance and you documented it clearly tonight. Sean you have no jetlag, I don't know how you do it.

HANNITY: No, I feel good.

INGRAHAM: Excellent, all right. Good evening from Washington, I'm Laura Ingraham, this is 'The Ingraham Angle.' We do have a phenomenal show for you tonight. You're not going to want to miss one minute. President Trump fires back against his critics about his Russia meeting. We're going to analyze all aspects of the media meltdown straight ahead. Also special counsel Bob Mueller is making some curious immunity requests. Is this just a propaganda ploy? We'll break it down. Raymond Arroyo is here tonight with our weekly Seen and Unseen segment where a political comic is in big time hot water and a former president is attacking his own sex.

Plus the Democrats true plan for the border. Their votes today tell a very sad tale, details ahead. But first, the Anatomy of a Freak Out, that's the focus of tonight's Angle. Ever since the president misspoke on Monday in Helsinki, the media have spun around like whirly dervishes, they're giddy with excitement. Excitement of course that's masked in feral outrage. Never has so much been made of so little.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Dan Coats came to me and some other and they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this, I don't see any reason why it would be.


INGRAHAM: Now those words set off a chain reaction of condemnation without context.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: You have been watching perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president at a summit in front of the Russian leader. Chilling that I've ever seen.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: You should call this the surrender summit.


INGRAHAM: Oh so catchy. Former CIA director John Brennan tweeted, 'Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous.'


WOLFE BLITZER, CNN NEWS ANCHOR: John Brennan says treasonous. Are we taking at least from your perspective? I assume from your perspective impeachment?

CHUCK HAGEL, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well I'll let that stand as it is is to the responsibilities of the congress of the United States.


INGRAHAM: Don't you miss Chuck Hagel? By Monday afternoon there were preposterous calls for the CIA and National Intelligence directors to resign in protest. Not against the president's actions or substantive policies toward Russia, but resign over his comments at the press conference.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Should the director of national intelligence Dan Coats resign in protest?

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBS HOST: How does Gina Haspel stay on the job? How does Dan Coats stay on the job?


INGRAHAM: By Tuesday morning, the media freak out was evolving into totally unchartered territory. It was like the Bermuda triangle. People who peddle Trump hatred for a living, they make a good living out of it, they try to outdo each other jocking for the pole position in their denunciations and descriptions. It was, what's the word? Extraordinary.


JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: We all know that Vladimir Putin is holding something over Trump, we do not know it is but we know it must be something extraordinary.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would say actually the definition it meets is the first word of the impeachment article in the constitution which is treason, bribery and high crimes of misdemeanours.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't know whether what we're seeing is dementia, psychopathy, compromise but what we're seeing is extraordinary.


INGRAHAM: Do they all get together and pick, "This is the multisyllabic word we're going to use today, extraordinary" You know what's extraordinary? The high judging responses to what was essentially an error of communication. The president reiterated his support of his Intel community and he tried to clarify his comments on Tuesday. We then there was this from a cabinet meeting today which began with an unfortunate mini adlib.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is Russia still targeting the U.S. Mr President?

TRUMP: Thank you very much. There has been no president even as tough as I have been on Russia. I think President Putin knows that better than anybody, certainly a lot better than the media. He understands it and he's not happy about it and he should be happy about it because there has never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been.


INGRAHAM: OK when he said no, that no you can hardly hear? That only threw kerosene on the media fires which in turn lit up today's press briefing.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any subscribers the president has not been very critical to Putin?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I only criticize Putin by name.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When he was recited on Monday though, why wasn't he critical of Vladimir Putin's actions?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why should this president have any credibility to Americans in what he said?


INGRAHAM: Don't you just love the media figures talking about someone else's credibility at the point? The president's off hand remarks were, let's face it, some self inflicted wounds. But the rabid media, Democrats, the media cons, the never Trumpers, they hope to turn that little nick into a mortal blow and now they're just making no sense at all.


SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D—CONN.: We are in a 9/11 national emergency because our country is under attack. Issue a subpoena not only for the translator and the notes but also for the national security team.

AB STODDARD, THE HILL: If they don't drag the translator in, they have to find out the answer from the secretary of state. But they have to find the answers out for not only Ambassador McCall but what else was discussed in that meeting?

MICHAEL BARNICLE, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We rewrite the constitution and have another president take over right now.


INGRAHAM: Oh my God, people actually get paid to say things like that, it is stunning. OK we're going to get onto rewriting the constitution part. Mounting an overthrow of a duly elected president, you kind of hear the rumblings of that there. The left has no record to run on. Certainly not in the midterms, what have they accomplished? Zero. They can't go to the voters and say, "This is our prescription for making your lives better. We're going to bring you to four percent economic growth. This is wat we're going to do hold China accountable on trade. This is what we're going to do to have a stronger border" They want to abolish I.C.E for goodness sake. So what they do is they seek to create another narrative that the president is somehow like secretly working behind closed doors to advance Russia's agenda and that he's at odds with his own intelligence chiefs. This is patently absurd and I think they know it is. Now granted the president has occasionally been inartful in the way he's explained his position. Sometimes his frustration with the Mueller investigation has gotten the better of him. But when you cut through all the theatrical displays of outrage? Trump in many ways is saying what he's always said, even if no one wants to hear him out.


CHRIS CILZZA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'll go along with Russia. It could have been China, it could have been a lot of different groups. I think it well, could have been Russia. But I think it could, well in the next screen you already know what it's going to have said, have be other countries. Donald Trump in his heart of hearts is not convinced that Russia meddled in the election.


INGRAHAM: Take a breath Chris that's not what he said historically or this week. The president is saying that Russia is responsible for meddling and that they are not alone. Now, I'm the first to call the president out when he hasn't unprecise in his language, and he hasn't. Communications are vital on a matter that's as important as this, especially with this Mueller cloud that continues to hang over his head. But saying that Russia is not the only foreign power seeking to temper with our election, cause havoc in our society is neither treasonous or nor erroneous, in fact it is correct. Just listen to the director of national security Dan Coats.


DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY: Everyday foreign actors, the worst offenders being Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Every day they are penetrating our digital infrastructure and conducting a range of cyber intrusions and attacks against targets in the United States.


INGRAHAM: Now you hear that? Russia is one of any foreign actors trying to disrupt things in the United States across the board, every day, incoming form these other countries. That does not rule out the presence of other foreign actors. But perhaps the most egregious and revealing all the lunatic get him in the rubber room reactions regarding Trump Russia once again comes from the former CIA chief John Brennan. The man, I'm sorry to say, I know it sounds uncharitable, is a complete embarrassment, spewing outrageous falsehoods while offering reckless advice.


BARNICLE: Wouldn't it be a tendency for intelligence gatherers briefers now to withhold some vital intelligence to the president?

JOHN BRENNAN FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: There very well might be. There might be out of concern.


INGRAHAM: He went on to expand on that but yeah, out of concern that the White House president would run to Sergei Lavrov or Putin himself? Think about that. This is the guy who headed up the CIA, by the way same one I believe who signed off on the unmasking without a warrant. He's essentially urging current Intel officers who are giving basically tacit approval, to their concealing key national security information from the country's current commander in chief, shame on you sir. That is tantamount to a slow rolling coup.

So we've gone from charges of treason within minutes, frankly, of what President Trump said in Helsinki, to calls for resignations to now former Intel chiefs encouraging traitorous acts against the current duly elected president of the United States. It is stunning. The next time you pundits and hosts want to see a disgraceful and extraordinary and treasonous moment, just pull up some of your TV appearances on the DVR and hit play. And that's the Angle.

Joining me now for reaction is Dan Bongino a former secret service agent and host of the Dan Bongino podcast and Juan Williams, co-host of FNC's 'The Five,' great to have both of you on. Juan, look, the president I think had a couple of rough communication days but I say actions speak louder than words. And the media reaction, it reminds me of the roadrunner in Wily Coyote. Trump is the road and everybody they think, "OK I got the TNT now and we're going to get him" and then Trump just speeds away but your reaction.

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS HOST: Well I think the big hole in the Ingraham Angle tonight is the Republican response Laura, that you know, your fellow Republicans, people who are strong Trump supporters. Here I'm thinking of New Gingrich, I'm thinking of people in the Congress who have been slow to offer any objection to President Trump have come out and said that what he did not objectionable and not of service to the United States and they're pundits are right.

INGRAHAM: No, whoa whoa whoa, they didn't Juan, they did not say treasonous. Newt Gingrich tweeted out as did I that the president needed to clarify his remarks. I said it on Monday night with Matt Schlapp but that's fair criticism, it's not saying that you shouldn't brief him on matters of intelligence or imply that somehow he's back channeling information to the former Soviet Union. That is so irresponsible for them to say that.

WILLIAMS: I didn't say treasonous. That's it, yes. No I think that they're asking legitimate questions about his actions. You say actions count more than words so we look at his actions and you look at the entirety of that presentation, not only the press conference but the earlier two hour meeting, we still don't know the details. The Russians say it was a great meeting. They apparently think there are military agreements that our own military doesn't know about. Laura that introduces questions as to, is this president working as an American to protect us the American people or doing something different?

INGRAHAM: So you're basically agreeing with John Brennan then?

WILLIAMS: No Brennan said don't tell him. He's our president and I respect that but I'm saying he has opened that door. Nobody else opened the door, he opened the door to these kinds of questions and these rebukes.

INGRAHAM: Dan Bongino the idea that because Russia goes home, Lavrov and Putin go home and they make their progandistic push to their people? Big deal. I mean I keep saying this, I loved there in 1983, the propaganda flows freely in Russia. I don't take Putin at his word on pretty much anything, but the fact that he's saying, "Well this this was a good meeting" Big deal, who cares? That doesn't hurt us if he says that.

DAN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Yeah and this is what they always do Laura. What bothers me about and Juan's comments particularly is you know Juan's talking about actions but Juan you're ignoring. And Juan, listen, you don't have to agree with these actions and neither does Laura. There a lot of Libertarians out there Laura who prefer a more interventionist approach.

INGRAHAM: Well I do.

BONGINO: What Juan's being a little, I think, naive about here is when you reasonably look at what Trump has done, he's not a politician OK. Forget the words for a minute, I'm not saying the words are irrelevant, I'm just saying when you look at what's actually happened, combating against the Nord Stream Two Pipeline which a Russian economic necessity. Laura personally sanctioning friends of Putin, Oleg Deripaska and Rusal. When you look at the attack on the mercenaries in Syria, the Russian mercenaries.

Again, you don't have to agree with these actions, they are non-interventionists on both sides who don't even agree with them. But suggesting that he's a Russian pawn while his military wipes out Russian mercs, sanctions billionaires who are his buddies and then cuts off a potential economic lifeline Juan, is completely unreasonable. Where are you getting this from?

WILLIAMS: But then, wait a minute, in that serious situation that you described the Russians were attacking us, that's why we responded.


WILLIAMS: And what about Iran? And Iran's continued support for terrorism and for Assad in Syria, contrary to American interests?

BONGINO: Juan did you just say Iran? Did you object when we delivered pallets full of cash and please don't tell me it was their money because neither President Jimmy Carter no no, this is not a distraction

WILLIAMS: Oh my gosh. Juan you're skipping the conversation.

BONGINO: No I'm not.

WILLIAMS: I think you disagree and I disagree with you about the Iranian nuclear deal but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Iranian interference in Syria contrary to American interests, that's all I'm saying.

BONGINO: Yeah, no I get it Juan and I understand that but Juan we have not been a friend to the Iranians either. I don't understand what Syria, I'm missing what the point is. We've wiped out Russian mercenaries and we're combating the Iranians in Syria, what the point?

INGRAHAM: Guys, the actions versus verbal missteps or miscues or adlibs or aside, it's legitimate to criticize the communication, push after Helsinki, I'm fine with that. But jumping to these other conclusions I think it takes it to another level. The New York Times is just reporting that Trump was handed documents two weeks before the inauguration indicating that Putin personally ordered the hack into the United States. It just literally dropped into the New York Times, we'll have to unpack all of that. But Juan look, this is where we are, the president gave an interview tonight to CBS News to Jeff Glor where he talked about and tried to, again clarify this point about the intelligence chiefs and who's responsible, let's watch.


JEFFREY GLOR, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: You say you agree with U.S. intelligence that the Russians meddled in the election in 2016?

TRUMP: Yeah and I've said that before and I've said that numerous times before and I would say that that is true, yeah.


INGRAHAM: Your reaction very quickly Juan.

WILLIAMS: I think it's like a guy trying to clean up after the circus, it's futile. I mean Americans saw it wasn't just verbal missteps as you describe it. I think that the whole meeting with Putin and the fact that we still don't know is an indication that something is strange here and I think for all of us, for Dan for you for me, we've got wonder why is the president behaving in such a way as to introduce these questions? And as I said before to you Laura, it's not just Democrats, it's not just some crazed Liberal pundits, they're Republicans, your fellow Republicans that are raising these very legitimate questions based on his words and his actions.

INGRAHAM: I think there a lot of Republicans who never really wanted Trump in the first place and a few others. But the majority of the Republicans who think this is the be all and end all story of the last five years are not people who generally agree with his more nationalist foreign policy or economic policy. But great conversations as always guys, thanks so much.

Now, we've seen some rather interesting political alliances emerging these days with former president speaking out more than ever.


GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If the U.S. takes the lead, others tend to follow.

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Do you really want to say, "We're going to make everybody have a military" But we're not going to help anybody build their own future and lives.

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESDIENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You've got far right parties that often times are based not just on platforms of protectionism and closed borders, but also on barely hidden racial nationalism.


INGRAHAM: OK are we seeing a new kind political paradigm being created in the age of Trump? Joining us now to anaylze this and the breaking news out of the New York Times is Karl Rove, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush. Karl it's great to have you on the show tonight. I think it's the first time on the Ingraham Angle so thanks so much for coming on.


INGRAHAM: What about that? You had just in the last couple of weeks, or last week, you had Obama, Clinton and George W. Bush all, not directly referencing the president, but clearly they are not so clearly veiled references to his governing and the substance of his policies. Your reaction to that.

ROVE: Well look President Clinton and President Bush 43 were speaking at a seminar in Little Rock for the presidential scholars. A program that they and the President 41 Bush, 41 Library and the LBJ library have. I don't see that that was anything other than responding to questions and talking about their views, on for example leadership. President Bush made the point that world depends on American leadership, "When America leads, the world tends to follow."

President Obama's speech, I read it at night. It's a typical Obama performance, very long. There are parts of it that appear to be directed at President Trump but there's a bunch of it that I think, that's got to be put in the context of he's appearing in South Africa. He's been hosted by Nelson Mandela's widow. He's giving the Mandela Lecture and he is in the presence of the new president of South Africa who has come to office only after a huge conflict inside South Africa over a corrupt predecessor. Who was exactly what President Obama described in his speech as a strongman who demolished the institutions within South African and engaged in sort of crony capitalism and undermined a sense of democracy. Had an election but it was clearly phony and it was heralding, it's an unusual speech because at one point he talks about South Africa, the importance of markets. But there are points that clearly he was on a contrast to.

INGRAHAM: Hold that thought you're going to stay with us, more on this breaking news out of the New York Times next.



GLOR: But you haven't condemned Putin specifically. Do you hold him personally responsible?

TRUMP: Well I would because he's in charge of the country just like I consider myself to be responsible for things that happen in this country. So certainly as the leader of a country you would have to hold him responsible, yes.

GLOR: What you say to him?

TRUMP: Very strong on the fact that we can't have meddling, we can't have any of that, I let him know that we can't have this, we're not going to have it and that's the way it's going to be.


INGRAHAM: Now that was President Trump earlier tonight hours before this report broke from the New York Times essentially saying that the president was told that Putin did personally call for the hacking into our elections. Karl Rove is back with us. He's joined by Richard Goodstein a Democratic Strategist and Policy Expert. Sol Wisenberg is the former deputy independent counsel during White Water.

Carl I had to rudely interrupt you before we broke for a commercial. What's your reaction to the New York Times report? It frankly doesn't really surprise me because Brennan was pretty much onto this Russia behind the meddling six months earlier from what I could tell so it doesn't really surprise me that the president would be briefed on this.

ROVE: Yeah look, it doesn't surprise me either. But frankly remember early in the administration I think the president had a line that I wish he had used on Monday, which is he said early in his term that of course he would like to know if anyone had meddled in an election, because he would want to make sure that I was stopped. And I wish that the president had that tone on Monday. But this latest report doesn't surprise me. What did surprise was the ability of the Mueller investigation and government's cyber forensics to be able to identify 12 specific actors. Imagine those guys sitting in their office in the GRU and going online and seeing their names and asking the question, "How could they tell it was us?"

INGRAHAM: Yeah and Sol I wanted to ask you specifically about that indictment that dropped last Friday. One indictment, 12 other officers, what of that? For me I thought, why name them? Why not keep that under seal and see if one of them actually comes to the United States? Apparently some of them maybe have been to the United States, what's the theory behind that?

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, WHITEWATER: Well I don't know what the theory is but if you don't put them under seal, you know you're never going to get them over here.

INGRAHAM: Right, they're never coming.

WISENBERG: They're GRU officers and I think it meant that these people will never appear in a United States court. The part of the indictment was to buy Mueller some time and say, "Look, I'm really doing things and I'm doing important things" But it's really a speaking indictment. I don't doubt that he'll be able to prove that it's just he'll never be called on to prove it.

INGRAHAM: An indictment, for our viewers just to be clear again. An indictment are the charges. You did not see the evidence, obviously they wouldn't put it out, it's very sensitive, but they're the charges against these individuals. People forget that a lot of people are indicted and they're not guilty, I mean Liberals used to believe that. I'm not saying that they're not guilty but people have to remember that if we're going to blame Trump for not having smart verbiage, we have to smart with our verbiage too.

WISENBERG: Laura in every criminal case, state or federal, the judge the jury the indictment is not proof, the indictment is not evidence and then I saw on the other networks constantly, "Here we have the proof, here we have the evidence" Now look, if Mueller didn't think he had it, he's perpetrated a massive fraud and I don't think he has but you know Andy McCarthy made the comment that basically now all the Russians are presumed innocent because this has been put into an indictment. But the real point is this is a speaking indictment meant to buy time for Bob Mueller.

INGRAHAM: So no American's named in it, no American actions referenced, nevertheless it ate up some of the news cycle and the president apparently Richard, approved the timing, said it was okay to hand down the indictment. I guess they checked with the White House and he basically said it was okay which kind of kills the narrative that Trump was like worried about the indictments but your reaction Richard.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Can I react to this New York Times story. What's newsworthy about it is one of two things. Either Trump has no faith whatsoever in the intelligence community because if he does, just today there's another New York Times story saying, "Well I hope Putin's responsible in the sense that he's the head of the country just like people hold me responsible for what goes on here" No, if you were told two weeks before the indictment that Putin personally and directly was sort of overseeing the subversion of the U.S. democracy. That's not, "Oh well he runs the country" No that's very specific and Trump still can't acknowledge that, that's troublesome.

INGRAHAM: Well that's what he said tonight on CBS news, that's what Donald Trump said tonight that Putin is responsible, "He's in charge of the country like I consider myself in charge of this country" Oh because it's personal, yeah.

GOODSTEIN: Because he's in charge of the country, it's like saying managers are responsible for the team.

INGRAHAM: This is what Karl Rove, I think with your experience in the Bush administration, they're playing, I hate the multilevel chess reference, but he does have other concerns other than just what's happening in the Mueller investigation, what the New York Times is going to publish. He just had this meeting with Putin, now I imagine and he referenced this today Karl, they were talking about Israel, Iran, Syria, nuclear nonproliferation, getting back to some semblance of whatever a normal relationship with Russia is.

That's does come into play and Obama referenced this Karl back in 2016, that insulting someone on the world stage, that's doesn't accomplish anything. And I don't recall George W. Bush insulting Putin whether in Crawford at the ranch or the Clintons when they when Hillary was meeting with Lavrov, you don't insult people even if you know they're trying to mess around with our systems. Which they always have been trying to mess around with our systems.

ROVE: Well I agree with you I don't take homage and President Trump should not have been there for the purpose of slamming President Putin to his face. Nor am I worried about having a solitary meeting. President Bush, for example, met on a one-on-one -- literally drove the king of Saudi Arabia around his ranch in Crawford and discussed very important issues. I think that's overreach.

I do think the president needed to project strength on Monday, and he didn't by his words. When he was asked that question, he could have answered her in a way that would have -- Putin would have known that he was upset about it and knew that the Russians were behind it. But it could have been straightforward and strong without being insulting. And the president didn't hit that note on Monday. He did better job in CBS tonight. Even that tone would've been fine on Monday.

But there is no need for the president to go in and insult world leaders just for the sake of insulting world leaders, particularly if you are trying to find a way forward. There are important things that we need to do. We have got serious questions about the Russians and living up to their existing treaty agreements on the intermediate range missile treaty. We have a treaty with them, negotiated by President Bush, that comes up for renewal in 2021 on nuclear weapons. We have concerns about them in that regard. I hope the president brought up -- they are not helping us in North Korea. Lavrov, as you remember, shows up one week before the meeting in Singapore, he shows up in Pyongyang to basically tell the North Koreans we got your back against the Americans.

INGRAHAM: Don't worry, in Russian, it's going to be OK.

But I think the president should give an address to the nation about this, and Sol, Richard, Karl, where he talks about our relationship with Russia, basically what they discussed at this meeting, and what could be improved, no Mueller reference, no Peter Strzok reference, none of that, but give an address to the nation. Fantastic panel, guys. Thank you so much. I know it was short tonight with all this breaking news.

By the way, Sacha Baron Cohen could be in legal hot water. Oh, goody, speaking of legal problems. And will a movie about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg do her legacy any justice? Raymond Arroyo brings that all to us in "Seen and Unseen."


INGRAHAM: It's time now for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose what's behind the big cultural stories of the day.

He calls himself a comedian, Sacha Baron Cohen, and he's pranked everyone from Sarah Palin to Ted Koppel. But could his stunts now land him in legal trouble? For more we are joined by FOX News contributor, "New York Times" bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" series Raymond Arroyo. Raymond, Cohen's new show "Who is America?" premiered this weekend, but the real question is I want to know who the heck is watching?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Not too many people. It premiered with only 327,000 total viewers. That's 0.1 in the demo. If you had those ratings you would probably go into retirement.

INGRAHAM: At 3:00 a.m., I get those ratings.

ARROYO: I don't think you get them at 3:00 a.m. I think you get more than that. But here is the point. Though Cohen was able to snooker people like Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, and others, there was a Riverside, California, gun shop owner whom when Cohen walked in, his name was Norris Sweden, the gun shop owner, he saw through Sacha's charade early on. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just kept looking at the guy and I was like, you're Borat. As soon as I said that, his eyes just looked at me, and he did a b-turn right out the door. Once I knew it was Borat, we already know his game and his -- so we knew he was here to make a mockery, and make a mockery of what, gun owners, the gun business, gun shops.


ARROYO: He did make a mockery of gun owners and gun activists. He got some of them to read a script, teaching children how to use firearms. Again, it's to embarrass people who own guns, who like guns. And Cohen, by the way, was dressed as a Hungarian immigrant there with a beard. He looked like a runaway from "Duck Dynasty."

INGRAHAM: That's what I was just going to say, he looked like "Duck Dynasty." They make one of the good old boys, that the good old boys are dumb, and that good old boy saw right through that lame costume. And little fraidy cat, instead of standing there trying to do some original stand up, he should have turned it into a joke. But instead he ran out. What a little wuss.

ARROYO: He's stolen valor. In fact, there were some billboards around L.A. about this. The problem with the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, something applies to Cohen, because he impersonated a war veteran, it doesn't apply. It's about wearing the medal, a false medal. That's what's illegal.

INGRAHAM: I think he is impersonating a comedian myself. But there is a new Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic.

ARROYO: You already have your tickets?

INGRAHAM: I'm ready, ready, ready. It's called "On the Basis of Sex." Is that the joke?

ARROYO: No, that's not it.

INGRAHAM: It's coming under fire for potential inaccuracies. What are they?

ARROYO: First of all, portraying Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an actress named Felicity Jones. I'll put up a picture of them side by side. So you can compare. You think this evokes Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I'll leave it to the audience.


ARROYO: The bigger problem -- it's the doily --

INGRAHAM: They are both beautiful in their own way.

ARROYO: If Felicity Jones had the doily, it would be better.

INGRAHAM: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the nicest people. I spent New Year's Eve with her in 1986.

ARROYO: This isn't walk down memory lane. I've got to get to a segment here.


ARROYO: OK, here's what happened. They played a trailer of this movie, they've released it, and legal scholars are going crazy. Watch.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You think you can change the country, you should look to her generation. They are taking to the streets.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Protests are important. But changing the culture means nothing if the law doesn't change.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What did you see your name was?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The word "woman" does not appear even once in the U.S. Constitution.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nor does the word "freedom," your honor.


ARROYO: So the word "freedom" doesn't appear in the Constitution?

INGRAHAM: First Amendment, isn't it?

ARROYO: Yes, it's the First Amendment.


INGRAHAM: This screenwriter, who is also Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nephew, surprise, surprise, he says what she is pointing to is the Constitution as it was originally adopted before the Bill of Rights, and that that is why she says "freedom" doesn't appear in the original.

INGRAHAM: This is like wouldn't or would. They're making fun of Trump.

ARROYO: All I can say is, when they cast my life story, I want someone as pretty as Felicity Jones to play --

INGRAHAM: Speaking of -- you are going to get to this next part.

ARROYO: I'll do this. Speaking of gender politics and equality, Barack Obama in Johannesburg spoke out against his own sex today.


OBAMA: Men have been getting on my nerves lately.


OBAMA: I just -- every day, I read the newspaper and I just think, brothers, what's wrong with you guys? What's wrong with us? We are violent, we are bullying.


ARROYO: Violent and bullying. The idea --

INGRAHAM: Men are, like, this target --

ARROYO: This is toxic masculinity, the term that is so popular now. And the notion is that masculinity, robust masculinity, leads to bullying or assaults upon women. You know what leads to assaults upon women? Men who are not taught to be gentlemen. That is the problem. And all of these studies now coming out about the gender inequality in certain industries like film -- they did a study, film review critics, OK, 68 percent mail as opposed to 32 percent female.

INGRAHAM: Who cares?

ARROYO: They say this is why female flicks that have all-female cast members --

INGRAHAM: "Beaches," like "Beaches"?

ARROYO: No, not that. "Ghostbusters," "Oceans 8," all the female reboots, they flop because they get bad reviews from all the men.

INGRAHAM: They are bad movies.

ARROYO: I looked at publishing, an industry I know a lot about. And 78 percent of the people in publishing are women.

INGRAHAM: And then they have to equalize it. More men have to be hired.

ARROYO: I've worked with a lot of these women. You know why they are there? Not because they are women. Because they are good.

INGRAHAM: They're good.

ARROYO: They are people that should be in these positions. We should not be worrying about gender equity. Some people are better in some professions than others. Leave it alone.

INGRAHAM: I think I'm going to get one of those doilies around me -- every night.

ARROYO: That would be very attractive.

INGRAHAM: I never liked the doilies. Sandra Day O'Connor started it and it keeps going.

ARROYO: I always want to grab a vase.

INGRAHAM: It reminds me of that thing my grandmother always had on the back of the couch. Those were never cleaned.


INGRAHAM: Democrats are shamelessly exposing their new immigration and border security agenda, Raymond. We're going to tell everyone what is next.


INGRAHAM: Today, the House passed a resolution to support the mission of the officers of ICE by a vote of 244-35. If that number seems a little low to you, it's because only 18 Democrats supported the measure, 133 of those brave ones voted "present." Profiles in courage.

The vote is hardly surprising once you listen to the rhetoric of the new generation of Democratic leaders.


REP. KEITH ELLISON, D—MINN.: Corporations, certain people who get certain rights, can go back and forth across the border seeking out the lowest wages, but people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages. So what it creates is an imbalance. It creates an injustice.

ALEXANDRA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D, NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: We have to occupy all of it. We need to occupy every airport, we need to occupy every border, we need to occupy every ICE office until those kids are back with their parents, period.


INGRAHAM: Alexandria loves the word "occupy" and occupation when she's talking about the Palestinians and Israelis, occupations. Now it's occupy everything.

To discuss the Democrats' real immigration agenda, what this vote tells us, is Fox News contributor Rachel Campos-Duffy, and co-host of "The Five," back by popular demand, Juan Williams rejoins us. Juan, thanks so much for coming back. We had a guest who unfortunately was pulled over by the police on the way to the studio. That is live TV at its finest. That is a kind of stuff that usually happens to me.

Rachel, look, the Democrats, I think they have been boxed in a little bit by the Republicans, quite smartly. But there is a contingent that believes that it's time to go much bolder on the issue of amnesty and immigration and make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Once you cross the border with a family unit, a judge says you can't be deport people right away. So do the Democrats really lose anything with this vote?

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I don't know. But you talked about being boxed in. I'll tell you, they are being boxed in by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Republicans often say that a socialist is an honest Democrat. And she is young, she is bold, and she is politically naive enough to have told the truth.

And for a while I think her ideas, abolishing ICE, open borders, socialism, she's openly socialist, all this stuff the Democrats are really excited because her election was so shocking. And they pulled their masks off for a minute. And Mark Pocan who represents Madison, Wisconsin, came up with a bill to abolish ICE, and everyone was really excited. And then they polled it and they realized that the American people weren't really with them, so they pulled the punch. So Republicans put this bill forward, they all still want to speak to that base that gets everyone excited, the party of Bernie, the party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and so they voted "present" instead of for the bill, which is what they really believe, because they really believe in the same things that Alexandria does.

INGRAHAM: Juan, is that the case? You only had 18 Democrats vote to support Immigration Customs Enforcement. You know this just as I do, they do so much great work on sex trafficking, human trafficking, they assist in the breaking up of these cartel, narcotics operations. But only 18 Democrats?

WILLIAMS: Remember, we've only had ICE I think since after 9/11, so about 15 years of ICE. And in the view of people on the left, Laura, ICE is implicated in the separation of children from parents, and not only that, raiding communities, business, making people extremely nervous about their status here, and breaking up families.

INGRAHAM: Then reform it, then reform ICE. Don't abolish ICE.

WILLIAMS: But the political maneuver here was that the Democrats, and this is the box you were talking about -- the Democrats initially said let's vote to abolish ICE. Then the Republicans pulled the bill and came back with his later effort, which is let's vote in support of ICE. So both sides are playing big politics here.

INGRAHAM: Let's listen -- hold on one second, Rachel. I want you guys to react to what some of the Democrats today were saying about this ICE issue, immigration enforcement in general.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm voting present on this resolution because it is a sham and a distraction. It's shameless and it's inappropriate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we have today is a shameless, spineless group of Republican congressional enablers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You take your marching orders from Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson quicker than the president takes his marching orders from the Kremlin.


WILLIAMS: You are powerful, Laura Ingraham.


CAMPOS-DUFFY: I have to jump in there, Laura.

INGRAHAM: I don't think I've even talked about this vote. I don't think I've ever talked about this vote on the show. I've talked about ICE in general but not about the vote. We've been covering other issues. But Rachel, go ahead.

I just have to jump in because there's all this talk about Russian influence going on. But if you really think about it, the real takeover of the Marxists, the socialists, the old Soviet Union, is on the Democratic Party and on American universities. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a product of a Marxist, socialist, anti-American ideology that is permeating, and has for several decades now, permeated American higher education and out going into high schools and lower. So that is a real concern I have with Russian influence. It's on the Democrat Party and on our education system.

INGRAHAM: Juan, final word from you. Ocasio-Cortez did denounce capitalism, she uses the lingo of the far left and Marxists, the kind of stuff you hear at Thursday night seminars at a university.

WILLIAMS: I think people --

CAMPOS-DUFFY: She is the future of your party.

WILLIAMS: I think people on the right are beating her up, but she's 28 years old. I don't think she's very politically sophisticated. But guess what. When it comes to things like health care, education, when it comes to making sure that people have a living wage, most Americans say yes to these things.

INGRAHAM: She wants it all to be free.

WILLIAMS: People don't want families to be separated by ICE.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Most Americans believe in the rule of law and if you want to reform ICE, you vote for it. You don't occupy, you don't resist.

INGRAHAM: I'm giving two thumbs up to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She needs to just keep going, keep evolving, keep changing.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: She's a true scholar.

INGRAHAM: Exactly.

Facebook finally apologizing to Diamond and Silk but the social media giant is facing more questions over censorship. Herman Cain will explain. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Earlier this year, pro-Trump social media stars Diamond and Silk publicly accused Facebook of censoring their content. They came on the show to tell the story. Some didn't believe them. But just yesterday on Capitol Hill a Facebook exec issued a public apology to the dynamic duo.


MONIKA BICKERT, FACEBOOK GLOBAL POLICY MANAGEMENT HEAD: I do want to acknowledge a videobloggers known as Diamond and Silk. We badly mishandled our communications with them, and since then we have worked hard to improve our relationship. We appreciate the perspective that they add to our platform.


INGRAHAM: That was good.

Joining me now to discuss that and other charges of censorship against Facebook is former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, a Fox News contributor.

Herman, I think you were on that week when this Diamond and Silk issue rose to prominence, and they were being dismissed by the left, like, oh, please. People were saying they were exaggerating to get publicity. And actually that was a nice moment from Facebook. They said we didn't handle this right. They should get some apologies from other people I think.

HERMAN CAIN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Laura, they admitted, Facebook did, that they didn't handle it right. And then they went back and said that they corrected it. I talked with Diamond and Silk personally last week and they are still getting the runaround. You see, the people that are appearing before Congress are professional spinsters. That's what is happening. They will say one thing, but what is actually happening does not match.

And I know from personal experience that a lot of the censoring is happening. My website, other people that I have talked to, their websites are basically experiencing it. And because of this algorithm that mysteriously they have developed that nobody knows what it is, it is doing that censoring and they are in denial that they are in fact trying to censor conservative content.

INGRAHAM: Darrell Issa raised this issue about the social media giants and what the implications could be of the size and scope and how big they are. Let's watch.


REP. DARRELL ISSA, R—CALIF.: Aren't you absorbing the responsibility, and can't and shouldn't we hold you responsible at least to the level of care that newspapers, ever so poorly, are held to?


INGRAHAM: Herman, here's the problem is that we have companies now that have earnings that are a multiple of many sizable countries. They have an enormous amount of power. And when you're talking about an information flow, Facebook is neither -- it shouldn't be a censor, shouldn't be blocking certain views. And they also can control everything on their platform. Now they have just come out with something, we were reading about it tonight, Facebook to remove misinformation that leads to violence. I hope that is never going to be used to target conservative speech, or liberal speech for that matter. But once you start getting into that realm of I'm going to determine content, then I think that you are opening the door to real problems.

CAIN: If it was about --

INGRAHAM: ISIS or something.

CAIN: Yes, associated with ISIS or violence, that is one thing. But otherwise, it is like asking a fox to guard a hen house. That is almost laughable. All of the people within Facebook and all of these other big organizations that have the social media platforms, they simply have a culture of not wanting to basically pass on conservative content.

I don't believe that we will ever be able to accept their judgment in terms of what they consider to be hate speech, negative speech, et cetera. I happen to believe that in individuals are going to have to take charge of what they do with that information. The fox guarding the hen house is not going to work. And I don't care what they say to Congress, I don't believe that it is the true story as to what really happening. Censoring is in fact happening. I know it for a fact, and a lot of other people that I have talked to also know it for a fact.

INGRAHAM: Herman, it's so funny, everyone is bean counting on gender or race or ethnicity or religion. It would be nice to know how many conservatives work at Facebook. It would be nice to have some balance there across the ideological spectrum. Maybe it would get them more fairness. We really appreciate it. Thanks so much, Herman.

When we return, we'll remember a true hero. Come back for that.


INGRAHAM: Before we go, we want to take a moment to honor Secret Service agent Noel Remagen. The 42-year-old died tragically after suffering a stroke during President Trump's trip to the U.K. His body was returned to the United States today and his casket met by loved ones and colleagues along with the president and the first lady.

Secret Service agents have one of the most restful and oftentimes thankless jobs out there. They quietly, heroically put themselves in harm's way to protect our nation's leaders. A GoFundMe page for Agent Remagen's family has been created and has already raised more than $150,000. He has two small children. We encourage everyone to check it out. And may special agent Noel Remagen rest in peace.

Shannon Bream is up next with another fantastic show. Another slow news night, Shannon. I know you will have just a little bit to talk about. But take it away. Can't wait to watch.

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS HOST: We do. And thank you for honoring that hero, a true hero, Laura. Thank you very much.

INGRAHAM: Thanks, Shannon.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.