Mayor of Escondido, California talks fighting sanctuary law
Escondido council voted to join lawsuit against California's sanctuary law; Democratic and Republican California mayors debate sanctuary policies on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
This is a rush transcript from 'The Ingraham Angle,' April 3, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
PAVLICH: Thanks so much, Sean. We appreciate it. Good evening from New York. I'm Katie Pavlich in tonight for Laura Ingraham and this is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. There are stories breaking all over the map tonight and we have you covered for the next hour. The media is freaking out about President Trump sending troops to the border.
We will tell you what the real agenda is. And speaking of getting stories wrong, did the Obama administration put out a false narrative about the Pulse Nightclub terror attack? We will explain that a little later in the hour. Plus, a town in Illinois is trying to ban assault weapons. Is that what the left wants for the whole country? We'll debate it.
But first, the revolt against the sanctuary policies continues with yet another California city fighting back against the golden state's far left stance on immigration. Calling a three-hour impassioned debate, the Escondido City Council voted 4-1 last night to file a brief in support of the Trump administration's lawsuit challenging California's sanctuary laws. Escondido is the first city in San Diego County to pursue legal action against state laws that prohibit most cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agents.
Joining us now is Fox News correspondent, Griff Jenkins at the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego -- Griff.
GRIFF JENKINS, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Katie. There is an undeniable backlash against Governor Brown's controversial sanctuary laws in particular that SP-54, which prohibits the cooperation between the local and the federal law enforcement and folks who live in San Diego County near and along the fence bordering between San Diego and Tijuana. The folks at that contentious meeting 45 miles north of here felt it last night. Protesters were all over the place. Tempers were flaring. There were more than 60 people in communities speaking. One man in particular caught our attention. He came to this country 45 years ago and played by the rules. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MALE RESIDENT OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA: I came to this country 45 years ago with me and my mother. OK, 45 years ago, we were not offered sanctuary. We were not offered easier, softer way. OK? We were told you have to be an American citizen. Here is what you have to do. We did it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JENKINS: After that vote which passed 4-1, the mayor told me he was pleased with the vote but was concerned because since 2010 he rounded up more than 2,000 illegal criminal aliens in part because of the cooperation between ICE stationed in Escondido Police Department. Well, with the new law, Katie, that is no more. That is why we spoke with ICE's regional field director, Greg Archambeault, here in San Diego, who 30 years ago was one of those ICE agents stationed inside the Escondido Police Department. Here is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREGORY ARCHAMBEAULT, DIRECTOR OF ICE'S SAN DIEGO FIELD OFFICE: We have a collaborative relationship with the local law enforcement partners and we have always had that collaborative relationship.
Now it's been strained by state law and it frustrates the law enforcement agencies, the local law enforcement agencies, because they want to collaborate with us. They want to remove threats of the public safety from their community. They want criminal aliens to be out of their communities. We want to enforce immigration law and remove the threats from the community and the country. Now they can't do that. Now their hands are tied.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JENKINS: Now what happens next is San Diego County Board of Supervisors will vote on April 17th to take some sort of similar action like Escondido. Two of those supervisors told me today they expect something will indeed pass. But Escondido now the fifth or the sixth municipality behind. We saw last week Orange County. We saw this week Huntington Beach and San Juan Capistrano taking action. This is without a doubt, Katie, Governor Brown has a problem because the residents of California feel that these laws have crossed the line between protecting the rights of illegal criminals and the safety of those communities -- Katie.
PAVLICH: Griff, thanks so much. Joining us now is the man at the center of the story. Escondido Mayor Sam Abed, who is a Republican, and the Berkeley, California, Mayor Jesse Arreguin. Thank you both so much. I should know that the Berkeley mayor is a Democrat who supports sanctuary policies. But first, I want to go to you, Mayor Abed. You took the oath of office as a citizen coming to the country as an immigrant. Explain to me how it plays in your decision tonight to be against the sanctuary laws coming out of Sacramento.
SAM ABED, MAYOR OF ESCONDIDO: I took the oath twice, Katie. First, when I became citizen, in 1990, and then second time when I was elected councilman in 2004, and last time when I was elected mayor in 2010. I came this this country to keep my family safe. And I see myself here fighting for the safety of my family and the families of Escondido. I represent the 150,000 of our residents. Our relationship with ICE has worked perfectly. The ICE agents have made my case.
And we have deported over 2,000 illegal criminals for from our city with our cooperation with ICE we focus on criminals only. Now the ICE agents are on their own and in the community, and in our neighborhood, at our stations picking up criminals and innocent people. As a result of our cooperation with ICE, the crime in Escondido went down by 33 percent. Escondido today as safe as it was in 1980. I was elected mayor to uphold the Constitution and also to keep my community safe. This resolution to fight the state sanctuary law is at the core of my mission.
PAVLICH: So, Mayor Arreguin, I want to get your response to that. The mayor of Escondido is saying they had 2,000 criminal aliens that they have deported from their community which would be on the street if Sacramento had its way by banning local law enforcement from working with the federal government. What do you have to say about that? Why should 2,000 criminal aliens still be in these communities?
JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR OF BERKELEY: Well, I think it's important to define what you mean by 'criminal' because certainly violation of the federal, civil, immigration law is a crime. Are we talking about people that are violent criminals or people that are just the victims of a broken immigration system? And certainly, Escondido, they have a right to take positions on issues that are important to their community, but Escondido doesn't speak for Berkeley and they don't speak for the state of California. There are many cities throughout the bay area and the state of California that believe that sanctuary policies make communities safer. For example, in my city, crime has gone down in the last ten years. And even with the sanctuary policy, our police are still cooperating with federal agencies. There was an operation in my city a couple of weeks ago where Homeland Security investigations arrested an illegal immigrant who was engaged in drug crime –
PAVLICH: The local police in Berkeley -- it's nice that the local police of Berkeley are trying to stop illegal criminal aliens with those crimes. If you want to get into the details of what defines as criminal, Governor Jerry Brown just pardoned five criminal aliens with violent records like domestic violence, theft, robbery, armed robbery, carrying out crimes with the handgun. I mean, Mayor Abed, what is your response to other municipalities allowing these criminal aliens to continue to operate inside California? Because they can just drive down to where you are. It's not like there is a border.
ABED: Absolutely. I think this is a risk that not only Escondido but every city in California, and every state in the nation. This mayor is in denial. They want to give sanctuary to illegal criminals. Giving sanctuaries to illegal criminals and giving them more rights and protect the rights more than the citizens is just immoral, it's illegal and unconstitutional. We need to keep our community safe. SB-52, the sanctuary state will give the immigrants, the legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, less protection because ICE will be in our neighborhoods picking up everyone. This is just insane. This is immoral. I cannot understand who anybody, who anybody would give the illegal criminals protection from the law and more rights than giving to the citizens. It's just unbelievable. California is emotional. Governor Brown and the mayors, the progressive mayors and the legislators have lost sight of doing the right thing.
PAVLICH: Well, Mayor Abed, you are not alone. I want to pull up this map of other cities and municipalities, counties, who are looking at either pushing back against Sacramento or already have. There is almost more than a dozen of them at this point. So, clearly local communities are looking at that and saying we don't want to be part of these laws that don't allow the local law enforcement to work with the feds. But going back to Mr. Arreguin, for just a moment, what do you have to say to those who are victims of crimes of criminal aliens who are allowed to be out on the streets now because these new sanctuary state laws allow them to escape ICE and recommit crimes?
ARREGUIN: Well, my response to that is we have undocumented residents who are –
PAVLICH: OK, first of all. What is an undocumented resident? That is not a thing.
ARREGUIN: Somebody who is undocumented who lives in our community.
PAVLICH: An illegal alien.
ARREGUIN: You may choose to define them that way. I'm referring to them as undocumented. Our immigration process is flawed, it takes years for people to actually get citizenship status. We have to remember we are a nation of immigrants.
PAVLICH: The guy on the other side of your screen, Mayor Abed, came here legally.
ARREGUIN: -- immigration reform to actually fix the process so people can legally become citizens.
PAVLICH: OK, I have to stop you there. You are arguing that in America, the United States of America, the most generous country in the world, people are unable to become citizens and to take the oath of office, to stand up for the Constitution of the United States. The man who is debating you tonight, Mayor Abed, did that. He did that for his country. So, for you to say that is impossible to get citizenship just is not on par with the facts. Mayor Abed, do you want to respond?
ABED: It's offensive. It's clearly offensive. You know, they are getting -- my two daughters went to the University of San Marcos. We paid for tuition. Illegal immigrants pay less tuition in the school system. They are given more rights. Not only educationally, financially, they are harboring them now. They are giving them more rights. They lost track, I think the Democrat, I think Sacramento, Governor Brown, and our mayor here on the show lost track. They are really emotional about the administration and the last election. Their emotion and this is clouding their good judgment of doing the right thing. There is a disconnect between them and their constituents. I think you will see a pushback. I think the number of the cities against the sanctuary state is going to grow and it is going to grow. I think there is a movement. I'm very proud to lead this effort.
PAVLICH: Mayor Arreguin, you get the final word.
ARREGUIN: Well, I'll just say that I do believe that sanctuary cities make communities safer. Victim of domestic violence are more likely to report those crimes and seek intervention of police if they know that they are not going to be deported. In Oakland and the bay area where there are recent raids and arrests of people that were undocumented, half the people had no violent or criminal record.
PAVLICH: I think American citizens take issue with the fact they are not allowed to break the law, but illegal aliens are constantly shielded from the law in California which is why cities and counties are fighting back. Mayor Arreguin and Mayor Abed, thank you so much. The state of California was busy defying federal immigration law, a Los Angeles judge issued a preliminary ruling last week that coffee in the state must include cancer warning. While California welcoming criminals in the state, a judge is trying to protect people from coffee. Joining me now for reaction, Fox News contributor and president of Independent Women's Voice, Tammy Bruce, whose latest article is all about California's wacky approach to public safety.
TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: You know, a great segment just now because the absurdity is really highlighted there with some of those arguments. As they are doing this, those arguments are made and as you mention the governor had pardoned actually 70 criminals but five ex-convict illegal aliens including convictions for kidnapping, and all of that. Pardon so they can avoid being deported. In the meantime, a judge is now forcing coffee shops to post a cancer warning in anyplace that serves coffee. I could be the Starbucks or the 7-eleven so that you can at least be reminded that maybe it's your lifestyle that is the problem.
But also, they are considering banning straws and plastic caps on bottles because we all love the oceans. We want to save the oceans. What we know about the plastic in the ocean the super majority over 90 percent is coming from China. So, banning straws in California is not going to save the ocean. So, the messaging here is, well, criminal illegal aliens are being embraced and protected, American citizens going about their regular business, having a straw, having a cup of coffee, the message is that you are the problem, your lifestyle is the problem and you are the ones who have to be controlled.
PAVLICH: Yes, California has a whole list of warning signs and labels that they put on things. Amusement parks, hotels, boats, wooding furniture and flooring, pumpkin puree, potatoes in California have a warning. I mean, the list goes on and on and on. Any person who possesses a number of living frog for jumping contest must be condemned.
BRUCE: It would signal that they care about people. They want to keep you safe and that they need to keep you safe from yourself. In the meantime, if you are at a coffee shop getting your coffee and worried about the coffee will hurt you, the person standing next to you might be that criminal illegal alien, ex-convict, who is a kidnapper standing right next to you. So, the messaging is the American citizen is the problem that has to be protected from themselves as they then effectively embrace criminals who we know have behavior that harm individuals and actually elevate them and embrace them. This is leftist message. We see it whether it's Los Angeles or London. You can see what unregulated liberalism does and that's the bottom line, it's liberalism that is the danger to individuals in this country and liberal policy, certainly not the American citizen.
PAVLICH: What I would say is leftism -- liberalism has a way of making it seem like openness and freedom when really it's California becoming what of a totalitarian state. BRUCE: The policies work to control people not to set them free. That is the difference.
PAVLICH: The thing is we were trying to not to laugh. Actually, we did laugh because it's funny, but the truth is when you get down to the seriousness of this and you laid it out eloquently in your op-ed, which is available at foxnews.com. This is about the criminality and people's lives affected.
BRUCE: That is right. You have criminals who have a history of behavior that destroys lives. In the meantime, California last year also passed a law demanding that farmers control the flatulence of cows because of the global warming, which is impossible. But if you then wake up in California, you effectively in a lot of ways could automatically be a criminal. Also, San Francisco, you can only park a car in your garage, nothing else. It's remarkable micro managing of your lives. While then ushering in directly dangerous frameworks in your lives and of course, it confuses people. It sends a message that we are the problem and it also for tyranny it does create a division, chaos and effectively a confusion about what one can do in their lives and where you can be safe. In California, it's not many places.
PAVLICH: That is why I think we are seeing so many municipalities pushing back on this.
BRUCE: It has to be the people to push back because the politicians want more of this. They will never stop it.
PAVLICH: Right. They love power and control. Thank you, Tammy, so much.
BRUCE: Thanks, Katie.
PAVLICH: Up next, the media is in a tizzy over President Trump sending troops to the border. We'll tell you what they are getting wrong straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAVLICH: Yesterday, President Trump signed a proclamation to send the National Guard to the border. Today, he specified that he wants 2,000 to 4,000 troops assisting the border patrol near Mexico. The media reaction to Trump's border move wasn't exactly calm and rational.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: This is a political move and it suggests that the president sees the military as play toy.
ERROL LOUIS, NY1 HOST: This is I would call security theater. This is election year politicking and what he wants is the image.
JEH JOHNSON, FORMER SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: When you talk about military in the border, it conjures up an image of soldiers in uniforms standing there with bayonets in the Rio Grande.
STEVE SCHMIDT, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: At the end of the day when we look from a national security perspective, we'll see someone precipitate a national security crisis to get a lot of people killed.
ELI STOKOLS, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: This is based on the whims of a very impetuous and sort of reactive president.
REP. RUBEN GALLEGO, D—A.Z.: The president essentially using the National Guard creating this hysteria that there is somehow a national emergency and using our taxpayer dollars to try to booster his low poll numbers especially with his base.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAVLICH: Joining me now is someone who agrees with those voices you just heard, immigration attorney, Francisco Hernandez. Francisco, thanks so much for being here.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Thank you for having me, Ms. Pavlich.
PAVLICH: So, my first question is why is it that the President George W. Bush in 2006 and later President Obama, why is it that they enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support to send the National Guard to the border, but yet here we are with President Donald Trump and there seems to be a problem?
HERNANDEZ: Actually, they didn't enjoy bipartisan support.
PAVLICH: On Capitol Hill, they did.
HERNANDEZ: They didn't. Everybody thought it was a dumb idea, but it's really detraction. What happened to DACA and immigration reform or let's go back to basics. What happened to building the wall and Mexico pay for it? I said OK, let's go. We have to legalize 100,000 Mexicans to build it. What is going on? Congress, the Republican majority has not given President Trump $1 to put the first brick on the border. Are we forgetting that then? Now we are going back in the Boogeyman about sanctuary cities. Come on, guys.
PAVLICH: They passed $1.6 billion for the wall. So, what are you saying?
HERNANDEZ: No, that is the repair -- that is to repair the parts that fell in (inaudible) when we started to build it.
PAVLICH: We did an update last week and said they are preparing the wall, but they are starting to build the new wall inspectors. They have been requested to by local border agents (inaudible).
HERNANDEZ: No. We haven't even started the illegal proceedings for eminent domain. If you build a wall, you're doing is locking in the 11 million, law-abiding hardworking people loving America. I told you this before. Nobody loves America as much as undocumented immigrants.
PAVLICH: Then they should become citizens.
HERNANDEZ: They would if they could.
PAVLICH: They can. There is a process.
HERNANDEZ: If you listen to Mr. Hannity's proposal and President Trump's proposal this creates a system –
PAVLICH: Wait. Let's just take a step back. President Trump, you mentioned DACA, offered to give 1.6 illegal aliens a path to citizenship. I want to go back to the main problem here.
HERNANDEZ: What happened to it? Where did it go?
PAVLICH: The Democrats didn't want it.
HERNANDEZ: Why blame the Democrats? It's the Republican majority. It's a Republican majority.
PAVLICH: The administration is arguing border security first to get rid of this magnet illegal immigration that we keep seeing, 50,000 people across the southern border in March after Congress talking about offering some kind of amnesty.
(CROSSTALK)
HERNANDEZ: Hold on.
PAVLICH: I want to go to President Trump and get you to respond. HERNANDEZ: Didn't he just last month –
PAVLICH: We'll listen to the president and have you respond. OK? He talked to the National Guard today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We cannot let people enter our country. We have no idea who they are, what they do, where they came from. We are working on the systems now and we called out the national guard. I will tell you what, the laws of the country have to be strengthened and toughened up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAVLICH: What is wrong with that? The United States of America, the Mexican ambassador of America actually said that we have a joint interest in making sure our border is secure. So, what's wrong with what the president said?
HERNANDEZ: You know, I don't care what Mexico thinks, but you know what the magnet? We hire them every time we get a roof or food, we are hiring them. We are the magnet that brings them. The other governments expel them. We are hiring them. We are at least 50 percent responsible. Let's get on to create a system where these folks who work hard and don't –
PAVLICH: We are talking about the president calling up the National Guard to go on the border. That is the issue here. HERNANDEZ: No.
PAVLICH: We are not discussing the issue of amnesty; which I know you want to come first but for years' people have been promised that they would have the border security in exchange for the amnesty. It has not worked. The administration is doing the opposite now -- HERNANDEZ: The administration said they –
PAVLICH: -- talk about the same thing as Bush and Obama. Your side of the political aisle thinks it's something new and unprecedented or unnecessary. HERNANDEZ: Don't put me on either side of the aisle. I'm a libertarian. Don't go there. Both sides are to blame. Both sides need a boogeyman. Democrats want to keep on blasting the other side and Republicans don't want to solve the issue. You and, we discussed, the temporary worker visas. What is wrong with that?
PAVLICH: Give Americans jobs first. (CROSSTALK)
PAVLICH: We are out of time. Final thoughts.
HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
PAVLICH: OK. Francisco, thank you. Appreciate it. To respond, let's bring in someone who knows about border enforcement. Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick who is a Republican. DAN PATRICK (R),
TEXAS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Hi, Katie.
PAVLICH: Thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it. Talk to us about the impact of the National Guard on the southern border. How will this help border patrol and how will it stop the illegal crossings into your state? PATRICK: Well, first of all, Texas has taken the lead joining the president in securing the border. In Texas and our budget as lieutenant governor we have put $800 million in each of the budgets to do the job that Obama didn't do. Thank God for Donald Trump. He campaigned on this. He knew what he was talking about. America reacted. America is supporting him today. I heard earlier your one guest said something about his approval rating. It's up over 50 percent. Republicans 85-90 percent. People get this president stands for Americans and not criminals coming to the country illegally. So, in terms of the National Guard, we welcome it. I hope he leaves them here until hell freezes over or until the wall is built. It makes a difference. When Rick Perry called out the National Guard four years ago as he was leaving office, it made a difference. When you have men and women in uniform on the border it sends a message that we are serious about protecting the country. We are all in, in Texas with President Trump on this issue.
PAVLICH: Lieutenant Governor, can you expand on that and how crime from illegal immigration has affected the state of Texas both in terms of the human and the economic cost on your state? PATRICK: Well, let's just look at the facts. I hear Democrats and the liberals on Fox all the time and other networks decrying there are no crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Number one, in Texas only in the last seven years, we have put in our jails over 245,000 criminal aliens. These are the facts. We have charged them with 650,000 crimes either current or on the rap sheet. We have convictions for 566 murders, 274 kidnappings and when President Trump talks about rape, in Texas in the last seven years 3,244 sexual assaults, join that with 40,000 other assaults, 40,000 drug crimes. Thousands of gun crimes and thousands and thousands of gang members like MS-13 in this country committing crimes. I hear the mayor of Berkeley say sanctuary cities make us safety, that is nonsense. In Texas, we passed Senate Bill 4 last February early in session and it has been upheld by the court. We now give power to the police if they want to ask where you are coming from and ask to see your documents you can do it in Texas. Secondly, if Jerry Brown tried to pull a stunt in California which is anarchy, he is not upholding his oath. Look if oath Jerry Brown took is the same thing that I took, or Governor Abbott took except the state changes, the name. We swear an oath to the Constitution and uphold the laws of the country. Our state and Jerry Brown is not doing it. In Texas if any of the Democrats defy working with ICE, we number one can fine the cities and we can arrest those elected officials and run them out of the office. We are not putting up with this nonsense in Texas. America is with the president and Texas. That is why everyone wants to move to Texas.
PAVLICH: Don't mess with Texas. That is for sure, one final thought. What impact is the National Guard going to have in terms of really bolstering the efforts of border patrol to get back on the front lines and do what they need to do to stem the increase flow of illegal immigration that we've seen over the past couple of months? PATRICK: Well, there is a lot in symbolism. First of all, and what you said, President Trump helped border crossing goes down by taking a stuff stance and waiting for Congress to step up with the funds for the wall and more border agents. Now, he is going from rhetoric to action because Congress (inaudible) and its time for Congress to give him the money for the wall. We need the wall. Not in every mile. There's some natural barriers and some you can do electronic, but in many areas particularly around our big cities where most people cross the border and get into these big cities and disappear into the population. We need walls around these major crossings. We have 19 alone in Texas with Mexico. So, having the National Guard sends a strong message. Look, if you're from Central America, that's where a lot of the gang members are coming with Ms-13 and other gangs and you get to the border and you see men in military uniforms and women standing on the border, it sends a very strong message.
PAVLICH: Absolutely. PATRICK: And it will cut down -- it will be a deterrent. It will send them back to where they went and secondly, it will keep us safer. You also mentioned the economic impact. We now –
PAVLICH: We are running out of time, Lieutenant Governor. I really appreciate it but -- PATRICK: -- economic impact as well as crime.
PAVLICH: Absolutely. Thank you so much, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, really appreciate it.
PATRICK: Thank you, Katie. The president is on target.
PAVLICH: All right, thank you. Up next, the left is out to get EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Will President Trump stand by his man?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAVLICH: Welcome back. Pressure is mounting tonight for President Trump to dismiss EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after reports surfaced that he had a rented condo owned by the wife of an energy lobbyist for $50 a night. To explain what is going on, let's bring in FOX chief national correspondent Ed Henry.
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Scott Pruitt kept making the case to me that he has been a strong implementer of President Trump's agenda of cutting government regulations to stimulate the economy and save taxpayer money. And the best news for him right now is the president seemed to respond to the case today by saying he still has confidence in Pruitt. But White House officials privately note this president had previously voiced support for other cabinet chiefs only to push them out shortly thereafter. In fact, today a White House spokesman seemed to give Pruitt soft backing by saying he could not speak to the administrator's future.
CNN is reporting the president saw Pruitt's interview on FOX and was not happy with the answers. White House officials also spreading the word that told Pruitt not to do the interview but he did it anyway, much like he is accused of going around the White House to get big pay raises for those two close aides. In fact the 'Washington Post' reporting tonight that despite telling FOX he only found out about it this week that that's not true. Meanwhile, Pruitt is dealing with new problems. Another top aide, Samantha Dravis, has indicated she is resigning. Insiders say it's unrelated to the questions, but it comes at the time that other aides are looking to get out amid turmoil.
A new memo from EPA ethics lawyer suggests he only OK'd the arrangement where Pruitt rented an apartment from a lobbyist based on federal gift rules but did not have all the facts to determine whether it presented a conflict of interest. And a third House Republican today called on Pruitt to go. An aide to Congresswoman Elise Stefanik saying the upstate New York lawmaker believes, quote, it's in the best interest of the EPA for Mr. Pruitt to resign. Though supporters of Pruitt are rallying to his defense. Rand Paul you can see tweeting Scott Pruitt is likely the bravest and most conservative member of the Trump's cabinet. We need him to help Donald Trump drain the regulatory swamp. And Kim Strassel, columnist for the 'Wall Street Journal' has noted that then President Barack Obama's EPA chief Lisa Jackson spent almost twice as much money on an official trip to China than was spent on a trip to Italy by Pruitt, who told FOX he believes the media largely gave Obama a pass. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: An Obama cabinet official rented an apartment here in Washington from the wife of a Washington lobbyist, you don't think Donald Trump –
SCOTT PRUITT, ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR: You know what I think about it, Ed? They wouldn't even look at those issues back then.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that Scott is doing a fantastic. I think he is a fantastic person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: So a vote of confidence there with the president. But the 'New York Times' reporting at least five EPA officials were reassigned or demoted after they voiced concerns about big spending, plus the fact that Pruitt wanted an expanded 20-person protective detail, very large for a cabinet chief. But he did tell me in that interview because of his effectiveness in overturning regulations liberals are so angry that he has gotten lots of death threats, so we should put it in that context, Katie.
PAVLICH: Ed, thank you very much, appreciate it. President Trump traveled to West Virginia today where he had some tough talk for China.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For many years, no president wanted to go against China economically. And we are going to do it. We have a trade deficit of $500 billion last year with China. And I have great respect for the president of China, President Xi, but he is representing China and I'm representing the United States of America. And it was time that we did something.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAVLICH: And late breaking tonight, President Trump says he is considering an additional $100 billion in tariffs on China after the communist state said it might levy tariffs on $50 billion in American products such as soy beans and pork. Joining me now for reaction is Democratic strategist Antwan Seawright. Thank you so much for being here tonight.
ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you for having me.
PAVLICH: So what do you make of the president's tit-for-tat with China? He says he can win the trade war. What do you think about that?
SEAWRIGHT: I think it's a very dangerous game that we are playing going tit-for-tat with China and calling it a trade war. Keep in mind, no one expected China to respond as quickly as they did and dollar for dollar in terms of responding to Donald J. Trump. And quite frankly the burden will be passed down to the middle class working families, especially farmers. These are people who came out in large numbers for Donald J. Trump. So I think he is going down a very dangerous political path and it could be very hurtful for him in the 2018 election cycle.
PAVLICH: I think that is actually a valid point. You see the Chinese are not stupid. They are targeting states like Iowa and Kansas on these tariffs, targeting goods the specifically come from Trump country. The president is getting backing from a number of people. We have a quote from Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J.P. Morgan. He is backing the president's strong stance on China. He says we have entered a time of uncertainty over global trade. President Trump has begun to demand material changes in our trade agreements with many countries and nations, probably most importantly between the United States and China, the world's two largest economies. We should acknowledge many of the legitimate complaints about trade. It is not unreasonable for the United States to press ahead for more equivalency. One of the administration's best arguments is that negotiation alone has not worked. So we have seen a number of officials, including the Republican politicians criticizing the president for this, saying we need to punish China for intellectual property theft, but there are other ways to go about it. But then I'm not seeing a lot of offers on the table about how to actually go after China in this way. SEAWRIGHT: I think that will be up to the legislative branch to do it if they really want to get that done. And it should be done in a bipartisan way. None of this should be done in a partisan way because it will impact Democrats and Republicans alike. So I'm very disappointed that the president is taking the approach.
PAVLICH: That is interesting because a lot of Democrats actually agree with him. This has been more of an issue for Republican. But I want to bring in Charlie Hurt now from Washington D.C., columnist with the 'Washington Times.' And is Charlie with us? We got Charlie. Thank you. So what is your take on this? The president threatening to levy an additional $100 billion against China on tariffs. Are they being strategic in targeting some of his most ardent supporters?
CHARLES HURT, OPINION EDITOR, 'WASHINGTON TIMES': I think without a doubt they are being strategic. But at the end of the day the thing that is important to remember is one thing everybody agrees upon is for a long time China has been taking advantage of the United States. They have been stealing intellectual property. They have not been practicing free trade the way that all of the agreements had envisioned. And so goodness knows I love free trade. I want free trade. I think Donald Trump wants free trade. But at some point you have to address the problems that have plagued the United States for decades now. And I think Donald Trump, what his strategy is you use these tariffs as a cudgel, as a way of browbeating China at least to the table to discuss some of the things. And will it work? We don't know. But I do think politicians from both sides of the aisle have ignored this problem for decades. And it was a chief reason he got elected president in the first place.
PAVLICH: Antjuan, you wanted to respond to that?
SEAWRIGHT: I think if Trump wants to be tough on China at this point when he and his businesses continue to benefit from sourcing to China, his family businesses, there were nine trademarks last year that were outsourced to China. So I think if he is going to be tough on China, let's be tough on China all the way, and not when it's just beneficial.
PAVLICH: I think it's being pretty tough on China. I think this will probably hurt his businesses if we want to go into that.
SEAWRIGHT: We don't know.
PAVLICH: Hang on one second.
SEAWRIGHT: You don't know.
PAVLICH: Charlie, I want to go back to you.
HURT: All of these tariffs, all of these things that he is talking about doing would have the same effect for his own businesses as they would for any other business out there, as it should be.
PAVLICH: Charlie, I do want to ask a political question here, however. We are up against the midterm election. I know that the administration is hoping that the ends justifies the means here, but there is going to be a squeeze when it comes to the middle of the country on a lot of these tariffs. The administration is arguing that it's temporary. Larry Kudlow was saying it is a temporary move to better long-term trade deal with China. But are there going to be political implications for that?
HURT: I think there are absolute political risks. There's no doubt about that. But that is what this guy got elected to do was to take these political risks, and quite frankly, and you know this, Katie, we have been listening to the politicians for so long. They make promises, they never even attempt to do anything to fix problems that they campaigned on. This guy, yes, it's a rough road, and there are real risks and real political risks, but at least he is doing what he said he would do.
PAVLICH: True. Good point. Antjuan, last to you. SEAWRIGHT: I don't know, Charlie, if you consider doing what he said he would do by cutting into the fabric of who these people are. These farmers are going to feel this in a real way in middle class working America. I don't think again the president wants to travel down that dark political road.
PAVLICH: It is a tough call, because China does need some reining in for sure, and they certainly need to be punished for stealing intellectual property and a number of other trade secrets. That's for sure. Charlie, Antjuan, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. HURT: Thanks, Katie.
PAVLICH: The left is caught red-handed after another one of their narratives crumbles before their eyes. Stay tuned. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAVLICH: Another narrative from the left has fallen apart, this time over the 2016 Pulse nightclub mass shooting in Orlando. In the wake of Omar Mateen's shooting rampage that killed 49 at the gay nightclub, Obama administration officials and many in the media were quick to say it was fueled by anti-gay bigotry.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: This was an act of terror and it was an act of hate. We know the story by now. The target was a gay club during a Latin night. And the individuals who were harmed, who were killed, were members and friends of the LGBT community, many of them Latino.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAVLICH: But leave it to a favorite outlet of the left to expose those assertions as utterly false. A new report by the 'Huffington Post' proclaims everyone got the Pulse massacre story completely wrong. Details how the trial of Mateen's wife Noor Salman revealed his assault of the nightclub was a crime of random opportunity and driven by an allegiance to ISIS. Joining us now with reaction, counterterrorism analyst Lisa Daftari. Lisa, thanks so much for being here.
LISA DAFTARI, COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: My pleasure.
PAVLICH: So my first question is why is it that whenever we have some sort of terrorist attack like this, God forbid on American soil, or overseas frankly, does the left and the media automatically go to finding a motive that has nothing to do with the actual situation? DAFTARI: Yes. That is the question here right now is to say we had plenty of evidence to know that this man pledge allegiance to ISIS. He said on Facebook and at other times that his actions were in retaliation for the bombings in Syria. Yet because this was at a gay nightclub it became a hate crime.
The question becoming, why is the media so quick to mute or to erase the jihadi narrative? Is it because we want to be so politically correct and not marginalize the LGBT community here? Or is it because they truly don't want or want to ignore the real threat here which is that there are Americans who are being recruited who are pledging allegiance who live right here in the United States? And the answer to that is that if you are fearful of perhaps being insensitive to a small minority group, you are being more insensitive to the American people and really belittling them when you are not thinking of the largest security issue here.
PAVLICH: You bring up the narrative. I want to put up on the screen a couple of quotes from mainstream media members in the aftermath of the Pulse nightclub shooting. 'Daily Beast' Tim Teeman said at the time 'Let's say it plainly. This was a mass slaying aimed at LGBT people. This was a homophobic act. 'New Republics' Jeet Heer also arguing the same thing. 'The Orlando Massacre was undeniably a homophobic hate crime.' Then here, 'U.S. News' James Robbins says numerous subsequent reports that Omar had strong homosexual urges paint the picture of a young man trying to reconcile his inner feelings with his strongly homophobic Muslim culture.' But now that we have been through the trial of the wife we are seeing that this had nothing to do with his actual motive. Explain that. When this attack first happened you had some in-depth reporting, exclusive reporting on the motive in this attack.
DAFTARI: Yes. Absolutely. And why the myopic view? Why does this need to check just one box? Why do we say workplace violence or the person was mentally unstable or whatever it may be? The answer here is that the person who does pledge allegiance to ISIS and does have this jihadi point of view does beat his wife, which we came to find out. He does probably hate gays which he randomly came upon this nightclub. So why this narrow view to shut out or discredit or preclude any kind of narrative? And now that we have like extracted the narrative that this was a hate crime, why was this, why was there a push to get rid of the real narrative, which is jihadism? The one thing I did report on right after this was an Al Qaeda media on their online news outlet, they put out this alert to wannabe jihadis, telling them if you are going to launch an attack, make sure that you don't do it on a minority group, because piggybacking off of this attack they thought Americans will only take blame themselves if it's a hate crime. So make sure if you are to launch an attack that it's in the name of jihad and it's only against white Americans so that they know that this was purely jihad. They want the credit. They want it to be branded. And we allowed them in this situation for two years to get away with a false narrative.
PAVLICH: We are running out of time. But just re-going over the case, it seems like looking at all the facts when the warning signs were ignored about jihadism by a number of law enforcement agencies, here we are now, as you mentioned, with the narrative for years on end being about a hate crime rather than addressing the real issue and trying to prevent it in the future. Final word? DAFTARI: Absolutely. And I think the false kind of thing that is coming out about this now, even in the 'Huffington Post' piece is that this is stuff that came to light after the trial. And that is absolutely not true. We knew all these pieces of evidence when the crime happened, that pledged allegiance to ISIS, that he was doing this to retaliate for the so-called crimes that America is committing in Syria. This was all really to just take away from the real narrative that this was jihad and this was Islamic terrorism.
PAVLICH: Lisa Daftari, one of the best, thank you for coming on. Appreciate it.
DAFTARI: Thank you.
PAVLICH: Give up your gun or face the consequences. Where a mayor just struck down the Second Amendment, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAVLICH: Well, the left's antigun agenda has scored a major victory in the aftermath of the Parkland Florida mass shooting. Officials in the Chicago suburb of Deerfield have banned the possession, sale, and manufacture of assault style weapons and large capacity magazines. The residents have until June 13th to give them up, and if they refuse they will face fines up to $1,000 per day. Will other liberal strongholds soon try to follow in Deerfield's path? Joining us now with reaction is Democratic strategist Joel Payne. Joel, we have been hearing for weeks that the left doesn't have an antigun agenda, they don't have an agenda of banning guns. But yet here we are with Deerfield, Illinois, not just banning assault rifles, which really is a loaded political term, we are talking about semi-automatic sporting rifles here, but a number of other accessories that they deem as military style. JOEL PAYNE,
DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I don't think this is actually the left that is doing this. This is a locality that's coming together to do something for the safety of their community, the same as another community did very near Deerfield, I believe it was Highland Park, I believe, in 2013. And they actually survived a couple of legal challenges that show that this is something that the court did not stand in the way of. It follows suit with what Florida did in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting. These are localities coming together because the national government, our national leaders failed to act meaningfully on gun control, on ensuring that we are protecting the citizen from gun violence.
PAVLICH: Not everyone was on board with this, though. The majority of people who spoke at the meeting said they were against the measure. I want to play some sound from a woman who was at the meeting who was actually against banning these types of firearms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is going to be lots of talk about Second Amendment rights, but I'd be hard-pressed to find any right that is completely unrestricted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAVLICH: Sorry, she is for the measure. But my question is, how does Illinois not have a number of pieces of legislation and regulations on the books already when it comes to gun control?
PAYNE: Looks, states and localities have the right to act to make sure they are protecting the citizens. The same way if you go to certain counties, they may be dry counties where you can't alcohol at certain times.
PAVLICH: Is alcohol in the Bill of Rights?
PAYNE: You have to be a certain age to drive –
PAVLICH: Is driving a constitutional right?
PAYNE: They came together as a community to decide this is what will keep their community safe. Conservatives usually like this by the way.
PAVLICH: Answer my question. Is driving or drinking alcohol, are those constitutional rights? PAYNE: Excuse me?
PAVLICH: Is drinking alcohol and driving a vehicle constitutional rights?
PAYNE: Those aren't constitutional rights but those are certainly things that the government –
PAVLICH: We shouldn't treat constitutional rights when there are one. PAYNE: Other amendments in our cherished amendments we have restrictions on. We have restrictions on all of our amendments –
PAVLICH: We have restrictions on the Second Amendment.
PAYNE: -- not be prevent us from being able to enjoy them fully but to be able to enjoy them responsibly.
PAVLICH: OK. PAYNE: So again I think it's very inconsistent ideologically for conservatives to say that now they have a problem with local governments and the localities coming together to protect their community.
PAVLICH: Conservatives don't believe in taking out certain pieces of the Bill of Rights depending on what place you live in. I would hope that the entire Bill of Rights would apply that way. But my question for you based on the fact that this ban did pass, how are they going to enforce this? They say they're going to charge people $1,000 a day if they don't turn the firearms over by June 13th. Are they then going to search people's homes unlawfully? Are they going to go get a warrant to decide whose home they get to search and seize their weapons? How are you actually going to enforce something like this?
PAYNE: Why would you assume they do anything unlawfully? How do you enforce any other law or regulation or ordinance?
PAVLICH: I'm honestly asking are you going to go door to door to people's homes and confiscate their firearms? How do you enforce a law like this? PAYNE: I don't live by I imagine it's the same way you would do anything.
PAVLICH: But you want this for the rest of the country, right? PAYNE: If there is a law against jaywalking I assume that people if they are caught jaywalking they are going to be fined or reprimanded.
PAVLICH: Jaywalking is the same exact thing as the Second Amendment, it's the same exactly thing. Seriously, the left talks all about how they don't want to confiscate firearms. They pass legislation like this -- PAYNE: Look at Florida. Florida is a Trump state. They did the same thing.
PAVLICH: They raised the age. They did not do the same thing. OK, but answer my question. How do you enforce a law like this without actually violating a number of the other rights we have in the constitution like non, improper search and seizure? How are they going to enforce this law and how do they do it across the country?
PAYNE: I'm not quite sure how to answer you question how do you enforce the law.
PAVLICH: Exactly.
PAYNE: You enforce the law the way you do anything. You work you're your local officials to make sure that they are aware of what the regulations are and you take steps to make sure that the citizens are aware of that. And if people run afoul of it, you hold them account for it. How do you enforce any law?
PAVLICH: This is exactly why gun owners don't want a national register.
PAYNE: This was upheld by court, by the way. It was upheld by the seventh appeals court, and also Supreme Court is willing to hear it, your conservative court.
PAVLICH: We're out of time. We've got to go. Joel Payne, thank you so much. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAVLICH: Unfortunately that's all the time we have this evening. I had a great time filling in for Laura Ingraham. Thank you. And be sure to catch me tomorrow on 'Outnumbered' at noon eastern, also at Townhall.com. You can always follow me on Twitter @KatiePavlich. Tomorrow night Pete Hegseth will be in this chair to wrap up the week.
Shannon Bream and the 'FOX News at Night' team are up next. Goodnight from New York.
END
<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.>
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox