This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," June 25, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Okay, thanks so much and Sean is right, this is a Fox news alert, 68 days after his 448-page report was released and 27 days after his only public comments today, we now know when former Special Counsel Bob Mueller will speak again. Breaking just moments ago, Congressman Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler announced that Mueller will appear at an open hearing in front of the House Intel and Judiciary committees on July 17.

Now for all of you watching at home, I want to go back to that single appearance by Mahler, just 4 weeks ago and what he said about what any Congressional testimony from him would even look like.


ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this matter. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

INGRAHAM: So what pray tell changed? Well, subpoena. But what else is he going to possibly say? Joining me now the reaction Congressman Mark Meadows, Republican from North Carolina, Chair of the House Freedom Caucus; Harmeet Dhillon, attorney and member of the Trump 2020 Advisory Council and Harvard law Prof Emeritus, Alan Dershowitz.

Great to have all of you here. Big breaking news tonight let's start with you, Congressman Meadows, this was quite something tonight. Nadler and Schiff sounding triumphant just to announce that he's going to be testifying.

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: Well, it's a sham Laura, and let me let me just say this, it's a friendly subpoena and that shouldn't surprise your viewers or the American public because this particular Special Counsel Bob Mueller has been friendly to their cause from day one.

And so what I find just so disheartening is that Bob Mueller said it all, 445 pages, that's all I'm going to say and what is he been doing, he's been courted by the other side just so they can harass the President and keep on this narrative that honestly, there's no there, there.

And you know, I just find it just unbelievable that hearing Congress tonight, we find out about this on the on the House floor, they don't even go through normal protocol to let the minority know they broke House rules, I'm not even sure that the subpoena is valid because you can't issue the same subpoena from two different committees of jurisdiction.

Listen, it is not a good day for America but Bob Mueller better be prepared because I can tell you, he will be cross-examined for the first time and the American people will start to see the flaws in his report.

All right, in just a moment, Congressman Meadows is going to give us a couple of those questions that he thinks the Special Counsel - former Special Counsel would have to answer as posed by Republicans but Professor, I want to go to you, are we to believe that Mueller with all of his legendary experience, all the positions he's had, a U.S. veteran went out before the world and lied that he was - that he's going to limit any comments to what he said in the report in his 9 minutes of what he said in that press statement?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: Well, everybody is subject to subpoenas but what's shocking is that the Democratic majority is asking the Special Counsel to violate the Justice Department rules regarding prosecutors.

Prosecutors are bound by Justice Department rules and tradition never to say a word beyond, we have decided not to charge X, not to charge Y. That's why Comey was so justly criticized he said, we decided not to charge Hillary Clinton but what she did was extremely careless.

That deserved criticism and the Democrats are now asking Mueller to do the same thing, to commit the same sin that Comey committed. If Comey's smart, he will submit to the subpoena and he will say Justice Department rules and the presumption of innocence and the way prosecutors operate for centuries precludes me from saying anything beyond that we have made a decision not to charge the following people.

We've made a decision to charge, we made decisions previously to charge the following people and I will answer no further questions and if you insist, you can take me to court and the courts will of course, back Mueller, what they would do is criticize Mueller if he went beyond that statement.

INGRAHAM: Now Harmeet, Congressman Meadows just mentioned Fox is told that, that subpoena was a "friendly subpoena." Now Mueller would only appear you know, under a subpoena and would stick to the four corners of the report. But that's not what Adam Schiff is saying tonight. Watch.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: I don't think the Special Counsel's office considers it a friendly subpoena. He was and is deeply reluctant to come testify but none the less, he has agreed to respect the subpoena so we expect all of the members of our committee will have an opportunity to ask him questions.


INGRAHAM: Harmeet, what's your reaction to that and why as Alan said is it so dangerous to subject prosecutors to this type of questioning if the former Special Counsel you can bring in, why not any prosecutor who didn't charge somebody, why just stop at Mueller?

HARMEET DHILLON, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL LAWYERS ASSOC: I think the answer is obvious Laura, it politicized what should be an apolitical and non- political judgment and it injects politics somewhere it shouldn't be. Now if anyone had a doubt over the last couple of years as to where Robert Mueller stands or which team he's playing on, I think it's been answered by now.

He's clearly sympathetic to the Democrats who have done this witch hunt against the President. I'm actually looking forward to some of the questions that Congressman Meadows and his colleagues are going to ask like when did you know there was no Russia collusion?

Weren't some members of your handpicked Democrat team briefed on this year in advance of the investigation beginning and why did you drag all these people through the mud and you know, violate the right to counsel of witnesses, pressure people - prosecute people, an old man for something that you don't prosecute Democrats for?

I think there are a lot of questions to be asked here and Robert Mueller, we all know, he could have said you know what, there are pending prosecutions. I'm respectfully going to decline to answer any questions of yours so don't even call me. He could have done that if he were honest.

INGRAHAM: They're not going to take him to court, that's ridiculous.

DHILLON: That's right.

INGRAHAM: I mean, it's been patently ridiculous. Congressman Meadows, a question that I would love to ask Mueller is you know, what about verification of the Steele dossier? What did he know about the verification of the Steele dossier, if anything? Did his prosecutors bother to find out who actually fed the initial information and was a lack of veracity or truthfulness there?

Was that in any way relevant to the underlying filing with the FISA court that was added in anyway interesting to the Mueller team.

MEADOWS: Well, all of those questions were already answered within days of Bob Mueller opening up the investigation. The FBI knew that the Steele dossier was not credible, they knew that Christopher steel was not credible. They knew that they had problems with the chain of evidence as it came in.

They also knew that the very first FISA application was flawed and that they did not give the amount of information that would suggest that there was innocence there, not guilt and so when you look at that, it's- but it's even further than that, it's about the connections to Russia.

They carefully crafted their words and I can tell you, they made a connection to Russia that was not there. Adam Schiff knows it. Chairman Nadler knows it and soon the American people will know it because this carefully orchestrated report that I believe that Mr. Weissmann actually had a hand in is going to start to fall apart under cross examination.

It shouldn't happen to begin with.

DERSHOWITZ: Interesting thing, sorry - the interesting thing Laura, is that--

INGRAHAM: Go ahead.

DERSHOWITZ: It's going to backfire on the Republicans for this reason, they can't ask him any questions about President Trump because President Trump was a subject and the decision was not the charge but there's no restrictions on asking him questions under the Justice Department rules about the Steele dossier because that was not a subject of the investigation.

So they can ask him all they want about that, they can ask him about the FISA report so the only questions they can really ask him are questions by Republicans that are critical of the investigation, rather than questions by Democrats that go to the issue of whether there was evidence that might have justified some finding of guilt against Donald Trump.

So it's ironic--

MEADOWS: Alan is right.

DERSHOWITZ: --that the questions they want to ask, they can't ask. Only the questions they don't want to ask, they're entitled to ask.

MEADOWS: Alan is right, it's going to backfire on the Democrats because we have a lot more questions that are unanswered and the scope of what has been answered for Democrats are largely in the 445 pages that laid out the best case scenario for them.

DHILLON: Yes Laura, if I can add that Democrats think that the American people are dumb and that they need Robert Mueller to repeat on camera what he said in his report and you can see this on Twitter, this is exactly the Democrat position.

This is cynical it's going to backfire. Donald Trump's biggest superpower has been making his enemies own themselves and I think this is what's going to be another example of this hearing coming up.

INGRAHAM: All right, this is something that I want to go to what Nadler - Jerry Nadler said just moments ago on this whole issue of the Mueller appearance, let's watch.


REP. JERRY NADLER, D-N.Y.: There is no right to defy congressional subpoena. The White House might exert some privilege but when they revealed this - a lot of the information to Mueller and even to private attorneys, they waived the privilege so I think he'll answer the questions that are put to him because it's a civic duty to do so and he's an outstanding prosecutor.


INGRAHAM: Alan, is that true that Mueller - that there's nothing Mueller could do. He has to submit. Jerry Nadler is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and I don't think he apparently knows law but go ahead, Alan.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, first of all, he ought to know that he said speaking to private counsel waives the privilege, that's the essence of the privilege, talking to private counsel or White House counsel obviously so they can't ask him questions about that.

But no, nobody can defy a subpoena but you can respond to the subpoena and then refuse to answer questions based on the traditions of the Justice Department, based on Grand Jury material, based on ongoing investigations, based on a range of possible defenses.

But he can't refuse to answer questions about the FISA application and those are the kinds of questions that I think Republicans will be very well prepared to ask. Those are the kinds of questions which are currently under investigation by the Inspector General, whose report we're waiting for.

But those are not in anyway, precluded. So I think that they're going to regret having called him. Look, I'm a Liberal Democrat, I'm on the Democrat side--

INGRAHAM: Oh we didn't know that.

DERSHOWITZ: --and I'm trying to stop them from shooting themselves in the foot. What I'm trying to do also is protect the civil liberties of all Americans because as you said Laura, if they can do this to the Special Counsel, they can do it to any prosecutor.

Any prosecutor comes in and says no, I decided not to prosecute this corporate executive, Congress can now come in and say, wait a minute, why didn't you prosecute this corporate executive. Tell us all the evidence that you rejected. Tell us about the witnesses you didn't believe, everybody is at risk from this democratic ploy.

INGRAHAM: Well, I'm actually a principled liberal on these issues, it's so refreshing to hear. Congressman Meadows, there's another issue which I know this panel has already delved into somewhat over the last year plus. But when we discover that Andrew Weissmann had been briefed by Bruce Orr.

Andrew Weissmann of course, one of Mueller's top prosecutors as going back to December of 2016. I think a lot of people want to know wait a second, why exactly was he put on that Special Counsel team if he was you know, he was in touch with Bruce Orr that early?

Is that a legitimate line of inquiry in your view? The makeup of the prosecution team? Look, if we're going to have them up there testifying, let's really get the information about that team.

MEADOWS: Well, it's a legitimate question. I think the bigger problem that we see is Andrew Weissmann was very much aware of all the improper protocols that were broken, not just with Bruce Orr but the way that Bruce Orr was sharing with Joe Pientka.

They were working together to try to spin this and guess who was involved in all of that? Peter Strzok. He was right there coaching, saying, let's keep this covered up, let's make sure that it doesn't come out. I can tell you that Alan Dershowitz is very correct.

We have to protect our civil liberties whether they're Republican or Democrat or in between, we have to protect those. This is a sad day for civil liberties and those who love those rights that we have and yet, it's a worst day for Congress because what we have now done, what Adam Schiff and them have done, they have basically harassed the President and put forth a political agenda.

It's the fourth time we're going to get a different collusion narrative out of it, I don't think so.

INGRAHAM: Well, they want multiple bites of the same apple and the core has already been eating through, there's no apple there. So Harmeet, the question of multiple conflicts of interest. I mean, people hear that phrase across the country and like Laura, what are you guys talking about?

I'll tell you why. Because if you're on trial, if you're in court and you find out later that the jury actually had personal animus against you as a person or your views or your religion, then that can nullify the verdict, okay?

I want to know more about what they did - did they get a legal opinion about potential conflicts of interest within the pool of prosecutors that made up this Special Counsel's office, that's another question. I mean, we're kind of playing 20 questions, we would ask Mueller tonight but I like to - I'd like to get the answer to that, Harmeet.

DHILLON: Sure, I mean, we'd all like to know a lot, Laura. I agree with everything Professor Dershowitz said as well and I speak as a conservative civil libertarian who also believes in due process for the accused and when you have a politicized system, I mean, look, the basic principle in our system Laura, is that judges and prosecutors are supposed to be beyond reproach.

And they're not even supposed to have an appearance of impropriety, much less actually propriety. Here we start out with Robert Mueller being - you know turned down for a job that he was proposed for and then taking this position to criticize the President and then handpicking 17 Democrats to be on his team to persecute the President and then refusing to honor Department of Justice guidelines.

The very same reason that Rod Rosenstein gave for James Comey to be fired is exactly what Robert Mueller is being asked to do right now by talking about his investigation well in defiance of Department of Justice guidelines.

And this reeks of impropriety so what it actually does Laura, setting aside the President, it really undermines the American people's confidence that when you see a prosecutor get up there, an FBI agent get up there and investigate somebody, it's going to be impartial, we don't believe that anymore.

INGRAHAM: Well, I can tell you as a former criminal defense attorney, there are a lot of good prosecutors but I have my problem with prosecutors, okay? I think they have way too much power in the United States and I'm a conservative and I have a lot of skepticism from what Patrick Fitzgerald did to Conrad Black, to what they did to Martha Stewart.

I mean they pick and choose victims to advance their political career all too often. Alan, that's-

DERSHOWITZ: True conservatives - true conservatives ought to be very skeptical of any abuse of governmental power. That's where true conservatives and true liberals really join together against the extremists on both sides who are result-oriented.

We believe in process, in due process and constitutional rights, whether you're liberal or a conservative.

INGRAHAM: Adam Schiff spoke just moments ago. Another comment about in his view, that he has questions about the counter Intel investigation that was launched, let's watch.


SCHIFF: We have many other questions about the counterintelligence investigation and the role of the counter intelligence agents within his team, to questions about some of the prosecutorial decisions that were made. We have fact questions about some of the statements that are made in the report. So there any number of issues that we wish to cover with him.


INGRAHAM: Congressman Meadows, could this is be a little CYA pre-emptive going on here, given what they know that John Durham might be uncovering as well as the Inspector General. I thought that comment was interesting, maybe I'm over reading it.

MEADOWS: Well, I think it's interesting on two fronts, Laura. Here's the interesting thing is we know the IG report is coming out. We know that John Durham is coming and here's what we do know about Adam Schiff.

He knows the truth. He knows what's going to come out so this is his last straw, what he's trying to do is frame the argument so that everybody can see that there's a problem there and here's why I have a real hard time with Adam Schiff in saying this.

When he used to goes in and starts to question the decisions that have been made by this prosecutor, who we got to bring in next, the Supreme Court justices? I mean when does this stop?

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, again, Harmeet, back to you. This is so disturbing on so many levels like all of us are lawyers, I think Mark, are you a lawyer? I forgot now.

MEADOWS: I'm a business guy. I would never do businesses with--

INGRAHAM: Sorry to tar your reputation.

DHILLON: Better lawyer than Jerry Nadler.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet and Alan and I are long practicing attorneys. I'm a recovering lawyer but this is what we went to law school for, we believed in the principles and doesn't mean you don't make mistakes, people fall down, they get up, they make bad mistakes.

But the principles, the rules of the game, we're all supposed to believe in. And now there's a lot of people out there who think, they're all corrupt, nobody's telling the truth, it's all get you know, get the political opponent by any means necessary.

You will excuse any level of prosecutorial misconduct or even lying.

DHILLON: And there's so many - there's so many examples of that in this situation, Laura. I mentioned Paul Manafort going to prison for things that the Podesta brothers are out and about and every other person in Washington is doing.

I mean, you know it really in the long term, I think Robert Mueller who had a very storied career as a prosecutor, he was the U.S. attorney here in San Francisco for one thing, is going to end up having a very tarnished career because he chose this last gig and he chose to allow himself to be politicized and he's continuing to choose to allow himself to do that with really lasting damage.

And now I think Americans are going to go look at these situations on both sides going forward and be cynical about the outcome and that's a disgrace, it is a real disappointment to me to see that happen.

INGRAHAM: Alan, the Special Counsel, the independent counsel.

DERSHOWITZ: I agree with that.

INGRAHAM: This guy, they got to go. I mean this whole roving ban the prosecutors.

DERSHOWITZ: They have to go. When you called me to be on tonight, I was watching the Clinton affaire on television and it was so familiar, there are more you know the folks in Arkansas going to jail, the special prosecutor, who's a good guy, I like him so much.

But when you give a person that kind of power, they were three special prosecutors actually for a time in that case. You give them the power, there's all this collateral damage, we have to just put an end to special counsel, special prosecutors.

We have to create a special division within the Justice Department, a permanent division within the Justice Department to do these kinds of investigations under the usual rules, no reports, no reports to make public, statements, we're prosecuting, we're not prosecuting, let's go back to the traditions that this country has been built on.

Instead of trying to create new ways of politicizing our criminal justice system. Today, it's used against the Republicans, tomorrow against the Democrats, the day after tomorrow it's used against you. So where's the American Civil Liberties Union, they're dead in the water, we don't hear from them and that's why we have to stand up for the rights of all Americans.

INGRAHAM: Yes, I've got to say guys, there's a lot of things that can be depressing on the daily basis in the news business. But what's really sad is that you can count on one hand the number of kind of true liberals there are out there.

I mean I used to know Nat Hentoff and there was Christopher Hitchens.

DERSHOWITZ: He was great.

INGRAHAM: I mean, you just had a lot of people who were just Ira Glasser, former ACLU director, he's still out, think he's still out there but I mean, all these people--

DERSHOWITZ: Nadine Strossen who is terrific.

INGRAHAM: Right, right but they're not-

DERSHOWITZ: There are some very good people but there are so many people on the Democratic liberal side who have been civil libertarians but they have put get Trump before any notion of civil liberties, they're prepared to compromise any rights, any constitutional rights, they think the only important goal is get Trump and I have--

I didn't vote for Trump but I've been trying to stand up against the oppression, any side that tries to use the ends that justify the means.

INGRAHAM: Mark, Pelosi - Speaker Pelosi is out with a statement tonight, Congressman Meadows saying in part, our national security is being threatened and American people deserve answers. The Mueller report revealed that the Russians with sweeping systematic attack on our elections and America's top and Intel law enforcement officials have warned that the Russians will attack our elections again.

Yet sadly the President called it a hoax and to suggest that, he would welcome Russian interference again. Okay, that's ridiculous. The Democrats already making excuses for 2020, Congressmen and that's her statement tonight.

MEADOWS: Yes. This is a 2020 exercise and Laura, let me just say this when you look at that, no one's more serious about keeping the Russians from interfering our election. What they've conflated though is they've accused the President of wrongdoing of which he is innocent and that's what this is all about, it has nothing to do with protecting our election and has everything to do with making a political statement.

INGRAHAM: OK - just because - all right, just because I adore -

DERSHOWITZ: When this first happened, I called for a special investigative commission looking into the role of Russian in trying to influence the election without pointing fingers at Americans and if that had happened, we could really be now focussing on how to stop Russians because we all acknowledge that the Russians have tried to influence our elections and are going to continue to do it.

But special counsel don't do anything about that because they're just looking to prosecute people in the dark behind the closed doors of a grand jury.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet.

MEADOWS: Well said Alan. Yes, well said.

DHILLON: I was going to say that if those questions had been asked to Professor Dershowitz, it actually would have been Obama administration officials who would have had to answer those questions because they're the ones who had the information and so--

DERSHOWITZ: Everybody has to answer.

DHILLON: --Nancy Pelosi's question leads to that trail and nobody really wants to go there. I think she's actually just try to change the subject, she probably doesn't think this is the best thing to be dwelling on, she wants to talk about the legislative agenda of the Democrats.

But they're - they're shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to talk about this issue.

INGRAHAM: And just because I adore all three of you okay, I want to end this is fantastic panel with some dramatic readings from last night, let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What the hell is this all about? I need loyalty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will always get honesty for me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's what I want, honest - loyalty. Mueller has to go. Call me back when you do it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That evening McGahn called both Preibus and Bannon and told them that he intended to resign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: McGahn said that the President had asked him to do crazy (bleep).


INGRAHAM: Okay, well Hollywood celebrities got together to read parts of the Mueller report and I love how John Lithgrow turning into a strange interlude or it's like some Eugene O'Neill extravaganza. This is how people have come to define themselves and their resistance to Donald Trump.

All right, each of you gets a crack at that. I should have had you do a dramatic reading, Alan.

MEADOWS: Yes. So I'll start, Laura.

INGRAHAM: OK, Mark, go ahead.

MEADOWS: We've got actually good actors doing the reading there. What we've got are low paid, poor actors here on Capitol Hill, trying to do the same thing and coming out with a very poor result.

INGRAHAM: As my daughter would say --

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: I am thrilled, I am thrilled that actors are actually acting instead of trying to tell us who to vote for, trying to tell us what our politics should be.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second, Alan. You don't think --

MEADOWS: That's good Alan.

DERSHOWITZ: -- trying to make us because that because they are actors that they know something that we don't know.

INGRAHAM: Alan, Alan, they are telling you how to vote by doing the stupid dramatic reading, OK? They read other people's lines, that is what they do. But this was their way of saying, see, this was obstruction. They wouldn't know obstruction if it bit them in their you know what. Harmeet, final thought.

HARMEET DHILLON, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION: I just think this is a sideshow. They are making a mockery of this whole process by trying to politicize it again. And Hollywood is the biggest swamp of hypocrites of immoral people who are doing the worst thing to each other and to our society, and for them to get on their high horse and preach to the rest us about is ridiculous. I've already tuned out many years ago, but I don't think this is going to sway anybody's opinion, in my opinion.

INGRAHAM: Two words, two words, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein.

By the way, Rudy Giuliani just texted a reporter. They're not going to get anything, zero relevance basically. This is going to be a big goose egg for the Democrats. So that is his view tonight. Fantastic panel. You guys were awesome. Thank you for coming in last minute. Breaking news, come one, that is why we do live television.

And coming up, my ANGLE on the deficiencies that the Democrats will face tomorrow night on that big debate stage, and how Trump can exploit them.


INGRAHAM: Democrat deficiencies on stage left. That's the focus of tonight's ANGLE.

As 20 Democrats head into their first debates this week, the vulnerabilities of the current front runners are coming into focus. Remember, most voters aren't even closely following the candidates yet, but a new AP poll is finding that two-thirds of registered Democratic voters are paying little to no attention to the race. That's healthy. And that's where we come in to give our Democrat brothers and sisters a reality check on their current top five contenders.

Let's start with Joe Biden, aka sleepy Joe, aka rambling Joe, aka the hair sniffer. He has made a career of appealing to working-class voters by passing himself off as one of them.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My time in public life, I've gotten involved. I've been referred to as middle class Joe. It's not always meant as a compliment. It's usually that I'm not sophisticated. That is why I'm middle class Joe.


INGRAHAM: The guy Obama dreads having to endorse ever has often spoken of being one of the poorest members of Congress. But he's cashed in hugely since he was V.P., charging up to $200,000 a speech and racking up lucrative book deals. In addition to his nearly 7,000 square-foot modest abode in Wilmington, Delaware, and $3 million beach house on Maryland's eastern shore, Amtrak Joe is now residing in a McLean, Virginia, estate worth millions, one that I swear was once featured on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." Back of my mind. The real estate company even got a Robin Leach stand in for the houses promo video.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Surrounding by Washington elite and sitting high above the Potomac River, there is an undeniable grandeur in the design of this home. The federal column architecture is reminiscent of the fine stately mansions and creates an immediate dramatic impression which will pass through the gates and reach the grand courtyard.



INGRAHAM: A gold plated lifestyle for gold plated Joe. Oh, my gosh. You can expect Biden's opponents to make a lot of his opulent lifestyle as well as his, well, another issue, flat-footedness on racial issues.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It hurts when you talk about "boy." It means something different to us. It hurts when you call a racist like you normalize it.

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I do fully understand. That's not what I said, though. They didn't print the whole deal.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know that somebody running for president of the United States, somebody running to be the leader of our party, should know that using the word "boy" in the way he did can cause hurt and pain.


INGRAHAM: Well, then there is Biden's support for the Transpacific Partnership. Remember, Trump smartly nixed the TPP as a giveaway to the globalists, which is sure to be a point of contention for Sanders and Warren.

But perhaps one of Biden's most glaring vulnerabilities is his reluctance to criticize China.


BIDEN: China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. They are not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they are not competition for us.


INGRAHAM: That whole space weaponry thing and artificial intelligence, no big deal.

Moving leftward in our candidate review to Bernie Sanders and E. Warren, they're currently competing in their own events in the freebie Olympics, whether it's free tuition, free health care, guaranteed standard of living, expect more of this from the debate stage.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Four-year college, four-year public college, all fee free and tuition free for all of our kids.


SANDERS: Tuition free for every person in New York state, in Vermont, and in America.


SANDERS: A Medicare for all, single payer program.


WARREN: Universal pre-k for every one of our zero to five-year-olds in this country.


SANDERS: This proposal completely eliminates student debt in this country.


INGRAHAM: Wait a minute, did she say zero to five-year-olds? I thought they weren't for saving the zero-year-olds. Oh, my gosh. All of this may play well in the offices of whose members prefer Warren by 38 percent, but average Americans are likely to be horrified, particularly when they realize that they are going to get stuck with the giveaway bills. Now even "USA Today" slammed the Democrats giveaway caucus, noting that Sanders and Warren are pandering to young voters. Brutal.

Then there is poor Pete, as in Buttigieg. Five minutes ago, he seemed like he was emerging as the new darling of the in crowd, including Hollywood A- listers. He is well polished, he has an incredible academic pedigree, and a stint in Afghanistan in the Army Reserves. But now he's dogged by racial discontent in his hometown of South Bend, Indiana, where the police force seems way too white to African-American residents.


MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Did you ask me if black lives matter?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, we want to hear you say it.

BUTTIGIEG: Of course black lives matter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Then fire you cops!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you understand, get the people that are racist off the streets.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You want our votes, which I doubt you're going to get it, do your job just so you can have a moral compass when you leave this place.


INGRAHAM: At times lately, I have to feel bad for him. It seems like the pressure has almost been too much for Pete.


BUTTIGIEG: I don't know if it's smart or not. I don't know if it's strategic or not. But it's my city. And I have a relationship with everybody in the city who looks to the city to keep them safe.


INGRAHAM: Well, his performance and words didn't go down well with the South Bend police union either. They said in a statement, "Mayor Buttigieg's comments have already and will continue to have a detrimental effect on local law enforcement offices and law enforcement officers nationwide, driving a wedge between law enforcement officers and the community they took an oath to serve."

Now, questions of Mayor Pete's competence at handling basic functions of local government, they are likely to dog him through the debate and into the campaign. You kind of have to see it this way. If you can't manage a kind of medium-sized city's police department, how will he possibly manage the entire executive branch?

And then there is Kamala. The attractive former California A.G. is constantly trying to prove how cool she is. Now, Harris promised that her DOJ would prosecute President Trump, absolutely. She defended hoaxer Jussie Smollett, and she hopes to get the anti-NRA vote while trying to sound balanced at least for today's Democrats.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am a gun owner, and I own a gun for probably a reason that a lot of people do, for personal safety. We are being offered false choice which suggests you're either in favor of the Second Amendment, or you want to take everyone's guns away.


INGRAHAM: Important to note, Kamala -- I always say it the wrong way -- she was in Iowa when she made those comments. She said semiautomatic guns have no place in society, and she'd like to ban them.

Her debate opponents will likely pounce also on Harris' record as a prosecutor where they say she wasn't progressive enough and failed to support criminal justice reform. But thinking about that for a moment, none of that really matters because Trump already did criminal justice reform.

In the coming days, whether the Dems like it or not, their candidates are going to at least two begin to smash each other, maybe even savage each other, in a desperate attempt to break from the pack. "Politico" reports that, quote, "Democratic bigwigs fear debates will devolve into a horror show." But come on, this summer has just got kicked off. If you want to subject yourself to a horror show, why would you want to watch the leftwing resistance loons? If you're going to horror, watch a horror show.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think you have the wrong one. There's no Annabelle here.



INGRAHAM: Well, at least you will be entertained.

And that's “The Angle.”

If you can believe that we have more breaking news tonight, moments ago Democrats in the House finally coming to the table to fund facilities being overrun at the border. Ken Cuccinelli is here exclusively, next, to react.


INGRAHAM: Moments ago, the House passed a $4.5 billion supplemental spending bill to provide humanitarian assistance for children and families at the border. This comes on the heels of another round of major shakeups within border security leadership.

For more, I'm joined by Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It's good to see you, Ken. The emotions have been raw over the last several days. Many have been saying for months that unless Congress funded these facilities, beds and the like, we would be in this crisis and people would die. People have died, and we are in this crisis. What can you tell us tonight?

KEN CUCCINELLI, ACTING DIRECTOR OF USCIS: Yes. Well, first of all, you're right. We saw the pictures going around today of a father and daughter from El Salvador who drowned crossing the Rio Grande. And we had two babies and a toddler and mother die in the Department of Interior land, I want to say two days ago. This is going to continue especially as we get into the summer, the most brutal time of the year to be crossing those areas.

And of course, we look at this from the American side of the border. Looking at it from the southern side of the border, about two-thirds of the people coming across the border illegally are paying thousands of dollars in effectively blood money tolls to drug cartels, some of the worst, most vicious, vile, evil narco-terrorists in the world, to get to the American border. They have monetized this crisis. And until we are sending people back to the Northern Triangle countries, sending people coming across the border back to their neighborhoods so the other people thinking about coming can see that we are actually enforcing our laws, this is not going to end. And we need to do that soon. So --

INGRAHAM: Ken, isn't it also the case -- Ken, I'm all in agreement. We're going to hold you over because it's impossibly short. But we need to make sure we have the rule of law mean something. People who have been ordered deported, gone through their process, are sent back home. Obama said that would happen and he didn't do it oftentimes. And we also need these asylum cases dealt with in a different way. And that has to be reformed out of Congress. It just has to be done.

CUCCINELLI: That's right. No, you're absolutely right. We have massive loopholes in the asylum system that are being exploited tremendously by enormous numbers, record numbers of people.

INGRAHAM: Ken, we're going to be right back. Hold that thought. We have more news on this with Ken Cuccinelli up next. Stay right there.


INGRAHAM: The catastrophe at our southern border is not new news. It's old news. And you know what, Congress let you down, let the system down, and let the migrants down who have been trying to cross into the country. Some of them have legitimate claims. Not all of them. Everybody has been let down by a refusal to do what is right. We continue with our friend Ken Cuccinelli, U.S. citizenship director, and I'm just delighted he is still with us. And Ken, I am so -- it is so disgusting to see people exploit --


INGRAHAM: -- the pain of children and families, and ignore the pain of children and families in America who have been brutalized, the same thing. It is bad.

CUCCINELLI: That's right, that's right. And right now we have a system set up by Congress where the federal government is performing the function of the last mile of a human trafficking chain all the way from Central America. And we are literally handing children over to unvetted people who are here illegally. If this happened domestically, of course, we would be going berserk. And if it weren't about illegal immigration, the Democrats would be joining us in being upset about it as well. Now they want to facilitate it.

So hopefully moving the budget through first the House and, hopefully, it will get improved by the Senate, will give HHS and the Border Patrol in particular the tools they need to deal with those children, and ICE the detention it needs to be able to actually make the rule of law means something this country in the illegal immigration context.

INGRAHAM: And I should say while the president and I think the majority of Republicans in Congress, they've actually recognized this, Ken, for what it is.


INGRAHAM: Democrats have been claiming otherwise. Let's watch.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., SENATE MINORITY LEADER: This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They are engaging in what I would call a manufactured moral crisis.

WARREN: This so-called crisis at the border is fake.

HARRIS: This is a crisis of his own making.


INGRAHAM: Well, this is finally, I guess their eyes are opened, Ken?

CUCCINELLI: No, no, no. I don't think they were triple back then. They knew there was a crisis then and they were playing serious politics with it while the president was busy trying to solve the problem. And they just instinctively fight with him no matter what, including when he's right.

But I believe, frankly, the polling among Democrats got so overwhelming where base Democrats recognized the severity of this crisis at the border that their so-called leadership could no longer dodge this. Now we see Nancy Pelosi just 24 hours ago or so, 48 hours ago, saying things like I don't get the point of interior enforcement. I don't get the point of enforcing deportation orders.

INGRAHAM: Ken, I have got to say, I have come to the conclusion, reluctantly, but absolute conclusion, the goal here for today's Democrats, not Obama Democrats in 2015 when they said they were going to have to go home, but today's Democrats, just four years later the goal is no deportations, except maybe murderers, maybe, no deportations, no detentions. If you go online and read AOC, that is it. No detentions, and no deportations.


INGRAHAM: And you say?

CUCCINELLI: Well, and I'm not even sure I agree with you on the murderers, because they tell us, oh, we want to see serious criminal aliens go, but these same people defend the sanctuary cities, and they keep those murderers from being handed over to ICE for deportation. Not a few miles from the nation's capital, less than a month ago, MS-13 killed a 14-year- old girl. And the people who killed her had all already been caught for violent crimes, all crimes that qualified them to be turned over to ICE. But Prince George's County, Maryland, and the state of Maryland proudly proclaims itself a sanctuary state. And so they wouldn't turn those murderers over to ICE to be deported. And now we have one more dead 14- year-old girl.

INGRAHAM: The casualties across this country, it's not just at the border, across this country.

CUCCINELLI: It's not just at the border, you are right.

INGRAHAM: The Democrats have selective moral indignation when it comes to casualties and victims. Ken Cuccinelli, thank you so much for being with us tonight.

CUCCINELLI: Good to be with you, Laura.


That is all the time we have tonight. Don't forget, check out my podcast, a new one dropped today. We've got a lot of stuff on the importance of sports and young people. You're going to not want to miss it. It's not politics all the time.

Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.