This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 21, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

INGRAHAM: Good evening from Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle." Tonight, so many big stories to share with you. I wish I had a second hour, do we have that? No, we don't. President Trump goes on offense against the Mueller team. The DOJ agrees to his demands to investigate whether the Obama administration spied on his campaign. Carter Page is here to describe what it was like to be targeted by an FBI informant. Meanwhile, Trump goes to war with John Brennan suggesting Obama's CIA chief began the entire Russia witch hunt because of politics.

Plus, we have a stunning report on the immigration crisis. No one talks about this. Chain migration, it's a nightmare. The head of Customs and Border Protection is here to reveal the startling new numbers and absurd and obscene charges against the bureau as well. And Raymond arroyo will be here to break down the media's -- speaking of absurd, let's say ridiculous covering of the royal wedding. What are your tea and scones. But first, I spy with my little eye something crooked at the FBI. That's the focus of tonight's "Angle." On Sunday, President Trump had had enough. He pointedly tweeted, "I hereby demand and will do so officially tomorrow that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI, DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump campaign for political purposes. And if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama administration."

Well, Trump has a good sense. This is nothing new in a way. On March 4th, 2017, more than a year ago, President Trump contended that his phones were tapped just prior to the election and of course, they get Trump media in the deep state all dismissed it. It was all a bunch of nonsense. Well, of course we now know that the Justice Department sought and secured permission to surveilled Trump Advisor Carter Page, whom you will hear from in just a moment. The problem was the 2016 Page FISA warrant was obtained in part using fraudulent information from that infamous Steele dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign. Now again reset your brain for a moment. Think about that. In the middle of a presidential election, when a man who was running for president is bowing to drain the swamp, there could have been a plot hatched at the senior levels of our government to entrap secondary figures in the Trump campaign to ultimately get to Donald Trump himself. Then those figures were targeted and surveilled, again, even possibly Trump himself. Well, of course, Democrats laughed, laughed all of this off as spurious.


HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBER, REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D—CALIFORNIA: This claim by the president suggestion by Giuliana that there is a political spy embedded in the Trump campaign is nonsense and you hear it in the same terms that Trump often speaks, which is people are saying or I'm hearing or we are being told, that's another way of saying this is patently untrue, but we would like to spread it anyway and it is single he destructive of our institutions, but then, that's the point.


INGRAHAM: No. Congressman Schiff, the point is day by day we learn more information that seems to indicate that the government may have used its prosecutorial and investigative powers for a political end. To do what? Well, to stop Candidate Trump, and when that failed, to derail his presidency. This is the deep state in action. I think it's really unwise to dismiss out of hand the notion that the FBI could have found it within itself to spy on the Trump campaign. They never would have done that. While as "The Federalist" David (inaudible) reminds us, "John Brennan spied on the legislative branch and lied about it to the American people. James Clapper spied on the American people through a domestic surveillance program and lied about it to Congress. And although the Obama administration never tweeted any nasty attacks on journalists, it did spy on and prosecute them. It's completely plausible that those in the upper echelon of law enforcement saw Trump as a threat, then used wobbly evidence as the pretext to investigate his campaign," close quote. A great piece, by the way.

For more than a year now the president and the House Intel Committee led by Devin Nunes has sought the initial unredacted documents that sparked this collusion broke. Well, today, the FBI director and the deputy AG have agreed to give congressional members access to highly classified documents about the Russia probe. Now they want to see the information concerning the FBI informant who reportedly cozied up to at least three Trump associates. What do you call this guy, a spy, and informant or just a mole? Who cares? That's just semantics. According to reports, the FBI sent this informant out to make contact with Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Sam Clovis. This informant reportedly had a sit down with Carter Page in early July of 2016. Well, that's interesting, because that undermines former FBI Director Jim Comey's contention that the FBI didn't begin its investigation until late July. Incidentally, between 2012 all the way up to 2018, now, according to public records, this same informant received more than a million dollars.

What kind of general foreign policy research and he conducted this all through the Department of Defense. That's another interesting point. That's all very fishy. Come on. Many questions remain about this and they are unanswered. Today following that White House meeting, the president said he has been able to get the Justice Department to authorize another inspector general probe into these spy allegations. Well, the problem with referring this investigation to the inspector general, as good of a guy as he is, he has no prosecutorial or official subpoena powers. So, even if he does find rank abuse by Obama officials or perhaps, who knows, even Obama himself, if he knew about it, the inspector general will only be able to refer that information to the Justice Department. What good does that end up doing? The president and all of us do have a right to know the names of any and all Americans who were surveilled as part of this anti-Trump hit squad over at the DOJ. And when we finally get to the bottom of all of this we should have the names of any officials current or former who were part of what I believe was an obscene abuse of power. They should be held accountable, all of them, to the fullest extent of the law. And of course, the $64,000 question is who else in the Obama administration other than Jim Comey, the people of other have already been identified, signed off on this, approved of this? How much did Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about cross fire hurricane? And while there is historical distance between the White House and the DOJ on ongoing cases, kind of independent, you think about it, it kind of is unfathomable that Jim Comey and company would conduct an operation like this one without at least informing the president of the United States, of course, then Barack Obama. As long as these questions hang out there, I really believe that Americans, more and more of them are going to think that our government tried and maybe is still trying to pull off a political coup against the antiestablishment figure, Donald Trump. And that's the "Angle." Joining us now for reaction is the aforementioned Carter Page, a former Trump campaign advisor whom the FBI surveilled. As well as Michael Cavuto, a former Trump campaign aide who has been interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team. Gentlemen, it's great to have you both on tonight. Thank you so much for joining us. Carter, let's start with you. You had a lot of contact with this informant, whatever we want to call them, informant, spy, mole. And I want to read one of the emails that he sent to you that was released by, I think it was "Daily Caller" got this initially. Dear Carter, I thought I'd write as the summer wears on to ask how you are and what your plans are at this point. It seems attention has shifted a bit from the collusion investigation to the contempt within the White House and how or if Mr. Scaramucci will be accommodated there. I must assume this gives you some relief. We are here in Virginia, et cetera, et cetera. Be in touch when you have the time. It would be great to catch up." We are not mentioning the informant's name, but Carter, when did you first meet this informant that we now know is an informant and just briefly tell us about that exchange.

CARTER PAGE, TARGETED BY THE FBI INFORMANT: Well, again, similar to view in terms of being cautious about identity, I have also -- I never knew anything about the person I was speaking with who is a university professor at Cambridge in the U.K. at the time. I was invited to participate in a conference in July of 2016 and everything seemed totally normal. And frankly, I have been falsely accused myself and we will see what happens in terms of as further details come out, but based on everything I've seen thus far, we still don't have any information.

INGRAHAM: We know he was paid a million dollars over five years. Pretty good money as a consultant, or researcher, but you are right. We shall see. But question, Carter before we go on to Michael. Who started the conversation? How did the date begin? Sorry, did he approach you, did he mention Russia collusion first? How did it go down?

PAGE: You know, we had -- it was a multi-day conference and there were scholars and people from government both from the United Kingdom --

INGRAHAM: I know but stay focused with me, Carter. Did he approach you first? Did you approach him? How did you first start speaking?

PAGE: I don't even recall. We spent a couple days together.

INGRAHAM: A couple days together?

PAGE: Yes, it was a long event over several days.

INGRAHAM: What I'm saying is there were a lot of scholars there and you have to know the process of grooming someone. When someone is an informant they don't just go up to someone and say, hey, I want to plant information on you or find out what you have. You try to win someone's trust over.
That's how it goes.

PAGE: I never felt groomed. So, if he's good at doing that then perhaps that's part of the game.

INGRAHAM: But you don't know who mentioned the Russia collusion issue first?

PAGE: I can't even remember. You know, I think Russia was in the news and I think a lot of politics sort of revolved around various news events and sold these various stories came up. Again, we stayed in touch for over a year.

INGRAHAM: Looking back, I'm sorry to interrupt, limited time. Looking back on it, does anything seem odd or -- you know you know something then, maybe that was a little odd, or any other contacts had with any other people that seem now in retrospect given what we know now odd, out of the ordinary or maybe in some way improper?

PAGE: Well, you know, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. We will see. Maybe this individual who we are talking about might have been a little bit nicer than I might otherwise have expected. Although, we were talking about all of the abuses that were happening with this dodgy dossier which was first debuted in September 2016 as a way of damaging the Trump campaign and basically destroying myself, and so he always seemed very sympathetic about that. Again, we'll see. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. People that know him in Washington and senior circles that I have spoken with afterwards say he seemed like a pretty decent guy.

INGRAHAM: That would be the perfect person to use, maybe I'm just cynical, been around Washington too long. If only they gave you the benefit of the doubt like you are giving other people the benefit of the doubt. Michael, let's go to you. You've been through the meat grinder at the Mueller investigation. He has all these really highly skilled interviewers, prosecutors on his side. Many of them, not all of them I believe have a built-in animus against Donald Trump. You are very angry that you have been dragged into this as a former associate of Roger Stone. You also did some work for the Trump campaign.
Tell us what you think. You just heard what Carter said about this reported informant for the FBI.

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, I think Carter has been through more of a meat grinder that I have it and he has handled it as a gentleman. In fact, when I first heard about the stuff I think in 2016 about Carter I wasn't very kind in my criticism and it looks like they were really abusing Carter. I think they were really treating him poorly and I think a lot of us owe carter an apology because we didn't wait to hear the truth at the end and now we are finding out that his country was really failing him for months and months and even years. I'm angry, I'm surprised that Carter is not. He's a greater man than I. This is really sick and twisted stuff. And like Carter said, this gentleman who shall not be named has a reputation of being very pro-American, very patriotic and if, in fact, he was brought into this under false circumstances or false pretenses as well is the kind of guy that a deep state would target.

INGRAHAM: The dossier was the basis for getting this FISA war. I don't care what these people say. It was all a big lie. Without this dossier Carter Page would not have been surveilled in the fall of 2016. That would not have happened. That's when they were running to that Russian oligarch to try to get him involved. He is like I don't even like Paul Manafort, this is ridiculous. They were doing everything they could. They were working the Page angle. They probably were working this informant angle and they brought you in, Michael, which we will get you in a moment. But I want to play for you what Sally Yates, acting attorney general at the very beginning of the Trump administration, she's the one who was partly responsible for interviewing Michael Flynn at the beginning, what she said today on "Morning Joe." Let's watch.


SALLY YATES, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think what we are seeing here is the president has just taken his out of salt all-out assault on the new law to a new level in this time result ordering an investigation of the investigators who are examining his own campaign. That's really shocking.
Rod Rosenstein is trying to strike a balance here between diffusing the situation, but also protecting the rule of law and the institutional integrity of the department.


INGRAHAM: Carter Page, as I pointed out in the opening ANGLE, the government under the Obama administration has surveilled people and lied about it. And whether it was Clapper, whether it was the FBI under Holder surveilling journalists, they have a history of having a problem telling the truth on surveilling. So, for sally asked to run out there and say Donald Trump is attacking the rule of law, come on. Your reaction?

CARTER: Just going to Michael's point about things they did to me, President Trump during the campaign would often say this is not about me, this is about us and I think of all of the terrible things that happen to so many people like Michael, some of the other people who were involved allegedly with this informant, I actually spoke very positively. I got a positive impression about this informant. A couple of people I mentioned him to in the campaign, I was pretty positive endorsement. I hope and pray that all these allegations turn out to be false and part of why I'm somewhat open about my communications with him is that it will lead to some truth finally from the Department of Justice. I've been asking for DOJ to own up to these things and it's funny, the defamation suit I have against a top media organization and DOJ, the media organization is actually much more honest than the false pleadings by the DOJ so far.

INGRAHAM: We got to play this James Clapper for Michael. He's basically just justifying the use of any type of informant here. Let's watch.


JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The focus here, as it was with the intelligence community is not on the campaign per se, but what the Russians were doing to try to instantiate themselves in the campaign or to influence or leverage it. So, if there was someone that was observing that sort of thing, that's a good thing, because the Russians pose a threat to the very basis of our political system.


INGRAHAM: Michael, do you see a pattern here? Former Obama administration official justifying spying on, surveilling, whatever you want to call it, putting them all in on an opposing campaign in a hotly contested election, final thought.

CAPUTO: I'll tell you, you have spent time in Russia, Carter and I both have. In Russia they call (inaudible) this the national security leadership that secretly spies on the citizenry of Russia and here we are in the United States with our own (inaudible) underneath President Obama. Let me tell you something that I know for a fact. This informant, this person that they planted, try to plant into the campaign and even into the administration if you believe "Axios," he's not the only person that came at the campaign and the FBI is not the only Obama agency that came at the campaign. I know because they came at me and I'm looking for clearance from my attorney to reveal this to the public. This is just the beginning. And I will tell you, when we finally find out the truth about this Director Clapper and the rest of them are going to be wearing some orange suits.

INGRAHAM: Michael Cavuto and Carter Page, I hope we get to the bottom of this a lot sooner than a lot of people are predicting because the American people deserve to know who is behind this, who authorized it and how high up the ladder it went. Thank you both for joining me tonight. God bless you both. A question we will tackle next. Is the former Obama CIA Director John Brennan spooked? We will talk to former intelligence officers about what his recent anti-Trump outbursts could reveal about his own skeletons, coming up.


INGRAHAM: President Trump swore in new CIA Director Gina Haspel today while also targeting one of her predecessors in a furious war of words on Twitter. It began yesterday when the president demanded that the Justice Department investigate whether the FBI and DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump campaign for political purposes during the Obama administration. Former CIA Chief John Brennan called that a, quote, "disastrous path" and accused Trump of self-serving action. While Trump replied by quoting Dan Bongino on "Fox & Friends" this morning who said Brennan is panicking because he has disgraced himself in the entire intel community. Dan Bongino accused Brennan of starting the entire Russia investigation which he called the political hit job, not an intelligence investigation.

The big question now is the intel community under Obama spy on the Trump campaign for political purposes as I asked in Angle? Let's discuss that with former NSA intel official, William Binney here the studio with me and in Boston, former Delta Force Officer Jeff Beatty, CIA counterterrorist case officer and a hostage rescue advisor to the FBI. Great to have both of you on. William, let's start with you. I find this narrative to be so disturbing on so many levels. We go back to the spring of 2016 when on a few occasions Loretta Lynch could have approved a defensive briefing of the Trump campaign saying that we see your list of advisors, it includes this guy Carter Page. Just might want to know we've been watching him for some time and she said no. On two occasions they could have informed the Trump campaign of their concerns. They did not want to do that.

WILLIAM BINNEY, FORMER NSA TECHNICAL DIRECTOR: Actually, I think they are spying on the campaign goes even before that. NSA is picking up all the data on them anyway. They have it stored, and they can access it through the reach program.

INGRAHAM: Continue.

BINNEY: Without any oversight by the intelligence committees for the FISA court. It's all done under executive order.

INGRAHAM: You are going to the collection of data as the NSA continues the surveillance program that Clapper, correct me if I'm wrong, he's the one who originally didn't tell the truth about.

BINNEY: That's right. And also, Alexander didn't tell the truth about it either. So, when he testified in the Senate saying we didn't collect data on millions or hundreds of millions -- Keith Ellingson.

INGRAHAM: I want to stay focused on this current issue. I want to stay focused on John Brennan because John Brennan back to March 21st of this year was throwing out all sorts of theories to hurt the president. Let's watch.


JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I think he is afraid of the president of Russia.


BRENNAN: That the Russians may have something on him personally that they could always roll out and make his life more difficult.


INGRAHAM: Jeff, I heard that, they may have something on Trump that they may roll out in the future. How does that make -- how does that make the intel community look good when Brennan is on tv speculating that one of our adversaries has information on him when that dossier has been debunked and phony and paid for by Hillary Clinton? I find that -- watching that again today was outrageous.

JEFF BEATTY, FORMER CIA COUNTER TERRORISM OFFICER: It is outrageous. Here you have -- he explained to his base. He's no longer a government official. He has a political base and that's what he's planning to. And I hate to say it, but we could speculate on this, those are the words of a word I used last week with you of a propagandist. When you are out there using innuendo and speculation you are just trying to cast a net out there and trying to roll back actually a failure that Brennan suffered. I mean, Brennan has suffered multiple failures at Putin's hands. As a director of the CIA there was the Crimea annexation on his watch. There was the Russian incursion into Eastern Ukraine on Brennan's watch.
The whole 2016 Russian meddling in the election all happened on Brennan's watch. He failed four times and the fourth is he's feeling now because Putin is objective, Putin has been the winner. His objective really wasn't about making Trump the winner of the election, it was about weakening the United States. Whatever it would take to cause division, to make us less effective so that we would be not united in opposing the Russian international agenda and that's been successful in Brennan once again is paying into his hands.

INGRAHAM: Didn't China steel our OPM files off personal management files under Obama too? China is meanwhile gobbling up all these properties all around the world and we are like Russia, Russia. Every time someone says Russia I say China. I want to play for you, this is former CIA case officer on another network. He said there is no way that Obama would have approved of any political motivation to start an investigation, let's watch.


ROBERT BAER, FORMER CIA CASE OFFICER: The FBI when it got a lead that Carter Page was possibly a Russian agent at that point was legally obligated to open an investigation. This is what the FBI does. But I guarantee you the president, President Obama, did not call up the FBI say open up a political investigation into Donald Trump. It just did not happen. So, he's conflating these two things, counterintelligence investigation and political dirty tricks.


INGRAHAM: That's a red herring. Whether or not he ordered it, the idea that they would put an informant or a mole and not inform the president of the United States, hold on a second, let's go to you on that.

BINNEY: The Steele dossier, that involved the FBI, the DOJ and CIA. That kind of relationship only comes at the point of a president. That's the only person that can tell them all what to do.

INGRAHAM: Given your best government experience, intel community, scale of 1-10, 1 being the least likely, 10 being the most likely that Obama knew about this investigation.

BINNEY: I would say 10.


BEATTY: Yes, I would agree. They have to know what's going on, and if they didn't than they are not doing their jobs.

INGRAHAM: Let's remember Susan Rice's email to herself which I mention at least once a show. So here it goes. She writes an email to herself, national security advisor on inauguration day right after noon, so officially Trump is president then, but nevertheless. "President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities by the book. The president stressed that he's not asking about initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would buy the book." She mentions by the book two times. Jeff and then William.

BEATTY: Methinks thou dost protest too much. That's what that smells like that.


INGRAHAM: Who writes an email like that? Who writes an email like that?

BEATTY: Well, nobody. But the other thing that I hope the president does is goes on the offensive. I hope that he's going to go on the offensive. Verbally that's great, but there are tools at his disposal that the president can go on the offense of.

INGRAHAM: Like what?

BEATTY: You even have civil suits. Government employees are protected. It's hard to sue them because they have been protected by a law Congress passed. However, you have a lot of people here who were not government employees. Christopher Steele, you have peripheral people who you can start putting pressure on the whole opposition to you by going after them possibly civilly. How about rewards, creating a reward system for people -

INGRAHAM: I like that, for a former whistle-blower. We're almost out of time. Finally on that point he just made?

BINNEY: I just think that this is only "Wizard of Oz" game. They are trying to cover up the crimes they've been committing, and they are trying to do it and justify it by writing memos that say things that they are not really doing.

INGRAHAM: By the book, by the book, guys. We are all doing it by the book. William and Jeff, great to see you, as always. While the media ignores growing evidence of misdeed by Russia investigators they obsess over the British wedding. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: America fought a war to get away from the British monarchy, but culturally it looks like some are dying to go back. The fawning coverage over this weekend's royal wedding in Windsor ran from the ridiculous to the sublime, but it was mostly just ridiculous. With analysis I'm joined by "New York Times" bestselling author, FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo.
Raymond, you were up early.

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: No, I was not up early. No, I wasn't. "The Washington Post" said this about the royal wedding coverage. "TV's delectable coverage of the royal wedding created a safe space for dreamers." I was one of those dreamers. I was sleeping.

INGRAHAM: Dreamers like immigrants?

ARROYO: I guess they mean dreamers who want to go and have a royal romantic wedding. But what I loved about this, after the wedding I watched the coverage of some of this. That was much more interesting than anything that happened in the wedding, starting with CNN. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People are missing the moment. This is the beginning of a revolution worldwide.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It will be all the rage next season.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have the lunch menu.


ARROYO: Richard Quest brakes and with the lunch menu.

INGRAHAM: Why is the Lemon -- God bless him, why is he saying it's a worldwide revolution? Because the dress?

ARROYO: I don't know what it was.

INGRAHAM: I say yes to that dress. It's a beautiful dress. People thought it was boring. I liked it. It was classy.

ARROYO: The dress. I don't care. The idea of men sitting around on all these networks pontificating on a woman's dress, why aren't women talking about veils and dresses?

INGRAHAM: Every network, the embroidery.

ARROYO: Who cares?

INGRAHAM: We're such party poopers.

ARROYO: But over on CBS.

INGRAHAM: Love, it's love, Raymond.

ARROYO: We're going to get to the love resolution, but over at CBS Gayle King was focused on the higher thing. She was trying to elevate the audience's eyes and minds. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Pippa got a lot of attention because everyone is raving about her bottom, and I thought is that a big bottom? I don't think so. She got a lot of attention for her bottom that people thought was perfection. It's a matter of opinion. I've seen some big bottoms, I didn't think that was one, but OK.


ARROYO: Oh, boy.

INGRAHAM: I thought they were going to play the song "Fat Bottom Girls."


ARROYO: When you are doing eight hours of coverage you do run out of things to say.

INGRAHAM: I think that they were into the champagne at that point. They were drinking a lot of champagne.

ARROYO: NBC, they were tipping --

INGRAHAM: That's the only way I would get out of that coverage.

ARROYO: -- Megyn Kelly were bombed on one of the streets of Windsor, that's what I hear. And then over at -- really it was two networks. This did something to these anchors, Laura. Being there in Windsor with the royals in the carriage and all of it, it transformed them somehow, and grown men and otherwise brilliant anchors were transformed into fan girls. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think I got a little wave! I think a got a little wave. A little something.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I literally just passed by and I waved, and he looked up and waved.


ARROYO: He looked up and waved.


INGRAHAM: Did Anderson giggle? I like it when he giggles. That's cute.

ARROYO: But the focus on every little -- on every bit of flour, on every lay of the dress, it's overkill. It's a wedding.

INGRAHAM: Do you enjoy ripping it apart?

ARROYO: I have to admit, I do enjoy ripping it apart.

INGRAHAM: Next royal wedding, when George we're going to be I hope in the right place.

ARROYO: From the home, we'll share the tapioca and do live coverage.

It was Bishop Michael Curry who is the head of the Episcopal Church here in the United States, he offered the sermon, and Christiane Amanpour then interviewed him, she has never been under a spell like this.


REV. MICHAEL CURRY: With this, we'll sit down. We have to get you all married.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: At one point I remember you may be thinking that you may have diverged a bit and maybe adlibbed a bit, and you said something we've got to get you all married.



INGRAHAM: I loved his response.

ARROYO: There was a response. She hasn't been this excited since she discovered mail order brides in Bangladesh. Remember, she did that love around the world series.

INGRAHAM: No one watched it.

ARROYO: Look at the royals. The faces on the royals. Look at some of these faces. They are hilarious.

INGRAHAM: No, we have to see this.

ARROYO: I could do them for you if you like.


ARROYO: This is during the finale of Michael Curry.

INGRAHAM: Fergie's daughter.

ARROYO: They were not happy. But then, Laura, I found the most unfortunate chyron and I will leave you with this, which is the lower third descriptor on E! They had Prince Charles and, can you put it up, Camilla Parker Bowels.


INGRAHAM: Diana would've enjoyed that.

ARROYO: Goodbye, I will give you a royal wave and off you will go, my dear. We'll see you on Wednesday.

INGRAHAM: I'm not talking. You give me advice to wave some more and that didn't work out so well for me.


INGRAHAM: Raymond Arroyo, no one knows we are talking about, but you did enjoy, Richard Quest, oh, my God!

ARROYO: Here's the lunch menu!

INGRAHAM: He's waving at me.

ARROYO: It beats getting arrested in Central Park. Let's move on.

INGRAHAM: Shocking numbers on the hidden immigration crisis -- say yes to
the dress -- no one talks about, next. Stay with us.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have laws that are the worst anywhere in the world as far as stopping people from coming in, but with that that being said we are down over 40 percent border crossings. We have been able to do what I think nobody else has been able to do.


INGRAHAM: That was President Trump talking about the illegal immigration crisis, but there is something you don't often hear about, a legal immigration crisis thanks to chain migration. The White House has released figures showing that chain migration, check this out, is responsible for 7.8 million immigrants who have come to the United States in the last decade. That's the size of New York City. That's the vast majority of roughly 10.8 million legal immigrants who have come here, again, since 2008.

So chain migration allows newly naturalized citizens to bring in an essentially unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country, even often distant relatives. Here to discuss this is Ronald Vitello, acting deputy commissioner of U.S. customs and border protection. Ron, it's good to see you. Thanks for being in here tonight.


INGRAHAM: So we hear a lot about illegal immigration, but that part of the immigration question I think a lot of people forget about, that what President Trump has wanted to do from the very beginning as well as enforce the border, we are going to talk about, is to have sensible legal immigration policies that bring in people that can really add value to our country.

VITELLO: He certainly renewed the spirit of the men and women in Immigration and Customs Enforcement at CPB for us to do more on the border.
There is a generous immigration system, but we need to do more on the border. And he has asked also for the loopholes to be closed. Those are really important things that we want to see get done.

INGRAHAM: The asylum fraud, how important would that be for you and the men and women on the front lines doing this job every day to get that asylum, those loopholes in that system that allows so many people to come in now and then just frankly, sadly, disappear?

VITELLO: We have to get to a place where if people come into the country illegally, if they have a due process that they have that while they are still in custody so that they are not abusing the system.

INGRAHAM: So in other words they don't fully and never show up for the hearing which is what they often do.

VITELLO: Correct. So that's why we're asking for these loopholes to be closed, because we can do more on the border. We are doing better on the border. With this president we have a new wall going in. We have the National Guard deployments.

INGRAHAM: Tell us about the wall, because I hear conflicting things about the wall, because we heard that the omnibus funded the wall but then we heard it actually didn't fund the wall and the president wasn't told the truth about that, certainly not the wall that he wants.

VITELLO: So we are installing the wall right now which is California which is replacing the dilapidated fence that was on the board now. So we have new capability going in there. New capability in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, replacing vehicle fence with border wall. We have projects and planning underway for south Texas and San Diego for replacement in California. So all of those are going to be improved conditions for our agents to work in, a safer border environment, and more technology to go along with it.

INGRAHAM: I had over the years interviewed so many border patrol agents and customs agents who were so demoralized because they want to do their job and they felt like, I'm not trying to get political here, but under the previous administration they were kind of being held back, or even sometimes vilified unfairly. Tell me about just the general -- you referenced it briefly, but the general mood of the people who have to do this job, and oftentimes it is not a safe job. It is very difficult job.

VITELLO: They take enormous risks, and they want to be successful. So the renewed focus on border security has been very important for us. So adding capability, doing better, doing it in a safer environment, and giving them what the American people want, they want a safer border, and now we have this opportunity with this president to try to get more of that capability down there so that we can do our jobs.

INGRAHAM: Tell me what you all need Congress to do. You have Republicans in charge of the House, Republicans in charge of the Senate, and a Republican president who made border enforcement a primary focus of his administration.

VITELLO: So we wanted to prioritize investments that we can add capabilities. So the border wall system, we are trying to hire agents, we need to do that. And we also need these loopholes closed. We need the loop to be closed on the asylum system. We need to have a way to hold people when they come into the country until their time to be removed once they have the due process. So if we can do all of those things at the same time we will have a much safer border. Fewer people will try to take that dangerous journey. That's what we are asking.

INGRAHAM: We have people in Congress now, mostly more moderate liberal Republicans, trying to push a new amnesty they call it, a technical way of getting a lot of bills on the floor. We don't have to go into it, but would amnesty or dangling the prospect of amnesty at this point as we approach the summer months, would that make your job easier or more difficult?

VITELLO: I don't believe so.

INGRAHAM: You don't believe what, which on, easier or more difficult?

VITELLO: I don't think it would make it easier.

INGRAHAM: It would make it more difficult, would it not, like the summer of 2014 when there was the possibility of amnesty with Boehner and Cantor and all those guys, and you had a big wave of unaccompanied minors crossing the border. Remember that summer.

VITELLO: Cartels will look to exploit the way the system is working now. So closing the loopholes and adding the capability in these investments, border law, the National Guard, giving us more technology on the border, hiring agents, that's what we need to do.

INGRAHAM: How about the prosecutors at the border? How about the fact that you need these immigration judges down there. Again, they have like6,000 more personnel I believe, immigration officials and judges down there, that's what the president I believe is getting. But we have tens of thousands of people crossing in a three and four week period. You need more than that, do you not?

VITELLO: So the justice department is stepping up. They are adding resources. They went to 100 percent prosecution, so the secretary has directed us to refer all people who cross the border illegally for prosecution, and so we are starting to ramp up those capabilities as well. What we've learned over the years if you apply consequences to people doing illegal activity you'll get less of it.

INGRAHAM: Heaven forbid you actually have consequences for illegal activity. Keep us updated because I think the American people need to hear from you directly. You guys are doing the job and we need to hear from you directly what you need, no politics here, what you need to get the job done, period. Will you keep us informed?

VITELLO: Happy to do that.

INGRAHAM: We really appreciate it. And stay right there because we have information on school shootings that will absolutely amaze you. We will show you proof that almost everything the major media are telling you about the school shooting epidemic is actually wrong. Don't go away.


INGRAHAM: Try any other network and you'll hear we are in a crisis experiencing more school shootings than ever before. There's only one thing wrong with that, fact. It's not a fact. The people at this Mises Institute recently took a dispassionate look at the number of school shooting incident in the 1990s compared to today. What they discovered may shock you. Joining us now from Denver to discuss that is Ryan McMaken, senior editor at this Mises Institute, and former aide to Chuck Schumer Chris Hahn is with us in New York. Great to see both of you. Let's start with you, Ryan. Where are we on this? Because it really is alarming. We have more dead students, we have a town in morning 30 miles outside of Houston. We have a lot of politicians who want to something with gun control or gun safety reform, whatever they are calling it. But what is the truth about the actual numbers here?

RYAN MCMAKEN, MISES INSTITUTE: Of course you can never be in a position where you say, hey, there's not homicides, no big deal, problem solved. But when people start talking about how there's an epidemic, how there's a crisis, I'm tempted to go and look at the actual data to see if that's true if we are going to use that is the basis for policymaking. And so after the Parkland disaster back in February we started to see some data that was coming out that started to come to our attention, and some of that came from James Alan Fox at Northeastern University who has some new research coming out showing where he counts up all of these gun incidents that took place over the past 25 years or so, and there wasn't evidence to suggest that this is a growing trend. If anything it shows that the numbers are declining. And at the same time there was new Justice Department data that came out in November of last year showing that school violence is declining as well. And then just to add additional context of that, this all seems quite possible when you consider the fact that the FBI annual data on homicide shows that homicides have basically been cut in half since the 1990s. Homicides are much lower now than they were 20 and 30 years ago.

INGRAHAM: Let's go to Chris on this. Chris, any student lost in a horrific shooting is heartbreaking for families, for the entire community. But it is interesting to see how the media are playing this as a trend, it's something that's going to keep happening, et cetera, et cetera for. One thing happened on CNN today I want to play for you. We don't have time to play the full minute clip. It was on MSNBC, excuse me. It was a full minute long clip of a reporter trying to get these baseball players in Santa Fe high school to say something about gun control. This is just one part of it, let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You saw the teens in Parkland really become the voices of the movement for gun reform across the country. Now your voices have become all important. How do you feel about that responsibility on your shoulders right now?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's just what it is. It's sad that it happens everywhere, but it's kind of tough to go through it.


INGRAHAM: Anyway, none of the baseball players would kind of take the bait on the question. I found it odd to do that. People want to be involved with gun control, they can be involved with gun control. But don't like put them -- the other kids are doing this. It's just a little odd. Chris, what about the numbers question by Ryan's study and this Northeastern study?

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO TALK SHOW: So I looked at it and the study stops in 2013, so we can't really compare what was happening in the last five years from what happened in 2013. Remember, there has been 288 shootings up until today in schools since 2009. That's 57 times more than all the other members of the biggest industrialized countries in the world combined, the G7 combined. So in the United States of America you are 57 times more likely than all of the other G7 nations in the world to be shot in a school.

So what are we doing differently than those schools, than those other countries? And I think we have more lax gun control in this country and that's why we're having more shootings. And we have a culture of guns. I'm not saying there's a one-size-fits-all solution here, Laura, but I am saying we've got to take a real hard look at how people store their guns and who gets a gun.

INGRAHAM: Ryan, 2013. If that's right, that's a pretty devastating response. It's not up to 2018, 2017? What's going on with the study?

MCMAKEN: There's two things we can note here. First of all, the statistic just quoted about there being more than 200 shootings over that time period, Fox actually addressed that in a February "USA Today" column where he noted that more than 50 percent of those shootings were incidents that were just a person who attempted suicide or completed suicide on a campus, or incidents involving a gun where no one was actually shot or injured. So what they've done is they've taken and vastly expanded their definition of what it is.

INGRAHAM: What was the 2013 really quick?

MCMAKEN: I would say let's look at the overall homicide data. If we don't have specifics on school shootings, then let's look at homicides.

INGRAHAM: We'll continue this on radio. Great segment. We've got to get the numbers and the dates right on this study. We're going to be right back continuing.


INGRAHAM: Lots of reaction to tonight's show. We appreciate it, as always, but not enough time to read it all. But this one gave us a good laugh. Rohan says "Not surprised with such a high level of corruption under the Obama administration. O brought Chicago's mafia style politics to the White House. The strong resistance by the former O administration alone proves their guilt." We shall see. That's all the time we have tonight. Mike Emanuel is in for Shannon Bream tonight.


<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.>