Papadopoulos: Intel agents tried to get my wife to wear a wire

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 16, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham and this is the “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington. A big exclusive tonight, in his first American interview since being pardoned, former media baron Conrad Black will be here live later in the hour. Also tonight, Kellyanne Conway, George Papadopoulos, Dan Patrick and Ed Rendell.

But first, "America for Whom?" that's the focus of tonight's “Angle.”

If he somehow thought that Donald Trump was going to shy away from tackling big issues after Republicans lost the House last November, oh, you'd be wrong. From China trade to infrastructure, and now to immigration, he's shown fans and critics alike that he's not just marking time, he really is pursuing what he believes will make America great again.

Meaning, he's focused on lifting up the American worker, the American family, and the American tradition.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Our proposal is pro-American, pro-immigrant and pro-worker, it's just common sense. It will help all of our people, including millions of devoted immigrants to achieve the American dream.


INGRAHAM: Now his plan would basically end the current legal immigration dynamic under which 1.1 million people are given Green Cards to live and work in the United States, it don't reduce the number, but the framework changes.

Now present law allows for 66 percent of all legal immigrants to come through chain migration and sometimes people describe it as distant family migration. Now all of them are admitted regardless of professional capability or English proficiency.


TRUMP: The biggest change we make is to increase the proportion of highly skilled immigration from 12 percent to 57 percent and we'd like to even see if we can go higher.

This will bring us in line with other countries and make us globally competitive.


TRUMP: In other words, a merit-based system is what the White House wants to create, it kind of makes sense, doesn't it versus what we have now. Well, it doesn't make sense to Nancy.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: I want to just say something about the word that they use "Merit". It is really a condescending word. Are they saying family is without merit? Are they saying most of the people that have ever come to the United States in the history of our country are without merit, because they don't have an engineering degree?


INGRAHAM: Yes, that's exactly what they're saying. This breathtakingly disingenuous or ignorant or both. It brings us to a question, though, ours is a country for whom exactly? Is it for anyone who comes across a river and recites a script?

Is it for people who truly go through the legal process, who want to be American in every sense of the word - American citizens, black, brown, Asian and white who work their tails off every day to support themselves and their families. Well, I choose the latter. And those people who desperately want to be American in the legal way.

Now right now we flood the country with more people legal and illegal. And what happens is we make it tougher for native-born Americans who are already struggling.


TRUMP: Unfortunately, the current immigration rules allow foreign workers to substitute for Americans seeking entry-level jobs. America's immigration system should bring in people who will expand opportunity for striving low- income Americans, not to compete with those low income Americans.


TRUMP: He's exactly right job creators, better than people who might be dependent on the system. But I also want to say this, don't buy into the malarkey the Chamber of Commerce recites this endlessly that America needs millions and millions of more workers.

The real translation for we have a worker shortage is, we don't want to raise wages. They never liked it when wages are going up. And if you believe in the law of supply and demand, a tight labor market means that wages are going up. And when wages go up that leads to happier workers, and maybe even happier voters in 2020 and maybe even people who are having bigger families which is also good for society.

Now whatever you think of Trump's framework on immigration, it is a heck of a lot more than the Democrats are doing, which is nothing. Now last week we took you to Del Rio, Texas that sector of the border and it was nothing short of shocking.

Our absurd laws, our rulings by radical judges have basically incentivized widespread fraud and the cartels are - doing all the human and drug trafficking are fat and happy, while regular Americans have to suffer. This must stop. Congress should stay in session until they pass the necessary legislation to close all these loopholes and end this madness.

Now at the current pace, by the end of this calendar year, we will have caught and released almost 1 million migrants into the United States. Wrap your head around that figure. But immigration activists aren't buying it. They don't want you even to know these facts.

The group New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice issued this statement today, "This plan of the President's is a continuation of Stephen Miller's scheme to impose his White Supremacist ideology on the American people with anti-immigrant and racist attacks by punishing immigrants and asylum seekers".

They're so predictable that they're actually boring. Yesterday we heard from Americans whose lives have been shattered because of illegal immigration. The wife and the brother, a police officer killed by an illegal immigrant in the sanctuary state of California said this.


ANAMIKA SINGH, WIDOW OF FALLEN OFFICER: You're the only one that actually reached out and gave you condolence to the family. And it actually means a lot to all of our law enforcement families that are here.

REGGIE SINGH, BROTHER OF FALLEN OFFICER: This man over here, the Singh family supports him. Whatever he's doing for the law enforcement, we support him. The White House has reached out to us multiple times - multiple times. I don't think that has ever happened before - ever. This man is amazing.


INGRAHAM: Kamala Harris, I don't believe, ever contacted the Singh family. Somehow Democrats are unmoved by stories like Corporal Singh's killing, the human toll of illegal immigration. They don't want to acknowledge it.

But let's make one thing clear, Trump, also while focusing on border enforcement and the need to change the system, he also appreciates, as we all do, that legal immigrants add tremendously and have consistently to our nation's unfolding story - our economy and our culture. And any media person who says differently about Trump and what he believes is lying to you.

But the President also correctly understands that our safety, our security, our American culture and our prosperity have at times been compromised and our people harmed by feckless politicians who'd rather complain on MSNBC than offer a way forward. The President is now calling their bluff with his sensible plan, and that's THE ANGLE.

Now despite the common sense of Trump's immigration plan, it's still in sort of broad stroke form, why are Democrats just reflexively rejecting any type of compromise? Even though it's a Joe Biden who claims to be the consensus builder have left reality behind on immigration.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think anyone who is in a situation where they are in a need of health care, regardless of whether they are documented or undocumented. You have an obligation to see that they are cared for.

It's not people breaking down gates coming across the border, so the biggest thing we've got to do on this thing is tone down the rhetoric.


INGRAHAM: I love it when they say tone down the rhetoric. That means we're winning. Joining me now is Texas Lieutenant Governor, Dan Patrick and Ed Rendell, former DNC Chair and Former Governor of Pennsylvania.

Ed, what is Biden actually really offering that's different? I mean you've criticized the President's framework or say it's not enough or it doesn't reduce immigration, doesn't increase immigration, whatever the criticism is, OK well it will just let it hang. But the Democrats are essentially doing nothing, and I don't even understand what he was saying there about health care for anyone who comes here illegally.

ED RENDELL, D-PENN., FORMER GOVERNOR: I couldn't hear it. But I think what the Democrats are offering is to go back to the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with 68 votes, and so a lot of Republican votes and all Democratic votes, four years ago.

That was a comprehensive solution to the immigration plan. And it had some of the elements that the President wants. For example, it had I think, the opportunity for people who graduate from American colleges and from American graduate schools to get immediate Green Cards, because those are the people who are going to be job creators five, 10 years down the road.

It created a guest worker--

INGRAHAM: No one's clamoring for that except the Chamber of Commerce. I mean, if I hear guest worker one more time because wages are going up. We finally have American wages going up, and the only thing we hear from the Chamber of Commerce is we need more workers.

I'm sorry, but that is going to kill the Republican Party if they are answer to everything. Maybe the Democrats want - say new voters, but it's going to kill the Republican Party if they give in to the Chamber of Commerce. Trump won by campaigning against the Chamber of Commerce on a lot of these issues, and Dan--

RENDELL: No, I know Laura--

INGRAHAM: Yes, yes, he won because he stood up to the Republican elites who want amnesty first and enforcement second, that's why he--

RENDELL: Laura, he is running Chamber of Commerce - he's running of Chamber of Commerce.

INGRAHAM: Yes, hold on one second Ed. I want to get Dan's reaction to something else that Trump said today. Let's watch.



TRUMP: Future immigrants will be required to learn English and to pass a civics exam prior to admission.


INGRAHAM: Now, Dan, Trump will, of course, get hit for this, but isn't that reasonable?

DAN PATRICK, R-TX, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: No, isn't reasonable. But I can tell you of so many people in Texas that I know who came from Mexico and their families came. And their families would not let them speak Spanish at home, they insist that they learn English - news anchors that I've worked with when I was in television, for example.

Laura, let me - you talked about a number before and here's a number that will startle your viewers. The census projects that we will have about 4 million babies born in America next year. But this year Laura 5 million illegals will cross into this country illegally.

The 1 million we catch, and as you learn last week on the border, we get one out of every four or five. So the 1 million we catch and the 4 million we don't. So we have more people coming into this country--


PATRICK: --illegally then we have babies born. And the President is right to say, we have a right as a nation to select who comes to America. And you know who's selecting them now, the drug cartels.

The drug cartels are rounding up the family. 63,000 last month crossed our border, 30,000 single men and they rushed them across certain parts of the border. And then they send all the others up the middle with the drugs and the contraband.

Laura, the Democrats in my view - and I don't use this word lightly, this is treasonous that's what happened. They're selling out our nation and the President - his plan today is sensible. And when Ed Rendell - and I respect the Former Governor of Pennsylvania, I used to live in Pennsylvania.

Governor, but the truth is all old plans that the Democrats agreed to never talked about a barrier, never talked about border security - never. When you make that pledge, Governor, then the Republicans will listen. But we must secure the border first and then let's have legal immigration where we select who comes here.

INGRAHAM: Ed your reaction.

RENDELL: Well, I think myself and most democrats are in favor of steps that will secure the border. And in fact--

PATRICK: Well, let's do it now.

RENDELL: --and in fact, the plan that I talked - plan that I talked about gave a billions of more dollars to hire more border guards. That's the--

PATRICK: We can have all the guards, Ed, if we don't have a barrier to help those guards do their job.

INGRAHAM: Yes, let him finish.

RENDELL: Number two there as far as illegal immigration, who - which American President in recent times deported the most illegal immigrants who crossed into America illegally? President Trump? No. President Obama deported more illegal immigrants--

INGRAHAM: All right. So what happened to the Democrat Party? Why are they not - why they're not talking about deporting people now? We have hundreds of thousands who haven't showed up for their deportation hearings.

Every single one of them who haven't shown up for their deportation hearings should leave our country. They don't respect our system. They don't have a right to be here in the country, if they can't show up even for their proceedings. That is not being cool with the American system. And I don't know why Democrats who used to be hawkish on the border are suddenly open borders. Why have Democrats changed?

RENDELL: First of all, there's no one view with a Democratic Party, that's made up by a lot of different views.

PATRICK: Seems like it's one view.

RENDELL: --not, it's not one view. Look, I told you President Obama deported more people than President Trump--

INGRAHAM: How many - how often is he talking about that now? Where is President Obama's leadership? He could come out and talk about how we need to deport more people then. I'm happy to have his help.

RENDELL: Look, the answer is, you need a comprehensive solution to immigration.

INGRAHAM: So we can't do anything until we do amnesty?

RENDELL: No, no--

INGRAHAM: OK. So we can't do anything. We have a crisis right now, but we have to legalize a million people before we can address the crisis, that's just nonsensical.

RENDELL: We should try to - Laura--

PATRICK: It's a difficult Democrat answer wait, wait, wait.

INGRAHAM: Yes, all right.

RENDELL: I'm not saying wait, I'm saying let's do--

PATRICK: Yes, you are.

RENDELL: --a comprehensive immigration reform bill now and let's compromise on both sides of the issue. And I think if we did it in good spirit, we could get it done.


PATRICK: We have a raging fire on the border. A 100,000 a month are coming, over 1 million this year--

INGRAHAM: It's dangerous.

PATRICK: And we have to secure the border--

INGRAHAM: It's a dangerous - yes. It's a dangerous situation for the migrants, for the American people at the border--

PATRICK: And for America.

INGRAHAM: It's a dangerous situation. I saw it with my own eyes. It's much worse than I thought. I want to thank both of you for coming on tonight.

Now - we're now joined by Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway. Kellyanne Conway I want to first play for you some of the challenges we saw down at the border last week. Let's watch.


INGRAHAM (through translator):Where are you headed?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Miami.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have to remove from the field patrols to fill bottles. And the good thing is many of us are parents, so we know how to change diapers and we know how to feed bottles.

INGRAHAM (through translator): Do you have friends in the States?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I have a friend in Washington.

INGRAHAM (through translator): Washington, D.C.?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Yes.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I see the video right there, because these guys put a video on the internet. I see the video how do you do it, to cross. If you do you can see on YouTube.


INGRAHAM: He sees on - goes on YouTube figures out how to cross, because he gets picked up by the Border Patrol then released within 24 hours. So Kellyanne after seeing this, my instinct is to say why not deal and focus all of the administration's rhetoric on that?

That's - Dan's right, it is a raging fire at the border right - a fire of humanity endangering themselves in our country. And yet we're talking about legal immigration. I'm not getting that.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well there's two points to the President's big proposal today, Laura, and one is full and final border security which he's been talking about for the four years, he's been running for him being President.

The second part is the modernization and merit-based integration system. You at least went down to the border. The President's plan today does the same thing. He's talking to the professionals at the border, what do they need. He's not bothering with the people behind you in Congress, because they failed to act.

They can just fix, CORA (ph), they can fix TVPRA so that we as a country--

INGRAHAM: Cora is a core decision--

CONWAY: CORA is a court decision that compels us to release kids after 20 days. We have no - we have no opportunity other than to do that. They can fix that. The people right behind you can do it. But they fail to act, so the President's taking on.

But this is full-on final border security for us who will have 1 million people coming to this country now this year illegally. And I think when some people here are catching, release they may not be aware that catch and release means, release into the interior, not released back to their home country.

They hear and they think, well, that's a good idea. For years the flow was single males from Mexico, they could be returned to the home country, not allowed to do that now with the flow of children and adults.

INGRAHAM: What's the purpose of this plan? I mean - I think there's a lot of good stuff in this plan--

CONWAY: There's two big things.

INGRAHAM: What's the purpose - it's not legislation--

CONWAY: It would be if we could even get the Democrats to read the plan and come and talk to us about it. But this president wants full and final border security. So it means you close all the loopholes at the border.

You give these Border Security agents what they've been asking for, which includes more technology, the barrier - the wall. We're going to have about 400 miles of it done soon, even the newspapers are starting to say that.

It caught my eye that the Washington Post ABC poll reported that there's 17% increase among Democrats from January when Chuck and Nancy said manufactured crises to April, they're calling it a crisis now. They've seen the pictures.

But border security means exactly that. It means closing the loopholes, having that barrier--

INGRAHAM: --just said that Congress is not going to do it. Let me tell talk about Blumenthal. Blumenthal - Richard Blumenthal from my home state, one of my least favorite--

CONWAY: Honestly--

INGRAHAM: But he says is despicable demagoguery. So how - so you put this out there. So my question is this really a 2020 platform for all Republicans they hope to run on?

CONWAY: That's up to the Congress. We would love for them to come to the White House tomorrow and find a way to act on this, at least read it. That is dismissive demagoguery by Blumenthal. It doesn't even matter if he's not going to read it and consider it.

But this is not a 2020 document if the Congress can act now. We're interested in 2019. So in addition to full border security, it also does modernizes a system that has not been touched in 1965 - 54 years. So members of Congress certainly are never turned terminated (ph) it, but fresh and creative ideas for immigration were terminated a long time--

INGRAHAM: I think it sense. The idea of just endless family members coming over, so cousins--


CONWAY: --status quo, so this focuses on the immediate family, not just--

INGRAHAM: Right. So you could still sponsor a minor and supposes--

CONWAY: Yes, children and parents. There is no question.

INGRAHAM: Why is E-Verify not in? A lot of us or really hoped - President has talked about E-Verify so often. Stephen Miller is a big fan of E- Verify, if you stop the employment for these people they won't come. Most of them are just economic migrants--

CONWAY: See this is not the final word--

INGRAHAM: So why is that unavailable?

CONWAY: --I think these are the two big fronts that we felt comfortable putting forward now because the President sees the urgency and urgency of border security. And also we want to shine a light on the fact that nobody in Congress has bothered to touch the illegal immigration system in 54 years. Why is that?

Because so many of them were vested in the status quo, they pretend they're worried about the children, they pretend they're worried about the families. If they were, they wouldn't be happy, they would do something about girls - the ages of our daughters being pumped up with birth control on their way in the treacherous journey and then tested for pregnancy when they get here, it's outrageous. They don't know what happens to those kids once they get here and they're released.

INGRAHAM: The kids were traumatized.

CONWAY: Of course they are. They they've come all the way on that journey with no guarantee. They've been lied to by the Coyotes who take their life savings and worse for many of them.

So the Democrats, I think, they want this as a 2020 issue. We like to resolve it in 2019.

INGRAHAM: Was there any thought of reducing the legal immigration numbers? 1.1 million, President ran in part on maybe re-examining that - Stephen Miller was always for lowering immigration - until we get the border solved.

Maybe pause - I mean people have again said pausing immigration except for extreme cases--

CONWAY: But there is a reframing here. It's merit-based which means that in this country 12% of our illegal immigration comes from employability, 66 or so percent comes from family ties--

INGRAHAM: So basically flipped it, right?

CONWAY: This flips it. Canada already has it flipped. New Zealand has it flipped. So we're looking at a system that's more aligned with those other countries, who yes, welcome immigrants as we do.

Also Laura this ridiculous raise the wage artificially or get minimum wage rates artificially. Our wages are not $22 an hour. We have 7.5 million--

INGRAHAM: Don't let them flood the country with more people that allow it start lowering wages, that's what the chamber wants.

CONWAY: --we don't need to do that. People need to come here legally and get one of these 7.5 million jobs.

INGRAHAM: I'm Kellyanne Conway thanks for staying up late tonight. We really appreciate it. All right coming out former Trump advisor George Papadopoulos brings us new tales of the Deep State's traps that were set for him, up next.



JAMES BAKER, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, FBI: It's not just like Papadopoulos drops in out of nowhere--

You have all this stuff going on in the summer before we get the Papadopoulos information. You've got all this information coming out about what the Russians are doing with the hacking and the dumping of e-mails, clearly intended to have an impact on our political system.

And then in the midst of that that's when we get the Papadopoulos information--


INGRAHAM: That from a Former General Counsel of the FBI, Jim Baker, about our next guest. George Stephanopoulos says that - Papadopoulos. I just got you and the Stephanopoulos. That would have been a fun story. That said, he has only just begun to lay out the timeline of when he believes the Obama Intel agencies were attempting to entrap him and he joins us now.

Now George what haven't you have revealed to date, it's just - how many agencies were coming after you - one person, and something that they tried to get your girlfriend to do, what was that?

GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Oh, my god. Thanks for having me Laura. So besides the FBI trying to have my then girlfriend, now wife actually wear a wire to try and entrap me herself, which was completely crazy.

She was an Italian citizen visiting me, as a girlfriend and we subpoenaed her and basically tried to flip her against me, which was incredibly bizarre. But what we believed they really targeted or her for was because she actually knew all about Joseph Mifsud's connections to the Italian government and his connections in Europe.

Which we just recently found out today that the Italian government, under the presidency of that country - the Prime Minister I should say, just fired the heads of three Intel agencies in Italy and I think it has to do with this person Joseph Mifsud, who the president and Devin Nunes and other people have been asking the government in Italy to examine a lot more, because he's actually at the core of this entire scam.

INGRAHAM: Yes. People forget about these figures. I mean it starts to read like a John le Carre novel, the way this entire thing is played out. But you've heard the Democrats and what they're saying. They're saying this was well predicated.

You had Brennan last night, I think will play the video. He was on television last night again and claiming that this was all - this is all copacetic. Let's watch.


JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do believe it's important that there be an understanding about just how strongly predicated that investigation was - I was there in the summer of '16 and it was very well predicated.


INGRAHAM: Well predicated George?

PAPADOPOULOS: I want to make it very clear that by the time that I joined the Trump campaign, before my name was even public, an FBI intermediary named Arvinder Sambei had a company I used to work for in London, introduced me to this person Joseph Mifsud at a company - at a school I should say called Link Campus which the CIA and the FBI trains at.

Fast forward to April of 2016, I'm - the Australian government is reaching out trying to connect with me, 10 Downing Street is connecting with me, and then of course, which I find very suspicious is, that the DIA reached out to me at the U.S. Embassy in London.

These two individuals named Gregory Baker and Terrence Dudley just days before this infamous meeting I had with Alexander Downer, who I've testified under oath and I've reported both to the FBI and Bob Mueller that I felt that he was a spying on me.

And something I want to you know make clear about this meeting with Downer. I don't think I was just suspicious that he was spying on me because I'm - in my transcripts to Congress you see people like Mark Meadows and John Radcliffe asking me if I ever was presented with transcripts of any meetings I had with Alexander Downer, Josef Mifsud or any of these strange people that were running into me? And I said no.

So I think Congress probably has transcripts. They probably already know and the President already knows that these people were spying, and it's going to be a big bombshell moving forward.

INGRAHAM: This is good.

PAPADOPOULOS: It's going to be great.

INGRAHAM: All right, George, now you've got me really interested in this. OK. I love the transcripts and tidbit, thank you so much. Now we can pick up on a story that we began to tell you last night.

A source is now telling “The Ingraham Angle” that e-mails or communications from December 2016 revealed that while former FBI director Jim Comey thought the infamous dossier was flimsy, he still agreed to add it to the original assessment into Russian interference. He even briefed President Trump about the claims that were made about him, of course, inside that dossier.

Now his flimsy intelligence ever abused and such a - has it - was it ever abused in such an outrageous manner who better to ask than Kevin Brock, he was the Former Assistant Director of Intel for the FBI.

All right Kevin, this is wild now. So we seem to now know that Comey understood that this was "Unreliable", which we understand was the word used.

KEVIN BROCK, FORMER ASSISTANT FBI DIRECTOR: If Americans are confused at this point, they should be because, even veteran counterintelligence investigators are a little bit confused.

INGRAHAM: They were. Look at George - I call him Stephanopoulos - Papadopoulos. They were on him - it's five different ways, but someday. I mean that was crazy.

BROCK: Well, yes, so two points, real quick. Number one the dossier was used, we know, because of the FBI admitted it as the basis for the FISA warrants against Carter Page. They took it seriously. Contrary to what James Baker said, they took it seriously and literally because they swore to it in a court. And so now there's some obfuscation between James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper about how can they use this dossier in an intelligence report, or should they report it to the president. It's already been used in a warrant. The FBI shouldn't be involved in these conversations with the intelligence --

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: But the conversations that they possess now, the government possesses, Bill Barr and the attorney, U.S. attorney in Connecticut, where he says that it's unreliable. If those communications actually exist, what kind of trouble could Comey be in here?

BROCK: Not only that, and Comey is consistently characterized it as a salacious and unverified, so why did he swear to it?

INGRAHAM: But unreliable. Why are we bringing it to the president, then? For what reason?

BROCK: Exactly. And the reason is, I think that most people are becoming suspicious, is that they wanted to it get out. They wanted it to become public knowledge somehow. Forget about an intelligence assessment. They wanted it for the benefit of everybody to know about for political reasons, probably. So it's a little bit tangled.

And to your earlier point about poor Mr. Papadopoulos being targeted by a number of sources that look like they had relationships with multiple agencies. No offense to George Papadopoulos, but he was kind of on the fringes of the campaign.

INGRAHAM: It was like an advisory board. But maybe they thought he was an easy target.

BROCK: Well, a target of convenience, perhaps. But it doesn't look like - - and this is why, I think, Bill Barr is justified in asking for an investigation by Durham, because the predication does look a little bit thin in this.

INGRAHAM: Nellie Ohr also deleted e-mails exchanged with DOJ husband Bruce Ohr, that came out tonight courtesy of John Solomon. So we're deleting emails, talk about obstruction of justice. That's like 101. Thank you so much, great to see you, as always.

Up next the latest higher education scam by the College Board. And wait until you hear about the other education racket this group was behind.


INGRAHAM: Forget merit. A new tool being considered by the College Board could completely tip the scales. Fox News confirming that the makers of the SAT have started to roll out an evaluation of students' adversity. The score is calculated by a variety of neighborhood, family, and high school environmental factors which includes crime, poverty, income, educational level, whether you're a single parent household, et cetera, et cetera.

How does one actually quantify adversity? Has the son of an alcoholic who happens to be a millionaire, has he suffered from adversity? What do you get on the scale for that? What about a student athlete who suffered some type of devastating injury and thus lost an opportunity for a scholarship, where would that rate?

Joining me now to debate all of this is our dynamic duo, Leo Terrell, attorney and former high school teacher, Leo, I love that, I love teachers.


INGRAHAM: And Horace Cooper, co-chair of Project 21. I'm still going to take you both out to dinner, by the way, we're going to have so much fun. But Horace, this feels like it could be, in the criticism online today, a proxy for race-based admissions.

HORACE COOPER, CO-CHAIR, PROJECT 21: That's exactly what this is. Here's the thing. A lot of the lawsuits are getting to the courts, and the courts are making it harder and harder to use race as a proxy. You come up with this adversity score, and then you don't tell the student what his score is, and the schools get to decide which portions of it.

What they're actually getting to do is throw away, did you perform well in school, do you have some aptitude. Those kinds of things are what the SAT is supposed to do. Now, if you don't want an SAT anymore, that's fine, but what you shouldn't be allowed to do is have the SAT company work in tandem with the Affirmative Action crowd that's just giving more advantage to one group over another group.

INGRAHAM: Now, Pew Research found, Leo, that I think most Americans say that race or ethnicity shouldn't be considered in college admissions, whether it should be a major factor, only seven percent, minor factor, 19 percent, not a factor at all, 73 percent of Americans say that's not kosher to do that.

So what do you think? This seems a little curious, because adversity is obviously subjective. The SAT and so forth, I was never great at these tests so I'm not big in love with these tests, but they're just objective standards. So how do you measure the adversity here, Leo?

TERRELL: Laura, let me submit the following facts to you. A Mississippi family with seven kids moved to L.A. They had seven kids. The mother didn't have a high school education, eighth grade, father, high school. They had multiple minimum wage job. They lived during the Watts Riots. They had a son, one of the seven sons receive an opportunity to go to law school through Affirmative Action, through UCLA. He passed the bar, he took the California bar. He became a public school teacher and a civil rights attorney. That's Leo Terrell, that's the who is on your show now. Am I an example of adversity to have my parents who didn't have high school education --

COOPER: Well, it looks like his mic is off. I will just say that I can give --

INGRAHAM: No, he's getting choke, he's actually getting choked up. And Leo, I'm thrilled that you did everything you did and you accomplished everything you accomplished. I came from a pretty humble background myself. My mom was a waitress. We're not going to do the I lived five miles from the school and I have to walk routine. People have their own circumstances and it's tough.

But I think it's a larger question of how you say it, because one person comes from this neighborhood, and this person comes from this neighborhood, you're going punish the kid who comes from the better neighborhood? So he doesn't get the slot, but the kid who scores on the subjective adversity --

TERRELL: You have got to give people opportunity, Laura. That's why I am on this show right here. I'm a civil rights attorney, a public school teacher --

INGRAHAM: We got it. There are a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds who have done well because of objective standards as well.

COOPER: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Otherwise, let's just get rid of the objective standards altogether, and if we think you can be successful subjectively, then you should get in. If that's what people want to do, I guess we can try that.

COOPER: It is precisely, and I'm thankful for objective tests. It is the reason why I got a full ride to the University of Texas. And it made me, who came from a second generation family of people who were high school graduates, and then some became college graduates.

TERRELL: And yet Horace is forgetting how tough it was for him, and now he wants to close those same doors for others?

COOPER: No, no, no, no. It's not about closing any doors.

TERRELL: It is. It is. People need help.

COOPER: It's about making --

TERRELL: People need help.

COOPER: It's about making sure that in America, you are not judged by your race --

TERRELL: It's not a question of race. It's a question of people having difficulties.

INGRAHAM: You're right, and there are a lot of people out there.

COOPER: Which is school choice.

INGRAHAM: That's why we want to get our public schools where they need to be.

COOPER: That's exactly right.

INGRAHAM: Choice, raise the bar for everybody. I think when you raise the bar for people, they surprise you. And I'm glad both of you did so well. It's great to have both of you on tonight.

TERRELL: That's why I'm here.

INGRAHAM: Leo, it's great to see you.

And he was just pardoned by the president. Conrad Black will react in his first American interview. And what does he say to those who claim his pardon was just tied to his favorable writing about the president? Oh, they're so bitter. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: President Trump issued two pardons yesterday, one to Patrick Nolan, a former Republican state legislative leader, and the other to my next guest, former media baron, historian, author Conrad Black. In 2007, Black was convicted after prosecutors accused him of, quote, several acts of mail fraud and obstruction. And it's worth noting that several of these convictions were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. But Black still served 42 months in prison. He got his sentence cut short but not short enough. And he was forced to leave the United States upon his release. Now despite all of this, as well as pleas for his clemency from luminaries of every political persuasion, this was the reaction today.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump is handing out pardons like a very large bunny who loves rotten eggs.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Usually you have to exhibit some kind of remorse if you're going to get a presidential pardon. And Conrad Black has not exhibited that.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: So if you find yourself in a bit of a legal pickle and you're not wondering how to get out of prison, you might want to think about writing a glowing book about President Trump.


INGRAHAM: Here exclusively in his first American interview since his pardon is Lord Conrad Black. Conrad, everybody knows, you and I have known each other a long time, and I have spoken about your absurd case for many, many years and written about it. But your reaction to those who say that this was just your flattery that won you a pardon.

CONRAD BLACK, PARDONED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP: Laura, thank you for having me on. My reaction is I've absolutely no reason to believe that the president is even aware that I wrote that book. He certainly has never mentioned it. And in any case, anyone who has read it can see that it is not uncritical. It's no whitewash. It points out some of the less salubrious aspects of his career. And I am not uncritical of him. In general, I am supporter for policy reasons.

And he was at pains to say when he phoned last week that his motivation, and he authorized me to say this, urged me to say this, was not that we'd known each other a long time or that I've been generally supportive of him. It is that after careful examination by the White House Counsel and his legal staff, they confirmed what Alan Dershowitz and others lawyers said on my behalf, and the president's own words were, it was an unjust verdict, and I never should have been charged, and it was a bad rap. Those were his motives. If he handed favors out to his friends, there would be, you would have five ambassadors in every embassy.

INGRAHAM: And people should note that the prosecutor who had you in his sights was Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. attorney in Chicago. He's now representing Jim Comey. And the echoes of prosecutorial abuse and the use of government and state authority to target people, any thoughts?

BLACK: Yes. We found the prosecutors, including the FBI contribution, offering absolute untruths almost every day. There was never any sanction for it. I have to say, Laura, I know you're a well-qualified lawyer. I'm a lawyer, I haven't practiced for 50 years, but I am in theory a lawyer. And any serious jurisdiction except the United States would disbar most of these prosecutors. It's absolutely outrageous what they do.

And as everybody knows, basically what they do is they target somebody, they round up everybody near them in whatever activity is objected to, say you better jog your memory or there's an obstruction of justice going on here and a conspiracy to subvert justice, and you will be charged. But if you can jog your memory successfully and help us, then you have immunity from perjury and carry on.

INGRAHAM: Well, they use --

BLACK: That's how you get 98 percent conviction rate, a North Korean rate of conviction. It's a wonderful country, but there is a problem in the justice system.

INGRAHAM: Conrad Black, really happy that you got that pardon, and can't wait to see you in the United States. Come on the show in person when you're in the United States.

BLACK: I'd always be honored to do it, Laura. Thank you.

INGRAHAM: You take care.

And coming up, the judge in that Colorado school shooting case has sealed all of the court documents. Why? We'll tell you next.


INGRAHAM: We're still learning disturbing new details about the two teens involved in that Colorado STEM school shooting. But for some reason Douglas County District Attorney Judge Teresa Slade sealed the entire case file, banning the public from seeing anything in it. So what is she hiding? Trace Gallagher is in our West Coast Newsroom with all the details. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Laura. Both suspects in the Colorado STEM school shooting are being charged as adults. The charges themselves, including murder, theft, and arson, are public, but despite prosecutors wanting nearly all the documents public, as you say, Judge Teresa Slade decided to seal them both, though she didn't show any cause or compelling need for secrecy. And it's unclear at this point if anyone has challenged the ruling.

We know that 18-year-old suspect Devon Erickson was anti-Trump, supported the far left, and on social media expressed antipathy for Christians who hate gays. He even drove a car that was spray-painted with a pentagram, the number 666, the sign of the beast, and the words "F society." The other suspect is listed in court documents as 16-years-old Maya Elizabeth McKinney. But apparently McKinney is transgender and goes by Alec.

Bullying is reportedly being looked at as a motive for the shooting, but not the only motive. At least one of the suspects had been in therapy and had a history of legal and illegal drug use. And Alec McKinney's father is reportedly an illegal immigrant who had been recently deported in 2017 and had his own criminal history, including kidnapping, domestic violence, and weapons charges. Five months ago a parent warned the STEM school that bullying and violence could lead to the next Columbine. The school investigated, Laura, but found no evidence to support the claims.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my goodness. No one is talking about this. Trace, thank you so much for that report.

Joe Biden has been repeating himself for years. Tonight's Last Bite reveals how.


INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite. Joe Biden has a very particular set of skills, skills he's acquired over a very long career, skills that make them repeat himself over and over and over again.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This ain't your father's Republican Party.

By the way, this ain't your father's Republican Party.

This ain't your father's Republican Party.

This is not your father's Republican Party, by the way. It's a different outfit.

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.