Rand Paul talks Brennan's security clearance, Russia trip

close

Video

Rand Paul talks Brennan's security clearance, Russia trip

Did Rand Paul convince Trump to revoke John Brennan's security clearance? The Kentucky senator discusses Brennan and his diplomatic visit to Russia on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," August 16, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening from Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle." We have a huge show for you tonight featuring exclusives with Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Kevin McCarthy.

Plus, a special Thursday edition of Friday Follies with Raymond Arroyo. Let's get right to our top story. How to prune the judicial branch? That's the focus of tonight's "Angle."

As the media and their Democrat compatriots obsess over Omarosa or Michael Cohen or even John Brennan, President Trump is methodically putting a conservative imprint on the judiciary. And not just on the Supreme Court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know, when I got in, we had over 100 federal judges that weren't appointed. I don't know why Obama left that. It was like a big, beautiful present to all of us. It was like the gift from heaven. We were left judges. They are the ones that judge all of your disputes. They judge on what is fair on the environment and what is not fair, where they're going to take your farms and factories away and where they are not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: In only 20 months, he has nominated and the Senate has confirmed 26 new district court judges, and a record 24 federal appeals court judges, with two more appellate court nominees scheduled for votes this week.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should get huge plaudits for making Trump's judicial confirmations a priority. Yet, conservatives are still frustrated. But why? Well, because the most notoriously activist and the most reverse circuit court in the nation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out west, is still sitting with seven vacancies.

Before Trump took office, the Ninth Circuit was totally lopsided, with 18 Democratic and seven Republican appointees. Trump has managed to get one nominee through from Hawaii and another from Idaho is likely to be confirmed later this year, plus, a Seattle attorney was nominated to the court this summer.

But still, now more than half of the 13 circuit court vacancies remaining nationwide are out on the Ninth Circuit. And what's more concerning, is that the White House has yet to nominate anyone for the three open seats in California. I can think of two good nominees. The reason for this lies with the time-honored practice known as blue slipping court nominees. That is the courtesy of giving a state two senators an opportunity to say yay or nay to the judicial nomination of a president going forward.

And the Democrats, by the way, already accusing the Republicans of messing with this 100-year-old tradition, which is kind of funny considering that in 2013, Democrats themselves chose to go what they call nuclear and ended the ability of opponents to filibuster trial and appellate court nominations. And when Harry Reid, by the way, announced the change, it was all of course, making perfect sense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY REID, FORMER SENATOR: The rule of change will make cloture for all nominations, other than the Supreme Court, a majority threshold vote. Yes or no. The senate is a living thing and to survive, it must change as it has over the history of this great country. To the average American, adapting the rules to make the Senate work again is just common sense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Just common sense, OK. Well, it's time for senate Republicans to use their own common sense to bust the current standoff with California senators, Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein. As all these seats sit empty on the Ninth Circuit, it continues on its progressive merry way. So, is it time to formally ditch the slip?

The argument against doing that after all could be that this could all come back to bite Republicans big time when a Democrat wins the White House down the road. And I get that, I understand it, but given how the Ninth Circuit has stymied key elements of the president's agenda, I think we are kind of pass the point of worrying about Senate tradition.

The Ninth Circuit is completely out of control, from reversing the presidents travel ban last year to blocking Trump on sanctuary cities, it's essentially been acting like an extension of the anti-Trump resistance.

There is another option, though, that is short of killing the blue slip altogether, and it would just be to minimize its effect, in other words, the views of the home states senators are still a factor in selecting judicial nominees but they are not the equivalent of an automatic veto over any presidents pick.

But we need to face facts. Even if the president fills all the open seats with terrific constitutional conservatives, the makeup of that Ninth Circuit runaway court will still be 16 Democrat appointees and 13 Republican nominees. But certainly, there would be a better chance to have balance than any random three-judge panel, right? The odds are better that way.

And that wouldn't just be better by the way, for the president or his agenda. It would be better for the rule of law, the constitution, and the country. And that's "The Angle." And it's not just the federal judges, the latest example in that horrifying case out of New Mexico involving a remote compound, child abuse, and radical Islamic extremists.

Astoundingly, Judge Sarah Backus is granting bail to five adults in the abuse case, claiming prosecutors failed to identify any specific threat to the community. Now, that's the spite (ph) prosecutors alleging that these guys were training kids to use all those firearms to carry out terror attacks at schools. How is this possible?

Joining us now with reaction is Attorney Harmeet Dhillon who works on these types of cases along with constitutional law attorney Troy Slaten. Harmeet, let's start with you because I think the regular folks watching this cannot believe their ears, where we had the authorities who visited this compound, said that , you know -- the first police officer on the scene, said he had never seen conditions like this.

It was so sad, so depraved, kids were starving, and of course, a body of a child found on that compound, as well. So now, four of the defendants have $20,000 bail set? What?

HARMEET DHILLON, RNC NATIONAL COMMITTEEWOMAN: It isn't even bail, Laura. So, it's worse than that. It's a $20,000 signature bond, meaning that if they don't show up for their court dates, they have to promise to pay the government $20,000, which is obviously ridiculous. If you have somebody who is potentially going to be put away for life on terror charges, a $20,000 promise to pay is not a deterrent for them to flee or commit more crimes.

This is as a result of New Mexico's very liberal bail law. They did bail reform in 2016 and the chief justice of the -- one of the justices of the Supreme Court added some additional conditions to that so that at the very early stage, the prosecutors have to show why "clear and convincing evidence" that the person is either a flight risk or a danger to the community.

Now, let's review the evidence here. Here, as you said, you have 11 children who are starving and being trained, according to prosecutors, to commit crimes including terror crimes, rapid recharging of guns, and are being abused. You have a dead child, you have numerous weapons, you have hundreds of feet of tunnel under this compound, and you have somebody who is being held on a kidnapping charge in another jurisdiction.

So, if this isn't clear and convincing evidence that a, there's a flight risk, and b, there is a potential danger to the community, I don't know what is. And the judge went out of her way to say to the prosecutors that, oh well, this seems like an unconventional lifestyle that you are describing here.

INGRAHAM: What?!

DHILLON: But I don't really see the danger to the community. I mean, it's crazy.

INGRAHAM: Lifestyle?

DHILLON: Anybody watching this knows that that's nonsense. "Unconventional lifestyle" from the judge on Monday. That's right.

INGRAHAM: Troy, this is what the judge actually said when they were discussing this bail issue in court. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH BACKUS, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The state alleges that there was a big plan, but the state hasn't shown, to my satisfaction, by referring to this new evidence what in fact that plan was. There is no reason for me to believe that these defendants have in the past show themselves to be a danger to the community.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So Troy, again, to non-legal people out there, just regular people watching this tonight. They see a situation where you had five adults, 11 children kept and depraved, abusive conditions, one dead child, and they just have to sign on the dotted line that they will pay the $20,000 when they come back for their hearing. How is this good for the community?

TROY SLATEN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY: Laura, the judge here is just following the law. The Eighth Amendment to the United States constitution, which we don't get to talk a lot about outside of law school classrooms, is very clear. The government can't impose excessive bail. An excessive bail is anything more than what's required to make sure that somebody comes to court.

So the court here imposed not only the $20,000 but electronic monitoring. They have to check in with their lawyers, and there are many other less restricted means.

INGRAHAM: Once a week, Troy. One time a week. We got a dead child --

SLATEN: That's true.

INGRAHAM: -- starving children. There would have been more dead children undoubtedly had authorities not arrived on the scene, and they don't have to fork over the 20K each, Troy --

SLATEN: Laura, all the kids --

INGRAHAM: -- correct? (Inaudible) Harmeet right here, correct?

DHILLON: That's right. That's right. It's a signature law. It's only 20K if they don't show up.

INGRAHAM: Do the defendants have to pay the money?

SLATEN: Not right now. No --

INGRAHAM: Hello? Thank you. Thank you.

SLATEN: -- they absolutely do not.

INGRAHAM: I'm freaking out right now. I'm sorry, but it's an outrage if they don't have to pay the money. Why do we get across (ph), four adults, five adults total, but four adults who treated children this way, with showing up for their hearing, where they had tunnels under their compound. This judge is way off the rails. I know it's her call but she's way off the rails on this one.

SLATEN: Laura, one of them has been taken into ICE custody, the other is being held on an out-of-state warrant. All the kids, thankfully, are in protective custody, and all the weapons have been taken. So, there is no indication that they're a flight risk or that they are going to flee the jurisdiction. The government wasn't able to show in the court hearing that they're not going to show up for their court date.

INGRAHAM: Troy is right, that the prosecutor, according to the judge, Harmeet, said, he didn't give me the clear and convincing evidence that these people at present pose a danger to the community. And the constitutional amendment in New Mexico that, you know, is part of the state constitution now, says look, that's an option, that you have to show clear and convincing evidence. And apparently, the prosecutors, according to the judge, didn't do that.

Now, this judge has a bit of a reputation. There was another case where people were up in arms because of a -- in a low bail set involving another individual. We'll show his picture right here. Another individual and it was another case of abuse and the bail seemed low, $10,000, and people were not happy about that. But Harmeet, you know, Troy's point is, took the guns, took the -- I guess the ammunition. Kids are safe, I guess, what's the big deal?

DHILLON: Yeah, what's the big deal, Laura? I mean, it's res ipsa loquitur. They taught that in the law school, meaning that the things speak for itself. You got a dead kid. You got terrorist training camp going on here. There is no threat to the public? I mean, that is ridiculous.

And you know, the prosecution included in their evidence to the judge a handwritten terrorist manifesto about what they wanted to do and, you know, of course, the prosecutor wasn't able to bring these children into court to testify themselves because, a, they are small children, b, they're, you know, probably in a hospital recovering from this abuse.

So, you know, this judge went on to make some gratuitous comments. She accused the prosecutors of playing on religious prejudice because the prosecutors mentioned in the court that these are Muslim rituals that were being done that torture these children leading to the death of one of them.

And the judge said oh, well, I can't take their religion into consideration. Nobody was asking her to take their religion into consideration. It's the specific acts of the fact.

INGRAHAM: It's the specific criminals.

DHILLON: Yes. And on top of that, yes, thank god, one of these people is in ICE custody and one of them is going to be handed over to Georgia on child kidnapping charges. But if it were up to this judge, she granted very minimal conditions to all five of them, and that is an outrage and that is a repeat pattern by this judge. A Democrat who came from San Francisco, my hometown, unfortunately, that is where she learned these practices.

INGRAHAM: Susana Martinez put up a statement on her Facebook page. She said, "This as a result of liberal pretrial release rules put in place by the New Mexico Supreme Court -- judicial activism at its worst -- and something I have spoken about. It's time to put a stop to the revolving door in our justice system and keep dangerous criminals in jail where they belong."

Troy, do you think because of the public outrage, this judge, could she reverse her decision? I'm not saying you want her to, but could she?

SLATEN: Well, I think a judge, if there is any change in circumstances or if she was challenged on appeal, certainly could. And look, I'm not saying that what these people are accused of is anything less than horrific. And if they are found guilty, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But the issue here is whether they should be given reasonable bail, and when people are given high bail, that tends to disproportionately hurt lower income people. And wealthy people shouldn't be allowed to just get out on bail because they have more money.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my gosh.

DHILLON: They are being charged no bail, Troy. They are being charged zero bail. They are being charged a signature and that is the outrage. And by the way, Laura, this trend is going on all over the country.

SLATEN: Yes, but there are bail conditions. They are being electronically monitored.

DHILLON: All over the country this is happening now.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, it is happening all over the country, but let me tell you, if the -- a lot of the illegal immigrants have the bracelets on, the electronic monitoring bracelet, ankle bracelets, they cut them off. It's not like that's to be (inaudible).

DHILLON: Of course they do.

INGRAHAM: -- every week. So what? I mean, it's no big deal. But we want to have a longer conversation on another night with you guys about this, the bail reform issue. It's something a lot of people aren't really aware of. It's fascinating and you are both great advocates. So, thank you so much for joining us.

SLATEN: Thank you, Laura.

INGRAHAM: And, I have a question. Is Al-Qaeda about to make a major comeback? A disturbing new report from the U.N. finds the terror group showing surprising levels of resilience and is now stronger than ISIS in places like Somalia, Yemen, and South Asia. For more, we are joined by counter terror veteran Aaron Cohen.

Aaron, I read this report and I just read a report about what was happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan, specifically in Afghanistan, where our forces and the Afghan forces are losing some ground against the Taliban, and now this. What do you know and what do we need to know as Americans?

AARON COHEN, COUNTER-TERRORSIM EXPERT: Well, first of all, Osama bin Laden's son, Hamza bin Laden, who is 29-years-old, and you know, sees himself as sort of the next young gun on the street. He's publicly come out and taken over for his dead father and wants to rekindle the Al-Qaeda brand. And as we know with terrorism over the years in I0srael, this is a very large psychological war and the fact, you know, that is run by fear.

And so what we are seeing here is the rekindling of Al-Qaeda 2.0, just starting to resurface on a tactical level. I think that Al-Qaeda has had a significant amount of time since 2011 since Osama bin Laden was killed. All of the P.R. and all other military operations have shifted to ISIS primarily in Iraq and in Syria. And after President Trump came into power, he was extremely aggressive by unleashing our forces, not just our Special Ops, but larger quantities of conventional light infantry, to really flush out those pockets.

So, it's given Al-Qaeda, Laura, a pretty significant amount of time to regroup. But from what I understand, like with any other terror group that we have taken down in Israel or have smashed in Israel, what happens is you have pieces of these organizations which smashes into hundreds, if not thousands of small pieces and they are able to operate and what they are doing is they are going dark.

And that means that they are now operating in what I have called nomad terror, which is essentially they can function independently from central leadership, any type of real organization, and they can go online and they can train and recruit on this dark web and begin to carry out attacks, not unlike we saw in London just the other day.

INGRAHAM: Right. Bingo. And when you hear a story like you just heard in the United States with this New Mexico compound, is bizarre scenario with the subjugation of children and the seeming jihadist training of the children to go into schools, what does that tell you?

COHEN: Well, the threat is real and what you have here is you have incubation happening here within this country, in this case, which is being handled -- it's kind of disturbing what is happening with this judge and this bail that has been set or whatever the lax restrictions have been set on the fact that they found essentially a terrorist training ground to train children how to commit acts of terror, which is kind of blowing my mind that this is being treated as the most harsh type of terror investigation and soften it later.

Might come hard on this thing and then back off if you find out that's not what it supposed to be. But it sounds like its terror. It sounds like it's inbred. It sounds like it has sporadic nomad terror camp. And so it's very disturbing and it is something that I almost feel like we're going to see more of because it is that easy to set up.

And you've got kids who are in hospitals being hidden in witness production. I mean, this is very real. And I think it needs to be treated very real and I think Hamza bin Laden is very real and I think that ISIS being taken down is also significant because Al-Qaeda just went boom and so, all of it needs to be treated like terrorism.

INGRAHAM: Yes, so Aaron, before we let you go, is it avenging his father's death? Is that the primary motivation do you think of Hamza or is it just a larger ideological religious, you know, struggle against Christianity in the western world?

COHEN: I think that's a good question. I think it's a combination of the two. It don't come down in a middle on that answer, but I really do believe that it's a combination of, you know, this theocracy, this Islamic-driven theocracy versus western Democratic values combined with the perfect incubator, which is a Hamza bin Laden. He just married the, I believe it was the daughter of Mohammed Atta, who flew a plane into one of the towers on 9/11.

INGRAHAM: Well, talk about a nightmare marriage. Oh, my, gosh.

COHEN: So what they are trying to do is -- yeah, nightmare marriage, yes, raised in hell and here it is, you know, being pretty correct. And so I think that these terror networks are using Hamza and his --

INGRAHAM: Celebrity.

COHEN: -- and his spark to try and rekindle this (inaudible). And I think it's all playing itself off. And I think the CIA and the NSA need to watch this really, really closely. And, you know, thank god President Trump is around to get aggressive as needed.

INGRAHAM: Aaron, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. Senator Rand Paul was one of the first voices calling for it and now John Brennan's security clearance has been revoked. So did Senator Paul convinced President Trump to do it? Was he the one? Well, the senator joins us exclusively, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: This is what dictators do. This is a dictatorial exercise of power that should frighten and call on all Republicans to say, Mr. President, you cannot do this.

JOHN HEILEMANN, NBC NEWS NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: This has huge chilling effect for national security officials, the notion is unprecedented. The notion of an enemy's list.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO, D-TEXAS: It's a clear abuse of power and it's a mark of an authoritarian dictator really, rather than a Democratically elected president of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

INGRAHAM: Well that's all very subtle, isn't it? Kentucky Senator Rand Paul made a bold suggestion to President Trump late last month, strip former CIA director John Brennan of his security clearance, along with many other former government officials acting irresponsibly. And of course, President Trump is now doing exactly that.

So does Senator Paul deserver some kudos here? The senator joins us now exclusively with reaction and details on his recent trip to Russia. Senator, great to see you. You came back to some pretty powerful news. Were you the first one to suggest this to the president and did you talk to him about this since you returned?

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY.: I'm going to talk to him about it this weekend so, about the trip to Russia and also John Brennan. I've been calling for a review of the security clearances of a lot of folks, you know, Peter Strzok and others for months and months and months. I wrote a letter to the FBI director last January does he still have clearance.

But with John Brennan, I think what the left is ignoring is that I think he should have had his clearance revoked for cause. You know, he leaked information that came out in the media, that we had a double agent in Yemen -- remember when we were going after the underwear bomber? There still is a bomb maker in Yemen. He leaked that his media.

Two people, Richard Clarke, who had a security clearance, and then he went on television saying oh, not to worry, we have a double agent in Yemen. The double agent was still there and he put that agent's life at risk. John Brennan should have been fired for that alone.

INGRAHAM: And then the spying on the Senate committee, the Dianne Feinstein, like you guys are looking into my staff's computers. He denies it. They get the results of the -- from the documents, turns out they were totally spying.

PAUL: There is also a question of whether he lied to the House Intelligence committee when he said he did not know who paid for the fake Trump dossier. He said, I didn't know, so there are two possibilities. He's either lying or he's incompetent because if he's in charge of the CIA and they are using this fake dossier and no one bothered to ask who paid for it --

INGRAHAM: And didn't he say he didn't know about it initially?

PAUL: I think he said he didn't know it was paid for by --

INGRAHAM: Oh, well, it's like kind of fuzzy.

PAUL: Yes. So the head of the CIA doesn't know that this fake dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign, so that is either incompetent or he's lying, one of the two.

INGRAHAM: Senator, he was pressed on this about Brennan yesterday, about the security clearance, Brennan was pressed on it yesterday and then he was pressed on well, could it be that the president is answering to a third party, not just to the American voters. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I don't know. He is the one who has to account for those previous actions and I don't know what he may be concerned about in terms of what might be divulged as part of this investigation.

I find his attitude and behavior toward Vladimir Putin and the Russians very, very puzzling. I don't know what it is that is behind that. I certainly don't know all the things that Mr. Trump has been involved in over the years, and I do not pretend to have that knowledge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yeah, and today, all those I don't knows, senator, but today in the The New York Times, he writes in part at the end, "Mr. Trump's claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash" -- but he fairly (ph) said he doesn't know, but then he claims of no collusion are hogwash. The man is unhinged. I mean, that's a bold statement there. Unhinged.

PAUL: Well the thing is that, you know, you look at the -- a guy who called the president treasonous. So, the commander-in-chief he calls treasonous and apparently that would be advocating for the death penalty for the president, and yet he still wants access to the nation's secret? Crazy.

INGRAHAM: So, Russia, you just came back from your trip to the former Soviet Union. You met, I know, top government officials, both from the -- what's equivalent of their legislator. What can you tell the American people tonight about the state of U.S.-Russian relations under President Trump?

PAUL: I think from both sides that our relations are at the worst they have been since the height of the Cold War, and this is a real tragedy. One of the great things that Ronald Reagan did was sitting down with Gorbachev. And so one of the highlights for me is I got to sit down for an hour with former President Gorbachev and talk about his recollections with Ronald Reagan.

But also talk about how both sides, both Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev had to defy the orthodoxy of their country to sit down and come to agreements. And they didn't, you know, call each other names, they didn't say murderous thug and talk about all the terrible things, some of which did happen, throughout a long period of time. And so the union (ph), they sat down and said, let's try to make it better. And they did.

INGRAHAM: Are some of these government officials going to be coming to the United States? I know you had extended an invitation with some thought of Trump meeting with Putin, I guess that's off the table. I mean, there's a lot on the table, off the table. I think people are very confused about this.

PAUL: They have two houses in their parliament, one called the federation, which is like our Senate, their upper body and then they the Duma, which is the lower body. They have both agreed to come to Washington in the fall for further meetings. That is good thing. The downside is, the chairman of each of the committees is banned from coming to the United States because of sanctions.

So one of the things I'm going to ask the president, I'm going to talk to the president's weekend, is that I'm going to say why don't we take people off the list --

INGRAHAM: At least temporarily.

PAUL: -- who are in the legislature.

INGRAHAM: Yes, or at least temporarily so they can come and speak.

PAUL: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: Senator Paul, we really appreciate you coming in tonight and thank you for giving the update on the trip. Up next, this is a switch, airplane peanuts (ph), emotional support, miniature horses? And a new straw that you may not want to try. All that in a special edition of "Thursday Follies" with Arroyo next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKIE IBANEZ, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, and live from America's news headquarters, I'm Jackie Ibanez in New York.

From Harlem to Hollywood, tributes are pouring in tonight for the queen of soul, Aretha Franklin, who lost her battle today with cancer. This was the scene outside New York's famed Apollo Theater, a very popular venue for the soul singer during her long career. Hundreds of fans gathered there throughout the day to give Franklin her due respect. And in Hollywood, Aretha's star on the walk of fame was adorned with flowers and mementos from her many admirers. Aretha Franklin was 76. Funeral arrangements not yet known.

And the Pentagon reports that the Veterans Day military parade ordered up President Trump won't happen in 2018. A Defense Department spokesman says the military and the White House have decided to wait until next year. This follows a report that the parade would have cost about $92 million.

I'm Jackie Ibanez. Now back to THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. Have a great night.

INGRAHAM: It's time for a special early edition of --

(MUSIC)

INGRAHAM: There is just so much good stuff we have to get to. We have to do "Friday Follies" on a Thursday. We didn't have time to do a new graphic, all right, give us a break.

First up, one of the great traditions of flying is no more, at least on one airline, my favorite airline. You're telling me this. To explain, we're joined by "New York Times" bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" series, FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo. Raymond, so Southwest Airlines has taken away our peanuts?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: They have taken away our peanuts.

INGRAHAM: What?

ARROYO: It is awful. I was flying at the top of August -- I collect those things. I take them home to the kids.

INGRAHAM: Are you the same person who takes the shampoo and conditioner from the hotel?

ARROYO: No. But I do take those honey roasted peanuts I love. I get on the plane and the Southwest attendant tells me, we are not serving those anymore. You can have pretzels or you can have these veggie chips. I said I don't want your chips. They put out a statement. I'm going to read it to you. "Peanuts forever will be part of Southwest's history and DNA. However, to ensure the best onboard experience for everyone," you can put up the full statement -- there it is, "especially for customers with peanut related allergies, we have made the difficult decision to discontinue serving peanuts on all flights beginning August 1st."

And they say they want a peanut allergy sufferers to feel safe and welcome on Southwest. What about me? I have an animal allergy, I'm allergic to cats and dogs. You know only one percent of Americans are allergic to peanuts? Thirty percent of us are allergic to cats and dogs, and the aisles are choked with service animals, emotional support animals. There is an explosion.

INGRAHAM: First of all, the peanut allergies are very serious, Raymond Arroyo, so we have to be very mindful of that. I have a question. What are peanut-related allergies? I've heard of peanut, but what are the related allergies?

ARROYO: If there's dust in the air, what are they going to do. I don't know what happens. But I do what happens when I get on board and the lady has got the knitted little carry on and there is a little cat in there. I see those little devil eyes looking up at me. My sinuses do this.

INGRAHAM: You are not a cat person. I love cats. Not really.

ARROYO: I pulled the data for you -- 700 service animals fly every day, 281,000 service animals a year on most carriers, 751,000 emotional support animals.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second.

ARROYO: This is a newfangled thing, and I really think it is so people can get around the airfares for their pets.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second. Did that horse make it on the plane? I have seen a trend in people bringing on -- I'm not talking about the little tiny dogs. I'm talking about the big, massive type dogs.

ARROYO: I had an Irish wolfhound literally two rows in front of me. It is like a man in the row. I don't know how you can let that beast -- it's a small horse in the row.

INGRAHAM: So can people treat the dogs the like an ottoman?

ARROYO: They have to.

INGRAHAM: There aren't footrests on planes anymore. So that's a good ottoman.

ARROYO: Do you remember Dexter? This was the emotional support peacock a woman tried to get on United Airlines earlier this year? This here is video of it. She actually try to get the peacock on board. United Airlines told her in January, no. And Laura, we're going to have to have a quick moment of silence because Dexter, we learned this week, has died. That is our moment of silence. I think what I need is an emotional support dog or cat catcher to spare my allergies so I feel safe and welcome.

INGRAHAM: So the peanut allergy people, they are protected, but the --

ARROYO: The 30 percent of Americans who are pet allergy suffers --

INGRAHAM: They just have to --

ARROYO: You've got to eat veggie chips and suffer.

INGRAHAM: This is the Instagram post about Dexter. We have to give Dexter --

ARROYO: No, no, don't worry about Dexter. That's so boring.

INGRAHAM: The owner -- he is survived by his sisters, Ava, pictured here, and Zsa Zsa, and by all humans who loved him. Dexter, you will forever be missed and remembered with fondness and love. That's sad. Have you ever heard a peacock mate? Do you know the mating sounds of peacocks?

ARROYO: I don't want anything to do with peacocks. The best thing about Dexter is now his feathers can be displayed in the foyer. Go ahead.

INGRAHAM: OK, you have an update on the straw crusade sweeping the country. I had plastic straws myself. I think paper is fine. Some celebrities have made a video, of course, warning of the dire impacts of plastic straws on whales and sea life. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And 500 million plastic straws are used in this country --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- every single day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And many end up in the ocean, polluting water and killing sea life.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If we don't act now by 2050, they will be more plastic in the ocean than fish.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Do you know where that number comes from, the 500 million number? A little boy named Milo Cress. He was a nine-year-old in 2011, he did a science project. He called around all the straw manufacturers, they gave him an estimate. One of them said, 500 million or so. He took it. That is what they ran with. Here he is on CNN. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MILO CRESS: Every straw we use, every piece of plastic, will be here on earth somewhere on earth, even when my grandchildren are born. I started the project to reduce the number of straws that go into our landfills every day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Can you imagine this?

INGRAHAM: He's adorable.

ARROYO: Now that little adorable kid has managed to outlaw plastic straws in Malibu, Seattle, Santa Barbara, they'll send you to jail for it.

INGRAHAM: Lots of rich people.

ARROYO: I was just in Malibu and they are now introducing pasta straws.

INGRAHAM: What?

ARROYO: They had pasta noodles as straws stuck in the water.

INGRAHAM: That sounds like a good idea to me. What's wrong with that?

ARROYO: Laura, your water taste like day-old rigatoni. That is a problem with it. It's really bad.

INGRAHAM: There it is.

ARROYO: I took that picture. That's an actual pasta straw. It gets soggy. But it does --

INGRAHAM: I hate plastic all over the beaches, it's horrible for the marine life. Don't use as much. We got rid of plastic water bottles at my house.

ARROYO: I have an idea you're going to like. I think we need beef jerky straws which we can bring on planes. We'll drink out of those and then give them to all the service and emotional support animals.

INGRAHAM: Beef flavored water would be my idea.

ARROYO: I don't want any foodstuff. What about people with wheat allergies, beef allergies? They should be considered.

INGRAHAM: Raymond Arroyo, the malcontent flyer here on "The Ingraham Angle." Thanks so much, Raymond. We have a lot more to get you right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy faced off with leftwing immigration activists earlier this week. The California congressman was delivering remarks at a public policy event in Sacramento when things turned pretty ugly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CHANTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Congressman McCarthy joins us now with his reaction. Was it amore, was it love? I couldn't hear all the shouts, but it looked like it was pretty raucous. What went down there?

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF., HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: We were giving a speech, and I was giving the contrast between what we have been able to accomplish with President Trump across this nation with the tax cut and others compared to what is happening in California, from raising taxes, they want sanctuary states, they want to abolish ICE. And that was one of the two protests that has happened with me. What they were chanting was if you don't let me dream, we won't to let you sleep. It sounds a little like what Maxine Waters was telling them to do.

INGRAHAM: Congressman McCarthy, I think this is where the left always goes off the rails. They go too far of the extreme. People who are in the country, whether they're under DACA or they're here illegally, people don't like to think they're coming here to tell us what to do. They may get amnesty. They may not get ultimate, who knows, but it's a privilege to be an American citizen. It's a privilege to be a permanent resident. And in California, your state has been significantly altered in its workforce, some of it necessary for agriculture, but it's transformed over the years from left-wing leadership on this issue.

MCCARTHY: They've gone beyond. They tried to make the state a sanctuary state, which I said I did not support. We are building the wall, we're building it in California, what we have been able to move within the federal government.

But what else they were protesting, one lady held a sign, repeal Trump's tax cuts.

INGRAHAM: What?

MCCARTHY: Yes, she held the sign up.

(LAUGHTER)

MCCARTHY: When you look at what is going on in California, this is the fear that I have with what's coming for with November. They want to impeach this president, they want to abolish ICE. And remember in California what the state Senate did. They passed single payer government run health care where you could not get health care from your employer. It would cost twice as much money as all of what California brings in in their revenue. This is what they call Medicare for all front, government run health care, that will actually end Medicare as we know it, more than 100 Democrats in Congress.

INGRAHAM: It's all free. It's all free. They think everything is free, the money grows on trees, as my mother used to say, everything is free. And that is what the new generation, that is why it is incumbent upon Republicans, and I've told the White House this -- I think the president needs to have a real presence in California. I think it is good that you are up there speaking. The protesters are going to come, I wouldn't worry about it. You get a lot of respect, congressman, because you put yourself out there day in and day out in your district, and other congressmen and women should not be shrinking from doing town hall events. No way. Go out and preach the gospel of economic growth. I think is good for all people.

By the way, speaking of immigration, Congressman, I've got to ask you about this wild story from your home state, I think it was officials just arrested this guy, Omar Ameen, a suspected ISIS member. He's accused of killing an Iraqi police officer in Sacramento but he came to the United States as a refugee, and he was even able to apply for a green card. Isn't this exactly why the president wanted an aggressive travel ban and aggressive vetting? Of course, we've heard that this constant refrain of a warning from the left.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: But we still know the root of this poisonous tree was his attempt to ban Muslims. And remember, this is actually not going to make us safer.

REP. KEITH ELLISON, D-MINN.: They are all Muslim countries, majority, and they are banned because of that.

SEN. ANGUS KING, I-MAINE: It serves no purpose, and in fact, I would argue, it is entirely negative in terms of national security. It potentially could cut off areas of intelligence that can help us protect ourselves from violent extremism.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Congressman, what can you tell us about this case, because I know our viewers are very concerned about this?

MCCARTHY: They should be very concerned. Contrast this. Here I am yesterday, giving a speech supporting the president and our ability to protect this border. They are protesting me there, and the federal government is arresting Omar Ameen, who came to the country, was a member of ISIS and Al Qaeda. He got approval to come to America but he didn't come directly here. He first then went to Iraq, killed the police officer, and three months later comes to America. And why does he come to California? Because they advertise that they want to be a sanctuary state. He's sitting in Sacramento. The feds are able to arrest him, the FBI has been looking at him since I think 2016. This is why the president is correct. He was sitting there -- you should vet these people. He was just a refugee. That is why he was in Turkey. He was part of ISIS.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, he came in under Obama.

MCCARTHY: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: And has anyone followed up with former president Obama and said, does this give you pause about the type of refugee program we had in place? This is one example -- all it takes is one person, congressman, who has a connection or a part of a network that is overseas, one person to carry out horrific carnage in this country, that is all it takes.

MCCARTHY: And how much information did he pass back while he was sitting in America? The most damaging part here is he got approved to come to America, but before he even came to America, he went and killed the officer in Iraq and then came to America.

INGRAHAM: It's a scandal --

MCCARTHY: Under the Obama administration.

INGRAHAM: And of course the regular media, it is like a blip, then it's back to Omarosa. Congressman, thanks for the update on all of this. We really appreciate it. And stay out there speaking about the economy, absolutely. Thank you so much.

By the way, the media are lambasting President Trump now for dehumanizing Omarosa. So what happens when a Clinton family member says something far more outrageous? Details after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The dog thing, that goes back to a long history of authoritarian leaders using animalistic slurs to try to dehumanize people or groups of people.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The idea of dehumanizing your opponent, whether it's a political opponent or someone you disagree with, is rooted in very ugly history.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And he does it as a cattle call to his base, right, to say, and to, hey, look what you are doing. I think these people are less than, I am dehumanizing them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The media are in a tizzy over President Trump's so called dehumanizing comments about Omarosa, but apparently it's crickets when influential Democrats like the Clintons make outrageously dehumanizing remarks. Take a listen to Chelsea Clinton supporting abortion on demand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHELSEA CLINTON: This is not a disconnected fact that American women entering the labor force from 1970 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy, the net new entrants of women. That is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Wow. Wow, wow, wow. Joining us now with reaction, FOX News contributor Rachel Campos-Duffy, along with Ellen Ratner, bureau chief for Talk Media News. Let's start with you, Ellen. When I hear Chelsea Clinton speak about all the money that the economy has gotten because of, I guess, more than 44 million abortions in the United States, which is a staggering figure, since 1973 and Roe, that that would improve the economy. And to that I say, to monetize life, to me, it's pretty dehumanizing, to a lot of Americans. And how much would 44 million Americans, how much would they have added to the U.S. economy, let alone inventions they might have invented or breakthroughs in medicine -- I mean, every child gone as a loss. But for Chelsea, it's a gain. So who is dehumanizing whom here?

ELLEN RATNER, BUREAU CHIEF, TALK MEDIA NEWS: Listen, I don't think it's right to dehumanize anybody. However, I have to say that choice is choice, and women have a choice in this country. That was what Roe versus Wade was about. And --

INGRAHAM: I know that. We're talking about her comments about how it adds to the economy. Monetizing a human being -- you know what else was good for the economy? The slave owners said slavery was good for the economy. We thought that dehumanized people, didn't we? We outlawed that.

RATNER: It did dehumanize people but I have to say this, that why aren't men taking care of kids? If we had more equality, perhaps, as you would like, there would be less abortions. But there isn't equality in this country.

INGRAHAM: Rachel Campos-Duffy, Chelsea Clinton is pretty popular, she has a pretty high profile, and it's no secret she is pro-choice. But I don't know, coming off the Omarosa thing, I don't like anyone being called a dog. I don't think the president should have gone there. He calls everybody, though, and that is kind of his lingo, New York lingo. But I don't know, when I heard that, I was like, wow, that is what we are using to justify 44 million abortions. I thought they were supposed to be safe, legal, and rare. Is 44 million rare?

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: No, absolutely not. And first of all, I'm really enjoying this moment of transparency in the Democrat party. They are openly embracing socialism, they are telling the truth about abortion. Remember, they said abortion is just health care, which is their favorite euphemism for it. We now see the truth. It is about power, it is about profits. That is what abortion is about.

And you made a really great point, by the way, in the very beginning, Laura, when you talked about the number of women who are no longer -- who are prevented by entering the workforce because of Roe versus Wade. Those are 20 some million women, by the way, mostly minorities, who are no longer in the workforce, who are not contributing to our country, aren't paying taxes, aren't paying Social Security, aren't inventing the cure to cancer, aren't running for president. So again, I actually appreciate her honesty and transparency about what abortion really is about. It's about a person.

RATNER: Since when is abortion about profits? I've never heard --

CAMPOS-DUFFY: The sale of baby body parts, please, give me a break. We have lots of evidence on that. There were actually congressional hearings about the profit being made, not just on the abortion itself but on the products of the abortion, on the human --

INGRAHAM: Most of Planned Parenthood's revenue comes from either $500 million from the government, and that is for health care, even though they don't do ultrasounds. They do other things.

RATNER: They do a lot of health care.

INGRAHAM: They don't do ultrasounds, which a lot of people think, because heaven forbid you actually see what is in your room. But it is about $500 an abortion on average, so half of their billion-dollar --

RATNER: Planned parenthood does separate health care for women, and you can't dispute that.

INGRAHAM: There are a lot of community health care clinics around the country that do not do abortions and do a great job. They make their money, though, not from giving out the pill, they make their money, Ellen, you wouldn't disagree with that, right, they make their money from the abortion procedure.

RATNER: No. They actually run separate health care clinics for women. And you can't dispute that.

INGRAHAM: That is where the $500 million from the government -- the government has given them $500 million for years and years and years. That is supposed to go to the health care, which infuriates people because it is all fungible money. They get $500 million from the government. They get the 320,000 abortions committed at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. You do the math.

RATNER: There is a very strict line between abortion and health care, and that was done a long time ago.

INGRAHAM: Final from Rachel, real quick.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I would just say, what she did was she put a value, whether it was GDP or profits made at Planned Parenthood on the value of a human life.

INGRAHAM: Monetizing life.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Perfectly Clintonian ethics. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

INGRAHAM: Love having you both on. We're out of time. Love having you both on.

By the way, coming back, remembering one of music legends greatest ever, after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: If I do say so myself, my team and I think it's been a great week on "The Ingraham Angle." And I have one programming note for all your loyal viewers. I will be on vacation starting tomorrow, returning a week from Monday. I hope you don't miss me too much. But fear not, we have got a top-notch lineup of guest hosts filling in for me.

And finally, we want to end tonight remembering the life and unbelievable talent, never be another one like her, Aretha Franklin, who passed away today at age 76. Aretha got her start in the church pews singing gospel music, so it's only fitting to close things out with one of her extraordinary gospel performances. Good night from Washington.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.