Rep. Sean Duffy on McCabe's firing: Swamp is being drained

This is a rush transcript from 'The Ingraham Angle,' March 22, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, "THE INGRAHAM ANGLE" HOST: Good evening from Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle." All right, fasten your seatbelts. There's so much news. Every night I say that but it's not hype. There are so many big stories. Foreign policy, Staffing at the White House, What they're doing with your tax dollars on Capitol Hill, and, yes, The huge shakeup at the top of the President's National Security Team.

General H.R. McMaster is out and John Bolton is in. President Trump loses a lawyer who doesn't want him to talk to the special counsel, Allen Dershowitz will tell us if Trump is walking into a tramp. Plus, we'll show you stunning surveillance video of the Las Vegas shooter. We have been asking for this and waiting for it experts are going to tell us what they see, which we may not notice, and YouTube launching a chilling new salvo in its war on free speech, this time, targeting guns and gun owners. But first, how the GOP walled off Trump, that's the focus of tonight's "Angle."

Now, why are these people smiling about the $1.3 trillion package passed by the House today? Chuck Schumer, explain your joy.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER, D--N.Y.: This spending agreement brings the era of us austerity to an unceremonious end. We Democrats are really happy with what we're able to accomplish on a number of priorities the Democrats have fought for all along.

INGRAHAM: Democrats are thrilled because they're about to secure a runaway spending that was out of reach even under Obama. Discretionary spending is skyrocketing. No more budget caps for this gang.

Meanwhile, Republicans are tripping all over themselves. Have you seen this? They are trying to justify this boondoggle. Now, I realized they're up against, as usual, government shutdown, but the largest military expenditure in 14 years, and an explosion in discretionary spending is not going to pave the way to victory in November.

And by the way, if you're going to increase military funding this much, how about even the pretence of trying to offset some of that with spending cuts. Once a fiscal hawk when in Congress, Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, he tried mightily today to sell this rotten piece of fish.


MICK MULVANEY, BUDGET DIRECTOR: We've talked for the last, I don't know, three, four, five, six months about trying to get the President's priorities funded, and this Omnibus Bill does that. When we look at the bill, we have to weigh what we asked for and what we had to give away to give it. Is it perfect? No. Is it exactly what we asked for in the budget? No. Were we ever going on get that,? No. That's not how the process works.


INGRAHAM: Oh thanks for the tutorial. When the American people have given you both Houses of Congress, and the White House, it's what you all said you need, it should be the way the process works Director Mulvaney. The GOP just cannot get its act together. The most important thing the President promised -- his number one priority, was getting that border wall built. Did that get lost on the people in Congress? Did they not catch the hundreds of times he mentioned it and during the rallies?

He asked Congress for 1.6 billion to build 74 miles of concrete wall. Well this Omnibus orgy of spending dedicates a puny $641 million to something called border reinforcements. But Speaker Paul Ryan says, 'Ah, don't worry about it'.


HOUSE SPEAKER, REP. PAUL RYAN, R--WIS.: We fund government one year at a time. That's how the budget process works. We're going to fund the one wall one year at a time, in this case for the next six months. You need fences, you need cameras, you need electronic devices, you need the aerial devices to be able to place it, in the mountainous areas, you can't build a wall over a mountain. So you need cameras and you need drones up there. So, it's border wall system. It's different kinds of wall based on different kinds of conditions of the ground. That's what we fund.


INGRAHAM: Oh my gosh, that is just Washington speak -- sensors, fencing, what are they going to use -- iPhones, drones? This isn't what the President promised. He vowed to build a wall. It is not complicated. Now we have the biggest spending bill in history, and it sets aside $640 million to supposedly fund wall construction for one year? My friends, I hate to say this, but as I see it, right now, tonight, the wall is never going to happen.

Because as we've dug into this and really looked into this, this bill doesn't fund the wall at all, in fact, the bill only pays for a construction, I can't believe I'm saying this, of see-through fencing. The Congress actually authorized, I remember this, back in 2006. The omnibus bill that we're talking about tonight, funds 33 miles of new barriers, and replacement fencing for 59 miles.

But understand this, there is no wall construction. All told, you the tax payer, will re-fence part of the border for a grand total of, wait for it, 92 miles. You know what that looks like? It looks like this, 92 miles. You know that little white spot? We should have made it pink. That little white spot, look how big the border is. Why bother at all? Put the big '
bienvenidos', welcome mat, at the border, because it doesn't matter.

If the Republicans lose the mid-terms, the Democrats will never fund this thing and will be reliant on Paul Ryan's sensors and a few drones and replacement fencing to protect America. I will repeat, this is not what the American people voted for. And you know what really gets me? It's an embarrassment to the President. He knew how to win this election. And the Republicans, the swamp want to take it away from him. Last week he was at the border inspecting wall prototypes when he said this.


RYAN: .look at the fence, and it is a very powerful fence, not doing the trick, because they cut holes in it. And then they're patching holes all the time. I'm just looking here hundred of holes cut in and patched. So the fence is not strong enough, it's not the right idea. But for those people, if you don't have a wall system, we're not going to have a country.

INGRAHAM: Okay, I agree with him, it can't be fences that are repaired intermittently with holes in them. You don't have a wall, you don't have a country. Today there was a meeting of millenials at the White House, and it was pretty cool. And it is great to hear their concerns on a variety of topics, but how about the concern that the government, and this type of Omnibus Spending Bill, is mortgaging away their future -- the money that's being spent and borrowed and printed. This is Congressman Dave Brat.


REP. DAVE BRAT, R--Va.: Everyone is concerned about the kids as if they're not. We're putting all these on the kid's credit card. It's inter-generational theft of the first magnitude. It's immoral, it's unethical, we have to make a change.


INGRAHAM: We are saddling the next generation with ever-growing debt, and for what? If we truly cared about the millennials, we would firstly keep them safe by immediately funding the border wall. Then we would find real cuts throughout the federal budget to offset these radical expenditures so they wouldn't be stuck with the bill long after that military hardware and that flimsy border fence we're buying have all rusted away. We can do better, we must do better, or Republicans do not deserve to be in the majority. And that's the angle.

Joining us now for reaction, is South Carolina Republican Congressman Ralph Norman, who joins us from Charlotte and here in Washington, is Richard Goodstein, he's smiling like the cat who ate the Canary, an attorney, Democratic Strategist, a friend.

Great to see you both of you, all right, Congressman, I'm going to start with you. You guys have the House, you have the Senate, and you've got the White House, and now we have spend-o-rama, which I imagine Barack Obama must be watching this somewhere comfortably and thinking, 'Man, I've got to hand it to you guys, you guys really -- yes, you can better than I can. You just spent that money better than I can'. What's going on here Congressman?

REP. RALPH NORMAN, R--S.C.: Well, Laura it's not acceptable, what did you say, dead fish? That's what I think this spending bill is, the Omnibus. You know, it's really an insult to get a 2,200 page document and get 16 hours to read it. If you do the math, I have to read 137 pages an hour, and digest it. And now, we are on a two-week vacation, really?

The system is broken. We have gotten the 12 appropriations over, back in September and you know, we have to make a change. I'm tired of it and I, along with a lot of other members, I'm a member of freedom caucus, we voted against the rule today. We simply were not elected to bankrupt this country. As Congressman Brant said, you know, we are saddling our children with debt. If you do the math, every taxpayer is a little under $200,000.

INGRAHAM: That's stunning.

NORMAN: That's sad.

INGRAHAM: It's stunning; I have to play this sound bite for you guys. Nancy Pelosi, who also seems very happy, she had an extra spring in her step today, said this, let's watch.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D--CALI.:It's interesting to see from the standpoints of regular order why the Republicans thought that that would be a good idea. Well, I think one of the reasons they rushed it through, for taking or posting it last night, taking the rules on the floor today, not honoring the three-day rule, they didn't want their colleagues to see what was in the bill.


INGRAHAM: Well, she's famously said, you have to pass it to see what's in it. It's 2,000 plus pages. We stacked it up last night, guys, and no one is reading this bill. Let's face it, you vote on it, get the heck out of town. The Senate looks like it's going on vote on it tonight, because they see the writings on the wall.

Richard Goodstein, look, I'm embarrassed tonight as a Republican. and that might not sell on TV and maybe other networks is going to do all six all the time. Maybe they have higher ratings, but I find this to be really important. We do not have the money for this spending. Republicans campaigned on this and Democrats, look, if I'm you, I'm like sitting back on, what do we have to do now? Good stuff.

DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST RICHARD GOODSTEIN: I feel your pain, seriously. I know where you've been and where Sean and others have been on deficit spending. At least when Barack Obama was running up trillion dollar deficits, we had the great recess to recover from. Everybody is boasting all about how great this economy is. And to run trillion dollar deficits in the face of that, really is not right. And you talked with Sean earlier about sticking to promises. Whether it's the border wall or balancing the budget or bringing coal jobs back, yes, as you put it, Donald Trump knew how to win the election, with all due respect he knew how to win the election by saying things that everybody who knew policy knew he couldn't deliver on.

INGRAHAM: I don't actually, I don't agree with you. You can build a wall. We can put a man on the moon; we can do all of the innovation we've done in technology. I think America could solve pretty much any big problem ahead of it, if it wants to. But in Washington, Richard, it's both Republicans and Democrats, I not believe, I'm not letting Democrats off the hook, as they're big spenders too. They just want to keep it all going because the lobbyists get paid; the lawyers get all the money. I'm a former lawyer, believe me, it's nice to charge $700 an hour.

The American people demand real accountability. What bang are we getting for the buck here? Is it really going to make all the millennials safer and prosperous and happier? Congressman you can chime in here but look, the Democrats didn't get everything they want, obviously, Republicans, no one is gets everything they want. I'm not going to come here tonight saying the President was going to get everything. But it seems to me he has an opportunity, or had an opportunity, to go to the American people and say, 'I campaigned on this, I think this is critical for the future of the country, if the government has to shut down because both parties don't want to protect our country that's sad'. But maybe we need to have a conversation about that. I think he had to do that.

NORMAN: Well, you got to; you can't let this process continue with the threat of a shutdown. I was perfectly willing to have a shutdown and sit up in Washington, D.C. for six months or as long as it takes to not have the giveaway programs that we've had. Now, the Democrats are a huge part of this. Look what they feel, look at the vote today, on the rule, which all the rule was is allowing the budget to be voted on, it barely passed 211-207, and 182 Democrats.


INGRAHAM: Of course you needed the Democrats, they don't have enough Republicans, Congressman, and they needed the Democrat votes. And of course the Democrats are going to support this. Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they support this? They're going to support it. We have to get to Bolton; we've got to get to Bolton. There's a huge news, I'm sorry, I'll hold you both for an hour.

John Bolton is replacing H.R. McMaster today, and my goodness, MSNBC and others are in a total meltdown, World War III is about to happen, let's watch.


MALE MSNBC HOST: John Bolton is known as a hard liner. Clearly different than others in the Administration now, on the Iran agreement for example and it points to dangerous signals.

MALE MSNBC HOST: So many millions of voters voted against in 2016, who voted against stupid wars and bringing the biggest hawk there's ever been and put him as head of national security is awful.


INGRAHAM: Fr John Bolton, he is the hammer and everything is a nail. I've always loved that phrase but come on, Richard, the idea that Bolton is going to order Trump around, you're going to war in Country X, I don't think so. Trump is not a Military interventionist, even if John Bolton is more of a neo.


GOODSTEIN: But he's impressionable, the President is. I mean, the explanation was well, McMaster was more fond of the Iran deal and therefore Trump had to get rid of him.

INGRAHAM: He disagreed on a lot.

GOODSTEIN: My point is though, we knew where he was. The Iran deal was a live issue during the campaign.


GOODSTEIN: To say now, well, I hired this guy who didn't agree with me. Why didn't you ask him when you hired him? And the fact is, John Bolton seems to be more interventionist, right, and at the same time that the President is thumping his test about meeting with Kim Jong-un, maybe doing away with the North Korean nuclear threat. if we rip up that Iran deal within months, we don't know how many, Iran is going to be a nuclear threat. In a region that's a tinder box.

INGRAHAM: Well I think, Congressman, I think Bolton, he does have a lot of experience obviously at the U.N., he knows the swamp, has been in Washington for some time. He doesn't agree with the President. The President does likes to have these differing views on his staff, still, I think, your reaction to this another shakeup tonight.

NORMAN: It is a great hire. We have had Bolton in meetings on Capitol Hill. He's knowledgeable, he's straight forward. He will not agree with this President if he really doesn't think it is in the best interests of the country. But one thing about President Trump, he encourages that. Now, he's going to be the one to make the final decision. But John Bolton, I have the highest respect for. We have not interviewed anybody in the meetings that I've have had, where he has hasn't answered every question. He sat for an hour and a half to two talking about foreign policy. That's his bailiwick. That's what he likes. I applaud the President and the press, MSNBC when have you heard them compliment this President on anything?

INGRAHAM: Never, he could, again, cure lung cancer and they'd be like, 'Why didn't you do it two weeks ago'. I mean, there's nothing the President is going to do that they're going love. Great segment guys, and I have a question for you all. Did President Trump just lose a lawyer who might actually save him from himself in the Russia investigation?

That's kind of wild. Dershowitz weighs in next.

A very big shakeup on President Trump's legal team, as lead attorney John Dowd resigned. Trump reportedly was displeased this weekend when the attorney called on the Justice Department to end the special counsel's investigation. Another conflict was exposed today, when Trump said that he favored what Dowd had opposed.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, would you still like to testify to the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller. Sir?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You would like to?

TRUMP: I would like to.


INGRAHAM: I would like to. As in, talk to the special counsel. But is the President walking into a trap? Let's ask two of the sharpest legal minds out there, Meredith Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, author of the book The Case Against BDF: Why Singling Out Israel for Boycott Is Anti-Semitic and Anti-Peace. And in San Francisco, Attorney Harmeet Dillon, who's a National Committee woman for the RNC for California, great to see both of you.

Professor Dershowitz and Harmeet, we've talked about this issue, it sends a chill down by spine and up my spine as a former defense attorney to hear about how the President wants to go in and talk to Mueller. Professor Dershowitz, what are the pitfalls?

PROFESSSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AMERICAN LAWYER AND AUTHOR: Well, you know, what I couldn't believe is what I heard on television shows that he actually offered a job to be his lawyer to Bob Bennett. Bob Bennett, I wonder if anybody told him, was the lawyer who got Bill Clinton impeached. Bob Bennett was the lawyer who told bill Clinton, 'It's okay, you can testify at a deposition about your sex life'. That's what got him impeached. He could have easily settled the case for $750,000. I called it the greatest legal blunder of the 20th Century and Bob Bennett was offered a job to come and become Trump's lawyer? I don't know what's going on in the White House.

He of course should not testify unless he absolutely has to. And if he has to, it should be under the most rigorous restrictions of time, and type of questions, and he should be prepared to answer yes, no, I don't recall, instead of giving long, long answers. Because the one thing they're trying to get him on, is perjury. And there's no defense against that. Perjury is one of those specified in the constitution for impeachment. That's the one issue that has to be avoided at all cost.

INGRAHAM: Full disclosure, actually I worked for Bob Bennett, at Skadden, Arps, many, many years ago. I didn't work on that case but I did work for Bennett at Skadden, Arps.

Harmeet, I want to ask you about this the big swirling controversy, is 'Oh no lawyer wants to work for Donald Trump'. Well first of all, a lot of law firms, big law firms, don't like getting involved in these political matters for a variety of reasons, and Trump, you know, everything is very toxic now. But this is what the former acting solicitor general for Obama said today. Let's watch.


NEAL KUMAR KATYAL, FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR OBAMA: I represented Bin Laden's driver, but I would have trouble representing Donald Trump and t the reason for that is very simple, which is, you know, the guy doesn't believe in the rule of law.


INGRAHAM: That's coming from the Obama Administration with the way they handled the Hillary e-mail investigation, so forth. But Harmeet your reaction to this, what about written answers to questions? What about just very narrow area in which Donald Trump would answer questions? Could that be acceptable or is that another as -- Professor Dershowitz says, perjury trap perhaps.

HARMEET DILLON, AMERICAN LAWYER AND REPUBLICAN PARTY OFFICIAL: Well I think it's less of a perjury trap if the President answers written questions. But it causes its own problems. I mean for one thing, I don't think the President of the United States, setting aside whether it's Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, or whoever, should be answering questions like this from a special counsel unless there is a clear evidence of a crime, and also showing that he's the only person that can answer those questions. Absent that, this is a perjury trap and it does trouble me as a supporter of the President that he wants to talk to special counsel under these circumstances.

It is absolutely a perjury trap. And I think that one of the frustrations here of his lawyers and other lawyers is that maybe the President isn't following the sound advice of some of his lawyers, which is a serious problem. And you know, a lot of lawyers would have a problem with a client who isn't following good advice.

INGRAHAM: Professor Dershowitz, that's a big issue, right? Because Donald Trump has such a strong personality, he has been his own advisor and been pretty successful in doing that time after time. When people said, 'No,' he said, 'Yes.' And he usually wins but the law is a very different deal. So you can talk about that, managing a client that doesn't want to listen.

DERSHOWITZ: It's very, very difficult, of course but I love what the former solicitor general said, he wouldn't represent Donald Trump because he doesn't believe in the rule of law but he represented Bin Laden's driver. None of these -- no, criminals generally don't believe in the rule of law. If that was the basis for not representing somebody, all of us criminal lawyers would be out of business. That's a phony argument. I think the better argument is that it's hard to represent a client who doesn't listen to you, who doesn't take your advice.

I think the President is doing something very strategic by the way. I think he has good cop-bad cop. He has the good cops who are trying to make a deal with the special counsel to limit his exposure, to limit the kinds of questions. But then he's also preparing bad cops. Joe diGenova, who can get on television, who can go to court, who can help litigate. I don't think that's such a bad strategy. The problem is somebody like Dowd didn't want to be caught in the middle of that. He wanted to be in control of the strategy, and he wanted to play only good cop.

INGRAHAM: I also think.


DILLON: Yes, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Go ahead Harmeet.

DILON: I was going to say, I agree with Alan but you can't be both the good cop and the bad cop. Dowd had the situation last week he was calling on the White House on the special counsel to limit his investigation. And you can't be that same person who's negotiating the terms of the interview of the President. So he can't have it both ways.

DERSHOWITZ: That's right.


DERSHOWITZ: I agree with that.

INGRAHAM: I also think, guys, we're running out of time, but you also have to bring in people who are not sometimes, in their late 70s, early 80s. Again, not to be ageist but.


INGRAHAM: Other than you, Dersh, but you've already been asked this question, it's important to bring in people who are, you know, in the prime, and have experience, and so forth. I know he's interviewed Emmet Flood, who's an old co-clerk of mine, phenomenal Williams & Connolly attorney. You can put together a team that has senior statesmen, lawyers, you can have a little bit younger and bring that dynamic.


DERSHOWITZ: .and you left out one group.


DERSHOWITZ: You left out one group. He must include women on his defense team.

INGRAHAM: Oh, 100%.

DERSHOWITZ: You need to have women on the defense team, absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Because we're smarter.

DERSHOWITZ: You need young people, you need people of color, you need people who are women, you need people from every background. You don't know what you're going to get when you have a jury. You don't know what judge you are going to pull. You must be prepared for every eventuality.
Look, we know that they put the case in the District of Columbia because they wanted a particular kind of jury rather than the Virginia jury.

Both sides have to be able to play that game and get the maximum advantage out of the differences in jurors, differences in defense counsel, differences in judges.


INGRAHAM: They're not going -- they're not going to have a jury though.

DILLON: Well, God forbid you get to a jury in this case.


INGRAHAM: Jury trial?

DERSHOWITZ: Maybe not against Donald Trump but against some of the other people. By the way, my colleague, Larry Tribe, has now changed his mind and says you can actually prosecute a sitting President. He had previously-- when Clinton was President, said you can't prosecute a sitting President. I think he was right the first time, not this time. I don't think you can prosecute a sitting President, though it's not clear as a matter of law.

INGRAHAM: Yes, we'll see. But I think he's going to get the best team in place. I don't care what color you are or what your background is but women attorneys, Harmeet, they're really smart. So that's why you want to bring them in.

DILLON: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Fantastic guys, great segment.

DERSHOWITZ: Of course, of course.

INGRAHAM: And by the way kids, it took almost six months, but we're finally seeing surveillance video of the Vagas shooting suspect. What took so long?

Experts are going to tell us what the videos reveal. Don't miss it.


INGRAHAM: The parent company of the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Vegas has now released the video of Stephen Paddock in those days before the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. They show him standing close to the bellhop as they delivered numerous bags full of what we know what they were now, weapons and ammunition. As the prime suspect in the October shooting, Paddock's motive remains a mystery as he apparently killed himself rather than be captured.

But let's ask the experts what the videos might reveal. Randy Sutton is a retired Las Vegas police officer, and Aaron Cohen is a security and counterterror specialist. Great to see both of you. Randy, let's start with you. And I want to go piece by piece, if we could, through the video, because I think it's really important for us to get very specific and advance the analysis here as we do it. First we're watching Stephen Paddock checking in, which is the video we've been calling for months at the Mandalay front desk. Let's watch it. So we can see him checking in. You guys have both watched it. What should we be looking for here?

RETIRED LT. RANDY SUTTON, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT: What we're seeing is, he's a high roller. He's a heavy gambler. And he's checking in at the VIP desk, which is affording him -- he doesn't have to stand in line like other people, so it's a very expedited process. And since they know him very well, he's just putting his name in there, getting all of the credit card stuff situated, and he's on his way.

INGRAHAM: And let's move on to the next piece of video. And this is with the bellboy and all of the luggage. These are big bags. And he's bending over to fix his pants. Why is that in any way relevant, Aaron?

AARON COHEN, COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT: Well, first of all he takes the back entrance which the hotel claims is not uncommon. Taking a service elevator. I've never brought bags into a hotel in Vegas and gone through the service elevator. So obviously that's an advantage. And pardon me while I look at the footage as I'm explaining what's going on here. There's a second-long delay.

His body language, his hands are in his pocket, his legs are crossed which means he's trying to block out any type of nervousness. He has got one hand up right now. He's in -- it just looks like he's generally uncomfortable. He's fidgeting with his face, he's touching his face. That's not uncommon with the behavioral red flag with somebody who is trying to cover something. And again, he's scratching his head right now, as I'm looking at the footage.

So all of these, this is nonverbal communicating, Laura, which is what I'm trained in, specifically in Israel for boarding flights in Israel, to go to Israel. And this type of behavior, you can't lie with nonverbal communicating. And so what I'm seeing right now is somebody who is covering intensely -- and he's fidgeting, he's shuffling, he's turning, let's go, let's get the cart moving. He's just generally uncomfortable. His shirt is untucked also. It could be a weapon in his pants. Who knows?

INGRAHAM: Randy, I want to ask you about the timeline that apparently is still not agreed to. There's no timeline that all authorities seem to say, yes, this is how it happened. This there's a lot of swirling conspiracy they about what happened in Vegas. It still seems really weird to me. You know how you have a gut instinct about something. The guy was not really -- he was known by authorities, we thought he had a criminal history but then there wasn't a criminal history. It seems bizarre.

SUTTON: There's a lot at play here. What we saw today is very interesting in a couple of different ways, though, Laura. This is the first time that we have been given the access to actually see him engaged in his daily activities while he was staying at the hotel.

You have to ask yourself, what is the timing? Why is this happening now? And I think it's very interesting that the hotel finally decided to give up this footage to a major news source. And what's the reason for that? Is it because there is so much in play here with people espousing conspiracy theories and finally if you look at this, there's finally something that we can actually, being interested in the subject, we're finally getting to see something here?

INGRAHAM: Are we seeing something, Aaron, that informs us of the kind of guy he is? Or motivation? We're not getting to any of that. He's a guy who sat in front of a slot machine for hours and hours and hours. He brought these heavy bags in the service elevator, VIP check-in, swaying back and forth. We have the extra video here where we see him swaying back and forth with the bellboy as well, which we're going to see him there. Yes, there it is. But, still, we know nothing about this guy. The biggest mass shooting in U.S. history and we know still very, very little about him. Aaron?

COHEN: That's right. And that's why I'm jumping all over. You look at him right now, he has the hands in his pockets. It's a very awkward shuffle he's doing. He's nervous, he's projecting nervousness. He's flagging like crazy, Laura. And these are the red flags that we look for. Again, in Israel, the difference between how we do security and how the rest of the world does security is that we know that you can spot the behavior of a murderer before he commits the act of murder. It's just his red flag as it is afterwards. So he's flagging like crazy.

And it's not Mandalay Bay's fault. They're not trained in this. No one here in this country is really trained to do this except for certain aspects of the FBI for their profiling and certain portions of border patrol which is getting better. But we don't know anything about this guy. It's a complete mystery.

I understand all the conspiracy. To go to Randy's piece, I have known Randy for a while. Randy is very, very smart and knows Vegas better than anybody, he knows how hotels are. I think obviously the hotel put out the video to cover their butts. They want to get it out there and say, look, we can't -- the hotel is basically, to me, what it's saying is, guys, you look at the evidence here, you look at this guy, and you can see just as we can that he's just a normal guy, he's gambling, he's checking in. But once you start cracking this thing open, it's, Laura, it's how do we use this video and this body language --

INGRAHAM: To prevent it the next time.

COHEN: To prevent it from happening. And 20 bags? That's crazy going up there.

SUTTON: Let me put something to you. Aaron, what do you think about the pathology that hasn't been addressed here at all, the pathology of the heavy gambler, degenerate gambler if you will, someone that can spend eight hours at a time literally spending hundreds of thousands of dollars at a sitting, how do you think that plays into the factors here? Because I think that there's something here that's being missed.

COHEN: What do you think is being missed? That's my Israeli answer, where you going? Where are you leaning?

SUTTON: I think that the pathology of the degenerate gambler, it plays a role in the way we should be looking at this man as a suspect.

INGRAHAM: They're socially isolated, they sit in front of the machine. You can say that about a lot of people sitting in front of video games, but not everybody that sits in front of a machine, we've got blue haired people all over Vegas sitting in front of machines pushing the button. They don't even have to --

COHEN: Laura, I think what this is going to come down to is the tools have already been developed to be able to predict violence through looking at behavior. The question is when are we going to take the model that already works and how do we disperse to it to these megahotels and casinos, and to all of the other mega-infrastructure places like the massive mall in Minnesota --

INGRAHAM: Absolutely.

COHEN: -- and really start looking and creating behavioral detection programs, because really you can't throw more security guards at this problem. You have to train the guards. And as soon as we start taking the profession more seriously, then I think we're going to start having a different conversation.

INGRAHAM: It takes money, it takes training, and you can't be politically correct. And we're all politically correct, and that's part of it. Guys, we're out of time. I want to have you both on radio.

COHEN: I'm in Toronto right now. It doesn't get any more politically correct. We're in the heart of political correctness here.

INGRAHAM: Absolutely. And guys, fantastic segment. We have to continue that in radio.

And up next, is YouTube trying to stifle free speech? Gun owners take note. Details ahead.


INGRAHAM: YouTube has announced it is increasing its crackdown on firearms videos just ahead of Saturday's massive pro gun control march in Washington. The site, which is owned by Google, recently banned videos showing how to make firearms fire more rapidly. Starting in April YouTube will ban videos selling guns and certain accessories as well as those that illustrate how to make or modify guns.

So is this limiting free speech given the sheer size of YouTube? Let's discuss that with Independent Women's Voice President and FOX News contributor Tammy Bruce who is in New York. And here with me in Washington, Hamza Khan who is a Democratic strategist. It's great to see both of you. Tammy, I'm worried that these tech companies become so big and so powerful they're like mini governments. And then you start seeing the censorship kick in. Your reaction tonight, now gun instructional videos, not bomb making videos, but gun instructional videos banned.

TAMMY BRUCE, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE PRESIDENT: And that's the worry is that if they're concerned about the nature of teaching someone how to make a gun, it's different than having an impact on instructional videos, even safety videos, how to clean your firearm, things like that, because we know this will abused, right. But this is the other dynamic.

Of course it's not technically censorship in that the First Amendment is about the government and forestalling the government from doing this. But we're living in an age now that even the founders couldn't really imagine where entities like Google and Facebook as we know now have such a large control of content of information, information about our own lives, and that we rely on them, we've built lives around and business around these entities that now the issue becomes about squelching commercial speech.

And this is what the government, it's ironic because as conservatives we don't want more government regulation. But this is now a world that has been created where it's not just about convenience or fun of communication, but it is about our lives and our businesses and how we raise our children, et cetera. So we do have to begin to deal with it.

INGRAHAM: And you have to be careful. And let's move on and talk about, Hamza, what this means for viewpoint discrimination. Could this be the beginning of viewpoint discrimination by some of these tech companies? It's now making a gun, what about making something that could be turned into a knife?

HAMZA KHAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: So we have to think about this from a couple point of view. First point of view that I think is really important is to recognize that maybe we have to read this legislation in Congress when it comes to monopolistic competition and the power --

INGRAHAM: You're killing our audience.


INGRAHAM: Monopolistic competition, oh, my God.

KHAN: It's important to talk about this.

INGRAHAM: I get your point, but you're so big and you're so powerful that you control big bandwidths of information.

KHAN: Exactly, exactly. And that limits freedom of expression in a lot of different ways.

But if you want to move on to the other point you have here, which it comes down to whether or not YouTube should have this content on their site or not, we have to remember freedom of enterprise, freedom of speech goes both ways. A large company has decided that, in their right, which is their right to do, that they do not want to have this content on their website. And that's something we have to respect.

INGRAHAM: Would you feel the same way if a major company that big, for instance, decided we're not going to put any -- pick your politically correct -- LGBT support group on our site because we don't agree with it. Would you not be on the show tonight saying, how dare you control, and that's casting aspersions on entire communities, of gun owners here or people who have free choice to be whatever they want sexually?

KHAN: Laura, doesn't that bring it back to Lobby Hobby and cases like that a couple years ago where on the right you were talking exactly about the same thing. We have to respect freedom of speech being a two-way street. This is what America is all about, protecting freedom of enterprise, protecting the right of YouTube and Google, and Alphabet, their parent company, not to have the content on there. That's what America is based on. That is what the First Amendment is about.

INGRAHAM: And Tommy, real quick, final word, real quick. We're almost out of time.

BRUCE: Look, it's also you can deal with it on the abortion issue. If it's suddenly a discussion about getting rid of the nature of arguments from pro-choicers, you would be hearing the same kind of outrage. But we've got to make sure, as your point goes to, that this is about viewpoints and the nature of what's being squelched. It's like shadow banning conservatives on Twitter and the other problems we've had with conservative news sites on Facebook. We have already seen the trend. And ironically and strangely enough it doesn't impact people on the left, does it?

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, we're out of time. Great segment, we will have you both back, I know it's short.

A leader of the Democratic Party and a congressman is calling for a maximum wage? I'll explain, next.


INGRAHAM: All right, for decades we've been hearing about the battle over the minimum wage. But now things have gotten so crazy in D.C. that Democrats are actually calling for a maximum wage. Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who is deputy chair of the DNC, hopes to be a wage trailblazer.


REPRESENTATIVE KEITH ELLISON, (D): I made a statement about maximum page. What I'm saying is if you make more than 20 times more than people who actually make the products and do the services of your company, then we're going to tax you more.


INGRAHAM: I don't even think he understands what he's saying there. So what should the maximum wage be, congressman? Ellison didn't really spell that out but he did suggest that $300 on hour might be enough for, say, the CEO of McDonald's. The idea of a maximum wage, while, it doesn't have wide appeal and that's safe to say. But one of Ellison's high profile friends might support it as way to get back at the people really running American business. Let the conspiracy theories begin.


LOUIS FARRAKHAN: Everywhere they are, they take on the language, the culture. But they run the money. They run the business. When there's a Jewish holiday everything gets silent.


INGRAHAM: If only Screwy Louie would get silent. But we're going to keep following Ellison's quest for a maximum wage. In the meantime, we think there should be a maximum term in office for people with ideas as stupid as this one. We will be right back with 'The Last Bite.'


INGRAHAM: It's time for 'The Last Bite.'

Washington is a tough place, particularly as we age. There are lifetime Supreme Court appointments to maintain, chairmanships to protect, and staying in shape is a really important part of life in the capital city. So we decided to drop in on the Washington home for semi-retired liberals.
And lo and behold, it was weights and stretching day.



COLBERT: While we're down here, you want to wrestle?

BADER GINSBURG: I don't do wrestling.


INGRAHAM: Ruth Bader Ginsburg looking good.


<Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>