Rep. Steve Scalise on Trump's merit-based immigration plan

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 15, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight. Rudy Giuliani, Sol Wisenberg will be here in just moments to explain just how and why White House lawyers repelled that Jerry Nadler and the rest of the probe addicted Democrats. Plus, what might be the most consequential fight playing out across America today. Alabama's strict new pro-life bill just signed into law. Candace Owens will react to this and claim that this legislation and others like it adversely affects the minority community.

And Michelle Malkin is here with her first response to being censored by Facebook for arguing against censorship. You can't make that up. It's outrageous. And Kamala Harris points to Bill Nye as her climate guru vetoes reboot hits another pothole and a tribute to Tim Conway, Raymond Arroyo is here with seen and unseen. But first, the White House Council says it will not entertain any of the Democrats requests for more documents or interviews regarding the Russia investigation.

Today, Pat Cipollone sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee Chair, Jerry Nadler saying quote congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized do over of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice. While Nadler naturally bristled at the response.


JERRY NADLER, HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN: The White House and the Department of Justice is enabling the White House to try to evade all accountability to the American people. They're saying that the President is above the law saying in effect the President is a tyrant and a dictator with no limit on his power.


INGRAHAM: Joining me now is President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Sol Wisenberg, former Deputy Independent Counsel and Fox News Contributor. All right, Rudy, Cipollone also is saying that the Mueller Report makes their requests moot. Your reaction to that does Congress have any right to this information at all?

RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Let me say something about Nadler's response that the President is a tyrant and above the law. This is a legal memorandum. I mean a jury might have a hard time understanding because he's not much of a lawyer but it's a legal memorandum, it's very well thought out, very well written. Obviously, it makes the point of executive privilege, but it goes way beyond executive privilege. It makes a very, very important point. I would have added Pelosi's statement last week that the legislature is the superior branch because that's the way they're acting.

They have issued not just - they have not just one hearing. They have six hearings. So, it has to be seen in the context of six hearings. They are - they have already issued hundreds of subpoenas looking for possibly a million documents or more. And we have Nadler, we have Schiff, we have Cummings. They're all kind of like want you know daytime television time. And the reality is, this is a tremendous burden on the executive and the law has a way to deal with it.

There are cases that say that legislative power is there, but it can't be used for an in-permissive purpose. It has to be a proper legislative purpose. In their subpoenas, their information requests, they don't cite a single piece of legislation, they're pursuing. Not only that, they are taking over an executive branch function. And they're afraid to call this an impeachment hearing. So, this is oversight. You don't issue hundreds of subpoenas.

INGRAHAM: So, Rudy, hold on. So, are you saying that if this were actually an impeachment proceeding, you wouldn't have any problem with turning over these documents.

GIULIANI: No, I wouldn't have a problem with it, because they really have to generate their own information. They can't be just redoing that. And if they were in good faith, they would read through the Mueller Report and they would say we now have all this information. We have 10 more questions or 15 more questions.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well they're reading on the House--

GIULIANI: In fact--

INGRAHAM: They're doing a dramatic reading I think of the whole--

GIULIANI: Several recent federal cases make it clear that if you're going to impose on the executive it has to be tailored, it has to be narrow. It can't be overly intrusive. This is all those things. It's overly intrusive. It's completely burdensome. It is not only duplicative, it's multiplied by six.

INGRAHAM: This isn't even talking about the case that's in the DC, District Court now involving the President's financial records which they're also arguing in front of another Obama appointee.

GIULIANI: But I think they have to - I think the court, you have to argue these as one because as they affect the executive branch, they're not six separate hearings. You've got to - you have to respond to this avalanche of subpoenas which means you've got to close down shop.

INGRAHAM: Yes, it's meant to paralyze all that--

GIULIANI: That is exactly.

INGRAHAM: All right. So, I've got to get to Sol. So, a former Justice Department official says that the White House's assertion that Congress does not have a right to the information is mind blowing. This is Joshua Geltzer saying, these aren't peripheral interests of the U.S. Congress, they're core oversight responsibilities at the heart of our legislative branch checking our executive branch and even just understanding it. How do you react to that?

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, I think both sides have a problem. I think that these subpoenas have been grossly overbroad coming from the House of Representatives. I also think the letter from the White House counsel is very overbroad. There really is no such thing as saying constitutionally is saying you don't get to do a do over and congressional authority to investigate is very, very broad. But Laura, these battles have gone back to the beginning of the Republic.

Go back to 1796, Congress wanted all of President Washington's papers related to the J treaty and Washington said, you're not going to get them. And James Madison said, we as a Congress - he was a congressman. We have the right to anything we asked for. But the President has a right to say, I don't want to give it to you. And this is part of the checks and balances and it will be very interesting to see how it works out.

INGRAHAM: We're going to be on perhaps the unitary executive here to something the left is saying. Dana Milbank has this piece out saying, this is basically - they're trying to say they have a divine right to the information - Milbank's a big liberal, but they're always jockeying for power, Rudy, I mean you remember this. The days when you were at the J. It's always a fight between the legislative branch and the executive branch but I have never seen it like I see it now with this president.

At every turn they have hounded him at every turn and they've accused him of sedition, being a traitor.

GIULIANI: Tyrant tonight. Tyrant.

INGRAHAM: Setting up meetings at Trump Tower. I mean a tyrant. I mean but this is - he's like a combo, they say a Pol Pot, Stalin and Chairman Mao or something. I mean this is the level of it. But I want to play something that Jerry Nadler said tonight actually because he was reacting to the administration's response over at MSNBC. Let's watch.


NADLER: We are looking at all options to deal with a lawless administration and everything is being looked at.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everything is being looked at, including possible jail.

NADLER: We're looking at the law, but we will look at all options to force the administration - to be able to hold the administration accountable wherever they may take.


INGRAHAM: OK. That was over at CNN obviously. But Rudy, what is he talking about here? What are the remedies here? There have to be a judicial remedy. Well, they're going to arrest somebody, going to get U.S. Marshals to come arrest what. White House officials.

GIULIANI: Let me try to respond to his rather inarticulate comment. I think he's saying he would look at jail which is of course absurd. There is nothing lawless about the administration's response. Sol could be quite right that it's a very broad response. But you know as a lawyer you raised all your arguments. I think there is some that are overbroad and I think there are some very, very strong.

The strongest one being that in the Cheney case, the court held that the power of the Congress is very broad, not unlimited. And I think given the number of subpoenas, given the number of hearings, given the already predetermined positions of the three chairmen, who have already said he should be impeached and Nadler was overheard planning it on Amtrak. I think that they've got a very good argument to the court. How did things ever get this far. And let's check this a little.

As long as they're willing to compromise. As long as they're willing to compromise if there is going to be a narrower, more focused subpoena.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well Cipollone, he left the door open.

GIULIANI: Of course he did.

INGRAHAM: He does that in most of his letters. So, he's not shutting the door completely.

GIULIANI: But it's a legal response. It's not lawless.


GIULIANI: We're going to go before court and they make an argument and we do.

INGRAHAM: They don't want to go that far. They don't want impeachment. They don't want this.

GIULIANI: Well, that's why Nadler is full of you know what.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, I want to play something, Sol this goes into what we were talking about last week. Also Rudy, there is a brewing fight going on. It looks like between Brennan and Comey, when it comes to the use of this phony dossier. Catherine Herridge reported on this earlier.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A dispute over whether former CIA Director John Brennan or former FBI Director James Comey pushed the unverified dossier during the presidential transition has broken out into the open. The records are not public, but sources familiar with the contents say December 2016 e-mails indicate Comey told bureau subordinates that Brennan insisted the dossier should be included in the formal intelligence assessment on Russian election interference.


INGRAHAM: Well, I'm hearing Sol that one of those communications are talking about also says that Jim Comey in December of 2016 said the dossier is unreliable. He didn't want the Intel to review it. We hear tonight - I heard today from a high place White House source that the President, it may be looking to release and declassify all the relevant documents leading up to the start of the Russia probe next week.

WISENBERG: But he's going to - but I heard he's going to give him to Attorney General Barr to review. Well, I've been hearing that for a long time.

INGRAHAM: Apparently, it's next week. That's what my source tells me.

WISENBERG: That'll be interesting.

INGRAHAM: Well, that will give us a lot of answers, right. We're going to sit here and debating this. This will have a lot more answers. We'll have actual facts on the table. Correct.

WISENBERG: Right. Yes, and Comey admits in his own book that he didn't reveal the whole dossier to the President. Only the salacious parts. He didn't tell him that there was this investigation that had been going on. I mean that's in his own book. So, I don't want to speculate on among those two, which one is right.

INGRAHAM: And Rudy apparently there was some talk about how this would look, this could look like among intel sources that it could look like the FBI was doing some kind of weird preemptive blackmail with the President and that Comey going to that meeting that just - it didn't look good. They were worried about this that Comey presenting this dossier or part of it to the President would look like he was kind of having some J Edgar Hoover tactics against the President. That is really disturbing.

GIULIANI: It doesn't look like it was. I mean the reality is that Comey is the noose is tightening around his neck really bad. Comey in January told the President, it was salacious unverified. How did it become salacious unverified over five months. When they used it in affidavits in which Comey says on the top of the affidavit that it's verified. In footnote five, page 15. He says, it's reliable, not unverified. In other words--

INGRAHAM: He knew it wasn't.

GIULIANI: He either lied to the President or he lied to the court. I'm betting on he lied to the court. We call that perjury, Jim, and Brennan may be a witness against you. That'd be interesting.

INGRAHAM: I know, well this is - gentleman.

GIULIANI: James Cardinal Comey may be wrong.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Sol's like I believe it when I see it.

GIULIANI: I agree, it's hard to indict Cardinal.

INGRAHAM: This is going to get very interesting next week.

GIULIANI: This guy can tell you what's going to happen to your immortal soul which he said to Rod Rosenstein about Rod Rosenstein the other day. So, maybe he's above indictment. I don't know.

INGRAHAM: He's back in the Redwoods tonight. All right, guys. Thanks so much. And the question now is how will this new rift between the White House and Congress impact the president's legislative priorities. Is he going to be able to get anything done.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're not even really talking about the substance at this point. They are questioning each other's motives at this point. Something that you know you get to a new level in politics and you're just so distrustful of the other guy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Particularly, the Democrats would argue, don't take this personally. It's our job. If we did not do this. How will future Congresses behave potentially when there is a Democrat in the White House and there is potential wrongdoing there. I mean we've got to do our job.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you agree with the word Nadler use King. He called the President, King.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've said that many times before. If the President can use various mechanism to appropriate money for what he thinks is important without congressional approval, then why have a Congress who in fact have what amounts to a king.


INGRAHAM: Here now is Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union and Richard Goodstein, a former Hillary Clinton Adviser and Democratic Strategist. Great to see both of you. All right Richard how does a do nothing Congress help America?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: Well, I don't know, it will be a do nothing Congress. The fact is this house has already passed gun control legislation. It's going to shore up the Affordable Care Act. It's going to do any number of things that the public where there is like 70, 80, 90 percent approval whether the Senate passes or not. I mean that's obviously out of the control of the house. The question I would raise is does the President actually want his priorities a wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for repeal and replace to see actually want those things done. Or does he want the issue to run on.

I think he'd actually - look, he already said his health care thing is going to come after the election. I actually don't think he really wants to get anything done. He wants to be able to run as he did in 2016. Here's what I'm going to do. Just trust me. This time I want to do it. I just don't know whether that's going to ring true.

INGRAHAM: I think politics is the art of the possible. Right. So, you can pass a lot of things but you have to work with the other side.

GOODSTEIN: That's right.

INGRAHAM: You have to try to craft something that get votes for it. It's a complicated deal, it's not easy, not easy and Republicans are - but still the first 100 days. They had kind of a lot to show for it in the Trump administration.

GOODSTEIN: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: They're on their way to the tax cut. USMCA, they got right into it. Now in negotiations.

GOODSTEIN: All the regulations.

INGRAHAM: I mean they made some mistakes out the gate, but they did a lot in the first 100. But the Democrats, they're running against Trump, Matt.

MATT SCHLAPP, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION CHAIR: The president had to face which really no one's really quite have to face like this which is the whole idea of hashtag resistance. No honeymoon, no period of time where you try to collaborate. The President has been able to get things done recently like criminal justice reform and other things which are you know maybe atypical issues for Republicans.


SCHLAPP: Yes. I think what you actually see is the President is navigating a Democratic Party that is more radicalized than we've ever seen and more hardened against by the way if it wasn't Trump, Laura, they'd be doing this against - they'd be doing this against any Republican who would have gotten into. That's just their state of mind.

GOODSTEIN: Trump and Pelosi and Schumer on the same page on infrastructure, who's not Mick Mulvaney, who's not the Freedom Caucus.

SCHLAPP: Well, that's wrong. They have a billion dollars in their budget infrastructure you don't know what you're talking about.

GOODSTEIN: Well, I know what I'm talking about because they said to the President. How are you going to pay for this. And he still hasn't given them an answer.

SCHLAPP: It's not true, it's his budget. You should read it.

GOODSTEIN: No. Come on.

INGRAHAM: That's not my case here. But I think it's an interesting question. We'll see how it plays out, it's always hard when you're running against an incumbent President whatever party, if the economy is strong or recovering, people have a greater sense of optimism. I think in most polls put aside Russia and all the stuff we're talking about tonight. Most polls people feel pretty good about the future. I mean there is challenges to health care costs that has to be dealt with. I think people are pretty optimistic. We guess in Washington, why I've got more money in my pocket. It's hard to run against that as a Republican or a Democrat running against.

GOODSTEIN: Two things quickly, the right track numbers, right are better under Trump than Obama saw for his eight years. The American people feel better because they're practical people and they see that their economic prospects are improving and that's why it's not selfish for the American people to vote accordingly. The question is how they're - why is the real clear politics average at 40 for Donald Trump. It is, the real clear. The viewers look at it--

INGRAHAM: Well what is it when he won.

GOODSTEIN: No, I'm just saying the real clear politics average of your job approval.

INGRAHAM: It was really low.

GOODSTEIN: He wasn't in office that and the economy wasn't doing what it is now. Give him credit.

SCHLAPP: Let me just jump on the polls real quickly.

INGRAHAM: It's 44 percent tonight.

GOODSTEIN: Exactly. Not the real clear politics average.

INGRAHAM: Right now tonight. I've just got that - at least I'm getting wrong and it's hard.

GOODSTEIN: Tom Bevan just did a whole piece on this and actually other pollsters are saying it as well.

INGRAHAM: He's about where Obama was up or above--

GOODSTEIN: The President is higher where he was or higher--

INGRAHAM: I think this is a hard thing for the Democrats when you start off in the first 100 days saying, I get 80 subpoenas against 80 different former and current Trump officials. That doesn't exactly engender a sense of you know if we don't agree with you on anything but we're going to work with you on some things. And yet the President, I think in good faith met with him on infrastructure and wants to do something on immigration. That's pretty amazing considering they want to get his son. They want to get the White House counsel in.

GOODSTEIN: Democrats pass an immigration bill in 2013, 68 votes in the Senate including Lindsey Graham--

INGRAHAM: Talk about today.

GOODSTEIN: Well, OK that bill - if that bill was put on the floor it would pass the House and it should pass the Senate. The fact is, there is enough votes to carry it. Well, it should if people that voted for it last time would still vote for it again, it would have enough votes.

SCHLAPP: But what do you think about - what you're hearing about the president's immigration proposal, he's approaching it from what we have to do right now which is secure the border, give the resources to take care of the stupid loopholes.

INGRAHAM: All right.

GOODSTEIN: We hear a lot of Republicans having problems with that. That's what I'm hearing.

INGRAHAM: We haven't unpacked that, but it's always great to see you both.


INGRAHAM: We'll see what happens. All right. Alabama just passed a law that effectively bans abortions and they're not the only state. Candace Owens is here to respond, declaim that these pro-life laws can hurt minorities. A full debate next.


INGRAHAM: Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed the nation's strictest abortion ban into law tonight making it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion. This comes on the heels of a Georgia and Ohio laws that are also both pro- life, very pro-life. But the party of infanticide. Well, they're crying foul.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You just aborted the state of Alabama. You just raped Alabama with this bill.


INGRAHAM: Well, Democrats are just in total meltdown that Roe vs. Wade is on the chopping block of course.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade. That's wrong. And we will find.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Women's health care is under attack and we will not stand for it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's nothing short of an attack on women's basic human rights and civil rights.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Part of the right wing conservative agenda in the United States of America is to take away reproductive health and freedom.


INGRAHAM: Joining me now is Candace Owens, Conservative Commentator and Jennifer Holdsworth, Democratic Strategist and former Campaign Manager for Pete Buttigeig's DNC Chair Campaign. All right, Jennifer a new poll out this week reveals that the majority of Americans don't think heartbeat bills are too restrictive. You're saying they're wrong.

JENNIFER HOLDSWORTH, SENIOR DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I'm saying they're wrong. Heartbeat bills are too restrictive because at the point of six weeks of a pregnancy, a lot of women in this country don't know that they're actually pregnant. So, it's entirely too restrictive. If we're talking about the Alabama law, they're going even further than that.

INGRAHAM: Candace, this is wild. Today, this issue has blown up, I mean it's almost blown the Mueller subpoena fight and off the front pages because Democrats think that if they can get the Republicans back into the culture wars, well they're golden in 2020. Is that accurate?

CANDACE OWENS, HOST, THE CANDACE OWENS SHOW, FOX NEWS: No, I think the fact that this bill passed is telling us that conservatives are winning across the country and more and more people are starting to wake up to what exactly is the Democrats are doing, which is that they pretend that they are for progress when in fact everything that they do leads to aggressive results particularly in the minority community.

And we know that abortions impacts the black community more than anybody else. Black women represent only 7 percent of the population yet account for almost 40 percent of all of the abortions in America.

INGRAHAM: I want to get to that because a constitutional law expert Alyssa Milano spoke out last night on CNN about that very issue. Let's watch.


ALYSSA MILANO, ACTRESS: This will affect the communities of color more than anything. OK. For the women of color, for the women that are marginalized, for the women that are low income communities, the women that are most at risk. These bills are going to be catastrophic.


INGRAHAM: No, I don't understand the argument, because the argument seems to be and it's been made by people all over social media today and tonight that the bill itself is racist, because there is disproportionate number of black women in the state of Alabama who would be having abortions. The pro- life bill would mean there were more black babies in Alabama.

So, how is it exactly racist when the result is more black children, more opportunities for people to adopt. I would imagine more opportunities for people to have their own reproductive rights someday. I mean what about the girls and boys who lose their reproductive rights by not being born.

HOLDSWORTH: Laws aren't just racist when there is an intention to make them racist. If they have a prejudicial or racist effect, they are also race.

INGRAHAM: So, just no intent required.

HOLDSWORTH: No, intent can be present but if it has a racist effect it is also considered racist. But I think what Alyssa Milano was saying and I'm not saying that she's a credentialed constitutional law professor but what she's pointing out is that there is a dearth of health care options for women of color in the south, especially in Alabama. We've seen the Republicans try to continue to take those options away. So now--

INGRAHAM: But it's their health. How is this - I mean I can see the debate about abortion but how is it health care.

HOLDSWORTH: Reproductive health is health care. Having a choice and having autonomy over your own body is health care. This Alabama law.

INGRAHAM: So, the baby doesn't ever have any rights.

HOLDSWORTH: The doctor can now get more time--

INGRAHAM: You can't take a life.

HOLDSWORTH: Performing an abortion than the racist would get - the rapist would get for raping the woman.

INGRAHAM: I'm for the rapist going to get away for life.

HOLDSWORTH: Right. But now the doctor is going to get more time than the rapist.

INGRAHAM: This is all going to shake out. This is all going to shake out one way or another. Alabama reports are going to challenge.

OWENS: I just want to be really clear here, because you're saying that black babies being born is racist. It is not racist for black babies to be born. Black babies have a right to be alive. That's what you just said. You said that the abortion ban--

HOLDSWORTH: You can categorize my words however you want, but that's not what I said.

OWENS: Racist results is not black babies being born. We know the black population would be double what it is today if it wasn't for abortion--

INGRAHAM: More electoral power.

OWENS: The founder of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger who was an avowed racist and eugenicists who was quoted in a letter saying that she wanted to exterminate the black population. We know that she has been by and large successful. It's time to pull that black back and it's time to educate black Americans about the fact that liberals advocate for things that harm our community. First and foremost, the black population growth has stagnated completely. OK. So that tells you that is your answer.

HOLDSWORTH: So, your answer is to tell other black women how to end their life.

OWENS: I'm not talking how to live their lives. (Inaudible).

HOLDSWORTH: (Inaudible).

OWENS: (Inaudible). Fingertips, it's own DNA that is two lives.

HOLDSWORTH: And what does the mother have.

OWENS: That is why by the way when a pregnant woman is killed they called a double homicide.

INGRAHAM: All right.

OWENS: Because there are two lives.

HOLDSWORTH: Yes, the Republicans have been very clever about that.

OWENS: Black babies being born is not racist, I want to be very clear on that.

INGRAHAM: Here is I think the science argument is that the left is all about climate change, science. Facts, Republicans don't care about facts. They care about emotions. But this is kind of a factual thing at some point. It's really inconvenient for a lot of people, but it's also factual at some point. Isn't that human beings are human beings.

HOLDSWORTH: Conservatives have said--

INGRAHAM: Down to the very tiniest.

HOLDSWORTH: Conservatives have spent the last two to three decades pretty much butchering history, science and economics, it's only natural that medicine is the next frontier.

INGRAHAM: OK, so you're saying a baby born--

OWENS: Acknowledging that you're the party of the KKK. You're the party of Jim Crow laws. You are the party of racism and racial terrorism and now, you are also the party that is advocating for black babies to be aborted.

HOLDSWORTH: I believe that you're a climate science than I are, so I would just assume--


HOLDSWORTH: (Inaudible).

OWENS: (Inaudible).

INGRAHAM: All right. Here's the climate of the commercials that are about to roll. We loved having you both on. This is a big issue. It's going to be really hot in the election on this issue along.

And coming up, "Seen and Unseen" with Raymond Arroyo, next.


INGRAHAM: It's time for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose the big cultural stories of the day.

Remembering a comedy legend, Bill Nye the f-bomb guy, and Beto 2.0. Joining us with all the details, Raymond Arroyo, FOX News contributor. All right, Raymond, the death of Tim Conway wasn't just a loss for comedy in the world but for you personally.

RAYMOND ARROYO, CONTRIBUTOR: Laura, I interviewed Tim a number of times. We kept in touch over the years. I had him on my EWTN show. And he was a gentle, kind, hilariously funny man. Tim Conway appeared in everything from "McHale's Navy" to SpongeBob SquarePants where he voiced Barnacle Boy, but it was his work for more than a decade on "The Carol Burnett Show" that made him part of our lives.


ARROYO: What was that about that group of people and that time that made "The Carol Burnett Show" work?

TIM CONWAY, COMEDIAN: Well, we were all alcoholics.

ARROYO: That's a good start.

CONWAY: That gave a certain relaxation to the show. Harvey and I were the best of friends, and Carol is the most generous person you can imagine. She was always willing to share the show. And I think that is what made it so good.

I was at this freak show one time, and I saw Siamese elephants.


CONWAY: They were joined at the end of their trunks like that. I kind of felt sorry for them. They couldn't go like the other elephants when they go --



ARROYO: We didn't play the best part. Then he goes, but these elephants would go. We killed the laugh. When I asked Tim off camera why this comedy was so infectious, he told me this group of people loved each other, and they labored to surprise each other. Watch he and his friends, Harvey Korman here. Classic.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Novocain, Novocain. Take a firm hold of the hypodermic needle.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There will be a little bit pain and then numbness will set in.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will just give you a little shot here.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll be right with you.



ARROYO: Tim actually witnessed a guy in the Army who injected himself with Novacain, Laura. He said the comradery of this group, that is what made the laughs. They really loved --

INGRAHAM: Raymond, you and I say this a lot. You cannot fake chemistry. Everybody knows Raymond and I have been friends for a long time because of the way we ridicule each other.

ARROYO: That's right, we're free to ridicule.

INGRAHAM: Yes, exactly.

ARROYO: While we're talking about ridicule and off the wall videos, Laura, Democratic hopeful Kamala Harris tweeted this out as I guess a character witness for her climate change position. It's Bill Nye, The Science Guy. Watch.


BILL NYE: What I'm saying is the planet as on a -- fire. There are things we can do to put it out. Are any of them free? No, of course not. Nothing is free you idiots. Grow the -- up.


ARROYO: This man, this is a comedy routine. To tweet him up for a Democratic contender for president and to tweet this guy out, he is not a scientist. He is a mechanical engineer. It's like tweeting out George Clooney as a doctor or Harrison Ford as an archaeologist.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second Harrison Ford is not an archaeologist? You're crushing me.

ARROYO: No. I'm sorry to break the news.

INGRAHAM: All right, Beto.

ARROYO: Oh, yes. Beto O'Rourke relaunching his presidential campaign. He livestreamed a trip to barber. Problem not the way to reboot his campaign.


BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am cutting some of this ear hair that you get when you get older. It grows out of your ears. If you don't get it cut, it can be nasty.


ARROYO: This is the AOC-ing of America, Laura. But it could've been worse. He could have taken us to his colonoscopy. So let's thank God for blessing.

INGRAHAM: It wasn't a prostate deal.

ARROYO: Exactly. The only think that would make it better is if Tim Conway had been the barber. That would have made it --

INGRAHAM: Oh, my God. Tim Conway, genius. Carol Burnett, Vicki Lawrence, the only ones left really from the original cast.

ARROYO: Carol Burnett and Vicki, yes.

INGRAHAM: My gosh. Raymond, thank you so much.

And "The Ingraham Angle" has been in the front lines of the border fight, as you know, and we've gotten our hands on some exclusive detail of the president's immigration plant that is going to be announced tomorrow. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise is here next and whether that bill can get any traction, don't go away.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Not one more American life should be lost because our lawmakers fail to secure our borders. That is why we are calling on Congress to fix our terrible immigration laws, stop catch and release, to end deadly sanctuary cities, to stop the visa lottery program.


INGRAHAM: And a lot more. President Trump today previewing what we can expect to hear when he announces a major immigration overhaul tomorrow. And as we witnessed last week in south Texas, this is beyond crisis point now. We have updates we're going to bring you tomorrow on New Mexico. A story in New Mexico that has been completely lost on most in the media. And we are told two main points in the president's new immigration plan will be securing the border and instituting now this merit-based immigration system. The goal is to reduce the number of illegals due to family ties. Right now, 66 percent of 1.1 million green cards are doled out just because of family relationships, and they want to invert that with merit-based immigration.

Joining us now is House Minority Whip Steve Scalise. Congressman, is there a coalition that would support flipping theme narrative from entire family trees coming in here to people we supposedly need because there are not Americans to do these jobs? I'm not for increasing the number of legal immigrants. I think 1.1 million is enough. The president I think is going to keep it at the same number. But if you're going to keep it at the same number and not reduce it, this seems to make sense.

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA, HOUSE MINORITY WHIP: Laura, there is no talk of increasing the number. What there is talk of is getting back to rule of law, securing the border, going to a merit-based system. And think about this. Right now we have got some of the dumbest laws on the books. If we educate somebody in America to be a computer scientist and engineer, jobs we need in America, they want to stay in America, we force them to leave the country to compete against us, while we've got the visa lottery where we literally pluck names out of a hat, in many cases from countries that don't like us, to bring them here. Why don't we flip that narrative.

We have caps on different countries. So if you are coming from India you might wait 20 years, whereas if you're coming from Honduras you might wait six years to come here. And like you talked about, the family tree issue. Let's get to a merit-based system where we have rule of law and were we ultimately get back to those basic foundational principles where you come to America and seek the American dream.

INGRAHAM: You are seeing video, it's not about what you're talking about. We're seeing video of what I saw last week at the border, which is basically people -- I love the guy filming this. He's just one of the best. He's like a local reporter. But people just waiting for the Border Patrol, and they are just pulling them up, processing them in about 24 hours, and releasing them. But that goes to the asylum laws, which Lindsey Graham wants to address. But are the Democrats going to agree to any of this stuff, or are they going to own the issues? Is that the goal here, make them own the issue if they don't move?

SCALISE: Democrats in middle America are actually for this. The socialist Democrats here in Washington are not. And it shows the divide not within the country. It shows the divide within their party. You have got to end catch and release. You've got to end these magnets that are forcing people to come here, the breakdowns in the asylum law, that is going to be some of the things that I think people are going to be excited about.

INGRAHAM: It's got to happen. We've got 100,000 people just coming in last month. By the way, Angela Rye, one of the CNN's favorite liberal analysts, said this tonight about the president's plan.


ANGELA RYE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You cannot develop policy absent people and compassion. It does not work. It results not just in hurt individuals but also hurt families.

At the end of the day what they are saying is you have to be amazingly brilliant, you probably have to be whiter.

This is reminiscent to me of what happened before the Civil Rights movement really began.


INGRAHAM: Chris Cuomo, "All right." That's his response.

SCALISE: Do they have any idea what you are talking about? What do you tell to a person who has been waiting in line legally 10 years to come to America when you're going to allow somebody that just walks up in front of them because you have laws that allow them to do it? You literally read a script and you can come here illegally in place of that person that has been waiting in line in 10 years.

INGRAHAM: Point system, I don't know how this actually plays out with the bureaucracy. You age, English proficiency. Again, you can game all this stuff. This doesn't mean -- offer of employment above a certain wage threshold, education and vocational certifications. Look, I think in the end this issue if properly messaged will be another huge winner for the president. Although his numbers are not good on immigration now. Have you seen this? I don't know if it's because people are seeing these videos and just frustrated, like why doesn't he fix this, and they're impatient. But his numbers for his dedication to this issue are not I know where he wants them to be.

SCALISE: When I go, and I've been to a lot of states, a lot of swing states, of course I was in Louisiana with the president yesterday, there are the lines to see this president are unbelievable.

INGRAHAM: Tell me about it. How much money you raised last night, how much money in New Orleans?

SCALISE: It was $4 million, and it was sold out. There were people that were literally being turned away. This president has stood up for the things that he promised, he's getting us back to rule of law. He has a good immigration plan that actually gets us back to a merit based system.

INGRAHAM: So $4 million, one night in New Orleans.

SCALISE: And 5,000 people illegally crossing a day in many cases, and the Democrats want to own that? Most of America is not, but most Democrats are --

INGRAHAM: Congressman, it's great to see you, as always.

SCALISE: Great seeing you, Laura.

INGRAHAM: And coming conservative star Michelle Malkin censored by Facebook, she will tell the story next.


INGRAHAM: The Constitution prohibits the government from censoring much of the speech we've come to know and love, but Facebook is imposing its own Silicon Valley brand of political correctness on its own social media platform. And Facebook banned provocateurs like Alex Jones, Milo, and even Louis Farrakhan. And now the social media giant is going to step further by censoring conservative commentator Michelle Malkin for, get this, opposing Facebook censorship.

Michelle joins me know, her first television comments about all this. Michelle, in the post that was taken down, you said I don't know how long it will be until I'm next. I love that. You kind of taunted them and you demonstrated what was going on. But are you now on the verge, do you think, of being just banned on Facebook?

MICHELLE MALKIN, CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Yes, I think a lot of us are, and I think there is a commonality among many of the people who are being targeted on Facebook and on Twitter, on social media. I even have to worry about my own website at which is hosted by WordPress which is now going after people based on their ideological viewpoints.

I do believe, Laura, that this is an existential battle, and I'm not saying that just because it's self-serving because I've made a living over the last 20, 25 years, a lot of it online and never had to worry about this kind of de-platforming. I'm saying this because we need a vibrant marketplace of ideas. We need an informed citizenry for a constitutional republic to function.

And when Facebook and Silicon Valley overloads have their thumbs on the scale of free speech, that is a concern for all of us. There is a lot to people who have been de-platformed that folks out there might be uncomfortable with, but all I did that caused Facebook to censor me, Laura, was simply stand up for a couple of my friends, Laura Loomer and Gavin McInnes. And now even I, using my Facebook platform that has 2.1 million followers, cannot even mention their names without being accused of violating the, quote-unquote, community standards of Facebook.

INGRAHAM: It's ridiculous.

MALKIN: There's a lot more going on here, Laura, and I believe that it has to do with the 2020 election and making sure that somehow those of us who support the agenda of President Trump are being throttled and managed and marginalized. And I am sending up an alarm. I did it at CPAC, an I will continue to use my platforms to do it until they kick me off.

INGRAHAM: Michelle, I love the defiance. Nick Clegg of Facebook was on TV this weekend and he basically issued this warning.


NICK CLEGG, FACEBOOK VICE PRESIDENT FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS AND COMMUNICATIONS: The way that the rules of the Internet are drawn today in my view, or rather not drawn, will be quite different to the way they are drawn in 10 years' time. And I think big tech companies have a choice. Either they play ball and they try to play a responsible role in that debate, or they try and duck it altogether.


INGRAHAM: Lucky Europe has gotten all over Facebook, been a lot tougher, frankly, than the United States in dealing with privacy issues. But he said we basically have no choice, Michelle.

MALKIN: Yes. So what do people do? A lot of people asked me after my CPAC and over the past year now that we have seen people disappear and be unpersoned, and the one thing people can do is fight back with their pocketbooks and fight back with the voices that they do have, and support the people who have disappeared. There's a website called It's helping people like Laura Loomer and Gavin McInnes, whose names I can't say on Facebook. I would like to see if I can test the Facebook livestream function now, which is also being throttled. Apparently if you violate their community standards they'll take that away as well.

INGRAHAM: Michelle, I'm not trying to cut you off.

MALKIN: But I'm going after the underlying groups like the SPLC and CAIR that are going after them is how we have to fight back.

INGRAHAM: Michelle Malkin, we're going to continue to talk about this with you at a later date. Thank you so much. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: You ever wonder what it's like to have moves like Jagger?




INGRAHAM: Well, 75 years old. All right. He's getting ready for his relaunch of his tour that he had to put off because of that valve replacement. He's 75. But remember, he has eight kids. Had his last kid at 73 with his 30-year-old partner. But he's still moving like Jagger.

Don't forget, check out my new podcast. Just dropped a new one today.

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

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.