Rep. Steve Scalise: Unbelievable how far to the left the Democrats' agenda has swung

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," April 23, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JASON CHAFFETZ, HOST: Thanks Sean. Again, I'm Jason Chaffetz. I'm in for Laura Ingraham, and this is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington.

A big show on tap tonight, Steve Scalise is here. He will break down how last night's Democratic candidate Town Hall revealed the Left wants to take away your rights, while restoring them for some of the worst in our society.

Plus the shocking difference in response to the terror we saw in Sri Lanka versus that in say, New Zealand, Dinesh D'Souza is here with this and you'd want to hear what he has to say.

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says the broken VA health care system is just fine, doesn't need fixing. We'll ask an army veteran for her response.

But first a new issue, the 20/20 Dems have become radicalized over who can vote; a terrorist, a child rapist, a murderer, all of them according to the Democratic frontrunner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNE CARLSTEIN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY STUDENT: Does this mean that you would support enfranchising people like the Boston Marathon bomber, a convicted terrorist and murderer? Do you think that those convicted of sexual assault should have the opportunity to vote for politicians who could have a direct impact on women's rights?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Even if they are in jail. They're paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.

CHRIS CUOMO, ANCHOR CNN: You're writing an opposition ad against you.

SANDERS: I have written many 30-second opposition ads throughout my life. This will be just another one. But I do believe, look, this is what I believe. Do you believe in democracy?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Wow. Bernie wasn't alone, though, after some prodding Senator Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor, wanted to show her softer side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I agree that the right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship and it is something that people should not be stripped of needlessly.

DON LEMON, ANCHOR CNN: But people who are in - convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault, they should be able to vote?

HARRIS: I think we should have that conversation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Stripped of needlessly, she actually said that. Now I could appreciate there's some injustice in the world, but is the fact that a terrorist can't vote on the list of your 100 things that you are worried about.

Here now Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union and Richard Goodstein, Attorney and former Clinton Advisor. Gentlemen I appreciate you being here. This is such a black-and-white issue. And I - look Richard, you you're always a good sport, I seen you on Fox all the time.

And I understand the Democrats are having a rough few days, no collusion. There wasn't the obstruction they wanted, so let's pivot to giving felons voting rights. Seriously, this is the Democratic frontrunner for the presidency and this is what he's going to run on.

So I'm with Mayor Pete on this issue, who was asked the same question should that Boston bomber have the right to vote from prison, and the answer is no, period. And you didn't really go into any description.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, ATTORNEY AND FORMER CLINTON ADVISOR: Look, first of all, this person asked the question, Bernie didn't try to introduce it to Kamala Harris, didn't try to introduce it.

I will say this, some states actually give people in prison the right to vote, and so it's kind of - it becomes a state issue. I think it's loony - Kamala Harris--

CHAFFETZ: I agree with you that's loony, I agree with you.

GOODSTEIN: Kamala Harris talks about a fundamental right. Well, there's a fundamental right for people not to commit crimes, right?

CHAFFETZ: Yes.

GOODSTEIN: And when they do, they lose that right, as they lose a lot of other rights. So that's why I'm saying. I - how much will this haunt Bernie and Kamala Harris, we'll see. I think they've gone off the deep end on this one.

CHAFFETZ: That - this is like a really bad episode, although I liked the show of parks and recreation. That they're actually even talking about this. This is where the Democrats want to go. Two of the top three candidates - this is what they're supporting.

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: I just want CNN to keep doing these town halls. This is the greatest thing in the world for Trump supporters. We've got more material in these town halls than we ever could have imagined.

And remember, it's not just giving felons in prison the right to vote, it's lowering the voting age to 16. It's saying, we got to get rid of the electoral college, so that small states like where I come from and you come from, have really no say-so in presidential campaigns.

And remember, up to 25 percent of the people in prisons are here in this country illegally, we forget that piece. They just going to be able to vote as well. We know the next step in all this is that, if you're in America for a certain number of years you're not here legally, heck let's let them vote too, we've given them a driver's license.

What the Democrats want to do it's all politics, do ever thing they can to run up the numbers for their side and I think it's disgusting for the American people to listen to this. And I agree with you.

CHAFFETZ: You have to, because in the House of Representatives the first bill that Nancy Pelosi introduced was a bill called H.R. 1 and it was all about voting rights and tried to change the way we vote in America.

GOODSTEIN: And to stop voter suppression and - look, there were things that are going on as far as people's voting rights are concerned that I think even the three of us would agree shouldn't happen, that's mainly what H.R. 1 was trying to do. And money and politics--

CHAFFETZ: I tell you what I have read that thing nothing from cover to cover. There is nothing in there that I believe that strengthens the American democracy and our republic as a whole.

But these candidates, Kamala Harris, she could have said no. And Bernie Sanders is obviously he thought about in taking this position, that's why this young person asked that.

GOODSTEIN: Right. I my view of this is the following. When Donald Trump came down that escalator and talked about Mexicans being rapists and criminals--

SCHLAPP: Who are here illegally - who are here illegally.

GOODSTEIN: --and some being good people, it's going to be somebody of color - our prisons are generally filled with people largely, I think what there have in mind are people of color, and it's going to be a terrorist--

CHAFFETZ: No.

GOODSTEIN: One second, one second. It's going to be a terrorist, it's going to be somebody that Donald Trump from now to election day is going to have as the other, and today it's this, it's going to be something else.

SCHLAPP: Can I just say, I think it's unfair to the American people. We fought a civil war. We passed three Civil War amendments to the Constitution. We've given women the right to vote we have really been through the battles on who should vote in this country.

I agree with you, there shouldn't be any voter suppression of anybody who is allowed to vote legally. The problem with what the Democrats are doing in too many cases is what they're trying to do is make us feel bad from our racial perspective in order to let people vote, who actually shouldn't vote.

It's not - the reason why people in prison should vote has nothing to do with race or shouldn't vote has nothing you with race. It's the fact that they need to pay their debt to society and they have to lose these rights, while they're in prison. Don't make it about race, it's not about race.

GOODSTEIN: Voter suppression typically happens you know to non-white people. Look at Georgia, 700,000 people kept off the voting rolls--

SCHLAPP: But that's not what this is. This is people that are convicted. I don't care what color, race, whatever--

CHAFFETZ: This is wrong. But the people who vote illegally, including people who are not allowed to vote, including people who are here illegally from South of the border, they water down all of our votes, and that happens.

SCHLAPP: Ask Kris Kobach, he has this whole voting commission--

GOODSTEIN: Oh, stop.

SCHLAPP: --and couldn't find a single case--

GOODSTEIN: Oh, stop--

SCHLAPP: Did you not see what just happened in California last election.

GOODSTEIN: Yes, listen, but I'm just saying--

SCHLAPP: You can't stand by that?

GOODSTEIN: Oh, I stand by the fact that - what Donald Trump said about millions of illegal people. That is a fiction. He knows it. We know it, everybody watching this show knows it.

SCHLAPP: What happens - what happened in California--

CHAFFETZ: And then you know what, then we should actually ask that question on the census and figure out how many people are actually here--

SCHLAPP: That's right.

CHAFFETZ: We'll - little bit--

(CROSSTALK)

SCHLAPP: Let's settle (ph) around about background.

GOODSTEIN: And how of them are voting, yes, ask them that too.

CHAFFETZ: We'll tackle that a little bit later.

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

CHAFFETZ: Gentlemen thank you for being with us tonight.

Today former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton weighed in for the first time since the Mueller report dropped.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY: I'm really of the mind that the Mueller report is part of the beginning. It's not the end. Maybe as Churchill famously said, it's the end of the beginning, because there's still so much more that we should know and that we should act upon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: I think she's actually right. But I doubt it's further reason she thinks. Last night on our show, Representative John Ratcliffe, a gentleman from Texas who's on the Judiciary Committee, he revealed for the first time what Attorney General Barr really might be looking at.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TX: Trey Gowdy and I think we're the only two Republicans that had the opportunity to see that probable cause evidence, to see all of those FISA applications in unredacted form and they centered around something called the Steele Dossier, which was entirely false and fake. And now Bob Mueller says it was false and fake.

The Steele Dossier said that Carter Page was at the center of a well- developed conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Carter Page wasn't charged. He was never going to be charged. The idea that he was a Russian agent was a joke.

So the folks at the Justice Department like Jim Comey and Andy McCabe and the folks at - Sally Yates and others that verified this, they've got some explaining to do.

CHAFFETZ: --is the FISA Court to blame for this? I mean, where they just--

RATCLIFFE: No, not necessarily, Jason, because remember what they received when they're asked to grant a warrant to spy on Carter Page. The first thing they see in big bold letters are verified application, all capitals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: I was shocked as you were when I heard that from one of the two gentlemen on the Republican side of the aisle that's actually read that report, verified, and that was what was signed and went to the FISA Court.

Here now the Former Deputy Attorney General and you know at UC Berkeley Law School Professor John Yoo. Thank you so much for joining us and adding your expertise to this. The idea that this application said at the very top, according to John Berkeley, verified.

How is that going to play and how are the courts, the Department of Justice going to be able to justify this when we find out that this dossier was such a fake piece of garbage?

JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Jason, as you say, Hillary Clinton said this is going to be the start of something. She thinks is going to be the start of impeachment.

But as you point out, what this also is going to be the start of is an investigation of the FBI and the Justice Department officials who use the Steele Dossier to, I think, plausibly mislead the FISA Court.

And if that happened, they would have committed a violation of federal law. They would have misused the federal government surveillance powers. And those are things that should be investigated because people are going to be - should be held accountable and responsible if they were misusing these powers to spy on an ongoing presidential campaign, which is the whole reason FISA was passed in the first place was to prevent that from ever happening.

CHAFFETZ: Right. Because when you go to the FISA Court there's only one side that's presented, that is the Department of Justice. There is no solicitor or somebody else that's arguing the other side of this.

The Judge in this particular case is actually looking to the Department of Justice to provide them, what they says at the top of the document that we've now learned from John Ratcliffe as verified.

So you have the Inspector General who's supposedly going to conclude in the May-June timeframe. You also have John Huber, we're not quite sure as the U.S. Attorney in Utah, what he may or may not be doing. But I'm not aware of any precedence here about how the Court is going to deal with the potential - potential that they were lied to and given a document that truly was not verified.

YOO: First let me say I've practiced before the FISA Court. I've seen these applications when I was in the Justice Department. I am absolutely shocked that people at Justice, people FBI would rely on something so flimsy as a Steele Dossier, which as you pointed, has been completely repudiated now by the Mueller report.

So what can happen? As you point out, the Justice Department could conduct ultimately criminal investigations. And if you're the FISA Court, unfortunately, the way they can retaliate is to stop granting anymore FISA warrants or to ask for - they can ask for also there to be an investigation and prosecution of the agents or even the high-ranking intelligence agency officials in the Obama administration who approved these warrants and this surveillance.

They could ask Mr. Barr - Attorney General Barr to open an investigation of those previous officials. I think that we're the only the very beginnings - we're only seeing the very beginnings of what this investigation will start to show.

CHAFFETZ: I believe it was actually Peter Strzok who said, "The reason we were able to go to the courts is because of the probable cause we had within the dossier. If you didn't have the dossier, we wouldn't have been able to go and spy on the Trump administration".

And I think one of the big question, John, is going to be when did Mr. Mueller know that there was a bogus document presented to the FISA Court and when did he know that there was actually no collusion, because he took an awful long time to investigate this.

YOO: I agree with you, Jason. I think actually it seems to me Mr. Mueller knew pretty early on that there was no real evidence of any collusion. And so the question that I think a lot of people, including me and other people are asking is, well why continue the investigation, why not just end it early? Why even have volume to the Mueller Report, which is all about obstruction.

Those are all crimes that have to do - if they happened, they have to do with the investigation itself, not with any underlying substantive crime like conspiracy. And also let me add it's not collusion, its conspiracy to violate federal law.

CHAFFETZ: John, thank you for your expertise and thanks for your service to our country, we do appreciate. Thanks for joining us tonight.

YOO: Thanks Jason.

CHAFFETZ: What we all somewhat expected this whole time was confirmed earlier today, ISIS declaring responsibility for the Easter massacre at Christian churches in Sri Lanka. The death toll has now risen to more than 320 people with another 500 people injured.

Despite this terror attack being among the worst since 9/11, in fact I can't think of one that's been worse since 9/11, not a single Democratic presidential candidate brought it up at last night's town halls and not a single CNN Anchor asked a question about it. This went on for five hours. They didn't even ask a question about it.

Here now on the difference in the American political reaction to this attack versus New Zealand, for instance, is conservative commentator and documentarian, Dinesh D'Souza. Dinesh, thank you so much for joining us here.

You've looked at this issue, the difference between the two. Both terrorist attacks, but treated very differently.

DINESH D'SOUZA, CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR: Yes, the Sri Lanka attack - the attack on multiple churches with now hundreds of victims, was an attack in which you have Christians as the targets or the victims and radical Muslims as the perpetrators.

And this sort of attack of radical Muslims against Christians has been occurring all over the world. We've seen it in the Middle East, we've seen it in North Africa, we've seen it in Asia, so it's part of a systematic pattern of targeting.

And yet this notion of Christians as victims and Muslims as perpetrators disrupts the progressive narrative, if you will. And so not just the Democrats, but also the media Left has been remarkably quiet about the Sri Lanka attacks in comparison to the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand attack, of course, fit the narrative. You had a mosque that was the target, so Muslims become the victims. You had a white supremacist who was the perpetrator, so they were all over that.

And they were not only focusing on the attack, but they were focusing on the motivation of the attacker, and they were trying to link the white supremacists to white supremacy all over the world. Even Trump's name was brought into it, even though the perpetrator in that case was really clear that he hated President Trump.

So what you see is a massive disparity of the way that these two incidents have been treated it's kind of a window into the way I think in which news gets distorted and tragedies get in a way played for political game.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. And you had several leaders within the Democratic side of the aisle, including former President Barack Obama, you had the Governor - Democratic Governor of Colorado, you had a Representative Kildee out of Michigan, all saying "Easter worshipers" as opposed to Christians.

As if they were all - this all happened within an hour of each other as if they said let's not refer to Christianity. But why, why offends so many Americans by forgetting and not naming what Easter is actually all about?

D'SOUZA: Well I think if you acknowledge that there is this systematic persecution and targeting - terrorists targeting of Christians, then that goes against, if you will, that Left-wing narrative.

The Left-wing narrative is that, in this country at least, Christians are the bad guys and the poor Muslims are the victims of terrorist targeting. And so it's not just that they wouldn't use the word Christian, it's that in the New Zealand attack there was a tremendous quest for the motivation of the attacker. Why'd he do it? Answer, he's a white supremacist. Therefore, white supremacy is a global problem that needs our urgent attention.

Now in this case the motivation is, if anything even more clear, this is ISIS. These are radical Muslims who are doing this in the name of Islam and targeting - religious targeting of Christians, and yet, no discussion of motivation. In fact, the ones who talk about motivation basically say, "Listen, we should not make the mistake of equating the people who do these things with Muslims in general".

CHAFFETZ: Yes, I agree.

D'SOUZA: --so desire to distinguish between the perpetrators and Muslims in general.

CHAFFETZ: Dinesh, thank you for your expertise. I mean, you would think we could be united on calling it out exactly what it is and being against terrorism every single time, no matter what. But when it happens against Christians, call them Christians. Dinesh, thank you.

A new break in the "Hate Crime Hoax" involving Jussie Smollett what the two Nigerian brothers involved are now saying. Plus Congressman Steve Scalise is here on the 2020 Democrats, looking to take away law-abiding Americans' rights, while strengthening those of the worst in our society.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: The Jussie Smollett saga continues in Chicago tonight as the two Nigerian brothers, who the disgraced actor attempted to frame, are now fighting back. Fox News Correspondent Mike Tobin is covering all the developments from Chicago tonight. Mike?

MIKE TOBIN, CORRESPONDENT: Hey Congressman, one way or another we may still see actor Jussie Smollett in a real-life courtroom drama. He's facing a lawsuit from the city of Chicago and he could very well be called as a witness in the federal lawsuit that was filed today.

He is not, however, named as a defendant. Although, the suit does say the attack was a hoax, conceived and directed by Jussie Smollett, right down to the use of a noose, bleach and shouts that "This is MAGA Country" from the attackers.

The lawsuit is directed at his high-powered legal team Mark Geragos and Tina Glandien. They claimed after charges were dropped against Jussie Smollett, Geragos and Glandien did the rounds on news programs and podcasts.

Lawyers for the Osundairo brothers, say Geragos and Glandien repeatedly made false, reprehensible and damaging statements. The brothers claimed the reputation and personal training business were damaged. They also suffered emotional distress.

Today attorney Gloria Schmidt said the two wannabe actors followed the direction of a successful actor and now they want to clear their names.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLORIA SCHMIDT, ATTORNEY FOR OSUNDAIRO BROTHERS: They were asked to do something by a friend who they trusted, and at the end of the day, that friend betrayed their trust.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TOBIN: Geragos and Glandien hit back. Part of their statement reads, "This so-called lawsuit by the brothers is more of their lawyer driven nonsense in a desperate attempt for them to stay relevant and further profit from an attack they admit they perpetrated". Geragos says, "The suit will be thrown out, because it doesn't have legal footing. The brothers are seeking an unspecified amount of money and legal costs".

Congressman back to you.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you. These news developments come just one day after Smollett's brother wrote a piece for BET, outlining all the hardships that have befallen him since he faked his own a crime.

Here now on how Smollett is trying to make himself be the victim of all, this Pastor Darrell Scott, CEO of the National Diversity Coalition for Trump; and Civil Rights Attorney Leo Terrell. Leo are we--

LEO TERRELL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Yes, sir.

CHAFFETZ: Are we really supposed to be feeling sorry for Jussie Smollett? I mean is he really the victim in this thing?

TERRELL: He's a victim in this situation, because the lawsuit which is now directed at him is frivolous. I guarantee you Jason this that that lawsuit, the lawyers have the right to speak out in defense of their clients, it's called litigation privilege, and Jussie Smollett right now is a victim and his attorneys are a victim as a result of this frivolous lawsuit. It will be thrown out.

CHAFFETZ: Pastor, what do you say that? I mean because they're trying to destroy these two guys - I don't know who are these guys. They did some stupid stuff. But they're also trying to get their reputation back. What's your take on it Pastor?

PASTOR DARRELL SCOTT, CEO, THE NATIONAL DIVERSITY COALITION FOR TRUMP: Listen, can you imagine the ridicule and the mocking that these guys are experiencing because of this dumb, not thought out drama that Jussie Smollett engaged in. This is like a bad script for a bad movie that got a bad rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

And Leo, I've heard you say some pretty dumb things in your day, but this has to take the cake as one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you say, when you're trying to defend this crap.

Now you know full well Jussie Smollett crime is--

TERRELL: You know, it is--

SCOTT: --you know full well Jussie Smollett thought this out and it backfired. He must have been high or delusional or something and came up with this cockamamie story. And now you're sitting on here, just because he's black, you're trying to defend this, and you know it.

TERRELL: Jason, next time give me a another lawyer to challenge because the Pastor doesn't know what he is talking about. You know as well as I do. These two brothers are trying to profit from their own misconduct.

Now in the past--

SCOTT: Their own misconduct--

TERRELL: Pastor, let me say this very clearly, though - that lawsuit will be thrown out. I know you're not a lawyer. But ask a lawyer, it's litigation privilege, simple - and

(CROSSTALK)

SCOTT: Should I ask you same lawyer, does Trump committed collusion? Are those lawyers that I should ask? You guys are wrong and you're wrong again, and it's not going to get--

TERRELL: --we're going to left-field on that one. How did Trump get in this? How did Trump - we got Trump, race card--

SCOTT: Because this whole thing was supposedly by some Trump supporters, that's how.

CHAFFETZ: Well, yes, supposedly, I mean - because the whole thing was based on trying to create this scenario that somehow Donald Trump and MAGA supporters - I mean are you trying to suggest Leo that Jussie Smollett was not involved in any of this? That these brothers just kind of did this themselves, is that your case?

TERRELL: I'm not saying that. I'm saying that these brothers are trying to profit from their own misconduct and they're not suing Jussie Smollett in this lawsuit.

SCOTT: What misconduct--

TERRELL: Isn't that odd--

SCOTT: Wait a minute - hold on Leo, let me ask you this? So here we have these two brothers that put on whiteface, skull caps and MAGA hats on top. And then they say it in a - they mimicked a white voice that was so convincing that Jussie Smollett thought it was too strange unknown white guys that attacked him.

They abuse this is MAGA country. Pour bleach on him, put a noose around his neck and he never knew it was them at all. And then he went to the police - and now finally after he got busted he realized it was these guys.

TERRELL: And you just made my case.

SCOTT: --these guys are. What whiteface could that you put on - and why would you put on whiteface--

TERRELL: You just made my case.

SCOTT: --on top of it. And how does a MAGA hat--

TERRELL: You're not listening to me Pastor.

SCOTT: --get on the top of a skull cap?

TERRELL: OK. Keep talking.

SCOTT: Man this whole thing is ridiculous, it's stupid--

CHAFFETZ: All right, Pastor, let Leo have a say.

SCOTT: --and you should know better than - we wouldn't take that--

CHAFFETZ: Hold on one second.

TERRELL: Talking point--

CHAFFETZ: Pastor, listen, I want to play this clip. Leo, listen to this clip from Jussie Smollett. Quickly from Jussie, then I want you to respond, Leo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSSIE SMOLLETT, ACTOR: I will never be the man that this did not happen to. I'm forever changed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Do you believe that Leo? Is he telling the truth right there, come on?

SCOTT: Its bad acting.

TERRELL: I'm not going to get - you want me to speculate to what this guy is - what's in his mind. I'm telling you right now, Jason, the whole issue here is the brothers' misconduct. The Pastor has got good talking points, but Pastor I'll get - I'll come back to the issue again.

This lawsuit is going nowhere. And why should these guys based on your own admission profit from their own misconduct?

SCOTT: What was their misconduct?

TERRELL: They were involved.

SCOTT: What was their misconduct?

TERRELL: If they were involved in criminal - oh, my goodness, I can't believe this Pastor. If they were involved in criminal mishap why should they file a lawsuit? Why?

SCOTT: So wait a minute. If and--

TERRELL: Why, answer that. Answer me that non-lawyer.

SCOTT: If they were involved then that means they did everything I just said. Put on whiteface, put on skull caps, call (inaudible) order to Make America Great hats, put those on and they mimicked white voices so good that he didn't know that these

TERRELL: And therefore--

SCOTT: --he thought they were two strange white voice--

CHAFFETZ: Gentlemen, gentlemen - OK. I got to call right there end of the round. The bell has gone on.

TERRELL: Hey, Jason - Jason next time--

(CROSSTALK)

TERRELL: Have a lawyer to debate me.

SCOTT: You lost Leo.

TERRELL: Yes, sir.

CHAFFETZ: Leo - Leo I think he actually won that fight. But just so you know Leo, but thank you coming on.

TERRELL: --thank you.

CHAFFETZ: No, but thank you for being on. You both had a good spirited debate. I do appreciate it.

Last night on this show Former Obama Border Chief Mark Morgan told us what was he thought was to be Mexican soldiers disarming U.S. troops on our side of the border, it actually might have been something else altogether.

Some new video obtained by Fox News might just prove him right. We'll show you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Fox News has obtained brand-new video showing heavily armed men smuggling a Guatemalan mother and son into the United States. You can see the human traffickers here in full tactical gear carrying long guns and AK- 47 assault rifles. This is what is really going on at the border. The video is terrifying and could be the start of the new norm. This coming just 24 hours after we brought you the story of Mexican troops disarming U.S. soldiers on the United States' side of the border. Obama's former Border Patrol chief, Mark Morgan, said last night on the show that those troops could have actually been armed traffickers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK MORGAN, FORMER BORDER PATROL CHIEF UNDER OBAMA: I'm not sure 100 percent these were actually Mexican government officials. From my experiences, I would suggest that they were there possibly supporting the Mexican cartels. I think you could make that logical assumption and it wouldn't be too far off base.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Yes, no crisis at the border.

Joining me now is Brandon Judd, he's the National Border Patrol Council president, and Francisco Hernandez, who is an immigration attorney and has been on the show with me several times before. Gentlemen, thank you both for being with me.

Brandon, for your expertise, decades with the Border Patrol, what has been your experience? We are seeing video that is shocking to those of us they don't live and see what is going over at the border every day. But what is your read on the situation with U.S. soldiers being disarmed and then the video of that we're seeing of this person coming across the border?

BRANDON JUDD, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL PRESIDENT: Jason, I personally have experienced dealing with Mexican military. I personally have experience dealing with Mexican police where they have come up to the border, they have distracted me and my partners while they have run drugs right behind us. That happened in El Centro, California, one time, and it happened in Naco, Arizona, on one occasion. So we know that these people, they run diversion tactics for the cartels, they smuggle right behind us when they are able to divert us. And now we are seeing armed bandits coming up. And these aren't just sidearms that they are carrying. These are AK-47s, these are long arms, these are very dangerous individuals. And, frankly, it's liberal policies that are putting these people in the hands of these dangerous criminals.

CHAFFETZ: When you see that video, Francisco, they are coming up, but they've got masks on because I think they know that the Americans actually have video surveillance on them, and they don't want to be identified. But there is also not a wall. And you been on this show before. You are one of the ones that have said we don't need a wall. But that is how they walk across the border. Now, these people were detained by the Border Patrol, but why should they have to put up with that crap?

The wall would not have stopped them. They would have found another place to go through. That is the point we are trying to make. What is wall going to do? Guys, if there is a crisis at the border --

CHAFFETZ: Not allow them to walk across the border.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Look, we had military there and they still got through. Why did we get disarmed? How does that happen? A wall would have stopped it? It would have not. What we are failing to see is what is hidden in plain sight. The crisis at the border are these cartels that, quite frankly, are smuggling, just as Brandon says. The caravans, what they are doing is they are forcing us to devote resources to take care of people that are fleeing from their countries, their governments, and these cartels to try to come up here. And we're demonizing these folks that are trying escape that exact danger, and now our military is folding? I find that very hard to believe. In fact, I refuse to believe it.

CHAFFETZ: There's a lot to unpack there. Brandon, you've actually been on the border as a Border Patrol agent. Come on. You don't think the wall would actually help --

JUDD: Yes, walls in strategic locations will absolutely stop these smuggling organizations, because then we are allowed to dictate where this type of action takes place. If we force these people to go through ports of entry, they no longer have to be in the smugglers' hands. And that is what walls will allow us to do. They will allow us to force these people to go through ports of entry, present themselves legally instead of entering the country illegally. Walls absolutely work. They work every single place that we put them up.

HERNANDEZ: We would not even let them in at a legal port of entry. What you are saying is that a wall is stronger than our military, that these masked gunmen disarmed our military on our side of the border? Is that what we are ready to admit to justify building a wall? Come on, guys. I'm not going to admit that.

JUDD: We have to consider that.

CHAFFETZ: Francisco, I totally --

JUDD: We have to consider that. If the Mexican military is allowed to come into the United States and disarm -- and they came in in numbers, they had force on their side, and they are able to disarm our National Guardsmen, a wall would have stopped that. They wouldn't have been able to do that had we had a wall in that specific location. And this idea --

CHAFFETZ: Gentlemen, I've got to move on to this next thing. Giving terrorists and child rapists the right to vote wasn't the only policy push that some of the 2020 Democrats made last night. And I've got to tell you, there is an issue that still needs to be ferreted out here. So we have Congressman Steve Scalise, he's next, to break on the shocking moments that would see law-abiding Americans' rights taken away, and take the worse in our society and giving them more rights. It's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy, yes, even for terrible people.

HARRIS: The right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship. And it is something that people should not be stripped of needlessly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: We watched, the Fox News intern, Tommy (ph) Firth (ph) watched all five hours of the town hall last night. We are showing you the highlights so you don't have to go back and watch it. And as we highlighted at the top of the show, Democrats are now considering putting more rights in the hands of the worst in our society, those that have been convicted of crimes. And in the case of Kamala Harris, it isn't just bad, but she is proposing to come after law-abiding Americans as well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Coming after your guns.

Here now on this push from the left over who should and should not have Constitutional rights in this country is House Minority Whip Steve Scalise. I had the honor and privilege of serving with him in Congress. Whip Scalise, thank you so much for joining here. On the one hand, Democrats want to give rights to convicted felons. At the same time they want to take away their rights of law-abiding citizens. What are the Democrats doing here?

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA, HOUSE MINORITY WHIP: Jason, it's almost unbelievable when you look at how far to the left they have gone where socialism literally is beating out liberalism in terms of their ideology. And like you said, they want to give the Boston -- the Boston bomber the ability to vote from prison. And they're going to take away your First Amendment rights, your Second Amendment rights. They have got this plan on health care where they want to take away your ability to buy your own private insurance from your company. So it's all about control versus freedom. They want to take away more rights for law-abiding citizens, but they want to give more rights to people who broke the law. Violent felons serving in prison should be able to vote while they are in prison, let them keep talking about this, Jason, in public, where everybody can see just how far their party has gone.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, when they actually have to take policy positions, this is where they get themselves into trouble because they do expose it. They fight harder for people that aren't American or they fight harder for people that are in jail and incarcerated then they do to allow their own people to keep, say, their guns under the Second Amendment or keep their health care policy with their employer. It really is amazing.

But I want to get her three topics here, and we've got a short amount of time, because it isn't just policy pushes that reveal the radical tendencies of the left but also how their frontrunner discusses America's greatest ally in the Middle East. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: The fact of the matter is that Netanyahu is a rightwing politician who I think is treating the Palestinian people extremely unfairly. The goal must be to try to bring people together and not just support one country, which is now run by a rightwing, dare I say, racist government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Wow. Congressman, President Obama certainly wasn't a fan of Bibi Netanyahu, no doubt about it, but could you ever imagine him saying something this ugly about one of our greatest allies?

SCALISE: There's absolutely no place for it. He owes an apology to Benjamin Netanyahu. And I've met with Benjamin Netanyahu many times and talked in Jerusalem about what he's trying to do to promote peace and actually have a two-state solution. But you have to have both sides wanting to have peace. When one side says that they don't want to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and you see the anti-Semitism, even in Congress, that Nancy Pelosi and others won't stand up to, when you look at Gaza, a peace offering by Israel to say, hey, let's see if we can work on land for peace, and look at Gaza today, it's a launching pad for every terrorist organization that wants to undermine Israel that you can imagine.

Thank goodness Donald Trump is standing with our ally, Israel, but it's very telling to see where the Democrat candidates for president are going with our greatest ally in the Middle East and one of our greatest allies in the world who we all ought to be standing with, who needs that support from America. Israel is our friend and our ally. We need to stand with Israel, not attack them.

CHAFFETZ: Steny Hoyer at the AIPAC conference tried to brush it off as if, it's just two or three people that are acting this way. But, no, it's the Democratic frontrunner for the presidency of United States.

SCALISE: It's a growing problem, Jason. And they won't stand up to anti- Semitism. That should be the easiest thing we can come together on, to stand up against anti-Semitism, and they won't do that.

CHAFFETZ: Congressman, I want to, real quickly before you go, there's been some chatter about a potential Republican challenger to President Trump. One man who was thought to be stepping back from consideration, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, seemed to give it a second thought today. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. LARRY HOGAN, R-MD: People have asked me to give this serious consideration, and I think I owe it to those people to do just that. I obviously have very strong concerns about the future of my party and the future of the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: I don't know who he owes, but Congressman, what are your thoughts on challenging Donald Trump at this point?

SCALISE: It's a free country, but anybody who challenges Donald Trump has to know, we've got one of the best economies we've seen in generations. When there are more job openings then people looking for work, when regulations are finally under control, where you can do business in America again, where we are seeing true opportunities for people, and the president fighting both here and abroad, giving our troops a pay raise, first one they've had in years, and standing up for America, again trying to secure the border, President Trump has a great story to tell. And anyone that wants to run against him, he's ready for the fight. He's a tough guy. But in the end, I think it the American people want to keep it going.

CHAFFETZ: I'm glad Hogan is the governor of Maryland, but I think that is where he should be.

SCALISE: I agree.

CHAFFETZ: Congressman, thank you again for joining us. Good to see you tonight.

SCALISE: Great being with you, Jason. Take care.

CHAFFETZ: AOC says the V.A. hospitals are just fine. But what does one Army vet think about that? She is here next to sound off.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was just a battle with the medications, the doctors and just -- I watched him cry because he couldn't get the help he needed. I just did not realize how awful it would be to see so many dead bodies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: That was a mother of 29-year-old veteran Gary Pressley, who killed himself in the parking lot of a Georgia V.A. hospital. Within five days of his suicide, another two military vets took their lives at V.A. facilities, and there are hosts of other stories, untold stories, just like that. The agency is plagued with problems, systemic neglect, secret wait lists, and veterans even dying waiting to see a doctor. But don't worry, AOC says everything is A-OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: There are some things that we are hearing today, there are some things we've got coming out, especially when it comes to the V.A. All I can think of is that classic refrain that my parents always told me growing up is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Wow, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Joining me now is Army veteran Kathy Barnette. She's, joining us from Philly. First of all, thank you for your service to this nation. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

KATHY BARNETTE, U.S. ARMY VETERAN: Thank you, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: When you hear the stories, and you hear somebody say, well, the V.A., it's just fine, we don't need to fix anything there, what is your reaction?

BARNETTE: My first reaction when I heard that it is that AOC is the perfect example of why parents should say no to their children often, otherwise they go up to think everything they say is ingenious. You've already mentioned some of my initial thoughts, Jason. Twenty veterans commit suicide every single day. That is a problem. And as you mentioned earlier, three veterans earlier just this month walked into a V.A. facility and committed suicide right there in the waiting room. That is a problem.

And these are problems that have existed for generations. And this appears to be the first administration who has said we are no longer willing to kick the can down the road. Jason, you would remember because you were in Congress during this time, but in 2014, we had an innumerable number of V.A. scandals break. We talked about the egregious wait times that veterans were being submitted to. Veteran go in with relatively minor issues, and because of the extended wait time, there minor problems turned into life-threatening issues. And under this of administration, President Trump has been very focused on reducing those wait times. It's a very real problem. So for someone to say, it is not broke, don't fix that, I would be surprised if she's ever even stepped in a V.A. facility.

CHAFFETZ: Real quickly, I only have 20 seconds or so, what is your message to veterans who are struggling right now? What should they do?

BARNETTE: You know what, out of those 20 veterans who commit suicide every day, 14 have never even been in a V.A. facility. President Trump just signed into law a prevents program that will go out and reach out to those vulnerable veterans. They need to know there are resources, and they need to go to the nearest veterans' facility.

CHAFFETZ: There is help. I want to continue to spend more time on this issue. Again, thank you for your service and the message tonight.

BARNETTE: Thank you.

CHAFFETZ: We'll be right back with the Last Bite.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEB BUSH, R-FLA, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: -- of creating a more peaceful world. Please clap.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Sorry, Governor Bush, that's always painful watching that. And now we get to relive it with two Democrats having their own "please clap" moments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have won every single Congressional district in my state including Michele Bachmann's, OK? That's when you guys are supposed to cheer, OK?

(LAUGHTER)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: Our caucus is 60 percent women, people of color, LGBTQ. That is an applause line.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Cueing applause is never a good thing. That's all the time we have tonight. I'm Jason Chaffetz in for Laura Ingraham. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it 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.