This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 17, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

INGRAHAM: Move on.org is looking for a copywriter. All right. Hannity, great show as always tonight. All right. Good evening from Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle." The New York Times buries a bombshell deep inside a story that some say confirms the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. Meanwhile, Roger Stone will explain why Mueller is now focusing on him after spending a year trying to find dirt on the president. Plus, as we were telling you about earlier this week, a GOP split over DACA threatens to derail Trump's attempts to secure the border, build the wall and build momentum for these midterm elections. Also, the Senate confirms Gina Haspel as CIA director despite the Democrats resistance. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell, he's been able to secure confirmations for 21 federal appellate court judges nominated by Trump. That's a remarkable 1/8th of the current federal appellate bench. And Raymond Arroyo will be here to explain in "Seen and Unseen," why rebooted tv shows are everywhere. Why the resurrected Murphy Brown is suddenly taking on Fox News.

But first, the anatomy of a smear. That's the subject of tonight's "Angle." Today's left leaning media complex, they fancy themselves as the only truly reliable check on the president. Sure, congressional Democrats can give speeches and file minority reports on Capitol Hill and Bob Mueller may be getting a little warmer. But the press believes it has a superior moral responsibility not necessarily to report the truth but to report a version of the truth in a way that is skewed against Trump and his allies. Hence, they take a comment by him about MS-13 members.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we are stopping a lot of them. We are taking people out of the country. You would not believe how bad these people are. These are not people. These are animals.


INGRAHAM: And they turn that comment into this, "Trump rant on unauthorized migrants. These aren't people, these are animals," said the New York Times. Here's how The New York Daily News played it, "Trump hurls pure hate at immigrants." And the Huffington Post squawked, "Trump refers to immigrants as animals" again. Now this is an obscene and ridiculous and frankly nefarious plan that then gets picked up by liberal politicians like Chuck Schumer who wrote the following, "When all of our great, great grandparents came to America, they were not animals and these people were not either." On tv, they quickly bounce condemnations around the echo chamber.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did the president mean when he said some immigrants are not people, they are animals?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president of the United States saying these are not people, they are animals. It is a disgusting way to talk about human beings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a slippery slope when you start dehumanizing people. That's what the Nazis did, and slave owners did. It's not what Americans do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The tone shifted about what it means if you are an illegal immigrant.


INGRAHAM: She went to Nazis. Oh my God, do any of these people bother to try to look like they are in any way impartial, calling balls and strikes? You know, learn the facts or understand what the context of the president said or get out of the business. Journalists have an obligation to read beyond the headlines and report the truth. Even analysts, bother to read the full comments and be fair. Speaking of being fair, Jake Tapper and CNN they did note that the president was taken out of context earlier today. And the AP acknowledged it made an honest mistake writing, "AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump's animals comment about immigrants because it was not made clear he was speaking after a comment about gang members. Even after those clarifications MSNBC could not help itself.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President Trump lashing out during an immigration round table at the White House and stirring controversy over his harsh rhetoric towards immigrants branding them animals. The White House said he was referring to the criminal immigrant gang MS-13 and not to all immigrants. He didn't make that clear.


INGRAHAM: He was responding to a point about MS-13, Andrea. She knows better. This, my friends, is the anatomy of a smear. Take a comment out of context. Isolate it. Blast out the worst possible characterization of its purpose and meaning and writers and reporters and politicians spit it back on panels where the number of furrowed brows out numbers the number of brain cells. As for MS-13, about whom Trump was speaking, this is some of what they have been up to lately. In a horrific crime in Washington, D.C., MS-13 members stabbed a man more than 100 times and decapitated him and tore the heart right out of his chest or this case in Louden County, Virginia, where an MS-13 gang member beat a Muslim girl to death with a baseball bat. That was according to the "Daily News." The suspect charged with murdering a 17-year-old Muslim girl during Ramadan was accused of sexually assaulting another woman a week before the teen slaying in Virginia and is reportedly an MS-13 gang member.

Then there is this heartbreaking account from the parents of teenage girls killed by MS-13 in Suffolk County, New York.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is not a day, a second, that I don't think about my daughter and they just don't understand the pain of a parent losing a child to this gang violence. I hope they never will. Our kids should be burying us, not the parents burying their kids. Their lives are ahead of them.


INGRAHAM: That was one of the toughest interviews I have done in the history of this show. The pain on a mother's face. As if things could not get worse, the suspects in that case were seen laughing in court during a pre-trial hearing. Unbelievable. No wonder Sarah Sanders responded this way to the animal fracus at today's briefing.


SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Frankly, I think the term animal doesn't go far enough. I think the president should continue to use his platform and everything he can do under the law to stop these times of horrible, horrible, disgusting people.


INGRAHAM: Good for her. I would say we are insulting animals because they don't behave this way or kill for fun. Thank you very much. The last word on this goes to the president, who cleared up any confusion for all of those commentators on MSNBC about his comments today.


PRESIDENT TRUMP: But I am referring, and you know I am referring to the
MS-13 gangs that are coming in. When the MS-13 comes in, the other gang members come into our country, I refer to them as animals, and guess what, I always will.


INGRAHAM: This is why Trump got elected by speaking bluntly and honestly. Not a lot of concern for political correctness. Frankly, a lot of people are done with that anyway. But he is talking about the challenges facing America, law and order, safety on the streets, law and order at the border. He changed the political landscape and frustrated liberal narratives by speaking to the people as they speak among themselves. If he keeps up that focus, he will get elected again. Perhaps that's why the left is acting like a pack of wild animals over a side comment by Donald Trump. That's the "Angle." Now shifting gears, we are now a year into the special counsel's probe and Bob Mueller apparently has another target. Reuters is reporting he subpoenaed Roger Stone's former social media specialist, Jason Sullivan, to appear before a grand jury tomorrow.

Mueller is reportedly interested in whether the Trump campaign was in any way involved in the Wikileaks release of those DNC emails during the 2016 presidential campaign. Stone is a longtime confidante of President Trump and the author of a new book, "Stone's Rules, How To Win In Politics, Business, and Style." Now he joins us exclusively. It's great to see you. How are you doing, Roger?

ROGER STONE, AUTHOR OF 'STONE'S RULES': Great to be here. Thank you.

INGRAHAM: Congrats on the book. We have some rules we pulled out. What is your reaction to now? We are now into year two of this investigation officially today. They are bringing in the guy who worked for you on Twitter and social media trending. What is going on?

STONE: At this point I don't know if I am a person of interest or just an interesting person. It's very clear that not only has Mr. Mueller subpoenaed a part-time consultant who worked for me for three months. He's dropped subpoenas on a number of other young people who worked for me.

In all honesty, I think this is driven by a fake news narrative that insists that I must have known in advance about the hacking of the DNC, which I dispute ever really happened by the Russians. I don't think that happened at all never mind by the Russians.I must have had advanced notice of the content, source and the exact disclosure time of the Wikileaks DNC disclosures. That's is of course false. It's not pleasant to have a special prosecutor in your emails and your text messages and phone calls and he was very clearly in mine. It's an enormous invasion, violation of my Fourth Amendment rights. There is no probable cause here. Julian Assange said Roger Stone never said anything on Twitter that he didn't glean by simply following what I was saying in interviews and in on my own Twitter feed.

INGRAHAM: Now they are hanging this all on that tweet that you wrote August 21st of 2016 where you said trust me, it will be soon be Podesta's time in the barrel and #crookedhillary.

STONE: That's a misquote. What I said was it will soon be the Podesta's time in the barrel referring to two people. Now, people call Donald Trump, the Donald, but no one ever called John Podesta, the Podesta. I'm referring to John and Tony because in April of 2016, their shady Russian business deals were exposed in the Panama papers.As a student of opposition research, I was well aware of that. I never predicted the hacking or theft of John Podesta's emails. I said the Podestas, but that is conveniently omitted from virtually every media report and it's even omitted from the final House Intelligence Committee final report.My lawyers had to write a letter asking for a correction. The Podestas clearly refers to two people, John and Tony.

INGRAHAM: Now your old friend, Adam Schiff, said you deny everything and so you need subpoenas for your tweets and your direct Twitter messages.


COMMITTEE: What we ought to do is subpoena Twitter for direct messages that went to these particular handles or came from Roger Stone so that we don't have to accept and rely upon the word of Roger Stone, which I think that's a hazardous thing to do. One thing that Roger Stone and the president have in common is a philosophy that you deny everything. That only suckers and losers admit to anything. If you deny, it did not happen.


STONE: Well, Laura, first of all, I testified fully and truthfully to the House Intelligence Committee and I turned over to them the Wikileaks and Gucifer, a direct message exchanges, which are innocuous --

INGRAHAM: How did you get in touch with the Gucifer 2.0?

STONE: Simply by going to direct messages. But here's the point, based on the content, context and the timing of that exchange, it's six weeks after Wikileaks has already published the DNC disclosures. Consequently, chronologically collusion, and the hacking of that material is impossible. They are entirely expos facto. They are benign. I turned them over to the committee.

INGRAHAM: So, intel has it, the House Intel Committee has it.

STONE: The Senate Intelligence Committee will have it.

INGRAHAM: And you wanted to testify in public?


INGRAHAM: They brought you behind closed doors. Why is that?

STONE: Now the House Democrats complained that my testimony is not public when they are the ones who wanted it to be private. I agreed to cooperate with the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committee. I would like my testimony to be in public. I will turn over these same documents and they are complete.

INGRAHAM: George Stephanopoulos had Michael Caputo on your old colleague, this is how it went down.


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST, "ABC THIS WEEK": Michael Caputo who's worked on the campaign met with Mueller's team this week. He said they asked a lot of questions about collusion and he was concerned about Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Rick Gates and others.


INGRAHAM: Very concerned about Manafort, Stone, Gates and others.

STONE: Well, it's very interesting. CNBC and MSNBC and that partisan hack tries to pose as a journalist keep insisting that Mueller is focusing on my long relationship with Rick Gates. I didn't meet Rick Gates until 2016. I have never been alone with him. They are focused on dinners. There was one dinner. Michael Caputo was there. John Hagerty (ph) from the Trump campaign is there. Steve Mowsberg
(ph) from Newsmax is there. Manafort is supposed to join us. At the last- minute, Gates shows up instead, showing up late and leaving early.There is no discussion of Wikileaks or Julian Assange. This is the only dinner I've ever been at with Mr. Gates and no, we didn't work together 30 years ago. He was not there. That's a falsehood.

INGRAHAM: What about this Sam Nunberg comment that he made. He showed up on some shows. This is what you said about Julian Assange.


SAM NUNBERG, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISOR: The minute he told he met with Julian Assange I assumed he was lying. It's something Roger does. It's one of the Stone rules. It's a Trump tactic to take credit and insinuate yourself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you say it's something he does, you mean Roger Stone lies to people like you his mentee?

NUNBERG: Yes, I call it exaggeration.


STONE: I call it bluffing and posturing. Well, when you work with Sam Nunberg, sometimes he would call you 20, 30, 40 times a day, and when you take his call --

INGRAHAM: That's called stalking, Roger.

STONE: So, one Friday late in the afternoon when I wanted to get him off the phone. My wife said dinner was ready and Sam kept saying one more thing. Do you have any plans for the weekend? Yes, I am going to fly to London and have dinner with Julian Assange. It's shtick. It's a throwaway line, joke.

INGRAHAM: On the ANGLE we talk about things taken out of context then they are isolated, then they are blasted out and then they are used to smear people. That's the art of a smear.

STONE: And when I figured he believed it, I milked the joke in an email. But I produced airline records, credit card records that proved I was in Los Angeles. I even produced a receipt from a deli in Santa Monica that proves I was in L.A., and obviously, Laura, my passport, custom's records and airlines.

INGRAHAM: You have never been to Russia? You've never ordered a white Russian --

STONE: I was not in London and I never met with or spoken with Julian Assange.

INGRAHAM: By the way, "Stone's Rules" from your book, which I love. My favorite part of Stone's Rules. Hit from every angle. Open multiple fronts on your enemy. The enemy must be confused and feel besieged on every side. That's what they are doing to Donald Trump?

STONE: Well, they are certainly trying to. Look, everything the president needs to do to survive is in this book. I would direct him on this rule, attack and attack and don't defend. I love it when he calls out the fake news media and when he exposes what is the greatest political scandal in American history. The use of a phony dossier to rationalize the surveillance by the state to spy on the Republican candidate for president.

INGRAHAM: It's like the art of war. I like it. Roger, stick around for the next segment. The "New York Times" confirms that the Obama administration did spy on the Trump campaign. Did the paper do that on purpose? Was it meant to blunt the impact of that upcoming inspector general report? Molly Hemingway, Sol Wisenberg join Roger next.


INGRAHAM: A "New York Times" story may have backfired in spectacular fashion. With a new report that may indicate that the Obama administration did, in fact spy on the Trump campaign. Buried deep in yesterday's piece on the origins of the Russian probe, more than 40 paragraphs down is this revelation. "At least one government informant met several times with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos," current and former officials said. President Trump reacted to the revelation by tweeting that it could be bigger than Watergate. But was this really a misstep by the "Times" or was it done on purpose? Roger Stone rejoins us for reaction to this major development. Also, Fox News contributor and "Federalist" senior editor, Mollie Hemingway, and former Whitewater prosecutor, Sol Wisenberg. So, your reaction to that little nugget that was buried in the "New York Times" piece.

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL, WHITEWATER: Well, it's absolutely shocking and very improper in my view that the FBI apparently penetrated and had an undercover person on the Trump campaign. And if they used the lesser standards of a counter intelligence investigation --

INGRAHAM: Explain that for us for people you don't understand, to open counter intel investigation, you don't need a criminal predicate, correct?

WISENBERG: Well, you don't need a criminal predicate. It's one thing to say they had enough evidence to open an investigation of whether there was Russian espionage, but certainly they were not close to being anywhere near able to say we have some evidence of espionage by people in the Trump campaign. They never could have opened a criminal investigation based on that and so instead they used the excuse of counter-intelligence. It's a huge scandal.
You're absolutely right. It was put in that story because they knew it would come out. They could say that's old news and not a big deal.


MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, "THE FEDERALIST": Yes, I think it's not that this might be happening that the FBI was spying, but we have now are multiple former FBI officials fully saying that there was broad surveillance on the Trump campaign. It wasn't just Carter Page, but it was four separate high-ranking individuals.That it was wiretaps and national security letters and at least one human intelligence source. We don't know a lot, how many there were, were they sent in by the FBI? Were they walk-in? I mean, there is so much information to find out, but it's not a question of that this might indicate that there is spying. They are saying they spied in a pretty broad fashion.

INGRAHAM: Remember when Trump was ridiculed by everyone when he said I was wiretapped. He was right.

STONE: He was absolutely right. This has to be seen in context. Not only did they use a phony, fabricated dossier as the underlying legal rationale for the spying on the Republican candidate for president. Using the power and the authority and the capability of the state to spy on a presidential candidate, but they infiltrated the Trump campaign with an FBI agent. This makes Watergate look like small potatoes.

INGRAHAM: It looks like this guy, Stefan who teaches at Cambridge and an American citizen. You know him, Roger?

STONE: I played poker with him. He is an excellent poker player.

INGRAHAM: Apparently. It might have been someone who suggested a lot of things to the Trump campaign. He didn't work for the Trump campaign. It was reported that he approached many different Trump campaign people to give them information. What do you make of that?

WISENBERG: Well, you would call a potential entrapment. I had not heard that yet. It would not surprise me. It's shocking enough based on the flimsy evidence that they had, they would put someone in the campaign. The FISA is disturbing enough. We know they didn't reveal something very important to the FISA court.To have a plant in the political campaign of your opponent. If you do something like that, you better have dynamite and they didn't have dynamite. It's part of a pattern. The pattern of Sally Yates investigating Mike Flynn for the Logan Act. It's all part of a very disturbing thing.

HEMINGWAY: There is an additional problem with this, which is Congress is currently trying to find out information about these things. The FBI is telling them they can't turn over that information. At the same time, you are seeing leaks with personally identifying biographical career information about the source that was used. They are telling the "New York Times" and the "Washington Post," but they won't turn over the information to Congress, which is actually --

INGRAHAM: Because they want to make themselves look as good as possible before this IG thing comes out and before other documents come out. I mean, this narrative is being tainted. Burying the lead in the "New York Times." Roger, Rudy said they are discussing with Mueller now narrowing the scope of the questions. I don't like him talking to Bob Mueller at all. I think this whole thing stinks to high heaven, but it looks like they've made progress on narrowing the questions.

STONE: I made this point on (inaudible) the other day. There is no circumstance under which the president should go in for an interview. It's a perjury trap. The idea that Rob Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions won't turn over to Congress a co-equal branch of government information regarding the surveillance of the Trump campaign. That's an impeachable offense.

INGRAHAM: You think Obama had no knowledge?

STONE: On the contrary, what did the president know and when did he know it?

INGRAHAM: How does the president of the United States not know that we are doing a counter intel investigation on the opponent of the woman who would succeed him?

STONE: Peter Strzok's text messages indicate the president wanted to know everything. They've tried to explain that away.

INGRAHAM: I always go back to Susan Rice's e-mail to herself on inauguration day, the president wanted everything done by the book. She said it twice right afternoon on January 20th. Sol, narrowing the scope of the questions. Is that giving you any sense of comfort that they would go in there and answer questions by Mueller given everything we know now?

WISENBERG: As I've said many times on this show, if Donald Trump were any white-collar client, famous or not in this circumstance, I would physically prevent him from going in for that questioning. On the point that Roger raised about the information that the DOJ doesn't want to give over. There are good reasons for not giving over sources of and methods. The problem with the DOJ and particularly with the FBI is they have been caught saying several times we can't turn this over because it's sensitive.
And when they back down and un-redact it, it's just embarrassing. They have a credibility problem.

INGRAHAM: Mollie, Papadopoulos, they kept saying Papadopoulos was this big impetus for the investigation. The more we learn about that, I'm sorry, but he just seems like a goofball. I don't know him. Like Carter Page, Papadopoulos, this is like ridiculous. Look at these, they are not exactly characters you would imagine compiling information and trying to get with the Russians. But nevertheless we keep learning more about who was approaching him at the time.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, "THE FEDERALIST": Right. The more we learn, at first we were told there were all these questions about Russian interference and involvement with the Trump campaign. The more we learn about what led them to think that, it boggles the mind that professionals would actually have started any investigation at all over these very piddling things. And yet they did, and they are now admitting they were spying on at least four Trump campaign officials and that they were using the entire powers of the intelligence apparatus to do this. Regardless of what you think about Donald Trump, this is such a horrible precedent to be spying on political opponents and to be doing it with, and to be avoiding accountability.

INGRAHAM: They spied on you, right?

ROGER STONE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: The "New York Times" reported an January 20th of 2017 that there was a FISA warrant on me. I talked to those reporters. They will not retract their story. I've asked through a FOIA request for information. It has been denied. We're going to move to--

INGRAHAM: I am not saying this as a Republican or conservative. I find it frightening that the power of the federal government could be used in in this manner in the middle of the political season with spurious or scant evidence. We are out of time, guys. I wish we could hold you guys for the hour. Fantastic panel. It's great to have you, all of you, in Washington. And I got Sol to smile once.Is "Roseanne" about to get less political? ABC says yes, but what are the show's stars saying? And we lost a conservative literary lion this week. We'll remember him. Raymond Arroyo, "Seen and Unseen" next.


INGRAHAM: It's time for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose what is really going on behind the big cultural stories of the day. In tonight's segment "Roseanne" may be getting a little less political, and is rebooted "Murphy Brown" about to take on us at FOX News? For answer we turn to "New York Times" bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" series, FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo. All right, Raymond, "Roseanne," what is going on?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: The ABC head of entertainment this week said "Roseanne" is going to back away from politics. It's going to focus on the family this season. But today Roseanne tweeted out ABC has been nothing but supportive of me. The press has misrepresented what the ABC president said. It looks like she is going to keep on this train where there is a balance between politics and family. Let's face it, it is the story of this family that keeps the family watching.

INGRAHAM: First of all, politics, if she wants to keep ratings you've got to have some politics, because it's funny, and it's real.

ARROYO: Meanwhile, there's "Murphy Brown."

INGRAHAM: Oh, no, we're back to "Murphy Brown"?

ARROYO: Wait until you see this.

INGRAHAM: OK, let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You could not tell the evening news from an episode of "Entertainment Tonight." The problem was I didn't know what to do with myself. And then, we had an election.

INGRAHAM: I thought that was betty white. Oh my gosh!


ARROYO: Whole hog politics.

INGRAHAM: I thought that was Betty White.

ARROYO: Candace Bergen, she moved into the tapioca set.

INGRAHAM: I'm getting there too. She looks great, but I didn't even know that --

ARROYO: Well, her voice is very husky.

INGRAHAM: I'm really dating myself, forget it.

ARROYO: She's going to be a host like "Morning Joe" opposite her son who is on a "FOX AND FRIENDS" type show.

INGRAHAM: OK, then there is a long career for me at FOX.

ARROYO: The CBS entertainment chief said we probably won't get Roseanne style ratings. I think he is right.

INGRAHAM: First of all, it's not going to last a season.

All right, I know you are not a big fan of reboots.

ARROYO: I am not. But there is one that is really working, and it's on a streaming service. My 15-year-old Lorenzo started watching this. I said, what are you watching? It's YouTube Red, and it's this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I heard you beat up a bunch of teenagers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn't beat up teenagers. I kicked the crap out of a bunch of -- who deserved it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you're going to bring Cobra Kai back to the valley?
Not on my watch.


ARROYO: This is the "Karate Kid" reboot.

INGRAHAM: This is ridiculous.

ARROYO: But it's working. And 51 million people are watching this. It's the biggest streaming show in all of television. It is doubling "Handmaid's Tale," "Stranger Things," huge audiences. Why is this working, Laura?

INGRAHAM: The '80s are making a big comeback.

ARROYO: It's nostalgia for people our age.

INGRAHAM: All the kids, the 80s rocked, OK. All the hair bands, you go the great hair bands, you got the great economy. You got Reagan for eight years. It was awesome. I was young.

ARROYO: Wax on, wax off, they are killing the competition. And it's just been renewed for a second season.

INGRAHAM: You know what my favorite part "Karate Kid" was?

ARROYO: Sweep the leg, Johnny.

INGRAHAM: No. Sweep the knee, not the leg. You don't know anything about karate. Sweep the knee. And then the best one was when he is first learned karate and he looks down at the ground to bow and he goes, "Eyes, Danielson!"

ARROYO: That's what you do on the Ingraham show?

INGRAHAM: Yes, every night when they don't look at me.

ARROYO: I'm waiting for "Golden Girls," "Cheers," and "Magnum P.I." to come back.

INGRAHAM: As long as they don't ask me to star in "Golden Girls."

ARROYO: They won't.

INGRAHAM: What about Tom Wolfe? We both knew him, I knew him. What a man.

ARROYO: One of the greatest writers, National Book Award winner.


TOM WOLFE, WRITER: The intellectuals in New York, they were startled by that because I had been writing about a lot of groovy things, they thought I must be like them when it came to politics. When I went into a room full of journalists or writers in general, people would look at me as if I just raised my hand and said, by the way, I forgot to tell you, I am a child molester.


INGRAHAM: He was so great.

ARROYO: He was incisive. The words "Right Stuff," "Limousine liberals," "good ole boy," all of those terms came from Tom Wolfe, a great novelist and a social observer like no other.

INGRAHAM: One of the best interviews I ever did on radio was Tom Wolfe?

ARROYO: Until I was on the show now.

INGRAHAM: Exactly.

ARROYO: Are you getting ready for the royal wedding?


ARROYO: I am preparing too. Are you ready? I don't care who takes her down the aisle. And at $84 million to the British taxpayers, that's a lot of coin for a wedding not at Westminster Abbey.

INGRAHAM: We are just looking at the dress.

ARROYO: All right.

INGRAHAM: A revolt by a few Republicans could cost the GOP control of the House and derail the president's plan to secure the border? Two Republican congressmen are going to debate it up next.


INGRAHAM: An immigration crisis might be brewing for House Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team. We told you last night that the House is just five GOP votes away from bringing several different DACA bills to the floor in a tactic to go around House leadership. GOP leaders fear the effort could cost the party control of the House in the midterm elections. Here to debate it, Republican Jeff Denham from California who supports the maneuver, and Republican Sean Duffy from Wisconsin who opposes it. All right, guys, we're not going to get into all the parliamentary tricks, queen of the hill and discharge petition, we will lose the whole audience. Congressman Denhem, you are really in favor of turning the House floor over to Nancy Pelosi to run this debate. Why?


INGRAHAM: The discharge petition, that's the maneuver, isn't it?

DENHAM: Yes. Which we have a Republican majority. We control all of the rules. The leader controls the floor debate. Paul Ryan has his own bill. The president has a bill. Goodlatte has a bill. And yes, the Democrats get a bill too. But ultimately we are going to do what the president is asking for him and give him border security because we cannot wait any longer -- every year that goes by, another half million people come across our southern border. So the eight years Sean and I have been in office together, that's 4 million people from doing nothing. It is time to act --

INGRAHAM: That sounds fantastic. He's practically building the wall himself over there. What is going on?

REP. SEAN DUFFY, R—WI: I think we want to get to the same spot. I don't like the tactic. Jeff knows that. I don't think that this petition is the way to go. It does I think turn the floor over to what is called queen of the hill. You put up four bills, the one that gets 218, which is a majority, is the one that passes. Here's the deal. We have a wide agreement on Trump's four pillars. That will pass. So Jeff will vote for that. The Freedom Caucus will vote for that. All we need is leadership to put the Trump bill up in the House. It will pass. It's easy.

INGRAHAM: I have a question for you two guys, smart guys. The Goodlatte bill is the right way to go. I know you're from the Central Valley and you're worried about the farmers and worried about those workers coming in. You have to stop this chain migration. That's a mass multiplier of immigration into the United States with distant relatives hopscotching into the country without merit, without basis of merit. Chain migration, got to build the wall and we've got to reform the asylum process. All that has to be done. And we've got to get rid of the visa lottery. That's all in the Goodlatte bill. Why are we having four bills? We don't need four bills.

DUFFY: We don't have the votes for Goodlatte.

INGRAHAM: That's despicable.

DUFFY: I would vote for Goodlatte. But here's the deal, Donald Trump said listen, I want to build a wall. All the other things come in on the backside. So let's come together, put $25 billion in, let's build the wall and make some other tweaks, stop chain migration, stop the visa lottery. We will deal with DACA. But that's a package that the president wants. It's very generous to the DACA kids but also gives us border security. And we can all vote for it. I don't know what is going to happen in the Senate.

DENHAM: I can't support the Goodlatte bill.

INGRAHAM: Why can't you support it? I'm just curious. Why?

DENHAM: Because so many people talk about extending amnesty. I did not support President Obama's executive order. I thought it was unconstitutional and I felt that Congress needs to do its job and actually needs to do real reform. And just doing an extension of Obama's policy three years at a time doesn't make any sense. If we're going to do this we need to make sure that we fix the wall and fix some of them problems, but also have a permanent fix.

INGRAHAM: You don't want to build the wall?

DENHAM: Absolutely I do.

INGRAHAM: You want to build the whole wall?

DENHAM: Yes, of course.

INGRAHAM: So the only problem you have with Goodlatte is the amnesty for it ends up being 800,000 I think, right, correct?

DENHAM: Yes. It is an extension of President Obama's executive order rather than dealing with this as the president has asked for.

INGRAHAM: Obama did not deal with chain migration, visa lottery, any of those things. With chain migration you immediately change the game with immigration.

DENHAM: True, but he did change the dynamic for these kids that have gone to our high schools and did it in an executive order unconstitutionally. If we are going to fix this because it's now an American problem because presidents of both parties have kicked this can down the road.

INGRAHAM: This will divide the party before the mid-term election.

DENHAM: This is what the president is asking for.

INGRAHAM: He wants the end of chain migration and he wants the wall built and he wants to end the visa lottery.

DENHAM: Every other day the president tweets something about this. Two weeks ago he said specifically if we do not have this done before the CR then he did not want to see the CR. He wants to make sure we actually have border security.

DUFFY: The problem with the DACA kids is if you don't end chain migration, all of the sudden the kids and the parents who brought them in illegally all of a sudden get legal status.

INGRAHAM: The parents are all staying. Let's be honest. They're all staying. No one is going home.

DUFFY: We actually have to fix that part of it when we deal with DACA as well. But the key here is Donald Trump ran on the wall. Let's build it, $25 billion. We all agree to that.

INGRAHAM: I think Congressman Denham is right. Donald Trump did not win on giving amnesty to the DACA kids. He won on border security, building the wall, and even Californians, the majority want deportations to go on. That Berkeley poll that came out the other day is devastating, 59 percent want somewhat important or very important to start deporting these people out.

DENHAM: But the president has also put the Democrats on notice on this issue as well. The Democrats had $42 billion out of the Senate and out of every Democrat in the House. I think it's time to put them to the test on this issue as well.

DUFFY: We want to deal with this issue. As Republicans we don't want to turn this over to the Nancy Pelosi. I don't think we will lose the House, but if we did, she'll deal with it. Let's deal with it as Republicans and a family solution. I don't think this is the right process. I think we should come together as a family and get it done outside of turning the floor to Nancy.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, queen of the hill, kings of the Hill. Guys, great to have you on. And speaking of illegal immigrants, we have another shocking example of a suspected criminal put back on the streets instead of being turned over to immigration officials. You will not believe this, make your head spin, coming up.


INGRAHAM: This woman, illegal immigrant Juana Loa-Nunez, is accused of a hit-and-run on a church daycare teacher. Jessica Parks of Indianapolis was hit with such force she was thrown into the air and suffered a broken leg before the suspect sped off. ICE issued a detainer request but Marion County released the driver after fining here anyway. They county blames ICE for failing to get a warrant, but Ricardo Wong, head of ICE's Chicago office shot back Marion County brazenly ignored an immigration retainer and released a Mexican woman from its jail without first notifying ICE." Pastor James Jackson of Fervent Prayer Church was at the scene of the hit and run and joins us now from Indianapolis. It is another shocker to hear the facts of this. Thank goodness Jessica survived. But your feelings given now that we know that the perpetrator is gone. They tried to approach her at her supposed place of residence and the door was answered by someone who said she didn't live there anymore, pastor.

PASTOR JAMES JACKSON, AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT: Absolutely. Laura, thanks for having us on today. I think we are at a crisis point in our country and certainly here in Indianapolis when someone nearly kills someone is released less than a week after the incident occurred. And the agencies involved for making sure she was held accountable for what happened not doing enough. We need to be more conscientious about these kinds of things to make sure that they don't happen again in the future.

INGRAHAM: And I think Pastor Jackson, a lot of Americans, they don't hear these crimes reported. We try to keep track of them. Many news organizations will not report the legal status or illegal status of the perpetrators of the accused, of the arrested. So you have to really dig for this information. In this case we were able to get it. And what is amazing here is that Jessica who suffered the broken leg and other more minor injuries, but the broken leg, was thrown from the car, she is forgiving the assailant who has now apparently absconded.

JACKSON: Yes, that's something that is not surprising to me that Jessica did forgive her, and certainly we all do. But there is an accountability. And this young woman, Ms. Nunez, fled the scene. And if it had not for a daycare worker in the bus who right there when it happen and chased her down in the bus, and then another citizen also making sure that she was detained, we would have never known possibly who had done this. So for local authorities to release her on bond -- which I don't think that was something that was thought through as thoroughly as it should have been. Ms. Nunez enjoyed a benefit that is offered to U.S. citizens. As a non-U.S. citizen she doesn't have that benefit in fact because she had a level-six felony. So she should have never been released from jail.

INGRAHAM: And you obviously have been following the sanctuary policies in places like California, Pastor Jackson, where this kind of stuff, sadly, happens all the time. There are rampant hit-and-runs, DWI's, DUI's throughout the country, especially in areas that are populated by a lot of illegal aliens. And yet they will not cooperate with ICE authorities, and we have a trail of victims leaving behind. Your final thoughts very quickly?

JACKSON: I think we are sending the wrong message across the nation when these kinds of things happen, and it's very unfortunate that we would have any city that would protect anyone who is participating in lawless behavior, and for the individuals who are facilitating and financing that kind of lawlessness.

INGRAHAM: Sorry to interrupt. It is a shocker this happened. We really appreciate your joining us tonight. And we'll stay on this story. We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: We don't have a last bite. We have a last picture. What's this. That's Stormy Daniels, the porn lawyer, Avenatti, with Don Lemon at CNN. That's out in Sag Harbor. It looks like they are having a lot of fun. They didn't invite me. Is that what objective journalists do at CNN on the weekends? That's so sweet.


<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.>