This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," March 28, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Hi, everybody. I'm Laura Ingraham, and this is "The Ingraham Angle." We have some huge developing stories tonight. Orange County, California, has just become ground zero for an uprising against sanctuary state policies, one of the officials behind that fight is here tonight. Plus, at last the watchdogs of the Department of Justice is launching a probe into the alleged FISA abuses by Obama administration officials. And anger mounts over the death of an unarmed black man by police officers in Sacramento. So how could this controversy put liberal activists in a major bind?

But first, Hollywood discovers America. That's the focus of tonight's "Angle." On the surface, Roseanne Barr seems like an unlikely conservative superhero, but there she was last night, reviving her eponymous tv show that went off the air 20-years-ago. Now, she is playing her old character, this time as a true blue Trumpster dealing with liberal family members.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know so many families that are divided over the election still, and they still are fighting and stuff, so we wanted to show that and how our family it deals with it, and we all have the hope that people will start talking to each other again, because that is what we need.


INGRAHAM: Did you see Joy Behar's face? She wasn't buying that at all. When the original sitcom "Roseanne" debuted, think about this, Reagan was finishing his last year in office, and then nine seasons later, Bill Clinton was in the middle of his second term in office. Oh, my goodness, how things have changed for America in the interim. I have to tell you, it didn't surprise me one bit. I think we predicted it last Wednesday on the "Angle" when the ratings came in today showing Roseanne had absolutely crushed it, nabbing 18 million viewers for the debut. That's awesome.

Now, for years, the entertainment industry has moved ever further to the left, pumping out films and television series that often offend or they just simply don't resonate with millions of Americans with a slightly more traditional sensibility. And its producers push the envelope on political issues and sexual depictions, even during the so-called family hours of television. Well, they may have curried some favor with the viewers on the coast, but I am telling you, they lost many others. And the people they lost? They needed a reason to return to broadcast television. And last night, "Roseanne" gave it to them. You know, I have long wondered why the decision-makers in Hollywood hadn't seen the writing on the wall sooner.

How is it good business to deliver content that, right off the bat, half of the country is going to be repelled by? Remember, 14 years ago, Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," its premiered and ultimately racked up over $600 million in total domestic and foreign box office. Evangelicals and Catholics flocked to the film over the Easter weekend, many seeing it more than one time. It was an absolute tour the force. So, one would have thought that the industry would have seen that success and tried to replicate it, but they didn't really do that. It was almost as if the entertainment executives force themselves to look at the other way and write off conservative success in their world as some kind of strange anomaly. But Roseanne Barr took the audience seriously, and she was willing to reflect who they are fairly, even their politics.


ROSEANNE BARR: I think the voice of working people is absent from television, and I think we always had that, and we have it again, and there's nothing on television like it. It reminds me a lot of when we first started, there was nothing on television like our show, and it's still that way.


INGRAHAM: She is a true innovator. And Roseanne shows us that Trump voters, they are not monsters, they are not deplorables, and, no, they are not stupid. They are real people with the real dreams who get into family fights and they grapple with health crises and money troubles. And remember the show "The Middle," that's another big hit, another middle- class family, they go to church, and they love each other no matter their dysfunction. And who can forget, oh, my gosh, I loved "Everybody Loves Raymond." That was pretty conservative show. That ran for nine hilarious seasons. And then, of course, remember Tim Allen started in that well-rated "Last Man Standing" which was curiously canceled last summer despite the fact that it outperformed on Friday night. It, too, skewed conservative.

But let's face it, for too long, many of you have felt increasingly isolated from the popular culture because the popular culture seems to have nothing but ridicule and disdain for you. So not surprisingly there was a pent up her yearning for exactly the type of show that Roseanne Barr produced. Real families, real problems, and real interfamily political divides that can provide real laughter. So, will the huge success of "Roseanne" mean we can expect to see similar efforts at other networks? I wouldn't hold your breath. Over the years, I have had the chance to meet some of the folks whose job it is to green light these series, and they actually admit that they have alienated a wide swath of the American public, but they don't really seem to care.

They seem more worried about what their friends and their colleagues will think of them, maybe at cocktail parties, dinner parties, if they back a conservative-themed show. So, despite all the talk of diversity and inclusion, and giving each other ribbons and awards, Hollywood remains still one of the most intolerant industries in the world and insular as well. You try going on in addition, being known as open the conservative? Good luck. The liberal dogma is extremely difficult to crack, and the powers that be make exceptions once in a while, but it's usually for only those stars with huge names, people like Jon Voight or Sylvester Stallone or Roseanne herself.

In the meantime, millions of tv viewers are voting with their eyeballs, and they are looking forward to see where Ms. Barr takes this working-class narrative, maybe right up to 2020. And that's the "Angle." We are going to unpack the reasons for this ratings bonanza and are seen and unseen segment coming up with Raymond Arroyo, but meanwhile, the conservative enclave of Orange County, California has just become the epicenter of the fight over the golden state's sanctuary policy. Yesterday in an amazing move, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to condemn California sanctuary law and is now joining a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit that claims the entire system out there as unconstitutional. Joining us now with the reaction is Orange County Supervisor Michelle Steel, a legal immigrant who, get this, was called a racist b word over her willingness to cooperate with ICE, along with Joe Alioto Veronese, a former California Criminal Justice commissioner. Great to see both of you.

Let's start with you, Michelle. When I read what they said about you with your background, I'd like to say I was surprised, but I wasn't, because if you buck the liberal trend in California on an issue like immigration, they feel like they have free license to call you any name in the book. Tell us how your life has been in the 24 hours since this decision was made.

MICHELLE STEEL, ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISOR: Oh, my God, I'm very happy about it because I was the one that actually introduced the resolution, because our local police and law enforcement agencies, their hands had been tied, so we really have to work because, as the supervisor, Orange County the public safety comes first.

But it was really interesting because you can hear that I speak Korean, Japanese is my second language, and you know, English is my third. I went through the legal process as a legal immigrant, and I was called racist. In Asia, when you get called these names, you have a long life, so I'm going to have a long life.

INGRAHAM: Joe, I want to go to you. I'm sure you don't support, you know, calling Michelle names, I'm not dragging you into that but it is –


INGRAHAM: That's terrific, I know you condemned, but let's talk about what happened since the big face-off with the Trump administration. California is seeing on large company, 3 million people, revolt against that. Do you blame Orange County for voting the way they did given that they don't want Orange County to turn into San Francisco, meaning, they don't want to hypodermic needles in the streets, they don't want the homelessness problem, and they don't want to crimes. They don't want what San Francisco has, double the rate of the state crime rate.

VERONESE: In San Francisco's defense, we don't want any of that stuff either. But as far as what Orange County is doing, this, I think, is just another political stunt. It's a lot like what the federal government is doing on the lawsuit. I question whether or not the supervisor's resolution will get past the attorneys on this.

The lawsuit that was filed by ICE was filed against the state of California on preemption issues, that the federal law preempts state law. I think that law has actually been settled. Nobody here is arguing that state law preempts federal law.

I think what the feds are saying is that we are interfering by telling our citizens and by telling our state representatives not to enforce immigration law, and I think the only way the defense is going to win on that argument is if there is some sort of federal argument attached to it, otherwise I don't see them winning it. As far as Orange County is concerned, preemption is not--they don't have jurisdiction here because preemption is not their argument.

INGRAHAM: If we get into preemption, we'll lose the entire viewing audience here. Let's get right to the nut of what is going on here. We have a resolution in Orange County that now requires that you announce, Michelle, correct me if I'm wrong--you announce when a prisoner is released, correct? You will announce it, so people know when they will be released. Why would anyone be against that that?

STEEL: The last three months, we had 172 criminal aliens who were released on the street. As a supervisor, I already told you, it's the public safety that comes first. Immigration is under federal law, and then this is totally unconstitutional law in the state that they just created. They created chaos between local government and federal government working together. So, this one has to be stopped. That's the reason that Jeff Sessions sued, and then now we are joining Jeff Sessions–

INGRAHAM: It's about safety, let's just boil this all down, guys. This is about safety. This is about security. This is about the well-being of citizens, citizens of the United States and illegal immigrants. I want to play for you, this is Xavier Becerra, the attorney general yesterday, the day before yesterday talking about this situation. Let's watch.


XAVIER BECERRA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: State law is state law, and it is my job to enforce state law, and I will do so. We want to make sure that every jurisdiction including Orange County understands what state law requires of the people in the subdivisions of the city of California.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does that mean a lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department or an arrest of the sheriff?


INGRAHAM: So, I'm picturing this, because we have had these types of horrific crimes. An illegal alien rapes a 10-year-old girl and does his time and then is released. There are sanctuary politicians who believe the federal government should not be notified and that individual should be put back out in the street in a sanctuary state. Joe, is that when you are in favor of?

VERONESE: No, no. If you are talking about somebody who has been tried and convicted, I am not one of those people who believes that should be back out in the streets. That, to me, is a violent criminal. What we are talking about though is due process, because a lot of these people that the supervisor is talking about that are being released from jail, some of them are being released on bail, O.R. But these are people that have been arrested, these are not people that have been prosecuted and tried. People in the United States, unfortunately, for ICE, the 14th Amendment applies, and it requires that people get due process before they are actually convicted. Before you can say that this person--

INGRAHAM: But Joe, they're in in the country illegally. They become an immediately deportable alien. They are in country illegally.


INGRAHAM: They announced it, and then ICE can pick them up and get them out of the country. We act like these people who we are talking about are American citizens. They are not citizens. This is not their country. They came in illegally. Now they want the red carpet rolled out, which I guess, California does. Michelle, go ahead.

STEEL: We can go back to San Francisco what happened, because Francisco Sanchez, who was convicted for seven times, who was deported five times, the city of San Francisco refused to transfer him to ICE, and guess what happened? Kate Steinle got killed. This is exactly what we want to prevent. That's why we want to get out of the sanctuary state and against the sanctuary states, so Orange County can be safe. We always want to become safer, decide to put the list of inmate release --

INGRAHAM: Share information.

STEEL: It's almost ridiculous.

INGRAHAM: So, sheriffs are going to get arrested and illegals will get a released. That's great. The sheriffs who are actually trying to keep people safe they are going to be arrested by the state and illegal immigrants get to go free. Joe, final point, go ahead.

VERONESE: The sheriffs will have to follow state law, and the county -- if Orange County wants to challenge state law, they should file a separate lawsuit. I don't think this is the right place. I think this is a political stunt. As far as the Kate Steinle case, horrible, horrible circumstances but–

INGRAHAM: How many Americans have to be sacrificed for this fantasy that open borders is a good thing? I keep asking, how many Americans have to die in DUIs, be brutalized, women be abused, domestic abuse, children be, horrible things be done to them, how often does this have to happen until people say, no more, cannot do it anymore.

VERONESE: Citizens and non-citizens are doing that. ICE needs to enforce federal immigration policy. The state –

INGRAHAM: California wants to put out the welcome mat because San Francisco doesn't have enough troubles with the homelessness crisis, with the filth in the streets, the report that came out a couple of weeks ago. If I'm San Francisco, I want to try to clean act here, but you want to bring more people in who cause more problems. I don't understand that. I will never understand that.

We are out of time, guys. Joe, great segment. Michelle, we appreciate it, thank you very much.
Up next, the DOJ is saying it's going to investigate whether the FBI broke the law when it spied on American citizens. Will we finally get answers on how Obama's FBI spied on the Trump campaign? Details ahead.


INGRAHAM: Wow, it's a big nose rattling Washington tonight. The Department of Justice's inspector general is officially investigating whether the FBI or the DOJ broke laws when it used FISA warrants to spy on an American citizen, most likely former Trump Campaign Adviser Carter Page. We first learned of these alleged abuses when the president declassified a House Intel Committee memo. Remember, it detailed how the FBI used an unverified dossier funded by the Democrats to spy on Mr. Page.

I've long said the inspector general is key to getting to the bottom of what happened here, and to discuss further, let's bring in House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Republican from Virginia, and here in Washington, he's been reporting on this, Byron York, chief political correspondent for the "Washington Examiner" and Fox News contributor.

All right, Gentlemen, big news tonight, Congressman Goodlatte, there has been stonewalling taking place at the DOJ, FBI for months and months and months. You guys think 3 million or 1.2 million documents, you've gotten 3,000 documents. Maybe it's just too many documents you want. Maybe the copy machine is broken. What is the justification for this delay?

REP. BOB GOODLATTE, R—Va: Well, the department does not have a good justification for the delay. The attorney general and the director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, have both acknowledge that to me. They now say they are hard at work getting those documents ready for us. The requirement of the subpoena that issued last Thursday is that those documents get to us by next Thursday.

In the meantime, we are pleased that the inspector general has announced that he will also look into this matter. But two things, one, the inspector general can't look at it from the same perspective that Congress can or from the perspective that an independent special counsel can. And secondly, the inspector general should get out his report with regard to the investigation he has been conducting for the past year with regard to how the FBI handled the Clinton email investigation first. We need that information out now. Then he can go on and look at the other matter. In the meantime, we need the documents that we have subpoenaed.

INGRAHAM: Byron, I want to go to you on this. Jeff Sessions has kind of come around on this. This has been going on -- this rigmarole, as my mother used to say, has been going on for a long time.

BYRON YORK, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: This is very little trust among Republicans on Capitol Hill and the Republican Justice Department about this because this has been going on a long time. Remember Paul Ryan said the FBI was stonewalling to House Intelligence Committee months and months and months ago.

INGRAHAM: Why now? Why does Jeff Sessions now see it as a problem?

YORK: I think there are a couple of reasons going on. First of all, you know the texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, a lot of those were handed over to the Congress, and a lot of those were redacted. The Justice Department said, well, you know, they were having an affair. There were some personal stuff in there so that's -- you know, we just had to redact the personal stuff, well, a couple of members of the House Judiciary Committee had been going over the Justice Department and looking at fuller versions of those texts and finding out that some actual real official material evidence was left out of those, was redacted. So, there was zero trusts there, and I think the fact that the Judiciary Committee is sending people over every day to look at this stuff at the Justice Department has probably told the FBI they are not going to give up.

INGRAHAM: Chairman Goodlatte, when you think about these texts and "News Tonight" broke that Denis McDonough, of course, the White House chief of staff for Barack Obama, was mentioned, and at least one, looks like more, texts between Strzok and Page, and I guess the concern is, what? The concern is the White House was not just kept abreast of this investigation of the Trump campaign, but you see it online, people were wondering, were they directing it? If so, that's a big problem.

GOODLATTE: It is a very big problem. We are not passing judgment on that at that point, but you can't make a decision in the Congress about what is material over at the Justice Department. We have another example. We know that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were talking by the federal judge who was appointed to the FISA court and Mr. Strzok said, oh, he's a friend of mine, I'm going to meet with him. That was redacted as well. We don't know whether anything wrong took place in whatever conversations they had, but that was material evidence that was withheld from us by redacting materials. We need the unredacted materials.

INGRAHAM: There are too many instances of either an appearance of a conflict, perhaps an actual conflict, political affiliations going back to Hillary or the Clinton Foundation or Ben Rhodes and now this. Contreras is a friend of Page and Strzok, and that's not revealed. Byron, I'm telling you, this gives everybody a sense that this investigation from the beginning was the insurance policy, was an insurance policy in the fall of 2016, heaven forbid, should something happen with Hillary, maybe her health, or who knows, maybe Donald Trump was going to win even though they didn't think they would come up because when you see Dennis McDonough on those texts?

YORK: And what gives a lot of Republicans problems is a lot of them thought Republican president, Republican Congress, then the Justice Department will cooperate with the Republican Congress, and that didn't happen. What they realize, apparently institutional prerogatives and back- covering instincts --

INGRAHAM: It's called the deep state.

YORK: They were stronger than any desire to actually cooperate with the Republican Congress. You have seen this adversarial atmosphere develop between people in the same party.

INGRAHAM: There is one other thiig, and I want to play it over, but Senator Blumenthal was on CNN today. I would love for you, Chairman Goodlatte, to respond to this. This is about the expulsion of the 60 Russian diplomats. Let's watch.


CNN ANCHOR ALISYN CAMEROTA: Do you give the president credit for what is considered -- what many say is a very strong step, stronger than what President Obama had done?

SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-Conn: I give the president credit for expelling 60 Russian intelligence officers. I think it is diminished in its force by the president's failure to, himself, break his silence on Vladimir Putin instead of pushing back as aggressively as he should. He congratulated Putin on his election.


INGRAHAM: They have to keep on this narrative. The Mueller investigation, it's Russia, Russia, Russia. Chairman Goodlatte, you close this out.

GOODLATTE: Well, this is far beyond what a few Democrats think of Donald Trump, this is about how the government, including possibly the White House and the Obama administration, but certainly the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department, may have subverted justice in a dramatically different way than what they handled the Hillary Clinton e- mail investigation and how they attempted to conduct an investigation into the Trump campaign. It is stunning how that contrast takes place here. And both Republicans, Democrats, and independents -- everyone should be concerned about this because we don't want the same thing to happen in the next election. You can't have the most important law enforcement organization in the world conducting itself in the manner did in 2016 and on into 2017.

INGRAHAM: There's a lot more news that's coming tomorrow night, and we're going to bring that to you here on THE INGRAHAM "Angle." Gentlemen, thank you. And 18 million people watched "Roseanne" last night, breaking all records. Why did it work? "Seen and Unseen" segment with Raymond Arroyo straight ahead.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the first dinner together we've had as a family in a long time. Let's try to survive it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. First let's say grace. Jackie, would you like to take a knee?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I should have tried to understand why you voted the crazy way that you did.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I should have understood that, you know, you want the government to give everybody free health care because you are a good- hearted person who can't do simple math.



INGRAHAM: As we mentioned at the top of the show, the "Roseanne" reboot generated an enormous rating -- 18 million Americans watched the show last night. Funny what can happen when Hollywood makes programming that is not condescending toward half the country.

Joining us now to analyze this in our "Seen and Unseen" segment, it's FOX News contributor, author of the book "Will Wilder, The Lost Staff of Wonders," in paperback next week, Raymond Arroyo. Go out and get Will Wilder. Fantastic. What's going on with "Roseanne"? We predicted it was going to be --

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: We did indeed. This thing exploded, and it exploded because it's a safe, fun place for people to have a political discussion. But I would caution people, Roseanne is not a traditional conservative. I know she voted for trump, the character voted for Trump. But if you peer beyond that, this is a complicated family.

They are dealing with the surrogacy, a daughter who wants to engage in surrogacy. You've got a grandson who is crossdressing. They are dealing with a lot of subplots here. This is not straight down the middle conservatism, but that is what made it work. It's not predictable, it's not a polemic. But, I will tell you, look where it resonated, Laura. Tulsa, Oklahoma, Cincinnati, Ohio, 29 percent of Kansas City, Missouri, 29 percent of that city was watching "Roseanne."

INGRAHAM: Remember that book "What's the Matter with Kansas" that came out all those years ago? Not much.

ARROYO: It hit middle America. It resonated with --

INGRAHAM: Because middle America, and as I said in the "Angle," feels turned off and tuned off to what is happening in the popular culture. It doesn't reflect who they are.

ARROYO: No. And this does. These are working class people trying to make ends meet, and problems are hitting them. And the American dream isn't playing out the way it's supposed to. But let me tell you, just to give you a sense of context--18 million people watched this. When "Will & Grace" premiered, 10 million people watched it. It's down to 4 million a week.

INGRAHAM: The reboot of "Will & Grace."

ARROYO: The reboot of "Will & Grace."

INGRAHAM: More of a liberal --

ARROYO: More people saw this then the Stormy Daniels interview, and it's the highest demo, 18 to 49 --

INGRAHAM: It reminds me a little bit of what happened when "Duck Dynasty" came on A&E because they were sitting at the table praying, they cared about each other, they fought, but it was about traditional -- it reminds me a little bit of that.

ARROYO: Whether it's "Roseanne" or "Blue Bloods," that sense of this is real, this is authentic, Americas want that.

INGRAHAM: What is "Blue Bloods"? I don't know what that is.

ARROYO: "Blue Bloods" is the Tom Selleck show.

INGRAHAM: Rebecca loves. Raymond's wife loves "Blue Bloods." It's like the new "Dallas."


INGRAHAM: Sweet Jesus ice cream in Toronto, what on earth is this?

ARROYO: A lot of religious groups are up in arms, including Bill Donahue at the Catholic League, a lot of evangelical groups, they want to boycott this. This is a Canadian firm that is reaching out now into Baltimore and Minnesota. This is one of their ads. It looks like the little girl is a cannibal, but look at the logo, Sweet Jesus up top. In most of the logo the sweet has an upside down cross as the t, and that little -- see that?

INGRAHAM: There it is. Lovely.

ARROYO: And you see that lightning sign? That, some say, is a demonic sign referencing when lucifer fell from heaven like a lightning bolt. And so --

INGRAHAM: Is it good ice cream?

ARROYO: I haven't tasted it, and after watching these ads I'm not sure I want to. They are really creepy ads and many of them anti-Christian. They take biblical verses, turn them on their ears. Things like "Love is patient, love is kind, but you can't lick it," above a chalice.

INGRAHAM: You can get away -- it's always during holy week. You can get away with trying to intimidate and silence Christians, insult them, intimidate talk show hosts because we have a certain point of view, some of us. The effort to silence or demean those with whom you disagree, it's just ridiculous.

ARROYO: The owners of the company say, we chose Sweet Jesus because that was the explosive reaction people had when they tasted it. Imagine if your reaction was Holy Mohammed.

INGRAHAM: Yes, that would work.

ARROYO: Would you be able to put that in the mall of America?

INGRAHAM: Quickly, we got the last, Susan Rice and the Obamas are going to Netflix. What's going on?

ARROYO: Yes. Well, Susan Rice is the first person I think of on an entertainment board, right?

INGRAHAM: What's her experience? Although her interviews on all those Sunday shows when she said the video caused Benghazi, that was entertaining.

ARROYO: And the Obamas are now going to Netflix. It appears Barack Obama is going to be doing, it looks like a talk show about issues, and Michelle Obama may be doing a type of show that you might like.

INGRAHAM: That would be good. She's in great shape. So a lot of people are saying no to Netflix as a result. I saw that trending, Drop Netflix as a hashtag. I just don't like a lot of the shows.

ARROYO: I don't like the politicization of any of it. Entertainment should be neutral, common ground. That's what made the Roseanne Barr thing stick. I think that's what people want.

INGRAHAM: Will it hold next week? It won't be that high.

ARROYO: I think it will hold. "Roseanne" had a huge following before, like "The Middle," like "Everybody Loves Raymond," there's a built-in audience. And if they stay true to the characters, which they have so far, which is unpredictable and outside of the –

INGRAHAM: You know what I want to hear, Norman Lear, who is still alive, I would like to hear what he has to say.

ARROYO: Lear's show, "One Day at a Time" was just renewed third season on Netflix with Rita Moreno. So look, all of these shows --

INGRAHAM: Everything that is old is new again. Fresh out of ideas. Raymond Arroyo, everyone go out and get "Will Wilder," awesome, awesome paperback. My kids have all read it.And up next, protests over the police shooting of an unarmed black man in Sacramento. The full story in moments.


INGRAHAM: Tensions are running high in Sacramento, California, as protesters are demonstrating over the shooting death of a 22-year-old black man, Stephon Clark. On March 18th, two officers fired at Clark over 20 times in his grandparents' backyard, believing him to be an armed burglary suspect. Police thought he had a gun, but he was only holding a cell phone. The officers have been placed on paid administrative leave.

And since then, protesters have caused major disruptions to the California's capital, shutting down Interstate 5 during rush hour last Thursday, and on two occasions blocking the entrance to the city's NBA stadium. At last night's game the King's estimated 4,000 were in attendance in an arena that holds 17,600. Yesterday's city council meeting also devolved into chaos with Stephon Clark's brother shooting profanities at the city's mayor while demanding justice. To discuss this unfolding situation, let's bring in retired LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman. Mark, walk us through the incident that night that resulted in this young man's death. Twenty shots? I mean, I'm not the expert you are, but I find that to be appalling.

MARK FUHRMAN, RETIRED LAPD DETECTIVE: We'll get to that, but I think it would be excessive for the situation that we are in. And I think what's interesting for everybody to understand is this was a property crime that the officers were pursuing a suspect, a property crime where, so far, we only know that vehicle windows were broken and one sliding glass door. No actual people were involved as being victims. That's where we start.
An air unit was actually above the officers, directed them to a front yard. Initially they got the suspect to halt, but he took off running again into a backyard. That backyard was his grandmother's.

Now we pick up this whole incident on a body cam of the officers. What is really interesting to me is the officers had a place of tactical advantage and cover at the corner of the house, and they see the suspect who was in the open in tall grass. And they say, "Let me see your hands," and then without even hesitation, it is almost a run-on sentence, "let me see your hands"," gun, gun, gun, and the fire starts. Tactically I do not like the situation, and the situation with the property crime escalating this rapidly with the advantage of cover for the officers and an air unit that is above them using FLIR imaging to actually watch the whole situation.

INGRAHAM: Yes, they were watching it unfold. They were watching it from above unfold, right Mark? We saw the video.

FUHRMAN: Yes. So the suspect is not going to get away. And I find it -- this is personal from my experience in the LAPD, but our tactics would be, get on the ground flat with your arms outstretched. You don't ask a suspect to see his hands. That's exactly what he did. He showed in his hands, he had a cell phone. When you say "gun, gun, gun," the officer that said that, he might think that that is a gun and he might take some tactical force using deadly force, the ultimate tactical measure, but the other officer also has to observe a threat before he can initiate deadly force himself. And they have to be responsible for each and every round that they fire, what they are seeing. But tactically it sounded like a rapid succession with no let up to evaluate the situation or evaluate the suspect, if he was down, if he was hit.

INGRAHAM: So, Mark, for our viewers, the police need to perceive an imminent threat of bodily harm to themselves in this situation to justify that use of force? Is that what they need to, in that moment, establish?

FUHRMAN: Every officer -- and I'll give you an example, Laura. If you have a suspect that is coming out of a bank robbery, and one officer says "gun." That doesn't mean the other 10 officers get to shoot. Every officer has to see something that he deems to be--the action of deadly force needs to be used to overcome that threat. It's not one person sees a gun and it's just free.

INGRAHAM: I got it. But Mark, I have to get on the race question, because the race question is what's motivating, I think, these protests. They are getting wild out there. People are very upset, and I would be upset if this were a relative of mine. But is race at the heart of this, do you think, knowing what you know now? There was a black police officer involved and a white police officer, or is this, perhaps, bad policing?

FUHRMAN: Well, it would be pretty difficult for this to be a racial issue when the officer get a radio call and they have an air unit directing them to a suspect that is committing crimes and they're chasing him. So they have no self-initiated contact with the suspect or a decision which suspect to choose or who to try to stop. So that would be very difficult. At the moment of the shooting, you have a black officer and a white officer, and the act exactly the same. It would be very difficult to call this a racial incident.

INGRAHAM: Mark Fuhrman, awesome as always. Joy Behar, by the way, of course at it again, this time attacking Melania. I'll respond next.


INGRAHAM: Joy Behar is like a firehose of leftwing nonsense you can't shut off. Shortly after offending Christians everywhere for their beliefs, "The View's" liberal attack dog is at it again, this time targeting Melania Trump. The Stormy Daniels controversy has, not surprisingly, captivated the president's critics, but ignored amidst the frenzy is the very real impact this has on the president's family, especially the first lady and their 12-year-old son, Barron. But in Joy's twisted view, expressing political opinions in the past forbids you from getting an ounce of empathy in the present.


JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW": I can't really like her 100 percent because she is a birther like her husband. I interviewed her on my HLN show and that's where we made news on that, because I asked her do you think that Obama was born, no. And she was not born in this country. So she is on the same page as him on a lot of issues. So she's not off the hook.


INGRAHAM: That HLN show, I am so bummed it's off the air. So by that same standard, no one can ever let Joy off the hook for her list of insane political opinions and controversies, right? Look, this is political hatred by association, pure and simple. And Joy is not alone. Attacks against the Trump family have become the left's favorite recreational activity.


JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Ivanka Trump, her new book "Women Who Work," is a surprisingly, not ironic, if you can believe it, I know, we're, like, totally bugging, too.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jared is going to do peace in the Middle East, slap him on the back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's always been strange that a New York real estate sign and a guy who owns a newspaper was going to solve Middle East peace.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC HOST: Let's go to the Donald trump Jr. story. That sweet thing is just such red meat for everybody to mock and ridicule. We'll let it speak for itself.


INGRAHAM: Well, that's not even a fraction of a fraction of them. I have to stay on air until next Easter to play them all. If you want to hit people on their public policy pronouncement, Joy, have at it. But to crucify them over things said long ago or attack them for their last name is neither fair nor joyful.
We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: Before we go, a couple of tweets about tonight's show caught my eye. Twitter user Daks wrote this about Orange County getting tough on illegal immigrant criminals. "There are some great people in the O.C. Keep up the good fight because you are on the right side of the law and you will prevail." And amy shared her thoughts on the "Roseanne" reboot, this is kind of interesting, tweeting, "Roseanne was portraying Trump followers as white trash. Good writing but not positive." What's wrong with white trash? Some people are white trash. But she was cool on the show. But I like all of your opinions, so keep tweeting me @IngrahamAngle. Shannon Bream is up next. Shannon has Lindsey Graham on. It's going to be a great show as always. Shannon?


Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.