Sessions defends zero tolerance immigration policy

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," June 18, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right, got it. Good evening from LA, I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle."0 We're just over 100 miles from the border where a crisis is raging and tonight we're going to bring you the inside story on the red hot topic that everybody's talking about. Most people are getting it wrong, of course. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is here exclusively to respond to the controversy surrounding illegal immigrant kids, separated from their parents.

Plus Ben Shapiro tell us how Democrats are really the ones exploiting the children as political pawns in this battle over immigration. Also Senators grill the inspector general for what some are saying, white washing rampant bias at the top of the FBI, against the president. And why would the Washington Post, by the way, run a story that blows up the Russian collusion narrative? Roger Stone tells us why. But first faux liberal outrage in the destruction of the rule of law, that's the focus of tonight's angle.

Every country has an obligation to protect its borders and its citizens, particularly one as expansive and as generous as the United States. Now for too long, immigration law was ignored, frankly, and basically unenforced. Obama tried to enforce it in an adhoc fashion, but its policies, which we are going to get to in a moment, only ended up exacerbating our problems at the border. So today we have a full on crisis, 160 percent increase in the number of people illegally entering the United States from just last year. Well the President is responding with a zero tolerance message which he reiterated today.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The United States will not be a migrant camp. And it will not be a refugee holding facility, it won't be. You look at what's happening in Europe, you look at what's happening in other places, we can't allow that to happen to the United States, not on my watch.


INGRAHAM: Now the President is now doing what we should have been doing all along, prosecuting all border crashers. So if you enter the country illegally, you're breaking the law. The United States is not a repatriation center where any indigent person in the world feels free to just walk in and assume that all of us will take care of all of them and their families. There's a process and it has to be respected. Homeland security chief Kirstjen Nielsen said this today.


KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: We are a compassionate country that has taken in millions of refugees. Since 1975, the United States has welcomed in more than three million refugees from all over the world, and each year, typically admit nearly two thirds of the world's settled refugees. That is more than all other countries combined. We will not apologize for the job we do or the job law enforcement does for doing the job that the American people expect us to do. Illegal actions have and must have consequences. No more free passes, no more get out of jail free cards.


INGRAHAM: Well consistent with American law, when a party is arrested, your children are either sent to relatives or they become wards of the state. So since more illegal immigrants are rushing the border, more kids are being separated from their parents and temporarily housed in what are essentially summer camps or as the San Diego Union Tribune described them today, is looking like, basically, boarding schools. Having lost the argument and frankly, the last election, Liberals have seized on the separated children and turned the entire image into a political weapon, attempting to emotionally manipulate he public perception of immigration enforcement.


KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: I've read that you said the separation, in your words, is nothing less than government sanctioned child abuse. Do you really think that this amounts to child abuse?


GAIL KING, CBS ANCHOR: And all I can say after talking with the people, watching the people, listening to the people is the statue of liberty is weeping right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have effectively orphaned thousands of children, taking them from their parents.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC HOST: I'm heartbroken by what's happening and I wonder what this means for the fabric of our country.


INGRAHAM: Now why are all their hearts breaking in unison now? Why no tears for the victims of illegal immigrant crimes? Like the 14 year old girl raped by Anastacio Eugenio Lopez Fabian, just last month? Or did their heart break when another 14 year old was left to die at the scene of a hit and run by Miguel Ibarra Cerda, a 21 year old Mexican national? My friends, here's what you're not haring. The government has very good reasons for separating children from their family unit. The first being they may not be the child's family at all. Children have been kidnapped, trafficked and used by individuals who can then more easily slip into the country. The Obama administration's catch and release policy allowed people with children to enter the United States with only a promise to show up for a later hearing. A lot of them didn't show up of course. The human traffickers and the drug cartels quickly seized on the weakness and exploited it, routinely trafficking people across the border using children, at times, as camouflage. Then when Obama announced his DACA policy in 2012, it became yet another lure for illegal immigrants. ‘The number of unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, surged between 2012 and 2014 by, check this out, by more than 400 percent'. The number of unaccompanied children referred to the office of refugee resettlement tripled between 2012 and 2017 from 13,625 to 40,810 according to the government's statistics. From these immigrants come fresh recruits for MS13 and other gangs that terrorize Americans cities from Maryland to California. We've talked to the officials who told us the stories. And in June of 2014, even the Washington Post had to admit that the unaccompanied minor surge was ‘Driven in large Part by the perception that they will be allowed to stay under the Obama administration's immigration policies'.

Astoundingly, in the fiscal year 2104, the border patrol apprehended 68,445 ‘family units'. Few, of course, were deported. Now you throw in Sanctuary Cities, a lax amnesty program, and it's a wonder more illegals haven't come. So the Trump administration in now trying to pick up the pieces of this lawless immigration system after decades of governmental neglect. They are also trying to respectfully protect children in the government's care. Here are the circumstances where they temporarily take custody of children. Number one. When DHS is unable to verify the relationship between the adult and the child. Number two, when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or the legal guardian. And three, when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution. Now, you enter into a normal port of entry rather than coming across the border illegally and the chances are you're not going to be separated from your families. But most of these people are coming straight across the border as illegal immigrants and claiming some type of status or asylum request. And this all goes back to a 1997 court ruling we've talked about before on the show called the Flora Settlement which forbade the government from holding unaccompanied children for more than 20 days, did also those travelling with family units. So unless you have a hearing within 20 days, they have to be released into the country. Okay unless you've been swayed by the media reports that children are housed in concentration camps or cages, the truth is the US tax payer is paying a lot on the care of these children, nearly $35,000 per year, per child. They actually have a higher standard of living than the 13 million American children today, currently living below the poverty line, which is about $24,000 per household. And as for the conditions of the facilities that the immigrants children are house in? They live a lot better than some inner city kids, or say 11,472 homeless veterans living here in California.


STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Anything we've seen the government has provided, this doesn't feel like we're in the United States.

JACOB SOBOROFF, MSNBC HOST: Department of Health and Human Services invited us inside because I think they wanted to show us, relatively speaking, how good the conditions are, I guess you could say. I mean there are licensed professionals in there that are taking care of the children. There are not cages, there are not fences.


INGRAHAM: It's just ridiculous, I mean the bottom line is these kids should be united with their parents, reunited with their parents, back in their home countries. They should not be burdens to the United States tax payer or thrown into a system of foster care with parents who think coming across the border with children will just assure them eventual legalized status. The President wants the separation to end as well.


JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNY GENERAL: President Trump has said this lawlessness cannot continue. We do not want to separate parents from their children, you can be sure of that. If we build a law, we pass some legislation, we close some loopholes, we will face these terrible choices.


INGRAHAM: And rather than trying to score political points, Democrats and Republicans, like Sessions is indicating, should come together. They should do what's best for the country, for the American citizen and the American workers and these immigrant children. The law should be changed so that the border control can turn away individuals and family units at the border, if necessary. Today, only Mexicans who cross the border illegally can be turned back, that's absurd. Our border patrol doesn't exist as a wave in facilitator for any group of supposed family members who mouth the script given to them by lawyers, non- governmental institutions or other people in their home countries, that they mouth for asylum. The American people are footing a really big bill for what is tantamount to a slow rolling invasion of the United States. And we can no longer permit Central American countries to export their poverty and their desperation to our nation. Our own children black, white, Asian and Latino, need help too. In Detroit, here in LA, in Hartford, in Miami and in Chicago. So why don't the Bushes and the Obamas and all these left wing reporters emoting today at the White House and all these pro-amnesty Democrats and Republicans, why don't they ever write op-eds or cry for those kids? You know why? Because they think this over-the-top coverage in a misrepresentation of what's going on will hurt the man that they could not beat in November 2016, Donald Trump. And that's the Angle. Joining us now for reaction is Art Del Cuerto, President of Border Patrol Unit in Tuscan and radio show host here with me in the studio in LA, Ethan Bearman. All right Ethan, you heard what I just said, throw it at me, where did I get it wrong?

ETHAN BEARMAN, KGO RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well I would say this, there are a lot of different issues that you addressed there. First of with the overarching issue that we've never addressed in immigration overall and how we deal with people who are in this country. But most importantly we got to get to the root issue that we're talking about today which is separating children from their families. Yes, the President does have the power right this very minute with a five-minute phone call to say stop doing this. Let's keep them together until we resolve the asylum issue, the immigration issue--

INGRAHAM: Okay so that was said and resaid and restated today. Let's say the President called up HHS or border control and said, okay, kids stay with the parents, they can all stay in this summer camp kind of facility, there are several of them nearby where we are, 100 miles. Then they have to be released in 20 days. So you're going to go to the American people who are already burdened with taxes, overcrowded classrooms, all of the stuff that kids in this city of LA are dealing with, and you're staying to them, okay the thousands upon thousands of family units that crossed the border should then be released into the country, is that what you're saying?

BEARMAN: Yeah because we're short on immigration judges right now and I think--

INGRAHAM: Okay so I just to know that you're saying that that's okay because you know then, Ethan, that they never come back for their hearings. The lion share of people abscond and then later on they say amnesty.

BEARMAN: But don't separate the families the way you're separating them right now, or the way the President and the border patrol and customs and immigration are doing this--

INGRAHAM: Are criminals separated from children?

BEARMAN: After in felony cases, so this is a misdemeanor to cross into the United States illegally. So if you get pulled over because--

INGRAHAM: So does that mean anything?

BEARMAN: Of course it means something. It means we need to fix our immigration system which means these people are coming here because our employers are hiring them. There are jobs waiting for them, jobs that Americans are fully employed for-

INGRAHAM: Let me tell you about some of the jobs that are being done by illegal laborers and want you to try and let in on this. This is a story that is still being litigated. In December of 2017, a federal jury in Ohio, handed down a Fifth Amendment in a child labor human trafficking case where they had under aged children, under the age of 18, some as young as 14, who were brought up from Central America to work in this egg farm. Now this is not an isolated incident by the way, but they were trafficking these kids up since 2012 when President Obama pushed DACA through. And so there are jobs, yeah there a lot of jobs that unscrupulous businesses want to pay kids to do child labor. That's the kind of thing that will be stopped if we have a zero tolerance policy at the border. These countries exporting their own desperation are shameless, but Art, the images are bad. I mean Ethan saying look these images, these are terrible. That's not who we are as a country. We want families to be together, we're all for families, we love families. So how is this good for the Trump administration and the rule of law? These are the images that the press is focused on.

ART DEL CUERTO, VP NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: The reality Laura is, during the Obama administration, the kids that were taken away from their families were pretty much put in bird cages, that's what they were. They are being held in better facilities similar to boarding schools, so there are much better facilities than what they were held in during the past administration. Now I understand people are arguing that we separated these kids and you can bring up during felonies or non-felony crimes. The reality is what we see day in, day out. Now no one's going to tell me that we're not doing the right thing when we're chasing away a group through the desert when they're bring their child, a minor through this desert. And when they see border patrol units show up, they drop their child and they run. They literally drop the child and run. They literally just drop these kids, they just drop them on the ground. So you are going to tell me that these are good people, these are good parents? They need to be with their kids? They're exposing their kids to criminal elements. We've seen many, many times where these individuals grab their children, they them in a trunk of a car, they hand them over to coyotes, they hand them over to smugglers, people that obviously have some kind of criminal record and they either walk through the desert or they go through a different car. Anybody in the United States, as a parent, should be sickened by those things. I would never hand over any of my children to somebody with a criminal past, much less allow them to put them in the trunk of a car to come through the desert. That is just despicable.

INGRAHAM: I think people think that it's always parents, just parents who come all the way from El Salvador are just walking up to the border. A lot of times kids are coming up to the border and they're hooking up with adults on the way because they know, as long as I'm a child with an adult, before the family unit, like Ethan wants, could stay for a while 20 days then get released into society. That's why they're coming with children because they could get a fast pass to release. Now Ethan I want to play for you Obama and Hillary both responding to the other big border crisis which was in 2014, what they said about the unaccompanied minors, let's watch.


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have to send a clear message. Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay.

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: Our message absolutely is don't send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers. That is our direct message to the families in Central America. Do not send your children to the borders, if they do make it, then they'll get sent back.


INGRAHAM: Guess what, they weren't sent back. Almost none of them were sent back. And they heard that perhaps, even you know that they weren't sent back, and so people came with their children.


INGRAHAM: Is this good? They said the kids are going to go back, they never went back, now they're tax payer burdens, someone followed them.

BEARMAN: A lot of them are actually productive members of our society.

INGRAHAM: Oh really? From 2014, they're like 13 years old, they're productive members of our society? What are you talking about, they're in public schools.

BREAMAN: How many documents do you have? Some of them have become very successful members of society.

INGRAHAM: What documents? These are people just from a couple of years ago.

BEARMAN: And they'll become successful once integrated--

INGRAHAM: They're always valedictorians in your eyes aren't they?

BEARMAN: Not always but we've been productive in so many ways. This is why we want to keep families together. They're fleeing desperate situations. We are so blessed and fortunate in this country that we don't experience that on a day to day basis so we want to keep them together and bring them in.

INGRAHAM: Oh you might not experience that on a day to day basis, but there are a lot of Americans, 13.2 million children living below the poverty line, 18 or younger, $24,000 per household. These kids, $35,000 a year, that's what it costs the American tax payers to take care of them. Those facilities are a lot nicer than the way some of these kids are living in inner-city America today and I don't think that should ever be allowed to happen. Great to have you on Ethan, always great to see when I'm in town. And but the way, you want to know the truth about the administration's policy on kids crossing the border? Well stay right there my exclusive interview with attorney general Jeff Sessions, going to ask him the tough questions, coming up. Democrats have launched a blitz accusing the Trump administration of separating children from their parents and housing in, literally, concentration camps along the border. Leftist politicians from senators to Hillary Clinton took their best shot.


SEN. JEFF MERKLEY, D-ORE.: It is unacceptable in my mind. I think in the minds and hearts of any American that someone can justify a policy of deliberate harm to children to gain legislative leverage.

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, D-MD.: In fact what he's doing his holding these kids and their parents hostage to a whole set of other immigration issues.

CLINTON: Separating families is not mandated by law at all. That is an outright lie and its incumbent on all of us, journalists and citizens alike, to call it just that.


INGRAHAM: Okay well she should know something about lying right? Well the emotions running this hot, so is this a PR battle the administration can win, let's discuss all this with the head of the justice department. We are pleased to welcome the attorney general Jeff Sessions, first time on the Ingraham Angle, General Sessions, thank you so much for being with us. There's a lot to get to tonight. But you heard what Mrs Clinton said that this is a lie, this is not caused by the Obama administration, this doesn't have to be done. The President could pick up the phone tonight and stop this policy of separating children from their parents. What's the real truth there, General Sessions?

SESSIONS: I guess what she is saying is the President could just issue a directive that everybody that enters the country unlawfully be released into the country and never be apprehended or stopped or prosecuted for their illegal entry. We have watched what happened with the Obama polices and over the years we went from 15,000 illegal entries to 75,000. This is a huge loophole in our system that's attracting more and more people, as more and more people understand that on the previous policies, if they entered the country unlawfully, nothing ever happened. We're doing the right thing, we're taking care of these children, they are not being abused, the Health and Human services holds them in good conditions, they work hard on it. We spent a billion dollars last year, Health and Human Services did, in taking care of children who'd entered the country unlawfully. And Laura one more thing, that vast majority of those children still tend to be the unaccompanied minors but we've had a big surge in families bringing children or some adults bringing children with them.

INGRAHAM: At one of the shelters not too far from the border, has 90 percent of the kids who are unaccompanied minors, 10 percent were separated from their families. Just so my viewers understand this, General Sessions, what happens when a family unit, you see them all on the bridges, which I think is just absurd that they just stand the bridges near the ports of entry near San Diego. Now when they get processed in, and it's slow, and they get processed in and it's a woman says this is my child or two children then what happens? Are they separated if they claim asylum, say "I want to claim asylum", what happens to the mother and the children at that point?

SESSIONS: If they enter the country at a point of entry, and there are many of those along the border, they are not violating the law. The mother of father in that circumstance would not be prosecuted and the families are stayed together. Presumably they're claiming an asylum and they would not be prosecuted and not be separated. But if they go out in the desert, they cross a fence or a barrier, offices have to identify them, follow them, apprehend them, they're violating the law and they need to be prosecuted for that. We simply cannot condone that kind of activity. We want to end this process of children being brought across dangerous territory, placing those children at risk. If they want to claim asylum, let them go through the port of entry. That's the way it should be done.

INGRAHAM: Yeah I think most people aren't understanding this. I think most people think that if you come even through the what, 25 ports of entry, you'd have your family separated. That's not how it's working. It's a rare circumstance where the border patrol people know that this person is not related to this other person and they can figure it out pretty quickly in those circumstances. I just think it was important to have the people understand that. This is how your opponents, General Sessions are demagoguing this issue, let's listen.


MICHEAL HAYDEN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I walked down that railroad citing where the families were separated and that's why I sued that picture. Now look, I know we're not Nazi Germany all right, but there is a commonality there.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: This is the United States of America, it isn't Nazi Germany, and there's a difference, and we don't take children from their parents until now.


INGRAHAM: Nazi Germany, concentration camps, human rights violations. Laura Bush's had weighed in, Michelle Obama, Rosalynn Carter, all the former first ladies going back to Eleanor Roosevelt, she's apparently weighed in as well. General Sessions what's going on here?

SESSIONS: Well it's a real exaggeration because in Nazi Germany they were keeping the Jews from leaving the country. But this is a serious matter, we need to think it through, be rational and thoughtful about it. We want to allow asylum for people who qualify for it, but people who want economic migration for their personal financial benefit and what they think is their family's benefit is not a basis for a claim of asylum. But they can make that claim, we will process it and review the situation and make a decision. Those children, if the parent brings them across the border in an unlawful area and the parent is deported, they will take the children home with them. That is true, if the parent claimed asylum and was allowed to stay here, then the children stay here also and they're kept in health and human services custody.

INGRAHAM: Yeah. General Sessions is this policy, in part, used as a deterrent? Are you trying to deter people from bringing children or minors across this dangerous journey? Is that what this separation is about?

SESSIONS: Fundamentally we are enforcing the law. If you break into a country in an unlawful--

INGRAHAM: But is it a deterrent sir? Are you considering this a deterrent?

SESSIONS: Well I see the fact the no one was being prosecuted for this as a factor in a five-fold increase in the four years in this kind of illegal immigration so yes, hopefully people will get the message and come through the border at the port of entry and not break across the border unlawfully.

INGRAHAM: And let me get your quick thoughts, Sir, if you would on this looming showdown with Congressional investigators, they're trying to get those documents as you know from your department. And Trey Gowdy, Oversight Chair, he said yesterday that officials will be held in contempt of Congress if the DOJ and FBI do not comply with the subpoenas. What are your thoughts on that?

SESSIONS: Well, we've gone a long way in dealing with that. The FBI has worked hard on that I think. An agreement was signed with Mr. Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatte, both chairmen, to have 12 of their staffers at the Department of Justice, at the FBI looking at these records. And so I think that's moving along pretty well. Hopefully --

INGRAHAM: But they are out of patience. General Sessions, I hate to interrupt. They're out of patience. They feel like they've been asking for these documents, some of these documents end up showing up in the I.G. report that Congress asked for months and months and months ago. You were in Congress. You know what it's like to try to do oversight. It's really frustrating. And they are going to hold Rosenstein in contempt. They're going to hold him in contempt of Congress. Then what?

SESSIONS: Well, we have a responsibility to respond to Congress. We intend to be responsive to Congress. If we are running behind in production, we'll take efforts to step it up. And we have a responsibility to produce the documents that are properly disclosable, and we intend to do so. That's my direction to the department.

INGRAHAM: Senator Sessions, Attorney General Sessions, just one more question. Are you involved at all in discussions about a possible recusal of Rod Rosenstein from overseeing Mueller given the fact that he signed up FISA warrants, a big controversy in this case?

SESSIONS: I am not involved in that. He is the acting attorney general for that matter, and he has to make his own decision, as I had to make my decision.

INGRAHAM: Got it. Got it. General Sessions, thank you so much for spending time with us tonight. Such important issues at the border. We really appreciate it, and we'll talk to you soon.

And today by the way, on Capitol Hill, the FBI director got an earful over the double standard on the investigations into Hillary and Trump. That's not all. We are going to tell you why Jim Comey may be in serious hot water for his own private email use, next.


INGRAHAM: Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley wants investigators to find out if former FBI chief, Jim Comey, discussed classified info in his personal emails. This is just one of the key developments in a hearing today over the inspector general's report on the Clinton email investigation. DOJ Inspector General Mike Horowitz and FBI chief Chris Wray testified, but Comey declined to appear.

Let's discuss with Chris Hahn, former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, and Matt Schlapp, chairman of the America Conservative Union, along with Peter Schweizer, author of The New York Times bestseller "Clinton Cash." All right, let's start with you, Peter. I haven't seen you for a while. What's your take on how this went down today with Horowitz appearing on Capitol Hill? It's amazing that Comey, you see them on Twitter in Iowa cornfields and he's at various national parks, but no time to come to Capitol Hill.

PETER SCHWEIZER, AUTHOR, "CLINTON CASH": Comey's strategy on this is to hope that this going to blow over, that it's going to go away, that Washington will forget about it. I think the opposite has to happen. I think we have to think about it this way, Laura. Think about when we have cases of police misconduct or prosecutorial misconduct in the criminal realm. A cop is found having planted evidence or hiding evidence. We go and look at previous cases that that police officer handled. We want to drill down and find out how bad the problem was. And I think we need to do the same thing here. So the I.G. report as far as I'm concerned is the beginning. It's not the end of this investigation.

INGRAHAM: Let's go to Chris Hahn. Chris, Senator Kennedy at one point was, he seemed bemused by the idea that no bias was found in the report, and he was questioning Horowitz on this issue. Watch. I think we have the sound bite. If we don't have the sound bite. We have it, don't have it. He said you honestly believe that the American people are going to look at this report and believe, look at those emails that there was no bias, that people weren't acting on bias? And Horwitz essentially said that's why we found out that it impacts the credibility of the handling of the investigation. We laid out all the facts are.

So it was interesting when he said that, Chris, because he seemed to say welcome we laid out the facts and we said it affects the credibility, but they couldn't conclude that it affected the ultimate outcome of deciding to charge Mrs. Clinton or not. Kind of splitting hairs there. He seemed to indicate the bias was a factor in the credibility of the investigation.

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO HOST: If anybody was biased against in 2016 by the FBI's action, it was Hillary Clinton and her campaign. And men will say just about anything they need to say in the middle of the night to try to impress a woman, and I think that's what was going on there. And whether or not there was evidence of bias, I don't know. I don't think Strzok should be involved with any investigations that touch the political system at all. But I think the results of 2016 were very clear. Nobody knew about the investigation going on into Russians meddling in the Trump campaign and everybody knew about the Clinton email scandal, and that was what decided the election.

INGRAHAM: Matt Schlapp?

MATT SCHLAPP, CONTRIBUTOR, "THE HILL": Yes, I mean, please. So look, it's very obvious in 2016 that Donald Trump was going to get the nomination, and then Lisa Page is emailing her boyfriend Mr. Strzok saying oh, my God, what are we going to do. And he says we're going to stop them. And we learned that seven days before he was put in charge of a counterintelligence investigation, this whole Russia-Trump collusion thing. It was all done, Laura, it wasn't done to stop Russians from colluding in our election. It was all done to stop Trump. That's why this message to stop him wasn't given to Congress, was removed from servers. The I.G. had to use it through a special means using DOD technology to find this message. It is a smoking gun. It was to stop Trump.

HAHN: Matt, please.


INGRAHAM: Hold on, hold on. Let's get back to Peter. We'll get back to you in a second, Chris. So Peter, you heard General Sessions on the show just now. He is not going to wade in much to the document dispute between Congress and the executive branch. But it is a whopper. When you have the Congress now, they are about to hold DOJ in contempt of Congress. They are going to subpoena these documents. These things aren't turned over in short order, then it's just another administration official just like Eric Holder during fast and furious. He was held in contempt of Congress, and he goes down, I guess as one of the great attorney generals of all time. It's insane.

SCHWEIZER: You're right, Laura. The old adage in Washington I think is true. If you're hiding something, it's usually because you have something to hide. And that is what is so troubling. They have had to drag information out, whether it's from the FBI or DOJ, as it relates to the Hillary Clinton investigation to the Russian investigation. You name it, they've had to drag it out of the DOJ and the FBI. Why is that? It's not similar because they are trying to protect sources. That stuff is redacted. It's taken away. It's deeply embarrassing to this institution.

And by the way, the comment that the FBI was biased against Hillary Clinton is laughable. To have the FBI director stand up in front of the country and absolve Hillary Clinton of her crimes is not his role, is not his responsibility. And it was the FBI putting the seal of approval essentially on her conduct for a legal standpoint. That's unprecedented, unprecedented.

HAHN: And the letter that they send 11 days before the election reopening the investigation. That had nothing to do with any bias against Hillary Clinton. OK, Peter, I've got you. Let me go back to Matt's point.

SCHLAPP: Chris, I get to talk.

INGRAHAM: One at a time, guys.

HAHN: Wait, I've been waiting for three minutes. Let me go back to your point, Matt. You are seizing on a very minute thing in the I.G. report. The I.G. report was very critical of Comey in the way he treated Clinton. It was critical of a lot of things. Strzok and Page were definitely doing things they shouldn't of been doing, but let me tell you, I'm sure all three of us have said things to a woman that we could not do to try to impress them.

SCHLAPP: Chris, would you stop saying that?

INGRAHAM: Chris, hold on Matt. If this were happening to Hillary Clinton, if this were happening to Hillary Clinton, we had to Trump people, or two people burrowed in who despise the Clintons, were laughing at the Clintons. And then they said we're going to stop this. We need an insurance policy. You would be going nuts. All the Democrats would be going nuts. You know why, because it would be smart to go nuts because it's outrageous that our Justice Department can be used by individuals with a political animus to try to take down a candidate. That's wrong. I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat. I love you all, but that's -- we can't do that in our country. It kills our faith in these institutions. It really does. Again, Republican, Democrat, can't do it. Matt Schlapp, close it out.

SCHLAPP: Real quickly, that's why the timing of when he said he would stop it matters. That's when the Russian investigation started. The reason why the Comey letter went out so close to Election Day is because Comey was dragging his feet. It was the New York U.S. attorney's office for 30 days who was pushing --

HAHN: It was highly inappropriate.

SCHLAPP: He dragged his heels. And that's what --

HAHN: He was inappropriate and biased towards Trump.

INGRAHAM: Guys, we've to go. Fantastic panel by fantastic men. Not even in the studio with me. Thank you so much.

And by the way, the "Washington Post" may have gotten it's wires crossed. It actually ran a story showing how a Trump associate chose not to collude with the Russians. Roger Stone explains next.


INGRAHAM: When the media haven't been freaking out about separating kids from their families and going into shelters and calling them concentration camps, over the weekend they were freaking out about what they thought was going to be another nail in the coffin of Donald Trump, another instance of Russian collusion. Whoops. Except It wasn't. so let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just more questions about potentially another Russian having meetings certainly was someone that's associated with the campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Specifically in this case, Roger Stone and Donald Trump being so close for so long raises additional questions about what the president, the now president and then candidate, may have known about these Russian contacts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is my ninth presidential campaign, and there's never been anything like this. The level of contacts between one campaign and one for national, it goes over and over again.



INGRAHAM: OK, we're laughing here in the studio. Joining us to explain is the man himself, Roger Stone. Roger, I had to treat you with that montage because I'm watching it. Not one of them say the guy was an FBI informant, not one of them. Tell us the real story.

ROGER STONE, INFORMAL TRUMP ADVISER: It's extraordinary. In May of 2016, Michael Caputo, who appeared earlier with Sean Hannity, contacted me because a man using the name Henry Greenberg, turns out to be a paid FBI informant, said he had information that would be useful to the Trump campaign. He did not in fact promised in the run-up to this meeting dirt on Hillary Clinton, as reported by Shelby Holliday of "The Wall Street Journal," classic case of fake news.

In any event, I reluctantly took this meeting which lasted about 20 minutes. It turns out that Henry Greenberg is not his real name, that he is an FBI informant for over 17 years, was deported from the country in 2000, has a 10-year prison record for violent crime, is associated with Russian organized crime. But more importantly, is in the country on a visa sponsored by the Miami office of the FBI because he is providing, quote, a public benefit. He's an informant.

At this very brief meeting, Mr. Greenberg, not his real name, the FBI informant, first shows up wearing a MAGA hat and Trump t-shirt. Shows me photographs on his phone of he and a woman at various Trump rallies, and then lays it on me that he has information damaging Hillary Clinton, and he only wants $2 million for it. I reject his request for $2 million, and he laughs and says it's not your money I want. It's Donald Trump's money. And there it is giving up the game. This is an attempt to entrap me but to compromise Donald Trump. Even Greenberg or whatever his real name, the Russian FBI informant, tells the "Washington Post" that I reject his effort.

INGRAHAM: But does he speak like this, Roger? does he say I have very good information on Hillary Clinton? Did he sound like Boris in the Rocky the squirrel cartoon.


STONE: You sound more like Boris Badenov. The real question here is why I didn't remember a meeting that has no legal consequences, because --

INGRAHAM: Why didn't you remember? You said -- I want to play -- Roger, I've got to be really tough on you because April 19th of last year, you said this. Let's watch.


STONE: I didn't talk to anybody who was identifiably Russian during the two-year run-up to this campaign. I'm not sure I did previously either. I very definitely can't think of anybody who might have been a Russian without my knowledge.


INGRAHAM: So that's what everybody is hitting on today.

STONE: That's fine. But the question is not why I forgot a meeting which is inconsequential in which nothing improper or illegal happens. The question is, why does James Comey's FBI run unknown informant who is in the country on a visa through the graces of the Miami FBI office for public benefit in on me? He gave away the game when he said I don't want your money. I want Trump's money. This was an effort to entrap Donald Trump.

INGRAHAM: Roger, we need the documents on this, though, and I know you're going to be pursuing that because we need the documents. I want to know when.

STONE: If you go to, you can see his extensive criminal background and all of the evidence that he was an FBI informant. I have --

INGRAHAM: Got it, thank you. We've got to roll. But thank you so much. Fantastic interview.

In moments, Ben Shapiro joins me on such breakdown the rank hypocrisy, the media's hysterical coverage of the illegal immigration kids. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Lost in all the hysterical coverage over illegal immigrant children separated from their parents is a key point -- what about the thousands of homeless veterans or the plight of kids in urban America? Where's the outcry, the tears, the press conferences about their plight?

Let's discuss this with radio host, editor in chief at The Daily Wire Ben Shapiro, who joins us here on set in L.A. Great to see you. How are you doing?


INGRAHAM: So I know you have been through this racket before with how they are playing this border issue, but what is the truth about how illegal immigration has affected this state, this city, this community?

SHAPIRO: The cost to the state are just enormous. We're talking billions of dollars. It certainly has affected the city itself. It's affected the level of criminality in the city. It's affected the budget of the city. And it's affected pretty much every aspect of the city including how the city itself is run. So while Eric Garcetti who is the mayor of city and now wants to run for president on the Democratic ticket ignores the 55,000 homeless people.

INGRAHAM: And 11,000 homeless veterans in the state.

SHAPIRO: And 55,000 homeless people will fill Dodger stadium just in this city alone, he wants to run for president. But meanwhile he's going to virtue signal about immigration because it's a political winner in this particular state.

INGRAHAM: And for the Democrats to run down of the border, I'm going to down there tomorrow, they're running down to the border. They're like oh, we're inhumane. This is an inhumane series of actions by Donald Trump. You pointed out during the break how President Obama viewed the deportation issue.

SHAPIRO: In 2014, Jeh Johnson who was then Homeland Security secretary, he explicitly said that we are taking the measures we taking to deport entire families of people as a deterrent. That was his language, deterrent language. And now when the Trump administration uses similar language with regard to separating families, I don't think they should necessarily use that language, but that language is not unprecedented.

And the fact is that basically what the left is saying now is that President Trump has a choice. Either he should release everyone into mainstream society or they are going to yell and scream, because the law itself says, the ninth circuit court of appeals has made this very clear that if you arrest the parents you have to release the kids. And that means you have to separate the kids from their parents. There is no option to get the parents in custody with the children. This is just not an option under the law as written by leftists on the ninth circuit court of appeals.

INGRAHAM: When kids are put into sponsorships across the country, when they come in unaccompanied, sometimes they are brought in by traffickers, they are sent to sponsors. And do you realize, and I'm sure our viewers, some of them don't know this, some of those sponsors themselves are illegal immigrants. HHS regulations do not discount the possibility of illegal immigrants being sponsored because it's only one factor. It is more your financial ability to care for the people. So now illegal immigrants are sponsoring illegal immigrants in the United States of America. Close it out.

SHAPIRO: The ninth circuit court of appeals has actually suggested that perhaps the best policy would be to take one of the parents and release them alongside the children so we can actually start releasing more people in society. It's pretty clear what the left wants here. And talking about the delays in how long kids should be in custody, the fact is unless the left released everyone, unless Trump released everyone, the left will be equally unhappy.

INGRAHAM: Ben Shapiro, great to see you.

SHAPIRO: Great to see you.

INGRAHAM: We'll be right back to close this out. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Apparently there are a lot of people very upset because we referred to some of the detention facilities tonight as essentially like summer camps. The San Diego Union Tribune today described the facilities as essentially like what you would expect at a boarding school. So I will stick to there are some of them like boarding schools. And I suggest that a lot of the folks who are worried about that spend more time in Central America. I have. And we should make adoption easier for American couples who want to adopt these kids.

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.