TSA program tracks unsuspecting passengers

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," July 30, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: And good evening, everyone. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle," live from New York City. We have a -- is it immodest to say, a riveting show for you? Well OK, it's immodest.

Rudy Giuliani has more than a few new comments about the Mueller probe and some new allegations by Michael Cohen. We will try to make sense of it all for you. Plus, why might the TSA be spying on you when you board a plane? This is -- I got to say, it is a story even I can't believe but there you have it, we'll get to it. And there are new developments in the case of a police officer shot in Florida by someone who was here on a visa, we are still trying to determine whether he was legally or illegally here. We'll give you the very latest. Plus, first, the elite still don't get it. That's the focus of tonight's Angle.

Over the weekend, the libertarian-leaning Koch Network hosted a Rocky Mountain Retreat where donors and political leaders. Well they use the occasion not to amplify and cheer the president's policies, but to decry them. Eighty-two-year-old Charles Koch has taken the reins of the network. He released this video in advance of the retreat. Now he claims opportunities in the global marketplace are creating anxiety and the loss of jobs at home.


CHARLES KOCH, BILLIONAIRE INDUSTRIALST: In response, we are seeing the rise in protectionists, for countries, organizations, and individuals are trying to protect themselves from these changes. They are doing whatever they can to close themselves off from the new, hold onto the past, and prevent change. This is a natural tendency, but it's a destructive one.


INGRAHAM: Destructive? Let me tell you about destruction, sir. One can also make the argument that selling out American workers and offering up our industries in our marketplace for the gods of globalism is also pretty destructive. Now the Kochs have become billionaires by building and buying amazing companies, they are really smart guys -- from steel, lumber, nylon manufacturers.

Over the last 20 years, they have grown their wealth by focusing, in large part, on global operations. Some of that includes outsourcing jobs and relocating plans overseas. Today, Koch has a presence in over 50 (ph) countries. They have nearly 120,000 people. Only 65,000 of those people are in the United States.

And look, God bless them. But America shouldn't be facilitating the outsourcing of jobs, even through really lame policies, like regulation, or through poorly negotiated trade deals. And don't get me wrong. The Kochs have done great work on tax reform, stuff like deregulation, and also in the area of education. Last year they spent $90 million on university programs, and they are committed to expanding their support for K-12 education.

I have a question for you. How effective will their education efforts be if Americans enter a world where China dominates most major industries? Including the areas of STEM, science, technology, and so forth, including things like artificial intelligence. We can't just look the other way while China and a lot of other countries, by the way, gain (ph) the global trading system and rack up huge trade surpluses. Also of course IP, theft, unfair subsidies, and so forth. Any fair-minded person would have to agree with her at the White House Economic Advisor Larry Kudlow, a free trader himself, said over the weekend.


LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: People will say, well, Trump's tariffs are damaging this, that, and the other thing. I say, don't blame President Trump. He inherited a completely broken world trading system, including a World Trade Organization, most particularly China, but not only China. Okay? He's trying to fix it.


INGRAHAM: Now remember the Kochs supported that job and sovereignty killing Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the NAFTA agreement that of course Bush, Obama, and until the campaign, at least, Hillary championed. The Koch Network, like the rest of the GOP Old Guard, is positively furious with Trump's use of tariffs to level the playing field. In fact, they announced last month that they have committed to a multimillion dollar, multi-year campaign to oppose what Trump is doing on trade. I have a question, though.

Why would they want to lock us into these never-ending trade deficits when the president's efforts so far are actually bearing fruit? We saw what happened with the E.U. last week. South Korea already renegotiated their deal. And watch what happens in the next few weeks with both Mexico and China. It's going to be really good. Meanwhile, American workers, and even farmers, some have been caught in the cross fire of Trump's tough trade battle with China. But they are standing by the president. Why? Well, they like that he is fighting for them even if it hurts their interest in the short term.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am a good American. I believe that we all have to have two tow the line.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You are okay with bearing the brunt of these tariffs?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Am I willing to take my lumps for the benefit of the entire country? Yes, I personally am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You are willing to weather the storm for a certain amount of time? But how long is too long?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well the Scottish in me says to the death.


INGRAHAM: Oh, the Scottish in him. I love that. Don't you want that kind of deep sense of patriotism? They want to make money obviously, but they are also deeply patriotic Americans, and they are willing to take that hit. I think the Kochs can learn a lot from those regular Americans and what they said. I love it tape.

Trump's immigration plan, by the way, also displeases the Old Guard in the GOP, that big republican donor class. Now why? Why are they so fixated on that? Because they love the flood of cheap labor into our market. But Trump sees the border and enforcement and the whole deal at our southwest border very differently, and he articulated it today.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Our countries have learned through hard experience that border security is national security. They are one and the same.


INGRAHAM: Arguments of national security and culture are totally lost on the billionaire set. But for most Americans, these are major concerns. Now the Koch Network is taking it a step further. They are now going so far as to financially punish of some politicians who are supportive of the president's agenda. They announced today that they will not be supporting GOP's North Dakota Senate candidate, Kevin Kramer, who's trying to unseat democrat Heidi Heitkamp.

Now what is the Koch reason for that? Well, the republican candidate supported Trump on both trade and immigration. At that confab I was mentioning earlier in Colorado, Charles Koch made a big deal about "uniting people who were previously divided."

What does that mean? Like how are these latest retaliatory efforts actually doing that? Trump is the one uniting people, for all the talk of divisiveness, Trump enjoys an 88 percent approval rating among republicans, according to "The Wall Street Journal," NBC poll. Only George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 saw support like that.

But the Koch Network and others talk a good game about unity, embracing change and seizing opportunities. But when the president comes along who is actually embracing a new path, something different, on behalf of the American people, let's try a new thing now, the Kochs and the globalists just have their blinders on. They won't have any of it. I had to laugh when on the AP feature on the Koch retreat, it said the following, "Democrats who invested extraordinary time and resources into attacking the Koch brothers in recent years, conclude that at least in the area of Trump, the billionaire industrialist, are no longer the left's number one enemy."

Yeah, that's funny how that works. That is because republicans lack the leader for so many years that the Kochs were the only game in town. But now, the left has a new enemy. It's Trump. And they are resisting him at every turn. Sadly, the Kochs are too often joining in their ranks. Like the Bushes, the Koch brothers did not support Donald Trump in 2016. Think about that. But they have certainly reaped the benefits of Trump's thriving economy.

Are they prepared to take their profits that they made over the last two years and what -- donate it to Elizabeth Warren because that's going to great for their business? You think that they're actually going to give them a better deal on the things they believe in, tax reform, regulation, so forth? What a pity.

If the Kochs and their well-heeled donors miss the opportunity to support the president and be a part of the America first unity that people believe in. And that is "The Angle." Joining us now the reaction, the Washington Examiner's Byron York, democrat and radio talk show host Chris Hahn and Monica Crowley from the London Center for Policy Research. Great to see all of you.

Monica, the Koch brothers have done a lot of good things, no doubt about it. But it is wild to hear them rail on about Trump's use of a tool that Bush used, Obama used, Reagan used, and is one of the classic tools of our economic negotiation throughout American history.

MONICA CROWLEY, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, LONDON CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH: Yes, this is yet another example of the empire striking back against Donald Trump. Trump ran on this premise that he was going to come in and smash the corrupt existing order, the corrupt status quo. And that meant the elite ruling class on both sides of the aisle, the media, and the networks like the Kochs, who are so deeply invested in the globalist agenda.

He promised that he was going to smash all of that and actually represent the American worker, the American taxpayer, and America's economic interests. The reason we have Donald Trump, among many reasons, Laura, is because he went out into the heartland and he said, you know what?

I see you, I hear you, and I will be your champion. Now after just a year and a half and the presidency, he has delivered on this economic policy to exactly those people. And therefore, he represents an existential threat to the Kochs, to the left, to the right, deeply invested in a cheap labor - -

INGRAHAM: They agree on the lot of the big issues. We've made that point before, they agree on trade, on immigration -- and Chris Hahn, is it the case where it's the enemy of my enemy is my friend? I mean if I can go back -- Byron's written about this -- if you can put a loop together of what the democrats said about the Kochs of the years, now suddenly they're against for Trump's doing on tariffs and "The New York Times" is saying, "oh, maybe it's time to take a second look at the Koch brothers." I find that hilarious. Go ahead.

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I don't have enemies, and I don't think people should have enemies. In domestic policy you have opponents and people you disagree with but not enemies, but on --

INGRAHAM: OK you know what I mean, don't be such a stickler. We're having fun here.

HAHN: I know what you meant, but on the Kochs, I was listening to my good friend, Monica, just now, talking about the Kochs, I say they are consistent. They were never for trade barriers. They would never stand for the $15 billion bailout to the farmers in the Midwest of the president is doing, something that Monica would have called socialism had Obama done it during his term.

The Kochs are consistent and they are consistent in their message. I don't trust that they will support liberals. They haven't said that they will support democrats. They said they will stay out of Heidi Heitkamp's race. They didn't say they would give her money. They're still going to spend about $400 million on the midterms to try to elect republicans and conservatives who agree with their viewpoint. They are still going to be active in politics --

INGRAHAM: But what we're saying Chris, no one is saying they are not consistent. What we're saying is, their time has come and gone. They have a lot of dough, they done some good with it, there's a lot of philanthropy they've done. But the era of endless wars, Byron, and these global trade agreements, where America really can't get satisfaction, frankly, what Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders at different times, they've talked about these unfair trading regimes that benefit their well-heeled people, those days are over and the republican party. There is no constituency for it, why we have an 88 percent approval rating for Donald Trump. Byron?

BYRON YORK, COLUMNIST, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Well, Donald Trump the candidate in 2016 really did blow up republican orthodoxy and some very, very key ways. And trade was one of those ways. Immigration actually was another. The Kochs have had kind of a complicated relationship with that because if you asked them last year, they were absolutely delighted with all of the deregulation that has been taking place under the president, happy with the tax cuts, too.

Now very unhappy with trade and with immigration. I think a lot of republicans are really going to part with them on this North Dakota thing. For example, the Kochs are now spending about a million dollars to support the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Well republican partisans would say, if you don't support republicans for the Senate, there's not going to be another Trump nominee to the Supreme Court.

INGRAHAM: Right. That's why it's important to support the challenger to Heidi Heitkamp. Monica, there's a big talk about a potential shutdown now. You know, with the border wall. Trump said I'm not going to do this omnibus spending bill again. Let's watch what the president said today about this.


TRUMP: We need border security. Border security includes the wall. But it includes many other things. We have to end the lottery. We have to end the chain. The chain is like a disaster. You bring one person and, you end up with 32 people. The whole thing is a ridiculous. And we have to change our laws, and we do that through Congress. So I would certainly be willing to close it down, to get it done.


INGRAHAM: The Democrats are already going insane about this. Again, these Old Guard republicans are like oh if you do this this, it will blow the midterm election cycle. What are your thoughts?

CROWLEY: Well, I think they're really afraid that Donald Trump means it. And you know what? He does. This is a man who relishes every single fight and when he says I'm willing to shut down the government unless I get real money to start this border wall, they know that he means it. So republicans and democrats alike are really afraid of this. Look, of the many reasons Donald Trump got elected in 2016, the primary one was illegal immigration, building the wall, and all of the attendant issues. Ending chain migration, ending the visa lottery --

INGRAHAM: They've done nothing. They've done nothing --

CROWLEY: Right. And he knows, in order to rouse his base going into the midterms, he needs to stick by this premise and shut down the government.

INGRAHAM: Chuck Schumer had no problem shutting down the government when Trump was putting the pressure on with the DACA kids, and he wanted to give amnesty, and he was fine with shutting down the government. He tried to pass it off on Trump. It wasn't Trump. It was the democrats. Now Trump says, I'm not doing the omnibus thing. You should never have signed that other omnibus. He should have vetoed that back then and he wouldn't be in a situation now. But do you think the democrats are hoping for a shutdown?

HAHN: No. I don't think we are because we don't want to see people hurt by it. I don't understand how Mick Mulvaney still has a job if the president was so upset with the budget that Mick Mulvaney wrote with Congress that the president signed. But I would say that's for the president. If he doesn't get his wall before this Congress leaves, he won't get this wall --

INGRAHAM: Right, right.

HAHN: -- because the best-case scenario for him is that the republicans have a smaller majority than they have now. But they're more than likely going to be the minority in the House of Representatives. The president knows that so he's going to bat for it. So look, I get the strategy on his part because -- look, November is lost to them no matter what, so the president just might as well go all-in, put his chips on the table and see what he gets out of it because the democrats are taking the House and they might even take the Senate, and then there will never be a wall for him. And if he doesn't get the wall, he might not get re-elected. It's a real issue for him right now.

INGRAHAM: Well you're predicting a lot of things there. You will hit mega millions. I mean come on. Byron -- look it's --

YORK: Please. I'd have a better backdrop.

INGRAHAM: The House of Representatives might go democrats. This is the shot -- I think Chris is right about this -- this is the shot for the border wall. You don't get this money now, I don't think you will get it at all. But Mitch McConnell said - I wanna play this for you Byron -- Mitch McConnell was asked about this over the weekend and once again it's kick the can down the road McConnell, on this particular issue. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is the funding of the border wall going to wait until after the midterm election?

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY., SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Probably. That is something we do have a disagreement on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So Homeland security won't get funded before the midterms?

MCCONNELL: Probably not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are not worried about a government shutdown?

MCCONNELL: No. That's not going to happen.


INGRAHAM: I love how he's so dismissive of it -- I kind of like that. But Byron, this is what they said last year. Remember, last year, oh, we're going to wait until next term.

YORK: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: The next term rolled around, and the republicans, they just don't want this wall. Let's face it. The GOP does not want this wall.

YORK: You got to remember, this was the president's premier campaign promise. I went to a lot of Trump rallies, covered a lot of Trump rallies. This is what he said in every single one of them. And if he doesn't deliver on it, that he has not delivered on his biggest campaign promise. And I agree that, obviously, if the House goes democratic in November, just not going to happen. I think the president has not been focused enough on getting this. He has used other factors, like a chain migration or the visa lottery, thrown those into the mix, when perhaps the straight wall for DACA deal could have been done. But if it doesn't happen now, very, very good chance it's never going to happen. You have to remember, think about the Secure Fence Act of, what was it, 2006?


YORK: Congress, by big majorities, passed a rule to install triple layer fencing, really serious fencing--

INGRAHAM: Democrats were all for it. Democrats were all for it.

YORK: -- along large parts of the border, passed with big majorities, both parties -- was never done because it was controlled by republicans --

INGRAHAM: It makes me sick. This makes -- I mean --

YORK: - and democrats never wanted to do it --

INGRAHAM: -- well, yeah, but --

HAHN: He had the deal -- he had the DACA for the wall deal. That's when what you called the Schumer shutdown happened. But that was the Trump shutdown because he pulled the deal out. And if he would've just stuck with --

INGRAHAM: No, he didn't.

YORK: -- that deal like he wanted to do --

INGRAHAM: No, he didn't.

YORK: -- and was talked out of it by members of his team. He had that deal and he was talked out of it.

INGRAHAM: Chris, Chris -- he doubled the number of people who were going to get amnesty, he wanted an end of the perverted system of chain migration, which has tripled -- tripling the number of immigrants coming in every three years. It's ridiculous. That is what he wanted, and he wanted the end of visa lottery. So that all made sense. And he was going to give a doubling of the number of people who got amnesty. He didn't pull anything. He sweetened the deal, frankly.

HAHN: He change the deal, he changed the deal. From what I've read and what I've seen --

INGRAHAM: It was what he campaigned on, and the democrats did not want to give him a victory on that. Guys, we are out of time. I wanted to get to one thing (ph), but we don't have time. We'll have to do it next time. Guys, fantastic segment. Thank you so much. And by the way, Rudy Giuliani, boy, he launched a media blitz to take out Mueller, did you check that out? And Michael Cohen. What does it mean? That show down over the Russia probe. Well next.


INGRAHAM: Rudy G. has been lighting up the airways today, launching a fresh salvo against the Mueller probe and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. And Rudy addressed report accusations by Cohen of a separate premeeting among top Trump campaign officials before the infamous 2016, June 2016, Trump Tower meeting with Russian nationals.


RUDY GIULIANI, DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: There was another meeting that has been leaked, but hasn't been public yet. There was a meeting, an alleged meeting, three days before. According to Cohen -- or according to the leak, maybe Cohen will withdraw this, I don't know, he said there was a meeting with Donald, Jr., Jared Kushner, with Paul Manafort, with Gates and possibly two others, and which they come out of the presence of the president, discussed the meeting with the Russians. We checked with their lawyers. That meeting never, ever took place. It didn't happen. It's a figment of his imagination or he's lying. (END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: What to make of that? Here to discuss, John Solomon, opinion contributor at "The Hill" and General Charles McCullough, is a former inspector general who was targeted in the past for his investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server. Gentlemen, it's good to see both of you. John, you've done a lot of reporting on this, I have to get you on this first. Rudy was all over the place over the weekend. And that little exchange on a premeeting, saying -- kinda pricked up everybody's ears. What do we know about that?

JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, "THE HILL": I did a lot of reporting a year ago when the story first broke on this meeting. If Bob Mueller was still interested in that meeting right now, seriously interested in it, Cohen's case would not be sitting in a southern district of New York. It would be sitting in the prosecutor's office. I think there's a lot of hot air on this particular focus that doesn't actually amount too much. There is just not any evidence that Mueller has been that interested in it for some period of time.

And meanwhile, there's a lot of defense -- there's a lot of things -- I will say this, there is no tweet that the president could issue, there is no defense that his lawyers can put out there, there is no bar that any politician can put out there that will change more the course of the Russia investigation then if the president were to declassify the remaining parts of the FISA memo. That is where this story lies.

And when that is released, I think the American public will learn a lot about the flaws in the investigation, the circular intelligence reporting that occurred, and whether there is any evidence of collusion, which I don't believe there is based on my reporting. Also I think we're going to learn there was other tactics, other ways of gathering information about the president, that have not yet been revealed. And when they are revealed, they will be very troubling to the American public.

INGRAHAM: It sounds like you're doing some pre-reporting there John, I'm looking forward to reading your piece.

SOLOMON: Maybe a little.

INGRAHAM: Charles, you get the sense that this is coming to a head here, both with whether the president will testify and the intensity of Giuliani's comments about Mueller and Cohen. We're going to get to your experience with the Hillary e-mail investigation, what happened to you as inspector general. But what is your take on where -- how long this has dragged on for and where we are today with this Mueller probe?

CHARLES MCCULLOUGH, FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL: Well, it's gone on for well over a year. And there's nothing wrong with the administration putting a hard deadline on this. They shouldn't interfere with the investigation. Investigators get to do what they do. But there is certainly nothing wrong, these things can't go on forever. They are stressful for everyone involved. You have numerous people having to expend great amounts of money for legal fees. So they should put a hard deadline on this and stick to it.

INGRAHAM: Well I think that again, we have a scenario here, where Bob Mueller took on this investigation, not as an independent counsel, but as a special prosecutor. And there's a fight going on now about whether the president is going to testify. Clearly, from the beginning, the president was like, oh, I'll testify.

But you run these investigations, you know, sending your client in to testify in this open-ended fashion would be nightmarish. I think it would be terrible for the administration. John, do you get any sense that we're going anywhere except a federal court, and probably all the way to the Supreme Court, to decide whether the president is going to be compelled to answer Mueller's questions?

SOLOMON: You know, the special counsel Mueller could have issued that subpoena a long time ago. It's been clear this has not been moving in any direction what was going to come to a resolution. A lot of conversation, no resolution. If you wanted to make it happen, he could have issued that subpoena a while ago. My gut tells me that they know what they need to know about the president, they know enough to write whatever reports they're going to write and pursue whatever prosecutions they're going to pursue. I don't get a sense of a major constitutional crisis on the horizon. I could be wrong. But he would've issued that subpoena a while ago if he had so chosen.

INGRAHAM: Charles, I want to get your thoughts on the client (ph). About nine months ago or so, you revealed to Catherine Herridge that you were targeted by Hillary's allies for blowing the whistle on her illegal server. Now the president is routinely mocked for continuing to bring this issue up, it sticks in his craw, and in the craw of a lot of us. You said that last November that's at risk due to Hillary's irresponsible handling of the classified information and quote "sources and methods, lives and operations, were all at risk." Go into more of that if you could.

MCCULLOUGH: Well certainly. It sticks in my craw, too because we started this whole thing and we ended up referring it to the FBI. But yeah, there were a lot of classified documents, highly classified documents, that were among this cache of documents that were on her private server. And there were open threats made to my folks who are looking into this, and to me, it is well documented at this point.

It hit me the other day when there was this conversation about whether Jim Clapper should lose his clearance or Director Brennan, and I don't think anybody can answer right now whether or not Hillary is still cleared. I'm thinking she's probably still cleared at this point. So that is probably part of that whole security clearance discussion.

INGRAHAM: So what about the other players, Charles?

MCULLOUGH: Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin --

INGRAHAM: Cheryl Mills -- you know do they have clearances still?

MCCULLOUGH: I defy anyone to get a straight answer on whether or not any of them are still cleared. My sense is they probably are. I certainly would have heard if they weren't. I think we all would have heard if they weren't by now. This State Department was supposed to look at that some time ago and I never heard anything about it.

INGRAHAM: Well, we have a lot more to get into. And Charles, you're going to stay with us because we have a shocking investigation into how the TSA may be spying on you as you check in for your flight. This is a mind- blowing report. Every American has to see this, coming up next.


INGRAHAM: The TSA is tracking American citizens on flights without their knowing it. Even if they have not been suspected of any crime or if they are under investigation at all. The Boston Globe reporting that this previously undisclosed program known as Quiet Skies -- what the heck? This program is now generating significant criticism from within the TSA.

Here with us to discuss is Boston Globe reporter Jana Winter who broke this story. And we are also rejoined by former inspector general of the intelligence community during the Obama years, Chuck McCullough. This is a wild thing. First of all, Jana, great story on this, incredible reporting. Quiet Skies, it sounds so placid and lovely. But what is this deal, because it seems to me that none of this know about it. I've never heard Congress talk about it. Does it work? And how could we be tracked?

JANA WINTER, BOSTON GLOBE SPOTLIGHT FELLOW: Here is what we know. We know that thousands of ordinary Americans who are suspected of no crime, and who aren't on any watch list are being followed by teams of armed undercover air marshals on domestic flights throughout the United States. When we reported this story on Sunday, there has been a bit of outrage, I suppose, and at least four committees on the Hill have demanded answers from TSA. So TSA will be briefing four committees at least later this week.

INGRAHAM: You did great reporting, enough to get everybody's attention. Big piece that just came out an hour ago, I know you saw it because it is your piece, "Lawmakers demand answers on Quiet Skies, surveillance program, after the "Globe" report." These Congressmen are going nuts about this now, as they should.

By the way, here's a behavior checklist, Chuck, because I read this checklist, and I am like I just flew this morning to New York. I experienced all of these things, or at least observed them. Excessive fidgeting, strong body odor, cold penetrating stare -- that is a lady who wouldn't help with the overhead -- wide open staring eyes, exaggerated emotions, and facial flushing. That is just to name a few. What is this, Chuck, go ahead. Tell us why this is smart.

MCCULLOUGH: We've been running around for years telling people, if you see something say something.

INGRAHAM: Or smell something apparently.

MCCULLOUGH: Or if you smell something or somebody's got a stare. Look, those items came from some study somewhere that the government I'm sure paid dearly for. But I am glad that the TSA is doing this. This is why we pay the air marshals. But we have been telling people to do this for regular citizens, if you see something say something. And yet we have 1811 law enforcement officers who are on the plane that were going -- they are not following people home. As long as they are on --

INGRAHAM: What are they doing? This is what I want to do. Are they keeping a database of people's names, observations about them? If these people have done nothing wrong, if they're American citizens, and have done nothing wrong --

MCCULLOUGH: If somebody darts into restroom and changes, two, three, four times in the airport --

INGRAHAM: Maybe it's an adult diaper. Maybe you are cold on a plane.

MCCULLOUGH: OK, well, it's irregular, and someone should note that somewhere. If they don't note it and something happens, then guess what happens? They get blamed for it.

INGRAHAM: Go ahead, Jana. Chuck is really smart, but I'm surprised that I disagree with him. Go ahead, Jana.

WINTER: The reason why this story is out and the reason why I knew anything about this to begin with is because the air marshals who are literally working these lights have said, this is not the best use of taxpayer money and this is leaving us vulnerable as a country and on aircraft, because we are diverting our resources to follow people who are not suspected of anything.

INGRAHAM: This was started in 2010. Everyone should know. This has been going on for eight years. And I hope the inspector general of Homeland Security, if we even have one. Do we have one, by the way, Chuck?

MCCULLOUGH: I think there is an acting over there, John Roth.

INGRAHAM: OK, I hope John gets to examine whether this -- maybe it works, maybe it doesn't violate Fourth Amendment concerns.

MCCULLOUGH: There are going to be individual cases of misconduct, but if they have guidelines, and guidelines can be enforced, you are going to have problems case-by-case. But we have been telling people for years, if you see something, say something.

INGRAHAM: But that is people, that's not the government. We have a Constitution. The people can do anything.

MCCULLOUGH: Well, we don't want the government to say something if they see something?

INGRAHAM: We are talking about databases. Go ahead, Jana.

WINTER: One, this is not see something, say something. These are trained law enforcement officers who take it very seriously to become whistleblowers. This is not, as you know, this is not a decision made lightly to come forward about this program. They truly feel that we are putting the country at risk by following people when there is no reason to be doing so and collecting vast, minute-by-minute information about what they're doing from the moment they are spotted and identified by the gate at the departure airport up to taking note of the license plate of the vehicle that picks him up in the arrival city. Everyone they talk to, every type of phone, every phone conversation, are they on a computer, are they sleeping? This is a lot more then see something, say something. It is just not that. This is above and beyond, and these are ordinary Americans --

MCCULLOUGH: I'm glad they are doing it, and I hope they keep doing it because that is what we pay them to do.

INGRAHAM: John, I don't -- I mean, Chuck, I don't pay them to be keeping the tabs on grandma who happens to have facial flushing and face touching.

MCCULLOUGH: We don't know this is grandma. We are looking for irregularities, which is I'm sure that list came from somewhere. You can enforce controls --

INGRAHAM: Wait a second.

WINTER: That's not the best defense.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second, wait a second. Chuck, you as inspector general of the intel committee, saw all this irregularity with big government. You saw regularity in frankly stuff that was happening that could have hurt national security. So you saw people with good intentions go totally awry, correct?

MCCULLOUGH: This is different. We are not leaving the airport, my understanding is. These are people in planes and in the airport who are doing things like ducking into a bathroom and changing three or four times in a very short period of time. That's weird. And that is irregular behavior.

WINTER: That is not with this program is doing, though, respectfully.

INGRAHAM: Guys, let me just say, one of the other things on the checklist, by the way, the TSA has an $800 million budget. That is all I'll say. Gripping --

WINTER: But there is less than 3,000 flying air marshals. There is more than 40,000 domestic flights a day. If you are choosing to follow people who are not suspected of any crime and who are not --

INGRAHAM: No one wants to be profiled. We don't want to do what Israel does because that offends people. Maybe that is why we are doing it.

WINTER: We don't have enough people to be doing it. This is what the air marshals are saying.

MCCULLOUGH: This has been going on for eight years.


INGRAHAM: Guys, Guys, come on. I want to add another piece of data here, OK, because we are going to get more answers on this, I hope, this week, and that is because Jana did the reporting and I'm happy we are having this conversation. Maybe some good can come of this, but right now it makes my antenna go up.

Here are some of the other things. Rapid eye blinking. Adam's apple jumps. I guess that is when you swallow. And then gripping or white- knuckling bags. I white-knuckled my bags in Minnesota today because I was -- I mean, some of these things really are ridiculous.

WINTER: Perhaps someone noticed.

INGRAHAM: Maybe I'm being observed.

MCCULLOUGH: If that is the comprehensive list, OK. But my guess is those are a few items out of a very much longer list. I would want context on that.

WINTER: I can give you that context.

INGRAHAM: Jana, keep on this story. We've got to keep reporting on this story. Thank you for being with us. Chuck, invaluable analysis from you. We are going to have you back. We haven't gotten to our Hillary email questions. We don't have time. We need a three hour show.

The case of a Florida police officer shot by a Haitian immigrant takes a tragic turn. Stay with us.


INGRAHAM: Less than a week after he was shot and wounded at a gas station while responding to a call, Florida police officer Adam Jobbers-Miller has tragically succumbed to his injuries. Miller's killer, Wisner Desmaret, as you may remember from our coverage last week, came to this country from Haiti when he was nine years old. He had managed to escape conviction in the past, but now ICE has filed an immigration detainer hold on him. Inexplicably, the city of Philadelphia just announced that they will no longer grant ICE access to arrest databases the one Wisner Desmaret was actually discovered on.

Here to debate this is Claude Arnold, a former ICE special agent in charge of L.A., and immigration attorney Allen Orr. We were so worried about officer Jobbers-Miller over the weekend because he was in intensive care, and we thought he might be improving. But that came across my phone over the weekend. Your heart sinks, as it does for anyone gunned down in the United States. Tragic loss for his family and the community, the police all turned out to honor him of the weekend.

But Claude, let's start with you here. People say, immigration, that's its own issue. Don't conflate the issues of illegal immigration or people who overstay a visa with a case that is as horrible and tragic as this because police officers are shot by American citizens, too.

CLAUDE ARNOLD, FORMER ICE SPECIAL AGENT: Yes, sure. Look, I have been to far too many police officers funerals than I would like to have attended, and several who have been killed by people who are here illegally in the United States. And we have enough criminals and cop killers of our own. We certainly don't need to import any from elsewhere. The fact is, if Mr. Wisner Desmaret had been removed from the country -- he was here illegally -- then the police officer would be alive.

INGRAHAM: Allen Orr?

ORR: First, condolences to the family and community for losing an officer. I thank him for his service. But I think the issue tonight is, one, it's not clear for me from the court filings that this individual is undocumented or illegal. They are probably an immigrant with a green card that is deportable, but I haven't seen that in the facts. If you read the case hearing today, from his statements, it's clear that this person might have mental deficiencies, as he assumed that everyone was after him.

So the thing I wanted to say tonight is that what is the issue in this case is not as immigration status but crime in the United States. And when we look at the failure of immigration, it is not at this individual immigrant, but we should be looking at Congress for they haven't done.

INGRAHAM: Right now we find ourselves in a situation where people are still allowed to walk across our southwest border where there is no fence, or a fence that is have torn down or you can hop over easily, swim the Rio Grande. And ICE has stopped -- the border patrol, excuse me, has stopped MS-13 gang members, I think it was just last week or the week before, stopped known gang members who have actually been deported out of the country and stopped on their way back in. So there clearly is an effort by the cartels, by human traffickers, to bring people into the country, both illegally obviously, and also to help gang activity in the United States, to grow the gang ranks, to replenish gang ranks. That is just a fact.

So while of course Americans commit crimes every day, we know that, I think we don't want more crime in the United States. We don't want more problems in our cities. We have kids that need help. We have allegory who need help. We have officers who are stretched with budgets that are stretched. We don't need any more problems. So Claude, right now, we have Philadelphia, brotherly love city, they are not going to be part of the database anymore. What could that do to hamper the apprehension and understanding of the people we are arresting for these particular crimes?

ARNOLD: Real quickly, I would just like to say, in Wisner Desmaret's case, he came here as a visitor. The family applied for asylum, the information I have. It was denied. They were put in removal proceedings, he was ordered deported. But then, out of the generosity of this country, after the earthquake in Haiti, they were granted temporary protected status. And to show gratitude, he killed one of our heroes in blue. Now, his status had ended, so he should have been removed from the country.

INGRAHAM: And had he been removed, we'd have an officer who is alive today.

ARNOLD: Yes, exactly.

INGRAHAM: Let's get to the Philadelphia story. The Philadelphia story is yet another example of sanctuary city policies going into effect. How this helps the people of Philadelphia is beyond me. Claude, quickly, then Allen gets the last word.

ARNOLD: It doesn't help the people of Philadelphia, and this is just the city of Philadelphia doubling down. First they are harboring people here illegally by refusing to cooperate with ICE. And now they are refusing ICE access to the records so the people they release from jail, ICE can't track down using that information. I believe ICE should just issue subpoenas, and then when they refuse the subpoenas, they should initiate a criminal investigation, and U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania should convene a grand jury.

INGRAHAM: Allen, the mayor of Philly was the same one who danced, literally did a Snoopy dance when he found out the judge ruled that they could to the sanctuary city policy. As a practical matter, how does this happen keep the citizens a safe?

ORR: First, I'm going to move a little bit to my conservative side and say these are local people. The mayor was responding to the local community saying that they did not want to this rapid enforcement there.

Two, in Philadelphia, the problem was not only was it criminals in the system, but it was also witnesses and other individuals related to crimes. And the problem was that ICE was spending too much time rounding on the low-hanging fruit rather than focusing on people who really are a danger to our community. That is a problem in immigration right now. We are not trying to sort people out, we are just saying every immigrant is a problem and we need to focus on that, and that is not leading to security. We need to recognize that we are not going to deport 1,200 million people. We don't have the money but for it.

INGRAHAM: Yes, 12 million. 1,200 million, it will probably there soon, too. But appreciate it, great segment, guys. Thanks so much.

And the gap between the elites and everyday Americans is widening. Ben Shapiro on what that means for the country next.


INGRAHAM: What happens when a liberal journalist attends a Trump rally amongst the actual people? Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Neil Steinberg recounts last week's presidential rally that happened with the steelworkers, and he recounted it this way. "We need to steal, Trump said. We need steel plants. I look at the faces of you people, I could be one of you. I like you guys. That struck me as either sincere or an amazing facsimile. The workers, for their part, couldn't give him a standing ovation because they never sat down. I left the hall thinking, Donald Trump is going to be reelected in 2020. The Democrats don't have anyone who can touch him. Bank on it. Don't hate me for being the one to tell you."

Joining me now for reaction is Ben Shapiro, editor of The Daily Wire. Ben, I read that and I thought that's at least an honest liberal view. He hates Trump. He can't stand Trump. But going to the reality and seeing the reaction of the people and thinking Kamala Harris, or Cory Booker, are they really going to get the mojo going? What are your thoughts there?

BEN SHAPIRO: I think that's exactly right. The culture war that has been raging in the country is really not a war between the elites and the non- elites. It is between the elitists and everyone else. People who think that jobs being lost of the "New York Daily News" is a national tragedy but jobs being lost in the steel industry is totally fine because those are a bunch of rubes in the rustbelt anyway.

Why President Trump really does better than virtually any other politician on the American scene is he conveys that he really does care about people that are in these industries, people who are doing the so called dirty jobs that people on the coasts tend to think only illegal immigrants are willing to do.

INGRAHAM: Ben, I did my Angle tonight on the Koch brothers who have done a lot of good stuff on tax reform and supporting Brett Kavanaugh and deregulation. They've done good stuff on that. But they are just adamant that even discussing tariffs is going to crater the global economy, it is going to be terrible. They have 60,000, or 65,000 workers overseas. They have 60,000 in the United States, but they have a lot overseas. So they are the older Republican guard, and they don't like this, and they're going to start finding some Democrats because they want to fight that Trump approach to trade.

SHAPIRO: I think obviously funding Democrats is not the answer. I'm a free trader myself and I'm not particularly fond a tariff policy. But the real key here, again, I think is less policy driven then it is even cultural. The president obviously has a lot of sympathy for people who are in these industries that have paid a price due to trade. There is no question that there are winners and losers in trade. Overall, I think that trade is a great thing for the United States. I think free-trade is a great thing for the United States. But to pretend that there are no downsides to trade is not obviously telling the whole truth.

INGRAHAM: Again, the results of the election in those rustbelt states, and they suffered the great job losses over the last 20 years, China being in the WTO, all these neocon hawks, Ben, who all they did was tell us we got to build up the military, we got to build up the military. That is great. I agree. But China is the big threat to America's dominance militarily and economically. So if just we grow their economy at the expense of our own, we are going to be in some trouble down the road.

I also want to get some thoughts from you on something that is the opposite of what the "Chicago Sun-Times" columnist road. This was a piece published this morning imagining the day after Trump's reelection loss in 2020. OK, here it is. "As Trump seethed and tweeted in defeat late Tuesday, and President-elect Elizabeth Warren celebrated, the arc of the Trump story is starting to make more sense than it has for much of his chaotic presidency. The normal rules of politics do apply to Donald Trump after all."

So now the time was up for Trump. They are already imagining his loss, which tells you, well, the derangement syndrome, whatever you want to call it, that cliche is already wearing thin, but they are not having to write about 2020 in 2018.

SHAPIRO: I think they are desperate to take down President Trump right now. They are hoping obviously that 2016 was an outlier and they are going to blame it on anything. They'll blame it on Hillary Clinton being a bad candidate finally or they'll blame it on Russian collusion, which they have yet to prove.

But they won't acknowledge that there is a systemic problem inside the Democratic Party, and screaming Medicare for all in running a Hillary Clinton clone like Elizabeth Warren is not going to fix the giant gap that they have with the middle of the country whom they still consider a bunch of better clingers working jobs that they would never deign to get their hands dirty doing.

I am a guy who was from the coast. I'm from L.A. I spent some of my time in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I am an elite by any of these standards. But the bottom line is that the people in the middle of the country are doing work that is as important or more importantly than the people on the coast who are sitting in their coffeehouses writing scripts.

INGRAHAM: You are not necessarily an elite. Just because you go to those nice institutions, if you understand the plight of the regular working person and you think that they have a role in our economy, you are not an elite. You're someone who went to good schools.

SHAPIRO: I'm an elite but not elitist. President Trump actually made this distinction at a rally recently. He said, listen, the people in this audience are elites. If you are good at your job, if you work hard, if you do well in the United States, you are an elite by any standard, but you are not an elitist. And that is where the Democrats get it wrong. They thing that being an elitist is the important thing.

INGRAHAM: Got it. Ben Shapiro, awesome segment as always.


INGRAHAM: Remember, trade that isn't fair is just protectionism of a different sort. It's protectionism of cronyism. I bet you didn't see us taking on the Kochs and the surveillance state tonight, right. You would never see that coming. It was always going to be Mueller, Mueller, Mueller. No. A lot of other issues.

We always want to hear what you have to say, so tweet me @IngrahamAngle, follow my tweets as well. There is a little Labrador retriever puppy that you have to see on my Twitter feed.

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.