When did the left change the rules of debate?

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 25, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I am Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle" from a very busy news night here in Washington. We still have no suspect or motive in the case of those devices sent to prominent Democrats in the last few days. But that has not stopped some media organizations from what I think is despicable finger pointing, and we have it for you.

Plus, we received some very interesting details about these bombs from authorities today, yet some media folks, they just don't want to talk about it. We'll examine. And last night's Florida gubernatorial debate revealed an ugly truth about some Democratic tactics.

Level unfounded charges of racism and then you win the argument. Candace Owens will be here later in the hour to break down the left's new rules. But first, the Democrats convenient case of amnesia, that's the focus of tonight's Angle.

Now at this point, it seems the bomb-like materials sent to prominent Democrats and CNN were not meant to detonate but they were meant to intimidate and sow fear. And predictably the left and their journalist brethren are blaming Trump.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Law enforcement investigators are obviously right now I'm sure noticing that all of the recipients have been the targets of wrath from President Trump.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: He has frequently channeled his supporter's rage toward people or groups that he sees as his political enemy some of whom were targeted by today's bombs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is distracting from that, you know, that idea of what atmosphere we have in our country right now. And he is not doing anything to really tone that down.


INGRAHAM: The impulse to blame the president takes us back to the issues of basic fairness and common sense. Two qualities that seem to be in short supply these days. It's irresponsible and it's outrageous for these folks to even imply that somehow these dastardly acts were provoked by our commander-in-chief.

And the media wonder why the American people have increasingly little respect for them. And plus, where was their outrage and fury when prominent Democrats were either just personally and viciously insulting conservatives or actually using aggressive actions toward them?


REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store or a gasoline station, you get out and you gather a crowd and you push back on them.

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: The press always ask me, don't I wish I were debating him. No, I wish we were in high school -- I could take him behind the gym.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.


INGRAHAM: No toxicity there at all. No urging of aggressive rhetoric or aggressive attitudes. And what was all the media and Democratic outrage when Hollywood made threats and showcased bloody depictions of the president?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's William Shakespeare's play "Julius Ceasar" like you have never seen before. A man dressed to look like President Donald Trump gets stabbed to death on stage.

ROBERT DE NIRO, ACTOR: Of course I want to punch him in the face.

KATHY GRIFFIN, COMEDIAN: I won't give away what we're doing, but Tyler and I are not afraid to do images that make noise.

MADONNA, SINGER: I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.

JOHNNY DEPP, ACTOR: When was the last time an actor assassinated a president.

DE NIRO: I'm going to say one thing. (BLEEP) Trump!


INGRAHAM: Oh sorry, I guess that constitute high art in America these days. Well, not only was there no criticism from the left, they were applauding this stuff. And they just love these ugly personal confrontations, ones like this. And they are so nasty. All the different stuff, and there were like the stores and the restaurants to elevators.

I don't recall folks like Joe Scarborough asking if Hillary or Maxine's rhetoric led to all these harassment and viciousness. I think the Democrats have just gotten so wrapped around the acts about Trump and all the stuff he has achieved and his numbers are going up, yet, they have adopted a by any means necessary strategy to get him out of power.

And by not strongly and repeating -- repeatedly condemning the groups destructive activities and the message, I think in a way you could argue they have become the party by default of Antifa. And let's stop comparing by the way the Tea Party to Antifa as some on the left have stained to do. I heard that today.

Last time I checked the Tea Party was like dressed up like Betsy Ross and some -- they were gathering and debating about how to stop Obamacare and stop future bailouts, arguing about tarp. The Tea Party was interested in driving people to the polls in 2010, not driving people from the public square.

And now in the wake of these bomb mailings, it is amusing if not disturbing to watch the pied pipers of chaos, the fomenters of harassment try to flip the script.


DON LEMON, CNN HOST: All of you guys, I am so glad that we are here and alive today because we could have been mourning you guys.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC HOST: I do know in my heart that President Trump bears a lot of responsibility for rhetoric that made it almost inevitable that top Democrats and the media would be targeted.

WATERS: I think the president of the United States has been dog whispering to his constituency. I think that they are acting out that they believe the president wants them to do and the way that he wants them to act.


INGRAHAM: Is this is a woman who said, you know, basically go find them wherever they are, the gas station, restaurant, wherever they are in public. My friends we all remember what happened more than a year ago. June of 2017, when a Trump hating Bernie Sanders supporter and yes it was all verified.

James Hodgkinson, opened fire on a Republican baseball practice. There could have been 12 people killed and not one nearly killed, of course, Congressman Steve Scalise was. And when somebody came, remember, began looking for a political explanation for the shooting. Do you remember what Nancy Pelosi at that time said?


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: This sick individual does something despicable and it was horrible what he did, hateful. But for them to all of a sudden be sanctimonious as if they have never seen such a thing before. I think that the comments made by my Republican colleagues are outrageous, beneath the dignity of the job that they hold. How dare they say such a thing?


INGRAHAM: How dare anyone ascribe any type of connection to a nasty, horrible, criminal act with the tonality or atmospherics? In the aftermath of the Scalise shooting there was no examination of how Democratic rhetoric might have contributed to the violence. And there certainly were no apologies from the left. I don't think all that many people demanded apology.

But now, in a joint statement with Chuck Schumer, Pelosi is actually trying to blame the president for these suspicious packages. She said in a statement, "Time and time again, the President has condoned physical violence and divided Americans with his words and actions." OK, where was she last year when Maxine Waters -- she's now the queen to the left of speaker circuit (ph) -- was making threats like this?


WATERS: And with this kind of inspiration I will go and take Trump out tonight.



INGRAHAM: She was not talking about like out to dinner by the way. Now, this is like the moral outrage revealing what most Americans should already know. The left basically wants to impose what's tantamount to a college speech code or a college code of conduct on the rest of us where the left gets to speak, hate and pretty much do whatever they want with impunity.

But the rest of us have to watch every word, every emphasis. But I think the American people are smarter than the Democrats give them credit for. I think they see through attempts like this to limit speech and politicize the acts of a few lunatics. Here is what is really going on.

In the face of Kavanaugh, the caravan and the tightening polls, the Democrats and their press enablers are hoping that the horrific events of the last 480 to 72 hours will in some ways serve to stem the GOP's late surge. The public will suddenly look at them as, look at what you did, look at what you created.

And in order to do this, they will need to silence Donald Trump on the stump -- and it rhymes. They want distract voters and keep the great closer, which he is on script, force the president to be more like a conventional politician on the trail and less effective. Well, good luck with that. This cynical ploy will not work. Most Americans know real evil when they see it.

And they know what political opportunism is and that it can sometimes spring from that very evil. And that's The Angle. Joining me now, Jeffrey Lord is the contributing editor to the "American Spectator" and former aide to President Ronald Reagan, and with me in studio is Drew Litman, is a former chief of staff to former Democratic senator Al Franken.

Drew, I'll give you the first crack. Now, you heard Nancy Pelosi there in The Angle. It was an outright rage for Republicans to worry about the Democrat's demonization of Trump and Republicans and how could you do that, but in this case the script is flipped, is it?

DREW LITMAN, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF OF SEN. FRANKEN: Well, what is different here is that Donald Trump is president. He commands the military. You have mentioned he is the commander-in-chief as well as federal law enforcement. When he makes a threat, what sounds like a threat, it has a different kind of potency.

But even during the campaign, he urged his supporters at a rally to apply Second Amendment remedies to Hillary Clinton if she was elected. That could only mean shooting her. He also said that she ought to have her Secret Service detail pulled and we should see what happens. Clearly he contemplated some kind of physical danger for her. And now that --

INGRAHAM: So you actually -- you're saying tonight that you believe that Donald Trump wants physical harm to happen to Mrs. Clinton, really?

LITMAN: I believe that's what he expressed, yes. Do I think --

INGRAHAM: Do you actually -- I actually don't think Democrats want physical harm to come to Republicans, well, I mean some in the restaurants maybe want to provoke some, you know, reaction on (inaudible) someone who is like this close to your face and your child was next to you. You probably wouldn't say hi, want to sit down and join us. You'd probably pretty ticked off, wouldn't you.

LITMAN: I do completely.

INGRAHAM: Yes. So what people are trying to provoke a reaction, but Maxine Waters says go where they are, go to the gas station. Eric Holder said when they, you know, when they hit us, we kick them. Hillary Clinton, we can't be civil. Holding up a decapitated head of the president. Getting applause when you say F the president.

LITMAN: Cathy Griffin doesn't speak for the Democratic Party.

INGRAHAM: They are applauded. They are (inaudible) Maxine Waters goes to every awards show that I can think of and is basically the toast of the town after what she said (inaudible) somehow.

LITMAN: President Trump made her the toast of the town by singling her out for attacks. She is the only one out of 435 members of Congress to get one of these bombs in the mail. Do you think that's not because of the rhetoric President Trump uses? He abuses her at every rally. I think she's his favorite target.

INGRAHAM: Jeffrey Lord, your reaction?

JEFFREY LORD, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, THE AMERICAN SPECATOR: Well look, There is a climate of hate in the liberal media and all of it is directed at the president. You know, CNN and Jeff Zucker and I used to work there. My old boss, I still like him. I love and respect all of my former colleagues over there and (inaudible) they have been put through hell the last couple of days.

I would just say that running these constant chyrons (ph) and everything, blaming the president, inferring that the president was responsible for this. We have no idea who did this. Absolutely no idea whatsoever. And I would just say to them stop, stop, stop. Jeff, for god's sake stop this.

What is really dangerous about this, Laura, is Jeff's logic. And I want to read one sentence to you. This is from an Illinois paper. And the sentence -- it was a letter to the editor. And the sentence reads this way, "One of my favorite TV shows is the "Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC." The guy who wrote that, Laura, is the guy who shot Steve Scalise.

Now, words matter Jeff Zucker says and these other folks are saying. If words matter, what they are really saying that MSNBC and Rachel Maddow who are very anti-Trump are responsible for the Scalise shooting. That's just a bunch of hooey. That is very, very dangerous.

And I tell you, what is really bad about this is, god forbid that something happens to the president or Sarah Sanders or some member of this administration. This kind of argument will whirl around in a heartbeat and fingers will be pointed at CNN or MSNBC to try and lay the responsibility on them, and that is wrong.

INGRAHAM: Well, it's all an attempt to circumscribe speech. I mean, look, I really think more speech is better. Calling everybody -- when everybody is Hitler, nobody is Hitler. When everybody is racist, nobody is -- I mean, it demeans true evil and true evil intent. When you want physical harm to occur, to happen to someone, whoever mailed these things, whether they wanted those things to go off or not, some people are saying they didn't, this is an evil intent. We understand that. We know that.

LORD: Exactly right.

INGRAHAM: Connecting political speech --

LORD: Whoever does this is responsible.

INGRAHAM: Unless you are saying go hit them, or go -- I think it's a very dangerous territory people are walking into it here, but Jeff, you touched on this. Take a listen to what CNN's John King said today.


JOHN KING, CNN HOST: No one is blaming the president. Is anyone blaming the president? But the president now wants to make this about him.


INGRAHAM: Well, did you look down when he were talking, John? The lower third on the screen says, "CNN: Trump has no plan to claim any personal responsibility for inciting serial bomber." Here is another one. "Manhunt for serial bomber going after Trump's targets." Drew, is that defensible on CNN's part?

LITMAN: Perfectly defensible. The --

INGRAHAM: He said they are not blaming Trump. They are clearly blaming Trump in the lower third, otherwise known as the lower third chyron (ph).

LITMAN: I think they are not blaming Trump emphatically enough. These are Trump targets, the people he has sited. He refers to people as traitors. They've committed treason. They are enemies of the state. He offered to pay if his supporters would beat up protestors, having to pay their legal fees. That's very specific.

INGRAHAM: So when someone would equate -- actually I have a lot of respect for Rachel Maddow. I think she does a great show. I don't agree with her on anything, but -- and I say that -- people are probably going to hate me the fact that I said that, but I'm going to say that, OK. If I was a liberal I would watch Rachel Maddow.

But when you have someone like Maxine Waters saying go out and do this. When people repeatedly are calling Trump like Hitler. I mean, people, if they could have stopped Hitler, they would have. So you are saying that that has no connection to anything that would happen to a supporter of the president like Steve Scalise? Wouldn't happen to -- if something happened to the president, would you then connect those claims of Hitlerism to the assassination attempt? Would you do it both ways?

LITMAN: Are you suggesting that Steve Scalise was shot because of Democratic rhetoric? Is that what you're saying?

INGRAHAM: The president has repeatedly been called Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, pretty much every dictator rolled into one, on a continual loop inn left wing media of which James Hodgkinson devoured on a daily basis. So you think there is -- I'm saying, I actually agree you can't do that. You want to do it one way but not the other way, which is convenient, which is what THE ANGLE is about.

LITMAN: How did Republicans talk about Obama, remind me. Did they not say he was a dictator?

INGRAHAM: A dictator? Well, if he's exactly what a dictator, you're just - - it's idiotic, OK. People say idiotic things. The left used to be about free speech. The left now is about college speech code and circumscribing speech. Less speech or more speech? And by the way, I defended your former boss when they tried to throw him out. I was the one the few people on T.V. who said let the voters decide.

LITMAN: I appreciate that.

INGRAHAM: Not a lot of people did that. And he and I -- he's been really nasty to me and I actually defended him. Gentlemen, thank you much. As the Hoover Institution, Victor Davis Hanson writes, "we are reaching a tipping point of civil strife not seen maybe since the 1960's and it seems that the rules of discourse are being dictated in this case solely by the left.

Victor Davis Hanson is the author of "The Second World Wars" and he joins us now. Victor, you've been hearing the conversation. Your reaction to what you've heard so far tonight.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, AMERICAN HISTORIAN: Yes, I think Americans are just tired of this instant virtue signaling and wounded fawn victimization when we don't know any of the facts of this incident. And they want symmetry. There is no rule in the arena. We don't be what the relationship is between violent or edgy speech and violent acts.

We have been told -- and I agree with that. I believe in free speech, that there is no connection between James Hodgkinson shooting Steve Scalise necessarily and two years of the type of speech you played. If that's true, then there is no connection between Trump being sort of over the top in some of his rallies and this incident to what extent.

But that's not what we are getting. We are getting an asymmetrical idea that when progressives use edgy speech, it has no concrete ramifications. And when a conservative doesn't say nearly as much or as violent rhetoric, it does. I just don't think that's a proposition people can accept.

And if it were true, then you would see tomorrow just think of it, Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, they would just cease all of their violent speech, all of their rhetoric for the next two years because they have made the argument in the case of Trump, that it will lead to something.

But I don't think they will cease it. And if you do think that we need to curb our speech, there are ways to deter it. If you can say, you know what, you cannot imagine, promote, advocate the killing or the assassination of the president, cutting his head off, burning him up, blowing him off. We don't want that. And if -- you might have to take a time out.

You have a 90-day cooling off period and no fly list of flights. I think that would stop at tomorrow if you believed that was necessary or if you have somebody go to campus and you get physical. These are very elite people. They have trajectory, clear trajectories. They are quite ambitious  Maybe you could charge him with a felony or the people in the streets of Portland, and that would deter it if you wanted to do that. So, we have mechanisms to make the argument between violent edgy speech and violent acts. The problem is are your listeners --

INGRAHAM: Well, I want to give another example, Victor -- yes, I want to give some -- sorry to interrupt -- I want to give another example of some of the violent and edgy speech. Barack Obama when he came on the campaign trail, you know, magnetic speaker, you know, historic.

This is 2008. I remember this well. This was in Philadelphia June 13th. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I have seen Eagles fans."

Now, I know he doesn't really mean bring a gun to a fight, but again, if a conservative says something like that, it's how dare -- you are in the pocket of the NRA, how dare you say that? So like, no one -- everyone is like walking on a tinder hooks if you are on the right. But if you are on the left, cut his head off, get in their face, make Susan Collins cower in an elevator and then you get the hero's welcome at the next Grammy's.

HANSON: And that was very influential because Cory Booker channeled Barack Obama when he advocated people getting to use Barack Obama's words that he embraced. Get in their faces in a way that Eric Holder also talked about taking a gun to a knife fight. So influential but I agree with you, that didn't result in concrete actions.

INGRAHAM: Victor, we'll see you on radio tomorrow I hope. And up next, more on those devices sent to various Democrats around the country, and what they can tell us perhaps about the perpetrator. We are into the facts, next.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we are told by several officials that fortunately the devices they've been able to examine so far appear to have been poorly made. They apparently contained a number of flaws -- taped to the side an electrical circuit, apparently a timer though its exact function isn't yet understood, nor was it clear what was supposed to set the packages off.


INGRAHAM: Report tonight reveal that some of the suspected mail bombs addressed to high profile Democrat were simply not capable of exploding. The others have yet to be analyzed, but it is thought to that they will suffer from similar flaws.

So what might any of this tell us about the motive and perhaps the skill of the perpetrator? Has this been hyped or in the caution and the attention it's getting warranted? Joining us now to discuss is Danny Coulson, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI and was the lead agent investigating that horrific Oklahoma City bombing.

And Ryan Morris is an explosives training expert, founder off Tripwire Operation Group. Ryan, given your expertise in this filed, what can we take away from the fact that these devices appear at least to what we know now to be all duds?

RYAN MORRIS, EXPLOSIVES EXPERT: Well, Laura, I have 24 years as a police officer. I have been a bomb squad commander and a supervisor in explosive specialist with the Department of Homeland Security. I've looked at thousands of x-rays. And today, when I saw the x-ray that was put out to the media, immediately, people that worked with me every day at Tripwire, we looked at it and said there is no way any form or fashion, the x-ray that we looked at, that that device would function.

And then when we looked at the pictures that were put out there of the actual device itself, it looked very -- we term it Mickey Mouse. The device, it was very crude, you know, it's a PVC pipe. It's got a red and black wire. Very Hollywood, indicators like what would be in a Hollywood movie.

And then of course the timer, the digital timer that is present there. None of that would be, you know, what a real bomber would want to do if it was a real bomber, Laura, it would be somebody that's going to send a device through the main, that would be a victim actually and when it gets there, a timer is not an effective means of deployment.

INGRAHAM: Danny, Chris Cuomo said something a little bit different about what he considered to be this -- excuse me, Governor Cuomo, about this device. Let's watch.


GOV. ANDREW CUOMO, D-N.Y.: It is wrong to say in my opinion that these are fake bombs. There is a question as to whether or not the bombs were designed to detonate or to intimidate. The question is the motivation.



DANNY COULSON, FORMER FBI DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: That's laughable. Laura, I have commanded the Oklahoma bombing investigation and I have been to bomb school and I have been a victim of an IED. I know how these things work. And either this guy is the Alfred E. Neuman of bomb makers or he had no intention of these things going off.

As you other guest said, this looks like a movie prop. And then you have to get to the point of what then is the purpose? And I tend to believe that the purpose is not to hurt anybody because these things are not capable of injuring people and that's verified by the technician that examined them.

So then what is the story? I think it's theatre. I think it's definite theater and it's messaging. And I think that is the distinction here. It's almost a joke. It's not a joke because we take it seriously, but this thing is not a bomb. It doesn't have the components of a bomb.

No bomber that makes a bomb out of PVC pipe because it doesn't restrict the explosion, it causes it to accelerate and hurt people. So, it looks really like a movie prop. That whole thing is designed for theater. It's like a firebug that sets a fire so we can see the fire for trucks coming. It's almost like that or it's some kind of messaging. I think that's what we're going to find out once the FBI and ATF and the NYPD resolve this thing (inaudible) where we're going.

INGRAHAM: Danny, I was talking to a friend of mine who is always on the Israeli message boards. And he said, I guess the guys who do the stuff you guys do in Israel, we're just -- (inaudible) laughing. It was horrible and it scarce people but what you guys did, it just looks ridiculous.

Is there anyone who wants to do harm, does not construct something at this type of I guess, on of them said it looked like a flashlight connected with, you know, like a little baby alarm clock or something. It just looked absurd. So what does this tell us perhaps Danny about motivation other than I want to get attention?

COULSON: I think -- that's a great question. I think it's one of two things and I probably like going to be popular for saying this, but instead of sending a message to these people that we are watching you and we're coming after you and try to intimidate them. Or is maybe even possibly to create sympathy for them and I don't know where it's going to come out.

INGRAHAM: Ryan. I will just get Ryan -- sorry. let's get Ryan in on this. Ryan, motivation given as you guys describe, the kind of the prop-like quality -- Mickey Mouse quality of these devices?

MORRIS: The only thing there be would be to intimidate or to cause fear or panic initially here. These are not functional devices. They sent them all over the place. In my opinion as well, I agree with your other guest. These devices are just meant to intimidate or cause fear.

INGRAHAM: Well, but Chuck Todd -- I have reason to play this one sound bite guys. Chuck Todd on MSNBC said this today. It's really quick.


CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: I have this fear that it could be some Russian operation too, designed to do what is happening now.


INGRAHAM: Danny, Russians.


COULSON: The Russian make really good bombs, and most people I've dealt with in my career, they all make good bombs, too. This was not a bomb.  It's a fake. It's a prop. And the motive we'll find out. The FBI will find this guy. There is so much opportunity to collect evidence, and the fact that they have so many devices that are intact, they will take those devices apart and they will trace the components back to the guy who built it.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, thank you so much, fascinating stuff.

And could this be the end of the line for lawyer to the porn stars Michael Avenatti? A blistering criminal referral against him was just handed to DOJ by Senator Chuck Grassley. Details next.


INGRAHAM: A bombshell criminal referral dropped the Senate Judiciary Committee today, calls for a criminal investigation into the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh made by Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick.  Joining us to discuss the details is Fox News chief national correspondent Ed Henry. Ed, what is the latest tonight?

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Laura, good to see you.  More trouble for Michael Avenatti, starting with the fact that Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley is pressing the Justice Department to investigate whether he and his client Julie Swetnick conspired to provide false statements to Congress and tried to obstruct the Senate investigation during that confirmation battle over Justice Kavanaugh. Swetnick alleged without any corroborating evidence that Kavanaugh was involved in gang rapes during high school, but then gave varying accounts. Grassley declaring in the criminal referral to the attorney general Jeff Sessions and the FBI director Chris Wray, quote, "In the heat of partisan moments some do try to knowingly mislead the committee. That's unfair to my colleagues, the nominees, and others providing information who are seeking the truth. It stifles our ability to work on legitimate lines of inquiry.  We can't just brush aside potential violations. I don't take lightly making a referral of this nature, but ignoring this behavior will just invite more of it in the future."

In a brief interview today with Fox, Avenatti lashed out at Grassley, saying this is clearly political. And then he added this at a news conference in New York.


MICHAEL AVENATTI, ATTORNEY: We welcome the investigation requested by Senator Grassley who obviously has no idea what he has just done. What he has effectively done now is he has now opened a Pandora's Box. And my client and I are very much looking forward to a full and complete investigation.


HENRY: Though now some of the left appear to be turning on Avenatti and his dream of running for president. VanityFair.com running piece mocked the lawyer for suffering two setbacks this week, one a multimillion dollar judgment for failing to repay a debt to a former colleague, the other a court order evicting him from his Newport Beach offices after not paying rent for four months. "Vanity Fair" declaring, quote, "Both lawsuits suggest a downright Trumpian habit of racking up debts and evading responsibility when the bill came due." And interesting tweets basically attacking Grassley and Kavanaugh from Planned Parenthood Action and NARAL, which put together the same exact statement, declaring, quote, "We still believe Julie Swetnick" # believesurvivors. That led conservative to tweet back, what about believing alleged survivors of rape and sexual assault that have accused Democrats, like Juanita Broaddrick. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Thanks so much, Ed. And joining us now is former federal prosecutor John Lauro. John, thanks for being here tonight. You called this referral substantial. Tell us why.

JOHN LAURO, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It reads like a prosecution memo which really lays out a compelling case particularly against Ms. Swetnick.  And what Senator Grassley has done, he's very careful, by the way, and very thorough, but he lays out a case where she submitted an affidavit, and I have it here before me, where she makes very specific allegations that Brett Kavanaugh she became aware was involved in spiking punch, was involved in targeting vulnerable women, young women, and actually participating in gang rapes.

Now, that's what she submitted under oath, an affidavit. And then later she goes on TV and says, I really don't remember any of that, and thoroughly contradicts her affidavit. So what Grassley says is, listen, you can't submit a sworn statement to my committee and then go on TV and say something that's contradictory to that. That warrants an investigation of perjury and obstruction of justice. And frankly I read it. This is a compelling document. And I think the FBI and the Department of Justice is going to investigate this.

INGRAHAM: So John, the statutes involved, a number of them, false statements, 18-USC-1001, 18-USC-1505, obstruction of a Congressional investigation, and then 18-USC-371, it's a conspiracy. Obviously, the two of them working together, there we go, perhaps with others. There might be even more. This is just the very beginning of what we are seeing here.

And I think it's really important that Senator Grassley does this, John, because otherwise any nominee who they want to stop, it will just be, oh, I heard this. No, no, I remember this 25 years ago. And oh, yes -- and it's the worst, more horrible accusations, unsubstantiated. Why not? There is no price to be paid? I would go after this Feinstein leak, too. They should do a full and thorough investigation of Feinstein. And some of my friends were saying even some of the accusers in this case. Did Christine Ford tell the truth? I don't know. But a lot of friends of Kavanaugh are very upset about this and think there was a lot of lying going on.

LAURO: I couldn't agree more. And what Senator Grassley is saying is you have to have respect for the process. When you submit a sworn affidavit to my committee, I expect it to be truthful. And if it's not then you are going to suffer the penalties under criminal law. The other thing Avenatti refused to do was allow Swetnick to be investigated by the committee, and that very unusual if these allegations had some substance to them.

But essentially what Senator Grassley is saying is you can't lie and disrupt corruptly my committee proceedings. And by the way, if that rule of law is not maintained, then the whole process becomes a sham. So he's doing exactly what he needs to do to ensure that justice is done.

INGRAHAM: He is a showboating viper, if you ask me. Avenatti on with Kasie Hunt back on September 30th, he was also promising like that going out of business sale on the rug store, the oriental rug store, we're going out of business, we lost our lease, and then it never goes out of business.  He is always promising corroborating witnesses and they never occur. Why?


KASIE HUNT: Are you aware of any people or potential witnesses who were at this parties that could corroborate her story?

MICHAEL AVENATTI, ATTORNEY: Many. Many. Many witnesses. I have spoken to many witnesses. I have been clear for the last week that there are corroborating witness. We just didn't make this up out of whole cloth. I didn't just reach into the ether to find some woman to sign a false declaration.


INGRAHAM: Quick final thoughts, John?

LAURO: Not one corroborating witness and instead just a baseless accusation that almost destroyed a man's life.

INGRAHAM: All right, thanks so much. And John, we really appreciate it.

In last night's debate between Andrew Gillum and Ron DeSantis in Florida revealed a troubling truth. When in a jam, Democrats cry racism. Candace Owens explains.



REP. RON DESANTIS, R-FLA.: The question is, did you pay for the "Hamilton" ticket or did the undercover FBI agent pay for the "Hamilton" ticket?

ANDREW GILLUM, D-FLA.,  GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I'm a hard working person. I know that may not fit your description of what you think people like me do. But I worked hard for everything that I have gotten in my life, and I don't need anybody handing me anything for free.


INGRAHAM: And that exchange points to what has become an uncomfortable truth for some GOP candidates this cycle. If you criticize a Democrat you might just get tagged a racist. Is an honest debate even still possible?

Joining me now with her reaction, Candace Owens who is the communications director for Turning Point USA. Candace, do you see this as a convenient ploy. The left is doing it. Gillum obviously got in a big jam with this potential bribe of a real estate developer. The FBI was clearly surveilling him, and he was willing to take these tickets and other things.  That's the question. It has nothing to do with his race and what color skin he has.

CANDACE OWENS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TURNING POINT USA: I think when the argument is lost they result to ad hominem attacks. And here's what I don't like about this. I feel like it really reinforces the bigotry of low expectations for the black community, meaning apparently we can't win based off of our own merit. We can't win a race based off of our own ideas. So what are we going to do? We're going to cry victim. We're going to say that we are being attacked because of the color of our skin. It's nasty and it's negative and it's pointedly wrong. I also think it's a show of weakness from Andrew Gillum.

INGRAHAM: He is the new thing in the Democrat -- he's a new superstar. I think he is trying to be almost an Obama-type figure. He's kind of homespun, he gets on stage. And it's kind of charismatic.

OWENS: Right.

INGRAHAM: Except when you look at the state of Florida, Tallahassee in particular, Tallahassee is the real problem city. He's been running Tallahassee. And with DeSantis, if we want San Francisco to come to Florida, then yes. But you can't even say that, apparently.

OWENS: Right. If you want Venezuela to come to Florida. He is truly pushing a socialist platform right now which should terrify everybody. He thinks I'm going to be able to get away with this because I'm black and I'm willing to throw down the black card. The black card needs to be expired, needs to be ripped up. You win based on good ideas, not because of the color of your skin in this country.

INGRAHAM: Candace, you had a really interesting event today with Turning Point. I got to see the pictures that Donny Trump, I think it was Donny Trump, tweeted out tonight. What was going on today?

OWENS: We are having a massive young black leadership summit. All conservatives wearing MAGA hats, and the energy in that room, I can't even tell you. It's here.

INGRAHAM: I love it.

OWENS: You can't stop it. Black America is tired of being the victim that the left uses to gain power in this country. And we are here and showing up, and the president will address us tomorrow.

INGRAHAM: Wow, what time is that happening? I didn't' get any invitations. That's great.


OWENS: It's 11:00 a.m. And it's going to be at the White House, and I can't wait to hear what he has to say because this crowd is fired up.  They're shouting lock her up. It was something to be seen tonight.

INGRAHAM: There is not enough media coverage of interesting candidates.  There is a Republican Muslim candidate in California who is running, Omar Qudrat. I might be getting his name wrong, but it's a difficult race, but fascinating. Obviously John James running for Senate. John James, unbelievable veteran, incredibly smart, combat pilot. But it's like he doesn't exist. They don't know what to do.

OWENS: Because they think there is something proprietary about black people, so when black people deviate, and when I say that I'm referring to the left, when black people deviate from the way that they think we should think they try to ignore us and to shove us under the rug, but I think time's up on that. I'm calling time's up on that.

INGRAHAM: What about college campuses? I know Turning Point does an enormous amount to fan out to college campuses. This is something we have needed for so long. We have college conservative newspapers, even those have been under assault. What has been the reaction? I know sometimes you get stuff thrown at you, but it's a badge of honor, as long as it's not going to hurt you or anything. But what has been the reaction among especially minorities students when they talk to you, they see you, they meet you. You are nice. You're fun.

OWENS: In the beginning, last semester we were met with so much protesting. The entire game has changed. They are wearing MAGA hats, they are saying thank you. They're jumping up and mocking Beto for pretending to be Hispanic. We have a large Hispanic following. So something is working. They're starting to say. Maybe it's because Kanye West put on the MAGA hat and people are starting to pursue different ideas. But this country is changing, I am telling you. And I say this all the time. Black Americans have nothing to fear when Donald Trump said he is going to make America great. We are Americans too.

INGRAHAM: I think you are a weapon, you're a weapon in a good way. And I love it. I just love it. I love what you are doing. Thanks so much for being here. It's great having you in studio. I might crash your event tomorrow.

How do drug cartels operate inside caravans like the one we see approaching the U.S. border? Is it really happening? And what connection do they have to international terrorism? A former head of special ops for the DEA is here next. He has some shocking revelations. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: The Trump administration has come under fire for calling out the potentially dangerous members of that caravan making its way up through Mexico. There's another one on its way, too.

Since drug cartels control the illegal flow of nearly everything moving through Latin America, we want to know how they actually still might be influencing this caravan even though they say there is strength in numbers of people. Joining us is Derek Maltz. He's a former DEA special ops division head. And Derek, we really appreciate you being here. I've been waiting to talk to you. Is a caravan of this size a threat? It's described as this is just a sea of humanity wanting a better life, but what could be embedded in this caravan?

DEREK MALTZ, FORMER DEA SPECIAL OPS DIVISION HEAD: We have a national emergency right now, as far as I'm concerned, Laura. First of all, the terrorists are tapping into the criminal networks for funding. That's number one.A Drugs are generating $400 billion a year around the world.  And right now we have young kids dying from the poison every single day.  We have about every 11 minutes we have somebody dying from an opioid overdose, right.

So we have mass amounts of people coming into our country with disease, with crime, with drugs. And you know what, we have to put it to end it.  Thank God President Trump has stepped up and has sent the troops down there to kind of help us. Now, 11 years ago, we had a case against a very big arms trafficker. This particular guy wanted to get 100 passports for Middle Easterners. That's 11 years ago. These organizations don't just wait. They actually are planning to get people here in this country to do very bad things. That's the bottom line.

INGRAHAM: At one point they found 100 Bangladeshis -- most of those probably wanted work in the country, but they found Bangladeshis, even Somalis in the area where the caravan was gathering. When it's 4,000 people, maybe 5,000 people. That's a lot of people. If everybody at one time is approaching a border checkpoint, some of them will go through the regular port of entry, some will just walk across. But they basically get processed and released into the country after their coached, correct?  That's how it happens.

MALTZ: Exactly. And you look at El Salvador, you look at Guatemala, you look at Honduras. These are some of the most violent countries in the region.

INGRAHAM: That's why they say they want to leave.

MALTZ: Right, they want to leave, but they want to come here and they want our taxpayers to pay for their babies, pay for their food, pay for their college. And then all our kids and all the hardworking Americans have to pay the bill. And what about the diseases that are coming in from Africa?  What about some of these new TBs and all these different --

INGRAHAM: No one talks about the health implications. The financial implications are enormous. The health implications, I think the media, where is all the investigative reporting on all of these diseases that are just popping up? Kids are being paralyzed for bizarre reasons we don't even know. I am not saying it's immigration. We definitely have a TB problem. We also have Chagas disease, all sorts of other things. Chris Cuomo claimed that the border wall will not stop the cartels. Let's watch.


CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: I have had the unfortunate pleasure of spending way too much time south of the border covering the drug cartels. You have not. So let me tell you how it works down there largely. Tunnels, OK.  They also use planes. They also use huge cargo containers. So the idea you are a wall away from stopping the drug problem is also untrue.


INGRAHAM: What is your view on that?

MALTZ: My view is that the wall alone is not going to stop the drug cartels. They are a business enterprise that wants to make money. They are going to figure out ways to get the stuff into the country. They have tunnels. Chapo Guzman and Sinaloa Cartel was building tunnels many, many years ago.

But if there's a wall that they climb over or can't drive a car over, we are going to be able to prevent them from getting into this country like they are right now. Go talk to the farmers, Chris Cuomo, the border, go talk to the people that are on the border and these people are coming onto their property with weapons. And it's just like a free-for-all on our border. So the wall is definitely going to help but it's not alone going to solve the problem.

INGRAHAM: It's a slow it down, slow it down deal. It's great having you on. Come back soon.

MALTZ: Thank you. Any time.

INGRAHAM: And thanks for your service to this country. We'll be right back.

MALTZ: Thank you very much.


INGRAHAM: It's time for the last bite.

Today's news about Michael Avenatti, Julie Swetnick reminding us about an interview we had with Swetnick's ex, about three weeks ago. Let's take a look.


INGRAHAM: Did she ever discuss with you in your seven-year relationship, it was from 1994 to 2001, the issue of sexual assault, or did she mention even having been sexually assaulted?

RICHARD VINNECCY, JULIE SWETNICK'S EX-BOYFRIEND: Never, never, once she mentioned that to me. If I know -- if anybody knows Julie Swetnick, I know.  She is -- if you ask me, personally, if I believe her, I don't believe her.

INGRAHAM: That's all right. Michael Avenatti is going to fix the whole thing. That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team, take it from here. Shannon, who are you rooting for in the series? Who are you rooting for?

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.