terrorists. really gangsters. going to be interesting times. we will always be fair and balanced. we hope you will always join us. i have been saying it all week laura ingraham is back on monday. oh, laura ingraham is back and it's monday. by the way, welcome back we missed you. >> laura: sean, did anything happen while i was gone. boring? >> sean: haven't read anything about you. it's like have you been missing in action. >> laura: i'm glad i don't have a google alert on my own name. >> sean: laura ingraham. don't get comfortable laura ingraham will be back on monday. >> laura: thank you. awesome show tonight by the way. i wish i was back in the criminal defense lawyer league. this is great case to argue. sean, fantastic show. thank you so much. >> sean: have a good show. welcome back. >> laura: i'm laura ingraham and this the is ingle angle. another donald trump associate targeted. this time the president's personal attorney michael cohen. "the washington post" is reporting tonight that cohen

is being investigated for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations according to a person familiar with the case. among the many questions we have tonight, is this a major overreach or a sign that the president's attorney is in serious legal jeopardy? either way, i think we should all be concerned about the detailed leaks coming out of these investigations. and whether they are being strategically deployed to indame date those closest to the president or the president himself. i will more on this later in the hour. first, bullies on the left aiming to silence conservatives threes the focus of tonight's angle. nearly 30 years ago, dinesh dues wrote a book called a liberal education. it described in lured detail how on college campuses the american left had gone from championing free speech to

stifling it. conservative under reagan a potent force. a patriotic alternative to the malaise and pessimism of the 1970s. the fact kuehl at this and the administration of administration of campuses became dominated by liberals desperate to turn young minds away from reaganism in the america he represented. with these activists maintained, let's face it as inherently racist and sexist, because its founders were privileged white men. conservatives challenging the liberal orthodoxy on campus were sued, maligned, and they were maligned by students and professors alike. they were subject to disciplinary action and even physically threatened. the ultimate goal was to bully them into silence. of course, that effort failed. conservatives probably now see how naive it was to believe that this squelching

of free speech would end once they left campus. instead, the left's propaganda shaped a new generation of young adults who then pair routed that you will malarky about the patriarchy and microaggression and safe paces and safe spaces. today they use these terms as bludgeons to intimidate those who disagree with them from entering the dialogue at all. so for all their talk of inclusion, the left doesn't invite more voices to enter the public discussion. instead, they drive out any dissenting voice and police the dogma of their own creation. generations later, the chilling effect on free speech and the workplace in the media, and in society at large is palpable. we all feel it. and the situation may be worsening. a brookings institution survey was released last

fall of college student's attitudes towards free speech on campus was really depressing. the researchers asked do you agree with shouting down a controversial speaker who comes to campus? 51% of respond dents said yes. and democrats were far more likely than republicans to agree with stifling free speech on campus. 62 to 38%. and by the way, women were more likely than men to believe that so-called hate speech is not constitutionally protected. the numbers were 49 to 38%. and by the way. other data indicate that hostility to free expression is starting even earlier than college. meaning these kids are picking it up either at home or in high school, junior high or in both places. this, too, is super disheartening. it is critical that all of us, regardless of where we

fall on the ideological spectrum, recognize the perilous road that we are on. think about it if 40 to 50% of the country feels like their rights to free expression is less worthy of protection than that of any garden variety leftist? where does that leave our first amendment? as a shell of its former self is the answer. there is a contraction of free speech around us. few seem to even notice. many of you have become accustomed to editing yourselves. let's face it expressing views that just five or 10 years ago were considered mainstream can now get you fired. it can cause to you lose a promotion. or you could be branded a hater. or, yes, you can get boycotted. sadly, with people like christopher hitchens and matt hintoff gone.

there are a only a true liberals on the scene to exchange the vigorous exchange of ideas. >> i have been the victim of a boycott. >> i agree with you. >> i lost a job once. it is wrong. you shouldn't do this by team. it is the modern way of cutting off free speech. >> laura: and the goal posts by the way are forever moving. every day more issues are taken off the table all together and may longer be debated at all. so, in other words, if you are against affirmative action. you are a racist. and if you wear a make america great again hat to a gun control rally and get beaten up, well, don't expect a lot of sympathy from the attendees. and if you praise the military skill of robert e. lee, you are libel to be branded a defender of slavery in the "new york times." remember what happened during the campaign when someone left wing nut cases in san jose got their hands on a trump supporter? this is the intolerant left

in action. whether it's striking voices from social media, or driving certain viewpoints on the airwaves. beating people up, organizing boycotts, for perceived unforgivable offenses or preventing speakers from being heard on a college campus, it's all coming from the same place. a desperate desire to stop debate by branding your opponent unacceptable, and driving him or her from the public square. in just the past week, while i was on my easter break, we saw more examples of the totalitarian agenda in action. popular black conservatives diamond and silk noticed that their facebook fans weren't receiving notifications of the new content that they were posting. for months, they begged facebook for answers. well, on thursday, facebook officially informed them,

quote: the policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand have been determined unsafe to the community. well, they say they never informed about how their voidios or brand were unsafe for the community or even what the community is. but their fans are still not receiving notifications and facebook says there is no appeal. it feels like we're all, again, in college. that the speech police demand that you change your focus. change your tone. change the subject. or else. then there was conservative writer, kevin williamson. formerly a never trumper at national review. he was hired in march by the atlantic to great fanfare. well, that all changed last wednesday when the soros funded media matters doug up an old podcast where williamson described abortion as homicide.

and he suggested that it should be treated like any other crime, up to and including hanging. that's pretty rough stuff but so is abortion. the atlantic editor jeffrey goldberg announced that they were parting ways with williamson because, quote: the language used in the podcast was callus and violent. this runs contrary to the atlantic's tradition of respectful, well-reasoned debate and to the values of our workplace. of course, millions of americans believe that abortion itself is callus and violent. most obviously to the innocent life it destroys. nevertheless, another non-liberal voice was snuffed out at yet another esteemed publication. my friends, something alarm something taking place. the free speech clause of our constitution doesn't just apply speech that the elites deem acceptable. it is exists to support

speech that is by its nature offensive. offensive to people in power offensive at times to lawmakers. offensive to facebook, and even offensive to the cool crowd that thinks abortion is just a sacred right and that trump himself is a dangerous dictator. we indeed are reaching a crisis point. where cultural walls have now being erected to conscript and steal free speech in america. we cannot let this continue. at the end of tonight's show, i'm going to be announcing my response to this dangerous epidemic and what this show will do in the coming weeks to expose the perpetrators, their tactics, their major players, and their funders. their efforts are stalinist, pure and simple. their objective is a total transformation of american society, not through rational discourse and open

debate, but through personal demonization and silencing. true liberals and conservatives should defend the free speech anywhere and everywhere because the everywhere because the tables can turn quickly. today it's conservatives being targeted. tomorrow it could be left of center voices as well. i say let the debate continue. what the speech czars don't seem to appreciate is that there are as many if not more of us than there are of them. and we will never relent. and we will never give in. never. and that the the angle. joining us now for reaction by skype, are the aforementioned diamond and silk. it's great to see you ladies. how are you doing? >> well, we are doing wonderful.

we hope you are doing well. >> yes, nice to see you back. >> laura: nice to see you. all right. let's start with you diamond, facebook and diamond and silk. you guys have had an interesting relationship over the past several weeks or even months given the fact that you discovered that your messages were suddenly not getting out to your followers. you know facebook has had a response to this. but, first, tell us what happened and how you noticed it. >> well, back in september of 2017 we noticed all of our engagement had stopped. >> um-huh. >> we reached out to facebook continuously and they kept giving us the run around, nothing is wrong with your page. there is nothing wrong with it. well, we don't know and we got to reach back out to our team. it was a back and forth, and back and forth. finally the straw was the other day when they wrote and they said that they deemed our content and our

brand unsafe to the community. >> that's right. >> we are the brand. >> we the brand. >> two chicks down with politics that love our president, that love our country. you know, we the women that's behind all of this here right here. >> that's right. >> what you said is when you say that you deem us unsafe to the community, what you are say something that we are -- we are -- >> a danger. >> a danger to our community. >> yes. >> that's what you are saying? i mean, i don't get that it's offensive. it's appalling. i look at this as discrimination. i look look at this as freedom of speech. you are censuring our voice voices. >> laura: silc, isn't it the case that facebook didn't want your post to reach your followers is because you are black, you are conservative, you support trump, and you tell it like it is and you call it as you see it that's offensive to the left. because they want to see you

lens people like you, both you, diamond and silk, doesn't matter if it was just silk or diamond or diamond and silk, they do not want you to reach people. i'm sorry and i'm going to say it until i'm blue in the face. >> say it. >> laura: they are afraid of both of you. they don't want your views out. >> we are what you call double threat. they do not want that because we do not fit their status quo or their narrative. you know, with us being black people, democrats are so used to black people being on what we call the democrat plantation. you are supposed to play by our rules. you are not supposed to have much. so that you depend on the government and we will give you what we want you to have so that we can control you. but diamond and silk, we can speak for ourselves. >> right. >> we have our own mind. >> um-huh. >> we don't listen to their negative narratives that they are trying to spin over there on the left. we have our own eyes, 8 of them, to speak for ourself what's really going on behind the scenes.

we see the corruption that's going on in washington and we that's why we voted for donald trump who is now the president. they try to deem us as dumb as ignorant and as uneducated. oh, honey, we are very smart. >> um-huh. >> we see right through all of their b.s. >> that's right. >> laura: let me read what facebook originally said on april 5th. the policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community okay. again, i don't know what community they are talking about or how it's unsafe neither do either of you. but now because of all the pressure, drudge had this up all day long, you guys have mobilized all your followers. my followers were mobilized and our viewers last week as well. and facebook said this: we have communicated directly with diamond and silk about this issue. the message they received last week was inaccurate and not reflective of the way we communicate with our community and the people who run pages on our platform.

we have provided them with more information about our policies and the tools that are politi applicable to their e and look forward to the opportunity to speak with them, that according to a facebook spokesperson. ladies, i don't know what that jib gibberish is. >> they never communicate towsd. the last communication we got was they deemed us unsafe for the community. they have not reached out to us. they have not communicated with us. this sounds like a white lie. i don't like white lies. if you are going to tell it, tell the truth or go somewhere and sit down. >> that's right. >> they did not communicate with us. >> they said they did. they said we have communicated with diamond and silk about this issue. >> they did not. >> i was not conversated with anybody. >> we have been flying back from pittsburgh, pennsylvania here to north carolina so we could be on the show tonight. nobody has communicated with diamond and silk. so that is a lie.

>> that's a lie. >> they are putting out there. >> that's a lie. >> laura: by the way we have a list of left wing groups that have not been deemed unacceptable antifa, those lovely people. the young turks never profane. planned parenthood, no violence there. occupy democrats, have no idea what it is. the political resistance against donald trump. all of those groups are okay according to facebook. all right. so you are more of a threat to the community than antifa? are you kidding me? >?that's embarrassing. zuckerberg better be asked questions about this. billionaire's boys club asked questions about diamond and silk. >> embarrassing. and defamation of our character. we are not a danger of society. we ain't never killed nobody. we don't do no drugs. we aren't out in the street. we are just trying to help america. >> laura: you are dangerous because you challenge the liberal orthodoxy that if

you are not a trump hater, and if you are an african-american, then there has got to be something wrong with you. they did it -- they do it to tom sol. they do it to clarence thomas. anyone who is black that doesn't toe the line they want to demon nice and marginalize. they are trying to do it through mega corporations. it's not good business for them. it's not smart. ladies, do you think this will be addressed tomorrow? >> i hope it's addressed tomorrow. >> yeah. >> i hope zuckerberg tells the truth. >> that's right. >> tell them how you put these algorithms in place to see you lent conservative voices. >> that's right. >> let them know how you made a mistake and how you plan to correct them. not only on our platform but every conservative that you silence, you need to correct that immediately. >> yes. >> an even playing field. i don't want to care you are private but opened to the public, baby. >> that's right. >> it's got to be fair on each side.

>> yeah. >> laura: all i can say is i hung out what you little bit on election night, i have got to come down there and hang out with you guys. you guys put me in a good mood. i thank god for skype. thanks so much for coming on and we'll keep following this and we have more updates on this as the show goes on. thank you so much, ladies u and more on the shocking fbi raid on president trump's personal lawyer. you are not going to believe this story next.

porn star stormy daniels. get. this the feds reportedly got the search warrant after receiving a referral from special counsel bob mueller. the president responding forcefully earlier today. >> we just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys, good man. and it's a disgraceful situation. it's a total witch-hunt. we are talking about a lot of serious things with the greatest fighting force ever. and i have this witch-hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now. and actually much more than that you could say it was right after i won the nomination it started. this is the most biased group of people. these people have the biggest conflicts of interest i have ever seen. >> laura: back to my question at the top. is this a major overreach or a strong sign that trump is' attorney is in serious legal

jeopardy? a whole lot to unpack here. let's bring in former independent council during the bill clinton sol wisenburg and rnc committee women for california and former secret service officer, nratv contributor dan bongino. let's get with you, sol, to raid an attorney's office, home, and temporary hotel room, talk about the threshold in order to justify that type of raid. >> there is an extraordinarily aggressive prosecution move. this is controlled by the u.s. attorney's manual, laura. you are only supposed to do it if less intrusive means like a subpoena are not available or won't work. you have to go to not only the u.s. attorney, the u.s. attorney in your district, that would be new york city. but you have to consult with

the criminal division. then there are all kinds of rules you have to follow having to do with review of the material. i can tell you this is very unusual and it's even more unusual to my understanding from the reports were they specifically were looking for some communications between president trump and his attorney. that makes it even rarer. and to do it when the attorney is the attorney for the president of the united states is quite amazing. now, it's too early for us to tell, you know, whether it's right or wrong or valid, but i can tell you it is outstandingly aggressive. >> laura: dan, the president was just on fire about this today. i mean, i don't think i have seen him that mad publicly for what he said was a witch-hunt. a disgrace, he repeated his frustration with jeff sessions, the attorney general. your take on this? >> well, laura, you know, you opened up the show michael cohen in legal jeopardy?

let me answer you, laura, we would all be legal jeopardy if bob mueller was after us. mother teresa would be in legal jeopardy if bob mueller was after us. the federal criminal code. we are all federal criminals. i promise somebody paid a penny less in taxes and is a federal criminal. no matter how good you are. this is a scam this case is a complete total witch-hunt. think about the double standard. they raided donald trump's actual attorney. his personal attorney's office to go and get office. yet when hillary clinton interviewed her staff who went to law school but wasn't her attorney, sat in as her attorney so they could wink and nod at each other, she was also a potential co-conspirator, cheryl mills, and they were allowed to keep evidence from the fbi. the computers after they looked at them. if not not a double standard. you know, justice isn't blind, it's dead now and really sad that's happening. >> laura: harmid, we were trying to look for instances

where the lawyers monday. had their offices raided. dan is expressing this frustration, unreal to have the feds go in and seize a whole bunch of documents with apparently a clean team, you know, separate the privilege material out. but boy, talk about chilling a relationship between a client and his or her lawyer. if this is what the feds need to do, to get the goods on someone. your reaction as a practicing civil rights attorney? >> laura, this is outrageous and unprecedented. i said it on your show before. conservatives haven't paid enough to the rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment of the constitution and to seize any attorney's communications with his client are outrageous. i can tell you as a lawyer who handles trade secret cases sometimes. you go to the u.s. attorney's office. did you go to the fbi and report it, it's hard to get their attention, is he learn i don't act as quickly as. this they are giving extraordinary attention to this. the timing of this is not accidental as the other guests have mentioned. i think that the fact that the ig's report is coming

out soon, the fbi, that may guarantee scrutiny. maybe this team wants to distract away from that the other thing is the president is exposed right now because is he missing one of his lawyers and he has been looking to hire new counsel. who wants to be the lawyer who has their life disrupted because they happen to represent a client and whether it's the president or notment. >> laura: great point. >> who is in the crosshairs of the fbi. this is a chilling effect. this is the same field office of the fbi and the same u.s. attorney's office that didn't lift a finger and didn't do a thing on the clinton foundation with almost billion dollars foreign money pouring through there the double standard is staggering. this is potentially a constitutional crisis being set up here. unprecedented. never seen anything like it. >> laura: i have never seen anything like it. been around here a long time. attorney, sol, the president today, i have known him for quite some time. i want to play a sound bite from what he said, cameras rolled in.

let's watch. the attorney general made a terrible mistake when he did this and when he recused himself or he should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself. and we would have used a -- put a different attorney general in. so he made what i consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country you and yet the other side do not even bother looking. and the other side is where there are crimes. and those crimes are obvious. >> laura: again, talking about the double standard. sol, he seems to be reportedly more angry at sessions and rod rosenstein than he is at mueller. i mean, mueller is just special counsel trying to find crimes or evidence of crimes. pushing the envelope. but he will not let go jeff sessions, both appointing rosenstein i think and then recusing himself from this whole matter. >> well, i don't think those comments make much sense. remember, what mueller did

here and i agree, it's extraordinarily aggressive. we don't know what it's outrageous or not. and what mueller did here, according to these reports, he did was to go to rosenstein and say we have found something here. who do you want to handle it? and rosenstein said you're not going to handle it, i'm going to give it to the office with jurisdiction. i don't think there is any indication that mueller did anything improper unless you think if he stumbles across something that looks like a crime he should forget about it and not telling anybody about it it's very aggressive, yes. it's not totally unprecedented. it's extremely aggressive. we don't know if it's outrageous yet. laura, you know, they had to go to a judge and had to say to a judge. >> laura: we don't know what judge, do we? do we know what judge signed off on the warrant. >> they had to go to a magistrate and say not only is this probable cause of a crime and by the way there is no fourth amendment violation here. and there are no special rules for attorneys under the fourth amendment. but they had this almost certainly would have had to have said crime fraud

exception applies or they wouldn't have been able to explicitly look at communications between mike cohen and president trump. so, they will be judged. if they ended up lying in an affidavit to a federal magistrate, they know this is a very serious thing. >> laura: what is the recourse for president trump if he overstepped the line and this is what harmid was getting to, i think. if he overstepped the line and maybe they had probable cause i guess to believe that michael cohen was shredding documents. so the subpoena wasn't going to have to work. so they had to go do the raid, i don't know. there is no recourse here in the political context. i think that's the point. that's what makes this case even more difficult. >> there is even less recourse now because it's being conducted not by mueller, who he can fire but by the southern district in new york. his own. >> laura: bingo. >> own presumptive appointee in there even harder for him to do anything about it now. >> laura: 10 seconds each. dan and harmid. dan first and then harmid.

>> sol, i love your commentary you are always lucid on these topics but you are wrong. this is about principle. they are not targeting a crime here, they are targeting trump. this was started to investigate russian collusion that never happened. everyone on this panel would be a criminal if they were targeting you instead of a crime. >> laura: harmeet? >> i pay my taxes. >> the president needs to look a little closer to home. he has had a lot of bad advice from the beginning administration legal issues and legal appointments. i think this whole is an example of that. >> laura: where is chris christie when you need him. my response to the targeting of conservative and traditional voices in america. you don't want to miss that plus, the women's march is coming to the defense of a site that was shut down today for sex trafficking. you will not believe this. i kid you not. stay there.

pretty hard to defend that. right in well apparently not for the women's march organization which tweeted out saturday, quote: h the shutting down of back page is absolute crisis for sex workers who rely on the site to safely get in touch with clients. sex workers' rights are

women's rights. i would like to say that's a joke but it's not. joining me now with reaction is elizabeth rollen brown and associate editor at reason.com. all right, elizabeth, i look at this issue and i see sadness, okay. i'm sad for a lot of women who believe there is no other way to get by except to sell themselves, to, you know, commify themselves. young people sucked into ads that say come for modeling opportunity and the next thing they know they are in hotel room with some sweaty fat guy sitting on a bed. and, i think of those scenarios. but you defend back page as an organization or a business that provides, what? >> well, i think it's important for with what you just said you don't have to like prostitution or necessarily say that everybody in it is empowered or everybody in it is, you

know, like they are out of this amazing choice that they're making to think that there are better and worse circumstances in which they could be working back page is one of these tools that enables, like digital tools allows people to work in safe conditions and screen clients and do a lot of things that actually keeps them safe. >> laura: keeps them safe? >> yeah. >> laura: have you read any of the 93-count indictment? >> i have read all of it and i like to point out that none of it -- they are not charged at all with sex trafficking and there has been a massive congressional investigation. there has been a doj investigation. nobody has charged them with sex trafficking. it's money laundering and conspiracy. >> laura: let's talk turkey here, the guys that are behind back page.com. by the way no women in charge, it's all men. do you think what they are really worried about is the advancement of women's causes? because this segment began by the women's march gals or gal tweeting out, can you

say gal anymore or is that something we can't say? okay, so we can say gal. a woman is saying that sex workers' rights are women's rights. are we actually saying that this is the advancement of women's rights in the united states to subject yourself to the fantasies, the twisted fantasies of men who go on some website and say i will pick out the 17-year-old or the 19-year-old with blonde hair? or red hair because i like redheads? that's what gloria steinem was all about and that's what betty fradan was all about. >> neither of them are my rights. sex rights or workers rights are to say if adult women are consensually making that choice that he that we shouldn't have the government taking it away from them. i don't want to stick up necessarily for the women's march. i have been watching the past few statements and talking about overreach and fbi bias and overreach.

important oput that in context the way they have targeted back page and the way they have startinged people behind it and scapegoated them. and starting in the obama era they started doing. this it's not exactly the situation has been made out to be. >> laura: do you think women are ever ensnared by these types of ads? many of them sanitized. we know how they sanitize, they slightly. >> laura: elizabeth, let me finish a sentence. they slightly changes out sentence to make it look less like prostitution or we like young ones. we don't like the older ones, over age 25. do you think that women ever ever ensnared in this? do you concern yourself? i think one woman or teen, 17, gets ensnared in this, i say shut it down. i i don't care about a woman who is 2540 wants t 25 who wantl her body for $100 a trick. i'm worried about the girls involved in this. how is that advancing women's rights.

>> i do care about those women, too. let's talk about those girls. you know, they are -- back page cooperates with the national center for exploited children and cooperates turns over things. if they go to the streets, if they go to encrypted sites and dark web they will not be able to find them. those girls will be worse off. >> laura: they are going to be worse off -- have you seen -- do we have the pictures of these lovelies that were indicted? >> pictures -- laura, that doesn't. >> these men are protecting women? they are 67 and 68-year-old men. >> that doesn't stop the fact that people. >> disgusted. >> porn servers go. >> never win by the way. >> never going to find these girls. never find them that way. >> laura: never win. this is a debate why libertarians can never win elections. speaking of elections. and sorry, elizabeth. frank luntz, you never know what you are going to get on the ingraham angle.

>> i thought you were going to ask me questions about that. >> laura: i didn't prepare for. this i'm on the wrong network. >> laura: speaking of elections. good segue way to you. let's talk about where we are going for the midterm election cycle. you studied voting booths. midterm are usually brutal for the party in power start with the house of representatives. what do you think. >> challenge for the g.o.p. is three hold. one, the public does not know what they have done. number two they do not know where they're going. number three they don't have a justification for why to put them there. i made a comment on fox yesterday that if the election were held today republicans would lose the house. i firmly believe that i want to respond. rush limbaugh picked up on that. this ♪ just based on polling and focus groups. if you go across the country. >> laura: those were wrong in 2016, terribly wrong. >> and they have been wrong in other places they were right in 1994, they were right in 2006, and they were right in 2010 on wave

elections they were correct. that's what we have got right now. >> laura: 2016 was a wave election. it was a populist wave. >> it was different because did you not have one party winning everything. >> laura: yeah. >> i think the senate is in jeopardy for the g.o.p. as well for the same reason. have you got low turnout for g.o.p., for republicans. you have democrats nor activated than they have been for no reason other than to send a message to donald trump and, third, it's that a generic ballot democrats have a 7 point advantage. >> laura: they have tightened that went to six now. up 7 and a half. let's move to the senate for a second. you know, the house -- probably going to lose the house. which would not be great. but the senate 35 races. democrats have to defend 26. republicans only have to defend 9 you have to flip two to democrat to win the majority in the senate. however, "new york times" had to concede today, frank, that impeachment mania may

drive those trump voters back to the polls to say you are not going to undo a presidential election. is there a concern for democrats there. >> they have always gone too far. best example was enron. the democrats ha 10, 11 point advantage in 2002. they went into the election thinking they had it. enron was exploding. people lost a lot of money. but the public sees if think think that a politician is using a crisis for their own personal advantage, they will vote against them. the democrats are pushing too far. second, is that nancy pelosi has never been anyone's dream idea of speaker. as long as she stays at democrat leader, the republicans still piatt null thing out. >> laura: couple things the president could do to affect the election. all politics are local. mid terms. the economy is doing well. consumer confidence sip. small business confidence is up. african-american employment, latino employment. all doing better. no doubt about that. what other things could he

do? obviously we have the mueller variable out there. >> i say all politics are personal. have you more money in your paycheck. have you more opportunity. you are moving from jobs to careers. and that this is being spread all across the country. if the president focuses on the economy, he can bring the republicans over the finish line. but if he gets involved. >> laura: how about syria? somehow sorry i can't going to help? i know it's a difficult issue. i think syria sucking us back into syria, i don't think the voters voted for that at all. democrats or republicans. >> they want economic security, personal security, national security, and if you -- if the republicans can deliver to them they can still win. it's not over. it's six months to go. if the election were held today, they have the advantage. >> laura: warning signs up. frank, thank you. president trump was ridiculed last week for bringing up the existence of a caravan moving through mexico to the u.s. border. we will show you why he was right next.

let's see why people everywhere are upgrading their water filter to zerowater. start with water that has a lot of dissolved solids. pour it through brita's two-stage filter. dissolved solids remain? what if we filter it over and over? (sighing) oh dear. thank goodness zerowater's five-stage filter gets to all zeroes the first time. so, maybe it's time to upgrade. get more out of your water. get zerowater.

over 1,000 central americans making their way through mexico to the united states. >> he has no idea what he is talking about. he precisely said that these caravans, first of all, there are no caravans. >> he is always trying to create a crisis. and only in the areas that he wants to be able to have his messaging around. and it is always attacks on communities of color. >> he also cynically calls these caravans of people making this sound like our country is going to soon be under attack. he even said our country is stolen. that is a cynical dog whistle. >> laura: aren't we tired of the phrase dog whistle? but cnn actually interviewed some of the migrants, where they couldn't be clearer about their ultimate goal.

who will stay in mexico? [speaking spanish] so these are the people who say that they will be going to the united states. >> laura: joining me now for reaction are two men who know a thing or two about border enforcement. border patrol union president daniel judd and art who is head of the border patrol union's tucson branch. gentlemen, it's great to see you. art, let's start with you. the president calls this out. you saw those southbound bites. we could have played an hour's worth of sound bites demonizing him for what he said. he was right. their aim is for the united states. their goal is to bus through the borders and claim humanitarian crisis. your reaction to that this. >> it's sickening to see individuals that don't get it you know, we are grateful for the president and we are grateful for you to really put a voice out there so supreme can understand. reality is sickening to hear people say those things.

we are grateful that the president has taken a command decision and is bringing the national guard to assist us. that is a huge, huge step. and we are very grateful for that i know he has been criticized for that also. >>s that what we need. it's amazing that you have these individuals from central america breaking mexican immigration laws. coming through there. through their country. i don't see mexico doing anything about it. >> laura: right. >> they fully know they are coming in here. what else would you call it? it's invasion of our country and our rights. it's dec despicable. >> laura: americans think how far would they get if they were in a caravan bus, whatever we want to call it, and we're like kind of rolling through, you know, we decide we're going to just breach the border of another country. and then we expect, you know, sympathy, we expect instant residency. other countries just laugh at you. this is not how it works anywhere in the world. yet, in the united states, it's supposed to be, you know, put the welcome matt

for anyone who says i have a right to be there. and now it's time for the -- it's time for the national guard. it's time to get serious about this. we have been talking about, this all of us, the three of us have been talking about this for years. >> yes. >> laura: finally we have a president to do something about this. >> we become the laughing stock when we do not enforce the laws that are on the books. if we don't enforce the laws, then people are going to break the laws. if they don't fear breaking the laws, they are going to do it. what really upsets he is that president trump disrupted the entire establishment when he won. nobody expected him to win the election. and every single time that something good is happening, the national guard going to the border. we're going to secure the border, then something else comes out, such as they raid his attorney's office. this is the establishment going after an individual. instead of touting the accomplishments that he is making. allowing us to secure the border once and for all. protecting the american public.

and getting done what the american public has demanded be done for years. >> laura: i can't tell you how many times individuals have come up to me during my travels and say we're the united states of america, we can't enforce our own border? that's insanity. by the way, brian sandoval, republican governor of nevada says no national guard troops in his state. governor moon beam in california, we haven't heard from him yet. he hasn't beamed up no. response from him. other governors said they will comply. montana governor bullock, gentlemen, said he will not be sending any of his national guard troops because of the president's twitter habit whims. so we will be continuing to cover this and we will rely on both of you to help us through all of this. so, thank you so much. and continuing our theme from tonight's angle, up next, a conservative professor suspended over a blog post. he is going to be here to tell us the frightening tale of how conservative speech

on campus is being suppressed. but, boy, is he fighting back. stay there.

>> laura: as i mentioned in the an gel, conservative speech is under assault. and one of the starkest examples is that marquette university is a private catholic school in milwaukee. political science professor

john mcadams was suspended and has been since 2014 when he chastised a graduate instructor named cheryl abbott e. why she told a student she would not tolerate dissent on the topic of same sex marriage on the class on ethics. legal trite suspend him because he opened her up to threats by criticizing her by name. the case is now headed to wisconsin supreme court. joining us now to explain further is professor mcadams himself. professor, you have taught for 30 years at marquette. and as a catholic institution and, yet, thin structure berated a student who said basically not all of us agree on your view on same sex marriage. tell us. >> that's right. it seemed eye rope nic because marquette claims to be a catholic institution. a lot of your viewers know a lot of institutions claim to

be catholic but they are secular and politically correct. >> laura: didn't they demand that you prostrate yourself basically and apologize for this supposed wrongdoing in your blog post where you said we are basically hardly a university if this is what we are like, if we don't tolerate any dissent. and you refused, is that right, to apologize, sir? >> that's correct. they told me that they would reinstate me if i apologized and promised to conform to marquette's supposed guiding values promise to do it. i think i'm more loyal to marquette's guiding values than the administration of marquette university. of course this is stalinist stuff. i'm not going to apologize. >> laura: 130 years have passed and unless our research is wrong, not a single professor has lost tenure. 130 years. but, boy, i guess you are a big threat, professor. because you actually decided to post a blog.

>> yeah, it's ironic, professors have lost tenure but it had to be something like stealing money from research funds or raping a student. something like that. no professor that anyone knows about has ever been fired or even suspended for a blog post. >> laura: do you feel bad about hurting the feelings of this particular student instructor? i guess she got a deal on her tuition? >> well, i think it's unfortunate that she got some really nasty emails, although she had gotten no threats. marquette has claimed she got threats. she admitted in one of her open blog posts that she had gotten no threats. that wasn't good. on the other hand, anybody's whose misconduct revealed by a journalist might get some unkind responses.

>> laura: that's for sure, professor. i have been on the receiving end of that we will follow your case. i know the argue. is coming up in just about 10 days or. so thank you so much for giving us your perspective on this fight at marquette. my friends, we'll be right back with a preview of a new ingraham angle series. stay tuned ♪

>> laura: a promise taylor response tonight to what we have been discussing throughout the show, the left killing free speech and silencing voices, intimidation and time times slander. our founders warned about the dangers of limiting speech. ben franklin wrote, "whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. and yet, here we are. as we have seen throughout the show, when individuals say things that are uncomfortable for the secular left, they aren't challenged or debated. they are branded, demonized, and sometimes evicted altogether

from the public square. that is not the american way. we are winning the war of ideas on immigration, the economy, life, trade, and yes, political correctness, which is why we are seeing the left-wing retaliatory hit squad popping up everywhere. today in academia, and hollywood, and in the media, the left will brook no dissent, and they will militantly police the borders of their stale orthodox orthodoxy. well, we are not going to stand for this. so tonight, i am announcing a new recurring series on "the ingraham angle." it's called "defending the first," where we will expose the enemies of the first amendment, of free expression, and every thought, while showcasing those brave voices making a differenc. if you have been subjected to threats or intimidation because of your speech, i want to know about it.

tweet me because without free speech and a free conscience, we are not truly a free people. we are not afraid to debate ideas here. we relish a vigorous debate. they run from it. good luck with that. shannon bream and the "fox news @ night" crew is up next. until tomorrow, good night from washington. good to be back. >> shannon: welcome back, laura. great to have you back with us in d.c. great show. i'm shannon bream in washington. we start with a fox news alert. president trump promising to make a major decision tonight or very shortly thereafter on syria after another suspected poison gas attack. we are following the latest developments on syria as the president huddles with his top military advisors, along with former u.n. ambassador john bolton, his very first day as the new national security advisor. at the same time, mr. trump is calling an fbi raid on his personal attorney and "attack in our country," pushing back hard on what he calls a disgrac