the most watched show in cable news. again for the month of april. the first quarter of this year. thank you. we'll always be fair and balanced, we'll work hard every night. that's our promise. let not your heart be troubled. look who is next. laura ingraham. i got my football again. we'll try it differently tonight. how are you. >> i'm good. by the way, i have every dvr at my house set to hannity. i hope i helped the ratings. what am i chopped deliver? we're all doing well. >> you're doing great i just kidding. >> i'm just kidding. we're all great. one for all and all for one. >> the press, i have had so much baloney negative press. if i don't do it nobody else will. >> that's true. they're not going to write any articles about either of us. >> we don't get to do this without this audience. >> no. >> you know what? thank them all because frankly this country needs this channel more than ever in my

opinion. >> well, i could not agree more, and that's enough of our talking about ourselves. throw me the football. >> wait a minute. have a great night. bye. >> awesome. good evening from washington. someone throw me a real football tomorrow night. i'm laura ingraham and this is the ingraham angle. the burning question in washington, who leaked that list of mueller questions for trump? we look at who stands to gain the most, and a wild story out in california. kanye west gets a very public threat, physical threat, for supporting donald trump. the group behind the intimidation efforts will shock you. plus, nra officials are also getting peppered with vile death threats. oh, that's nice. how sweet. we debate an under reported story, why the anti-gun crowd is so prone to threaten violence but first, corruption, collusion, cash, and the caravan. that's the focus of tonight's

angle. you have seen these photos. well, the current situation at our southern border, is completely out of hand. that caravan of central american migrants that started at a thousand strong, is now down to about 200 people or so, and many of them are camped out at just a stone's throw from the u.s. customs check point. now, as we have been reporting, the aliens are being coached in some cases, by american lawyers, traveling to the caravan, and telling them how to qualify for asylum. this undoubtedly infuriates many of you, who would also love free legal advice. wouldn't that be nice? the president as well is totally fed up. he tweeted this week the migrant caravan that is openly defying our border shows how weak and ineffective u.s. immigration laws are. i'll say. well, yesterday, u.s. customs officials allowed eight

members of the caravan into the country to process their a sue lum -- their asylum claims. today, another 17 were allowed in. the acting director of immigration customs enforcement, tom holman, described the situation on fox and friends this morning. >> i think it's an attack on the suspect. orevernity of the nation. do i think some have a fear case, do some of the folks, are they escaping fear and persecution, yes, some are, but i also know that many and the. many are taking advantage of a system with loopholes in it. >> he's absolutely right. many of these people are being taught to game the system, but what are the forces fueling the migrant rush to the borders? let's start with the facts. it's really important we all understand what is really playing out here. this mini-surge of humanity, 200 or so, playing out on the television screens every day is just a drop in the bucket compared to the massive influx

of entire u.s. family units and unaccompanied minors who crossed the border between october 2017 and march of this year. look at those numbers. the number of migrants also from honduras, guatema l.a. and el salvador, those numbers climbed a lot even as mexican migration climbed so mexico has gone down and that part is going up. now, immigrants both legal and illegal, originally from el salvador and guate and honduras often called the northern triangle, went up from 25% in 20007 to 2015. even as the figure dropped by 6%, for mexican immigrants. now, of the 3 million northern triangle immigrants living here as of 2015, a whopping 55% were illegal according to the pew research center.

now, by comparison, only 24% of all other immigrants in the united states were unauthorized. so, more than double the figure for the northern triangle countries. now, there are many facilitate oars and supporters and magnets for the migration scheme both inside and outside of america. here at home the force respect powerful to encourage this crush at the border, the chamber of commerce, they want more workers. al cultural interests, obvious reasons. sanctuary cities and states. they see future voters and maybe even taxpayers. well, ms 13 and other gangs looking for new recruits, human traffickers love the situation at the border, and of course the drug cartel. but, political interests in central america are also driving the poorest of the poor northward. these governments want the poor, and of course their

criminals, to leave the country. it seems counter intuitive for we as americans, the country wanting its own people to leave, doesn't make sense. well, meet the honduran ambassador to mexico. aldon montez. he marred with the caravan, i kid you not, in mid-april, and here's what he told said about his participation. he said "i have been ordered by my government to support the honduran migrants traveling with the caravan." there are about 200 who we'll help out with paper work and whatever is necessary. ordered by his government to do whatever is necessary? one might expect that the con strant -- constant drain from the populations of the northern triangle would debilitate the economy.

you have a drain of people. that's not the case. in fact, the money called remittances sent by migrant laborers to the united states back to guatamala and honduras and el salvador is massive and growing. look at what is going from the u.s. to guatamala alone. in 2009, guatamala, those here in the united states, sent nearly dollars 4dz billion back home. this past year reached 8.192 billion, that figure, so double, and they're up 4% in the first quarter of this year so it's up, up and honduras is up, risen 18% the first month of 1018, this makes them up nearly 17%, listen to this, this is 17% of the gdp of

honduras so just so you understand, the remittance, 17% of the economy of the whole country of honduras. no wonder they want them to keep coming. el salvador nearly 16% of the gdp so it's a huge economic boone to the poor countries. so, why would any third world nation focus on solving problems at home when it's so much easier to export the neediest to the united states and at the same time, for those poor countries to benefit from their remittances when they send the money back home. look, this is just madness and there are some definitive steps we can take in the meantime to remove these incentives. why should illegal immigrants, living in the united states, be able to send cash home to families with zero government tax from the united states government? why not slap i don't know, a 25% levy on each remittance

that leaves america. that wall, oh, and a lot more could be funded really fast. ditto for foreign aid. what am i talking about, 2017 we sent mexico, el salvador, guatamala and honduras combined $487 million in foreign aid until especially the northern triangle countries gets their acts together, root out their own corruption, start improving the lives of their own people, we should consider at least withholding some, some people are saying all, foreign aid. sounds harsh but something has to change here, folks. this border-busting and asylum fraud is an insult to every american taxpayer, every legal immigrant, our rule of law and as tom said on fox and friends, our sovergnity, and it's time for us to stop subsidizeing the lawlessness.

if you ask me, it's the american people who need a sue limb -- asylum from the politicians politicians who got us into the mess and those in congress on capitol hill who refuse to do what is necessary to secure the homeland. and that's the angle. joining us now with reaction the american immigration lawyers association. anatasia i'm sure you disagree with with a lot of what i say. i'll just let you comment. >> as i explained earlier a lot of the comments are on the political climate on economics, i'll limit my comments to the immigration laws, and happy to discuss the policies and how those are --. >> so you're telling us what you won't talk about so let's talk about what, why there's been, and i think we have a graphic, a 10-fold increase in the claims for asylum coming

out of these northern triangle countries, especially honduras. requests increased 10-fold between 2009 and 2016. why do you think it is? >> again, i mean there are issues in those countries, there's a lot of political unrest. there have been just traditionally, there were as a result of deportations a lot of the prisoners that were in gangs in l.a. and were depoured have taken advantage of political chaos in the countries and were able to take advantage of systems, which leads to violence. we see a lot of the asylum seekers are women, and children --. >> a lot of them aren't. a lot are women and children and very sympathetic and we want nothing but good things to happen to all people who want a better life for their families but the question is, under our current law, and you're an expert as an

immigration lawyer, i did one immigration case when i was a defense attorney believe it or not but those laws require an incredible fear of persecution yet in the surveys done, of these migrants, in transit or when they're being deported back home, they overwhelmingly state their concern is an economic one, and you can't blame them. it's hard to make a life in guatamala or el salvador. i spent a lot of time in both countries. they're beautiful countries with rotten governments but right now we have a situation where we have hundreds of thousands of cases backlogged in the immigration courts and frankly we're out of personnel and money as far as processing this so how would you balance those concerns of the united states, with our own homeless problem, our own veterans on the street problems, opoid crisis, over crowded schools,

with the desires of foreigners who come here for a better life. >> i mean i think earlier you were talking about the corruption in honduras and the demands put on these officials, and i think that what is incredibly important in all of this, is the rule of law, is due process. where america, the constitution is very strong. we have very clear guidance and rules on what we are expected, what we expect to give as far as legal process and procedure, so that is something that i don't think we should compromise on, and i don't think we should pick and choose who gets due process. the fundamental part of our constitution. >> right, well it's a fundamental concern for americans that we have borders that are actually enforced, and laws that are not gamd by attorneys who go down to mexico or central america and literally coach people as to

how to make their case and make their claim. it goes from reputation to advocacy for policy change or entrance into the united states despite the fact a lot of the lawyers don't know much if anything about the background of the migrants. i want to play a soundbite from the homeland security secretary about who else is trying to gain access to america. let's watch. >> border security is national security. what we see the department of homeland security, we see 15 terrorists either planning travel or actually traveling to the united states each day, known as suspected terrorists. that means they're coming through our legal land ports and air. >> are you concerned about that? that in these caravans, i mean again it's a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands upon thousands of people who have been processed into our country since last october, but it's the visual image i think that gets a lot

of people, but are you concerned that in the mix of people both crossing illegally and presenting themselves to border officials that terrorists will take advantage of this massive humanity. >> i believe we should, we should have borders that, applications should be processed, that we'll should have their cases reviewed when they are presenting themselves foreign tree into the united states but also believe in smart borders. i believe a lot of this information is intelligence, that we have access to inform on who is traveling, and how they're coming in, and so i think that --. >> it takes only one person, right, one person to gain access to our country and we already know about all of the stories, now some somalis i guess tried to gain access to the caravan, maybe exploit people in it which is also heartbreaking so we know they game the system. they gamd it on 9-11.

they have gamed it before trying to come to the country in planes. shoes that explode and if it's a border with crushes of people coming at one time it's a logical place to enter and i know you're not a policy maker but when we have lawyers rushing down to mexico, to make the case for asylum for people, again -- you can't check the background on most of the people. most people are like poor people. what are you going to go to the local town hall in honduras and do a background check on every client, you're not going to be able to do that, are you? >> there are background checks and we have very smart intelligence capabilities so if there are people on the watch list that we're concerned about --. >> not everyone is on a watch list, yes, well not everyone is on the list but i under stan your point. lawyers are there to argue the case for the clients and these happen to be pro bono clients for the migrants trying to cross.

we appreciate you coming onto explain your case and view here. a lot of the lawyers in mexico are frankly not interested in coming onto explain themselves and you really advanced it. thank you so much. america has a proud history by the way of granting asylum to refugees but the wording of the law is so vague it's susceptible to abuse. under title viii under the code "eligible for asylum if they have suffered past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution and that definition of persecution seems wide open. here to help us understand the asylum policy with the new development with the caravan is the director of u.s. citizenship and immigration, francis cisna. good to have you on this. is infuriating a lot of americans. they're very compassionate and caring people. very generous. donate to the churches and organizations that help people in their home countries but this is a protest that happens

every year and it's meant to tug at the heartstrings of americans, and force the u.s. government to open its doors regardless of the merit of the claims. >> i think you are right. i think what this is, what the caravan represents, is a organized, intentional and i would say cynical attempt to tax and overburden a system by people who know the system how it's inadequate and like vice-president pence said yesterday, who are treating their people, who are victims in their country, victim icing them again by turning them into puppets. >> you see the ngo's rushing in, reporters imbedded for weeks, almost marching with them. you see the honduran ambassador to mexico marching with the migrants, saying my government ordered me to be here to facilitate the paper work. what? >> i know.

>> this administration should get on the phone, i'm sure the president is, i'm not telling him what to do but hey, el presidente let's talk. it's not tenable and it's not good for your country to have your people fleeing. >> no and i think the other victim is the immigration system itself. the system which was created back in the 1990's to handle these types of cases at the border was never intended to handle a suffrage of people like this, -- a surge of people like this with prepared packaged claims, the system was intend today work quickly, and with this type of action it won't work. >> you do thfer reday. we have had a 41% increase in the unaccompanied minors between february and march of this year and a 49% increase of entire what's called family units crossing the border and if you care to march 2017

trump first comes in, oh i'm not going to try to cross the border. increase is 203% overall for people crushing across the border. why is that? >> i think one of the reasons is that people have figured out how to game the system. there are ways to do it. people know how to do it. if you're going to come here and claim asylum people know the first step is to zm straight the credible fear you're persecuted in your own country. the standard is low and people know that. you have to tell a story. >> how do you do that's correct call witnesses. >> credible stage, all tough it show is a story that qualifies you for asylum and is done credibly. >> thank you for the insight. we'll have you back. the special council's office or a member of the trump team that leaked that big list of

questions for the president. two top legal minds weigh in, next.

>> if we want to know who leak the special counsel' long list of questions to the president, we need to ask who stands the most to gain? the former assistant to bob mueller blamed president trump for the leak but trump blasted the leak himself in a tweet earlier today. a report in the washington post suggested the leaked list maybe a series of requests combined by a trump attorney. it may have been a list of questions the president's legal team believed trump would be asked, kind of a moot court situation. let's ask two top legal minds why they think the list was

leaked. former u.s. attorney for the district of columbia and former whitewater deputy independent counsel. the intrigue, joe, about who leaked what. who has motive. like columbo. >> i actually don't care. i think what is important is these are clearly the type of questions discussed between the president's team and mr. mueller, and the question, what do these questions say? they say the investigation is now lurching into territory protected by the constitution, the constitutional privileges of the president of the united states and mueller, let's assume the questions are accurate that. this is what mueller wants to ask. if they are, and if he insists on answers, and will not accept a written answer and demands an interview, which the president rejects, and then mueller insists on a speen , we're head today a -- subpoena, we're head today a

constitutional crisis because the president won't answer these questions under any set of circumstances. >> when i saw tonight this report in the post about the presidential subpoena, you know it takes kind of a lot to shock me these days in washington but i took a couple extra breaths there. your reaction. >> i'm not sure. i saw the, i'm not sure i saw the posting. is it already issued? >> no apparently mueller raised the possibility with the trump legal team reportedly. >> i think joe is absolutely right. if, if president trump decides not to sit in for the interview and answer the questions, and these are very broad questions that definitely raise issues of both executive privilege and separation of powers, if he declines to answer and mueller issues a subpoena, you know, it's not just a question of does trump invoke the fifth or go to the grand jirx he'll go and litigate this issue and

here is something that is very interesting that i don't believe anybody has talked about. remember, in the watergate years, you had u.s. versus nixon where the supreme court rejected president nixon's blanket claims of executive privilege, but in that decision, they pointed out that leon jaworski, the special counsel, had been explicitly granted the power to con sex executive privilege. i'm not sure bob mueller has the power under his appointment from rosenstein or the regulation to go in and challenge the executive privilege so there's a possible third way for the president to bottle this up in court on the executive privilege issue. >> very interesting. i love that. any particular questions in the long list jumped out at you and why. >> yes, the question pollsed by mueller about what were you thinking when you fired comey?

what were you thinking when you fired flynn? the notion that a special counsel can intrude on the thinking process of a sitting president, while he was president, firing a person that you have ultimate authority, unfettered, unreview able authority to fire unthe constitution tells me one thing about mueller. he has gone goofy. the question should not be answered under any set of circumstances and i tell you something, i would litigate this to the fair thee well. these are sophomoric. >> as a lawyer i would not recommend he do this interview under any circumstances. i didn't think so before and i certainly don't think so now. maybe written answer like, but -- maybe a poetry or high

coup i'd send back but i wouldn't engage with that group. >> i agree with you. i didn't think he should go in before. you could pick any number, two that struck me as particularly outrageous or almost humorous, one, why do you continue to criticize jim comey and andrew mckay. i mean give me a break. you need to ask that? that's rather obvious and the other one, why did you hold you know jeff sessions, attorney general sessions' resignation in abeyance until i think may 319 and who did you discuss it with? as joe points out this goes to the heart of executive decision making but it shows something else. these questions show a couple things. the mueller people are outraged and livid at the president's criticism of them and they have a very dangerously broad view of obstruction of justice. >> i want to play for you now a something from rod

rosenstein today, he was today reacting what he heard and been reported with the freedom caucus potentially drawing up articles of impeachment against himself. this is what he said. >> they can't even resist leaking their own draft. i just don't have anything to say about documents like that, that nobody has the courage to put their name on and they leak in that way, but i can tell you, the different people who have been making threats, privately and publicly against me for quite sometime, and i think they should understand by now that the department of justice won't be extorted. >> joe? >> well, i think he has just shown his ignorance of the constitution. congress demanded access to documents that it is entitled to under the constitution pursuant to the oversight function. his refusal and obstructionism to turn those over is why

they're considering his impeachment. if he thinks that's extortion i suggest he resign because he's clearly a legal incompetent. >> yes. meadows is suggest that will basically today, that i mean --. >> that's ridiculous. >> this extortion line. as the deputy attorney general. when you're already sorry under a cloud of concern at the very least, because of some of the make up of this, of the prosecutors, what's happened with the text messages, failure to --. >> he didn't --. >> what? >> he didn't pick the prosecutors. >> i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about over the investigation, it was in a comeyesque, prig issue manner. i can't believe it. it looked undignified. >> what you see is a man --. >> please don't defame rod by comparing him to comey. >> sorry. >> you have had these fights,

you think it's okay for trump to claim executive privilege but not okay for rosenstein to resist congress. that's been going on since hector was a pup. >> i don't have a problem with that but he can't refuse to turn over documents that congress has a right to see but here's the point. that use of the word extortion today was an absolute outrage on the part of a constitutional officer who is the deputy attorney general of the you stafts. that's unbecoming and a fireable offense. he won't be fired because the president shouldn't do it. >> you think everything is an outrage. >> actually that's not true, and in fact when the deputy attorney general of the united states uses the word extortion for congress-seeking documents it's entitled to that is outrageous. >> all i'll say is, look the only reason they --. >> grow up, rod. >> the only reason they turned them over is because they were

about to be slapped with -- they had to go to that to get the documents they're entitled to get under the normal constitutional obligation. >> you know what, laura, you know what, you know what? the president, the president actually is higher-up than rod. it's amazing. any time in the last six months the president, instead of pleading, no, no, not firdz him. he could have said rod turn it over and then --. >> he's been told --. >> oh, come on. that's ridiculous. >> he's been told he cannot communicate with the justice department by the white house --. >> we're going to run to black. >> i don't care what don does. he's obviously not helping the president. >> thank you both. you're right. he would have been creamed politically and pr wise by the press and he was advised not

to do that and when we come back, a rapper tied to snoop dog issued a blood curdling warning for kanye west. stay there.

one opinion in which the african american community would question whether the allegance to the left to the

democrats have served them well. kanye west has been really volcano will in support of president trump and free thought but some of the left can't tolerate this and now kanye is facing a very public threat, threat to his safety, from a rapper tied to snoop dog. >> yes, national alert, all of you, kanye up, better never see you in concert. better i never see you in california. stay in callabasas. you hear me? we have a crip alert for kan dwrchlt e. all of you, you see that thing? (bleep). >> that's the work of l.a. rapper daz dillinger calling on the notorious corpus christi gang to bang on kanye, meaning shoot him. let's discuss with attorney michael hoskins contributor to

the hill and fox news contributor kevin jackson. this is wild. we'll get into what happened on tmz today as well. incredible to watch. but, let's start on this physical threat. now we have a situation, michael, where when you disagree you are solo on the totem pole. you're solo because you have the wrong views that you must be not just ridiculed on social media or any of that. but you must be destroyed. not just rhetorically but apparently physically. >> yes, i mean there's no place for violence in the political discussion. i don't care whether you're kanye west or any other celebrity or average american. i don't think the crips or blood's represent the left just like i don't think white nationalists or neo-nazis represent the white and i think we should focus on what role republicans will play in the african american community. tim scott, colin powell.

those are both black republicans on policy i disagree with but i think they have a right to believe what they want to believe. kanye west is play ago different game. >> he's someone who you know trashed george w. bush. didn't care about black people. you know, he's an interesting guy and, on a lot of fronts, but this was kind of surprising a lotedz of people when he comes out, this big roll out after couple new tracks and i guess a new album coming out soon and i mean is this opportunism on his part or he really likes trump and this is cool, a cool moment for him. >> he's all over the political spectrum. he's already proven he's anti bush. he happens to like donald trump and the problem what michael said and i believe he's being sincere but the people on his side of the aisle, black conservatives get riddled. you have to have skin thicker than a rhino and a pair the size of alaska if you're a

black conservative and kanyeb is about to find it out. i never heard the other side, i'm going say rarely, come to the defense of people like myself who want nothing but the best for blacks but get called uncle toms, coon buwk negros, and i clean that up, stepan fetch --. >> those are the nice names. >> yes. >> i have seen the tweets. yes. now, i want to play for you an exchange that happened on tmz today where a staffer at it. mg, start with him, made a comment about kanye as he was leaving his interview. let's watch. >> while you are making music and being an artist and living the life that you earned by being a genius, the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives. we have to deal with the marginalization coming from the 400 years of slavery you said for your people was a

choice. frankly, i'm disappointed, i'm appalled. >> well, your reaction michael, i mean we're going to play what kanye actually said, but --. >> yes. i feel like --. >> let's play it now. let's play it now so people, we did this in reverse order. >> you hear about slavery for 400 years, 400 years, that sounds like a choice. like you was there for 400 years and it's all of you all? you know like, it's like we're mentally in prison. i like the word prison because slavery goes too direct to the idea of blacks. prison is something that unites us as one race. blacks and whites being one race, that we're with the human race. >> now michael, do you actually thirx he's been slaughtered on -- actually thirx he's been slaughtered --. >> as he should be. >> do you think he meant in

this casual conversation on tmz, that the horrific act of slavery was a choice that people were making. do you think that is what he actually was trying to convey? honestly. >> i have to be hoens. i don't know what kanye meant to convey but the words he said, the fact he would say slavery was a choice in such a flippant way, i think that's the problem kevin is talking about when he talks about african americans criticized as conservatives because when kanye does things like that he makes it harder for african americans to talk about conservatism because he's playing everyone and using language like that it inflames, african americans jumped off slave ships so they didn't have to be slaves, ran away, were lynched, millions of americans were --. >> yes, horrific and kevin do you think that's what kanye west was saying. i think i know what he was saying. i think he was saying people get imprisoned in the past and let that define themselves. i have no idea.

>> exactly. >> it's tough to say what exactly he meant because to michael's point you don't know what in his head, however i do believe that what he is saying is that we, there came a point where there was some, a choice for example. once we got out of slavery during reconstruction many glax blacks did want to stay in that environment because they had been conditioned for that. i would say to you today, we have more blacks enslaved than ever in the --. >> see that right there, using that kind of language, they're not enslaved. no, no, no --. >> i don't care, i don't care what you --. >> they're not --. >> i don't really care what you think about what i say. >> then think about your faerx your grandfather who got --. >> one at a time. >> today we have young blacks taught slavery is such a bad thing. >> it is a bad thing. >> let me finish. they have been taught the lack

of civil rights. all things done by the party that michael supports and votes fo for are such bad --. >> come on, dude. now you're being full of crap you know the republicans and democrats flipped. >> you know --. >> lincoln was a republican. >> okay. we're not going to solve lincoln here, guys. guys. we're not going to solve lincoln. >> no, no. >> let me wrap it up in --. >> the issue is, we have got to get out of this mentality that everything in america is anti black, relating back to something that is 150 years old. it's ridiculous. >> all right. >> loving versus virginia was in my parents' lifetime. my parents were the first integrated class. that's not a long time. >> what about you, the people of today. >> i was only, the only black kid in ap classes. i have been pulled over multiple times. >> was it because they didn't allow blacks. >> drink whatever kool aid you want, champ. >> we have to have an honest conversation. >> we do. >> be responsible and allow each other to make their

points. i think you both made your points and we'll continue on this. this is i mean it's really important. you guys both have a really powerful voice and we appreciate you both coming on. >> thanks. >> why are gun control advocates so willing to use the threat of violence? that's really happening? we'll debate it next.

>> a young woman in florida wants to join the nra's lawsuit against a new state law banning the sale of guns to anyone under the age of 21. but, she's so afraid for her safety that she's asked a federal court to keep her identity secret. backing that woman in court filings the nra cited the top florida lobbyist, marion hammer. the 79 year-old great grandmother said she's received scores of vile and vulgar phone calls including death threats. this on the heels of nra

spokesperson dana lash and washington nra lobbyist chris cox, saying they and their families have been harrassed at their homes. let's debate these tactics with radio talk show host chris hahn, a former aid to senator schumer and grant shinfeld. it's great to see you. grant let's start with you. i know you're familiar with some of the tax tactics and look, i have to say both sides on this issue can be really bad. i mean social media is evolved into the worst. i mean people take things the wrong way or people say things they'd never say in person so both sides do these things. it is ironic however, that the group that claims to be for love, peace and harmony does seem to inspire some of these vile threats and you have experienced them yourself. >> you know, i have. i get death threats almost on a daily basis.

i believe most are keyboard cowards and i don't put much stock in it but it only takes one nut job and certainly you see what happens to leadership at the nra but it's not just there and people i work with. anybody with a loud voice in this nation is being targeted and i believe they're being targeted because the left has no other message out there. they don't have things. they don't have policy. what do they do? they turn to violence and take it to people to silence their voice. look, lawyer , they call us child murderers, terrorists. what do they do that for? to dehumanize and somehow make it okay for supporters to threaten us. i promise you it won't work. threats won't work. we'll keep with the voice and be strong. >> i'm from north beach, not less -- i'm from more speech, not less. i don't like limiting people's speech. i don't like that because people disagree. i think a robust exchange of ideas is great in our country and we should encourage it.

i do believe especially on, what a 79 year-old great grandmother, i mean i'll read some of the things written about her. it is, i mean it's the lowest of the low. i think we all agree on that. you were shaking your head. >> i agree 100% that you know the first amendment is important and free speech is important especially political speech which we have learned is the highest form of protected speech in this country. where i disagree with the fellow panelist is when he says it's the left doing this. people who make these kind of threats are crazy whether they're on the right wing crazy or left wing. they're not part of any mainstream movement. they're not part of any political party or any real ideology. they're mentally disturbed and of course many are keyboard cowards. look, i get horrible things said to me all the time. we talked about this last week, but that doesn't stop me from talking and shouldn't stop marion hammer from talking even though i disagree with much of what she stands for and should not have stopped her from going to the hearing.

i understand she didn't go because of the threats and i think that might have had something to do with the fact the bill, you know --. >> i got it. >> it is what it is. >> my question is, why do we hear such you know precious little in the american media, about those types of threats against individuals who are real strong advocates of the second amendment, and again, i say -- let me just read some so people understand what i'm talking about. a lot of people aren't on social media. this is tweet april 22, not very christian of me to say this but i hope marion hammer false down a flight of stairs and breaks a hip. good for humanity. i can't wait until i flip on the news and see that karma comes around for you soon. grant, i get this kind of stuff on a bail basis as well. unless -- on a daily basis and unless it's about children or the elderly i think a lot can

be discounted but the media really they don't report on this stuff fairly. they really don't. it's always one-sided. >> if i called the police every time i had a death threat leveled against me the cops would be there almost every day. the problem these are all great stories. >> me, too. >> the real problem is the left violence. the left has shown, i mean you look at trump's inauguration and people getting beat up for wearing a trump hat. you look at women --. >> that is just, you're so wrong. you're absolutely, look, you're wrong here. >> how am i wrong. >> excuse me, excuse me, sir. sir. okay. you're wrong. it's not a particular ideology. it's crazy people. anybody with that behavior --. >> going back to the free speech issue. >> labeled crazy and nothing else. >> the free speech erb and we'll end with that and we're out of time what we have seen at berkeley and colleges in shutting down speech has been

violent and on the left mostly. more speech --. >> i don't know if you rather the tea party in 2010 but they shut down alot of free speech. >> stay right there. a lot to get to.

>>we're doing a lot of defending of the first amendment these days. but this is the first installment of our series of defending the first. free speech, free thought. and tonight we talk to a former syracuse professor who said he was fired for defending free speech on campus. he was fired after he openly agreed with the students. let's find out exactly what happened from the professor himself. welcome to the angle. look, my producer watched the fraternity video. i guess it was an internal video. it wasn't posted on social media. it was gross. i don't know why people make these videos. they say it was satire, actually ridiculing a conservative who apparently was a bad person,

even racist and so forth. you wrote a statement, an email to the administration. and you said the following, "i strongly believe that reinforcing the current myth that individuals are damaged to expo exposure. i was toughened as a youth not just by emotional bullying but by physical beatings." and then you're separated from the university for that? >> well, i have to say, this isn't really about syracuse university. i love syracuse university and the good people there who are doing what they assume and feel is right. this is really about ideas, not specific institutions or individuals. it's about the ideas of free speech and reason versus some dangerous irrational myths that have swept the campuses around

the country. i don't know whether i was really fired or i quit. we might say that the university and i reached a mutual agreement that the beliefs and values of the university are no longer the beliefs and values -- >>hold on, professor. that's cute. you don't know if you cute or you were fired. was there some type of release they made you sign? >> no. >> no, they didn't. okay. >> when i sent that email, i concluded it with, "if my position on this is so objectionable as to render me disqualified from further service to our students, then put me on a list as don't use me anymore." and the answer come back, "yes, indeed --" >>you were fired. don't be obtuse. you were fired because you wrote that email saying, "i'm concerned that we're coddling students and trying to protect them from all these offensive ideas. it's not going to help anyone or advance the cause of learning." and that was the thing they

ultimately said, "yeah, you're right. we don't want someone like you at our university." i know you're protective of syracu syracuse. that's nice. but the atmosphere on college campuses today on a scale of 1 to 10 for pro free speech and least pro free speech, where do you rate it? >> i give it an 8. but i'm shooting from the hip. i don't really know anymore. all educated intelligent good people think pretty much the same on certain key issues where the correct answer is obvious. and obviously that's a myth. >> great point. i'm going to have you on radio tomorrow. great point as always. stay with us.

>>before we go, let's take a look at a tweet we received during the show. john tweets, "this is a slap in the face to all of the millions of legal immigrants like myself who entered the process, paid

and waited years to have the honor to be u.s. citizens." i second that motion. a great point. shannon is up next. and rob rosenstein. shannon, take it away. >> we're going to talk the i word, impeachment tonight. there's a showdown over daca. plus, new reaction tonight to fox's exclusive senate primary debate in west virginia. that is ahead. and she a six-time olympic me l medallimeda medallist that's saying california is making it nearly possible for her to train. >> with talk of a presidential subpoena and questions alleged