thank all of you our viewers making us the most watched show in cable news for the first quarter of this year. thank you. we'll always be fair and balanced and work hard every night. let not your heart be troubled. look who's next. laura ingraham. how are you? >> laura: i'm good. by the way, i have every dvr at my house set to "hannity." i'm hoping that i lemmhelped a little bit on your ratings. we all did well. >> sean: you are doing phenomenal. >> laura: we're all great. >> sean: i've had so much bologna negative press lately. if i don't do it, nobody else is going to do it. >> laura: that's true. >> sean: and we don't get to do this without this audience and thank them all because frankly,

this country needs this channel more than ever in my opinion. >> laura: i could not agree more. that's enough talking about ourselves. throw me the football. >> sean: have a great night. >> laura: awesome. good evening from washington i'm laura ingraham and this is the "the ingraham angle." the burning question in washington tonight, who leaks that list of mueller questions for trump? we looked at who stands the gain the most. a wild story out of 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 getting peppered with vile death threats. that's nice. we debate an underreported story. but first, corruption, collusion, cash, and the

caravan. that's the focus of tonight's angle. you've 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 1,000 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 at san ysidro. as we reported 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 like to have free legal advice. the president tweeted that the migrant caravan that is openly defying our border shows how weak and ineffective immigration laws are.

i'll say. yesterday u.s. customs officials allowed eight members of the caravan into the country to process their asylum claim. today another 17 were allowed in. the acting director of customs enforcement described the situation on "fox & friends" this morning. >> it's an attack on the sovereignty of this nation. do i think they have a credible fear case? do some of these folks are they escaping fear and persecution. some are. many aren't. many are taking advantage of a system with loopholes in it. >> laura: he's right. many of these people are being taught to game the system. but what are the forces fuelling the migrant rush to the borders? let's start with the facts. it's important that we all understand what is really playing out here. this mini surge of humanity, 200 or so that is playing out on our television screens every day is

a drop in the bucket compared to the massive influx of u.s. family units and unaccompanied minors who crossed the border between march of 2017 and march of this year. now the number of migrants also from honduras, guatemala and el salvador, those numbers have climbed significantly in recent years even as mexican migration has declined. mexico is going down and that part of the continent is going up. hmm. immigrants legal and illegal often called the northern triangle. that rose by 25% from 2007 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 facilitators and supporters and magnates for this migration scheme inside and outside america. here at home the forces are powerful to encourage this crush at the border. the chamber of commerce want more workers. agricultural interests. sanctuary cities and states see future voters and taxpayers. ms-13 and gangs looking for new recruits. human traffickers love the situation at the border and of course the drug cartels. but political interest 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 me as americaners. a country wanting its people to leave, huh? it doesn't make any sense. meet the honduran ambassador to mexico. he marched with the caravan. i kid you not. he marched with the caravan in mid-april and this is what he said about his participation. he said, "i've been ordered by my government to support the honduran migrants traveling with the caravan. there are about 200 hondurans who we will help out with paperwork and whatever is necessary." wait a second? ordered by his government to do whatever is necessary? one might expect that the constant drain from the populations of the northern triangle would debilitate their economy?

you think, you is a drain of people. that's not the case. in fact, the money called remittances sent by migrant laborers from the united states back to guatemala, honduras and el salvador is massive and growing. look at the remittances going to guatemala alone. in 2009, $4 billion was sent back home. this past year reached $8.192 billion, that figure. so double. and they are up 4% in the first quarter of this year. in honduras remittances are up to $4 billion a year. they have risen 18% the first month of 2018. this makes them up nearly 17% -- listen to this. this is 17% of the gdp of

honduras. so the remittances, just so you understand, are 17% of the economy of the whole country of honduras. no wonder they want them to keep coming. for el salvador it's 16% of their gdp, the remittances are a huge economic boon to these poor countries. why would any third world nation focus on solving problems at home when it's easier to export their 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 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 a -- i don't know,

a 25% levy on each remittance that leaves america? that wall and more could be funded really fast. ditto for foreign aide. in 2017 we sent mexico, el salvador, guatemala and honduras a combined total of $587 million in foreign aid. until they get their acts together and root out their own corruption and improve the lives of their own people we should consider withholding some and some people are saying all foreign aid. it sounds harsh but something has to change here, folks. this border busting and asylum fraud is an insult to every taxpayer, every legal immigrant, our rule of law and our sovereignty. and it is time for us to stop

subsidizing the lawlessness. if you ask me, it's the american people who need asylum these days. asylum from the politicians who got us into this mess in the first place and those in congress on capitol hill who refuse to do what's necessary to secure the homeland. and that's the angle. joining us now with the reaction is anastasiya -- i'm sure you disagree with a lot of what i said. there i'll 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 i'm happy to discuss the policies and how those are being -- >> laura: you're telling us what you won't talk about. but let's talk about why there has been -- and i think we have a graphic to illustrate this. a 10-fold increase in the claims

for asylum coming out of the foreign triangle countries especially honduras. they increased 10-fold between 2009 and 2016. why do you think that is? >> again there, are issues in those countries. there is 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 deported have taken advantage of political chaos in those countries and were able to take advantage of the system which leads to violence. we see a lot of the asylum seekers are women and children. >> laura: a lot are women and children and they are sympathetic and we want nothing but good things to happen to people who want a better life

for their families. but under the current law the asylum laws require a credible fear of persecution bunch in the surveys of these migrants in transit or when they are being deported back home they overwhelmingly state that their concern is an economic one. and you can't blame them. you know, hard to make a life in guatemala or el salvador. i have spent a lot of time in both countries. they have rotten governments. but right now we have hundreds of thousands of cases backlogged in our immigration courts and, frankly, we're all out of personnel and we're all out of 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 streets

problems, the opioid crisis, schools are being overcrowded, with the desires of foreigners to come here for a better life? >> i mean, earlier, you were talking about the -- the corruption in honduras and these demands put on these officials and i think that what's incredibly important in all of this is the rule of law is due process where america and the constitution is very strong. we have very clear guidance and rules on what we are -- 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 pick and choose who gets due process. that's a fundamental part of our constitution. >> laura: it's a fundamental concern for americans that we have borders that are enforced and laws that are not gamed by attorneys who go down to mexico or go down to central america

and literally coach people as to how to make their case and make their claim. it goes from representation to advocacy for policy change or odd voe advocacy for entrance to the united states despite the fact that the lawyers don't know anything about the background of these migrants. i want to play a sound bite about who else is trying to gain access to america. >> border security is national security. the department of homeland security, we see 15 terrorists planning to travel or actually traveling to the united states each day. noted suspected terrorists coming through the legal land, port, and air. >> laura: are you concerned about that? that in these caravans -- that'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 that

gets a lot of people. are you concern that in the mix of people crossing illegally and presenting themselves to border officials that terrorists will take advantage of this mass of humanity? >> i believe that we should have borders, that applications should be processed and people should have their cases reviewed when they are presenting themselves for entry to the united states but i believe in smart borders. a lot of this information is intelligence based and we have information on who is traveling and how they're coming in. >> laura: it takes only one person, right? to gain access to our country and we already know about all the stories of -- now somalis have tried to -- i guess, gain access to the caravan and exploit people in the caravan which is also heart breaking.

we know they game the system. they game it on 9/11. they've gamed it before trying to come into the country on planes with shoes that explode. it's a porous border with crushes of people coming at one time that's a logical place for them to enter. 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 these people. they are poor people. are you going to the town hall in honduras and do a background check on every client? >> there are background checks and we have smart intelligence capabilities. if there are people on the watch list or people we're concerned about. >> laura: not everyone is on a watch list. i understand your point. and lawyers are there to argue the case for their clients and these happen to be pro bono

clients. we really appreciate your coming on to explain your case and your perspective here. a lot of the lawyers in mexico are, frankly, not interested in coming on to explain themselves, you really advanced it. thank you so much. america has a proud history of granting asylum to refugees but the wording of the law is so vague it's susceptible to abuse. a person is eligible if he or she has suffered past persecution or he or she has a well-founded fear of future persecution and per cushion is open to interpretation. here to help us understand with this new development with the caravan is the director of u.s. citizenship and immigration, francis sissna. this is infuriating to a lot of americans. they are passionate and caring

and generous. but this is a protest that happens every year and it's meant to tug at the heart strings of americans and force the u.s. government to open its doors regardless of the merits of the claims. >> i think what the caravan represents is an organized, intentional and i would say cynical attempt to tax and exploit an overburdened immigration system by people who know the inadequacies of the system and as vice president pence said yesterday, are treating these people who are victims in their own country, victimizing them again by turning them into puppets of their cause. >> laura: you see reporters 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 their paperwork. what? this administration should get on the phone -- i'm sure the president is, but, hey, let's talk. this is not tenable. it's not good for your country, believe it or not to have your people fleeing. >> the other victim in this whole situation is the immigration system itself. the system, which was created back in the 1990s was never created to handle a surge like this. it was intented to work expeditiously and quickly and with this, it's not going to work. >> laura: why is it -- and you do this every day -- we've had a 41% increase in unaccompanied minors between february and march of this year and a 49% increase of entire, what's called family units crossing the

border. in march of 2017, trump first comes in, i'm not going to try to cross the border. the increase is over 200% for people trying to cross the border. >> one of the reasons is that people have figured out how to game the system. there are ways to do it and people know how to do it. if you're going to claim asylum the first step is to demonstrate a credible fear you are being perce persecuted in your own country. the standard is low. all you have to do is tell a story. >> laura: how do you verify the story? witnesses? call witnesses? fly them in from honduras? >> at the credible fear stage all you have to show is a story that qualifies you for asylum and is done credibly. >> laura: unbelievable. was it the special counsel's office or a member of the trump

team that leaked that big list of questions for the president? hmm? two top legal minds weigh in next. we use our phones and computers

the same way these days. so why do we pay to have a phone connected when we're already paying for internet? shouldn't it all just be one thing? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you can get up to 5 lines of talk and text included at no extra cost.

so all you pay for is data. see how you could save $400 or more a year. and get $200 back when you sign up for xfinity mobile and add a new line of unlimited. xfinity mobile. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. click, call or visit an xfinity store today. >> laura: if we want to know who leaked the special counsel's long list of questions for the president we need to ask, "who stands the most to gain?" the former assistant to robert mueller blamed trump the leak. but trump blasted the leak himself in a tweet earlier today. a report in the "washington post" suggests that the leaked list may have been compiled by jay sekulow. it may have been a list of questions that the president's legal team believed trump would be asked. a moot court situation. let's ask two top legal minds

why they think the list was leaked. joe degeneva and saul wisenberg. i mean the intrigue about who leaked what and who has motive. >> i don't care who leaked it. i think what's important is that these are clearly the types of questions discussed between the president's team and mr. mueller. and the question is what do these questions say? they say that the investigation is now lurching into territory protected by the constitutional privileges of the president of the united states. and that if mueller -- let's assume these 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 mueller insists on a subpoena, we are headed to a

constitutional crisis because the president is not going to answer these questions under any set of circumstances. >> laura: saul, when i saw this report in the "washington post" about the presidential subpoena, it takes 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 posting. is a subpoena issued to the president? >> laura: mueller raised the possibility with the trump legal team reportedly. >> i think joe is absolutely right. if president trump decides not to answer these questions and these are very broad questions that definitely raise issues of 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

amendment or go to the grand jury, remember, in the watergate years you had the 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 the special counsel had been explicitly granted the power to contest executive privilege. i'm not sure robert mueller has the power under his appointment from rod rosenstein or under the regulation to challenge executive privilege, so there's a possible third way for the president to bottle this up in court. >> laura: very interesting. i love that. joe, that's fascinating. any particular questions in this lengthy list jump out at you and why? >> yes, the questions 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 ability to fire under the constitution tells me one thing about mueller. he has gone goofy. the question should not be answered under any set of circumstances and i would litigate this to a fair thee well. these questions are sophomoric. >> laura: saul, any questions you have in mind that would be problematic for this president to answer? i mean, 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 some written answer. maybe a poetry or a haiku but at

this point i would not be engaging with that group. >> i agree with you. i didn't think he should go in before. you should pick any number of them but two that struck me as particularly outrageous or humorous, one, why do you continue to criticize james comey and andrew mccabe. give me a break. and why did you hold attorney general sessions' resignation in a abance and who did you discuss it with? this goes to the heart of executive decision making. but it also shows something else. these questions show the mueller people are outraged and livid at the president's criticisms of them. and they have a very dangerously broad view of obstruction of justice. >> laura: i want to play a sound

bite from rod rosenstein today. he was at an event and reacting to what he heard about the freedom caucus drawing up articles of impeachment against rosenstein. >> i don't have anything to say about documents like that that nobody has the courage to put their name on and leak in that way. but i can tell you, there have been people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time. i think they should understand by now, the department of justice is not going to be extorted. >> laura: joe? >> i think mr. rosenstein has just shown his ignorance of the constitution. congress has demanded access to documents. his refusal and obstructionism to turn over the documents has led to the confrontation which

is why they are considering his impeachment. if he thinks that is extortion i suggest he resign from office because he is a legal incompetent. >> meadows is suggesting this. this extortion line? as the deputy attorney general to throw around the word "extortion" when you are under a cloud of concern at the very least because of some of the makeup of the prosecutors, what's happen with the text messages. >> he didn't pick the prosecutors. i mean, rod rosenstein -- >> laura: i'm talking about over the investigation. and it was a comey-esque, prigish, prickly manner. >> what you see is a man who has -- >> please don't defame rod by comparing him to comey. >> laura: sorry. >> you've had these fights but

what is it? you think it's okay for trump to claim executive privilege vis-a-vis mueller but not okay for rosenstein to -- >> i don't have any -- he can resist congress but not refuse to turn over documents that congress has a right to see. but the use of the word "extortion" was an outrage of a constitutional officer. that is unbecoming and a fireable offense. he's not going to be fired because the president shouldn't do it. >> you think everything is an outrage. >> that's not true, saul. and in fact when the deputy attorney general uses extortion for congress seeking documents it's entitled to, that is outrage. >> laura: saul, the reason they

ever turned over the documents is because they were about to be slapped with contempt of congress. they had to go to that level to get the documents they are entitled to get under their normal obligation. it's their obligation. >> laura, you know what? the president -- the president actually is higher up than rod rosenstein. it's an amazing thing in our system of government. at any time in the last six months the president could have told rod rosenstein instead of tweeting -- not fired him. he could have said, rod, turn that stuff over. >> laura: that would have worked. come on. that's ridiculous. >> he cannot communicate with the justice department -- >> laura: we're out of time. we're going to run to black, guys. >> i don't care what don does. >> laura: thank you, both. you're right. he would have been creamed politically and pr wise by the

press and he was at vised not to do. that when we come back, a rapper tied to snoop dogg issued a blood curdling warning to kanye west. stay there.

>> laura: i had really hoped that kanye west's outspokenness would inspire a national dialogue and one in which the african-american community would question whether allegiance to

the left and the democrats has really served them well. kanye west has been really vocal in his support of president trump and free thought. but some of the left cannot tolerate dissent. and kanye is facing a public threat to his safe from a rapper tied to snoop dogg. >> all the crips out there, i never seen you around california. stay in calabasas. you hear me? we got a crip alert for kanye. all the crips out there, see that [ bleep ], bang on his [ bleep ] [ bleep ]. >> laura: that's the work of l.a. rapper -- dillinger calling the crips gang to bang on kanye,

shoot him. let's talk to kevin jackson about this. this is wild. we'll get to what happened on tmz which is incredible to watch. but let's start on the physical threat. we have a situation where when you disagree, you are so low on the totem pole, if you can say that anymore. you are so low that you must not just be ridiculed on social media but you must be destroyed not just rhetorically but apparently physically. >> there's no place for violence in the political discussion. i don't think the crips or the bloods represent the lefts just like neonazis don't represent the right. what we should be focusing on is what role republicans are going to play in the african-american

community. tim scott and colin powell are both republicans and i think they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe. kanye west is playing a different game. >> kanye west is someone who trashed george w. bush, didn't care about black people. he's an interesting guy. on a lot of fronts. but this was surprising to a lot of people when he has a rollout of a couple new tracks and has a new album coming out soon. and i mean, is this just opportunism on his part or is this just cool for him? >> he has proven he has been, you know, anti-bush. he happens to like donald trump. and i think michael is being sincere but the problem that people on his side of the aisle don't face is that black conservatives are ridiculed all the time.

and kanye is about to find this out. rarely do you ever hear the other side. i've never heard it. but i'm going to use rarely have i heard somebody come to the defense of people like myself who want nothing but the best for blacks but are called uncle tom, step and fetch it and a host of other names. >> laura: those are the nice names. i've seen the tweets. >> i want to play an exchange on tmz where a staffer at tmz 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've earned by being a genius, the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives and the marginalization that has come from the 400 years of

slavery that you said for our people was a choice. frankly, i'm disappointed. i'm appalled. >> laura: well, your reaction, michael? we're going to play what kanye actually said but -- >> yeah, i was going to say -- >> laura: let's play it now so -- we did this in reverse order. let's play it now. >> you hear about slavery for 400 years? that sound like a choice. like, you was there for 400 years and it's all y'all? it's like we're mentally in prison. slavery is too direct to the idea of blacks. prison is something that you nights us as one race, blacks and whites being one race. we're the human race. >> laura: michael, do you think -- he has been slaughtered on social media, kanye, for those last several hours.

slaughters. >> as he should be. >> laura: do you think he meant in this casual conversation on tmz that the horrific act of slavery was a choice? >> i don't know what kanye meant to convey in that. but the fact he would say that slavery was a choice in a flippant way, that's the problem that kevin is talked about. because when kanye does things like that he makes it harder for african-americans to talk about conservativism. kanye is playing everyone. using language like that, it not only inflames but african-americans jumped off slave ships so they didn't have to be slaved. they were lynched. >> laura: horrific. and do you think is what season i think i know what he was saying. people get imprisoned in the

past -- >> exactly. >> it's tough to say what exactly he meant because to michael's point, you don't know what is in kanye's head. however i do believe he is saying that there was a choice. once we got out of slavery, there were many blacks who did want to stay in that environment because they were conditioned for that. i say today we have more blacked enslaved than we ever have. >> see, right there, they are not enslaved. but as a black man -- you don't get to say -- >> i don't really care what you think about what i say. what i'm telling -- >> care about your father and your grandfather. >> laura: one at a time, guys. >> what i care about is that today we have young blacks are taught that slavery is such a bad thing -- >> it is a bad thing.

>> they have been taught the lack of civil rights. all things done by the party that michael votes for. >> come on, dude. now you are just full of crap. you know they flipped. lincoln was a republican under a different manner. >> we're not going to solve lincoln. you have to wrap it up in ten seconds. >> the issue is we 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. >> loving versus virginia was in my parents lifetime. that's not a long time ago. >> what about you, michael, what about the people of today? >> i was the only black kid in my a.p. classes. >> was it because they didn't allow blacks? >> laura: we have to have an

honest conversation and allow each other to make their points. we're going to continue on this. i mean, it's really important. and you both have a powerful voice and we appreciate you both coming on. and why are gun control advocates so willing to use the threat of violence? is that really happening? we'll debate it next.

>> a young woman in florida wants to >> laura: 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 filing the nra cited their top florida lobbyist, the 79-year-old great grand mother say she's received scores of vile and vulgar phone calls

including death threats this on the heels of chris cox saying that they and their families have been harassed at their homes. let's debate these tactics with chris hahn, a former aide to senator chuck schumer and grant cinchfield. it's great to see you. grant, i know you're familiar with some of these tactics. look, i have to say, both sides on this issue can be really bad on -- social media has just devolved into the worst. people take things the wrong way or say things they'd never say in person. both sides do these things but it's ironic the group that claims to be for love, peace and harmony has some of the vilest threats and you have experienced

them yourself. >> i believe most of them are keyboard cowards. but it only takes one nut job and you see what happens to leadership at the nra. it's not just there and people i work with. these are conservatives. anyone with a loud voice in this nation is being targeted. because the left has no other message out there. they don't have vision or policy. what do they do? they turn to violence and take it to people to silence their voices. they call us child murderers and terrorists. what are they doing that for? to dehumanize it and make it okay to threaten us. it's not going to work. we're going to keep with the voice and be strong. >> laura: chris, i'm from more speech. i don't like limiting people's speech. i think a robust exchange of ideas is great in our country

and we should encourage it. i do believe there is -- especially on a 79-year-old great grandmother. i'm going to read some of the things written about her. it's the lowest of the low. but chris, you were shaking your head. >> i agree, 100%, that the first amendment is important and free speech is important especially political speech which we learned is the highest form of protected speech in this country. where i disagree is when he says it's the left doing this. people who make these kinds of threats are crazy whether they are right wing or left wing. they are not part of any main stream movement. they are not part of a political party. they are mentally disturbed and many of them are keyboard cowards. i get horrible things said to me all the time but that doesn't stop me from talking and shouldn't stop marian hammer from talking. and it shouldn't have stopped her from going to that hearing.

she didn't go to a hearing on a bill because of some of these threats. that might have had to do with the fact -- that bill she -- >> laura: i got it, but 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 i say -- let me just read some of these. a lot of people aren't on social media. this is a tweet twill 22nd. it's not christian of me to say this, but i home that marian hammer falls down a flight of stairs and breaks a hip. i can't wait to see you mourning a gunshot victim. you are disgusting and what is wrong with people today. i hope karma comes for you soon. grant, you know, i get this stuff on a daily basis as well. i don't -- unless it's -- unless it's about children or the

elderly, i think a lot of this can be discounted. the media, really don't report on this fairly. it's always a one-sided deal. >> if i called the police every tie i had a death threat levelled against me, the cops would be at my house every day. >> me too. >> the problem is the left is violent. you look at trump's inauguration and people getting beat up for wearing a trump hat. >> that is just -- you're just so wrong -- you are absolutely -- look, you're wrong here. >> sir, sir, sir, excuse me. excuse me, sir. okay, you're wrong. it's not a particular ideology. it is crazy people. anyone who engages in that behavior should not be -- >> going back to the free speech issue. let's go back to the free speech issue and end with that, guys, we are out of time. what we have seen at berkley and

colleges and shutting down speech has been violent and overwhelmingly on the left. more speech is better. we need more speech. >> the tea party shut down a lot of free speech.

>> laura: we're doing a lot of

defending of the first amendment these days. we are exposing the enemies of the first amendment, free speech, free thought. and tonight we talk to former syracuse professor stewart card who says he was fired for defending free speech on campus. card says he was fired after he privately disagreed with the school's expulsion of students for their crude skits at a fraternity road. let's find out what happened from the professor himself. professor, look, my producer watched the fraternity video. it was gross. and it's profane and so forth. they say it was satire ridiculing a conservative who apparently was, you know, a bad person and racist, and so forth.

you wrote a statement, an e-mail to the administration. and you said the following, "i strongly believe that reenforcing the current myth that -- and thus require pampering is a disservice to our standpoi students. but i was toughened as a youth by physical beatings. i survived and i got stronger. i mean, that's -- and 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 and not about constitutions or individuals. it's the about free speech and reason versus dangerous myths that have swept the campuses

around the country. i don't know if i was fired or i quit. we might say that a university and/reached a mutual agreement that the beliefs and values of the university are no longer the beliefs and values -- >> you don't know -- that's cute. you don't know if you quit or was fired? did they make you sign a release? >> no. when i sent that e-mail i concluded it with if my position is a so objectionable as to render me disqualified, and the answer -- >> you were fired. i mean, come on, this is a little obtuse. you were fired because you wrote that e-mail saying i'm concerned that we're coddling students and trying to protect them from offensive ideas it's not going the help anyone or advance the cause of learning. and that was the thing that they

ultimately said, you're right. we don't want someone like you at our university. you know, and/know you're protective of syracuse. that's nice but the atmosphere on college campuses today on a kale of one to ten, one being the most pro free speech and ten being the least, where do you rate it? >> i'll give it an 8. but i'm shooting from the hip. another one of these myths is the myth that is prevalent not just on the su campuses but other campuses that all educated, intelligence, good people think the same on certain issues. and that myth -- >> we're 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 before we go let's look at a tweet we received during the show, this is a slap in the face

of the millions of illegal immigrants like myself who went through the process and waited years to have the honor to be us citizens. shannon bream has congressman matt gates, all the intrigue on capitol hill and rod rosenstein, take it away. >> this is a fox news alert, breaking news from texas, a brand-new legal showdown over daca. plus new reaction to fox's exclusive senate primary debate in west virginia straightahead. and she is a 6 time olympic medalist mrs. california is making it nearly impossible for her to train for competition. why she is taking the state to