nato needs to pay its fair share and vladimir, here we go. let not your heart be troubled. news continues. by the way, i saw you yesterday outside the white house. i'm like, really? really? it was the greatest place to broadcast from. i was, like, jealous. >> laura: i have a question. you are really, if you are really going to see wimbledon, you tell fox you are going to cover... >> sean: i didn't hear. what? >> laura: you are going to wimbledon. >> sean: i am not a tourist. i just go, work, sleep, go home. i go to dinner. i do eat. i hope there's a good restaurant. >> laura: [laughs] stay safe. good show. good evening from washington. i am laura ingraham. this is "the ingraham angle." we have a mesmerizing menu of stories to bring to you tonight and as the left melts down over brett kavanaugh's nomination to

the supreme court, runaway judges are striking fresh blows against the trump agenda. plus, is california senator kamala harris the female obama in waiting for 2020? we are going to debate that with someone who ran in her california circle and knows her well. how president trump plans to use "america first" to make a big splash at tomorrow's nato summit. first, kavanaugh, democrats, and dinosaurs. that is the focus of tonight's angle. watching the reaction of democrats to the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the high court is likely to give you ulcers. their anger and unhinged rants are one part dystopian drama, one part plain old sour grapes. kavanaugh, a federal judge who has occupied the bench for over a dozen years and written hundreds of decisions, is a man who is really scary because he coaches his daughter's

basketball team and volunteers in soup kitchens. now he's being derided as a total monster because of how he might rule on abortion, obamacare, and gun rights. actress julianne moore tweeted "please. we must send the senate a clear message. this country cannot afford a justice on the supreme court who is likely to support the gun lobbies, extreme absolutist interpretation of the second amendment. message your senators now." alyssa milano, still ticked that trump is the boss, tweeted "brett kavanaugh has attacked women's rights, health care, and immigration. he is the trifecta of terrible and he must never sit on the supreme court." but it was "this is us" director ken olin who tweeted my favorite and arguably the most ignorant comment of the night, at least he admits his ignorance, writing

"i don't know what kind of judge brett kavanaugh is but he and all of the other white and in many cases old folks at the event look so out of date, so out of sync with what the world is becoming. what the world needs to become. a last gasp of a way of life we're past. sad for us." the "this is us" director believes old white people are apparently not us. hollywood is not the only community reeling from the kavanaugh nomination. the shock could be seen on the faces and heard in the voices of the left-wing establishment. don't tell ken olin, but many of the liberals you are about to see are, in fact, white and, in many cases, old. >> president trump, with the nomination of judge kavanaugh, is fulfilling two of his campaign promises. first to undo women's

reproductive freedom. second to undo aca. i will oppose him with everything i've got. >> he very well could be the deciding vote in whether or not a criminal prosecution against the president goes forward. this is a president right now who hears the hoofbeats of an investigation that is bearing down on him. >> to avoid a constitutional crisis, we cannot let this confirmation process go forward. >> laura: did elizabeth warren say hoofbeats? the last time i saw this many dinosaurs on fire, chris pratt was running from them. voters may soon be doing the same. you have to watch these people. they are totally nuts. did you hear what cory booker said? we cannot let this confirmation process go forward. do you remember any conservative, any conservative talking in those terms when barack obama nominated elena

kagan or for that matter sonia sotomayor to the supreme court? the answer is no. go ahead and critique a nominees legal reasoning. question his view of the constitution. but to adopt an antifa-like resistance that seeks to block the process at all costs or weaponize it is absurd. the truth is for all the histrionics, brett kavanaugh would have been a natural choice for pretty much any republican president. he served on the second most important court in the country for more than a decade and is widely respected in legal circles and widely liked among democrats and republicans. his nomination to the high court, it's hardly a radical change. in 81 years, think about this, only three men have held this seat. justice hugo black, justice lewis powell, and justice anthony kennedy. justice thomas replacing thurgood marshall. that was the big swing but this is basically a slightly more

conservative nominee replacing a generally conservative justice in anthony kennedy. the big change is that for the first time since the 1930s, the court could have a reliable conservative majority. that's big. and this partially explains why some democrats are just going completely bonkers today. to block kavanaugh, dems are trotting out a new tactic. i loved seeing this unfold today. they now want to force nominees to answer how they would rule on hypothetical cases. now, this is all meant to pin down a nominee on hot button issues. here is senator richard blumenthal. >> you know, we have heard these phony platitudes again and again. we heard them from gorsuch. we heard them from now chief justice roberts. these evasive, canned, rehearsed answers are absolutely meaningless.

no more business as usual. no more deferential or courteous acceptance of these phony platitudes. >> laura: a man who knows something about platitudes. chuck schumer's head seems to be in the same place. here he is on the senate floor from yesterday. >> president trump will only select a nominee who will undermine protections for americans with pre-existing conditions, give greater weight to corporate interests, and vote to overturn roe v. wade. the next nominee has an obligation, a serious and solemn obligation, to share their personal views on these legal issues. >> laura: so now an impartial jurist is expected to prejudice his opinions and forecast his views during the confirmation process? only a year ago, schumer was singing a much different tune. >> you can't ask a judge who's nominated or a potential judge

who's nominated for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them. >> laura: okay, so what has changed? probably this. a new axios poll of registered voters showing democrats losing three senate seats while picking up two currently held by republicans. what is the translation? the democrats will still be in the minority. that's when chuck's glasses fall right off the bridge of his nose. in the meantime, they will do whatever they can to try to turn up their base. they are desperate. the senate seems to be slipping away. even if it means slashing away at a perfectly confident, very competent supreme court pick like brett kavanaugh, they are going to do whatever they can, but my sense is when the dust settles, these dinosaurs will be presiding over a fallen kingdom all of their own. and that is "the angle." joining me now for reaction are two esteemed attorneys, sol

wisenberg with the deputy independent counsel into bill clinton and scott bolton. great to see you. let's start with you, scott. i think it's completely fair game for the senate to use their constitutional responsibility seriously, question kavanaugh's philosophy and approach to the constitution and ask about past cases. that's what you should do. but what you heard from chuck schumer is something quite different. he is now demanding, contrary to what he said one year ago, one year and three months ago, that nominees must say how they're going to rule on certain hot button cases. >> or their philosophies. this is all about obamacare. this is all about abortion or roe v. wade and it's all about

whether this justice, this justice nominee, believes the president can be prosecuted or subpoenaed. these are not hot button issues for the democrats. these are real issues, and when you take the gloves off in those senate hearings, if you look at the last five or ten that have been published or that we've seen, you've got nonanswers. you have questions that skirt the issue. the democrats and i think some republicans are going to come out and say tell me what your feelings or thoughts are on roe v. wade. when he went to the d.c. circuit, justice kavanaugh, he said he would follow roe v. wade. but that was a mix because the problem with that is he was going to the d.c. circuit. now he's going to be on the supreme court.

why shouldn't we be able to ask >> laura: i think you are wrong about that and i don't think conservatives will be happy to hear it. i think you guys are to be really thanking yourselves, thanking this president that he nominated someone like kavanaugh, who is to the right probably little bit of kennedy but the idea that brett kavanaugh is going to radically move to take the first abortion case and overturn, i don't see that. >> prior opinions in all three of those areas. here's the thing. when you use hysterics, what about the justice crisis network who almost spent million dollars supporting -- >> laura: aclu. the left is doing the same thing. >> not $10 million. why aren't the democrats hysterical about the justice crisis network? >> laura: you guys just want them to be unilateral. let's go to sol wisenberg. the left wants the republicans to go into this fight without

offering any defense of this judicial nominee. they have made this about legislating from the bench because that's what they want the court to do. they want the court to legislate new rights into the constitution that the framers never intended. richard blumenthal, i want to share something with you that he said today. i could not believe what i was hearing. the snarly way he said it. >> judge kavanaugh, you don't belong in this building as a justice. my colleagues should be a "no" on this nominee unless judge kavanaugh specifically commits that he will recuse himself on any issues that involve president trump's personal financial dealings or the special counsel. >> laura: okay, sol. explain that one for us. >> there's absolutely no basis for it.

there is no basis in ethics or history for the concept that you can't rule on a case involving a president if he happened to have appointed you. rehnquist, if you recall, recused himself from the watergate tapes case but that's because he was a member of the nixon administration and a high official in the justice department. but it's just ridiculous and you're going to hear more of this kind of stuff and you are right, laura, really i've got no problem with people opposing a judicial candidate because they oppose his constitutional philosophy or her constitutional philosophy. but the democrats don't want to play that game because then they would have to admit in public hearings that really they believe the court should just enshrine their notion of progressivism into the constitution. they really can't win an argument based on textualism and originalism. so they have to come up with these phony issues, and that's what you're going to see, it's going to be very brutal.

and it's going to involve a lot of falsehoods. and the conservatives have to, republicans have to stay the course. >> sol, why shouldn't the democrats and republicans be able to ask about specific issues regarding his view on roe v. wade? why shouldn't they be able to ask about his views on immigration and his prior cases that he's decided in the d.c. circuit? that is not shenanigans. that is doing real good cross-examination, direct examination to get a feel for what this next justice is going to be. that is not shenanigans at all. that is real discussion. >> because there's been a rule that's been followed for decades that a judicial candidate should not opine on something on a specific issue that may come before him or her. it's going on with both parties for at least the last 50 years. by the way, there's a lot of hypocrisy in washington, but

there's no area full of more hypocrisy than judicial selection. as laura pointed out when she quoted schumer from the justice ginsburg nomination fight, the parties totally changed positions depending on whose ox is being gored as to what you can ask. absolutely fair game to get into questions of judicial philosophy and you can find out a lot about a candidate when you do that, but it's not fair game to ask them how they're going to rule. >> laura: what did judge kavanaugh say last night? he said i will approach every case with an open mind. an independent view of the judiciary which i think most people believe that's what the court should be. we don't want a supreme court that acts like it's a super legislator on these issues that congress can't get its act

together on, whether it's immigration or any of these social issues. let those percolate up through the states and be handled in due course. you see after 45 years of roe vs. wade, the issue is not settled. the country is still roiling over 50 million babies being over 50 million babies being11 killed in the womb because of the sacrosanct right that was emanating out of penumbras in the constitution. that didn't work and i think that's what the left wants to keep going. i want to play one more thing. this was feinstein on kavanaugh's view of the second amendment. >> because the issue of gun safety is so important to me, i want to mention how extreme kavanaugh's views are in this area. he argued in 2011 against washington, d.c.,'s ban because weapons like ar-15s are "in common use." >> kavanaugh's views on the second amendment are straight

out of the gun lobby playbook. >> laura: i mean, again, this is the most facile way of looking at case law. you know what brett wrote in the case? >> i have read the opinion several times. >> laura: it's not our task is to apply the constitution regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principle or policy. that was a 2011 case following from heller. he is applying the heller case. the fact that they don't like ar-15s, which are one of the most commonly owned guns in the united states, that's fine. california has rules against it but as a matter of constitutional law, it's different than being a legislator. >> you conflate the issues. >> laura: i separate the branches of government. >> you conflate the issues in this regard. if you're going to be ruling on abortion issues, why should i not be able to ask you what are

your professional feelings or your thoughts on roe v. wade. >> laura: feelings don't matter for a judge. your feelings don't matter. the constitution matters. judicial philosophy. his judicial philosophy is well known. >> that is all i hear from the senators, that they disagree with his lower court rulings. >> laura: sol, final word, will he get confirmed? yes or no? >> he will definitely get confirmed but the real question about roe vs. wade that he clearly can't be asked, i don't care what you thought about roe vs. wade when it was decided in 1973. the question is whether or not it should remain valid law if a case comes before the court. everyone would agree that's just something you can't ask somebody who is a judicial nominee. >> have to try to glean it from his writings. >> laura: we can't prejudice future cases. fantastic segment about the view. thank you. while the left goes to extraordinary lengths to paint kavanaugh as monster, we expose

the actual threats inside our court system when andy mccarthy and judge michael mukasey join us next. this wi-fi is fast.

i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. >> laura: okay, while the media are in an absolute panic, meltdown, "case of the vapors" mode, there are federal judges

right now undermining the president's agenda. the latest example, los angeles-based u.s. district court judge dolly gee, an obama appointee, on monday she rejected the trump administration's request to allow children who are illegal immigrants to be detained together with their parents. the judge called the trump administration filing a "cynical attempt to undo a long-standing court settlement that prohibits children caught at the border from being detained longer than 20 days." but is it? are federal judges overstepping their bounds by legislating from the bench? one judge can affect national policy or bring policy to a total standstill. here now to explain further is former federal prosecutor and fox news contributor, andrew mccarthy. andy, this flores settlement that we have talked about for quite some time continues to haunt the immigration stance of this president, specifically

this problem of family units or people posing as family units crossing the border and thinking they will just be released into the country. trump and sessions wanted to put an end to that, but now they are against the same federal district court judge that had shut down this process before for obama. where are we? >> it's a real tough problem, laura. although i would say as far as this judge is concerned, that far from a cynical attempt to undermine the law, i think what the trump administration try to do here was to get this reversed the right way which would be to go to the court and go back to the litigation where the settlement was originally entered. the fact that they didn't succeed was predictable, but i do think they did it the right way and the honorable way. but the problem here really is this is a terrible abdication by congress. and it's a great example of what happens when you legislate

through litigation. so basically what we need is congress to say here are the rules and the conditions of confinement, the conditions of detention that should apply to minor aliens. they won't do that. so they delegated to the justice department. and what we having is these activist litigations where there is a discovery of substantive due process rights of minor children to a certain level of treatment when they were here. as humane people, we can all sympathize with that. and agree with it. but it's not an adult policy if you're going to say we are going to give these people these rights and we are not going to provide the physical infrastructure that you need to carry it out. >> laura: andy, the court, you are right. shifting responsibility from congress. they already should have dealt with it. you should be able to deport people in an expeditious manner at the border who cross the

border illegally to noncontiguous countries. at the same time, this judge is taking it upon herself to undo what this administration is trying to do. and i think an activist -- this is an example of what happens when an activist judge gets a hold of a hot-button issue like this. most americans listening to this conversation tonight, i'm thinking to myself, wait a second. illegal immigrants have constitutional rights? if so, what rights? how far do they extend? do they get court interpreters? do they get lawyers paid for? could they get to go to school and get entertainment while they are in custody? i think for most americans, they think the whole thing is a little odd given the fact that they are illegally here. >> that's exactly the problem. if congress had dealt with this in an adult way, we would have answers to almost questions. instead, as it is in litigation and the fact of the matter is, the supreme court in the early 1990s assumed, as did the justice department, that they

have substantive due process rights to a certain level of humane attention here. and then they basically say you guys work it out. and the problem is, back in 1997 when this decree was entered, which now has the force of law, the problem was one level. now it's like, it's geometrically a bigger issue than it was before, and we don't have the infrastructure we need to address it. >> laura: it's absurd. andy, i'm going to ask judge mukasey also but i want your take on it. it's very important. what is happening to paul manafort, trump's -- briefly he was a campaign manager for the campaign. manafort is now being held in solitary confinement. 23 out of 24 hours a day as he is trying to prepare for his trial on tax and bank fraud charges, no collusion, none of that. tax and bank fraud. his lawyers are saying he's being held in a virginia prison cell and it was in rural

virginia. warsaw, virginia. i've driven through that town. he is 23 hours a day in solitary confinement. >> laura, it's very highly unusual in a white-collar case like this to detain somebody prior to trial. they say he was tampering with witnesses. they persuaded the district court that that was the case. the problem is, once you have somebody who is high-profile like him, if the judge actually does put him in pretrial, that is, put him in custody rather than allow him to be out on bail, it's very hard for him to be in the general population. it's almost a given that if you find that he has to be detained, he's going to be detained in these very arduous conditions. >> laura: yeah, well, where is the aclu? andy, thank you. let's bring in judge michael mukasey. i want to get your take on this because as someone who is a former white-collar criminal defense attorney myself, i cannot think of an occasion in

which one of my clients was even close to being put in solitary confinement two weeks before fairly complex litigation preparing for this. his lawyers are saying it's much more difficult to prepare for the defense. what is going on here? >> well, apparently what happened is they brought -- the government alleged apparently some evidence to the effect that he was contacting witnesses. so they got the judge to revoke bail. once he was turned over to the bureau of prisons, the bureau of prisons made the decision that if you put them in the general population, he's going to be an attractive target for the kinds of people who are in general population. bear in mind this man hasn't been convicted of anything. so to protect him and to protect the bureau of prisons against liability, they put them in solitary confinement. but this is totally unnecessary. it's not rocket science to have somebody in a detention situation outside of prison, home detention and similar kinds of detention in which he can't

get access to a computer or a telephone. there are people who are convicted of dealing in child pornography who are out and about who get restrictions on their access to computers and so on. this could be done. it's not rocket science. and it would not be rocket science but paul manafort in a setting outside of prison in which he, his access to a telephone may be restricted, monitored and so on. this is unnecessary. >> laura: where is the aclu? the aclu has issued the most condemnatory statements about solitary confinement that it is essentially its own type of cruel and unusual punishment. a lot of people on the left want to get rid of it altogether but you don't hear a peep from them on this case. i want to move on to kavanaugh briefly and this idea of a single judge, federal district

court judge, something justice thomas wrote about at the end of the term in one of the big cases, the travel ban case, one judge being able to put an injunction in place that stops the president's policy, whether it's on immigration or a broad variety of other issues. on that issue, how problematic is it today with the federal district court judges? >> it's enormously problematic because it's become very much in style for judges to grant blanket injunctions nationwide on the theory that the case before them is very much like the case elsewhere and so they are going to apply the rules that they decide to all cases that are similar in all jurisdictions. that procedure is, as justice thomas pointed out, ripe for challenge. i expect in the coming term, we will see a challenge. >> laura: tooting the horn of my old boss but i am so glad he wrote that in his concurrence because it's long overdue that be examined.

now, i have to play this for you. this is keith ellison from minnesota who was speaking, i guess he was back in his home state yesterday, monday, and he was talking about the supreme court nominee. didn't know who it was then. but already talking possible impeachment. let's watch. >> i will say -- it came up with justice thomas. in terms of his impartiality. it could theoretically happen. >> laura: i don't know if you could hear that. >> hard to hear. >> laura: basically saying that all bets are off. probably won't happen but it could. what about that? >> it's a parody of itself. he's urging that somebody be impeached because he disagrees with their approach the law. is that what he says?

>> laura: basically, yeah. >> well, there's a definition of an impeachable offense. a high crime and misdemeanor. that's a gross neglect of duty. simply disagreeing with keith ellison, i don't think it amounts to a gross abuse of duty. he is delusional. >> laura: being an originalist and a textualist is apparently a high crime and/or a misdemeanor, judge mukasey. you heard about blumenthal and company. judge, thank you so much. great to have you on. the 2020 presidential race showcase. is senator kamala harris the new barack obama? back in a moment.

>> laura: california senator kamala harris is being a shining hope.

the 2020 race, yes, we are already talking about it. isn't that fun? she has liberal hearts swooning even more after a report that her office -- check this out, refused to accept a courtesy phone call from the white house counsel's office about of course the supreme court pick. they want of course to discuss the kavanaugh appointment. her office is now denying that exact precise characterization, but regardless senator harris is on the relentless campaign to beef up her left-wing bona fide. it doesn't hurt that she is apparently a longtime favorite of former president obama. could she reach obama-like status questionnaire cured to discuss is sean duffy and austin dove, an attorney who runs in many of the same legal circles as senator harris. kamala harris, i see her as a likely 2020 front runner. i don't think it's going to be

elizabeth warren. i don't think it's going to be bernie sanders. joe biden is not going to resurrect the amtrak express. hillary is not going to be with the scooby mobile. it's going to be someone like kamala harris. mr. dove, you know kamala harris. what about her versus barack obama? are they of the same epic starlike quality for the democrats? >> well, other than the fact of saying this because their ethnicity is similar in terms of being biracial, they are obviously both of the democratic party. they are very strong candidates that they come from different beginnings and different origins. kamala's background was steeped in local politics first, then the district attorney's office in a large county in california. and then became the state attorney general before becoming a senator. barack obama's background was much more grassroots, working with organizations before he came onto the political stage and gained traction as a

senator. i think in any sense, we want a candidate who resonates with the voters, someone who can connect and has a strong background in policy, lawmaking and understanding how to work across the table in different circles. >> laura: whoa, whoa, whoa, austin. you lost me at "work across the table." you are doing really well until you got to that point. by the way, i raised her, as a woman who is a former prosecutor, very strong background in the law as obama. it has nothing to do with her ethnicity. it's about the fact that she has a pedigree and is now trying to push a more left-wing bona fides more so is her days as a prosecutor. let's talk about what she said today about brett kavanaugh. i didn't sound like she was interested in working across the aisle. let's watch. >> listen, if you are a young

woman in america or you care about a young woman in america, pay close attention to this nomination. pay close attention. because kavanaugh has made his purpose clear. it's about government taking on the decision about a woman and what she does with her body instead of giving that woman and her family and her god the power to make the decisions for herself. >> laura: okay, brett kavanaugh is essentially, we are supposed to believe, sean duffy, standing at a planned parenthood abortion clinic and barring women from going in. that's what the woman who is a 2020 i think likely presidential contender. >> the thing kamala harris is talking about, protecting women's rights. how about protecting a woman when she is in the womb as an infant? someone who is the most vulnerable in any stage of life when they are in the womb. i know that's not the debate we're having here, but the fact

that we are talking about women's rights and not protecting women's rights in the womb is outrageous. your intro is correct. when we talk about kamala harris and barack obama, it's not about their race or their background. it's about who can be radical. who can be the biggest hater of donald trump. if you are a democrat, there's no idea or policy you can run on. just being a resistor. not only that, but i think democrats are so engaged in what's happening right now because if you can't win at the ballot box, if you can't win vote in congress, you have to look to the courts. activist judges that will implement your progressive liberal socialist policies. because you get to it in congress and you can't win the hearts and minds of voters. so you want to have the activist court initiative and you also have who's going to lead the resist movement and kamala fits those. senator harris, i should say, fits both of those. >> laura: i remember the comment barack obama made not long ago ago about kamala harris. this is why people still today

say of all the people out there, possible people running in 2020, she probably is favored. let's watch. >> i'm out in california. we are at a fund-raiser having a nice time. i happen to mention kamala harris is the best looking attorney general in the country. as you might imagine, i got trouble when i got back home. who knew eric holder was so sensitive? >> laura: ha-ha. i thought we weren't supposed to objectify women who went to prestigious law schools. i am kidding. i think that kind of humor is fine. obama can make those jokes but conservatives can't. austin, what is your thought? is she the tough0nosed prosecutor or she kamala harris, if you care about women then you have to stop brett kavanaugh. to me, the latter isn't going to resonate with ohio, pennsylvania, wisconsin. >> i don't think those two are

mutually exclusive. the fact of being an attractive woman sort of excludes you from being politically adept and capable of being a leader the way kamala has demonstrated. >> laura: do you comment on people's looks? you probably don't because that's just not -- >> that appeared to be -- >> laura: i think it's funny. i think that's where barack obama is very charming but the left never has a sense of humor on that, and if conservatives do it, but that's beside the point. the point is is kamala harris going to resonate with mainstream america or is she going to stay in the resistance mode? fight trump all the way. >> first of all, her comments, or thoughts about what's happening with women's rights coming up in certain swing divisions will be taking place coming up, i think it's important for her to establish up front and say this is where i stand on this. stand on this.1 i think we are talking about more than 40-year-old precedent that may be on the block again. that's important for her to articulate that clearly. as far as her viewpoint, can she gain traction, come outside the resist mode as you characterized it?

i don't think that's where she really sits. as a former prosecutor, as you indicated at the outset, i think she's got strong chops there and lots of policy. >> laura: you keep saying lots of policy. i'm not trying to be difficult here, but sean, you are in congress. what is the democrats' agenda? what agenda did the democrats have? they have zero agenda. i would love to hear the policy that kamala harris is advancing to get people more jobs, higher wages, et cetera except raising the minimum wage in california. >> single-payer -- >> you can't have the same time say -- >> one second. >> one second.11 you look at 2018, you can't energize democrats more than they already are. this supreme court issue is going to energize the right and we are going to gain seats in the senate. we might gain house seats because you are energizing the right because of what is

happening with the supreme court. >> laura: austin, you can close it out. >> i would beg to differ. your other guest's own state, wisconsin, that is predicting blue as a result of the very things he's talking about right now. >> pollsters are wrong. >> laura: all right, guys, we are out of time. we are out of time, but i will say this. i will say this. the democrats at some point have to offer an affirmative agenda beyond single-payer, abortion. i'm sorry. we've got to have more. we've got to have more than just hate on trump. >> real policies have a real impact on the voters today and they will matter. >> laura: i hope we hear a real substantive debate. president trump is taking the america first idea to the world stage. how he is planning to make sparks fly at tomorrow's nato summit. can't wait to watch. after this.

>> laura: president trump is in belgium for a nato summit. president trump has escalated

his america first rhetoric and criticism of nato ahead of this meeting and that's not sitting well with many european leaders. >> i would like to address president trump directly, who, for a long time now, has been criticizing europe almost daily for, in his view, insufficient contributions to the common defense capabilities. dear america, appreciate your allies. after all, you don't have that many. >> laura: i still don't get it. joining us now, matt schlapp and mike fuchs. mike, take it away. big meeting, nato. obviously the president has made clear he wants the nato member countries to pay up their old dues that they haven't paid and

pay the 2% required gdp. most of them are nowhere near that. why is that a bad idea? >> it's not a bad idea. in recent years, nato has been increasing its expenditures in recent years and that's a good thing. past presidents have asked the same thing. my issue with what president trump is doing is he's basically throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to nato. he is saying that nato, maybe we don't need it anymore. maybe it's not useful to us right now. because they are not paying their dues. >> laura: when did he say that? the last big speech, he reinforced the importance of nato which was a relief to many of the global elites. at least he said that. i think he has had how important our nato alliances and he wants to reinvigorate it but he wanted to be fair. >> i think what he said repeatedly frankly since the campaign is actually that our nato allies are not pulling their own weight and they're not -- >> laura: they are not. >> that's not true. even if we talk about finances

of it, nato bases save american taxpayers dollars. we do why did obama say they should do more? >> they pay for our bases. it's not a bad part of the give-and-take with our nato allies talking about how we both need to be making sure that we are paying the right amount. let's just remember, i think it's important to remember when you talk about the finances here. nato bases save american taxpayers dollars. they save american taxpayer dollars. >> laura: matt schlapp. >> nobody's trying to say there's something wrong with having the bases but we are saying when these countries come together and they agree they're going to spend 2% of their gdp on national security, they shouldn't get away with not doing it. they shouldn't get away with paying only 50% of that. if they are going to commit, they have to do it. we all know it. america has for decades paid the lion's share of all these expenses with our allies abroad, when we have these coalition operations. the american taxpayer, the american voters have the saying hey, why can't you just live up to your agreement? by the way, not just nato. has to do with tariffs and trade

in all these things that allies -- >> laura: they have a $150 billion trade deficit with europe. there is a lot of money there. but also a social welfare state as vast as europe's, health care, national health care costs a lot of money. maybe if they had more of a free-market approach to solve these grand entitlements, they'd have a little bit more extra cash floating around to invest in their military. there's many more, i think you're right but i think most americans watch this and they're like, gosh, that doesn't seem right. we spend an enormous amount and i think we should. i want to play something max boot, i guess he used to be a writer for "the wall street journal." now he's on cable television trashing trump. he is one of those people, never trump, hope republicans lose in november. this is what he said when he watched president trump landing in belgium. let's watch. >> as i watch these pictures, i just do so with his intense sense of unease and angst and

foreboding because this is really, could potentially be a make or break week for the western alliance, for american foreign policy, the post-cold war order. this could be the most momentous few days in american diplomacy in the 21st century and we will see to what extent the damage he does over the next few days. i can't imagine any benefit from this trip. the only question in my mind is how bad is the damage going to be? >> laura: always the optimist about trump. mike. >> actually i agree. >> laura: that's a shock. >> i have a sense of foreboding. >> it's going to be okay. >> i'm not so certain. for 18 months, european leaders have done their level best to actually try to work with president trump and i think over the last few weeks, they been showing we are fed up. we're not going to be treated like this. we have come to your defense in the past. >> laura: let's see how long that lasts. >> it's the apocalypse. we pulled out of the paris treaty. brett kavanaugh. come on.

>> laura: a new so-called fast track immigration court for border crosser seems to be slowing things down a little bit. details next. are you ready to take your wifi to the next level?

then you need xfinity xfi. a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. any paint can change the way a room looks. but only one can change how it feels. century, from benjamin moore, is the first-ever soft touch matte finish paint.

its revolutionary texture unlocks 75 unprecedented colors, each with exquisite depth and richness. it's a difference you can see, touch, and feel. that's proudly particular. century. only at select local paint and hardware stores. century. where we're making the next generation of multiscreen welcadvertising possible.ght, we have the broad and targeted reach you need to access the customers you're looking for on tv and digital platforms. then we connect you to our team of media experts, who are ready to help you maximize your budget while elevating your advertising effectiveness. sounds like an advertising opportunity knocking. visit comcastspotlight.com today.

track misdemeanor immigration court rules out with confusion, tension." the court has been designed to streamline cases but it appears to be creating logjams instead. is this what we have to resort to? congress flails at solving the border crisis. joining us now, immigration attorney saman nasseri. good to have you on. here is the problem i think most people see that are outside the political world. they are watching this unfold. when we had thousands of people which we do every month crossing our borders illegally not through the normal ports of entry, just crossing into our country illegally, most people believe that releasing them into the country, catch and release is a joke. and it encourages more illegal crossing which is very dangerous and not compassionate at all. but the fast track court is not something you think is fair. why? >> it doesn't give anybody due process.

once you enter the united states, once you cross whether you are a citizen or not, you have the same constitutional rights. you have the right to due process. you have the right to confront your cases. as an attorney to advocate for these cases, it's extremely difficult when you're on such a short timeline because you're being given credit for time served which is usually a good deal, or let's try to fight your case. and now these individuals are making statements that could be averse to their immigration interests. >> laura: you don't have the exact same constitutional panoply of rights as you do if you are an american citizen and you are accused of a crime. we know that. it's a substantive due process but not exactly the same. the problem is we don't have the facilities. congress hasn't passed requisite legislation are funding for enough immigration courts and so forth, so a lot of these courts are now going until 10:00 p.m., correct? they used to go until midafternoon, 4:00 p.m. now they are running nearly 18 hours a day to try to get

through these cases. it seems to be having an effect however because now more people think gosh, when i come across, if i don't have a child with me or someone i say is my child, i'm not going to be just released into the country. and we are beginning to deport people faster which i think most americans approve of. saman. >> it's not a matter of deporting people faster, because as you said it earlier, it's chaotic. you said about catch and release. all you are doing is delaying the inevitable. you're going to have people go through the process and have credit for time served, they are going to get deported and they will be back here as soon as possible asking for asylum when they get to the entry or get caught crossing the border again. i was in immigration court today and they were close to 80 bodies in there. usually there's about 20 or 30. >> laura: well, don't cross. here's a clue. trump said this and people went crazy. don't cross into our country illegally. that's what obama said in 2014. he said do not make this

journey. it is dangerous. it's not the way to do it. it's not the way to do it.1 if you come, you're going to have to be sent home. that was barack obama. i play that sound bite on my radio show frequently. people forget that he said that. briefly, what's your idea for how to solve it? how to solve it?1 >> i don't disagree with what you are saying. the same problem happened in 2014-'15 when unaccompanied 2014-'15 when unaccompanied1 minors came in. the problem is what's being told to people in their own countries. mexico does have to have better accountability for people traveling thousands of miles before they get here. >> laura: i'm going to have you on radio. we're going to bring you on radio to go into a longer explanation about this. it's very complicated. stay with us. >> laura: tomorrow we have a

we have a big show on radio, know huge show to tomorrow nigh. president trump, will he be the scunge at the nato -- scunge at thskunk atthe nato picnic.

we're going to dig into this tomorrow night. until then, tell us how we're doing at twitter. now let's hand it over to shannon bream. shannon: i don't think he minds being the skunk. i think he relishes. >> it was great to have you on radio. you were fantastic. shannon: . it was fun. we're against clowns and screeny dolls. we begin with a fox news alert, a busy night for the president, now in f brussels for a nato summit. plus, pfizer is responding to rcriticism from the president ad the administration threatens a new round of tariffs on chinese imports, it is all new tonight. judge brett kavanaugh entering the gauntlet that is the senate confirmation process, will he