homophobic, they want dirty air, kill the kids. also, trump is horrible. more horrible than yesterday and the day before. they have overreached. we'll always be fair and balanced. we are not to destroy-trump-media. let not your heart be troubled. it's time. laura taking over. >> laura: you know what they need, hannity they need a "ism" song. racism, sexism -- >> sean: it's the same playbook. every single election is the same playbook. >> laura: the bushes use a lot of those same things, protectio protectionist, isolationist, so the s -- establishment is striking back. >> sean: give me one policy -- not a trick question. one thing that they are offering the american people to make the country better, safer, more prosperous. >> laura: the left is doing nothing. all they have is the resistance. you documented it clearly.

you have no jet lag. i don't know how you did it. >> sean: i feel good. have a great show. >> laura: good evening. i'm laura ingraham. this is "the ingraham angle." we have a phenomenal show. president trump fires back against the critics of his russian meeting. we will analyze all aspects of the media meltdown straight ahead. also, special counsel robert mueller is making some curious immunity requests. is this just a propaganda ploy? we'll break it down. raymond arroyo is here with our weekly "seen and unseen" segment, where political comics is in big-time hot water and a former president is attacking his own sex. and the democrats drew plan for the border. they are both still a very sad tale. details ahead. plus, the anatomy of the freak out. that's the focus of tonight's "angle" ." ever since the president misspoke on monday at the helsinki summit, the media have

spun around like a whirling dervish's, they are giddy with excitement. excitement, of course, that is masked info outrage. never has so much been made of so little. >> dan coats came to me and some others, they said they think it's russia. i have president putin. he just said it's not russia. i will say this. i don't see any reason why it would be. >> laura: those words are set off a chain reaction of condemnation without context. >> you have been watching perhaps one of the most disgraceful of performances by an american president at a summit in front of a russian leader but i've ever seen. >> you should call this the surrender summit. >> laura: oh, so catchy. a former cia director john brennan tweeted...

>> john brennan says treasonous. are we talking from your perspective, from his perspective, impeachment? >> well, i'll let that stand as it is, as are the responsibility of the congress of the united states. >> laura: don't you miss chuck hagel? by monday afternoon, they were per prosperous calls for the cia and national intelligence director's to resign in protest. not against the president's actions, substituting policies toward russia, but resign over his comments at the press conference. speakers are the director of national intelligence, dan coats, resigned in protest? >> how does gina haspel stay on the job? how does dan coats stay on the job? >> laura: by tuesday morning, the media freak out was evolving into totally uncharted territory. it's like the bermuda triangle. people who battle trump hatred for a living, they make a living at it, they try to outdo one

another, jockeying for the pole position in their denunciations and prescriptions. it was -- what's the word? extraordinary. >> we all know that vladimir putin is holding something over donald trump. we do not know what it is. but we know it must be something extraordinary. >> the definition to me is the first word of the impeachment article in the constitution, which is treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. >> we don't know whether what we are seeing is dementia, psychopathic, compromise, but what we are seeing is extraordinary. >> laura: [laughs] they all get together and decide the multisyllabic where they will use it it? extraordinary. you know what is extraordinary, the high judgment responses to what was essentially a an error of communication. the president reiterated his support of the intel community and he tried to clarify his comments on tuesday. then there was this from a

cabinet meeting today, which began with an unfortunate mini ad-lib. >> is russia still targeting the u.s., mr. president? >> there has been no president ever as tough as i have been on russia. i think president putin knows that better than anybody, certainly better than the media. he understands identity is not happy about it. he shouldn't be happy about it because there is never been a president as tough on russia as i have been. >> laura: okay, what he said "no," you can hardly hear, that only through kerosene on the media fire, which in turn lit up today's press briefing. >> do you have any comments as to why he won't be more critical of putin? >> he was beside him on monday. why wasn't he critical of putin? >> why should this president have any credibility to americans and what he says? >> laura: don't you love the media figures talking about someone else's credibility at this point? the president's offhand remarks

were, let's face it, some self-inflicted wounds. but the rapid media, democrats, the neocons, they never traversed, they hope to turn that little neck into a mortal blow. and now they are just making no sense at all. >> we are in a 9/11 national emergency because our country is under attack. issue a subpoena, not only for the translator and the notes, but also for the national security team. >> if they don't drag the translator and, they have to find out the answers from secretary of state. they have to find the answers out, from not only the ambassador, but what else was discussed. it's frightening. >> we should have another president take over right now. >> laura: oh, my god. people get paid to say things like that. it is stunning. okay. we'll get right on rewriting the constitution party. mounting an overthrow of a duly

elected president. you hear the rumblings of that there. the left has no record to run on. certainly not of the midterms. what have they accomplished? zero. they can go to the voters and say this is our prescription for making your life better. we'll bring you to 4% economic growth. this is what we will do to hold china accountable on trade. this is what we will do to have a stronger border. they want to abolish i.c.e., for goodness' sakes. they seek to create another narrative. that the president is somehow secretly working behind closed doors to advance russia's agend agenda. and that he is at odds with his own intelligence chief. this is patently absurd and i think they know it is. granted, the president has occasionally been an artful in the way he's explained his position. sometimes his frustration with the mueller investigation has gotten the better of him. but when you cut through all the theatrical displays of outrage, trump, in many ways, is saying what he has always had, even if no one wants to hear about.

>> i will go along -- it could have china, it could have been a lot of groups. i think it well could have been russia but i think it could wel well, you know what he's going to have said, could be other groups. >> donald trump, and his heart of hearts, is convinced that the russia did not model. >> laura: the president is saying that russia is responsible for modeling and that they are not alone. i'm the first of all the president out of her knees and precise in his language and he has been. communication is vitally important on the matter is of important as will make this especially with this being an cloud that side. but saying that russia is the only foreign power seeking to -- it's neither treasonous nor erroneous, it is correct. listen to the director of national security, dan coats. >> every day, for an actor's

worst offenders being russia, china, iran, north korea, every day, they are penetrating our digital infrastructure and conducting a range of cyber intrusion attacks against targeting the united states. >> laura: you hear that? russia is one of many foreign actors trying to disrupt things in the united states. across the board, every day, and coming from these other countries. that does not rule out the presence of other foreign actors. but perhaps the most egregious, and revealing of all the lunatic, get them in the rubber room reactions regarding trump-russia, once again, comes from the former cia chief john brennan. the man i am sorry to say -- i know it sounds uncharitable -- is a complete embarrassment, spewing outrageous falsehoods while offering reckless advice. >> would there be a tendency for

intelligence gatherers, prefers, to withhold now some final intelligence to the president? >> there very well might be. there might be. out of concern. >> laura: he went on to expand on that. out of concern that the white house or the president, what would run to sergey lavrov or putin himself. think about that. this is the guy who headed up the cia. the same one i believe who's signed off on the unmasking without a warrant. he is essentially urging current intel officers, or giving basically tacit approval to their concealing key national security information from the country's current commander-in-chief. shame on you, sir. that is tantamount to a slow rolling to. we've gone from charges of treason within minutes of rankly of what president trump said in helsinki, two calls for resignations, to now former intel chiefs encouraging

traitorous acts, acts against the current duly elected president of the united states. it is stunning. the next time you pundits and hosts want to see it is graceful an end treasonous moment, just pull up some of your tv appearances on the dvr and hit play. that is "the angle." joining me now for reaction is dan bongino, former secret service agent and host of the dan bongino podcast and juan williams, cohost of "the five." great to have both of you on. juan, the president had a couple of rough communication days, but i say actions speak louder than words. the media reaction has been -- it reminds me of the road runner and wile e. coyote. trump is road runner and they think, okay, i got the tnt now, we will get him and that he just speeds away. your reaction? >> i think the republican

response, laura, your fellow response, that is the hole in "the ingraham angle." i'm thinking of newt gingrich, people in the congress who have been slow to offer any objection to president trump, have come out and said, what he did was objectionable, and not in service to the united states, and they are pundits -- >> laura: they did not say treasonous. newt gingrich tweeted out, as did i -- as did i -- of the president needed to clarify his remarks. i set it on monday night with matt schlapp by that is very criticism. it's not saying that you should embrace him on matters of intelligence or imply that somehow he's back channeling information to the former soviet union. that is so irresponsible for them but say that. >> noel, i think if they are asking legitimate questions about the actions. you say actions count more than words, so we look at his actions, and you look at the entirety of that presentation, not only the press conference, but the later meeting, the two hour meeting, we still don't know the details.

the russians to say it was great meeting. they apparently think their military agrees, but our military doesn't know about it. laura, that introduces questions as to, is this president acting as an american to protect us, the american people? >> laura: you are basically john brennan then. >> brennan said don't tell him. he is our president. i respect that. i am saying, he has opened the door. nobody opens the door. he opened the door to these kinds of questions in these rebukes. >> laura: dan bongino, the idea that because russia goes home, sergey lavrov and putin go home and they make their propaganda pushed to their people, big deal. i lived there in 1983. the propaganda flows freely in russia. i don't take putin at his word on pretty much anything but the fact that he is saying, this was a great meeting, big deal. who cares. that doesn't hurt us if he says that. >> this is what they always do, laura.

what's bothering me about this, and juan comments on particularly, he's talking about actions. but you are ignoring -- listen, you don't have to agree with these actions. neither does the audience. there's a lot of libertarians out there, laura, who prefer a more noninterventionist approach rates. when i do. >> before his being when you reasonably look at what trump has done, he's not a politician -- forget the words. i'm not saying the words are irrelevant. i'm just saying when you look at what is actually happening, combating against the pipeline, the russian economic access necessity, personally sanctioning friends of putin, the attacks on the russian mercenaries in syria, you don't have to agree with these actions, noninterventionist on both sides. but suggesting he is a russian pond while his military wipes out russian works, sanctions billionaires are his buddies,

and then cuts off his potential economic lifeline, juan, is unreasonable. where are you getting this from? >> dan, in that situation you described, remember the russians were attacking us! that is why we responded! i'm just telling you, what about iran and iran's continued support for terrorism and for assad in syria? contrary to american interests. >> juan, did you just say iran? did you object when we delivered pallet full of cash, this is not a distraction. >> you are spending the conversation. i think i disagree with you about the iranian nuclear deal but that is not what we are talking about. we are talking about about a rd interfering in interference in syria contrary to american interests. >> i get it. but juan, we have not been a friend to the iranians either. i don't understand in syria --

i'm messing the point is. we wiped out russian mercenaries and we are combating the iranians and serious. >> laura: actions versus ad libs are sides, it's legitimate to criticize the communication pushed after helsinki -- i'm fine with that. but jumping to these other conclusions, i think it takes it to another level. "the new york times" is just reporting that trump was sent the documents two weeks before the inoculation indicating that putin personally ordered the hack into the united statesy drop in "the new york times." we'll have to unpack all of tha that. this is where we are. the president gave an interview tonight to cbs news, where he talked about, and try to again clarify this point about the intelligence chief and who is responsible. let's watch.

>> you say you agree with u.s. intelligence that russia meddled in the election in 2016? >> i've said that before. i have so that numerous times before. i would say that is true, yeah. >> laura: your reaction very quickly, juan? >> it is a guy trying to clean up after the circus. it's futile. americans saw. it wasn't just verbal missteps as you describe it. i think the whole meeting with putin and the fact that we still don't know is an indication that something is strange here and i think for all of us, for you, for dan, for me, we've got to wonder, why are zero president behaving in such a way as to introduce these questions? that is why i said it is not just democrats. it's not just some crazed or liberal pundits. there are republicans, your fellow republicans, raising these very legitimate questions based on his words and his actions. >> laura: i think there are a lot of republicans who never really wanted trump in the first place. a few others.

the majority of the republicans who think this is a be all and all story of the last five years, are not people who agree with his more nationalist foreign policy or economic policy. great conversation as always. thank you so much. we have seen some rather interesting political alliances emerging in recent days with former presidents speaking out more than ever. >> if the u.s. takes the lead, others tend to follow. >> do you really want to say, we are going to make everybody have a big military, but we are not going to help everybody build their own future and change their own labs? >> you have far right parties that often time are based not just on platforms of protectionism and closed borders, but also on barely hid in racial nationalism. >> laura: are we seeing a new kind of political paradigm being created in the age of trump? joining us now to analyze this and the breaking news out of "the new york times" as karl rove, former senior advisor to president george w. bush.

karl, it's great to have you on the show by the first first tin "the ingraham angle." thank you so much for coming on. what about that? the last couple of weeks, you had obama, clinton, and george w. bush, not directly referencing the president, but clearly, they are not so thinly veiled references to his governing style, and the substance of his policy. your reaction? >> president clinton and president bush 43 were speaking at a seminar in little rock for the presidential scholars, a program that they and the president 41 bush library and the lbj library have. i don't see that that was anything other than just responding to questions and talking about their views on, for example, leadership, president bush made the point that the world depends upon american leadership, and when america leads, the world follow follows.

president obama's speech, i read it at length, it is a typical obama performance, very long. there are parts of it that appeared to be directed at president trump. but there's a bunch of it that i think, it's got to be put in the context of, he's appearing in south africa, he is being hosted by nelson nelson mandela's widow, he's giving a lecture, hn the presence of the new president of south africa who has come to office only after a huge conflict inside south africa over a corrupt predecessor who was exactly what president obama described in his speech as a strong man who demolished the institutions within south africa and engaged in crony capitalism and undermined a sense of democracy. had an election but it was clearly phony. he was heralding -- it's an unusual speech because at one point, he talked about in

south africa, the importance of markets, but it's -- there are points that clearly -- >> laura: it was wild. karl, hold that thought. more on this breaking news out of "the new york times" next.

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. ♪ >> you haven't condemned space putin specifically.

do you hold and personally responsible? >> i would. he's in charge of the country, just like i considered myself to be responsible for things that happen in this country. certainly, as a leader of the country, you would have told of responsible, yes. very strong on the fact that we can't have modeling, we can't have -- i let him know that we can't have this, we won't have it. and that is the way it is going to be. >> laura: that was president trump earlier tonight, hours before this report broke from "the new york times," essentially saying that the president was told that putin did personally call for the hacking into our election. karl rove is back with us, joined by richard goodstein, democratic strategist and policy expert. sol wisenberg, former deputy independent counsel during whitewater. karl, i had to interrupt you before we broke were commercial. what is your reaction this "new york times" report? it doesn't really surprise me because brennan was onto those russia behind the meddling six

months earlier, from what i could tell. it doesn't really surprise me that the president would be briefed on it. >> it doesn't surprise me either. frankly, remember early in the administration, i think the president had a line that i wish to used on monday, wages, he said early and has termed that of course he would like to know if anybody modeled in his election because he would like to make sure it would stop. i wish the president had that going on monday. this latest report doesn't surprise me. what did surprise me was the ability of the mueller investigation and our government cyber forensic to be able to identify the specific sectors, 12 actors, he mentioned those guys in the office and the dr you, and going online and seeing their names and asking the question, how could they tell it was us. >> laura: sol, i want to ask you about that. the indictment last friday, one indictment, 12 russian officers. what of that? to me, i thought, why name them?

why not keep that under seal and see if one of them comes to united states. apparently some of them have been to the united states. what is the theory? >> i don't know the theory is. if you don't put them under seal, you know you will never get them over here. they are gru officers. the point of the indictment, these people will never appear in the u.s. court where the point of the indictment was to buy mueller sometime meant to say, i am doing things, doing important things, but it is a seeking indictment. i don't doubt that he will prove that, it's just that he will never be called on to prove it. >> laura: indictments to our viewers, just to be clear again, indictments are the charges, you do not yet see the evidence, obviously they wouldn't put it out, it's a very sensitive. they are the charges against these individuals. people forget, where'd you were indicted -- a lot of people aren't i did, and they are not guilty. liberals used to believe that. not saying they aren't guilty.

people have to remember, if we will blame trump for not having smart verbiage, we have to be smart with our verbiage, too. >> laura, and every criminal, criminal case, the judge tells the jury, the indictment is not proof or evidence. yet i saw on the other networks, constantly, here we have the proof, here we have the evidence. if mueller didn't think he had that come he's perpetrated a massive fraud and i don't think he has. but andy mccarthy made the comment that basically, now, all the russians are presumed innocent because this has been put into an indictment. the real point is, this is a speaking indictment meant to buy time for baba mueller. >> laura: no americans named in it, no american's actions referenced. nevertheless, it ate up the new cycle and the president apparently, richard, approves the timing, said it was okay to hand down the indictment. they checked with the white house and he said it was

okay. kind of kills the narrative that trump was worried about the indictment. your reaction, richard? >> can i react to "the new york times" story? what's newsworthy about it as one of two things. either trump has no faith whatsoever in the intelligence community because if he does, just today, there is another "new york times" story saying, i hold putin responsible just like people hold responsible for what goes on here. if you were told two weeks before the indictment that putin personally and directly was overseeing the subversion of the u.s. democracy, that is not, oh, he runs a country" -- that is very specific. trump still can't acknowledge that. that is troublesome. >> laura: that is what he said tonight on the "cbs news." that is what he said tonight. putin is responsible. he's in charge of the country. >> that is different. to say he is responsible because he's in charge of the country is like saying, the manager is responsible -- >> laura: this is where karl rove, with your experience

in the bush administration, they are playing -- i hate the multilevel chests reference -- but he does have other concerns other than just what is happening in the mueller investigation, with "the new york times" will publish. he just had this meeting with putin. i imagine -- he reference this today, karl, they were talking about israel, iran, syria, nuclear nonproliferation, getting back some semblance of whatever normal relationship with russia is. that does come into play, and obama references, karl, back in 2014, insulting someone on the world stage, that doesn't accomplish anything. i don't recall george w. bush insulting putin, whether at the ranch or the clintons when they were meeting, when hillary was meeting. you don't insult people even if you know they are trying to mess around with our system, which they always have been trying to mess around with our system. >> i agree with you.

president trump should not have been there for the purpose of slamming president putin to his face. nor am i worried about having a solitary meeting. president bush met on a one-on-one -- literally drove the king of saudi arabia around his ranch in crawford and discussed very important issues. i think that his overreach. i think the president needed to project strength on monday, and he didn't come up his words. when he was asked that question, he could have answered her in a way that would have -- putin would have known that he was upset about it, and knew that the russians were behind it. it could have been straightforward and strong without being insulting. the president didn't hit that note on monday. he did better job in cbs tonigh tonight. even that tone would've been fine on monday. there is no reason for them to insult leaders just for the sake of insulting world leaders, if you are trying to find a way forward. there are important things we

need to do. we have serious questions about the russians, living up to their treaty agreements in the missile treaty. we have a treaty with them, negotiated by president bush that comes up for renewal in 2021 a nuclear weapons. we have concerns about them in that regard. i hope the president brought up -- they are not helping us in north korea. sergey lavrov shows up one week before the meeting in singapore, shows up to basically tell the north koreans, we got your back, don't worry. >> laura: "it's going to be okay." i think the president she gave an address to the nation about this, and sol, richard, karl, he talks about a relationship with russia, what they discussed to this meeting, and what could be improved, no mueller reference, no peter strzok reference, none of that, but give an address to the nation. fantastic manna, guys. thank you so much. i know it was short with this breaking news. by the way, sacha baron cohen could be in legal hot water. oh, goody.

speaking of legal problems. and pull a movie about justice ruth bader ginsburg do her legacy and you just as? raymond arroyo brings that all to us in "seen and unseen."

if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio.

if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. >> laura: it's time now for our "seen and unseen" segment where we expose what's behind the big cultural stories of the day. ♪ he calls himself a comedian. sacha baron cohen, and he's praying to everyone from sarah palin to ted koppel. good his dunce now land him in legal trouble? for now, we are joined by the best-selling author raymond arroyo. cohen's new show "who is america?" premiere this weekend but the real question, who the heck is watching? not too many people. it premiered with only 207 -- .1 in the demo. if you have those ratings he would go into retiring sprayed >> laura: at 3:00 a.m., i get

those ratings. >> here is the point. though cohen was able to snicker people like dick cheney, sarah palin, and others, there was a riverside, california, gun shop owner, whom when cohen walked in, his name was noris, he saw through this charade early on. watch. >> i just kept looking at the guy and i was like, you are borat. as soon as i said that, he turned right out the door. once i knew it was borat, we know his game and his [bleep], we knew he was he dumb i care to make a mockery of gun owners, the gun business, gun shops. >> he got some of them to read a script teaching children how to use firearms. again, it's to embarrass people who own guns, who liked guns, and cohen was dressed as a hungarian immigrant brady look like a runaway from "duck dynasty." [laughter] sleep when i was just going to

say he looked like "duck dynasty." they make one of the good old boys, that they are dumb, and that good old boys are right through that lame costume, little fraidy cat, trying to do some stand up. he should have turned it into a joke. he ran out. what he was. >> there were some billboards around l.a. the problem with the stolen valor act of 2013, something applies to cohen, he impersonated a war veteran. it doesn't apply. it's about wearing the metal, a false model. >> laura: i i think is impersonating comedian myself. there is a new ruth bader ginsburg biopic. >> you have your tickets? >> laura: i'm ready, ready, ready. it's called "on the basis of sex" ." is that the joke? >> that's not it. >> laura: is coming under fire for potential inaccuracies. what are they? >> first of all, portraying ruth bader ginsburg as an actress

named felicity jones. i'll put up a picture of them side by side. you can compare. you think this evokes ruth bader ginsburg? i believe it it to the audience. [laughter] the bigger problem -- it's the doily -- >> laura: they are both beautiful and their own way. >> of felicity joines had the doily, it would be better. >> laura: she's super nice. i spent new year's eve with her 1986. >> they played a trailer of this movie, and legal scholars are going crazy. watch. >> you think you can change the country, you should look at her generation. they are taking to the streets. >> protests are important. changing the current dominant culture means nothing of the law doesn't change. >> what did you see your name was? >> ruth bader ginsburg. >> the word "woman" does not appear even once in the u.s. constitution. >> nor does the word "freedom," your honor. >> the word "freedom" appear in

the constitution? it's the first amendment. >> laura: [laughs] >> this screenwriter, who is ruth bader ginsburg's nephew, says what she is pointing to is the constitution as it was originally adopted before the bill of rights. and that is why she says freedom present appear in the original. >> laura: this is like wouldn't or would -- >> all i say is, when they cast my life story, i want someone as pretty as felicity jones. [laughs] >> laura: you have to get to this next part. >> speaking of gender politics and equality, barack obama and johannesburg, spoke out against his own sex today. >> men have been getting on my nerves lately. i just -- every day, i read the newspaper and i just think, brothers, what's wrong with you guys? what's wrong with us? we are violent, we are bullying.

>> violent and bullying. >> laura: men are, like, the target -- >> this is toxic masculinity, the term that is so popular. the notion is that masculinity, robust masculinity, leads to bullying or assaults upon women. you know what leads to assaults upon women? men who are not taught to be gentlemen. that is the problem. that all of these studies coming out about the gender inequality in certain industries like film, they did a study, film review critics, okay, 68% mail as opposed to 32% female. >> laura: who cares? >> they say this is why female flicks that have all-female cast members, "ghostbusters" "oceans "oceans 8" -- they flop. >> laura: they are bad movies. >> 78% of the people in publishing are women. >> laura: then they have to equalize it. more men have to be hired. >> i worked with a lot of these women. you know why they are there?

not because they are women, because they are good. they are people that should be in these positions. we should not be worrying about gender equity. some people are better in some professions than others. leave it alone. >> laura: i think i will get one of those doilies. >> every night. very attractive. >> laura: i never liked the doilies. sandra day o'connor started it. >> i almost want to grab a vase. >> laura: it reminds me of what my grandmother said -- democrats are shamelessly exposing their new immigration and border security agenda, raymond. we will tell everyone what is next. luckily for brad, this isn't a worry because he's discovered super poligrip. it holds his denture tight and helps give him 65% more chewing power. leaving brad to dig in and enjoy the tastiest of t-bones.

super poligrip, helping you enjoy the foods you love.

♪ >> laura: today, the house passed a resolution to support the mission of the officers of i.c.e. by a vote of 244-35. it seems a little low to you because only 18 democrats a part of the measure.

133 of those pretty ones voted "present." profiles in courage. the vote is hardly surprising once you listen to the rhetoric of the new generation of democratic leaders. >> corporations, certain people get certain rights, can go back and forth across the border, seeking out the lowest vendors, regular people cannot go back and forth to go across the border, seeking out the highest wages. so what it creates is an imbalance. it creates a justice. >> we have to occupy all of it. we need to occupy every airport, we need to occupy every border, we need to occupy every i.c.e. office, until those kids are back with their parents. period. >> laura: alexandria loves the word "occupy." it's occupy everything. to discuss the democrats' real immigration agenda, fox news contributor rachel campos duffy, and back by popular demand, juan williams joins us. thank you so much for coming back.

we had a guest who unfortunately was pulled over by the police on the way to the studio. [laughter] that is live tv at its finest. that is a kind of stuff that usually happens to me. rachel, the democrats -- i think they have been boxed in by the republicans, quite smartly. there is a contender that believes that it's time to go much bolder on the issue of amnesty and immigration and make it easier for people to apply for asylum. once you cross the border with a family unit, a judge says you can't be deported right away. with the democrats lose anything with this vote? >> i don't know. you talk about being boxed in. they are being boxed in by alexandria ocasio-cortez. republicans often say that a socialist is an honest democrat and she is young, she is bold, and she is politically naive enough to have told the truth. and for a while, i think her ideas, abolishing i.c.e., open

borders, socialism, she's a openly socialist, all the stuff that the democrats are exciting because her a election was shocking and they have pulled their masks off for a minute and mark poe can, representing wisconsin, came up with a bill d everyone is really excited and then they pulled it and they realized that the american people weren't with them so they pulled the punch. republicans with this bill forward and they still want to speak to that base, get everyone excited, the party of bernie, the party of alexandria ocasio-cortez, and they voted "present" instead of for the bill, which is what they really believe. they really believe in the same things that alexandria does. >> laura: juan, is that the case. you only had 80 democratic voters support immigration customs enforcement. you know this, they do such great work on sex trafficking, human trafficking, breaking up of the cartel, narcotics

operations. but only 18 democrats? >> remember, we've only had i.c.e. since after 9/11. about 15 years of i.c.e. in the view of people on the left, laura, i.c.e. is implicated in the separation of children from parents and not only that, rating communities, business, making people extremely nervous about their status here. breaking up families. >> laura: then reform i.c.e. don't abolish it. speak about the political maneuver here was that the democrats -- this is the boxing you were talking about -- the democrats initially said, let's vote to abolish i.c.e. that the republicans pulled the bill and came back with his later, which is, let's vote in support of i.c.e. both sides are playing big politics. >> laura: let's listen -- i want you guys to react to what some of the democrats today were saying about this i.c.e. issue, immigration enforcement in general.

>> i'm voting present on this resolution because it is a sham and a distraction. it's shameless and it's inappropriate. >> what we have today is a shameless, spineless group of republican congressional enablers. >> you take your marching orders from laura ingraham and tucker carlson quicker than the president takes his marching orders from the kremlin. >> you are powerful, laura ingraham. [laughter] >> i have to jump in there. >> laura: i don't think i've even talked about this vote. i don't think i've ever talked about this vote on the show. talking about i.c.e. but not about the vote. we've been covering other issues. rachel, go ahead. >> there's all this talk about russian influence going on. if you really think about it, the real takeover of the marxists, the socialists, the old soviet union, on the democratic party and on american universities. alexandria ocasio-cortez as a

product of a marxist socialist anti-american ideology that is permeating and has for several decades now, permeated american higher education and out going into high schools and lower. that is a real concern i have with russian influence. it's on the democratic party and on our education system. >> laura: juan, final word from you. ocasio-cortez to denounce capitalism, she uses the lingo of the far left and marxists, the kind of stuff you hear a thursday night seminars at a university. >> i think people -- >> she is the future of your party. >> i think people on the right are beating her up, she's 28 years old. i don't think she's very politically sophisticated but guess what. when it comes to things like health care, education, when it comes to making sure that people have a living wage, most americans say yes to these things.

>> most americans believe in the rule of law and if you want to reform i.c.e., you don't occupy or resist. >> laura: i'm giving two thumbs up to alexandria ocasio-cortez. keep going, keep evolving, keep changing. >> cheese a true cellar. >> laura: facebook finally apologizing to diamond and silk for the social media giant is facing more questions over censorship. herman cain will explain. stay there.

♪ >> laura: earlier this year, prodrome social media stars diamond and sold publicly accused facebook of censoring their content. trumped it and believe them. just yesterday, a facebook exec issued a public policy for the dynamic duo. >> i want to acknowledge a video blogger is known as diamond itself. we badly mishandled our communications with them. since then, we have worked hard to improve our relations. we appreciate the perspective they add to our platform. >> laura: that was good. turning me not to discuss that and other charges of censorship, former republican or presidential candidate, herman cain. homan, i think you were on that week when diamond and silk

issue rose to prominence prominence and they were being dismissed by the left. people were saying they were exaggerating to get publicity. actually, that was a nice moment from facebook. they said we didn't handle this right. they should give more apologies i think. >> laura, they admitted, facebook did, that they didn't handle it right. then they went back and said that they corrected it. i talked with diamond and silk personally last week and they are still getting the runaround. the people that are appearing before congress are professional spinsters. that is what is happening. they will say one thing but what is actually happening does not match. i know from personal experience that a lot of that censoring is happening. my website, other people that i have talked to, their websites,

are basically because of this algorithm that mysteriously they have developed that nobody knows what it is, it is doing that censoring and they are in denial that they are in fact trying to censor conservative content. >> laura: darrell issa raised this issue about the social media giants and what the implications could be of the size and scope and how big they are. let's watch. >> aren't you absorbing the responsibility and shouldn't we hold you responsible, at least to the level of care that newspapers, ever so poorly, are held to? >> laura: herman, here's the problem. we have companies now that have earnings that are a multiple of many sizable countries. they have an enormous amount of power. we are talking about an information flow. facebook is neither -- it shouldn't be a sensor, shouldn't be blocking certain views.

and they also can control everything on their platform. now they have come out with something, facebook can remove misinformation that leads to violence. oh, i hope that is never going to be used to target conservatives. or liberal speech for that matter. once you start getting into that realm, i will determine content, then i think that you are opening the door to real problems. >> if it was about -- >> laura: isis or something. >> if it was associated with isis, that is one thing. otherwise, it is like asking a fox to guard a hen house. that is almost laughable. all of the people within facebook and all of the other organizations that have the social media platforms, they simply have a culture of not wanting to basically pass on conservative content. i don't believe that we will ever be able to accept their

judgment in terms of what they consider to be hate speech, negative speech, et cetera. i happen to believe that in individuals are going to have to take charge of what they do with that information. the fox guarding the hen house is not going to work. i don't care what they say to congress. i don't believe that it is the true story as to what really happening. censoring is in fact happening. i know it for a fact. a lot of other people that i have talked to also know it for a fact. >> laura: herman, it's so funny, everyone is thinking about gender, ethnicity, race, religion, it would be nice to know how many conservatives work at facebook. it would be nice to have some balance across the ideological spectrum. maybe we would get more fairness. thank you very much, herman. when we return, we will remember a true hero. as people who love the outdoors,

we stand for the traditions we inherited and that we must pass on. at bass pro shops and cabela's, we stand together for you. stop by today for great deals during our sporting classic.

>> laura: before we go, we want to take a moment to honor secret service agent nole remagen. the 42-year-old died tragically after suffering a stroke during president trump's trip to the u.k. his body was returned to the united states today and his casket matched by loved ones and colleagues. along with the president and first lady. secret service agents have one of the most restful and oftentimes thankless jobs out there. they quietly, heroically put themselves in harm's way to protect our nation's leaders. a gofundme page four agent nole remagen's family has been created and has already raised more than $150,000. he has two small children. we encourage everyone to check it out. may special agent nole remagen rest in peace. shannon bream is up next with another fantastic show, another slow news night, shannon. i know you will have just a little bit to talk about. take it away. can't wait to watch.

>> shannon: thank you for honoring that hero. true hero, laura. we begin with a fox news alert. an american wanted by the russian government. the white house as they are not ruling out plans and putin's proposal that he might want to question him. they are talking it over. we'll talk to the investor, that meant at the center of the controversy, he is with us live in just moments. later, he's being dubbed the rideshare rapist, illegal immigrant while -- being convicted of raping women as a driver. fbi director christopher wray defends mueller's russia investigation, he says it is not a witch hunt. president trump says in a new interview that he does hold russia's president personally responsible for attempt to meddle in the 2016 election. stay tuned for the details and expert analysis from jason chaffetz. hello and welcome to "fox news @ night." i'm shannon bream in washington. when a report that teddy asked the president's russia still