they rigged an investigation d try to rig an we'll never be the media mob. thank you for being with us. let not your heart be troubled. laura ingraham? >> laura: hannity, they are now trying to abolish the electoral college because if you cannot beat trump with the current system, you have to change the whole system but you can't actually appeal to people in middle america. you haveve to sideline them, whh i'm going to talk about tonight. >> sean: don't you agree with me, don't you want robert mueller to testify? i would love to write the eaquestions. let me ask him the questions. >> laura: i think the senate intel committee should bring you up there for a few questions. >> sean: wouldn't you also like the fact that these people now have to answer for the dirty dossier? that would be important with the lies? >> laura: after he trots into trump tower about the dossier he felt pretty good about

himself there. now it's all exposed. >> sean: do you know what's funny? when he signed the first fisa verified true, and in january 2017 told president-elect trump it's salacious but unverified. he lied, he lied in both cases. one or the other? or both? >> laura: i hope we'll find out, hannity. in other great show tonight. >> sean: we'll get to the truth. that's our promise pledge. >> laura: sean hannity thank you so much. i'm laura ingraham, from washington tonight, did bob mueller killed the institution of the special counsel for good? we should send him a thank you note. alan dershowitz is here and he thinks so. he'll explain in moments. also tonight, what's really behind the left's push to abolish electoral college? are they looking to silence you smaller states and rural america? my angle a little later. they might seem like innocent

statements, but candace owens is here to tell us why nancy pelosi and hillary clinton's remarks yesterday should be taken as a stark warning to conservative america. and that dr. drew is here tonight, can't miss message to california governor gavin newsom ignoring a homeless epidemic that has revived medieval diseases. but first, the new voices we haven't heard publicly after yesterday's remarks, mueller are now speaking out. president trump has not been shy about his feelings toward the special counsel, and yesterday's statements did little to change those warm feelings. >> i think mueller is a true never trumper. he somebody who dislikes donald trump's. he didn't get the job that he requested that he wanted very badly.ru and he was disappointed. >> laura: it was bill barr's appearance that many were waiting for. while mueller prays the attorney general as acting in

good faith in the process, he had language that raised the specter of disagreement between obstruction of justice. barr said mueller shirked his responsibility, which the ag repeated today. >> he could have reached a conclusion? >> he could've reached a conclusion to indict a president of wrong doing in office. he could've reached a decision whether it was criminal activity. >> do you see the suggestion that there is another venue in this, that was congress? >> i'm not sure what he was suggesting, but the departmenten of justice and not use our power to use investigating crimes as an adjunct to congress. >> laura: that was a little slap. that's not all. barr defended his suggestions that the deep state was spying. >> you've got criticisms for using that word.

>> i guess it's become a dirty word somehow. it's never been for me. i think there is nothing wrong with spying for the question whether or not it's authorized by law and properly predicated. if it is, then it's important for the united states. >> you do not think they committed treason? >> that is a legal matter, but >> but you have concerns how they conducted the investigation? >> sometimes people can convince themselves that if it's in the higher interest, the better good, what they don't realize what they are doing is antithetical to the democratic system we have. >> laura: the contrast between barr and mueller could not besy more stark. joining me now, former governor of arkansas and fox news contributor mike huckabee and harvard law professor, and author of the introduction for the mueller report, the final report of the special counsel into donald trump-russia collusion, alan dershowitz. professor, what do you make of barr's response?

looked like he was at a hunting lodge, to bob mueller? >> he was 100% right. mueller should've come to a conclusion. cthink if he had come to a conclusion, it would've been there was no obstruction of justice, he was probably pressured by his staff members not to come to that conclusion. he should have come to that conclusion very should've said that he didn't say is that there should probably no longer be any special counsel. the mueller investigation was the final nail in the coffin of special councils, special prosecutors. the attorney general could do this himself. a staff people, civil servants full-time prosecutors. everything that was done here could've been done by them. when the special prosecutor, the special counsel in this case says i couldn't indict the president anyway according to the constitution, what was his investigation all about?s as judge alice pointed out in the manafort case, they weren't interested in manafort, they were interested in squeezing

manafort against president trump. turned out there was nothing against president trump. there was no illegal collusion no collusion any kind with the russians and the investigation should have ended the day that the decision was made, but it asntinued on and on with collateral crimes, many of which were not even committed, and others if they were committed could've easily been prosecuted by ordinary prosecutors. >> laura: bingo. >> i think will see the death now of the special counsel office. >> laura: that performance by mueller, i got into a big row by one of our favorites last night because he thought, oh, it was fine for him to make that statement, the nine minute statement. that was fine. but governor huckabee, i think that statement in it of itself was an indication as to why this whole special counsel statute provision the way it goes, it's

got to be done away with. ejust do line prosecution, but the special counsel are always opening the door to corruption tobias, or the concern about bias. i don't think any good comes out of it. i really don't. >> i couldn't agree more with professor dershowitz who is simply brilliant and one of the things i've most admired about him is that he's an admitted liberal and someone who voted for hillary, but he's played this as a matter of the rule of law and the issue of civil liberties, which is what we should want from every single everyey, and certainly law professor in the country. for that, i offer my sincere appreciation to alan dershowitz. here is the contrast between barrow and mueller. mueller comeshe out and speaks r nine and a half minutes, does not take a single question. barr on the other hand sits down to an interview and takes questions.

ath huge difference in somebody who comes out and says, i'm not going to say anything other c tn what's in the report, but i'm going to toss some red meat over to the democrats in congress. first it's the attorney general who says, sure, i will take your questions. i've got nothing to fear and nothing to hide. keep in mind that contrast. >> the other thing that barr was right about that it's not the proper role of special counsel to serve as an investigation for congress. he should not have said two of the things he said, number one if the evidence would've shown he was innocent, we would've said so, it's not what the prosecutor said. it's what comey said when he let the other branch of the government do the investigation. you aren't the handmaiden that shouldn't have said anything. he said there's too little in the report, didn't come to a conclusion and too much after

the report. everything he's done since the report came out has been wrong. the report itself, and what he said the other day. i hope we'll never hear anymore from special councils, special prosecutors, they do much more harm than good. they upset the rule of law. >> laura: gentlemen, i've got to point this out, house democrats now have been ramping up their campaign again special counsel mueller to testify crpublicly. let's watch. >> bob mueller has one more service to provide the country much as he appears reluctant to do so. that is he really should testify before congress. >> he doesn't get to decidede whether or not he testifies before the american people. he doesn't get to decide which questions he can talk about. >> it's likely that special counsel mueller will return. >> he could not have been more clear that that is it for him.

look like he was passing a kidney stone in that nine minutes. he did not look happy to be there. the governor, should he testify whom with that benefit? >> i think it would benefit the truth. i think for the first time, we might get our money's work out of the 35 million that we've spent. pop some popcorn, sit and listen kto people. as for bob mueller, why did he pick the people to serve in that staff that were clinton donors and the was there any balance any consideration to get people who are completely independent of a political bias. i know anyone who are delightful to watch, i don't think democrats want bob mueller to testify under oath, because it probably will not be good for them. >> i want to g play something fr both of you from the obama's

longtime trusted competent valerie jarrett who was being interviewed, i think, i don't know what it's on. but being interviewed on sirius radio. pe this is again a conversation about is there a double standard here? trump might not get impeached but would obama been impeached if he had done the same thing? watch. >> if president obama had done half of the things and said half of the things that president trump is saying, even you know, as recently as thiss morning, what he had been impeached and how long do you think it would've taken -- >> about a nanosecond. i think the standard would've flipped dramatically and there's no way president obama would've gotten away with this. >> laura: and a lot of people would sayth that he would've gotten away with a lot during the time of the obama administration, whether it's faster furious, irs, trailing o reporters, or the fisa abuse what do you think about that?

>> i know valerie jarrett. she's a very decent person. i work with her. and i met with her on numerous occasions during the obama administration. of course obama would have never been impeached because impeachment is improper. i think the democrats would've realized, and the republicans would realize, you do not impeach on maxine waters' grounds. maxine waters says the grounds of impeachments is whatever congress as it is. the constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors. in other words, there must be high crimes to impeach. if president obama had done what president trump is alleged to have done, there would be no high crimes, there would be no h impeachment, there wouldn't be talk of impeachment. this is a clear attempt to violate the constitution in the interest of one party. if i hillary clinton had been president and trying to impeach her for nonimpeachable offenses

i would be making the same they would make statues of me at martha's vineyard and they would invite me to dinner parties because i'm campaigning there candidate, hillary clinton for i will always state the law objectively, neutrally and read the constitution the way it was written by the framers. >> laura: alan lichtman, the political historian -- he predicted the last nine president, i think, including trump trumps 2016 victory. he explains why most democrats today are pushing for impeachment. watch. >> trump is it in 2020 unless what? >> unless the democrats grow a spine and do their constitutional duty and move into an impeachment inquiry, i think the evidence will show ultimately and impeachment. >> laura: governor, the only way he says that they can beat trump is basically by impeaching him. l

>> first of all, only 29% of the american people think impeachment is appropriate. even if they think impeachment is a wonderful idea, then go for it. knock yourselves out. put the evidence out there. if you honestly believe that the results of the election should be overturned by impeachment not the next election, go ahead and have the guts to do it and see what happens. it's a disaster, it would ensure the reelection of president trump in 2020. >> and also the case would get to the supreme court.io if they congress adopted the maxine waters approach and tried to impeach any president without evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors, the i supreme court might very well have jurisdiction to decide that case. to cope former justices said that in concurring and dissenting opinions and i suggested there might be a majority today in the supreme court if you have an overt attempts to subordinate

the constitution, subvert the constitution, and used the impeachment power as a way of reversing an election for that's not what the framers had in mind. explicitly that concern. >> laura: alan, how would it get to supreme court? how would it ever getit there? >> if the president were to be impeached, his lawyers would bring a case to the supreme court seeking dismissal of the indictment, essentially dismissal of the impeachment. >> laura: wait, wait, they decide to. it's a political question though. do you think john roberts and these guys -- >> not at all. >>ra laura: the four liberals would say that? i'm worried about that. >> remember, john roberts presides over the trial in the senate. the first motion i would make is to the chief justice, saying that this impeachment has to be dismissed because it doesn't follow the terms of the constitution. it's not a political question.

when you are asking justices of the supreme court, it goes back to marbury versus madison. when congress acts in violation of the constitution, the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter. >> laura: both of you are phenomenal to try and analyze ethis tonight. thank you so much. >> thank you, governor, for your kind words. >> laura: is the left's push for abolishing the electoral college a push to punish smaller states, rule america? can't miss angle is next. and then i'm going to debate one of the plan proponents. going td one of the plan

moving is hard. no kidding. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. >> laura: democrats move to sideline middle america. that's the focus of tonight's angle.

they are at it again. democrats from the activist base, working overtime to do an end run around the constitution in order to do what? well, to wrestle power away from middle america. many of them have been frustrated in their efforts to stop trump through investigations and threats of impeachment, and so some are now pursuing other ways to ensure that he and anyone like him doesn't get elected again. through the push to abandon the electoral college. >> the electoral college needs to go because it's made our society less and less democratic. >> there is no question that the popular vote has been diminished in terms of making the final decision of who the president of united states, and we need to deal with that. >> if we get rid of the electoral college can we get closer to 1%, one votete for democracy. the other use is capture, it's corrupted right now.

>> laura: to be fair, beto has some experience with the whole warped thing. seriously. the founders' design is part of the overall system of checks and balances. so that all 50 states, not just the most populous ones, have a meaningful say in electing the president. t alexander hamilton, one of our faves, he wrote that the electorates chosen in each state are to assemble in each state as they are chosen for this detached and divided situation will expose them too much less to heat an environment whether if they would all be convened at one time in one place. nothing more desired than every practical obstacle should be opposedd to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. interesting. that could be the definition of the deep state. cabal, intrigue come corruption.

powered by a powerful globalist and a george soros affiliated group, dispensing with the electoral college has become a priority to most of the 2020 democrat. without the electoral college think about it. those candidates could spend most of their time campaigning in just a handful of states like california, new york, texas florida, and illinois. popping in and out of their biggest cities. the same places, by the way where they raise all of their money. now, there washe a time when democrats believed in running in rural states rather than just speaking to disenfranchises. rfk campaigned in appalachia. they believed in a system that candidates appeal to a broader segment of america, one that includes rural areas, the midwest, deep south, states like new mexico and even new england.

by the way, don't be fooled for a millisecond by this argument.g >> my view is that every vote matters. the way we can make that happen... is that we can have national voting. that means get rid of the electoral college. >> laura: she really thinks we are stupid. how does fooled with a dna test? we didn't. california has a population of 40 million people. west virginia has about 2 million. how would that state have any meaningful say in this new system?ni without the electoral college we essentially will be living in something akin to a tyranny disguised as a democracy with a handful of liberal states making all the decisions for the rest of us. for instance, california with that super democrat majority

believes in sanctuary cities, of course, pot legalization taxes, regulating anything that moves. and their values and concerns, g beautiful state, but their values and concerns often do not match up with those of other states like south carolina indiana, georgia. in fact, those values are often diametrically opposed. that's okay. that's how the framers envisioned it be that's why the electoral college a necessary balance. on occasion there isll a candide with the most votes doesn't win but in those cases it's usually because that candidate only appealed to a slice of america not a broader coalition. remember the electoral math that showed how counties voted in 2016? it's like a big red ink blot. people often referred to the united states, don't they, as a democracy? but we are not. we are a republic.

the founders made a very smart decision not to establishh america as a pure democracy because they feared the mob mentality, which james madison called the tyranny of the majority. given modern media? it's important to know who's doing away with the electoral college. it's not a new idea, but it has been renewed and i think invigorated since hillary lost. does the name david boise mean anything to you? you not only successfully argued that gay marriage case at the supreme court that represented al gore in the 2000 recount but he's now arguing their case against the electoral college in massachusetts, california who is funding the litigation? a bunch of big law firms. they don't do stuff for free. i used to work for one.

also the folks who ginned up the faux outrage of statues standing up in public decades, the same folk spending millions on local and state campaigns in arizona florida, for secretary of state state judges, city school board officers? they are really into this. they are really agitated to keep prump out. no reelection for him. they've already tried to silence and demonize traditionalists in business, on college campuses in the public square, and in social media. if the left believes it has to up end the entire constitutional structure to quash the influence ofof flyover country, whether is court packing, lowering the voting age, or axing the electoral college, they'll do it. and it's up to smart constitutionalists to make the case for the rights of the

onminority in middle america. small town usa is every bit as american as new york and l.a. they should have a say in our government. that's the angle. here not to respond, it's saul anuzis, senior corresponded to the national popular vote initiative. saul, you are an old friend. it's wild that you are doing this. because you and elizabeth warren, pete buttigieg, and george soros' kids are all on the same side. why did a good republican from michigan decide to throw in with all those characters for the betterment of the country? >> there is a little bit of a nuance here in the sense that democrats do want to eliminate the electoral college but there are a few polls out there, the democrats have been pushing to eliminate the electoral college and one i'm working with is basically a bipartisan result that wants to use the national popular vote and keep the electoral college. you've got two different proposals that a lot --

>> laura: you claim you do not want to abolish electoral college -- >> we don't claim it. we don't -->> >> your plan, states would have the right not to give their delegates to the person who wins in the state, the candidate who wins in the state. they would be obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most popular vote. in other words, if trump wins texas, under your plan, if this passes state legislator inxa texas, it would say, no, they will all go to kamala harris. how is that fair to the people of texas? >> it's very v fair. we want to make sure that every voter, every state is politically relevant in every election. 4 of 5 americans live in flyover states.e in all practical purposes, 95% is spent in ten states or less and we elect the president in the battle state ground of america. >> obama got elected twice.

he won at fairly broad section of the country. >> look, you and i can stand how 40, 42 states will vote in the 2020 election for both campaigns are basically going to campaign -- >>n laura: the framers wanted it that way, saul. >> that's just not true. one of the articles of constitution says -- what they basically said is a state legislature in their selfish best interest will determine how their electors are chosen. what the framers wanted is a series of white male property owners to sit around a table -- >> laura: we are going back to the race? >> no, we are going to back to what the framers wanted. >> laura: it's money you raise that because a lot of people you claim youme are not associated with or don't really agree with you basically -- the outcome is going to be the same. it's going to make the electoral collegee null and void. >> it's not going to be the same. >> laura: would trump have gotten... elected?

>> absolutely. it would've been a national popular vote, she would've campaigned around the entire country. president trump only campaign in 13 b states. you expect -- >> laura: why would anyone campaign in iowa or new hampshire under a national popular vote? the top four most populous states in the country are 36 present of the population. >> so you believe -- what about the top 50 cities in the country? >> laura: almost all of them -- >> the top 50 make up what percentage of the national popular vote? m>> laura: it doesn't matter -- >> the top -- >> laura: there is a limited amount of time. why do you want to disenfranchisera america? >> i want every voter and every state to be politically relevant in the count. today, if you live in a flyover state, right now -- look, we knowat today, we know how oklaha is going to vote, how california is going to vote. >> laura: those are conservative states. bigis deal. >> we aren't asking them where

they stand on the issues. they aren't the battlegrounds. >> laura: the problem of the argument: is the folks who are n your side are all globalists --e >> trent thompson agrees with us, newt gingrich agrees with us. >> laura: trent thompson is dead. >> he is. he had an opinion before he died. >> laura: people behind the big effort, the big-money effort -- who pays your salary? >> national vote. >> laura: george soros' sons and daughters give it to you yes? $1 million? >> beyond that, i really don't know... >> who in the group as a conservative? >> none of them, tomball is on us, who gave $10 million. pro-life, antitax. >> the first guy, who runs it? you can throw -- >> just because there are a bunch of liberals backing it you think it's a bad idea?

>> laura: you think people are going to campaign in anymore states because of your plan? i don't think anyone is understanding your distinction. >> well -- >> laura: the electoral college will be meaningless. >> that's not true. it'll be as meaningless as it is today. >> laura: we've all been looking forward to your argumentau -- >> i think there iss a lot -- >> we've got to go. there are misconceptions. i appreciate, saul, a friend from a long time ago. a 2020 exclusive is next, but not with a candidate. pete buttigieg is accusing alo president a hopeful for distorting his family's history for political advantage next. efr ♪ play it cool and escape heartburn fast with new tums chewy bites cooling sensation. ♪ tum tum tum tums

>> i come from is a christian faith that teaches humility teaches love. the reason it made me for closer to god it's the experience of caring about someone more than you do for yourself. and humbling yourself, putting yourself in your place. >> laura: and chasten buttigieg has been the subject of multiple glowing profiles. one particular piece in "the washington post" describes a childhood marked by intense property and intolerant family who turned his back on him because of his lifestyle. tonight, chasten's brother says

these stories have been spun for political advantage by pete buttigieg and are hurting his family. his "washington post" article came out, the family has been suggested to hateful messages by social media and text, one suggesting that my next guest kill himself. here, pastor ryan bosman brother of chasten buttigieg. thank you for being here. my first question is, has your family had an issue with your brother and his husband, his lifestyle? >> our answer, laura, thank you for giving me the opportunity for coming on here be a privilege and honor to be on such a great show. to answer your question absolutely not. he couldn't be further from the truth. actually has never been any -- i love my brother dearly. i love the best for pete, the story, this narrative of the

family shining -- couldn't be further from the truth. >> laura: why would he make this up? >> the way i see it, in such a competitive, a very large democratic field of candidates you need to have a story. i'm not going to cut down on a mayor's role. but at the end, if you only have the mayor's role, and you go atd the highest office in the country, you need to have a different story. unfortunately, we became victims of that, our family of having thisha rags-to-riches stories beingil brought up about my brothers childhood to gain political points in the polls is the way i see it. >> laura: how sensitive is this issue of family coming out commenting on other family members. to pick up the phone and talk to either pete or your

brother-in-law? why come on the show? i don't understand why you don't just pick up the phone? >> to be honest with you, i didn't sign up for this pair the only reason i'm here is for the truth to prevail. if it was that easy, that would've already been done. these communications, that would've already been done if it was as easy as it could be. >> laura: when was the last time you spoke?? >> the last time we spoke was at my grandmother's funeral. >> laura: one was that? >> that would be coming up at a year ago. >> laura: would you describe yourself as a close family? you haven't spoken in a year? >> to be honest, our family dynamic has been rocky for 9-10 years. when i became a born-again believer in jesus christ, the family dynamic dramatically shifted. if there was any shunning, to be honest, that would be myself

being shunned over my brother. >> laura: does he feel unaccepted does he feel upset? that you don't, you know that you don't validate his choices. he is who he is. does he feel bad? i do not know family dynamics psychoanalysis here, i'm not a doctor, i don't play one on tv. it seems to me that y'all should get together and talk. to me, that seems like the habetter thing. but you seem to be saying that pete buttigieg, mayor buttigieg is telling the story. i don't want to put words in your mouth, for political reasons. >> like i said, in a crowded field, you need to get your story out there. what better story to have thisfi rags to riches to make it look like he came from a mayor of a midwestern town going for the presidency.

his husband, according to "the washington post," had been shunned from the family, kicked out by the family who supposedly was homeless, which we have no memory of that ever happened. >> laura: you are saying he was never homeless? >> no recollection of him being homeless, no shunning -- absolutely none. >> laura: is anything he said true?ng anything he said true about your family dynamic from your opinion? >> for my opinion? absolutely not. everything in that article was spun to make a rags-to-riches story. >> laura: we got to go, ryan but who are you voting. would you vote for mayor pete. >> trump in 2020. >> maybe we'll say your comments are political. i could spin that story. either side will say it's political. we appreciate you coming on and i think you should pick up the phone and have a cup of coffee.. you take care.

what would hillary clinton and nancyy pelosi, really trying to do about their comments about facebook and edited videos yesterday? candace owens has answers next. s yesterday? candace owens has answers

>> laura: tonight, we are sounding the alarm and warning viewers what's coming ahead in 2020. comments made yesterday by hillary clinton and nancy pelosi, they seem like innocence jabs. but when you dig deeper, there's something far more nefarious at play.

it's centered around a video of pelosi on facebook. >> facebook says i know this is false, but it's a lie. but we are showing it anyway. well, to me, it says two things. one, i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, clearly they wittingly were accomplices in enablers of false informations across facebook. >> the video is sexist trash. youtube took it down, but facebook kept it up. >> laura: they are trying to bully social media, satirists people with comedic flair. anybody putting it in a bad light. a liberal, what's their goal? the threat to use russian hacking as a part of a larger effort to, silence conservative voices ahead of the 2020 election. here now, candacear owens conservative commentator and activist. you've had some experience with this on social media.

this is wild. the russians interference as pretext to be able to silence voices! >> it's bizarre. i want to say first and foremost and nancy pelosi and hillary clinton, welcome to the internet where things are doctored, there are memes. if you do a search of my name your name. i can't believe you know that they are making this -- this is the way the internet works.f a game of humor, of parody. they made a big deal out of this.nt they are trying to make this narrative as if somehow this is the reason that hillary lost. she has not got over the fact that trump ran a better campaign. what they are doing here is undermining voters yet again saying that you aren't smart enough. >> laura: they are meddling in the election. >> exactly. trying to silence conservatives. >> laura: don't you see this happening right before the 2020 election, after summer time it kicks into high gear. but if you cannot be a conservative putting together a

montage -- we've been doing montages on our old radio show television show, for years. everybody does. they do it on late-night tv of trump. they do it truly all the time. i don't care. it doesn't bother me what other people frankly say about me. i don't care. but they are so thin skin. they think trump is thin-skinned? nancy is thin-skinned. >> it's ironic because her oldld platform is that she thought she'd be strong enough to be the president of the united states and she cannot do with doctoring the videos on the internet. think about what trump has to deal with every single day. it's ridiculous. i will say this, the final thing on banning conservatives? it works for us. if you ban someone's favorite political commentator, their followers do not go, i'm aks democrat. they double down and dig their heels in. we are going to see in my opinion, people are going be voting for conservatives and voting for trump and larger margins in 2020. >> laura: they know when they are being silence, most people

are onto this game. facebook now where they monitor "hate," that sounds good unto you realize "hate" means some of the people they have shunned. >> there i am! >> laura: it's people who believe in border enforcement people who believe in national :sovereignty. >> people who believe in blackli america. >> laura: candace, i think this iss going to be a moment fr us to stand up to these censors. they are the new censors. >> it will backfire. >> laura: and i get to meetll your fiance. two topics with dr. drew is next. a rare typhoid fever in l.a. takes on latest case of celebrity privilege. this one at a six-figure rehab facility next. most of us don't know how much data we use.

but we all know we're paying too much for it. enter xfinity mobile. america's best lte, with the most wifi hotspots

combined for the first time. when you're near an xfinity hotspot you're connected to wifi, saving on data. when you're not, you pay for data one gig at a time. use a little, pay a little. use a lot, just switch to unlimited. it's a new kind of network. call, visit or go to xfinitymobile.com. but we all know we're paying too much for it. enter xfinity mobile. america's best lte, with the most wifi hotspots combined for the first time. when you're near an xfinity hotspot you're connected to wifi, saving on data. when you're not, you pay for data one gig at a time. use a little, pay a little. use a lot, just switch to unlimited. it's a new kind of network. call, visit or go to xfinitymobile.com.

♪ >> lau >> two hot topics in just a short time to get to them. t but bring in boards are devised internist.d- after drew, great to see you. i had to start with a shocking case out of la to friends of my nip told me about this a police officer now o has contracted th really rare life-threatening illness committed disease, typhoid fever. what is itt fewer than 350 americans contract this every year. what is going on here? >> we have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in los angeles right now. we have the three prongs of airborne disease, tuberculosis is exploding, rodent borne, onl one of the major can cities in america doesn't have a rodent control program. we will have a typhus outbreak the summer. from experts that the bubonic

plague is likely. it's already here, and now finally we have this conditiona vehicle route contamination which is toy for eight fever, three cases one confirmed probably three, this is unbelievable. i can't believe i lived live in a city where this is not third world, this is medieval. third world countries are insulted if theybe are accused being like this parade no city on earth tolerates this bear th entire population is at risk bu god forbid musicals, this is a population, if measles gets in, i have an image of myself on myself in the gutter tending to people because the summer is likely to be a very profound problem. >> meanwhile we're welcoming in tens of thousands into california in the next few months of illegal immigrants. i had a chance to talk to about a lot of these migrants after they crossed the border they have no papers, they have no identification, but they have a friend or a relative they're going to visit a couple people

had nowhere to go. i do you check health records and they are flooding into midi cds in california. san jose, la, san diego. >> there's a bizarre thing goin on where the government is insisting that housing is the problem only have chronic menta illness, we have addiction, we have people that don't want to leave the streets. that is the population that is vulnerable it will get so ill that summer that it scares me for their well-being. i want to pierce their shields c qualified immunity so we can go after them for reckless negligence. this is disgusting. it was reckless negligence and we need a solution to this. >> businesses are upset. >> i don't think you get how dire this is. i am standing on a railroad track saying the bridge is

outbred. >> at the liberal politicians i california care. >> it is disgustingly negligent. as i was driving over tonight i thought that they want their people in the streets to die? do they not care if they all die ? is that where we are now. >> we didn't have time to get into the six-figure rehab will have to have you back, but the teaser for your next appearance. thank you for sounding the alarm .is this is not political this is a health crisis now. >> this is a health crisis we have not seen in this country for 100 years. >> thank you so much, we will b back stay right there. ..

♪ >> laura: okay, the podcast today, michelle malkin blew the >> the podcast today, milton, as initial,.,. the mood from what is happening in social media and how they are

completely trying to manipulate what we talk about before 2020 silencing conservative voices is not just a talking point. it is happening. listen to that. it is unbelievable. dan patrick was on about the ongoing immigration pressures, good for trump and mexico, ed henry is in for shannon bream. take it from here. you look so magisterial tonight. >> i've not heard that word in this context before. we begin with a fox news alert, breaking on the heels of the largest ever apprehension of illegals by border officials donald trump announcing new tariffs on mexico. he is declaring he will gradually increase until mexico does something about the surge of illegal immigrants. on offense over immigration but maybe playing a little defense over robert mueller the president question the puzzle counsel's motives after the out by raising press statement that said we can't