This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," July 27, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Welcome to the "The Ingraham Angle." I'm Laura Ingraham from Washington. Ahead time, the stories that matter to you told in a way you're not going to hear from anywhere else, of course.

Well the economy? Roaring. Exemplified today in a sterling GDP number. But is that enough for president's critics? You would not believe what some of the reactions have been, but it's great news for all Americans. Plus, remember that Michael Cohen bombshell that dropped on CNN last night? We covered it last night on the ANGLE. We'll we're going to tell you how flimsy it really is. And tonight's Friday follies, Raymond Arroyo reveals the stunning lack of creativity in Hollywood and one stinky plane -- oh this story -- I can't believe we're doing that story.

But we start tonight with a story you won't get anywhere else. The revenge of the Obama era judicial nominees. Two cases, actually three if we can get to the third, that show you how certain judges can have an outside influence over the policy of this country, the President of the United States and your lives. First, a federal district court judge Thursday denied a Trump administration request to dismiss a lawsuit challenging their decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. A policy by the way that is completely constitutional, completely sound. Judge Jesse Furman from the U.S. District Court for the southern district of New York, a Barack Obama appointee, said that the challengers had successfully proven that there's "a heightened risk in the current political climate of a lower response rate due to the president's 'anti-immigrant rhetoric.'" I kid you not.

That's not a pundit, that's a judge. That's not all. A federal judge in Portland, Oregon has ruled that allowing a transgender high school student in an Oregon school district to use the boy's locker room and restrooms does not violate the privacy rights of other students who may object to sharing that space. U.S. district judge Marco Hernandez, you guessed it -- also an Obama appointee -- threw out the lawsuit filed by parents for privacy. They wanted this group called Parents for Privacy and Balance in Dallas saying the ruling, if the parents are upset, they can just "remove their children from Dallas high school if they disapprove of the transgender student access to these facilities." Huh -- well thanks.

Well to discuss this trend of the politicized judiciary run amuck, let's bring in top two attorneys. Harmeet Dhillon, a civil rights attorney and an RNC committee woman from California and Scott Bolden, Chair of the National Bar Association political action committee.

I'm lonely in here without either of you but I'm going to have to make due. Scott, you're usually here, dude --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: You're not here -- come on. All right. Let's start with you Harmeet, on this set (ph) citizenship question on the census. Up until 1950, we did have that question on the census. And then the census changes and we didn't ask the question. But tell us about the posture of this case and this police judge, Jesse Furman.

HARMEET DHILLON, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well Laura what's happening here is that these judges are, you know, taking these cases and imposing their own judicial philosophy and new standards that are not written into the law into these cases. And you know, you saw the exact same reasoning that Judge Furman used here, which is that Wilbur Ross, who's nominally in charge of the census in his department, had made some remarks about the reasoning behind wanting to count citizens that raised an issue of animus. Now the United States Supreme Court recently ruled this animus theory which was used in the Trump travel ban cases is bogus and not one of the elements that should be applied. And you know, Clarence Thomas has spoken out on this issue as well of nationwide injunctions. So basically, this is a confusion and an unelected judge trying to supersede and impose his values over the president gets to do -- asking a very reasonable question, the executive branch --

INGRAHAM: Yeah --

(CROSSTALK)

DHILLON: That's what the census is for, to count the people in the country.

INGRAHAM: They're counting all people.

SCOTT BOLDEN, CHAIR, NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION POLITICS ACTION COMMITTEE: -- and count the immigrants.

INGRAHAM: Hold on, Scott. No, they're counting all people.

BOLDEN: -- count the immigrants.

INGRAHAM: Scott, hold on. They're counting all people. But there's also a question about whether you're a citizen or not. Now, what's the problem with answering the question? Well I don't understand that. What is the possible constitutional argument here?

BOLDEN: Well, because it's racially offensive, first of all --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Well how does it deal with race when it's (ph) whether you're a citizen?

BOLDEN: Wait. Well -- because it's directed at brown people and black people who are coming across that (ph) southern border --

INGRAHAM: No. OK. You're just making that up, Scott.

BOLDEN: -- of course it is. I'm not making it up -- it's --

(CROSTTALK)

INGRAHAM: How is it directed at all brown people? It's directed at all people in the country --

BOLDEN: -- because -- it's, yeah --

INGRAHAM: -- you ask a question. I get asked the question. You get asked the question.

BOLDEN: Yeah, when you couple that with Donald Trump's racist tweets about immigrants -- when you couple that with Donald Trump's tweets about illegal immigrants --

INGRAHAM: OK, so you basically have no argument. OK.

BOLDEN: -- regardless of the Supreme Court, the judge has taken that into consideration.

INGRAHAM: OK.

BOLDEN: And by the way, can I just say this?

INGRAHAM: Oh, come on --

BOLDEN: -- that case didn't also -- wasn't just rested on discrimination issues. The APA was violated. The court found despite the advisory committees as well as staff (ph) ruling against it or recommending against it, Wilbur --

INGRAHAM: Yeah.

BOLDEN: -- took it upon his own to put it in place. The case isn't over by the way. They just got passed a motion to dismiss.

INGRAHAM: Right.

BOLDEN: -- it's not the final decision. It's not political -- it's the law,

INGRAHAM: No it isn't the final decision. Right. But to say it's racial, I mean --

BOLDEN: You politicize every legal decision you don't agree with it.

INGRAHAM: -- so now you can't -- but Scott, now you're saying a question asked of all people is racist. All Americans --

BOLDEN: Because it has broad (ph) -- it has a racial -- it has a despaired (ph) impact --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: -- that's unbelievable to me. You're a smart guy --

BOLDEN: It might not be racist but have a racial despaired impact --

INGRAHAM: Why?

BOLDEN: -- because it is directed at people --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: It's absurd. It's absurd

BOLDEN: -- Mexican --

INGRAHAM: OK. We gotta move on -- we gotta move on.

BOLDEN: -- brown and black people.

INGRAHAM: All right. We have to move on. We got another case.

BOLDEN: Does that mean I'm right?

INGRAHAM: Out of Portland, Oregon, it's involving transgender bathrooms. We've heard the transgender case and issue for a long time, but this is interesting because it's a parent's group that's gotten together and said we understand that transgender kids have rights, but we represent families whose students, whose sons and daughters, don't want to share a bathroom for whatever reason with a transgender person of -- who's born the opposite sex. And this judge said you don't have any privacy rights here. And if you have a problem, leave the district. Harmeet is that a -- is that the kind of thing that would that take the scrutiny? I know it's the ninth circuit, so anything goes in the ninth circuit, but that seems like a very -- that seems like a harsh ruling against that parent's group. But maybe I'm misreading it.

DHILLON: No, I agree with you Laura. I think it's harsh and wrong. You know, obviously transgender students who may need a number of supports and medical support are -- they have rights obviously. But the vast majority of the students are not transgender and they have rights too, including privacy rights.

And people who are transgender in their youth, they may switch back and forth. The specter (ph) has been raised, which is a real one, of people abusing this transgender labelling and electing it in order to peep and get into the girl's bathrooms. It's not really --

BOLDEN: Oh, goodness gracious.

DHILLON: -- it's not appropriate to only look at one side or the other. I can tell you in girls' locker rooms, we've been there Laura. I mean everything is showing. It's not really something that you want as a teenager to have a guy looking at your body. I'm sorry to say.

INGRAHAM: I don't want anybody looking at my body. I don't like anybody. I'm one of the shy people.

DHILLON: It's a slap in the face for the judge to say the taxpayers -- the parents are taxpayers. And they have a right to have their kids educated fairly and without the worry (ph) of an (ph) invasion of privacy

BOLDEN: Yeah.

INGRAHAM: Scott, do the parents have any rights here? Yeah do the parents -- we're almost out of time. Do the parents have any rights here or just the transgender kids?

BOLDEN: Not compared to the protective class that the transgender student rests in. And look at this way. The judge is just following the law. There's no politics here. Every fellow judge has looked at this case and similar cases around the country, you check the record -- they have sided with the transgender student because they cannot be discriminated against simply because they identify with being a woman or identify with being a guy. It's not anatomy that counts. And they're in a protected class. And so this decision is based on the law. It's not politics, you don't like it but you gotta live with it.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, last word.

DHILLON: I mean anatomy obviously does count and it is relevant and the other students have privacy rights too, there needs to be a balance, not just one side -- or a combination

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Exactly, there has to be some balance.

BOLDEN: The judge said that was conjecture. Pure conjecture. That you're going to be naked and you're going to have to --

INGRAHAM: I have a question --

DHILLON: Maybe the judge is not living in reality. Give me a break.

INGRAHAM: But Scott -- you know I know these fraternity brothers -- when I went to college --

DHILLON: I think there's somebody else not living in reality on this panel --

INGRAHAM: -- Scott, Scott these fraternity brothers are like pranksters. You can see a situation that okay, I identify as this today and tomorrow -- people playing jokes all the time, too. It's a serious matter. Then there's pranksters out there that take advantage of it.

BOLDEN: I don't think you and your guests take it seriously the plight of these young people who identify with a different agenda.

INGRAHAM: Come on.

BOLDEN: It's serious. They're in a protected class -- I have to tell you --

DHILLON: Scott, I have friends who are transgender --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: -- if you wanna know what serious is. All right. We're out of time. By the way, I want to say to Harmeet, I want to say --

BOLDEN: I read the opinions of both of these cases and their opinions are accurate and based in law.

INGRAHAM: -- yeah. Read Dr. Paul McHugh, he's a medical doctor. He studied it for decades.

But Harmeet, I want to congratulate you on the ninth circuit ruling that your case -- your civil rights case against those people that beat up those Trump supporter -- you represented them -- and you've done it pretty much pro bono the whole way -- ninth circuit said your case can go forward. We're going to be watching that closely. You had a great argument. Congratulations on that. And thanks to both of you for being here tonight.

BOLDEN: Thank you. Congratulations also.

INGRAHAM: And another bombshell by the way that was really nothing. CNN's reporting surrounding Trump's reported foreknowledge of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting rests on the shoulder of one man, Michael Cohen. Well you remember what the media thought of him, right?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE SCHMIDT, FORMER REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's a group of scumbags like Michael Cohen sitting around in cahoots with each other.

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Michael Cohen, the goon that he is. If he's serious about becoming president? He's got to get rid of the goons. Michael Cohen does him absolutely no favors.

ANA NAVARRO, CNN COMMENTATOR: This guy is a thug with a law degree and a billionaire boss.

STACY PHILLIPS, DIVORCE ATTORNEY: He shouldn't be a lawyer. That's not the way you communicate. You don't go to law school to act like a thug.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So a thug. Then you don't take what a thug says to heart, right? The media would have questions about his credibility? No, no, no. What he says now has got to be right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: If he is willing to talk to Robert Mueller, which sources say that he is, is that a game changer?

Michael Cohen talking to Robert Mueller. Isn't he a gold mine?

JENNIFER RUBIN, COLUMNIST, "THE WASHINGTON POST: This is collusion. This is an attempt, a fraud on the American people.

DAVID CORN, MSNBC ANALYST: If this is true, this is collusion. They're colluding with a secret Kremlin plot. I mean this is it. This is the ball game right here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Wiley Coyote almost has the Roadrunner, ACME TNT. Oh my goodness. We have a lot to get to with two of my favorite people. Could this really be enough to get the president this time? Here to react, investigative reporter Sarah Carter and The Federalist Mollie Hemingway, both are fox news contributors. Molly?

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. It's interesting. People on this story day after day, month after month, year after year finally think they found the thing that will bring Donald Trump down. And the idea that Michael Cohen is the lynchpin to the entire case and everything will crumble is fascinating that people would cling to that. Probably if he was so important to this, Bob Mueller wouldn't have spun him off. You know, his case was spun off to a different venue. If he were that important, I don't think we would see Bob Mueller letting him go.

INGRAHAM: And Sarah, this is what Jeff Toobin said when he was pressed around whether or not this is important. This is what I do in the morning. I watch for these sound bites. This is my life. We have to watch this and your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Is Michael Cohen telling the truth about this?

CAMEROTA: If he is, then what is President Trump guilty of?

TOOBIN: The question is, did -- has -- is did the Trump campaign aid and abet and assist the Russians?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Abet. We edited some of that, but aid and abet? Mueller has -- he actually said Mueller has charged a conspiracy. He actually used those words, but oh well -- I -- because he doesn't know --

(CROSSTALK)

SARAH CARTER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: -- they don't know what to --

INGRAHAM: I mean God bless Jeff too -- I like him but come on. They should've just said (inaudible) no idea why this is important.

CARTER: Well they don't even know what to say. And I was doing the same thing today. I thought what is CNN talking about? I mean they're so much news across the globe and all CNN could do is talk about Cohen over and over and over again. They were pounding this. Cohen has to be right. Now he has information that, you know, he has on President Trump. But they called him Donald. They refused to call him President Trump.

INGRAHAM: I noticed that.

CARTER: You notice that? They disrespect even -- the fact that he's the president.

INGRAHAM: -- he's the president.

CARTER: They say Donald must have known about this meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya and Don Jr. and these Russians. That they were trying to get information from the Russians. Well, it's something that Mollie and I talk about frequently. We were talking about it just before we came in to see you. Look, if Donald Trump Jr. went to that meeting and even if they were going to offer him something, why don't we just go back to Hillary Clinton and the DNC actually paying a --

INGRAHAM: Paying for a dossier.

CARTER: -- a foreign spy from Great Britain to collect information from the Russians to spread this information?

HEMINGWAY: I think this is a really important point. If you truly think there's something very nefarious about collecting information -- I mean the whole point here is Trump knew that when we're going to bring him down because he was colluding with Russia, if you believe that, you should have a really serious problem with Hillary Clinton and the DNC secretly buying and paying for an operation where you hire a foreign spy and he, according to his own claims, sourced that to the Kremlin. He says he got his information from the Kremlin operatives. So if you think this is a horrible thing you should be concerned about the dossier. And this week we learned that dossier wasn' wasn't just used by the Clintons.

INGRAHAM: That's right -- by the FISA courts.

HEMINGWAY: It was actually weaponized by the federal government and used to spy on an American citizen. Part of a large campaign of surveillance --

INGRAHAM: -- remember when civil libertarians and a lot of these people in the media used to care about big brother, big brother spying on us, big brother's looking. Now suddenly anything goes. If an intel agent or an intel agency says something, it's sacrosanct, it can never be questioned.

CARTER: Sacrosanct to the point of Laura, they omitted information in the FISA that showed that even Christopher Steele himself, one was bias because we know Bruce Ohr's testimony proved that and he worked for the Department of Justice and demoted twice and wife worked for -- Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS.

Not only that, Christopher Steele himself couldn't verify the information that he was collecting from the Russians. But OK. We're going to believe it, we're going to open a FISA warrant investigation on Carter Page, we're going to spy on President Trump and then we're going to drag the entire administration for more than a year and a half into this mess with Robert Mueller.

INGRAHAM: And this is Cohen from 2017. He said in a tweet -- "I'm so proud of @DonaldTrumpJr for being open, honest and transparent to the American people. This nonsense needs to stop!"

That was after the issue with the meeting came out initially.

HEMINGWAY: Right and Cohen by his own admission says he has no evidence to support his own claim.

INGRAHAM: Right.

HEMINGWAY: You have a lot of people that say otherwise. But again, this points to the actual issue of Cohen's credibility. Let's say he is the most honest, truth-telling person --

INGRAHAM: -- who cares if he knew?

HEMINGWAY: Well, the point being that the entire case of the Russia collusion hinges on him going to Prague to secretly conspire with the Russians. He said he didn't go. He said repeatedly he hasn't gone. He said that under oath. So if he's a great truth-teller and he's denied this central claim that underpins the entire Russia collusion theory, how come it didn't matter? But now it matters because somehow, something he said might somehow be used to somehow get President Trump --

CARTER: Molly is right on that.

HEMINGWAY: -- with that.

INGRAHAM: Do either of you find it curious that no one in the sort of more mainstream press does any like serious reporting on this? Like serious reporting on Mueller, on what's taking so long and why this attorney-client privilege material is dripping out? Lanny Davis' past association? The countries and the foreign entities that he's represented over the years? I mean they're going after Manafort for Ukraine. But OK -- what is Lanny Davis' clients list looks like? Let's look at that.

CARTER: The most terrifying things about this story is you have all of these like --

INGRAHAM: Equatorial Guinea. Yeah.

CARTER: You have a week like this where all the things we heard about the FISA court being misled are confirmed by actual documents. And yet the media don't report just what's happening. They're actually sort of gas-lighting and making reality seem the opposite of what it is.

When you have a case like that, we should have the media pouring all of its resources -- I get they don't like Trump, but they need to report on this issue of whether -- not even whether. We know it's established. The Trump campaign was surveilled in multiple ways. Wiretapped, human informants, national security letters. This is a huge story.

INGRAHAM: If it were done with Hillary, they would be -- oh my God. They would be absolutely --

CARTER: -- but with all the resources Laura, that The New York Times has, The Washington Post has, with the great history they've had as well which is why a lot of people became journalists, to do investigative reporting. They stepped back and said we're not going to touch this, we're going to let our narrative role because we came up with the narrative --

INGRAHAM: "The Amazon Post" is dedicated to one thing. Getting Trump out of office. They want to recreate their old glory days of you know, big anniversary of starting the impeachment stuff (ph) today --

CARTER: Right. It's about impeachment.

INGRAHAM: It's getting him out of office, they want a Pulitzer Prize for that reporting. They're not going to report on the other stuff. Great to have you both in the studio. Thanks so much for being here.

And Trump defies the critics again. The GDP report, wow. Just the latest example that the economy? You bet is roaring back to life under this president. So why is the media not cheering the results? The White House is here to respond next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're on track to hit the highest annual average growth rate in over 13 years. And I will say this right now and I'll say it strongly, as the trade deals come in one by one, we're going to go a lot higher than these numbers. And these are great numbers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now it's a running theme. Trump defies the critics again and again. The latest example, well the fairly stunning GDP numbers that dropped this morning. But it was no surprise to me, like clock-work, the media are doing their level best to down play the great news.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: One quarter of growth does not a transformed economy make. As we all know the numbers bounce around a lot from quarter to quarter.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: It's good to see but will it last?

RUTH MARCUS, COLMNIST: President Trump will take a lot of credit for these good numbers. Don't believe him. A lot of people that bought things because they're worried about his tariffs and a lot of false growth from tax cuts juicing the economy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I actually heard people saying it was all Obama's economy. I mean sounds like all of them were really excited about this chance for more American success, don't be. Well, here to react is the Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Kevin Hassett. Kevin thanks for joining us.

KEVIN HASSETT, CHAIRMAN, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS: Hey Laura, great to be here. Thank you.

INGRAHAM: I know you're not surprised. Look I knew this would happen. This number comes out after -- we're going to play the great predictions from last year. And these media types do everything in their power to down play it or give the credit to President Obama. It's stunning, right?

HASSETT: Yeah. I mean after President Trump, it's Laura Ingraham's economy, right? Because he pursued the policies that you've been advocating for years and years. How long have we known each other? Twenty years? Something like that, right?

INGRAHAM: 20 -- 20 plus years.

HASSETT: Yeah, and the fact is we said if we cut corporate taxes, then the jobs would come home. We've said that if we pursue energy dominance, there would be lots of exploration and drilling. And we said if we had better trade deals by showing we're tough, that we'd reduce the trade deficit. So if you look at the numbers that just came out, we've got a capital spending boom, structures investments sky rocket because of the drilling and the trade deficit went down and contributed to higher GDP growth. And so everything about the Trump agenda is working and that will drive the critics crazy. I'd like to add one last thing, I promise not to filibuster. There can be a sugar high in economics. And so if you remember Cash For Clunkers, which is their brilliant idea?

INGRAHAM: Oh yeah.

HASSETT: So they bought a bunch of clunkers and the people had to go out and buy a new car. And so then GDP growth went up a lot in that quarter. After that they had a new car and it went back down, right? And so that was a sugar high. What we see is capital spending and capital spending increases supply. So all of those factories being built this quarter, are going to produce output in the next quarter and that output is going to sustain the growth and that's what the president's talked about.

INGRAHAM: Well, some of the doubters, Kevin, are saying, well, a lot of this has been juiced by other countries buying our soybeans in anticipation of the tariffs that are now not going to happen as far as Europe goes. So they're stockpiling the soybeans, a huge increase in U.S. exports of soy beans.

HASSETT: There was, yeah (ph).

INGRAHAM: -- just because they were stockpiling. And so in other words they say in the months coming, these countries won't need to buy as many soybeans, that's going to put downward pressure on our GDP and thus the 4.1 percent very high level of today is not sustainable going forward. The president says look for higher numbers today.

HASSETT: Well, you know, I don't know about higher numbers, but I don't want to disagree with the president either. But the fact is, that we understand farmers in the White House. We know the soybean crop is about to be harvested in September and prices have gone down. And they've partly gone down recently because the Chinese did stockpile lots of soybeans in anticipation of the trade dispute. And so that is true.

But there's other things in the trade data too, like the reshoring of activity because we're no longer an unattractive tax environment. But the biggest news in today's GDP report which I think is going frustrate the democrats, is this old thing called inventories, right? And so if everybody's decided they're optimistic about the country and they go out and buy stuff, then the firms will ratchet up their production. But if consumption is really, really high, then they're going to have to run down their inventory because they're selling stuff off the shelves, right? Because their production can't adjust so fast. And so inventory adjustments subtracted one percent for GDP growth this quarter, so really --

INGRAHAM: We turned into like FOX Business somehow tonight, but --

HASSETT: I apologize. But the point? We're going to get the one percent back -- we're going to get the one percent back because they have to rebuild -- like the shelves are empty. I apologize --

INGRAHAM: OK. I get it. I get it. I got to remind everyone for some fun things here. This is what Paul Krugman said. This is right after the 2016 election. He said we're very probably looking at a global recession with no end in sight. I suppose we can get lucky somehow. But on economics as if everything else, a terrible thing has just happened. May of 2017, L.A. Times -- if Trump thinks he can get more than one percent economic growth, he is dreaming. I know they're just, you know -- the ones we found in five seconds in our search today.

The critics are -- Jeb Bush is by the way saying that yeah, this is great because of the tax cuts. But you now have to do immigration reform and you have to have free trade policies. So he was kicking the tariffs on the way to the praise there, Kevin. Final comments.

HASSETT: Well the president's strong stance on trade has delivered a lot of progress in these negotiations on the trade deals. And though remember, the objective is to open up European markets, open up other markets for agricultural products and other products from the U.S. And you saw the really great news from the E.U. this week. That would have never happened if the President hadn't fought --

INGRAHAM: Never.

HASSETT: -- for America's workers and stood strong as you've been advising him to do.

INGRAHAM: Never, never, never. Kevin, thanks so much for joining us. I really, really appreciate it.

HASSETT: Thanks for having me.

INGRAHAM: And here to respond to the man who held the same position during the Obama administration, currently an economics professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business -- fantastic school by the way -- is Austan Goolsbee.

Austan, tell us why we should be discouraged by a good GDP number? Which to listen to the commentary today, it's like you want to take a Prozac. This is like great news and so many of these democrats could not deal with the positive news for the country or for Trump, which to me is very sad.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Look, I'm going to agree with you. I do find that sad and you can see there were a bunch of democrats who were just trying to spin it in a partisan way. There's nothing bad about having a four percent GDP growth number. That's good. That's good for America and the president is entitled to say this was a good number. You can see he was beaming with pride. The question now is how can we continue to sustain that?

It's worth remembering just last quarter was a mediocre number. So we had around two percent. Now we got four percent. Let's hope we get more four percent and not return to the two percent. But I don't think there's anything that you should convince yourself that was bad about this number. It wasn't bad.

INGRAHAM: We aren't saying wages rise as we want, especially with the tight labor market. You'd think wages would begin a real uptick. That's a problem.

GOOLSBEE: I agree. Yeah, I agree with that.

INGRAHAM: -- and that's been flat lining for 18 years. We haven't seen real wages increase. But we're seeing a lot of bonuses though, which is nice to see. But people want to make more per year and per hour.

GOOLSBEE: Right, we're not seeing it as we should. But that's the toughest part of the recovery. And it has been true for a long time. It's not like this is just the fault of the Trump administration. It's been a long period that we haven't had enough wage growth for ordinary workers right in the middle of the wage distribution, if you want to think about it.

Now, that doesn't take away from the GDP today. The GDP today is very good. But just be a little careful. There's several aspects of the GDP number today that looks like they're probably temporary. We're still growing well, but there's some parts of it that four percent --

INGRAHAM: -- remember the increase in trade hasn't kicked in yet. When this European deal gets done, I understand NAFTA is going to get done --

GOOSLBEE: Yeah, you just be careful --

INGRAHAM: -- now my sources are telling me. But if NAFTA gets done, which it looks much more likely now, which I can't even believe I'm saying that, but it does -- that's also going to be very positive.

GOOLSBEE: I hope you're right.

INGRAHAM: I am right. I'll have you back.

GOOLSBEE: Every day we don't have a trade war is a good day for America.

INGRAHAM: I am right on that, and I'll have you back.

But let's play - this is something fun that happened this week.

Bob Lighthizer, U.S. trade rep, was on Capitol Hill. And he was in front of the Senate committee, and of course lots of critics on both sides about these tariffs and how we're trying to take on China. This is Brian Schatz, Democrat from Hawaii. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT LIGHTHIZER, UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: First of all, you say the Chinese are clever because they have a 50-year view. We should be clever and have a two or three-year view. That doesn't make any sense to me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. I'm saying we're a democracy, and so we take a shorter-term view because we are responsible to our voters periodically.

LIGHTHIZER: So does that mean that democracies always lose to authoritarian governments? Does it mean --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, it means you don't pick stupid fights.

LIGHTHIZER: If your conclusion is that China taking over all of our technology and the future of our children is a stupid fight, then you are right. We should capitulate. My view is that's how we got where we are. I don't think it's a stupid fight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That didn't get enough play, but I thought that encapsulated so much of what the Trump economic agenda is all about. Don't cede to China. Don't be part of the China surrender caucus. Fight for every job, fight for every opportunity, and Lighthizer is an underrated rock star in this administration. Close it out.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, FORMER OBAMA ECONOMIC ADVISER: All I would say is if your main thing is about confronting China, don't pick seven fights while carrying a six shooter. That's the gunfighter's credo, and that's been our problem. Our natural allies to stop Chinese intellectual property violation would be the very country that we're threatening trade wars with.

INGRAHAM: They're working with us, Austan. They're all working with us. The E.U. is working with us. Korea already cut a new deal.

GOOLSBEE: They are not all working with us.

INGRAHAM: Korea cut a new deal months ago. They did. They cut a new deal months ago. Europe is already renegotiating with us. Mexico is about to renegotiate NAFTA. Canada is slowly but surely realizing what is going on with the steel.

GOOLSBEE: And the Europeans are joining with China to file grievances against us at the WTO.

INGRAHAM: Bring it on. That's just not even serious. Austan, we're out of time.

GOOLSBEE: We have to find a way to confront China to help us.

INGRAHAM: We tried. We're out of time. We're out of time. We're going to roll to black here.

GOOLSBEE: Great to see you again, Laura.

INGRAHAM: But Austan, it is great to have you on, as always.

And by the way, it's is not snakes on a plane but socks on a plane. Are you confused? I am. It's Friday, you don't know what you're going to get here on "The Ingraham Angle." Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKIE IBANEZ, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, and live from America's news headquarters, I'm Jackie Ibanez in New York.

A deadly wildfire exploding in northern California, forcing thousands to flee their homes tonight. At least two people have died including one firefighter. The Carr fire tripled in size Thursday, jumping the Sacramento River and reaching into Redding. The city is about 100 miles south of the Oregon border. Dozens of homes have been destroyed and thousands more threatened by the flames. Scorching temperatures, strong winds, and drought are fueling the fire. Forecasters don't expect a break in the weather any time soon.

And sky gazers around the world were treated to a rare sight, a blood moon. Look at that. This complete lunar eclipse was the longest of this century. It lasted an hour and 43 minutes to be exact. With the exception of North America, much of the world caught a glimpse of the red moon. People in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Africa, and Asia, they all had the best view.

I'm Jackie Ibanez. Now back to "The Ingraham Angle." For all your headlines, log on to FOXnews.com. Have a great night.

INGRAHAM: It's Friday, and you know what that means.

Reboot mania, one stinky grounded plane, and the biggest documentary in the country? Where to begin. For more we're joined by New York Times bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" series and Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo. OK, Raymond, there were more reboots announced this week. It's like the 90s have returned. What is the latest?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: The 90s are back with a vengeance. "Fraser" may be rebooted. "Charmed," the show, remember the three witches, they're going to reboot that. And the biggest reboot that's causing so much blowback, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." You remember this show?

INGRAHAM: No.

ARROYO: You don't remember this show?

INGRAHAM: I never watched it.

ARROYO: It was huge -- in the 90s, this is one of those seminal shows that captured the zeitgeist of the time. It was a girl fighting back who could be beautiful and tough.

INGRAHAM: And set people on fire.

ARROYO: There's a lot of blowback because they now want to recast Buffy as a black actress, have a black actress play the lead role. And I want to share this tweet with you. This is indicative of some of what is happening on social media. This is a staff writer for "Vulture," Angelica Jade. And she writes, she's an African-American writer. She says "I'm not interested in seeing a black slayer take on the role of Buffy and even see gender and race reboots. It's boring and insulting. We deserve our own mythology." That is a great, important I think take on all of this. Remember a few years ago in 2014, they tried to relaunch "Murder She Wrote," the old Angela Lansbury show, with Octavia Spencer. That went nowhere.

INGRAHAM: A flop.

ARROYO: Angela Lansbury said Cabot Cove is our little world. This character is so particular to that time and place, I can't see it. The fans agreed with her. That reboot died.

INGRAHAM: Is Angela Lansbury still working?

ARROYO: Yes, she's 94-years-old.

INGRAHAM: She's unbelievable.

ARROYO: The woman is unbelievable.

Anyway, my problem with these reboots and trying to recast them and make gender points, tell new stories for this generation. You're depriving this generation of their characters, their stories by trying to squeeze them into these old wineskins or old sitcoms in this case. I've had it with the reboots.

INGRAHAM: It's the approach to casting.

ARROYO: However, if you're going to do a reboot --

INGRAHAM: It's like "Star Wars." The "Star Wars" things are the worst.

ARROYO: "Everybody Loves Raymond" would make a great reboot. Patty Heaton and Ray Romano, if you're listening, start writing. I love that show. Speaking of reboots --

INGRAHAM: I didn't watch any of those.

ARROYO: This is a curious story where we need a reboot from last night. A Spirit airplane was grounded over what people on the plane were calling a stinky sock smell. The plane going from New York to Ft. Lauderdale was diverted to Myrtle Beach. I'm not making this up.

INGRAHAM: Spirit is, God bless them, is the worst --

ARROYO: OK, don't defame --

INGRAHAM: It's the worst experience. I'm sorry. I've been on Spirit airlines before. They charge you for air, for God's sake. If you go, don't breathe. It's $25.

ARROYO: I'm bringing a camera next time she tries to get on a Spirit flight.

INGRAHAM: No, no, sorry. No can do.

ARROYO: The passengers started complaining because they were getting nauseous, they were getting headaches. And not just a few of them. So they grounded the plane in Myrtle Beach. But when people went aboard, they couldn't find the source of the smell. And I was thinking, why didn't you check the passengers? You have got a stinky sock smell. Have you traveled when these people --

INGRAHAM: No, no, no.

ARROYO: -- take their shoes --

INGRAHAM: No, no. I took a photo of a flight from Chicago this past week.

ARROYO: Not you.

INGRAHAM: I didn't -- not the face, but a 20-something had bare feet and was putting her filthy bare foot with toe rings on the arm rest next -- OK. I got like a dry heave.

ARROYO: This is why every time I fly --

INGRAHAM: Here's a message. If you're traveling, it's not your bedroom. Otherwise just show up in an adult diaper and call it a day.

ARROYO: It's not your bathroom either. They're clipping the nails.

INGRAHAM: Oh, no!

ARROYO: Clipping the toenails --

INGRAHAM: Changing babies on the pull-down tray table. Have you seen that?

ARROYO: You have to change them somewhere.

INGRAHAM: No, no. How did we get into this?

ARROYO: This is why every time I travel, I break out those Lysol wipes. And I know you call me Felix Unger, but I scrub every surface.

INGRAHAM: Now when you travel with Raymond, now it's to the point where people ask Raymond, it is the odd couple.

ARROYO: Guilty as charged.

INGRAHAM: I'm like throwing things all over the place. Raymond is like don't move. He's like --

ARROYO: Don't touch anything. You have to clean it before you --

INGRAHAM: All right, before we go, though, before we go, there's a movie that is about to become the highest grossing biographic document in history. It has to be a Winston, we've already done Churchill, Reagan. What is it?

ARROYO: Laura, it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day for a neighbor. Would you be mine?

INGRAHAM: I hated that.

ARROYO: Would you be mine? Why do you hate Mr. Rogers? Look what I'm doing for you today. I'm putting my cardigan on just for you.

INGRAHAM: That whole little village I found --

ARROYO: Why? The neighborhood of make believe? Put your cardigan on, Ingraham. Look, I already feel better. I feel warmer --

INGRAHAM: You're either a cardigan person or you're not. And I'm not one. I'm messing up my chorus.

ARROYO: The new Mr. Rogers movie, "Would You be My Neighbor" --

INGRAHAM: No, that sweater of yours is the worst. No, no, no. And no turtleneck.

ARROYO: This movie --

INGRAHAM: Men with turtlenecks doesn't work.

ARROYO: This movie is about to make $25 million at the box office. It is the biggest documentary in the last five years. And to give you some idea, Al Gore's movie, that "Inconvenient Truth," it made $3.7 million at the box office.

INGRAHAM: Gasbag.

ARROYO: And the Pope Francis movie earlier this year, $1.7 million at the box office.

INGRAHAM: Bomb.

ARROYO: Why are people going to this Mr. Rogers movie?

INGRAHAM: Innocence.

ARROYO: I think it's innocence, decency.

INGRAHAM: Wonderment.

ARROYO: Someone who was uplifting people and using the media for good. That's what people want for just like you, Laura, just like you.

INGRAHAM: None of the satire or cheap cynicism of our segments. This is a beautiful little town and --

ARROYO: Let me tell you about Mr. Rogers. He was a Presbyterian minister who used the medium for good.

INGRAHAM: That is amazing.

ARROYO: He thought with children he could help them through difficulties. He was also, I discovered watching the movie, a lifelong Republican you'll be happy to know.

INGRAHAM: I got a sense of that. Did he have slip-on shoes or tie shoes? I don't remember.

ARROYO: I think e had the slip-ons. He would take them off and put the tie sneakers on.

INGRAHAM: I wasn't a Mr. Rogers.

ARROYO: Children were captivated by him.

INGRAHAM: They were.

ARROYO: We need a little more of that tenderness and gentleness on TV, nonpolitical --

INGRAHAM: Banish that from your wardrobe.

ARROYO: You don't like the cardigan?

INGRAHAM: No. We exposed bad cardigans, and the Democrats craven attempts to get the immigration high ground? Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Remember when Michelle Obama said when they go low, we go high? Well, Democratic leadership looks to be employing a brand new messaging strategy. When they win on policy, we just lie. I give you House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi with an interesting take on immigration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: We have a responsibility to protect our borders. Let's make no mistake about that. And Democrats have been strong on that point, all of our borders. In fact, I said to some of you before, that when we had the 9-11 incident and the commission was formed, and they made the recommendations, they made recommendations to protect America. But the Republicans would never take them up, and some of it was about our borders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Wait a second, is she saying 9-11 was an incident? Democrats are tough on immigration. Well, to debate that, let's bring in Michael Cutler, former senior special agent at INS, a predecessor to ICE, and immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez. Great to see both of you. Francisco, how are Democrats tougher on immigration than Republicans? When she's trying to convince us of that, it leads me to believe she knows they're losing on this ICE issue. But, nevertheless, she's making a bold proclamation that the Democrats are the ones who are really all for border enforcement. Tell us how?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Well, guys, do we want to sit here and get our feelings hurt about what she meant or she wants to says, or do you guys want to call her bluff? Prove them wrong. Make them filibuster. At least let them show their cards. But we're sitting back and not doing anything because they hurt our feelings. They say they're stronger on immigration than we are. What she did forget to say is to point out that all of the 9/11 terrorists were here legally.

INGRAHAM: No. Actually, one had overstayed a visa. It was on the wrong type of visa. One shouldn't have been on the visa. So originally on an overstayed visa. But calling 9/11 an incident as an American citizen, I know Nancy has been a little slow lately, but that's just abhorrent. It's beyond outrageous.

Michael, this argument about abolish ICE, which undergirds what Nancy's talking about here, it's exploded across the country. These protests, whipping up people. They feel bad because of separated kids, I understand that. But they backfired. These protests have backfired and most people think we need ICE because they do human trafficking work, they do the great drug interdiction work. Yet the Democrats thought that was going to be political nirvana. And I don't see it. I think it's been a complete disaster for them, this idea.

MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT, INS: And by the way, it's interesting she brings up 9/11. I have been raising the issue forever. I've arrested terrorists as an immigration agent. Most people don't realize the second largest contingent of agents assigned to the joint terrorism taskforce are immigration agents. And I provided testimony to the commission.

So when she said, well, one of the things was border security, she's right. The other part of it, the embedding tactic, was immigration fraud. That's the bailiwick of ICE, the same agency that she was demanding be disbanded. So how in the world can you be in two places at one time except, of course, Washington, with the idea that we're going to take immigration out of the equation when the 9/11 Commission found that multiple failures of the immigration system, particularly interior enforcement, that was the key words in the 9/11 Commission report. How do you eliminate interior enforcement and say you're following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? It's crazy.

INGRAHAM: Gentlemen, get this. There's another issue. Attorney General And Jeff Sessions was up in Boston yesterday, and he announced arrests in this major identity fraud operation where 25 individuals are now standing accused of stealing Social Security numbers to obtain what amounted to a quarter of a million dollars in government benefits. So if you're not outraged by that, wait until you hear about this story's connection to the border.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Out of 28 defendants charged, 21 are in custody, and 22 of the total are in this country illegally. Nineteen have arrest records for everything from breaking and entering, assault and battery on a police officer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Francisco, you have this deal with identity fraud, Social Security fraud, collecting benefits.

HERNANDEZ: And you and I have been --

INGRAHAM: And Sessions says, look, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's $250,000 just in Boston, tip of the iceberg.

HERNANDEZ: Yes. Why don't we give these folks a reason to come out of the shadows and identify themselves so we can separate the ones that --

CUTLER: They won't.

HERNANDEZ: -- from the ones that want to harm us. But we have no incentive to find out who they are. They're just sitting out there floating around, probably using your Social Security number or my Social Security number. But ICE can only do what Congress tells it to do. ICE is dependent on the INA law. Congress sitting there blaming ICE, both parties are blaming ice and DHS for their failure to act for the last 18 to 20 years --

INGRAHAM: We're not failing to act, Francisco. Be very clear about that. Sessions is not failing to act. I interviewed Andrew Lelling, the U.S. attorney in Boston today on the radio.

HERNANDEZ: No, but Congress.

INGRAHAM: Well, there is great enforcement going on. Michael, you can speak to this.

CUTLER: Wait a minute, Francisco --

INGRAHAM: They're mapping out Medicaid applications with the Social Security numbers and they're finding out there is rampant fraud. And it's not just people who committed crimes. There is food stamp, Medicaid fraud across this country by people that came into this country illegally. It happens every day. Michael, go ahead.

CUTLER: Sure. Francisco, wait a second. Let's wait a moment. First of all, none of them came in legally. They all committed visa fraud, all of the 9/11 hijackers. They all lied to the inspectors at the airport.

HERNANDEZ: They came here legally --

CUTLER: You had your turn. This is my turn. So the point is that the laws that are on the books are more than adequate to go after terrorists and criminals who defraud the immigration system. The bad guys won't come out of the shadows if they know they're wanted.

HERNANDEZ: You're right.

CUTLER: So all you would be doing is legalizing illegal aliens and giving them opportunities to hide.

INGRAHAM: Guys, very few people are covering this type of fraud that intersects with illegal immigration, but we're going to be on this and we're going to dig deeper into what's happening. Just in New England and fentanyl is involved, too, but we're going to stay on this issue. Thank you for joining us.

And up next, it isn't just Twitter that is trying to snuff out conservative voices. Wait till you hear about what Facebook tried to do regarding a candidate running for Congress in Florida. That and Peter Thiel's message for Silicon Valley, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Boy, has it been a rough week for Silicon Valley. Twitter in hot water for shadow banning conservatives, something they had to reluctantly admit. And today their stock is down over 20 percent. Facebook's stock has cratered after they missed their earnings estimates for the first time in three years. And to make matters worse, the social media giant is now accused of banning this ad from a Florida Republican because of the Second Amendment message. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT CALDWELL, R-FLORIDA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: I'm Matt Caldwell. I like guns. I love the Second Amendment. And I support our president. That's why I'm endorsed by the NRA.

I'm Matt Caldwell, and that's all there is to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I like that ad. Here to respond, the candidate himself, State Rep. Matt Caldwell who is running as a candidate for the commissioner of agriculture. All right, Representative Caldwell, how did you find out this was banned on Facebook?

CALDWELL: Yes, absolutely, Laura. We have been obviously running statewide for over a year now and running multiple ads every single day, just run of the mill stuff. Like this, like that. We go and post this mom and apple pie pro Second Amendment, pro President Trump, pro NRA endorsement ad, and it gets flagged immediately. And so we do what it tells you to. Appeal it. Let us know why you don't think it should be flagged.

And of course, we wait and we wait and we wait. No response. And here we are five weeks out from our primary, 2 million voters in Florida we have to talk to, and we're losing time while they, I don't know, review it. It gets lost in the black hole. And so we called them out in the media, put out a release and said that we've been blocked from talking about this straightforward message that I've been sharing across the state for the last year-and-a-half. And until we called them out for it, they didn't take any action.

Of course, once we did that, the bad publicity, they called us up immediately, apologized, authorized it. But, really, it's just the precedent. You go look through Facebook's policies and automatically anything that deals with guns or ammunition, it gets flagged. And I'm running for office, so I have got a platform. They paid attention to me. But what about private citizens? The average person that is trying to use this platform to talk about the things they believe in, the things they want to share? Where do they call?

INGRAHAM: Yes, they don't have the same opportunity that you have, certainly, as you said, the platform. And it makes you wonder how often this happens in the course of a day. There's a lot of stuff on these social media platforms that most people find objectionable but it doesn't get flagged. Whether it's nudity, semi-nudity, or violence from film clips. So how do you make that judgment? This is where I do kind of prefer the free market, unless it's someone being mutilated or something that's really violent, incitement to violence. But thus far there is no other problem with Facebook today, right?

CALDWELL: No. So they're running our ads now and have told us we shouldn't have any more problems. But again, it just shows you where their mindset is at. Why are guns automatically flagged? But you have got things likes abortion. You can run an abortion ad. That would be totally --

INGRAHAM: Representative Caldwell, we're out of time. But we're going to keep an eye on this issue because I have a feeling this isn't the last time we're going to be dealing with this. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: By the way, do you know in this date in history, impeachment proceedings began against Nixon in the House of Representatives. Isn't that wild to think of that? I was in summer camp.

We had such a wild week of news, it was great to have you every step of the way. We covered the FISA warrants, Michael Cohen's wild claims, and we ended with phenomenal economic news for all Americans, more evidence of a robust economy under the guidance of President Trump. We are really blessed in this country.

Enjoy your family, enjoy your weekend, fly your flag if you can. I will see you right back here on Monday from New York.

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.