This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," July 7, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

I'm Laura Ingraham. This is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE from Washington. Is Facebook, Twitter and YouTube over their alleged censorship? Well, are they going to be finally held accountable, finally have to answer for silencing opposing voices, including Donald Trump's? Today his team filed a class action lawsuit against the Zuckerberg cabal. The lead attorney is here exclusively to lay out his legal path to victory.

But first, power grabs and needle jabs. That's the focus of tonight's ANGLE.

Every day, the barbarity of the left's COVID lockdowns and school closures becomes more apparent. The great global resetters who love seeing a shut in and shut up, who were fine with seeing our economy destroyed, and even turning kids into screen zombies. The political forces that exploited health fears, the medical officials who became stars by helping them, and the media that covered for them all. All of them should be held accountable.

Now, it took a while, but Americans are wising up to this charade. Yet, despite everything the experts either got wrong or lied about, they still think that parents should trust them and inject their kids with an experimental drug to prevent a disease. Almost none of those kids will ever get sick from.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY SLAVITT, FORMER ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES: Obviously, parents need to decide this and kids need to decide this for themselves. But we in the U.S. have determined that if you're over 12, it's safe to get vaccinated. It's smart.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We in the U.S. have determined it's safe and smart. Translation. Our big pharma overlords have decided that we need to get rid of these vaccines before they expire. Well, just like the so-called public health experts, the media, they have zero credibility and maximum culpability here.

Now remember, most adults have gotten at least one shot, many more already have natural or acquired immunity through prior exposure to COVID. We're likely already at herd immunity thresholds in most parts of the country. But none of that, none of those facts are going to stop them from promoting the government's vaccine pressure campaign, especially the ones that will target our children.

The San Francisco Chronicle published a column yesterday, this was wild, saying, "My husband had a stroke after his COVID vaccine. We gave our kid his shot anyway." She wrote, "As my husband recovered at home, my son stuck his arm out the car window and got his jab." Insane.

Now, most media outlets refuse to even discuss the adverse reactions that have been linked to the vaccine, even when they're among kids.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANIE DE GARAY: Over the past five months, Maddie has been to the ER nine times, and has been hospitalized three times, for a total of two months in the hospital. She was totally fine before this. She did the right thing trying to help everybody else and they're not helping her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The responsible question to pose is, which presents the greater risk, a child developing a serious reaction to the vaccine, or a child getting seriously ill from COVID?

In Michigan, arising high school freshmen died three days after getting his COVID vaccine that the experts say is so safe and smart. He complained of common post vaccine symptoms. But in the two days between his immunization and death, Jacob went to sleep that night and never woke up.

But these stories, including the risk of heart damage, rarely, if ever get mentioned in that White House briefing room. Why? Because being honest about the true risk benefit analysis would actually help their credibility, but instead the government officials just seem to be getting more and more desperate.

Remember, they've dangled cash lotteries, free concert tickets and even free beer to increase vaccinations. But Biden still didn't reach a 70 percent July 4th target. So whoever is making the decisions in the White House decided, ok, I guess it's time to intensify the pressure campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Targeted community by community door-to-door outreach to get remaining Americans vaccinated by ensuring they have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Going door-to-door? This is creepy stuff. Someone comes up to your door outside wearing a mask showing up at your house claiming to work for the government asking you personal medical questions, what could possibly go wrong there?

By the way, are these government vaccine ambassadors going to ask people about their vaccine status? What sort of notes will they take on each door- to-door encounter? And what will be done with those notes? How will this information be used? These are all important questions that bear directly on matters of personal medical privacy.

But the Biden administration, they can always just rely on their big business and university pals that all end up getting some federal help or federal money, and they'll end up doing the strong arming for the government against all those hesitant Americans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: There are a lot of companies. There are over 500 colleges and universities, growing number of hospitals, healthcare systems that are mandating vaccines for their employees, for their students. They want to create a safe environment for everyone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Speaking of creepy, how ironic that a woman who once headed up the biggest abortion provider in America thinks she's an expert on creating safe environments. The fact is the past year has shown us that federal and state officials must never be allowed to abuse their emergency powers again.

As we predicted, now it's about a year ago that we said this blue state governors are going to be using things like gun violence, climate change and racism to claim new emergency powers and then expand their authority, and once again, erode your constitutional rights. So I say it's time to lock them down. And that's THE ANGLE.

Joining us now internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, professor of medicine at Texas A&M, Dr. Peter McCullough. Doctor, these cells of the vaccine are getting more aggressive, more desperate, especially surrounding the kids. What do you make of this?

PETER MCCULLOUGH, MD, MPH, INTERNIST: I think it's a giant mistake. Overall, the equation is very unfavorable for vaccination of anyone below age 30. We know that there are different risks that the FDA has acknowledged for Moderna and Pfizer, the risks are myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. And then with girls and women, age 18 to 48 is the risk of cavernous sinus thrombosis in the brain.

The vaccines actually have a dangerous mechanism of action. They hijack the body's cellular machinery to produce the dangerous spike protein. And that happens within sensitive organs like the brain, the heart, it circulates in the bloodstream, damages blood vessels and causes blood clotting. And for those reasons, unless we really have a compelling case, no one under age 30 should be seeing any one of these vaccines.

INGRAHAM: Well, yesterday it was Dr. I think Richard [ph] Bessemer was on CNN, I believe, and he was saying, this just demonstrates the vaccine hesitancy - demonstrates that we need to just speed up. The FDA's formal vaccine approval, Dr. McCullough. How is leapfrogging the normal vaccine approval process the right answer here?

MCCULLOUGH: No. There are citizens positions and from doctors and from nurses saying they're simply not safe enough for approval for age under 18. We already have 15 deaths reported in the adverse event reporting system, 75 does under age 30. That's simply too high for an illness that now is very infrequent. It's mild and it's very treatable.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Hold on, Dr. McCullough, doesn't that process usually take seven to 10 years to get the formal vaccine approval or even longer?

MCCULLOUGH: Yes, or even longer. And so the dossier of needed studies isn't there.

INGRAHAM: Right. Yes. It's just anti science. That's all I'm saying. All right. Dr. Fauci was on television tonight, and he had a message for those who don't want to get the COVID vaccine. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NIAID: We're not asking anybody to make any political statement one way or another. We're saying try and save your life. It's easy to get. It's free. And it's readily available. So you've got to ask, what is the problem? Get over it. Get over this political statement. Just get over it, and try and save the lives of yourself and your family.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That's not arrogant or anything. Dr. McCullough, your quick response.

MCCULLOUGH: Well, we've gone over six months, there's been no safety report from the CDC. Americans are worried.

INGRAHAM: Dr. McCullough, thank you.

And in March, a new law went into effect in Washington DC that allows kids 11 and up to get vaccinated without parental consent. I kid you not. Now Josh [ph] Maser sued the DC Department of Health after his 16-year-old daughter, resident of another state, traveled to DC and requested that she get a vaccine for summer camp without her parents' knowledge or consent.

Now, maser says he was opposed to his daughter getting the vaccination, not just because of religious beliefs, but also because she had severe reactions to multiple vaccinations when she was only five. Joining us now is the attorney representing the [ph] Maser family, Aaron Siri.

Aaron, now your client's daughter did not end up getting the vaccine. So what are your client's damages in this case?

AARON SIRI, LAWYER FOR DAD SUING DC HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Well, we're not seeking any monetary damages, Laura. We are seeking to enjoin Washington, DC from enforcing and implementing this law, so that my client's daughter can't go back to another doctor in Washington, DC, and get the shots without her parents being present. As you pointed out, my client's daughter did previously suffer serious adverse reaction to pertussis vaccine when she was five years old. She wasn't aware of that when she went to her doctor in Washington, DC, recently. She wasn't aware she had that reaction. So she wasn't aware to tell her doctor about that reaction to the pertussis vaccine.

And the CDC and the manufacturers of that product, say it is a precaution to obtain another dose of pertussis if you've had that part of reaction. So without her parents being present, without them being involved, she could have made a potentially very dangerous decision medically. And so - yes.

INGRAHAM: I just have a common sense question. How did she get to a doctor's office without either parent present? How did that happen?

SIRI: She was - she's recently turned 16 and so she had access to somebody who was able to assist her in getting there.

INGRAHAM: OK. Well, you reference elaborate subterfuge on the part of a doctor at Georgetown pediatrics, explain what that was.

SIRI: The law itself, in many ways, provides for, you could call it (inaudible) birth subterfuge on the parents. What it says is, if a child comes in 11, 12, 13 years old and up and asks a pediatrician, a doctor, or anybody else licensed in DC to administer for you to give them a vaccine, not only is the doctor to give the vaccine, the law actually requires the doctor, the school, the health insurance company, and the health department to all actively conceal from the parent that the child has received the vaccine.

When I grew up, I was told you're not supposed to lie to your parents. This law is not only encouraging lying, it actually mandates by law that a child participate with those who the child would normally view as figures of authority in elaborate scheme of lying to their own parents.

INGRAHAM: I think people across the country are hearing this and they actually can't believe it. Parental rights being completely sublimated, attacked, oppressed, suppressed in DC, codified law. Aaron, I'm glad you filed this lawsuit. We're going to be tracking this very closely. Thank you.

SIRI: Thank now.

INGRAHAM: Now, some 16 months into their emergency COVID declarations governors like J.B. Pritzker refused to give up emergency powers that they declared. Now, this is odd because Illinois' COVID caseload is plummeting. If you look at the graph, it's down to nothing.

Now, New York's Andrew Cuomo ended their state - his state's emergency declarations only to announce another gun violence is now the latest health emergency there. But in Minnesota, the GOP is fighting back.

Last week Democratic governor Tim Walz attempted to extend his powers until August 1. But Republicans with only a one seat Senate majority stayed in special session and forced the governor to back down.

Joining us now, the man who spearheaded this effort Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka. Sir, you all have a liberal governor, a Democrat-controlled state house and the slimmest of slim margins in the Senate, so how the heck did you outmaneuver them?

SEN. PAUL GAZELKA (R-MN): Well, first of all, he wanted them well into the fall. We dragged him to August 1, and then finally to July 1. And frankly, the power source is so vast, I mean, he funded abortion doulas and eviction moratoriums, and closed schools, closed businesses, and just everything you can think of, he took away from us in our liberty and then set up a hotline to turn in people that violated the rules.

So it just was well, well beyond what a governor should be doing. And so in the end, I was willing to or able to work out a deal with the House Democrats to end the emergency powers against his wishes. And that was - we're the only divided legislature in the whole country. So it was a really big deal. It's all about building relationships and stopping bad thing.

INGRAHAM: Well, this is at a time, Senator Gazelka, that we've had this enormous explosion of violence and the breakdown of law and order in the Twin Cities area. The racial question bubbling up, people just want to get back to life, back to work. So why was he trying to hold on to these powers? Why was he doing this?

GAZELKA: Well, the why, I have no idea, other than you get used to having all the power and you don't want to give it up. And I really do think that taking away people's liberty was part of why we had such violence and anger throughout Minnesota. And frankly, this is a nationwide problem. I went to a meeting with 70 leaders, state leaders from around the country. All of them talked about emergency powers being abused.

Our governor and a lot of Democrat governors just use them far, far more than the typical Republican governor. And so we all have to stand up. We've got to stand up for our liberty. And we did it in Minnesota, and we did it by getting Democrats to agree with us. And I think that's a good model for the rest of the country.

INGRAHAM: Well, Senator, I think that people got really demoralized when the extensions of closures, continued school closures, all the sports that were needlessly canceled, and so they felt hopeless. And so your message to Republicans across the country tonight is, if you can do it in liberal Minnesota, how about other states. Pennsylvania work to try to beat the powers back as well. But other blue states, there's hope there as well.

GAZELKA: Well, and it's important to think about the importance of the legislative branch working with the executive branch, if the executive branch thinks they can do everything and then you put that in a Democrat state, they're just going to run roughshod over the people. The people have grown under all of this oppression. And the day we did it, July 1, it was just like a celebration. I thought maybe we should end it on the 4th of July to make an extra good celebration, but it's something that we have to look at in the future too. We are going to look at legislation next year that doesn't allow the governor to keep it unless if either the House or Senate (inaudible) it goes away.

INGRAHAM: Yes. It's got to have a check on this executive authority. It's out of control, J.B. Pritzker in Illinois, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, all of them need to be shut down and the legislators have to get involved. Senator, you're leading the way and thank you. Maybe that's the next governor of Minnesota.

And now from a state senator for former president, President Trump finally decided it was time to take off the gloves against Big Tech and he announced a major class action lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube today, Google, alleging that the companies are essentially acting as quasi state actors. The Trump team seeks an array of damages and an end to the suppression of free speech. One of the lawyers leading the charge, John Coale. He's here next, exclusively. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, 45TH U.S. PRESIDENT: There is no better evidence that Big Tech is out of control than the fact that they banned the sitting President of the United States earlier this year. If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone. This censorship is unlawful, it's unconstitutional and it's completely un-American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Former President Trump today announcing he's leading a class action lawsuit against Facebook, Google and Twitter, the three Big Tech companies that suspended him as you may recall after January 6. And they claimed that they violated his first amendment rights.

Now, the lawsuit was filed today in the Southern District of Florida. They seek injunctive relief and damages for a group of Americans harmed by the social media companies' decisions to silence them.

Joining me now is John Coale, one of the group's lead attorneys. John, good to see you. Explain in layman's terms for us how you can answer the claim that these companies - I mean, they're just private enterprises, not government actors that are constrained otherwise by the Constitution.

JOHN COALE, LEAD COUNSEL IN TRUMP CLASS ACTION: OK. The Supreme Court over the years has defined what makes one a government actor. And there's actually by encouraging is one of the prongs of it. And they did that when they gave these companies immunity. Now they gave it way before they even existed, which makes it silly, but they've encouraged them by giving them immunity to do things that Congress can't do themselves. Congress can't censor you.

Also by coercion, when all those Democratic senators over, I don't know, the last year, year and a half, kept threatening these companies. If you don't do what we say and ban Trump, censor Trump, censor their definition of misinformation or hate speech, we will maybe tear you apart. We might be to take away your immunity, whatever. But the Supreme Court said you can't coerce them to do those things.

And the other thing you can't do is participate in government actions as Fauci did with Facebook and what CDC did with Twitter and Facebook. Now it's just fine if Fauci or the CDC want to say something or give their opinion, that's one thing. But they do not have the right as government entities to censor people who may have a different opinion. So what they did is they farm that out to Facebook, Twitter, and Google. And they can't do that. That makes them state actors, which means that the First Amendment freedom of speech applies.

INGRAHAM: Well, when Zuckerberg wrote that note to Fauci that just came out, whenever, three or four weeks ago when all those emails came out, remember there was that paragraph toward the end of the note, he was lauding Fauci's leadership in the COVID. This paragraph that was all blacked out.

And when you read it - if you read the rest of it, it seemed like it was might have been referencing, we're going to do better to crack down on misleading claims. That's where it seemed like that probably would go - it's just my guess, but that would be dispositive perhaps toward your claim that they're kind of colluding together to use their favorite word as a quasi state actor. Are you going to move to try to get that paragraph on blacked out?

COALE: Absolutely. We will get that paragraph unblocked. And the thing is, there's a lot of other evidence that the CDC, Fauci and others, NIH, worked with these companies to censor things.

INGRAHAM: Now, the legal analysts out there, the TV lawyers are claiming that this is kind of a frivolous claim that you've raised. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA MCQUADE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: This case is dead on arrival. And I think President Trump and his lawyers know it. I think this is more of a PR stunt than a legal case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: As a former U.S. District Attorney, Ms. McQuade thinks the lawsuit has no legs.

COALE: Well, that's really good news for somebody who just found out about it a few hours ago. I wish I was that smart. I mean, we've worked day and night for three months to put it together. But she's much smarter than I am, probably you are too. Who knows?

INGRAHAM: One thing that they immediately came out with and this wasn't surprising. Person after person, we don't need to play the montage, this is just a fundraising ploy, John. This is just Donald Trump trying to raise money, somehow you have a class action, but you're going to take money for the class action, legal fees and use it to advance, I don't know, Trump's political ambitions for the future or something like it.

COALE: What's really sad is the hatred for Donald Trump surpasses all reason. Behind me at that stage today should have been the ACLU, which is going who knows where they've gone. But this is a classic suit for them. And it's ridiculous that the left, the left doesn't understand they're getting the conservatives this week. In five years, they're going to get the liberals. You can't have this kind of unrestrained free speech and taken away like this. It's really disgusting.

INGRAHAM: Well, one would think that the Republicans might have when they had the majority, Paul Ryan was the Speaker of the House and they had the majority in both houses. There were a lot of conservatives, especially saying it's time to break up these tech companies. It wasn't done. They are always trying to be buddy buddy with Zuckerberg and even President Trump had those guys in the White House sat around the table nodded together. Is he regretting that now?

COALE: Yes, he is. I talked to him about that. But you know what, Laura, one of the things that's really sad is this is prior restraint. That means I'm going to gag you before you talk because I think I might know what you're going to say. The Supreme Court hates that. As you know, you've been to the Supreme Court. It hates prior restraint. Donald Trump is under prior restraint every hour of every day now for six months, and another two years or whatever it is.

INGRAHAM: How many people in the class total?

COALE: We don't know yet, a thousands. They're coming in out of the woodwork. We just - nobody knew it exists. Right now we have about all 75, 80 people, but it'll go into the thousands and then we have to identify them as part of the class action suit.

INGRAHAM: John, we're going to be obviously following this. Thank you so much for joining us tonight.

And you heard a lot about the threat of white supremacists from DOJ and others, but what about black separatist? A police standoff last week in Massachusetts got scant coverage, but we have stunning new detail later in the show.

And yesterday, the head of the teachers' union claim that they don't even teach Critical Race Theory in the schools, Raymond Arroyo has his hands on some of those lessons plans, and he exposes them all in "Seen and Unseen" next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose the big cultural stories of the day. And for that we turn to FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo. Raymond, the American Federation of Teachers is having their annual conference, so sad not to be there. And they vowed yesterday to sick lawyers on parents or groups that oppose Critical Race Theory in the classroom. What?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: And today, Laura, in the name of honest history and promoting critical thinking, the union invited Dr. Ibram Kendi to address their teachers. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

IBRAM KENDI: We live in a dangerously racist society. There are racist ideas that are swirling around, that are teaching darker-skinned kids that there is something wrong with them because of the color of their skin. There are ideas that are swirling around teaching white kids that there is something right about them because of the color of their skin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Laura, there's a simple racial lesson all children should learn. We are all children of God. We look different, but we should look inside the person and watch their actions, judge based on that, not on the external wrapping. That's all a child needs at that point.

And look, the president of AFT, Randi Weingarten, made this statement at the top of her conference. Watch this, Laura.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: Critical Race Theory is not taught in elementary schools or middle schools or high schools.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: But today during their closed breakout session called "Racial diversity and white culture," using picture books for antiracist teaching, the AFT website description reads "In this session will address tactics and tools educators can use to promote antiracist teaching methods from reading culturally responsive books and learning about implicit bias in the classroom."

INGRAHAM: Oh, no.

ARROYO: So the union suggests using this book. It's intended to four to eight-year-olds. It's called "Something Happened in Our Town." In it, Laura, it features a cop shooting. The book says, quote, "The cop shot him because he was black. They don't like black men," quote. The question is, what impact does this have, this kind of story, on a child's attitudes toward police? And contrary to what Dr. Kendi said, the book leads with skin color as being determinative of whether a person is good or bad. This is not what kids need to be marinating in at school.

INGRAHAM: Well, aside from all of that, which is incorrect, his commentary that he gets paid handsomely for -- I can't even imagine how much he gets paid for most appearances, but he says racism is swirling around teaching, and white kids are taught they are right because of white and black kids are -- where is this happening? I think he needs to start naming the schools where that has been happening before he arrived on the scene, OK.

The AFT is also recommending a picture book, "Not My Idea." It's about white men. It teaches white kids they have privilege and contribute to white supremacy. Raymond, Raymond, you just have to check your white fragility right here, Raymond. Come on.

ARROYO: Again, we are doing exactly Ibram is -- is condemning this. But we are teaching white kids they are bad because they are white.

INGRAHAM: It's racist.

ARROYO: I don't understand any of this. What needs to happen -- what needs to happen, Laura, we need to show great black and white lives, abolitionists and founding fathers like John Adams, and people like Nat King Cole and Louis Armstrong and sports stars. We need to see the firmament of the races that made America what it is, and let kids make that determination. They will see the struggle and the progress.

I want to show you this. This is a Minneapolis teacher that the AFT featured at the top of tonight's session. Look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm just a schoolteacher. I didn't know that we would be in the middle of a revolution. But knowing that we have the support of the union, of my fellow teachers, I'm so proud.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Your reaction?

INGRAHAM: Is that the syllabus? Is that the syllabus? She can do whatever she wants in her private time, or protest or whatever. That's fine. But is that the classroom? Or are we just dispensing with formal teaching completely?

Again, much of what they are doing is racist. They claim it's antiracist. That's a cute trick. Most of it is racially affecting kids mindset, and I think a lot of it is very negative. And it's sad. I think it's sad. There are great black writers, great black thinkers, all of them should be highlighted. But don't demonize people based on race. It's just wrong.

Raymond, thank you for bringing this to our attention.

And there was pretty shocking event is past weekend that you might not have even heard about. A group known as the Rise of the Moors militia held an eight-hour standoff with police in Massachusetts? So who are they, how prevalent is this group, and why aren't you hearing more about them? Two men with intimate knowledge of these groups are here next with details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's about 4:00 a.m. So we have been out since 1:53 a.m. It is July 3rd, 2021. We are in North America, Morocco. We are on the Interstate 95 near exit 57.4.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: It was just bizarre. This weekend, 11 heavily armed men wearing tactical gear and claiming exemption from U.S. law and state law shut down part of a Massachusetts interstate during a traffic stop. They say they are part of a group that calls himself the Rise of the Moors and say they were on their way to, quote, training. The entire ordeal, it ended after an eight-hour long standoff with police, and for reference, the Capitol breach lasted about three hours.

Some of the members were arraigned yesterday in what became a pretty chaotic hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How can I get a probation, how can I answer these questions about probation if I have not been charged? I have not committed a crime. I am not guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am a sovereign. I am a national. You understand, I am not a Thirteenth of Fourteenth Amendment fictitious entity. I am a free Moor. I'm a national, a living, breathing man. I am not a fictitious entity.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not black. I'm not Asian. I'm not Hispanic. I'm not Latino-American. I am well within my Constitutionally-secured rights to carry and bear arms as a Moors national. There is no probable cause because we don't carry weapons. We carry arms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: It's a reasonable question to ask, why isn't this being covered by the media, and what else do we need to know about them?

Joining me now are two men who know these types well. Todd McGhee, former Massachusetts state trooper, and Chris Swecker, former FBI assistant director. Todd, you know this group. I'd never heard of this group before, but you know them well from your time as a state trooper up there. What can you tell us?

TODD MCGHEE, FORMER MASSACHUSETTS STATE TROOPER: I think we first need to point back to sovereign citizen ideology. And what's important about sovereign citizen ideology is recognizing the recruitment tools and the propaganda that is used by the rise of the moors and other Moorish groups such as this. And they will point to things such as the treaty dating back to 1777. I've also seen dates of 1787, which was a treaty between the United States and the country of Morocco.

What that treaty was about, was about maritime, laws for maritime that allowed privilege of the United States and the privileges for the Moroccan country, there maritime, to support privileges based on economic, not treaties for citizens, but economic reasons. Just like sovereign citizens will also use maritime laws in order to confuse law enforcement during motor vehicle stops. So we have to understand that they don't recognize themselves as sovereign citizens. However, their ideology is closely aligned to sovereign citizen ideology.

INGRAHAM: It's very bizarre. Chris, here's what one of the men said about their supposed rights.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We operate in law. We don't break the law. We're not against the law. We have the right to travel as a well-regulated military style militia with the right to having no tags, no licenses, or no registration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Chris, again, I think most people are just shocked by this, also shocked, but maybe not all that shocked that the media gave it a pretty much a big yawn over the weekend. Again, what do Americans need to understand about this?

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: These groups emerged in the 90s in different iterations of the Moorish nation, sovereign nation, what have you. I dealt with them when I was the head of the FBI in North Carolina. They don't recognize any authority whatsoever. But they are basically a criminal organization, or a set of criminal organizations that wrap themselves in some convoluted political ideology, basically to justify committing crimes.

And the crimes they commit, they are prolific fraudsters. They will take over someone's home, file quitclaim deeds, and then move into the home while they are not there. They commit tax fraud, file false tax returns. They've killed over a dozen police officers since 2002, in particular in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. One individual, one Moorish nation individual killed three officers and wounded three others. So they present a clear and present danger to law enforcement, and nobody should take them lightly. They aren't some benign political organization. That's just a facade.

INGRAHAM: And Todd, another member spoke about what they claim were there travel plans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our vehicle is full of camping equipment, which supports what I said about how we are going to our private land to train, which is our Second Amendment right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So Todd, what kind of training are they doing? And they seem to both cite the Constitution, and then kind of claim they are not really beholden to any laws that are passed constitutionally. It's a very odd dynamic. They're kind of picking and choosing what they will be held accountable by and to.

MCGHEE: And that's the argument, they say they are not -- that they are not antigovernment. But to Chris's point, they skirt around with their language, their ideology. They make reference to that they are independent of the law, not antigovernment. To me if you are not following the laws of the U.S., then you are antigovernment. But regarding the ideology, as they would speak to traveling, they say it's their God-given right to travel, that's why they don't need drivers licenses.

So again, they split hairs. They find this way to manipulate words and make the words basically justify their actions. What we are seeing with social media, the flag, and all these different things, this is going to be a propaganda recruitment tool. So they are absolutely going to use and leverage this to gain other people and interests.

Now, we don't know how many are out there. There are conflicting numbers. But watch and see the level of interest that this most recent incident over the weekend will gain the attention for the Rise of the Moors.

INGRAHAM: Chris, we have heard a lot from our FBI director, Christopher Wray, and from the attorney general of the United States, Merrick Garland, about the growing white supremacist threat in the United States, growing domestic terrorist threat. I've never heard these guys mentioned, and yet in Daytona a couple of weeks ago in Florida, a black paramilitary individual shot and killed a Daytona police officer. This doesn't fit the narrative of Charlottesville or the white supremacists and everything that they obsess on, so why aren't we really understanding more about them? And why isn't the federal government speaking out about this?

SWECKER: As you mentioned, they present a danger to law enforcement. They don't recognize any authority. But yet, they are not recognized as extremists. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center backed off on that. They had them classified as a sovereign nation and almost a domestic terrorist group. But they backed off on that and just said they are antigovernment.

I don't know why it doesn't cut both ways. It should. This is a black extremist group primarily, and we can come out and say that. They don't recognize any authority. I really think they are more criminal organizations than they are political, ideological based. I think they use that to justify their crimes, because that's pretty much all they do.

INGRAHAM: Todd, Chris, very interesting. Thank you so much.

And up next, two big ANGLE announcements, so stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Two big announcements tonight on THE ANGLE. Yesterday morning our own Mike Bastasch (ph) and wife Jackie (ph) welcome their son David (ph) Andrew (ph). David (ph) joins big brothers Mikey (ph) and Curtis (ph). New Anglers, congratulations to the entire family.

And other big news is that thanks to your purchases of all of our Freedom Matters gear on my website, LauraIngraham.com, we raised more than $17,000 for Rachel's Challenge last month. It's just amazing. So let's keep it going every month. And we have a new cool thing. Here's the new Freedom Matters tote bag all made in the USA, and the new red freedom matters hat. We get the good t-shirts. We make as much as we can in the United States.

And this month's charity is the Horatio Alger Association. Phenomenal scholarships offered to high school students who may not otherwise be able to go to college, who have enormous determination against really difficult odds. Integrity, perseverance, just some of the characteristics that the scholarship rewards. All the proceeds from Freedom Matters gear goes to a new charity every month. So keep it up.

That's all the time have tonight. Greg Gutfeld takes it all from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, 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 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.