'The Ingraham Angle' on Supreme Court opening, Russia-Ukraine conflict

close

Video

Rubber stamp justice

Laura Ingraham says a Supreme Court opening shouldn't mean open ideological warfare

This is a rush transcript of "The Ingraham Angle" on January 26, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: I am Laura Ingraham. This is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE on a very busy Wednesday night.

Now, as Joe Biden announces he wants to fast track more Afghan refugees and we predicted this. We're now learning about a horrific attack on a Virginia Military base involving some already here. A full report later on in the show.

And Raymond Arroyo is back. He's going to tell us about Biden's big day out on the town. Plus, we'll attempt to cancel Snow White. What? That can't be happening. Seen and Unseen has answers.

But first, rubber stamp justice. That's the focus of tonight's 'Angle'.

Now, I want all of you out there to understand that there is no point wasting any time debating the philosophy of any of Biden's potential Supreme Court picks. It really doesn't matter whom he chooses to replace Justice Stephen Breyer, because we already know how he'll vote in any important case. Oh, wait, did I say he? Oops.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I committed to it. If I'm elected president have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts will be - I'll appoint the first black woman to the courts. It's required that they have representation now. It's long overdue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, the Democrats media proxy suffering through, let's face it, what has been a very rough first year of Biden are giddily prattling on in anticipation of another first.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's going to have to be a black woman. Joe Biden has said it's going to be a black woman. He has lots of amazingly qualified choices.

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: --had the luxury of leaving any part of my identity at the door before I walked into a courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For a multiracial democracy, we can keep it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Of course, for them, diversity only matters if and when the prospective justice subscribes to the views of the new woke legal world. So Justice Thomas doesn't count; Amy Coney Barrett, she doesn't count. No minority who rises to the top of his or her profession counts as diverse, unless he or she checks all the progressive boxes.

Look at what they said about the race that elected Virginia's new Lieutenant Governor Winsome Sears, or its first Hispanic Attorney General, Jason Miyares. The left didn't celebrate those firsts. Instead, they were outraged and they claimed their entire election was racist.

For them, selecting this court pick, it's really no different than, let's say, hiring a new DNC chief. The only measure that matters for them is a political measure. In other words, will this person stick with the left's ever-evolving political priorities? If the answer is yes, that's all the qualification they need. All that matters is that that person replacing Breyer is a rock solid, reliable vote for their cause du jour. Not even CNN is pretending like this is about judicial pedigree.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Justice Breyer wouldn't have said in January that he is going to retire at the end of the term if he didn't feel confident that he - that President Biden will get a replacement through a Democratic-led Senate. Who elected them? A lot of people of color, especially black women. So this is all connected on a political level.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Unless they try to foist Kamala Harris on the court, which won't happen. It really just doesn't matter who Biden picks. I'm going to say this over and over. We already know that she's going to vote with Kagan and Sotomayor on any case as a real consequence to the left. She'll be reliable rubber stamp for Biden's policies and for all policies of all Liberal Democrats in the future. Hence, why all the potential nominees get slobbering praise from the press poodles.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYA WILEY, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Every single one of these attorneys that we're seeing on this list are highly qualified, not just qualified, but highly qualified.

ELIE MYSTAL, JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION: You don't get more qualified than a Brown Jackson, or Leondra Kruger, or Justice Childs. You don't get more qualified.

COATES: These are phenomenally talented, capable, intellectual, revered advocates of the court. There is almost an embarrassment of riches in the bevy of choices that are available.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, from my own experience as a law clerk on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and then on the Supreme Court. I know that when lawyers and petitioners go before the highest court of the land, they don't bother using their time, not now, trying to sway justices Breyer, Kagan or Sotomayor. Everyone already knows how they're going to vote.

Attorneys are trying to sway the other six justices, especially Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Gorsuch. All nominated by Republicans, but all with slightly different judicial outlooks. It's anyone's guess how Roberts is going to vote in the Roe challenge, or how Kavanaugh is going to vote on some of these other challenges to the COVID mandates coming up.

Liberals will often say that they believe in something called the living constitution. Well, that's not a philosophy. That just means that they treat the constitution like silly putty, so they can stretch its words to mean anything, or nothing at all. The interpretation isn't dependent on what the founders intended, what the language says. But what the progressives of the day demand, then it becomes that.

On our side, we actually have arguments about what the constitution means, how its words should be applied to the case at hand. But their side believes the constitution is meaningless at best, and racist at worst. Our side respects the judiciary and the constitutional role it has. The left just sees it as a tool to give them more power. And when the court doesn't give them what they want, they threaten to destroy it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President is being pushed by progressives and Democrats to expand the Supreme Court.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Add more justices to the Supreme Court, put 15, put 16, put 20 justices on the court.

MYSTAL: I say, add 10 justices to the Supreme Court right now that makes it a 19-member body.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Wow! Now, the dark money bullies who pushed Breyer to retire this year did so, because they know that they're going to lose the Senate. Let's face it. This may be their last chance in many years to get the most radical nominee possible confirmed. For them, it's go time.

The only real interesting question on the table right now is how the so- called moderate senators in the Democrat Party will vote on whichever radical nominee Biden puts forward. Think of all the Dems elected in red states, states that voted for Trump, at least once or where Biden is cratering in popularity now.

I mean, does anyone in his or her right mind believe that the voters in any of these states, who supported Trump, recently elected a GOP governor want the Supreme Court to be dominated by hard left partisans? People will care more about the views of the New York Times and the views of the framers, of course, not.

In West Virginia, Ohio and Montana, they just voted in 2020 to have Donald Trump pick the justices. Obviously, if you're a senator from one of those states, and you rubber stamp a justice, who will simply be a rubber stamp for the hard left, you're working against the interests and the beliefs, the core beliefs of your own voters.

Now, as a man who has some semblance of common sense, Joe Manchin should never go along with Biden's court charade. Now, what are the odds that the state of West Virginia would ever win a case in front of a hard left court voting for one of these picks would end Manchin's political career in West Virginia. It should, a state that is in an open rebellion now against Biden's policies.

If any of these so-called moderate Dems were living up to their campaign pledges to work with Republicans, they'd demand that Biden's nominee be someone who could actually win real support, not just a couple of votes from the Republicans, so both sides. Someone who could be trusted to look at the cases through an unbiased lens.

With a 50-50 Senate, the only way Biden's nominee gets through is if every single one of these senators votes for her confirmation; every senator named above has enormous leverage. They weren't elected to represent MSNBC. They were elected to represent their constituents and their constituents do not want a hard left judiciary.

So if you're represented in the Senate by one of those so-called moderates, let your voice be heard now. Call their offices, always be respectful, demand, urge them, tell them you want them to oppose any hard left nominee.

Remember, the left, they started this fight. A court opening shouldn't mean open ideological warfare. Look back on Justice Scalia's confirmation. I think it was, what was it unanimous, or near unanimous?

In a democracy, unelected official should not have this much power. We're in this mess, because thanks to judicial activist, the court has become a far too powerful tool to invalidate the will of the people. Decisions that should have been left to the people and their elected representatives are instead heavy footed by nine unelected justices. As we saw with Roe, that didn't settle anything for the country. Instead, it just spread rancor and bitterness.

So today, the court has lost much of its legitimacy, much of its respect because of its overtly political nature. At least that's the perception. So chalk this up as another example of the collateral damage the left leaves in its wake, whenever they attack our history, denigrate our founders, and ignore the plain language of the constitution.

So let's hold Senate Democrats to account. If they do the right thing, they'll prevent Biden from putting a rubber stamp for the New York Times editorial page on the court. If they don't do the right thing, then they'll come up for reelection and we'll have the chance to teach them the folly of putting the interests of MSNBC ahead of their own voters.

In fact, tonight, Axios is reporting that the GOP is already planning smartly to target vulnerable Democrats who vote for a far left nominee. Those Democratic senators work for the people. And it's time to remind them of that fact. And that's the 'Angle'.

Joining me now is Robert Dunn, former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; and Carrie Severino, another former clerk to Justice Thomas and president of the Judicial Crisis Network.

Carrie, we got three former law clerks at Justice Thomas in this discussion right now. But let's start fist with the odd - yes, I know, a good company - with the odd timing of this retirement. What do you make of the forces behind this?

CARRIE SEVERINO, FORMER JUSTICE THOMAS CLERK: Yes. You know, I was even saying earlier in the day, this is a really strange time of the year to announce it. Normally we get these announcements at or near the end of the term. And then later today, we saw Shannon Bream reporting and it seems like from qualified sources that this is not actually the day that Justice Breyer intended to retire. He may have given the White House heads up, but somehow that was leaked.

I think most justices want to do that on their own terms, make their own announcement, tell their colleagues first. And so, he was as surprised as we were today. I think that might have been forces in the White House may be corroborating with some of those dark money forces, who have been trying to kick him off the court already. Maybe trying to make sure he went through with it and did retire, or to bring it on their own terms.

This has been an awful few weeks for the President. Maybe he wants a change in the storyline.

INGRAHAM: And, Robert, does it really matter of the nominees that the names are being bandied about. Most Americans don't know anything about them. But is there any doubt in your mind that whomever Biden selects, if that's the group he's selecting from? I mean, they might be perfectly great people personally, but as talking about a judicial outlook that they will be a rubber stamp for whatever the hard left wants.

ROBERT DUNN, FORMER JUSTICE THOMAS CLERK: I think that's highly likely. I was looking back through Breyer's opinions, and the interesting thing to me is, I'm not sure it's actually going to make that much difference in the voting patterns. Maybe in the framework or the tone of the opinion, but on really every single issue down the line, abortion, affirmative action, free exercise of religion, the power of the administrative state. Breyer has been on the other side from Scalia, Thomas, Alito, in every single one of those down the line.

And it's interesting that he's going out right now, when the court just granted the Harvard affirmative action case, because that's been one of the sort of biggest sources of difference between him and Thomas in their outlook.

I was looking back at the parents involved case, and he is still of the view. He's like an old style liberal in this view, that the state can do good racial discrimination, that there is such a thing as good race balancing by the state, and presumably by universities as well. And Thomas has long taken the view that there is no such thing as good racial discrimination by the state. So it's fascinating that that - right as he's leaving that issue is sort of coming right back to the front.

So I think the tone will likely be more strikingly progressive, whoever Biden nominates. The end result, I don't think the court is going to change much in terms of how it rolls.

INGRAHAM: Carrie, I'm thinking back on the nomination of what would have been another first, which is the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown. And she was filibustered by none other than Joe Biden. So this idea of appointing a black woman to the judiciary, he voted three times against confirming her just to be a U.S. Circuit Judge.

I mean, this wasn't even to the Supreme Court. So race and gender, they only count if you're thought to be a committed judicial activist, judicial leftist.

SEVERINO: Yes. That was the case I was actually thinking about during your 'Angle' earlier talking about how it - it only cuts one way. Because if he really just cared about trying to get more black women on the federal courts, he wouldn't have been holding Janice Rogers Brown's nomination up for so long and at such length.

It's really ironic to have the President saying, he's going to condition his appointment of someone on their race or on their gender. I mean, I thought that went out with the Civil War. It's amazing. It's coming back. And it's ironic, it's coming back justice Supreme Court agrees to hear a case about racial discrimination.

I think it might be interesting, if some of his - Jennifer Sung, one of his Asian nominees in the court, won't be able to sit in the case that says, Asians are being discriminated against by Harvard, because the President has said that he is going to pick someone based on her race as well. It's a little ironic.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I don't think the first Asian conservative nominee to the court would count as a first. I think that would be out the window. That wouldn't matter at all.

Robert, on this idea of the so-called moderate Democrats, and how they'll vote on this, how do you see that playing out? Is it just going to be lockstep for Biden? Or would someone like a Manchin, or a Sinema, or even a Tester in Montana, where - Montana has no desire to have a far left person on the court. That's for sure.

Would there be any possibility of leverage being exerted against the Biden pick?

DUNN: Well, that's far outside my wheelhouse. But my prediction on that is that I think those senators have tended to be fairly loyal when it comes to nominations both in the executive branch and in the judiciary. And they've taken issue mostly with legislation, unless a nominee was on the record with espousing policies that were really harmful to that state.

I have a hard time seeing either Manchin or Tester blocking someone. I could be wrong about that. But my prediction is that they will take the view that the elections have consequences, the President has the right to nominate. So we will see (inaudible)

INGRAHAM: Yes. They'll be the rubber stamp of the - they'll be the rubber stamp of the rubber stamp.

All right, Carrie, Senator Claire McCaskill, she was on at MSNBC where they were celebrating all day, trying to spend what Biden's philosophy will be with this pick. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, FORMER MISSOURI SENATOR: Joe Biden wants to get back to that place he was in during the campaign, that he is looking out for the whole country. He wants to unite the country. He doesn't want to make the Supreme Court any more political than what it has become.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Carrie, did I hear you laughing during that soundbite? What? Go, your reaction to McCaskill.

SEVERINO: Yes. That is entirely laughable. I think the only reason Biden wants to maybe tack to the center here is because he knows it's another election year and he stands to lose big time right now, because he has been so radical compared to the person he campaigned as. But what do we know about Democratic court nominees? It doesn't matter if they have a long record, a short record, no record at all. They vote reliably straight down the line.

And I might take issue with Robert, I think there are issues at least that in some point, Justice Breyer, if there's one or two liberal justices that that compromise on an issue, it would be him. I guarantee you. The person that Joe Biden nominates will not compromise on anything.

This is going to be the most strident person he can find and the most guaranteed vote he can find. And it's going to be someone picked, it seems to appease the dark money groups in the left that paid hundreds of millions of dollars to get him and the other Democrats elected last time. That has been his MO for all of his appellate nominees. And we're going to see that MO again. He'll tell you - he'll tell you to moderate. It's going to be a lie.

INGRAHAM: Yes. The conference is going to be just like a Harvard faculty lounge. I mean, the conference among the three justices. It's the same old, same old. Robert, Carrie, great to see both of you.

And as old Joe stumbles down the path to war with Russia, China watches on with the interest. Plus, the CCP is getting a boost from an unexpected source. House Republicans, you won't believe this. Two former Trump officials react in moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Earlier today, Secretary of State Tony Blinken all but admitted that they have no clear idea as to what they're doing. Now, listen to his justification of our currently failing efforts to find some sort of diplomatic off ramp with Putin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE: You may well be right that Russia is not serious about this at all. But we have an obligation to test that proposition, to pursue the diplomatic path. It's far preferable to resolve these differences peacefully, consistent with our principles, than it would be to have renewed regression, renewed conflict. But the point is, we're prepared either way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: He oozes confidence and strength, doesn't he? But did you hear him? He said, prepared to either way, including for renewed conflict. So if Russia isn't willing to negotiate, then why is it left to the U.S. to waste its time?

My next guest has been monitoring the situation closely and says it's more dangerous than it actually appears. Here now is retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor, American Conservative senior fellow and former Trump administration advisor.

Now, Colonel McGregor, you find some irony here as it relates to NATO's role. Explain it.

DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, RETIRED ARMY COLONEL: Well, NATO, under the pressure of a potential conflict appears to be crumbling. It has virtually no cohesion. And Tony Blinken, who, as you pointed out, is a rabbit of a man, has been flying all over Europe trying to pull things together.

And I think as a consequence, the Dutch, for instance, have now offered to F-15s to fly to Bulgaria in April, as part of NATO's magnificent response to the crisis that, frankly, we've helped to create in Eastern Europe.

INGRAHAM: Well, Germany seems to be shifting its position on providing military aid to Ukraine. They're reportedly providing, is this actually true, is this the onion, 5000 protective helmets to Ukraine?

Now, Colonel, not that helmets - we need helmets. But is that a country that really is worried about what happens to Ukraine? The helmets?

MACGREGOR: No. Germany has no army, Laura, effectively. Practically, no air force. So they really haven't anything to contribute militarily. And they're not interested in doing so. Everybody in Central Europe wants to buy Russian natural gas. It's cheap. It's easily delivered through Nord Stream 2 and other ways. They don't want to freeze this winter.

There's no real enthusiasm for provoking a crisis with Moscow over what happens in eastern Ukraine. And they've lived with Ukraine for a long time, and they understand what's real and what is it. They know that Ukraine is not a homogenist nation state. About a third of the population is effectively Russian. And those are the people that live in eastern Ukraine.

And that's the population that Putin is interested in. And if he does move, and I think he will move, that's the occupation he's going to go in and occupy up to the Napa River. Even the Germans know that. They don't fear a theater offensive on the Soviet scale, because they can't do it.

INGRAHAM: Now, Michael McCaul, who is a kind of a war hawk, he has spoken out about the problem with our not showing strength to Putin, after that Blinken-Lavrov face off. I want to play what he said.

MACGREGOR: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): He's watching. And he's watching what's happening in Ukraine. If we look weak, if we don't project strength, and Putin invades Ukraine, which is likely, I hate to say that. He will take that as a signal that now he can go into Taiwan with no consequences.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I mean, is there anything right about what he just said? Anything?

MACGREGOR: No, no. There's no evidence that the Chinese are going to make war on Taiwan. They depend heavily on the microchip industry there along with Japan. A conflict with Taiwan would be destructive to China. But as far as we're concerned, we are weak. He's got that right. The ground forces of the United States, the army, and the marines are effectively constabulary forces. We have no means to transport large numbers of troops to the area. We have no infrastructure inside Europe.

And ultimately, we can't depend upon our European allies to even let us in the country. Because the Russians have made it very clear. If we try to interfere with anything they do, that they will unhesitatingly attack airports, airfields that belonged to the U.S. Air Force in Germany, or in Italy, or anywhere else. No one wants to be drawn into that. And effectively, the Europeans right now can field one true army, and that's the Polish army of about 340,000. That's it.

We're sending paratroopers and submarines. Well, that's a five-minute job for the kinds of Russian forces that are going to move into eastern Ukraine.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, I also think Xi is watching this. If we dissipate our - what's left of our military strength in Russia, that's the best thing for Xi. Because then the - we're already occupied in doing something else.

Colonel MacGregor, always great to see you. Thank you.

MACGREGOR: OK. Thank you.

INGRAHAM: We got to roll to next guest. But thank you.

And speaking of China, the U.S. Navy is desperately trying to retrieve its most advanced air - war plan the F-35 from the depths of the South China Sea. But guess who's going to try to beat them to it? The CCP, of course.

Speaking of which, on the eve of China's hosting the genocide games in Beijing, some House Republicans think it's a good time to go soft. "The Washington Examiner" reporting in a letter House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including 60 Republicans, urged President Joe Biden's top trade official to expand tariff exclusions on Chinese goods.

Joining me now is Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development under President Trump. He's also the author of "The Strategy of Denial." Elbridge, this doesn't seem like the right time to be taking economic pressure off China now that we just learned we had a $1 trillion overall trade deficit last year. Your thoughts?

ELBRIDGE COLBY, THE MARATHON INITIATIVE CO-FOUNDER: Great to be with you, Laura. I think in general you're absolutely right, we should not be removing any leverage. I think what President Trump and the administration that he led really shifted correctly on was understanding that this is not purely a commercial situation with China, that it is intimately connected to our national security and it's been associated with the deindustrialization and tremendous number of problems that our country faces.

So look, there are companies out there, we are going to trade with China, but we should not be giving up leverage where we can avoid it. I haven't looked deeply into the tariff letter, but I think the attitude of saying look, this is not a fair dealing counterparty, this is somebody that we are going to have to build and sustain leverage in the economic space is the way to go about it.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Every Republican voting to lift the trade sanctions on China now, given China's sustained cheating and everything else they're doing, I don't -- why do you need -- why do you need Republicans at all if that's how they are voting? It's just outrageous.

Elbridge, there are serious security concerns for anyone going to the Olympics. We find out the communication services are going to be provided by China Unicom Beijing, and that's going to be relying on Huawei technology for the games. Both Huawei and China Unicom, the parent company, have been blacklisted by our government. And the IOC chose Alibaba as its exclusive provider of cloud services for the entire games. That's another company we consider a national security risk. Elbridge, how can any of this be good?

COLBY: Well, it's not, and it's sort of a vision of our future where China gets to set the terms. It has the money, it has the power, it has the technology, and everyone has got to play along. And I think the reality is, yes, the IOC is weak but it's not alone. Yes, the Women's Tennis Association stood up, but that's pretty unusual. Australia is standing up. But if we allow China to gain the kind of economic leverage that we were talking about over us, that will be our future, because everybody works for somebody, and we've already seen with John Cena and the NBA and you name it, people will kowtow.

And I think, Laura, the critical issue here is that that's also going to be determined by the military balance. The military balance, which is severe and deteriorating dramatically, even as we are dithering in Europe and not getting the Europeans to stand up, which is what they should be doing, and they should be taking the front lines on the Ukraine situation. If the Chinese move on Taiwan, which I differ with Colonel MacGregor, I do think that's a very real possibility, that's going to determine the geo-economic map. And if we don't get that right, we won't be able to preserve our prosperity and ultimately our freedoms at home.

INGRAHAM: I think his point, I think his point was that it's not necessarily more likely that they're going to go into Taiwan if we don't take on Russia. I think that's the point. The idea that if we don't take on Russia, they are definitely going into Taiwan, I agree with you. I think they are going to try to move against Taiwan either way. Elbridge, thank you.

And still ahead, Biden's big day out, and the woke Snow White, the remake, runs into seven little problems. It's "Seen and Unseen" with Raymond Arroyo, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose the big cultural stories of the week. And for that we turn to FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo. Raymond, good to see you. Tell us about Brian Stelter is now invading our classrooms?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Beware, children everywhere. The CNN anchor visited an eighth grade classroom, Laura, to promote a misinformation curriculum. They certainly found the right guy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So today's topic is misinformation.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: With the tools they will need in a world of information saturation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are going to learn to identify the various types of misinformation.

STELTER: Do you all feel like every student needs to be learning news literacy?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: I think is trying to increase his viewership, Laura, among the demo. But this curriculum is being pushed by a group called the News Literacy Project. I've got no problem with media literacy. The problem is with the approach. The question is, who is determining what misinformation is, particularly when Stelter comes in there? This is the guy who pushed the Steele dossier, Russia-gate. He pushed that narrative for years. So it makes all of this a little bit hard to swallow.

INGRAHAM: I have a question. Is part of the curriculum playing soundbite after soundbite of CNN slobbering all over Michael Avenatti, or all of the nonsense between the Cuo-brso during the COVID misinformation era, OK? So which CNN segment --

ARROYO: Right. Chris Cuomo could be us own core study.

INGRAHAM: Yes, exactly.

ARROYO: Yes, well, the ladies at "The View" got on the misinformation bandwagon as well, Laura. This was their reaction to Joe Rogan's podcast. They're still on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do think as the podcast platform, you have to have some sort of guidelines. How about a disclaimer on his podcast that says this is misinformation? How about removing some of the podcasts that disseminates this information?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And they have. They have.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can try to get FOX off your cablevision, if you want.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There should be a disclaimer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Now, they are calling for networks to be removed, Laura, podcasts to be removed. That would be bad enough, but now government officials are joining this misinformation crusade. This is the surgeon general of the United States of America.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. VIVEK MURTHY, U.S. SURGEON GENERAL: This is not just about what government can do. This is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way to get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we see, and we use the power that we have to limit the spread of that misinformation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: This is so troubling --

INGRAHAM: OK, first of all.

ARROYO: And you know, and you've been subjected to this, too. Early on you were reporting things about COVID that people didn't want to hear. A lot of it, most of it, turned out to be true, about the masks, about the vaccines, about the efficacy of things like hydroxychloroquine. That they labeled misinformation, yet they don't -- they lack the humility to say you know, we were wrong.

INGRAHAM: First of all, that Vivek Murthy creeps me out. I don't know what, but he -- there's just a -- I don't know what it is. When he talks, I run away.

But the fact that you're going to have -- you have government officials who seem to want to limit speech in the United States, where the liberals? Where the true liberals who believe in an open exchange of ideas? They are like two left. Glenn Greenwald is one, in Bill Maher is the other.

ARROYO: They're lobbying corporations to censor content, lobbying corporations -- robust debate is part of understanding and critical thinking. Even uncomfortable ideas and opinions need to be heard.

And so long as we are talking about misinformation, Peter Dinklage, the little person best known for his role in "Elf" or "Game of Thrones," he's not happy that Disney is doing a live action "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves," Laura.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER DINKLAGE, ACTOR: I was a little taken aback by the -- they're very proud to cast a Latino actor a Snow White, but you're still telling the story of Snow White and seven dwarves. You are progressive in one way, but you're still making that -- backward story about seven dwarves living in a cave? What the -- are you doing, man?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Laura, first of all, the seven dwarves, as you know, did not live in a cave. They lived in a house, they worked in a mine, in a mine, where millions diamond shine. While there were some concerns about stereotyping, if "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" are offensive, if you're counter casting every role, don't do a live version. It's really simple. Disney says its consulting with the dwarfism community, Laura, which I find hilarious since the dwarves will be CGI characters and not real actors.

INGRAHAM: First of all, Peter Dinklage is a terrific actor. He's a very talented actor. Is he cast for being a little person, or is he cast for his talent? He's cast for his talent, correct? So I don't think anyone --

ARROYO: They use them for both. They made fun of his height in "Game of Thrones." So you are who you are. They're going to cast me as a Hispanic guy. They're going to cast you as a blonde lady. That's what you got. You are what you are.

INGRAHAM: Raymond, you look about as Hispanic as I look Hispanic. I know you're Hispanic, but they're not going to cast you as a Hispanic role.

ARROYO: Cut me open, you'll see.

INGRAHAM: It's not going to work. Nice try, nice try. First of all, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" is a beloved tale, and I'm sure there is something that offends everyone. If you're offended by M&Ms, you're going to be offended by everything, OK?

ARROYO: I resent the counter casting. If you don't like the story and it's offensive, don't do it, or otherwise due Pocahontas with Tyler Perry in the lead, see how far you get with that. I just don't think any of this helps.

INGRAHAM: You just reminded me of a Tyler Perry story, but we are going to wait for that for Friday.

ARROYO: OK.

INGRAHAM: Raymond, good to see you.

An Afghan refugee, we just learned, was convicted of sexually assaulting a three-year-old girl on an American military base. And his defense, he said his culture allows for this. And the Biden administration wants to fast- track more Afghan refugee admissions. The report you cannot afford to miss in moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: All right, truly disturbing news out of Quantico, Virginia, where a male Afghan refugee has just been convicted of molesting a three- year-old girl. What's also sickening was his defense. He claimed that sexually assaulting the toddler was part of his culture. That's truly frightening and made even more so by the fact that the Biden administration right now is trying to expedite the resettlement of more Afghan refugees into the United States, already about 120,000. That means more unvented and potentially dangerous people being brought into this country that's already been ripped apart at the seams. This is a nightmare scenario, it should have every lawmaker, Republican, Democrat, demanding answers.

Joining me now is Dr. Qanta Ahmed, senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum. Dr. Ahmed, this is truly disturbing. Your reaction here tonight?

DR. QANTA AHMED, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM: Laura, first of all, kudos to the marine who identified the abuse and prevented it and brought it to attention. We are grateful for that.

But this is sadly the story of many vulnerable children that may find themselves in this situation. We know that even here after the Afghani refugees have been brought to the United States, crimes have been reported at American bases, including spousal abuse, sexual assault, and child molestation. So this is very concerning.

His remark that it was part of his culture is sickening, but very sorry to say, Afghanistan has struggled for generations with a particular kind of child abuse targeting little boys that has been very overlooked, called "bacha bazi." And I think what this means is that children are vulnerable to predators and have been in Afghanistan that's been almost impossible to govern for decades, and maybe here as well. In this case, this little girl's life has been altered permanently by this assault. We must do everything to protect her.

INGRAHAM: Dr. Ahmed, I remember during the Afghan war, our own military was witness to all the testimony by victims, young boys who had been repeatedly assaulted by people who had even worked with or in conjunction with the U.S. military. And the ones who started to report this, they were told to kind of keep it quiet. That is a huge controversy. And Americans, we hear this and it just makes our skin crawl. Yet Senator Mitt Romney, on this issue of Afghan refugees, he tried to shame anyone who didn't want to welcome Afghan refugees with open arms last summer. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITT ROMNEY, (R-UT): We have a moral responsibility. We welcome people into our country who seek asylum, and those particularly who have fought alongside our troops. I for one am very pleased that we are going to have individuals that come to our country that can contribute to America and believe in the principles upon which our nation was founded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Maybe they can go to La Jolla and Deer Valley and other the places where he has homes. Dr. Ahmed, refugees are welcomed into the United States, but there's a lot more going on here than just interpreters and translators.

AHMED: So I think there are both sides to a very important argument, and you're very brave to bring up congressional concerns about child abuse of boys in Afghanistan while the United States was there. That's very important that we knew that.

I myself with Lieutenant Colonel Paul Lashenko (ph) and other very concerned Americans have attempted to bring legitimate Afghani national security allies that helped the United States and the U.K. back into the United States, and there was not a mechanism. So there's problems in both ways. We're an enormously welcoming nation. We do want to bring talented people here to the United States that can assist, but there's a method. And we lost the opportunity in our chaotic and devastating exit from Afghanistan.

INGRAHAM: Well, we have to say, Dr. Ahmed, I have to get this out, that that refugee worked alongside our U.S. military, OK, the one who is accused of this horrific act, OK. Horrific. Dr. Ahmed, thank you.

AHMED: Tragic.

INGRAHAM: Stay with us, the Last Bite is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: High food prices on account of inflation got you down? Don't fret. "The Today Show" has some handy tips.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Shop international and ethnic markets. A lot of times they will have cuts of meat that are cheaper than normal. The other thing to do is substitute. Add in beans, really supplement your meats.

When it comes to produce, the thing you want to do is skip anything that is precut or pre-sliced.

I bet you could make mayonnaise at home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Great tip.

Gutfeld, you're next.


Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 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.