This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," August 22, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: And you have a great night. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington. And tonight, we bring you two exclusives. First, an Obama era waiver allowed violent criminal illegals to walk free over the last decade, until a whistleblower went to the Trump administration to spill the beans. In his first TV interview he's here to tell us all about it.

Plus, a popular online Leftist mocked congressman and veteran Dan Crenshaw's war wounds and said America deserved 9/11 - lovely. The Congressman is here to respond exclusively.

In the wake of the shootings at El Paso and Dayton, we've heard a lot about red flag and domestic terror laws. But how can they affect your rights and maybe even diminish them, a can't-miss debate at the end of tonight's hour for all of you who believe in the Second Amendment.

But first the "Left's Urge to Purge" that's the focus of tonight's “Angle.” With liberals having monopolized the fields of journalism, academia and the entertainment industry for decades, you'd think they'd be happier people. But they're really not.

In the age of Trump, many Democrats, hardcore political activists and the elites in the entertainment industry just seemed plain miserable and perpetually angry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Donald Trump is a guy who - you understand he hurts you. And my testosterone sometimes makes me want to - I feel like punching him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Beep) your President. You ain't supporting (beep).

JEFF DANIELS, AMERICAN ACTOR: We need somebody that can take this guy on that can punch him in the face.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get the (beep) up! Get the (beep) up!

JOHN LEGEND, AMERICAN SINGER-SONGWRITER: --president is a flaming racist. He's a piece of (beep).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, they all mouth platitudes about loving diversity, but increasingly, they want none of it. Meaning, they want conservatives banished altogether from the public square treated like - I don't know, political lepers.

So if you're a Trump supporter, you shouldn't even be allowed to do a guest spot on a TV show. Remember after word broke that former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer would be a contestant in the new season of "Dancing with the Stars", host Tom Bergeron protested.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM BERGERON, DANCING WITH THE STARS, HOST: My preference - it's not my call, other people book the show, would have been to avoid any political lightning rods. I think dancing at its best is an oasis away from all the divisiveness and all of the stuff that we're all wrestling with right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Wrestling, dancing. And right on cue reporters at CNN vomited out this headline. Check it out.

Well, it cites nine unnamed sources affiliated with ABC's News division. One source said, "It's disgusting to think he's getting on the show and getting paid by our company." First, it's really the shareholders company idiot. Second, about half of them will probably vote for Trump.

And what's truly disgusting is the rabid partisanship at formerly very respected news agencies like ABC News. After all no one had any qualms, did they, about hiring George Stephanopoulos from Bill Clinton's White House. And I liked George. He's always been kind to me when I've been on ABC. And we've got to remember, he's not a commentator, he's one of the marquee news hosts. Left is fine with that.

But Sean Spicer, I don't know, what is he going to be attempting the tango, it's somehow an affront to their journalistic integrity at ABC? Please. And yesterday - this is unreal, the Miss Nevada pageant winner Katie Williams was stripped of her crown after she dared to express pro-Trump views on her personal social media accounts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATIE WILLIAMS, FORMER MISS NEVADA 2019: This comes after many e-mails - the coordinators e-mailing me saying that. I am quote, "too political" to be in the pageant. When I would replied back and asked what I could do or anything else. Their basic answer was to delete everything on my page. I asked what was the actual content that they didn't like and they would never give me an answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, would she have gotten booted if she was, let's say, a climate change alarmist or a Planned Parenthood supporter? You know the answer. Now Ms. Williams will be joining us in moments to tell us.

More now even billionaire sports moguls aren't safe from the Leftist purge patrol. Miami Dolphins owner Steve Ross is being ejected from the league social justice committee. By the way, it's a committee he founded. And the reason? He dared to host a trump fundraiser.

(VIDEO PLAYING)

INGRAHAM: This blacklisting and intimidation and public shunning is part of a pattern that's intensified since the election of Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.

BOOKER: Get up - and please get up in the face of some Congress people.

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: When they go low, we go low. No, no, when they go low, we kick them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And we know what that hateful talk encouraged more peace and understanding. Well, we saw prominent conservatives harassed in public.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Abolish ICE.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Abolish ICE. Abolish ICE. Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe survivors. We believe survivors. We believe survivors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: These people don't even want conservatives to be able to relax in the sanctity of their own home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hopefully some (beep) out there with some voodoo dolls of these (beep).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, you know somebody is. That's probably what it is. Just stab the (beep) in the heart, please.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And at universities, don't expect conservatives will get treated any better.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: Charles Murray go away! Racist, sexist, anti-gay! Charles Murray go away! Racist, sexist, anti-gay! Charles Murray go away! Racist, sexist, anti-gay!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And if you're just a retiree or a small business owner who donates to Trump's campaign, you're also not immune. You too could be targeted and even doxed by your own Congressman, no less.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN CASTRO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I hope that these donors in San Antonio and donors throughout the country, unless you support the white nationalism and the racism that Donald Trump is paying for, and fueling, then I hope that you as a person of good conscience will think twice about contributing to his campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: He's feeling the racism. The same people who blamed Trump's rhetoric for the recent El Paso mass shooting, use as he does, the most vicious toxic language to smear their political adversaries. Forget real debate, just smear them. And it's all with the goal of making them social and cultural outcasts.

(VIDEO PLAYING)

INGRAHAM: Now they probably send us to leper colonies if they could. Do you really think most Americans support these malicious efforts? Their language? I don't. I think our citizens disagree vigorously, but they're very fair-minded people. And they don't like to see their neighbors or friends on both sides of the aisle living in fear of expressing their views.

And so many conservatives today, they come up and tell me I'm really quiet about what I believe, afraid of going - saying the wrong thing at work. They're all afraid all the time. That's where the Left wants it.

The cultural and political progressives, though, I think they ought to be very careful. Because while demonizing conservatives and driving them underground may feel good at them in the moment, the nastiness may just end up driving more voters into the arms of Donald Trump, and that's THE ANGLE.

INGRAHAM: Joining me now with reaction is Mike Huckabee 2016 presidential candidate and Fox News Contributor.

Governor of your daughter has dealt with us as former Press Secretary to President Trump and she'll soon - or she is now a new Fox News Contributor. We're very excited about that here at the network. But she dealt with that and she's likely going to continue to deal with that. So what happened to the party of tolerance?

MIKE HUCKABEE, CONTRIBUTOR: Laura, you just played a whole series of great expressions of liberal love. I mean, that's what they're all about - its tolerance, its diversity. Except in their world, diversity means uniformity, tolerance means intolerance, and basically a form of utter bigotry.

The irony is, they don't even understand what bigotry means. When they talk about racism, bigotry is racism. What they have is a form of identity politics. But let's ask ourselves why are they this way? And I think the reason is, when people have a very weak position ,they have to raise the volume and express it in a strong way because their argument cannot hold to a legitimate discussion.

And if you look at what these people are advocating, they really can't defend it. So the only thing is to just silence the voices of dissent and try to make it appear that those voices do not even exist. It's truly shameful I feel more sorry for them than I do angry at them. And I wish them someday to grow--

INGRAHAM: But governor--

HUCKABEE: --enough of an intellect to be able articulate their positions.

INGRAHAM: Yes, you're better person. I don't feel sorry for them. They know what they're doing, OK. And it's not just that they're angry and they want to engage in a vigorous debate - and they it's not even that they want to silence it.

They want conservatives, donors to the President, supporters, they want them removed. They don't want them to have future employment. They don't want them to be in public. They want to drive them underground.

And I want to play something for you. This was something Joe Scarborough said this year, a former Republican, now hangs out with the heavies in Manhattan and Florida. And he's basically warning people implicitly in this clip about if you work for this President beware what will happen to you in the future. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST MSNBC: --what happens Mike to those people who destroy their legacy? Does Trump say, thank you for destroying your legacy for me by making a fool of yourself in front of the American people, by showing you have no respect for the rule of law? What happens to those people in the end of Mike?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I spoke to a person--

SCARBOROUGH: Let me answer. They get thrown out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I mean, it's all - essentially you have no future, you're over - trying to stop people from even going into the administration, if they could.

HUCKABEE: What a shame. And Joe Scarborough, shame on him. He knows better. His show has become morning joke and he's become a joke.

Because when you have that kind of attitude that if you don't agree with me, you don't have a right to a job, you don't have a right to feed your family, you don't have a right to go to a movie, to pump gas in your car or to even enjoy a baseball game or to travel through an airport and to change planes. You have no right to do those things, because you don't agree with me.

Laura, that's a tragic place for people to get when they're so very threatened by the opinion of somebody else that they can't stand it.

And you were right. I was being a little bit sarcastic and snarky. But the truth is, they do want to put people of a differing view point out of business, out of sight out of mind. They want to bury us.

But the long-term effect of that is that there are a lot of decent fair- minded people, some of whom are Democrats and liberals, who can't stomach that kind of hatred, that kind of bigotry and prejudice.

INGRAHAM: Yes--

HUCKABEE: --they've seen. How destructive it is. And it's going to backfire on them.

INGRAHAM: CNN's Brian Stelter had this excuse today for why Sean Spicer dancing on TV is so offensive. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN STELTER, CNN HOST: ABC has door Stephanopoulos who was at the White House, of course, during the Clinton years. There's many examples of this. The difference, of course, is the Trump White House's record of misleading the public.

All administrations spin. This administration lies consistently, whether it's Sanders or Spicer or other White House aides. And it's all led from the top by a President who lies even about the weather and the time of day. That, I think, is why this does deserve outrage and backlash.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well--

HUCKABEE: Yes, this from a guy Laura, whose network thought that Michael Avenatti would be a great presidential candidate. Who defended one of their anchors who falsely tried to say that someone attacked him and gave a racial epithet of "Fredo", when in fact, there have been many people on the network who have used that very term, including him.

INGRAHAM: Well, worse than that, governor - worse than that.

HUCKABEE: The hypocrisy is--

INGRAHAM: Yes, worse than that, though. They actually have contributors over at CNN, including Jim Clapper, who - I mean, a lot of - I mean, most people think lied before Congress. And we have people--

HUCKABEE: Well, Lied before Congress--

INGRAHAM: --Susan Rice. I mean, so the Obama administration had lots of lies, you can keep your insurance, your premiums aren't going to go up. It was a video that started the attack in Benghazi - lie, lie, lie. They have no problem welcoming those people into their ranks.

HUCKABEE: Well - and to call the President of the United States guilty of treason, that's an offense punishable by death for heaven's sakes. But, again, they say these things, they do these things. They don't understand the irony of looking at their own words, their own actions and not seeing the hypocrisy of it. Not seeing the bigotry of it, the hatred of it, the small-mindedness of it.

But in the long-term, I just believe that they're going to bury themselves with their own words. But the bottom-line, never forget this, is that they're very weak people with very weak positions who really can't defend them in an honest discussion and debate. So the only thing they can do is yell and scream and try to put the other side out of business and that's a sad place to be.

INGRAHAM: Or say everybody's a white nationalist - everybody is a white nationalist who disagrees with. He's a racist. I mean, it's a - it is a tedious refrain and I agree. The end of my ANGLE said that. Be careful where you're going with this. Because I think there's a lot of pent-up frustration that people have. They feel everyone else can mouth off that, but they have to be silenced.

Governor, fantastic to see you, as always. And my next guest is the latest blaring example of --- a glaring example of the Left trying to silence conservatives, Katie Williams. She was stripped of her Ms. Nevada title, as I said in “The Angle,” just days before competing in the Miss America pageant, now all because she supports President Trump. She joins me now.

Katie, it's great to see you tonight. Now the organizers of the pageant say you signed a contract and you're distorting the facts. And that the problem is just solely you're attaching your political views to your pageant Facebook page. What is your response?

WILLIAMS: Well, first of all, I just want to thank you for having me on here. And then, I understand what the pageant said, but I - again I stand by what I say. I stand by what I post. I support the President. I'm a U.S. Army veteran and I'm proud of that fact. I'm proud of the fact that I fought for our right for freedom of speech. And if everyone else gets to speak their mind, I mean, I think I should too.

INGRAHAM: Well, I think, that what we see is that there's a double standard. And I asked this question earlier, if you had posted a few musings about climate change or maybe some support or retweeted a video that was favorable toward Planned Parenthood or Elizabeth Warren - I mean, any of those issues.

WILLIAMS: Yes--

INGRAHAM: I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. But I think they would have somehow thought, oh, isn't it lovely that she's such a vocal supporter of her issues, her truth. But if your truth is conservative there seems to be a different standard here.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I agree. I think that there's - I think the American people are kind of sick of it. You know, that they're not able to actually speak what they feel. That they're going to get penalized by their jobs.

And if the American people are sick of it, as I am, they can join me on katiewilliamsnv.com and we can fight together. So I think I just want to continue fighting this - against censorship.

INGRAHAM: Now Katie when the pageant told you to give up your crown - Ms. Nevada crown, they asked you to agree to this - and I'm a lawyer, so I was just loving that. I loved reading this. OK.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

INGRAHAM: It made you agree that "you will not make any appearances - oops, and nor indicate to anyone that you are or were Ms. Nevada State 2019." First of all, this is all - this is not allowed according to - well, you can't write an agreement like this.

WILLIAMS: Right, right.

INGRAHAM: And "Agree that you will not say or write or post electronically in perpetuity anything concerning the Ms. America pageant Inc." OK. You're on my show tonight, are you worried there big law firm is going to come after you? Because I'll represent you pro bono, tonight well I say that Katie.

WILLIAMS: Well, I appreciate that Laura, and no, I'm not worried. I have had an overwhelming amount of support from both sides, actually, because even though people don't necessarily agree with me sometimes, they agree with my right to free speech.

And like I said again, as a US Army veteran, I fought overseas to be able to speak my mind.

INGRAHAM: Freedom.

WILLIAMS: And I'm going to continue speaking it.

INGRAHAM: I just love that parting word from that - "you can never speak in perpetuity", it's called overbroad and it would never be enforced by a court of law, by the way, so you keep making appearances. Katie, thanks so much for being here tonight. We appreciate it.

And up next, we have an Ingraham exclusive. A top government watchdog claims that the Customs and Border Protection Agency failed to collect DNA samples from detained migrants for nearly a decade. And then they ended up letting violent criminals walk free.

Well, the man who blew the whistle on the Obama era negligence has more to tell us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --so the failure to implement this program has a real risk for Americans?

It's not a risk. It's factual that since this law was passed almost 10 years ago U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents and others have been raped, harmed and killed by people that CBP had in custody in many respects on multiple occasions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: A shocking warning from a government whistleblower on the decade- long failure of Customs and Border Protection officials to follow the law and take DNA samples from detained migrants.

Now the goal of that program was to prosecute or remove illegals whose DNA matched the FBI's violent criminal database. It makes sense, right? But the Obama administration put this program on hold in 2010, and as a result criminals were allowed to walk free in your communities.

Now Trump can now put a stop to that, thanks to my next guest, Mark Jones. He's one of the CBP whistleblowers. So happy that you're here tonight, he joins us exclusively. Mark, how could such a massive problem like this go on for so long?

MARK JONES, CBP WHISTLEBLOWER: We've been asked that many times, and we can't get an answer that says, why we would allow what was defined as a one-year delay go into nearly a decade.

INGRAHAM: Why was it delayed for that year for not - again, collecting DNA of detained migrants to make sure that they're not already wanted for something in the United States. It's just so common-sense.

Everyone's watching this today going, this is so obvious. I can't believe it this is typical big government screw-up, though, if you ask me. But what was - why was the pause implemented in the first place in the Obama era?

JONES: It was originally based on exigent circumstance of volume of individual's time taken to collect the sample.

INGRAHAM: They didn't have the personnel?

JONES: It was not necessarily personnel. It was about a 15 minute initial process. And over the years that have passed, actually the FBI has really reduced that time--

INGRAHAM: It's gone fast now. You can collect DNA samples, match them with alacrity, correct?

JONES: The collection is much quicker. It's a two to three day turn for the actual sample to be identified.

INGRAHAM: Not bad. OK. I just want to read this regulation. Not to be totally wonky, but read this regulation. It's pretty clear. "An agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges shall collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested facing charges, or convicted. And from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States."

Now DHS is the only Department and everything underneath DHS that didn't comply with this, correct? That we - as we - as of we know it.

JONES: That is correct. Actually Department of Justice became compliant on January 9, 2009.

INGRAHAM: And this is separate from the collection of DNA to confirm family status and when we have border crossers who claim their family units - and oftentimes we find out they're not family units. It's separate from that?

JONES: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: What now? What can the - what the - kind of Trump administration to do to make sure this is happening like this now?

JONES: We filed the complaint with the Office of Special Counsel. And one of our predicate was that this waiver or delay was never intended to be permanent, let alone in a decade. So what we could do based on the findings of the Special Counsel is the Secretary could write a letter to the Attorney General today--

INGRAHAM: Acting Secretary, correct?

JONES: Acting Secretary McAleenan, and say, we recognize that this waiver was never intended to be for a decade and order DHS to begin the process of implementation.

INGRAHAM: I mean they're overwhelmed. They are overwhelmed with the volume crossing the border. But Secretary McAleenan has been on this show before. We have a pretty good relationship with him.

I want to get to the bottom of this and we really appreciate your sticking your neck out and doing what patriots should be doing inside this government, which is pointing out this type of dereliction of duty.

I don't have malfeasance - dereliction of duty or just sheer stupidity. But we really appreciate you doing it. Thank you for being here tonight.

JONES: Thank you. And felon, juvenile delinquent, convict, do you see a problem with any of these words? This is all stuff that doesn't make sense. We just talked about something that didn't make sense at DHS.

Well the PC police of San Francisco want to redefine how you refer to criminals. According to the "San Francisco Chronicle" the city's Board of Supervisors - they're a bunch of doozies on that board, by the way - changing the guidelines and they're watering down the words as to not offend criminals. Oh, I - can we even say criminals anymore?

So instead of convicted felon, it's now justice involved person. Instead of juvenile delinquent, its young person with justice system involvement. This is like Oreo (ph). Well, and joining me now Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Victor, I was driving through your neck of the woods last week, by the way, I should have stopped and had a Coca-Cola or something with you. But driving through your neck of the woods, so I got a good bird's-eye view on the - that part of California - Modesto there.

But doesn't San Francisco have other more pressing problems to solve instead of changing the nomenclature of how you refer to criminals? What is this all about?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Well that's why they do it, because they can't address the felonies under their nose, so they talk about these abstractions. And they've never read - well - or well, they don't know anything about animal form or double think or news speak apparently.

Because the lesson was, when you can't change reality, you try to debase the language to reflect a fake or an alternate reality. And what's the problem is that, in San Francisco, it looks like 19th century London or maybe medieval Constantinople it's - there's feces, there's rats, there's needles or there's thousands of homeless people.

And we just have 200,000 felonies downgraded to misdemeanors under this Prop 47. As far as property crimes go Cal - San Francisco rates among the highest city in the United States per capita for property crime. So when you're faced with all that, Laura, you say there's no such thing as felonies or criminal, there's something else.

We saw it with the Obama administration - remember, man cause disasters for terrorism--

INGRAHAM: Oh, yes.

HANSON: --and workplace by rent violence for Fort Hood or overseas contingency operations.

And the other thing is that, we see that - although, all this double speak and double think and news speak is all over these progressively run cities. I wrote a column once called "The Bloomberg Syndrome". When he couldn't - when Michael Bloomberg couldn't get the snow out in 2010 from New York, he started talking about super-sized drinks and climate change.

And so when you can't address these elemental existential problems in your city or your locale then you have to pontificate on the Paris Climate Accord or some existential threat to some penguin or polar bear somewhere. And it's a psychological mechanism they use to avoid dealing with their failures to confront reality. And language doesn't change reality.

INGRAHAM: Now, Victor, when I was--

HANSON: --contrary to what they say.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Victor, when I was working at CBS News, I work with some really nice people. But they wouldn't let me say pro-life and one of my scripts. They made me change it to "anti-abortion rights activists." OK, so that's part of it. It's all the euphemistic language in making it all seem like it's something it's not, or more pernicious when it's not, countering violent extremism instead of fighting terror. It's all of a piece.

But I also want to get your response, Victor, to this news today that many of the illegals arrested in those raids that got a lot of weepy coverage in the media in Mississippi at those processing plants are now accused of using -- shocker -- stolen identities. So the left has defended them as innocent victims. Do we expect them to update their stories.

HANSON: That's an old story the left keeps trying to hide. The IRS not long ago reported over a million taxpayer IDs that didn't match W-2s. And the Social Security administration not long ago said there were over 30 million, I think it was closer to 40 million fraudulent Social Security numbers that were circulating.

And it makes logical sense, because if the first thing you do is cross the border illegally and you flaunt of the law, and the second thing you do is continue to flaunt to the law by residing in the United States illegally, then the third thing becomes pretty easy, and that is to have a fraudulent I.D.

And speaking as someone who has had someone steal my I.D. and put their name on checks and steal my routing number --

INGRAHAM: It's a nightmare.

HANSON: -- it's not a minor crime at all, to wake up and have somebody steal your I.D. And if you did it or I did we would be in jail or prison, our careers would be over. And if somebody does it who is here illegally, it's not a deportable offense.

INGRAHAM: But the left, Victor, is going to say that's not really a crime. It's not a crime to steal an I.D. because they are yearning to be free as they steal someone else's identity and screw up their Social Security number.

HANSON: Until it happens to them, and then when it happens to them it suddenly becomes a felony.

INGRAHAM: Yes, exactly. Victor, thank you very much. You are right about that.

And next, another “Ingraham Angle” exclusive. Dan Crenshaw is here to tell us about it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The radical left seems to be getting more depraved every day. The latest display, the Young Turks contributor Hasan Piker going on this vulgar rant mocking wounded war vet Congressman Dan Crenshaw for losing his eye fighting for our freedom in Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HASAN PIKER, THE YOUNG TURKS CONTRIBUTOR: This guy has the understanding of foreign policy of like a 12-year-old. What the -- What the -- is wrong with this dude? Didn't he go to war and literally lose his eye because some Mujahideen, a brave -- soldier, -- his eye hole with a -- isn't that how he lost his -- eye, because he got his eyehole --

America deserved 9/11, dude. I'm saying it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Here exclusively to respond to that vile creature is Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw. Congressman, what was your reaction when you first heard this?

REP. DAN CRENSHAW, R-TX: Wow, he was triggered, wasn't he? That is the definition of a leftist getting triggered, doesn't like what he's hearing, he disagrees with it, doesn't understand foreign policy. He mentioned something about being 12 years old. Yes, I have almost 12 years of experience actually deploying overseas, so maybe that's what he meant when he said 12 years. I don't know.

But he clearly doesn't know much. And when you don't know much about foreign policy, you get really mad when people disagree with you. And if you can't argue your point, you tend to insult people. And that is exactly the outrage culture that we have right now. He is a perfect example of it. He was trying to walk his comments back now, good on him for trying to do that. But what this speaks to -- go ahead.

INGRAHAM: Dan, let me just say, that's fine, he's walking his comments back. And we have all said things in the past, we shouldn't have worded it that way. That's human nature. But this was so -- there wasn't a lot of room for nuance there at all.

CRENSHAW: No, no. Not at all. And what I was going to say is it reflects a very deep anti-Americanism that is inherent in some of these left-wing politics.

INGRAHAM: Absolutely.

CRENSHAW: When you say America deserved 9/11, he is trying to say that's not what I meant. He said it was our fault, though. So not a big difference. Again, but he doesn't understand history, doesn't understand foreign policy, so he can't actually make an argument to connect those two things. And then he basically says that the only reason I'm making the argument is because I lost my eye. It doesn't make any sense. You're right, they are completely vile.

INGRAHAM: It's so stupid. I hate even asking about this stuff because it's so moronic.

CRENSHAW: It's so ridiculous.

INGRAHAM: He sounds like a valley girl when he speaks, first of all, as a young man, he sounds pathetic, OK.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: That's number one. And number two, I think we have to also recognize that this is of a piece, of a I think it's a trajectory of where we are going, sadly, under this president, essentially, they cannot stand the fact that he's done a lot of what he's going to do. They can't stand that. I don't know what they are going to do if he wins reelection. I don't know what they're going to do, Congressman.

CRENSHAW: They're triggered constantly. If these small things get them so riled up, imagine what another win in 2020 will do when Trump wins, and I hope he does. Let's watch them meltdown then.

But this kind of stuff has to stop. We have to be able to have nuanced conversations. And when you are talking about "The Young Turks" in particular, they are highly radical, and yet they're given a platform by YouTube TV, which is something that is incomprehensible to me, this guy Hasan was back on "The Young Turks" just now, actually, talking about those same comments and trying to defend them. And it's ridiculous.

INGRAHAM: YouTube would never tolerate anything like that from a conservative, I doubt it.

CRENSHAW: Not even close.

INGRAHAM: They are de-platforming people all over the place. Congressman, I think it's the first time on the show, I think, and we really appreciate your being here.

CRENSHAW: I need to come back more often.

INGRAHAM: Absolutely. Thank you so much, and say hi to all of our friends in Texas.

In the next segment here, what would life under Bernie Sanders presidency really mean for all you watching at home? It's time to debate that, and we'll debate it the right way, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My hope as president of the United States will be to say to Russia, to China, India, to countries all over the world, that maybe instead of spending $1.5 trillion every single year on weapons of destruction designed to kill each other, maybe we combine our resources and combat our common enemy, which is climate change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: They are for world government, no. Today 2020 Democratic candidate, Sanders, he unveiled a $16 trillion Green New Deal, with a "t," trillion. His plan includes declaring a climate emergency, running the whole country on green energy, and government jobs for whomever wants them. It's only the latest Democrat plan to dramatically reshape the country in your life. So what would life actually be like under these Bernie plans?

Here now is Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, Democrat strategist Monique Pressley, as well is with us. Monique, please tell me how this -- it sounds nice. Everyone should just get along. And yes, I agree, everyone should just get along. We shouldn't have to have any weapons, that would be great. That would be fantastic. But how is this feasible economically and even physically possible to accomplish?

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Some parts of it maybe are not physically possible to accomplish right now. The plan that he rolled out is one that is going to, in my opinion, take a lifetime and a few people's lifetimes to accomplish. It's definitely ambitious. It's not my favorite out of all the candidates out there who have plans, but there are things that are important. One, recognizing that climate is an issue that can no longer be ignored and that we can't be in this land of climate change, climate crisis denying, and actually have something left for our children and our grandchildren. So in terms of goals, it's necessary. It terms of the amount of money that's being spent and whether it can be done --

INGRAHAM: By 2050, fully decarbonize the economy, fully.

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIR, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: This is hard, because we're all made of carbon, and we're spewing carbon dioxide.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second, $200 billion to help poor countries do their own climate stuff. I would like to put that into Baltimore, Chicago, L.A., San Francisco, I would like to not fight these foreign wars, either. I agree with Bernie on that. Bernie and I agree on a lot of military intervention, I'm totally with him on a lot of that stuff. But this is just -- I'm sorry, I don't want to say it, but it is crazy. If you want a goal of having a better -- that's fine. But these are facts, these are things he says he can do.

SCHLAPP: We have to give him credit. Why does his plan cost more? Because he's the first candidate to actually say, well, if we are really going to decarbonize our economy, we have to do some really expensive things. By the way, it's not $16 trillion. To decarbonize our society, which is how our whole economy runs, on fossil fuels, it's going to cost a lot more than that. So I give him some credit for saying what it's about, but it is looney tunes, because you know who, in the end, who pays for this Laura. Every middle-class family that tries to fill their tank with fuel - -

INGRAHAM: Rich people can pay it.

SCHLAPP: Yes, that's right. Rich people, I guess like the Obamas and others. But the one percent, in the end when they say they're going after the one percent, the middle class better hold on to their umbrellas, because it's going to rain on them.

INGRAHAM: They'll be fine. They can figure out. They always can figure it out, the rich people. It's the poor people, middle class I'm concerned about.

Apparently, and we just heard this, the DNC committee on the debates tonight decided that they're not doing a debate on climate change, dedicated to climate change. So as popular as this is, I think among especially young people, that's a big thing. They don't want to talk about this, because I think they know is, mixing my metaphors, radioactive.

PRESSLEY: I think that they don't want to devote an entire debate to it, I wish they had. That's not something I agree with, but I understand.

INGRAHAM: What does that tell you about their confidence, Monique?

PRESSLEY: It's not confidence in the issue needing to be addressed. It's confidence in where it lies among the voters, which is what matters. And to Senator Sanders credit, and I agree with Matt, it's an expensive proposition. But the reason why it's important to assist other countries - -

INGRAHAM: To bankrupt our country?

PRESSLEY: It's not something we can do alone. We can be the best in the world of trying to combat climate change, but if the world isn't trying to combat it, it doesn't get done.

SCHLAPP: You're right. OK, I agree with you. Every little drop that we don't use to fuel our economy, somebody else on the globe will use. And therefore, there will be no net benefit.

INGRAHAM: We're energy independent now, and now we've got to give it all up.

Hold on. I've got to play this. It's just a quote, Patrick Murray, director of Monmouth Polling, is worried about Biden. "I did not meet one Biden voter who was in any way, shape, or form excited about voting for Biden. They feel like they have to vote for Biden as a centrist candidate to keep somebody from the left who they feel is unelectable from getting the nomination." That sounds like Hillary Clinton. I said this on Tuesday, Hillary 2.0.

Monique, you're the best person suited to answer this. Is there a concern about the excitement gap about voting for Biden versus a Warren, for instance?

PRESSLEY: No, I'm not hearing that right now. This, first of all, is a poll that was done in Iowa. It's talking about a smaller percentage of Iowa voters.

INGRAHAM: Do you think people are excited about Biden?

PRESSLEY: And I think that people are more than excited to Biden. I think they are committed to Biden, and that's what matters because that is what is going to turn a vote. The excitement cap can go to one candidate and then another one and then another one.

INGRAHAM: Yes, they can switch.

PRESSLEY: And we're still, technically, for those of us, we haven't even started election season.

SCHLAPP: It's Joe Biden's race to lose. The problem for Joe Biden, he's doing a pretty good job of losing it. And you can see it in all these polls.

INGRAHAM: Jill Biden is the one who wants him to run. He doesn't even seem like he's into it half the time. I think Jill Biden is -- she should run. Jill Biden should.

PRESSLEY: Maybe she'll be next.

INGRAHAM: She should run. She seems more hopped up about it. Biden is like, OK, I'll do it. Obama says, hey, Joe, you don't have to do it. Joe, you don't have to do it. All right, panel, thanks so much.

And up next, lawmakers propose new bills to combat domestic terrorism after the mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso, but at what cost. Some civil libertarians worrying to your Second Amendment rights. A fiery debate, you don't want to miss it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a major threat of domestic terrorism.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have to develop a piece of legislation that strikes the right balance and gets at domestic terrorism.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It must be treated as what it is, domestic terrorism.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: A familiar refrain from the left after the mass shootings in El Paso and Gilroy, and Congress will consider several domestic terrorism bills when they return from August recess. The goal, well-intentioned, identify dangerous people early, early enough to stop them from, well, acting in a criminal and devastating manner. But there's a catch. It would empower police to arrest people for crimes that in many cases haven't even been committed yet.

Joining me now, Mark Glaze, former director of Everytown for Gun Safety, and Erich Pratt, senior vice president for Gun Owners of America. Erich, should Americans be concerned about this increasingly popular idea of declaring certain groups domestic terror groups?

ERICH PRATT, VICE PRESIDENT, "GUN OWNERS FOR AMERICA": We should. These red flag laws aren't going to make anybody safer. In fact the definitive study was done by the Crime Research Prevention Center, and they found that these laws in the states that have them, the don't reduce mass shootings, they don't reduce murders or suicides. In fact, if there is any area where there is in effect, it's in rape, and there's a slight uptick.

And we've seen that these laws are used by men to disarm their female victims. We've also seen that these laws are used to disarm good people like Gary Willis of Maryland, a decent, law-abiding --

INGRAHAM: He was shot in his own home.

PRATT: Shot in his own home, when they came to confiscate his guns. But what's amazing about this is that it was a family argument, and the relative who filed a false claim against him for revenge, and so they showed up to take his firearms. He answered the door with a gun in hand, it was 5:17 in the morning, that's how most gun owners would answer, and they shot him.

INGRAHAM: Mark, Jeh Johnson, former Obama DHS secretary, was on MSNBC late this afternoon, and he said, you've got to be very careful here. You cannot as a legal matter criminalize thoughts. You can't do that. You can criminalize thought connected to action that is criminal, but you can't -- and he said even extremist groups, cannot do that. So he was sounding the alarm. And Chuck Todd didn't know what to do with that part of the interview. He was like, oh, what do I do here. But that was an interesting moment. Are you concerned, because you are also a civil libertarian, are you concerned about criminalizing thought?

MARK GLAZE, FORMER DIRECTOR, "EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY": I am. I don't think we should do. I also don't think we should do what you were worried about, which is name entire groups if they are extremists domestic terrorists. I think that's a bad idea.

What I do think we should do is take a page from what we have done to stop all the attempts at domestic and international terrorism in the United States since 9/11. We've done a pretty good job of stopping that, and that's because we've looked not just at what people are saying but also what they are doing.

So for example, when you have the El Paso shooter who is posting manifestos, who is buying guns, whose mother is calling the police because she is concerned, in a case like that where everything adds up to a person posing a risk, there ought to be something the authorities can do.

INGRAHAM: Was there a crime? Would a red flag law, we don't know how it's worded yet, any federal law, would that have stopped him?

PRATT: There are already laws on the books. Since those two shootings, El Paso and Dayton, there have been almost 30 people arrested for threats of mass killing, and they've done it the old-fashioned way.

INGRAHAM: But he had a threat to the school. He had something written where he was threatening -- he had a rape list in his school.

PRATT: That's the Dayton shooter.

INGRAHAM: And he was banned, Mark -- I'm forgetting the shooter's name -- he was banned from school for a year I believe, for making that threat. That seems like someone who needed an intervention. But if you do not have a criminal act, that's a criminal threat. But if you do not have a criminal act --

PRATT: That's a felony threat. So he could've been arrested.

INGRAHAM: He could have been arrested and he wasn't arrested. And you've had similar cases before where people aren't being arrested. That case in Florida, Parkland, horrible carnage.

PRATT: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: That kid was shuffled around and shuffled around. He was a huge problem to the school, huge behavioral problems, but the school didn't want to report him as a criminal threat because then they get branded an unsafe school. So there's a lot of different dynamics going on here. Mark, where is this going to end up?

GLAZER: There's a lot of support for this in places where you wouldn't normally expect it. The president is looking closely at it. Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed it. He actually had a committee on the subject. The Heritage Foundation has produced a report supporting it as long as there are safeguards that prevent people from getting in trouble because of things they say or think. I think we are on the same page about that.

INGRAHAM: The problem is how do you define something that's -- in those cases it's obvious, but what if someone just post something, they really support the Second Amendment, no one is taking my G.D. guns away, and I'm really mad right now, and it's someone who maybe had depressive tendencies in the past -- you can kind of spin out the facts.

PRATT: The problem is every state that has a red flag law throws due process out the window. They don't have due process, and it eviscerates Second Amendment rights. These laws are really dangerous.

INGRAHAM: You have to have second amendment procedures and process.

PRATT: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Otherwise it depends on who is in power, what's a threat.

PRATT: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: Guys, thank you so much for joining us, really appreciate it.

And the latest red scare from MSNBC is tonight's Last Bite. You're not going to believe this one. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite. Reality still hasn't set in for the "Morning Joe" crew on phony Russian collusion. How sad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is what the founders in many ways were concerned about. I don't remember a president who seemed as so clearly a willing agent of a foreign government.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: Donald Trump is beholden to Russia, and Trump apologists in the media get very angry whenever anybody suggests that and start pushing back.

If they don't like Donald Trump is on the take, or he's being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin, and there has been no evidence of that, what's their explanation?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We had Obama actually tell Medvedev, give me some flexibility, I'll have more flexibility after the election. We never really found out what he was talking about. There is an astonishing lack of curiosity about that. But Donald Trump, who imposed sanctions and barred diplomats, he's the real bad guy. Unbelievable.

Raymond Arroyo, by the way, is out in L.A. for us. He's going to give us an exclusive preview out there, what's going on.

And my new podcast drop today, so go to podcastone.com.

Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team now take it all from here. Shannon.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.