i had happy tuesday as we play. i love you. helove every single one of you. all right. all right. so here s something that should ththe out of you, not only were at least a dozen members of the un s palestine relief agency directly involved in the hamas terror attack, according to intel r reports, about 10% of the 12,000 staffers in gaza have ties to islamic terror groups. perhaps they re i m with hamas dire t-shirts were a dead giveaway. so we re talking more thann 0 100 people on the un payroll. that includes two un employees who directly helped kidnapped israelis. two others were tracked to sites of hamas massacres. others helped plan the attack, including supplying weapons. and seven of them are school teacherson. but i d like to know what s on their summer reading list. intro to bomb making in mind comp. seriously, these work in a school teaching kids. think about that when telln o you that the funding is going to go to schools . o yeah, it s going to terrorist t
it s 4:00. we ve got news we have a behind the scenes legal battle with potentially major consequences for the justice department s investigation into the ex-president s handling of classified documents at mar-a-lago the washington post is reporting this quote, a federal judge has at least partially granted a request from u.s. prosecutors to force an attorney for donald trump to testify before a grand jury about the former president s possession of classified documents after leaving office that s according to two people briefed on the decision. evan corcoran had refused to answer investigators questions about his interactions with trump. prosecutors sought to show the chief u.s. guess strict judge beryla.howell of washington that there were grounds of a crime-fraud exception. they spoke anonymously because this is under seal this breaking news is is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends jackie alamany is here her by-line is on that neil is here
you see this right here? laura: you have no idea how to do it, you re making it up as a go along. sean: then you hit record and it will ask you a question, one time only or every episode? every episode of the ingraham angle on the dvr. laura: i hear your producers laughing in the background. sean: they are laughing because it s easy! laura: they are laughing at you and me because we are hilarious. we love you, see you tomorrow. this is the ingraham angle from washington tonight. rights for all, that s the focus of tonight s angle. it wasn t until about 1992 when i began my clerkship for justice clarence thomas that i began to pay attention to how the media writes about the supreme court. i m talking about the new york times and the washington post, time magazine, newsweek, television reporters, 90% of them believe the court rulings were radical and outside the mainstream unless those rulings affirmed whatever the new york times and harvard law school b
take the clicker. see this right here . y okay, i have no idea how to do it here . just making this up as we go along then you hit record and then ask you a question. all right. one time only or que every epis. all right. every episode of the angry man o go oh god. okay, yeah. . i hear your producers laughing in the background all laughing because it s easy. they re laughing at youy and e because we re hilarious.me all right. we love your show. we love you. we ll see you tomorrow. all right. i m laura ingraham. this is ingraham angle from washington tonight . writes for all that s the focus of tonight s angle now it wasn t until about 1992 when i began my clerkship for justice clarence thomas for thai really began to pay attention to how the media writes about the supreme court s. so i m talking about the new york times and the washingtonew post y time magazine, newsweek, et cetera. television reporters 90% of them believe that the court rulings were radical and outside the
i think what s so frustrating as how they are, they say one thing to their television audience, and when they re in the courtroom they say something different. and their audience seems to continue to consume the lies. it s an amazing trick they pull off. good marks for a good con, i would say. thank you, mehdi. thanks, lawrence. thank you. the rest of the world cannot understand what s happening in this country, now. would the supreme court is doing could not happen in a democracy. in a democracy, the membership of the supreme court would reflect the democratically expressed will of the people. that means, the supreme court would reflect the democratically expressed will of the majority of the people, because the supreme court justices would be appointed by presidents elected by a majority of voters. but that is not the way we elect presidents in this country. we are the only country in the world where the person who comes and second with the votes can end up in t