Sign in to comment!

Kelly File

Huckabee calls spying on Congress members an impeachable offense

This is a rush transcript from "The Kelly File," December 30, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SANDRA SMITH, GUEST HOST: Breaking tonight, federal and local law enforcement officials are preparing for extraordinary security measures for New Year's Eve celebrations across the country. And around the world. As we learn just hours ago, authorities overseas busted yet another New Year's terror plot.

Welcome to "The Kelly File." I'm Sandra Smith in for Megyn Kelly tonight.  This is a live look at New York City's Times Square where some 6,000 NYPD officers, including the city's new elite counterterror unit, are being deployed to protect holiday revelers. And those are just the ones you'll be able to see. It is this the city's biggest deployment of its kind ever.  The FBI is also boosting the number of agents and staff in some of its 24- hour command centers around the country. Including our nation's capital.  Though officials have said, there have been no credible threats in the last few months.

And in Pasadena, California, less than 60 miles from the San Bernardino shootings, the city is stepping up security more than ever before as it prepares to host its annual Rose Parade. That event is expected to bring some 700,000 spectators alone. The heightened security comes as we learn two people in Turkey are now charged with plotting to target a busy commerce district. Authorities found suicide vests and this improvised explosive, similar to the one used in the Boston marathon bombing. The arrests came just 24 hours after police in Belgium arrested two people over what they say was a plan to target New Year's celebrations in the capital of Brussels. And just a few hours ago, officials in that city announced New Year's fireworks will be cancelled because of the heightened state of alert.

Fox's Benjamin Hall has more from our London Bureau.

BENJAMIN HALL, FOX NEWS FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: As New Year's Eve approaches, tensions are rising. Two attacks have been foiled in as many days. The latest in Turkey where a plot to bomb crowded areas has been disrupted. Turkish police announced this morning that they detained two ISIS suspect planning to attack New Year's Eve celebrations in the capital of Ankara which will be packed with revelers. The two men have been tracked crossing back and forth to Syria over the last few months and had both fought with ISIS.

Police releases these images in what they had found. One suicide vest, bomb mechanism with ball bearings and one bag pack with bomb making equipments. Evidence showed that carried out surveillance of potential targets. And were planning attacks in Gazeli, an area known for its shopping centers and restaurants. One was to detonate at a mall, the other on a street packed with bus. Turkey has been on high alert since the number of attacks in the country was recently in October when 110 people were killed during a pro-Kurdish peace rally. It was the worst attack in modern Turkey's history.

Meanwhile, U.S. defense officials continue to attack ISIS in Iraq and Syria saying they are now focused on ISIS leadership. They have even said that they have disrupted a plot to attack the west. Since August of last year, the coalition has carried out more than 9,000 air strikes. Yet the number of threats against the west continues to rise. Today's arrest came as European countries were warned an attack could take place during the festive season aimed at crowded places. As a result, France, the UK and Austria have all raised their awareness -- Sandra.

SMITH: All right. Benjamin, thank you. With the number of terror arrest on the rise and unprecedented security precautions in cities around the globe, it seems voters agree that terrorism is the top issue going into the 2016 election. A recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll showing 40 percent think terrorism should be our top priority. The battle to prove which candidate is best on terror may be more important than ever.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm confident we will once again choose resolve over fear. And we will defeat these new enemies just as we have defeated those who threatened us in the past. Because it is not enough to contain ISIS. We must defeat ISIS. Break its momentum and then its back.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, D-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The American people are concerned about another terrorist attack. And what I have said over and over again, we must destroy ISIS but we must do it in a way that is smart.

DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are not talking about isolation. We are talking about security. We're not talking about religion. We're talking about security. Our country is out of control.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is not a laughing matter. This is a very serious issue. Life or death issue. Either these terrorists win or we win.

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, R-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will tell you this, I'm a former federal prosecutor. I have fought terrorists and won. When we get back in the White House, we will fight terrorists and win again and America will be safe.

SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: As commander-in-chief I will utterly defeat radical Islamic terrorism. We will destroy ISIS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: Ric Grenell was a State Department spokesman for eight years in the Bush administration and as a former policy adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Alan Colmes is host of "The Alan Colmes Show." And Eric Burkhart is a former CIA spy who gathered Intel on ISIS and al Qaeda in Iraq. He is also the author of "Mukhabarat Baby! My Life As Wartime Spy For The CIA."

Rick, I want to start with you first. This is certainly shaping up to be the election about national security. Which candidate can keep America safe? In your eyes, who is the candidate's best position to lead us through this?

RICHARD GRENELL, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN UNDER PRESIDENT G.W. BUSH: I would say right now, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio are the two candidates to really watch. You've got other candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz who I think have stumbled when it comes to national security issues. Ted Cruz is trying to walk this line where he's literally trying to stay close to Rand Paul and non-interventionalists while talking tough. And I think it's going to be a problem. He has already signaled that at some point that he thinks that if we go after radical Islam too much, that it can be a problem. That it can be a recruiting tool. And I think people are going to reject that. The lessons of 9/11 are that we have to gather the information and make a decision before the terrorists get into a plane.

SMITH: And Eric, your take is that Hillary Clinton, as you put it, is obviously the most experienced when it comes to national security. So if this election continues throughout 2016, to be about keeping Americans safe, do you think that's going to benefit her the most?

ERIC BURKHART, FORMER CIA SPY: Well, experience doesn't really benefit you when the experience is bad experience. You know, Hillary in the soundbite we just heard identified ISIS as a new threat. And ISIS is not a new threat. ISIS is an extremist Islamic movement that grew out of al Qaeda in Iraq. And they've been around for a long time. We have to understand that you can't attack this problem piecemeal. You can't just attack ISIS. You have to attack the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, it is not going away.  And I have to say, I agree with Rick, when he mentioned Chris Christie, I think, right now, he is somebody that I would be looking at for the right kind of experience from this group of men.

SMITH: Alan, you point out that the right continues to insist that candidates use the words Islamic terrorism.

ALAN COLMES, HOST, "THE ALAN COLMES SHOW": Yes.

SMITH: That has been a major conversation and the selection in one of the last sound bites we just led off with, was Ted Cruz acknowledging just that. You don't hear that on the left.

COLMES: You shouldn't hear it. And in fact, George W. Bush didn't use that phrase. He knew we're not at war with Islam and to have these candidates on the right who either and Ted Cruz's case want to make the sand glow which is dangerous. Chris Christie says, he would shoot down Russian planes in a no-fly zone. That would start a war. That scares me.  I would prefer somebody who has the experience. Who has been secretary of state, who has been all over the world, who knows the world leader. Has been there and done that. I don't think anybody -- I'm not just saying this because I happen to be on the left but I don't see any other candidates who have the kind of experience you need to be focused on there.  They're keeping Muslims out of the country, you are only inflaming the very people -- it is recruiting tool who say those things about the Islamic faith.

SMITH: Well, that certainly been a point of contention between both parties. But Rick, I want to get you back in here. Because Eric has made a really good point. Earlier he was talking about the idea that while Americans are concerned and they say they don't feel safe and they want more to be done to protect them, there's that balance that a candidate has to find. When they're telling the American people what they're going to do without scaring them. People still want to go to the movie theaters. They want to get on the airplane. And they don't want to be inconvenienced.  So, who is going to best find that balance without scaring the American people but still telling them that they're going to keep them safe?

GRENELL: First of all, Alan just said that he was concerned that we may start a war. We got a news flash here. We are in a war. And that is the exact type of rhetoric that I think Republicans have to be honest with the American people. They are smart enough to realize we're at war with ISIS.  They're smart enough to know that we have to confront these terrorists while they are gathering intelligence. I think that candidates make a very big mistakes if they try to walk around these issues and not be very candid with the American people about San Bernardino, and Paris attacks.

The terrorists, the Islamic terrorists' attacks have come to the American soil. We have to be able to act. You have to be able to make tough decisions. Not like Hillary Clinton, who well secretary of state couldn't classify Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. She was unwilling to do it. She was unwilling to make this tough decisions and I think that's what the American people want to see is a leader who will make controversial tough decisions.

SMITH: And Eric, even if you're a voter who doesn't watch the news a lot, you're out this New Year, you're going to feel the increased police presence, the increased security measures, Times Square is filling up as we speak in New York City right now. The police there say they're going to be monitoring thousands of cameras that they placed throughout the city.  They're going to have crowds entering these frozen zones at 14 points.  Uniform police officers inspecting bodies and bags, they're going to have a long gun team stationed 50 yards away. I mean this is going to be a New Year's Eve where we are certainly going to feel that increased security presence and the fact that the American people do feel concerned. They do feel scared right now. It is going to be very, very, very prevalent.

BURKHART: You know, one thing I think that Alan and Rick and I can agree on is that we have to not let these threats deter us in how we live our lives. That is exactly what is trying to be achieved here. It is not a body count that the bad guys want. What they want is they want to create a permanent sense of fear in our society that has us moving away from the freedom that is what we stand for in this country. And that is what we have to always stay vigilant against.

SMITH: All right. Good point. Thank you guys for joining us tonight.

BURKHART: Thank you.

SMITH: Well, critics are accusing the Obama administration abusing its power after a new report claims the National Security Agency had spied on America lawmakers. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on the White House's response.

Plus, a grand jury decided not to press charges against two officers in the shooting of Tamara Rice. Just ahead, why they may still face serious consequences.  

And DHS announcing a nationwide campaign on how it will deal with more than 100,000 families who have come across the border illegally. What it is and why some are calling it just a political move. More on the top issues of 2016 just ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are praying that the spirit of compassion and love touch the hearts of President Obama.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMITH: Breaking tonight, a stunning new report by the Wall Street Journal.  Revealed that the NSA's targeting of Israeli leaders during the Obama administration's push to close a nuclear deal with Iran. Also swept up content from the conversations of some U.S. lawmakers. Republican presidential candidate Governor Mike Huckabee is here with us. With his reaction to what some are calling, the White House spying on members of Congress.

But first, Kevin Corke has the details.

KEVIN CORKE, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Indeed Sandra it is an explosive report. The Wall Street Journal is accusing the White House of keeping tabs on Israeli leaders and the run up to the crucial Iran nuclear vote and caught up in that massive sweep of Intel, apparently where the conversations of some Congressional lawmakers. The U.S. of course at the time was pursuing a nuclear arms deal with Iran and the rift between Benjamin Netanyahu and the President was on full display and the run-up.  Here is what the NSA's Ned Price is saying about the report that we've been talking about all day long.

Quote, "We are not going to comment on any specific alleged intelligence activities. As a general matter as we have said previously we do not conduct any foreign intelligence surveillance activities unless there is a specific and validated national security purpose. This applies to ordinary citizens and world leaders alike." Again that was Ned Price. But some argue what the White House did frankly was not only unethical. It may well have been unconstitutional.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRED FLEITZ, FORMER CIA ANALYST: This is a very serious abuse of power.  What we have here is the executive branch using the power of a U.S. Intelligence Agency to listen in on the private conversations of members of Congress.

NOAH POLLAK, EMERGENCY COMMITTEE FOR ISRAEL: Ben Rhodes who is one of Obama's closest foreign policy advisors referred to the Iran deal as ObamaCare for the second term, for this White House. And they simply wanted to let nothing stand in the way of achieving that goal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORKE: And given the explosive nature of these allegations as you can well imagine, Sandra, there are now some lawmakers on Capitol Hill that are calling for the Justice Department to look into the matter -- Sandra.

SMITH: All right. Well, thank you to Kevin Corke on that.

Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is here. He joins us now. Governor, thank you.   

MIKE HUCKABEE, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Sandra. Happy New Year!

SMITH: Yes. Happy New Year too. Good to see you. You have been a strong supporter of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. What do you first make of this report?   

HUCKABEE: You know, I'm a little surprised that the NSA would be able to penetrate the prime minister's office and communications. I've been in that office and met with the prime minister. Many, many times over the number of years. And you can't even take your cell phone into the outer office. That has to be turned in. So there's a very, very careful scrutiny about every kind of communication device. But even if they were able to penetrate, the prime minister's office of Israel, the real issue is whether or not the President was aware that members of Congress were being tapped. If that's the case and the President was aware of it, Sandra, I believe that this is not only unconstitutional. I believe this is an impeachable offense. And Richard Nixon resigned for less than this. I don't think we can just gloss this over. This is a serious issue when one branch of government spies on another branch, and if they did it unintentionally, they should have reported it immediately and done a cease and desist.

SMITH: So Governor, to your point on the actual breach and actually getting into the prime minister's information and their office, according to the report, the NSA used a cyber tool that allowed them to access communication within Prime Minister Netanyahu's office. So, the report to get into some specifics on that, so we do know that this was cyber-related.  But Governor, I have to ask you, countries we know forever and ever have been spying on each other. Friends and enemies. Why is this time different? And why does it concern you so much?

HUCKABEE: Well, look, countries do spy on each other. They usually don't get caught. They are usually a little better about it. And I'm sure that all of the countries that even act like oh, I can't believe you did this to us are doing this to us. I get that. I don't think that's the bigger issue. Now, I think there are two issues. Number one, why would we spy on Israel? Why wouldn't we be more interested in what the Iranians are doing?  That's what we ought to be afraid of. And we just entered into an agreement that by the way the Iranians have yet to sign. We have given them a $150 billion dollars so they can finance the acts of terror.

They are more dangerous than ISIS and we talk about ISIS all the time. We need to be talking about the Iranians and we just handed them the club to hit us with. But the bigger issue, even bigger than that, comes down to whether or not the executive branch utterly abused its power, went way beyond its limitation and spied on members of Congress. And that's why I'm saying, that I believe that is an impeachable offense. And the president should ever resign or the Congress ought to have the guts to go after them.  And you can't let the Justice Department do it. There are toothless tiger.  They will not do it. They've done nothing about the abuses of the IRS.  Nothing about Hillary Clinton's e-mail problems. You can't trust them.  There has to be a special investigation. But Congress is going to have to rise up and for once show a little bit of courage. Something they haven't been doing much lately.

SMITH: All right. Governor, thank you for joining us and reacting to that tonight.

HUCKABEE: Thank you, Sandra.

SMITH: All right. Good to see you.

Well, immigration is a hot topic in 2016 and now we are learning the Obama administration has just announced a major move on how it will deal with more than 100,000 families who came across the border illegally. But is the announcement just a political move?

Plus, new information in the Tamir Rice case. Why the two officers whom a grand jury decided not to charge may still face serious consequences.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JOHN KASICH, R-OHIO, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Where in a collaborative where we're trying to get community and police together for police to understand the challenges in the community and for the community to understand that a police officer wants to go home at night. And so we have worked aggressively on this and also the leaders in our community have done a terrific job in terms of trying to make sure we have justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: That was Ohio governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich on "The Kelly File" weighing in on criminal justice reform and the grand jury's decision not to press charges against the two Cleveland officers involved in the deadly shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in November of 2014. But the city's mayor now confirming a new administrative review examining the case from start to finish. This case is just one of the many that has made criminal justice an issue in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Joining me now is Republican pollster Lisa Boothe and political commentator Lisa Durden. I will be identifying you ladies --

LISA DURDEN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hi, Sandra.

SMITH: -- by your last names since I've got two Lisas.

LISA BOOTHE, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: That make sense.

SMITH: Lisa Booth, this has become a major point and in this election.  How do you see it impacting the race as we stand today? There are candidates calling for change.

BOOTHE: Well and we have and it has impacted the 2016 race. What we've seen specifically from the left with people like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, is they are using movements like the Black Lives Matter Movement to pander to the American vote and look at the Tamir Rice case is incredibly sad. No parent should have to bury their child. But that doesn't mean that these police officers did anything criminal in nature.  In the Black Lives Matter Movement is really trying to push what is a false narrative of somehow police officers are inherently bad. And the reality is, if you look at Cleveland, there's been a hundred homicides this year.  If you look at Baltimore, they are facing record high murder rates. If you look at a city like Chicago, there were 12 homicides last week during the Christmas week alone. But they don't want to talk about that because they are exploiting victims in the cases that try to fit the narrative that they want it form.

SMITH: Lisa Durden, do you see it that way?

DURDEN: Cops should not shoot first and ask questions later. That's not community policing, that's vigilantism. And the last time I noticed, that was against the law. This senseless brutal assassination of a 12-year-old child Tamir Rice by this police officer murderer, should not just concern the black community. It should outrage the nation because this could be your child. And we all know bullets don't have names on them. And no, the Black Lives Matter movement is not trying to make all cops out to be bad cop or criminals. It is about -- there's a point out how bad cops are bad cops. So, there is in pandering in narrative --

SMITH: OK.

DURDEN: -- that is being crafted and created by the Black Lives Matter movement.

SMITH: But so -- but let's take this back to the election and specifically talking to you Lisa Durden because I want your take on this.

DURDEN: Yes.

SMITH: Because we have seen some Republican-led states, South Carolina for example, adopting changes like mandating some police officers and their state to wear body cameras. We have seen change take place, where does this fall on party lines? Changes that we are seeing and the response as far as political parties are concerned.

DURDEN: First of all, we know that body cameras are not necessarily going to work well because as we know in the Sandra Bland case, they alter the footage. The next thing is, we need to pass legislation, all of the candidates coming up needs to stand somewhere. And what they did in California over the summer to band grand jury is what every politician should be discussing for every state single because we know that once you do that, you force these half-baked prosecutors to do their jobs which is to prosecute on behalf of the victim.

SMITH: All right. So, Lisa Boothe. I have to get Lisa Boothe back in here.

DURDEN: Oh, sorry.

SMITH: Because Lisa, how are you seeing the Republican candidates polling on this? Are they doing well with the criminal justice issue?

BOOTHE: Well, I think you would be surprised about the amount of Americans that are worried about the unrest we are seeing in the country. And quite frankly, a lot of it is being stoked by our president right now. And look what Lisa is saying is actually not substantiated by facts. The Washington Post did a year-long study. The National Review did a great review of that study. And what it found is, you know, three quarters of the incidents where -- there is some sort of fatal force involved, three quarters of those incidents were police officers actually defending themselves or protecting someone else.

If you look at white police officers where there is a killing of an armed black man less than four percent of those were the total fatal shooting by police officers. And, you know, so those numbers just aren't there to substantiate. And the reality is the Black Lives Matter movement is rooted from the riots that took place after the Mike Brown case, which if you remember, both forensic evidence and witness accounts --

SMITH: Right.

BOOTHE: -- found Mike Brown was actually charging the police officer and going for the gun. So it is rooted on a false narrative, base sort of all facts and people should just be honest about it.

SMITH: All right. Well, the Black Lives Matter movement has been firmly injected into the campaign trail.

DURDEN: Correct.

SMITH: We do know that it is having a reaction from the candidates. And we're going to continue to watch that.

DURDEN: And Bernie Sanders is one of the main people who stand behind it, which I'm enjoying that fact.

SMITH: All right.

BOOTHE: We are talking about tens of millions --

SMITH: We'll leave it there, ladies.

All right. Well, the race for the White House will be the big story in 2016. But how are the reporters covering that story shaping the election cycle?

Journalist Judith Miller and the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell on the impact of the media.

Plus, the number of families crossing our southern border into the U.S. legally is surging. And reports about how the Obama administration is setting up to tackle the problem is being called a political move to help Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election.  

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMITH: Breaking tonight, new reaction to a report triggering headlines across the political spectrum. Will the Obama administration oversee an intensified wave of illegal immigrant deportations? A plan for an increased number of raids is said to kick off as early as January, 2016.

Our next guest says it's a political move by the Obama administration to help out Democratic 2016 front-runner Hillary Clinton. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies joins me now. All right, Mark, you wrote this piece in the National Review titled "The DHS' Deportation Announcement is Fundamentally a Political Exercise". By political exercise, what do you mean? Explain.

MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Well what I think happened, and this is speculation because this is the most opaque administration in history, but what I think happened is that the administration saw what was happening in south Texas. And what you are seeing is a huge new increase in Central Americans coming over, carrying kids with them, so that they are able to stay, because the Obama administration lets you stay if you have your kid with you.

It is double -- more than double what it was last year. And remember, in summer 2014, this border surge was a big deal. It helped kill the Senate amnesty bill that was in the House, it didn't pass the House, partly because of this.

So they saw this and they said oh my god, Hillary's going to be nominated in Philadelphia in July at the convention. If this border surge is still a big story in the news, that is going to be bad. So let's see if we can maybe do something to tamp it down, start enforcing the rules.

SMITH: So your take is I'll believe it when I see it is the way you wrote it in your -- in your article. And you asked the question why now? Which is another important piece to this.

KRIKORIAN: My sense is that the reason this came out, and this was the front page story in the Washington Post on Christmas Eve, is that it was leaked by other people in homeland security, some of the open borders zealots that Obama has appointed, who really don't care whether it helps Hillary or not.

They don't believe people should be deported, that anybody should be deported from the United States. So they leaked it in order to gin up opposition among Obama supporters. The ironic thing is that what they are talking about is just a drop in the bucket anyway. They are talking about maybe a few hundred people. There's 200 people of these illegal immigrant families from Central America, 200 a day coming over. It is not going to matter.

SMITH: All right. Thanks for bringing the story us to, Mark Krikorian.

KRIKORIAN: Thank you.

SMITH: Joining me now on which candidates in 2016 are best positioned to take on our country's illegal immigration challenges, Rich Lowry, editor at National Review and a Fox News contributor, Charles Hurt, political columnist at the Washington Times, and Leslie Marshall, progressive radio talk show host and also a Fox News contributor.

Charles, I'll start with you first. You look at all of the politicians right now. They've all got a plan as to how to handle immigration. Who's championing that message? Let's start on the right.

CHARLES HURT, WASHINGTON TIMES POLITICAL COLUMNIST: Well you know, you have Jeb Bush talking about his acts of love. You've got Marco Rubio playing footsie with democrats, and Chuck Schumer with the gang of (eight).  You've got Chris Christie who's probably the worst of all the Republicans running.

You know, he signed the state DREAM act in his own state. He signed in- state tuition for illegals in New Jersey. And most egregious of all, while he was governor, he oversaw four different cities that became sanctuary cities, and didn't lift a finger to stop them. He is obviously, you know, upset about that now, but didn't do something back when he could have.

And people wonder how this lane has been open -- wide open for somebody like Donald Trump. This is why. Donald Trump has -- you know, when he made his announcement speech, he made immigration a cornerstone of it. He has -- he has laid out his as one of the --

SMITH: And some say -- and some say arguably it would not have been such a big conversation had Donald Trump not hit on it in his announcement to run for president. Let's see, Rich, you say that Trump is serious about enforcing the laws. People believe what he says, they believe that his plan could work, and that's why he is getting so much support. But you say you don't trust anybody?

RICH LOWRY, FOX NEWS POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't trust anyone on immigration. And look, the problem with Trump, Charlie is right. People think he's actually serious about enforcement, and the political class is not. And that's just resonated hugely with Republican primary voters.

The problem is the federal government can't even put together a healthcare website. It's not going to efficiently round up 11 million people, ship them back to their countries of origin, and then bring a bunch of them back, which Donald Trump talks about. So if he is elected president, he will not implement that plan. But he has moved -- he has moved the entire field to the right, which is a good thing.

SMITH: All right, Leslie, but nobody's mentioned Hillary Clinton. I think you think Hillary Clinton could do the best job here.

LESLIE MARSHALL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, how did you know that? Yes, absolutely. First of all, she has spoken against Donald Trump, and she has spoken against Donald Trump not just in the sense of, you know, emotional and social issues like inhumanity and breaking up families, but also the ridiculousness, as Rich actually alludes to, with his ideas which I think are for, you know, poll numbers and ratings and shock value.

Mexico's not going to pay for a wall, we don't have the money for a wall.  We would have to have the border being patrolled in addition to that wall, and certainly we don't have the money to deport over 11 million people.  That isn't going to happen.

In addition to the fact Hillary has overwhelming majority support of the Latino vote, not just among Democrats, among those who don't consider themselves Democrats as well. So she's going to be able to work with a lot more organizations that consider this to be number one -- a number one issue for them as voters.

SMITH: And it's interesting, when pressed to give your answer to who could handle it the best on the right, you say Kasich.

MARSHALL: Yes, and let me tell you why. First of all, I didn't like his ideas -

LOWRY: This is why Leslie is not a Republican primary voter, right here.

MARSHALL: Well look, I'm being honest, I'm being honest, OK. I know -- I know he probably is not going to be the nominee, and I'm not a Republican.  And I don't agree with building the fence. But I think he is the most moderate and the one that could actually work with people on both sides of the aisle to get something like this done.

He has -- he has turned away from his idea to strip individuals of birthright citizenship, which I think is a good thing. He doesn't talk about a wall but rather a fence. But he does talk about securing the border, which by the way, both sides want, they just disagree on how to have that done. And he does say it's ridiculous and addresses the cost of deporting 11 million people and talks about a pathway to citizenship for those that have been here and have not committed a crime. Rich, go ahead.

LOWRY: That's not true, that's not true, Leslie, that both sides are equally invested in enforcement. The Obama administration has gutted interior enforcement in this country. He lawlessly, unilaterally imposed an executive amnesty that now has been stayed by the courts.

And Hillary Clinton is promising to be even more lawless than President Obama, and to impose even more of an amnesty on this country. So there is a big divide between the two parties and it begins with enforcement.

SMITH: All right, Charles I want to get you in here on the last word, because this is -- you know, at the same time, it's a policy discussion, it's an emotional discussion when you are talking about these families being sent back.

I mean we're talking about who's, you know, who's winning on each side. I mean can these plans that these -- that these candidates are putting forward, can anybody's actually be executed? And that's really the question.

HURT: Well if you look at the proposal that was put out there by Donald Trump, it is basically -- it's a very simple plan. It's basically enforce the rules, enforce the laws that have been duly passed by Congress in this country, duly signed by presidents. They are part of the -- they are the law, and that's what he's talking about doing, is enforcing the law, and that's what Americans want before we do anything else.

SMITH: All right, well thank you to all of you for joining us tonight.  Happy New Year. Up ahead --

LOWRY: Thanks so much. Happy New Year.

SMITH: To you too. A look back at Late Night's take on the 2016 race this year. Plus, Donald Trump announcing that he is about to pour some serious money into a major media blitz for the first time in his campaign. So how will it impact the 2016 race? The Media Research Center's Brent Bozell and journalist Judith Miller up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So I'll be spending a minimum of $2 million, a week and perhaps substantially more than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMITH: Billionaire Donald Trump is expected to next week launch a major ad campaign costing upwards of $2 million per week. So how will this ad blitz shape the race in 2016? Brent Bozell, the president of the Media Research Center, and Judith Miller, a Fox News contributor and author of "The Story; A Reporter's Journey", joins us now.

Judith, I will start with you first. $2 million a week? Hasn't Donald Trump been bragging about the fact that he has gotten so much coverage from the media he hasn't had to spend any money on ads? So why now?

JUDITH MILLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well right, why should he start spending money now, when he has gotten all of this advertising for free?  It's been all Trump, all the time, just about 70 to 80 percent of the coverage. I mean he has played the media like a Stradivarius. Why should he start investing in ads now? Won't that be, as Donald Trump himself said, too much Trump, too much Trump?

SMITH: So but it still doesn't answer the question, Brent. I mean why do you think that he's going to start spending this kind of money? Should this tell us something about his campaign, or should we be predicting about how this is going to affect his campaign? Will it help it?

BRENT BOZELL, FOUNDER, MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER: Honestly, I don't think he is going to, because Judith is right, he doesn't have to. He is playing the press like a fiddle. He is playing off of you all like a fiddle.  I've got to say this.

He says this because it is going to be nonstop coverage, just him saying so. Him saying that he is going to spend money on advertising, for a politician to say that, that's like a reporter saying, I'm going to write a story. There's no there, there to that statement. Everybody does that, but he does it because he knows every reporter will drop everything he's doing, and write about it for days. I guarantee you he is giggling right now. I bet you he has no intention of spending that $50 (ph) million.

SMITH: But he's the leading GOP candidate, Brent, so it is not like they are just talking about some candidate out there. I mean he is the leading candidate. Polls still show that the GOP primary voter is still largely in favor of him being the candidate. But you are predicting -- no, but let me --

BOZELL: But Judith is right.

SMITH: Go ahead.

BOZELL: Judith is right. Look, if he's getting -- if he's getting 27 percent of the vote or whatever it is, he is getting 80 percent of the coverage.

SMITH: All right, Judith, your take on this? Because I do want to talk about the political coverage in general as we enter into the New Year, because I know one of Brent's points is that he is predicting we're still going to see this double standard when it comes to the media coverage of the left versus the right.

MILLER: Well I think for Donald trump, what he needs to spend money on right now is not advertising. He doesn't need to get his non-message out.  He has no specifics other than make America great again. But what he needs to spend money on, Sandra, and Brent, and I think, Brent, you would agree, is the ground game, that is getting the voters out.

And what he is betting is that if you get enough free advertising time, or you buy ads, you're going to motivate voters to go out and vote, and that's usually not the way things work in a Republican primary or a Democratic primary, whether or not it's left or right. And I think what we really need to see is whether, you know -- what we really need to see is whether or not the Trump model will change the way politics has normally been done in this country.

SMITH: Brent, go ahead.

BOZELL: Yes, you know, I think that is the X factor. He has been able to dominate the air waves since the very beginning, but that doesn't necessarily translate and ultimately into dominating the votes. You know, that was the big X factor about Barack Obama in 2008.

Well it turned out he had an equally good ground game going along with the air game, and he was able to pull it off, but we don't know that about Trump yet. It is a big unknown whether he has that or not. If he has that, then I think he's going to take this one on a waltz. If he doesn't have this, I think he's going to -- you know, the emperor's clothes are going to come off right away.

SMITH: I've got to cheer both of you guys up. We're talking about a happy new year. Judith is expecting a Trump implosion and Brent, by the way, is expecting the political coverage on broadcast TV to stink in 2016. All right, we got to leave it there, guys. Brent and Judith, thank you.

MILLER: We could both be right.

SMITH: All right, well up next, we take a look back at some of the best late-night laughs the presidential candidates have provided over the last year. You don't want to miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMITH: Presidential elections never fail to give late-night comics some good material. Here's just a few moments that made us laugh.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY FALLON, "THE TONIGHT SHOW" HOST: (as Donald Trump) We've got a big interview with Jimmy Fallon coming up, so let's be honest. Fallon's a lightweight. No way he deserves to interview me. (laughter) The only one qualified to interview me, is me. (laughter and applause) Me interviewing me? That's what I call a great idea. (laughter)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who dares to take on Donald Trump? (playing theme from "Rocky") That's right, it was time for Trump's favorite punching bag, Jeb Exclamation Point Bush.

STEPHEN COLBERT, "THE LATE SHOW" HOST: Jeb! Jeb! Jeb! Jeb! Jeb!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not a fan of the banks. They trample on the middle class. They control Washington. And why do they chain all their pens to the desks? Who's trying to steal a pen from a bank? It makes no sense.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (as Hillary Clinton) Hello. 'Tis I, Hillary Clinton.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let's start again. You said I and your full name immediately.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (as Hillary Clinton) Yes. Oh, shoot, I did?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Yes, but don't worry. We'll just delete that one off your phone, OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (as Hillary Clinton) Know a thing or two about that, right? (laughter)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let's keep going, and this time maybe focus on all that you've done for women's rights.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (as Hillary Clinton): Oh, OK.  I am running because I want to be a voice for women everywhere.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (as Bill Clinton) Did someone say women everywhere?  (laughter)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMITH: Don't forget to ring in 2016 with us here at Fox News. The party kicks off at 9 PM Eastern, and then at 10 Kimberly Guilfoyle and Eric Bolling take over for an "All-American New Year." All will be joined by some very special guests. This is "The Kelly File." I'm Sandra Smith. Good night.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.