Former staffer speaks out about Congress' sexual misconduct

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," November 15, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Welcome to Washington. This is "The Ingraham Angle."

And we begin tonight with a continuing angle. Last night, we were the first and only primetime show to bring you the outrageous story about a largely unknown congressional slush fund, one that as Sean just referenced has paid out $15.2 million in taxpayer money to victims of sexual harassment and this conduct perpetrated by members of Congress. You'd be shocked to know that some current members are not even aware that the fund exists.


INGRAHAM: Do you support this shush fund as it is being called?

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO (via telephone): No, I had -- and frankly, I had no idea that it existed unlike you this --

INGRAHAM: You didn't know the fund existed, Congressman Jordan?

JORDAN: No, I didn't. I didn't know that is how it worked. Did not know.


INGRAHAM: Last night, we played for you some of the explosive testimony of Representative Jackie Speier and Barbara Comstock, a Democrat and a Republican, they maintained among other things that they know for a fact that there are current members who have engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior.

So, my question tonight is this, why aren't they naming names? Why aren't others naming names? And I'm not the only one asking these questions and demanding real answers.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: I think it's good to get this stuff out, name them. Just get it out and lay it out so people can come to work without being harassed and those who do these things need to be held accountable?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want to know who they are?



INGRAHAM: Yes. He's right, of course, and yes, it is good that congresswomen are speak out about this and some congressmen. But the refusal to identify the members accused of misconduct is I think in itself enabling. Aren't they kind of in a sense complicit in the coverup?

I know it sounds harsh. But don't they have an obligation to reveal wrong doing on the part of their colleagues especially against young, vulnerable staffers. Doesn't the leadership have something to say about this?

By the way, we all have the right to know. They work for us, and we, the taxpayers are footing the bill for this absurd shush fund. You're not supposed to talk about it. We want to know the details about these settlements.

We want the time, place, and manner of the misconduct and I want the names of the members accused. It is totally unacceptable for Congress to operate under a different set of rules than everybody else, whether it's the type of health care they vote to give themselves or the amount of time off they get or the way they get to use OPM, other people's money, to pay off settlements.

The American people want more transparency and accountability in government across the board. I am going to promise you this, I'm going to stay on this issue and others like it. Ours is supposed to be the government of the people, by the people and for the people, not the government of anonymous gropers.

Joining us now with reaction is M. Reese Everson, a former staffer for the Congressional Black Caucus, who accused a congressman of sexual misconduct. Reese, it is great to see you. We just really appreciate your voice here.


INGRAHAM: I know you want to make this about the general issue of sexual misconduct in Congress. You were a fellow at the Congressional Black Caucus. Give us a rundown of what happened to you. You don't have to name names, but tell me what happened.

EVERSON: Well, as I said, I've worked for the CBCS. And I, during that time, experienced harassment. And at that time, I didn't even know that it was harassment. I called it an inappropriate experience.

INGRAHAM: Were those comments?

EVERSON: I experienced a conversation where a person basically offered me an opportunity to flirt with him in order to excel in my career and that was the gateway for the harassment, and me realizing I got to get out of here. If I don't I only have one option and that is to comply. I don't want to participant in that so I thought to just leave.

INGRAHAM: When you say offered to flirt, give me more on that. I'm not following that.

EVERSON: So, Reese, are you going to be a good girl?

INGRAHAM: What does that mean?


INGRAHAM: What does that mean?

EVERSON: Well, if you're going to be a good girl, what's the point of you being there? I'm like, what? And he said are you going to flirt with me? And at that moment I realized, OK, you got to get out of here because this is a situation that is only going to turn for the worse.

As a young woman your instinct is fight, flight, or freeze, and my instinct was to run, and I tried to get away from the situation by moving to another office and that was not successful. I was retaliated against, wrongfully terminated, and then blackballed.

My experience was a very traumatic one where not only because of speaking up did I lose my job but my ability to find another job, and I think that that's worst part of all of this is the silence.

It's a pervasive incest to a silence that keeps women hidden and not speaking up because they don't have the courage to speak out against such a powerful person.

INGRAHAM: This was in 2013?

EVERSON: In 2013.

INGRAHAM: How long by the time you arrived for this fellowship, which is kind of cool to get. That's exciting when you get a job in Congress. You're a young woman and learning about how Congress works. How long by the time you arrived in Congress to the time this conversation with this congressman?

EVERSON: I had been on the Hill for about seven months.

INGRAHAM: Had you heard from other female staffers that this had been a problem with other congressmen? Any word on this?

EVERSON: Yes, as a matter of fact, when you are applying for the different offices or when they're interviewing you, you will hear whispers or women will say, OK, not that office because that one has a history. There is a tweeting, a chirping system, if you will, warning other young ladies to not -- to stay away from certain people.

INGRAHAM: But you hadn't heard anything about this particular congressman?


INGRAHAM: And so you weren't able to go to this accountability office because you were a fellow and not a full-time employee?

EVERSON: Well, the thing is they let anyone submit an application for a complaint, and so I did submit a formal complaint. However, I'm ineligible because the CAA does not cover interns or fellows.

INGRAHAM: Now that in and of itself is crazy. I don't like a lot about the accountability office because it forces women or men complaining into counseling.

EVERSON: Mandatory.

INGRAHAM: Mandatory counseling, the person who needs counseling is the perpetrator. I don't know if I like a lot of that, but if there is going to be protections in place, why the heck aren't they in place for interns and fellows? Why should you be treated any differently?

EVERSON: Absolutely. Those are the most vulnerable people on the Hill.

INGRAHAM: This happens, you moved offices and when you were there, is it the same position? Another fellowship?

EVERSON: Same position and the office began to communicate. There is a conversation going on. Why did you leave?

INGRAHAM: Did you tell people?

EVERSON: I tried to explain I'm looking for some other experience. But when you say that, the person I said that to she said why did you leave? They want to hire you fulltime? Are you an opportunist? Will you just leave us too? And I realized I have to tell this woman the truth because she's not going to give the credibility that I deserve --

INGRAHAM: Did another woman rat you out on this?


INGRAHAM: And then it became known that you were complaining about -- and she must have told -- so the girl power didn't really work in your favor?

EVERSON: Not in that instance. Sometimes there's gatekeepers.

INGRAHAM: So, women who are enabling --

EVERSON: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: -- on Capitol Hill are protecting their congressmen?

EVERSON: Absolutely. These women have had these jobs for 15 and 20 years and they like the job security.

INGRAHAM: I hope everyone across the country listened to this young woman. This is outrageous.

EVERSON: Unfortunately.

INGRAHAM: Do you agree that the congresswomen who are in positions of great authority should name names? I'm talking about the victims, about the members who did this?

EVERSON: I think there should be a reporting system where the Congress people -- it's like -- if you're an attorney and you see another attorney drunk driving, you have an obligation to the bar to report this attorney driving drunk the wrong side down the highway. As a member of Congress, I think you have an obligation if you know that another member is harassing young women or men in their office that you report it.

INGRAHAM: You don't want to identify the congressman?

EVERSON: Not at all. There is a fear of retaliation even present day.

INGRAHAM: I really appreciate you coming here, Reese. This has got to stop. This is insanity. This is government that we pay for that is supposed to represent our interest. There are people who are on a power trip up there. I don't know if they were geeks in school and couldn't get girls and now they have a pin on their lapel and got the chicks at my disposal. That's got to end.

EVERSON: Like on "House of Cards" everything is about sex, except for sex. Sex is about power, and so you have these people with this power and they feel the ability to wield it over anyone that they see.

It's kind of like Simba in the "Lion King," you are the king over everything that you see in your kingdom. They feel that power over everything and everyone, and it's not fair for a young, beautiful woman to come in and for them not to have power over her.

INGRAHAM: Reese, thank you for telling this shocking, but I guess a lot -- it's probably not all that shocking given the low trust levels that Congress has right now. Thank you so much.

EVERSON: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: And Roy Moore. This is another -- another series of scandals. Roy Moore, the convenient GOP scapegoat? That's the topic of tonight's angle.

When it comes to Roy Moore's Alabama Senate bid, it seems like everyone is running for exits and perhaps they should. Look, the accusations have piled up. No one running for office wants to be asked uncomfortable questions.

Questions like, do you support Roy Moore with these allegations hanging over his head? Do you believe that Roy Moore should even be seated? He's going to hurt the party leaders say. So, let's cut our losses now and put Jeff Sessions back in his old seat.

It's going to be a midterm election disaster for the GOP, but the more I think about it, the more I hear all of this. I kind of think that GOP is just trying to use the Moore allegations, yes, use them, to deflect attention and criticism from their own failures.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If these accusations are true, there would be no place for him in the Senate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hope that he steps down immediately. I mean, this is -- I never thought he belonged in the Senate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am pleased to be able to see that the nation, though, is talking about moral issues and trying to hold leaders to a higher account.


INGRAHAM: Well, I guess, yes, let's hope that happens. But Roy Moore's future is going to depend on the voters in Alabama and the GOP's future is going to depend on their own legislative record, which is not too hot with or without Moore.

Check out this congressional approval rating. It's now about 15 percent. Only 29 percent of all Americans have a positive view of the GOP. I mean, Donald Trump is looking really good compared to those numbers.

And last time I checked, let's face it wasn't Moore who dropped the ball on the ObamaCare repeal, and he didn't take long periods of time off out of session while they had work to do. He didn't fail to support enforcement of immigration laws.

Roy Moore didn't support those absurd multilateral trade agreements that hurt the American worker. He didn't cause Ron Johnson to come out against tax reform today. And we know Moore didn't set up a slush fund for congressional miscreants involved with sexual behavior. Now that's immoral.

Roy Moore will certainly hurt the GOP image in 2018. He could if he is elected and especially among some female voters. That will hurt. But before the GOP makes him the scapegoat for all that ails the party, the GOP itself needs to do some self-reflection.

What have Republicans done in the past to infuriate and alienate their own base, so much so that they actually pushed Luther Strange out of the equation and decided to go with Roy Moore and now what is the GOP going to do to try to build back its reputation?

Here's the good news, no matter what people say about Republicans and the Moore side show at least they don't have someone like this running around.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Impeach him! Impeach him! Impeach 45! Impeach 45!


INGRAHAM: Does she know that doesn't rhyme at all? GOP, it can always get worse. And that's THE ANGLE.

Joining us now with reaction is Marc Thiessen, a Fox News contributor and from L.A., Michael Reagan, a Newsmax contributor. Both of you, great to see you.

MICHAEL REAGAN, NEWSMAX CONTRIBUTOR: What a way to be introduced. Thank you. Thank you.

INGRAHAM: We're getting you on Maxine, Mike. My point is this, Roy Moore is going to rise or fall based on what Alabama wants to do here. I think the establishment, if they had stayed out, either Luther or Mo Brooks would have won. But the idea that he's the biggest problem facing the GOP. They're at 15 percent six months ago before the Moore thing.

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I agree 100 percent with what you said and the people of Alabama wanted an outsider and ended up with a sex predator. And it's understandable -- if it's true.

It seems there are more and more women coming forward. It's pretty damning evidence. The people of Alabama are not to blame for this, but they are putting him in an untenable position, which is they don't want to elect a pro-abortion Democrat to the Senate, but they don't want a sex predator. What do they do?

So, we've got to find some way to solve so that the American people of Alabama are put in that position. Donald Trump needs to call the Republican Party of the state of Alabama, governor and do something to stop this election from happening this way.

The governor can stop the election or delay the election, but they shouldn't be in the position of having to choose between those two extremes.

INGRAHAM: Michael?

REAGAN: I agree. The governor needs to put it off and give the people of Alabama a chance to, if you will, digest all that is coming forward with them. But the reality is that the Moore issue and the Republican issue should be two different issues.

The Republicans are in trouble because they can't get together in a phone booth. Moore's got problems because, in my opinion, I think he is a sex predator. There's the issue with Roy Moore. The people of Alabama have got to choose. Hopefully, they choose wisely.

I will tell you, I would rather have a pro-choice Democrat sitting in the Senate of the United States that's not a predator than a Republican predator sitting there just because we want to have the 52nd vote.

INGRAHAM: Let's talk about the lack of trust that the GOP voters have toward the GOP establishment or leadership. Think about this. They so didn't trust what the GOP was doing that in this case of this Senate race when Mitch McConnell got involved, they are like Mitch McConnell is for Luther Strange.

I don't care if Donald Trump is for Luther Strange. We're going with this Roy Moore guy. I mean, it says a lot about the level of distrust among the electorate, Michael and Marc, toward the GOP leadership because Corker and McConnell all rushed in on this Alabama race.

I think a number of people raised this point. But there is some truth to this, had they not got involved, it might not have gone down this way. They may have had big Luther in there or Mo Brooks or someone else.

THIESSEN: And would be cruising to victory if he was, but there's problems with Luther Strange. I understand why they didn't want him, but this didn't just happen organically. Steve Bannon fed the flames of the Moore race and Steve Bannon is out there threatening to challenge all these Republican senators.

INGRAHAM: I'm going the challenge you on that. Bannon is about issues. Bannon cares about the issues that the Trump voters cared about, borders, the culture. He cares about trade and making American workers whole again, you know, better economically. And those voters do vote in Alabama and I do think it's not about Roy Moore. For Bannon was the guy who was going to --

THIESSEN: He was the upside.

REAGAN: Yes. I agree.

INGRAHAM: I think Mitch McConnell has a lot more to blame here than Steve Bannon?

THIESSEN: But here's the problem, what Bannon is doing -- and I understand what -- the efforts are genuine, but he is organizing a circular firing squad. We're firing our targets at Republican senators who vote with Donald Trump 96 percent of the time.

The reason we are not getting the Trump agenda passed is not because of Mitch McConnell. It's because we only have 52 Republican senators is not enough to pass the Trump agenda. So, what we should be focused is -- there are five Democrats in 2018 running in states that Donald Trump won by double digits.

We need to get those people defeated and keep all the Republicans so we have 57 votes so we can say to Eon Johnson when he says I'm not for the tax bill, see you.

REAGAN: Absolutely correct with this. The fact of the matter is, we're going after Republicans, instead of going after The Democrats. Bannon needs to be going after the Democrats and making sure the Republicans maintain the 52 majority or even bigger going into 2018.

INGRAHAM: Michael --

REAGAN: -- but instead is it a circular firing squad.

INGRAHAM: Remember, Donald Trump was elected to drain the swamp, but there is a lot of swamp creatures on Capitol Hill and they're trying to drown him. They're trying to empower Bob Mueller and have more insulated from any accountability up there in the Senate. Those are Republicans doing that.

So, I mean -- I hear what you guys are saying -- hold on. I hear what you guys are saying, but the people revolted in November of 2016. I mean, they're bound to do anything. If Mitch McConnell can't get ObamaCare repealed, that's not Roy Moore's fault. That's his fault and the people are mad about that.

THIESSEN: But the solution to that problem is to get more Republicans -- fair enough but not to knock off Republicans. It's to knock off Democrats. There are not enough Republicans in the Senate, conservative Republicans, I'm all for competitive primaries. Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Mike Lee, this is not the time. We are not in the wilderness --

REAGAN: If I can jump in --

THIESSEN: We have the White House and the House and Senate, and we need to get the Trump agenda through.

INGRAHAM: But we have people like Jeff Flake and John McCain who do not want the Trump agenda through --

REAGAN: If I could have a moment, I could have gotten John McCain's vote. The president of the United States didn't get John McCain's vote because of the way he treated during the primaries. Never said he was sorry. Never brought him to the White House to apologize to him and asked him for his vote on ObamaCare.

The president of the United States should take fault for not getting the vote from the senator from Arizona. I could have gotten it. My father could have gotten it. You could have gotten it. This president because he doesn't like to apologize, didn't get it and that's on him.

INGRAHAM: Michael, John McCain's ego, bruised ego and hurt feelings?

REAGAN: That's --

INGRAHAM: Should basically screw over the entire Arizona electorate? What are you talking about? He is acting as a Democrat on almost every issue. Every issue right now, almost he is acting like a Democrat. Because he is mad about Donald Trump? Get over it. He said the most brutal things about talk radio, about the Tea Party. He has been vicious.

THIESSEN: The way you marginalize John McCain is by getting more Democrats defeated so we have more Republicans. So, we can say, John McCain, go vote however you want.

INGRAHAM: I agree with you on that. Michael and Marc, it's great to see both of you. Thank you so much.

Up next, he broke news about the Uranium One deal and the Clinton Foundation, a myriad of controversies trying the Clintons, Peter Schweitzer is going to tell you what you are not hearing. Do not go away.


INGRAHAM: Welcome back. The Justice Department confirmed this week that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering appointing a special counsel to investigate several matters related to Hillary Clinton.

One of those issues is the sale of Uranium One to a Russian-backed company back in 2010. Hillary Clinton's State Department signed off on the deal despite the fact that it gave Russia control of 20 percent of the U.S. uranium capacity.

Critics alleged that Hillary OK'd the deal because of some hefty donations to the Clinton Foundation. The "National Review's" Andy McCarthy wrote today, "Uranium One has never primarily been a national security controversy. It's a corruption controversy."

Joining us now from Tallahassee, a man who knows more about this, Peter Schweitzer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute and author of the huge bestseller "Clinton Cash."

So, Peter, I've noticed this happening over the last 48 hours especially. Number of people, some Republicans, some Democrats, and always the Clintons, of course, there's no there-there.

This is just a fantasy cooked up in the minds of some guy who wrote a book called "Clinton Cash" and grabbed on to by the conservative media. Pay no attention to the scandal behind the curtain.

PETER SCHWEIZER, AUTHOR OF "CLINTON CASH": Yes. That's the standard line, Laura. The problem for that narrative is there is plenty of evidence. The Uranium One saga, most people are aware of this 2010 sale of Uranium One to the Russian government that was approved by the Obama administration.

But the story really begins in 2005 when Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton helped this Canadian investor, Frank Giustra, who is founder of Uranium One acquire these uranium assets in Kazakhstan, which is a massive producer of uranium.

And what we have in clear evidence is the video testimony of the Russian -- sorry, the Kazak minister of (inaudible), which is the Kazak atomic agency, what does he say in this video deposition?

(Inaudible), his name, he says that they granted that concession to Frank Giustra because Hillary Clinton, then a senator, blackmailed and threatened Kazak officials saying she would not cooperate with them getting U.S. money, she would not meet with any officials until the concession was granted.

After that concession was granted by officials, Frank Giustra sent $30 million to the Clinton Foundation. We have the oral testimony by this official, it has never been disputed and he describes in detail how the deal went down and talks about a Clinton Foundation employee named Tim Philips who pressured him.

When Tim Philips was asked about this video, he did not respond. He changed his online resume, removing the reference to his employment to the Clinton Foundation. That's just one piece of evidence. This is not a fantasy cooked up. This is something foreign government officials have talked about.

INGRAHAM: Why is Andy McCarthy saying this is just corruption. It has no national implications. You hear uranium and think nuclear power and that's important, and nuclear other things. But he says it's not a national security question.

CHWEIZER: Well, I would respectfully disagree with Andy. I have enormous respect for him. What's happening is a lot of people think Uranium One was totally about the uranium in the United States. The United States is not a big uranium producer. The problem is that's not true.

Uranium One was a company when the Russians bought it and still is a company that has massive amounts around the world, in Kazakhstan, in Australia. They have them in Africa and the United States. If you were to look at the uranium they have in the United States, the 20 percent, you can say it doesn't amount to a lot.

The problem is that's a small sliver of the entire assets that Uranium One represented. By the way, this is very important, Uranium One when it was bought by the Russians in 2010, the money for that deal was publicly announced by Vladimir Putin himself.

And that deal was authorized by Vladimir Putin himself. So certainly, Vladimir Putin saw a national security interest from Russia's standpoint in acquiring Uranium One.

INGRAHAM: So, we're always looking for the Putin connection to elected officials. You ever look at a picture of Putin? Did you ever have a white Russian in a restaurant or go to the Russian Tea Room.


INGRAHAM: Peter, I saw you at the Russian Tea Room once in New York. That's a huge scandal.

Are you committed to this idea, I don't know if you've thought it through, about the special prosecutor? I think there is actually a good argument to be made that you really don't need a special prosecutor, that I think if we believe in the Justice Department if they would actually pursue possible crimes, intimidation of witnesses, bribery, all the things we are hearing about when it comes to the Clintons and this stuff, you can get a great line prosecutor to do this with a great staff. But we have a lot of people, Jim Jordan, they want a special prosecutor, another special prosecutor to investigate this.

SCHWEIZER: That's a great question. Here's the problem. We know for a fact the FBI has in its possession another tape, an audiotape that was basically recorded by this FBI informant that's going to be coming forward. I have not heard the tape but I've heard about the tape from people at the FBI, and that audiotape apparently is Russian officials with this uranium company talking about making donations to the Clinton Foundation to gain favorable action.

That tape was given to Department of Justice prosecutors, the FBI field office requesting the ability to wiretap and to survey the Clinton Foundation. The Obama Justice Department came back and said no, not enough evidence. My point with an independent counsel, Laura, is, look, this is so political, I think the way to deal with this is precisely in this manner. It's important. It's complex. It goes to the reason people think there is so much corruption in Washington, D.C. and the fact that there is a double standard, some people are held to account and others are not.

INGRAHAM: The law should apply to both parties, individuals in both parties should be held to account. Peter, it's always great seeing you, thank you so much.

And when we return, it's been six weeks since Stephen Paddock committed the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, and yet there are still all these unresolved questions. We dig for answers in the Vegas shooting with Mark Fuhrman and a Vegas police insider, up next.


INGRAHAM: Welcome back to "The Ingraham Angle." Some breaking news tonight, 14 new lawsuits dropped today stemming from the October 1st mass shooting in Las Vegas. It's now been six weeks since Killer Stephen Paddock opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, of course unleashing hell on a crowd enjoying a country music festival, killing 58.

And the lawsuits claim that concert organizes, the hotel, and the manufacturers of the bump stock gun accessory all share blame for the incident. But there remain unanswered questions. What was the killer's motive? Why does the police timeline of the incident keep changing? Why were explosives in Paddock's car? And what was on the hard drive now missing from a computer found in Paddock's hotel room? And we're just getting started with the questions.

Joining us now for reaction is Mark Fuhrman, a former LAPD detective, and in Las Vegas Randy Sutton, former lieutenant in the Vegas police department. Great to see both of you. Let's start with you, Randy. First of all, I have a curious thought. Is there anything to the fact that the investigation task force designation has changed? It started as in the homicide task force. And now it's in a different task force related to an officer discharging his weapon. What's that all about?

RANDY SUTTON, FORMER LAS VEGAS POLICE DEPARTMENT LIEUTENANT: This is a little bit odd. The homicide detail of the Las Vegas metropolitan police department is the detail that would normally handle all homicides of any stripe. And they were, of course, initially assigned to this just as they would normally be.

If you look at this whole picture, we have a murder/suicide. It was just a mass murder. They would be the normal investigative team that would do this. They have the experience. They have the know-how. They have the technology.

But for some reason allegedly there was an accidental discharge when the advance team, when the initial entry team went into the hotel room. And that is the -- any type of use of force by law enforcement officers is handled by what is called the FIT, the Force Investigative Team. And this is a small unit that handles officer-involved shootings and major uses of force. For some reason, and I've got to tell you it's inexplicable to me and to the members of the homicide detail who are literally up in arms over it, the main thrust of the investigation was taken away from homicide.

INGRAHAM: So it seems like it is diminishing. Is it wrong to say, and Mark you can chime in -- it seems like it is almost taking the investigation down to a less important task force, or am I misreading this? I don't want to say anything that's incorrect, but as an outsider it seems curious, Mark.

MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: I think you're correct. I think you're correct, Laura, and I think you're correct because the homicide investigators that were on the scene, and it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to hear from them in six weeks because they actually do this every single day. The sheriff, the FBI assistant directors, ATF, they do not do these homicide investigations and they weren't at the scene. So I would be up in arms if I was one of these homicide detectives also. This is their case. They should follow it all the way through, and if need be investigate an accidental discharge, which would be really rather simple.

INGRAHAM: This is the question I have. Where is the video of Stephen Paddock checking in on that VIP status he got at the hotel? He brought in 15 bags over a period of time -- 14 bags. Doesn't anyone want to see the video? I want to see the video. I want to see him checking in, how they treated him. I want to know where that missing hard drive went. How does a hard drive jump out of a car? He shot himself -- excuse me, in the room. He shot himself in the room but the hard drive disappeared at some point I guess after he shot himself.

Who leaked the photos of the crime scene, and why were they leaked? When he fell backward the tripod that he was shooting from, Mark, fell on his shin. That's kind of an odd -- if you are shot, why does -- it just -- some odd stuff. I'm sorry, I'm always putting my sleuth hat on. Maybe I'm just a frustrated former detective. That's what I should have been. But I want to see the video. Is there an attempt for the hotel -- hotels need this business and I like the Mandalay Bay, always have. They need this business.

FUHRMAN: Laura, Laura, I think in this case there was a lot going on rather quickly. And there was a lot of people that had already been at the crime scene. Even though the suspect was dead there was a lot of people in the crime scene before the detectives were able to actually get there. So there was a lot of things that were actually moved, accidentally or otherwise. There could have been things gone through, looked at, picked up. This is a kind of a semi-contamination of a scene.


FUHRMAN: But it's understandable under the conditions. But a hard drive going missing, that's a little odd. But sometimes when you have too many people, evidence is misplaced, lost.

SUTTON: I don't think -- I don't think evidence was misplaced in this set of circumstances. I believe that this individual, Paddock, who is -- I consider him the boogeyman because he doesn't make any sense as far as fitting any profiles. He literally came out of nowhere and did this incredibly heinous crime, and it appears to me that he created a set of circumstances where this would be in deep question forever.

INGRAHAM: But Randy, but this is why we need the security guard to speak beyond "The Ellen Show." We need to have -- everything has to come out here. It's the biggest shooting in U.S. history, and we have all these unanswered questions. I know it takes time, but come on.

SUTTON: I'm in complete agreement with you.

INGRAHAM: It's crazy. Where is the hard drive?

SUTTON: There is information that needs to be given to the American public.

INGRAHAM: Who took the hard drive? I find this whole think to be just disturbing. If that's how they investigate a crime scene like this, that's disturbing. And I want to see the video of him checking in. I just want to see it all. We're almost out of time, Mark. Really quickly.

FUHRMAN: Laura, when you look at the scene, I think the suspect, what he was attempting to do and what he was in the crime scene does not match. There is an exaggeration by the suspect, and in his death quite possibly he left his calling card.

INGRAHAM: I appreciate it, both of you. Thank you so much.

An important story for you straight ahead. Teen suicide rates on the rise. So is social media to blame? We have got new information for you on that coming up.


INGRAHAM: Thanks for staying with us. There's a new study out that's warning of the possible deadly consequences for teens using social media. Teen suicide rites had been declining for decades, but new data from the Centers for Disease Control shows that the numbers went up between 2010 and 2015. We don't know the exact reason for the uptick, but a new study in "The Journal of Clinical Psychological Studies" suggests it might have something to do with the sharp rise of the use of social media.

Joining us for reaction from Boston is psychotherapist Karen Ruskin, and in Green Rapids, Michigan, pediatrician Meg Meeker. Dr. Meeker, let's talk to you first. What have you seen in your clinical practice on this issue? Do you see a connection between social media and these types of pathological or suicidal tendencies?

MEG MEEKER, MD, PEDIATRICIAN: Yes, first of all, thanks for having me on, Laura. I'm so glad that you brought this up, and I do see a connection between teen depression and social media in my practice. As a matter of fact today I just talked with a young girl who is struggling with very serious depression. And depression in teenagers is very serious.

How can it be related to social media? Depression in a teen is all about the self hating the self, deep down subconsciously teens don't like who they are. So we can see how being on social media, Instagram in particular, teenagers see other kids. They look at the pictures of the other kids, girls in particular, and say I'm not as thin, I'm not as pretty, I'm not as attractive as she is, and so they start to feel worse about who they are.

So you know, I really see -- and I actually have had teenagers tell me that being on Instagram makes them feel worse. And so for some of the teenagers that I treat with depression, I -- with their cooperation -- actually put them on a diet from social media to guard them, if you will, from feeling worse than they already do. So for me personally I see a very clear connection between social media and teen depression.

INGRAHAM: Dr. Ruskin, I have a daughter who is 12. And she said when are you going to get a phone? And I said how does never sound to you? I'm literally going to do everything I can. I borrow friends' phones. But I'm petrified of this. And I guess I'm the boring mother -- I'm petrified of it. And maybe I'm wrong to be petrified of it. But I find what I see among kids, it's not good. It's not good.

KAREN RUSKIN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: You're not wrong, Laura. And the fact is, as parents -- as a parent, myself, of a teenager, and as a psychotherapist, it's imperative that we create ground rules for social media. For example, the phone at night must not be in the room. That's the bottom line. We're still parents and we forget that sometimes.

When it comes to kids and social media, the consistence and frequency of looking at social media instead of living your life, that can lead to depression, not being able to escape from the world, the bedlam of the everyday hustle-bustle of socialization. Home used to be a safe haven. It's not anymore because the appendage known as social media, the phone, comes home with you everywhere. So as a parent we must talk about with them about their social media relationship, we must talk with them about health and wellness and suicide and not be afraid to because parents are often afraid to have those hard to talk about talks. And if you are afraid to talk about it, your kid is going to be afraid to talk about it.

INGRAHAM: That's an excellent point. I want to play for you something that one of the original funders of Facebook, Sean Parker, said recently about its addicting quality. Let's watch.


SEAN PARKER, CO-FOUNDER OF FACEBOOK: That thought process was all about how do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible. And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while. It's a social validation feedback loop that it's exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with because you're exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.


INGRAHAM: Quick reaction from both of you. Dr. Meeker, Sean Parker, he knows technology. What is your thought?

MEEKER: He does. And you know it's very dangerous and very addictive. And I want to say something. First of all, never parent out of fear. Parents are so afraid to pull social media out of their kids' lives, to make their kids put the phone in the kitchen plugged in at nighttime, so afraid to tell their kids, look, half an hour of social media a day is all you get.

But let me tell you something, your kids are worth fighting for. My kids are adults now and I was very strict with screen time which was TV in those days, and they are so grateful. If you can be strong enough to parent well and say to your kids, look, these are my rules, my phone, no privacy, we need to restrict social media, you will be doing your kid such an enormous favor. So don't be afraid. Do what's right for your kids.

INGRAHAM: Dr. Ruskin, very quickly to close this out, Sean Parker says it's exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.

RUSKIN: Human beings by our very nature, we are addictive, we are impulsive, we are reactive. So definitely there is allure in social media. As parents it's all about helping kids to create a healthy balance because social media has its advantages. It's just about having a healthy balance. Extremism in any direction is unhealthy. We must control or controllables.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, great to see you. The doctors were in. Thank you.

And coming up, Joe Biden in 2020? We've got a message about that, next.


INGRAHAM: If your friends on the left were smiling today, it may be because of a new political poll. Check it out. It has Joe Biden beating President Trump by 11 points in a way too early look at the 2020 election cycle. Already 2020?

Democrats, you may want to hit the brakes on old Joe given the most notable trend in coverage lately, the Weinstein-Clinton period we find ourselves in. Biden's past isn't nearly as sordid as Clinton's, of course. But as the former V.P. calls for society to better police sexual harassment, we can't help reminding everyone of Biden's, well, outreach over the years.


JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: No man has a right to touch you, period, under any circumstances.


BIDEN: With got a lot of thanks to give out here.

Do know what my dad used to say? You've got one job, the most important job. You guys, you have a hard job. Too many beautiful girls.

How old are you? Sixteen. You've got big dogs around the house.

I would say you have a very hard job. My dad used to say you got one job. I have a beautiful sister like you guys.

Anybody engaged in that behavior is committing a crime.


INGRAHAM: OK, that is naughty of us. Be careful what you wish for, Democrats.

And as I write in "Billionaire at the Barricades," the man who has been running for president since I was in college just a few years ago, and nothing would cement the Democrat party's dinosaur status quite like a Biden bid. I think is a Latin term for this this -- Tyrannosaurus Amtrak. Remember he always took the Amtrak back and forth.

That's it for us tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it from here, and it rhymes. Miss Shannon.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.