Are media overstating the importance of Flynn's guilty plea?

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 1, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, "THE INGRAHAM ANGLE" HOST: Welcome to Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle."

All right, we have Matt Lauer, John Conyers, tax reform, Kate Steinle and now Michael Flynn, what an explosive news cycle to end the week. Of course, dominating today's headlines National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's guilty plea to lying to the FBI in the Russia probe.

But, do the facts actually merit the wild conclusions being tossed around especially by one ABC reporter in particular? We're going to get to that.

Also, we're going to shed light on another under reported story whether Hillary Clinton got special treatment from the FBI in that e-mail case and how House Republicans are digging for the truth now. We'll speak with the congressman leading the charge to hold the FBI accountable and it's about time.

Plus, more on that Black Lives Matter plot of a Christmas boycott against white-owned businesses? That's a Merry Christmas.

But, first, the growing fallout over the Kate Steinle verdict and the shock and outrage over the acquittal of her killer on murder charges. It all boils down to this. Kate's killer should have never been in the country.

Jose Gutierrez Zarate deported from the U.S. five times was in a position to kill only because of a San Francisco insane sanctuary city status. And, by the way, he is hardly alone, 22 percent of the federal inmate population in California are suspected illegal immigrants.

One hundred and twenty criminal aliens released by ICE between 2010 and 2014 were later charged with homicide, that's blood on their hands, my friend, and 2,139 DACA recipients have lost permits because of criminal or public safety concerns.

Now, everybody wants to say dreamers represent the best of the young people in the country. Every dreamer is a valedictorian or saves cats from trees but is that true? Well, they have experienced the painful and personal consequences of loss and death due to our insane immigration policy.

I'm talking about the victims of crimes because they have experienced these personal consequences of loss and death and life and death lost.

Don Rosenberg is joining us in Westlake Village, California. He lost his son 25-year-old Drew when he was killed in 2010 by Honduran who entered of the country illegally but entered protected status.

Joining us from Chicago, Brian McCann's brother, Dennis, was killed in 2010 by a drunk driving illegal immigrant. And in Phoenix Steven Ronnebeck, son, 21-year-old Grant was working overnight on a shift at a convenience store when he was basically executed by illegal immigrant over a pack of cigarettes.

Gentlemen, I wanted to talk to all of you since this Kate Steinle verdict came down. I think, Steve, I want to go to you first because as I understand it, your son's murderer is awaiting trial at this moment. Your reaction to the Kate Steinle acquittal yesterday?

STEVE RONNEBECK, SON WAS KILLED BY AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: I was absolutely stunned. And after that it was just heartbroken for the Steinle family. I know that I can speak for Dawn and Brian and all the other victim's families that are hearts go out to the Steinle family.

It's just a travesty. You know, this man gave several different stories as to what actually happened. He never gave an honest answer. They still don't know exactly how he got the gun, but then they acquit him of murder or even manslaughter. It's -- I don't know. I can't wrap my head around it.

INGRAHAM: Bob, I want to go to you. The loss whether it's a drunk driving illegal immigrant, a hit and run illegal immigrant, involuntary manslaughter, although this creep didn't even get that in the Steinle case. He is getting off basically scot-free and a couple more months after time served.

What does this tell you about DACA and all the concern now about the DACA recipients in the United States? You saw those figures? You know them well.


INGRAHAM: Yes, let's go to Bob on that.


INGRAHAM: I'm sorry, let's go to Brian on that. I'm sorry, Brian.

MCCANN: Yes. Well, it's outrageous. And could have happened here in Chicago as well because we are one of the leading sanctuary cities that became a model for the country. I met the Steinles a few years ago. They are wonderful people. My heart goes out to them. They fought the good fight as we all have.

Just a travesty of justice. It's so many of us can lay claim to the proverbial insult to injury, and it continues almost every day. There are hundreds of thousands of American family members every day that mourn the loss of their children and their siblings and their spouses.

So, with the Steinles our prayers with them and San Francisco, God help you out there. I don't know what's going on. I went to that pier last summer with my wife just to try to get some sense of what it was like, and it was tragic, indeed.

INGRAHAM: Don, let's go to you, speaking of San Francisco, your son went to law school in San Francisco back in 2010. He's no longer here to enjoy a holiday season. Your reaction and then what about we've heard nothing from Nancy Pelosi. We've heard nothing from Hillary Clinton. Nothing from prominent Democrats on this case, zero.

DON ROSENBERG, SON WAS KILLED BY AN IMMIGRANT: Well, I will tell you I wasn't actually shocked in the least bit. I expected this to happen. I live out here. I see what happens every day. So, I wasn't shocked at the two acquittals on the murder charges.

I was marginally surprised that he didn't get the involuntary manslaughter, particularly since that's what the defense was using as their claim that it was an accident. Best of your recollection even with that, you know, it's San Francisco.

And the jury, you know, it's O.J. Simpson jury. We're not going to convict you no matter what. I will tell you though, you know, you mentioned Nancy Pelosi and you can lay it on all the Democrats.

It's inconceivable to me and I find it reprehensible that they are worried about DACA recipients. The worst thing that would happen to any of those guys would be that they would get deported. The worst thing that's happened to Steve and Brian myself and so many others is they have lost a loved one.

So, our position and, you know, there is an organization we started called Aziak (ph) back in June and we put out a position that DACA should not even be discussed until all the other illegal immigration issues are dealt with. So, for them to talk about shutting down the government is just absolutely incredible.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Chuck Schumer actually threatening to shut down the government because he cares more about handling and caring and the feeding of illegal immigrants than protecting the innocent lives of American citizens and legal immigrants in the United States.

Because there are plenty of other perspective victims out there because of San Francisco's sanctuary city policy, California's state policy, Chicago sanctuary city policies and it goes on and on and on.

And to all three of you, I will say this tonight, my heart breaks for you. Our viewers' hearts break for you, my radio listeners. Americans are infuriated by this, and the fact that politicians in both parties don't seal this border, build this wall and get this stuff done to protect us is abomination. It has been for years and now with this latest verdict, it's even worse.

ROSENBERG: Well, you know, Laura, we can't rely on the politicians out in California. They made out mess. So, I'm actually announcing a little early, earlier than we had planned, we are going to launch an initiative to not only repeal the sanctuary state bill that was passed, but also create law that requires law enforcement to cooperate with ICE and with the federal officers.


ROSENBERG: So, if anybody wants to look, the fight is not really completely done yet. It's fight sanctuary -- excuse me,, and we can really use people's help.

INGRAHAM:, I will get it on Facebook and Twitter. Don't worry. I do that too late at night, but we'll get it --

ROSENBERG: Thank you very much.

INGRAHAM: We have to get the word out. People have to take the power back from the politicians who will not listen. Steve, I want to go to you because when I think about you, you are not too far from Phoenix, correct?


INGRAHAM: OK. So, you are not too far from the border. What do Arizonans, the average person on the street. I don't care if you are Hispanic, white, black, what does the average person on the street think of special treatment people who break our laws come into the country come back and commit crimes and then get a slap on the wrist. Any sense from people in Arizona about this?

RONNEBECK: You know, a lot of my friends and people that I work with, even people that I just meet that recognize me, you know, they are fed up. They are tired of it. It's not just the murder of my son or Maryann Mendoza's son or Don's or Brian's, it's the drugs that are coming across. It's the --

INGRAHAM: Human trafficking, all of it?

RONNEBECK: And the ones that are coming across the border that are taking advantage of our social service systems.

INGRAHAM: Hospitals, having multiple children here. You know, we can't call them anchor babies, I'm sorry, but they are here. It's nine months pregnant. They have their child and then no one can ever deport them.


INGRAHAM: Gentlemen, we are out of time. I want to say to all of you. We are with you. The people of the country are with you. It's probably of little comfort to you now given what's happened, but thank you so much for joining us, and we're going to be following every aspect of this case and others like it, sadly, as the days and weeks go on.

The impeach Trump media, boy, they are going to tell you that the Flynn guilty plea is the most important story ever. We're going to tell you why they're perhaps possibly and I think probably wrong next on "The Ingraham Angle."


INGRAHAM: Welcome back to "The Ingraham Angle." Most of the media went into a feeding frenzy mode earlier today when former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn pled guilty to one count of lying to the FBI over his contact with Russia's U.S. ambassador during the transition.

But we already knew about that single lie. It's what cost Flynn his job after just a few days in the position back in February. So, what's the White House reaction tonight?

Joining us now with the latest is Fox News chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen. James, what's going on?

JAMES ROSEN, FOX NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Laura, good evening. Clearly, White House officials tonight are bracing for General Flynn now actively cooperating with the special counsel to say all matter of things.

And with that in mind, the lawyer for the president has already begun painting Flynn as unreliable witness noting that he only served 24 days as White House national security advisor and describing him as, quote, "An Obama administration official."

The false statements involved said Presidential Attorney Ty Cobb in a statement "Mirror the false statements to White House officials, which resulted in Flynn's resignation in February of this year. Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn."

And Cobb added, "The conclusion of this phase of the special council's work demonstrates again that the special counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion.

Flynn now admits he falsely told FBI agents in January that in his phone calls with the Russian ambassador the month before during the transition period he never asked Sergey Kislyak to refrain from escalation in a diplomatic skirmish with the U.S. at that time.

Flynn also falsely claim not to remember subsequent call in which Kislyak (inaudible) that the Russian federation had indeed refrained from escalation as Flynn has requested. Flynn also admitted having falsely told agents he never asked the Russian ambassador on a separate occasion to vote against a pending U.N. Security Council resolution that was targeting Israeli settlements.

And Flynn falsely told the agents that he never received from Kislyak any indication of Russia's response to that request. Finally, the special counsel got Flynn to admit that he made, quote, "materially false statements and omissions on federal disclosure forms about his work as a lobbyist on behalf of Turkish interests."

And those admissions paradoxically could work against the special prosecutors if they seek to place Flynn on the witness stand against more senior figures like the president.

Because as Ty Cobb's statement shows any defense counsel will seek to impugn Flynn's credibility on the grounds that he has already admitted lying in the past to federal agents on federal forms. So how should jurors feel comfortable believing him when he is on the witness stand -- Laura.

INGRAHAM: James, thanks so much. And today's Flynn news has the media, of course, going absolutely bonkers, and they are excited about the possibility that this could be curtains for President Trump.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There aren't many more dots after Mike Flynn, right? Your dots go to Kushner and then the president. There really have no other dots here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a case that reaches directly into the heart of the Trump administration, into the oval office.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People now who have believed that the president sort of loose way with information and facts was his best defense now think that the president is in danger and exposed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do agree. This is a big moment where if you are on defense, you start to think, jeez, is this whole thing going down? Is it Watergate?


INGRAHAM: To the contrary, everything is Watergate. Nothing is Watergate when everything is Watergate. Here is how famed Federal Prosecutor Andy McCarthy put it, his own perspective in "National Review."

He said, "For all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn's case just as we did in Papadopoulos' case despite extensive collusion evidence."

And of course, joining us now with reaction, former federal prosecutor, Joe Digenova, and Solomon Wisenberg, who served as deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton.

OK, Joe, is the truth somewhere between this is worse than Watergate and this is small potatoes? Where are we on this?

JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, it's very important to realize that General Flynn did exactly what Papadopoulos did. He pleaded guilty to conduct that was legal. He lied about conduct that was legal to do.

INGRAHAM: Explain that.

DIGENOVA: All of Flynn's conversations with the ambassador to Russia were perfectly legal during the transition period and even before. It's not a crime to communicate with an ambassador of a foreign country about foreign policy when you are the foreign policy advisor to the incoming president. So, I don't know why he lied. It's inconceivable to me. If he had told the truth, there would be no crime. Other than the FARA stuff that he's failing to register, but this is --

INGRAHAM: Foreign agent.

DIGENOVA: This is a nothing-burger. After all this time, this is what he gets out of Flynn? It tells me that there is note much there. It certainly can't involve the president because the president has the authority to do all the things that he did. And as far as Kushner goes, if there is anything with Kushner, it involves transitions involving real estate deals 10, 15 years ago.

INGRAHAM: Saul, you've felt it all day long building, building, building, Jared Kushner directed, you know, calls to Russia. First of all, even if that were true, if they were sitting around a table somewhere Jared Kushner and a bunch of people said we should probably reach out to Russia to find out what's going on with all the security council members on Israeli sanctions thing.

None of us want Israel to have more sanctions put on them, big deal. So, what if he did. There is nothing wrong with that. You can do that all day long when you are a transition team official.

SOLOMON WISENBERG, DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ON WHITEWATER INVESTIGATION: Well, there is nothing wrong with, quote, "communicating with the Russians." In fact, in most instances, there is nothing wrong with a private citizen communicating with the Russians.

Now, if you believe what is in the factual basis or statement of the offense of the Flynn papers, they did violate the letter, conceivably there was a violation of the language of the Logan Act. You're hearing a lot about the Logan Act. As you know, the Logan Act has never been successfully used against anyone.

And the last time anyone was even indicted under it was 1852. So, if Mueller is thinking of indicting anybody under the Logan Act, to me and I have been a defender of Mueller, I think he is an honorable guy.

But if he is even thinking of prosecuting anybody for violating the Logan Act, I will instantly denounce him because it will show such bad faith that it's unbelievable to me.

DIGENOVA: I would agree with that except here's the problem for Mr. Mueller. You can't violate the Logan Act when you are in the transition team.

INGRAHAM: You are an authorized agent.

DIGENOVA: You are a government employee. You get a green check. When you are on a transition team you are a special government employee. They can communicate with anybody they want. I agree with Sol the Logan Act never enforced if Logan were to use it in this place if I everywhere the president I would fire him.

INGRAHAM: Now Andy McCarthy, his point is that, if there was some big scheme here, guys, they wouldn't allow him to plead to one count of lying to the FBI, which is a great point. If there was evidence of a scheme of collusion, they wouldn't have had to do the plea this way and they would have gotten a lot more.

His view is that it is so far -- at the very least so far, they don't really have anything on conclusion, conspiracy to influence the election front. They got Flynn for whatever reason, he decides to lie about conversations he could have done anyway. That's the weird thing. I have got to make you guys laugh on a Friday. Get ready.

I know Sol has a great sense of humor. Joy Behar heard about the news of the Flynn plea reading an ABC report today on "The View." Let's watch.



JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW": My god. Breaking news, ABC News Brian Ross is reporting Michael Flynn promised full cooperation to the Mueller team and is prepared to testify that as a candidate Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians. Yes! Yes!


INGRAHAM: Like she just won a publisher's clearing house. ABC had to come out immediately and say this was not during the campaign. This was actually during the transition. But, this is the level of, there it is, clarify read the whole thing. Whoops?

WISENBERG: Sorry. It wouldn't even matter if it was in the campaign. Sorry to interrupt. It wouldn't matter if it was in the campaign. There was nothing wrong, quote, "with talking to the Russians," all right. It depends on what you say.

But the earlier point you made, Laura, is very important that Annie McCarty made. This is very striking to me. The plea agreement says that Flynn is only protected from future prosecution based on items that are in the statement of offense.

That's the key document. There is nothing in the statement of offense about collusion during the campaign. Nothing. So, unless there is a completely separately sealed, completely standalone plea agreement for Flynn that is sealed, which would be almost unheard of. I think Joe will agree with me.

It means that Flynn has no knowledge. Flynn who was a key figure in the campaign has no knowledge of any collusion with Russia during the campaign, any illegal collusion.

INGRAHAM: You heard then gentlemen nothing burger. The well-respected Bob Mueller is coming up with very little in my opinion. The hyperbolic response by the media, these people are completely unhinged. The facts are irrelevant. Analysis irrelevant. Just jump right to the gallows for Trump. That's where they are going.

Gentlemen, thank you. And Sol, I knew I could make you laugh. I get it out of you. Thanks, guys. And we by the way -- wait, sorry, this is a special alert. Tommy is telling me. We actually stick around for this.

We have some live footage of Special Counsel Robert Mueller leaving a D.C. Christmas party tonight. There it is. OK. He has lost some weight. Yes, he actually -- OK. Well, there they go.

Up next, President Trump wants to make Christmas great again. And on the other hand, there are those dreaming of a black only comi-Christmas. Details next.


INGRAHAM: All right, ready for some humor? Black Lives Matters, that's the humor. No, sorry. Black Lives Matter thinks it can bring down white capitalism by creating a black Christmas. And their idea is for black consumers to boycott any white-owned stores. So, tell me, how is that not racist? And don't people like Hillary Clinton and former president Obama ultimately share some blame for helping legitimize such a radical organization? Just listen.


BARACK OBAMA, D-FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Black Lives Matter simply refers to the notion that there is a specific vulnerability for African-Americans that needs to be addressed.

When people say Black Lives Matter that doesn't mean blue lives don't matter.

HILLARY CLINTON, D-FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And we do have to stand up and say loudly and clearly Black Lives Matter.


INGRAHAM: Joining us now for reaction is attorney Anthony Tall. All right, Anthony, you've got to educate me on this one. I do not understand this at all. How do you determine, first of all, just as a factual matter, if a business, let's say, is owned by Indian guy in a partnership with a white woman and then maybe has a black, like co-owner as well, maybe three people own a business together, does that business get boycotted because there is an element other than a black element in the ownership structure? How do you determine that?

ANTHONY TALL, ATTORNEY: I don't know if that's how you focus on the problem. I think you pretty much just focus on what they are saying is that there are black businesses in the black community that need to be supported and need to be encouraged.

You know, this is the day of Oprah. This is the day of "Blackish." Black economic power means something. So what Black Lives Matter is saying let's just invest in black businesses for this Christmas. Let's make sure we spend our dollar the way that a lot of other activist groups have spent their dollar for years.

So I don't know if the focus is so much on whether or not there is a diversity or multiculturalism in the business for excluding whites. I think the focus is on let's make sure our economic dollar is spent in our community and we build entrepreneurship, which is a Republican idea. I'm surprised you don't like that, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, I actually think if people want -- Catholics want to go to Catholic businesses, you know, I don't have any problem with that. My problem is when it seems to be based in a very kind of a negative thing. Christmas is about Christ and the birth of Christ, and of course retail is important. But I think businesses need consumers. They need customers. So why penalize a business that just happens to be owned in whole or part by a white person, maybe that white person or Indian person or Asian person, maybe pulled himself or herself by the boot straps, came from nothing, and started a business in a minority community. Don't we want to encourage white and Asian and all sorts of people to come into black communities to bring more dollars and investment? That way black people can come work there and maybe become a manager and ultimately take the shop over, isn't that something good?

TALL: Well, yes. That's good. But I think because black people in this country have had such an economic struggle, remember, this is nothing new. Going all the way back to black Wall Street in Tulsa and Rosewood where blacks would try to start their own businesses which could expand and could express the diversity that you are talking about, and a lot of those communities were destroyed. So with that being the case, we're still here in 2017 where now we realize out black dollar has economic power.

INGRAHAM: What's a black dollar? I see green dollars. What's a black dollar?

TALL: I definitely understand green dollars. I guess what I'm saying --

INGRAHAM: What I'm trying to say a dollar spent at any store, retail outlet, that dollar goes into the business in the community. So I understand spend money in the community. I think that's great because it encourages more business, encourages more jobs and so forth. That's great. It just seems antithetical to me to helping a community where people are coming in from all races and background, whether it's St. Louis or Detroit, isn't it about welcoming people of all colors and backgrounds into different underprivileged, underserved areas, and bringing all people together? Isn't that what Christmas is all about, not like you are black and I'm white and you're Asian and let's all go to our own stores and go to our separate places. So me that's just wild after everything we have been --

TALL: I don't think that's the point. I know, but that's the point, though. I think the point is that what they are saying, and let me go back to the black dollar thing. What I'm saying is that black people who have money, which is obviously green, that their dollars go into black business. There is nothing wrong with that nothing wrong with saying if you live in a certain community, let's support the businesses in the black community.

INGRAHAM: That's different. But you are making it about race. And I think this is the stuff.

TALL: I'm not making it about race.

INGRAHAM: Black Lives Matter has made it about race.

TALL: I haven't made anything about race.

INGRAHAM: And when you say black people should shop only at black-owned stores, that is a racial statement at a time where our country is supposed to be uniting and coming together, especially at the holiday seasonal. And if it was going to be really focused on black businesses, why just focus during Christmas? Make it all year long forever. Only go to black-owned stores. Only going to black owned businesses. Do it all year long.

TALL: I think it should be that way. I think it should be that way.

INGRAHAM: We have made progress.

TALL: I think you are missing the point.

INGRAHAM: So no white own stores ever?

TALL: No, no. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there should be a diversity of dollars spent. But because of those people who are at low economic level to build their dollar value up in other communities, they need to learn how to invest in their own business. I know you agree with that, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Everyone needs to learn how to have a work ethic, save, save for a rainy day, and be open to people of different background. And I just think the racial line is wild. I think it's like the opposite meaning of Christmas, at least to me. But, you know. That's my view.

TALL: I think that's how you see it.

INGRAHAM: I appreciate it. Thanks so much.

And while Flynn's plea dominated the headlines, the FBI may have to investigate a new suspect in the Clinton email case. We're going to tell you why up next.


INGRAHAM: The left is probably hoping the hubbub over the Mike Flynn guilty plea will drown out over this story, but a group of congressman is demanding that the FBI investigate alleged special treatment of Hillary Clinton during its investigation into her private email server. Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray asking the bureau to explain its decision to investigate Clinton with a, quote, "small team." What does that mean?

The congressman joining us now. Congressman Gaetz, you have been all over this. People are saying, oh, you just don't understand when they say "special investigation" and "small team" that's just routine kind of lingo. So you are making a big deal over nothing.

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLORIDA: Well, Laura, we now have smoking gun evidence that Hillary Clinton got special treatment, and it's important to provide context. We've got Loretta Lynch on the tarmac with Bill Clinton. We've got Loretta Lynch telling James Comey to call this a matter and not an investigation. Then we have got James Comey sucking this up to headquarters and keeping the investigators in the Washington, D.C. office away from the Clinton investigation. And then he drafts the exoneration statement before even conducting the interview.

In six days the FBI director Christopher Wray will be before the House Judiciary Committee, and we need answers because Hillary Clinton didn't deserve special treatment. She should have been treated like every American, and now we know she was not.

INGRAHAM: Do you think that when they say "special treatment" and the way they designated it, it was just, from what you can see with all the things you just laid out, it was soft pedaling it or shortcutting it or we know the conclusion, let's just put some window dressing on it so it looks like it's official but let let's wrap this baby up as soon as possible. Is that what you are getting at?

GAETZ: Well, that's what the evidence suggests. And when you look at the recent documents released about the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, the FBI was more worried about spin control and public relations and punishing the person that released this information than they were about the improper conduct of the attorney general of the United States. And so time and again, we see from the Obama era that they were determining the outcomes before actually conducting the investigation. That's not what the American people deserve, and that's why we're going to fight for a real investigation.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, weren't they also desperate to find out who leaked the Clinton meeting on the tarmac with Loretta Lynch?

GAETZ: Absolutely. Recently discovered emails show that the FBI was very concerned about who let the American people know that Loretta Lynch was meeting with Bill Clinton, but they weren't at all concerned about the fact that the meeting had occurred and had jeopardized this very critical investigation. So we're really seeing a circumstance where the FBI, the Lynch Department of Justice, was engaged in a cover-up of their activities all at the same time they were determining the outcome of the Hillary Clinton investigation before actually doing it.

INGRAHAM: All right, Congressman Gaetz, thanks for that update.

Sara Carter, let's go to you. It's good to see you again, of course from "Circa News." You have been all over this story. There is some concern what Gaetz is saying is not quite right because the word "special," they dedicated it a special investigation, can be used interchangeably in some cases with major investigation. Special inquiry is a major inquiry.


INGRAHAM: So could that be what's going on here?

CARTER: We don't really know until Christopher Wray talks. We don't know whether that was designated from the term "special" meaning major investigation. But what we do know is this, there were 110 confidential, secret emails that were passed through 52 email chains. Eight of those emails were considered top secret. And if you just look at what Inspector General McCullough said in his interview recently with Catherine Herridge, she said, well, if anybody else would have done this, if you would have done this, where would you be? And he said Leavenworth.

So a lot of FBI agents who were working at the time beating, you know, on the ground, collecting information, not the top dog, not Director Comey, not McCabe, they said that they felt that the rug had been pulled out from under them, that she was treated differently. That I can tell from you extensive interviews I have done.

INGRAHAM: From your sources. David, we have been talking about this for a long time. Are you at all convinced by what you heard from the congressman that designating this as a special investigation, the tarmac, you heard all the elements you laid out, that that's significant in your mind at all?

DAVID TAFURI, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: So you have got to kind of feel bad for Congressman Gaetz. He is trying to get attention for FBI investigation that ended over a year ago on the same day that a major thing happened in the special counsel investigation, which is the former national security advisor pleaded guilty to crimes. That investigation is going forward. Now finding evidence of crimes, finding indisputable evidence national security advisor engaged in crimes.

With Congressman Gaetz talking about something that's almost irrelevant now, going over the same information that's been gone over many times. He has every right to make these inquiries, but they're not really going to go anywhere, and they're not germane to what's actually happening now. But it's also very important to address this issue of special investigation. That's a term of art. If Congressman Gaetz talked to anyone in the FBI and the DOJ, they would have told them. That's a term of art --

INGRAHAM: Yes, I made that point.

TAFURI: It used to describe an investigation of a very high level person. It doesn't mean she got preferential treatment.

INGRAHAM: I got it. It was odd the way Comey decided to come out, right, with the first announcement of the investigation and then deciding, kind of writing the conclusion before they even had wrapped up the investigation. So I agree with you maybe the special designation is not such a big deal.

TAFURI: Right.

INGRAHAM: But it's the other facts that make the thing just odd. You are right, it did wrap up a year ago. It doesn't mean that things during that investigation didn't happen that were kind of whacky. There were no notes taken during Hillary Clinton's questioning. That's just weird. Comey wasn't even there during her questioning. If it's a really major investigation of a major American political figure, don't you think Comey would have been there, present. Why wasn't he present? Never really heard a good answer to that. But Flynn did plead guilty to one count of lying to the FBI. There's no doubt about that.

TAFURI: More importantly is he now cooperating with the special counsel.

INGRAHAM: Yes, he's cooperating.

TAFURI: That is probably going to lead to President Trump or Kushner or others?

INGRAHAM: We shall see where it leads. But we talked about this in the previous segment, let's talk about possible entrapment. Speaking of this Flynn thing, they knew -- they were surveiling Ambassador Kislyak, the Russian ambassador. They were surveiling him, so they knew who he was talking to and what he said, Sara. Why did they go to Mike Flynn? It's an interesting question. Why did the FBI decide to go to Mike Flynn and interview him about matters that they already had transcripts of? Isn't that interesting? I find that fascinating. You already had the transcripts. You already knew what they talked about.

CARTER: That is fascinating because you have to look at this as whether this was criminal or was this counterintelligence, because if they had a FISA on Kislyak, right? They would be watching Kislyak. This is my question. How did they know to unmask all these specific numbers? This is what a lot of people don't understand. When you are looking at these type of investigations, this is what -- you would have to know that number specifically. You would have to have a reason to unmask it. So I'm tending to agree with you on this.

INGRAHAM: You already know what he said. So why do you ask him, well, did you have any conversations? Yes, we already have the transcripts of the conversations. And was it the Russian dossier? And it helped unmask certain individuals leading up to this? We don't know this yet, but it's definitely thought a happy day for the Trump administration. I'm not trying to underplay it, but I'm not trying to jump to these huge inflammatory conclusions either because I don't think that's smart.

Thank you both. It's always great to have you on.

And straight ahead, will Congress drop a tax cut in our Christmas stocking or will they all be Grinches? We will take you live to Capitol Hill where it's all happening.


INGRAHAM: You may be getting a Christmas gift from Uncle Sam this year. Wouldn't that be nice? The Senate is poised to pass a tax reform bill. That's what they are calling it. It's a do or die agenda item for the Trump administration. And for more on where we are now, Chad Pergram, FOX News senior Capitol Hill producer, joins us from Capitol Hill. Chad?

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Good evening. They are a couple of hours away, Laura, from actually voting on this bill. What we are looking at right now in Senate language is called the vote-a-rama. This is a series of votes that sometimes takes hours. Just roll call vote after roll call vote after roll call vote as they get closer to a final vote on this probably 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning here on Capitol Hill.

We are expecting this to pass. We believe they have 51 yeas on the Republican side of the aisle. Corker, Republican senator from Tennessee, appears to be the only no. And Vice President Pence is going to come to the Capital here in the next couple of hours. His vote is not expected to break a tie. You know, the vice president in his capacity as president of the Senate can only vote if there is a tie. I'm told that he just wants to come to preside over the Senate when they presumably pass this sometime after midnight, Laura.

INGRAHAM: OK, Chad. Thanks so much for that update.

And, when we come back, I attended the White House Christmas party today for the press. And we'll share a candid or two and answer Sean Hannity's Christmas card challenge when we return.


INGRAHAM: I'm watching a shot of all those senators mulling around the Senate floor. What are they really talking about? Oh, they are playing Pokemon. Isn't that fun? Isn't that great.

I was thinking about this. You have the House, the Senate, the presidency all in Republican hands. Wouldn't it have been nice to have bolder, more aggressive, cleaner and more transparent process here, a really aggressive tax cut, transformational one, easy to understand, simple for all of us to get. That would have been nice. But it's never the way it seems to go. It's amazing. It should be that way. But it's better than nothing. They need to chalk up a win and they're going to do that tonight.

All right, I promised this. I wanted to show you a few shots from the White House Christmas party today. There I am next to -- what is that? There I am with the "Fox & Friends" crew. I miss them because I don't go on with them anymore on Tuesdays because I'm too tired.

And my former boss Ronald Reagan, I got a little emotional under that one. And there is Raymond Arroyo and a lamb chop. There were several lamb chops, several lamb chops. I only got one there. But it was good spread. It was pretty fun. Some people said it was funereal at the White House Christmas party, but it was not. We had a blast.

And finally, Sean Hannity challenged me to allow you to pick my Christmas card photo this year. He's on the cover of the "New York Times" Magazine this week. Check him out, very angry, Sean. He offered that cover and an old family photo. Now, check mine out. You can help me vote tonight on Facebook and Twitter. There's me on the left, 1995, and there's me on the right in 1960 something. Pick at Twitter and Facebook.


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.