Anti-Trump FBI agent conducted Flynn interview

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 4, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Tonight, we have more stunning evidence that the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server was a total farce.

And also, the media's ill-informed response to almost every aspect of the Mueller investigation.

And finally, a major Supreme Court win for President Trump. Together, they're the focus of tonight's ANGLE.

All right, guys, we are loaded up tonight. You are not going to want to miss one moment of this show. But first -- we're only now learning why former FBI Director Jim Comey contorted himself to not indict Hillary Clinton regarding her use of a private e-mail server during her time as secretary of state.

Tonight, we can tell you that it appears that the FBI's lead investigator and deputy chief of counter intel has been revealed to be just another Clinton crony and Trump hater. Peter Strzok was found to have exchanged anti-Trump texts during the 2016 presidential debates with another colleague at the Justice Department. This according to "The New York Times."

And get this, he attended Hillary's pre-4th of July interview that was never transcribed and he reportedly urged Comey to strike the phrase "grossly negligent" to describe Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information. He softened it to "extremely careless."


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.


INGRAHAM: Unbelievable. And this gets better, this same partisan official was one of the lead investigators assigned to the bureau's Trump Russia inquiry. He was very busy. And not only that, he was also part of the interview team that questioned Trump National Security Advisor Mike Flynn on January 24th.

What a coincidence! This guy is just everywhere! But wait, there's more. Mr. Strzok is a pal of Comey's. He wasn't taken off the case by Special Counsel Robert Mueller until this past summer in July.

So why the heck didn't Mueller inform the public given the stakes involved and the need for public trust in this investigation? Why didn't he tell anybody? This guy was writing anti-Trump texts during the debates. So much for transparency.

And, of course, let's not forget we have a gaggle of anti-Trump, pro- Hillary prosecutors who are still working for Mueller right now. My friends, this is unacceptable. It's disgusting. And it's unfair.

Tonight, I urge the DOJ's inspector general who seems like a terrific guy, Michael Horowitz to release a full transcript of Mr. Strzok's text and maybe even those of other key Clinton and Russia investigators.

Now, remember, this is the same man who helped lead the investigation into the so-called Trump-Russia collusion, this Mr. Strzok character. I have a question -- how can anyone at this point just learning this fact and the other facts that we've cited on this show trust the Mueller office at this point?

No transparency. They're not telling us the truth about this. And we're only learning it when the inspector general somehow releases this information to the public. Since the Mike Flynn plea deal, just last week, the media experts are predicting, it's curtains. It's over for the Trump presidency.

R.I.P. Donald Trump's political life. But I'll tell you what's obvious. Here it is, although Flynn did lie, the collusion case died. So now they're on the so-called obstruction of justice case against President Trump. The experts think it's all cut and dried.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Public record, there's one piece of evidence for obstruction of justice after another and this seems to be exhibit one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That seems to be in the territory of obstruction of justice.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that we're beginning to see is the putting together of case of obstruction of justice.


INGRAHAM: Move over, F. Lee Bailey. Now, so how worried should Trump be at this point? Time will tell. We don't really know at this point. But consider that the media and legal and political experts who are predicting Trump's impeachment, they also predicted this about the president's travel ban.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A discriminatory intent here and the discriminatory intent of the Trump administration is clear.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was premised on religious discrimination. It's very clear that the president is acting unconstitutional.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You said we don't want to ban any -- on the basis of religion. That's against our constitution.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But that's exactly what they're doing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for calling it what it is. It's a Muslim ban.


INGRAHAM: Well, today, a refreshingly sane order by the Supreme Court on President Trump's so-called travel ban of six mostly Muslim countries. Court declined to halt the ban despite rulings in two different lower courts.

This was a preliminary but nevertheless, a major victory for President Trump who always had the constitutional right to determine the classes of people who can and cannot enter the country for security reasons.

Now, once again, the experts are wrong. And while the media has a case of the vapors, a total meltdown over Flynn's cooperation with Mueller, the president is racking up win after win. Tax cuts are coming. Retail is soaring this Christmas season. The market is way up.

And now, a key win at the Supreme Court. And it's only Monday, my friends! And that's THE ANGLE.

Joining us now, Allan Dershowitz, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School and in Washington, Attorney Scott Bolden. Professor Dershowitz, let's start with you. This has been a wild day. The information that has come out just on Mr. Strzok, he was at Hillary's questioning. He was at Flynn's questioning.

And now, we find out that he actually had a number now of anti-Trump tweets, texts, excuse me, that he sent out during the presidential debates. Michael Horowitz, the inspector general at the Justice Department, should he release the texts of those messages that apparently caused so much consternation he was relieved of his duty?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: Yes, I think he should. And I think that he -- Strzok should have recused himself from the very beginning. And I think Mueller was right to take him off the case. What I'm concerned about in your monologue, you're doing to Hillary Clinton exactly what the Democrats are trying to do to Donald Trump.

You're trying to criminalize political differences. Look, I don't think Hillary Clinton committed any crimes. I think she was extremely careless. I think that was a decision that was ultimately made by Comey and not one of his deputies. Maybe the deputy suggested it.

But I think we have to stop criminalizing political differences on both sides. Hillary Clinton shouldn't be locked up. Donald Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for any crimes. If you don't like what they did, don't vote for them.

INGRAHAM: I get your point, Professor. Here's the problem is we have people in our military who are prosecuted for mishandling classified information fairly regularly. Civil servants who are prosecuted for mishandling classified information. To the regular person watching Fox right now, they say OK, why is the Clinton dynamic always special? Why do they get special treatment here?

DERSHOWITZ: I don't think anybody in a position that Hillary Clinton is in has ever been prosecuted for anything like this and that's what was said by Comey and I think that's right. When you're in a position like secretary of state and you have a lot of underlings working beneath you, it's very different than if you are your own officer in the Army and you take things home and clear violation of rules.

INGRAHAM: That's classified information.

DERSHOWITZ: On the other side are saying exactly the opposite. That the case against Hillary Clinton is nonexistent and the case against Donald Trump is very strong. I want to see a ceasefire on both sides.

INGRAHAM: I got it. Then there's nothing you can do as an elected official to mishandle classified information that would actually become a criminal violation, but I get your point.

DERSHOWITZ: You have to show specific intent.

INGRAHAM: Scott, let's go to you. Deleting a lot of e-mails shows specific intent. Let's start with Strzok and reverse the tables here. Let's say in the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation, we find out one of the main investigators was actually someone sending out texts to pals at the Justice Department that were anti-Hillary texts. Would you be on the show now fairly upset about it if it hadn't been at least revealed?

SCOTT BOLDEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION PAC: My position would be exactly the same. I agree with Professor Dershowitz. You sound like, Laura, that if this is the main investigator, he's making decisions on his own.

INGRAHAM: He was the number two guy in counter intel.

BOLDEN: He may be but there are layers and layers and checks and balances.

INGRAHAM: So, you wouldn't have a problem with it, Scott. You wouldn't have a problem if the shoe were on the other foot, honestly?

BOLDEN: I have a problem with it. He should be removed. It's an appearance issue in connection to this sensitive investigation. But it is not the end all to be all to whether the investigation should go away or whether it's been severely tainted. He has been removed. What else would you have Mueller do?

INGRAHAM: He was removed in July five months after he was there for the questioning of Michael Flynn. After we find out only when the I.G. got the information, we found out about the texts.

BOLDEN: He was not making the final call. When they found out about the texts, he was moved to an H.R. position.

INGRAHAM: That's ironic, Professor Dershowitz. Great. That's so good.

DERSHOWITZ: He should have been -- he should have recused himself and I think he should be severely punished for not recusing himself on his own. He knew that he had a bias. He knew about these e-mails.

INGRAHAM: Alan, the Democrats would be going bananas if the shoe were on the other foot. They would be going crazy about this --


INGRAHAM: It's not right on either side, it's not right. Let's move on to obstruction. Professor Dershowitz, your old pal, Jonathan Turley, was on "Special Report" earlier tonight saying this. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm afraid I have to disagree with my friend Alan on that. I've always taken the view that a president could be charged with obstruction. In fairness to Alan and Mr. Dowd, the president's attorney, this is a good faith question. You know, the professor use this as a parlor game for years of whether a sitting president can be indicted, whether you can self-pardon. It happens this administration seems on course to answer all of them.


INGRAHAM: Professor Dershowitz, back to this question about obstruction and the president.

DERSHOWITZ: He doesn't have my view correctly. He doesn't have my view correctly. Of course, a president can be charged with obstruction of justice. Nixon was and Clinton was. In order to be charged with obstruction of justice, you have to go beyond simply exercising a presidential prerogative under Article Two of the Constitution.

If you bribe or take a bribe, if you destroy evidence and do what Nixon did which is pay hush money or tell your subordinates to lie, of course, you can be charged with obstruction of justice. But you cannot be and should not be charged with obstruction of justice if you merely pardon people.

You merely fire people even if the prosecution believes your intentions are not good. That's what George H.W. Bush did. He pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other people, the special prosecutor said the intent was to stop the investigation of Iran-contra. It succeeded and nobody suggested that President Bush be charged.

BOLDEN: Let's back that up for a second. I'm glad that Professor Dershowitz has said that you can be prosecuted because that's what the impeachment process in the Constitution talks about.

But if the president has corruptible intent, if he fired Comey and he asked him to lay off Flynn to protect himself, or to do anything that was corruptible intent so he would not be prosecuted or impeached, he certainly can be gone after and prosecuted, be it at the state level and be it the political prosecution of the House of Representatives.

And then afterwards, he can certainly be prosecuted. But listen, there are a lot of these concepts or precepts that need to be tested in the courts. There's a great disagreement about it but no one is above the law. And if he took out a gun and murdered somebody or raped or stole from someone, I must tell you it's not that farfetched in the sense that he could be prosecuted --

INGRAHAM: What are you talking about?

DERSHOWITZ: Let's be clear.

INGRAHAM: What are you talking about, Scott? You lost me on that one. Professor, wrap it up.

BOLDEN: -- can't be prosecuted for obstruction of justice --

DERSHOWITZ: I never have said that a president can't be charged.

INGRAHAM: This is a distinction that Professor Dershowitz wants to make. Go ahead.

DERSHOWITZ: I have never said a president can't be charged with obstruction. He's not above the law, but he can't be charged with obstruction merely for exercising his constitutional prerogatives. That's an important distinction.

No president in history has ever been charged for any crime or anything because he exercised his constitutional prerogative. They impeached President Johnson for doing that and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that that was absolutely wrong. The president had the authority to fire the secretary of the Army. He was impeached for that and wrongly impeached.

INGRAHAM: We got to go. Scott, we'll have you back. Both of you have made great points tonight. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much, Alan and Scott.

And coming back, my message to a so-called female comedienne who trashed a female Trump official. Don't want to miss it when we come back.


INGRAHAM: President Trump is pulling out all the stops to try to save the GOP's slim majority in the Senate and he formally endorsed Judge Roy Moore today, who is facing sex assault allegations from a number of women. But will the political gamble pay off for the president?

Joining us now with reaction is Monica Crowley, senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and Juan Williams, co-host of "The Five," which I just watched. Start with you, Monica, is this a gamble for 2018? Will the women not forget this and hold Republicans accountable in the midterm elections given the serious nature of the allegations?

MONICA CROWLEY, SENIOR FELLOW, LONDON CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH: There are political calculations going on across the board. I do not think you will have the president of the United States come out with an overt endorsement of Roy Moore unless he had seen some internal polling in Alabama showing that Roy Moore is likely to pull this race off -- exactly.

I mean, I do think it's interesting that the Republican Party that disengaged from this race, the RNC has now decided as of tonight, they are back in this race. They're going to start reinjecting money to support Roy Moore because they realized they need a GOP body in the Senate body.

INGRAHAM: Juan, this is what Mitt Romney said, I believe we have a tweet from him. Always a good day when Mitt Romney is weighing in. He said "Roy Moore in the U.S. Senate would be a stain on the GOP and the nation. Leigh Corfman and other victims are courageous heroes. No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor and our integrity." Your thoughts on that?

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST, "THE FIVE": Well, I think that's the bigger issue. So, I mean, the majority is going to be there. It's one vote. Republicans will still have the majority. The bigger issue is the Republican brand. You have people like Mitt Romney saying it's a stain.

INGRAHAM: Who lost.

WILLIAMS: You also have the other senator from Alabama, Richard Shelby saying he's not voting for Roy Moore and you have more allegations coming out. Real question is let's say he wins as you two are projecting that's a huge problem for President Trump because then he's going to be attached to Roy Moore.

Everything he says and does, his confrontations with Mitch McConnell and already, those two are butting heads. So, everything that he does, in addition to the possibility that he would be expelled if the Senate Ethics Committee would act.

And it's the RNC that's saying they're going to put money into the campaign tonight because they're controlled by the president, President Trump. But the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, they're not. Cory Gardner, the senator from Colorado --

INGRAHAM: Cory Gardner is like open borders, free markets.

WILLIAMS: You are so hard on Republicans that you don't like. Mitch McConnell is the Senate majority leader.

INGRAHAM: Let me tell, Juan. In 1987, I was 22 years old in Washington, D.C., and Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd, who I actually like as a person, I mean, a lot of rolling around on the floor in the restaurant with 20 something -- let's be honest here.

The Democrats tethered themselves to Democrats who were all over the place morally for years and held them up as the lions of the Senate, the great lions. Let alone someone who died in Chappaquiddick. Let's not talk about the moral barometer of the country.

WILLIAMS: I can't believe that Laura Ingraham would sit here -- you know, we are talking about a guy --

INGRAHAM: I say prayers there every time I go, father, son and holy spirit.

WILLIAMS: Was that a 14-year-old girl?

INGRAHAM: Is it a life? She's dead. I care to celebrate Christmas this year.

WILLIAMS: How about a 16-year-old who said -- come on, Laura.

INGRAHAM: The Democrats stood by Ted Kennedy, right? Dead. Couldn't swim a mile across the Chappaquiddick.

WILLIAMS: Is Ted Kennedy on the ballot or is Roy Moore on the ballot?

INGRAHAM: He ran for how many times. Did you vote for him when he was running for president?

WILLIAMS: No. Let me tell you my mother who is dead said that's it. I'm going to tell you, I can't believe that you and Evangelicals would now say --

INGRAHAM: I didn't endorse Roy Moore. I didn't endorse him. I endorse Mo Brooks, my man from the beginning. He was my guy. Go ahead.

CROWLEY: Politics is the art of the possible, and more often than not, purity is not involved in any way, shape or form.

INGRAHAM: Purity and politics.

CROWLEY: Doesn't really exist. So, voters have to make a choice, right? And it's really a choice between sort of black and white. There are shades of gray and what you're pointing out that the Democrats have had this long history of hypocrisy. That's right. But I think voters in Alabama are making a calculation and their choice does rest with them. They're saying wait a minute, Al Franken is still in the Senate.

WILLIAMS: A 14-year-old girl! That's not what Franken is charged with.

CROWLEY: I'm not excusing any kind of bad behavior. I'm talking about political calculations in political reality.

INGRAHAM: Got to get to something else. Chelsea Handler apparently is a comedienne and she says this. Do we have -- we have the spot? Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bob Harlett (ph) that they're dressing up and trolloping out every day. One day she has no make-up and the next she has six-foot long eyelashes, cleavage and summer lipstick all over her face. Can you believe what they've turned her into? A (inaudible).


INGRAHAM: First of all, did she turn the word trollop into a verb?

CROWLEY: Very nice.

INGRAHAM: Liberal women say they're for women, but they're really for liberal women.

CROWLEY: That's right.

INGRAHAM: They trash conservative women as Harlet. That's a good one, too. But the nastiest, most based comments. Your reaction?

CROWLEY: Picking on her looks. The way she dresses.

INGRAHAM: Never supposed to do that shaming.

CROWLEY: Right. Her hair, her make-up. Chelsea Handler positions herself as some sort of feminist. But that's what she just did to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, which is --

INGRAHAM: And did it to Paula Jones and Anita Broderick.

CROWLEY: She's failed at comedy because Netflix canceled her talk show. Rarely, rarely funny. So, she's got to try to remain relevant to her leftist peers, right? So, by going after an easy target like somebody in the Trump administration, that's how she thinks she's going to score.


WILLIAMS: I just it's tawdry. I like that word. You're really agitated, doxy.

INGRAHAM: Doxy, Harlet.

WILLIAMS: If you wanted to have issues with Sarah Sanders, I mean, yes, go ahead.

INGRAHAM: A lot of substantive things to talk about.

WILLIAMS: This is trashy.

INGRAHAM: Chelsea not lately. Great to see both of you and you don't want to miss what I have for you on the other side of this break. Leave it to "Time" magazine to celebrate some of the worst people in America.

And later, my advice to President Trump on how to honor the life of Kate Steinle and shame the city of San Francisco. Stay right here.


INGRAHAM: Goodie, Time magazine released its 2017 person of the year finalists on the "Today" Show. A few on their list, well, illegal alien DREAMers demanding citizenship, the "me too" movement, not a person, by the way, the #MeToo, and the kneeler in chief, quarterback Colin Kaepernick. And speaking of Kap, the ACLU honored him last night with their Courageous Advocate award. He offered this trenchant wisdom.


COLIN KAEPERNICK, FORMER NLF QUARTERBACK: We all have an obligation no matter the risk and regardless of reward to stand up for our fellow men and women who have been oppressed -- men and women who are being oppressed with the understanding that human rights cannot be compromised.


INGRAHAM: Wait, and kneeling during the anthem achieves any of that? Oh, OK. Well, suggestion to the ACLU and Time magazine -- I know of some really courageous advocates who never take a knee, maybe when they're proposing to their girlfriend or boyfriend. And since this year marks their 242nd birthday, they are the ideal person of the year. Try the Marines. Semper fi, baby.

It seems all of our institutions are capitulating, though, doesn't it, to this toxic culture, and perhaps even the military. Why am I saying that? Well, we'll find out in a moment. Joining us with that are two veterans with different perspectives on the issue, FOX News contributor Pete Hegseth, and in Atlanta, Democrat strategist, I'm talking like George H. W. Bush, Robin Biro.

Robin, let's start with you. Great to see you. So I goofed a little bit on Time person of the year. I think this is long past its usefulness at this point. Remember a few years ago it was you that was like the winner, you. I think the Internet. It's not even a person any more, it's just like a hash-tag or like a chair. Like Clint Eastwood's chair at the debate should have been the person of the year. So on this question of Kaepernick, though, do you -- do you really buy into that as a real game changer for this year?

ROBIN BIRO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, you know, if you look at the list, there's a lot of people on there that just -- this is basically some pop culture things. But I do have to say that with Kaepernick, I do appreciate that he's standing for his convictions. Anybody that does that I do respect and appreciate. I've had to do that. I've actually had to speak out against some people within the Democratic Party myself. And I had to stand for some convictions that could have caused me some repercussions, and it was uncomfortable. But, you know, you do what you feel you have to do morally, and at the end of the day, he did that. I respect his reasons.

He even had a special forces veteran consult with him on how to respectfully protest which was to take a kneel, which in the military, as my fellow panelist knows, that is a sign that you are injured.

INGRAHAM: Let Pete get in --

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. ARMY VETERAN: He may have been the one Green Beret that got it wrong. Anyone knows who has worn the uniform to stand for the National Anthem. He succeeded in getting fired, not getting rehired, muddying his cause, tanking NFL ratings, and maybe extorting the NFL for $90 million was an upside for him.

INGRAHAM: He wants to be playing football, doesn't he?

HEGSETH: He does. He threw too many interceptions, and ultimately, we don't really know what his cause was generally speaking. But when you look at -- when you look at this entire list, Kim Jong-un is on the list. He should get it this year because he will probably be dead next year.

INGRAHAM: Guys, the only person who should make it is Trump. Trump has turned the media upside down, has turned politics upside down whether you like him or not. How can it not be Trump?

HEGSETH: They're obsessed with him.

INGRAHAM: Well good. He should be the man of the year.

HEGSETH: He should be the man of the year, but it's the person of the year, Laura. And he ran against political correctness and that's part of the reason that he got elected. So let's remember even the name of the award itself is the reason why he's so successful.

INGRAHAM: Hey, Robin, I have to ask you a question about this and other issue that came up today. We weren't going to get into it but I do think it's pretty interesting. Now if you smoke pot it doesn't disqualify you from military service. And I know a lot of the kids have tried pot, and I'm not in favor of it but I know a lot of people have. They recruit about 80,000 people a year, I believe, into all the branches of the armed forces. Do you think this is a good thing, that it's like a slippery slope, it's lowering the standards or ain't no big deal as long as you're not toking up now?

BIRO: As a veteran ranger, I surveyed a bunch of my ranger buddies and mot all of them agree -- I did a poll on our little Facebook group of about 4,000 people and by and large, overwhelmingly they said as long as you didn't test positive when you're at MEPS, that they didn't see it as a reason to be service disqualifying because a lot of kids do this -- you have to consider the states that it's legalized in, and a lot of these guys want to join the military to change their lives and get back to society. I can respect that. So, you know, I understand the need for more waivers. There are so many high school students who don't qualify by body mass index standards, all of that.

INGRAHAM: You don't think that matters?

BIRO: We're trying to build up our military.

INGRAHAM: They're building up the wrong way. They're building up the width instead of the strength. That's the problem. We have a major obesity epidemic. Michelle Obama recognized that, and, unfortunately, it's really affecting recruiting.

HEGSETH: Very much so. The amount of guys --

INGRAHAM: Fat soldiers. It's tough.

HEGSETH: It's smaller than it used to be. We do live in a different culture, though, where marijuana is being legalized.

INGRAHAM: I'm totally against it, totally against it. Nightmare.

HEGSETH: I get that. But if you're some young kid in a state where it's legalized and you did it once or twice and you can't go to the military. The problem is prior performance is indicative of your future. And so if you're a pothead and you want to get to the military, why is the army lowering its standards, saying we want you in there?

INGRAHAM: What's the latest of of transgenderism in military? Trump now kicked over to Mattis and Mattis is kind squirreling with it.

HEGSETH: It's so in the middle of the bureaucracy at DOD. I think Trump wants to do the right thing. As with so many things, what will the bureaucracy try to change?

INGRAHAM: What are they afraid of?

HEGSETH: The social engineering has been ingrained, political practice has been ingrained into what our military does. So many great people that want to do good things but their incentives for their next promotion gets more political as you get higher to the top means that, you know, you go along to get along. I hope this administration will actually change that trend.

INGRAHAM: It's like hot potato.

HEGSETH: Don't want to touch it.

INGRAHAM: Robin, quick take on the transgender issue. What will ultimately happen with Mattis?

BIRO: Oh, that's -- we've been covering that for so long, and that's actually been the most controversial thing I've ever talked about on this network. I've been on this 200 times. I got more flak from that singular issue.

INGRAHAM: OK, OK, OK. You're cool. Tell us what you think is going to happen. We're out of time.

BIRO: OK, out of time, got it. It's going -- we're going to vet the ones that are currently in to see if they're able to serve. And I do believe they may put a ban on maybe the surgical procedure itself.

INGRAHAM: At least we don't pay for surgical procedures maybe, maybe the V.A. doesn't --

BIRO: We're on our way.

INGRAHAM: We appreciate both of you. Thank you both very much.

HEGSETH: Man of the year, Donald Trump.

INGRAHAM: Man of the year, Donald Trump. No doubt about it. He didn't give them an interview, though. Good for him. He's like, I'm not going to deal with but you can name me man of the year, person of the year, sorry.

And to bake or not to bake for a gay wedding? That's the question before the court tomorrow, the Supreme Court. So what happens when gays' rights clash with religious liberties? That and my memo to the president everybody is going to be talking about tomorrow. Don't move.


INGRAHAM: The Supreme Court found a right to gay marriage in the constitution a few years back. And now that's running right into the right of religious freedom and artistic expression. Now the court will try to figure out how to balance it all out when it hears a big case tomorrow involving a baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Joining us now to discuss, Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Ian Millhiser, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Jim, let's start with you because your association is actually involved in this big case at the court tomorrow. A gay couple says, look, we have a right to get married and this is a public establishment. Why can't we go in there and get a cake without being discriminated against? What do you say?

JIM CAMPBELL, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: Just because you have the right to get married doesn't mean you have the right to force someone else to participate in helping to celebrate it. And that's the thing about this case is you can support same sex marriage and support Jack Phillips, because whether you're on the right or you're on the left, everyone understands that no artist or creative professional should be forced to celebrate something that conflicts with their deep beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious or whether those beliefs are based on something else.

INGRAHAM: And, for instance, does a gay baker have to make a cake for a white supremacist organization? They have a right as white supremacist organization to exist, to gather together, to have meetings. They just don't have a right to be violent. So would that be fair to have a gay baker be forced to make a cake for that?

IAN MILLHISER, SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN PROGRESS: There's now law that says that white supremacists are what's called a protected class. So you have bunch of civil rights laws that say you can't engage in certain kinds of discrimination. You can't discriminate on the basis of race. You can't discriminate on the basis of religion. You can't discriminate on the basis of gender. In many states you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. There's no law saying that you can't discriminate against someone because they are racist. And so I think that that question is a bit of a red herring because --

INGRAHAM: We have a First Amendment right. My point is you have a First Amendment right, as reprehensible as that is, and you have the right to exercise it in any way you see fit. And if they want to have hors d'oeuvres or biscuits or cupcakes made and they want to go to an establishment just to force the case or force the issue, you will recognize our right to speak out or to have a rally even if you find it, again, underlying conduct reprehensible. You don't support it. It's a First Amendment right. That's a fairly absolute right in our constitution, is it not?

MILLHISER: You have a right if you want to be a bigot. You have a right to join a white supremacist group. But what you don't have is a law protecting you as a white supremacist.

INGRAHAM: You have the constitution protecting you, some people would say unfortunately given what's happened in Charlottesville. But you have a constitution protecting you.

And Jim, let's go to you on this. The problem is, I think, it goes from tolerance to you must agree with what we're doing. And that's where I guess the baker said, I'm happy to make other things or help out but it's just I don't want to put -- I guess he didn't want to put the two male figures on the top of the cake. That's where he drew the line on the figures, which I found kind of interesting.

CAMPBELL: Well, and the fact here are pretty clear. So they came into a shop. They asked if he could make a custom cake. And he said, listen, this is not something I can do. But I'll sell you anything else in the shop and I'll make a different cake for you for a different occasion. But because of my religious beliefs, this is just not something I can do. That's a very reasonable line, and the law should give him the space to do that.

But the other thing I would mention is, and you were talking before about who else are we going to force to do things? Here in D.C., one of the laws requires that businesses can't discriminate on the basis of political views. And so are we now going to force a Republican speechwriter to write for Hillary Clinton or are we going to force a Democrat speechwriter to write for Donald Trump? That just doesn't seem like the America that I want to live in.

INGRAHAM: All right, Ian, just really quickly, wrap it up.

MILLHISER: Sure. I mean, this issue with civil rights laws has been litigated and decided over and over again. In the 1960s, you had people who didn't want to serve black people. They claimed a First Amendment right. Supreme Court said no.

INGRAHAM: We'll see.

MILLHISER: In the 1980s --

INGRAHAM: We'll see if that court makes that same comparison. That is going to be the big issue for tomorrow, and I appreciate both of you. Unfortunately, we're out of time.

My friends, you're not going to want to miss my message on President Trump on how to really shame San Francisco in the wake of the Kate Steinle verdict. This is important Stay tuned.


INGRAHAM: Welcome back. How President Trump can honor Kate Steinle and shame San Francisco, that's the topic of tonight's bonus Angle.

President Trump has an enormous amount of discretion as chief executive, and one of his many unilateral powers seems small but it actually can be used for something big, as in sending a message to the cities and states across America who refuse to help the federal government enforce immigration law.

Now by now you've heard of the travesty of a jury verdict in that Kate Steinle murder case in which the accused killer, five times deported Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was convicted only on a minor gun possession charge, meaning the guy is going to likely be released soon due to time served. California, of course, is a state that says bienvenidos to all who cross its borders, so it's full on sanctuary status. Thus as in the case of Mr. Zarate, San Francisco did not honor the fed's request for an immigration detainer hold and so he was released. Shameful.

Now, one of his defense attorneys, Francisco Ugarte, had the utter gall to say this after his client received that slap on the wrist.


FRANCISCO UGARTE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: This case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division, and to foment a program of mass deportation. It was used to catapult a presidency along that philosophy of hate of others. And I believe today is a vindication for the rights of immigrants.


INGRAHAM: Notice how he conflates immigrants with illegal immigrants. That's the old trick. That's what they always pull. It's so transparent.

So you ask, what can we as Americans do? You would think that the election of Donald Trump last year would have been a wakeup call, but instead some of these cities are actually doubling down in favor of open borders, endless benefits, and more protections for illegals. Now certainly of course defunding sanctuary cities is an absolute must, and the House has already passed legislation to do just that. So the Senate needs to act really quickly, get it done.

But here's another idea. A simple Google search of "federal parks in San Francisco" lists several, including the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. That's not a particularly interesting name, is it, for a park that was establishment just in 1988. So I have an idea. Check it out. Suppose this week President Trump issues a presidential proclamation renaming that park Kate Steinle's park.

Now, would Nancy Pelosi then file suit to enjoin President Trump from having new signs posted? How about Governor Jerry Brown, would he oppose it, or that left winger San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee? The sign bearing the name of Ms. Steinle, just think about it, it would stand as a stark reminder that all lives matter even if some politicians in court seem to care more about the lives of illegal aliens than they do the lives of lawful citizens and legal immigrants to the United States. And that's the bonus Angle.

Up next, my close call with a prominent member of the media. Uh-oh, stay tuned.


INGRAHAM: Finally tonight, let's face it, we've all been there -- a long bus ride or flight when everyone around you starts getting a little too comfy. Loosening their belts, talking loudly on the phone like it's not amplified, brushing their hair. Then you hear that click, click, click, and they are clipping their nails across the aisle from you. I kid you not. I've seen it all.

Well, commuters took matters into their own hands on a bus in India last week on one passenger, he name was Prakash Kumar, 27 years of age, not only took off his shoes but his socks too. According to the BBC, the stench -- I can't even get through this. The stench emanating from these moist metatarsals was so foul that his fellow passengers asked him to put the dogs back in the kennel or to throw away the socks altogether. Well, he declined, and the bus diverted to a police station where he was promptly arrested.

Coincidently shortly after seeing this story, I talked about it on the radio this morning, I ran into a certain, very affable, well-known member of the news media on the Acela train up to New York from Washington. Now, as he walked past my seat, there you see him, he was happy as a clam. I looked down and I couldn't help but notice this. Those are pink-orange socks I think. You've heard about snakes on a plane. I give you socks on a train. I'm happy to report there was no derailment, no stop at the police station. So who do you think this was, the sock masquerader? Tweet me your guesses @IngrahamAngle or Facebook.

That's all the time tonight. We'll be right here tomorrow from New York. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team are up next. Shannon, don't you dare guess, but I want you to text me later.

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.