Should Mueller resign amid revelations of possible bias?

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 5, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: And good evening from New York. Welcome to "The Ingraham Angle."

Explosive and exclusive new information will put further pressure on special prosecutor Bob Mueller to resign. That's the focus of tonight's angle.

Last night, we brought you a disturbing and revealing report about FBI investigator Peter Strzok, who was relieved of his duties in the Mueller office after it was revealed that he texted anti-Trump messages during the 2016 presidential debate.

Previously, Strzok had been a top investigator on the Hillary Clinton email probe and was responsible for watering down the language. Then-FBI Director Comey use to describe Mrs. Clinton's handling of classified information on her private email server, isn't that neat?

The original language called her grossly negligent, which by the way can be a criminal violation of the applicable statute. But it was changed by Strzok to merely extremely careless. Once again, Hillary ends up skating for conduct that would have put any of us behind bars.

You see, Strzok was kind of a Forrest Gump of the FBI but without any of the endearing qualities. Why do I say that? He was present during Hillary's one and only interview with the FBI. He was an agent who interviewed Hillary's longtime aids, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. And then he helped grill former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on January 24th.

So I have a question, what the heck was Strzok's magic touch? Why have all of the hundreds of lawyers in the FBI, was he always so lucky to get these plum assignments? Well, I think we all know why.

As a weird aside to this whole fiasco, if you go to Strzok's Wikipedia page, it reads that the website is considering his whole page for deletion. That's a bit odd, don't you think? As far as the media go, well, they spent the day either ignoring or downplaying Strzok's conflict of interest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Mr. Strzok, this FBI agent in charge, it doesn't change anything, the one that has been removed from the investigation. It doesn't change anything.

SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND LEGAL ANALYST: The notion that FBI agents or people who work on behalf of the government aren't supposed to have any political feelings or any political biases, you know, that's a little bit of an overstatement right there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is politicization here. But this is the president continuing to go after American law enforcement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: OK, I have a question, will the media be able to downplay all of Mueller's other tainted investigators? The conflicts in the Mueller shop don't stop with Strzok. According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, former head of DOJ's criminal fraud division Andrew Weissmann emailed acting attorney general Sally Yates praising her for refusing to enforce Trump's travel ban in court.

On January 30th, shortly after Trump fired her, Weissmann wrote, "I'm so proud and in all. Thank you so much. All of my deepest respect, Andrew Weissmann." Oh, isn't that sweet?

So naturally when the time came to choose his deputy, special counsel Mueller chose Weissmann, who was also his former partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler. Think about it. Weissmann chosen to be the number two guy on an investigation that could lead to the impeachment of the President of the United States given those statements, when he was on the record celebrating Yates.

Remember, she was an instant hero of the left because she refused to enforce that same President's lawful executive order. My friends, we are talking willful defiance of the chief executive officer of the United States. Trump is their boss. It's simple, folks. Weissmann must be removed from the Mueller team because of the apparent and real conflict of interest his presence represents.

And finally, our exclusive report on yet another Mueller prosecutor who's compromised, this time because of her alliances to the Obama White House. Meet Jeannie Rhee. She was hired by Mueller in early June and also a partner of Weissmann and also of Mueller's old law firm Wilmer Cutler.

Previously, she was a deputy assistant AG in the Office of Legal Counsel for Obama and that meant she gave official legal advice to the Obama White House on policy. But that's not even the most interesting part of the story. We've learned exclusively from sources on Capitol Hill that just weeks before joining the special prosecutor's team, Rhee was the personal attorney of former deputy Obama national security advisor Ben Rhodes and was in fact his point of contact with the House Intel Committee in its investigation into Russia.

Now, she didn't actually appear with Rhodes at his closed-door interview last spring, but that was only because by then she was already working with Mueller.

And did I forget to mention that she also represented the Clinton Foundation and donated about $9,000 to Hillary and her fellow Democrats? Once again, another member of the Mueller team has been exposed for brazen partisanship, which at the very least, very least, represents the appearance of a conflict of interest if not an actual one.

Let's face it. What we're seeing here is a pattern and practice of Mueller hiring known Clinton and Obama political insiders and boosters, supporters, to undo a presidential election. That was the election of Donald Trump.

But what's the common denominator of the three amigos here? Well, they all hate Trump. But more than that, they're political adversaries. Given the gravity of the situation, given all that is at stake for America, Robert Mueller needed to assemble a team of unassailable professionals. They needed to run that investigation professionally and without any question. Instead, as we're documenting night after night, what Mueller did, he hired a pedigree team of obvious partisans, a revolving door from working for political opponents of Trump to working on the investigation into Trump and his supposed Russian ties.

What a total travesty. They should all step aside. They should all go back to their old law firm, their old buddies there, including Bob Mueller. And that's the angle.

Joining us now for reaction in Raleigh, North Carolina Sol Wisenberg, who is number two attorney on the Bill Clinton Whitewater investigation, and in Washington, Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein.

All right, Sol, let's start with you. I had fairly harsh words tonight after we learned more about Jeannie Rhee and her association -- her past association with Ben Rhodes, the personal attorney for Rhodes, representing him in these contacts with the House Intel Committee. Obviously, Andrew Weissmann, Peter Strzok, the list seems to go on and on, every day we learn more. What's your take?

SOLOMON L. WISENBERG, FORMER DEP. INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, WATERGATE INVESTIGATION: Well, I don't believe Mueller should resign. I don't think there's a case for him resigning yet, but I'm very concerned about the Strzok situation. He never should have been picked to be the FBI lead agent on that investigation because number one, as you pointed out, there's a conflict of interest since he was the lead agent working on the Hillary email investigation, and don't forget this, he's a witness now too, Laura.

There is an IG's investigation of the Hillary email server investigation and there are congressional investigations. And don't --

INGRAHAM: Sol, I got to jump in here.

WISENBERG: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Mueller is supposed to be -- we're going to play this montage in a moment for Richard as well. This guy of unassailable character, is the best of the best to do this investigation. We have three ranked partisans working on this investigation, Rhee, Weissmann, and Strzok. It's not that they're just Democrats, that's fine. But they were actively working for political opponents of President Trump and apparently there's no issue with Mueller to actually reveal this to the public. We have to find it out through our reporting on Capitol Hill.

WISENBERG: How do you know that Strzok was working for his opponents? I've got a real problem with Strzok being on the case because of conflicts of interest. I have a real problem -- I just heard the stuff today about Mr. Rhee and I'm blown away by that. And I think that's very disturbing. I don't think she should have been hired.

INGRAHAM: Hold on. Strzok was sending an email -- Strzok was sending texts to his I guess mistress back during the debates, who also worked on the investigation we understand and that --

WISENBERG: Yes, but that was really dumb.

INGRAHAM: Right. But, Sol, here's --

WISENBERG: -- but you know and I know -- sorry, go ahead.

INGRAHAM: No. All I'm saying -- yes, I'm saying --

WISENBERG: -- you know and I know --

INGRAHAM: Let me just say --

WISENBERG: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Here's the problem. This is not a run-of-the-mill investigation. Richard, I want you to get on this. Not a run-of-the-mill allegation, don't be exasperated, Richard, you get plenty of time, I've known you forever, I never shortchange you. This has to be an unassailable team. This could not be a team of political adversaries of the President. That doesn't sit well with people and it casts doubt on the integrity of this investigation, the appearance of a political conflict of interest, Richard, your response.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes. This is not James Carville running this investigation. Bob Mueller was picked by Reagan, Bush one and Bush two from very important federal law enforcement decisions, right?

Andrew Weissmann took on the Genovese and Gambino and Camino families and the Enron prosecution. This is the kind of guy we want. And incidentally, if you and people watching here think that Donald Trump did nothing wrong, this is exactly the kind of team headed by Mueller that you should want to stay there. And as far as this -- incidentally, I worked at Wilmer Cutler some time ago. I happen not to know them. I'd left before they were there.

Look, if we're going to somehow impute every lawyer what their client may or may not have did, look again, Ben Rhodes could be interviewed by the House. Unless every lawyer, Laura, was hired by Mueller worked for the federalist society, I doubt you'd be happy. I doubt it.

INGRAHAM: No, no, that's not what we're talking about. Sol, you can jump in here. You can jump up.

(CROSSTALK)

GOODSTEIN: One second, Sol. One second, Sol. Sol, one second, please. Sol, listen, Neil Gorsuch made contributions to the Republican National Committee.

INGRAHAM: That is --

GOODSTEIN: His contributions to Republican candidates. So this notion that somehow --

INGRAHAM: He's not leading -- Richard, Richard, let me --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Guys, one at a time, it's not going to work. Here's what -- one at a time. This is how it would go down if the shoe were on the other foot. If we had a fact pattern involving a Democrat being investigated like Hillary Clinton on the email server with a Republican with these types of text messages and representation, the left would be raising holy hell about it and I would say maybe for good reason because you cannot have a big special prosecution as we're seeing right now with a gaggle of partisans who are adversaries working weather for the Clinton Foundation, working for Ben Rhodes, working for all these different people.

Sol, go ahead.

WISENBERG: And he was removed, Laura. He was immediately -- he was removed immediately as soon as they expect thing out.

INGRAHAM: What about Weissmann? What about Rhee? They're both working for the investigation.

GOODSTEIN: Listen, you haven't made a case for Weissmann being unqualified or having a conflict of interest--

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: You want me to lay it out for you?

GOODSTEIN: But the Rhee thing is significant.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

GOODSTEIN: The Rhee thing is significant. The Rhee thing is extremely significant and Mueller should have known better and he should have known better not to have this guy head the investigation.

(CROSSTALK)

GOODSTEIN: Sol, Sol, listen to me, don't filibuster. I've got news for you, Sol. Listen to me.

WISENBERG: Hold on.

GOODSTEIN: Listen to me.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: One at a time.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Let Richard get in.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Guys, let Richard get in. Go ahead.

WISENBERG: By two to one the American public thinks Donald Trump is dishonest, not -- is reckless and not stable. So if there happens to be somebody who works for Mueller who shares the view that Donald Trump is not a peachy guy, guess what, he's like two-thirds of the public.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

WISENBERG: And it's rich -- excuse me. It's rich to say --

GOODSTEIN: I don't have a problem with that.

WISENBERG: One second.

GOODSTEIN: I don't have a problem with that.

WISENBERG: It is -- listen to me.

INGRAHAM: Yes, yes.

WISENBERG: It is rich when James Comey broke the rules to have his press conference attacking Hillary --

(CROSSTALK)

WISENBERG: -- broke the roles by issuing the October 28th letter and did nothing to inform the American public about the Russians helping Trump.

INGRAHAM: OK. One more point into Sol here, one more point because we're running way over. Sol, here's the problem. Weissmann --

WISENBERG: That's a non-issue. The point is --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Guys, guys.

GOODSTEIN: Wait a second, I thought it was my turn.

INGRAHAM: Yes, let me --

GOODSTEIN: The people --

INGRAHAM: Go ahead.

GOODSTEIN: The people on the left in the media who are complaining that Mueller is being unfairly attacked should look in the mirror, because you mentioned James Carville. He set the playbook, he said, and I quote, "Ken Starr is one mistake away from having his kneecaps busted." And that was a man who was regularly invited to the White House.

So I don't like all the stuff that is happening to Mueller. I don't think Mueller should resign, but they're taking the Clinton playbook. And let me tell you, it's coming back to bite them.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, a lot more to say on this, but unfortunately we're way over. Thank you both for joining us, Richard and Sol.

And my friends, you will not believe who is about to move real immigration reform on Capitol Hill, and which Republicans are gumming up the works. Stay right here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's another Trump win that you probably haven't heard about. Some big immigration numbers to share with you tonight and the growing prospect of ending chain migration once and for all, thank goodness. First, look at these numbers, the most complete statistical snapshot of immigration enforcement under President Trump. Border patrol arrests have plunged to a 45-year low, down from -- down 24% from just a year ago. And meanwhile, arrests of illegals inside the country jumped by 40% since Trump took office and it gets better.

Now for the first time there is a serious effort underway in the Senate to end chain migration. This comes directly on the heels of my interview last week with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Remember, I was the first want to get him to say that chain migration needs to come to an end.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The President has said he's open to a DACA deal. Tom Cotton, Senator Purdue have this idea of the RAISE Act which would have a whole bunch of things, including ending chain migration.

MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Yes, I agree with Cotton and Purdue. I'm in favor of doing something on the DACA front but I don't think we should just do that, chain migration, doing something about the diversity lottery. There are plenty of changes to the legal immigration system that should be added to any kind of a DACA fix that we do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHA: Joining us now to discuss immigration legislation and a lot more, former Energy secretary, ambassador to the U.N., Democratic governor of New Mexico, it's a long resume, Bill Richardson.

Governor Richardson, it's great to see you after all this time. Let's talk about chain migration. I know when you were in Congress I believe you were in favor of chain migration and you voted for, I think it was the Chrysler- Berman Amendment, was in favor of the chain migration system. Are you still in favor of chain migration given how it was exponentially expanded immigration in the United States?

BILL RICHARDSON, D-FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO: Well, you know what I'm a little troubled, Laura, is that I do believe that family-based migration through existing immigration laws is good. I think there are some areas like this lottery system that needs to be reformed. I mean I'd get rid of that. I think this situation with the young woman that was killed, I was troubled by the verdict in that case.

But I think what we need -- yes, I mean I think what we need to focus on is this. Let's find a way, for instance, you know what the H-1B visas are. These are highly skilled individuals that are working in the United States that want to stay here, that were educated here --

INGRAHAM: Right, but we're not talking about that. We're not talking about H-1B right now. We're talking about chain migration.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: But this is something different. I want everyone who's watching, you got to pay attention to what we're talking about. Every legal immigrant who comes into the United States for instance, this is just one country, from Mexico. Brings on average, this is a government statistic, six family members. Every two legal immigrants that have green cards so forth citizen bring in seven. Every two seven Mexican six.

This has exploded the number of immigrants into the United States, which is not a merit-based system. The idea that you can bring in adult children because you came in on an H-1B is preposterous. That's not what the original idea of immigration in the United States. It was for work, it was for merit, and, you know, we don't have a burgeoning manufacturing base back yet at least, Governor Richardson. We don't -- you know, the idea that we're desperate for family-based immigration, doesn't wash with anybody. Not even a political issue, I don't think.

RICHARDSON: Well, Laura, then I don't agree with you, because I think family-based immigration --

INGRAHAM: What does that mean?

RICHARDSON: You unify the family. It basically means that your sponsor --

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARDSON: You sponsor somebody --

INGRAHAM: The whole family?

RICHARDSON: -- in your family, it promotes family reunification.

INGRAHAM: But what about the American family?

RICHARDSON: -- that provides legacy, it integrates communities. What do you mean the American families? We're all a nation of immigrants.

INGRAHAM: OK, that's a cliche.

RICHARDSON: We're all a nation of immigrants.

INGRAHAM: Cliches don't work very well on this show.

RICHARDSON: What is merit-based? You just want engineers?

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Governor, Governor, why is it the --

RICHARDSON: You just want teachers? You want family members.

INGRAHAM: Why is it the American worker -- why should the American worker of Latino descent, of European descent, wherever you came from, why is it their responsibility to import entire families, frankly, in a lot of these cases, extended families, into the United States at a time where we've had wages flatling in the African-American community and the Latino community, why is that an obligation of the American citizen?

RICHARDSON: Well, what is merit-based immigration mean?

INGRAHAM: That doesn't mean being an adult kid of an immigrant.

RICHARDSON: I'd rather -- wouldn't you rather have family members come? Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans. It's not just Latinos. You're just making it minorities. It's everybody. And the unit of the nucleus and reunification --

INGRAHAM: That nuclear. Nuclear. Yes, nuclear. Husband, wife and children under 18, not adult children, aunts, uncles, grandparents. That's what we're talking about.

Obama was in India -- actually he was in France and India over the last week or so. I want to play a sound bite for you, very short of something he said, he was talking about climate change. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: If this did not solve climate change, but it provided us with a framework in which for the first time almost every nation in the world agreed that this was a problem.

Now, I grant you that the moment we have a temporary absence of American leadership on the issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Governor, whether you're Republican or Democrat, a former president of United States going overseas and talking about the absence of American leadership. You support that?

RICHARDSON: Listen, Laura, President Trump criticizes President Obama every day. It's been a tradition of American presidents to stay silent. Obama has been silent. He was talking overseas. I go overseas all the time. You know what they asked me, Laura? They say why is President Trump leaving the Paris agreement?

INGRAHAM: Growing the American economy?

RICHARDSON: Why is he negative on the Trans-Pacific partnership?

INGRAHAM: Because it killed American jobs.

RICHARDSON: Why did he want to pull out of NATO? Why does he want to find ways that -- internationally, those are the questions that come forth, Laura. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, 12 countries, he pulls out, China is now leading. NATO in the same way. Scorns the Europeans, the Germans, makes no sense.

INGRAHAM: So you think --

RICHARDSON: So you get questions like that. I think Obama has been very restrained in his criticism. He's been criticized by Democrats and others.

INGRAHAM: So you actually think -- Governor, you actually think that American leadership on the world stage was at its apex during Obama for the last nine years? We had Benghazi, we had the Middle East inflames, we had -- we got rid of Mubarak, we got Kaddafi, we had the rise of the Muslim brotherhood, the rise of ISIS. Everything that happened, that was all copasetic with you? Trump is the problem?

RICHARDSON: President Obama was a good foreign policy president. He won a Nobel Prize --

INGRAHAM: In his first five seconds in office. He should give it back.

RICHARDSON: -- and Afghanistan. He we were respected overseas. He opened the relationship with Cuba. I think he was a very good foreign policy president and President Trump is an isolationist. He's a nationalist.

INGRAHAM: Oh my gosh.

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARDSON: I travel all the time. We are getting criticized by everybody.

INGRAHAM: Governor, the people watching Fox right now, the fact that a bunch of European elites at conferences you attend and speak to, I mean I'm sure they're fun, I'm sure the food is good. But the fact that European elites and other elite foreign policy gurus around the world are criticizing the President, they used to do it to Ronald Reagan for whom I used to work. They did it to him relentlessly. He's going to blow up the world, turned out to be one of the greatest presidents of all time.

I'm not saying Trump is Reagan but the elites did it to Reagan morning, noon at night. But I love having you on the show and it's great to see you again as always.

RICHARDSON: All right.

INGRAHAM: And I want to score one by the way for the swamp drainers, the longest-serving member of Congress is finally calling it quits, brought down by a groping scandal. But a lot more going on with the culture of corruption on the Hill. We're going to expose it. You don't want to miss it, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The longest-serving member of Congress, Democrat John Conyers of Michigan, finally threw in the towel and resigned today, but only after yet another employee, the fourth so far accused the congressman of sexual assault. But even after the shocking accusations, Conyers is showing no sense of shame.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN CONYERS, D-MICH.: My legacy can't be compromised or diminished in any way by what we are going through now. This too shall pass. But I want you to know that my legacy will continue through my children.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yes, even as he leaves in disgrace, Conyers is trying to make it a family affair, endorsing his son, John Conyers III, to run and replace him in Congress. So is that the district of Congress Conyers personal fiefdom now, a mini dynasty without Blake and Krystle? I guess for Democrats corruption is just another perk of office.

And while we're on the trail of disgraced Democrats, remember Congressman William Jefferson? Investigators found $90,000 in very cold cash in the refrigerator of his New Orleans home. He was released just days ago, serving only five years of a 13 year sentence, the longest ever given to a member of Congress.

And then my favorite, there's former Florida congresswoman Corrine Brown convicted of stealing from a charity. That's the Christmas spirit. Brown is still unrepentant and even as she prepares to begin serving a five-year prison sentence next month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Half-truths and witch hunt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a lot of questions about where the money is gone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't have any questions. I have no questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the public has a lot of questions.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, no, no, you may have a lot of questions because you haven't done any research.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Is this the end of the Democratic Party, an opening for Republicans? Joining us now to discuss here in the studio, Rich Lowry, editor of "National Review," and Democratic strategist and radio talk show host Clay Cane. We are also going to get more into this immigration issue because something is happening in the House that a lot of people don't like.

Rich, that's quite a trio of fun in the Democrat Party. Conyers is amazing because all these stories keep coming out, he is running out in his pajamas, boxer shorts, no boxer shorts, hand up, down the skirt. And now it's John Conyers III. What happened to the second? I guess he is the second, so the third, just step right in?

RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW: Yes. So he treated this office as his personal harem. One of the latest allegations is that he was feeling a woman up at church. And now he thinks it's appropriate to hand the seat over to his son, but his great-nephew has something to say about this. He also wants to run for this seat. So I think the one thing this district does not need is anyone else named Conyers as a congressman.

INGRAHAM: Clay, do you think the Conyers name should continue in perpetuity in this particular district? Why should he just be able to name his successor? Democrat or Republican, this is just a travesty that this man is going off 55 years later, 53 years later.

CLAY CANE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You're talking about nepotism and it's just kind of laughable to me when you have Jared Kushner as the senior presidential advisor, when you have Ivanka Trump sitting in with meetings when it comes to China.

INGRAHAM: Do you think have any brainpower? And Conyers, listen to them, the man can put a sentence together.

CANE: You are talking about nepotism, you talk about John Conyers, you should also talk about Donald Trump. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

INGRAHAM: Were you alive in what was it, 1967?

CANE: I wasn't. I think he should've stepped down.

INGRAHAM: You weren't alive?

CANE: I wasn't. What can I do? But I think he should step. But he's just endorsing people. It will be up to the people of Michigan to decide, just like they say with Roy Moore, who has this moral higher ground up to the folks of Alabama to decide. It's laughable to me when you talk about - -

INGRAHAM: If Roy Moore steps aside.

CANE: Which he should.

INGRAHAM: OK, fine, fine. Let's say hypothetically he steps aside, and he says my son Roy Moore Jr. should run for this seat and we should move forward. You would be ridiculing him because it's patently ridiculous. Who cares Republican and Democrat, it's ridiculous.

CANE: But what is laughable is the fact that you have the governor of Alabama saying that I believe the woman but I still feel like Roy Moore should be in the Senate.

LOWRY: So a key difference here is if Roy Moore loses this race, the Republicans are giving up a Senate seat.

CANE: He won't lose.

LOWRY: John Conyers, there will be a liberal Democrat who will vote exactly the same way. And there is this enormous angst and consternation whether they should ask this guy to go who treated his office as his personal harem for his personal sexual gratification.

CANE: And Trump as president of the United States --

(CROSSTALK)

CANE: He's been accused of sexual harassment by 12 different women. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

INGRAHAM: You honestly cannot compare the current allegations against Conyers with what came up in the October last-minute in the campaign. Are you comparing both of those?

CANE: What I'm saying, Laura, is that corruption is across the board.

INGRAHAM: The people spoke, it was called the election.

CANE: Absolutely, and people will speak in Michigan. Listen, I don't endorse his son, but if he wants to do that, it's up to him. Across the board, corruption is not a Democrat or Republican thing. Chris Christie, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, you brought up all those people. You have the Republican Party as well. Larry Craig, if you want to go old school, if you will. It goes across the board.

INGRAHAM: Larry Craig? Nobody's remembering that.

CANE: I'm just saying I'm going old-school for you.

INGRAHAM: You know what I find interesting is that the Democrats on so many issues claim that the Republicans are always claiming the moral high ground, and on some I'm sure they are.

CANE: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: However, the Democrats on issue after issue, the environment, they care more than anyone else. The immigration they care more than anyone else. Women, this is the best, they are pro-women, and Republicans are always apparently waging war against women.

But we have example after example of Democrat lions, I'm talking Ted Kennedy rolling under the table as the restaurant going back to 1987. And you know what people say about him, our previous guess, I didn't hit him with it, Bill Richardson. He was a mentor -- and let me finish, he was a mentor and the man was a giant. There was a huge void left by Ted Kennedy. A lot of people fill that void, other harassers.

LOWRY: It's the same thing with Bill Clinton. And it's not just that some Democrats came out, a few, and said he should've resigned 20 years ago. They could have said that 20 years ago. They could have said it last year. And it wasn't until the Clintons were no longer of any political use to them that they began to try to be consistent.

CANE: He was impeached for lying.

LOWRY: And Democrats opposed it.

CANE: Some Democrats --

LOWRY: They all did.

CANE: But to act like there isn't sexism in the Republican Party is laughable.

(CROSSTALK)

LOWRY: Bill Clinton should never be invited to another Democratic Convention again. Hillary Clinton, who enabled him, never should be part of polite company every again if you are being consistent.

CANE: Hold on one second. If you're being consistent, you were an anti- Trump guy for a very long time. Then you wrote this great article allegedly and politically praising from. So I think you should be consistent as well.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: OK, they are all good points. I want to make one point and we are way over. This chain migration issue, which we hit with Richardson, Mitch McConnell has now moved to the right. Trump has changed Mitch McConnell on this issue of expanding chain migration. Paul Ryan is slow- walking in the House of Representatives. McConnell and Ryan, can they come together on this?

LOWRY: I hope so.

INGRAHAM: At least on this one issue?

LOWRY: The needle on this issue has moved, and this is something I've given credit to Trump about all along, that he's been right on this and the establishment of the party hasn't. And if they can get a trade for a DACA codification for an end to chain migration or drastically diminishing it, that's a very good thing.

INGRAHAM: Do it every day of the week. Guys, great to have you one. It was a family feud in a way, but I loved it. I love it. Great to see you both.

And up next, a stunning new example of the press maybe admitting kind of sort of biased against that guy, the president. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Are the media now the resistance to the president and his agenda? Is that a trick question? ABC News has suspended correspondent Brian Ross for botching a Mike Flynn report, mistakenly saying that candidate Trump directed Flynn to make contact with the Russians when it was actually president-elect Trump who made the request, small minor detail.

And anyone who has ever seen CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta in action knows he's on a mission to dump Trump. Acosta admitted as much at a journalism summit yesterday. He initially said reporters are not a part of the resistance, but then he added when journalists are attacked, journalists have to resist. Sounds like the resistance to me. Acosta was back on his high horse at the White House today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Isn't there a moral decision that you're making here?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: As I said, we find allegations very troubling, and again, this is up to the people of Alabama to make that decision. I'm not a voter in Alabama and can't make that decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Isn't there a moral dimension to all this, the press lecturing us about morals. Joining us now, Joe Concha of The Hill to react. Joe, great to see you. I always love these reporters getting up there and talking about morality and things. Acosta, let's start with him, because he is relentless on his bashing of Trump in my view. What's your take on the resistance? Is it a resistance or is it just they want to be vindicated after all their poor predictions in 2016?

JOE CONCHA, THE HILL: I don't think the press is very used to being attacked where the president is actually exercising his First Amendment right, which is all he's doing. In Jim Acosta's case, I'm going to complement him right now. In fact I'm going to say that he should be a competitor to you. He should not be a White House correspondent. He's an opinion guy. He is passionate about social justice issues, about immigration. He doesn't mind mixing it up, good looking guy. I say put them in prime time, make him an opinion host.

INGRAHAM: Is this a love connection?

CONCHA: No, I'm just saying --

INGRAHAM: I'm just saying.

CONCHA: A White House reporter should be asking questions and reporting and not opining.

INGRAHAM: That's a good idea. He would be a good pundit on any cable network.

CONCHA: I say even make him a host.

INGRAHAM: They blur the lines, though. The lines are blurred for journalist, have been for some time. The Brian Ross thing affected the stock market. The stock market tanked after that report.

CONCHA: It was 350 points the stock market went down. And here's the problem with the Brian Ross report.

INGRAHAM: It's not his first time.

CONCHA: Oh, no, no. He had said that anthrax definitely came from Iraq to 2001 to Tom Daschle's office. Ari Fleischer begged him as press secretary, please don't go with that. It turned out not to be true. He said James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado, the shooter, that horrible movie theater shooting, it turned out --

INGRAHAM: This is what I'm saying. Members of the press can get it wrong year after year where they don't see the internet bubble crashing or the housing bubble crashing. They make all these predictions about the Middle East that are wrong, China trade, wrong. Rise of China, missed that. And they just keep going like there's never any wins or losses, you are wrong 90 percent of the time. There should be a rating, how often are you wrong in your predictions underneath you when you're speaking.

CONCHA: A very powerful person in this business says that reporters are a lot like weatherman. They can get it wrong all the time and all they do --

INGRAHAM: One more thing. Jeff Zucker was out a 2008 roast, he was talking about Matt Lauer. We have a full screen of the quote. Jeff Zucker used to be executive producer of the "Today" show, now the president of CNN. He said "It's just good to see Matt up here and not under my desk. I don't want to say Matt is a germophobe, but he's the only guy I know who uses Purell both before and after he -- not saying the word. But you see it on the screen. Nothing about the ways of Matt Lauer, is that believable? They are best buds for three decades?

CONCHA: This is a tough one. Matt Lauer's promiscuity was a central theme that night. The jokes were funny to some, not all. Joe Scarborough said he had to leave because even for a New York roast it was bad. The dot you can't connect, however, is to say that somehow that Zucker or Andy Lack or anybody over at NBC was an enabler of harassment. They knew that Lauer slept around. They know he was a morally bad guy, but to say that they know about the bad things he was doing, possibly illegal, I can't make that connection.

INGRAHAM: What about the whole galaxy of these media stars? Obviously this network has been affected, Charlie Rose is gone. Matt Lauer is gone. Weinstein is gone, Brett Ratner in Hollywood. Ben Affleck, Kevin Spacey.

CONCHA: Louis C.K.

INGRAHAM: But then Hollywood puts out movies of, and there's a new movie, come see my name, Raymond, what's the name of it. And it's getting all these awards where a 17-year-old boy is in a relationship with a 24-year- old man. And this is getting all these awards and accolades, pre-Oscar buzz.

CONCHA: The movie was made before the Weinstein effect.

INGRAHAM: But it's being praised today.

CONCHA: Yes, I totally get that.

INGRAHAM: And its Armie Hammer, he's the sexy new thing. And it's being - - this is the new film that seems to normalize conduct of an adult with an underage individual, doesn't matter if they're two man or a man and a woman. This is what they are putting out in Hollywood.

CONCHA: Are you saying on "The Ingraham Angle" that Hollywood is actually being hypocritical on an issue like this or on guns or anything else?

INGRAHAM: They are what they produce. You produce material that speaks to a certain sexual promiscuity or deviancy, and that's what ends up.

CONCHA: I know you've got to go, but at the Golden Globes or the Academy Awards when we hear all the moral lectures given to us, they are going to fall flat, aren't they?

INGRAHAM: Yes, absolutely.

Up next -- thanks, Joe. Up next, the answer to last night's burning question about who I ran into on slam track -- I'm sorry, Amtrak yesterday. Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: I know you've been waiting for this all show, an answer to last night's burning question. Who was this well-known shoeless member of the media I spotted on the train up to New York yesterday? I asked for your guesses and they came pouring in. Paul Boone, right? It looks like CNN's Jeff Zucker, that bastion of honesty. David Sutton tweets "I say the man walking with socks on the train is Chris Stirewalt." He would never, he's very proper. Cathy writes "Bruce Willis' next filming of the Diehard movie." Zach, replies, "Ari Fleischer." And finally Kathy E. says "looks like Brian Stelter," CNN.

Well, Kathy, pat yourself on the back for knowing your media figures. I will figure out a way to get you "Billionaire at the Barricades." It was in fact CNN's Brian Stelter. At first I was worried he was not amused by my ribbing because he tweeted out, "Hey, I will admit to having sore feet if Laura admits to taking creep shots." For the record, I did not take that shot, but someone on the train did and they forwarded it to me.

To be fair to Mr. Media, you've got to be fair to him, he did tell one Twitter user that he thought it was funny. So thanks for being a good sport, Brian. A polite request, though, for the sake of social order, please, even with those cute little orange socks of yours, please keep your shoes on in public, OK? It's not your bedroom. We will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Kate Steinle Park, sure has a nice ring to it, doesn't it. My suggestion on "The Ingraham Angle" last night was that President Trump should rename San Francisco's Maritime National Park in honor of Kate Steinle who was shot and killed in 2015 by an illegal immigrant. What do you think? What do you think the president should do on this? Keep your responses coming. They've been overwhelming. And we are going to stay on this. We want that park named after Kate Steinle. It's the least we could do.

That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream is up next, and I hope she has her shoes on. Do you, 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.