Glenn Greenwald on malfeasance in the mainstream media

close

Video

Glenn Greenwald on malfeasance in the mainstream media

On 'The Ingraham Angle,' journalist discusses the botched CNN story.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 11, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening from Washington. This is "The Ingraham Angle."

It's been a big news day here in the nation's capital and in New York City where an ISIS follower botched a terror attack, a pipe bomb strapped to his chest malfunctioned after detonation at the Port Authority subway station, one of the city's main transportation.

Surprise, surprise, he got into America via -- wait for it -- chain migration. So, isn't it time to ditch this dangerous policy finally? I'm going to ask Univision anchor, Jorge Ramos, what he thinks of the chain migration debate in light of today's event.

And with accusations of partisanship surrounding the Mueller investigation, former federal prosecutor, Andy McCarthy, will be here to explain how the Mueller probe may be missing the most important Russia story of all.

But first, the media's desperate attempt to divert attention from their repeated screw-ups. That is the subject of tonight's Angle. It wasn't just another fake news story attempting to tie President Trump to Russia. CNN's disgraceful reporting of last week seems like a watershed moment.

A blatant example of the establishment media's reckless coverage of the so- called Russia collusion story. On Friday, you'll recall CNN reported that Wikileaks tried to share hack documents with the Trump campaign and Don Trump Jr. back in September of 2016.

That report was quickly picked up by other news organizations. But it turned out, those documents had already been made public and the dates of the Don Jr. e-mails by CNN were false. The bombshell quickly blew up in CNN's face.

CNN never retracted the story, but took five hours to post a correction after it was debunked. On Sunday, the host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," Brian a.k.a. "Shulet" (ph) Stelter refused to explain how the network got the story so wrong.

Instead, he trotted out that old Watergate dinosaur, Carl Bernstein, and the perpetual Trump critic, David Fromm, who both ignored the question of how CNN botched the story. Though, they did revert to the CNN party line and they attacked the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN STELTER, CNN HOST, "RELIABLE SOURCES": The sources weren't trying to trick the reporter. The sources were just mistaken, but that mistake obviously caused a black eye for CNN.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Journalists make mistakes. Our record as journalists in covering this Trump and the Russian story is pretty good especially compared to the record of Donald Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From the president and his supporters, you hit here a system of lies. So, they're not well-placed to complain. The worst mistakes that press organizations in the coverage of Trump has precisely occurred in their effort to be fair to the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Wait a second. Now CNN concocts a damaging story about the president and they only did so because they're trying to be utterly fair to him? I'm not following any of this. I need to buy a major vowel or two.

The media are destroying their credibility by allowing politics to dominate editorial decisions and color their reporting. This is no way to build public confidence. By the way, it's not just CNN.

ABC's Brian Ross reported that Candidate Trump instructed Michael Flynn to reach out to the Russians when it was actually President-elect Trump. Oops! "The Washington Post" reporter, Dave Wiegle, let's not forget him. He tweeted a photo from the Trump rally in Florida on Friday showing lots of empty seats. Didn't look good.

It turns out, he took the picture before the audience had actually entered the arena. Cute. He did apologize later. Not surprisingly, polls show the American public is losing faith in how the media are covering Trump.

A Quinnipiac poll last month found 58 percent of American voters disapprove of the way the media covers the president while only 38 percent approve. Fifty three percent of voters said the media focuses too much on negative stories about Trump.

So, the media's answer today? More negative stories about Trump. In an attempt to revive some slagging ratings and distract from their own journalistic and sex abuse scandals, the network dragged out Trump accusers again.

The president, of course, has denied these accusations, but that didn't stop Megyn Kelly from showcasing them on her struggling morning show. So much for staying out of politics. Didn't she say she was going to do that?

Well, they then held a press conference sponsored by a Soros-backed group called "Brave New Films." Peel back the curtain a little bit, Brave New Films describes itself as a quick strike media company that has produced a string of liberal documentaries.

Establishment media tripped over themselves to take the bait and turned today's White House press briefing into a total circus.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was going to ask --

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You used it on something else.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I may, Sarah --

SANDERS: I'm going to keep moving.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I can ask about the other Jim's accusation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever been sexually harassed and do you -- I'm not saying by the president. I'm saying ever.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is spinning and it's focused open him now.

SANDERS: And he's addressed it directly to the American people.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And more people are now speaking out.

SANDERS: I'm going to keep moving. I trying to cover as many of you as I can.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a huge issue, Sarah.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: North Korea. But this is a huge issue. It's a huge issue for a media obsessed with driving Trump from office at all costs. Well, now, on the day before the Alabama Senate election, as we predicted last week when Democrats ran Al Franken out of the Senate, without so much as a scheduled hearing, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is calling for President Trump to resign from office.

This is a craven attempt to weaken the president with these choreographed allegation parades, but my friends, they won't work. But at least now it's easier to see with whom certain media organizations are colluding and to what end? That's "The Angle."

One Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is sounding the alarm. He's painting a dangerous scenario of what happens without a free and honest media. Glenn Greenwald wrote an article in "The Intercept" titled, "The U.S. media suffered its most humiliating debacle in ages and now refuses all transparency over what happened."

With us to give us more insight is Greenwald himself joining us now from Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Glenn, it's great to see you. Recap for my audience what you wrote about over the weekend about why particularly this CNN issue is so disturbing given the enormity of the story regarding President Trump and the Russians

GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST AND CO-FOUNDER, "THE INTERCEPT": Right. So, you described exactly how the story fell apart. It is certainly the case that anyone in journalism, whether people at Fox or anywhere else will get stories wrong sometimes.

This is not just a blockbuster story that fell apart, but what is most disturbing is two things. One, it's a long line now of stories about Trump and Russia that major media outlets have trumpeted in a very flamboyant way only for those stories to completely fall apart upon minimal scrutiny always going in the same direction of trying to prove that Trump really did collude with the Russian in a criminal way and that Russia is essentially taking over the United States.

So, it's not one mistakes it's a huge series of them always toward the same outcome and same agenda. The second and more disturbing thing for me, Laura, is the question of how it is that not just CNN but ultimately CBS and MSNBC that said they confirmed the story got it wrong.

They all claimed that multiple sources told them that this e-mail sent to Don Jr. was dated before the Wikileaks Publications became public. How did multiple sources all get the same date wrong when talking to multiple media organizations? It's impossible to think about how that can be.

INGRAHAM: Glenn, they refused to say over the weekend when they trotted out David Fromm and Carl Bernstein, who has been dining out on Watergate for 40 plus years, they won't even entertain questions about that or go into that at all.

If multiple sources -- I think the date was the -- missing one digit. The 4th or the 14th, something like that. So, given that case, how could multiple people read a number wrong or transmit it incorrectly? To me, that on its face seems very far-fetched.

GREENWALD: Right, exactly. I mean, it seems like it's was a deliberate attempt to mislead, in which case they have the obligation to say which members of Congress, probably Democrats on the Intelligence Committee were the ones that gave them that false information.

But if it wasn't deliberate, they have the obligation to say how it happened. Instead, they brought a CNN employees, Carl Bernstein and David Fromm, who spent two days defending CNN, on to pretend that they were willing to talk about it.

They didn't bring me on when I talk about Fox News and all of its many flaws and may mistakes and humiliations, which have taken place this year, CNN immediately invites me on and Fox doesn't.

That's the reverse that happens when I write about CNN. Fox loves to have me on and CNN won't. I think that really is the issue. I don't want it implied that this is a problem unique to CNN and MSNBC.

Fox has had its share of incredibly embarrassing mistakes also in the direction of its own political agenda. The problem is that media outlets are vulcanized. They talk only to their audiences and they don't have any transparency or accountability duties, and that I think is what is ruining journalism.

INGRAHAM: First of all, if I get something wrong, Glenn, you have an open invitation to correct me. I'm not a perfect person, believe me. If I get something wrong, I'm happy to have you on and have a conversation with it. I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I want more people on my show.

Sometimes we have trouble getting people that are Democrats on the show or liberals. I'm always welcoming more voices. I'm happy to have you on for that. It's not just CNN. We have "The New York Times" coming out with stories that they have to correct.

Obviously, CBS, Washington Post sometimes repeats the false stories that other networks are printing. Sometimes what they say is there's a rush to get news out. It's just because of the speed of the internet. Is that a plausible explanation here?

GREENWALD: No, I don't think so. What I said in my article, if people were making mistakes journalistically because they were rushing or because human beings are fallible as we all are, you would expect roughly 50 percent of the mistakes to go in one direction and 50 percent to go in the other direction.

What you're seeing in this story is the exact opposite. Virtually, 100 percent of the mistakes that outlets like CNN and "The Washington Post" and MSNBC make are designed to undermine and subvert Donald Trump and bolster the Russia Trump story like all of Fox's mistakes are in the opposite direction.

I don't mean your show, which is only a couple of months old. I mean, the two that Donald Trump loves to watch most, which is the morning show full of disinformation and the evening show that precedes yours.

That's the problem in journalism. These mistakes stop looking like mistakes when they always go in the same direction and are always bolstering the same political agenda. You're seeing that around most media outlets and not just the ones that we are discussing.

INGRAHAM: I have a question on something completely unrelated because you really push for transparency in various reporting, especially when they involve criminal wrong doing or alleged criminal wrongdoing. Do you think that in cases like with Al Franken that women and men that make accusations should remain anonymous? Do you think that is fair?

GREENWALD: No, I think that's terribly unfair. There was in fact just a couple months ago, a document that was circulating around the internet that purported to identify men in the media who had misbehaved with sexual misconduct and it was entirely anonymous. Everyone in the media read it.

People talked about it. It's so offensive as a lawyer, if you care about due process, a human being that cares about ethics and basic fairness to allow people who are accused the opportunity to defense themselves, which they can't do, if they're being smeared with anonymous attacks.

INGRAHAM: I think, Glenn, there is a lot of accusations flying around from years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago and all I'm saying is people should have an ability to respond, and it's really hard to prove or disprove things that have happened many years ago.

It's very difficult for men or women and I understand there's a lot of people hurt out there. At some point, we have to have some due process before we destroy people's careers. Glenn, I really appreciated your piece and thank you very much for joining.

Now with reaction from New York. We're joined by Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, and here in studio is Emily Tisch Sussman, a Democratic strategist.

Emily, it's great to have you on. What is your sense about the errors that we've been talking about? We had the tweet that went out of the empty stadium. We have the Brian Ross report from ABC. He's suspended. Obviously, CNN has had multiple errors. Is this just all random mistakes or is there an agenda here?

EMILY TISCH SUSSMAN, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND: I think the media is really trying to get it right. I also say I'm happy to be your Democrat on here, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Thank you. Love it.

SUSSMAN: I think the media is really trying to get it right, but I do think there is more to the speed. There's not even a 24-hour news cycle right now. Every outlet wants to be the one that breaks the story.

I think the reason that the Trump and Russia connection ends up being particularly vulnerable to that is because every outlet wants to be the one to really own this thing that broke. There's actually already enough in the public sphere that puts a connection between the Trump colluding with the Russians --

INGRAHAM: Really?

SUSSMAN: We don't know if it's criminal or not.

INGRAHAM: We know, of course, that, and Ari, you can speak to this on the Russia issue. We know campaigns have had contacts with Russians. Hillary's campaign did. Barack Obama -- people are reaching out to Russian counter parts.

The question is whether it's collusion or an attempt to undermine the democratic process, which would be a big problem. That's what they haven't found so far. There's been a lot of mistakes. No one is perfect. We're not perfect here.

We try to get it right. It does seem that mainstream media outlets, it's a rush to be the network that finally does Trump in. Not to be the network that gets the story, but to do him in, period.

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You know, Laura, for 20 years, based on the press by the American people has been on a sharp decline. It hit its all-time low in September of 2016. Gallup asked a question, do you have faith in the media to tell the news fully, fairly, and accurately.

It hit an all-time low 32 percent in September '16. Think about what that means. The core mission of journalism is to tell the facts is being doubted by the American people astonishingly large numbers.

In the past week made it even worse, yes, mistakes happen, but in the case of the Wikileaks what Donald Trump Jr. said, it's not credible what CNN is saying. It's just not. It's hard to understand two completely independent sources could both make the same mistake to CNN and MSNBC and CBS. It doesn't add up.

So, what CNN really does need to do for the sake of credibility is just explain it. Walk people through the reporting, how did you get the information, how did it come to be so wrong, what did your sources said when you confronted them and said how come you got it wrong? We should learn those answers.

INGRAHAM: Speaking of this issue, today at the White House briefing, Sarah Huckabee Sanders made a pretty bold statement about what she thinks is the motivation here. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: You cannot say --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was completely fake and he admitted it.

SANDERS: You cannot say that it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information that you know to be false or taking information that hasn't been validated or offered any credibility and continually been denied by a number of people including people with direct knowledge of an instance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Emily, she's saying that they -- they're doing it on purpose.

SUSSMAN: Yes. And I think that's dangerous actually. I think that for the White House to be attacking the media and saying they're doing it on purpose is a really big problem.

INGRAHAM: They've been doing that for a while. Fake news. That's kind of saying --

SUSSMAN: That's his whole career. That's what it was built on. The president came to notoriety in the political sphere talking about how President Obama, buying to the birtherism, right, that he wasn't born in the United States. That's what he based his political career on.

That's actually very dangerous to be going after an independent media. Right now, we're living in an era where the internet didn't necessarily open us up to more ideas, it actually narrowed it.

INGRAHAM: Do you think the media has any responsibility for this? Donald Trump isn't the most popular president right now. The public's viewpoint on the media is declining, declining. So, people trod out his numbers all the time. We can trod out the media's numbers. They believe something about the media having an agenda. Let's get Ari to address that.

FLEISCHER: Well, I think that's the core of the problem. People do think they have an agenda. Face it, Laura, the press can't stand Donald Trump. He doesn't like them either. But they can't stand him and it's interfering with their professionalism.

They have let their dislike for Donald Trump influence how they accept the news and that's why when (inaudible) anti-Trump. They let down their guard and put it on the air instead of checking it out thoroughly.

This embarrassment that CNN and CBS and MSNBC went through last week and that ABC went through with Brian Ross could have been avoided if they had people inside that said slow down, let's check. I know we want it to be true, but it might not be. They don't do that because they want to believe the anti-Trump news. So, the filters come down and it makes it on the air.

INGRAHAM: So how should Congress deal with the chain migration issue? Guys, we appreciate you joining us. This question after today's terror attack in New York. I'm going to grill Univision's Jorge Ramos about that along with his take on the Kate Steinle verdict and DACA.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: You don't have to be an avid watcher of the networks fusion or Univision to be familiar with anchor, Jorge Ramos. He is a long-time fierce critic of President Trump's immigration policies including Trump's vow to end chain migration. And I am delighted he joins us from Miami. Hi, Jorge. (Inaudible).

JORGE RAMOS, ANCHOR, UNIVISION: Thanks for having me.

INGRAHAM: (Inaudible) my Spanish is terrible. I'm not going to do it in Spanish. I like to practice.

RAMONS: I know we don't agree on almost anything, but we have to have this conversation. I appreciate it.

INGRAHAM: Absolutely. You were very nice to me about my RNC speech by saying good speech, which you probably didn't agree anything in it and I mention that in my new book. But this is the only thing I'm going to say nice about you.

RAMOS: I'm ready for you.

INGRAHAM: I'm just teasing. Let's talk about what happened today in New York, obviously, a botched terror attack. Kayed Ullah is another individual who came to the United States as part of what is called chain migration. He was over the age of 18. He joined his parents from Bangladesh.

If he had been successful, he obviously would have killed a lot of people. He was carrying a pipe bomb. Do you have any further hesitation about your support of chain migration policy?

RAMOS: Absolutely. I'm not here to defend any terrorist. I think he should face the full extent of the law. My kids live in New York City and New Jersey. So, they could have been victims easily.

But I don't think this has anything to do with chain migration. It has to do with law enforcement and intelligence to prevent terrorism. But chain migration is really family reunification. It's been in the law since 1965.

For me when President Trump says that he wants to end chain migration, those are code words. Trump really is saying I don't want more immigrant from Latin America and from Asia.

INGRAHAM: Jorge, let me just -- I see what you're saying. Let's differentiate what he's talking about and what you're talking about. What Donald Trump is talking about is not to bar children under the age of 18 who are -- whose parents are here. That's not what he's talking about.

They'll still be allowed to come in and parents will be allowed to come in. Adult children -- stay with me -- adult children of green card holders or legal immigrants and extended relatives, which has ballooned the number of immigrants in the United States.

I think today 61 percent of all immigrants who recently come into the country are the results of chain migration. So, we're not talking about minor children, spouses. We're talking about extended family members. So just so you understand.

RAMOS: I do understand that. Of course, I do understand that and then do you like to be with your family? Do you enjoy being with your family?

INGRAHAM: Yes. But I don't have a right to go to any other country and bring my family. It's not a universal right.

RAMOS: It's something that you enjoy. I'm assuming that you enjoy being with your family. Immigrants do enjoy being with their families --

INGRAHAM: They can stay in their home country.

RAMOS: It's unfair that when an immigrant, in this case commits a terrorist attack on a crime, that we blame all the 40 million immigrants --

INGRAHAM: We're not blaming all the 40 million people. We're not doing that. Jorge, we're talking about a policy. We're talking about a policy. We're not talking about blaming illegal immigrants who are here in the country. We're talking about a policy that makes sense or not.

RAMOS: Exactly. This policy has been in the books since 1965.

INGRAHAM: Right. There's a lot of policies that are disastrous.

RAMOS: It favors family reunification and basically -- as a matter of fact, it was inspired by JFK, and now the fact that -- that's the law.

INGRAHAM: OK. Jorge, do you think second cousins --

RAMOS: -- I do understand chain migration, but you --

INGRAHAM: Where do you want to end it? First cousin, second cousin, twice removed? Great aunt? The whole thing? I mean, you have a universal right to pick up your entire genealogical chart to another country?

RAMOS: You don't have to end that. What President Trump is saying is that he wants to make America white again. He wants to --

INGRAHAM: My God. Jorge!

RAMOS: Of course.

INGRAHAM: You don't believe that. You can't believe that.

RAMOS: -- 90 percent of the population was right. It's a nostalgic view of the United States --

INGRAHAM: Come on. Chain migration -- Jorge, honestly.

RAMOS: Sure.

INGRAHAM: (Inaudible) The chain migration applies -- doesn't matter what color skin. It doesn't matter if you're from Europe, Sweden, you want to bring in your second cousin or from Mexico. The new policy will apply to everyone.

But let's go to Kate Steinle. You have not commented on the Kate Steinle verdict. I'm wondering your thought was once you say the verdict that came down where Mr. Zarate was only charged with a minor offense of possession of a firearm. He was here illegally, left the country, deported five times, came back. We have a dead young woman.

RAMOS: First of all, I'm really sorry. My condolences to Kate's family. I'm a father. I can't imagine what it would mean to be without one of my kids. I really don't want to say anything that might affect them.

When an immigrant gets involved in a crime, again, that doesn't mean that all of the undocumented immigrants are criminals and terrorists as President Trump is trying to portray them. That is not the case. These are the facts. Immigrants are less likely to be criminals or be behind bars --

INGRAHAM: But Jorge, you're conflating any illegal --

RAMOS: We cannot do that --

INGRAHAM: You are conflating legal and illegal, correct?

RAMOS: -- all undocumented immigrants with what happened in San Francisco, we cannot do that. I'm sorry, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Jorge, are you conflating in that statistic legal and illegal immigrants? When you say immigrants, you're putting both together, correct?

RAMOS: No. Princeton University did a wonderful study -- let me finish with this one. It's important talking about undocumented immigrants

INGRAHAM: Twenty two percent of all federal prisoners are illegal immigrants today, 22 percent of all federal immigrants -- federal criminals are illegal immigrants. That's Justice Department facts from August.

RAMOS: But immigrants overall are less likely to be criminals.

INGRAHAM: Who cares? That doesn't matter if it's true, they shouldn't be here.

RAMOS: It is important because the fact is that the more immigrants that you have, the less crime you have -- let me give you another example. We know, of course, that undocumented immigration has thrown from 3.5 million in 1990 to about 11.2, 11.3 in 2013.

According to the FBI, crime, violent crime decreased 48 percent in that same period. That means exactly that the more immigrants that you have in this country, the less crime you have.

INGRAHAM: I got that. OK.

RAMOS: -- crime and terrorism --

INGRAHAM: So, Jorge, do you think -- you're fine with sanctuary cities, even if we end up with dead Americans or Latino immigrants, sanctuary cities should remain despite the fact that they perpetuate a situation where one, two, three, a dozen people could be gravely injured at the hands of an illegal immigrant who was harbored or not turned over to the feds by a sanctuary authority?

RAMOS: Sanctuary cities are created precisely to protect immigrants who otherwise won't be protected.

INGRAHAM: But also ones that commit violent crimes, that's the problem here.

RAMOS: No. No, because --

INGRAHAM: Well, Zarate was protected.

RAMOS: -- police and the immigrant community is really important. And crime decreases when police and communities and immigrants collaborate. That's exactly what happened. Why should we blame immigrants for all the crime and the --

INGRAHAM: We're not blaming immigrants. We're blaming government policy that is terrible and allows people to come in here who actually commit terrible crimes. Mexico wouldn't want us to send people to Mexico who some of them are terrible criminals. I'm sure that happens. Mexico doesn't like that, and I don't blame them for not liking that.

RAMOS: Undocumented immigrants in this country --

INGRAHAM: You don't have right, a universal right to move to another country with your whole family or to go to another country and commit crimes. There's no universal right to do that. And somehow we've read that into our law, which to me --

RAMOS: You're right. And you know why they're here? Because of you and me. They are here because they do the jobs we don't want to do because they pay taxes, they create jobs --

INGRAHAM: I did a lot of those jobs, by the way.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: So did my parents and my brothers. OK, we're out of time. No tengo mas tiempo. My Spanish, I'm getting better here. We're going to do it all in Spanish next time. We appreciate it.

Is the Bob Mueller Russia investigation focused on the wrong thing? Former U.S. attorney Andy McCarthy says yes. He explains.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAROLINE SHIVELY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from America's news headquarters I'm Caroline Shively.

Despite the objections of President Trump, the Pentagon will allows transgender people to enlist in our military beginning January 1st. The new policy reflects growing legal pressure on the issue. But potential transgender recruits will have to overcome a lengthy and strict set of physical, medical, and mental conditions. Some say the new requirements will make it difficult for them to join the armed forces.

French President Emmanuel Macron has awarded grants worth millions of euros to 18 American and other climate scientists. Macron devised a grant competition after President Trump announced in June that he would withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Paris climate accord. The winners will spend the next few years doing research in France. Mr. Trump has expressed skepticism about global warming and claims the Paris Accord will hurt U.S. business.

I'm Caroline Shively. Now back to "The Ingraham Angle."

INGRAHAM: Just what is special counsel Bob Mueller investigating and why? Our next guest argues the media is getting it wrong when it comes to the Russia probe. Joining us now from New York with more is former federal prosecutor, Andy McCarthy. Andy, I love your columns, period.

ANDREW MCCARTHY, NATIONAL REVIEW CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Laura.

INGRAHAM: So good. But I loved your most recent one where you raised the question of whether Mueller has even proven or even has a sense, a clear sense, that Russia hacked into our systems prior to the election. Explain.

MCCARTHY: Laura, I want to be clear. I'm not questioning the finding of the intelligence community. I would stipulate that Russia had a cyber- espionage operation against the 2016 election. But what we all need to focus on is the fact that that is an intelligence judgment. It's a probability. In fact their report even says the fact that we render a judgment doesn't mean that we can prove it as a matter of fact.

And the problem that we have with Mueller's investigation is it's a prosecutorial exercise, which means you have to prove every essential element of the scheme, of the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction unanimously of 12 jurors. So even if it's OK for the intelligence community for the sake of protecting the country to assume that Russia has these operations against our country doesn't relieve Mueller of the need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think he can.

The intelligence report says it would compromise methods and sources of intelligence, so they don't want to make those available. And we know that the FBI never even physically took custody of and did an examination, its own examination of the Democratic National Committee servers which are the key evidence in the case.

INGRAHAM: And you also point out in your piece that they based, they real jump on their investigation -- when Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, he basically panicked and called for a special counsel. That's my view. He was freaking out that the Democrats on Capitol Hill were asking questions. Instead of answering them, he panics and appoints Mueller. But Mueller is facing, his investigation with Rosenstein on the contacts with Russia, which during a campaign, as you point out, that's not a big deal. Most campaigns have some contacts with Russia. It's the second question which is the operative one.

MCCARTHY: Yes, the Clinton campaign and people in it had plenty of contacts with Russia, right? The thing that would make contacts problematic or incriminating is if they indicated complicity in an actual espionage scheme. But you never even get there until you can prove the espionage in the first place. And I just don't think he can.

INGRAHAM: Andy, let's go to Peter Strzok, Jeannie Rhee, Andrew Weissman, questions raised about other people in the FBI lately about their ability to be truly objective in looking at this investigation. To my eye we have a lot of individuals who are not just -- they're not just Democrats. They are Trump adversaries in their previous associations and in their texts or tweets or commentary during debates and so forth. You sort of have -- the jury is out for you on Peter Strzok. Why?

MCCARTHY: Because as I understand it and as Comey testified to a closed session, according to the Wall Street Journal, as then FBI director Comey testified to a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee in March, the reason they hadn't brought any case against Flynn at that point is because the agents who interviewed him believed him, and that was Strzok. So the fact that Flynn ended up pleading guilty to lying in that interview was not Strzok's idea. Evidently Strzok wasn't pushing that. That was the very aggressive Mueller investigators toward the end.

So I just want to see all the facts on him come in, Laura. But I think your general point about Mueller's poor judgment in larding this ridiculously inflated 17-lawyer team with Democratic donors and activists is not only a big problem for the integrity of the investigation. I think we're ultimately going to find that the real collusion story of the 2016 election was the way that the Obama administration put the law enforcement and intelligence arms of the administration in the service of the Clinton campaign. And a lot of these Mueller lawyers come from the top levels of the Obama Justice Department.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Running divisions or previously representing Ben Rhodes when he was testifying or being interviewed by the House Intel Committee, representing the Clinton Foundation as Jeannie Rhee did. This is like a Venn diagram that is scary for me personally. Andy, it's great to have you on.

By the way, New York City dodged a catastrophe this morning when a terrorist bungled his attack. So could our current immigration laws lead to more attacks? Monica Crowley is really hot on this story. You do not want to miss it. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The news could have been so much worse today. A terrorist tried to strike the subway system in Manhattan during the morning commute, foiled only by a suicide vest that exploded early. And authorities say if he'd succeeded, the damage could have been catastrophic.

The suspect is a 27-year-old man from Bangladesh who has lived in Brooklyn for the last seven years. How did he get here? The answer is chain migration. Let's dive deeper into this with Monica Crowley who is with the London Center for Policy Research, and she's all over this story. Monica, once again we are struck by chain migrants who come to the country as part of an extended family or the adult children of an illegal immigrant, and they don't assimilate and they go on in this case almost to wreak real havoc on the subway system. Your take tonight?

MONICA CROWLEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, well, I was really gratified to see strong statements tonight, Laura, from the president of the United States and also the attorney general, both addressing this issue of chain migration. Donald Trump, one of the most powerful reasons he was elected president is because he ran on the platform of reforming our immigration system, which has failed us miserably. Case in point, once again today here in New York City.

Ending chain migration, stopping the diversity lottery visa program, building the wall, enforcing our borders, ending sanctuary cities, and you have the Supreme Court just the other week back him up on the extreme vetting policy, all of these things will be put in place under Donald Trump so that these kinds of things, while they may not ever be eliminated because you can't control everybody, will certainly be mitigated. And it's long past time.

INGRAHAM: I had Jorge Ramos on earlier from Univision. And I thought he would maybe kind of tweak his ideas on chain migration especially now that we're seeing incidents like this. But he says, look, if we're really a pro family society, we should welcome families to come intact to the United States, be cohesive, support each other. How do you respond to that?

CROWLEY: Well, U.S. immigration should no longer be about sentimentality. It should no longer be about social justice or social engineering. The left has hijacked it over many years. Laura, you led the charge on this. And the right has been largely complicit for a variety of reasons. Donald Trump ran on this platform of moving us away from that kind of approach on illegal immigration toward an approach where it should be based on national interests, serving the U.S. economy and serving our national security. And that means stopping people like Mr. Ullah from coming here on a chain migration policy that serves none of those interests.

INGRAHAM: There's a recent poll that just came out that showed even among Hispanic people living in the United States, you know, it's not like a great majority want more immigration into the United States. They either want less or they want it to stay the same, which doesn't really surprise me. Monica, do you say, just very quickly here, we will get an end to chain migration in this year or early next year, yes or no?

CROWLEY: Yes, I think so. In fact the Senate majority leader told you just over the last week or so that --

INGRAHAM: Yes, on our show. Yes, he supports it.

CROWLEY: He supports it, the president supports it. They have the support in the Congress to end this.

INGRAHAM: Finally.

CROWLEY: It may be part of a larger deal on the DREAMers or something, but it has to end, and I think the political will is there.

INGRAHAM: Monica, thank you so much.

CROWLEY: You bet.

INGRAHAM: When we come back, should the faithful, the Christian, the evangelical Christians vote for a flawed candidate? The big debate facing many voters in Alabama tomorrow night, right after this. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Should a faithful Christian vote for a flawed candidate? Many had no problem voting for Donald Trump despite his admitting to a less than perfect past. But Roy Moore's candidacy in Alabama has sparked a big evangelical debate. Can the devout support his Senate run given the accusations against him?

Just as confusing, we now have completely opposite results from two reputable polls on the eve of the special election in Alabama. Check it out. An Emerson College poll shows Roy Moore has jumped out to a nine- point lead over Democrat Doug Jones. But a Fox News poll shows Jones with a whopping 10-point advantage.

The divided poll results are part of a larger national debate about evangelical support for Roy Moore. Pete Wehner, an old friend of mine from the Reagan administration days, he served in three previous Republican administrations, wrote an op-ed for "The New York Times" titled, quote, "Why I can no longer call myself an evangelical Republican." He wrote the following, "Assume you're a person of the left and an atheist and you decided to create a couple people in the laboratory to discredit the Republican Party and white evangelical Christianity. Well, you can hardly choose two more perfect men than Donald Trump and Roy Moore."

On the other hand, there's Ralph Reed. He's the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and he appeared on my radio show this morning, and he explained why he felt supporting Moore should be an easy choice and a consistent choice for evangelicals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RALPH REED, FAITH AND FREEDOM COALITION: He favors taxpayer funding of abortion. He favors taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. He opposes securing the border. He opposes the Trump tax cut. I think for a lot of voters of faith in Alabama, that's a grave moral evil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That's how Reed describes Doug Jones.

Whatever the result, we'll be covering it tomorrow night live as the results come in. So keep the faith. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Before we go, if you are helping out Santa a little bit, stuffing those stockings full of good stuff, you need to get some of your shopping done at one of your local bookstores, maybe Amazon or somewhere else, pick up a copy of my book "Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump." Makes a great gift, you will learn and laugh all at the same time. So check it out.

And you can always reach me @IngrahamAngle on Twitter and of course hit me up on Facebook. Let me know what you thought about tonight's show.

And that is all we have this evening. Shannon Bream is up next.

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.