Rep. Jim Jordan talks 'turning point' for the DOJ
Ohio congressman discusses his criticisms of Attorney General Sessions on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 5, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
LAURA INGRAHAM, "THE INGRAHAM ANGLE" ANCHOR: Good evening from Washington. This is "The Ingraham Angle." Who's on fire and who's full of fury? That's the focus of tonight's angle.
If any Democratic president had presided over the roaring stock market, 2 million new jobs created in 2017, and robust GDP growth that President Trump has presided over, the media would be churning out phoning coverage of him and his entire economic team.
Reporters at the New York Times and CNN interviewing everyday Americans on the street who would talk about how his policies were making their lives so much better. On foreign policy, what would they be saying? We'd be reading and hearing daily about how other countries were marveling at his bold, transformative approach to global affairs.
America wasn't going to be taken for granted or taken to the cleaners any longer by allies or enemies. Yet, of course, there is no such luck for President Trump. He'll instead endorse day after day of the most sickeningly bias and overrated coverage by pundits and DNC operatives masquerading as journalists.
Like a good campaign operation, this comical commentariat coordinates the messaging, just as the president is hitting a stride on judicial nominations, tax reform, enforcing the rule of law, deregulation, and trade, they play only card they have, personal attacks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This president is unstable and he basically acts like a child inside the White House and can't be controlled.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We interviewed Trump half a dozen times, maybe a dozen over the court of the year and he would often tell the same stories over and over again.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He both has these issues of mental fitness and these questions of intellectual capacity.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN ANCHOR: For the leader of Germany, China, Brazil, what would we say? We would say these are the messages of someone who is not well.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: None of this normal, acceptable, stable behavior.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Now the interesting question, isn't why they are doing this, it's why aren't Republicans responding to defend this president with the same coordinated and well-orchestrated communication strategy? One recent ray of hope came before Christmas, on the day all those GOP members of Congress showed up at the White House and together with the president, they celebrated the passage of tax reform.
That image sent a powerful signal of unity and support and it was just the type of organized, unified front that we need as we kick off the new year with a lot of new challenges. I think we should let the American people see an optimistic, determined, focused GOP and the White House working together seamlessly.
I'm talking about on the issues Trump ran on. Issues like border enforcement, the wall, trade, reducing the size of government. We do not need a thousand different voices talking at cross purposes on the core goals of the Trump agenda that were so popular that drove him to office.
As for defending against the slippery toads who sit around kvetching while others do the hard work of governing, all I'll say is this, consider the sources and how spectacularly wrong they have been in there supposed area of expertise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee in almost all certainty.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a guy who knows he's going to lose.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know that he ever wanted to win. It's sad.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought about eight weeks or so that she could not win simply by being not Trump, turns out not really. She's not Trump and she's going to be president of the United States with a fairly significant electoral margin.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is not funny, this is really bad. We are all really nervous. If people out there feel nervous, we do too. We don't think this is funny.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Actually, I think they are over the top, histrionic episodes of faulty and emotional predictions are absolutely hilarious. This is all they got. Trump's policies are working. They know they are working. The country is working. They claim Trump is out of touch and disengaged? No, he's not.
Maybe it's time to look in the mirror. Unlike so many who never saw the Trump juggernaut coming, I did, and I support the conservative populist agenda he ran on. But at the same time, I'll continue to be candid about the pitfalls and problems this administration faces.
I will continue to point out not just the successes, but the missteps and missed opportunities as I did last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: No White House staffers should have ever been encouraged to speak with a muckraker like Michael Wolfe, how did he have access to the White House? His book is replete with errors and unsubstantiated rumors bad or no sourcing and it contains lines that people may or may not have said.
Don't take my word for it. Former Obama auto czar, Steve Ratner, wrote in a tweet, "Bannon may well have said all that stuff, but let's remember that Wolff is an unprincipled writer of fiction.
Maggie Haberman of the New York Times offered this insight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAGGIE HABERMAN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES: He creates a narrative that is notionally true, conceptually true, the details are often wrong. I can see several places in the book that are wrong. He gets basic details wrong. He has a history of telling people they are off the record and then disregarding --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: And Wolff is a man and the work that he put in his book is what the leftists are pinning their dreams on for taking down Trump? Good luck with that. This is nothing but a left wing Lalaland stuff. Wolff is a type of author who traffics in broad generalities and poisonous unsubstantiated facts.
Mr. President, your political instincts are terrific. Remember, spitballs of the battleship, that means you are the battleship. Keep your eye on the prize. The prize is the American people.
Wolff's (inaudible) tall tales and embellished quotes are not going to negate the election or they are not going to stop your progress on behalf of the American people. In fact, Gallup reported this week at the end of December the president's approval rating is up to its highest level in six months.
President Trump has had a really good year, all things considered. He's poised to have it even better 2018. That means the country is going to have a better year. In fact, the president seems to have all the fire and the only fury I see is coming from the media who hates to cover it. That's THE ANGLE.
Joining me now with reaction from Orlando is Roger Stone, a political consultant and former Trump campaign advisor. Roger, it is great to see you.
I compiled that montage for you because I know you love to be reminded of all the wit and wisdom and prognostication skills of the commentariat that routinely question the president's mental fitness, his instability and so forth. Give us a sense of what you believe is really going on with someone like Joe Scarborough who used to be a Republican congressman.
ROGER STONE: Well, the first thing to understand here is that all of this means that the Russian collusion delusion has failed. The Democrats and their handmaidens in the media having been able to produce no evidence whatsoever of real Russian collusion to assist in the election of Donald Trump have now switched to Plan B.
Plan B is Donald Trump is crazy. He is mentally unstable. He's nuts. No, not at all. He has his eccentricities, so did Harry Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson. In the case of a guy like Joe Scarborough, this is just bitter jealousy.
The entire time Joe Scarborough was in the House of Representatives, he told his aides and his successor in Congress that he would someday be president. When Donald Trump was nominated for president, Joe Scarborough thought he should be the nominee.
When President Trump chose Vice President Pence for vice president, Joe Scarborough thought he should be vice president. Now that didn't stop Joe and Mika from brown-nosing around Mar-a-Lago.
In fact, we now know it was Mika who recommended (inaudible) Powell for the deputy national security director in the Trump administration. But at the same time, they have turned on him out of bitterness. This is the establishment's next narrative. It is a precursor for a 25th amendment argument against the president.
INGRAHAM: I said from day one, Roger, that first they thought he wasn't going to win. They thought Billy Bush and McCain attacks and (inaudible) they kept predicting his political demise. Now they are going with this Wolff narrative that bolsters their old narrative that the man is unhinged.
I want to play something that he said on "The Today Show" this morning with Savannah Guthrie, this is Michael Wolff who wrote this lurid book, let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL WOLFF, AUTHOR, "FIRE AND FURY": In the beginning, it was like every 25 or 30 minutes, he would get the same three stories repeated. Now it's the same three stories every 10 minutes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are you arguing there?
WOLFF: I will quote Steve Bannon. He's lost it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Your reaction to that. Bannon according to this report he says he's lost it. I've been around the president, I repeat things, I give speeches. I say the same anecdotes, but repeating things. Two people have a stopwatch in there? This is ridiculous.
STONE: No. Look, unfortunately, I want to give Steve Bannon the benefit of the doubt particularly given Mr. Wolff's long history as a fabricator and a fictional writer. But unfortunately, I think the facts are in. You might chalk this up to animus if it had happened after Steve Bannon left the White House.
But we learned that he was saying these things while he was on the White House payroll and he owed his loyalty to Donald Trump. The idea that the president didn't want to win, didn't expect to win? I spoke to him throughout the campaign, never once did he say, that he either didn't want to win, and in every conversation, he was confident that he would.
So, I chalked the entire thing up to your typical inside beltway maelstrom where a political operative, who the voters have never heard of and don't care about are trying to whip up a narrative that is their Plan B. The Trump presidency is unstable because the president is not.
Look, in Lyndon Johnson, we had a president who actually conducted White House meetings while sitting on the toilet defecating. But now they are saying, Trump is crazy. No, Trump is the same solid citizen he's ever been. Yes, he has his own style and he used it to -- and he used to win the greatest upset victory in American political history.
INGRAHAM: Roger, they are so embarrassed. They still are so embarrassed, and they are so angry that they got it wrong and those clips will live on forever. I'm going to play those clips or clips like it, like, you know, every week until I don't know how long, until -- you know, and maybe we don't hear from these people anymore.
But we have to remind people of who routinely gets it right and who routinely gets it wrong. Trump on issue after issue has demonstrated that he has more savvy and greater ability to connect with the average voter than any of these Manhattan, Washington Coastal elites combined.
I think it describes them (inaudible). I want to read something to you. This is from Tony Blair, Roger, and he disputes a claim in the book. He said this story about British surveillance during the campaign that apparently is in Wolff's book.
He says, "This story, as we pointed out, is a complete fabrication, literally from the beginning to end. I've never had such a conversation in the White House, outside of the White House, with Jared Kushner, or with anybody else." Claiming that the campaign was under British surveillance.
So, another person, probably not a big fan of the president's maybe, saying the Wolff -- you know, the wolf is howling at the moon.
STONE: None of this is going to change anything. The Trump core constituency will remain strongly behind the president as long as he continues to keep faith with them on the platform that got him elected. We have a record stock market.
We have unemployment at historic lows. A boom in the housing market. A solid conservative on the Supreme Court. Donald Trump is making America great again and candidly nobody really cares about what Steve Bannon thinks.
INGRAHAM: Roger Stone, thanks so much.
And joining us now on another important part of this story, the president and Steve Bannon have to stop fighting in public. It's got to stop fanning the flames of this resistance and giving ammo to the Trump critics. Talked about this yesterday, the day before.
Let's get into that with my old boss from the Reagan administration, former secretary of education, drug czar, and best-selling author, Bill Bennett. Bill, it's great to see you as always. I can't believe you're not in the studio with me on a Friday night. Come on. You should be here.
But I'll forgive you for that as long as you give us your great analysis of how to manage a crisis like this. Crisis is an exaggeration, but a PR situation where you have this author digging for dirt. He got all these people to speak to him and this is in the midst of this great economic news that keeps rolling in for the Trump administration. How should they handle this, Bill?
BILL BENNETT, FORMER SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: Well, first of all, get back to business. The president should get to that graver business, that more serious business, is that great line from Anthony in "Cleopatra," graver business frowns at the solemnity, and a lot of it is solemnity.
Roger reminded us, you reminded us of the good things this president is doing, and whatever his temperament, whatever his tweets, whatever his wins, his record of accomplishment is real and substantial.
But let's not fall into the trap of saying this stuff makes no difference. It does make some difference. It's everywhere. It's in events, air, everywhere. Now, you're right about the approval ratings going up, but you got to keep this stuff under wraps.
And the way you keep it under wraps is by sticking to your agenda. The agenda of the left is a given. It's a constant, Laura. They are not going to stop. It's like the rain in Seattle, but what can you do to prevent it, to blunt it? Who the heck let Michael Wolff into the White House and gave him this kind of access?
INGRAHAM: Yes, the president yesterday in a tweet, shortly after I made that point on the show, I think maybe he was watching or wasn't, but he made this point. He said, look, I never gave him an interview. He wasn't given, you know, access essentially, I'm paraphrasing, but he was given access.
He talked to -- because I've talked to the staffers who talked to him, and I understand he was given access. I don't know who green lit it, but that was not a smart decision. I don't know why in God's green earth you would ever trust Michael Wolff to do a book?
Ron Kessler is doing a book, but I probably pretty fair because he's written fair books in the past. He was given access to staffers as well. His book is coming out in April.
BENNETT: Yes, to stay with your analogy, the spitball is on the battleship. It's inviting the spitballer with a paintball gun into the captain's quarters and that's not what you want to do.
Second, in the fight with Bannon's cease-desist over, start talking about the things that matter. I'm glad for the retreat this weekend at Camp David with the Republican leaders come out and say something.
One of the really interesting things is to see how the president's approval is increasing as people are getting word of this real accomplishments and I think very soon we'll feel the effects of these real accomplishments particularly on the tax bill.
He has done what he said he was going to do and none of these idiosyncrasies in the president and some of them are fine, some of them are not. It could hamper those very real accomplishments --
INGRAHAM: Why Sloppy Steve, the #sloppysteve, I mean, he's not running against Bannon. It's not a primary, you know, where Bannon is on stage with him. You get a little Marco and low energy Jeb, and all that, but Sloppy Steve, I mean, that to me is not helpful.
BENNETT: Well, Scene 4 Act 5, you know, Axion Steve, that's it. No more Steve talk. Steve is out. Steve is past. He's not relevant anymore and the president doesn't need to talk about him anymore. So, back to business, that's I think the key. But again, the agenda of the left is persistent.
It is absolutely determined to take him down, out, to call him a nut, lunatic, child, baby. They're going to over play this because the people are going to see real results as compared to this rhetoric --
INGRAHAM: I think we have a clip of a bunch of Democrats going nuts on this. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It doesn't take a mental health professional to know that the president has said very disturbing things. He is not fit to be president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What has been revealed in this book isn't surprising to people. The president's erratic behavior about in many respects is unfitness for the responsibilities of that job.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need every tool in the constitutional tool kit out on the table to get us through this very difficult period in American history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: So there you have it. It's the media saying (inaudible) their Democratic congressmen. Now they are bringing in psychiatrists. If you were to diagnose Trump from afar, would you diagnose him as x, y, or z? This is how low they have gone. It's his finger on the nuclear button and he's going to blow the world to shreds. It's like Ronnie Reagan bill back in the Reagan administration all over again, remember.
BENNETT: You bet you I do. Diagnosing in a distance, not supposed to be doing that, doctors. What I can't stand is the insufferable moral superiority, the self-superiority, this moral narcissism. I say that as the author of the book emerges, you know, I'm a striving herring creature myself.
But they are so sure and so confident. Of course, they are not. They are throwing everything out there they can and hoping that it sticks. So, you know, this is a fight. This is a fight like we haven't had in a long time and we got to stay in it and stay out of it.
INGRAHAM: And stay positive and keep moving forward. I'm going to say it again, spitball is off a battleship. I love it. Don't let the paintball guy come into the hall.
BENNETT: Into the captain's quarters, right.
INGRAHAM: Frankly, forget about it. (Inaudible) all you want them to do.
BENNETT: Now I'm writing lines for you. You wrote lines for me.
INGRAHAM: Keep them coming. That's right, in the old speech writing days. Bill Bennett, from North Carolina. By the way, Bill, while the media has been obsessed with Trump, you know who had a really bad week? Hillary Clinton in the deep state. We'll tell you why?
And later, the debut of a brand-new reoccurring segment that sticks a fork in all the right people. Stay for that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: I know the left wants us to focus on that Michael Wolff book and its all bombshells, those critical pieces of information that the president chows down on burgers and he asked for three TVs in his bedroom.
But there's a real news to cover and here it is. The Justice Department began a new investigation into classified material on Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server when she was secretary of state.
The FBI launched a new investigation into whether the Clinton Foundation ran a pay to play operation, that's a separate investigation and now Senators Grassley and Graham, the trifecta just referred Christopher Steele, the author of that phony Trump dossier to the Justice Department for perhaps criminal investigation.
Joining us to discuss those real developments from Capitol Hill, Congressman Jim Jordan, and he is not wearing a jacket. You promised that you were going to wear a jacket on the show the next time you came. I'm buying a new blazer. I'm buying one for you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO: It's start of the new year, I should have done that. Happy new year to you.
INGRAHAM: Happy New Year. I love teasing you. You know that. Of course, the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Congressman, let's talk about whether this is a real critical turn for the attorney general.
You came out with an op-ed that you wrote a few days ago, we'll get into that, but this is now a new development. It's not Fusion GPS. This goes right to the heart of the Clinton corruption.
The State Department and at the e-mail server, which of those investigations is more important in your view?
JORDAN: They are all important and it should have happened a long time ago. I think this is a turning point and I think a lot of credit goes to Chairman Nunez and the push that he's been having and frankly, a bunch of us.
I mean, we've talked about Attorney General Sessions doing his job over there. I think we're maybe turning a corner here as you point out getting to the bottom of these important questions that the American people want answers to.
INGRAHAM: So, do you now take back what you wrote in your editorial with Congressman Meadows that it might be good for Jeff Sessions to move on given the fact that these leaks keep happening. In the Mueller investigation, we've seen more leaks happen over the last few weeks. Critical pieces of information coming out of that investigation. There is no sense that Trump person is leaking that stuff. That has to be coming out of DOJ.
JORDAN: Yes, right. I think there are four key things, stop the leaks, give us the documents, answer our questions. I asked Attorney General Sessions, I said, look, did you pay Christopher Steele, did you pay the author of the dossier, the person that Senator Grassley and Senator Graham are talking about today?
Did the FBI pay him at the same time the Clinton campaign was paying him? And we need a second special counsel. Even Lindsay Graham and a host of members are calling for that second special counsel to examine all these.
So those are the four key points. If there is movement on those, fine. That's what I hope happens, but if there's not then there should be a new attorney general. That's what we said in our piece. I like Jeff Sessions.
I want him to do his job. And if he's going to do that and as you point out, I think we turned a corner this week on the fact that they are telling us they're not going to give us the documents and access to important witnesses.
INGRAHAM: How significant is Lindsey Graham, the former judge advocate general, lawyer for the jag core and Grassley coming out and asking the Justice Department to look into a possibility of a criminal investigation into Mr. Steel? The one that helped generate and shepherd through this fake dossier that could lead to the opening of this entire investigation.
JORDAN: I want to see what they wrote. I want to see what comes of this, but I think it's important. The fact that they are actually wanting to have a criminal referral for this guy, who was the author of the dossier, who is being paid by the Clinton campaign, it's reported that he was being reimbursed by the FBI at the same time.
We don't know if that's true, but if it is, I think that's problematic certainly. So, I think this is critical as are a host of questions. Think about it -- why did the Justice Department released some of the text messages? Normally, they say ongoing investigation, we're not going to release any information public. But they gave us 375 of these Peter Strzok-Lisa Page text messages? Why only 375? Where's the other 96 percent?
INGRAHAM: The others might be related to having a romantic dinner.
JORDAN: Why did they release any of them, and if so why did they pick the 375? When do we see the other? Why did Lisa Page leave the Mueller team two weeks before the FBI knew about the text messages, what was contained in these? That's interesting I think. So, there's a host of questions we need to get answers to. That's what I want to accomplish.
INGRAHAM: The Clinton Foundation spokesperson came out and said let's call this what it is -- a sham. This is a philanthropy that does life-changing work which Republicans have tried to turn into a political football. At the same time, we have a former aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department, we had him on last night. He said the same thing. Republicans are trying to distract from their own troubles by ginning up investigations into old, settled matters.
JORDAN: You know, Laura, I wish there was one-tenth of the intensity to get answers to all of the things we have learned in the last eight weeks relative to Clinton and how the investigation and the Russian issue. One- tenth of the intensity of all of those as there is on the Mueller special counsel investigation.
Not one bit of evidence shows the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election. We know today that the Clinton campaign paid the law firm who paid Fusion who paid Chris Steele who paid Russians to do what? Influence the election.
We know that Peter Strzok, the guy who ran the Clinton investigation, interviewed her, change the exoneration letter, have these text messages with Lisa Page where he said we need an insurance policy to make sure that we don't run the risk that Donald Trump gets elected by the American people.
So, I just wish one-tenth of the intensity that they had for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, one-tenth of that was applied to getting answers to all of the questions that arise from that fact.
INGRAHAM: Congressman Adam Shift, a lot of people think is leaking information out of those close door sessions of the committee. He says that you all are blocking his ability to bring back witnesses like Donald Jr. he wants to bring back and others to get to the bottom of, I guess, the potential obstruction charge against the president even though, the president really can't be charge --
JORDAN: Laura, I would be happy. They can interview all the witnesses they want how many times they want, in whatever sequence they want if we would just be able to interview Lisa Page, Peter Struck, Bruce Ohr, his wife Nellie Ohr, Jim Baker -- why was Jim baker, the general counsel of the FBI, reassigned just two weeks ago? Why did that happen? I want to know the answer to that. I want to get the documents, then I want to depose them, then I want to bring them on the witness stand under oath answering questions in front of the American people.
INGRAHAM: It seems like the threat of contempt of Congress has started to get some balls rolling over there, so that's good work. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us.
And up next, by the way, the president may keep his biggest campaign promise of all. And Hollywood is a problem. How to celebrate what is its worst year ever at the Golden Globes, I can hardly wait. Malkin weighs in on both. Stay there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: We've been imploring President Trump all week to stick to his guns and make sure that he gets that border wall built, all of it, as part of any DACA deal, which I'm not wild about in the first place. Now the president is asking Congress for $18 billion for new and replacement barriers, another deterrent that would cover nearly half of the southern border. But is that really enough to fulfill his campaign promise? Is that the wall that everybody thought about?
For answers we turn to conservative columnist Michelle Malkin who is in Colorado Springs. She joins us now. Michelle, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it, we are seeing some prototypes of the wall, and some of them look really imposing and great. But when I start hearing about sensors and towers and roads, towers and roads you do need, but sensors and see through walls and virtual walls, that doesn't thrill me I have to say. What are your thoughts?
MICHELLE MALKIN, HOST, "MICHELLE MALKIN INVESTIGATES": Well, the $18 billion request is a good solid down payment on Donald Trump's premier and marquis promise to secure our borders and build that wall. I applaud that. It comes on top of another $2 billion that was requested earlier last year to add another enforcement on parts of the Texas border and San Diego that would cover another 60 miles.
But I think one of the key principles that has to be repeated over and over again, and I'm hearing from ranchers, from grassroots immigration enforcement activists, from the angel moms and dads that were promised by Donald Trump that this would be his first and most important priority, is that we need to fix our borders, not DACA. And I think we have some prepositional problems here, Laura, because I do not want to hear the phrase, well, we will have DACA before, as if something is contingent on something else. It should be the wall, period, and the wall alone. The wall must stand alone.
INGRAHAM: Yes, let's talk about what the DACA recipients are all about, a lot of them are in school and working now. But there's other information that I think a lot of Americans aren't aware of. You've written about it extensively -- 2,139 of the DACA recipients have had their status revoked for crime. This is between 2013 and 2017, fewer than 900 currently serve in the U.S. military, that's 0.1 percent in the U.S. military, as if we couldn't make that up, Michelle, with other recruits who are American citizens. They always say they are serving in our military, like 600,000 are serving in the military. These are the verbal tricks that the amnesty crowd always uses to put the interest of foreigners who are here illegally ahead of American citizens. It's supposed to be Americans first, not foreigners first, not illegal immigrants first, but Americans first.
MALKIN: Yes, that's right, and there is nothing nativist or racist or ethnically bigoted about putting our American sovereignty first. And I'll tell you, the most passionate people who say this are people who were beneficiaries of illegal and orderly systems that put a premium on immigrants that were coming to this country, like my parents, who put a commitment to assimilation. And that is the deal that has gotten completely thrown under the bus.
Why is it we have so many politicians on both sides of the aisle, Laura, and you and I have talked and reported tirelessly for upwards of two decades now, why is it we have politicians who think it is such an urgent priority to put 800,000 illegal aliens and their families above all of these working-class Americans and also law-abiding, naturalized citizens.
INGRAHAM: And we all know they are going to come in and vote Republican, right? They are a bunch of Adam Smith Republicans, come on. There are just dog-eared copies of the Federalist Papers on their bedside table. Come on, this is a demographic time bomb for the GOP unless this thing is done right. And I'm concerned, frankly, and I know the president, I know he watches. He has to stick to his guns. You weren't elected to give amnesty to 800,000 people. I agree with you on that, although if we could end chain migration that might be a really great thing.
But I also want to get your take on this, Michelle, because I know you have got your popcorn ready, you have your pajamas, your foot pajamas already, you're ready for the Golden Globes on Sunday. I want to sit with you, by the way, and watch the Golden Globes. That would be a riot. I'm going to fly out there and do that with you.
And the previews in the media are a bit odd. Listen to this. Reuters asks, party or not, Golden Globes prove test for Hollywood sex scandal. And NPR writes, are harassment scandals overshadowing Hollywood's award season? So I have to ask you this, Michelle. Are we actually supposed to feel sorry for these folks who have over-sexualized themselves and the culture for years? Look at those, that's plunging all the way to the ground those necklines, and they wonder why people give them a couple of glances. We're supposed to feel sorry for them because their goody bag experience is not going to be as wholesome this year?
MALKIN: Yes, that's right. Here are my tears shedding and let me play the world's smallest violin for Holly-weird. You know, I just don't understand how Hollywood sustains, what are there, two dozens of these awards shows, these narcissism fests? There are probably award shows for the award shows now. And then on top of that you've got New York Times running ads to remind Hollywood of all of the wonderful reporting that was done, all these predators and whitewashing?
INGRAHAM: We have that stupid ad. It's like he said, she said, she said, she said. As if she could never exaggerate or be an embittered former employee who was in a consensual relationship who just got mad. The women if the accuse they are always right and men are always the horrible, awful, rotten people that they are. Especially if it's -- there it is. Isn't that the compelling ad?
I want to put this for you, Michelle, real quick, get your response. This is an NPR interview today I think with one of the organizers of the Golden Globes. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RACHEL MARTIN: How do you expect the story of sexual harassment and assault to figure into nominations this year?
KIM MASTERS: I'm going to take it back to Donald Trump. I think a lot of the fuel for this movement is the fact that he has been accused of misconduct and he is still sitting there in the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: So it's not Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, C.K., what his name was, the comedian, all these freaks, it's not about them.
MALKIN: And let alone the half-dozen people on NPR on which this woman was appearing who have also been suspended or fired because of sexual harassment. At some point it has to be the responsibility of all of these liberal women, whether it's Meryl Streep or all of the liberal cohosts at NPR and PBS who are responsible for allowing all of these predators and perverts to walk among them and work among them while they were pointed the fingers at Republicans and conservatives.
INGRAHAM: Michelle, we're almost out of time, but the absolute best anecdote is when Meryl Streep trying to shift blame away from her own complicity with Weinstein, she said that Dustin Hoffman slapped her too hard in 1979 in "Kramer Versus Kramer" in a scene. That's how pathetic this has become. By the way, I love that movie. It's a great movie.
Hey, Michelle, I wish I could watch the Golden Globes with you this weekend, but we have to do one of these things together and film it because our commentary throughout would be absolutely hysterical. You have a great weekend.
MALKIN: Live stream.
INGRAHAM: We're doing it. There's no doubt about it. Michelle, have a great weekend.
And by the way, The New York Times latest bombshell on Trump may just be another big fat dud. One of the best legal minds around will tell us why, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: Now that the Russia collusion story is falling apart, The New York Times is pushing even harder on accusations that President Trump obstructed justice by firing former FBI director James Comey. CNN and MSNBC were obsessed with this Times latest bombshell that Trump asked the White House counsel Don McGahn to try to convince Attorney General Sessions to not recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
But what did that story actually tell us? Here with answers, George Washington University Law Professor and constitutional expert and old friend Jonathan Turley. First time you're on the show, great to see you.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: Congratulations on the show belatedly.
INGRAHAM: Absolutely, it's great to see you. So what about this Times report that Trump didn't want Sessions to recuse himself? I wouldn't want Sessions to recuse himself either if I were the president.
TURLEY: No president does. Actually I was one of the early voices saying that Sessions should recuse himself, and I actually think it was better for the president for him to recuse himself, because if Sessions hadn't, no matter what happened in the investigation people would be questioning its outcome.
I don't see a crime here, I never have. And I think that the best thing for the president is to remove all of these shadows and say go ahead, investigative it, let's get to the conclusion. Now McGahn's involvement is problematic.
INGRAHAM: White House counsel urged by the president, talk to Sessions, tell him there's no need to recuse himself.
TURLEY: Well, timing is everything here. If the report is correct and McGahn was aware that Sessions had decided to recuse himself, then it's pretty problematic for him to go and try to convince him not to. Once you have someone who has made that conflict determination, if it was his view that he was considering it --
INGRAHAM: Was that McGahn obstructing justice or the president?
TURLEY: I don't think this is obstructing.
INGRAHAM: This is not obstructing justice. Why? You don't think the president can obstruct justice, do you?
TURLEY: No, I do think the president can.
INGRAHAM: So you disagree with Dershowitz on this?
TURLEY: I try not to, but I do think that the president can obstruct justice.
INGRAHAM: Let's watch what he said just a few days ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I think if Congress ever were to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we have a constitutional crisis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: That's a month ago, we are in a blur. Holiday food coma. So it would be a constitutional crisis.
TURLEY: I'm afraid I have to disagree with Alan on this. There's lots of things people can do constitutionally or legally but they can do them for the wrong reasons, for unlawful reasons. And so I think a president could be charged with obstruction of justice. Now whether it would be a strong case --
INGRAHAM: He's in charge of the law enforcement of the whole country. So isn't it in his discretion whether to fire Comey, not fire Comey, whether it's to encourage someone, you don't need to recuse yourself or not recuse himself, he's the head of the entire branch of government. He could fire any of these people even if his White House counsel's office concluded that, even though they didn't tell him that, if they were worried he was going to fire Comey.
TURLEY: I think that's what makes this a difficult case to make. But I don't think there's any bar on making the case. There's lots of people with discretionary authority that use it inappropriately, use it illegally. Can you be charged with that? Yes.
INGRAHAM: Yes, but they're not the president, the titular head of the entire executive branch. That's the different here.
TURLEY: But I think the problem here is not that President Trump couldn't be charged with it. The problem is President Trump had ample reason to fire Comey. His timing was pretty bad, but he had ample reason to do so. And in fact if you look at the record, he actually states those reasons.
Now, it got all messed up.
INGRAHAM: Apparently he said initially Russia wasn't mentioned in the letter firing Comey, but then this report says it was in the letter.
TURLEY: Comey himself said that in this meeting that Trump said that he agreed, that Comey agreed with him that the Russia investigation should reach a conclusion. And that doesn't sound like a guy trying to obstruct it. He did say I would you to forget about Flynn, he's been punished enough. But I don't see a case for obstruction. But can a case theoretically be made against a president? I don't see the constitutional bar to that.
INGRAHAM: Jonathan Turley, you must come back. Have a great weekend, always good to see you.
And when we come back, are the experts really smarter that you are? A new segment coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: OK, you ready? A new segment where we will regularly feature the good, the bad, and the truly ugly from those geniuses who are paid to know more about all the complicated stuff than the rest of you. You know, they call them the experts.
Tonight we focus on the economists and all those financial analysts who are sowing fear and pessimism about President Donald Trump's approach to fiscal matters. On the night Trump was elected, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote "It really does look like President Donald Trump and the markets are plunging. If the question is when the markets will recover? A first pass answer is never." Krugman also said "We are very probably looking at a global recession with no end in sight."
Andrew Ross Sorkin of The Times predicted the stock market would, quote, "fall precipitously." Just weeks after the president took office, Matthew Barkoff of Carlson Capital in Dallas, he was out there warning Trump might trigger, quote, "a global depression." The Bank of England and several prominent economists also issued their own dire warning. Yet 2017 was the best year for the global economy since 2010. Unemployment in the U.S. has plunged to 4.1 percent and Wall Street hit another record high today. It's an astonishing 62 times it did that last year.
And last night The Washington Post tried to cover for all of those horrible predictions by arguing in part that the global markets are just ignoring Trump. Wait a second. You've got to be kidding me. As The Post points out, the U.S. accounts for one quarter of the world's $80 trillion economy. If Trump had truly been that a wrecking ball that all the experts predicted, there would have been a seismic shock in all of the global marketplace.
And if you're wondering how Krugman won a Nobel, just remember, so did President Obama and Al Gore and Yasser Arafat. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: Can we talk? Before we go, a few observations about generation snowflake. I'm not going to claim that I walked to school uphill 10 miles each way in a blizzard. No, I didn't. But somehow we managed to get through these weather events without collapsing or stocking up with 100 rolls of toilet paper. We managed to figure it out.
Today in the Washington, D.C., area, Fairfax County D.C., school was either delayed two hours or it was canceled for the second straight day. And why is this? This is what cyclone bomb affects look like in the D.C. areas. Look at that. The grass isn't even covered with snow. Two days of school canceled in northern Virginia. My friends, this is embarrassing. This is pathetic.
So before we send the kids out in the morning from now on, I have an idea just to keep them really safe. Why don't we just dress them up in bubble wrap? That way they can comfortably weep in their safe spaces, never getting too hot or too cold again. That's why they didn't have school, it was too cold. What happened to a hat, gloves, and a jacket? Scarves are too dangerous, what a joke. This is my message parents and kids and the school superintendent, suck it up, buttercups.
Everyone have a great weekend, roll tide. Shannon is up next.
END
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox