This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 19, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
LAURA INGRAHAM, "INGRAHAM ANGLE" HOST: Good evening. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle." Tonight, we are coming to you from Los Angeles. We have unbelievable news, breaking news on a number of different fronts. We're going to navigate and analyze it all for you. Stay tuned here.
There are developments on that House memo that said the detail alleged FISA abuses by the Obama-era FBI. Check it out, we have 140 members of the House who have gone to that secure room in the House of Representatives, to read the memo and that number reportedly only includes one Democrat.
There's only one Democrat who is curious enough to see if our intel agencies have gotten really political. Interesting. My question is, what are they so afraid of? Are they afraid to see what's actually inside the memo? No curiosity at all?
Also, a pathetic distraction in the House of Representatives, as 66 Democrats vote to impeach the president over alleged s-hole country comments. They want that, the big distractions, don't focus on how great the economy is.
An update on the out of control immigration controls in California, rogue mayors in Oakland and San Francisco say they would go to jail in order to protect their sanctuary city status.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is one of the issues that I wouldn't mind basically going to jail for the first time in my life.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would be willing to go to jail to defend Oakland's sanctuary status and the policies that reflect the values of this community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Well, what they're really saying is they'll go to jail to protect the illegal immigrants. All of the people in Oakland and San Francisco, law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants, you're on your own.
Plus, when in L.A. you'll never know who you might run into. Last night, I was actually seated next to Hollywood A-lister, Rob Reiner. We have some political differences, you might think. But I asked him to come on "The Ingraham Angle" and guess what, he said yes.
And he's proving himself to be a lot braver than some establishment politicians. They have turned down my offers, Lindsay Graham, Chuck Schumer, Jeff Flake, Cory Booker, all too scared on to come on "The Ingraham Angle." Sorry, they're really busy. Not Rob Reiner.
But first, we begin with the pressing issue of the moment, now we are just two hours away from a government shutdown. This was all happening just so you get this because Democrats are holding up a spending bill, holding it hostage, for their demands, for amnesty for DREAMers, connecting the two.
They should not be connected. To get inside the story, let goes to Senator James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, who is about to go on that floor and vote. Senator Lankford, it's great to see you. You are on the radio this morning, on with me now, really appreciate your time.
Tell us where things stand now after that meeting that the president had with Chuck Schumer. We understand only General Kelly was in the room with the president and Schumer. No other staffer of Schumer, I guess, allowed in or he didn't bring them.
SENATOR JAMES LANFKORD, R-OKLAHOMA: I'm not sure. I wasn't invited in that meeting either. What we understand from that meeting is that Chuck Schumer brought a whole list of demands that he wanted to be able to see be addressed. The president told him, hey, this is a legislative branch issue, work it out with the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate.
While you all work it out, I won't intervene and try to be able to tell them what to do. He basically turned Senator Schumer back around, sent him back to Capitol Hill, said you all work it out.
INGRAHAM: Wait a second, he shows up with a list of demands, this is after that disaster visit that Senator Graham and Senator Durbin had to the oval, where they go and present this great deal, it's the Flake-Durbin-Graham amnesty deal. They present this thing.
It increases chain migration and puts more pressure, Senator Lankford, on the border, because you don't get the money the president requested for the border. The two things that the president really cared about, they actually exacerbate.
On the diversity lottery issue, they actually just take the diversity lottery recipients and they transfer at least half of them to the other protected status category. On a pretty much every front, they did not even really move to the president's position. Now they're actually asking for more demands?
LANKFORD: Apparently so. And, again, you left out one simple thing, as well, on Tuesday, they had laid out a process for how we were going to come to conclusion on this. On Thursday of that week, they came in and said we want to go around the process we just agreed to on Tuesday.
So, again, the president was having none of it. He sent them right back to the Hill. Where it has to be negotiated and has to be actually resolved. At the end of the day, all of this conversation about DACA really should be a conversation about border security.
That's the thing that's missing. We don't have a DACA problem. We don't have an illegal immigration problem if we have good border security.
INGRAHAM: Exactly. Senator, what's wild about this is that we litigated this issue in the 2016 election cycle. Donald Trump won. Lindsay Graham dropped out in December of 2015 he was so popular, knew he couldn't even win his own state of South Carolina.
Obviously, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, didn't go anywhere. Donald Trump wins. Yet we're still, we still have Republicans like Lindsay Graham, God bless him, banding together with Dick Durbin and Jeff Flake who didn't vote for President Trump to push this issue again.
It's like, this is crazy town stuff. The president will not go along with this. And yet Lindsay Graham, I want to play this, is out there attacking your colleague, Tom Cotton and Steven Miller at the White House. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: The Steven miller approach to immigration has no viability. Tuesday the president was in a good place. He was the president of all of us, he spoke compassionately about immigration, tough on security, bipartisanship. Two days later, there is a major change. I think the change comes about from people like Mr. Miller, the Tom Cotton approach has no viability here. He's become sort speech king of the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Cotton responded by saying, you know, I think I could win my home state, or something like that. I thought that was a really cheap shot by Senator Graham, again, an issue that he is way outside the mainstream of the core Trump supporters out there, who pushed him over the finish line to help him win.
LANKFORD: Right. And I would say, I was in the meeting on Tuesday and I don't know, I wasn't in the meeting on Thursday, but President Trump was pretty clear on this. He was very clear on it last October. It's been interesting to hear the number of Democrats in the last 24 hours have said the president won't tell us what he wants on immigration.
That is not true. Last October, the president put out a very lengthy document, here's what he's looking for on immigration. That was four months ago. They can't say he didn't give them anything, they just didn't like it.
We got it and got it laid out and I expect the president to lay out another proposal and give legislative language in the next 72 hours, this is what we're looking for. He's been clear on the Goodlatte bill and on things that are moving -- to say this is the idea.
INGRAHAM: Yes. We had Labrador and Goodlatte bill and on January 10th, the White House said we support that bill and then Mitch McConnell comes out two days ago and says we don't really know what the president stands for. It confuses me.
By the way, the Democrats don't get off the hook on a shutdown, here's a CNN poll just came out, which do you think is more important for Congress to do, avoid a government shutdown, 56 percent, continue DACA only 34, Senator Lankford.
ABC-"Washington Post" poll said that who do you think is responsible for a possible shutdown, Republicans 48 percent, Democrats in Congress 28 percent, both equally 18 percent. Republicans in one poll don't fare all that well on who's to blame for the shutdown.
Yet, boy, it seems like the American people don't want the government to shut down for illegal immigrants, I could tell you that.
LANKFORD: Yes. It's remarkable. We should not have a shutdown over something that has a deadline on an immigration conversation of March 5th in the middle of January. That is not even rational to be able to connect two at this point by any means.
Other thing that's interesting to me is when Republicans were in the minority, they were blamed for the shutdown. When Democrats are in the minority, Republicans are blamed for the shutdown.
So, that is the media just pushing out the constant message. There's no way Democrats are trying to do this, when it is. It was the same thing during the Reagan administration, Tip O'Neill shutdown the government three times on President Reagan, but Reagan was blamed for the shutdown every time.
So, we get the narrative, we understand what happens with this. No one wants a shutdown because it destabilizes every federal employee, every institution that's trying to get a permit, trying to be able to do whatever it is that they have to connect with the federal government.
It's not healthy. It's not good for us. It doesn't save money, but we constantly get the blame no matter what actually happens --
INGRAHAM: And I have to tell you, Senator Lankford, it's not even as fun as 2013 because we don't have any Dr. Zeus readings scheduled as far as can I tell. Unless you are going to share something with us right now. Any poetry, any songs, anything?
LANKFORD: It is bed time for a lot of children around the country, but there is not going to be a story from me, get it from your own dad.
INGRAHAM: All right, Senator Lankford, thanks so much for joining us. Let's get the latest from our reporters on the ground. Again, there are so many aspects of this story. Some of the other networks that I've been watching, checking in throughout the day. They're giving you a sliver of what's happening. You have to understand the full context.
Leland Vittert is on Capitol Hill. Ed Henry is at the White House. Now let's first go to Ed to get the Trump's administration reaction. So, you heard Senator Lankford, Ed, that Schumer comes with a list of demands. Do you know anything about what was in that list of demands?
ED HENRY, FNC CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, all we were told by White House officials is that it was a list of demands on sort of the domestic spending front. You could imagine the president's frustration, because he's already agreed with what the House Republicans passed last night to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program that Democrats said has been a top priority for them for the next six years.
So that carries you at least through the first Trump term. The president has signed off on that. House Republicans passed that. Now, Chuck Schumer came with more domestic spending.
That's why the president said, if you want to deal with that, go back to Congress and try to get some sort of a deal with Democrats and Republicans. Here's the bottom line tonight, when you talk about the narrative, White House officials are telling me, that they thought it was very instructive at this midday briefing on camera.
Marc Short, the president's liaison to Congress, Mick Mulvaney, the director of Office and Management and Budget, they're running point for the president on all of this as you know. They're being pushed by various reporters on the idea that Republicans will get the blame for this shutdown because they've won the White House, won the House --
INGRAHAM: I don't think so.
VITTERT: Mulvaney, as you know, sticking to the facts, said look, we actually don't run the Senate. We have a majority with 51, but you need 60 votes to pass this and almost anything. That math might have been lost on some.
But the bottom line is Marc Short, who I mentioned just told reporters a couple of moments ago on Capitol Hill, that they need about 13 or 14 Senate Democrats to pass this vote this hour, to keep the government open. He said they're not going to get it.
INGRAHAM: They slipped a few in, right? They slipped a few of the more red-faced Democrats, yes. Donnelly, correct?
HENRY: Right, Donnelly in Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, these are some folks who may be facing tough re-elections in states that Donald Trump didn't just carry but carried by double digits. So, the very bottom line right now, the president a few moments ago tweeted out, "It's not looking good, we're headed for a shutdown."
INGRAHAM: And he was supposed to go to Mar-a-Lago to have this big celebration of a phenomenal first year, Steve Wynn is putting it on, Ed, and I know the president likes to do his work and he like to, you know, get out of town and that's not happening, correct?
HENRY: He's still hoping to get there. You're right. They were thinking he might leave as early as today. He certainly wasn't going to --
INGRAHAM: Optics would have been terrible if he did that.
HENRY: That would have been awful. There's a possibility here, Lindsey Graham, and others are talking about sort of a Plan B that would extend government funding to about February 8th for a couple of reasons --
INGRAHAM: We to have go through it all over again.
HENRY: But at least you don't have a shutdown tonight, number one. Number two, what does it do, it gets you passed the president's state of the union. Not only does the president want to celebrate the first year, this weekend, but he has a state of the union coming up where he wants to talk about infrastructure, immigration. So, they want to clear some of the brush of this budget deal.
INGRAHAM: That's actually smart.
HENRY: This is week-to-week-to-week. No matter how do it, February 8th, last night it was February 16th. The very bottom line is at some point they have on get back to passing budgets --
INGRAHAM: Do what families have to do. You're getting this for this, entertainment this much money, this much money to spend on education and healthcare. Families do that. Yet somehow this federal government has been doing this for years and years and years without normal course budgeting and it is a complete outrage. It's been happening for far too long.
HENRY: If they pass something and they get to February 8th, everyone will pat themselves on the back, and say we passed a budget until February 8th. As you said, we are going to come back and do it again.
INGRAHAM: Hardly an accomplishment. Ed, I thought you were going to tell me that Plan B was that Trump was going to bring Schumer, Durbin, Lindsey Graham and Flake and all of them down to Mar-a-Lago to be part of the celebration.
HENRY: I think Dick Durbin has probably been disinvited from that.
INGRAHAM: I hope so. He puts the shift in Trump's back when he got out of the Oval Office. That did not work out well. Ed, thanks for the reporting. We'll check back with you probably later on in the hour. Now let's go to Leland Vittert on Capitol Hill to tell us about any sign of a last-minute deal exist out there? Leland, tell us.
LELAND VITTERT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Laura, everybody talks about wanting bipartisanship, there is bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. I am happy to report tonight, almost to a tee, every senator who is here will tell you two things.
Number one, they don't want a shutdown. Number two, if there is a shutdown, it is the other side's fault. Then that is what senators are going around and telling every television camera and reporter they can find, as they head in to this 10:00 p.m. vote.
There's very little optimism they're going to get to the 60 votes, this procedural vote, then actually be able to pass what the House sent over, which is that four-week continuing resolution, and the six years of the child healthcare program.
So, from there, with those two things in mind, where does it go? As Ed pointed out, there's now this idea of a February 8th, get the government funded through the state of the union. It does a couple of things.
One, you don't have the shutdown and the optics of that. Two, it says for Democrats that they get a little bit of something. Somehow, if that all goes through, they're able to extract something from Republicans rather than four weeks, only three weeks, they say they have won in some way.
They go back with that, make all of this worth it, then all of a sudden, we're anew. Now we only have about an hour and 45 minutes to get that done. If the Senate does not pass the bill that came over from the House and they pass this three-week continuing resolution to fund the government.
You got to get to 60 votes in the Senate to do that, then it has to go back over to the House. If that doesn't happen by midnight, it's not like Cinderella, the lights don't turn out, there's all sorts of tricks that Congress can use in the executive branch can use to keep things going while they're continuing to try and solve this problem.
If it does go back to the House, the House members were told to stick around. They are subject to recall by the chair. They could be back in here sometime tonight, sometime tomorrow morning, Laura, and as Ed pointed out, the president is still here, at the White House, to be able to sign the bill.
INGRAHAM: The House put out an extensive analysis of the Durbin and Graham-Flake bill, the immigration bill. It's a stunner. They say that over the course of fiscal year 2017, 62,000 unaccompanied minors have crossed the border.
And the thought is, in anticipation of what's happening now, a potential amnesty that they can kind of slide in under even if maybe technically they wouldn't be able to. But an extensive analysis put out by the White House, and we went through it on "The Ingraham Angle."
And I mean basically blows through everything Trump asked for on chain migration and all of these other factors. It didn't look like a very good faith effort on my analysis of their analysis. We'll see where it goes. Thanks so much, Leland. We'll check back with you. Keep an eye on Capitol Hill throughout this hour as the news breaks, and if it does, we'll bring it to you.
Now, man, we have got to get into the story that we were on last night, this massive push, now, by Republicans, under way, to release that explosive House Intelligence memo on the Russia investigation. We went into great detail about this last night. Now, here's a sampling of what GOP congressmen are saying about that still-secret document.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO, MEMBER, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: What I read today in that classified briefing room is as bad as I thought it was and every single American citizen should have the ability to see that information to know exactly what our FBI was up to.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT PERRY, R-PENNSYLVANIA: You think about, is this happening in America or is this the KGB. That's how alarming it is.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT GAETZ, R-FLA., MEMBER, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I believe there are people who will go to jail. This critical intelligence information will vindicate the claims that have been made by so many and it is absolutely essential that we share it with all Americans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Now, I have been told by numerous sources that the memo has the summary of findings, that will seriously alter the media's Russia narrative. A lot of what we thought, politicizing the intel community and weaponizing it as well.
By the way, damning information, also, on members of Obama's Justice Department and the top leaders of the FBI who are still there. Now, according to reports, about 140 House members have actually gone down to that secret room to read the memo. It's in a secure location.
And outside of the Intel Committee, as far as we are reporting is telling us, only one, count them one Democrat has bothered to even look at the memo.
Joining us now, Republican Congressman Sean Duffy and Congressman Chris Stewart, who have both reviewed the memo. It's great to see both of you, gentlemen. You guys have to work for a living, working Friday nights, just like I am. You guys used to go home on the weekends, everyone in town. So, it's good to see you both.
REPRESENTATIVE SEAN DUFFY, R-WINCONSIN: We're probably working tomorrow and Sunday, you get to go home. We don't.
INGRAHAM: Poor baby, Sean. You cut enough wood in Wisconsin this season, anyway, you don't have to cut any more. Let's talk about what you saw in this memo, I know it's classified. However, 140 of your fellow members have seen it, only one Democrat. Does that surprise you that Democrats have such a stunning lack of curiosity about its contents?
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS STEWART, R-UTAH, HOUSE INTEL COMMITTEE MEMBER: Laura, a I'm going to jump in. Not only have I seen this memo, but as a member of the Intel Committee I've been aware and had been helpful in creating this memo.
And to answer your question, let's back up a little bit if we could. For the last more than a year, we heard collusion, collusion, collusion. Then we didn't, and then we heard obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, then we didn't.
The reason being is there was no evidence for that. But this is what we do know, the second story now, we know that Hillary Clinton and the DNC hired Fusion GPS, hired a foreign agent who used foreign assets including more likely Russians and created the dossier that we know is garbage.
The question now is, did the FBI use that before the FISA court were they honest in how it was presented, did the FISA judges, were they prudent in this material. That's the focus of this memo.
DUFFY: If can I add on to that, this doesn't set the Democratic narrative that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. If it doesn't fit the narrative they don't want to see it. They're not looking to find the truth. They're looking for a pathway to destroy Donald Trump.
Listen, I don't think it's helpful for Republicans to froth at the mouth with what's in this document I was deeply disturbed. I think there is serious issues at the top of the DOJ and FBI, which why they didn't want to give this information to us, it took us four months, threat of congressional action to force them to give us the documentation.
Once I have looked at it I know why they didn't want to give it to us. Also, I have to say, also we heard someone may be prosecuted, I agree that claim. America wants to hear the truth. We don't want the Democrat narrative, we want the truth.
The movement to expose the memo is gaining steam. I think frankly the Intelligence Committee will have a vote. They will release it. Donald Trump will clap his hands and say let's expose what the Obama administration was doing with the DOJ and the FBI.
INGRAHAM: Remember, Barack Obama, in the fall of 2016, I believe, basically, he like poo pooed the idea of any politicization of the intel community working against Donald Trump, he said I guarantee you that didn't happen.
Similar thing said by Susan Rice and other members of the National Security Council that, would have had access or requested access to the unmasking of individuals who had been surveilled under the FISA warrant, that was filed and granted.
They're saying, this is a Republican pipe dream, that you guys, you know, just don't want to answer the real questions about what happened in this -- with any dealings with Trump in Russia. They just deny, deny, deny.
STEWART: That's silliness. This investigation has been going on for more than a year I was in Moscow just before the election and I came home and said 100 times, they're going to mess with our election. It was clear that was our intention.
This committee, this investigation, has asked every question, we've interviewed dozens and dozens of witnesses, thousands of hours. But the facts are just the facts. It's the bottom line, if you made these accusations and at the end of the day there's no evidence, you have to consider the alternative.
Maybe these people are innocent. By the way, they weren't accused of stealing bubble gum, they were accused of treason. To be fair to them, you have to say maybe the accusations we've made aren't true.
Then, now, what we are looking at, you have to be honest as well, these are incredibly troubling revelations. By the way, it's not just FBI and DOJ. There's information regarding the politicization of the CIA that to me is at least as troubling.
INGRAHAM: Well, you know, both of you know this very well, but there were a lot of warnings about what was going to happen if Trump was elected, going back to August of 2016. There was a big piece in National Review, I tweeted it out for people to read.
That they were setting him up at the time, this is a former intel officer worked for 25 years in the intel community wrote this piece. It was basically a warning people who say intel is never politicized haven't been around, they haven't seen the recent history.
I want to play for you to both of you, an interview that Catherine Herridge of Fox did. Not getting enough attention, frankly, with Natalia (inaudible), the Russian lawyer, at that infamous meeting at Trump Tower that got so much publicity, she asked a question what was the meeting like, what was the purpose of the meeting. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NATALIA VESELNITSKAYA, RUSSIAN LAWYER (through translator): My meeting was not tied at all with Hillary Clinton or anyone involved with any Democrats. The Democratic block insists that I was some kind of an agent of the Kremlin.
He came after the start of the meeting and left before it ended. So, we didn't even look each other in the eye.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Apparently, she has not been called to testify, questions from the Mueller team yet. Congressman Duffy, you don't know whether to believe her or not believe her, I was trying to understand the Russian in that clip. Pretty well could understand it. Tell us what you thought about that.
DUFFY: I don't speak Russian, maybe do you, Laura. I would say that's exonerating the Donald Trump campaign. I had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and I wasn't trying to put undue pressure. I was talking a (inaudible) different issue.
And if Democrats here, they say, oh my goodness, further collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians, trying to give Donald Trump an escape hatch saying there was no collusion. Just the way they'll read every different piece of evidence.
Can I make one other point? We give incredible powers to the FBI and the DOJ and we want them to keep us safe especially after 9/11. We're OK giving that power as long as they use it in certain guard rails. They respect people's Fourth Amendment rights.
But when they step outside the boundaries with which we set up for them and use it for nefarious purposes that's when the American people get riled up. It's important that the memo come out. The only way to change the way the FBI and DOJ works is when the American people know what they're doing. Then partisanship isn't there, but the American people have the truth and the facts and say we have to change this.
INGRAHAM: Congressman Stewart, Congressman Duffy, we just learned that the procedural vote in the Senate failed. It failed to avoid the government shutdown. That's where we are thus far, every indication that's the direction it was going in.
But we have definitive word that, indeed that, procedural motion has failed meaning we'll at least have a temporary shutdown of the U.S. government. Nonessential employees will not be paid at least for the time being. They usually are paid afterward.
So, we'll keep track of that. One thing I want to do for you, Congressman Stewart, have you listen to something that Congressman Adam Schiff said earlier today. It's a full screen, excuse me, he said this about your -- all of your comments about this memo.
He said, "A profoundly misleading set of talking points attacking the FBI and its handling of the investigation. This is meant only to get Republican House members a distorted view of the FBI. This may help carry White House water, but it is a deep disservice to our law enforcement professionals, Adam Schiff.
He's saying that you guys are the ones making it more difficult for law enforcement and the FBI and intel community to actually opt. I guess that's for you, Congressman Stewart since Congressman Duffy isn't on the committee.
STEWART: It's just nonsense. I had this conversation with Mr. Schiff a few days ago. Let's be clear about one thing when we talk about DOJ or FBI, we are not talking about the body, they're dedicated public servants. We're talking about a few of the very senior officials within the FBI and DOJ.
The fact you work for the FBI doesn't mean no one in that organization is above question. That one of them are beyond reproach. We have a responsibility to provide oversight. When they do something unethical and potentially illegal, violates the trust of the American people, for heaven sakes we have a responsibility to pursue that.
You can't say, well you can't attack the FBI, you can't attack DOJ, that's silliness. When he refers to us protecting Mr. Trump, that's the thing that I react to most emotionally. It's just simply not true. It's just a diversion that we see things here that trouble us.
INGRAHAM: Congressman Duffy, before we let you go, I'll ask a simple question. Rod Rosenstein is the deputy attorney general, he was named deputy attorney general by Jeff Sessions, Jeff Sessions recuses himself from the Russia investigation, Rosenstein, is the man on the hot seat, playing hot potato, I'm not doing it, I'm going on do a special counsel.
Idiotic idea on his part, I'm sorry. My sources tell me that he is vulnerable in this report and given what we learned about an extension of a FISA warrant. Can you tell us anything about that, Congressman Duffy?
DUFFY: I can make a comment on that, but what I can say is Rosenstein has been not cooperative. He's one who's helped stone wall Congress, took us four months to get these documents. So, I think if you want to clear the FBI, if you want to clear the DOJ, be transparent, show us all the information you have.
INGRAHAM: Release the memo.
DUFFY: Beyond that, there's more information and we're going to fully investigate what they've done at the DOJ and FBI, we need fair partners to work with us and I don't think Rosenstein has been that fair partner.
INGRAHAM: Well, if he's not giving you the information, the question is why? If national security isn't implicated, why can't the people get this information out then clear the air. If everything is fine, everything is copacetic, it's fine.
DUFFY: Well, you will get the memo, you're going to see it. I think the intel committee will vote on it and you will have a chance to see it and so too will America, just not tonight.
INGRAHAM: Fantastic. Well, we're itching for it, the #releasethereport.
INGRAHAM: Is still trending on, #releasethememo is still trending on Twitter. Guys, thanks so much.
DUFFY: Now, we have to have the Schumer Shutdown trend as well.
INGRAHAM: Oh, the Schumer -- no, we're already doing that. Come on. Give me some credit here, Duffy.
All right, guys, well, I'm sorry you have to stay up late at night, but you know, just get another cup of espresso, do something, keep yourselves up.
And we're keeping our eyes on Capitol Hill where the procedural vote just failed to keep the government open. We're going to bring you any reaction from the halls of Congress, and we will go over to the White House again.
But first, here is what is so great about coming here to LA.
Up next, the actor and renowned film director Rob Reiner is here. He is an outspoken Trump critic, co-founder of the Committee to Investigate Russia, wow, and I am a big fan of his.
You are not going to want to miss this.
INGRAHAM: Our next guest is an actor and brilliant director having made such classics as -- I know, he's so sick of hearing this, "The Princess Bride," "When Harry Met Sally," my favorite of all time this is final tap, the list goes on and on and on.Rob Reiner is also so extremely outspoken on politics. Tonight, he joins me on-set for a little conversation, a little back and forth.
Hey, Rob, how are you?
ROB REINER, AMERICAN ACTOR: How are you? Nice to see you. Nice to be here. We did, we ran into each at a restaurant last night and now, we're talking here.
INGRAHAM: See, it's good. It's purple territory.
INGRAHAM: We have some purple territory.
INGRAHAM: I am all about purple.
REINER: We should have negotiated this thing and maybe we wouldn't have a government shutdown.
INGRAHAM: Yes, last night, the first thing Reiner says.
REINER: We start talking.
INGRAHAM: Are they going to shut the government down? Like, well, I am here in LA. I want to talk about Hollywood stuff. He wants to talk about politics.
You started this committee with David Fromm, who is an old friend of mine, about investigating the whole Russia connection, and when I first read about it, I mean, you know, I have to be honest, I kind of laughed. I'm like, "What the heck is he? Is he a Hollywood guy and then the guy who writes for The Atlantic, they are going to do what like twenty lawyers in Washington with an unlimited budget can't do?"
REINER: Yes, yes.
INGRAHAM: Explain that whole thing.
REINER: Well, first of all, we have a really good advisory board. James Clapper and Michael Hayden, Mike Morrell.
INGRAHAM: Big fans of Trump, all of them.
REINER: You know, and John Brennan has now been involved. So, we've got some, you know, pretty knowledgeable people in the intelligence community and the reason I started it, is because you know, I just felt that the public was not really understanding the gravity of what has happened and warfare has changed, you know.
We have this cyber war now, which you can't feel. You know, if we had been attacked, let's say, the buildings get knocked down or a bomb blows up in New York City, everybody says "Oh, we have got to do something."
INGRAHAM: Why just Russia and why not China too? I mean, they took 50 million of our personal files including mine as well.
REINER: No, listen, there's a lot of cyber.
INGRAHAM: Why focus on Russia? Why not China?
REINER: Because that was the most recent and very effective, very effective in what they were able to pull off and it's nothing new. I mean.
INGRAHAM: What you mean one they had pulled off? Because there is no proof that they changed the outcome of the election, Hillary didn't lose because of Russia.
REINER: I don't know. I don't think -- I am not suggesting they did or not. I can't, I don't know about that. What I do know is that they were able to have thousands of trolls and bots and go through Facebook and take out ads. In every campaign -- Republican, Democrat -- you put out your propaganda. You always do.
If paid ads on television weren't good, you wouldn't see people do it.
INGRAHAM: Yes, but that doesn't mean Trump colluded with Russia. That means Russia is really good at what they do.
REINER: I didn't say they did. I am not talking about that because whether or not he -- you know, there was coordination between Trump and the Russians, that's for Mueller and the Congressional investigations to determine. That's not what this is about. This is about being attacked in a new way of warfare, whether or not we're going to be up to the task. I think we fell asleep after the Soviets collapsed in the.
INGRAHAM: Were you worried about the Soviets back then? I mean, I was in college at Dartmouth. I don't remember Hollywood rallying to Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union. I remember the opposite actually happening.
REINER: Yes, but before that, I am way older than you and we had to hide under desks.
INGRAHAM: Yes, but you weren't supporting Reagan, right? You couldn't stand Reagan back in the days.
REINER: No, I wasn't a supporter of Reagan.
INGRAHAM: But he took on the Russians. You're kicking on the Russians, so you're like a modern-day Reagan. Now, you've taken on the Russians like Reagan took on the Russians when it was actually mutually assured destruction. Now we're beyond mutually assured destruction. It's still not great, but Russia's economy is smaller than France.
REINER: Yes, it is. But here's what is smart about Putin. We basically beat them during the Cold War. We.
INGRAHAM: Yes, and he wants Mother Russia back, yes, yes. We know this movie. We know how it ends.
REINER: No, wait, but they spent themselves into oblivion trying to.
INGRAHAM: Because of Reagan, yes.
REINER: Well, because of a lot of things -- alot of different presidents helped to do that, but Putin figured out for a half a billion dollars, a very inexpensive thing, I can weaponize cyber war and what people have to understand, the capacity of cyber war, not just invading the election, there's blowing up stuff.
INGRAHAM: But what look at what Putin did during Obama. I want to get to this fun stuff in a moment, Putin.
REINER: This isn't the fun stuff? I thought this would be the fun stuff.
INGRAHAM: For me talking about the other stuff is fun, and you talking about politics, isn't that funny, we're like on each other's topic. But you know, Putin did pretty well in the Obama years. I mean, he went into Crimea, obviously, the Ukraine. He obviously grew his popularity at home, so the idea that like Trump would be some, you know, "nirvana" for Putin, I never really did get that because, he did really well in the Obama-Clinton era. They didn't do the reset. The reset failed, so there's so much.
REINER: But Obama did, you know, whether or not you think they were effective, did have sanctions after they invaded Crimea. There's been a lot of talk of removing those sanctions. We have sanctions passed by 98-2in the Senate and virtually everybody.
INGRAHAM: Russia, Russia, Russia. It's like the Brady Bunch, Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Russia, Russia, Russia. I mean, at some point this becomes comical, right? Or it becomes funnier than the stuff you produce, which is my favorite -- just a favorite. Are you worried that.
REINER: You don't care about this stuff?
INGRAHAM: I do care about it, but I think you're going down the wrong rabbit hole. It's a rabbit hole. But let's talk about what politics does to art, okay?
INGRAHAM: Politics and art -- they have always had a connection, obviously.
INGRAHAM: There's always been a connection and conservatives in Hollywood, you know, the ones that will actually rear their heads, say that there's a black list in Hollywood that if you express support for Trump, basically, it's like what Harvey Weinstein did. People who went to -- they don't work.
REINER: I don't know there is a blacklist, but I can tell you that the vast majority of artists, directors, writers, actors are liberal. There is no question about that and there's a reason for that because a liberal, have a very big view of things, you know.
This is what I've said, I said this to Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, I said, "You know the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Republicans know they're right. Democrats entertain the possibility that they might be wrong." And that's the big difference and that's why you see liberals drawn to the arts because it's more of an open-minded kind of thing and I'm open minded, look, Icame on your show.
INGRAHAM: I love it. This is what it should be about. I love it. I think it's fantastic. Now, are you bothered, looking back in the 1970s, I grew up watching you know, you know as Michael Stivic, the liberal do-gooder on "All in the Family." Did it bug you that Archie Bunker was more beloved than your character? Because you are kind of your character. He was a liberal who ended up playing this kind of -- you know, this blue collar kind of irascible guy who -- but he had a lovable side to him.
REINER: He did. He did and we got a lot of criticism because people were so.
INGRAHAM: Loved him. I loved him.
REINER: They were saying, "How dare you make a lovable bigot?"
REINER: And we always said, "He's a human being." He loves his wife. He loves his daughter. And that makes him human.
INGRAHAM: But you say Trump, you said he's a racist. You said he is.
REINER: Well, he is.
INGRAHAM: He absolutely is not. Like, do I look like a person who would hang around with someone is a racist? I don't hang around with him, but I've known him for 15 years. I will tell you this and you have to believe me.
REINER: Yes, I am going to listen.
INGRAHAM: You might think he is.
REINER: I just go by what he says.
INGRAHAM: . you might disagree with his policies, that's fine. I have no problem with that. He is not a racist.
REINER: Then why did he spread this thing about Obama? Why did he spread this thing about Obama not being a citizen?
INGRAHAM: I disagree with that. There were a lot of people who did that, who were not.
REINER: Well, that's a very racist thing.
INGRAHAM: Well, he is not a racist. If he were a racist, I don't think Oprah Winfrey would have been friends with him and that is ridiculous.
REINER: And why does he say that there is good on both sides when there is a Nazi's mark.
INGRAHAM: Sometimes, he is not the most precise in his linguistics.
REINER: And why does he say asshole countries, why.
INGRAHAM: Like Obama said, S-house or S-place, S-storm about Libby or Lindsey Graham. Is he a racist? To talk about the hell hole of Mexico and Central America. I mean, again, I think.
REINER: I am just putting all of these things together, Central Park 5, not for instance to Black people. There's a thing here.
INGRAHAM: So, you're saying -- anyway, getting back to the character.
REINER: I think he's a racist.
INGRAHAM: Okay, but you don't know him. Like I don't say people are racist.
REINER: I don't know him that well. I've met him one time.
INGRAHAM: I know and you thought he was narcissist. Like nobody in this town is narcissistic? I read your comment about Trump, "He's one of the biggest narcissists."
REINER: He is.
INGRAHAM: You hang out with the people who read other people's lines for a living.
REINER: You bet, and I can tell you.
INGRAHAM: And they look at themselves in the mirror all day, and look, I am on television too, but come on, I mean, narcissism?
REINER: Okay, so let me tell you, I work with the biggest narcissists in the world. Actors are the biggest narcissists in the world. They want attention. They want to be loved. They don't even come close to this guy in the one time I spent with him. I was with him with Billy Crystal, and we.
INGRAHAM: Another person I adore.
REINER: It was at his hotel for one of his fights, you know, they had a fight.
INGRAHAM: But, I mean, narcissist.
REINER: And he basically only talked about himself the whole time.
INGRAHAM: Well, that's a shock. I mean, Bill Clinton was a smooth operator, but he might be better at hiding his narcissistic tendencies. Clinton, Obama, I mean, Reagan actually was not narcissistic at all and he was so reformed, not narcissistic, but most of the time, I mean JFK.
REINER: Usually, usually you get to that position. You need that -- you need to be loved, you need that much of attention.
INGRAHAM: Do you have like, so Archie, like people compare Trump to Archie Bunker, okay, fine, whatever. But Archie was lovable.
REINER: They're both from Queens.
INGRAHAM: They're both lovable, but you don't see anything redeeming at all in Donald Trump, not one thing?
REINER: I don't see him being lovable to -- let's say for instance, he's walking up the stairs to get into the Air Force One, and it's raining, and he has the umbrella.
INGRAHAM: You watch him closely. My goodness.
REINER: I mean that's what you do is you observe people. And his kid, and Melania are getting rained on and he doesn't -- you know, it's just a thing about looking out for other people, caring about other people.
INGRAHAM: So, does good economy doesn't -- I mean I find it a big deal.
REINER: Well, that's not about caring. I'm talking about a human being caring and loving and being a loving person for somebody else.
INGRAHAM: But the government doesn't love. Government is not a love. Governments doesn't deserve.
REINER: I am not saying the government. I'm not saying the government should love, I'm talking about him as a human being, to love.
INGRAHAM: So, coming back to my question, you're judging his family. I literally, I think.
REINER: I am not judging his family, I am judging his behavior.
INGRAHAM: Okay, well, Bill Clinton got oral sex in the Oval Office when his wife was sleeping.
REINER: He did?
INGRAHAM: When his wife was sleeping in the residence. We had LBJ who you just did this movie about and you've said really nice things about LBJ, and his fascinating character, obviously. I think had it not been for the Vietnam War, he would have gone down as one of the greatest presidents of all time, second to Roosevelt, LBJ passed more legislation than anybody. Your LA Times interview.
REINER: Which is true.
INGRAHAM: True, but also, he had another side to him.
REINER: Yes, he did.
INGRAHAM: Urinating in a sink, inviting people into his bathroom, showing off his abdominal scar.
REINER: I showed the bathroom scene.
INGRAHAM: Yes, exposing his private parts. After a while, nothing surprises the biographer Robert Dallek of Lyndon Baines Johnson. He bragged about his womanizing. He said he was more of a womanizer than JFK.
INGRAHAM: My point being, judging people in a full context. He had a lot of flaws -- personal flaws.
REINER: I'm not judging Donald Trump by his.
INGRAHAM: You don't like his policies. I mean, you don't like his policies, that's fine.
REINER: No, no, no. That's not true. I don't like his policies, that is true.
INGRAHAM: The booming economy?
REINER: But I don't like the way he conducts his life, the way he treats other people.
INGRAHAM: But you just did a movie about LBJ who had horrible personal flaws.
REINER: I don't like man who goes like this with towels -- with paper towels. I don't like that. I don't like the way he treats other people.
INGRAHAM: Oh great. So, the paper towel throw? Was he in?
REINER: No, no.
INGRAHAM: Wasn't that at Houston? The hurricane deal?
REINER: You're making some really bad arguments.
INGRAHAM: I don't think so.
REINER: You're smart as hell. You know better than to say when I make that comment, I am talking about the way -- his behavior, the way in which he behaves towards other people. That's all. That's all I am talking about. I'm not talking about anything else.
INGRAHAM: Okay. Just before we let you go, your dad is such an amazing man and talent.
REINER: Well, I'm going to say you're great because you try to find the differences in the tension, even when there shouldn't be. I think that's pretty admirable.
INGRAHAM: Well, I mean, I don't think -- it's a conversation. And I am just -- and again, Rob Reiner is someone who should be lauded because he's someone who doesn't agree with probably a lot of what I think, that's fine, but he actually comes in for a conversation.
And I will tell you, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, Rob, they -- a lot of them won't come on this show because I actually read legislation.
REINER: Who doesn't come?
INGRAHAM: Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, John McCain -- well, he's not feeling well. But, you know, Cory Gardner -- a lot of Republicans. They are afraid to answer questions about their job and I find that to be disturbing.
The fact that you are willing and you've gone on with Tucker, I know. You went on with O'Reilly and that is really admirable.
REINER: We had a conversation.
INGRAHAM: It's really good and more people should do that and we do have lot in common believe it or not because I love your craft and what you've done in Hollywood. We're not going in politics, politics is about that much of life, but your dad is someone I also really, really admire.
He is 95 years old.
REINER: Yes, he's going to be 96 in two months.
INGRAHAM: That's as old as my mother would have been.
REINER: He gets up every morning and he says, "If I am not in the obits, I eat breakfast."
INGRAHAM: I just read the obits to make sure I am not in them and what life lesson do you learn from him that you carry with you when you get up in the morning?
REINER: The biggest thing I got from him is the way in which he conducted his career. The way in which he treated other people and the way in which he did his work. You know, it wasn't like he sat me down and taught me, I just watched the way he behaved and how he handled his career, and it was like a regular guy, you know, so that's what I got from him more than anything.
INGRAHAM: Hey, thanks for being here.
REINER: Hey, it's my pleasure.
INGRAHAM: I really had fun. Will you come back on?
REINER: Yes, absolutely. We'll talk about -- well, maybe the government will be running. Maybe there won't be any show here because there will be no government.
INGRAHAM: I'm turning the lights off right now. Reiner is turning the lights up. All right, well, let's go to Ed Henry at the White House. Reaction to this interview -- no, to the failed procedural vote in the Senate. Ed? Tell us what you're seeing there.
ED HENRY, CORRESPONDENT, FOX: Laura, hopefully Ingraham Angle is not closing down despite what was just said. In all seriousness, the government may be shutting down just over an hour from now. That vote in the Senate, as we expected, has now failed.
Remember, how this came about. After this meeting between Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and President Trump in which they were trying to work out a deal. Schumer came with more demands, more domestic spending priorities he wanted added on beyond DACA, something the president was not liking and said go back to the Hill and try to work it out.
They brought up the bill for now that was passed by House Republicans last night. They did their job, but the Senate did not do its job tonight. They did not pass it. It's interesting because it's framed on the New York Times website right now as Senate democrats block bill to keep the government open.
So, we're going hear a lot about the blame game in the hours and days ahead. Republicans are going to have their share of responsibility running the White House, having control of the House and Senate, but even the New York Times tonight, framing this as it's the Senate Democrats who voted this down in the Senate.
So, the bottom line is, what happens next? I've been in contact with Sarah Sanders, she says a statement is coming out imminently from either she or the president reacting to all of this, and the way forward is going to probably be some sort of shorter term stop gap spending bill to try and get all this back on track.
But at this hour, the government is online and it's heading towards shutting down just over an hour from now, Laura.
INGRAHAM: All right, Ed Henry, keep us updated. Thanks so much.
HENRY: Thank you.
INGRAHAM: Now we have to go on to this other story. Now, we brought this to you just a few days ago. Two days after we left Las Vegas, where we pressed and pressed for answers on that worst mass shooting in US history, well, we learned a little more today, very interesting.
After refusing to answer our questions on Wednesday, Clarke County Sheriff, Joe Lombardo held a press conference, he did it today, earlier today and he said they still have no motive for the massacre and added this about reports of a potential accomplice to Stephen Paddock.
JOE LOMBARDO, CLARKE COUNTY, SHERIFF: I know and believe there was only one suspect who killed 58 people and injured hundreds more. There was only one person responsible and that was Stephen Paddock. He had lost a significant amount of his monetary wealth in close proximity to 1 October and that may have a driving factor, so we will stay with it. We do not anticipate charges being brought forward against Marylou Danley.
As to any other people, the FBI has an ongoing case against an individual of Federal interest.
INGRAHAM: Individual of Federal interest. Very, very interesting. Looks like a grand jury may have already been convened to pursue this someone else whose name we don't know connected to this horrific crime, but he says, it's not Marylou Danley.
LOMBARDO: As to any other people, the FBI has an ongoing case against an individual of Federal interest. I will not be able to elaborate on that statement.
INGRAHAM: Another lovely tidbit of information, this freak Paddock had multiple photos of child pornography on his computer. Oh and by the way, officials announced just this week that Paddock's body was cremated and his ashes sent to his brother in Florida. Wow. Joining us now to piece this all together, former LAPD detective, Mark Fuhrman in Sand Point, Idaho, and he has been following all of these developments and in Las Vegas, the author of "The Power of Relentless," and the host of "WAR Now," The Wayne Allen Root Show on USA Radio, Wayne Allyn Root is here. Wayne, let's start with you, you've been on this from the beginning, Las Vegas is your hometown.
From the beginning, you've raised questions about a possible terrorist connection to this case that the Feds kind of moved quickly to, you know, discount early on. What did that very odd Lombardo press conference today tell you? He looked very uncomfortable.
WAYNE ALLYN ROOT, HOST, USA RADIO: I think every Lombardo press conference has been odd and he always looks uncomfortable with the FBI staring him down behind him and we aren't getting the answers we deserve. That's all I have ever said. I don't know there is a terror connection. Nobody knows that. But I do know that we have not gotten the right answers. The people of Vegas who call my talk show all the time, no one believes what we've heard from the FBI. No one believes what we have heard from the police.
And by the way, it's awful strange that our President, who I love, you know I am one of the biggest fighters on behalf of Donald Trump, but he loves to wade into controversy and crisis and chaos and Donald Trump has said nothing about this, which leads me to believe the government knows much more about this than they're willing to let on. So, I think that there's so much more that we are going to learn in the future that we just don't know right now. We're not getting the right answers from the people in authority.
INGRAHAM: Mark Fuhrman, we know in the days right after the shooting, ISIS and certain ISIS websites had claimed that Stephen paddock had converted to Islam six months earlier. Now we have no evidence that he had. In that photo, the only photo of him, he has a shot glass and if he converted to Islam, he probably wouldn't be drinking, but maybe he would be.
But you know, could this be -- could there be something here or is it irresponsible even to raise that possibility, given what we know now?
MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: Well, look at this. ISIS will take a claim of any mass murder in hopes that nobody else will claim it, then they get credit for it, and then they are of course terrorists and that creates terror.
When you look at this, you have to look at the evidence. That's all we can deal with, is the evidence. You can make theories. You can dream things up. You can hope things to be, but until you have evidence, you can't make any kind of conclusion that that's what occurred.
So, the evidence here is we had a sole gunman that actually supplied, put in action, set up and shot these people from the Mandalay on the 32nd floor, and that is all that they can conclude at this time.
INGRAHAM: But, Mark.
FUHRMAN: If there is a conspirator, some day.
INGRAHAM: But Mark, I just keep going back to fundamental questions. My fundamental questions are photographic evidence, videotape. I know when you check in to every hotel -- and Wayne, you can chime in on this -- you are videoed every step of the way in Las Vegas. There are cameras everywhere. Everywhere. Why have we not seen any of that material? I agree with you. Evidence that rules, but in the absence of transparency, what are people to think?
This is -- 58 Americans are dead and we're supposed to believe a guy who's 60-something years old was running between two, you know, pedestals to shoot, people were -- people who were on the ground were reporting there were two different -- they thought there were two different shooters. Multiple witnesses said that.
And if the guy is like Malik, a sprinter running between gun positions? All of that to me, again, you're an expert, Mark, but when the hotel doesn't release the check-in photos, video, nothing. And we've got -- the guy has no -- the hard drive was erased, all of that is odd to me. This is a regular person. That's odd, Mark.
FUHRMAN: Correct, well, Lombardo, he actually stated that, hey look, I think, 25,000feet or 25,000 video segments that they actually reviewed and you can see the volume of work that they have had to actually go through in the last three months, but in all that video, we have once again, you do not have a homicide investigation and a prosecution, but you have civil litigation, you have discovery there.
The private property, the MGM, now it's the evidence and the police are probably and most probably going to be sued along with Mandalay Bay in a security issue, and a failure to do this and failure to do that because that's what attorneys do. So they're not going to share this and pollute the jury pool until those issues are settled.
ROOT: Laura, can I jump in here?
INGRAHAM: Yes, go ahead, Wayne.
ROOT: I would say it's not 1963, okay. Maybe Americans believed the JFK story in 1963, but I have to tell you, no one I talked to in Las Vegas or anywhere in the country because my show is national now, none of the callers believe this story.
I could tell you, makes no sense that the police in Las Vegas did not put this in the hands of the homicide division with 35 seasoned homicide cops who studied murders their whole life. They put it in the hands of a small division of five police officers who study accidental shootings by the police.
I'd love anyone, including Mark, to explain that. You can't explain to me how a guy at 60 wakes up and becomes Rambo and you can't explain to me how within days of this shooting suddenly Jared Kushner was sent to Saudi Arabia in a secret visit, and that's a fact, Politico outed this visit, by.
INGRAHAM: Yes, but that's not -- we don't know whether there's any connection.
ROOT: . to Saudi Arabia, gives a diplomatic pouch, the King of Saudi Arabia, within days, 300 persons have been arrested and put in security prisons and had been tortured.
INGRAHAM: Guys, we'll have you back, Wayne, we've got to wrap because we're going back and forth, and Mark we'll have you back as well. That's all the time we have tonight.
Fox coverage continues after the failure of the procedural vote in the Senate to keep the government open, Shannon Bream, next.
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.