Rep. Steve King: White House immigration plan will demoralize Trump voters

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 26, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

INGRAHAM: Good evening from Washington. Welcome to "The Ingraham Angle." With the president's immigration plan under assault from both the left and right, an epic battle has just begun. Congressman Steve King says negotiations should start with one simple question, who and how many would each side deport? He's here in a moment to explain.

Plus, that super-secret FISA memo could be made public right before the president's state of the union speech on Tuesday. We have new details on what's happening on Monday.

And more evidence that Bill wasn't the only Clinton mistreating women. A shocking new report about a Hillary cover-up on her 2008 presidential campaign.

But first, Trump exposes the fanatics, that the focus of tonight's angle. The president's visit to Davos was by any measure a smashing success. He was adored by the elites. He engaged world leaders on the sidelines and he delivered a speech that was disciplined, serious, and unapologetic.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will always put America first just like the leaders of other countries should put their country first also. But America first does not mean America alone.


INGRAHAM: The president delivered a calmed and reasoned defense of economic nationalism while at the same time showing respect to our international allies. But regardless of how well the president performed, the media will never give him a fair shake. It's really pathetic. Here's what some of them thought of the Davos speech.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Despite different in tone to the more measure, I guess, what's the word, sedates, some people say.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have never seen a lower energy from him where being a content was a victory lap. It was almost hate. I thought he'd fall asleep at some point. I was struck by the lack of verve. I'd never seem him more low energy.


INGRAHAM: Well, had the president been really animated, they would have said, he's yelling, he's shouting, he looks angry, the ugly American. He sounds like old Ducce. Now we know this click of journalist in D.C. and New York had never understood the appeal of Trump.

They've said he's unhinged, he's ill-suited for the presidency, and remember, even before inauguration day, they insisted that his arrogant tone and populist policies would destroy him and the planet.

They portray him 24/7 as a dictator in waiting and a fanatic who demands loyalty from everyone around him. Well, that's not what the people in Davos saw, but at least now, we see the true fanatics are, the media themselves.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The breaking news, the military dictatorship that appears to be what the White House thinks the United States is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The impulses of a tyrant and dictator.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He attacks the news institutions which is what Franco and Hitler and Mussolini and a whole bunch of other people did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The kind of strategy that dictators and tyrants have used.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's attacking the press. He calls them the enemy people, which is rhetoric that you usually hear from people like Stalin.


INGRAHAM: Yes, killed like 20 million people to 60 million, but it's the same as Trump. Oh, my gosh, these people are simply slavish adherence to a world view that is elitist, and they're addicted to policy are frankly growing more unpopular around the world as the days, weeks and months go on.

I say this, very few of them have the professionalism to step back for just a minute and absorb the positive news the Trump presidency has created for America. Now, aside from the rare ABC headline, like, why aren't more news organizations heralding the news on jobs, income growth, soaring consumer confidence, the good news for Africa-American and Latino-Americans?

Because it's against their world view that's why. Now think about it this way, imagine if the opposite had occurred. If Trump had presided over an economic downturn, now, they would have said, we told you. Trump is going to destroy the world.

These same reporters and pundits would have pounced on his conservative populism and blamed Trump for the derailment of the Obama recovery. It's so transparent. No wonder the media's approval and ratings keep falling.

I'll tell you this, the media aren't the only rabid fanatics Trump and his agenda have exposed. Just look at the reaction over the past 24 hours to the president's immigration reform and DACA plan.

Now last week, remember, he was set to offer 800,000 DACA recipients amnesty in exchange for border security and end of chain immigration and visa lottery, et cetera. The Democrats rejected that deal and they shut down the government. It blew up in Chuck Schumer's face.

So, this week, after working with a broad work of senators, the president has livened the amnesty pool to 1.8 million illegal immigrants. That's a million jump. This move has agitated the president's base quite a bit. Their opinions were expressed on my radio show today and they were overwhelmingly critical.


UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: If Trump goes through with this like this, he could very well lose my vote in 2020.

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: If he does that, he's committing political suicide.

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: Not only is he going to demoralize his base, he'll kill the Republican Party. If he continues to pursue this, he's clearly lost me as a voter. I don't see the difference between him and Obama.

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: I did not vote for Trump for him to do this and I will not vote for him again if he does that.


INGRAHAM: That's interesting. Do you notice there were a number of Hispanic voters in that montage that we just put together. Fascinating. Everyone knows that this is not the plan that I was hoping for and certainly not the one that I think Republicans in the Senate should agree to.

But what's happening is the president is taking this risky gambit in an effort to finally get common sense immigration controls in place. What he's thinking, I believe, is that we have to end this massive influx of immigrants into the United States, who are admitted without regard for need or merit, what they'll bring to the country.

And we also must stop the wave of humanity, illegal immigrants, busting across our southern border every year only to stay for however long they want. Now, like it or not, as the administration's thought process. We'll see how it works out.

Unfortunately, the Republicans do not have the vote from the Senate for Congressman Bob Goodlatte's bill, which I believe is much better. It's ridiculous that the Senate is not embracing that.

So, what the president did is he actually moved towards the middle in this immigration compromise. Again, not where I'd be but that's where he's at. When he did that he enraged his supporters and perhaps risked his own re- election. He did all that and what are the Democrats saying in reaction?


REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI, D-CALI., MINORITY LEADER: Let me just say what I said last night, that plan is a campaign to make America white again.

SENATOR BILL NELSON, D-FLORIDA: If you start putting in all these highly charged toxic issues, it's just not going to work.


INGRAHAM: I don't even know what that comment meant, but these people are total fanatic. They are fanatical for open borders and endless migration of low-skilled labor purely for political purposes and we haven't even told you what Chuck Schumer said yet.

Now as I said earlier this week, Democrats believe that they have to repeal and replace the American electorate who voted for Trump and continue to vote for Republicans nationwide. They have to get rid of those voters or at least swamp them with new voters.

So, Nancy Pelosi and Schumer, Durbin, etcetera, have to keep their grievance society growing and their identity politics rocket going. They have to do this they believe in order to win elections in the future because otherwise what are they going to say?

The economy is thriving. The country is doing really well. They have no ideas. I think they're out of the ideas business altogether. All they believe in is division, identity politics, the blame game and calling Trump a dictator. That's all they have.

And if this all means, by the way, this immigration view that they have -- if it means like lowering the standard of living for the average working person, citizen, by allowing in all these low-skilled workers, well, so be it.

And for the Democrats, if that means continuing to resist Trump, even when his policies are actually benefitting Democratic voters, so be it. I'm telling you, these people are dangerous fanatics and it is they, not President Trump, who end up destabilizing destructive forces in the body of politics. He's exposed them like no one has before. And that's the angle.

All right. Well, we'll talk to Congressman Steve King in just a moment and he's well known for his, well, hardline stances on immigration. He believes in what Trump campaigned on which is got to build a wall. You have to end chain immigration.

You have to end immigration just on family ties and merit-based and has to be great for American people and we have humanitarian concern for people who are truly in need. We've always been welcoming to those people, but that also has to be done with an eye towards common sense.

In other words, refugees who come into the country who would not really meld with the American understanding or appreciate our views on non- discrimination and so forth. That would not work.

Congressman King supported the president precisely because of his immigration views along with other issues. And joining us now without further ado is Congressman Steve King and we're delighted he's joining us from Iowa, I believe. Congressman, how are you? Good to see you.

REPRESENTATIVE STEVE KING, R-IOWA: Doing just fine right in my living room, Laura. It's terrific. I appreciate your monologue.

INGRAHAM: Fantastic. Let's talk about the president's plan. The four pillars were announced late yesterday. It's a change from a week ago where it was 800,000 DACA recipients would have a pathway, eventually, to citizenship and moved on from that to 1.8 million, kept other elements basically in place, Congressman.

An end to chain migration, $25 billion for the border wall and security, which is good stuff and the visa lottery system would be kind of replaced -
- used the 50,000 to end the family and merit-based backlog of illegal immigrants who have been applying and waiting for years and years. Tell us what your biggest concern is with this and could you ever support an amnesty that would lead to a reduction in legal immigration?

KING: I haven't seen the plan that would get me to support again amnesty under any of these circumstance, but I do recognize the value of the Goodlatte bill, which now looks like this proposal blocks. But the numbers are just stunning to see that President Trump has proposed 1.8 million amnesty to illegals.

You know, I'm familiar with his immigration policy. I said the policy has been in Iowa 14 years and that's why he's president of the United States today. I think this will demoralize so very many of his supporters.

And how do we get back now to a place where we to be with this? By the way, he had a mandate to end DACA, a mandate for a wall, to end chain migration and to end the visa lottery. We can go on and on with this.

And why they're matched against each other, negotiating against himself. It's troubling to me. I think that seeing the Democrats turn against it. The one thing he's accomplishing is convincing the American people of the real truth which is Democrats don't care about solving this problem.

They want this problem to exploit it politically and to bring more and more people into the United States that will be on their side of the political ledger.

INGRAHAM: I mean, I do think he has exposed them. You know, it's not the plan I would want. I'm good for the Godlatte bill. I think that would be a great path forward, but let's listen to what Mercedes Schlapp said.

I should say before we play it, we invited any White House official on to the show tonight. We were told we were going to have one and then they pulled him at the last minute. So, I want to hear from the White House on this.

I'd like to interview the president on this and obviously he just came back tonight, but we hope to have someone on Monday. Let's listen to what Mercedes said earlier from the White House today. Watch.


MERCEDES SCHLAPP, WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS: Clearly, it needs to be a bipartisan bill. If we could clearly have 60 votes with Republicans that would support this, it would be easier. The Congress is not in that position. This is why you need a compromise on immigration, but clearly, from the standpoint of the White House, it is clear as the president has said time and time again, there needs to be a wall. If there's no wall, there's no DACA.


INGRAHAM: Congressman, your response. It has to get the 60 votes in the Senate. The Goodlatte bill would be dead on arrival, a number of senators told me that today, would not pass. So, what do you say?

KING: Well, the best part of that statement is, no wall, no deal. We must have the wall. The most important reason we need to have the wall is because walls don't have prosecutorial discretion. Even a subsequent president will have a hard time tearing down a wall --

INGRAHAM: When you get the wall in the deal, Congressman, you end chain migration. That's 400,000 people a year. In five years, you would have more than 1.8 million amnesty of new family-based migration that's gone. In five years, you'd swap the 1.8 number and exceed it and the cuts would still keep coming. I don't see that you'll get a cut in legal family chain migration without some sort of amnesty, maybe not this big, but without some sort of amnesty, I just don't see it.

KING: Laura, here's what this establishes, though, if the president serves up 1.8 million for an amnesty in exchange for $25 million for a wall and then reduces the numbers of the chain migration that's the end of his enforcement that's he's going to get in his administration unless we come up with another amnesty to serve it up because he will have established that precedent.

By the way, this is the sacrifice of the rule of law. This has, in your lifetime or in mine, we will never see the respect for the rule of law restored again. And that's what I've been working on since 1986 when this mistake was made then by Ronald Reagan. It's the same debate. It hasn't changed.

INGRAHAM: Rule of law has to be respected, I completely agree with you on that. We're almost out of time. This is what some of the left-wing advocates have said today in response to 1.8 million. Listen to this.

"The White House released a hateful xenophobic immigration proposal," the ACLU. The Huffington Post writer, "It's a little more racist ransom note from a group of nativists, America's voice. They think they are offering up a spoonful of sugar. They can Congress and the American people to shallow the bitter medicine of radical nativism.

"United We Dream" say, "Let's call the proposal what it is, a white supremacist ransom note." Now, come on, the left is so over the top in response. Trump has exposed on these fanatics and my listeners are enraged. I can tell you that, Congressman.

They are -- they can't even believe what they're hearing, but the practical understanding of all this is you don't have 60 Steve Kings in the Senate. You don't have 60 Steve Kings, who are going to vote for cloture on an immigration proposal. It's just not going to happen. I wish we had more people that believed in the rule of law.

KING: I looked around a week ago, Laura, and I had a hard time finding anybody. Now that coalition is growing. So, thanks a lot for doing this tonight. I appreciate it.

INGRAHAM: All right. We appreciate it. By the way, Congressman, we could be on the verge of a stunning game changer in the Russia investigation. But the forces aligned against President Trump are fighting back. Our panel of experts will tell you what to expect. Do not touch that dial.


INGRAHAM: The House Intel Committee vote could be as early as Monday. The publicly released bombshell memo on the Russia investigation, at least, that's what we understand it's a bombshell memo. Republicans who have read it say it suggests serious surveillance abuses by top members of the FBI and the Justice Department. President Trump would have to OK the memo's release and the DOJ is fighting hard to prevent that.

Let's bring in Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Bill Gavin, a former assistant director of the FBI's New York office. Great to see all of you.

Let's start with you, Congressman Gaetz. I talked to one of your colleagues earlier this evening and he said the following, a Republican, a senior House member, he said I'd be careful in hyping the contents of this memo. He said, I think some of my colleagues are over selling what's in it.

This is not the smoking gun that's going stop the Mueller investigation. I think they're building up people's expectations to a ridiculously high extent. I heard that, and this is someone I really respect, and it made me nervous, Congressman.

REPRESENTATIVE MATT GAETZ, R-FLORIDA: I would say the memo has to be evaluated in the context of all the other stunning information that we've learned. Everything from Andrew McCabe's e-mails saying that there would be a headquarter special and a pro-Hillary bias to all the other text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok that show a real hatred for Donald Trump.

And not only a bias, but an attempt to act on that bias in a way that would undermine his presidency. So, I think, yes, the memo in and of itself, doesn't the full story, but in the context of everything else we've learned, I think it shows us that the Mueller probe is rotten to the core built on a rotten foundation.

INGRAHAM: Kimberly, I want to go to you into the issue of the dossier, which I think the Democrats have tried to kind of push off to the side. It looks like this was used multiple times in order to justify the ongoing surveillance of the Trump campaign, and then maybe going forward.

What does the public really need to understand about this? Because I think some people hear dossier and think the Republicans are into their conspiracy theories and it's too much for me to comprehend right. But what on a Friday night can we tell the viewing public about why that particular issue is so important?

KIMBERLY STRASSEL, COLUMNIST, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, it has been reported that it was used and hopefully this memo will confirm whether or not that's true. Here's why this matter, if that's indeed in the memo, Laura, then that in it of itself is a modern-day political scandal that's nearly unrivaled.

Because what you are fundamentally saying is that there was a campaign document that was paid for and produced by one presidential campaign and the FBI used it as a justification to spy on a rival political campaign.

And I don't care what your political affiliation is. You should be terrified that something like that could happen and that bar needs to be set. This in itself is a terrifying idea because you are already seeing people who keep moving the goal post in this about what counts as shocking or scandalous. It needs to be viewed as bad in it of itself if that's the case.

INGRAHAM: Let's move on to the affect that this might have it on the morale of the FBI. We've been hearing a lot from Democrats, who usually are big critics of law enforcement especially on the state level saying the scrutiny of the FBI and this relentless criticism is going to hurt FBI retention and it's going to shake public's confidence in this institution. Mr. Gavin, you are a FBI veteran. Your view on that?

BILL GAVIN, FORMER ASSISTANT FBI DIRECTOR OF NEW YORK: Those kinds of things are stated to further their own cause and their own belief. The bottom line is the fine men and women of the FBI will go on doing their job day after day and do it in a superior manner. Their badges are not tarnished by the actions of somebody else.

Their badges are as shiny as ever. The only tarnished badgers are the people who performed in a horrible manner if in fact that's provable. The problem with the predication for the FISA warrant is atrocious because it puts in jeopardy future FISA warrants going before FISA judges in courts.

INGRAHAM: It makes it all seem political. This is supposed to be an agency getting to the truth, if we star starting the FBI for a political hit job, all bets are off and that to me is really disturbing. I mean, I lived in the old Soviet Union as a student and that's what they did there.

They call President Trump a dictator. I find this much closer to police- state tactics than anything they've accused him of. And Congressman, I want to go back to you on this. The fact we still have agents working and investigators, lawyers, working in this investigation with such clear -- at least the appearance of a conflict and conflict of interest, appearance of partisanship, and animus towards the president.

After everything we've learned is stunning whether it's (inaudible), Andrew Weissmann or any of these other people, that they're still in the investigation. That's amazing.

GAETZ: One of the things I can say about the intelligence memo is names are named. We'll see who is engaged in conduct that's shocked me and so many in Congress. The result in this should be bipartisan legislation to actually reform these processes so you don't have these folks sticking around after bad acts.

You've got more oversight, more transparency and then we can restore confidence in the FBI and Department of Justice. We don't enjoy beating up on these entities that are essential to preserve our democracy.

We just want to see them work for the American people not for the interests of a political party that's trying to do a hatchet job on someone who's been elected president of the United States.

INGRAHAM: And Kimberly, the move to focus on whether Trump was itching to fire Mueller or said something, whether he was frustrated and McGahn said, you do that I'm out. I think the White House is maybe disputing that. It's unclear. The president's back from Switzerland now.

To me that doesn't surprise me. If the president truly feels it's an unjust investigation and the investigators were work on it were biased or Clinton or Obama loyalists, you know, I'd be frustrated too.

STRASSEL: There's no crime in asking questions too. In the confidence of your inner circle, raising questions about whether or not there are conflicts or bias and whether or not that is a cause for any sort of action. The important thing is he didn't take action in the end.

So, now we spent two days talking about a thought that went through President Trump's head. We keep hearing from critics of the president that the right or conservatives engage in diversionary tactics there should be self-reflection because the discussion at the moment is what happened in 2016 in terms of the FBI.

The Mueller investigation continues unimpeded and now we need a little bit of proof within that agency and the Department of Justice.

INGRAHAM: All right. All of you, breaking just moments ago, Hillary Clinton responding to a sexual assault scandal that she reportedly ignored during her 2008 campaign. We'll tell you what she is saying now and a lot more coming up. Great segment.


INGRAHAM: Back with some breaking news. Today the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton protected a senior campaign adviser back in 2008, her faith consultant, Burns Strider. He's accused of sexually harassing a female coworker. According to eight former campaign officials Clinton's campaign manager recommended firing Strider back in 2008. Instead Hillary reportedly docked his pay and sent him to counseling.

And Hillary Clinton just tweeted out her first public response to this story writing, "A story appeared today about something that happened in 2008. I was dismayed when it occurred but was heartened. The young woman came forward, was heard, and had her concerns taken seriously and addressed. I called her today to tell her how proud I am of her and to make sure she knows what all women should, we deserve to be heard." That's not my best Hillary impersonation but I do a better one.

Let's get reaction from radio host, FOX News contributor Tammy Bruce in New York, and here in Washington with me is Jose Aristimuno former DNC deputy press secretary. I love saying it, Aristimuno. I like saying it correctly. Great to see both of you. All right, Tammy, I'm going to give you the first bite of the apple of Hillary. She makes this statement on Twitter. Fine, everybody has a right to be heard. That does not change the underlying point here that in the campaign itself she was put on notice of his conduct, get rid of him, and she decided to protect him.

TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: From both her national campaign director and the campaign manager told her to fire him. If Hillary, in calling this young woman, which also might have been seen as an effort at intimidation because she apparently has not called her in the last 10 years because this happened during the 2008 campaign, if Hillary really wants all women to be heard, she should remove the non-disclosure agreements that everyone in that campaign is burdened by including this young women.

In addition, did she apologize for removing that young women from her position and out of that man's purview while just again, docking his pay, as you noted. But she was removed from her job and placed in a different job. But she was the one who had to make the adjustment. And after all of this time that this young woman has not been able to speak up, as you mentioned the New York Times spoke with eight people. And this is the other underlying -- Laura, is that all these people knew not just through the 2008 campaign but then through Obama's eight years and then through the 2016 campaign which many people say was the inspiration in a certain way for the Me Too movement. And Hillary didn't just not fired him, she resisted the requests of other women on that campaign to do that.

INGRAHAM: Jose, let's go to you on this. Hillary has had a history of protecting men who get in trouble, obviously her husband being the most important one. But then remember what happened with Juanita Broaddrick. She actually, according to Juanita who alleged that former president Clinton many years ago raped her, sexually assaulted her, and Hillary actually added to the intimidation and basically said to her we don't want to make this a big deal. The bimbo eruptions that James Carville talked about, we have to put those down, and now this. How does she come off as this great champion of women and, as Tammy said, kicking off the Me Too movement with this history?

JOSE ARISTIMUNO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, look, let's first of all talk about what happened in 2008. I can't speak in detail because we don't have all the evidence --

INGRAHAM: Eight people, eight women. Eight women.

ARISTIMUNO: I can tell you this, if it's true, if it's true, Laura, no one should be protected. If you committed any sort of sexual misconduct you should not be protected, period.

INGRAHAM: I don't know what happened to this guy, by the way. I'm loath to say because one person accused another person that it's definitely true because we know memory fade, people have grievances. But if it's a number of people who either knew this contemporaneously or not then it's serious. But if it's one person, I'm not willing to throw people right overboard because I don't think that's fair to men or women. But continue.

ARISTIMUNO: Again, if this allegation is true, and it appears that it could be true, I don't care if you're Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, we know our president has plenty of that, right, you should not be protected.

INGRAHAM: So in the end, the Me Too movement has to sacrifice liberal heroes at times, correct, like Harvey Weinstein, obviously. It's interesting that Harvey Weinstein and Hillary, best pals. He supported the Clinton for years, raised millions of dollars for them. So Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton's problems, now Hillary alleged to have covered up another instance of sexual abuse. Again, first being with her husband, standing by her man, going after the bimbo eruption, and now this. How can that lead to the Me Too hash-tag movement after Donald Trump wins? I just find that to be an odd trajectory.

ARISTIMUNO: I think it's a little bit different. Just because some of these folks who have done some horrible things have donated to the Democratic Party and given us millions of dollars doesn't make us the bad guys, doesn't mean that we agree with everything they have done.

INGRAHAM: We should say Steve Wynn has been accused of wrongdoing who is now the RNC finance chair and pal of Donald Trump, that came out today and there are multiple allegations of wrongdoing on his part. So there's a lot to be answered for.

OK, last night, guys, I don't know if you say it, but I interviewed Vicente Fox, who was a lot of fun, by the way, former president of Mexico, a very colorful guy. He's adopted four kids so he's near and dear to my heart for that. We don't agree on anything else, however. And he said this. I wanted to ask him about borders, do borders matter, should we even have a border with Mexico? He's a huge critic of the president and said very nasty things about the president. But let's watch.


INGRAHAM: Should we have any border with Mexico at this point? Do we need a border, really?


INGRAHAM: OK, but you would prefer not to have a border.

FOX: We're neighbors.

INGRAHAM: OK, so we shouldn't have a border?

FOX: God didn't create borders.


INGRAHAM: So he basically said, Tammy, I got him to say, no, not really, we shouldn't have a border. He wouldn't answer whether he had a fence at his own house, by the way. Real quick.

BRUCE: Your questions were perfect because he wasn't going to answer anything, and for his adopted kids they're learning that they should just learn how to ask really good questions because daddy won't really answer straightly with whatever it is they want to know.

But that's the key is that he doesn't have answered when pushed. Of course he doesn't answer because any normal, conventional answer would reinforce what the president wants, but your questions, though, as a result, were great in that they exposed that lack of an ability for him to answer a basic thing like do you have a fence at your house. When you refuse to answer that you know that you're on the wrong side.


ARISTIMUNO: We're a nation of laws. We're a nation of immigrants. Of course we need borders, but we need to do it in a humane way.

INGRAHAM: We might have a see-through wall after all. It might be a wall that you see through. I'm not going to explain that. Guys, happy Friday. Great to see both of you.

And by the way, guys, what's the difference between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush? We're going to demonstrate with some examples from the last 24 hours. Jeb is back, and it ain't pretty.


INGRAHAM: OK, we all know that Jeb Bush was trounced by Trump in the GOP primaries, couldn't win his home state, but he still can't figure out why, why did Donald Trump win, or even who's leading the party. Jeb resurfaced in a USA Today interview this afternoon. We actually ran into him earlier tonight, a little uncomfortable. And he's again lashing out at the president. To compare and contrast this interview with the president's performance at Davos we're joined by Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo. Raymond Arroyo.


INGRAHAM: I'm into my Spanish tonight.

OK, this was Jeb Bush today, USA Today interviewed him. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who's the head of the Republican Party right now in your view?

JEB BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, it has to be the president.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It took you a second.

BUSH: He's not -- he doesn't represent -- I don't think he's a traditional conservative.


INGRAHAM: Was he confused by the question? Who's the leader of the party? I can't understand why he got the nickname "low energy."

ARROYO: Here's my first question. Why are they even talking to Jeb Bush? Is Carly Fiorina and Governor Gilmore going to make an appearance next? What are the qualifications? The president is triumphing at Davos, but they're interviewing poor Jeb. And this is part of the reason he lost. And it breaks my heart. He's a lovely man and --

INGRAHAM: He was a great governor of Florida. We saw him tonight.

ARROYO: He's a gentleman, a school choice advocate.

INGRAHAM: Listen up, but he's mean to Trump all the time.

ARROYO: But look at the optics. He's sitting in a middle school library on a child's chair and he looks like he's being interviewed by the principal. It's very sad.

INGRAHAM: So compare and contrast that with Donald Trump today.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think we're doing a very special job, and I really believe it was time, and it was time to do that job, because I don't think the United States would have done well if it went through four or eight more years of regulation and really a very anti- business group of people. In one year we've cut more resolutions in my administration than any other administration in four, eight, or 16 years in one case. And we have a way to go. We're probably 50 percent done.


ARROYO: You see him dominating. The few days at Davos he dominated it.

INGRAHAM: He does a little bit subdued but I kind of like it.

ARROYO: Sober and in command of the material.

INGRAHAM: OK, but Raymond, you're comparing poor Jeb Bush in a middle school library to Donald Trump with all of the globe's billionaires. That's not exactly an equal playing field. OK, one more. This is Jeb Bush on Trump's rhetoric.


BUSH: I don't think he will succeed if he continues on this path. I just don't see a good outcome with all the rhetoric, all the hateful comments. But that ultimately is going to drag down the positive things he and his team are doing.


ARROYO: Why does he do this before midterms? The fact is Jeb Bush was saying Billy Bush was going to kill President Trump. They said the Judge Curiel comments were going to kill him. He rose and won the party. Support him.

INGRAHAM: He went on to say Trump needs to focus on creating income that's rising for Americans and keeping America -- what has he been doing?

ARROYO: Jeb Bush at this point is like Elton John and Cher, they keep announcing the retirement but they won't go away. So I'm waiting for the Jim Gilmore and George Pataki interviews from USA Today. Give us those gripping primary candidates that also lost.

INGRAHAM: No one will call you low-energy Raymond.

ARROYO: I won't be low energy Raymond.

INGRAHAM: I'm never doing an interview in the middle library, never.

ARROYO: Never in those little chairs with Harry Potter. It never works. It takes the credibility away.

INGRAHAM: Jeb Bush lost when the GOP voters rejected the Bush dynasty in 2016, but Democrats apparently didn't get the message, Raymond, because you won't believe who they've now picked as their fresh face for the future. Another political dynasty reboot and Krystle Carrington and Blake won't show up for it, coming up.


INGRAHAM: Democrats have hitched their wagon to the Me Too movement, championing minorities, railed against tax cuts as a giveaway to the rich. And now they have anointed a fresh new face to speak for their party. Who is this figure who can lead them into the future? Another Kennedy. A member of the grand dynasty of rich, privileged womanizers. As bad ideas go, this one is even worse than another Clinton.

Yes, Democratic leaders are giddy over the election of Congressman of Joe Kennedy to deliver the Democratic response to the president's State of the Union address on Tuesday. Nothing screams we're with the people like ridiculing bonuses and then trotting out a Kennedy to make the case.

And how's this for a Me Too candidate -- the nephew of notorious womanizer JFK and of course dear uncle Ted's contribution to the woman's movement can be summed up in one word -- Chappaquiddick. And get this, much of the party hierarchy seems to be in lockstep. Nancy Pelosi remarking, Congressman Kennedy profoundly understands the challenges facing hard working men and women across the country. This from a woman who derided the massive bonuses and pay hikes across the Trump economy of about three million Americans. She called them crumbs. But I guess the elites in San Fran and those who stroll about the Kennedy compound playing touch football, they are just crumbs. Good luck winning over the American people with a member of another discredited dynasty.

My friends, the future is with the people. It's not with the old political families that ran the country almost into the ground and that the country is tired of. The American people want ideas that work. Not enough to be a celebrity and a name. Solutions matter. And we have a lot to get to still in our last segment. Stay with us.


INGRAHAM: Before we go, today ICE announced a three day operation that led to the arrests of 86 criminal aliens and immigration fugitives in north Texas and Oklahoma. The prior criminal histories of those caught include everything from sexually exploiting a minor to manufacturing meth. It's great to see ICE empowered to do their jobs.

That's all we have time for now. We'll see you back here on Monday. Shannon Bream is up 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.