Ben Shapiro: Conservatives being censored in name of safety

close

Video

Ben Shapiro: Conservatives being censored in name of safety

Conservative commentator weighs in on 'The Ingraham Angle' after speaking at UConn.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 24, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Welcome to "The Ingraham Angle" from Washington. We have a jam-packed show tonight. One other type of show are we going to have?

Conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro, he just delivered a controversial speech, that means it's any speech, at the University of Connecticut campus. The speech sent leftists into fits. Frothy fits of frenzy. He joins us exclusively to tell us what happened.

And an intensifying showdown tonight between the Justice Department and the House Intel Committee over the release of that classified FISA memo. An Intel Committee member, Peter King, is here to react.

Plus, as the president says, he is ready to talk with Bob Mueller under oath. Longtime Trump confidant, Roger Stone, says speaking with Mueller would be a trap for the president. He joins us to explain why.

But first, accountability in the special counsel's office and a press that just doesn't care. That's the focus of tonight's Angle.

As soon as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel in the Russia investigation, politicians rushed to cover him with a blanket of invincibility.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, "THIS WEEK"/ABC, AUG. 6, 2017 : Have you seen anything in this investigation that would suggest that Robert Mueller has a conflict?

SEN. THOM TILLIS, R-S.C., JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: No, I haven't. I sit on the Judiciary Committee along with Senator Coons and I have not seen any evidence to suggest that.

SEN. JOE MANCHIN, D-W.VA, "MEET THE PRESS"/NBC, DEC. 17, 2017: I do not at all believe that Mr. Mueller has been compromised for his investigation. I think he's beyond reproach.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN, R-TEXAS, "THIS WEEK"/ABC, DEC. 17, 2017 : I have a lot of admiration and respect for Director Mueller.

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, D-MD., "THIS WEEK"/ABC, DEC. 17, 2017: You've got somebody who, by all accounts, is an independent person, somebody who's got lots of integrity.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, MSNBC, AUG. 3, 2017: He enjoys very broad support in the Senate both among Republicans and Democrats because of his long service as the FBI director, because of his record of respectable leadership as a senior federal prosecutor.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

INGRAHAM: In other words, President Trump, don't you dare even think about coming close, even sort of maybe kind of firing Mueller. A few months later Congress rushed into propose legislation to insulate the special counsel from executive branch interference or termination.

Republican pro-amnesty senator, Tom Tillis, along with liberal Delaware Senator Chris Coons introduced a bill that would allow Mueller to challenge any removal in court. Senator Lindsey Graham and Cory Booker, wonder twin powers activate, they went even further. They sponsored a bill that would prevent the firing of Mueller.

Apparently, he so perfect he could never be fired. Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee were properly skeptical about the constitutionality of any such moves such as that. Remember, Mueller worked for the executive branch, after all.

I have a question, why can't all federal employees challenge their firing? Of course, this would be absurd. Now setting aside whether it would be politically smart for president Trump to fire Mueller, and it wouldn't be smart.

He is the head of the executive branch and Congress has no business interfering with eve of the firing or the hiring decisions of the executive branch. All they have is the confirmation process, senate confirmations.

Otherwise, stay out of the business. So, my question is why were these senators so eager to build up Mueller and his team, and they were so eager to insulate them from executive branch oversight and ultimately perhaps termination?

Thank God, we have diligent congressmen who do take their oversight responsibility seriously. I'm talking about Congressmen Devin Nunes, Matt Gaetz, Trey Gowdy, Robert Goodlatte and Peter King, who will join us in just a few moments.

You don't want to miss this segment. Their determination to see that this investigation doesn't turn into some kind of star chamber. It's already turned up incredible thing so far. Missing or discussed thumb drives. Talk of deleting text messages. Talk of creating insurance policies against Trump.

Maybe even secret societies in the FBI. Meetings convened outside of the FBI, and of course, all those missing texts that they may or may not be reconstructing. And by the way, speaking of these texts between Peter Strzok and his gal pal, Lisa Page, we heard this today from the DOJ spokeswoman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH ISGUR FLORES, DOJ DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS: There were just over 50,000 text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok during the time period that the inspector general is investigating. What we also know, for about a five-month period those text messages never got into the FBI server. Obviously, we are reviewing immediately how they didn't get into the server in the first place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: First of all, who has anything, that much to say to anyone that would account for 50,000 texts? They must have really had a hopping relationship. There were reports, by the way, that the glitch that she referenced may have affected 35,000 FBI employees and all their cell phones.

Different from what we heard a few days ago. But whatever the case, it prompts more questions now just about the basic competency of the FBI. Sorry, are we not even allowed to wonder what else Peter Strzok and Lisa Page said to each other about Trump, Flynn, Comey, and maybe even the old Hillary email investigation?

I'm sure it wasn't all 50,000 texts of sweet nothings. By the way, I've noticed a pattern here, maybe you have as well. The more we learn, and the closer Congress gets to the truth, some of this underlying evidence, the more vicious the media attacks on those people who are seeking answers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Meetings off-site, secret societies, anything you can tell me without having to kill me?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN: This is nonsense. It's just complete nonsense. You're telling me that that law enforcement agency is treating people unequally because they have a political vendetta? If you will tell the American people that, that's what happens in third world dictatorships. That doesn't happen here.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: Republicans are talking about this secret society inside the FBI. They sound like crackpots.

MICHAEL STEELE, FORMER RNC CHAIRMAN, ON MSNBC: They will rue the day from going down this road and having this institution, part and have the kind of morale problems that could be long-lasting down the road. And men who are they to look to?

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

INGRAHAM: Certainly not to the head of the RNC, who was trashing the current president of the United States. Well, I'm just glad the Democrats are finally, finally supporting law enforcement! The FBI, you can never question them.

Let's look back now. For years the left has indulged groups like Black Lives Matter, the ACLU and Care, who reflexively impugn the integrity and character of police. Anytime somebody catches one of those unpleasant cell phone videos the police are too aggressive, they are racist, their anti- Muslim. You know the drill.

But now that Mueller, state versus federal, but Mueller is targeting Trump. Law enforcement, you can't question them. They can't do any wrong. If they should never be fired, they shouldn't even be questioned.

Now one would think that the media, some in the media would have a little bit of curiosity about, I don't know, the conflicts of interest in the special counsel's office. If they distrust law enforcement and investigators on the state level so often, why do the feds get a pass?

Well, there is without a doubt a deep-seated animus, and that is putting it mildly, toward the president by key members of the Mueller investigative team, and rather than confront the growing evidence, the left, they start demonizing members of Congress.

And anyone, frankly anyone, who dares to question the methods and the motives of the Obama Justice Department and now the Mueller gang. The black cloud that hangs over this Russian investigation, let me tell you this, it wasn't created by Fox News.

It certainly wasn't created by talk radio. None of us hired Jeannie Reed, who previously worked for the Clinton Foundation and represented Obama's national security advisor, Ben Rhodes.

I will tell you this, Fox News and talk radio did not appoint Andrew Weissmann. A Democratic donor, he praised Sally Yates in that letter when she was fired by the president. I don't think Fox News and talk radio appointed Peter Strzok either.

I will tell you this, no amount of scapegoating is going to make this any better. Now Robert Mueller could be the greatest guy, the smartest guy ever, but if the man cannot oversee his own team and remove the partisans, then you have to conclude he is either in over his head, or he's just not good for this role, or his negligent in his duty.

And that will compromise the ultimate findings of this investigation, whatever they may be. I also want to say this. Trump's team made some mistakes early on. I do not think, and I've said this before, it was smart to fire Jim Comey when needed, and it wasn't wise to talk to Lester holt about the decision to fire Jim Comey.

And if the story is true, well, it probably would not have asked acting FBI Director McCabe how he voted in the election, I wouldn't have done that either. The president has to be extra mindful given the fact that he had already kicked off the intel community with his promise of reforms, and of course some of his criticisms.

You kick that deep state hornet's nest and you are liable to get stung really bad. Today, the president told reporters, hey, I'm happy to talk to Mueller.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to talk to Mueller?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I'm looking forward to it actually.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want to?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: There's been no collusion whatsoever. There is no obstruction whatsoever, and I'm looking forward to it. I would love to do that, and I would like to do it as soon as possible. I would do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I was listening to that audio. He sure seems like he has nothing to hide, and the president appears ready and willing to be held up to scrutiny by the Mueller team. He wants to clear his name. But what about the men and women who are doing the scrutinizing?

Who is going to hold them accountable? No one should be above the law. Not the president, not Hillary Clinton, and not the special counsel's team. And that's the Angle.

Joining us now for reaction from New York is Monica Crowley, who is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. With me here in Washington is Attorney Allen Orr. You heard my take care. Everybody needs to be accountable. Allen, take a shot.

ALLEN ORR, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: I think everybody is accountable. I think your concerns are about the individuals who are participating in the actual investigation, which doesn't mean the investigation itself has a problem. There has not been an outcome yet, so why the big concern? If you are not guilty of a crime, then why is there a problem with going through the process?

INGRAHAM: My concern is that when you populate your investigative team with individuals who have been either loyalist to the previous administration or who actively were engaged in the Hillary email investigation and actually helped edit Comey's announcement of the non- indictment indictment.

That that kind of entanglement is the mere appearance of the conflict of interest is not what you want an investigation. An appearance of a conflict in a case this serious is enough to shake the credibility of the investigation and I'm not saying that everyone on the team is bad, I'm not saying that.

But if the shoe were on the other foot and Hillary Clinton were being investigated by a bunch of Trump loyalists who had written terrible things about Hillary and couldn't stand Hillary and were texting their boyfriend about Hillary, you would be on their show going crazy about them and I would actually say you have a point there.

ORR: Well, may be Hillary Clinton was a scapegoat for some Trump supporters, but this is just a bunch of stories about individuals. There's not a lot of paperwork to back it up and this is what the Justice Department does.

So, the fact that they also handle Clinton emails doesn't mean that they can also handle this. This is what their duty is as attorneys to sort of deal with the facts before them. So, the fact that they worked on prior cases of prior administrations have nothing to do with this case. If they are looking for the facts and that's what we are going after.

INGRAHAM: Do you think it's OK for partisans to be working on an investigation when they were loyalist to the previous administration and worked on the exoneration of Hillary Clinton? You don't have any -- if the shoe on the other foot --

ORR: I would ask the professionals.

INGRAHAM: What does that mean? They are people. They are not perfect. The only one perfect to walk the face of the earth, Jesus Christ. None of us are perfect. None of us are flawless and a conflict of interest, an apparent conflict or an appearance of a conflict in a case like this is not what you want to do.

Bob Mueller is the smartest person around, like he is the smartest guy who ever lived apparently, but he had no problem bringing in these people who hate Donald Trump, they despise the man.

I don't know how you can be independent in your thought process if you hate him as much as they did. Monica, got to get you in on this. Allen says they are professionals doing their jobs and I'm sure there are professionals in the investigation and the Democrats say this is much to do about nothing.

This is an investigation that needs to reach its conclusion, and everybody is throwing a bunch of pixie dust up in the air and hoping it goes away.

MONICA CROWLEY, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Well, it may in fact be true, Laura, that this entire investigation was predicated on a lie about Russian collusion, which was essentially a frame of Donald Trump.

These people never expected him to win. They expected Hillary Clinton to win so all of their possibly criminal and unethical shenanigans throughout the campaign to torpedo Donald Trump and then once he was elected, during the period of the transition to try to set him up on a Russian collusion narrative.

They thought that all of that evidence would go away. And guess what? Donald Trump is not the president. That evidence is being uncovered left and right and that's why the Democrats and the Mueller team, those who have been corrupted according to the evidence as we know it so far, that's why they are so frantically trying to deflect and lie about not just what they did, but about the president as well.

INGRAHAM: I want you guys to both listen to something that Adam Schiff, also on the Intel Committee, what he said about this concern about the investigators. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would you vote to not have --

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The point was they didn't care what was in the underlying documents. They wanted to make a political statement. They wanted to feed the beast on Fox News. They wanted to do what they could to derail the Mueller investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Monica, they are talking about the House Intel Committee wanting those four pages, that synopsis, released to the public. They just want to feed the beast. They want to feed Fox.

CROWLEY: Well, they are trying to discredit Chairman Nunes. They are trying to discredit the House Intelligence Committee that's exposing a lot of this corruption and a lot of this evidence. I can tell you tonight, Laura, based on one of my sources, that we will see all of these documents.

ORR: I'm a little concerned about why are we not seeing it now? Why do we need to wait to see it? I think the committee --

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: -- and we will see them.

ORR: I think the process should be bipartisan because the concern is bipartisan so why has only part of the committee already seen the memo and the rest of the committee hasn't? Furthermore, why has DOJ not vetted the memo with its regards to national security, which is the primary issue of all this in the first place. So, it doesn't sound like a very sound --

CROWLEY: The attacks on Chairman Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee that is doing incredible work here. Look, when they do talk about those who are attacking their investigation are trying to discredit the FBI and the DOJ and attacking the institutions is dangerous. The top hierarchy of the FBI and DOJ, Laura, discredited themselves.

ORR: We are just talking about the process.

CROWLEY: The one thing from all of this is Barack Obama. The idea that all of these people freelanced all of this or that anything --

ORR: I'm not sure why we are talking about Barack Obama tonight because we are talking about the Mueller investigation --

INGRAHAM: We are out of time. I think the Democrats have a chance to see this memo. They could all go to the secure room to read this memo. Only I think a few have. I'm always for more sunshine, more transparency. Let's see what it is. It may maybe the Republicans are over blowing it. Maybe it's not a big deal. I would like to see it for myself. People seem really hot and bothered by it.

CROWLEY: We will see it.

INGRAHAM: Thank you very much. Love to have you both back. We have so much more to tell you about on the FBI corruption and the Mueller probe with Roger Stone and Congressman Peter King.

But next, an exclusive live interview with Ben Shapiro, who just gave the first speech by a conservative on the U-Conn campus, and violence broke out the last time a conservative spoke there. Don't move.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Under pressure tonight, the University of Connecticut finally let students sponsor a conservative speaker on campus again. This is after violent protests erupted outside and inside the hall where the gateway pundits, Lucy and Winfrich (ph) spoke back in November.

Well, the "Daily Wire's" Ben Shapiro just wrapped up a speech hosted by the college Republicans. Here's a sample.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN SHAPIRO, HOST, "THE BEN SHAPIRO SHOW": Something has to be done about a system where a few crazed leftists decide they don't want to hear somebody speak and therefore, people from the outside who pay taxes to universities like this one can't get in. It's a great thing that universities have people like me and yes, like the person who is speaking opposite me on this campus to give a variation of ideas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Those words are so dangerous. I mean, the university actually offered -- I kid you not -- counseling to students who might be upset even at the mention of the thought of Shapiro's appearance. He looks like an unsuspecting guy to me.

Let's ask the man himself. Appearing on THE ANGLE exclusively in a new segment we are calling "Back-To-School." Kind of a Rodney Dangerfield thing. Did you traumatize snowflakes on campus tonight, Ben? You look so just innocent and nice, and they seemed very upset about the prospect of your arriving. You are in the stores campus, correct?

SHAPIRO: Yes, that's right. It was very intimidating. Beneath this innocuous exterior lies the heart of a monster. I jumped into the audience, I ripped at least one guy's throat out. In actuality none of those things happened, of course.

This is what's so funny. This is the last campus where they had to bring out dozens of security members, dozens of cops, the (inaudible) were on- call apparently, all because of what happened when Lucian came to speak. That's not rare.

When I was at Berkeley, they had to bring hundreds of police officers. When I was at Northwestern, they banned the public from coming. When I was at the University of Wisconsin, the front of the stage was taken over.

When I was at Cal State a near riot broke out. It's very based on campus and tonight, thank God, was actually relatively calm. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that the university really did its job and getting a lot of security out there.

It's cold, these are fair weather protesters. They will not show up when it's 30 degrees. Part of it too I think is that the number of people who are allowed in was limited. If you are from an outside group, you weren't allowed to come even though there were all the security offices available.

INGRAHAM: Now was it packed out, Ben? Was it a full auditorium?

SHAPIRO: They could have given us bigger space. There were about 500 seats, all of them full, but they did prevent people who wanted to come in from the outside coming in. I was told by the college Republicans there were another 600 to 700 people who wanted to come in and who were turned away because if you were a tax paying member of the public and you wanted to come, they wouldn't allow you.

INGRAHAM: You sound like Donald Trump. I had 700 people outside and they couldn't get in. I'm just teasing. There were 10,000 people outside. We have a clip -- we have a clip of a student who actually wanted to get in tonight. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They basically said that there's open seats and also unclaimed wristbands, they will still not let us in to the actual event.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did they tell you why?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. They just said they are not the people to talk to. There's nobody that will come in and talk to us and even if there is somebody inside there that could help us or could kind of sort this out, they are not going to come out and talk to us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What you make of that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They don't want us to go to this event.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because it's Ben Shapiro.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

INGRAHAM: Now I couldn't tell from my clip or by the look of the guy whether he was like a friend or a foe. I was guessing foe but then at the end I said friend. I couldn't really tell. But apparently -- they were like poor people want to come in, you can't go!

At some point -- two of my brothers went to UConn so I know the campus. It was a long time ago, but I know it quite well. It can't be that scary for them just to hear a conservative speak. It can't possibly.

SHAPIRO: I don't think that it is. As I said in the speech, if you actually have to go seek mental health counseling because you hear that I'm coming to campus, you probably need to seek mental health counseling for a number of other issues that you have.

But again, it's the security that I think is the new way that censorship is taking place. As I've said, there are a bunch of campuses now where the administration says, yes, we are happy to have a conservative speaker, but we're not going to allow people to come and actually hear this.

That's what happened to Berkeley. They had a 1,500-seat theater. They rolled out the top half of the theater and prevented people who came same- day from actually attending. It's not restricted to me. This is happening to a bunch of conservative speakers around the country all in the name of safety.

But Anita Hill spoke at UConn last week and it was completely open to the public. So, all we need to have is a few leftists, who are nasty and make threats and then presumably the entire public is barred from coming in the name of safety, of course.

INGRAHAM: It's like ObamaCare. You have access to care in theory, but you don't really have care. You are there, but you can't really hear you. I just have to re-event, I was like crying laughing, the diversity officer at UConn.

In her letter that just went out before your speech, "We understand even the thought of an individual coming to campus with the views that Mr. Shapiro expresses can be concerning and even hurtful.

Please utilize the many campus resources available if you should want to talk through your feelings about this issue, including my office, the Cultural Center, Dean of Students."

I want to go pay her a visit and say I've had a tough day today and I really need just a hug. I just need a hug. You look good. You look like you had fun tonight.

SHAPIRO: It was fun. And I will say this, there is no more useless title on campus than chief diversity officer, whose entire job is just to pretend a bunch of people who are too weak need to actually defend a point of view.

INGRAHAM: All right. Ben Shapiro, great to talk to you.

By the way, the Department of Justice is demanding Congressman Devin Nunes not released a memo alleging surveillance abuses by the Obama-era FBI. I wonder why. House Intel Committee member and Ingraham fave, Peter King joins us with reaction next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: OK. Really quick addendum from the previous story we just covered. My friend Gordon, a freshman at UConn just said, "I wasn't able to get into the Shapiro event either. Everyone wanted to go. More conservatives on campus than people think." Thank you, Gordon.

By the way, the Justice Department is asking to see a memo reportedly outlining serious wrongdoing at the FBI and justice department under President Obama. House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes is taking steps to declassify the memo summarizing the findings of his Russian investigation.

Well, a letter from the justice department charges that it would be extraordinary reckless tonight to release the memo without first giving the DOJ and FBI the opportunity to review it. Let's sort this all out with someone who's read the memo, Congressman Peter King of New York. I thought you were going to be here tonight with me, congressman, who serves on the intel committee. Great to see you. How are you doing?

REP. PETER KING, R-N.Y.: I'm doing great, Laura. How are you?

INGRAHAM: I'm great. So, what does the justice department, the FBI, they're suddenly all squarely about the release of this memo? What goes on?

KING: It was a four-page memo put together by a very talented professional staff on the committee, reviewed by all the Republican members, made available to all members of the committee and voted out of the committee last week to be made available to all the members of the House. The findings in here are very, very significant. Showing I believe the terrible mistakes or deliberate wrongdoing at high levels. And right now, the justice department -- and what Devin Nunes plans on doing because over 200 members of the House looked at it, only about 10 Democrats, by the way. And there is a climber by the public to see the memo. We're going to make sure there's nothing in there, any small item they make. We'll be able to sort to our method. And that is pretty much finished. That will be done and then we're going to vote this week on releasing it. At that stage, if we get a majority of vote, which we will, it will go to the president of the United States. He will decide if it can be made public or not. If it does, it'll be made known to the public. This letter for the justice department.

Laura, listen, I have great respect for the FBI. I generally have great respect for the justice department. But we have gotten almost no cooperation from them, at all, over the last several months. We had to go to court to get documents we were entitled to. A long hard fight to get basic documents which we have an absolute right to see.

And now, justice department, if we gave them this memo, what they would do is, it'd be passed out to all our friends in the media to tear it down before it even gets out there. Everything that's in that memo is from the justice department. Information we've found. There's no surprises there to them. They just want to be ready, I think, to attack it and they want to attack it. Make a preemptive attack on him. We're not going to let them. I understand. I have spoken to Devin. I've spoken to his staff people tonight and he fully intends to go ahead. We're not going to show it to the justice department.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, knowing what you know now, you've read the memo, you've seen the evidence so far, do you have faith as of now in the upcoming results of this investigation knowing what you know now and what you've seen?

KING: Well, I've sat through. I don't know whether it's hundreds of hours -- I mean, I've been in there for probably 20 witnesses who have come before our committee and show me all of the major ones. I've sat there to seven, eight, nine hours. Again, all the big names you've heard about. I've been there for that. I have not heard one word yet indicating any collusion. Now, I don't know if Bob Mueller has anything else, but he's talking to many of the same people. So if they come out with any finding of collusion at all based on what I've heard, then I would say that they're not doing their job.

But on the other hand, I think right now I believe the president's lawyers feel this is going in the right direction with all the improprieties that went on, the fact that this investigation, I believe, should never ever been started in the first place. I look upon it either intentionally or unintentionally as a political hit job. I mean, the facts here that you are the leading law enforcement organization in the world investigating a presidential candidate based on the flimsiest of evidence. I wouldn't even call it evidence. On the flimsiest rumors, that's what this was based on and that's a terrible precedent to set. You could do that to any candidate if you wanted to. When you bring the FBI into a political campaign, it's wrong.

INGRAHAM: I want to play for you a clip I watched this afternoon of a former RNC chief, Michael Steele. He was on MSNBC and he was criticizing Congress and anyone in the media who would cast dispersions on the FBI here. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEELE: We have now have set up a wholesale operation between the White House and Capitol Hill to sully the reputation of good men and women who worked inside the FBI because of, as you noted, Howard, some emails. Yes, they're problematic, but let the appropriate authorities ferret that out. To do what they're doing, the end game they're playing right now, what they don't seem to understand, it could blow up in their face just as much as it could sully the FBI.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Response, congressman?

KING: We are talking about a handful of people at the top. The FBI is an outstanding organization. There are people at the top that who have not served the FBI well. And I would say the rank and file of the FBI appreciates what we're doing, they say are concerned. I mean, I've heard from retired FBI people who are shocked about what's coming out. And to me the emails, the text messages, that's so important. That's really just an indication of this investigation from the start. It should never have been started. It's based on a false premise and that's continuing right through and whether we're talking about the FBI, whether we're talking about John Brennan at the CIA and others. This to me has all been a concerted effort to go after Donald Trump. Listen, a lot of reasons you could disagree with Donald Trump, but to say that he was colluding with the enemy when there's no evidence there, to me is shameful. Now, I think it's significant that now it's being leaked to "The New York Times." They're talking about obstruction of justice. About events that happened six months after the campaign was over. You can't tell if the Russians apparently colluded.

INGRAHAM: That's a cute trick. We noticed the leaking right as things started turning really good for Trump on the economy and the shutdown and then all the leaks came from the Mueller team.

Congressman King, thank you so much. Great segment. And by the way, President Trump makes a crucial decision on how to deal with the Russian investigation, but Roger Stone says it's exactly the wrong move. He'll tell us why, right back after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: As we mentioned earlier, President Trump said today he would be willing to answer questions from Special Counsel Bob Mueller. But Trump's longtime confidant and former advisor Roger Stone says it is a trap. Roger joins us from Fort Lauderdale to explain.

Roger, I bet you love tearing the president just rift today about, oh, yes, no problem, I'll come and have a cup of coffee, unload my burden. How could this possibly be a trap, Roger? Mueller wants the best for the president.

ROGER STONE, FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, look, it's understandable why the president is confident. He knows he's done nothing wrong. But a first year law student would tell you that this is an obvious perjury trap that Robert Mueller is taking advantage of the president's loquaciousness, the fact that he's never a man who suffers from a paucity of words. And what is absolutely clear is that Mr. Mueller has no evidence of Russian collusion, so now we're all the way cycled back around to the dismissal of Mr. Comey. And he seeks to entrap the president in some kind of process crime, perjury, or obstruction.

Therefore, the best advice that I could give the president, and I agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano on this, is that under no circumstances should he grant Mr. Mueller an interview. It's a suicide mission. It's a very clear perjury trap.

INGRAHAM: Under Lawrence Walsh's investigation of Iran Contra, Roger, the special counsel there, Walsh, agreed not to interview President Reagan in person, they submitted interrogatory. If the president responded to the written interrogatories and that's how it went down. Obviously here with the president of the star, special counsel, they had the videotaped testimony and so forth. So it's kind of a different precedent, but what if they agreed to a narrow pathway, a narrow perimeter where you're only going to ask about these two things. That's in a normal grand jury setting or a normal interview setting for a normal client, no lawyer would allow you to go in, they would say, OK. We're only going to -- we'll talk, but only about these two topics. What about narrowing the confines of the question?

STONE: Well, traditionally if the information can be gotten otherwise, the president would not be interviewed. A perfectly reasonable compromise to avoid a constitutional crisis would be for Mr. Mueller to submit written questions and for the president to respond to them in writing. I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with that. But for the president to walk into the blade, as it were and to try to pretend that Mueller and his band of partisan pirates are just honest brokers, honest prosecutors just trying to ferret out the truth is disproved by everything we know so far. And now with an extraordinary number of text messages from the FBI going missing, I'm old enough to remember when 18 and a half minutes of Nixon's White House tapes went missing and the mainstream media and the liberals went insane. Where is that outrage today? If nothing, that proves the partisan nature of this inquiry and the fact that the Department of Justice under Rod Rosenstein, who I have advocated the president fire immediately for his conflict of interest, is not on the level.

INGRAHAM: John Yoo said earlier today the following about what the president should do and how he should consider it. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN YOO, EMANUEL S. HELLER PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: I actually think President Trump should welcome the opportunity to speak to Mueller and try to accelerate it because after he's done that will wrap up Mueller's probe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Roger, I assume you disagree with that.

STONE: Well, spoken like the neocon Bush-ite that he is. Look, I think that's naive. And I think that's how the president's lawyers are selling this to the president. But these are the same lawyers who urged him to waive executive privilege and turnover all records depending on the impartiality and the lack of bias of Robert Mueller. It is a foolhardy piece of advice. It is a suicide mission. Under no circumstances should the president grant Mueller a live interview. Clearly, there is a compromise. Let them submit questions in writing, let the president respond in writing.

INGRAHAM: I think he could've done better than Ty Cobb and John Dowd. I mean, God bless him and his lawyers. I mean, he needed his own dream team and I think that he needed to raise the bar for the council representation as well.

Roger, thank you so much. Terrific appearance as always.

Now, President Trump give surprising remarks on Dreamers today. Lindsey Graham is a little too happy perhaps. Details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: President Trump today announced that he'd be willing to consider citizenship for DACA recipients over a period of maybe 10-12 years if, it's a big if, he gets legislation with strong border protection including funding for the wall, as well to an end to chain migration and an end of the visa lottery system. Do you hear that, Lindsey? Well, the White House clarified that the citizenship offer would only apply to the 800,000 illegal immigrants enrolled in DACA and that they would have to meet certain conditions. Well, amnesty supporters welcome the president's statements. Senator Lindsey Graham was practically doing the Snoopy dance. There he is. He said today with this strong statement by President Trump, "I have never felt better about our chances of finding a solution on immigration. Do not try to co-op this solution.

Meanwhile earlier this week, we told you about HHS, how it's still using taxpayer dollars to shuttle illegal immigrants around the country after they cross the border. That's fun. A lawsuit now could determine whether the federal government has the right to force states to accept refugees for resettlement and whether the feds are responsible for the state, for this financial burden. The states that are accepting them. A lot of news on this front.

And Don Barnett just published a report on that subject of the refugees for the Center for Immigration Studies. He joins us now from Denver.

Don, there's so much immigration news. But let's focus for a moment on the refugee issue. I have friends up in Vermont and the Burlington area, and they say that people arrive in Burlington who are refugees and no one in that community is even told about it. They just kind of show up and they show up in the public schools and then the residents are the last to know. What's going on?

DON BARNETT, FELLOW, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: That's exactly right. There's virtually no consultation with state authorities about where refugees will be resettled, or little. There's some, but it's wholly inadequate. And no provisions for the costs that the refugees bringing to the local communities.

INGRAHAM: Don, I have a question, how do they choose which localities get the refugees? It seems like we have an overload of refugees in two places, Maine and Minneapolis-St. Paul. And it's kind of the same latitude. And the maniacs and the Minnesota people, they're wild. I don't understand those people. I mean, I love them, but they're a little crazy. That's why I like them. It's a lot there and a lot there -- a lot of Somalis in both places. Omaha has a lot. Northern Virginia has quite a few refugees. Do they throw a dart at the map? How do they figure this out?

BARNETT: Well, basically it's run by private nonprofits, and they set up shop in effect where welfare is the most generous, where jobs are available and housing is cheap. Now, in the case of Maine, most of the refugees that are in Maine arrive there after they arrive somewhere else. They first arrived in Atlanta and then they moved to Maine because it was better. Maine, interestingly enough, is a state that has tried to get out of refugee settlement. And has officially withdrawn.

INGRAHAM: They don't want any part of it. Welfare gains, housing. Huge cost to the state. I'm sorry to interrupt here, but when you think about the refugees from, let's say Northern Africa, and they are relocated to Minnesota or Maine or wherever the catholic charities, or whatever catholic -- or Lutheran group, they're getting money from the feds and they're so -- assimilation has got to be a little bit trying in certain states, in certain climates, correct?

BARNETT: Yes, it's a very big issue. And the engagement with the refugee is very short. Three-eight months and it's simply inadequate. There is no assimilation. Assimilation is, as a matter of fact, not in the lexicon anymore. There's not even an attempt. They don't even pay lift service assimilation.

INGRAHAM: The idea of the melting pot, you're going to come and be American. They just smash the pot and the water goes everywhere. I mean, it's wild.

Don, thanks for that information.

BARNETT: Right. It definitely doesn't play.

INGRAHAM: Yes. We're going to stay on this topic, because a lot of you want to hear from it, and we'll be on it. Do not go away. We have a lot more to get to on the Laura -- I was going to say Laura Ingraham show -- "The Ingraham Angle." Radio, TV is all the same. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Before we go, I'd like to congratulate my friend, Alex Azar, who had just confirmed by the Senate today as the new secretary of Health and Human Services. You've come a long way, Alex. He is deputy secretary under George Bush, George W. Bush, supervising all of HHS operations and his mammoth $1 trillion budget and then he went on to be the president of Lilly USA. The largest division of Eli Lilly. And he was general counsel of HHS too. Anything else?

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.