This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," November 20, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

HUCKABEE: Thank you very much. And good evening everyone. I'm Mike Huckabee. I'm in for Laura Ingraham tonight and this is “The Ingraham Angle”. A big show you for you tonight at the White House press corps, the war with the Trump administration might just backfire. In a moment we will explain how two recent decisions point to a new reality for the media.

Plus, the President is under siege over critics over his response to the Saudi Arabia killing of Jamal Khashoggi. An all-star foreign policy panel will tell us why, despite his critics, Trump had no choice, but first.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The witch hunt has been going on forever. No collusion, no nothing. They finish them yesterday.  The lawyers have them. I assume they will turn them in today or soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUCKABEE: Shortly after the President deliver that statement on his way to Mar-a-Lago, it was indeed confirmed that the President and his attorney officially responded to special counsel Robert Mueller's team. The president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani added, and I quote, it is been our position from the outset that much of what has been asked raised serious constitutional issues and was beyond the scope of the legitimate inquiry.  This remains our position today. End quote.

So, is this probe now finally, finally, finally on its last leg? For more on what the White House is thinking tonight, we go live to Kevin Corke, who was traveling with the President in Palm Beach. Kevin, I know you are suffering down there in Palm Beach. Tell us what's up.

KEVIN CORKE, FOX NEWS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, what are he going to do about it? Hey Governor, great to be with you, and wonderful to have you on the program. Happy thanksgiving to you and certainly your family. I can just tell you this, the White House remains resolute and determined that this probe is going to end one way or the other, sooner preferably than later. I can also tell you that they continue to insist that there was never ever any Russian collusion.

And we've talked about that at length. And so the obvious question becomes now, what happens as we move into the next phase with the special counsel?  The ball is clearly in Robert Mueller's court and there are frankly governor, a number of different directions he could choose to go in, because despite the White House has frustration, this probe will continue until it reaches a natural end or the acting A.G. puts the brakes on it.

So the question becomes, where we go from here? Well, the Mueller team could review the President's answers that you just talked about and they could simply ask for more information. They could review those answers again and then prepared to simply disclose the report that we all figure is just about wrapped up. Meanwhile, compare his answers with other respondents and that is where things could get a little interesting if not thorny. And then ultimately, the nuclear option they could choose to subpoena the President of the United States.

Now, let's be clear about this, governor. Sources tell Fox News that while the President's legal team remains open, and I'm using air quotes to a possible sit down with the special counsel. No one, repeat no one, believes that will happen without a subpoena. Even if it were to happen, I don't think there is any question, it would spark a constitutional crisis.  Something will be keeping a very close eye on, but for now, enjoy the holiday week. Mike, back to you.

HUCKABEE: Thank you Kevin. And you enjoy your thanksgiving as well. Even in Palm Beach. Well here with more, Attorney John Sale, he served as special assistant counsel at the Watergate trial, he was under Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworsky. Also with me Juan Williams, Fox news political analyst and cohost of The Five and Dan Bongino, former secret service agent and host in our ATV. John, I want to start with you. We have these answers now. They been submitted. Is there a timeline that you can sort of give us an insight into?

JON SALE, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT COUNSEL AT THE WATERGATE TRIAL: Well, nobody has a timeline, but I think -- let's put it in context, I don't think and I argued it in an article I wrote in the hill, I don't think that the special counsel is entitled to any answers from a person they are investigating. I mean, I represent people all the time who were being investigated. We never give a statement and prosecutors to their job.  They continue with their thorough investigation, they draw their conclusions without the benefit of answers from the President or the investigating.

I think you're getting more than they ordinarily would and in this case they you can write a report. The office of legal counsel has said they cannot indict the Presidents. So, after over a year, after over a million documents, after -- I think it is 35 witnesses with the President did not assert any privilege. Is it time for them to write the report and let the court of public opinion decide whether or not there was collusion?

HUCKABEE: OK, so, Juan do you want to give me the contrarian opinion as to why they should keep going on and on like the energizer bunny for heaven's sakes?

JUAN WILLIAMS, “THE FIVE” HOST: No Mike. I am all for wrapping it up. Obviously this is not of the length that we saw in terms of prior prosecutors investigating president. Those go on for five years or more.  So we're coming up on two years here. And so I don't think that is the reason. Although I would prefer given that we will see a lot of you know, excitement around the 2020 election that somehow this gets out of the way.  I prefer that.

I will say that I was taken aback by the effort by Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer to limit the scope of the investigation by saying, we are not going to answer any questions about obstruction. I heard what was being said, hey you don't have to answer anything. That is fine, but the President has long said that he has nothing to hide. And then the later issue is, that The New York Times today broke a story saying the President was suggesting to the White House counsel that somehow the Department of Justice go after Jim Comey. Go after Hillary Clinton, in other words, punish his political opponents.

Boy, that sure seems like obstruction. I don't know anything about what is in the Mueller report obviously. I don't know about collusion, I don't have any evidence of that prior me. But boy, that sure strikes me as a man who is trying to obstruct an investigation because he worries that he is in deep water.

HUCKABEE: Yes. Dan, you know, if that happened, my gosh that would almost be as bad as when Obama went after people through the IRS and the Justice Department. We had wiretaps on James Rosen and his parents in the Associated Press. And to Juan's point about limitation of the investigation, let's talk about that a minute. Because as I recall the only thing that was supposed to be investigated was whether or not Donald Trump colluded with Russia. That was the limitation of the investigation.  This thing has continued to go on and on. Dan, I would like you to weigh in and tell me. You know, if that is a limitation, is this about over?

DAN BONGINO, NRATV CONTRIBUTOR: I always enjoy the company of my good friend Juan and you, governor. But Juan, I don't know how you said that with a straight face. Are you seriously making the case that targeting your political opponents which was in that New York Times story is all of the sudden this malicious thing while simultaneously we know that Trump team was spied on by the Obama administration? Juan.

WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. What is that about? We know that in fact, when Trump said there was a wiretap on Trump tower. Everyone said that is not true.

BONGINO: Juan, do know the name Stephan Halper? He was a central intelligence agency, intelligence asset that was utilized against a Trump team. You know how I know that, Juan? Because he actually emailed people in the Trump team. The emails -- I don't know if you miss that. But that is out there. That was he's famous outed in The New York Times with a said everything, but his name. So, I just find it bizarre that you would say, oh, my gosh, this is offensive. Trump allegedly targeted his political opponents as you completely ignore the fact that the Obama administration actually did target their political opponents. That is not open for disputes. That actually happen.

WILLIAMS: Dan, hold on. I think what you are saying is that when the Obama administration knew of Russia interfering in 2016, they may have approved somebody saying, hey what is going on here? That is not punishing your political opponent. That to someone in office acting like an authoritarian. They are obstructing the instruments of criminal justice to go after your political opponent.

BONGINO: Juan, listen. Again, I'm sorry but you're just not familiar with the details of the case. The Deputy Director of the FBI himself Juan, said there would've been no Russian collusion case without the dossier. The dossier has been debunked. None of it is true. It is nonsense.

WILLIAMS: What do you mean it is not true? Let me just quickly say --

HUCKABEE: I'm going to have to jump in. I'm doing this immensely. Juan, Dan, I've enjoyed this immensely. But I want to thank you and Jon, all for being here. But I had to let you go. Get your turkey cook. Thank you.

I'm going to turn now to the ongoing battle between CNN and the White House. CNN celebrated their legal victory when Jim Acosta got his press pass reinstated. But what does it mean for everybody else? Byron York writing yesterday, said and I quote, the Acosta decision could make it easier for White House officials to kick reporters out. End quote.

Joining me now to discuss his former White House press secretary, and senior adviser to the America first action pack, Sean Spicer. Along with former Ronald Reagan aid and author of the forthcoming book, Swamp pores, Jeffrey Lord.

All right. Gentlemen, let's talk about the new rules of White House has laid out for reporters. Actually will they be followed by Acosta and his colleagues in the press room? Plus, is the White House going to need to come up with a maybe three strikes and you're out plan. Sea, your view on this new announcement of the White House?

SEAN SPICER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, governor, it is great to see you. I think, I talked about this and my podcast with Kellyanne Conway. This is a discussion about content versus conduct. And I think there is a very capable press secretary that is right now able to discern the difference between the two.

No one has a question about the content of any reporter's question. They can ask whatever they want. But their conduct is what is in question. I think that is what the judge ruled the other day. Will they behave in a way that is professional? Will they respect not just the office of the presidency, but their fellow reporters? And I think that is what this really comes down to. I think there is a great press secretary now.

You may know her. That knows how to call balls and strikes. And there is a President who knows how to understand that as well. And I think this is what it comes down to. Were other organizations, no names mentioned, but you may guess them are trying to blur the lines is the question about what the content is. No one cares what the reporter asks. They can ask whatever questions they want. But the way these reporters conduct themselves, did they conduct themselves and show respect not only to their fellow reporters, but to the President of the United States, and the White House is what is in question.

HUCKABEE: Jeffrey, the judge ruled in a rather narrow way. He did not say that the first amendment was in any way being attacked by Jim Acosta losing his hard pass. It was just the process was not fully visible to the world.  And therefore his Fifth Amendment issue was the only one. But they celebrated as if somehow they had taken a stand for democracy. I don't remember any of the mainstream media being really that clever, clear and honest about what that ruling was from the judge last week.

JEFFREY LORD, TRUMP SUPPORTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. You are absolutely right, governor. And Sean has hit the nail on the head. This is about conduct. Not about content. You know in the last couple of days we have heard from Major Garrett nor with CBS. In the Obama days of course, he was the White House correspondent for Fox. No one remembers Major Garrett acting like Jim Acosta. That is because he didn't. There was a way to do this. Sean has been the White House press secretary, I had been a press secretary to a senator and a congressman before that. This is totally unprofessional stuff.

I think that CNN has to be very careful here of what they wish for.  Because now, if there's going to be a set of rules and regulations, the good press secretary that Sarah is, she will call them out. One other thing, I took a quick look back at a memory from childhood of JFK's press conferences. Where he had adversarial reporters. They were so well mannered, governor. It is beyond belief. We've gone so far down the path and in the wrong direction with these stuff. It is almost unbelievable and I think CNN and Jim Acosta will come to regret it and so will their compadres in the room.

HUCKABEE: I want to get your thoughts on the fact that the White House correspondent association have announced it is not going to have a comedian wrote the media next year, which is known as the annual nerd prom. Instead they will have biographer Ron Tarnow is going to be the featured speaker to put some perspective on today's politics and history.

Last year speaker, Anti-Trump comedian Michelle Wolf tweeted this in response. She said, and I quote, the White House correspondent association are cowards. The media is complicit. And I couldn't be prouder. End quote. First of all, I am not sure they had a comedian last year. That Michelle Wolf and she just wasn't funny. So Sean, what is your response to the fact that the correspondents association for the first time in decades has decided that they're not going to have that kind of -- I would say, lack of political humor going on?

SPICER: You know what. Here's my response, I applaud Olivia Knox and the White House correspondent association for doing this. They want to have a dinner that celebrates the first amendment. It actually shows that that is what their intent is. So I applaud them for it. Because last year they wanted to have a comedian and they talked about how this comedian, Michelle Wolf would conduct herself and talk about the first amendment. And it wasn't. It was rude, it was disgusting. I think for them to at least acknowledge the fact that they want to talk about the first amendment and have a historian do it. I don't know what these individuals are going to talk about, but I think at least their intent is right.

And I will give them credit for that, because last year's dinner was disgusting. And what I thought was more appalling about the dinner and anything is that they branded it as about the first amendments. The comedian, if that is what you call her, wasn't that. And no one in the White House correspondent, from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, said anything about the way that this person so called conducted themselves in the quote of spirit of the first amendments. So, to see them at least acknowledge that that wasn't the right direction is at least something that I want to applaud and say, at least you got the message.

HUCKABEE: Well, we will see how it works out. Jeffrey, Sean, great to have you both. Happy thanksgiving.

LORD: Thank you governor.

SPICER: Thanks. Happy thanksgiving.

HUCKABEE: You bet. Straight ahead, Trump's critics are lashing out over his response to Saudi Arabia today in a wake of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Up next, our panel will explain why he might have sided with the lesser of two evils.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The fact is maybe he did and may be didn't. We are with Saudi Arabia. We are staying with Saudi Arabia. And by the way, just so everyone knows, I have no business whatsoever with Saudi Arabia. It is all about for me -- very simple, it is America first. Saudi Arabia, if we broke with them, I think your oil prices would go through the roof. I've kept them down. It is a very simple equation for me. I'm about to make America great again. I'm about America first.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUCKABEE: That was a President earlier today addressing his decision not to further punish Saudi Arabia after the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. For more on what the White House and the critics are saying tonight, let's go to Kristin Fisher, she is live in Washington.

KRISTIN FISHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, President Trump says there'll be no further repercussions against Saudi Arabia because he believes a good U.S., Saudi Arabia relationship is simply more important.  He is putting business opportunities and security alliances over this human right abuse. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The decision comes despite a report that the CIA believes that the Saudi crown prince did order the killing. But President Trump said today, that he is standing by the Saudis. Here's why.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'm not going to tell the country that spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and to do one thing very importantly, keep oil prices down so that they're not going to a 150 dollars a barrel. I'm not going to destroy the world's economy and I'm not going to destroy the economy for our country by being foolish with Saudi Arabia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FISHER: But the president's decision is being denounced by members of both parties on Capitol Hill. Even by some of his closest allies. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said, I fully realized that we have to deal with bad actors and imperfect situations on the international stage, however when we lose our moral voice, we lose our strongest asset. And Senator Rand Paul said, I'm pretty sure this statement is Saudi Arabia first and not America first. In that statement President Trump said the Congress is free to go in a different direction if it so chooses. Indeed tonight, Senator Graham said that he believes there will be strong bipartisan support for serious sanctions again Saudi Arabia, Mike.

HUCKABEE: Thank you Kristin. Joining me now with reaction, Walid Phares the foreign policy advisor from Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. David Tafuri, the former Obama campaign foreign policy advisor and former state department official. As well as Rebecca Heinrichs, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Let's talk about this. Good or bad move on the President's part?

WALID PHARES, FOX NEWS FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT: I think the President is basically telling us that the national security, the high interest of the United States basically tells us that we need to maintain the strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia. But at the same time, there needs to be an investigation. And I think if you want to be fair in America and around the world, that investigation should be comprehensive all the way. If there are other crimes, we've heard that before. So I think on the one hand, maintaining the strategic relationship with the Saudis to contain the Iranians and to make sure that we are continuing to fight against the jihadists and ISIS is the right thing to do. And the investigation should be separate from politics and go all the way.

HUCKABEE: Rebecca it does seems that this can't be just a binary choice.  It is either the Saudis are the Iranians. If something does something bad, even if they are our friends, but we need to do something to say that this has to be seriously dealt with? A systematic murder of journalist, that is pretty serious.

REBECCA HEINRICHS, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE: Mike, I think that the President actually is being prudent here. It is not a binary choice as you said, but we have sanctions, 17 Saudis. The king of Saudis Arabia has identified who is responsible for Jamal Khashoggi murder. But the President has decided that we have to look at the context. That does security relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. There are couple of major things we have to keep in mind.

Saudi Arabia is critically important for the global energy market. Even as the U.S. becomes energy independent, our allies still rely on petroleum that comes from Saudi Arabia. Especially as we sanction Iran, we need that oil keep flowing from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia also helps us keep in those energy choke points open. The Iranians don't have a monopoly on those. And then of course, their helping the United States in pushing back Iranian aggression generally in the region. It is such a critical relationship.

And so I think the President really threads the needle carefully and balancing the human rights concern of Khashoggi's murder and also taking into consideration, first and foremost that the priority which is the security of Americans.

HUCKABEE: David, President Trump is not the first President that has had a cozy relationship with the Saudis. To my knowledge, all the Presidents, Democrats and Republicans have sometimes, I think too cozy with the Saudis.

Even after 9/11 when we really didn't call their hand after the reality was that they were highly connected to the folks who were guilty of 9/11. So, is President Trumps any different than the other Presidents? Democrats and Republican who have kind of look the other way at the atrocities of the Saudis?

DAVID TAFURI, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, that is a fair criticism against all of our Presidents. But this was a serious provocation. The world is watching to see what America is going to do.  And what America needs to do is two things. We have to send a message to the world that we won't tolerate this kind of behavior and there will be repercussions for it. At the same time, we have to preserve our alliance with Saudi Arabia, because it is important ally. So to punish them and make them say they are sorry and make them do the things they will never do this again so other countries also don't do it, but also preserve that alliance.

That is important. Now President Trump was doing an OK job of that, but it went off the rails today with his public statements. You saw some of them in the previous reporting, he also put out a written statement. It looks like he wrote it himself. It starts out saying that the world is a dangerous place. That is not an appropriate way to start a foreign policy statements. It sounds like he is saying, he can't protect us from the types of thugs that Saudi Arabia has sent to kill this journalist, Khashoggi. That is not appropriate. American values are not for sale.  You heard Trump talking about how that is it is more important that we be able to sell arms to Saudi Arabia than we stand up for rule of law and that we stand up for human rights. That is not right. He needs to go back to the original attack, which is we will punish Saudi Arabia, but we will preserve a relationship with the king. We will encourage them to make sure everyone who is responsible, no matter how high it goes up, everyone who is responsible is punished.

HUCKABEE: I did some quick answers from each of you. Let me start with Walid with you. What are the Presidents options? What should he do? If you're whispering in his ear tonight, what would you tell him he has got to do?

PHARES: It is very simple. On one hand, continue with the investigation.  We've had investigations in the past like with the killing of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon Hariri that are 13 years from now. So we have to be very serious about these investigations. On the one hand, these sanctions should target those who are responsible enough to engage in geopolitical mistakes by engaging more influence of the Iran and Yemen or another part of the region. So we have to be very careful. Distinguishing between the legal process and the geopolitical process.

HUCKABEE: Rebecca, very quickly. Just a simple answer. Does this hurt the President with members of his own Party?

HEINRICHS: I don't think that it showed. I think the president is being completely realistic with the cards that he has been dealt. He should continue to pressure the Saudis privately and we should continue to hope and to push that the young prince to move towards reform. He has shown an interest in having a softening relationship with Israel. That is a critical ally. We need to continue to cultivate that relationship and pressure on where we can, so that it is useful.

HUCKABEE: And David, is this a good or bad message to the Iranians?

TAFURI: Well, the Iranians like this. They want to see a division between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. We have to shoe that we are going to keep that alliance in place and we are going to continue to confront Iran, but we are going to curb this kind of conduct with Saudi Arabia. Let's see what our CIA says about who is responsible. The President should work with her intelligent agency and with Congress to come up with a resolution that is going to punish Saudi Arabia but preserve the alliance.

HUCKABEE: Thank you all. David, Walid, Rebecca, have a great thanksgiving. Coming up, the small handful of leftist's judges be making decisions that adversely affect all of America? Wait till you hear how an Obama appointed judge, just up in the president's emergency restrictions on asylum claims. That debate is coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and file a case. It is a disgrace. In my opinion, it is a disgrace what happens to the ninth circuit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You go to the ninth circuit and it is a disgrace. And I'm going to put in a major complaint, because you cannot win if you are us a case in the ninth circuit. And I think it's a disgrace. This was an Obama judge. And I'll tell you what, it's not going to happen like this anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUCKABEE: That was President Trump taking aim at the liberal ninth circuit and one judge in particular, U.S. district judge, Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama back in 2012. Judge Tigar issued a nationwide injunction against Trump's newly announced emergency restrictions on asylum claims. This means anyone seeking asylum can do it anywhere they want.  That's instead of the ports of entry that the Trump administration sought to restrict it to.

To debate this topic is Francisco Hernandez, immigration attorney, and Art Arthur from the Center for Immigration Studies. Art, let's start with you.  This is basically saying, come on in any way you can. That seems a little dangerous to sort of change the rules of how people seeking asylum get into the country.

ART ARTHUR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: And it's the danger that Judge Tigar actually ignores. In fact, he seems to be completely unaware of the dangers that exist for people who enter the United States illegally.  Sixty-eight percent of all of those individuals were assaulted during that trip, one-third of all women are sexually assaulted during the trip through Mexico to the United States to enter illegally.

What the Trump administration has attempted to do is dissuade individuals from entering the United States illegally, to have an orderly process by which individuals go to ports of entry. And yet for some reason, Judge Tigar has said that individuals who are entering the United States illegally have some right to enter the United States illegally, or at least the Trump administration hasn't acted properly in constraining them from doing so.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: No. It's absolutely incorrect, it's not true. It happens to be the law. If he doesn't like it, why doesn't he get Congress to do the immigration reform that he has promised for two years? It happens to be the law.

ARTHUR: Francisco, you know now that's not --

HUCKABEE: Hold on, guys, hold on. If it is the law, then isn't the law that you have to go through a port of entry? Isn't it the law that if you want to go into a country that there are processes to legally immigrate?  Francisco, I believe that there ought to be a legal immigration policy. I am for immigration. I am not against it. I am even for asylum for people who are truly in danger. But this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people just showing up. So how do you respond to that?

HERNANDEZ: Because they still have to make a claim, past the threshold burden of proof to show that they have at least the opportunity for political asylum. And the people making the evaluations on whether they have shown that proof are employees of the State Department. It doesn't mean they get political asylum because they cross in a legal point of entry for nonlegal port of entry. It doesn't matter. The proof is the same.  And the people who are evaluating our employees are President Trump. So it doesn't make a difference where they cross. They still have to show up.

ARTHUR: But they don't have a right -- they have a right to apply for asylum, but they don't have eligibility for asylum. And what the Trump administration attempted to do was restrict the ability of individuals who have entered the United States illegally in violation of U.S. law. You have committed a crime from applying from asylum.

HERNANDEZ: They can't come legally through port of entry anyway. It doesn't matter if they line up at the port of entry, they're not going to be let in anyway until they are hard on their political asylum claim. By the way --

ARTHUR: Absolutely, but if they show up at the port of entry, we can allow them to enter in an orderly fashion. We don't have hiring squadrons, we don't have the cartels to enter the United States legally, yes. There might be metering. We might be limiting the number of people.

HERNANDEZ: How do you think they got here?

ARTHUR: They got here by passing through Mexico.

HUCKABEE: Francisco, let me weigh in here, Francisco.

HERNANDEZ: Sure, governor.

HUCKABEE: Francisco, let me ask you this, if a person shows up, you say it doesn't have to be a port of entry, just anywhere. And they say, I need asylum. So if that is the case, where are they held until this investigation happens? Do let them roam freely in the country?

HERNANDEZ: No.

HUCKABEE: Where are they held without the criticism that they are being held illegally or unlawfully?

HERNANDEZ: In order for them to make a claim of political asylum, they have to go to an immigration official and stake their claim. So even if they cross in a non port of entry, they still have to an immigration official to set up the proof. And if they go through a legal point of entry, there is no mechanism where they can come in legally anyway. That is the misconception that we are operating under. They cannot --

ARTHUR: There is no misconception, because they can allege -- they can assert credible fear if they go through a port of entry. They are found to have a credible fear, then they are placed in removal proceedings and they can make an application for asylum. That is exactly the Trump order says.

HERNANDEZ: But the law says it doesn't matter where, even if they come in from a nonlegal port of entry, they still have to go to an immigration officer to make their claim for political asylum, otherwise they can never even apply. It doesn't make a difference. This is about --

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: Excuse me. Excuse me, guys. Shouldn't it trouble us all that a judge, a single federal judge decides for the entire nation that he is just going to upend the elected president's policies? I think that's got to be a little bit troubling.

HERNANDEZ: He did not upend it. He just said that's the law.

ARTHUR: And governor, that's exactly the problem.

HUCKABEE: We've got to go. I wish I could spend more time. We have to go. I am so sorry. We will try to do it next time.

Up next, Laura recently spoke to a U.C. Berkeley student about how she was being targeted for her Christian beliefs, this after she dared abstain from a vote on LGBTQ rights. This is a can't-miss Defending the First segment which is coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ISABELLA CHOW, STUDENT SENATOR AT U.C. BERKELEY: I don't see a conflict between being able to accept love and validate you as an individual and yet not fully agreeing with how you choose to identify yourself sexually.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUCKABEE: By simply daring to dissent, our next guest has had her campus life destroyed. Isabella Chow, a student senator at the University of California Berkeley got kicked out of her own party and is being pressured to resign because of her religious views. Her crime? She simply abstained from a largely symbolic student vote on October 31st because she didn't fully agree with certain clauses inside the pro-LGBTQ bills. As a result, she got labeled homophobic and transphobic, even though she didn't even oppose the final vote. Laura had the opportunity to speak with Isabella earlier. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Take us through these past few weeks. We want to establish what happened. This is a student government kind of proclamation stating what, exactly?

ISABELLA CHOW, STUDENT SENATOR AT U.C. BERKELEY: Yes. So the bill, the main bill that I abstained from opposed Trump's proposed reforms to Title IX, and specifically one clause where a person's gender is defined as a person's biological sex.

The bill that I abstained from, not only did it say we support freedom from discrimination and harassment for all individuals and especially LGBTQ individuals, but at the end there were clauses that asked me to promote an LGBTQ identity and lifestyle, and to promote organizations whose primary purpose is to promote the LGBTQ identity and lifestyle. And I said because of my Christian views and because I represent the Christian community on campus, I cannot fully support this bill.

INGRAHAM: And so for that, being a Christian and being unapologetic, you were labeled some pretty terrible things. The Daily Californian said the following, "Isabella Chow made transphobic and homophobic statements during ASUC meeting, publicly dismissing the identities of individuals on campus.  Chow's language erased and dehumanized individuals," et cetera, et cetera.  How do you respond to that? Did you dehumanize people because of your faith?

CHOW: Yes, I'd actually like to go back to my originally statements on the Senate floor on October 31st. And what I said was, one, I think that discrimination and harassment is never ever OK. But where I cross a line between where I can protect you as an individual and where I can promote your identity is a very fine line for me to walk. And so my response is, I don't see a conflict between being able to accept love and validate you as an individual, and yet not fully agreeing with how you choose to identify yourself sexually and how you choose to promote your sexual lifestyle.

INGRAHAM: Right, I get that. Isabella, it's a simple, I think, understanding here. They are asking you to promote something that is contrary to your fundamental religious belief.

CHOW: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: That is requiring you to worship at the altar of something that you don't believe in. It is as simple as that. I don't know whether it is a proclamation or what you said on October 30th, it's as simple as that.  And my problem with this is, this is happening across the board in American society. If you are -- you try to be -- no one's perfect. We all fall down. But if you try to live your faith and you believe your faith as, I guess, stated in the Bible or whatever you view the Bible to be, and it's contrary to whatever prevailing norm is at this point popular, then you're labeled a hater, homophobic, transphobic, any phobic that comes to mind, and they want to shut you down.

So now you are dehumanized. So what they are accusing you of, they are now doing to you, requiring you to resign from your various positions, have no position on campus, and be reviled. And for that, we're supposed to give them like two thumbs up? I don't understand how that is diversity today.

CHOW: Yes. I can't tell you how many times I've been called the f-word in person, online, social media, on the Senate floor. And other slurs that I just don't want to repeat on camera.

INGRAHAM: When you say, look, I love all people, but just like you don't agree with everything I believe in, I don't agree with everything you believe in, but I love all people. If you call yourself gay, I love you as a person. It doesn't mean I have to validate everything you do, just like you wouldn't force them to belief in something that they don't believe in.  That is the whole freedom of conscience thing, I thought.

CHOW: Yes. I think where they are coming from is because we can't understand how you can love us and not accept our sexual identity, therefore we're going to say your words about love and acceptance are completely worthless. And we are just to take your words about not accepting us and twist that mean that you are a hater and a bigot.

INGRAHAM: That's right, but it's meant to shut down speech. This is my point. Are you getting any support on campus, Isabella?

CHOW: I've gotten encouraging prayers from the Christian community. I've gotten encouraging support from conservative groups on campus. But besides that, students are afraid to speak out even if they support me, whether that's in person or on social media.

INGRAHAM: Right. That's the poing.

CHOW: And so it's hard. Yes.

INGRAHAM: Everyone is afraid. If you are in the military and you believe certain thing that are not popular today, you can't speak out. If you are in business, heaven forbid you speak out. If you give a donation to a group that they label as haters or horrible or awful rotten people, then you are afraid. Everybody is afraid. That is not a free society. That is not truly a free society. And I've got to say, I don't care what your belief is, if you're Christian, you're atheist, you have a right to speak out and to have your views respected on college campuses.

The university says that the student government is autonomous. It is that correct, because don't you guys get money from the university?

CHOW: That is correct. Our money comes in student fees. As a Senate class we manage about $1.5 million to $2 million every year.

INGRAHAM: OK. OK. I'm making a legal point, which I know Harmeet Dhillon is representing you. But that is a connection to the university, so the university can say all they want, that we believe in free speech for all people. But if one individual's right to free speech is being denied, and if you are being effectively punished for what you believe, I think the university is in a heap of legal trouble.

And I think you are incredibly brave, because it is not easy. And feminists should be supporting you. All the pro-women, pro-choice people, they should all be supporting you because you are actually speaking your conscious.

And Isabella, we really appreciate you coming on tonight. And we'll be following this case very closely. You have a great lawyer, that is for sure.

CHOW: Thank you so much.

INGRAHAM: All right, you take care.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUCKABEE: Great report by Laura.

Last night Laura brought you the outrageous story about Hollywood bigwigs and how they are considering a boycott of the entire state of Georgia, all because Brian Kemp won the governor's race. Up next, actor Antonio Sabato Jr. sounds out on his fellow Tinseltowners. You better stay with us for this one.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Georgia has become a major Hollywood production place because they've been given tax breaks. And Hollywood actors are claiming this is going to start a boycott of Georgia because Stacey Abrams lost an election. This is where we are headed. This is not where we are headed. This is where we are. They refuse to accept the results of an election. This means the people of the state of Georgia are blanket racists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUCKABEE: Hollywood sought to inject themselves into the Georgia race with appearances from the likes of Oprah and Will Ferrell. And now after the loss they are calling for a mass boycott of the whole state. As Rush just laid out, taxpayers in that state subsidize a large chunk of Hollywood's largesse, and this retaliatory action is only likely to hurt the people at the bottom of the rung, people that have jobs in the film industry and Georgia.

Here with his own comments for Hollywood, actor Antonio Sabato Jr.  Antonio, I'm delighted to have you with me. I don't think this decision set well with you, did it?

ANTONIO SABATO, JR., ACTOR: No, it does not. These are people in Georgia.  These production companies that are working there, they are amazing people.  I love the people there that I'm surrounded with. All the crews, the makeup artists, transportation. So you want to take all those jobs away from these working people in Georgia? By the way, they are generating billions of dollars in Georgia because of the tax write-offs which they should do here in California but they will never do it.

So these people and Hollywood have the guts to say something like this.  It's just they are conceited, they are selfish for themselves. And they don't care about America. They don't care about this country, and it is a shame, because in the past it used to be a lot different. But I'm going to stand up for that. I am a conservative. I believe in God. I believe that the future is a lot better than the past. We have a lot of work to do, but these people have got to stay away.

Georgia is doing phenomenal. And I give them so much credit because the Republican leaders who are taking care of the people of Georgia, and they should do it here in California, but that is a whole different story. I'm upset of this, because these people in Hollywood, they make a lot of money, they travel in private jets, they have all this. But there's people for them in production companies like in Georgia, they need jobs, they need to work. It's unfair to them.

HUCKABEE: It is interesting, even Stacey Abrams, who lost the governor's race, not very gingerly, by the way. And she has certainly not been very statesmanlike in the defeat. But even she said that the boycott is absurd.  We have got a statement by a tweeter, his name is Dustin Lewis. And I want us to take a look at it because I think it is pretty powerful. He says this. He says "This boycott is about to make my head explode. Alyssa Milano and Ron Perlman, Bradley Whitford, instead of hurting all of us who have families and careers here, join us in fighting. Killing our livelihood is a slap in the face to your fellow SAG-AFTRA artists."

And I think that's kind of exactly what you are saying, Antonio. This is now about the million-dollar actors. This is about the folks who work behind the scenes, whose name may get rolled on a credit. But these are the folks who have to feed their families and put food on the table.

SABATO: Absolutely. Look what they've done to me. They blacklisted me, and I worked in the business for 30 years. My father was an actor. I love what I do, but because I represent the Republican Party, I am a conservative, and I support our president, you've been tossed on the sideline. And you can't speak. It is just blacklisting to a level that I have never seen before.

And it is happening right here, exactly what we're talking about. It is just so unfair. We are supposed to live in the greatest country in the world we are free to speak our minds, and disagreements are fine, but not to this level. I've never seen so much hate coming from Hollywood in my entire life. When we had Obama running this country into the ground for eight years, we didn't talk about this. We didn't complain every day. We didn't call people names or treat people really badly every single day. We went on with their lives. And so --

HUCKABEE: Antonio, we're going to to run out of time here. Before we do, I've got to ask you about your thoughts on the anti-Trump actor, Jim Carrey. Hollywood Reporter says that during a panel discussion Carrey claimed "Trump is a melanoma and that anyone who covers for him, including Sarah Sanders, is putting makeup on it. It shows that there is a deeper problem in this country and the problem is greed." Most people know that Sarah Sanders is my daughter, but I don't need to defend her.

SABATO: Wonderful daughter.

HUCKABEE: She is capable of defending herself against Canadian comedians whose biggest movie was "Dumb and Dumber." So Antonio, your reaction to Jim Carrey?

SABATO: All I've got to say right now, because I'm very close to Jesus, and I've got to say I pray for these people. I pray for them and I hope everything is going to change at some point for them and they find some peace and love, because we've got to move on. We have this president running this country, we have got to support him. We've got to support this country. We've got to support our troops. We have so many things that we've got to do. We have homelessness, people addicted to drugs left and right. We have so much to do, and this is the last thing we need to worry about. And I give your credit and your daughter for all the hard work you guys do every single day. I'm right with you on everything.

HUCKABEE: Antonio, thank you very much. Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving, and it is an honor and a pleasure to have you here.

SABATO: Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you.

HUCKABEE: We're going to be right back with the last bite.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUCKABEE: And it's time for the last bite. It's the moment we have been waiting for, which bird will President Trump pardon for Thanksgiving? And the results are in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Today's lucky bird and guest of honor is named Peas along with his alternate name, Carrots. This was a fair election. Unfortunate, carrots refused to concede and demanded a recount, and we're still fighting with Carrots.

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP: And I will tell you, we've come to a conclusion. Carrots, I am sorry to tell you, the result did not change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUCKABEE: Well, that is all the time we have got for tonight, but before I go, make sure to check out my brand-new book, "Rare, Medium, or Done Well, Making the Most of Your Life." It is not a cookbook, not a political book, but it's the kind of read that has the endorsements of people from as far to the left as a Van Jones and to the right as Robert Jefferson, Eric Metaxas. It's an inspiration read just in time for Christmas available online and in bookstores everywhere.

And I hope you'll catch my weekend show, "Huckabee" on TBN, Saturday, Sunday 8 and 11 Eastern. Right now, good night from Orlando.

 Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.