DeSantis on evidence of anti-Trump bias in Mueller probe

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 13, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right. Welcome, everybody to "The Ingraham Angle" from Washington.

Last night, we told you about some highly disturbing text messages about President Trump sent by the lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe. Now, we have our hands on more of this guy's text. They are even more troubling than we originally thought. More details in just a moment.

Also, tonight, more fallout from the Alabama special election. Beware, though, of the false conclusions being pedaled about marking the end of Trump's agenda, Trump's political agenda RIP. It's all bull. The real reasons to be learned from the Alabama Senate race are coming up in the ANGLE. You don't want to miss that.

And Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said the president is bullying her. What?

Plus, I will go toe to toe with the one of the Republican lawmakers who is pushing for a sort of immigration amnesty when it comes to the DACA kids.

But first, our top story, the dramatic testimony today of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein before the House Judiciary Committee. Now, Mr. Rosenstein is the man who appointed Bob Mueller as special counsel to lead the Russia probe and today, he doggedly defended his choice, not really surprising.

But even as these alarming pieces of evidences are emerging about the rank anti-Trump bias in the investigation. Now we told you about some of it last night when we reported on the text between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his gal-pal and colleague, Lisa Page. She also works at the FBI.

So, in the text, Page called then-Candidate Trump a, quote, "Loathsome human being while Strzok referred to the future president as, quote, "an idiot." But bear in mind, Strzok is the guy who led the Hillary Clinton e- mail server investigation so I'm sure he was really tough on that.

He interviewed Hillary in the one pre-4th of July interview she did. He interviewed Huma Abadin and later, he was involved in the Russia probe. The guy is like Selig, he's everywhere, but there's more.

On August 15th of last year, Strzok texted Page, "There is no way Trump gets elected, but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."

My friends, it's one thing to have a political opinion. It's quite another thing for members of America's top law enforcement agency to discuss ways to prevent Donald Trump from being elected president.

Now we should note here that Strzok was removed from the Mueller probe after FBI officials became aware of these texts. But I say there must be more to the story and today, Republicans demanded real answers from Rosenstein.


REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO: What will it take to get a second special counsel to answer these questions and find out what Peter Strzok was up to what I think he was?

ROD ROSENSTEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: The inspector general has 500 employs.

JORDAN: What kind of text message do you have to see before you say it's time for a second special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: We take very seriously the concerns of 20 members of this committee or one member. We have the responsibility to make an independent determination.

REP. STEVE KING, R-IOWA: Do you have any opinion on the lack of the fruit from the poisonous tree of Peter Strzok?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, as a legal matter, Congressman, I can tell you that if the evidence is tainted, that would raise a concern for me. Typically, our cases will be prosecuted based upon witnesses and documents.

REP. STEVE CHABOT, R-OHIO: How with a straight face you can say that this group of Democrat partisans are unbiased and will give President Trump a fair shake?

ROSENSTEIN: We recognize we have employees with political opinions. It's our responsibility to make sure those opinions do not influence their actions.

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-FLA.: This is not just political opinions. This is disgusting, unaccountable bias, and there is now way that could not affect a person's work. Were you aware of just how biased Mr. Strzok was?

ROSENSTEIN: No, I was not.


INGRAHAM: Joining us now for a reaction here in Washington, Republican Congressman Ron Desantis, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and in New York is James Freeman, assistant editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal and a Fox News contributor.

Congressman, that was wild there because you saw Rosenstein in his testimony today. He looked both frightened and he was very defensive in supporting this probe saying, look, we -- he checks in with me. I check in with him, and it's all going to OK. They are taking care of it. Were you convinced?

REP. RON DESANTIS, R-FLA.: Well, no. I mean, you go back to when he appointed Mueller to begin with, he didn't even identify a crime. He said Comey is doing a counterintelligence investigation just try to find something. So, I think he made a mistake from the beginning. He criminalized politics basically.

Now, he sees in the face of these text messages, we have the lead agent on Hillary who exonerated her, and then the lead agent on the Russia case saying, yes, maybe he doesn't get elected. We are talking in McCabe's office, who the deputy director of the FBI.

This is in the middle of a campaign where we can't, the FBI, take that risk. We need an insurance policy to prevent Trump from getting elected. This is one thing to have a bias and an appearance of impropriety.

This is actually taking a bias and basically, saying, you will use the machinery of government to prevent the American people from making a choice? That's very disturbing.

INGRAHAM: James, you wrote this today in the Wall Street Journal. You noted that the Strzok e-mail when he raised that issue of the insurance policy, that really jumped out at you. Tell us.

JAMES FREEMAN, EDITORIAL PAGE ASSISTANT EDITOR, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, yes, it goes way beyond having an opinion. It goes way beyond extreme bias or even hatred of the president and his supporters, which is what you see in some of these e-mails. It really is suggesting that there was action taken.

That I think a reasonable reading of that is that these people viewed their role as protecting America from the consequences of its political decisions. That's not their job. Their job is to enforce the law.

Now, I think if there is a more innocent explanation of this, I imagine Mr. Srzok will with a chance to try and provide it. I think that Mr. Desantis may know better, but I would expect a number of subpoenas coming out of the House Judiciary Committee to talk to all of these people we have seen mentioned showing their anti-Trump bias and their activism on behalf of the Democrats. This is Topic A for future hearings.

INGRAHAM: Yes, these are kind of activists. It's almost a conspiracy inside the FBI to do something to stop this candidate from gaining steam. Congressman, you want some of these people to subpoenaed. The documents are not as forthcoming fast as they should be. Will you be able to get Peter Strzok to testify?

DESANTIS: I think we will eventually. So, remember, Bruce Ohr, high- ranking Justice Department official. He just got demoted because he was meeting with Christopher Steele whom Fusion GPS paid to do the Trump dossier before the election and meeting with Fusion GPS after the election and his wife works for Fusion GPS.

So, I think you have a confluence of a number people in the Justice Department and the FBI knee-deep in the dossier. So, yes, we need to know how did they get the dossier? Did they pay for the dossier?

Rosenstein would not tell us whether your tax dollars were used for the dossier. So, we need all of those answers. I think Strzok, Ohr and McCabe needs to come in and you got to put them under oath.

INGRAHAM: What kind of conversations are they having in the office? Don't they have like bad guys to stop like real criminals and real work to do at the FBI? They are sitting around agonizing whether Donald Trump will win the presidency? My God, he is the worst ever. We have to stop it!

The whole thing is embarrassing for the FBI. So, all of these people and James, I want to hear from you. All of these people, Republicans and Democrats, who trotted out Robert Mueller as an unimpeachable, arbiter, special counsel, in the investigation.

You could never question him because he was a Vietnam vet. He has bipartisan respect. I have to say in watching this thing play out, I am not impressed. I'm just not impressed with how he's handled this. I am sorry. I am not.

FREEMAN: It's hard to think of what team he could have assembled that would give his investigation less credibility. You are talking about what they are talking about in the office. Remember, these are careful, experienced lawyers. This is what they are putting in writing, in texts to each other.

You can only imagine what they are saying about Trump and their plans for him when they are not recording it. But I think that also that discussion within the office and it comes up in the contest of them talking about the insurance policy, not sure what that means, seems to be some effort to keep Trump from being president. Who else? We have been talking about Strzok and Page.

INGRAHAM: Lisa Page getting that FISA warrant. It sounds like it's something out of homeland or the "Old 24" show. But it sounds like, all right, you go in and get the FISA thing. We will monitor what the campaign is doing and if we have to bring out the big dogs at FISA, we'll do that. I mean, the whole thing --


FREEMAN: He's probably the guy who would do that. I mean, get the FISA warrant given his counterintelligence role. Who knows?

INGRAHAM: Exactly. Guys, let's bring in two legal experts for more reaction. Could there have been a conspiracy at the heart of the Mueller probe? When you really read these messages and we'll learn more.

From Raleigh, North Carolina, we are joined by Solomon Weisenberg, who is the number two attorney in Ken Starr's Bill Clinton's investigation, and here in Washington, Scott Bolden, an attorney and Democratic strategist.

Sol, have you been out there saying Mueller a good guy. You had some criticism. Do these new text messages of the lead investigator in this investigation, does this give you any pause?

SOLOMON WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: It doesn't give me any pause about Mueller. It's extremely disturbing. That text you talked about. The text from August where he talked about the insurance policy is by far the most devastating thing that we have seen about how the bureau behaved during the 2016 investigation of Hillary's emails.

Now, I will say this about Bob Mueller. I never worked with Mueller. I've talked to many people about Mueller. I have many friends who worked for him. I have friends who worked with him and friends who worked over him. Whether they like him or don't like him, every single one of them defined him as a very honorable man.

But, he is tone deaf. He was naive here in the team he assembled. One thing people forget about Strzok. This was a mistake Mueller made. Strzok even before these texts were found never should have been assigned to the Trump investigation. The agent who was a top agent in the Hillary e-mail investigation never should have been assigned in the first place for that.

INGRAHAM: Now Scott, if I were Mueller and all of this scrutiny coming out in the investigation. We have Strzok and Andrew Weissman and Bruce Ohr whose wife works for Fusion GPS. I would take a two-week pause on the investigation and say look, we will bring in an independent person to make sure this is buttoned down now.

Let's take a pause for two weeks. He did not vet these guys for political agendas and the appearance of a conflict in my mind is just as important as legal matter as an actual conflict of interest here. This is the appearance of a conflict. I don't believe Mueller did his job in vetting this team. You can respond.

SCOTT BOLDEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION PAC: Well, legally and from a DOJ regulatory standpoint, he doesn't have to do that nor would it be legal for him to do that. That being said, a two-week delay would not get to the bottom of this.

It's not a problem for you to have a political support or political identity. You can't not hire someone -- that's a double negative. You can't not hire someone because they are Democrat or Republican. You'd have nobody to hire, but until it becomes a political bias.

Now Strzok's emails are problematic. I am a former prosecutor. I got to tell you, I've been involved on politically sensitive investigations, both look at what Mueller did. Mueller addressed it. He removed him from the investigation once he found out. Let's not forget, Strzok is not the only one making decisions whether it's Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump

INGRAHAM: He is the lead investigator.

BOLDIN: But you operate on documents, witnesses.

INGRAHAM: Come on.


BOLDEN: It doesn't mean the investigation is tainted. This is all conjecture you are talking about.

INGRAHAM: The guy is talking about an insurance policy to stop Donald Trump.

BOLDEN: He was removed. What else would you have him do?


INGRAHAM: Scott, why is the guy who is Hillary's investigator in the Hillary emails scandal, why is he hopping over to the Trump investigation?

BOLDEN: That's not a conflict.

INGRAHAM: Hold on. Hold on. Sol, go ahead.

WISENBERG: He never should have been because as soon as the Hillary e-mail investigation was over, President Trump and other Republican candidates started criticizing very, very harshly the FBI. So, to put that guy who was harshly criticized before you knew about any of these texts, to put that guy in charge of an investigation of Trump, the very man who is criticizing him is a mistake. Mueller didn't do that.

BOLDEN: That was another --


WISENBERG: Mueller should have taken him off. I've supported Mueller, but when Mueller took off --

INGRAHAM: I don't know why you are supporting Mueller. Mueller is the most over-sold person. I never heard more people say Bob Mueller.

WISENBERG: He is not perfect, but he is honorable.

INGRAHAM: A lot of people are honorable and did stupid things for the country.

BOLDEN: You are presuming something politically wrong with this.

INGRAHAM: Yes, I am.

BOLDEN: You have your facts.

INGRAHAM: You know what I have, Scott?

BOLEN: You don't have the bias there and until that gets proven, there are no mistakes being made here --

INGRAHAM: We have to wait until the impeachment report is sent up to Capitol Hill to find out that like seven of them were sending text messages.


WISENBERG: Laura, you are missing something really important.

INGRAHAM: OK, hold on. Go.

WISENBERG: The role of McCabe, Andrew McCabe is behind a lot of this. He was deputy director and still is deputy director. He is the person whose wife got $700,000. However, but he should not be in this position now.


INGRAHAM: This whole thing is one of the biggest scams ever.

BOLDEN: No bias!

INGRAHAM: All right. Gents, I appreciate it.

In a moment, I will reveal the real reason Roy Moore lost that Alabama Senate race and the lessons that need to be learned. Stay right there.


INGRAHAM: The Alabama election and the lessons to be learned. That is the focus of tonight's ANGLE. There is a lot of finger pointing today. Blaming the president and conservative populism and blaming Steve Bannon or Mitch McConnell for the fall of Roy Moore.

The truth is the race had zero to do with substance and everything to do with salacious allegations in a deeply flawed candidate and for those trying to use Moore's defeat to damn conservative populism, remember the populist issues that Trump won on were literally -- I don't think -- no time when I peeked in on the election that did I hear any of them discussed.

Not immigration, trade, tax cuts, deregulatory efforts, none of those things were ever really debated in the Alabama race. Now, a man that many believed could run against Doug Jones in 2020 said this on my radio show today.


REP. GARY PALMER, R-ALA. (via telephone): There was no policy discussed in in election. There was no substance to this. There was no discussion of Trump's policies or Roy Moore's policies. They made sure Doug Jones' policies were not discussed. It was all about scandal.


INGRAHAM: This was all about the allegations against Moore and of course, his missteps. The volatile nature of this special election in Alabama was a joke from its inception. Now, Luther Strange could have stayed in the seat until 2018.

But once that special election was announced by the governor, Mitch McConnell and his pack rushed in and they protected or tried to protect Strange rather than just let the people duke it out and sort it out, probably a better path.

Consultants for Congressman Mo Brooks were reportedly warned that they should not work against Luther Strange. Reports are they were actually threatened. Then the president's involvement, first, the president put his right leg in for Strange and then took it out and put in for Moore.

But still the attempts to pin this -- I think this whole lost on Trump or his agenda certainly are just ridiculous. It's predictable. Alabama remains Trump country. People love Trump down in Alabama. The voters there are some of the most vocal on the issues that got Trump elected.

Immigration enforcement, lower taxes, second Amendment Rights, and the bottom line is they just didn't like Roy Moore. The man, by the way, who lost the governorship there twice, and including coming in fourth against Robert Bentley, who was not exactly, yk, Ronald Reagan in his personality or approach.

Look, as Matt Drudge tweeted last night, "Just too much crazy in nerve racking times. There is a limit." I agree with him. I think the pinball machine hit tilt and Alabamans just wanted the game to end, wanted it over.

And also, Trump didn't win by being like Roy Moore. Remember, thinking back on the election. You look at Roy Moore and Trump and their approach, they are not similar. Trump was all about making America great again. Roy Moore was about making Alabama grimace again.

Now, here's a lesson for Republicans. You can't fight everyone at once. You can't take on the Democrats, the media, the entertainment industry and the establishment of your party unless your candidate has the money and the bravado and the media savvy to win.

That's what Trump did, but it's a rare skillset. How many people have it? And that kind of hand to hand political combat demands candidates, who are fearless, and they are unafraid to do interviews a month before an election, and I don't with a 12-year-old reporter.

The other takeaway, by the way, is the critical need for Republicans to engage minority voters especially in parts of the country that are traditionally hostile to the brand of the GOP.

Think about it, in Alabama, 30 percent of the electorate were black voters surpassing turnout for Obama and Hillary. So, the GOP needs to reach out to this community. Keep doing those campaign style events.

Because remember when Trump went to the black church in Detroit during the general election. They may not have liked him, but I'm telling you, you show up and talk to voters and they end up respecting you more. They know you cared just to show up to hear their concerns.

Republicans have to do this across the country. Today, at the White House, by the way, the president announced a black pastor to talk about his tax plan and what can it do for the black community. This was good.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We represent a cadre of many families across the nation, African-American families, urban communities and families all across need this now. It's time for a change. It's time that we recognize that our president is making good on his promises!


INGRAHAM: You didn't see that in the evening news. The last thing the left ever wants to see is a conservative preaching law and order, economic opportunity, entrepreneurship to the African-American community. They don't like that. They want a monopoly on the African-American vote.

They had it for a long time. This, my friends, is exactly what is needed. Alabama reinforces that. I think the president gets it. Let's hope the Alabama race serve as a wakeup call to the rest of the party before the midterms. That's the Angle.

Joining us now with reaction is former Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski along with Ian Milheiser, (ph), a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Cory, let's start with you. Congrats on the book, big number one on Amazon today, very proud of you.

Corey, this is all being pinned on Donald Trump. Donald Trump failing. His popularity is at an all-time low. It's at 32 percent. His agenda is going down the tubes and Alabama is conservative, but they are kind of done with the Trump. That's what the left is wishing.

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: That's what the mainstream media has continued to say. You saw the story that came out, 90 percent of the media coverage of Donald Trump on the three major networks have been negative. What we know about the Alabama race, number one, Roy Moore was a terribly flawed candidate.

Number two, the Republican Party was half in and half out of the race. The Republican Party is in the race and then pull out and then go back in the race. Look, it's very difficult when you have a candidate who doesn't have support from everybody.

He did not talk about the issues that Alabama cares about it. He didn't discuss illegal immigration. He didn't discuss coming to Washington and supporting the president's tax cuts. He didn't discuss saving the Second Amendment or any of those things.

INGRAHAM: Corey, what he did was he kept saying Mitch McConnell, I will go after McConnell. I mean, that's not the kind of bravado you want. You want someone who has sober, smart approach to politics. And Drudge is onto -- he's a little crazy. He's comes across -- I am sorry. I don't mean to be uncharitable. I'm sure, maybe I'm being uncharitable. But it came across as odd. That interview with Hannity was odd. I don't think he acquitted himself well. My instincts, I'm sorry, but when I don't listen to my instincts I usually get in trouble. My instinct was that just did not ring true to a lot of people. And I think a lot of women felt like I felt after that.

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: And Laura, he took the weekend off before the election to go away with his wife. This is not what you do when you're trying to run for office.

INGRAHAM: He will have a lot of time to do that now. Let's get Ian in here. Ian, obviously a good night for Democrats surprised to win that seat. But a rejection of Trumpism in Alabama, are you really trying to sell that?

IAN MILLHISER, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Well, there are some very credible allegations against this guy. I think that alleged sex offender is not a trait that any party should look for in a candidate. I also think that if someone else who had multiple serious allegations of sex offenses against them were to run in 2020 that that person would also have trouble with their reelection.

INGRAHAM: Are you talking about Trump?

MILLHISER: Of course.

INGRAHAM: So you guys are banking on the fact that Al Franken is out of the way. I guess he's going to resign ultimately.

MILLHISER: It looks like it. He said he will.

INGRAHAM: He said he will, so Al Franken is out of the way. Conyers is out of the way. There will be probably other revelations in this slush fund. Maybe Democrats, there are more Democrats in these revelations than Republicans. And you think at that point the nation will just rally to these old allegations and say, OK, let's re-litigate what we heard in October of 2016. The economy is booming and things are looking up but let's get rid of Trump because of these old allegations, really? That's the Democrat platform?

MILLHISER: I think that when you're talking about things like sexual assault or sexual harassment, we should take the politics out of it.

INGRAHAM: He denied the allegations.

MILLHISER: And if you have multiple credible allegations that person shouldn't be in high office.

INGRAHAM: If someone accused of you something from 20 years and you denied it, would you think it would be fair for people to say he was accused? What if you were innocent?

MILLHISER: There are a lot of women. There is a tape where he said something I'm not sure that I can repeat on TV.

INGRAHAM: Do I think every woman who makes an allegation is telling the truth?

MILLHISER: I believe these allegations. And regardless --

INGRAHAM: Al Franken said the allegations against him were wrong.

MILLHISER: I think Al Franken should be out of the Senate.

INGRAHAM: He said the allegations against him are false.

MILLHISER: I think that Al Franken should be out of the Senate. I believe those allegations. I believe these allegations against Donald Trump. I think that sexual harassment, sexual assault is just not something we should play politics with.

INGRAHAM: I just want to understand these new rules, if a woman makes an allegation, a man does not really have a right to defend himself and does not have a right to be heard in a fair and reasoned process?

MILLHISER: I think at the very least if you are on tape, then we can trust.


MILLHISER: You know what he said. I'm not sure that I can repeat it.

INGRAHAM: That's a false way of characterizing it.

LEWANDOWSKI: Laura, this is the hypocrisy of the left. Al Franken not only admitted to it but we have photographic evidence that he groping women when they are asleep, and then he says these accusations aren't actually true about me, and I'm going to resign, but what day did he say he's going to resign? Because I don't see it. He's still sitting there every day. So when is Al Franken leaving the Senate? And where is the call for his colleagues to walk away. What day is this going to happen?

INGRAHAM: I have a feeling that Al Franken may not leave the Senate. I think now that Doug Jones is in there, maybe he will, maybe he won't. But my friends we have a lot to get to.

And a picture, by the way, is worth 1,000 words. Kirsten Gillibrand turns out had no problem palling around with Bill Clinton or Harvey Weinstein for years, and Ted Kennedy I'm sure before that. Now she is suddenly the moral conscience of the Senate? But her crusade to topple the president and old allegations of sexual impropriety have suddenly hit a roadblock. The president is fighting back. He tweeted this, "Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, someone who would come to my office begging for campaign contributions not long ago, and would do anything for them, is now is the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill and crooked. Used." Did he run out of characters on the tweet? I just want to know the lingo. Is she now just crooked?

This forced Gillibrand to trot out this old trope.


SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y.: It was certainly just a sexist smear intended to silence me. And I'm not going to be silenced on this issue.

I think President Trump is wrong. He is a bully and he has been attacking different people across the country since he's been president.


INGRAHAM: Naturally Gillibrand's media allies are rushing in to rescue the damsel in distress by attacking the female members of the president's family.


MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC HOST: And the women around him, his wife who has a platform against cyber-bullying, that's a joke. That is the saddest thing I have ever seen in this White House ever in my life. And his daughter who came to Washington to work for the president and develop a platform for women, go home. Go home. You are doing nothing if you stand by this president.


INGRAHAM: What happened to girl power? This is feminist solidarity. OK, when you don't agree with liberals you are just completely out of the game. You have to just go home and bake cookies. I don't know.

In studio is Harmeet Dhillon, a former vice chairman man of the Republican Party of California, and in Portland we're joined by Democratic strategist Marcy Stech. All right, ladies, Harmeet, let's start with you. Kirsten Gillibrand is a senator from New York. She used to actually be a conservative Democrat on immigration, on gun right. She moved to Long Island and suddenly she is a different person. But that's neither here nor there. So Gillibrand is strong, going to stand up for women. But then suddenly after she says Trump should resign, he hits back just like he said about Mitt Romney, by the way. He got on his knees and begged me, same thing he said about Romney. And now it's, oh, my gosh, this is sexism. Is that sexism, Harmeet?

HARMEET DHILLON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I have to give it to Kirsten Gillibrand. She has done an amazing job as a chameleon to evolve from KKG stories, sister at Dartmouth, one of the beautiful people there on campus to a gun loving Democrat from upstate New York to now one of the far left members of the Senate.

This is all very calculated, Laura. She obviously sent out this tweet knowing the president's predilection for fighting back, and he took the bait. He did fight back. And now she has troped, as you said, into this victim mentality. And it's so tiresome to hear women, strong women, one of the most powerful women in America, the people in one of the most exclusive clubs in the world, say she all of a sudden she is a victim.

It really defies belief. And I am disappointed as a woman. I would like to see her stand up and give as good as she gets, but that's not what she is doing.

And you know what else is interesting, Laura, if you Google "Trump and Gillibrand" today, she has already got the SEO optimization going, the number one thing that comes up is I am fighting back against Trump and donate here.

INGRAHAM: She is running for president in 2020. Marcy, let's go to you on this. Gillibrand is very politically ambitious. That's fine. She is without a doubt going to run for president. I think this entire thing was choreographed from the beginning, getting rid of Franken, dumping him off the side of the boat so you can try to tag Trump as Roy Moore. They're probably surprised that Roy Moore won in the end. But how do you stand up as a strong woman and the second someone comes back and says basically you are full of it, this is sexist. Trump said the same thing about Mitt Romney, almost the exact same thing about Mitt Romney.

MARCY STECH, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think these words take on a different context when we're talking about a man who has been accused by now 20 women of unwanted sexual advances, and that's the current sitting president of the United States, the man who tweeted those words against Kirsten Gillibrand. Now she and several others have come out to call for his resignation, yet he was the only one who fired off a tweet to her and not to the others. So --

INGRAHAM: She is leading the charge.

STECH: I think by definition it is sexism.


INGRAHAM: When you call everything sexism, nothing is sexism. You can't have it both ways. You can't say I'm going to be in the arena. I'm just as tough as the guys. And then when the president of the United States you know something, I am calling you know what on you. And then you say, oh, I need all of my gal pals to help me and then demonize Ivanka and demonize Melania because they are actually they stand with the person they believe, correct. So they're now enabling Donald Trump. Do you believe that?

STECH: I think this is about being held to a different standard, and that's what we're talking about in this exchange --

INGRAHAM: How is he being held to a different standard? Harmeet, go ahead.


INGRAHAM: Hold on, hold on, both of you.


INGRAHAM: You keep talking over me I'm going to have to cut you mic. March, what I don't understand is why are Democrats so afraid to debate the issues? Harmeet, immigration, trade, Trump is killing on trade. On deregulation, on tax reform which he's going to get before the end of the year. The Democrats are running scared on these issues. They are losing on issue after issue. So they go back to the same old line that they lost the election on in October which is the old accusers. And I think people are getting weary of it. But Harmeet, and then Marcy can close it out.

DHILLON: So Laura, exactly, this is a shallow and very obvious distraction here. Let's remember Gillibrand's history. She stands hand in hand with the Clinton family, the Clinton crime syndicate, in numerous instances, Hillary Clinton is her mentor. She threw Hillary Clinton and Bill under the bus in the last couple of months. Al Franken was her colleague. She has thrown him under the bus expeditiously. And Donald Trump is the person who has given three or four campaign contributions. He gave her contributions as a member of the Congress running for her second race, and a couple of times in her special election to become a United States senator. How conveniently has she thrown him under the bus.

INGRAHAM: I think you've named that narrative. Marcy, we are out of time. But should she give her contributions she got from the Clintons, all the money she raised with them back, or to charity? Should she do that?

STECH: No. I think Senator Gillibrand should do exactly what she is doing, which is he using her voice to advocate for millions of women around this country who feel marginalized by this --

INGRAHAM: Keeping money from a guy who is accused of raping someone, that's not a double standard. All right, guys, appreciate it.

You know, sometimes Republicans are their own worst enemy, and somewhat gives away the farm on some issues where they don't really need to such as DACA, kind of a DREAMer amnesty light. I will debate a member of Congress on this issue and its importance. You're not going to want to miss it. Stay right here.


INGRAHAM: Above all else President Trump was elected on one clear issue, stop illegal immigrant. And that would mean build the wall, no amnesty, you know the drill. But there are some Republicans in Congress including the guy right here who still believes that the DACA amnesty thing is a winning idea. And one of them of course is here to defend that, and that's Scott Taylor from the second district of Virginia.

Congressman it's great to see you, first of all. Great to have you here. You wrote a letter to Paul Ryan and 34 of your fellow congressmen signed it. And in this letter you say it's an important agenda item now to give these 800,000 people brought here as young people amnesty. Why is that, of all the things we have to deal with in our country, why are you so obsessed with catering to the needs of illegal immigrants?

REP. SCOTT TAYLOR, R-VA.: Thank you for having me. Of course congratulations on your show. You used two words that I completely take issue with. Number one is amnesty, right. But let me preface this by saying I was at the White House a couple days ago. And my personal position, now I can't speak for everybody that's on the letter because there's different opinions and stuff like that and where they want to be with this. But for me personally I am with the president. I think what President Obama did was illegal. I think it's under Congressional purview. And him pushing it down there, I agree with that 100 percent. I supported more money over a decade for Homeland, $1.5 billion in appropriations for the wall.

INGRAHAM: That's what the gang of eight is saying --

TAYLOR: I don't care about that. But for that, Kate's law and all of those things, I think we should get more security. I think we should get e-verify. I think we should have a program for --

INGRAHAM: Are you against chain migration?


INGRAHAM: Are you for the RAISE act?

TAYLOR: Yes, I actually am.

INGRAHAM: Then why are you --

TAYLOR: Let me finish.

INGRAHAM: I'm trying to understand why are --

TAYLOR: I know but you're not letting me finish. I'm not obsessed. That's what I am saying. Let me finish what I'm saying. I am for all those things. I think we should move towards merit. I think we should have a program for unaccompanied minors to get them back safely over back to their parents. That should be in conjunction with dealing with this population.

Amnesty by definition, as you very well know, is forgiveness for people who have offended.

INGRAHAM: That's Chuck Schumer's line.

TAYLOR: I am not Chuck Schumer. Don't put me in that position, please.

INGRAHAM: But Scott, ALIPAC is against you. Why?

TAYLOR: I don't even know who ALIPAC is.

INGRAHAM: ALIPAC is the organization that is for legal immigration. They put you on the top of their list as the Republican that is most pushing the amnesty for the DACA recipients without real strings attached.

TAYLOR: That's complete crap. That is complete -- let me finish.

INGRAHAM: I know you want to throw more money at border security.

TAYLOR: No, no, no. That is complete crap. I am not for the DREAM act. I'm not for that. I am for a standalone thing that gets more security and more disincentives for illegal immigration in conjunction with dealing with this population. Let me say something. You have these groups out there who are pushing that who raise money, who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries for the people like Numbers USA and these other organizations that raise money off Republican donors to attack other Republicans. I am not for that. I'm not for that position. In fact, like I said, I was with the White House, and you're going to hear --

INGRAHAM: You called President Trump's rhetoric divisive and you blamed in party him for blowing the Virginia race, did you not on CNN. I just watched the clip five minutes ago.

TAYLOR: I will absolutely say to you as I did before --

INGRAHAM: Virginia now is a blue state.

TAYLOR: I don't agree with you.

INGRAHAM: Oh, really? Northern Virginia, expanded government, demographic changes?

TAYLOR: Do you want me to answer your questions or are you going to keep stepping on me? I do not think that Virginia is a perpetual blue state. I think it is there. I think if we're going to say that Bob McDonnell's election in 2009 was a referendum on Obama's policy, which I agree, we have to be intellectually honest. And certainly the national scene contributes to the rise in Democrat turnout all across, that's true.

INGRAHAM: Ed Gillespie was a New Jersey guy who was a Bush guy. He tried to do the latter day populism. It didn't work. He ran before, it didn't work.

TAYLOR: He's not Trump, there's no question about that.

INGRAHAM: But you still think President Trump is divisive?

TAYLOR: Yes, sure. I think the polls show that. I support the president.

INGRAHAM: For the wall.

TAYLOR: I support the president and I support more money for the wall. You've been saying you support the president for many segments, however, his position is like mine on immigration. It's the same.

INGRAHAM: We're running out of time. American people before the illegal immigrants and you'll win your next --

TAYLOR: I am pro American. I'm an American dreamer.

INGRAHAM: Stay with us. We'll all dreamers first.


INGRAHAM: We frequently give the establishment media a hard time on "The Angle" for good reason. But kudos to the Washington Post fact checkers for calling out late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel. The Post's Glenn Kessler took Kimmel to the woodshed for botching the fact that an emotional plea on behalf of the CHIP program. On his Monday night program Kimmel brought his young son who suffers from a heart condition to bolster his case, very cute. CHIP is the Children's Health Insurance Program, one that Kimmel used to push his anti-Republican narrative.


JIMMY KIMMEL, LATE NIGHT TALK SHOW HOST: Now CHIP has become a bargaining chip. It's on the backburner while they work out their new tax plans which means parents of children with cancer and diabetes and heart problems are about to get letters saying their coverage could be cut off next month. Merry Christmas, right.


INGRAHAM: Not so fast, Jimmy. Kessler wrote in The Post "Kimmel saucily suggests that CHIP has become a bargaining chip as part of negotiations over the tax plan. It's actually part of the usual yearend negotiations in Congress. Few lawmakers are really against CHIP. The question is how to fund it." But of course that didn't stop Kimmel from making a wild suggestion that Republicans are just ecstatic about killing kids for Christmas.


KIMMEL: It's always had bipartisan support, but this year they let the money for it expire while they work on getting tax cuts for their millionaire and billionaire donors.


INGRAHAM: Wrongo again. Kessler schools Kimmel in noting that CHIP funding is completely unrelated to tax legislation. Leave it to the pros, Jimmy. And in fact the GOP led House passed the bill reauthorizing CHIP with most Democrats voting against it because of how it might affect Obamacare. So if you want to point the finger, Jimmy, point it at the Democrats.

And by the way, Kimmel is a millionaire who doesn't need CHIP or any other program to provide health care for his beautiful child. Shut up and sing, or shut up and act, or shut up and make us laugh every now and then I once advised entertainers. So to Jimmy, just stick to the shtick. We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: Thanks for putting up with me tonight. I'm a little under the weather. But Christmas a mere 12 days away. So get all that gift shopping done, looking around, going online. Come on, just grab a copy of "Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump." You will love it. It will make you laugh, smile, cry at moments, very emotional. And you can always reach me @IngrahamAngle on Twitter and on Facebook. Listen to me on the radio in the morning.

And Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team are up next. They have a phenomenal show, as always, on tap. I was watching last night, Shannon, during the Alabama fallout, and it was fantastic. And Miss Shannon is up next. Shannon, you take it away.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.