Examining the body language behind the Oval Office showdown

close

Video

Examining the body language behind the Oval Office showdown

Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo has this week's edition of Seen and Unseen.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 12, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Merry Christmas. No Grinch for you. All right everybody, it's a long lead-in. The whole show is going to have to change now. All right. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight. It was one of the biggest stories of the year and there are still many outstanding questions.

Tonight “The Ingraham Angle” will bring you an update on the Kavanaugh fallout. Is there reallty an investigation into who leaked Christine Ford's letter? What about the criminal referral submitted to the DOJ over false testimony by Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick? You be better not going to let go of that answers ahead.

Plus, extortion at the southern border. What folks in the caravan are now demanding of President Trump. Hint, it' is not asylum. Raymond Arroyo is also here to break down the body language inside yesterday's Oval Office slugfest between President Trump and of course Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. I guess that's (inaudible). And by the way, a look at the outrageous new Dick Cheney movie coming up in "Seen and Unseen."

And Devin Nunes will be here to tell you why the Democrats ending corruption probes at the FBI is very bad news for the country and what we can do about it. But first, immigration truths the Democrats deny. That's the focus of tonight's ANGLE.

Congressmen and senators are supposed to be fighting for the American people, their constituents. But when Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer pounced on the president on the Oval Office yesterday, for whom exactly were they fighting?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: We have a disagreement about the wall, whether it's effective or not. Not on border security but on the wall.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You cannot have very good border security without the wall.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-Calif.: That is specifically not true. That's a political promise. Border security is a way to effectively honor our responsibility.

SCHUMER: And the experts say you can do border security without a wall which is wasteful and doesn't solve the problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Who was Chuck Schumer looking at in that clip? By the way, we have a very fascinating body language expert analysis of that entire exchange coming up in the show. Back to this, both the Senate and the house oath of offices are nearly identical. They begin like this, "I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

At this point, are we even sure that Chuck and Nancy took the oath? I have a news flash for the dynamic duo. When migrants illegally cross our borders, whether they come to work or to collect welfare, using false documents, whether they come to deal drugs or join murderous gangs that are already here, this does constitute a foreign enemy action. That's why Trump was so clear at the end of that Oval Office exchange yesterday. He understands the threat, and he wants to answer it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government.

SCHUMER: OK, fair enough. We disagree.

TRUMP: And I am proud and I tell you what.

SCHUMER: We disagree.

TRUMP: I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: It's that important for him. But the Democrats are determined to block Trump's efforts to fortify the border and you can see them. They recoil at any border wall talk. Here are the facts. The Democrats are willing to sell out the country, law and order be damned, in order to deny Trump a victory over the wall.

A few years ago, they were all for fortifying the border but not now. Of course, if we had a media that publicized actual facts on illegal immigration and other immigration issues rather than obsessing 24/7 about Michael Cohen or focusing on a few really sympathetic people in Tijuana, well, we would have a lot more Democrats feeling the pressure on this issue from the voters.

Check this out. A new Gallup world poll found that nearly 160 million people around the world want to immigrate to the United States -- 160 million. I bet it's more than that. Naturally, the U.S. is the top destination for immigrants, 21 percent of them would like to come here permanently.

How are we supposed to deal with that kind of demand for access to our shores? Obviously we can't absorb half of our current population, or is that actually what the Democrats want? After all, that would be an entirely new country.

The pragmatic position here, my friends, is simple. There must be an orderly, legal process, one that protects the interests of the American people first when it comes to immigration. Most Americans I really think have no idea of the true cost of illegal immigration. Again, the media will not report it.

Let's look at health care. Even though illegals are forbidden access from federally funded health care, Forbes magazine estimates that 3.9 million uninsured illegals receive about $4.6 billion in health services from the federal government, federal taxes -- 2.8 billion from state and local taxpayers goes to illegal immigrants. And 3 billion from higher payments by insured Americans.

In other words, you are paying it because your costs are jacked up. All told, Americans cross subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year. Now with that money, we could build a triple wall with all sorts of cool, you know, stuff on it along the border. Come on, $18.5 billion?

The president knows well that our lose asylum loss, another issue, the catch and release policy, chain migration, have also acted as magnets and that has ballooned our illegal immigrant population. Once in country, they place an enormous stress on local law enforcement. As I said, health care providers and our schools, resources that should be benefiting Americans and legal immigrants.

This money should be spent on our people and the people who have respected our laws to come here. Not on noncitizens who are illegally present. Here's a perfect example. According to government data released yesterday afternoon, in President Trump's first fiscal year in office, more than 2,304 people were arrested for either employing illegals or working illegally in the country. That's a 700% increase from the previous fiscal year.

Now, this is all a direct result of Trump authorizing ICE to investigate all crime committed by or with illegal immigrants and not just focusing of course on the most serious cases. Well, Democrats are going to say why is the government arresting hardworking immigrants? They are just seeking a better way of life. Well, this is a simple twofold answer. One, they are not here legally. But two, and just as important, they are taking jobs that hardworking Americans do not have access to.

We cannot incentivize corporations to use cheap labor, giving them an unfair advantage and destroying other company's abilities to compete. The crackdown also by the way sends a message to the next wave of illegals. You too will be deported if you try to come here and work without permission, and of course collect all those benefits along the way so, don't even try.

Now my friends, this is Christmas time. And although the country is doing better, a lot better, under Trump, many Americans are still hurting particularly those entering the workforce for the first time. Single mothers and people without college degrees, many happen to be black and Hispanic. They don't have groups by the way like Pueblo Sin Fronteras or Central Sin Fornteras working on their behalf, filing cases on their behalf.

Of course, as the competition from the cheap illegal labor harms their chances of employment. Who is going to advocate their cases? Democrats use to claim that they cared about our poorest citizens, the little guy. But this year, Chuck and Nancy seem more like the Grinch, making promises to the illegals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THE GRINCH: There is a light on this tree that won't light on one side, so I'm taking it home to my workshop, my dear. I will fix it up there. Then I will bring it back here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, sure, give all the goodies to the illegals and leave the poor and the working-class to pick up the bill. And by the way, take their tree, without so much as a lump of coal in their stockings. Let's hope that Trump is successful before Christmas in getting the wall-funded and let's hope Congress finally gets its act together and remembers the meaning of that oath that they all took.

Otherwise, the Grinch may get his way or her way. And somehow I don't think this will happen to her at the end of the story. And that's THE ANGLE.

Every time I see the Grinch, I'm just so happy. Isn't it the best Christmas special ever? Here now to react, Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State and Scott Levenson, Democratic strategist, president of The Advance Group and Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book, can't wait, "The Case for Trump."

All right, Scott, as I just laid out in my “Angle,” the burden of emigration every day on every day Americans, illegal immigration, is pretty stark. So, why don't the Democrats seem to ignore the cost borne by the average working person?

SCOTT LEVENSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: What they actually do is recognize the fearmongering that's gone on for months. And this fear that's been created by the Trump administration --

INGRAHAM: So you will not answer the question.

LEVENSON: -- if you could just let me finish the thought, Laura.

INGRAHAM: No, no, Scott. Don't roll your eyes. It doesn't make you any more effective.

LEVENSON: -- as my first thought out. The fact is, not that it's just -- well, no, it doesn't. If you just let me finish the thought, I can --

INGRAHAM: My question, Scott. You did this last time. You bugged the heck out of everybody.

LEVENSON: -- because no, what you do is you do fearmongering.

INGRAHAM: No, no. We're not fearmongering. It's a question.

LEVENSON: Fear the caravan. Fear the (inaudible), the caravan is coming.

INGRAHAM: No, no. We didn't talk. We talked about a lot more than the caravan, Scott.

LEVENSON: Oh, you want to talk about the money. All right, Laura, you want -- let's talk about the money.

INGRAHAM: OK, I want everybody to see this right off the top.

LEVENSON: Let's talk about the money.

INGRAHAM: I want everyone to see this right off the top.

LEVENSON: Let's talk about the money.

INGRAHAM: This is what Democrats do. I asked a simple question.

LEVENSON: Let's talk about the money.

INGRAHAM: Scott, I'm going to give you a chance in three minutes, you're going to have three minutes to think about your answer and then I'm going to come back to you. OK, three minutes.

LEVENSON: Well, I'm ready. Let's go, Laura, right now.

INGRAHAM: OK, three minutes and then you come back.

LEVENSON: Oh come on, don't run now.

INGRAHAM: I will go to Victor Davis Hanson.

LEVENSON: OK, of course.

INGRAHAM: Victor, you've written about this, where liberals refuse to exchange in a substantive dialogue. What are we going to do with a limited pool of money that we have with all of the problems that they admit and they claim that we have in the country? What do we do with the limited pool of money? VDH?

VICTOR DAVID HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: We take more immigrants than any country in the world. Twenty percent of all the immigrants in the world come to the United States. We have more than we've ever had, 50 million, and we are getting to the percentage wise. It's an unprecedented in our history. So we are very magnanimous. And $75 billion go to Central America and Mexico in remittances.

And if you do the math, it works out to about $6,000 to $7,000 per person here who is undocumented, and that's 500 or 600 a month and 60 percent of people here are undocumented are on state assistance or federal or local. So Laura, you're basically asking the American taxpayer to subsidize remittances that goes back. And that's in addition to about $2 billion in direct aid and we have over 500 sanctuary cities where the immigration laws are not applied.

And we don't do that to American citizens. If you disagree with EPA regulations or gun registration, you can't set up a sanctuary gun city and say you know what, federal laws don't apply to us. And you know, it's sad because people should -- if they have social justice questions, march on Mexico City or Guatemala City, not San Diego.

And I think we really need to recalibrate the morality of all of this because we have this idea that we are the victimizers and people trying to break in are the victims, but if you actually look at it, as you said, American citizens have competition for low-wage jobs, entry wage jobs, our social services are swamped.

And then there's literally millions of people all over the world that play by the rules, Nigeria, South Korea, India, and all they want is a chance to be a legal immigrant on meritocratic basis.

INGRAHAM: A fair chance. Fairness. All right, we are going to go back to Scott. Scott, you heard my initial question. You heard Victor Davis Hanson. I will give you a chance now to answer the question because we love having you on. Go ahead.

LEVENSON: So it's as if we are in a three-card Monte game. If we talk about how much the immigrants are costing this country, we will forget the fact that this president committed to having Mexico pay for this wall that he wants. Nobody is talking today about how Mexico is no longer playing for the wall yet we are all concerned about the cost --

INGRAHAM: OK, so you are still not answering the question. This is your second chance.

LEVENSON: -- of immigration but we don't talk about the fact that the president committed to having Mexico build the wall.

INGRAHAM: OK. So Scott, you are making our points for us.

LEVENSON: Laura, does that cause not concern you? Does that cause not concern you?

INGRAHAM: Well, a lot concerns me. You know what, one thing concerns me. The fact that I've given you two bites at the apple in your passed each one.

LEVENSON: But wait, the cost of the wall. And you won't answer about the cost of the wall.

INGRAHAM: No, I said multiple times on the show. You obviously missed it. That Mexico is not going to pay directly for the wall, but Mexico will not pay for directly for the wall. But I will tell you what. But I will tell you what, Scott.

LEVENSON: No one is talking about Mexico paying for the wall, Laura. No one's talking about the president --

INGRAHAM: You don't want a wall. You want open borders and you won't answer the questions. You missed your chance. It's three strikes your out. Kobach go ahead.

LEVENSON: Well if you listened to, if we listened to Schumer and Pelosi, both talked about -- both talked about --

INGRAHAM: Listen, let him to talk all show because we'll just get more Republican registrations. Go ahead. Go ahead. You take them all in, Scott and you take them in your house and I will be impressed. Go ahead.

LEVENSON: Anytime.

KRIS KOBACH, Kan. SECRETARY OF STATE: There are three -- there are three major losers when we have unbridled illegal immigration right now. The first as has been mentioned, is the American worker because not only are those jobs taken, you also have wage depression as Jorge Borja (ph) says as mentioned and has written about extensively. So the American worker still in those areas are working for lower wages.

Secondly, the taxpayer. The total amount, net, even if you take into account the taxes illegal aliens pay, the total amount that we taxpayers are on hook for every year is over $100 billion if you get state expenditures and federal expenditures. And then the third category of people who lose are the victims of the thousands upon thousands of illegal alien committed crimes and as President Trump pointed out in the discussion yesterday, there is the terrorism risk as well.

He mentioned 10 terrorists who have come across the southern border. Actually there than 15 publicized cases and it's probably much higher than that because there are many that we didn't catch. So, we have a very real cost in terms of our security, our jobs, and our tax burden.

INGRAHAM: Victor, there are about 40,000 to 50,000 American veterans of all races and backgrounds including illegal immigrants who are sleeping on the street on any given night and some about two blocks from where we are right here because there's not enough room in the shelter near us and so they are on the street.

I think most Americans, if we have extra cash, extra money, they serve their country. They shouldn't be on the street. We should do something for those people. We all want that. But in this case, the money drives and flows to individuals. God bless them. Everybody is a child of God, but violated our laws.

LEVENSON: Laura, you have created the fear of sun (ph) that doesn't exist.

INGRAHAM: And so Victor --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Again, liberals don't even know when the question is being directed at them. I will get to you. Hold on. Victor, the question is why has the shift occurred in the Democratic Party? Twelve years ago, Obama and Schumer were all gung-ho on the triple fencing. Now, you can't get them to talk about it. Why?

HANSON: No. It's simply a matter of numbers because when we had two or three people here -- two or three million people illegally, then they thought it was an issue that unions were really angry about and they were worried about low-wage constituencies in the inner-city and Americans. And then suddenly, when we got up to 11 million or maybe 20 million people and we have children, we have 50 million immigrants (inaudible) when you count their children, we are up to 88 to 90 million people.

And one out of every four Californians wasn't born in the United States. And then it became a demographic issue and a political issue. So, Nevada flipped. I will be frank, California is never going to be red again. Nevada is not going to be red, Colorado is not going to be red.

INGRAHAM: And also demographic -- to get to the point, VDH, it's about changing the demographic makeup of the country which they hope will change the electoral makeup of the country, period. Is that cynical?

HANSON: No, it's two things. Political power and money. It's employers who want cheap wages and it's governments oversee that want $75 billion in remittances. And remember, they asked very poor people to send back money and be subsidized by the American taxpayer (inaudible)

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Yes. We should all be taxed, 50 percent taxes. This is when I wish I could have you all for an hour. Thank you so much. Great panel. And by the way, it really was the story of the year and we are staying on it because there are still outstanding questions and my question is why isn't anyone asking them?

Up next, we examine the re-emergence of Christine Blasey Ford and bring you exclusive updates about where the investigation stands on that leaked letter from Feinstein's office.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It was a confirmation battle that captivated the nation just over two months ago and there are still many unanswered questions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his name dragged through the mud over still uncorroborated claims. Despite that reality, Christine Ford remains a media darling, resurfacing for the first time since her public testimony to deliver this message while handing out an award for Sports Illustrated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIN BLASEY FORD, PROFESSOR, PALO ALTO UNIVERSITY: The lasting lesson is that we all have the power to create real change and we cannot allow ourselves to be defined by the acts of others.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Her re-emergence has led us to dig back into this case, specifically whatever came of the investigation we were led to believe would be launched into the leaking of her initial letter to Senator Feinstein's office. A senate staffer tells THE INGRAHAM ANGLE" exclusively tonight that the judiciary committee never actually submitted the leaked inquiry to the DOJ for investigation. It's unbelievable.

Moreover, there is no word tonight on whether any individual offices are investigating it. My question is, we all had to go through that. The Kavanaughs had to go through that. Don't the American people deserve some answers on how it all got started?

To help us unpack it all, we are joined by Helgi Walker, former colleague of Kavanaugh in the White House Counsel's Office and Carrie Severino, the Judicial Crisis Network and Attorney Scott Bolden, former D.C. DNC chair. Carrie let me start with you. What could be the reason behind no formal leak investigation having been launched despite what we were promised?

CARRIE SEVERINO, JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK: Well, it's really discouraging because obviously this is a serious breach of Senate procedure of, you know, someone -- all we know is Senator Feinstein's office had it.

INGRAHAM: Walk us through what happened again.

SEVERINO: So the letter was sent to Congresswoman Eshoo, right? She gave it then to Senator Feinstein. So as far as we know, those two offices plus obviously Blasey Ford's lawyers themselves were the only ones who had this letter.

Not exposing it was the reason that excuse that Senator Feinstein gave for not actually giving it to the FBI and doing what they should've done initially which is what they did with Justice Thomas, saying hey, let's actually look into this and have them do it in a professional, confidential manner to preserve everyone. They didn't do that. It got leaked to the media in, you know, all sorts of suspicious timing et cetera. Feinstein herself when asked during the hearings didn't seem to be. She was like well --

INGRAHAM: She turned around. Remember, she turned around.

SEVERINO: No one here -- I think, you guys didn't leak it, did you? I mean --

INGRAHAM: That was so phony baloney.

SEVERINO: Clearly she had done her due diligence, right?

INGRAHAM: Yes, that was choreographed.

SEVERINO: So I mean, this was a real problem that they'd be leaking this. So someone here among the Democrats or her own lawyers was doing something she said she didn't want and caused this huge national blow up. We need to get to the bottom of it.

INGRAHAM: Well, it's criminal. It is criminal to do this. You cannot do what they did under the rules of the Senate. Scott, it doesn't matter if it happens to a Republican or a Democrat. Without rules in place to safeguard the entire process and also an individual's innocence, I mean, presumption of innocence, anyone can come forward with any allegation at the 11th hour and sink a nominee, whether it's a Democrat nominee or Republican.

SCOTT BOLDEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, on this case, Senator Feinstein, her response initially was that she wasn't authorized to release it to anyone. Protocol would have said you should have but Senator Grassley is the one that said that it would be investigated. Why don't you register a complaint with his office, with the Senate.

INGRAHAM: Oh, we are, we are. We are. No one else is.

BOLDEN: And let's get to the bottom of that because the certainly didn't want to get to the bottom of the truth in regard to the Kavanaugh hearings. So, I'll back you on that.

INGRAHAM: Yes, yes, yes. All right, well Helgi, this is what -- remember what Blasey Ford herself said at the hearing about wanting this to be, you know, handled confidentially.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FORD: My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh's serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family, or anyone's family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have faced since my name became public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Helgi, that was a very poignant moment during the hearings, and she had that point, to many Americans, was extremely sympathetic. But who was to blame for that? And what was the motivation for conducting themselves as they did, whether Eshoo's office or Feinstein's office. I don't really think it was Dianne Feinstein herself. She's not a stupid person. She wouldn't do that. But someone did it with the thought of needling this investigation forward at this moment.

HELGI WALKER, FORMER COLLEAGUE OF JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Someone did it with the thought of pushing this into the public realm against Dr. Ford's own wishes, as Carrie said. And I think they were members on the Democratic side of the aisle, of the Judiciary Committee, probably staffers. And we still don't know the answer to any of these questions. And the consequences were serious, as you said. Motivations were blatantly, transparently political to do anything they could to stop Brett Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court justice, and luckily that failed. Luckily, as Senator McConnell said, the mob did not win, and sitting here today, I think that's even more true than ever, thank God the mob didn't win.

BOLDEN: If the allegations were true, then he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. So it's pure conjecture to say someone on the Democratic side leaked it.

INGRAHAM: If you beat your wife two weeks ago but there's no one who saw it, should you be sitting here?

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: There was no corroboration. That's why the whole thing fell apart.

BOLDEN: Are you serious? Just because you can't prove it or corroborated doesn't mean it didn't happen.

INGRAHAM: Is that what you want to do with Supreme Court nominations? This is going to be fun when the Democrats are back in. Can't wait.

BOLDEN: It was credible, it was substantial. Even Republicans said it was. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

INGRAHAM: Yes, $647,000 was raised in GoFundMe before it was closed. And the Blasey Ford teams said that they used the money to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including physical protection and security for me and my family and to enhance the security for our home. Any unused donations after the completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that support trauma survivors. Any thoughts? That's a lot of money. That's a lot of protection.

SEVERINO: She is certainly not the only one has gotten threats. I know the Kavanaughs have gotten extensive amounts of threats on this. And again, this didn't have to happen.

INGRAHAM: And they donated. They didn't take their money, right?

SEVERINO: No, but that $600,000 goes a long way towards security enhancements, I'm sure. But thankfully she didn't have to pay for lawyers in that, too, because that was all donated.

WALKER: None of it connected by some of the Democrats on the --

SEVERINO: The bottom line is it didn't have to happen. If they had not leaked it --

INGRAHAM: Wasn't McCabe's lawyer, Andrew McCabe's lawyer her lead counsel, I believe? Am I getting that right? It's all one tangle.

All right, panel, there's more digging we did, though, because Ford wasn't the only one to bring unsubstantiated claims. We also learned tonight that no official process has begun with those criminal referrals initiated on Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick or her attorney, Michael Avenatti. All Chuck Grassley did was send referrals to investigate them for allegedly making false statements to the Judiciary Committee but nothing has been done or made public since. Helgi, your reaction. How much is there to investigate here?

WALKER: There's nothing to investigate because Julie Swetnick has pretty much admitted that this was all made out. These supposed corroborating witness she had, Avenatti submitted her declaration. She came forward to not a conservative media outlet and said he twisted her words. He made it out. It's pretty much a clean-cut case that this was fabricated.

BOLDEN: That doesn't mean it was fabricated.

INGRAHAM: On October 1st, let's put up the graphic, guys. These are Julie Swetnick's, some problems she has. October 1st, 2018, she told NBC her Kavanaugh story and account. The account deviated from her affidavit. And then of course her ex-boyfriend, just for good measure, said she threatened to kill both him and his unborn child and said she's exaggerating everything. Take that with a grain of salt coming from an ex-boyfriend.

But the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley sent that criminal referral in. But I think in these cases, you can't just say, oh, we're going to do this and expect nobody is going to ask any follow-up questions.

BOLDEN: Yes, but if you don't care, all you care about is getting Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, getting him confirmed --

INGRAHAM: We care. We are pointing out to you that we do care about the process. Otherwise we'd just celebrate all the time.

BOLDEN: We both care, but it's the leadership on the Judiciary Committee and the GOP in the House and Senate to pursue this. They haven't pursued it. So that confirms that they never really cared about the referrals or the criminal investigation of the Democrats. But why would they do that? Because of the height of the moment. At the height of the moment in sounded good.

WALKER: Chairman Grassley took a strong stand in making the referral. He didn't need to do that. And I think it's right that he did that so that people know you can't toy around --

BOLDEN: Why hasn't he pursued it.

SEVERINO: If you referred to it, then shouldn't they be the ones --

BOLDEN: Exactly.

SEVERINO: The Senate is the ones who do it.

INGRAHAM: FBI, Christopher Wray.

BOLDEN: Ask them, too.

INGRAHAM: All right, thank you all. We are going to highlight this because I think --

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for the "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose the big cultural stories of the day.

Watching the body language at yesterday's heating Oval Office meeting, we thought it would be instructive to break down what it all meant. And we have some news about the new Christian Bale, Dick Cheney movie.

Joining us with all the details, FOX News contributor, Raymond Arroyo, "New York Times" bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" series. All right, Raymond, let's start with that tense Oval Office meeting yesterday. What does the body language tell us?

RAYMOND ARROYO, CONTRIBUTOR: Laura, we will examine each of the players here. Let's start with Nancy Pelosi. Like most Italians -- I'm guilty -- her hands give her away. Now watch this. I call this the back of the hand. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: You have the White House. You have the Senate. You have the House of Representatives. You have the votes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Laura, you see what she's doing here. She doesn't need to fund a well. She has created her own wall between she and Trump.

INGRAHAM: I thought she was going to do something.

ARROYO: This is a kind of dismissive.

INGRAHAM: Yes, the back of the hand.

ARROYO: I'm blocking you out. I'm not even going to give you any signals. And then she looks away at one point. Later she literally turns her body and looks away from him.

INGRAHAM: Who is she talking to?

ARROYO: She is talking to the press. She is talking to Chuck Schumer, but she won't talk to the president. Later she suddenly became professor Nancy, and she started wielding a particular weapon at the end of her hand. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: You begin. You make your point, you state your case. That's what the House Republicans could do if they had the votes. But they have no votes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: See the finger. She starts pointing. This goes on. She schooled him on legislative policy, that she's part of the first branch of government. That is schoolteacher.

INGRAHAM: Schoolmarm.

ARROYO: Schooling Nancy, and she is kind of teaching him and putting him in his place.

INGRAHAM: San Fran grand dame.

ARROYO: But body language experts and a lot of the data will tell you this is a weapon. It's like threatening someone when you point at them directly.

Let's go to this. This is the president trying to reassert authority here with what I called the king of the throne gesture. Watch for this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: The fact is you do not have the votes in the house.

TRUMP: Nancy, I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: He does that a lot.

ARROYO: It's the domination.

INGRAHAM: Dominating.

ARROYO: Then you listen. It's like a megaphone. He is projecting his voice through his hands. You will see him do it a lot. It's a typical Trump gesture, but it's asserting his power.

INGRAHAM: It's a guy sitting on the edge of his seat.

ARROYO: He is ready to pounce.

INGRAHAM: What about chuck Schumer?

ARROYO: Hold on. Hold on. Finally, things get very combative. Watch what the president does here. I call this, Laura, the pointed dagger. It's almost like a duel. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We gained in the Senate. Nancy, we gained in the Senate. Excuse me, did we win the Senate?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Now he's having a conversation with the media over her. And then Schumer comes in, doesn't address the president. He talks to the media.

INGRAHAM: Body language.

ARROYO: He talks to the media and turns away from the president entirely. They both do this. Schumer and Pelosi at different times do this, and the president as well. At some point he goes right over the head of Schumer, et cetera, and starts talking to the press. It was fascinating watching this.

The character we have not talked about in this is poor Vice President Pence, who if you ever wanted to see someone trying to fade into the upholstery --

INGRAHAM: He was pulling a Comey going into the curtains almost.

ARROYO: He was definitely fading away. OK, we've got to move on.

INGRAHAM: Tell me about this new Christian Bale film called "Vice."

ARROYO: Are you familiar with "Anchorman?" Those great films, "Anchorman," "Talladega Nights."

INGRAHAM: Hilarious.

ARROYO: Adam McKay, the director who brought those movies, has now decided he's going to be an auteur, and he tells the story of Dick Cheney. But it's through a very kind of cracked prism, OK. He claims here that Dick Cheney is a drunk without ambition, Lynn Cheney helped reorient. And then he meets these very dark characters, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Nixon, and they teach them how to become this power monger.

INGRAHAM: This is stupid.

ARROYO: It's very dark. And the facts are all over the place.

INGRAHAM: What is the connection to reality?

ARROYO: We're going to get to that in a moment. At the film premiere, Christian Bale, who plays Dick Cheney, and you have to say, he has vanished into this role. But he talked here about encountering the president, President Trump back in 2011 when he was filming "The Dark Knight Rises" at Trump Tower. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIAN BALE, ACTOR: I met him one time. We will filming on "Batman" in Trump Tower. And he said come on up to the office. I think he thought I was Bruce Wayne, because I was dressed as Bruce Wayne, so he talked to me like I was Bruce Wayne and I just went along with it really. It was quite entertaining. I had no idea at the time that he would think about running for president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: So they kind of take a swipe at the president at the red carpet.

INGRAHAM: I like the interviewer.

ARROYO: Giggling along.

INGRAHAM: Cute.

ARROYO: Here's the nice thing about this film that you have to keep in mind. This is Adam McKay's twisted, cracked vision of Dick Cheney. He has turned this film into a weapon of mass destruction against the Cheneys and everyone they --

INGRAHAM: Why is that relevant?

ARROYO: People you and I will know from Mary Matalin to Grover Norquist to Frank Luntz to Rush Limbaugh.

INGRAHAM: Frank Luntz?

ARROYO: Even Tyler Perry as Colin Powell. And as tempting as that is, it's not how I want to spend my Christmas.

INGRAHAM: No, no, that's going to be a big flop.

ARROYO: I want "It's a Wonderful Life," not it's --

INGRAHAM: Wait, wait, we've got something. Speaking of fun, now, this is fun. We have some footage of a dance party, not Shannon Bream's Friday dance party, no, no. That's a fun one, by the way. This is something you have to see to believe. This happened in India. What is this?

ARROYO: This is footage from a $100 million week-long wedding, Laura, thrown by India's richest man Mukesh Ambani. This is not one but two former presidential contenders on the dance floor. Hillary Clinton and former secretary of state John Kerry whooped it up. They're right there on the left hand side of your screen.

INGRAHAM: That little move.

ARROYO: They look like a pair of Bollywood extras.

INGRAHAM: We need a highlight on John Kerry's head.

ARROYO: John Kerry is right there. He's right in the middle. Laura, this reminds me.

INGRAHAM: Look at Hillary with the hand. She is doing this. She is doing this.

ARROYO: She and Huma Abedin? Huma is there.

INGRAHAM: Is that Huma?

ARROYO: They're all together there.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my God. Where's Cheryl Mills?

ARROYO: This is more evidence, and it reminds me of the video of President George W. Bush and 2007. Do you remember this, he went to Africa and tried to dance with the tribal leaders?

INGRAHAM: I thought he was cute. I thought he was adorable.

ARROYO: He comes off a little bit better than the Bollywood crowd. But this is all evidence, Laura, that politicians really shouldn't dance.

INGRAHAM: He's drumming there. Where is he dancing?

ARROYO: He danced at the beginning. He did the George W. Bush --

INGRAHAM: But Hillary did the hand. Here's the thing, don't do the hand dance. That never works.

ARROYO: Or getting up in front of people --

INGRAHAM: But John Kerry looks like Lumiere in "Beauty and the Beast." Didn't he look like Lumiere. You are expecting melting wax. Look at him doing the turn. He's doing the turn.

ARROYO: And Hillary is doing the hold. It is really Mamma Mia.

INGRAHAM: White men in white women can't dance.

ARROYO: White politicians.

INGRAHAM: White politicians can't dance. Any party. All right, Raymond, thanks so much.

And when the Democrats come to power in the House, they have promised to shut down all investigations into the corrupt dealings at the FBI. How convenient. So is that good for you or me or the rule of law? House Intel Chair Devin Nunes here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you become chairman, are you officially going to end investigation?

REP. JERRY NADLER, D-N.Y.: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why?

NADLER: Because it's a waste of time to start with and the entire purpose of this investigation is to cast aspersion on the real investigation, which is Mueller. There is no evidence whatsoever of bias at the FBI or any of this other nonsense they're talking about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: None of it at all. Text messages, Strzok, Page, none of that.

That was incoming House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler explaining he will not continue the investigations into the multiple levels of corruption revealed at the highest levels of the FBI just over the past few years. The FBI is facing new scrutiny tonight after former national security adviser Michael Flynn's defense team revealed some troubling details in a late Tuesday night sentencing memo. Inside it they revealed that disgraced former deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe recommended, get this, that Flynn not have a lawyer present during his initial FBI interview. They wanted him to be very comfortable.

Here with us exclusively tonight, House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here. What does it tell you about the so- called respect for the rule of law? They didn't give him an indication that this was any serious interview. They said in fact don't bring your lawyer, because if you do that, we're going have to call the Justice Department. Apparently they were good friends in this interview, and what happened?

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-Calif.: What happened to General Flynn is just, it's a tragedy. I have known General Flynn since the mid-2000s. I've visited him numerous times in Iraq. He is the American war hero. You have heard me say this ad nauseam over and over again about the most important crime that was committed here was the leak of the highly sensitive, compartmented information of General Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador --

INGRAHAM: To David Ignatius at "The Washington Post," correct?

NUNES: Yes. And then later again it showed up in "The Washington Post," I think even more information. That was a leak of a phone call of an American citizen that he had every right to make. It wasn't just that he was a national security adviser. Any American has the ability to talk to any ambassador that they want. And they used a law from the 1700s, the Logan Act, that had never been used.

INGRAHAM: But this was all a pretext. So people watching understand, it looks like a set up. It looks like this is all pretextual. They had the transcript in their hand, the agent said so. They had the transcripts, and they were ready -- if Flynn said he didn't remember, they were going to read part of the transcript to him. But then he's in there without a lawyer, thinking that these are his buddies and there's no problem. Of course, I tell you. I have nothing to hide. Presumably that's what he said.

NUNES: I don't want to jump ahead, but I sure you can talk about this, but the 302s.

INGRAHAM: The 302s are the memos that they write after an interview with individuals of interest.

NUNES: They were not finalized for seven months.

INGRAHAM: So they were not finalized until August of 2017?

NUNES: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Why would that be? Wouldn't you go right back to the office and start working on them?

NUNES: I don't know why that would have been, but I also know that we were briefed on those interviews in the House Intelligence Committee a month or two after those interviews occurred. So you have memos that would've been written during the interview, and then you have a briefing before the House Intelligence Committee, probably the Senate. And then you move onward, and it's not finalized until August 22nd. So I'm glad that the judge is looking at this. I think the judge should also asked the House Intelligence Committee to provide the transcript that we have of Director Comey testifying before our committee. He would be interested in that also.

INGRAHAM: So the judge is seeking tonight, we learned and you're referencing, seeking to review key FBI notes before it makes a sentencing decision that are involving all this.

NUNES: Right, he wants the notes beforehand and the 302s.

INGRAHAM: That will reveal a lot about what they actually thought and knew right beforehand right after they left which was apparently that they didn't think he lied, correct?

NUNES: Correct.

INGRAHAM: So Peter Strzok did not think that Michael Flynn lied?

NUNES: That's what I believe, at least from the testimony that we received over many, many months was that there was no lying had occurred. That's why I was shocked by --

INGRAHAM: So he wants two documents, a memo that then FBI Director Andrew McCabe wrote after speaking with Flynn by ahead of the interview he did with the two agents during the same interview. So that's the FD-302, that McCabe part.

NUNES: Which is the finalization and the moralization of the original interview. And I still don't understand how it took seven months. And remember, Senator Grassley has been all over this for a year asking for these 302s.

INGRAHAM: Sullivan also ordered the special counsel to hand over any memos or interview notes relevant to Flynn. So this all goes to your point. This was a complete setup from the beginning again Flynn. It looks obvious to me. It's obvious to anyone who has bothered to follow this for one minute.

Another thing that's obvious is how many politically motivated actors have populated the Mueller investigation. Not all, but I want everyone to remember Jeannie Rhee is, just because of today, because she was speaking at the Cohen sentencing. He was sentenced today, got three years, southern district of New York. And for people who don't know who she is, I want to remind you. She worked for the Clinton Foundation. She repped also Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes during the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She repped Ben Rhodes during all that, and then she repped the Clinton Foundation in 2015. She worked for Hillary Clinton, secretary of state. This is not someone who should be in the special counsel's investigation. And she also gave $5,400, too.

NUNES: I have no idea why Mueller picked anyone that --

INGRAHAM: Connected with Hillary and the email investigation, and clearly it's crazy.

NUNES: It's totally nuts, and if the shoe was on the other foot, the mainstream media would be going crazy. The Mueller investigation would've been shut down. It would've been called a fraud and hoax from the beginning.

INGRAHAM: What do you think of Cohen getting three years? What does that tell you, anything?

NUNES: I am watching to see how the media is making this out to be like that Trump did something wrong, when the reality is, he's going to prison for tax evasion. And so, look, I think if you look at what the fed said, the fed said this guy did a lot of bad things, where you have the special counsel's office saying the opposite.

INGRAHAM: Rep Denny Heck on your committee says it's the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency. That's what he said.

NUNES: We've heard a lot of that kind of talk over the last two years.

INGRAHAM: Are people getting nervous on Capitol Hill? Any Republicans getting nervous about any of this?

NUNES: No, not that I know. I think we are getting frustrated that we continue to speak truth to power. We continue to get facts out there. And you have the mainstream media who has been involved in this from the very beginning. They were the very first ones to get the Steele dossier that really originated this entire show.

INGRAHAM: Devin Nunes, great to see you. Thanks for joining us.

NUNES: Thanks, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Up next, the last bite.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: First Lady Melania Trump with a message for her critics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELANIA TRUMP, FIRST LADY: I do what I think is right. I know I will get criticism from the public or the media. But I will do what is right and what I feel is right for the country and for the people. And that's what I say I want to stay true to myself and listen myself and what to do and what is right and what is wrong and live meaningful life every day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I love that. Fantastic. That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the FOX NEWS @ NIGHT team, take it from here.

Shannon, cannot wait.

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.