Hollywood better at purging sexual predators than DC?

close

Video

Hollywood better at purging sexual predators than DC?

Law professor Kimberly Wehle and Rep. Ryan Costello weigh in on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," November 21, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: And good evening from Washington. Breaking just moments ago, some sad news to share with you. David Cassidy, the pop culture icon of the 1970s, he died just a short time ago in a Florida hospital at the age of 67.

The musician and actor have been hospitalized for several days with organ failure. This after he announced his diagnosis with dementia earlier this year. And David Cassidy was best known, of course, for his role in the 70s hit show "The Partridge Family" where he played older brother, Keith. So many of us watched that as kids.

And his family provided a statement that read, in part, "David died surrounded by those he loved with joy in his heart and free from the pain that had gripped him for so long. Thank you for the abundance and support you've shown him for these many years."

And tonight, all of us of a certain age especially remember him, remember a lot of laughs from that show. And our prayers and, of course, our thoughts go to David Cassidy's family, his friends and his many fans. May he rest in peace.

And on to other stories tonight, sex and seniority. That is a topic of tonight's Angle. We learned last week of a shush fund created by Congress to settle claims for representatives who engage in sexual assault or other abuse. It's paid out over $17 million so far. We thought it was $15 million a couple of days ago.

And the names of the members and other workers on Capitol Hill that are involved in this are all under wraps until we and other outlets began to shine light on the Office of Compliance, most members of Congress didn't even know it existed.

And therein lies the problem. When the government is this large and this unwieldy, mischief is bound to follow both personal and professional. And soon, no one is looking out for the people.

They're just looking to cover themselves and representatives, well, they settle into their positions of power and year after year, term after term, they tune out their constituents. And pretty soon, they're taking orders from the swamp rather than the people.

So, if we want to end the corruption, and move legislation on Capitol Hill, we need the old timers to do the decent thing and begin to retire. John Conyers is the most potent example. The congressman who has just been charged this week with sexual harassment by two women so far in two days is 88 years old.

He has held his congressional seat for 52 years. So LBJ was president and the film "Mary Poppins" was released the year he was elected. Now, it's time for John to go fly a kite, too, and he's not alone. Remember that song?

Congressman Louise Slaughter, Democrat from New York is also 88. She's been in Congress for 33 years. Republican Congressman Sam Johnson, 87 years old, and he's been kicking around Congress for 26 years. Sander Levin of Michigan is 86 years young and he served as a congressman for 34 of those years.

In the Senate, things aren't that much better. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, otherwise known as Di-Fi is 84 years old. Looking great, though, and she's held the seat for a quarter of a century.

Senator Chuck Grassley, also 84, and he's been Iowa's senator for half of his life, 42 years. Senators Orrin Hatch and Richard Shelby, both 82 years old and have served 40 and 38 years respectively.

Just those eight senators and congressmen have been padding around Congress on the taxpayers' dime for a combined 290 years. This is a total joke. President Trump was elected to be an agent of change, to break up the bureaucracy and drain the swamp.

That's hard to do when the old guard is impeding progress and protecting the bureaucracy in D.C. These elder statesmen need to look themselves in the mirror and ask -- is a lifetime tenure what the founders really had in mind when they created this system?

What did Thomas Jefferson mean when he wrote this -- "A government by representatives elected by the people at short periods was our object and our maxim." Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams in 1800. "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." Thomas Jefferson in 1799.

Well, now, I have to say this to be fair, I realize there is wisdom with age and experience in Congress can really be an asset at times. Senators like Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, I like them both a lot. They've continued to listen to their voters on most issues.

And they've been pushing through the president's judicial nominees and working hard on his tax bills. So that's good stuff. But for most people, decades of power, decades in power, can also isolate them even from the best of men and isolate them from the people they're supposed to represent.

The people are crying out for transformational change and the president is the impatient agent of that change. But to make it a reality, these incumbents who have remained long past their expiration dates have got to step aside.

Let's get some new blood in there and some new ideas into the halls of Congress. And by the way, again to be fair, there are some younger senators a la Ben Sasse, Corey Gardner and Jeff flake, who have gotten pretty good themselves pretty young, too, at ignoring the will of their own voters.

Amidst the calls for Al Franken and Roy Moore to step aside, I have a call of my own tonight. It's time for the dinosaurs of Washington who refuse to press the president's agenda, to step aside and lumber off into the sunset.

If they're not going to return power to the people, they need to go now. And that's The Angle.

And now, on to our top story tonight. A giant in the Democratic Party I just mentioned is being rocked by a second allegation of sexual misconduct. The second as many as two days. Congressman John Conyers paid his accuser $27,000 out of a congressional account in 2015 that drove another accuser to depression.

The Ethics Committee is already investigating Conyers but is that enough? And should taxpayers be on the hook for his misdeeds?

Here to react is Kimberly Wehle, a professor of law at the University of Baltimore, and Congressman Ryan Costello, a Republican from Pennsylvania. It's great to see both of you. Happy Thanksgiving and all that jazz.

Professor, let's talk to you. This is some wild stuff. I mean, we have had accusations more recent than others, some really old sweep both Hollywood, business, media and politics. What is your take on this Conyers issue now that we know he used his own budget, his office budget to pay some of these settlements?

KIMBERLY WEHLE, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE: Well, some -- one thing that's been striking to me is the fact that the -- our elected officials seem to be less accountable than those in the private sector, right, so we've seen it sweep through Hollywood and we've seen it happen in the halls of corporate America.

And retribution is swift, and people are moved out and new people moved in presumably and the notion is that there's money at stake, right? And so, when it comes to our elected officials, without a will to actually remove them from office, from the voters' standpoint, there's really not much that we can do, the constitution doesn't say much about it.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Costello to you on this, this is what Maxine Waters, Congresswoman Waters said not too long ago about Congressman Conyers. There was a big women's forum. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: There is a member of Congress who has been supportive of women for many, many years. He is quiet. He is competent. He is powerful, but he has impeccable integrity on all of our issues. Give John Conyers a big round of applause!

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I'm giving him a big round of applause. Impeccable integrity, Congressman Costello. You heard the professor that, look, Congress seems to have its own set of rules, that's how it's constituted. They govern themselves. They pass their own ethics rules and internal rules and regulations. Is it time that things begin to change? I mean, a lot of you guys didn't even know this slush fund even existed.

REP. RYAN COSTELLO, R-PA.: The short answer is things do need to change. I think that this legislation is a step in the right direction because if you work on Capitol Hill, and you've been mistreated, the process that you have to go through in order to file a complaint and have your grievance heard is so opaque, confusing, that it's just not fair.

It's not fair and it's not right and I think the slush fund that you spoke to is sort of indicative of the American public's frustration with at times how Congress is governed. They feel there's a different set of rules for members of Congress.

And the point here is, look, as a member of Congress, you have a budget. I pay staff, office supplies, office space, et cetera, et cetera. That money should not and cannot be allowed for use to pay off an employee who may have been mistreated. That has to end. I don't think that's --

INGRAHAM: Is that even allowed? Congressman, my question to you, is that even allowed?

COSTELLO: I don't believe that it is, no.

INGRAHAM: Ok. So, this will be part of an ongoing ethics investigation into John Conyers. I want you to speak to my ANGLE that I gave at the top of the show. We got people in Congress who have been there half a century plus. Now, old people, senior people, we're all getting up there, ok?

They have a lot of wisdom. But this was not meant to be a permanent job security program, working on Capitol Hill. We got people up here for three decades, four decades and in the case of John Conyers, five decades.

You kind of get removed from the people after five decades. You go from fundraiser, lobbyist and consultant, to this and that. Where the heck are the people in all of that?

COSTELLO: That has to be up to voters. That's why we have term limits. A lot of that was workplace violations. Some of it could have been age discrimination, right? So, there's a couple of different ways to look at that. I understand the sense of the American people is sometimes members of Congress are there too long.

Obviously, it's up to the constituents in their district to vote them out if they don't want them there. We're dealing here with a situation where when improper conduct does occur, are the mechanisms in place in order to right the situation, to treat a young woman who may have been mistreated and I think there's a feeling that the mechanisms that are in place now are insufficient.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, you seem like a nice guy and I'm sure you represent your constituents very well. But as a professor was pointing out, you can't get away with this stuff in corporate America anymore, at least you shouldn't.

And the fact that women are forced into mandatory counselling, and Professor, I want you to get into that, this is the way the system is on Capitol Hill. Women who accuse -- or men who accuse others of sexual misconduct have to go into forced counselling. Mandatory --

COSTELLO: For 30 days, right, 30 days, 30 days of mediation. I agree with you.

INGRAHAM: Counselling should go to the people doing the conduct. I want you to weigh in on that. That's crazy.

WEHLE: Under the constitution, the way you get rid of members of Congress is --

INGRAHAM: Vote them out.

WEHLE: Under Article One, the other members of the Senate and the Senate context can actually expel them.

INGRAHAM: Like we're talking about with Roy Moore.

WEHLE: It takes two-third of the Senate to make that decision. We're talking big numbers. It's highly unlikely. So what end applies? What applies are the rules that Congress decides to apply for themselves and that is what we're talking about.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, can you say tonight there will be -- Congressman, I know you didn't write the rules. Grassley did back in 1995. I like Senator Grassley. He's done a phenomenal on most issues. Are you going to say that you'll fight for removal of mandatory counselling in any different versions of legislation? I see different versions floating around Capitol Hill.

COSTELLO: The legislation that I have would remove the mandatory counselling and make a member of Congress personally liable if they engaged in this type of behavior. It would also --

INGRAHAM: What about the names? You guys get to keep secrets?

COSTELLO: Yes -- we do. The names -- the name of the member of Congress or if it was someone on their staff would be included. That would have to be reported within 60 days at the end of the year. There would also be a survey done every year so that you have staff conveying what they feel the culture is on Capitol Hill.

INGRAHAM: Ok. Some accountability.

COSTELLO: There's a lot to this bill. I totally agree with what the professor says. Things need to change. The bill that I'm a part of would do that.

INGRAHAM: And Congressman Costello is part of the -- he's a change agent in that. I don't mean to come down on you on this. I still can't believe this ever existed on Capitol Hill. It is preposterous on both sides. Men can be victims. Women can be victims.

Men can be victims of false accusations, but we must say there are false accusations, and both can be. I'm glad this is going to change. Professor, thank you. Happy Thanksgiving to both you.

And as we've been discussing an unprecedented number of high profile men, mostly men have been taken down by allegations of sexual misconduct and while it's been empowering for many women to finally see justice after all these years of silence, has the pendulum begun to swing too far?

Should the response to every allegation be resignation, firing? You know, social, you know, shaming and joining with us more insight, from here in Washington is Seth Berenzweig, an attorney who specializes in workplace sexual harassment issues and in fact, you do this for a living. You know this issue inside and out.

SETH BERENZWEIG, MANAGING PARTNER, BERENZWEIG LEONARD, LLP: Right.

INGRAHAM: And I've been getting a lot of e-mails on this and a lot of calls on radio for three hours a day and a lot of them are men who have said I 10 years ago, eight years ago, seven years ago was falsely accused. I'm a supervisor at a manufacturing company. You know, I'm a trucker.

I've gotten so many calls from people who said I was falsely accused. It is unfair what happens mostly to men and we're not all sinners and women are not all saints. I've heard this for the last week. What say you?

BERENZWEIG: Well, I think there's always a risk that companies and people in positions and powers in human resource departments, bosses, anywhere in corporate America can overreact, they can underreact. There are people who are victims in different context.

But I think that the common denominator through all of that is companies often don't know what the rules are. If they don't know where to draw the line, then it makes it harder for them to know how to not color over the lines.

So, I agree with you that there can be different kinds of over or under reactions but fundamentally, I think one of the basic fixes which is remarkably simple in this kind of a context that now that we're having this dialogue, is education and training.

You know, it really only takes about half a day to go into a corporate board room to go into the company and it provides some basic high-level training of what the law is to help people understand what's going on.

INGRAHAM: Just very briefly, the legal dynamic that exists. There is a quote, you could create a, quote, "hostile work environment" correct? Am I remembering my law correctly? Is that right?

BERENZWEIG: You're spot on.

INGRAHAM: Hostile work environment and there's a lot of ways to create that and there's another way to actually sexually harass. You have to have all the elements in place. Tell us what that is.

BERENZWEIG: Sure, when you're talking about the issues of sexual harassment, the basic legal test of that depends upon a sexually oriented act that someone directs in the workplace towards another person who based on the totality of circumstances reasonably concludes that that is offensive or unwanted.

And really, as a common denominator to what you've been talking about through the whole show in this critical conversation, part of the reason why this has been swept under the rug is because up until only a couple of weeks ago, this has been happening in the dark behind closed doors.

In the employment world, everything changed overnight fundamentally because of a guy by the name of Harvey Weinstein. And that shed light because of his absolutely horrific conduct on what's been going on behind these closed doors. Now there's new education and a new conversation in this country about how to be able to handle these.

INGRAHAM: And people need clarity and you can't turn the workplace into an antiseptic sterile environment. You can't compliment someone and can't say "you look great today" or "hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving." We'll walk around in bubble suits. Can't hug.

Man, that's what I don't want to create. That's not a fun workplace either. I love your perspective. Thank you for educating us on some of this.

And directly ahead, we'll update you on the alleged illegal immigrant attack on two border patrol agents that left one of them dead. CNN is now saying it's just an accident. Two insiders will tell you what they think really happened up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Yesterday, we told you about a tragic situation in West Texas that left one Border Patrol agent dead and another critically injured. According to Border Patrol Union officials the agents were attacked by rocks with illegal aliens throwing them. But over on CNN, they are introducing other theories.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Several Texas officials refer to some kind of attack on these two agents. But the local sheriff told "The Dallas Morning News," quote, "The injuries to Martinez after talking to his doctors were consistent with a fall, very consistent with a fall."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Joining us now are two men with insider knowledge of the situation. Brandon Judd is the president of the National Border Patrol Council and joins us from Montana and from McCallan, Texas, Chris Cabrera, a spokesman for the National Border Patrol Council.

Chris, I want to talk to you first because what I heard about this tragic incident, of course, I think about Brian Terry, I think about so many of the border patrol agents over the years who have lost their lives protecting our border. Very dangerous situation. But it was understood first that there were multiple head injuries. Tell us about why that theory may not be accurate?

CHRIS CABRERA, SPOKESMAN FOR THE NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: Well, if you look from where it's believed that the agents were attacked and our guess as CNN says where they fell from. The area around it, it's a culvert. It's not a raven. It's about nine feet off the ground.

INGRAHAM: We have pictures of it, which we're going to show as you're speaking so go ahead.

CABRERA: It's a sandy dirt-like surface as far as the ground goes, and if somebody fell there, I mean, it's nine feet off the ground. Is it possible that they could have died from that? It's possible. But it's highly unlikely.

The way they make this sound is that he went down some deep ravine and that's just not the case. It was a culvert on the side of the road. These agents know those culverts there, it's right off I-10. It's not like that took them by surprise.

For both agents to be, you know, struck or -- struck in the same manner, it's just -- it's highly unlikely, and I don't understand if -- if it had been an accident, why has it taken four days, three and a half days for them to figure out or rule out it's an accident?

On top of that, they're offering $25,000 reward to the FBI, if it's an accident, who would possibly be able to collect that reward? That tells you that sheriff doesn't know -- I hate to be rude. He doesn't really know what he's talking about.

INGRAHAM: Brandon, let's go to you on this. Clearly, if this had been an attack by some type of cartel affiliated group of individuals, illegal immigrants or not, that would, of course, bolster the president's argument that we need real border security. We need to empower the border patrol.

We need more of them and we need a wall. If it was an accident, either drove off into that culvert, doesn't seem very tall to me, sandy. They fell off and hit their heads and died. Doesn't add to the argument of the wall, does it?

BRANDON JUDD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: It doesn't. And if you look at it, dangerous borders are the reality today and that's what we deal with on a daily basis. But if you look at all the facts surrounding this particular incident, this agent was out there specifically looking for what we call foot sign or footprints in the ground.

He found some. He radioed it in. He said that this is good foot sign. He himself got out on foot and he started to follow these footprints in the dirt up to an area. If I can paint a picture for your viewers, if they're playing hide-and-seek, if you're the one that's hiding, you're going to see the person that's coming looking for you especially if they have a flashlight in hand.

These individuals that were hiding, they were able to attack these agents and they were able to take the agents out, very, very common. It could happen to any agent at any time. I mean, I can tell you from my own perspective as a K-9 handler, I arrested 57 illegal aliens by myself with my K-9 partner.

That situation could have gone bad very, very quickly, and in this particular case, it did go bad and that's because we have dangerous borders.

INGRAHAM: And Chris, back to you on this. I think most Americans watching this tonight, they hear about the border. But if they don't live, you know, near where you live, McCallan or El Paso, they really don't get what it's like. It's dangerous for property owners. It's dangerous for residents.

It affects morale of border patrol agents when they don't feel like they're getting the support or the credibility that they deserve. And this spills over into the country at large, and President Trump is trying to do something about this. Congress continues to drag its feet, continues.

CABRERA: Yes, you know what people need to understand, people that don't live here on the border, they need to understand how it affects them, the rest of the country as a whole. For instance, these folks that are coming through, a lot of people come through this area. A great number of people come through this area.

The thing is the majority of them don't stay here. They're funneling into the rest of the country, the Atlantas, Houstons, the New Yorks, the Middle America, and 20 percent of the people we encounter have criminal histories.

And it's just -- it's an ongoing thing and at some point, we need to get serious about this border security. We need the infrastructure. We need the manpower but more than anything, we need that political will to get it done.

Because without that, we're just going to continue spinning our wheels and incidents like this are going to continue to happen. Incidents like the murder are going to continue to happen. It's an ongoing thing.

INGRAHAM: That's needles in a haystack. Meanwhile, we're putting the lives of good men and women in the border patrol in jeopardy and most of the time there's no reason for it if we actually have a secure border. Thank you to both of you for your service to this country.

And up next, think Hillary e-mail problems are all over? Well, think again. An exclusive report about a potential bombshell. You're not going to want to miss this when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Welcome back. We here on "The Ingraham Angle" have been hearing that there might soon be a major announcement about the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Capitol Hill.

Joining us now from Tallahassee, Florida, is someone who might have a thing or two to do with that, Congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida. Congressman, you can't tease us and give us nothing here tonight. Is there something going on? My ears have been, you know, filled up with all sorts of whispers all day today about something involving a special designation for the Hillary Clinton email investigation over at the FBI, and that is raising questions. What can you tell us tonight? And if you say you can't talk about it, we're going to have to go talk about David Cassidy again for another segment. Go ahead.

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Well, we absolutely can talk about it, Laura. I am immediately calling for an investigation into the special treatment that the FBI gave Hillary Clinton and particularly in this e-mail scandal.

In late October, right before the election, e-mails were sent by now the deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe where McCabe said that the Hillary investigation would be given special status, that it would not go through the normal investigative procedures that would typically append to this type of an investigation. He told others at the FBI that there would be a small team at headquarters that would make the decisions and conduct the investigation, walling off others who might have discovered information or brought additional facts to light.

Link this to the information we have about James Comey drafting the exoneration statement of Hillary Clinton before she was even interviewed, before other key witnesses were interviewed. So now we have absolute proof of what you've been saying for a long time, Laura, and that's that Hillary Clinton was treated differently than any other American would be treated. And as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I want answers from the FBI about how we can stop this type of special treatment for politicians in the future.

INGRAHAM: Now, we've been talking about the special treatment that politicians get when it comes to issues of harassment, other types of discrimination with that shush fund, slush fund on Capitol Hill, $17 million paid out to victims, all confidential. That's just an absolute outrage.

But in this case, we're talking about the former secretary of state, she's running for president, has a white hot spotlight on her and on this question of her e-mails, the ones that were destroyed, the intent to set up that private server. When something is designated as special investigation, one could hear that and say there's going to be more scrutiny placed on the subject. But you're saying when it's special, it means skirting normal channels? Is that what you can confirm to us tonight?

GAETZ: Well, Laura, we have to look at all the evidence in context. Here you have Mr. McCabe telling others at the FBI that this won't be handled like other investigations, that it will be a small team at headquarters. The reason that's so troubling is we've learned as a consequence of testimony before the Senate that James Comey leading that investigation drafted the exoneration statement, essentially rendered the verdict on the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal before even conducting the investigation.

Now we've got these McCabe e-mails that showed that others were not allowed to participate, that they were expressly excluded. Even more damning context is the fact that these e-mails also reveal that McCabe was dealing with his own scandal because he was involved with his wife's political campaign funded by the Clintons and their allies. And that's not the type of FBI we need. We need the types of checks and balances at the FBI where people get equal treatment under the law. We don't have that in a circumstance where you've got special treatment for someone like Hillary Clinton, and then you've got an exoneration statement before you even have the investigation concluded.

INGRAHAM: I think we're going to be learning a lot more about Andrew McCabe in the coming weeks. And you can't mix politics and the FBI, you're not supposed to. His wife is running for Virginia Senate. A lot of questions remaining about him and Comey together, and we appreciate it. Happy Thanksgiving, congressman. And you can give us more information next week. We want all the information next week doing all the document requests. We want all the memos to the file that Jim Comey did in the back of the sedan. We want all those. So keep it up.

And up next, what do you get when you throw Charles Manson, President Trump, Newsweek -- is that still publishing -- and "The New York Times" together? New heights of utter stupidity. I'll explain after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Infamous cult leader and murderer Charles Manson died of natural causes on Sunday, and many used his death to compare him to some of the worst men who ever lived on earth. But not "Newsweek." They thought it was appropriate to compare Manson to, guess who? President Trump. The struggling publication, I like to call it Newsweak, w-e-a-k, ran a story with the headline, quote, "How murderer Charles Manson and Donald Trump used language to gain followers." We should note that Newsweek has since changed the headline to remove the reference to the president. Isn't that nice?

The New York Times also ran a strange opinion piece that seemed to try to tie Manson to some of President Trump's supporters, making the case that Manson was inspired by rightwing causes rather than the far left counterculture. Good luck with that.

Joining us now for reaction, Howie Kurtz, the host of Fox News "MediaBuzz" which I love and watch every Sunday at 11:00 a.m. Howie, let's talk about this Newsweek thing. Now, I've heard a lot of wackiness going after Trump. But this rates way up there.

HOWARD KURTZ, FOX NEWS MEDIA ANALYST: It has its own special standing, yes. And it's just despicable, and it follows this sort of lunatic trend of comparing Donald Trump to the worst villains in human history.

INGRAHAM: Stalin. Pol Pot.

KURTZ: Hitler has already been done. Charles Manson just died, right? And so, you know, it's this utterly illogical argument about, well, both Manson and Trump used emotional language to appeal to their alienated supporters, so it's OK to compare the president to a mass murder.

INGRAHAM: And I think the left always tends to go just a little bit too far, and then they go a little farther and a little farther. But this is like a level of -- we call Trump derangement syndrome, but it's psychosis. So when they have some sort of legitimate beef with him on substance and policy, it's kind of diminished, I think, because they're so far overboard on these comparisons that they just look -- the guy could cure lung cancer tomorrow and say, oh, he could have done it two years ago and he didn't do it. For that reason, I think this is enough.

Let's go to Charlie Rose. I've known Charlie Rose since, I don't know, 1995, I think the first time I went on his show. And I was just on his show a couple of weeks ago for my book "Billionaire at the Barricades," had a great interview. This is a big figure in the media following a lot of other big figures, some in our own network, CBS, PBS Bloomberg, CBS has canned him. What's going on?

KURTZ: It took about 24 hours from that well-documented "Washington Post" piece published before CBS, and he's a franchise there. Morning show, "60 Minutes."

INGRAHAM: He's 75 years old.

KURTZ: Yes, as well as PBS. But networks really had no choice, Laura. I mean the devastating details in this "Post" piece about how he would lure people out to his estate on Long Island and either come on to them or grope them or whatever. Some were looking for jobs, some of them were fairly young women, really left them no choice. And the fact is he's a charismatic guy but blew up his own career.

INGRAHAM: Has any network not been touched by this? I guess "touched" is a word I shouldn't use. But has any network not been rocked by some level of this kind of sexual harassment allegation?

KURTZ: Not just networks. You have The New York Times has suspended White House correspondent Glenn Thrust over allegations.

INGRAHAM: You've got Mark Halperin.

KURTZ: Yes, it started in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, our own business. It really is quite a cultural moment. And now Charlie Rose, one of its biggest people to fall.

INGRAHAM: We were saying earlier that it will be a shame, however, if this changes the way people can have any interaction in the workplace. I know a lot of people, friends of mine from college and law school, who met each other in the workplace. I mean, how many times -- well, I met somebody and they became friends and we started dating. And now like a quarter of young people, we did this poll last night. A quarter of young people according to this new YouGov poll say that if someone asks another person out and they're not romantically involved, that that can be sexual harassment.

KURTZ: Just by asking for a date.

INGRAHAM: Yes, by asking for a date. Now, talk about lunacy. Are you going to ever have human reactions? How do you ever ask someone out? In the work context, I guess you never can. That's kind of -- not every allegation is correct either. Some are devastatingly true, but sometimes people just, I guess they want to date somebody and they say do you want to go out? I guess you can't do that either.

KURTZ: Charlie Rose had --

INGRAHAM: I'm not talking about Rose. I'm talking in general.

KURTZ: Yes, but let's make distinctions, because in this hothouse environment, oh, another case of sexual misconduct between a grope, somebody who is a little too aggressive on a date, and somebody who was accused of rape and sexual assault. It's not all the same.

INGRAHAM: Just quickly, Donna Brazile, I want to play this sound bite really quickly. This was earlier tonight on MSNBC. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER DNC CHAIR: My personal view is that it was not a legitimate election.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it doesn't count?

BRAZILE: Chris, remember, I am the campaign manager of Al Gore in 2000 and where, as you well know, the Supreme Court decided. This election will always have an asterisk by it. And that's why I think Donald Trump should take steps as president to clean up our system so that no more foreign governments, no foreign meddling will occur in the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: This is a change of heart really quickly, Donna Brazile trying to get back in the good graces of the DNC. What's going on?

KURTZ: She sells books by saying the primaries were rigged for Hillary. Now she has sold a lot of books and she wants to kiss and make up with the Democratic Party. So the whole action, forget about the Electoral College.

INGRAHAM: We'll get rid of that, too. Howie, always great to see you. Have a great Thanksgiving.

KURTZ: Thank you, too, Laura.

INGRAHAM: I had a lot of fun. Come back soon.

And straight ahead, LaVar Ball redefines off the rails. During an interview about his feud with President Trump you're not going to believe what he's saying. What the left is saying about it now. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Thanks to some sharp diplomacy by President Trump, three UCLA basketball players arrested in China for shoplifting were released and returned to the United States last week. But after LaVar Ball, the flamboyant father of one of the players, downplayed the president's role in the matter, Mr. Trump tweeted out in part, quote, "I should have left them in jail." Here's how "Morning Joe" reacted to that tweet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of course, it's -- there's racist overtures here where the black man was not appreciative of what the white man did for him. And it's a dog whistle.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and I actually think the racism is a real kind of thread throughout this presidency and the campaign. I think we can actually connect the dots there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Everything is a dog whistle. Joining us now for reaction from Columbia, South Carolina, Antjuan Seawright, Democratic strategist, and from Salt Lake is Burgess Owens, a former NFL player. Let's start with you, Burgess. I don't think the president should have probably got involved in tweeting back at LaVar Ball. But nevertheless, he did get the guys out. They made a mistake. They were grateful to President Trump. What do we make of this? Racist, this is a racist comment from President Trump?

BURGESS OWENS, RETIRED NFL PLAYER: I'll tell you, I'll start with that little piece, the dog whistle piece. The real dog whistle is when these white elitists still think they can throw the red meat of racism and we're going to be their attack dogs. First, I'm tired of it. This is not the party they're telling us about who racists are. Look at the Democratic history. You talk about the party of slavery, secession, segregation, and socialism, that's the Democratic Party. In the killing fields of America, black Americans today are in the Democratic community. So let's not have these people calling everybody else racist every chance they get to think we're going to respond to it the way they want us to.

INGRAHAM: All right, Antjuan, your take on this. Was President Trump being racially insensitive with a racial overtones in saying, you know, it'd be nice to show some gratitude here?

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, I think my friend on the other has been drinking a little too much of the Kool-Aid. I think that the president has a history of going after African-American athletes and key figures. If you look at Steph Curry, Colin Kaepernick Jemele Hill, he continues to go after these people and is throwing out right wing red meat rhetoric by way of social media. It is unprecedented for a president to get on social media and do these kinds of things.

INGRAHAM: Antjuan, look, the president has hit a lot of people. When he gets hit, he hits back. That's what he's going to do. But Jeff Flake, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, he's gone pretty much -- it's like everybody.

SEAWRIGHT: But, Laura, not in the same manner. There was no need for him to take to Twitter.

INGRAHAM: What?

SEAWRIGHT: There was no need for him to take to Twitter and say that these guys should give me an apology. When you help someone, you do it because you want to do it from the goodness of your heart.

INGRAHAM: That's a separate question. That's a separate question whether it's racist. Whether he should have tweeted, but we're talking about racist. I mean, President Trump gives as good as he gets. Somebody doesn't look like they're grateful, then he's going to say it back.

SEAWRIGHT: Laura, they didn't come after him. He initiated it.

INGRAHAM: I got you. Burgess, your comment.

OWENS: You know what truly is amazing with these leftists is how they --

SEAWRIGHT: Leftists?

(LAUGHTER)

OWENS: Yes. That's what it is.

SEAWRIGHT: How about being normal people? How about being normal?

OWENS: Let me tell you what's really racist. Racist is this -- 83 percent of our black teen males are unemployed, 75 percent of black boys in the state of California cannot pass standard reading and writing, 1,800 black babies are killed every single day when they target our black communities. Our communities are killing fields, and it's done by Democratic policies. And they are the ones that are target us and have the audacity to call those who are trying to stop abortions, trying to educate our kids -- right now, unemployment is down at a 17-year low by a president, and right now the left is not giving him any credit for that because they could care less about black lives. So let's really deal with the real deal. We have a party of socialists and racists --

INGRAHAM: Quick response from Antjuan.

SEAWRIGHT: My question is, what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? We're talking about President Trump's tweet demanding a thank you note for doing what Democratic and Republican presidents have done. This is just part of what his duty is as commander in chief, leader of the free world. So I don't know if an apology --

OWENS: Black communities should be thankful. Black communities need to be thankful.

SEAWRIGHT: You've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid, my man.

INGRAHAM: Both of you, we've got to go. But to both you I want to say happy Thanksgiving, number one. Number two, I think the president wants credit for things no matter where it's coming from or what color of skin. I think he does think he doesn't get a lot of credit. I have to agree with him on that. It's great to see both of you.

And do not go away. We're going to be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: That is all the time we have tonight. And Shannon Bream of course is up next.

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.