How badly do Democrats want Trump to fire Mueller?

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

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Welcome to "The Ingraham Angle" from Washington. The president is poised to sign his historic tax cuts into law tomorrow. We'll tell you how he has reshaped the GOP straight ahead in "The Angle."

Plus, we will expose the strategy behind those frenzied Democratic warnings that the president shouldn't fire special prosecutor Mueller.

And the Justice Department is asking the FBI some very tough questions about their investigation of that shady Uranium One Deal involving the Clintons.

And at the U.N., the world condemning the United States for moving its own Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, but the president is taking names. A lot of people on that naughty list. So, what's his next move?

And did Hollywood really just make a major film about the ultimate Kennedy scandal? We'll tell you which one.

But, first, Trump, the great GOP unifier that's the focus of tonight's ANGLE. Do you remember those headlines about how Trump was going to irreversibly divide and destroy the GOP? Oh, there they are. Well, it turns out that the president may well be on his way to healing those divisions.

Well, sure, there are still some policy disagreements, on the big issues, the unity of spirit and purpose is kind of remarkable, and it needs to be acknowledged. You think about where the GOP was in let's say 2008 or 2012, early 2016.

And now think about where it is today. Once upon a time, the Republican leadership had little regard and minimal respect for the real estate mogul who crashed their party. Just remember the kinds of things the GOP leadership had said about Trump.


SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL, R-K.Y., MAJORITY LEADER: Our new president, of course, had not been in this line of work before and I think had expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN, R-WIS., HOUSE SPEAKER: Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable.

SENATOR BOB CORKER, R-TENN.: You would think he would aspire to be the president of the United States and act like a president of the United States. But, you know, that's just not going to be the case apparently.


INGRAHAM: So, the narrative from the GOP establishment was that Donald Trump was a divisive figure who wasn't engaged in policy. He didn't understand the ways of Washington. Oh, really? I was told by multiple congressional sources that the president worked the phones tirelessly to get this tax bill done for the American people.

He has been intimately involved in remaking trade policy to benefit the American worker as well, and, of course, his efforts to revive the economy seem to be paying off. Home sales hit their highest level in 10 years.

Stock market breaking all kind of records and, of course, he delivered that tax break. Everybody loves a winner and now the president has turned some of his fiercest critics into allies. Listen to them now.


MCCONNELL: Year of extraordinary accomplishment for the Trump administration.

RYAN: Something this big, something this generational, something this profound could not have been done without exquisite presidential leadership.

CORKER: I have never ever in my life used the word fake must news. Until today I actually understand what it is the president has been dealing with.


INGRAHAM: Not only is that a stunning reversal of their view of the president's style, but he has converted them or at least cowed them on a number of key issues. So, for instance, when is the last time a prominent Republican really complained about Trump's efforts to renegotiate NAFTA or challenge China?

And in case you didn't notice Mitch McConnell now sounds like Jeff Sessions on immigration. Defying expectations again, the president has pulled his party toward the conservative populist movement that swept him in to office.

His detractors are now realizing that the Trump way is the only way forward. It's finally, finally dawned on them. There is simply no constituency for the GOP of open borders, endless wars, and those lopsided trade deals.

You want to know who the dividers are today in the GOP? I will tell you who they are. You see them there. The Bushes, Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney, and other bitter globalists whose time has frankly come and gone.

Like the ghosts of Christmas past, they're wandering the halls, making noises but no one is listening. This is a Trumpian party now. And that's THE ANGLE.

To discuss, I'm joined by Fox News contributor and former Congressman Jason Chaffetz in Utah and here in the studio in Washington is Attorney Richard Goodstein, who has advised most Democratic presidential candidates going back to 1984. And in New York, Guy Benson, political editor of and a Fox News contributor. Great to see all of you. Merry Christmas, happy holidays.

So, Richard, you just heard THE ANGLE. What do you think? He was going to be this guy who ripped the party apart, divisive, brash, all those things. But to see what happened yesterday, with all of these former detractors and you saw just a smattering of them. What a reversal?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I put this under the heading with friends like this who needs enemies in this regard. Thanks to Donald Trump, the party I.D. split is wildly in favor of Democrats. Thanks to Donald Trump, Republicans lost Alabama. He backed two losers.

INGRAHAM: Try to focus on the question.

GOODSTEIN: Look, I give the Republicans credit for getting this tax bill done. It was not an easy thing to do. They rammed it through. Everything they said, all the tape they ran about ObamaCare, you could replay now. OK? But they got it done.

It's wildly unpopular. Just like he is, historically so. So, I mean, you know, in the generic ballot, Democrats are way ahead. I think we have to kind of see what's going to happen in the 28 elections, pretty much every single election that's happened since Donald Trump has won has been plus 20 or so for the Democrats.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Chaffetz let's go to you on this, the generic ballot in 2016 was a disaster in Ohio. It was pretty bad for Trump, Pennsylvania was going to be his waterloo. Wisconsin, there was no way he was going to win.

Of course, he won, and surprised all the critics, the pollsters and so forth. But it struck me yesterday and especially watching McConnell, Ryan, even that little bit of concession from Corker. I think they have moved toward him more than he has moved toward them.

JASON CHAFFETZ, FORMER UTAH CONGRESSMAN: Yes, look, America wanted a disruptive president. They didn't like what was happening in Washington, D.C. on either side of the aisle. And if the Democrats only thing that they can really point to as a highlight for their 2017 is a generic ballot, you know it was a terrible year for Democrats.

They lost, they lost big, Hillary Clinton's numbers are even lower. If the race were won again, Donald Trump would win by even bigger numbers. He did help unite the party. After the Republicans did the proverbial political face plant by blowing it on Obamacare, they finally realized that maybe we ought to come together and the president did work hard behind the scenes.

And the Democrats, what are they going to run on? We figured taxes should be higher. How dare the Republicans cut your taxes? They have got nothing to run on other than generic ballot.

INGRAHAM: Hey, Guy, let's go to you, you were a never Trumper in your day, raised all sorts of red flags about him his demeanor and so forth. But watching him over the last year, setting aside the tweet storms and all of that, the Congress blew Obamacare as Jason said.

He comes in and he is hammering people for when are you going to get me a bill? What are you going to do on this? He is always on the phone with Ryan, McConnell and gaggle of other people saying why can't you get this stuff done faster? Contrary to what you hear, he is on these details and he is impatient for change.

GUY BENSON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: And the change came. And I think part of the reason that the party is so united at the moment is this is a massive win. Not just for the Republican Party, but for the American people and for long held conservative goals.

This a tax cut for 80 percent of Americans. This is major tax cut for corporations to make our numbers way more competitive in the world. That's something even Obama was for and Democrats all skedaddled Trump championing that idea now.

But also in the bill was getting rid of Obamacare's individual mandate. That's a huge deal, drilling in ANWR. Republican after that forever and they got it in one bill.

INGRAHAM: But looking back, at the previous year, there were so many conservatives, and there are few still, George Will, Bill Kristol, he is not a real conservative. If what he did on ANWR, the tax bill, the deregulation, Gorsuch, 12 circuit judges if that's not conservative, I don't know what is conservative. I worked for President Reagan. That's stuff is pretty conservative, don't you think?

Well, the judges I think are probably the absolute highlight of the presidency so far. One other point, Laura, I think you have to evaluate everything that the administration does, action by action.

There has been a lot of the good things recently today, Nikki Haley's speech, I know you are going to get to it later in the show. That speech standing up for American interest before the U.N. was like a fist pump moment. That was awesome.

That was powerful. That was moral courage and clarity. That's a high point ending the year for the Trump administration. So, yes, I'm a Trump skeptical conservative, but I'm not going to sit here and close my eyes to big important victories and we have several to cheer about.

INGRAHAM: Richard, let's go to you here on this.

GOODSTEIN: With all due respect to Guy and Jason and you, I think Republicans are whistling passed the graveyard. Jason, the generic ballot wasn't the high point for Democrats, it was winning in Alabama. It was winning by historic numbers in Virginia. The voters are speaking, these are people, frankly, who the ones who were in the streets on January 21st last year. A lot of them didn't vote.

BENSON: You lost five congressional races in a row.

GOODSTEIN: You have been in Congress. Every single one of them went plus 15 or 20 in the Democrats direction because they were ruby red districts. So, think it's just ballot again, with all due respect you are kidding yourself. Have they accomplished something? Of course, but does 2018 look like a good year? No.

INGRAHAM: I got to say, Roy Moore and Ed Gillespie, I mean, I like Ed Gillespie, but I mean, he is like a guy from New Jersey came down to Virginia and tried to be a conservative populist even though he a Bush guy. That wasn't going to fly. It's the second time he lost running for office in Virginia.

So, I don't know if those two states are great barometer, but you are right. The Democrats are happy they won those. Let's move to what the resistance is planning all of you. There was a hilarious piece in the L.A. Times today. I screamed laughing like at 9:00 in the morning when I was doing my radio show.

The title is protesters stash bull horns and hot chocolate just in case Trump fires Mueller. All right. Jason, I have got to go to you on this. I'm not kidding you in Washington, Houston, L.A., they have resistance headquarters and dashing off their signs and their little supplies, their power bars because they actually think Donald Trump is going to fire Mueller and they want to be ready for the moment.

This is what they live for. This is what they hope for. What is your reaction? Conservatives are just kind of working and taking care of our families, but they are always ready for a good protest.

CHAFFETZ: You got to love liberal preppers. They are getting their hot chocolate and running to office max to get their markers, so they can write out their swear words and beanie caps ready because it's cold outside.

But the president has said he is not going to fire Mueller. The White House spokesperson was quoted as saying a thousand times I have told you we are not planning to fire Mueller. They are getting whipped up over fake news, fake story, instead of actually working to be productive in this society.

INGRAHAM: Elizabeth Beavers is a Washington-based policy manager for this group "Indivisible," she said the last thing we want to be caught sun prepared. You need the hot chocolate, I guess, to be prepared.

I mean, Guy, this will be what the president and the Republicans face next year as they move forward whether it's DACA fix or Supreme Court nomination, which might coming up in June or any of the other things that Trump has planned. The resistance will drive them all the way to 2018. They will use that to try to drive turnout, are they not?

BENSON: Sure. And the professional left is very good at "ajit" props. They are practiced at it they will do it again. I like this modern-day minute man routine they have going to on here. We have to our gloves by the door and some provisions if we have to rush out in the stampede in the streets for whatever the next thing is going to be.

I thought we were supposed to be dead from net neutrality being repealed. Look, I agree. If Trump fires Mueller, that will touch off protest not just from the hard left. I don't think Trump is going to do it. It's not in his interest.

It's going to look terrible. All we sit here and talk about is Trump going to fire Mueller over and over again. They say they are not going to do it. The Republicans keep say don't do it. He shouldn't he should let the guy do his work and let's move on.

INGRAHAM: This is a fantasy of the Democrats. They are desperate for some piece of news good for them. So, they are desperate for something like in the middle of the night he does Saturday night massacre on Mueller, Richard? Go ahead.

GOODSTEIN: If Trump fires Mueller, the least of his problems --

INGRAHAM: He is not going to fire Mueller.

GOODSTEIN: -- the least of his problem is how much hot chocolate there is that these people in the streets have. There will be a Constitutional crisis of the first order because it will show that we have a president who thinks he is above the law. Incidentally I will bet money you, Jason, Guy, I'm on, yes, on whether he fires Mueller because, you know, is he like a stuck pig and he is squealing.


GOODSTEIN: It's not a pretty picture.

BENSON: Come on.

INGRAHAM: That's a nasty way of referring to the president stuffed pig.

GOODSTEIN: I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about the people around him are feeling the heat --

INGRAHAM: I like pigs though.

GOOSTEIN: And I think four months from now everybody will be singing a little bit of different tune whether that's going to be happening or not.

INGRAHAM: I bet 5,000 for charity right now.

GOODSTEIN: You got it.

INGRAHAM: Good. National Right to Life is going to get all that money. Isn't that wonderful? I'm just teasing. Trump is suddenly riding so high guys, that the Democrats are in total shock, even Richard. He is not going to say, but they are setting one big booby trap desperately trying, of course, to get the president to take the bait. We touched on this, but we have a lot more on it. Stay there.



CHUCK TODD, HOST, "MEET THE PRESS": There's no way he is going to fire him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is conversation about it whatsoever in the White House, Chuck.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Listening to Republican members talk about a coup and talk about a criminal activity in the FBI. That will encourage the president to think that he can fire Mueller with impunity.


SEN. MARK WARNER, D-CALIF.: Firing Mr. Mueller or any of other top brass involved in the investigation would not only call into question this administration's commitment to truth but also to our most basic concept rule of law.

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: For the 1,000th time we have no intentions of firing Bob Mueller.


INGRAHAM: OK, guys, don't be deceived for a nanosecond by the Democrats' dramatic warning that the president better not fire Special Prosecutor Mueller. Better not do it. Don't do it. They are actually hoping he will do just that.

Now that the credibility of the Russia probe is tarnished after all the bombshell reporting we have been doing on this show. Across a couple of great news outlets, the anti-Trump bias of the investigators is off the charts firing Mueller may be the Democrats only hope at this point. There is only one problem for them. The president isn't falling for it. He outsmarts them every time.

Joining us now to analyze, Ken Starr was the independent counsel and the Whitewater investigation, he is joining us from New York and in sunny Florida, Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor emeritus, author of the book "Trumped Up."

Alan, you go from Martha's Vineyard to Miami Beach. Anything else? My goodness. Great to see both of you. Happy holidays. Merry Christmas.

Let's start with you, Judge Starr. You just wrote a piece that things you are concerned about in this investigation. You still respect Mueller and Rosenstein. You have some issues, but I want to start on this dramatic dire series of warnings we are hearing from the Democrats about firing Mueller.

The president said he is not going to fire Mueller. He said it multiple times, but the drum beat continues. What do you think it's about?

KEN STARR, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I don't know what it's about. It's a cul-de-sac. The president is not going to fire Bob Mueller. He is being advised to, very wrong headedly you need to fire Bob Mueller. Bad advice. It's the wrong thing to do. I don't think the president is going to fall for it.

In fact, we hear from the White House. We hear from the White House's lawyers and president's lawyers not going to do it would just be terrible. We don't need another Saturday night massacre. Should Bob Mueller have been appointed? It's a serious question.

I would say in May we should not have a special counsel. We over criminalize so much of life and our politics together. We need to stop that. And so, I'm also very concerned about the calls for the appointment of yet another special counsel. I think it's all wrong.

INGRAHAM: Let's go to Alan Dershowitz. Alan, on this issue of the Mueller firing, I mean, you get the sense that the Democrats are just kind of running outs of steam. There is nothing happening, at least not yet on the Mueller investigation. It's almost as if they have to keep the fumes going and this is all they have. All day on the other networks. That's all they are talking about.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: Right. Look, my liberal colleagues on the left have been proved empirically wrong in everything they've said. They said the Supreme Court would strike down the travel ban. It looks like they are going to uphold it.

They said the emoluments clause has been violated. Today, a federal judge said that's nonsensical argument. They were wrong about Flynn. They are wrong about firing Mueller. They have just been wrong. It's not because I am smarter than they're that I have been right and they've been wrong.

They put hope over reality. I'm just an analyst. I'm calling it as I see it. It's easy to be right if you are objective and call it the way it is. I think what's happening the both sides are playing the refs.

Trump side is playing smarter. What they are doing is keeping pressure on Mueller. They are questioning his integrity. They are challenging whether he had conflicts of interest. They are questioning whether he should have gotten a warrant.

They are hoping that since they are putting pressure on him, he has such concern about his reputation that he may lean over backwards in a close case to support the Trump side, and the other side of playing the refs.

They are just saying if we push hard enough and say he is going to fire him, he is going to fire him, he is going to fire him, maybe we will goad him into firing him. But, right now, the Trump side is coming off better. They have Mueller where they want him. The last thing Trump should do or would do is fire Mueller at this point.

INGRAHAM: No, no, no. The firing Comey wasn't the best choice, obviously.

DERSHOWITZ: That was not a smart move.

INGRAHAM: Judge, I want to go to you on the Uranium One reopen of the investigation that Jeff Sessions has announced and looks like they are going to look at that all anew. You are concerned about this because of the number of connections from that deal to the Clinton foundation specifically. Tell us what the big red flags are.

STARR: Well, the big red flags are this multiyear process by which now the transaction was completed years ago was accompanied by enormous gifts to the Clinton Foundation, $31 million was the first gift.

After the first part of the deal was signed in Kazakhstan back in 2005. Then gifts kept coming in from senior officials from this company and went through reorganization and acquisition. So, I'm very deeply concerned about the timing.

President Clinton's speech for half a million dollars in Russia the Russia connection. I have always been in favor of transparency. I think we need to be cautious about criminalizing everything that moves. In terms of our politics, we need to get the facts out.


DERSHOWITZ: I agree completely. I completely agree. I think we need transparency. That's why I call for a nonpartisan independent investigatory commission like 9/11, which wasn't pointing fingers at people criminally, but its goal was to try to find out everything about Russia's involvement in elections.

Russia's involvement in economy and then make recommendations from how to stop Russia from influencing our democracy. I think the worst way to do it is through a special counsel behind closed doors of the grand jury. All you get in the end is either indictment or non-indictment of some low hanging fruit.

INGRAHAM: Alan, do you think it's interesting at the very least that you had Comey, Rosenstein, you had McCabe and Mueller they were all involved in one way or another in that Rosenstein investigation when they first approved the deal. They looked into the -- they were all part of it. Five people seem to do everything at the department.

DERSHOWITZ: Remember, they come from totally different backgrounds. There is no way they have any political interests in common. Mueller is a Republican. Rosenstein, we don't even know what his politics was. He was appointed by Obama, having been appointed previously.

The idea of Clinton getting half a million dollars, George Bush the 1st got fees like that when he spoke in Japan. Former presidents get, big, big fees when they speak. Again, I don't want to point the finger of criminalization on anybody.

I want to see like Ken wants to see transparency. Let all the facts be laid out for the American public to see. That's the way democracy works.

INGRAHAM: Judge, when a Russian interest through Canadian purchase is able to get control of 20 percent of our uranium interests, went through this interagency process and all the money is floating through the Clinton Foundation at the same time with people with interest in the transaction or connected to the transaction.

You can ask a person on the street and they would say that's a bad idea. I mean, someone who has nothing to do with the law or committee on foreign investment, they would say, gosh, that seems really stupid, in my view. I will let you close tout.

STARR: My focus on fact enormous gifts to the Clinton Foundation. It's not whether there was a process, nine agencies approve it and so forth. It may have been exactly the right thing to do. Why were these gifts enormous year after year after year to the Clinton Foundation?

INGRAHAM: I don't think it was a good thing to do. Have a Russian interest. Everyone is always afraid of Russia. Now Russia owns 20 percent of uranium stake. That could have been a good thing? I don't understand how you think that could be a good thing.

DERSHOWITZ: I think it's very clear that countries like Kazakhstan and others honestly believe you need to give gifts to get things done. The Clinton Foundation's wonderful work, aids, and everything else, they spend every penny on doing good. What you are looking at is the intention of the Kazakh authorities. That's very different at pointing fingers at the Clintons.

INGRAHAM: All right, both of you have a wonderful holiday. By the way guys, much of the world today at the condemned the president's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Where does the president go from here when we come back?



NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us as they so often do to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.


INGRAHAM: Despite that sharp warning from Nikki Haley today, the U.N. overwhelmingly voted to condemn President Trump's decision recognizing Jerusalem officially as the capital of Israel. And 128 countries voted for the resolution, Just nine states bravely opposed it, and 35 milquetoast abstained.

Let's analyze it with Lawrence Korb who was assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and is now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and in New York, Carrie Sheffield a political analyst and former reporter for "Politico" and "The Hill." Great to see both of you.

Larry, let's go to you. We had Clinton, Obama, Bush, all said they were going to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. A big deal for them to say it, a big deal to pledge it, they didn't do it. Trump does it and they go bananas at the U.N. today.

LAWRENCE KORB, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: The reason that they did and the fact of the matter is that he annoyed a lot of our allies who we need to bring peace there, to deal with the threat from Iran, to deal with ISIS. The other presidents, you are right, did say that in the campaign.

INGRAHAM: Why did they say it?

KORB: Basically because that is our policy. Where Trump made his mistake was not to make this part of an overall strategy. When you are going to do it, what are you going to get for it? How's it going to work?

INGRAHAM: It didn't work before when we didn't move the embassy, correct? Isn't this disrupting the current narrative? The other narrative where we held back, held back, held back for decades, what did it get us?

KORB: Basically you haven't had a war between the Israelis and Palestinians for a long time. Basically you have got a lot of other countries, Arab countries in the region who have established relations with Israel.

The other problem that Trump was by threatening people to do stuff and then he is not going to do it. There is no way he is going to cut off aid to Iraq or Afghanistan, Egypt and Jordan. Even the Israelis don't want him to do that. So I think twice you undermine American credibility and American ability to get things done.

INGRAHAM: I think people are paying attention to us now. I think it's about time that we weren't treated as patsies and when we say we are going to do something we actually do it.

Carrie, it's true that Christian Copts were against it because they are concerned that their own religious liberty is going to be threatened in the region because the Palestinians, Arab Palestinians are furious at this and other Muslims furious at this, so they are concerned. The Pope is against it, and Pence can't even get meetings now with Mahmoud Abbas or el-Sisi. The Coptic Christians don't want to meet with him. Where does this go?

CARRIE SHEFFIELD, POLITICAL ANALYST: It is true that the Copts were concerned about this. But Christians in the Middle East, they have long been targeted well before any of this. So I'm much more concerned, I actually think this could be a moment where we would say we will be a moral authority.

And that's what I heard Nikki Haley. Laura, you heard it here, in my opinion Nikki Haley's speech was the iron lady. It was the American modern day iron lady. I was so proud of her. It was amazing. I hope she runs for president in eight years, seven years at this point. Very incredibly inspiring. We need more like her. More people are going to stand up --

INGRAHAM: What about Larry's point, though, what about Larry's point that this is going to tick off our allies in the region? We do need them to help us in this battle against Jihadis, Saudi Arabia obviously, we need them on our side even though they still have many, many problems in their society obviously. But Iran is a big foe, still funding Hezbollah, and so forth.

SHEFFIELD: Sure, absolutely. I think Larry completely overstates the risk. He basically said we're going to go to war over this. I think that's being his histrionic. I will say that this president, his very first visit overseas was to Saudi Arabia. That was unprecedented. And everyone said, oh, why is he doing this? He is disrupting it. So all talk and no action. That was a mantra throughout his campaign. And that was what all the prior presidents said about moving the embassy and recognizing the capital. And so he did back up that talk with action.

INGRAHAM: Guys, I want to show you three of the countries that voted against us. Venezuela, they are starving their own people. Syria, they gas their own citizens. And Yemen currently engulfed in a civil war. Are those the moral arbiters, Larry, that we are supposed to listen to?

KORB: No, they're not. But look who voted, the British, the French, OK. And as we mentioned here, the countries in the Iraqis who just finally defeated ISIS and are moving toward a democracy.

INGRAHAM: Do you like Trump?

KORB: Basically I worry about what he says and then doesn't do it. And then some of the things he says, he's already today said, well, maybe we will look at other things before we cut off the aid.

INGRAHAM: Do you think America is actually stronger, and I ask this in all seriousness, in a stronger position today than we were a year ago?


INGRAHAM: You don't? Vis-a-vis Russia and China we're not a stronger power and more clear in our standing up for American interests?

KORB: The president said he is going to do this to China. He said --

INGRAHAM: We are. We're putting tariffs right now on goods that China is siphoning through other countries like Vietnam, aluminum products coming into the United States.

KORB: What he didn't do was sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership that would have --

INGRAHAM: Thank God, the sovereignty killer? You are a globalist. You are a big globalist. You are more of a Bushy. You are not a conservative populist. That's fine. That era is over but that's OK. Go ahead, Carrie.

SHEFFIELD: I was going to say he worked for Reagan. I'm surprised.

But ISIS has been decimated in the past year. China has put on unprecedented sanctions against the North Koreans that no president was ever able to get until now. So Laura, I'm with you that I think America is in a position of strength, absolutely. And the fact that the French voted against us, I'm sorry --

INGRAHAM: I'm not losing sleep over that. Guys, we are out of time. We'll have you back.

And by the way, guys, did you ever think you would see this, a Hollywood film exploring Ted Kennedy's darkest moments? Wait until you see this.


INGRAHAM: If you are going to erase part of America's history you better do it under the cover of darkness. That's how two more confederate statues came down last night in Memphis.

And is Hollywood finally taking a critical look at the Kennedys? Let's bring in Raymond Arroyo, bestselling author and lead anchor of EWTN News. Raymond, another statue grab in Memphis. Tell us what happened.

RAYMOND ARROYO, ANCHOR, EWTN NEWS: Well, this was a sneaky end around the state law. There is a Tennessee Historical Commission, they blocked the city of Memphis from moving these two statues because according to them no statue, monument, or nameplate that signified a military hero could be removed without that commission's authority. They said no.

This is what the Memphis city council did. They decided to turn the parks, the two parks where these statues are, into private property. They gave the mayor permission to sell the public park to a private 501C3. They did that in one day in the morning. That afternoon they were lifting the statues off.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second. That's a nifty trick.

ARROYO: They sold the land so they were no longer public. Fifteen municipalities right now are considering removing confederate statues. And that building behind you at the capitol, Cory Booker wants Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis out of the capital.

INGRAHAM: Is there any recourse against this move?

ARROYO: This is a sneaky move.

INGRAHAM: Is there any lawsuit that can be filed?

ARROYO: People have been filing lawsuits, and this was against the state law.

INGRAHAM: Why do they do it in the cover of darkness? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of protests? Are they afraid of Charlottesville?

ARROYO: They don't want it going to the popular vote of the people.

INGRAHAM: They want to do an end run around the people.

ARROYO: Here's my problem with it. If you want to take out a confederate statue, fine. Let the people decide. But I think our children --

INGRAHAM: Mitch Landrieu did it in New Orleans, same thing. Beauregard gone.

ARROYO: Our children should be entitled to the bright spots and the dark shadows of history. That's how you learn. That's how you go forward. By erasing it, eradicating it, we deprive them of their past and I think part of their future.

INGRAHAM: Now we have a movie coming out about Chappaquiddick? Is this a dream come true? Can I go right on Fandango and get my tickets?

ARROYO: Get your tickets. Right after "Star Wars."

INGRAHAM: Is this from the Senatorial privilege book that was written all those years ago?

ARROYO: I don't know.

INGRAHAM: That was a fantastic book.

ARROYO: But it claims to be the true story behind Teddy Kennedy's big scandal. We have a clip.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was an accident. I was driving.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stories like this could dominate the headlines for weeks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chief, we've got a body.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A dead body holds a lot of secrets. Those can be the difference between guilt and innocence. So we need to be in control of them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are not a lot of senators charged with manslaughter that go on to become president.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do we do to help the senator?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We tell the truth, or at least our version of it.


INGRAHAM: Oh, my gosh.

ARROYO: It's a thriller.

INGRAHAM: You guys get thrilled about "Star Wars." For me, I am really excited.

ARROYO: Kennedy's day of reckoning, Laura Ingraham.

INGRAHAM: Can I do the voiceover for the trailer?

ARROYO: Maybe you should. This is going to be a blockbuster. "Variety" already saw it. They said this is a portrait fundamentally of a weasel of a man who decides he is not going to suffer the consequences of his actions. This is going to be a doozy, and certainly digs into what the Kennedy family did to protect him.

INGRAHAM: I've got to say, having been to that bridge Chappaquiddick, it really looks like it. They rebuilt it, but it looks the same. Raymond Arroyo, merry Christmas to you and your family and all of New Orleans.

ARROYO: Same to you. See you in the new year.

INGRAHAM: And ahead, a classic Christmas movie with a religious message that would never get past today's network censors next.


INGRAHAM: Growing up in the 1970s in Connecticut, I couldn't imagine letting this time of year pass without watching "The Charlie Brown Christmas Special." It was as much a part of our holiday as my mother's gingerbread cookies or cutting down that perfect Christmas tree or listening to carols on that little record player in our living room.

The show aired 52 years ago on December 9th, 1965, and it remains one of the most popular Christmas specials in television history. But do you know the one scene that almost didn't make the final cut because network execs were worried it would turn viewers off? The one that was the most touching, the most moving, and the most enduring of all, the one where Linus reads the story of the nativity from the book of Luke to a Charlie Brown who had forgotten the true meaning of Christmas.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure, Charlie Brown can I tell you what Christmas is all about.

Lights, please. And there were the same country shepherd abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by light. Lo, the angel of the lord came upon them. The glory of the lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, "Fear not, for behold I bring you tidings of great joy which will be to all people, for unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior, Jesus Christ the lord. And this shall be a sign unto you, you shall fine the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in the manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly hosts praising God and saying glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.

That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.


INGRAHAM: I still get teared-up when I watch that every time without fail. As radio host Lee Habeeb recently reminded us, "Peanuts" creator Charles Schultz pushed back against the network suits who were upset about that scene, and even some of his collaborators, and he insisted that it not be cut. Schultz was not only a creative genius, but he was a Sunday school teacher and he knew the American audience.

Well, immediately after the show aired for the first time, its sponsor Coca Cola was flooded, inundated with notes of appreciation from thankful viewers. It was precisely what was needed at the time, a simple message in a child's voice reminding us that the season isn't about fancy trees or gifts beneath them. It's about the birth of the savior, Christ the lord.

It's doubtful that any major network would green light a special like this today. It would be deemed too offensive or divisive or non-inclusive. Atheists would probably protest or sue. That's a real shame for our audience that is craving meaningful programming that speaks to the best of who we are and our most cherished values. But at least we will always have Linus. We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: Before we go, as you may have picked up from my last segment, this is my last show until the New Year. But fear not, we have a phenomenal lineup of "Angle" fill in hosts to see you through the rest of 2017.

And on a personal note, I want to thank the entire team here at Fox for helping make this show a success after just eight weeks of the air. Everyone is so great. I am so glad to have the New York team, Washington team.

But the biggest thanks goes to all of you because you've welcomed us into your home since we started, and your passion for this country, your dedication for the first principles of freedom and democracy in our country, everything that you've done for us at the Fox News Channel is so appreciated. I want to say Merry Christmas to you and your family, best of health and 2018. Count your blessings. I know you do. I certainly do, and among my blessings is all of you.

That is all the time we have for tonight. Happy New Year.

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.