Ingraham: The rush to judgment and injustice for Kavanaugh

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," September 18, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEW HOST: Nobody watched. Don't worry. Let not your heart be troubled. The news continues, Laura Ingraham on this busy news night takes over in D.C. tonight with the swamp. I'm the only one left here in New York. How are you?

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: So Hannity, I'm thinking like when you get home from the show, you have DVR'd the Emmys and you put on your pink fluffy slippers and you get your bon bons out --

HANNITY: Yes, OK. That's really me.

INGRAHAM: Put your out coat on.

HANNITY: You put on like fluffy slippers


HANNITY: I open a beer and I have you on TiVo, the greatest invention ever. DVR.

INGRAHAM: OK. Would you know one of the shows that was nominated for an Emmy? Like one? I wouldn't so I don't know if you would. You watch that stuff?

HANNITY: I hate these people. All they do is, we're great, we're funny. Nobody cares. You know what, Hollywood is done. They are all done.

INGRAHAM: No, it's over. TV is over except on Fox. All right Hannity, awesome tonight.

HANNITY: All right. Well, have a great show. Good to see you. Laura Ingraham from the swamp, Washington, D.C.

INGRAHAM: All right. Do take care. Good evening from the swamp. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle." We have a vitally important hour for you tonight. Late-breaking revelations and details on this Kavanaugh story, another delay tonight in the Kavanaugh vote. What is really going on with this accuser and is an FBI investigation warranted? Mercedes Schlapp from the White House will be here. And former intel chiefs are bristling at the President Trump's decision to declassify important documents related to the Russia investigation. What are they scared of? What are they hiding?

And Hollywood, as Hannity said, showing once again why Americans are watching less TV today. Raymond Arroyo is here with a report on Emmy Award train wreck. But first, the rush to judgment, that's the focus of tonight's "Angle."

Listen closely to the media coverage of the 36-year-old accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the chorus is hard to miss.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have Dr. Ford's credible allegation. She has nothing to gain here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The receipts were there. The story is credible. I don't think anyone doesn't believe her.

ADRIENNE ELROD, MSNBC: I have every reason to believe that she's a very credible witness and their story is credible.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, D—HI.: I believe that Dr. Ford as I referred to her because she makes a very credible case.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a situation where you have serious and credible allegations of rape.


INGRAHAM: Now, we're led to believe that these are credible allegations. They're all reading from the same playbook. But given the age of the charges, what is the standard for credibility? Has any evidence been produced? Is there any corroborating witness? So far the answer is no. In fact, the only other person named in the accusation says it never happened.

And given what we know of the accuser's political inclination and her support of left-wing causes, it's not unreasonable to believe that she has a political axe to grind. The hyperbolic overheated reaction to these charges is somewhat reminiscent of what happened to the Duke Lacrosse team more than a decade ago.

Remember in 2006, the Duke Lacrosse team haired a pair of exotic dancers for a party at a rental house near the Duke campus. One of the dancers, a black woman claimed that three of the Lacrosse players brutally raped her in a bathroom. Dave Evans, the captain of the team and one of the accused, he spoke to the media the moment he learned of the charges against him.


DAVE EVANS, TEAM CAPTAIN, DUKE LACROSSE TEAM: First, I want to say I'm absolutely innocent of all the charges that have been brought against me today. That Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty are innocent of all the charges that were brought against them. Every member of the Duke University lacrosse team is innocent. You have all been told some fantastic lies.


INGRAHAM: Well, the media seized on the story, spinning the stripper's credible accusation into a tale of white privilege, misogyny and just pure evil. A media swarm and rush to judgment follows. The Duke Lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, who stood by his team in the face of these false accusations was fired for it and the young men's reputations were dragged through the mud.

Only later did we discover that the three accused men were not near the dancer long enough for the alleged assault to have happened. One of the three men accused was a mile away at an ATM machine and thankfully it was captured on security video at the time of the alleged incident.

All three men were eventually cleared of the charges. North Carolina's then attorney general Roy Cooper in declaring their innocence said, the men had been victims of a tragic rush to accuse and the failure to verify serious allegations. The crusading Durham District Attorney, Mike Nifong who cooked evidence and raced to prosecute was disbarred and convicted of contempt for his actions.

Now this should be in a different fact, there's a cautionary tale as we weigh and determine the credibility of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. At least the Duke Lacrosse case was kind of contemporary when it comes to the timing, with witnesses and a crime scene. Thirty-six years later, Ms. Ford can't recall exactly when or where her alleged incident even took place.

Yet throughout the media, the drum beat goes on and on and there is an implicit message that senators dare not submit the accuser to any tough questioning as they did with Anita Hill.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I remember sitting in that hearing room watching Anita Hill endure character assassination day after day from Republicans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They know that they can't attack her directly and say she's making it up. That's what they did with Anita Hill in 1991. Today that probably wouldn't fly in a MeToo era.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D—N.Y.: We must not repeat the mistake of the Anita Hill hearings. They were rushed and were a debacle. Do we want to repeat that mistake?


INGRAHAM: A debacle. I actually think the Republicans have learned the important lesson from the Anita Hill hearings. They've learned that the only way to deal with last-minute he said-she said allegations is to refuse to be intimidated and to proceed fairly and methodically.

But the more serious question is, have the Democrats learned any lessons about the toxicity of false charges coupled with a media pile on as demonstrated by both the Duke Lacrosse and the Clarence Thomas cases. Do they recognize that a rush to judgment is not only unfair but destructive to the process and to individual lives?

Every accuser has a right to speak out but should be obliged to have his or her allegations challenged and sometimes aggressively so. The accused meanwhile should not be presumed guilty and he or she should have every opportunity to clear his or her good name.

Now, Chairman Grassley has dedicated Monday to a public hearing where both Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, Ms. Ford, have been invited to appear. Kavanaugh is ready, but according to reports out late tonight and a letter from her attorney, Ms. Ford wants the FBI to investigate her allegations before she agrees to appear.

That was a late-breaking letter that her attorney submitted to the Senate tonight. Well, the question is, who will blink first? Listeners to my radio show had a message today for Republicans who fail to stand up for Kavanaugh in the fair process.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the Republicans don't do this, I will be voting, but I won't be voting for Republicans. They've done this so many times. They have no backbone. They have no spine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am infuriated. The reason we voted for Trump is because of his outstanding SCOTUS picks. If they don't push Kavanaugh through, they will never seat another Supreme Court judge, especially a man.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have been traveling all over the country attending Trump rallies, and I can tell you first hand, if the Republicans don't grow a backbone and support Kavanaugh and take the vote now, they're going to have hell to pay come November.


INGRAHAM: Well, in a way though, this shouldn't really be about the mid- terms, right? This should only be about whether Judge Kavanaugh is qualified to sit on the highest court of the land. We all have to ask ourselves the question, should a charge made by one person, decades late, impossible to prove or to rebut be enough to damn the reputation of someone with decades of honorable public service?

Someone whose job is in government required no fewer than six previous FBI background checks? And shouldn't all of us regardless of party consider the poisonous precedent that that would set? And that's "The Angle."

Joining us now with reaction is attorney Helgi Walker who worked with Brett Kavanaugh in the White House counsel's office, along with Nicole Devord, a former sex crimes prosecutor. Nicole, I want to start with you because tonight the attorney for Ms. Ford has told the committee her client is not ready to proceed to testify on Monday.

This is 24 hours after she had said on "The Today Show" that her client would basically do anything she needed to do to get her testimony forth. What is going on here tonight?

NICOLE DEVORD, FORMER SEX CRIMES PROSECUTOR: You know, I think this is a really interesting wrinkle as well. I mean, the reality is that she basically went out on the air on a variety of TV appearances and essentially said I want to testify. I want to tell my story. I don't think that the vote should be had until I've had a chance to have my story.

And it sounds like what they're doing is giving her an opportunity to tell the story and now she says I want to wait. This is an interesting wrinkle. I do think that it's better for everyone if she has a chance to air what it is she has to say. The reputation damage has already been done. He might as well have an opportunity to rebut it. This is the risk with having to vet accusations of this nature years and years later after the alleged incident.

INGRAHAM: Helgi, also is this letter tonight is the following paragraph. In the 36 hours since her name became public, Dr. Ford has received a stunning amount of support from the community, fellow citizens. At the same time, however, her worst fears have been materialized.

She's been a target of vicious harassment and even death threats saying that her family was forced to relocate out of their house as a result of this. So, she wants an FBI investigation of witnesses, I guess locations. How would this possibly proceed? We're also going to talk to an FBI former spokesman in a few moments, but how is this a process that could proceed at this point, Helgi?

HELGI WALKER, ATTORNEY: Laura, it's already -- any chance for a fair investigation has already been polluted because as most lawyers and your viewers understand, you don't start with "The Washington Post" expose and then investigate.

The FBI investigates discretely, quietly. All the witnesses, many of them, have already had their opportunity to get the stories straight, delete their social media accounts, you know, perhaps get rid of documents. That's not how investigations work.

If the process, the chance to have actually a fair investigation where the FBI can do its job the way it's supposed to, has already been destroyed by the way the Senate Democrats have handled these allegations.

INGRAHAM: Well, Hillary Clinton tonight said that there should be a two- week pause -- a two-week pause on this process. That should be enough to do an investigation. The accuser doesn't even know where this occurred and the only other person she can state that was at this party says it didn't happen. So what is there to investigate here? Help me out.

WALKER: Well, there are a lot of missing elements of the story and that's why she was offered an opportunity to come forward and testify and tell her story, which is what her lawyer said she wanted to do. If you're going to make an allegation like this, you cannot -- you can't hide. This is --

INGRAHAM: It can't be hit-and-run.

WALKER: _- the future of the Supreme Court.

INGRAHAM: Nicole, it can't be hit-and-run. This is what -- and I'll play this first. I want to get Dianne Feinstein. This is Senator Hirono who said this today about whether the accuser really needs to testify at all. Let's watch.


HIRONO: Why should we participate in a victimization of someone who has the courage to come forward? And she is under absolutely no obligation to participate in a smearing -- guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country and I just want to say to the men of this country, just shut up and step up.


INGRAHAM: Nicole? Your reaction to that.

DEVORD: You know, the reality is, this is a decades-old criminal allegation. The statute of limitations on prosecution based on the story that I've heard and the explanations of what may have occurred that I heard have passed.

And now what you have is somebody who is in the position of having to defend themselves against this quasi-criminal charge all these years later. I agree, maybe an investigation is appropriate but there is no reason that all of the questioning that was set to take place couldn't take place anyway. She has already told the story multiple times.

INGRAHAM: Yes, you've done sex crime prosecutions. Have you ever come across anything like this with something that is alleged so many years later with really very little in the way of details?

DEVORD: A lot of times these cases are he said/she said cases and even having something that occurred weeks in the past is a difficult situation for everybody involved. We're not talking weeks. We're talking years, we are talking decades. The FBI certainly should have the opportunity to go out and dig up whatever they can find. Location, possible witnesses. It would help everybody to have verification of any of these details, but the fact of the matter is, they should still be able to proceed with questions.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys. And it's not just Brett Kavanaugh the media is going after. It's anyone who dares to question his accuser's credibility.


JOHN AVLON, CNN: In the end, the all-white and all-male members the judiciary committee attacked Anita Hill's credibility and Thomas went on to be narrowly confirmed 52 to 48. But there was a political backlash. The next year, 1992, was called the Year of the Woman, as a record 24 women were elected to the House and four women joined two others in the Senate.


INGRAHAM: Joining me now with reaction is Mercedes Schlapp, White House director of Strategic Communication. Mercedes, thanks for coming in tonight. So great to have you here. Tall right, this is completely wild even of course, verbally we just talked about, but we now have Senator Blumenthal coming out saying the following. I want you to react.


SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D—CONN.: I think the nomination should be withdrawn. The bar here is not whether you have not criminally assaulted someone. It's credibility, trust, integrity. This nomination will not only cast a shadow over Judge Kavanaugh if he were ever to be confirmed, it was also stain the United States Supreme Court irreparably.


INGRAHAM: Mercedes?

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: This is the most predictable playbook for the Democrats. The Democrats from day one have said that they are not going to be supporting Kavanaugh for a very long period of time. They were even refusing to take meetings with him.

And then they wait at the last minute for Senator Feinstein to come up with this letter from this accuser on Brett Kavanaugh after we've seen 32 hours of testimony by Judge Kavanaugh, after they've had closed committee hearings and after they have given him over 1,000 written questions. And what are we seeing, Laura? We're seeing the fact that none of this with regards to this accusation being made was brought up to the attention of judge Kavanaugh.

And so it's very clear that it is the politics and the delay tactics of Democrats came pushing forward and this just is one more example coming from Senator Blumenthal not allowing this to be resolved in a sense that as we know Judge Kavanaugh has been very consistent in saying. I categorically deny this horrific accusation.

INGRAHAM: Do you think about Blumenthal and others like him, do you think they're really up at night worried about Christine Blase Ford? Is this what they're motivated by protecting women?

SCHLAPP: I mean, what the Democrats are worried about is the fact that they know that Judge Kavanaugh is incredibly qualified to be on --

INGRAHAM: It's Roe versus Wade, isn't it? And that's -- they're worried about it.

SCHLAPP: In your mind it's not just only Roe versus Wade, but it's a fact that he is going to be that strict constitutionalist, that he is the one that is going to interpret the law, follow precedent and this idea that they feel like they're losing this battle.

And I feel that that is just unjust. Because we know, Laura, looking at the fact that you've had individuals from a variety of legal experts, those from legal community supporting Judge Kavanaugh, knowing that he's well- respected in the legal circle. And the fact that they want to tear down his reputation, try to ruin his good name while this man, Judge Kavanaugh has said, I'm ready to testify today.

INGRAHAM: A lot of conservatives think they shouldn't have delayed this hearing at all. The letter from the accuser's attorney tonight, Debra Katz, "As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations.

A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a nonpartisan manner, and that the committee is fully informed." She not going to be testifying on Monday. Only when an investigation is conducted and under way. Will the White House insist that this hearing go forward on Monday?

SCHLAPP: Look, we are going to allow the Senate Judiciary Committee to make these decisions. It's in their hands. With that being said, Judge Kavanaugh has said I will testify. I will testify publicly.

INGRAHAM: But this is a delay tactic and this is political now. So what is the White House's political reaction to what is clearly a political move by the Democrats and by her attorney who is a Democrat activist?

SCHLAPP: It is incredibly disturbing that they keep stalling, that they keep waiting.

INGRAHAM: Why do you think they're doing that?

SCHLAPP: Well, I mean, you know why they're doing this. They know that October 1st, Supreme Court convenes. They don't want Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed. It's very clear, again, like I mentioned what their playbook here. And the reality is that when you have Judge Kavanaugh, someone who is beloved --

INGRAHAM: They don't care.

SCHLAPP: -- to someone who has --

INGRAHAM: They don't care.

SCHLAPP: They don't care. And he's someone with such high integrity, someone who I personally worked with. I mean, Laura, we were both single. We were both in an office together dealing with judicial nominees. He was professional, respectful to all women. It goes on and on.

But yes, they are willing at the last minute to throw something out there to see if it sticks when they had over six weeks to bring this up. And that's what is so disturbing. That's why it gets to the point that you have to realize that they are trying to ruin Judge Kavanaugh.

INGRAHAM: Is the White House prepared to insist to the Senate or strongly recommend to the Senate to go forward with this Monday hearing or just to convene a vote?

SCHLAPP: Look, the Senate Judiciary Committee will need to make that decision. We stand by Judge Kavanaugh. He is willing to testify publicly, privately, however the Senate deems fit. He is transparent.

INGRAHAM: Two weeks from now?

SCHLAPP: He is forthcoming. He wants -- we need to get this done.

INGRAHAM: Mercedes, thank you for coming in tonight. We're going to be watching very closely over the next few days to see how this all develops with Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh's accuser is now demanding a full investigation by the FBI before testifying in front of the senate. And a former top FBI official is here to tell us why that's an absurd request. Stay right there.


INGRAHAM: The uproar surrounding the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court is taking yet another dramatic turn this evening. The lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford says that Ford not will not testify in front of the Senate. Oh, that's a shock. I predicted that -- without a full investigation by the FBI first.

But just moments ago, Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the committee, just released a statement saying he will not move Monday's date. Yes! Joining us now with reaction is former FBI national spokesperson, John Iannarelli.

John, Grassley obviously did the right thing. This is the worst gamesmanship I've seen when it comes to Supreme Court confirmation. But the idea that the FBI has a role here. Hillary Clinton tonight said that there should be a two-week pause in the proceedings. So, facts can be gathered, witnesses can be interviewed and the process should be slowed down. Your reaction.

JOHN IANNARELLI, FORMER FBI NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON: I think Hillary would also like a recount if she could have one, but the reality is, former presidential candidates don't get to decide what the FBI does. The reality is, the FBI conducts national security investigations for these types of instance. That investigation has already been completed. There was nothing derogatory found and that's why it's moved forward. To go back and do an investigation now would not serve any purpose for what the FBI does.

INGRAHAM: Well, this has come up in the last 24 hours because I think they got all ahead of themselves because this woman comes out, makes this allegation, says she doesn't remember many details except apparently what, you know, the judge allegedly did as a high school student. But doesn't remember where it was, when it was.

But now somehow she wanted to testify 24 hours ago, 24 hours later, no, now it's hot potato ticket to the FBI. Now, if you're an FBI official and you have stacks of stuff to do, are you now sent on a wild goose chase to go and, you know, scour every Chevy Chase home for who has a pool and where there was a pool party 36 years ago?

IANNARELLI: You know, something may have happened to this woman. We shouldn't discount that she has a memory of something, whether or not it involved Judge Kavanaugh or somebody else because it's been 36 years. Memories fade. But more importantly, this is the type of crime, a sex offense that's being alleged. It's handled by the local authorities. The FBI does not have jurisdiction for those cases.

INGRAHAM: A federal law enforcement official told Fox tonight, it's totally inappropriate for someone to demand that we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 36-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember any key details including when or where it happened.

IANNARELLI: Well law enforcement is only going to investigate something if there's a cooperative witness. The first thing this person should do, whether through her attorney herself, go to the local police and make a complaint. Let the local authorities…

INGRAHAM: You can't. The statute of limitations is passed. There's no complaint you can make.

ANNARELLI: Well, in Maryland, depending upon the crime, there may actually be a statute of limitations. Unless there's something that could be prosecuted, a prosecutor says, we're going to investigate --

INGRAHAM: What prosecutor is going to take this case, John? Come on.


INGRAHAM: It's ridiculous. I'm sorry. You're being much more judicious. This is a late in the game allegation made after a guy has had six FBI background checks. His character has been attested to by dozens of dozens of women that worked with him, who dated him, went to high school, college, worked with him after.

And I'm one of them because I've known him for 28 years. And what is happening and now these Democrats out there saying we have to go to the FBI? Can this get more ridiculous at this point?

IANNARELLI: Well, and I want to be clear that I'm talking about the process. If you have a complaint, there's a method to do it. Don't make the FBI your political animal to try do handle things the way your political party may want it to be.

INGRAHAM: All right, John, thanks so much. And in reaction to the accusations by Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh, we've heard a constant refrain.


DEBRA KATZ, ATTORNEY FOR CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD (voice-over): She has taken a polygraph. She's a credible person. She's a serious allegations.

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think it's amazing that she passed that polygraph. In fact, I would love it if maybe Judge Kavanaugh wants to get on the -- we call it being on the box.

ANELA RYE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We're immediately questioning her credibility despite the fact that she has passed the polygraph test.


INGRAHAM: That her polygraphs be taken seriously? Well joining us now with answers is Thomas Mauriello, a former polygraph expert at the DOD and a current professor of criminology in the University of Maryland and we're also joined by Peggy Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America who is herself a rape victim and she has serious questions about Ms. Ford's claims. Thank you to both of your for being here today.

Thomas, I want to begin with you on the reliability of polygraphs because I think a lot of people out there hear, oh, she passed the lie detector test in August. What does that really mean and how important would that be even if this were a prosecutable crime?

THOMAS MAURIELLO, FORMER DOD SENIOR POLYGRAPH EXAMINIER: It means absolutely nothing. First of all, we have to understand that the polygraph is not a lie detector. It has never been and hopefully it never will be. I never used the world pass or fail. I either say successful or not successful.

But when somebody says they passed a test that simply means that they didn't react to certain questions that were asked. You have to ask what were the questions? How were they asked? How were they formulated? What did the examiner say to you before the test began? All of those things affect how a person is going to react.

And most importantly, what is the reaction? It's not a lie. The reaction is simply -- your sympathetic nervous system, hearing a question and deciding whether it's threatening or not. And it could be threatening for a lot of different reasons other than you're going to tell the truth or not.

INGRAHAM: Peggy, setting aside the polygraph issue which I think we just demonstrated clearly, is not some big plus or minus in this case. You have serious doubts about the case as it's alleged, the incident as alleged. Why?

PEGGY NANCE, PRESIDENT, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Well, first, may I correct you? I actually am a victim of physical assault and attempted rape and that was over 20 years ago, but I can tell you, I remember every single detail. And you know, I think probably something did happen to this woman. But we should all want justice. And there's no justice in destroying a man's reputation, destroying his career based on allegations that, you know, are unprovable.

So all of this -- the Democrats hope that this is more about gender identity politics. But Concerned Women for America are still standing firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh. We will be there Monday in support of him as we've been throughout this process.

It has been a circus. I have watched as they have disrupted. Activists have yelled and screamed and disrupted the decorum of the Senate. I've seen women parading around as handmaids, and believe me, as I tell you, grown men dressed as human condoms. This has been a circus, and it's an outrage, and this has really damaged the credibility and the dignity of the Senate.

INGRAHAM: I want to play another sound bite. This goes back to what John Iannarelli was talking about, about this idea, well, we'll wait two weeks, we'll do an investigation by the FBI. And anyone who doesn't think an FBI investigation should go forth is clearly anti-victim. You don't want women to be heard. It makes no sense. Of course, we want her to be heard. She can be heard Monday. I think she could have been heard today or maybe tomorrow or Friday. But she could be heard Monday. She doesn't want to be heard. Kamala Harris came out today and said this. Let's watch.


HARRIS: I believe that the FBI, to your point, should be compelled to do its job in terms of doing -- completing their background investigation. And that's not being done.

INGRAHAM: They haven't completed the background investigation. I want to go to John again on this because you see what is happening. The senators are lining up, pointing at the FBI. So it's either, well, she pass add lie detector test. This is -- she's representing all women who have been victims of sexual assault. She's kind of a representative of women. Again, God bless her, whatever happened to her. Now it's FBI do your job, and anyone who stands in the way, you're part of the problem. You're anti- woman, you're anti-sexual abuse victim.

IANNARELLI: The FBI's job is to conduct a national security investigation which has been done. It's not taking a position on women issues, political issues, et cetera. And to be ordered to go do something that is out of the realm of what they're supposed to be doing is trying to politicize the bureau.

INGRAHAM: And remember, Dianne Feinstein today said she can't even say that everything is truthful that the accuser is accusing Brett Kavanaugh of. Everybody, thank you so much for being here tonight.

The Democrats are in a total frenzy over the Kavanaugh accusations as we've been talking about. So naturally they're applying the same standards to the domestic abuse standards against Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison. Right? Don't hold your breath. Details next.



JUANITA BROADDRICK, BILL CLINTON ACCUSER: It makes me go back to 1999 when Dianne Feinstein along with every other Democrat refused to read my deposition to the independent counsel. They wouldn't have nothing to do with it. That just shows you the difference and the double standard that existed back then and still does today.


INGRAHAM: That was Juanita Broaddrick speaking about her experience dealing with the Democrats when she herself brought claims of rape against former President Bill Clinton. Sadly, it seems much has not changed.

While Democrats howl for answers from Brett Kavanaugh in an opaque charge, they're not asking the same of DNC co-chair Keith Ellison. Last month his former girlfriend, Karen Monahan, alleged that Ellison sent her threatening text messages and once screamed obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet. No calls for his resignation. And the investigation the DNC said it was launching has pretty much gone silent.

Joining us now with reaction, Monica Crowley from the Center for Policy Research, and Anthony Tall, an attorney and Democratic strategist. Let's go to you first, Monica. It's wild to go back and think about what was said back in '98 and so forth. But tonight, Hillary Clinton was asked about due process regarding sexual assault allegations by Rachel Maddow. Let's watch.


RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Have we learned anything about due process not just for accusers but also for the accused?

HILLARY CLINTON, D, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that you have to take each of these situations on their own merits.



MONICA CROWLEY, LONDON CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH: That is rich coming from Mrs. Clinton whose own husband was alleged to have raped Juanita Broaddrick, my good friend, and sexually assaulted any number of women. And she not only stood by her man but she also led the charge to discredit, smear, and threaten those women to come forward 20 odd years ago to accuse her husband.

Look, Laura, this is the rot of hypocrisy. Democratic Party of today is now back to being the party of Bill Clinton, full of hypocrites on this matter. You saw the case of Keith Ellison. In that case, we have got police reports, we've got an alleged video, and yet little to no media coverage. So what we now see is the Democratic Party is willing to shield potential women abusers in the name of politics, ideology, and promotion.

INGRAHAM: Anthony, this is Karen Monahan, her comment on whether her party, Democratic Party, believed her allegations. She said "No, they don't. I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017 stating on two different doctors' visits I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating that I've been dealing and healing from the abuse." That's 2017. It's not 36 years ago. But not a peep from the Democrats who care so much about women, Anthony.

ANTHONY TALL, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think one of the problems with her story is that there's a lot of Democrats that don't believe her story. I believe there's something about some text messages and the text messages haven't been there and been supported. With regard to Kavanaugh in this case, the accuser does have a corroborating witness which was 2012. So I think that's one of the problems --

INGRAHAM: Anthony, wait a second. This is 2017. She talked to a therapist in 2017. Medical records that were released, doctors' notes, and she said she's been smeared, including apparently by Democrats. You said, well, the problem is Democrats don't believe her. No kidding. That goes to the point that some allegations have merit. The allegations against Democrats have no merit and the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh from 36 years ago should end a Supreme Court nomination. Ellison is in Congress.

TALL: Well, he has a two-year term. And this guy is going up for a term that is going to last --

INGRAHAM: So that's it?

TALL: Laura, as a criminal defense attorney, trust me, I believe that Judge Kavanaugh should have the right, and I believe that everything should come out and he should be heard. I'm all in favor of that. But I hope at one point in time that he realizes or he feels that all of the people, whether they're poor, white, blacks, or Hispanics that come before him, now perhaps he sees how they feel to be accused of something and have a whole system come at you and whether it's fair or unfair. So I think this is a good thing for him to learn.

CROWLEY: Laura --

INGRAHAM: Oh, my God, Anthony. Anthony, I adore you, but I can't believe you said that. A good thing for him to learn? It's a complete, utter outrage. Monica, sorry. That's ridiculous.

CROWLEY: To be clear about Keith Ellison's, he's the Democrats' number two man, number two at the DNC, and he's running to be attorney general of a major state, Minnesota, and he probably has higher political aspirations than that. So the idea that the Democrats are protecting him while running wild on Brett Kavanaugh is a disgrace.

Laura, this is all about the broader war on Donald Trump and his agenda. Brett Kavanaugh is just the latest proxy in this war, to take down this president, undermine his agenda, make it stillborn, and destroy all of his appointees and anybody that dares to serve this president or to be appointed by this president. It is about Roe versus Wade, of course, but it is also about undermining and ultimately taking down this president.

INGRAHAM: Anthony, do you think that the accuser should be testifying on Monday? Her lawyer said she would testify yesterday, do anything to get her story out, but now she's not testifying Monday.

TALL: Well, yes, it was my understanding that she was going to testify. I think she should testify. But now she is saying she wants the FBI to investigate this situation. And remember, this is not unlikely for victims to come forward with years later. That happens all the time. I believe that Kavanaugh has a right to put his side of the story out, and I believe she has a right to put her side of the story out.

INGRAHAM: The FBI doesn't investigate --

TALL: But one thing we need to remember is that this is a lifetime appointment. It's a lifetime appointment.

INGRAHAM: We get that. When you say that, that's what this is about. I think most people will never get to the bottom of this. This is about the Supreme Court. It's not about whether you're protecting women or you think this is a woman's issue. This is just rank politics. And I think the more that we just say that and dispense with this idea that we're going to find out what happened at a pool party in 1983 is just easier for everybody, it's just about whether you're going to have a lifetime appointment on the court, period. I don't think it's about women. Otherwise they would be concerned about Keith Ellison. Guys, thanks so much.

TALL: But, Laura --

INGRAHAM: We're out of time. We're going to go to black space.

Critical Russia probe documents ordered declassified by President Trump set to become public at any moment. We've got new details on the political earthquake that may follow in a moment.

And the Emmys Awards hit religion and conservatives, what a shock. The fallout with Raymond Arroyo coming up.


INGRAHAM: It was big news last night. President Trump taking matters into his own hands with regard to the declassification of materials related to the Russia investigation. This is hot. He calls for these documents to be declassified. It's already sent shockwave through the intel communities both past and present. One of the president's biggest critics levelled this challenge on Andrea Mitchell's show.


JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Christopher Wray, director of the FBI, and Dan Coats, director of National Intelligence, as well as Rod Rosenstein who is overseeing this investigation, should push back against any directive that is going to have negative impact on our capabilities as well as the investigation.

If Mr. Trump and the White House does not relent, then I think they have some decisions to make, whether or not they're going to just not follow that direction and be fired, or to resign.


INGRAHAM: So Brennan is telling people to practice rank insubordination.

Joining us now to discuss, Fox News contributor, former House Oversight Committee Chair, Jason Chaffetz. He's also the author of the book just out today, "The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and is Working to Destroy the Trump Agenda." He joins us now. Jason, this is wild. And it's good timing for your book out today. Here we have got Brennan saying what he said. Clapper comes out tonight on another show and says it's unethical for the president to declassify this material. What of this?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FORMER HOUSE OVERSIGHT CHAIR: The president of the United States, Donald Trump, he is the only constitutional officer that the people have entrusted to make these decisions, not these other yahoos. I know the president was talking about revoking their security clearances. I hope that's already happened. If they need another excuse, there it is.

But the president is pushing for openness, for transparency, for accountability, everything the people want. And why are the Democrats so scared of this? Because their little charade is going to be exposed.

INGRAHAM: Adam Schiff came out today, and he talked about a red line. Let's watch.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D—CALIF., RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: This is what the director of the FBI, the Republican appointed director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, has told us in terms of it being a red line and it should be treated at a gang of eight level. This is what the deputy attorney general appointed by the administration by a Republican president has told us. So this is the view of the intelligence community and law enforcement, and that ought to be respected.


CHAFFETZ: The head of law enforcement, the head of the intelligence is the president of the United States, Adam Schiff. And when you put out your document saying that if Devin Nunes released his memo, remember that, a few months ago, that the world would burn to the crisp, it didn't happen. You have no credibility, Adam Schiff. None.

INGRAHAM: Well, what is interesting about this is that we have learned things in dribs and drabs about, first, the insurance policy, then we learned that there really was no evidence of Russian collusion to even kickoff the FISA warrant application. But they had to scramble. Then there were media leaks. There was a strategy it looks like of media leaks. So there was a constant feedback loop to indicate more of a need for more surveillance and more of an investigation. And then moving on to Mueller.

And I think the more we learn about this, Jason, the uglier it gets. And I think that's what Brennan is sweating about.

CHAFFETZ: No, his little charade is about to be exposed. They all thought that Hillary Clinton would become the president, all of this would be covered up, and we would never hear about this. Then the unthinkable happened. A transformative president, an unconventional president in Donald Trump, and all of a sudden they are scrambling. You have Director Comey advocating vote for Democrats because in this election they want to shut all this investigation. They want to shut it down. And that's what would happen if Adam Schiff became the head of the intel committee as opposed to, say, a Devin Nunes.

INGRAHAM: Exactly. Thanks so much, Jason.

Last night's Emmys Awards show just how far Hollywood has moved away from America. But one unplanned moment stole the show. What was it? Arroyo here to explain, next.


INGRAHAM: Last night Hollywood celebrated television and themselves at the Emmys. Along the way of course they bashed religion and conservatives, but they also revealed something important. For all the grisly details, we're joined by Raymond Arroyo, Fox News contributor, bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" series. Raymond, what happened at these weird and wacky Emmys?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: NBC gave the producing responsibility to Lorne Michaels who oversees "SNL." This became like an extended "Saturday Night Live" sketch. Alec Baldwin, Kate McKinnon, they were all there. And it opened with this very self-aware, tone deaf, odd song about how diverse TV has become and how they solved it. Watch this.


KATE MCKINNON, SNL: So diversity is not a problem in Hollywood anymore?

KENAN THOMPSON, SNL: No. We solved it.

MCKINNON: That is wonderful news.


MCKINNON AND THOMPSON: We solved it. We've gotten with the times. There's room for all of our voices, but mostly Shonda Rhimes.

MCKINNON: You are welcome Asian people, we gave you that one show.

THOMPSON: And who can put it, the amazing Sandra Oh.


ARROYO: It always helps if you can sing when you do a musical number, I always say, Laura.


INGRAHAM: That is the worst. Oh, my gosh.

ARROYO: Prime time television. And Michael Che, later who was actually one of the co-hosts, and Colin Jost, the weekend update guys, they were the official hosts of this affair. Che said something that you never mention at award ceremonies or anywhere else. Religion and politics. Watch this.


MICHAEL CHE, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" CO-ANCHOR: My mother is not watching.


CHE: Well, she said she doesn't like watching white award shows because you guys don't thank Jesus enough.


JOST: That's true.


CHE: The only people -- the only white people that thank Jesus are Republicans and ex-crack heads.

REGINA KING, ACTRESS: I don't have anything to say, because I wasn't expecting this. But I am so grateful. It's just amazing. I want to curse right now. This is good. Thank you, Jesus. Michael Che.


THANDIE NEWTON, ACTRESS: I don't even believe in God, but I'm going to thank her tonight.


NEWTON: I am so blessed, I am so blessed.


INGRAHAM: Thandie Newton there demonstrates how out of touch this community is with the viewers. You don't disparage God and you don't mention Jesus, politicize him, and mention crackheads. It fell flat, the whole evening. When Betty White, who is 96-years-old, becomes the highlight of this thing for no reason except the fact that she's Betty White, that's why she showed up, you know you're in trouble.

There was moment that you will like. Michael Che awarded a tongue-in-cheek reparation Emmys to some black TV legends who were not recognized in the past. This was actually kind of funny.


MICHAEL CHE: Mrs. Marla Gibbs, we would like to present to you this reparations Emmy. Your role as Florence the maid is the reason why I got fired from every service job I've ever had.

GIBBS: Thank you, I think.

JIMMY WALKER: Is this the real Emmy?

CHE: Yes, the real thing. What do you think?

WALKER: I cannot believe this. I just got one word for this thing.

CHE: Say it.

WALKER: It is dynamic.


ARROYO: No dynamite that time. This was funny. You know why this worked? There were actual legends in TV that we all recognized. The rest of the show were populated by people -- it's not the fault of the performers, but television is so shattered. It was all these streaming shows that none of us have time to watch.

INGRAHAM: I don't even know who Michael Che is. Marla Gibbs, "The Jeffersons" was one of the funniest shows -- I still watch it. You gave it to me.

ARROYO: I gave you the whole set. Hilarious. You know what stole the show this year?


ARROYO: A marriage proposal by the director of the Oscars. He got up, proposed to his girlfriend, Jan. It was the take-away of the evening. The lowest rated Emmys of all time.

INGRAHAM: Shock. Attack Trump, religion.

ARROYO: They should have more wedding engagements.

INGRAHAM: Television, RIP, except right here.

We'll be right back, a special announcement about tomorrow's show.


INGRAHAM: Before we go, an important note about tomorrow night's show. We'll have an exclusive interview with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. We're going to ask him about China, North Korea, a lot of developments on both fronts. And there's also an undercover video that was revealing an employee talking about a resistance movement inside his department. Don't miss that.

That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" are on all the new details on Kavanaugh and a lot more. Shannon, take it away.

Copy: 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.