This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 14, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening everybody. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is a very busy news night tonight from Washington. We begin with the curious case of Michael Cohen and a media with a case of horrific amnesia. This morning, President Trump's former fixer, lawyer, whatever you want to call him, he sat down for an interview with his new best bud, former Bill Clinton senior advisor George Stephanopoulos and in this interview he offered a rather patriotic Christmas type hope.


MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER LAWYER FOR TRUMP: The country has never been more divisive and one of the hopes that I have out of the punishment that I have received as well as the cooperation that I have given, I will be remembered in history as helping to bring this country back together.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS HOST: He wants to make amends. He does not know exactly how he's going to do it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is that why you think he's talking right now?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I think there's part of it, I think he's in a lot of pain.


INGRAHAM: Right George. All Cohen's motives are entirely patriotic. He's doing this all for America, for our children and our grandchildren. It has nothing to do with the fact that Cohen wants to have his jail time shaved off in exchange for more cooperation.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you still cooperating?

COHEN: If they want me, I'm here and I'm willing to answer whatever additional questions that they may have for me.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Right. They say you're saying there are certain areas that you can't get into because you're still cooperating with them.

COHEN: Correct.


INGRAHAM: Oh boy, did he lay it on thick. He's kind of a new man, right. He feels liberated. I like the turtleneck too. I was kind of an Andy Williams Christmas special feel to it all. And he also wants you to know that Trump is bad but his heart is pure as a driven snow and yet at times, he seemed to kind of hearken back to the days of old.


COHEN: There was a lot of fun going on at the Trump Organization.

STEPHANOPOULOS: When did it change?

COHEN: You know, I can't give you a specific time that it went from point A to point B. It was just a change. I will tell you that the gentleman that is sitting now in the Oval Office, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is not the Donald Trump that I remember from the Trump Tower. He's a very different.


INGRAHAM: Cue Barbra Streisand's "The Way we Were." Well, first he doesn't speak to the president anymore. Second, no one entering the presidency really understands it until he or she gets behind that desk in the Oval Office.

The difference with this president is that even before he was sworn in, the DOJ and the FBI led by Comey was already scheming to remove him from office using a phony dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton, deploying their friends in the media to spread disinformation to cement a narrative that Trump was basically spooning with Putin before, during, and after the campaign.

By the way, as I was watching this, this morning and at some point he bizarrely after painting this picture of the president as a hopeless liar, Cohen went on to say this.


STEPHANOPOULOS: There are a lot of people who would be watching who are going to be thinking, but wait a second, he lied for so long, why should we believe him now? What's the answer to that?

COHEN: What do you mean lied? Lied about what? At the Trump Organization, it's a microcosm of even just the New York real estate market. What did we lie about? It's New York real estate. Yes, it's the greatest product ever created, is that a lie?


INGRAHAM: I'm confused. Is Trump was a hopeless liar or didn't lie. The most remarkable thing about this interview aside from its transparency is the idea that the media, they now see Cohen as some type of almost an honest broker. That's a lot different from the way they viewed him during the campaign days.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He shouldn't be a lawyer. That's not the way you communicate. You don't get to law school to act like a thug.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Michael Cohen, the goon that he is.

If he serious about becoming president, he's got to get rid of the goons. Michael Cohen does him absolutely no favors.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This guy is a thug with a law degree and a billionaire boss.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a group of scumbags like Michael Cohen sitting around in cahoots with each other.


INGRAHAM: Nice to see the word scumbag used with the American flag behind him. Well, Cohen was ordered to report to jail on March 6th, so expect to see three more months of "I'm a changed man" narrative and "I'm really sorry" sob stories. I just can't wait to see where he ends up next. Maybe, I don't know, Rachael Ray, does she have an open booking? Cohen's been stirring it up for so long, I'm sure he would be great in the kitchen.

Joining me now with reaction is Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and Kim Strassel, "Wall Street Journal" columnist. Alan, so Michael Cohen goes from this thug, fixer, goon as they called him, to now a media darling.

I was watching the roundtable at "Good Morning America" and they were empathizing with him and it was a beautiful moment for Michael Cohen to come forward and unburden himself to George Stephanopoulos. No other motive possible for him to come forward right now. How credible are these sob stories?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSORE EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Well, I've had about 250 criminal defendants that I have represented and many of them after they are caught have gone on this kind of redemption tour or redemption campaign. Frankly, I think they really persuade themselves that they mean it.

They persuade their family and they want to mean it because nobody wants to be a phony so, I suspect that deep in his heart, Cohen thinks he's a changed man. If he got out of jail, would anybody really hire him to teach ethics somewhere? I doubt that very much.

But, I'm sure he has mixed motives. He wants to appear to his peers and friends and family to have seen evil and redemption. And he also obviously has a secondary purpose, a secondary game of trying to get a reduction of sentence, which I think is unlikely to happen.

INGRAHAM: Well, Kimberly, if he was going to get a sentence reduced, it would seem that it's an odd thing because he says on the interview that he's willing to cooperate and talk to anyone at any time. I made that point this morning, with Stephanopoulos. It would seem that with all these sit downs he has had, that kind of already would've been unpacked by now.

KIMBERLY STRASSEL, COLUMNIST, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, that's the really interesting point here, Laura. You know, remember, one of the reasons he got three years in jail is because at least the southern district of New York was not very complimentary of him in that filing that they made with the court. They said that he had not very cooperative. The special counsel's filing was a little bit more generous.

But, you know, that brings us to the question of him as a potential witness which was something he discussed with Stephanopoulos against any proceeding that might ever be brought up against President Trump in terms of these campaign finance violations that people are talking about. Given that even the southern district didn't view him as a credible, trustworthy, helpful person, how good of a witness in such a case would he make?

INGRAHAM: A terrible witness. I mean, Alan, you and I put him on the stand, it's not hard to, you know, get him to wet his pants, sorry, but it's just -- he is not a hard guy to cross examine. But I got to ask about this FEC issue and we're going to move on. We got Michael Flynn (inaudible) guys, but Hans von Spakovsky was a two-term FEC commissioner.

He has written a pretty compelling piece for Fox News about how these types of hush money payoffs aren't criminal violations under the FEC rules and that Cohen, they twisted his arm to plead guilty and to throw in all this stuff about the, you know, direction of -- influence the election and so forth.

But in this case, he said this kind of payment would not be under the facts that have been put out there so far, would not be a crime. Alan, have you looked into that?

DERSHOWITZ: I agree. I have looked into it. First of all, you know, when you get somebody like Cohen, as Judge Ellis put it, not only do they sometimes sing, but sometimes they compose. That is they try to make the story a little bit better. And the idea that he may have told Trump that what he was doing was wrong or illegal, let's be very clear. The laws are very complicated but one thing is very simple. Any candidate can contribute as much as he wants to his own campaign for any purpose. So if Bloomberg runs, he could decide to contribute a billion dollars to the campaign. A candidate can go to the bank, take out $150,000 in cash bring it to a woman and say I'm giving you this -- this to you in order to -- hush money so you won't talk and you won't destroy my campaign.

That would not be a violation of the law. Now, there are ways in which it could become a violation of the law if corporate contributions were involved with the campaign or failure to report, but the reporting requirements here or after the election so, essentially no harm no foul. So, I think that the American public is missing the point and many in the media are missing the point --

INGRAHAM: It is being glossed over.

DERSHOWTIZ: -- about where is the crime? Where is the statute that makes this a crime?

INGRAHAM: Again, because you haven't heard the other case. I mean, when you're in court you actually can argue the point. John Edwards did that obviously and Spakovsky pointed that out. He obviously cited the Edwards case as a particularly relevant in this matter.

Now, I want to move on to other big stories today. The new Michael Flynn documents that dropped just a few hours ago -- remember, Tuesday night, Flynn's attorneys felt that he had been duped by government lawyers and further that he was told he didn't need a legal representation in that interview with the two FBI agents in January of 2017.

And he responded today in part writing, "The agents did not provide General Flynn, his lawyers, with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview. Prior to the FBI's interview of General Flynn, Mr. McCabe and other FBI officials decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because the wanted Flynn to be relaxed and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport."

They also said, "That the lack of counsel did not make Flynn lie and that he should have known better. Now Kimberly, you wrote in the Journal that what happened to Flynn was akin to entrapment. Is there anything in today's document -- interesting redactions we're going to get to as well. Why they redacted certain things, but there is anything that you saw today that changes your thinking or maybe even solidifies it?

STRASSEL: It's an incredibly unpersuasive document, Laura. First of all, one thing that really struck me is how defensive it sounded. We are used to these special counsel filings where they hold all the cards. This one went out of its way to also point out that Michael Flynn had lied to the press as if that is a crime. Hopefully it's not. Most of Washington would be in jail.

But, you know, and then goes through what he should have known better, he should have known not to -- none of this changes the fact, Laura, that the way they set this up and Jim Comey has essentially admitted it, is that they set it up on a casual basis, let's have a chat.

There seems to be no question that Flynn believed he was going to sit down and go through some of these questions when in fact what they were conducting was a formal interview and they didn't go through any of the motions or any of the standard procedures of a formal interview.

INGRAHAM: And then the question is why.

DERSHOPWITZ: Well, I think that --

INGRAHAM: Hold on, hold on. I want to just read -- Alan, I want you to respond to this because I know this is what you want to address. Now, this is in the government's filing that just dropped, OK, responding to the question about the agents themselves not thinking that Flynn lied.

So, "The interviewing agents didn't observe any indicia of deception and had the impression at that time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying. Those who miss impressions did not change the fact as the defendant has admitted in sworn testimony in this district court that he was indeed lying and knowingly made false statements to the FBI agents in a national security investigation."

Those false statements were material, et cetera, et cetera. Alan, that is a cute formulation by the special counsel's office, that's very cute. But the fact is they were twisting the arm of Flynn and threatening probably his son to get him to say, oh yes, I lied. But the agents themselves did not think he lied, period.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, on day one, when the charges were leveled against them, I came on this channel and I said he was not guilty and he should fight this and I think he would win on a number of grounds. Look, there are two issues. Did Flynn do the right thing? No. He shouldn't have lied no matter what the circumstances.

You don't lie to the vice president, you don't lie to the press, you don't lie to FBI agents. But the real question is what the FBI did. They asked him questions that they knew the answers to. They weren't trying to get information from him. They were trying to give him an opportunity to lie. That was the purpose.

Comey basically says that. They send in agents like Strzok and they gave him an opportunity to live. He shouldn't have done it, but that's not the way the FBI should operate and they should never discourage anybody from bringing a lawyer. That's why in 53 years of practice I have never had a client sit down with the FBI. I have never had a client testify.

They are not here to help you. They pretending they are there to help you. They pretend they're friendly but they are there to trap you and he fell into the trap. It's his own fault. He fell into the trap, but I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about as a civil libertarian, do we want our government officials to behave this way to help create crimes? I think the answer is no.

INGRAHAM: No. They are on the hunt. They are on the hunt. And guys, there is one more questions I want to ask because the redactions are very disturbing to me. Why redacting the agents name who interviewed Flynn with Peter Strzok? What would be the reason for redacting the agent's name? Kim?

STRASSEL: Well, it's unclear because his name is generally out there and I've heard people confirm it, who this other person was. So, they are filing it under well, we just don't put the names willy-nilly of agents out there apparently --

INGRAHAM: It's kind of important when people think this whole thing is biased, don't you think.


INGRAHAM: We want to know who started this ball rolling with the investigation. We want to know all the commas and who is in between all the commas at the direction of comma, comma -- who are these people who advised these thing to go forward the way it did. Comey, McCabe, and all the other people were leaking to the media.

DERSHOWITZ: Yet they knew the strategy.

STRASSEL: So, Laura, I think it's because they don't want this guy's name out there where he might get called in to talk further.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Alan, real quick.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, the Congress can get his name obviously if they want it, but the strategy was simple. It was laid out by Judge Ellis. Let's trap as many people as we can into committing perjury and then we'll squeeze them and try to get them to testify against Trump. The special counsel is appointed to try to uncover crimes that already occurred.

In this case, almost all the crimes or crimes that occurred after he became special counsel in many instances and they use those crimes not because they are interested in Flynn or interested in Manafort, but because they want to squeeze him, to sing what they composed. And that raises fundamental question of civil liberties.

INGRAHAM: Panel, thank you so much. Great to see both of you. And I want to turn now to the ridiculous double standards President Trump is facing. This time it's inauguration funding. Again, squeeze, squeeze, squeeze. This practice has never fallen under such scrutiny of how you fund the inauguration.

But this supposed latest blockbuster investigation gives liberals the narrative that the walls are closing in so the president has nowhere to turn, nowhere to go. Here's something you might not know. Back in 2013 special interests contributed 40 percent, that's almost half of the funds for Obama's second inauguration.

Here with reaction this Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary to Bush 43 and Robert Wolf, Obama mega donor, former economic advisor to his 2012 campaign and someone who donated money to the 2012 inauguration for Barack Obama. Ari, is this scrutiny warranted or is this a clear-cut case of a double standard?

ARI FLESCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUS SECRETARY: Well, on the surface it certainly seems to be a double standard. You know, the investigation of Hillary was never a real investigation of her and now we have numerous investigations of Donald Trump from an agency that just probably never wanted Donald Trump to be elected in the first place, and that's troubling.

Now, I don't like to draw conclusions like that about justice because I was raised to believe justice is blind and it must be blind, but, you know, we haven't heard from justice yet on this. These were leaks into the newspaper about an investigation that's not yet confirmed.

And if the focus is on foreign contributions and given to straw (ph) men who donated, that is a different matter and that should be investigated but I haven't seen any evidence that anybody in Trump world did anything wrong.

INGRAHAM: Well, and Robert, you were a big donor to President Obama and look, I don't think -- I think the campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. We say that to the (inaudible). You should be able to give as much money as you want as long as it's disclosed to anyone or your own money should matte, OK.

But, anybody you should be able to give whatever lines you're disclosing want, I have no problem you're a big donor to Obama. But, you know, Obama swore off special interests in the first inauguration, but then took corporate money, lobbyist money, teachers unions, all sorts of union money and came to the campaign. Came to the inauguration. Big deal. What's the difference here?

ROBERT WOLF, TOP OBAMA CAMPAIGN DONOR: OK, so we should just take a step back. One, I think your premise is inaccurate on double standard, otherwise, George W. Bush took from the same type of people that Obama took in ‘13. I don't think we're talking about corporate money here. I think to Ari's point, the whole wide deal is were there foreign interests that gave, which is illegal.

And secondly, Obama didn't have an Obama hotel, which is there is a lot of scrutiny. So, if you want to go back where corporate interests started, I think in 2005 in the inauguration, Obama took from the same people that George W. Bush took.

So I don't think it's about corporate. I think we're talking about were any laws broken? And by the way, I'm not saying any laws were broken, I'm just saying I think that's what they're looking at.

INGRAHAM: Not a fishing expedition. It's a complete fishing expedition. I'm going to tell you why, because Hillary Clinton's Foundation, Bill and Hillary Clinton's Foundation received money from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Australia, Norway, Dominican Republic, Algeria -- I don't know how much Algeria gave but -- and suddenly all that money starts drying up when Mrs. Clinton is no longer Secretary of State and she's no longer clearly going to be president of the United States.

All that money went away. Now, do you think, Ari, that money was donated to the Clinton Foundation to get access? And can you imagine donors get access in the Obama world or all the people going to these parties in Obama administration -- they are always getting access! Welcome to Washington.

FLESCHER: I can't imagine why people don't want to continue to get access to Mrs. Clinton. I mean, why did they stop giving money? Oh, I guess she's not running for anything anymore -- of course, Laura. But let me address a broad point here and your guest made the point about the hotel.

One of the thing that is so unusual and different about Donald Trump, to his credit, he's a businessman. He came from a hotel industry. All the laws and all the rules are set up to make it easy for career politicians to stay in Congress, to stay in government and therefore you never had a conflict because you don't own anything in the real world.

Along comes business people and it's almost impossible for them to run because people try to make a mountain out of nothing. So what that people stay in his hotel. He's already said he's not making the profits from it. He's divorced from that, from the Trump company as the president, but so what if the Trump Corporation is making money from it? It is America's private sector and I want people from the private sector to be able to run for office.


WOLF: Well, let me just respond. One, I'm all for capitalism. I ran a bank that was in 49 states, 27 countries --


WOLF: -- we gave to the RNC. We gave to the DNC. Phil Gramm was my vice chairman, OK. So I have no problem with Donald Trump doing amazingly well. Actually, UBS, you know, did business with Donald Trump. We're talking about today and we're talking about did the inauguration committee, OK, do something illegal or not? And Laura, let me just finish, for someone --

FLESCHER: Not supposed to be spending money at his hotel.

WOLF: I didn't say that -- by the way, am I saying anything is wrong with that? I'm saying that's what they're looking at.

FLESCHER: Well you raised it. Well, you brought it up.

INGRAHAM: Yes, you raised it many times.

WOLF: I raised it because it was on the front page of two papers today --

INGRAHAM: Well, that's another question. How did that happen to come out given the fact that the inaugural committee itself, Tom Barrack -- they've never heard of any investigation. They haven't been asked for any documents. They haven't been interviewed --

WOLF: I'm not even saying it's the real deal.

INGRAHAM: -- and suddenly this is leaking out of the southern district of New York. I find the southern district of New York the most leaky federal prosecutor office in the country.

WOLF: Trust me, they were outside my office for five years. I'm all there with you.

INGRAHAM: You know, Stephanie Wolkoff, keep that name front and center because she was -- her company was paid a lot of money. She made good money off that inauguration, but a lot of these big party companies do and stuff like that. All right guys, thanks so much.

And up next, the ghoulish manner in which Democrats and the media are using a tragic death to tar the president and the lefts latest border manipulation is next.


INGRAHAM: The tragedy of a 7-year-old Guatemalan child who dies in Border Patrol custody has led some to disgusting politics. Well according to the CPB records, the girl and her father had been in custody for about eight hours when she started having seizures. Medical personnel fought to save her life but were unable to. And in the aftermath, it was reported that during her trek to the border she had not eaten or had any water "for several days." Within hours, Democrats knew whom to blame.


REP. JERRY NADLER, D-N.Y.: This is part of the absolute insensitivity to migrants, to people seeking asylum on the part of this administration. I mean, you take 7-year-olds who you know have been walking across the border -- across a desert, you don't check them, you don't take the temperature. It's total disregard. You don't give a damn. That's what this shows.


INGRAHAM: We don't give a damn? All right. America is extremely generous. We've spread humanitarian aid all over the world especially into these affected areas, but we are not the worlds police and we are not the world's hospital. We are doing what we can in incredibly difficult circumstances created by politicians.

Here to respond is Hector Garza, vice president-at-large for The National Border Patrol Council and Gunther Sanabria, he's an immigration attorney. Hector, take us through -- now, what are the normal procedures and what do the Border Agents need to do when families cross into the United States.

We've had record numbers of family units crossing into across our southern border in different sectors because people know they are going to be able to come in and be released after a certain number of days. So, what is the procedure?

HECTOR GARZA, VICE PRESIDENT-AT-LARGE, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: So first of all, Laura, I want to make it very clear that as agents, we are sick and tired of being blamed for these types of tragedies. The people who should be blamed for these types of tragedies are the drug cartels that are orchestrating these smuggling events.

Also those politicians that are encouraging illegal immigration are to blame for these types of tragedies. Not our agents, not President Trump. Our agents are doing an amazing job to care for these people. Now, we have specialized policies in regards to how we treat juveniles in our custody, unaccompanied minors and those family units.

Every time those people come into our custody, we have professional medical staff that will conduct an evaluation on those juveniles to make sure that they are OK to continue through the process. Now, we feed them, we give them water, we give them blankets. And if they are part of a family unit, they will stay together to make sure that we maintain that family unity.

INGRAHAM: Well, there is apparently eight hours, Hector, where DHS isn't telling anybody like what happened to this little girl. What happened to her and her father? We don't know I guess.

GARZA: Yes. And in this specific case, it is still under investigation but what we do know from CBP is that these people were part of a group of 163 aliens that enter our country illegally. About 50 of those 163 aliens were unaccompanied minors. Now, this is a very remote part of the desert on the U.S.-Mexico border in New Mexico.

So you have to keep -- put yourself in the agent's shoes when they're out there patrolling the border with very limited resources and (inaudible). All of a sudden they come up on a group of 163 aliens. It's going to be chaos, but our agents are going to try their best. And unfortunately this parent, this father that brought this child with him is also responsible just like the cartels and just like the politicians.

INGRAHAM: Gunther, if an American citizen or an illegal immigrant had withheld food or water from his or her child for several days, took him or her across the country or points unknown and didn't feed or give water, they would be in jail tonight.

GUNTHER SANABRIA, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: They would be charged with negligence of a child.

INGRAHAM: But why shouldn't this father be charged for negligence?

SANABRIA: Because that's not what happened here. These are children running for their lives and they --

INGRAHAM: So the father has no responsibility?

SANABRIA: No, the father have the responsibility to protect his child, but then --


SANABRIA: He did up to the point that they turned themselves into Border Patrol.

INGRAHAM: No, they had several days they didn't eat or drink.

SANABRIA: Because there was nothing to drink or nothing to eat.

INGRAHAM: But you're bringing your child into an extremely dangerous situation with cartels, with human traffickers.

SANABRIA: To save them. To save them, exactly.

INGRAHAM: Well, it's a hard call though for Americans watching this thinking blaming these Border Patrol agents who wanted more funding and who wanted more help from politicians.

SANABRIA: No, no, no. We're not blaming the Border Patrol agents. What we're blaming is the system that was created for the Border Patrol agents do not have enough resources to help all these people. This is a child. It's a seven-year-old child who came into the Border Patrol with clear signs of exhaustion, clear signs of not having eaten or drank any water, and it was disregarded. And this happened before. This happened under ICE custody before. Several people have gone there with medical conditions and died.

INGRAHAM: So it's the American people's responsibility, the American taxpayers responsibility when a parent decides to cross our border illegally, come into the United States with a child across a very difficult terrain, it's the American taxpayers responsibility, is it not, to pay for medical care, pay for interpreters, pay for lawyers, pay for a process, pay for housing, because that's what they're doing.

SANABRIA: If we are going as a America organization, a government agency, say come to me, I'm going to process your problems of immigration, and I'm going to take custody of a seven-year-old child, yes, that government agency is responsible for that child. If they commit something of a negligence or disregard of her medical condition, then yes, they are responsible.

INGRAHAM: I think we need to find that out.

SANABRIA: Of course.

INGRAHAM: I want to know what happened in those intervening eight hours. At the same time, though, for Nadler to come out and to say basically this is on the hands of Border Patrol agents, I think a lot of Americans when they saw the headlines, this is part of 163 people. That's not one person wandering across the border lost. This is a mass of humanity crossing the border at one time. And you have, what, a dozen, Hector, how many agents were there, a dozen trying to deal with this? This is a lot of people at one time.

SANABRIA: And that is the point, not enough people to deal with the problem.

INGRAHAM: Not enough people, and an orchestrated attempt by individuals in Honduras and Guatemala, and we're learning a lot more about the organizers of these caravans and other groups of people who have a financial incentive to give people false hope that this is going to be a good track for them. They're being given false hope.

SANABRIA: It's happening. We cannot deny it, we cannot close our eyes. And President Trump should allow the government agency to provide enough people to fix the problem and not continue the problem.

INGRAHAM: Where are the Democrats on this? Hector, you've been asking for more funding. You've been asking for more means to handle these circumstances, and for asylum reforms, which has to be put in place so children are not put in this horrific situation where they are dragged across the desert or having to deal with drug cartels or potentially be taken by human traffickers, which happens all too often.

HECTOR GARZA, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: This is happening because, again, these politicians that are failing to act, that they're failing to do their job in Congress are encouraging illegal immigration.

President Trump is supporting the wall. He's supporting infrastructure and manpower. But guess what, some politicians are not giving us that funding that we need. And that funding that we need is also the wall to make sure that we stop this illegal immigration, that we stop putting these people in these horrific conditions. There is a legal way to do this, and that's going through the port of entry. Let's stop encouraging illegal immigration, and that's my message.

Now, how come we're not out there blaming the drug cartels? They are the ones orchestrating these smuggling events. They're the ones that dictate where these people are crossing, and they're putting them through these very dangerous situations. As a matter of fact, I think the drug cartels should be designated as terrorist organizations by President Trump.

INGRAHAM: I think there are a lot of people who are trying to incentivize or give people false hope that this is all going to work out well for them. And the politicians in this country, I have no words for them. I want to know what happened in those eight hours. I think DHS has to be really forthcoming real fast about the timeline here, more than they have already done. But blaming the Border Patrol, Jerry Nadler, I don't remember any press conferences that Nadler has done for the victims of crimes at the hands of cartels or illegal aliens in the United States, I don't remember it. Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember much of it.

It was a great conversation, guys, thanks so much.

And some political losers hit the president on the way out the door, a PBS New Orleans Christmas special, and an inspiring moment from a Nashville airport -- we could use some inspiration. All that in "Friday Follies" next.


ROBERT GRAY, CORRESPONDENT: Live from America's news headquarters, I'm Robert Gray.

President Trump announcing on Twitter that White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney will be his acting chief of staff. Mulvaney, a former South Carolina congressman, will take over for John Kelly who President Trump said will be leaving the White House at year's end. Mulvaney responding on Twitter, saying, quote, "This is a tremendous honor. I look forward to working with the president and the entire team. It's going to be a great 2019."

Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denying bail to Bill Cosby while he appeals his sexual assault conviction. Cosby filed an appeal last month, arguing the judge had a grudge against a key pretrial witness, and his decisions during the case were grounds for a new trial. The 81-year- old Cosby was convicted in April of drugging and molesting a woman in 2004.

I'm Robert Gray. Now back to “The Ingraham Angle.”


INGRAHAM: It's Friday, and that means it's time for Friday Follies.

Senatorial losers taking parting shots at Trump on their way out the door, a New Orleans Christmas special, and a touching moment at a Nashville airport. Joining us now with all the details, Raymond Arroyo, FOX News contributor and New York Times bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" series. Raymond, you would think your last moments of service to the nation would be gracious and magnanimous. I always think, George Washington's farewell address.


INGRAHAM: So how are characters in Capitol Hill leaving us?

RAYMOND ARROYO, CONTRIBUTOR: Laura, for the Trump hating senators, they chose a more petty path. We have quite a trio here. Let's start with Arizona Senator Jeff Flake.


SEN. JEFF FLAKE, R-ARIZ.: My colleagues, to say that our politics is not healthy is somewhat of an understatement. I believe that we all know well that this is not a normal time, and that the threats to our democracy from within and without are real. And none of us can say with confidence that the situation that we now find ourselves in will turn out.


INGRAHAM: The situation we find ourselves in is thank God the establishment is getting a kick to the stomach after what they've done to our finances, our foreign policy, the rise of China, open borders. Don't let the doorknob hit you, senator.

ARROYO: But the clear inference here is that Donald Trump is a problem to the Republicans.

INGRAHAM: How'd you think that up, Arroyo?

ARROYO: But this is what is so amazing about this. They did exit polls in the Arizona election in November -- 26 percent favorable rating he had, Jeff Flake.

INGRAHAM: He's gone up. He used to be 19 percent.

ARROYO: So he's on the rise.

INGRAHAM: They've been doing the elevation tour. Remember U2's elevation tour. This is the elevation tour.

ARROYO: The conscience of a conservative has really hit the skids.

INGRAHAM: No. Then there was Bob Corker. The president meanly referred to him as little Bob Corker.

ARROYO: Any time the president refers to as a cruel nickname, it's all over for you in a place like Tennessee.

INGRAHAM: I think, Raymond, you're being unfair here to Bob Corker who couldn't resist this sideswipe.


SEN. BOB CORKER, R-TENN.: I think where the president hurts himself and hurts our country is his own personal conduct. It's unnecessary. It's an unforced error. The unorthodox nature of the Trump presidency has in some ways caused people to be closer on each side of the aisle, in some ways. There's still vast differences in policies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What makes them closer?

CORKER: It's sort of like everybody is in the same boat, right?


INGRAHAM: Accountable. Trump is letting the cameras come in and see how the sausage is really made. That's what he doesn't like. By the way, he's a big construction magnate, so he's made hundreds of millions of dollars in construction. He's a smart businessman. He went on to say in that interview that actually really likes so much of the Trump presidency, the judges, the economy.

ARROYO: Right, he did say that.

INGRAHAM: At the end I'm thinking, so he doesn't like his style?

ARROYO: No, because everybody got in the boat, just not his boat.

INGRAHAM: Right. Remember the Corker kickback?

ARROYO: He went against the prevailing winds of the party. It was a populist wind. You can't say I don't like that. I'm going to run against that. That's what he did. His people abandoned him. In the last polling he slid into the 30s and lower among Republicans, forget the overall. That's why he couldn't run again. These guys, everyone we're showing you tonight have either lost or walked away from their seats.

INGRAHAM: Corker wanted to be secretary of state.

ARROYO: I remember that.

INGRAHAM: Remember, there was a momentary flirtation with that. So it's like the girl who doesn't get picked to go to the prom. OK, so you never like that boy again. That boy is off to his own devices.

ARROYO: Finally Senator Claire McCaskill on MSNBC, she mused on how senators view the president in the cloak room. Listen.


SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL, D-MO.: Nuts, weak, doesn't really understand government, doesn't care to understand anything complicated, asks and says the most unbelievable things in meetings that clearly shows he doesn't understand the subject matter. No intellectual curiosity.


INGRAHAM: That's the common refrain.

ARROYO: Mean hits at the end.

INGRAHAM: First of all, again, Claire, you had a chance to vote for Kavanaugh. You decided to be on that high horse of yours and vote against him and that's what hurt you. A basic sense of fairness that I think most people think the president has. Can it get overheated? Yes, it can get overheated. But this obsession with the style, you notice there is very little substantive criticism of what the Trump agenda has accomplished. Very little, all stylistic.

ARROYO: Because the arrival of Trump for so many of these middle-of-the- road people to choose a side, and they chose the wrong side and got shoved out in these states that have clearly swung in a different direction.

INGRAHAM: They are all delighting in this momentary impeachment, indictment mania. They're delighting in it.

Raymond, you have produced and hosted a Christmas season for PBS called "Christmas Time in New Orleans." It's a big special, big show. What is it?

ARROYO: It's two parts. It's a CD which was release by Verve with jazz classics on it, and it's a big piece of my heart. It's a love letter to my hometown. And it celebrates the people, the food, the traditions, and the music that have held us together for 300 years. It's the tricentenary this year. And Christmas, Laura, is the perfect time to look at the cuisine and the people and our incredible people. The actors Wendell Pierce and Jim Caviezel were part of the who as are some of the best chefs in the city.

And the NOLA Players, this sizzling jazz orchestra we put together, it has got members of the Marsalis family in it, and they play all these original compositions. And at this time in our country's history when we are so divided, I think it's important to see a place where the Spanish, the English, the French, the Africans, Germans, Italians came together and created something that lasts.

INGRAHAM: And you know what it is? It's the tradition that is involving everything, the people, the food, and the places.

ARROYO: And the music. It all feeds back on itself.

INGRAHAM: I don't know, it's a comforting thing. I get why you and Mary Matalin, all the crazies, Terry White, all of you --

ARROYO: Why we go back to the motherland.

INGRAHAM: All you crazies, why you to -- I actually understand it now.

ARROYO: I want to play you a little clip. This is Chef John Folse and a bit of the NOLA Players. Listen.


CHEF JOHN FOLSE: No other city ever in the history of this world has seven distinct nations coming together to create what we call the mixtures, the creoles of New Orleans. Forget about it. There's nothing like it.


INGRAHAM: And now we have a viral video situation?

ARROYO: A viral video, and this happened earlier in the week to travelers in Nashville's airport. They came together to sing the National Anthem, Laura, and they did so to honor the children of our fallen servicemen and women. Listen to a little bit of this. And the important thing about this, this was as children were boarding flights, the Gary Sinise Foundation each year flies over 1,700 Gold Star children and their surviving parent to Disney World. It's called the Snowball Express. I went down there to Orlando, spent some time with them and Gary Sinise. We will bring this entire story next week. Laura, I think it's the most important feature of the year, and to me one of the most moving. It puts it all in perspective. When you see these families left behind by our servicemen and women and how they carry on, they are amazing heroes. It's beautiful to see.

INGRAHAM: And there's some of the clips of all of them at Disney World.

ARROYO: Laura, this will bring tears to your eyes.

INGRAHAM: Raymond had tears in his eyes because he was there at Disney World, and yet he couldn't go on Space Mountain.

ARROYO: I couldn't go to parks. It was awful.

INGRAHAM: You were upset about the children, were you.

ARROYO: I really was.

INGRAHAM: You were. Raymond was very moved by that. So we talked over the National Anthem, but we're going to see this, the whole thing.

ARROYO: Yes. It's going to air next week.

INGRAHAM: But it was incredible. Gary Sinise is awesome.



INGRAHAM: It's a provocative question, but it's worth asking. Has anti- white sentiments become the new normal for some power players inside the Democratic Party? We are going to debate that with the head of the Washington chapter of the NAACP and Pastor Aubrey Shines.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Another white male -- I'm very suspect of that this year going into a Democratic primary with women doing well and the African- American base of the Democratic Party. I'm not sure it's the time to nominate a white man.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Is it time to have somebody of color and a woman, and somebody younger? But as a white guy, are you trying to calculate whether or not this is the right time for you?


INGRAHAM: There's a reason the media continually asks this question. It's a mindset that seems to have been encouraged by the mainstream of the Democratic Party, the idea that a candidate might face scrutiny simply because he or she is white. Why are we talking about race? I thought we were supposed to get away from judging people on the basis of their skin color. And why isn't that racist?

This is the latest in a string of stories we've highlighted to speak to this new reality. Now, whether it's the powerful women's march embracing Louis Farrakhan and still remaining a powerful force inside the Democratic Party, or the no-whites-allowed vacation spots that we reported on earlier this week, how is any of this acceptable?

Here to debate it, Hilary Shelton, head of the Washington, D.C., chapter of the NAACP, and Pastor Aubrey Shines of Glory to Glory Ministries. Mr. Shelton, I want to talk to you about this. Maybe I'm just naive here, but I think there has been so much progress. Nothing is perfect, but a lot of progress made at every level of society -- business, entertainment, high- tech, sports, politics. We had a two term African-American president. Why is the Democratic Party now saying banding about this, well, if we nominate a white person that might be problematic. Do you find that to be a little odd?

HILARY SHELTON, DIRECTOR, NAACP D.C. BUREAU: Put in those terms it absolutely would be. I would argue, however, a little bit differently, and that is as we're looking at the challenges and problems we have in our society, there's a racial definition that surrounds those issues as well. So whether we're talking about employment. What's great for President Obama -- President Trump in this particular case to talk about how the African-Americans have the lowest unemployment rates since the data has been collected. But what he left out is that the lowest unemployment rate is still three times higher than our white counterparts. And so looking at the data and as it's designated --

INGRAHAM: So you're saying there hasn't been any progress for African- American under Trump?

SHELTON: There has been progress. We've gone from slavery, of course, to being citizens of the country, so there has been progress.

INGRAHAM: I want to make sure our national audience understands. You discount improvement in the economy for African-Americans today?

SHELTON: We don't discount it. We recognize that it's there. But we also recognize that we have not reached a point of parity.

INGRAHAM: When you say parity, do you mean equal opportunity?

SHELTON: Equal opportunity, and equal outcomes, quite frankly.

INGRAHAM: So unless you have a proportional representation on corporate boards, that's not equality in your mind? So it's not just equality of opportunity.

SHELTON: It's certainly not parity. And so we want to make sure the voices are there. So whether we're thinking about corporate boards, whether we're thinking about, quite frankly, being able to get into colleges and universities, being able to own homes --

INGRAHAM: So you're OK with the kind of -- I'm paraphrasing, but it's almost anti-white male or white female candidate mentality in the Democrat Party?

SHELTON: I would certainly disagree with that. Certainly if you look at the voting patterns of African-Americans, we've never had problems voting for white Americans. Hispanics, African-Americans --

INGRAHAM: I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about the way they were talking about it in those sound bites.

Pastor Shines, you know what I'm talking about, those kind of if you are a white person you are immediately suspect, the blacks only vacation spots that we featured earlier this week -- I don't get that. The best person should win. We're seeing all this prison reform being done by Trump and opportunity zones -- that gets just thrown off to the side. He's a racist because he is doing all this good stuff that's going to help underprivileged areas.

PASTOR AUBREY SHINES, GLORY TO GLORY MINISTRIES: Laura, first of all, always great being with you. But Mr. Shelton has left out a tremendous point, and one of those points is simple. It has always been the Democratic Party that has always identified people of color by color. And this is why the Democratic Party is the party that gave you slavery and the KKK, et cetera.

So when I hear Mr. Shelton and others begin to espouse these false narratives, it really fits the current narrative that is going on, and that is they overlook the facts. When I hear about this alleged discrepancy, let's take a look at that just very, very quick. If eight out of 10 black kids are not being raised by their fathers, guess what's going to happen? They're not going to get an education. They're going to end up in jail. Those are facts.

And when you have that type of fact, guess what you're going to have? You're not going to have kids going to high school, they're not going to go to college, therefore they cannot debate and they cannot find themselves with any type of parity with their white counterparts. Put the dad in the home, let the dad take care of the kids, and guess what, there is no difference in the employment issue at that moment. So it's a false narrative that Mr. Shelton just offered.

INGRAHAM: When we have you both back, and we're doing an hour on this topic, just the racial topic in the new year. But I'm telling you, the rhetoric that we are hearing from some, not all, in the Democrat Party about the type of candidate that we have to see, not on the basis of ideas but on the basis purely of skin color, I think that's a problem. I don't think it's good for Democrats and I don't think it's good for Republicans. I think it's bad for the country. It should be based, as Martin Luther King said, on the content of your character.

SHELTON: Absolutely. And we think those measures should be just that. So regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, point of national origin, other differences, if we look at the outcomes, the kind of things they stand for, the kind of needs that we have, not only --

INGRAHAM: You should work with the president on opportunity zones. The NAACP should be all for the opportunity zones.

SHELTON: I have got great ideas that might very well help make it a wonderful program.

INGRAHAM: You could work with the president I think you'll get along with him really well.

SHELTON: I look forward to doing it.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, thanks so much. We'll be right back.

SHINES: Thanks again, Laura.


INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite. Michelle Obama isn't above cutting a rug, especially if it's with Santa. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stand up, dance with Mrs. Obama. Stand up and dance with Mrs. Obama and Santa right now. Drop it down.


INGRAHAM: Drop it down? We wanted to see how she stacks up against another former first lady. So tonight we're launching our own new reality show, "Dancing with the Democrats." Take a look at our first faceoff. Oh, I'm going to go with the guy in the front with the big vest. Oh no, you've got to hand it to -- I think Michelle Obama wins this. That's my view, but I don't want to taint the process or the pool of answers. So who's the big winner? Tweet me @IngrahamAngle with your pick, Hillary or Michelle?

That's all the time we have tonight.

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.