This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 18, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: And everybody, welcome to the Ingraham Angle from Washington.
Famed feminist attorney, Lisa Bloom, is shooting the messenger, blaming a far-right journalist for busting her case. That's apparently after she was caught red-handed soliciting funds for those accusing Donald Trump of sexual misconducts. And that supposedly far-right journalist is actually well-respected reporter, John Solomon of The Hill. He used to work at the AP. He's going to be here to give his side of the story.
But first, the left's hyperbole and hypocrisy regarding criticism of Bob Mueller and the FBI, that's the focus of tonight's angle.
Critics of the president and this channel are howling that we're putting the country in danger. What's our crime? Accurately reporting the alarming bias within Special Counsel Bob Mueller's investigation. Despite the fact that Mueller and his team have unearthed no evidence of so-called collusion between Trump and Russia, the left considers it basically as a crime to even raise legitimate questions about the staffing and the tactics of the Mueller investigation. And they're now going into full on apoplexy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
JEN PSAKI, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, OBAMA WHITE HOUSE: This has been a month long orchestrated frankly pathetic and also dangerous attack.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: It's a real example of the divide in the country and how conservative media is fueling that divide right now.
KOE SCARBOROUGH, CO-HOST OF "MORNING JOE", MSNBC: They are fomenting a constitutional crisis. What they are doing could lead to violence.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
INGRAHAM: Oh, really, Joe? Come on, even you don't believe that. So let's get this straight. The Democrat smear machine can run 24/7 maligning President Trump. They use innuendo and anonymous leaks. But the special counsel is beyond reproach? They had their billionaires like Tom Steyer launching these absurd impeachment efforts on T.V. They have Hollywood infecting their programming with tedious anti-Trump vitriol and who knows how many congressman and senators are now demanding the president's resignation. Yet, they want us to tone it down? And they want us to what, refrain from exposing the rank conflict presented by current members of the Mueller team, people like Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Weissmann, we can't mention them?
And their warp world view, you can call for a president who by the way, oversees the FBI to step aside because of decades old allegations, but we can't call for the resignation of deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is at the heart of this entire mess. Who isn't that nifty? It's like heads you win, tails we lose. Nice try. We have every right to report on the abuse of power within any agency of government.
A principle democrat used to favor. Indeed, if anyone has attacked law enforcement unfairly over the years, it's the democrats and their enablers in the media. Who can forget fanning the flames in St. Louis or Baltimore? This is the same media who denigrated law enforcement officers for years in defense of social justice warriors and false narratives.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL BUTLER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: When we equip police with all these powers and no training, that doesn't just affect one segment of the community. That impacts everybody.
MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Let's make that clear. The city is not burning because of these protesters. The city is burning because the police killed Freddie Gray.
SALLY KOHN, CNN COMMENTATOR: I do not trust this, oh, they're bad so must have done something wrong and they deserve what they had coming rationale, which is the same one we hear from the CIA as we hear from police in the case like Michael Brown. Our hearts are out there marching with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: They never challenged the lie of "Hands up, don't shoot." And remember they lapped up the false narrative that the police killed Freddie Gray. It was all a crock. It was all done to cast aspersions on police and empathize with certain minority activists. Law enforcement did not get the benefit of the doubt in those cases. And oftentimes that is the case with them.
So, no, I'm not dissuaded for a nano second by their phony claims of shock and dismay over conservatives who have the temerity to challenge Bob Mueller, Jim Comey, and Andrew McCabe. And let's not forget what the president said last week about the rank and file of that very agency of the FBI.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: When you return home to your local precincts, I want you to deliver a message to your fellow officers. The president of the United States has your back 100 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Yes, definitely sounds like he and his followers don't support the FBI. Look, the fact is, what the left is really irked about, let's be on nest here, is that the president is actually following through on his major promises. And by the way, we saw this today with the announcement of our new American Security Strategy. Henceforth, we will use a principled realism to deal with our allies and our adversaries.
We see China now for what it is. It's a state-run power aggressively seeking global dominance. We'll work with them when we can, but we have our eyes wide open, same as Russia. Although let's face it, they have an economy smaller than France is. It's not quite China.
Our approach to the world now will be consistently grounded in our America- first ideal. It's a total, complete repudiation of Obama citizen of the world clap-trap that we heard about so often for his eight years. So no wonder the left is totally unhinged, soaring economy, tax reform about to pass, confidence high, ISIS smashed, deportations up, foreign policy refocused. And, no, we are not tired of winning. But as we do so, we will continue to ask uncomfortable questions at times about Bob Mueller's team or any other part of the government where corruption might lie. It's our job. And that's the angle.
And now, for a deeper look into what's really going on in the Mueller investigation, the "Wall Street Journal's" Kim Strassel joins us from Alaska. Wow, Kim, good for you. And here in the studio, former FBI Assistant Director Ron Hosko. Ron, let's start with you. What did I get right and what did I get wrong?
RON HOSKO, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FBI: Well, I think that you got a lot right. On many levels, the president is succeeding and I certainly believe that the media is right to shed a light and raise questions that I think are legitimate questions about whether Bob Mueller is running an unbiased, fair, responsible investigation. Those are fair questions to ask given the background of some of the attorneys and staff at that group.
INGRAHAM: And he makes a distinction, Ron, between the rank and file officers of the FBI. You can see his love for the law enforcement, whether it's police, first responders, firefighters, or the FBI. And the leadership which at times, I think in this case, has made judgments in hiring that have been ill-advised at the very least.
HOSKO: Well, look, Bob Mueller has the right to hire the team of his choosing. However, raising questions and looking at the composition of that team, I think is entirely legitimate, because at the end of the day, what you want is an unbiased investigation. The light is going to shine in. We are going to have an understanding and what has happened, what we saw on text exchanges between a lead FBI investigator and an FBI attorney.
INGRAHAM: Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
HOSKO: Right. Those raised legitimate questions, they certainly are embarrassing to the workforce over there. And, look, the FBI knows, the rank and file know, and the senior leadership knows that your personal biases can never infect your work. We all have certain biases. We all have proclivities, but you can't let it infect the work.
INGRAHAM: Kim, let's go to you. You've been reporting extensively on this. The apoplectic response by the left for these legitimate questions as Ron referenced, as a former FBI man himself, the assistant director. They are over the top and this from Democrats who have routinely questioned law enforcement across the country in the most vicious ways, frankly, oftentimes unfounded.
KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, WALL STREET JOURNAL COLUMNIST: I think the depth and the range of that complaint about him and the attacks on him are a signal of democratic realization of how big a problem Bob Mueller has created for himself. Because let's be clear, Bob Mueller has done this to himself, nobody else. It's not the conservative media.
I think a lot of us out there, and myself included, when he was first appointed we were hopeful, we wanted to know. I still want to know is there anything improper or illegal about Trump transition team or campaign team ties to the Russians? But I think a lot of people also expected he was going to look into what really happened last year, what happened within the FBI. And we're coming to the realization that not only is the team that is working for him incapable of looking into those issues, because they're the people who stand accused as it were. But they may have biases that prohibit them from fairly looking at the Trump team and what happened. And he's done this to himself by choosing them and then by not coming clean when he found out himself what was going on.
INGRAHAM: I think The Wall Street Journal writer who originally wrote about this today, Kim said, well, no, when they talked about an insurance policy, they were essentially trying to help Trump. Did you see that reference today on Twitter? It was like 14-tweet long chain which Brit Hume and I were howling about on Twitter, like, "Oh, OK, so he's actually trying to help Trump with this insurance policy." I couldn't follow that. I have to confess.
STRASSEL: Well, there's a lot of theories getting thrown out there right now about how you could possibly explain this because it looks very, very bad. But here is the reality, Laura, we are not going to know until the FBI actually puts this guy forward to be interviewed by Congress.
And again, I think this gets to the problem that Mueller has. They wanted to interview him months ago. And the FBI has continued to refuse to make him available. They kept those texts hidden. And so did the Mueller team. That does not inspire confidence by anyone.
If Bob Mueller had cared about the credibility of what he was doing when he demoted this guy back in July, he have gone to Congress who clearly has an interest in this, told them what was going on, and said, "Look, I've dealt with the problem." That's not what happened.
INGRAHAM: Ron, this is what Andy McCarthy said today on my radio show. He was talking about the initial decision to recuse himself by Jeff Sessions. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANREW MCCARTHY, COLUMNIST, NATIONAL REVIEW: I give him a one on how he has performed in connection with the Russia stuff. His recusal on Russia was way too broad. Including giving Mueller a warrant to investigate this thing that has absolutely no limits and that has become just a fishing expedition that people like me complained it was going to be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: So he gave Sessions a 1 out of 10 and the handling of his hand (ph), most everything else he has been fantastic. But this was a mistake from the beginning. No evidence of a crime yet, and limitless supply of lawyers, money, and time.
HOSKO: Yes. There's a couple things that give me faith in Bob Mueller and in the outcome of this investigation. Like Kimberly, I want to know, too.
One, I worked for Bob Mueller. I think he is a person of high integrity. He is a patriot. Two, the sun will shine in on this investigation. The results will tell us what did he find. It could well be and we haven't seen him get close to the President yet. It could well be that he finds nothing, that he has found some other lower level criminality by Mike Flynn, who has pled guilty, by Paul Manafort who has been charged, and a couple of others.
But because this is going to play out in the U.S. courts, we're going to get to see what the evidence is, we're going to get to see the strengths of the evidence.
INGRAHAM: It's not going to play out in the U.S. courts regarding the president. That's not how it works, if he's going to be impeached or not. It's not going to play on the U.S. courts.
HOSKO: I'm talking about these collateral players.
INGRAHAM: Well, by Manafort, that's not close to what the president was about. The Manafort stuff, I don't see how that has any relevance.
So, Kim, the Manafort trial that will come up with this year perhaps, I mean I'm not seeing any evidence so far that that is connected to anything really close to the president at all.
STRASSEL: No. I mean this is part of the disillusionment I think with the Mueller probe, because people were hoping that he was going to go in and would somehow get the story of what happened in 2016.
People are now being reminded that's never what happens when you have a special prosecutor. We've got these lower level crimes. They somehow cast suspicion on the Trump team, but they don't tell us anything because they are not crimes that are in any way related to what the original charges were obstruction, collusion, et cetera.
And, you know, I would have been much happier if Bob Mueller in the way of finding these things along the way referred them back to the Justice Department handled. And since we have decided, is there collusion? Is there obstruction? It's not a close-up shop.
INGRAHM: And as Andy McCarthy keeps saying, collusion, there is not a crime in actually speaking to Russian officials during an election cycle. That's like another thing that people keep repeating. That's not in the federal register as a crime.
So the underpinning of this investigation from the beginning, from Sessions recusing himself which I think was a huge mistake to the naming of Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, to Rod Rosenstein saying, calling special counsel. Those are cataclysmic decisions. But I think those are going to go down as not smart decisions in the end.
But great to see both of you. Thank you so much.
And by the way guys, the famed feminist attorney is accusing of -- accused of offering women payments who made accusations against Donald Trump. She is going after that reporter who broke the story. He's going to defend himself up next. Stay there.
INGRAHAM: Attorney Lisa Bloom is now under fire after reportedly offering money to women willing to accuse the President of prior harassment. At the very least, Bloom engaged in a perverse kind of financial incentive to attract accusers. Truth being a, perhaps, secondary consideration.
Now, Bloom is going on the attack, smearing the reporter who broke the story, John Solomon of "The Hill" calling him a far-right journalist.
In reality John has broken many important stories this year. He joins us now with his side of the story. John, you, far-right journalist.
JOHN SOLOMON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE HILL: How about that?
INGRAHAM: You used to work for the A.P.
SOLOMON: That's right.
INGRAHAM: Stories about rape in the Congo all those years ago.
SOLOMON: That's right.
INGRAHAM: I mean you won awards and so forth. But by the way, I had -- in law school I had a license plate on my Honda Civic that says far-right. So that's my part.
SOLOMON: You apparently are. Yes.
INGRAHAM: Everyone thought it was very funny. So she is on the attack saying that you are distorting what really happened. It's not fair. What's your reaction?
SOLOMON: You know, I learned a long time ago. I've been an investigator for 30 years. If you can't attack the facts, you try to do and have an attack in the reporter. The facts are unassailable.
And it's true that, though, she said she is representative of women pro bono, she had a nice way of collecting 33 percent commission by selling their stories on the tabloids. It's unassailable that she arranged for donors possibly related to the election to pay these women money. And I think the women, at least one of the women, described a lot of pressure she felt as the Election Day got nearer for her to try to come out and make these allegations for against Trump. Those are things not this dispute.
INGRAHAM: This is what Lisa Bloom told Joy Reid over the weekend. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLOOM: Donors reached out to us and said, my god, what can we do to help her or other woman come forward there in fear? You know, we have this very unequal playing field here and we just got arranging for security and relocation services for any women who wanted it. I want to be very clear, neither, Hillary Clinton, nor anyone from her campaign was associated with any of those offers for relocation and security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: John, no one from the campaign. Hillary didn't know anything about it. What little factoid she lived out in that?
SOLOMON: Well, a lot of them is she will not answer whether she talk to the Clinton super facts, which is where the real big money is in the election, right? The candidates have kept at $2400. Super facts can take a lot of their money.
SOLOMON: She will not answer the question. I have asked it a hundred times. I can't get an answer out of it.
INGRAHAM: She also didn't talk about that little mortgage payment for that house in Queens. And as far as needed --
SOLOMON: Yes, one of the women got offered $750,000. You could buy the secret service detail for that, you don't need that much protection and there was obvious things going on. The woman said, one of them wanted mortgage get paid. The other woman said, I want my college tuition for my kids paid. It was a lot more than security.
INGRAHAM: I want to read an e-mail, a story that you broke tonight on "The Hill" from Jill Harth, the New York makeup artist to accused President Trump in a suit she almost nearly dropped in 1997 alleging some type of misconduct.
This is what she wrote. She wrote to Trump's Assistant Rhona Graff, I also want to put it out there that I would be willing to say at a rally or somewhere how Trump helped me with my self-confidence and all positive things about he is with women to counter any potential negativity that may come out at some point the campaign.
Now, this is from a woman who supposedly was going to come out and -- who came out and said he mistreated me --
SOLOMON: In between her two accusations --
INGRAHAM: -- broke me or something like that, that she --
SOLOMON: Yes, and in between are two accusations, there's a much greater context to this e-mail. She wanted a job with the Trump campaign. She asked to be his campaign makeup artist.
INGRAHAM: Wow, wow, wow. Someone gropes you. You actually file a suit, they ultimately drop.
INGRAHAM: But you obviously can't like him, allegedly did this. Then she wants to work in the campaign --
SOLOMON: Not only that.
INGRAHAM: -- as a makeup artist?
SOLOMON: More than that, she wanted him to be the pitchman for her new cosmetics.
INGRAHAM: Anything else?
SOLOMON: No, that's it. Those are the two things --
INGRAHAM: What was it? Manscara for the eyes?
SOLOMON: It was called --
INGRAHAM: Was Donald Trump going to have like mascara on? What was he possibly going to put on?
SOLOMON: Yes, it was a whole male beauty product line.
INGRAHAM: And she wanted him to do infomercials for her like that.
SOLOMON: Some sort of pitchman work. Yes, absolutely.
INGRAHAM: But she came out and said tonight that, oh, I had gotten over the prior, but she was mad that Donald Trump said it didn't happen.
SOLOMON: That's right. It always what she likes.
INGRAHAM: Oh my, this is ridiculous.
SOLOMON: If you follow her story, she was angry at him, then not angry at him.
INGRAHAM: Do my makeup line. I don't like you.
SOLOMON: Yes, work in a business deal and then got angry at him again when he denied the allegations.
INGRAHAM: Now, Lisa Bloom said that none of this changes the fact that she did not tell women to make up stories.
SOLOMON: That's right.
INGRAHAM: And that wrote on that in your original piece.
SOLOMON: I did, yes, none of the women said they were asked to say anything.
SOLOMON: And other words, one episode, it is kind of interesting. One woman was asked to take all of her pro-Trump comments down from Facebook so that her story would be more believable. So that did happen.
INGRAHAM: Okay, but they she -- they weren't told to say this and I will give you extra amount of money.
SOLOMON: No, not at all. No.
INGRAHAM: Well, it's so good to talk to a far-right journalist tonight and all of your credentials over there.
SOLOMON: That's a weird feeling sound to me. All right.
INGRAHAM: John, it's always great to see you. Thanks so much.
SOLOMON: Thank you so much I appreciate it.
INGRAHAM: And joining us no to analyze all of this is Civil Rights Attorney Harmeet Dhillon from San Francisco along with Juan Williams, the co-host of "The Five".
All right, Juan, hit me with your -- I shouldn't say hit me because that will come up the wrong way, but you know that thing.
Well, I can't say anything anymore without offending someone.
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Yes, I would agree, but now I thought you actually hit the right point, which is from the perspective of the women, there's no indication here no matter -- despite what may Lisa Bloom may have been up to that they were in fact fabricating a counsel. Their integrity is not in question here. What's in question is whether or not Lisa Bloom as a lawyer was really overstepping bounds in terms of either doing business with donors or potentially willing to take money from tabloids in exchange for the stories coming from the women.
But, in terms of the charges, the women were lobbying -- were levying against Donald Trump. There's no indication here that they were making things up, Laura.
INGRAHAM: Harmeet, your reaction to this. I mean were $750,000 offered? They were in touch with donors to Hillary Clinton, who after that canceled press conference -- and let me -- before they were being offered money as well, right before the election. Your reaction to this.
HARMEET DHILLON, RNC CALIFORNIA COMMITTEEWOMAN: Yes, well, I mean, in the real world, I think what Juan said was nice in fantasy land, but in the real world, people actually do exchange their stories in exchange for three quarters of a million dollars, that their mortgage paid off or their kid's college is paid for.
You know what disgusts me as a plaintiff's lawyer is that people do have real things that happen to them, and when this type of situation happens with an unethical, unscrupulous and frankly, law-breaking lawyer like Lisa Bloom, what you have is a situation where people then begin to doubt the stories of legitimate victims of sexual harassment and other discrimination. And that kind of disgusts me.
And, you know, it's -- by the way, has anyone asked the question that Lisa Bloom says, oh, well, donors were calling me and approaching me. I mean, how does that work? How do the donors know to call Lisa Bloom or Gloria Allred, her mother, any of these types of far-left feminist lawyer, self- proclaimed feminist lawyers, unless it's put out there by somebody that these women are willing to source victims to come forward and tell their story?
And I have to credit Lisa Bloom for her creativity here, getting some donor to make illegal campaign contribution, really a donation in kind of Hillary Clinton campaign. And then herself, personally, profiting from that, I mean, that's a proof. She pulled it off.
INGRAHAM: That's a pretty good system. I want to go back to John.
DHILLON: -- that you can get out of me.
INGRAHAM: I want to go back to John Solomon for a moment. John, any progress on the reporting on the donors, who they were, how much they were offering? It sounds like something Steyer would be up to if you ask me.
SOLOMON: We're calling lots of people and just doing the old-fashioned gum she worked trying to find those donors and what motivated them to make the check. Because the motivations can fall under federal election law if in fact they were trying to influence the election with money.
INGRAHAM: Yes, Juan, the question of whether there are campaign finance reform violations, campaign finance law violations is an interesting one, because if your goal is to influence the outcome of an election, as John wrote tonight in his original article, it seems like that was a goal. Because this is-- she was flying all over the country trying to get this woman to show up at this press conference.
INGRAHAM: And said it's really important that we, you know, you tell your story and obviously it didn't happen with that last woman. But that seems like it's certainly an effort to influence the outcome on election, if you are offering money, Harmeet said that's in-kind donation to a campaign effort, you could, without a doubt, be at least raising questions about campaign finance here if you're talking about $750,000?
WILLIAMS: Well, you could raise questions. But I still don't see that there was a crime. I don't approve of Lisa Bloom's behavior because it looks to me as what's pointed out that it then opens questions about the credibility of the women's testimony.
But as John said, there is no indication the woman made anything up. Harmeet says I'm in fantasy land because I think that with all that money on the table people wouldn't make things up. Well, where is the evidence that anything was fabricated, that everything was made up.
INGRAHAM: Juan, you don't think it's odd. Juan, you know --.
WILLIAMS: But let me speak to your point, Laura. Your point was interesting to me. But I still don't see a crime. Because remember, back then in the hit of that campaign, everybody knew about women coming out. And if these donors wanted to protect the women --
WILLIAMS: -- I don't see that that's illegal or an in-kind contribution.
INGRAHAM: Paying someone's mortgage off or paying their kid's tuition that was also bang about there.
WILLIAMS: I don't know what the negotiations. You know, this is torturing that's why I think --
INGRAHAM: How was that protecting? How was that protecting? I mean who doesn't want their mortgage paid off? And that's a convenient deal. But Juan, just one more question.
WILLIAMS: I think Lisa Bloom is the one who is conducting these awful negotiations, but that's not about the women.
INGHRAHAM: But, you know, my question, Juan, though, you said it doesn't call in the question arrest of any of the allegations.
INGRAHAM: I actually take issue with that.
WILLIAMS: Go ahead.
INGRAHAM: I think the (INAUDIBLE). Can you say (INAUDIBLE)? I probably can't say that either. But Jill Harth, the make-up artist.
INGRAHAM: If someone had done what she claims that Donald Trump did, the groped, why would you want to like rush to the campaign? There's no other work she can get? There's nothing else she can do with New York City. No stage work she can do? There's no commercial work she could do. She rushes to the Trump campaign, let me work for you. I'll be a surrogate. I'll say good things about you. So I put it on the stand and say, wait a second, you have made allegations against him in 1997. Now you say, he is good for women?
Like, when are we supposed to believe you? In 1997 or do we believe you know, Jill? I mean, it will take about five questions for me to destroy her credibility on this. I'm sorry. You guys are way too charitable.
WILLIAMS: But that's not all the women. That's one woman.
INGRAHAM: Oh, that's the one I'm focusing on right now.
INGRAHAM: I'm jut giving my best example, Juan, right now.
WILLIAMS: OK, you won.
INGRAHAM: Harmeet, you can close it out. Harmeet, go ahead.
DHILLON: Yes, so Laura, when people come to you as a plaintiff's lawyer about their story, you know, these are vulnerable people. And I think that Lisa Bloom has really exploited some of these women.
And so, you know, she goes to apply and talked to somebody in their hospital. And then after the person doesn't comply she does these emotional manipulation things saying, I have been very good to you, you've been very bad to me, et cetera. And she repeatedly stresses how close it is to the election.
So if anybody thinks that the timing of all of this and the escalating money wasn't related to the election, well, I have a bridge to sell you.
INGRAHAM: All right, guys, great conversation. And John Solomon, a phenomenal report tonight, really interesting. And by the way guys, the "Boston Globe" that famously exposed the sex abuse in the Catholic Church as a serious public matter, but sex abuse within its own walls of the "Boston Globe," that's a different matter, very private. We're going to blow the lid off of that in just a moment.
INGRAHAM: Talk about a double standard. Get this. The Boston Globe won plaudits and a Pulitzer for reporting on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church all those years ago. And now The Globe is accused of its own scandal, covering up the names of its employees charged with sexual misconduct. The Globe says the misconduct of its own employees is a confidential personnel matter. This from the paper that argued the public interest outweighed the privacy of priests in seeking to unseal evidence.
Hypocrisy? You will decide. Joining us now with reaction from New York is Catholic League President Bill Donohue along with Cathy Areu, publisher of "Catalina" magazine. Great to see both of you. Thanks for joining us.
Bill, I know had you a little surgery today, so thanks for toughing it out with us. I love it. You can't keep a good Irishman down. You'll come with battle scare. Bill, the Boston Globe says this is a different situation. This was not a case of this individual employee committing any acts of physical violence toward anyone, and they site that as the reason for the confidentiality.
BILL DONOHUE, CATHOLIC LEAGUE PRESIDENT: Right. They need to read Massachusetts law. Massachusetts law defines sexual harassment as verbal as well as physical conduct. And beyond that, there are many, many priests who were charged with rather venial type of offenses. And that didn't matter at all to the Boston Globe. In fact even today one of their reporters is writing how we should make a distinction between somebody who grabs somebody and rape. I have made that distinction now for about 15 years. Nobody at the Boston Globe was willing to listen. These people are phonies, they're rank hypocrites, and all of a sudden they've discovered privacy rights and confidentiality. One standard for "The Globe" and one standard for the Catholic Church.
CATHY AREU, PUBLISHER, "CATALINA" MAGAZINE: Yes, but I mean two wrongs don't make a right. The church needs to take care of its problems, and the "Boston Globe" needs to take care of its problems. And sexual abuse and harassment is not OK anywhere. So the Boston Globe doesn't need to reveal who it accused alleged harassers are as much as the church doesn't need to do that. The law will do that, and if these people are guilty, they will be punished. And that's what we saw with the priests that committed the crimes, and that's what we'll see at the "Boston Globe." So it's not a double standard at all.
INGRAHAM: Cathy, this employee apparently, this is -- this young woman in her 20s said, and she filed this complaint back in March, said that he propositioned her to have sexual regions with his wife using vulgar sexual language according to the employee who filed the complaint. Other sexual harassment allegations have since surfaced. The reporter resigned.
INGRAHAM: They declined to identify the employee his alleged conduct did not involve physical contact, threats, or persistent harassment. How do you describe persistent? It was just one allegation? Was it many allegations? It seems like there were other allegations that have surfaced since that original allegation, so there is persistent conduct, maybe not with that one employee, but there could be a pattern or practice of this type of conduct in the newsroom. But it seems like whose ox is gored here. They not want the confidentiality, and they champion this idea of full transparency back in 2003 or 2002.
AREU: Right, well, back then they did it because there was a definite problem going on with the Catholic Church and they were revealing the problem as a media source should do, as the media should do. That's what the media does. They are the watchdog of the United States, of the world.
INGRAHAM: Yes, but they're not going to be a watchdog of themselves. They don't want to reveal the name of this individual.
AREU: Because it's an alleged case. It's alleged, we don't know. And they're not going to destroy a person's reputation and life based on an accusation.
INGRAHAM: You think all the men who were accused of sexual harassment in all these cases, their name shouldn't be used?
ARUE: The law doesn't require that their name be used. You don't ruin a person's reputation. It's America. You are innocent until proven guilty.
INGRAHAM: It's not a court of law. It's not a court.
DONOHUE: Laura, let me give you an example just how phony these people are, not just at the Boston Globe. A number of years ago a woman reporter from CNN came to my office and insisted that the Catholic Church post the names of all the accused. Not anybody who was found credibly or substantiated accusation, anybody who has been accused, they should put that up on the website of the archdiocese.
I had the phone in my hand. I picked it up and I said, Miss, can I have the name of your boss and his phone number? She said, why? I said I'm going to report you as sexually abusing me, and then I'm going to ask whether or not they're going to put your name up on the website of CNN. She said I got your point, and I put the phone down.
This just grates me so much. If you want to go back to the 1920s, that's what the Boston Globe says, we go back to the 1920s about accused priests. The "Boston Globe" goes back to the 1870s, certainly they go back to World War I. And I guarantee you the Catholic League will play for an army of lawyers to look at the Boston Globe to see if there is any more of this kind of stuff going on, because I don't believe them that they rolled out a couple of cases from the 1970s, they rolled out a case from today, and we are expected to believe that that's it and they don't pay any price for it and the law enforcement are not engaged? I have never seen such phoniness in my life outside of Hollywood, perhaps.
INGRAHAM: Cathy, they say they have hired a lot more women, they have a lot more women managers.
AREU: Right. I'm sure it can be proven. But it's the media's job to push the envelope, and it sounds like what they were doing with the Catholic Church. The media has to ask the tough questions.
INGRAHAM: They have to ask the tough questions of themselves. You are making my point. I'm glad they exposed what they did. I'm glad they did what they did. But the question is, you let the light shine in at home, too.
AREU: The Boston Globe should take care of their problems and the Catholic Church should take care of their problems.
DONOHUE: -- not going to investigate them.
AREU: They have been investigated.
DONOHUE: They are not going to investigate them.
INGRAHAM: Investigate themselves, yes. Well, we will see. I'll bet we will find out other cases.
DONOHUE: I would like to investigate them. I will pay for it.
AREU: I'm sure you will.
INGRAHAM: All right, guys, we're out of time. I'm sorry, we could continue this all night.
Speaking of travesties, by the way, how does the busiest airport in the world just go dark for half a day? And how in the world does a train on a brand new route, inaugural trip, just jump the rails and land on one of the busiest interstates in the United States?
Plus, I have got a word or two more Mark Hamill, and maybe you will hear an impersonation I do of Yoda, coming up.
INGRAHAM: It's been a horrible 24 hours in transportation, two failures, one embarrassing and one tragic. The first at Atlanta's Hartsfield Jackson airport, the busiest in the world, which was completely shut down for 11 hours by a power outage. And then this morning tragedy struck as the Washington State Amtrak train derailed, plunging off a bridge on to Interstate 5, killing at least three people, injuring more than 100. Investigators are still looking for the exact cause with attention on the train's high rate of speed. As a candidate and today President Trump warned about the country's infrastructure and that it was crumbling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It's one thing to have $20 trillion in debt and our roads are good and our bridges are good and everything is in great shape. Our airports -- our airports are like from a third world country.
Let me begin by expressing our deepest sympathies and most heartfelt prayers for the victims of the train derailment in Washington state. It is all the more reason why we must start immediately fixing the infrastructure of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Joining us now with reaction from Lubbock, Texas, is Oliver McGee, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of transportation. It's great to see you, sir. The president commented about infrastructure involving the Amtrak derailment. However that was an inaugural route for that train, was it not? And it might not be an infrastructure issue on that particular accident.
OLIVER MCGEE, FORMER SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR TO CLINTON ADMINISTRATION: Well, thank you for having me, Laura. It probably is because this was about positive train control. And usually that new techniques take as few months to get into the new inaugural ride for a new high speed rail system. It's really designed, Laura, to look ahead in the communication channels, to give communication back to the cockpit of what's in the railway road. And this train accident, technical speculation is indicating that possibly the train ran into something, and that's what caused the tumbling cars.
Also, there was speed involved so we have a lot of momentum involved in here which tossed the cars off the embankment. And then most importantly this was going into historic bridge. And it had very little embankment control for having the cars tumble off the bridge.
INGRAHAM: Ah, there is the infrastructure. Trump is right again. That's the case. Question Trump and maybe he is right again, Oliver.
So, Oliver, so you have the embankment issue with the bridge. You have the speed control technology that could have been in the train. I was talking on my radio show today with my producers, and we said how could there not be with all of our technology something in that train that would prevent it from going at a certain speed at a certain point? We can hit home plate Yankee stadium from outer space but we can't slow a train down remotely? That seems crazy. Why would you let the train go if you had that technology? To me, that makes no sense, but what do I know? I'm not an expert on trains. You are the transportation guy.
MCGEE: Well, really this is going to be about transportation infrastructure bill of President Trump, and he is going to be really looking at transportation science and technology. And it's about the seven grand challenges, which is going to be the information communication systems that are in the trains. It's going to be wireless tech because we have to have wireless communications. And I was saying to Harris Faulkner this morning on "Outnumbered" that we probably need to look at the black box in the Cloud looking at trains, planes, and automobile and finding out where they are across the nation.
INGRAHAM: Bingo. And Oliver, before I let you go, I've got to get your thought very quickly on Atlanta Hartsfield because that was a travesty. The fact that people could be hovering over their cell phone lights trying to figure out, my gosh, how am I going to get home to grandma for Christmas, at the busiest time of year, among the busiest time of the year, for hours and hours and hours. I mean, talk about a vulnerable infrastructure if that could be the case. Real quick.
MCGEE: Absolutely. I was talking to my very good friend today, and she was saying that she had a friend that was stuck in the airport for hours and watching people being taken out in wheelchairs because they were going through dark tunnels. Can you imagine being caught in the sky for 15 hours and running out of water? Good things the kids were behaving on the airplane. What we learned today is that we need to start retrofitting the nation's airports. And we also have to have backup systems on here. Air traffic control went down. We need to backup airports like we back up hospitals. Can you imagine a hospital having blackout and people sick inside of a hospital? We can't have a sick airport. We can't have sick security in transportation.
INGRAHAM: President Trump talked about this on campaign trail and he made this a priority, and he was right. Guys, we have to take a break.
Mark Hamill, aka Luke Skywalker, going very political with his light saber. We are going to talk about that in the very, very, very near future. Stay with us.
INGRAHAM: The force may be with Luke Skywalker but the facts are with Ted Cruz. Actor Mark Hamill, whose latest "Star Wars" flick is killing it at the box office, is dueling now with Senator Cruz. What are they battling over, though? Net neutrality. I kid you not.
It all began with a tongue-in-cheek video from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai virtues of repealing net neutrality. And at one point he put on a black hoodie while swinging a light saber as the "Star Wars" theme played. That was too much for Mark Hamill who took to Twitter claiming Pai was not fit to wield the light saber, accusing him of siding with corporations over the common man.
Yesterday Cruz responded, tweeting "Luke, I know Hollywood can be confusing, but it was Vader who supported government power over everything," adding "Reject the dark side. Free the net." Hamill fired back, "Thanks for smarm-splaining it to me, Ted Cruz. I know politics can be confusing, but you'd have more credibility if you spelled my name correctly." Cruz apologized for the misspelling and then schooled him on some net neutrality facts. This is thrilling.
Hamill has been hammering President Trump on Twitter for months and now feels qualified to weigh in on net neutrality because of his long, distinguished career on screen in films such as "Star Wars" and "Star Wars" sequels. As Yoda once said, wars not make one great. That was pretty good. We'll be right back.
INGRAHAM: Before we go, tonight President Trump is treating a group of lawmakers to a White House film screaming of the new movie "Darkest Hour." It's about how Winston Churchill confronted Adolf Hitler. The film is receiving rave reviews, especially Gary Oldman's performance as the British prime minister. No doubt an inspiring film to get lawmakers fired up for a big week ahead celebrating their tax reform victory no doubt. And it's not the darkest hour for them. It's pretty bright hour. They needed this.
And that is it for us tonight here on "The Ingraham Angle." Shannon Bream is up next.
Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.