This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," November 13, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right and good evening from Washington, I'm Laura Ingraham thanks for joining us, this is "The Ingraham Angle." Let's get right to our top story breaking news out of the Department of Justice about a possible special counsel investigation targeting Hillary Clinton. In a letter obtained by Fox News, we've learned that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is directing prosecutors to take a closer look at the 2010 sale of Uranium One to a Russian-backed company and the Clinton Foundation's alleged unlawful involvement in it. Clinton's alleged donations to the Clinton Foundation amounted to a quid pro quo for Hillary's State Department to sign off on a transaction which gave Russia control of about 20 percent of America's uranium capacity.
And according to a letter from DOJ to the House Judiciary Committee, the attorney general is open now to the possibility of appointing a special counsel to look into the matter and other matters related to the Clintons. And news comes ahead of Mr. Session's highly anticipated testimony tomorrow before the House Judiciary Committee.
Joining us now, exclusively for reaction are two House Republicans who want a special counsel to investigate Mrs. Clinton, Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio and Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida. Welcome to the show gentlemen. You guys wrote an op-ed and you asked Jeff Sessions to move forward on a special counsel, Congressman Jordan are they listening.
REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO: Yes, well they're definitely listening, you talking about the headline tonight in The Washington Post, Sessions considers appointing a second special counsel. We sent a letter on July 27th outlining why we think it's warranted. We met with Attorney General Sessions and Justice Department staff on September 28th, so far we've got nothing but it's amazing, today we do an op-ed and suddenly the Department of Justice has had a come to Jesus moment and now there's going to be a special counsel, at least they're talking about a special counsel. That's exactly what has to happen when you think about how the things we've learned and how serious they are; the American people want answers, we want to give them those answers, we think a special counsel's the way to go.
INGRAHAM: Congressman Gaetz let's go through the many issues, the myriad issues, we have the Clinton Foundation, we have Uranium One, we have the way Comey handled a potential indictment announcing the investigation then announcing there would be no indictment. His process for going about this investigation, not being present at important interviews, immunity deals struck with people like Cheryl Mills. What among those many things and again our viewers heads are swirling, what are the most concerning elements of those given what you both know already about this?
REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: So many of these scandals link back to the Clinton Foundation and it highlights that the American people are tired of this double standard where there's one set of rules for the Clintons and another set of rules for everyone else. Now we're six months into this investigation of President Trump and his team and Russia; they found nothing. But look at the treasure trove of information that continues to be found out about the Clinton Foundation functioning essentially as a money laundering operation for the Uranium One deal and that really ought to concern us.
Our uranium assets are precious, we're an importer of uranium it's crazy to give Russia this access to our uranium assets, but you have the very people that are now investigating President Trump involved in approving this deal and then silencing the witness who was ready to tell us that bribes and kickbacks were contributing to undermining America's interests. It's crazy, we need a special counsel to go after the Clinton Foundation and Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein are way to conflicted to proceed against the president.
INGRAHAM: Now Rosenstein would have to call for the special counsel, correct, is that right?
JORDAN: I'm not sure of that, we don't know the answer to that but when we sent our letter, we sent it both Attorney General Sessions and to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein so we'll see what we.
INGRAHAM: This goes back to Sessions recusing himself from anything related to.
JORDAN: Yes we don't know how far that goes. What we do know is stuff you brought up, Laura, James Comey called the Clinton investigation a matter not an investigation. James Comey began drafting the exoneration letter prior to interviewing Secretary Clinton before the investigation was over. When he ultimately gets fired, which he should have been a long time ago, but when he's fired what does he do? Leaks a government document through a friend to The New York Times and what was his goal? He told us under oath, to create momentum for a special counsel and who does that special counsel have to be? His best friend, his predecessor, his mentor, Bob Mueller who was the guy who was conflicted in this whole Uranium One deal. So when all those facts come out -- not to mention the dossier -- when all this comes out we're saying if this doesn't warrant a special counsel, what the heck does? That's all we said and finally today they finally decide oh there's an op-ed today, maybe we better answer Congress who three and a half months ago sent us a letter demanding it clear back then.
INGRAHAM: Congressman Gaetz, what do you think did take so long here, I think a lot of us who are big fans of Jeff Sessions and I'm one of them, I just find this to be curious, it's almost like anything that touches Russia, everyone's afraid of touching because you think oh you're trying to cover up for some phantom collusion, you're trying to skid the tracks for Trump.
This does go to National Security, the integrity of the justice system, the credibility of Jim Comey and how he handled this investigation from the beginning, when I heard he wasn't present; unless something's changed he was not present when Hillary Clinton was interviewed. How can he not present? How do they have no notes of that; no transcript of her testimony? It happened on a Saturday I believe if my memory serves me correct.
GAETZ: Well it's absolutely ludicrous that James Comey made the decision to start drafting and exoneration letter before interviewing witnesses and before interviewing Hillary Clinton herself.
Your question is why did it take so long and why tonight do we have on the eve of Jeff Session's testimony before the judiciary committee a statement that they're open to a special counsel rather than what Jim and I would like which is via appointment of a special counsel.
It all goes back to the Clinton Foundation, Jeff Session's in his testimony to the senate said he was recused on any matter that had any nexus to the Clinton foundation. There was no legal obligation for Jeff Session's to say that or do that, but he did. There's no way to investigate the Uranium One deal without looking into the Clinton foundation filling out deposit slips with millions of dollars in donations from the Russians.
So that appears to be the challenge, the nexus and we certainly cannot leave to Mr. Rosenstein the question of appointing this special counsel because it's Rosenstein's name on the signature block, stealing from Congress and the American people; the very testimony of the informant ready to tell us about the bribes and the kicker.
INGRAHAM: What do you make of the old Obama intel chief coming out yesterday and you know, in various ways, in various interviews recently, they're coming out and criticizing Trump on his comments about Putin and so forth?
Given the fact that we know both of them have their own credibility problems in testifying before Congress.
GAETZ: Of course. What I also think is interesting, go back to the January 6, 2017 meeting that Mr. Comey had with President Elect Trump where he briefs President Elect Trump on the (DCA) and shortly thereafter someone leaks the fact that that meeting took place and the contents of that meeting or the discussion of that meeting was about the (DCA). Someone leaks that the CNN, who leaked that?
Who leaked that to CNN and did that become the thing the legitimatized the (DCA) so much that the press can then turn it, which CNN did and thus we can print the entire (DCA) itself, so those are the kind of questions, we haven't even got really to the (DCA) but if a Clinton financed, Democrat National Committee financed (OPO) research was turned into an intelligence document and if that was the basis for the Visa Court giving a warrant to spy on American's associated with the Trump campaign.
If all that happened, if our government polluted with a major party and a major campaign to go after the other campaign, in this country, you are not supposed to come anywhere near that, if that, now we don't know if it did but there's a lot of evidence pointing in that direction, read Byron York's piece, today or yesterday's piece outlined a lot.
Read Kim Strassell's piece in the journal, all those talk about this very thing.
INGRAHAM: This (DCA) was marched over to the justice department by John McCain, was it not?
GAETZ: Go back in the summer, they got.
INGRAHAM: They marched it over there.
GAETZ: The final document, but there were getting, I think, read Byron's piece. They were getting parts of this throughout the summer, and the lost a counter intelligence investigation. We want to know those kinds of things and we're hopeful that Mr. Session's will not only appoint a special counsel but give us some answers on those things tomorrow.
INGRAHAM: I'll let you finish this off but don't you think so many people watching this are, everything is just partisan, the republicans wanting to go after the Clintons, and the Clintons and Obama's want to go after Trump. The democrats just want to take Trump out, they want to redo the election, and they want to show everybody that they were right, we never should have elected them and then republicans just want to go after the Clinton's. People who don't focus on this, the (Inaudible), the (DCA) and Uranium One, how do republicans proceed so that you all don't look like it's just another witch hunt in reverse here.
GAETZ: Well the first thing we have to do is have an equal standard that is applied to both the president and Mrs. Clinton, there's a special counsel investigating the president. We need the same standard to apply to the Clinton's. They're never had the same standard, it's time we do that now.
INGRAHAM: Great to see both of you, thank you for joining us tonight and directly ahead Roy Moore is hit with new sexual misconduct allegations so what should the Republican party do to keep the Alabama Senate seat and is it time to revisit the many allegations against Bill Clinton? One of his former accusers is here tonight with us.
INGRAHAM: Developing news in the Alabama Senate race, a fifth woman is now coming forward to claim that Judge Roy Moore made unwanted sexual advances toward her when she was a teenager. We're now less than a month away from Alabama's special senate election where Judge Moore will appear as the Republican party's candidate.
The Republicans are certainly in a bun and today's Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, called on Moore to step aside. The worst case scenario for the GOP would be for the Democrats to take advantage of the turmoil and actually win the seat in deep red Alabama. And even if Moore wins, it's increasingly likely that the Senate will either refuse to seat him or expel him soon after he's sworn in.
Today the New York Times reported that the White House officials are actually considering scenarios where Attorney General Jefferson Sessions would return to his old job in the Senate. Joining me now for a reaction and try to sort all this out is Harmeet Dhillon, a Republican strategist and civil rights attorney.
Chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. This Gloria Allred press conference today doesn't really surprise me. I can't believe it took her this long to bring an accuser forward, but the facts didn't sound good. I mean the facts sounded awful, and your reaction to them. A 16 year old girl said he forcibly assaulted her. Basically threw her out of the car.
She fell out of the car and he - and he sped away in a parking lot. Where does this leave this?
HARMEET DHILLON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well she has documentary evidence too, and the signature in the yearbook is certainly a very awkward for a thirty something year old man to be doing. So I think she's credible and on top of his very weird statements to Hannity a couple of days ago.
INGRAHAM: Incriminating in many ways.
DHILLION: I think so - I think so, and so with those two things and the contradictions of the lawyer I have to say that while it's way past the statute of limitations to prove the case. In the court of public opinion and politics, I think he's toast.
INGRAHAM: Yes it's a political situation, not a legal situation. Byron, the Gloria Allred oppressor, does that affect the (inaudible) of voters? The woman is a Trump supporter, she voted for Trump. She's not a Democrat activist. She didn't go to the Women's March. She's a Trump supporter and again, this is decades ago. You can't prove it or disprove it but she - I thought that was not a good, that was not a good development to say the least for Roy Moore.
BYRON YORK, THE WASHINGON EXAMINER CHIEF POLOTICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well the elections not until four weeks from tomorrow so there is time for more stuff to come out. And if indeed these charges are true, it's very unlikely that it was done once and never again. So I think you're likely to see more, but the Republican party is in a terrible mess here. I mean first of all Republicans are wary of trying a ride in vote because it's a special election.
INGRAHAM: That doesn't work.
YORK: It doesn't have the kind of turn out in a general election. There, the governor doesn't seem to want to change the election date, because he's already done it once.
INGRAHAM: She could do it again though.
YORK: She could do it again if she wants.
INGRAHAM: What would happen if she did that, could you then reprint balance, is that possible or no?
YORK: Well the law says you - the ballot is set 76 days before the election. So you push it out there, and you could change things and you could get a different candidate on the ballot. But Roy Moore doesn't owe anybody anything. So now what you saw today was members - Republican members of the Senate upping the anti and saying we will expel him.
INGRAHAM: Cory Gardner also of course McConnel, both-bring a look - they're both establishment politicians. They didn't like Roy Moore from the beginning, but they can make his life miserable and then in turn 2018 Senate candidates, they're all going to get the Roy Moore question. Will that - will that push Roy Moore to say OK, I'm not - I don't even want to be with you people, let alone run this whole race out.
YORK: The senate can expel a member, but he can make their life miserable. They can't just swear him in and then expel him. There will be due process involved, there will be hearings, there will be witnesses, there will be a long process and it will be uglier by the day.
INGRAHAM: Harmeet, as a civil rights attorney you've done a lot of work in cases supporting Trump - supporters who have been attacked, like physically attacked at events and you also represented a bunch - a lot of women that have been subject to various forms of abuse. Does this type of revelation years later, does that seem politically kind to you? I mean he has been out there for 30 years in his public life, 30 plus years in public life. It is kind of interesting that as it all comes out a month before the election.
DHILLON: Well obviously.
INGRAHAM: Veracity or non-veracity of the women aside, the timing of this is - is quite stunning.
DHILLON: Well both things can be true that the timing is engineered by his political opponents that seems almost certain to me. But it also can be true, and probably is, that these women have nothing to gain by coming forward at this time. I mean it's humiliating, it's very traumatizing for them. And you can see the trauma in today's victim with Gloria Allred and so.
INGRAHAM: Yes there has false accusations, we saw the Duke Lacrosse case, we saw the Rolling Stone case. And what do those women really have to gain?
DHILLON: But these women don't know each other, and they're telling a consistent story and even after the press conference a story has come out about him being banned from local malls. INGRAHAM: That was in the New Yorker.
INGRAHAM: That the mall cops apparently didn't want him at the mall, the Gatston Mall. And they can't confirm - again they tried to go back and confirm this for security officials at the mall. But they can't confirm it, so it.
DHILLON: It's a long time ago, but when you see the signature of.
INGRAHAM: Cruising the mall for the kids was not a good thing.
DHILLON: And-and what 32 year old is signing yearbooks, I mean that's just creepy. So I don't know how to explain that.
INGRAHAM: Byron, as a matter of pure politics at this point. If he decides OK I'm done with this. I'm not - I'm not part of this. I'm separating myself, I'm withdrawing. His name remains on the Ballot.
YORK: It does.
INGRAHAM: And then if he still wins, which he could.
YORK: He could.
INGRAHAM: Probably won't, but if he wins they then declare the election null and void. However I learned over the weekend that they never passed rules governing the primary process and this process of this -- they never passed the actual rules, which is kind a dirty little secret in Alabama so it's unclear what the final ruling would be on the null and void. Would it mean Doug Jones wins or would it mean the entire election is thrown out?
YORK: Right and it could mean the governor appointing another Senator and.
INGRAHAM: Big Luther is back.
YORK: The original plan was for Luther Strange to serve in the Senate until November 2018 and there would be an election then for the last two years of Jeff Sessions seat, but this current governor, Kay Ivey, wanted to do it sooner so now there's going to be one on December 12th and all this has.
INGRAHAM: We have Mo Brooks who was actually kind of anti-Trump during the primary, but then he came around to Trump, very strong on immigration, great conservative; we have Gary Palmer who's a Congressman in Alabama kind of right down the middle conservative. There are a lot of people in Alabama who could actually step forward. We also have Bob Riley, the former two-term governor very popular of Alabama who I bet you could convince to throw his hat into the ring on this and he's very well thought of. We tried to reach Bob Riley tonight to see if he'd come on the show and he doesn't want to talk right now, everybody's kind of running for the hills, but those are three good options for the state.
YORK: But even if it's Roy Moore, you have to remember I think the Senate leadership, Republican leadership may have to dial this back a little bit out of respect to the voters of Alabama.
INGRAHAM: Alabama has to decide.
YORK: If they elect this man, then the Senate is going to have to respect that.
INGRAHAM: Yes, well and the south doesn't like to be considered dumb, back water, you know all the stereotypes that north still puts on the south; they don't much like that, they don't much like -- whether it's television hosts or anyone else telling them what they should do in their home state. It's great to see both of you thank you so much.
And with sexual harassment and assault scandals rocking some of the top names in Hollywood, in media, now politics even some on the left are turning their attention back to Bill Clinton who's been dogged by sexual assault allegations for years. For example today on the liberal Atlantic Magazine's website, this is shocking; an article reads in part "Feminists saved the 42nd president of the United States in the 1990s.
They were on the wrong side of history; is it finally time to make things right?" Joining us now for reaction from Arkansas is one of Bill Clinton's accusers, Juanita Broaddrick who claims that Bill Clinton raped her and she joins us now. Juanita after all these years, even some on the left are coming around to this idea that you should be taken just as seriously for your allegation as someone represented by Gloria Allred.
BROADDRICK: Yes I've been hearing that Laura and it's very rewarding.
INGRAHAM: Do you think Juanita after all these years and you see these accusers now coming forward on Roy Moore that in a very odd way, your case even though it was only Lisa Myers at NBC and a few short articles about your situation with Clinton that we're actually advancing on this issue and this topic? Or is it still just all about politics in the end when it comes to politicians?
BROADDRICK: Well I think in this situation we're actually advancing. I feel like people are starting to believe.I think people are starting to believe and realize that I was truly sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton.
INGRAHAM: And I think we're going to go -- I think we lost -- I can't hear Juanita unfortunately, but Juanita hold on because I'm going to go back to my panel, we're going to fix the audio and we're going to go back. So here point is interesting because she said look no one believed me, no one believed me all those years ago and now it looks like because it's so obvious the double standard when it comes to the left versus the right that I think some on the left are now saying maybe we should have given her a little more credence. Lisa Myers did on NBC it took a lot of guts for Lisa Myers to do that.
YORK: She did, this is an extraordinary development and it's obviously coming out of all the sexual harassment stories we're having right now, but it's also coming because the Clintons are receding into the past and their clout is gone. It is safe to look into something like this where it was not in 1996.
DHILLON: Yes, absolutely I mean Donna Brazile has found it safe now to come out and so people are now piling on and driving the multiple knives into the back of the Clintons and this is one example of that I think it's opportunistic.
INGRAHAM: But think of Juanita Broaddrick, I'm so sad I couldn't hear her audio but think of her situation, she came forward after a very difficult period and she basically got nothing from the -- I mean she got an NBC report and I will always, always be grateful for Lisa Myers for actually pursuing that and she didn't have any political axe to grind, but she came out and she told her story and I remember even at the time, people were doing and the polygraph announcement, she's probably telling the truth just the way she told the story and told friends at the time what happened.
HARMEEN DHILLON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: But Laura, I've had a few of my republican friends say, all these five woman accusing Judge Moore must be lying, et cetera. And the reason why woman hesitate to come forward is exactly this Juanita Broaddrick situation, because she gets dragged through the mud.
DHILLON: People don't believe you, it happened a long time ago. Why didn't you come forward at the time? It's common for victims to not come forward for years.
INGRAHAM: And I think what we need to do is also empower woman. When your 16 years old, no, when you're an adult woman in the workplace it is -- we need to empower woman so they can say, at the time, you're a slob, you're a freak, you're a pig. I'm going to HR, I'm going to talk about this. And it -- but it's hard when there's a disparate power base in the workforce. You're a little peon and this guys a -- so it is hard for woman. Byron?
BYRON YORK, COLUMNIST THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: With the Broaddrick case you have to remember this fit into the way the Clinton machine was treating the women who were accusing the President of some sort of misconduct. I mean some of the things that we said in that case would really stun people today.
For example, when Paula Jones came out with her allegations against Bill Clinton, I believe James Carville, his top strategist said, if you drag $100 bill through a trailer park, not telling what you'll find. I mean, it's hard to image that.
DHILLON: And mimbor interruptions.
YORK: .being said now.
DHILLON: That's what was said about these ladies, mimbor interruptions.
INGRAHAM: And remember when Monica Lewinsky first -- we first learned about that before they knew she was going to kind of cooperate with them, the Clintons, they called her the clutch, nicknames.
YORK: The stalker.
INGRAHAM: The stalker. They were ready to destroy that woman's character and all these years later, I actually feel really bad for Monica Lewinsky. I mean this has been her whole life, she'll always -- she's 22 years old.
DHILLON: She is branded with it.
INGRAHAM: .she's branded and it -- so, I think Harmeet's point is well taken. I know a lot of people watching Fox tonight will say, you're rushing to condemn Roy Moore. I'm not, I'm really not, I don't know -- all these years later, as a lawyer, I can't say that everything everyone says is true on one side or another, but I will say, if a man uses his power over a man or a woman in the workplace and does something like this, they have no business in politics.
And I don't care if it's a democrat, a republican or someone who's not well known at all. And this has got to change. This whole situation has got to change. But the people of Alabama, Byron, this is their election. It's up to them and Mitch McConnell can threaten all he wants but the people of Alabama are going to do what the people of Alabama want to do.
YORK: And Mitch McConnell is going to have to adjust to it. It's -- you can't just throw somebody out of the Senate, you can't just refuse to let them enter the Senate if they have been actually elected and I mean, this is a situation where, believe me, if Roy Moore is elected four weeks from tomorrow, I mean voters will know what's going on. This has been dominating Alabama politics.
INGRAHAM: Do we have Juanita Broaddrick back? Yes? Yes. Juanita, sorry about that. See, the gremlins were in systems. They still don't want you to talk Juanita. Isn't that awful, I'm so sorry. That's live TV, it's going to happen. On the radio, Juanita, on the radio when this happens it doesn't matter, but on TV, it's like, oh, thank god we have Byron and Harmeet here. Anyway Juanita, I hope you were able -- go ahead.
JUANITA BROADDRICK, FORMER NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATOR: I was enjoying listening.
INGRAHAM: Well I hope you heard some of it. I hope you heard some of it because I remember and I would like -- and if you don't mind speaking to Lisa Myers of NBC, because all those years ago I was actually hosting a show on MSNBC and I remember when she came forward with that report and she had to fight to get that on the network.
And I had to fight to be able to talk about it MSNBC. I got into a huge fight with MSNBC executives at the time because they didn't want me to run it on my show at the time. They didn't want me to go near you at the time and I think you came on with me.
BROADDRICK: Yes, well don't you remember when Brit Hume and all the men around him and woman were wearing, free Lisa Myers buttons? I don't know if you remember that or not.
INGRAHAM: I do remember that. Yes, but that's when we had reporters. Yes, that's when we had reporters who were actually willing to go to the mat. Do you think, Juanita, after all this time there will be any -- it's not justice because it's not a legal case, but there will be some type of comeuppance for the Clintons or it's just a momentary thing here?
BROADDRICK: Oh Laura, I hope so. I hope that they finally get what's due to them. That's why I was so enraged yesterday when Chelsea Handler tweeted what she did why I came back and tweeted what I did.
She needs -- she supported my abusers in the 2016 Presidential race and I wanted to say to her, I matter too. All victims matter. It doesn't matter if you're a democrat or a republican or if you're.
INGRAHAM: Who cares?
BROADDRICK: Yes, who cares or if you're straight or if you are a gay or if you believe in God or not, we all have the right to be believed.
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: And Juanita, we actually have a full screen, I think, of that tweet That Chelsea Handler, that totemic intellect, "Imagine being molested by an older man," she said, "then that man denies ever doing it and goes on and gets elected to the United States Senate. What kind of a message does that send?" And then you tweeted back at her, hello, because, remember me? And again, a lot of these people have very short term memories. I'm glad you took her on Juanita. I apologize for our audio gremlins, but we will have you back. Thank you so much for spending some time with us and Harmeet and Byron for picking up the slack in the studio. These are two good friends.
And coming up, a shocking report revealing the number of people issued visas to the United States from countries -- you guessed it -- that are state sponsors of terror. Stay with us.
INGRAHAM: Back on Halloween, an ISIS inspired terrorist from Uzbekistan killed eight people in New York City by driving through a crowd on a bike path. So how does somebody like that get into this country? It turns out it was through a thing called the visa lottery program. And we are learning more about that program tonight.
Data is now showing that the U.S. government issued nearly 30,000 visas to people from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism between 2007 and 2016, again, all through that a lottery. This is not good. It doesn't take a genius to say that.
And joining now for reaction here in Washington is Michael Starr Hopkins, a Democratic strategist, and Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. It's a group that advocates for stricter controls on immigration. Gentleman, it is great to see both of you.
Michael, what is going on here? I mean, we have a lot of problems in our country. We have a lot of problems with gang violence, and some crime. Some crime has gone down, but we still have a big struggle with drugs and so forth. And now we are bringing in people on this lottery system. It is kind of like affirmative action for visas I think because we have to solve diversity. Diversity, we need diversity, but it turns out we are bringing in a lot of people from countries where we really can't really vet people being very well. Are you in favor of that?
MICHAEL STARR HOPKINS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: So let me unpack all that. So first immigrants have committed less crime than actual natural born American citizens.
INGRAHAM: Fewer crimes.
HOPKINS: Fewer crimes, and crimes at a lower rate than natural born American citizens. So I think it is dangerous when we start painting broad strokes.
INGRAHAM: What does that matter? Do you think people have a constitutional right to come into this country?
HOPKINS: No, but every immigrant who comes here under the diversity waiver, which is four percent of all visas that come into the United States, these people all go through an extensive background check. They all go through -- they have to have a high school diploma, some have to have bachelor degrees. There is a very specific criteria that they have to meet. And so I think when we start painting people as criminals and things as such -- gang members are American citizens. Timothy McVeigh who killed hundreds of Americans was an American citizen.
INGRAHAM: You're going back to Timothy McVeigh saw?
HOPKINS: We can go back to Sutherland, Texas. I think if our issue is --
INGRAHAM: But we already have enough problems. We don't really need take a flyer on other people --
HOPKINS: If we are making sure that people aren't getting killed, then let's look at Americans before --
INGRAHAM: So we should take a chance -- would you trust Sudan's background checks? I mean, Sudanese record-keeping, are you kidding me? I go but we have the state department the state department.
HOPKINS: We don't have to rely on that. We have the State Department.
INGRAHAM: What are we finding out? We have to go through Sudan. We don't have a magic box that we go through to find some guy unless he is on a terrorist watch list.
HOPKINS: But that is like saying a Sudanese person goes through security when they fly through the Sudanese airport, but they go through our security before they enter. And the same is true with immigrants coming through on visa waivers.
INGRAHAM: Mark, is this the problem? They get to bring in a not their whole family, but they get to bring in once they come in a spouse and children under the age of 21.
MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: What it does -- those are the people they bring with them once they win the lottery. But the long-term effect is what they called chain migration, because after five years they can become citizens. Then they can bring their parents, they can bring their adult siblings, they can bring their adult sons and daughters then. And then those people have their own spouses, those spouses have their own relatives, and it goes on and on and on.
And what the lottery does is it starts new migration chains. And our research shows that the average immigrant that you give a green card to results in at least three additional people who will follow him. Not right away, but over the years.
INGRAHAM: What are the figures just from Mexico --
KRIKORIAN: From Mexico it is even higher. It's not part of the lottery, but for Mexico it is more than six immigrants per person who eventually come and because of our family immigration system because the way it works, our system is based on who you know, not on what you know. And beyond husbands, wives, and little kids, you marry somebody abroad, you adopt a baby abroad, you have a right to expect your fellow Americans to let you bring that person, I am all for that. But other than that --
INGRAHAM: Brother, aunt, second cousin.
HOPKINS: But these people do still all have to go through background checks, have to meet requirements --
KRIKORIAN: But then you get a leg up in the system, though. When you have an American citizen sponsoring you, you have a leg up on everyone else, so you can actually go to the front of the line.
HOPKINS: Yes, but you still have to go through the line.
INGRAHAM: It's another question here though. I think we have to also realize that they are lower income Americans, middle income Americans who still do struggle to get a good work. And I think when we say chain migration, bringing people in who can bring something to the country, have a skill, be self-sustaining, and if they come in, I would say everyone who comes in has to either be self-sustaining, show that you can earn a living, or if you can't any longer earn a living, an American citizen must sponsor you, like be in charge of you, so you don't become a ward of the state. That's the concern.
KRIKORIAN: Technically that is the law now, but interestingly enough, remember Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York a couple years ago at the end of his administration, he actually pursued that because sponsors would sign sponsorship agreements for immigrants they brought in. Those immigrants when on welfare. The Bloomberg administration said wait a minute, they sent them a bill, and they said you guys are on the hook for this. A lot of people paid. They collected several million dollars, and then the de Blasio administration came in and mailed the money back to those people. It doesn't work because it is not going to be enforced.
HOPKINS: It does work, though. I live in New York, and some of the greatest people in a New York aren't people who are American born.
KRIKORIAN: It does not matter if these people are good or bad. Immigrants are not better or worse than anybody else.
HOPKINS: Because we are talking about things like are immigrants criminals. Are they contributing to society.
KRIKORIAN: No, no.
INGRAHAM: We are talking about public schools where a lot of fancy people in Washington don't sent their kids --
HOPKINS: I am a product of Washington, D.C., public schools.
INGRAHAM: I'm a product of public schools, too, but in northern Virginia now some schools, 17 languages are spoken. How does a public school teacher -- how are they supposed to teach with 17 languages? Kids who come into the school illiterate in their own language, let alone can't speak English. That's a problem.
HOPKINS: That's because we are cutting the estate attacks.
KRIKORIAN: No, no, no. Come on, come on, come on. It is not because of immigrants as people. There's no question --
INGRAHAM: We love immigrants. I love immigrants. Immigrants are human beings. However a country, and I think, Michael, you would agree, a country has a right to determine their own immigration laws, their own borders. And if immigration laws are either being violated or not working for the American people for whom they are supposed to work, then I think they should be revisited.
HOPKINS: But we have had comprehensive immigration reform on the table, bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform, and Republicans have passed it in the House --
KRIKORIAN: So Republicans who wanted amnesty and doubling legal immigration got together with Democrats.
HOPKINS: Last I checked, that is bipartisanship.
INGRAHAM: Can I say something completely unrelated to this? Michael looks exactly like a combination of Bruno Mars and Lenny Kravitz, and I said it before and I said I'm going to say it on television. And you get confused for both of them up.
KRIKORIAN: But Laura is not saying who I look like.
INGRAHAM: You're good on TV. Enough, enough, enough with the compliments from both of you. Thank you so much. And straight ahead, President Trump argues for a better relationship with Russia, and the left and some of the right lose their mind. But do his critics have it all wrong? Maybe. Stay tuned.
INGRAHAM: President Trump's critics have many things they love to complain about, but perhaps their favorite line of attack is to complain that he's too soft on Vladimir Putin and the Russians. Roll the tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: He is taking some heat now for suggesting that he believes Vladimir Putin with regarding to Putin not being involved in any meddling in the election. That doesn't sound like America first. It sounds like Russia first.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He continues to give Russia a pass. Two years of essentially not seeing Russia as the international spoilers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I regret to say this -- the president of the United States is without a clue as to who we are and what this country represents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: He just won the election. He doesn't know anything about the people.
So why exactly are close relations between the United States and Russia a bad idea? Joining us now for reaction, from L.A. is Roger Simon, the cofounder of PJ Media, and here in Washington Mike Warren, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
All right, Michael, let's start with you. This is the way that I look at it. I lived in the former Soviet Union as a student. And I have two Russian sons who I adopted. I'm fascinated by the Russian psyche. One thing about the Russians is their pride. They have a lot of pride in Russian history, and everything they have been through. So I bet Vladimir Putin, when you see him trying to talk to Trump, he kept trying to talk to him, Trump is doing small talk, but I think they, like China in many ways, they want to be shown some respect. Is it a bad thing for the United States not to try to engage with Russia where we can engage and actually maybe accomplish something?
MICHAEL WARREN, SENIOR WRITER, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Well, I don't think anybody is seriously saying that we shouldn't engage with Russia. It is a big country. It's got a lot of natural resources. It has that permanent veto power on the U.N. Security Council.
That being said, I think it is important to be clear about not just Russia but Vladimir Putin in particular and his designs for his own -- you mentioned pride. He also has designs to be a major power in some areas where the United States has its own interest. And a lot of times those interests conflict or really actually come in contact with each other.
Take the Middle East for instance. That is a place where I think you go back to the Obama administration. They made a mistake I think in not getting involved.
INGRAHAM: How's that reset? They wanted to reset.
WARREN: They wanted to reset. And what they ended up doing in, for instance, the Middle East, is they didn't engage in Syria, they allowed the Russians, who, again, are allies with Iran and Bashar al-Assad, to really take it control. Now they are in charge of that region where the United States is no longer a player.
INGRAHAM: Roger, when I think of all that hear about Russia, we can't do this, we can't do that, I always say, OK, now apply that analysis to China. China is building islands in the South China Sea. China is stealing our intellectual property. China stole 50 million personnel background check files from the Office of Personnel Management. China is forever hacking into our systems. China has terrible human rights violations, and they have a 2025 plan to dominate most major industries. But we have no problem having constant dialogue with China and wanting to work with China doing joint ventures with China. China, China, China is good, Russia, Russia, Russia bad.
ROGER SIMON, CO-FOUNDER, PJ MEDIA: Young, it is just pure prejudice. Also China is more powerful than Russia.
INGRAHAM: Much more powerful by about threefold.
SIMON: I would say that is a good estimate. But the other interesting thing and here is where I differ in nuance, and I hate the word, with Mike is that I think that a lot of the Russia stuff that has been going on since the beginning of the election has sort of distorted things to such a degree the public can't deal with Russia and Trump has been undercut continually in the ability to try to deal with them. And he is being called a softie. But who was more soft than Obama when he whispered to Medvedev that tell Putin I will be fine after the election? If Trump had done that, he would be impeached and beheaded. It's ridiculous.
INGRAHAM: Mike, quickly, follow up.
WARREN: I think this is something that all American presidents fall into. Remember George W. Bush said I can see into Putin's soul. The problem is here is that I think the president has a problem in not being able to acknowledge that Russia had tried to meddle in the election. Everybody in the administration --
INGRAHAM: Including Mike Pompeo at the CIA, but he kind of backed off on that.
Both of you, we are going to have you back for a longer segment. This is really fascinating, and thank you for joining us.
And up next, the mainstream media is swooning over Ohio Governor John Kasich. Why? Tonight's Angle after this.
INGRAHAM: The governor who just won't go away, that's the topic for tonight's Angle.
John Kasich has been a headline of a Sunday show guest for now, what, 17 times since Trump's inauguration, and he used his latest Sunday show outing yesterday to convene a gun-control talking group.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JOHN KASICH, R-OHIO: What I want to do is I want to get a group of reasonable people, pro-gun people, and those who favor limits on gun ownership, and I want to put them in a room and see if we can find some common ground.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Fascinating. And a month ago he spent another Sunday morning crashing President Trump's trade and immigration policies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASICH: The Republican Party cannot be antitrade. The Republican Party can't be anti-immigrant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Why does Kasich think his voice is wanted in the current political environment? He is still governor of Ohio, but he has zero constituency in the party in the grassroots. And remember, he wouldn't even attend the Republican convention in his home state. I don't know if Kasich felt like he was just too humiliating to show his face in Cleveland.
And don't you hate a sore loser? Even Detroit Mayor Coleman Young welcomed the GOP to the city of Detroit in 1980, and he was a Democrat. And though Kasich is a total washout nationally, let's face it, it's uncharitable to say but he is, he's considering running in 2020 on something called a unity ticket with Democrat governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado. That'll work.
In his commentary, you can hear Kasich's simmering disdain for the party that so roundly rejected him, and his contempt for President Trump is now legendary. Perhaps, I was thinking back on this, I think it's one debate moment perhaps from October of 2015 that really stuck in his craw. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is the man that was a managing general partner at the Lehman Brothers when it went down the tubes and almost took every one of us with it, including Ben and myself, because I was there and I watched what happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: That stung. And though he has long denied his personal bitterness had anything to do with this grudge against Trump, I don't believe it at this point.
John Kasich can go on all the Sunday shows he likes and reporters will continue to celebrate him as the uber, coolest never-Trumper of them all. But after all the bluster and the photo shoots and the camera time and the greenroom time, John Kasich is where he was at the end of the primary season. He's a man with enormous ambition and just minimal support, just a little bit. We may not know where Kasich is headed, but boy do we know where he came from. Do you remember what his father did?
KASICH: Let's start off with my father being a mailman.
Megyn, my father was a mailman.
And my father was the mailman. They called him John the mailman.
Like my dad, the mailman, John the mailman.
And I have to tell you, my father carried mail on his back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: I like mailmen.
And speaking of mail, this will soon be landing in the mailboxes of unfortunate "GQ" subscribers everywhere. In their "Man of the Year" edition, "Gentlemen's Quarterly" has named Colin Kaepernick Citizen of the Year. The man who started the NFL kneeling epidemic during the National Anthem, the man who inspired his fellow players to break faith with their audience, the man who is responsible for the league losing millions in merchandising and tickets and viewers, is being hailed by a men's fashion magazine as an exemplary citizen.
If you are looking for exemplary citizens, I have a few. How about Stephen Willeford, the Texas man who confronted and pursued that church shooter in Sutherland Springs. Or how about Houston Texans star J.J. Watt. He raised $37 million for hurricane Harvey victims. By the way, "GQ" also named Stephen Colbert the bad hombre of the year. I suppose if you hate President Trump, stage protests, and complain, you are instantly something of the year at "GQ."
The good news is Kaepernick and Colbert made our year end cut as well. Not sure if they are going to be celebrating this honor though. And that's the Angle.
That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team is up next. Shannon, I know you have a great show on tap.
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.