Roger Stone denies report he developed 'cover story' with Jerome Corsi

close

Video

Stone denies report he developed 'cover story' with Corsi

Former Trump adviser Roger Stone joins 'The Ingraham Angle' to respond to Jerome Corsi claims.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," November 27, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle" from Washington tonight.

As you just heard Sean and I talking about, we're still awaiting the final results in the Mississippi senate race. At this moment, Cindy Hyde-Smith has a fairly comfortable lead over former Clinton agriculture secretary Mike Espy. A victory by Hyde-Smith would expand the GOP lead in the senate, 53 to 47. We're going to have a live report from the ground as soon as we get this final call so keep it right there.

Also, between the Mueller investigation and the ongoing crisis at the border, my Angle, it's going to come in the B-block, is going to explain why the president must pick a new attorney general like yesterday to quote one of my favorite senators.

Plus, "The Ingraham Angle" will take you behind the caravan headline for a shocking investigation into the tens of thousands of migrant teens currently being housed inside our country. And the astronomical costs associated with their care. You're paying for it my friends. And it's becoming a preversial (ph) side tradition.

The criticism of Melania Trump's Christmas decorations. They did this last year and we were at the White House. We loved the decoration. This year, the critics are back. They have nothing better to do than to go after Melania Trump.

But first, a war of words among two reported targets of the Mueller probe. Earlier today, The Daily Caller reported of an early copy of a book written by author Jerome Corsi. Now, in this book, Corsi claims that he testified to Mueller's grand jury that just one month before the 2016 election, Trump confidant Roger Stone, asked him to contact Julian Assange about releasing John Podesta's e-mail.

Now, Corsi claims this was because Stone had advanced knowledge of the release of those infamous "Access Hollywood" tape, that knowledge that he knew about that and advance knowledge of the e-mails themselves. Corsi was asked about this earlier tonight on our own Tucker Carlson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEROME CORSI, RIGHT-WING AUTHOR: This is a political witch hunt because I did not have a contact with Assange but yet they have figured out that Assange had Podesta's e-mail. So I figured out and told Roger Stone and told many people in August. It just happens I was right. I did figure it out and I connect the dots and this time I happen to be right. You just won't believe that I figured it out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Roger Stone is disputing some of Corsi's other claims and he has a lot to stay. He joins us now in an exclusive interview to tell us what is going on here. Roger, it's good to see you tonight. I know you watched what Mr. Corsi said on Tucker Carlson's show. A lot of folks watching, you know, they think of the Mueller probe and like nefarious Russian plots and they hear, you know, Assange's name and Ecuadorian embassy.

They don't know who Jerome Corsi is and they kind of know who you are, but simplify this for us is so our listeners know what they need know to understand the current state of affairs in this investigation as it pertains to you.

ROGER STONE, FORMER ADVISER TO DONALD TRUMP: Well, first of all, Laura, thank you for having me because my own show at Infowars is so heavily censored to deny me a forum top have a chance to defend myself. I'm very grateful for the chance to be here. This is very simple. It shows what happens when you hotbox a 72-year-old man for 40 hours as the Mueller interrogators did.

Quite clearly, I made it very clear that on August 21st, I posted a tweet that said, the Podesta's time in the barrel will come. I meant that public scrutiny of the Podesta's Russian business interest as I had been briefed about by Jerry Corsi, would be in the media. Now jerry Corsi has been browbeat into claiming that that was some kind of a cover story and because I was taking t for that tweet.

But that's not even logical, Laura, because my tweet wasn't controversial until six weeks later when Julian Assange published John Podesta's e-mails. So, I had no advance notice that his e-mails would be stolen aor that they would be published.

And then the secondary claim that I knew about the Billy Bush NBC tape in advance and that I asked Jerry Corsi to contact Julian Assange to ask Assange to move up or move back his data dump to distract the attention from that, that's a fairytale. That's just (inaudible). I learned about it at 4:00 in the afternoon like every other American. I was actually on the street in Manhattan. Look, I just think it's sad that he's been pressured this way to bear false witness against me.

INGRAHAM: Roger, there's no text evidence or e-mail evidence regarding the Billy Bush claim and nothing definitive about the other claim about advance knowledge. There's just one e-mail from you to Corsi from July 25th of 2016. We'll just put it up on the screen. Then this is from the draft court papers, "Get to (Assange) at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and get the pending WikiLeaks e-mails." That's what you've referenced several times. And just once again, why does that look bad?

STONE: Well, this is an important back story because hours before that, I was forwarded an e-mail by James Rosen of Fox that had been sent to me by Charles Ortel, one of the very best researchers and investigators in the country. And Rosen had gotten a tip that the disclosures were going to be about the Clinton Foundation.

Like every politico, like every political reporter in America, I was curious about what Assange had. The bottom line of this, Laura, is very clear. Nothing we've learned in the last 72 hours shows that there was any collusion between the Russian state and Donald Trump's campaign. Two million -- pardon me -- $20 million and two years in, there's still no evidence of any such Russian collusion. This is a witch hunt.

INGRAHAM: Well, not according to -- Roger, not according to David Cicilline who -- and this is from today on CNN -- who made a contrary claim. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-RI.: Well, I think, again, this is more evidence of an ongoing conspiracy or collusion between high-ranking Trump campaign officials and WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and the stolen e-mails. You can see that he's not only directing Jerome Corsi to get information about or get the copies of the e-mails or get information about them. He reports back to Roger Stone on August 2nd.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Your response to him, some of it you've covered specifically.

STONE: When did political gossip become criminalized? Everybody in the America wanted to know after Assange teased these e-mails on CNN in June, and then on Fox in August, what exactly it was that he had. But there is no flow of information. I received no e-mails and passed no e-mails on to Donald Trump or the Trump campaign. That's just a fairytale.

But let's face it. The entire Russian collusion delusion is meant to distract us from the fact that the Obama administration, the Obama NSA, the Obama FBI, were using illegal, unconstitutional FISA warrants to spy on Donald Trump's campaign, and were using the FBI to infiltrate Donald Trump's campaign.

That, plus Uranium One, there's a great need to distract from all of those things so, we point to Donald Trump and the phony Russian collusion, which just doesn't exist.

INGRAHAM: Have you been offered a deal by the special counsel?

STONE: Most certainly not. And there's no circumstance under whatsoever that I would bear false witness against the president. I am being persecuted because I supported Donald Trump for president and because I helped defeat Hillary Clinton and for no other reason.

INGRAHAM: Roger Stone, thank you so much for joining us tonight. We really appreciate it. And joining us now with a reaction, Attorney Jon Sale who was an assistant special prosecutor during Watergate, and Democratic pollster Mark Penn, the architect of Bill Clinton's re-election who knows a lot about special counsel in investigations.

Jon, let me start first with you. Now, what do you make of Mueller's investigation? It seemed to be landing on these mostly bit players who at best were on the periphery of the Trump campaign.

JON SALE, FORMER ASSISTANT WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Well you have to look at their end game. It goes from WikiLeaks to Corsi to Stone, but that does not establish what they're after. So, what they are trying to do is flip people. And I think the Manafort story is really a tragedy. I mean, this man has been in solitary confinement because he so-called lied.

He's going to serve life in prison and people saying, why is he lying? Who is he protecting? What is he afraid of? I mean, is anybody saying he's just not going to say what they want. He's just not giving up the president. Doesn't the president deserve the same presumption of innocence that everybody else has?

I just -- sometimes I think that I'm living on another planet. But when you hear Mr. Corsi and Mr. Stone going on television and saying they're going to be indicted and actually explaining their defense, I would think as their lawyers are tearing their hair out.

INGRAHAM: Yes, it sounds -- it sounds, I mean, they both in their own, you know, description, and again, I'm speaking as a defense attorney. I'm very suspicious of most prosecutors. No offense to prosecutors out there who are doing a good job. But I know the racket they play. They have an enormous amount of power and someone is looking at life in prison versus, OK, we just need you to say, you know, you got to be truthful.

You know what being truthful means. You want to see your wife for the next five years, don't you? You want to see the birth of your first grandchild. Most people just crack, and I think that's what happened to the former national security advisor. I don't think he lied. And Mark Penn, I got to go to you on this. As a political matter, here we are again. It seems like this is deja vu all over again with the special counsels.

MARK PENN, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: Well, it does. It seem likes the special counsel don't want to end an investigation and not come back with some scalps and really what you really see here is it seems like this investigation is over. They looked at the campaign. They looked at every e- mail. They got it from the GSA. They interviewed 40 witnesses.

This thing was done. Stone's e-mails here with Jerome Corsi happened after the July 22nd DNC dump in which WikiLeaks announced they had more e-mails to do. So, all they were doing was speculating back and forth between can you get it, what's going on, which you would -- frankly, I would have been surprised if Roger Stone hadn't in a bunch of e-mails to people like that.

INGRAHAM: But everybody was talking about do you know, have you heard anything, what do you got, any one talked to Assange?

PENN: And this is not criminal. And it certainly shouldn't be the contents of an investigation that's clearly just about over.

INGRAHAM: And we had Corsi tonight, Jon, respond to this -- his claim that he had met Assange. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CALRSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Have you ever had contact with Julian Assange?

CORSI: No, I never met Julian Assange. I have never spoken with him. I never e-mailed him. I've had no contact with Julian Assange whatsoever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I mean, why would he lie about that? I mean, there would be some type of record of some type of meeting and it seems like Assange and WikiLeaks is laying out a lot of money saying these meeting that they claim occurred didn't occur, million dollar bet on that.

SALES: I mean, a special counsel will pass on a lie they say if he now changes his story and they will not oppose probation for him. So, I've been through it so many times where the prosecutor, if you say certain things it's the key to the jailhouse.

I remember as a young lawyer in Watergate, when Archibald Cox said to a few of us, remember, we're not here to get the president. We're here to do a thorough investigation. That's what I would hope the American people deserve for the Mueller investigation.

INGRAHAM: But I mean, how many people believe that Andrew Weizmann, who a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter and others who are in this special counsel's office, Mark Penn, are, you know, they are the Eliot Ness' out there. There's getting the information -- that's all they want is the information. They are going to put it out there. It seems highly unlikely and that's why people like Derschowitz are out there. Let's play what Alan Derschowitz said and we'll let you react.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: He's going to produce what he believes is going to be a devastating attack. He's going to put together everything. He's going to use information from Manafort and others without necessarily disclosing that they are liars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PENN: Well, look, I think that Andrew Weizmann has a questionable reputation for having taken witnesses and taken the legal process too far, but the most important thing I found was in the exit polls. Donald Trump only had a 44 percent job approval, but 54 percent believe that the Mueller investigation is political in nature.

This investigation has been discredited and they don't want to end it in a fair way. I think really Derschowitz is right. They are going to issue a report and they are going to make it as damming as possible just like Ken Starr did.

INGRAHAM: John, earlier tonight when Corsi was interviewed by Tucker, he was asked about this, you know, (inaudible) have you knowingly ever subverted the interest of our country to help another country like Russia. Did you ever have contact with Russian intelligence and he said absolutely not.

I'm a loyal American. I have no contacts with Russian intelligence. No business interest in Russia. Have nothing to do with Russia. I've never been to Russia. That's kind of the key per sound bite of that interview if you ask me, but I guess he had a white Russian once though at a bar so that's enough.

SALES: Well he wasn't being vague about that and I think Roger Stone said, when you asked him about if he was all for the deal, I think he said I would not bear false witness. I mean, doesn't that tell it all? But I think this investigation needs supervision. And I think it needs supervision by a permanent attorney general, not to cut it off, not to --cut off its oxygen, but to say, let's bring this to a reasonable conclusion.

INGRAHAM: Jon, you gave the interview to my next -- my introduction basically to my next segment about why the president needs to select an attorney general now, so thank you for that. Great segment guys. Thanks so much.

SALES: My pleasure.

PENN: Thanks for having me.

INGRAHAM: And WikiLeaks has once again found themselves at the center of this latest battle. Not just with Stone and Corsi but with Paul Manafort as well. Now, after it was suggested by "The Guardian" newspaper, that Manafort met three times with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, both Manafort and Assange have threatened legal action against U.K. paper for libel.

Now joining us now is someone who knows a lot about how WikiLeaks operates, Peter Schweizer. He is the president of The Government Accountability Institute. Peter, WikiLeaks seems to be intersecting with all the Mueller targets here. So what is actually going on here?

Again, I think most people trying to unpack this. It's very confusing. It seems very remote from this idea of Russian meddling in the elections and colluding with the Trump person, but (inaudible).

PETER SCHWEIZER, PRESIDENT, THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY INSTITUTE: Yes, I know. I think you are exactly right. I mean, look, when the FBI issued its initial finding on the 2016 election, they talked about the fact that the Russians wanted to sow dissension in the United States. That was the basic theme.

But, you know, the Clinton campaign and the Democrats did not want to accept the 2016 election results and they quickly pushed this narrative that really what the Russians were doing was helping Donald Trump win and they now are hoping that Mueller is going to come up with evidence of that fact and they simply haven't.

In fact, if you look at what happened in 2016, you look at all the things that play, the Steele dossier, you find Russian fingerprints everywhere and not designed to help Donald Trump, but designed to cause dissention. WikiLeaks has, you know, long time been a crossroads for information. It provides information to reporters. It gets used by news sources.

But the notion that somehow it is part of some master plan that they collaborated with the Trump campaign and the Russians is just laughable and I think the pushback that you're getting on these claims by the guardian are evidence that there's a lot of falseness information out there about precisely what went on.

INGRAHAM: Well, at some point, an attorney general -- if we had an attorney general who wasn't acting, didn't have any kind of, you know, cloud hanging over his head. At what point can the special counsel's office be sanctioned? I mean, this is the problem with the special counsel's independent counsels. They're kind of running wild with the veneer of supervision.

I know Rosenstein and Trump can seem like they're getting along better and that's great. But if the whole game here is to turn the screws like a 72- year-old man to say, OK, you're going to gasp for your last breath in prison unless you fess up to like spooning with Julian Assange.

The whole thing is a farce. And at some point, the special counsel's office, if this keeps going the way it's going, I don't understand why there wouldn't be sanctions filed against some of these lawyers making these outrageous moves on our judicial system, honestly. That's where I am on this right now, unless something else happens, that's where I am tonight.

SCHWEIZER: Well, I think you're right, Laura. Look, the narrative and the goalpost keeps shifting. I mean, the original narrative was that Trump, you know, the meeting at Trump Tower and the Russians there working together. Then it is Roger Stone who is working with Julian Assange.

What these e-mails show of course is Roger Stone didn't have contact with Julian Assange. He's asking Jerome Corsi to reach out to Julian Assange. So now the focus is on, you know, this author, Jerome Corsi who is 7-years-old and he's not involved in the Trump campaign. He was not a central player in this drama and they have decided they're going to put the squeeze on him.

INGRAHAM: But he has a book out. Yes, but he has a book out. By the way, this is the new story today, Peter, in the "New York Times." I got to put up this headline real quick to get you to react to it. This is a new story, that Manafort's attorneys have been briefing Trump's attorneys on what he told Mueller. Well, for what? Welcome to the world of information sharing among lawyers. Big deal.

SCHWEIZER: Well, yes. As if lawyers never talk. That's exactly right. I mean, defense clients do this all the time in criminal cases. They do it in investigations. This is what's done. I mean, this is where it's come. And to the larger point that I was making, Laura, to your point about the attorney general, these issues, I mean you look at the Steel dossier.

Christopher Steel, the person that wrote it, you look at the gentlemen at the State Department, Winer, who is pushing it and legitimizing it. You look at a guy like Adam Waldron (ph) who was also pushing it. All o f them are tied to a Russian oligarch named Oleg Deripaska.

Well, it would be very interesting to find out what role if any that this Russian official might have played in pushing the Steele dossier. I don't think the Mueller investigation is going to look at. If we had an attorney general, they could certainly make sure that that was subject of a serious investigation. And as long as you don't have someone making a priority it's not going to happen.

INGRAHAM: All right, interesting information all around. Great, great conversations. Up next, my ANGLE on the next A.G. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Justice delayed, justice denied. That's the focus of tonight's ANGLE.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: By putting attorney general that never took control of the Justice Department -- Jeff Sessions -- never took control of the Justice Department and it's sort of an incredible thing.

I'm disappointed in the attorney general for many reasons and you understand that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well it happens in relationships. The president and Jeff Sessions started off strong. They were tight. But then they basically ended up hating each other. Well, it's been three weeks since Trump canned Sessions and we haven't heard much about his -- filling this critical position of the attorney general since this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, I have some very, very good people, but I think there's no rush. You know, it has to go through a Senate process which takes a long time, but we'll pick somebody that's great. We're going to pick somebody that's very good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, the fact that we still have no A.G. nominee has Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley up in arms. He said, "I think it would be wise for the president to get somebody appointed like yesterday. How long does it take for to you make up your mind for who you want to be the attorney general?"

Grassley makes a good point here. This is no time for the administration or the United States to be without an attorney general. We need a permanent, top law enforcement officer in place particularly at a time when our border is under assault.

Now, for its own part, Democrats and their media sponsors have had a field day since the president selection of former Sessions chief of staff Matthew Whitaker. And he was named of course as acting A.G. Lawsuits have been filed by senate Democrats Blumenthal and Hirono to remove Whitaker claiming the pick is unconstitutional since Whitaker hasn't been confirmed by the Senate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.: He very simply cannot install a person like Matt Whitaker who is his lackey and lap dog when the office really requires qualification. And Matt Whitaker lacks the key qualification which is approval by the Senate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The state of Maryland has also filed an absurd lawsuit to block Whitaker for his involvement in an existing Obamacare lawsuit that they say would protect people with pre-existing health conditions. My friends, this is all an unnecessary distraction.

Trump's DOJ should be devoting its manpower and resources to defending his policies against the relentless attacks by groups such as like the ACLU. There is no point in fighting unnecessary battles launched by vicious opponents nor by delaying the nomination of a new A.G. does the president need the appearance of seeming to be worried about the pending Mueller report.

Now, notwithstanding the bad blood between the president and Jeff Sessions after his recusal in that Russia probe, Sessions was tough and he was in sync with Trump on border enforcement. And now more than ever, we need a strong, smart, well-respected A.G. who is liked by the president to immediately do the following.

Number one, lead the fight against the nationwide injunctions enacted by activist district court judges and issues from illegal immigration to healthcare -- these injunctions issued by these activists on the bench are thwarting the rule of law, the will of the American people and the president.

Number two, the new A.G. needs to launch an investigation of open borders groups such Pueblo Sin Fronteras that have organized and choreographed this migrant crisis at the border. These organizations are criminal conspirators. They are masquerading though as non-profits helping the migrants.

Right now, there are laws on the books that a smart leader at DOJ could utilize to stop this caravan madness. What are these laws? One, there is Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any person who knowingly brings or just attempts to bring an alien into the United States illegally, has committed a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Moreover, anyone who encourages or induces an alien to come, to enter or reside in the United States legally can be jailed up to five years. And someone who aids or abets people committing either of the above acts can also be jailed for five years.

And by the way, it gets better, 18 USC section 1324 even invokes the possibility of the death penalty for those who's actions result in the death of any person while violating the governing immigration laws. Jeff Sessions dropped the ball on this issue. A new A.G. must not.

Number three, before Pelosi takes the gavel and a deluge of Democrat-led Congressional investigations hit the Trump White House, a whip-smart, strong experienced A.G. is needed to coordinate legal strategy and defend the president's policies and decisions. That means coordinate with the White House. This requires that he or she be confident and competent enough to appear on fair media outlets to advance the White House's position. We need to see the attorney general.

Fourth, let's face it. We need a new A.G. to help restore public trust and the department, of course the Department of Justice and the FBI. After the reputational harm that Comey, McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and a gaggle of others have caused, it's time for the president to turn the page and nominate someone with experience and credibility to head the DOJ.

Weeks ago, I suggested former New Jersey governor Chris Christie as a possible A.G. pick. He would be fantastics. So would our next guest. And that's The Angle.

But first, breaking just moment ago, GOP U.S. Senate -- GOP for the U.S. Senate, Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith wins that runoff in Mississippi, keeping the seat in Republican hands and giving the GOP Senate a 53-47 advantage.  We're all going to have a live report right before Hyde-Smith's remarks later in the hour after little marble removal from my mouth.

But here now to react to my ANGLE is Andrew McCarthy, a former chief assistant and U.S. attorney and FOX News contributor. All right, Andy, the FOX News alert, very important of course, but it got in the way that great intro to you. So I have two picks, Christie and you.

ANDREW MCCARTHY, FORMER CHIEF ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: I thought the alert was that you nominated me. That's what I thought was the news break.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: I was like, wait a second, the alert coming right out of that.  But this is how we roll. It's live news. Andy, what do you make of -- you know what I think about you. You would be phenomenal. I don't know whether you'd do it or not, but you would be phenomenal. But setting you aside for a moment, what about this need to have an attorney general in place given all of these critical issues that I outlined facing this administration?

MCCARTHY: Laura, when you were giving that synopsis, which I think was terrific and really hit exactly what we need to have right now, which is very strong hand at the Justice Department, and it's been lacking for a long time. I'm a Jeff Sessions fan, but if you don't have the president's confidence, then you can't be effective in that position. So we've really had a void at the Justice Department for a while.

And I was just getting that 2007 feeling, and thinking about what uproar we were in at that time between the U.S. attorney's crisis and the things that were going on in Iraq and the enemy combatants and how they were being handled, how they were being interrogated. And it seemed like we were in just complete uproar at the Justice Department.

And then all of a sudden Bush brought in Judge Mukasey to be the attorney general.

INGRAHAM: That was fabulous.

MCCARTHY: And suddenly you had an eminent figure who was strong, who had the respect of the courts, who had the respect of both sides of the aisle, even people who disagreed with him politically could not argue with the fact that Judge Mukasey was a person as far as the law is concerned of great rectitude and dedication to the enforcement of the law. And it was like everything changed overnight. For 18 months, there was lot of other problems in the Bush administration, but the Justice Department was not one of them. And I think we really need that now.

INGRAHAM: Alberto Gonzalez, God bless him, I'm sorry, was not a strong attorney general. We go Mukasey in there and I think they turned the page.

Specifically on Whitaker, again, I've met him. I like him a lot. I think he's a dedicated person and I think he is a smart guy. But that's an unnecessary distraction. The president doesn't need another thing to deal with, except the main things, which are the problem at the border, these injunctions that are wrecking his policies and thwarting the rule of law.  And imagine having a strong attorney general on television a couple times a week saying, you know why these injunctions are bad? Because one unelected person shouldn't change U.S. policy overnight. Just something as simple as that, Andy, and we don't have that now.

MCCARTHY: No. And it makes a difference, Laura. Even if you're making a point that's unimpeachable, it makes a difference what the gravitas of the person making the point is. And that goes not only for somebody who can be a presence in the media, which is obviously important nowadays, but somebody who is going to look eye-to-eye at the U.S. courts, because that's a lot of where this these take place.

What you talked about in terms of stepped up border enforcement and the thing we could do now if we exploited the American laws that we have on the books now, that's a position that can be forged by somebody that the courts know is a force to be reckoned with. It's going to be tough for somebody who's very presence there in the job right now is controversial. And like you, this is not a wrap on Matt Whitaker. I don't know him. But a lot of people who I do know and respect think he's a terrific guy, but he comes in with a problem in terms of not being somebody who is not only confirmed, but he doesn't have that experience and background. And I think he needs what we said the last time. He needs a wartime consiglieri.

INGRAHAM: Everything goes back to "The Godfather," Andy, you know that.  All of life lessons. "Godfather" one and two. You don't have to really go further.

Adam Schiff said that they're going to bring Whitaker before Congress and they're going to put him through the paces. The first thing they do when they get the gavel back is they're going to have Whitaker up there going, why do you think you're a constitutional appointment? You have no authority. And it's going to be another sideshow. Again, the president has so much on his plate, he has to start ticking off these agenda items at the Justice Department. Can't do it when you don't have attorney general.  Do you think he'll pick someone before the end of the year?

MCCARTHY: I sure hope so, but I don't know. I don't know why he hasn't picked somebody now. But as you point out, as far as the testimony is concerned, that's the job. And if you have somebody who can be a presence in the room, that's not somebody they want to bring down there every couple of weeks or couple of months. The reason they're trying it get their mitts on Whitaker is because they think the department is on its heels. And we need to get it off its heels.

INGRAHAM: Andy, would you do it if you were asked? If the president said I need you, would you do it?

MCCARTHY: Laura, come on. I'll tell you what I tell everyone else. On those indictments, I don't need to be on the signature line. I just need to stay out of the caption.

INGRAHAM: All right, Andy, thanks so much.

And we want to go live now to Peter Doocy in Mississippi where this big Senate result just came down. Peter, what can you tell us? This is a big night for the Republican Party, a big night for President Trump who went all in over the weekend.

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: And Laura, we understand now for the first time, I just got this few seconds ago. Mike Espy has conceded. He was scheduled to call Cindy Hyde-Smith about 10 minutes from now, but with the race being announced and called sooner than his campaign was expecting, over at the Espy headquarters about five minutes away from here, they turned off the projector screens that had been showing returns, and he went ahead and called Cindy Hyde-Smith.

We also now understand that she and her family are going to come down any minute here after what her campaign says was not a very suspenseful night.  It was unclear exactly what kind of numbers they might have had when she became the first person, the first candidate to ever get President Trump to come and campaign twice in one day for her, but her campaign was sitting back there looking at projections that they had based on trends that they were seeing and turnout that they thought. Special elections are a lot harder to predict the turnout than a general election. But they say that things unfolded almost exactly like they thought. And again, an early night here in Mississippi where Mike Espy, the Democrat, he was trying to become the first African-American elected since Reconstruction has lost to Cindy Hyde-Smith who will now become the first woman ever elected senator out of Mississippi. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Peter, that's a first. And what they also did, and they worked overtime to do this over the last week, week-and-a-half, they were trying to make this out to be another disaster, Confederate flag, she's basically a segregationist up against someone who would be the first African-American senator from Mississippi. And I think in the end, a lot of these charges are falling on deaf ears because people think it's just too much. If everything is a racism, then nothing is racism after a while. And I think it obviously didn't work. And it wasn't a horserace contrary to what all these media people were drumming up as a horserace. It never was a horse race.

DOOCY: And Laura, I had somebody associated with the Espy campaign tell me a little while ago that they were not -- and I'm just going to turn around with this music to make sure that she's not coming out. There's too many signs. I can't see.

But somebody with the Espy campaign said they thought that this was going to be just like the Alabama special election. It's a strange time on the calendar, and there's all this controversy, and a Democrat can sneak to a victory. But what wound up being different is when Roy Moore was the candidate in Alabama, the president never even did a rally for him. He just got as close as Pensacola, Florida. And the rest of the bigwig RNC folks in D.C. kept him completely at arms lengths. The GOP sent the full cavalry here to Mississippi. Again, two Trump rallies in the day, Ronna McDaniel was there with him, the vice president was with him, the other senator Roger Wicker was here, Lindsey Graham was here. So they had a full show of force to come and help Cindy Hyde-Smith. And she's about to accept the rest of Thad Cochran's term here in Jackson right across from the Thad Cochran courthouse.

INGRAHAM: It's a funny thing, Peter, when they all unite together and fight for something, they oftentimes win. Peter, thank you so much.

And we're going to take you to the Hyde-Smith speech if happens within the hour, which I imagine it will. But first, the caravan is just one of many issues facing our country at our southern border, but it is this next story that might be the most shocking. Check this out, right now, 2,324 mostly Central American teens are being held at just one facility in Tornillo, Texas. More than 1,300 of those teens have arrived just since the end of October alone.

So what's the cost to you, the American taxpayer? Nothing, right? Well, it's $1,200 per child per day. And the plans to close this facility, of course, are being scuttled. A contract obtained by the Associated Press shows that this facility could remain in operation into 2020. In the end, this one facility could cost U.S. taxpayers more than, I kid you not, $430 million.

For a frame of reference, there are at least 100 of these facilities in 15 states. We wanted to look into who profits from these open borders nightmares that we're seeing unfolding, and we took a look at the latest HHS resettlement disbursements, and we found that these groups got the most money, ready, to resettle the refugees and the migrants. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, they got over $80 million in total government contracts and grants. For some reason the most recent numbers we have are only 2015. That number has got to be higher today.

Something called the Church World Service got over $68 million in both U.S. and state grants and contracts to deal with this influx of all these migrants. The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services got over $45 million from the government in 2017. It is no wonder, then, that Pueblo Cinfronteres, the big backer that we talked about in The Angle behind these migrant caravans, they helped organize the caravans, referred to the mass of migrants in a press release today as, quote, "The Exodus." It's an obvious reference to the Bible, of course. They used that same term, "The Exodus," 17 times.

Joining us now to debate whether this caring for, taking them in, $430 million later if these numbers hold, why it's all required of us as Christians and people of faith to spend this money and take it all in, Pastor Aubrey Shines of the Glory to Glory Ministries, and Jonathan Merritt, the author of "Learning to Speak to God from Scratch" and contributing editor at "The Week."

Jonathan, let's start with you. Do you see how some people might consider this sort of activism a misuse of religion? My question is, can't religious people disagree on how to welcome a stranger and how to help others in need versus essentially throwing open our borders and releasing people once they cross the border illegally?

JONATHAN MERRITT, AUTHOR AND FAITH HEALER: Yes, absolutely. We can disagree on how to do it. I think that what you're reading in this press release is recognition that the Christian story is really a migrant's tale.  And this is not the first ministry to use that kind of language. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have done this. The World Relief with works with the National Association of Evangelicals have done this. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the southern Baptist Convention with 15 million evangelical members across the nation have also drawn on this language.

So this use of this language is not a controversial thing if you really look at the groups that are using it. And it's not a left-right thing.  You're finding that a lot of Christian groups on the political right have used this language as well.

INGRAHAM: I understand what you're saying. However, if you take money off the table for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, they get about $100 million. All in it's about $100 million a year. Lutherans, about $50 million, other groups tens of millions of dollars. You take that federal money off the table, and I'd love to see all of the great work of all the organizations.

MERRITT: It's slightly offensive if you've ever spent time with social workers in America. These are not people driving Cadillacs and making it rain with money.

INGRAHAM: I don't care what they are driving. No, no. I don't care what they're driving.

MERRITT: The people who are resettling refugees, if you actually go out and spend some time with the Catholic charities for example, these people are not in it for the money. And even insinuating that is quite offensive to religious --

INGRAHAM: I will say what's offensive to me is someone cherry picking verses out the Bible like Matthew 25, the admonition to feed the hungry --

MERRITT: You're not cherry picking --

INGRAHAM: Hold on, Jonathan.

MERRITT: No, but you're not cherry picking out of the Bible, because now you're in my arena. I'm the guy here between the two of us who went to the seminary. You're not cherry picking it out of the Bible.

INGRAHAM: Cherry picking --

MERRITT: Almost every Biblical character in the Bible was an immigrant at one time or another.

INGRAHAM: Is it in the Bible not to let the other guest speak? I don't think so. So let's go to Matthew 25. Does the admonition to care for others apply to individuals or to governments, Aubrey?

BISHOP AUBREY SHINES, CHRISTIAN PASTOR: Listen, first of all, thanks, Laura, for having me. Always great being with you. And Jonathan seems to choose whatever he wants to choose. He certainly doesn't represent an orthodox view of anything that's Biblical, whether it is on this issue or same sex marriage issues. He just doesn't.

The Bible is constructed of a group of laws. And if you happen to believe in Christianity, and again, I know that, Laura, you have lot of viewers that don't. But if you were to choose to be a Christ follower, Christ says, and I quote, I am the door. Do not come to the father any other way other than through me, the door. And if you don't come that way, you won't be welcome. So Jonathan's views are not keeping anything that's orthodox, nor has his views been on any subject matter as it relates to anything especially that this president is doing right now. He's out of order and he's been out of order. And this is why he grandstands every time he has an opportunity to speak.

INGRAHAM: One of the things that I think everyone has to kind of come to terms with, is that if there are borders, and if there are things called countries, then we must respect other country's laws. That is also in the Bible, render onto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus and Mary traveled freely within the Roman Empire because they lived in Roman occupied land. The idea that we can have an open, borderless society, and we'll all be better people. I guess we can do that.

SHINES: Laura, we cannot open our borders --

MERRITT: We're not talking about anybody breaking law.

SHINES: -- no more than we can open our doors. We lock our doors at night for a reason, Jonathan. Stop grandstanding.

INGRAHAM: Hold on. Jonathan?

MERRITT: We're not talking about anybody breaking laws. These people are seeking asylum.

SHINES: They are breaking the laws. If they come here --

MERRITT: It's not illegal --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: I have a question. Guys, one at a time. Both of you, the same question. Jonathan, if someone walked through your front door uninvited and set up shop, maybe had couple of other people with them, and maybe they broke down a fence to get to your house or maybe they broke in through the front door, maybe they came through a window, and they said, you know, something, I feel oppressed and you need to help me. You call the police or do you say, the Bible compels me to help you because you say you have a claim. You see when you take it out of this current situation and you put it in an individual context.

MERRITT: No. First of all, we're not talking about somebody breaking into houses. We're talking about people seeking asylum, right. That's the difference. Of course when you frame things that way, a disingenuous way, a way that doesn't actually align with the situation, it sounds like that.

INGRAHAM: Really, because last time I checked --

MERRITT: There were people who were fleeing violence. If you said that there was a mother with her children who was fleeing violence and came to my doorstep, yes, I think I would help that person. And I think Jesus would want me too.

INGRAHAM: Really? If they kicked in your front door, Jonathan, you'd be calling 911 in about five milliseconds, OK. Someone kicked down your front door and they claimed that they needed help. You'd say, who are you? What are you doing here? Why are you here. And Aubrey, I probably have the answer to the question. You would call 911 because it's a violation of your border. We're out of time.

SHINES: It is a violation.

INGRAHAM: I'm grandstanding now. But that's what I can do, and it's my show. Guys, we'll have you back. I love having both of you on. We disagree on some stuff, but it's good.

Another holiday season, another disgusting attack on the first lady. We have that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The left is now freaking out over, I kid you not, the White House Christmas decorations. Yes, I'm serious. While much of the White House was decorated in just a typical Christmas fashion, Melania Trump added a hallway of red trees, triggering lefties everywhere. "Slate" even called them the red Christmas trees of death. Joining me now, Monica Crowley, Washington Times opinion editor, Harmeet Dhillon, and Cathy Areu, publisher of "Catalina" magazine. Sorry, ladies, breaking news. We have to be quick tonight. Cathy, now what's wrong with red trees? Would they have been happier if they were blue trees for the whole electoral map.

CATHY AREU, PUBLISHER, CATALINA MAGAZINE: Actually no, Michelle Obama tried the blue theme, the red, white and blue theme for Christmas. And she was criticized for that whole thing her last Christmas in the White House.  So no blue. But yes, she thought outside the box, and unfortunately, Melania Trump just did not score points with these trees. They're calling it the shining. They're really putting her down for it. And Pat Sajak was commenting that if she was married to someone else maybe she wouldn't be getting so much criticism for being so outside the box.

INGRAHAM: You think? Monica, I've heard a lot of really goofy criticisms of Melania Trump. This has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. I don't really care what color the trees are. I kind of like traditional whites.  I like the big old, the ones that basically cause a fire bulb, those big ones, the colored ones from the 70s. Those are my favorites. That would be funny, a retro Christmas with real candles on the trees. They're going crazy here.

MONICA CROWLEY, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: We are now into year two of these absurd attacks on the first lady and the White House Christmas decorations, which, by the way, are beautiful, just as our first lady is.  She is spectacular. She has impeccable taste. And the White House looks gorgeous. It doesn't matter what she would do. She could what they actually think are the perfect decorations and they would still rip her apart simply by virtue of who she is married to and the president's agenda.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, I think that even hanging Planned Parenthood ornaments on the tree, they would criticize that. This is now the lowest of the low, the most pathetic. And I think most Americans hear this and they go la-la- la. They don't even care.

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY: Absolutely, Laura. My people don't even do the Christmas trees, but we went to the White House Christmas party last year.  It was gorgeous with the white trees there in the same place, and the red trees are beautiful as well. But whatever color tree she had there or decorations, the left would be attacking her and being malicious and nasty.  So very proud of our first lady. She has impeccable taste, and I look forward to seeing those trees this year as well.

INGRAHAM: I think it's diversity of colors -- white, red. Maybe Cathy will be happy, we will do blue. And maybe we'll get the old fashioned retro bulbs for next year and really drive them crazy. Guys, sorry about the short segment.

And Cindy Hyde-Smith gave the GOP another Senate victory tonight. Final thoughts, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: OK, with a now 53-47 advantage in the Senate for Republicans, all I want for Christmas is more judges make it happen and a new A.G.  That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team, take it from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.