Sarah Sanders on attacks from media, her White House role

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 15, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, "THE INGRAHAM ANGLE" HOST: Welcome to "The Ingraham Angle" from Washington. A huge show tonight. Lots of news breaking. A bombshell report to share with you. A famous lawyer was soliciting money to pay women making sexual misconduct allegations against Candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Getting paid to accuse the candidate? You don't think that's an incentive to fabricate stories? We'll discuss it all with Alan Dershowitz.

I will also talk to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders about the constant barrage of media attacks. Some against her personally and the president.

But, first, the Democrats "Me Too" suicide mission. That's the focus of tonight's angle. OK. Do you remember what I told you just a few nights ago?


INGRAHAM: Female politicians and activists should also be really careful where they take this because someday, maybe, men might decide to turn the tables on them and start launching their own maybe it's called #mentoomovement with wild decades-old complaint against women in positions of power. You don't think it could happen. Just watch.


INGRAHAM: Well, that didn't take long, did it? The first casualty is Andrea Ramsey, a Democrat running for Congress in Kansas. She's dropping out of the race after the "Kansas City Star" asked her about accusations in a 12-year-old lawsuit.

The suit claimed Ramsey sexually harassed and retaliated against a male subordinate who had rejected her advances. According to multiple sources, the man who filed the case reached a settlement with the company and court documents show that the case was dismissed after mediation back in 2006.

Look, people settle suits all the time. They settle them for things that aren't true as well because they are just a nuisance and they would rather not bother them. But drop out of the race more than a decade later for this? I think that's ridiculous.

But, this is the climate that Democrats have created. It is a trap that they themselves are now falling into. Believe me, I probably agree with that candidate on nothing. He she is a favorite of Emily's List. I'm sure she and I wouldn't agree on most issues, but I think that situation is appalling.

Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the new liberal morality brigade on Capitol Hill are feeding on their own members. They have opened up an ethics probe into a Nevada Democratic Congressman Ruben Kihuen over allegations of sexual harassment.

Now, Pelosi and others have asked Kihuen to step down, but he is refusing. He vows to clear his name. Again, another Democrat and the witch-hunt continues. He questions Pelosi's new found "me too" morality.

Now why does he do that? Kihuen says that Pelosi and the Democratic Party knew about the allegations against him a year ago. He said they looked into them. They didn't find anything, and they continued investing millions in my campaign, he told that to ABC News.

They went out there and campaigned for me. We invited him on the show tonight, but sadly he declined. My friends, this "me too" madness is spinning dangerously out of control. And I think the people get it. Here's some of my listeners today on the radio.


UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: I definitely think that this has gone to the extreme and they have to do something to stop this.

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: I'm very sensitive to any type of sexual assault, but I feel that this #this and #that has become almost a fad.

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: From personal experience, people who have been really abused, sexually abused, are so upset about this movement, the "me too" movement because they are making a joke out of people who have really been abused.


INGRAHAM: By the way the phone lines today were jammed with female callers. Speaking of jokes, now Democrats are calling for the president to resign over misconduct allegations, you know, the ones you heard before the 2016 election.

But as The Washington Post pointed out this morning, the Democrats may be overplaying their hand ahead of 2018 and 2020. This is the way I look at it. The left in their blind rage against Trump are unable to see the obvious.

Their near constant demonization of Trump is starting to wear a little thin and I think it could end up back firing big time. Think about it. After tax reform is passed, the economy continues to grow, and more Americans are able to keep more of their own money, how much residence will old accusations, partisan leaks, and identity politics really end up having?

Will voters other than like the really hardcore activists in the donor class really have the appetite for the growing calls of Trump's resignation on these old allegations? Smack dab in the middle of one of the greatest economic booms we have seen perhaps since Reagan? I doubt it.

Especially now that we're learning that women were being offered cash to tell their tales of alleged misconduct by Trump. What a crock this entire thing is. In this small, I would say I call it like this small craft advisory goes out to everybody in the media.

Watch the current course you have charted lest your own boats get swamped by the waves you create. Your reporting on the so-called Russian collusion has been as biased and misguided as the Mueller investigation itself.

You need to offer more than 24/7 demonization of our president through leaks from Obama and Clinton partisans or from old accusers whose stories were already heard before Election Day.

Are you ever going to do real reporting on how the president is reshaping our entire trade posture to boost U.S. manufacturing or maybe look into how small business optimism is skyrocketing due to the president's slashing of onerous growth-killing regulations?

And by the way, another question, why does it take a group like judicial watch to beat so many of you in the media to stories about the Mueller investigation? You know, where are your FOIA requests or maybe you only dig deep when it can hurt the president? I don't know.

And since it looks like they have gotten nothing on the president and the war on men is already back firing, expect them to deploy even more desperate tactics in the new year. And that's the angle. So how about it? Are the Democrats badly overplaying their hand here?

Let's throw that up for discussion with my first two guests, Fox News contributor and 2012 presidential candidate, Herman Cain in (inaudible) Georgia and Democratic strategist, Antjuan Seawright is here with me in Washington.

All right, Herman, let's talk to you about this. A Democratic congresswoman now in Kansas City, she is out, a 12-year old claim against her that was settled in a mediation. And then you have the other congressman they already looked at his allegations, apparently, they want him to leave. Are the Democrats overplaying this?

HERMAN CAIN, FORMER GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes. Accusations, speculation, and fabrication is all they have. They have no hard evidence on this president and as a result, they are trying to turn this over to the court of public opinion.

Because in a couple of instances the court of public opinion has painted a bad enough view of somebody that maybe they were defeated, or they came in real close with the person who won. That's all they have from their playbook.

Ignoring the results of this president and this administration, lowest unemployment rate in years, lowest black unemployment rate in 17 years, a booming economy and we don't even have a tax cuts yet.

Regulations, 22 for one in terms of regulations that he is eliminating, and the list goes on, but they don't want to look at results. They only want to look at accusations, speculation, and fabrication. They are over playing their hand.

INGRAHAM: All right, Antjuan, let's go to you on this. You heard what Mr. Cain said. Your reaction to that. Is there a positive agenda for economic growth or is it the old accuser parade that we are going to see?

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, first of all, for no disrespect Mr. Cain, but I think the Republican Party for eight years ignored the economic boom we've seen under the Obama administration. So, let's deal with that first and foremost.

Second of all, I don't know if you can call these accusers, he is coming up as if they are wrong or bad people. Look, we have evidence, there were tapes out there where Mr. Trump said things that we know were not appropriate.

INGRAHAM: Yes, which he apologized for.

SEAWRIGHT: He apologized, but that doesn't make it right. That doesn't mean that women are lying and fabricating their stories.

INGRAHAM: Do you think it's OK that they are paid to tell their stories, offered $300,000 to tell their stories?

SEAWRIGHT: Laura, not one time did anyone say that there were these women who accused Mr. Trump during the course of the campaign saying they were paid.

INGRAHAM: But my question though is a serious one for the Democratic Party. The focus is for the Democrats. Is this all you guys have? What else do you have? I mean, you have identity politics. You have Mueller and you have the accusers. What else do you have?

SEAWRIGHT: We have a message that absolutely worked in places like Virginia and New Jersey just a few weeks ago. We won in Alabama on Tuesday night. So, here's the message. However, we can't --

INGRAHAM: You couldn't have won in Alabama against any other candidate other than Roy Moore you know it and I know it.

SEAWRIGHT: We can't press the ignore button on these women. What message do you want to send to little girls who may be watching?

INGRAHAM: How many Democrats have given the Harvey Weinstein contributions back? How many have given all the contributions that Bill Clinton accused of rape have raised for them over the last 20 years? How many?

SEAWRIGHT: What does that have to do with accusations against President Donald Trump? All I'm saying is --

INGRAHAM: It has everything to do with it.

SEAWRIGHT: The Democratic Party has been leading by example, Laura.


SEAWRIGHT: Absolutely. Because -- their members have resigned.

INGRAHAM: So, Democrats who have lionized Ted Kennedy for decades, the Democrats who built their --

SEAWRIGHT: Conyers. Franken are going to resign.

INGRAHAM: -- going to continue to take money from the Hollywood pornifiers, who pumped out garbage to our kids and then everyone is like we are shocked that there is sexual harassment behind closed doors when the entire message out of Hollywood, fully supportive of the Democrats is sexualizing and objectifying and misogynistic lyrics and words and --

SEAWRIGHT: So, Laura, what are you saying to these women who've accused President Trump? Are you saying they are wrong?

INGRAHAM: I have no idea whether they are wrong or right. I do know that the American people voted on it and all I know is the Democrats have no message because you still haven't said any message.

SEAWRIGHT: I just gave you one.

INGRAHAM: What are the steps paths to economic growth in the Democratic Party?

SEAWRIGHT: Well, first of all, we have provided healthcare for people --

INGRAHAM: That's economic growth.

SEAWRIGHT: Absolutely, because a healthy population --

INGRAHAM: They got no economic plan. Go ahead, Herman. I mean, you got no economic plan.

SEAWRIGHT: It's Clinton's economic plan. I'm sure you just don't want to hear it.

CAIN: OK, Antjuan, I let you talk. Now, let me talk, OK? I want to rebuke some of the garbage that you threw out there. First of all --

SEAWRIGHT: I don't think it's garbage.

CAIN: Don't go talking on top of me I said --

SEAWRIGHT: Absolutely.

CAIN: -- let me talk.


INGRAHAM: Go, one at a time.

CAIN: Laura, this is what liberals do. When they have no message --

SEAWRIGHT: Tell the truth.

CAIN: -- they have no plan, they like to talk over conservatives with facts. Now, let's go back to one factor he threw out there. When he said well, what about the economic boom of under President Obama. Allow me to correct you Antjuan and please don't interrupt me, 2 percent is not --

SEAWRIGHT: Please tell the truth.

CAIN: There he goes, Laura. Two percent is not the new normal, which is what we interned for eight years. We have already seen 3 percent plus in the consecutive quarters under this president, who has set a positive tone from the top. The business community is very excited and positive. Consumer confidence is up. We are going to get this tax package passed.

That's going to continue to add to this economic boom and all you and the other liberal Democrats can say is accusation, speculation, and fabrication. That's where you are missing it and the American people are not stupid.

INGRAHAM: We are out of time. Antjuan, we will have you on my radio show and have you back on TV soon. Herman, Antjuan, thank you so much.

Tonight, a bombshell report just came out today. According to The Hill, Attorney Lisa Bloom attempted to arrange major payments to women accusing President Trump of sexual harassment. Claims Mr. Trump vehemently denies.

The Hill reports Bloom wanted a cut of the money, typical lawyer, which was oftentimes coming from Hillary supporters and tabloid media outlets. Was this a violation of campaign finance laws?

Joining me now for reaction from Miami Beach, of course, is Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus professor at Harvard, author of the new book "Trumped Up" and he joins us now. Professor D, let's talk with this. These are some wild allegations.

One woman got her mortgage paid off. Where do I go to get that? Got her mortgage paid off 30k out in Queens. Others wanted as much as 750,000, $2 million. So, could this be a violation of campaign finance laws if this came from donors to influence an election and it wasn't reported to the feds?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: I don't think so. I think you ought to be very scrupulous before you start accusing people of crime. It's a close question, but I do think it gives us a very important pause on what's going on now in terms of me too. Most women tell the truth. Most women have no lie about being sexually assaulted.

But there are some women out there and some men who will lie for money. I know that from personal experience because I was the victim of a woman who falsely accused me, a woman I never met, never heard of. Accused me.

We were able to learn and prove that she had a very strong multi-million- dollar motive for making the fails accusation and was pressured to do so by her lawyers. And now her allegation has been totally disproved by documentation. It just shows that there is no such thing as all women tell the truth or all men tell the truth.

There is no gender gene for truthfulness or lying. Therefore, we have to have due process. We have to be scrupulous in questioning everybody's accusations and making sure that everybody, the president, as well as everybody else, is afforded due process of law when accused of serious sexual misconduct.

INGRAHAM: Campaign Super PACs, the Super PAC money, big money affects the election results, try to have it affects the election results. If that money was used in whole or in part, offer it up to women to tell their stories, I think that's a big problem.

I'm not trying to speculate here, but we need to certainly learn more about whether any of this money, any of it went or solicitations, even solicitations for that money ended up going to women no wanted to tell a story or had an inkling about telling a story. I find that to be really troubling. I'm sorry, $750,000 they were about to pay this one woman?

DERSHOWITZ: Let's put the shoe on the other foot. We know now that Democrats are trying to find violations of campaign laws in the Trump administration taking information from WikiLeaks or from the Russian government if that occurred. I think you have to interpret the campaign finance laws consistent with the First Amendment.

The First Amendment applies not only to media reporting but also to campaigns. I do think you have to be very careful about trying to find criminal conduct based on the effort to get information --

INGRAHAM: All I know Dinesh D'Souza would put in like confinement for a year for like a $20,000 thing for a friend of his for college who have no chance of winning. OK, that was ridiculous.

DERSHOWITZ: I was on his side in that case and I helped --

INGRAHAM: All right, professor.

DERSHOWITZ: -- with a fair prosecution.

INGRAHAM: All right. Professor Alan Dershowitz. By the way, Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been the subject of obscene attacks from the press in recent weeks. She joins us exclusively to react to some of them. Do not miss it.


INGRAHAM: The establishment media's disdain for the Trump administration is no secret. But, recently one of their biggest targets has been White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Case in point, this particularly personal broadside from MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski.


MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC ANCHOR: Those briefings are useless. She does not say anything that is truthful and she does not intend to. She is the one protecting a president who does that every day, who watches tv every day and tweets stupidity. What she is doing is helping damage this republic.


INGRAHAM: Those are just the nice things she said. Joining us now with reaction is White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is freezing out there. Sarah, great to see you. Merry Christmas. How are you doing?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It's great. Great to be with you. A little cold but other than that we are doing great.

INGRAHAM: Sarah, we have big news to get to on tax reform. Big, big day, but I have to say I've been watching you now for months in that briefing room with patience and an ability to deal with the CRAP being thrown at you on a minute-by-minute basis. You have more patience than I would ever have.

But then you hear comments like that from another female, a female journalist. How do you process that? That particular comment which I found, of all of them said lately, particularly objectionable?

SANDERS: Look, it helps that I have three toddlers at home. So, I'm pretty good at having a lot of patience in sometimes dealing with things that you don't always want to deal with. Look, this is a president who was elected by the forgotten men and women of this country and a lot of liberals have contempt for these people whether they're men or women.

They want to attack us. I think it's a great reminder of why this president was elected. We are here to do a job. We are here to get big things done. That's what we are focused on. If they want to focus on petty attacks, that's fine. Let them have at it.

While they are doing that, we will get tax cuts passed in this country. We will continue to grow the economy. Continue to create jobs, 2 million new jobs since this president came into office. I'm sure a lot of those are going to women.

And maybe we will get to replace some of those female journalists out there that don't like us very much at some point. The bottom line is this is a president who is focused on getting things done.

Focused on getting things done for the men and women that frankly a lot of the liberal elites in this country don't like, have contempt for, and he is focused on empowering women and he is doing that and the way he puts people in place in his administration.

And I think it's sad that they are attacking a lot of us while claiming to champion women's causes and women's issues.

INGRAHAM: I have gotten on the receiving end of that. I wear it as a badge of honor. The more they are attacking, the better job I think you are doing. Let's talk about role. I think a lot of the people Fox viewers watching now.

They watch you out there doing daily combat and they think to themselves, OK, what if she is talking to the president and he says go out there and say this, but it's not something you are comfortable with. I'm not talking about any specific issue.

But would you say to him, boss, that's not something -- that's not something that I'm comfortable saying but you know, maybe get someone else to go out there and say that has he ever done that?

SANDERS: Look, if there was ever a moment that I wasn't comfortable doing something, I wouldn't do it. That's part of who I am and this president is not going to ask me to do something I'm not comfortable with. If I get to a place can I talk to him and come to a place where we can agree on what the talking points and what the message is, but that's just not something I'm ever going to be part of.

I don't think or expect him to ever ask me to do anything that I'm not going to be comfortable in doing. Look, I believe in what the president is doing. I believe in the agenda. I believe in what we are fighting for and the way we are trying to spend every single day making America a better place.

I think we have done a lot in the first 11 months. I look forward in helping the president put that message over the next seven years.

INGRAHAM: Thirty-two percent approval rating in a recent poll, Monmouth poll. The other polls show the president in the high 30's. Why do you think at least now he hasn't gotten so far, he hasn't gotten the credit for the de-reg he has done, for the tax cut obviously everybody is going to get in the new year, the judges on the federal appellate court? Record pace for putting judges on the courts. Why is the number still so low and how do you get that number up?

SANDERS: Look, I think a lot of the times of the reason the numbers might be lower than they probably really are is because people aren't getting all of the facts. They are not getting all of the good news parts of what's happening in this administration, what's happening in this country.

I think a lot of people are going to start to see this impact when the tax cuts go through. That's going to happen right away. They will see the bigger paychecks starting as early as February. I think there are a lot of things you are going to see. Changes in the deregulation process.

You are going to see the impact of that even more than we already are at the first part of next year. I think one of the big problems is that stuff doesn't get covered. We are so focused on talking about the negative and trying to attack this president, trying to delegitimize him.

INGRAHAM: It's over the top.

SANDERS: That some of the big things that are happening aren't being covered.

INGRAHAM: It's beyond over the top. It's 90 percent coverage is bad. He could come up with a cure for lung cancer tomorrow and they would say why didn't he do it a year ago. I mean, this is where it is.

Let's talk about DACA. Because what I'm hearing from my little sources on Capitol Hill, is that the president may move to do a, quote, "DACA fix," which could be amnesty for hundred thousand people brought here as minors.

What's that race act detached without getting rid of chain migration and visa lottery system and without reducing illegal immigration and the wall and all that stuff? People like Scott Taylor of Virginia are obsessed about doing this DACA before the end of this year. Don't you think the base of this party, Sarah, will go crazy if that is what the president pushes through when we have so many bigger priorities here?

SANDERS: Look, the president is focused on making sure that we have responsible immigration reform. We have been talking about it ending chain migration including funding for the border wall, increasing interior enforcements.

There are a lot of things that we are doing. We laid out the principles the things that we want to see, and we want to make sure that that's part of any package that moves forward. That's our position and that's what we are focused on making sure happens is complete and responsible immigration reform.

INGRAHAM: So, you won't do any clean DACA, quote, "fix" that some of these Republicans want. Will you?

SANDERS: Look, as I just said we have laid out what our priorities and principles are.

INGRAHAM: That would be a disaster.

SANDERS: That's certainly not our plan. This is a president who has talked about, campaigned and won on doing big things when it comes to immigration specifically funding border wall, greater interior enforcements, better vetting and just, again, making sure that we have a responsible immigration system. Something we don't currently have and something this president wants to make sure we don't just tinker with it and fix small parts of it, but that we fix all of it.

INGRAHAM: Sarah, when you see a judicial nominee up there yesterday, Mr. Peterson, I believe, who was nominated D.C. district court, struggling with some, you know, questions about evidence and procedure issues that you know when you are a litigator. Does that give the president pause about the way some of these lower court judges are being picked and selected?

SANDERS: Look, I haven't talked to him specifically about that, but what I do know is this is a president who is focused on making sure we have judges in place that understand what their role is and that's not to create law. That's not to change laws, but it's to be actually focused on the Constitution and making sure that we have judges in place that understand their place.

INGRAHAM: That was a bad deal though. That was a viral video nightmare. I'm sorry. But, I mean, his judges have been great. He is, I'm sure, a nice person. He is good at the FCC. As a district court judge, someone who clerked on the federal -- Appellate Court of Appeals, that was a brutal series of questions by Kennedy. I hope Don McGahn and the crowd takes a look at some of the procedures for the district court. Sarah, do you make apple pie, by the way, because I'm not a big fan of pecan?

SANDERS: If you had my pecan pie, I think I could shake your mind. I have might have won over April Ryan at least for a day or two with that pecan pie yesterday.

INGRAHAM: No. First of all, in Connecticut, we call it pee-can. You have the right pronunciation down south. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, have a great Christmas and thank you so much for spending some time with us tonight.

SANDERS: Thanks, Merry Christmas, Laura.

INGRAHAM: All right, you take care.

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff is all about fanning Russia collusion accusations. All he is missing is actual evidence. Michelle Malkin is here to sort it out in just a minute.


INGRAHAM: If you're dying to see California Congressman Adam Schiff, just turn on the television at any point in the day, any time, any channel, because the top ranking Dem on the House Intel Committee is the main proponent of the Russia collusion narrative.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All have you right now is a circumstantial case.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that. I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial.

One of the messages that this Russian advocate may have taken back to Moscow is the Trump administration will be very amenable to repealing the Magnitsky Act.

The Russians gave help and the president made full use of that help. And that is pretty damning.


INGRAHAM: Here is the problem. He is like a carnival barker but there's nothing under the tent. There's not a shred of evidence backing up his accusations. But that doesn't stop him from playing the mainstream media like a fiddle. We're going to discuss this now with Michelle Malkin in a moment, but first let's go to FOX News chief national correspondent Ed Henry with more. Ed?

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you, Laura. The fact that allies of President Trump are now turning up the heat on Schiff may help explain why today the top Democrat on the House Intel Committee tried to point the finger elsewhere. Schiff tweeting, quote, "I'm increasingly worried Republican will shut down the House Intelligence Committee investigation at the end of the month," adding, quote, "It appears Republicans want to conduct just enough interviews to give the impression of a serious investigation."

Well, how serious has that investigation been? Let's dive deep on what happened when Donald Trump Jr. arrived to testify on December 6th behind closed doors for over seven hours. While he was still behind closed doors mid-testimony CNN was already posting stories suggesting Donald Trump Jr. was testifying to something nefarious. CNN reporting that according to multiple sources familiar with the testimony that was still going on, quote, "Donald Trump Jr. told House investigators he did not communicate directly with his father when confronted with news reports about his June, 2016, Trump Tower meeting. Instead, Trump Jr. said he was speaking to White House aide Hope Hicks about how to respond to reports." That sparked a flurry of reports suggesting maybe Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, had some deeper unspecified role in a collusion narrative even though it was not clear that there was anything criminal or even inappropriate about those conversations.

Well, the new information I'm told tonight by Republicans close to the committee is Donald Trump Jr. and his attorney were asked to surrender their phone before he went behind closed doors to that testimony. But then during the hours of testimony they noticed Adam Schiff was leaving the room at various times. And then these stories started popping up on CNN and elsewhere about the testimony, leading them to believe the leaks were coming right from the top.

But since Donald Trump Jr.'s team didn't have their phones, they didn't find out about these stories popping up on CNN and elsewhere until several hours after the testimony started. That's why they're demanding the Justice Department investigate whether it was Adam Schiff himself or other top Democrats that did the leaking, and they think that's why Schiff came out today, Laura, and started trying to shift the blame and say the Republicans are trying to shut down this investigation. They are saying Donald Trump Jr. was testifying to what he knew and during the testimony leaks were springing up everywhere.

INGRAHAM: I love that, leaving the room. It's like kids in class and they are leaving to like get the notes they stored under the toilet or something in the bathroom. Ed, I appreciate it, thanks so much.

And joining us now with reaction from Colorado Springs, Michelle Malkin, the host of "Michelle Malkin Investigates" on CRTV. Michelle, I mean, you cannot make this up. It is so patently obvious what's been going on. There is zero to the Russian collusion story, but Schiff is trying to fan any ember that's out there, and he runs out of the committee meeting. And that's what he had to have been doing. I'm sure he not going to the bathroom that much unless he has some undisclosed prostate problem or urinary tract problem that we are not aware of. But what do we make of this perpetual tease by Adam Schiff?

MICHELLE MALKIN, HOST, "MICHELLE MALKIN INVESTIGATES": Yes. Well, there definitely is a leak problem and it may not be urological in nature. But certainly I think the question here is, Laura, will, as that old World War II saying used to go loose lips sink ships. And I'm glad the heat is being turned up on him. I would like to know how Blabby Mcblabber mouth in Russian because this diversionary tactic, this tweet storm I think is an indication he is quite worried that it will be traced back to him.

And it is interesting, isn't it, Laura, that when Mr. Blabby Mcblabber mouth of the House Intelligence Committee goes on the collusion narrative network that they never ask him about all of these botched stories that clearly seem to point back to whoever is leaking false stories in the first place.

INGRAHAM: And Michelle, there could obviously be a violation of House ethics rules because you are not to be giving this information to the press or to anyone when it's a closed door session like this. And yet somebody, and I don't know who else it could have been. I mean, I guess I it could be someone else, but he is the only one kept leaving the room. He's the only one out there day after day after day teasing, as you saw with Chuck Todd, not just circumstantial evidence, he said, but we have other evidence of Russian collusion. And then there is never, again, the perpetual tease. There is never any payoff.

MALKIN: Yes. I mean, Adam Schiff has fired more duds than the North Korean missile program over the last year, and the question is just as much about his culpability at the very least as you say with the ethical violations from the House ethics committee. But then there is also all of the enablers in the media who have put him on nonstop. And I think there actually have been records of the amount of time he has spent shilling for the collusion narrative.

So what happened to all of the layers of and layers of fact checkers? Where is the extreme vetting from all of the other networks that put him on nonstop to blab like this?

INGRAHAM: Where is CNN and MSNBC saying OK, like, where are the goods? I mean, you have been promising this since March. Give us something. You said your sources will be confirming. You'll have more on Friday, next week, the week after. And then there is nothing that's comes.

Michelle, I want to move on to another topic that I know you and I have spent a lot of years talking about, and that's immigration. There is a lot of concern that the Trump administration might have its hand forced on a DACA fix before the end of the year that will not include the key provisions of ending chain migration, ending visa lotteries, e-verify, the wall, all those things in the RAISE Act which would be critical.

I am very worried about this and I'm not sure that the president is aware of these forces that are working behind the scenes to get this done. But my sources are telling me that this push is real, and I was wondering what your thoughts are on this, especially now that we're seeing border crossings going up again from October to November. There was a big surge in family unit crossing and individuals crossing at the border and being caught, 40,000 was the number in November.

MALKIN: Yes, as you say, Laura, you and I have been warning about the open borders faction within the Republican Party for a long, long time. And they are very good at what they do and they are relentless. And that is why there needs to be a forceful pushback from grassroots conservatives to make sure that President Trump knows exactly what's happening.

When you have got 34 House Republicans who have signed a letter demanding an immediate, quote-unquote, fix for DACA, that tells you how twisted the legislative priorities are of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican Party, that they are more interested in a standalone fix to protect upwards of 800,000 illegal aliens than they are in fixing the Obamacare system that has harmed millions of people in the individual market, let alone fixing all of these stupid programs that you and I have been talking about for years now, whether it's diversity visa or ending chain migration. Where is the standalone bills and standalone legislation for those?

INGRAHAM: And the president has to understand people like Scott Taylor from Virginia, I know he is a former Navy seal and all of that, but he is absolutely obsessed with pushing this DACA thing through, absolutely obsessed. And I know this Mary Jones woman is going to be challenging him next year.


INGRAHAM: But there is a group of people who are pushing this, and the president I hope is aware of it. And Michelle, you have done great work on this issue. We really appreciate it.

And by the way, obviously the president is none too pleased with the FBI right now, so he ended up offering a few words of advice for the next generation of agents today. So I have a question. Can the agency recover from the charges of bias? Don't even think about changing the channel.


INGRAHAM: The FBI is being rocked by shocking revelations of partisan bias against President Trump by investigators looking into Hillary's emails and Russia. While heading to Quantico, Virginia, today to give a speech to FBI Academy graduates, the president delivered a blunt assessment of the situation.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a shame what's happened with the FBI. When you look at what's gone on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very, very angry.


INGRAHAM: But he struck a very different note during his address to FBI graduates.


TRUMP: The president of the United States has your back 100 percent.

I will fight for you and I will never ever let you down, ever. Now, more than ever, we must support the men and women in blue.


INGRAHAM: Joining us with reaction is former FBI national spokesperson John Iannarelli. John, great to see you. Grade the president's speech today at the FBI.

JOHN IANNARELLI, FBI SPECIAL AGENT (RET): I thought it was A-plus. He said all the right things. He's supportive of the FBI. He's supportive of law enforcement. That's what we need in this country today.

INGRAHAM: You have these controversies surrounding Andrew McCabe as the deputy director of the FBI, given this Peter Strzok, how he managed to get into that investigation, lead the investigation. Hillary's emails, also the Flynn interview, helped to edit that Comey non-indictment/indictment of Hillary. And I and others are calling for McCabe to go. What's the thought on him?

IANNARELLI: I think Andrew McCabe is in a tough spot right now. Obviously there's a lot of negative press what's going on up there with the various things that have happened, but the new director, he decides who stays and who goes. I think eventually people will move on and Director Wray will have other people in place.

INGRAHAM: It seems that the president is trying to strike a different note that leadership versus the rank and file, and whether you see him with police officers or first responders and sometimes the political operatives or political people at the top. It could be different. But I saw that reaction today. They were going crazy for him. They just loved him at this event. But he has been brutal in his texts about what happened at the heart of the FBI in dealing with his own Russian investigation, and people like myself and others on this network and beyond have also really unearthed what's happened there.

IANNARELLI: That's the thing about this president. He is not afraid to say how he feels. But I will tell you, when it comes to the FBI, the men and women, everyone the FBI is a leader. That's why they were recruited to do what they do. And likewise there is an importance to remain objective. You can have all the opinions you want. But when it comes to work, you have to make sure you are reporting the facts as the facts are seen.

INGRAHAM: If you are doing an investigation into some high profile event as an FBI agent, and you're texting with another FBI agent you happen to be having a romantic relationship with and you are like this guy is a nightmare and I hope he doesn't win and we need an insurance policy, that's kind of not the run of the mill thing you would do knowing the sensitivity of a particular investigation you might in the future be involved in.

IANNARELLI: Absolutely. Agents, while we're human beings and we have opinions, we are expected to keep those opinions to ourselves. Agents can't even have a flag on the front lawn displaying pro-candidate in one race or another.

INGRAHAM: Is that right?

IANNARELLI: Absolutely. You cannot express your political opinions as an FBI agent. You can't do anything that your neighbors will. He is an FBI. He supports this candidate or that candidate. You have to be unbiased.

INGRAHAM: Just quickly, Eli Lake, a writer, said we might have violated the privacy of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page by looking at their texts. Are you worried about their privacy given what we are finding out?

IANNARELLI: Anybody who is using a bureau device texting has no privacy. It's the government's.

INGRAHAM: John, great to see you.

And PC revisionists, by the way, of history make its way to the Dallas school board. Oh, no, PC madness in Texas after this.


INGRAHAM: Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin knew how to get rid of history he didn't like. He just erased it. That's one history lesson the left has learned very well. The obsession with scrubbing America's past is an overdrive, this time even in Texas.

The Dallas school board voted yesterday to change the names of three elementary schools named after confederate generals. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and William Cabell. In an Orwellian use of double speak, one school trustee said dropping the names was needed in order to acknowledge history. No, replacing historical names and toppling statues isn't acknowledging history obviously. It's erasing it.

So why pretend these historical figures, even the Confederacy, never existed? Why do that? Well, of course, slavery we all know was abominable and evil, but what do we learn about the past by forgetting the past? America paid a dear price in blood to overcome her original sin, and our children have a right to their entire history, and not some redacted version that omits the important but cautionary tales.

We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: Before we go, for a true understanding of what's happening in the White House and the challenges ahead, there is no better gift of knowledge that my new book, "Billionaire at the Barricades, The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump." It's the gift that will keep on giving in the new year, and it's worth just the chapter, the subtitle is "From Babs to Bubba." You'll love it.

You can always reach me @IngrahamAngle on Twitter, and hit me up on Facebook over the weekend, let me know what you think of the show or ideas for other shows.

And now Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team are up next. Everybody have a great weekend.


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.