Spicer on Rubio, Ryan rumors, Omarosa exit, 2017 under Trump

close

Video

Spicer on Rubio, Ryan rumors, Omarosa exit, 2017 under Trump

Insight from the former White House press secretary on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 14, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Welcome to "The Ingraham Angle" live from Washington tonight. How the Mueller investigation reveals that unlimited power does corrupt. That is the subject of tonight's Angle.

What we have seen over the past seven months at the Mueller investigation reveals a lot about how big government can end up becoming a threat to representative democracy. And the more we look at the web of Clinton and Obama loyalists who burrowed in to Mueller's office, the more obvious it all becomes.

There were a number of highly influential and powerful people working inside the Obama administration, who were not only horrified about the idea of Donald Trump winning the presidency, they were intent on preventing him from being elected by any means necessary.

And if that meant applying for a FISA warrant based on a phony dossier in order to spy on the campaign, maybe they would do it. And if it meant deploying the entire mainstream media apparatus into death con one mode, hyperventilating about Russia collusion 24/7, they would do it.

And today if it requires floating a specious story alleging that the president has early onset dementia, well, they do that too or maybe spreading damaging falsehoods from anonymous sources that are later parroted and then retracted by major news organizations. They'll do that, too.

If it means propagating the idea that Don Trump Jr., Jared, and the president were in some conspiracy with the old KGB to throw the election? No problem, whatever it takes. As the former Mueller investigator, Peter Strzok, put it, they needed an insurance policy to stop Trump.

Going on to reference a meeting in Andy's office and why is that significant? Well, here's the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BOB GOODLATTE, R-VA.,CHAIRMAN, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Andy is presumably Andrew McCabe, the deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This text is very troubling because it suggests that they are doing something. They have a plan to take action to make sure that Donald Trump does not get elected president of the United States in the highest levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, this entire investigation, these texts, all of it, this has become a complete farce. They have an unlimited budget. They have unlimited staff. They have basically an unlimited term. Mueller's team can stay on the hunt forever how long they want. It's insane.

The founders never envisioned that a separate office inside the executive branch could hire a bunch of agenda-driven investigators in search of a crime by the head of the executive branch. I mean, if Congress wants to get rid of the president, they have a way to do that. It's called impeachment.

That's their constitutional prerogative, but this deal with Mueller is now just totally out of hand. And at a minimum, a few things need to happen immediately in order to at least stabilize the situation.

First, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe must be fired, period. He allowed Strzok to be the lead investigator of the Russia investigation after he had been a key player in the ultimate exoneration of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation.

And, remember, he helped Comey soften the language of his non-indictment, indictment of Mrs. Clinton and there is a lot of other things about Strzok we won't go into now. You all know them by now.

And whether McCabe actually conspired with Strzok and went to the FISA court to surveil the Trump campaign, that's really important, too, and that also has to be investigated. But a separate ground for firing McCabe for cause may be the meeting Strzok references in his text messages, the thing that we just referenced.

Because, if true, McCabe actually took part in a discussion or actual planning, who knows, to subvert Trump's campaign or maybe if he was elected his ability to lead the government as president of the United States.

That text message could be the smoking gun. And as for Bob Mueller himself, indeed, he has throughout his career served his country with honor and distinction. But that doesn't change the fact that right now this investigation he is heading has become irreparably tainted.

As the "Wall Street Journal" just put it, the man who should be most disturbed by all of this is Mr. Mueller who wants his evidence and conclusions to be credible with the public. Evidence is building instead that some officials at the FBI who have worked for him may have interfered in an American presidential election.

Congress needs to insist that its rights as a quo equal branch of government exists to discover the truth. Now, I'm not calling for Mueller to be fired. It's tempting but I'm not. But, at the very least, he needs to put the brakes on this investigation, at least pause it for a bit.

I agree with what Alan Dershowitz said on my radio show this morning. It's time for a respected, independent expert to come in and thoroughly examine the individuals conducting this probe and fire anyone inside who even a hint of an appearance of a conflict of interest.

That's all it should take. That's how high the stakes are. Otherwise, the public confidence in the Mueller operation will and should collapse under its own weight. These endless revelations of bias. And that's the ANGLE.

Joining us now for reaction in New York is John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Fox News contributor, and a recovering lawyer, and here in Washington, Richard Goodstein, a Democratic strategist.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC LAWYER AND STRATEGIST: And also recovering lawyer.

INGRAHAM: We are all recovering lawyers, isn't that sad. Richard, let's go to you first. Where am I going wrong here?

GOODSTEIN: This is Alice in Wonderland. Sorry, Laura, you and I have a lot respect for you. The FBI is what won Donald Trump this election, right? We know Rudy Giuliani had all his friends that put on pressure on Comey to put out that letter 11 days before election, which he had no business doing and he didn't disclose to the public the way in which the Russians were trying to kind of tilt this election in addition to his press conference of July 5th, which again went against the FBI rules. So, that, to me, is kind of the fundamental way in which I think you are misrepresenting.

INGRAHAM: So, the July 5th press conference by Comey, you think that helped Trump in the end because it was a non-indictment indictment?

GOODSTEIN: So, the FBI director should have either said we have got the following charges or done nothing. That's their practice. That's what their policy calls for.

INGRAHAM: I agree with you. I actually agree with you. I don't think he should have done that either. But the fundamental question about this probe is, just given the fact that it's so high stakes, just to have it guy Peter Strzok, Weissmann, Jeanie Rhee, they didn't just vote for Obama. That's fine. You're a Democrat. No big deal.

But when you are someone who worked for the Clinton Foundation, when you represented Ben Rhodes as Jeannie Rhee did, when you're high-fiving Sally Yates, the text message how she is defying the president. You are not just a Democrat you are an adversary of that president. That's why having them in the investigation I think is problematic.

John, let's go to you. Ambassador Bolton, your thoughts on this as a former attorney and watching this from the outside. Bob Mueller has a stellar reputation. Republicans built it up and so did Democrats.

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Well, I think that it doesn't really matter what Bob Mueller's reputation is before he becomes an independent counsel because I think the entire concept of independent counsel is so fundamentally flawed that you inherently have investigation turning into exactly what this has turned into.

I think I think Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, however, is the one who is not doing his job. His testimony yesterday I think was extremely disturbing because he demonstrated to my mind utter obliviousness to this maelstrom that is surrounding the Mueller investigation.

Seemingly unable to look at these examples of bias by Peter Strzok and many, many others and connect them to what's happening in the investigation. So, when you combine that with the fundamentally unconstitutional nature of an unrestrained independent counsel, I think we are seeing the destruction of the reputation of the Justice Department and the FBI.

I'm an alumnus of the Justice Department. I have worked with FBI investigators in a number of capacities over the years. I am just thunder struck at what I have seen in the past six months coming out.

GOODSTEIN: John, you know, Attorney General Mukasey is the one who said only Banana Republics does the winner go after the loser, you know, so, look --

BOLTON: This time the loser is going after the winner. That's even more remarkable.

GOODSTEIN: No, no, no, no. There is this talk still about independent counsels going after her -- again, it's 13 months since election --

BOLTON: I'm against an independent counsel to investigate her or anybody else.

GOODSTEIN: Right. But you will agree, will you not, that Strzok, who is not a lawyer. He didn't actually put his name on the document, James Comey, who is a lawyer, went to a very distinguished law school, Laura did. He was the one responsible for everything that went forward.

So, I think this is kind of a big misdirection as the noose is tightening with all due respect around the president and people close to him seeing one misdirection after another. I think we will see more of them until either Mueller gets fired or he says what he is going to come up with.

BOLTON: Here is a fundamental fact. More than one person can commit wrong doing. I think James Comey so badly bungled the Clinton e-mail investigation that Donald Trump should have fired him on January the 20th. He would have been fully justified and nobody would have said obstruction of justice.

It's a tragedy that he didn't fire him. But, in the course of the e-mail investigation, as we now see from the e-mails that have come out, we have got people who were so biased against Trump that it seems to me almost inescapable that their bias affected their judgment.

This is where Rosenstein's testimony yesterday was so bad because it's as if he is saying I'm not going to connect bias to outcome, which is clear, I'm going to insist that they say in meetings that the FBI, we should not indict Hillary Clinton because otherwise Donald Trump would be elected president.

That never happened. I think what Strzok and others did was move Comey, if he wasn't already inclined to do it conclusion there was no requirement for -- that's fundamentally wrong.

INGRAHAM: Hold on right there, guys, because we also tonight learned more about former FBI Director Comey's decision to characterize Hillary Clinton's e-mails as just extremely careless, rather than the statutory language which would have been grossly negligent.

Just tonight Fox News obtained a copy of Comey's actual draft letter that exonerated Clinton. Richard and I were just talking about it. It shows the phrase grossly negligent was deleted in more than one spot.

So, perhaps, you know, more alarming is that the draft shows Comey originally was going to state it was reasonably likely so that hostile actors had actually infiltrated Hillary's server but that was also taken out.

So, look, Senate investigators tell Fox News now that they expect Strzok is the one who really made all of these edits both to the grossly negligent language and about the infiltration of her e-mail searcher?

Richard, I want you to address this infiltration of the e-mail searcher because this gets serious. This is classified information that could have been taken by a foreign actor, and this was hinted at a couple years ago when we were talking about this.

It was said at the time it was likely that a foreign entity did manage to penetrate her system because it didn't have the security as one of the guys who testified even like a Gmail program.

GOODSTEIN: Indulge me, your viewers need to understand what the statue says, whoever having information relating to national defense through gross negligence or let's say simple mindedness permits the information to be delivered to anyone in violation of his trust should be fined or imprisoned.

Do we think that Hillary Clinton delivered the information on her server or let me contrast Donald Trump being in the oval office with the Russians giving them, that's where the simple mindedness comes in, giving themselves that we got from al Qaeda through Israeli sources about using computers to blow up airplanes, and, therefore, tipping off Iran. That is textbook within that same statute.

INGRAHAM: He is the president of the United States. So, I guess, if something is classified in that case, he would probably make the argument. Was he un-classifying it, Ambassador Bolton, I'm not sure how is that is apt in this example when we're talking about thousands and thousands of e- mails that were deleted and a computer system that was maintained completely contrary to the guidelines of how State Department documents and other materials should have been stored.

But nevertheless, you know, Richard makes a point. The accusations about President Trump and the Russians behind closed doors and that one meeting.

GOODSTEIN: Ticked out the U.S. (inaudible), come on.

BOLTON: Then move to impeach him on that grounds. That's up to you. But let's come back to Hillary, if I had proposed at any of my tenure at the State Department doing what she did, I would have been fired. That's the example of different standards applying.

Let's come to the statute in question because you only talked about a piece of it. It's a very comprehensively drafted statute. It starts at the top when you have clear espionage where someone intends to give information to foreigners. It comes down to gross negligence.

Now why is gross negligence there? Because being that careless can have exactly the same effect of transmitting sensitive information to an opponent.

GOODSTEIN: You glossed over the word deliberate, John.

BOLTON: Let me finish.

INGRAHAM: Ambassador --

BOLTON: Comey's speech is where he said we're not going to follow that standard. That's where he was fundamentally wrong.

INGRAHAM: Why edit it? If -- they are editing that document for a reason because they wanted to reach a particular conclusion during a presidential election year. They did not want to put a statement out there that by any lawyer's understanding, it certainly was mine at the time, would indicate that Mrs. Clinton violated the statute like any military guy.

BOLTON: It was a fit of candor that they corrected.

GOODSTEIN: Except she didn't deliver anything to anybody. If a thief goes into your home you are not delivering the goods (inaudible).

INGRAHAM: No, no, Richard, if a military officer leaves a computer on a table that has classified information that he took home without intending to give it to anybody, he can be prosecuted under that statute. He is not delivering it to the thief, but it gets taken. He permits it to be taken. That's the statute and how it's read.

This is fascinating. This is going to be going on for some time. Both of you great sparring partners, Richard and Ambassador Bolton, fantastic.

By the way, what's really behind Marco Rubio's opposition to the Republican tax reform? Wow, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: I should have seen it coming after he appeared on our show a few weeks ago. Marco Rubio is now withholding his support for the GOP tax bill until he gets an increase to the child tax credit, but, maybe it's a joke. Some are saying it might be an old campaign grudge, no, causing him to seek a huge legislative achievement for the president? Come on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Here's a guy that buys a house for 179,000, he sells it to a lobbyist who is probably here for 380,000, and then legislation is passed. You tell me about this guy? This is what we are going to have.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA.: This is a guy that inherited $200 million. If he hadn't inherited $200 million do you know where Trump would be right now?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago.

RUBIO: I saw you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I watched him. I watched him melt down on the stage like I have never seen anybody.

RUBIO: Five things, everyone is dumb. He is going to make America great again. We are going to win, win, win.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Rubio, please. The line is around the street.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: It worked pretty well. Bad blood, no. We didn't get into the small hands debate. Weren't those the good old days. Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, help me out, my friend. First of all, great to have you on the show.

SEAN SPICER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Congratulations, it's been a while.

INGRAHAM: It's good to see you. What's going on here with Rubio?

SPICER: We haven't had comprehensive tax reform in 31 years. When you have a 52-seat majority, everyone is looking for their opportunity to get their issue highlighted, their issue addressed. At the end of the day, Marco Rubio is going to be a vote for us. He is not going to let this moment escape us and he understands how important tax reform is, but I think he like a lot of other senators are making sure that they get their voice heard before this is done.

INGRAHAM: And Mike Lee is partnering with him, I guess, on this.

SPICER: There's a couple of others.

INGRAHAM: Corker is.

SPICER: I think Corker is probably one that I would say is gone.

INGRAHAM: This is what I like about what President Trump does. He forces everybody to put their cards on the table. You know where everybody is. Now Corker like -- I always knew that Corker would basically just couldn't stand Trump, didn't want to work with him and subvert a lot of his agenda. And indeed, right down to the end, Corker --

SPICER: But the big take away that I look at in a day like today when I horse trading is how important that Alabama seat was. How important our majority is because what this comes down to is we have 2018, if Chuck Schumer is the leader, we are not going to be having a debate about what tax credits or how much (inaudible) tax relief people are getting.

This is why making sure that the president maintains a majority in the House and Senate is crucial to keeping the president's agenda moving forward.

INGRAHAM: And you think of John McCain who is in the hospital suffering from glioblastoma treatment and what it does to your body and Thad Cochran is ailing. He is the senator from Mississippi.

Remember the Republicans rushed in there to save off that Chris McDaniel that primary challenger a few years ago and I think a lot of the populist including Bannon and others thought, wait a second, Cochran is 76 years old. It's time to get a younger person in there. If you kind of play that game of Moore was a mistake. Maybe Cochran was a mistake because you could have a younger, more vibrant senator in there as well. Plays both ways.

SPICER: Well, right now we have to concentrate on getting 50 votes to this tax bill so that the American people can enjoy the fruits of that.

INGRAHAM: What about Paul Ryan? He says next year is his last year because he sees a Republican wipe out.

SPICER: I want to stop you right there for a second because I think when you say this story was a political story. President called Paul Ryan and say hey, I need you to be partner of mine and drive the agenda forward. Paul comes out and says I want to stay. I have committed to getting this agenda done.

Paul Ryan at heart is a policy guy, who finally sees a Republican Senate and Republican president and knows that he can achieve some of those policy goals that he has worked hard on so long.

So, I think one of the traps that we as conservative have to stop getting into any time "Politico" or "New York Times" throws out some quick bait that we immediately run around and assume it's true and start planning around it.

Paul came out today after the president called him and said he is committed to staying. He wants --

INGRAHAM: Do you think there is no truth to the rumor that --

SPICER: Look, everybody in public office or anyone who has been around this for a long time, you know, thinks about when they are going to get out or what the circumstances --

INGRAHAM: I thought about it like a couple weeks ago -- every night. No, I'm just teasing.

SPICER: But I think it's one thing --

INGRAHAM: It's a grind. Politics is a grind and he is a guy who has done it since he was 25 years old.

SPICER: Right. It takes a toll on your family. He has a lot to be proud of, but I think he really sees the next few years as an opportunity to get all of these lifelong policy goals achieved --

INGRAHAM: But if the Republicans get wiped out next year, Paul Ryan is not going to want to sit --

SPICER: If they get wiped out, then he is minority leader, but I think he recognizes that the president's agenda is what is going to keep the Republicans in power and he wants to be there to fulfill that.

INGRAHAM: Are they getting closer now?

SPICER: Look, I think everybody understands that the president has an agenda Republican base is highly supportive of. They want to work with him and I think that president gets that. He's grown into this job as someone who an outsider and disrupter. He is starting to learn that some of these folks --

INGRAHAM: You can't fight everybody at once.

SPICER: But he is getting along. He is getting things done and this will be a big win for this president and country.

INGRAHAM: I know you know Omarosa. I know her a little bit from the White House days, and the big deal today she was on "Good Morning America" and she had this to say. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OMAROSA MANIGAULT, FORMER ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: As the only African- American woman in this White House, as a senior staff and assistant to the president, I have seen things that have made me uncomfortable that has upset me, that has affected me deeply and emotionally, that has affected my community and my people. And when I can tell my story, it is a profound story that I know the world will want to hear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: She is going to be leaving the White House on January 20th. It was a big focus of the White House briefing today. They never talk about Omarosa, but today like why is she being paid through January 20th? What is it like $1,500? What is going on there? Do you know any insight?

SPICER: I don't, but I think --

INGRAHAM: Why was she hired do you think?

SPICER: I don't know, but I think it's important that --

INGRAHAM: Does she have any qualifications to work in the White House?

SPICER: I mean, look, she was very loyal to the president.

INGRAHAM: She campaigned for him.

SPICER: And I think the president brought a lot of people who wanted to fulfill his agenda, and that's his prerogative as president-elect at the time. I wish her the best, but I don't -- I'm not really sure.

INGRAHAM: She has a story to tell. Did you see any part of her story?

SPICER: I don't.

INGRAHAM: Give me something here.

SPICER: Well, look --

INGRAHAM: She is a very charismatic person. She's colorful, charismatic individual, big personality. I kind of like that, but you know, some people can't take that.

SPICER: I will let you leave it at that.

INGRAHAM: Do you miss it? Do you miss the rush? I mean, it was exhausting because I talked to you through a lot of that time and it is a 19, 20-hour day.

SPICER: Seven days a week.

INGRAHAM: And you never sleep and you never get any privacy. You have a little bit of privacy back?

SPICER: A little. It's growing. I mean this, though, it was truly an honor to do this and I was proud to be part of helping the president move his agenda forward. I loved being on the outside. I loved being able to be supportive from this thing. It's a definitely a lot less stressful and so I look forward to doing a lot of the other opportunities. I have a book coming out.

INGRAHAM: I know. I'm excited about your book.

SPICER: Good.

INGRAHAM: Do you think this year -- when we look back at it objectively this year will be seen as a successful year for this president, given where the economy is, given where consumer confidence is.

SPICER: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Deregulatory efforts.

SPICER: I do. I think especially if we can get this tax reform done. But a lot of the things done in terms of regulatory measures to peel back to get business booming again and get people hired, all of those economic indicators. Housing starts consumer confidence is going through the roof.

I think when people look back objectively, whether it's two years, five years, 10 years, they will say this was a real economic power house of a year. President's policies and initiatives that really got the economy booming again. We came in and people mocked us for talking about 3 percent growth. Now we are on the path to that's become the baseline.

INGRAHAM: He needs to get the credit for that and he is not getting the credit for that. I think he will. We need happy voters going into 2018.

SPICER: We do.

INGRAHAM: Sean, great to see you, my friend.

SPICER: Merry Christmas.

INGRAHAM: Merry Christmas. I can't wait to read your book.

Coming up, is there a backlash swelling against the "Me Too Movement?"

RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel met with the president today. Do you want to know what they discussed? She is going to tell us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Today's upset election in Alabama, Tuesday's upset election in Alabama has given Democrats a rosy vision of a return to glory, and I understand that. And that's led a passel of pundits predicting doom, utter doom for the GOP in 2018.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET STEPHENS, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: You are watching this 170-year- old institution swiftly marching itself toward destruction.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Can a divided, really more than divided but an internally competitive and internally angry, combative Republican Party, can it win in 2018 and 2020?

SCOTT JENNINGS, FORMER AIDE TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Right now in the Republican Party there are people who are trying to recruit similar types of candidates in Senate races around the country. This is a recipe for disaster.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, here's a larger issue for the GOP, and let's think about this really carefully. Mitch McConnell is really smart and wily in so many ways, so experienced. But is he looking to kind of in some ways exploit the embarrassment in Alabama to maybe knock out viable populist candidates elsewhere? They're no Roy Moores, but they are populist so they conflate the two. I'm thinking of people like Kelli Ward in Arizona, Danny Tarkanian in New Mexico -- in Nevada.

So we've got to think about this. This is where the populists need to be careful and smart, because it's not enough to have just a few national figures support you. No, no, no. You need money and you need some allies within the mainstream GOP to survive, just like President Trump did. Kelli Ward, remember, tried and failed to beat McCain, but, I'm telling you, she is a much better candidate now than she was then. So trying to tag her as far right as the "New York Times" attempted to do today is absurd. She would be a fine general election candidate. And the party needs more strong, smart women.

Joining me now to discuss this exclusively is RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. She huddled up with President Trump today, and this is her first interview since the election in Alabama. Ronna, great to see you. How are you?

RONNA MCDANIEL, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRWOMAN: Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

INGRAHAM: Merry Christmas. What's going on here? The Alabama race was a real body blow for the Republicans, no doubt about it. But for the Republicans to extrapolate that and say, OK, any populist candidate in a place like Arizona, specifically Kelli Ward for Jeff Flake's seat, vote no. You can't do that because it's just going to be another Roy Moore. Is that fair?

MCDANIEL: That's not fair. Alabama is unique. Special elections in and of themselves are unique. You can't extrapolate anything from them that's going to be a bellwether in 2018. You only have one candidate on the ballot, so many different circumstances that go into each special elections.

I do think there are some lessons. Candidates do matter. You do need good candidates. We need to let the voters make that decision. The voters don't love Washington coming in and saying -- INGRAHAM: McConnell came in. McConnell --

MCDANIEL: We know that. We learned that with President Trump. Voters wanted to decide their own fate and who their nominee is going to be. And then we are going to have to work together as the party. We need to be swimming in the same direction if we're going to win these elections.

INGRAHAM: Newt Gingrich wrote a piece in FOX News today, FOXnews.com, and it was a stark warning for the Republicans. He said Republicans must pass tax cuts this year, continue the economic growth. And they need to spend January, he said, developing a new strategy capable of changing current patterns and maximizing their chances to keep the House. They have continue to increase their Senate majority by five or six, he says, and so they will be strong enough to really hold that majority in 2020 when those numbers are going to look more difficult. Do you agree with that analysis?

MCDANIEL: I think Newt is right on, and the RNC is right on track to do all those things. We raised record money. We just announced a new record in November. We're already investing in battleground states. We're already in 18 states. Our data, nobody can compete with our data. Our ground game, we have more people on the ground than ever before. And we are also doing outreach to communities that we haven't been in before. We have to start showing up and having a conversation and talking about the things we have in common.

But I think Newt is absolutely right. We are going to compete for those House seats, we've got to keep the majority, and there's a lot of competitive Senate seats. The map looks good for us.

INGRAHAM: What did the president say if you can share some of his thoughts today that are not private? What was his mood like?

MCDANIEL: He's great. We talked about 2018. Today we had the Christmas party at the White House. We had a lot of RNC members at the White House. But he's jovial. He is ready for 2018. He's always looking to help people's lives be better. And he is focused on tax cuts. We need to pass tax cuts. We just put up a website, PaycheckPresident.com. He is for increasing wages, getting more jobs, and sending more money home in people's paychecks.

INGRAHAM: That RNC official that quit for the Roy Moore support, was that RNC official looking back on it right, you guys shouldn't have supported Roy Moore in the end?

MCDANIEL: We had one out of 168. Overwhelmingly the RNC members understand our role at the RNC is to be the political arm of the White House. And the Alabama members wanted to keep that seat. And they understand the slim majority we have in Senate. We always said let Alabama decide. We knew these allegations were deeply concerning. They were incredibly troubling. But at the end of the day, Alabamians made their choice.

INGRAHAM: The president said I know a lot of Republicans are glad he is not here, but just for my agenda I wish we had that seat. That's a pragmatic way of looking at it, and I know it horrifies a lot of Republicans but that is true. Losing that seat is a blow to the Republican Party.

MCDANIEL: Yes. He always said these allegations are incredibly troubling and concerning and disqualifying if they're proven true.

INGRAHAM: Has he even conceded the election yet, Roy Moore?

MCDANIEL: I don't know.

INGRAHAM: Is he still riding his horse to the next speech? I'm not quite sure what's going on.

MCDANIEL: I haven't kept up to date on that.

INGRAHAM: I asked this on my radio show.

MCDANIEL: I will ask tonight.

INGRAHAM: I know when they write in on their cards yes I will give $25 or $50 or they write a note, what's the number one thing people want done, the Republican electorate, what do they want done?

MCDANIEL: Right now I'm getting a lot of merry Christmas cards, which is great. But I always look at them for you. It is tax cuts. We have to show that we can pass a big agenda item and govern with the majority. They want to see people support -- they want the Congress to support the president.

INGRAHAM: Isn't the latter really important, support the president's agenda?

MCDANIEL: Support the president's agenda 100 percent. We hear it all the time at the RNC. And it is part of why we are having such record fundraising.

INGRAHAM: How do we become, the Republican Party, how can it be a national party if every presidential election we write off California and New York, essentially? How do you change that dynamic?

MCDANIEL: We are going to be in California and New York this year because of some of the congressional seats that are in play. But you do have to make small strides. And I did that as Michigan chair. We had an office in Detroit. It was open for three years. We never shut it down. We have to start showing up in these blue states. I was the chair of a state that nobody thought was winnable presidentially. We won it for the first time since 1988. We can replicate that across the country. But we have to put resources and we have to take our message in, and we've got to show up and stay.

INGRAHAM: And showing up, going into hostile political areas. When Trump went to Detroit, that black church, he has to do that once every couple weeks.

MCDANIEL: He went to Detroit and Flint.

INGRAHAM: Would you advise him to continue to do that?

MCDANIEL: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Continue that push into minority areas that can be helped by real economic reform?

MCDANIEL: I want him to. He is talking about skilled trades. He is talking about jobs.

INGRAHAM: He has to go there.

MCDANIEL: He's talking about paycheck, and we need to show up and give our message because Republicans have been absent for too long, and that's certainly a focus of the Republican Party.

INGRAHAM: Is he making you drop your last name? Is he telling you not to use your maiden name? I read that.

MCDANIEL: Let me just tell you, there are three reasons why I have emphasized McDaniel a little bit more. My husband Patrick, my two kids Abigail and Nash. When I took this job, they see their mom a lot less. And their last name is McDaniel. They deserve for their mom to be emphasizing that name more. This is the dumbest story. We have way more important things to talk about.

INGRAHAM: It's kind of funny. I like both names.

MCDANIEL: I have them both. They're still there, but I'm using McDaniel a little bit more because I have three people at home that are supporting me and they deserve their last name.

INGRAHAM: Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas.

MCDANIEL: Merry Christmas.

INGRAHAM: We can say that again.

And allegations of bad behavior brought down two more members of the media this week, Ronna, but this time with a crucial difference. We're going to explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Can a man's career now be trashed with just an accusation of sexual misconduct? The bar seems to be getting a bit lower, lower and lower. And this week two more powerful men have fallen from grace at least temporarily. Ryan Lizza was fired from "The New Yorker" and Tavis Smiley was suspended by PBS. But in both cases the specifics of the accusations of sexual improprieties were not made public. No names, no stories, no nothing. And both men say the relationships in question were consensual. Smiley went on a forceful counterattack in a video posted on Facebook.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAVIS SMILEY: PBS overreacted and they launched a sloppy investigation. It is clear that this has gone too far, and I, for one, intend to fight back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So have we reached a dangerous tipping point in the Me Too movement? And is this the start of a serious pushback for men and maybe women, too.

Let's turn to Raymond Arroyo, managing editor of EWTN News along with Wendy Osefo who is a Democratic strategist. Wendy, let's start with you. I can't stand men who do this in the workplace. I think it's foul and gross. I also don't like accusations made years later with no ability for an individual, man or woman, to defend themselves. That's really, I mean, I know Tavis smiley a little bit. I have known him, casual friends for like 20 years. I think he is telling the truth. My gut, I watch Tavis, I'm like he is really ticked off. He is really mad. And now a consensual relationship in the workplace is apparently tantamount to sexual harassment. What's your take?

WENDY OSEFO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It's really interesting. And I think one thing that stuck out to me when Tavis was talking is that he kept on talking about this consensual relationship. And that's great if he had one. But the allegations from PBS, they talked about multiple relationships. And that's what's interesting.

INGRAHAM: How about multiple consensual relationships? You can't have those? I thought it was free love generation now, we can do whatever we want.

OSEFO: Absolutely you can do what you want. They said it's not just one person that was consensual. There's actually other people.

INGRAHAM: So how is that harassment?

OSEFO: But you know what is really interesting here is this whole notion of due process. Due process is a legal term. When we are talking about employment, that does not go into the realm of the employment agency.

RAYMOND ARROYO, MANAGING EDITOR, EWTN NEWS: Wendy, in the name of justice though, you can't just be charging men and having secret investigations with people who may have had consensual relationships with them. Maybe he is telling the truth.

Here's my problem. We are seeing a rash of this. This feels like a revival of the crucible. I hope Arthur Miller is getting residuals for this. Look, I have a guy I worked with years ago in summer stock, Robert Knepper. He's a great character actor. He's on a show called "I Zombie." They suspended him for multiple sex abuse allegations. Today they cleared him of all those charges. He is back at work and on the set. That's how it should work.

But he was almost driven away entirely. His name, the reports went there in "Variety" and "The Hollywood Reporter." His name was tarnished as a result of this. And I worry when you have dead people now being charged.

INGRAHAM: Who is dead that's getting charged?

ARROYO: Samantha Fox charged David Cassidy who has been dead for two weeks with sexual groping in the 1980s.

INGRAHAM: The 1980s?

ARROYO: We have to take a breath and figure out what is legitimate here. But I worry that there is a fever in the air, and that men, particularly those in the public eye are susceptible --

OSEFO: And that is the court of public opinion. And I do think that that's the downside. The downside is even if you are proven innocent, the court of public opinion has already judged you and it's hard for you to get --

INGRAHAM: I think it is going to start happening to women too. Women in positions of authority, bosses, and I think women are going to get burned by this because I think there are a lot of people who are not going to hire women not because they don't likes working with women but because they are afraid. I think men and women, perhaps, are going to be afraid to operate in the workplace because of these kinds of charges. Years later if you have a meeting behind closed doors.

ARROYO: You don't know.

INGRAHAM: What can you do? Ten years later, you said this. I didn't say. I don't remember.

ARROYO: Thirty years ago in an elevator you bumped me and I felt awkward about that.

OSEFO: It's not about that. It's about making sure that we conduct ourselves in a professional manner.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

OSEFO: And I think if there is smoke somewhere there may be fire, and we have to investigate that.

ARROYO: I don't mind puritanical moral indignation. Just make sure you act like a puritan and comport yourself.

INGRAHAM: What was is, Marcy Kaptur, the Congresswoman, what did she say.

ARROYO: She said there was a member who had cleavage went down to the floor and that that was invitation, and other Democratic women were not happy.

OSEFO: That was completely wrong.

INGRAHAM: How you conduct yourself, how you carry yourself, how you dress doesn't say anything.

OSEFO: It does not say anything.

INGRAHAM: Your dress suspect to your pubic bone?

OSEFO: Laura.

INGRAHAM: I see that coming out of some of the schools.

OSEFO: I do not think the way you dress should invite any form of sexual assault. I think that is not good and that's not what we're talking about.

INGRAHAM: But I'm just saying there are some mini, micro miniskirts. We are pushing it.

(CROSSTALK)

ARROYO: It does say to the man a certain impression how a woman views herself and ditto what a man wears. If I come in a wife beater shirt and jockey shorts, that tells you --

OSEFO: I would think you are hot.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Come on. Paul Ryan says we should have more kids because we have to support Social Security apparently. He said we have to do our part. What's the fertility rate in the United States? How many kids are we having, one percent.

ARROYO: Beneath one percent.

INGRAHAM: Beneath one percent. That means we don't replace our population.

ARROYO: Barely, just barely. Here's the bottom line. Social Security is constructed, you know this, Wendy, it's constructed so that the new generation sustains the old. If you are only have one kid and you have two parents you have a problem. And that's what Paul Ryan is essentially saying. We need more kids.

OSEFO: Let me go ahead and take a dig at the Republican Party while I can, because at the end of the day a lot of millennials are not having kids because of our social structure as it stands right now. Today is the anniversary of Sandy Hook. People who are dying. People don't wanting to have kids in this environment.

ARROYO: Because they feel somebody's retirement, they can't afford a kid.

INGRAHAM: Guys, by the way, the Christmas Grinch arrives in Nazareth. We will explain. Wow, what's that about?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Politics is threatening Christmas in the hometown of Jesus. Nazareth, the up to where Jesus was raised, according to the Bible, is canceling much of its Christmas celebrations this year. The reason? The mayor claims it's all because of President Trump.

Nazareth is a mostly Muslim town in modern Israel, but it still holds annual Christmas celebrations. And this year it's different. Mayor Ali Sallam says all the joy has been taken out of the holiday because of President Trump's recent decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Sallam accused Trump of stabbing Palestinians in the back.

Well, to be fair, it's not only Muslims who are upset with the decision. Palestinian Christians in the Middle East are vehemently opposed to the move. And as you know the Pope is as well. The decision by Nazareth's mayor could have come with a big cost to his town and its people. The annual celebration is a huge tourist attraction and it's attended by thousands and thousands of pilgrims. But the town ultimately decided to cancel the traditional singing and dancing, not the Christmas market and parade. It's a pity that politics has been allowed to interfere with Christmas in the town where our savior was raised.

My friends, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Before we go, can you believe Christmas is just 11 days away? I thought it was three weeks from now. But you got a race to get your shopping done. I've done almost no shopping but you can pick up my book, "Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump," and you can always reach me @IngrahamAngle on Twitter, Facebook. Share your thoughts about tonight's show, especially the question of should we be having more cards to pay for Social Security?

Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team up next. See you tomorrow.

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.