This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," December 26, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

DAVID WEBB, GUEST HOST: All right. Thank you, Mark. And welcome to this special edition of "Hannity: The Trump Agenda." I am David Webb in for Sean tonight.

President Trump taken aimed at allegations of bias at the FBI and blasting the fake news dossier. We'll talk about that in a moment. The President tweeting earlier today, "Wow, 'Fox & Friends,' dossier is bogus. Clinton campaign, DNC funded dossier, FBI cannot after all this time, verify claims in dossier of Russia-Trump collusion, FBI tainted and they used this crooked Hillary pile of garbage as the basis for going after the Trump campaign."

President Trump's tweet appears to be in reaction to reports that during his closed-door Congressional testimony, FBI director, or Deputy Director Andrew McCabe failed to specify which portions of the dossier the FBI claims to have corroborated. There is also a report that McCabe plans to retire in 2018 amid mounting criticism from Congress. Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz weighing in on the scandal, seeing that maybe McCabe should have recused himself for any Clinton-related investigations, given his conflict of interest. Watch this.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR EMERITUS: Well, first of all, everybody tells me who knows McCabe and has worked in the FBI, he's a very decent guy and was an excellent deputy director. Having said that, he should have recused himself immediately from any investigation involving Hillary Clinton because of his wife's connection to Hillary Clinton. When you are investigating a presidential candidate, whether it be Hillary Clinton or President Trump, you have to be Caesar's wife, you have to be above reproach, you have to make sure, not only there are no conflicts, but there are no perceived conflicts. Not only is there no bias, but there is no perception of bias. And he did not pass that test.


WEBB: And in other big news, The Washington Post now reporting that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is talking with other Republican lawmakers about writing a report next year that would expose alleged, I say alleged FBI corruption.

Also, tonight, a stunning reports from Politico. James Baker, the FBI's top lawyer, was in contact with liberal journalist David Corn of Mother Jones. And he did this in the weeks before the outlet broke the very first news story about the existence of the anti-Trump dossier.

Joining us with reaction, core national spokesman and conservative pundits, my friend Niger Innis. Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, and Daily Caller reporter Carrie Pickett. By the way, all friends. Great to see you here.

Gregg, I am going to go to you, first on this. And let's talk about this dossier for a moment. We will put a pause on the politics and look at what you would do within the process of vetting information given to the FBI, this dossier come before you would put it to use.

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Look, the FBI receives a lot of fake documents all the time, it is up to them to vent it. You can't use it in a court of law unless you have verified its authenticity and confirmed its contents. If the FBI used this dossier in an affidavit in support of a search warrant to spy on the Trump associates, that's a fraud on the court, that's a crime.

But you backed up several months and apparently this dossier was also used to launch the Trump-Russia investigation. And they apparently did little or nothing in the way of verifying its contents. So, think about this. Funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign at the Democratic National Committee -- which by the way it is a crime under the federal election campaign act.

They use this document to then spy and launch an investigation on Hillary Clinton's political opponent. It's beyond the pale of criminal negligence. And some of the people who did this, including perhaps Comey, McCabe, James Baker, Peter Strzok, and others, should be held accountable, criminally, if appropriate.

WEBB: All right, Gregg. You are talking about this legal aspect in the process is important. Carrie, the process on the hill is a little different. You are down there every day talking to the congressmen and senators. So, the political aspect of this comes into play. Given what Gregg just said, given that Comey admitted that he leaked information, which also is an issue that you have talked about before, Gregg, what about the dossier and the use of this in the Congressional point of view?

CARRIE PICKETT, DAILY CALLER REPORTER: Well, what's interesting here, David, is that anytime I have gone to the hill and spoke into the lawmakers that are leading these investigations, whether in the Senate or on the House side, you've had Democrats, for example, who have been preparing almost for and they will never say this publicly -- but they have been essentially preparing for what could be an impeachment.

Because anytime I have gone up to them and asked, what about the conflict of interest here? What about the Podesta group? What about the issue that the dossier is not verified? The answers have been, "I haven't heard about that yet" or "that's not important." On their Republican inside, however, you go up to them and say, well, what about say, the Donald Trump, Jr. emails and so on and so forth, they have been more on the defensive, looking to say, what can I do to defend Donald Trump to make sure that he doesn't get impeached. And remember, how did this start? This started off with, oh my goodness, the Russians ended up meddling in our elections. We have come so far from that, David.

WEBB: All right. So, that is the hill view, the legal view. Now turning to Niger Innis, our friend out there in Las Vegas. Big gambling out of Democrats porter, Niger. Kind of, it's your town of Las Vegas. But the media has been carrying this. Gregg's point about the legal aspect of this, we've talked about the process here, I think more than I have seen on most media, and Gregg explained that. Carrie looks at it on The Hill and what their proposal. What about the media's handling of this?

NIGER INNIS, CORE NATIONAL SPOKESMAN: The media, the establishment media, outside of course of FOX News, which we don't consider to be establishment, has been egregious in their silence. "The Washington Post" has this on the masthead, "Democracy dies in darkness." Well, no, actually, democracy died in darkness with the creation of this dossier.

You know, for these Never Trumpers out there and these left-wing folk that hate Trump and suffer from Trump derangement syndrome, I just want them to think about the hypothetical analogy. All right. It's 2008, we all jump into a time machine. It's 2008 and the John McCain for president campaign prepares a dossier using a former British spy and using intelligence gathered on Senator Obama by Israeli intelligence.

That information, that dossier, is passed off to the Bush Justice Department and/or FBI, and they use this dossier to not only wiretap Senator Obama, but to launch an investigation on Senator Obama. The outrage would be deafening. They would be calling for John McCain to not only be impeached, but be given the death penalty. And so, the deafening silence by the establishment media, and the fact that it's more than deafening silence, they are actually going along with the talking points on supposed Russian collusion, based on a dossier in their entire case is built on a house of cards.

WEBB: All right. So, you know, we'll stay on the facts here, Gregg. Let me go back to you on this. And, you know, who can be charged? Because in the end, whether it's the scenario that Niger used which is the scenario, or the reality, more to the reality of what has happened now. You talk about how you cannot produce fraudulent documents to a court where a judge could hold you in contempt. Who can be charged in this scenario in your opinion?

GARRETT: Well, you can start with the people who appear to have exonerated Hillary Clinton for political purposes. That would be obstruction of justice. If that involved Peter Strzok, who apparently changed the critical wording in the exoneration statement, you might also include a McCabe as well as James Baker. We just don't know. Congress needs to get to the bottom of it. Wish there were a second special counsel to investigate Clinton, Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Baker, Strzok --

WEBB: You have John Ohr, his wife worked for Fusion --

GARRETT: Bruce Ohr.

WEBB: Bruce Ohr, rather. His wife. You've got Andrew Weissmann. There is a cacophony of problems here in the sounds that is coming out.

GARRETT: Which is exactly why you need a second Special Counsel. I'm not sure that Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, with so many Obama holdovers still there is capable of actually conducting a fair, objective, neutral investigation. I think there needs to be a second special counsel. And there is more than enough reason and evidence to demand one.

WEBB: All right, Carrie, so you know, before you -- we don't need the constitution explained anymore at least not on this shown to the audience about what it takes for impeachment but we are talking about charges, potential charges, or an idea of who could be charged, and back to Washington, D.C., and impeachment, and the politics of this, we are ending a year and starting a new year. This is going to change for the Democrats in Washington?

PICKET: I got to tell you. As far as a special counsel being called, right now you already have members of Congress calling for an investigation into the corruption right now in the DOJ, into the FBI, looking to purge the problems going on over at the FBI. So, I just can't see a special counsel or second special counsel being called right now.

JARRETT: Except the problem is, you can't investigate yourself. The FBI is a division of the Department of Justice, and if the corruption extended beyond the FBI into the Department of Justice, with so many people still there, you can't trust them to investigate themselves, which is why I have long argued for a second special counsel. And in fact, members of the House Judiciary Committee have sent a letter to the Attorney General demanding a second special counsel just for this.

PICKET: Something that Darrell Issa actually has called for it, as well.


WEBB: All right. So, let's bring Niger back in this again. Niger, big gamble for the Democrats. You are hearing your fellow panelists talk about this legal perspective, political perspective. But, you know, if they were to go to a special counsel and given the IG's reports that have come out, do you think a special counsel brings us there or does it prolong and delay the process and the constant back and forth partisan politics? Which by the way --

INNIS: Well, I think if you have a choice of firing Robert Mueller and ending that special counsel as opposed to bringing on a second special counsel, I lean heavily towards bringing on the second special counsel. Look, Mueller and the Democrats are not going to stop with this investigation. The person recently said, I forget who the commentator said, they said, it is merely just the beginning of -- or the end of the beginning.

So, I think what Mueller's investigation is going to continue, it's going to go long past 2018. So, I think you need a select and distinct special counsel that can examine the corruption within the FBI and examine how Hillary Clinton partisans, Democrat partisans, refuse to investigate her email and her emails being hacked by foreign entities. I mean, talk about collusion and the fact that they did nothing to the Clinton campaign and to Hillary Clinton herself except for, you know, smack her on the wrist.

That needs to be investigated. As well, I think is the most egregious, what we have all been talking about, which is active corroboration, it seems, between a presidential campaign of one party, a sitting government in power, presidency in power, to wiretapped a presidential candidate. I mean, my God, I think that's a little bit bigger than even breaking into a hotel room and Watergate.


WEBB: And we are going to around the table on this one for about 30 seconds each. Gregg to you, whether it's wiretapping, what is potentially who could be charged, when it comes to a special counsel, is there anything that can be done prior to that? Is there anything that the inspector general can do within the FBI or the whistle-blower issue, which is on the table, to actually bring this out?

JARRETT: The Inspector General can only make findings, which can turn into what a referral for prosecution, but generally they don't do it. The problem with the IG is they are rather toothless, always has been, it's a historical fact. What you need is a prosecutor. And again, I don't think there are people that I would have confidence in the Department of Justice to ferret out criminality among themselves.

WEBB: So Kerry, is there anyone on both sides, sitting down there in D.C., that you hear from that you say, you know what, they would lead a straightforward investigation into this? Finding the facts as Greg talks about?

PICKET: David, as far as I can see right now, they are simply looking to circle the wagons, their own parties, and this case Republicans looking to protect Trump and Democrats looking to go after Trump that's going on right now. WEBB: All right, we've got a pause in there. But never a pause for our friends right here, Niger Innis in Las Vegas, Gregg Jarrett here in the studio, and Kerry Pickett. Great to see you, guys. Thank you.

JARRETT: Thank you, happy new year, folks.

WEBB: All right. We are starting off on the day right after Christmas right back into the tough news.

Coming up, President Trump is having a very successful year in office but you wouldn't know that if you only listened to liberal mainstream media. We will show you some of the most extreme, and I do mean extreme examples of liberal media bias. Stay with us as the special edition of "Hannity" continues.


WEBB: And welcome back to the special edition of "Hannity." You know, 2017 has been a very productive year for President Trump, capped off this month after he signed that massive, historic tax cut into law. Of course, tax reform is not the President's only major accomplishment. He successfully appointed a qualified originalists to the Supreme Court. He is rolled back dozens of Obama era regulations.

He's cleared the way for completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline and so much more. But if you watch the mainstream media, you'd probably have a very different and a skewed picture of the Trump presidency. Let's take a look at some of the worst moments -- yes, I said worst moments -- over the past year.


DON LEMON, CNN: I have a whole lot to say about this presidents increasing erratic behavior over the past week or so.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE, CNN: We have an Archie Bunker in chief who is disrespecting American Indians, making classless jokes on the podium.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN: Is this president trying to impersonate Hugo Chavez? Recep Tayyip Erdoğan? Vladimir Putin?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE, CNN: Apparently, the President gets two scoops. You know everyone or else around the table gets one and no word if there were sprinkles.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE, CNN: At the dessert course, he gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate cream pie. Instead of the single scoop for everyone else.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: He gains weight, according to these sources, he doesn't trust people around him, he's withdrawing, not a good picture.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, MSNBC: He's a racist. Okay? He came proverbially as close as he could possibly come to shouting at a rally the n-word. That is what he did down there.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC: Donald Trump, again, being a schmuck. He looked like a thug, he looked like a goon. You looked at the handshake, look at this. Just what a thug.

And you have somebody inside the White House at the New York Daily News says he is mentally unfit, that people close to him say is mentally unfit, that people close to him during the campaign told me had early stages of dementia.


WEBB: I mean, amazing. What you saw is not just a mirage. In fact, according to a study from the Media Research Center, 91 percent of Trump related coverage from ABC, CBS, and NBC's evening newscasts has been negative. And despite all of this, the Trump agenda is moving forward and an ObamaCare repeal and replace, well, that could be next.

Joining us now, Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour, Fox News contributors Ellen Ratner and Deneen Borelli. Ladies, great to see you all.


WEBB: A very belated Merry Christmas to you Ellen and Noelle. I've seen Deneen enough for the last week.


WEBB: You know, I got to tell you something, Ellen, I'm going to go to you first on this. You and I have done a lot of analysis over the years together. Where was the policy disagreement with Donald Trump and what we just played for the audience?

RATNER: Well, first of all, I think that you are not showing what he tweeted out when he goes after people. I think that, you know, he is supporting the economy, but a lot of those rules and regulations and policies were under Barack Obama, and I think that you were not talking at all about our standing in the world community. And I know you think these people say terrible things but they probably said, the right-wing probably said terrible things about Barack Obama, too.

WEBB: But Ellen, my question was, where was the policy disagreement in there? And I've watched a ton of this. Come on, you and I know this. I watch this daily. I am fine with policy disagreements. I don't like the ad hominem attacks.

RATNER: I don't mean that actually. Believe it or not, I think that when you attack somebody and you say the kinds of things that are sad, that's not appropriate. There's plenty that I disagree with President Trump about and it has to do with policy.

WEBB: All right, so, Noelle, let's bring you in on this. You are Republican strategist. From the strategy points, does this help the Democrats, and if so, how? Would this constant left wing barrage on Trump's character, an ad hominem attacks, rather than pointing out policy failures. When I just read a list of accomplishments that are campaign promises he made, he kept, whether you agree or disagree with them, and he went out there, he has kept his promise.

NOELLE NIKPOUR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Right. And you know what? They just will not let President Trump have a victory lap. No matter what. And you know what, you know, Trump really did do this. What he said is what he fulfilled. He fulfilled promises. Unlike what President Obama did which is, he got health care through but it was riddled with low, you know, low enrollment.

You couldn't keep your own doctor, and now the premium increases is what we are dealing with. And President Trump, when he campaigned on creating jobs, you can check that off. He's about to put money in middle-class American pockets. You can check that off. So he's fulfilling his promises and what he gets from mainstream media is constant negative, constant negative. And I think that's a lot of the reason why Donald Trump has to tweet so he can get his own message out there because it has been negated so much for mainstream media.

WEBB: All right. Deneen Borelli is here in the studio with me. Deneen, I asked Noelle about how this helps the Democrats. On the other side, the Republicans, and the Republican messaging, the president's successes, there have been a number of successes. They are not the sexy stories, they don't get the headlines, the tweets. I even agree with the Ellen, the back-and- forth off policy is not healthy. But where do the Republicans take this next? How do they tout changes in GDP, expansion of the economy? How do they do this effectively and sell it even to the underserved communities, no matter what ethnicity they are?

DENEEN BORELLI, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: The Republicans need to do that. They need to take that message out there to Americans, to all Americans. I think it's great when President Trump goes out and does a rally for the people, making that face time with Americans, because Americans want to hear from the President, they want to know what's going on, the agenda, and he is delivering on his promises. And that is what the media does not like.

The media cannot control President Trump. He is able to go around them, he has called them out how many times, numerous times, fake news, very fake news, because the media refuses to talk about his accomplishments that he has been able to make in one year and that is going to help turn Americans lives around, from tax cuts, lower regulations, these are the issues, the policies that he ran on, that he talked about and how it's going to be America first and the forgotten men and women. That is what he is putting first.

WEBB: All right. So, let's go back to Ellen Ratner. And Ellen, you've been in the media business a long time. You and I have watched and analyzed campaigns, and we are looking at what is coming ahead and what they can use. What can the left use effectively, if the economy continues to expand, third quarter, over 3.3 percent growth. The markets had highs, home mortgage insurance interests or home mortgage interests growing, 18 year highs. Constant changes and all on the upswing since the President was elected and since he was installed.

RATNER: Well, first of all, I think that we have to look over the long term and to see if his policies really work and number two, I think we have to look, for instance at ObamaCare, which he wants to get rid of. But even though they had less advertising and less time to enroll, it's over eight million people enrolled this time. So, the fact is, is that Obama policies are still working, and people might not like that, you might not like it, but the facts are the facts.

WEBB: Okay. Well, here's a fact for you, Ellen. Over 80 percent of the people paying the ObamaCare penalty make under $50,000. That is IRS data. By ruling that back, combined with a doubling of the standard deductions for people in lower income brackets, they could to keep a larger portion of their money. They don't get hit with a tax. And to be fair, the Republicans now have to deal with affordability and other issues to help the insurance industry and health care providers provide a better rate.

So, that's the ObamaCare working when premiums are going up 200 percent, 300 percent almost in Arizona. When there are rate hikes requested for next year by insurance companies, starting as low as 25 up to 60 percent. How are those policies going to be -- how are they going to use them, as Democrats, when people look at the reality of what they pay?

RATNER: Well, I think we are going to have to see how it does play out and whether people really do get health insurance coverage or not. And that's going to see. We are going to see why in Congress do they want to help people with their premiums, because they know that it's a very popular program.

WEBB: Well, popularity is to be judged by the politics. Noelle, quick 15 seconds. Do the Democrats have a case to make next year?

NIKPOUR: You know what, here is what I think. I think that, how can they be critical if they weren't part of the process? And I really resent the fact of the Democrats are very upset about a lot of the policies that we are getting through, or Trump is getting through, when they did not participate and they don't want to participate in the process. And when we come up on health care and we are going to do that, they need to have a seat at a table or they can't complain the next time around.

WEBB: Deneen, real quick. Are the democrats going to play ball with the Republicans or is it going to be Chuck Schumer crying and Pelosi beating them up with Armageddon?

BORELLI: Well, unfortunately, the Republicans did not rip up ObamaCare out from the roots and now they own it. So, the left is clearly going to blame Republicans for the failures that are to come as we have seen the rates have gone up, people have lost their health insurance, or they just can't afford it. Republicans will be blamed for it in the Democrats is going to just sit back and watch. They did not help on tax reform.

WEBB: Well, the Republicans better sell success well, that is what I have to say on that. Ladies, thank you very much.

Up next on the special edition of "Hannity." The Trump administration and Ambassador Nikki Haley is doing a great job at the U.N. They are taking an ax to the United Nations operating budget. We are telling you how much they are cutting, and why, why it is sending a major message to the U.N.?

That should not be ignored. Ambassador John Bolton and Dr. Bill Parker weigh in. That and more on the special edition of "Hannity" continuing, next.


WEBB: Welcome back to a special edition of "Hannity," President Trump's America first agenda in full effect. Get this. After the United Nations, after the United States negotiated a $285 million cut to the United Nations bloated budget, of course, this comes as President Trump and U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley blasted -- and I mean blasted -- the U.N. General Assembly for holding a vote to rebuke the United States' decision to move its embassy in Jerusalem, and Israel, to Jerusalem. Watch this.


NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the general assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us as they so often do to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: United States, the people that live here, are great citizens. I love this country. They are tired of this country being taken advantage of and they are not going to be taking advantage of any longer.


WEBB: By the way, as an added note, Guatemala now announcing that they will move their embassy into Jerusalem, as well. So I wonder when the vote is coming up in the U.N. on that. In the wake of their anti-Israel, anti- American positions, and with the U.S. contributing more, and I say more, to the U.N.'s budget than any other nation, should the Trump administration take even more financial steps to put them on notice?

Joining us now, former United States ambassador to the United Nations, and Fox News contributor John Bolton. As well as COO of the east-west institute and a retired U.S. Naval officer, Dr. William Parker. Author of a great book that I have on my shelf that I read. "Guaranteeing America's security into the 21st century." You two gentlemen have been at work doing this job, first, to you, Ambassador Bolton. Great to see you again. I know where you stand on this, but I want to hear it from you. I think I know where you stand on this. What is this really and what does it mean?

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: This particular cut was baked in the cake before the Jerusalem vault. Certainly it's worthwhile to get the budget low or even by that amount. But I think it provides the Trump administration with an excellent pivot points to look at the larger question of what elements of the U.N. System are functioning successfully and what are not. And to move away from the system of international taxation and the fact that we are under now, as you say, we say 22 percent of the regular budget, 28 percent of the even larger peacekeeping budget. And just decide that we are going to contribute voluntarily to what we think works and either substantially reduced or zero out of those programs and offices that we don't think work. Now if this would be like a tsunami through the U.N. System. But if we could carry through with it, it would actually make it more efficient and more effective.

WEBB: Now there is an ambassador you know, he may have been on the show, he may even be here right now, Dr. Parker, he says that sometimes in diplomacy, your choices aren't that good. I'm using the cleaned up version of this. Do you think this sends a signal to the United Nations?

WILLIAM PARKER, COO OF THE EAST WEST INSTITUTE: Look the United Nations is a very important body. There is no doubt about that. Very important. But at the end of the day, efficiency and effectiveness matters, and the reality is, as Ambassador Bolton just pointed out, 22 percent of that total funding came from United States, 9 percent came from Japan, and 8 percent came from China and the rest are much smaller. So to say that we need to get more efficient and more effective I think is spot on. We do need to take a good, hard look at that, but we also need to realize how important the United Nations is to the overall body of the globe.

WEBB: All right. Ambassador Bolton, as I mentioned, Guatemala now, they are announcing, and other nations are indicating they may do this, and moving their embassies to Jerusalem. Is there another story here? Have you discerned anything from us?

BOLTON: Look, the government of Israel has been working on this for some time and I'm sure they are going to try to take advantage of it. I think other countries may make that decision, as well. I think the President's biggest problem, having recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his biggest problem in moving the U.S. Embassy is going to be at the U.S. State Department, where they just don't like this idea one little bit. And I think the President is a real estate executive, he knows how to get things built. My advice to him would be to move forward, select a site, do the planning, and start turning dirt as soon as possible. That, in effect, I think would really induce other countries to look at moving in to West Jerusalem, which is where all they would become a without prejudice to the ultimate outcome of the peace negotiation.

WEBB: On the other side of this, Dr. Parker, Turkey has announced that they are also going to move their consulate, I believe is what they call it, to Jerusalem. Emphasis their connection to Palestine. Does this indicate anything about the geopolitical or the regional political issues?

PARKER: It indicates that this is a complex environment and it's not going to get any easier anytime soon. When you look at the Sunni, Shiites issues around the globe, when you look at what is going on in the Middle East right now that is not going to change. The reality is, the complexities are there and you were going to continue to see countries decide whether or not they want to move their embassies to Jerusalem or they want to keep them in other places.

WEBB: All right, gentlemen, let's bring this together, because another issue on the table, North Korea. That has been -- we have seen a sea change in years, decade's long policy, at least since the '90s and how we deal with North Korea. First to you, Ambassador Bolton. Russia now saying, and this came out of the news this morning, they are willing to be the broker of a deal between U.S. and North Korea. But from a historical track, what do we see and where are we now with North Korea? Could Russia play a role?

BOLTON: No, I think it would be a waste of oxygen. We have negotiated with North Korea for 25 years. They have committed on at least four and distinct occasions to give up their nuclear programs weapons program in exchange for tangible benefits. They have lied every time, they have made that commitment. There is simply no evidence that in year 2026, the North Koreans are going to do this any differently. In fact, we have got tonight a very interesting comparison.

Reuters has a story that says China's statistics showed no oil exported to North Korea last month. But we have papers published in the South Korean press overnight showing at least 30 examples of ship to ship transfers of oil between Chinese and North Korean vessels during the last couple of months. So this is something that we have been plagued by the North Koreans, played by the Chinese for a long time. I think we are still waiting for China to do something dramatic. But if it doesn't, we are faced with some very, very unpleasant choices. Unless you are prepared to see North Korea with nuclear weapons.

WEBB: All right, so, Dr. Parker, you have been involved in this some degree, you have traveled a great deal to brief others and talk about this issue. Walk us through the scenario of where we are now and what we should do or not do.

PARKER: This is a complex environment in the backyard of China, South Korea, Japan, and when you look at those three countries, and what they are dealing with right now, if they do nothing, if we do nothing, as a globe, and we allowed North Korea to maintain their nuclear weapons program and advance them to the point that they are close to you right now, what you are going to end up with is likely a nuclear South Korea, a nuclear Japan, and therefore, a concerned China that increases their nuclear capability and their defense capability. But it gets better. I gets better because then, Iran sees the North Korea "got away with it" and what you end up with is a potential of nuclear weapons in and around the Gulf, as well. If that happens, you are going to end up losing control of that material and that is a very complicated problem. We haven't even talked about finances and issues of the impact on the economy at.

WEBB: Before we get to that, South Korea's view of this, specifically South Korea. Where are we with them and where do they stand?

PARKER: South Korea is interesting because before we can talk about the unified Korea, you have to talk about a unified South Korea. To talk about a unified South Korea, you have to ask the question of whether or not you want to unify that peninsula and whether or not you want WMD within South Korea itself. If you talk to government officials over there, many of them all say that you need a nuclear capability in order to execute a mutual assured destruction capability from South Korea toward the North Koreans. And Japan would say the same thing.

WEBB: All right, back to you, Ambassador. Are we at a new potential cold war in modern form?

BOLTON: I think we are at a critical point in terms of the 50 year effort to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction because if we fail to stop North Korea, and they are very close to the ability to hit targets in the United States with thermonuclear weapons, then I think that effort will have crashed into complete failure, because it will just be North Korea. They will sell these capabilities to anyone with hard currency, to Iran, if they are not already doing work together on the nuclear side, the terrorist groups, if they can come up with the money, to other nuclear weapon states. Then you're going to see this proliferation worldwide. It will be a much more dangerous world. Trump inherited this. He didn't create the situation. But it will be on his watch that we either stop or do North Korea are we face a real expansion of nuclear -- and actually biological and chemical weapons, as well, all around the world.

WEBB: Dr. Bill Parker, COO at the East-West institute and a great new book guaranteed American security in the 21st century. And Ambassador Bolton, you have been working hard to guarantee our security for many years. Thank you both, gentlemen.

PARKER: Thank you.

BOLTON: Thank you.

WEBB: All right. Coming in, the Democrats are setting the stage to try and impeach President Trump. Yep, I said it. If they are successful in the 2018 midterm elections, can you imagine this is where they going to do? Plus, you won't believe the new low that that left just hit. Our panel reacts and that is next on this special edition of "Hannity."



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am proud to stand here with my friend Congressman Gutierrez, and other congress people, we will be here announcing that we are introducing articles of impeachment to remove President Trump from office.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: His actions are contemptible. And I will fight every day until he is impeach! Impeach 45!

REP. AL GREEN, D-TEXAS: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: The president's decision to end DACA was heartless and it was brainless.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: The president's fitness for office is something that has been called into question. I am very worried about his fitness.


WEBB: And welcome back to the special edition of "Hannity." those were examples of Democrats this past year questioning President Trump's fitness for office, even calling for his impeachment, and it's not just Democrats relentlessly going after the President, his agenda. Liberals in the media have also reached another new low. In response to President Trump's emphasis on saying "Merry Christmas," "Newsweek" on Christmas Eve published an article entitled, "How Trump and the Nazis stole Christmas to promote white nationalism." and listen to what CNN's Don Lemon recently says on the President's recent use of the phrase Merry Christmas.


LEMON: This is a line that we have heard from Donald Trump many, many times. This is dog whistle to the base, because no one has ever stop saying Merry Christmas.


WEBB: I forgot to bring my dog whistle. I usually have that on my radio show, you blow it whenever I hear that phrase. Joining me now with reaction, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and coeditor of the New York Times Fox best-selling books Scalia speaks. Chris Scalia also joining us, Fox News radio host Todd Starnes, and author and his attorney Danielle McLaughlin. Danielle, I've got to go to you first on this. As an attorney, make a case for impeachment of President Trump.

DANIELLE MCLAUGHLIN, ATTORNEY AND AUTHOR: The president can be impeach for high crimes and misdemeanor as you and I both know, David, the political process not a legal process.

WEBB: But it requires a chargeable crime. You don't need United States requires that.

MCLAUGHLIN: A high crime or a misdemeanor. It has become what the public expects the level of proof that you would see in a criminal offense, we need half of the house, two-thirds of the senate, even if the Democrats take back the house in 2018, I think there's a pretty low chance that will happen.

WEBB: Todd? The media has impeach him already, haven't they? I mean, Don Lemon, who I have known for years, says it's a dog whistle. Again, you know, dogs are barking everywhere.

TODD STARNES, FOX NEWS RADIO: Let me say something about Don Lemon. Quite frankly, CNN. Their entire network is a dog whistle for race baiting anti- Trump bigots. I mean, it is 24/7. They really believe that Merry Christmas is a dog whistle. It makes me wonder what they think the words "ho, ho, ho" would be called for. This Christmas is somehow inclusive is that really true? Because you don't hear them talking about Ramadan really needs to be more inclusive. This is not about inclusivity, David. This is about marginalizing Christianity. And President Trump said the words, we are going to start saying Merry Christmas again, what he was trying to tell people again, is that I understand the true meaning of Christmas. Jesus is the reason for the season. That was the message that the President was trying to convey.

WEBB: All right, Chris, let's bring you in on this because your father, a strict constructionist, a man who stood for the constitution, defend the constitution, weighed and often on first amendment issues, unconstitutional issues, you know, it's tough to say "what would he say," but "Scalia speaks," this on 20 Scalia, what do you say?

CHRIS SCALIA, SCALIA SPEAKS, CO-EDITOR: I think you know as you said, I'm not sure exactly what he would say about the war of Christmas in particular, but in Scalia speaks, my book, there are a number of speeches in which he expresses concerns about a narrowing space for public expression of religion. As my father side, he was an originalist and he believed the constitution should be interpreted according to its usual public meaning and it was pretty clear to him that according to the original public meaning and tradition and early practices in America that it was totally ok for politicians and the people in the public square to make religious statements and expressions. And my father was concerned that that understanding was changing and the room for public -- for expressions of religion the public square was getting smaller and smaller, and no small part, because the Supreme Court's own opinions with which he often disagree did not front.

WEBB: Danielle, looking at this from what Chris just said, whether you like this speech or not, whether it's tweeted a certain way, or offensive to some, this is part of what makes America great. Hate is protected speech, offensive speech or offense is not required. But that doesn't rise to impeachment of a President. It may be an impeachment of character according to some would disagree with him. But the Democrats are not making a good case here the way I see it.

MCLAUGHLIN: I know that you are a supporter of the President and for many people who are, this is just --

WEBB: I'm a supporter of the constitution first. Statements that violate the principles of which the constitution stands and exists and is written for, I think that is beneath, I would think it would be beneath our political, in this case, the President's opponents in Washington.

MCLAUGHLIN: Sure. The only speech that the President could get impeached for is obstruction of justice. If there was a conversation that he had to shut down our investigation associated with a Russia investigation that is speech that is not protected under the constitution. That is impeachable.

WEBB: Todd, I love your podcast, by the way. You talk about this a lot. Free speech, Todd. You and I have done it on my show, on your shows. I don't care what it is. I don't want to shut down anyone's right to do it, whether I agree or not. Is the left effectively shutting down free speech? Did free-speech dye at Berkeley in 2017?

STARNES: I think it did. We are in a very dangerous place in this country right now, David. Now the left says any speech we disagree with, we are going to make that hate speech. I want to go back to this idea that the Democrats are going to do whatever it takes to impeach the President. I believe that. We know that under the Obama administration, they weaponizes the internal revenue service, they weaponized the Department of Education.

WEBB: They investigated James Rosen, Cheryl Atkinson, this was an administration and a government going after individuals.

STARNES: They want after Billy Graham, America's pastor, for crying out loud. So do I think it's possible that they may have weaponizes the FBI in addition to all of that? Absolutely I do.

WEBB: All right. Chris, back to you. I want to bring something into this, as a point of personal pride that I got to meet your father a number of times. I think we have a picture of the two of us together, the White House correspondent's dinner. And you know the "Scalia speaks" when the book came out, a great way to put his voice into the conversation, if you a few seconds here to talk about that.

SCALIA: Is a collection of speeches that my father delivered over the course of his career. My coeditor, Ed Whelan, and I, really wanted to make this interesting and accessible to really every American interested in the law or in my father, not just lawyers or legal scholars. There are plenty of speeches about the law but there are speeches about sports, hunting, about the values that Americans hold dear, about what makes an American that it's about sharing certain values and beliefs in freedom and equality. So it's a really -- it gives the picture of my father as a man in full, not just a justice.

WEBB: All right. Chris, I got to stop you here because we are up against a hard break. Thank you, Danielle, Todd. Great to see you. More of the special edition of "Hannity" after the break. Stay with us.


WEBB: Welcome back to "Hannity." Unfortunately that is all the time we have left this evening. Don't forget to set your DVRs so you never miss an episode of "Hannity." You can listen to my radio show Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. Eastern on Sirius XM patriot. That is channel 125. You can follow me on twitter, David Webb. Tomorrow, you'll catch us on "Outnumbered." Katie Pavlich, she is here, and she's filling in for Laura Ingraham.

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.