USA 2020 Elections: Thread

grarpamp grarpamp at
Thu Jul 29 20:38:26 PDT 2021

> Biden the Creepy Pedo, Sealed Congressional Abuse Payouts [in one vid below]... ?!
> Joe Biden Pedo Hands on the move #1

ERROR: This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on
harassment and bullying.

> Joe Biden Pedo Hands on the move #2
> Joe Biden Elbowed by Creeped Out Girl

ERROR: Video unavailable

> Just cant get away

ERROR: Video unavailable

> Titled
> Various

ERROR: Video unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account
associated with this video has been terminated.

> Supplied Endless Procession
> Joe Biden Dodges Accusations
> https:/
> "I walked into their dormitory and was immediately accosted by a cop
> who arrested me because back in those days, men were not allowed
> in women's dormitories. -- Joe Biden"
> Sean Hannity commentary
> Hill accusation
> Reade accusation
> "The incident takes place about 1:40 in the video and was over
> in seconds. It shows an experienced operator in action."

> "Let me get this straight," Trump Jr. tweeted. "Biden's records
> from his decades in the United States Senate could be taken out of
> context? Voters shouldn't get to see what Biden did while working
> for them? What is this clown hiding?"
> Joe Biden: "You Don't DESERVE To Know."

> One thing always true about politics and politicians...
> ychtt

> #PizzaGate ? True or not? You decide.

> Sealed Congressional Abuse Payouts

Joe Biden was said to be the abuser that
one of these supposed payouts covered up.

The US Government is literally stealing money from
you to pay for covering up sexual abuse.

Where is the FOIA and MDR and LEAKS for this secret fund?

Congress has paid out more than $17.2 million over the last 20 years
to cover 268 settlements on Capitol Hill, according to the Office of
Compliance, which was set up in 1995 under the Congressional
Accountability Act.
Nearly $100,000 was used to pay the claims of two young male staffers.

Published November 14, 2017
Sexual harassment settlements in Congress paid by taxpayers

Congresswomen expose sexual harassment on Capitol Hill.

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

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening, everyone from Washington. Thanks
for joining us. This is "The Ingraham Angle."

All right. We have so much news for you tonight. We could actually use
two hours, but we are going to take one. We have an infuriating
opening segment for you. Congress is spending your money to cover up
sexual harassment.

And some major developing stories for you on other fronts. President
Trump returned moments ago from his 12-day trip to Asia. We're going
to have a report about what he's doing next.

And why are immigration agents complaining about the president? We'll
tell you that as well.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified today before Congress about
possible investigations into Hillary Clinton and that Uranium One
deal. What's coming? We'll tell you.

But first our top story, pulling back the curtain, sexual harassment
inside the halls of Congress and how you're paying for the secret
settlements. Sexual misconduct scandals have engulfed Hollywood,
media, and now politics with the Roy Moore revelations.

But did you know that you've been funding payoffs for congressional
harassment claims for decades. According to the Congressional Office
of Compliance, between 1997 and 2014, hundreds of women have been paid
$15.2 million in total in awards and settlements for Capitol Hill
workplace violations. The House Administration Committee held a
hearing on the matter yesterday.


JACKIE SPEIER: In fact, there are two members of Congress, Republican
and Democrat right now, who serve who have been subject to review or
not have been subject to review but have been engaged in sexual

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This member asked the staffer to bring them over
some materials to their residence and the young staffer is a young
woman, went there, and was greeted by a member in a towel. It was a
male who then invited her in. At that point, he decided to expose
himself. She left and then she quit her job.


INGRAHAM: Joining us of our reaction here in Washington is Jenny Beth
Martin. She is a cofounder of Tea Party Patriots. She has a new piece
on this growing scandal. And Scott Bolden, former chairman of the
Democratic Party in Washington, D.C., and a former sex crimes

Jenny Beth, let's start with you. This is so ridiculous. It's $15.2
million and this is started by a senator I really respect and admire,
Chuck Grassley, what was the thinking behind this? We'll go through
the procedures that women have to go through.

Congressional Accountability Act, which -- at the time, they were
trying to make congressmen live under the law. So, they had passed
including Title VII under Civil Rights Act.

They are trying to make sure that they lived under several other laws
and they also wanted to create something to deal with sexual
harassment. But in doing this, they have instituted a culture of
corruption and they have created much more intimidation for people who
want to step forward.

INGRAHAM: Scott, let me share this with you. This is the Office of
Compliance, the steps a woman has to go through to file a complaint.
First the victims have 180 days to complain, that's not bad. You
should get a little bit more if you are traumatized.

Victims who wants to continue must start 30 days of mediation. So,
they force you into mediation, then finally, the Office of Compliance
Administration does a hearing, or you can file a federal lawsuit and
it's all confidential.

The problem, of course, is pushing women into mediation. It seems to
be geared toward stopping the claim. If I look at this as a former
attorney, this is kind of pushing -- you don't really want to file

about power. Within the mediation, it's also a counseling pieces and
when I first read this, I said, what are they counseling the women on?
Either this happened, or it didn't happen, but again, this is all
about power.

Remember, elected officials on the Hill are products, if you will, and
the other thing that you didn't show was the lack of disclosure unless
they go to court. So, this is all very confidential and it's all about
taking care of each other.

As opposed to pulling the sheets off of it, if you will, and say,
listen, we have a problem. I think the Republicans and the Democrats
on the Hill have a chance to lead by fixing this.

INGRAHAM: It's a slush hush fund. Don't say anything.

MARTIN: Its mandatory counseling. If you've been traumatized, do you
really want your employer mandating that you must go to counseling
before you can go to mediation?

INGRAHAM: So, now the Senate is working on mandatory sexual harassment
training in the Senate. The House still hasn't really been able to
push through changes. I know Congresswoman Speier, who I usually don't
agree with on much, but she's right on this. They want to get rid of
that wait time for being able to push through and actually file an
actual complaint.

BOLDEN: But, Laura, you know, in the reformation or the amendment of
this legislation on both sides, you've got to make it uncomfortable
for bad behavior. You have to be intentional about it.

One of the most shocking things you lead with was that the public tax
dollars are paying for these settlements. A little less than a million
a year. You know what? If you remove that rule and make the
congressman either get employment, defense insurance or made them pay
out their campaign PAC funds and stuff. I tell you, you would force a
lot less of this bad behavior because that hits them where their
pocketbooks are.

INGRAHAM: I have a question. There was a point in this research that I
was reading today, apparently, a congresswoman was warning about the
congressmen who sleep in their offices like those are the ones -- I
don't know if that's fair, because I know some who sleep in their
offices and they are great people, but apparently that's a problem.

What is really going on here, though? Is it's just the usual stuff
where you get into a position of power? Maybe you were kind of a geeky
guy -- they didn't have a lot of chicks, and then you get to Capitol
Hill. It's all these 22-year-old gals running around.

This is nothing new. I mean, I remember being in the White House
elevator during the Reagan administration and Strom Thurmond made a
few interesting comments to me and I was 22 years old. I was laughing,
is not a big deal.

You don't want to chill the workplace. That's another thing I am a
little bit worried about here. You can't even say to someone you look
at great, nice dress like people are afraid. I know men who are afraid
to have any interaction at any time with a woman alone.

Because it ten years later, even if you didn't do anything you could
be accused -- where do you go to defend yourself? You can't defend
yourself. So, we have to look at the other side here as well and not
make it so sterile and antiseptic a workplace, that no one even enjoys
the job. You're so afraid of saying anything.

BOLDEN: You always have to be careful because the (inaudible) made it
that way. The reality, though, is that women are standing up now in
the last six months to a year and saying me too.

And I think that's the difference because as you see each of these
industries go with these disclosures whether it's Hollywood or some
other industry, now you're seeing the government.

And now the government who enforces and makes laws, if they won't lead
on this, then I got to tell you, where in the space of the hypocrisy
bucket, if you well.

INGRAHAM: Grassley said if this law isn't working, should revise it,
change it. I mean, I guess, after the (inaudible) thing, I thought
this is actually going to accomplish something. But why did it take so
long for this to get so much notice?

It's just Harvey Weinstein and all the other stuff swirling around, I
guess, this is just what people are talking about? (Inaudible), OK,
Congress, what are you doing?

SMITH: Yes, I think that may be some of it and now we are getting a
little bit of light shed on it. Until a week and a half ago, I didn't
even know this fund existed. But I'll tell you what it's intimidating,
if you are a woman, who truly has been harassed by a member of
Congress, you need to be able to address that and to have it handled.

Not to be told you must go to counseling. You must go to mediation. We
are going to have you sign an NDA. You can never tell anyone. It's all
designed to shame the woman. Whether it's intentional or not, you wind
up shaming the victim, and I understand also you've got to make sure

INGRAHAM: Harvey Weinstein went around trying to get nondisclosures too, right?

BOLDEN: Well, he paid a lot of money also --


INGRAHAM: Let's not forget men and young boys have been victimized,
abused, and often times this happens in Hollywood but not only
Hollywood. It happens in a theater. I've been hearing about this for a
long time.

We are talking about Congress because, you know, we are here in
Washington, and they are the one supposed to be the lawmakers, but
this is across the board. It's people in positions of power, who
usually have some problem within themselves.

They have no self-esteem or their father didn't love them. I don't
know what it is. They don't know how to treat people and maybe, just
maybe will learn how to treat people better.

BOLDEN: That's transparency that were talking about. It's going to
make it uncomfortable. This is a place of power, careers are made or
lost. You've got to make it a safe space for women and men, who are
victimized by sexual harassment to come forward, to be protected. And
quite frankly, if there is transparency, I think you'll see less bad

INGRAHAM: There are people who make false charges, it does happen. You
can't say anyone who makes a charge, you know, we are going to throw
laurels around your neck. I mean, it's not necessarily the case.

I mean, you do have a presumption of innocence and sometimes I think
in this climate, it's so white-hot, I'm not talking about Roy Moore.
I'm talking just in general. It's so white-hot that if a woman who
seems fairly credible makes a charge, your career is over.

SMITH: You have to allow people -- if you've been accused of it, you
have to be given the opportunity to defend yourself and clear your
name. You can't just try everything in the court of public opinion,
there has to be a proper process.

INGRAHAM: Is that where the confidentiality comes into play? I mean,
are you going to go into Congress and have all these interns running
around if you think that my gosh, at any moment, you know, I open the
door for someone, I'm going to be accused of being demeaning. You've
got to be careful how you do this. You can go way overboard on the
other side.

BOLDEN: But one way to address that issue, as a former sex crimes
prosecutor, we would require corroboration. I mean, the cases where
it's one person's word against another. There is no scientific
evidence. There is no corroboration whether there was more about
sexual touching or not.

It's still has to be corroborated and I think that standard would be
good in Congress too because then you have that balance, if you will,
because congressmen want to get reelected, OK. They don't want bad
press and they don't want to have to go --

INGRAHAM: I have a question about that with sex crimes. In how many
cases, it's usually men, of course, who are accused of sex crimes,
domestic abuse, is substance abuse involved?

BOLDEN: You know what? Quite a bit. Your testing my memory, but I
would say, not the majority but at least over 50 percent, I just don't
know how much. There are other socioeconomic factors that come into

And the other thing is getting women to come forward and prosecute if
the father or the husband is the top of the breadwinner or is needed
at home with the kids, I've got to tell you some women in that
position don't feel like they have many choices, and they dropped
charges against the very people who have abused them.

SMITH: A lot of times abuse is simply about power. It's not about --

BOLDEN: It's not about sex.

SMITH: It's substance abuse. It's not even about sex. It's about
power, raw power.

INGRAHAM: You guys, great to see you. Thanks for coming in.

Directly ahead, new fall out in the Roy Moore scandal, how will
Alabama voters deal with Washington meddling in the state Senate race?

Plus, Roy Moore just addressed this controversy moments ago. We'll
play you the tape.



can unite Democrats and Republicans because I'm being deposed by both.
They spent over $30 million to try to take me out.


INGRAHAM: Those comments from Roy Moore just moments ago after
uneventful and chaotic day in the Alabama Senate race. The Republican
National Committee has announced it is withdrawing support for Judge
Moore's candidacy and pulling out of a joint fundraising agreement for
the Alabama special Senate election.

This is all in response to multiple allegations now that Moore had
made unwanted sexual advances toward teenagers back in the '70s.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is even floating the idea of
Attorney General Jeff Sessions returning to his old Senate seat.


would, you know, fit that standard will be the attorney general and he
is totally well-known and extremely popular in Alabama.

I haven't spoken with the president. He called me from Vietnam largely
about this on Friday. I talked to General Kelly on Saturday.
Obviously, we are in discussion here about how to salvage this seat if


INGRAHAM: But it's not all bad news for Judge Moore, Alabama
Republican Party Chairwoman Terry Lathan has not turned Moore yet and
told local media yesterday, quote, "It would be a serious error for
any current elected GOP official or candidate to publicly endorse
another party's candidate, an independent or a third-party candidate
or a write-in candidate in a general election as well," closed quote.

And a new poll from Fox 10 in Alabama shows Moore leads his Democratic
opponent, Doug Jones, by six points. Joining us now for reaction in
Birmingham is Alabama's Secretary of State John Merrill, in New York,
conservative commentator, Monica Crowley, and here with me in
Washington is Katherine Mangu-Ward, who is editor-in-chief of Reason

Great to see all of you. Monica, let's start with you. This has been a
wild few days in this Roy Moore situation. You got the establishment
types turned on him pretty fast, but then you had Mike Lee in Utah,
senator of Utah.

You had Ted Cruz, and now my colleague, Sean Hannity, says basically
you have 24 hours to clear up the discrepancies in your statement. How
can Roy Moore possibly hang in under these circumstances?

MONICA CROWLEY: I'm not sure he can, Laura. I mean, there are certain
political realities at play here and gravity does tend to (inaudible)
especially when the money starts to disappear.

The RNC pulled the funding as well as the field operation that they
are going to implement to get out and vote for Roy Moore. With those
two things missing, Laura, I don't see how he is able to survive.

It doesn't sound tonight like he's willing to go anywhere yet, but
when these realities start to kick in over the next 24 hours, when the
money disappears, you know, you can't run a campaign on fumes or love.

That I think is when the hard choices are going to come in front of
Roy Moore when he doesn't have the institutional support to continue
this campaign.

INGRAHAM: Let's go to the secretary of state, John Merrill. John, what
happens if the election is held, and those absentee ballots are left
over if in fact Roy Moore steps aside. The party, you know,
relinquishes any connection to Roy Moore. Do the absentee ballots
still count in that case?

I think it's very important for your viewers to know that our people
have been voting since October the 18th. That's when the absentee
ballots first went out for consideration and for our voters to be able
to have their opinion known and have their voice heard.

And that's just not (inaudible) military overseas voters, that's the
number of voters throughout the entire state of Alabama. I think it's
important to note that if Judge Moore withdraws from the campaign or
if the state party disavows their association with Judge Moore and
determines that they no longer support him.

And both of those actions have to take place formally by them
indicating to our office that they no longer wish to pursue the
candidacy of Judge Roy Moore in the U.S. Senate, that even though
Judge Moore's name will still be on the ballot, if he gets the most
votes as a plurality winner on December 12th, then our election will
be null and void.

INGRAHAM: Katherine, now Mitch McConnell is saying perhaps they won't
seat him or that once he's in if he gets elected that they'll move to
remove him. Now if you're someone in the south and you know, you don't
follow this much and maybe think Roy Moore like dating 17-year-olds or
18-year- olds.

It might come across to you as this is the old guard tell the
southerners they are stupid bunch of hayseed types. And they might
just be like, you know, something, he is seated. This is another
example of the elites kicking people like us around.

reaping the fact that they are wildly unpopular. Congress has like a
19 percent approval rating. The idea that they don't have the trust of
the American people.

That they are not in a position to say this is an extraordinary
circumstance. We want to take the high road here. We want to do an
investigation. I would love to see them do an investigation through a
trusted third party.

They don't have to think The Washington Post (inaudible). They don't
have to believe that (inaudible) research if that's what they think is
going on, but I do think they need to take it seriously.

Particularly, if they want to say, listen, we are better than the
Democratic Party, who is constantly apologizing for their guys when
they get accused of this kind of thing.

INGRAHAM: Monica, need we go back to the Menendez trial. There was a
time where there were allegations and the Daily News and a lot of
publications went with them that, you know, allegedly, he took trips
to the Dominican Republic and had sexual relationships with underage

I don't recall a single Democrat calling for his resignation. Same
thing with the old story about Barnie Frank all those years ago and
many others. So, you know, the Democrats seem to cover for their own,
but I guess, the Republicans, they want to come across with a lot
better than that.

CROWLEY: Well, Democrats have always circled the wagons and protected
their candidates and protected their presidents and protected their
own for a really long time. Republicans always went into the circular
firing squad, Laura.

But I think what makes these cases so different right now is that we
are in a completely different cultural moment with all of these
stories of sexual harassment coming out of Hollywood and the media
elites, the modeling world, the music world and so on.

Given this moment, these folks cannot survive it. Even folks at the
high ends of leadership of both parties and both establishments, et
cetera, are now no longer saying that this is acceptable, and are less
willing, Laura, to cover for these folks.

You are seeing is now happening on both sides and that's why I think
in the Roy Moore situation, in many ways, he is going to be a casualty
of this moment. Perhaps he may have survived.

Look, Donald Trump in the tail end of the campaign with the Access
Hollywood tape, he was able to sort of harness a boomerang effect
where people felt that that was a pile on and they came out and
rallied around him.

But Donald Trump was an exceptional figure. I'm not so sure that Roy
Moore is going to be able to do it.

INGRAHAM: Moore is not Donald Trump. Secretary of State, I just want
to close out with you. In your estimation right now, I know you are
still kind of standing behind Roy Moore. Does he stay in this race?
Does he get elected?

MERRILL: Well, I think it would be highly unusual for Judge Moore to
step aside. That would be against every type of example that he has
set. I don't see him getting out of the race.

INGRAHAM: Does he win?

MERRILL: Well, I'll tell you it's going to be extremely close, Laura.
I hear mixed reviews all around the state of Alabama. This is a very
disconcerting time for our state. This is not how we like to be
featured in the national limelight.

INGRAHAM: Thanks for joining us, John. I'm going to hold over
Katherine and Monica because President Trump just a short time ago
returned to Washington after that a very long 12-day, five-nation Asia
trip where America's trade deals were a major topic. We are going to
go right to it right now.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: From a standpoint of security and safety,
military, very proud, and trade, you will see numbers that you won't
believe over the years. They will be treating us much differently than
they have in the past.

People were taking advantage. Countries were taking advantage of the
United States. More than just as we do but the world and those days
are over. We are going to be fair and reciprocal as I said in my
remarks before. If they are doing it, we're doing it.


INGRAHAM: Katherine, what did you think about this trip? Give us your

MANGU-WARD: So, my real assessment is I'm glad that the president
didn't do anything that isn't fundamentally reversible. That
(inaudible) because there was a real risk that he was going to make
good on his campaign promises, go to Asia, and just light the whole
thing on fire.

INGRAHAM: What do you mean?

MANGU-WARD: Well, he's been quite clear that he doesn't like the
status quo in terms of U.S. trade agreements in Asia and --

INGRAHAM: Do you like the status quo?

MANGU-WARD: I like the status quo.

INGRAHAM: Which part of a $350 billion trade deficit do you like?

MANGU-WARD: I like more open trade. I think the idea of thinking about
in terms of deficits is wrongheaded. We absolutely benefit from
trading with other --

INGRAHAM: You can buy a $7.99 pair of pants?

MANGU-WARD: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: (Inaudible) with the American workers back here, it doesn't matter?

MANGU-WARD: I think $7.99 pair of pants --

INGRAHAM: It fundamentally changes the country.

MANGU-WARD: I don't think it fundamentally changes the country where
our country --

INGRAHAM: You don't have a problem with enriching -- every president
put in tariffs. Republican presidents, Democrat presidents, Barack
Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan.

MANGU-WARD: When their goal was to get a one-upsmanship on other nations.

INGRAHAM: You don't think America should have a one-upsmanship
attitude toward other nations?

MANGU-WARD: No, I think we should have a cooperative attitude and I
think if they want to sell their stuff, we should be allowed to buy

INGRAHAM: You don't think bilateral trade agreements are better for
policing them and for making sure they actually enforced? What's wrong
with that?

MANGU-WARD: I would take any trade agreements. What I don't want to
see is us pulling back from the world at a time that we are anxious,
and we are not necessarily good to make --

INGRAHAM: I see what Katherine is saying, but I don't see any
indication frankly that Donald Trump is pulling back from the rest of
the world. He went to Saudi Arabia, Israel, went to see the pope, did
the trip to Europe. He's gone to Asia. I mean, I think his foreign
trips frankly have been pretty successful, especially the trip to
visit our NATO allies and the first trip to Saudi Arabia, and I think
this trip turned out great.

CROWLEY: I totally agree, Laura. I think in some ways he's much more
effective when he is abroad rather than at home. His speeches abroad
have been absolutely magnificent. What he was able to accomplish on
this Asia trip has been quite extraordinary. What we are hearing
behind closed doors, this president applied a lot of pressure on the
Chinese leadership.

There were two main issues that he was there to discuss. We are
talking about trade and the structural trade imbalance with a Chinese
that has been in place now for decades. It's going to be incredibly
difficult to reverse. What the president is saying is I need to deal
with structural trade imbalance, I'm going to do it via economic and
trade policy tools.

INGRAHAM: He also turned up the heat, Monica, on North Korea and told
the Chinese we need your help, we need real help, and we are not going
to be patsies on the trade deal. We want to work with other nations.
We want to trade with them. We want to have relationships -- the only
country we can have a relationship with his Russia.

The Chinese communists are great, but the Russians are the worst.
Every time someone says we should do more with China, I say, OK, then
why should we work more with Russia?

CROWLEY: And to that point, Laura, what the president was able to do,
and we'll see whether this really bears fruit. He coupled the North
Korean cooperation on North Korea with the economic policies.

INGRAHAM: All right. Both of you we could talk forever about this,
thank you so much for joining.

When we return, Jeff Sessions grilled on Capitol Hill today and a
special counsel maybe appointed to investigate Hillary Clinton,
really? Stay tuned.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's it going to take if all that not to mention
the dossier information, what's it going to take to actually get a
special counsel?



INGRAHAM: Welcome back. As we've been reporting, after years of
rumors, comedian Louis C.K. has finally admitted to sexual misconduct.
In the fall out C.K. was dropped from performing at John Stewart's
annual Night of Too Many Stars. It's a charity event which benefits
autism programs. Stewart, a longtime friend of C.K.'s was out
promoting the event today. Throughout his entire career, remember,
Louis C.K. told filthy, disgusting sexual jokes touching on his own
proclivities, yet Jon Stewart offered this response when questioned on
the "Today" show.


MATT LAUER, CO-HOST: What was the impact on you when you heard not
only the accusations but his admission?

JON STEWART, COMEDIAN: Stunned, I think. You give your friends the
benefit of the doubt.


INGRAHAM: You were stunned about the accusations and revelations,
really Jon? I heard the man's act for three minutes and knew he was a
total perv. Comedians joked about his habits for years, and rumors of
his misdeeds have been reported since back in 2012. So I guess Mr.
Daily Show wasn't as well-informed as we all thought. The only thing I
can support is his autism fundraiser, which is great.

And as for Louis C.K., he was dealt another setback today.
International distributors announced that they were joining their
American counterparts in dropping distribution of his latest movie, "I
Love You Daddy," which is another filthy thing, and I'm sure it will
be available on his website so all the dirty old men who chase
underage girls can have a good laugh. What a degenerate.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was in the hot seat today testifying
before the House Judiciary Committee. Republicans wanted to know why
the Justice Department hasn't investigated Hillary Clinton's scandals.
And as for the Democrats, surprise, surprise, they spent their time
focusing on Mr. Sessions past statements about meetings with, wait for
it, Russians, and his private conversations with President Trump.


JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: You made statements that he did
in fact at the meeting, I pushed back. I can't be put into a position
where I can't explain. I'm not going to be able to answer if I can't
answer it completely.

REP. TED LIEU, D-CALIF.: Did Donald Trump ever ask you to pledge an
oath of loyalty to him?


LIEU: If Donald Trump were to ask you to pledge loyalty to him or take
such an oath, would you do so?

SESSIONS: Well, I don't know what a pledge of loyalty oath is.

I met with the ambassador in my office with at least two of my staff,
senior, respected patriots, colonels retired in the Army. And nothing
improper occurred at all.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: Once and for all can we answer the question?

SESSIONS: I am once and for all answering the question, Congressman. I
don't understand why you won't take my answer.


INGRAHAM: Joining us now for reaction is a member of that House
Judiciary Committee Andy Biggs, a Republican from Arizona. I also
think about what I would do if I was a member of Congress and I had to
be at these hearings, Congressman. But this kind of took the cake.
Jeff Sessions is sitting there and every five seconds from a Democrat,
you are basically lying, Attorney General Sessions. You really met
with the Russians and you're really part of the collusion. Give us a
sense inside that room today.

REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARLIZ.: You're exactly right. So it showed the
stark difference between the Republicans who were trying to get the
attorney general to do something, about a special counsel to
investigate, and the Democrats who are fixated on trying to paint him
as some kind of lying colluder with Russia with no evidence. It's just
amazing to me.

INGRAHAM: And by the way, we invited Sheila Jackson Lee on, but
apparently she was involved in a late night briefing on the tax reform
bill so maybe they're going to come all along with you guys on tax

BIGGS: It could happen.

INGRAHAM: We invited a bunch of other Democrats because we wanted to
have both sides on the show tonight. So I have to say that. Let's talk
about that flash point today, and we'll play the sound bite. This is
Congressman Jim Jordan who was on with us last night. I think this was
probably the most interesting moment at today's hearing. Let's listen.


REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO: If you're now just considering it, what's it
going to take to get a special counsel? We know that former FBI
Director James Comey misled the American people in the Summer of 2016
when he called it the Clinton investigation a matter. Obviously

SESSIONS: It would take a factual basis that meets the standards of
the appointment of a special counsel.

JORDAN: That's what it looks like, and I'm asking you, doesn't that
warrant in addition to all the things we know about James Comey in
2016, doesn't that warrant naming a second special counsel?

SESSIONS: Looks like is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel.


INGRAHAM: What's your sense here? Are you on the special counsel
bandwagon on this, because there's an argument against special counsel
that I find fairly persuasive?

BIGGS: In this case I am because you've got an attorney general who
has kind of left it away. He's stepped away from it. We have to get to
the bottom of this. We know that there's conflicts of interests, all
of that A.G.'s office. So we need a special prosecutor, a special
counsel in my opinion. I think Jim is right. We've been waiting for a
long time. Yesterday we get the notice saying we're considering it
after months of asking.

INGRAHAM: Don't you think that looks like a tit for tat. You've got
the Mueller investigation of Trump. It looks like to some people that
President Trump is pressuring Congress to do a special counsel to go
after Hillary and Clinton Foundation, Uranium One. And Jeff Sessions
really isn't recused from anything involving Hillary Clinton. He's
recused himself from anything involving the Russian investigation. But
I think he's well within his right in this case to appoint a terrific
prosecutor with a great team of assistant prosecutors to do this job.
And then you won't have this sprawling investigation that goes on and
on forever, frankly wastes the taxpayers' dollars, and I don't think
it's necessary in this case. Sessions can just appoint a great
prosecutor and do the real investigation. Why do you need a whole
merry band of prosecutors to waste our money?

BIGGS: I think you're right in the sense that Jeff Sessions could, but
look at who his chief deputies are. You've gone Rod Rosenstein, and
you've got Andrew McCabe still in that office influencing things. And
I think walking away today, I think many of us said I don't know if
Attorney General Sessions believes he has the authority or if he
doesn't have the authority.

And that's why we kept coming back to the same questions. So we want
to get this investigated. If it doesn't take one, fine.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, it's great to see you, as always.

BIGGS: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: And for more analysis let's bring in two top legal experts,
from Columbia, South Carolina, Sol Wisenberg who was Ken Starr's
deputy in the investigations into Bill Clinton's scandals. And here in
Washington, Joe DiGenova, former U.S. attorney in Washington D.C. All
right, gentlemen, take it away. Let's talk first about the idea of a
special counsel. Andy McCarthy at "National Review" I think makes a
compelling case with in this issue of Uranium One, the Clinton
Foundation, Hillary's emails, that a well-respected prosecutor could
actually handle this case well. Joe?

JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Yes, clearly this does not require
a special counsel. I agree with Andy 100 percent. And there's ample
predicate, factual information for an investigation right now for a
grand jury based on the Clinton Foundation, the $500,000 to the
president during the consideration of Uranium One, $145 million to the
Clinton Foundation. Everything involving all of the things you've
listed, especially the email server involving Mrs. Clinton. There is
no doubt that the standard Justice Department criminal division can
handle this. There's no need for a special counsel.

And by the way, what I found fascinating about the attorney general's
answers today was he said when there is a sufficient factual predicate
for a special counsel. Guess what? There is no factual predicate for
Robert Mueller. There's been no crime ever announced that he was
investigating. So to me, if you were going to do a special counsel you
can do it if you want to. I would give it to the criminal division in
main Justice and let them run with it. There's plenty of predicate,
lots of information.

INGRAHAM: Sol, with all your experience with Ken Starr's
investigation, you know how these things start. They start as one
thing, they become something much bigger. In the case, we don't have
an independent counsel now, the statute has expired, but we can still
appoint special counsels. In this case, with all the questions now
about how they are trying to influence and stop witnesses from
testifying before Congress, the shady dealings with the bribery and
kickbacks involved with that Uranium One, I mean, uranium, 20 percent
to the Russians, I think anyone off the street would say that was a
crazy idea.

or not a special counsel would be appropriate, and I disagree with Joe
on this. I think, first of all, the special counsel regulation is
relatively vague. It says if there's a conflict of interest or
extraordinary circumstances.

Here you have President Trump who has repeatedly called for his
Justice Department to investigate this issue, and we are just talking
about Uranium One here. I'm not talking about Fusion GPS, because I
think that's already within Mueller bailiwick. But President Trump has
said you need to investigate, you need to investigate. So on the one
hand, if Sessions says I'm going to find somebody within DOJ to do it,
the Democrats are going to cry foul and say this is outrageous, you're
doing this for political reasons.

On the other hand, if Sessions takes a look at it and says I don't
think there's anything there, the people on the right are going to
scream and say that's because Rod Rosenstein is involved and he was
U.S. attorney in Maryland when some of this stuff took place.

So I think there are extraordinary circumstances. You can have a lot
of the stuff of running around about the Uranium One investigation. We
don't know if it's true or not true. I think you appoint an honest
broker who is special counsel who is well respected. It's by no means
automatic that they'll expand it. Senator Danforth didn't expand his
investigation into Waco, he kept it very limited.

I understand what you're saying, I understand what Joe was saying,
these investigations can get out of hand.

INGRAHAM: It goes for years. Lawrence Walsh, how long did that go,
Sol, seven years?

WISENBERG: That's true, but here the president like he has in so many
situations unfortunately, by opening his mouth has made things much
more difficult for Jeff Sessions.

INGRAHAM: It's better for him to hang back. I agree with that. I think
we all probably agree with that it's better for the president not to
comment on ongoing investigations in general. Joe, do you agree was

DIGENOVA: Yes, that would be good. By the way, if Jeff Sessions wants
to appoint a special counsel, it's OK with me. My point is very
simple. The Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation, all the kickbacks
require an investigation. There is now existing a sufficient predicate
for a federal grand jury. There has been one for more than four years.
I don't give who investigates it. It needs to be investigated.

INGRAHAM: Great to have you both on, Sol and Joe, thanks so much. When
we come back, ICE agents are now up in arms. Why they say Obama era
holdovers are causing havoc and even putting agents lives at risk,


INGRAHAM: Welcome back. In a surprising move, the union that
represents ICE officers has launched a new website claiming that
President Trump has, quote, betrayed them. The National ICE Council
endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 election, but the group is now upset
that the Trump administration has been really slow to reverse the
policies of the Obama years.

A post on the web site reads in part, quote, "While officers view the
president's position on enforcement as courageous, the Trump
administration has left all of the Obama managers and leadership in
place. Tensions are on the rise between Trump's army and Obama

So joining us now for reaction, from Orland David Ward, a board member
of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, and here
in Washington, Stephen Dinan, a reporter with The Washington Times who
wrote about this today.

Stephen, this is odd, but it's something we've heard about in other
departments. What is the percentage of Obama holdovers still working
with Immigrations Customs Enforcement?

STEPHEN DINAN, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: So the ICE council didn't say the
number, and they actually didn't even name names. They left it vague
for now, but they went through a number of different issues. The
website is actually fascinating. Not only does it give this sort of
overall sense with the Obama holdovers, it gives it a whole bunch of
different specific examples of where those are having an effect,
including an incident in Philadelphia where an ICE officer who went
into a very bad neighborhood in Philadelphia, we're told they had to
remove their bulletproof vest to go make an arrest because it would
offend the community where they were going into.

INGRAHAM: It offends them, David, it offends the ICE officers, does it
not, when they get shot because they are not wearing a bulletproof
vest for fear that it will offend I guess one of the illegal
immigrants. What are we talking about here? This is insanity.

is insanity. We've lost over 162 immigration agents killed in the line
of duty. And for a manager to come up with an order such as that to
take off their bulletproof vests because they are going into a
neighborhood is absolutely insane. In fact that manager and those
people involved in that should be removed from their office for

INGRAHAM: And do we have any idea, David, how many Obama holdovers are
clogging the administration here at the immigrations customs
enforcement? The website is very fuzzy on this. We don't know how
many. Is it 12, is it 500? What are we talking about?

WARD: The Trump administration has been in office for 11 months now,
and the swamp is pretty big and it is vast within the federal
government, so it's going to take time to weed out those that are
sworn to their office as the oath that they took, those that have
sworn to the globalism which brought us sanctuary cities and lack of
enforcement of title eight. It's going to take a wild to weed those
people out.

INGRAHAM: Stephen, let's talk about how the priorities of president
Trump and Obama do differ. Whether you have the right people in place,
that's infuriating, but I remember the ICE officers during Obama's two
terms, the morale was horribly low because they wanted to do their
jobs and they were held back.

DINAN: Yes, and there's no question, in fact I think there is not a
single department and probably not a single agency other than ICE
where there has been as big a change in the culture between the Obama
administration and the Trump administration.

We actually did calculations. Under the Obama administration upwards
of 80 percent of illegal immigrants were put out-of-bounds for
deportation because of the priorities that the administration, the
previous administration set out. Now the number is probably closer to
only about a million, basically DACA recipients are the folks who are
put completely out of bounds, and the rest of the 11 million illegal
immigrants are at least potential targets for deportation.

It's made a huge difference for those ICE officers they've talked
about. And they will admit, they are thrilled with that overall
direction that they are getting from President Trump. The issue is the
actual specific decisions such as the Philadelphia one we talked
about, and there's a case out of Utah where they are told they have to
give a heads up before they go into the community, in some cases seven
days heads up before they go out to make arrests. Lo and behold, when
they finally get there, the illegal immigrants they are targeting have
been tipped off and have basically fled. So those are the sorts of
specifics that they would like to get cleaned up. But they absolutely
appreciate the difference in the top-down direction.

INGRAHAM: David, I remember a couple of years back when the border
patrol, different from the ICE officers, but the border patrol under
Obama were told that they couldn't shoot at a vehicle that was
attempting to run them down. That was one of the other crazy things.
And again, here they are, they don't make a lot of money. They are
trying to do their job, it's very dangerous. And oftentimes they are
in very remote areas. But in other cases they are being targeted by
the illegal immigrants who are trying to get into the country, because
they are all valedictorians, I know that, but they're trying to get
into the country, and I guess these ICE officers have to jump out of
the way and hope for the best.

WARD: Under the eight years of the previous administration, the
immigration force became probably the most dysfunctional I've seen in
34 years in working for the agency enforcing immigration law.

When Trump came into office, the apprehension rate went up 37 percent
in the first four months by these agents being allowed to do their
jobs that they took an oath to do. And now we need to get the managers
in there that are going to back these men up under the same guidelines
by standing up for the oath that they took and follow the law. Title
eight is very clear. Trump has been criticized about creating things
when in fact he hasn't.

It's the immigration law that has been on the books from day one. The
Democrats, the previous administration refused to go by it. Jeh
Johnson was loath to even read the book let alone let the guys go out
and do their jobs. So we have an administration now I would say that
it's going to take time a little bit of time to clean out the swamp
like we're trying to do. But another thing, he is faced with the
obstruction of Congress and the Senate on getting his appointees into

INGRAHAM: Stephen, we are out of time on that, but he has to get his
people in place. He's not going to eliminate all the positions. He has
to get his people in place. He's being undercut, by the way, at that
climate event --


INGRAHAM: Before we go tonight, a quick reminder, check out my new
book "Billionaire at the Barricades," because I take you through the
immigration wars of the past 25 years between the populists and the
old establishment. And as you just heard in our previous blog, we are
still fighting those same battles today, amazing.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list