What role has Rosenstein played in decision to declassify?

close

Video

What role has Rosenstein played in decision to declassify?

Trump is reportedly backing off decision to declassify key documents in Russia investigation as reports claim Rosenstein suggested secretly recording Trump; reaction on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "the Ingraham Angle," September 21, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I am Laura Ingraham and this is the "The Ingraham Angle" on an extraordinary news night this Friday night. A shocking report from the New York Times about deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein working to drive the president from office.

And breaking news at this hour, Christine Ford, the Kavanaugh accuser, has missed yet another deadline set by the judiciary committee. Ford's attorneys were to respond to the committee tonight by 10:00 p.m. to confirm her appearance before them. Instead, she and her attorneys are asking for more time. We are going to get into all the details.

And the Hollywood crowd steps into the Kavanaugh confirmation because that's what they're really good at. Also, a new Halloween costume controversy. Don't you love this, identity politics gone totally crazy. It is all on "Friday Follies" with Raymond Arroyo.

But first, our top story, an absolute jaw dropper late this afternoon, a report from the New York Times. It lays out that in the spring of 2017, Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein suggested secretly recording President Trump and discussed invoking the 25th amendment to throw the president out of office.

Now, Rosenstein, as you would expect, is forcefully denying that this ever happened. Separately, a Fox News source, said to be in the same room as this conversation, is claiming that Rosenstein's comments were just sarcastic. They weren't serious. Does anyone believe that tonight?

Washington Post is also reporting that, but let's take a trip, shall we, down Rosenstein memory lane. Now, this is the same guy who responded like this to demands from Congress to produce documents in that Russia probe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROD ROSENSTEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Department of Justice is not going to be extorted. We are going to do what's required by the rule of law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So congressional oversight and demands for accountability and transparency are extortion? That somehow runs counter to the rule of law. Got it, Rod. His apparent contempt for oversight and lawmakers doesn't stop there. Here he is in front of the House Judiciary Committee just a few months ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROSENSTEIN: I am deputy attorney general of the United States, OK. I'm not the person doing the redacting. I'm responsible for responding to your concerns as I have.

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLORIDA: Did you read the FISA application before you signed it?

ROSENSTEIN: I'm not going to comment about any FISA application.

GAETZ: So you won't say to this committee whether or not you even read the document you signed that authorized spying on people associated with the Trump campaign?

ROSENSTEIN: I --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, I love the trailing off there, perfect for a Friday night. And let's not forget that Rosenstein even threatened to subpoena e-mails, phone records and other documents from lawmakers and staff on the House Intel Committee. They did that earlier this year.

Now, let's be clear, if "The New York Times" reporting is accurate, the president tonight should seriously consider whether Rod Rosenstein should remain on the job. The White House should be devoting every resource it can to determining the veracity of this report.

We just cannot have this plotting at the highest levels of the Justice Department against the chief executive of this executive branch. Joining us now for reaction is former Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, Lee Smith from RealClear Investigations and former U.S. attorney, Kendall Coffey.

Let's go right to you, Lee. You have been covering Rod Rosenstein for, you know, I guess a year and a half now, since he initially got this job as deputy attorney general. Tonight, I just want to play for you -- this is a short montage of a variety of pundits claiming per the Washington Post that this conversation about wearing a wire and getting other people to wear a wire, this is all just a joke. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the words were said, it seems more likely they were said in some sort of sarcastic or exasperated way rather than as a serious plan to actually wire up and go into do this. This does not give any grounds -- I really mean this -- any grounds at all in terms of any action of Rosenstein's that justifies firing him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It makes sense to me that maybe he could have made a crack about this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE SMITH, REALCLEAR INVESTIGATIONS: Yes. I mean, I think it's important to see the Rosenstein -- the story that Rosenstein and the "Times" and in the "Post." These are both part of the declassification issue. They need to be seen in the context that they --

INGRAHAM: How so? Explain that.

SMITH: OK, we have seen since Monday when the president asked, when the president said he was going to declassify documents. Over the last week, "The New York Times," ABC News, a number of publications have had stories blocking -- trying to block the declassification. They had been sourced to former and current U.S. Officials. I see this as part of the same thing. The Times stories apparently sourced to Andy McCabe.

INGRAHAM: Where he said he didn't talk. He said -- his people are saying they didn't talk to "The Times" on this.

SMITH: And the lawyers statement looks to me like a non-denial on twitter.

INGRAHAM: OK.

SMITH: I think what it looks like is that McCabe or someone close to McCabe is threatening Rosenstein saying, hey, I've got a lot of dirty stuff on you as well. If these things aren't declassified, you are going down with me.

Unbeknownst to Andrew McCabe, it appears, according to my sources, that sometime between last night and this morning, Rod Rosenstein went in and talked to President Trump and convinced him to hold off on declassifying the documents. Kick them instead over to the inspector general.

INGRAHAM: What is that going to do? The Inspector General, how does that help the president?

SMITH: Exactly. It does not help the president. The purpose was to delay. But it was Rosenstein apparently who convinced Trump to do it. Unbeknownst to McCabe, the (inaudible) McCabe he had no idea. Presumably, The Times story was in the works for several days.

The story drops a couple of hours after Trump tweets that the documents are going to the I.G. and you can imagine Rosenstein's horror. McCabe has blown this beautiful plan I had to get us both in the clear. I think that's what happened. Rosenstein's effort to cover, again, "The Post" story appears sourced to him.

And the idea is we have to cover this up. I was telling a joke. Of course I wouldn't do such a thing. Andy McCabe didn't get my joke.

INGRAHAM: It's not funny. This is what I inaudible). If it is a joke, and Corey, you can chime in here, he must have a really lame sense of humor because a joke isn't, hey, let's wear a wire. I'll wear a wire or someone else, one of you can, and then we will get someone to invoke the 25th amendment. Maybe I can get Sessions.

How is that funny? There is no tee-hee giggle giggle in any of that. Corey? I think he is right. I think Lee is right. This is all about the declassification. Trump backtracked for some reason and I think that was a big gift to Rosenstein because he is worried about that FISA application and the fact that exculpatory information was not put in that FISA application to monitor Carter Page, Corey.

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FOREM TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Well, you are exactly right, and everybody has to remember that that was the third renewal of the application. There were four actual applications. The first application was denied by the FISA court.

Rod Rosenstein signed this and when the president made the announcement that he was going to declassify Bruce Ohr's 302, that was going to reveal that Nellie Ohr, Bruce's wife, was talking to Christopher Steel, that the Justice Department knew about this and that I'm sure Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department was aware of what Bruce Ohr was doing because he was his supervisor at some level, that all would have come out very clearly.

And he was so afraid that declassification was going to expose him for what he is, which is part of the deep state. This collusion never existed. It has been a fake dossier from the beginning. And look, we have done extensive research on this now. We have seen what Rod Rosenstein is really about.

Whether it's Rod Rosenstein. He covered up for Peter Strzok, for Lisa Page, for Andy McCabe, for Jim Comey. He is also the individual, and you remember this, who recommended Bob Mueller become the head of the FBI when Jim Comey was fired. And then the next day, he personally appointed Bob Mueller as the special counsel to investigate this president.

INGRAHAM: Tonight, the president briefly referenced this issue with the secret recording. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have great people in the Department of Justice. We have great people. These are people I really believe, you take a poll. I got to be at 95 percent, but you had some real bad ones. You are seeing what has happened at the FBI. They are all gone but there is a lingering stench and we are going to get rid of that too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Kendall, a lingering stench. Your thoughts there? Who is he preferring to, please tell?

KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Obviously, he is concerned about Rod Rosenstein. I think he should be. I don't think we can make the New York Times the judge and jury of Rosenstein's fate. But what the challenge is to find a very accelerated framework for getting to the bottom of this.

And I don't think the president needs to for example, ask the Justice Department to investigate itself. I think he has the power and perhaps should go ahead and put together an investigative mechanism perhaps relying in part on the White House counsel's office so that they can get access, redacted, blacked out in certain places or not, to whatever these McCabe memos are.

And at some point, to bring Rod Rosenstein into the office, look him in the eye. This president has famously done with a lot of hired and fired people, look in the eye and see if he can get adequate explanation for this because if it is true, if the way it is being presented in "The New York Times" is true, it is something very, very troubling that can't be continuing.

INGRAHAM: Well, apparently, according to the report, I am going to read some of it. I think it's important that I read some of the New York Times reporting. But apparently, the gist of it is Rosenstein was really ticked off that even though he wrote that letter or memo justifying the firing of Comey, giving a justification with the firing of Comey, he was mad that then the president relied on it when he was asked about it.

So, he both wrote it -- I guess that's the suggestion of the president or the (inaudible) of the -- then he was mad the president relied on it. And that just torqued him off to know him. This is the New York Times reporting. I want all three of you to listen to this. "Rosenstein raised the idea of wearing a recording device or wire, as he put it, to secretly tape the president when he visited the White House. One participant asked whether Rosenstein was serious, and he replied animatedly that he was."

Now, it goes on to say, "It is not clear how determined he was about seeing them through though he did tell McCabe that he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John Kelly about the 25th amendment, then the Secretary of Homeland Security and now the White House chief of staff to mount an effort to invoke the 25th."

And third point, "According to others who described his comment, Rosenstein not only confirmed that he was serious about the idea but also followed up by suggesting that other FBI official who were interviewing to be the bureau's director could also secretly record Trump."

This was around the time of course where after he fired Comey, he was looking at Wray, Rosenstein's name had been raised for this and a few others including a former Obama person. But he wanted, according to this report, there is no humor in this.

When he says it's humor, it's ridiculous -- I'm sorry. Just a woman's intuition, but it's ridiculous. No humor in this. Now Lee, I want to play this for you because the Democrats tonight are saying this is just the pretext Trump needs to fire Rosenstein. This is what Leon Panetta said tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEON PANETTA, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: He has got to think very carefully about the implications of taking action here, because if he does this, it raises concerns about the Mueller investigation. It raises concerns about the possibility of obstruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: OK. Why would it be obstruction of justice? The Mueller investigation goes on.

SMITH: I mean, I think the whole thing has it exactly opposite. I mean, it was Rosenstein who appointed him. I think the interesting thing and revelatory thing about these two stories is it exposes a lot of people, a lot of wrong doers at the FBI and DOJ. They are turning on each other like rats.

I hope that the president sees that before he makes decisions. And I'll say that I think the important thing, the really vital thing is declassifying these documents so that we can all understand what the bad guys at the DOJ and the FBI were doing as these two articles give some sort of indication there is more in those documents we can be sure of. We would like to see them.

INGRAHAM: And Corey, it is true, is it not, that the president can reverse his reversal at any moment? Now, for now, kicking it over to the inspector general, which again, has no subpoena power. I mean, Horowitz is a good guy but it is not going to get us anywhere.

He can reverse his decision at any moment because right now, it seems to me that the Bruce Ohr 302, those are the interview memos that he wrote, the FISA applications and other text messages are critical to be released unredacted except for any sources of the messages which there apparently aren't any. But Corey, the president has that ability to do that. He has to override Rosenstein to do it.

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, that's right, but you have to remember, Laura, when he said he was going to redact, there was only certain pages of the FISA application so there is no concern from a national security perspective. I think it's pages 10 through 12 and then 14 others pages there. So it wasn't the entire application. So that's perfectly fine.

But you also have to remember, Andrew McCabe has been referred by the I.G. for criminal referral. That referral is (inaudible) Department of Justice. My guess is Rod Rosenstein is the one who is deciding whether or not Andrew McCabe is going to be prosecuted for lying under oath to the FBI on three separate occasions, particularly when he was the acting director of the FBI after Jim Comey was fired.

So look, these guys ran this tight little (inaudible) that they never thought anyone was ever going to get caught between Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, you know, Rod Rosenstein, these guys did things.

And then you throw in Clapper and Brennan. And you've got the making of a story that nobody could actually believe that these nine or 10 individuals have tried from day one to take down a duly elected president. Not only are they a deep state. They are an enemy of the people.

INGRAHAM: Kendall, your reaction. This such has been such a wild day of news, both on Kavanaugh, which we're going to get to in a moment and on this story. But I don't see how this continues with this white hot tension between the president and the Justice Department. Not about even Mueller at this point. This is just about the running of the department and just basic decisions about redacting documents or not redacting or classifying or declassifying.

I know it is related to Mueller, but I don't see how it is a sustainable situation with Rosenstein and I know other people would say also with Sessions, but with Rosenstein, I think it is a bad, bad relationship.

COFFEY: Yes. It has got to be incredibly uncomfortable and increasingly less productive for the Department of Justice. But I still think there needs to be a thoughtful, very, very fast inquiry. It doesn't have to be formally structured, but the president needs to get to the bottom of this.

We can't rely on newspaper stories in terms of making judgments about one of the most powerful positions in the United States government. But on the other hand, precisely because the deputy attorney general's position is so powerful, this needs to be resolved as you say and resolved quickly.

INGRAHAM: All right, gentlemen, thank you so much. Terrific segment. Christine Blasey Ford's lawyer is out with a new response over a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee. The details broke late tonight. And we will bring them to you after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Breaking news and just in the last hour, Christine Blasey Ford's attorney making an 11th hour desperation play with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Just moments ago, she asked for yet another day for Dr. Ford to consider the committees offer for her to testify this coming Wednesday. The response coming in just before 10:00 p.m. eastern deadline tonight.

Joining us now with reaction is John Yoo, former general counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and former U.S. attorney David Katz is with us along with former federal prosecutor, John Lauro. Let's start with John Lauro. John, for a lot of us who have been watching this over the last few days, we have been concerned about moving the goalpost.

JOHN LAURO, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.

INGRAHAM: I believe the testimony was supposed to be on Monday, not Wednesday. She was supposed to respond about appearing on Monday. I think they are negotiating about Wednesday. But nevertheless, the goalpost keeps moving. It is a smart lawyer I think representing this accuser because she is pushing it to the last minute to give her client as much time, leeway as she can. But at what point does the committee's patience run thin here?

LAURO: I think they are just about there. She has to either put up or shut up. How much preparation time does she need to tell the truth? That's the question. I mean, she has been dealing with lawyers for weeks, if not months now. It is time for her to face the music. She has made a very serious accusation.

Now, the moment of truth comes. She has to face questioning. She has to be asked the tough questions and she can't escape it. If she refuses to testify, then the bottom line is that he is going to be confirmed and this thing is over.

But there is a legal expression for what her lawyer is doing, and that's jerking around. You know, every time they reach a point where there is an agreement, all of the sudden, you know, as you say, the goalpost move and that's just inappropriate.

INGRAHAM: David, I know there are very strong feelings about this case on both sides. A lot of Democrats think that she wouldn't come forward unless this happened. And even though she doesn't remember key details, that's OK. If this has to go on another two or three weeks, so be it.

But it is interesting to note how this is proceeding as a legal matter at the same time because even though it's not a legal setting in a courtroom, one would think that making a demand that you have to speak after Brett Kavanaugh is a little rich, don't you think, at this point, since she is the one making the accusation?

DAVID KATZ, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, it is not a court of law but it certainly makes sense that the accusation has to come first and that the person being accused gets to hear exactly what the accusation is and then respond to it. Some of her other demand I do think makes some sense but, you know, not having all the cameras, not having all of these things, but you know, high officials are used to, but she is not used to that.

And she is just going to tell her side of the story. And I kind of agree with, I guess it's Kellyanne Conway who said that, you know, she should be accommodated and giving her one more day is accommodating her. She shouldn't be attacked. And I think Republicans would have a (inaudible) victory wouldn't they.

If they ended up losing the House and Senate because they mistreated her instead of giving her one more day and hearing everyone side of the story. Of course, I think they should also hear Mark Judge's side of the story because, you know, when you are a prosecutor, as I was, you always say, you know, there is one more witness they could have called. Why didn't they call him?

The defense has the power of subpoena, let them call Mark Judge if Mark Judge is so important. But you know here, the Democrats don't have the power to call Mark Judge. The Democrats don't have the power to call him.

INGRAHAM: Actually, David, that's not true. What the Democrats could have done which -- and John Yoo, you can react to this. The Democrats could have done, they could have gone out and done their own investigation. They could have interviewed Mark Judge. They could have interviewed Patrick Smithe.

They could have gotten, actually, quite a bit gone in the last 72, 96 hours or so. But instead, what the Democrats are doing is going on TV talking about how Kavanaugh is a sexual predator. Someone that I have known for 28 years. So John, I know you have known him for a long time. Your reaction to this latest demand by the accuser's legal team?

JOHN YOO, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Laura, you actually put your finger on it when you said this isn't actually a courtroom. This is not a criminal trial. This is the Senate performing its constitutional job to give advice and consent. It is a political process and a legal process, but it is not a criminal trial.

The Senate doesn't need the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation. As you say, Laura, each side has committee staff. They can go out and interview people. They can interview them under oath. I think that's the most important thing that has to happen, is the stories have to be gotten under oath, under pain of perjury from both Judge Kavanaugh and from Dr. Ford.

The timing is actually important. The sooner, the better because as time goes on, people could adjust their stories and change them in response to what they are hearing in the public. I'm worried about that. I think actually the committee is right to try to freeze the stories in place as soon as possible so that people can't start changing their stories. That would be worse than moving the goalpost. Already, we have lost that.

INGRAHAM: Right. Well the Republicans did get both Judge and Patrick Smythe, they did interview them and they did sign declarations, which were signed under penalty of felony, correct? So that was done. Democrats could have taken part in the questioning. They decided not to.

And going back to what David Katz said, you got to be more accommodating to the accuser. I think the president was right, let her speak, but to say that the Senate wasn't accommodating, they could have interviewed her at home in California. They said they would. Grassley said he would do it behind closed doors, in public, would be questioned by an outside counsel, which I thought, because it is all these white men up there.

It would have been better to have an outside counsel, especially a woman, ask the question. Now, they don't want that. So, it seems like they have been quite accommodating except on, well, we are not going to do it whenever you want to do it, because you don't get to dictate terms. John, I want you to listen, and all of you to part of the letter that was released, again, just about an hour ago from the Kavanaugh accuser's attorney.

"The imposition of aggressive and artificial deadlines regarding the dates and conditions of any hearings has created tremendous and unwarranted anxiety and stress on Dr. Ford. Your cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor who has been doing her best to cooperate with the committee is completely inappropriate." John Lauro, cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor seems more to me like a political statement than it does to be from a lawyer who wants to actually make some headway on these negotiations.

LAURO: It is all about politics. If she was serious about having her client testify, she would have made that decision certainly by now to put her before the public. Let me just say one thing. She is going to be treated with kid gloves. Under no circumstances, is she going to be abused or treated disrespectfully. That would be counterintuitive to what the Republican majority wants to do.

So the reality is they have bent over backwards to have her come in under appropriate circumstances. Let's remember one thing. An accuser does not get to call the shots. This is a process with deadlines. She has decided to come forward and now she has to testify truthfully and honestly and face the music.

INGRAHAM: David.

KATZ: You know I was a prosecutor. I have also defended people in the same situation as Judge Kavanaugh who are faced with charges that seem absolutely unbelievable and they are totally denied by my clients and I have gotten not guilty. And there are rules of procedure in court. The rules are less clear in the Senate.

My point is that the Republicans and the committee should not be seen as not giving her a fair shot, as not hearing her story, as not understanding that this is a very unreported crime as Senator Collins has pointed out.

And President Trump should treat her with respect at all times, including in his tweets. And the Republicans for their own sake, should treat her with respect. And all the women in this situation, a aman in this situation. They don't come forward all the time. Sometimes it is a long time before they make these allegations. Everybody can understand that. And as I say, it's a (inaudible) victory if they lose the House and the Senate by mistreating her or being cavalier with her.

INGRAHAM: What about the respect to Brett Kavanaugh?

KATZ: And I don't think she is after so much.

INGRAHAM: No one is being cavalier. They've already put out -- come on, David.

KATZ: Laura, I don't think she has asked for so much. She has asked for one more day.

INGRAHAM: David, the vote was supposed to be yesterday.

KATZ: She's asked for one more day.

INGRAHAM: The vote was supposed to be yesterday. Feinstein, John Yoo, had the letter in July. The Democrat, Randy Sideman, who was already plotting about how to derail Kavanaugh, the same person who is now advising the legal team on overall, you know, process and P.R. This has turned into a political cudgel to be used both against Kavanaugh, the Republicans, Donald Trump, all the way to the mid-term election.

That might sound political, but I have been in Washington for 30 years. And Brett Kavanaugh is getting no respect in my view, in this process. He is not being respected too well himself, John

YOO: Well, I agree with you. Not only do we show respect for Dr. Ford. We also have to show respect not just to Judge Kavanaugh, we need to show respect for the senate. What's going on here I think is that the Senate has been manipulated, that these charges were held back until the very last minute, even after the hearings were over.

And so what the Senate has to do is to make sure it does its constitutional job. This is not about a form for airing grievances. The Senate has to find out the truth.

There is no forensic evidence anymore. The only thing that is left is the witness's testimony. The senators have to put them under oath, and while being respectful. We have found in our legal system the best way to get the truth is to subject both witnesses to questioning and cross- examination. I don't think that anyone should be treated with kid gloves or treated differently. We ask this of people in cases every day in courtrooms around the country in these kinds of cases. I don't think we should expect any less, and give respect to Kavanaugh and to Dr. Ford, but show them respect by expecting them to tell the truth under oath and be subject and willing to answer questions of cross-examination.

INGRAHAM: Right. And we don't change the cameras or the lighting. There is only one camera angle. What is that? If you are going to launch that kind of allegation against someone this late in the game, 36 years later, then come along and say, oh no, but I don't want a camera and a woman can't ask the questions. To me, this is -- I don't know. I don't like the feel of any of that.

DAVID KATZ, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Laura, we have to respect victims, too. We have to respect alleged victims.

INGRAHAM: OK, guys, I'm sorry. I'm going on, but when I heard the camera thing, I thought everybody goes up before that committee has to be on the camera.

KATZ: The Senate agreed to that, Laura. Laura, the Senate agreed to that.

INGRAHAM: Did I say they didn't? I thought it was really, really goofy. You look silly and goofy, it sets a terrible precedent. I don't like that precedent of having to change the process so late in the game.

KATZ: She is a victim. She's a victim. She's not used to that. She's not used to that.

INGRAHAM: There are a lot of victims. A lot of us aren't used to this, because it is so late in the game.

Guys, when we return, which Halloween costume is already offending the P.C. crowd? Hollywood steps in to attack Brett Kavanaugh, and a lot more. Raymond Arroyo next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's Friday, and it means it is time for --

(MUSIC)

INGRAHAM: First up in tonight's edition, a Halloween costume is causing outrage. To tell us about it, we are joined by New York Times bestselling author of the forthcoming "Will Wilder, The Amulet of Power," Fox News contributor, Raymond Arroyo. Raymond, what costume is driving the P.C. crowd crazy now?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: You and everyone will remember, at the Kavanaugh hearing, there were women that dressed up in the costumes from "Handmaid's Tale," the Hulu series. These were women who were forced into surrogacy in the process of this miniseries. Well, a website called Yandy, which specializes in lingerie, launched a brand new string of Halloween costumes, including this one, which depicted the costumes of "The Handmaid's Tale." Women took to Twitter and said, wait a minute, rape is not funny, rape victims are not funny. And they said this must be taken down, the fictional charactering being lampooned and sexualized in this way was outrageous.

So the company took it down. In a statement, they said, "Over the last few hours it has become obvious that the Yandy Brave Red Maiden costume is being seen as a symbol of women's oppression rather than an expression of women's empowerment. So they took it down.

Laura, I then went to the Yandy website and looked at some of their other offerings just to see what was there.

INGRAHAM: Because you wanted to buy something for Rebecca.

ARROYO: I don't. Look what I found, bad habit nun costume. Then I found this one, the religious sister costume.

INGRAHAM: That's like a Britney Spears --

ARROYO: Then the sexy school girl uniform, and the study date school girl. This is only a sampling. I can't show you the other.

INGRAHAM: Who is studying that?

ARROYO: There is a lot to study there. Here is the problem. It is OK to sexualize young girls, nuns, but fictional characters are off limits? This is where the culture is sending one message, we have to respect women, not objectify them, which is the right message, and on the other hand giving them only costumes during this season that sexualizes and objectifies them, including being religiously insensitive as you saw.

INGRAHAM: I can't believe you can't even wear Indian and pilgrim costumes at Thanksgiving. That's like a hate crime on a college campus.

ARROYO: They have the sexy Native Americans.

INGRAHAM: As long as it's sexy.

INGRAHAM: Naughty, naughty Native American.

As you know, Laura, Hollywood is all in on the midterm fight and the Kavanaugh battle. Earlier this week Hollywood A-listers like Julianne Moore, America Ferrera, and others, recorded a homemade video supporting the Kavanaugh accuser. They thanked her for coming forward. Now Jesus Christ Superstar himself, John Legend, has emerged with his own home video. He's apparently now a constitutional scholar. Look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN LEGEND, SINGER AND SONGWRITER: Who becomes the next Supreme Court justice is the decision of a lifetime, your lifetime. Brett Kavanaugh's troubling views on the issues that matter most and his rushed confirmation process make him unfit for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

This fall, your senators will vote on Kavanaugh. How they vote will impact you for a lifetime. Tell them to vote no on Kavanaugh.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: His wife is a beautiful I think supermodel. But she has tweeted the nastiest stuff about the president, nasty, nasty. That's fine.

ARROYO: They are entitled to their opinion. Here is my problem, their opinion is only as valid as anybody else's. They are very talented people. We don't need their constitutional views. Unless you're Thurgood Marshall or something, we don't want to hear from you. Just sing nice songs, be happy.

INGRAHAM: You're going to say shut up and sing.

ARROYO: I'm not going to say shut up and anything, but where is the Hollywood activism on behalf of people like Keith Ellison's accuser, the Clinton accusers? We need those voices too. This is bothersome that it is all one-sided and not spread out. Use your celebrity across the board.

Ben and Jerry's is now also involved in these midterms. They have appointed seven new candidates that they picked out at random, left-leaning candidates, and they want people to pick a flavor that most captures the essence of those candidates. I looked at not only them but their competitors. I think what we are dealing with rocky road, cotton candy policies. I think you've got cuckoos and cream in most cases, a lot of fruitcake, mud pie, and a Ben and Jerry's flavor that already exists when you look at some of these candidates, chubby hubby.

INGRAHAM: Yes, just a few.

ARROYO: The Me Too movement has spurred so many things and created so many things. It's also birthed a new phenomenon called modern masculinity. Watch this. It's being marketed to millennials.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It takes one man's courage to start a chain reaction is what it takes. So we sit here, somebody is really feeling something, and he has the balls to stand up and say, I'm really sad right now. And then you check and you watch the rest of the group as that man says that and they just -

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: What do you think? These are retreats. These guys stand around and emote.

INGRAHAM: This is what I say. Hold me back.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: That is hot. Sexy.

ARROYO: You know what the problem with this is? Unlike religious retreats where it is about your relationship with God, your relationship with others, this is all about my feelings. They gaze into each other's eyes, these men.

INGRAHAM: I love you, bro.

ARROYO: While they talk about body image and sexuality. You know what they need?

INGRAHAM: Brokeback retreat.

ARROYO: They need lessons in how to be dads, how to fulfill the duties of manhood. That will teach you masculinity more than gazing at your bro and wondering how he thinks my pecs are today. This is what happens when you have Silicon Valley come up with retreats for men?

INGRAHAM: I thought you said Silicone Valley. It's going to be like the calf implants.

ARROYO: There is silicone manhood, by the way.

INGRAHAM: Posterior implants.

ARROYO: You have many more segments. Thank you.

INGRAHAM: All right, the battle over Brett Kavanaugh is already turning the midterms on his head. What does it mean for the president's agenda, though? Up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The Kavanaugh confirmation brawl could have an impact on the upcoming midterms. President Trump is appearing to put aside talk of a red wave, replacing it with a new, passionate call to rally his supporters. Here he is in Missouri tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You have got to get out and vote. I know you're complacent. If you lose the midterm, we are going to go through nothing but fights. We're going to be fighting to keep what you have. They are going to want to take it away. You have got to get out. You can't be complacent. It's fragile. You have got to get out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Joining us now is Will Jawando, a Democratic strategist, who is also the party's nominee for the county council in Montgomery County, Maryland. It's great to see you, Will.

WILL JAWANDO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Good to be here.

INGRAHAM: The president I think before was maybe a little confident because the economy was so great, this prediction of the big blue wave was probably overstated. But clearly he is playing the investigation. They are going to be dropping down investigation after investigation. All this progress we made will be turned back. How do you see things?

JAWANDO: I think someone got in his ear. You often hear with Trump, whoever is the last person to leave he listens to, I think said, hey, you need to make sure our base turns out. The Democrats, we're obviously motivated. You have 153 women running for Congress, nominated. It's going to be another year of the woman. So people are motivated. Turnout is up in every state. In Maryland we were up 25 percent in our primary. So I think someone realized you have got to get your base fired up.

INGRAHAM: What are the Democrats running for?

JAWANDO: We are running to make sure that there is equality and that everyone has a seat at the table, that women are there, that we get health care back, that we make education equal. Betsy DeVos has been a disaster at the Department of Education.

INGRAHAM: How so?

JAWANDO: She has rolled back so many things. I worked at the department of education under Obama.

INGRAHAM: I did too. I worked under Reagan, just a little before you.

JAWANDO: Yes, a couple years, a couple years. Rolling back protections for LGBT communities, giving private colleges, for-profit colleges, letting them run roughshod. So there are a lot of things.

INGRAHAM: The thing I think that is tough for Democrats, and I get it, they don't like Trump -- I think a lot of it is they don't like Trump's personality. I think that's a lot of it for the Democrats, because he is really doing a great job on the economy. African-American unemployment, Hispanic unemployment, women-owned businesses, confidence in the future of this country, right truck, wrong track, is that right, I think a 12-year turn-around. I believe that's right. If not, I'll correct it. I think that's right. But anyway, the right track, wrong track is much better than it was just a few years back. So all of that is really positive for the country.

I get Democrats want more equality. But isn't the way to get more equality to have more economic opportunity? That's a big part of it, is it not?

JAWANDO: You saw record job growth under President Obama.

INGRAHAM: Not manufacturing jobs. Not manufacturing jobs. He said those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. They are coming back under Trump.

JAWANDO: You have seen a spike because of the tax cuts. But any objective analysis has shown that the job growth recession had ended well under Obama and it has continued. This trade war that Trump is creating has a big-time effect on hurting us in the long-term. These unpaid for tax cuts are --

INGRAHAM: How is it hurting you in the long-term? So you think it is sustainable to have a $380 billion a year trade deficit with China, that's sustainable?

JAWANDO: No, it's not sustainable.

INGRAHAM: What did Obama do to turn it around?

JAWANDO: That's not the way to attack it.

INGRAHAM: So what is the way to attack it?

JAWANDO: Trade war and drive up prices.

INGRAHAM: That is just a cliche. I should go into sports commentary. Politics is cliche. So is sports, I get it. But it is just a change. But that can't continue for the country. At some point, you have to pay the piper.

JAWANDO: You have a $1 trillion in unpaid for tax cuts.

INGRAHAM: The problem is, of course, we had the debt double under Obama.

JAWANDO: We're on track for that here to.

INGRAHAM: The people are going to have to decide whether they want to go forward with economic advancement or they want to go backwards. I think it's a tough, I think Democrats are going to have the historic edge. But we'll see where it goes. Great to have you on tonight.

JAWANDO: Good to be back. Let's continue that Obama --

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: I'll give it to you, he's a great speaker.

Dramatic new evidence in the accusations of domestic abuse by DNC co-chair Keith Ellison. Will Democrats finally speak out? We have new details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Charges of domestic abuse against DNC co-chair Keith Ellison, they're taking another dramatic turn. Will Democrats ever take them seriously? Joining us now with more is Fox News correspondent Kristin Fisher. Kristin?

KRISTIN FISHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Laura, the details of these allegations have really been dripping out for over a month now. The latest bit to drop is that the woman accusing Congressman Keith Ellison of domestic abuse has released what appears to be a medical document from 2017 detailing the alleged abuse caused, allegedly, by the congressman.

Karen Monahan is Ellison's ex-girlfriend and she published the document on social media. It appears to be from a Minnesota clinic back in November of 2017. And in it she claims that a doctor wrote that she, quote, was in a very stressful environment for years, emotional and physical abuse by a partner with whom she is now separated. She identifies the individual she was involved with as Congressman Ellison, and she is worried about retribution if she identifies him publicly.

Monahan published the document just days after claiming that the Democratic Party, quote, smeared, threatened, and isolated her over these allegations against the congressman, who also happens to be the deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC has said that it's reviewing the accusations. Ellison has categorically denied all of it. And Laura, don't forget, after the allegations came out, he still went on to win the Democratic primary for Minnesota attorney general. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Unbelievable.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It takes a lot to put this show on every night. Certainly not just yours truly, a big team. One of our favorite senior producer Nick Robertson is saying goodbye to the network after 10 years. I can't believe it. And he EP-ed the show tonight. Nick, we're going to miss you. Oh, my gosh, we're still going to go drinking together, don't worry about that. Nick, thanks for everything you've done for the show. Go have fun with the staff.

Up next, Mike Emanuel filling in for --

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.