Did Comey really not recall answers to Congress' questions?

close

Video

Did Comey really not recall answers to Congress' questions?

Former FBI director James Comey claimed to not know or remember key details in Russia case; panel reaction on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 10, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Hey everybody, I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle" from New York City tonight. The left ambushes yet another public figure over social media sins from year's past. This time a USA Today writer uncovers tweets by newly chosen Heisman winner Kyler Murray written when he was 14 years old. Now, what public good does this serve and where does this all end?

Plus, an alarming report about police recruits plummeting in two-thirds of the departments across the country. Could the constant derision of our law enforcement end up leading to a public safety crisis? We're going to explain. And why do advocacy groups seem to care more about illegal immigrants seeking shelter rather than focusing on American vets or our mentally ill who are living on the streets. An "Ingraham Angle" examination of that later in the show.

But first, Comey's convenient memory loss and the search for answers. That's the focus of tonight's Angle.

Now, it may be time to send over some, I don't know, Prevagen over to the former FBI Director Jim Comey. He seem to experience some severe amnesia during his close door testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees on Friday. They were exploring the factual predicate of the entire Trump-Russia probe like who knew what and when. But Jim Comey just could not recall.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

JIM COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I don't know for sure.

I don't know the answer to that.

I don't know for sure.

I don't know the answer to that.

I don't know the answer to that.

I don't recall.

I am not familiar with that article.

I don't remember it.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

INGRAHAM: So we don't have the video. So we have to go through all the best dubs there. He is such a smart guy. Don't smart people have a pretty good memory? According to Fox's analysis of the transcript, during his 5.5 hours of testimony, Comey said, "I don't remember" 73 times. He responded "I don't know" 161 times, and "I don't recall" 8 times.

Well, here's why all this matters. Republicans are still struggling to find the answers about the origins of this Russian collusion probe and what is happening with the biased investigators who advanced it as an insurance policy should Donald Trump win the election back of course in 2016.

Well, when asked if he could recall who wrote this initiation document for the Russia probe in July of 2016, Comey had no recollection. He also claimed to have no knowledge of the involvement of Peter Strzok. He's a lead FBI investigator who led the Clinton e-mail probe, whose text to girlfriend Lisa Page included gems like this. "Trump's abysmal, hoping people will just dump him."

Comey also could not remember why the FBI granted immunity to Brian Pagliano. He is a State Department employee who set up Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server. Well, Comey's got more blind spots than Christine Blasey Ford. Seemingly, he couldn't remember anything about the British spy Christopher Steele passing his dossier along to Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.

Well, of course, it was Ohr who forwarded it to the FBI sparking the surveillance of Trump campaign figures. Remember carter page? But the few details that Comey had clarity on raise important questions. He told Congress that the details of the Steele dossier were unverified when they were used by the FBI to secure surveillance warrants of Trump campaign advisor, Carter Page.

Now remember, that's what started this entire Russia-Trump probe. Comey also maintained that it was not necessary for the FBI to validate the sources of the dossier. With questions outstanding, Comey will be further grilled by Congress next year.

As the clock is running out on the Republicans efforts to get answers, Democrat Jerry Nadler, who will soon take over the House Judiciary gavel, has already announced his first order of business, to shutdown all investigations of possible corruption at the FBI and Department of Justice.

Shutdown their handling of the Hillary e-mail probe and all inquiry into the political motivations behind the Trump-Russia investigation. So once Nadler takes the reins, it's all over.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you become chairman are you officially going to end this investigation?

REP. JERRY NADLER, D-N.Y.: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why?

NADLER: Because it's a waste of time to start with. The entire purpose of this investigation is to cast aspersion and the real investigation (inaudible). There is no evidence whatsoever of bias in the FBI or any of the other nonsense they are talking about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, this other nonsense speaks directly to the credibility of the Mueller probe and calls it into question. Isn't Nadler in the least bit curious about the origins of the Steele dossier and possibly that American citizens were erroneously surveilled to serve a purely political end?

And what role did memory challenged Comey play in all of this? The Department of Justice inspector general report did question Comey's judgments about the Clinton e-mail investigation as well as the Russia probe and they are still investigating by the way that Comey leaking of his own memo to the file after his conversation with the president.

Remember when he sent it over to his friend at the "New York Times?" That investigation is on-going. But Nadler and company want to bury all those concerns and rush right into the end game. There is only one investigation Nadler means to keep alive and that's Mueller's.

The incoming chairman already believes the southern district of New York's contention that the president instructed his lawyer to pay settlement to two women during the campaign. Well, that that's a felony directing a felony, Bingo. That's ground for impeachment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: If it's proven, are those impeachable offenses?

NADLER: Well, they would be impeachable offenses whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question. But certainly they'd be impeachable offenses because even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Translation, good choice deep state. In the end, we may end up where this Russia probe began. Partisans misusing the tools of justice in a brazen attempt to drive a president from office. No matter what Nadler says, no matter how he tries to rush the public along to impeachment, questions linger, disturbing questions linger about the political nature of this entire collusion probe. And we will get answers, whether James Comey recalls them or not. And That's The Angle.

Joining me now with reaction is John Solomon, opinion contributor for The Hill, Byron York, the Washington Examiner's chief political correspondent and Andy McCarthy, former U.S. attorney, both are Fox News contributor and also, talk about an all-star panel, former attorney general Mike Mukasey.

General Muklasey, you were chomping at the bit over there. I mean, Comey, amazing amnesia that he had. Are we screwed for years? He is smart as a whip. He is focused. He is a detail-oriented individual. Memos to the file, he wrote them regularly. How do you forget so much?

MIKE MUKASEY, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's extraordinary transcript. It was also extraordinary because at one point he's asked about the statement by the -- well, he says the president told him about laying off Flynn. And so that was very disturbing and he started an investigation based on that statement.

And then he is asked about President Obama saying on national television that Hillary Clinton should not be charged because she did not intend to do anything wrong. So, that was on national television. So, somehow it doesn't matter. That was the clear import of his response and it's mind blowing. It really is.

Well, he also wasn't asked about and what he should have been asked about I think is the fact that President Obama's e-mails were found on Hillary Clinton's illegal server so that if he charged her, he would be charging the president as well and whether that paid any role in his calculations. I would be interested to know his answer to that. He will be back next week.

INGRAHAM: John, it's important what the former FBI director did remember, however. Tell us about it.

JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTIBUTOR, THE HILL: I think the most important recollection he could -- he still have after his book was that the Steele document, Steele dossier which is the genesis of the majority of the support in the FISA warrants was not corroborated, was not verified when it was submitted as evidence.

The FISA rules are clear. You don't submit unverified evidence to the judges. So his admission of that validates what several congressional committees have been looking at for several month including Devein Nunes and Chuck Grassley and people like Mark Meadows.

It's an extraordinary admission and I think the IG now has a pretty important statement to put in his report next year when he looks at the FISA abuses.

INGRAHAM: Andy, I want to go to you because Comey has spoken out since his testimony. He gave a big Q&A at the 92nd Street Y last night here in New York and he was asked about the question of impeachment. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMEY: I can't see what the end of the Mueller effort looks like. I don't know what form it will take. I don't know what they will conclude. And so I can't say in that respect. I can tell you that all of us should use every breath we have to make sure that the lying stops on January 20th, 2021.

In a way, I hope Donald Trump is not removed from office by impeachment because it lets the country off the hook.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Andy.

ANDY MCCARTHY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, you know, look. I think he's become very partisan. I am sorry to see that. You know, I don't actually mind partisanship. I mind it when people are pretending to be objective or at least presenting themselves as objective and just calling it down the middle. You know, there is a lot of talk about the necessity of the American people holding Trump to account and it seems to me that the FBI had a golden opportunity to hold Mrs. Clinton to account. They decided not to do that.

And I also think, Laura, looking at this, I don't see how any objective person looking at this even allowing that Mrs. Clinton has the constitutional presumption of innocence just like everybody else does. I don't know how anyone could look at the two sides of this equation and say that the quality of justice was the same. So, if we're going to talk about accountability, I think we should talk about accountability.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Byron, the scales of justice tipping one way. Hillary's top aides get immunity. We don't know why they were granted immunity. If anyone on this panel knows, I don't think we have been fully told why Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin were given immunity, and why this other guy was let off the hook, Pagliano, that apparently, you know, Comey had no memory of.

He is the guy who set up the e-mail server. Why is he given immunity? Byron, so we're going to get into the issue with the campaign contributions in a moment, but on this issue, because Nadler shutting it down, I think that hurts them. I think that hurts them in their effort to what they think is exposing Trump because it looks so patently one sided.

BYRON YORK, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: It did. And so many of the things we learned that John was talking about the dossier earlier, so many of these things we learned including who paid for the dossier, the origins of the dossier, whether the dossier was ever verified.

All of those things we learned were the result of the House of Representatives specifically Hous Intelligence Committee with Devin Nunes and the Senate Judiciary Committee with Charles Grassley, asking and pressuring the Justice Department to tell them these things. And by the way, the Justice Department stone-walled and slow-walked that it could.

And one more thing about that dossier about using it on a FISA warrant on. Also remember, that on January 6th of 2017, when Donald Trump was still the president-elect, Jim Comey and James Clapper and John Brennan, the top intelligence chiefs traveled to New York and Comey briefed the president- elect on the allegation that he had been in a hotel room in Moscow with prostitutes. Of course they haven't been verified but he actually -- this was the first thing they told the president. So, they relied on the dossier to an extraordinary amount.

INGRAHAM: Judge, every time I go back and review what's happened just over the last couple of years from Hillary today, it really is stunning. That dossier, unverified, being used as the chief component in this FISA application, I mean, you are a federal district court judge.

If you found out that the crux of an application to you for something this important to surveil an American citizen was not verified and also funded by the political opponent, direct political opponent of the subject of the investigation, overall subject, that's amazing.

MUKASEY: I would be up the wall about it and I think their claim that somehow they told the judge by slipping a clever little foot note --

INGRAHAM: Footnote in.

MUKASEY: -- about the origin of it, I don't think that really survives scrutiny. Also, it seems to me pretty unusual that although Jim Comey described that dossier as unverified, the submission that he made and signed is marked a verified submission to the FISA court. A verified, unverified submission? What's that about?

INGRAHAM: You have the entire thing dogeared. By the way, judge and I were laughing before the show started, like this is like going back to the old legal days, judge, on the federal district court. In New York, he has it all dogeared, McCarthy. It's like, this is taking us all back. But just -- you read it. Now, what really jumped out at you the most from Comey on Friday?

MUKASEY: A couple of things. First of all, his constant inability to define the questions and to understand the questions when the Republicans were asking them and his expansive orations when the Democrats asked him questions or his succinct, yes, no, I do, I don't answers to their rhetorical questions. Those were just fine.

But when the Republicans were asking questions, he was backing and filling and hemming and hawing (ph). I was really quite noticeable. And I was also struck as I said before, by that exchange about him claiming that the president was telling him to layoff Flynn and that he had to start an investigation of that. But when Barack Obama went on national television and said he didn't think Hillary Clinton had done anything wrong or intended to hurt the country, which by the way was not the standard under the statute, but it was a broad hint that she shouldn't be charged. He was, yes, he was moderately upset about that but didn't see any reason.

INGRAHAM: That wasn't said to influence an ongoing, perhaps, ongoing or forthcoming investigation. Andy McCarthy, I want to go to you. The big take away from the sentencing documents from the southern district was that language about directing the payments, correct?

So, directing payments to these two women, $150,000 and $130,000 -- Michael Cohen used the LLC, ends up paying the American Media, Inc. National Enquirer, and then paying Stormy Daniels directly. That has led all of the other cables to conclude, aha, we finally got the road runner, Trump.

They got roadrunner and he is guilty of a felony and he's on the fast track to impeachment. It is amazing that without any reference to the president or the underlying facts, the sweeping conclusions are made by people who frankly should know better on national television.

MCCARTHY: Yes. Well, I think they think, Laura, or they want you to think that because Cohen went into court and pled guilty to these two counts of campaign finance fraud, that that settles the matter and that means that that's done. That's settled. We don't have to talk about that anymore.

In fact, it's very questionable whether these two transactions are campaign finance violations. Even if we assume that they are, that has often, even in much more serious cases than this been handled as an administrative matter. But I think there is very significant question about whether these kinds of payments are obligations or in fact in-kind campaign contributions.

And the other thing I'd say, Laura, that people ought to think about is there is a sense here where they get Trump coming or going, right? So they say that these were campaign expenditures and he should have disclosed them.

If they're campaign expenditures, he could have settled them with campaign funds, but I am wondering what the Democrats would have said if Trump had taken campaign money and done these payments. I assume what they would have said was that he was diverting campaign funds to personal use.

INGRAHAM: Oh yes. But it would have been legal though. There was a report in the FCC --

MCCARTHY: --so, it just seems to me that, you know --

INGRAHAM: Yes, it would have been legal though. I don't think it would have been any problem under the FEC rules on that. If it was disclosed and there were a nuisance, so you considered nuisance suite or -- that's what he said today by the way when he was -- was it today?

Well, basically, this is a private matter. This is not a done essentially implication being to influence the election. I want to play something for you Byron, this was from Rand Paul -- I am so glad he said this. The underlying constitutionality of this campaign finance regulations. I couldn't agree with him more. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY.: I personally think that if someone makes an error in filing paper work or in not categorizing a campaign contribution correctly, it should not be jail time. It ought to be a foul line. And so it's just like a lot of other things that we've done in Washington, with over-criminalized campaign finance.

INGRAHAM: A good friend of mine today, Byron, were saying why are conservatives accepting these as constitutional matters? They are not constitutional matters. I can make a good case on that but maybe we'll see that later on from the Trump folks.

YORK: Well, a lot of conservatives have argued -- Mitch McConnell did a big lawsuit about it -- that these limits on political donations are limits on free speech and violate our first amendment rights. They lost on that. So these limits are there. We saw a really big shift, a sudden shift in the discussion about Trump in the last few days, which is for two years it was Russia, Russia, Russia.

And now it is campaign finance violations. And what is clear is Democrats believe they already have enough to impeach the president because they can say now, truthfully, federal prosecutors in New York implicated the president in two felonies. They've said it over and over you're going to hear it millions of times in the future. That's what these prosecutors have done in New York including this part in the Michael Cohen sentencing memo.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Judge, do you think it's that simple?

MUKASEY: I don't really because although Cohen's admissions are binding on him, it certainly not binding on but they are not binding on the president. The statute I believe says that the purpose of the contribution has to be to influence the election. Not a purpose, the purpose.

So that for example, if he was interested in saving his reputation, saving his marriage, in addition to whatever influence it might have on the campaign, that's the end of it. John Edwards beat the same charge back in 2012 based on the same kind of reasoning. And I don't see that it's really that much of a danger to the president. Yes, he might be charged, but I don't see it as a viable case.

INGRAHAM: Fantastic panel guys. Thank you so much. And coming up, the left is collecting another social media pelt. Well, USA Today smearing the Heisman winner Kyler Murray just hours after he won the big award. His sin? Insensitive tweets he sent when he was an adolescent. Michelle Malkin, Glenn Greenwald, react next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KYLER MURRAY, QUARTERBACK, OKLAHOMA SOONERS: This is crazy. Man, this is an honor, something that, you know, I will never forget and something I will always cherish for the rest of my life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That was Oklahoma quarterback Kyler Murray accepting the coveted Heisman trophy over the weekend. And within hours of that moment, USA Today writer, Scott Gleeson, rained on that career changing moment writing, "Heisman trophy winner Kyler Murray had a Saturday to remember. But the Oklahoma quarterback's memorable night also helped resurface social media's memory of several homophobic tweets more than six years old.

Well, Murray immediately apologized saying the old tweets don't reflect who he is or what he believes. The old tweet and that shaming comes just days after actor and comedian Kevin Hart was forced to step down as the Oscar's host after tweeting -- his past tweeting came back to haunt him. So, is any of this fair?

Here now we have conservative commentator Michelle Malkin and Brian Watkins, a civil rights and criminal defense attorney. Michelle, let's start with you. My word, I am glad there was no Twitter or YouTube or anything when I was a kid or when I was in college because, you know, we all do stupid things in college and I'm proud. I do stupid things.

But this just seems now, like it's -- he is not a political kid. First of all, he is a student and a football player. And he can't even have his moment working as hard as he did his whole life.

MICHELLE MALKIN, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Yes, that's right. And this so- called reporter, Scott Gleeson for USA Today was not practicing journalism. He was lying in wait for the moment to "resurface" these tweets he clearly he had been sitting on and waiting to relish the moment to spring them on this young man at the height of his achievement and hi moment of, you know, really what should have been a satisfaction and pride for himself and his family.

It's not journalism. Its vigilantism and its social justice warrior use of social media run amuck. I think that every journalist at USA Today should hang their heads in shame that this man, Scott Gleeson, is allowed to operate as a so-called reporter at that publication.

And it really does call into question what exactly is news? There is nothing news worthy and the fact that a young man, when he was a teenager, 14 or 15 years-old, said stupid things. And I think you have it exactly right, Laura, which is who among us hasn't done stupid things when we were teenagers? I think maybe there's an object lesson here for every agent for every promising sports, young person or athlete --

INGRAHAM: Well, don't go on social media.

MALKIN: -- to stay off social media.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Don't go on social media at all. I think more and more people are going to come along to that understanding that social media, just too precarious, too dangerous. Brian, here's what he said last night after this surfaced. He said, "I apologize for the tweets that have come to light tonight when I was 14 or 15. I used a poor choice of word that doesn't reflect who I am or what I believe. I did not intend to single out any individual group."

And I think a lot of people are watching this today and saying does this same standard apply to people like Sarah Silverman or Amy Schumer or Chelsea Handler. We have a couple of other tweets we will put up on screen.

This is what -- we'll put up Chelsea Handler first. She said, "This is what a -- I'm not going to say the word -- bird likes like when he flexes." That's hers. And then this is Sarah Silverman, "I don't believe this in a hateful was, but the new bachelorette's a -- f word -- I'm not going to say it." That was in 2010.

Now, Amy Schumer, "Every skyfall -- f word - I'm about to get knee deep in Helen Hunt #thesessions. What are we doing to ourselves here Brian? I mean, they were adults when they said that stuff and they are comedians, so they can get away with it?

BRIAN WATKINS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, comedians can get away with things that the average person can't, but more importantly, I mean, I think what the reporter of "USA Today" did was despicable. That's not reporting. He's not a journalist. That's just tabloid, you know, smear. I don't know why you want to smear a young college kid in his, you know, moment of glory like that. But on the other side of that is you got to stay off the internet and the twitters and the social media. That stuff is there. It doesn't forget.

INGRAHAM: But Brian, this is what I'm saying, liberals are becoming the anti-fun group or party. I mean, no one can have any -- now one can make a mistake. No one can say something in thumbprint (ph) and you've said, that comedians can get away with it. Well, Kevin Hart can't get away with it. Kevin (inaudible) himself a few days ago after he was selected to host the Oscar's.

And I've had the chance to meet him once. He probably doesn't remember me. He's a great guy, great person. And I'm not going to apologize. (Inaudible) forced -- you must -- you must bow down at the altar of political correctness, and I just think guys it's a kill-joy moment in the country.

No one can breathe without fear of offending someone else. And being kind and having manners, we all should have better manners. I agree with that. But when you -- you can't be 14 or 15? I just think, Michelle, I think it's again, I think the left is becoming precariously close to the line of irrelevant in the culture when this is the kind of stuff they focus on.

MALKIN: Well, yes.

WATKINS: It's can't say that it's the left.

INGRAHAM: Yes, it's the left.

WATKINS: It's not.

INGRAHAM: Yes, it is the left.

MALKIN: Of course it is.

WATKINS: No, it's not. It's society.

INGRAHAM: Society? No.

MALKIN: No, no, no.

WATKINS: Yes. Society cares --

(CROSSTALK)

MALKIN: I'm glad --

WATKINS: When people put things up on the Internet, it's society that cares about it. If you put something up on the Internet and society didn't care what you put on the Internet, it wouldn't be an issue. So the only thing that makes it an issue is society.

MALKIN: They went after this young man because he was a successful athlete, and that journalist who was a social justice warrior wanted to bring him down because he fought the wrong things when he was a teenager.

INGRAHAM: It's a lesson.

MALKIN: That's right, it's a --

INGRAHAM: This is a lesson going forward. It's a warning shot across the bow. Any of you people out there, any of you guys coming up through the ranks, you better watch out, because we are watching you. It's like Big Brother but it's not coming from the government. All right, guys, thanks so much.

Glenn Greenwald is with us. So happy he's here. I've never gotten to meet him in person, but of course he's from "The Intercept," a co-founder of "The Intercept" and he's done so much great work over the years. Glenn, I saw a tweet of yours today. I had no idea you were in New York, so it's great to see you. This is kind of nuts. I am just so glad I didn't grow up in the era of all this stuff. And if it makes me a fuddy-duddy to say that, I'm fine with that.

GLENN GREENWALD, CO-FOUNDER, "THE INTERCEPT": That was my reaction was the thing for which I'm most grateful is there was no Internet when I was an adolescent. And I'm somebody who actually worked for several years to protect the Internet, to defend privacy on the Internet because it's such a critical innovation. So when I hear things like stay off of social media, stay off Twitter, as the father of two children, ten and eight, that really disturbs me. The Internet is a really important means of communication.  But it is true that if we signal to people that your every word will be forever scrutinized for propriety, even in adolescence, the purpose of which is rebel and test limits, we're either going to destroy the Internet or breed a really conformist society where everyone is petrified of ever sounding an off-key note. And both of those are equally terrible.

INGRAHAM: I mentioned the issue of Kevin Hart who was going to host the Oscars. This is what "Saturday Night Live's" Michael Che said defending Kevin Hart. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL CHE, COMEDIAN: That was short.

(LAUGHTER)

CHE: Kevin Hart had to step down as host of the upcoming Academy Awards because of homophobic tweets from 2011. Didn't the academy nominate Mel Gibson for an award just last year?

Also, if Kevin Hart isn't clean enough to host the Oscars, then no black comic is. The only black comic I know that is cleaner than Kevin Hart is booked for the next three to ten years.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That was pretty funny. I get the sense people on the left are saying we better watch out because you start finding the Handlers, Silverman, Schumer tweet, I don't think they should never work again because they sent those tweets out. Everyone should kind of take a breath and everyone should be able to poke fun at everybody else. No group should be off-limits, frankly, except kids.

GREENWALD: And I think the question is, do we want to judge everybody by the worst possible moments that we can find about them and then hold trial by the Internet? That's one of the things that's really toxic as well.

INGRAHAM: I've been dying to talk to you about what you think now that Comey testifies on Capitol Hill. You probably saw some of that. What were your thoughts?

GREENWALD: I think if you go back to 2016 and look at the reason why there was a special counsel in the first place, the argument was that we suspect the Trump campaign might have conspired or aided and abetted in the hacking, which was the crime. And we are so far removed from that where even Jim Comey said during his tenure he was aware of no evidence proving any of that. We're now celebrating Stormy Daniels payments and the possibility that Jared Kushner once met somebody who was a Russian national. We're so far afield from what the original investigation was that people barely remember why it exists any longer.

INGRAHAM: And what's interesting is they keep saying all these Russian contacts. And if someone calls Trump Tower who says they are a trusted source close to the Kremlin and he talked to Michael Cohen for five minutes, and Michael Cohen is like we're not following up on this. That's a contact. That's part of the narrative. That didn't go anywhere. They rebuffed anything.

GREENWALD: Russia is like a big and important country. And if you are doing politics or you're doing business, you're doing real estate, you're going to end up talking to Russians. And I don't think we want to create a climate where having communications with Russians, people of Russian national origin or Russian citizenship, is a crime, but that is essentially the climate that has been created. People in Washington are petrified to talk to Russians.

INGRAHAM: Maybe we should go over to the Russian Tearoom. Want to go?

(LAUGHTER)

GREENWALD: I think that would be very incriminating, especially if we did it together.

INGRAHAM: Exactly. Glenn Greenwald, thanks so much.

And could years of anti-cop rhetoric be responsible for starving American police departments for new recruits? That's scary. A new debate over that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from America's News Headquarters, I'm Trace Gallagher.

Thousands of people are still without power after a deadly storm hit parts of the south. Officials in North Carolina where nearly two feet of snow fell blame at least three deaths on the storm. Duke Energy says some 100,000 customers lost power in North Carolina. Power outages were also reported in Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and parts of Alabama. The storm also causing major flight delays and closed down several schools.

U.S. authorities arresting 32 people during a demonstration at the border separating San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico, 31 for trespassing, and another person for assaulting an agent. About 300 people participated in the rally which was organized in support of the caravan of Central American asylum seekers who say they're fleeing violence in their home countries.

When news breaks out, we'll break in. I'm Trace Gallagher. Now back to "The Ingraham Angle."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon! Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon! Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do we want?

CROWD: Dead Cops!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When do we want them?

CROWD: Now!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do we want?

CROWD: Dead Cops!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When do we want them?

CROWD: Now!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Those chants have become common refrains across the country in the wake of police involved shootings. A new study shows that they may have a chilling effect on new police recruiting classes. The Police Executive Research Forum found that applications have fallen at two-thirds of the departments across the country, adding this alarming realization, "Although the U.S. population has risen from 267 million in 1997 to 323 million in 2016, the number of full-time sworn officers per 1,000 U.S. residents has dropped from 2.42 in 1997 to 2.17 per 1,000 residents in 2016."

Joining me now is Heather Mac Donald, the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book "The War on Cops," along with FOX News political commentator and co-host of "The Five," Juan Williams.

Heather, you have written extensively wrote about the issue of the police and their relationship to local communities across the country. We can remind everybody about Trayvon Martin, what happened to Michael Brown, what happened of course in Baltimore to Freddie Gray. We had several police officers in Baltimore who were accused of the most horrific things, obviously facilitating the death of Freddie Gray and also with Darren Wilson in St Louis, Ferguson. They were all exonerated. Whatever happens to those police?

HEATHER MAC DONALD, AUTHOR, "WAR ON COPS": What happens to the ones who are exonerated? They go on to face further disciplinary charges from their departments. But those are aberrations. Those do not represent the norm of policing in this country. In fact, most officers are out there trying to do their job. But what has happened because of these protests and the narrative is that officers are backing off of policing. A cop in Chicago told me he has never experienced so much hatred in his 19 years on the job.  And so it has had a result on recruiting.

INGRAHAM: And my point in raising that is they were called pretty every name in the book. Darren Wilson hadn't had a single disciplinary action I believe against him when the death of Michael Brown occurred, he discharged his weapons. It was supposed to be hands up, don't shoot, except that never was said. So my point is, police are accused, even when they're exonerated their life is pretty much destroyed. Who wants to sign up with that, Juan Williams?

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST, "THE FIVE": I think it's a tough job. I think heather has documented that very well in her books. But I think the big change to my mind is cellphone cameras and body cameras on police. And I think that has effectively said no longer can you rely on what used to be called the thin blue line or the blue wall of silence to somehow protect you when this happens. We just had a case in Birmingham, Alabama, outside Birmingham in Hoover, where a black man was trying to help people get off of a troubled situation at the mall after a fight, and he gets shot. And initially the police story is he was involved in the incident. Then the police said no, that wasn't true, and then they go silent. No one knows what happened. Why was this man shot?

And similarly we've had other cases like this. I think a lot of people remember Philando Castile in Minnesota, where he is in a car. He says to the police officer I am legally allowed to carry a registered gun, and he still gets shot in his car in front of his girlfriend and his kid.

INGRAHAM: Those are horrific examples.

WILLIAMS: Right.

INGRAHAM: And if this is racism in an individual that compels him or her to shoot another individual just willy-nilly because of the color of their skin, the person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law, never to be seen again.

WILLIAMS: It's not only race. I think there are other issues here, Laura, but specifically I would point to mental illness. I think a lot of people who get shot by cops have mental issues. And if you have mental issues and a minority in a bad neighborhood, police of course are nervous. They're concerned about their own safety.

INGRAHAM: Here's the problem, though. In 2014 and 2015, Heather, you know this study, it came out in August, Rutgers University looked at basically that year of police involved shootings. Black cops were just as likely to shoot a black individual as white police officers. There was virtually no difference in the study done by two Rutgers professors. Other examples of course, the 'Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery," 1.04 million calls for police service, only 0.086 percent of those cases involved the discharge of a firearm.

MAC DONALD: The Obama Justice Department found that in Philadelphia black officers were far more likely to shoot blacks who were not armed than white officers were out of what is called threat misperception. There is simply not a systemic problem of policing in this country.

What we need to start talking about, Laura, is the reason that officers are in minority neighborhoods in greater numbers, because that's where people are being victimized at much higher rates. The black crime problem will only be solved when the family comes back together again. But until that happens, policing saves lives. And when police back off --

INGRAHAM: What if they feel like they are the targets, Heather, and Juan, I want you both -- they feel like they have the target on their black, because if they protect themselves acting in a split second, they've been trained, but if they hesitate, they could be killed. If their weapon discharges, which almost never happens, look at these statistics, they could be sued. And even with immunity they can be sued, their lives are destroyed. So is it a wonder we have these horrific recruitment statistics?

MAC DONALD: No, of course not. And the discourse has to change. And it is changing. At least we do not have an echo-chamber for the Black Lives Matter movement in the White House now. And so I hope that eventually cops will go back to proactive policing.

WILLIAMS: Boy, I wish we did.

MAC DONALD: The narrative is very, very destructive. Again, if the media focused on every time a police officer shoots a white person, the public would think we have an epidemic of shootings of white people. It's this perception that we have an epidemic of black shootings is simply a media creation.

WILLIAMS: So I would defer to you, Heather. I would say that if you are shooting white people, black people, Asian people, Latino, I don't like it.  But police have the authority of state in terms of carrying the weapons.  And when you see the kind of reaction, especially from poor black communities, that feel that the police don't show up in terms of serving them. Instead they show up and treat everyone as a suspect and people, especially young men feel intimidated and bullied, I think you understand we have a problem.

MAC DONALD: That's not what I have heard.

INGRAHAM: If we don't start recruiting police -- in New Orleans, the last time I checked they had 800 spots opened in New Orleans, just in the city of New Orleans. That was the last time I checked. That's six months ago.  That's a real problem. And people aren't going to be able to be safe and protected in their community.

WILLIAMS: Everybody wants to be safe.

INGRAHAM: So when you dial 9-11 you want to get a police officer to show up.

WILLIAMS: But you don't want to be shot. Already this year you have 937 people shot and killed by police in this country. And people are like, who, what is going on?

INGRAHAM: We've got a lot of dangerous people in this country.

MAC DONALD: There's 10 deadly weapon assaults on officers in this country in just two-thirds of the police jurisdictions for every one officer involved shooting.

INGRAHAM: Guys, I've got to go. Guys, we're going to keep on this issue in the new year. We have to see progress in the way police are recruited and the rules of engagement. We have to see improvement.

Coming up, why are some groups doing more to help illegal immigrants than American vets or even our mentally ill who wind up on the streets?  Exposing a problematic strain of advocacy, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Now to a story out of California that might just prompt Americans to ask, shouldn't we take care of our own citizens first? The "L.A. Times" regrettably notes shelter is increasingly scarce for migrants released in San Diego County by ICE. And similar religious groups in Arizona are likewise pleading for help for what they consider a crisis watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have more people coming in this Friday. There's probably going to be about 100 people coming in. And then we're going to wait for ICE to let us know if there's going to be another bus or maybe two buses next week. We don't know yet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The church stockpiles clothes and shoes, but there isn't enough to go around.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: My question tonight is, as heart-wrenching as these stories are, why aren't these advocates pushing for more shelters for homeless Americans like our vets and the mentally ill? Joining us now is Tammy Bruce, president of the Independent Women's Forum and Fox News contributor, and Jumaane Williams, Democratic New York City Councilmember and candidate for New York City Public Advocate.

Jumaane, San Diego regional task force, they reported in June of this year that the number of local homeless veterans had increased by 24 percent just last year. Shouldn't we focus on little things a little closer to home here?

JUMAANE WILLIAMS, NEW YORK CITY COUNCILMEMBER: It's interesting that you say that, particularly around housing. I have been dealing with housing my whole life. I know that the homeless crisis in New York City, and there even has nothing to do with undocumented immigrants.

INGRAHAM: It's limited resources right? We have limited resources in the United States.

WILLIAMS: I actually put a resolution into the city council to stop the administration from getting rid of a program that helps house homeless veterans. So it's interesting that you would say that as I am fighting for the administration to keep a program for the same people you are talking about it.

INGRAHAM: I don't care who is fighting for it. My point is a simple point.

WILLIAMS: But it's not binary.

INGRAHAM: I'm trying to get you to follow what we're saying. We have a limited pool of resources, Tammy. My mother said, does money grow on trees? No, it doesn't grow on trees. We have a limited pool of resources, and a limited number of volunteers that at least don't get paid by the federal government to resettle refugees. It's an enormous problem we have.  When you go on the streets two blocks from here in D.C., a couple blocks from the FOX Bureau, and people are out on the street and can't get in the homeless shelter.

TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, whether it's in the train stations, we know this, right, Grand Central, Penn Station, Union Station in Washington, across the country, tent cities in San Francisco and Los Angeles and San Diego. These are local communities also funded with of course local dollars. In San Diego it's a particular problem because veterans when they come home, a lot of course land in San Diego. We have over 1,300 homeless veterans in San Diego who are not swamped with people who are worried about if a new bus will come or if there's going to be enough clothes. They are sleeping just out in the open.

So it comes down to two different things. It is about resources which are limited because there is no money tree, even though it's taxpayer money, it doesn't mean it never stops. But at the same time it's about a priority, that, yes, these stories are heartbreaking. But we do have to decide why is it that now with the rhetoric and the narrative that illegal aliens are taking a priority over Americans who put their lives on the line, signed up, served this country, went into the military --

WILLIAMS: That's just not true.

BRUCE: -- managed to get home to defend this country and freedom, and yet they are the ones who we have abandoned to some degree. That's my concern.

INGRAHAM: Jumaane, I would say if you took a, just for fun, if you did a national referendum, just the question of, i we had a pool of $200 million to spend per annum on homelessness, should that be directed toward Americans or should have be directed in decent part to illegal immigrants?  It would be like 98 percent.

WILLIAMS: You projecting a binary choice that is false.

INGRAHAM: Life is filled with binary choices. You either go this way, the road not taken, Robert Frost.

WILLIAMS: And so undocumented immigrants, I prefer to call them undocumented immigrants.

INGRAHAM: Sure, documented Democrats.

WILLIAMS: To rehumanize them. I aim to tell you now, if we had no undocumented immigrants, we would have a homeless crisis like you're speaking about. So we have to --

INGRAHAM: So you think we should bring in more homeless people in this scenario?

WILLIAMS: No. Overhaul the immigration system, because we know that's what the biggest problem is. And we have enough resources to deal with all of this. Why are we spending --

INGRAHAM: Where are we getting the money?

WILLIAMS: Why are we spending so much time --

INGRAHAM: Where is the money coming from?

WILLIAMS: When the biggest crisis --

INGRAHAM: Liberals never want to answer, where is the money coming from?  Are you opening up your home to illegal immigrants tonight?

WILLIAMS: It has to do with all these other issues that we focus on.

INGRAHAM: Limited pool of resources. Do you understand that.

WILLIAMS: Understood. But right now the issue is not undocumented immigrants.

BRUCE: And space. It's about where they're going to be, it's about limited space.

WILLIAMS: Tell Trump to stop taking away the programs of housing the homeless veterans. Let's start there.

BRUCE: It's priorities.

WILLIAMS: You should prioritize that. I'm prioritizing it.

INGRAHAM: I'll work with you on that. All right. Guys.

BRUCE: It's priorities.

WILLIAMS: I'm prioritizing homeless veterans.

BRUCE: There is nothing shameful to have Americans be our priority, and especially for this country remains a place --

WILLIAMS: But it's shameful to pretend that the reason it is not happening is because of undocumented immigrants. That is just a false --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, we're out of time. We'll be right back with the Last Bite. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite.

By now you have the seen that miracle play yesterday by the Miami Dolphins winning against the Patriots in the last seven seconds of the game. It was unbelievable. A lot of the Pats fans, though, didn't take it too well, especially this nice gentleman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How did that happen?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A freak play. A crazy play. How could it happen? How could it happen? Where the -- they have to get the other end of the goal line safe. Are you -- me? Look at this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We laughed so hard. You have to rally see the extended view of that. That's all of the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team, take it from here. Go Miami.

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.