This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 14, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham and this is Ingraham Angle from New York City tonight. Did the FBI target President Trump as retaliation over his firing of James Comey? Is that a rhetorical question?

Well, we speak to a former assistant director of the FBI whose outraged at his former agencies behavior, here. And tonight we're judging the judges. How a lawless judiciary is imperiling you with resistance or resistance style rulings and decrees on immigration and other commentary.

You will not believe this, plus a new battle front open in the war on men. How the left is conflating rank abuse and violence with classic masculinity. I can't miss the bait ahead but first Dems get away from governing, that's the focus of tonight's angle.

While the President remained in Washington over the weekend, very snowy. Was ready and willing to do a deal with the Democrats to reopen the government. Nancy Pelosi and her crew left town. But oh, they talked a good game.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM KAINE, D-VA.: Why punish people who are applying for food stamps because the President is having a temper tantrum? Open government first.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hope they'll just do the right thing, reopen the government.

SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: More border security, let's have at it but while we're having that debate. Let's reopen the government.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on. Let's get down to business here. Open up this government tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: As I always say, forget what they say, look at what they do. As Democratic leaders adjourn the House on Friday, more than 30 Democratic members and their families needed to catch a chartered flight bound for the sunny shores of Puerto Rico.

So while 800,000 government workers remain on furlough, these very concerned Democrats were living the high life at a beach resort in San Juan. Very nice. The trip came courtesy of 109 lobbyists from Facebook, Amazon, various unions and Microsoft, you know little people.

Well, it was part of the congressional Hispanic caucus' bold pack retreat. The Democrats were purportedly there to survey the damage of Hurricane Maria and talk with various union groups.

Now remember that titbit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now here's Senator Robert Menendez. He's taking a very personal interested in the local recovery efforts. Looks like instead of helping the hurricane victims, he's helping himself to a hurricane on the rocks. Now let's face it, this is a liberal pack junket paid for by the lobbyists so that congressmen and senators can frolic in the tropics with celebrities.

Yes, the big congressional getaway fell on the same weekend, wouldn't you know as Broadway mega star Lin-Manuel Miranda brought his Tony Award winning musical "Hamilton" to the island with the original cast no less.

Well, imagine the luck. The media have been tripping over themselves, praising Miranda for his tireless efforts to bring "Hamilton" to Puerto Rico as a fundraiser to support the arts on the islands, a nice thing. The plan was to perform the musical for three weeks, smash success at the theater at the University of Puerto Rico.

Now there's a really interesting backstory that got lost in all the gauzy coverage. It's the alma matter of Lin-Manuel's father. The Miranda family charity raised $1 million to restore and upgrade the storm ravaged theater. Good stuff.

But this led to a shutdown of a different sort. It turns out the University of Puerto Rico is roiled by old by Union protests and one of those Unions sent a letter to Miranda's father.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The letter ended up saying there are real problems at the University of Puerto Rico and we want to advise bad things, protests can happen around your production.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now Lin-Manuel Miranda has been on for protest. He and his family have long supported Left-wing-causes and he's even mined his Hamilton score for protest songs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA, SINGER AND ACTOR: Yeah, you blow us all away someday, someday. Don't stop, don't give up until these families here are united.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, The New York Times quotes some students at the University of Puerto Rico who were less than thrilled that "Hamilton" would be coming to campus. Try to figure this out. One said, "The only artists and people that benefit from Hamilton are the elite, white, North American settlers, the rich bourgeoises and those who actively participate and aspire to become oppressors. As a Latin person he should be more conscious of who Hamilton was.

He's glorifying a person that represents oppression. He could have made a show about Harriet Tubman."

Well in addition to the Union group, students were also threatening to protest the production on campus so how did ‘Mr. They're not taking away my shot' react in the face of the leftist threats?

Well, sadly he caved to the pressure and moved the production to an Arts Center, off campus. Miranda gave into mob rule. He also missed a huge opportunity with the World Press looking on, no less to challenge and educate the illiberal forces, undermining free speech on campus.

Even art that pretty much supports their agenda. If these college knots are emboldened enough to go after their favorite son, who just gave them a million bucks to rebuild their theater, what can other performers expect?

And Lin, what would Hamilton have done?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was an ovation like none other. (Inaudible) after so much pain. The ultimate tribute to Puerto Rico's resiliency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, Miranda never looked back. The whole controversy in the entire episode in capitulation to these Leftist kooks was lost in a swirl of celebrity and glamour just the way the Left likes it. Oh and some of those 30 plus visiting Democrats were right there plodding along in the audience, Sunday night.

But poor babies, they had to buy their own Hamilton tickets according to reports. But don't worry, they got to attend an after party with the cast for free. Courtesy of the Latino victory as a liberal pack. You see the elites always stick together.

I bet they thought they were in the room where it happened even if they weren't and that's the angle.

Here now Juan Williams, Fox news political analyst and co-host of "The Five" and Monica Crowley, Washington Times senior opinion columnist, it's great to see both of you. Juan, how can the Democrats continue to push for the government shutdown to end when Trump's there and I was there because I live in Washington in basically, what was a blizzard.

And sitting there, no, it wasn't a Mar-a-Lago, imagine if you went to Mar- a-Lago, they would have been an uproar. But these Democrats after bemoaning pack money and big money and lobbyists, they go hang out in Puerto Rico with 109 lobbyists during a shutdown, like why is that happening?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST AND CO-HOST, "THE FIVE": Let me get this straight, have the phones broken, they can't talk? And they're 30 people.

INGRAHAM: So you would have been okay with Trump going to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend?

WILLIAMS: No, Trump is different. Trump is the one who shut the government. These 30 people -

INGRAHAM: No, he's ready to talk.

WILLIAMS: - are not the ones who shut the government and let me just say, you have Senator Mitch McConnell there, a fellow Republican. You have Senator Lindsey Graham. They've all said, you know, let's re-open the government -

INGRAHAM: What's the message to the people? You're sitting down there like -

WILLIAMS: Oh please.

INGRAHAM: Setting aside this visual of Menendez without his shirt on.

WILLIAMS: You know what, I like your mockery, I enjoy it. I can see why the right would enjoy it especially with Menendez, given his past problems but this is not speaking to -

INGRAHAM: It wasn't Dominican Republic, it wasn't - if he had gone to the Dominican Republic, that would have been bad.

WILLIAMS: You are just tickling me tonight, that's what you're doing, you're just making fun. You're having a good time.

INGRAHAM: Juan, Juan.

WILLIAMS: What?

INGRAHAM: You can't - if you're Menendez, with everything you know, everything you've been through, you can't go down to Puerto Rico.

WILLIAMS: Yes, because you just opened yourself to Laura Ingraham, Laura Ingraham is going to skewer you, Senator.

INGRAHAM: Would you go - you see, who would have the judgment to do that? You wouldn't go, you'd look better shirtless than Menendez. I'm sorry, probably a violation of every rule but Monica, you get the point.

They're all wanting to look so serious about - they're so worried about the government. These guys are living the high life found in Puerto Rico. Now, I'm glad they're helping the people of Puerto Rico if they're raising any money. Great stuff.

Hurricane Maria was horrific but come on.

MONICA CROWLEY, WASHINGTON TIMES OPINION EDITOR: But in the middle of the government shut down, when the President has been sitting in the snow in the Oval office now for weeks, wanting to talk to the Democrats and broker a deal.

What you see there Laura, the Democrats going to Puerto Rico, basking in the sun and the surf, that demonstrates the arrogance of a party that knows that they have no fear of any consequences because they have the protection of the press.

If this had been the Republicans down there, basking in there-

INGRAHAM: Oh my God, they would have ridiculed them.

CROWLEY: - holy hell would have broken loose. So this points to the corruption of the media that protects the Democratic Party and their agenda but it also points to something bigger, they do not want to work with the Trump administration, with this President because they consider him fundamentally illegitimate.

That's what the FBI stories are all about, that's what the Russia hoax was all about and it continues to this day so while we're talking about looking forward to the 2020 election cycle, they're still fighting the 2016 cycle and they're doing everything they can including shutting down the government and not working with this President on national security interests of the United States because they are still intent on destroying.

INGRAHAM: This is what Trump said about the Puerto Rican extravaganza, let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I could relax. I've been in the White House because I think it's very important to be there. And other people went on a nice wonderful vacation over the weekend. They had a great time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Good for them. He also talked about how this is all about 2020. I think -

WILLIAMS: He's the one. Let me just say -

INGRAHAM: They've moved beyond 2016. It's about 2020 now.

WILLIAMS: Is that character you just showed, Mr. Poor me, I'm all alone in the White House?

INGRAHAM: He was making a joke.

WILLIAMS: Oh, it's a joke.

INGRAHAM: They were tweeting out photos of the oh, snowy White House.

WILLIAMS: This is a guy, remember when he went after Obama, Obama goes on vacation, Obama goes golfing, he is twice as much on the golf course and at Mar-a-Lago or -

INGRAHAM: He's created twice as many jobs too probably.

WILLIAMS: Oh, no, he has not.

INGRAHAM: Talk about manufacturing jobs, absolutely.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely no. You are absolutely wrong.

INGRAHAM: U.S. manufacturing jobs, look it up on your Blackberry.

WILLIAMS: In fact Obama has said, he created more jobs in his last 17 months than -

INGRAHAM: More manufacturing jobs -

WILLIAMS: Trump did in his first 17 months.

INGRAHAM: Must we - remember the comment, how do you think these manufacturing jobs are ever going to - they're never coming back, remember, they're never coming back and he's going to he's going to wave his magic wand and the trade deals will be renegotiated.

WILLIAMS: You guys are running so fast, I'm amazed that you made it up here to New York but you are running so fast to get away from Trump, to get away from the fact that fellow Republicans like Lindsey -

INGRAHAM: Get away Trump? I'm not getting away from Trump at all. If I get away from Trump, your party's going down the tubes.

WILLIAMS: Oh, so that's what it's about.

INGRAHAM: What do you think, Jeff Flake has appeared here -

WILLIAMS: You just got to back Trump, no matter what, no matter the fact that he's down the gutter.

INGRAHAM: No, no, because he's right on the issues so you think -

WILLIAMS: He's wrong on the shutdown.

INGRAHAM: Who Jeb Bush?

WILLIAMS: Who's what?

INGRAHAM: Is the future of the Republican party, Jeb Bush?

WILLIAMS: No, the Republican party-

INGRAHAM: Jeff Flake is a Bob Corker, losers, sure, they all lost.

WILLIAMS: The Republican party has created and it has become a party of Trump and all you can do is like, whatever Trump says, I'll back him.

INGRAHAM: This is a party of anti-Semitists Tulsi Gabbard and other people who don't criticize Israel for nothing.

WILLIAMS: As Trump said, he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and Laura Ingraham would back him.

INGRAHAM: No, I don't think he said that one.

CROWLEY: I wrote my column last week in The Washington Times about the Trump economic miracle and one, I commend you to it because it lists all of the latest economic data, thanks to this President and the Republican Party but to the bigger issue, Laura, one of the big reasons why Donald Trump was elected is because he wasn't one of them.

He came in as a successful businessman who was intent on solving the nation's problems. Members of both parties forever especially on immigration, have looked the other way because it's behoved them to keep this issue going.

Trump got elected because he said, I'm going to come in and I'm going to solve this. He's sitting in the White House saying, I have the ideas to solve this but you need to meet me maybe not even half way, maybe your quarter of the way, Democrats and they won't even do that.

INGRAHAM: This is Trump talking. Hold on now, this is Trump talking about why he's not going to relent on this issue of the wall making Juan just pull out the crying towel, let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I will never ever back down. I didn't need this fight. This is a real fight. We're dealing against people who think that if they can stop me from building the wall, again, we've already done a lot of work but they think that's a good thing for 2020 because they're not going to win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: 2020, Juan, do you think there's any politics in any of this? I mean, the President says - basically said he would do DACA for the wall, he would - he's already changed the -

WILLIAMS: No, hold on.

INGRAHAM: Let me finish. He has already changed that what the walls made of, doesn't have to be concrete, it could be steel and they've already opened the door to doing some kind of DACA deal, that's clearly on the table.

So you'll have that on the table.

WILLIAMS: Okay so this - okay, so what I wanted to say to you was that this was a deal that was on the table, a year ago in exchange -

INGRAHAM: Fair point.

WILLIAMS: All right and the President and Steven Miller said no, we want to cut legal immigration half and the deal fell apart.

INGRAHAM: Fair point.

WILLIAMS: Then you have Mitch McConnell before the holidays saying, here's a deal, we'll open the government and we will negotiate night but guess what, Trump said no.

INGRAHAM: But Trump knows that's never going to happen.

WILLIAMS: Now you have Lindsey Graham saying, we need three weeks. These are Republicans I'm talking about. Republican saying, let's make a deal. What?

INGRAHAM: None of them could be elected President of the United States.

WILLIAMS: Wait a second so that's what we're talking about? It's only if you can be - it's like saying doing the right thing -

INGRAHAM: No, I'm just saying he's the President so he gets to make the decision.

WILLIAMS: Oh, doing the right thing for the American people, that's - and keeping the government open and people not getting paid, that's the right thing.

INGRAHAM: Did you see Hamilton, by the way?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

INGRAHAM: I loved it. Wasn't it great? I loved Hamilton. I was like -

WILLIAMS: It has a wonderful story.

INGRAHAM: I saw it here in New York and I saw it and I was like, I think it was in 2016, I saw it in March or April, I can't remember now. But it was phenomenal and so when he goes down to Puerto Rico and performs it, I know I'm getting off topic but it's a fund topic. He goes down to Puerto Rico to perform it, I think it's a great.

But you have to admit Juan, it's pretty funny when even Lin-Manuel is shut down by the leftist protestors and he had to move his production. That is illiberal, why are you making someone like him, let alone anybody else, move your theater production because you're threatened, that's scary.

WILLIAMS: He's threatened? Well I think the unions - you, in your monologue, you said the Unions are the issue, don't forget that tidbit. I think that was right and it's an indication to the audience not only is Puerto Rico you know under seizure in terms of their recovery from Hurricane Maria, they haven't gotten government aid.

They're still complaining that they had issues about statehood and they have issues with people in the Union feeling that they don't have enough -

INGRAHAM: But it wasn't about - it was beyond, they were worried about violence. That's what they - organizers said that maybe there's 0.1 percent chance.

CROWLEY: And this is another demonstration of this very dangerous moment we're in this country where the entire Bill of rights is under assault starting with the first amendment.

INGRAHAM: I like the fact that Trump and Melania are tweeting out photos of the White House because all of us in Washington watching to get shutdown in one inch of snow, you know, Juan and he's like, have you shut down?

And he's like, what's that, it's very beautiful out here and feel like Menendez down there like another hurricane, not that kind, just another - anyway, great segment, I love it when Juan's on, it's so much fun.

WILLIAMS: I'm telling you. It heats up, it's like Puerto Rico-

INGRAHAM: Hey, wait a second, I've criticized Trump for being way too liberal on certain things, thanks Juan. All right, the liberal media in full blown meltdown mode over the weekend of The New York Times published this piece titled, "FBI opened secret inquiry into whether Trump was secretly working on Behalf of Russia."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This bombshell report from The New York Times tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This bombshell New York Times report.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This showstopper of a headline from The New York Times -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we do have some breaking news I need to tell you about. It is explosive tonight that breaking news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Don Lemon almost changed his facial expression, that was a serious, serious bombshell. And the report you know, isn't what those other folks were squawking about, rather it's that the FBI may have been motivated to investigate the President in retaliation for the firing of former FBI Director Jim Comey other than any actual any actual evidence.

Well joining me now is Chris Swecker, former assistant director of the FBI. He worked for 24 years as a special agent. Sir, your reaction to this extraordinary step by the FBI leadership investigating a President with little to no predicate and apparently investigating him for exercising his article to authority, to fire a member of the executive branch, solely with his plenary power to do so.

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI: I guess the biggest surprise Laura, is that anybody would consider The New York Times to be a credible source in this. I mean they're notorious for not vetting their sources and I get the uneasy feeling that maybe their sources are the very same people at the FBI that have been discredited themselves. McCabe, Comey, Page, Strzok and all, Baker.

And that's the real story here, I think, it's not the article 2, it's not you know, the constitutional debate about separation of powers. It's about this corrupt inner circle in the FBI, not the FBI itself but the corrupt Comey's inner circle.

Nothing they could have done during the during their tenure, that the leadership of the FBI would be credible. We know they were biased, we know they had a kid gloves investigation of the - of the Clinton email and foundation investigation and you know, there's - they've all been disgraced, they've lost their last little pocket of supporters, inside and outside the FBI community so why should we believe anything they did during that time period.

INGRAHAM: Now when you look at the way the FBI has operated just in the past you know, several years, going back to whether you're talking about the Uranium I deal or you're talking about Hillary's emails, Comey's decision to announce that Hillary is not going to be indicted, that was very odd.

July 2016 press conference. What is the rank and file FBI staffer, agent, just trying to go and do a good job? I honestly think, how do they feel in all this? Let alone what this does to the public's view of justice overall.

SWECKER: Yeah so that's one of the big tragedies of this is that there's 35000 men and women of the FBI that strap it on and go out there every day, do the best job they can. They're highly qualified, highly motivated and they don't deserve what that Comey inner circle has brought down on them because he's been sort of using the FBI as a shield and saying, if you criticize me, you're criticizing the FBI.

I hear from FBI agents, current and former, and I haven't - you know, I know literally hundreds of them and they all agree that Comey was a rogue operator and his inner circle were people who have been promoted beyond their capabilities, accelerated promotions and were not capable of doing the job.

So they - in no way represent the FBI.

INGRAHAM: But these were policy differences. They had policy differences clearly with how the Commander-in-Chief was executing his again, article to do duties. They didn't like the fact that he fired Comey, they probably didn't like the fact that he wanted a closer relationship with Russia, all of this calls him into question to launch a counter-intel investigation?

It's ludicrous. I mean the whole thing is completely anti-constitutional and I disagree with you. I think separation of powers is a big deal here and it's another black eye to the FBI even if The New York Times doesn't get it.

I want to put something up on the screen for all of our viewers across the country and across the globe. This is how CNN Today has started one of its hours, I think it's Jake Tapper's hour. Look at this, Trump and Russia and they have all these you know, Hillary is targeted by you know Russian hackers, goes all the way up to Trump and I can't even read the last one.

Trump and the firing of - we've got the meeting at Trump Tower, the Manafort all of that and so we made our own, if this was enough to launch a counter-Intel investigation, here's our - well, we could have made it the same way, the pictures, we did our graphic differently.

Obama and Russia. Medvedev, remember when he told him he was going to have more flexibility. Remember when Obama laughed off Romney saying Russia is a threat. Remember how you know, they had that failed reset with their relations with Russia, what was that all about?

Next, missile defense in Eastern Europe and the Secretary of State's husband got a $500 thousand fee to speak in Moscow. No sanctions until the end of December 2016. I mean you can do your own you know, if this is what you're going to judge, is okay grounds for launching a counter-intel investigation, we didn't even mention Uranium I in there.

And does that mean - I guess, I guess, we could have had the FBI launch an investigation to Obama for Russia as well.

SWECKER: You know, Attorney General guidelines are very specific about what predication it takes to open an investigation. Nothing you just mentioned amounts to that level of predication. So you know, you go back to - I go back to the leadership failure in that, within that inner circle.

This obviously was personal, we know that from the text between Strzok and Page. I just don't want anybody think that that reflects how the FBI is a -

INGRAHAM: No, no, no, we're not judging the Rank-and-file of the FBI, we're judging this process at the upper echelon of the FBI, we know who that is, stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: While it's not clear what the groups were fighting about, one thing is clear, everyone arrested are confirmed members MS-13 and the incident is a reminder of this gang's violent ways.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: More proof tonight that our nation's immigration laws need to be enforced and loopholes closed. Police say three members of the MS-13 gang, two of whom were detained and released in the last 18 months stabbed and beat a fellow classmate outside a Long Island New York restaurant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now prosecutors say all three defendants are here illegally. They came to the U.S. in 2016 as unaccompanied alien children. That preferred status earned them a quick release to a family already in America. One of those suspects Ramon Arevalo Lopez was actually arrested ten months after arriving here on suspicion of gang activity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: But a few months later, this judge, 95-year old Roberts Sweet who's been sitting on the bench since the Carter administration, ordered that Lopez be released, claiming he had been held too long for a minor.

Lopez is now 19. Another suspect Oscar Canales Molina, 17, was also reportedly ordered to be released by a federal judge in late 2017. Now all three are now charged with assault with intent to cause physical harm. ICE has placed detainer requests on them, meaning that they should be deported once they serve any sentences.

Now this all brings us to our next story and a segment we're dubbing ‘Judging the Judges,' where we highlight a troubling strain of judicial resistance that looks a whole lot like political activist.

Now meet Judge Leonie Brinkema. According to The Washington Post, she recently criticized prosecutors over an increase in immigration cases in federal court last week. Now she said, "I think this is not the best use of judicial or justice department resources."

She specifically singled out the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, my next guest, Zach Terwilliger, who's here to respond.

Zack, first of all, it's great to have you on tonight. Now, I was on the train coming up to New York and I'm reading "The Washington Post." Democracy dies in the darkness you know, that's their tagline now. So I'm reading "The Washington Post" and I'm reading these comments by Judge Brinkema saying, well, just basically "I hope these cases don't continue in my court room."

Isn't that the role of the executive branch, how it is deciding to pursue various federal prosecutions. Is it the role of a judge to interject himself or herself in this situation and why are you singled out?

ZACHARY TERWILLIGER, U.S. ATTORNEY EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: Well, thanks a lot for having me Laura. It's great to be here. You know this is a judge I've known for 10 years and have a long relationship within and I respect. I mean, in this case we just have a fundamental disagreement surrounding the priority of these cases.

One of the things as a prosecutor for the last decade and now as U.S. attorney that I often do is meet with the victims and survivors of crime and I feel very strongly that these cases represent a public safety risk.

It's that article you referenced in The Washington Post. Many times these individuals who we're talking about have been legally coming to the country, been deported and then what brings them back to the attention of the federal government is interaction with the criminal justice system through local arrest.

I think as the article also mentioned, many of these people have committed multiple offenses, whether it be BUIs, assaults or in particular cases, even batteries against minors.

INGRAHAM: Well, the case that was cited in "The Washington Post," that individual Otova actually had been in federal custody for battery against a minor, correct?

TERWILLIGER: Well, so and Laura, as I know you can appreciate, that case is currently pending trial so rather than talk specifically about it, what I can tell you is these individuals again as I mentioned before, these are individuals where the only reason that they're come to federal attention is because they in large number have been arrested for local violations. And to me, that is a good use of our resources, that these are individuals who are illegally in the country. And unlike others, they have come to our attention because they have committed other crimes and committed a public safety violation.

INGRAHAM: And a lot of them are just coming back in the country after leaving the country after maybe having done some time for something somewhat minor. Then they are able to easily cross back in the country. And again, I know you have to be careful what you say about any members of the bench, and that's fine. But for a judge to start questioning the priorities of the Article Two branch of government, the executive branch, which makes these types of prosecutorial decisions, it's just completely bolloxing up -- again, we are back on the separation of powers. A judge is acting like mini -- if they want to change the law, they should work for Congress. If they want to carry out the laws and form prosecutorial prerogatives, then they should try become president or a member of the president's cabinet. I don't understand why the judge is taking this out on you, though, and focusing on all of these reentry cases. Like if you reenter the country, you should be able to stay here indefinitely. If you commit a crime that is, like, and multiple DUI, or a minor assault, that's basically what she's saying.

TERWILLIGER: I'm not sure exactly what she meant or what the impetus for making the comment was. I think in this particular case, we had six or seven arraignments for, quote, illegal --

INGRAHAM: She doesn't want it in her courtroom. She doesn't want her courtroom clogged with illegal alien cases. That's what she doesn't want, because everybody who is here should be able to stay here, basically, unless you commit murder, maybe.

TERWILLIGER: For me it's a priority. It's been a priority. And what's interesting is, we've always prosecuted a large of these cases in the eastern district of Virginia, whether frankly until 2014 we were basically prosecuting this number of individuals. And so I think part of it is the timing. There has been a large increase in these prosecutions in 2018 versus 2017. But, frankly, this is what we were doing for many years until 2014 when the administration changed its immigration enforcement priorities.

INGRAHAM: And Zach, I think we have a photo of you and Attorney Gneral -- soon to be Attorney General Bill Barr. Former attorney general, soon to be attorney general. And that's your dad whom I know, to the left of Bill Barr. Who's that little bugger -- that's you, Zach. Where was that? Isn't that clever? Where were you?

TERWILLIGER: I feel extremely fortunate to have known attorney general nominee and former attorney general Barr for 25 years. So that was November of 1992 at the FBI academy, and it was the deputy attorney general and the attorney general visit the FBI academy. And they brought their children along. And it was a day I never will forget. But I am just so thrilled to hopefully have the opportunity to work for Attorney General Barr in this capacity.

INGRAHAM: That's wild. I've known Bill a long time. He's a consummate professional. But for you being a little boy in this case, and your dad, of course, being his deputy, it's quite a tradition. I had to put that up there because I have a boy about that age. So it's a great photo. Thanks for coming on and thanks for doing the work to keep this country safe. We really appreciate it, Zach.

TERWILLIGER: Thanks so much for having me.

INGRAHAM: When we criticize new guidelines from the American Psychology Association on masculinity last week, we became the bad guys, yes, indeed. Up next, part two of our debate over calls to further emasculate men in America and what that would mean for our society at large.

And an important housekeeping note -- tomorrow afternoon, my brand-new podcast launches. So on each episode, we are going to cover basically America, where we are, and where we're going. You're going to laugh and learn all at the same time, what a great deal. So to subscribe to "The Laura Ingraham Podcast," just go to PodcastOne.com. Go subscribe on iTunes, see a little purple icon on your iPhone. It's very easy. PodcastOne.com, tomorrow afternoon the new podcast launches.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Last week, we brought you a debate over new guidelines issued by the American Psychological Association taking aim at classic masculinity. When we took aim at the findings, we were attacked for missing the point. In a long screed titled "How traditional masculinity hurts the men who believe in it most," The Washington Post quotes Ronald Levant, who was the APA president when the guidelines were initially conceived. He says, "Everybody has beliefs about how men should behave. We found incredible evidence that the extent to which men strongly endorse those beliefs is strongly associated with negative outcomes." The writer of the piece, Monica Hesse, further summarized the findings as follows. "The more men who cling to rigid views of metal unity, the more likely they are to be depressed, or disdainful, or lonely."

Here now is Allie Beth Stuckey, she's the host of the podcast "Relatable" on iTunes, and Dr. Edward Adams, a psychologist specializing in men and masculinity. Great to have both of you with us. Allie, let's start with you. In your interactions, do you find that traditionally men are more prone to depression and loneliness? And obviously this is a purely anecdotal point you'll raise, but just as a woman, is that what you find?

ALLIE BETH STUCKEY, CRTV HOST: That hasn't been my subjective experience, but I also don't think that's objectively true, which is why the APA had to come out and say, OK, this is a small number, a few men, and we are talking about extreme stereotypical behaviors. We are not talking about everyone. And furthermore, we base some of these findings on our social and political views rather than on scientific fact. And so there has been a lot of criticism, and I think justified criticism of this study, because the findings that they found about a few are now being generalized and used as a rule for all masculinity, that it's all toxic. I just don't see how that's productive for society, particularly for our young men.

INGRAHAM: Doctor, this whole toxic masculinity conversation is becoming something of a punchline. By the way, you look very masculine tonight.

EDWARD ADAMS, PSYD, PSYCHOLOGIST SPECIALIZING IN MEN: Well, thank you very much.

INGRAHAM: I like your jacket. I like your zip up. You've got the t- shirt, the shirt, and the sweater, and the jacket. You've got four layers. That's very masculine. OK, that's like something up in New Hampshire when I was going to college. What's going on here? What is this all about?

ADAMS: This is all about the American Psychological Association trying to make the public aware, and other professionals aware, that there is a lot of room for men to begin to have a conversation about masculinity. And it is a fallacy to say that traditional masculinity is under attack. The way I like to put it is traditional masculinity is under construction and improvement.

INGRAHAM: What does it mean? When you say "traditional masculinity," what does that mean?

ADAMS: Well, it means the things that we are taught as men that send the signal that we're not supposed to express our feelings, we're not supposed -- we are supposed to do it alone. We're supposed to be independent.

INGRAHAM: Any woman in a car with a man who can't find his way where he's going and he doesn't have, like, an iPhone, we know men can't do it by themselves. Turn down the radio, I don't know how to go. Men know they can't do it alone. I get what you are saying is we don't want men to mistreat women. We don't want men to mistreat other men. But isn't that just manners? How it is good manners somehow a commentary on traditional masculinity? That's what I'm not getting here.

ADAMS: It includes manners, but it's far more than that. It is actually the learnings that we are -- we incorporate from our early years about what it takes to be a good man. It's the cultural underpinnings that make suggestions to boys that grow into men that say these are the attributes that make a man a good man. And --

INGRAHAM: Courage, stoicism --

ADAMS: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Honor. Allie, again on this. Look, I know you've talked about this before and I've done this on my radio show. Look, men cried. They cry at their daughter's weddings, they cry when they lose a parent. They cry if they are a member of military, you lose your brother in arms, your sister in arms. It's OK. It's OK for men to cry.

ADAMS: Laura, I would invite you to spend a day in my office working with men who are really good men but feel very constricted sometimes about expressing themselves to their wives or to their girlfriends or to their --

INGRAHAM: But I do not think it's about being masculine.

STUCKEY: Here is the question that we need to address.

INGRAHAM: Go ahead.

STUCKEY: Here is the question that we need to address. How much of that is truly cultural and needs to be changed and under construction, and how much of it is biological? And instead of it being suppressed, changed, reconstructed, just needs to be honed and trained in a different way. So all of these characteristics that we are talking about that are inherently negative, not being as emotional, being more independent, being tougher, yes, they can lead to negative things. But that's also what makes men me and what make them strong. What I am afraid of is that we are going to start raising soft boys. And raising soft boys does not create good, strong men.

ADAMS: Allie, I don't think you have any worry about that. Men are not going to turn into women. Trust me about that. What we are trying to do is not change men, but expand men.

INGRAHAM: OK, there are men expanding on the runways. We have to share this. I ran across this today. We are going to put it up on the screen. Here's a quote from a fashion piece on a very, very well-known fashion designer. And describing new offerings on the runway, this back in July, a similar thing being written today, "tiered ruffled dresses, glittery suiting, and A-line tunics reminiscent of 18th and 19th century unisex children's clothing down the runway. The latter felt particularly fitting for the collection's commentary on shedding toxic masculinity, embracing one's unedited self. Before little boys grow up and socialize into hardened men, their genderless characteristics express a blissful version of their truest self."

And we have a picture. Do we have a picture of the ruffled number? There it is. I don't know. That looks like Jiffy Pop. I do not know what that is. That's a strange -- doctor, I don't see you wearing that anytime soon. But basically -- I don't want to make light of it, because men, as we know, suffer high rates of suicide, depression, anxiety. I think there are a lot of reasons -- blue-collar jobs lost. If you don't have a college education you have limited options. And I think a lot of men don't know how to behave today. I think they're confused by Jiffy Pop man and under things. I honestly think a lot of men don't know where to turn.

ADAMS: Let's look at two factors that men talk about as being manly. One is protecting, and the other is providing.

INGRAHAM: What's wrong with that?

ADAMS: Both are essential, both are important. But they are very narrowly defined sometimes. So protecting is also giving your children or your wife an opportunity to express herself, or help -- protecting is protecting the safety of the boys.

INGRAHAM: Most women think protection is strength, I mean physical strength, just because if you're in a bad situation.

ADAMS: You are not wrong.

INGRAHAM: You don't want the man to push you in front of himself to save himself. We want the man to save us.

ADAMS: It's not a dichotomy. It's not either this or that. It's a multifaceted factors.

INGRAHAM: Most women don't think -- it's much more visceral. We are kind of discounting biology.

STUCKEY: Right, exactly.

INGRAHAM: You can probably out arm wrestle me right now. But just a biological fact. There's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing to be discounted or say that's bad because you are stronger than women?

ADAMS: And the guidelines do not suggest that there is something wrong.

INGRAHAM: You are right. Allie, final word?

STUCKEY: Yes, I think that like you said, we are discounting a lot of biology and the natural, inherent dichotomy between men and women. And the negative qualities that we're talking about in men is just the fallen nature of men. Women have so-called toxicity too. It's about raising good men and women to be responsible adults. And maybe my colleague and I agree on that, and there are no differences to be had here.

INGRAHAM: Thank you both, fascinating conversation. It's not going away. We're going to have your back.

And with the Democrats looking to subpoena everyone and everything in Trump world, a debate over how much power the president has to shut them down before they start, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRISTOPHER COONS, D-DEL.: On this specific question on how our president conducts meetings with foreign heads of state, I do think Chairman Engel in the House should be looking into this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think there is an obligation to subpoena the notes and if necessary the interpreter, because we are talking here about a possible threat to our national security. The American people have a right to know.

REP. GERRY CONNOLLY, D-VA., SENIOR MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE: Getting to the truth, frankly, is more important than precedent or executive privilege.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So does the president have legitimate privilege grounds to keep private conversations with foreign leaders just that, private? Joining me to debate is John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, and David Katz, former assistant U.S. attorney. All right, John, how much damage does it do if an American president cannot keep conversations like this privileged?

JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Allowing people like Congress to overcome -- or the courts to overcome executive privilege would really strike a dagger in the heart of the American presidency. This is a power which presidents from George Washington on have claimed and used. And the Supreme Court said in 1973, 1974, that the very height of executive privilege would be when presidents need to protect diplomatic, national security, military, law enforcement information.

This isn't just some minor use of executive privilege so that the president can tell jokes or kick things around with his advisors. This is what the courts and precedents have said is the very height of executive power and executive privilege is protecting the president's ability to communicate and discuss with foreign nations and the president's advisors our most important foreign policy secrets. There is no justification which Congress or another branch can throw up which would allow, according to the Supreme Court, allow for the overcoming of this privilege in this kind of case.

INGRAHAM: David, I was watching an old YouTuber on the Obama administration, Jay Carney, who was the press secretary for President Obama, was being pummeled by the press for his having exercised executive privilege in the Benghazi case with, remember, Eric Holder not wanting to turn over certain documents. And this is how he explained it. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY CARNEY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What is being -- the documents over which privilege is being asserted are internal executive branch documents that have to do with response to congressional inquiries, response to media inquiries. Those kinds of deliberations have been protected under privilege as a matter of the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution by administrations of both parties dating back 30 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So they were fine with executive privilege as long as they were claiming it, right, Dave?

DAVID KATZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I'm an admirer of Adam Schiff. He's the head of the House Intelligence Committee. I think he's being nudged to try to subpoena either the notes or the testimony from this translator. And I don't think that that's a wise place to start.

I think that John has a point that, of course, there is executive privilege, and it is strongest according to the United States versus Nixon case, unanimous. It is strong, it's not absolute. But it's strongest in the area of just what happened with this translator.

So I think the committee would be smarter to start with a whole bunch of other areas like the Cohen inquiry, like some other inquiries. And then for the meeting, let's say the one in Europe in 2017, I think ex-secretary of state Tillerson was there. So why not start with Tillerson and ask him what happened during that meeting and go from there? I don't think it's wise in the end to keep trying to subpoena, if that's what they are trying to do, this translator.

INGRAHAM: It's going to end up in the court.

KATZ: She's works for the State Department, and it's picking a fight with the State Department, and it's picking a fight -- it doesn't seem to me like a wise first step to make a potential misstep, to make a misstep.

INGRAHAM: Yes, yes. OK, I got it. I got it. I got it. I got it. But, John, they are going to try to call members of the Trump inner circle to Capitol Hill, correct, to the House? Really briefly, will the president's team be able to assert privilege to prevent them from testifying on Capitol Hill? We're talking maybe someone in the old White House counsel's office, current White House counsel, maybe Reince Priebus, Don McGahn, those types? Will executive privilege cover that?

YOO: I think executive privilege would cover it. I think if Congress misuses its legislative oversight authority to try to force White House counsels, Reince Priebus, chiefs of staff, to testify, they're going to lose. The Supreme Court and the federal courts are not going to help Congress try to pry secrets out of the president.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, thanks so much. Big conversation. We are going to be hitting all of these issues in the weeks and months to come. Big fights ahead.

Up next, President Trump and fast food again? Yes. The Last Bite.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite. President Trump was not following former first lady Michelle Obama's healthy eating initiative when he hosted the Clemson Tigers tonight. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We bought 1,000 Burger King, all American companies, Burger King, Wendy's, and McDonald's. We have Big Macs, we have Quarter Pounders with cheese, we have everything that I like that you like.

(LAUGHTER)

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.