'The Ingraham Angle' on Biden's presidency being a parade of embarrassments

close

Video

Biden's worst week ever

From the Supreme Court to tanking approval ratings, Laura Ingraham reviews Biden's week

This is a rush transcript of "The Ingraham Angle" on January 13, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Hunter's ex-wife Kathleen writing a tell-all book titled, "If We Break: A Memoir of Marriage, Addiction, and Healing". It's going to be released sometime this summer. We'll have the details.

Thanks for being with us. Let not your heart be troubled. Good news. Laura Ingraham takes it away. Hi.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: You know, I was thinking about poor, rich Hunter Biden. And you want to know what my thoughts are right now? Like, what he's doing right now?

HANNITY: 100 percent. Yes, I'm dying.

INGRAHAM: OK. What he's doing right now, seeing his father's fortunes - political fortunes begin to dwindle pretty quickly? He's painting with his mouth, with his toes, with his hands. He's painting as fast as he can. There's like not enough elves who can - he can find to paint for him. Because once the stock drops, you're not going to be able to give that stuff away on Canal Street. OK. That stuff is not going to be moving. All right.

HANNITY: By the way, you know what else he's doing. He's probably called Putin and President Xi, make more deals. Now he's got time.

INGRAHAM: Let's get going. Quick, quick, quick. Awesome show, Hannity, as always.

HANNITY: Oos.

INGRAHAM: All right. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE from Washington tonight.

Now, Joe Biden had, I think, one of the worst weeks of any president since maybe Watergate. Today, the Supreme Court stomped on a signature vaccine mandate for big businesses, exactly what we warned them would happen.

And yesterday, the American people stomp their feet in that Quinnipiac poll giving him a hideous 33 percent approval rating. And this week, Biden thought traumatizing January 6 and race baiting would justify doing away with the filibuster to pass this massive government takeover of our elections. And he thought this was going to pressure senators Manchin and Sinema to relent. But once again, he badly miscalculated and got stomped.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KYRSTEN SINEMA (D-AZ): Demands to eliminate this threshold from whichever party holds the fleeting majority amount to a group of people separated on two sides of a canyon, shouting that solution to their colleagues. And I understand, there's some on both sides of the aisle. They prefer that outcome. But I do not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: How embarrassing for Biden. Think about this. This was made on the same day that he made a trip to Capitol Hill that speech by Sinema. And he had this urgency to move to kill the filibuster.

And let's face it, when you're at 33 percent in the polls, like Joe Biden is, hello, you've lost your influence. So without drastic changes, you're basically a lame duck. And you can see where this is all headed.

Congress is just going to start governing the country themselves. And if they were smart, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Mark Warner, other big committee chairs would do it a kind of informal intervention to try to stabilize things over there at the White House. This sure as heck can't go on for another three years, can it?

Now, since the filibuster is not going to break, since they're going to need 60 votes for any big legislation they want to pass, Democrats are going to have to work with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. And after they come to a compromise, if they come to a compromise, they're then going to have to go to Biden, and he's essentially going to be told what the laws are going to be. I hope Ron Klain understands that. He's the Chief of Staff.

Now, it's pathetic. It's not the way it's supposed to work. But that's where we are. Now, Biden's undoing began when he allowed himself to get dragged to the left. Another thing we predicted last year. He's too weak to stand up to the left. And he was more interested in pleasing the Washington Post and MSNBC than doing right by Americans. And so, what happened is the left jumped in there and they tried to seize the moment, or so they thought.

But what did the Democrats accomplished with Biden this year? They dismissed concerns about inflation. And then they sent out more government checks. Made it all worse. They got caught off guard by Omicron. They failed to push Fauci to the sidelines, and they continue to let the unions dictate policy for our kids.

In Chicago Public School, students were finally allowed back into the classroom yesterday. But in some cases, to schools where dozens of teachers were out, leaving kids to report to auditoriums and sometimes taking classes online with their teachers working remotely.

So if it's not the criminals carjacking you in Chicago, it's union's hijacking education. It's a travesty. Biden's allies in Minneapolis are working to kill the restaurant businesses there, the restaurants and businesses there by announcing an idiotic vaccine mandate for all patrons. They're joining other big Democrat-run cities like New York and LA that are doing the same thing.

So what's the result going to be? Oh, fewer workers, fewer customers, fewer visitors to these once great cities. And since vaccination doesn't protect you from getting or transmitting the virus, these mandates make literally zero scientific sense.

At this point, they just have to be meant for control. Now, they didn't care about the virus when BLM was rampaging through their towns and cities. So why suddenly they care about it now? And they didn't turn back migrants at our border who had no vax records and didn't have masks on. But American citizens who refused to bow down, they're now harassed and marginalized.

So the question is what's really going on here? Could this lead to the creation of databases of non-compliant Americans? If Democrat mayors have their way, could they try to bar the unvaxxed access to public transportation? What about state employment? Other benefits?

And how long can these emergency powers be invoked before they become unconstitutional power grabs? For such drastic measures, Congress or state legislators should have to pass actual laws. But most prefer it this way, where they don't have to pass any laws, because then these elected officials have to take no responsibility. It's for the health and safety of everybody. It's an emergency. That's what they say. Well, it's (ph) bull. Can America really take three more years of this?

Now, as I mentioned moments ago, the Supreme Court just handed down a huge victory to the pro freedom crowd, issuing a stay against the OSHA mandate upholding this day. However, the court did not block the vax mandate for health care workers at facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

But this is important to remember, after the cases came to the Supreme Court in December on an emergency basis, the justices opted to expedite the cases for oral argument on whether the mandates can remain in place, while the challenges proceed in the lower courts.

Here to break it all down is Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor, Fox News contributor. Professor Turley, what is the most significant takeaway? Let's start first with the OSHA ruling involving the businesses.

JONATHAN TURLEY, GWU LAW PROFESSOR: Well, that was really the big ticket mandate. That's the one that affected about 80 million workers. And the result was a major loss to the Biden administration.

This was one of the key pillars of the administration's pandemic policies. But the court made short work over it, because they did not see the authority in this agency to require national mandate. And the chief witness used against the administration was President Biden's own Chief of Staff Ron Klain.

During the oral argument, a number of the justices quoted Klain and saying that this was a "workaround" of the limits on the President's authority. So that didn't go over well. You - they couldn't get this authority from Congress. They found out that the President couldn't order it directly. And then they publicly announced they found a workaround.

Well, the court said, you really didn't. The workaround won't work. You have to show us direct constitutional authority. And in many ways, well, everyone talks about democracy, and they're using it as a weaponized political slogan. This really, ultimately is about democracy.

What the Supreme Court was saying is that this is a question that belongs in the legislature for the people's representatives to decide, not some agency.

INGRAHAM: And Justice Thomas and his dissent on the kind of companion case involving the health care workers that was significant. It was four justices. So Brett Kavanaugh voted with the Chief Justice and the per curiam majority opinion, upholding the mandates for the health care workers.

But Justice Thomas wrote, "Vaccine mandates also fall squarely within a state's police power, and until now only rarely have been a tool of the federal government. If Congress had wanted to grant CMS authority to impose a nationwide vax mandate, and consequently alter the state-federal balance, it would have said so clearly. It did not." Professor, did he have it?

TURLEY: Yes. Well, this was a real close shave. They came within one vote of losing both cases. And if this is the outcome that some of us predicted, because you could tell that Kavanaugh and Roberts did not feel as strongly about this case. One of the reasons is that this was what's called conditional federal spending. That in their view, Congress gave these facilities money and they can require a health protection as a result.

And they just felt that Nexus was close enough. I - but ultimately, the - I think what is happening here with the administration is they're adding to a rather long list of losses in federal courts. They lost the moratorium on evictions. They were repeatedly found to have engaged in racial discrimination in the use of federal farm funds. They lost on immigration policies.

These are all very significant losses for any administration. And I think it shows a bit of a reckless attitude towards--

INGRAHAM: Radicalism. I mean it shows radicalism and policy that they, kind of, go as radical as possible. They twist arms to get stuff done. And then the court has to come in and say, not so fast. I mean, this is what's happened on multiple occasions as you just said.

I just want to get back to one thing, where - because Gorsuch wrote at concurring opinion in the OSHA case. And he said that, OSHA arguably is not even the agency most associated with public health regulation. In rare instances, when Congress has sought to mandate vaccinations, it has done so expressly. We have nothing like that here.

Did he nail that? He also went on to say, who should decide how to respond to the pandemic? The states and Congress, he said. That's really the rub here, given how - given how the science is changing on vaccines, health, safety. Who can transmit, who gets infected? This is almost moot now, given what we know about Omicron.

TURLEY: I think the Gorsuch concurrence is the one that has the legs have all of the material that was written by the court. It has likely the greatest lasting power. Gorsuch, I testified at his confirmation in favor of his confirmation. And one of the things I noted was that he was an outspoken critic of Chevron. And he had very developed and deep understandings of the role of agencies and how they're usurping a tripartite or three branch system. This opinion really brought all of that to the forefront.

In my view, it was Gorsuch just shot across the bow on cases like Chevron. And to say that we need to bring agencies back under the control of Congress so that they do not become a fourth branch of government.

INGRAHAM: Yes. A lot of Americans who dart in the weeds of administrative law, professor, don't know how much power these agencies, independent or otherwise, have over their lives. And language that's turned into a rule with no notice and public comment, as they didn't have here, has an effect over 85 million American workers and that was Gorsuch's point. This should be done by Congress in the states, not by nine Supreme Court justices, and certainly not by a bureaucrat over at OSHA.

TURLEY: Well, I think that's very true. And it was also - this was - this is a case of bad case making bad law for the administration, good law for those that want to restrict agencies. What people have got to understand is that each of these blunders in court are creating law against the office that the President holds.

That's why past administrations had been really quite leery about litigating these issues on the edges of presidential power, because they didn't want not only a loss for their own administration, but to bind future presidents. That's why this is so reckless, is that they're taking very weak arguments and creating really strong precedent against their own office.

INGRAHAM: Now, the healthcare ruling, professor, is going to add to the woes of these hospitals who can't keep staff and are having - are really, really struggling. So that also has a tangential and very important effect. Great to talk to you tonight, as always, Professor Turley.

And while blue states and cities push these ridiculous mandates and restrictions, my next guest is empowering his constituents by putting money back in their pockets. How is that concept? Joining me now, Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts.

Governor, your state, I was so happy to read this in a day where I was just looking at these mandates building up over the country. I was so happy to see that your state ran a huge surplus. And you have an interesting idea about what to do with it. Explain.

GOV. PETE RICKETTS (R-NE): Yes, it's pretty radical. The money is not my money; it's not my agency's money; it's not the legislature's money, it's actually the people's money. And when we have revenues that are in excess of what we need to fund our state government operations, we need to give it back to the people.

And that's what I talked about at my state address, when I proposed a number of tax cut proposals and pointed out what a surplus we had, how much we had in our tax reserve fund, and why we needed to give that money back to the people who gave us the money in the first place.

INGRAHAM: When you see these insane mandates being rolled out across the country, and these cities that you remember as a kid visiting or going, these are great American cities. And they are being destroyed from within one after the other. I know you don't take - you're competitive with your former governors in a nice way. But this has to be just agonizing for you to see because you actually know how it can work well.

RICKETS: Yes, absolutely. Nebraskans don't need to be mandated do the right thing. Throughout the pandemic, we asked them to do the right things and they just did it. They took care of each other. And then, of course, Politico came out with their scorecard of states and Nebraska scored the best of any of the states with regard to the pandemic, without doing mandates or lockdowns.

And that's in contrast to what you see is going on in these different cities. And you made the comment earlier about the vaccines, I mean now that we know the vaccines don't really prevent you from getting the virus, or transmitting the virus, in a sense they're just another form of treatment.

And so, we all be thinking about it from that standpoint about how we manage the virus and not be mandating vaccines or having vaccine cards that you have to show to get in, and those databases. All this stuff is just - it just completely makes no scientific sense.

INGRAHAM: No. And by the way, giving money back to the people certainly can help alleviate some of the inflation we're seeing out there. But the Biden team, Governor, is still denying this. Here's his chief economic adviser.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN DEESE, WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: We start by looking at this month's data and getting a little bit under the hood. I welcome this deceleration from October and November. And that was driven by a reduction in energy prices, principally gas prices, which is good news. As well as a reduction in the rate of increase in food costs, particularly food at the grocery store. So that reflects some progress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: A reduction in the rate of increase in food costs. I thought I had heard a lot, but that kind of takes the cake and cake's more expensive too.

RICKETTS: Well, that's one of the problems with President Biden. He just has been isolated. He doesn't talk to normal people. If he got out and talk to people who are, say, paying $12 for lunch a day instead of $8 a day, or they see gas prices are up, over $1 a gallon. He'd know how much that impacts ordinary Americans' lives.

This inflation is not transitory. And it is something that is just going to be so corrosive to your average American household and they're doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

INGRAHAM: Governor, would you hire any of these top economic advisors, or treasury officials, White House officials? Would you hire any of them in any of your old companies? I mean, at any level, given what their performance has been?

RICKETTS: No, absolutely not. I mean, that's one of the challenges. I've seen other economists speak, they talk in the theoretical. They try to wave away inflation, say it's not that big of a deal. They're very disconnected from real life and what real people are going through.

If you're actually going to succeed, if you actually want to accomplish something, you have to get people who live in the real world and are used to getting things done.

INGRAHAM: Governor, congratulations on Nebraska's record in all of this. We appreciate it.

And Biden is the President of the United States, but you wouldn't know it given some of the rhetoric that he's been spewing of late. In my - in moments, my 'Angle' explains how this not only represents the real threat to America, but also emboldens our adversaries. Senator Tom Cotton, his reaction next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Breaking just moments ago, Fox Business has confirmed financial giant Citigroup will follow through with its plans to terminate all U.S. employees who have still not received full COVID-19 vaccination, or are granted other accommodations by tomorrow. This is despite today's Supreme Court ruling. They're following Joe's orders.

And if you want to know type of folks these are over at Citigroup. Just one month ago, they applied for a Chinese securities license, seeking a deeper foothold in the communist country for money. Today's ruling was not the end of the fight. So keep pounding away.

And now a gift to Vlad. That's the focus of tonight's 'Angle'.

Now, during the Trump presidency, Democrats in the media pretended to be very worried about what other countries thought of us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The world is watching President Trump getting a better measure of him.

SALLY BUZBEE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WASHINGTON POST: People all over the world pay attention to the Trump presidency.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think our friends and our enemies are watching and his aggressive language has put him very much on the world stage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The whole world is watching. The whole world can see us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: They watched all right, as Trump drove tough bargains on trade, lockdown, the border, grew middle class prosperity here, and put enemies on noticed. But now with Biden, what does the world see?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I've taught - I've - excuse me, I've tapped Dr. Tom - I hope I pronounced Inglesby, correct? Is that right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, appreciate it. Thank you so much.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, (inaudible)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And they're not witnessing moments like that, the world is watching a U.S. leader talk down his own country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: Do you want to be the side of Dr. King, or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis, or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln, or Jefferson Davis?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And last night, former President Obama tried to rescue his old number two in an op ed in USA Today, also invoking Jim Crow against the filibuster. Now, you would have thought you had learned a little bit more from Harvard Law School. But there you have it.

But what a thing to watch? Biden and Obama going from hope and change and America's back to Jim Crow 2.0 and democracy is one election away from imploding. Of course, the media nods right along.

This from the New York Times. "We need to think the unthinkable about our country. The next national election will almost inevitably be viciously, perhaps violently contested. It is fair to say that the right-wing threat to the United States is politically existential." They love that word, existential.

Well, let's be real. Democrats are panicking about democracy, because they're poised to lose badly in the next election. Of course, they have no one to blame, though, for that except themselves. Instead of using their majority to make life better for Americans, they've pursued a radical big spending 'punish your enemies' agenda. And that's just eroding public trust and our standard of living.

Our most prominent Democrats are telling the world on a regular basis, that if you oppose things like axing the filibuster, you're not just a bigot, you're probably a fascist too. OK. Where does that put us now? That means Sinema, Manchin, and Republicans form a new confederacy. And the new confederacy is about to take over Congress in November.

So again, stay with me. If America is on the verge of a collapse under this new confederacy, why would any other country take us seriously, or want to be our allies? Apply this whole way of thinking to our current spat with Russia over Ukraine.

Do you think Biden will have any leverage with Putin, if America is going to cease to be a democracy, and under nine months or so? Of course not. If anything, Putin now has more leverage against us.

Next time we try to lecture him about democracy, he can just say Biden's Georgia speech. As - but other than Biden has said, democracy is dysfunctional. It's on the brink.

Now, this was precisely the tactic used by the Chinese in Alaska last year when they sat across the table from Secretary of where's my depends, Anthony Blinken.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We hope that United States will do better on human rights. The fact is that there are many problems within the United States regarding human rights, which is admitted by the U.S. itself as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yes, the world is watching. We're the wealthiest and the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. The actions and rhetoric of our leaders, it matters. When they demean and vilify America as racist, it erodes our moral standing. It diminishes the strength of our alliances, and it hampers our ability to keep American citizens safe. And that's the 'Angle'.

Joining me now is Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. Senator, Biden's rhetoric, it's anti-American. I don't think he really even believes it. It's certainly not the same guy that a lot of people knew as kind of a bumbling, not-so-smart senator for decades on Capitol Hill. So what's really going on here?

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Well, I think Joe Biden and the Democrats are frustrated that they can't remake the American political system, so they never have to relinquish power. That's what today's debate is really about, Laura.

They want to destroy the Senate rules and customs. Not so they can say, raise your taxes, or they can confiscate your guns, so they would do those things, of course. But it's so they can do things, like federalize our elections and take over the way elections are conducted in all 50 states; make Washington, DC a state so they get two Democratic senators in perpetuity; pack our courts to include the Supreme Court. That's what this is all about.

The Democrats know that their agenda is massively unpopular and it's delivered catastrophic results for Americans, like the highest inflation in 40 years. So they want to remake our political system so they never have to relinquish power.

They are so frustrated today because they had a couple Democratic senators stand up to them and say no. I just can't imagine that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema took very kindly to be being compared to Jefferson Davis and George Wallace, and Bull Connor. Where we, you and I and half the country that opposed Joe Biden's election law, we have another reason to object to him, because all three of those people were Democrats. Remember, the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, secession, and segregation. The Republican Party was the party of equality for all.

INGRAHAM: That's just a bunch of racist history. That doesn't count. So to give you a sense, senator, of how off-balance Biden appeared today, this was just a kind of, now we're getting used to these random outbursts, but watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've missed this time. The state legislative bodies continue to change the law, not as to who can vote, but who gets to count the vote. Count the vote. Count the vote. It's about election subversion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Senator, I guess when you say it three times and really loudly, it becomes more convincing.

COTTON: Well, he seemed very confused and irritable during his trip to the Capitol today. Again, it's probably because his agenda is flailing. He didn't just lose his efforts to destroy the Senate and federalize our elections today. Thankfully the Supreme Court ruled, blocking the mandate on almost 100 million workers. Regrettably they didn't protect healthcare workers from this mandate, so there's still more work to do there. It's been a very bad week, though, for Joe Biden. But that means it's been a very good week for the American people.

INGRAHAM: Senator, your response to Citigroup's decision, and I imagine other big woke corporations will follow, to begin systematically firing employees who have not been sufficiently vaxxed, and it's going to happen tomorrow. I guess tomorrow is when is when it all begins. You're reaction to Citigroup pushing big in China, as you know, with their big securities application there.

COTTON: Yes, Laura, that is very disappointing news that you just broke on the show. And it's really pointless as well. Joe Biden and these Democrats have been pushing these mandates saying that if only everyone were to get vaccinated, even if they've already had the coronavirus, even if they have medical conditions that cause adverse reactions, then we would all be safe.

What we've seen now over the last month or so with the rise of the omicron variant, that lots and lots of people who are vaccinated are getting the virus, and they're passing on the virus. So these mandates don't even have a point anymore. The point apparently is just to punish anyone who deviates from the Democratic Party line. I hope Citi and any company that's firing people or threatening to fire people because of their medical choices will rethink that decision.

INGRAHAM: Senator, were you surprised that Brett Kavanaugh went with the liberals, and I include the chief justice in that grouping, on the healthcare workers case? Are you surprised at Kavanaugh, disappointed?

COTTON: It was a disappointing decision, Laura. Like I said, I'm glad that the OSHA mandate that covers almost 100 million Americans was stopped. But the healthcare mandate covers almost every healthcare facility in this country. And I have heard from nurses and other healthcare providers across the state of Arkansas that they are struggling to keep their doors open, struggling not just to care for the people they have COVID in their facilities, but all the other medical conditions they have as well. People are pushing out surgical procedures that are oftentimes lifesaving. So I hope the administration will reconsider it. If they don't, then Congress should.

INGRAHAM: Senator, thank you.

And the DOJ has charged a group of Oath Keeper with seditious conspiracy. But why was Ray Epps, a prominent Oath Keeper himself, left out? Congressman Jim Jordan and Mollie Hemingway have answers, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: After a year-long pressure campaign from the left, the Biden DOJ has finally charged a group of January 6th defendants with something to justify their insurrection narrative. It's something called seditious conspiracy. But here's where it gets interesting, Ray Epps, who is a prominent Oath Keeper himself and is on tape encouraging people to storm the Capitol building, was not charged.

January 6th obsessed Adam Kinzinger tried to explain away the lack of charges against Epps tweeting "He didn't enter the Capitol on January 6th." That's a fair point, except you know who else didn't enter the capitol that day? Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, who was among those charged by the DOJ today.

Joining me now, Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan who is the ranking memory of House Judiciary, and Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at "The Federalist" and FOX News contributor. Congressman, what about these charges? Certainly serious sounding, and justify this insurrectionist labeling?

REP. JIM JORDAN, (R-OH) HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: I don't know the background on all the charges of the people they did charge, but what I wonder about is Mr. Epps. We're just supposed to take the January 6th Committee's word for it? They said we talked to him, and there's nothing there. This is the same committee that's already proven that they will alter evidence and lie to the American people about it.

And I would like to know how did this interview with Mr. Epps go? When did it happen, where did it happen? Did staff do it? Was it done by members? How long was the interview? What questions were asked? You know what they could do? They could actually release the transcript, and we can see, was it done by phone or was it done in-person. Those, I've probably been, Laura, in more depositions than just about any member of Congress over the last 10 years. I was in the IRS investigation, the Benghazi select committee, and of course the impeachment investigation. I know how these things operate. I'd like to know how this one operated because they were quick to point out, oh, no, there's nothing there with this individual, even though we've seen the videotapes and the things he said the day before and the day of.

INGRAHAM: Mollie, one strange thing in the Stewart Rhodes indictment is the DOJ lists firearms, ammo, equipment purchasing made after January 6th. The feds then made it clear that they believe the purchases were the next steps for more insurrection. So Mollie --

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, "THE FEDERALIST": They can try and say that -- yes, that really gets to some of the problems that the DOJ might have at this point. It's very rare to charge someone with this type of crime. It's even more rare to successfully prosecute it. It's difficult to succeed with, so we'll have to see how the Department of Justice does. When they've previously tried this road, it has not particularly well for them for a variety of reasons.

But I also find it interesting that back during the summer of violence in 2020, when the left was besieging the White House, federal court houses, police precincts, et cetera, you had the attorney general actually float the idea that this might be a way to go after some of those people that were causing so much damage nationwide, and there was massive uproar within the agency, and also outside the agency. It was leaked in order to squash the plan.

It's very interesting that now we see the Department of Justice doing the very same thing that supposedly was unacceptable when rioters were going after the entire country. In general, also, the FBI has tended to infiltrate various groups, or just keep an eye on them or have informants in them, and that can complicate the prosecutions as well.

INGRAHAM: To Mollie's point, the U.S. has a poor record of actually convicting people of sedition. The Associated Press noting that the last time U.S. prosecutors brought a case was in 2010 in an alleged Michigan plot. A judge ordered acquittals on the sedition conspiracy charges at a 2012 trial, saying prosecutors relied too much on hateful diatribes protected by the First Amendment and didn't, as required, prove the accused ever had detailed plans for rebellion.

Congressman, reading through the indictment, it seems eerily, for them, similar here. We don't see any of the so-called evidence they have. Maybe they do, but maybe they're just keeping the close to the chest.

JORDAN: Yes. Again, I'll have to look at it. I haven't had a chance to look at what they're saying here. We want people who did wrong to be held responsible, and frankly, they are, 700 some people have been prosecuted. We'll see how this plays out.

The big takeaway I have, and Mollie referenced this, Republicans have been consistent throughout all this. We condemned the violence that took place on January 6th, 2021, and we also condemned all the violence that took place in the summer of 2020. It would have been nice if Democrats have done the same thing. But instead, we get the statements we get from the committee, we get the committee altering evidence not just about a text message that I forwarded to the White House chief of staff, but others as well. And now we're just supposed to just take their word about this individual, Mr. Epps, who was encouraging people to go into the Capitol the day before January 6th, but somehow, he's not getting charged.

INGRAHAM: Mollie, how concerned are you going forward as we get closer to the midterms and then 2024 that social media companies will actually become bigger players in the surveillance game with the U.S. administration? We know Bennie Thompson wants these social media companies more involved to find out where the misinformation and the extremism really is rooted.

HEMINGWAY: Nothing that they've done thus far should keep you from being terrified about what they'll do. They seem to be willing to act as the censorship and propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. They also are very much compliant with requests to turn over information. I'm actually very concerned, though, in general with how the United States put into place all sorts of surveillance measures, ostensibly to go after foreign terrorists, and they are being used against domestic political opponents. A lot of people actually warned that that might happen when the Patriot Act and other types of legislation were put into place, and that's happening now.

And I'm almost more concerned with how the January 6th committee is using those things to seize peoples' financial records, to seize their telecom records, to go after people who aren't even related it at all, but are domestic political opponents of Liz Cheney, for instance. This is very terrifying, and there aren't enough protections being put in place so that people don't even know what kind of information is being seized, and they're not given the proper opportunity to fight it. It's a really big threat to our liberties.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Jordan, Mollie, -- go ahead, Congressman, real quick, real quick.

JORDAN: Laura, two days ago the president of the United States talked about American citizens as domestic terrorists. That was the same day that we learned that there's a domestic terrorist unit being formed at the Justice Department. It was also the day we learned the Department of Education was asking to get the school board's letter so they could go after parents as domestic terrorists. Those three things all happened on one day. So yes, we should be scared.

INGRAHAM: But we're supposed to get Vladimir Putin to listen to us. We're teeming with domestic terrorists. Guys, great to see you.

And what an MIT scientist is so concerned about regarding COVID vaccines. She's here next to tell us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: My next guest, a very well-respected MIT scientist, recently gave a presentation warning of the possible long-term side effects of the COVID vaccine. She wrote, "Through the prion-like action of the spike protein we will likely see an alarming increase in several major neurodegenerative diseases, with increasing prevalence among younger and younger populations." Joining me now is Dr. Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientist at the MIT computer science and artificial intelligence lab. Dr. Seneff, this is absolutely terrifying to a layperson to hear as this push for vaccines and boosters and new boosters and multiple boosters for our younger populations continue. What do we need to know?

DR. STEPHANIE SENEFF, PH.D., MIT CSAIL SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST: I first of all, think it's outrageous to be giving vaccines to young people because they don't have a risk -- a very, very low risk of dying from COVID. So they don't get a benefit. And when you look at the potential harm from these vaccines, it just doesn't make any sense. And certainly, repeated boosters is just going to be very devastating, I think, in the long-term. It's just, I've done a lot of research, and I really am beginning to understand exactly how the process takes place, and it's very disturbing.

INGRAHAM: Now, the neurodegenerative aspect of this that you specifically highlight from your research, explain that if you can in layman's terms.

SENEFF: Yes, I'll try to. And of course, the science is never easy, but it's quite fascinating what happens. The vaccine gets injected into the arm, the muscles cells get very upset. They bring in a whole bunch of troops. The immune cells come in, take up the vaccine themselves. They take up the nanoparticles. They start making spike protein. The particles basically get your cells to produce lots and lots of spike protein in a hurry. Spike is the most toxic part of the virus. And these immune cells then rush into the lymph system, many of them end up in the spleen, which is where you want them to be to produce the antibodies. That's the goal.

So they've designed it, and they're very happy to see that they end up in the spleen making lots of spike protein, and then invoking an immune response that produces antibodies by the B cells. But the problem is that those germinal centers in the spleen are really the center place where Parkinson's disease develops and probably many other neurodegenerative diseases. But for Parkinson's, it's been very well laid out that you get that prion like proteins, even from infections in the gut, immune cells take them to the spleen, to those germinal centers, and then they start spewing out exosomes. These are little lipid particles that are released by the cells unloading that toxic protein and shipping it along the vagus nerve to the brain. This is sort of well-known with respect with Parkinson's disease, and that's the model I'm using. It feels to me like this is the perfect set up for it.

INGRAHAM: Dr. Seneff, this is a very short segment, we're going to have you back. But any parent who has been pressured into giving a child this vaccination, what do you say to them tonight?

SENEFF: They should do everything they can to avoid it, absolutely everything they can.

INGRAHAM: Dr. Seneff, this deserves a longer conversation that you and I are going to have on my podcast. Thank you for joining us, and I'll continue to post your research and your findings.

Up next, Joe and Kamala think a search engine might help end the pandemic. They should have told that to Dr. Seneff. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Lockdowns, masks, mandates all failed to contain the pandemic, but Joe and Kamala are on it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You can find the nearest testing site for you by Googling "COVID test near me." Google "COVID test near me."

KAMALA HARRIS, (D) VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You can Google it or go on to any search engine and find out where free testing and the free testing site is available.

If you want to figure out how to get across town to some restaurant you heard is great, you usually do Google.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 VIQ Media Transcription, 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 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.