will be back tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. good night from washington. sean hannity is next. sitting in, though, the most famous america that might judge in america, not judge judy, jud. >> judge jeanine: [laughs] thanks, tucker. welcome to "hannity," i'm jeanine pirro. today lieutenant michael flynn appeared in court where a federal judge was expected to sentence him but that never happened. instead, flynn's attorney attorney requested a delay. joining us now with the full report and newly released transcript from comey's second closed-door meeting is catherine heritage. >> on multiple occasions, flynn was asked whether he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea or challenge the circumstances surrounding his january 2017 fbi
interview. flynn was discouraged from having a lawyer and not warrant that false statements could be prosecuted. a critical moment came when flynn told the court that he knew when the fbi be criminal and punishable. the judges chastised him for actions in the west wing, including lies to the trump transition team. "i can't hide my disgust, my disdain for your criminal offense. not only did you lie to the fbi but you lied to senior officials in the incoming administration." judge sullivan, who said he also had concerns about the fbi handling of the flynn interview, questioned the basis of the case, asking the special counsel lawyer whether the flynn phone call with the russian ambassador was criminal. after a long pause, they said it might be a violation of the logan act. a judge noting unauthorized contact between u.s. officials and foreign governments is rarely prosecuted.
president trump tweeted "good luck" devlin before the sentencing. >> we are arguing that he was certainly ambushed in that the fbi that we know had no clear political bias. we have seen that time and time again. from monday's closed-door session from fbi director james comey was released. jim jordan and mark meadows pressed comey on why he did not warn the president there may be a national security risk. "you are so concerned that quote, meadows, michael flynn may have lied or did lie to the vice president, but once you got that confirmed, you didn't believe it was appropriate to tell the president of the united states. mr. comey, that is correct. we had an investigation. an criminal investigation, counterintelligence investigation. there is no way i would discuss that with the president." the fbi director builds cases for prosecution but also has a responsibility to warn on national security issues. >> judge jeanine: catherine, thank you. joining us now with
analysis of today's big breaking news, the author of "the russia hoax," fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett, fox news contributor sara carter, and fox news contributor david schoen. you know, when a judge is scheduled to sentence a defendant in any criminal case, normally the judge sentences on that particular crime. this judge took an incredible left turn, right turn, and you turn talking about treason, he talked about whether flynn possibly was involved as a foreign agent when he worked in the white house, none of which was before him. where is this judge coming from? >> he all but begged flynn to withdraw his plea. when flynn refused to do so, there was this jekyll hyde to transformation of judge emmet sullivan and he began to lash
out at flynn with these unfounded accusations and honestly, you know this, outrageous for a federal judge to make an accusation of treason against someone when treason has absolutely no obligation. in the end, the judge withdrew it and apologized. >> judge jeanine: this is unheard of. >> and he was not only wrong about the law, but was fundamentally wrong about some of the key facts of the case and prosecutors actually had to correct him, that flynn wasn't a turkish agent when he was at the white house. the judge seemed confused, or he actually hadn't read the file yet. >> judge jeanine: by david schoen, we know that he read the file. this is the judge, he wanted to know where that 302 of michael flynn was, when he didn't get it in 48 hours, he said, i want it on monday. he gets a 302. to me, that is his reasoning for saying, he's constantly acting, asking as b6 aside, do you want
to withdraw your plea? then he goes after the guy. what is your interpretation today? >> emmet sullivan is one of the most respected judges around. after the ted stevens case, he said i do want with this kind of government misconduct. but flynn's lawyers played it cute. what is your theory of the case? you always have to have a consistent theory. to flynn decided to cooperate all the way, the government moved forward no prosecution and then they throw the curveball, which is appropriate. but as a curveball on the government misconduct if you want to withdraw the plea come out if you want to continue to be a cooperator. judge sullivan was left with no place to go in a sense and as you said correctly, he offered flynn the opportunity. flynn had to withdraw before the sentencing and i thought flynn should have withdrawn his plea a long time ago. i don't believe he committed a crime and if he did, it was a manufactured crime, and as jim comey said, comey got away with what he pulled on flynn.
>> judge jeanine: hope springs eternal, sara carter. given what we know about jim comey lying again, cardinal comey, which is absolutely not stunning at all, but he talks about the fact that it was mccabe who suggested that flynn get a lawyer and then the 302 of mccabe makes it clear that mccabe is the one who said, you don't need a lawyer, it will only take more time. >> absolutely, judge. i was there at the courthouse today and i want to talk about a few things that relate to comey as well. when i talked to the prosecutor, one of the things they said, it was about the logan act and the prosecutors brought that up. could this have been a crime? well, maybe the logan act, and the judge laughed after that. then you look at comey's testimony and he says, the reason we want to question flynn was because of vice president mike pence said a statement that we knew not to be true.
they never go to vice president pence and say, these aren't true. instead, they send two agents. there is no attorney for flynn, and he's out there talking to them at the request of mccabe and comey keeps getting caught in lie after lie or he keeps changing his testimony. >> judge jeanine: the amazing part is when the judge seems to be pushing flynn, do you want to withdraw your plea, everything we had seen up to this point, he was game for that. >> he was. >> judge jeanine: he was game. but now, here is my concern. if he has already cooperated to the point where the government says we want no incarceration, why do we need him to work for the next 90 days on the case of his partners, who were charged registration act? >> it has absolute nothing to do with trump-russia collusion. nothing. this is the judge who said he was deeply concerned about the fbi's interview with
michael flynn and the impropriety of it all. they lied to him, that was the basis for it. they encouraged him not to get a lawyer. the judge said he was also puzzled by the papers in front of him presented by robert mueller's team. as if to say, why are you prosecuting a guy when these papers here tell me that he told the truth, according to the agents who interviewed him. it was all going rather splendidly for michael flynn until, as david appropriately points out, he refused to withdraw his plea. i agree with david. he should have withdrawn his plea. very hard for a judge to vacate it if the defendant insists on fleeing. >> judge jeanine: although the judge can, and i might have done it. but david, that brings us precisely to the point. why would a man, where the government is saying, i'm not going to ask for incarceration. they were already on the record for that. when the judge seems inclined to agree that this was an
interrogation, not custodial that requires miranda, but once they suggested, don't bring a lawyer to me, that's the new onset kix and miranda, but now, does it tell you that flynn is still fearful of mueller and that his son possibly is the reason? >> that's exactly what it tells me. and again, i think his lawyers made a mistake here. you can't be half in and half out. flynn will have to continue to cooperate with these folks because that's what his agreement provides. but yes, i think they turn the screws to flynn from the start. his family was at risk and he lost everything financially. this is a man served his country with great distinction and great honor. they put him in a room, did not believe his answers, and created a crime. can you imagine if they held mr. comey to the same standard? how many crimes he would be prosecuted for for the lies? >> a dozen times. >> judge jeanine: a dozen times, and front of congress as
well. sara, i'll give you the last word on this. >> i want to say this, judge jeanine, the real crime was the leaking of the fisa application, and the leaking of flynn's name for "the washington post" in order to concoct this. that really is a federal crime and they've never pursued this, they've never went after this. and as far as i know, there is no open case to go after them. i think we need to question that first and foremost and hopefully something will come up in the future. >> judge jeanine: i think we are going to bring in congressman darrell issa. congressman issa is not available, okay, so we will have you guys stay here. today's news surrounding lieutenant general flynn has absolute nothing to do with president trump, as gregg just said, but that didn't stop the mainstream media's echo chamber from once again predicting the downfall of the administration. take a look. >> the thing that struck me
coming from the white house podium is saying that this has nothing to do with the president. how does this even come out secretary's mouth? >> i think at the end of the day, we'll see that general flynn had a lot of incriminating information about the president. >> trump is always treated him with kid gloves, as to others in the melodrama. he seems very concerned about what michael flynn has to say about him. >> we don't know why mike flynn lied, we don't know why anyone including president trump directed him to do it, and if trump did play a role in this, is that why the president is treating mike flynn with kid gloves? stick to the big headline here is, the judge finds this behavior treason is. not just flynn, but all the people flynn coordinated with in creating these lies. >> it's a bad day for the narrative that this is just a witch hunt and there is nothing serious there.
>> judge jeanine: joining us now is the author of "why we fight." fox news national security strategy or sebastian gorka. good evening, dr. gorka. one of the things that seems to continuously come back at us is, james comey lying or being inconsistent in terms of his own answers regarding the same thing. for example, we've got james comey's income it has to be a coincidence that after the tarmac meeting between bill clinton and loretta lynch, there just happened to be a meeting between the justice on the fbi but there was never anything mentioned about this. >> not only that, we know that james comey, after his classified meeting, his briefing with president-elect trump, he gets into an fbi vehicle and on an fbi laptop, writes up a memo that is by nature classified, because it's a summary of a meeting with the president in
which he gives to his law professor friend as a leak to the media. that is a crime. with regards to what happened today, it's very, very clear. i was on the transition team with general flynn, i worked in the white house with general flynn. the call to the russian ambassador was utterly legal. the contents of the conversation were likewise utterly legal, requesting potentially the russian ambassador's support in a vote at the u.n. to prevent israel from being boycotted. how is that illegal? but the fbi had the full transcript of the discussion, so why did jim comey send those agents to the white house in flagrant denial of the white house counsel procedure? it was a classic entrapment ploy. >> judge jeanine: not legal entrapment in the sense that we prosecutors understand it, but
what it was, was a set up. >> a perjury trap. >> judge jeanine: without a doubt. let's bring into the conversation republican congressman darrell issa. good evening, congressman. the issue that we just heard, we just heard a bunch of sound by the mainstream media and those on the left. they have flynn guilty of treason. flynn should be in jail. flynn is president trump's puppet. sometimes i wonder if we are watching the same news. in fact, the prosecutor is even said that is not appropriate treason in this situation. and yet, the overreach is nonstop! >> what sebastian gorka just said is very important for your viewers to understand, which is anything he may have done for which he may have to pay a price, none of it was done, if you will, relative to the investigation of any wrongdoing by the president. nothing was done there. yes, he failed to register as a foreign agent and he lied to the
fbi, and whether it is entrapment or not, remember that james comey had one intention clearly before donald trump was president, and afterwards, which was to get to donald trump. you could see it in everything he did. he didn't keep flynn from becoming a national security advisor, which he potentially could have done with the transcript if it was so volatile. he certainly could have told the president that flynn was misleading or lying to people, which could have affected his being fired sooner and certainly in the name of national security would have been the right thing to do. james comey, from day one, has been a corrupt cop trying to get to the president and it shows in everything he has done, including what he failed to do, which was to be honest to both barack obama and to president trump when he was talking about what he knew, when he knew it, and what should be done in the name of national security. >> judge jeanine: sebastian
gorka, the whole concept of flynn possibly being a foreign agent, not registering as one, we know now that that was not the case when he was in the white house. the outcome of the left is suggesting that he was a foreign agent while he was in the white house. that was made absolutely clear that was not the case. >> today's proceedings were a farce. first the fara act, nobody has gone to jail for writing an op-ed for a nato ally, which is what general flynn did. he wrote an op-ed piece supporting the turkish government. we are not at war with turkey no matter how much we dislike erdogan. secondly, this totally serious logan act charge against the national security advisor. if the logan act were about a serious crime, john kerry should be doing 20 to life right now for his secret negotiations with iran after he left office and
when the trump administration came into power. where is john kerry's arrest, why isn't he being woken up at 2:00 a.m. and put in manacles and shackles? it's absolute absurdity. >> judge jeanine: the fear, congressman, as we listen to the facts, and we are getting the facts out here, the fear is that none of the illegality, the unethical behavior on the part of the people on the left, are they ever going to be made accountable for? they skated during obama's eight years and they are skating through the first two years because of good old jeff sessions. i haven't heard a word from this guy, john huber. hope springs eternal as it relates to this new guy, but what do you think will happen? >> i think the insurance policy that lisa page and peter strzok talked about has been working for two years. for two years, the american people have been distracted from the real accomplishments of this president, and he has been
forced to both do the work of the president and to deal with these endless assaults. let's face it. two years ago, james comey did not tell the president things he should have told him because he was trying to indict the president. it's is now two years later and he still doesn't have a case even with the special prosecutor or essentially his buddy, mueller. >> judge jeanine: it is his buddy, mueller, indeed. this guy was his guardian angel during those famous john ashcroft hospital moments that he remembers vividly but can't remember 245 times, anything that's happened in the last few months when he appears before congress. >> yeah, that's his example of leadership and being loyal to the truth. the fact is, robert mueller is in such a conflict of interest from day one of becoming special counsel, why rod rosenstein, we have to recall this. rod rosenstein made him special counsel to investigate the
president the day after rod rosenstein escorted him to the white house to interview for the job of fbi director again. robert mueller crashed and burned in that interview. the president said, no, i need new blood, you will not be the new director. less than 24 hours later, rod rosenstein makes him the special counsel to investigate the manner in front of him he failed to get his own job back? how could he be an impartial investigator? he can't. he should never have accepted that commission. >> judge jeanine: i hear the congressman saying exactly. thank you so much. coming up, we will preview the looming government shutdown as the funding for the wall on our southern border now hangs in the balance. stay with us. ♪
♪ >> judge jeanine: welcome back to the "hannity." a partial government shutdown looms out of friday's deadline. democratic hysterics have already begun. republicans offered to compromise on the amount of funding for the wall, but the democrats immediately rejected that deal. earlier tonight, president trumi tweeted, "the democrats are saying loud and clear that they do not want to build a concrete wall, but we are not building a concrete wall, we areui building artistically designed steel slabs so that you can easily see through it. it will be beautiful. and at the same time, give our country the security that our citizens deserve. it will go up fast and save millions of dollars per month once completed." joining us now with reaction, fox news contributor charlie
hurt, fox news contributor doug shown, schoen, and gopac chairn david avella. the wall with the beautiful slats, are l you questioning whether we will get that? >> i don't think we will get the wall. i think what should have been done last week was a 1.6 billion in border security, fund the governmentth and move forward. this is frankly a setback in building the wall and also a setback for democracy because the fact that we can't fund the governmentec -- and i understand it's only a partial shutdown but this is pathetic. >> judge jeanine: but you know what, this isn't trump's fault. at the end of the day, what we are talking about is border security,, which has been kicked down the road since, actually is think 1986. last i remember is 2006. now we have schumer and pelosi saying it's not happening. you're not getting the wall. are we getting the wall?
>> to your point, judge, here you have a preview of what the next two years is going to be like. over the last two years, we had ten democrats in state that president trump won. it was in their interest to find common ground with the president. going into the 2020 elections, there are two. dougin jones of alabama and gary peters of michigan. there are less democrats willing to work with the president on border security, on health care, on the economy. why?em w because it's in their interest to obstruct and investigate, and ultimately seek to impeach the president. >> judge jeanine: charles, the idea of the $1.6 billion from, i think it was last week, that ths democrats shut down. now we have the president suggesting through sarah sanders
that there is money from other departments that can be transferred so we can build the wall. specifically from homeland security, and i believe the pentagon. is that viable? >> i think if you talk to people that have studied this for a long time and as you point out, this has been a problem that has been kicked down the road since 1986.ee lawmakers in washington refused to fix the problem, and funding the wall has never been a real big problem here. the real problem is, the will to actually do thee hard work of putting up the wall and taking those votes. the only thing we have found out in the last two weeks is democrats that are coming into control the house and senate in congress have vowed to shut the government down instead of doing something about fixing the border. whether you call it a wall or a
fence, or what president trump described it as through these tweets that you just read, whatever you call it, it's a barrier that prevents people from illegally crossing i into e uniteded states. democrats have made it very clear that they are on the side of opposing that and trump and republicans have made it clear that they are on the side ofre supporting it. even democrats who supported, say, the 2006 fence act did basically the same thing, building a barrier which will keep you from sneaking into the country illegally, even a lot of those democrats have been pulled by the left-wingy. of their party over into this no borders anti-i.c.e. sanctuary city crowd which opposes doing anything about the border. >> judge jeanine: doug, the idea of a wall, a secure fence, 2006, you had schumer, pelosi, obama, they were all singing the cheers of it. the american people are not stupid.
they are in favor of a border. they understand we needd to be a sovereign nation. in essence, what they are saying is, we are going to obstruct, we are proud to obstruct. and they are almost going against the american people as well. >> there ishe one other componet you haven't mentioned, we have 11 million people here illegally. we need a pathway to citizenship and a wall. we need border security and a compromise, and that's what politics is about when you have a divided government which we will have in a couple of weeks. >> judge jeanine: and that is with the president did when he offered to daca to 1.8 million daca kids, which is double what obama -- >> keep negotiating. >> judge jeanine: he was negotiating in big faith and they didn't buy it. anyway, gentlemen, thank you so much. coming up, trace gallagher has former green beret who is a suspected terrorist. then i get a reaction that will
♪ ♪ >> judge b jeanine: welcome back two "hannity." as we reported here last night the president is considering reviewing the case of major goldstein, a green beret who has been charged with the murder of a taliban bomb maker. trace gallagher joins us now from the west coast news room with the latest. >> good evening, judge. security experts say that as commander in chief president trump, is well within his right to pursue any current or past military case but they believe when the president said he would publicly review the murder charge against former special forces major matt goldstein, he might appear to be
pressuring lower-level incommanders. the president's intent remains very unclear. goldstein admitted during a job interview with the cia that in 2010 he killed a suspected afghan bomb maker. the army launched an investigation, stripped goldstein of his special forces patch andst silver star, but did not charge him. then after he admitted to killing the insurgent on fox news, the army reopened the case and filed charges. here is a former congressman ane retired lieutenant colonel alan west. >> but i find this disingenuous and disconcerting is that he has already gone through an investigation, and there was nothing that founded to take this toward a court-martial hearing. >> goldstein's parents say they welcome the president's review of the case but his wife thinks it is unnecessary. listen to her. >> to charge him with the premeditated murder is almost laughable and it would be
laughable if it wasn't so serious and a disgusting. >> the military version of the grand jury will now decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute goldstein. >> judge jeanine: thank you so much. president trump has spoken out about major goldstein, with some saying the president may be improperly influencing the case due to his role as commander in chief. general tonyo tata has a new op-ed out on foxnews.com addressing the question and hehe writes, "trump is perfectly within his authority to review the case of a green beret charged with murder." joining me now with reaction, author of "dark winter" general tony tata and fox news contributor, colonel david hunt. colonel hunt, i will go to you first. this guy is a decorated war hero. he is a -- someone who is a combat veteran and he has got distinguished service cross and service star, all kinds of medals of honor.
medals, i should say. he ends up killing the enemy, under circumstances that apparently his superiors don't like. cann you tell us what happened? >> sure. merry christmas, by the way. matt goldstein was at a cap in 2010, largest battle in the history of afghan war. two marines were killed by a taliban bomb maker that the cia identified. captain goldstein's special forces team found this guy, captured him. because h there is not a detentn center or until center nearby, turned him over to the afghan. the afghan he is released this terrorist. captain goldstein's team found him and killed him. they killed him in combat in a massive war. they did the exact right thing. the problem is, some of the army think, no, he should have been turned back again.
here's the problem, if the guys get turned back and to kill somebody else, and how they be charging goldstein with dereliction of duty. they stripped goldstein a year later from his distinguished service cross, his silver star and his special forces qualification. unheard of. and now they are trying to go after him for murder. i think the president of the united states had great instincts in detectingur this because it reeks of great interest is. >> judge jeanine: general, i read your op-ed piece. what colonel hunt said is very interesting. had this guy that they ended up killing in 2010 killed somebody else, then goldstein would have been charged with dereliction of duty. why do you think the afghans, after they captured this guy who was making bombs, that killed two marines, why would they cut him loose? what are the rules over there?it >> the rules are that they are
supposed to have field detention sites. particularly when you have such a large battle happening. it was the largest battle we had in afghanistan. you will have detainees and proper planning at the time would have allowed for the field detention center center, wherey would have brought has detainees that are a threat to the u.s. or coalition forces or have intelligence value. clearly, this individual had both. gold featured a seen this guy again. he should have been taken off the battlefield and processed up through. this is when they had already put in a request for a surge of troops and obama took a year to get the troops. this was a major failure of thek intelligence community and major goldstein should not have even ever seen that individual again. >> judge jeanine: was goldstein
right in killing him? general? >> given the circumstances -- i guess, he was correct. >> judge jeanine: colonel, was he correct in killing him? >> absolutely, i would have done it and would do it again. >> judge jeanine: is of the rules of engagement -- i'm not even going to ask this question. why is this taking so long? it's 2018! hunt? >> the problem is, the special operations community, the department of defense has twice investigated this guy and found nothing there. it's because of a lot of general officers' reputations and the argument about roe. >> judge jeanine: rules of engagement. >> it needs to be corrected and it needs to be corrected in a matter of hours easily. >> judge jeanine: i assume you agree with colonel hunt. he was dragging this guy down? >> what i see is that president obama weaponized the
agencies, this happened in 2016, when he went on fox news, and obama wasn't a fan of fox news. i don't think it was a coincidence. what we have is weaponized agency that is going after this individual, which is why i am very happy that president trump tweeted out that he was going to review this case because what he is doing is shining a spotlight on this. >> judge jeanine: will talk about this review, there is talk, coronel hunt, that this review is something that is something improper, the president exerting command influence. is that hogwash or is it accurate? >> everyone considers that in the chain of command but this is the president of the united states receives an injustice in his instincts are right about this. and that's the reason we are talking about it. it was the wrong thing to do to a great guy and it just smells bad. it's easily corrected and there are four or five things that have to happen to correct thisil insidious thing that is done to a very great guy.
>> judge jeanine: and general tata, is there a difference between exerting influence by interfering or being seen as interfering, when you are interfering for the benefit of the individual as opposed to the detriment? my understanding from the uniform military justice code is that, since the president would be the prosecutor, who will object? who will raise the complaint? >> trust me, the department of defense will have enough prosecutors with their fangs in goldstein. the president has come out, and a very neutral tweet that says i will review the case. as is his right and as his his duty to do so. by doing that, as i mentioned, he's really just think i'm i'm going to shine a spotlight on this and everything better be on the up and up. he left himself enough room that, if something did happen, he can review it and he can say, you know, something untoward did
happen and we need to go in that direction. i don't think that's the case. >> judge jeanine: colonel hunt, final word on this thing. you seem -- you are the recipient of many medals including distinguished service cross asel well. and i know you don't y like talking about this. but you found that their taking his medals to be one of the most outrageous things about this case. this guy has beenis charging him with premeditated murder. you are so offended by that, tell us why? >> 30 years of service, 18 years of fox, never heard of it! what you do after you've done the action to get you the medal, has nothing toet do with the day you get the medal. it shows that the united states army was really going after this guy, to take -- after they said -- after they had two boards that they found nothing wrong, is terrible. it's never done.
it is such an insult to their service and to this great guy into the medals themselves. it's really over overstepping themselves and it shows how badly they've been trading him. >> judge jeanine: thanks so much for your insight. we'll stay on top of this one. this case it fascinates me. democrats are weeks away from officially taking the house andl they already scheming to impeach the president. how one house committee is plotting investigation after investigation. "hannity" continues after the break. ♪
they are gearing up for investigation after investigation,nl unleashing new probes on everything from border apprehensions to travel expenses, email use, and of course, more phony russia collusion. the only question is, how far will they go? joining us now for reaction, fox news contributors rachel campos duffy and jessica tarlov. good evening. let's talk about how far they will go, jessica. >> as far as they need to go. everyone is scaling off of talk of impeachment but there is a constitutional right and obligation to be conducting oversight as elijah cummings has said and it's certainly a long time coming. elections have consequences and the american public elected democrats to be a check on this administration. republicans have had control of this for six years and we've seen investigation after investigation focused on hillary clinton a lot of the time. iemail investigations, irs, and they are going after tea party groups when in fact they were going after progressive groups.
benghazi, which kevin mccarthy admitted was actually a political stunt to hurt her poll numbers. >> judge jeanine: in the end, though, i mean -- and rachel campos duffy, you are going to have to agree with this. in the end, it is, as jessica says the positive consequence of winning. >> one of the first things we are going to do is shutdown investigations into the doj, the fbi, and the corruption that happened there so there goes the idea that they are after the truth in finding out what is really happening. they are not. this is an agenda about destroying trump and slowing downut the president's agenda, which they know has been very successful in reducing poverty, and reducing dependency and growing the economy. they have to stop that before 2020. that's what these people will do. these are not your jfk democrats. thesee are radicals. they have gavels in their hands on very powerful committees.
this is what they are going to do, and i will tell you what, judge. they want to do this, they have a constitutional right to do this but they will pay the price in 2020. this is not what the american people want. the american people want deals and earlier on your show, there is this discussion about the border. they have no desire to compromise or find a middle ground. they threw the daca kids under the bus! they didn't want to give the president's money. they claim to care about them. i don't think it's going to work. >> judge jeanine: but what rachel is saying is accurate in the sense that whatever house, whatever party has oversight in the house, the truth is this has very little to do with the legislative agenda. it has very little to do with laws that are being passed on behalf of the american people. i really think that oversight and reform, because there rarely is prosecution after oversight and reform, is more about getting out the message and the ability ton frame the
public perception on an issue. >> that is an important function of it. i believe axios published 85 potential things that could be looking into l and these are things the american public is focused on right now especially what is going on with the mueller probe. >> oh, god. >> don't "oh, god" me, rachel. we heardrd today that the trump foundation is nothing more than a flush fund, not the clinton foundation, thep trump foundation, and trump university had a $25 million fraud investigation into it. his family, they were profiting off of the office, you had the whole saudi royal contingent -- >> judge jeanine: the saudi money thatn. hillary took to her foundation and never reported, and now rachel, go ahead and get in. >> i just want to say, you are living, jessica, in new york city d.c. beltway bubble. because outside in real americag
where i live here in wisconsin, nobody talks about russia. nobody does. they all just want to live their lives, have enough money for their families, take care of their businesses -- >> so why did they allow the democrats? outside of my bubble? we may have 41 seats in the house, seven gubernatorial seats. >> they want to -- >> they want republicans to be in check. >> they want to stop the gridlock. no -- >> they didn't want you guys anymore. >> they didn't vote for thet democrats for more investigating, what they wanted was compromised. they want the government to work.t it is that simple! a lot of -- i the american peope aren't as sinister as the people in washington! a lot of respondents think they are. >> judge jeanine: jessica, you do have to agree that there wasn't anything that president trump suggested that the democrats didn't resist or obstruct or not be a part of. from what i'm hearing from the president now, he's looking to work with the democrats. >> he has no choice. >> judge jeanine: he has a
choice. i will tell you why he has a choice. the house does nothing. everything depends on the senate, all right? there is no legislative agenda -- >> chuck schumer offered $1.6 billion of the border wall, which you should take. now he is tweeting about, it will be slats and i don't need a full wall. democrats will work with him on an agenda that benefits the american people, but that means getting rid of this tax plan that didn't benefit the american people. we have to go. >> judge jeanine: we do have to go. thank you. coming up next, you won't want to miss our video of the day. one young boy got a very special christmas present. that's next. ♪ ca and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. and it works 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise.
don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. -meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding. -we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands. -you're not gonna make it, you're not gonna make it! ask her if we can do her next wedding too! -so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. -on second thought, don't...ask that. they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter
any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again! >> judge jeanine: welcome back to "hannity." one little boy got the surprise of a lifetime when he opened up an early christmas present. his military dad home for the holidays. it's tonight's video of the day. watch. >> you better open it.
>> what do you think it is? what's in there? >> whoa! >> what is it? >> what's up, buddy? >> oh. >> judge jeanine: we want to take a moment to say thank you to all the members of our military who won't be able to celebrate christmas with their families. we appreciate you all and your service. unfortunately that's all the time we have left this evening, but before we go, christmas is one week away, and if you're looking for the perfect gift, you can always pick up a copy of
my book. online and in bookstores. as always, thank you for being with us. tune in every saturday night. "the ingraham angle" is next. >> laura: judge jeanine, i am bawling. i'm literally crying. i saw you tear up and then you went to the book plug. i love the seamless transition. really sad. go to the book plug. i am better now. i was going to lose it. you started me off. thanks, judge jeanine. don't you love those? i know some people might have seen that. i hadn't seen it. >> judge jeanine: i did not. it's the first time i saw it. especially after we heard about what happened with golsteyn, you've got to thank them every day for what they do for us. >> laura: i am laura ingraham and this is "the ingraham angle" from washington.t ahead, the reporterho