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 us, and up next is "hannity" with judge jeanine. >> 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. joining us now with the full report and newly released transcript from comey's second closed-door hearing is catherine heritage. >> challenge the circumstances around his january 2017 fbi
interview. flynn was discouraged from having a lawyer, the lives would be criminal and punishable. actions in the west wing including lies to the trump transition team. "i can't hide my disgust, my disdain for your criminal defense. not only did you lie to the fbi but you lie to senior officials and the incoming administration. judge sullivan who said he also had concerns about the fbi handling of the flynn interview question 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 an unauthorized contact between u.s. officials and foreign governments are really prosecuted. the judge tweeted good luck to
flynn and -- we are arguing that he was certainly ambushed in that the fbi that we know had clear political bias. we have seen that time and time again. >> late today the transcript for monday's closed-door session for fbi director james comey was released. jim jordan and mark meadows pressed comey on why he did not warn the president. "you are so concerned that 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. he said we had an investigation. an open investigation, counterintelligence investigation. 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 today with an
analysis of the big breaking news, fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett. you know, when a judge is scheduled to sentence a defendant in any criminal case, and that took talked about treason and he was involved as a foreign agent when he worked in the white house, none of which was before him. where is the judge coming from? >> he all but begged flynn, and he began to lash out at flynn with unfounded accusations and
honestly, you know this, it was outrageous. to make an accusation of treason when treason has absolutely no application. in the end, the judge withdrew it and apologized. 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. >> he said i wanted on monday, and to me, and do you want to withdraw your plea, and he goes
after the guy. what's your interpretation. >> after the ted stevens case, and flynn flynn's lawyers play it cute innocence. what's your theory of the case? you also, it always have to have a consistent theory. and it's appropriate and a curveball and the government misconduct if you want to withdraw the plea, not 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, he got away with what he pulled on flynn. >> judge jeanine: what we know
that hope springs eternal, sarah carter, and given what we know about jim comey lying again, he talks about the fact that it was mccabe who and he said you don't need a lawyer, take more time. >> i was aware, and, when we talk to the prosecutor, one of the things they said was about the logan act in the prosecutors brought that up. this had been a crime. maybe the logan act, and the judge left after that. then you look at comey's testimony and he says it, the reason we want to question flynn was because of vice president mike pence said a statement that we knew not to be true.
instead, they sent to 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. 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 with the foreign agents act? >> it has absolute nothing to do with trump collusion. this is the judge who said, he was deeply concerned about the fbi interview with michael flynn
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 guide when these papers here tell me that he told the truth according to the agents who interviewed him. that seemed to be going splendidly with michael flynn until david appropriately points out, he refused to withdraw his plea. it's very hard for a judge to vacate if the defendant insists on playing. >> judge jeanine: 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. and at the judge was inclined to agree that this was an interrogation, not custodial
company requires miranda, but one thing suggested don't bring a lawyer to me, that's nuance that kicks in. now does that tell you that flynn is still fearful of mueller and that his son is possibly the reason? >> that's exactly what it tells me. and again i think his lawyers made a mistake here. 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 man served his country with great distinction and a great honor. and, -- there's a dozen times. >> sarah, i will give you the
last word on this. >> the real crime was the leaking of the fisa application, and in order to concoct this. that really is a federal crime and they've never pursued this or 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. >> to >> judge jeanine: i think we are going to bring in congressman darrell isa. congressman is not available so we will have you guys stay here. today's news surrounding lieutenant general flynn has absolute nothing to do with president trump, as greg just said, but that didn't stop the mainstream media 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 says that this has nothing to do with the presiden president. >> how does this even come out of the white house press secretary 's mouth? >> general flynn had a lot of incriminating evidence. >> they've always treated him with kid gloves as opposed to others in this melodrama. and 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? >> the judge finds this behavior treasonous. 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 they are.
>> judge jeanine: joining us now is the author of "why we fight." sebastian 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 thin thing. for example, there had to be a coincidence that after the tarmac meeting between bill clinton and loretta lynch, there had to be a meeting between the chief justice and the fbi but nothing was ever mentioned about this. >> not only that but we know that james comey after his classified meeting, is 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, due to a summary meeting of the president in which he gives to his law professor friend as a leak to the media.
with regards to what happened today, it's very, very clear. i was on the transition team with general flynn and i work in the white house with general flynn. the call to the russian ambassador was actually 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 full 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. let's bring into the conversation republican congressman darrell isaiah. the issue that we just heard, by the mainstream media and those on the left, they have flynn guilty of treason. flynn should be in jail. sometimes i wonder if we are watching the same news. in fact, the prosecutor is even said that is not appropriate treason in the situation. and yet, the overreach is nonstop. >> what sebastian gorka just said is important for your viewers to understand, which is anything that 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. 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 volatile. he 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, and that is not the case. and, that was absolutely clear that was not the case. >> today's proceedings were a farce. first the far act, nobody has gone to jail for writing an op-ed for a nato ally, which is what general flynn did. we are not at war with turkey no matter how much we dislike air to one. secondly, this logan act charge against the national security advisor. if the logan act were about a serious crime, 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. >> it's fear, and 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 on the left, e they ever going to be made accountable? they skated there were during obama's eight years and they are skating through the first two years because of good old jeff sessions. and 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 thinks he should have told him because he was trying to indict the president. it's now been two years later and he still doesn't have a case even with the special prosecutor or essentially his body, mueller. >> it is his body, 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. >> that's his example of leadership and being loyal to the truth. the fact is, robert mueller is 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 left fbi director again. robert mueller crashed and burned in that interview. the president said it, no, i need new blood, you will not be the new director. less than 24 hours later, rod rosenstein makes him the special counsel. how could he be an investigator? >> 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. ♪ chological? psychological. small town or big city? small town. methodists...or mules? mules. how's this? signed?! no way.
nobody knows thrill seekers like we do... barnes & noble ♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help.
>> judge jeanine: at welcome back to the "hannity." a partial government shutdown looms out of friday's deadline. hysterics have already begun. republicans offer to compromise on the amount of funding for the wall, but the democrats immediately rejected that deal. earlier tonight, president trump 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 are building artistically designed steel slabs so that you can easily see through it. it will be beautiful. but 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, a fox news john hurt, and fox news
contributor doug shown. the wall with the beautiful slats, are 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 government 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 government -- 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. by the end of the day, what we are talking about is border security which has been kicked down the road since, actually i think 1986. now we have schumer and pelosi
saying it's not happening. are we getting the wall? >> here you have a preview of what the next two years will be like. over the last two years we had ten democrats in state that president trump one. it was in their interest to find common ground with the president. going into the 2020 elections, there are two. doug 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? because it's in their interest to obstruct and investigate, and ultimately seek to impeach the president. >> judge jeanine: at the idea of the 1.6 billion from, i think it was last week, that the democrats shut down. now what we have is sarah sanders suggesting there is
money from other departments that can be transferred so that he can build the wall. specifically from homeland security, and i believe the pentagon. is that viable? >> i think as 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. 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 the 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 of the house and senate and 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 into the united states. democrats have made it very clear that they are on the side of opposing that and, democrats and republicans have made it clear that they are on the side of 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-wing of their party over into this no borders anti-i.c.e. sanctuary city crowd which opposes doing anything about the border. >> judge jeanine: the idea of a wall, a secure fence, schumer, pelosi and obama were all singing the cheers.
american people are not stupid. they are in favor of a border. they understand we need to be a sovereign nation. they are saying we are going to obstruct, we are proud to obstruct. and they are almost going against the american people as well. >> there is one other component 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. >> and us with president did when he offered daca. he was negotiating in good faith and they didn't buy it. anyway, gentlemen, thank you so much. coming up, trace gallagher has former green beret who is charged with murder or suspected terrorists. then i get a reaction that will
little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla,75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be.
otezla. show more of you. ♪ >> judge jeanine: welcome back two "hannity." as we reported here last night the president is considering reviewing the case of major goldstein, i green beret who has been charged with the murder of a tele- band bomb maker. trace gallagher joins us now from the west coast's 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 on 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 commanders. 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 and silver star but not charge him. when he admitted to killing the insurgent on fox news, the army reopen the case and filed charges. here is a former congressman and retired lieutenant colonel. >> he is already going to one investigation and there was nothing that found it 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. >> to charge him with the premeditated murder is almost
laughable and it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious and disgusting. >> the military version of the grand jury will now decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute goldstein. >> 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 tony tate has a new op-ed out on foxnews.com addressing the question and he 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 tate and fox news contributor, colonel david 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 distinguished service cross and
service star, all kinds of medals of honor. he ends up killing the enemy, and under circumstances that apparently his superiors don't like. can you tell us what happened? >> 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 and the special forces team found this guy and captured him and because it was not a detention center on an intel center nearby turned him over to the afghan to the afghan a surprise. they killed him in combat in a massive war that did the exact right thing.
if the guys that turn back, and he kills somebody else, now they would be charging goldstein with dereliction of duty. they stripped goldstein a year later from his distinguished service cross, his silverstar and has special forces qualification. unheard of. and now they are trying to go after him for murder. they had a great instincts, in this great on justice. >> 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? >> the rules are that they are
supposed to have detention sites. it was the largest battle, they would have detainees and the proper planning at the time would have allowed for field detention center or military intelligence committee folks would have process detainees that are a threat to the u.s. or coalition forces or have intelligence value. clearly this individual had both. 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 mcchrystal the troops. this was a major failure of the intelligence community and major goldstein should not have even ever seen that individual again. >> was goldstein right in
killing him? >> given the circumstances -- i guess, he was correct. >> colonel, was he correct in killing him? >> absolutely, i would have done it and would do it again. >> sold rules of engagement -- why is this taking so long? it's 2018. >> the problem is, the special operations community, the department of defense has twice investigated this guy and found nothing there. and it isn't because of a lot of general officers reputations and the argument upon our oe. it needs to be corrected and it needs to be corrected in a matter of hours easily. >> so, who is dragging this guy down? >> what i see is that president obama weaponized the
agencies, and i don't think we don't have a 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 the case. what he's doing is shining a spotlight on this. >> judge jeanine: later is talk, colonel hunt, that this review is something that is improper, the president exerting unlawful command influence. is that hogwash or is it accurate? >> everyone considers that in the chain of command but this is the united states who sees an injustice and 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 this insidious thing that is done to
a very great guy. >> judge jeanine: and general tate, 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. and as is his right and his duty to do so, by doing that as i mentioned, he is really just saying, 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. >> you seem -- you are the recipient of many metals including distinguished service cross as well. and i know you don't like talking about this. but you found that they are taking his metals to be one of the most outrageous things about this case. this guy has been charging him with premeditated murder. you are so offended by that, tell us why? >> what you do after you've done the action to get you the metal, has nothing to do with the day you get the metal. 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 had nothing wrong, it's terrible.
and, it's really over overstepping themselves and it shows how badly they've been trading him. >> thanks so much for your insight. he we are going to stay on top of this one, this case fascinates me. democrats are weeks away from officially taking the house and they are writing and scheming to impeach the president. how one house committee is plotting an investigation. "hannity" continues after the break.
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 contributor rachel campos duffy and jessica karlof karloff. now how far will they go? >> 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 just 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.
email investigations, irs, and they are going after tea party groups when in fact they were going after progressive groups. >> in the end though, and rachel campos duffy, you will have to agree with this. in the end, it is as jessica says the cost 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 have been 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 down the president's agenda which they know has been very successful in reducing poverty, and reducing dependency and growing the economy. that's what these people will do. these are not your jfk democrats, these are radicals. 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 and 2,020. 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. >> >> 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 it, because there rarely is prosecution after oversight and reform is about getting out the message and the
ability to frame the public perception. >> i believe ask io's published 85 potential things that could be looking into and these are things the american public is focused on right now especially what's going on with -- >> oh, god. >> don't "oh, god" me, rachel. we heard today that the trump foundation is nothing more than a flush fund and trump university, and they were profiting off of the office. you had the whole saudi royal contingent. >> the saudi money that 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 america, nobody talks about russia. nobody does. they all just want to live their lives and have enough money for their families, take care of their businesses -- that's what they care about. >> they had seven gubernatorial seats. they want republicans to be in check. >> they didn't vote for the democrats, what they wanted was compromise. they wanted it to work and it's that simple. a lot of us pendants think they are. >> you do have to agree that there isn't anything that president trump suggested that the democrats didn't resist or obstruct or not be part of. isis, from what i'm hearing now -- i will tell you why he has a choice.
everything depends on the senat senate. i think now he's up there tweeting about it and it's going to be slack. democrats will work with him on an agenda that benefits the american people but that means getting rid of this tax plan. and we have to go. >> judge jeanine: we do have to go. coming up next, you won't want to miss our video of the day. one young boy got a very special christmas present, and that's coming up next. ♪ got directions to the nightclub here.
and if you get lost, just hit me on the old horn. man: tom's my best friend, but ever since he bought a new house... tom: it's a $10 cover? oh, okay. didn't see that on the website. he's been acting more and more like his dad. come on, guys! jump in! the water's fine! tom pritchard. how we doin'? hi, there. tom pritchard. can we get a round of jalapeño poppers for me and the boys, please? i've been saving a lot of money with progressive lately, so... progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto
♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. 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. >> 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? >> wall 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 club. 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 washing