turkey that was not eaten. can't make it up. that is all the time we have left this evening. as always, thank you for being with us. set your dvr, never miss an episode. let not your hearts be troubled, laura ingraham, did you see my twitter, frying that turkey, and i mentioned you? >> laura: i was very proud that you fried that turkey ended that you acknowledged me. i was a doubting laura. i didn't know that you were so handy around the kitchen, sean. >> sean: excuse me, i was a dishwasher and a coke. >> laura: let me hear that old trope from you. >> sean: what did you do when you are 13? >> laura: i was a paper girl and i mowed lawns. i picked blueberries. i walked 10 miles to school and bare feet. >> sean: uphill both ways. i got the story. have a great show. on. we begin with some breaking news. check this out!

according to politco, rabid open borders zealot. congressman louise gutierrez will not run for re-election. the reason is not clear. it's odd. surprises me if it's true. we'll update you if we learn later on. the last time i saw him, he was arrested at the white house in august representing illegal immigrants. his community, the illegal immigrants that he says he represents. that's great news. in another story, another shocker, racializing the royals. that is the focus of tonight's angle. harry and meghan blew brexit off the front page by announcing their engagement.

they traveled to africa and found true love. >> usually refreshing to get to know someone who isn't necessarily in your circle, doesn't know much about me, i know much about her. so the start afresh from the beginning, getting to know each other and taking the huge leap of two dates and getting together in the middle of know where and sharing a tent. it was fantastic. >> laura: how sweet. when buckingham palace announced the harry markle engagement, prince charles couldn't be more pleased. >> they're very happy indeed. that's all i can say. >> laura: i feel like i need a translator. he was happy. expecting a proud father. it was the reaction on social media. i read this on the way in to work. i was screaming, laughing and

scribing. it was a shocker. moments after the engagement was announced, the social media was awash in racial overtones. this is all because meghan markle's father is white and her mother is black. so tweets and facebook posts were harping on her racial identity. warning, you have to forgive me here, a lack of basic grammar and punctuation as in many tweets. here we go. some folks in england are about to lose their minds. meghan markle is biracial. she's older than she is and she's an american actress. #blackroyalty. another one. good time to remind everyone that meghan markle is black. since i know you'll try and whitewash the -- out of her. another. meghan markle's mother is a black african american woman, social worker from l.a. with

sista locks. man look, if that's blank, don't make you smile big. congrats to the royal fam bam. you couldn't be more lucky to get both. another one, meghan markle is white passing. she looks white. she's not someone that likes jasmine sanders who has light eyes and very light skin, but you can tell is black biracial. i straight up thought that was a tanned white woman. another. how much black is meghan markle? i just want to know so i know how much blackness to expect from the wedding. is she black enough for the cupid shuffle waddle? #royalengagement. another to torch. you with. ya'll, meghan markle is a mixed race. we have a black princess. actually, meghan markle will not be a princess. she'll be a duchess. i know we're fascinated by royalty, but must we transfer our racial hangups on this young

happy couple? can't we just celebrate and be happy for their engagement and leave it at that? as for the racially obsessed and point of fact, markle will not be the official black royal in europe. that would be this woman. the beautiful princess angela lickenstein that married in 2000. meghan markle's race is probably the least interesting part of this story. why am i saying that? it turns out the queen is permitting harry to we'd not only a divorcee, but a woman that was raised catholic. so let's forget about the race and how she identifies. we've had a biracial president of the united states about now to have a biracial part of the royal family. it doesn't always have to be around race. let's get back to my cyber monday shopping. a royal wedding medallion and plate that i can order. it's apparently 75% off.

i don't care about the color of the plate. that's the angle. joining us now to analyze, horace cooper. the co-chair of project 21 and from new york. clay king, from sirius xm radio. horace, let's start with you. the morning, going to work, going to do my radio show. i start seeing -- there were some tweets that were so profane as is twitter is want to be that were so over the top. like get ready, bees. this is our bee who will be in buckingham palace. getting things wrong about that. why does everything have to be about race here? why is it relevant to this? >> it's not relevant. it's actually sad and pitiful. here's the thing. if this were 1955 and i saw some of these kind of comments, i'd go, which segregationist racist

said this today? they noticed in the 1940s and the 1950s every single aspect about anybody's race as their primary attribute. it wasn't is this person going to pay their bill, is this person going to buy this house and be a good neighbor. it was what color was their grandmother? that kind of weird fixation. and we got away from it, but all of a sudden progressives have brought it back. too many times i don't hear anybody on the left saying stop that. don't do that. they condemn a lot of white americans and many republicans who weren't even around actively holding office in the south for their silence while this misbehavior was taking place. we're here now. people are around. why aren't we seeing condemnations? some of the things you said, that was outrageous.

not just bad, outrageous. >> laura: clay, let's go to you on this. the future duchess actually has said before when she was dating harry, she said she found it disheartening and discriminatory that some in the media were focusing on her racial identity and not just on their relationship because it centered on her racial background. why the obsession with her race when it's just a happy couple? aren't we supposed to be about the content of our character, not the color of our skin in aren't we there yet? >> what you're talking about is a comment she made to the british press. they called her like an l.a. gangster, straight out of compton. the british press made her race an issue. prince harry said stop doing that. i feel like horace is saying that we're post racial. that race doesn't exist. for a lot of black mixed race people in britain, this is something to be about. i can find tweets that are

calling meghan horrible names. it's a good thing. it's to be celebrated. if you know the history of the royal family, this is a bit of history like when you have somebody breaking ground, you can celebrate that. pulling out random silly tweets from somebody, whoever they are, is ridiculous. horace always acts like racism is over. it doesn't exist. it does exist. it's celebrating progress. >> laura: what does -- this has nothing to do with racism. that's the point here, at all. it's a happy couple. so you say your breaking ground. she wasn't elected. she fell in love with someone. why is that breaking ground? >> if you know the history of the royal family, you don't see many black or mixed race people in the royal family. again, you're -- >> laura: that's not why harry is marrying her. >> it's still symbolic. >> laura: no, it's not. >> it's important. if you don't think it's important, you're not a black or

mixed race person -- >> laura: okay. i have to ask both of you a question. i want to be fair and balanced here. horace, there's a sentiment here that certain black people aren't authentically black. i've seen it directed at my old boss, justice thomas, other african americans that don't think a certain way about race or act a certain way. is there something about being authentically black? is she not authentically black? i saw that all over social media today. >> that is the nasty idea that race is who we are and not simply an attribute of who we are. the fact is, if there were some tweets that happen to say we like the fact that this wonderful woman has this background and we have read that, we might have said -- >> there were several tweets like that, horace. >> my point is, there's no condemnation of the kinds of

comments that have no basis in reality and show a fixation on race. we're never going to get to the point where people are human beings as long as we revel in this fixation. >> laura: i'll give you the last word. >> acting like race doesn't exist is not going to make race go away. it's not going to make racism go away. we have to see color and sack september it. see color and talk about it. acknowledging that she's a black mixed-race woman is not a bad thing. i don't why that threatens you or scares you. it's a good thing to be celebrated. it's progress in the royal family. for a lot of mixed race people in britain, it's a good thing. maybe you can't relate to that. >> i can't understand a racial fixation -- >> celebration is not fixation. no, it's not. saying she's a black mixed race woman in the royal family is not fixation and can't compare it to

1950 -- >> laura: i don't think that's what she wants. >> i don't think so either. >> laura: she's a young woman getting married. why are we -- why is so much -- a lot of this came out of america. >> and the british press, too, laura. >> laura: a lot of these people are in the al sharpton, jesse jackson mindset. >> al sharpton didn't say anything. >> laura: why are we placing our hangups on this happy couple? i imagine prince harry is in love with her, doesn't have to do with her skin color. he fell in love with her. >> it's a celebration, it's not fixation. >> laura: all right. great to have you on. we'll have another conversation about this, i'm sure. coming up, democrats are mostly staying quiet about john conyer's sexual harassment scandal. what is that about? that debate ahead.

we're on a mission to show drip coffee drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew. that's it. so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me?

we that's why at xfinityic. full-bodied. we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now with instant text and email updates you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for. because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today. >> laura: welcome back to "the ingraham angle." as the john conyer's sexual harassment engulfed the democratic party, nancy pelosi is trying to put out the p.r.

disaster by gasoline. >> was it one accusation? is it two? there has to be. john conyers is an icon in our country. he will do the right thing. >> is the right thing what? resign? >> he will do the right thing in terms of what he knows about his situation. that he's entitled to due process. women are entitled to due process as well. >> laura: i can't even diagram those sentences. i try every day. >> sean: >> laura: pelosi's comments are creating blow-backs. democrats are fear a party with politics and protecting women. let's face it. for the war on women talk, their message is always talk. >> as the president declared in a state of the union address when women succeed, american

succeeds. that's not just a phrase. it's a statement, a fact. house democrats agree. when women succeed, america succeeds. that's our agenda. we know one thing for sure. when women succeed, america succeeds. when women succeed as my colleague said, the world succeeds. >> laura: that's nice. now pelosi put out a statement late today trying to walk some of those other comments on "meet the press" back. the question is, do the democrats stand behind women or only when it's politically convenient? joining us, scott bolden of the democratic party and congressman steve russell, a republican from oklahoma. even gregory meeks thought that john conyers should step down.

even nancy pelosi, i couldn't follow her on "meet the press." she said and we cut this out of the sound bite, she said she's not really familiar with the cases. she gets really familiar really fast with allegations against republicans, this is john conyers who has been in congress for 52 years. yet nancy says he needs due process, all due process. nice to hear that men get due process. >> the republicans and the democrats on the hill believe it as well. i think when nancy pelosi in her inartful way is trying to say, he can be the icon, he can fight for women and have the sexual allegations. none of it is good, none of it is appropriate. i think that behind the scenes before the deal was cut, she was really -- she knew that he was going to step down.

if she walked back, it's because she's inartful about it. she supports resources to investigators and supports nondisclosures going away and supports the public funds shouldn't go to settle lawsuits. that's the important things. >> laura: congressman, nancy pelosi never talked about this shush fund as we called it her, the settlement for the bad actors. don't know who these people are still. now it's getting traction. we talked about it first on cable and now it's everywhere. john conyers has been in there 52 years. this is like a lifetime appointment in congress. that's a separate issue, obviously. nancy pelosi is willing to give iconic status to him. if you're an icon, you can get away with this stuff and resign away your ranking position?

it didn't matter much with justice thomas. >> i'm glad to see that we have miss pelosi, that cares about due process now rather than just statements. that's very important to establish. look, where the american public is outraged, there's allegedly $16 million of government taxpayer money that is going to hide -- >> laura: did you know about this? >> absolutely not. >> laura: it's only $17 million. >> even if that money were set aside, you can't use your mra office funds to pay off somebody for some allegations. this has -- >> laura: my question is, why aren't -- if he's admitted these settlements already, al franken admitted his conduct -- >> well, the photos -- >> laura: yeah. and we're concerned about women in general. women's reproductive rights.

we're for women. violence against women. here we have sexual harassment against women. why aren't both parties getting together and saying, guys, you admitted to this conduct. that's it. i mean, that's it. that's it. you admit it. that's it. both parties should -- this is the party of bipartisanship that should be obvious at this point, shouldn't it? i'll let you go on this. >> i certainly think -- >> laura: it's the context of iconic status. >> laura, the fact that he's iconic status, he can be iconic and be a sexual abuser --? clarence thomas is the only second black supreme court justice. he never got -- >> he just not got into the african american -- >> laura: he's got no context, he got -- >> another time, another place. let's be transparent about it, right? all democrats, all republicans, sent it to the ethics committee or not. let's start with donald trump. why aren't they investigating --

>> he denied his misconduct. >> he admitted it on the air. went isn't he -- >> laura: it's not going to happen. the world of reality -- >> went are the democrats and republicans like joe -- >> we can take a typical play out of the communist playbook that says admit nothing -- >> democrats or republicans? >> here we have senator franken with photographs -- >> before he was elected -- >> okay. now we're going to use a double standard with other people seeking election that are allegations. wrong is wrong. we're in agreement there. but you cannot use taxpayer funds to hush people up. >> laura: we've established that. i think there's a raging double standard. >> there is. >> laura: a lot of congress

women and congressmen that are pro women. i hear the old war against women. when there's individual women that have been in situations where they feel powerless and they feel like they can't act on -- they're stuck, who -- they have no voice except through this ridiculous panel that was set up. congressman, you didn't know about it. i'm not blaming you. we didn't know about it. it's insane. makes people wonder watching fox, what else doesn't congress know about? it's crazy. it's unsane. >> needs to be investigated and we need to get to the bottom of it. >> democrats and republicans have to have credibility and that starts with both of them being investigated, including donald trump. >> laura: you want trump investigated? >> i do. he has 19 sexual accusations against him and admitted it on the air. no what he's going to do but

what he's done to women? >> laura: we're out of time. the press likes to say the president's ratings are low but they're not as low as the they're not as low as the mainstream media.♪ ♪ohhhhhh, ou! guess what i just got? uh! ♪i used to be spellbound hello again. ♪i used to be spellbound hi. ♪i used to be spellbound that's a big phone. ♪in your arms. [screams] ah, my phone. ♪you built the flame ♪that warms my heart, ♪but lying and cheating ♪has torn us apart ♪and i'm moving on.

>> laura: the press has no trouble attacking the first lady or the president. they're good at that. when he fights back, suddenly the first amendment is in peril. are trump's attacks on the press an attack on our democratic norms? daily beast it or the and cnn political analyst, john adwan seems to think so. >> we shouldn't normalize the spectacle. it's a serious constant attack at our democratic norms. going after the press, going after individual entities. >> laura: joining me now, fox news senior political analyst, brit hume. his first time on "the ingraham

angle." hi, brit? how are you? >> you got me here past my bedtime. >> laura: great to see you. is our first amendment in peril because donald trump sent out the tweet about cnn international and his comments about fake news? >> well, certainly not because of that tweet. i would say broadly speaking that trump's criticisms of the media, which have been pretty consistent, pretty frequent, still haven't added up to anything that would threaten our first amendment freedoms. we in the media in this country enjoy a level of freedom and pro december that is rarely available almost in where else on earth. we're invulnerable to government officials and politicians. there's not much they can do to us. the supreme court is there to safeguard our rights and has consistently done so to the

point where for example if someone was to sue for liable, they have to prove that the offending party has committed either a reckless or a willful act of falsehood. it's hard to prove. in my own career, laura, i've been spied on by the cia, i've been sued for libel, criticized by name. here i am after all these years. that's because we're protected in this country. there's not much donald trump can do to the media. >> i was sued for libel when i was 19 at dartmouth, a professor sued me. unsuccessful. i was thinking about obama, president obama and he had a seemingly chummy relationship with the mainstream press oftentimes. then we had the james rosen controversy, sheryl atkinson. she said sure computer was hacked into. his comments about fox news. other supporters comments about

talk radio routinely belittling fox and conservative internet websites and so forth. i could make the argument that maybe in a sophisticated way or not so sophisticated way, the obama administration was much more hostile to an unfriendly critical press. >> i would agree with that, laura. what was done in the case of james rosen was grossly improper, shouldn't have happened. it was an abuse. in the end, james rosen is still working at fox news and doing better than ever. cheryl atkinson is still out there certainly. we are just too well protected a position to be knocked off or thrown off of our work by government. it's not just that we have these protections, but we in the media have power. we're pretty safe.

>> laura: they don't like to be -- a lot of people in the media, especially cnn, they don't want to be cite sized. the idea that anybody will call their wisdom into question or their prognostication abilities into question, they don't like that. they never liked it. they never wanted to be called out, not by other media outlets, media research center, whether it's a website or it's a talk radio. they don't like that. they want to be the invulnerable, invincible folks. i'm talking about some of our friends on other networks. we don't always get it right. you know, you're not immune to criticism either. you can dish it but can't take it. i want to talk about president trump's comment today about the code talker's ceremony and play this sound bite. let's watch. >> you were here long before any of us were here. although we have the representative in congress who

they say was here a long time ago. they called her pocahontas. but you know what? i like you. because you are special. >> laura: brad, i'm not sure why the president had to bring up elizabeth warren. we're not in a campaign, in 2020 yet. maybe it was on his mind because of the consumer financial protection bureau issue. we'll handle that later in the show. what about that moment? going crazy. the left is going crazy. >> i agree with you. it wasn't gracious. grace is not his strength. he's constantly carping about people that are smaller than he is. i'm not sure what that accomplishes. but i don't think it's a threat and i don't think it's racist. your earlier segment brought this to light as well that term is flunk around with abandon today and it's a tragedy. because the great achievement of the civil rights movement, greater than the important laws

that were passed were the consensus that it brought about that racism is wrong and not to be tolerated. in an overwhelming prohibitive majority of americans feel that way. for that term to be flung around with abandon is an abuse. there's too much of it. i think that for elizabeth warren to call it a racist slur is unfair. it's wrong. she's a big girl. what he said is harmless, if crude. just move on. >> laura: all right, brit. i appreciate it. it's funny. it's not necessary. i have seen president trump be incredibly gracious towards people. he can turn on the charm when he wants to. he had to hit the dig in to -- at least he didn't call her focahontas. it could have been more perhaps ungracious. i appreciate it. thanks so much. straight ahead, absolute chaos at a powerful federal agency.

one you might not know a lot about that claims to be independent and nonpartisan and yet it seems to be the exact opposite. claims to work for the american consumers, but did it ever really to that? a full report when we return. my experience with usaa has been excellent. they always refer to me as master sergeant. they really appreciate the military family, and it really shows. we've got auto insurance, homeowners insurance. had an accident with a vehicle, i actually called usaa before we called the police. usaa was there hands-on very quick very prompt. i feel like we're being handled as people that actually have a genuine need. we're the webber family and we are usaa members for life. usaa, get your insurance quote today.

copdso to breathe better,athe. i go with anoro. ♪go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way" with anoro.

♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators, that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma . it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com. >> laura: don't you think it's hard to find ways to attack first lady melania trump?

she's poised, dignified, gracious. attacking her shoes, well, they tried that. didn't work. so the media's latest tact is to insinuate that the first lady is like eva gabor in green acres. the latest hit piece on flotus, a vanity fire writer said a source told her that mrs. trump never wanted to be first lady because of the intense exposure as though she were some wilting wallflower. and ellison jumps the shark by leaping to this conclusion. she says there may never have been a first lady less prepared for or suited for the role. this isn't something she wanted and isn't something that he ever thought he would win, one long-time friend of the trumps told me. she didn't want it come hell or high water. she didn't think it would happen.

ellison claims that one told me that it is old news that she and her husband live essentially separate lives. so not only does vanity fire suggest the first lady is miserable, ill suited for the job, but also that her marriage is on the rocks. in a statement today, the first lady's office slammed the story as salacious and filled with false assertions. as far as not liking the role, melania looked perfect today greeting children at the white house. listen to what one child said to her. >> you look like an angel. >> thank you. >> you really look like an angel. >> well, vanity fair probably won't cover that. she really looks like an angel. she looks like she's hating that job. i don't think so. it's a rank partisan agency masquerading as a protection of american consumers, this barely known agency operates in

independence of your ebb che check -- elected officials. it started friday when an obama appointee announced his resignation and president trump had other plans and named mick mulvaney to fill the post until a permanent replacement could be named. and mrs. english filed a lawsuit saying the lawsuit is hers. there's two people claiming to be the rightful leader of this consumer financial protection bureau. it's unbelievable. what is the cfpb? it was created by the dodd frank bill and targets financial companies in what they believe is unfair and deceptive of practices. here's what elizabeth warren

said about the cfpb in 2013. >> what we know for sure is now this agency is here to stay. no more clouds over what it legally is entitled to do. no more attacks that say maybe we'll be able to undercut it in this way or weaken it in that way. we have a full-fledged watch dog. the one we fight dog. he will be there to fight for us. >> laura: i love it. i love watch dogs. the employees of the cfpb are not just bureaucrats, according to stats dug up by the washington examiner, since its founding, the employees have given money to democrats 593 times and only once to a republican. joining us to reaction, sean duffy. he sits on the finance committee, right? and here in washington, robert wiseman, president of public

citizens. congressman, let's start with you. it's a watch dog that returns billions and billions of money to the consumers. so you know, why all the chaos over there and why do republicans think it's just up to no good? >> first up, those of us on the financial services committee, we've been dealing with us for years. and mick mulvaney used to be on the committee with us. you have an agency that can draw $600 million from the federal reserve. you have an agency of thousands of little elizabeth warrens that are wreaking havoc on the free enterprise system. when you have an agency promoting a progressive agenda and not protecting consumers, that's where we have issue. >> laura: that's a big difference.

593 donations to democrats, one to a republican. i don't care what party you're from. how can you with a straight face say that is a nonpartisan independent agency? >> you have to look at what the agency has been doing. it's protecting consumers. issued $12 billion in fines. also 30 million americans have directly benefitted from rip-offs and cheating by big banks and other financial institutions. it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. the banks have tons of their own regulatory agencies. goldman sachs running the treasury department and the sec. goldman sachs is the comptrol r comptroller. they've been doing their job. >> laura: and ron ruben said that he was in meetings where he

would hear the top people at the cfpb talking about appointees and new hires. one said he was a good liberal. oh, i was just kidding. there's a gate keeper there about the types of people you'll hair and bring in. they might not have it written down but sure seems like a political litmus test that is unspoken for you to get through the door at the cfpb now. >> it's an agency doing its job. >> only with democrats. mostly democrats. they're doing their job. mostly democrats. >> i have no idea. >> laura: democrats the only gate keepers? >> i have no idea. >> laura: you're protecting them, you should know. >> mick mulvaney thinks the agency is a sick joke. >> laura: congressman, can you defund it in congress? trump can't shut it down. he can't drain the swamp totally

here. >> laura, the next director can request not $600 million but $10 million. they can actually force democrats to the table to reform this agency. we have a bill that would have absolutely restructured the way the cfpb works. the largest banks were opposed to the bill and the small banks that serve where i live, they supported the cfpb. they have increased the cost of credit, whether you get a mortgage or an auto loan. they have caused small community banks to go out of business that hurts rural america. here they say we want to be isolated from the congress and the american people. well, if you're doing the good work of the american people, laura, you shouldn't be isolated. the american people will applaud you. if you have a progressive liberal agenda, you have to be protected from the american people because they will shut you down. that's why elizabeth warren has to separate them from congress. they knew it had a radical agenda. >> laura: robert, you think there should be any reform to

this at all? >> any reforms to the agency? i think -- what you should do, you and the viewers should look at the website of the cfpb. >> laura: we'll run to that i'm sure. >> if the website doesn't look like other governmental agencies. it's clear. >> laura: the federal reserve paid for this, right? the federal reserve -- >> they're funding it. absolutely. they're doing their job. they explain what they're doing. they're incredibly transparent about what's going on. if people see the plain english -- >> laura: and the small community banks don't have problems with this. the credit is not being squeezed -- >> no. big banks are report profits and small banks are doing well. the cfpb doesn't have jurisdiction -- >> laura: real quick, sean. >> it's a small bank's biggest complaint is the cfpb. the rules and regulations are passed to them and big banks can deal with rules. small banks cannot.

that's why they have to consolidate or go out of business. that's why rural america supports president trump. >> laura: we made progress understanding a federal agency. a lot of people don't know it exists. thanks to both of you. speaking of free speech, concern is growing that china may be silencing chinese students at american universities pouring billions of dollars into education in this country. so is this a chinese trojan horse infiltrating american higher education? a stunning story and an uplifting nfl story at least it happened at a game. that too when we return.

>> laura: all right. now this is a story you haven't heard much about. i'm going to ask a question. you have to think about it. is china hindering free speech on american soil? how can that be? wayne dan, a former leader of the protests in china says the chinese communist party is extending its surveillance of critics abroad. reaching into western academic communities and silencing

visiting chinese students here through a campaign of fear and intimidation. beijing is hindering free speech in the united states and in other western countries on college campuses. we have enough problems with free speech. now we have it from china. joining us from analysis from florida, stephen moser, an expert and author of "bully of asia" and a graduate student at catholic university and a spokesperson for chinese activists. let's start with you, steve. you've been covering china for years. none of this is surprising to you. i think a lot of americans, however, are shocked to know that red china -- yes, i call them that -- red china has a long arm into the u.s. academic community. tell us how they're intimidating speech on campus. >> well, laura, it has a long arm into the u.s. academic community and the arm is getting

longer. i'm the poster child for the persecution by china of american academics and american students that criticize the chinese regime for human rights. we talked before ant my reporting on forced abortions in china, which lead the chinese government to demand of stanford, not ask, that i be expelled from the university and stanford complied. that was a long time ago. china is larger and more powerful today than then. >> laura: more money. >> and more active in suppressing speech. >> laura: and more money. they have a lot more money. and what is happening on the college campuses? >> college students, most of them come from the white collar class in china. most of those people are employed by the chinese state. state-owned enterprises. the students feel pressure when they're here to self-censor. they know their social media is monitored. that has a strong chilling effect. >> laura: i was looking at a

chart. i think the "wall street journal" did it, of the number of chinese students in 2000 that come to the united states in 2000 versus today. i believe the number today was over 500,000 in the united states. that sound right to you? >> yeah. >> laura: the chart goes like this. thank you. there we go. that's where we are today. a lot of chinese students here. more surveillance through social media, more pressure on the upper class, especially chi northea -- chinese to abide by the communist dictate. does this happen at home and subsidies being removed and educational subsidies? how does it spill over? >> it's a very sophisticated strategy where they monitor social media and they know that they have -- they up the pressure where the students know

that they might get a call from their parents saying someone from the government visited us or their parents were employed by a bank, which is owned by the government. if they really step out of line, the government would imprison their family -- >> laura: how do we allow this? stephen, back to you, this is shocking to most people because we're a free country. we hear about russian's collusion with trump and the attempt to influence our election. i'm sure they probably did. but what about this? this is china's attempt through chinese studies at university. some of them are cool, i imagine. but boy, they have a lot of power and money operating right now in the united states for a purpose. they have a purpose. what is behind that purpose? >> well, behind that purpose is the idea of controlling all of the contribution, all the debate

about china. they set up hundreds of confusion institutes around the country. they go to universities and offer millions in return for room on campus. the institutes are on campus. they're named against confucius and not one of a mass murderer. but there's certain things that are not allowed to be talked about at the institute. you can't talk about taiwan, tibet and tiananmen. >> laura: they shut it down, they do the same thing in hollywood. certain movies won't be made. google, facebook, shutout. we'll do more on this. thanks for joining us. finally tonight, a feel-good story amidst a storm of bad one. the old joke used to go for the no fun league. that's been true this year.

players on their knees. you see the empty stadiums? falling revenues. roger goodell that wanted $49 million a year salary and healthcare for life for his family. there was one really redeeming image on sunday. check this out. 98-year-old pearl harbor survivor was ready to take the field. age bedamned. he was honored in the pregame ceremony during the raider's salute to service. they're doing a lot of salute to service because of the blow-back. ganich was 22. getting ready to play football with his pals from the battleship pennsylvania when the japanese attacked and changed history. this honor represented the latest of honor in the last-ditch effort from the league to save face from the

kaepernick controversy. god bless him. he's the best of what the country represents and the league is suffering as they should for what they allowed to happen. that's all the time we have left. shannon bream is next. takes it away. >> shannon: president trump versus one of his top senate rivals, elizabeth warren, over who is now running a controversial, powerful federal agency. >> if the court decides to issue a temporary restraining order, i will absolutely follow the law. >> shannon: a bitter dispute over who is leading the consumer federal protection for your leads to court. as we await the decision, senator mike lee joins us to wait and pray top democrats rally behind john conyers and question his accusers. >> i don't know who they are. >> he was walking around in his underwear. >> shannon: there a growing