i just don't care. i have jeans and boots on. see? that's it. that's what i wear. that is who i am. we just at that number on your screen, 877-225-8587. we will always be fair and balanced. laura is next. did you call in and say that i suck and to shut up? in tonightn laura and we will play it tomorrow night. >> laura: i can't stand that woman, she's awful! >> sean: welcome to my world! >> laura: to people who call into your hate wearing, are they from an insane asylum? they sound like they are either shot up or boost out. i don't know if i want to hang out with him. they sound fun. >> sean: i got a couple of nice compliments. i got you suck, shut up. i'm not killing kittens every time i open my mouth.

>> laura: company at my house, i understand you are a house painter. >> sean: comment on laura, we will play it for you. >> laura: get off my time! just kidding. welcome to the anger mangled from washington. we have a jam-packed show tonight. one other type of show are we going to have? conservative commentator ben shapiro. he just delivered a controversial speech, that means any speech, at the university of connecticut campus. the speech sent leftists into fits. frothy fits of frenzy. he joins us exclusively to tell us what happened. and an intensifying showdown tonight between the justice department and the house intel committee over the release of that classified fisa memo. an intel committee member peter king is here to react. plus, as the president's eyes, he is ready to talk with bob mueller under oath. on time from confidant roger stone says speaking with mueller would be a trap for the president. he joins us to explain why.

but first, accountability in the special counsel's office and a press that just doesn't care. that's the focus of tonight's angle. as soon as robert mueller was appointed special counsel in the russia investigation, politicians rushed to cover him with a blanket of invincibility. >> have you seen anything in this investigation that would suggest he has a conflict? >> i haven't. i sit on the judiciary committee along with senator , and i have not seen any evidence to suggest that. >> i do not at all believe that mr. mueller has been compromised for his investigation. i think he's beyond reproach. >> i have a lot of admiration and respect for director mueller. >> you've got somebody who, by all accounts, is an independent person. somebody who's got lots of integrity. >> he enjoys very broad support in the senate both among republicans and democrats because of his long service as

the fbi director, because of his record of respectable leadership as a senior federal prosecutor. >> laura: in other words, president trump, don't you dare even think about coming close, even sort of maybe kind of firing mueller. a few months later congress rushed into propose legislation to insulate the special counsel from executive branch interference or termination. republican pro-amnesty center tom tillis, along with liberal delaware senator chris coons introduced a bill that would allow mueller to challenge any removal in court. senator lindsey graham and cory booker, wonder twin powers activate, they went even further. they sponsored a bill that would prevent the firing of mueller. apparently he so perfect he could never be fired. senators ted cruz and mike lee were properly skeptical about

the constitutionality of any such moves such as that. remember, mueller worked for the executive branch, after all. i have a question, why can't all federal employees challenge their firing? of course this would be absurd. setting aside whether it would be politically smart for president trump to fire mueller, and it wouldn't be smart, he is the head of the executive branch and congress has no business interfering with eve of the firing or the hiring decisions of the executive branch. all they have is the confirmation process, senate confirmations. otherwise, stay out of the business. so my question is why were these senators so eager to build up mueller and his team, and they were so eager to insulate them from executive branch oversight and ultimately perhaps termination? thank god we have diligent congressman who do take their oversight responsibility seriously.

i'm talking about congressman devin nunes, matt gaetz, trey gowdy, robert goodlatte and peter king, who will join us in just a few moments. you don't want to miss this segment. their determination to see that this investigation doesn't turn into some kind of star chamber. it's already turned up incredible thing so far. missing or discussed thumb drives. talk of deleting text messages. talk of creating insurance policies against trump. maybe even secret societies in the fbi. meetings convened outside of the fbi. and of course all those missing texts that they may or may not be reconstructing. and by the way, speaking of these texts between peter strzok and his gal pal lisa page, we heard this today from the doj spokeswoman. >> there were just over 50,000 text messages between lisa page and peter strzok during the time period that the inspector general is investigating.

what we also know, for about a five month period those text messages never got into the fbi server. obviously we are reviewing immediately how they didn't get into the server in the first place. >> laura: first of all, who has anything, that much to say to anyone that would account for 50,000 text? they must have really had a hopping relationship. there were reports, by the way, that the glitch that she referenced may have affected 35,000 fbi employees and all their cell phones. different from what we heard a few days ago. but whatever the case, it prompts more questions now just about the basic competency of the fbi. sorry, are we not even allowed to wonder what else peter strzok and lisa page said to each other about trump, flynn, comey, and maybe even the old hillary email investigation? i'm sure it wasn't all 50,000 text of sweet nothings. i've noticed a pattern here,

maybe you have as well. the more we learn, and the closer congress gets to the truth, some of this underlying evidence, the more vicious the media attacks on those people who are seeking answers. >> meetings off-site, secret societies. anything you can tell me without having to kill me? >> this is nonsense, it's just complete nonsense. >> you're telling me that that law enforcement agency is treating people unequally because they have a political vendetta? if you will tell the american people that, that's what happens in third world dictatorships. that doesn't happen here. >> republicans are talking about this secret society inside the fbi. they sound like crackpots. >> they will rue the day from going down this road and having this institution, part and have the kind of morale problems that could be long-lasting down the road. and men who are they to look to? >> laura: certainly not to the head of the rnc, who was trashing the current president of the united states. well, i'm just glad the democrats are finally, finally

supporting law enforcement! the fbi, you can never question them. let's look back now. for years the left has indulged groups like black lives matter, the aclu and care, who reflexively impugn the integrity and character of police. anytime somebody catches one of those unpleasant cell phone videos the police are too aggressive, they are racist, their anti-muslim. you know the drill. but now that mueller, state versus federal, but mueller is targeting trump. law enforcement, you can't question them. they can't do any wrong. if they should never be fired, they shouldn't even be question questions! one would think that the media, some in the media would have a little bit of curiosity about, i don't know, the conflicts of interest in the special counsel's office. if they distrust law enforcement and investigators on the state

level so often, why do the feds get a pass? well, there is without a doubt a deep-seated animus, and that is putting it mildly, toward the president by key members of the mueller investigative team. and rather than confront the growing evidence, the left, they start demonizing members of congress. and anyone, frankly anyone, who dares to question the methods and the motives of the obama justice department and now the mueller gang. the black cloud that hangs over this russian investigation, let me tell you this, it wasn't created by fox news. it certainly wasn't created by talk radio. none of us hired jeannie reed, who previously worked for the clinton foundation and represented obama's national security advisor, ben rhodes. i will tell you this, fox news and talk radio did not appoint andrew weissmann.

a democratic donor, he praised sally eights in that letter when she was fired by the president. i don't think fox news and talk radio appointed peter strzok either. i will tell you this, no amount of scapegoating is going to make this any better. robert mueller could be the greatest guy, the smartest guy ever, but if the man cannot oversee his own team and remove the partisans, then you have to conclude he is either in over his head or he's just not good for this role, or his negligent in his duty. and that will compromise the ultimate findings of this investigation, whatever they may be. i also want to say this. trump's team made some mistakes early on. i do not think, and i've said this before, it was smart to fire jim comey when needed. and it wasn't wise to talk talk to lester holt about the decision to fire jim comey. and if the story is true, it

probably would not have asked acting fbi to direct or how he voted in the election, i wouldn't have done that either. the president has to be extra mindful given the fact that he had already kicked off the intel community with his promise of reforms, and of course some of his criticisms. you kick that deep state hornets nest and you are liable to get stung really bad. today, the president told reporters, hey, i'm happy to talk to mueller. >> are you going to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it actually. >> you want to? >> there's been no collusion whatsoever. there is no obstruction whatsoever, and i'm looking forward to it. i would love to do that and i would like to do it as soon as possible. i would do it. >> laura: i was listening to that audio. he sure seems like he has nothing to hide, and the president appears ready and willing to be held up to scrutiny by the mueller team. he wants to clear his name.

but what about the men and women who are doing the scrutinizing? who is going to hold them accountable? no one should be above the law. not the president, not hillary clinton, and not the special counsel's team. and that's the angle. joining us now for reaction from new york is monica crowley, a senior fellow at the london center for policy research. with me here in washington is attorney alan. you heard my take care. everybody needs to be accountable. take a shot. >> i think every buddy is accountable. i think your concerns are about the individuals participating in the actual investigation, which doesn't mean the investigation itself has a problem. there has not been an outcome yet, so why the big concern? if you are not guilty of a crime then why is there a problem with going through the process? >> laura: my concern is when you populate your investigative team with individuals who have been either loyalist to the previous administration or who

actively were engaged in the hillary email investigation and actually helped edit comey's announcement of the nonindictment indictment, that that kind of entanglement is the mere appearance of the conflict of interest is not what you want an investigation. an appearance of a conflict in a case this serious is enough to shake the credibility of the investigation and i'm not saying that everyone on the team is bad, i'm not saying that. but if the shoe were on the other foot and hillary clinton were being investigated by a bunch of trump loyalists who had written terrible things about hillary and couldn't stand hillary and were texting their boyfriend about hillary, you would be on their show going crazy about them and i would actually say you have a point there. >> may be hillary clinton was a scapegoat for some trump supporters, but this is just a bunch of stories about an individual. there's not a lot of paperwork to back it up. the fact that they also handle clinton emails doesn't mean that

they can also handle this. this is what their duty is as attorneys to deal with the facts before them. the fact that they worked on prior cases have nothing to do with this case. if they are looking for the facts and that's what we are going after. >> laura: you think it's okay for partisans to be working on an investigation when they were loyalist to the previous administration and worked on the exoneration of hillary clinton? if the shore of the other foot. >> i would ask the professionals. >> laura: what does that mean? they are people. they are not perfect. the only person for dominic perfect to walk the face of the earth, jesus christ. an apparent conflict or an appearance of a conflict in a case like this is not what you want to do. bob mueller is the smartest person around, like he is the smartest guy who ever lived apparently, but he had no problem bringing in these people

who hate donald trump, they despise the man. i don't know how you can be independent in your thought process if you hate him as much as they did. got to get you in on this. alan says they are professionals doing their jobs and i'm sure there are professionals in the investigation and the democrats say this is much ado about nothing. this is an investigation that needs to reach its conclusion and everybody is throwing a bunch of pixie dust up and they are hoping it goes away. >> it may in fact be true that this entire investigation was predicated on a lie about russian collusion, which was essentially a frame of donald trump. if these people never expected him to win. they expected hillary clinton to win so all of their possibly criminal and unethical shenanigans throughout the campaign to torpedo donald trump and then once he was elected, during the period of the transition to try to set him up on a russian collusion narrative, they thought that all of that evidence would go away. and guess what? donald trump is not the president. that evidence is being uncovered left and right and that's why the democrats in the mueller team, those who have been corrupted according to the evidence as we know it so far,

that's why they are so frantically trying to deflect and lie about not just with dated, but about the president as well. >> laura: i want you guys to both listen to something that adam schiff, also on the intel committee, what he set about this concern about the investigators. >> why would you vote to not have -- >> the point was they didn't care what was in the underlying documents. they wanted to make a political statement. they wanted to feed the beast on fox news. they wanted to do what they could to derail the mueller investigation. >> laura: want to, they are talking about house intel committee wanting those pages, the synopsis, released to the public. they just want to feed the beast, they want to feed fox. >> they are trying to discredit the chairman, trying to discredit the house intelligence committee exposing a lot of this corruption and a lot of this evidence. i can tell you tonight, laura, based on one of my sources, that

we will see all of these documents. >> i'm a little concerned about why are we not seeing it now? why do we need to wait to see it? the committee -- >> we will see them. >> i think the process should be bipartisan because the concert is bipartisan so why has only part of the committee already seen the memo and the rest hasn't? furthermore, why has the doj not vetted the memo with its regards to national security, a primary issue of all this in the first place. it doesn't sound like a very sound. >> the attacks on chairman nunez in the house intelligence committee that is doing incredible work here. when they do talk about those who are attacking their investigation are trying to discredit their fbi and the doj and attacking the institutions is dangerous. the top hierarchy of the fbi and doj discredit in themselves. >> where talk about the process. >> the one thing from all of this is barack obama. the idea that all of these people freelanced all of this

than anything -- >> are not sure why we are talking about barack obama tonight. >> laura: we are out of time. the democrats have a chance to see this memo. they could all go to the secure room to read this memo. only i think a few have. i'm always for more sunshine, more transparency. let's see what it is. it may maybe the republicans are over blowing it. maybe it's not a big deal. i would like to see it for myself. people seem really hot and bothered by it. >> we will see it. >> laura: thank you very much. love to have you both back. we have so much more to tell you about on the fbi corruption and the mueller probe with roger stone and congressman peter king. but next, an exclusive live interview with ben shapiro, who just gave the first speech by a conservative on the uconn campus, and violence broke out the last time a liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night,

so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

running a small business is demanding. and that's why small business owners need more. like internet that's up to the challenge. the gig-speed network from comcast business gives you more. with speeds up to 20 times faster than the average. that means powering more devices, more video conferencing, and more downloads in seconds, not minutes. get fast internet and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more per month. comcast is building america's largest gig-speed network to give small businesses more. call 1-800-501-6000 today. >> laura: under pressure tonight, the university of connecticut finally let students sponsor a conservative speaker on campus again. this is after violent protests erupted outside and inside the hall where the gateway pond and its spoke back in november. at the daily wire's ben shapiro just wrapped up a speech hosted by the college republicans.

here's a sample. >> something has to be done about a system where a few crazed leftists decide they don't want to hear somebody speak and for people from the outside who pay taxes to universities like this one can't get in. it's a great thing universities have people like me and yes like the person who is speaking opposite me on this campus to give a variation of ideas. >> laura: of those words so dangerous! the university actually offered -- i kid you not -- counseling to students who might be upset even at the mention of the thought of his appearance. he looks like an unsuspecting guy to me. let's ask the man himself. appearing on the angle exclusively in a new segment we are calling "back-to-school." kind of a rodney dangerfield thing. did you traumatize snowflakes on campus tonight? you look so just innocent and nice, and they seemed very upset about the prospect of your arriving. you are in the stores campus, correct? >> that's right.

it was very intimidating. beneath this innocuous exterior it lies the heart of a monster. i jumped into the audience, i ripped at least one guy's throat out. in actuality none of those things happened of course. this is what's so funny. this is the last campus where they had to bring out dozens of security members, dozens of cops, the stadiums were's more on-call apparently because of what happened when lucian came to speak. that's not rare. what i was at berkeley they had to bring hundreds of police officers. when i was at northwestern they bound the public from coming. when i was at the university of wisconsin of the front of the stage was taken over. when i was at cal state a near riot broke out. tonight was actually relatively calm. i think a lot of that had to do with the fact that the university really did its job and getting a lot of security out there. it's cold, these are fair weather protesters. they will not show up when it's 30 degrees. part of it too i think is that the number of people who are

allowed and is limited. if you are from an outside group you weren't allowed to come even though there were all the security offices available. >> laura: was a packed out? was at a full auditorium? >> they could have given us bigger space. if there were about 500 seats, all of them full. but they did prevent people wanting to come in from the outside. i was told by the college republicans there were another 6-700 people who were turned away. if you were a tax paying member of the public they wouldn't allow you. >> laura: new song like donald trump. i had 700 people outside and they couldn't get in. i'm just teasing. there were 10,000 people outsid outside! we have a clip -- we have a clip of a student who actually wanted to get in tonight. let's watch. >> they basically said that there's open seats and also unclaimed wristbands, they will still not let us in to the actual event. >> did they tell you why? >> no. they just said they are not the people to talk to. there's nobody that will come in and talk to us and even if there

is somebody inside there that could help us or could kind of sort this out, they are not going to come out and talk to us. >> what you make of that? >> they want us to go to this event. >> why? >> because it's been shapiro. >> laura: i couldn't tell her my clip or by the look of the guy whether he was a friend or a foe. i was guessing foe but then at the end i said friend. i couldn't really tell. but apparently -- they were like poor people want to come in, you can't go! at some point -- two of my brothers went to uconn so i know the campus. it was a long time ago but i know it quite well. it can't be that scary for them just to hear a conservative speak. it can't possibly. >> i don't think that it is. as i said in the speech, if you actually have to go seek mental health counseling because we have that i'm coming to campus, you probably need to seek mental health counseling for a number of of other issues that they have. at the security is the new way that censorship is taking place.

as i've said, there are a bunch of campus is now where says we are happy to have the speaker, but we're not going to allow people to come and actually have this. that's what happened at berkeley. they rolled out the top half of the theater and prevented people who came same-day from attendin attending. it's not restricted to me, it's happening for a bunch of conservative speakers around the country all in the name of safety. anita hill spoke at uconn last week and it was completely open to the public. all we need to have as a few leftists who are nasty and make threats and then presumably the entire public is barred from coming in the name of safety, of course. >> laura: it's like obamacare. you have access to care in theory, but you don't really have care. you are there, but you can't really hear you. i just have to re-event, i was like crying laughing, the diversity officer at uconn. in her letter that just went out before your speech -- we understand even the thought of an individual coming to campus with the views that mr. shapiro expresses can be concerning and

even hurtful. please utilize the many campus resources available if you should want to talk through your feelings about this issue, including my office, the cultural center dean of students. i want to go pay her a visit and say i've had a tough day today and i really need just a hug. i just need a hug. you look good. you look like you had fun tonight. >> it was fun. and i will say this, there is no more useless title on campus than chief diversity officer, whose entire job is just to pretend a bunch of people who are too weak need to actually defend a point of view. >> laura: great to talk to you. if by the way, the department of justice is demanding congressman devin nunes not released a memo alleging surveillance abuses by the obama era fbi. i wonder why. house intel committee member and

♪ take off for mexico with expedia. ♪ one click gives you access to discounts on thousands of hotels, cars and things to do. like the fairmont mayakoba for 59% off. ♪ everything you need to go. ♪ expedia.

>> laura: really quick addendum from the previous tour we just covered. my friend gordon, a freshman at uconn just said i wasn't able to get into the shapiro event either. everyone wanted to go. more conservatives on campus than people think. thank you. by the way, the justice department is asking to see a memo reportedly outlining serious wrongdoing at the fbi and justice department under president obama. house intel chairman devin nunes is taking steps to declassify the memo summarizing the findings of his russian investigation. a letter from the justice department charges that it would be extraordinary reckless tonight to release the memo without first giving the doj and fbi at the to review it. let's sort this all out with someone who has read the memo, congressman peter king of new york. i thought you were going to be here with me tonight, congressman who serves on the intel committee. great to see you, how are you doing? >> i'm doing great, laura, how are you? >> laura: i'm great. what does the justice department and the fbi, they are suddenly all squarely about the release

of this memo, what goes on? >> it's a four-page memo put together by a very talented professional staff are on the committee, reviewed by all the republican members, made available to all members of the committee and voted out of the committee last week to be made available to all the members of the house. if the findings very, very significant. i believe terrible mistakes, deliberate wrongdoing at high levels. right now the justice department -- what devin nunes plans on doing because over 200 members of the house looked at it, only about ten democrats, by the way. there is a climber by the public to see the memo. we will make sure there is nothing in there -- that is pretty much finished. if that will be done and then we will vote this week on releasing it. at that stage if we get a majority vote, which we will, it will go to the president of the united states. he will decide if it can be made public or not. if it does it will be made known to the public. this letter for the justice department. i have great respect for the fbi.

i generally have great respect for the justice department. but we have gotten almost no cooperation from them at all over the last several months. we had to go to court to get documents we were entitled to. a long hard fight to get basic documents that we have an absolute right to see. we gave them this memo, but they would do, passed out all the friends in the media to tear it down before it even gets out there. everything that's in that memo is from the justice department. information we have found. there's no surprises there for them, they just want to be ready to attack it and they want to attack it. make a preemptive attack on him. we are not going to let them. i have spoken to his staff people and he fully intends to go ahead. we are not going to show it to the justice department. >> laura: knowing what you know now, you have read the memo, you've seen the evidence so far, do you have faith as of now in the upcoming results of this investigation knowing what you know now and what you've seen? >> i've sat through i don't know whether it's hundreds of hours -- i've been in there for probably 20 witnesses who have

come before a committee and all of the major ones, i have sat there for seven, eight, nine hours. all the big names you've heard about. i've been there for that. i have not heard one word yet indicating any collusion. i don't know if bob mueller has anything else, but he is talking to many of the same people. if they come out with any finding of collusion at all based on what i've heard, then i would say they are not doing the job. on the other hand, i think right now i believe the president's lawyers feel this going in the right direction with all the improprieties that went on, the fact that this investigation, i believe, should never have been started in the first place. i look upon it either intentionally or unintentionally as a hit job. the facts are that you have the leading law enforcement organization in the world investigating a presidential candidate based on the flimsiest of evidence. i wouldn't even call it evidence. at the flimsiest rumors, that's what this was based on and that's a terrible precedent to set. you could do that to any candidate if you wanted to. when you bring the fbi into a

political campaign, it's wrong. >> laura: i want to play for you a cliff i watched this afternoon of a former rnc chief, michael steele. he was on msnbc and he was criticizing congress and anyone in the media who would cast dispersions on the fbi here. let's watch. >> we have now set up a wholesale operation between the white house and capitol hill to sully the reputation of good men and women worked inside the fbi because of, as you noted, some emails. yes they are problematic, but let the appropriate authorities ferret that out. to do what they are doing, the end game they are playing right now, what they don't seem to understand, it could blow up in their face just as much is a good sully the fbi. >> laura: response, congressman? >> we are talking about a handful of people at the top. if the fbi is an outstanding organization. people at the top who have not served the fbi well. i would say the rank and file of the fbi, they are concerned.

i've heard from retired fbi people who are shocked about what's coming out. to me the emails and text messages, that's important. that's really just an indication of this investigation from the start. it should never have been started. it's based on a false premise and its continuing right through whether we're talking with the fbi, cia and others. this to me has all been a concerted effort to go after donald trump. a lot of reasons you could disagree with donald trump, but to say he was colluding with the enemy when there is no evidence there, to me is shameful. i think it's significant that now it's being leaked to "the new york times." talking about obstruction of deafness. six months after the campaign was over. >> laura: executrix. we noticed the leaking right as things started turning really good for trump. the economy and the shutdown and then all the leaks came from the mueller team. thank you so much, great segment. by the way, president trump makes a crucial decision on how to deal with the russian investigation, but roger stone says it's exactly the wrong move. he will tell us why come right

back after this

>> laura: as we mentioned earlier president trump said today he would be willing to answer questions from special counsel bob mueller. but trump's longtime confidant and former advisor roger stone says is it a try. roger joins us from fort lauderdale to explain. roger, i bet you love tearing the president just ripped today about no problem, i will come and have a cup of coffee, unload

my burden. how could this possibly be a trap, mueller wants the best for the president. >> it's understandable why the president's is confident. he knows he's done nothing wrong. a first year law student would tell you that this is an obvious perjury trap that robert mueller is taking advantage of the president's loquacious nurse, never a man who suffers from a paucity of words. what is absolutely clear is that mr. mueller has no evidence of russian collusion, so now we are all the way cycled back around to the dismissal of mr. comey. he seeks to entrap the president in some kind of process crime, perjury, or obstruction. therefore, the best advice that i could give the president, and i agree with judge andrew napolitano on this is that under no circumstances should he grant mr. mueller an

interview. it is a suicide mission. it's a very clear perjury trap. >> laura: lawrence walsh's invents investigation of iran contra, the special counsel there, walsh agreed not to interview president reagan in person, they submitted -- the president responded to the written interrogatories and that's how it went down. here with the president of the star, special counsel, they have the videotaped testimony and so forth. it's kind of a different precedent, but what if they agreed to a narrow pathway, a narrow perimeter you were only going to ask about these two things. in a normal grand jury or normal interview setting for a normal client, no lawyer would allow you to go in, they would say where -- we will talk, but only about these two topics. what about narrowing the confines of the questions? >> traditionally if the information can be gotten

otherwise, the president would not be interviewed. a perfectly reasonable compromise to avoid a constitutional crisis would be for mr. mueller to submit written questions and for the president to respond to them in writing. i don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with that. but for the president to walk into the blade, as it were and to try to pretend that mueller and his band of partisan pirates are just honest brokers, honest prosecutors just trying to ferret out the truth is disproved by everything we know so far. now with an extraordinary number of text messages from the fbi going missing, i'm old enough to remember when 18 and a half minutes of nixon's white house tapes went missing and the mainstream media and the liberals went insane. where is that outrage today? if nothing, that proves the partisan nature of this inquiry

and the fact that the department of justice under rod rosenstein, who i have advocated the president fire immediately for his conflict of interest, is not on the level. >> laura: john hughes said earlier today the following about what the president should do and how we should consider it. let's watch. >> actually think president trump should welcome the opportunity to speak to mueller and try to accelerate it because after he's done that will wrap up mueller's probe. >> laura: i assume you disagree with that. >> spoken like the neocon bush-ite he is. i think that's naive. i think that's all the president's lawyers are selling this to the president. but these are the same lawyers who urged him to waive executive privilege and turnover all records depending on the impartiality and the lack of virus of robert mueller. it is a foolhardy piece of advice. it is a suicide mission.

under no circumstances should the president grant mueller a live interview. clearly there is a compromise. let them submit questions in writing, let the president respond in writing. >> laura: i think he could've done better than ty cobb and john dowd. he needed his own dream team and eight he needed to raise the council bar. take you so much. terrific appearance as always. president trump give surprising remarks on dreamers today. lindsey graham is a little too

>> laura: president trump today announced that he would be willing to consider citizenship for daca recipients over a period of maybe 10-12 years if he gets legislation with strong border including funding for the wall, as well to an end to chain migration and an end of the visa lottery system. do you hear that, lindsay? the white house clarified that the citizenship offer would only apply to the 800,000 illegal immigrants enrolled in daca and that they would have to meet certain conditions. amnesty supporters welcome to the president's statements. the matter lindsey graham was practically doing the snoopy dance. there he is. he said today with this strong

statement by president trump i have never felt better about our chances of finding a solution on immigration. do not try to co-op co-op's so. meanwhile earlier this week we told about hhs, it's still using taxpayer dollars to shuttle illegal immigrants across the country. that's fun. a lawsuit now could determine whether the federal government has the right to force states to accept refugees for resettlement and whether the feds are responsible for the state of this financial burden. if the states that are accepting them. a lot of news on this front. don barnett just published a report on that subject of the refugees for the center for immigration studies. he joins us now from denver. there's so much immigration news. let's focus for a moment on the refugee issue. i have friends up in vermont and the burlington area, and they say that people arrive in burlington who are refugees and no one in that community is even told about it. they just kind of show up and show up at the public schools and the residents of the last to

know. what's going on? >> that's exactly right. there is virtually no consultation with state authorities about where refugees will be resettled, or little. there is some, but it's inadequate. no provisions for the costs that the refugees bring to the local communities. >> laura: i have a question, how did they choose which localities get the refugees? it seems like we have an overload of refugees into places, maine and minneapolis-st. paul. it's kind of the same latitude. the maniacs in the minnesota people, they are wild. i don't understand this people. i love them, but they are a little crazy. that's why i like them. there's a lot there, a lot of somalis in both places. omaha has a lot. northern virginia has quite a few refugees. do they throw a dart at the map? how did they figure this out? >> basically it's run by private

nonprofits, and they set up shop in effect where welfare is the most generous, where jobs are available. in the case of maine, most of the refugees that are in maine arrive there after they arrive somewhere else. they first arrived in atlanta and then they moved to maine because it was better. maine, interestingly enough, is a state that has tried to get out of refugee settlement. has officially withdrawn. >> laura: they don't want any problem with it. welfare gains, housing. huge cost to the state. sorry to interrupt here, but when you think about the refugees from, let's say northern africa, and they are relocated to minnesota or maine or wherever the catholic charities, or lutheran group, they are getting money from the feds. assimilation has got to be a little bit trying in certain states, in certain climates, correct? >> yes, it's a very big issue.

and the engagement with the refugee is very short. 3-8 months and it is simply inadequate. if there is no assimilation. assimilation is, as a matter of fact, not in the lexicon anymore. there's not even an attempt. >> laura: the idea of the melting pot, you will come and be american. they just smashed the pot in the water goes everywhere. it's wild. thanks for that information. we will stay on this topic, because a lot of you want to hear from it, and we will be on it. do not go away, we have a lot more to get to on "the ingraham angl are you taking the tissue test? yep, and my teeth are yellow. time for whitestrips. crest glamorous white whitestrips are the only ada-accepted whitening strips proven to be safe and effective. and they whiten 25x better than a leading whitening toothpaste. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life. stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs.

then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com

start winning today. pssst. what? i switched to geico and got more. more savings on car insurance? a-ha. and an award-winning mobile app. that is more. oh, there's more. mobile id cards, emergency roadside service... more technology. i can even add a new driver... ...right from her phone! geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more. >> laura: before we go, i would like to congratulate my friend, alex lazar, just confirmed by the senate today as the new secretary of health and human services. he's come a long way. deputy secretary under george bush, george w. bush,

supervising all of hhs operations and he's manned the $1 trillion budget and then he went on to be the president of lilly usa, the largest division of eli lilly and general council. he clerked for justice scalia and went to dartmouth college. congrats. that is us for -- that is it for us tonight. shannon bream takes it. >> shannon: pretty impressive. >> laura: take care. >> shannon: here is what we have coming up tonight. president trump said he's looking forward to speaking with robert mueller's team under oath. ed henry is tracking the latest developments, as concerns grow about a so-called secret society of top fbi and dod officials. some believe are committed to bringing down the president. plus illegal immigrants tell chuck schumer. colorado republican senate cory gardner a key member of the negotiation joins us live with the debate over