i'm not going to talk about ivanka trump and her emails until somebody shows me that what she did not anywhere even close to what hillary clinton did. >> sean: checkmate. that is all the time we have, will always be fair and balanced. mike huckabee is filling in for laura. you did a great job last week. it is great to see a governor and it is always good to see yo you. >> mike: thank you sean. have a great thanksgiving, it is a pleasure to be here. >> sean: here's the thing, remember when the media was questioning whether sarah, your daughter makes pies? i know for a fact she does. in a matter of fact, i wish i was at your house eating them. >> mike: i can attest to the fact that she makes them when they are fantastic. it is a typical souther woman, never question the authenticity of a southern woman's pipe. spew and i agree. by the way, who would want that job? she doesn't amazing job every

day. thank you governor, have a great holiday. >> mike: good evening everyone. i'm in for laura ingraham tonight and this is "the ingram angle." a big show you for you tonight at the white house press corps, the war with the trump administration might just backfire. in a moment we will show how two recent decisions showed a new reality to the media. plus, the president is under siege over critics to his response to be saudi arabia killing of jamal khasoggi. an all-star foreign policy panel will tell us why. but first. >> the witch hunt has been going on forever. no collusion, no nothing. they finish them yesterday. the lawyers have them. i assume they will turn them into a or soon. >> mike: shortly after the president deliver that statement on his way, it was indeed

confirmed that the president and his attorney officially responded to special counsel robert mueller's theme. read giuliani added, it is been our position from the outset much of what has been asked raised serious constitutional questions and was beyond the scope of the legitimate inquiry. this remains our position today. so, is this probe now finally, finally on its last leg? for more on what the white house is thinking tonight, we go live to kevin corke was traveling with the president in palm beach. kevin, i know you are suffering in palm beach. tell us what's up. >> what he could i do about it? great to be with you, wonderful to have you on the program. happy thanksgiving and certainly your family. i can just tell you this, the white house remains resolute and determined that this probe is going to end one way or the other, sooner preferably than later. i can also tell you that they continue to insist that there

was never any russian collusion. we've talked about that at length. the obvious question becomes, what happens as we move into the next phase with the special counsel? the ball is clearly in robert mueller's court and there are frankly a number of different directions he could choose to go. despite the white house has prostration, this probe will continue until it reaches a natural and or the acting ag puts the brakes on it. the question becomes, where we go from here? he will review the president's answers that you just talked about and could simply ask for more information. they could review those answers again and then prepared to simply disclose the report that we'll figure is just about wrapped up. meanwhile, he could compare his answers to other respondents that is where things could get a little interesting if not thorny. ultimately, the nuclear option they could choose to subpoena the president of the united states. let's be clear about this, sources tell fox news that while

the president's legal team remains open, i'm using air quotes to a possible set down with the special counsel. no one, repeat no one, believes that will happen without a subpoena. even if it were to happen, there is no question, it would spark a constitutional crisis. something will be keeping a very close eye on. for now, enjoy the holiday week. >> mike: thank you kevin. you enjoy your thanksgiving as well. even in palm beach. well here with moore, john sayle, he served as special assistant counsel at the watergate trial, he was mike at juan williams, cohost of the five and the former secret service agent in hoechst. john, want to start with you. we have these answers. they been submitted. is there a timeline that you can sort of give us an insight into? >> nobody has a timeline but i

think -- let's put it in context, i don't think and i argued it in an article i wrote in the hill, i don't to be special counsel is entitled to any answers from a person they are investigating. i represent people all the time were being investigated. we never give a statement and prosecutors to their job. they continue with their investigation they draw their conclusions without the benefit of answers from the president they are investigating. i think you're getting more than they ordinarily would end in this case you can write a report. the office of legal counsel has had they cannot indict the presidents. after over a year, after over a million documents, after 35 witnesses with the president did not assert any privilege. it is not time for them to write the report and let the public opinion decide whether or not there was collusion? >> okay, onto her to give me the country or an opinion on why they should keep going on and on with the energizer bunny.

>> no mike. i am all for wrapping it up. obviously this is not of the lands that we saw in terms of prior prosecutors investigating come of those go on for five years or more. we're coming up on two years. i don't think that is the reason. i would prefer given that we will see a lot of excitement around the 2020 election, somehow this gets out of the way. i prefer that. i will say that i was taken aback by the effort by rudy giuliani, the president's lawyer to limit the scope of the investigation by saying, we are not going to answer any questions about obstruction. i heard what was being said, we don't have to answer anything. that is fine but the president has long said that he has nothing to hide. the later issue is, "the new york times" wrote a story say the president was suggesting to the white house counsel that somehow the department of justice go after jim comey. go after hillary clinton, in other words, punish as political

opponents. boy, that seems like obstruction. i don't know anything about what is in the mueller report. i don't know about collusion, i don't have any evidence. that sure strikes me as a man who is trying to obstruct an investigation because he worries that he is in deep water. >> dan, if that happened, my gosh that would be as bad as when obama went after people through the irs and the justice department. we had wiretaps on james rosen and has parents in the associated press. do your point about limitation of the investigation, let's talk about that. as i recall the only thing that was supposed to be investigated was whether or not donald trump colluded with russia. that was the limitation of the investigation. this thing has continued to go on and on. i would like you to weigh in and tell me. if that is a limitation, is this about over?

>> i always enjoy the company of my good friend and you, i don't know how you said that with a straight face. are you seriously making the case that targeting your political opponents which was in that "new york times" story is all of the sudden this malicious thing while simultaneously we know the trauma team was spied on by the obama administration. juan. >> we know that in fact, when trump said there was a wiretap. everyone said that is not true. >> juan, do know the name stephan? he was a ca asset that was utilized against a trump team. you know i know that? he actually emailed people in the administration. i don't know if you miss that. that is out there. he was outed in "the new york times" with a said everything but his name. i just find it bizarre that you would say, oh, my gosh, this is offensive.

trump allegedly targeted his political opponents as you completely ignore the fact that the obama administration actually did target their political opponents. that is not open for disputes. >> hold on, i think what you are saying is that when the obama administration knew of russia interfering in 2016, they may have approved somebody saying, what is going on here? that is not punishing your opponent. that to someone in office acting like an authoritarian. they are obstructing the criminal justice to go after your political opponent. >> juan, listen. you're just familiar with the details of the case. the deputy director of the fbi himself said there would've been no pressure collusion case without the dossier. the dossier has been debunked. none of it is true. it is nonsense. >> mike: i'm going to have to jump in. i'm doing this immensely. juan, dan, i've enjoyed this

immensely. want to thank you for being here. i had to to let you go. thank you. i'm going to turn out to the ongoing battle between cnn and the white house. cnn celebrated their legal victory when jim acosta got his press pass reinstated. does it mean for everyone else? byron york writing yesterday, the decision could make it easier for white house officials to kick reporters out. joining me now to discuss his former white house secretary, sean spicer. along with former ronald reagan aid and author of the forthcoming book, small pores. jeffrey lord. gentlemen, let's talk about the new rules the white house has laid out for reporters. will they be followed by acosta and his colleagues? is the white house going to need to come up with three strikes and you're out plan. what is your view on this new

announcement? >> it is great to see you. i talked about this and my podcast with kellyanne conway. this is a discussion about content versus conduct. i think there is a very capable press secretary that is able to discern the difference of 22. no one has a question about the content of any reporter's question. they can ask whatever they want. their conduct is what is in question. that is what the judge ruled. will he behave in a way that is professional? will the respect not just the office but their fellow reporters? that is what this comes down to. there is a great price secretary now. you may know her. she knows how to call balls and strikes. there is a president who knows i do understand that as well. this is what it comes down to. for other organizations, no names mentioned, you may guess them are trying to blur the lines is the question about what the content is. no one cares what the reporter

asks. they can ask whatever questions they want. with that these reporters conduct themselves, did they conduct themselves and show respect not only the fellow reporters but to the president? that is what is in question. >> mike: jeffrey, the judge ruled in a rather narrow way that he did not say the first amendment was in any way being attacked by jim acosta losing his past. it was the process was not fully visible to the world. therefore his fifth amendment issue was the only one. they celebrated as if somehow they had taken a stand for democracy. i don't remember any of the mainstream media being that clever, clear and honest about what that that ruling was. >> you are absolutely right. sean has had the nail on the head. this is about contact. not about content. the last couple of days we have heard from garrett from cbs.

the obama days he was the white house correspondent for fox. no one remembers him acting like jim acosta. that is because he didn't. there was a deep way way to do. this is totally unprofessional stuff. i think that cnn has to be very careful here of what they wish for. if there's going to be a set of rules and regulations, the good press secretary that sarah is, she will call them out. one other thing, i took a quick look back at a memory from childhood. jfk's press conferences. he had adversarial reporters. they were so well mannered. it is beyond belief. we've gone so far down the path and in the wrong direction with the staff. it is almost unbelievable and i think cnn and jim acosta will come to to a credit and so will their compadres in the room.

>> i want to know your thoughts on the thought that the white house correspondent association is not going to have a comedian wrote the media next year, which is known as the annual nerd prom. instead they will have broad turn now be the featured speaker to put some perspective on today's politics. last year speaker, michelle wolf tweeted this in response. she said, the white house correspondent association are cowards. the media is complicit. i couldn't be prouder. first of all, match or they had a comedian last year. that michelle wolf and she just wasn't funny. sean, what is your response to the fact that the correspondents association for the first time in decades has decided that they're not going to have that kind of lack of political humor? >> here's my response, i applaud olivia knox and the white house correspondent association for doing this. they want to have a dinner that celebrates the first amendment.

it actually shows that that is what their intent is. i applaud them for it. last year they wanted to have a comedian and they talked about how this comedian, michelle wolf would conduct herself and talk about the first amendment. it wasn't. it was rude, it was disgusting. i think for them to at least acknowledge the fact that they want to talk about the first amendment and have a historian do it. i don't know what they will talk about, but at least their intent is right. i will give them credit for that. last year's dinner was disgusting. what i thought was more appalling about the dinner and anything is that they branded it as the first amendments. the comedian, if that's what you call her, wasn't that. no one in the white house correspondent, cnn, nbc, said anything about this person conducted themselves in the spirit of the first amendments. to see them at least acknowledge that that wasn't the right

direction is at least something that i want to applaud and say, at least you got the message. >> mike: we will see how it works out. jeffrey, sean, great to have you both. happy thanksgiving. >> thank you governor . >> mike: straight ahead, his critics are lashing out over his response for saudi arabia and the killing of jamal khasoggi. up next, our panel will explain why he might have sided with the lesser of two evils. today... back pain can't win. now introducing aleve back and muscle pain. only aleve targets tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve back & muscle. all day strong. all day long.

if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first. so you don't die waiting. upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. find out more and get out of line today.

[ready forngs ] christmas? no, it's way too early to be annoyed by christmas. you just need some holiday spirit! that's it! this feud just went mobile. with xfinity xfi you get the best wifi experience at home. and with xfinity mobile, you get the best wireless coverage for your phone. ...you're about to find out! you don't even know where i live... hello! see the grinch in theaters by saying "get grinch tickets" into your xfinity x1 voice remote. a guy just dropped this off. he-he-he-he. ♪ >> the fact is maybe he did and may be didn't. we are with saudi arabia. we are staying with them. just so everyone knows, i have no business with saudi arabia. it is all about for me --

it is america first. saudi arabia, if we broke with them your oil prices would go through the roof. i've kept them down. it is a very simple equation for me. i'm about to make america great again. i'm about america first. >> mike: that was a president earlier today addressing his decision not to further punish saudi arabia after the killing of jamal khasoggi. for more on what the white house and the critics are saying tonight, let's go to christian fisher, she is left in washington. >> president trump says there'll be no further repercussions against saudi arabia because he believes a good u.s., saudi arabia relationship is important. he's putting business opportunities and security alliances over this. the murder of journalist jamal khasoggi. the decision comes despite a report that the cia believes the crown prince did order the killing. president trump said today, he is tended by the saudis. here's why. >> i'll not tell the country

that spending hundreds of billions of dollars, keep oil prices down so that they're not going to a hundred dollars a barrel. i'm not going to destroy the world's economy and i'm not going to destroy the economy for our country by being foolish with saudi arabia. >> decision is being denounced by members of both parties on capitol hill. even by some of his closest allies. lindsey graham said, i fully realized that the deal with bad actors on the international stage, however when we lose our moral voice, we lose our strongest asset. rand paul said, this statement is saudi arabia first and not america first. in that statement president trump said the congress is free to go in a different direction if it so chooses. tonight, he said that he believes there will be strong bipartisan support for serious sanctions again saudi arabia >> mike: thank you.

joining me now with reaction, the foreign policy advisor from donald trump's 2016 campaign. the former obama campaign advisor and former state department official. as well as rebecca heinrichs, senior fellow at the hudson institute. let's talk about this. good or bad move on the president's part? >> i think the president is basically telling us that the national security, the interest of the united states tells us that we need to maintain the strategic relationship with saudi arabia. the same time, there needs to be an investigation. i think if you want to be fair around the world, that investigation should be comprehensive. if there are other crimes, we've heard that before. on the one hand, maintaining the relationship with the saudis to contain the iranians and to make sure we are continuing to fight against the jihadists and nicest of the right thing to do. investigation should be separate from politics and go all the wa

way. >> rebecca it seems that this can't be a binary choice. it is not the saudis are the iranians. if something does something bad, even if they are our friends, but we need to do something saying that this has to be scarcely dealt with? a systematic murder of journalist, that is pretty serious. >> the president actually is being prudent here. it is not a binary choice. we have sanctions, 17 saudis. they have identified is responsible for his death. the president has decided that we have to look at the context. that does security relationship to the united states and saudi arabia. there are couple of major things we have to keep in mind. saudi arabia is critically important for the global energy market. even as the u.s. becomes energy independent, our allies to rely on petroleum that comes from saudi arabia. especially as we sanction iran, we need that oil. saudi arabia also helps us keep

in those points open. the iranians don't have a monopoly on those. again, their help in the united states and pushing back iranian aggression generally in the region. it is a critical relationship. i think the president really threads the needle carefully and balancing the human rights concern. of khashoggi's murder and taking into consideration, the priority which is the security of americans. >> mike: he is not the first president was had a personal relationship with the saudis. to my knowledge, all the presidents, democrats and republicans have a too cozy with the saudis. >> mike: even after 9/11 we didn't call their hand after the rally was that they were highly connected to the folks were guilty of 9/11. as president trumps any different than the other presidents? to my client democrat and repub.

>> that is a fair criticism against seller presidents. this was a serious provocation. the world is watching to see what america is going to do. what america needs to do is do things. we have to send a message to the world that we won't tolerate this kind of behavior and there will be repercussions for it. at the same time, we have to preserve our alliance with saudi arabia because it is important. to punish them and make them say they are sorry and make them do things they will never do this again so other countries also don't do it, but also preserve that alliance. that is important. president trump was doing an okay job of that but it went off the rails today with his public statements. you saw some of them in the previous reporting period he also put out a written statement. looks like he wrote it himself. it starts out saying that the world is a dangerous place. that is not an appropriate way to start a foreign policy statements. it sounds like he is saying, he can protect us from the types of thugs that saudi arabia has sent to kill this journalist,

khashoggi. that is not appropriate. american values are not for sale. you heard him say it is important that we sell arms to saudi arabia, that was to not from human rights for that is not right. he needs to go back to the original attack, we will punish them but we will preserve a relationship with the king. we will encourage them to make sure everyone who is responsibl responsible, no matter how high it goes up, everyone who is responsible is punished. >> mike: i did some quick answers from each of you. what are the presidents options? what should he do? if you're whispering in his year, what would you tell them? >> it is very simple. on one hand, continue with the investigation. we've had these in the past like with the killing of the former prime minister of lebanon. we have to be very serious of these investigations. these sanctions should target those who are responsible enough to engage in geopolitical mistakes by engaging more

influence of the iron and yemen or another part of the region. for to be very careful. distinguishing between the legal process and a geo political process. >> mike: rebecca, very quickly. a simple answer. does this hurt the president with members of his own party? >> i don't think that it showed. he is being completely realistic with the cards that he has been dealt. he will continue to pressure them privately and we should continue to hope and push that the prince moves towards reform. he has shown an interest in having a softening relationship with israel. that is a critical ally. we need to continue that. >> mike: david, is this a good or bad message to the iranians? >> the iranians like kids. they want to see a division between saudi arabia and the u.s. we have to shut that we are going to keep that alliance in place we are going to continue to confront iran but we are going to curb this contact. let's see what our cia says.

the presidential work with her intelligent agency and with congress to come up with a resolution that is going to punish saudi arabia serve the alliance. >> mike: thank you all. have a great thanksgiving. coming up, the small handful of leftists making decisions that adversely affect all of america? we to here how an obama judge has an asylum claim. that debate is coming up next. >> people should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and foul a case. it is a disgrace. in my opinion, it is a disgrace. ♪

♪ >> you go to the ninth circuit and it is a disgrace. i'm going to put in a major complaint. you cannot win if you are asked.

i think it is a disgrace. this was an obama judge. i tell you what, it is not going to happen like this anymore. >> mike: there was president trump taking aim at the liberal circuit and one judge in particular. u.s. district judge, john tiger was nominated by president obama back in 2012. judge tiger issued a nationwide injunction against trump's newly announced emergency restrictions on asylum claims. this means anyone seeking asylum can do it anywhere they want. instead of the port of entry that the troubled administration sought to instructed two. the debate, for francisco hernandez and arthur from the center of immigration studies. let's start with you. this is saying, come on in any way you can. that seems a little dangerous. to sort of change the rules of help people seeking asylum get into the country.

>> it is the danger that judge tiger ignores. in fact, he seems to be completely unaware of the danger that exist for people who enter the united states illegally. 60% of those individuals are assaulted in that trip. one-third of all women are sexually assaulted during the trip. right through mexico into the united states to enter illegally. with the trump administration is attempting to do is just waiting individuals from doing that. to have an orderly process by which individuals go to ports of entry. for some reason, he has said, individuals were entering the united states illegally have some right to enter the united states illegally or at least the trauma administration hasn't acted properly in constraining them from doing so. >> that is absolutely incorrect, that is not true. it happens to be the law. if he doesn't like it, why doesn't he get congress to do

the reform that he has promised for two years? >> mike: hold on guys. if it is the law then isn't the law that you have to go through a port of entry? it is not the law that if you want to go into a country that there are processes to legally immigrate? francisco, i believe that there ought to be a legal immigration policy. i am for immigration. i met against it. i am even for asylum for people who are truly in danger. this is not what we are talking about. we are talking about people just showing up. how do you respond to that? >> they still have to make a claim. after past the threshold, the burden of proof to have the opportunity for political asylum. the people making the evaluations, they are employees of the state department. it doesn't mean they get political silence because they crossed and a legal point of entry for nonport of entry. it doesn't matter.

it is the same. the people who are evaluating our employees are president trump. it does make a difference. they still do show up. >> they don't have a right -- they have a right to apply for asylum but they don't have eligibility for asylum. once he trump administration intends to do is to restrict the ability. people who committed crimes from applying from asylum. >> they can come illegally through port of entry anyway. it doesn't matter if they line up. they will not be let in any way until they are hard on their political asylum claims. by the way -- >> we can allow them to enter in an orderly fashion. we don't have an hiring squad. we may for limiting the number of people.

>> mike: let me weigh in here. francisco. let me ask you this, for a person shows up, you say it doesn't have to be a port of entry anywhere. they say, i need asylum. if that is the case, where are they held until this investigation happens? do let them roam freely in the country? where they held without the criticism that they are being held illegally or unlawfully? >> in order for them to make a claim of political asylum they have to go to an immigration official and stake their claim. even if they cross in a nonport of entry, i still have to go through it official. if they go through a legal point of entry, there is no mechanism or they can come in legally anyway. that is the misconception that we are operating under. they cannot! >> there is no misconception.

they can allege -- they can assert credible fear if they go. they are found to have a credible fear than they are placed in removal proceedings and they can make an application for asylum. that is exactly the trump order says. >> the law says it doesn't matter where, even if they come in for my nonlegal port of entry for this dog to go through immigration officer to make their claim otherwise they can never apply. >> they couldn't apply. >> mike: excuse me. shouldn't it troubles all that a judge, a single federal judge decides for the entire nation that she is just going to upland the elected presidents policy? >> he did not append it. >> mike: i wish i could spend more time.

we have to go. i am so sorry. we will try to do it next time. up next, laura recently spoke to a uc berkeley student about how she's been targeted for a christian beliefs. this after she dared speaking about lgbtq rights. this is a can't-miss. coming up next. >> i don't see a concept between loving you and not being agreeable with how you identify yourself sexually

>> mike: simply daring to dissent, our next gas has had our campus life destroyed. a student center at berkeley got kicked out of her own party and is being pressured to resign because of her religious views. her crime? she simply abstain from a largely symbolic student vote on october 31st because she didn't fully agree with certain clauses inside the pro-lgbtq bills. as a result, she got labeled homophobic. transphobic. even though she didn't even oppose the final vote. lohr had the opportunity to speak with her, let's watch >> take us through these last few weeks. we want to establish what happens. this is a student government, kind of proclamation stating what exactly?

>> the main bill that i obtained from a post terms proposed reform to title ix. specifically one clause where a person's gender is defined as a person's biological. the bill that i obtained from, not only did it say we support freedom from discrimination and harassment. especially lgbtq individuals. at the end there clauses that asked me to promote and lgbtq identity and lifestyle, whose primary purpose is to promote the lgbtq entity. i said because of my christian views and because i represent the christian community, i cannot fully support this. >> for that, being a christian and being unapologetic. you were labeled some pretty terrible things. the daily californian's are the

following. she made transphobic and homophobic statements during a meeting, publicly dismissing the identities of individuals on campus. her language erased and dehumanized individuals et cetera. how do you respond to that? do you dehumanize people because of your faith? >> all that you go back to my originally statement on the senate floor on october 31st. what i said was, i think that discrimination and harassment is never okay. where i cross a line between oregon protect and work and promote your identity is a very fine line for me. my response is, i don't see a conflict between being able to accept love and validate you as an individual and yet not fully agreeing with how you choose to identify yourself sexually. >> i get that.

it's a simple understanding here. they are asking you to promote something that is contrary to your fundamental religious belief. >> exactly. >> requiring you to worship at the altar of something that you don't believe in. it is as simple as that. whether it is a proclamation or what he said on october 30 30t, this is happening across society. if you -- you try to be, no one's perfect. if you try to live your faith in you believe your faith as however you view the bible. and it is contrary to whatever prevailing norm is at this point popular. you were labeled a hater, transphobic, homophobic, they want to shut you down.

now you are dehumanize. what they are accusing you of, they are now doing to you, requiring you to resign from your various positions. we have no position on campus and be reviled and for that, we're supposed to give them like two thumbs up? don't understand how that is diversity today. >> i can't tell you how many times i've been called the f word and purpose online, social media, on the senate floor. other slurs that i don't want to repeat on camera. >> when you say i love all people but you don't agree with everything i believe in, i don't agree with everything you believe in. if you call yourself, love you as a person. doesn't mean i have to validate you do. just like you wouldn't force them to belief in something that they wouldn't believe in. that is the freedom of conscious thing. i thought.

>> where they are coming from, because we can't understand how you can love and not accept our identity, were going to say your words are completely worthless. we are just to take your words, you are a hater. >> it is meant to shut down speech. this is my point. are you getting any support on campus? >> i've gotten encouraging prayers from the christian community. i've gotten encourage and support from conservative groups on campus. besides that, students are afraid to speak out. even if they support. >> exactly. everyone is afraid. if you are in the military and he believed a certain thing that is not popular, you can speak out. if you are in business, having for bed you speak out. if you give a donation to a group, they label you as a hater. you are afraid. everyone is afraid. that is not a free society.

that does not truly a free society. after say, i don't care what your belief is. if your question, atheist, you've a right to speak out and to have your views respected on college campuses. the university says that the student government is autonomous. it is that correct? don't you guys get money from the university? >> that is correct. our money comes in student fees. we manage about $1.5 million. >> okay! i making a legal points. i know dylan is representing you. that is a connection. they can say all they want. we believe in free speech for all people, if an individual has a right to free speech is being denied and if you are being punished for what you believe. i think university is in a heap of legal trouble. i think you are incredibly brav brave. it is not easy.

feminist should be supporting you. all the pro-women, pro-choice people. they should be supporting you. you are speaking your conscious. we really appreciate you coming on tonight. we will be following this case very closely. you have a great lawyer, that is for sure. >> thank you so much. speak to a great report by laura. last night she brought you the outrageous story about hollywood peg legs and how they are considering a boycott of the entire state of georgia. all because brian camp on the clippers race race. up next, antonio jr. sounds out on his fellow tensile toners. stay with us for this.

>> mike: georgia has become a major hollywood production plac place. hollywood actors are claiming they will start a boycott of georgia. because stacy abrams lost an election. this is where we are headed. this is not where we are headed, this is where we are. they refused to accept the results of an election. this means the people of the state of georgia are blanket racist. >> mike: hollywood sought to inject themselves into the georgia race with appearances from the likes of oprah and will ferrell. and now after the loss they are calling for a mass boycott the full state. is he just laid out, taxpayers in that state subsidized a large chunk of hollywood's assets and this action is only likely to hurt the people at the bottom. people that have jobs in the film industry and georgia. actor, antonio jr. i'm delighted to have you with

me. i don't think this decision set well with you, did it? >> no it does not. they are amazing people. i love the people i'm surrounded with. the cruise, the makeup artists, transportation. you have to take all those jobs away the working people in georgia? by the way, they are generating billions of dollars because of the tax write-offs which they should do here in california but they will never do it. these people and hollywood have the guts to say this. they are selfish for themselves. they don't care about america. they don't care about this country and it is a shame. they passed it used to be a lot different. i will set up for that. i am a conservative. i believe in god. i believe the future is better than the past. we have a lot of work to do. these people have to stay away. georgia is doing phenomenal. i give them so much credit. because the republican leaders are taking care of the people they should do it here in california but that is a whole

different story. i'm upset. they travel in private jets, they have all this. people are working for them. production companies in georgia, they need jobs and they need to work. >> mike: it is interesting. even stacy abrams who lost the race, not very gingerly by the way. she has not been very statesmanlike and the defeat. even she said that the boycott is absurd. we have a statement by a top leader, his name is dustin lewis. i want us to take a look at this. i think it is pretty powerful. he says this, this boycott is about to make my head explode. alyssa milano, run pearl. instead of hurting all of us who have families and careers here, join us in fighting. killing our livelihood is a slap in the face to your fellow artists. i think i just kind of exactly

what you are saying. this is about the folks who work behind the scenes, whose name may get rolled on a credit. these are the folks who have to feed their families and food on the table. >> absolutely. look what they've done to me. they blacklisted me and i worked in the business for 30 years. my father is an actor. i love what i do. because i represent the republican party, i am a conservative. i've been tossed on the sideline. you can speak. it is blacklisted into a level that i have never seen before. it is happening right here. it is unfair. we are supposed to live in the greatest country in the world we are free to speak our minds. disagreements are fine, not to this level. i've never seen so much hate coming from hollywood my entire life. we had obama running this country into the ground for eight years, we didn't talk about this. we didn't complain every day. we didn't call people names will trip up really badly every single day. went on with their lives.

>> mike: we are going to run out of time. before we do, i have to ask you about your thoughts on the anti-trump actor, jim carrey. he claimed that trump is a melanoma and that anyone who covers for him including sarah sanders is putting makeup on it. there is a deeper problem for this country and the problem is greed. most people know that sarah sanders as my daughter. i don't need to defend her. she is capable of defending herself against canadian comedians whose biggest movie was dumb and dumber. what is your reaction to jim carrey? >> all have to say right now, i'm close to, i pray for these people. i pray for them and i hope everything will be okay. we have defined peace and love. we have a president running this country, we have to support him. if we support our troops. we have homelessness, people addicted to drugs left and right. we have so much to do and this

is the last thing we have to worry about. i gave your daughter credit for all the hard work she does. and right with you on everything. >> mike: thank you very much. have you have a wonderful thanksgiving. it is an honor and a pleasure. we will be right back with the last bite. ♪ when heartburn hits... fight back fast with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue... and neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪ tum tum tum tum... smoothies... only from tums

it time for the last bite. it's the moment we have been waiting for, which bird will president trump pardon for thanksgiving? >> today is a and a guest of honor is named pease and his alternate name, carrots. this was a fair election. unfortunate unfortunately, peaso concede and was fighting with carrots. carrots, i am sorry to tell you, the result did not change. >> mike: that is all the time we have for tonight but before i go, make sure to check out my brand-new book, "rare, medium, or done well. making the most of your life." it is not a cookbook or a political book but it has the endorsements of people as far to the left as a van jones and do the right as robert jefferson.

it's an inspiration read it just in time for christmas available online and in bookstores everywhere, and i hope you will catch my weekend show, saturday, sunday, 8:00 and 11:00 eastern. good night from orlando. >> shannon: since that is not a cooking book, i will give it a try. thanks, governor. welcome to "fox news @ night." i am shannon bream in washington. breaking news tonight on multiple fronts, president trump says he is putting america first by not breaking ties with saudi arabia with the gruesome murder of jamal khashoggi. we are alive with analysis. and several legal stories breaking tonight. are top notch attorneys will debate first. president trump vowing action against the ninth circuit court of appeals after a lower court judge their strikes down yet another decision. he calls the court of a disgrace and a rubber stamp from his political enemies. also tonight, a major milestone