when it was subpoenaed. i'm not going to talk about ivanka trump and her emails until somebody shows me that what she did got anywhere close to what hillary clinton did. >> sean: checkmate. that is all the time we have, we 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 you governor and it is always good to see 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 and they are fantastic. pie, never question the authenticity of a southern woman's pie. >> sean: i agree.

by the way, who would want that job? she does an amazing job every day. thank you governor, have a great holiday. >> mike: good evening everyone. i'm mike huckabee and 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 show a new reality to the media. plus, the president is under siege over critics to his response to be saudi arabia -- to the saudi arabia killing of jamal khashoggi. 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 finished them yesterday. the lawyers have them. i assume they will turn them in today or soon. >> mike: shortly after the president delivered that statement, it was indeed

confirmed that the president and his attorney officially responded to special counsel robert mueller's team. rudy giuliani added, it has 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 who is traveling with the president in palm beach. kevin, i know you are suffering in palm beach. tell us what's up. >> what are you going to do about it? great to be with you, wonderful to have you on the program. happy thanksgiving to you 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's frustration, this probe will continue until it reaches a natural end or the acting ag puts the brakes on it. the question becomes, where do we go from here? he could 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 prepare to simply disclose the report that we all 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 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 sit 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 we 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 more, john sayle, he served as special assistant counsel at the watergate trial, also with me, juan williams, cohost of the five and the former secret service agent and host. john, i 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 think the special counsel is entitled to any answers from a person they are investigating. i represent people all the time who are being investigated. we never give a statement and prosecutors do their job. they continue with their investigation, they draw their conclusions without the benefit of answers from the person they are investigating. i think you're getting more than they ordinarily would and in this case they can write a report. the office of legal counsel has said they cannot indict the president. after over a year, after over a million documents, after 35 witnesses, 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, juan, giving the

contrarian opinion on why they should keep going on and on like the energizer bunny. >> no, mike. i am all for wrapping it up. obviously this is not of the lens that we saw in terms of prior prosecutors investigating presidents, 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, you 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 saying 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 his 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 of that in front of me. 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. when he had wiretaps on james rosen and his parents in the associated press. to juan's point about the 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, isn't this about over? >> i always enjoy the company of my good friend and juan, 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 trump team was spied on by the obama administration? juan. >> we know that in fact, when on trump tower, everyone said that is not true. >> juan, do you know the name stephan? he was a cia asset that was utilized against the trump team. you know how i know that? he actually emailed people in the administration. i don't know if you missed that.

but that is out there. he was outed in "the new york times" where they 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 oppone you completely ignore the fact that the obama administration actually did target their political opponents. that is not open for dispute. >> 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 is someone in office acting like an authoritarian. they are obstructing the criminal justice to go after your political opponent. >> juan, listen. you're just not familiar with the details of the case. the deputy director of the fbi himself said there would've been no that russia 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 enjoying this immensely. juan, dan, i've enjoyed this immensely. i want to thank you for being here. i have 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. what 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 press secretary, sean spicer. along with former ronald reagan aide and author of the forthcoming book, "swamp wars," jeffrey lord. gentlemen, let's talk about the new rule 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 in 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 between the two. no one has a question about the content of any reporter's question. they can ask whatever they want. but their conduct is what is in question. that is what the judge ruled. will he behave in a way that is professional? will he respect not just the office but fellow reporters? that is what this comes down to. there is a great press 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 they 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. how 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: jeff, 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 pass. it was that 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 ruling was. >> you are absolutely right. sean has hit the nail on the head. this is about conduct. not about content. the last couple of days we have heard from major garrett from cbs. in 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 way to do this. sean has been the white house press secretary. 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 this stuff. it is almost unbelievable and i think cnn and jim acosta will

come to a regret it and so will their comrades in the room. >> i want to know your thoughts on the white house correspondent association, it's not going to have a comedian with the media next year, which is known as the annual nerd prom. instead they will have rod chernow 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, i am not sure they had a comedian last year. they had 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 than anything is that they branded it as a celebration for the first amendment. 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

conducting themselves in the spirit of the first amendment. 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, trump's critics are lashing out over his response to saudi arabia in the killing of jamal khashoggi. up next, our panel will explain why he might have sided with the lesser of two evils.

>> 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 --

very simple. 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 make america great again. i'm about america first. >> mike: that was the president earlier today addressing his decision not to further punish saudi arabia after the killing of jamal khashoggi. for more on what the white house and the critics are saying tonight, let's go to christian fisher, she is live 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 khashoggi. the decision comes despite a report that the cia believes the crown prince did order the killing. president trump said today, he is standing 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. >> the decision is being denounced by members of both parties on capitol hill. even by some of his closest allies. lindsey graham said, i fully realize we have to 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, graham 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 to 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 high interest of the united states tells us that we need to maintain the strategic relationship with saudi arabia. at 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. all the way. if there are other crimes, we've heard that before. on the one hand, maintaining the strategic relationship with the saudis to contain the iranians and to make sure we are

continuing to fight against the jihadists and isis is the right thing to do. the investigation should be separate from politics and go all the way. >> mike: rebecca, it seems that this can't be a binary choice. it is not the saudis are the iranians. if someone does something bad, even if they are our friends, we need to do something saying that this has to be seriously 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 as 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 still rely on petroleum that comes from saudi arabia. especially as we sanction iran, we need that oil.

saudi arabia also helps us keep those points open. the iranians don't have a monopoly on those. again, their helping the united states in pushing back iranian aggression generally in the region. it is a critical relationship. i think the president really threaded the needle carefully in balancing the human rights concern. of khashoggi's murder and taking into consideration, the priority which is the security of americans. >> mike: david, is not the first president who has had a personal relationship with the saudis. to my knowledge, all the presidents, democrats and republicans, have been too cozy with the saudis. >> mike: even after 9/11 we didn't call their hand after the reality was that they were highly connected to the folks who were guilty of 9/11. is president trump any different

than the other presidents? democrat and republican. >> that is a fair criticism against all of our 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 -- two 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 and that 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. he also put out a written statement. it 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 statement. it sounds like he is saying, he can't 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 trump say it is more important that we sell arms to saudi arabia, that was not that we stand up for human rights, 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 responsible, no matter how high it goes up, everyone who is responsible is punished. >> mike: i need some quick answers from each of you. what are the presidents options? what should he do? if you were whispering in his ear, what would you tell him? >> it is very simple. on one hand, continue with the investigations. we've had these in the past like with the killing of the former prime minister of lebanon. we have to be very serious with these investigations. these sanctions should target

those who are responsible and not engage in geopolitical mistakes by engaging more influence on iran and yemen or another part of the region. we have 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 should. he is being completely realistic with the cards that he has been dealt. he should 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. pressure where we can so that it's useful. >> mike: david, is this a good or bad message to the iranians? >> the iranians like this. they want to see a division between saudi arabia and the u.s. we have to show 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 president should work with our intelligence agency and with congress to come up with a resolution that is going to punish saudi arabia and serve the alliance. >> mike: thank you all. have a great thanksgiving. coming up, should a small handful of leftists be making decisions that adversely affect all of america? wait until you hear how an obama judge has just uprooted president trump on an asylum claim. that debate is coming up next. >> people should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and file a case. it is a disgrace. in my opinion, it is a disgrace. what happened with the ninth circuit.

♪ >> you go to the ninth circuit and it is a disgrace. i'm going to put i >> 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're in the ninth circuit. 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: that 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 trump administration sought to restrict it to. 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 how 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 exists for people who enter the united states illegally. 60% of those individuals were assaulted on that trip. one-third of all women are sexually assaulted during the trip. right through mexico into the united states to enter illegally. what 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 trimp 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 it the law that you have to go through a port of entry? isn't it 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 am not 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. past the threshold. the burden of proof to have the opportunity for political asylum. the people making the evaluation, they are employees of the state department. it doesn't mean they get

political asylum because they crossed an illegal point of entry or nonport of entry. it doesn't matter. it is the same. the people who are evaluating our employees of 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. what the trump administration intends to do is to restrict the ability. people who committed crimes from applying from asylum. >> they can't come illegally through port of entry anyway. it doesn't matter if they line up. they will not be let in anyway 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 be limiting the number of people.

>> mike: let me weigh in here. francisco. let me ask you this, if 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 you let them roam freely in the country? where are 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 state their claim. even if they cross in a nonport of entry, they still have to go through it official. if they go through a legal point of entry, there is no mechanism where 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 to a port of entry. 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 what the trump order says. >> the law says it doesn't matter where, even if they come in through a nonlegal port of entry. they still have to go through the immigration officer to make their claim, otherwise they can never apply. >> they couldn't apply. >> mike: excuse me. shouldn't it trouble us all that a judge, a single federal judge, decides for the entire nation

that he is just going to upend the elected president's 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 her christian beliefs. this after she dared speaking about lgbtq rights. this is a can't-miss. coming up next. >> i don't see a conflict between loving and honoring someone and not being agreeable with how you identify yourself sexually.

♪ 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

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

>> the main bill that i abstained from, a proposed reform to title ix. specifically one clause where a person's gender is defined as a person's biological sex. the bill that i abstained from, not only did it say we support freedom from discrimination and harassment. especially lgbtq individuals. at the end the clauses that asked me to promote lgbtq identity and lifestyles, whose primary purpose is to promote the lgbtq identity. 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 said the following.

isabella chow 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? >> i would like to go back to my original 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 where i can protect 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 you said on october 30th, it's as simple as that. my problem with this is, this is happening across society. you try to be, no one's perfect. if you try to live your faith and you believe your faith as however you view the bible. and it is contrary to whatever prevailing norm is at this point popular. then you are labeled a hater. transphobic, homophobic, they want to shut you down.

now you are dehumanized. what they are accusing you of, they are now doing to you, requiring you to resign from your various positions. have no position on campus and be reviled and for that, we're supposed to give them like two thumbs up? i don't understand how that is diversity today. >> i can't tell you how many times i've been called the f word 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. but i love all people. if you call yourself gay, i love you as a person. it doesn't mean i have to validate everything you do. just like you wouldn't force them to believe in something that they wouldn't believe in.

that is the whole freedom of conscious thing. i thought. >> where they are coming from, because you 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 encouraging support from conservative groups on campus. besides that, students are afraid to speak out. even if they support it. >> exactly. everyone is afraid. if you are in the military and you believe a certain thing that is not popular, you can't speak out. if you are in business, heaven forbid 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 is not truly a free society. i have to say, i don't care what your belief is. if you're a christian, 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. 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 am making a legal point. i know dylan is representing you. that is a connection. they can say all they want. we believe in free speech for all people, but if one individual's right to free

speech is being denied and if you are being punished for what you believe. i think the university is in a heap of legal trouble. i think you are incredibly brave. it is not easy. feminists 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. >> mike: a great report by laura. last night she brought you the outrageous story about hollywood wigs and how they are considering a boycott of the entire state of georgia. all because brian kemp won the governor's race. up next, antonio jr. sounds off against his fellow tinsel towners. stay with us for this. this isn't just any moving day.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

>> mike: georgia has become a

major hollywood production place. because they have been given tax breaks. 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 refuse to accept the results of an election. this means the people of the state of georgia are blanket racists. >> 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 of the whole state. as you 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 in georgia. actor, antonio jr.

i'm delighted to have you with me. i don't think this decision sat well with you, did it? >> no it did not. these production companies that are working there, these are amazing people. i love the people i'm surrounded with. the crews, the makeup artists, transportation. you won't 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. in the past it used to be a lot different. i will stand 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

in georgia. 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 in the defeat. even she said that the boycott is absurd. we have a statement by a tweeter, 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 georgia crap is about to make my head explode. alyssa milano, 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 that is 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 have worked in the business for 30 years. my father was an actor. i love what i do. but because i represent the republican party, i am a conservative. i've been tossed on the sideline. you can't speak. it is blacklisting to 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 where 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. when 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 or treat people really badly every single day.

we went on with our 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. a hollywood reporter says that during a panel discussion, 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 is 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 i have to say right now, i'm close to jesus, i pray for these people. i pray for them and i hope everything will be okay. we have to find peace and love. we have a president running this country, we have to support him. we've got to support our country. we've got to 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 give you and your daughter credit for all the hard work you're doing. and i am right there 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. ..

>> time for the last bite. the moment we have been waiting for, which bird will donald trump arden for thanksgiving? the results are in. >> today's lucky bird and guest of honor is named peas, along with his alternate name, carrots. this is was a fair election but unfortunately carrots refused to concede and demanded a recount and we are still fighting with carrots. i tell you we have come to a conclusion, carrots, i'm sorry to tell you the result did not change. >> that is all-time we have got tonight. check out a brand-new book, rare medium or done well, making the most of your life. it is not a political book.

it is the kind of read that has endorsements from people as far to the left is van jones and to the right as robert jefferson, and inspiration read in time for christmas available online and in bookstores everywhere. i hope you catch my weekend show huckabee saturday, sunday, 8:00, 11:00 eastern, good night from orlando. shannon bream. shannon: since it is not a cooking book i will give it a try. welcome to fox news at night. breaking news tonight on multiple fronts donald trump putting america first by not breaking ties with saudi arabia. general jack keane live with analysis, several legal stories, in debate first. donald trump valley action against the ninth circuit, another trump immigration decision is struck down. he calls