>> bret: whoa. just hit him. thanks for inviting us into your home tonight. that's it for this "special report." fair, balanced, not violent, and unafraid. o'reilly is all kinds of fired up. >> laura: "the o'reilly factor" is on. tonight: >> we're in the shadow of the world trade center we believe that ahmed was truly innocent. >> a major defeat for the obama administration. a former gitmo detainee is acquitted of 284 counts. and convicted of just one. so should other terror big shots get the same rights as all americans? we'll debate it. >> if you ran for president, could you beat barack obama? >> i believe so. >> sarah palin says she could

beat barack obama if she runs for president. but will she? >> there is a little bug inside of me which wants to get the fcc to say to fox, msnbc, off, on, end, goodbye. >> fox news under attack, this time from a u.s. senator and a big vote today on if npr should keep getting government money. we'll tell you what happened. >> caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone, the factor begins right now. ♪ >> laura: hi, everyone, i'm laura ingraham in tonight for bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us. the ghailani terror trial travesty. that's the subject of this evening's talking points memo. yesterday a new york federal court acquitted ahmed ghailani who was at the center of the 1998 african embassy bombings on

284 of 285 terror-related charges. he was found guilty on one count of conspiracy to damage or destroy u.s. property. this simply put is insane. ghailani is the first gitmo detainee to be tried in federal criminal court. and the obama administration hopes that a sweeping guilty verdict would help clear the way for other gitmo inmates, such as the beloved khalid sheikh mohammed to be tried in federal court. but if the president is honest here and if he truly puts american security first, he will now admit that trying major terror figures in open federal court is wrong and potentially dangerous. military tribunals are far more effective use for these cases because of the sensitive intelligence involved and their less stringent admissibility rules. one key witness was excluded by the judge because his identity was discovered through enhanced interrogation techniques. consider the evidence presented to the jury.

ghailani purchased the flammable gas that made the bombs more deadly. he stored the electric detonator. he provided the cell phone to the suicide bomber in tanzania. and he was pals with al qaeda operatives and the other convicted bombers and, by the way, he spent time at their safe house. yet, for all of, this he was convicted of merely conspiring to blow up a government building but not for the murders of the 224 people, including 12 americans, who were in the building. this is mind boggling. it's inconceivable that things would have gone this way in a military tribunal. state department spokesman p.j. crowley says that the verdict shows that, quote, america practices what it preaches. through a transparent legal system. what's transparent is that liberal legal agendas of the president and his attorney general eric holder have paved the way for terror defendants to game the system. and, excuse me, if i'm not

sharing ghailani's 20-to life sentence. this man should have been convicted and executed years ago. that's the memo. now for the top story tonight reaction. joining us from new york is scott fenstermaker a criminal defense attorney who has represented several alleged terrorists and here in washington nancy sewedder burg a former ambassador to the united nations and author of the book the prosperity agenda. great to see you and have you here. obviously this is a big deal and big case. for people who forget about what happened that august day in 1998, this is one eyewitness account. this is nairobi kenya, the site of the bombing. the whole back side of the chancery was in rubble. in the back parking lot there were wrecks of several vehicles ablaze, charred corpses. their hands outstretched in what was like a last futile sumly occasion to ward off their demise strewn about. one man staggered about silently left side of his face ripped away. strips of flesh hanging from his

bones. i won't go into more of it but it's devastating. scott, let's start with you because you represented some of these alleged terrorists in the past and you think the system, whether it's federal court or a military tribunal, it's all unfair, right? >> i agree with that, yes, that's correct. >> laura: so what exactly would you do when osama bin laden was captured? >> i think it's very unlikely that mr. bin laden is ever going to be captured because is he far more valuable to the united states government at liberty than he is being captured. >> laura: you think jewish judges are the problems, right? i saw some of your comments about the jews and they are the judges and so somehow muslims can't get a fair trial you? are way out there on this issue? >> i don't know that you saw any of my comments saying anything about jewish judges. i will say that the demographics of the judges being selectside remarkably consistent. i didn't say that jewish judges were the problems at all. i know many fine jewish judges. >> laura: in this case you belief that this individual

defendant should have been, what? just released? he only got convicted of one count. >> mr. ghailani should have been released many years ago, yes. >> laura: okay. so nancy sodderburg, i imagine you are not where he is that this individual should have been released. >> those responsible for blowing up our two embassies in august of '98 should be broad to justice. 22 have been charged with that crime. four are already in jail. this is the fifth. you have to remember we have already been trying these in the manhattan federal court. >> laura: that was before the military tribunal commission proposal -- >> -- but it's been going on since 2001 when the first four were brought to justice there are another 13 out there that we're trying to catch. we will catch them. we will convict them. you have to remember what's going on here. >> laura: yeah. >> this is someone who went around buying stuff as you listed there. >> laura: do you think he should have been -- let's back back bottom line. he was convicted of one count of killing 12 americans murdered, nancy. how can we sit by and say the system worked. did the system work? >> the system worked. this guy is going to spend the rest of his life in jail.

>> laura: that worked? avenged the death of americans killed in kenya and tanzania. >> is he going to spend the rest of his life in jail. there probably would have no different outcome had this been in a military tribunal. >> laura: you don't know that. >> neither do you. >> laura: key evidence was not admitted into federal court, nancy. >> there is no doubt that it would have been in a military tribunal either. >> laura: this is an argument i don't understand. >> let me just say. the misperception that the witness wasn't allowed because of classified because of torture involved. the guy is going to be put in jail for the rest of his life. lawyer law you are satisfied. >> of course i would love to have him convicted on everything that's the emotion. >> laura: nothing but victory in this case was going to be acceptable. is this victory for the american people. >> it would have been a lot less fodder for the p.r. machines if every single count that the administration brought was conviction. the point is he was convicted. this is a guy who went around

trying to buy stuff to help blow up americans. he is caught and going to spend the rest of his life in jail. doesn't mean it is easy. >> laura: by the skin of his teeth. what if he is acquitted. >> the other 13 out there are not acquitted. >> laura: this gets to the point though, nancy, what if he were acquitted. >> it would be horrible. a travesty of justice. he is going to jail. >> laura: there is no chance he would have been acquitted in a military tribunal. >> no military trial aorta. >> laura: 2 5 count. to recent doing their job here. >> i haven't seen the counts. we are tracking every single one of those guys who blew up our embassies in 1998 and all 22 of them are going to be rotting for the rest of their lives in jail. that's justice. that's good. >> laura: i think the american people are so not where you are on this. i mean, they are not where you are. they want these people dealt with and dealt with without our security and our intelligence being compromised. that's what they are concerned about. because they are not -- not able

to put on the evidence that you would normally put on in a military tribunal. if you are saying that you are going to get great justice and great outcome anyway, then do it in a military tribunal. >> american people have to understand that military trials are sources of justice at all. it's not clear it would have been any different. >> laura: have to get to scott fenstermaker. scott, if you had your way today as a criminal defense attorney, would you basically just said that everyone at gitmo should be released? >> yes. >> laura: and blood on the hands of, whom? >> i don't believe there is blood on the hands of anyone at guantanamo bay. the justice that mr. ghailani received was corrupted and no human being should face the process that either mr. ghailani or his former colleagues at guantanamo bay should face. i mean, it was the defense attorneys were selected by the united states government. and judge caplin was hand picked for this case so that

mr. ghailani would serve the rest of his life in jail notwithstanding the fact -- >> laura: what country has a better system than ours. >> the issue is not whether the other countries has a better system. the issue is whether our country's system is good. >> laura: no has done anything wrong period in the eyes plaintiff finester maker. >> that's not what i said. that is not what i said. >> laura: all at gitmo should be released and let them go. >> when the process is corrupted they should be released, yeah. >> laura: what's corruptside a way of looking at this and not remembering those charred bodies and those american lives. >> mr. ghailani had nothing to do with that ma'am. he had nothing to do with that. >> laura: is he was a naive boy who thought he was buying horse wash. >> that's what the jurors think. the people who heard the evidence think. >> laura: you don't know the case that never went to the jury. coming up next, is eric holder putting americans in danger by giving jihadist the same rights as american citizens. do american muslims feel bad that islamic extremist have made life holly hell for everyone including muslims who want to get on a plane these days?

we'll ask that question coming up. this year chevrolet gave us legendary dependability, innovative tecology, and inspired design. and now, they want to give as much as they can to as many as possible. your chevy dealer is giving back to the community. come see how chevy is giving more. right now, get no monthly payments till spring plus 0% apr financing and fifteen hundred dollars holiday allowance on most chevy models. see how your dealer is giving at faceook.com/chevrolet.

>> laura: continuing now with our lead story on the decision by the attorney general, eric holder, to treat jihadist ahmed ghailani like a common criminal. back in 2009, mr. holder thought civilian courts would work out just fine. >> what i told the prosecutors and what i will tell you and

what i spoke to them about is that failure is not an option. failure is not an option. these are cases that have to be won. i don't expect that we will have a contrary result. >> laura: the question now is will he reconsider that statement after the ghailani verdict? joining us from dallas, u.c. berkeley law professor john ewe who worked for the justice department during the bush administration, professor yu. it's great to see you. you heard my discussion with the former ambassador to the united nations nancy sodderberg and the criminal defense attorney. first, to this issue that, look, well, you know, these guys are serving time and long distances and he could very well be in jail for life. so the system works. so let's do it in the civilian court system. how do you answer that? >> first of all, let's just be conscious that the attorney general and the justice department are really lucky that they even got one conviction out

of the 200 and some counts. they just got lucky. that doesn't tell us anything about whether these courts are going to be useful for the harder cases that are coming down the line like khalid sheikh mohammed the actual mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. whether they convict people or not in the end is not the most important issue. the most important issue is how is this going to help us take the fight to al qaeda and better win the war we are in right now and protect the nation's security? i'm afraid that the attorney general and president obama want to take us back to the failed policies of september 10th, 2001, using law enforcement and using the civilian justice system we saw is not going to deter terrorists. it's only good after the terrorists attacks occur as in this case and we find them after the fact. the system we want is one that's going to help us find and catch them and stop the attacks before they happen. i'm afraid the civilian justice system can't do that because it's going to require the revelation of lots of secrets and lots of operational details that can hurt us in the war

right now. >> laura: professor yoo, i think what's going on here is the kind of stuff you and i saw in law scho all the academic debates all these liberals say we have got to show the world we are better than that i think they prefer the civilian trials because it's more likely that the terrorists will be able to gain -- game the system and maybe expose what they think is some vulnerability in the american system. i know that sounds really harsh, but if your argument is that the civilian trials are just as effective and put people away for as long, then why the big opposition to the military trials? to me, it doesn't really make much sense. >> it is really hard to see what the upside is here to having civil i can't be trials. we have military commissions. they have been used for hundreds of years to try members of the enemy for war crimes. congress has supported them and blessed them. our greatest presidents have used them during war. why turn to the civilian justice system? i worry that it's because president obama's administration want to win popularity contests with the rest of the world.

they want us to be liked around the world. they seem to think whether we use our own civilian justice system the enemy same rights our own citizens get. it's not going to help us with the hard problems of terrorism, north north korea or iran. weird view about this. >> laura: this idea we need to be loved by the world. we need to be secure. first and foremost we need to be secure as a nation. we can't take any risks. we can't say oh well at least it's one count. that's not justice done. not for those 1 americans whose bodies were pulled out of that rubble charred and their last breath gasping in the smoke of those horrific bombings. i want to put up the -- this is just. so imagery this which is disturbing. i want to put up this full screen. judge lewis addressed the jury after their verdict was handed down and this is what he said.

professor yoo, what do you make of that statement that he made? a little reading between the lines? a little editorializing by the way a clinton appointee to the federal bench. >> i'm afraid that the obama administration, eric holder, and this judge want to use civilian trials as some kind of way to show opposition to the last administration or to show how they are really good people that other countries ought to cooperate with. it doesn't work. the first thing we should be worried about is winning the war in afghanistan, winning the war in iraq. and winning the war against al qaeda. if we have to use law enforcement methods in civilian trials do we want our soldiers running around and collecting evidence in the field and taking witness statements. it's not compatible with taking the fight to the enemy. >> laura: you don't want them worrying about whether this evidence is going to be admissible in court. you can't conduct a war against the enemy that way. professor yoo as always, thanks so much. directly ahead. >> thanks, laura.

>> laura: some american muslims want special treatment from the t.s.a. when they get on airplanes. a muslim civil rights group is going to explain. later, a democratic senator wants to shut down fox news. what am i going to do for work? al sharpton wants the obama administration to use the fcc to silence conservative critics. and we have got it all on tape. please stay tuned. we're still on the air for those reports.

>> laura: in the factor follow up segment tonight as we have been reporting this week the t.s.a. is implementing this new invasive body search procedure and body scans at the airports. many people are sick of it including me. surprising twist some of the most outspoken complaints are coming from the muslim

community. the council on american islamic relations are basically telling followers how to opt out of some of the screening and they also want the t.s.a. to give special treatment to some muslims. here to define that special treatment is zarha billou who is a spokeswoman for cair and she joins us from san francisco. it's good to have you on. i was looking at some of the cair recommendations to travelers across the united states. and here is one of the things they say to the women there. they say well, before you're patted down, if you are a muslim woman and you are flying, you should remind t.s.a. officers that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, that means your head and neck. they should not subject you to full body or partial body patdown and you can request to pat down your own scarf and your own head and neck area. that's kind of like a self-exam, right? how does that work? i'm going to feel myself on my

groin. i don't even want to go there but you know what i'm saying. a little odd. >> thanks for having me, laura. i want to say that we have looked at that line and we know that it can be misconstrued as that, like asking for special exemption. we are actually working with the t.s.a. to clarify that. and what, you know, what it essentially is intended to convey is that if you are signaled for secondary screening, because of the bulky clothing policy, and that bulky clothing that you are wearing is your head scarf, then the pat down should be limited to the head scarf. that's t.s.a. policy. if i'm wearing pants like everyone else walking through the metal detector you don't need to pat down my legs. you should pat down my head. we recognize that but at the same time t.s.a.'s own policy allow for individuals to pat their own heads down. >> laura: i'm talking about the opt out of the body scanner x-ray. the full body scan. i'm sure have you seen the photos. i mean, i have had people call into my radio show. their children. >> people are upset. >> laura: it is just a nightmare. >> people are very upset about

those. it's not just passengers. >> laura: my question to you is, isn't this kind of what cair wanted? i mean, you wanted to one to be profiled, right? nobody can be profiled country of origin, background. i have had a lot of cair folks on my show. >> no, absolutely. >> laura: so now everyone is basically profiled. everyone is subjected to these screenings techniques. >> that was never our response. our response was never let's bring a security state into the airports like let's make it a police stake. behavioral profiling works. these scanners don't do that cair isn't the only one objecting to it you have pilot unions objecting and flight attendants doctors, nurses, people are objecting in large scale. they are dangerous. they don't make us any safer and not a -- >> laura: i'm not a fan. i'm not going through the scanner machines. i don't trust the radiation level thing. i don't think we should add more radiation we don't have to add. the idea though that members of the muslim community should be

able to pat themselves down, this is a cair language. i'm reading from cair's own language. how do you pat yourself down. >> that's specific only to the bulky head wear clothing. >> laura: why should you be allowed if i had a bulky head scarf on i wouldn't be able to pat myself down. >> no. that's not specifically a cair line. that's a t.s.a. policy. >> laura: it's a stupid policy. >> they are permitted to pat your head down. they watch you do it and then they swab your hands. >> laura: i have a question. this is going to seem really odd. when you go through screening and you are in your full robe, i'm not sure what you call the thing around your neck. you are going through t.s.a. >> right. >> laura: do you take everything off through the x-ray machine? or no? >> i take my shoes off, i take jackets off. i go through the same process everyone else does. the only thing that stays on is a head scarf. >> laura: do they make you take your neck covering off. >> no. if the neck covering is attached to the head scarf it stays on.

if that gets me to secondary screening, then i have the right per t.s.a.'s policies to pat my own head down under their supervision. >> laura: how about your groin area? do you get to pat that down. >> no. all of that remains the same for all passengers. >> laura: that's again sharia law i understand. >> that's also problematic. >> laura: it's against sharia law there is a fatwa out. >> it's against privacy. >> laura: i'm on your side on this. i'm with you. i'm on your side but i don't think. >> this isn't making us any safer. >> laura: special treatment. >> we are not asking for special treatment. we say we want effective security. >> laura: are you on board with the fatwa on this, the cair edict on this? >> the fatwa that i don't want someone seeing my naked body? absolutely. >> laura: okay. we appreciate it. >> i imagine you would agree on that as well, laura. >> laura: believe me, i don't even want to go there thank you very much. plenty more ahead as the factor moves along this evening. coming up, a democratic senator wants to shut down fox news. that's an original concept.

and republicans are pushing the to cut the funding for npr. and then far left billionaire george soros may look elsewhere if president obama doesn't shape up. we're going to tell you what he is up to. all coming up. stay tuned.

>> laura: in the impact segment tonight, after the far left took a beating from american voters a few weeks ago, it looks as if they might try to get a little revenge on their critics. here is what the reverend al sharpton is saying. >> the fcc must step in and deal with standards on how to give station clearances to people that just want to race bait. this is not about opinions. it's not about what you or i say or our college speeches or churches. this is on federally regulated airways that the fcc gives the license to stations to let them do this. >> laura: perhaps more troubling, listen to what democratic senator jay rockefeller said yesterday at a

congressional hearing. >> i hunger for quality news. i'm tired of the right and the left. there is a little bug inside of me which wants to get the fcc to say to fox and to msnbc out, off, end, god by. >> laura: all of you must go to a reeducation camp, now. all of you. guy, it's great to see you. with us now is fox news contributor steven hayes from phoenix doug schoen a fox news contributor and author of the book "mad as hell, how the tea party movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system." mr. hayes, clearly, this network is the problem in america. it's popular. it has huge ratings. got great permanents -- personalities on it obviously people like it. shut it down. >> that's precisely the problem that jay rockefeller has on it is that fox's viewership is growing in a strong way. harvard to know what's more

outrageous the fact that he doesn't know the f.c.c. doesn't regulate cable or the fact that he is putting himself on a pedestal and trying to. >> laura: elite. >> trying to lecture us about proper political discourse. if you go back and look at the things he has said over the years where he has directly contradicted things he has said before, misrepresented himself several times on several different occasions, including national security, this someone of the last people in america who should be lecturing anybody on improving political discourse. >> laura: when i think of regular person, the name rockefeller comes up. doug, we always get to this point, right? when conservatives are making inroads, politically or culturally, instead of making substantive argument, trying to defeat them substantively, let's get the fairness doctrine take them off the air. fox must be shut down. it's stalinist and subject gaght and dominating tactic and transparent. it shows the weekness i believe of what's happening now on the left. >> well, to me it's somebody who was brought up as a first

amendment absolutist. it's as abhorrent that he would criticize and want to de-nude if you will fox news and msnbc simply because what makes this country great, laura, is our diversity of opinion. it happens to be fox news is winning the argument as far as public opinion and viewership. as a contributor, that's good news. but the larger point to me is you want to say that no entity, no government entity should have anything to do with regulating, controlling, or tamping down speech. so i find it very, very discouraging as somebody who is certainly center, has been on the left, just scary. >> laura: doug, for a long time, the blush has been off the rose here for a long time. the left -- in my mind it's never been about free speech unless you are a pornography or burning the american flag then free speech go for it put the

crucifix -- go for it. make the speech for america effectively, steve, then they don't know what to do. >> exactly. >> laura: for sharpton to say race baiters should stay off the airwaves sharpton. rush limbaugh is the king of the media for a reason because he is popular. is he smart and puts on a great show. that's what al sharpton in the end can't stand. >> that's right. look at the number of listeners he has. >> laura: millions. many millions. >> conservatives have been effective getting out their message whether on opinion shows like this one or hannity or what have you or on shows like your, radio shows like yours or like rush's. this is fundamentally the problem much the real disturbing thing, i mean, i have always looked at this as sort of a joke. to me it's like the left wants to say this because it gets their supporters fired up. >> laura: they gets the votes. >> no. this is the point. so i think for years, maybe for decades, this has been, you know, something that's been mutually bev because, you know, talk radio gets concerned about this and their supporters get

fired up. i think you are now at a point when you have people like jay rockefeller and others making these arguments in a serious way when you look what's happened over the past two years that this may not be just a rhetorical argument. that this may actually be something that they would pursue even as you point out in the aftermath of these elections. >> laura: doug, i think that rockefeller threw in the reference to msnbc to try to inoculate himself i think all of them are out of control. obviously with all due respect to my friends and former employer, they don't have the numbers. okay? it's an interesting colorful figures. that's what gets them all of the time is the influence and popularity. they hate that. >> well, i think that's absolutely right. look, fox news won on election day, won overwhelmingly. that scares people. but it should not be a basis to attack fox news, rush limbaugh, or any entity that is providing independent opinion. it's just wrong.

>> laura: how about do -- viewers, get readers, get viewers, get listeners and guess what? if do you a good job and convincing, people will tune in. >> jay rockefeller won't be making that call. >> laura: i need to move to west virginia and run against folk relevant feller. his numbers are numbered perhaps in the political world. sarah palin thinks she can defeat president obama in 2012 if she were to get the g.o.p. nomination. we have a fair and balanced debate about that then george soros is laying out game plan for far left to regain power. that could spell trouble for president obama. president obama. we'll run it all down

>> laura: thanks for staying with us, i'm laura ingraham in for bill o'reilly. in the personal story segment tonight, this week in washington a group of very wealthy, very powerful far left activists got together for a top secret

strategy meeting and they didn't invite me. according to reports uber liberal billionaire george soros made it very clear he is not happy about the shellacking that democrats took at the polls a few weeks ago. so despite the results, mr. soros, however, remains defiant and he says: >> laura: so what's next move for disgruntled liberals in america? joining us from new york is former bush secretary ari fleischer and with us in washington is joe trippi, fox news contributor and former campaign manager for howard dean. gentlemen, great to see you. you know, speaking for the far left today i guess is you, joe trippi. what's going on with soros? he put a lot of money into this election. he is obviously supporting a lot of groups that are helping democrats and they got a pretty big blow out in the house of representatives, at least. do you think is he serious about this? is this like a warning shot to obama? >> maybe, but i think look, what

he is worried about is that obama is going to do what bill clinton did in 1994 when we lost the house and try to start compromising and going down the middle. >> laura: like doing what the american people want? >> exactly. i mean, i think that's what he is concerned about. he wants to run -- you know, he wants it to be a lot different. it didn't work. doesn't think the president president fought hard enough. >> laura: he has a lot of money in this game. we know that the center for american progress which is a group that george soros helped fund very close to the white house, they basically put out a memo yesterday or the day before how the president can use his executive authority to basically do an end run around this new republican-gom nateed house of representatives and, you any, obviously stronger republicans in the senate. they are all scrambling on the left to see how to blunt this effective republicans. are you surprised about this. >> oh, no, i'm not surprised. they want to try to figure out how to go around the will of the election anyway they can.

you talk about disgruntled liberals. that's redundant. they are always grouchy about something. here is the big thing because you ain't seen nothing yet that they are going to be grouchy about. just wait until july of 2011 when the president has to make a decision about withdrawing from afghanistan. i wrote a piece for the "wall street journal" the other week. i said if there is not a meaningful big withdrawal in from afghanistan in july of 11 the movement of the democratic party may well a primary against barack obama. i can't see them winning but boy it's a terrible spot for the president to be going into re-election. >> laura: you are shaking your head. >> that's not going to happen. there are legitimate issues here. if you are extending the bush tax cuts, right? a lot of democrats and progressives like myself would like the fight of tax cuts for -- not extending the tax cuts for the rich. >> laura: it's going to be extended. >> and soros is saying that's what we need. somebody who is going to put that up and fight for it so it's not moving away from where the

american people is. he has to make the fight. >> laura: it's like the conservative base of the republican party which is more the mainstream the republican party today. the left is going to say look, lame duck session, you have got to push the dream act. you have got to push don't ask, don't tell. you have got to give us something before you go down this road of at least i'm going to appear to be working with the republicans. right? those two issues are going to be front and center. >> absolutely, yeah. >> laura: they're going to demand that. >> of course. that's the problem with both parties right now. there are going to be people in there demanding action on things that don't actually match up where people are. >> laura: already for 2012, we knew this would be happening soon. now we have sarah palin out there, right? she does this interview with barbara walters, she said that look, i'm considering running for president. i'm going through the process of thinking about this. and arie fleischer, just her mentioning that she is considering it is driving all of these people on the left to this frothy for instancy.

i love it i love seeing them scatter. >> she does attract ink. i just finished her book too which actually is a great read. what do you expect anybody to say who is thinking about running for president? i may run but i know i'm going to lose? of course she is goings to say that i think it's a wide open question whether she does or doesn't. it looks like this republican field is going to be totally wide open. very contrary to the history of republicans. we almost always appoint who is on deck circle from the previous election. this one wide open. who knows who is going to win it. >> laura: huckabee and palin. they are going to go. >> gingrich looks like he is in. >> trump said today that he might. >> laura: he was good today on china. i love trump on china. is he fantastic. >> what you see by having wide field is sarah palin can get the nomination. she literally can pull it off. >> laura: is this what you are hoping for joe trippi. this is sodium pentothal. >> this is how republicans might

reassure barack obama's re-election. >> laura: you think sarah sarahn is the silver bullet. >> no that might get independent or someone like bloomberg in the race. this thing is going to be a wide open 2012 race right now. and it's not clear where the republicans are going to end up for a nominee. >> laura: arie, you were just at the big bush library dedication. that was a lot of fun and everyone got together and talked. was there any scuttle butt that you can share? you don't have to attribute it to anybody. what do the old bushy's think about the rise of sarah palin and her influence in the republican party? >> you heard sarah palin exciting and people agree with that electoral process too soon to guess. my take is she has a lot to prove before shows presidential mettle. that's what a campaign is looking like. >> i'm looking for brand new face in republican party the ones that intrigue me the most is mitch daniels and john thune.

i'm keeping my eye on those two and see what the other more experienced candidates. >> laura: joe trippi is mumbling something about joe miller over here? >> both of those will be a problem. both of them could be problems for democrats in 2012. >> laura: interesting. great to see you both. fascinating. the more the merrier get into the race. i love it. are congressional democrats streaming at the white house. i mentioned it. we will talk to a congressman who met with president obama on who met with president obama on the issues justñ÷

>> laura: in the book back of the book segment tonight when president obama was elected he promised a comprehensive immigration reform bill also known to some people as amnesty during the first year of his

administration. he failed to get it done so far and the latino community is not happy. this week many of their leaders had a meeting at the white house. so now the president wants the lame duck congress to pass the so-called dream act which would provide amnesty to certain illegal aliens who go to college for a few years or who serve in the military. with us is luis gutierrez who met with president obama about this program on tuesday. congressman, you said on another network that this would be a down payment, that the dream act would be a down payment. tell us about that. >> actually i said it on this network with mr. hemmer. >> laura: he said it twice then. okay. >> i have been around. >> laura: down payment on full amnesty for all people. >> as you suggested we wanted to get comprehensive immigration reform. we know that we didn't get it done. >> laura: you are not going to get it in the next congress either. >> what the president -- we suggested this to the president that he focus in the lame duck session on getting the dream act, a component, which would allow young people who came here as young children, who have gone to high school, graduate, go to

college, serve in the military, and thereby earn their legalization. >> laura: they are illegal now and up to age 35, is that it? >> it's whatever. >> laura: that's what the durbin bill said. if you are 35 and under and come here before 16 and gone to college or plan to go to school? isn't that what it said in the original bill? >> in the bill that's. >> laura: lucy goosy, pretty much anybody who wants to come in. >> 2006 unanimously adopted in the republican controlled. >> laura: i led the fight against that i remember. i remember very well. >> not that lucy goosy. it's pretty well known. >> laura: 2.1 million people about. >> might be, yes. it's always difficult to tell anymore. >> laura: that's amnesty for people here illegally. how is that fair to the latino kids here legally and trying to get that instate tuition. >> this is what is happening. you have young men and women who

came here at a young age. >> laura: illegally. you keep leaving that out. >> i'm not leaving that -- they came here at a young age. >> laura: illegally. >> with their parents. they are not responsible for their actions. you know, if we would bring one maybe to one of your segments, you would find they're american but all than a piece of paper. >> laura: doesn't the piece of paper matter at all. >> let me say culturally linguistically like corporal gutierrez the first american marine to die when we invaded iraq. came here from guatemala. >> laura: he was a permanent resident. have to be to serve in america. >> he did internet country illegally into the united states became a permanent resident and first one to sacrifice. >> laura: i could then see you an antidote and see you two more individuals who live in california maybe in denver or arizona, they are not anti-immigrant. they are not anti-latino,

nothing against anyone from any other country but they are seeing their own wages undercut. seeing their own children's opportunities educationally diminished. not fair to them. >> let me just suggest. there is a gentleman in america, actually i think -- rupert murdoch writes your check. >> laura: he doesn't write my check. >> owns the company that you wrote for. says we are not going to deport our way out of this. foolish and unnecessary and waste of argument. >> i'm trying to say what the owner of fox news network came before our judiciary committee. >> i'm trying to suggest that there are prominent members of commerce and industry. >> laura: there absolutely are. i have had a lot of them on my radio show. >> they have come and said we are not going to deport our way out of this. >> laura: what about the american people? what about those people? what do you say to those families who feel that their children are denied opportunities? just one line? what do you say to them. >> here is what i say, that they came here as children to this country. we should not hold children accountable for the actions of

adults. >> laura: congressman, great to see you. pinheads and patriots up next. your votes are in on this provocative beyonce commercial provocative beyonce commercial that was banned in the i'm hugh jidette. i'm running for president. if elected promise our 13 trillion dollar debt will double, maybe even triple. i'll continue to ignore our spiraling i'm hugh jidette and i say borrow like there's no tomorrow.

>> laura: pinheads and patriots in a moment. tonight featuring a professor who loses his cool. first, check out billoreilly.com. fast tick promotion going on when you sign up for premium membership. you get a free tote bag and

free copy of lis wiehl's book and merry christmas bumper stickers. finally, pinheads and patriots, we know that being a teacher is not an easy job. take a look at how this professor at cornell reacted after a student yawned loudly during one of his lectures. >> if i hear one more of these overly loud yawns, get up and walk the hell out. yawn outside, stay out of class, whatever you need to do to get overit! i want to know why 220 other people in this room don't find the need to do that! and you should be asking yourself why am i the one loser that has to do that and 220 other people know better! >> laura: that's my new favorite professor. why didn't i have someone like

that at dartmouth? is that professor a pinhead or patriot? if only he called out people who wore flip-flops to class, i would really like him. last night we showed you this ad by beyonce and asked you if she was a pinhead or patriot? ♪ never know how much i love you. never know how much i care ♪ ♪ when you put your arms around me ♪ i get the fever that's so hard to bear ♪ you give me fever ♪ when you kiss me, fever when you hold me tight ♪ >> laura: well, the votes are in. not shockingly. 84% say that she is a pinhead. 16% say she's a patriot. don't forget, check out my website, lauraingraham.com.

you can get signed copies of my book. great gift for christmas. thanks for watching. i'm laura ingraham tonight for bill o'reilly. please remember the spin stops here, because we are always, always looking out for you. we are still on the air. there's no one >> tgif, everyone. friday, november 19, 2010. i'm gretchen carlson. thanks for sharing your time. congressman charlie rangel begging for mercy. >> it would really help if you could put in that report, that your member was not corrupt. >> but the ethics committee isn't swayed and now he's being censured. but is this too light of a punishment? we'll report and you can decide. >> meanwhile, take a look. the president of the united states live right now. he arrived in lisbon, portugal, moments ago in order to