Related topics

Bail for Patterson set at $5 million; Did FBI target Trump over Comey firing?; Resistance style ruling; Traditional masculinity under

January 15, 2019



<Date: January 14, 2019>

<Time: 22:00>

<Tran: 011401cb.257>

<Type: SHOW>

<Head: Bail for Patterson set at $5 million; Did FBI target Trump over

Comey firing?; Resistance style ruling; Traditional masculinity under

attack; Dems leave town despite government shutdown; Concerned Dems run to

Puerto Rico during shutdown; Sen. Menendez hits the beach during shutdown;

Escape from reality: Democratic lawmakers go to beach and watch Hamilton

during shutdown; Dem elites always stick together; Democratic lawmakers go

to Puerto Rico retreat despite shutdown; Border talks at standstill as

shutdown enter Day 24; Trump blasts Dems for Puerto Rico trip; Lawmakers

pictured on beach in Puerto Rico; Dems getaway from governing; Liberal

media loves “Bombshell” NYT report; Real NYT “Bombshell” is FBI overreach;

New York Times reveals FBI retaliated against Trump for Comey firing; NYT:

Comey firing prompted FBI to probe whether Trump was working for Russia;

Our immigration laws must be enforced; Illegal MS-13 gang members charged

in stabbing attack on NY teen; Three MS-13 gang members were here

illegally; Three MS-13 gang members charged in brutal attack on NY teen;

two arrested before but released; MS-13 gang members charged in NY brawl;

Resistance-style rulings from activist judges; VA judge upset over

immigration overload; U.S. attorney responds to federal judge’s rebuke over

immigration cases. Aired 10-11p ET - Part 2>

<Sect: News; Domestic>

<Byline: Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Juan Williams>

<Guest: Monica Crowley, Chris Swecker, Zachary Terwilliger>

<Spec: Donald Trump; Left; Right; Democrats, Republicans; the wall;

government shutdown; Monica Crowley; Chris Swecker; Zachary Terwilliger>

Now this all brings us to our next story and a segment we’re dubbing `Judging the Judges,′ where we highlight a troubling strain of judicial resistance that looks a whole lot like political activist.

Now meet Judge Leonie Brinkema. According to The Washington Post, she recently criticized prosecutors over an increase in immigration cases in federal court last week. Now she said, “I think this is not the best use of judicial or justice department resources.”

She specifically singled out the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, my next guest, Zach Terwilliger, who’s here to respond.

Zack, first of all, it’s great to have you on tonight. Now, I was on the train coming up to New York and I’m reading “The Washington Post.” Democracy dies in the darkness you know, that’s their tagline now. So I’m reading “The Washington Post” and I’m reading these comments by Judge Brinkema saying, well, just basically “I hope these cases don’t continue in my court room.”

Isn’t that the role of the executive branch, how it is deciding to pursue various federal prosecutions. Is it the role of a judge to interject himself or herself in this situation and why are you singled out?

ZACHARY TERWILLIGER, U.S. ATTORNEY EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: Well, thanks a lot for having me Laura. It’s great to be here. You know this is a judge I’ve known for 10 years and have a long relationship within and I respect. I mean, in this case we just have a fundamental disagreement surrounding the priority of these cases.

One of the things as a prosecutor for the last decade and now as U.S. attorney that I often do is meet with the victims and survivors of crime and I feel very strongly that these cases represent a public safety risk.

It’s that article you referenced in “The Washington Post.” Many times these individuals who we’re talking about have been legally coming to the country, been deported and then what brings them back to the attention of the federal government is interaction with the criminal justice system through local arrest.

I think as the article also mentioned, many of these people have committed multiple offenses, whether it be BUIs, assaults or in particular cases, even batteries against minors.

INGRAHAM: Well, the case that was cited in “The Washington Post,” that individual Otova actually had been in federal custody for battery against a minor, correct?

TERWILLIGER: Well, so and Laura, as I know you can appreciate, that case is currently pending trial so rather than talk specifically about it, what I can tell you is these individuals again as I mentioned before, these are individuals where the only reason that they’re come to federal attention is because they in large number have been arrested for local violations. And to me, that is a good use of our resources, that these are individuals who are illegally in the country. And unlike others, they have come to our attention because they have committed other crimes and committed a public safety violation.

INGRAHAM: And a lot of them are just coming back in the country after leaving the country after maybe having done some time for something somewhat minor. Then they are able to easily cross back in the country. And again, I know you have to be careful what you say about any members of the bench, and that’s fine. But for a judge to start questioning the priorities of the Article Two branch of government, the executive branch, which makes these types of prosecutorial decisions, it’s just completely bolloxing up -- again, we are back on the separation of powers. A judge is acting like mini -- if they want to change the law, they should work for Congress. If they want to carry out the laws and form prosecutorial prerogatives, then they should try become president or a member of the president’s cabinet. I don’t understand why the judge is taking this out on you, though, and focusing on all of these reentry cases. Like if you reenter the country, you should be able to stay here indefinitely. If you commit a crime that is, like, and multiple DUI, or a minor assault, that’s basically what she’s saying.

TERWILLIGER: I’m not sure exactly what she meant or what the impetus for making the comment was. I think in this particular case, we had six or seven arraignments for, quote, illegal --

INGRAHAM: She doesn’t want it in her courtroom. She doesn’t want her courtroom clogged with illegal alien cases. That’s what she doesn’t want, because everybody who is here should be able to stay here, basically, unless you commit murder, maybe.

TERWILLIGER: For me it’s a priority. It’s been a priority. And what’s interesting is, we’ve always prosecuted a large of these cases in the eastern district of Virginia, whether frankly until 2014 we were basically prosecuting this number of individuals. And so I think part of it is the timing. There has been a large increase in these prosecutions in 2018 versus 2017. But, frankly, this is what we were doing for many years until 2014 when the administration changed its immigration enforcement priorities.

INGRAHAM: And Zach, I think we have a photo of you and Attorney Gneral -- soon to be Attorney General Bill Barr. Former attorney general, soon to be attorney general. And that’s your dad whom I know, to the left of Bill Barr. Who’s that little bugger -- that’s you, Zach. Where was that? Isn’t that clever? Where were you?

TERWILLIGER: I feel extremely fortunate to have known attorney general nominee and former attorney general Barr for 25 years. So that was November of 1992 at the FBI academy, and it was the deputy attorney general and the attorney general visit the FBI academy. And they brought their children along. And it was a day I never will forget. But I am just so thrilled to hopefully have the opportunity to work for Attorney General Barr in this capacity.

INGRAHAM: That’s wild. I’ve known Bill a long time. He’s a consummate professional. But for you being a little boy in this case, and your dad, of course, being his deputy, it’s quite a tradition. I had to put that up there because I have a boy about that age. So it’s a great photo. Thanks for coming on and thanks for doing the work to keep this country safe. We really appreciate it, Zach.

TERWILLIGER: Thanks so much for having me.

INGRAHAM: When we criticize new guidelines from the American Psychology Association on masculinity last week, we became the bad guys, yes, indeed. Up next, part two of our debate over calls to further emasculate men in America and what that would mean for our society at large.

And an important housekeeping note -- tomorrow afternoon, my brand-new podcast launches. So on each episode, we are going to cover basically America, where we are, and where we’re going. You’re going to laugh and learn all at the same time, what a great deal. So to subscribe to “The Laura Ingraham Podcast,” just go to PodcastOne.com. Go subscribe on iTunes, see a little purple icon on your iPhone. It’s very easy. PodcastOne.com, tomorrow afternoon the new podcast launches.


INGRAHAM: Last week, we brought you a debate over new guidelines issued by the American Psychological Association taking aim at classic masculinity. When we took aim at the findings, we were attacked for missing the point. In a long screed titled “How traditional masculinity hurts the men who believe in it most,” “The Washington Post” quotes Ronald Levant, who was the APA president when the guidelines were initially conceived. He says, “Everybody has beliefs about how men should behave. We found incredible evidence that the extent to which men strongly endorse those beliefs is strongly associated with negative outcomes.” The writer of the piece, Monica Hesse, further summarized the findings as follows. “The more men who cling to rigid views of metal unity, the more likely they are to be depressed, or disdainful, or lonely.”

Here now is Allie Beth Stuckey, she’s the host of the podcast “Relatable” on iTunes, and Dr. Edward Adams, a psychologist specializing in men and masculinity. Great to have both of you with us. Allie, let’s start with you. In your interactions, do you find that traditionally men are more prone to depression and loneliness? And obviously this is a purely anecdotal point you’ll raise, but just as a woman, is that what you find?

ALLIE BETH STUCKEY, CRTV HOST: That hasn’t been my subjective experience, but I also don’t think that’s objectively true, which is why the APA had to come out and say, OK, this is a small number, a few men, and we are talking about extreme stereotypical behaviors. We are not talking about everyone. And furthermore, we base some of these findings on our social and political views rather than on scientific fact. And so there has been a lot of criticism, and I think justified criticism of this study, because the findings that they found about a few are now being generalized and used as a rule for all masculinity, that it’s all toxic. I just don’t see how that’s productive for society, particularly for our young men.

INGRAHAM: Doctor, this whole toxic masculinity conversation is becoming something of a punchline. By the way, you look very masculine tonight.


INGRAHAM: I like your jacket. I like your zip up. You’ve got the t- shirt, the shirt, and the sweater, and the jacket. You’ve got four layers. That’s very masculine. OK, that’s like something up in New Hampshire when I was going to college. What’s going on here? What is this all about?

ADAMS: This is all about the American Psychological Association trying to make the public aware, and other professionals aware, that there is a lot of room for men to begin to have a conversation about masculinity. And it is a fallacy to say that traditional masculinity is under attack. The way I like to put it is traditional masculinity is under construction and improvement.

INGRAHAM: What does it mean? When you say “traditional masculinity,” what does that mean?

ADAMS: Well, it means the things that we are taught as men that send the signal that we’re not supposed to express our feelings, we’re not supposed -- we are supposed to do it alone. We’re supposed to be independent.

INGRAHAM: Any woman in a car with a man who can’t find his way where he’s going and he doesn’t have, like, an iPhone, we know men can’t do it by themselves. Turn down the radio, I don’t know how to go. Men know they can’t do it alone. I get what you are saying is we don’t want men to mistreat women. We don’t want men to mistreat other men. But isn’t that just manners? How it is good manners somehow a commentary on traditional masculinity? That’s what I’m not getting here.

ADAMS: It includes manners, but it’s far more than that. It is actually the learnings that we are -- we incorporate from our early years about what it takes to be a good man. It’s the cultural underpinnings that make suggestions to boys that grow into men that say these are the attributes that make a man a good man. And --

INGRAHAM: Courage, stoicism --

ADAMS: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Honor. Allie, again on this. Look, I know you’ve talked about this before and I’ve done this on my radio show. Look, men cried. They cry at their daughter’s weddings, they cry when they lose a parent. They cry if they are a member of military, you lose your brother in arms, your sister in arms. It’s OK. It’s OK for men to cry.

ADAMS: Laura, I would invite you to spend a day in my office working with men who are really good men but feel very constricted sometimes about expressing themselves to their wives or to their girlfriends or to their --

INGRAHAM: But I do not think it’s about being masculine.

STUCKEY: Here is the question that we need to address.

INGRAHAM: Go ahead.

STUCKEY: Here is the question that we need to address. How much of that is truly cultural and needs to be changed and under construction, and how much of it is biological? And instead of it being suppressed, changed, reconstructed, just needs to be honed and trained in a different way. So all of these characteristics that we are talking about that are inherently negative, not being as emotional, being more independent, being tougher, yes, they can lead to negative things. But that’s also what makes men me and what make them strong. What I am afraid of is that we are going to start raising soft boys. And raising soft boys does not create good, strong men.

ADAMS: Allie, I don’t think you have any worry about that. Men are not going to turn into women. Trust me about that. What we are trying to do is not change men, but expand men.

INGRAHAM: OK, there are men expanding on the runways. We have to share this. I ran across this today. We are going to put it up on the screen. Here’s a quote from a fashion piece on a very, very well-known fashion designer. And describing new offerings on the runway, this back in July, a similar thing being written today, “tiered ruffled dresses, glittery suiting, and A-line tunics reminiscent of 18th and 19th century unisex children’s clothing down the runway. The latter felt particularly fitting for the collection’s commentary on shedding toxic masculinity, embracing one’s unedited self. Before little boys grow up and socialize into hardened men, their genderless characteristics express a blissful version of their truest self.”

And we have a picture. Do we have a picture of the ruffled number? There it is. I don’t know. That looks like Jiffy Pop. I do not know what that is. That’s a strange -- doctor, I don’t see you wearing that anytime soon. But basically -- I don’t want to make light of it, because men, as we know, suffer high rates of suicide, depression, anxiety. I think there are a lot of reasons -- blue-collar jobs lost. If you don’t have a college education you have limited options. And I think a lot of men don’t know how to behave today. I think they’re confused by Jiffy Pop man and under things. I honestly think a lot of men don’t know where to turn.

ADAMS: Let’s look at two factors that men talk about as being manly. One is protecting, and the other is providing.

INGRAHAM: What’s wrong with that?

ADAMS: Both are essential, both are important. But they are very narrowly defined sometimes. So protecting is also giving your children or your wife an opportunity to express herself, or help -- protecting is protecting the safety of the boys.

INGRAHAM: Most women think protection is strength, I mean physical strength, just because if you’re in a bad situation.

ADAMS: You are not wrong.

INGRAHAM: You don’t want the man to push you in front of himself to save himself. We want the man to save us.

ADAMS: It’s not a dichotomy. It’s not either this or that. It’s a multifaceted factors.

INGRAHAM: Most women don’t think -- it’s much more visceral. We are kind of discounting biology.

STUCKEY: Right, exactly.

INGRAHAM: You can probably out arm wrestle me right now. But just a biological fact. There’s nothing wrong with it. There’s nothing to be discounted or say that’s bad because you are stronger than women?

ADAMS: And the guidelines do not suggest that there is something wrong.

INGRAHAM: You are right. Allie, final word?

STUCKEY: Yes, I think that like you said, we are discounting a lot of biology and the natural, inherent dichotomy between men and women. And the negative qualities that we’re talking about in men is just the fallen nature of men. Women have so-called toxicity too. It’s about raising good men and women to be responsible adults. And maybe my colleague and I agree on that, and there are no differences to be had here.

INGRAHAM: Thank you both, fascinating conversation. It’s not going away. We’re going to have your back.

And with the Democrats looking to subpoena everyone and everything in Trump world, a debate over how much power the president has to shut them down before they start, next.



SEN. CHRISTOPHER COONS, (D) DELAWARE: On this specific question on how our president conducts meetings with foreign heads of state, I do think Chairman Engel in the House should be looking into this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think there is an obligation to subpoena the notes and if necessary the interpreter, because we are talking here about a possible threat to our national security. The American people have a right to know.

REP. GERRY CONNOLLY, (D) SENIOR MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE: Getting to the truth, frankly, is more important than precedent or executive privilege.


INGRAHAM: So does the president have legitimate privilege grounds to keep private conversations with foreign leaders just that, private? Joining me to debate is John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, and David Katz, former assistant U.S. attorney. All right, John, how much damage does it do if an American president cannot keep conversations like this privileged?

JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Allowing people like Congress to overcome -- or the courts to overcome executive privilege would really strike a dagger in the heart of the American presidency. This is a power which presidents from George Washington on have claimed and used. And the Supreme Court said in 1973, 1974, that the very height of executive privilege would be when presidents need to protect diplomatic, national security, military, law enforcement information.

This isn’t just some minor use of executive privilege so that the president can tell jokes or kick things around with his advisors. This is what the courts and precedents have said is the very height of executive power and executive privilege is protecting the president’s ability to communicate and discuss with foreign nations and the president’s advisors our most important foreign policy secrets. There is no justification which Congress or another branch can throw up which would allow, according to the Supreme Court, allow for the overcoming of this privilege in this kind of case.

INGRAHAM: David, I was watching an old YouTuber on the Obama administration, Jay Carney, who was the press secretary for President Obama, was being pummeled by the press for his having exercised executive privilege in the Benghazi case with, remember, Eric Holder not wanting to turn over certain documents. And this is how he explained it. Let’s watch.


JAY CARNEY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What is being -- the documents over which privilege is being asserted are internal executive branch documents that have to do with response to congressional inquiries, response to media inquiries. Those kinds of deliberations have been protected under privilege as a matter of the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution by administrations of both parties dating back 30 years.


INGRAHAM: So they were fine with executive privilege as long as they were claiming it, right, Dave?

DAVID KATZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I’m an admirer of Adam Schiff. He’s the head of the House Intelligence Committee. I think he’s being nudged to try to subpoena either the notes or the testimony from this translator. And I don’t think that that’s a wise place to start.

I think that John has a point that, of course, there is executive privilege, and it is strongest according to the United States versus Nixon case, unanimous. It is strong, it’s not absolute. But it’s strongest in the area of just what happened with this translator.

So I think the committee would be smarter to start with a whole bunch of other areas like the Cohen inquiry, like some other inquiries. And then for the meeting, let’s say the one in Europe in 2017, I think ex-secretary of state Tillerson was there. So why not start with Tillerson and ask him what happened during that meeting and go from there? I don’t think it’s wise in the end to keep trying to subpoena, if that’s what they are trying to do, this translator.

INGRAHAM: It’s going to end up in the court.

KATZ: She’s works for the State Department, and it’s picking a fight with the State Department, and it’s picking a fight -- it doesn’t seem to me like a wise first step to make a potential misstep, to make a misstep.

INGRAHAM: Yes, yes. OK, I got it. I got it. I got it. I got it. But, John, they are going to try to call members of the Trump inner circle to Capitol Hill, correct, to the House? Really briefly, will the president’s team be able to assert privilege to prevent them from testifying on Capitol Hill? We’re talking maybe someone in the old White House counsel’s office, current White House counsel, maybe Reince Priebus, Don McGahn, those types? Will executive privilege cover that?

YOO: I think executive privilege would cover it. I think if Congress misuses its legislative oversight authority to try to force White House counsels, Reince Priebus, chiefs of staff, to testify, they’re going to lose. The Supreme Court and the federal courts are not going to help Congress try to pry secrets out of the president.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, thanks so much. Big conversation. We are going to be hitting all of these issues in the weeks and months to come. Big fights ahead.

Up next, President Trump and fast food again? Yes. The Last Bite.


INGRAHAM: It’s time for the Last Bite. President Trump was not following former first lady Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative when he hosted the Clemson Tigers tonight. Watch.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We bought 1,000 Burger King, all American companies, Burger King, Wendy’s, and McDonald’s. We have Big Macs, we have Quarter Pounders with cheese, we have everything that I like that you like.


(Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.)

Update hourly