Related topics

Democrats Humiliating Themselves And Republicans Didn’t Even Have To Lift A Finger; Now, While Visiting The Southern Border Thursday, President

January 13, 2019



<Date: January 12, 2019>

<Time: 20:00>

<Tran: 011201cb.251>

<Type: Show>

<Head: Democrats Humiliating Themselves And Republicans Didn’t Even Have To

Lift A Finger; Now, While Visiting The Southern Border Thursday, President

Trump Reiterated His Intention Of Declaring A National Emergency; President

Trump Takes On The “New York Times” Over Its Report That The FBI Was

Investigating If He Was Secretly Working For Russia; Explosion Rocks

Central Paris Leaving Three People Dead; Former Porn Star Turned Preacher. - Part 1>

<Sect: News; International>

<Byline: Jesse Watters, Lauren Blanchard>

<Guest: Katrina Pierson, Anthony Scaramucci, Andy Biggs, Ron Paul, Tonya

Reiman, Diamond, Silk, Brittni De La Mora>

<Spec: Republicans, Democrats, Border Wall, Immigration, Donald Trump,

Russia, Jenna Presley>

JESSE WATTERS, HOST, WATTERS’ WORLD: Welcome to “Watters’s World,” I’m Jesse Watters. Liberal humiliation - that is the subject of tonight’s “Watters Words.”

In political warfare, one of the goals is to make your opponent look bad. Sometimes your opponents do that to themselves and that is what happened to the left this week.

Exhibit 1, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer delivered the Democratic response to President Trump’s Oval Office address on the border crisis. Forty million viewers tuned in to see Nancy and Chuck after the President standing awkwardly together at the podium - just one podium.

Americans were more amused by their presentation than informed, and the duo got roasted hard on social media. Here are some of the best memes: “American Gothic anyone.” How about, “The twins from “The Shining.’” “Super villains.” There they are, I think that’s the Joker in “Batman.” And speaking of super villains, how about this, “I see Pelosi went with the Dr. Evil outfit. Who wore it better?”

And many saw Nancy and Chuck as parents, “We’re not mad, we’re just disappointed.” And my favorite Face Swap, terrifying. As Greg Gutfeld said the other day on “The Five,” their response should have been followed by quote unquote, “Paid for by Donald Trump for President.”

Exhibit 2, another political opponent of the President, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta went down to McAllen, Texas on the U.S.-Mexican border. Acosta doesn’t want a wall and doesn’t believe that there is any crisis at the border, but he posted a video that destroyed his own argument.


JIM ACOSTA, CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Here are some of the steel slats that the President has been talking about right here. As you can see, yes you can see through these slats to the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border, but as we’re walking along here we’re not seeing any kind of imminent danger. There are no migrants trying to rush toward this fence here in the McAllen, Texas area.

As a matter of fact, there are some other businesses behind me along this highway. There’s a gas station, Burger King and so on, but no sign of the national emergency that the President has been talking about. As a matter of fact, it’s pretty tranquil down here.


WATTERS: Hey, Jim perhaps it’s tranquil because there’s a border fence. Migrants aren’t rushing towards the fence because there’s a fence. The illegals cross where there’s no fence. My gosh. Is Jim Acosta working for President Trump or CNN? Sometimes it’s hard to tell. What an embarrassment.

Exhibit 3, potential Democratic Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, a sensation on social media likes to bring voters into his world. Usually, he livestreams himself cooking steak in the kitchen, things like that, but Beto took it a step too far this week.


BETO O’ROURKE, AMERICAN BUSINESSMAN AND POLITICIAN: So, I’m here at the dentist and we’re going to continue our series on the people of the border and I’m here with Diana, my dental hygienist. Diana is going to tell us a little bit about growing up in Memphis.


WATTERS: Beto, hopefully you don’t have a colonoscopy anytime soon. Sometimes more is less, sometimes less is more. So there you have it. Democrats humiliating themselves and Republicans didn’t even have to lift a finger. I wish politics could always be this easy.

Here with me now, senior advisor to the Trump 2020 campaign, Katrina Pierson and former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, the author of “Trump: The Blue Collar President,” which I read and I highly endorse.

All right, guys what did you guys think about my brilliant commentary? I mean, they just shot themselves in the foot and the Republicans didn’t even have to squeeze the trigger. Go ahead, Katrina. Ladies first.

KATRINA PIERSON, SENIOR ADVISOR, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN: Well, you know, look, Jesse, this was really karma. You have CNN and Jim Acosta specifically who spend the majority of their days trying to undermine the President and undermine his agenda with a ton of fake news and it turns out, it all came back around full circle today and yesterday, and it’s going to continue moving forward because the President has been very courageous in pushing forth very bold policies to secure the southern border of this country, to protect American citizens and as Jim Acosta pointed out, his position is the right position. Walls work and CNN just showed the entire country the President is right on this issue.

WATTERS: Yes, I mean, CNN really stepped on their message on that one. Anthony, it would be like some reporter looking at a block just circled with police officers and saying, “You know what? There’s no crime.”

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yes, I mean that was a difficult moment but the better part of it I think, Katrina would agree with me was the “Dear diary” tweet from the President. I mean, it’s just vintage Trump trolling and so when I saw that, I mean I had a laugh and then there were people responding saying that you know, they still are enjoying over the “Dear diary” tweet.

So listen, I mean we’ve got to get through this though and we have to get the government reopened because it’s going to eventually start to affect things like the stock market and the economy that there’s this high level of dysfunctionality.

The President’s a hundred percent right, but unfortunately the system requires a compromise so hopefully, they’ll get to a compromise and get the government back open again because the President’s up 28 to zero in terms of what he’s done for the economy and I don’t want him to lose his lead going into the 2020 elections. So let’s just put this behind us --

WATTERS: Right, this is critical in order to get this government back open, but he’s got to get it back open --


WATTERS: But he’s got to get it back open with some sort of funding for a physical barrier. Let’s try the compromise ...

SCARAMUCCI: No question.

WATTERS: All right, I am going to be Donald Trump; Anthony, you are going to be Chuck Schumer, I’m sorry and Katrina, you’re going to be Nancy Pelosi.

I don’t know who I should apologize to more, but you guys agreed to do this, so we have to come to a compromise.

SCARAMUCCI: You just wish me back - you’ve got hair and the waters, you just wish me bad hair. I mean that’s all it was.

WATTERS: I know.

SCARAMUCCI: Lots of hair envy on this show.

WATTERS: Listen no one has a head of hair like you, Anthony. You know, I wish I had what was beneath the hair though, the brains, and I could make as much money as you did, too. All right, so listen, we’re in a room. I’m the President, I’m going to say, “Crying Chuck, listen, we need votes in the Senate. We need what? Eight Democrat votes in the Senate in order to get this government back up and open, in order to get a physical barrier. You Senator Schumer, you voted for physical barriers in the past, why can’t you give a little and do what you did before in order to reopen the government?”

SCARAMUCCI: Okay, well Mr. President, we’re both New Yorkers, we’re here in a huge tug-of-war, so why don’t you throw me a bone. What bone are you going to throw me so that I can deliver you these eight votes?

WATTERS: I already gave you some candy, that’s enough bones, but I will say maybe we could talk about DACA and maybe giving some sort of legal status to these young illegal immigrants that were brought here by their parents, can we maybe go back to that deal, $25 billion for wall funding and DACA fix? Can we do that?

SCARAMUCCI: So, I think actually he should do that, but he’ll probably not want to do that because they’re making a lot of money on the fundraising side of resisting the President, so he’ll probably say no to that.

WATTERS: So I agree. I agree. So Nancy, your left-wing caucus, very radical they don’t want to budge an inch on any wall funding. They don’t want to do anything on the border. They want status quo, so Nancy are you going to be able to get your liberal base in line here and treat this as a national security issue instead of a political issue?

PIERSON: Look, Mr. President, I’m going have to say what my colleague here didn’t say and really advise you that this immoral wall is unnecessary because as you had your meeting yesterday with the Border Patrol and we all learned through this meeting, thank you for doing that, that 21 million lethal doses of fentanyl was seized in the last year according to the Lieutenant Governor of Texas.

So 21 million lethal doses were seized, so what we really have to do for morals’ sake Mr. President is to open the borders that way we can find out just how many lethal doses of heroin would actually come in.

WATTERS: Okay, so the wall that surrounds your property, Nancy is that immoral, too? Should we tear down that wall as well?

PIERSON: Well, well you see Mr. President that’s different.

WATTERS: Oh, it’s different.

PIERSON: We’re not using taxpayer resources to build my wall because, you know, my family is really, really important and we’re just talking about people, you know, your average American. We’re not really talking about people who hold positions to make policies in the country.

WATTERS: Okay, so here’s what I think --

PIERSON: You know, this is like, when you’re talking about the difference between - Mr. President --


PIERSON: I am a woman. Please, let me finish.

WATTERS: Okay, sorry. Excuse me.

PIERSON: We are talking about the difference here between a diet and diabetes, so we have to make sure we’re comparing the right thing, Mr. President.

WATTERS: Okay, brilliant analogy, Speaker Pelosi. Here’s what I think we can do with the compromise.

SCARAMUCCI: Where are my bifocals though? I am going to call my agent.

WATTERS: Yes, you’re so --

SCARAMUCCI: If I had only bifocals --

WATTERS: Anthony, you’re supposed to be looking down.

SCARAMUCCI: I would have come across so much more authentic.

WATTERS: Yes, you’re supposed to be looking down and reading all of your comments, right? Here’s what I think we can do, in order to get this deal done, I will compromise a little bit, but you guys have to compromise. Every time I speak, I want you, two, Nancy and Chuck, to give a united response right afterwards because I think that contrast makes me look really good. Can we agree with that?


PIERSON: I think that’d be a fantastic idea. The American people deserve to hear the truth.

SCARAMUCCI: As long as we’re at one podium.

WATTERS: All right, now in all seriousness - in all seriousness, really quickly, 30 seconds each, Anthony I’ll begin with you. We’re hearing rumors that the White House is preparing for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to step down from her role. She’s, you know having some health issues. She’s missed a lot of this week because of those health issues, what do you predict will happen if this open seat gets thrown into the mix, politically?

SCARAMUCCI: Well, it’s certainly going to be a Kavanaugh like fire fight, but the thing that I absolutely predict and I think a lot of constitutional scholars agree with me is that Justice Roberts who was appointed by George W. Bush will continue to tack to the center and be a very moderating force on that court. Why? You’ll have to ask him, but I think that’s where he’s going/

WATTERS: Yes, I would agree with that and Katrina, what do you think?

PIERSON: Yes, yes, I have to agree. I do think that’s what’s going to happen, but this is also, you know an amazing opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice, that definitely takes seriously the nature of the values of the country from the beginning and I think it’s upsetting to a lot of people that this particular woman, possibly may be resigning and I personally would like to see another woman appointed to this position. I think that --

WATTERS: Maybe Amy Barrett. She was in the running in the last time.

PIERSON: The President is going to - Amy Barrett, I think would be fantastic and the President is going to continue to make history throughout his presidency, so that’s why we’re very proud to support him and continue to push his agenda.

WATTERS: Well, I mean if you think about legacy, I mean even if the President just serves one term, having the opportunity for three Supreme Court justices, I mean absolutely historic. All right, Nancy and Chuck --

PIERSON: Amazing.

SCARAMUCCI: Watch the Federal appointments, too.

WATTERS: Oh, yes, exactly.

SCARAMUCCI: The Federal appointments, too, Jesse.

WATTERS: The Federal bench.

PIERSON: Yes, the judges. For sure.

WATTERS: Completely packed. Guys, thank you very much. Go check out Anthony’s book, all right. There you go.

PIERSON: Thanks, Jesse.

SCARAMUCCI: Thanks, Jess.

WATTERS: Now, while visiting the southern border Thursday, President Trump reiterated his intention of declaring a national emergency if push comes to shove.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have the absolute right to declare a national emergency and this is security stuff. This is a national emergency. If you don’t have a barrier whether it’s a steel barrier or a concrete wall, substantial and strong, you’re never going to solve this problem. You’re never going to solve it.


WATTERS: Arizona Republican Congressman and member of the House Border Security Caucus, Andy Biggs is in complete support of President Trump’s stance and he joins me now. All right, Congressman, we’re talking about a border crisis and whether or not a national emergency needs to be declared.

Something that was said the other day by a Border Patrol agent in McAllen, Texas really caught my attention. Let’s listen to the sound and then you can react. Go ahead.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So far this sector has apprehended folks from 41 different countries. Just yesterday, we apprehended a 133 people from countries other than Central America and Mexico that includes individuals from India, Pakistan, China, Romania, Ecuador, Nicaragua on and on and on.


WATTERS: So I was shocked when I heard that. A hundred and thirty people apprehended just in one day and Romania, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Pakistan? Congressman, I don’t think anybody ever even knew that was happening.

ANDY BIGGS, U.S. CONGRESSMAN, ARIZONA, REPUBLICAN: No, it’s happening. People from all over the world have found that a way to enter our country is just to sneak across the southern border, but you know what he didn’t say is, they got 133, but ask him how many they thought got away?

WATTERS: That’s a good point.

BIGGS: And the getaways are averaging you know, it depends on who’s estimating, but it’s four to ten times as much. So they caught 133, but they might have had anywhere from 600 1,500 people actually crossed the border successfully yesterday.

WATTERS: That’s unbelievable.

BIGGS: So that’s a problem, yes.

WATTERS: And I know you’re down there on the border in Arizona. You’re hearing from your constituents that a fence or some sort of physical barrier is needed. We’ve heard that from the Border Patrol agents as well. People say it’s not a crisis and there’s no baseline to declare a national emergency. Other Presidents have declared national emergencies as well. I believe -- who was it? Bill Clinton declared 17 national emergencies. George W. Bush, 13; President Obama, 12. I mean, declaring national emergencies is not something like out of thin air, it’s been done by other Commanders-in-Chiefs in the past. Are you hearing that this is in the pipeline?

BIGGS: Well, you know, I’m hearing that he’s seriously considering it and it’s going to trip. The wire is going to trip soon because Pelosi and Schumer are not willing to negotiate at all. The radicals within - the House Democrats, they’re not willing to budge at all and it is a real crisis.

I mean look, President Obama had declared one over swine flu for Pete’s sakes and I’m not saying that to diminish the seriousness of swine flu, but we have people crossing our border by the thousands. We have no idea who they are. We know that we’re catching people who shouldn’t be here in the sense that they are criminal illegal aliens. We know people who are on terrorist watch lists are coming across and I find it hard to believe that that national security implication doesn’t rise to the level of an emergency situation.

WATTERS: Well, you mentioned swine flu. We know in Texas alone just in one year, 32 illegal aliens were convicted of homicide. Now 32 deaths right there in one year in one state alone, I believe that’s more than people died of swine flu, you know, however way you tabulate it, I think you can call it a crisis. The “Washington Post” declared it a crisis, the media called it a humanitarian crisis last month and now they’re saying it’s a manufactured crisis.

In my opinion, the Democrat policies of open borders, that’s created the crisis because that’s attracting them and because the legal loopholes, you can’t hold people. You’ve got to do catch and release and you can’t keep people together, you can’t separate them. It’s a mess. Thirty seconds, go ahead.

BIGGS: Yes, you’re absolutely right. Look, every year, we find hundreds of people in each of the sectors that have come across the border. They’re trying to get in here illegally. We find their bodies. They’ve been eaten up by animals. This is a real problem, it’s a humanitarian crisis, but it’s more than that. It is actually a national security crisis because of the people who are coming across. We can build the wall, but if we’re not going to do it in Congress, which by the way we’ve been derelict, we need to let the President declare that emergency and he will be attacked through litigation, but we need to stand firm behind him.

WATTERS: All right, Congressman, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

BIGGS: Thanks, Jesse.

WATTERS: Coming up, “The Rock” takes on Snowflakes. Wait until you hear what he had to say. But up next, Ron Paul enters “Watters’ World” for the very first time.



RON PAUL, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I don’t like walls. I am a Libertarian. I don’t want to wall people in. I don’t want to wall people out, but I don’t want free open borders either. I think you have to remove the incentives for people to come.


WATTERS: Former Texas Congressman and three-time Presidential candidate, Ron Paul offering an alternative solution to the immigration problems plaguing our southern border, but has the President’s latest pitch for a wall changed his mind.

Ron Paul is the host of “The Ron Paul Liberty Report” and joins me now. All right, welcome to the show, Congressman.

PAUL: Thank you.

WATTERS: I know that you are a Texas guy for almost all of your career not on the exact border, but kind of in the Gulf area, so you’re familiar with the problems of illegal immigration. You’re against the wall and you think we should look inward to create a new reality where we’re not attracting so much illegal immigration. How would that look?

PAUL: Well, I think it would look a lot different and we would have to educate the people a little bit that we’re not owing everybody who comes here illegal a living and a job and school and medical care and the whole works. Now, I would remove all the incentives and one of the biggest incentives is easy road to citizenship.

So I don’t happen to believe that an illegal, you know, should get in line for a citizenship, so I’d abolish that. I think bona fide citizenship ...

WATTERS: Okay, let me just ask you a question. So do you think right now, the way the welfare state is in this country, that is primarily what’s attracting illegal immigration or do you think they’re coming more for the cash? Jobs?

PAUL: I would give the credit - if you’re going by numbers, I would say the large number would like to just get here and work because of the money that we come across in Texas. I think that is the case, but I also think there’s a big incentive to become an easy citizen and bring the kids along and this sort of thing. I don’t think that exists in very many other countries.

So, yes, I think that’s a tremendous incentive. I think, believe it or not, there might be some political aspects to this where some of the political parties or maybe there’s one particular political party that thinks they’re going to get more votes that will vote for more welfare.

WATTERS: Right, because when you when you bring in the new illegal population, even if they can’t vote yet, they’re counted towards the census which determines Congressional districting and obviously would help the Democratic Party, they believe, but right now you have the business community which likes the open borders because they like the cheap labor and then you have the Democratic Party which likes the open borders because, as you said they want future voters. How do you win both sides of the equation or for open borders? Where is there any middle ground to find the solution?

PAUL: Well, I don’t know if there’s an exact middle ground say on automatic citizenship or easy citizenship because you’re an illegal immigrant. I just don’t think there should be. There should be no rewards for that. I think people should you know be prosecuted for this.

But this is a big problem because you know, the citizenship is very, very easy. I’ve delivered women who just show up here and they can quickly -- because the child was born here, they can quickly get on welfare and I just don’t think that should exist.

The whole thing is the people who qualify for welfare and you say, well, if they think it’s immoral to build a wall, what would people think if I say I wouldn’t even give them any welfare benefit. Of course, a good Libertarian - a great libertarian doesn’t believe in the welfare redistribution anyway.

So saying that we’re not going to give you this welfare --

WATTERS: They would just call you a mean person and that’s usually what the left says when they disagree with you. So you’re talking about attracting illegal immigrants through additional welfare that leads me to the next topic, you have this young Congresswoman Cortez, they call her AOC, she wants universal healthcare which costs, I don’t know anywhere between $30 trillion and $40 trillion.

If you’re someone’s south of the border and you hear this new wave of Democrats is going to contemplate giving universal healthcare, doesn’t that attract more illegal immigration?

PAUL: Yes, would be part of it as well. It would be certainly encouraging and I try to point out to other people, what would it be like if we, as American citizens decide we want to live in Japan and march into Japan and say, “Where do I sign? How do I become a citizen? And where will I go for my medical care and where do I get my education?”

WATTERS: I don’t think the Japanese would welcome us with open arms.

PAUL: No, this is absurd. I see our system as sort of masochistic, but I think socialism in many ways is, but sometimes it’s designed for that to get more power, a social assert --

WATTERS: So you think the Democratic push towards socialism is all about political power? Do they have any compassion towards the people? Do they even believe these systems work because if you look throughout the rest of the world, Venezuela whenever socialism has been tried, it has failed.

PAUL: I would question it, but I wouldn’t let the Republicans get off the hook. Remember who pushed the prescription health programs and all of these, so the Republicans are great participants in government medicine.

WATTERS: That is true.

PAUL: But I think - go ahead.

WATTERS: Let me talk to you quickly about Syria because I know when you were running for President, you were very much an isolationist that you were against getting involved and especially the Middle East and now this President is going to withdraw about 2,000 troops mostly special operators from Syria. Do you support that and do you see any unforeseen consequences?

PAUL: Yes, I support it, but first off, I don’t like me being accused of being an isolationist because the a good Libertarian is very open, you know, to trade and other things and I consider the people who put on sanctions and restrict trade and get involved in punishing people. They’re more isolationist than any libertarian would be.

No, on my program, my little program that I have, I was excited about what was happening in Syria and I cheered him on, but I sort of kept my fingers crossed what would happen and lo and behold, you know, it’s slowing up there. It was not going as fast, but I’d do anything to encourage the President to do what’s right.

He gave the right answers. What are we doing over there? And I’ve - he said he campaigned on bringing them home, so I would say that’s very good, but the big problem he has is he doesn’t get reinforcements from the very people he appointed.

So as long as he has the same people - then they go out and they undermine him and they go around the world and say, “Oh, we didn’t really mean that,” so --


PAUL: But I think his instincts are good and I think we should not only come home from Syria, but just remember, these countries like Syria and other countries are all set up under emergency powers. We need to come home and if you’re willing to have you know a decent reform in currency and trade, I’ll tell you what, it’s really the opposite of isolationism. It’s bringing people together in a voluntary manner and that to me, I think should be our goal.

WATTERS: Thank you very much, Congressman Ron Paul, everybody there.

PAUL: You’re welcome. Thank you.

WATTERS: Up next, our body language expert explains Nancy and Chuck’s Oval Office speech. What were they thinking? And later, we’ve got a porn star turned preacher. She will enter “Watters’ World.”


LAUREN BLANCHARD, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Live from “America’s News Headquarters,” I’m Lauren Blanchard. President Trump takes on the “New York Times” over its report that the FBI was investigating if he was secretly working for Russia. It claims the investigation was opened following the firing of then FBI director James Comey. The White House is calling the accusations absurd.

In a tweet earlier, the President said quote, “Wow, just learned in the failing “New York Times” that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons opened up an investigation on me for no reason and with no proof after I fired lying James Comey, a total sleaze.”

Update hourly