Laura Ingraham shines a spotlight on everyday Americans and examines how their lives are affected by politics at the federal, state and local level. incredible. >> jason: david, has there been equal justice under the law or does it seem lopsided? >> during the clinton administration, it was richard and the democrats who were screaming that someone's personal matters are not an impeachable offense. here we are now, 20 years later, and it's a personal matter that the president was handling and somehow it is not campaign violation because he used personal money. if that is their new standard, then let's start the investigation, because did elizabeth warren pay lawyers to help her get out of her situation, claiming to be a native american and to get an advantage at harvard? or let's go to bernie sanders. did he pay a lawyer to help his wife get out of trouble in her scandal of trying to raise money after college? let's go back to elizabeth warren. >> david, here's the difference. >> hold on a second. there is the 2020 candidate that is facing a problem today. that is elizabeth warren. after her disgusting comment about mollie tibbetts. >> the trump organization, according to this indictment, said michael cohen pled guilty to lies saying that the money it reimbursed michael cohen for paying off stormy daniels was legal expenses. that's a lie. that is dishonest. that's a violation of law. >> is that why you hire an attorney? to give them the money so they do it legally and lawfully? >> then you listed as paying off somebody for their silence, not as legal expenses. >> she is not a lawyer. he is a lawyer. >> is that what mark elias did with the dossier money? all those millions of dollars, did i get fully disclosed? no, they were paid to attorneys to fund this dirty dossier. >> they weren't trying to buy anybody's silence? >> they were trying to by a dirty dossier. >> this was not because donald trump was running for president because he wanted to be spirit of harassment with his wife. something he did with stormy daniels in 2006. by some coincidence in october of 2016, all of a sudden, that embarrassment meant was going to do him in? please. >> one of the things, dan, i am concerned about is the proximity of lanny davis in this situation. if somebody from the clinton orbit. all the attorneys in the world and they go get lanny davis. is that suspicious? >> these are possibly the two doby's lawyers on the planet, cohen and lanny davis. lanny davis convinced another lawyer to plead guilty to a crime that doesn't exist. it's incredible. no matter what richard tells you about these fec violations. i ran for office. congressman, you ran too. this is not a crime. this is at worst, at worst a civil violation. i don't even think it is bad. me running for office, i can donate to my campaign unlimited sums. i would have to report it but this is debatable if this was even a campaign payment. why? richard is trying to debate at right here. let's be honest. you have no idea why donald trump paid this money. you can speculate. you can say he wanted to spare embarrassment. you don't know that. >> these same people who would buy the fact that donald trump meant to say would or wouldn't do vladimir putin would believe the notion that on october 25, he paid off stormy daniels from something ten years ago having nothing to do with the presidential campaign. that same person would believe that. nobody else in the country would. >> i didn't -- is stormy daniels russian or kremlin connected? do you have information we don't? it's a serious question. okay, thanks. okay, well, i have to switch gears. >> jason: lanny davis said something pretty important. listen from this morning on msnbc. >> can you say definitively whether you know michael cohen was in prague in 2016? >> never, never in prague. never, never in prague. ever. ever. just let your viewers know, the dossier, so called mention his name 14 times. one of which is a meeting with russians in prague. 14 times fall. >> jason: that's a pretty strong statement. going back to the dossier. david, as you look at this, how do you read it? it's a pretty important development. >> just as lanny davis said this morning on "america's newsroom," the reason he was willing to take michael cohen on was because michael cohen wanted to take down president trump. look, gloria aldrin tried to use personal information during the 2016 campaign to defeat donald trump and she wasn't successful. what this really means is is in 76 days, if you want congress to spend two years on investigation and on impeachment, you vote democrat. if you want the congress to focus on job creation policies, securing our border, and annoying the media, you vote republican. >> jason: last word. ten seconds. >> mostly david with the public wants is a check on donald trump. rightly or wrongly, i think that's what the polling is telling us. the fact of the first two people in congress who endorsed his campaign are now criminal defendants, i just think there's a sense of corruption that the public wants to at least put some breaks on if possible. we will see. >> jason: bob menendez. thank you. i appreciate all three of you for joining us tonight. while cohen and manafort are facing serious prison sentences, everyone in hillary clinton's orbit is getting off scot-free. what about the surveillance of members of the trump campaign? no charges filed on that and no evidence that the special prosecutor is pursuing that. this all sounds like a two-tiered system of justice to me. raising questions, is the second special counsel needed? joining me now for reaction, former u.s. attorney kendall coffey and brian rotella, ceo and senior partner of janco legal. i appreciate you being here. i want to get your perspective as attorneys. this whole issue of attorney-client privilege. if you would go out and hire an attorney to do something, i presume you do it to make sure that it's done legally and lawfully. you have some protections in being able to give that information would make those things move forward. as a look at this situation, kendall, isn't that a plausible story or scenario? how does that only fall apart in the cohen situation? >> that's why we can charge the big bucks. clients trust us with confidentiality. they trust us with figuring all this out. campaign finance laws are especially complicated, especially federal campaign find finance laws. i suspect not only did the president have no idea this some might put this on a prosecution radar screen but i doubt michael cohen did. what's being talked about is a federal crime, unsuccessfully raised against john edwards. years ago, discredited as a theory. most people think if he use personal money that goes to some private person in order to deal with personal issues, that's not a campaign contribution. >> jason: brian, are we supposed to believe every conversation now that donald trump has had with his attorney is somehow part of what the special counsel gets to look at? isn't there some sort of limitation? the attorney-client privilege isn't just waived on all these issues, correct? >> yeah, jason. look, for your audience, anyone who heard this allocution michael cohen gave yesterday, allocution might sound like something from "the sopranos." i am italian-american. folks would get up in front of the court and a test there was a thing called the mafia in the united states. i'm not sure if the president should nickname michael: either better not call saul or captain obvious. it's pretty obvious that what he said yesterday, the president, women he was having relationships with outside of his marriage that he thought that might impact his view, folks' view on the election. nothing criminal about that. getting to your question is a lawyer, attorney-client privilege is one thing we have. we have it for a reason. it looks like donald trump has found himself in the jurassic park of lawyers. i'm waiting for the next raptor lawyer to come out. between lanny davis, and i was listening to your last segment, the stuff he did in the '90s, some of the things we are seeing now with cohen and then also let's not forget that jim comey is an attorney. you know very well jason, look with that attorney dated his findings back on july 5 of 2016. when he found that hillary clinton was quote-unquote extremely careless with her emails which by the way was a standard change by our favorite fbi character, peter strzok. >> jason: a whole nother set of subjects. what is highly suspicious for me is that donald trump's former attorney suddenly represented by summative mcclinton orbit, lanny davis. lanny has a duty and responsibility under the law to protect his client, but i want to play a clip from lanny davis here. i want you to ask yourself at home is lanny davis working in the best interests of his client, mr. cohen or izzy working in the best interest of his own personal political beliefs. watch this clip. >> will michael cohen seek a pardon from the president of the night states for any of this? >> the answer is definitively no, under no circumstances since he came to the judgment after mr. trump's election to the presidency. that his suitability is a serious risk to our country. certainly after helsinki, creates serious questions about his loyalty to our country. his answer would be no, i do not want a pardon from this man. >> jason: are you kidding me? if you are an attorney for some buddy who is now pleading guilty to a felony, you wouldn't accept a pardon from the president of the united states? how in the world can you make a case that that's in the best interests of his client, mr. cohen? kendall, what are your thoughts? >> well, i think it sounds like positioning. i am sure lanny davis had some conversation with his client as well as as well as his cocounsel before he launched into that. i think anybody would accept a pardon from about anybody who was president. it is so much better than the alternatives. >> jason: i think he is doing it for political posturing. brian, what is your take? stick i think it is comical lanny davis is michael cohen's lawyer. lanny davis was as entrenched in the 90s with the clintons as episodes of friends on blockbuster video. he is one of their best friends. that's the attorney for michael cohen. the fact that he said what he said, which i don't believe is a crime. captain obvious, something about president trump karen that's all the evidence we've seen today about anything that has to do with president trump in this investigation, i think it raises a lot of questions. to folks in america wondering what is all the billable hours in the mueller investigation? it is on the taxpayers' dime and i think they're probably pretty sick of it. >> jason: i would love to find out who is funding lanny davis and his political motivations. gentlemen, thank you. you wouldn't know it by watching msnbc but there were new develop it's in the mollie tibbetts case today. ed henry will be here next with the report. bass pro shops and cabela's bring you the fall hunting classic with huge savings. like this cuddeback black flash game camera for only $75. and these keen men's waterproof hiking boots for under $90. jason, good to talk to. elizabeth warren saying she knows it's hard for the family of mollie tibbetts to deal with this tragedy, but the nation, she says, should focus instead on what she called real problems like illegal aliens being separated at the border from their kids. the president is firing back with a video on twitter that says it's mollie tibbetts who is now personally, permanently separated from her family. cristhian rivera, the illegal alien charged with first-degree murder in the death of mollie tibbetts, appeared in striped prison garb and shackles in the county court in iowa. i.c.e. officials say he has been in the u.s. illegally for up to seven years. police say rivera followed mollie tibbetts during her nightly jog. she pleaded with him to knock it off, stop trailing her. warning she would call the police. rivera claims at that point he blacked out or when he woke up, tibbetts was in his trunk with a bloodied skull. police say he led them to a corn field where they found what they believed to be tibbets' body. rivera worked at yarrabee farms. of unofficial initially claimed they put them through e-verify but then clarified that had not happened. the president, as i mentioned, tweeted out a video expressing his sympathy to the tibbets family and sang this case shows massive reforms of the nation's immigration laws is simply long-overdue. >> we screen every applicant through the social security administration's social security number verification service. in addition, we ran that information to the verification sister and the information came back verified. our employee was not who he said he was. >> nobody has laws like the united states. they are strictly pathetic. we need new immigration laws. we need new border laws. the democrats will never give them, and the wall is being built. we have started it. but we also need the funding for this year's building of the wal wall. so to the family of mollie tibbetts, all i can say is god bless you. >> jason: with that video as well as the president's mention of tibbetts at the rally last night west virginia, a defense attorney said in court today given all those comments, "at the highest level of government, the media should be blocked from the courtroom to ensure a fair trial." the judge denied that move, meaning it's going to get a lot of media attention. we do good decision from the court. we appreciate you joining us. very upsetting. i would like to note fox news is the only cable news outlet to air the arraignment of mollie's alleged killer. joining me now as an immigration attorney. art arthur, a fellow at the senior for immigration studies. when i was chairman of the house oversight committee, art arthur was an employee there for some time. a good one, at that. gentlemen, thank you for being here. francisco, i want to ask him what you think it's legitimate that news outlets cover this story? >> i think news outlets out to cover what they want to cover. i don't beg we can blame in 11 million people for the murder of one person. >> jason: nobody did that. name one person. i never did that. who blamed 11 million people? >> you just did. the president just said immigration reform is long overdue. >> jason: do you agree with that? >> jason: i do agree. we have been saying that for 18 years. what's the problem? wire loop lives as in the death of a young lady? if you are making money and getting ratings on the death of a young lady and trying to blame 11 million people for one person. >> jason: you don't think it's relevant this person is here illegally? >> it is relevant the person committed a murder. it doesn't effect 11 million people. who the president agrees we ought to have an immigration form. why are we mixing the two? >> jason: do you agree that if this person wasn't in this country, this murder would not have occurred? >> we don't know whether that would have happened. >> jason: no, we wouldn't. the answer is simple. it would have never happened. if he was not in this country, he would've never murdered that young lady. >> all right, i will give you that. let's reform the law. is not going to stop the murder? stop politicizing it. >> jason: how was it politicizing? let me show you this poll. francisco. look at this poll that was done by gallup. survey of over 1,000 americans. put this poll on the screen. the number one issue that americans view is the top problem facing the united states of america: immigration. the number one issue. it is legitimate. francisco. >> what happened to the wall and mexico paying for the wall? >> jason: you build that wall, families don't get separated. they don't get separated. and it'll come here illegally. >> are you saying this murder would not have happened if you build the wall? peter yes. because he wouldn't be here illegally? >> he had been here long before tom came along. >> jason: because we have an open, porous border. arthur, what's your take on this? please weigh in. >> if he hadn't been in the united states, this murder never would've occurred. the fact is every murder is senseless. this one was needless. the president's 100% correct. not all immigrants are criminals. in fact, the vast majority aren't. but the ones who are, are. they need to be removed from the united states. we need to do away with sanctuary laws protecting criminal aliens. we need to enforce immigration laws so we can keep people who have no right to be in the united states out of the united states. this is a murder that could've been prevented. >> jason: art, one of my deep concerns here is that look, if you have these other networks that aren't covering it, i wonder why they are not. this is one of the most high-profile murders out there and they don't cover it. it strikes me because it doesn't fit their political narrative. they don't want that story out there. you think i'm going too far? >> this was a case that was covered for an entire month, as people were looking for this young woman. her father was desperate trying to find her. every network cover date. as soon as the narrative changed, the story got dropped because it didn't fit the narrative the networks wanted to carry. it's that simple. >> jason: francisco, do you believe it's right to abolish immigration customs enforcement? are you one who says yes, we should abolish i.c.e.? >> i've never said that. >> jason: i'm asking you. >> no. absolutely not. i.c.e. only does what congress tells them to do. let me bring you back to the immigration reform. republicans are in the majority. why don't we pass immigration reform now? we could've passed one president trump first took office. we are still stuck in the mud. >> jason: it's because you can't get to 60 votes in the senate. that's the number one issue. francisco, donald trump went way above and beyond and even offered to take care of the dreamers, and the democrats wouldn't even come to the table and have the discussion. that's exactly what happened. >> jason: have not had a single vote. let's have a vote and let the democrats -- >> jason: i also sat there. i was on the immigration subcommittee when the democrats have the house and senate. >> we are talking about now. >> jason: i am also telling you you're trying to make a case -- francisco, do you believe they should build a wall? >> why do you think is a republn motivation build the wall? >> build it. we're going to have to legalize 100,000 mexicans to build it right anyway. that's a darn good start. let's get going with immigration reform. let's stop talking about it. art, do you think we should build a wall and why? >> we should erect barriers to prevent individuals from coming into the united states illegally to stop contraband from coming into the united states illegally. you and i both investigated incidents where there was drugs, there were dangerous materials they came over the border. we need to stop it. the fact is the border is porous. it's wide open. it needs to be closed. >> jason: gentlemen, thank you thank you. thank you both. remember, at the end of this, you still have this horrific murder that should have never, ever happened. that doesn't mean that everybody that's here illegally is responsible. it means that person kill that person. we want to prevent those things. those things should be at the top of our agenda in dealing with this, with the american people wants congress to address. raymond arroyo will be here next with more on the me too cn why animal crackers are on the loos loose. it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. >> jason: it is time for our "seen and unseen segment will read" behind the big cultural stories the day. there are some major hypocrisy coming from one of harvey weinstein's most vocal -- raymond arroyo is here with the latest. what's going on with this asia argento story? >> asia argento is an actress who was on the forefront of the need me too movement. now a 22-year-old man came forward, jimmy bennett, to say she abused him when she was 17. she denies those allegations, and she released a statement. "i am deeply shocked and hurt by having read news that is absently false. i've never had any relationship with bennett." today tmz released images of the two of them together in 2013 when jimmy bennett was 17. and ms. argento was 37. also they released a text message exchange where she tells a friend of hers, and we will put it on the screen. "i had sex with him. it felt weird. i didn't know he was a minor until the shakedown letter." she paid him, working out with anthony bourdain, with whom she was involved. now the los angeles police are investigating this and she has been bumped off the x factor in italy which is a show she's part of. when i look at this, jason and i look at the catholic church, going through its own passion of sorts on these types of issues, everybody's got to be held to the same standard, no matter your gender, no matter what you believe. people need to -- if you are a victim of this abuse, you have to come forward. the authority to get involved. for the broad brushing we have been seeing of men or people of a certain religious persuasion should be put on the back burner in everyone of these cases should be evaluated on their merits. i hope that's what happens in hollywood and in the catholic church and elsewhere. >> jason: it's a sad story all around. there are victims, men and women. harvey weinstein certainly, i hope it doesn't hurt the case against him because it sounds like one of the most horrific out there. i've got to transition something that's a little closer to my personal heart, and that is the box for those of barnum animal crackers. you don't get a belly like mine by passing up on those crackers. >> we all grew up on barnum animal's crackers. i'd be at the heads up those suckers my whole life. now they are changing the design of the box. used to be the boxcar with the animals on it. >> jason: i felt safe. they were locked up. >> new design. the animals are free. i will tell you where this came from. peta. to be 23, people for the ethical treatment of animals, petitioned nabisco. they said we've got to lose these animals. here's what they said. given the egregious cruelty inherent in circuses that use animals and the public swelling opposition to the exploitation of animals used for entertainment, we urge nabisco to update its packaging. peta's it's an organization, jason, the for the barnum and bailey circus out of business because they were upset with the treatment of animals and featuring animals. all of this brought to mind to me what other mascots or major spokesman might need revision? given the political correct times we are in. >> jason: what do you think? >> the first thing was the pillsbury dough boy. this poor little fella has been poked and assaulted his entire existence. it is time to reimagine. maybe not poke the little guy anymore. then i thought of the peanuts, mr. peanut. you see him on all those packages. he has the cane and top hat and a monocle. he is very socially elitist, i think. it's time to put him in a baseball cap and may be sneakers. get him down with the people. that's what we need. then i thought about tony the tiger. everybody grew up with tony the tiger. where are the pants on tony the tiger? in the me too generation, he should have trousers. that goes for the pillsbury dough boy. >> jason: i've never thought about that. next time i eat my frosted flakes. i've got to tell you, that camel does not get enough credit on those crackers. not even on the cover. a lot of wild camels running around in utah. finally, a wisconsin tech company making some strange offers. what in the world? >> is a company called three square market. they are a tech company. they want to make it easier for their employees to open doors, access their computers, get into the parking lot. so they have been planted -- implanted microchips. 80 employees have taken them up on the deal. implanted microchips between the index finger and thumb. the ceo says they love it. >> the vast majority of our employees absolutely love the conveniences that having this chip in their hand really brings to them. >> we did this, honestly, initially, just for fun because that's what a technology company does. it has evolved into a whole nother business which we are in development right now of an actual chip that will be powered by the human body. what we have really done a sort of made it acceptable or brought into the forefront where people are now talking about it. >> they are talking about it, all right. this is not something i want to try out. i don't know about you, jason. >> jason: how fat and lazy is america that they can't lift their badge up and put it up against the scanner. they think it's fun to embed in your body a chip? >> it raises privacy issues, tracking issues. if they can take your credit card information by swiping you in a crowd with a scanner, imagine what they can do with a micro chip in your hand. the other thing is, what happens when you quit? do they take the handoff? >> jason: if you ever changed jobs. you're exactly right. hey, peta, what do you think about that? i put a chip and my dog so he doesn't get lost. i am saving the dog's life so i can find her and bring her home. raymond, thank you. i really do appreciate it. you won't believe what a rising star in the democratic party said about nfl players kneeling during the national anthem. stay with us. once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. >> jason: you are not going to believe this. that o'rourke is a rising star in the democratic party and polls show him surprisingly close in a race against ted cruz for one of texas' seats in the senate. on the campaign trail, he was recently asked if he thought it was disrespectful for nfl players to kneel during the national anthem. >> my short answer is no. i don't think it's disrespectful. peaceful, nonviolent protests, including taking a knee at a football game to point out that black men, unarmed black teenagers, unarmed. black children, unarmed. are being killed at a frightening level right now, including by members of law enforcement. without accountability and without justice. they take a need to bring our attention and focus of this prox it. that's why they are doing it like and think of nothing more american than to peacefully stand up or take a knee for your right anytime, anywhere, any place. >> jason: nothing more patriotic. the left is praising congressman o'rourke on social media for those comments, but i'm not sure that's going to play well with the voters in the lone star state. we are talking about texts. joining me now to discuss this fox news contributor kevin jackson and civil rights attorney brian watkins. brian, i want to start with you. why do you think americans go and watch football? why do they watch the nfl? >> they enjoy it. it's a game. it's entertainment. it's enjoyable to watch. absolutely. >> jason: you do it as an escape, right question might do you think you want to kick off the game by having political statements? how does that strike you? >> you know, i don't think you would be saying the same thing if, for example, if the network executives and movie executives said to their employees, actors and actresses, i don't want you talking about that me too movement type stuff. we don't want to bring that issue up. we are about entertainment, so don't talk about it. i think people would have a problem with that. i don't understand why people have a problem with young black african-american men who have the spotlight, simply taking a knee, asking for -- they are not asking to place a soap box at the 50-yard line and give a speech. not participating in the anthem by silently, quietly taking a knee? b2 do you understand how offensive it is to the men and women to observe this country? is the 2 minutes we take out in a bipartisan way honoring the flag in our country, honoring our troops, trying trying to ce together. barack obama said we are not the red states where the blue states. we are the united states. that's patriotic. even a revocable and like me thought that was a great statement. the one chance we have to the united, and emmanuel are on the field or political side of the aisle, that's the thing you do, try to disturb that and distract from that? >> so let's coverage from the beto o'rourke point of view. what they didn't talk about was the references he made to blacks and the oppression blacks faced many, many years ago. decades ago at the hands of his own party, the democrats. oh, by the way, what o'rourke also failed to mention is that all the things he's talking about with the reason why blacks are kneeling in the nfl has to do with what? the so-called lack of civil rights by police in big cities who are run by democrats throughout the entire political process. so what's interesting is that this is a problem for democrats from the past and it's a problem for democrats right now that's been created by democrats. so he wants to talk about the kneelers, if these guys really believed in kneeling, why didn't colin kaepernick kneel during the barack obama administration when did colin kaepernick help any black in any city, what has he done prior to the kneeling to help any of the blacks are being killed in crazy numbers every weekend? it's a disingenuous movement for o'rourke to hearken back to the days of civil rights as if these self-indulgent -- >> jason: let me get him back in. >> self-indulgent multimillionaires to want to kneel in and act as if blacks e facing these issues every day, patently ridiculous. >> the protesting kneeling before the national anthem which i think is disrespectful to the flag, our country commensurately to our troops. that's my take on it. i think the majority of the polling would show it. also see people in play or sing hey, i'm not going to go to the white house. i'm not going to interact. i think the opposite should be true. they should be saying i would actually like to meet with donald trump. i would actually like to meet with republicans. don't you think that would be more productive? >> it could be productive. that's what america is all about, the debate. highlighting and -- >> jason: why during a football game? why do you do it during the football game? >> hundreds of thousands of people watch. when you have the spotlight on you. >> not anymore. >> it's their responsibility -- >> jason: i do think the ratings are going down? you are finding more people than you are getting to your cause. nfl players, when i was in congress, came and met with me and trey gowdy and john ratcliffe, and we listened and talked about the need for criminal justice reform. it was productive. what you are doing is offending people by kneeling and disrespecting the flag. >> jason, let me say one thing. many nfl players -- >> jason: brian. kevin i will give you the last word. >> you should not be offended by someone doing a silent protest. it's a nonviolent silent protest that offense and hurts no one to highlight an issue. >> a majority of people. [all speaking] >> jason: how does it hurt somebody? why not let them do it? >> they can do whatever they want, and the public has responded i think that the chips fall where they may but i also want to give a shout out to the players who are standing for the flag and the anthem because they are unheralded. unfortunately. it's a very small minority of young players who don't want to stand for the flag. the majority of football players get it because they understand that this is a game. >> jason: that's right, and there's a time in a place for it, and those couple minutes when we honor the flag is not the time to do it. i want to be part of that solution. when i was in congress, i was working on criminal justice reform. it's a legitimate issue. done at the wrong time in the wrong way. that's my take on it. >> the only time in places when the spotlight is on you. >> jason: people have plenty of spotlight. they have millions of dollars. they can have the spotlight any time. when they are invited to the white house and disrespect the presidency of the united states. you know how many times i got invited the white house? i didn't want to go there because barack obama was the president. i did out of respect. i wanted to engage in dialogue. that's what you do. you don't run away. given the opportunity to go to the white house and then you don't go. i think that's wrong. i am over time. i have to leave it here. we have to talk about what's going on in san francisco because leave it to san francisco to trailblazing new way to undermine i.c.e. details after this. (woman) learned to play an instrument. do you think this puts law enforcement in danger? >> i don't think it puts law-enforcement ric officers in danger. it's good to have community oversight. what would be nice to see his body cameras on the ic officers. this might force them to do that because there's going to be people documenting what's going on and hopefully it stays peaceful. >> jason: if you know in advance that i.c.e. is forming. i've been on these raids, okay? i've been out there and done it. they usually form in a parking lot and then they will walk in on an area and surround the house committees and surveillance. there is time to give them a heads up. don't you think that that's going to put law enforcement in harm's way? >> anytime you're chasing after a fugitive, you are in harm's way. >> jason: does this make it worse or better? >> it depends of those people -- >> jason: there is only one answer. >> you can't say they're going to get tipped off. >> jason: there's a hot live. there's a 24-hour hotline. that's the point. >> people to show up and make sure they are doing their job. not necessarily to tip the people off. >> jason: it's a tip line. that's what it's called. what's your take? >> not only does it put law enforcement in danger, it puts american citizens in danger. it puts the people of san francisco in danger. if you have a hotline or a snitch line and you see law-enforcement coming, what you're doing is two things for your encouraging people to break the law and you're also intimidating the people that you're supposed to serve. because now they are going to feel compelled to come forward if they see something and try to tell on law-enforcement coming in their community. it's a bad precedent. this is something that is ape local practitioner bluff for them to keep doing. it will help us run the country. as an american citizen, it's appalling. they should remove it. if they want to do a hotline, try to do a hotline for the millions -- >> jason: do you think this is going to move the situation? what do you tell the spouse of an i.c.e. officer. how do you look her or him in the eye and say your loved one is going on this raid tonight. by the way, the target of who they are going after is going to be tipped off. what do you say that person? >> you can't guarantee that the target is going to be tipped off. the community might be but that doesn't mean the target will be. when it comes down to is a frustration in the immigration community in general of nothing moving forward. nothing is happening. whether you are on the side of the, undocumented, or you want immigration reform. your anti-illegal immigrant. >> jason: donald trump as an offer on the table to chuck schumer and the democrats are never responded to in terms of -- he went further than i would've ever gone in of dealing with the daca kids and all that. >> they are frustrated so they get to break the law? the only thing i disagree with -- >> jason: i don't think it's necessarily breaking the law. they have a first amendment right to do this. >> it is in operating the law. >> if you are informing and telling law-enforcement agents. if that talk about immigration reform and say we're going to do something about it and then snitch on law-enforcement officials put them in danger and puts americans in danger. >> jason: gentlemen, thank you. i've got to cut it off. we'll be right back. at bayer, our roots run deep. so chances are, you've seen us around the house. or... around the yard. on the shelf... or even... out in the field. your mom knew she could always count on us... and your grandma did too. because for over 150 years, we've been right by your side. advancing the health of the people, plants and pets you love. so, from all of us at bayer... thank you for trusting in us. then... and now.