tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News January 23, 2020 11:00pm-12:00am PST
we seek the truth. laura,look at that tweet. >> laura: we brought you details of a secret 2016 meeting between obama andd ukranian prosecutor. the article the "new york times" was going to write was never published.d. we touched a nerve. tonight part 2 of our expose including how a ukrainian official helped the dnc hurt the trump campaign. first, day 3 of the impeachment trial is nearing its end.
just like last night we will i fact check the arguments. we have exclusive insight from congressman jim jordan and a white house spoke mann and senator blackburn who sat through hours and hours of oral arguments will tell us why the tone of the house impeachment managers think is really hurting their case. after listening to arguments today, it's clear that house democrats are operating under the assumption they can make tremendous leaps of logic contradict the public testimony of their own witnesses and in some cases just outright lie. their new maxim, if at first you don't persuade. lie and lie again. the rest of the media is not interested in fact checking democrats, we decided we would do it. first, adam schiff and the impeachment managers took to
levelling new charges against president trump. >> it's not every day you get a document like this. what appears to be a member of the conspiracy writing down the object of the conspiracy. >> laura: conspiracy, this sounds serious. but then why wasn't it made into an articles of impeachment. why didn't they move to amend the articles of impeachment? there is a thing called authenticating a document. it's called the chain of command. we have no idea what that is all about. adam schiff is trying to intuit the whole thing for us. no thanks. second schiff developed thee power to read minds. >> you can say a lot of things about the attorney general, butr
you can't say he ever looked to pursue something he thought was not in the president's interest. this is pretty extraordinary where he is saying the moment this transcript is publicly released, i have nothing to do with this scheme. the attorney general can recognize a drug deal when he sees it too. >> laura: that was one of my favorites. lot. a schiff has been called dazzling. i guess they forgot to mention he is a walking and talking magic 8 ball too. he can read the mind of attorney general bill barr just because barr said i didn't talk to anyone about this. big deal. 3rd, when they failed to have arguments good enough on their own they lean on the founder. here's jerry nadler.
>> hamilton was a wise man. he saw danger far ahead of his time. given the threats they had to anticipate, the framers considered broad ground for removing presidents. >> laura: it sound damning. the "washington post" said that line was from a note that the treasury secretary wrote to washington about tax policy and didn't mention impeachment. anyone can take a fragment of what john jay said or roger sherman said and say, he agrees with me. it's what 8th graders do in bad essays. 4th, nadler also claimed this. >> the articles of impeachment against president trump rank
among the most serious charges ever brought againstst a president. since president george washington took office in 1789 no president abused his pour in in way. prior presidents would be shocked with such contact. >> laura: let's check in with a constitutional expert. >> this fails to satisfy past impeachment hearings but creates a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. >> laura: and fifth the president must bow down to unelected bureaucrats. >> vice-president biden went through the official channels to remove the prosecutor that was corrupt. that's the exact opposite of what president trump did. that was not at all u.s. policy. >> laura: this gets to the point of the entire circus.
the impeachment zealots want to intervene anywhere we feel like it. instead of challenging him at the ballot box, they hope to remove him from office. that's what it comes down to. do the american people have a say in u.s. policy through the officials they elect? or we just happy to let career bureaucrats in the state department tell us what is best because they have a ph d at the end ofel their name? none of them were elected. presidentt trump was. he does foreign policy. if he wants to fire marie yovanovitch he can do so for any reason. even democrats should be alarmed by the stupidity of these arguments. joining me now is congressman jim jordan and a member of
president trump impeachment defense team. do democrats really believe these assertions -- let's focus on one. the number of times the word conspiracy was used. none of this is in the articles of impeachment. they can under the senate rules can say hearsay and get away with it. >> they don't have the facts. they make things up. frankly it should not surprise us. adam schiff told us for two years i have evidence that president trump worked with russia to influence the election. that was not true. adam schiff said the fisa process was just fine. adam schiff said we would hear from the whistleblower. it should not surprise us what he and nadler are asserting. the facts are on the president's
side. the constitution is on the president's side and the unfair process is another great argument the white house cant' make. what they did in the house was very unfair to the president. >> laura: one thing they alleged is that the president doesn't really care about corruption in other countries. watch. >> the fact that the president only wanted a public announcement and not the investigations to actually be conducted. demonstrates that his desire for investigations was to boost his reelection efforts. >> laura: this is what the president said in 2016 when he was running for president about foreign aid. >> my foreign policy will always put the interests of the american people and american security above all else. i will also be prepared to deploy america's economic resources, financial leverage
and sanctions can be very, very persuasive. >> laura: this has been his entire argument. look at the nato secretary general said nato nations are starting to pay fines. >> yes, he ran on this. a colleague said we don't have to pay people to hate us. they will do it for free. president trump said i am not a big fan of this, but i want other european allies to share in the burden. and ukraine was one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet. the president said let's check him out and see if he is the real deal. after 55 days he was convinced i think he is the real deal and the aid was released. >> laura: and doesn't have the president have it within his powers to make these calls? >> totally. >> laura: if he wanted to hold
up the aid, but he is the chief executive officer of the united states. if he thinks something stinks in the ukraine with biden? >> absolutely. this obstruction of congress. that's what the founders called separation of powers. >> laura: checks and balances. and hakeem jeffries raised another issue rejected by y'all in the house. watch. >> read the transcript president trump says. we have read the transcript and it is damning evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo. the evidence against donald
trump is hiding in plain sight. >> laura: that's very dramatic. that's an l.a. law moment. >> that's ridiculous. there was never any linkage promising an investigation to get release of the money. i asked sonland when t did this happen? it never did.ev they got the money on september 11th and the meeting on september 25th. >> laura: adam schiff said that's because he wasau caught. >> not true. august 31st, senator johnson on a phone call with president trump. the president tells him you will like my decision. he was becoming convinced that zelensky and the new parliment. that they were implementing the reforms they needed to implement. >> laura: they would have put the quid pro quo in the articles of impeachment, right?
>> they received quid pro quo on september 24th. >> laura: they are resurrecting the ghosts of the house impeachment process. thanks for coming in. house impeachment manager made a bizarre legal claim that got my attention. she said that executiverr privilege can't be used to prevent a witness who is willing to testify from appearing. bolton has a right to testify if he wants to. joining me now is a former independent council and bob barr. this is an interesting area of the law. is in that case that bolton can defy the president's invocation of executive privilege?
>> well, as a general proposition, the congresswoman's state. it is preposterous. in practical terms, several of the ambassadors and state department officials who did testify in front of the house were instructed not to. they did it anyway. the president did not go into court. keep this in mind. there has never been a judicial test to my knowledge of executive privilege during an impeachment. >> laura: you are right about that. correct. >> that's very important. >> laura: you are completely right about that. bob, i want to go to you on that. under the rules i understand, there is no rule about executive privilege and impeachment. it's history and context and we
figure it out as we go along. democrats said they thought the chief justice would rule on the executive privilege dispute at the senate trial. the constitutional scholars said no, that's not how it works. the senate actually decides an immunity question at trial. this is fascinating for anyone who believes in separation of powers. would you advise the president to invoke executive privilege? >> absolutely, i would. it's not getting into the weeds. it's a fundamental over-arching question here.e. does the president's ability as the chief executive officer of the united states of america have the power and the responsibility to protect information the release of which
would damage national security or the president's ability to carry out policies including national security policies? it follows the information notpr the individual. if an individual purports or is forced or attempts to convey information that is privileged, the president can assert that whether or not the person is currently employed by the government or not. the body that decides that is not the chief justice. it's the senate itself. >> laura: yes, they're need 51 votes. we will move on from this. that's an interesting question. house manager jerry nadler made another claim that was stunning about the strength of their case. >> all of the legal experts who testified before the house
judiciary committee, those invited by the democrats and those invited boy the republicans, all agreed that the conduct we charged constitutes high crimes and misdemeanor. >> laura: we just played the clip of turley saying otherwise. and we have plenty of constitutional scholars. this is not proven at all. >> this is one of those cringe worthy moments. in real life the expert witnesses is not allowed to testify about the facts of the case. that's what jerry nadler is confused about and ignoring turley's testimony. he has a different memory and a different understanding of the law than reality. >> laura: saul, something that elizabeth warren said when she
did one of the step out of the proceedings today. she goes to the cameras and she is talking about how trump is constantly putting up road blocks to information. let's watch. >> this is the constitutional responsibility of the senate to hold a trial. the president of the unitedth states, the one who is on trial for impeachment, can justify to throw up road blocks. that means it becomes too hard for the senate to hold a trial. then the senate will give up and go home? that violate every principle to the constitution. >> laura: saul, tension among the branches of government. one branch doesn't want the other branch to get information. we have never seen that happen before. >> that violates the thirdhe
amendment. no quartering of soldiers. one person's road block is another person's check and balances or constitutional provisions. i keep harping on this. the historical precedents are strong for an argument that says executive privilege doesn't exist in thet impeachment context. the house could have done something about that by formerly starting an impeachment inquiry earlier and challenging in court. they didn't do this. incompetence on the part of the speaker. >> laura: the idea that the president gives up his right, that just gets thrown out the door because a bunch of partisans drag him through an impeachment inquiry?
>> that's right. i have a different take than saul. the president has a duty to invoke it on behalf ofof the separations of powers. how the course will come out on it? in the harriet myers situation in 2008 there was a ruling on different shades of executive privilege and rejecting the proposition it's not absolute. so it's situational and question by question. >> laura: issue by issue. it depend on what is revealed by answering a particular question. john bolton may show up but may not be able to answer the question because it violate executive immunity. we have to go. sorry, running out of time. thanks for joining us. for a question everybody is asking. what is the mood at the white house?
the president is coming back from miami. joining us now is tony the white house impeachment spokesman. what is the president feeling? >> we heard 3 straight days of nothing different. this is the bad sequel to the house hearings. a lot of bluster and claims made by democrats and the witnesses they called. there has been an embarrassing lack of facts in this case. >> laura: they have a lot of sound bites and documents and yovanovitch. >> that doesn't makeup for bad facts. the thing that strengthens our belief we have a strong case, think about the ukraine aid? was it held up?e no, it was paid when it was allocated. >> laura: adam schiff just spoke.te he had a new comment about the transcript.
just said it. >> let me just point out a few things that may have escaped our understanding of the transcript which is not really a transcript because it's not complete. >> laura: they haven't said that phrasing. >> their key witnesses in the house hearings who were in opposition to the president's view testified that that was an accurate description of what happened on the call. >> laura: it's not complete. the conspiracy would have been proven had it been a complete transcript. i heard a lot. that was something. it's late at night. maybe he is dizzy. >> he fabricated what is in that record. what is hurting the democrats they are using the senate trial as a fishing expedition. they know they don't have the evidence they need. maybe if we bring this other witness.s..
looking to get your business off to a fast start in the new year? it's go time! switch to comcast business and get fast internet on the nation's largest gig-speed network. plus, complete reliability with 4g lte backup. and, cloud-based security to help protect the devices on your network. greenlight your business in 2020 with fast internet and voice for $64.90 per month. switch now and get a $100 prepaid card when you add comcast business securityedge. call today. comcast business. beyond fast.
♪ >> laura: 24 hours ago we brought you an explosive story. judging by responses it struck a nerve.ho "the ingraham angle" showed you state department emails from last year that no one in tv brought you before. they centered on a january 2016 meetings between the obama administration officials and ukrainian prosecutors about how the efforts to fight corruption in ukraine might be imperiled by hunter biden's ties to barisma. tonight whoa we have a new
development. one of the ukrainians is a man who is a political officer in the ukrainian embassy. his name also pops up in a 2017 piece that detailed efforts by ukrainian officials to undermine trump's 2016 campaign. written by the same reporter who after pursuing it didn't write that story about that white house 2016 meeting.g he aided a dnc operative to hurt trump campaign to find connections between trump and russia. he didn't do this willingly. he was forced into helping herru
to go after trump. here's what he said in 2017. we had an order not to talk toe the trump team because he was critical of ukraine and the government. i was yelled at when i proposed to talk to trump. she said not to get involved. hillary clinton was going to win. we asked these questions.al do they know why ken voguele decided not to publish that story? what was the state department's focus in the january 2016 meeting with the ukrainian officials? why did the person we think isua the whistleblower arrange this meeting? as of this moment we have received no response to your
questions. we are not stopping our call for more documents, the emails, the text messages, the voice mails, anything that sheds light on what looks like on the surface to be a concerted effort to save the biden from political embarrassment and hurt presidend trump along the way. joining me is molly hemmingway a fox news contributor and victor davis hansen. molly, there are a lot of facts to back up the notion of ukrainian election meddling. >> you have a coordinated effort between media and the democratsf to keep people from any discussion about ukrainian meddling much less an investigation. the politico article people speak openly.. she bragged about how shee coordinated between the ukraine and the democratic national committee to get negative
information about paul manafort into the election year. she sourced the dossier toat russian officials. and they were funneling the dnc and the clinton campaign money. they unseated paul manafort. >> laura: that's big. the emails. the state department officials didn't know what to do when they were approached about that meeting. trump was ahead. but you didn't know what would happen. the ukrainian officials were brought into the white house and checked in by who many think was the whistleblower. it was about their investigatiof
of barisma and hunter biden was on that board. >> nobody thought donald trump would win. they were not shying and the ukrainian officials were writing op-eds about how powerful trump would be if elected. it was matter of fact. then all of these liberal fact checking out fits said it was true. david merkel from the atlantic counsel had ukrainian ties. there was no controversy over this until the russian collusion heated up to remove trump. they got word. we have our foot prints all over the ukrainian collusion. it begs the question:
why would they want to have witnesses called? hunter biden is the key to this. everybody knows he had no expertise in oil or the ukraine. ukraine was corrupt and his dad was vice-president and the point man on ukraine. why would you want him to get out there and testify in this tangle of lies when his father is a front runner in the democratic primary? >> laura: the mother of his child can't even find him. senator graham said this. >> i don't know how many times it was said by the managers that the biden conflict of interest allegations has been debunked. i know a lot about the trump family and their feelings in russia. i don't know anything about, about the biden connection to the ukraine.
so when the managers tell meid this has been looked at and debunked, by who? >> laura: it's more than that. the house impeachment proceedings, one of the witnesses testified she was briefed assuming senators would ask her about hunter biden's role at barisma. you have these emails you unveiled. showing there were meetings where people were concerned about hunter biden's role. and the idea that obama's officials were concerned but noo questions about it is very alarming. >> laura: victor, when you watch this thing today and listen to adam schiff, insert new charges into the articles of impeachment, which are not in the articles of impeachment. throwing around words like conspiracy. grand conspiracy. the quid pro quo that was thrown out because they had to read the
transcript. there was no quid pro quo. they can defame the president and no one can object. that's are the rules of the senate. >> i don't know why they have adam schiff out there. they turned the prosecution over to him. this is a guy exposed on so many levels. he read the false version of the phone calls and lied about his contacts with the whistleblower. he could be witness number 1. he is key to this whole thing. this whole melodrama is one phone call. and adam schiff's inspector obsessions. they should be the first two witnesses. >> if the whistleblower was involved in this meeting with the bidens and dealing with was close toand hebo biden and these issues, it's interesting that once someone phone call. and adam schiff's inspector obsessions.
they should be the first two witnesses. >> if the whistleblower was involved in this meeting with the bidens and dealing withow hunter biden and he was close to biden and these issues, it's interesting that once someonene asked questions about the becomes a whistleblower. that's why it's important that we ask questions. adam schiff demanded we hear from the whistleblower until that precise moment when it was revealed he coordinated with the whistleblower. why was he so concerned about people finding out about hunter biden's role in barisma and why he was not more alarmed by hunter biden's role to blow the whistle on that. >> laura: on msnbc claire didn't think mcconnell wants these two people to testify. >> in the republicans wanted to hear from either joe biden or
hunter biden, nothing is stopping them. mcconnell just has to put it in the rules. but they don't want to do that. it's a total distraction and a total bluff. they ain't got nothing else. >> laura: it's a bluff to find out why there was a conflict of interest with the bidens and ukraine that led the president to asked some questions? >> the proof of the pudding is in the eating. all she has to do is wait a few days and we will see who is bluffing. adam schiff and is the whistleblower as well, but "special report with bret baier" hunter biden, all three i don't think can tell the truth under oath without contradicting prior statements or television appearances. i think it's going to be a disaster. i don't understand why they are so intent on getting witnesses when it's only going to weaken a weak case.
maybe elizabeth warren or bernie sanders is behind it talking about conspiracies.hy >> laura: yes, this is just a game the democrats are playing. >> it remind me of the anti-kavanaugh operation just trying to drag things out. you only call witnesses if the case is worthy of impeachment. if they not it's not worthy, they won't bother with n witnesses. if they bother with witnesses and think they won't call hunter biden and joe biden and the inspector general who has hadh rough testimonies we don't have words from. let's get a full exploration of the sordid biden drama and how democrats got us to this. >> laura: if they really go to
witnesses, this could last 4 to 5 months. are you all watching? everyone in this room, you've got to be kidding me. 4 to 5 months. more breaking news today. the justice department made a huge admission about the warrant to spy on carter page. the doj conceding that 2 fisa orders were not valid. the court understands the government to have concluded in view of the material in the statement that the authorization were not valid. victor, here's my question. only two were not valid? this whole thing was not valid. >> yes, it was all invalid.
what is striking we knew that the fbi and members of the doj under obama were corrupt. they were trying to destroy u.s. citizens by illegal surveillance. we thought the fisa court justices were deluded. they didn't ask who is the opposition. i think the real subtext is the fisa court and the judges involved almost eroded all support for fisa courts. conservatives who thought they were a tool are thinking it's not worth the risk anymore. it's so politicized. >> laura: weapons of mass destruction, that's all i will say. >> they said two of the warrants
were invalid. they didn't make a decision on the other two. it's true. this is way too little way too late. they were informed years ago by david nunes about these problems. they didn't do anything about it. they would have acted earlier and would not put david who defended the russia-gate hoax as the person to help the department of justice clean up. >> laura: an american was surveiled with a material omission in the application. an opponent of trump funded? what happened to the liberals? there are no real liberals left. thank you very much. great to have you both on tonight. with day 3 of the impeachment
trial wrapping up moments ago, what can we expect next? fox news congressional correspondent who is drinking milk is stacked by on capitol hill with all of the answers. >> they wrapped off 10 minutes ago. back at one o'clock tomorrow. the final day of the prosecution presenting their case. there was a lot of focus today on russia, barisma and the bidens. some of the republican senators think the democratic house impeachment managers overplayed their hand. this could back fire on them. this is republican texas senator ted cruz. c >> when president trump's lawyers present their defense, they are going to have the opportunity to present the very significant evidence that supported and still supports a serious investigation into corruption at barisma and whether or not joe biden participated in that corruptionu hunter biden is not only relevant.
he is now critical. >> democrats contend thatrr republicans are ignoring the evidence presented by the democratic managers. here's the democrat from hawaii. >> i think they are wrestling with their conscience. my republican colleagues should be a hell of a lot more upset be what the president did not only to ukraine but to our own country by not being good for our word. >> we expect the defense to start on saturday. that might be a shorter session and then the question and answer period begins. 16 hours around the middle of next week. there is a question about the questions. a lot of republicans would like to summon adam schiff as a fact witness here. there is some chatter that what the republican senators might do is make him do a de facto witness during the question and
answer session here. directing questions through john roberts towards adam schiff. the question is whether or not he will allow those questions to stand or they might have to vote on whether the questions are appropriate.ht >> laura: because mcconnell agreed to three days, is it really right or fair to why the white house counsel argue on a saturday when few people are watching tv. they should go 15 minutes after midnight and start up on monday? >> it says session days.s. that's an important distinction. the senate rules that deal with impeachment, rule 3 deals with saturdays and it says one o'clock. whether you are the prosecution or the defense you can't get around that. some people think that might be an opportunity for the defense
team to make the case to hit the sunday news cycles on sunday. that might be an advantage to them each if they finish up later on monday or tuesday. >> laura: they might go an hour or two on saturday. >> that's right. they might finish up around noon on saturday. because senators have other things to do. they want to get out of washington as badly as anybody else. >> laura: thank you very much. over the past three days we have seen the media tattle tale on senators who are not transfixed by schiff's dazzling floor speeches. >> we are separating the wheat from the chaffe. blackburn the senator from tennessee was reading a book no making an effort.
>> laura: this trigged the "washington post" consecutive jennifer rubin who tweeted blackburn, this is shameful. blackburn is here to respond. they are not listening to adam schiff. they are transfixed by your hard cover. what were you doing with that book? >> i would love to. i had kim's book that isha all about the resistance. she has a great chapter in there about the acts of destruction. that's what i was reading through. it's very relevant to what we are doing. you have seen other members that have books regarding different impeachment hearings. those are on their desks. everyone is spending their time well. you have to bear in mind, today
there was one particular clip of hill.ir we saw it five different times. there is a lot of repetition in what they are showing and saying. the point is the senate is going to perform our constitutional duty in the appropriate manner and we will be fair. i already have a notebook full of notes. we are going to get to a summary judgment. i look forward to getting to that point. >> laura: senator, can you do whatever you want during the trial. the house wants to dictate the rules in the senate. the media wants to dictate what everybody understands about the trial and don't know anyone to know the truth about the bidens and now they want to dictate how you spend your time during the
trial? >> we know how to do more than one thing at a time. >> laura: you always criticized a democratic witness on twitter and his lawyer shot back late tonight saying that a member of the senate would choose to take to twitter to spread slander about a member of the military is a testament to coward ice. a member of the military can never be criticized. >> we honor the service of every man and woman in uniform. you look at what his commanderse said. he has a problem with his judgment. that's been pointed out. he had one commander who said he is aiv political activist in uniform. he has had problems with going outside of his chain of command which is what he did here. i talked to a lot of military members on a regular basis. they have a real problem with some of the things and the a
manner in which he conducted himself in this matter. what we want to do is make certain that we get to the heart of the issues here. we want to be certain the president is treated fairly. we want to make certain that we move through this and that we get back to the people's business. things they want to see us do like putting more judges on the federal bench. >> laura: we have to pop the liberal left wing balloon during this impeachment trial to expose their tactic. they have a tactic with members of the military who favor the impeachment. if you like trump you can be criticized. but if you are this one, you can never be criticize them. >> that's right. the liberals, the left are great
at situational ethices. they are great at things. and people need to listen to what they are actually saying. adam schiff yesterday in his opening said look, we can't trust that trump won't cheat in 2020. it was like we are going to take away your right to decide who you will vote for in 2020. that's the thing that i hope people are listening to, to see what their real objective is. it is to re-do 2016 and pre-empt what will happen in 2020. donald trump has done nothing wrong. we will make certain we move this this process. what we are hearing from tennessee, he is in a better position than ever. he is going to be re-elected president of the united states
in 2020. >> laura: i said a lot of references to political crucifixion today on social media. i have to say senator blackburn, we salute your service for being able to physically withstand sitting through this sham. >> it's nothing compared to the service our military has given. >> laura: i get it. >> nothing what our children would have to endure if we don't protect the constitution and make certain we are a government of, by and for the people. it's worth the effort. >> laura: we have a president who exercises his article 1 a authority without some bureaucrat questioning his judgment every 5 seconds. much.you very when we return, the liberal media wants you to take them seriously. why do they discredit themselves? we expose the hypocrisy. you don't want to miss it. we expose the hypocrisy. you don't want to miss it.
stuff like that. >> laura: give me a memorable line, folks, they wonder why americans think so little of the american media and joining me now, german, charlie kirk, founder of turning point usa and author of the book and susan, conservative author and filmmaker. the media figures were embarrassed by adam schiff, they're making a little bit of change here. >> i mean, 60 years people will be giving this beach and what's her name, it was a recitation, yes, they know the material so well because he's w been saying the same lines over and over again ande. this is been going n for years. we watch this all, he's literally reading the stuff of the senate. it's just like, s please. >> laura: charlie, i waso watching live and then went to the senate chamber and i think it was y yesterday, i had to be prodded by the capitol police
because i fell asleep. there's a rule on the back of the ticket that you can't sleep and i'm not making it up, you can't fall asleep, but it's a way that he speaks that's very soothing and away when you kick the content out. it just moving the needle. >> nodded all, you can see the ratings it dropped tremendously then you have people in the media just mr. sump to is representing, and cnn analyst said he heard two sonicenters, will adam schiffthf course it's completely made up e everything about this has been made up. trump met with the whistle-blower and lied about it and the russia collusion hoax bringing back was alive. of not to mention the entire the narrative representing things has been one lie after the other and moving the needle, it's hard
to watch and the funding institution really disrespected like this. of >> laura: i think about the great speeches of america, political history, we think about reagan tearing down this wall, the gettysburg address and now we are thinking of adam schiff on burisma and conspiracy with joe by then. >> first of all, i think the appeal to history is very interesting because in a strange way i think it's a confession of rhetorical defeat. what they're saying, 100 years from now, 200 years from now people will be very convinced that this guy was telling the truth. when you can't convince a jury that's fitting in the room and you can't convince the people watching on tv, you've got to appeal to the jury of people not yet born. hoping that maybe they will go along with youy and see the wisdom of your words. if speed do i mean, come on, the thing about this that i love tht
bernie and globalrn chart, i mean, just watching them. i was awake for most of it. but there shifting in their seats, their listening with one year and they want to get to w iowa. i mean, these democrats they know how it's going to end up and they want to get their campaigning and bernie's on the rise. >> it's a game and we need to see what the senators i'm doing and i remember during the clinton impeachment, they're not paying attention to what's going on. there's no drama here. if there's nothing of interest here and it is what it is, they try to get trumpet the whole time he has been in office and at the next chapter and by the way, lawyer, this will happen the whole year and they will lose more and more americans ends just a a waste of time. of >> laura: they will just keep going. if listen, the democrats get power back in november. they wer retain control of the
house, gentlemen, thank you so much and great to see you all tonight. shannon breamm and the fox news at" night team take it from her. ♪ . >> shannon: this is a fox news shannon: this is a fox news alert. day 2 of arguments, impeachment managers hammering donald trump on abuse of power, democrats get one more day. are any gop senators being swayed? we will ask senator mike braun about that. first we go to kevin cork with key moments from day 2 of the arguments. >> you don't hear it often, at least not allowed but in washington people know the deal but if you lose