tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News January 28, 2020 7:00pm-8:00pm PST
, the elitists in the swamp in the store, anything can happen. quid pro quo joe helping too, but not your heart be troubled. >> laura: we haven't been able to do the handoff in recent days. >> sean: fox news alert, boom. >> laura: it's a little mysterious but i apparently had something to do with it. >> sean: she doesn't want to talk, she wants a fox news alert. >> laura: there's always a fox news alert, awesome show tonight, and credible. >> sean: do you know what you did great last night? i was very interested in bolton, chief of staff -- if you can explain john bolton, i don't recognize what i'm seeing. >> laura: we have some developments on that tonight. i'm laura ingraham, this is "ingraham angle" from another
while looking washington tonight. the president's impeachment defense rested and went out with a bang. a member of that team robert ray is here he's going to tell us what to expect next. adam schiff threw a temper tantrum following the proceeding, our legal eagles plus congressman lee zeldin and steve scalise are here to react. as the conversation moves the witnesses we have two lawmakers on the front lines of that debate. senators marsha blackburn and james lankford are both here, plus "the ingraham angle" brings you another investigation tonight. we have no information about how the person supposedly behind the entire trump impeachment effort might have tried to take out the president well before that. but first. the democrats mood shift, that's the focus of tonight's angle. what a difference 24 hours makes. yesterday democrats and their
media allies were positively giddy using phrases like blockbuster revelations, bombshell leak, and impeachment game changer. they were sure that the story about john bolton's new book would be enough to convince four republicans to keep this twisted trial going. today after the trump defense team wrapped up its arguments even yielding back in time to the senate, the mood on the left seems to have shifted. or should i say it adam shifted to. >> i was more optimistic yesterday morning then i am now. i talked to some of my colleagues last night, a feeling i was getting was they are linking arms and they are going to say no. >> right now the republicans feel good to. >> the universe of republicans hasn't really expanded to. >> you anticipate they are going to vote against the witnesses? >> predictions are dangerous but it seems unlikely.
>> laura: old boy, the faces want to sad over at cnn, if a picture is worth a thousand words as they say, chuck schumer's face read like a novel. a lot of pain and suffering there. on the witnesses question, does he sound like a man whose party is winning? >> one at a time. [reporter questioning] >> look, i hope that we have just four republicans, all we need is four who rise to the occasion and say we need to find out the truth. >> laura: can we redirect that again? >> one at a time. >> laura: i've been looking for a new ringtone and that is a good one. wait, what about the faces of the house managers after the white house counsel finished his argument? they put in all that time and effort trying to take the
president out of office, where they brimming with optimism? only in the land of fraudulent impeachment with the lead house manager complain that the other side didn't spend more time arguing their case. >> i want to begin this afternoon with a few observations about the rather abrupt end to the president's case. it's clear i think today that they are still reeling from the revelation of john bolton's book and what he has to say. >> laura: complaining that the other side didn't use all their time. and then he grasped another irrelevant straw, something that john kelly said at a speech in florida? >> the president's own former chief of staff general kelly has stated that he believes john bolton, the president's own former chief of staff believes john bolton and by implication does not believe the
president of the united states. >> laura: i have a question, did the democrats really think this was going to work? they were going to be able to invalidate the last election and steal the next one by sight and public statements of former white house staffers? and without the defense team turning the tables on the house managers? >> by these actions you would undo the free election that express the will of the american people, you will damage the faith the american people have in this institution and in the american democracy. >> you will reap the bitter harvest of the unfair partisan seed you sow today. >> there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment, it will produce divisiveness and bitterness and politics for years to come. >> my fear is when a republican wins the white house, democrats will demand payback. >> laura: even the resistance media had to admit that using
the democrats own words against them, it works. >> i thought it was an effective set of zingers and i bet the republicans really enjoyed listening to it. >> it was awkward because a lot of what these democrats were saying then, specifically included at least two of the house managers, jerry nadler and zoe lofgren, they say the opposite today. >> laura: that's called turning the tables on them. for now the liberal media was left clinging to their new lifeboat and then they merely echoed what schiff said earlier about kelly. >> john kelly says he believes john bolton's claim, he thinks bolton is a man of integrity and should be heard from. >> laura: last time i checked, general kelly -- i like him, i think he's a great guy but he's not a senator who gets to vote on witnesses. i think someone needs to send
that memo to jerry nadler as well. >> who are the witnesses your side will be seeking? >> john bolton, maybe now john kelly. >> have you discussed the idea of calling general kelly with other managers or senators? >> no. >> laura: okay, so john kelly a guy who hasn't been at the white house for over a year, now he's going to save the democrats impeachment crusade? if that doesn't work, they always have the quinnipiac poll. >> that's an intense caucus going on right now, they are all listening to each other. >> what is the chance they've seen the new 75 number from quinnipiac? >> pretty good. to deprive witnesses is utter insanity. 51-54% who are behind his immediate removal but 75% for witnesses is political suicide. >> laura: 97% of the g.o.p. as
opposed to removing donald trump from office. so those four moderated g.o.p. senators who are wringing their hands tonight and navel-gazing, the hamlet routine, they should take note. this is how donald trump was received when a record crowd showed up when he took the stage at a rally in new jersey tonig tonight. [chanting] who exactly do they think they are appealing to if they turn out to prolong the impeachment farce? the panel is there, chuck todd, jake tapper, et cetera -- they don't have the votes to remove trump. democrats don't have those votes, everyone on television was conceding that today. so what is the point of doing this to the country?
as they did during the brett kavanaugh fight, they want to drag this out in hopes that the next news cycle will bring them some manna from heaven, the damage the president before the first ballots are cast. our reporter tells us they are serving drinks called magaritas and supeonacoladas all over wildwood new jersey. should they prolong this national nightmare, there won't be enough booze in all of new jersey to soothe the political pain coming their way, that will be political suicide and that is the angle. joining me now is sol wisenberg, babar and john eastman's senior constitutional scholar, let's start with you. john bolton, mick mulvaney or
any of the other witnesses -- i should add general kelly who is really relevant to this conversation, do any of them change the underlying facts of this case that night after night we have been laying out? >> i think alan dershowitz and jay sekulow today made that point even if the leaked story about what they claim bolton says in his unpublished manuscript is true, that the president withheld the aid a bit in order to try to get investigations of biden, i think pam bondi's testimony yesterday really manifested and clearly showed why that was a perfectly appropriate thing to do. there is massive evidence of corruption that we ought to be looking at in this country. even if the leak it says bolton says he said is true, it shouldn't alter the outcome here because it's not an impeachable offense. >> laura: wait a second, what does john kelly think about
this? i'm thin stuck on that. it kelly was at a cafe, overheard someone else say -- oh, no. here is how house managers zoe lofgren reconciled her about-face on impeachment. >> future presidents will face elections, than litigation, than impeachment. >> that was 21 years ago. >> that was exciting, the ravages of time. republicans again took the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," struck out the word high and replaced it with any and that was the problem that i was trying to address at that time. there was no high crime and misdemeanor. >> laura: you handled the clinton impeachment, is she right? it's different now. >> i remember her then and what she's saying now is the exact opposite. you've got to look at this with a sense of humor, it is funny to see these democrats twist
themselves around in circles trying to explain why what they said then is not really what they meant now. the only dangerous on one in alf this, it isn't schiff or hakeem jeffries, it's chuck schumer. he's a crafty, mean-spirited street fighter and he knows if he can peel off some of these squishy republicans which he may very well do, he can keep this charade going for a longer and longer which is what they want. if there is no end again, it is simply to go after trump and leslie. >> laura: and then we will bring in something rex tillerson said last month when he was in texas -- you get the point. every day they are hoping that someone says something in the stratosphere of the former trump staffers that they can advance their argument with and this is
what was said on cnn today about the recognition that there is no way they are ever going to have 67 senators to vote to remove this president, watch. >> i don't think there is any chance regardless of what john bolton said that there will be 67 votes. i don't think that is the standard, i think the standard is are you going to have a trial or not? are you going to have a trial where the facts are in dispute and addressed? >> laura: is that the standard, whether you're going to have the trial or not? >> it was never about removing him, they knew they were never going to be able to remove them, it's about damaging him in the upcoming election and do so the longer you can have a trial, the more witnesses you can get, the better your opportunities are. i personally as a citizen in this country, i demand to hear from general kelly and i want to know what he has to say about the third amendment.
>> laura: john eastman, it's not funny because what is being done to our constitution, our entire representative democracy if this thing is allowed to keep going. it's a enormously toxic for the republic, i'm trying to create some moments of levity because otherwise i'll get -- i'm enraged about this. when i went to the senate chamber i was enraged, the first time i was arranged and fell asleep, the second time i force myself to sit through it but i d both sides. and i was still enraged. >> you ought to be. they have turned this into the very thing the founders feared. if you admit in these nebulous charges, it's comparable to what they rejected at the convention, maladministration and you turn impeachment into a perpetual political weapon and that destroys the possibility of any
collaborative effort toward the common good. i want to ask zoe lofgren if she thinks the republicans back in 1998 got rid of the word "high crimes and misdemeanors," they got rid of the word crimes. they don't even think you need a crime as long as you can put enough stuff out there, we don't like what he was doing. that's enough for on impeachment, we cannot have that as a standard or the president will no longer be an independent constitutional officer, he will simply be answerable to whatever the latest majority is in congress. >> laura: the whims of congress, if they dislike a policy or several policies, just move to impeach him on some so-called whistle-blower's account and be done with it. gloria borchert today is an esteemed constitutional scholar and she made a point about pat cipollone's closing argument. >> we are close to an election, why would you want to do an election?
does that mean that the constitution is to be interpreted that you can't impeach a president in an election year? there's nothing in the constitution -- he's making the point to the american public. >> laura: i think he was making the point to the senate but the american public deserves the right to vote but that she have any merit to her point? >> she has about as much merit to her point as zoe lofgren did to hers, absolutely not. what we had in the clinton impeachment and the trial 21 years ago was a president who had already been reelected, it was not about an election back then, it was about high crimes and misdemeanors, proving crimes that the president had committ committed. this case what they are trying to do is two fold. one, simply on the off chance they can defeat trump because i don't think they believe they can which is why schiff was saying "if we don't remove him now, you can't trust the election."
he might as well have said "we are going to lose this thing come fall." the second thing they are trying to do is try to devalue and diminish trump's credibility going forward in the same way they did with justice kavanaugh. that's what it's about, reducing their credibility even though they know they're going to lose. >> laura: really quickly, i believe it's also about the supreme court. if they get another vacancy before the election, this will be another argument they can make and say we aren't going to let this go forward, there's no way you can because he's an impeached president. i think they are thinking down the road on that as well. >> i think you're right. keep this in mind, there's a difference between conduct that the framers might say "that's within the realm of what could be impeachable" and removing a president. there's a difference, i think it's completely legitimate to say even if we don't like with the president did, we aren't going to remove him from office
and it's very relevant that the removal will be ten months before an election and the framers would've understood that. >> laura: thank you very much, great to see all of you tonight and the president's legal team rested its case today so how did it compare with the democrats closing arguments? last week house manager jerry nadler ended things on a decidedly dour note. >> will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president's misconduct? or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president's cover-up. i see a lot of senators voting for cover-up. voting to deny witnesses, a treacherous vote. >> laura: that's a way to win friends and influence people -- instead of insulting the senate, white house chief counsel pat cipollone ended with this. >> you know what the right answer is in your heart. you know what the right answer is for our country. i have every confidence, every confidence in your wisdom.
>> laura: now that the oral arguments are over, what happens next? robert ray is a member of trump's legal team, he joins us now. i'm so tired of covering this, i get t pat cipollone's name pronunciation wrong. >> i think we are in the process of counting votes to see whether or not there will be witnesses and i will imagine for many senators, how the questioning goes and the answers that are given may have some bearing, it's obviously their judgment to make and we will know the answer probably after a very long day of debate relative to that question. >> laura: there was a lot of jawboning about the fact that pat decided to yield back a lot of his time, cnn and msnbc said
we expect him to speak for an hour and a half or two hours. i thought it was quite smart -- what else are we going to say, it's so obvious, we are going to give you the luxury of time back which i think a lot of these senators probably really liked. >> i think they appreciated it. we also did what we promised we would do at the outset. the bottom line is you have recognized for some time, we don't have trials and roving fact gatherers to decide everything under the sun, the task at hand is to have a trial to determine whether or not it's appropriate to remove the president from office -- period, end of story. once you've made your argument with regard to that question which is after all the only question to be decided, it's time to sit down and let the senators -- and put your faith and trust in them as pat cipollone said of the end and respect and abide by their
wisdom, they are the people selected representatives in this body and that is what they are elected to do. >> laura: i thought it was refreshing that after nadler basically accuse the senate of being coconspirators with trump and pat cipollone comes along and says why don't we start to work together? why don't republicans and democrats start working together for the common good, do the things you were sent here to do? that was really inspiring and people who aren't political watch that and are probably saying to themselves that sounds good. >> sure it does. i will say in connection with your panel, this very question is not in a vacuum. during the andrew johnson impeachment since it was very close to the end of andrew johnson's unexpired term that occurred at the result of the assassination of president lincoln, why would we want to remove the president of office while there's an election
>> laura: the other networks are hyping report that mitch mcconnell doesn't have the votes to block the senate from calling impeachment trial witnesses, focus on the wording of that. it's a lot more nuanced. the hill is reporting that republican senators emerged from a caucus meeting tuesday voicing confidence they will win in a boat later this week that would block new witnesses from being called the period of joining me now to tell us more is oklahoma senator james lankford along
with tennessee senator marsha blackburn. what is the state of play tonight? >> we are walking through the process about to do two full days of questions at this point. we've done three days from one side, three days from the other side, full days of questions and then have a boat on friday on witnesses. everyone is trying to guess where we are going to go, i think we will know on friday. everyone is getting their questions answered and that's the key thing at this point. any unanswered questions get resolved and then we will make a determination. >> laura: there was a big talk about swap. hatched this plan, it sounds like a hostage swap. >> i'm not trying to do a witness swap, i float around the issue that we are trusting in a "new york times" story to give us accurate information, it would be the first time republicans trust "the new york times" to give us accurate information but to be able to say from that story they heard from someone who told someone who is trying to bring it out -- just let us read the
book. as a manuscript sitting over there, let us read what's in the book, and solve this, it's not hard. >> laura: senator blackburn, to watch this -- to see mercifully to rest their case, to step back and say we aren't going to torture the american people or the senate, we aren't going to insult you as we saw nadler due saying you are treacherous. they couldn't find it treason, high crimes or misdemeanors but they are going to accuse you all and to threaten romney collins, murkowski, and lamar alexander with being traders also. >> prolong the trial, get it into the last 90 days of the election, keep people here that are running for reelection so that chuck schumer can be majority leader.
that is what this is about. but we also know is in the senate we've been beautiful, we've made notes, done preparations, we got our questions ready to go and we have paid attention to make certain we do impartial justice and we conduct a fair trial. that is what we have done. friday, we'll get around -- >> laura: sorry to interrupt you but people have to get this is a boat on witnesses doesn't mean there will be witnesses. so people understand this, its arcane rules in the senate but once you take a vote for witnesses and you get four republican senators to say yes, that you have to vote on each individual witness. when they call adam schiff as the first witness and the second witness is the whistle-blower and the third witnesses hunter biden in the fourth witnesses joe biden, each has to be voted on independently. >> you would do a long series of votes. >> laura: this will be fun, will be here till may.
>> every set of documents. >> laura: we are talking april or may, this isn't going to be done in february, this is going to be april or may. >> the vote on friday is do we need information, that's what it is. it's not about do we need witnesses -- the house already gave us 12 witnesses, the interview at 17, it's the question do we need additional witnesses or do we have everything we need? >> laura: really surprising story today i know our viewers want to hear this from the "los angeles times" that dianne feinstein was leaning toward acquittal. if she said we are in a republic, we are based on the will of the people, the people should judge but then it didn't take long for her to walk this back on twitter, how do you walk that back saying and part of the "los angeles times" misunderstood what i said that. maybe the staff didn't like it. it's clear the president's actions were wrong, that can't be allowed to stand. politico is reporting that three democratic senators might vote for acquittal tonight, what are
the chances? >> that would be terrific to bc, it would be the first time in american history that a democrat broke from their party on an impeachment vote, that is never occurred. the democrats have always voted as a block, they've never broken once. if we have a single democrat break it will be historic. >> laura: we heard from claire mccaskill today, she was one of your former colleagues, she was complaining that mcconnell only cares about one thing, watch. >> mitch mcconnell cares about power more than anything else, he is making one of the biggest gambles of his career because he's gambling that if he forces these guys and makes them vote against witnesses, he can hold onto the majority leader position. >> laura: their arms twisted and dropped all over the floor? >> not at all. leader macdonald is a great job laying it out, he is a very
diligent leader, he understands where people are in this process. what we do know is this is all about power and control for the senate democrats, for the house democrats and it has nothing to do with "let's do write for the country" it's about relitigating 2016, relitigating 2020. >> laura: we have airports that are dilapidated, meanwhile you fly over europe, claiming to airports, high-speed rail and the american people are saying we are paying for this? to me, money to ukraine, a lot of people don't even agree with money to ukraine, a lot of americans say what are we doing here? >> we a spent $30 million for the mueller report and american people are saying let's get back to business. if they have an expectation we are going to govern and solve some of these problems there are a lot of great solutions that
are out there, we would love to work on judicial nominations and love to work on those things but we are tied up in impeachment, his goal is to be able to get as many witnesses and documents and say do in the senate what they didn't do in the house. >> it's outside of our jurisdiction. >> laura: he doesn't care about jurisdiction, this is about nicking and cutting on lacerating donald trump for the election. they all admit they are going to convict him. >> they don't want him on the ballot. >> laura: was cipollone right when he said this is about disenfranchising 65 million americans and their right to pick the president of their choice? >> he brought up something most people don't know, this isn't the first of vote to remove the president, the second vote is to remove his name on the ballot, that's what they have set up, take them off and don't allow him to run.
>> laura: whose election meddling now? >> you have four people running in the office. >> laura: adam schiff under the model rules of professional conduct, he should not have been allowed to argue the case. under the ada rules he is a fact witness. it's enough of a trial of those rules should apply. >> laura: i know how tired you are, thank you for being with us. you got a reprieve that ava back at it tomorrow. do the moderate republicans think this man this is to stop? when i say madness i think the push to relentlessly investigate trump or anyone connected to him. congressman steve scalise lee zeldin are here next with what is at stake, stay with us. my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem.
i feelbusiness cards...new logo...outdoor sign. you always get me. now, get free 1 hour in-store pick up... ...at office depot officemax and officedepot.com. same time next week. yes! garcy young woman: yeah, thanks mom mother: of course and i love these flowers young woman whispering: hey, did you bring the... the condoms? young man whispering: what's up? young woman whispering: condoms young man whispering: what? young woman whispering: condom father: condoms charlie. she wants to know if you brought any condoms.
young man: yeah i brought some. announcer: eargo, a virtually invisible hearing loss solution with high quality sound and lifetime support. ♪ oh, oh, (announcer)®! ♪ once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7!
(announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) 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 include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration,
which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. ♪ >> if the senate decides not to call witnesses, would you guys consider bringing john bolton back to the house? >> i don't want to speak about what action we would take. >> laura: i thought that was a commercial for visiting angels, i didn't know we came back from the break. the idea of a never ending crusade to remove trump by any means is not new but perhaps it deserves more scrutiny, listen to the latest ramblings of the original impeachment monger. >> we will not stop, whether it
leads to another impeachment activity i don't know but i know we must continue with the work our constituents have elected to come to congress to do. >> laura: was this the work people collected you to do? who can forget congressman al green's threat to that trump can be impeached more than once. joining me now lee zeldin, shouldn't this fact alone to be enough to convince sitting senators? >> it's not just john bolton, it's mick mulvaney, then they mentioned rob blair and robert duffy, nadler is talking about john kelly. >> laura: impeachment scrabble. >> there's no limit to it and then all the republican witnesses who we got shut out of during the house process. >> laura: who is your dream list, your absolute dream list of witnesses? >> i want to hear from hunter biden and the whistle-blower and
i think adam schiff and jerry nadler should go first. as were going through the next couple of days, the format is little different but i would like to see some of these questions -- i have a question for adam schiff. i want to know about the contacts of his team with the whistle-blower, the fact that he was in touch before the whistle-blower had an attorney or filed a whistle-blower complaint, that was just four but you keep going down a list. you want to open that door, let's open that door. >> laura: congressman scalise, this has gotten out of hand. today they were so dejected that they had to reference former chief of staff who wasn't even here when that this ukraine thing was happening, john kelly saying now they want him to testify to what, he is feeling about the bolton? >> they are in this impeachment font because they realize how devastating it is for them.
mcgrath's own this thing and the country is saying why aren't you focusing on things that are important to me? over 100 democrats voted to impeach him because he criticize nfl players who voted fo to kned for the pledge of allegiance, that's how bad they are for th this. imagine this contradiction and where they are. next wednesday, a whole class of fentanyl drugs that are killing americans, that are currently illegal, putting people in jail today, those drug dealers -- that fentanyl becomes legal next week because the legal plan expires. there was a bill that passed the senate unanimously to keep those drugs illegal, so those drug dealers who are killing families in every community in this country, president trump is putting the drug dealers in jail today. next we can't put those drug dealers in jail because pelosi won't bring that bill. >> laura: is that part of the strategy to lock this town up so
trump cannot chalk up any more achievements? that might be the method to their evil madness. >> that damages on their hands. every single person who dies from no illegal drugs, when you can't put that drug dealer in jail next week that you could put in jail today, it's all on nancy pelosi's hands. she won't bring bills like that. we have a bill to lower drug prices, every democrat supports it, president trump would sign it, they aren't bringing that to the floor. >> laura: tim kaine admitted something today on questioning about the defense's closing argument. >> do not find the most compelling argument that the president's team makes that it's an election year, the election is close? the voters can have this decision? >> i think that is an argument that is a powerful one. >> laura: he went on to say some other things. i don't care what these polls say, i don't believe any of these polls. i just don't.
i believe the american people want this town, end the swamp, drain it, corruption gone and stop the madness. >> the country is over this, they are ready to move on. they are going to talk about what's happening in the future when you have a republican house and a democratic president, what about the next day? our republic, the damage and destruction that you're causing in that moment when you take half the country and tell them their vote doesn't count. >> laura: you think they're going to let mike pence sit there? >> thank god we have a president who is not buying into all this, he's at the white house with prime minister netanyahu working on a two state solution that includes a palestinian state of the palestinians agree to drop support of terrorist groups and look at what the president is doing not just for the economy but on the world stage with prime minister netanyahu. >> laura: is there anyone the president won't work with for
peace and prosperity? >> he's proven he will work with anybody. today's announcement, there was a message to the palestinians -- listen, give us your feedback. >> tomorrow will sign usmca. >> laura: could've done a year ago, democrats held up as well. great to see both of you, just how involved was the person many consider to be the whistle-blower and efforts to cover for the democrats and also take trump out. if we have new information to bring you, "the ingraham angle" investigates next. when you move homes, you move more than just yourself.
that's why xfinity has made taking your internet and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches...
what was the topic? hunter biden and burisma was the topic but that's only the tip of the iceberg. sources tell "the ingraham angle" that congressional investigators are asking the white house for a mae alleged whistle-blower. sources say this email may show the person who kicked off the impeachment previously manufactured evidence against president trump and a footnote in the mueller report tells the story. joining me now is lee smith, investigative journalist and author of the plot against the president and sara carter, host of the sara carter podcast. explain in simple terms tonight what this email could mean about the motives of this suppose a whistle-blower. >> it appears in the mueller report, it's cited in the mueller report, the mueller report uses this email to insinuate that donald trump fired james comey at the behest of the russians.
shortly after the date of this email, then acting director andrew mccabe opens up an investigation of donald trump, wondering if he is acting at the behest of the russians. what this looks like is the person known as the whistle-blower appears to have a habit of trying to set up the president and different intelligence operations, first with the counterintelligence investigation in 2017, and now with impeachment. >> laura: we pointed out, he set up the meeting in january of 2016 in the obama administration with the ukrainian prosecutors and obama white house officials, he signed them all in and it was about biden, corruption, burisma -- three times he's involved. >> it's obvious that they all knew what was going on, they were all concerned enough that they held a meeting in the
white house about hunter biden and his connection to burisma, the corruption that was going on in ukraine and now what we know based on what we can see, actual tangible evidence is that there is a strong possibility that he and i don't want to call in the whistle-blower anymore because this is a deep state -- this is somebody anti-trump, somebody who appears to be targeting trump which is why it has to be investigated. >> laura: mccabe reference to this and a "60 minutes" interview. >> the president made those public comments that you referenced both on msnbc and the russians, put together these circumstances, articulable facts that indicate a crime may have been committed to. all of those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and the government of
russia? >> laura: put it to be fairly young staffer who seems like a democrat mole is at the heart of all three of these major events that lead to more and more trouble and removal of the president of the united states? there's too many leads on the show tonight. >> if they wind up calling witnesses and i think we all hope this doesn't happen, but if it happens this is an email that we certainly want to know what this whistle-blower has been involved in and how many campaigns against the president he's been involved in. >> laura: this whistle-blower must come forward and be questioned in the senate committee. this person cannot be shielded in a longer. >> they can't be shielded because they aren't an actual whistle-blower and it's an insult to whistle-blowers who sacrifice everything and have firsthand knowledge and report facts and have to go public
eventually and talk about those facts. this is somebody who appears to be targeting president trump from deep within the government and somebody who needs to answer questions. this is why even the inspector general for the intelligence community and michael atkinson needs to be questioned. his connections with the whistle-blower, adam schiff's connections with the whistle-blower and his committee need to be questioned. on its face, there is something that is extraordinarily wrong. >> laura: too many things, too many foot notes and emails and meetings, it all goes back to the hub of the wheel. it's one person. with that hearing, we have to go, thanks so much. cnn's don lemon just addressed his disgusting segment belittling millions of americans, you won't believe what he said.
you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. - do that are degrading?ideo tapes, film reels, or photos, legacybox professionally converts them to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off. garcy young woman: yeah, thanks mom mother: of course and i love these flowers young woman whispering: hey, did you bring the... the condoms? young man whispering: what's up? young woman whispering: condoms young man whispering: what? young woman whispering: condom father: condoms charlie. she wants to know if you brought any condoms. young man: yeah i brought some. announcer: eargo, a virtually invisible hearing loss solution with high quality sound and lifetime support.
little fleet. big relief. try it. feel it. feel that fleet feeling. >> you elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling and your math and your reading. your geography. >> laura: that was a short snippet from a truly awful 90 seconds on cnn saturday as opposed to the other awful 90 seconds. tonight don lemon delivered this lame excuse. >> i don't believe in belittling people, belittling anyone for who they are, what they believe, or where they are from. during an interview on saturday
night, one of my guests said something that made me laugh and in the moment i found that joke humorous. i didn't catch everything that was said, i was laughing at the joke and not had any group of people. >> and i didn't hear him say "i'm sorry" because i'm not sure he is. shannon bream and the fox news at 19 take it from here. >> shannon: thank you so much. fox news alert, we are capping off a spirited rally in wildwood new jersey, the senate democrats are voting to impeach, thousands turned out in a boisterous show of support. back in washington, the president's legal team puts the finishing touches on its arguments, using democrats own words against them in an effort to convince the senators calling witnesses only prolong the process they argue has been flawed to start.