Capitol Hill prepares for Senate impeachment trial as Nancy Pelosi prepares to end holdout

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 13, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle" from a busy Washington tonight. Well, the news we made with the President on Friday night drove the news cycle all weekend and it didn't even stop today. Nancy Pelosi responded to President Trump. We're going to show you what she said before Congressman Lee Zeldin and Matt Gaetz are here to react.

Plus, as the Speaker sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Alan Dershowitz and Gregg Jarrett are going to give you everything you need to know about what happens next. And I'm going to make a suggestion that Mitch McConnell must listen to and I mean must, I am going to tell you what that is. Just a few moments.

And this is shocking, investigative journalist Lee Smith is going to tell us that he has evidence that the Obama administration sent notes to the now deceased terrorists Qasem Soleimani and he's here exclusively with those details. Wow. And my Can't Miss Angle on the state of the 2020 Democrat field, that's going to come a little later on in the show.

But first. last week was a big one for "The Ingraham Angle." We not only had two news making interviews with the President and the Secretary of State, but we also shattered the liberal media narrative that Nancy Pelosi was some sort of political mastermind of strategy.

This entire impeachment gambit, it's just been an embarrassing failure from day one. So naturally, she's lashing out at Trump. Here's how she reacted when ABC's George Stephanopoulos showed her a clip from our interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC HOST: I want to show him on Friday night on Fox News.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: She is obsessed with impeachment. She has done nothing. She's going to go down as one of the worst speakers in the history of our country.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: I don't like to spend too much time on his crazy tweets because everything he says is a projection. When he calls somebody crazy, he knows that he is. Everything he says you can just translate it back to who he is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Is Nancy in a schoolyard at this point?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you aware that, I am rubber and you are glue and everything that you say to me bounces off me and sticks to you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Here's the Speaker later on in that interview, sounding totally above board.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: Everything that he has done whether it is in Syria vis-a-vis the Turks, whether it's been in Ukraine in terms of withholding assistance as they try to fight the Russians. His denial about their role in our election then and now all roads lead to - and sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell to what's he - why is he an accomplice to all of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That in and of itself tells you everything you need to know about the weakness of Pelosi's impeachment case.

And by the way, I don't recall Pelosi getting all flabbergasted when Obama would not give lethal aid to Ukraine. And you don't hear talk about that at all. Suddenly, it's her number one issue. So, impeachment ploy didn't work, so they just go back to the old Russian narrative that failed on Mueller and it's failing now.

Joining me now are two GOP Congressman Lee Zeldin, House Foreign Affairs Committee Member and Matt Gaetz, House Judiciary Committee Member. Congressman Zeldin, let's start with you. Why do you think the Democrats especially the Speaker, she's usually smarter than that? I mean I don't agree with her on a lot, but she's usually smarter than that. That was actually surprising even to me and I've been in this town longer than both of you probably combined, which is scary. But what do you think?

REP. LEE ZELDIN, R-N.Y.: A lot of miscalculation. We saw it really since last fall, when they started this impeachment push and there was this rush, it was tripping over herself so desperate to rush, it's so urgent that we couldn't even provide fairness. We couldn't even provide due process to the President.

And then starting 2020, starting an election year, she's coming out of the gate with a miscalculation with regard to these articles of impeachment and winning extra-long in order to send them over. A lot of miscalculations done by. I think it's going to be paid at the polls in November. And what she should be doing if she was smart, because she has all these Democrats in districts that Donald Trump won. She should be talking about delivering them wins to go back to their district, but instead all those Trump voters have to be fuming at these Democrats who represent, because they didn't send them to Washington to impeach the President--

INGRAHAM: She have stuff to do. Let me say, we have a lot of stuff that needs to be done in this country. We have infrastructure that's crumbling. Go to any major airport compared to a lot of airports in Europe and Asia, it's ridiculous and they're messing around with these ridiculous investigations. Now, Gaetz, I want to show you what the media is saying. Some in the media are not even buying what Pelosi is now saying which tells you how desperate it is. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RACHAEL BADE, WASHINGTON POST REPORTER: She's clearly putting a positive spin on what a lot of Democrats have privately said was a failed strategy. I mean she and Chuck Schumer, the Minority Leader in the Senate set out to number one, try to get a commitment from McConnell on witnesses, firsthand witnesses to have them testify in a Senate trial. She also said she wanted to see a resolution about how the whole proceedings would be governed. She got neither of those.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And she's contrary to some of the reporting, we'll get into that, she's not to going to get in either of those. So, that's a Washington Post reporter.

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: This is a failed strategy and it's not that all roads lead back to Putin for President Trump. It's that all roads lead back to Russia for the Democrats in the absence of an agenda that actually works for the American people.

Tomorrow morning, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will huddle in their weekly caucus meeting and I expect it to be more tense than a family meeting at Buckingham Palace, because you've got these Democrats and Trump districts who feel like they've been walked off the cliff. They were told that this was imminent, this was urgent, this was a clear and present danger. And then even some of the more seasoned Democrats like Adam Smith, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee where I serve telling Nancy Pelosi, let's get on with it. This is starting to look ridiculous. Let's transmit the articles.

But it's my suspicion that that will ultimately lead to the least suspenseful trial in all of trials because we all know that the result will be the President being exonerated because he did nothing wrong in his call with President Zelensky.

INGRAHAM: Lee, this is hurting clearly, if this goes at any length of time. Even the last few weeks - the three or four weeks that this has been going on. This has to help Biden and hurt those who are going to have to stay in Washington during the Senate trial. So, a lot of people think Nancy in her own way is putting her finger on the scale against Warren, against Sanders and for Biden. Do you think there's anything to that?

ZELDIN: There is. I would also add for Biden, the one thing that would harm him is that a lot of the narrative of what this Ukraine calls about the investigations was this Biden family scheme in Ukraine with Hunter Biden being not qualified for this position. And I think that that is one thing that would come back and bite him and who knows, it may end up benefiting someone who isn't a senator or Biden, maybe somebody like a Mayor Pete ends up benefiting from it. We'll see how that ends up playing up.

The President has been focused on an agenda. He has a team. He's got Tony Sayegh, Pam Bondi, Patsy Baloney (ph). They've got great people to White House focus on impeachment. But the President himself is focused on an economy that is ripping right now. On the national security front, he takes out Qasem Soleimani and the Democrats are so invested into hating Trump that they can't root for the Iranians, the millions of Iranians who want to pursue a new direction and they're trying to make the President look bad, taking out Soleimani.

INGRAHAM: But speaking of Biden, Congressman Gaetz, House Intel Chair Adam Schiff, your good buddy says that the Biden's together are really irrelevant. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Do the Biden's have any relevant testimony? And I think the answer is that they don't. There has been no factual basis for these allegations against Joe Biden to ask the Senate, do these investigations that the President fraudulently sought to get Ukraine to conduct would merely turn the Senate trial on its head. Now that's something the President would love. But that's not a fair trial. That's a sham trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Listen to Joy Behar.

GAETZ: Yes, boy. He's covering stuff up faster than a cat in a litter box. I mean when you look at the Biden behavior, it is exculpatory for the President. Think about it. If the Biden's are truly corrupt, it could never be an impeachable offense to investigate corruption or to ask our friends to investigate corruption pursuant to our treaties and so, we will put that evidence on if witnesses are allowed in this trial and we will I think be able to prove dispositively that this President as he has always done was putting the interests of the American people and the American taxpayer first. These were legitimate questions.

And by the way, is there anyone who thinks that the Biden's just stopped at the Ukraine. They were running the same gambit in China and elsewhere because this is how corruption works. It's pervasive with these elements of permanent Washington.

INGRAHAM: President has an obligation to safeguard the American people's money. And he was doing it in Ukraine. And that's one of the reasons why he was elected. It is great to see you both tonight. Thanks for both coming on.

ZELDIN: Good to see you.

INGRAHAM: And speaking Pelosi by the way she's huddling with House Dems tomorrow to choose the impeachment managers as she prepares to send the articles to the Senate. THE INGRAHAM ANGLE was told to expect the articles to be transmitted on Wednesday. So, if that's what happens from here.

Joining us now is Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and author of Guilt by Accusation. Along with him is Greg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst and author of Witch Hunt.

Alan what happens - well, I was going to say it this way, the Articles of Impeachment arrive in the Senate. Couldn't and shouldn't, this goes back to my advice I'm going to give and I'm going to throw it out to you. Couldn't Mitch McConnell dispose of this travesty right off the bat? I think this even setting a precedent for these two articles of impeachment abuse the process and obstruction, obstruction for not going to court, abuse of process on these nebulous flawed grounds is ridiculous. I would either dismiss it or decide it immediately. I wouldn't entertain this nonsense at all. Thoughts.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD PROFESSOR OF LAW EMERITUS: There's no question that these two articles of impeachment are unconstitutional. They do not satisfy the constitutionally required criteria for impeachment.

President Trump's lawyers could make a motion to dismiss or one of the senators could make a motion to dismiss and take a vote right away. Whether they decide to do that or not will be up obviously to the members of the Senate, maybe to the Chief Justice initially. But I have absolutely no doubt that the two articles of impeachment, abuse of power which every president since Adams has been accused of, by their political opponents and obstruction of Congress, which is another way of saying, the President exercised separation of powers and checks and balances in an entirely proper way should never come to actual trial.

INGRAHAM: Right.

DERSHOWITZ: Charging somebody with a non-crime and then the lawyer making a motion to dismiss which would be granted.

INGRAHAM: Yes, the more I was thinking about this Gregg, and we would get into Romney in a second, but the more I was thinking about this tonight, get ready for the show. I thought, we have all this important stuff bearing down on us, let alone a presidential election in November. And Mitch McConnell is going to sit up there and entertain like motions and have this travesty play out. This thing has been held in the House for obvious reasons, a failed strategy or whatever. But this is a flawed constitutionally infirm two articles of impeachment and even entertaining this in a trial to me sets a terrible and dangerous precedent.

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I agree with you. It lends legitimacy to illegitimate articles of impeachment. The second one is an utter joke. Obstruction of Congress for asserting a legal right to resist a subpoena. If Congress disagreed, their remedy is to go to federal court, it's always been that way. So that one should immediately be dismissed.

There was a motion to dismiss in the Clinton impeachment trial. It failed, because there were nearly a dozen felony offenses identified as abuse of power by the independent counsel Ken Starr. Here, there are no felony offenses. There are no high crimes and misdemeanors. They talked ad nauseum about extortion and bribery and in the end, they realized, there was no evidence for that. So, they conjured this wonderfully amorphous term, abuse of power. And you know I agree there ought to be and there probably will be a motion to dismiss and it should be seriously considered and voted upon.

INGRAHAM: 51 votes is what you need. You've got to get Manchin, Joe Manchin and a couple of them more, middle of the road--

JARRETT: Doug Jones, Alabama.

INGRAHAM: I'd go to Doug Jones and Joe Manchin said, you know this is ridiculous. We know this is ridiculous. This is terrible for the country. And Mitch McConnell has got it. I think there's too much messing around with this. I thought about this a lot tonight.

Alan, Democrats lost their gambit to dictate the terms of impeachment clearly, and now they're essentially just smearing the Senate.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, it hurts me as a liberal Democrat--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senate allows the President to basically dictate how the Senate is going to conduct its trial. If the Senate becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the White House, then absolutely the Congress will no longer be an equal branch of government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yes, so Alan that's basically what Bernie Sanders is saying too. And he's saying we should just ignore the Senate in some cases. This is what happens when you have a fraudulent impeachment proceeding at the outset. This is where it's gone.

DERSHOWITZ: Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 said the greatest danger is for impeachment to turn on how many votes one party can have against the other party. And that's exactly what happened. Look, it would be ideal if we had impeachments that were neutral, objective, bipartisan. That's what the framers had in mind. But this case doesn't rise to that level in any sense.

And so, it was partisan in the House. They created the rules of engagement, making it partisan, rushing to judgment and then delaying judgment and suddenly they expect the Senate to ignore partisan affiliations. In an ideal world that would happen, but in the political world created--

INGRAHAM: Never.

DERSHOWITZ: By the House of Representatives, it's unlikely to happen.

INGRAHAM: Gregg, here's what Romney said, Senator Romney from Utah said about having more witnesses testify.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITT ROMNEY, R-UTAH: There's the - if you will, the Clinton impeachment model, which is to say that we have opening arguments and then we have a vote on whether or not to have witnesses. That's the approach I favorite. And at that point I'll be voting in favor of considering witnesses. Clearly John Bolton. Yes. I mean he's someone who I would like to hear from.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I have no words for Mitt Romney. I supported him in 2012. I mean I like Mitt Romney. I have no words for him. OK. I'm just not in that.

JARRETT: Romney belongs to the Romney party.

INGRAHAM: What is this? What's in the water in Utah. That's my question. I love Utah, so don't send me emails. What about this, Gregg? There are reports that four Republicans now want more testimony.

JARRETT: Well, we'll wait and see.

INGRAHAM: Is that a cause for concern?

JARRETT: It is a cause for concern because they're essentially asking for the Senate to which is a jury to do the job of prosecutors in the House--

INGRAHAM: Factfinders.

JARRETT: The prosecutors in the House had a chance to subpoena people like Bolton or Mick Mulvaney or Rudy Giuliani. They didn't do it. The one subpoena they issued, they withdrew and now all of a sudden, Nancy Pelosi is trying to engage in a quid pro quo to extort the Senate to do the job that the House was supposed to do. At the same time accusing the President of an impeachable quid pro quo. The hypocrisy and irony is, lost on no one.

DERSHOWITZ: But nobody should forget that John Bolton doesn't get the last word as to whether he testifies. He may want to testify.

JARRETT: That's right.

DERSHOWITZ: But it's the President's decision whether to invoke executive privilege--

INGRAHAM: He told me; he was going to invoke it. Yes, he told me on Friday. He told me that on Friday.

DERSHOWITZ: Right. Then it goes to court and the courts will decide.

JARRETT: And he has every right to invoke it.

DERSHOWITZ: Hard to imagine anything more privileged than conversations about the national security between the President and his National Security Adviser in the Oval Office

INGRAHAM: Well, apparently Mitt Romney doesn't think so and I don't know about Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, but if they could put aside their dislike for some of what the President says or does for the Constitution and what's good for the country, they'd get thumbs up from me and a lot of other people. So, gentlemen, thanks so much.

And coming up, did you all notice that former Obama administration officials last week rushing to defend Iran. Now, what might that be about? Investigative Reporter Lee Smith has uncovered shocking connections. We're going to bring him here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: My Friday interview with President Trump didn't just drive the impeachment news, we also broke major news on the strike against Qasem Soleimani.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Did he have large scale attacks planned for other embassies?

TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What the President said was he believed that it probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies. I shared that view.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The intelligence showed that they were looking at U.S. facilities throughout the region. The threat was imminent. I saw the intelligence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, we brought up the fact that the former Obama administration officials were out in force defending the Iranians, yes, and attacking the President. The question is why?

Joining me now is Lee Smith, investigative journalist, author of the Plot Against the President and Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Lee, you say there is a reason that the Obama officials seem very upset over the killing of Soleimani.

LEE SMITH, AUTHOR, PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT: Qassem Soleimani was in many ways the cornerstone of the nuclear agreement that they made in July 2015. The Obama administration made that deal not with the imaginary moderates, but with the hardliners and no one was a harder man in that regime than Qassem Soleimani. He really was the cornerstone of the deal in many ways.

INGRAHAM: Victor, it is quite something is it not to hear this man described as some type of revered military figure like, he's just a scholar at Iran's version of the Hoover Institution, Victor, there you have it. And by any means necessary, must resist President Trump.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Well, I think they're embarrassed Laura, because it wasn't just appeasement but they had an actual tapestry of a new Middle East in which Iran would balance all of our traditional allies, Israel and the moderate Gulf regimes and we would give them cash and they would bank it, they would get more technological information in exchange for that. They would have peace for our time and John Kerry and Barack Obama could wave a paper and say, we've got an agreement.

And what really happened was that infusion of cash and the cessation of those sanctions created a terrorist whirlwind from Iran into Lebanon, into Syria, into Yemen. And they're embarrassed about it, because this plan was bankrupt, it was crazy. And I think Secretary Pompeo and Trump realize that and yet they know that our real interests are in China with - in dealing with China and there's existential threat. So, they're sort of like sheriff's backing out of this Middle East saloon and saying, this place is a mess, but we're going to have a revolved result and restore deterrence. And that's hard to do.

But this was a policy by the Obama administration that was not accidental, and Lee is absolutely right.

INGRAHAM: I spoke to him.

HANSON: And that's why they're embarrassed.

INGRAHAM: I spoke to this Iranian activists, incredible woman, Erica Kasraie about the media reaction here. And she says they are not telling the real story. Check it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERICA KASRAIE, IRANIAN AMERICAN ACTIVIST: What I want the American people to know is that the majority of the Iranian people view Qassem Soleimani as a terrorist who has terrorized the entire region. They don't relate to the narrative that the Left has been giving.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Lee, so shocking. It was shocking to see, and Pelosi spoke out about the protests that erupted on Sunday in Iran. After Iran admitted it shot down that airliner killing 176. And she said oh, they're just - they're upset because of the airline.

SMITH: Right.

INGRAHAM: That's all it is, it's this airline. They were fine before the airliner.

SMITH: Well, it's worthwhile keeping in mind when you're looking at Democratic officials like Speaker Pelosi and when you're looking at the press, including the most prestigious brands in the media that these were - these constituted the Iran deal, echo chamber that helped sell Obama's deal with Iran. So, they have a lot at stake in protecting Obama's foreign policy legacy.

INGRAHAM: Now, before we get back to Victor, you said in this new piece of yours that the goal for the Obama administration was never to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It was to stop them from building it during the Obama term. That's quite an accusation.

SMITH: Well, I mean if you look at what happened - if you look at the sunset clauses meaning the different provisions built into the deal that were set to expire sometime after Barack Obama left the White House, that's very clear. It tells you what they were doing. They were passing it on to the next administration.

INGRAHAM: It was like a hot potato except you're dealing with nuclear, nuclear potential.

SMITH: Thank goodness--

INGRAHAM: Fallout.

SMITH: They passed it on to Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton, as it turns out.

INGRAHAM: Victor, speaking of former Obama folks, your favorite Victor, John Kerry was on television tonight. Don't you know? Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the Iran front, could he Bumble himself into war?

JOHN KERRY, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Yes. Obviously, he could. I mean he almost did. It's a sad day when the United States of America has to rely on the decision of a regime that we neither like nor trust to have them be the ones who behave somehow in a way that saves Donald Trump from his own decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Just so everyone understands what he just said. John Kerry, former Secretary of State just said that Iran deserves credit for being restrained and reserved after that attack, attempted attack on our embassy, after everything they've done to kill American soldiers, build IEDs, the terrorism throughout the Gulf region. Our former Secretary of State just siding with Iran.

HANSON: That's not the first time, Laura. Remember that during our discussions of getting out of the Iran deal, he was meeting in a shadow capacity in Paris with Iranian officials, in a way that would weaken our ability to protect our interests and get out of that flawed deal. And it's part of a larger narrative. They're really angry about the Soleimani death. But Donald Trump was very deliberate. He explained what happened. He didn't go to the White House Correspondents Dinner like Obama did and joke about predator assassination.

He didn't go on the campaign trail like Joe Biden. GM is alive, bin Laden is dead. He didn't cackle like Hillary Clinton when he said, we came, we saw, Gaddafi died. And so, it's been very serious, and I don't understand the schizophrenia that targeted assassinations are fine, we can joke about them and then - and the Logan Act exist here and there. But if there ever was a Logan Act, John Kerry has been violating it with his--

INGRAHAM: Yes, shuttle diplomacy, when he's no longer Secretary of State. Lee and Victor, fascinating. Thank you so much both of you. And we were told that the Democrats 2020 candidates were a veritable field of dreams. How many times have we hear that old trope? What happened? Well, my ANGLE explains next and then Dinesh D'Souza responds, it's going to be a doozy. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The field of shattered dreams, that's the focus of tonight's ANGLE.

It began with such promise, didn't it? In their desperate desire to oust our incumbent president, the Democrat party produced more than 20 candidates, from political rookies to seasoned pros. They came from Texas, New Jersey, California, and places in between, all claiming to have what it took to dispatch their ultimate political nemesis, Donald Trump.

Well, in the Democrats' case, if you built it with these goofballs, the people will run. But it wasn't so much the candidates' talent or skill set that excited the resistance media that was covering all of this. It was what the field collectively represented.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Democratic field is obviously big. It's more diverse than many other years.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People really are excited about this field.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the most diverse field for a nomination ever.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a field that I think Democrats can be proud of.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The d-word, "diversity." This was supposedly, of course, the most racially, ethically, gender diverse field of candidates the country had ever seen, the world had ever seen. It was just what the left had been waiting for after four years of Donald Trump. Surely alone the fact of diversity would bring back disaffected Democrats and independents, and trump Trump's booming the company.

Or maybe not. After months of uninspiring stump speeches and lackluster debate performances, it became pretty clear, didn't it, that most of the candidates were duds. And starting in December, the diverse field started to vanish faster than a Jamie Lee Curtis film. First Kamala, as in Harris, bowed out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.: Sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

HARRIS: Right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Then Julian Castro.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN CASTRO, D-FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Keep reaching for your dream, and keep fighting for what you believe in. Ganaremos un dia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I love that stage shot.

And today, we learned that Spartacus himself, it cannot be, Cory Booker, he's also calling it quits. Frankly, I was shocked, what with his high polling numbers of, I don't know, six percent? But let's not forget the Dems' latecomer candidate who had entered the race just seven weeks reinjecting the field with much-needed diversity and that common man's touch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think the point that they are making and a lot of people are making is you are a billionaire who is buying this election. What is your response to this?

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, D-FORMER NEW YORK MAYOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm not buying anymore. I'm doing exactly the same thing they are doing, except that I'm using my own money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Trump calls him Mini-Michael Bloomberg. I think major, though, is more appropriate, as in major waste of money. So what now, though? I guess a lot of fretting and awkward admissions, that's what.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A lot of folks pointing out, #demssowhite. You've got another candidate of color dropping out of the race. Kamala Harris is gone, Julian Castro is gone, now Cory Booker is gone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's going to be an overwhelmingly white debate, an all white debate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How one of the most diverse fields in the history of the Democratic Party came down to white candidates at the top of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So you live by the racial litmus test, you die by the racial litmus test. Instead of focusing on who the best candidate is, whatever color or gender, background, Democrats obsess on immutable characteristics. And they should never be the basis for promotions or jobs or political losses, not immutable characteristics, no. Ever heard of merit or experience or political talent?

It should also be noted that this stage of the 2016 election, at the same stage, the GOP actually itself had a more diverse field than the Democrats have now. They had an African-American candidate, Ben Carson, joining two Latino candidates, Cruz and Rubio. But remember, they are conservative, so they don't count in the Democrats' been counting.

But frankly, diversity is the least of the Democrats' worries, if you ask me. Their top three candidates, those old white folks, they are struggling to find a coherent message, and at this point are just at each other's throats. The Sanders campaign is reportedly telling volunteers manning the phone backs or knocking on doors to frame Warren as the candidate of the elites. When she heard this, Warren went on the warpath.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me. He knows who I am, where I come from. We all saw the impact of the factionalism in 2016, and we can't have a repeat of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, but she's trying, because Warren has begun pitching her on backchannel stories to the media in an effort to hobble Bernie. Here is today's headline from CNN. "Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can't win, sources say." But just hours ago, Warren went on record saying it's true, and that Sanders, quote, "disagreed" during their meeting that a woman could win the nomination.

And then there is the frontrunner, Joe, what state am I in, Biden. Other than remind everyone that he was Obama's vice president for either years, what exactly is he doing to excite the Democrat base? He is a human gaffe- omatic, pulled his string and some crazy nonsense will come out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Corn-pop was a bad dude.

Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

Make sure the television -- excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night.

This is the United States of America. There is nothing we are uncapable of doing.

The kid used to come up and reach into the poll and rub my leg down so it was straight, and then watch the hair come back up again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: I just can't. Sometimes, though, through all of that, sometimes voters probably just forget which Biden is actually running.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's the only one who can beat Donald Trump in the November election, the only one. I know we have great Democrats, great Democrats running, great. Let them be secretaries of whatever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Whatever.

Meanwhile, President Trump is enjoying the show from the White House. It sure looked like he was having fun Friday during our interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Bernie Sanders seeming to make some headway against Elizabeth Warren in some polls. What do you make of this? Is Bernie Sanders really --

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Could be. It could be. Joe can't string together a sentence. He's having a hard time. The other day a number of times he couldn't distinguish between Iran and Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The uphill battle that these Democrats face is November isn't because they are not diverse enough. It's because they are not pragmatic enough. Free health care, free college, free preschool, frozen fossil fuel industry, open borders, higher taxes -- it is not going to grow the economy. It's not going to grow your 401(k), your bank account, or whatever, as Jill Biden would say. Empowering governments means taking away power from you. More power for the government means less freedom for you. By the way, it's the same government that thinks wasting millions on dead- end investigations and impeachment is more important than infrastructure and lowering prescription drug prices. The 2020 Democrat field of dreams has turned into a mud pit, one that most voters just want to avoid.

And that's THE ANGLE.

Joining me now is Dinesh D'Souza, conservative author and filmmaker. Dinesh, did I miss anything about the Democrats' field of shattered dreams here?

DINESH D'SOUZA, CONSERVATIVE FILMMAKER: I think you are quite right that they began with a diversity parade. You have two groups of people, the ones claiming to be diverse, Buttigieg, I'm gay, Cory Booker, I'm black, Kamala Harris, I'm black and a woman, so I'm a twofer. And then the other candidates like Elizabeth Warren and others, Beto, aspiring to be diverse, and pretending to be diverse in ways that they were not. So it was a diversity parade and a diversity charade.

And then it all kind of imploded, and all these diverse candidates showed that they had lack of gravitas, they were downright silly, they fell away, and now you've got this kind of old white guys' parade that's left over.

Look, the strongest candidate against Trump is going to be somebody who has to assure the country that they can keep the country safe, that they can protect a strong economy even while protecting the welfare state, a kind of pragmatic centrist, like you say. But they have driven those people out of the field, and they did it right at the beginning.

INGRAHAM: Bernie Sanders, Dinesh, he says he's the guy. Check it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, D-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am the strongest candidate to beat Trump. To beat Trump, you are going to need a massive voter turnout. And the only way you do that is through a campaign of energy, of excitement. You've got to bring working people, you've got to bring young people into the political process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: He's on the rise right now, Dinesh, and Warren is taking a hit or two, and Bernie is trying to capitalize on it.

D'SOUZA: Part of the reason why Warren has plummeted, I think, is because there's a fakery to her. The insincerity of even her dance moves are just so nausea inducing.

Bernie, for all his craziness, is nevertheless authentic. In fact, this is one characteristic he shares with Trump. People who meet Trump, people who encounter Trump, say this guy is real, he's the real deal. He is what he is. Bernie is what he is. Now, I don't like what he is. I just read an article about how Bernie was thrown out of a commune because he didn't want to do any work. He wanted to talk about politics all day. The commune was all about self-sufficiency, growing your own food. So Bernie is making the case for being a bum, and there's a little bit of us that wants to do that. We don't want to get off the couch, we don't want to go to work. So there is a little bit of us that is Bernie, and I think that's the secret of Bernie's appeal.

INGRAHAM: All right, Dinesh, speak for yourself, OK. There's not a lot of time to sit on the couch at my house, but that's actually a good point. If you get kicked out of the commune because you are too lazy, that is actually just not a good thing. Dinesh, appreciate it tonight. Thanks so much.

And coming up, this isn't California or New York. There is an all-out gun grab going on in the home state of the NRA. This is a can't-miss debate. Run on the guns under Governor Blackface -- sorry, Northam. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RALPH NORTHAM, D-VA.: We are not going to go door-to-door and confiscate individuals' weapons. We are going to pass common sense legislation that will keep guns out of dangerous hands and keep Virginia safer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Governor Ralph "Blackface" Northam downplaying Democrats' plans to strip people of their Second Amendment rights. We've already seen this play out in California, New York, places like Massachusetts, Maryland, terrible on gun rights. Now you can add the Commonwealth of Virginia, perhaps, this list of states looking to, yes, take guns from the hands of law-abiding Americans.

Here to debate is Jason Roberge, who is a veteran who is running for Congress in Virginia as a Republican. Along with me is Mark Levine, a Democrat Virginia state rep who is pushing many of these gun control measures. I want to add that Michael Bloomberg's group, he's running for president, 2020 tie in, has given 175k to the Democrat caucus in the Virginia state house to push these gun-grab initiatives. He's virulently anti Second Amendment. Jason, just how aggressive is this push going to be?

JASON ROBERGE, R-VA. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Sure. So The Democrats basically just started their session in Virginia.

INGRAHAM: They run both houses.

ROBERGE: They run both houses. They have the House of Delegates and the State Senate there. And they also, Governor Northam has the governorship. They are introducing as many bills as they can to limit our rights. They are trying to take away our firearms any way they can. They want to up the age restriction, the age minimum to get the --

INGRAHAM: The most important thing about this, and we are going to get to Mark in a second, the most important thing people have to understand, an assault style weapon -- people hear that and they think, oh, my God, a machine gun. No. What is an assault-style weapon under the statute? As I'm reading the statute, it's any semiautomatic weapon that holds 10, correct, 10 in the clip, 10 or more in the clip? Most Sig Sauer, we have pictures of them, Sig Sauer 9-millimeter, Glock 9 millimeter, ARs, AK style weapon, the most popular hunting rifle in the United States is the AR-15, correct, depending on the size of the clip would be banned, those style guns?

ROBERGE: Yes. Basically any of these guns that hold a resealable clip or magazine. The way you can read the statute, it's very vague. And they are purposely doing this because they want to take away millions and millions of these guns.

INGRAHAM: Mark, is it true that these guns, however you want to define this assault style, and as a lawyer, the language, you could drive a truck through it, and they did it on purpose. But if this thing gets passed, there's no grandfather provision in the provision that most want, not grandfather provision, meaning you become a felon in the Commonwealth of Virginia if you have one of these weapons as a law-abiding citizen, yes or no?

MARK LEVINE, D-VA. STATE REPRESENTATIVE: No. You are wrong. You need to read the bill. There is a grandfather clause.

INGRAHAM: I have it. It didn't pass.

LEVINE: You are allowed to keep your weapons. We're not taking people's guns away, and the list you gave is not an accurate list either. So no, I'm afraid you're misinformed.

INGRAHAM: You define for our audience, OK, I challenge you to define what an assault-style weapon is under the statute's language.

LEVINE: So it's very similar to what was under the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004. So it is having an extended magazine --

INGRAHAM: Ten.

LEVINE: A weapon that fits an extended magazine.

INGRAHAM: Ten.

LEVINE: More than 10 bullets.

ROBERGE: Why? How does that protect -- you're trying to protect the public, though.

LEVINE: That's the same one that, by the way -- and to say it's against the Second Amendment, just to be clear, this has been consistently ruled by all the courts to be constitutional. First circuit, second circuit, third circuit, fourth circuit, D.C. So if you don't like it, you may not like it, but it is clearly within the Second Amendment. So let's just be clear about that. If you don't like it, go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

ROBERGE: How is it by limiting the number of bullets a gun can receive, how does that protect the public safety?

LEVINE: That's a great question. Let me answer that question.

ROBERGE: OK, go ahead.

LEVINE: So if you look at mass shooters, particularly look at what happened in Tucson, Gabby Giffords is alive today because the killer had to change the magazine. In Nashville, that brave men and the waffle house jumped on a person changing the magazine.

INGRAHAM: Let's talk about the church in Texas.

LEVINE: When you have to change a magazine --

INGRAHAM: This is a game we can play all day long.

LEVINE: When you have to change a magazine --

INGRAHAM: Mark, stop grandstanding on my show. You can do it all day long. You can do it in a church where we have a person licensed to carry weapons as we had in Texas or Florida where people are allowed to carry a weapon that has an extended clip in it that's 10 or 12. And you can defend a lot of people getting killed with a clip that's 10 or more period. So the idea the government is going to tell you that you can't defend with a type of clip or magazine is obscene.

LEVINE: Laura, if 12 people are coming to get, you are probably the bad guy. You do not need a 30-bullet magazine to hunt. If you can't shoot a deer in 10 bullets --

INGRAHAM: We've got to go, but the government has no right to determine this, no right to do this. And they are not going to allow people to hold these guns.

LEVINE: They do it in 10 states. Take it up with the U.S. Supreme Court.

ROBERGE: It's a straw argument. It's a straw argument. It's a terrible argument.

INGRAHAM: We will. We will take it to the court. Jason and Mark, this is a hot topic. We've got to do an hour on this topic, it's so hot.

Coming up, we bid adieu to someone who gave us great joy. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Tonight we remember our dear friend, Spartacus.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will be a president for all people in America.

I will have a woman running mate.

I see every single day that this economy is not working for average Americans.

Donald Trump is a guy who, you understand, he hurts you. Even my testosterone sometimes makes me want to feel like punching him.

I support Medicare for all, I support the Green New Deal.

You are dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don't even know the flavor.

I do not have a radical vegan agenda.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are the odds that we would see a wedding in the White House?

(LAUGHTER)

BOOKER: I got into Stanford because of a 4.0, 1,600, 4.0 yards per carry, 1,600 receiving yards.

(LAUGHTER)

BOOKER: That might this be the headline coming out of this. Booker confesses that he is a Trekkie.

Here's a bit of advice to everybody. You're going to have a spectacular failure, have a documentary team there to capture it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Thanks to Samantha and Whitney for putting on that tearful goodbye.

Shannon Bream and the "Fox New @ Night" team, take it all from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.