This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," September 24, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: We will pick up the baton where you left off Sean thanks so much, fantastic show tonight. I am Laura Ingraham and this is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington. Of course, impeachment fever is sweeping Congress and we have got an all-star line up to take you through every “Angle.”

Our legal experts Sol Weisenberg, Alan Dershowitz break down everything you need to know, Rudy Giuliani responding to a breaking story from "The Washington Post" regarding his role in the entire Ukraine affair and Andy McCarthy is here with some shocking details about the lawyer representing the whistleblower. And House GOP Whip Steve Scullies is here with all the consequences of Pelosi caving to the radicals in here caucus.

But first, desperate Democrats go to defcon one. That is the focus of tonight's “Angle.” It looks like we are ending Trump's first term where it began with member of the resistance borrowed into government leaking incomplete information with the worst possible spin on it all done to ensnare the President and another major costly investigation. And January 2017 it was Comey and the deep state. September 2019, it is Nancy and whistleblower case.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Today, I'm announcing the House of Representative moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. The President must be held accountable. No one is above the law.


INGRAHAM: Well, as of this hour, zero Republicans but at least 179 House Democrats are in favor of impeachment and why? Because of failed from whistleblower reportedly claimed that the President used with withdrawing aid to a foreign country Ukraine to pressure that country into investigating Joe Biden and his son.

Now, the irony is that the case Trump wanted investigated involved Biden himself threatening to withhold one billion-dollar aid package to Ukraine if supposedly a corrupt prosecutor wasn't fired. He actually bragged about it. Well that prosecutor was investigating the company Burisma on whose Board of Directors, Hunter Biden sat. And also boatloads of cash they paid him. Oh, that fact conveniently glossed over by most media today, the whistleblower has no first-hand knowledge of the President's conversation. Oh, but none of that matters.


PELOSI: The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the constitution.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: I think what is going on is that the President has committed several impeachable offenses.


UNITENTIFIED MALE: Yes another impeachable offense. He is already I believe the most corrupt President in American history.


INGRAHAM: Now, he has, the Democrats have nothing else, they no drama. Congressman John Lewis kicked off today's festivities pouring on the emotion.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today, I come with a heavy heart, deeply concerned about the future of our democracy. And I'm not alone.


INGRAHAM: This incendiary drum beat all day long, had this effect on the market. The dove plunged roughly 200 points before borrowing out around 1.00 and recovered after the White House said it would release unredacted transcript of the call with the Ukrainian President. But then it sunk back by the end of the day when investors anticipated Pelosi's big impeachment announcement.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: New calls for impeachment hitting Wall Street stocks slammed after Democratic Congressman John Lewis called to begin impeachment proceedings against the President right now. Nancy Pelosi's meeting behind closed doors with the House Democratic Caucus that Speaker will hold a news conference immediately following that meeting.


INGRAHAM: Now, the most sickening thing about the phase and it is a phase that we are about to enter, is that House Democrats, they know impeachment, the whole inquiry is futile. The Senate Republican majority is not going to vote to convict the President and the country overwhelmingly does not want impeachment.

What I think most people do want is a continuation of what the President has already delivered to America. Peace and prosperity. The truth is, despite all of the dire predictions of a looming Trump recession that started at the end of last year that now seems highly unlikely. So Democrats are in an unenviable position going into 2020.

That is why they could not mention the economy at all at the last debate. Instead it was all he's a racist, white nationalist, and other personal attacks. Anything but a serious discussion about how they would outperform Trump's economy.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: It is just a continuation of a witch hunt it's the worst witch hunt in political history. We have the strongest economy that we've ever and we had the best unemployment numbers we've ever had. African-American, Asian American, Hispanic-American, the lowest in history, and they will lose the election. They figure this is the way to do it.


INGRAHAM: And why would the Democrats risk destroying the best economy in the world? The President is right here. Why would they risk hurting millions of entrepreneurs and workers who have seen wage increases or families who now have more money in their pocket? It's not just the President who had a hint about that. Earlier today, Nancy Pelosi inadvertently revealed the reason.


PELOSI: What is more serious is that he can't win. That is very serious to our country.


INGRAHAM: Oh, yes he can win, Nancy. And you and the overzealous radicals and your caucus could very well be helping him seal his second term. Beyond the grandstanding, all the culminating today, the Democrats proved once again, they are incapable of putting the greater good of the country ahead of their own hatred of Trump and their thirst to regain power.

Pushing the nuclear button of impeachment, it is an admission that they are not confident. Not in their ideas or in their candidate. Can't beat them? Impeach him. Hey, why don't they put that on a bumper sticker? And that is “The Angle.”

Joining me now with reactions, Sol Weisenberg Former Deputy Independent Counsel Fox News Contributor and Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor at Emeritus and Author of the book "The Case against Impeaching Trump".

All right Sol, let's start with you does Pelosi impeachment inquiry announcement actually mean anything more than what we know now or is it just more posturing? Is it just a serious step towards impeachment vote down the road?

SOL WEISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: In and of itself I don't see how it means anything. All she did is I think Andy McCarthy was the first person to point out today several hours ago, all she did is stand up and say these five different committees that are investigating things they don't like about the administration were out calling them part of an impeachment inquiry. It's not like Watergate where there was actually a vote to authorize an investigation based on the Saturday night massacre. So no, I think it is completely for show.

INGRAHAM: Allen, new details tonight from Ed Henry about the whistleblower. Senior Administration Officials are telling Fox that apparently, the whistleblower did have some political bias. In favor of a rival candidate of President Trump and the official doesn't have the name of the rival candidate its unclear this hour if the whistleblower supports Biden or another specific candidate.

But look for the administration to highlight that. Each site is going to put out they are facts that are helpful to them that's how these cycles go. We have seen it before, but this does have some odd parallels does it not, to what happened to Comey at the beginning and the march towards using leverage of government to try to stop this presidency?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: Look Nancy Pelosi is right. When she says no one is above the law but that means that Congress is not above the law. Congress may not impeach a President unless the President has committed an impeachable offense and the constitution sets out what the offenses are.

You don't go around convicting the President, verdict first, trial later. "Alice in Wonderland" type injustice. They have not even seen the material. They haven't seen the transcript of the conversation. They don't know enough about the whistleblower.

Nobody, Nancy Pelosi and nobody else has mentioned a statute that this would violate even if it were true. You have to find bribery. This isn't bravery. You have to find treason, obviously not treason. It's not a high crime of misdemeanor in fact Nancy Pelosi herself said it was a violation of the constitution. I don't know what that means.

The only violation of the constitution I'm hearing about is Congress violating the constitution if it impeaches the President for non- impeachable offenses.

INGRAHAM: So Congress then would be transgressing its own constitutional obligations under that analysis.

DERSHOWITZ: That's right.

INGRAHAM: All right, well, gentleman Pelosi speaking of this issue. She seems to have her own standard of what constitutes what we normally think of in the law is a quid pro quo. Watch.


PELOSI: There is no requirement that the quid pro quo in the conversation. It's a President brings up; he wants them to investigate something - that is of his political opponent. That is self evident that it is not right. You don't ask foreign governments to help us in the election.


DERSHOWITZ: But what is the crime? Where is the statue? Where is the beef? I don't get it.

INGRAHAM: It doesn't matter, but this is what I'm saying it doesn't matter in solve, they've devolve now into saying, well it is self-evident and this is a pattern of corruption. Again going back to the Russian inclusion narrative. So they are using Russian collusion and kind of a whole stack of tidbits that they are putting together in this big impeachment sandwich that they are now dining out on.

So that's where we are at. But to Alan's point from is this crime rising to a level of a high crime or misdemeanor? If this even happened?

WEISENBERG: Well, I don't believe and I may disagree with Professor Dershowitz on this point. Most constitutional scholars would agree with me that high crime or misdemeanor is not confined to a criminal code crime that you can impeach somebody for a serious breach of the public's trust, public corruption and the like.

However, we don't know if we have this here. It is really shocking to me that these people couldn't even wait one day to read the transcript and can't wait. Apparently, we get the full list of a whistleblower report in a week or so which is shocking to me that you would try to start the stampede without actually looking at the materials.

I find it very troubling. And I also want to say that I find it also troubling when someone mentioned earlier, I mean, how does a whistleblower even know about this? How do people even know about this conversation? What kind of leaking is going on? I think that is very concerning. But I guess my main point, go ahead, sorry.

DERSHOWITZ: Go ahead, I'm sorry. You also have to look at this constitution. The frame has debated this. Some of the framer said abusive office should be enough for impeachment. They had a vote on it. The frame of the constitution said no, that would give Congress too much power or would turn the United States into a parliamentary system like Great Britain.

That is when they introduce the concept of bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors. A high crime means crimes that involve corruption of office. When Alexander Hamilton admitted he committed adultery which was a serious felony and paid extortion money but he denied that he paid it out of treasury funds.

He wrote "The Federalist" paper about impeachment. So he knew the difference. If he had just paid extortion money that would be low crime but if he paid out of treasury funds, it would be high crime because it would involve both the crime and corruption. So with respect to I disagree. I think you need both the crime and the crime that is a high crime that shows maladministration of office.

INGRAHAM: I wonder, hold on one second because I want to see, you have to wonder and this idea that this is playing right into Trump's hands, it seems to make more and more sense to me because as soon as the Democrats announce the impeachment inquiries, he tweets a produced video of Democrats calling for his impeachment as if they knew the whole thing would happen all along.

And then since then, I guess what the White House Counsel's office and the DOJ they decided release the full transcript of the call, release the whistleblower complaint, release the IG report and they are allowing the width whistleblower to justify.

How does this, Sol I will go to you first, how is this exactly the Watergate cover-up playbook that I've heard supposedly really smart people on television all day long citing Watergate without an eye about it on the other side of the camera? I've never seen anything like it.

WEISENBERG: I had no idea what they mean by comparing it to the Watergate cover-up. The story just broke a day ago, and now Attorney General Barr has said that the full transcript will be released and apparently the report is going to be released in about a week.

But again, I am going to wait, okay, I don't know what's in the transcript. I don't know what's in the report. I'm going to wait to actually read it. To Professor Dershowitz's point, I think that the vote he was talking about was when George Mason at the constitutional convention tried to make maladministration.

DERSHOWITZ: That's right.

WEISENBERG: A grounds for impeachment. But I don't think that those are mutually exclusive. I think that if you have a serious breach of the public's trust and corruption that can be impeachable. But that's got to be even if we disagree about that, that's got to be pervasive. That's got to be really serious. And we've got one alleged event, and we don't even know what it is?

DERSHOWITZ: It is so subjective, you know? We need objective criteria and that is what the constitution demands because it didn't want to give Congress the authority to vote of no confidence the way the Israeli parliament has now or the way the British parliament has it.

We have executive system. We have a Republic in which the President is the Executive Authority he gets to make foreign policy. Congress gets to legislate and Congress doesn't get to remove the President unless there are specific constitutional criteria in that.

INGRAHAM: I think we should have a wrap-up like citing federalist papers and go back and forth and I'll continuing education credit from both of you. It's really fun. All right, Joe Biden has had a bit of an evolution in his own thinking on impeachment. This is what he sounded like today when pressed.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This isn't a Democratic issue or Republican issue. It is a national issue. It is a security issue. It is time for this administration to stop stonewalling and provide the Congress with all the facts it needs. Including a copy of the formal complaint made by the whistleblower.


INGRAHAM: Well and this is what he said back in 1998.


BIDEN: The American people don't think they have made a mistake by electing Bill Clinton and we in Congress, better be very careful before we upset their decision and make darn sure that we are able to convince them if we decide to upset their decision that our decision to impeach him was based upon principle and not politics.


INGRAHAM: I like that dramatic pan out of c-span that night.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, he was right the first time. He was right the first time because otherwise it just becomes a partisan, political tool that is why you need objective criteria that has to pass the issue on the other test. If he would impeach a Democrat on the basis of these criteria, then you can impeach Republican and vice versa. You can't have special rules for the party you oppose. That turns the constitution into a political weapon.

INGRAHAM: I mean another question Sol is this, the Democrats know the Senate is not going to convict the President on, let's say they go through the whole process, okay and vote to formally impeach him. The Senate is not going to convict him. But it is going to run the narrative right up to the next campaign.

This campaign into the 2020 season, right smack dab in the middle of it. I think that lens some more, even more persuasiveness to what Professor Dershowitz is saying. This starts to look like a political solution. To what they may not be so confident about next November, which is, you know removing President Trump the old fashion way, at the ballot box.

That is when it begins to look like when you make comments about a case. I think you're being very prudent about it and I salute you for that, reserving judgment at the very least until the documents come out. But no, they cannot do that. They want the new cycle like that.

WEISENBERG: Well, here is the thing. Sometimes you can have an impeachment, a real impeachment investigation, and public opinion can change. Even though people were outraged by the Saturday night massacre, when the House first started its impeachment investigation of Nixon, public opinion was much more closely divided than it was at the end because new revelations kept coming out and they discover things.

So I suppose that is what Speaker Pelosi hopes will happen here. I just don't see any evidence yet that it is going to happen and so it's a very dangerous, very dangerous game for them to play.

INGRAHAM: Well, we kept thinking it was coming in the Mueller report. It was Don Jr. who was going to go to jail. This was going to happen, and they're all these things that were hinted at, but they never delivered on.

DERSHOWITZ: Who predicted that on this show over and over again that there would be no impeachment, nothing found in the Mueller report that even came close to giving rise to impeachable offense and it didn't happen.

INGRAHAM: All right, well, panel, stay right there and we're going to see a later in the show because there is so much breaking news tonight.

But first, I want to bring in President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Rudy, first, are you in touch with the president? Have you spoken to him the last couple of hours or tonight? And what is he thinking?

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY: Well, of course, he's my client. And therefore, I can't tell you what I talked to him about particularly at a time like this. It's attorney-client privilege. I - - I know the Democrats don't respect that or any other Constitutional privileges the president has. I think you're absolutely right. I think the Democrats have stepped into something way beyond what they realize. It reminds me of a fighter who is swinging wildly against a really skilled fighter who has a great right hand and puts him right down. They have walked into something that I was hoping they'd walk into for six months. And what they've exposed is probably what's going to turn out to be one of the major scandals of the early part of the 21st century, which is Joe Biden. It's a lot of money, Laura. It's not just Ukraine. It's a pattern of conduct. It's a very serious pattern of conduct. It really goes back to small-time stuff when he first got into the Senate with his brother who was enriching himself on Biden's public office. And then the numbers got outrageous during the Obama administration -- $5-$6 million to a son who's a seriously incompetent person, who got put on a board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine.

INGRAHAM: Rudy, the question about this - - (CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: I - - I have - -


GIULIANI: -- I have the records - - I have the records of a $3 million warranted (ph) payment to Mr. Biden's son. I have the records. I have the dates. It went from - - it went from Ukraine to Latvia to Cyprus, Cyprus to - - that's a - - (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Yes, we've -- we've -- yes. We have documented this.

GIULIANI: Ask your two lawyers this. That's called evidence of guilty knowledge. That's suspicious (ph) illegal transfer of money. (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Rudy, I want to move the conversation forward because we've hit this and we've had you on for months talking about this. So we've established that factual predicate.

GIULIANI: Nobody paid attention to it until now -- (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Well, no, we paid attention to it. We've been doing it since May or April, whenever it was.

GIULIANI: No, I know you did but none of these people in the corrupt media paid attention.

INGRAHAM: Well, everybody has, you know, their own agenda.

GIULIANI: But I think the corrupt Democrats did, which is what I think they're doing. I think they're covering up for what will turn out to be massive corruption in the Obama administration. He got $1.5 billion from China -- $1.5 billion from China.

INGRAHAM: What about the phone - - the phone transcript, I guess, that's going to be released -- an official telling Fox from the White House tonight that there are a, quote, few words in the transcript that will raise eyebrows but it's nowhere near as inflammatory as the Democrats have suggested. There are a few words.

GIULIANI: It's nowhere near - - it's nowhere near what Biden did or Chris Murphy (ph) by the way who should be impeached. He - - he went to see the president of the Ukraine. And he told the president of the Ukraine that if he cooperates with the president, they'll cut off aid. That's a quid pro quo. That's quid pro - - that's threatening. Nancy Pelosi should be outraged at Chris Murphy (ph). (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Hey, Nancy -- yes, Nancy has a very -- she has a very interesting –

GIULIANI: They should impeach him. They should impeach Chris Murphy (ph).

INGRAHAM: She has a very interesting view of quid pro quo.

GIULIANI: I don't know what the crime - - I don't even think she pronounced it correctly but I don't know what the crime is but - -

INGRAHAM: Hey, Rudy though –

GIULIANI: - - the reality is that Joe Biden actually made a very well- committed, something called crimes, $1.5 billion from China to your son when you're negotiating with China and you're failing in your negotiations. (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Never should have happened. Never should have happened. They never should have happened. (CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Well what do you mean it never should have happened?

INGRAHAM: It was an -- it was an apparent, yes -- (CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: It's outrageous. It was (ph) an outrageous sale of the vice presidency. China paid for Joe Biden's office.

INGRAHAM: It was an apparent conflict.

GIULIANI: China didn't invest in a drug-challenged –


GIULIANI: -- son with $1.5 billion. They bought the vice president of the United States. And even if you're a Democrat you should be shocked by that. But they are covering it up because -- (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: No, there's no honest brokers. There's no honest brokers left. (CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: -- this political is so corrupt, it stinks. And when the Biden corruption comes out and we look at how much money Clinton made off the Secretary of State's office and well, look at how much Kerry's step-son made in that same transaction. I don't know who wasn't making money in the Obama administration.

INGRAHAM: Rudy, hold on a second because "The Washington Post" tonight has a story out. You're the focus of it. That's not a big shock. This is what it says in part, you know, though the whistleblower report focuses on the Trump-Zelensky call, officials familiar with its content said that it includes references to other developments tied to the president including efforts by Giuliani to insert himself into U.S.-Ukrainian relations. Rudy, he did all of this, one U.S. official said. This s -- show –


INGRAHAM: -- that we're in, it's him injecting himself into the process. Insider saying you mucked this up. Your response?

GIULIANI: Man, I really did. And you know who I did it at the request of? The State Department. I never talked to a Ukrainian official until the State Department called me and asked me to do it. And then I reported every conversation back to them. And Laura, I'm a pretty good lawyer, just a country lawyer. But it's all here, right here. The -- the first call from the State Department, the debriefing of the State's attorney.

INGRAHAM: So why are they - - why are they out to get you? This story is filled with unnamed sources again. (CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Because -- I - - I will compliment myself because I do a pretty good job for him. And they try to destroy everybody around him. But they're not going to intimidate me. In fact, I'm going to work harder because I don't get intimidated by bullies. I don't get intimidated -- I have a chapter in my book about standing up to bullies. But I never realized the depth of the corruption. I always thought Joe Biden was intellectually challenged but a nice guy. I never knew the depth of this corruption.  It's massive. It's shocking. And if I played a role in getting that out, I did a service to my country and I'm proud of it. And everything I did is defensible and everything I did is legal, and most of what they are doing is to cover up for a crime. And I'm (ph) happy to have him challenge me because every time they've challenged me, they go down and we win, because they are acting improperly.


GIULIANI: They are acting with an abuse of power. And the president of the United States' conversation with that president, if you consider what a crook Joe Biden and his son were, was demanded, it was necessary, you cannot let the vice president of the United States allow his son to enrich himself to the tune of millions and millions of dollars and not having -- and not -- (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: But why -- but Rudy, I couldn't agree with you more. But why are you the one to do this? Why isn't this the role of the Justice Department or the FBI? Why task you, the personal attorney of the president? I think that's -- that's a question that's just layman -- was like, OK, I get it. That should be investigated. But why is Rudy role -- you know, running the show on that? Why isn't it FBI and the main Justice?

GIULIANI: That's a very good question, because the FBI's performance of this entire investigation, including up to this moment, is flawed. Why am I doing it, Laura? Can't you figure it out? I'm his defense lawyer. I'm defending him. He's my client. I don't know, only Donald Trump is not entitled to a defense in America. (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: But how are you defending him by investigating Biden? How -- please spell it out for us.

GIULIANI: Because one of the things that the prosecutor that Biden had fired and then the prosecutor that Biden helped to put in, one of the things they did was to dismiss a case against an organization that was collecting false information about Donald Trump, about Paul Manafort, and feeding it to the Democratic National Committee.

INGRAHAM: OK, that explains it to people. I don't think people understood that.

GIULIANI: That organization was run by -- that was run by George Soros, who then hired the crooked FBI agent who is now working for George Soros. Laura, this stinks. This is Tammany Hall, New York politics to the tune of a billion dollars. It is -- it stinks. I spent my life as a prosecutor investigating crooked Democrats, crooked Republicans. I don't care who is crooked. They should go to jail. These people abused power. And you know why? Because that crooked press corps enables them. Because they don't cover them the way they cover Republicans. There are two systems of justice in this country. They go after Republicans if we say something wrong. They allow Democrats to steal millions. And they don't care. The Clintons enriched themselves on public office to the tune of hundreds of millions. The Bidens got $1.5 billion from China, which had to be a deliberate act on the part of China to buy the vice presidency. It cost a lot of money to buy it. They didn't invest -- they didn't invest in the hedge fund because it made money. (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Rudy -- yes.

GIULIANI: It made no money. The Chinese are not stupid. (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Yes, he had no experience.

GIULIANI: They don't spend their money for no reason. There's only one reason the Chinese spent that money, to buy Joe Biden's office. That office doesn't belong to him. It belongs to the people of the United States. And if a president can't vindicate that, then it's a sad day for America. I am proud of my president because he's trying to clean up a swamp that is much more than the American people realize.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, I think no one, you know –

GIULIANI: It's disgusting.

INGRAHAM: -- Schumer warned about, you know, the deep state. They will always find a way to get you. And there seems like there are –

GIULIANI: Not if you have courage. No, if you're a little sniveling (ph) coward, they'll beat you. (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Yes. There are people inside -- hold on, hold on, Rudy, hold on. Hold on. There are people inside this administration -- I've said this from January 5th of 2017 –


INGRAHAM: They are leaking. There were people at the very beginning leaking. It went -- rolled all the way through the deep state. And a lot of their people are now put in other networks as commentators. It's absolutely reprehensible. I've never seen anything like it. But, Rudy, there is a thing in this story. I just -- you've cleared up a lot. I think a lot of people don't follow every -- every iteration because it's complicated to people who don't follow this every day (ph). (CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: I know. It is. It is complicated. I agree. Thank God -- thank God you covered it in a complicated way. (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Yes. But it's important -- it's important for people to get it. But it's important that people understand this because when they hear stuff, then they can, you know, say, oh, yes, I heard that spin and it's wrong. So, what is the deal about this Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. because part of this story again broke tonight, is that you were putting big pressure on her as part of this scenario -- yes, U.S. ambassador, excuse me -- U.S. ambassador of the Ukraine, excuse me. (CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: No, I didn't put pressure on her. Look, I was sitting in my office November 2018 and a very prominent investigator that both the gentlemen you just have on know, came to me and told me, there's a story about the Ukraine and what the Democrats did there that will shock you. And I didn't believe it at first. Biden wasn't involved. It was all about collusion which, by the way, is massive, right? I mean -- and people were paying for it, like George Soros. And the American ambassador was deeply involved in it. And the FBI agent who was investigating it was deeply involved in it. She is now working for George Soros. The FBI agent is working for George Soros, making hundreds of thousands of dollars. She was involved in it back then. In January of 2016, the Obama White House told Ukrainian officials, go dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort. Well, Nancy Pelosi doesn't care about that. (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Who in the Obama administration? You said the Obama White House. That was -- that was what was told to you?

GIULIANI: No, that's been reported in "The Hill" by John Solomon.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Solomon's reporting.

GIULIANI: I've seen some of the documents. And then, Joe Biden removes this prosecutor. He says he didn't even know his son was under investigation. That's absurd. INGRAHAM: Uh-huh.

GIULIANI: That he never told -- he never talked to his son about his son's foreign business? Do you believe that? Don't you think I can prove that he did? Do you think I'm stupid? Do you think I'm giving you all my evidence? (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Rudy -- Rudy, I have a question.

GIULIANI: They have walked into a trap.

INGRAHAM: So, this is a gift to you then? This whole thing is a big gift to the American people for transparency. And so, people can -- sunlight. (CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: You're darn right it is a gift. Maybe, just maybe we will finally investigate a Democrat like we investigate a Republican. Maybe, just maybe we won't do the big Hillary Clinton fix, like the FBI did, to let her out of crimes that was so horrendous and so obvious that anybody would be prosecuted. If Biden gets away with a $1.5 billion, then we don't have justice in America. We just don't.

INGRAHAM: All right.

GIULIANI: We have lost the FBI and who knows what else.

INGRAHAM: Now, we can't lose. We've got Bill Barr over at Justice. No way we're losing the FBI under Barr.

GIULIANI: Yes, but their inability to investigate this is astounding. You know how it first came to me? It first came to me from this very prominent investigator telling me for one year, they were trying to get this information to the FBI. So, you asked me why did I do it? Because the FBI didn't do their job. Maybe they're afraid that they'll expose the crooked agent.


GIULIANI: I will show you the statements from five Ukrainians that say, we desperately tried to get the information to the FBI. And we were blocked by the ambassador who eventually got fired. You know what -- (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: We're just hearing, Rudy, by the way -- hold on -- we're just hearing that Trump is going to be meeting with the Ukrainian president at 2:15 tomorrow.

GIULIANI: Would you please emphasize the fact that the Ukrainian president has said, I wasn't pressured?

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, this is -- this again is where the Democrats have taken us. Ukraine says it was not pressured. The transcripts are coming out.

GIULIANI: He is the only one that counts, by the way. The only person that counts in an extortion, alleged extortion, is the victim.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Rudy, yes, we're out of time, Rudy.

GIULIANI: He said I wasn't pressured. It doesn't matter if Schiff was the -- (CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: All right. Rudy, we're out of time.

GIULIANI: It matters if he was.

INGRAHAM: I'm sorry to cut you off. You've got to get your voice back.

GIULIANI: It's back.

INGRAHAM: We have a lot more to get to, every “Angle” covered when we come back.


INGRAHAM: We have another Fox News alert tonight. We've just learned that one of the attorneys for the anonymous whistleblower who started this impeachment insanity has deep ties to the Democrats. Attorney Andrew Bakaj who worked for both Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton back in 2001. He's also a deep state alum who for years worked at a CIA and the Defense Department.

And that's not all. As we told you earlier, senior officials telling Fox that the Trump administration will also release a document tomorrow showing the intel community inspector general found the whistleblower had political bias in favor of a rival candidate.

Joining me now is Andy McCarthy, former U.S. attorney, Fox News contributor, and author of "Ball of Collusion," as well as Chris Hahn, former aide who Senator Chuck Schumer and host of the "Aggressive Progressive" podcast. Andy, let's start with you. Rudy is going to be joining us again later on in the hour. Now, that would all seem to complicate, I should say, matters here, wouldn't it if there is political bias that is already recognized and documented?

ANDY MCCARTHY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, SDNY: Well, it would be something that you'd would have to disclose if he was a relevant witness, Laura. But I don't know why, frankly, anybody cares much about the whistleblower anymore. I know the Democrats want the whistleblower on. As someone who used to try cases, once you have the evidence that the whistleblower was blowing the whistle about, the whistleblower becomes irrelevant. So if it turns out that the whistleblower's problem was the exchange or the communication between President Trump and President Zelensky and a belief that there was a quid pro quo, tomorrow we're going to have this transcript, it's been reported.

Once the transcript is public, Laura, what is the difference between you and me and the whistleblower? What's the difference? We'll all have heard the transcript and we'll be able to make up our own minds about it.

INGRAHAM: It's interesting to know who is getting second and third hand information on calls that the president having with foreign leaders. I find that -- that is a separate matter.

MCCARTHY: That is a totally different problem.

INGRAHAM: It's a problem, as John Yoo and others have talked about. It's a real problem for any -- forget Trump, presidents going forward. But Chris Hahn, let's go to you, because there are documents that are coming out, unredacted transcripts, I.G. reports, pretty much everything the Democrats asked for, it's all coming out. Why pull the trigger on the impeachment inquiry today, the resolution, it's building, building, building, why do it today? Why not wait until the documents are out, and then everybody can make their judgment.

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know, nobody trusts the notes that were taken by the president's staff that are being called a transcript are everything that we said on those calls. We would like to hear from this witness that for some reason Barr doesn't want us to hear from.

INGRAHAM: The White House is find with that.

HAHN: And I just heard the president's personal, political attorney say that he was directed by the State Department to go meet with the Ukraine to get evidence on the president's political opponent. Now, remember the Republicans controlled Congress for much of the Obama administration and the first two years of the Trump administration, and they investigated Hillary Clinton and Obama all the time, and we never heard of any of this. Yet Rudy Giuliani, who hasn't practiced criminal law since the early 80s is now saying he has evidence, he has all this information. He's making things up. And if the Biden's weren't public figures, it would be libelous. And I'm sure my friend the former U.S. attorney would agree with that.

INGRAHAM: First of all, Rudy is listening, and he'll respond to what you just said, Chris.

HAHN: Good.

INGRAHAM: We let you go on. Of course, the Trump administration did say, by the way, it's fine to have the witness, the whistleblower testify. They have no problem with it. So that's all going to happen. All of that energy and emotion you got up, it's all happening.

HAHN: But Laura, Laura, what Rudy just said, what Rudy just said --

INGRAHAM: Hold on. I'll ask Andy. I got you. I got you. Take a breath. Andy, go. I'm sorry, this is why Andy does -- Andy likes the more calm shows. But Andy --

HAHN: I'm sorry, Andy. You have been polite to me.

INGRAHAM: -- you just heard from Chris and his viewpoint here that Rudy Giuliani involved in this, that's the problem, and he is trying to put pressure on a foreign government to get dirt on a rival of the president. So is there a legal problem with that?

MCCARTHY: Look, Laura, I think this is all going to be investigated. I've heard Rudy now talk about this for weeks. He's been very open about what he's been doing and why he's been doing it. He's been sometimes very surprisingly open about it. But as he pointed out to you, he's not showing all his cards at this point. He may not have practiced criminal law -- I'm not sure that his right, since the 1980s, but since I was there in 1980s, I can tell you he is an extraordinary criminal investigator. So, look, it's all going to be investigated. As you point out, the witnesses are being made available. Whatever this transcript is tomorrow will be made available, and we'll see.

INGRAHAM: I'm going to bring Rudy back in. Rudy, you've been listening to the conversation. Go ahead to Chris Hahn.

GIULIANI: Yes, I sure have. I would like to say to Mr. Hahn, I should sue you for libel because he irresponsibly said --

HAHN: Oh, please.

GIULIANI: You actually usually say incredibly stupid things.

HAHN: You are a public figure.

GIULIANI: Yes, by the way, do you have any idea the State Department --

HAHN: So then you know the libel laws?

GIULIANI: Shut up, moron, shut up. Shut up.

INGRAHAM: Let Rudy. OK, hold on, hold on. Chris, Chris.

GIULIANI: You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what you're talking about, idiot.

HAHN: I do.

GIULIANI: No you don't. You just lied.

HAHN: Mr. Mayor, I wish you would stop.

GIULIANI: You lied, my friend.

HAHN: I wish you stop, Mr. Mayor.

GIULIANI: Why don't you tell him -- why don't you tell him --

HAHN: New Yorkers remember you in your glory. I wish you would stop.

GIULIANI: Why don't you tell him to keep his mouth shut so we can tell the truth. Just keep your lying mouth shut.

INGRAHAM: Chris, just let Rudy say it, and then you can respond. Try to keep it on facts.

GIULIANI: He said about me that I was asked by the State Department to go dig up political dirt on Trump's opponent. Totally false. The State Department asked me --

HAHN: You just said it.

GIULIANI: No, I didn't. You did, you liar. You did.

INGRAHAM: Just tell him, then you can respond.

GIULIANI: Tell him -- turn him out so I can speak. I do not want to be interrupted by that -- from that serial liar.

INGRAHAM: OK, let's just let Rudy speak.

GIULIANI: So, here is why I was asked by the State Department. It's all documented. They called me to facilitate a meeting between the president and Mr. Zelensky to help them do that. I met with the representative of Mr. Zelensky. We never discussed any kind of pressure about a criminal case. We never discussed any kind of quid pro quo or pressure.

So I more than willing to have anybody talk to the person that I talked to. Plus, everybody on the Ukraine side has said they weren't pressured, which they weren't. My conversation was to help the State Department facilitate a meeting. An ambassador, Ambassador Volker called me, he asked me to do it. He set up the meeting or helped me to set it up. I debriefed him three times in great detail about it.

And if that incredibly irresponsible person thinks that I would ever do anything that's illegal or unethical, maybe I'm kind of just a simple little lawyer and I'm not very good at criminal crisis or criminal investigation, but I sure as heck know how to protect myself and my client. It was a perfectly appropriate, perfectly legitimate, and a completely authorized communications, and it's all documented.

And once again, the Democrats just make false charges. And unfortunately, they've gotten used to it because the media enables them in doing that.

INGRAHAM: I want to read something, Rudy, and Andy McCarthy, and Chris, you can jump in on this.

GIULIANI: I don't want you have that man on. It's irresponsible to say things about somebody when you don't know what you are talking about.

INGRAHAM: I'm going to read something. And then let Andy respond to this.

HAHN: I'm responding to you.

GIULIANI: You don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

HAHN: I literally was stating what you just said.

GIULIANI: I did not say --

HAHN: You said, Mr. Mayor, you sure did. Read the transcript.

INGRAHAM: Guys, you've got to stop.

GIULIANI: I read the transcript. I know the transcript. I know why I was asked to do it.

HAHN: No, of this show.

GIULIANI: And you make irresponsible claims against the president and Republicans all the time because you don't have integrity, my friend.

INGRAHAM: OK, guys. We've establishment that you don't like each other. Let's move on. Let's move on to this. I want to ask, this is a substantive point --

GIULIANI: You're a disgrace.

INGRAHAM: -- about the underlying Hunter Biden issue, and Andy McCarthy, I would like you to chime in here. This is from "The Washington Post" tonight. They say the idea that this was, that Biden was trying to get this investigation dropped --

GIULIANI: What a disgrace.

INGRAHAM: -- the allegations were baseless, writes "The Washington Post," though Hunter Biden had served on the Burisma board for five years, a questionable decision, a questionable decision given his father's influential position, he was never accused of any wrongdoing by Ukrainian authorities. The probe had been shelved before any action by the vice president, and the elder Biden's efforts involved removing a prosecutor widely criticized by the west for failing to tackle corruption. Andy, that is what the Democrats say about this, that this prosecutor was someone who was widely disliked as a corrupt person. So Biden was following that. And you say?

MCCARTHY: I say that is why God made investigations.


MCCARTHY: Look, it seems to me that Biden inserted himself into a situation where he had a clear conflict of interest.


MCCARTHY: The fact that somebody, the fact that somebody has a conflict of interest doesn't necessarily mean that he will do anything that is illegal or unethical. If what they are saying is true, then they should welcome an investigation, because if they can prove that, then he will look pretty good. So let's see what happens.

INGRAHAM: Chris, I think that's a judicious, prudent approach to the facts. Do you agree that from Andy McCarthy?

HAHN: I'm always for looking into things that people are concerned about. I have no problem with that. What I am concerned about is the president using his office to assert pressure on a foreign government for political gain, and sending people who are not representatives --

INGRAHAM: You're making a statement. No.

HAHN: Hold up.

INGRAHAM: No, no, no. You're making a statement, Chris, that is not borne out by the evidence. That is what Rudy was talking about. I get you want that to be true.

GIULIANI: A totally irresponsible human being. You're a joke. This man is a joke.

HAHN: I'm saying I'm against that. Look, I'm against that. And we don't know what happened with Biden. And we are against it. That was bad, we're against that, too. And I'm against -- look, I don't like getting into this fight with Mayor Giuliani. I have got a lot of respect for him. We worked kind of near each other when I was a young aide to Senator Schumer right after 9/11, and I admired everything you did at that point. And what I see you do now saddens me, and it saddens most New Yorkers, because you are ruining your reputation, Mr. Mayor. And it is time to take it back a step back and maybe stop going on like this.



GIULIANI: I'm not going to --

HAHN: It makes me sad, it really does.

GIULIANI: You should be, you should be --

INGRAHAM: Talking about people's reputations is not helpful.

HAHN: It makes me sad. It makes all New Yorkers sad.

GIULIANI: Is there any chance that he will stop interrupting people? Can we get him under control?

INGRAHAM: Rudy, go ahead. Close it out. We've got about 20 seconds.

GIULIANI: So that man made a very serious accusation about me that's totally false, that I was deputized by the State Department to get involved in getting an investigation on a political opponent. That is not at all what the State Department called me about. That isn't what I did. What he said was totally false. I've watched him on this network do totally false things before. And you may have had respect for me, but I don't have respect for you.

HAHN: That's fine.

GIULIANI: The simple fact is that Joe Biden committed enormously serious crimes. That's going to be the end result.

INGRAHAM: We don't know that.

GIULIANI: I'm going to tell you.

INGRAHAM: Those have to be proved.

HAHN: We don't know that either.


INGRAHAM: Go ahead, Rudy.

GIULIANI: I probably know more of the evidence than any of you do.

HAHN: You probably don't.

INGRAHAM: OK, let Rudy, I'll let you close it out. I'm trying to apply the same standards to everybody, to the president and to Biden, but I haven't seen all the documents.

GIULIANI: OK, I've seen the laundered payment of $3 million. I've seen the receipts of the payments that went from China for $1 billion and then $500 million to Biden's son, who shouldn't be running any private equity fund. I kind of think I understand the Chinese. I don't think they gave it to him for his financial expertise. There's only one reason left, to compromise the vice president of the United States.

INGRAHAM: All right, we've got to go, guys.

GIULIANI: That is disgraceful. Mr. Hahn will now yell, scream, and say all kinds of false things. But that's disgraceful.

HAHN: I'm not going to yell. I'm sad. I'm sad for this country.

INGRAHAM: I'm sad that we didn't stick to the facts, and I know everybody gets emotional. Rudy is under attack.

GIULIANI: You don't have to put somebody like that on who makes flamboyant charges that are totally false. And then interrupts people constantly.

INGRAHAM: I'm doing my best.

HAHN: Sorry.

GIULIANI: You're a disgrace.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, thank you very much. Andy, thank you to all of you.

There so much on big breaking news night. How is the House GOP leadership responding to Speaker Pelosi's overreach? House Minority Whip Steve Scalise is here next. VDH also on tap, we have a lot to get through. We'll do it.



KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF., HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Our job is to legislate, not to continue to legislate something in the back when you find any reason to impeach this president. She cannot unilaterally decide we're in an impeachment inquiry.


INGRAHAM: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy lambasting Speaker Nancy Pelosi for caving to the impeachment frenzy today. Standing next to him, as you could see right there, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise. He joins me know. Also with me is Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at Hoover Institution.

First, Congressman, you didn't get to speak at the news conference, so what's your reaction today?

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA, HOUSE MINORITY WHIP: Laura, first of all, if you look at this, Nancy Pelosi said from day one and all them, Jerry Nadler, they were going to impeach the president. They never had any facts. There was never a basis. They thought the Mueller report was going to find it. The Mueller report comes out, says there was no collusion, and instead of just shutting it down and moving on to fixing real problems, they had to find something else. And so they've just been on this witch hunt.

They still don't have anything. We're going to see the facts tomorrow. Pelosi didn't even wait for the facts. She said we've just got to say we're going to impeach the president, and so she did. But look at what they are trying to do right now, Laura. Nancy Pelosi spends more time bringing a bill to the floor to name a post office than she does to start an impeachment proceeding against the president of the United States. It's reckless, it's irresponsible, and it's an abdication of the constitutional duty that impeachment is.

INGRAHAM: And where is the USMCA vote? We need the trade agreement --

SCALISE: All those jobs, the crisis at the border, lower drug prices, all of it could be done.

INGRAHAM: Who needs to do any of that?

Victor, this is what Pelosi said today before she announced the impeachment inquiry.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: The president called me this morning about gun violence, and he said that we were getting close to a solution.


INGRAHAM: Will anything get done for the American people now? Apparently the president, the woman wants to basically politically kill him, and he's still trying to, maybe we work together. That's pretty amazing. A lot of people couldn't do that, but he's actually still trying to do work for the American people.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION: I think we've jumped the proverbial shark. This administration started out with this hysteria against it in its three years now almost, and it's still continuing. My interest is, what's the next step after this is all over. Donald Trump's polls went up two or three points after the latest Kavanaugh pseudo-drama, and it's going to go up again because people have had it. These hysterias are just serial now and there's not a substance to it. The Mueller implosion, the 25th Amendment, it's serial.

And who's the beneficiary of this, Laura? Half of your news coverage today as well with other networks has been about Joe Biden. Joe Biden is no longer collateral damage. He's damaged. And that poses sort of a Latin phrase, cui bono. To whose interest was that? It's almost as if Elizabeth Warren is the real beneficiary.

And then ironically it will be Donald Trump, because if Biden is damaged, Warren will be a far less formidable candidate. And then where did we go beyond that? Michael Flynn's business partner's case was thrown out by the judge, of all people. And we have criminal referrals that are starting to metamorphosize into indictments. So at some point, somebody is going to have to shake the Democrats and say, you know what you're doing? You are helping Donald Trump. You've taken out one of your primary opponents to him.

INGRAHAM: Right to that point, Victor.

HANSON: And you're disgracing yourself.

INGRAHAM: Right to that point, this was today, and everyone will recognize him. This is one of Obama's top, top, top aides, David Axelrod, saying this.


DAVID AXELROD, FORMER OBAMA SENIOR ADVISER: You could end up in fact invigorating the president's chances. You could end up losing many Democrats in the House if people react poorly to this. And you could end up with a president reelected.

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's quite possible that we will remember this day one President Trump secured his reelection, because it's that politically dicey.


INGRAHAM: Congressman Scalise, a couple people around the edges see the danger for Democrats. The country doesn't want impeachment. I guess that could change, as Sol Wisenberg said, or Andy McCarthy, as fact come in. It could change. But right now not looking good, except for Democrat activists wanted it.

SCALISE: This was a bad day for Nancy Pelosi. She has known from the beginning impeachment is going to be devastating to her party, but they just can't help themselves.

But look, the author of the articles of impeachment -- and again, there's nothing to impeach the president on, but yet the member of Congress who filed the articles of impeachment himself today said that they don't think that they can beat the president so they're going to use impeachment. And if you look at the Constitution, impeachment is supposed to be used as a check against the executive. Nancy Pelosi is trying to use impeachment as a check against the electorate. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

INGRAHAM: We pointed that out on “The Angle” tonight. This is a last ditch, DEFCON one, nuclear option, because I don't think, Victor -- I think they thought that the economy was going to go into a recession. It dipped down today because no one wants impeachment, investigators don't want it. So I think they thought the recession was going to deliver them electoral nirvana next November. It doesn't look like it, doesn't look like it.

And their candidates are -- Biden is having some trouble. Warren is really way out there, even though she's drawing some big crowds. I don't think they're as confident as they initially might have thought they would be, and I think that's freaking them out. So they're going to the Squad. Whatever the Squad wants, the Squad gets. Victor?

HANSON: I think they don't understand that when the Mueller investigation and his testimony imploded, then they went to racism, recession, and then it was Kavanaugh again.


INGRAHAM: I forgot about that.

HANSON: And now they are repeating themselves, they are chasing their own tails. And what is ironic about -- again, ironic, is that Trump has somehow demonized, they are so -- I don't know what the word is -- demonized by Trump, or they're unhinged, what they're doing is they have a law or theorem when they get on that debate stage that says no candidate shall be so the left of me, and they have all moved way far from anything we've ever seen in the last 50 years.

So now they're in this situation where they can't propose an alternate agenda because every single item polls below 50 percent in any poll. So now they are back and saying we kind of got ourselves into a jam. We can't run into that issues, so we have got to go back to Trump is a monster, Trump is unhinged, all this stuff.

INGRAHAM: That's all they have. But they do it across the board. They do it across the board. This is what they all -- this is all they have.

And by the way, a really important piece from John Yoo, former deputy U.S. attorney general. He was writing for the "New York Times," and this just was published, about what this is doing to the office of the presidency. He said "We should be aware that rushing into any impeachment may do long term harm to the presidency and our national security. If Congress could regulate presidential discussions with foreign leaders, presidents and foreign leaders would speak less candidly or stop making the calls altogether. United States foreign policy would be crippled." Congressman?

SCALISE: Very valid point, Laura. And you look what they are doing, they wanted to get rid of this president. They wanted to undo the election of 2016. We're going to have an election next year. I think this, number one, it strengthens President Trump's case because they hurt Joe Biden, they helped Elizabeth Warren. This is not a good day for them.

INGRAHAM: This is all the time we have tonight, but incredible analysis. Victor, we're going to have you back later this week. We had phenomenal coverage tonight. This is really important. The details of this conversation matter. And we want to give everybody enough time across the board to get their points in. We're going to call everyone accountable.

That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take all the breaking news from here. Shannon.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.