Colin Kaepernick in talks with NFL teams

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," November 15, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: This is Laura Ingraham, and this is The Ingraham Angle from Washington tonight. Another swing and a miss for the impeachment-hungry Democrats today. Now, their latest star witness failed to, well, I think, change the narrative much. So the left invented a new charge against the President. Wait until you hear what they're accusing him of now. John Eastman and Robert Ray sound off on that.

Plus, Congressman Lee Zeldin was inside today's hearing room, and he's here with his big takeaways. Also, Adam Schiff and his cronies tried to paint Yovanovitch as a damsel in distress. But is anyone buying it? Tammy Bruce and Harmeet Dhillon, two strong women themselves, are here to expose that hypocrisy.

Plus, this is going to be your favorite segment - well, maybe a lot of favorite segments. Tonya Reiman reveals why body language at the impeachment hearings was one of the real stories. And "Friday Follies," Raymond Arroyo tackles Colin Kaepernick's potential return, I kid you not, to the NFL and a lot more. That's coming up on a special "Friday Follies."

But first, shifting goalposts collapse. That's the focus of tonight's "Angle."

What happens when you convene an impeachment hearing and no one cares? Well, from the outset, we've told you that the Schiff show trial is an exercise in goalposts shifting. And now we can tell you that it's not shifting public opinion. In fact, it's so bad that Democrats are asking the public for help.

The shift from quid pro quo to bribery came after the DCC conducted focus groups and keep the House battlegrounds in recent weeks. Testing messages related to impeachment, the focus groups found bribery to be the most damning.

Well, we know Wall Street isn't taking any of this very seriously. The Dow hit 28,000 today. Another record. Now, where that witnesses from day-one felt - well, they're kind of flat. They flatlined. Democrats on day-two, today they tried something new. Surely ratings would crackle if they elicited sympathy and showed admiration for their new star witness, former Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your parents led communist and Nazi regimes.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: She has served as U.S. Ambassador three times.

REP. JIM HIMES, D-CONN.: A lifetime of excellent and faithful service to this country.

REP. VAL DEMINGS, D-FLA.: We thank you for your service, your 33 years of service.


INGRAHAM: She had a long and interesting career and maybe a wonderful person. But it became very obvious very early that Democrats were just using her as a stage prop. She had no firsthand knowledge of the July 25th call that sparked the impeachment insanity. She was fired as Ambassador before it even happened. The GOP pounded this home throughout.


MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: There are a number of events you are investigating, to which I cannot bring any firsthand knowledge.

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: Were you involved in the July 25th Trump-Zelensky phone call or preparations for the call?

YOVANOVITCH: No, I was not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?



INGRAHAM: That went on for a while, by the way. Well, naturally, Adam Schiff, playing the role of Dudley Do-Right, tried to swoop in to save the damsel in distress.


SCHIFF: While you were the beginning of this story, you're not the end of it. This story is an effort to get you out of the way because they felt you were an impediment to these political investigations the President so desperately wanted.


INGRAHAM: Well, what does that have to do with impeachment? But as I told you before, this isn't an impeachment in search of relevant facts. This is an impeachment in search of a crime. Principles of fairness, the relevance of witnesses, concern about hearsay, all of that is jettisoned for the greater good of damaging Trump.


REP. ELISE STEFANIK, R-N.Y.: He is making of the rules as he goes. He did not let Republicans support any unanimous consents. He did not let us control our own time, Republican members' time. I think I was interrupted about six times throughout the hearing.


INGRAHAM: Now, we told you weeks ago that this would be impeachment by emotion. And boy, were we right! Now, since the facts and firsthand knowledge were absent in today's hearing, the proceedings often focused on how Yovanovitch felt.



YOVANOVITCH: Terrible, honestly.

GOLDMAN: Without upsetting you too much - how did you feel when you heard President Trump? Did you feel threatened?


GOLDMAN: How so?

YOVANOVITCH: I didn't know exactly.


INGRAHAM: OK. All these feelings are fine. Losing a job, especially when that you enjoy, is never fun. But by the end of the day, the media sounded like they wanted her on Mount Rushmore.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am so proud of this woman. Every woman in America who has fought in a male-dominated career should cheer for this woman today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A courageous foreign service of--


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --is lifelong, really, an American hero.


INGRAHAM: Committing an unforced error though, President Trump, during the hearing, decided to impeach the witness by tweet. And just like that, Adam Schiff and the Democrats thought they had conquered the moral high ground. And maybe even locked down another article of impeachment?


SCHIFF: What you saw today, witness intimidation in real-time by the President of the United States.

We take this kind of witness intimidation and obstruction inquiry very seriously.



INGRAHAM: We'll delve into that phony charge with our legal experts in a few moments. Don't believe for a second that Democrats, though, care about officials trying to intimidate women because we know Adam Schiff doesn't care.


STEFANIK: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

SCHIFF: The gentlewoman is not recognized. I do want to comment--

STEFANIK: Ambassador Yovanovitch, I want to thank you for being here today.

SCHIFF: Gentlewoman will suspend. You're not recognized.

STEFANIK: This is the fifth time you have interrupted members of Congress--

SCHIFF: Gentlewoman is not recognized.

STEFANIK: --duly elected members of Congress.

SCHIFF: Gentlewoman will suspend.


INGRAHAM: The woman will suspend - gentlewoman. Well, one got the sense, though, that the entire purpose of today's hearing was basically to try to gin up support for Democrats among suburban women by portraying Trump is kind of mean and heartless, and Trump's tweet about Yovanovitch, going back to that, played kind of right into their hands. But let me disabuse you of the notion that Democrats were or are distraught about Trump's Ukraine policy.

Yovanovitch herself admitted that Trump was better for Ukraine than Obama. And while they all acknowledge that the President had the authority to fire and hire anyone he wants in these positions, they still questioned his motivations. And they were mad that other folks didn't lobby for her to keep her job.


YOVANOVITCH: And I did everything that I could to address these issues and ask the to do what I felt was the right thing, which was support me when it was important to do so, because it was also about supporting the policy.


INGRAHAM: OK. With all due respect, every four years, Americans don't elect a diplomatic bureaucracy to serve indefinitely. They elect a president to head the entire Executive Branch. And our current President has the right to have the ambassadors and staff that he believes best serve the nation's interest. It's his call.

Now, because she (inaudible) that Pompeo and other high-ranking State Department officials didn't stop everything they were doing to start a petition drive on her behalf, it's kind of really beside the point. And whatever you think, it certainly has no bearing whatsoever on impeachment.

Adam Schiff has struggled to float this lead balloon for months now. And today, it didn't get any lighter. And that's the "Angle."

Joining me now, John Eastman, Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute and constitutional scholar, and Robert Ray, former Whitewater Independent Counsel.

John, I want to start with you. The Democrats say it but provide no proof. Do you see an impeachable offense here after these two days?

JOHN EASTMAN, SENIOR FELLOW AT THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE: I don't. I mean, there's a couple of things that come out. One, Ambassador Yovanovitch lied under oath. I mean, she said that she didn't know that Joe Biden had--

INGRAHAM: Let's play the sound bite. You're jumping ahead a little bit. Let's play that sound bite where she referenced Joe Biden's concern or bringing up concern about this issue. Let's watch. Well, we'll pull it up in a second.

So you're concerned about that aspect because she had to have known?


EASTMAN: I mean, everybody in the country knows. How could she not have known? She is one of the central players in his narrative, and she didn't know that Joe Biden gave a speech bragging about how he threatened to cut off a billion dollars in aid if they didn't fire the prosecutors looking into his son's company? How could she not possibly know that? And yet she said under oath today she had no idea that he'd been bragging about that.

INGRAHAM: Let's play it. Let's play it.


GOLDMAN: "Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me."

Now, are you familiar with the allegations - these allegations related to Vice President Biden?


GOLDMAN: Do you know whether he ever went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution of anyone?





INGRAHAM: So that just doesn't pass the straight face test.

EASTMAN: Yes. I mean, I don't know under what universe somebody that's central to this story doesn't know of that event that everybody else in the country knows.

INGRAHAM: I mean, I think she performed as a witness - I mean, pretty good for them. I mean, she's very calm, and we're getting into that body language later. But she was pretty calm. I think she did a pretty good job on that regard. But I agree that point, especially she's mad she lost her job.

EASTMAN: Right. She--

INGRAHAM: I get it. I get it.

EASTMAN: She's mad she - but one of the things that's important here, most of the time when you have a new administration, everybody tenders their resignation. That didn't happen this time.

INGRAHAM: Obama cleared pretty much everybody.

EASTMAN: He clear everybody--


EASTMAN: --because people had tendered their resignations and they expected--

INGRAHAM: But that was - but that was a mistake.

Robert Ray, I want to get into this witness intimidation issue, OK? And I want to play a few sound bites. And they were going crazy about Trump's tweet about Marie Yovanovitch. Watch.


TIM NAFTALI, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: We have not seen a climate of intimidation of public servants like this since the McCarthy period.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC ANCHOR: All of this violent language, this - the intimidation of her, get her out of the country, shut her down--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is thuggery on his part.

JOHN DEAN, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: The President is live tweeting this, and he's tweeting intimidation. This is criminal.

INGRAHAM: Robert, they tried quid pro quo, then they went to bribery, and now they're on witness intimidation.

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Honestly, Laura, are you serious? I just - I can't believe we have gotten to this. It's either the Snowflake theory of witness tampering or just evaluated under the instruction of justice concepts. Are there - is anything to believe that the President influenced, obstructed, or impeded her testimony whatsoever? And the answer to that question is clearly, no and none.

INGRAHAM: Well, it was Adam Schiff who was reading it. I don't think she would be aware of it. Someone mentioned it on Twitter. Right, John?

EASTMAN: That's right.

INGRAHAM: Nobody would be aware of it unless Adam Schiff repeated it.

EASTMAN: She's at the witness stand. She doesn't know what the tweet is. And so the notion that that tweet could be intimidating her while she's already testifying until Schiff read it to her, it's laughable.

INGRAHAM: The President - we want to play the sound bite of the President addressing this today because he came out later in the day, because he had been hearing this all day long and a lot of Republicans weren't too happy about it because they thought they had the upper ground - upper hand on this. And this is what the President said.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you trying to intimidate Ambassador Yovanovitch?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I just want to have a total - I want freedom of speech.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you believe the tweet, the words can be intimidating?

TRUMP: I don't think so at all.


INGRAHAM: Well, Robert - I mean, again-- RAY: Well, he's right. He--

INGRAHAM: --we were talking about impeachment. We're talking about the impeachment of a President of the United States. They don't want him to be able to defend himself, to be able to call into question the policy acumen or frankly the - his own decision-making to hire who he wants to hire. They want to shut him down on all fronts.

RAY: Right. And he - he has a First Amendment right. He also was the Commander-in-Chief. He had the absolute right to replace her. And he didn't do anything to influence her or alter her testimony. He did nothing - it would seem to me that would be anything inconsistent with the obligation she has under oath to tell the truth.

He's explored the question, which is legitimate about her bias against him, which he has every right to do it seems to me. I mean, unless seriously we're going to engage in the Snowflake theory of witness intimidation or tampering, I don't - I, for the life of me, cannot possibly fathom how this could be a crime or an impeachable offense.

INGRAHAM: I'm going to get this - into this with our next panel. But it's hard to say this is - any woman in any sector, you're a strong woman, you can stand in your own two feet, but then it's like kid gloves. You can't - so you can't have it both ways. If you don't play in this world that's a rough-and-tumble world, you're going to get - you're going to get criticized.

EASTMAN: We also have to remember that President Zelensky was upset with her for siding with his political opponent and continuing to do so after he won the election.

INGRAHAM: This is typical, is it not, for the President or leader of a foreign country to raise objections about an American Ambassador? We do it with - whether it's Mexico, Canada, or a country overseas. It's got to have a good working relationship.

EASTMAN: That's right. And in the diplomatic connection between the President and President Zelensky would require an ambassador who is not biased against the incoming president of Ukraine. There is nothing wrong here. And to try and pretend there is, is laughable.

INGRAHAM: Eric Swalwell made a point about the whistleblower, Robert, which I know you're itching to comment on. Watch.


REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: The whistleblower has an absolute right to anonymity. The whistleblower's lawyer has said that he fears for his personal safety and will only answer questions now in writing. I wish my colleagues would join me in protecting the whistleblower's right to anonymity.


INGRAHAM: Robert, quickly on that.

RAY: There is no legal or constitutional right to anonymity--

INGRAHAM: He lied.

RAY: --under the whistleblower statute. So--

INGRAHAM: Swalwell lied.

RAY: So the answer is that's strong.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I mean, he lied.

RAY: Right.

INGRAHAM: I mean, he knows that's not - if he doesn't know that, then he should just go do something else--


RAY: Some things are debatable in life, Laura. That's not one of them.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Well - it's just like read the transcript, read the statute.

EASTMAN: Read the statute. It says the Inspector General has to keep it unanimous. That's it.

INGRAHAM: Inspector General is the only one who does and can't - and they can't take out any--

EASTMAN: It can be revalidated again.

INGRAHAM: Revalidated.


RAY: It's a means toward an end. It's not an end in itself that you don't have absolute right to anonymity.

INGRAHAM: Yes. OK, gentleman. Thank you so much. Great to see you both tonight.

And Democrats threw around a lot of, well, provocation. We don't want to say the word "lie" because all the people worry about that in the hearing today. But House Intel Chair Adam Schiff, he really sunk to a new low by closing the hearing with this.


SCHIFF: The President praises the corrupt. He praises the corrupt. Lutsenko. He condemns the just. You. And then he asks for an investigation of the Bidens. There is no camouflaging that corrupt intent. We are adjourned.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible). Mr. Chairman, you've--

SCHIFF: Please allow the witness to leave. Please allow the witness to leave.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, you disparaged - you disparaged those members on this side of the aisle. We should have a chance to respond to your disparaging remarks.


INGRAHAM: Joining me now is Congressman Lee Zeldin, House Foreign Affairs Committee member, who was in the hearing room, obviously. Now, Congressman, we've said all along that this was impeachment by emotion, it was a theatrical production. It fell flat, got terrible reviews on day one. They knew they had to try to bring the drama. So it's like begging for applause. What was that moment like?

REP. LEE ZELDIN, R-N.Y.: So I was there in the hearing all day today as I was there all day Wednesday. Afterwards, by the way, we went back into the bunker in the capital basement. We went right back to the skiff for a deposition that took place this afternoon till the evening. We're back there in that bunker tomorrow. And--

INGRAHAM: Tell us about the moment with the ovation. And they were trying to milk on this for all of this work.

ZELDIN: They filled up - they filled up the crowd with all of their supporters--

INGRAHAM: Why are you all not doing that? You guys got to fill it up as well.

ZELDIN: Yes. Well, it was - there is a lot of effort on the part of Democrats over the course of the entire day to make something out of what was at best a draw for them. And the fact is that there was nothing new to learn. I mean, they are a - not only did they leak out the best of what Yovanovitch would have said when she gave her deposition in the skiff, they spun it in a way to set these higher expectations. So it was actually worse.

If you're watching at home over the course of today, not only did you not learn anything new, but you realize that the way what the media was telling you about what Yovanovitch was going to have to say wasn't actually there. Yovanovitch was out of the position. She has no firsthand--


INGRAHAM: But she was upset she lost her job. I mean, welcome to the world. I mean - and civil servants don't serve forever.


INGRAHAM: The President can pick his ambassador. She has a great job at Georgetown University, and not a bad deal at all.

ZELDIN: Her choice. That's exactly what she wanted, to be able to teach future foreign service officers. She got the position she wanted. And my background is the military. The Department of Defense can pick you up and move you 7,000 miles away--

INGRAHAM: Any time you want, it's - but this idea that you deserve--

ZELDIN: --salute, drive on.

INGRAHAM: --a permanent post, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, regardless of what the President thinks. I want to play for you, Adam Schiff asks Yovanovitch about the intimidation campaign. Watch.


SCHIFF: As we see her testifying, the President is attacking you on Twitter. I'll read part of one of his tweets. "Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia. How did that go?" He goes on to say later in the tweet, "It is a U.S. President's absolute right to appoint ambassadors." The President in real-time is attacking you.

YOVANOVITCH: It's very intimidating.


ZELDIN: Schiff is such a fraud. OK. So the President puts out this entire tweet, and Schiff gives his own rendition of the tweet. if you want to ask the witness for her feelings on the tweet - they've been asking her feelings about everything else.

INGRAHAM: You know, the feelings--

ZELDIN: Let her read the entire tweet for herself and then ask her a question. But for example, the second sentence of that tweet, which was a legitimate point that they left out, they cherry-picked out during their first 45-minute line of questioning, obviously the President noticed this.

The July 25th call transcript, the response from President Zelensky to President Trump, as you were just getting into in the last segment, President Zelensky calls Ambassador Yovanovitch a bad ambassador. President Zelensky says that he believes that Ambassador Yovanovitch had loyalty to President Poroshenko. So why don't you just allow Ambassador Yovanovitch to answer that question? But--

INGRAHAM: And more importantly, if he's worried that it's intimidating, why is he reading it for her?

ZELDIN: OK. So - obviously, she--

INGRAHAM: I'd say he is intimidating the witness.

ZELDIN: Yovanovitch had - Yovanovitch had no idea - exactly. He loves leading questions. Yovanovitch had no idea the tweet had even existed.


ZELDIN: Talk about witness gagging, not allowing several Republican witnesses or witness coaching, as we saw with Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Adam Schiff needs to look in the mirror. He's - he does everything he accuses others of. He's--


INGRAHAM: What did you feel about the way he treated Stefanik?

ZELDIN: Gosh. I mean, he does not like Elise Stefanik. And Elise Stefanik has been a strong woman, she does her homework.

INGRAHAM: She's pretty good.

ZELDIN: She's been working hard. She's preparing for all of these - all these - all those testimony. She's been fantastic. And Adam Schiff hates that.

INGRAHAM: Mark Sandy, are you going to hear anything from him tomorrow, OMB official who's going to testify or give a deposition even though the White House says no?

ZELDIN: He's expected to come, and he would be answering questions with regards to the hold on aid, but keep in mind, Ukraine did not know about the hold on aid until the end of August. The aid gets released shortly thereafter. And guess what Ukraine had to do in order to get that aid release.


ZELDIN: Absolutely nothing.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, thanks for stopping by. You had a long day, my friend. Back to the dungeon for you tomorrow.

And up next, Tammy Bruce, Harmeet Dhillon respond to Democrats and the media framing Yovanovitch as just a helpless victim. Plus, the mother of one of the four Americans killed in Benghazi responds to the former diplomat comparing herself to, well, what happened in Benghazi and even in the Iranian hostage crisis. It's an Ingraham Angle exclusive, when we come back.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a witness who is there not just as a fact witness, but as a victim.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was a victim of this shadow diplomacy--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --an actual victim of corruption.


INGRAHAM: Let's get one thing straight here. Marie Yovanovitch is not a victim. She's a professional. This whole exercise on the part of the Democrats is geared toward one thing. 2020.

Joining me now, Tammy Bruce, President of the Independent Women's Voice, Fox News Contributor; and Harmeet Dhillon, Attorney and Trump 2020 Advisory Board member.

Harmeet, now, this victim now has an incredibly great fellowship at Georgetown University. But we're supposed to feel what tonight?

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY AND TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER: Right. Well, this patronizing attitude and the infantilization of this witness was really cringeworthy to me as a woman. Laura, we fought very hard to be in a situation where women are ambassadors, women are judges, women are at every level, and yet we saw - I expected Rep. Butler (ph) to sweep out of the wings there and do something dastardly with a tone that Adam Schiff was taking with this witness and then the focus group.

So it was equally offensive when Adam Schiff discriminated against Stefanik, but we don't need to be patronizing and talk down to--


DHILLON: --in either direction.

INGRAHAM: Ladies, "The Washington Post" today said the hearing was a moment of reckoning on gender. Quote, "Yovanovitch's removal as Ukraine Ambassador reflects some of the most complicated gender and political dynamics of Trump's Presidency."

Tammy, what the heck does gender have to do with this impeachment proceeding? I've heard a lot of wild things over the last two-years-plus with Trump. That's one of the most ridiculous.

TAMMY BRUCE, PRESIDENT, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE & CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Trump has done something here. He's drawn out for the Americans to see the sexism and the misogyny of the Democratic Party. This is a replay of what we saw with Kavanaugh.

They are trying to - and they're using women, women who - and shame on Ambassador Yovanovitch for allowing this to occur - using women as victims, as pawns to send a message. Ironically, supposedly that Donald Trump is a misogynist and hates women, when in fact they are using women as pawns, putting them in this position.

In fact, there you had Schiff treating both Elise Stefanik and the Ambassador like they were Dora, the explorer, like they needed either to be shut up or put in their room or led along like little children about how they felt. Tell us your feelings. Moving through all the gender stereotypes, suggesting that this woman--


BRUCE: I mean, Ambassador, in Kyrgyzstan and in Armenia, can't be - can't help herself. That's insulting. So President Trump is responsible here for exposing the real nature of the Democrats that we saw with Kavanaugh hearings—

INGRAHAM: That's fascinating. Yes.

BRUCE: --and now this one.

INGRAHAM: That's fascinating. And thankfully, though, ladies, the helpless Former Ambassador had a strong man like Congressman Denny Heck to stand up for her.


REP. DENNY HECK, D-WASH.: I'm angry about how it is the most powerful person on the face of the earth would remove you from office after your stellar service. Words leveled against you constitute bullying of the worst order.


INGRAHAM: Harmeet, bullying of the worst order. That's the whole point. They're going after a suburban woman. But suburban woman can't be--


INGRAHAM: --this naive to fall for this.

DHILLON: No. It's very patronizing, Laura. It's offensive. Look, she can hold her own. I actually think the President, when he criticizes Nancy Pelosi, when he criticizes her, he's paying them a measure of respect because they're worthy of—


DHILLON: --being criticized. He is equal opportunity critic. And so - she took a job, she's a big girl, she put her big-girl pants on, and she should be ashamed, like Tammy said, for accepting that subservient role. She's not there to be patronized--


BRUCE: She chose - she chose to be in the arena. She is clearly a strong woman. I respect her enough for calling her out in this regard, and she knows very well, but it also shows you how much of a partisan she is, and she's allowed to be that as well. These are political positions--


BRUCE: --that maneuver through as foreign service and the intelligence community in foreign countries. This is a smart woman who was chosen--


BRUCE: --to play within this. She knows it's beneath her. And we - we all deserve to be lifted up. But don't project this on Donald Trump or on anyone else other than yourselves and the Democrats who are putting you in this position. How--


INGRAHAM: That's right.

DHILLON: --Laura, she has--

BRUCE: And she should be ashamed.

INGRAHAM: All right.

DHILLON: She has sharp enough elbows to tell people in the Ukraine what to do. So this act--

BRUCE: That's right.

DHILLON: --is not working.

INGRAHAM: All right, Tammy and Harmeet, can't think of two people that I would have have had on tonight, thanks so much.

DHILLON: Thank you, Laura.

INGRAHAM: And while the media was busy painting Yovanovitch as this victim, they missed this gross claim by the former diplomat.


MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: We are the 52 Americans who 40 years ago this month began 444 days of deprivation, torture, and captivity in Tehran.

We are the dozens of Americans stationed at our embassy in Cuba and consulates in China who mysteriously and dangerously were injured and attacked.

We are Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Patrick Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty.


INGRAHAM: Here now to respond is Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, of course one of the American tragically killed in September, 2012, at that horrific Benghazi terror attack. Patricia, I know these have been difficult years for you ever since, but how did that come across to you when you heard Yovanovitch say we are these people? I guess she was saying in general, this is what we put ourselves through.

PATRICIA SMITH, MOTHER OF BENGHAZI VICTIM: That may be so, but I don't understand why he is bringing Benghazi into this. Benghazi is very, very hard -- very hard to handle. And she's bringing that in as if it's something -- why is she bringing that in now?

INGRAHAM: I think she -- I think she decided to do that to kind of connect herself to the long and storied tradition of diplomatic assignments abroad, oftentimes that are very difficult. Sometimes contractors are involved. Sometimes it's just State Department employees. They're very difficult, they're very dangerous, and I guess the point she was trying to make there, I'm guessing, is that anyone who criticizes the permanent civil servant class or members of the civil servant class are somehow casting aspersions or not respecting the great sacrifices of people like your son and others who have, in some cases paid with their lives.

But I think that was a real stretch. She got fired from her job, from her post, and is now working in a great position at Georgetown University. Your son was killed.

SMITH: He's dead. He's dead, and they don't care. Nobody came back to me to tell me anything about it other than the State Department says they called me and says he's dead. And now she's worried -- I can't talk very well right now. I'm quite upset about this. I don't understand why people keep bringing Benghazi into this. She had nothing to do with Benghazi. She, Yovanovitch, she's -- anyway.

INGRAHAM: Again, I think what she is trying to do here is kind of blanket herself in the careers of the whole civil servant class and the diplomatic corps I should say that are often times and hardship posts, and they do sacrifice. There's no doubt about it.

SMITH: Absolutely. Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: And sometimes, sometimes the State Department also gets it really wrong.

SMITH: No kidding.

INGRAHAM: And as we saw in Benghazi, and so there are kind of two issues. Sometimes they get it really wrong and it's deadly consequences. But because you served your country in Ukraine doesn't mean that you can kind of compare yourself to the heroes that Benghazi. But Patricia --

SMITH: That's what I was saying. That's what I was saying. Leave it alone. These people died.

INGRAHAM: Patricia, thank you very much for being here tonight. I know how hard that is. We have a lot more to get you when we come back, including my final thoughts later on in the hour.


INGRAHAM: It's Friday night, it was a big news week, so come on, we have to break it all down with the body language expert extraordinaire, Tonya Reiman. What do you saw in the impeachment hearings this week and what do you might have missed, it's all very important. And Tonya, great to have you want tonight. Let's start with what happened today, OK? Then we'll go backward. But where Congresswoman Elise Stefanik took on Chairman Schiff.


REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): In his case, the fact that we are getting criticized by Chairman Adam Schiff for statements that he himself made early on in this process shows the duplicity and just the abuse of power that we are continuing to see.


INGRAHAM: Tonya, what does his facial reaction there mean?

TONYA REIMAN, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: You have to love several things. First of all, he just stares, and then his blink rate goes up. And so that's kind of like your fight or flight. When you blink, it's mental arousal. And then he purses his lips on top of that, and that's disapproval, dislike, distaste. But was what was even funnier is as you are watching it, he doesn't even move his body in any way to even make eye contact to show some sort of respect.

INGRAHAM: In all fairness, Tonya, isn't he always with pursed lips? You get the sense he came out of the womb with pursed lips. That's just kind of the guy. He is not yucking it up up there, he's just very serious. But it was odd at one point, I thought something had happened to the transmission he was so stiff there. But you are saying that was just --

REIMAN: He didn't move.

INGRAHAM: Yes, that was a sense of I want to react but I'm not going to react kind of thing?

REIMAN: Right. Yes. It's like a statue. He just stands there and the eyes stay focused, and suddenly blink rate goes up a little bit, but then it looks like he's not moving.

INGRAHAM: All right, Tonya, I want to get to the witnesses now. Democrats put Maria Yovanovitch up. We have been talking about that tonight. And they expected some maybe tears, some more emotion, but what did they actually get?

REIMAN: No. She was calm, cool, and collected the entire time. As a matter of fact, even her voice was melodious, which as one of the things I was looking to see, like maybe you would hear a pitch go up to see that she was upset, or maybe go down. But nothing. She came across very strong.

INGRAHAM: So she was credible, believable, clearly wishes she still had her job, wishes people fought more for her to get her job, but none of the inflections that would indicate someone who is not confident?

REIMAN: No, she was definitely confident. There was a few times when you saw her tighten her lips, and when you see that, that somebody is not feeling great about the conversation, but that's expected.

INGRAHAM: I thought a couple times where she got pretty clipped where she was like yes, yes.

REIMAN: Yes, definitely.

INGRAHAM: A couple times when the Republicans were asking question, I saw a little change there. But I would agree with you, I think overall it was a pretty good performance for her.

Now, let's go to Ambassador Taylor, though, and what he did on Wednesday.


WILLIAM TAYLOR, ACTING U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: It's appropriate for the Justice Department and the prosecutor general to cooperate and to exchange information, yes.


INGRAHAM: Now, what did you see there with his performance?

REIMAN: It's interesting because he used his hand like a dominant tool, like hey, I'm chopping, I'm talking, this is my PowerPoint function. But yet then he brings his hand to his mouth, and when you do that, that's a sign of insecurity. When you cover your mouth, it's almost as if you are saying I wish nobody can hear this, I wish I didn't have to say it. So it was a little bit of the confusion. There was an incongruency there between the confidence and the chopping, and then the hand to mouth.

INGRAHAM: Tonya, take a look at George Kent. He was at various times raising his eyebrows during his testimony, and it was mostly when he was talking about Ukraine. I hope we can zero in on that so people -- I think you can see it there. We can highlight that.


INGRAHAM: What does that all mean?

REIMAN: There's an interesting with that. The way he uses his eyebrows, it's actually a signal of sadness. The reason that's important is because he's not actually experiencing sadness, that's just his baseline. So when we look at his body language, you know how we always talk about you have to know what somebody's regular pattern is, his eyebrows just had to go up in this bizarre sad pose. But in this clip, if you watch, not only at one point did he show -- because he's asymmetrical. He showed contempt, but he also showed real anger. His brows came down low, and the mentalis muscle right here dimpled in.

INGRAHAM: Wait, the what muscle, Tonya? What was that?

REIMAN: The mentalis right here, right here. It's like this area right here. It turns into like an orange skin, that's what it looks like. It gets all dimply.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my gosh.

REIMAN: And that's a sign of anger.

INGRAHAM: Every time you come on I learn something new. I think I saw the hearing, but then I realized I didn't really see the hearing.


INGRAHAM: Tonya, it's great to see you as always tonight. Thanks so much.

REIMAN: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: And up next, Colin Kaepernick is back in talks with the NFL, a California burglary gone wrong, and Disney's new streaming service has a warning for classic movies. Raymond Arroyo breaks it all down on Friday Follies.


INGRAHAM: It's Friday, and that means it's time for Friday Follies. The NFL kneeler rises, Disney apologizes for its films, and Pringles has a new Thanksgiving line. Joining us with all the really important details this impeachment week --


INGRAHAM: -- is Raymond Arroyo, FOX News contributor. All right, Raymond, what is going on with Colin Kaepernick? He's back.

ARROYO: He's back in the NFL. They have offered the notorious quarterback who created the kneeling controversy during the National Anthem a few years back, a chance to work out for several league teams in Atlanta this weekend. Kaepernick has made millions of dollars in endorsements, Laura, all while letting the league know he wants back in the game.


COLIN KAEPERNICK, FORMER NFL QUARTERBACK: 5:00 a.m. five days a week for three years. Still ready.


ARROYO: He put up a thing with the number of days he's been out of work, Laura, at the NFL. This comes after the league paid him a massive settlement following charges that owners colluded to keep them off their teams. The lions, the Falcons, the Redskins, the Dolphins, they are all going to the Kaepernick showcase.

INGRAHAM: But I read that this is all happening in private.

ARROYO: It is. It's all private. No media. I don't like this. Why are we giving special privileges to this guy who cost the NFL billions of dollars?

INGRAHAM: To me it's also insulting to him, because if you are this guy, you just want to make it on your merit. And they decided he wasn't -- he was good, but there are a lot of really good players that don't make the cut. You see all of these great college players, even for the SEC, the top teams, you think he is going to play in the NFL. My friends say, oh, no, he's not good enough to be in the NFL.

ARROYO: You know what I think is happening behind-the-scenes here? The Players Association in addition to --

INGRAHAM: Arm-twisting.

ARROYO: -- Jay-Z and the Inspire Change movement, remember that's the big social justice wing of the NFL, they have been pushing behind the scenes to make this happen.

INGRAHAM: This is part of the deal.

ARROYO: I have to show you this video, Laura. It may be the video of the week after the hearings on the Hill. This is security footage from Ojai, California. On Halloween, two people broke into a restaurant, you see the feet dangling, and the woman falls through the ceiling. She's a female member of the crew. She makes a bit of an ungracious entrance. Then she bashes her head, works her way up. And I love the male burglar casually strolls through the door moments later. Ventura police are still looking for the suspects. Laura, if you have got to tag team, make sure the guy goes through the ceiling, not you.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second grade so she falls through, and he just walks through the door?


ARROYO: He walks through the door. Go through the door with him.

INGRAHAM: For some reason Raymond has a thing about video of people who fall through ceilings.


INGRAHAM: I don't know what. You are -- at the very heart of the matter is you are a slapstick guy.

ARROYO: I love slapstick comedy.

INGRAHAM: This is why Raymond loved Jerry Lewis and he loved slapstick.

ARROYO: Laurel and Hardy, Harold Lloyd, I love slapstick. I really do. Falling off chairs.

INGRAHAM: All right, Raymond, Disney kicked off its streaming service this week, massive, massive, attracting 10 million plus now subscribers. But viewers have been in for a bit of a surprise.

ARROYO: They are. Before you watch certain classic Disney films, Laura, Disney is posting warnings like this one for "Dumbo." "This program is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions."

INGRAHAM: What? Of the elephant?

ARROYO: No, no, no. That's a reference to the black crows. Remember, they kind of used those minstrelsy accents in the film, they smoked cigars.

There are other warnings as well. Beware of those Siamese cats in "Lady and the Tramp." And an Asian cat playing piano with chopsticks in the "Aristocats," and Tiger Lily and her daddy in "Peter Pan," all old cultural things they apologized for.

INGRAHAM: Literally no one ever noticed any of this, but now people are going to be looking, what does that armadillo look like?

ARROYO: Here's the good news. The good news is they didn't cut these classic films.

INGRAHAM: Not yet. Not yet.

ARROYO: They are leaving them as cultural touchstones. Explain to kids why this is out of favor or we don't talk that way anymore, or this is disrespectful to a certain race or group of people. They can do that. But don't mangle, cut the work. Let people see it as it was originally envisioned.

INGRAHAM: When are they going to start worrying about the beleaguered conservative Christian class?


INGRAHAM: When do they go to get their apologies and their changes, and their warnings? This is actually offensive to Christians. But we don't --

ARROYO: Don't hold your breath for that warning. Laura --

INGRAHAM: What else? What else?

ARROYO: Just in time for Thanksgiving, Pringles has unveiled a friends- giving feast. The Turducken kit includes --

INGRAHAM: What is this?

ARROYO: -- turkey, duck, chicken, cranberry, stuffing, and pumpkin pie flavored potato chips.

INGRAHAM: Pringles?

ARROYO: These babies -- this package is going for $100 a pop on eBay.

INGRAHAM: It is not.

ARROYO: It is. And our producers -- they're sold out. Our producer Sam - -

INGRAHAM: It's $100?

ARROYO: So happy Thanksgiving.

INGRAHAM: Aren't you generous?

ARROYO: Go ahead and sample one of these bad boys.

INGRAHAM: Only Raymond would give you something he gets for free.

ARROYO: No, no. Sam worked hard for this.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Sam --

ARROYO: OK, what are you getting?

INGRAHAM: I'm taking stuffing.

ARROYO: I'm taking pumpkin pie.

INGRAHAM: This tastes like --

ARROYO: This taste like a potato chip with formaldehyde on it. It's terrible. Pumpkin pie? I don't even -- you're going to throw up.

INGRAHAM: This tastes like --

ARROYO: Get her a bag. Can we get a Pringles bag here? Throw up in the box, baby, baby.

INGRAHAM: My kids can devour a sleeve of pringles in about seven seconds. They love it.

ARROYO: Not these things. This will give you --

INGRAHAM: This just taste like old bay seasoning, which I don't ever liked.

ARROYO: Does this contain a box of Thanksgiving Tums? What is it?


ARROYO: The turkey is not bad. The turkey is not bad.

INGRAHAM: I need to taste the rest.

ARROYO: You can taste the rest of those. Happy Thanksgiving.

INGRAHAM: Are we already at Thanksgiving?

ARROYO: That's it. I'm waiting for my Popeyes box that you owed me from the Alabama-LSU game. I bring you a box, you bring me nothing.

INGRAHAM: I owe you a Popeyes.

ARROYO: Next week.

INGRAHAM: The story about the Popeye's chicken sandwich where the guy bit into it and there was a joint inside. Did you see that?

ARROYO: Did you see the lady who was picked up and dropped in the parking lot --

INGRAHAM: No, Chick-fil-A is playing some interesting --


INGRAHAM: The chicken sandwich wars have gotten really serious.

ARROYO: All right, I'm going to try the cranberry sauce before I leave.

INGRAHAM: I'm having the duck. All right, guys.

ARROYO: I'm trying this for you so you don't have to.

INGRAHAM: All right, Raymond, thank you.

ARROYO: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: My final thoughts on this pretty incredible week of news when we come back.


INGRAHAM: This has been a long week, and the impeachment drama I think is revealing what Americans who voted for Trump instinctively understood, that the Washington swamp that floods every federal department really does need to be drained badly. It's gotten so big and so unaccountable that it exists and grows without regard to its own successes or failures.

I think President Trump underestimated just how entrenched the deep state actors would be. Many have been in this town for decades. And they weren't about to let a newcomer like him just waltz right in and reduce their influence and change course without a vicious fight, and you are seeing it play out.

Trump generally wants less money spent on foreign aid. Folks like Yovanovitch, she generally wants more money spent. Today she said Ukraine could always use more. But we finally have a president who is challenging the idea of foreign aid without strings attached. And he's demanding allies chip in more money too. Both positions I think are pretty reasonable and also very pretty popular.

If people working inside the Trump administration, they don't like his views on Ukraine or Syria or China for that matter, and they can't support his policies, then they have an obligation to quit. They shouldn't wait to be fired. Or maybe try running for office on a platform of endless foreign aid, or perhaps more aggressive military interventionism, and see how far that gets you.

That's all the time we have tonight.

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.