Collins: We have facts on our side, Democrats only have hatred of Trump

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," December 4, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY: And we pay more taxes here. All right, Tucker, great show. Thank you. Welcome to Hannity. All right. Tonight, the Democratic psychotic, mindless, anti-Trump rage, psychosis sinking to new depths of depravity. What was a disastrous day for them as they pursue Trump every second, minute, hour of every day. They are hurting the country. They are ripping this country apart just for a cheap, baseless, political head job.

And after today's total BS, if you want to call it, impeachment hearing on Capitol Hill, you blood should be boiling, but you have the answer in 335 days. Now, instead of presenting actual evidence, Democrats thought we, the stupid, smelly Trump supporting, Wal-Mart shoppers that believe in God, of America, need to be educated on the virtues of impeachment. So, to educate, we the people, the masses of peoples, they hauled in three hyper partisan, far-left, holier than thou, sanctimonious, self-righteous, ivory tower, law-school professors to teach us about the Constitution. The really good news tonight is, to their credit, republicans -- they were united. They fought back in a big and effective way. Congressman Collins, Jordan, and yep, Matt Gaetz, rock stars today along with others. And the GOP sole witness constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, he -- literally a Democrat, didn't vote for Trump, voted for Obama, also voted for the Clintons, ran circles around the liberal professors sitting next to him.

Maybe that's because Turley's judgment wasn't clouded by, as he discussed, rage, and hate, and hysteria. The Democrats three witnesses, on the other hand, they were clearly suffering from stage four case of massive Trump derangement syndrome, disconnected from all truth and reality. UNC law professors, Guy Michael Gerhardt worked for the Clintons and their administration, Al Gore's Senate campaign a month ago. He authored an impassioned piece in, "The Atlantic," praising the Schiff show and his fellow witnesses, Harvard law professor, Noah Feldman. Oh, he's been looking for ways to impeach Trump since 2017. And just a few weeks after the President was sworn in, that guy, Feldman, argued that President Trump could be impeached for his use of the term, "fake news." I kid you not.

There it is, the perfect ivory-tower law professor seemingly hating free speech, due process, presumption of innocence, and certainly cannot be counted on to seek truth and justice. Days later, he claimed that the President could be impeached because of an ad for Mar-a-Lago. And, in March of 2017, not to be outdone, Feldman wrote that Trump could be impeached over his Tweets about wiretapping. Believe it or not, Feldman's deranged anti-Trump bias just pales in comparison to the Democrat's third witness. Yes, ivory-tower, Stanford law professor, Pamela Karlan is her name, a devout liberal. Actually, too extreme for even the Obama Administration under Eric Holder, donated thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. And, in June, wow, who's she supporting for president? Another $1,000 to that socialist? Yes, $94 trillion New Green Deal, Medicare for all, $52 trillion Elizabeth Warren. And Karlan once appeared at a podcast called, "Versus Trump," where she trashed conservatives. Her insane rage against all things Trump is so extreme, she refuses to even walk on the same side of the street, not making this up, as a Trump Hotel. We've got the video tape. Let's go to it.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

PAMELA KARLAN: Well, I came in from the airport yesterday, and I got off the bus from Dallas down at Lan Fan Plaza [spelled phonetically], and I walked up to the hotel. And, as I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now the Trump Hotel, the -- I had to cross the street of course. But –

REPORTER QUESTION: Are you staying there?

PAMELA KARLAN: God, no. Never, never.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: Wow, another great witness. Imagine carrying around that much hatred, that much resentment, and anger every day of your life. Pretty sad, pretty pathetic. Not good for the country, and frankly, House Democrats, they look really, really stupid. I didn't think you could outdo the Schiff show, but they did, for hauling that psychotic individual before Congress. Case in point, at today's hearings, she made a pretty disgusting repulsive joke about the President and Melania Trump's 13-year-old son. Watch this.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

SHEILA JACKSON LEE: What comparisons, Professor Karlan, can we make between kings that the framers were afraid of and the President's conduct today?

PAMELA KARLAN: So, kings could do no wrong, because the king's word was law. And, contrary to what President Trump has said, Article II does not give him the power to do anything he wants. And I'll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So, while the President can name his son, "Barron," he can't make him a baron.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: Now, shortly after the professor's disgraceful remarks, the first lady, Melania Trump, rightly responded with this powerful statement, quote, "A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering and using a child to do it." During the hearing, Congressman Matt Gaetz on his game also rebuked the Democrat's star witness right to her face. Great moment for him. Take a look.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

MATT GAETZ: When you talk about how liberals want to be around each other and cluster, and conservatives don't want to be around each other, and so they have to spread out, it makes people -- you may not see this from, you know, like, the ivory towers of your law school, but it makes actual people in this country feel like --

PAMELA KARLAN: When the President calls --

MATT GAETZ: Excuse me. You don't get to interrupt me on this time. Now, let me also suggest that when you invoke the president's son's name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean. It makes you look like you're attacking someone's family. The minor child of the President of the United States –

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: Key word, "minor child," and professor issued just a half-hearted phony apology. But make no mistake, today was an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats. This was worse than the Schiff show. How stupid do they think we are? They bring in three liberal, mean-spirited, Trump-hating professors who live and work in their ivory towers, all trying to convince us that the President's alleged wrongdoing with no evidence -- not only do they have a clear established political bias and hatred, but they witnessed nothing. The only fact witness in this entire charade -- we've only had one -- testified that, when he asked President Trump what he wanted from Ukraine -- "Nothing. No quid pro quo, just be honorable," that's it. Those professor's opinions, they don't matter. Conjecture, that doesn't matter. Opinion witnesses, they don't matter. None of their testimony matters, because the facts have not changed. And, as Congressman Jim Jordan often points out, the facts are not on the Democratic -- the Democrat's side, or the mob, and the media's side. Take a look.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

JIM JORDAN: Let me just cut to the chase. The reason it's been unfair is because the facts aren't on their side. The facts are on the President's side. Four key facts will not change, have not changed, will never change. We have the transcript. There was no quid pro quo in the transcript. The two guys on the call, President Trump and President Zelensky, both said, "No pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo." The Ukrainian's third didn't know that the aid was held up at the time of the phone call. And, fourth and most important, Ukrainians never started, never promised to start, and never announced an investigation in the time that the aid was paused, never once. [END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: Those four facts, as Congressman Jordan always says, they never change -- irrefutable facts. On the Trump Ukraine phone call in question, aid was never ever once discussed. Now, add to that five subsequent high-level meetings, including one with the vice president of the United States and the president of Ukraine, all five with the president of Ukraine, this is after the phone call. Aid was never tied to anything at any one of the five meetings, never brought up in any way. And, by the way, so what did Ukraine do before Trump released the money? Nothing, and they still got the money. That would be no quid, pro, or quo, like Joe.

And don't forget the transcripts of the President's phone call with Zelensky shows -- remember he talks about, "I want you to do us a favor," us, plural, and he mentioned it. He said, "Do us a favor." He was talking about both countries. 2016 election interference by Ukraine, it had nothing to do with the Bidens. And, by the way, everyone keeps saying, "Conservatives believe that, if Ukraine was responsible for election interference in 2016 and not Russia, it's a conspiracy theory." No, I've never said that. We've pointed out many times on this program, "Russia is a hostile regime led by a hostile actor, Vladimir Putin, who we're not going to have more flexibility with ever." I have zero doubt they meddled in the 2016 elections. I'm certain they did.

Devin Nunes was warning Obama in 2014 it would happen, but they did nothing. And, by the way, yeah, look at the dirty Russian dossier that Hillary bought and paid for, according to the New York Times very late in the game, likely Russian disinformation from the beginning. And yes, Russia interfered in our 2016 elections. They have done it before. They're going to try and do it again. Every indication is also though, separate and apart, Ukraine interfered in our elections as well, and, I have no doubt, others.

The January 11, 2017 Politico reports in detail. Ukrainian court also ruled that their country interfered in our 2016 elections to help Hillary. It's not mutually exclusive. How many countries hacked into Hillary's server? They probably interfered also. And look at this. On the very same phone call, the President expressed concern the brand new president of Ukraine was surrounding himself with some of the same corrupt officials as the last president. That's not smart. You better not do that. The President has reiterated many times he doesn't want to give away hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars without knowing who it is going to and how it is going to be used. That would be called due diligence. It is the president's sworn duty and by the way, also faithfully executing laws, finding out, "Oh, did they interfere?" That's good for America to know so we can prevent it in the future.

Thought Democrats cared about foreign election interference. They don't. And if they were actually on a fact-finding mission, they wouldn't have invited three known anti-Trump, left-wing, ivory tower lunatics to give their biased opinions. The Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Congressman Doug Collins, he summed it up perfectly. He was on his game today. He should have been announced as the next senator from Georgia. He wasn't. Thanks, Governor Kemp.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

DOUG COLLINS: The chairman said it just a second ago because we're scared of the elections next year. We're scared of the election that we'll lose again. So, we've got to do this now. The clock in the calendar is what's driving impeachment, not the facts. To in some way insinuate on a live mic with a lot of people listening that the founding fathers would have found President Trump guilty is just simply malpractice in this -- with these facts before us. That is just simply pandering to a camera. That is simply just not right. This is not an impeachment. This is just a simple railroad job. And today's is a waste of time because this is where we're at. So, I close today with this. It didn't start with Mueller. It didn't start with a phone call. You know where this started? It started with tears in Brooklyn in November 2016.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: Great point. Because of these very real facts and the complete lack -- there is no direct evidence, no testimony. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who is no supporter of President Trump, made clear he didn't vote for President Trump. He made the clear and compelling argument against the Democrats sham impeachment coup attempt. Take a look.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

JONATHAN TURLEY: I'm not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him. My personal views of President Trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate, and in my view, not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime. Second is the abbreviated period of this investigation, which is problematic and puzzling. This is a facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: Jonathan Turley is very calm, logical way. He took a sledgehammer to the left's phony narrative, and in one of the most powerful moments of the hearing, Turley flipped the script on the House Democrats. I'm sure they didn't like this moment. Take a look.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Jonathan Turley: President Trump has gone to the courts. He's allowed to do that. We have three branches, not two. I can't emphasize this enough, and I'll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You were doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts that the other two branches, and what comes out of there, and what you do with it, is the very definition of legitimacy.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: The first phase of the Democrats impeachment coup attempt, the Schiff show, a disaster. Today, even a bigger disaster. And it's clear that the nutty Nadler circus won't be any better. It's worse. Joining us now with reaction, two of the stars from today's hearing, Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan and House Judiciary ranking member -- should be the senator elect from the great state of Georgia, in my humble opinion. Dumb decision by the governor of the state of Georgia, a lot of friends there. You did a great job today. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Collins. I will defer to your rank here.

There is no fact witnesses. We had three people that hate Donald Trump. They've expressed their opinions repeatedly, radical viewpoints. Why were they even there?

DOUG COLLINS: Well, they're all there because Jerry Nadler had to figure out something to do. He has no plan. As I said today, the clock and the calendar, not the facts, are driving this, Sean. And look, we, you know, we showed today. Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, John Ratcliffe, we just blew holes in it because it's so easy. We have the facts on our side. All they have is hatred of President Trump. All they have is not liking a man who came to office to do what he said he was going to do, and he's actually doing it. When you got facts on your side, truth on your side, it'll win every time.

SEAN HANNITY: You know, Jim Jordan. I bet you're probably glad that the Congressman Collins didn't get the promotion to the upper chamber.

[laughter].

JIM JORDAN: I was for him, but I'm glad he's where he's at as well.

SEAN HANNITY: Four facts never change, Jim Jordan.

JIM JORDAN: Never change. Yeah.

SEAN HANNITY: Not only that, five meetings after the four facts. I don't think anybody could do it as well as you do it. Explain.

JIM JORDAN: Well, you're kind. But I loved your monologue because the disdain that these people, that they brought in today, these professors have for us regular Americans who voted for President Trump -- never forget, Sean. Seventeen days ago, the speaker of the House on a Sunday show called the president of the United States an impostor. The guy who had 63 million people vote for him, the guy who won the Electoral College landslide, the speaker of the House is calling the president of United States an impostor. That is the attitude that was on full display today from these three witnesses that the Democrats called in.

But as Doug said, they had to call them in because they don't want to talk about those four facts you just talked about. They don't want to talk about those five meetings where Zelensky met with senior government officials in the time that the aid was paused. And not one of those meetings did linking aid to any type of investigation come up. Not once. So, they got no case, no facts. So, they got to bring in elites who are going to look down their nose at us and say the kind of things that Professor Carlin said today about the first family.

SEAN HANNITY: Okay. Well, which was pretty disgusting and despicable, and we're going to get into a lot more on that. But this is key because -- there were very key moments in the Schiff show. And the Schiff show, there was one moment when one of your colleagues actually said, you know, went through the entire issue. No fact witnesses.

Jim Jordan: Yup.

SEAN HANNITY: Matt Gaetz did a great job on that today also. There's not one fact witness except Ambassador Sondland. "What do you want?" "Nothing. No quid pro quo." You followed that up, Congressman Jordan with, "Okay. Well, when did they make the announcement?".

JIM JORDAN: Right.

SEAN HANNITY: And Sondland -- explain.

JIM JORDAN: Yeah. When did it happen? Right. He said they weren't going to get a call, they weren't going to get a meeting, they weren't going to get the money unless there was an announcement made by President Zelensky saying that they were going to investigate Burisma the Bidens. Guess what? They got the call, they got the meeting, they got the money, and there was never, ever an announcement. And the only thing ever said, direct evidence, was when Ambassador Sondland told -- asked the president, "What do you want from Ukraine?" And what the president say? "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want this new guy, this new guy who ran on an anti-corruption platform, I want him to do what he said, because I'm talking about the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people." That's what happened.

But the Democrats don't care because they've been out to get, as Doug said, they've been out to get this guy from even before the election when they lost the Trump Russia investigation in the summer of 2016.

SEAN HANNITY: Last word, Congressman Collins. Do we have any idea where this goes? Is Jerry Nadler giving you any heads up of what's next?

DOUG COLLINS: Now, this is really sad, Sean. The American people ought to be outraged with a waste of taxpayer dollars, a waste of taxpayer time, with a Schiff show, with the Nadler circus. We still have no idea, and if you watched today, I gave him an opportunity in his closing to say, "Where are we going from here? What is your plan? Instead of bringing these academics who don't have anything to do with the show, to bring us actually -- to have fact witnesses, people who would actually be able to testify?" That is not what we got going on.

Sean, it is just a joke. It is a circus. It's off the train, off the tracks. And we need to make sure the American people know that. And by the way, I'm going to play one more plug. Adam Schiff needs to come out of hiding. Get some courage and some backbone and actually come before our committee and testify. If he doesn't, he has no veracity in anything that he's written.

SEAN HANNITY: Senator Collins from the great state of Georgia.

[laughter].

Thank you. And Congressman Jim Jordan. Thank you.

JIM JORDAN: You bet.

DOUG COLLINS: Thanks, Sean.

SEAN HANNITY: I think the AJC will write something about this by the time the show's over anyway. Joining us now, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. By the way, his brand-new book is out, a powerful case that he makes as relates to the Epstein case. We'll put that up in a second. And Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett. Congrats on the book, professor, I don't think I'd really want to go up against you in a court of law when the facts are against everybody.

What would you have said, Professor? If you were brought in to testify, what would you have done today? What would you have said?

GREGG JARRETT: What I would have said is that you cannot make the constitution say what you want it to say. The Constitution says the criteria are treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The framers rejected virtually all of the criteria that the Democrats put forward. Bad behavior, corruption, abuse of office, and yet all three of these Democratic scholars were going back to what the framers rejected. You know, if you want to change the criteria for impeachment, there's a way to do it. You amend the Constitution. We did that with the 25th Amendment. There was nothing in the constitution about when a president becomes incapacitated, so they amended the constitution.

If you want to make sure presidents can't have conversations with foreign leaders about corruption, pass a statute that makes that a crime. But you can't just make it up as you go along. And I think all three of the Republican --the Democrats made it up. And I thought Turley did a great job, but I don't think he went far enough. He basically agreed with the Democrats that you can impeach if you have a case of massive abuse of power. That's just not in the Constitution. You need to have one of those four criteria. And I think the president and his people ought to stick to that argument. There are no constitutional criteria met. And, according to Alexander Hamilton, if Congress acts inconsistent with the Constitution, their action is void, and the President need not accept it.

SEAN HANNITY: You talk, Gregg Jarrett, how Democrats, impeachment obsessed, ignore logic and law. Explain.

GREGG JARRETT: You know, if Adam Schiff's hearings were a lollapalooza of speculation, hearsay, and opinion, this today was truly theater of the absurd. Three liberal law professors who wore their visceral hatred of Trump on their sleeves. Unfortunately, Jonathan Turley, was the lone voice of reason who warned these Democratic congressmen that, "This is impeachment driven by rage, not reason. And, if you continue, if you persist, this will do enormous damage not just to the nation, but future presidents." One by one, he went through all of the allegations, from bribery, extortion, obstruction, to campaign finance, and he disassembled all of them. But it doesn't matter. Democrats won't listen, because law and logic to them is irrelevant.

SEAN HANNITY: Yeah.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: But what he did so well, Turley, is to make it clear that these experts don't pass the shoe-on-the-other-foot test. If this were Hillary Clinton who were being impeached, these experts would be saying exactly the opposite of what they're saying. This is trying to find impeachable conduct against a candidate they don't like. And, once you establish a precedent like this, it can be used against the next Democrat who gets elected, and it will just destroy the importance of impeachment as a check and balance, if you give Congress the power just to willy-nilly impeach anybody they don't like, because they think he's abusing office. That would apply to almost any president that a majority of people in the House disagree with. And that's what Hamilton said was the greatest danger of the impeachment provision.

SEAN HANNITY: All right, well said, both of you. Gregg Jarrett, thank you. By the way, Professor Dershowitz' book just out last week, "Guilt by Accusation." I read it. He makes a very strong, compelling case. I would like to see that debate. Thank you both. When we come back, John Solomon, breaking news, what the top 10 things he believes will be in the FISA report out Monday. Also, Newt Gingrich reacts to the impeachment circus today and how this impacts 2020 as we continue on this busy news think. Glad you're with us.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

SEAN HANNITY: And, in other breaking news we are following tonight, with the FISA report now set to be released on Monday, our very own John Solomon -- he has now laid out what is the 10 most important revelations to expect from the findings. He joins us now. I was given, by two very good sources of mine tonight just coming on air tonight, John --

JOHN SOLOMON: Right.

SEAN HANNITY: -- very important aspects that what everybody is reading now, pay no attention to.

JOHN SOLOMON: That's right.

SEAN HANNITY: There's only one person that has seen this report --

JOHN SOLOMON: That's right.

SEAN HANNITY: -- and that would be the attorney general.

JOHN SOLOMON: Yeah.

SEAN HANNITY: And his remarks are damning. He's the only one. Nobody else.

JOHN SOLOMON: Yeah, listen, I think everybody that's reporting on it now is just conjecturing or getting fragments from people who have a motive to get ahead of the story. But, listen, there is going to be six to 12 findings of wrongdoing, malfeasance, mistakes that were made in the FISA process. That's -- I've been able to confirm that. And I think you're going to see all the things that we've been talking about on your show: the omission of exculpatory evidence, the omission of derogatory evidence about Christopher Steele. I think one thing you'll hear about in the report next Monday, that the FBI very early one interviewed one of Christopher Steele's sub sources or sources, and he disowned or made clear to the FBI that what he told Steele and what Steele reported were not the same.

That's a red flag warning that never got passed on to the court. And I think, when we're done, we're also going to see some pretty sweeping recommendations about things that need to be changed in the FISA process within the FBI, changing the threshold when you spy on candidates, or investigate candidates, during a campaign. This is going to be a very, very powerful roadmap, and it's going to lead to months of debate and additional action, including discipline and possible prosecution. So, this is a beginning. It's a starting -- the start line for a very long sprint.

SEAN HANNITY: Well, everybody forgets the previous reports, and that would be, for example, let's see, referrals, lying, Comey, McCabe, what -- Page, Strzok, if I recall correctly. So, nothing has happened with those referrals. What we have to know is the person after this report comes out, premeditated fraud, FISA court, numerous warnings, Kathleen Kavalec, Bruce Orr, others, so it's unverifiable. Says on the top of a warrant, "verified." They couldn't verify it, because Steele never stood behind it, and Hillary paid for it. That should have been highlighted. Anything they used from that dirty dossier matters, but I will tell you that the referrals have already been made on very key names. I would imagine it gets deeper, and then it will be handed over to John Durham. And John Durham, he can convene a grand jury, he can make charges, and he can prosecute. So, this --

JOHN SOLOMON: Yeah, I think he --

SEAN HANNITY: -- will be just the first step in what would be hopefully a criminal referral for those that abuse power.

JOHN SOLOMON: -- I think you're looking at five steps, right? The release of the report, then the release of whatever Durham's going to do, then a moment of accountability both discipline and prosecution, then a moment of inflection, "How do we fix these things so this never happens to another president or another candidate?"

SEAN HANNITY: Hey, listen, I hate to say we better have FISA in some capacity --

JOHN SOLOMON: Yeah.

SEAN HANNITY: -- because we have enemies --

JOHN SOLOMON: Yeah.

SEAN HANNITY: -- foreign enemies in particular.

JOHN SOLOMON: It's important.

SEAN HANNITY: And I will tell you that we need this, but we can't turn those weapons on the American people. John Solomon.

JOHN SOLOMON: That's right.

SEAN HANNITY: Monday's coming fast. Thank you.

JOHN SOLOMON: Thanks, Sean.

SEAN HANNITY: More reaction to today's hearing and how this impacts 2020. Author of the best seller, Trump versus China, former Speaker of the House, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich. I want to get your take on this, which I'm sure is brilliant, but also seen through the prism of how does this now impact the political race? Because everything you afforded Bill Clinton and his attorneys, two and a half weeks’ notice, you get to decide what is convenient for you, what date is convenient for you, the right to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, present evidence. None of that has been allowed the Republicans in this case.

NEWT GINGRICH: Sure, I mean, look, the Democrats have an extraordinarily weak hand, they've tried to balance it by just cheating on every possible level, making absurd demands, having the Intelligence Committee report come out in the evening, and the Judiciary Committee meet the next day. The whole thing is absurd. But if I were the Republicans, I would take Jonathan Turley's devastating comments today, starting with his own statement that he had voted against Trump. He was not there as a pro Trump person. And then he just took apart the entire process.

And I would take and cut that into about five commercials, and I would drown the country in him, because if every American understood how much Turley is a constitutional expert, was destroying the Democratic case, I think this whole thing would collapse almost overnight. He was one of the most effective witnesses I've ever seen. And I thought it was devastating what he said.

SEAN HANNITY: Mr. Speaker, we have had ideologues today that are known Trump haters. That's what they brought in, with the exception of Jonathan Turley.

NEWT GINGRICH: Oh, yeah.

SEAN HANNITY: Then the Schiff show, you've got hearsay, inadmissible, opinion witnesses, not admissible evidence if this goes to the Senate. We have one fact witness so far, ambassador Sondland. Ambassador, you've given us your conjecture. Two plus two. You give us your opinion. "What facts do you know? Okay, you asked the president?" "Yes, I did." "What does he want for the release of the funds?" "I want nothing. I don't want a quid pro quo. I wanted him to get rid of the corruption." That would seem exculpatory to me, sir. Game over. Case closed. As a matter of fact, the opposite of Hunter and Joe. Quid pro quo Joe.

NEWT GINGRICH: Look, I think the fact is that this entire case is about hatred and pathology and emotions that are so deep. And then you saw it with the three Democratic witnesses. Let's see if we could find three left wing college professors who hate Trump and bring them in to pretend, they're experts. And I think that they destroyed themselves by the very hatred, the depth of their hostility, to President Trump. But that's what we're up against. The left wing of the Democratic Party would not tolerate Nancy Pelosi not moving forward on impeachment. And that's why she moved. The pressure from her left was so horrendous --

SEAN HANNITY: All right. Two things --

NEWT GINGRICH: -- she had to cave.

SEAN HANNITY: Predictions, and how does this impact 2020?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, my prediction is that this may, in fact, collapse, and I think -- as I said, if they just ran Turley's words on television for the next week, you might well see in Democratic districts a large number -- the 31 districts that voted for Trump and have a Democrat. You just this run Turley in those 31 districts, you might collapse the whole effort. I think the election next fall is going to be a disaster for the Democrats. They're a left-wing party of haters. And I think the country is tired of it. And I have a hunch that the average American is going to say, "I don't particularly want to elect guys who don't get anything done on health care, don't get anything done on transportation, don't get anything done on education. All you guys do is attack the president." I think that's a really weak base for the Democrats this next fall.

SEAN HANNITY: All right. Mr. Speaker, good to see you again. Great analysis. When we come back, we'll turn the tables on the congenital liar, Adam Schiff. We'll explain why. And Congressman Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, he's up next. Also, Congressman Louie Gohmert, Steve Scalise, and the attack against Barron Trump. When is enough, enough? Straight ahead.

[commercial break]

SEAN HANNITY: Also developing tonight, more shady behavior from the congenital liar and compromise Adam Schiff, because in his sham impeachment report released yesterday, it was revealed that he possibly spied on Congressman Devin Nunes by obtaining his phone records. And get this, the records also include call logs from our own John Solomon. By the way, where's the outrage from the media? Here with reaction to that, house Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Number one, I've got to give you a lot of credit. I thought it was a really shrewd, smart move, moving Jim Jordan over to the Schiff committee. He did a great job. Doug Collins did a great job. All the guys there today did a great job. Your whole team is fighting back this injustice, and obviously you're leading him in that direction, and I think the cooperation -- I'm seeing an energy in the Republican House of Representatives that it's been missing for a long time, congressman.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, thank you. And I think this team has worked so well together from every single person who’s part of this conference, and everybody comes together. One thing you have to know, Sean, it's not just the committee, because there's six different committees, and we all come together as one. Because remember, these rules are against us, all advantage to the Democrats. But the one thing you found even in this hearing, this hearing was so boring today, even Nadler fell asleep. The thing you have to remember, they have no proof, so they turn to professors. And these professors are liberal Democrat donors. It's unbelievable, but I think Turley said it best. At the end of the day -- and, remember, he's a constitutional expert -- "The only abuse of power is what they're doing. If they move forward on this, that's the constitutional crisis," the abuse of power that you just mentioned that Adam Schiff is doing, but more importantly what the Democrats are doing, trying to bring the President forward on impeachment, when an idea that he has a constitutional right, when it is about the subpoena.

SEAN HANNITY: Congressman, there's no due process. Everything --

KEVIN MCCARTHY: No.

SEAN HANNITY: -- that Newt offered Bill Clinton when he was speaker at the time. We've talked at length about that. I guess you know your Democratic colleagues pretty well. This has been falling apart in front of their eyes. One fact witness that is exculpatory for the President, where do they go from here, and do you think every Democrat's going to jump off the cliff with Schiff, and Pelosi, and Nadler?

KEVIN MCCARTHY: I'm not sure, because I've had a few Democrats turn to me. I had one particular one turn to me and said, "If they follow through on this, you guys will become the majority. They are nervous." You even found Democrats who are in safe seats talk about moving to censure, but their base will never allow them to do this. It only proves that they already had this written out, then they came back to try to find if they could find something. Adam Schiff dislikes this president so much, he will do anything. He will lie. He'll use his power beyond control, anything he can do -- remember what he did. Remember how he went up to see Cohen. Remember about how he had proof beyond circumstantial evidence. Remember he wished he knew who that whistleblower was that he had already met with? He will lie to the American public time and again, and he'll go after anybody if they stand up to him. Just want they wanted to do to Devin, but they did it to Susan Collins with Kavanaugh, they tried to do it with Elise Stefanik when she stood up to him. But the one thing I will tell you and to the American public, we are going to stand for the constitution, and that is why we're united. And the only bipartisan vote inside this House has actually been to stop this impeachment.

SEAN HANNITY: I hope Senator McConnell could do the same in the Senate and not have a single defection. Good job, Congressman and leader Kevin McCarthy. We appreciate you being with us. Hear now with more is Deputy Congressman Steve Scalise and Louie Gohmert. He was a -- he did a great job today as always. Louie, good to see you.

LOUIE GOHMERT: Oh, great to see you.

SEAN HANNITY: Congressman Scalise, to see this unfold the way it is, do we even know what's coming next? Have they decided next what's coming next? Is there any real witnesses that we'll ever hear from, except from opinion, hearsay, you know, ivory tower professors that have left-wing agendas?

STEVE SCALISE: Sean, it's just --

LOUIE GOHMERT: Well, we've -- go ahead.

SEAN HANNITY: Steve, go ahead.

STEVE SCALISE: Yeah, you've seen this, Sean. I mean, they really have no idea where they want to go with it, because they thought it was going to be the Mueller report that was going to give them impeachable charges that they can go and bring. And there's nothing this president's done wrong. Ultimately, at the end of the day -- and Jim Jordan says it best with the four facts -- President Zelensky and President Trump were the only two people participating in the phone call, and neither of them had a problem with the call. Zelensky was thanking President Trump for helping him, selling him the javelin missiles, so he could stand up to Russia, something President Obama and Joe Biden wouldn't do. No one in the media wants to ask that. Every witness they bring forward -- you know, Matt Gaetz did it really well today where he said, "Can any one of you -- raise your hand if you've seen anything wrong." Not anybody on the witnesses from Intelligence, or here today in Judiciary, no witness can tell you anything that the President did illegal. The disdain that these law professors had for Donald Trump, and the fact that he got elected in 2016, was clear. I thought it was disgraceful what Stanford law Professor Karlan, or professor, whatever she's a professor of, she owes an apology, unequivocal apology. I don't know if she supports bullying, but to pick on a minor child to try to make yourself look cute in front of your colleagues or something, it's disgraceful, and I hope Stanford doesn't stand for that --

SEAN HANNITY: That's a great point.

STEVE SCALISE: -- because that's what they had to do today.

SEAN HANNITY: That is a great point. When a liberal university with all their political correctness, I wonder how they're going to react to attacking a 13-year-old kid. Louie Gohmert, look, you've been around in this business for a long time. I've never seen anything quite this bad, but you know you're Democratic colleagues. Where are they going with this?

LOUIE GOHMERT: Well, that's such a great question. To put an exclamation point on what Steve was saying, we were trying to find out today, "Are we going to have a hearing on Monday?" "Well, we might. We're not sure." "What about Wednesday?" "Well, we might. We're not --" "Well, what would be the topic of those hearings?" "Well, we don't know." "Who would be the witness?" "We don't know, but we're -- we probably will have something, but we don't know." I mean, this is outrageous. I mean, this was -- this is what Kafka wrote about in “The Trial.” You don't get to know the charges, the witnesses, but we're going to keep changing the charges. It's what they've done. But I have some respect for some people that went to Harvard law school or that have taught at Harvard law school, and you've had Alan Dershowitz on again tonight. I mean, he's terrific, but I couldn't believe the way you have a Harvard guy sitting there saying, "Well, I really was reluctant, you know, approaching any kind of impeachment." Well, somebody's gotten a hold of his Twitter account, and his making him look like an idiot. So --

SEAN HANNITY: Yeah.

LOUIE GOHMERT: -- anyway, couldn't believe it. It's outrageous, but we're going to keep fighting, because truth, justice, and the America way has got to prevail.

SEAN HANNITY: All right, thank you both: Louie Gohmert, Steve Scalise. When we come back, the first lady, Melania Trump, rightfully furious that her son, Barron, brought up at today's hearings. Also, Hillary Clinton went on Howard Stern's show. Uh oh, you won't believe what they talked about. Straight ahead.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

SEAN HANNITY: First lady, Melania Trump, furious after the Democrat's star witness, ivory tower, Stanford professor, Pamela Karlan brought up her son Barron at today's hearing. She offered a halfhearted apology, a very sad attempt at one anyway. Take a look.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

PAMELA KARLAN: I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son, it was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong. But I do regret having said that.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: All right. "We do regret having said that." All right, now. Also, tonight, news -- Hillary Clinton, a guest on Howard Stern's radio program. Okay. Only on Howard's show. Take a look.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

HILLARY CLINTON: He was so handsome. He was really --

HOWARD STERN: Really?

HILLARY CLINTON: -- really handsome. He looked like a Greek God. He was really handsome.

HOWARD STERN: No kidding. Greek God?

HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah. He was very attractive. [laughs].

HOWARD STERN: I don't know, I'd listen to you.

[laughter]

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, contrary to what you may hear, I actually like men.

HOWARD STERN: Oh, right. Yeah.

[LAUGHTER]

That's the other thing.

HILLARY CLINTON: That's the other thing. Right?

[CROSS TALK]

HOWARD STERN: Raise your right hand. You never had a lesbian affair?

HILLARY CLINTON: Never. Never. Never.

HOWARD STERN: Never.

HILLARY CLINTON: Never even tempted, thank you very much.

HOWARD STERN: Unbelievable.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: Absolutely, only on Howard's show. And by the way, she brought it up. It was weird. Now also Stern asks -- this is a little ironic. "Did Lindsey Graham sell his soul?" The guy I grew up listening to, Howard Stern to me, would have supported Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, and probably wouldn't be at Hamptons' polo matches and parties. Take a listen.

[start video clip]

HILLARY CLINTON But then there are those who've kind of fallen off the edge and have so changed their personality, in my view, they're politics.

HOWARD STERN: Like a Lindsey Graham?

HILLARY CLINTON Like Lindsey Graham.

HOWARD STERN: Has he sold his soul to the devil?

HILLARY CLINTON I don't know the answer to that. I think that's a fair question. However.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: Not sure why Howard hates Trump and loves her. Makes no sense. That's not the guy I grew up listening to. Fox News contributors Sara Carter, Tammy Bruce. I don't even know where to start with this. Tammy, I'll throw it at you first.

Sara Carter: [laughs]

TAMMY BRUCE: Well, thank you. I mean, you know, look, the fact that she's even going on Howard Stern, considering the nature of what we've learned about her in the past year with Ronan Farrow's book that Harvey Weinstein was, as Farrow called him, kind of an inner circle adviser, that she tried to punish him and stop him from investigating this predator of women. And then she goes on The Howard Stern Show. The Daily Mail report that she and Bill Clinton would visit the Jeffrey Epstein ranch. Now, the Clintons have previously denied that they ever went to any of his residences. And then, of course, her own husband's history.

So maybe Howard Stern is exactly where she belongs, but she clearly is not being even asked about those things, which is what I find to be kind of shocking. And then for her to make comments like that about Lindsey Graham. But for her to bring that up, you're right. He was asking -- she was talking about her, I guess, her first boyfriend in that opening clip, but then to have her bring up that dynamic. And it's a shame because it then, I have to say, the use of that kind of puts women and puts her in a position of using that as a salacious thing to bring up when in fact, the right answer, if you will, and for a woman of power with her background is to not give it any credence or to say it doesn't even matter. But it's unfortunate.

And the reason it's even asked, I have to be honest, is because nobody knows who the real Hillary Clinton is. We see her, you know, associating with these predators, if you will. And then she wants to be an advocate for women and says that she has -- none of it makes sense.

SEAN HANNITY: Listen, I don't care. Look, I love the fact that Howard will say anything. I think that we should have more people saying anything they want to say. I just, I grew up listening to him, Sara, and that's the guy that would have supported the disrupter, iconoclast --

SARA CARTER: Right.

SEAN HANNITY: -- hard-hitting Donald Trump that says what's on his mind.

SARA CARTER: I do. I remember him that way, too. I wouldn't have asked any of those questions, because, frankly, I really don't care. But I do care about the e-mails that she apparently tried to destroy. I think I would have asked her about that or about using a private server to send those e-mails. There's a lot of questions Howard could ask. You know, he's trying to be funny. And, of course, she joked around and she was gracious about those questions. But there's so much more that I would have loved to have asked Hillary Clinton and Howard would have been the perfect place to do it on the Howard Stern Show. So, he missed out on that opportunity.

SEAN HANNITY: I wish everybody had the freedom he had. I really do.

SARA CARTER: [laughs] Yeah.

SEAN HANNITY: You know, even Bill Maher, who I hate, says whatever he wants, and I'm glad he does say it. And we should all be able to just say it without everyone acting like they're so upset all the time. Good to see you both. Thank you. When we come back, Rush Limbaugh reacting to world leaders being caught on hot mike talking about Trump. This is awesome. Next. Straight ahead.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

SEAN HANNITY: All right. So, Justin Trudeau, along with a few other world leaders, called on a hot mike talking about Trump because he took a lot of questions from the press. The media said they were mocking him. Rush Limbaugh had a great take on that. Take a look.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I don't think they were mocking Trump. I think they're sitting there in disbelief that he'll spend so much time with the media, including being late to one of these boring receptions that they have to go to.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

SEAN HANNITY: And he called them all out. Pay more. We'll never be the media mob, let not your heart be troubled. Laura, how are you?

LAURA INGRAHAM: Hannity, all I can say is if people are actually thinking about a career in the law or going to law school --

SEAN HANNITY: [laughs]

LAURA INGRAHAM: -- they might want to think twice after watching this thing today. Oh my gosh, this was like a --

SEAN HANNITY: By the way, and you were a lawyer. People may not know, some people may not know, but I know. You have that background. You even went to Dartmouth, but you were a rabble rouser and you got in a lot of trouble. You and the national troublemakers.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Yup. Well, Pam Karlan loved me when she was at --

SEAN HANNITY: [laughs].

LAURA INGRAHAM: She was a professor at UVA Law School when I was a student --

SEAN HANNITY: Really?

LAURA INGRAHAM: Yeah, she was. Yeah, she was very popular, but extremely left-wing, and I think we saw that on display. Today, you did a great job analyzing it all, Hannity.

SEAN HANNITY: Yeah, and, "Great job attacking a kid." I wonder if Stanford's going to have a little rebuke of her.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Oh, no, that's -- this is a standing ovation for her.

SEAN HANNITY: Probably. Sick.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Oh, well, great show, Hannity. Thanks so much.

SEAN HANNITY: Thank you. Have a good show.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.