Democrats engage in partisan theatrics during impeachment hearing

This is a rush transcript from "Ingraham Angle," November 13, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham this is “The Ingraham Angle” from New York City. The Democrats really want to impeach based off what we heard today. Congressman Chris Stewart and Mark Meadows were both at the hearing today and are here exclusively to cut through all the noise.

Also tonight President Trump's Former Attorney General says Democrats impeachment push is irreparably damaging our republic. Jeff Sessions is here with his exclusive reaction. Plus Raymond Arroyo is going to break down the most hilarious moments. You missed all of this stuff by the way. From faulty video cues to a certain hair implement in one Congresswoman's bouffant.

Let's just say the Dems and the witnesses weren't ready for prime time. And it's this week's "Seen and Unseen" coming up but first, the big four takeaways that's the focus of tonight's ANGLE.

Day one of this impeachment farce, it was supposed to be a banner day for the Democrats. But what actually unfolded was a complete and utter disaster for Adam Schiff and his solemn band of inquisitors. Here are the big four takeaways.

Number one Democrats still don't have a real crime. In fact, from what I heard the Democrats and their two star witnesses, is the only thing that Trump is guilty of is not giving away his foreign policy powers to unelected bureaucrats.


WILLIAM TAYLOR, TOP U.S. DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE: It hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our job.

GEORGE KENT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EUROPEAN & EUROASIAN AFFAIRS: It makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives in oversees to carry out those policy goals.


INGRAHAM: Well, I love how the witnesses were reliance by the way it's the be all and end all of experts and they were called the "Parade of Patriots" two people are on a parade now I guess. But don't forget. Again, the unelected elites mismanaged our foreign policy for decades. In Iraq and Syria and even now with China and now that Trump is challenging the rule; he has to be taken down. Congressman Nunes directly addressed the deep state department witnesses.


REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: It seems you have agreed wittingly or unwittingly to participate in a drama. But the main performance, the Russia hoax has ended and you have been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.


INGRAHAM: This has all the box office "Mojo of Greece II". Take away number two. Everything in today's hearing was based on hearsay. Neither Ambassador Taylor nor Secretary Kent were on Trump's July 25th phone call that sparked the impeachment sham. In fact neither had any firsthand knowledge of Trump's motivation or anything else for that matter, it was a lot of feelings that were discussed today. At the outset of today's circuit day Ukraine, Taylor even admitted as much.


TAYLOR: What I can do here for you today is tell you what I heard from people.


INGRAHAM: What I heard from people. How compelling. And things only went downhill for Democrats from there.


REP. JIM JORDON, R-OH: Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1st 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw at a meeting with President Zelensky. We have got six people having four conversations in one sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.


INGRAHAM: He is the star of the whole hearing Jordon. Now Taylor I think should have started one of the shampoo commercials from the early 80s.


UNIDETIFIED FEMALE: You'll tell two friends and they'll tell two friends and so on and so on.


INGRAHAM: I remember that shampoo, that's how bad it is. That brings us to my third take away. The Ukraine has done better under Trump than Obama. That's undeniably true despite these ludicrous statements to the contrary.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: $400 million of bipartisan taxpayer-funded military support for a nation at war.

TAYL OR: Rules-based order was being threatened by the Russians in Ukraine. So our security assistance was designed to support Ukraine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Withholding military aid does that weaken Ukraine?

KENT: Well, I think--


INGRAHAM: Okay, a little miscue there. How can Democrats even look at themselves in the mirror after saying this stuff? Ambassador Taylor even ended up conceding the point.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did the Obama Administration provide lethal weapons?

TAYLOR: No, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were happy with Trump Administration's assistant and it provided both lethal and financial aid did it not?

TAYLOR: It did sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you also stated that it was a substantial improvement, is that correct?

TAYLOR: That's correct sir.


INGRAHAM: So what is the beef here? Taylor scrap against Trump is not really that he did anything impeachable with the aide was held up for 14 days or something, but that any USA to Ukraine would be delayed for any reason whatsoever, except, again, if you are Obama. Then you can get away with doing anything. Of the many telling moments today, a few were key to understanding how preposterous this entire undertaking is. Neither Taylor nor Kent could answer the $64,000 question.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where is the impeachable offense in that call? Or either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? Shout it out anyone?


INGRAHAM: Can I buy a vowel please an impeachment home version of this game? Now Adam Schiff can't answer that either though. And finally the biggest take away. Number four, investigating Burisma is in our national interest. Now for weeks we've been told that it's a conspiracy theory to be concerned about Hunter Biden's work for Burisma. Oh, really?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The company, Burisma, it's a leader has a little bit of a storied history of corruption, doesn't he?

KENT: He used his regulatory authority to award gas exploration licenses to those two companies that he himself controlled.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How does the Ukrainian government ultimately pursue that?

KENT: $23 million was frozen until somebody in the general prosecutor's office of the Ukraine shut the case and that money went proof.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That essentially paid a bribed and that case go away?

KENT: That is our strong assumption. U.S. taxpayer dollars have been used to try to recover frozen assets. Since U.S. taxpayer dollars were wasted I would love to see the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office find who the corrupt prosecutor was that took the bride.


INGRAHAM: Wait a second. So there was a ton of corruption going on in the Ukraine. Is this not wilder? That was a key part of what happened today. So again, just to sum up what you heard. One of today's star witnesses contradicted the Democrats main talking point. Oops.

Now what really became apparent today is that Democrats - they should have never gone down this road. It was a cataclysmic mistake for them. The first public hearing did nothing to make their case and in fact probably did the opposite. I think American see right through this, the web or web of lies. And despite Democrat's feeble attempt to spin this as some huge victory it was really just a huge dud. I kind of think if there were any winners today they weren't in the political arena.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are not the father!


INGRAHAM: All right. That kind of daytime TV probably had big numbers. Come next November, the Democrats will regret Adam Schiff show trial. And that's THE ANGLE. Joining me now is Mark Meadows House Oversight Committee Member and Chris Stewart House Intel Committee Member. Let's start with you Congressman Stewart. You were there and you got to question again the star witnesses. What's your big take away?

REP. CHRIS STEWART, R-UT: Well, I think there is not a single person who watch this and ever said to themselves, holy cow; we have got to impeach this President. There just wasn't any surprises or there wasn't any bombshells. I think the Democrats set this up as like Watergate. They expected John Dean to appear and have this dramatic moment where people listen and say this is a real problem.

It just didn't materialize, and by the way it's not going to materialize. We know what these witnesses are going to tell us. As you know they have been in closed depositions with them there are no surprises coming. I think a week from now after about a half a dozen of these most Americans are going to say, is that all? You are going to remove the President of the United States less than a year from an election, over this? I just don't think it's going to sell.

INGRAHAM: I want to share something with you, Congressman Meadows. And this goes to this point about what George Kent acknowledged. It was wild. Watch.


KENT: I want to thank you again and just conclude by saying, because I can't let it go unanswered, some of my colleagues made the statement repeatedly that I had met with the whistleblower that I knew who the whistleblower is, it was false. The first time I said it, it was false the second through 40th time they said it, it will be false the last time they say it.


INGRAHAM: All right, that happened at the end of our hearing obviously. That was the wild moment as well. We'll get to Kent in just a moment. But is that incredible he ends it by saying; I don't know who the whistleblower is?

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: Well, four Pinocchio's ago we also heard Adam Schiff say that he wasn't coordinating with the whistleblower. We know that's just not the case that's why they don't want the whistleblower to it coming and to testify. Listen today's hearing was a swing and a miss for the Democrat. And I was the 31 Democrats that won in Trump districts not only would I be shaking in my boots tonight I would be worried that Nancy Pelosi is going to send them down a path that will ultimately try to impeach the President with really no predicate there.

You covered it extremely well Laura as we look at this. What we have got to make sure of is that there is an impeachable offense and what we really saw today was two bureaucrats that have a Ukraine first really sentiment versus the President that has an America First sentiment. So those collided together and what we saw was that the President wasn't really being vigilant about the American taxpayer dollars.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Stewart, I noticed that as well. There were several points in the hearing when the witnesses were clearly expressing their deep sense of anxiety, that there are country of focus, namely the Ukraine, was not going to get the blank check from the American taxpayers. They were actually - strings would be attached.

And I don't mean strings like looking into Biden. I mean, you can't play around with our elections. The Democrats used to care about that right election meddling? That's what Trump was clearly getting at that's why he brought it up in that kind of casual way in the call.

STEWART: Well, I think there is two things, actually during this hearing I had a couple people text me and they said, they seemed disproportionately concerned with Ukrainian's interest versus America's interest. I'm not saying that they actually feel that but they certainly had that as a priority for them and the second thing is this.

They are individuals whose responsibility is to carry out the policies of the duly elected President of the United States regardless of who that is. They don't get to say I disagree. And I'm going to see - I think that's what they were concerned about as much as anything. It wasn't necessarily that they love it Ukraine more than the U.S. they were offended that the President's policies were different than they thought it should be.

INGRAHAM: Yes, I tweeted out today Congress Meadows that, look if they disagree with the President's policies, there are a lot of people that disagree with the President's policies that's fine. Then I have an idea for them. Run for office and that actually go to the American taxpayers and say, you know we want to give out more foreign aid, we know we're 22 a trillion in debt and we don't want to worry about corruption or concerns about human rights. We want - let them try to run a campaign on that. You know they will get killed if they do.

MEADOWS: You know that they well but here's the interesting thing. Both of them were concerned about what might happen with this policy. Indeed, what happened with the policy is, it's stronger than the previous Obama Administration and yet both of those people who testified today, they both still work for the U.S. citizens and for the President of the United States. They're still diplomats.

And so to suggest that they are at odds with the President, they were at odds with the President on what they thought might have happened based on what someone else told someone else. At the end of the day the President is delivering on behalf of what all Americans elected him to do and what they will again elect him to do a little over 11 months from now.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Stewart, I want to get back to the George Kent point about Burisma that we need remind the American people of tonight, watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right after you expressed the concern of the perceived conflict of interest at least; the Vice President's engagement in the Ukraine didn't decrease, did it?

KENT: Correct because the Vice President was promoting U.S. policy objectives in the Ukraine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Hunter Biden's role on the board of Burisma didn't see us did it?

KENT: To the best of my knowledge it didn't and my concern was that there was a possibility for perception of a conflict of interest.


INGRAHAM: The possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest. And I kept watching, you think, but again they keep - the witnesses kept under cutting the main arguments in various ways not the policy arguments but the main arguments for impeachment which were already flimsy I think were shattered by those witnesses, if you really listen to what they said. Congressman Stewart close it out.

STEWART: Well, look I just think I want to make the point I made today in the hearing at least one of them. Out of the dozens of corrupt nations there are in the world to come out of the hundreds of corrupt government officials there are in the world, there's only one time that did the Vice President go to that nation and demand the removal of a specific prosecutor and it just happened to be that that was the individual who was responsible for investigating the company that was paying his son. Most Americans here that they think oh, my God, what is that? Is that not worth asking a few questions about?

INGRAHAM: You bet at this. Congressman Meadows and Stewart, we really appreciate you being there tonight. Thanks so much.

STEWART: Thank you.

MEADOWS: We need to shut this down Laura, it's time.

INGRAHAM: All right, and it's clear that Democrats are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks here. Now they're trying to convince you the American people that playing a game of telephone is exactly the type of evidence we need today.


REP. MIKE QUIGLEY, D-ILL.: I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned in painful instances and certainly valid.


INGRAHAM: All right, joining me now is Ken Starr Former Whitewater Independent Counsel and Andy McCarthy Former Assistant U.S. Attorney. Both gentlemen are now Fox News Contributors. Can I get that hearsay evidence can be used of course we all know that in criminal cases. But is that an acceptable standard to undo the election of an American President under our representative democracy and our constitutional system?

KEN STARR, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I don't think so. This is the call of the House but the House should in fact be mindful of American norms and fundamental fairness. I was delighted to hear that some members of the United States Senate are saying we do not want hearsay.

And in contrast to federal courts and the federal rules of evidence, the Senate can set its own rules. It can say, the United States Senate can say we are not going to allow hearsay. Because it's ordinarily not reliable. It has not been tested adequately and we saw that today I was told, it was my understanding. And that is not the higher quality evidence when we are talking about the potential removal of the President of the United States.

INGRAHAM: All right, Democrats have also repeatedly said that we should not condition foreign aid on various points for corruption. It looks like they forgot to tell George Kent.


KENT: There are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for Ukraine. Conditions include anticorruption reform as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. International monetary fund does the same thing Congress and the Executive Branch works together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.


INGRAHAM: I love the word conditionality. That's just exactly why hate bureaucracy just like some bureaucracies. Okay, tell us what is up here with this analysis?

ANDY MCCARTHY, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: Well you know look, they are trying to make a very technical bribery case on their title 18 which is the criminal code and, what we can never forget here is this is not a legal case. This is an impeachment case which is a political remedy. So at the end of the day what you have to have is misconduct that is so serious that there will be a public consensus for the removal of the President that would be strong enough to push two-thirds of the Senate to vote to remove the President.

Now if you have to sit through six hours or whatever that was today, and when you get to the end of it, you are not quite even sure what it was about or what they were trying to prove. You may be able to go back and fix that and say maybe we can come up with some kind of technical violation but impeaching a President.

INGRAHAM: And also people could get kind of get their mind wrapped around what happened with Nixon even what happened with Clinton, lying under oath, it's clear-cut. You either lied or you didn't. But this is - if you're going to call it bribery can, the bribery has to mean something and even though it's not a legal preceding the word bribery does have a legal connotation.

So it can't be completely devoid of any legal grounding. They just literally threw that term out there, I think yesterday or the day before it was bribery extortion lions and tigers and bears all - I mean, it was just thrown together.

STARR: It's a stretch and it's one of the reasons why we continue to say this is really is not the stuff of impeachment. It is the stuff of oversight. If you don't like the President mentioning Joe Biden in the context of rampant corruption, including - and one of the other things that became clear today was corruption in the Ukraine is not only serious in the endemic, it's endemic in the energy industry and that's Burisma.

So it's quite understandable that in that context of this sort of issue would pop up. This is so far removed from bribery from extortion and the like. And to me it is quite unreasonable. And that's putting it in my own way, for the Democrats to say we have evidence here of a crime and certainly two witnesses and I think we're being a little bit harsh to these witnesses. They were subpoenaed to testify and a lot of what they said I think should be reaffirming and reassuring to the American people that we have honest public servants. And I really mean that and that they said nothing that suggested that the President should be impeached, nothing, not one word.

INGRAHAM: My point though Ken was that, and Andy you know might disagree on some of the policies that's fine, but we're not working for President, we are working for the President your own personal views about U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy after you give the President your advice, it's not your role to make the final call and if you really don't like what the President is doing then quit or go an ask can I be transferred to another part of the administration. It's not up to you to determine foreign policy.

MCCARTHY: Laura, if we're going to have a self determining, constitutional republic the guy who gets elected has to be the guy who makes the policy otherwise if it's unelected bureaucrats making it. We've lost control over the government. The President has a different view of the Ukraine.

I actually expect that as we go further in this, maybe we will hear more about what that view is because to my mind we are hearing fantasy about the Ukraine that's been built over the last number of years. There is an alternative version of the Ukraine. Ukraine is a lousy country, it's pervasively corrupt and there are really troublesome elements in the government that we are funding including Neo-Nazi group.

INGRAHAM: We heard about some of them today.

MCCARTHY: So I would not be hesitant to make that case.

INGRAHAM: All right. Thank you so much, Ken and Andy both of you tonight. And Up next, En Henry just talked to sources on the Hill tonight, they are saying that Democrats are disappointed in the outcome of today's hearing and how it's playing nationally. Plus Former Attorney General now Senate Candidate Jeff Sessions is here exclusively on why this exercise is hurting our republic big time. Stay there.



SCHIFF: What I hope members will think about is what these facts mean for the future of our country. I don't think we can allow that to be the new normal acceptable in any way share perform or will not only permit this President to seek other ways to bring about interference in our election, but will invite future Presidents to do the same.


INGRAHAM: The Democrats are declaring victory tonight of course, despite a dull first day of the public impeachment hearings. And their witnesses not only failed to prove a quid pro quo they've kind of just dropped that. But they had no firsthand knowledge of pretty much anything except their own feelings and opinions. So what is the feeling on the Hill tonight? Fox Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry is live in Washington with exclusive insight. Ed, what's going on?

ED HENRY, CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Laura, a great to hear and see you tonight because I'm hearing a much different story from the Hill. I have been working in phones talked to three different Senior Republicans who all said that after the first hearing in the hallways, they are having private conversations with Democrats who seemed absolutely deflated that they did not get very far at all today.

Listen to what "The Washington Post" has reported. Look at that, Democratic aide telling "The Post", "We are screwed this week on hearings". No bombshells no revelations the onus is on us to wow some people this week. To and be sure, Democrats are insisting that they are happy they got Bill Taylor to reveal some new information today but even his big reveal that one of his aides overheard a phone conversation in which President Trump was allegedly more personally involved in making sure that there were investigations in exchange for aid and even that was third hand.

Taylor being told by an aide who overheard a phone call at a restaurant. So Democrats deflated by a whole series of events. Jim Jordon, declaring all of this is third and fourth hand information, six people having four different conversations. At one point Jordon said he had seen Church prayer chains that are easier to understand then this narrative.

Republican Jonathan Ratcliffe, pressing the star witnesses both Bill Taylor and George Kent did you see anything impeachable? Didn't have anything. Adam Schiff again on defense today on whether or not he knows who the whistleblower is he insists he doesn't even though we've been like to believe that at least his staff talk to the whistleblower.

And finally George Kent we've been talking about went on camera with has concerns that he raise conflict of interest questions way back in 2015 about Hunter Biden raking in over $80,000 per month from Burisma while his father was overseen Ukrainian policy.

Jim Jordon at one point was asking did Hunter Biden speak Ukrainian. The witness was saying no. Another point he says, was he hired for his expertise on corporate governments? Of course no. So Laura, there were lots of problems today for the Democratic narrative that's what Republicans might tonight be breathing bit of a sigh of relief. Laura.

INGRAHAM: Ed, one of the Republican aides texted me tonight and said, the new scuttlebutt is, how did we know that the money Hunter Biden was making wasn't somehow ultimately kind of an indirect campaign contribution to the Bidens, which I'd never even heard that before. But that is just part of the whole Burisma threat that seems to be unraveling.

HENRY: And the question about whether it was just board money or whether it was really lobbying because now there are documents that a couple of Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson as you know are demanding from the State Department because they believe their documents there showing that Burisma really hired Hunter Biden and other to get meetings with Obama/Biden State Department officials and diplomats.

That raises all new questions about whether this was just the board looking at the corporate governance issues or whether in fact they were lobbying Hunter Biden's own father and his administration the Obama/Biden Administration when remember, Joe Biden was overseeing all Ukrainian policy laws.

INGRAHAM: Interesting. Ed, thank you so much. And it wasn't just the Democrats, the media also played up the importance of Acting Ukraine Ambassador Bill Taylor's testimony today.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: The Democrats they picked these two diplomats as their lead off witnesses because they assumed these were the most effective and most credible--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Star witnesses were people like Bill Taylor and Kent.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bill Taylor I think is a critical witness.


INGRAHAM: But all it took was the Republican secret weapon, Congressman Jim Jordan, who was just added to the Intel Committee, remember, to set the record straight.


REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: You didn't listen in on President Trump's call and President Zelensky's call?


JORDAN: You never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

TAYLOR: I never did.

JORDAN: You never met the president.

TAYLOR: That's correct.

JORDAN: This is what I can't believe. And you are their star witness.


INGRAHAM: Devastating.

Joining me now Jeff Sessions, former attorney general, and now candidate, again, for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. Senator Sessions, what is your big takeaway from today?

JEFF SESSIONS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It certainly to me -- I agree with Ken Starr. This is a very serious time for America. It does not appear to me that they have the kind of evidence that would justify going forward.

I called it a show trial. What's a show trial? When you've decided the person is guilty and then you pretend to have a trial for show. So this is the kind of thing that I think is concerning to a lot of people. The Constitution says impeachment is not anything Congress says it is. It says it's for conviction of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. Those are restraining laws in our Constitution that restrains Congress, and they need to be faithful to their responsibilities.

And fundamentally I would just urge our Democratic members of Congress to think deeply about the future of this country, the danger to this republic that would occur if we continue to prosecute people basically because we don't like them or we have a political disagreement.

INGRAHAM: Senator, what more can the members of the Republican Party serving in Congress today do for this president and for his agenda that they are not doing perhaps? I'm not trying to criticize, but maybe a little advice of what they can do better or more to help this administration?

SESSIONS: We have to take the case to the people, both on all the issues he's advocating, like ending illegality at the border, standing up to China, being more restrained in the deployment of American forces around the globe in hostile places.

On this impeachment, I think they've got to speak out pretty aggressively and say where's the beef, what is the charge, does it meet the constitutional standards, and be open about that. I think we have a lot of members that are, hopefully. But that message needs to be strongly put out there. And Republicans need to be confident that if the evidence does not support impeachment, they are perfectly safe, and it's the honorable thing to do, the only thing to do is oppose impeachment.

INGRAHAM: Senator, are you in retrospect -- we all look back on decisions we made -- are you glad you left the Senate to go work in the Trump administration? Are you glad that you made that decision?

SESSIONS: Laura, I don't look back on those kind of matters. I made the decision I thought was right at the time. A lot of people think all we did was deal with Russia, but we had a tremendous revitalization of federal criminal prosecutions throughout the country, a revitalization of partnerships with our state and local allies. We stood out for religious liberty and issued a new policy. We helped the president appoint the best group of federal judges ever been appointed. We advanced his agenda. We reduced regulations. There was so much that was done.

We started a new group to intensify our efforts to prosecute frauds in the I.T. networks and particularly China. So a lot of good things that occurred, and I had 15 years in the department, I knew a lot about it, and I feel like we did a good job. And now I have an opportunity to seek the Senate seat again, and I'll be pleased to ask the people of Alabama to give me that opportunity.

INGRAHAM: And if you could -- the president occasionally watches this show. Is there anything you'd like to say to him tonight?

SESSIONS: He didn't have a better supporter in the United States Senate then when I was there. I was his first supporter in the United States Senate. And if I go back to the United States Senate he won't have a more aggressive, determined supporter when I get back.

INGRAHAM: And Senator, what do you say to those Republicans -- and you know who they are, we don't have to name them -- who say This president, he's not a real conservative, he's not really doing the conservative thing, he's not bringing the movement along, he's spending too much time on the side fights? What do you say to them?

SESSIONS: I tell you, this president has moved a conservative agenda in a host of areas. He cut taxes. Isn't that conservative? He stands up for America first throughout the world. Isn't that good? Defending American manufacturing against cheating by China and other countries. Isn't that conservative and lawful? He's trying to defend our borders in way that affects the rule of law in America. So I just think he's been conservative consistently to a degree I think very few people expected. But most importantly, he's been effective and faithful in what he promised. He told the American people what he would deal, a lot of people doubted he would do it, but he's done it better than almost any president in a my lifetime.

INGRAHAM: And Senator, I know he has had some choice words for you mostly because of the Mueller deal and Rosenstein, he wasn't thrilled with that pick either. But do you think you will ultimately get his endorsement?

SESSIONS: I hope so. Certainly, I'm going to work for that, and we'll be seeking it. He doesn't always get involved in primaries, so I understand that, and he has indicated he probably would not in this one. But yes, I would love to have his support because I ask people first, I asked the people of Alabama and throughout the country to trust him, to support him. And I thought he was the one who could win, and if he won, I thought he would bring that drive, that energy, that will, because it's extraordinary, to advance his agenda.

INGRAHAM: You were right. You were absolutely right. And I was in Alabama over the weekend, and overwhelming support for you in the state of Alabama and your run. Senator Sessions, thanks for being with us tonight. We really appreciate it.

SESSIONS: Thank you, Laura.

INGRAHAM: And Democrats might be enjoying this impeachment circus today, but how will they feel about it in a couple of months? Dan Bongino, Chris Hahn debate it, the political fallout for 2020, in moments.


INGRAHAM: OK, impeachment has all the radicals fired up now, but how's it going to look in February? Think about it, if impeachment moves from the House to the Senate, six 2020 Democrat candidates will be stuck in D.C. They have to be there at the height of the primary season.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will fulfill my responsibilities. There's no question. It's very important that I am in Iowa as much as I can possibly be.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have a constitutional duty. I'll just have to find a way to communicate with them. You can do it by sending out some incredible surrogates.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The campaign becomes secondary. With the gravity of removing a sitting president from office, I will be there.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have constitutional responsibilities, and I will be there for the trial.


INGRAHAM: I think Iowans are saying, thank God. Joining me now is Dan Bongino, former Secret Service agent, FOX News contributor, author of the new book "Exonerated," also Chris Hahn, former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, host of the Aggressive Progressive podcast. All right, Dan, have the Democrats really thought out this timing thing with impeachment?

DAN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: No, they don't really think about much. That's why they're Democrats. But think about it. This was a trifecta of disasters. Number one, the impeachment farce today exposed the real gravity of the situation with Hunter Biden. That testimony -- if anybody thinks today reflected will on Joe Biden, I suggest you see a mental health professional. Secondly, as you just indicated, the U.S. senators running for president, what's the Iowa caucus, February 3rd, the beginning of February That's what you want? You want an impeachment trial about a quid pro quo that didn't happen happening while your candidates for president are supposed to be out there? And third, I think President Trump came out today looking pretty decent, and these swing state people in the election running for Congress, this was really a triple full disaster for the Democrats.

INGRAHAM: Chris, even "The New York Times" on Friday had an interesting piece out talking about swing state Democrats, and part of it said that notably "Doug Jones, Democrat of Alabama -- could suffer a backlash for voting to remove a president popular with many in their states." Isn't that a little concerning? If it's this type, and even Jonathan Karl tonight on ABC, or today on ABC was saying, this is not a bipartisan movement to impeach this president. It's run by one party, and that is where the damaging prospect could be.

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I think we've got miles to go before we get to Doug Jones or any other incumbent Democrat taking a vote that might lead to them losing their election. But I do think that they need to put their oath to the Constitution ahead of any electoral concerns and do what's right by this country. And if the evidence shows that the president should be impeached and removed, then that's what all members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, should absolutely do.

As for them not being in Iowa, that might be one of the consequences of it, but the country is going to be riveted to this moment, and they should be there for this moment.

INGRAHAM: Riveted? Did you watch the same thing -- hold on a second. You said the word "riveted." I heard televisions being turned off all day long today, OK. I made a joke earlier that it was the best day that Dr. Phil had had in like 15 years, OK, because it was a dud, OK. The Democrats are grousing to Ed Henry tonight saying, wait a second, or the Republican aides were talking to Democrats in the hallway and call them up and said they are not thrilled with the way this is going so far, not the star witnesses that we thought. Dan?

HAHN: I think you had serious, I think you had serious men who take their job seriously and were talking about things in serious terms. And might bore some people but it was very compelling if you're following the evidence.

INGRAHAM: Dan, your reaction to that, though?

BONGINO: Yes, Laura, you're right. It was a total snooze-fest. If I didn't have my own show, I didn't even need an Ambien. Just turn that disaster on.

What do we really know? What came out of this. So now we have a quid pro quo. We had a deal initially for security assistance that actually arrived. Then the deal changed to no, it was a deal for a White House meeting that never happened.

HAHN: After it came to light, Dan.

BONGINO: Pipe down. I'm not done over there, you. And then we had quid pro quo for a public statement from Zelensky that he never made it. So we have this for that with no that times three, and then we have the quid pro quo. The only time Taylor ever heard directly from someone who heard from Trump, because Taylor never heard from Trump, it was in a text that said the president wants to be crystal clear, there is no quid pro quo. This is a great case Democrats. Well done, really nice job.

HAHN: Let me tell you, Taylor is a serious person who was seriously concerned about the direction of the president's shadow foreign policy led by his political attorney, who was working --

INGRAHAM: He should run for office. Why doesn't he run for office?

HAHN: Pipe down now, Dan. Pipe down. I'm going to use your catchphrase now, pipe down.


BONGINO: You don't say it as well as I do.

HAHN: He was worried about the president's political attorney who was out there conducting shadow foreign policy for the president's own personal benefit. That is not good at. That is not American. That is not what we do.

INGRAHAM: His own personal benefit.

HAHN: -- and force their leaders out for this. The president --

BONGINO: Maybe you should tell John Kerry to stop going over to Syria, then, too, and talking to the Iranians. Chris won't do any of that. He has no problem with John Kerry --

HAHN: Kerry is not the president of the United States.

INGRAHAM: Chris, hold on. So Chris, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. So Chris, it's in Donald Trump's benefit to ensure that we're not shoveling tens of millions of dollars of our hard earned tax dollars to a country that is inherently corrupt? How is that in his benefit? He should be doing that with every country we get money from.

HAHN: Laura, Laura.

INGRAHAM: And Obama didn't give them a nickel of lethal aid, not one nickel of lethal aid. I've never heard of you about it, Chris.

HAHN: You're right. If this president was looking into corruption all over the world, he might have a case.

INGRAHAM: You bet he was.

HAHN: But he's not. He's looking into corruption about his political opponent. I've heard of him not looking into corruption about anybody else.

INGRAHAM: So if you run for office you are immune from criticism?

HAHN: There are lots of Americans doing things abroad that fall into the foreign corrupt practices act that this president has looked the other way, in fact have tried to help. So we have to be very careful about what this guy does right now. He's not looking into corruption. He's looking out for himself, his own political interests, you know it and I know it.

INGRAHAM: Yes, OK, so Chris, did you ever complain -- Dan, did you ever hear Chris complain, eight years Obama gave no lethal aid to Ukraine, any one time did he ever complain about it?

BONGINO: No, and Chris just left out the fact that Taylor himself actually acknowledged in the hearing that Trump's policies toward Uraine have been more beneficial to the Ukraine and that Zelensky was happy with the call.

INGRAHAM: We got to go guys, we're way over. Guys, thank you, we're way over.

HAHN: -- we're not delivering the money --

INGRAHAM: We've got to go.

Today's hearing was nothing but political theater. We've established this. But Raymond Arroyo is here to break down the nuggets, the blenders, things you saw but did not see, next.


INGRAHAM: We have a special "Seen and Unseen" edition, impeachment style. And today Raymond Arroyo is with us, FOX News contributor. And things that should have remained unseen, Raymond, what are they?

RAYMOND ARROYO, CONTRIBUTOR: The media really oversold this hearing, Laura.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news tonight, bombshell testimony.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bombshell news.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bombshell from today.



ARROYO: The biggest bombshell was supposedly that overheard conversation between the president and Ambassador Sondland. But to my eye the biggest bombshell may have been how much witness George Kent look like Jimmy Olsen from the old Superman movie.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I thought he looked a little bit more like Les Nessman, a bespectacled Les Nessman from WKRP in Cincinnati.

ARROYO: Well, whomever he looked like, he drank a lot of water, Laura. Fish are not this hydrated. Look, he's always taking -- look, throughout the hearing he took --

INGRAHAM: What is this, is he on the treadmill? What is this with the water bottle? Do you guys see that?

ARROYO: It's amazing. It was like a medical size water bottle.

INGRAHAM: I thought he hit an oxygen chamber or something.

ARROYO: A water silo.

But the Democrats production at the hearing was a bit wanting.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ambassador Taylor, I'd like you to listen to what he said. I will read it for you. It's in response to a question --


INGRAHAM: That happens to us sometimes.


ARROYO: And he went on to read it. When you plan a big dramatic moment, make sure the video is loaded.

And Chairman Adam Schiff had his own embarrassing moment when Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik challenged the way he embellished the president's call at the first hearing.


REP. ELISE STEFANIK, R-N.Y.: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the transcript from the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky. You yourself, Mr. Chairman, have mischaracterized the call. In fact, in the first open hearing --


STEFANIK: -- you had a parody.

SCHIFF: The gentlewoman will suspend.


INGRAHAM: The gentlewoman will suspend. The gentlewoman will suspend.

ARROYO: Put it in the record. Put it in the record.

INGRAHAM: He has a very priggish presentation, does he not? It's a very - -

ARROYO: Well, the eyes are almost hypnotic.

INGRAHAM: What were those cat eyes?

ARROYO: I don't know. But Laura, Congresswoman Val Demings, she had a dramatic line of questioning near the end of the hearing. And I think you could call it an irregular approach.


REP. VAL DEMINGS, D-FLA: When you realized that the interests of this irregular channel, highly irregular, informal channel of the U.S. policymaking.


ARROYO: Can I get a pronunciation guide for that?

INGRAHAM: Well, they are speaking quickly, and they are thinking on their feet.

ARROYO: And apparently Congresswoman Jackie Speier was so frazzled today - -

INGRAHAM: Isn't it Speier?

ARROYO: She was so frazzled today she started misplacing office supplies in her hair. If you look closely, there is a paper clip hanging from her hair.

INGRAHAM: Wait, let me see that. I can't even see that.

ARROYO: It's right there.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my gosh. You're right.

ARROYO: There is a dossier under the bangs, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second. I'm half thinking that Swalwell is hiding a staple remover under his locks.

ARROYO: You never know what's under there, another Ukrainian source.

All in all, it was such an intense day for the Dems, Laura.


ARROYO: It was tense, dramatic. A pet therapy organization called Pet Partners teamed up with the Pet industry Joint Advisory Council to provide therapy dogs at the capitol.

INGRAHAM: What? Are you kidding?

ARROYO: The various members wanted to pet the therapy dogs to destress. My question is, where do the dogs go to destress from this experience? Or why don't we loose the therapy dogs on some of these numbers in Congress. I think we could get a quorum for that.

INGRAHAM: So just say release the hounds?

ARROYO: Release the therapy hounds. We should start a new hound organization.

INGRAHAM: Release the hounds. Those are the cutest things we saw all day up there on the capital.

ARROYO: Well, Speier can protect herself with a paperclip in her hair.

INGRAHAM: That sounds like me. Sometimes I forget. Like I forgot a hair brush is sticking out of the bag.

ARROYO: I'll stop --

INGRAHAM: We women have it a lot harder than you men. Raymond, thanks so much.

Stay tuned. What did the real leader of the Democratic Party think today? My final thoughts, next.



REP. ALEXANDRA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: I think Chairman Schiff did a phenomenal job. There was a lot of different ways that this could have gone off the rails, and I think he did an excellent job keeping these hearings fair but focused and really centered on the facts.


INGRAHAM: Thank you, counselor. That's the Democratic Party in a nutshell, isn't it? It revolves around two people now, AOC and Adam Schiff, the socialist and the inquisitor. Why do other Democrats in the House even bother showing up at this point? A collection of potted plants would be just as effective and, frankly, nicer to look at.

But Democrats should be really worried. Here's why. Number one, the Fed came out with an upbeat economic outlook, no recession. And today markets are hitting another high. Phenomenal news. Number two, the Democrats have no credible platform to make the country better and no strong 2020 candidate. Number three, the House Democrats who ran as moderates in 2018 along with House Democratic leadership have been exposed as nothing more than puppets of AOC. And number four, the Mueller report didn't bring down Trump, neither will Schiff's impeachment sham.

So in 2020, the voters have to decide whether they want to reward the one person in D.C. who's actually delivering results or rewarded Democrat Party that has literally done nothing for Middle America. Easy choice.

That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team have all the best analysis and they take it from here.

Big day of news, Shannon.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.