This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," September 25, 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 Washington tonight. Just like last night. We're going to bring you some of the most comprehensive breakdowns of everything that transpired today and that's a lot. Ken Starr and his former deputy Sol Wisenberg explain why there's no smoking gun on this Ukraine transcript.

Congressman Jim Jordan, Chris Stewart who just read the whistleblower complaint itself break down the fight on Capitol Hill. Former Independent Counsel Robert Ray is also here and while allegations against the Biden family are far more serious than what Trump is facing.

And Raymond Arroyo has a special impeachment edition of seen and unseen, that's coming up as well. But first seven lessons from the past 48 hours. That's the focus of tonight's ANGLE. I read through the rough transcript of the call between Trump and the new Ukrainian President and a few things struck me.

Number one. There's not a single person Washington with any experience in government, not one who really believes the President was trying to use the Ukrainian government to rig the 2020 election.

I don't see how anyone in his or her right mind could legitimately say there's an impeachable offense in this transcript. In the conversation Trump congratulated Volodymyr Zelensky on his parliamentary win and said the U.S. would continue to support Ukraine but he was frustrated that the E.U. isn't doing more.

Zelensky agreed saying, "The European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner. We're ready to continue to cooperate for the next step specifically. We're almost ready to buy more javelins from the United States for defense purposes."

Then the President responds, "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine. They say crowd strike the server. They say Ukraine has it. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it, whatever you can do.

It's very important that you do it if that's possible.

Zelensky then interjected that one of his assistants had already met with Giuliani and that the investigation was very important for him as well, adding I guarantee that all the investigations will be done openly and then candidly. That I can assure you.

OK, handling investigations openly and candidly. That sounds like an evil plot to me. How nefarious of the - there is no quid pro quo and the President never once even hinted that Ukrainian aid would be withheld if a further investigation by them wasn't done.

At this point, I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats overplayed their hand big time. They based their impeachment move on a whistleblower who didn't even hear the conversation and who grossly exaggerated what happened in it.

Which brings me to point number two. The President not only did nothing wrong. He went above and beyond his duty to his office hoping to discover what happened in the lead up to the 2016 election so it never happens to another President again.

As we know the Biden story is far more than just Hunter Biden making big money in Ukraine while Daddy was setting Ukraine policy.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I fully support transparency on the so-called whistleblower information but also insist on transparency from Joe Biden and his son Hunter on the millions of dollars that have been quickly and easily taken out of Ukraine and China.


INGRAHAM: If foreign governments or approach to assist and digging up dirt on Trump in the lead up to 2016, that is a big problem and Trump's right. We need to get to the bottom of any election tampering. I though Democrats wanted to stop election meddling by foreign governments.

Which takes us to point number 3. Democrats don't really care about preventing government corruption. Any Democrat claiming to be interested in corruption should be outraged by the fact that Biden himself bragged on camera about dangling a foreign aid carrot to get a prosecutor fired.

When that prosecutor was involved in investigating a company paying his son, boatloads of cash. Not a single - that not a single Democrat will even conceive Biden's actions at the very least were an obvious conflict of interest is extremely telling.


DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN: Look I said, we're leaving in six hours. If the prosecutors not fired, you're not getting the money. Oh [BLEEP] you're fired.


INGRAHAM: Number 4. If President Trump wanted to pressure Ukraine to hurt Biden with the intent on improving its own re-election chances, there were a 100 better ways to do it. By the way ways that wouldn't involve speaking to the Ukrainian President on the phone when he knows that the call is monitored and memorialized by intelligence staffers.

And while the Democrats insist Trump was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden. What does the Ukrainian President himself say about it?


UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: We had I think, good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things and I - so I think and you read it that nobody push it - pushed me. Yes.


INGRAHAM: Nobody pushed him. So the principal himself adamant. No pressure from Trump. The call was normal. Nothing out of the ordinary. So are the impeachment Dems saying that Zelensky here on camera is lying so it's a Trump-Ukrainian conspiracy in plain sight.

Now does all this kind of sound familiar any of you? Phony collusion claims in 2017. Phony pressure claims now.

Number 5. There are no moderates left in the Democrat party. This point is beyond debate. During the mid-term, swing districts Democrats claimed they were anxious to work with the President. Now they are the tips of the impeachment spear.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The quid pro quo element doesn't need to be there for this to be a crime.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This was a line that was crossed for the national security Dems and something that we thought the caucus needed to move on.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So while it may be a controversial issue, now when you look at the facts and when you look at this specific instance, I think this is a total game changer.


INGRAHAM: It's a game changer for the Democrat party. They are all Ilhan Omar now. When they're up for re-election next year and they insist, oh, they insist they're moderates who just want government to work again. Don't believe them. They must be voted out of office for violating their pledge to be more bipartisan.

Number 6. Democrat leadership has totally given up on governing. Now time and again Trump has beaten them at their own game. We've seen it. I'm beginning to think it's made them - I think they're losing it. Day after day, they're totally delusional.

You know the lunatic hobos who blurt out crazy things and they zigzag in the middle of a crowded intersection. Well Adam Schiff, kind of sounded like that today.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: What those notes reflect is a classic mafia like shake down of a foreign leader. This is how a mafia boss talks. Like any mafia boss, the President didn't need to say, that's a nice country you have. It would be a shame if something happened to it.


INGRAHAM: The man doesn't even know the godfather OK? He doesn't even know the movie. He doesn't even know what a shakedown is. I still remember by the way when the Democrats didn't tell us that they were going to work on healthcare and infrastructure. They're going to take on the drug companies. They're not going to do any of that.

Which takes us to my seventh and final points, biblical here. All right, Democrats are possessed with the anti-Trump rage. Maybe there needs to be an exorcism. They're infuriated that Mueller let him down, that Trump has beaten them pretty much at every turn.

They're obsessed with punishing him and anyone who works for him, anyone who's close to him. Think about it. Does leadership give impassioned press conferences on their plan for reining in government waste and fraud and abuse or improving the economy?

No, they save all their emotion and bogus investigations and angry denunciations of anyone associated with this President. The polls are clear. This is not what Americans want. These representatives were not sent to Washington to frustrate the people's will. They were sent to Washington to do the people's will.

And at this point, Trump's doing that all on his own. Soon though, it's going to turn to the people. They'll have their say. They're going to let Washington know what it thinks about the job they've done.

And properly framed, the election will be a choice between the Democrats revenge and resist style politics with the President's results. And unfortunately for Pelosi and Schiff, you can't impeach your own constituents. And that's THE ANGLE.

Here to respond is Ken Starr, former Whitewater independent counsel and Sol Wisenberg, former Whitewater deputy independent counsel. All right, gentlemen, as I mentioned in THE ANGLE, the favor that Trump asked for was help investigating the 2016 election.

But hosts at CNN and MSNBC chose today and other Democrats said as well, chose today to lie about what that favor pertained. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trump then asks for a favor. I would like you to do with the paper he says, that the Ukrainian President get his government to investigate Joe Biden.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He said will you do me a favor and investigate Vice President Biden's son. Will you do me a favor and get involved in the 2020 election. Vice President Biden is my chief political opponent.


INGRAHAM: Lying on national television. Just moments ago, AOC repeated the lie on CNN.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: What we are talking about here is the President essentially participating in what looks like a series of events, that looks like extortion. Withholding aid to an ally and then "asking for a favor" to essentially benefit yourself politically.


INGRAHAM: Sol Wisenberg, what is this really all about here?

SOL WISENBERG, FMR DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, I think the President showed while the President showed extremely poor judgment in the phone call. I think you're right, it's a complete exaggeration of the conversation. As I said last night, I don't think it comes close to being an impeachable offense.

Understanding that the definition of an impeachable offense is somewhat amorphous is basically what a majority in Congress says is an impeachable offense. But historically, thematically, I don't think we're there and I think they harm themselves by grossly exaggerating what was - what was said in the conversation.

INGRAHAM: But Ken, my specific question is about this favor. When they - when they reference the favor, they kind of nailed it right into and he - and the favor was investigate Hunter Biden, Joe Biden because he's going to be his opponent in 2020. That was never said.

See, I actually read the transcript like five times today. That is not what said in and if either of you ever spoken to the President at length, it's usually a pretty freewheeling conversation in a good way because he has a lot on his mind. But he's thrown out a lot of things here but they are literally telling a falsehood night after night after night, in many ways.

But tonight specifically about that fact, Ken.

KEN STARR, FMR WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Yes. I think that the use of the term 'favor,' it's unfortunate. I agree with Sol. One can question the judgment, the wisdom of the call but my word, I think is wildly extravagant to say this somehow constituted a crime, a quid pro quo seeking a favor, some sort of effort to affect the elections of the United States, especially when and we're all trained to do this.

When we should this from our literature class. Read the entire transcript and the context is one of two world leaders having a conversation including about what Europe is not doing. You have to read a lot about what France is not doing. Angela Merkel was not doing. The context is critically important.

INGRAHAM: Right. What I want to as both of you though, I mean we have had conversations, Presidents having conversations with foreign leaders about corruption all the time. I mean this is - America is forever trying to get our allies or get people who are kind of our allies to do better.

Ask for - you know you guys should be investigating this. This is not out of the ordinary. When the Ukrainian President said you know, it's kind of normal stuff. I think most people have conversations like this at the high level. It's like 50,000 feet. I don't - I did't find this out of the ordinary at all. I really didn't.

STARR: Well, let me just say - and let me just say that President Zelensky was quite eloquent, I thought of this translation, talking about he wants honest government and you mentioned the open and candid dimension. So this does not seem like--

INGRAHAM: Is that what we want? Yes.

STARR: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: I mean, I don't think we should want anything else.

STARR: Right.

WISENBERG: You know Laura, I don't know policy--

INGRAHAM: Go ahead Sol.

WISENBERG: Sorry to interrupt. I don't know it's ordinary or not. I'm not usually purview to these conversations. That's - that's part of the problem but the President says, we have aided you a lot, it hasn't been reciprocal. Zelensky says some things and then the President says, you could do me a favor.

You're right, he doesn't talk at all about Biden right away but he gets around to Biden and he mentions - and he mentions Biden's son and he mentions it a few times. That's why I say, it's unfortunate, it's bad judgment, very bad judgment.

But it doesn't come close in my view to being a crime or to being impeachable and that's the problem.

INGRAHAM: I mean we're having words like extortion used, shake down, extortion. These terms aren't casually thrown around by even the lawyers, OK? And speaking of lawyers, the media have been desperately trying to tag and drag Bill Barr, the Attorney General, someone we all three of us know quite well into this foray. Take a look.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is Barr going to now recuse himself again? I don't see how he can't recuse himself in light of the fact that he's named.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think Attorney General Barr should absolutely recuse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A, it's not a conflict of interest and B, just looking at you Caitlyn, how can Bill Barr not recuse himself?


INGRAHAM: On a Level 1 to 10, 1 being the least likely, 10 being the most likely, that the Attorney General will recuse himself in this matter Ken, what do you gauge of that?

STARR: About a 2 to 3. I don't think it's a serious issue with respect to recusal. First of all, we now know, we've been informed that the President never reached out to the Attorney General directly or indirectly. That the Attorney General's had no communications with the Ukrainian government about all this.

And so we saw this, didn't we? In the Russia investigation and the Mueller report, the President asked for something to be done or says something to be done but it doesn't end up getting done. So there's no reason for Bill Barr to recuse himself.

INGRAHAM: And so Sol, folks over - hold on one second, folks over at CNN toay are saying we need a Special Counsel, OK? They're at Special Counsel 2.0. This is actual. If it weren't so serious, it whould be like a Saturday Night Live sketch if they had any balance sense of humor.

But this is what is being proposed by supposedly serious people.

WISENBERG: You know I promise never to use this--


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bill Barr is implicated in this call or at least you know, verbally being enlisted to assist in this effort. He's now in charge of evaluating whether this criminal referral has any merit under U.S. law. It's a conflict of interest so technically there should be Special Counsel 2.0.


INGRAHAM: Yes, we stepped on you a little bit Sol, but--


INGRAHAM: But your thoughts.

WISENBERG: No, I just - I promised never to use this word but all the old tropes, democratic tropes are coming out here and I think that he should not recuse himself. I think it's even less than what Ken talk about with the Mueller report because in the Mueller report, you had a couple of instances where the President asked somebody to do something and they didn't do it.

That's protecting him. Here the President never talked to Barr. Never asked Barr about anything. However, I think it's very important and this is really of all the things in the conversation that upset me the most is by mentioning the Attorney General, who has been very careful to set up the Durham investigation--

INGRAHAM: Which is looking into this by the way.

WISENBERG: Which is looking into FISA abuse. Looking into FISA abuse and into all the things that happened you know, against President Trump in the election. He's put this impeccable person of impeccable reputation, a career prosecutor in charge of it.

The Attorney General has said it all up so that we can have confidence in it and then for the President to say something in this in this investigation like I'm going to have my Attorney General, it's not a good thing to do.

INGRAHAM: No, I think he probably knew. Well, I think he - you know, we're all lawyers and we know the law. I mean, I think he probably maybe understood that this was being investigated already or was it - was in process of being investigated and he probably knew at some point they were going to likely talk to him.

Maybe that - I don't know but it was like Durham versus Barr. I think it's like a freewheeling conversation. I think the fact that we're releasing transcripts of our conversations with foreign leaders, I bet there a lot of foreign leaders out there who are very unhappy right now and I'm worried about what is going to do to the Presidency.

But great to have you both on tonight. Thanks so much. And Jim Jordan was one of the first Congressman to read the transcript of this call with Ukrainian President. Congressman Chris Stewart, just for you the actual whistleblower complaint. They're both here in moments.


INGRAHAM: All right, now that the Democrats are fully embracing impeachment, we want to take you through the next steps. Joining me now Chief Fox news national correspondent, Ed Henry. Ed.

ED HENRY, CHIEF FOX NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Laura, good to see you. Well, what's significant would be the numbers .The fact that now a majority of the 217 House Democrats are saying that they're in favor of some sort of impeachment inquiry but what comes next? What is specific?

It would be the House Judiciary Committee drafting articles of impeachment. What's interesting tonight is that there's a split among Democrats. You have some Democrats saying they want kind of a kitchen sink approach. They want to keep their base completely happy by having articles of impeachment about Russia and the Mueller probe, about hush payments to porn stars and Ukraine as well.

There's another camp and it appears that Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be leaning more in this direction tonight that wants to keep it narrowly focused on Ukraine because they believe they can move quicker - quicker on that and that it would also keep some of the more moderate Democrats who won swing districts, Trump districts in 2018 on board if you keep it just on Ukraine.

But look at the problem, two of those more moderate Democrats, were all with Martha McCallum earlier and they didn't seem to know what they're for. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have the votes to begin that official inquiry if you were to take a vote right now?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, right now it's not about starting an inquiry, it's about getting to the bottom of this and investigating.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that they were opening an official inquiry were her words and I think a lot of people want to know Congressman, who had why not vote on it if there's such a strong feeling about this?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am happy to take a vote - personal vote on the floor on articles of impeachment but first, we need to understand what if anything happened.


HENRY: So you see that they're saying, we don't necessarily want an impeachment inquiry. We want investigations even though there's been investigations of the President - President for well over two years. Interesting, Ted Lieu, a leading Democrat.

He said today "we have to act quickly but not in haste." That kind of seems to sum up where Democrats are right now. They can't quite decide how quickly.

INGRAHAM: It's kind of synonyms but all right. All right, stay right there and Fox has confirmed, about a dozen Republican lawmakers were there earlier today to read the transcript of Trump's Ukraine call before it was released. One of those lawmakers, House Oversight Ranking Member Jim Jordan joins me now along with Congressman Chris Stewart of the House Intel committee.

He just view the actual whistleblower document and Congressman, you have some breaking news for us tonight.

REP. CHRIS STEWART (R-UT): Well, we know that it's been declassified and been has been released. So it should be available for everyone to look at and I encourage everyone to go look at it. You know Laura, before I went in this morning, I was a little bit anxious actually.

I thought, are there going to be surprises? Is there going to be something in this? And I can tell you that after reading it, I'm much more confident tonight than I was this morning that this is going to be - this is going to go nowhere.

INGRAHAM: Well, what does it say?

STEWART: There's just no surprises there. The entirety of it is focused on this one thing and that's a transcript of one phone call. The transcript that was released this morning. There are some reports from the Wall Street journal and Politico and a couple of other things but they're all ancillary.

They have nothing to do with it. It is all just one thing, this one phone call that we've been talking about all day.

INGRAHAM: Right over at CNN, one of the other Congressmen ran out to the cameras after saying it from your committee had a different take. Surprisingly right? Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Deeply disturbing. It reinforces the concerns. The White House can selectively try to control the spend on stuff as they did with the Special Counsel's report when as you recall that Mr. Barr lied about what was in that report.

All I can tell you is they're doing the very same thing here.


INGRAHAM: OK, Congressman, what I'm confused about and I think a lot of people are. Did this whistleblower see the transcript somehow or was told by a friend? How did this whistleblower - I'm just curious about this?

STEWART: Well, that's an important question, isn't it? Because you would think firsthand knowledge would be important. He did not see it. He--

INGRAHAM: Or she - We have wagers about whether it's a woman or a man. I am--

STEWART: So I want to get in on that. Here she did not see it, did not read it, did not hear it. This was all second-hand knowledge and I said one thing, look, you know, Mr. Quigley, he just came on and claim that how dramatic this is. This is just nonsense. If you think this is dramatic, go read the transcript from this phone call and you tell me if you think that's dramatic.

Because I think most American people go what is this about and Laura, if I could make this point quickly, I don't care if there's 217 Democrats who are voting for impeachment. That does not matter. It's the American people that matter in this thing. And they look at what Richard Nixon and they go, that was wrong.

They look at what Bill Clinton did and they just intuitively know this was wrong but you have to explain to them well, for him to go talk to a foreign leader and to ask him to investigate corruption and most Americans go, I don't get it. Where's the crime?

INGRAHAM: I thought the Democrats cared about corruption, Congressman Jordan. For three years almost, you and I have been talking they care about corruption. ANGLE tonight I said, they don't care about it at all. They care about power. They want power back.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): And getting the President and what Chris just said is the central focus of the claims is the transcript, we all read today, that it and Nancy Pelosi is going to base an impeachment on that document?

Everyone should read this document. I hope all your viewers do because when you read it, there was no quid pro quo, there was no talk about aid or any type of favor. There was - the whistleblower - the whistleblower himself was not, as Chris just said, had no first-hand knowledge, wasn't part of the call and I bet he hasn't even seen the transcript until today.

INGRAHAM: And I want to--

JORDAN: But he did have a political bias against the President, that was clear. He told the Inspector General, he was out to get the President. So that's what their base was all about.

INGRAHAM: Is there any of that in this complaint. Do you have anything about the political bias?

STEWART: And once again, people are going to be able to read this. If you read this, it's snarky, it is - it claims something expansive. At the end of the day--

INGRAHAM: It's kind of doing - it sounds like the whistleblower is doing what some of the Democrats are doing in discussing what this is all about. I mean it's a spin always the worst possible like for the President.

STEWART: Yes, for sure and I mean, you can read this and it's pretty clear.

INGRAHAM: How long is it?

STEWART: 6 or 7 pages.

INGRAHAM: And is it - is it like hand written notes from the whistleblower?

STEWART: No, it's--

INGRAHAM: Interview notes type.

STEWART: You know, it's funny we were kind of laughing because it looks like a fusion GPS product actually.

JORDAN: Laura, here's what--

STEWART: It's a very well organized, well written document that makes one you know, one supposition but again, it's all based on this one thing, on this phone call.

INGRAHAM: So it is the phone call, it's not multiple other events because we read - earlier this week there were multiple events involving this.

JORDAN: This so called whistleblower--

INGRAHAM: This is wild.

JORDAN: - tells the inspector general some indicia of an arguable political bias. Now who the heck talks like that? You know what that sounds like? Remember, when they went to the FISA court and talked about the dossier, Candidate A, Candidate B.

That's exactly what this sounds like. So this is what Nancy Pelosi wants to base an impeachment inquiry on and what did - what did Mr. Zelensky, President Zelensky of Ukraine tell today?

INGRAHAM: We just played it.

JORDAN: He said he wasn't pushed. In fact he also said in that conversation. I want to drain the swamp in Ukraine just like you're draining it here Mr. President.

INGRAHAM: In Russian they say [inaudible] It's like normal. This is like - do me a favor, look in this corruption thing, you got to clean up this corruption. It was kind of a like that and Trump speak. That's what it was kind of like.

All right, Ed, you just heard from Congressman Stewart about this. Now we have this complaint is all released, it's unredacted, it's declassified released. You got the transcript which now they're complaining about saying it's not really a transcript, OK?

It's a conspiracy of the transcribers now so what are you hearing tonight? Do they worry they might have been over there skis a little bit, the Democrats?

HENRY: Some Democrats might be because of something important that Congressman Stewart just said when he said that the whistleblower complaint was largely about the phone call that we've now seen this transcript on because you're right, Laura.

A moment ago you said that a couple days ago there were news reports claiming that the whistleblower complaint was a whole lot more than the phone call, a series of incidents that maybe led this whistleblower to complain, to speak out, to say that there was a whole series of problems with the president. Congressman Stewart now saying it's largely about the call.

I spoke to a senior administration official tonight who told me that the other stuff the whistleblower talks about in the complaint is largely stuff you could've gotten from news clippings, stuff that's been in the public domain. So remember, and if the congressman can confirm that for us, originally a lot of people in the media presented this a couple days ago as this whistleblower inside the government saw things up close that really alarmed him or her. But instead I'm hearing from a senior administration official this quote-unquote whistleblower heard about the call secondhand, as you noted, but also heard about these other things that were already in the public domain, not stuff that the whistleblower has firsthand knowledge of.

INGRAHAM: Is that a lawyer for the whistleblower? You can get lots of lawyers in Washington, they're a dime a dozen, but is it like a Democrat activist lawyer, too?

REP. CHRIS STEWART, (R-UT) HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: And I want to just be clear on one thing. This isn't largely based on the transcript.

INGRAHAM: Entirely.

STEWART: It's entirely based. And there are reports. Like you said, there's some things from "Politico," from the "New York Times."

INGRAHAM: These are legitimate supposedly media organizations who ran with this narrative.

STEWART: But one again, nothing, zero, nothing on this was firsthand knowledge of any of these things.

INGRAHAM: But none of this is an impeachable offense. It is ludicrous.

It's looney tune central. I'm telling you, this is like, I'm thinking of Looney Tunes cartoons, remember, the little circle. Panel, fantastic conversation, as always. Thank you for the breaking news, Congressman, Congressman Jordan, Ed.

When Trump is pushing for transparency in this whole Ukraine ordeal, you would think some people would like get that corruption. But there's just one big mystery still left. Where is Hunter Biden? THE INGRAHAM ANGLE investigates next.


BERMAN: Joe Biden's son Hunter is smack dab in the middle of this whole Ukraine controversy. So I kept asking my staff where in the world is Hunter Biden? Where is he? Why aren't journalists desperately trying to find him, interview him, staking out his location, where he lives? Have they hung up their pens and pads? Are they out of the news business altogether? Not one media member finds it odd that Hunter Biden joined a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, despite having zero oil and gas expertise?


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: There is no evidence of anything having to do with Joe Biden or his son. The president is speaking as if there is. The president is hoping you will get distracted by that.


INGRAHAM: Now, none of them wonder why he got paid an astronomical $600,000 a year fee to consult?


TARA DOWDELL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: So their strategy is now to try to put the onus on Joe Biden to in fact distract and attack.


INGRAHAM: Surely red flags would go up when Joe Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor investigating his son's company fired, right?


SEN. BEN CARDIN, (D-MD): Joe Biden's issue has been looked at for a long time. There's been findings that there is no improper involvement. This is a distraction.



INGRAHAM: Nothing to see here. The real distraction is the media's refusal to cover this story.

Joining me now, Robert Ray, former Whitewater independent counsel, Byron York, chief political correspondent for the "Washington Examiner," FOX News contributor. Robert, from an investigator standpoint, all your experiencing in the legal world, you're one the most respected lawyers out there, isn't the Biden angle more troubling than what Trump is accused of?

Maybe having some exuberance, or Ken Starr and Sol were saying it's bad judgment to bring this up in a phone call. But being accused of that versus what Biden did?

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER SPECIAL COUNSEL: If anybody exercised mafia- like tactics to strongarm the Ukrainians, it was Joe Biden. Now, what the purpose of all of that was I suppose is subject still to some debate. I do know that Rudy Giuliani feels very strongly that there is not only smoke out there in the Ukraine but fire as well as to what exactly was going on with our where's Waldo candidate, Hunter Biden.

And although I do think, if I can differ with you for just a moment, as an investigator or otherwise, my sense is if Joe Biden remains the leading contender for the Democratic nomination, and I have my doubts about whether or not that will continue, because this is going to implode on everybody.

I don't think this issue is going to drop, and Hunter Biden and the vice president's role in all of this is going to be looked at. Whether in an official capacity or an investigative capacity by journalists, this is an irresistible subject matter, and it will be delved into.

INGRAHAM: Apparently Durham, of course the special prosecutor looking into it, is now, we found out today, looking into the Ukraine aspect of this pre-2016 -- all this funny business going on with perhaps the dossier and other dirt digging on President Trump.

RAY: That seemed to be what the president was hinting at. I'm not entirely sure I understand how that related. But somebody, and the only way I would think that that would have been obvious to the president would have been as a result of his discussions with Rudy Giuliani, who --

INGRAHAM: The CrowdStrike issue.

RAY: -- may be knows more than we know. And so ultimately somebody's going to find out about this.

INGRAHAM: Let's go to Byron on this. Byron, this has been a wild 48 hours. Seven lessons from 48 hours, it could have been like 20 lessons.

But this has been whipped up into an absolute frenzy. Hunter Biden, just on this issue for a moment, you find it odd that he's not even giving an interview to a friendly news organization. Where is he? Where does he live?


INGRAHAM: We've be tracking him, apparently last sighted in California, has lived in other locations, maybe lived overseas for a while, but he's living in California.

YORK: We don't have what are called stakeouts outside someone's house.

Ken Starr would know a lot about that. It happened every day. And actually today James Lankford, the Republican senator on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate said that an investigation of all this would have to start with the Bidens because we hear all the time that there's absolute no evidence that Joe Biden did any of this stuff, and yet we don't get the sense that people are digging very hard for it. So that is going to have to change if Democrats go ahead with what they are saying they are going to do, which is to impeach the president on this Ukraine issue.

INGRAHAM: And again, the fact that Hunter Biden has not appeared to give an interview on "Morning Joe" or like a friendly forum where they have coffee in the morning and hang out with your friends. It's bizarre, strange.

YORK: He did do a story with the "New Yorker" a few weeks ago, remember that, and everybody thought it was kind of a preemptive story to try to get --

INGRAHAM: It wasn't great, though.

YORK: It wasn't good but it probably wasn't complete either.

INGRAHAM: Not complete.

I also want to get back to this. Back in May, three Democrat senators, Menendez, Durbin, and Leahy, wrote to Ukraine demanding that they cooperate with investigations into the Trump campaign. And they heavily implied their support was to aid -- their aid to Ukraine was at stake in all of this. So ironically, Robert Ray, this is the exact behavior Democrats say is an impeachable offense even without the explicit quid pro quo that you could say, in a way, exists with the Democrat senators. So what is this we're talking about?

RAY: What this is about, of course, is about politics and much less about whether or not really there is an impeachable offense. I just listened recently on another network to AOC essentially claim that a basis for impeachment is deviation from our norms of democracy.


RAY: We don't impeach presidents based upon deviations from norms.

INGRAHAM: Must have missed that in law school.

RAY: And then the outer edge is other commentators claiming that this phone call represents the demise of our democracy. I'm sorry. I beg to differ. There is no quid pro quo. There is no treason. There is no bribery because the federal bribery statute doesn't apply to foreign government officials. There is extortion because there's no quid pro quo.

And there is no illegal campaign contribution because as the Department of Justice, we learned today, appropriately found asking somebody to open investigation does not constitute a thing of value. So end of story.

There's no crime.

INGRAHAM: Done, end of story. Byron, real quick, we're out of time. But where is this going to go next? Will they get the requisite number, hit the magic number, and then go to the articles of impeachment?

YORK: They're going to hit the magic number, but the question is, in a 1998, the House voted to open a formal impeachment inquiry, 31 Democrats sided with Republicans voting that way about Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi does not want to do that now. The rules do not require her to do that, but at some time, some Democrat is going to have to cast a vote on this issue.

INGRAHAM: And then they're going to have to go home to their constituents, most of them in most districts in swing areas, especially key states do not want it. Byron, Robert, phenomenal analysis.

And Democrats' impeachment gambit isn't just a desperate political play.

It could cost them dearly. So just how much are they risking? Former Clinton pollster Doug Schoen has all the details next.


INGRAHAM: So what will the fallout be if the Democrats fail in this impeachment gambit of theirs? Joining me now, Doug Schoen, former advisor to President Clinton, FOX News contributor, Harmeet Dhillon, Trump 2020 advisory board member. Doug, let's start with you. Explain for our audience exactly what the Democrats stand to lose here?

DOUG SCHOEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: They stand to lose the presidency and the House. They could blow it all. And I worked for Bill Clinton in 98, I saw the Republicans overreaching on impeachment then. It hurt them in the 98 congressional elections when we ran on progress, not politics. You saw the video that's been shown of the Democrats widely decrying the Republicans overreaching.

And having read the transcripts, heard about what the whistleblower said, there's no slam-dunk here, Laura. And if they go forward with an impeachment inquiry, which I don't think it's clear yet, but if they go forward and then vote, this could be curtains for the Democrats. And for Joe Biden, this is calamitous news, because this precludes him getting any positive message out.

INGRAHAM: I'm going to get to what's going to happen in certain swing districts in a second, but Harmeet, we don't have to play the soundbite, a lot of people have seen it, but Nancy Pelosi, in 1998 she was basically saying the American people don't want this, don't need it. It's fun to see Nancy 20 years ago. We all looked younger. But she said people are paralyzed with hatred, OK, because of their impeachment quest. Pot meet kettle. So Harmeet, any irony here, those old Democrat clips?

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY: Irony, I think, is beyond these folks. I think they are simply unprincipled and desperate, and that is reflected in their actions here. I've been saying for the last three years Nancy Pelosi has been one of the voices of reason in the Democratic Party. She's very shrewd. I don't think she wanted to do this, but I think she felt like she was being cornered by the leftwing of her party, and she gave in. I think it's going to go down in history as one of the dark days of her political judgment in going along with this, because, as Doug just said, the American people don't want it. The facts don't support it. This whistleblower complaint sounds to me like it was written by Fusion GPS. And it's really going to end up drawing very negative attention to the frontrunner in the Democratic race and really undermine the credibility of the Dems.

INGRAHAM: OK, let's even take Biden out of it. Every poll, including the newest polls released today, Quinnipiac, we'll put the numbers up, this is just not where people want to go. And this is it. It's this transcript.

We heard the whistleblower complaint is based on that transcript. That's it, OK? Look at these numbers. Look at these numbers, registered voters only 37 percent want impeachment, the people who are going to vote.

Doug, let's skip to Orange County. Let's go to Orange County, a little down the coast from Harmeet. She's up in San Fran with all the fun people.

And down in Orange County, all these swing districts, we were all kind of demoralized, Republicans, look at all these wonderful Republican districts, they all flipped Democrat. They all promised to be bipartisan. We are going to work with the president where we can agree. They have done none of that, and now they're all voting for impeachment? How is that going to work for California? Are you kidding me?

SCHOEN: Those districts were very, very close. The two and three in Orange County the Democrats won were by one percent or less. And candidly, given those independent numbers which were 34 yes, 58 no --

INGRAHAM: Terrible.

SCHOEN: That is a red flag. And I want the Democrats to win, Laura. You know that. I worked for some of those through an independent expenditure.

This would be a really bad move for those Democrats and other swing districts --

INGRAHAM: They have already given the nod to --

SCHOEN: They've given the nod to an inquiry. They haven't voted yes yet.

They could back off.

INGRAHAM: I think, Harmeet, you have got to force a vote.

DHILLON: That's right.

INGRAHAM: But my guess, if I have to guess, and it's just a guess, Pelosi is going to step back from this cliff. I think Harmeet is right. She is smarter than this.

SCHOEN: That's what I'm saying.

INGRAHAM: It can't be this easy for us, OK, for Republicans.

DHILLON: But Laura, but Laura, these lemmings are rushing over the cliff while Nancy is trying to slow play it. I don't think she can stop this train. I think she wants to. But I think they've gone too far, and it's going to --

INGRAHAM: I've got to go, got to go, got to go. AOC denies this is extortion, so that's end of story. She's gospel.

Coming up, Raymond Arroyo is here with a special "Seen and Unseen" impeachment edition.


INGRAHAM: Oh fun, it's time for are "Seen and Unseen," the impeachment edition. Outrageous media impeachment claims, huge stars return to a familiar script, and Raymond Arroyo and I go head-to-head. You've heard of a bakeoff. This is an impeach-off.


INGRAHAM: Joining us now with all the details, FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo. Raymond, you looked at the media coverage of this entire bogus claim of wrongdoing and a phone call that rises to impeachment. What have you found?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: We did. Laura, by way of comparison, OK, our producer Allie (ph) and I went back, and we looked at the way the media covered the last presidential impeachment. Watch the restraint, the caution, even the empathy the media had when Bill Clinton was the subject of congressional inquiry back in 1998.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In Washington this evening, supporters of the president are reeling.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The president's focus will again be on foreign affairs, but much of the focus in Washington is on the airing of his videotape grand jury testimony.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shortly after the jurors were sworn, the president unveiled a new education proposal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After a lifetime of striving for a celebrated rank among American presidents, this diligent student of history was handed his place.


ARROYO: Now compare that to what we've seen --


INGRAHAM: That is hilarious.

ARROYO: -- in the last 24 hours. Watch this.

INGRAHAM: That's funny.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He will abuse any power of the presidency to make sure he gets reelected.

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This just came up a few minutes ago. The --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We hate to do this really, but the president isn't telling the truth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is worse than I think people expected.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republicans on the Hill loathe, loathe, I can't say it enough, they loathe Donald Trump.


INGRAHAM: They loathe the media. And that flashback is worth the price of admission.

ARROYO: This is judge, jury, and executioner. The media showed such restraint, caring, even empathy when they reported Bill Clinton. This is why I believe when you look at the polls, the "Columbia Journalism Review" did a poll, they found of all the institutions in America, the price was the lowest in confidence among people.

INGRAHAM: Shocker.

ARROYO: And it's dropping.

INGRAHAM: Laura, News Lists Co have compiled 89 things Democrats say Trump should be impeached for. They include for saying some countries are s- holes, and because the Virginia governor wore blackface. Maxine Waters has said Trump should be impeached for not being respectful and for creating division and chaos.

Herein lies the problem. The media has done a horrible job, Laura, of explaining impeachable offenses, crimes and misdemeanors, and, frankly, they've offered these silly impeachable offenses up, and they go unchallenged.

INGRAHAM: Maybe we should do our own impeach-off. I guess the blackface was about Northam being impeached.

ARROYO: Right, right, that Trump somehow inspired Northam back in college days. That is crazy.

INGRAHAM: That doesn't even make sense. OK, an impeach-off.


INGRAHAM: I'll go first.

ARROYO: You go.

INGRAHAM: The president wore golf attire into a church in northern Virginia, clearly breaching presidential protocol, and offensive to God, man, and the Constitution.


ARROYO: OK, I'm going to impeach one-up you. I believe the president shamelessly subverted and undermined authority of the National Park Service when he allowed this 11-year-old civilian to cut the White House lawn in 2017. Did he break underage worker laws, Laura? Did the president pay taxes on the tip he gave the child? A congressional inquiry of lawn-gate is clearly needed.

INGRAHAM: Did he pay taxes on the tip? I'm losing that thread.


INGRAHAM: This is live T.V. What about the length of his ties, Raymond?

Think about what could happen. I find it impeachable that the tie goes a little below the belt, meaning in a fire emergency he could put others in danger by tripping, causing the Secret Service to reach down, pull him up, causing harm to the nation. That is clearly an impeachable offense.

ARROYO: It's a terrible, terrible offense. And there's one more, Laura, that I just thought of. What if last week we saw the photographic evidence that the president is careless with money? Look at this video. No wallet, no paper clip, no money clip, no rubber band. The president just shoves currency in his back pocket. It's clear he's getting ready to bribe somebody, Laura.

INGRAHAM: You can't see it, but he has a wad of currency.

ARROYO: The Federal Reserve is going to have to immediately inquire.

INGRAHAM: You won the impeach-off.

ARROYO: Thank you, thank you.

INGRAHAM: Last bite, next.


INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite.

All right, well, she is surging in the polls, and the media is enthralled by her every word, but Elizabeth Warren was caught off guard tonight when a reporter asked her this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Under a Warren administration, would your vice president's child be allowed to serve on the board of a foreign company?



WARREN: I don't -- I don't know. I mean, I have to go back and look at the details.


INGRAHAM: Can I buy a vowel (ph)? Apparently, she doesn't have a plan for that.

That's all the time we have tonight. Good for that reporter. We'll find out who that is.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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.