This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 28, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

INGRAHAM: Fantastic show. All right, I'm Laura Ingraham. This is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE from another rollicking Washington tonight. The President's impeachment defense rested today and went out with a bang. A member of that team Robert Ray is here. He's going to tell us what to expect next.

Also, Adam Schiff threw a temper tantrum following the proceedings. Our legal eagles plus Congressman Lee Zeldin and Steve Scalise are here to react. And as the conversation moves to witnesses, we have two lawmakers on the frontlines of that debate. Senators Marsha Blackburn and James Lankford are both here.

Plus, THE INGRAHAM ANGLE brings you another investigation tonight. We have new information about how the person supposedly behind the entire Trump impeachment effort might have tried to take out the President well before that. But first, the Democrats mood Schiff, that's the focus of tonight's ANGLE.

What a difference 24 hours makes. Yesterday, Democrats and their media allies were positively giddy using phrases like blockbuster revelation, bombshell leak and impeachment game-changer. Well, they were sure that a story about John Bolton's new book would be enough to convince four Republicans to keep this twisted trial going. But today after the Trump defense team wrapped up its arguments even yielding back time to the Senate, the mood on the Left seems to have well shifted. Or should I say it, Adam shifted.


SEN. ANGUS KING (D-ME): I was more optimistic yesterday morning than I am now. I talked to some of my colleagues last night, a sort of feeling that I was getting was that they're linking arms and they're going to say no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right now, the Republicans feel good. The White House feels good.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The universe of Republicans, it hasn't really expanded.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you anticipate that they're going to vote against witnesses.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I bet; predictions are dangerous especially when they're about the future. But it seems unlikely


INGRAHAM: Boy, and the faces aren't just sad over at CNN. If a picture is worth a thousand words as they say, Chuck Schumer's face read like a soldier needs a novel. What a pain and the suffering there. And on the witnesses' question, does he sound like a man whose party is winning.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Well, one at a time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bottom line sir, do you believe that we're going to get witnesses?

SCHUMER: Look, I hope that we have just four Republicans, all we need is four who rise to the occasion and say we need to find out the truth.


INGRAHAM: Can we rerack that again please.


SCHUMER: One at a time.


SCHUMER: I've been looking for a new ringtone and that's a good one. But wait, what about the faces of the House managers after the White House Counsel finished his argument. They put in all that time and effort trying to take the President out of office, were they brimming with optimism? Well, only in the land of fraudulent impeachments would the lead House manager complain that the other side didn't spend more time arguing their case.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well to begin this afternoon with a few observations on the rather abrupt end to the President's case, it's clear I think today that they are still reeling from the revelation of John Bolton's book and what he has to save.


INGRAHAM: You're complaining that the other side didn't use all their time and then he grasped at another irrelevant straw. Something that John Kelly said at a speech in Florida.


SCHIFF: The President's own former Chief of Staff General Kelly has stated that he believes John Bolton. The President's own former Chief of Staff believes John Bolton and by implication does not believe the President of the United States.


INGRAHAM: OK. I have a question. Did the Democrats really think this was going to work that they were going to be able to invalidate the last election and steal this next one by just simply citing public statements of former White House staffers. And without the defense team turning the tables on the House managers themselves.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: By these actions, you would undo the free election that express the will of the American people. You will damage the faith the American people have in this institution and in the American democracy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will reap the bitter harvest of the unfair partisan seeds you sow today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They must never be a narrowly voted impeachment. Such an impeachment will produce the divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My fear is that when a Republican wins the White House, Democrats will demand payback.


INGRAHAM: Now, even the resistance media had to admit that using the Democrat's own words against them. Well, it worked.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought it was an effective set of zingers. And I bet the Republicans really enjoyed listening to it.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Yes, it was awkward because a lot of what these Democrats were saying then, specifically included at least two of the House managers, Jerry Nadler and Zoe Lofgren. They say the opposite today.


INGRAHAM: Yes. That's called turning the tables on them, Wolf. So now, the liberal media was basically just left clinging to their new life. And then they merrily echoed what Schiff had said earlier about Kelly.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly says that he believes John Bolton's claim. Kelly also said he thinks Bolton is a man of integrity and should be heard from.


INGRAHAM: Last time I checked, General Kelly, I like him. I think he's a great guy, but he's not a senator who gets to vote on witnesses, Jake. But I think someone needs to send that memo to Jerry Nadler as well.


ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Who are the witnesses your side will be seeking?

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Well, John Bolton. Certainly. Maybe now, John Kelly.

MELBER: Have you discussed the idea of calling General Kelly with other managers or senators?



INGRAHAM: OK, so John Kelly, a guy who hasn't even been at the White House for over a year. Now, he's going to save the Democrats impeachment crusade. Well, OK, if that doesn't work, they always have the Quinnipiac poll.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Believe me, that's an intense caucus going on right now. They're all listening to each other.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's the chances they've seen in the new 75 number from Quinnipiac?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I say pretty damn good to deprive witnesses is utter insanity from a political perspective. You've only got, I think, 51 to 54 percent that are behind his immediate removal from office. But 75 percent around witnesses is political suicide.


INGRAHAM: What they aren't telling you is that 97 percent of the GOP is opposed to removing Donald Trump from office. So those four moderate GOP senators were wringing their hands tonight and navel gazing the Hamlet routine. Well, they should take note, because this is how Donald Trump was received when a record crowd showed up when he took the stage at a rally in New Jersey tonight.


INGRAHAM: So, who exactly do these moderate senators think they're actually appealing to, if it turns out they vote to prolong this impeachment farce, are they appealing to those people or these people? Yes, CNN, MSNBC, the panelists there, Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper, et cetera, et cetera.

Look, they don't have the votes to remove Trump. Democrats don't have those votes. Everyone on television was conceding that today. So, what is the point of doing this to the country?

Well, as they did during the Kavanaugh fight, they just want to drag this out in hopes that the next news cycle will bring them some man from heaven to damage the President before the first ballots are cast.

Our reporter at the New Jersey rally tonight tells us that they're serving drinks called Magaritas, and subpoena-coladas. Very cheeky, all over Wildwood, New Jersey. Should these moderate Republicans vote to help Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler prolong this national nightmare? There won't be enough booze in all of New Jersey to soothe the political pain coming their way. That will be political suicide. And that's THE ANGLE.

Joining me now is Sol Wisenberg, former Deputy Independent Counsel, Bob Barr, former Clinton Impeachment Manager, and John Eastman, Claremont Institute Senior Fellow, Constitutional Scholar.

John let's start with you. Now, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney or any of the other witnesses, sorry, I should add, General Kelly, who's really relevant to this conversation, do any of them change the underlying facts of this case that night after night, we've been laying out.

JOHN EASTMAN, CLAREMONT INSTITUTE SENIOR FELLOW: No, and I think Alan Dershowitz and Jay Sekulow today made that point, even if the leaked story about what they claim, Bolton says in his unpublished manuscript is true, that the President withheld the aid a bit in order to try and get investigation of Biden, I think Pam Bondi's testimony yesterday really manifestly clear, clearly showed why that was a perfectly appropriate thing to do, because there is massive evidence of corruption that we ought to be looking at in this country. And so even if what the leak says, Bolton said, he said, is true, it shouldn't alter the outcome here because it's not an impeachable offense.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second, John. What does John Kelly think about all of this? I'm sorry, I'm stuck on the John Kelly thing.

EASTMAN: Even if Kelly thinks--

INGRAHAM: It's the funniest thing I've ever heard.


INGRAHAM: It's like Kelly was at a cafe overheard someone else. Oh, no. All right, Bob, here's our House manager, Zoe Lofgren reconciled her about face on impeachment.


REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Future presidents will face election, then litigation, then impeachment.

I look so young and thin.

BLITZER: That was 21 years ago.

LOFGREN: So that was exciting. The ravages of time. Republicans then took the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors, struck out the word high and replaced it with any. And that was the problem that I was trying to address at that time. There was no high crime and misdemeanor.


INGRAHAM: So, Bob, you handled the Clinton impeachment. Is she right? And it's different now.

BOBB BARR, FORMER CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: Well, I remember her then, and what she's saying now is the exact opposite. And really, it's - you've got to look at this with a sense of humor, Laura. And it really is funny to see these Democrats twist themselves around in circles like pretzels, trying to explain why what they said then is not really what they meant now.

And the only dangerous one in all this, it isn't Schiff, it isn't Lofgren, it isn't Hakeem Jeffries. It's Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer is a very crafty, very mean-spirited street fighter. And he knows that if he can peel off some of these squishy Republicans, which he may very well do, he can keep this charade going for longer and longer and longer, which is what they want. There is no end game to what they're doing here. It is simply to go after Trump endlessly.

And then maybe it will bring in something that Rex Tillerson said last month when he was in Texas, overheard - you get the point, what I am doing. I mean they're just - every day they're hoping that someone says something in the stratosphere of the former Trump staffers that they can advance our argument with. And Sol, this is what was said on CNN today about the recognition that there's no way they're going to ever have 67 senators to vote to remove this President. Watch.


JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I don't think there is any chance that regardless of what John Bolton said, there will be 67 votes. But I don't think that's the standard. I think the standard is, are you going to have a trial or not? Are you going to have a trial where the facts in dispute are addressed?


INGRAHAM: Sol, is that the standard, whether you're going to have a trial or not?

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: It was never about removing him. Laura, they knew they were never going to be able to remove him. It's about damaging him in the upcoming election. And so, the longer you can have a trial, the more witnesses you can get, the better your opportunities are. But I just - I personally, as a citizen of this country, I demand to hear from General Kelly, and I want to know what he has to say about the Third Amendment.

INGRAHAM: John, isn't it? It's not funny because what is being done to our Constitution, our entire representative democracy, if this thing is allowed to keep going. It is enormously toxic for the republic? I'm trying to create some moments of levity here, because otherwise I'll get beyond. I'm enraged about this.

When I went to the Senate chamber, I was at gallery. I was enraged. First time, I was enraged and fell asleep. Second time, I was enraged and forced myself to sit through it. But I heard both sides and I was still enraged. Go ahead.

EASTMAN: Well, and you ought to be. Look, they have turned this into the very thing the founders feared that if you admit in these nebulous charges, it's comparable to what they rejected at the convention, maladministration. And you turn impeachment into a perpetual political weapon and that destroys the possibility of any collaborative effort toward the common good.

I just wanted to ask Zoe Lofgren, though, if she thinks the Republicans back in 1998 got rid of the word high crimes, a misdemeanor, they've gotten rid of the word crimes. They don't think even need a crime as long as they can put enough stuff out there. We don't like what he was doing. That's enough for an impeachment.

We cannot have that as a standard or the President will no longer be an independent constitutional officer. He will simply be answerable to whatever the latest majority is in Congress.

INGRAHAM: Yes, the whims of Congress. If they dislike a policy or several policies, just moved to impeach him on some leaked so-called whistleblowers account and then be done with it. Gloria Borger today is an esteemed constitutional scholar, as you know, Bob Barr. And she made a point about Pat Cipollone's closing argument. Your reaction after we play it,


GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Cipollone's closing argument about, we're close to an election. Why would you undo an election? Does that mean that the Constitution to be interpreted that you can't impeach a president in an election year? There's nothing in the Constitution,

So, he's making the point to the American public.


INGRAHAM: Well, I think he was actually making the point to the Senate, but the American public deserves the right to vote. But does she have any merit to her point there, Bob?

BARR: Well, she has about as much merit to her point as Zoe Lofgren did to hers. Absolutely not. What we had in the Clinton impeachment and then the trial back 21 years ago was a President who had already been reelected. It was not about an election back then. It was about high crimes and misdemeanors, proven crimes that the President had committed.

This case, what they are trying to do is two-fold. One, simply on the off chance that they can defeat Trump, which I don't think they really believe they can, which is why Schiff was saying, well, you know, if we don't remove him now, you can't trust the election. You know, he might as well have said, hey, we know we're going to lose this thing come the fall.

But the second thing that they're trying to do is they're trying to devalue and diminish Trump's credibility going forward in the same way that they did with Justice Kavanaugh. That's what it's really about, reducing their credibility.

INGRAHAM: All right, Sol.

BARR: Even though they know they're going to lose.

INGRAHAM: Sol, really quickly here. I think it's also, believe it or not, about the Supreme Court. If they get another vacancy before the election, this will be another argument that they can make to say, we're not going to let this go forward. There's no way you can because he's an impeached President. I think they're thinking down the road on that as well, possibly.

WISENBERG: I think you're right. And keep this in mind. There's a difference between conduct that the framers might say, well, that's within the realm of what could be impeachable and removing a President. There's a difference. And I think it's completely legitimate to say, even if we don't like what the President did, we're not going to remove him from office. And it's very relevant that the removal would be 10 months before an election and the framers would have understood that.

INGRAHAM: Gentlemen, thank you very much. Great to see all of you tonight. And the President's legal team, as I said, rested its case today. So how did it compare with the Democrats closing arguments. Last week, House manager Jerry Nadler ended things on a decidedly dower note.


NADLER: Will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president's misconduct?

(Senate Impeachment Trial)

A treacherous vote.


INGRAHAM: Not a way to win friends and influence people. Well, instead of insulting the Senate, White House Chief Counsel Pat Cipollone of course, ended with this.


PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: You know what the right answer is in your heart?

(Senate Impeachment Trial)

Every confidence in your wisdom.


INGRAHAM: Well, now that the oral arguments are over, what happens next, Robert Ray is a member of Trump's legal team. He joins us now. Robert, I'm so tired of covering this. I get Cipollone's name pronunciation wrong. How good is that? Where do we go from here?

ROBERT RAY, COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think that we are in the process of counting votes to see whether or not there will be witnesses. And I imagine for many senators, how the questioning goes and the answers that are given over the next two days may have some bearing. It's obviously their judgment to make and we'll know the answer, presumably on Friday, probably after a very, very long day of debate relative to that question.

INGRAHAM: Now, Robert, there was a lot of jawboning about the fact that Pat decided to yield back a lot of his time, like CNN and MSNBC. Well, we expect him to speak for an hour and a half, two hours. But I thought it was really quite smart for him to - what else we're going to say, it's basically so obvious that we're going to give you the luxury of time back, which I think a lot of these senators probably really liked.

RAY: I think they appreciated it. I think we also did what we promised we would do at the outset. Look, the bottom-line as you have recognized for some time. We don't have trials just as sort of roving fact gatherers to decide anything under the sun. The task at hand is to have a trial to determine whether or not it's appropriate to remove the President from office. End of story.

Once you've made your argument with regard to that question, which is, after all, the only question to be decided, I think it's time to sit down and let the senators - and put your faith and trust in them, as Pat Cipollone said at the end, and respect and abide by their wisdom. They're the people's elected representatives in this body. And that's what they're - that's what they're elected to do.

INGRAHAM: And I thought it was really refreshing that after Nadler's basically accusing the Senate of being co-conspirators with Trump and Cipollone comes along and says, why don't we all start to work together? Why don't the Republicans and Democrats start working together for the common good? Do the things that you were sent here to do that was actually really inspiring, I thought. And I think people who aren't really political watch that this probably saying to themselves, yes, that sounds pretty good.

RAY: Sure, it does. And I will say also, you know, in connection with your panel, this very question, by the ways not in a vacuum. During the Andrew Johnson impeachment, since it was very close to the end of Andrew Johnson's unexpired term that occurred as the result of the assassination of President Lincoln, they clearly and intently focused on the question, why would we want to remove a President from office when there is an election coming up.


RAY: And as a result of that, Ulysses Grant was elected President. So, don't tell me that the--

INGRAHAM: All right. Robert, we've got to get out, but I appreciate you coming on tonight.

RAY: Sure.

INGRAHAM: Get some rest. And up next, Senate Democrats believe they might be able to get Bolton to testify, but will they?


INGRAHAM: Now, the other networks are hyping a report that Mitch McConnell doesn't have the votes to block the Senate from calling impeachment trial witnesses. To kind of focus on the wording of that. It's a lot more nuanced. The Hill is reporting tonight that, Republican senators emerged from a caucus meeting Tuesday voicing confidence they will win in a vote later this week that would block new witnesses from being called.

Joining me now to tell us more is Oklahoma Senator James Lankford, along with Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn. Senator Lankford, what is the state of play tonight?

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): Oh, we're walking through the process, about to do two full days of questions at this point. You know, we've done three days from one side, three days and the other side. Now we're going to do two full days of questions, then have a vote on Friday on witnesses. I mean, that's the block at this point. Everyone who's trying to guess where everyone is going to go. I think we'll know on Friday and whenever it lays it out. But everyone's getting their questions answered. And that's the key thing at this point.

Any unanswered questions get resolved. They would make a determined--

INGRAHAM: There was a big talk about a swap, I think a witness swap. And was your name thrown around to hatch this plan about a swap?


INGRAHAM: Sounds like a hostage swap.

LANKFORD: I'm not--

INGRAHAM: Except we're being held hostage.

LANKFORD: Yes, I'm not trying to do a witness swap.

SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): We don't need witnesses.

LANKFORD: Either one on it. I float around the issue that we're all trusting in a New York Times story to be able to give us accurate information. It'll be the first time Republicans trust The New York Times to try to give us all accurate information. But to be able to say from that story that they heard from someone, who told someone, who told someone, who's trying to be able to bring it out. What I floated is say, you know what just let us read that section of the book. There was a manuscript sitting over there. Let us read that section of the book and let's just solve. This is not hard.


INGRAHAM: Senator Blackburn, to watch this and I was there for a couple of days.


INGRAHAM: And then today to see, mercifully, the President's defense team rest their case to step back and say, you know, we're not going to torture the American people or the Senate. We're not going to insult you, as you saw Nadler do. Saying you guys are basically treacherous. You're treacherous.

Now, they couldn't find treason, high crimes or misdemeanors for President Trump, but they're going to accuse all - you all and threaten Romney, Collins, Murkowski and Lamar Alexander with being traitors, too.

BLACKBURN: Well, and I think we have to keep in mind, all of this about witnesses is to prolong the trial. Get it into that last 90 days of the election. Keep people here that are running for re-election so that Chuck Schumer can be majority leader. That's what this is about.

And what we also know is if the Senate we've been dutiful. We made notes. We've done preparation. We've got our questions ready to go. And we've paid attention to make certain that we do impartial justice and that we conduct a fair trial. That is what we have done.

And then, you know, Friday we'll get around to table--

INGRAHAM: People have to understand - sorry to interrupt. People have to also get this a vote on witnesses doesn't mean there will be witnesses. And again, so people understand this. It's kind of arcane rules in the Senate. But once you take a vote for witnesses, let's say you get four Republican senators say, yes. Then you have to vote on each individual witness. Correct.

LANKFORD: Every set of documents, every witness--

INGRAHAM: So, when they call Adam Schiff as the first witness. And then the second witness is the whistleblower. And then the third witness is Hunter Biden and the fourth witness is Joe Biden, it's each has to be voted on independently. Correct?

LANKFORD: But you would do a long series of vote, then you'd start lining up positions--

INGRAHAM: This is going to be fun. We'll be here till May.

BLACKBURN: And every set of documents.

INGRAHAM: Right. So, this is May. We're talking April or May.


INGRAHAM: This is not going to be done in February. This is April or May. That's when this thing wraps up.

LANKFORD: And the vote on Friday is about do we need additional information, do we have all the information we need. That's really what it is. It's not about do we need witnesses. The House already gave us 12 witnesses, they interviewed 17, we have all kinds of documents. It just asks the question, do we need additional witnesses or do we have everything that we need?

INGRAHAM: Once again, there was a really surprising story today, I know our viewers want to hear this, from "The L.A. Times" that Dianne Feinstein was leaning toward acquittal. She said we are in a republic, we are based on the will of the people, the people should judge. But then it didn't take long, did it, for Feinstein to walk this back on Twitter. How do you walk that back? Saying in part "The L.A. Times" misunderstood what I said," or maybe the staff didn't like it. Anyway, "it's clear the president's actions were wrong. That can't be allowed to stand. "Politico" is reporting that three Democratic senators, Sinema, Doug Jones, and Joe Manchin, might vote for acquittal tonight. What are the chances, Senator Lankford?

LANKFORD: That would be terrific to be able to see. It would actually be the first time in American history that a Democrat broke from their party on an impeachment vote. That has never occurred in American history. The Democrats have always voted as a block, never have broken once. And if we have even a single Democrat break it will be historic to be able to see them break from their party.

INGRAHAM: And on McConnell, we heard from Claire McCaskill today, she was one of your former colleagues, she was complaining that McConnell only cares about one thing. Watch.


CLAIRE MCCASKILL, (D) FORMER SENATOR: Mitch McConnell cares about power more than anything else. He is making one of the biggest gambles of his career because he's gambling that if he forces these guys into the bit and makes them vote against witnesses, he can hold onto the majority leader position.


INGRAHAM: Was their arms twisted and dropped all over the floor, appendages after your caucus? It was tense?

SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN, (R-TN) SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Not at all. It wasn't tense. Leader McConnell does a great job laying it out. He is a very diligent leader. He understands where people are in this process. What we do know is that this is all about power and control for the Senate Democrats, for the House Democrats, and it has nothing to do with let's do write for the country. It's about relitigating 2016, pre-litigating 2020.

INGRAHAM: We've got bridges that are rusted out, Senator Lankford. We have airports that are dilapidated. Meanwhile you fly over Europe, gleaming new airports, high-speed rail, and the American people are saying we are paying for this? To me, money to Ukraine, whatever you think about that, a lot of people don't even agree with money to Ukraine, a lot of Americans say, what are we doing here?

LANKFORD: We a spent $32 million on the Mueller Report, and now we're spending millions of dollars being able to chase this one down, and the American people are saying let's get back to business. Let's deal with the issues that we want to be able to deal with, what we elected people to do. They have an expectation we are going to govern and that we're actually going to solve some of these problems. There are a lot of great solutions that are out there. We would love to be able to talk about any of them, love to be able to work on judicial nominations, love to be able to do all those things, but we are tied up in impeachment. And Schumer's goal is to be able to get as many witnesses, as many documents, many requests, and say do in the Senate what they didn't do in the House, and stretch this out as long as possible.

BLACKBURN: It's outside of our jurisdiction. And Professor Dershowitz --

INGRAHAM: We are we even talking about this? He doesn't care about jurisdiction. This is about nicking and cutting on lacerating Donald Trump before the election. That's all this is about. They all admit they are not going to convict him.

BLACKBURN: They don't want him on the ballot. They don't want him on the ballot.

INGRAHAM: So was Cipollone right when he said this is about disenfranchising about 65 million Americans from their right to pick the president of their choice?

BLACKBURN: That's exactly right.

LANKFORD: That's exactly what it is. And what was interesting is Cipollone He brought up something most people don't know. This is not just the first vote is to remove the president, the second vote, if they get that, is to make sure his name is not on the ballot, to literally to remove his ballot. That's what they have set up at this point, to be able to say take him off and don't allow him to even run.

INGRAHAM: Who is election meddling now?

LANKFORD: Yes. And you have four people running for that office sitting in the chamber taking him out.

BLACKBURN: Who did not recuse themselves.

INGRAHAM: Adam Schiff under the model rules of professional conduct, ABA's rules, 3.7, Adam Schiff should not have been allowed to argue the case because under the ABA's rules he is a fact witness. He should not be allowed to argue that case. It's enough of a trial that those rules should apply here.

BLACKBURN: And if we go to witnesses, we will call him.

INGRAHAM: Senator, great to see you. And I know how tired you are. Thank you for being with us. You got a little reprieve today, back at it tomorrow. We'll check back with you.

All right, do the moderate Republicans, do they think this madness is ever going to stop? When I say madness, I mean the push to relentlessly investigate Trump or anyone ever connected to him. Congressman Steve Scalise and Lee Zeldin are here next on what is at stake. Stay with us.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If the Senate decides not to call witnesses, would you guys consider bringing John Bolton back to the House?

REP. STENY HOYER, (D) HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: We still need to consider what action what action we would take. I don't want to speak of what action we would take, but we would consider it.


INGRAHAM: I thought that was a commercial for Visiting Angels for a while. I didn't know we came back from the break. The idea of a never-ending crusade to remove Trump by any means is not new, but perhaps it deserves more scrutiny tonight. Just listen to the latest ramblings from the original impeachment monger, Auntie Maxine.


REP. MAXINE WATERS, (D) CALIFORNIA: We will not stop. Whether or not that leads to another impeachment activity, I don't know. But I know we must continue with the work that our constituents have elected us to come to Congress to do.


INGRAHAM: Was this the work people elected you to do? OK. And who can forget Congressman Al Green's threat last month that Trump can be impeached more than once.

Joining me now is Steve Scalise, House Minority Whip, and Lee Zeldin, House Foreign Affairs Committee member. Congressman Zeldin, shouldn't this fact alone to be enough to convince the fence-sitting senators?

REP. LEE ZELDIN, (R-NY) HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Absolutely. Talking about opening a door. And it's not just John Bolton, it's Mick Mulvaney, and they mentioned Rob Blair and Robert Duffey. They say Nadler is talking about John Kelly.

INGRAHAM: Impeachment scrabble.

ZELDIN: Omarosa next. There's no limit to it. Then on the other side, what about all the Republican witnesses who we got shut out of during the House process.

INGRAHAM: What is your dream list? Give me your absolute dream list of witnesses.

ZELDIN: I want to hear from Hunter Biden. I want to hear from the whistleblower. I think Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are material fact witnesses.

INGRAHAM: They should go first. Should they not go first?

ZELDIN: Yes. And as we're going through these next couple of days, the format is little different, but I would like to see some of these questions -- I have a question for Adam Schiff. I want to know about the contacts of his team with the whistleblower. The fact that his team was in touch with the whistleblower before the person had a whistleblower attorney or even filed a whistleblower complaint, that list goes long. Those are just four, but you keep going down a list. You want to open that door, let's open that door.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Scalise, this has gotten out of hand. Today they were so dejected that they had to reference former chief of staff who wasn't even here when that this Ukraine thing was happening, John Kelly, saying now they want him to testify. To what, his feeling about Bolton?

REP. STEVE SCALISE, (R-LA) HOUSE MINORITY WHIP: Laura, they are like in this impeachment funk right now because they realize how devastating it is for them. Keep in mind, though, they are the party of impeachment. Democrats own this thing now. The country has tuned it out. The country is saying why aren't you focusing on things that matter to me?

When President Trump was elected, over 100 Democrats voted to impeach him because he criticized NFL players who kneeled for the Pledge of Allegiance. That was a record vote on the House floor to impeach a president for that. That's how bad they are in this.

But imagine this contradiction, too, and where they are. Next week, Laura, next Wednesday, a whole class of Fentanyl drugs that are killing Americans, Fentanyl drugs that are currently illegal --

INGRAHAM: Coming from China, let's add that.

SCALISE: -- putting people in jail today, those drug dealers, that Fentanyl becomes legal next week because the legal ban on that expires. There was a bill that passed the Senate unanimously to keep those drugs illegal.


SCALISE: So those drug dealers who are killing families in every community in this country, President Trump is putting the drug dealers in jail today. Next week he can't put those drug dealers in jail because Pelosi won't bring that bill that passed unanimously in the Senate.

INGRAHAM: Is that part of the strategy, though, to lock this town up so Trump cannot chalk up any more achievements? That might be the method to their evil madness.

SCALISE: But they're the ones ultimately, where that -- that damages on their hands.

INGRAHAM: Will they have blood on their hands?

SCALISE: Every single person who dies from those illegal drugs, when you can't put that drug dealer in jail next week that you could put in jail today --

INGRAHAM: Whose fault is that going to be?

SCALISE: It's all on Nancy Pelosi's hands. She won't bring bills like that. We have a bill to lower drug prices, every Democrat supports it, President Trump would sign it. They're not bringing that to the floor.

INGRAHAM: Tim Kaine actually admitted something today on questioning about the defense's closing argument.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you not find the most compelling argument that the president's team makes is that it's an election year, the election is close, the voters could have this decision?

SEN. TIM KAINE, (D-VA): I think that is an argument that is a powerful one.


INGRAHAM: He went on to say some other things. But I don't care what these polls say, 50 percent -- I don't believe any of these polls. I just don't. What I believe is that the American people want this town to end the swamp, drain it, corruption gone, and stop this madness. I think people want this stopped.

ZELDIN: They want it done. The country is over this, they are ready to move on. And there has been talk about what's going to happen in the future if you have a Republican House and a Democratic president, we've heard that over and over. What about the next day after your remove the president? Our republic, the damage, the destruction that you're causing in that moment when you take half the country and you basically tell them their vote doesn't count.

INGRAHAM: You think they're going to let Pence sit there? No way. No way.

SCALISE: But thank God we have a president in Donald Trump who is not buying into all this. Today he's at the White House with Prime Minister Netanyahu working on presenting a plan for true peace in the Mideast with a two-state solution that includes a Palestinian state if Palestinians agree to drop support of terrorist groups. And look at what the president is doing not just with the economy but, again, on the world stage with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

INGRAHAM: Is there anyone that the president won't work with for peace and prosperity?

SCALISE: He's proven it. He will work with anybody, and he gets results.

INGRAHAM: Even the Democrats. Even the Democrat impeachment types.

ZELDIN: Today's announcement, there was a message to the Palestinians. Like listen, give us your feedback.

SCALISE: Tomorrow we'll sign USMCA. At the White House the president signs --

INGRAHAM: It could've done a year ago. Democrats held it up as well. Congressmen, great to see both of you tonight.

And just how involved was the person many consider to be the whistleblower in the efforts to cover for the Democrats and also take Trump out? We have new information tonight to bring you. THE INGRAHAM ANGLE investigates next.


INGRAHAM: Last week, we revealed how the person many consider to be the whistleblower helped set up a 2016 meeting between the Obama White House officials and Ukrainian prosecutors. What was the topic? Hunter Biden and Burisma was the topic. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Sources tell THE INGRAHAM ANGLE that congressional investigators are asking the White House for a May, 2017 email from the same alleged whistleblower. Sources say that this email may show the person who kicked off the impeachment sham previously manufactured evidence against President Trump.

And a footnote in the Mueller report tells the story. Joining me now is Lee Smith, investigative journalist, author of "The Plot Against The President," and Sara Carter, host of the Sara Carter Podcast and FOX News contributor. Lee, explain in simple terms tonight what this email could mean about the motives of this supposed whistleblower.

LEE SMITH, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Right. What this email is, it appears in the Mueller Report, it's cited in the Mueller Report. The Mueller Report uses this email to insinuate that Donald Trump fired James Comey at the behest of the Russians. Shortly after the date of this email, then acting director Andrew McCabe opens up an investigation of Donald Trump, wondering if he is acting at the behest of the Russians. What this looks like is that the person known as the whistleblower appears to have a habit of trying to set up the president and different intelligence operations, first with the counterintelligence investigation in 2017, and now with impeachment.

INGRAHAM: But he also, as we pointed out, Sara, he set up the meeting in January of 2016 in the Obama administration with the Ukrainian prosecutors and Obama White House officials, he signed them all in. And it was about Biden, corruption, Burisma. So three times he's involved.

SARA CARTER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Three times he's involved. And it's obvious that they all knew what was going on, that they were all concerned enough that they held a meeting in the White House about Hunter Biden and his connection to Burisma, the corruption that was going on in Ukraine. And now what we know based on what we can see, actual tangible evidence, is that there is a strong possibility that he, and I don't want to call in the whistleblower anymore because this is a deep stater, this is somebody that is anti-Trump, somebody that appears to be targeting Trump, which is why it has to be investigated.

INGRAHAM: Yes, and McCabe actually, I believe it was McCabe, referenced this in "60 Minutes" in an interview. I think we have it. Watch.


ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR: The president made those public comments that you referenced both on MSNBC and to the Russians, which was captured in the Oval Office. Put together these circumstances were articulable facts that indicated that a crime may have been committed. All those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder, is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and the government of Russia?


INGRAHAM: Could it be that a fairly young staffer who seems like a Democrat mole is at the heart of all three of these major events that lead to more and more trouble and perhaps the removal of a president of the United States, Lee Zeldin? Lee Smith. I have too many Lee's on the show tonight. It's impeachment. Sorry.

SMITH: I'm flattered. I'm flattered. He's a great guy.

If they wind up calling witnesses, and I think we all hope this doesn't happen, but if it happens, this is an email that we certainly want to know what this whistleblower has been involved in and how many campaigns against the president he's been involved in.

INGRAHAM: Sara, this whistleblower must come forward and be questioned in a Senate committee. This person cannot be shielded in a longer.

CARTER: They can't be shielded because they're really not an actual whistleblower, and it's actually an insult to whistleblowers who sacrifice everything and have firsthand knowledge and report facts and have to go public eventually and talk about those facts.

This is somebody who appears to be targeting President Trump from deep within, from deep within the government, and somebody who needs to answer questions. And this is why even the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, needs to be questioned. His connections with the whistleblower, Adam Schiff's connections with the whistleblower and his committee need to be questioned. On its face, there is something that is extraordinarily wrong.

INGRAHAM: There are too many things, there are too many footnotes and emails and meetings. And it all goes back to the hub of the wheel. It could be this one person. We could do a movie about this. No one would believe it. My earring fell off. Just to celebrate that fact, we've got to go. With that hearing, we have to go. Panel, thanks so much.


INGRAHAM: CNN's Don Lemon just addressed his disgusting segment from Saturday, belittling millions of Americans. You won't believe what he said.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And your reading.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, your reading. Your geography.


INGRAHAM: That was just a short snippet from a truly awful 90 seconds on CNN Saturday, as opposed to all the other awful 90 seconds. Tonight, Don Lemon delivered this lame excuse.


DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: I don't believe in belittling people, belittling anyone for who they are, for what they believe, or where they are from. During an interview on Saturday night, one of my guests said something that made me laugh. And while in the moment I found that joke humorous, and I didn't catch everything that was said. I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people.


INGRAHAM: I didn't hear him say, I'm sorry. Did he say -- oh, because I'm not sure he is. Well, I don't know.

Shannon Bream and the "FOX NEWS @ NIGHT" team take it all from here. Shannon.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.