Impeachment probe intensifies as House passes resolution

close

Video

Impeachment probe intensifies as House passes resolution

Reaction on Democrats' impeachment push from Reps. Lee Zeldin, Chris Stewart and Mike Turner.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 31, 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 a very busy, of course, Washington tonight. A really positive day, that's the picture painted by Republicans today after testimony from one of Schiff's witnesses, as I just mentioned, to Sean, backfired. Congressman Lee Zeldin, Chris Stewart, and Mike Turner, all give us insight in moments.

Also tonight, the hypocrisy of the Democrat leadership over impeachment has been laid bare. Byron York, Matt Schlapp, they'll walk us through it and Ed Henry has news of buyer's remorse already building in the democratic caucus.

And at this hour new reporting suggesting that the whistleblower who kicked this entire drama off, might have had his own issues with a conflict of interest. You will not believe for whom it looks like he worked. Lee Smith, Victor Davis Hanson will spell it all out.

But first, the Democrats witching hour that's the focus of tonight's Halloween ANGLE. Today, House Democrats embarrassed themselves by passing a resolution to a prove an impeachment inquiry that they had already been conducting for weeks behind closed doors.

Now from the beginning their pattern of leaking and lying to damage Trump in an election year, of course, was so obvious. It was cheesy, it reminds me of one of those old movies that kind of scared you as a kid, but then made you laugh as an adult.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These creatures are very haunting.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why did you push him up?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dolly told me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop saying that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dolly locked the door. She doesn't like people coming in here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my god. She is in the dollhouse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our house--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Our House, that's what Nancy thinks. Well, Pelosi and Schiff's act is just as kind of goofy as that. It's not believable at all. Suddenly they care about honoring the intent of the Framers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The Founders provided the remedy.

REP. JIM MCGOVERN, D-MASS.: The framers gave only this Congress the power, if need be, to impeach--

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.: The Founders didn't want a king, they didn't want a dictator, they didn't want a monarch.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: They said Mr. Franklin, Mr. Franklin, what do we have, a monarchy or a republic?' I said, that the Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I have expected Nancy to show up in a revolutionary waistcoat. OK. Thankfully, though, Republicans are calling this out for the horror show that it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF.: This impeachment is not only an attempt to undo the last election, is an attempt to influence the next one as well.

This is not what Democrats promised when they entered the majority 11 months ago. I guess it's only fitting you take this vote on Halloween.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yes. And on Halloween people are looking for treats, and Democrats only offered lame tricks. Like the absurd notion that they're approaching this solemn moment with open minds.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCGOVERN: Only the facts and how we respond to them will dictate the outcome.

SCHIFF: I make no prejudgment as to whether that remedy will be warranted--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Then they tried to disguise their venal motives by wrapping themselves like mummifying themselves in the Constitution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER, D-N.Y.: It is the duty of this House to vindicate the Constitution--

REP. JOE NEGUSE, D-COLO.: --to honor the oath to defend the Constitution that each of us took. We must move forward with this impeachment inquiry. For--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, we see right through all of these boys. And the dressing it all up as Uncle Sam, didn't make them any more credible.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: It isn't about partisanship. It's about patriotism.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're here today, because brave, dedicated public servants and patrons are standing up for their country--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well dedicated public servants would be doing the people's work of passing an infrastructure bill, the USMCA and lowering the cost of prescription drugs. But none of that's happening. They're dedicated, all right. They're dedicated to the art of really bad acting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARY GAY SCANLON, D-PENN.: It take no joy in contemplating the impeachment of a President.

REP. DONNA SHALALA, D-FLA.: It's not a decision that any of us makes lightly.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: You know today, was a solemn day. It's one that none of us really look forward to--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: This entire thing is a Saturday Night Live skit. OK? They've been dying to have this day happen. They've been looking forward to this since the moment Trump put his hand on the Bible.

You had a Democrat dirty trick that started this whole thing, the so-called whistleblower, the guy who took his case to Schiff staff first, is what really blows the lid off this entire saga.

According to RealClearInvestigations, he worked for Biden. Yes, he worked for Biden, on Ukraine policy when Biden was VP. He worked for Deep State henchmen Brennan too. And the whistleblower also reportedly worked for Susan Rice, no conflicts of interest here at all. More on this later on in the show.

None of these Democrats, though, in the end as that first movie clip made clear, should be taken seriously. They're partisans. They have no philosophy or agenda that will actually end up making your lives better. Their policies, to the extent that there are any, spawn only economic misery and less freedom for you and for me.

It's an understatement to say that this is a witch-hunt. But remember witches have their day, but we all know what happens to them in the last real.

(VIDEO PLAYING)

INGRAHAM: Ouch, and that's “The Angle.” Joining me now are three Republican Congressman, on the front lines of this fight Lee Zeldin, House Foreign Affairs Committee member; Chris Stewart and Mike Turner who were Members of the House Intel Committee.

Congressman Zeldin, let's start with you. Adam Schiff said tonight that he may release transcripts next week when you all are off. Is that enough?

REP. LEE ZELDIN, R-N.Y.: That would be fantastic. I would love to - to be able to have a conversation with you, with my constituents, with the American public not based off of the lies and leaks that been coming from Adam Schiff and other House Democrats and House Democratic staff.

Instead, we can read it for themselves. I mean, there's an REO Speedwagon song. I heard it from a friend who - you remember that one? It's like third, fourth hand - that's right. It's like third, fourth hand information. And Adam Schiff would like to write his parody where he doesn't reveal what actually his second, third, fourth hand information--

INGRAHAM: But, let's say he does prevail. Hold on, hold on. You're like the - you're like the dog who catches a car. I mean, let's say he releases the transcripts. I asked you is that enough for you?

ZELDIN: Well, there's a lot - as far as - then that's one part of this. So the House resolution that passed today says that Adam Schiff has the authority to release the transcripts, but doesn't guarantee that they're going to be released. He's been talking about releasing the transcripts.

But - I mean, I'll believe it when I see it. But I would - I think would be a fantastic thing to have it out there, because they've already leaked out all the information that they feel can be spun favorably for them.

What they, obviously, haven't leaked is the rest of the story. In some cases, it's the other 90% of the story or the other 100 percent of the story. So getting those transcripts out would be fantastic. I mean, by the way, I don't know how he does that.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, Democrats say that this is all about upholding the Constitution, but where are the high crimes and misdemeanors? It's an important question given the National Security Council official Tim Morrison's testimony today. This is unexpected.

I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed on Trump's July 25th call with the Ukrainian President. Congressman Stewart, if an NSC official, who's not a Trump loyalist doesn't buy the democrats argument, why should the American people?

REP. CHRIS STEWART, R-UT: Well, that's exactly right, why should the American people. And by the way what difference does it make what any of these officials think. Anyone can read the transcript. It's only a few pages long. Every American can read this to make their own determination, Laura, I got to go back to your introduction, oh my gosh, are we supposed to take them seriously?

INGRAHAM: No, this is my new thing. I don't think you should respond to this stuff. This is so ridiculous. I would let them show up to an empty chamber.

STEWART: It's too fun not to respond. Look, Adam Schiff, they're like a bunch of spoiled children at the rich uncle's funeral. So solemn, so sad, oh this is such a sad moment for us, like you said. They're giddy over this. They've been looking for this for three years. And for them to pretend - well, he - we know he does parody and now we know that Adam Schiff does drama as well.

INGRAHAM: Yes--

STEWART: The American people don't take that--

INGRAHAM: By the way, Adam Schiff was responding to some of his concerns about so-called Republican stunts, Congressman Turner, watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: Given the kind of circus-like tactics, the storming of the skiff, and all the stunts the President puts them up to, we can't surrender the process to the minority party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE TURNER, R-OH: Laura, what you started with, I think, is incredibly important. They've been planning this ever since Trump was first elected. Majority of the people who voted today to commence it's an impeachment were already publicly for impeachment before the Ukraine call even happened.

But what's interesting about the vote today is it because Adam Schiff is doing this in secret, they've had no access to any information. They didn't see Tim Morrison today - transcript is not just enough. They should have seen Tim's professionalism, his integrity--

INGRAHAM: That's an interesting point. The facial - if you're going to do something this important--

TURNER: Right.

INGRAHAM: --you want to see everything.

TURNER: You want the veracity--

INGRAHAM: The way they respond to certain questions, the way people are being - sorry interrupted--

TURNER: No, it's OK.

INGRAHAM: --not interrupting go ahead.

TURNER: No, no, no, you want to see the bias even in the questioners. Now, the news screams all over today that Tim Morrison said there was quid pro quo. He did not. The only reason the news says that is because the news wasn't able to be present and watch and Adam Schiff is controlling the information that comes out.

Now, we're gagged, we can't say what did happen. We can say what didn't happen. Tim Morrison did not say quid pro quo. If you had seen today his testimony, of his position, of what he has direct knowledge of - not as Lee was saying, those people who had a friend who had a friend, this thing would be would be blown up--

INGRAHAM: Does he directly contradict or substantially contradict some of what lieutenant Colonel Vindman said in opinion of their concern about the call.

TURNER: I think, I can characterize, and that is, that he certainly calls into question some of the things that Vindman said. But you have to understand, Vindman was a detailee assigned from the military to the NSC. He reported to Tim Morrison. Now, Tim's got the direct knowledge and information access, just as Kurt Volker.

I mean, if you take Kurt Volker's testimony and Tim Morrison's testimony, two people who I have a great deal of admiration for, this investigation, if they'd been - made in public would be over.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Stewart, Liz Cheney raised an issue today, I thought was very important. You both sit on Intel. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY, R-WYO.: We're at a moment where the nation faces grave, significant ongoing threats and she has completely neutered the Intelligence Committee. She has said they must be focused on a partisan impeachment process and not their oversight obligations--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: This is consuming Capitol Hill, the media. We know for the reason that they want this President not to run for re-election, that's what they really want. But her point is something I hadn't even frankly thought of might.

STEWART: Well, it's absolutely true. We've had won, Laura - won hearing on anything other than this in two months. And we're likely to have none over the next few months. And by the way that's not why Mike and I and others wanted to be on the Intelligence Committee. We wanted to do that work and we loved the fact that it was generally behind-the-scenes. It wasn't in front of the cameras, and it's important work.

And by the way it's not just the Intel Committee, appropriations process, we're headed toward the government shutdown, because the appropriations processing as you go forward I had a couple Democrats coming me. They are friends, they said, I can't support a bill they had agreed to the support because they said we can't work with you, while we're in the middle of this impeachment.

INGRAHAM: Do you both agree that there's already - and I sense it, some buyer's remorse. Some of these moderate Democrats - we're going to show the list of the moderate Democrats who voted for this resolution.

The same ones who flip districts that Trump won in 2016, who claim that they were going to be working with President Trump. They were going to be new types of Democrats. Don't worry we're not like you know.

And there's a list - put it up please. This is the list. This is the all - every single one of these Congressmen have tied themselves to Pelosi and Schiff. They're - each and every one of them is now vulnerable in the next election. Each and every one, the Republicans should pick off all of those seats.

Congressman Zeldin, this theme that we were talking about, Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists that impeachment is not distracting them from actually working on important legislation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: I'm going to answer one at a time. These rules are fair than anything that have gone before in terms of an impeachment proceeding. I'm not here to answer what the Republicans say. If you have any questions we're doing appropriations, we're doing trade, we're doing drugs prices - lowering the cost of drug prices--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: What? Wait, wait, Congressman Zeldin, I must have missed all that stuff she was doing. When does that happen?

ZELDIN: Yes, I'm missing it as well. So today we could have had a vote to ratify the USMCA. Today we could have had a vote on a - what was a bipartisan package to actually lower the cost of prescription drug prices that passed unanimously out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. But instead we have total gridlock.

And while you were playing some clips earlier in the show of people talking about how it was a solemn day, they're not happy to have to do it. When I've got on the House floor for that vote today staff was going around begging members not to cheer and clap once the vote got to 218. They're beside themselves happy about this moment, despite the fact it's total gridlock and it's ripping our country in a half. They're enthusiastic about it.

INGRAHAM: Giddiness. You could sense that everyone got the memo from Pelosi and Schiff, Shhh, don't gloat. Right? They're gloating at a moment of impeachment based on a whistleblower's complaint who used to work for Joe Biden. And I bet knew about Hunter Biden's getting that sweetheart deal with Burisma.

If I had to like plan this out right now and we'll read the script later, but I bet that whistleblower knew exactly what was going on with Hunter Biden, and apparently that wasn't any big deal. But worrying about it is and wanting to root out corruption is a problem.

TURNER: Just as you were saying with the whistleblower, the statute that actually allows a whistleblower to make a complaint is supposed to be about to the intelligence community to hold them at bay so that they don't abuse the powers that we give them. It's not about the President.

Now our committee, the Intelligence Committee is also not supposed to be about the President or even foreign policy. It's supposed to about the intelligence community - empowering them and restricting them. We're not doing our work.

You said that - Nancy Pelosi was saying don't be giddy. Well, she is also telling them don't work. Because all of the things she says is happening - aren't happening. They need to get to work.

INGRAHAM: What do you get the sense, Congressman Stewart, and you'll find out more when you go back home. The American people see this and everyone's in their corners. But I think most people just trying to put their kids through school and they're hoping to keep the pay going, but maybe take a vacation every now and then if they can.

They see is, is this America? This is like a third world country the way they're running this thing on Capitol Hill.

STEWART: No question about it, which is why they did what they did today. Look, the Democrats know that it's unfair, it's absurd to impeach a President in secret. They've always known that. And they were betting anything American people either were too stupid to care or too dumb to notice.

INGRAHAM: But now they have the veil of transparency now. Oh, we're going to open it up. What are they exactly opening up, what?

STEWART: Well, very little. I mean, they're going to - what do they can do. How do we go back and recreate seven weeks of secret hearings? How do they go back in and fix that? And I suppose you're going to have something in open session. Now what are they going to bring in the same witnesses and ask the same questions? As we said earlier, the transcripts aren't enough. You need to see these witnesses.

INGRAHAM: It's like putting a prom dress on a corpse and then taking it a homecoming, expect she's going to become queen. I mean, this is just not going to fly. I mean, this is ridiculous at this point. But I'm telling you, spoofing as serious as this is, this has become a farce and a comedy show.

But they should - I was going to say they should keep their day jobs. But most of them should lose their day jobs. Guys thank you so much. Great to see all of you and we'll be in touch, obviously, when you guys get back here in town.

What do we know though about the whistleblowers identity, Lee Smith, Victor Davis Hanson are here next. Plus, could Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee actually call Adam Schiff as a witness? A member of that committee is here to tell us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: We take on joy in having to move down this road and proceed with the impeachment inquiry. But neither do we shrink from it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Nominated in the category of Best Supporting Actor in an ongoing drama, Adam Schiff, except he wouldn't be, because that was bad acting. Schiff couldn't be more pleased with his placement at the center of this sham and he's happy. He's not unhappy, and he doesn't think it's solemn. He thinks it's necessary, because it's time he believes to take this President out. That's just what's happening here. Smear and leak tactics all the way.

But he might not be getting off so easy. Congressman Doug Collins, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee is presenting a challenge to the California Congressman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: Here's my challenge to Mr. Schiff. You want to be Ken Starr? Be Ken Starr. Come to the Judiciary Committee be the first witness and take every question asked of you.

Starting with your own involvement with the whistleblower--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yes. Here now is Arizona Congresswoman Debbie Lesko, member of the House Judiciary Committee herself. What's your committee's message to Schiff tonight is this going to happen?

REP. DEBBIE LESKO, R-ARIZ.: Well, Adam Schiff is a known liar and leaker, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if the real collusion story was him doing - colluding with the whistleblower. And so I welcome him to come. I hope he comes to the Judiciary Committee so we can grill him under oath. Hopefully, he doesn't lie to the committee like he lies to an American public.

INGRAHAM: Did you get the sense that it was all keep it under the lid today. You got that everyone was kind of saying the same thing, we take no joy in the solemn moment. We never wanted to be here, no one's happy about it.

I mean, we were watching this this morning in my kitchen and we were literally screaming out loud laughing, because it was so obvious and so stupid, it's so bad. But maybe I was thinking, maybe I'm wrong, maybe they really are so serious.

LESKO: No, you're exactly right. This is total acting over the top. Are you kidding me? Since President Trump was elected they've been calling for his impeachment. I'm in the Judiciary Committee since January of this year. I mean, three four hearings a week, all it is going after President Trump. They hate the guy.

INGRAHAM: Have you done any real substantive work? You've done, obviously, some stuff, but not a lot. Have you other than this stuff?

LESKO: Most of the time is spent an undermining President Trump, whether it's impeachment inquiry or I'm also in Homeland Security Committee.

INGRAHAM: Oh, forget it--

LESKO: THEY just - they call these witnesses forward to bash the law enforcement, to bash the Border Patrol--

INGRAHAM: What do you say Congresswoman to people who are looking at this and they're thinking well I'm kind of an independent, I'm not a really Republican or a Democrat. We got an election year coming up next year. If you vote for a Democrat, given what they've done to paralyze this government this year, what does that bring the American people in 2021?

LESKO: You know I fit would say to an independent out there, somebody that's really fair-minded, this is not a fair process. It's a total political hit job on the President. And why don't the Democrats wait till the 2020 election? I mean why do they have to impeach him? The only reason I can think of is they're afraid he's going to get reelected.

INGRAHAM: Oh, they've said that. The impeachment is the only way to get him out of office.

LESKO: You're right.

INGRAHAM: Congresswoman, great to see you. Thank you for joining us tonight.

LESKO: It's great to see you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: Whistleblower is an unpatriotic action. They shouldn't even go near that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well not only do Democrats want to keep the whistleblower from testifying, they don't even want Americans to know his name. Now we might know why.

New reporting from RealClearInvestigations reveals troubling ties. First, they say he was detailed to the National Security Council in 2015 under Susan - unmask them, Rice, quickly becoming Biden's point man on, guess what, Ukraine policy. Biden's office even saw to it that he got invited to a luncheon that included then CIA director, guess who, John Brennan, then FBI director, Jim Comey, and then national Intel Director James Clapper.

This can't even be real. This is all becoming absurd. And get this, the report also adds this detail. The whistleblower "worked with a DNC operative who dug up dirt on Trump campaign during 2016, inviting her into the White House for meetings."

So let all that sink in this Halloween night. The Whistleblower invited an anti-trump DNC operative into the Obama White House during the 2016 election. Fox News has not itself yet confirmed this whistleblower identity, but last week Fox News did confirm three instances of alleged bias against Trump that were noted by the Intel Inspector General.

So you do your own thinking on this. Joining me now is, Lee Smith, Investigative Journalist, author of the fantastic new book huge bestseller already, "The Plot Against the President;" along with Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Victor, again, we're not going to name this person as we haven't independently confirmed the name. But because you call yourself a whistleblower, does not entitle you under any law to remain anonymous and you aren't considered a roving Inspector General of the executive branch of the White House either. But do Americans have a right to know who this was - is?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Yes, whistleblowers are Mavericks, Laura. They come forward they get in the light of day, they make accusations or charges or revelations and they take the heat. And this person hasn't done any of that. He's only known to the Democratic members officially of the House Intelligence Committee.

But what the whistleblower - I can't understand and it's incoherent, the whistleblower and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman have made three or four implicit charges that Trump was too easy on the Russians, he was too hard on the Ukrainians. He mixed the personal and the professional. He had a quid pro quo.

But they were in the White House in case of the whistleblower Lieutenant Colonel Vindman was in foreign service why didn't they say from 2011 and onward? Why didn't they say the Obama administration will not arm the Ukrainians? Trump did that.

Why don't they say appeasement is reset? Trump risk a war with Russians and Syria. He killed 200 mercenaries. He canceled a missile bill. He's been the hardest person on Putin that we've seen in 20 - in the last 10 years. Why didn't they say Hunter Biden is engaging in a quid pro - Joe Biden with a son a quid pro quo?

Or why didn't they say, my gosh, we have Barack Obama engaging in a quid pro quo with a hot mic in South Korea? So all the things that they're revealing right now happened and they didn't say a word. And you know why that was? because under Obama he tolerated no leaks. They would have been facing criminal prosecution or at least they would have been monitored like The Associated Press reporters or Fox's own James Rosen. And the media would have demonized them. They wouldn't have--

INGRAHAM: Now, let's be clear. Lee Smith, if this were a whistleblower reporting on Obama - Victor is right - the media would have already published his name. They would have investigated and publicized every detail of a conflict of interest and probably his or her life would be destroyed. Period.

LEE SMITH, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Right. We have a very recent example of how people who are calling out Democratic abuses are treated. If you see the way that Kash Patel and Derek Harvey, both of whom have worked for Congressman Nunes, the way that they are being dragged through the press for finding out the different abuses of the FBI --

INGRAHAM: They need to sue for defamation. I said this last night, both of them should sue for defamation for what was done to them.

SMITH: But, but that's our whistleblowers, real whistleblowers are treated. They're dragged through the mud. This person that we are describing through the whistleblower appears to be something of an entirely different nature.

INGRAHAM: Again, let's put up the bullet points just describing what we seem to know, what has been reported in Real Clear Investigations. How accurate do you think this is, Lee?

SMITH: I think it is an excellent article by Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations.

INGRAHAM: CIA officer who worked at the White House, has expertise with Ukraine, worked for Biden, worked for Rice, worked for Obama, also invited -- red flagged for political bias, of course has ties with a 2020 Democratic candidate, of course, Joe Biden, because he worked for him.

To me, when you look at this, Victor Davis Hanson, this all starts to sound and feel and smell like what happened with the setup of the Russia investigation, the same actors, the same players, the same motivations. And it's all to stop this America first president, or candidate back then, then a president, who wanted to take a different approach to foreign aid and a different approach to foreign policy, and they wanted him out. The deep state wanted him out, the intel community wanted him out, foreign policy establishment experts wanted him out. They couldn't figure it out, though, because the American people kind of like these ideas.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Yes, they did. And apparently the whistleblower and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman did, too, because Donald Trump, as I said earlier, has been very pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian, and didn't quite do anything like Joe Biden, of course he didn't, and Barack Obama in these quid pro quos.

But you would think after the 22 months and the $35 million that the bar would have been raised a little higher for the next iteration of impeachment hysteria, but in fact, it's gone really low. And the reason it has, Laura, is we are only a year away from the election, and we are looking at a Horowitz report, a Barr and Durham report. And we look at these debates and we see no agenda that polls 51 percent. And the Democrats have decided we don't have a choice now. We've got to either destroy Donald Trump or we are going to lose this election.

And so they can't wait, or as General McRaven said, he's got to be removed, sooner the better. Imagine a retired general saying that. It was one of the scariest things I've heard in this whole melodrama.

INGRAHAM: They are basically saying thank God for the deep state. They think the deep state is their check on this president.

SMITH: Right. If I were them, I would watch that, because one of the big questions that should come out of this, what is going on right now at the CIA? We've heard very good things about Director Gina Haspel, but once you strip away the bells and whistles, what we are looking at right here is an active serving CIA officer who is part of an operation to undo an election.

INGRAHAM: That's terrifying for any future president. Setting aside Trump, any president could be subject to this. Lee and Victor, important stuff tonight. Thank you.

And in moments, the media still fantasizing about Nancy Pelosi sitting in the Oval Office herself. And what caused Pelosi to go from impeachment skeptic to cheerleader? Byron York, Matt Schlapp, Ed Henry sound off next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and that is what we cannot ignore, and we will not ignore, when the president's behavior indicates that that investigation, that inquiry is necessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Speaker Pelosi really laying it on today, but she was singing a different tune about impeachment just months ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: If and when the time comes for impeachment, it will have to be something that has such a crescendo in a bipartisan way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, no Republican voted for today's impeachment resolution, so what changed Pelosi's mind? Joining me now, Byron York, chief political correspondent for the "Washington Examiner," and FOX News contributor, Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, and Ed Henry, FOX News chief national correspondent. Matt, how did Pelosi go from impeachment skeptic to embracing all Democrats all the time for impeachment?

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIR, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Let's think about the first thing is they've had previous impeachment votes that couldn't get a majority. So she had to work on getting a majority.

But the real dynamic here is AOC and the squad and this new radical group of folks that are in her caucus, and they weren't going to allow her to get out of this impeachment. As soon as they got the majority, they were going to impeach Donald Trump because from the very first moment he won his election, they wanted to get rid of him any which way they could.

INGRAHAM: Byron, we have got all these moderate Democrats. We ran the scroll earlier, 31, and they are now tied to AOC plus three. They ran as moderates. What happens to the next?

BRYON YORK, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "WASHINGTON EXAMINER": We'll see. They are going to end up voting to impeach. They're going to got all the way over. This started on January 20th, 2017. "The Washington Post" ran an article headlined the drive to impeach Trump has begun. It was published at 12:19 p.m. on that day. Trump had been president for 19 minutes. And we have had a number of efforts earlier to impeach the president.

One last thing. If you remember back in the Clinton years, Republicans thought Clinton just got away with murder. He got away with whitewater, he got away with file gate, he got away with travel gate, and when Lewinsky happened, they got him. I think that Democrats feel this way appear, and they couldn't get him on Russia, they couldn't get him on the emoluments clause, couldn't get him on other business stuff. And when Ukraine happened, they just jumped.

INGRAHAM: Ed Henry, I understand you might have a little bit of news tonight about the communications team at the White House vis-a-vis impeachment.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, sources close to the White House are telling me that they are closing in on bringing Tony Sayegh, you'll remember him, he was a FOX News contributor, he worked at the Treasury Department, was instrumental in helping to sell and shape the message on the successful tax cut rollout by President Trump, bring him in as a lead spokesperson on impeachment pushback.

Why this would be significant is, remember some of the troubles that the acting chief staff had in explaining this. You remember back to the Clinton days, of course, the context here -- sometimes you've got to get it out of the day to day staff that is already there, and bring in some fresh legs, some fresh minds, and look at this a different way.

I understand that Tony Sayegh has got support not just in that building there at the White House, but folks outside the White House like Donald Trump Jr. and others have thought this is a good idea in private to bring in some seasoned communications veterans to help his father push back. The president, as you know, can often be his own best spokesman and often helped -- not just help, leads the shaping of the message on practically everything.

In this case, you see Tony Sayegh there, he is somebody who got very high marks inside the administration for helping Treasury Secretary Mnuchin in terms of shaping the tax cut rollout, the message that I mentioned, that was a big success for the White House. They think inside the White House they need someone like him to help now.

INGRAHAM: Matt, this is important, Capitol Hill Republican leadership have been saying we need a system of communication here. Obviously, the legal strategy is critical going forward, but they needed a point person, and I think this is probably very good news.

SCHLAPP: The thing that is so strange about this impeachment is it's during a presidential election. We can't get beyond this. With Nixon and Clinton, they had already won second terms. This is right in the middle of the president's reelection. It's critical that people know exactly where to go to get the answers on what to say about pushing back on this ridiculous impeachment effort.

YORK: And Republicans don't know where to go right now because President Trump's attitude has been, I didn't do anything wrong, I don't need a war room. Clinton had a war room, and it was actually quite effective. He kept every single Democrat in the Senate in line for him. And these members of Congress need some sort of leadership. And they need to know how to argue this, and they are not getting --

INGRAHAM: If they don't how to argue this --, this is about the easiest thing to argue. If people don't know how to argue this, they literally shouldn't even be in Congress.

SCHLAPP: They did a good job today. They did a good job.

INGRAHAM: Today, I said the Republican Party has finally arrived on Capitol Hill, because I think they are seeing some concern bubbling up, even among the Democrats who felt they had to vote for this resolution. But I still believe there is a chance that they might not end up going all the way for impeachment.

I want to play something for all of you, and Ed, maybe you can react to this. Jill Wine-Banks over at MSNBC laid out a path that would end up with a President Pelosi at the end of it? Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does anything change if Donald Trump is no longer at the top of this web of corruption, but Pence is then at the top of it?

JILL WINE-BANKS, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: You can impeach Pence first. The problem is that Donald Trump then has to name his replacement. But I think maybe a deal could be struck where he was told, if you don't make a replacement, the Nancy Pelosi does become president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Here is the argument, gentlemen. If Trump and Pence are both implicated in this non-scandal scandal, Pence's resignation or removal from office occurred first, Trump could nominate a new vice president under the 25th amendment. Rejection of a Trump vice presidential choice would then elevate Pelosi in the event that Trump's removal from office after an impeachment trial the Senate. Now, this is the level of fantasy, Ed, that they are engaged in. Again, they are dreaming. They say it is a solemn moment, but they are dreaming of impeachment fantasies. They are supposed to be dreaming about the holiday season. No, this is their partridge in a pear tree.

HENRY: It makes me wonder who in the Democratic Party thought of rolling all of this out on Halloween and handing the president this great talking point about a witch hunt seems odd. But now you're talking about fantasy land, not Halloween, which is first we do this, then we do that. They haven't impeached him yet, let alone removed him with a trial in the Senate.

And as you know, there are a lot of Democrats in private who will admit, it's not just Republicans saying this. It's going to be a heavy lift, even if they impeach him in the House, where they may have votes, because Nancy Pelosi is in charge, as you laid out. Removing him from the Senate is a much higher mountain to climb, and it's highly unlikely as we look at the facts tonight. So this is fantasy land.

INGRAHAM: Byron?

YORK: That is, in fact, a coup fantasy. We have seen a lot of misuse of that word around here, but the idea that somehow you could depose Trump, depose Pence, and make Nancy Pelosi president is not a good look for them because it actually is a coup fantasy. And besides, you're right, both Clinton and Nixon, the impeachment occurred after they had been reelected. This time, we have never seen this happen before. And you have the opposition party, and the Democrats hope that if they handle this well, they will damage Trump's chances for reelection.

INGRAHAM: It looks like election meddling. They ran for two years that Trump was working with Russians to meddle in the election. This looks like you're trying to disenfranchise 60 plus million people from voting for this president.

SCHLAPP: It's simple, if you don't want Trump to win, beat him. It's a year away, folks. Just beat him. Nominate somebody sane and try to beat him. They know they can't beat him.

INGRAHAM: They've got to do it with Warren or they've got to do it with Biden.

SCHLAPP: Maybe Hillary. Maybe Hillary.

INGRAHAM: And both of them, or maybe someone else. All right, gentlemen, thank you. We had so much more to get to on the Halloween fright night.

Up next, now that the Democrats have taken the next step on impeachment, how should the White House fight back? You just heard about their communications step, but what else? A former Clinton impeachment manager and former DOJ lawyer walk us through it in moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: The Democrats are desperate. They are desperate. They have nothing. We really call them the do-nothing Democrats. It's the only way they're going to try and win the election this way because they can't win it the fair way. They are using that to try and impeach the president of the United States who won one of the greatest elections in history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The last two nights, I have laid out how Senate Republicans should be responding to the impeachment sham. So what should the White House do now? Joining me now is Bob Barr, former congressman and Clinton impeachment prosecutor, and Robert Driscoll, former DOJ official. Bob - Bob Driscoll. We have two Bobs on the show. But you say Clinton won impeachment in the battle there because Democrats had a troubling but not impeachable safe harbor. What is Trump's White House best message now?

ROBERT DRISCOLL, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: I think that he's doing the right thing. It's political so he's making political arguments. But I think you've got to remember the reason Clinton won is not all the senators were huge fans of what he had done, but they had the out of being able to say, I'm not happy with it, but that's just not an impeachable offense, and we have got to focus on what the country is doing.

And I think Trump is going to give people a little room. He has to realize it's a victory for him so long as he is not removed. If he keeps all the Republicans on board, he wins. And so he's got to give just a little bit of safe harbor. I know he is tempted to attack anybody who is not totally in his corner, but he has to give those people a little bit of safe harbor to say, I'm a little troubled by what happened, but I don't think this comes anywhere close to an impeachable offense, and then pivot to the process issues they have been focusing on.

INGRAHAM: So you're not suggesting send a fruit cake to Mitt Romney or anything, or a bunt cake or anything?

DRISCOLL: No. I just think you let a lot of stuff go. And --

INGRAHAM: Got it. Don't swing at every pitch, as they say.

DRISCOLL: Exactly. Exactly.

INGRAHAM: Don't swing at every pitch.

Bob Barr, here is how the Democrats are responding to the charges that they are polluting the process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Republicans say the rules are unfair. Are they?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: No. In fact, the rules are very much the same as they were during the Nixon impeachment, during the Clinton impeachment.

PELOSI: Very transparent and open, and frankly, more transparent, more open, giving more privileges to the president and his argument than were given in the past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Bob Barr, you were there for one of the impeachments. Is this revisionist history?

BOB BARR, FORMER CLINTON IMPEACHMENT PROSECUTOR: It is Bizarro World all over again. They are operating on two different wavelengths entirely. The rules that we passed, beginning with the inquiry of impeachment back in 1998, and the rules under which the Judiciary Committee operated properly, as the only committee out of Congress that has the power to impeach and the responsibility, it was completely different. It was open, it was transparent, it was fair. Both sides had equal access to witness and subpoenas.

What the Democrats are doing now is absolutely the opposite. Even if they clothe it, the emperor has no clothes, and I'm talking about Adam Schiff. There is no transparency here. There's no relationship to what we did in 1998. The Democrats know that, but this is the boat that they're going on, and they're going to have to live with it, and I think they'll sink with it.

INGRAHAM: Bob Driscoll, one of the things that's amazing here is that at some point, maybe in a few weeks when they're back from their 10 days off, they come in, and then if this begins, this impeachment process begins, the White House's lawyer will be able to, what, cross-examine witnesses? But only if Adam Schiff says yes, if they have turned over all the documents. So if they give up all their rights, then maybe they can ask a few questions? Is that --

DRISCOLL: The word "may" appears a lot in the rules --

INGRAHAM: In the resolution.

DRISCOLL: Yes, the resolution. The word "may" is a lot. There's not a lot of "musts" in there. And I think that is what the president has to remember is that the House is in control. They can impeach him for whatever they want, for whatever ridiculous reason they want. But in this instance, they are not in a court of law. The public is the judge. So if the public feels it's unfair, they won't be the support. And so that's why you hear the complaint, oh, they are worrying about process too much. No, not really, because of the public is the judge, because it's a political process. And politicians respond to the public. So if the public thinks it's not fair, then the public won't buy into impeachment. I think we've seen it already. The minimal procedures they have now are only because people were outraged out how unfair it was.

INGRAHAM: Real quick, on another network, Schiff appeared with Chris Cuomo trying to say this is all going to be great at the hearing. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: What do you think will happen during public hearings that will change how people feel about this?

SCHIFF: People will hear from the witnesses directly. They will have a much better sense of what took place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That didn't work out so well with Mueller, did it, Bob Barr?

BARR: No, it didn't. And what I think we need to keep in mind is President Reagan and President Clinton both were expert communicators, and the reason that they both did so well as president in many ways is they went over Congress and they went directly to the American people. That's what this president needs to do, and that's what members of Congress need to do. They need to stop getting in the weeds. They need to get to the American people.

INGRAHAM: Directly to them. Gentlemen, excellent conversation.

When we come back, a very special Last Bite.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: They may prevent some of these witnesses from testifying and prevent the American people from learning the full fact around the president's misconduct, but even as they do that, they will be building a case against the president for obstructing the constitutional duties of Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, really, where did you go to law school? So if you invoke executive privilege or any other type of privilege sitting president, and you exercise your rights, that becomes an article of impeachment? Nice Catch 22, you want to put the president in. Ain't going to work Adam Schiff.

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

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