This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 22, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle" from Washington tonight. We have a big exclusive for you. E-mail exchanges, we got our hands on, from State Department officials that could alter the course of President Trump's impeachment.

We are going to expose what the Obama administration knew about Hunter Biden, Burisma, and reveal how it all ties back to the person some have floated as the whistleblower. Our exclusive investigation comes later in the hour.

But first, the Democrat impeachment managers just wrapped their case for the night. However, it was just a few moments earlier today that set the tone. The Democrats tried convincing an impeachment weary nation that the case against the President is open and shut. Because they lack essential facts to prove impeachable offenses, they had to resort to the usual - lies. That's something the President called out this morning.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think the other side has so lied, I watched the lies from Adam Schiff. He's a liar and he's a fraud.


INGRAHAM: He's right about that. Let's walk through the biggest whoppers today from Adam Schiff. First, here Schiff is trying to convince us - all of us that he's just a mesmerizing force when it comes to history.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: He testifies that Russia systemically interfered in our election to help elect Donald Trump, that campaign understood that and they willfully made use of that help.


INGRAHAM: OK. Here's what the Mueller report actually said. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Can you read, Adam?

Second, Schiff is putting words in the mouth of Ukraine's President.


SCHIFF: President Zelensky clearly understood the quid pro quo for the White House meeting on July 25th.


INGRAHAM: Well, if Zelensky clearly understood it, here's a funny way of showing it.


VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE: We had, I think, good phone call. It was normal. Nobody pushed me.


INGRAHAM: In Russian it's still normal (ph). It's all normal. Third, Schiff's tall tale about the White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.


SCHIFF: Mulvaney didn't just admit that the President withheld the crucial aid appropriated by Congress to apply pressure on the Ukraine to do the President's political dirty work. He also said that we should just get over it.


INGRAHAM: OK. That's a lie. Mulvaney wasn't admitting to corruption. He was talking about the President's right - yes, his right, to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with foreign leaders. When he said "Get over it," he was mocking all the liberals left aghast by the very idea that Trump, as President of the United States, can differ on policy with career bureaucrats on the seventh floor of the State Department.

Schiff has taken what Mulvaney said out of context - this is what Schiff does, and he's doing it to smear the President and bolster the sham impeachment. It's shameless. So why isn't any other outlet calling these lies out? It was actually more than just a lies. And this was one moment that just - of all the moments today really, really got my goat.

Schiff confirmed today what we have been telling you for the last three years. Democrats don't really like the idea that you - you the American people, get to pick our President. This whole democracy thing - representative democracy, it's kind of had its day. They don't like it anymore. They don't trust you - the American voters.


SCHIFF: The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote would be fairly won.


INGRAHAM: You see what he's doing, right? If Trump wins in November, they are going to say it's Ukrainian meddling. Forget Russian meddling. It will be something, but they do not trust the people. That came through, like, undisputedly today. It was disgusting.

Joining me now is Congressman Doug Collins, member of Trump's impeachment defense team and Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, they tried, in my view, to disenfranchise American voters with the bogus Russia collusion case that he repeated today, by the way, and now they moved on to this.

Because they can't stand the idea that Trump could beat any of their shining stars from Bernie to Biden in November, so they cannot - they can't take it. And I've really come to the conclusion that if their people don't win, they have to say it's rigged. End of story.

REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA.: Well, they have to, Laura. I mean, think about this, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, in particular, who went on a giant tirade last night, you know, talking about the Senate, what they're trying to do is do two things.

Well, number one, they want to say that the - if they don't do something now, the election is rigged, everybody needs to be aware of that. And number two, they're saying if the senate doesn't do what they want them to do, then the Senate is corrupt.

But let me just say something. For everybody who's watched the Democratic primary presidential field, that clown car can't win. They keep getting out and they just keep getting worse. Because when compared to the President, who is actually has something to run on - trade deals, economy that's booming, a foreign policy that works, they know that they can't win on the facts.

So they're trying to do everything they can to undermine our President who has done everything he said he would do, which is unique in politics. But he's not only done what he said he would do, he's followed through and reached out to millions of Americans who've been cut out of the system, African-Americans, Hispanics, who are at the lowest unemployment rate in years, they've been put into the system.

Things like The First Step Act, like criminal justice reform. Where this President reaches out, where all the Democrats have done is use them as political pawns. This is why you're seeing what you're seeing on the floor, a rehash of tall tales, lies and dishonesty when they know they can't have candidates who can beat him at the ballot box. So what do you do? You disenfranchise people. You tell them that they can't do it.

INGRAHAM: Well, I was over there today. I decided to torture myself and go over to the Senate chamber to watch some of this nonsense. I have my own thoughts and have a little story about what happened later on in the show.

But it was something to watch. And this moment, that we're going to play next, again, shows the American people that what they couldn't prove in the House with a quid pro quo, they'll just simply restate in the Senate trial as if they have proven it. Watch.


SCHIFF: Senators, witness testimony, text messages, e-mails and the call record itself confirm a corrupt quid pro quo for the White House meeting. The President and his allies have offered no explanation for this effort. Except, the President can abuse his office all he likes and there's nothing you can do about it.


INGRAHAM: Congressman Collins, where was the bribery article of impeachment then if there was a quid pro quo? Why'd they drop it?

COLLINS: They don't have it, Laura. I mean, this is honest. Let me - look at it here. They had nothing - no case in the House. They went to two of the weakest impeachment articles ever been written. Jonathan Turley stated that, many others stated that. This abuse of power nonsense is saying, we'll just say whatever we want to say and call it abuse of power.

Obstruction of Congress, is simply Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler pitching a temper tantrum, because they didn't get what they wanted. And now they're going to the Senate to say, Senate, we didn't want to do our job. We didn't want to do what we're supposed to do, so you do it for us.

I mean, yesterday, when Adam Schiff said, well, we didn't call John Bolton, because he said that he would take it to court, and then we just backed off. Well, that's just saying that you either give into my demands or I'm going to say that you're corrupt anyway.

They can't prove there - in House. Now they're going to the Senate. And it's just - I guess, what it is, is they repeated enough times. They're hoping beyond hope, beyond hope that somebody will believe that it's actually true.

The problem is, nobody's listening to them anymore. They're saying the same things that we've already disproved, because here's the interesting issue, Laura. They not only are they missing on the process, which I saw destroyed in the House, but they're losing on the facts, because this President did nothing wrong. End of story. Acquit. Move all.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, great to see you tonight. And Senator Tom Cotton is now with us. He just sat through - he sat through all of what I attended for maybe an hour and a half today of the Senate proceeding.

Senator, I was watching you, I was sitting on the other side up in the gallery, and I was watching you and Holly and Romney on the back there. And I was thinking, if I'm this board, how can these people sit through this for this many hours? It was unbelievable.

But this was - this seemed like an exercise largely, I don't know, rooted in the Democrats a built-up fury, and anger that Trump actually gets to choose the foreign policy and dictate foreign policy for the United States. They hate that. They want the seventh floor, the second floor or whatever floor the State Department to determine it.

SEN. TOM COTTON, R-ARK.: Laura, if you sat through an hour and a half of it, you heard the entirety of the Democrats' argument today, because they repeated themselves from the first thing this afternoon to the last thing this evening.

If they had genuine evidence of wrongdoing by this President, you think that they would just stand on that evidence and then let it stand. But rather they kept repeating themselves time and time and time again, because they did not prove their case in the House of Representatives.

And as you say, what this really gets back to is, one, anger that the President won in 2016, and two, frustration that President - as the elected President gets to direct the foreign policy of the United States.

INGRAHAM: All right. I just mentioned this, Senator, that Democrats tried to make this case today with the following clip from the former Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony. Watch.


MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: She said that there was great concern on the seventh floor of the State Department, that's where the leadership of the State Department sits. There was great concern. They were worried. She just wanted to give me a heads up about this. And, you know, things seem to be going on and so she just wanted to give me a heads up,


INGRAHAM: But Senator Cotton, who cares? Isn't it the President's prerogative to determine foreign policy? And, frankly, if he wants to fire every ambassador in the ambassadorial ranks, he can do that, whether it's good policy or not, it's his Article I power to do so. Correct?

COTTON: Yes, Laura. That's right. I mean, no building, no office, no floor, anyone else not elected by the American people make foreign policy, the President makes foreign policy. Advisors advise, Presidents decide. And he's free to listen to their advice, he's free to reject their advice as well.

And if the Democrats don't like that, then they should run someone on the ballot who can beat him this fall rather than trying to impeach him for, basically, policy difference.

INGRAHAM: Yes. This just reminds me of like the bureaucracy bites back or the swamp monsters come back, because they're thinking, you came in saying you're going to drain the swamp? Well, the State Department is filled with swamp monsters, and they want to determine a more globalist foreign policy.

They want to go back to the good old days and Trump doesn't want to take us there. And that's the tension that has, frankly, existed in the State Department since I was working in the Reagan administration. It's always that tension with the State Department.

And, Senator, there was another moment, which I know with your military experience you're going to love to tee off on. This was Adam Schiff actually saying that Ukrainians died because of President Trump's decisions. Watch.


SCHIFF: This military aid, which has long enjoyed bipartisan support was designed to help Ukraine defend itself from the Kremlin's aggression. More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies - 15,000. President Trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromise the national security of the United States.


INGRAHAM: Two questions here. Number one, is U.S. national security really imperiled, because of aid being delayed for a couple of weeks to Ukraine?

COTTON: Laura - Laura, I guess, I'm really amazed at all these Democrats who think that it's a grievous risk to our national security and to the lives of Ukrainian soldiers that President Trump decided to pause aid for six or seven weeks.

I didn't hear many of them complaining when Barack Obama refused to provide that aid for over three years. As you saw with Qasem Soleimani, Barack Obama says sent him pallets of cash. Donald Trump sent him Hellfire missiles. In Ukraine, Barack Obama sent meals ready to eat and blankets. Donald Trump sent Javelin anti-tank missiles. Yet, the Democrats weren't complaining when Barack Obama was putting all those Ukrainian risk - lives at risk lives for three years.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, the implication in his comment was also with 15,000 Ukrainians dying due to what he says, of course, in this clip is Russian aggression, that some blood is - implicit in this comment that it has to be on the hands of the President. Is there any proof for that?

COTTON: No, Laura, there's no proof that that. The funding that was ultimately released in early September was for the next year. There's no evidence that any soldiers in Ukraine on the front lines were running short of supplies.

Maybe inconvenience, some bureaucrats in Kiev who were trying to plan for the next year's budget, but there's no evidence that any soldiers didn't get the supplies they need. And let's remember, it's because of Donald Trump that they have things like anti-tank missiles. Whereas, Barack Obama only sent the meals ready to eat and blankets.

INGRAHAM: And Senator Cotton, the Impeachment Managers routinely will say, well, President Trump was trying to hurt his political opponent. In other words, inferring subjective intent, which the White House Counsel's brief, just brilliantly just destroyed the idea that you could infer intent - a negative or criminal intent in this case.

And my - and I want to play something for you from just a few years back from Barack Obama speaking to Dmitry Medvedev, then President of Russia.


BARACK OBAMA, 44TH U.S. PRESIDENT: This is my last election.


OBAMA: After my election I have more flexibility.

MEDVEDEV: I understand. I'll transmit this information to Vladimir.


INGRAHAM: I'll transmit this information to Vladimir. So can we infer from that that President Obama was keeping key information from the American people, saying one thing during the 2012 election cycle and planning to do another, is that not fraud? Is that not abuse of power under their definition, you could drive a truck through what they're describing as abuse of power.

COTTON: Yes, I think you could infer that Barack Obama's policy towards Russia was one of appeasement and weakness. Donald Trump's policy has been one of firmness.

And it's also as the White House lawyer said yesterday, reasonable for a President to look at the gross, obvious conflict of interest that Joe Biden had to run Ukraine policy for the Obama administration at a time when his son was receiving 50 or $80,000 a month from one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine as well. I mean, that is always a legitimate inquiry for the United States before we send money to a government in which corruption can be endemic.

INGRAHAM: Senator, so you did have milk today, I understand. They brought you a glass of milk, no cookies, but you did have milk. Is that right?

COTTON: Yes. You know, I guess, I could have put some vodka in it.

INGRAHAM: I was going to say.


INGRAHAM: --to get through it.

COTTON: Yes, it would have been White Russian. But, I think, Adam Schiff might have accused me of collusion, if I've had a White Russian to drink.

INGRAHAM: Oh, the milk killed me. I saw that. It just killed me. Senator. Good luck. I hope we see you later on in the week.

And let's bring in our panel of legal eagles to break down day two of impeachment trial. And the word "trial" we underline and bold face that. Here with me is Sol Wisenberg, Former Deputy and Independent Counsel; Bob Barr, Former Clinton Impeachment Manager; and John Eastman, Claremont Institute Senior Fellow and Constitutional Scholar.

Sol, something we heard from the senators today, was that these arguments were duplicates of yesterday? So did Democrats end up hurting themselves by using that process last night with the rules to make their arguments, because it really did seem like a heck of a lot of repetition today?

SOL WISENBERG, FMR DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: That was the danger, Laura, because while I thought it was a good tactical move last night, the danger is that people are going to say, enough is enough.

I will say that they did, I thought, particularly Schiff, a skillful job of integrating their arguments with audiovisual aids. And, you know, Schiff, from what I understand, was a pretty good Assistant U.S. Attorney for six years. So I'll give him credit for that just on scorekeeping.

But I think it's a real danger that people are going to say we get it. We've really gotten it from the beginning. Let's make a decision.

INGRAHAM: And let's go to John Eastman. John, the sudden love of the founders by the Democrats - I mean, they're all for people tearing down statues, and like - all those old white guys, what do they know? But, suddenly, they're basically all dressed up as Betsy Ross and need a Fife and Drum Corps up there on Capitol Hill. Thoughts from today?

JOHN EASTMAN, CLAREMONT INSTITUTE SENIOR FELLOW: Well, it's what we call law office originalism. You've got a point to make. You find some snippet of a founder that said it. You take it completely out of context and then pretend that's originalism.

The references to Hamilton was particularly interesting, because Hamilton actually worried about an impeachment process that starts ending up having nothing to do with impeachment proper, but is used for partisan ends, and would put us in a perpetual war one faction against another.

So if they want to quote Hamilton, they ought to quote the full measure of that speech, rather than a little snippet that they think proves a point they're making. This - it's just - it's mind numbingly dull and dishonest. And it's - I don't even know how you got through an hour and a half, Laura.

INGRAHAM: No, no, I was - well, we have a story about what happened to me on Capitol Hill, which we're going to get to. I wish you were there, Eastman, we could have had more fun.

All right. Adam Schiff, now Bob Barr, says that he has discovered what really is motivating Trump's actions.


SCHIFF: When a person wields power in ways that are inappropriate, and seek to extinguish the rights of the Congress, he exceeds the power of his constitutional authority and violates the limits placed on his conduct. Obstruction of a separate and co-equal branch of government for the purposes of covering up and abuse of power implies a corrupt intent.


INGRAHAM: OK. We're implying a corrupt intent, because the President used the system of checks and balances and his own Article I powers to say, you know, we're not giving you those documents or these witnesses, make us do it in court. So now that's obstruction of Congress and abuse of power? Bob, you can impeach a lot of presidents then, I guess, if it's an inappropriate conduct standard, that's it.

BOB BARR, FORMER CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: Well, I would like to go back and look at how Adam Schiff performed as an assistant U.S. attorney with this sort of standard, where you tell a defendant, if you don't give us the material on which we can't convict you, we are going to add a count in the indictment for obstruction of justice. That's the standard he uses.

And whether it's in a legal context as a U.S. attorney or a political context and a challenge between two branches asserting their legitimate authority, it's inappropriate. And, again, here in this context, it ought to be stricken. It ought to be laughed out of the Senate on a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.

INGRAHAM: All right. Sol, there was a kind of funny moment today and we're desperate for humor, because when I think of humor, I think of Sol Wisenberg, OK, first of all. So, Sol, today--

WISENBERG: Yes, just call me checky (ph).

INGRAHAM: I know, really. Now, that reference really dates you. All right. So the President today is overseas and he does this press conference, as he knows the impeachment is about to kick off. Watch.


TRUMP: I'd love to go wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be beautiful?

REPORTER: So why don't you go?

TRUMP: I don't know. I'd sort of love to sit right in the front row, and stare in their corrupt faces.

JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: His counsel might recommend against that.


REPORTER: --show up.

SEKULOW: No, that's not the way it works. I mean, no, President's don't do that.


INGRAHAM: OK. So the President is like showboating himself, like, yes, I'd love to stare down Schiff and - I mean, there's nothing that would prevent him from going, right? I mean, but it would not be advisable, Jay Sekulow, said. Sol?

WISENBERG: Are we waiting? Oh, sorry, I thought was waiting for a quote from Sekulow. Yes, that wouldn't be advisable at all. And the President needs to be careful about what he says during the impeachment process. That kind of thing has gotten him in trouble before.

And I'm particularly concerned that he might say something critical of Chief Justice Roberts, which I think could really turn some people and some citizens against him. So, I think, he's - he needs to be careful. That's all right.

INGRAHAM: All right. Well, he was just having fun. I mean, I think he's like - he'd like to stare him down. I mean, I don't know John, I'd like - I think people are desperate for some - if they're going to make this a show with clips and video. I mean, by the way, the Trump's attorneys are going to do that this week. They're going to have their own Cliporama, if that's what people really want.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with the president commenting every now and then, and I think Sol's right. He shouldn't go after Roberts. But I don't think we will.

EASTMAN: He shouldn't go after Roberts. But what I would do if I were the President's team, is I would, I would have a evidentiary objection for everything Schiff has said. You know, you're not allowed to say things in your opening argument at a trial that you don't have evidence to back up.

And I would go through everything that he said, for which there's no evidence to back it up, I would move objections for every bit of evidence that's now been introduced into the record that is based on hearsay. The ability to object to a hearsay evidence was protected in the resolution.

And I would spend the first part of my time cleaning out the crap in the record, and then say, OK, then here's what we have left. And that that clearly doesn't arise to the standard. Let's be done with it. I wouldn't take their full 24 hours--


EASTMAN: --mind dumbing. They don't want to be as mind numbingly dull on their side as Schiff and company have been on inside?

INGRAHAM: No, no. I'd go. I'd lie check them on a whole bunch of issues and then move on to the objections. Gentlemen, thank you so much. Great to see all of you tonight.

Now, we just learned what to expect in the coming days. So let's go to Fox News Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram, who's live from Capitol Hill, having not slept at all last night and it's still working, Chad.


INGRAHAM: Oh, good.

PERGRAM: But they're done earlier tonight, which is a good thing and they don't start until 1:00 o'clock tomorrow. They've just adjourned the trial for the day. There are 16 more hours, the prosecution, the House, Democratic Impeachment Managers have.

We expect them to take the bulk of their time and wrap up their case on Friday. And then Saturday, that's when the White House Defense Counsel Pat Cipollone and the rest of his legal team, that's when they would start to present their case.

One thing that I noticed inside the Senate chamber today is that - you talked about the Cliporama. When they start to play those videos or put up those slides, everybody in the chamber turns. That is making a great impact.

And if the White House legal team is going to parrot that, that's something that might dovetail and maybe help the President in the defense. But that's something that a lot of people were paying particular attention to.

The other thing that sort of up was John Kennedy. Republican Senator from Louisiana indicated reporters earlier tonight, Laura, that he said he was learning things in this process. He said, as a Senator, it's hard to keep up with what the House have been doing.

You have other responsibilities and sitting there listening hour after hour, even though sometimes it can be rather sonorous, he said, he was learning something. He was asked if this could sway his opinion, and he could vote to convict the President? He said I'm not going to go there yet. I have to hear the entire body of evidence. Back to you, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Chad, get some sleep. We'll see you back tomorrow. I know this is fun for you. You have to admit it is fun for you. Correct? And you're having fun.

PERGRAM: It could be a little tiring sometimes. But you eat right, you get some exercise and you look back in a few years, you're like well, we were here for that. But--

INGRAHAM: Just say hi to Benjamin Franklin - that beautiful alabaster. When you walk out the gallery, he's right there. I'd love to hear what he would say about all this stuff.

PERGRAM: I never forget all the statues here. Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Exactly. All right, Chad, thanks so much.

Now a rumor was going around that Senators were hashing out a deal to let Bolton testify in exchange for Hunter Biden taking the stand. But today Democrat Senators shot that down at the behest of Senator Adam Schiff.


SCHIFF: This isn't like some fantasy football trade, as I said yesterday. This isn't, we'll offer you this, if you'd give us that. We'll offer you a witness that is irrelevant and immaterial.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: I think that's off the table. First of all, the Republicans have the right to bring in any witness they want. They haven't wanted to. And that trade is not on the table.


INGRAHAM: They haven't wanted to, HB - Hunter Biden. Now here now with a reaction are two Senators who just walked off the floor, sitting as jurors, of course, in the trial, Mike Braun and Rick Scott. Senator Scott, let's start with you. Do Schiff control the Senate Democrats now? What was that?

SEN. RICK SCOTT, R-FLA.: I don't know. First off, it's boring. I mean--

INGRAHAM: I was there. Yes.

SCOTT: It's boring to me and they're not saying anything new. It's just - probably have - get different person to show up - show the same video and say the same thing. I mean, I think they've lost everybody, including the public on this. But we're going to have a fair trial. I don't know if we'll have witnesses. If we do, we ought to hear from Hunter Biden, for sure.

INGRAHAM: Well, Senator Kennedy, I believe, said he learned new things at the trial. And could that mean doors open to witnesses, if he learned some new things? I don't know what he was doing for the last couple of months. But he learned new things, does that mean Senator Brown, we could hear from witnesses down the road.

SEN. MIKE BRAUN, R-IND.: I think John was probably just stressing his impartiality, in the sense that we get asked about that all the time. But, I'd agree with Rick, what we've seen so far. And I did pay attention to it, because I do a lot of this. And you got to be on the ball, because you get asked about it all the time.

And everything there was - you had the audiovisual aids. They didn't package it in a way. But it's the same information, and it's also in a vacuum to where we haven't seen the defense. So that's the main dynamic changer, and we'll hear that in a couple days.

INGRAHAM: Well, I want to talk about what is happening in that room, though, because I was watching all of you from the gallery. It's fun to sit up there and just like watch who's - to look like someone was on their phone, but I guess there wasn't, but they weren't.

But it seems to me that this is like an exercise in futility. I don't know what people are learning new, except when you heard Adam Schiff at about 1.25. I think it was hour 2.5. I did notice he was repeating the same claims he had made not only yesterday, but claims he made within the hour within - the hour of today.

SCOTT: No, it's trying to stay awake. I mean, this is really boring.

INGRAHAM: I was almost - well, I'll tell that story later. But, I mean, you guys, I don't know how you do it. But, look, what they say--

SCOTT: You stand up a lot.

INGRAHAM: What they're saying is, look, I mean, the Republicans can say this is boring then let's make it more exciting and bring in witnesses, senator.

SCOTT: Yes. Well, first off, it's their job. It was the House's job, but they rushed through this. They could have subpoenaed Bolton. They didn't do that. They could have done all these things. They decided not to do it. They rushed through it.

Then they had to slow it down. You know what, I came to conclusion today on Pelosi, she slowed it down so they get their audiovisual--

INGRAHAM: Visual, audio - well, that binder that Schiff has, that's three punch binder. He's flipping - that was like a Warren Peace. That thing was long. It was like this thick. He read the entire thing.

BRAUN: For each one of them, because you come out here and see a two-inch- thick binder and they're flipping through it so methodically. And it was something yesterday--

INGRAHAM: All right, well, I want to--

BRAUN: --sit through 13--

INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, Claire McCaskill, former senator, we know Claire McCaskill. She made a pretty bold prediction today about what this is going to do to you all in the majority next year. Watch.


CLAIRE MCCASKILL, FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR: The vote will be shut it down or go on and consider witness and documents. That vote will be the vote that history revolves around. Even if they go on to vote to acquit, if they refuse to allow witnesses and documents at this point, I think they're in big trouble. I think Chuck Schumer is the leader of the senate next January.


SCOTT: I don't think so. First off, we got great candidates, and we're raising the money. And we got the - we are in the better side of this. And we're working hard to try to solve problems and the Democrats are known for doing nothing.

INGRAHAM: Well, they're targeting Collins, they are targeting Gardner, they're talking to McSally.

SCOTT: McSally, Joni--

INGRAHAM: There's some tough races. There's some tough races. I mean, y'all are very confident. But that Arizona race is going to be--

BRAUN: No, that'll be tough and Iowa could be tough. Maine, will be. But, in general, you got to remember. About a month and a half ago, she was really panicking, because remember, the Marquette poll and the FireHouse poll, not only showed people turning against impeachment, but where Trump was now winning outside the margin of error and I think that's still in place, you don't hear about it, though.

INGRAHAM: You know what, I think, people want to see? They want to see some fighting for them.

BRAUN: Sure.

INGRAHAM: I think they see - and if you're a Democrat, you're watching Schiff --


INGRAHAM: That's why they like Trump. But they want Republicans who do more of that and do less of, well, "I'm in a tough race." Do the right thing for the country.

SCOTT: Always do the right thing.

INGRAHAM: I just think this perpetual Hamlet routine that a lot of these Republicans -- the Democrats always stick together. The Republicans shoot each other in the stomach and then in the head. I don't like it. I don't like it.

SCOTT: We all stuck together yesterday.

INGRAHAM: They did, and you did on Kavanaugh, and that was smart.

SCOTT: We all stuck together yesterday.

INGRAHAM: You did. Send Collins and all the rest a king cake.

BRAUN: Kavanaugh is a good example. And we each went through races. And in 2018, when you are out there, you defend -- Trump won by 19 points in Indiana, so I was not afraid to talk about what he could do, what the agenda is doing, and we'll get to that after he gets acquitted.

INGRAHAM: Wait until Cipollone and company get up and make their case. Senators -

SCOTT: They're going to do a good job.

BRAUN: That will be the big change.

INGRAHAM: I like, Senator Braun, how you took the tie off because you had had it by the end of the day. You had had it. What if you just showed up in a t-shirt and jeans? OK, if we are going to get comfortable, we're going to really -- sweat pants.


INGRAHAM: Great to see you both, thanks for being with us. I know you're tired.

And we have a huge exclusive for you tonight. "The Ingraham Angle" got our hands on the email exchanges from State Department officials that could drastically alter the course of President Trump's impeachment. Here's a hint. They involve the Obama administration, the potential whistleblower, and Hunter Biden's shady Burisma arrangement. You don't want to miss it.


INGRAHAM: And now to an exclusive "Ingraham Angle" investigation. As far as I'm concerned, the entire impeachment drama comes back to one person, the whistleblower. Democrats want you to believe this person is all of a sudden unimportant to their case against the president.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't even need the whistleblower's original complaint. It's all there clear as day in the transcript and in these text messages.

SCHIFF: Given that we already have the call record, we don't need the whistleblower, who wasn't on the call, to tell us what took place during the call.


INGRAHAM: But tonight "The Ingraham Angle" obtained exclusive documents that show just how important he or she is.

We got our hands on a batch of State Department emails from May of last year. The chain centers on a request from The New York Times reporter Ken Vogel. You might remember he is the former "Politico" reporter who wrote this story about Ukrainian efforts to hobble Trump's presidential run in 2016. But that's just a conspiracy theory, right?

Fast-forward to May of 2019. Vogel sends an email to State Department official Kate Schilling about a story he was working on regarding an Obama era meeting with Ukrainian prosecutors. In his request, Vogel mentions a name who some have reported as the whistleblower. We have not yet confirmed this name, so we are just blacking it out for here.

Vogel's email reads as follows. "We are going to report that "State Department official" Elizabeth Zentos attended a meeting on the White House on January 19th, 2016, with Ukrainian prosecutors and embassy officials. The subjects discussed included efforts within the United States government to support prosecutions in the Ukraine and the United Kingdom of Burisma Holdings, and concerns that Hunter Biden's position with the company could complicate such efforts."

On May 1st, State Department official Kate Schilling forwarded Vogel's email to her colleagues Elizabeth Zentos and George Kent. Remember him? He was one of the House Democrats all-star impeachment witnesses. According to Schilling's email, Kent has previously been a source for Vogel. I wonder how many times, I was thinking about that yesterday. But I digress. Follow- up emails reveal the conversation ending on May 3rd when the State Department eventually just declined to comment.

We at The Ingraham Angle were, however, able to corroborate details about the January, 2016, meeting. However, we did this using archived Obama White House visitor logs. They're not going to tell us. We have to go to the logs. You can see them on the screen now. They show that the person who many believe to be the whistleblower checked in numerous Ukrainian officials into the White House on January 19th, 2016, the day Vogel claims there was a meeting on the Burisma and Biden. Also at the meeting were Ukraine's lead anticorruption prosecutor and the head of the country's anticorruption bureau, both of whom were there to discuss the complications of Hunter Biden's sweetheart gig.

So what happened to that New York Times story about the 2016 meeting? Pretty hot, don't you think? It was never published. We asked Ken Vogel, the reporter, why nothing ever came of it, but he didn't respond. "The New York Times" director of communications did, however, also refusing to answer our questions about why the story never ran, instead noting that Vogel's request for comment was just consistent with their newsgathering process. Got it, nothing to see here.

The timing of their request and the subsequent squashing of the story are very interesting. Let me explain why. Biden announced his candidacy on April 25th, 2019. The exchanges we laid out here in this segment occur the following week.

So now we have some questions. Number one -- why wasn't the whistleblower concerned about Joe Biden overseeing Ukraine policy while his son was cashing in? Was it only troubling that Trump himself tried to get this thing investigated, this entire unsavory deal? Number two, why didn't this story ever run? Did Biden's team manage to put it down, fearing blowback from his son Hunter's dirty dealings, maybe?

There's a reason Adam Schiff and now Chuck Schumer fume, as they did tonight, over the very idea of Hunter Biden testifying. They know in their heart of hearts that Ukrainian corruption reached back all the way to the Obama administration, and they did nothing. His testimony would also force the Democrats to admit that there are 2020 frontrunner oversaw U.S. policy in Ukraine while his own son was bilking their system for 50k a month.

We need more documentation on this. We want all the emails, all the text messages, we want to see exactly what was happening inside that State Department last year and then in the White House in January, 2016, when these meetings were taking place and when the effort to respond to this "New York Times" reporter was playing out. There's a lot more to uncover, and we hope maybe some of our friends in the media will actually start thinking this is as big a story as it is.

Joining me now is Kim Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, editorial board member, and Lee Smith, investigative journalist and author of "The Plot Against The President." Kim, you say these revelations get to the heart of the Democrats impeachment argument. Explain.

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, COLUMNIST, WALL STREET JOURNAL: They are immensely important, because the heart of that argument is that Donald Trump acted corruptly in asking about Biden and Burisma. And you heard Adam Schiff today say of 1,000 companies out there, he asked about this one. In fact, the White House has consistently made the claim that the question, the broad question of corruption, was a legitimate one.

And if we now have evidence of the Obama administration was holding meetings about this -- we already know, Burisma was not just mom and pop corner shop store. This was a company that was started by the former, a brainchild of the former Ukrainian president, run by a prominent former Ukrainian official, on the radar screen of international law enforcement, and solicited prominent American political figures to sit on its board. It was a big deal, and therefore it does raise the question of how legitimate the target it was to ask about.

INGRAHAM: Lee, I'm looking at this email, this is from Elizabeth Zentos from the State Department, to Kate Schilling, George Kent, who of course was one of the star witnesses, and the subject was Ukraine, Mykola Zlochevsky, the head of Burisma Holdings, and U.S. government anticorruption efforts. "Hi, Kate. Thanks very much for the info. At this point I think it's best that I not respond, although let me know if EUR," the European Desk, "thinks differently. Thanks very much. Best, Liz." They were scrambling. They were scrambling on this. Ken Vogel was hot on this story until he was not. I want to know why he stopped. How big is this?

LEE SMITH, AUTHOR, THE PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT: I think it's an enormous story. I think we are not just finding what's behind the impeachment, what is the pushback on that. We are also getting back to different sources of this insane Russia-gate operation that actually began around that time. Congressman Devin Nunes has said it begins around early 2016, late 2015, this is one of the sources of it, and we see it's in the White House.

INGRAHAM: Kim, when you look at this visitor log, all Ukrainian names, individuals from the Ukrainian government, now the reporter saying we are looking into this meeting where Hunter Biden was discussed. It's a potential conflict of interest with the vice president overseeing this policy. There are the names right there. The head of the anticorruption unit in the Ukraine, in Kiev. This is a story that you would think a reporter like Ken Vogel who, he's a pretty serious reporter, he would've been on it like a dog on a bone. And we get this response from "The New York Times" tonight basically saying it just shows our newsgathering prowess. Kim?

STRASSEL: This was a story that most reporters were on like a dog on a bone, right up until the point which Democrats decided to make it into an impeachment issue. You go back and you mentioned that Ken Vogel story where he talked about Ukrainians efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. We had endless numbers of stories from media reporters about Biden and his conflict and the problems that the Obama administration was facing with it, stories about Amos Hochstein, the former Obama energy czar who went to Biden aids and said this looks like a conflict, and went to Biden himself. These are people that within the administration, as you said, there seemed to be some real concern and some real scrambling. It's only now that it has gone down the memory hole because no one wants to talk about it. They just want to talk about Donald Trump.

INGRAHAM: When we see the visitee name, who logged them in, who checked the men, in other words, who called the meeting, and the person who is listed, we're not going to use his name but a lot of people believe is the whistleblower. I'll show you, Lee. See the name? You can see it right there.

So Lee, when you think about this story and you hear Adam Schiff today, all day long talk about the Biden conspiracy theory, the Burisma conspiracy theory, it looks like the Obama administration was trying to deal with this issue, or sweep it under the rug. How much of a conspiracy theory was it?

SMITH: Right, there's no conspiracy theory at all. This was a real thing. And the press, that ken Vogel story in January, 2017, may have been the last account of it. Since then, they have buried this episode, and it's not just because Joe Biden is now running for president. There's something deeper. It wasn't Joe Biden who named Joe Biden the point man on Ukraine. This touches other people in the Obama administration.

INGRAHAM: John Kerry, correct? Secretary of state.

SMITH: John Kerry certainly. His stepson was a partner of Hunter Biden's. There are many people who have their fingers in what appears to be bad Ukraine issues.

INGRAHAM: And Andriy Telizhenko was also, who is listed in this visitor log, was in that original story in 2017.

SMITH: He was at the embassy here in Washington.

INGRAHAM: Exactly. Kim and Lee, we are going to stay on this story, and we think we will have a lot more. Thank you both for joining us tonight.

And coming up, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Raymond Arroyo, Byron York, and Tom Bevan, that's next.


INGRAHAM: Republicans have been remarkably unified so far during the Senate trial. Only Senator Susan Collins broke ranks and voted in favor of one out of the 11 amendments proposed by Chuck Schumer.

Joining me now is Senator Jeff Sessions who served with Mitch McConnell for nearly two decades. He is also former attorney general. Senator, do expect Republicans to stay unified on this issue of witnesses going forward?

JEFF SESSIONS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I would expect so. I think Mitch has done a really good job. You've only had one vote out of, what, 550 or 60 votes that went the other way, and Republicans prevailed every time. I think the partisanship, the excessive, obvious partisanship in this impeachment has really hardened the Republicans. I feel pretty good about it right now.

INGRAHAM: Chuck Schumer spoke out today, and he had some less charitable things to say about Senator McConnell. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much coordination are you having with the House managers as they present their case?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: Not very much. We are not like McConnell. We're not secretive and close to the vest. We decided in a caucus ourselves what amendments we wanted to ask for yesterday. We are seeking the truth. The American people want the truth. We would be derelict in our responsibilities if we didn't ask for these votes.


INGRAHAM: Don't you wonder if those glasses are just going to fall off one night? Senator, is that true, so McConnell is secretive, and they are the pinnacles of transparency over there in the Democrat Party?

SESSIONS: They're maneuvering on the Democratic side to an incredible degree. They have coordinated. They delayed the presentation of this in hopes of gaining further partisan advantage. The impeachment is baseless, it does not have the gravitas in any way close to justifying on impeachment of the president of the United States. And it's always some other witness, some other person, some other evidence, somewhere. This has been going on three years. Mueller, the I.G., the committees in Congress have all investigated and investigated, promised disastrous testimony and evidence. Not produced. So I think this is a dangerous thing for the country.

INGRAHAM: Now exerting your rightful check and balance over another branch and of trying to preserve, as president, your executive power, as the Trump team has done and they did on witnesses and documents, this is what Obama did the whole time you were in the Senate on Fast and Furious, on the IRS issue. How many times can one person claim the Fifth? So should they have all been impeached because they resisted turning over documents? I guess they could have been under this theory.

SESSIONS: You are making the right point, Laura. There is constant tension between executive and the legislative. I served in both branches. I felt it very deeply. Oftentimes one branch gets upset with the other deeply. But you don't turn to impeachment every time you have a disagreement. The House did not take the case to the courts like they could have over these witnesses. So I think it's much ado about nothing, nothing that justifies - - let me tell you, the Democrats are afraid of Donald Trump. He has appealed to a broad base of people, people who don't feel either party represents them. People who feel like --

INGRAHAM: I have a question, I have a question. What are you going to do to get his endorsement?

SESSIONS: I'm going to do what I think is right, and what I have done from the beginning is to be in accord with his views. I was advocating them before he was nominated, I supported him, and I expect to continue to do so.

INGRAHAM: All right, Attorney General, we appreciate it.

And Democrats spent a good part of today whining about rules and the rules that Mitch McConnell set for the Senate trial.


SCHIFF: This resembles nothing like the Clinton proceedings. All of the documents were provided before the trial, more than 90,000 of them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This McConnell resolution directly contravenes the rules followed in the Clinton impeachment trial.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is another departure, massive departure, because of course during the Clinton impeachment there had already been a lot of witnesses, a lot of depositions taken, lots of evidence produced.


INGRAHAM: Joining me now Byron York from the Washington Examiner, also Raymond Arroyo, both FOX News contributors, Tom Bevan, co-founder and president, Real Clear Politics. Byron, was Clinton Accommodating?

BRYON YORK, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: You get the idea that Bill Clinton just helpfully gave all his material to the House Republicans who were trying to remove him from office. No, he didn't. The 90,000 figure came from a Clinton rebuttal to the Starr Report who said in the previous four-and-a-half years, remember Whitewater, Travel-gate, File-gate, the Lewinsky matter, there were a bunch of grand jury subpoenas, and Clinton did turn over material to the prosecutor, Ken Starr, because of those grand jury subpoenas.

INGRAHAM: It was a fight, Byron. You and I were covering this at the time.

YORK: He fought like a tiger all the time.

INGRAHAM: Raymond, CNN's legal analyst are drooling all over Schiff's performance today. To him it was like Mr. Schiff goes to Washington.


JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I thought it was dazzling, it was really remarkable. It was the second-best courtroom address, since it's like a courtroom, that I have ever heard. It's very hard to imagine that they will think that the Democrats and the House managers are just making this up.


RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Laura, I watched the first four hours today. Schiff was masterful, I have to say, because he was stringing together a narrative based on nothing but innuendo, "Fox & Friends" clips, and a few press gaggles of the president, trying to turn that into a conviction.

We were all there in 1999 when they prosecuted Bill Clinton. It was vastly different than this. There was a grand jury, there was a special counsel, there were facts to impeach him on.

INGRAHAM: There was an underlying crime.

ARROYO: Here there is no underlying crime. This is a crystal ball conviction where the president would have to see into the future and know that Joe Biden was going to be his opponent a year ago, to craft this entire moving board to move to his advantage. This is madness. And you know what, the audience is running to "Judge Judy" and "Jeopardy!" This is tedium on television.

INGRAHAM: Tom Bevan, are they convincing anyone with this? You're looking at all the polls, Real Clear Politics is tracking everything. Is it moving the needle, do you think, or are people focusing on the economy and getting their kids through the school year?

BEVAN: I think they are not. And in fact, because we know how it's going to play, we know how it was going to play out, it was preordained in the Senate, and so it's just a bit of the background noise now. We've had eight polls in the month of January thus far and they've shown that the numbers have hardly moved. The public still opposes removal of this president by, it's 48-47, so pretty evenly split, but more no than yes.

INGRAHAM: Chris Matthews spoke out tonight, and I just thought for a comedic interlude we needed to watch it.


CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: After Bugs Bunny I call him of this business, the clever Mitch McConnell, who is so much a Bugs Bunny character, he always gets away with it. And we know he will get away with something he did wrong, just like Bugs Bunny.


INGRAHAM: This is it. This is it. Byron, Bugs Bunny, we are down to the Roadrunner, Bugs Bunny.


ARROYO: I wish for Bugs Bunny.

YORK: If it weren't for President Trump, Mitch McConnell would be the greatest villain in this whole story, but so far he has really held his people together.

INGRAHAM: I agree. I was there today.

ARROYO: How did you survive? I heard there was a cop encounter that the press got?

INGRAHAM: There are the Capitol police, first of all, and the ushers who are sure you to your seat up in the gallery. So it was a very comfortable seat. You know those velvet, the kind of velveteen seat.

ARROYO: Did they give you milk? Was it warm?

INGRAHAM: No, no. But I was in the back quarter, which I loved, but at one point, I felt this, and this nice usher said ma'am, you can't sleep here.


INGRAHAM: I fell asleep. Tom Bevan, I promise I fell asleep. It was embarrassing.

ARROYO: But you on Broadway go to sleep. Admit to people. I've been next to you, and you were literally snoring before the first act was over.

INGRAHAM: It was only Jim Gandolfini's last appearance on Broadway. But sorry, it was a --

ARROYO: Schiff was not that good today.

INGRAHAM: I'm telling you, I fell asleep, Bevan, I admit it. Guys, we're going to talk to you all throughout the week. Thank you so much for joining us. Sorry it was so short. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" take it all from here.

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.