This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 14, 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 a busy Washington tonight. Nancy finally, finally makes her glacial move. In moments my Angle examines what the Senate should do next. And then our expert legal panel lays out everything you need to know about the upcoming trial. What is going to happen the process, the procedure? What will and what won't surprise you?

We have breaking news just got our hands on it you want to stay tuned for sure. Also tonight, Mitch McConnell open the door to calling Hunter Biden in front of the Senate trial. What about the whistleblower though? We're going to ask that question. Devin Nunes has some answers.

Also more breaking news, this time on Mike Flynn and we have new details. Plus, more Russian hysteria is coming your way as I mentioned to Hannity, Democrats and the resistance media are foaming at the mouth over this new Russia hacking controversy. We are digging into the real truth and the sources there. Laura Logan is here. She is going to explain it all. But first, dismiss the madness. That is the focus of tonight's Angle.

Nearly a month after the House passed two lame articles of impeachment against President Trump, Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally, finally announced at her urgent case needed to be slowly actually transmitted to the Senate.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He abused his power and obstructed a constitutionally instructed impeachment inquiry. In America, no one is above the law. The next step is simple the Senate should conduct a fair trial.


INGRAHAM: Oh yes, he is not biased. The slow roll of Pelosi's articles, that itself speaks volumes about these absurdities of this entire exercise. 
When pressed about why she decided to send the articles despite zero concessions from McConnell on process procedure, senior members of her own party struggled to move beyond gibberish.


REP. ROSA DELAURO, D-CT: She thought very carefully about this within conjunction with the Committee Chairs who have been responsible for this and she will make her case and proceed forward.


INGRAHAM: Can I buy a vowel please? I'm not seeing that answered the question. Well, the Senate Majority Leader is clearly in the driver's seat.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY: The House Majority fueled about political animus may have started this with frivolity. But it will fall to the Senate, to the Senate to end it with seriousness and sobriety.


INGRAHAM: You bet he is right the Senate is not beholden to the lower chamber and determining trial procedures. Any more so than the Senate can dictate with the House does. Pelosi knows this though. It's all just a farce from beginning to end. McConnell frankly has been a beacon of clarity now for weeks raising the requirements of the constitutional questions at every turn.

He's repeatedly demonstrated how absurd and have seen this entire Ukraine impeachment was from the start. And today McConnell gave the appearance, kind of holding a door open to witnesses at the Senate trial.


MCCONNELL: We will be dealing with the witness issue at the appropriate time into the trial. I think it certainly appropriate to point out that both sides would want to call witnesses that they would want to hear from.


INGRAHAM: Wow! You see the little trick going on there. As I said last night, look McConnell has the power to end this national nightmare. He could in his opening resolution tomorrow include a motion to dismiss the fraudulent articles of impeachment the facts, the law, and the constitutional require it.

An actual trial is only necessary if preceded by a legitimate indictment. 
That didn't happen here. The process and the House were infected by partisan taint and defective legal arguments. First the House failed to make their case under applicable law. The constitution clearly states a person can only be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Here none of that was established. There was no underlying crime.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This would be the first impeachment and history where there would be considerable debate, and in my view not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime.


INGRAHAM: The two articles filed against the President are deficient on their face. The first, abuse of power is just totally made up. According to the radicals and their parties, the President is abusing his power every time he enforces, let's say immigration law. They're all saying that all the time. He can't do this he is abusing his power, so would that count to as an article of impeachment?

Is he how wide berth this is? The President acted squarely with his article one powers and his telephone conversation with Ukrainian President. 
Ukrainian President himself said he felt no pressure, no quid pro quo. This is why the Democrats abandon their talk of the quid pro quo and of course all the other stuff they were throwing in the kitchen sink, extortion, you name it.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are a number of events you are investigating to which I cannot bring any first-hand knowledge.

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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.

GORDON SONDLAND, FORMER US AMBASSADOR: Other than my own presumption.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which is nothing?


INGRAHAM: That's my favorite of all. The second article obstruction of Congress is even more legitimate if that's possible. So now we're going to impeach Presidents in the future who exercise their rights to exert privileges or otherwise defend their executive authority? That's going to be interesting.

From day one Schiff and company made it clear that they wouldn't go to court to enforce subpoenas, what does that tell you? That told you they had no confidence in their case. They claimed there was no time. They pointed to the urgency of the matter. We had to stop Trump he was going to do it again. Remember all that?

But it was like, hurry up and wait for an entire month. Tomorrow she is going to hand the impeachment articles to the Senate. If anyone should be charged with abuse of power it is Pelosi and Schiff.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you impeach a President's, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You are doing precisely what you're criticizing the President for doing.


INGRAHAM: Second the politics of this impeachment stink to high heaven and they always have. Democrats didn't get a single Republican to vote for it. Not one! The framers made it very clear that impeachment had to be bipartisan to be legitimate. The underlying conduct had to be egregious.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hamilton and Federal 65's have said the greatest danger is for impeachment to turn on how many votes one party can have against the other party. That is exactly what happened. It would be ideal if we had impeachments that were neutral, objected, and bipartisan. In this case it doesn't rise to that level in any sense.


INGRAHAM: It shouldn't be treated as legitimate either. Democrats used to agree that impeachment should be driven fully by one party.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF: We are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton. Until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer.

JOE BIDEN,  D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: History is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standards in the very high bar.


INGRAHAM: Back then Biden actually remembered where he was. So what happened? Donald Trump happened, that's what. Finally it's time that members of Congress start earning their paycheck. We face a wide array of challenges that need the President's undivided attention. Iran, infrastructure the skyrocketing cost of health care still. This is all a dangerous distraction and McConnell should continue to call it out as such.

Oh, and Mitt Romney and the other folks who are wobbly may be, Mitt Romney has the opportunity to be a hero here. Yes, I said hero. He had a handful of the other wavering Republican Senators have the power to preserve the legitimacy and the check of impeachment.

Allowing new witnesses into the process at this point, it only empowers the partisans that began this madness from the beginning! The constitutional deficiency is obvious on its face. I think Romney knows that. It's imperative that they stop the Democratic Senators itching for a show trial. 
Allowing this impeachment to go forward only serves to set a poisonous precedent for future Commanders in Chief long after Trump is gone.

So this is a time for the GOP to stand together. Just like they did in the face of the Kavanaugh smears. Lending any legitimacy to the Houses acidic article would burn a hole through the constitution and frankly, the Senate's legacy and that's "The Ingraham Angle."

Joining me now is Bob Barr Former Clinton House Impeachment Manager along with Sol Wisenberg Former Deputy Whitewater Independent Counsel and John Eastman Claremont Institute Senior Fellow and Constitutional Scholar.

Gentleman we have a lot to get through tonight. Fox News is confirming that Mitch McConnell met today with GOP Senators to discuss trial strategies including the idea of witness reciprocity with Democrats basically, will trade you a Hunter Biden for a John Bolton. John, is this kind of a cutesy game? Mitch McConnell is very smart he knows the Senate procedure better than anybody on the Hill. Knowing that Democrats are never going to allow Hunter Biden or may be the whistleblower or Adam Schiff to testify, thoughts John?

JOHN EASTMAN, CLAREMONT INSTITUTE SENIOR FELLOW: Well, I think so, but if we're going to go forward with the trial it would be really interesting to hear from those folks. We have got enough evidence to show that there was collusion between Schiff and the whistleblower months before the call to try and set this up.

We have got enough evidence to know that Hunter Biden was in a sweetheart deal getting money. We heard from your opening monologue, they keep saying nobody is above the law. That would include Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. It makes a perfectly legitimate for the President to want to look into that sweet heart deal.

So all of these things ought to be on the table but even more importantly the whole scandal where, if it is illegitimate for the President to ask for foreign help and an investigation of U.S. citizens, then where is the talk about the Obama Administration investigation of Paul Manafort or the use of the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign?

I still remain of the view that this whole charade is designed to provide cover and hide that most phenomenal, political scandal in American history.

INGRAHAM: But Sol an impeachment trial is not going to get to the bottom of any that. That's just wishful thinking. Going back to my ANGLE for a moment Sol, your wit and wisdom is required here. What about McConnell including a motion to dismiss in that opening resolution? Even if they don't vote on it right away. I know you think that happened in impeachment if my memory serves me correctly here. Sol.

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, if they entertain a motion to impeach, either - sorry a motion to dismiss. Either on the theory that the impeachment articles on their face do not allege an impeachable crime. Or on the theory that we've looked at all the evidence from the House and that does improve an impeachable crime.

If they decide to dismiss on those grounds, I believe that under the case of Nixon, that is Walter and not Richard Nixon be United States. The Supreme Court cannot question that. In other words it's a political question the Supreme Court will not second guess.

So my first answer to your question is there is no doubt the Senate can do this that, that will be considered a trial because the Supreme Court has said we don't look into whether something's a trial or not. That's up to the Senate alone.

INGRAHAM: Interesting. I knew I would get a good answer from Sol. Now, Bob Barr, you've been at this before with Clinton impeachment in House. What are your thoughts here about this idea of expanding this out? We have supposedly new documents that the Democrats are dropping into the Senate tomorrow regarding Lev Parnas and scribble scrabble on a - notepad that's not dated. How does that all play into this process?

BOB BARR, FORMER CLINTON IMPEAHMENT MANAGER: It's more nonsense from a process that has given us nothing but nonsense. I mean, what they're trying to do is they're trying to resuscitate a body that died a long time ago over in the House side. And your idea of having a motion to dismiss is I mean it is so obviously the right thing to do for the Republicans that one wonders why there is all of this daily data lying around by some of the Republicans?

It just takes a majority vote. They have more than the majority. Do it, get it over with. If the Democrats want to try and take it to the courts and have the court slapped their hand, that's fine. But the Senate has the power and the Republican majority ought to do the right thing for once.

INGRAHAM: I have to agree John, this entire thing about, should we call Hunter? You called Hunter Biden in a Senate Committee. They could call Hunter Biden tomorrow in a Senate Committee Hearing. But this idea that we're going to negotiate and Romney is going to do this, and Collins is going to ask for this. And then Schiff is going to - this is a joke.

This is terrible for the future of our country. It might be good for us we're going to have gangbusters ratings next week. I'm actually saying something that's against my own personal interest I probably shouldn't say this. It's bad for the country, terrible for the country.

EASTMAN: Well, and as you pointed out in your opening monologue, the claims of obstruction of Congress for the President, asserting his rights as an executive, he doesn't work for the Congress. This is not a parliamentary system. He has his own independent authority from the constitution directly from us the American people.

What the House of Representatives are, second article of impeachment is trying to upset that balance and completely shift power back away from the executive. We have a unitary executive for a very important reason. It really is starting to threaten the entire infrastructure of our constitutional system.

INGRAHAM: And Sol, when we read the reporting about Nancy Pelosi calling Mitch McConnell, a Russian asset. I'm paraphrasing. That is basically what she said. She said he has Kremlin connections it is going along with the far left radical hash tag about this that's been flying around Twitter.

That also speaks to the underlying raw tear. This is a partisan attack, it is an extension of the failed Mueller probe and they're trying to go back and whip it all again try to get him out of office. I just think her comments alone tanked this.

WISENBERG: Well, I believe when the history of this is looked at, Speaker Pelosi is not going to look very good. The reason for that, Senator McConnell, I don't always agree with him but I think he really hit the nail on the head. They did not take this process seriously.

When you impeach a President, it's serious. You don't get up one day hold a press conference and say, we're now doing impeachment. You pass a resolution that says we're going to do an impeachment inquiry. You do it early enough to let people go to the courts and test whether or not they have to come and testify.

They could have subpoenaed McGahn for the impeachment much earlier. They could have subpoenaed Bolton for the impeachment and the courts would have expedited this schedule and the courts would have decided. So on that question, I really believe history will show in the whole idea of her holding it for the last two weeks will show that she made a lot of tactical and strategic mistakes but all in all, she was not a serious person. And I think the judgment of history on her will be devastating.

INGRAHAM: All right, you're being very charitable Sol that's why we love to have you back on the show. You're the charitable guest tonight on the panel. Just really quickly Bob Barr, have to get you on this because the Democrats are already looking past the impeachment vote not to do prescription drugs or infrastructure but to do more Russia investigation. 
This is Mike Quigley, a Congressman today. Watch.


REP. MIKE QUIGLEY, D-ILL: When this process is all over, the committee on intelligence will continue to investigate this President from all the issues relating to the Russia investigation, including money laundering. So I want the public to know that the investigation of this President the desire to hold him accountable will continue.


INGRAHAM: Oh good, I hadn't heard money laundering before guys. I had heard extortion and bribery I mean, everything else. I had not heard that in a while. Bob final thought?

BARR: What they're doing here is they are further eroding the entire process of the Intelligence Committee, which ought to be involved in a serious oversight. It has no credibility whatsoever. They've done great damage to that process as well as to the constitutional process of impeachment.

INGRAHAM: Dismiss this now. I have to make t-shirts up. I'll send each of you one. All right, gentlemen, thanks so much tonight and coming up, where is Hunter? Mitch McConnell hinted today that he might be interested in calling Hunter Biden as a witness in the Senate trial. Democrats want witnesses, they want witnesses. Devin Nunes joins us next to discuss that and a forgotten witness the heart of impeachment.



PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I would love to have the whistleblower who wrote a fake report. I want to know what happened to the second whistleblower. What happened to the informer? Remember that an informer they all disappeared when I gave the transcript.


INGRAHAM: And I lost track of how many whistleblowers, informants. Well, the President has raised some great points during my exclusive interview with him on Friday. What happened to the person who launched this entire impeachment sham? The connection to Adam Schiff, how many connections are there to Adam Schiff? Can't wait for Schiff to testify and why haven't we heard from the whistleblower? They don't get any special immunity from testifying. If you thought that you were wrong.

Joining me now is Devin Nunes Ranking Member of the House Intel Committee. Congressman, Washington Examiner Byron New York asking this in a new piece, is a Senate reeling in a try to President? Take a vote in this removal from office based on investigation with such murky origins? How did this even get this far?

REP. DEVIND NUNES, R-CALIF.: They've been hell-bent to impeach for three years. Your last panel, the guests were talking about I think Former Congressman Barr I mean they've ruined and stepped all over the constitution. They've also ruined the House Intelligence Committee. I mean, at some point I would like to be able to come on this show and talk about the work that people sent me here to do which is to protect our country, serve on the House Intelligence Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee where we deal with trade issues and all the important issues that people actually care about.

INGRAHAM: How about China? - this verging on being larger than ours with a larger standing army. I know they'll all come into town so we're not supposed to, oh, China, China but it's a threat. That's a threat to the United States.

NUNES: The Republicans, we had an investigation going into China and we still do. We're going to have legislation coming out on China but - we've had virtually no hearings whatsoever.

INGRAHAM: They are not interested in governing or representing the people, they're interested in the removal of the President. That's it. Now I want to play something for you. This is Tammy Baldwin Senator Baldwin, when the issue was raised of Hunter Biden speaking of witnesses we haven't heard from. Watch.


SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN, D-WIS.: The idea for a trial is to have witnesses who have knowledge about the articles of impeachment that had been sent over or will be sent over from the House. It's abuse of power. It's obstruction of Congress. Hunter Biden really has no bearing on those things.


INGRAHAM: No relevance to Hunter Biden.

NUNES: Well, clearly Biden has relevance along with all the Democratic operatives that were doing exactly what they accuse Trump of doing. They were over in Ukraine digging up dirt on Trump. You ask about also - about Adam Schiff, what is he doing? He needs to testify, everyone guess tomorrow that he is going to be one of the managers that is going to be over in a Senate trying to prosecute this case.

INGRAHAM: So what does him doing? Does he puts on the case than he walks over to the witness, is there a witness stand? I mean, how it is going to look?

NUNES: I don't know.

INGRAHAM: Well, hold on let me put down this microphone and grab the mic and go on the other side.

NUNES: Well, yes. He needs to answer questions because he is a fact witness. He's the one that first had interactions with the whistleblower. 
And then you take on top of this--

INGRAHAM: He says he is not a fact witness. He was on the view today. I know you saw when you were sitting there with - watching the view. Watch what he said?

NUNES: Oh, nice.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you if asked to be willing to testify if you were subpoenaed?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Look I'm not a fact witness, so other than mollifying the President I'm not sure why the Senate would call me or Nancy Pelosi as a witness.


NUNES: Well, of course he's a witness. They just get away with this because the media is letting them get away with it. We still don't know how this whistleblower ever came to be? Who on his staff that they talked to? We find out new things all the time, right? We just found out the other day that Mary McCord, the Former DOJ personnel had been advising the Democrats. 
We did not know about that.

INGRAHAM: Now Lev Parnas--

NUNES: Lev Parnas is the other one--

INGRAHAM: Well, we got these notes of like scribble scrabble - note pad there is there is no pad and were supposed to all think oh, the Democrats have a smoking gun. This is ridiculous. This is nothing. It's not even dated.


NUNES: So who was Adam Schiff hanging out with? Parnas. Parnas who was been indicted on serious federal crimes. The Democrats have been in negotiations to try to give this guy--

INGRAHAM: A sweet heart deal.

NUNES: --some type of a nullification of his agreement. Remember, this guy has lied about me. He's lied to - about us several times. He's lied about our staff. This is not someone who is a credible witness for anything.

INGRAHAM: Mike Flynn has withdrawn his guilty plea in court today due to the government's bad fake of inductiveness and breach of his plea agreement. What else can you tell us?

NUNES: Well, we knew from early on in 2017 that Michael Flynn did not lie to the FBI. We actually put that in our reports. It didn't come out until 2018 after Flynn had already plead. There were several of us as witnesses. 
We also told the highest level of the DOJ that we had been briefed by the FBI that Flynn didn't lie to the FBI.

INGRAHAM: Didn't Peter Strzok come out of from that meeting with Flynn? He didn't think he lied?

NUNES: Well, interesting you said that. There is a missing documentation that we never received. And then to add further to that - or I want to make sure everybody understands this. We put into our report and some of the things that General Flynn was saying, and what he gave to the court today withdrawing his plea, he saying he's been treated unfairly.

Remember, we put this in our report and 2018 and for some reason it was redacted. We had to fight for what seemed a couple of months in order to get that unredacted. So we are witnesses here - we were briefed by the FBI that Flynn didn't lie. And I just don't see -- he's withdrawn the plea, and I guess some of us need to speak on his behalf. The FBI should have this information.

INGRAHAM:  Vindictive prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence. That's a real no-no, along with fudging stuff at the FISA court. So there seems to be a pattern of misbehavior.

NUNES:  And remember, we alerted the FBI and DOJ, too.

INGRAHAM:  You had a lot in your report that has all been vindicated. Congressman, thanks for coming in tonight.

NUNES:  Thank you, Laura.

INGRAHAM:  And keep it up for Flynn.

Coming up, just 14 days into 2020 and Russia hysteria is back. My mini Angle explains that. And then Lara Logan joins us to dismantle the media's latest red scare. Stay right there.


INGRAHAM:  The Democrats tried mightily to use fake anti-Russia hysteria to tar Donald Trump in the Mueller probe only to flame out spectacularly. But now they're at it again, if you can believe it. On Sunday Speaker Pelosi wondered if McConnell is an accomplice with Russia. And today she was back at it, reportedly telling her colleagues in a private meeting that she wondered if McConnell has Kremlin connections. Of course, the press happily joins in, and they relentlessly fan the flames of this new red scare.

And now they think they have a new in. Yesterday The New York Times reported, "Russian military hackers have been boring into the Ukrainian gas company Burisma at the center of the impeachment affair, according to security experts." So you might wonder, who are these security experts? It turns out, it's a company called Area 1 cofounded by Democrat donor Oren Falkowitz. Also the Washington Examiner reporting that Area 1 is actively working with the campaigns of 2020 Democrats. What? Somehow the paper either record failed to mention those insignificant details, a conflict of interest maybe, or found them totally unimportant. Either way, it's embarrassing.

But forget that antiquated idea of checking sources, potential conflicts before you run with a story. Liberal pundits were all too happy to run back to Russia.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Russia has played this game before and 2016. Are we seeing the groundwork being laid for the same in 2020?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  The Russians are doing the president's bidding all over again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  The Russian government is going to continue to function basically as a super PAC for the president. Whoever the Democratic nominee is is going to have to not just the Trump campaign, but a hostile state actor as well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  This is going to be a factor in this election.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  It is a retread of 2016. You just delete Hillary and put in Biden. Burisma is the equivalent of WikiLeaks.


INGRAHAM:  That diagram. I would like to state that I personally -- if I had to bet the farm on it, if I had a farm, I just don't believe any of these details of this hack, at least not as they're laid out, especially considering the source and the interests that stand to benefit. This looks a lot like a planted story meant to pre-spin the 2020 election and maybe even provide cover to Democrat frontrunner Joe Biden should any inconvenient details come out. If they come out, they can just say, see, it's Russia.

But let's consider for a moment the worst-case scenario, that the Russians did hack Burisma. All it proves is that, first of all, Hunter Biden should never have gotten involved with a corrupt company that has lax security procedures and is susceptible to these types of intrusions, especially while his father was the sitting vice president.

Here now with me, acclaimed investigative journalist, FOX Nation host, Lara Logan. Lara, Noah Shachtman, "The Daily Beast" editor-in-chief, tweeted about "The New York Times" story, saying "I hope my fellow editors will think hard, really hard, a lot harder than they did in 2016, before publishing any material hacked by the Russians." It seems they haven't learned a lot from the first Russia scare. They are saying basically that because there was a report from a source that Russia hacked into Burisma, that anything that comes out about Burisma and Joe Biden should basically just be discounted. That's pretty convenient.

LARA LOGAN, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST:  It's funny, Laura, because when I first saw that, I thought the tweet was going to be, I hope my fellow journalists think really hard before they just accept this at face value given how we've been misled about Russia in the past. But in fact, it was the opposite. But what was unusual about it to me as a journalist, especially, is that editors and editors-in-chief don't normally go out telling other journalists how to react to something.

INGRAHAM:  Talk about groupthink.

LOGAN:  It's kind of odd. And any time there is something odd, you take a closer look. And any time there is a red flag -- because, here, why does somebody not want me to look at something? Why is someone flagging this straight up?

But beyond that, actually, what I recognize here is reminiscent of what was in "The New York Times" during the presidential campaign of 2016 where an opinion writer went out and called on journalists to abandon their normal standards and principles of objectivity and to make sure that this person wasn't elected. And so that has echoes of that for me, it reminded me of that. And it also just reminds you, as journalists we are supposed to be skeptical of everybody. And if you're telling me not to do something --

INGRAHAM:  That's like telling your kids, don't check under your bed for the Christmas gifts. What are they going to do, go right to the bed.

So what do you think about the recovery of journalists? There actually needs to be a place where they all go and they have to go into recovery from this syndrome. People call it Trump-derangement syndrome. But I've never seen anything like it, and I've been in this town far too long, as I saw, way longer than I want to admit. But they don't seem to able to be -- most, not all, but most seem incapable of taking an objective look at stuff that 10 years ago they didn't care about at all, like Russia. You couldn't get people to cover Russia 10 years ago.

LOGAN:  I feel like, how do we know what journalists think? Because the coverage is dominated and drowned out by one narrative. And I think a lot of journalists just know that the price of going against the narrative is so high. What I know from talking to other journalists, it's just something they self-censor. It's not worth the problem. So that is one part of it.

But the other part of it is the institutions themselves, where is the accountability from the institutions? Because perhaps Russia -- we wouldn't be so quick to rush to judgment on Russia if there had been a real accountability for how so many journalists and so many publications got it wrong for so long.

INGRAHAM:  We need a mea culpa, or there needs to be a general ombudsman for the whole deal. No one ever does a mea culpa.

LOGAN:  If you are an alcoholic, the first thing they say is you have to admit you are an alcoholic. So it starts with admitting what you did. And we haven't gotten to that stage yet.

INGRAHAM:  But don't you think it's the ends justify the means? The end, and I heard it earlier today. This guy has got to get out of office. So let's say they don't want money in politics. during 2019 it was about money in politics. Now Bloomberg says, I'm going to spend $1 billion, and they turn themselves into human pretzels saying, well, it's OK now to use money in politics because the result will be, will rid the country of this antidemocratic force owned by the Russians, blah, blah, blah.

LOGAN:  I just have faith because of my experience and all the journalists I worked with over the years that there are journalists in every institution in this country who hear that kind of thing and see that kind of thing, they see it for what it is. And they look at that and they know that is not part of our calculus.

INGRAHAM:  Where are they?

LOGAN:  That's a very good question. They're there. They're there.

INGRAHAM:  I think, again, it's like college campuses. It becomes a self- selecting group. So there are not that many conservative professors on college campuses, most campuses. Maybe not the University of Chicago.

LOGAN:  But you don't have to be conservative.

INGRAHAM:  Just fair. I'm just talking about your background, your cultural understanding, your worldview. I'm not saying you should proselytize to the students, but there is no intellectual diversity. It's all a monochromatic, ideological lurch to the left. And the same thing is happening in the media where in "The New York Times," if people looked at an old Facebook post, and you might have said something objective about it Trump, I don't see you getting hired at "The New York Times."


INGRAHAM:  Forget it.

LOGAN:  Forget it. That would be true. Just being an independent voice gets you smeared as being right. Once you're smeared as being right, who's going to touch you?

INGRAHAM:  Vince Vaughn just shakes the president's hand at the LSU national championship, the actor, Vince Vaughn, yesterday, and they're getting all over him on Twitter. You can't even show up in public anymore, Vince Vaughn. You shook this man's hand.

LOGAN:  That's public shaming, right, because go back to the basket of deplorables on the campaign trail. If you are associated with this president in any way, or even if you just stand up for the principle and it happens to work in his favor, that's enough to put you in that basket.

INGRAHAM:  Unbelievable. Lara, great to see you. Thanks for coming out.

LOGAN:  Thank you.

INGRAHAM:  When we come back, the chief who cried wolf? Elizabeth Warren is losing allies as she feuds with Bernie Sanders. Was she lying? Charlie Kirk, Mercedes Schlapp, Scott Bolden, that's going to be fiery, up next.



ANA KASPARIAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR:  This entire situation is so incredibly disappointing. Bernie Sanders encouraged Elizabeth Warren to run back in 2016.

Contextual information is incredibly important to the conversation. And unfortunately, it's being left out to paint a particular candidate as some sort of sexist.


INGRAHAM:  Elizabeth Warren's attempt to frame Bernie Sanders as a woman- hater is backfiring with the media. She's also feeling the Bern on Twitter where leftist brigades are using the hashtag, #RefundWarren about where supporters can get their donations back. Even some Democrats are pushing back. Fellow 2020 hopeful Tulsi Gabbard tweeted about Sanders. "He showed me the greatest respect and encouragement, just as he always had."

Joining me now is Mercedes Schlapp, Trump 2020 campaign senior adviser, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and author of, go get it, "The MAGA Doctrine," I already have my copy, and Scott Bolden, former chair --


INGRAHAM:  -- you are rude -- of the D.C., I should say, Scott Bolden -- uh. I would never do that because I adore you.



INGRAHAM:  It just was a reflex.


BOLDEN:  As a good Democrat. As a good Democrat.


INGRAHAM:  This is acid reflux, Scott.


INGRAHAM:  Your book has gotten more play in these --

KIRK:  Scott, this whole thing. Let me tell you, we were talking about this during break, but to me this has all of the trappings of 2020 where Gingrich and Santorum, I urged them both to form a coalition if they wanted to take on Romney, they had to work together. Instead they were ripping each other to shreds during the debate. So Romney comes out smelling like a rose, and then he goes down in flames. Why wouldn't they both focus on Biden? Why would they go after each other, at this point?

BOLDEN:  It makes no sense. But they also are running, and they're running against each other. And we are three weeks or four weeks from the primary, or the caucuses. But I don't think it's going to work this time. I saw the debate tonight. The debate, they both came out strong. They maintained their positions, but they said they are bigger, broader issues than this, and we're not going to divide the progressives on this. And the progressives have said, the big organizations, they said we are not going to do that. It was a nonissue in the debate. I think they're going to move on. I don't know why Warren in and her orbit, someone released this, a 2018 conversation, and then wanted to get some run out of it.

INGRAHAM:  I don't but this. I think she's lying. I'm sorry, I think she's lying. I think it's total you know what.

BOLDEN:  But he never comes off as a sexist, either.

INGRAHAM:  But this comes back, Mercedes, to the inauthenticity problem with Elizabeth Warren. Donald Trump nailed it when he called her Pocahontas.


INGRAHAM:  It was Pocahontas. She is a phony. She claims she was a Native American. She wasn't. One-one-thousandth or whatever. No one believes her.

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISER:  We have got fake news and we have got fake Warren, so there you go. But I think for Elizabeth Warren it was a desperate move. We know that Bernie Sanders is gaining ground in states like Iowa, New Mexico, California. They play to the same type of voters. So in her mind she is thinking, yes, Biden is the frontrunner, but he is a weak frontrunner. The one I have to go after is Bernie Sanders and try to take him down so his supporters can come to me. I think that was her strategy. I think it totally backfired. And I think Sanders came out trying to be the honest broker here.

INGRAHAM:  He's like a grandfather figure. Elizabeth, I didn't say that.

Charlie, I just mentioned it, but Elizabeth Warren has a long history of pushing tall tales. Watch.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I was visibly pregnant. The principal did what principals did in those days, wished me luck and hired somebody else for the job.

What do the facts say.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You absolutely have Native American ancestry in your background.

WARREN:  My daddy ended up as a janitor.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I read that your children went to private school.

WARREN:  No, my children went to public school.


INGRAHAM:  Charlie?

KIRK:  And her kids did go to private school. It goes to that same point, that she is doing everything she possibly can to save a failing presidential campaign right now. But your point is very insightful, Laura, that the only thing that could really help Joe Biden right now it is two divided senators that are fighting each other that actually soon might be quarantined in a Senate impeachment trial. They're having this fight at the worst possible time, and all of a sudden, former vice president Joe Biden is going to benefit tremendously from this.

But I think it goes to a broader point, that if you actually add the totals with Warren and Bernie together, that is a pretty formidable candidate looking at the coalition. And the tone of the Democrat Party is much more in their direction. Biden's path is a quarreling socialist base in the Democrat Party.


BOLDEN:  They're both in the race, too, which is a real problem.

INGRAHAM:  Elizabeth Warren is never going to make president of United States. I don't make those kinds of proclamations very often, but never, never going to be president. She would do well now to drop out and start campaigning for Bernie. That is what she should do. And then maybe he'll throw a bone and make her vice president.

BOLDEN:  Not even before the first caucus?

INGRAHAM:  Yes. Drop out. You're never going to win.

BOLDEN:  If I were a betting man, I'd take that bet.

INGRAHAM:  Sorry, God bless her, but people aren't going to vote for her. 
She is never going to be president. She should just drop out and endorse Bernie and then call it a day.

BOLDEN:  She's pulling pretty high. Let me just say this, what amazes me is she is polling, you can't deny the polling numbers in Iowa. I'm sorry.

INGRAHAM:  Yes, because I knew they were garbage when they said Trump was so far down in 2016, and garbage now.

BOLDEN:  Republican and Democratic polling can be garbage, and the bottom line is --

INGRAHAM:  She's never going to be president.

BOLDEN:  The rubber hits the road with the caucuses. If you are right, it will be confirmed.

INGRAHAM:  She is never going to be president.

Mercedes, I want to get your thoughts on this New York Times headline from tonight. "Trump and His Aides Focus for Now on Two Rivals, Neither Is the Front-Runner." "Most of the president's advisers see Mr. Sanders if he were to become the nominee as helping to solve Trump's problem with suburban voters in states like Virginia. But some have concerns that Sanders might be more durable in the rust belt states." That goes to the issue of trade. Bernie Sanders said tonight that he would have done better trade deals with China. Mercedes?

SCHLAPP:  Not only that, but he also said he wouldn't support, obviously, the USMCA, which is a bipartisan piece a legislation. And we know for a fact that when it comes to USMCA, it's something that both parties support. 
And he is talking about climate change. That's all he cares about.

INGRAHAM:  If it was so easy, why didn't Obama do it in eight years? Panel, thanks so much.

Up next, breaking news, and it's about Michael Avenatti.


INGRAHAM:  Very sad breaking news tonight. Michael Avenatti, disgraced attorney and constant thorn in the side of everyone on earth, arrested again tonight, taken into custody by federal agents for violating the terms of his previous release. As he was being walked out of the courthouse, he said, quote, completely innocent. I hope he has something clearly warm to wear tonight as he is expected to spend it behind bars until his court hearing tomorrow morning.

That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team 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.