Print
Close
Rep. Kevin McCarthy on Nancy Pelosi's impeachment strategy, Democrats' response to Iran intel briefing
Published January 08, 2020
This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 8, 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 another packed show.
The Iran debate simmers as the media, Sean and I were talking about, continue to deny that this is a positive outcome for you, for America, for our security. And Democrats look to strip President Trump of his war powers. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is here just a few minutes with an insider account of what went down today on Capitol Hill.
Also, remember when the media slobber all over Nancy Pelosi's pathetic move to withhold impeachment articles from the Senate? Well now even her own party is beginning to have second thoughts. Plus, Devin Nunes is here with a huge announcement that could reveal more about that whistleblower who started this whole Ukraine deal.
And Congresswoman Ilhan Omar with another absolutely pathetic and disgusting display. Then there was a royal falling out. An Eco alarmist flame outs. Arroyo has it all in Seen and Unseen. But first, two attacks, two failures. That's the focus of tonight's Angle.
President Trump's enemies at home and abroad are really frustrated right now, and I can't really blame them. They keep launching attacks, but the President just keeps getting stronger and the Republicans more unified. And through it all, our economy, our markets, they just shrug it off. And they keep going higher.
Well, last night, Iran of course fired their show missiles into Iraq where our troops are stationed doing some damage, but without casualties. Thank goodness. But that's not the only assault on this President. That's fizzled.
At home, we see the same with the impeachment fiasco. With the articles of impeachment, I kind of picture Nancy Pelosi playing a game of San Francisco Hold'em, she has her cards close to the vest, but it really means she just doesn't want a Senate trial after all, because she won zero concessions from Mitch McConnell and now members of her own party are turning against her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We talked to a lot of the same Senators today who are all saying, let's get this going, we have a job to do. Let's just get this child moving and just get it over with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Now, the ones revolting aren't junior Senators either. Just today, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Manchin, Chris Coons and even the Far-Left Richard Blumenthal are now all questioning the Speaker's decision-making.
But it seems just like yesterday, doesn't it? That the Queen could do no wrong.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The American people happened to be on the side of Speaker Pelosi. That's the great leverage that she has here.
SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Nancy Pelosi has been a light worker in dark times.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do think that she's handled it just brilliantly.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She has been pitch-perfect. And this is her flock, these Democrats.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How she is leading us in this impeachment inquiry is a perfect example of what a great leader she is.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Her whole career is leading to these two weeks to put soundly in the history books.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Yes, history books. Yes. Maybe the history of failure. Mr. Thrill Up Your Leg. Meanwhile, Americans are seeing through the bogus investigations and these battleground state polls my friends, you've got to check these out. They have Trump beating most of his rivals even in Virginia.
More Senators see this as just another flop for the resistance. When pressed on impeachment in her strategy on it, late today, Speaker Pelosi couldn't hide her aggravation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are the articles going to be transferred tonight?
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any time soon?
PELOSI: I said when we saw what the arena (ph) is that we would be sending them (inaudible) then we would send the articles (ph). We haven't seen that, so I don't know how many times I have to say that, how many times you want to ask it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: What's that on her lapel there? Trying to figure out what kind of bird that was. Maybe it's a chicken. Well, at this point, I think Pelosi should just raise the white flag and admit that caving to the impeachment demands of the radicals in her caucus, it was just a huge blunder. But she's not going to do that. The bluster and the posturing will continue.
Indeed, I predict, she will try to claim victory here. Well, someone else was claiming victory today, following a different failed attack on the Trump administration. Iran's President Hassan Rouhani pledged to kick all American forces out of the Middle East.
But like Nancy, at the 11th hour, when push came to shove, he blinked. Iran's cruise missiles by his own admission were just a slap in the face.
They weren't a lethal strike, before yesterday, Democrats, they were predicting this was all going to end up essentially as World War III.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TIM KAINE, D-VA.: The President, by blowing up diplomacy has led to great chaos in the region. And that's why we're at the brink of potential war right now.
PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Lives may be at risk because of the fallout from this action.
MICHAEL MCFAUL, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Let's all hope that we do not get to an open conflict with Iran, because that will be a very serious war that will make the Iraq war look like a minor scuffle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Now, to some, this sounded like wish casting. They almost hope Trump would act rashly and ramp up tensions, but he did not. Today, he showed the restraint not to escalate the situation, but to build on the Reagan (ph) approach of peace through strength.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We must also make a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper and take advantage of its enormous untapped potential. Iran can be a great country. Peace and stability cannot prevail in the Middle East as long as Iran continues to foment violence, unrest, hatred and war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Think about all the hyperbole that we've heard from Democrats recently. Trump's dealings on Ukraine will bring down his presidency. Then it was his ordered killing of Soleimani will trigger asymmetrical attacks, mass carnage. Well, this was nothing more than the dark art of projection.
What President Trump's foes do not understand, or they forget is that he himself is the master of asymmetrical fighting. He and his team not only managed to turn impeachment into a positive, but they may have, by droning a top terrorist, forced Iran back to the negotiating table.
Given Trump's uncanny resilience in the face of their repeated attacks, both the Democrats and Iran would do well to think twice before launching any new assaults. And that's The Angle.
Joining me now is House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy. Congressman, great to see you tonight.
Today, Pelosi, you saw that clip was visibly annoyed. They're pressing her. When you're going to send the articles? What's going on? And she seems very frustrated in this position. What's her calculation? What's the pro and con for her here?
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF.: Well, she has no - I mean, she's going to fail at this. She's already failed. And now it's not just Republicans, it's Democrats Senators. But what's even worse, it's Dianne Feinstein. This is her home Senator, but it's her hometown Senator from San Francisco. She literally said, if it's so urgent, you keep it, it loses its urgency.
Either, send it over or don't send it at all. It's crushing her.
INGRAHAM: But what if the House decides on its own, can it - to subpoena Bolton? This theory has been floated over the last 72 hours. They could just subpoena Bolton and get information from him and kind of, I don't know, backfill the impeachment inquiry. That's what they're saying now.
MCCARTHY: Well, they had the opportunity. They didn't think it was important enough. They thought it was so urgent. They thought they had enough information. But lo and behold, when it went to the floor, the bipartisan vote was no. They know their case is so weak. It's almost like she doesn't want to sit it, like she's embarrassed of it.
INGRAHAM: All right. I want to get back to the Iran issue, Congressman.
MCCARTHY: Yes.
INGRAHAM: Because Democrats came out of the administration's briefings today on Capitol Hill and we're all pretty much singing the same tune.
Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was deeply surprise at the lack of information presented by the administration regarding a specific imminent threat.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL, D-WASH.: There was no raw evidence presented that there was an imminent threat.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was utterly unpersuaded about any evidence about the imminence of a threat that was new or compelling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Are they all lying? I mean, Mike Lee is essentially saying the same thing as all these Democrats, conservative from Utah.
MCCARTHY: It is a top-secret hearing, but I don't know what they're talking about. Think for one moment to the American public, they don't have to be in that meeting. More than 600 American soldiers have been killed by this individual. They killed an American. They took down a drone. They bombed tankers. They bombed Saudi Arabia refinery. They took after our embassy.
And somehow, it's us escalating something.
I think the way the President handled this is masterful. It's like a chess game. And these people don't even know what they're talking. They are now the socialist Democrats are defending Iran over defending America.
INGRAHAM: Mike Lee said it's the worst briefing he's ever seen. Said, it was basically stating conclusory comments about the imminence without actual facts of time, place, manner and what was going to happen and what--
MCCARTHY: I wish I could share with you what was said inside.
INGRAHAM: Why do you think he's saying that?
MCCARTHY: I do not know why he's saying that. I was not in the Senate briefing. I was in that House briefing.
INGRAHAM: Must have been the same.
MCCARTHY: It was the same briefing, the same members from CIA, Secretary of State, the Joint Chiefs--
INGRAHAM: Was it condescending - were the briefers condescending, that's what I keep hearing.
MCCARTHY: Not at all. Not at all. And what was interesting, if I could only share the way people would ask questions and come back, they would get the answer they asked, and they'd try to come back like they couldn't hear it.
You asked a question, it was answered. Well, I don't understand that.
It was embarrassing because here they are. They want to defend this terrorist. He's a bad guy, but I want to start hearing Democrats say, he's a bad guy, because he killed Americans, because he went after our embassy, because he killed another American, because he went after the tankers.
INGRAHAM: After employing the tactics of the perpetual resistance for three years now, it's amazing to see and hear the Democrats claiming that it's the President who wants to divide the country at a time like this. But that's exactly what happened. Leon Panetta was pretty well-respected guy on with Anderson Cooper. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: This moment of potential national unity and national kind of relief, he chose it to kind of lay it on attack President Obama.
LEON PANETTA, FORMER OBAMA DEFENSE SECRETARY: He's almost deliberately tried to split this country apart. All he cares about is whether or not his supporters continue to support him. I think that's a serious mistake.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: So, did the President miss a historic opportunity to bring the nation together today, Congressman?
MCCARTHY: No. I think what he did was, he made this world safer. Think for a moment, what if we were able to stop bin Laden before 9/11 happened? Think about how many more people are safe? And think about what history will look like in the future, because how strong this President acted. He held restraint when the drone went down, but when they killed American, he had a red line on the sand and he actually acted.
INGRAHAM: I would say, what if we could've knocked out Saddam without going to war again, when he traveled to Kuwait? It would've been nice to knock him out.
MCCARTHY: Exactly. What's so interesting, now they're going to bring up the War Powers Act. But this is such a joke. They are bringing it under what is called a Con Resolution.
INGRAHAM: Tomorrow, tomorrow.
MCCARTHY: Yes. But you've got to understand how they're bringing it up.
It's Con Resolution. This is the same type of resolution we use to do a soap box derby on the Capitol Hill. It doesn't go to the President. It means nothing.
INGRAHAM: So, they're doing it to what? For what purpose?
MCCARTHY: I don't know. To try to appease a socialist base, but it has no power. It has no meaning. It's equal to a soap box derby.
INGRAHAM: But there's a Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin, who's the sponsor of this legislation, she introduced it.
MCCARTHY: She should be embarrassed.
INGRAHAM: Well, she's Michigan. This is a battleground state. Watching in Michigan tonight, this is your Congresswoman. Let's play it, and have you react.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN, D-MICH.: We should, as a body, be discussing and debating if there's even the risk of us going into war with Iran. I just wanted to put the marker down and be very, very clear. Just because we're past this moment, it doesn't mean the Congress has a right to abdicate its responsibilities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Very high minded, Congressman.
MCCARTHY: She knows better than this, if you read her background. And you know what's most interesting, she's allowing her name to be used as a trick. It's a resolution that means nothing. It doesn't go the President.
It has no meaning whatsoever. And they're trying to play something up. And then they're trying to tie the hands. And are they forgetting what Iran has done to the American soldier? What Iran has--
INGRAHAM: Well, she knows. She served in Iraq and the CIA.
MCCARTHY: Yes. So, she understands--
INGRAHAM: She served her country.
MCCARTHY: What is the Speaker doing to these new members? First, walking them off the cliff on impeachment, now getting them where they're defending Iran over defending America.
INGRAHAM: The AOC plus three, they were fun to watch.
MCCARTHY: Did you watch them laugh during the hearing?
INGRAHAM: We're going to get into that. Laughing as they're taught, as Sheila Jackson Lee is actually talking about casualties. I'll give her credit.
MCCARTHY: Yes.
INGRAHAM: She was talking actual about potential for casualties. And the other ones are laughing in the background, telling you how serious--.
MCCARTHY: But remember, these are the same individuals that on 9/11, some people did some things. Remember what she said about 9/11?
INGRAHAM: I can't even think. I already have a stomachache tonight. If I heard that again, I'd go right off the edge. Congressman, great to see you.
MCCARTHY: Thank you.
INGRAHAM: Don't steal Raymond Arroyo's segment coming up.
MCCARTHY: Oh! Sorry.
INGRAHAM: No, no, it's good. All right. Trump's speech on Iran today, we talked about it. I think it was a master stroke. He's even getting praise from some of his critics. Time columnist Ian Bremmer tweeted this. "I'm far from a Trump supporter, but impossible not to call Iran outcome a win for U.S. President and a big opportunity going forward."
Here to debate this tonight, Dan Bongino, host of The Dan Bongino Show and Fox News contributor, also with me, Chris Hahn, Former Aide to Senator Chuck Schumer and host of the Aggressive Progressive podcast.
All right, Chris, what's the Left's line supposed to be now that Trump just kind of got lucky here and he fell into a position of restraint?
CHRIS HAHN, FORMER AIDE TO SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: I think we're all glad that the President stepped back from the brink of the war that he almost started himself. He alone started this war and he alone stepped back from the brink. And you know what? I'm happy about that. I'm glad he came to that rational conclusion. And let's move forward.
I don't think I would say, it was a master stroke of a speech. I think it was what was necessary. And I hope and I pray that they do come to the table and we do work out an agreement. I'd even give the President credit if he did.
However, we did have an agreement and we weren't at this posture with Iran under that agreement. In fact, when we pulled away from that agreement, that's when the hostilities with Iran ramped up and it was Donald Trump alone who pulled us out of that agreement.
INGRAHAM: All right. Well, Susan Rice, Dan mentioned the same issue, Chris just talking about, about the Iran deal today. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN RICE, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR UNDER OBAMA: President Trump came out and his first words are, you know, Iran won't get a bomb, a nuclear weapon on my watch. Well, they weren't going to get a nuclear weapon on anybody's watch had the President adhered to the nuclear deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: A case of amnesia. Dan, like - explain this for our viewers.
DAN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: I'm trying to parse what was sillier, Susan Rice's comments or Chris's. Let me start with Susan Rice's first.
Someone should have notified the Iranians that there was an Iran deal, because the Iranians did very little to ever stop the advance of their nuclear program as the Israelis kindly pointed out to us. And as Chris knows, he may not, I'm not sure how much reading he did on Wikipedia before the show. But the Iran deal had a provision where we had to get the Iranians permission to inspect military facilities.
I'm sure the Iranians are going to let us and give us permission into inspecting facilities where they may be producing nuclear weapons, they're not supposed to be producing. I mean, it was a nonsensical deal.
But secondly, Chris's point was - it really was so silly, I don't know why he even said it. He said, well, President Trump, yes, we've got to give him credit for not getting in a war that he tried to start. What are you even talking about? President Trump ran and made up a point of getting us out of unnecessary wars. He said, he wanted to deescalate the situation. He did in turn deescalate the situation. Why take a cheap shot? That was just silly. Your point made no sense.
INGRAHAM: Chris, hold on. Let me get to a moment of last night. And you can address him and the answer to this. But, and last night, we were talking about how to inform the public as to what was happening. We were trying to report all the news that was coming in during our hour. And it was always fast and furious.
But last night on MSNBC, they were actually taking the Iranians word for what happened on the ground. Check it out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALI AROUZI, NBC NEWS TEHRAN BUREAU CHIEF: Iran's state media is claiming that 30 U.S. soldiers have been killed in this attack. Now, this is not confirmed.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: State media talking about leveling al-Assad Air Base and there being 30 casualties.
AROUZI: From state media saying that they have leveled in al-Assad base in Iraq and they have killed 30 U.S. troops.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Why are we repeating this, the propaganda of Iran, Chris, in a moment of concern for the nation?
HAHN: I don't condone that. I think in a time of war and hostilities, we should confirm things before we report them. And we should definitely not be taking the word of Iranian state media. I'm not here at all saying that the Iranians are good actors. I am saying that we have guardrails in the United States, that the President of the United States needs Congress to authorize the kind of force that he used last week, killing the Iranian General.
And I think, you know, you talk to the leader about the War Powers Act resolutions that are coming before the House and the Senate. And when you listen to Mike Lee today and what he was saying, I think that's going to have a little juice, not only in the House, but also in the Senate--
INGRAHAM: Zero.
HAHN: That is controlled by the Republicans.
INGRAHAM: Mike Lee's thoughts on this--
HAHN: I think there is a good chance that it will.
INGRAHAM: Mike Lee's thoughts on this are total - is a total outlier. I like Mike. He's a smart guy. But the idea that if the President makes the call that there is an imminent threat to the United States, we have the chance to take out someone who is responsible for literally hundreds of deaths, American soldiers.
HAHN: Right.
INGRAHAM: IED technology.
HAHN: There are a lot of--
INGRAHAM: Everything they were doing. The fact that he did that was a good thing for our soldiers, the victims, all that violence. And Dan, Americans should be celebrating the death of Soleimani, not wondering what if we had waited and if we waited 30 days for a resolution or Nancy Pelosi okayed it.
I think that is a joke constitutionally. I don't know what Mike is thinking.
HAHN: That's the constitution.
INGRAHAM: First of all, it's not - talk to George Washington about whether he would think that an imminent threat to the United States as determined by the Chief Executive Officer.
HAHN: They didn't prove imminent.
(CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: OK. Dan, go ahead.
BONGINO: Let's do a quick principle check on Chris, because I guarantee you, Chris was nowhere when Obama was droning people in Syria. What was it, 571 times? Chris was nowhere.
HAHN: You know what?
BONGINO: He's only upset because Trump did it--
HAHN: You must not have been watching Fox.
BONGINO: Because they don't have any principles, him and his Leftist--
HAHN: During the Obama administration. I was highly critical of Obama and his droning program.
(CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: All right. We've got to roll.
HAHN: If you had watched the network you work for, you would know that.
BONGINO: From your liberal friends--
INGRAHAM: All right guys.
HAHN: You know what, you should go look--
INGRAHAM: Great seeing you.
HAHN: Look it up, Dan. Nice seeing you too.
INGRAHAM: All right.
HAHN: Happy New Year.
INGRAHAM: Despite the overwhelming media adoration, Pelosi's impeachment plan, as we've talked about, has totally flopped. Two vets of the Clinton impeachment will tell us why. Plus, House Intel Committee Republicans level an explosive charge against the Ukraine whistleblower. Devin Nunes is here with exclusive insight, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, D-KY.: There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure. We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The Democratic leader does not need to continue to be enthrall to the Speaker. He does not need to keep colluding with outside efforts to supplant the judgment of his own colleagues. Stand up for our institutions.
Stand up for the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: At what point does McConnell just say enough? At what point does he change the rules and start a trial, regardless of whether or not Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment?
To answer that and that question a lot more, we bring in two experts on the subject. Bob Barr, Former Clinton Impeachment Manager, I remember it well, and Sol Wisenberg, Former Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel.
Bob let's start with you. How easy would it be, or would it not be? I've been hearing differing responses to this question, to change the impeachment rules, is the votes required 67 or is it just a simple majority?
BOB BARR, FORMER CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: It's just the rules. The Senate can do that any time it wants to. I mean that what moves all of this is simply the rule that the Senate does not, under its current rules, move forward with setting up the rules for an impeachment trial or the trial itself until the managers have been appointed and the documents delivered to the Senate. All the Senate has to do is change that, and they can do it pretty much any time.
INGRAHAM: Sol, last night, I think I was talking to Ted Cruz over in the makeup room and he said, they need 67 votes to change the rules in the Senate. He's a pretty smart guy. And he says, it's not that easy. Your thoughts?
SOL WISENBERG, FORMER WHITEWATER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, the current rules for impeachment do say that you need 67 votes to change the rules. My point is a little different. I interpret the current rules as here's what we do when we get articles of impeachment exhibited to us by the House. There are no rules for what happens when the House impeaches the President, which they have, and they don't bring anything over and exhibit the articles of impeachment.
So, in my opinion, what are called the impeachment rules in the Senate don't cover the situation we're in. And I believe that they could establish new rules by majority vote and say, look, this is what we're going to do in this situation, unprecedented and we're going to move forward.
INGRAHAM: In other words, it's better for them to do it now, to act now before they send the articles over if they ever did. Correct? So, you need a lower threshold.
WISENBERG: Well, once you send the articles over, you don't need to worry about changing the rules. Right. The dilemma they've had is, she's - Speaker Pelosi is pulling this maneuver that's very unserious and very dangerous and really shows that she doesn't take this process seriously at all.
INGRAHAM: All right.
WISENBERG: And so, what do we do about it?
INGRAHAM: Yes. OK. I want to move on though. The Democrats, I think they found themselves a - maybe a brand-new talking point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The idea of the Clinton precedent, which is really not applicable here, if we were going to have the Clinton precedent apply here, all of these witnesses should testify even before the trial begins.
Mitch McConnell is being very selective in application of the Clinton precedent.
JAYAPAL: The Clinton trial was very different. You know, they're saying it was the same rules. But remember that all of those people had already testified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Bob Barr, is that all correct there?
BARR: It's nonsense. None of those people testified in the House impeachment hearings. It's just - this is another example of how the Democrats, in their zeal to go after Trump, care nothing about precedent, care nothing about the truth, care nothing about the rules and what's happening here, the danger of moving forward, Laura, goes far beyond simply this impeachment. It shows the American people that the Democrat Party and the Speaker of the House Representatives don't care about rules. And you can just make it up as you go along.
INGRAHAM: Sol, Senator Graham, Lindsey Graham is thinking of crafting - well, he's crafted a resolution calling on Pelosi to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The refusal by the Speaker to transmit the articles is a flagrant violation of separation of powers. The senator calls on the speaker to immediately appoint impeachment managers and transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate." What does that really get us? It's a nice sentiment by Lindsey, but does that really have any sway whatsoever?
WISENBERG: I don't think it gets us anywhere, and I don't think it's a flagrant violation of separation of powers. I don't like it, but let's face it, the Constitution says the House has the sole power of impeachment, the Senate has the sole power to try it. So but nothing in the Constitution says Nancy, you have to send those over.
So I prefer the option of the Senate just saying he's been impeached. Speaker Pelosi said the articles passed, she banged her gavel, so he's been impeached. We don't have to wait for them. It's not like an indictment. We don't have to wait for them to send it over. We've given them a decent amount of time to send it over, they aren't doing it. Let's create a new set of rules for this situation, and let's have a trial.
INGRAHAM: Yes, or could call it a default judgment, but that doesn't vindicate the president. The president needs to be vindicated here and have this thing acquitted.
BARR: And that's why Speaker McConnell needs to talk to the White House to see how they want to handle it, because it's the president's legacy on the line, not McConnell's, not Schumer's, not Pelosi's.
INGRAHAM: Absolutely. Gentlemen, thank you so much.
And are Republicans tonight getting closer to uncovering a new deep state conspiracy? There is, at this hour, an active investigation going on into the intelligence community inspector general for his handling of the Ukraine whistle-blower complaint. House Intel Republicans have serious concerns -- and they should -- over inconsistencies in Michael Atkinson's closed-door impeachment testimony. I would show you excerpts from it, if I could come, but Adam Schiff refuses to release it. In fact, of the 18 closed-door impeachment interviews, it's so curious, isn't it, that Atkinson's is the only one that Schiff is withholding. The question is, why?
Here now is House Intel Ranking Member Devin Nunes. Congressman, what's he hiding?
REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF., HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: What he's hiding is is very simple. The very origins of this investigation are shady and don't make sense. So from the time that the whistle-blower came forward to the I.G., where the forms didn't match, it wasn't urgent, didn't have any firsthand knowledge, the form letter changed, then it was backdated. These were all things. Then we had to hear from the whistle- blower, then we didn't have to hear from the whistle-blower.
And what the media and the Democrats are hoping that we forgot about, which it's kind of funny that this is now news, but we said at the time, we sent a letter, I have the letters right here in my hand, we sent a letter, September 30th, to the ICIG. He responded in an inadequate way on October 8th. And we said, look, right now, we have to focus on this impeachment and going through all this, But Mr. I.G., we're going to come back to this. He's had since then, he knew we weren't happy with the response, so we will be sending him a new letter this week, give him another week to respond. But I will tell you, someone is not telling the truth here, and that's why they don't want this testimony out.
INGRAHAM: Can the Senate do anything here on this?
NUNES: They could call the I.G. in. The question will be, these transcripts, they really need to be released to the public. And why are these the only transcripts that aren't out?
INGRAHAM: Congressman, isn't it interesting to see figures rushing, though, to Atkinson's defense. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Atkinson did, as best I can tell, exactly what he was supposed to do that comported with the law. And the whistle-blower complainant, himself or herself, complied meticulously with the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NUNES: Well, the law, if you believe this or not, there is no such thing as the law. They are trying to claim that this was the case, but yet the forms didn't show that. And then, only when questioned by the media did the form get changed, and remember, it got backdated. And if it wouldn't have been for us asking the questions originally, they would have gotten away with it. But there's more to this story --
INGRAHAM: Doesn't it sound a little bit -- it's a different set of facts. But you do the same thing when it came to the Mueller investigation. You were pressing and pressing and pressing, and then they started vilifying you.
NUNES: If they think I'm going to go away, I'm not.
INGRAHAM: You didn't do it before. This is deja vu all over again.
NUNES: They may think because I don't have subpoena power that there's going to be some issue here, but we do have other powers, right. So we can run this investigation, we can get other people to come in and testified. We do have people that come in as whistle-blowers and talk to us, right, or informants that talk to us. So if I was the ICIG, I would provide all of the documentation.
So essentially you have to either believe he is in on it, or he is incompetent, OK? Now, if he's incompetent -- because that's what he's claiming in the letter, essentially, we are incompetent. We have all of these mistakes. We need to have evidence of your incompetence. That's all we ask for in the letter, provide us all the documentation that shows how this got changed. We are not just going to take your word for it that, oh, we made a mistake.
INGRAHAM: Do we really know how many times Schiff's office met with the whistle-blower? Do we really know?
NUNES: No, we don't know. I assume multiple times. I think they likely know the whistle-blower. Several of his staff members know the whistle- blower.
INGRAHAM: Congressman, we're going to stay on this, and thank you for staying on this for the American people.
NUNES: Absolutely.
INGRAHAM: And coming up, squad member Ilhan Omar sympathizes with the enemy - shocker -- a royal falling out, and some climate claims go up in smoke. Raymond Arroyo here with all the details in "Seen and Unseen" next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: It's time for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose the big cultural stories of the day. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar sides with the enemy, a royal break up, and the climate change fanatics flame out, again.
Joining us with all the details, Raymond Arroyo, FOX News contributor. All right, Raymond, squad member Ilhan Omar is at it again. So at this presser today about the Iranian attacks on the U.S. airbases in Iraq, she said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: I feel ill, a little bit, because of everything that is taking place. And I think every time I hear about -- I hear of conversations around war, I find myself being stricken with PTSD. Since he got into office, the president of the United States has been goading Iran into war. This is a man who is both an arsonist and a fireman. He starts a crisis, then he wants to create the appearance of wanting to solve it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARROYO: She would know, Laura. Judicial Watch has filed several ethics complaints against her, and it looks like Omar is actually the arsonist. She gets PTSD about a strike on a terrorist mastermind, but today at the press conference, when discussion turned to American casualties in Iraq, here she is giggling and gossiping. Look at her. Laughing her head off with her little pals.
Worst of all, in a tweet last night, she seemed to offer Iran suggestions on targets they might consider striking. She wrote "Trump needs to immediately divest with his businesses and comply with the emoluments clause. Iran could threaten Trump hotels worldwide, and he could provoke war over the loss of revenue from skittish. His business interests should not be driving our military decisions." I don't see how in any way his business decisions are driving anything, but to signal out, to point out a private enterprise, is really outrageous, and to side with a regime like Iran.
and speaking of switching alliances, Laura, it appears that Harry and Meghan Markle -- Prince Harry -- they dropped a blistering announcement on Instagram today, stating that they intend to step back as senior members of the royal family --
INGRAHAM: No!
ARROYO: -- and work to become financially independent, work to become. This comes after months of public grousing about how difficult it is fitting in with the royal family, and Harry claiming that he and his brother William are on different paths. The Queen was totally blindsided by this announcement. In a statement Buckingham Palace responded with "Discussions with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach. But these are complicated issues that will take time to work through." I'll bet.
You can imagine the reaction in the U.K. was not warm. We were there, Laura. You remember how cold people were to her.
INGRAHAM: People weren't wild about it. I thought the Queen, hearing you do that Downton Abbey voice of the Queen, it sounded like she was going to hit Meghan with her purse. How dare you!
(LAUGHTER)
ARROYO: This was the reaction of the U.K. Watch, royal watchers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're perfectly at liberty to move away, but I think it's not being done in a very tactful, nice, kind, thought out way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARROYO: Do you know the problem is here, Laura? The prince formally known as Harry, he and Meghan see themselves as a kind of "Megharry," a kind of brand. They want to be their own brand. But they hang out with Serena Williams and they are jet-setting with Amal Clooney. They're going to split their time between Canada and the U.K. and probably L.A. Now, how that helps the media stay away from you, I don't understand, but that is their argument here. My guess, this is going to look like season 4 of "The Crown," Hollywood days. That's what this is.
(LAUGHTER)
INGRAHAM: Don't you also think that it is kind of -- it's a very self- possessed. If you want to do that, fine, but they are doing it, and the way they did it is kind of a flick-off of the whole thing. And it's also insulting to the longest reigning monarch in world history.
ARROYO: They are using the title to advance themselves, and, by the way, they are plotting a global initiative, their own charity. So that's coming. And how do you think they're going to be financially?
INGRAHAM: Watch the private jets they're going to fund off the charity, I'll bet you.
ARROYO: You bet.
INGRAHAM: Raymond, celebrities in the media, they have been pressing the narrative that the wildfires in Australia are caused by climate change. The Golden Globes, nightly news, et cetera, it's the same story. Watch.
ARROYO: It is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Climate change is front and center in Australia.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fully aware that there is climate change underway.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Australia is the only first world country in the world that is dealing with climate impacts of the scale.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People are looking at Australia and climate change, and saying somebody has got to do something about climate change. It's urgent there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARROYO: This is incomplete reporting, Laura. Though Australia has had the highest temps on record, the driest season ever, it's not correct to say climate change caused these wildfires. The New Wales Police Force in Australia report they've taken legal action against 180 people who lit fires or discarded a match on land. There is a complicated story here, the media only wants to report one half of it. "Seen and Unseen" indeed. Now you know the whole story.
INGRAHAM: I feel bad, those animals and the people who lost their homes.
ARROYO: It's terrible. It's a terrible, terrible story.
INGRAHAM: It makes you just cry. All right, Raymond, thank you so much.
ARROYO: You're welcome.
INGRAHAM: And if you thought that the Democrats looked impotent versus Trump before the events of last week, wait until we take you through their reactions to Iran. Pollsters Tom Bevan, Scott Rasmussen administer the 2020 commander in chief test next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: By removing Soleimani, we have sent a powerful message to terrorists. If you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: That was President Trump deftly handling a crisis with Iran. He seemed to pass the commander in chief test with flying colors, I might add, but how do the 2020 Democrat rivals stack up?
Here to help us score the Democrat field's reactions to Iran is Tom Bevan, co-founder and president of Real Clear Politics along with Scott Rasmussen, pollster, and author of the new book "The Sun is Still Rising." Gentlemen, let's get started. First up is Elizabeth Warren's response to Iranian aggression.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We cannot solve nonmilitary problems using the military. We have to understand the full range of tools. We have to have a sophisticated approach to the rest of the world. People have to believe that our first response is not going to be to try to move us toward war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Tom, isn't this a little disingenuous, though, from Warren, when Trump has said that he doesn't want any further conflict?
TOM BEVAN, REAL CLEAR POLITICS CO-FOUNDER: Yes, of all of the candidates in the Democratic field, I think Elizabeth Warren handled this the worst. She initially called Soleimani a murderer, then she had to walk that back after being mobbed on Twitter. Then she was calling him a senior government official and really hasn't been able to bring herself to say that he was a bad guy who deserved what he got. And so she's really, I think, handled this, of all of the candidates, the worst.
INGRAHAM: All right, Scott, here's Michael Bloomberg's take on Trump's handling of all of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, D-FORMER NEW YORK MAYOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: In any crisis, it's imperative that the commander in chief think through all the implications of his actions and not act rashly or recklessly. But unfortunately, as we all know, that is just not in his nature.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: It gets better. In an interview with The Washington Post, Bloomberg also suggested that maybe an emergency phone line should be installed so Iranian and American officials can easily get in touch, like the red teletype hotline that connected the Pentagon with the Kremlin after the Cuban missile crisis. Scott, technology has actually advanced since then.
SCOTT RASMUSSEN, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, BALLOTPEDIA: Technology has changed a little bit since that era.
INGRAHAM: What is this with Bloomberg?
RASMUSSEN: I'll tell you what it is. That was like a batting practice pitch for the resident. The president is preparing to say something along the lines of all the experts say that I should deal from a position of weakness, that I should appease our enemies and not offend anybody. And the president will say, I stood up for America. I took this action because we had a bad actor that we had a chance to take out. He's killed hundreds of Americans, and many of our allies. And the talk coming from the other side is not going to cut it with swing voters.
INGRAHAM: Tom, Bernie Sanders also sounded off. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think it was an assassination. I think it was a violation of international law. All we have got to do is name these people terrorists, call them what we want, and we can assassinate them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Sticking up for good old guy Soleimani, Tom.
BEVAN: Listen, here is the thing. Even though a majority of folks supported the strike against Soleimani, Republicans overwhelmingly, independents by a double-digit margin, 68 percent, so two out of three Democrats, disapproved of it, including half of Democrats strongly disapproved of it. So here is Bernie saying what most Democrats are thinking, and he has the benefit of being authentic, authentically anti- war. And so that's resonating with Democratic voters. But to Scott's point, I'm not sure how well that will play in the general election if Bernie is the nominee.
INGRAHAM: I also don't know how it's going to play in the battleground states where Trump is now winning.
Joe Biden, by the way, has also weighed in on Iran, tweeting late tonight, "I'm thankful no one was hurt in last night's attack, but we're only in this mess because Donald Trump pulled out of the Iran Deal. So instead of using his statement today to lay out a coherent strategy on Iran, Donald Trump used it to mislead the country on the Obama-Biden record. He's been president for three years. It's time he stopped blaming President Obama for his failures." Scott, Biden is the frontrunner. I'd have to bet on him right now for getting the nomination. But was that good for him?
RASMUSSEN: First of all, I'm not sure I would agree. I might want to take that bet with you in terms of the Democratic nomination.
INGRAHAM: You got it.
RASMUSSEN: But really, the larger picture here is no matter which Democrat wins the nomination, they are acting from a position of weakness. And it's true on this foreign policy issue, it's true on economic record right now.
INGRAHAM: Back on their heels.
RASMUSSEN: Yes, if there's no unpleasant news --
INGRAHAM: All right, gentlemen, thank you so much, great to see you.
A big announcement about the next two nights. Stay there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: All right, a huge programming announcement. We have two big exclusives over the next two nights. Tomorrow, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will be here exclusively with reaction to all the criticism in Congress today over that briefing on Capitol Hill.
And then Friday night, how do you get bigger than Pompeo, the Pope? No.
President Trump is going to sit down with me for a wide-ranging interview on Iran, impeachment, China, immigration, a whole lot more.
That's all the time we have tonight. You're going to want to watch the next two nights.
And tomorrow, "Fox & Friends" is going to have Vice President Mike Pence on.
But for now, Shannon Bream and the fantastic "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here.
Shannon?
Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/rep-kevin-mccarthy-on-nancy-pelosis-impeachment-strategy-democrats-response-to-iran-intel-briefing