Reps. Zeldin, Gaetz and Scalise on political fallout as impeachment backfires on Democrats

close

Video

Reps. Zeldin, Gaetz and Scalise on political fallout as impeachment backfires on Democrats

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declines to say when she would send articles of impeachment to the Republican-led Senate; reaction from Laura Ingraham's Congressional Power Panel.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 19, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Laura Ingraham, host: Jason, great to see you. Thanks so much. Fantastic show. I’m Laura Ingraham, and this is "The Ingraham Angle" from another busy Washington tonight. Has impeachment ever been misplayed as badly as what we’re seeing from Pelosi and Schumer? I think not. My Angle drives a stake in their folly before Clinton impeachment veterans Ken Starr and Sol Wisenberg react. Also, three congressmen have been instrumental in exposing the Democrat circus, Zeldin, Gaetz, and Scalise, and they’re all here tonight. And did you notice how many lawmakers yesterday compared Trump’s impeachment to the civil rights movement? Candace Owens has reaction.

Plus, we’ll have the first reaction to tonight's 2020 Democrat debate. It's a doozy. And some big breaking news tonight in John Durham's investigation. You've been waiting for it. A busy hour ahead. But first, America's first fake impeachment. That's the focus of tonight's Angle. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were right about one thing. Yesterday was historic, but not for the reason they claim. It's historic because it was the first time the impeachment process has been used for purely partisan reasons.

[begin video clip]

Male Speaker: Their slap-dash process has concluded in the first purely partisan presidential impeachment -- this week wasn't even the first time House Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment. It was actually the seventh time. It was the predetermined end of a partisan crusade that began before President Trump was even nominated, let alone sworn in.

[end video clip]

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: Well, I'll take it a step further. I think one can make a fairly decent argument that the president wasn't really even impeached, at least not yet. Now why am I saying that? Because Nancy and the gang ran out of town without even naming impeachment managers and without sending the articles to the Senate. You know who else is saying this? The Democrats' own lawyer. Noah Feldman, one of their impeachment witnesses, wrote today, "If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all." Again, I repeat, this is from their lawyer. Last night, The Angle explained that Pelosi's stall was just the latest sign that the Democrats were never really serious about any of this. In the end, it was a pretend impeachment because it didn't pass Pelosi's own previously stated test. It wasn't bipartisan. So no wonder she stumbled through her year-end press conference today. When asked on whether she'll ever transmit the articles to the Senate, she said this.

[begin video clip]

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: We don't know the arena that we are in. Frankly, I don't care what the Republicans say. We would hope there would be a fair process, just as we had hoped that they would honor the Constitution.

[end video clip]

Lindsey Graham: Well, I would hope that she knew what arena she was in. Nancy, it's called the Senate. Did she just wake up today and realize that McConnell was the majority leader, or did she lose her copy of the pocket Constitution? The Senate has the sole power of impeachment. She doesn't get to dictate its rules for an impeachment trial or anything else for that matter. But, of course, she's smart. She knows that. Now that the House has dragged the country through this bogus Ukraine-Trump-Zelensky ordeal, it's time for her to put up or shut up. She -- she chose the latter.

[begin video clip]

Nancy Pelosi: Any other questions on any of -- anybody want to talk about Mexico free trade agreement? Anybody care about that? Because I'm not going to answer anymore questions on this. I'm not going to go there anymore.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: She's not going to go there anymore. She's not even going to tell America what her demands are for a Senate trial? She just did this fake impeachment yesterday, and she's going to run out of town? How convenient. Again, it's all fake. This is why her impeachment theater didn't rate well even with the resistance watchers. Both the acting and the script were lame. Fox has been dominating the ratings since this sad saga began. Not trying to brag, but we have. The House impeached itself yesterday by perpetrating a fraud on the American people, because the case for impeachment was nonexistent from the start and because everyone knew the ultimate outcome before it began. Pelosi's failure to send the articles to the Senate is tantamount -- I was thinking about this today -- to a prosecutor who makes a big show of charging some high-profile individual with a crime only to then announce, he's not sure whether he'll ever prosecute the case, whether he'll take it to trial. You heard of smash and grab, right? Well, this is smear and run. Remember, Democrats assured us, they assured us that they were rushing this through, not because they hated the president, no. But because he represented an imminent threat to democracy.

[begin video clip]

Female Speaker: President Trump is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections.

Female Speaker: Donald Trump has been and remains a threat to our national security.

Male Speaker: Congress cannot wait for the next election to address this misconduct.

Male Speaker: It's a rush to justice, and we must not delay. Nothing could be more urgent.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Now we all know that that was all make believe.

[begin video clip]

Male Speaker: Following weeks of pronouncements about the urgency of the situation, urgent situation, the prosecutors appear to have developed cold feet; a very unusual spectacle, and in my view, certainly not one that reflects well on the House. We'll see whether House Democrats ever want to work up the courage to actually take their accusations to trial.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: "Work up the courage." Come on, Democrats never intended to bring this case to trial. As Pelosi stated last spring, impeachment is only warranted when both parties agree on the gravity of the underlying accused conduct. This fruitless corrosive exercise was Pelosi's attempt to throw a bone to the party's hard-core radicals and protect her members from being primaried by them. If this is as critical as they claim, if President Trump was really colluding with the Ukrainians or the Russians or whoever to steal the next election, they would not on the have immediately sent the articles to the Senate, named their impeachment managers, they wouldn't have adjourned for the holidays. Today, Nancy did her best to staunch the bleeding. It was not successful.

[begin video clip]

The Press: You run the risk, as a Republican has said, of looking like you're playing games with impeachment if you hold onto these articles for too long.

Nancy Pelosi: I said what I was going to say, Nancy. We are -- we have -- I -- when we bring the bill, which is -- just so you know, there's a bill, made in order by the Rules Committee, that we can call up at any time in order to send it over to the Senate and to have the provisions in there to pay for the impeachment. And then the next step, the -- whatever you want to call it, the trial.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Could someone diagram that sentence, please? Please? No wonder her caucus seems confused.

[begin video clip]

Female Speaker: I think it gives her leverage. It gives the House leverage in terms of making sure that it's not going to be a kangaroo court over there.

Female Speaker: Pelosi's not holding anything. This is not a strategy to try and leverage and get something from the Senate.

The Press: Are you suggesting it's possible you will never transmit the articles of impeachment?

Male Speaker: If it were me, yes, that's what I'm saying.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: What? They're all going -- it's like the scarecrow in the "Wizard of Oz," remember [blank in audio] which way are they going? Just yesterday, Pelosi's colleagues and members of the press, they were ready to petition the National Park Service to add her to Mount Rushmore. And today, all she has to show for herself is a non-impeachment impeachment, a bewildered caucus and nowhere to go. And that's The Angle. Joining me now, is Ken Starr, former independent counsel, Fox News contributor, and Sol Wisenberg, former deputy Whitewater independent counsel. Ken, Noah Feldman's column is kind of interesting today in Bloomberg. He says the president isn't technically impeached until it actually becomes part of a Senate trial, as it goes to the Senate. But it certainly does speak to the confusion that Pelosi and Schumer have caused for the country and her caucus, does it not?

Ken Starr, former independent counsel: It certainly does. I have a very different perspective, and it's one that's rooted in the language of the Constitution. The sole power of impeachment rests with the House of Representatives. And the House of Representatives wisely, or as I think, unwisely, acted. They were called into formal session. They had a debate, and they voted. And that vote is now a matter of record. Now, something is missing, and that is the filing. It's almost like the filing of the criminal complaint that we were talking about earlier. You can get the grand jury to indict, but the prosecutor needs to go file the indictment in court. This is not a court proceeding. This is politics. But Constitution contemplates, and history teaches us, and here history is a guide, that in short order -- there's no time limit. But in short order, that the speaker will designate the House impeachment managers, the prosecutors --

Laura Ingraham: But what if she doesn't, Ken?

Ken Starr: -- who will then --

Laura Ingraham: We're not in a criminal procedure court here, okay? Well, you get -- people don't understand the law. But technically, it's not criminal, it's not a criminal proceeding. However --

Ken Starr: Correct.

Laura Ingraham: -- this is also -- this is a political undertaking, is it not? And it is like charging someone or smearing someone, whatever you call it, impeachment, call it not impeachment, and then letting it hang out there and say, "Oh, no, no, no, we're not going to try [spelled phonetically] because we don't like the rules of the court. That's convenient, is it not --

Ken Starr: Right.

Laura Ingraham: -- Sol? I want to hear you on this. I mean whether you call it impeachment or call it whatever you want to call it, the fact that she is not telling us that she’s going to send it to the Senate because she doesn’t like Mitch McConnell’s attitude -- are you kidding me?

Ken Starr: It’s a dereliction of duty to the House.

Sol Wisenberg: I’m not kidding you.

Laura Ingraham: Hold on, let’s go to Sol now.

Ken Starr: Sorry.

Sol Wisenberg, former independent counsel: I think it’s just petulant. She’s just -- it’s very childish, to begin with, and it’s supposed to be a serious and somber thing, as she said, and she’s trying to do something that the Constitution doesn’t allow her to do. As Ken said, the Senate has the sole power to try impeachment; the House has the sole power to consider impeachment. However, I don’t believe the Constitution requires her to send it over to the Senate. She looks like an idiot for not doing it, but I don’t think it requires her to. The interesting question is, what about the Senate? What if Senator McConnell -- it doesn’t sound like he wants to do it, but what if he decides, “All right, look, you’re not bringing it over here, but we have the sole power to try impeachment. We’re going to have a trial, and we’re going to acquit him.”

Laura Ingraham: That’s what I thought, yeah. I think that’s a great point.

Sol Wisenberg: And so, I think he can do that. I think the Senate can do that. So, interesting standoff here, but I think it makes them look terrible -- the Democrats terrible.

Laura Ingraham: Well, it may --

Sol Wisenberg: They did this --

Laura Ingraham: I want to get back to the point. We’re getting stuck into legalese, but, Ken, my point here is they didn’t take this seriously. They knew that McConnell was Senate majority leader. They didn’t wake up today and find out, “Oh, God, he’s running the Senate.” Right? So, what does it tell you about the strength of their case, the lack of bipartisan nature, and whether they were ever really serious that this constituted a high crime or misdemeanor? That’s why I say it’s a fraud perpetrated on the American people.

Ken Starr: It was a fraud on the court, the high court of impeachment, because of just what was reported earlier and when you quoted person after person. This was a running theme. “We have to do this now because the president is a clear and present danger.” Ridiculous hyperbole. We all saw it as hyperbole, but now it’s been proven. Unless she moves forward quickly and appoints impeachment managers, then it becomes a fraud on the House, as well as a fraud, of course, on the American people.

Laura Ingraham: I want to go to what happened tonight. Senator Graham said something, but before we get to Senator Graham, I want to play something from Amy Klobuchar in tonight’s Democrat debate. This is fresh sound. Apparently, now, Sol, if you don’t testify, or if you don’t put on witnesses, it means you’re de facto guilty. This isn’t the Democrats. This is civil libertarians, the new approach to impeachment. Watch.

[begin video clip]

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.: As we face his trial in the Senate, if the president claims that he is so innocent, then why doesn’t he have all the president’s men testify? If President Trump thinks that he should not be impeached, he should be not scared to put forward his own witnesses.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Sol, response to that?

Sol Wisenberg: Well, it’s just -- it’s silly, but it’s consistent with what they have -- the kinds of things that the House managers -- the people in the House -- there are no House managers yet -- have been saying. For example, Congressman Swalwell said the other day, “If you don’t -- if you’re innocent, you would come and testify.” I guess he’s never heard of the Fifth Amendment. I can’t believe the guy is a lawyer. So, it’s a -- the senator’s point is a rhetorical point. You can say, “If he really did nothing wrong, why doesn’t he put his people up to testify?” That’s a political point. But to say that we can vote guilty because of that is ridiculous. Her duty, like Senator McConnell’s duty, is to listen to the evidence and to make a decision in an impartial way, and I don’t think the senator should have said -- I don’t think it was wise or right for him to say that he is not impartial. Do it the right way.

Laura Ingraham: Well, if he doesn’t think it’s legitimate -- if he doesn’t think it’s a legitimate impeachment, it’s a fraudulent impeachment, I think it’s his duty to say how he would vote. I disagree with you on that, but I -- I mean, I see your point if it was a legitimate impeachment. I don't think he thinks it’s legitimate from the beginning. I want to play something from Senator Graham, who met with the president today, Ken. Watch.

[begin video clip]

Lindsey Graham: I just met with the president, and he is demanding his day in court. Every American accused of a crime or wrongdoing gets their day in court, apparently, except Donald Trump. He’s mad as hell that they would do this to him and now deny him his day in court. The reason they’re denying his day in -- him his day in court is they know their case sucks.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Ken --

Ken Starr: [laughs]

Laura Ingraham: -- quite succinctly put. Do you -- would you recommend this to the president? Forge ahead to a trial, or just declare victory since Nancy has cold feet?

Ken Starr: Declare victory. If there’s a default, in light of what the Speaker is doing now, take it, and let the Senate do what the Senate does so well, which is confirm judges. But I can understand, as a matter of pride, that the president wants to clear his name. It was a weak case. Abuse of power does not fit. So, I can understand he wants to bring it on, but let’s get out of this as quickly as possible. It’s just bad for the country.

Laura Ingraham: Sol, I want to get back to the point you raised earlier, though, which I think no one has really made -- it’s really important -- that the Senate, even if they don’t receive the articles of impeachment, if I understood your point, they can still take them up and move to hear the case or dismiss the case. That’s what your point was.

Sol Wisenberg: I believe that they can. Yeah, that -- I believe that if Pelosi does not exhibit the articles of impeachment to the House -- to the Senate, which, by the way, the preamble to the articles says that once it is voted for, it will be exhibited to the Senate. If she doesn’t do that, I believe that the Senate has the power, because it has the sole -- I think he’s -- number one, I think Professor Feldman is wrong; I agree with Ken. He has been impeached; the president has been impeached. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachment under the Constitution. I think the Senate would be totally within its constitutional right, and Senator McConnell would, to say, “We’re trying this baby.” Now, he doesn’t sound like he wants to do it. That’s up to him. I think they have the power to do that, and I think it would be challenged in court, and I think the court would say the Constitution leaves this checks-and-balances battle to the Senate and the House.

Laura Ingraham: But if it hangs out there, Ken, there’s no way to challenge the impeachment. If we don’t do what the Senate -- what Sol says the Senate could do, there’s no way to challenge the House impeachment legally in any court proceeding. It would not be justiciable, correct?

Ken Starr: That is correct. The courthouse doors are shut. This is all going to be between the House and the Senate.

Laura Ingraham: Wow. Well, everyone gets continuing legal education credit tonight here on the Ingraham Angle. [laughter] Thank you so much. Great to see both of you, and have a merry Christmas. All right, coming up, how badly could Democrats’ impeachment vote backfire? Our congressional panel, Zeldin, Gaetz, and Scalise, are here when we return. [commercial break]

Laura Ingraham: Heading into 2020, Congressman Jeff Van Drew officially switching parties from Democrat to Republican at the White House today.

[begin video clip]

President Donald Trump: Jeff Van Drew, highly respected, will be joining the Republican party. And we were very fortunate. Kevin, you said it was about 10 years since that's happened, because he knows it's not going to be the minority for long. I have a feeling we're going to do very well in 2020.

Jeff Van Drew: You have my undying support.

Donald Trump: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Jeff Van Drew: And always.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Oh, the media, they were going crazy with that comment. Here with me now, our congressional power panel stars in this entire saga, Lee Zeldin of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Matt Gaetz, his fiery speech the other day in the House Judiciary Committee; House minority whip Steve Scalise. Congressman Zeldin, let's start with you. The Democrats are lost in the wilderness, clearly, as we pointed out in The Angle. But isn't the damage done? If you're thinking of just what's happened to the president and his family, his legacy, it was a smear-and-run job.

Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-Texas: Yeah, absolutely. I think that a lot of the damage is actually done on the Democrats. I mean, they're going to feel that when they get to the polls next November. And I'm sure that a lot of those House Democrats, with their arms twisted by Speaker Pelosi and others in order to vote for these articles in these Trump districts. They were sent to Washington to work with the president, not to impeach him. I think the damage has been done to them. And many of them are not going to be here to serve with us in January 2020.

Laura Ingraham: But you get my point. It's like, as I said on The Angle, it's like tantamount to a prosecutor --

Lee Zeldin: Yes, right.

Laura Ingraham: -- saying -- they're having a big press conference, saying, "You know, I'm going to charge him with, you know, robbery, armed robbery."

Lee Zeldin: Yeah, and you're not --

Laura Ingraham: And then you never bring the case.

Lee Zeldin: Well, it's also a part of the pattern, Laura, because, remember, first they had to hide the evidence in the bunker of the basement. Then they had to release selected excerpts out of context of the transcripts. And then when they actually had live witnesses before the American people, the polling immediately inverted on impeachment. Independents started turning against it. They lost intensity even among Democrats. And Republicans certainly saw it for the sham that it was. So now, facing a real trial, where a full complement of witnesses would be called, Democrats are trying to cut and run on their own impeachment because they see that it is a failure.

Laura Ingraham: I mean, this is why our system doesn't allow this in a legal context. You can't announce charging someone and then just say, "Oh, you know, I don't know if I'm going to bring the case."

Lee Zeldin: Well, remember when Jim Comey did this to Hillary Clinton. Democrats acted like it was a human rights violation.

Laura Ingraham: A non- excellent point.

Lee Zeldin: Yeah, now they're doing it --

Laura Ingraham: Excellent point.

Lee Zeldin: -- to Donald Trump.

Laura Ingraham: Non-indictment indictment of Hillary, and now here we have it again.

Lee Zeldin: Right.

Laura Ingraham: Congressman Scalise, they made a big point of, this is a prayerful time. This is solemn, serious, grave, all wearing black. And then this video from Congresswoman Tlaib surfaced, walking to impeachment.

[begin video clip]

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.: Hey, everyone. I am on my way to the United States House floor to impeach President Trump. On behalf of my incredible district, 13 district strong. Let's do this.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Reaction.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La.: It's just disdain that they have for really the 63 million Americans who elected Donald Trump president. All of those hard men and women who have been forgotten by Washington. And it's the arrogance of these liberal elites who walked into Washington not to make lives better and lower drug prices and fix problems. They had a political vendetta. They didn't agree with the results of the 2016 election, and they were hell bent on impeaching the president. Over a hundred, Laura, over a hundred Democrats voted to impeach the president prior to the Zelensky phone call. It was not never about a crime. There was no crime.

Laura Ingraham: No, it's just fake.

Steve Scalise: Which is why Pelosi is acting out right now. There's nothing --

Laura Ingraham: Yeah, we have fake news.

Steve Scalise: -- to impeach him. It was an impeachment in serve of a crime.

Laura Ingraham: Yeah.

Steve Scalise: And now I think they're seeing the backlash. The country is revolting against what they just did. It's going to be a scar on Nancy Pelosi's legacy as speaker.

Laura Ingraham: And I was going to say fake news, fake impeachment, Congressman Gates, the media fan the flames during the impeachment push. The Washington Post reporter, CNN analyst Rachel Bade showed her true colors last night. She Tweeted an image of herself and four colleagues from The Post with the caption, "Merry Impeach-mas from the WAPO team." Congressman Gates, do you believe this was a -- the real collusion was always between the media, the resistance media, and the Democrats?

Matt Gaetz: Well, the media benefited off of the lies, and then they peddled those lies throughout this process. My problem isn't that Rachel Bade was celebrating impeachment. My problem is that she pretended to cover it fairly during the process. Even during the hearings, Rachel Bade was Tweeting defamatory and false things about me as I was presenting our evidence. And so I think that you've really seen the mainstream media transition from reporting the facts to advocacy journalism. And I think that Rachel Bade has been exposed as an advocacy journalist.

Laura Ingraham: President Trump spoke today in the Oval Office about what's happening in the coming weeks. Congressman Zeldin, he certainly seems like he's itching for a fight. Watch.

[begin video clip]

Donald Trump: It doesn't feel like impeachment. And you know why? It's a phony deal. And they cheapen the word "impeachment." It's an ugly word. That should never again happen to another president. And I think you'll see some very interesting things happen over the coming few days and weeks.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Well, you know what he's hinting at there, Congressman Zeldin? You're close to the wall. Both of you are. I want some info here. What is he hinting at?

Lee Zeldin: It's a beautiful thing to have the facts on your side. And he did nothing wrong. He provided the July 25th call transcript. We all see what it actually said.

Laura Ingraham: What is he hinting at? What could be coming in the coming days and weeks? I think he's talking about his White House counsel, what they might be doing, and what -- what the next move might be in the Senate, whether or not those articles come.

Lee Zeldin: He has a fantastic team. But he knows that he did nothing wrong. But the full story, I mean, the Adam Schiff fairytale. He tried writing the world's greatest parody ever written --

Laura Ingraham: Where is the whistleblower?

Lee Zeldin: -- relying on 3 percent of the facts. And this president knows that he's going to have this team that will have this opportunity to go to the Senate if Nancy Pelosi ever actually sends the articles of impeachment to make the argument to defend him. And he's right on the process. It's illegitimate. He's right on substance. It's been illegitimate on the process. And the president's excited for the opportunity to actually have fairness, because he was –

[cross talk]

Laura Ingraham: Yeah. Well, now, there's something else he's hinting at.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.: I think that, you know, we all know that --

Laura Ingraham: I think Zeldin knows, and he's not telling us. Go ahead.

Matt Gaetz: We all know that the Ukraine endeavor was not some organic outgrowth of presidential conduct. It was really a distraction from the Russia hoax, which is the coverup for all of the collusion that existed between the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC, and people outside of the United States trying to influence the election. I think that we've got major bombshells coming in the Durham investigation.

Laura Ingraham: Oh, Durham. Okay, Durham, Durham, Durham.

Matt Gaetz: And I think the president understands that this is really what the American people want to see in terms of accountability.

Laura Ingraham: Congressman Scalise, you said in an interview that impeachment was a stain on Pelosi's record. And she responded to The Washington Post, the people who were celebrating last night, saying, "It's so pathetic. After they impeach somebody for having a personal indiscretion and lying about it to protect his family, they're calling this partisan?" Bill Clinton lied to protect his family, Congressman? That's a -- that's a nice one. Probably to protect his own -- you know, himself from the wrath of Hillary. I don't know.

Steve Scalise: Laura, if you go through the three impeachments that we've had prior to this, whatever you want to call this. Every one of them started with an actual crime. And you can debate whether it was a high crime or misdemeanor. But they were all a crime. There's no dispute about that. Here, there was never a crime. They hoped there was a crime. The Mueller investigation was a 22-month witch hunt to try to find a crime. But go look at Pelosi's comments just a week ago, where she said they've been doing this for two and a half years. Again, I read on the House floor last night, some of the things that Democrats already voted to impeach President Trump on, two years ago, they voted to impeach him for criticizing NFL players who kneeled for the pledge. Is that really a high crime and misdemeanor? Or is, as Turley, one of the Democrat witnesses who, under oath, testified he voted against President Trump, said the only abuse of power is what Democrats are doing, abusing their power because the president is exercising his legal rights. Maybe Adam Schiff read Article I and II of the Constitution, but maybe his version didn’t have Article III, which is the judicial branch. He forgot about that one. But they don’t have a case. There was no crime.

Laura Ingraham: Well, I think -- and this happened after Andrew Jackson -- if the House is retaken by the Republicans next year, I think we have to move to expunge this impeachment from the record.

Male Speaker: Absolutely.

Laura Ingraham: It has to be moved to a full expungement of this. This was a fraud perpetrated on the American public. It is -- I’ve -- I thought I’d seen it all until I saw every which way. No one knows what --

Matt Gaetz: It’s like an impeachment in drag. The voters --

Male Speaker: [unintelligible] --

Laura Ingraham: [laughs] That’s a good one. Pretend, fake impeachment in drag.

Male Speaker: Yeah, the voters need to expunge the Democrats from this majority. I mean, the great thing about our country is they can throw them out of office in November.

Laura Ingraham: If they win and stay in the majority, we will have endless impeachment rolling, rolling impeachment. That’s what people have to [unintelligible].

Male Speaker: Imagine if it was one-party Democratic rule.

Male Speaker: We may still [unintelligible] –

[cross talk]

Laura Ingraham: Yeah, can’t have it. We can’t have -- people are sick of this. They want real results.

Male Speaker: This is a warning shot.

Laura Ingraham: It’s time to be representatives of people, not roadblocks to the people. Congressmen, merry Christmas.

Matt Gaetz: Merry Christmas.

Laura Ingraham: You’ve all done a fabulous job.

Male Speaker: Merry Christmas.

Laura Ingraham: Scalise, have fun down there in Louisiana. All right, coming up, Democrats kept invoking the Civil Rights Movement while voting to impeach the president. Is that appropriate? Candace Owens reacts. Plus, we have breaking news tonight about that John Durham investigation and what he’s targeting in his probe. This is big. Stay there.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham: Democrats said some doozies during their impeachment-a-thon on the House floor yesterday, or the fake impeachment, as I called it earlier. Nancy Pelosi compared impeachment to fighting the Battle of the Bulge, and some other Democrats went so far as to invoke the Civil Rights Movement.

[begin video clip]

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga.: I urge you to come down to Georgia, find a black man or woman of a certain age, and they’ll tell you of brave Americans who marched and struggled and sometimes died so that we could have fair and free elections.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.: When we came here on August 6, 1965, for the signing of the Voting Rights Act, we were excited, hopeful. But today, this day, we didn’t ask for this. This is a sad day.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Here to respond is Candace Owens, founder of the Blexit movement, author of Blackout. Candace, is it really fair, apt, relevant to discuss the -- you know, the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement with what happened in the House yesterday?

Candace Owens, Blexit movement: Honestly, I find this to be absolutely infuriating and disgusting, and it goes to prove my point. I’ve always said that in the Democrats’ game of chess -- a chess for power is what they’re really after -- black Americans have always been the pawns. They send us out; they figure out, “How can we make them emotional? How can we make them angry?” To the Democrats, they believe that black Americans are stupid, so, absent any facts, if they dangle the term “Civil Rights Movement,” if they liken something to the Civil Rights Movement, if they call somebody or smear somebody as racist, the job of us is we’re supposed to jump up, be really angry, and run into a burning house to save their party. That is exactly how the Democrats view black America, and it is so obvious when these people invoke imagery from the civil rights era, I mean, to add credence to their bogus impeachment, and they do not take the black voter bloc seriously. They think we are an absolute joke, and it infuriates me that they do this time and time again every four years. We have to wake up to this nonsense.

Laura Ingraham: Even Congresswoman Jayapal, Candace joined this fray. Take a look.

[begin video clip]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wa.: We haven’t had to fight very hard for our democracy recently. We have to fight for this democracy just like the revolutionaries did on the battlefield, just like people fought for it in the Underground Railroad, just like people fought for it in the Civil Rights Movement on Edmund Pettus Bridge.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Oh, she got the Revolutionary War in there, too. I was practically thinking she was going to bring out a fife and drum corps there, Candace. It is -- to me, it’s a sign that they know that the president is gaining support in minority communities, and they’re freaking out. I just think they’re freaking out about it.

Candace Owens: You know what I find especially disgusting about it? That the Democrats are the ones that use this imagery. Like, the Democrats, the ones that are the reason that we had slavery in this country; the Democrats, the ones that fought for the Jim Crow laws. Right? The reason that we’ve had this deep history of racism and division in this country is because of the Democrat Party, and the people that have been trying to fix that division has always been the Republican Party. So, it’s just amazing to me that they dig up their own history, really, their own history of racism and hatred, and they try to use it to make sure that they can keep maintaining this ideological hold on black Americans.

Laura Ingraham: Candace, great to see you. Merry Christmas. Thanks for all your appearances this year. And who knows? I may see you down there in Florida tomorrow. I don’t know. I hear I’m going there.

Candace Owens: Yes, yes [laughs].

Laura Ingraham: All right, see you then. All right, and if you thought IG Horowitz’s FISA abuse report was the end of the story, guess again. Attorney General Bill Barr revealed the stunning new detail about the extent of U.S. Attorney Durham’s probe.

[begin video clip]

Male Speaker: He's not just looking at the FBI. He's looking at other agencies and also private departments and also private actors. And so it's a much broader investigation. [end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: I love how he says it kind of under -- like really calm. Scarier that way. As he said that, this broke tonight. The New York Times reporting that Durham "is examining testimony by the former CIA director John Brennan and seeking his communications records." Uh-oh. Joining me now, Lee Smith, investigative journalist, author of the instructive book -- I love it, "Instructive" -- "The Plot Against the President." Lee, why is Brennan -- just take us back down memory lane in case people have -- this is like the ghost of Christmas past. Why is Brennan so central to all of this?

Lee Smith: Well, one of the most important things about Brennan is that he was in charge of assembling the intelligence community assessment of January 2017. And there's a reason that Congressman Devin Nunes calls it -- in my book, he calls it, "Obama's dossier," because the purpose of the ICA was to do the same thing that the Steele dossier did, which was to smear Trump. This served to delegitimize his presidency and complicate the peaceful transition of power in January 2017.

Laura Ingraham: Well, when you see how he's trotted out on CNN. Is that what he's on, CNN? I don't watch those other networks for the most part.

Lee Smith: [unintelligible] I think.

Laura Ingraham: Yes.

Lee Smith: MSNBC.

Laura Ingraham: MS, MS, sorry. It's on one of the other networks. Not that I -- I sometimes check it out. But he's on the other network, MSNBC. And there's not even a sense of irony in the, "Oh, what do you think about the FISA report?" There's no sense of irony in asking him questions. But from the beginning, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, the three IC stooges have been -- we've wondered, when are we going to have some accountability here. Comey acted the other night like, well, I'm glad we're getting to the bottom of this. Wasn't that great?

Lee Smith: Right. I mean, this is an important thing. I mean, it's important to remember this story comes from the New York Times, and it appears that they're probably going to be cushioning a more -- we hope a more severe blow. But certainly, there is lots of different things that John Brennan did that investigators will be looking at. We know congressional investigators look at -- looking at it, and we hope that U.S. attorney Durham is as well.

Laura Ingraham: Just so we refresh everybody's recollection on this, this was John Durham speaking about that -- Brennan, excuse me, talking about the dossier. [begin video clip]

The Press: Do you know if the bureau ever relied on the Steele dossier as any -- as part of any court filings, applications, petitions, pleadings?

John Brennan, former CIA director: I have no awareness.

The Press: Did the CIA rely on it?

John Brennan: No. We -- it wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.

[end video clip]

Lee Smith: Yeah. One of the things that we know is that it appears that in August 2016, John Brennan may have briefed Harry Reid on the dossier. So he said different things that he didn't see it until much later. But it appears that in August 2016, he may have talked to Harry Reid about it. There's a lot of problems --

Laura Ingraham: Uh-oh.

Lee Smith: -- with Brennan's testimony and what may appear in his correspondence as well.

Laura Ingraham: We're going to know, I hope, fairly soon. This can't drag into the summer of next year. We better -- we better -- we better learn something before then. Lee, have a great, great holiday. Great to see you. Merry Christmas and all that jazz.

Lee Smith: Christmas to you.

Laura Ingraham: Did you forget there is a Democrat debate going on tonight? Well, you're not alone. We'll be one of the first to show you some of the most ridiculous assertions tonight before Mercedes Schlapp and Richard Goodstein debate.

[commercial break]

[begin video clip]

Female Speaker: You know who is probably hopping mad? The 2020 Democratic presidential field. They have a debate. Does anybody care? They can't get a word in edgewise.

Female Speaker: [unintelligible] Kellyanne until you --

Female Speaker: The last time we talked about that.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Well, that's right. Seven of the 2020 Democratic candidates were on stage debating late tonight. Just wrapped. So like most Americans, you probably didn't watch it. But we did so you didn't have to. And while impeachment might be an obsession inside this crazy place of Washington, most Americans care more about the economy, which is booming, if you haven't noticed. Unfortunately for Democrats, they don't have any good answers.

[begin video clip]

Female Speaker: My question to you, Mr. Vice president, is what is your argument to the voter watching this debate tonight who may not like everything President Trump does, but they really like this economy, and they don't know why they should make a change.

Joe Biden: Well, I don't think they really do like the economy.

Female Speaker: How do you answer top economists who say taxes of this magnitude would stifle growth in investments?

Female Speaker: Oh, they're just wrong.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Here to break down the highlights is Mercedes Schlapp, Trump 2020 senior campaign adviser, and Richard Goodstein, lawyer and former Clinton adviser. Richard, I watched tonight when I wasn't on the air, and it seemed to me that the Democrats have basically given up on the idea that they're going to grow the economy faster than Trump. Am I wrong?

Richard Goodstein, former Clinton adviser: So, I bet there is nobody in your audience who knows that more jobs were created in the last three years of the Obama presidency than in the first three years of Trump's. And Obama didn't have a big tax cut and a sugar high and so forth. So, somehow or other, notwithstanding all this crazy ideology, Obama did pretty well in terms of job growth and --

Laura Ingraham: How about the wage growth?

Richard Goodstein: -- economic development. Not as good as it is now. I --

Laura Ingraham: Blue collar wages.

Richard Goodstein: I'm just saying. And yet, if you talk to those blue collar workers in terms of their expenses for health care and --

Laura Ingraham: Whose fault is that?

Richard Goodstein: -- education -- well, I'm just saying, their lives are -- yes, the wages are up a tad.

[cross talk]

Laura Ingraham: It's so much better.

[cross talk]

Richard Goodstein: And if they were, then Donald Trump --

Mercedes Schlapp, Trump 2020 senior campaign adviser: -- under Obama.

Richard Goodstein: -- would not be [unintelligible] to the lower 40s with this economy doing this well.

Mercedes Schlapp: Oh, come on, Richard.

Laura Ingraham: All right.

Mercedes Schlapp: We know that especially in -- even looking at poll --

Richard Goodstein: And Matt Bevin and Eddie Rispone wouldn't have lost in Trump plus 30 states.

Laura Ingraham: They were pretty bad candidates. I mean, I get your point, but they were not the best candidates. I mean --

Richard Goodstein: I disagree.

Mercedes Schlapp: But you always have to remember in the midterm elections, just the historical components of the midterm elections, which it normally goes the other way.

Laura Ingraham: Well, we have to get our obligatory mention in of the USMCA, which, of course, finally passed today. And think about it. Obama, when he campaign in 2008, said, I'm going to renegotiate NAFTA. I'm going to do it. He's a bright star, incredible campaigner and incredible politician. In eight years, couldn't get it done. This guy gets it done in about a year and a half, and the Democrats sit on it for a year.

Mercedes Schlapp: That's right.

Laura Ingraham: So, I get that people don't like Trump. They don't like his tone. But my goodness, just on the trade stuff alone, he got a partial deal with China, got USMCA. They got the South Korean free trade deal. And now they're going to have a new deal with England. That's going to be the next big deal and Japan. That's all good for blue collar America. Speaking of blue collar workers, though, Joe Biden, I think won the award tonight for the worst response to a debate question. And there was some competition. Take a look.

[begin video clip]

Male Speaker: Three consecutive American presidents have enjoyed stints of explosive economic growth due to a boom in oil and natural gas production. As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of blue collar workers in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy?

Joe Biden: The answer is yes.

Laura Ingraham: That's a loser, Richard.

Richard Goodstein: So, here's where it's not, if you don't mind. Among millennials, climate change is an issue that I think both of you think is a joke, and they don't. They really believe it --

Mercedes Schlapp: We don't think it's a joke.

[cross talk]

Mercedes Schlapp: You are willing to throw away the fossil fuel industry that provides thousands, tens of thousands of jobs to Americans in Texas, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio. You go across the country, by following these utopian type brave new deals --

[cross talk].

Richard Goodstein: As you know, California has the strictest environmental standards regarding greenhouse gasses --

Mercedes Schlapp: Highest taxes.

Richard Goodstein: And economic growth that is the envy of most states. California is the envy of most states.

Laura Ingraham: Well, I don't think so. So, you see that video of that man defecating in Nancy Pelosi's store.

Richard Goodstein: T here's homelessness. It's horrible.

[cross talk]

Laura Ingraham: Now, Richard saying the economy is doing really well in California, but that's only because of -- partly because of Trump. It's a lot bigger than Trump. All right. Do you think, Richard, right now, knowing what you know and just if you had to guess and it was you like your life depended on getting it right., who's going to win in November of next year, if you had to say now, given all your experience, is it going to be a Democrat?

Richard Goodstein: I think it's going to be very close. I think Biden ends up being the nominee. I mean, again, everybody thought it was a dead man walking. Months ago.

Laura Ingraham: I didn't.

Richard Goodstein: You did not. And it looks like with all the incoming, I think people look at him and they compare it to the Donald Trump who talked about John Dingell being in hell. And they go, no, we talk about government workers being scum. No, we don't want that and Joe Biden --

[cross talk]

Laura Ingraham: You see that Obama's former doctor, Fox News reported, says the Biden's not doing well. I didn't know.

Another issue that Biden has is his son hunter. There's still those of corruption that exists with Hunter.

[cross talk]

Laura Ingraham: Pretty hard to beat the peace and prosperity agenda even if you have a colorful candidate or not. This is going to be fun, though. I'm just glad, Richard and Mercedes, you both have been phenomenal this year on the show. Thank you for both your contributions.

Richard Goodstein: Happy holidays to both of you. Merry Christmas.

Laura Ingraham: All right. They're telling me to wrap. Ingram's inbox. I hope we have time. Next stay tuned.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham: It's time again for Ingram's inbox.

We only have time for one tonight, but it's an interesting one about the impeachment fight.

Kurt in L.A. writes, "If the Dems are demanding McConnell recuse himself because he's declared he'll not be an impartial juror during the trial, then shouldn't Senators Booker, Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar all recuse themselves as they've all stated that Trump should be impeached and removed from office?

Laura Ingraham: Kurt, I knew there was someone smart in L.A.

If you want your email featured on the show.

Be sure to send your thoughts to Ingraham Angle at Fox News dot com.

Shannon Bream and the “Fox News @ Night” team, take it all from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.