Rudy Giuliani admits to forcing out Marie Yovanovitch

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 16, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Laura Ingraham, host:
I'm Laura Ingram and this is "The Ingram Angle" from Washington tonight.  More games from the Democrats in the middle of the night.  Yeah, Andy Biggs, Byron York, Bob Barr are all here.  And in moments they will explain Jerry Nadler's desperate eleventh-hour vote.  Also, Senator Josh Hawley.  He'll join us on how Chuck Schumer has positioned himself front and center on impeachment.  And he'll also preview another Senate hearing with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.  Plus, Rudy Giuliani has drawn the ire of both the left and some on the right.

So, he has to be asked a question, is he helping or hurting the president and what new stuff has he found out in his latest travels?  The former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, returns exclusively to make his case.  And the Democrats' impeachment ship is taking on water.  My Angle a little later tonight examines Democrat defections in both halls of Congress and also on the streets of middle America.  Dan Bongino, Victor Davis Hanson and more react to all of it.  But first, House Judiciary Dems are up to their usual hijinks, this time dropping a nearly 700-page impeachment report in the middle of the night, a week before Christmas.  Democrats are now accusing Trump of committing bribery and wire fraud.

Oh, throw something else in.  Two crimes curiously left out of the articles of impeachment heading to the floor for a vote this week.  Joining me now is Bob Barr, former Clinton impeachment manager as well as former federal prosecutor and Georgia congressman.  Also here is Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and Fox News contributor; and Andy Biggs, House Judiciary Committee member who had to endure last week.  So, we’re just going to say, Congressman, I’m glad you’re okay after a nightmarishly long series of proceedings.  But before we begin, I want you all to listen to what Senator Pelosi said -- do we call her Senator?  Congresswoman Pelosi -- Speaker Pelosi said when asked why charges they’re not entertaining against Trump were not in their articles.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Reporter Question:
You, yourself, accused him of bribery.  Why did you decide not to make bribery one of the articles of impeachment?
 
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.:
I, myself, am not a lawyer.  Sometimes I act like one.  Not as often as I act as a doctor.  I practice medicine on the side without benefit of diploma, too.  This is a decision that was recommended by our -- working together with our committee chairs, our attorneys, and the reps.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
All right.  Sorry.  This is water.  It’s -- water’s a theme.  It’s, like, renewing, right?  Congressman, it seems like they’re just making this up as they go along.  I am a lawyer, and so I follow this very closely.  It’s in the long report for what purpose?  What purpose are they throwing the wire fraud, the bribery into that report?
 
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.:
Well, because they don’t have anything in the articles of impeachment that are worth pursuing.
 
Laura Ingraham:
Right.
 
Andy Biggs:
I mean, their articles, and also this new Nadler report, are as incoherent as Nancy Pelosi’s explanation.  I mean, they don’t know what they’re doing.  And that’s why we’ve gone everywhere from the true quid pro quo right into something like bribery and this wire fraud issue.  Who knows what’s next?  And it’s an embarrassment, quite frankly.
 
Laura Ingraham:
Byron, they have done everything to try to get people to pay attention to this.
 
Byron York, Fox News contributor:
At the hearing, with the legal scholars, one of the legal scholars, Pamela Karlan, the professor from Stanford --
 
Laura Ingraham:
Our favorite.  That’s our favorite one.
 
Byron York:
-- tried to explain that bribery actually meant something else.  She called it “constitutional bribery,” saying that the founders at the time they drafted the constitution had a different view of what that is.  So, what the president did fits that definition, even if it doesn’t really fit today’s criminal code definition of bribery.  And then you look in this report, and it’s got the criminal code saying that the president has committed bribery as a --
 
Laura Ingraham:
Do you think she gave them the idea to phrase it the way they did?  Reading it --
 
Byron York:
She gave them -- she gave them an alternative --
 
Laura Ingraham:
Yeah.
 
Byron York:
-- which is in their report.  But I think that they were responding to critics, Republican critics like Congressman Biggs who said, “There’s no accusation of the president –“
 
Laura Ingraham:
But it’s not in the articles of impeachment.  So, it’s like, you can talk, and you can make these points, and you can write a long report, but if you don’t take it seriously, it’s not in the articles of impeachment.  And Congressman Barr, here’s what Chuck Schumer said today about flip-flopping on calling for impeachment witnesses.  Watch.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.:
1999 was a different case.  There were all the obvious reasons why they did not want a witness like Monica Lewinsky testifying in public.  I was there.  And it related to what she -- what the questions might be about, that the whole nation, including children, would be watching.  It’s totally different situation.  There’s no analogy.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
Bob, is that how you remember it?  I also want your take on the previous question.
 
Bob Barr, former Clinton impeachment adviser:
Well, it’s sort of an alternative universe and an alternative memory that we have here.  Chuck Schumer, back in 1999, was among those who wanted nothing whatsoever to do with impeachment, no witnesses, nothing.  They wanted to just rush it through and unfortunately, we had a Republican majority at the time under Trent Lott that caved in to pressure from Schumer and others.  But this notion that you were talking about a few moments ago with your other guests, Laura, about throwing in terms like “bribery” and “extortion” and so forth, it makes clear that what this document is, this, you know, this large lump of coal that deposited itself in the House last evening, late last night, is simply a document to allow every Democrat out there who wants to find something on which to run against Trump or say bad about him can do so.  The ultimate though, it is absolutely outrageous for this document, an official document of the U.S. House of Representatives, to say that this president is a threat to national security and is a danger to the country.  I mean, that’s just over the top and ought to have no place in any public document --
 
Laura Ingraham:
Yeah.  It’s --
 
Bob Barr:
-- much less one from the House of Representatives.
 
Laura Ingraham:
It’s a political document.  I’m just going to make a -- this is a political document.  And it’s --
 
Bob Barr:
That is correct.
 
Laura Ingraham:
-- dropping when it was dropped, Byron York, for political purposes.
 
Byron York:
Absolutely.
 
Laura Ingraham:
That’s why it was dropped.  So, it’s not -- they don’t care about these issues.  They don’t think he committed wire fraud.  But they know they’re going down.  They know they’re losing support by the day.  The longer this goes on, the more support they bleed.
 
Byron York:
They have tried so hard to capture the imagination of the American people.
 
Laura Ingraham:
Right.
 
Byron York:
Remember with the Mueller Report, they said, “When we get Mueller, if we can have hearings, turn it into compelling TV, that will capture the nation’s imagination.”  Well, that didn’t happen.  Then you’ve had Ukraine come up, and they didn’t have a neutral fact finder like Mueller.  They had no report to do.  So, they just created these hearings in the hopes of making a really good TV show.  And it just didn’t happen.
 
Laura Ingraham:
Congressman Biggs, it’s embarrassing.  This whole thing, this entire process, I’ve tried to, like, treat it seriously when I can.  But half the time, I just want to burst out laughing because they are taking a baseball bat and knowing it’s going to hurt when they hit themselves in the face, and they just go ahead and smash, smash, smash.  “Oh, maybe it won’t hurt this time.”  And then they’re basically just going to be on the floor unconscious soon.  This is what it -- this is what it looks like.  I can’t believe they keep doing this.
 
Andy Biggs:
Yeah, I’m with you on that. I find myself saying if I wasn’t here, I wouldn’t believe this.
 
Laura Ingraham:
Yeah.
 
Andy Biggs:
This is just self-abnegation to the highest degree, you know?  And it is comical in one sense, because you see them rushing around.  And let’s face it, Nadler had to write a longer one than Schiff because he was left out.  So, they’re going to keep piling on and who knows what’s going to happen next.
 
Laura Ingraham:
Bob, we’re going to talk to Senator Hawley in a moment.  But this moves on to the Senate.  Given what you’ve seen, and the abuses, and FISA, and the politicization of all of this from the beginning with surveilling the Trump administration, and they were spied on, what do you think should happen next in the Senate?  Just a quick motion to dismiss and try to get this done quickly?  Or should witnesses be called and really put a stake through the heart of this type of bias?
 
Bob Barr:
The Senate majority, the Republican side is they should go to Senate to President Trump and do what he wants.  It is his reputation.  It is his legacy on the line, not Mitch McConnell’s, not anybody else over there.  I think this is the only opportunity, that is a Senate trial for the president to clear the air and present a full and complete context in which his policy decisions were made.  None of that came out in the House.  They didn’t allow it.  So, I think that there needs to be a full, robust trial in the Senate.  And the president needs to be very adept at picking a good team.  He ought to follow, for example, to be honest with you, the team that President Clinton chose back in 1999, which did a very good job of presenting his case, his defense --
 
Laura Ingraham:
Yeah.
 
Bob Barr:
-- in the Senate.
 
Laura Ingraham:
All right, gentlemen, thank you so much.  And joining me now is Republican senator -- we’re talking about what’s happening in the Senate, Josh Hawley from Missouri, and member of the Judiciary Committee.  Senator, you heard the conversation.  Schumer claims that the evidence is already overwhelming rom the House.  Yet, he’s asking for more witnesses.  So, which is it?
 
Josh Hawley:
Well, he knows that they have nothing.  I mean, listen, the House impeachment articles are a joke, Laura.  As you pointed out, they don’t even charge a crime.  Let’s remember what an impeachment is.  An impeachment is, like, an indictment and then it comes to the Senate for a trial.  If you had the evidence for a crime, they would have charged the crime.  They would have put it in the articles of impeachment.  They didn’t because they don’t have anything.  This whole thing is a joke.  And it’s time to get the president exonerated.
 
Laura Ingraham:
And they are already claiming, Senator Hawley, from the House Judiciary Committee, that the Senate has already cooked the books on this, that this is rigged.  Zoe Lofgren, watch.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.:
Some of the things I’m hearing from the senators looks like they plan to rig the trial.  Senators announced that they’ve already made up their minds; they don’t need to look at the facts.  That doesn’t clear the president if he’s not convicted in the Senate.  That’s just a political endeavor to protect a man who’s guilty of abusing his power.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
So, Senator, the Democrats are saying the Republicans are politicizing, I guess, the defense of the president?
 
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.:
Yeah.  The facts are is that the House has no evidence of any impeachable offense.  They put their evidence out there.  They’ve issued their reports.  We’ve all seen the hearings.  And look, there’s nothing there.  And they didn’t even charge a crime, Laura.  I mean, this comes back to they’ve had their chance.  They had their kangaroo court.  They’ve had their show, their circus for weeks and weeks, and months and months, and there just isn’t anything there.  So, listen, it’s going to come over to the Senate.  We’re going to execute our constitutional -- or I am, my constitutional responsibility.  But I can tell you there’s no way I’m voting for impeachment for somebody who hasn’t committed any impeachable offenses.

Laura Ingraham:
Senator, the debate rages on about what should happen in the Senate.  You know, the process is governed by the rules of impeachment that were developed some time ago.  But what about this idea of putting witnesses on?  The president obviously has said, “Where’s Biden?  Where’s the whistleblower?  Where’s Hunter?” and Adam Schiff’s role in all of this.  Is it important that those individuals be heard from so this kind of thing doesn’t happen again?  It’s almost punitive toward the people who started this whole thing if the witnesses are called.

Josh Hawley:
Well, I’ve said that I’d like to hear from the whistleblower.  I said some time ago, Laura, that I think that that person, whoever it is, is absolutely relevant, absolutely material.  I think Hunter Biden, the same thing.  Hunter Biden is absolutely relevant and material.  So, if we’re going to call witnesses, they absolutely should be called, and I think the president is entitled to due process.  He is entitled to a full and fair defense.  He has been denied that at every turn.  The House Democrats denied him the ability to meaningfully participate in their ridiculous show trial over on their side, departing, by the way, from all of the procedures and precedents of the past.  So, the president deserves a full defense in the United States Senate, and I’m confident he will get it.

Laura Ingraham:
And, Senator, finally, Horowitz is on his way back to Capitol Hill this week for more testimony.  I mean, I think he testified for nine hours or something last week.  I mean, what more can you possibly learn from him?

Josh Hawley:
Well, I think it’s important we drill down here on what happened before the court in particular, the FISA court, Laura.  And as you know, to see the Democrat National Committee buy itself an FBI investigation, feed this fake report to the FBI, and then the FBI to go and deliberately mislead a court not once, not twice, but at least three times -- I want to know exactly how that happened.  I want to know exactly who signed off on it.  And by the way, are you telling me that the Attorney General of the United States and the president of the United States at the time, Barack Obama, didn’t know that the FBI was asking the FISA court for warrants for a presidential campaign?  I mean, really?  Is that what we are to believe?  I just find that very, very hard to fathom.  I’d like to get some answers to that.

Laura Ingraham:
Oh, boy, would I like to get answers to that.  Senator, great to see you.  Great to have you on the show.  Thanks so much.

Josh Hawley:
Thank you.

Laura Ingraham:
All right, Rudy Giuliani; a lot of the Democrats are saying, “Oh, he has so much explaining to do” as questions about what he’s up to pour in from the left, and even a few on the right.  The former New York City mayor is here exclusively to make his case next.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham:
It’s easy to get lost with all of the twists and the turns in the Ukraine-gate saga, and a lot of you just have tuned it out, but no matter what road you go down, they all lead back to one person: Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.  His investigations into corruption and what the Bidens were up to in Ukraine are what sparked much of this in the first place.  Moreover, Giuliani was in Ukraine earlier this month continuing his investigation.  That drove the left crazy.  And while he’s touting new evidence, he says will vindicate the president, some critics allege that Giuliani is actually hurting the president more than he’s helping.  Can that be true?  Joining us now, the man of the moment, Rudy Giuliani.  We thought we’d ask you personally, Rudy, what is your reaction to those critics who say, “Oh, my gosh, Rudy has got to stop while he’s behind?”  They don’t even say “ahead,” Rudy, they’re so critical of you.

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal lawyer:
Well, I don’t know.  Maybe they don’t believe that there was, in fact, substantial corruption in Ukraine that went on for years, and that the president of the United States, when he asked for an investigation, was doing his duty as the president of the United States.  Maybe they buy into some form of the Democratic criticism.

Laura Ingraham:
Rudy --

Rudy Giuliani:
But what I uncovered there are two major schemes, one for $7.5 billion, the other for $5 billion, in money laundering that went on all through the Obama administration.  Part of it involved Joe Biden, the bribery part.  It’s a disgrace that he’s not under investigation for it in America, maybe because our law enforcement is too afraid.  But the reality is it’s a complete defense for the president.  When the president of the United States was asking the president of Ukraine to investigate, he was asking him to investigate crimes at the highest levels of both governments, that the president of the Ukraine referred to as “we,” meaning, “It’s our problem, joint problem.”  So, he’s being impeached for doing the right thing as president of the United States, nothing to be defensive about.  Zero.

Laura Ingraham:
Rudy, much of your work in Ukraine hinges on the word of former prosecutor general of the Ukraine, Lutsenko, but here’s how he was described in The New Yorker.  Of course, no conservative publication, but you gave them an interview.  “Lutsenko, sometimes referred to simply as the corrupt prosecutor general of Ukraine, has been portrayed hardly without reason as an unscrupulous politician prone to telling lies to further his personal ambitions.  Lutsenko fed information to Giuliani, which Giuliani, Trump, and their allies spun to smear the reputations of the Bidens and Marie Yovanovitch, whom Trump fired in April.  One of the House’s star witnesses told of Lutsenko -- said, ‘I don’t think we’d be here if not for him.’”  Now, this hit piece -- and it’s a hit piece --

Rudy Giuliani:
Of course.

Laura Ingraham:
-- also has you on the record admitting that you forced out Marie Yovanovitch.

Rudy Giuliani:
Of course, I did.

Laura Ingraham:
You said you needed her out of the way.  But you’re a personal attorney for the president, so why do you need her out of the way?

Rudy Giuliani:
I didn’t need her out of the way.  I forced her out because she’s corrupt.  I came back with a document that will show unequivocally that she committed perjury when she said that she turned down the visa for Mr. Shokin because of corruption.  The fact is, on the record in the State Department's own records, the reason given is because he had had an operation and hadn't recovered yet.  The operation of course was two years before.  It's documentary evidence that she committed perjury.  I have four witnesses who will testify that she personally turned down their visas because they were going to come here and give evidence either against Biden or against the Democratic Party.  There's no question that she was acting corruptly in that position and had to be removed.  She should've been fired if the State Department weren't part of the deep state.

Laura Ingraham:
But why didn't -- but I have a question.  Pompeo is someone I know you have an enormous amount of respect for, secretary of state, you know, I certainly do.  Why not -- you know, why doesn't the president go to Pompeo and say we have concerns, I want my own person?  That's just normal.  Presidents put their own people in all the time, big deal.  So, why doesn't it go from the president to Pompeo?  Why does it go from you to the powers –

Rudy Giuliani:
It didn't go from me to the president.  First one to go to the president was Pete Sessions and then a number of congressmen who said that she was saying that he's going to be impeached.  And then when I interviewed witnesses, not just Mr. Lutsenko, four other witnesses.  They told me that she was specifically holding up visas in order to obstruct the investigation of collusion in the Ukraine and specifically to obstruct the Biden investigation.  I have that testimony under oath.  I gave it to the State Department.  They never investigated a single witness.  When they say that she's innocent, it's innocent without investigation.

Laura Ingraham:
Oh, yeah.  What they say, Rudy, what they say –

Rudy Giuliani:
It is a coverup.

Laura Ingraham:
Yeah.  What they say –

Rudy Giuliani:
It's a -- I'm sorry.  It's a coverup.

Laura Ingraham:
She's the one.  She -- the entire hearing she was saying, well, I'm the one -- and everyone who knew her, she was there fighting corruption.  She was the corruption fighter.

Rudy Giuliani:
No, in fact, she -- in fact –

Laura Ingraham:
And Rudy was just pushing the interest of the president.

Rudy Giuliani:
I also have tape recordings with Ukrainian officials, including career prosecutors who say that during the Obama era the corruption in Ukraine became substantially worse and that she was a contributor to the corruption.  For example, remember when she was asked at the end by Jim Jordan about how many things the Ukrainians had done, the statements that were made, that he should be destroyed, his campaign should be destroyed, he was insane, the ambassador from the –

Laura Ingraham:
Yeah.

Rudy Giuliani:
--- Ukraine to the U.S. criticized him?  She was asked did you ever go complain about that to the Ukrainian government.  This is foreign interference in our election, right?  The answer was no.  Also, when she talks about Shokin being corrupt, how comes she doesn't talk about the candidate she supported, Poroschenko, who stole everything that didn't move?  Poroschenko is right now under investigation for taking $100 million in bribes.

Laura Ingraham:
My question, Rudy, is a deeper one.

Rudy Giuliani:
She's close to him.  Biden was close to him.  If they were worried about corruption, why weren't they worried about their friends who were taking billions?

Laura Ingraham:
Yeah, Ukraine wanted Hillary to win.  That's just beyond obvious.

[cross talk]

Rudy Giuliani:
They're crooks in the Ukraine.

Laura Ingraham:
Yeah, Rudy.  Rudy, hold on.  People in the White House today, according to these reporters who are talking on camera, are worried about your continuing role, fairly or unfairly.  Jonathan Karl, watch.

[begin video clip]

Jonathan Karl, ABC News:
If you talk to senior officials in the White House to a person privately they will tell you that they wish Rudy Giuliani would just go away and never be seen in public again related to any of this.  There's great frustration.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham:
Is that in any way in your view accurate?

Rudy Giuliani:
Are there people in the White House that are saying that?  That could be.  Is it accurate that in some way it's going to hurt to show the substantial amount of corruption that took place and that that president was doing what he should do when he asked for an investigation?  I'd say they're buying into the democratic spin.  The fact is there's nothing to be defensive about.  Joe Biden was involved in a multi-million dollar corrupt scheme along with a number of other Democrats.  It's never been resolved.  They've never been held to account.  As long as those issues remain between the United States and Ukraine, we really can't fight corruption in the Ukraine and the fact is that there are numerous Ukrainian witnesses that want to come to the United States and explain how much during the Obama administration Ukraine was corrupted by Americans.

Laura Ingraham:
Okay.  But Rudy, why are we giving them any money then?  Why did the president okay the money?

Rudy Giuliani:
I can't answer that question as to why they're doing that.

Laura Ingraham:
Well, you talk to him all the time.  I wouldn't give them a cent.  I wouldn't give them anything.

Rudy Giuliani:
Well, that isn't my job.  My job is to defend them.  What I will tell you is I have a report from the Ukrainian accounting office in 2017 showing that $5.3 billion in aid seems to have been wasted.  Our State Department –

Laura Ingraham:
Yeah.  That doesn't surprise me.

Rudy Giuliani:
Let me finish rather than interrupting me so I get the whole thought out.  Our State Department under Yovanovitch went to the police and told them not to do the investigation and then they demanded they not do the investigation.  You know why?  Because our embassy was involved in wasting a great deal of that money by giving it to NGOs and when I was asked do the NGOs have a political bent.  Do you know the answer I was given?  They were Soros-like.  They were left of left.

Laura Ingraham:
Well, I hope you have the president and the Congress and the Senate.  We're out of time but I hope Lindsey Graham and all these guys actually do an investigation that's not coming from you but that's coming from a lot of the stuff you've developed.  I hope that happens.

Rudy Giuliani:
I'm willing to show this to anybody that wants to pay attention to it.  So far law enforcement has been afraid to look at it.

Laura Ingraham:
Yeah.  All right.  Well, we -- someone's got to do -- someone's got to actually do this.  If this is going to make sense to people and really make sense, then it actually has to be followed through by the appropriate channels.  You're one person and a lawyer.  All right, Rudy, thank you.  Democrat defections in both the halls of Congress and swing districts across the land.  My angle in moments on how the Democrats are sailing right into an iceberg before Dan Bongino responds.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham:
Iceberg, meet Democrat Party.  That’s the focus of tonight’s angle.  For a while, Democrats thought it was smooth sailing.  Everything was going along just fine.  They had a whistleblower alleging wrongdoing on the part of the president more than a year out before an election?  Potential abuse of office?  Schiff and Pelosi thought it would help them cruise to a win next year.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Male Speaker:
Oh, yes.  Look at this. 
 
Male Speaker:
Look at that, would you?
 
Male Speaker:
They’re a bit warmer than we are.
 
Male Speaker:
Well, if that’s what it takes for us to get warm, I’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you, all right?
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
Everything’s fine.  But in September, the president called the Democrats’ bluff, and he released that Zelensky telephone call transcript.  And that's when the sea started becoming unpredictable.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Male Speaker:
Bugger me.  Pick up, you [beep].
 
[ringing]
 
Is there anyone there?

Male Speaker:
Yes, what do you see?
 
Male Speaker:
Iceberg, right ahead.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
That guy answering the phone kind of looks like Schiff.  And at various times, Madam Speaker tried to assure us that she didn’t care about public opinion.  She wasn’t hearing those alarms going off.  It was all about the principle of the thing.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Nancy Pelosi:
We take an oath to protect and defend.  If we did not do that, we would be, again, delinquent in our duties.  So, this isn’t about elections.  It’s about the constitution.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
She was making herself fall asleep in that clip.  But of course, it is now and always been about politics.  And now reports are circulating that it could be a dozen or more Democrats lining up to vote against impeachment.
 
[begin video clip]
 
[screaming]
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
But Nancy says, “Not to worry,” because she’s not whipping up the votes.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Nancy Pelosi:
We’re not whipping this legislation, nor do we ever whip something like this.  People have to come to their own conclusions.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
Wait a second.  I’m confused.  It’s such a momentous abuse of power, but Nancy Pelosi isn’t going to encourage her members to stand on principle for the sake of the Constitution.  And now, at least one of her members has such seasickness, a wicked case, that he’s switching parties over this.  Democrat Rep. Jeff Van Drew won’t be just voting against impeachment.  He’s voting against the entire Democrat Party because he’s becoming a Republican.  Now, some of his top staffers immediately resigned.  And the impeachment enforcer, Congressman Cohen, said it was like rats jumping off a Schiff.  “Off a Schiff,” I love that.  Ship.  All right.  Just as with the crew of the Titanic, though, the impeachment cheerleaders were clueless until it was too late.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Male Speaker:
Get the door.  They’re closing the door.  Get out.  Get out of here.  Get out.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
Previous few seem to understand what’s at stake.  They think telling everyone, “We care.  We really care,” is going to save their seat and their party?
 
[begin video clip]
 
Female Speaker:
In my district, it’s not impeachment.  It’s not what’s on the front page of the newspapers in Washington, D.C.  It’s what are you going to do to bring down the cost of prescription drugs?  If you can’t afford your medications, you want a representative in Congress who will go to bat for you.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
Okay.  She’s still voting for impeachment, though.  You can’t make this up.  All right?  This is just what they’re going to do.  Now, Democrats may argue that impeachment is necessary to protect our constitutional democracy, but actually, voters disagree.  As of today, the RCP average shows support for impeachment is under water now nationwide.  Things are even more dire for Democrats in swing states, as MSNBC found in Michigan this weekend.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Male Speaker:
I don’t even care about it.  It’s just noise.  Have you ever recorded a football game, but found out the final score before you watched it?  You just don’t even care. It’s just not interesting.
 
Male Speaker:
Looking back on the Nixon impeachment, which was really, really grave at the time and was by the vote, very bipartisan, this just seems like it really is political theater.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
That’s MSNBC.  Voters in Michigan clearly aren’t buying Democrats’ “Worse than Nixon” argument.  They’re saying the opposite.  And that focus group was not an outlier.  A separate focus group of Michigan voters conducted for Axios had a similar takeaway.  They’re sick and tired of impeachment, too.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Male Speaker:
They’re wasting a lot of money on a goose chase.
 
Female Speaker:
Let’s spare money, let’s put it someplace else.
 
Male Speaker:
Focus is in the wrong direction.  Very similar to what you’re saying, except now working on policies and things that will help the people.
 
Male Speaker:
Give it up.  Give it up, Nancy.
 
Female Speaker:
Why has she wasted this much time and money on it?
 
Female Speaker:
Why is the focus continuously trying to get rid of Trump?  What are you doing for us?
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
I like that guy on the left.  “Give it up.  Give it up, Nancy.”  Trump won Michigan in 2016 by only about 10,000 votes.  So, it’s still very much in play.  That is not good news for the Democrats.  So, you’d think there’d be Democrats joining Van Drew and abandoning the impeachment wreckage, but not freshman congresswoman Elissa Slotkin.  She’s supporting impeachment despite being in a district that Trump won with 51 percent of the vote in 2016.  She explained her position in an op-ed today saying, “Over the past few months, I’ve been told more times than I can count that the vote I’ll be casting this week will mark the end of my short political career.  That may be.  There are some decisions in life that have to be based on what you know is right in your bones.  And this is one of those times.”  So, voters, the facts be damned.  She’s riding this impeachment boat all the way down.  Here’s how her constituents took the news.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Male Speaker:
I think it’s wrong.  I think the Congress is wasting a lot of their time and our time.  This is going to seal the deal.  I think I will not vote for her.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
You can’t say we didn’t warn them.
 
[begin video clip]
 
Male Speaker:
It’s going to hit.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
Yet, do not fear.  Don’t panic.  Schiff and Pelosi are in safe districts in California.  They made sure there’s plenty of room in the lifeboat for them.  But for the rest of you Democrats in tighter races?
 
[begin video clip]
 
[screaming]
 
Female Speaker:
Jack.  Jack.  Jack.  Jack.
 
[end video clip]
 
Laura Ingraham:
Hope you can all swim in those frigid waters.  And that’s the angle.  Joining me now is Dan Bongino, former secret service agent, Fox News contributor, author of the book, “Exonerated.”  All right.  Dan, you just heard the angle.  As impeachment gets closer, I guess they’re going to vote to impeach the president.  But how is it going to get for these Democrats, given what we’re seeing in these swing districts?
 
Dan Bongino, Fox News contributor:
You know, I think it’s the single worst act of political suicide we’ve seen in modern history.  Listen, Laura.  Regardless of anyone’s feelings about the Clinton impeachment.  I mean, it was obvious Bill Clinton did a lot of things wrong.  I think looking back through the clear eye of history, it was -- viewing it strictly through the tactical, political lens, it was a mistake.  He left office with 60 percent approval.  And the American people, I think, knew Clinton did things wrong but wanted to pick these -- wanted to choose their president themselves.  Did they not learn from this?  I mean, some of these people were there when it happened. Schumer and others, I mean, look at some of the footage you’ve seen earlier today, Elissa Slotkin from Michigan at a town hall.  I mean, they’re getting wrecked in their districts with this.  It’s -- I mean, it’s really -- it’s so incredibly naïve.  I used to think the Democrats were smarter than this, but clearly, they’re not.

Laura Ingraham:
In the Angle, I just referenced this op-ed that this Democrat congresswoman in a Michigan swing district -- in which she’s trying to defend her view on impeachment, but she got hammered at a town hall.  Watch.

[begin video clip]

Female Speaker:
How can you overturn the will of 63 million voters in 2016, and why don’t you trust voters to make a decision for themselves in less than a year?

Elissa Slotkin:
I was not supportive of impeachment for many, many months because I thought the election in 2020 should take care of it, but then the facts came out that the president was reaching out and seeking to influence that very election that I was counting on to have a democratic process in.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham:
Oh, Dan, it got brutal in there.

Dan Bongino:
And it’s -- Laura, that’s what I was talking about.  It’s going to get worse.  You know, Mick Adams in Utah, Spanberger in Virginia -- these Trump districts are swinging tight districts.  This is going to get really ugly.  Now, listen, here’s the problem, though.  The Democrats are telling America, “Oh, well, we just had a tough time explaining it, and America’s not getting it.”  No, no, you explained it right.  You said there was a quid pro quo, and then you couldn’t point to an actual quid pro quo.  None of this is hard.  You said there was this illicit deal, Trump forfeited away our national security, and then when you put your best witnesses forward, nobody could actually point to what this dreadful deal was.  Matter of fact, your only fact witness said it didn’t happen.  This is really bad.  And, I swear, I thought they were smarter than this.  Pelosi knew from the start this was a disaster, and now they’re walking right off the cliff like lemmings.  This is not going to turn out well for them.

Laura Ingraham:
No, but I love -- I still love how Nadler has to put out a longer report.  They’re, like, competing against each other for long, windy, just absolutely indiscernible reports.  Like, “No, there is some bribery” or, you know, “It’s kind of -- it’s bad, and there’s wire fraud, but we’re not going to charge it.”  The whole thing is ridiculous.  By the way, we’re just learning this, Dan -- I’ve got to get to this -- Colin Peterson of Minnesota is now being pressured to switch parties, and the reports are he’s on the line.  He’s a congresswoman -- we learned -- obviously, I was just talking about Jeff Van -- congressman -- from Jeff --

Dan Bongino:
-- Van Drew.

Laura Ingraham:
-- Van Drew.  Am I getting that name right?

Dan Bongino:
Yeah, yeah.

Laura Ingraham:
Who also switched -- switching parties.  Could this be a -- maybe it could be a -- you know, a domino effect here.

Dan Bongino:
Yeah, a couple of points.  You’re right, that’s what America needs, another white paper on impeachment, like they just didn’t explain it well enough.  But think about this.  You now have this, as a result of your impeachment, the president’s approval rating up, up, up; swing district polls going against.  They went down against impeachment despite your hearing.  You have minority voter support at historic levels for a Republican candidate for reelection at this point.  I mean, how do you not look at this, put a spreadsheet together, and say, “This has been an abomination?”  Pile that on what you just said, Van Drew leaving the Democrat Party to become a Republican, and now word of another congressman exiting the party.  I mean, how are you looking at this with a straight face, saying, “Yeah, let’s pat ourselves on the back.  Self-praise here.  This was really a great move.”  Come on.  Let’s be clear; this was an abomination, and the smart Democrats know it.

Laura Ingraham:
All right, Dan, great to see you tonight.  Thanks so much.

Dan Bongino:
You too.  No problem.

Laura Ingraham:
And up next, Jim Comey offered a kind of lame apology -- not a big shock there -- over that damning IG report, but is it too little too late?  Victor Davis Hanson and former FBI assistant director Chris Swecker tell us next.

[commercial break]

[begin video clip] 
James Comey, former FBI director:

I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed and that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by DOJ and the FBI.  I think the notion that FISA was abused here is nonsense.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham:
Don't you love those old soundbites?  They’re so much fun.  Almost a year ago now -- actually, a little over a year ago -- that was Comey dismissing concerns that the FBI was abusing its power to spy on the Trump campaign.  Now, he persisted with this lie even after the damning IG report came out last week, writing in the Washington Post, “The allegation of a criminal conspiracy was nonsense.  There was no spying on the Trump campaign.  The truth is finally out.”  But six days later, Comey changed his tune.

[begin video clip]

James Comey:
I was wrong.  I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years.  I thought they were robust enough.  It’s incredibly hard to get a FISA.  I was overconfident in those, because he’s right, there was real sloppiness, 17 things that either should have been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham:
Joining me now is Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, along with Chris Swecker, former FBI assistant director.  Chris, is his backtrack too little too late?

Chris Swecker, former FBI assistant director:
Yeah, and, listen, what he’s doing is a very clever deflection.  You hear him say, “Oh, gee, I placed too much confidence in those agents and the FBI and the process.”  He is the process.  He’s the last person that signs off on those FISAs, and that’s a certification that he read it, that it’s compliant with law and regulations, and it’s accurate, and it’s complete, so he is the final cog in that process.  So, he’s really trying to dodge it and deflect it off to the agents and the FBI.  That’s a total cop-out.

Laura Ingraham: 
Yeah.  I mean, he is the guy, right?  Like, he signed it.  That’s the way it works.  Like, I can’t get away with that like, “Oh, someone else said that.”  No, no, it’s my show, you know.  If something goes wrong, it’s on me.  Well, Victor, Comey also tried to distance himself from the FBI’s -- their handling of the totally discredited Steele dossier.  Watch.

[begin video clip]

James Comey:
I don’t believe the FBI concluded that Steele’s report Steele's reporting was bunk after talking to his subsource, but no I didn't -- as the director you're not kept informed on the details of an investigation.  I didn't know the particulars of the investigation.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham:
Well, Victor, he was flying at 50,000 feet.  He -- the little people handle all that.  So, he gave multiple interviews where he described, though, the detail and then lurid parts of the dossier.  So, I mean, who's going to buy this excuse?

Victor Davis Hanson, historian:
Yeah, I think there's a larger problem with Comey and for that matter Andrew McCabe and Brennan and Clapper and those are the four most important people in the Obama administration in intelligence investigatory capacities and there's no problem with them coming on after they're -- they've left office and commenting but they were always commenting on their own role within this Russia hoax narrative.  So, there was -- often they were not just explaining but they were analyzing, exonerating, and apologizing for their behavior or contextualize it.  When you add into the mixture, Laura, that all four of them had problems with the truth, Clapper on one occasion lied under oath to Congress.  Brennan on two occasions lied under oath to Congress.  McCabe was up for a criminal referral for misleading federal investigators.  Comey was up for referral for leaking a classified document and then you add all of the idea that three of them were paid analysts, so they were being paid to analyze a scandal in which they were the principle players.  And it was so unethical in the conflicts of interest and when you add a final element to that mixture, Laura, and that was that they're all on record with not just dislike, but intense hatred of Donald Trump.  Comey referred to him as a mafia boss, a mafioso.  Clapper said he was a Russian asset.

Laura Ingraham:
The Russian asset line, which I just heard again today, and watched it, it's shocking but I want to read this for you, Chris.  This is Devin Nunes' letter to Schiff, okay, today.  He says, "The IG's findings of pervasive major abuses by the FBI dramatically contradict the assertion of your memo released in February in which you claim the FBI and DOJ officials did not abuse FISA.  After publishing false conclusions of such enormity, it is clear you are in need of rehabilitation."  Chris, to Schiff.  Pretty tough language.

Chris Swecker:
Yeah, it sure is.  I mean, he's pretty truth challenged most of the time anyway and I think he only has a superficial understanding of what the FBI does, but I mean, the one that really needs the rehab is Jim Comey.  I mean, he doesn't seem to have any sense of leadership and accountability.  He talks about the higher, you know, the higher loyalty and all of that and then he throws his own agents under the bus and he tries to throw the FBI under the bus and that's what infuriates myself and other agents and former agents in the FBI, hundreds of whom I've heard from, is that he seems to be throwing them very subtly and very cleverly under the bus when he made some momentous decisions in those cases, including not doing a defensive briefing of the president and instead giving him a very superficial briefing of the most salacious parts of that now infamous dossier.

Laura Ingraham:
And that was it.  I mean, that tells you everything you need to know.  Gentlemen, thank you so much.  And they're the ones who say that Trump hurt the FBI.  No, they hurt the FBI.  Final thoughts when we come back.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham:
The stock market hit another new high today and it's the 10,000th point increase since the election.  Unbelievable.  Hard to impeach that.  But the Democrats will try.  They're still swimming in the frigid waters.  The ship has long since gone down but it's almost like they haven't noticed.  It's going to get numb in there real quick.  That's all the time we have tonight.  Shannon Bream and the Fox News at 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.