This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 16, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right, I'm Laura Ingraham this is "The Ingraham Angle" from Washington tonight. Once again this is going to be the go to hour for every key twist and turn of this impeachment farce the political, the cultural, and the legal all here. So with Senators now sworn in disturbing new reports emerging about what may be in McConnell's rules governing the trial?

Our legal team weighs in. It's an all-star one. Plus, Senator Martha McSally is here exclusively and she is going to respond to the firestorm - I don't know if you saw this today - created by her concentration, it was like five seconds, with a CNN reporter. Anyway it was the talk of Capitol Hill today. They can dish it out but can't take it.

Also tonight, the resistance thinks they have two more silver bullets to take down the Trump Presidency. Mollie Hemmingway, Kim Strassel, Byron York oh that's a trio, they are here to explain why those silver bullets are blanks? And my "Angle" comes later in the hour, I like when that happens, it mixes it up. I'm going to explain what type of future we're in for if Democrats regain power in November.

But first, McConnell's Senate Resolution that lays out the rules for impeachment is going to be introduced formally on Tuesday. Now a couple of different sources in the Senate are telling us that Chuck Schumer has not yet seen the rules, the specifics. Again, they can always be amended. But the rules are in the final stages in the form of this overall resolution. Now, they will be debated next week at some point, and it will include things like how long each side has to advance its case? How long to offer a rebuttal, and more?

Well, another report emerging today that indicates that three GOP Senators, Romney, Murkowski, and Collins, want or maybe even demand a vote on whether witnesses will be called? But McConnell has also promised to model the trial rules after the Clinton impeachment rules. Seems really smart, a smart thing for him to do.

But now we are learning his resolution as of tonight will not include a provision for a motion to dismiss, which was part of the Clinton Impeachment Resolution. Bob Byrd at the time pushed for that. Now, if this is true, it's a huge mistake. A motion to dismiss could be voted on, well, of course before any opening arguments are made, the White House Counsel could just move. That will probably fail. Or it could be made after opening arguments, but before any vote on whether any witnesses should appear, any other matter.

As we've documented, we've done this extensively this week, these articles, to anyone who is fair, and not just a rank, Trump-hitting partisan, they are not just efficient on their face. I actually think they are fraudulent. Right up to yesterday when Nancy Pelosi purposely again pulled a Schiff and misquoted the transcript. So advancing these fraudulent articles to a full- blown trial in the Senate?

In my view, it just rewards the House's own lawlessness on this, and rank bias. Republicans need to do what they did during the Kavanaugh Hearing stay united in this travesty now. Now here's why? The election is just a blink away. Democrats are clearly afraid that if they don't remove Trump, hope they throw something against the wall and it will stick in the next couple of weeks, he is going to trounce them again.

The debate the other night this is just - I actually started to feel sorry for Joe Biden up there. This resolution should be tweaked, amended, whatever you call it. Follow the Clinton Impeachment Model. Romney, Murkowski, Collins, Lamar Alexander, do they really want to go to their home state and say, oh, yes, we want - we want the President to have two endure more witnesses that weren't even discussed or talked to at all in the House?

They really want to go back to Utah and make that argument or Tennessee to make that argument? That is how Mitch McConnell should put it to them a shorter trial with a motion to dismiss right at the top or after the first the initial arguments are put on by the House Impeachment Managers and White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone.

Here now is Senator Martha McSally, Republican from Arizona, who will be a juror of course, who was sworn in today in the impeachment trial. And Senator before we get your thoughts on what I just said, the Senate should do even understanding their few stragglers, I want to ask you about this.


MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence is part of the impeachment trial?

SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY, R-ARIZ.: Man, you are a liberal hack. I'm not talking to you.

RAJU: You are not going to comment?



INGRAHAM: Oh, good you heard that, "You are a liberal hack." Well based on the media reaction, you'd have thought Manu Raju got assaulted by McSally?


JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: McSally just calls Manu Raju respected widely on Capitol Hill by Democrats and Republicans calls him a nasty name.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Prize-winning excellent journalist.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: There is nobody who looks at him with a real, objective lens, and sees anything but objectivity.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is not a biased reporter.



INGRAHAM: Senator, do you regret what you said?

MCSALLY: No, Laura, I do not. I said it again actually as I went in. I said you are a liberal hack, buddy. You know, I mean these CNN reporters, about many of them around the Capitol, they are so biased. They are so in cahoots with the Democrats, they still can't stand the President, and they run around trying to chase Republicans and asked trapping questions.

I'm a fighter pilot. You know, I called it like it is. That is what we see out of the mainstream media and especially CNN every single day, so obviously, I'm going to tell the truth, and I did it today, and it's laughable how they're--

INGRAHAM: Well, they were saying you've gone full Trump.

MCSALLY: Well, they've also said that it was unbecoming a Senator and I lashed out and also--

INGRAHAM: I have a question. What do they do on a daily basis? They called Trump a Russian asset.

MCSALLY: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: They call all of you hacks on a daily basis. And they always say, well, sources tell us, or what we understand, or people are saying. Meanwhile, it's just the people at the CNN, you know, reporters and producers meeting.

MCSALLY: Exactly, and then the Democrat Senators walked by, and they say hi, how are you today? And then they chase after the Republicans. It's honestly ridiculous. As you know they are cheerleading the Democrats, they hate the president.

INGRAHAM: Well, they're saying it is because you are in a tight race and they think you're going to lose in November and you lose to the astronaut.

MCSALLY: I speak the truth, and I'm going to continue to do it. I've done it my whole life.

INGRAHAM: Wolf Blitzer commented he interviewed the victim here, Manu Raju. You are strong, but I think he could take you. They were demanding.

MCSALLY: Oh, you're saying it.

INGRAHAM: They are demanding something from you. Watch.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: I take it she or her staff, no one has reached out to apologize to you, have they?

RAJU: I have not heard from them at all Wolf.

BLITZER: Well, if they did the right thing, she would personally call you and say I'm sorry. That's an awful thing that she did.


INGRAHAM: I think they should apologize to James Earl Jones he should get his voice-over back for this from CNN.

MCSALLY: Well, they have a lot of apologizing to do, and they should probably be filing the FEC reports with the DNC, right in kind contribution.

INGRAHAM: I want to ask about the "Angle", my concern about this opening the Pandora's Box, 11th hour witnesses, text messages from a guy who is obviously trying to get his sentence reduced, scribble-scrabble on a Vienna Notepad from the Ritz-Carlton, and then the Republican moderates want to have a vote on witnesses. Why do the Republicans always do this nonsense, and Democrats always stay together?

MCSALLY: Well, Laura, we are trying to stay together, and that is the intent of the vote that we are going to take on Monday. Hundred Senators under President Clinton voted for the process to start going. The vast majority is going to be just like Clinton, but Chuck Schumer and others obviously are not wanting to be with us, so we are trying to unite as a G.O.P.

But as you know, everything Schumer is doing right now is not about President Trump it is not about the constitution. It's not about a fair trial.

INGRAHAM: So why do you need witnesses?

MCSALLY: He just wants power.

INGRAHAM: What about Manu Raju's question? Do you want witnesses?

MCSALLY: Well, I want a fair trial.


INGRAHAM: Did he get in the House? You can call me a conservative hack, but do you want witnesses, yes or no? Why are you telling us?

MCSALLY: Because we are going to vote on Tuesday to start the trial, and let them present--

INGRAHAM: Well, how are you going to vote on the motion for more witnesses?

MCSALLY: We are going to get to that. I mean, I'm going to get to everybody
- but obviously my point--

INGRAHAM: Kind of an easy question, don't you think Senator?

MCSALLY: I think we're going to proceed forward at that point and I really-

INGRAHAM: But you're not going to vote with Romney and the others?

MCSALLY: I think we'll proceed to a final vote I hope with strong unity after phase one is complete.

INGRAHAM: OK, well, to go for a Lev Parnas as the silver bullet in this case, that is it smacks of Michael Avenatti. We're going to get back to that. Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti, Lev Parnas, they should start a rock group together.

MCSALLY: One of the other things is that they opened it up. There has to be parity. If we go down that path then whoever they are asking for, then President Trump's lawyers and the defense get to also--

INGRAHAM: So I will see you a John Bolton, and I will raise you a Hunter Biden?

MCSALLY: It's fairness, right its parity.

INGRAHAM: All right. Senator, thank you for missing your plane tonight and going tomorrow I really appreciate it.

MCSALLY: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: I don't expect an apology coming from you anytime soon. All right, speaking of the Senate, Democrats in the upper chamber raised in the impeachment drama to the next level.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When the Chief Justice walked in, you could feel the weight of the moment. I saw members on both sides of the aisle visibly gulp.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A solemn moment for all of us, a moment when the very weight of history becomes clear.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-Calif.: Right now, it is incumbent on the United States Senate to do the work of upholding America's constitution and our fair system of justice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a knot in my stomach when the Chief Justice came in to the Chamber and then pronounced the name "Donald John Trump."


INGRAHAM: OK, first of all, I cannot believe that he's a Senator from my home state of Connecticut. Connecticut, what are you doing? It doesn't not my stomach Kellyanne Conway from the White House just stopped by.


INGRAHAM: Oh, well. Look, I think that they are desperately puffing up the historic nature of this. Of course it is historic. It doesn't happen very often. But it's historic because it is the first partisan impeachment of this type, with no unity in the Senate for clearly for procedures or resolutions that is not going to be possible, as they had with Clinton but they're desperately trying to puff this up?

CONWAY: They're trying to puffed it up; this is just a tinge of sanctimony, there not solemnity. They also failed to bring the public along, public opinion, and failed to bring Republicans along in the House, and now, they are in the Senate with this very partisan, - and species two articles of impeachment that don't really say anything basically put them on a post-it note. They could have just sent a post-it note over there and after that funereal walk across the halls of Congress.

And we respect the process and the Senate, Laura. We respect the fact that Leader McConnell and others are going to engage. But I will tell you something about White House Counsel and his team. They are ready. They are prepared. While everyone else is preening in front of the cameras night after night, telling you what will happen? What will be said? What did happen? What won't happen?

They've been working in quiet, around-the-clock, to be prepared for the Senate trial. And the trial in the Senate will be a more familiar process to Americans. They know what a trial is. They know what judges and juries do? They know what witnesses and evidence means? Whatever their process--

INGRAHAM: Its political process.

CONWAY: --completely known to Americans. But look, you talk about making history this week, Donald Trump made history. The Trade Deal with China, the DOW--

INGRAHAM: Now we had that last night, it was amazing.


INGRAHAM: You know, I like how we say the tale of two leaders, the White House put out some tale of two signings, it was something--

CONWAY: It actually puts with their pens.

INGRAHAM: And I'm going to get to this later, but it's like revenge, they are the revenge party, and the Republicans right now are the results party.

CONWAY: And what matters to America?

INGRAHAM: I want to show you how tainted even historians have become who are trotted on cable news to talk about the nature of all this. Watch Doug Brinkley.


DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: The country has a President who operates as an outlaw. We haven't had an outlaw President before, and that is what you have with Donald Trump. I mean, he certainly outlaws in American history get their fans, Billy the kid or Al Capone, Donald Trump may be in that's world.


CONWAY: But nobody interjects. That's what I can't understand. There is one thing that people are saying something on live TV, which you have to pull them back and say, wait a second, we can't he say that on our network because you are not revealing facts, you are not providing news. You are providing your opinion, and your wishful thinking.

You've been showing clips of Bill Clinton, to have to say, you and I were part of that. We were around. I think one person in Washington who can't wait for impeachment to be over has got to be Bill Clinton.

INGRAHAM: Oh, we get to all of the old clips.

CONWAY: It's all like Andrew Johnson isn't here to really you know get a take into him.

INGRAHAM: Bernie Sanders is really upset, by the way. I don't know if you've seen this, but he knows the trial is going to take him off the trail.

CONWAY: Going to take him offs the trail and he is conserving his energy.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would rather be in Iowa today. There's a Caucus there in two and a half weeks. I would rather be in New Hampshire and in Nevada, so forth. I swear a constitutional oath as a United States Senator to do my job.


CONWAY: There's nothing in the constitution that says you should be a socialist country, by the way. Give all of our money to Medicare for all or the Green New Deal. And also he would rather be in Iowa. It sounds like he already knows how he's going to vote. He sounds like he is already - things it's just an add water and stir process, which is itself offensive.

But the reason I mentioned Bill Clinton was people keep comparing the impeachment process is on the rules, you can't compare the fact pattern.

INGRAHAM: Claimant Clinton.

CONWAY: Correct. And if you're the several and if you go - if your viewers even know how to tune to CNN? How to change the channel? They did an amazing documentary recently, that they can pull out where Bill Clinton had his Personal Secretary Betty Currie saying hide these gifts under your bed that I gave to Monica Lewinsky. I was never really alone with her, was I?

There is nothing even like that here. And I think that is why the public is really losing interest in the impeachment, but also come according to an "USA Today" poll, it was that rank number 11 out of 12 on the most important issues to even your family.

INGRAHAM: Yes, USMCA a huge - I went back and watched, everyone saying it was never going to happen, Trump is going to bubble the trade deals the tariffs. My favorite, the tariffs were going to tank the economy. He could have kept those tariffs on the economy.

CONWAY: Two trade deals done, two terrorists out, two Supreme Court Justices on the court--

INGRAHAM: Are you doing at 2020 like a numerology thing for us tonight?

CONWAY: No, not really, just stating the facts. Thank you all the best.

INGRAHAM: Thank you for stopping by. All right, The New York Post Editorial Board is questioning Adam Schiff's role as the lead impeachment prosecutor, writing late yesterday, "A normal court would reject a dishonest prosecutor like Schiff. He's been lying to the world for years in his nonstop campaign to smear President Trump."

Joining me now, Sol Wisenberg Former Deputy Whitewater Independent Counsel and Harmeet Dhillon Attorney and Trump 2020 Advisory Board Member. Sol, what do you make of Nancy's Impeachment Managers, as a whole?

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, I think the way they are handling the impeachment, not just the managers, but particularly Speaker Pelosi, it actually reminds me a lot what they tried to do with Brett Kavanaugh, in the sense that they are bringing stuff in, supposedly dramatic information at the very last minute, when it really should be beyond the deadline, and they are dubious witnesses, and they are sleazy witnesses.

The whole thing is like a hot mess. As I said the other night, she is not serious. There was a way to have handled this seriously from the very beginning, and she blew it. So now they are desperate, and they're pulling out all the stops.

INGRAHAM: Well, Harmeet according to Pelosi, the impeachment trial isn't actually proof or evidence.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: It's not a question of saying what proof, it's says what allegations have been made, and that has to be subjected to scrutiny as to how we go forward.


INGRAHAM: Harmeet, I don't understand, she is quoting like old limericks and rhymes yesterday, and now, we need a special interpreter for Nancy.

HARMEET DHILLON, TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD: No it's total gibberish, Laura, and those trial lawyers are looking at this and just cringing. It is absolutely a violation of every principle that we hold dear. Yes, as Sol said there are deadlines, judges impose rules, there is due process, and there are no surprise witnesses.

This isn't Perry Mason in real life. The whole thing is just such a grab bag of mismatch of garbage that it really reflects poorly on the Congress as a body and on the entire process. I'm afraid it's going to undermine Americans respect for the entire system of government that we have.

INGRAHAM: Sol, back to this motion to dismiss, I'm like on this, I can't drop this issue with a motion to dismiss, but my sources told me tonight, it is not in the resolution as it is currently drafted, they can amend it and I think everybody who cares about this should put pressure on the Senate to amend this and put a motion to dismiss is a vote before the witness vote. What are your thoughts on that?

WISENBERG: You know, you were talking about the Clinton case earlier, and at first they were going to do it like that and do a motion to dismiss early on, and they changed it so it could be brought at any time. Ultimately, at - near the very end, after three witnesses had given depositions, they did allow a motion to dismiss.

I think, at this point, Laura, whether it is in the rules are not, it's just not going to work early on because apparently you've got four or five Republican Senators who aren't going to go for it, and they probably think
- either that it's not right or that it's not a good political move. I'm not as scared as some other people are about calling witnesses. Be careful what you ask for. And certainly I believe--

INGRAHAM: You and I are on the same page opens up a possible Pandora's Box. Harmeet, are you on with me on this, the motion to dismiss that not including that in the resolution does not follow what was in the - because I went back and I read the resolution that was passed and agreed to unanimously by Daschle and Trent Lott in 1998.

DHILLON: I agree with you, Laura, but I also agree that this is probably a political decision by the kind of fence sitters on the Republican side, but it is not the end of the world, because we have tools. In real court, there would be a motion for summary judgment after evidence, and I don't hope we don't get that far but there are opportunities along the way to dismiss a defective prosecution, and so hopefully we will be able to do that after these people are placated with the initial vote. But when we open up witness lists, hopefully it will be reciprocal and it will have voice too.

INGRAHAM: OK. Sol, I don't trust Republicans to negotiate a good deal on this. I'm sorry, I just - I love Mitch McConnell, I think he's really smart. You just never know. And these guys aren't trial lawyers. You guys are in court all the time.

WISENBERG: Defendants get to call witnesses in trials. The whole idea that only the House Managers would get to call witnesses is just a joke. A joke it is not going to happen.

DHILLON: Yes, we all agree on that.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well. Jeffrey Toobin says basically everyone is afraid. If they don't want to call witnesses, they are afraid. I think we don't want to insult this process or create a precedent for a fraudulent impeachment to go forward. Sol, Harmeet, great to see both of you tonight.

And coming up, was McSally right about CNN's Manu Raju or just means? Later in the show, we reveal the evidence that shows the bias. Up next this is like a running joke by the way with these earrings falling off, we'll tell you about that later.

Democrats think they found new ammunition against Trump. A shady character named Lev Parnas. My next guest say not so fast, Strassel, Hemingway, and York explain why the left supposedly silver bullets are really planks. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Well, the resistance thinks it has two shiny new silver bullets to take down Trump. The first is Lev Parnas; he is the shady Ukrainian Former Associate of Rudy Giuliani who is the talk of a town after his interviews on MSNBC and CNN and others.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stunning new allegations emerge that associate of Rudy Giuliani directly implicates Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's hard to conceive of a more relevant a more material witness than Lev Parnas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The spotlight needs to be on 100 Senators demanding to hear more from Parnas.


INGRAHAM: So who is this guy? Well, Mr. Parnas has been indicted for campaign finance violations including falsifying records and lying. He then started a country in 2013 called "Fraud Guarantee," that's my favorite, two years after being accused of fraud. But don't worry, to the resistance, he's a lot more credible than Trump.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today, Trump denied knowing Lev Parnas, despite having multiple photos with him. Parnas says the President was aware of his efforts to get dirt on the Bidens and was in close coordination of Giuliani, but today, Trump said he doesn't think they've ever spoken.


INGRAHAM: So every person you ever took a photo with, you know intimately. Joining me now Mollie Hemingway Senior Editor at The Federalist Byron York Chief Political Correspondent for The Washington Examiner along with Kim Strassel Wall Street Editorial Board Member all Fox News contributors. Mollie, let's start with you, do you - these folks risk being embarrassed all over again as they were with Avenatti or Michael Cohen?

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: You had been making this point that it reminds you of the Kavanaugh roll out where Democrats deploy this late information. One of the things that was interesting about the Kavanaugh Smear Campaign is it began with something that had no evidence but was at least kind of plausible.

It didn't get really crazy into the end when Avenatti and his client, Julie Swetnick, were making truly outrageous allegations. Lev Parnas seems like we're just going straight to the Julie Swetnick phase of operations, rather than going through something more reasonable. It is interesting, though, that so many people in the resistance cling to these people who claim to have evidence that will truly, finally bring down President Trump, no matter how many times it blows up in their face.

INGRAHAM: I mean, Byron, they are posing for photos with Parnas. They were smearing him just a month ago, now posing for photos and tweeting about it.

BYRON YORK, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I mean it is obvious credibility problems. Remember the guy who claimed that Devin Nunes went to Vienna in December 2018 and met with Viktor Shokin, that former prosecutor over there did not happen at all. That person who claimed that was Lev Parnas. There was also conflicting accounts of these alleged contacts with President Trump. Obviously, he's under indictment. If there's anybody you want to stay away from right now, it would be Lev Parnas.

INGRAHAM: Including Giuliani should have stayed away from him.

YORK: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: Giuliani, these unsavory characters, why is he hanging out? I was in Ukraine in 1983 it was a dark time then. Corruption, still come all of the east past countries still have problems of corruption. Kim, this is quite something, when you have the media clinging to this - it's like the last buoy of hope Lev Parnas. And then they still they keep promising more tidbits, but not mentioning in these interviews any of the points that Byron just made about his past or his credibility never even mentioning it in the intros.

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, WSJ EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER: Yes, and you know the problem too for the media is that this goes beyond the question of Lev Parnas' credibility. That's a big first strike. But also, the information that he claims to impart is irrelevant or unbelievable, right, in that part of this is supposedly the notes that he scribbled.

We don't know when they were they don't know in what context, to the extent they might apply to something, It is to Rudy Giuliani's activities, which Rudy Giuliani was completely open about the entire time he was doing. That's - also he claims to suggest that he knows what was going through Donald Trump's mind.

INGRAHAM: Exactly I was just going to say that.

STRASSEL: What Bill Barr knew what Mike Pence knew? We've got people who are far closer to the President than Lev Parnas who would not seek to make that claim. This is sort of a fantastical tale.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I mean, Mollie is like, of course the president knew. Pence was in on it. He sounds like someone writing for "The Daily Kos" or something, every Twitter conspiracy theory was coming out of Lev Parnas on television last night. He has no firsthand knowledge about what Trump knew. 
Maybe Giuliani said something. We don't know. We have no idea.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST:  There is an important issue here that the media do have some responsibility here. You are supposed to vet allegations when they are made, not just air them and not run wild with them. They are not doing in this case at the same time the claim to care about this information.

INGRAHAM:  I want to get to the left's supposed second silver bullet, today's the findings from the Government Accountability Office.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  We are very significant breaking news just in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  The nonpartisan independent arm of the government called the Government Accountability Office concluded that the Trump administration broke the law when it withheld security aid to Ukraine last year.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I can't wait for reporters to get microphones in front of a lot of senators, and this is really going to be hard for them to digest and ignore.


INGRAHAM:  Well, there's just a few problems. One, this is a toothless declaration. Two, Obama's GAO found that he broke the law on multiple occasions. And three, the GAO is part of the legislative branch, so it's not at all surprising they would side with Congress. Byron, do you remember Obama's violations getting all that much attention back then?

BRYON YORK, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON EXAMINER:  None at all. And remember when Democrats did a focus group to try to figure out what crime to charge the president with? They came up with bribery, that's the one that tested of the best. They did not come up with the Impoundment Control Act, which is the law that the president is accused, or the OMB is accused of breaking. This is a dispute between the branches of government, and especially on spending, this dispute goes back -- these kinds of disputes go back centuries between presidents and Congress on how to spend the money.

INGRAHAM:  It's embarrassing, though, that the media don't even bother to couch this in terms of, well, of course, Bill Clinton was also -- or this is a legislative group, outfit. Nothing. Not even a reference to that.

HEMINGWAY:  Not to mention the actual quality of what they're saying. They say delaying within the same fiscal year is somehow breaking the law. 
That's going to be a really --

INGRAHAM:  Nice try.

Panel, I also want to get your thoughts on breaking news tonight from The New York Times. Law enforcement officials are scrutinizing at least two new articles about the FBI and Mr. Comey published in The New York Times and Washington Post in 2017 that mentioned the Russian government document. Hackers obtain the document and provided it to the FBI, and both its existence and the collection of it were highly classified secrets.

Kim, Comey keeps saying he's done nothing wrong, so why do we keep finding out that, I guess he is under investigation?

STRASSEL:  Yes, we will see if he is or not. To me, Comey aside, this is almost another media story. Even "The New York Times" admitted they seemed to -- it appeared he was under investigation. But to me, the entire tenor of that story was designed to enable another hit on Bill Barr, to suggest that somehow the Department of Justice was reaching way back --

INGRAHAM:  Reaching way back, Mollie -- we just lost the satellite there. 
Reaching way back two years?

HEMINGWAY:  The headline said that it was a years old situation. They are investigating something that happened a month before he was fired. So it's only from 2017. But the fact is that the Russia hoax, which was very dangerous and damaging to the republic, was fed by leaks. This is a story that was presumably leaked by Comey's own team to make it look like he is OK, and it's just a continuation of what those people put the country through.

YORK:  And we do know that Comey was a weaker. Remember, he wrote the memo about his talk with the president, gave it to a friend for the purpose of giving it to "The New York Times."

INGRAHAM:  Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend.

YORK:  Yes.

INGRAHAM:  Mollie, Byron, Kim, wherever you are in the ether, thank you so much.

And in moments, my Angle goes beyond the impeachment hysteria, let's pull back the curtain on what is going to happen if in November the worst possible thing could happen, the radicals take power. Matt Schlapp, Chris Hahn react to it. Don't go away.


INGRAHAM:  Hope and change becomes revenge and pain, that's the focus of tonight's Angle.

Tonight, I want you to think beyond all the procedural wrangling of impeachment we've talked about earlier in the show, and I want to put your mind on the big picture, what's really at stake for America, for your kids, your grandkids. And by that, I mean what we stand to lose if the radicals -
- you know, those people who dragged us through this obscene impeachment drama, if they were to take power in November.

Well, yesterday Nancy Pelosi acted, of course, like the part of an aggrieved patriot.


PELOSI:  We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. That is what our nation is. That was the decision of our founders. Listen, my children, and you will hear, the midnight ride of Paul Revere. Listen, my children, and you will hear about an assault on the Constitution.

The president takes a special oath that was taken by President George Washington, the patriarch of our country.


INGRAHAM:  In case we didn't know what it oath was, she had to show us. Nice try, San Fran grand nan.

But in practice, of course, her party is more in tune with Saul Alinsky than James Madison. The Democrat debate a couple nights ago on CNN also gave us a little sneak preview of how they plan to tank the economy.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I will stop all new drilling and mining on federal lands and offshore drilling.

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  My plan cost $1.5 trillion over a decade. No small sum.

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  To take Obamacare, reinstate and rebuild it, provide a public option that costs $740 billion over 10 years.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  We're going to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. We are going to have a Green New Deal. 
That is what democratic socialism is about, and that will win this election.


INGRAHAM:  Kids, get off my lawn. I guess Bernie never really returned from his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. Bye-bye, record unemployment. Bye-bye, wage growth. Hello welfare and gas lines.

But it's not just the economy that the Democrats intend to destroy while pretending to be these grand patriots with Nancy and her Styrofoam flag there. Our basic freedoms of speech and of religion will also be under constant assault.


BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.

WARREN:  Abortion right are human rights. Protecting the right of a woman to be able to make decisions about her own body is fundamentally what we do and what we stand for as the Democratic Party.


INGRAHAM:  Of course, human rights for children, babies -- no. Of course, the left subscribes to their own type of religious orthodoxy. And they bow down at the planetary altar.


BUTTIGIEG:  We have to fight climate change with such urgency.

STEYER:  Climate is my number one priority.

WARREN:  Climate change threatens every living thing on this planet.


INGRAHAM:  Remember, the left's climate change police, they aggressively enforce the dogma. Even the supposedly more centrist Joe Biden has had to adopt their lingo.


BIDEN:  We should be investing in infrastructure that raises roads, makes sure that we are in a position that every new highway built is a green highway.


INGRAHAM:  At this rate, someone like Greta Thunberg will be his running mate.


GRETA THUNBERG:  How dare you.


INGRAHAM:  OK, we needed the longer sound bite. Sorry. I almost said Greta Van Susteren, but she is my friend, I didn't mean to say that.

There are no more moderate Democrats left, though. This is the point. 
Remember Governor "Blackface" Northam of Virginia? Remember he billed himself as a pragmatic, middle-of-the-roader? That lasted about five minutes. Now he is moving against gun rights, he's advocated infanticide, and he's running roughshod over religious freedom. Some moderate. The left stuck by him after the KKK blackface yearbook photo, but the price was a loyalty oath to radicalism.

So again, if the Democrats take the White House in November, they are going to move against all inconvenient speech. And moderates and never Trumpers, you think you're going to get a free pass because you didn't like how? Good luck. Just look at what they're doing to poor Meghan McCain over at "The View." Check out this "New York Times" piece just published. "The View" has a Meghan McCain problem. The problem is, with Ms. McCain still on the show, there's not much to enjoy." Again, repeat, McCain doesn't really even like Trump.

So it doesn't matter if you think you are reasonable today as a Republican. The left will always come for you, in the end. The positive coverage, people they're receiving now like Mitt, Susan, Lisa, Lamar, that's only because the left hates Trump more than you do. When he's gone, so will your green room pass at all the networks. Heck, the left is so consumed with hatred for Trump and all of you who support him, that they won't even tolerate a hint of objectivity or balance. Earlier this week, MSNBC's Larry O'Donnell spit his angry bile at the liberal CNN.


LARRY O'DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: "One-third of the people on their payroll love Trump. It's one of the reasons why Trump kind of wants you to watch CNN instead of MSNBC, because we don't bring on liars. I don't bring on a liar. 
I won't do that.




O\DONNELL: Donald Trump's loan documents there show that he has cosigners. 
The cosigners are Russian oligarchs.


O'DONNELL: Last night on this show, I discussed information that wasn't ready for reporting. I did not go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC.


INGRAHAM:  What? Really? If 2020 sweeps Democrats into power, the government will be filled with angry MSNBC hosts, thousands of political appointees to do to the American people what they are trying to do to President Trump. Since retaking the Speaker's gavel, Pelosi has shown us time and again that Obama's promise of hope and change is dead.


PELOSI:  An impeachment that will last forever.

Moscow Mitch says that he is the grim reaper.

I think the president is a coward. I think he is cruel. So don't mess with me.


INGRAHAM:  That never gets old. They want revenge. And so, November, you don't vote for Trump, vote for one of these other people, it's just going to be payback for four years. If they impeach Trump on these bogus grounds, do you think that they are going to become Bill Clinton centrists if they win the presidency? They are going to impeach the economy, impeach the Constitution, impeach our history, and bulldoze anyone, any group, any company that gets in their way. Unless, that is, Republicans stand united and make the case vigorously to the people. Unless reasonable independents refuse to be bullied by the squads, the leftist hit squads that are roaming about this town and about the country. Unless you, the American people, deliver Democrats a stinging rebuke in November.

And that's the Angle.

Chris Hahn, react to my Angle, and was Martha McSally right about CNN's Manu Raju? We have the evidence.


INGRAHAM:  Here to respond to my Angle, Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, and Chris Hahn, former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer and host of the "Aggressive Progressive" podcast. Matt, what are we really seeing here? It was hope and change under Obama, pretty inspiring. I didn't agree with lot of his policies. Turned on the media a little bit, some of our media friends were tracked, IRS, the Tea Party groups kind of harassed, but what do we have in store if the Democrats do win?

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIR, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION:  What I really see is retribution, and I see the Democrats being fully unhinged on their most radical policy views. We've seen it in these debates with the presidential candidates -- reparations, health insurance for those who come here illegally. The answer to every question at the debate the other day, it started every answer was the government needs to.

And then you have all of these questions about what unites America. I really think when it comes to these radicalized Democrats, Laura, I don't think that they anymore agree with some of the things that we used to believe united us as a country. And I don't think they like our founding, and I think a lot of them think that America is a blight on the globe instead of the inspiration of the globe.

INGRAHAM:  OK, Chris is sighing. I didn't think that was loud enough, Chris. That's all right.

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  That was an Al Gore sigh.

INGRAHAM:  Go ahead, Chris. We will call these segments, Chris, beyond the sighs. Go ahead.

HAHN:  So Matt, Democrats love America the same as Republicans love America. And the thought that you would say and question my love of this country, it's just ridiculous. And you know that, and you know me. We know each other. I don't question your love. We have a different way of how we think the country should go.

But that's where the line has been crossed by the GOP and by this president. I remember a lot of people being rightfully outraged when a Democratic candidate called Trump supporters a basket of deplorables. 
Shouldn't we also be outraged when you say things like I don't believe in the founding of this country? That is a ridiculous statement, and that needs to be --

SCHLAPP:  I didn't say that.

HAHN:  That's exactly what you said.

SCHLAPP:  I would like to hit this back at you here. You actually don't agree with the same vision of America that I have. I'm not saying you don't love your country, Chris, and this really isn't about you, believe it or not. Its' about the Democrats running for president.

HAHN:  You said I didn't --

SCHLAPP:  They want -- as Obama said -- they want to fundamentally transform this country into something that is different from the values of the founders.

INGRAHAM:  Doesn't even Obama find some of these developments, Chris -- because he said as much with some of the things happening on the fringes that seem to have infected even more moderate Democrats, even he has kind of thought, like, I would be too conservative for this new party. Heck, Chris, you would probably be too conservative for some in the Democrat Party today that do have outsized influence.

HAHN:  So, I think when we paint the entire party by its fringes, it's dangerous. It happens on the right, as well. There are some progressives that want to paint the entire Republican Party by its most extreme people, like this guy Hyde in Connecticut and what he has been doing. I wouldn't paint every Republican with the same brush I'd paint him or some other people who I find extreme. I think there are people who want to see America do the right thing and do good. But unfortunately, we have a president of United States who stands at rallies and says all Democrats hate America.

SCHLAPP:  I'm just talking about the Democrats who are running for president.

HAHN:  -- pictures of the minority leader and the speaker of the House in Islamic garb, which his just --

INGRAHAM:  Just to remind everyone, getting back to Obama, because I think it is important, because he was a two-term Democrat president, beloved, he said two months ago that we have to be rooted in reality, reacting to what was being said at these debates where he wasn't progressive enough. And whether it's Warren or Sanders, sometimes even Joe Biden sounds like he has been infected by this. You can sense Obama is worried.

SCHLAPP:  Yes, I mean, come on, when Kamala Harris stands on the stage and basically calls Joe Biden a racist, isn't that too much?

INGRAHAM:  Gentlemen, we've got to go.

Was McSally right about Manu Raju? I have evidence, next.


INGRAHAM:  Was McSally right about Manu Raju? For months Raju was Adam Schiff's hatchet man and the Democrats' favorite biased reporter when they wanted to damage the president. Headlines you see on screen now are all pieces he's contributed to that, according to The Federalist, came from leaks. "Fusion GPS cofounder, Steele didn't pay sources for dossier on Trump," leaked. "Exclusive, Top Trump aide's emails draws new scrutiny in Russia inquiry," leaked. There's a lot more.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.