Should Rep. Adam Schiff be removed from the impeachment inquiry?

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 17, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: President Trump finishing up a ruckus rally in Dallas, Texas tonight. 20,000 people, it was jam-packed in the arena there. You see all the thousands outside watching on monitors, friend just texted me who was in the audience there. He said, I was born and raised in Dallas, live in Dallas, been to how many political rallies, but "I have never witnessed anything like this." And this is from someone who has kind of seen it all.

Unbelievable, plus the left has already shifted the goalpost on the quid- pro-quo narrative in regard to the Ukraine issue and some new problems for Adam Schiff. You will not believe this. Tonight, our legal eagles break it all down a little later on in this show.

But first, react to this - I mean, this was wild. The people thought after today, the President was going to be kind of back on his heels and be kind of a quieter Trump, a more calm Trump. This was Trump, it's like The Alamo - Come and take it. Right? That last reference to the Alamo, of course, on its feet.

Tom Bevan here, co-founder and president of RealClearPolitics; Harmeet Dhillon, attorney and Trump 2020 Advisory Board; and Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union; and Sara Carter, Fox News Contributor. All right, Matt, he's feeling at home in Texas. We have heard for years, really, last four years, that Texas is becoming more and more blue, mainly it is going to move to the Democratic column and it is over for the Republican Party.

President said, no way, never going to happen, what do you think when you see this tonight?

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN OF AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Two reasons why people say Texas is going to turn from red to blue, number one, a lot of migration coming in from California. And number two, obviously a greater amount of diverse folks living here, especially Hispanics.

Saw a lot of Hispanics in that crowd, saw a lot of signs, I obviously married to a Hispanic, I think a lot of Hispanics in America believe that this President is actually, has policies that is - that are - that these policies are helping them.


SCHLAPP: And I think it's a big miss by the media to assume that Hispanics are turned off because of some jarring rhetoric that immigration - by the way, I think they agree with the President.

INGRAHAM: Yes, they don't want illegal immigration. It hurts their communities.


INGRAHAM: We got to get everybody here. Harmeet, you have been at big events with the President. You were just with him in the Bay Area, San Francisco, and California. You saw the energy as well, stuff that's not picked up by the media as they are obsessing about Mick Mulvaney's pause at a press conference and what people are interpreting that.

They don't even talk about it, they don't even care about it. But this was - this was Trump on the offensive tonight. He is not backing down.

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY AND TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD: That's right, and we see this kind of enthusiasm at all of his rallies and even in intimate gatherings. It's absolutely infectious. He's very relaxed. It's amazing for somebody who's under such vicious attack 24/7, but he's very confident and I agree with Matt that the assumptions that all the Hispanics are going to be Democrats is a false one and it is kind of a racist one.

So, I think the California influx is still a concern, but if Trump pays attention there and has rallies like this - 30,000, more people outside. I think that is going to be within - within--


DHILLON: --our grasp to strengthen our hold on Texas.

INGRAHAM: Yes, raise the stakes in the state. And I keep thinking, guys, about what we saw a couple of nights ago on stage in that CNN debate, and their performance, and how they stood and how they interacted with each other. Then I see this man, who has had a full day, okay, he does like - basically it was almost two hours, right, or an hour and a half, something like that. But he did all these events in Texas today and then he goes out there and he just kills it.

Okay, I just don't see that kind of enthusiasm anywhere else. And Sara, the President laid out in no uncertain terms what the Democrats will do. Now, all of us on this panel have told - had suggested that the President lay this out, take it away from the bubble of Washington, what's the reality for the people if Democrats win, what's going to happen to our country. Boy, did he lay that out tonight? Let's watch.


TRUMP: They wanted to from law-abiding citizens, they want to take your guns away. And they want to install far left judges to shred our constitution. They want to tear down symbols of faith and drive Christians and religious believers from the public square. They want to silence your voices on social media, and they want the government to censor muscle and shutdown conservative voices.


INGRAHAM: I mean this is what we've been talking about. They've tried to do it to us, they've agonized you, Matt, all of us, Harmeet - all of us have felt it and he spoke about it.

DHILLON: Exactly, and this is what they do, they demonize - they demonize and they demonize, and they think by doing that, that somehow the American people are going to say, "Oh, well, wait a minute, maybe the democrats are right, maybe we aren't going to listen to Trump."

But the reality is, is that the American people are not stupid. They showed up, they showed up by the thousands in Dallas, Texas. They show up all across the country and they continue to push for President Trump, why, because he's the only person that's actually listening to them, the only person that actually listens to the American people. And you asked, you know, he's out there, he had a full day. Why is he so comfortable? You know why he's comfortable? Because he's telling the truth, because he's fighting for something that he believes in.

INGRAHAM: He knows he's right about what America is--

DHILLON: He is absolutely right.

INGRAHAM: --and what America cannot become I think. Now, he also revived guys his popular 2016 campaign promise, and an issue that's in the news now a lot with Ukraine and Turkey, and so forth. Ending endless wars.


TRUMP: Endless wars, they don't stop. They don't stop. They go on forever. We become policemen. We end up becoming police. We are policing these countries. These wars brought mass chaos, instability, destruction and death. Today, we choose a different path.


INGRAHAM: Tom, now, inside the Beltway and the foreign policy elite establishment in New York, they have derided Trump on Turkey and his desire to pull troops back. But Texas is a state that has really sacrificed in Iraq, Afghanistan, so many men and women, so much heartache, so much loss. That got a huge response from the crowd. Is this a good issue for him to run on again though?

TOM BEVAN, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF REALCLEARPOLITICS: I think so. I mean, obviously, I was just in Washington yesterday and we spent all week talking about Syria and the Kurds, and you saw the disconnect on display with Trump out in the heartland making his case, and the response that he about bringing troops home, rebuilding the military to keep it strong, but also bringing troops home and to end endless wars, it something that he did run on.

It's something that has widespread support across the country. The only thing that Trump runs the risk of here is if ISIS reconstitutes itself and starts creating some havoc before his election next November. But if that doesn't happen, there is widespread support, and it's a definite disconnect between what people in sort of the heartland think, the real America versus what everyone's talking inside the Beltway.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Matt, we remind ourselves of what happened to McCain in 2008. He was going to do Bush 3.0. What happened in 2006 when we lost the House, the Senate. Of course what happened in 2012 with Romney. That type of Republicanism is not popular, and yet the neoconservatives keep pushing, pushing, pushing.

SCHLAPP: Right. INGRAHAM: And I think Trump is pretty gutsy and bold and confident to say, you know, we got a lot of problems here at home, we got a lot of people sleeping on the streets, we got to take care of our own people.


INGRAHAM: Some of them still suffering even with this incredible economic recovery that he laid out.

SCHLAPP: And remember, Ronald Reagan's peace through strength was never about military strength in every corner of the Earth. The Peach through strength idea was America had to get itself strong.

INGRAHAM: To it can defeat the Soviet Union.

SCHLAPP: Economically and every other way.

INGRAHAM: I'm thinking about China.

SCHLAPP: That's right.

INGRAHAM: How - what are we going to do to have to fight China?

SCHLAPP: He wants to break your back.

INGRAHAM: If we build it all in the Middle East?

SCHLAPP: It's not all about troops and bullets, and guns and bombers. Although that's important, you want to have them and you want to take people out when you need to - but you can't lead with that.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Harmeet, I think the economy still remains the number one issue for most people. Obviously, have Pelosi out there today, and yesterday after the White House meeting, rushes out the cameras, a lot of theatrics, "Oh, he was mean to me." She is pointing at him. I just think - look at Texas, it's exploding with economic growth.

There's a reason people are moving there. They know what's going to happen with a wealth tax, ending fracking, Trump talked about that. It's like Lincoln couldn't get elected in Texas, now, if he had those policies. So, all these things that they would do, he's beginning to write that narrative clearly in these rallies versus just doing all the goal that oldies (ph) he's starting to write that narrative, I think that's very smart because people have to understand the stark choice that's in front of them.

DHILLON: And Laura, being very specific, he talked about the economic growth just in the Hispanic community, eight percent wage growth, people over 50 percent - $50,000 average wages. The Democrats have no answer to that; they don't talk about those facts and figures because they don't work for them. It's a different America, dystopian America, gloom and doom, and social redistribution. And that's not what the America is, is that the Texans who were there and the Americans who were attending all of his rallies see. And so, there is a real disconnect between the story that we saw on that debate stage and what we are seeing throughout the rest of America.

INGRAHAM: Yes, everybody says--

DHILLON: And he is really channeling that.

INGRAHAM: Yes, everybody says, when they come up to - they come up to you and they come up to us and say, what is going on in Washington? When you could travel outside of this place - Hannity always shows like, you're in the swamp. He is right.

SCHLAPP: It's true.

DHILLON: In the bubble.

INGRAHAM: Outside of the stellar (ph) corridor, you go to America, Texas, you go to Middle America, maybe not so much in the Bay Area, but you go - and then people say, what is happening in Washington?

SCHLAPP: That's exactly right.

INGRAHAM: And they are afraid.


SARA CARTER, CONTRIBUTOR: Wages are rising here too, so (inaudible) America.

INGRAHAM: Thank you. Right, the wages are going up. It's Sara. Here's what Trump said about Biden's troubling ties to Ukraine. He didn't back down from that at all, watch.



TRUMP: Joe Biden was in charge of Ukraine policy while his son, with absolutely no energy experience just got thrown out of the Navy like a dog, was paid massive sums of money by an Ukrainian energy company. You know what that's called? It's called a payoff folks.


INGRAHAM: Sara, at one point, you said you didn't even know we had to even talk about Biden anymore because he has become a weaker candidate, the new Iowa polls shows him up a couple of points, but he's clearly falling.

CARTER: That's right. I think President Trump knows that, but I think what he's pointing out is what the American people are so angry about and the reason why they call this the swamp, right, is because of these ideas. Because people like Joe Biden, Vice President Joe Biden can have a son on the board of an Ukrainian energy company that is - at that time, was being investigated for corruption and getting paid what people believe is over $50,000 a month, a month.

Now, if President Trump and he brought up a great point, if that had been one of his kids, if that had been Ivanka, if that had been Eric, if that had been Don, Jr., the media would literally be dragging him through the mud. There would be an impeachment. I mean this would be the biggest story of the year, instead the Democrats want to bury this, they want to turn the tables on Trump. They want to blame Trump for exactly what they were doing, and Trump's not guilty of anything.


INGRAHAM: Tom Bevan, do you think this impeachment narrative, the saga as its playing out, the breathless commentary from the anchors on the other cables, the non-partisan anchors, do you think for Americans watching this election season that's in full war now, it's totally roughed up. Does that motivate them to go to the polls? They see the Pelosi drama with impeachment and all that, are we overstating the disconnect that we keep talking about today?

BEVAN: Well, I mean we are 13 months away from the elections and we will have to see how this all plays out. I mean, it's certainly after the impeachment push began, it has certainly galvanized Trump supporters and Trump's base. But whether that lasts, we'll have to wait and see.

I think the policies of impeachment are not totally clear. Certainly, Republicans think that it's going to play to their advantage. The Democrats are going to overplay their hand, and Democrats think that they will able to beat the President up in advance of the election.

I just want to make one quick point, back to Texas and Hispanic vote, I spoke with some R&C officials yesterday when I was in Washington and they said they have seen a 20-point jump in President Trump's approval rating among Hispanics in Texas since 2016. He won 34 percent of Hispanics in 2016 in Texas, and they represent one in every four voters in that state. So, if that metric is true, if their numbers are right, there's a big movement in support among Hispanic voters for Trump in Texas.

INGRAHAM: Which has a one-ten chance that Democrats could take Texas, Matt, 10 being the most.

SCHLAPP: Half of one, I mean I really.

INGRAHAM: It's just not good to happen.

SCHLAPP: They're just not there.

INGRAHAM: I mean I don't want to be too cocky here, but--


INGRAHAM: --because I spent more time in Texas than any other state, other than like Virginia and DC.

SCHLAPP: It's smart they are not taking it for granted.


SCHLAPP: I love seeing him in these states.


SCHLAPP: Let's make him solid.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, thank you so much, great panel. Of course, the other breaking news we alluded to, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney under fire for comments earlier today that sent the media spin machine into overdrive.


MICK MULVANEY, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Did he also mention to me in past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Holding (ph) the funding?

MULVANEY: Yes. Which ultimately then flowed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's be clear. You just described is a quid pro quo?

MULVANEY: We do that all the time with foreign policy. We are holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries, so that they would change their policies on immigration. And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences and Foreign policy is going to change from the Obama Administration to the Trump Administration.


INGRAHAM: What was going on with Mulvaney today? Did he help anyone at all? What was the point of this press conference? Well, sources at DOJ and the White House are telling us that they are "livid" over his remarks.

Now, they are ones that he is now emphatically walked back, because we'll talk about how the media set the stage with these, but I think what's also interesting to watch is how the Democrats and their pals in press are once again shifting goalpost. Now, let me explain this.

Even though the transcript did not reveal this, they initially claimed that the real crime or misdemeanor or feasible (ph) offense was Trump pressuring Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election, by calling for an investigation into the Bidens.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election by pushing for an investigation of Joe Biden.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Once again, inviting foreign interference in American elections. It's open season on the 2020 election.

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's an excuse for this President to extort help from Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 elections.


INGRAHAM: Now, fast-forward to the reaction after Mulvaney's press conference today. Now, it seems those claiming a quid pro quo have gone back in time.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Part of the deal in order for Ukraine to get this money that was being held up was to investigate what had happened in 2016.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Aid to Ukraine was in fact tied to President Trump's wish for an investigation into the 2016 election.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: With this acknowledgement now that military aid was withheld in part out of a desire by the President to have Ukraine investigate the DNC server or Democrats of 2016. Things have just gone for very, very bad to much, much worse.


INGRAHAM: Oh, what drama, Adam. Joining me now, Robert Ray, former Whitewater Independent Counsel and Robert Driscoll, former DOJ official. Robert Ray, I won't attempt to try to understand what the point of the Mulvaney press conference was, but I also get the sense that the folks who want the President out of office are going to keep shifting the narrative when it suits them. Am I wrong in the way I'm reading this?

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: That's exactly right. And you missed the third one, which is they've also contended that the illegal quid pro quo was ultimately about getting a meeting with President Trump in exchange for foreign assistance. So, that has been essentially a third theory.

I guess what I would tell you, Laura, is that a contentious press briefing is not the place to be trying to sort out whether there is or is not an illegal quid pro quo. And in the clip that you played, Mulvaney's answer to the question which was, isn't what you just described a quid pro quo, should have been no, because it isn't.

I've been looking at bribery and extortion for the better part of 20 years of my professional life and I can tell you that, again, press conference is not the place for you to sort that out. And the Democrats would have to show that there was a personal benefit derived by President Trump in exchange for what was going on here. That would be the only basis to conclude it was an illegal quid pro quo. And the reason that Adam Schiff is trying so hard to get these witnesses to say that pressure was applied is that he's smart enough to know that unless you had that kind of pressure applied and it was in exchange for a personal benefit to the president, which is a very difficult to sort out from essentially anything that the president does has potential impact in the political process.

Again, this is just another example of trying to search for, like pin the tail on the donkey, whatever set of facts you can come up with that just ring the quid pro quo bell. I'm sorry to tell you that that's not sufficient. And again, this is after having looked at this stuff for 20 years.

INGRAHAM: I've got to say, though. Hold on, I've got to say, though, because we're all lawyers here. There's a reason Bill Barr doesn't do a lot of press conferences, but he would know how to answer these questions. And I'm not piling on Mulvaney. I don't want to do that, I don't think it's helpful. But when you have a legal issue before a lot of people who aren't lawyers, the last thing you want to do is try to get out there and say a whole bunch of things really fast and then, well, the context was, and going back, and the reach back -- and there's not enough of a pause between one thought and another, and then they could say, aha, see. And then you have to go back and clean it up afterwards.

RAY: And it's very difficult when you're trying to sort out. Adopting the premise of the question is always a mistake.

INGRAHAM: No, no, no, can't do it. Robert Driscoll, that is what ended up driving the stuff that we say Texans don't care about, that drove the press into an absolute frenzy. And I have to say that Mick Mulvaney tried to clarify, they called it a walk-back later on in the day, and we'll put up on the screen, basically saying this is not what I meant, I wasn't saying this this is quid pro quo. He tried to walk this back. Was that unsuccessful?

ROBERT DRISCOLL, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: Probably not from a political sense. But I think at the end of the day what's going to happen is there will be some facts that will come out, and then we'll have to focus on was this act illegal or impeachable, or was this phone call illegal or impeachable, because people seem to be in the media just blowing right by that. I think the issue has been flagged here previously that there's a mixture when you're the president. Everything you do that's good for the country is good for your election. Everything you do that advanced your priorities is good for your election, and how do you really separate those things out.

And so the notion that once we get to the legal analysis of this, it's good to be a lot more complicated than people think, and I think that people are grasping on the facts as though one particular formulation of Mick Mulvaney sentence makes it a crime or not. And I think it's a very difficult issue here.

INGRAHAM: And I think, look, we still have a situation where we have witness testimony behind closed doors, one after the other after the other, including today. Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified in secret, and the media are saying that he threw Trump -- I'm so tired of this phrase -- but he basically threw Trump under the bus. Some House members, though, told me, and this was just a few moments ago, that once again the behind closed doors briefing was another one that ended up blowing up the Democrat narrative when Mr. Sondland was put under questioning. And so it actually ended up being good for Trump.

And I think to your point, Robert Ray, on the pressure question, was there pressure exerted upon you? So it's another reason why you have to open up these hearing so people see, oh, there's not there there. Or oh, oh, boy, that's bad. But instead we're just left to hear the dribs and drabs of leaks from the Democrats.

RAY: Right. And I read Ambassador Sondland's opening statement that was actually released in the public domain as well as press reports as to those who witnessed it, what was going on with Kurt Volcker. And so far as I can tell, again, the questioning as you would logically expect from Adam Schiff was to travel down the road of was pressure applied. He didn't like the answer, but the answer that came back was, no. If that's the case, and they don't have any other witnesses that take you beyond that, and in conjunction with consideration of the president's conversation with the president of Ukraine, that's not enough. That doesn't show an illegal quid pro quo, and that should be the end of it.

INGRAHAM: I have to show this to Bob Driscoll. Look, Volker denied that was the case, right. He noted that the Ukrainian leaders didn't even know that aid was being withheld.


INGRAHAM: So when Volker repeatedly -- hold on -- declined to agree to Schiff's characterization of the events, Schiff said "Ambassador, you're making this much more complicated than it has to be." Driscoll, he couldn't get the answer he wanted from Volker. Same thing it looks like happened today with Sondland.

DRISCOLL: These closed hearings.

INGRAHAM: It's a disaster.

DRISCOLL: I've been to that committee room and I've rep witnesses there, and what's kind of funny about it is the whole thing is a SCIF. It's supposed to be a secure facility. They have signs up, loose lips sink ships, World War I stuff.

INGRAHAM: Yes, yes.

DRISCOLL: And it's amazing, because you're in the hearing, witness testimony, and sometimes the Congressman will call a break to go outside and do an MSNBC interview in the middle of your client testimony while other people do the questioning. And so it should either all be in public, or the testimony should be released, because this one-sided --

INGRAHAM: Otherwise it's a he said, he said, he said, she said.

By the way, I just went up Mick Mulvaney's statement because I referenced it. This is what he said later today after that press conference. He said "There was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation of the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server." You never want to have to come back and clarify. It happens, especially when you're not used to doing these things on a regular basis. But guys, thank you for this analysis tonight. And I have to say, they will vote, yes or no, they will vote for an impeachment, they will do an impeachment.

DRISCOLL: They will.

INGRAHAM: And you agree, Robert Ray?

RAY: I do. I'd like to say that I still hold out hope that that's not going to happen, but I think it's inevitable.

INGRAHAM: And now it's going to be a pile on of things. The Doral, this is -- they have to build their case because this one doesn't look as bad as they initially thought. Fantastic. Thanks guys, we really appreciate you coming on tonight.

And new complications for Adam Schiff today. Breaking details coming up about a visit his staff member made to Ukraine in August.


INGRAHAM: All right, we've told you before that the most fateful decision in this impeachment ordeal was Nancy Pelosi's putting Adam Schiff in charge of it. Now, we have been proven right almost every hour of every day since. For starters, House Republicans are now pushing a bill to censure Schiff for fabricating what Trump said on his July 25th call with the Ukrainian president. But there's an op-ed today calling for the House Intel Chair to be taken off the impeachment probe, saying in part, "Adam Schiff has been discredited."

And an official House documents revealing that what could be the real collusion story on a trip to Ukraine. In August, one of Schiff's staffers met with acting U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor who is now a key witness in the impeachment inquiries.

Joining me now unpacking this, John Eastman, Constitutional Law Professor, senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, along with Richard Goodstein, attorney and former advisor to Bill Clinton.

Richard, is Pelosi perhaps rethinking putting Schiff in charge instead of what have been Jerry Nadler or one of the more non-discredited people out there?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: No, for these reasons. First, she has now got for the first time in months virtually the entire Democratic caucus behind her and Schiff. Secondly, if the polls are any indication, whatever they are doing is working. More and more of the public believe not just that the president should be impeached but removed, which, honestly, I think is actually kind of shocking that in three weeks we've gotten where we are considering what the course was around Clinton and Nixon when things took months to unfold to this point.

INGRAHAM: So as a Democrat, you're fine with these secret proceedings? You like secret proceedings, star chamber, you like that --

GOODSTEIN: Here is what I think. I think, did Ken Starr have a star chamber?


GOODSTEIN: Did Jaworski? No, they ran everything through a grand jury which is secret, correct? They did.

INGRAHAM: They had witnesses. This is so easy --

GOODSTEIN: And because this Justice Department refused when they got a referral to do anything, of course it's up to Congress to take testimony and they don't want people squaring up.

INGRAHAM: Is that your best answer?

GOODSTEIN: It's the truth.


GOODSTEIN: And this reminds me of when you don't have the facts, argue the law. When you don't have the law bang on the table. This is banging on the table.

INGRAHAM: First of all, I'm not banging on the table because this is a colossal backfire for the Democrats. The polling, and I'm going to put that in quotes, on impeachment, John, the polling informed by the reporting which is informed by a few selective leaks like today about Ambassador Sondland's testimony. It turns out Sondland's testimony ends up, it looks like, being very supportive of the president. But oh, no, running out of room, this is a disaster for the president. And people are coming out and saying what, like what are you talking about?

JOHN EASTMAN, CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR: Were you in the same hearing I was in? Yes. No, look, they're doing it behind closed doors so they can selectively leak to put out a narrative that bolsters the media narrative that is driving polls. And I think the whole thing is illegitimate. The power to conduct an impeachment proceeding according to the Constitution says the House has the sole power of impeachment. That doesn't mean Nancy Pelosi, it doesn't mean a single member of Congress, a single chairman.

I think, as Judge Neomi Rao on the D.C. circuit just last week noted, there is a difference between the prosecutorial power impeachment and the legislative power that they normally operate under. And the impeachment power is triggered by the House. Saying that their rules allow for this would allow for Adam Schiff unilaterally to say we've handed down articles of impeachment. It's absurd, and the Constitution's text I think needs to be taken seriously here.

INGRAHAM: Liz Cheney made that point today, she spoke out. And look, she disagrees with the president on some key foreign policies, but she basically said that, Richard. This is not -- the Constitution, the text of the Constitution gives this power solely to the House of the Representatives. Not to one committee, not to one individual, not to one party, majority or minority. It gives it to the House. So if people are going to start quoting the framers, then they should also have to confront that fact.

GOODSTEIN: Right. So no one committee is going to the impeach Donald Trump. The House is going to impeach Donald Trump. So this is, honestly, quibbling over something that I think at the end of the day --

INGRAHAM: But if it's so cool, why not have it out in the open. If it's so cool and it's so obviously, he's obviously so guilty, then why not have it out in the open? Why?

GOODSTEIN: An example is what happened with Mick Mulvaney today. What he said is we held up the money for Ukraine for, frankly, what was not a legitimate purpose.

INGRAHAM: OK, you are now doing what Adam Schiff did to the president's transcript. OK, he didn't exactly say that.

GOODSTEIN: He didn't fabricate it. He said, this is a parody.


EASTMAN: After the fact.

INGRAHAM: Extremely, after.

EASTMAN: After he got called out on it.

INGRAHAM: How many days?

GOODSTEIN: It was obvious what he was doing was a parody. I'm sorry if that was lost on some people.

EASTMAN: Parody belongs on "Saturday Night Live," not the head of the Intelligence Committee launching a formal investigation of an impeachment of the president.

GOODSTEIN: When you have a transcript that shows the president saying do me this favor though, before I give you money that the Congress --

EASTMAN: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. He didn't say before I give you the money. You just now fabricated that. And the fever was --


INGRAHAM: Put the transcript up.

GOODSTEIN: Please do.

INGRAHAM: Put the transcript up if we have it. We have to have this in our back pocket every night, because every night a Democrat comes on this show and does what Schiff did, I'm going to call him out. I hope we can put it up on the screen. He said after the Javelin missiles were brought up. Do you know the Javelin missiles?

GOODSTEIN: Of course.

INGRAHAM: What were they part of?

GOODSTEIN: Part of the defense appropriation.

INGRAHAM: No. Ukraine bought them. It wasn't an aid package. Ukraine was buying them and wanted another military authorization. It wasn't aid. We weren't giving them Javelins, OK. This was a re-up of a buy they had already gotten approved in March. That, and in the next paragraph, the next line was, do me a favor, though, about this, and he talked about CrowdStrike and the DNC server, and then everyone replaced all that.

GOODSTEIN: Not just anything. Biden and his son and his Burisma,

EASTMAN: That's like 800 words later. And the CNN direct line cutting out all that in the middle when the fever was help us with the 2016 investigation so we can get to the bottom of what happened. And you're conflating it as badly as Schiff did.

GOODSTEIN: I feel badly, no disrespect to people who buy that because the public is actually seeing right through it.

EASTMAN: I looked at the transcript, and it's patently obvious from the transcript that Schiff lied and that you are lying.

GOODSTEIN: Sorry, I don't accuse you of lying just because I agree with you.

EASTMAN: No, but you just did. You said something pointed blank that was said in that transcript that is patently not true. That's a lie.

GOODSTEIN: No, actually it is a quote. It says let me ask you for a favor though.

EASTMAN: Yes, but continue the next sentence, because you said, you said because of the money. And that's never said in the transcript. It's never said in the transcript. You can pull the transcript up.

INGRAHAM: I'm trying to pull the transcript up on a cellphone. It's not easy. I can't do it, actually. I can't pull it up.

GOODSTEIN: Again, the fact is you're talking about star chambers. We're going to have this out in public.

INGRAHAM: Just give it to. Raymond is going to give it to me. Give me the transcript. This is old-fashioned TV here.

GOODSTEIN: This is crocodile tears, these crocodile tears.

INGRAHAM: OK, here we go.

GOODSTEIN: Please, let's hear it. Let's hear it.

INGRAHAM: No, no, we're all lawyers here. We've got to go to the actual documents, OK. So the guy says, we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we're almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. The presidents is freewheeling. He goes, I'd like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot. Ukraine knows a lot about it. I'd like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine. They say CrowdStrike, I guess Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, some same people, on and on and on. There's no reference to Biden. This is a whole first thing, you want look at it, the whole first paragraph, no reference to Biden, right, no reference to Biden.

EASTMAN: And no reference to money, no reference to money.

INGRAHAM: So don't --

GOODSTEIN: Rudy Giuliani brought, listen --

INGRAHAM: Rudy Giuliani had no nothing to do with Javelin missiles. You don't know the facts.

GOODSTEIN: I do know the facts that you're suggesting that somehow Biden and Burisma was not part of this discussion with Zelensky. That is a lie. That is a lie.

EASTMAN: Neither one of us has ever said that.

GOODSTEIN: I understand why. I get it. That's harmful.

EASTMAN: We didn't say that. We didn't say that.

INGRAHAM: No, no, so, what happened here on national television is, thankfully we had the transcript, I actually read what was said in the transcript.

GOODSTEIN: Not the entirety of it. That's like the transcript of the Zelensky conversation which is 10 minutes of a 30 minute conversation. There's Rose Mary Woods out there --

INGRAHAM: One thing we do have to say, and this is where it kind of gets fun. The president knows there are like 15 people listening to the call, he knows that. It's just how it works in the White House. He knows that. So I guess Richard saying that the president is so daffy that he is OK, I'm going to do this whole quid pro quo. I know people are listening, and I think it's all going to be good.

GOODSTEIN: Which is why John Bolton and everybody were going crazy right after the conversation going to the general counsel and everybody else. I'm sorry.

INGRAHAM: No, you know why. It's like Robert Ray said. It's because there was no intent. That's why. No intent, Robert Ray was talking about it. I've got to get out.

GOODSTEIN: Why are smart people like John Bolton all alarmed?

INGRAHAM: So you're a big Bolton fan.

GOODSTEIN: I am, love John Bolton.

INGRAHAM: All right, we've got to go, guys. That was fun.

All right, up next, Dinesh D'Souza exposes the lies Elizabeth Warren used to propel her own career, although maybe Richard will say those were true too. You don't want to miss it.


INGRAHAM: I guess Senator Warren is the rising star, is that what were going to describe her among the 2020 Democrat candidates. But her ascension is tied to being something that she's not, and she's clearly uncomfortable with it. Joining me now to break it all down, Dinesh D'Souza, conservative author, filmmaker. Dinesh, I want to begin with how Warren describes herself.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets. What I don't believe in is theft. What I don't believe in is cheating.


INGRAHAM: Dinesh, is that what she really is?

DINESH D'SOUZA, CONSERVATIVE FILMMAKER: Well, she keeps saying that she is a capitalist, and I'm not sure if this is a ruse that is intended to attract big money, the Wall Street money that she claims to deplore. I'm really not sure. But the truth of the matter is that Warren is a socialist by any reasonable standard. Even if you use the Scandinavian or the Nordic standard. The Nordic countries aren't as extreme as Warren.

For example, Warren wants a wealth tax. She wants to impose essentially a confiscatory tax not just on your income, on your wealth. Now, the Nordic countries don't have that. Sweden used to have a wealth tax. They go rid of it. So if you use Nordic socialism as our standard, Warren is a socialist, but she's a socialist in capitalist clothing.

INGRAHAM: There's also language that she refers to, Dinesh, about cheating. I think we have it. Let's see.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They're the ones who want to cheat. They are the ones who want to say their personal wealth, their power is more important than building an America that works for everyone.


INGRAHAM: Dinesh, what about that?

D'SOUZA: Look at the richest people in this country from Steve Jobs to Jeff Bezos, and ask yourself this question. Did they get a single dollar that they didn't accept voluntarily from people who gave it to them because they were getting better services, products that they didn't have before, needs and wants being satisfied that they didn't even know that they had prior to these products coming on the market. So the whole idea of dismissing all this as cheating as though it was some sort of embezzlement is complete nonsense.

INGRAHAM: It's a whole you didn't build that line that of course we heard last campaign, the campaign from 2012 with Obama. Dinesh, thanks so much. We'll have you back soon.

And what happens with climate protesters take it a little too far?


INGRAHAM: Time for the last bite. What happens when climate protesters try to block blue-collar workers from getting to work?



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I'm really not.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a hoax. The world is not coming to an end.



INGRAHAM: He wasn't happy being green, at least none of that moment. Oh, my goodness, where was Kermit when he needed him?

Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team have all the news developments, and there are a lot of them. They're going to take it from here and I'm going to be watching.


Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.