This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 4, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight and as the New York Times reports, the possibility of a second whistleblower, two big revelations might be blowing holes into the first one 's case.

A former CIA Station Chief will explain later on plus remember Burisma, that's the Ukrainian company that Hunter Biden got a sweetheart contract from. Well, it turns out that the Ukrainian government is interested in investigating them. Some breaking details on that tonight with Peter Sweitzer.

Also tonight AOC held a townhall in her district last night that quickly well, went off the rails. Raymond Arroyo has all the highlights and more in Friday follies. But first we want to explain to you exactly what is going on the very latest. In last night's “Angle,” we showed you how time after time, the Democrats hype and hyperbole keep blowing up in their faces.

Everything is a crisis, every minute of the day it's a new crisis. You've got to watch, this time the President - well, you know how it goes. It's almost as if we telegraph their next move last night though because they ramped up a new merit in just after we went off the air.

Late last night Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings and Eliot Engel raised a tranche of cherrypicked text messages from former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker. Now without a complete transcript of Volker's testimony, these partisan arsonists knew darn well that these texts were out of context.

And by looking at them just in isolation, they would paint the most damning picture imaginable. They threw chime in the water and of course they watched the media and the deep state sharks circle.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's got text messages between himself and other people who are aware of this thing like that is essential corroboration to prove intent.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These text messages advance the story quite a bit.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The text messages do a very good job of showing that there was quid pro quo.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't even need the whistleblower once you've got these texts.


INGRAHAM: Well, we don't have to have an impeachment hearing. It's just all over. Thanks Dan. So what did happen in that testimony? Well, sources are already telling Fox, it completely appends the left's narrative here. First, Volker testified that Ukraine wasn't pressured to investigate the Bidens. They never raise the issue of a quid pro quo and they didn't see Trumps July 25 call as in anyway inappropriate.

"At no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate Former Vice President Biden." And that's not all Volker also said Ukrainian led investigations of both the 2016 election and Burisma where Hunter Biden served on the board would not be improper.

Finally he also testified that President Trump's concerns about Ukrainian corruption were completely valid, given the history of that country. Now we know full well, why Schiff and his pals released those text messages. They knew the narrative they were pushing was going to take a hit by Volker's own testimony.

As we said last night, these Democrats think it's fine to yell fire in a crowded theater and the theater is America so long as their political opponents get tarred in the process, no problem. Here to responds, Sol Wisenberg, former Deputy Independent Counsel, Fox news contributor and Robert Driscoll, former DOJ official.

Sol, how damaging is Volcker's testimony to just to focus for a moment on the quid pro quo narrative that was sold relentlessly?

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: You know Laura, I think, I don't know if you know yet but my one of my colleagues at Nelson Mullins now represents Mayor Giuliani in a limited role. I think out of an abundance of caution, I'm - I shouldn't comment on that.

I will say that I'm very disturbed by the way the impeachment inquiry is going forward, particularly with the demands for White House documents and they appear to be on a very, very fast track. It's very dangerous.

INGRAHAM: All right Sol, let me go into that since this must've been late breaking development so every law firm - seems like every law firm got conflict of our discussing issues coming from an old big law firm myself Skadden Arps, I know how that rolls.

But let's talk about just that. Now we need to get Bob into this conversation. This is what happened today and you're referring to the subpoena to the White House for documents. Now this is from the LA Times account of this but this is a letter from the House to the White House that accompanied the subpoena.

The White House has refused to engage with or even respond to multiple requests for documents from our committees. On a voluntary basis after nearly a month of stonewalling, it appears clear that the President has chosen the path of defiance, obstruction and cover up." That's top Democrats wrote in the letter to Mulvaney, Trump's Acting Chief of Staff.

Sol, I want you to take a bite at that apple. Then we're going to get to Bob Driscoll. Sol.

WISENBERG: Keep in mind that Presidential power, the law is absolutely clear on this. Presidential power and privilege is at its height. When you were talking about two things, when you were talking about foreign affairs and when you were talking about White House personnel and documents.

Now they don't want to litigate this, the House Democrats. They could have litigated it much early as earlier as soon as they took power. They know what would take too long to litigate now and they know that they will probably lose so what it looks like they're trying to do is just simply demand these documents and when the White House doesn't turn them over, say you know what?

That's just another grounds for impeachment. As a constitutional matter, I think it's just a farce.

INGRAHAM: So Bob, I want to get to go to you on this because the language - using the language of obstruction, I think is very key and cover up you know, harkening back to of course the Nixon impeachment. This is why that language was used in this letter but is that like you know, burning the tapes? Is that like going out and telling someone to lie to a committee? Is that what happened in the Nixon case which clearly this is what they're trying to harken back to in this letter tonight?

The White House Counsel's office gave them you know, basically gave Heisman on their request for these documents.

ROBERT DRISCOLL, FORMER DOJ OFFICER: Well, the White House is simply taking the position all White Houses take which is there's always a dispute about commercial power when Congress wants documents in the White House. White House is entitled to this initial matter say nope, you're in an area that the President has the upper hand and foreign policy - Sol's right, foreign policy is kind of where the Presidential power's at its apex.

And we're not going to provide these documents and so that's - that's not obstruction. That's simply asserting a legal right and that right may have to be vindicated in court at some point but Sol's exactly right that the Democrats don't want to do that because it wouldn't be resolved until the next election anyway and the whole point of impeachment is to get impeachment out in front of the election.

So they're - they're setting it up likely to add another article of impeachment for obstruction but that's not what - obstruction is when there's a subpoena out there and you start shredding documents--

INGRAHAM: Thank you. Thank you.

DRISCOLL: Or you bleach but your server--

INGRAHAM: Thank you.

DRISCOLL: - when there's a congressional subpoena outstanding, that would be--

INGRAHAM: I'm sorry I'm getting all excited because nobody said this on TV tonight. Nobody has made the point you just made which Sol can get into this. Maybe conversation too much but this is elementary law school. This is like con law 101 OK? Criminal procedure 101, excuse me.

This is what you learn your first month in law school. This is bogus and it's absurd and anyone with a shred of credibility in the legal profession knows it and this just indicates one more that it's a complete farce. All right, Bob, hold on. Go ahead.

DRISCOLL: Every discovery dispute in litigation, which there are many, would result in obstruction of justice charge and that's just not the case.

INGRAHAM: OK, fighting for documents, you're obstructing justice, OK.

WISENBERG: And that's not what Nixon and that's not very specifically--

INGRAHAM: No, we don't want to waste more time, it's absurd. We don't waste time, we have a precious time. All right. Republican Senator Ron Johnson set off a media frenzy today after it was revealed that he knew of the quid pro quo allegation and then he supposedly confronted Trump about it. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The U. S. ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland told him there was a quid pro quo.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That Republican Senator Ron Johnson had also heard of a quid pro quo.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ron Johnson comes out today and says, that guy Sondland you know, he told me there's a quid pro quo.


INGRAHAM: Well, what none of those commentators mentioned though is what was in paragraph 4 of that Wall Street Journal article. You actually have to read the news stories. Now Johnson recalled bringing it up to Trump and that the President didn't waffle at all. He said the following, " Expletive deleted. No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?"

Well Bob, it seems pretty convenient for the media though to leave that detail out. Does it not?

DRISCOLL: It does. I mean, it's - the overreach on this has been unbelievable. I mean I think what's unfortunate is that we're left in two camps which is either impeach the guy tomorrow which is where the Democrats are at or you know, nothing - nothing the President can do is improper.

I mean if it were a quid pro quo, there might be an issue but the President has clearly denied it and you know--

INGRAHAM: Mike Pence has denied it, everybody else has denied it, everyone who was on the call. And Sol, I want to get into this gambit that was made about this idea of forcing Nancy Pelosi to call for an impeachment resolution, an actual resolution. There's some debate if that's what ultimately happens, if the White House says we don't - you know, we don't call this legitimate, you need to have a vote which basically they've said, is that risky gamble because they it may be force the hand and he definitely is impeached or do you think it doesn't matter?

WISENBERG: Well, you're talking about just a vote - a formal vote on whether or not to proceed and I think it makes what the Democrats are doing in the House look ridiculous if they're not even willing to stand up and say look, all we want to do is look into this. We authorize looking into it.

What it says to me is, despite the head counts I see on television is that they don't have the votes to do that. Is it constitutionally required? No, but I think it really lessens the legitimacy and brings home the illegitimacy of what the Democrats are doing. I think they're going to lose - lose a lot not only in the public arena but if these matters do get litigated in court, I could very easily see a court saying you know what?

Is this an impeachment inquiry or 5 different committees where you all the sudden sit up and say - you said, we're calling in an impeachment? I think she'd be in a much stronger position if she did vote - call for a vote but I don't think she's got the -

INGRAHAM: Bob, do you agree here that the posture of this is very curious and it's almost like you're half in and half out. Half pregnant. What is this here?

DRISCOLL: The problem for the Democrats is if there's an issue, now to get turn to the weeds called legislative purpose that most things that Congress does have several legislative purpose bonded, they're supposed to be legislators. They can't just - they aren't free roaming investigators to just investigate whatever they want.

Their power increases a little bit if it weren't an impeachment inquiry and so I think they're going to be on weaker ground. Part of Trump's defense in the tax return litigation collaterally has been that Congress is essentially trying to usurp law enforcement function and there's no legislative purpose to what they're doing.

And I think that though you have that, we'll see that argument again if the House doesn't have a vote at least authorizing an impeachment inquiry, which also by the way would then give Republicans presumably certain rights to call their own witnesses.

INGRAHAM: Yes, actually make it fair.

DRISCOLL: So they can have an actual impeachment inquiry.

INGRAHAM: All right, fascinating conversation, both of you thank you so much for being with us tonight and while Democrats continue to sprint down the road to impeachment, it seems to be in some ways back firing, at least with swing state voters.

CNN spent yesterday scouring Michigan for impeachment supporters but came away with this instead.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Six months ago he thought Joe Biden might be an option. Now he says the push for impeachment has him supporting the President more than ever.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are there for one thing now and one thing only and that's to try to impeach the President.


INGRAHAM: And last week MSNBC interview to New Hampshire voter who also wasn't sold on the impeachment hysteria.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It can kill us because this is a deal between one country and another. You know, we do deals with countries all the time. We talk to people from different countries all the time. That's his job.


INGRAHAM: Joining me now Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union and Mark Levine, Democrat member of the Virginia House of Delegates, Radio Talk Show Host. All right Mark, the Democrats forget about swing state voters before they kind of started to at least tiptoe down the road toward impeachment.

MARK LEVINE, D-VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES: No, I don't think so. I think you've seen two videos of two voters and their points of view but what's fascinating is how the support for impeachment has grown dramatically, growing like 13 percent in just a week and interestingly the point we're at now, more people support the impeachment inquiry of this President than supported Richard Nixon.

A majority of Americans, 51 percent support the impeachment inquiry today when Nixon started, it was only 38 percent.

INGRAHAM: So you think of that what not responding to document requests by the House of Representatives is akin to obstruction. Are you going to make that argument tonight?

LEVINE: I think that--

INGRAHAM: Because that's what they're making.

LEVINE: I think if Republicans argue there's no quid pro quo, they should want no cover up at all. They should want to President to say all right, we have nothing to hide. Show us what's in the secret server. Turn it over.

INGRAHAM: So the executive branch should never course protect its own branch of government because that's never happened with the executive branch or constantly jockeying for power.

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: I was even troubled by the idea of releasing this transcript, right? Because once world leaders know that you know the contents of conversations, private conversations with the President are getting leaked, that's a big problem.

But let me talk about this poll - this polling really fast Laura. The whole problem with this impeachment that people aren't talking about is that Bill Clinton was impeached and Richard Nixon would have been impeached after they had been re-elected.

We were years away from another Presidential campaign. We have a Presidential campaign a year away. That's why it smells of politics. If you don't like Trump, don't support him, don't vote for him. Don't make the country go through this canard of a process, getting into a Presidential campaign.

INGRAHAM: I just think it looks to me that the Democrats are not quite as confident of their chances next November as much as Nancy said oh, it's not about politics. There's no politics. This is about the constitution.

LEVINE: She resisted the whole time. Look, Laura, you said the Democrats shouldn't cherry pick the evidence. Don't cherry pick, bring it all out to light. I think the Intelligence Committee should have had those hearings in public. I think the public has every right to--

INGRAHAM: Will you argue in that when Eric Holder refused to turn over documents in fast and furious period in the House when he got one, he got nailed--

LEVINE: I think people should be consistent here and I think people should obey with congressional subpoenas. Remember, United States and Nixon so when the Supreme Court said you can't cover up a criminal conspiracy which is why executive privilege--

INGRAHAM: Right but there's no conspiracy and--

SCHLAPP: So the other thing is why don't we show what crimes were committed because--

INGRAHAM: What crime's alleged? Tell me.

LEVINE: It's 52 USC 30121.

INGRAHAM: And the transcript.

LEVINE: The crime is soliciting aid from a foreign country--

INGRAHAM: Let me get to the transcript.

SCHLAPP: I'd like to talk about this.

INGRAHAM: I want to--

LEVINE: Because he solicited interference in the elections.

INGRAHAM: OK, here we go. In the transcript?


INGRAHAM: OK. I don't deal in hyperbole.

SCHLAPP: Just read the words, come on.

INGRAHAM: OK, so this is a conversation between Zelensky and Trump, right? Won't read the whole transcript. This is the actual transcript so they're talking about the javelin missiles and so forth and Zelensky says, "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next step. Specifically we're almost ready to buy more javelins from the United States for defense purposes."

Do you know what the javelin were?

LEVINE: Yes, they were anti-tech missiles.

INGRAHAM: Do you know what part - what - why was he--

LEVINE: Because Russia has invaded Ukraine and--

INGRAHAM: But were they part of our aid package?


INGRAHAM: No. They're not part of our aid package.

LEVINE: $391 million in military aid, we've given them javelins before.

INGRAHAM: No, I'm making a point here and I'm not trying to be cute with you because I don't expect everyone to know everything. This was a military purchase that was authorized in April before Zelensky got in. He was asking for - this is not aid. They're buying this from us.

LEVINE: And Trump won't sell it until--

INGRAHAM: No, that's not what--

LEVINE: He's saying, I want you to do us a favor.

INGRAHAM: We're going - no, he didn't say he wouldn't sell it. This is a freewheeling conversation. He says, I would 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 this whole situation with Ukraine, they call Crowdstrike. A lot of things they were not.

The whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with - I'm reading - with some of the same people. I would like you to have the Attorney General call your people. I would like you to get to the bottom of it.

Where did he say he was making military aid contingent upon "digging up dirt on Joe Biden." Where did he say that?

LEVINE: So all your readers--

INGRAHAM: The answer is he didn't say that.

LEVINE: Everyone on the show should go right and look at the text of Kurt Volker and look at the text of--

SCHLAPP: All right, let's do that.

LEVINE: Let me just--

SCHLAPP: I'd like to say one thing.

LEVINE: She's asking a question.

SCHLAPP: OK, let's get the answer.

LEVINE: If you read the text, you will see a quid pro quo and I'll tell you who knows about it, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said, hey, Taylor told me there's a quid pro quo. Some one's going to have to testify.

INGRAHAM: You missed that. OK.

LEVINE: This is the Wall street Journal.

INGRAHAM: OK, well, the Wall street Journal actually made the point that--

LEVINE: Read the Wall street Journal--

SCHLAPP: If we're going to be consistent--

INGRAHAM: Fourth paragraph.

SCHLAPP: If we're going to be consistent with Republicans and Democrats, if the code that you cited is a crime that was committed by Trump, what about what Obama did with the Manafort investigation? What about what Biden did with the Hunter Biden investigation?

LEVINE: What about--

INGRAHAM: All right panel, we could do a whole hour. Awesome conversation, thank you so much and we have new details tonight that raise serious questions about the credibility of the whistleblower who's complain actually kicked this whole thing off.

Plus Peter Schweizer reacts to breaking news about Ukraine now saying that they will look into the company at the center of all of this as part of a wide ranging look at corruption across the board. That's next.


INGRAHAM: Breaking new details tonight are raising serious questions about the credibility of the whistleblower who sparked this entire impeachment farce. First, former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker's testimony contradicted the whistleblower complaint against the President.

Now we noted earlier that he told Congress, "At no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden." But the whistleblower claimed Volker advised Ukrainians on how to navigate Trump's demand to do that.

Well, that's not all. Today Intel community IG Michael Atkinson revealed the whistleblower did not disclose the fact that he or she contacted Adam Schiff's aides. He also said the whistleblower had a prior working relationship with a "prominent Democrat." What does that mean?

I mean, does this damage the credibility of the entire complaint. Joining me now is Scott , former CIA Station Chief who served for a dozen years at various really important overseas posts. Scott, you are back extremely worried that this entire ordeal could damage the CIA's credibility. Why?

SCOTT UEHLINGER, FORMER CIA STATION CHIEF: Absolutely. I mean, we have a situation where a whistleblower was able to make - file basically a unjustified report that was apparently backed up by people in the CIA.

This individual a mid-level functionary thought he could basically put the President on report and not face any kind of professional examination afterwards. I think this shows that the climate of the CIA and other government agencies has become excessively partisan and liberal.

INGRAHAM: Well, I have to say there's also now an attempt to completely cast off the need for a quid pro quo Scott. So initially it was quid pro quo - quid pro quo. Now that's completely falling apart so this is what Rachel Maddow said about the need for it, watch.


RACHEL MADDOW, HOST, MSNBC: The quid pro quo doesn't really matter. It's an aggravating factor but that's not it. Soliciting something from a foreign government to help you in your election campaign is an impeachable offense and is also a crime.


INGRAHAM: OK, he never said help me in my election campaign. He was talking about corruption in general. We've read the transcript like three times on the air. This is just again, saying something that's not in the transcript. No wonder the polls are moving perhaps a little bit toward impeachment.

UEHLINGER: Exactly. Rachel Maddow has an extremely tenuous grasp on reality, I would say at this point. Exactly. The President was merely exercising his options as dictated by the constitution to conduct foreign policy. In fact nothing he said had anything to do with intelligence in any way, shape or form.

And by definition that is the type of - that is the type of revelations that justify an intelligence IG report. This report should never have been made because Trump was not discussing intelligence.

INGRAHAM: The President has said you know, if it's a whistle blower or a leaker and I think a lot of people at this point just say it's just a leaker and I think if someone wants to be detailed to the White House in the future as a CIA staffer, I think they're going to have a difficult time getting that assignment because nobody's going to trust these CIA details if their whole job is to become a little moles inside the White House and then get themselves - some even anonymous you know notoriety through various channels.


INGRAHAM: Thank you Scott. Appreciate it tonight and President Trump is not taking his foot off the pedal when it comes to Joe and Hunter Biden's foreign entanglements.


DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT: He is pillaging these countries and he's hurting us. This doesn't pertain to anything but corruption and that has to do with me. I don't care about politics. I don't care about anything but I do hear about corruption.

How would you like as an example, Joe Biden negotiating the China deal if he took it over from me? He would give them everything. How would you like to have that? Joe Biden would just roll out the red carpet.


INGRAHAM: Well, that of course forced Biden to spend the day in the campaign trail defending well, his son's overseas transactions and his own conduct.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is not about me. It's not about my son. There's not a shred of evidence that there's anything done that was wrong. I'm a former Vice President. I know what occurred in Ukraine. I know what occurred in terms of China. I know what occurred in terms of Russian. This is a President trying to get two of our most serious competitors and not allies to decide this election.


INGRAHAM: His denial comes amid Ukraine's top prosecutor deciding to re- open past corruption cases, many of them in fact including into Burisma. That's the firm that paid Hunter Biden well, a small fortune. Joining us now Peter Schweizer, investigative reporter, author of Secret Empires.

Peter, is this for real or just meant to curry favor with American leadership?

PETER SCHWEIZER, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Yes Laura, I wouldn't put a lot of credence into and I'll tell you why and I think this is important in the context of President Trump's conversation with President Zelensky. Zelensky came to power with a strong financial backing of a Ukrainian oligarch named Kolomoyskyi. Kolomoyskyi is widely believed in Ukraine to be partly involved in fact own Burisma so the notion that the Zelensky government or prosecutors working for him would actually investigate a company that their chief backers involved in I think is remote.

That's why we need to have the Department of Justice and Americans at the helm of this investigation to find out exactly what went on.

INGRAHAM: So in other words don't feel like just because they say we're on it, no worries. Keep the aid coming or this is not going to - that's not going to happen. People have to also realize, they're not dealing with you know, extremely sophisticated developed countries with levels of checks and balances.

These are still in some ways renegade you know, former Soviet Republics and they're trying to find their way.

SCHWEIZER: No, that's a great point Laura. Both in the case of China and Ukraine, these two countries were Hunter Biden cashed in. They are two of the most corrupt countries in the world. Somebody made the statement once that what goes on Ukraine would make a Nigerian blush because of Nigeria's reputation for corruption.

So the notion that there's going to be some kind of you know serious detached investigation is just simply not going to happen so I think that has to be factored in and that's why I think it's right to get the Department of Justice involved in this.

INGRAHAM: Yes, they have to. That's the only - the only way to get to the answers on this really quickly Peter, Joe Biden was out there today in the campaign trail, pushing off all these accusations, watch.


REPORTER: How was your role as Vice President in charge of your policy in Ukraine and your son's job in Ukraine, how is that not a conflict of interest?

BIDEN: It's not a conflict of interest. There's been no indication of any conflict of interest from Ukraine or anywhere else. I'm not going to respond to that. Let's focus on problems. Focus on this man.


INGRAHAM: He's getting very upset. Really quickly Peter, is he telling the truth?

SCHWEIZER: Yes, how is it not a conflict of interest. Joe Biden is handing out western aid and his son is cashing in from some of the recipients of western aid. Of course it's a conflict of interest. This is basic government 101.

INGRAHAM: Well, he said well, his son didn't get the position until after he - ten days after he was - made the trip and that was another - right? It's always like well, it was 10 days later. Oh come on. Again, it doesn't pass the straight face test. If Hunter Biden was supremely experienced in this area and had worked for decades then maybe, it would still wouldn't be good but this is just - Peter, thank you so much. Great to see you tonight.

And coming up a clown, not Biden, another clown that terrorizes your children on purpose. A town hall circus, oh that was in New York. Raymond Arroyo and a lot more. Friday Follies next.


INGRAHAM: It's Friday, and that means it's time for Friday Follies. A pair of clowns go bad, and an AOC town hall turned into a mini circus. Joining us all with the antics is Raymond Arroyo, FOX News contributor. Raymond, I remember a few years ago hearing about this Wrinkles the Clown character terrorizing people in Florida. And I understand he's back?

RAYMOND ARROYO, CONTRIBUTOR: He never really went away, Laura. This all started with a piece of viral video, and it showed this freaky looking clown spooking kids for pay. The idea is you scare misbehaving kids into the straight and narrow. There is now a documentary on Wrinkles that shows how far parents have gone, you see him there coming out of the trundle. Scary.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my gosh.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wrinkles, I need you to come get these kids.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got a child who is misbehaving.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thirty bucks to come scare them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't know if he is trying to do this for fun or trying to kill you. It's like a boogeyman situation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You better be afraid of Wrinkles. He's real.


INGRAHAM: Let me just --

ARROYO: Look, people, they call this guy up, Laura, they invite him over. I would call dial poo for poop your pants, OK. It's scary. But despite a "Washington Post" feature in 2015 suggesting that Wrinkles was a 65-year- old Rhode Island veteran living in a trailer, the documentary tells a very different story. What was your reaction when you saw this?

INGRAHAM: Let me just say as someone, when I was little, I checked under the bed every night and in the closet. I was terrified of the dark when I was little.

ARROYO: Were you scared of clowns?

INGRAHAM: Slightly. I don't like clowns. Never liked puppets, clowns, dolls. My mother would give me dolls, Barbie and all that. I thought those were scary. They would come at you in the middle of the night with knives. Barbies, I didn't like Crissy Velvet, remember the hair that grew. I didn't like any of that.

ARROYO: I've got to get back to Wrinkles. We're going to run out --


ARROYO: The problem with Wrinkles, the documentary tells a very different tale of who he really is or isn't. But that's irrelevant. How parents used this clown --

INGRAHAM: It's abuse, child abuse.

ARROYO: -- is what I find shocking. Listen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm just calling again for Ahkeem, and I think you need to come get him. He's been acting up again. He wants to talk to you. No, talk, talk.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry, Wrinkles.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've got to stop calling people stupid and acting up.


ARROYO: They are terrorizing their children psychologically.

INGRAHAM: Are they not able to discipline their children without a demonic clown?

ARROYO: I guess not. But the clown shows up at the house, in the backyard. It's freaky, scary.

INGRAHAM: I have a question. How much does Wrinkles get per appearance?

ARROYO: I don't know. But he says he makes more money doing this routine that he did playing the party circus.

Clowns have gotten awfully dark, Laura.

INGRAHAM: I'll say.

ARROYO: They used to be silly like Bozo the Clown or Emmett Kelly. And then things changed.

INGRAHAM: Oh, no. I did not care -- Ronald McDonald. People like Ronald McDonald, but Ronald McDonald was not my favorite. I love McDonald's, but I don't care for that.

ARROYO: And then there was Cesar Romero's Joker, and of course Pennywise from "It." And now you have Joaquin Phoenix's Joker. It's the latest movie, the darkest clown of them all, maybe. It opens this weekend, and the movie tells the nihilistic backstory of Batman's famous nemesis sans Batman. Arthur Fleck is this guy's name. He is a mentally disturbed schlub who when Gotham City cuts its budget, he loses his meds and his doctor.

INGRAHAM: Is it Trump's fault?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Arthur, I have some bad news for you.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the last time we'll be meeting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't listen, do you. You just ask the same questions every week. How's your job, are you having any negative thoughts? All I have are negative thoughts.


ARROYO: Long story short, off his meds, Arthur embraces his inner psychopath, he turns into a mass murderer. Laura, the U.S. servicemembers have been warned to be on high alert because of this movie. They're worried it will inspire other acts of violence. And as you can see, it justifies these mass murderers.

INGRAHAM: I've got to say, I'm old-fashioned, I like the clowns that juggle and make you laugh. The clowns that come at you with knives --

ARROYO: Jerry Lewis and Emmett Kelly were my kind of clown spirits be.

INGRAHAM: Remember Chuckles the Clown?

ARROYO: You're the only one who know who Chuckles is. He was a character on Mary Tyler Moore. It's not a clown anybody knows. Everybody is dead who knows Chuckles, Laura. And you're the only one. We looked all day and couldn't find a picture.

INGRAHAM: There is a whole seen on YouTube from Mary Tyler Moore. M.T. remembers.

ARROYO: I have to mention this. Joaquin Phoenix said I don't think it's the responsibility of a filmmaker to teach the audience morality or the difference between right and wrong. He's halfway right, but it is the responsible of filmmakers and storytellers to present a moral universe that's coherent. And this adulation of villains like the "Joker," like "Maleficent," where you rehabilitate these evil characters and make them the heroes, it's a real problem.

INGRAHAM: I think they are fresh out of ideas. That's what I think. I think they go back and --

ARROYO: And they kill off all the heroes.

INGRAHAM: There's courage, and honor, and valor, kind of the "Braveheart" thing.

ARROYO: Speaking of clowns, AOC's town hall turned into a bit of a circus the other night. In nearly every response at the event, Laura, she used what must have been like the word of the day.



We have to step back, like.

The fact that you can name individuals, if you are like, who has power in America, like, that's all of it in a nutshell.

One thing that I just want to say is like --

I'm like throwing back.

A lot of people are like --

I'm like consolidate.

They are putting like wolves in charge of the henhouse.


ARROYO: They should have had a --

INGRAHAM: I do this with my kids, though. She is young and she is learning, and she is the brain trust of the Democrat Party, and she is very charismatic. And it's like, and it's like. The Koch brothers, I think we have the soundbite where it's like, the Koch brothers are running everything except one of them passed away, but I forgot or didn't know. Watch.


OCASIO-CORTEZ: And people want to talk about the role of money in politics, who here has heard of the Koch brothers? Everyone has heard of the Koch brother, brothers, brother. Right, there is one now. Just Koch.


ARROYO: Cherry Coke or New Coke? She was not sure.

INGRAHAM: No, she could say the Waltons. The country is run by just a few families, the Waltons, the Koch brothers. And I'm thinking, you left out Tom Steyer, you left out Bloomberg. Let's go down the list. George Soros, Raymond.

ARROYO: Watch those clowns this weekend, Laura.



This week alone we saw a U.S. congresswoman tell a police chief that certain employees must be black, and another race hoax that the media happily gobbled up. So what's going on? Candace Owens and Monique Pressley with a fiery debate in moments.



TLAIB: They almost need to be African-American, not people that are not, because, let me tell you, no, this happens all the time. It's true. I think non-African-Americans think African-Americans all look the same.


INGRAHAM: Did she just say what I think she said? That was Congresswoman Tlaib insisting that Detroit police only hire African-Americans for doing what's called facial recognition analysis, because white people are so racist they can't tell anyone apart. That didn't sit well with Detroit's police chief, who said this.


CHIEF JAMES CRAIG, DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT: We were appalled when she made that statement. There is a double standard. If I had made the exact same comment, they would've been calling for my resignation and she would've been leading that charge. That's a fact.


INGRAHAM: Joining me now is Candace Owens, founder of the Blexit movement and author of "Blackout," and Monique Pressley, Democrat strategist and attorney. All right, Monique defendant what Tlaib said there.

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: There are stats that defend the basis for her information. So there's information that shows where facial recognition technology is concerned, that people who are of the same racial demographic as those that they are being able to identify or supposed to be hired to identify, have an easier time distinguishing between person and person. So that means that what she's saying -- and what she said actually later was no, I'm not saying that no white people should be involved in doing this job in this crime lab. I'm concerned that this is a city where there is 80 percent people who are African-American and in here there is a 95 percent people who are Caucasian doing the recognition. So it's just a matter of data --

INGRAHAM: So it's the disproportionality.

PRESSLEY: It's an issue of the data. If the data says that one person can do something with more accuracy than another, especially where identification is concerned for crime --

INGRAHAM: If it was at the other way. Don't talk over me. If it was said the other way around, Candace, a white person saying something even remotely akin to this, even if there were stats about certain type of behavior or good behavior, bad behavior, you would be decried as racially stereotyping and using race as a basis for decision-making, which is I thought what we were trying to get away from as a country. That is, to me, the double standard that is appalling here.

CANDACE OWENS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TURNING POINTS USA: There's no question that what she said was racist. I'm going to take an optimistic take on this by saying that to hear that police officer speak out and call it racist is largely due to the fact that there is an awakening happening in the black community and we are realizing that the real racists are Democrats. So I think that that's a positive spin on that.

You're absolutely right, if any person said something based on statistics, if somebody said we should only police in black neighborhoods because they commit the majority of crimes, which by statistics would be accurate. Black Americans account for 13 percent of the population but commit over 50 percent of all the homicides in this nation, that fact would be called racist. If we said we should only have black police officers because we don't want white police officers getting killed when they are committing more of the homicides, that fact would be considered racist.

Her comment was racist, her comment was inexcusable, and I'm really happy that black Americans are speaking out and saying I do not care if the show was on the other foot. Racism is racism.

INGRAHAM: The black police officer himself said he would be fired if he said something akin to that, which I thought that was, wow. That was actually --

PRESSLEY: He didn't say that she was racists. What he said was if I had said that, then I would be in trouble, meaning he can't speak the truth without getting in trouble. And this congresswoman could. So when we have stats, when we have data --

INGRAHAM: So are you saying we should determine racial composition by using, when it's the "Monique" show you can interrupt. Good. Seriously, I'm asking a serious question, if stats alone determine racial classifications, I think we would be going into not a great place for a lot of different people of all different backgrounds. Stats alone determining racial classifications.

PRESSLEY: No, it's not stats alone, but that's why I laid out the one-two- three of it. We have stats and data that say something. We have people in the crime lab that make up more of proportion than they should.

INGRAHAM: All right, we made that point.

Let's get to this recent race hoax in Virginia. This is not only tragic, it's an example of how the left's narrative is poisoning the minds of our kids. What happened in this case is a 12-year-old black girl claimed that three white boys pinned her to the ground, cut her dreadlocks with scissors. The girl's family admitted it wasn't true, they issued a heartfelt apology. To be clear, I do not blame the children. This is a child.

I do take issue with adults who tried to use this hoax to push their agenda right off the bat with no investigation, like the NAACP tried to do. First, they tried to cover up the hoax, claiming the family reached a private resolution with the school. Next the group said in a statement that, regrettably, the assault turned out to be false. Regrettably? What is that regrettable? We should be happy she wasn't assaulted. Candace, why would the NAACP try to skate past this hoax or, as some would say, even cover it up?

OWENS: The NAACP funds is an organization that funds off of hate and race, right, so that hurts their pockets when they can't find something that they can fundraise off of. And it's embarrassing for them. It's embarrassing for them because it's revealing an ugly truth, which is that victimhood has been sold as a virtue in our community.

My heart genuinely goes out to this girl. She is watching all of her idles. She's watching a media narrative that is being spun that is telling black Americans that what they should aspire to is victimhood, and that is what needs to be reversed, and that's what needs to be talked about, and that is not a narrative that the NAACP ever wants to be talked about, because there would be no need for them to exist.

INGRAHAM: Victimology is something we have talked about a lot on this show, and whether it's a white person claiming that he is a victim, but in this case there does seem to be this narrative that is forwarded a lot on college campuses, and even younger now, kids who are younger. Most kids aren't even paying attention to skin color. They are beyond that. My kids are. They don't care about that.

But what about this, Monique? What does this tell us about the reaction, that people want to be it's true, seems to be, on the left, they want t believe it's true, and they are disappointed when it's not true.

PRESSLEY: And what Ms. Owens just said is the most absurd and sad thing I think I've heard since I've been appearing on the show with her or anyone else. After all the times that young black girls have gone missing, have been prostituted, have been entered into slave trafficking, and no one cared. Not when they were in Africa, not when they were in the United States. This one time when this young girl said something happened to her and everybody jumped to her defense and believed her, I'm glad they jumped to her defense, I'm glad they believed her. I'm sorry for whatever she went through that led to the point that she said something that was not true. I am sorry that she said something that was not true.

INGRAHAM: What about the three boys?

OWENS: What did I say --

INGRAHAM: What about the three boys, what about their lives?

PRESSLEY: I'm sorry she said something that wasn't true. I'm sorry that those three boys were accused, and they were accused and how done nothing wrong. What I'm not sorry about is that she was believed. Are we really now going to be in this place, oh, don't believe the victims if they are black girls?

OWENS: That's not what I said. This is bad acting. This is truly bad acting.


OWENS: I've never done that before.

PRESSLEY: Obviously not.

OWENS: This is bad acting. You're trying to replace anything -- what I said is I genuinely feel bad for this girl because she is a part of a culture of literally what you just did, pretend to be a victim like something happened on this show that you were so outraged about. That is what we need less of. Let's have real conversations.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, all right, Candace, Monique, out of time. Thank you very much for being here.

PRESSLEY: Thank you.

OWENS: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: Next, Paul take-back-his-Nobel Krugman says the recession is here, you just don't know what yet. I'm going to expose the flaws in the Nobel laureate's latest faceplant in moments.


INGRAHAM: As I said in my “Angle” last night, the new tactic of the left seems to be the following -- hype a looming crisis, promote a sense of impending doom, it's all coming down. That's exactly what Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman is doing again. Remember, this is the same guy who the day after Trump's 2016 election win predicted a global recession with, quote, no end in sight. And he sung that same tune many times since.


PAUL KRUGMAN, ECONOMIST: I'd say that it's better than even odds that we will have a recession.

It's going to be a smorgasbord recession.

The odds are high enough that you should be concerned.


INGRAHAM: His middle name should be recession at this point. But now he's not just warning of an imminent recession, he's saying we're already in it. "Around a fifth of the economy is effectively in recession," he said, and Trump has done this to himself, largely by choosing to wage a trade war." But what Krugman fails to mention is while trade pressures undoubtedly, they do exert some downward pressure on the GDP, the economy, the U.S. economy would no doubt be boosted if the Democrats finally agreed to pass the USMCA, that U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement along with a robust infrastructure deal that both parties already basically want. They're just refusing to give Trump a win.

But beyond that, does today's jobs report sound like recession to you.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent, down from 3.7 percent. That is the lowest level since 1969.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We just hit market session highs, 324 points, 327 now. It's like a casino, isn't it?

TRUMP: The most new hires of prime working age are minorities and women.

The unemployment rate for African-Americans is at the lowest it's ever been in the history of our country.



INGRAHAM: And it's not, by the way, just those invested in the stock market either. Friday's jobs data showed that the unemployment rate for workers without high school diplomas fell to 4.8 percent, the lowest level on record. That's great for people at the lower end of the economic spectrum trying to get to the upper reaches. Trump's economy is making a huge difference for traditionally disadvantaged workers. So perhaps Krugman's next piece should explore that fact. Of course, he's never been one for being honest or right.

Comedian Terrence Williams thanking President Trump for lifting up the black community.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A while back, President Trump said when he was talking to the black community, if you vote for me, what do you have to lose, because the do-nothing Democrats have done nothing for the black community.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And 2020 is around the corner, and we have a lot to lose now because President Donald J. Trump has done so much for the black community. Thank you, President Trump.



INGRAHAM: You know the other nets aren't going to play almost any of this, right? You're not going to see that video anywhere else, except FOX, maybe a few Web sites. But the question we all have to ask ourselves is, what if Trump loses in 2020?

What does that mean for all these people who have traditionally not been able to benefit from what people think as economic improvement, where it's always hitting just the upper echelons of the economy. This is a broad- based recovery. It's a broad-based boost to people at every income level. Tight labor market means increased wages. No one predicted this on the left. We told you it would happen if you followed these simple rules, and it happened.

That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here. Have a great weekend.

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.