This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," January 21, 2020. 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" of course from Washington tonight. You are looking at the Senate floor live where the debate rages over the rules resolution supposedly about the rules resolution governing how the impeachment trial of Donald Trump will proceed?

Now for those who have actual lives, jobs and have been glued to your television all day, let me catch you up, on what really quickly I'll do it. What matters and what you need to get from the proceedings and if you didn't get it, we were tortured for you.

The Senate led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has so far voted to table, that means basically kill four amendment offered by Chuck Schumer and are currently debating the fifth amendment. Democrats thought they might see a few GOP defections but so far they have not seen one.

Now just in the past few hours we've seen a number of different developments. This is big. The Washington Post is reporting, this was just an hour or two ago, that now Senate Democrats are considering a trade. I'll trade you, my kids have Pokemon cards. I'll trade you a Hunter Biden for a John Bolton. Is this really happening? We'll see.

Politico also reporting just moments ago that Adam Schiff - this is my favorite story of the day, was caught in another lie. Yes, this time mischaracterizing a communication from the Democrats' new darling star witness, at least with the help of your witness Lev Parnas. We're going to get into that in a little bit. But they've been dining out on Lev Parnas for the last week. Guess what, they are caught again but back to the proceedings earlier today.

Now the President's team was led by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone who, full disclosure, has represented me in the past, and you all know because I've talked about it before. He is a dear friend of mine an impeachment attorney to the President also Jay Sekulow and others.

Now the Democrats had most of their House Managers give presentations today but it was Adam Schiff who took center stage. It was a curious move, given some of his blatant partisan tactics during the House hearing but they said that was yesterday. Today, it's all a new day. Throughout the new day, it was Schiff and Pat Cipollone going back and forth. Watch.


PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: A partisan impeachment is like stealing an election. And that is exactly what we have.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Right now a great many, perhaps even most Americans do not believe there will be a fair trial.

CIPOLLONE: They are asking the Senate to attack one of the most sacred rights we have as Americans, the right to choose our President in an Election Year.

SCHIFF: They believe that the result is precooked. The President will be acquitted not because he is innocent. He is not but because the Senators will vote by party.

CIPOLLONE: The President of the United States declassified that telephone call and released it to the public. How was that for transparency?

SCHIFF: You don't get credit for transparency when you get caught.

CIPOLLONE: It's long past time that we start this so we can end this ridiculous charade and go have an election.


INGRAHAM: Well, you know how I feel but I will let you determine who has more credibility between those two. During our hour, we expect a number of breaks and action for votes or short recesses. During that time, we are going to bring you I have to say immodestly the best legal analysis, political analysis out there, plus we're going to hear from the White House directly and Senators who were inside that room.

But first, for what we can expect in the coming hours and days we are going to go to Fox News Chief Congressional Correspondent Mike Emanuel. He is live in Capitol Hill. Mike, we have no idea how long this is going to go. Mitch McConnell clearly wants to move this along, as does the White House Counsel. Where did they stand now?

MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Laura good evening to you. It is a pleasure being with you. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer having a test of wills over these Democrat amendments that are being offered, seeking things like White House documents, State Department documents, even trying to subpoena the Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

They've all gone down, 53/47 party line votes. 53 Republicans, 47 Democrats. And so McConnell has proven he has been able to hold his Senate Republican conference together so the expectation at some point was that they would get through these amendments and late-night tonight.

They would vote on the rules package to go forward with a trial and that that would passed on a party line vote and then at some point tomorrow they would come back and the House Democrats would start their 24 hours of arguments in favor of the articles of impeachment. And when they exhaust their time, the White House attorneys would get their 24 hours to passionately defend President Trump on their articles of impeachment.

Now we are just waiting to see if that will get bounced back and delayed because they are still bickering over these Democratic amendments. Again Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has kept his Republican conference together at this stage, after all this, 24 hours each side we do expect at some point there may be a vote on more documents and more witnesses.

It is not clear if there will be four or more Republicans who will cross over and vote with Democrats to call for more witnesses. That is at some point this week. But bottom line it may also be possible after these marathon sessions, strapped to their desks on the Senate floor, some Senators may say they've already heard enough, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Mike thanks so much. Now it's time for our legal eagles to break down today's proceedings. Joining me now is, Bob Barr, Former Clinton Impeachment Manager, Sol Wisenberg Former Deputy Whitewater Independent Counsel and Harmeet Dhillon Attorney and Trump 2020 Advisor.

Board member Sol, well, it's been wise of Schumer or not to call amendment after amendment knowing that each will fail? Explain what the amendments been about and what this strategy might be here?

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, the amendments are both about issuing subpoenas for documents that the House members, the House majority were not able to get during the actual House impeachment process, and now they are about subpoenaing the witnesses that the Managers have wanted to hear.

The strategy behind it, which I think has worked to an extent, is in the debates over whether or not to actually subpoena these documents, the House Managers were telling their story, and they are telling the factual story about what happened. Now I think the President's lawyers have been very effective, but for the most part, they have not been arguing facts. And so I think they may be at a slight disadvantage.

INGRAHAM: We also heard from Chuck Schumer tonight, and I want to go to Bob Barr on this, who is claiming that the White House wasn't really making the case for why we don't need witnesses at this point? And everyone should understand that they are supposed to be debating resolution as it is, which would allow a vote on witnesses later, but Chuck Schumer is saying, no, no, we're not going to do that as Sol just said. Bob this is what Schumer said tonight. He stepped out to say this.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., MINORITY LEADER: We hear a lot of arguments from the President's Council. None of them directly address why there shouldn't be witnesses and documents. They talk about how bad the House is. I don't agree with that at all. But they don't argue one. They don't make a single argument why there shouldn't be witnesses and documents. That speaks volumes.


INGRAHAM: Bob, is that accurate? What was he listening to? I was hearing Cipollone and some of the other lawyers including Sekulow saying there is no underlying case here. They have a chance to do this in the House and now they want the Senate to play clean up for them?

BOB BARR, FORMER CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: That is exactly what the House Managers are trying to do and that is exactly what the White House lawyers are taking them to task for. What surprises me a little bit Laura is the fact that the House Managers have been allowed to talk about evidence that was not in evidence in the House record according to the House Resolution 660. That is, this Lev Parnas nonsense.

That should not be allowed to be discussed at this point, because it was not included in the House record, yet for some reason, objection has not been made to the House Managers straying from what they are supposed to be presenting and getting in that sort of stuff that should not be admitted.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, there was a point today where Adam Schiff was also advancing another interesting new standard, I guess today, the new world we live in, constitutes a neutral juror. Watch.


SCHIFF: Many of you in the Senate and many of us in the House have made statements about the President's conduct. For this trial, that is all in the past. Nothing matters now but the oath to do impartial justice. And that oath requires a fair trial.


INGRAHAM: Look this Harmeet, so that was then, this is now. Is that how our framers intended the impeachment process to go? You know, impeachment itself should be completely divorced from the trial and the people who are carrying out the impeachment, their motives, their intentions, their contact and their communications with other people on the outside, none of that matters now? Is that right? Including the Senators who are sitting and hearing this case who are running for President?

HARMEET DHILLON, TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD: Well, first of all, Adam Schiff lecturing anybody about objectivity and impartiality is a farce. But the clip you just played pointed out the problems with Adam Schiff being a Manager in this process in the first place.

He is very likely, if witnesses are allowed to be fact witnesses in this case, in any real court he would've been recused, sanctioned, having nothing to do with this whole thing. What he is saying there is that the past doesn't matter and it's all here in the present, some sort of solemn, you know, kind of artificial universe is silly.

He is the one who brought us to this point where they have a defective case, now he is the one begging for somebody else to save him. It doesn't make any sense, Laura.

INGRAHAM: All right, the President's team is now arguing against this new amendment it is amendment number five will depend to this. Hear what they are saying.


PATRICK PHILBIN, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Today deciding simply the issue of when this body should decide about whether or not there should be witnesses and documents subpoenaed, because that is the issue before the body now. It's not a question, finally, of whether there should be witnesses or documents, as the Majority Leader has made clear multiple times, the underlying resolution simply allows that issue to be addressed a week from now.

The only question at issue now and House Managers keep saying how can you have a trial without witnesses? How can you have a trial without documents? That's not even the issue. The issue is only now whether you have to decide that issue to subpoena documents or witnesses now or decide it in a week after you hear the presentations?

Why are they so eager to have you - begin a pope? Why is it necessary to make that decision without having more information? In the Clinton trial, this body agreed 100-0 that it made sense to have more information and then decide how to proceed. That it was rational to have more information hear the presentations, and then decide what more was necessary.

Why is it so important that you've got to make that decision now, without that information? That doesn't make any sense. The rational thing to do is to hear what sort of case they present, and more importantly, to hear the President's defense because the President had no opportunity in the House to present any defense.

We've heard a lot about the rule of law and about precedent. What was unprecedented was the process that was used in the House. A process that began with an impeachment inquiry that started without any vote by the House. This is the point I made earlier. The constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment of the House, not to any single member of the House.

So the press conference that Speaker Pelosi held on September 24th did not validly initiate an impeachment inquiry, no nor did it validly give power to committees to issues subpoenas. So we're talking now about the DOD documents what efforts did they make in their proceedings to get these documents that issued one invalid subpoena totally unauthorized under the constitution.

It was unprecedented because it was issued in an impeachment inquiry, purportedly, without any vote from the House never happened before in our history in a Presidential impeachment. It was unlawful.


INGRAHAM: That's Pat Philbin of course one of the senior members of the Trump Legal Team from the White House Counsel's Office making the case that the House had the chance to really push trying to subpoena these DOD documents during impeachment and decide, for whatever reason, not to really pursue that.

Sol, what about this argument late in the night now all of these guys are tired. I mean, I don't care who you are? I don't care how strong you are, sitting there most of the time, on your backside for the whole day, making these arguments? I mean Sol, you've been in court, you have been in court a long time, many hours, but you are making long, arcane points about constitutional law and procedure, it can get pretty difficult.

WISENBERG: You know, I'm not an expert on parliamentary procedure, but I think the point that one of the previous Speakers made, I think Bob Barr made, is a good one. This issue wasn't supposed to be decided about, whether or not to have witnesses or additional documents until later in the process, but by allowing them to make these amendments.

They are effectively arguing for it now. But what it's allowing them to do, tactically, is to get into the evidence and since the position of the President's Counsel is, look it's just insufficient on its face. I think tactically, it's been a good move by the Democrats.

INGRAHAM: Bob, I want to go to you on this. A lot of this is show. People think, well you're talking to the four wobbly Republicans, or you're talking to all hundred Senators. But you were there during impeachment in 1998 and 1999. You are talking to the American people, are you not? Because they are the ones who are going to put the pressure on Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Cory Gardner and any other sorry milquetoast Republican who can't get their act together on this. So the American people are the ones you've got to hit.

BARR: They are, and that is why it's rather disturbing, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, that the Impeachment Managers are being allowed to present evidence that should not even be part of the case and has not even been admitted into the case yet.

You know, when you go into court in a real trial, civil or criminal court, you can only argue that evidence which is properly going to be or has been before the court. In this case and I don't know why the Republicans are allowing this.

This is something that has disturbed me not just in these proceedings, but in all sorts of proceedings even though Mitch McConnell is a very strong parliamentarian, I don't know why the Republicans are just sitting back and letting the House Managers argue this.

INGRAHAM: I know you've got to give points to Schiff for this. We're going to go back to Congressman Jason Crow who is making a case on this amendment. Let's watch.


REP. JASON CROW, R-COLO.: Why the information now? The better question is why not now? This trial has started. Let's have the facts and information now. Ladies and gentlemen, the time is right. There is no reason why we shouldn't issue those subpoenas, get the facts, get the testimony, have the debate, let the American people see what's really going on here. Mr. Chief Justice, I will yield the balance of my time to Mr. Schiff.


SCHIFF: Senators, I will be brief but I do want to respond to a couple of points that my colleagues have made. First is the argument that you've heard before, and I have no doubt you will hear again, that these subpoenas issued by the House are invalid. Well, that is really wonderful.

I imagine when you issue subpoenas they will declare yours invalid as well. What is the basis of the claim they were invalid? Because they weren't issued the way the President wants. Part of the argument is you have to issue a subpoena the way we say, and that can only be done after there is a resolution that we approve of, adopted by the full House.

First they complained there was no resolution, no formal resolution of the impeachment inquiry and then when we pass the formal resolution, they complained about that. They complain when we didn't have one and when we did have one. They made that argument already in court and they lost.

In the McGahn case they similarly argued this subpoena for Mr. McGahn is invalid, and you know what the judge said? Essentially, that's nonsense. The President doesn't get to decide how the House conducts an impeachment proceeding? The President doesn't get to decide whether a subpoena it issues is valid or invalid?

Nor the House gets to decide because the House is given the sole power of impeachment. Not the President of the United States. Counsel says why are we going through all these documents? Aren't all these motions the same? In the fact of the matter is we are not talking about the same document here.

They would like nothing better than for you to know nothing about the documents we see. They don't want you to know what Defense Department documents they are withholding? Of course they don't want to hear that. They don't want you to know what State Department documents are, because if it's just abstract, if it's just we are here arguing for documents, they can say, that's really not that important, right? It's just some generic thing.

But when you learn as you have learned today and tonight what those documents are? When you see the efforts to conceal those Freedom of Information Act emails that my colleague Mr. Crow just referred to, and to see what was just released to the public, and it's all redacted! We find out what is under those retractions, and wow, surprise, its incriminating information they redacted out.

That is not supposed to be the basis of reduction under the Freedom of Information Act. That is what you call a cover up. They didn't want you to see that today. They didn't want you to see the before and after, the redacted of the non-redacted. They didn't want you to hear from these witnesses about the detailed personal notes that they took.

Ambassador Taylor took detailed, personal notes. Now they want you to try to contest what Ambassador Sondland said about his conversations with the President. Because Sondland, after he talked with the President, talk directly with Ambassador Taylor, talk directly with Mr. Morrison and explained his conversation with the President.

Well, guess what, Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor took detailed notes. There is a dispute about what the President told Mr. Sondland. Wouldn't you like to see the notes? They don't want you to know the notes exist. They don't want to have this debate. They would rather just argue, no oh, it's just about documents. It's just about when?

We want the Senators out there 16 hours of questions before they can see any of this stuff, then you know what, then we're going to move to dismiss this case. The wind, as I said earlier, means never. And finally, the Clinton precedent, President Clinton turned over 90,000 pages of documents before the trial.

I agree, let's follow the Clinton precedent. It's not even going to take 90,000 documents. The documents are already collected. You heard the testimony on the screen of Ambassador Taylor saying, oh, they are going to be turned over shortly. Well, we are still waiting. But they are still sitting there at the State Department.

We can play a video for you of Secretary Esper on one of the Sunday shows saying, we are going to comply with these subpoenas. That was one week, then somebody got to him and all of a sudden he was singing in a different tune. They don't want you to know what these documents hold.

And yes, we are showing you what these witnesses can tell you. We are showing you what Mick Mulvaney could tell you. And yes, we are making it hard for you. We're making it hard for you to say no. We're making it hard for you to say, I don't want to hear from these people. I don't want to see these documents. We are making it hard.

It is not our job to make it easy for you. It's our job to make it hard to deprive the American people of a fair trial, and that is why we are taking the time to do it. I yield back.


INGRAHAM: Let's now hear what the White House thinks. You're listening to Adam Schiff claiming that, well it's an attempt by the White House to withhold information from the American people. So now the American people can't get a fair trial.

Joining me now is Tony Sayegh who is of course the White House Impeachment Spokesman your response to Schiff saying that the White House is basically involved in a cover-up?

TONY SAYEGH, WHITE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT SPOKESPERSON: Look, this entire day has been about desperate Democrats trying to get a redo for their failed efforts to prove anything criminal, anything impeachable. And the House process Laura, that they completely control. If you want to talk about unfairness, Adam Schiff created a process in the House that deprived the President of every right possible.

His attorney today has had the first opportunity to engage in the impeachment since it began back some odd days ago. So when you talk about the hypocrisy of Adam Schiff's case, he has no evidence, he has no facts. All the witnesses he is trying to talk about bringing into the Senate, he never asked for them in the House process.

The evidence he is now saying is necessary to go forward after one's arguing they had overwhelming evidence proving in the House process. He never asked for it, he never subpoenaed for that evidence in the House. He didn't go to the courts to demand he get the evidence. It is a complete sham--

INGRAHAM: Oh, well they wanted Bolton but they weren't willing to go to court.

SAYEGH: --they weren't willing to go to court but that is the process. So if you wanted that evidence, if you wanted that witness, you take the time to get it to strengthen your case. What's really ironic is he keeps talking about witnesses.

They have 17 witnesses. They controlled that entire process and what is also even more ironic, is there are seven Democrats in the Senate today that were here during the Clinton impeachment and guess what all seven of those Democrats including Chuck Schumer did? They voted against having witnesses during the Clinton impeachment.

In fact, Chuck Schumer's second vote as a United States Senator was to not allow witnesses in a Clinton impeachment process. This entire process is unfortunately revealing what we've known all along and Pat Cipollone the White House Counsel has made a point that he has made very strongly.

INGRAHAM: What about the tactical issue here of Schiff pushing this issue of the amendment, and at least so far, it looks like Mitch McConnell has allowed these motions to pile up. They are all tabled. He's not getting what he wants in these amendments, but it is allowing them, as Sol just said, to put on part of their case. This is supposed to be just about, let's debate this resolution. Now they're getting into mentioning Lev Parnas, they're getting into real specifics. And does that put your guys back on their heels?

SAYEGH: Not at all. It's a lot of theater. It's not a lot of substance and is not going to have a meaningful impact ultimately on the votes. You've seen the Republicans in the procedure of votes today sticking together because I don't think they take too kindly to the fact that the Democrats have kind of taken advantage of the process and tried to advanced false narratives.

But look, as Pat Cipollone has said today in our answer, this entire attempt by Democrats is an insult to the American people, to the American voters and our election system and it shows the low regard that Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and others have for what the American people wanted reflected in the 2016 election, which is Donald Trump as President and they are trying to interfere even more so in the 2020 election.

INGRAHAM: I think that was a really strong argument by the White House today that this is about not just invalidating the last election, but basically stealing the next one the ultimate charge of meddling. Namely, the election, as Cipollone said this morning, I think it was this morning, nine months away. Let the people vote. Let's go vote. You govern and then let's vote.

That to me, for regular people, busy they're picking up their kids or whatever, why can't I vote? If I don't like Trump I will vote against Trump.

SAYEGH: That is the exact point which is why this is unprecedented as an impeachment happening in an Election Year. The election is supposed to be the ultimate determiner of who was the President of the United States.

INGRAHAM: You guys hear from the President saying now is at Davos he spoke there before after Greta Thunberg, I can't remember, but he spoke, it seems like it was last week I think so much has happened today. And he is on his way back. Have you guys been in contact? Have you discussed what he thinks so far?

SAYEGH: I know President has been monitoring the situation. I have nothing to report as far as his thoughts on the process thus far. Look, I think he has extreme confidence in his legal team and the case we are going to make throughout this entire process. I know that he feels very confident in the fact that the Republicans have stuck together. We've even gotten Democrats to support us. The American people support the President. I know that is very important to him as the pulling has indicated his support has arisen during this whole process.

INGRAHAM: Do you think this gets better for him the longer this goes on? I mean, Cipollone tonight said let's get this show on the road.

SAYEGH: I think it is pretty darn good when, after all the theatrics the only thing Democrats could do was advanced two week articles of impeachment without an allegation of a single crime and that is something we have to keep in mind. That's why they have to go through all these--

INGRAHAM: Now they say they don't need a crime.

SAYEGH: But the constitution disagrees.

INGRAHAM: Tony, we'll have you back. Obviously this is going to be going on. We really appreciate you joining us tonight. We want to go now to Fox News Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram joining us live from Capitol Hill. Chad, they just wrapped up voting on the fifth Schumer amendment to subpoenaed DOD documents. Any chance they are done after that tonight or they're going to pull an all night or as we used to say in college?

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, not quite, you know they just voted to table or set aside this proposal dealing with the latest proposal by Chuck Schumer here this dealt with as you said the Pentagon documents.

Just in the past couple of seconds, seconds before we came on the air here, there was a proposal by Chuck Schumer on another subpoena to subpoena Robert Blair and Michael Duffy, the OMB officials who are probably going to have two hours to debate on that.

I'm looking down at our monitor here trying to decipher what they might do because you know the hour is getting late. People are getting antsy, people are getting cranky, and you know, there might be an effort to wrap this up. Last hour they finished a vote in and Chuck Schumer told the Senate Majority Leader that it might be a while.

He said we have a number of amendments to go through here and it looks like they are going to go ahead and start on the next proposal here. You would have to get unanimous consent. Unanimous consent means all 100 Senators agree on how they're going to proceed? And as long as the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer doesn't back down that means that you're kind of locked in and he can continue to offer these amendments and you keep going and toggling back and forth in these two hour tranches of debate.

And right now Sylvia Garcia, Democrat from Texas, a freshman, she is one of the seven Impeachment Managers, she's now talking about the issue of subpoenas for Robert Blair and Michael Duffy. So what this means is that we are going to be locked back in here probably for at least an hour and a half at the very minimum.

It seems like the Democrats, the House prosecutors they have been taking their entire hour. The President's legal defense team they've only been taking only about 20 to 30 minutes maybe half that time, maybe less.

But you know as I look at this at 10:30 somebody asked me earlier, when might this wrap up? I predicted midnight just because things tend to close around midnight here. Chuck Schumer the Minority Leader said to Mitch McConnell on the floor earlier we don't have to do everything tonight, realizing that the Chief Justice John Roberts has Responsibilities to hear arguments across the street at the morning at 10:00 that is why the Senate Impeachment rule is mandate that the trial starts at 1:00 to accommodate the schedule of the Chief Justice.

So if they go really late tonight, you are going to have some bleary-eyed people as they actually get into the oral arguments prospectively, which will start tomorrow, presented by the House impeachment managers, Laura.

INGRAHAM: All right, Chad, thanks so much.

Joining me now is Matt Gaetz, House Judiciary Committee member, along with two members of President Trump's defense team, wow Lee Zeldin and Mark Meadows. Were you just added like five minutes ago? When did you guys become --


INGRAHAM: OK. Every minute I turn around someone down the hall is now an impeachment manager or impeachment defense team.

Congressman Meadows, let's start with you. It seems like the Senate Democrats didn't learn from the failed theatrics of the House Democrats, but in watching Chuck Schumer tonight, I really think this has taken on the feeling of punishment. Like, this is part of the punishment, these long nights, we are going to keep it going, and every amendment, and you need unanimous consent, and we are going to withhold unanimous consent.

MEADOWS: Well, not only is it the punishment that we are seeing right before our very eyes, but we now have five amendments from the Democrats, which are five more than we were allowed on the House side when you were talking about rules. But they haven't learned anything because what they don't understand is that the American people are really rejecting this kind of politics as usual effort. It's theatrics. Adam Schiff there on the floor having faux outrage every single time he gets up. The American people are smarter than that.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Zeldin, McConnell based his rules resolution pretty much on the Clinton impeachment trial rules resolution. But Democrats are still very unhappy. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If we are following the Clinton precedent, there would have been all this discovery done at the House level, and that is not what is happening at all.


INGRAHAM: That's not what happened, that's a cute little turn of phrase. All of us who have been following this --

REP. LEE ZELDIN, R-N.Y., HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Discovery the House level? We were calling that over the course of several months, and then at the end of the process, Jerry Nadler is on the floor of the House of Representatives that they proved the case beyond a doubt. They said their facts were uncontested. They were indisputable. And in their first day here at the Senate trial they're going to spend the entire day, what we are seeing right now on the screen, all the different things that they don't yet know. They spent an entire day telling the American public in the Senate all the different ways that they haven't yet been able to prove their case. We've been saying for several months that it's totally contested. You're relying on presumptions coming hearsay and lies.

INGRAHAM: Their whole argument though, is why, if they are innocent, if the president is innocent of all these charges -- they are not criminal charges, no crime -- but if he is innocent, then let the witnesses come forth, which is not really the way we as defense attorneys, which I am formally one, you don't have to prove your innocence. They have to prove your guilt, but they want to flip the table on the president.

ZELDIN: And you can fact-check the entire day, dozens of times that they've lied. So when you talk about executive privilege, we're sitting there in closed-door depositions or during the Intel hearings where the president's counsel isn't even allowed to be there to exert executive privilege. And Adam Schiff will say they never exerted executive privilege, or Jason Crow was just on the House floor. He was talking about OMB, Mark Sandy. We don't know why there was a hold on aid. Mark Sandy told us why there was a hold on aid, and it was because the president was concerned about other countries paying their fair share.

Why aren't they talking about President Zelensky and Andriy Yermak saying no pressure, no demand, no quid pro quo? Why won't the Democrats tell the American public the truth, that President Zelensky didn't have a confirmation of the hold on aid until August 29th? But they want to use Ambassador Sondland in a reply brief earlier today, in Schiff's reply brief, they don't mention that that was a guess. Or they want to use Ambassador Taylor's line, but they don't say that's hearsay.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Gaetz, so much of this hinges on discerning the subjective intent of the president. I believe that was on page 28 of the White House brief. It was 171 pages long, but that was a really important section that hasn't gotten much play. They actually mindread the president's intent, saying that on a call where there are 13 people listening, he had the subjective intent to try to do something that would abuse his inherent executive authority to hurt the U.S. national security. That is a wild precedent we are setting for the future.

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA., HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: If the American people are watching this waterfall of crazy allegations come from Democrats, they will see that you can categorize all of them into either hearsay, conjecture, or just a fundamental policy disagreement with the president.

INGRAHAM: Hold that thought. We're going to get back to Congressman Gaetz. Right now, I want to go to Capitol Hill where we're joined by someone who has actually been sitting through this. Joining me now is Marsha Blackburn, Senate Judiciary Committee member. Senator Blackburn, great to see you. How late do you all expect to go tonight, and what is it like in that room? I didn't make it over there today.

SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN, R-TENN., SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Yes, I think that we probably will go until about 1:00, quite frankly. And I think it is important that we get through this, that we set the resolution, that we hear from the House managers, then we hear from the president's team. We asked our questions and we decide if we want to move forward with this or if we want to move to a summary judgment and move to acquit the president.

INGRAHAM: What is the sense among your colleagues, talking about people like Cory Gardner, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, and others? Any sense from them whether they found Mitch McConnell's -- he's been quite lenient with these amendments, and he hasn't really put a lot of pressure, not that much on Schumer to start wrapping this up. Are they mollified by that?

BLACKBURN: Right. But, Laura, every vote has been 53 to 47. Every senator has voted with Leader McConnell and voted against all of the Schumer amendments. Sooner or later the Democrats should begin to realize, and I've got to tell you, I think the House managers should begin to realize we are not going to do their job for them. They keep saying, well, if you would call these witnesses then we would not have to go to court. So we didn't call them because we didn't want to go to court. And they want us to call them so they can get all of this done before the election.

And bear in mind, this is not only about, in their minds, damaging Donald Trump, but it's about removing him and taking him off the ballot. And they are talking about how -- they keep using some of the same phrases. They talk about people all being in the loop on some grand scheme, and about how the president is trying to cheat in the next election. So you see what their phrasing is because you know those are Democrats, they are all going to give you their talking points. As I say, they're the Stepford wives of liberalism. They will get a point, they will stick to it, and they will say it until the cows come home.

INGRAHAM: It's a show. They're putting on a show, complete with exhibits and graphics. Senator Blackburn, they are already going to soundbites. They are putting on their own cable show.


INGRAHAM: And they think that's enough. And I will tell -- no one is saying this really tonight, but I will tell you what really is going on. This is the 2020 campaign.


INGRAHAM: They are running a campaign. They are not really thinking it's going to change anything to get the DOD documents or Bolton is going to show up and deliver everything on a silver platter. They don't think that.

BLACKBURN: You're right.

INGRAHAM: This is about the election.

BLACKBURN: That's right, it's all politics all the time. That's right, all politics, all the time. It is a political, partisan impeachment. Nancy Pelosi was giving out party favors at the signing of the impeachment document. Those gold tipped pens with her name embossed in gold. This is just so inappropriate.

INGRAHAM: Yes, fist bumping Bill Maher, that was fun.


INGRAHAM: Senator Blackburn, look, drink your milk.


INGRAHAM: If I hear one more comment about all they can do is drink milk and water, like you guys aren't going to eat -- like the siege of Leningrad.

BLACKBURN: I'm drinking Red Bull. I'm ready for this.


INGRAHAM: Red Bull, exactly. We'll check back in with you later in the week. Thanks so much for joining us.

BLACKBURN: Absolutely. Take care.

INGRAHAM: All right, I want to bring back our congressmen in -- I feel bad for the senators -- Gaetz, Zeldin, and Meadows. Here is Mr. Impeachment himself, Adam Schiff. He did put on quite a performance today on the Senate trial rules resolution. Watch.


SCHIFF: If you only get to see part of the evidence, if you only allow one side or the other a chance to present their full case, your verdict will be predetermined by the bias in the proceeding. If the House cannot call witnesses or introduce documents and evidence, it's not a fair trial.


INGRAHAM: Congress Meadows, this isn't fair, and he said, don't try to dictate what we did in the House, but what we you're doing is not fair.

MEADOWS: Listen, Adam Schiff has amnesia. He's forgotten about the 71 days that we denied the president legal counsel to be in there when it was in the House. And yet here he is talking about what's fair? Listen, the headline should be today, really, corrupt investigators demand fair trial. How do you do that? It is just unbelievable.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Gaetz, they pushed back on what Pat Cipollone said this morning when he said nobody was allowed in the SCIF, he said congressmen weren't allowed in the skiff, and then they went crazy saying, no, no, congressmen were allowed in the SCIF. Clear that up for us, because it was only House Intel members, correct?

GAETZ: Mark and Lee were both there because they were on the select committees that allowed you access to the evidence. Remember, in the House Judiciary Committee, they had had Corey Lewandowski as their maiden voyage for impeachment, but the boat never made it out of the harbor before sinking as a result of Lewandowski torching them in public hearings. So everything changed from Russia to Ukraine.

In Russia, it was put out as much information as possible. When it came to the Ukraine, they had learned that lesson that they looked more and more ridiculous the more the American people saw the evidence. So they tried to constrain it and hold it secret as long as humanly possible.

But if you look at what we've learned today, it's been absolutely nothing. If you woke up today in a medically induced coma and you have only come to be awake as a consequence of "The Ingraham Angle," you have missed absolutely nothing. No new evidence, no new information, and just more of the same.


INGRAHAM: I get so many emails. You guys are probably getting them throughout the day, so many from across the country going, what is going on in Washington? That is what everyone keeps saying. What on earth is going on a Washington? Imagine if we had this many hours in a 24-hour period devoted to enforcing our border, devoted to ensuring that people who are in the country illegally and part of criminal gangs are summarily removed. Imagine if they actually did their jobs.

GAETZ: That would be a crime, though. Here this is no crime, no victim. When people cross our border, that actually is a crime when they do so.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Zeldin, they keep saying, we should just have a montage or just throw it up every time we do this. Nobody is above the law. But wait a second, there are a lot of people who seem to be above the law in the Democrats' understanding. The Bidens, we haven't put on a case about the Bidens real, about the Bidens yet. The Bidens. People who are undocumented in the United States, they are not only above the law, you're going to give them health care, the Democrats are saying.

ZELDIN: In New York state they are actually in the process of passing a new law with automatic voter registration, and they just started a new law a few weeks ago where they are giving all illegal immigrants drivers licenses.

INGRAHAM: Plenty of people are above the law. Is this, though, when you watch this, to the extent the American people are following it closely, which I doubt they are following a very close, but if they are, do they see this as the Democrats' last ditch effort to scuff up this president before 2020, before the Democrats in earnest pick their nominee?

MEADOWS: What I'm hearing from people back home is that they are mad. They believe that Adam Schiff and his colleagues believe that they are more important than the voters that are going to show up in November. They say, how can 100 senators and 435 members of the House believe that there will is more important than the people's will? And they are not having it. They're not buying it.

INGRAHAM: There was a moment in the hearing today where Cipollone really personalized it. Congressman Gaetz, I want you to react to this, specifically focusing on this guy, Charlie Kupperman. Watch.


PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: They withdrew the subpoena, they evaded a decision, and they are asking you to become complicit in that evasion of the court. It's ridiculous. Obstruction? For going to court? It's an act of patriotism to defend the constitutional rights of the president, because if they can do to the president, they could do it to any of you, and they could do it to any American citizen.


INGRAHAM: So for Mr. Kupperman exerting his right, his right, they want to punish him?

GAETZ: Last I checked, this is why we have courts. When there is a conflict between branches, the reason we have people that wear black robes around is to resolve these disputes.

But I've got to say, Pat Cipollone did a phenomenal job today, and I am here for the Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow dynamic. It is clear those two guys are little competitive with one another, and we are getting the best of both of them. They were both phenomenal, and I think they got better as the day went on.

INGRAHAM: Congressmen, thank you very much for being here. Late nights for all of you. And we're going to go back to the trial, where Congressman Sylvia Garcia is debating Schumer's sixth amendment for subpoenas of OMB officials.

REP. SYLVIA GARCIA, D-TEXAS, HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: Again, no one else knew why, why this decision made so secretly and without any explanation. Why was the president compromising the safety of a strategic ally in the region? Why was he harming our national security interests in the process? On July 26, Duffey attending the meaning of high-level executive branch officials. Duffey made clear that the freeze on military aid was based on President Trump's express direction, but apparently he could not clearly explain why there was a freeze beyond a vague reference to concerns about corruption.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The official set.

GARCIA: Witnesses who testified before the House all provided the same consistent recounting of what happened. As you can see from the statements on the slide, officials who were not provided clear explanations for such a dramatic step. As we have already discussed earlier and will explain in more depth during the trial, these facts contradict the White House's recent claims of why President Trump froze the Ukraine aid. Those facts clearly show efforts by this president and those around him to fabricate explanations after the president's illegal scheme came to light.

In fact, the White House Counsel's own review of the freeze reportedly found that Mulvaney and OMB attempted to create an after-the-fact justification for the president's decision. That is the polite way of saying Mulvaney's team lead an effort to cover up president's conduct, and to manufacture misleading pretextual explanations to hide the corruption.

But, senators, there's still more. Blair and Duffey were also involved in the events surrounding the president's July 25 phone call with President Zelensky. On July 19, Blair along with other officials received an email from Ambassador Sondland. The email described a conversation he had just had with President Zelensky. Ambassador Sondland stated that Zelensky was, quote, "prepared to receive POTUS call and will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation," and will, quote, "turn over every stone." As reflected in this email --

INGRAHAM: That was Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, freshman congresswoman from Texas.

Back with you now, our panel of legal those, Bob Barr, Sol Wisenberg, Harmeet Dhillon. Sol, they keep haggling over aid that eventually was released, and it turns out, Ukraine didn't even know about it, that it was held, until I guess it was August 29th or something like that. So shouldn't the case basically and there?

SOLOMON WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Most of the facts have been known for quite some time. So, as I've said many times on your show, there is an argument for taking everything that has been considered by the House, yes, accept it, let them put it into evidence, and then arguing from that.

Can you get additional -- would people like to hear from John Bolton? I'd like to hear from John Bolton. I think that would be great theater. And as you and I have talked about, be careful what you ask for. I think John Bolton is much more likely to be damaging to Rudy Giuliani than he is to President Trump. But the basic facts here are known. Each side puts a different spin on it, but they are known. The evidence is, for the most part, in.

INGRAHAM: I want to now play what Cipollone said earlier about the need to move this forward. Watch.


PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: If I showed up in any court in this country and I said, judge, my case is overwhelming but I'm not ready to go yet, I need more evidence before I can make my case, I would get thrown out in two seconds, and that's exactly what should happen here.


INGRAHAM: Harmeet, you are somebody who is in court like every other week, it seems, and I'm checking up on your litigation, and you're very busy. Did Pat have that right?

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY: Thrown out and sanctioned with case terminating sanctions, yes. This is absolutely right. I think Sol and Bob also pointed out that the way this thing is going with argument that includes reference to evidence that's not in evidence being made in this court, the House managers are getting away with murder. And I think for political reasons, the defense team is not standing up and objecting every other sentence, which is what would be happening in a real court.

But Pat is absolutely right, this would never fly in court. And it's, frankly, extraordinary for a former prosecutor, Adam Schiff, six-year prosecutor, to even come with a straight face and say I was the judge, I was the guy in charge on the other side, I was a prosecutor on the other side, and now I need more time from you. It doesn't make any sense.

INGRAHAM: Bob, on the other side, this is what Schumer said tonight about the need to keep this going.


SCHUMER: We believe witnesses and documents are extremely important, and a compelling case has been made for them. We will have votes on all of those.

We will not back off on getting votes on all of these amendments, which we regard as extremely significant and important to the country.


INGRAHAM: Bob, again, we keep going back to this point, but getting those documents and that testimony, it was incumbent upon the House managers to take the deliberation and the time and the effort required to pursue those documents, and if they didn't get them, go to court to enforce their subpoenas. But it was urgent until Pelosi before Christmas decided it was not.

BOB BARR: Of course, that's the case, but what Chuck Schumer is doing now is very smart. I saw him operate when he and I served together on the House Judiciary Committee when he ran rings around Republicans time and again. Chuck Schumer is a street fighter. He is tough, he knows the rules and he will push the limits.

He knows, for example, that if he can keep this going and wear down two or three or four Republican senators, those that you mentioned earlier, and if they, in fact, are hearing from their constituents about the arguments that the House managers are making, why is the administration hiding evidence? Why shouldn't there be witnesses? What about this guy, Lev Parnas? I think Chuck Schumer is playing this thing very smart, and for some reason the Republicans are letting him get away with it and the House managers as well.

INGRAHAM: Is that a fair characterization, Sol? Is McConnell, quote, letting Schumer get away with this? Or with the rules of unanimous consent, you don't have to be a parliamentarian, but you can't move this forward without unanimous consent, meaning Schumer is the gatekeeper. He wants to keep going until 4:00 in the morning. He can kind of do that, too, if he wants.

WISENBERG: I don't know how much McConnell can do about it. And I do think people are going to get tired of it. But if I can go back to a point about Kupperman again, who was mentioned by Bob Barr, that I think is very important. Kupperman, this official that worked for Bolton, tried to do the right thing. He got a subpoena from the House, and the White House Counsel told him you can't obey that. And he went to a federal court, it's called an interpleader action, and he said to the court, tell me what to do. I want to obey the House subpoena, but the president of the United States has told me I can't do it.

And the judge there, Judge Dick Leon, a great judge, set an expedited timetable to decide this, and the House withdrew the subpoena. Why would they do that? And they never, as you have pointed out, never subpoenaed Bolton. So to say, we need the evidence because the president wouldn't give it to us, but you wouldn't even subpoena this person. And to respond to that by saying, well, it would've been in the courts for years, that's not true. Judges expedite, in this kind of a case, an impeachment hearing, you don't think they would expedite that? The most important thing the House and Senate could do except for a declaration of war? Come on. And I just don't understand it. I think it was a tremendous blunder by Nancy Pelosi.

INGRAHAM: Richard Leon, of course the district court judge who is the one who actually handled, I believe, the Kupperman issue and did it quite expeditiously. Counselors, thank you, each of you. I know you will be with us a lot this week, so thanks so much.

Now, it's no secret that the media for the most part are rooting against the president on impeachment. They want a conviction. They want him removed. They want Biden or Warren or a combination to take over next year. But they're also letting Democrats get away with making some pretty outrageous claims. Here's what the House's lead prosecutor Adam Schiff told CBS News in an interview that aired tonight.


SCHIFF: It would not be appropriate for the president to seek to call witnesses merely to try to perpetuate the same smear campaign that was foiled when his plot was discovered that will allow them to continue to attack a political opponent. That's an illegitimate abuse of the trial. The justice who may have an opportunity to rule on the materiality of witnesses, as it was a senator should not prevent that kind of abuse.


INGRAHAM: Here to debate it, John Solomon, investigative journalist, FOX News contributor, Richard Goodstein, lawyer and former Clinton adviser. John, why does Adam Schiff, he was talking about Hunter Biden, why does Adam Schiff seem to have such an aversion -- he spent the whole day saying, why don't you want witnesses, why can't you have documents? But when Hunter Biden's name comes up, boy, they run for cover.

JOHN SOLOMON: Listen, whether it's Joe Biden or it's Adam Schiff, the story is it's a conspiracy theory to think that Hunter Biden did something wrong or Joe Biden did something wrong. They've had that line down for weeks now.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact that Joe Biden bragged he fired the prosecutor. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact that Hunter Biden, his company was under investigation at the moment that Joe Biden forced the firing of that Ukraine prosecutor. It's a fact that Hunter Biden, his firm, collected $3.4 million from a Ukraine gas firm while his dad oversaw Ukraine policy. And it is a fact that in March of this year, for all the stuff started with Zelensky and President Trump, that Ukraine prosecutors on their own reopened this case because they thought they were new corruption allegations to examine.

INGRAHAM: It wasn't just you who were pursuing some of this. Ken Vogel of "The New York Times" was also pursuing this.


INGRAHAM: Richard, do you think the Democrats might be, because the Republicans have done this before, too. If we only got Bolton, they it would -- you don't know what you're going to get, ever, correct? It Might be a good thing for them. It might be not so good.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: I wouldn't bet that Bolton is going to do anything particular. I don't Bolton is going to be John Dean, if that is what you are getting at.

INGRAHAM: What about the idea of this push for witnesses one by one by one in the amendments?

GOODSTEIN: That's as regards Hunter Biden?

INGRAHAM: As regards just this process, then I want to get to Hunter Biden.

GOODSTEIN: I think the Democrats have done a great job preparing for today. If you hadn't followed things and you tuned in, you saw an hour where they were putting up videos and they were putting up graphics, and they had most of their presenters actually did a pretty good job, and tied things together. And they approached each hour of prime time as if somebody was tuning and who really was unfamiliar with this story.

INGRAHAM: I agree with you, I think it was smart.

GOODSTEIN: Whereas I don't think the White House Counsel did. They had the votes, so they figured why --

INGRAHAM: They didn't want to spend -- I think that is actually fair. I think Adam Schiff has had his best day that he has probably ever had in politics.

GOODSTEIN: Hakeem Jeffries, too.

INGRAHAM: Gentlemen, the Biden campaign is apparently, this is new news, dictating to reporters how to cover the Biden family's Ukraine dealings. They sent a memo to news outlets that says, "To fail to make clear that the conspiracy theory and false accusations about Joe Biden have been comprehensively disproven, to artificially prop up these egregious lies, is to make you an enabler of misinformation." John, might as well just be directed at you, you and this show, and anyone else, Hannity, and so forth.

SOLOMON: He named me in his statement. Joe Biden isn't the victim of a smear campaign or a conspiracy theory. He is a person who failed to see that he had an appearance of a conflict of interest and he didn't recuse himself when he should have. That is just not a position in my stories. State Department witnesses that Adam Schiff called made that point.

INGRAHAM: I want to read, this is just out tonight from Politico. "Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence," according to new documents. He claims that, and this is incredible, he claimed in this memo, when they relate to this Mr. Z in these text messages, in the most charitable view of the situation that Schiff's staff committed the equivalent of congressional malpractice by not looking more than an inch deep to determine the facts before foisting this erroneous information on his colleagues and the American public. And then a senior GOP aide says but given the selective redactions and contextual clues, it seems as though Chairman Schiff sought to portray an innocuous meeting with Ukrainian Oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky as in an insidious one with president of Ukraine, of course the same last initial, Zelensky, simple because both of their surnames start with the letter "z." This is Schiff again screwing up the transcript, now mischaracterizing Parnas.

GOODSTEIN: So he is their lead presenter. Pat Cipollone is the lead for the White House, who totally mischaracterized about the access to the SCIF. So yes, are these guys who are under the gun and have a lot to keep track of going to make some mistakes? Yes, they will.

INGRAHAM: I think Mr. Z, it looks like this was not Zelensky, which again, there are other things that Parnas has said that I asked Rudy Giuliani about last night, and Rudy Giuliani wouldn't answer some of the questions, did answer the one, I don't know if you saw it, about Bill Barr. He said I've never even had a conversation with Bill Barr. So he was very adamant about that but wouldn't talk about --

GOODSTEIN: Can I just saw one quick thing about what John said. If Donald Trump really cared about corruption in Ukraine, everything John talked about he would've brought up with whoever the head of Ukraine was in 2017, in 2018, and he would've actually brought up corruption as opposed to simply looking for an announcement of an investigation.

INGRAHAM: We've got to go, we've got 20 seconds here. But the president ran on stopping the gravy train --

GOODSTEIN: But he never brought that up with Zelensky.

INGRAHAM: He ran on gravy train. He said NATO has to pony up more money, that was the first part of the call.

What a wild hour. Both of you, great to have you on. We'll be back here tomorrow night, full coverage of the impeachment trial.

Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here.

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.