This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 8, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right, I'm Laura Ingraham, this is “The Ingraham Angle,” from a wild Washington tonight in a blistering late afternoon letter to House Democratic Leaders, the White House Counsel is making it clear this means war. And Fox News has also learned exclusively that U.S. Attorney John Durham's review of the origins of the Trump investigation is expanding because of what he has already uncovered. This is good.
You will not see a better lineup of guests to break all of this down, people who are actually practicing Attorneys, understanding the constitution. No hyperbole, these are the facts and you're going to get them tonight, the President's Attorney Rudy Giuliani, Joe diGenova, Gregg Jarrett, Sara Carter all here.
Also tonight, the Liberal Mayor of Minneapolis this is classic, is trying to shut down President Trump's rally there Thursday night. We have exclusive campaign reaction from Mercedes Schlapp that is going to be fun.
But first to tonight's big breaking news, the White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sends a lacerating letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Committee Chairs Adam Schiff, Eliot Engel, and Elijah Cummings making it clear that the White House is not going to be complying with the Democrats for impeachment inquiry.
I want to take you through two important passages from this letter. Because I believe it's necessary to lay out what this fight is really all about. The current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater, an unauthorized impeachment inquiry that conflicts with all historical precedent and rides roughshod over due process and the separation of powers.
It continues "Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid in a violation of due process. In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives have never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step."
Now as we told you last night one of the most fateful decisions of the entire charade was when Nancy Pelosi put Adam Schiff in charge of it all. Schiff is a prevaricating, priggish partisan. He's one of the many reasons why the White House is dismissing this entire episode as a farce.
The White House Counsel is 100 percent correct. This non-impeachment, impeachment is not a constitutional undertaking it's a political hit job. Exactly what our founders did not want for our republic.
Consider this commentary about the dangers of impeachment. The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. Sounds like the views of our next guests, perhaps, Rudy Giuliani and Joe DiGenova -- wrong. Those were the 1998 anti-impeachment views of none other than current House Judiciary Committee Chair, Jerry Nadler. So, my friends, what has changed? Donald Trump is in the White House, that's what changed. Here now, the aforementioned, Rudy Giuliani, personal attorney to the president, and Joe DiGenova, former U.S. attorney, frequent guest. Rudy, what does this forceful letter mean from Cipollone?
RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY: Well, it's a brilliant –
INGRAHAM: What does it signal us about the road ahead?
GIULIANI: I think it was brilliant that he quoted Nadler for another reason. What he wrote is traditional American liberalism.
GIULIANI: And when I was a young person, liberal, conservative, liberals believed that you have to defend civil rights even for your enemies. You have to defend civil rights for the Nazis and for the communists and -- because if they're denied civil rights, everyone will be. All of a sudden, this Congress has run roughshod over the right to call witnesses, the right to confront the witnesses against you, the right of counsel. I mean, they are threatening to imprison Attorney General Barr and to impeach me. Well, that's his government lawyer and his private lawyer. They want all my attorney's client documents. I've never seen a subpoena like this.
INGRAHAM: We're going to get to the attorney-client privilege issue in a moment. Joe DiGenova, the House's failure to provide -- this from Cipollone's letter -- provide coequal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it only as they determine. You warned about this, the drip, drip, drip of the leaks coming out of the Democrat offices, they are conspiring with, of course, the whistleblower. We'll get into that in a moment. But what about this?
JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, what you're seeing is regicide. This is regicide by another name, fake impeachment. The Democrats in the House want to destroy the president. They don't want to preserve the republic. There's nothing honorable about what is happening. This is a despicable abusive constitutional power. If they had on the floor a vote to establish an impeachment inquiry, that would give the Republicans subpoena power. But the Democrats aren't doing that. They want to deny them subpoena power. So, what do we get? We get, first one, anonymous informant, then a second anonymous informant, I refuse to call them whistleblowers. These two nonentities are suicide bombers that the Democrats have unleashed on the democratic process. They actually think that the American people are going to accept having people testify secretly without anyone knowing who they are, where they worked, what their party affiliation was, who they conspired with. It's pretty obvious that this first suicide bomber who sent that complaint to the inspector general was a paid Democratic operative of the Democratic Party.
INGRAHAM: You mean political suicide bomber obviously.
INGRAHAM: Before we start getting people -- so really meant suicide. (LAUGHTER)
INGRAHAM: Get a sense of humor, OK? If you still think that, then you really should -- you watch another show where we have to spell it all out for you. All right. Rudy Giuliani, this is -- this is critical, though. So, if you are being set up as this president is in this situation, you have no right to know who is -- who's making these accusations. They say, in response, well, this isn't a political -- this isn't a judicial process. Impeachment is a political process. They may complain about Cipollone's letter saying, oh, this was just a political letter, oh, that's what they're doing is a political letter. He had quite a few citations there.
GIULIANI: Pat -- Pat cited actually a very imminent constitutional scholar for why due process is necessary to an impeachment proceeding, otherwise it's unconstitutional -- Jerry Nadler. Of course, due process is necessary. Fairness, basic fairness -- let's call it basic fairness. The American people, when they think about this are going to be totally outraged. They actually want to impeach him on the testimony of hidden witnesses who are (ph) behind a curtain, we don't know who they are. I went back to read two books about the Salem witch trials. And they required –
INGRAHAM: You do that in your spare time, Rudy?
GIULIANI: I just drove through Salem.
GIULIANI: They required witnesses to face the witch. And some witches were acquitted. It's ridiculous. You have to go back before the Magna Carta. The only place I can think of where we had trials like this is in the Soviet Union. And that's what -- that's what the Democrats are trying to do? I mean, it's so obvious –
INGRAHAM: I think there –
GIULIANI: -- that this is -- remember the president used to call this a witch hunt? This is now worse than a witch hunt.
INGRAHAM: The witches had it better, in other words.
GIULIANI: They had more rights.
INGRAHAM: They had it better.
GIULIANI: They had more rights.
INGRAHAM: We are going through this letter painstakingly, because it's eight pages long. There's a lot in it. And it's getting dismissed by the Democrats because they are being called out for what they're doing. They don't like that. They like having a one-sided show here. So, there's another really important part that our viewers have to understand. The committees have ominously threatened without any legal basis and before the committees even issued a subpoena that any failure to appear in response to a mere letter request for a deposition shall constitute evidence of obstruction. (LAUGHTER)
INGRAHAM: This is great. The suggestion that it would be somehow problematic for anyone to raise long-established executive branch confidentiality interest, Joe DiGenova, and privileges, in response to a request for a deposition is legally unfounded. These points amount to nothing more than strong-arm tactics designed to rush proceedings without any regard for due process and the rights of individuals in the executive branch. People who are practicing U.S. attorneys on television tonight and all day today saying, this letter, Joe, where he's raising these issues, Cipollone raising these issues, is itself evidence of obstruction. DIGENOVA: Yes, I know.
INGRAHAM: Now, this is the new thing, Pelosi is saying the same thing tonight. We'll put it up on the screen for everyone who wants to read Nancy Pelosi's legal wisdom.
DIGENOVA: Well, what the Democrats have done, because of their continuing effort to ignore due process, to ignore the presumption of innocence, to redo the Electoral College, they want to destroy all the substantial pillars that make our country have the rule of law. They lie about every fact. They lie about every rule. And what they're doing now is this letter from Cipollone is so spectacular and so on the money that they only have one option is to just -- just ignore it and say it doesn't mean anything.
INGRAHAM: Well, you can't be on the defensive here, right?
INGRAHAM: This -- you have to stay forward-leaning in responding to this. This has -- they have to be defined, framed and put up on the wall. Everyone has to know what's happening to this country. What's happening is, they don't like this president. They don't like draining the swamp. They didn't like him from day one. They didn't like him coming down the escalator -- whatever it is, they didn't like him. They wanted him out. They wanted him out day one. And they are being thwarted in their efforts. And they're not going to stop until they –
GIULIANI: Well, that's the –
INGRAHAM: -- destroy every major pillar, you're right, of this government.
GIULIANI: That's the great danger to the rule of law –
DIGENOVA: It is.
GIULIANI: -- when you treat somebody that you don't like and you take away their -- it's very easy to give somebody rights, who you like. The real question about whether you're really dedicated to the law is, will you give someone you dislike those rights? And American liberals used to be very, very proud of that. These people –
INGRAHAM: They didn't like the FISA court, either, remember that? Now, the FISA court is the greatest thing ever.
GIULIANI: These people are disgraceful.
DIGENOVA: Oh, yes.
GIULIANI: They should be embarrassed of themselves.
INGRAHAM: One thing that I was thinking about, if this is what can happen with a president you don't like, you have no real basis for any impeachable offense -- it's absurd. So, this means every time we have a House in the hands of one political party and a president from another political party, you get some detailee from deep state to go into the White House, oh, I heard, and this was said, this disturbed me. Can you imagine the unmasking conversations they had in the White House? I mean, what if there was a whistleblower then?
GIULIANI: Yes. This is like the Hatfields and the McCoys. I mean, they do it and what –
INGRAHAM: It's back and forth. It's suicide.
GIULIANI: It is so -- it is so ignorant. It is so stupid. It's Neanderthal. I mean, the -- to say that he doesn't have a right to call witnesses, to say that -- let's say I assert attorney-client privilege. I mean, I'm obstructing justice by asserting attorney-client privilege? Every single thing I have in my file is a document I created in defense of the president. Let's say the president was a terrorist. They wouldn't be allowed to subpoena that from me. And they wouldn't be allowed to say I'm obstructing justice. They try to intimidate me in my role as a lawyer. Now, it doesn't work, because -- I mean, you know, Fat Tony Salerno couldn't intimidate me. These little creeps aren't going to intimidate me.
INGRAHAM: Well, maybe -- because I have to play devil's advocate here, Rudy. I mean, attorney-client privilege doesn't necessarily apply to everything you do. GIULIANI: Of course not. I have a right -- (CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Right, because you have to be representing him in a legal capacity, correct?
GIULIANI: If my client doesn't wave, I have to be very careful that I don't make a mistake.
INGRAHAM: Lawfare blog. They hit you on this. Put it up. (CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: I have to interpret it -- I have to interpret it expansively. You know that. To protect -- (CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: All right. Well, I remember, there you go. This is Lawfare blog. Giuliani can't rely on attorney-client privilege to avoid congressional testimony. The privilege exists to protect the confidential communications between a client and an attorney made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. It does not protect, for instance, communications your attorney might have, let's say, with foreign government officials or for that matter, with U.S. government.
GIULIANI: If that's in order to obtain evidence in order to exonerate your client, it damn well does apply. This is what they have -- they've won (ph) –
GIULIANI: -- the narrative here. They say, we were looking for bad information about Joe Biden -- no, we weren't. I was looking for it two years before Joe Biden was even a candidate. This was to obtain information to exonerate him. Everything I have in my file exonerates him. It shows the collusion –
INGRAHAM: What about -- weren't you looking at corruption in general, too? Weren't you helping –
GIULIANI: Well, the corruption in general is what deprived us of the evidence of collusion. Joe Biden got the case dismissed that would have revealed the rest of the collusion. That's why I ran into Joe Biden. They gave me Joe Biden –
GIULIANI: -- and told me, your corrupt vice president interfered with - (CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Yes, this is all going to be -- this is -- I mean, this is -- they're throwing everything up against the wall. They would never do it if it weren't you. That's -- I mean, it would all be privileged if it weren't you. But it's you, so they're going to question all of it. All right. Joe, I mentioned this earlier, but here's how the media reacted to the White House's letter tonight. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a letter of political posturing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's all about partisanship and politics.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It seems to be a political letter, and I wouldn't be surprised if some parts of it are in all caps.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, the White House is putting impeachment inquiry in scare quotes like it's not a thing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It appears to be dressed up in a political argument. They don't have any legal precedent to point to here that indicates anything that supports a single thing they've uttered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: A lot of constitutional scholars in that crowd, I know, Joe. DIGENOVA: Well, this is what television has become –
GIULIANI: My God.
DIGENOVA: -- with political commentary. This is an embarrassment for these networks to put people like that on who don't know what they are talking about, who are embarrassing themselves. And they are saying an absolutely ridiculous thing. The Cipollone letter is brilliant. It's absolutely brilliant. And these people from Lawfare, by the way –
DIGENOVA: -- guess who's working there now? James Baker, the disgraced former FBI chief counsel.
INGRAHAM: Oh, they hired the best people over there.
DIGENOVA: You know, I mean, give me a break, Lawfare. They have a lot of money. They work out of Brookings Institution.
DIGENOVA: And they are a bunch of hacks, total hacks.
INGRAHAM: Let's talk about, though, what this means for next steps. OK. So, let's say Pelosi who, by the way, just put this up on the screen. I said I would show it earlier. The letter is manifestly wrong -- I'm not going to do my impersonation now. It's simply another unlawful attempt to hide the facts of the Trump administration's brazen efforts to pressure foreign powers to intervene in the 2020 election. The White House should be warned -- here it is -- that continued efforts to hide the truth of the president's abuse of power -- it's all concluded already, there is no investigation, she's concluded it - - from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction. In other words, an aggressive letter from the White House counsel –
DIGENOVA: It's obstruction.
INGRAHAM: So, heads, they win, tails, we lose.
GIULIANI: The reality is –
DIGENOVA: It's silly.
GIULIANI: -- people should read the letter for themselves. It's a very well-written legal letter. It's supported by precedent (ph). Chucky Toddy, what's his name?
INGRAHAM: Chuck Todd.
GIULIANI: The guy with the beard? Who said there's no support for it, he doesn't even read the footnotes -- Watkins (ph) against the United States, Quinn (ph) against the United States.
GIULIANI: Those are cases, I can't imagine you can read them, but it says due process applies to a congressional hearing. It is a very, very strong brief, a very strong letter. It is supported by footnotes, not bull, and not political propaganda. It's hardly political. It's legal. And it's beyond their competence because they are so mesmerized with going after Trump, they've lost all common sense.
INGRAHAM: I don't care if the White House counsel does put some politics in it. I mean, this is political.
GIULIANI: It is a brilliant –
INGRAHAM: I mean, they are hitting you across the head with a two-by-four, you know, and you respond.
GIULIANI: I would ask people to read it and see if it's the hysterical thing they were talking about it.
INGRAHAM: So, Nancy Pelosi doesn't get what she wants. Adam Schiff, they don't get what they want. They've already concluded, they've already made all their conclusions with no subpoena power to the Republicans. Minority gets no rights in this land of impeachment (ph). (CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: It does a good job of showing what a liar Schiff is.
INGRAHAM: Right, so, Schiff –
GIULIANI: Slams him, nails him. He is a liar.
INGRAHAM: Schiff is totally exposed.
GIULIANI: Even "The Washington Post" found him to be a liar.
INGRAHAM: Yes, the four (ph) Pinocchios, Schiff's exposed. She doesn't get what she wants, Joe, here. She doesn't get documents, witness testimony. They are all freaked out about the State Department guy not showing up today. So, now what? They're going to go to court? They're going to go to court and try to argue this?
GIULIANI: Yes, go to court.
INGRAHAM: OK, good. Let's do it.
GIULIANI: Or vote. Or vote.
DIGENOVA: Well –
GIULIANI: Get the vote and give a subpoena power.
DIGENOVA: If they go to court, they're are going to lose because the president and the secretary of state and others are invoking executive privilege, confidentiality privilege, absolute immunity privilege. And they are doing that because they have a right to when there is not a formal impeachment proceeding underway. So, since the Democrats have chosen this route, they've also chosen the legal finale, which is they lose.
INGRAHAM: We played the anchors earlier but here's how some of the MSNBC's legal analysts -- (LAUGHTER)
INGRAHAM: -- Neal Katyal -- he interpreted the White House's letter like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEAL KATYAL, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: I think Trump wants to be impeached in a way. I mean, he doesn't have a domestic agenda. His foreign policy is in shambles as the whole Kurd example shows. So, at least on impeachment, there's something to talk about and something for him to run against. This eight-page memo I think can only be explained as, please impeach me because I've got nothing else going on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: He was S.G.
GIULIANI: Where do they find these people?
INGRAHAM: He was S.G.
DIGENOVA: Yes, he was.
INGRAHAM: Yes, former solicitor general of the United States of America.
DIGENOVA: He's kind of an embarrassment.
GIULIANI: Under Obama?
INGRAHAM: I think so.
GIULIANI: No wonder the Justice Department was in shambles.
DIGENOVA: Really sad.
GIULIANI: That genius?
INGRAHAM: Under Obama? I think it was.
DIGENOVA: Yes, yes.
GIULIANI: Oh my goodness.
INGRAHAM: Thirteen months. He was in there for 13 months.
GIULIANI: But you know, the reality is -- the reality is all Americans should be concerned about this because it really is a principle we have to always honor, which is we have to protect everyone's rights. And if you don't like Donald Trump, even if you don't like him, how can you possibly tolerate the idea –
INGRAHAM: Call the vote.
GIULIANI: -- he's going to be tried by anonymous witnesses, behind the wall?
INGRAHAM: I say this about expansion of the military in the Middle East, call the vote. You want to put more money in -- (CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: But then we get subpoena power.
INGRAHAM: Call the vote, they should call the vote, and then you get subpoena power. They don't want it.
GIULIANI: And we get to show the collusion in Ukraine that necessitated Trump doing what he did.
INGRAHAM: Why -- Joe, why does AOC –
GIULIANI: Which would go right back to Hillary.
INGRAHAM: -- and plus three, all these, all this impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, they dream about impeachment all night long.
DIGENOVA: Well –
INGRAHAM: So, why don't they want to take the vote?
DIGENOVA: AOC, the incandescent ignoramus, is manifesting the same stupidity that the entire Democratic caucus reflects. They don't like the rule of law because they want to decide everything like a kangaroo court.
INGRAHAM: The elites always win.
DIGENOVA: Queen of hearts, man. You know, it's over, you're dead, you're guilty, no evidence necessary. So, the Democrats who used to just love process and procedure and the rule of law, they are literally subverting the rule of law in what really amounts to a seditious attack on the government. It really is sedition, what they're doing.
GIULIANI: Do you know why they get away with this? Why they do this? It really is the fault of the press. The press enables them.
DIGENOVA: Oh, God. Yes.
GIULIANI: They can say anything they want. The stupidest thing –
INGRAHAM: Although "Washington Post" is not really a newspaper anymore, isn't it?
GIULIANI: They can also be as corrupt as they want.
INGRAHAM: That's not really -- it used to be a real paper.
GIULIANI: They could also be as corrupt as they want and they don't get investigated.
GIULIANI: Nobody cares. Nobody worries. For years, Obama had a pay-for-play operation in his administration and it's disgusting. And one of the reasons they are fighting so hard, if Biden comes out, so does Clinton come out, and about three others. This goes right to the top of the Obama administration –
INGRAHAM: Well –
GIULIANI: -- and the administration that said –
INGRAHAM: Obama wanted to keep –
GIULIANI: -- I didn't have scandals, it will be the most scandal-ridden administration in our history.
INGRAHAM: Obama needed to be kept informed.
GIULIANI: Obama didn't care about ethics. He didn't care, otherwise it wouldn't happen.
DIGENOVA: That's right.
GIULIANI: A vice president should have been stopped from doing this by a president who had the slightest bit of integrity. But a Chicago pal like Obama, pay-for-play, eight times, millions of dollars for your vice president and hundreds of millions of dollars for your secretary of state - -
INGRAHAM: Well, Clinton Foundation, this was all –
GIULIANI: They just bought the offices. They buy the offices.
INGRAHAM: Yes. All right. Well, stay there. This is a special –
INGRAHAM: It's like a special “Ingraham Angle.” I got you guys for a half hour. This is awesome. All right. Rudy and Joe, stay right there. More breaking news tonight. We are now learning more about the Ukraine whistleblower's deep ties to a 2020 -- shhh, they're still talking, I can't keep them quiet -- candidate. Plus, Sara Carter, Gregg Jarrett here as well on the John Durham probe and more. We have a lot more breaking news. We'll stay on it for you. Stay there.
GIULIANI: Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, says he will not testify before the House Intel Committee until there has been a formal impeachment vote and its chairman, Adam Schiff, is removed. Well, into the void swooped Senator Lindsey Graham. He's invited Giuliani to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about possible corruption in Ukraine. So, is Giuliani going to accept this offer? Back with me now, Rudy Giuliani, Joe DiGenova. Rudy, are you going to testify in the Senate?
GIULIANI: I have to weigh that with my client and the other lawyers involved. It's not a -- it's not a unitary decision. What decision I make may affect the other decisions. I mean, I would love to testify and give me a half-hour to point out Biden Inc., four decades of crime. I'd love to do it. I mean, it's going to be easier than pointing out the, what was it, six decades of mafia crime for Milken (ph) and Bolski (ph).
INGRAHAM: What was -- what was going on with Perry? Everybody is all upset about that tonight. You and Rick Perry –
GIULIANI: Nothing is going on with Perry. Rick Perry has done nothing wrong. I mean, he works for Donald Trump.
INGRAHAM: He was at the inauguration of Zelensky.
GIULIANI: Oh, my goodness. Yes. He was there. And Senator Chris Murphy went and told Zelensky he better not cooperate with me, and a couple of other senators called him to don't cooperate with Barr, and nobody cares about that.
INGRAHAM: But did you debrief him after the trip or before the trip?
GIULIANI: I'm not going to tell you my internal conversations. I talked to a lot of people. Not necessarily Rick though.
INGRAHAM: Rudy, Cory Booker is someone who also is chomping at the bit to question you during the hearing.
INGRAHAM: This is what he said tonight.
GIULIANIA: I've never been -- I've never been to the arena. Spartacus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would savor the opportunity, I would, and especially if it's done publicly. And I know Rudy Giuliani is from New York, very close to Broadway, he loves the theatrics. His behavior has been despicable and the lies and half-truths and the deception that he's been doing at the direction of this president and beyond is unbecoming.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Unbecoming, despicable, just garden-variety insults -- Rudy?
GIULIANI: From -- I have to go into the arena with Spartacus? Gee, I don't know if I could handle it. I mean, he's a really tough guy. I don't know. Man, he really scares me. I mean, the guy was a terrible mayor. When I was a mayor of the city, I turned it around. When he was mayor of a city, they had more crime when he left than when he came in.
INGRAHAM: Newark is doing great, isn't it?
GIULIANI: Oh, yes, Newark is doing fabulous. I look up to Cory Booker. (CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Here's what -- everyone's a tough guy out there, right? They're all tough guys.
GIULIANI: Oh, Cory's –
INGRAHAM: Like I'm going to take him and punch him.
GIULIANI: I am Spartacus. (CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Biden is going to take some -- Biden's -- by the way, Biden has been off the trail for, since Friday, you never see Biden now (ph).
GIULIANI: What a clown, what a clown.
INGRAHAM: All right.
GIULIANI: Did you see Biden today? He completely lost it today. He completely lost it today. He started yelling at a reporter. First, it looked like he was sleeping.
INGRAHAM: That's (ph) today?
GIULIANI: Absolutely. It was today, I think in Las Vegas. Maybe yesterday.
INGRAHAM: All right. Gentlemen, here's what sources told "The Washington Examiner's" Byron York about the whistleblower, quote: The I.G. said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates. OK. Joe, if this turns out to be true, doesn't -- you know, isn't the Democrats keeping his or her identity a secret just a total joke?
DIGENOVA: This is why this notion that you are going to keep these witnesses secret, while you are trying to nullify an election –
INGRAHAM: Yes, exactly.
DIGENOVA: -- commit regicide and remove a president of the United States is ludicrous. Everybody knows that in all likelihood, Fusion GPS was involved with this person, this anonymous informant. I refuse to call him a whistleblower because he is not a whistleblower under the law. And everybody knows that there's a former FBI agent who worked with this whistleblower, as he is now called. So, we're going to learn an awful lot about the fact that this person never wrote this document. It was drafted by a committee of political consultants and researchers and people affiliated with the Democratic National Committee.
INGRAHAM: Well, Adam Schiff should not be running this -- this committee. He lied about contact with the whistleblower on national television, he just lied.
GIULIANI: He's a witness. Adam Schiff is a witness. You can't -- you can't preside over a hearing where you are a witness.
GIULIANI: Also, how - -how could it be possible if we can't test the credibility of these witnesses? I mean, you can't -- you can't come to a conclusion unless you get a chance to test credibility. For example, this law firm Campos (ph), Tampos (ph), or whatever the name of it is, was offering money to people. They were offering help with your mortgage, expenses. They were bribing the witnesses to come forward.
INGRAHAM: (INAUDIBLE) (CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: You don't think I would want to cross-examine the witness with that? Did you read the -- did you read it? Did you get any money? Did they offer you any money? Did you see Schiff? What did Schiff tell you? How much -- how much of this comes from Schiff?
INGRAHAM: These whistleblower laws have to be changed, though, right? They have to be -- this can't happen again.
DIGENOVA: Wait, wait, but this -- (CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: Whistleblower isn't tied (ph) to a trial (ph).
DIGENOVA: Here is the deal. This inspector general is a moron. When he wrote that analysis, he was wrong about the law. This was not a matter of grave concern, urgent concern. He got slapped down so badly by the Office of Legal Counsel when they analyzed the facts. This guy, Michael Atkinson is a moron. This -- there's no way around how bad a job he did. He's an embarrassment to the inspector general cadre.
INGRAHAM: Well, now, we know that there is a 2020 connection, 2020 Democrat connection to this whistleblower. And, by the way, someone tried to criticize or question Byron York's reporting tonight, and even -- I believe was it "Axios"? Who said, no, no, it was just fine, he's right on. Byron York is spot on in his reporting about this whistleblower. We're going to learn a lot more.
DIGENOVA: And it's going to get worse.
INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, today, Rudy, the State Department ordered Gordon Sondland, the E.U. ambassador involved in some of those Ukraine texts, not to appear for his deposition with House investigators, which, of course -- it kind of makes sense given Cipollone's letter, right, which, of course, is drawing the ire of Schiff. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The failure to produce this witness, the failure to produce these documents, we consider yet additional strong evidence of obstruction of the constitutional functions of Congress, a coequal branch of government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: OK, Rudy, again, if you assert a privilege, if you assert a privilege -- executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, deliberative process privilege, you are guilty of obstruction of justice. There's no winning in this scenario.
GIULIANI: I would just like to explain to little Schiff that propounding and presenting a false, completely false narrative, someone's guilt is called obstructing justice. He did it. He did it right in front of the American people. He did it for about 20 minutes. He did a total, fictitious claim against -- and he did it again earlier when he said he had evidence of Russian collusion. Hey, Schiff, where is your evidence? INGRAHAM: And they're, by the way –
GIULIANI: You're a liar -- I'm calling you out as a liar. You're a liar. Where's your evidence, Schiff? Because you're a liar.
INGRAHAM: They're hitting Sondland, by the way -- they are hitting Sondland -- Ambassador Sondland because he was a big donor to Trump. And I'm thinking, does anyone remember what Obama's donors were? OK. Obama's donors? I mean, there was headline after headline complaining, I can put one up on the screen, about Obama's big -- that's just what it is. You're an ambassador -- unless you're a career diplomat, Obama hands out plum ambassador posts to big campaign donors. So, stop going after Sondland because he was a donor.
DIGENOVA: If it weren't for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.
DIGENOVA: I mean, this is just insanity. Just watching them get -- well, that tape of Schiff, just watching him bug-eyed performing like a loon and just mouthing these nostrums, which are just -- it's just dumb and stupid and unsupportable legally. I mean, this is the chairman of a major committee and Pelosi, you know, trying to keep her dentures and while she's talking to them is just there abiding by this. It's outrageous.
GIULIANI: And it would be funny if it wasn't horrible, horrible trashing of our Constitution.
GIULIANI: And that has repercussions.
INGRAHAM: Well –
GIULIANI: It has repercussion because it keeps our country bitter, divided. If they think everybody thinks like them, they don't. There are a lot of people who are -- (CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Cipollone -- no, a lot of people are living their lives. They want the country to work.
GIULIANI: But they're really bitter about what these people are doing.
INGRAHAM: I want to end with what Pat Cipollone wrote toward the end of his letter.
GIULIANI: Great work.
INGRAHAM: The president has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world. People can laugh, like, oh, Kurd -- they were upset about the Kurds -- I get that people are upset about the Kurds. These are -- USMCA, infrastructure, all these things are really important, and the safety and security of our country. He has to keep doing the people's business. They don't want him to do that. They want to paralyze this country.
GIULIANI: And rooting out high-level corruption is enormously important.
INGRAHAM: We're going to learn more in the coming days. Joe, how confident are you in the next couple of weeks, we're going to know a lot more from Horowitz, Durham, and the rest?
DIGENOVA: It's going to be bang, bang couple of weeks. (LAUGHTER)
INGRAHAM: You will never be an incandescent ignoramus to me, Joe, ever. (LAUGHTER)
INGRAHAM: OK. Everyone is tweeting about incandescent ignor -- let's get that trending tonight on Twitter. Rudy and Joe, both of you, thanks so much. Great to have you for such a long time tonight.
GIULIANI: Thank you.
DIGENOVA: Thank you, Laura. Thank you.
INGRAHAM: The breaking news doesn't stop there. Earlier tonight we learned that U.S. Attorney John Durham is expanding his investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. So could this have something to do with Robert Mueller lie? Gregg Jarrett, Sara Carter here in moments to explain it all.
INGRAHAM: Multiple administration officials telling FOX News that U.S. Attorney John Durham is expanding his investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign surveillance. We already knew that Durham would be reviewing the days leading up to the 2016 election and through the inauguration, but now based on his findings, Durham is looking into a wider timeline of events, from the beginning of the Russia probe all the way until the spring of 2017 when Robert Mueller was named Special Counsel.
Joining me now, Gregg Jarrett, FOX News legal analyst, and author of the brand-new book -- we were talking about the witch hunt, Jarrett, earlier -- "Witch Hunt," which touches on a lot of tonight's breaking news. He also hosts the new FOX Nation show of the same name, both out today. So happy he's on. Along with him, of course, in Washington with me is Sara Carter, FOX News contributor, investigative reporter. Gregg, the Democrat and deep state conspiracy is unraveling. We feel it, we see it, we are on the precipice of it. So what's next?
GREGG JARRETT, LEGAL ANALYST: I would like to think my book is actually a roadmap for John Durham, who is leading the investigation that Bill Barr initiated into acts of corruption and lawlessness on various individuals at the FBI, the Intelligence Committee, even the Department of Justice.
And now that we know that the Durham investigation is expanding, that pretty much means he has already found some acts of lawlessness and corruption. He's asking now for additional personnel, he's gone overseas to two different countries to gather evidence not of Trump-Russia collusion, but of FBI, Department of Justice, Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee collusion.
So I think that now that it is expanding, he's not just looking into how James Comey violated FBI regulations by launching an investigation of Trump without a shred of evidence. He is also looking into lying and spying, undercover informants that were used, lying to the FISA court. He should also look, as I point out in my book, that Rod Rosenstein appointed the Special Counsel not based on law or evidence or even following the regulations. He defied the regulations and appointed Bob Mueller in an active vengeance, retaliation against Donald Trump. And not only that, he ought to look at Bob Mueller's conflicts of interest in this case, which are egregious.
INGRAHAM: Hold on, hold that thought. We're going to get into that in a moment. When you talk about John Brennan, you think about, the man ran the CIA, and now he has smeared Barr, and now he is trying to smear Durham, one of the most respected attorneys alive today. Watch what he says.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Given that Barr is now accompanying Durham on these things, it really makes me think that the hand of politics and of Trump are now being used to massage what this ongoing review, quasi- investigation, is. So I am concerned.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: What they were carrying out was not an investigation, false, fraudulent investigations, but what does that tell you about how scared they are, Sara?
SARA CARTER, CONTRIBUTOR: They are terrified. Deny everything, right, that's where they are at right now. They're running for the hills, because John Brennan, just even his rhetoric is dangerous, both to the United States national security, and because we know Brennan's involvement with investigating -- part of this entire issue of the investigation into President Trump's campaign began with John Brennan, began with the CIA. Why do I say that? Because we know it occurred overseas.
We were accepting information, the FBI, from Christopher Steele, who is a foreign former spy for MI6. He was funneling information, that information was well-known to the CIA in London. That information was well-known to those FBI agents that went there and spread these malicious lies. Because what do we know now? Laura, we know none of it was verified, that this dossier that they used to target President Trump and his administration and his campaign, that dossier was based on lies. And then it was handed over to the FISA court. And the foreign intelligence surveillance court said OK, this has been verified. Look, the FBI handed it to us, it says verified on the document. Now we know that isn't the case.
INGRAHAM: It's a disgrace.
CARTER: John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper, they are a disgrace. This was a soft coup against President Trump.
INGRAHAM: Speaking of Clapper, Sara mentioned Clapper, Gregg, another one of the deep state members very nervous about John Durham's expanded investigation. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: What the then commander-in-chief, President Obama told us to do, which was to assemble all the reporting that we could, that we had available to us, and put it in one report. It's disconcerting now to be investigated for having done our duty and done what we were told to do by the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Now Obama is involved. The president told us to do it. I want to learn more about that. Remember McCabe said, you wrote about it, Gregg. The president wants to keep -- be kept informed of all of this, Obama.
JARRETT: And we knew Obama knew because Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in the fall of 2016 exchanged a text message that said the White House wants to know everything we are doing.
INGRAHAM: It's the lovebird. I just think it's McCabe.
JARRETT: John Brennan was briefing the president on everything. You can't launch a counterintelligence investigation without the president's permission because the information goes to the president. That's the whole purpose of it.
In my book I described John Brennan as the instigator of the Russia hoax and the witch hunt, and James Clapper, the DNI, he was the leaker. He's the guy who was leaking information to CNN, and of course he was rewarded with a job on CNN.
INGRAHAM: We mentioned earlier that Durham's investigation timeline is expanding into 2017. I wonder if it's anything to do with another bombshell FOX News broke tonight. Multiple sources telling us that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller was pursuing the FBI director position when he met with President Trump in May of 2017. That is something Mueller denied on camera, testifying under oath this summer.
JARRETT: Yes, which would --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Mueller, did you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as Special Counsel?
ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL COUNSEL: My understanding, I was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job, which triggered the interview you are talking about.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you don't recall on May 16th, 2017, that you interviewed with the president regarding the FBI director job?
MUELLER: I interviewed with the president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Regarding the FBI director job?
MUELLER: It was about the job, but not about me applying for the job.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So your statement here today is that you didn't interview to apply for the FBI director job?
MUELLER: That's correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Sara, do you think these are related? Boy, if he was actually talking about getting that job, then Rosenstein names him Special Counsel, what does that tell you?
CARTER: That's right.
INGRAHAM: What does that tell us about what's going on?
CARTER: It tells us that he should have been recused and he should have never been named to Special Counsel, and that Rosenstein, who was also secretly talking, remember, with other officials about the president and about the Special Counsel should have never appointed him in the first place. And Laura, he couldn't even remember his own report.
INGRAHAM: He looked confused. Maybe he just forgot that he did the interview.
CARTER: That's why Durham has to investigate. And Durham is going to go further back. I believe Durham's going to go all the back to the end of 2015, and he is going to be looking at issues related to Michael Flynn. He is going to follow those through, he's going to be looking at Stefan Halper and others.
INGRAHAM: Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper, all these character, it sounds like an episode of a telenovela or something.
CARTER: That's why they are so afraid, Laura. That's why they are coming after Barr, they're coming after Durham. And that's why Durham and Barr are so smart. They are skirting around them. They are saying we don't need anybody to talk for us. We are going to go directly to the horse, right, Italy, Australia, London.
INGRAHAM: But Gregg, Brennan and Clapper, and Strzok and McCabe, they are on a smash and a smear campaign. This is like smash and grab. Smash and smear. They have to do it as much as possible to get the drumbeat going. Gregg, final thoughts, real quick.
JARRETT: Yes. I interviewed the president about his conversation with Mueller the day before Mueller launched his investigation of Trump. The president said absolutely he was applying for the job to be FBI director. I interviewed his personal assistant. She said the same thing.
And then I asked the president, did you talk about the reason you fired James Comey? The president paused for about 20 seconds and he said no comment, but it was clear to me that the answer was yes, they did talk about it, which means Mueller was a fact witness there trying to gather incriminating evidence against the president. He should have disqualified himself. Durham and Barr should look into that.
INGRAHAM: Bingo. Gregg, Sara -- Gregg, congratulations on your new book. It's going to be another smash, bestseller.
JARRETT: Thank you.
INGRAHAM: And Sara, always great to have you on.
Coming up, the Trump campaign fires back after a Democrat mayor tries to keep the president from actually holding a campaign rally in his city. Liberals are all for free speech, right, except when you're speech disagrees with theirs. Mercedes Schlapp, campaign 2020 advisor for Trump, up here next to respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR JACOB FREY, D-MINNEAPOLIS: We've all seen the rhetoric that is pushed out at these Trump campaign rallies. It is hateful, it is divisive, and we do not welcome that kind of rhetoric here in Minneapolis. We value the strength of our diversity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Is that Justin Trudeau's brother? No, that's the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey. And he's trying to keep Trump from holding a campaign rally in Minneapolis because he's afraid of free speech. He says it's about security costs. The Trump campaign says the city, they are just trying to stifle free speech. We've seen this before.
Joining me now, Mercedes Schlapp, Trump 2020 campaign adviser, and Tom Bevan, founder of Real Clear Politics. Mercedes, the rally is going on as scheduled, correct?
MERCEDES SCHLAPP, WHITE HOUSE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: That's right, that's right. They dropped their demand, their ridiculous demand that they made of having the campaign and Secret Service, more importantly, pay over $520,000.
INGRAHAM: What did Obama pay when he went there.
SCHLAPP: When Obama went a couple years ago for a health care speech, it was $20,000.
INGRAHAM: It's gone up for security.
SCHLAPP: It goes up if you are in any way associated with President Trump. What it really does is it shows that this mayor was planning on suppressing these Trump voters and really their First Amendment rights.
INGRAHAM: Talk about meddling in the election.
SCHLAPP: And obviously this mayor is trying to be the big guy of the show, and at the end of the day he's been trumped.
INGRAHAM: I thought he was a college protestor or something. I don't even know him.
INGRAHAM: Tom, a win for Trump in the land of 10,000 lakes. I have a special affinity personally for Minnesota. I spend a lot of times there in the summers. I think this is a state that Trump can pick off. Tell us about what the prospects are. He only lost Minnesota by 44,000 votes or so, 1.5 percent of the vote, most of that is in the Twin Cities area. Can Trump pull off a flip if these kinds of antics continue from the mayor?
TOM BEVAN, REAL CLEAR POLITICS CO-FOUNDER: I think so. People forget how close Minnesota was in 2016, it gets overlooked. And it is definitely in play. As you mentioned, he only lost by 44,000 votes out of about 3 million cast. So it is definitely in play.
And this is the kind of stunt that does two things. It fires up Trump's base, and it turns off independents because it's just nakedly political. So look, Minnesota is definitely in play, and if Trump manages to steal Minnesota, that really expands the map for him. And it's 10 electoral votes, and that will offset any losses that he might have in Wisconsin or someplace else. So Minnesota is going to be a key presidential state in 2020, and it's very, very much in play.
INGRAHAM: And I have to say, when the mayor talks about how much they value diversity in Minnesota, I'm thinking, yes, everything except diversity of thought. No diversity of thought, but we are going to hang our hat on every other manner of diversity. Mercedes, we've seen this time and again. The college speech code crowd, they want to have college speech code rules in all of society.
SCHLAPP: Right. And they want to silence, you're talking about tens of thousands of Trump supporters, 72,000 individuals from Minnesota have registered to go to the rally. This is a fact, they state it very clearly. It's not only the idea that they want to impeach President Trump, they want to impeach the Trump voter. And I think that's very unfortunate.
When you're also talking about Minnesota, let's remember, from a structural standpoint, the campaign only had one staffer in 2016. That's grown to about 20 staffers that we have right now on the ground. In addition to that, in 2016 we spent $30,000 in Minnesota. We are going to be spending tens of millions of dollars in Minnesota.
INGRAHAM: Boy, I like that.
CARTER: So it is going to be a hot place to be where President Trump --
INGRAHAM: Tom, Minnesota has a hot economy right now. Their economy is doing pretty well. A lot of biotech, big companies. I think it's socialism and more high taxes or prosperity and peace. To me, that is Trump's question to pose.
BEVAN: What is interesting about Minnesota is it's one of those states that it mirrors the country, but it has happened faster than in a lot of other states, which is that the rural areas which used to vote Democratic flipped to Republican, and the suburbs and the city started voting -- sorry, flipped to Trump. And the suburbs and the cities started voting Democratic.
INGRAHAM: Kids, we've got to go unfortunately. Minnesota up for grabs, you bet.
INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite. Trump-Hillary 2.0?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, D-FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me. So he's either lying or delusional, or both. So maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: She's really trying her best to cling to relevancy. Get the Scooby mobile ready. I love that car.
Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here. Shannon, take it away.
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.