Why are the Democrats worried about AG Barr?

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 7, 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 another busy Washington. So what are the Democrats hiding? We're going to explain the absolute nonsensical steps they're taking to conceal the identity of the whistleblower and hide most of the process from you, the people.

We'll also speak to experts who've been through the impeachment battle. What does it really mean? How does it go? Plus the NBA siding with the Communist China. You are not going to miss this Angle. You're not going to want to. What happened to free speech? They stand for Colin Kaepernick but not for you know, a member of their own you know NBA management team that sends out a very mild tweet in support of the freedom protesters in Hong Kong.

Unbelievable, stunning hypocrisy on the part of the NBA. And the three Democrats at the top of the 2020 nomination polls have run into some serious trouble and tonight, there could be a new obstacle and it's not a joke. There are serious whispers about another Hillary Clinton run.

I'm not kidding. We should be so lucky. But first we ask this simple question tonight. Just how improperly are the Democrats handling this impeachment push? I want to take you back to what might be the most fateful decision of this entire charade.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi putting the partisan and reckless Adam Schiff in charge of this impeachment inquiry.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: I also want to salute our six chairmen. They've done a remarkable job. Adam Schiff is holding forth now. It is an intelligence matter and it is focused in the intelligence committee.


INGRAHAM: Well now, that decision is coming back to haunt her just in time for Halloween. Now from what our own Catherine Herridge is hearing about the Intel community I.G.'s testimony. Inspector General's testimony is happening on Friday. The collusion between the whistleblower and Schiff's committee could be far worse than we previously knew.

Now we told you Friday that the whistleblower didn't disclose, he had met with Schiff's staff before following - filing that complaint, that sparked the whole impeachment frenzy. Well, sources are now telling Fox that the Intel IG had no explanation for an 18 day period between Trump's July 25th call with Ukraine and the whistleblower filing his or her complaint on August 12th.

Now it's during that period that the whistleblower contacted Schiff's aides and decided to go to the Intel IG to file the complaint. Sources are also saying the whistleblower didn't disclose to the IG any congressional contacts that he or she may have had.

So here I'm going to remind you that Adam Schiff is the only one who has the ability to release the full transcripts from last week's hearings. So ask yourself, why isn't he? Joining me now is a man who played an integral part of the President Bill Clinton impeachment, Bob Barr.

One of the House impeachment managers at the time. I remember it well. Bob, how badly is Adam Schiff's leadership damaging the credibility of this inquiry?

BOB BARR, FMR CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: Well, when this whole thing started Laura, it was hard to imagine that the credibility of the Democrat effort against President Trump could sink any lower. But give it to give it to Schiff, he's done, he's gotten even worse.

You know it's really as if they set out a list of everything that they could think of that would undermine the credibility of their effort and they have stuck to that list to a tee.

INGRAHAM: But the Democrats are defending Schiff Bob, quite vociferously, one after the other. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's been productive. Adam Schiff and the Intelligence Committee has stayed focused on this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff doing press conferences alone with a very targeted, very narrow message for where they're going. The Republicans are just sort of all over the place.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he's one of the most decent human beings I know and I think he is playing straight.


INGRAHAM: Well, they're circling the wagons around him. They know if for some reason, he takes a major hit with the public at large, his own credibility, it's curtains for this impeachment inquiry. At least how it's going to play it among the American people. What are the pitfalls beyond Schiff for them at this juncture?

BARR: It's interesting because I'm reminded of the old TV cartoon show in the 80s called The Smurfs, where you had all these little blue people running around and bumping into each other and mumbling and that's really what this appears to be.

It illustrates to me that Speaker Pelosi for all of the fanfare that the Left gives her, she really does not have control of her caucus. She started out a few weeks ago as you remember, with allowing Nadler, you know the man who never smiles to take a crack at a full impeachment inquiry.

That didn't turn out too well so then she turns it over to Schiff and that's turned out as disaster. It's not only hurting the impeachment effort for them but it's really hurting the country and that's really the bottom line here. This is a committee of the Congress and I was yes with the CIA back when we formed both the House and the Senate Intelligence committees through legislation back in the late 70s.

And what Schiff has done to the House Intelligence Committee which is supposed to be the most nonpartisan of committees. He has turned it into the most partisan and in so doing is doing great damage to intelligence oversight for the United States.

INGRAHAM: Yes but Bob this is what Nancy Pelosi with deeply somber tones last week saying, we're doing this soberly and judiciously and quoting, she's quoting James Madison, throwing her references to the Federalist Papers.

I mean she's trying to give it the air of impartiality but in the end it just--

BARR: It's the gravitas.

INGRAHAM: You're right. You know and again, it's that kind of somber tone. She looks very pained. We don't want to do this but we're compelled to do this Bob. Does that wash?

BARR: No, it doesn't wash and the fact of the matter is that an impeachment inquiry or an inquiry of impeachment does not start because the Speaker says it does. You know throwing around a magic wand. An inquiry of impeachment is a formal document as you know.

This is how the impeachment process was started back in 1998 as well as in 1973, 1974 with Nixon. It is a very formal document. It places the responsibility where it should be and where the House rules require it to be and that is the Judiciary Committee.

But I think Pelosi is doing this sort of faux impeachment inquiry because they realize that it might very well fall apart and crumble before their very eyes and if there is no formal inquiry, they can ingle back and say well, we didn't really mean it anyway.

INGRAHAM: Yes, it's more of a media inquiry than anything else. It's not really - again, its impeachment but not. It's like you know Coke Zero, Impeachment Zero. I mean it's just Bob, there are a few people like you, Sensenbrenner, Lindsey Graham.

I remember those days back in 98, it's great to have you on tonight. Thanks for spending some time with us.

BARR: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: All right and why are Democrats so worried about AG Bill Barr's investigation of the 2016 election? Why are they sweating this? Well, perhaps this New York Times headline today offers an explanation.

Barr and a top prosecutor cast a wide net reviewing the Russia inquiry. The Times reports that Mr. Barr has asked Mr. Trump to help gain access to foreign officials for the inquiry and the President has complied.

The Attorney General has spoken directly to officials in Britain, Australia and Italy according to a Justice Department official. Joining me now to respond former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker. Matt, great to see it tonight.

Should the Democrats be concerned? Is Bill Barr the type of person you know him well, type of person to go running all over the world for just like the fun of it to make it look like this is serious?

MATT WHITAKER, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, I think this is a very purposeful effort to take John Durham with him, introduce him, say you know that I'm looking at this inquiry. This is John Durham. He is the person who's conducting it. Please give him everything you can.

It still origins in this investigation and you can see with some of these folks on the media like Clapper for example. I mean, they are - you can see, they are worried. They are worried. They're trying to discredit. They're suggesting that somehow this is illegitimate to look at why we even had this investigation.

But you and I both know and a lot of American people know that there's really no explanation as to how a quarter-page FISA turned into a criminal investigation of the President.

INGRAHAM: No, no. This is - this is so stunningly obvious to me but just like the post Mueller playbook, the media has gone as Mr. Whittaker says out of its way - its way to discredit Barr's investigation. They have to do that by labeling him not as someone who is former respected Attorney General, second time Attorney General. But he's just like a random political pundit.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where in the world is Attorney General William Barr? Hunting for conspiracies, that's where.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's jetting all around the world, spending that time to focus on an investigation that's really only notable because it's a vehicle for the President to seek political revenge on his enemies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're trying to retroactively fit evidence to fit this conspiracy theory.


INGRAHAM: So the word conspiracy theory. It's everywhere in the press. Everywhere.

WHITAKER: It is. The Left has been unified really throughout the last three years to have everybody singing from the same hymnal. It is - it is almost you watched a 24-hour news cycle and you can see that they sent out the talking points to everybody and they're all saying the same thing and one of the - one of the things that I know is that you don't hear anything about now about the Mueller investigation as a basis for these impeachment inquiries.

It's all about Ukraine. You know how fast and furious. It came on before they even had the transcript, before they had the whistleblower complaint. Now they've realized the deficiencies in the complaint and so they got a second whistleblower that they don't want to put in front of American people.

One of the number one tenets of the American judicial system is to confront the witnesses against you and that's exactly what they don't want to have them because they know these whistleblowers will completely fold and we've all seen the evidence.

We've seen the transcript and we know that there's no there there. It's really - it's a complete waste of time.

INGRAHAM: Matt, how disturbed were you when back to Adam Schiff for a moment, Barr touched on this. Bill - Bob Barr touched on this, we're getting our Barrs mixed up. Barr hopping here. When we had Adam Schiff making up what was in the transcript. Then the media just lets him get away and says, oh that was a joke.

When Trump says something's a joke, oh he's lying that. Trump is joking about like half - you know, he's trying to like poke the media but when he says something without all seriousness, they just let him get away with it.

WHITAKER: Right. I have never seen a member of Congress paraphrase a document.

INGRAHAM: And distort completely.

WHITAKER: And distort it completely and make it look nefarious when really this again, the American people can see with their own eyes what happened on that phone call and I don't know why we need sort of people to bring it to life. Last time they tried to have an individual bring it to life Mueller, it completely blew up in their face.

I can only imagine now when they have these interpretive recitations of transcripts and these whistleblowers, what this is going to turn into.

INGRAHAM: They don't want Bill Barr and John Durham on this case. How - I mean I know Durham just a little bit by reputation. I know Barr well. Those guys, they don't mess around. This is not like some political fantasy.

These are serious men with a serious mission and what happened to people on the Left who used to care about corruption and civil liberties and the votes being counted properly and the U.S. government forces not being used in a police state means. They used to care about stuff like that.

WHITAKER: General Barr has every right to look in this and should because I know the same thing that he said is what I found is when I ask questions, when I was acting Attorney General, I couldn't get any answers as to what was - what was the substantiation.

What was the predicate for this investigation? How did the President become a criminal target in an investigation? I could - no one could give those answers and until the American people get those answers from the Department of Justice, it's really going to have a credibility challenge, I think.

INGRAHAM: Don't you miss being in there?

WHITAKER: I especially miss the media attention.

INGRAHAM: Yes, exactly. Well - planning that. Thanks so much. And for all the obsession with Trump's single phone call with Ukraine, the Left is conveniently glossing over their own shady history of doing their own business there.

We all know about Hunter Biden's ties to Ukraine. What about John Podesta's brother, Tony working on a Ukrainian government PR campaign? Well, the Clinton Foundation took more money from Ukrainian sources than from any other country. Huh and Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Jr. also has ties to Ukraine.

He served on the board of an energy company that reportedly did business there and is Executive Director of the Corporate Governance Initiative. He traveled to Ukraine in 2017 to promote youth soccer. Joining me now Robert Ray, former independent counsel for the Whitewater investigation.

This is like Old Home Week here, Robert. Like you, we got Whittaker. Now it looks like Democrats have some explaining to do of their own on Ukraine. What do we know?

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: It's swampy, right? I mean, it's what the President has said all along. This is what people elected him to contend with and the swamp obviously is fighting back.

I don't know how much we really know about it. Obviously the kick-off for this will be John Durham's investigation with the assistance of the Attorney General and also the President's efforts at the request of the Attorney General to both declassify as necessary and also to contact foreign leaders and to obtain foreign assistance in connection with that investigation, which should come as no surprise to anyone for two reasons.

One, the Attorney General signaled that he would do precisely this during his confirmation hearing and second, this is what the ordinary processes of the Department of Justice are about. We seek mutual legal assistance all the time and you know how that's done? Pursuant to treaty.

So I you know I fully expect that before this is over, we will get to the bottom of the swamp.

INGRAHAM: But they have to do what Matt said. They have to discredit the Attorney General of the United States. If they don't smear him, what are they left with? They're left with John Durham and nobody knows who John Durham is. Durham is a very well-respected U.S. attorney. Barr, extremely well respected but it doesn't stop them from smearing him.

RAY: Well, the three words are impeach, recuse and or malign.


RAY: And you know, ultimately I think as the former acting Attorney General was suggesting is the American people see right through this and they're running out of committee chairmen by the way--

I; yes, they are onto a handful.

RAY: To contend with the President over this.

INGRAHAM: Yes Robert, first it was Chris Matthews. Now another MSNBC commentator floated this liberal fantasy just over the weekend.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You could impeach Pence first. The problem is that Donald Trump then has to name his replacement but I think that maybe a deal could be struck where he was told, if you don't make a replacement then Nancy Pelosi does become President.


INGRAHAM: OK, Robert, you've heard of fantasy football. This is fantasy impeachment.

RAY: I mean, I'd like Laura, I'd like to laugh except for the fact that it's so serious that this is completely irresponsible and as I've - you have suggested previously, this has got to stop.

INGRAHAM: Yes well again, this is the way they do business now. We don't do the people's business. We do the smear machines business so if you don't like Trump, you got to smear him, smear everybody who work for him, drive him out of restaurants.

Now they're trying not to intimidate him from going to speak in American cities, Robert. The Mayor of Minneapolis trying to prevent Trump from going to speak there on Thursday. What does that tell you?

RAY: Well, it tells you the same you know theme which is also on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times this morning and that is seriously they're talking about you know impeach early and impeach often. If this doesn't work, they'll come up with another basis to impeach and they should just keep doing this for as long as President Trump is President including I suppose into a second term if he's re-elected.

And again in the country's best interest this has got to come to an end.

INGRAHAM: Robert, thank you so much. Always great to see you.

RAY: Thanks Laura.

INGRAHAM: And in moments my Angle will expose the rank hypocrisy of the ultra-woke NBA, caving to the Communist Chinese and then Victor Davis Hanson tells us what this is all really all about in this new age progressivism.


INGRAHAM: The Communist Full-Court Press. That's the focus of tonight's Angle. During the NFL's Colin Kaepernick kneeling controversy prominent NBA players came to his defense and supported his efforts.

The NBA also supported the Golden State Warriors in 2018 when the league champs announced they wouldn't make that ceremonial trip to the White House as long as Trump was in office.


ADAM SILVER, NBA COMMISIONER: Politics have always been part of players' lives and I'm proud of the fact in this league that the players our coaches, our owners feel comfortable expressing their political points of view.


INGRAHAM: Well, we learned over the weekend, the NBA supposed love of free expression has its limits. The firestorm started on Friday when Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted this. "Fight for freedom. Stand with Hong Kong."

Well, that innocuous tweet quickly drew the ire of the Chinese communist regime, their tentacles reach right across the ocean. It quickly move to hit the NBA where it really hurts. The pocketbook. Suspending millions of dollars' worth of franchise business, Beijing banned the Houston Rockets games from Chinese TV.

Well. the Rockets owner and the NBA got the message and quickly grovelled to their Chinese masters, moving to censure Morey for his tweet and Rockets player James Harden who's in Tokyo for a team practice begged the Chinese for forgiveness.


JAMES HARDEN, GUARD FOR HOUSTON ROCKETS: We apologize you know, we love China. We love playing there. They show us the most support and love so we appreciate them as a fanbase and we love everything you know, they're about.


INGRAHAM: Everything they're about, really? Well, Morey who risked getting permanently benched from management dutifully obeyed and deleted his pro- Hong Kong tweet. Unbelievable. He even issued an apology saying, "I did not intend my tweet to cause any offense to Rockets fans and friends of mine in China. I would hope that those who are upset will know that offending or misunderstanding them was not my intention."

But the most despicable reaction came from the NBA itself. The league put out two apologies. Count them. One in English calling Morey's tweet "regrettable" and then another shameless statement in Chinese reading, "they were extremely disappointed in the inappropriate remarks made by Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey."

Standing with the persecuted people of Hong Kong is inappropriate. They should wear any criticism of the Chinese regime as a badge of honor but no can do. You know what? I also think it's funny to look back like 18 months or so to the self-righteous pompous comments of NBA coaches who have no trouble trashing President Trump and even his voters.

I think a bloviator is like Spurs head coach, the uber-liberal Gregg Popovich.


GREGG POPOVICH, HEAD COACH, SAN ANTONIO SPURS: I wonder what the people think about who voted for him. Where their line is? Where does the morality and the decency kick in? One wonders what is in their heads. Our country's an embarrassment in the world.


INGRAHAM: No, you're an embarrassment Gregg. You have the audacity to lecture us on morality as your league is standing with one of the most repressive regimes in the world? Are you kidding me? And did he speak out today in support of Morey? I don't think so, no. Still waiting for that.

So if you speak to defend the rights of players to trash Trump but when one of his NBA peers sends out a bland critique, it's a pretty bland of one of the most horrific dictatorships on the planet, suddenly it's crickets chirping everywhere.


POPOVICH: We do live in a difficult time. We all know the situation. We all know why. We all know who the source is where a lot of the division comes from because it's so obvious now. It's - it's boring. The bar has been lowered so far.


INGRAHAM: Well, very prophetic. Bar sure has been lowered. When the NBA stands more unequivocally for the hammer and sickle than it does for the red, white and blue or is it just all about money? And remember, this is the same league that moved the 2017 NBA all-star game out of Charlotte, North Carolina over a state law that prevented transgender people from using whatever bathrooms they'd wanted.

Apparently that was too much for the NBA but China stifling free speech, brutalizing political dissidents Christians, Muslims there, re-education camps. Apparently that's all fine. We love what they're all about.

If the NBA wanted to use games as a tool of social change, wouldn't it be appropriate to cancel the games in China, given their horrendous human rights record, their persecution and imprisonment of dissidents and anyone really who speaks their conscience and perhaps against the ruling regime?

Wouldn't that be a nice change?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I never imagined this could happen in the 21st century. Innocent people, subjected to cuffs on their hands, shackles and black hoods over their heads.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Every day they toss us a little bread and water so that we didn't die and every day they would interrogate 15 or 20 of us with unbearable brutality.


INGRAHAM: As long as the NBA gets its franchise fees, OK by them. This is a barbaric regime. This is a dictatorship that controls how many children couples can have, forces sterilization and abortion on women. Aren't those endangered lives worthy of a protest or just saying you know, money's good but we can't do it anymore?

Or we only cancel games over bathrooms signage controversies? The NBA is quick to virtue signal when it costs them nothing but the moment their Chinese overlords bark, they cower in the corner, shut down any criticism.

Make no mistake, China's treatment of the Rockets is a warning shot to every professional sports team and any American business doing business in China. Play by their rules or you will be punished. Just today China scrubbed all social media references and access to the show South Park in their country a day after the show dared to criticize China's mass detention and torture programs.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "I am a proud member of the Communist Party. The Party is more important than the individual."


INGRAHAM: In reaction to the ban, "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone issued this mock apology. "Like the NBA, we welcome the Chinese censors into our homes and into our hearts. We too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesn't look just like Winnie the Pooh at all.  Long live the great Communist Party of China. May this autumn's sorghum harvest be bountiful. We good now China?" That's the correct response.

I stand by what I've said before -- we should gradually but seriously disentangle American interests from Chinese interests until they completely reform their ways. American brands, American companies are engaged in a demonic bargain in China. Remember in the 80s back when I was in college when campus activists pushed the entire entertainment industry to boycott South Africa because of apartheid, that evil regime, was divestment now banners hung out of dorm windows all over campus. But there wasn't a lot of money, though, to be made in South Africa, not really. And the value of billions in China is more important, though, than the precious value of free expression that the NBA claimed it cherished?

Next time the NBA tries to virtue signal civil rights, we are going to ask them why when they had the chance to stand for universal values of free speech, free exercise of religion, free assembly, they decided to cave to the communists.

And that's THE ANGLE.

Joining me now reaction is Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Victor, is there going to be a day of reckoning for the league, corporations, that do this perpetual genuflecting to China?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION: I think there is. At first glance they are hypocrites because they are lions at home and they're pussy cats abroad, but actually they're consistent. They're against freedom and they're for big money, whether it's showing indifference to Hong Kong and catering to Chinese money, or here at home, trashing U.S. laws and the Second Amendments or the White House, our elected president, and then cultivating a progressive audience.

But I don't think it's sustainable because their attendance is sort of like the NFL. It's static, and they've so politicized the sport it's not going to grow on the interior of America, and its maxed out on the coast and the woke young audience. So what they're saying is we have an international sports and we are going to look for Chinese viewers and European viewers, and we're going to make the necessary political adjustments to get that cash and profit.

And it reminds me of another point that is really I think the subtext of this whole issue, Laura, and that is, the greatest achievements of Donald Trump's first administration, his tenure, so far has been at the 11th hour that he woke America up, that the Chinese were so insidious in Wall Street and Silicon Valley and among Washington lobbyists, entertainment and professional sports, that they were really, from the interior of the United States, from the inside, destroying our own freedom of will and choice.  And he was the first person to call out the bipartisan establishment to say, you know what, this can't go on. If it goes on it's going to destroy the country. And I think the 11th hour we are starting to wake up.

And it's really distasteful to see all these people like LeBron James and all these lecturers on virtue to be so cowardly and have no virtue when it comes to real life and death existential issues like the Chinese and the way they treat people well. They don't treat people well. They make the NBA a lot of money but they don't treat people well.

INGRAHAM: This Morey guy, I want to move on to another topic, but this Morey, the other member of management of the Rockets, the fact that he has to -- it looked like a hostage tape. He had to apologize.

HANSON: It is.

INGRAHAM: He is a hostage. He's a hostage to big money and big investment in China at the expense of all their supposed belief in human rights and civil rights. And you know it and I know it, everyone watching knows it.  Everybody knows --

HANSON: He's in reeducation. They had him go to a reeducation camp.

INGRAHAM: That's the NBA's reeducation camp. This is why we have you on.

All right, Victor, I've got to get your thoughts, though, on President Trump's move toward withdrawing U.S. forces from a section in Syria and allowing Turkey to move in, Erdogan's forces. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are calling this a bad move, endangers our Kurdish allies, they've done so much for us, but Trump did say he was going to pull our troops out of Syria. The use of force from 2001 that was sponsored by Tom Daschle on September 18th, 2001, I guess is still authorizing military force in the Middle East, which I'm not wild about. But what about our Kurd allies? They've put everything on the line for us in our mission.

HANSON: I think we're trying to square a circle because the Kurds are our friends, but they're not our legal allies, and Turks are our legal allies, but they're not our friends. So we are at a dilemma. And we're in a circular firing squad in Syria where everybody is shooting each other. And yet every time we fought in the last 20 or 30 years, the Kurds have been on our side, so I think what we need to do is find a way that's not antithetical to Trump's agenda, that is we're not going to go into these optional no-win, no-lose endless wars, but protect people that have helped us. And I think we can do that.

But the problem is that we in the United States are pledged to help independent people, the Greeks, the Armenians, the Israelis, the Poles, the Kurds that are in difficult geographies, we always have. And one of the ironies is throughout history they've often been targeted by whom? The Turks. And yet we come to their aid when it's not in a cost-benefit analysis in our favor.

So I think Trump can find a way. Mike Pompeo has had great success in Greece, reestablishing relations with the Greeks who are also in the same situation vis-a-vis Turkey, and I think that's what he's going to have to work on.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I think it's probably a lot more complicated than people think it is right now.

HANSON: It is. It is.

INGRAHAM: Again, he said he was going to pull us out of these wars. He's doing what he said he was going to do, people voted for that. I think if Congress wants to have another use of military force authorization, they better be voting. That means the squad, AOC, Tlaib, they should all have to vote for them. That's my view. Don't die out on 2001, that's a long time ago. Victor, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

And up next, is Hillary Clinton preparing for a third White House run?  Dinesh D'Souza, Ethan Bearman are here, a potential wild card developing when we come back.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Donald Trump himself is the disinformationist in chief.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's unfit, and he's a clear and present danger to this country.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You have got a president that's acting like a global gangster.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The work of the American people isn't getting done.  Everybody is doubtful, everybody is questioning, they don't trust the United States government any longer.


INGRAHAM: The so-called experts are predicting again Trump's downfall in 2020. And the top three Democratic presidential candidates, though, are struggling. Look at this headline. Joe Biden "donors gather for emergency closed-door meeting as campaign loses steam." Another big concern, Biden came forth in fundraising for the third quarter behind Mayor Pete.

Then there's the not so secret plan to keep Elizabeth Warren from securing the nomination. An unnamed major Democrat donor -- Wall Street, excuse me -- telling "The Washington Post" if she's the nominee, "we can't vote for her or Trump" and would sit out the election.

And Bernie Sanders, well, he had a heart attack last week, God bless him, and that's raising serious questions about his health and overall physical fitness for office.

So all that combined, plus Hillary Clinton's new media tour, she's everywhere, raising serious questions if she actually is going to make a third run at the White House. Yes, we're serious.

Joining me now, Dinesh D'Souza, conservative author, filmmaker, and Ethan Bearman, syndicated liberal radio host of "Left Coast News." Ethan, are you concerned about the top three Democrats struggling so much now that even Democrats are seriously pondering this Hillary 2020 idea?

ETHAN BEARMAN, LIBERAL RADIO HOST: I'm not as worried maybe as other people would like to make it out to be. But here's the deal, there are issues, no question about it. Joe Biden has lost some of the momentum.  There are people within the Democratic Party, the more moderates, who aren't interested in Elizabeth Warren, and I really think Bernie's chance was in 2016. So there are opportunities here. I just don't think it's Hillary Clinton. I think that people who are under that age of 51, a fresh face. I think there is a great dark horse in this race who is completely underrated, and that's Beto O'Rourke. I think he is the dark horse.

INGRAHAM: Are you kidding me?

BEARMAN: Mayor Pete is popular.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second, wait a second --

BEARMAN: He is eloquent like Obama. He has the personal connection like Bill Clinton.

INGRAHAM: My heart just skipped a beat. Really?

BEARMAN: Absolutely true. Yes, I really do believe it, because people are connecting.

INGRAHAM: OK, Dinesh, Beto O'Rourke was good on China today. I'm going to say something nice about Beto. I liked what he said about China and the NBA, yay. But that's only because President Trump paved the way for everyone to think the right things about China, sorry. But what about this, Hillary Clinton, she feels like she got robbed, she says that over and over again, Dinesh, on the trail.

DINESH D'SOUZA, CONSERVATIVE FILMMAKER: There's no question that Hillary would love to get her way into the Oval Office. I just don't think it's going to happen. It is true that the three Democrats in the lead are all faltering in different ways. Biden, the bubbling, the stumbling, then the corruption. If anything, this impeachment inquiry has shown, the racket that the Biden family has been running in China, also in the Ukraine. And of course, Elizabeth Warren is stiff as a board. I can't even imagine her getting into the mud with the greatest mud wrestler of all time, Donald Trump. So for these reasons, there's a look to other people.

But Beto, really? I think Hillary Clinton could not even suffer a second loss. I don't even know what that would do to her psyche.

INGRAHAM: OK, Elizabeth Warren's elaborate tall tales are catching up to her. Last week we were the first on television to expose one of them.  Back in 2007, she said she quit her teaching job, Ethan, because she didn't have enough credentials. Then more than a decade later, this is her story.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Teaching special needs kids is a calling. But I finished the first year visibly pregnant.  And back in those days, it meant you didn't get invited back.


INGRAHAM: Not so fast, Liz, because "The Washington Free Beacon" obtained documents from the Riverdale Board of Education that prove Warren's contract was renewed for a second year, and that she resigned from teaching more than two months later. So, Ethan, that media conveniently ignoring the story. The narrative she is telling is false. Similar to the narrative regarding her ancestry that was very attractive, being Native American as she is, or she said she was, but this seems like a little bit of a pattern here.

BEARMAN: That is a regrettable unforced error on the part of the brilliant Senator Warren, who I disagree with Dinesh, of course, on this, I think she would be phenomenal in a debate with President Trump, as would Vice President Joe Biden, and again, Bernie would do quite well as well. But unforced errors are always regrettable. She really is brilliant, she's a great attorney, a great professor. She is brilliant on the debate stage, but unforced errors really are going to catch up. If she continues to make these, it's not helping her case, because it looked like she was about to overtake Vice President Biden in this.

INGRAHAM: So, Biden, you talk about Biden, why does Warren have to make up a story about her life, Dinesh, if she is just naturally so brilliant in debates and on the trail. I don't think she's ever been nicked in a debate. She's never been nicked in a debate by anybody.

D'SOUZA: This is part of the problem is that her narrative is the narrative of a privileged white women who, not content with having the female card to play in affirmative action, had to play the Native American card so she could be a twofer. She wanted to be not just a woman but a woman of color, and was so described in the "Fordham Law Review" and other places like that. So she used this not innocently. It wasn't an unforced error. These were cunning moves that she made to advance her career. Now obviously they're embarrassing to her now, and so she's trying to recreate this fictional narrative, sort of Abraham Lincoln style of having grown up in a log cabin, having been persecuted all the way along the way. I think that this is not unforced errors, but these are efforts ultimately to create a fake narrative about who she is.

INGRAHAM: Gentlemen, thanks so much tonight.

And coming up, think about this now. Democrats are attempting to remove a duly elected president of the United States while not cooperating with Republicans. They're holding hearings behind closed doors and refusing to release testimonies of transcripts. So why isn't anyone calling them out?  We will in moments.



REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I want to make sure that there's nothing that I do that jeopardizes the whistleblower in any way.

The risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.


INGRAHAM: That was Adam Schiff on why he favors keeping the whistleblower's name secret. But is there room for secrecy here? Dems are relying on this anonymous person to remove the president of the United States. And they've held all their hearings about Trump's Ukraine behind closed doors. So what are they hiding?

Joining me no is Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, Fox News contributor, and Chris Swecker, former FBI assistant director. Byron, you've been writing about this. Why would the Democrats go to such great lengths to keep this whistleblower's name and identity secret?

BRYON YORK, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: First of all, there have been two hearing so far in this Ukraine investigation.  Both last week, both in secret. There's supposed to be one tomorrow, they're supposed to be another one later this week, and they're going to be secret, too. We don't have any transcripts. The only thing we know about what was said is what has been leaked.

Now, Democrats have said we have to be secret because we have to protect the identity of the whistleblower. And there has been a new report in "The Washington Post" saying that they're considering maybe if they have the whistleblower testify, it will be a at a remote location --

INGRAHAM: Let's put that up on the screen, OK. These are the measures that Democrats are willing to take. Put the whistleblower in a separate location away from the capital. This is like on the State of the Union, when you have the vice president or member of the cabinets. Use camera that distorts face and alters voice. Very spooky. Sit behind screen or partition, it's very dramatic the way we're revealing them on the screen, by the way. This audio only testimony, it's like a reveal, Byron. That's freaky.

YORK: If you look at the law on this, the Whistleblower Protection Act, it says that the Inspector General shall not disclose the name of the whistleblower unless he determines that disclosure is unavoidable in the course of the end education.

INGRAHAM: Chris Swecker, you been around the block here, you know this deal now. Adam Schiff is in control of the transcripts, and really in control of this process. Not knowing who this person is and maybe another whistleblower, or pseudo whistleblower, I don't even know if these count as whistleblowers, but they're being called whistleblowers. What about this would be counting as it was but they're called whistleblowers. What about this?

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: First we have to acknowledge why we're here. The criminal justice system under Bill Barr has been removed as a political weapon, so no longer can the criminal justice system be used for political gain here. So, now, all they are left with is the impeachment process. And even an impeachment processes has to have some sort of due process. Adam Schiff, who resembles Captain Ahab in the Herman Melville novel "Moby Dick," has decided that he's going to run things behind closed doors and do away with due process, can't confront the witnesses, can't confront the accusers. This looks a lot like one of those third world countries or some dictatorship like in China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. We are better than this.

INGRAHAM: So this is the deep state's whistleblower revenge from the outside. Again, we'll find out more, but it sure looks like that, Chris.  Now they've got Barr in there cleaning it up. You've got Durham, you've got the I.G. Horowitz. And then you've suddenly got this detail lead from the CIA, hanging out at the White House, hearing gossip from other people who are listening in on the calls. This is just outrageous that this is even allowed to happen. I'd put those calls in a locked box somewhere too given what was going down at the White House.

SWECKER: That's all very clever. You can cloak yourself in something that's pretty sacrosanct in our society, the whistleblower. Now they're using that process in a very cynical way, and now defaulting to impeachment which is an entirely political process. I come at it from someone with experience in the criminal justice system, and it was abhorrent to myself and my colleagues, my former colleagues, as well, that the FBI was politicized. So, now we see them moving away from that and getting into another area.

INGRAHAM: It's the last straw for them. But, Jamie Raskin, Congressman from Delaware, is calling this all desperate, Byron.

YORK: This cannot go on this way. It's impossible to believe the Democrats will be able to run and impeachment, to propose --

INGRAHAM: Maryland, Maryland.

YORK: -- to propose to remove the president on the basis of secret information, to say to the American people, the president has to be removed. We can't tell you why, but we have got good reasons. You need to trust us on this. That just won't work. At some point very soon we are going to have to hear what these witnesses are saying.

INGRAHAM: Byron, Chris, great to have you both on tonight, thanks so much.

And coming up, what's more annoying to a Democratic presidential candidate than the truth? I'll reveal what's bugging them in tonight's Last Bite, next.


INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite. Hey, Kamala, what's bugging you tonight?


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And the reality of it - - there so many little puns I could make right now.

Even Republicans who have been real -- excuse me -- real defenders of the president.

And frankly crazy statements by Donald Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senate produced bipartisan legislation --




INGRAHAM: That was like a Trump-inspired insect drone, that was flying -- it was better than her dance though. That was -- there's some good moves there. It's a cheap shot.

That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream, the "Fox News @ Night" team have it all from here. Shannon.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.