Are Democrats desperate enough for a 2020 Hillary Clinton run?

close

Video

Are Democrats desperate enough for a 2020 Hillary Clinton run?

Reaction from former Bill Clinton adviser Doug Schoen and Independent Women's Voice president Tammy Bruce.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 24, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right, you take care. I'm Laura Ingraham; this is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington. As you heard it from Sean, huge breaking night. John Durham's review into the origins of the Russian probe has now turned into a real criminal investigation.

We're going to take you through everything you need to know and our Legal Eagles tells us which deep stators might need to lawyer up and fast. Plus, we examined two big anchors currently weighing down the Democrat Party. First, a Former Clinton Adviser warning that Hillary's flirtation with a third run reveals a party in collapse.

He is here to explain why? And then if you get through Hunter Biden's troubling association stopped with Ukraine and China, boy, were you wrong! We have the details. And we're the only show that will bring you the details of a tragic case out of Texas were a father is fighting for custody of his 7-year-old son after his wife wants the boy to transition, hormonally, et cetera.

We have breaking news a huge development in that story that has taken the internet by storm. But first, unmasking the liberal pretenders that's the focus of tonight's “Angle.”

Now many of you know that Democrats today are easily offended. They demand that the rest of America bow down at the altar of political correctness the rules of which only they determine. Now last year they faint horror when Trump and his supporters blasted left-wing activists who were harassing conservatives. One word in particular triggered them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You are not going to use the mob word here. Let me move past the M word.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republicans are trying to paint Democrats as an angry mob.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You call people mobs because they are exercising their constitutional right is just beyond the pale.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Beyond the pale? Was this beyond the pale, Don?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A shocking scene today on Capitol Hill, one that some Democrats say it resembled a mob.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Quite obliviously looked a mob scene.

UNIDENIFIED FEMALE: Our Republican colleagues who frankly acted like a mob.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, the M word. Do you see anything goes when describing conservatives? The word mob is the least objectionable of the slander. Rush referred to it at the end of Hannity's show that the left routinely uses it with impunity against Republicans. White supremacists, Xenophobes, misogynist et cetera no evidence needed.

Now the moment I heard them cattle walling about Trump's used the word lynching to describe the ongoing impeachment star chamber, I knew the Democrats would once again get caught with egg on their faces. Biden remember fell in line with the language police saying that Trump was despicable and abhorrent for using the word but then this surfaced.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oops! Well, Democrats have lost all sense of perspective and apparently even their own memory as they tried to out metal one another in the hate Trump Olympics. They have to oppose everything Trump is for and everything he does even if that means contradicting their own views on tone and key points, key substance.

Now liberals clutch their pearls when conservatives do something. And yet they make endless excuses for Democrats when they do the exact same thing. What better example than the blackface controversy? Woke liberals would and do condemn as racist anyone who wants wore an Indian headdress little own costume with blackface.

But now we know that they really don't care about these cultural offenses since two men are still in office. Democrats could not risk the political fallout in Virginia coming up on an election year, trying to ditch Ralph Northam and heck Obama even endorsed his good friend Justin Trudeau. Yet there are other far more damaging ways in which the Democrats' pretzel like opposition to Trump has manifested itself.

Liberals started the Free Speech Movement. Remember in California 50 years ago? Anti-war demonstrations on college campuses that captivated the nation. It was about more speech, not less. Well, I'm actually not happy to report that today the left coast is probably the most inhospitable place for free and unfettered speech in the country.

And now university speech codes are stifling open and rigorous debate on most campuses. Meanwhile, only a handful of real liberals speak out in defense of ideological diversity there. Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg appeared on Capitol Hill yesterday and he was mugged by the anti-free- speech mob.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: So you want to take down lies or you will take down lies? I think it's just a simple yes or no.

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: In a democracy, I believe that people should be able to see for themselves what politicians that they may or may not vote for--

OCASIO-CORTEZ: So you won't take them down?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I'd wager that her truth is probably different from your truth. But the bottom line is she wants to ban this stuff that she disagrees with ultimately. Very ill liberal. What about the presumption of innocence?

It's a key pillar of our legal system, right? It's a little jarring when a party that can support like groups from the ACLU forgets about innocence until proven guilty, especially when there is a juicy political or judicial opponent to be smeared which is exactly of course what happens when Democrats without evidence tarred Brett Kavanaugh as a sex abuser and even a gang rapist.

And now the left is trying to pull the same route chain on Trump by drastically lowering the bar for high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach him. What is Trump's high crime? A quid pro quo that never happened? It's not the transcript of the Zelensky call. We know it. But the Democrats have seized on the flip boneheaded comment by Trump's Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney as key evidence.

They're going to put that apparently in an article of impeachment. And the party that once believed in openness and transparency. Well, that's now totally fine with keeping key witnesses behind closed doors. That way, they control the narrative via selective leaks to their ideological paramours in the press.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN CASTRO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have to impeach this President.

ANDREW YANG, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I support impeachment.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't really think this impeachment process will take very long.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I want to peruse him out of the White House.

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: To preserve our constitution, our democracy, our basic integrity, he should be impeached.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The Senators were sitting, they are already saying removal. They didn't even seen the evidence put on in the Senate, do you see my point? Presumption of innocence, open and fair process? Of course that's all very different from the impeachment standard then the one the same Democrats held back when Clinton faced the Hill Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are telling us that our votes don't count. And that the election must be set aside.

BIDEN: The American people don't think that they have made a mistake by electing Bill Clinton. And we in Congress had better be very careful before we accept their decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: But that was then and this is now, the party that once claimed to be the champion of blue-collar workers now offers them nothing except socialism. In the Trump era, 3.5 percent unemployment, raising wages that's not going to apply. The party that once thought we should renegotiate NAFTA.

Remember Obama promised to do that? They won't pass the USMCA only because it means a victory for Trump. The party that was once antiwar rattled against Trump bringing our troops home, home from deployments that were supposed to last for months, not three years. The Democrats are just only too happy to force they would formally core issues and beliefs.

If they believe it or bring down Donald Trump but their mask is finally slipping, and the masquerade officially ends November 2020. That's “The Angle.”

All right, joining us now, we are delighted Ed Henry Fox News Chief National Correspondent, Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union and Richard Goodstein a Former Clinton Adviser.

Matt, look, everyone's a hypocrite. No one is a perfect person. But this goes beyond that. We are talking about not just the blackface controversy, not just the lynching word that they are outraged about one minute. They said 5 minutes ago. This is about a fundamental contradiction and core beliefs on key issues like trade, even China even deporting criminals in the United States one something that used to be in favor of. They all flipped. The party moves left, but more so important because Trump is in office.

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Yes, I think there are two other things, a great angle because I completely agree with what you said. The other thing is can you imagine liberals using the CIA and the Intelligence Community--

INGRAHAM: One more thing--

SCHLAPP: --getting involved in a presidential campaign. Can you imagine liberals running a full impeachment process that doesn't give the President any rights? Richard Nixon got more rights and he committed clear wrong doing, dozens of clear examples. So this hypocrisy goes right to the moment as well.

INGRAHAM: Richard, you're response. I mean some pretty big issue there. The left I think rightly was very suspicious of government institutions spying on Americans. Yet we find out that there have been an uptick in surveillance during the Obama years. And now we have individuals surveil who are American citizens based on shady foreign contacts - talking about Carter Page and what they did with George Papadopoulos. That's what our Intel agencies are all about?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON ADVISOR: I think we are trying to obfuscate something you are referring to of course the Mueller investigation and its roots. Paul Manafort's lawyers said in papers that he met with a Russian spy in Manhattan and gave them secret polling data which would enable them to actually decide how to affect the election.

That has nothing to do with the fake news or anything else. That's what Manafort's lawyers said. So talk about the origins of whatever you want. Look, this whole transparency notion, I will see you all your complaints as long as you can see what Lindsey Graham said in 1998 that Richard Nixon's stiff arming a subpoena was basis of arc impeachment when Lindsey Graham, Pompeo and Trey Gowdy when they were in power all defended the right to have depositions in private. If you will concede that, I may concede some of the things that you are saying too.

INGRAHAM: Right, is the analysis and the comparison to Nixon apt to here, Matt?

SCHLAPP: Well, Nixon got more rights in the process, Nixon's lawyer - in this case they got to be involved in the process for whole time.

GOODSTEIN: Not in the grand jury.

SCHLAPP: No, let me finish. No you are wrong.

INGRAHAM: We're not going to renegotiate it.

SCHLAPP: When Bill Clinton didn't agree to that subpoena, both sides have the ability to have dual subpoena power. We have a process where the President had absolutely zero rights in this process!

GOODSTEIN: There's one difference and let me just make it. In this case of Clinton and Nixon, there was a special prosecutor who had tons of people before him--

INGRAHAM: So you are okay with this? We just had that.

SCHLAPP: You've got Mueller.

GOODSTEIN: No, we didn't. Mueller predated this Taylor guy blowing the whistle. And important thing he didn't want to be part of a drug deal--

INGRAHAM: I'm glad we now know though that Democrats are in favor of impeaching a President with most proceedings held behind closed doors. They are going to cherry pick that. They are doing it the way so they can cherry pick the one little point, two little points, three little points and quickly say--

If there is no classified information in the conversation which there wasn't in these behind closed doors testimony then there was no reason not to have them out in the public. And what I want to say is from lynching to blackface to trade issues to NAFTA, the Democrat Party doesn't know what it is today because 5 minutes ago you guys were renegotiating--

GOODSTEIN: In the Fox News poll, Elizabeth Warren beats Donald Trump by ten points.

INGRAHAM: Oh, bring it. And why is Hillary about to get in? Why are they begging Hilary?

GOODSTEIN: --repeats and remove Donald Trump. In Fox's own poll.

INGRAHAM: Then you should be able to fine with have it in all up to you. Such a--

GOODSTEIN: In battleground states.

INGRAHAM: I got to get big breaking news. Gentlemen, we have to get to the big news tonight. John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Russia probe is now a criminal investigation. "The New York Times" reporting the news with this sub head though, here it is. "The move is likely to open the attorney general to accusations that he is trying to deliver a political victory for President Trump".

Ed, this is unbelievable! They are trying to pin this. John Durham with impeccable background, not a political bone in his body, has revenge of a legitimate investigation by Durham. So heads you win tails I lose.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It might be another example of just kind of letting opinion get ahead of facts but why not let John Durham actually get the facts and figure out the roots of the Russia probe as you were just debating back and forth with Richard and Matt.

The bottom line is Fox has two sources tonight familiar with this investigation confirming that "The New York Times" reports that that man John Durham there the U.S. Attorney from Connecticut now has opened a criminal investigation that started as a broad probe. He didn't actually have a grand jury; he didn't have subpoenas, all the rest, now he does.

This is a formal criminal probe we're told. And so there are going to be a lot of former Obama officials who are going to be under the microscope in terms of their behavior the FISA warrant in all the rest you've been talking about tonight, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Well, there are a lot of people are wondering watching this, Ed, who is most nervous tonight perhaps given what we know. John Brennan has been on television a lot lately and throwing up kind of pixie ducks in the air about all of this. This is all a big scam, this whole thing is ridiculous, casting Barr is just another henchman for Donald Trump. This kind of has been what has been done for some time.

HENRY: We have some clues in that which is that we have been picking up reports that John Durham has been wanting to talk to John Brennan who mentioned the former Obama CIA Director. But also James Clapper who of course was the Head of the Director of National Intelligence who would have be involved in some of this. Not saying that we have evidence - again, we shouldn't--

INGRAHAM: We shouldn't.

HENRY: --we should follow the facts and figure it out what happened and let the chips fall where they may. But I'll give you another important piece of information we are picking up tonight. There was a letter sent by Michael Horowitz in just the last few hours to congressional leaders and what not saying that he is closing in finally getting that Inspector General report about FISA abuse out there in the public domain says that he is going to have it largely unredacted.

We're going to see lots and lots of pages, James Comey's behavior he's another one who will be under the microscope. Officials familiar with the Durham probe are telling me tonight that they'll use that inspector general report as sort of a road map for this criminal probe.

As you know the Inspector General cannot actually prosecute people, can only suggest here's what happened. Here's what may have been wrongdoing but can't actually prosecute anybody. Can recommend prosecution but can't actually do it. Now John Durham has that subpoena power, has that grand jury, can actually potentially push criminal charges that's a big deal.

INGRAHAM: All right. And Matt, apparently also Senator Grassley and Ron Johnson sent a letter to the Intel Community's Inspector General and it contained previously unreleased emails. Lots of stuff happened today! Maybe they knew "The World Series" was tomorrow night.

And apparently in emails and texts between Strokz and Page, there is a reference to a crescendo of leaks. It was sent the day before Jim Comey testified in 2017 after he was fired. How much of this deep state animus towards Trump stems from the firing of being Comey here?

SCHLAPP: A lot of it and I also think you said like your question to Ed, who has the most to lose? In the end, this is a review of Barack Obama's Administration in some of the worst abuse of powers we have really ever seen emanating from the Oval Office. Who has the most to lose, Barack Obama who keeps walking out in these speeches and saying none of my guys ever got in trouble, we never committed any wrong doing.

This could be some of the most ridiculous - outrageous wrongdoing. We know it's there. I'd like to see somebody punished for what happened in 2016. 2020, I hate to say it but it's going to be about the lessons we now need to learn from 2016.

INGRAHAM: Richard?

GOODSTEIN: I'm glad that Durham has the ability to get to the bottom of this just like the State Department finally did. I was waiting frankly for a segment on the fact that the State Department concluded that this evolve Hillary Clinton thing, this whole email thing was a big nothing.

INGRAHAM: 42 people were sided--

GOODSTEIN: No, people at the State Department basically said--

INGRAHAM: State Department internal review. I believe that. Yes.

GOODSTEIN: --revealed no concern to anybody regarding kind of the resale of--

INGRAHAM: That believes a bit, no problem.

GOODSTEIN: This is Donald Trump's own State Department.

INGRAHAM: Well, first of all--

SCHLAPP: We know that he can own a State Department.

INGRAHAM: First of all, 77,000 employees work for the State Department. I think we have established it pretty clearly on this show, going back to the Reagan Administration that the State Department sometimes isn't the biggest friend of conservative policies. This is, like, in the old complaint that Republicans have.

GOODSTEIN: I'd agree with the Secretary should stand up for his Ambassadors, which this is not.

INGRAHAM: Oh, if an Ambassador - here is a news flash for everyone. If an Ambassador does not like a President's policy initiatives or principles, you have a duty to quit. Instead, they burrowed in to be little state department spies. Sorry.

SCHLAPP: We won the election and we should get to run the agency.

GOODSTEIN: We talked to John Bolton.

SCHLAPP: I do frequently.

GOODSTEIN: I'm waiting for him to come on this show and say what - why he said it was a drug deal, Mulvaney that he wanted no part of.

INGRAHAM: You see liberals now embrace John Bolton like 5 minutes ago they didn't like him.

GOODSTEIN: He's a smart guy.

INGRAHAM: Any never Trumper, will be embraced. Ten years ago they were warmongers, now they're really like erudite people. All right, panel, great to have you all on air and our Legal Eagles are here next on tonight's big breaking new there is a lot of it that we have to dissect. Plus THE INGRAHAM ANGLE got exclusive insight into how the Democrats are breaking long standing President with their impeachment tactics. New news tonight, stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: We have to continue this breaking news tonight. Fox News is now confirming that John Durham's review into the origins of the Russia probe has turned into a criminal inquiry. "The New York Times" noting some CIA officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.

I'm joined by a fantastic legal panel, can't think of better folks to break this all down. Robert Ray, Former Whitewater Independent Counsel, Robert Driscoll, Former DOJ Official and Harmeet Dhillon Attorney and Trump 2020 Advisory Board Member.

Robert, so CIA officials are smartly lawyering up for "The New York Times." So who is sweating most tonight?

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I think you already identified some of them. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and the wild card is I don't know who had knowledge within the Justice Department at the supervisory level necessary to approve this, but if anybody is in that loop that knew of the origins of the Steele dossier and it's political connections and made the decision what was complicit in the decision to not disclose that information to the FISA court, I think what we are anticipating is that those folks have potential criminal liability, yes.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, this is when people start getting very nervous. And as we saw with the situation with Paul Manafort, the screws are turned on individuals and it happens a lot. I represented people, it happened to them. And people start coughing up details to avoid jail time, correct?

HARMEET DHILLON, TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER: That's right. Well, the way that this typically works is that you go after the lower-level people and asked them to provide evidence on their supervisors. And so this is not going to start with putting the screws on the people just mentioned or even DOJ officials who may have involved in approving those FISA warrants.

But the lower level people who have more to lose, and who will be able to quickly turn because they don't have loyalty or they don't have that top level political exposure. So that's how this is going to go. For all we know, that's already begun, Laura, by the time we are talking about it here today.

INGRAHAM: Bob, we hear about the House and the impeachment inquiry, subpoenas, bringing witnesses up to Capitol Hill, we've dissected that to the extent we know what happened. But here, Durham can impanel a grand jury, and everything starts the process starts, it's a brutal and often times relentless process. What can we expect here?

BOB DRISCOLL, FORMER DOJ OFFICIAL: Well, I think it's going to be a long time or at least it's not going to be as quick as people want. A grand jury process, they are going to go in and they're going to dig in, witness by witness and document by document. I mean, I think at least it's a fair process when the grand jury process has been around for a long time, we will find out.

INGRAHAM: Not always fair, but it's what we have.

DRIDCOLL: Right. But it's what we have and we'll at least have this stuff of objective scrutiny at some level, and if people are indicted they'll be able to tell themselves. It's a legal proceeding it's less political than the House, for example.

But I think the important thing is what's really to me key is this CIA angle, post mixing, the Intelligence Community was really put in a box to not be involved in domestic politics at all. And if it turns out some of these 2016 investigations where in essence thrown out over the wall from the Intelligence Community into the domestic political arena and the FBI I think those are people it's going to be in some jeopardy.

INGRAHAM: We called it the police state before they did it. Robert Ray, this is a police state stuff that was done, Papadopoulos that was clearly a set up, you had Mifsud, you had Christopher Steele, you had Hillary's people financing the research, wasn't put into the FISA application, that's a material fact that goes to impartiality of information and you use that to surveil American citizen and all these civil libertarians on the left are like, oh, that's fine! I've never seen anything like this.

RAY: It's not fine and it's the one thing out there just so it's clear that rises to the level of severity that was raised during the Nixon impeachment and the involvement of the CIA during Watergate. Anybody who equates anything else with regard to the Trump Administration as the - is apparently the flavor of the month not to say oh, this is as bad as Watergate or worse than Watergate. That's flat out wrong. The President is right about the deep state. This one should be of concern to every American. This is a real problem.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, we had a duly elected President of the United States and because he's - he is revolutionary in the way he approaches issues but he doesn't worry about protocol that all the old elites use he doesn't care about how much they love China, how much they love making money there and all the endless wars.

He believes, I think he was right that it was detrimental to American security. His views - we don't talk about this enough. His views represented an existential threat to the old guard Intel, Defensive Establishment, all of it. They didn't like someone coming into their playground. They wanted him out.

They wanted him to kick him out of the playground and then somehow he won the election, then they really had to kick it up in high gear. That's what went down here. I'm sorry that's my instinct.

And too many facts, disturbing facts came out as a result of what we know just now.

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY: Absolutely, Laura. And there is no if about whether the intelligence establishment was involved. I think it's pretty established. And you are seeing those same State Department officials marching into this pseudo grand jury and the basement of Congress and doing the same thing. They are all closing ranks. They're protecting themselves and they're protecting their way of life, really, because, as you said earlier on your show, since the Reagan administration it's been known that the State Department had its own little rules, the CIA has its own little fiefdoms. And they are allied against the president and all that he stands for and are trying to bring back the old guard.

INGRAHAM: It's despicable. It's despicable. We call it the deep State Department, Bob. It's the deep State Department, because there are too many people in there who think they were elected president.

ROBERT DRISCOLL, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: I think what people miss, and I see this in the media all the time, is that the bureaucracy is not a check on the president. The bureaucracy is supposed to be working in service of the president. The executive branch bureaucracy reports to the president, they're part of the executive branch. And there is no independent body of career employees.

INGRAHAM: Right, they are like the fourth branch of government. It's the executive, judicial, legislative and bureaucratic branch of the government.

DRISCOLL: -- of career employees of the government who get to push back against the executive they don't like. They have the choice, which is you want to make policy? Quit your job and run for office. And guess what, if you're going to live when Washington your whole career and work for the government, you're going to get presidents you don't like once in a while and policies you don't like, and you have to live with it.

INGRAHAM: Robert Ray, I saw this when I was working at the Education Department under Bill Bennett. I saw it when I was working at the Transportation Department after we saw Elizabeth Dole. And these people in offices, you don't know what they are doing. My earring fell off I was excited about that topic.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: But people, there are just thousands and thousands of people and the bureaucracy doesn't want to change, they certainly don't want to pare down. But I think people have to really burrow into that because what was deep state and intel, State Department this is kind of a married web of interwoven alliances against Trump, and we're going to see, I think, a lot more in the coming weeks and months what was really going on after Trump -- before Trump got elected, but in those months after Trump got elected.

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: And it's only because of the intestinal fortitude, quite frankly, of the president, and the attorney general that we're going to get access ultimately and be able to find out factually what happened here. And the second thing I will say is the attempts already are starting to try to undermine yet again the integrity of the attorney general. It's starting here in New York City. This week they called for his recusal in connection with the origins of the Ukraine investigation.

INGRAHAM: Robert Ray, we have breaking news. We actually have breaking news. Was it Adam Schiff and Nadler? Yes, Adam Schiff and Nadler just came out with a statement basically saying this is just retribution, that Barr has lost all independence, Barr has lost all independence. Durham is part of the, I guess, the cabal. That's all, none of them are legitimate now because the mask is being slowly ripped off.

RAY: Nice try on that one, because that's not going to work. John Durham enjoys a bipartisan reputation --

INGRAHAM: He did.

RAY: -- for being a fine public servant and career prosecutor. He has the independence necessary to conduct this investigation, so any contention that Bill Barr is interfering is ridiculous. And he's, frankly, set this thing up in the appropriate way to provide a sitting U.S. attorney with sufficient independence and latitude to get to the bottom of this in a bipartisan way.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, real quick, and Bob. Harmeet first, and then Bob. Harmeet?

DHILLON: I completely agree, and I think even breaking news stories in "The New York Times," the second paragraph slimed the attorney general. But that's all they have, Laura. They have no facts. They have no witnesses who are not corrupted or tied to their deep state, they have no independence in order to be able to undermine this president. All they can do is call him names and try to sideline the players. That's what they did with the prior attorney general. They're doing it now. It's part of their playbook, nothing new here, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Bob, real quick, is it going to work?

DRISCOLL: No. And Poor John Durham is going to be a MAGA hat wearing lunatic on MSNBC by tomorrow morning.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my gosh. Panel, thank you. I couldn't think of better people to have on a night like tonight. Thank you.

And in moments a desperate Texas father is trying to stop his ex-wife from letting his seven-year-old son transition. We have breaking news. This is the gender transition story that has been tearing up the Internet, and we have new information. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Now to a Texas father's desperate battle where he's fighting the stop his seven-year-old son from undergoing gender transition, being pushed by the child's mother. Today, that boy's father received a small victory in court. Chief correspondent Jonathan Hunt is in our West Coast Newsroom with all the details. Jonathan?

JONATHAN HUNT, CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Laura. This is a case that has stirred a lot of emotions, a lot of debate, and a lot publicity. But it's worth remembering, at the heart of this is a seven- years-old child caught in the middle of what appears to be a bitter divorce, and parents who have very different views on what is best for their child.

The seven-year-old's mother, a pediatrician in Dallas, says the child, born biologically male, is transgender and presents as a girl at school, at home, and in public. The mother has accused her ex-husband of emotional abuse of the child and bullying the seven-year-old with regards to gender identity. The father disputes those claims and says the child always presents as a boy around him. He has accused the mother of planning to force the child to undergoing hormone therapy and puberty blockers, although the judge in today's hearing pointed out that there has never been such an order. And "The Dallas Morning News" reports that in court documents, the mother in fact wrote that the child, quote, "is not yet at the age where treatment with hormonal expressions, puberty blockers, and/or transgendered reassignment surgery is medically considered."

The case has attracted political attention, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott saying it is, quote, "being in two by the Texas Attorney General's Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services." And Republican Senator Ted Cruz saying, quote, "A seven-year-old child doesn't have the maturity to make profound decisions like this. The state of Texas should protect this child's right to choose as an informed, mature person, and not be used as a pawn in a leftwing political agenda."

It should be pointed out, Laura, that the publicity surrounding this case has come about largely because the father took to social media to campaign against the mother, and set up a Web site about the case, part of the reason the judge today, while ordering the parents to work together on medical issues, also imposed a gag order on the father. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Unbelievable. Thanks, Jonathan.

Joining me now, Lieutenant Governor of Texas Dan Patrick. Dan, you have some breaking news on this case for us tonight. What's going on?

DAN PATRICK, R-TX, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: I think, and Johnson did a great job of bringing everyone up-to-date, Laura. The news, and there have been many reports at this point that the judge has made a decision today that would favor the father. As Jonathan Hunt said, there is a gag order, and we have not seen the legal opinion for the order by the judge yet.

But if that is indeed the case, which many believe is the case, then that means the father will have say in the psychological care of this child, which he did not have before. And so it would be a joint conservatorship on the health care and the mental health care, the psychological care, of this young boy.

There's a reason, Laura, that states don't let seven-year-olds smoke, they're not allowed to, or drink, or drive, or vote. And this whole issue, Laura, that's really come about in the last five years, people weren't talking about these issues.

INGRAHAM: Let me just --

PATRICK: -- the progressive left has pushed this issue and put this family in a very tough position.

INGRAHAM: I will say that one of the most startling things about this is that the individuals who have done the most peer-reviewed research into gender dysphoria, like Dr. Paul McHugh, I think he's an authored 125 peer- reviewed articles at John Hopkins. He's the guy who is the expert of gender dysphoria. He said it is biologically impossible to change genders, and anyone who promotes the idea that it is biologically possible is perpetuating a fraud.

And it further points out at Vanderbilt and London Portman Clinic study that was an extensive study of people who are identified as transgender who then go get surgery are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than non- transgendered persons, which is a tragic fact. So there is a lot that people don't want to talk about because they think it's politically explosive. But these are peer-reviewed studies that now the science crowd doesn't like science. It's very sad.

PATRICK: And these are young children that adults are making decisions for them, at seven you can't make that decision, that will change their life forever, that you cannot come back, particularly if you go through the full treatment into their teen years. And so the reason the governor and the attorney general today, Governor Abbott and Ken Paxton, asked for an investigation by our Child Protective Services.

INGRAHAM: This is child abuse.

PATRICK: And this gets into another issue, Laura, that's very important to all Americans, and that's parental rights. So this is what happens when you go outside of the norm and try to change the culture on issues like this. When I talked to schools years ago, when I was working on this issue, I would talk to a school that had 100,000 students, and they might have four students that were -- and they were very often active parents who were pushing this issue on the students. And so this is the progressive left trying to push this down the throats of America. And we'll see where the judge --

INGRAHAM: And parents feel helpless. We've got to go. We've got to go. Parents feel helpless. You are not helpless. This is your child. And if children can choose this, then the next thing is going to be choosing consent, consent for sexual activity. If they can choose this, why can't they make other choices?

PATRICK: For everything.

INGRAHAM: There's a lot to this story. Guys, thanks so much.

Coming up, we have yet another entrant into the Hillary Clinton 2016 excuse sweepstakes. This one takes the cake. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, D-FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Is she joking? Of course not. As I said in my “Angle” last night, I kind of want her to come back, because Hillary is the best thing to ensure a second Trump term. All of her little hints and the hype shows the pathetic state of the current 2020 field for the Democrats, which even the media are starting to admit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is very typical of Democrats to always be handwringing, always looking for that perfect candidate who may be out there in the distance.

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Despite a large field that started with nearly 30 candidates and unprecedented amounts of fundraising and voter interest, some Democratic donors are grumbling that they don't like the toys they have been playing with and they want a new one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Democrats are reportedly getting a little nervous about beating Trump next year. Is there a winner in the current field of candidates?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Joining me now is Doug Schoen, former advisor to Bill Clinton and FOX News contributor, and Tammy Bruce, president of Independent Women's Voice, FOX News contributor. And of course, she's the host of "Get Tammy Bruce" on FOX Nation.

Doug, you say that Hillary is flirting with entering the race. What does that suggest about the state of this Democrat party, let alone the Democrat field?

DOUG SCHOEN, CONTRIBUTOR: It suggests that she believes, first, that they're weak, second, that she can win the primary, and third, that none of them can probably, in her terms, beat Donald Trump, and that she, for some reason, deserves a rematch given the results three-and-a-half years ago.

I think none of that is true. I think it is true what you said before, Laura, that we have a weak field. Biden is a weak candidate, Warren is too far left, Mayor Pete is untested, and Bernie is 78 and an avowed socialist. That's not great mix to beat an incumbent president and at time of prosperity and peace, and then impeachment that is very much polarizing.

So Hillary I think reflects a larger, I'll use the word, malaise among Democratic supporters and elites that this may not be the best, most possible team to beat the incumbent.

INGRAHAM: Tammy, I've got to get the new Hillary excuses for her 2016 loss. There a lot of different excuses she likes to deploy, but this new one might be her finest work yet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, D-FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think it's going to be the same as 2016. Don't vote for the other guy. You don't like me, don't vote for the other guy, because the other guy is going to do x, y, and z, or the other guy did such terrible things. I'm going to show you in these flashing videos that appear and disappear, and they're on the dark web, and nobody can find them. But you're going to see them, and you're going to see that person doing these horrible things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: What was Hillary watching that we weren't watching, Tammy? Flashing videos, is that why she did that weird bob-head, bob thing? I don't know.

TAMMY BRUCE, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE PRESIDENT: It's hard to say. There's I think now 2,000 excuses about why she did not win. There seems to be some paranoia involved in how she views the world. But here's what we've got. And at some point you have to wonder if Hillary is working for President Trump, but all of this, for her to be saying this now is insulting to the existing field.

These are people, and look, I don't like any of them, but they are putting themselves on the line. Many of them, their lives are disrupted, their families are disrupted. They've been working hard to get onto those debates, they've been raising money, they've been facing the media, they've at least been trying. And yet here now is this messaging that, my gosh, none of these are good enough.

And look, we see that in the fundraising, right? Record fundraising for the RNC and President Trump's team, and yet this really nothing coming in for the candidates that are the Democrats. But this is why debates matter. This is why there's a primary season. And the problem is already there is a lack of interest, a lack of enthusiasm, and they are not even into the primaries yet.

INGRAHAM: No, no, no.

BRUCE: And they have a reason to be concerned, because Hillary, the Bidens -- sorry, the Clintons and the Obamas really destroyed the party. They destroyed the talent back bench. And this is what they've been left with, and it's their fault, and here they are wanting to take over.

INGRAHAM: I'll say that you have Hillary Clinton brand name, and if they really believe that Russia stole the election for Trump, which they believe, then why wouldn't they want Hillary to have a second run at it, Doug Schoen? If she was robbed, if she was robbed, she knows Trump, she knows how to do it. She said it, I know this guy. One of her friends was quoted as saying that in the "Washington Post." I know how to run against him, I've run against him. It sounds like there is a tease going on here, and I do not think it's just for book sales. I really don't.

SCHOEN: I don't. I think there may be two people, perhaps three, who think Hillary can win, and one of those people is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Laura, she's can't win. She won't win. I don't think she's going to run.

INGRAHAM: Who has a better chance of -- she has a better chance than Elizabeth Warren in my view.

SCHOEN: Can I tell you, I've seen the polls. Hillary Clinton is unelectable. She doesn't have a better chance. She is a political cancer on the Democrats, and the smile on my friend Tammy Bruce's face says she knows that that's true, too. You know what, Hillary is finished. I hope she goes away, because I'd like to have a real election, not what she was saying, which makes no earthly sense.

BRUCE: What this shows you is that what's happened to the Democratic Party, it is clearly in disarray. They clearly have not been able to adapt to a world that the president has created, which is again --

INGRAHAM: Got to go. Got to go, guys. Thank you. Awesome segments.

SCHOEN: Thank you so much.

INGRAHAM: When we come back, the Last Bite, and it is a doozy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT: In siding with the Chinese Communist Party and silencing free speech, the NBA is acting like a wholly owned subsidiary of that authoritarian regime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: To which former NBA star Charles Barkley said this tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES BARKLEY, FORMER NBA PLAYER: First of all, Vice President Pence needs to shut the hell up, number one. All American companies are doing business in China.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yes, you got it? Shut up and govern. OK. He is a right to speak as vice president. Boy, the left really wants to conscript speech everywhere. Now, the vice president can't speak on Chinese-American relations.

All right. That's all the time we have tonight. There was big breaking news, I know Shannon is going to hit it. Fox News and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here. Shannon.

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.