This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 2, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Laura Ingraham:
Awesome job tonight. You take care. I’m Laura Ingraham. This is the Ingraham Angle from D.C. tonight. Ken Starr says that President Trump is right to refuse to participate in the next phase of impeachment. He’s here to explain this in moments. All you left wing crazies have been going nuts about this all day long. Plus, disgraced former FBI lawyer Lisa Page granted her first interview to a member of the resistance media and she wants you to feel sorry for her. Do you? John Solomon and Lee Smith are here to explain why you shouldn’t. And they’ll also respond to a breaking statement from the DOJ that just dropped moments ago about Michael Horowitz’s new IG report about to come out. Plus, Joe Biden’s [laughs] “No More Malarkey” bus tour. Have you seen this thing? Well, a few potholes hit along the way in its inaugural weekend. Governor Mike Huckabee walks us through some of the dips in the pavement. But first, impeaching to the choir. That’s the focus of tonight’s angle. Now, for as long as I can remember, Democrats have claimed a vigorous support for international alliances. And since Trump took the oath of office, they warned that his America First approach would isolate us and do more irreparable harm to NATO.

Male Speaker:
It’s the single most consequential alliance --

Male Speaker:
Okay.

Male Speaker:
-- in the history of the United States.

Male Speaker:
Putin, whose number one goal is to divide the west and particularly, in NATO, has an American president doing his work for him.

Male Speaker:
I can absolutely see this president doing enough damage to NATO --

Male Speaker:
[affirmative]

Male Speaker:
-- that it either seriously weakens to the point that it is no longer a workable defense alliance, or it falls apart.

Laura Ingraham:
Okay. All of that was false, by the way. Yes, NATO is very important. Biden’s right about that. But all of this hyperbole about what Trump was going to do to NATO, chock that up to the experts being wrong again. The truth is Trump actually got NATO members to spend more on defense, $100 billion more, to be exact. He didn’t do this like some other presidents would by bilking the American taxpayer. He got countries like Germany, the U.K. and France to pay more. It’s about time. Now, President Obama could have demanded an end to the free riding, but he didn’t. That might be one reason why they liked him so much. “Hey, you didn’t pay your dues? No problem.” But as President Trump touched down late this afternoon in London, he commands NATO members’ attention because they know that he’ll hold them to their financial obligations and not just blow him off. Now, one would think that Congress, regardless of party affiliation, would want the president at this important meeting focused on the issues at hand. There are a lot of big issues facing the alliance. And that they would want him there unencumbered by extraneous partisan maters, right? Well, not a chance.

Male Speaker:
We’re following multiple breaking stories as the push to impeach President Trump moves forward up on Capitol Hill. Members of the House Intelligence Committee are going behind closed doors this evening to review their report on President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

Male Speaker:
Wednesday, the first impeachment hearing by the committee that actually drafts the articles of impeachment. Tonight, they’re meeting behind closed doors to do the report and then the Judiciary will hold this public hearing. Where’s President Trump on all this?

Laura Ingraham:
[laughs] Where is he on this? He’s actually meeting with NATO members tomorrow, okay? Of course, they’re using this moment, the resistance media, to endlessly hide an impeachment that will never result in a conviction. Never. And one that has zero bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.

Donald Trump:
The whole thing is a hoax. Everybody knows this. All you have to do is look at the words of the Ukrainian president that he just issued, and you know it’s a hoax. It’s an absolutely disgrace what they’re doing to our country.

Laura Ingraham:
So, why the need to fast track this? They couldn’t wait until after the NATO summit for their pointless impeachment exercise? No. And House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler tried to add insult to injury just six days ago by so magnanimously inviting the White House to participate in the hearing during the NATO meeting. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone rightly dismissed the invite -- it’s a great letter, by the way -- citing a complete lack of due process and fundamental fairness. His blistering letter also exposed Nadler’s absurd attempt to try to rely on the Clinton impeachment as precedent, saying, “President Clinton was allowed to call 14 witnesses. Here, with the hearings before the committee set to begin a mere five days from the date of your latest letter, it still remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee actually intends to permit the president or your Republican colleagues to call witnesses at all.

And also, that during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two and a half weeks notice to prepare and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the president’s attorneys. Today, by contrast, you’ve afforded no scheduling input, no meaningful information, and so little time to prepare that you’ve effectively denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate.” While Democrats hold vigils and pro bono work to defend the due process rights of murderers, yet they run roughshod over the president’s same rights. It’s absurd.

But they’re so blinded by their Trump hatred that they won’t even agree to support policies at this point that will help their own constituents. Forget America at large. Case in point, the USMCA, which includes trade concessions from Canada and Mexico the Democrats said they long desired. The New York Times, of all places, is reporting that House Democrats returned to Washington on Monday, today, facing a difficult choice: should they hand President Trump a victory in the midst of a heated impeachment battle, or walk away from one of the most progressive trade pacts ever negotiated by either party?
Wow. The pressure is on. Yet instead of allowing this obvious win for American workers, Pelosi and her whacked out caucus are on a vengeful high. They’re tripping on a Ukraine hallucinogenic, impeaching to their own choir of radicals. The rest of America, though, is busy at work, preparing for exams or for the holidays. They’re enjoying the fruits of perhaps the greatest American economy of the past half-century.

Male Speaker:
We’re really in a situation where the economy’s still growing, we’re record low on employment rates.

Male Speaker:
It’s very rare that the biggest is the most nimble and the most flexible, and fast growing. But the United States economy is all of those things among developed countries.

Male Speaker:
About as good as it gets for the U.S. economy.

Laura Ingraham:
Issuing their own report after the Schiff-bag of impeachment tricks, House Republicans summed up the Democrats’ discordant actions this way, “The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct. It’s an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system.” Bingo. That is just as the angle has been warning you now for months. Actually, for years. The more leftward the Democrats lean, the more they lean against democracy. Because the electoral college delivered the Trump victory, ah, you’ve got to abolish it.

Elizabeth Warren:
My goal is to get elected, and then to be the last American president elected by the electoral college.

[applause]

Laura Ingraham:
Go, go, Liz. Because Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court, the court has to be packed with more justices.

Pete Buttigieg:
We’ve got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court. The one idea that I think is interesting is you have 15 members --

Laura Ingraham:
[laughs] Blah, blah, blah. Because 63 million Americans voted for the man that the elites considered uncouth and untested, the voting age has to be lowered to 16 to cancel out all those old people.

Female Speaker:
It’s really important to capture kids when they’re in high school when they’re interested in all of this, when they’re learning about government, to be able to vote.

Laura Ingraham:
Okay. None of this is going to work. And frankly, it all looks really pathetic. For the past year, they’ve been in power, the House Democrats. And what have they done? They’ve tried to just distract you from the results of this presidency: a booming economy --

a booming economy, record-high stock markets, record-low unemployment, and growing wages. Plus, of course, the massive pro-growth deregulation Trump has done and forcing Mexico and Central America to finally help curb illegal immigration. It’s about time. But what do the Democrats have to show for themselves?

[clip playing]

That’s about all they’ve got. Nothing. Beyond impeachment, they don’t have anything, just proposals like the Green Raw Deal that will cost trillions, higher taxes for pretty much everybody, the mass release of criminals that will make you more unsafe, and government-run health care that’s free for anyone who crosses the border illegally. This week, President Trump may find -- after everything I’ve told you tonight, everything he’s seen since he took that oath of office -- he may just find that working with Macron and Merkel is easier than working with his fellow Americans across the aisle. How about that? And that’s the angle.

[sound effect]

Joining me now, Ken Starr, former independent counsel and a FOX News contributor, and Bob Barr, Clinton impeachment manager and former federal prosecutor and Georgia congressman. Ken, let’s go to you first. You say it’s wise for the White House to refuse to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee. Why do you think that? All day long on the resistance media we’ve been hearing it’s a sign of weakness, an administration who doesn’t have a case to make.

Ken Starr:
Well, that’s the potential downside politically, but in my view -- and you laid these out in quoting from Pat Cipollone’s letter -- the impeachment inquiry just got off on the wrong track when Nancy Pelosi, I believe -- I’m usually more careful with my words -- abused her power by unilaterally declaring an impeachment inquiry as opposed to -- and we talked about this weeks ago, but it’s still the infection that continues to make this whole process very ill. At every step, there is some dimension of procedural unfairness. There’s a violation of traditions, a violation of history, and those things count in the people’s House. But she has the raw power; the House of Representatives has the raw power. They are abusing their power by the way in which they are conducting the specifics of this inquiry, and they should be ashamed of themselves. And if it’s going to be a fundamentally unfair -- call it whatever you will; use whatever pejorative term you will -- then it is certainly a reasonable response by the president as articulated by Pat Cipollone in, I think, a very hard-hitting but brilliant and lawyer-like letter. “We are not going to participate with this kind of profoundly unfair proceeding.”

Laura Ingraham:
Now, kangaroo court, whatever you -- star chamber; not S-T-A-R-R, but a star chamber of sorts.

Ken Starr:
[laughs] Right.

Laura Ingraham:
And why do you want to take part in any of this? And, Congressman Barr, it was 11 years ago you took part in the impeachment proceeding as an impeachment manager -- 21 years ago. How did I say 11 years ago? It seems like yesterday, Bob. So, you’re watching this thing unfold, and Nancy Pelosi just -- yeah, this was several months ago; I think it was back in late winter, early winter -- made a comment that I think has largely gone unnoticed, but our intrepid producer found this today. Watch.
Nancy Pelosi:
From our standpoint, our day-to-day work is not about him. It’s about the American people. I just don’t believe in it. They wanted me to impeach President Bush for the Iraq war. I didn’t believe in it then, and I don’t believe in it now. It divides the country unless there’s some conclusive evidence that takes us to that place.

Laura Ingraham:
Bob, what happened? Is it really Alexander Vindman and Fiona Hill and -- is it really all that that changed Nancy Pelosi’s mind, do you think?

Bob Barr:
Well, I’m not sure what changed her mind, but this whole process, Laura, lacks any sort of coherence. It lacks of any sort of leadership; it lacks of anything of substance, and it’s turning into the gift that keeps on giving. I mean, the more that the Democrats pursue this track, the less credibility they have, and as Judge Starr noted, the letter that the president’s counsel sent to the chairman, Nadler, the man who never smiles, the other day, not only is hard-hitting, I thought it was actually too nice. I mean, he could have summed it up in one sentence, you know -- “Go fly a kite” -- because this is absolutely absurd. And the problem is what they’re -- the damage here really, Laura, is that they are playing around with a very sacred power that the American people have to remove a leader for just cause, and they are undermining that very, very significant provision in our Constitution.

Laura Ingraham:
The ringleader in chief Adam Schiff actually spoke tonight on MSNBC. Watch.

Adam Schiff:
We are putting the finishing touches on the report which will be released publicly tomorrow. At the same time, that's not the end of our investigation. So, even while Judiciary does its work, we will continue investigating. We also feel a sense of urgency. This is a president who has sought for intervention in U.S. elections twice now. This is a threat to the integrity of the upcoming election.

Laura Ingraham:
Ken, did you hear that? He said the investigating continues. Back to my angle, what do they have to show for their two years in the majority? Investigate -- they can’t even pass USMCA, which they said they were for.

Ken Starr:
Right. In terms of the substantive agenda for the country, very little, precious little, and jobs are at stake. That is such a wonderful opportunity for us with our partners, with Canada and Mexico, to move a move forward. It helps everyone, so get it done. But it doesn't -- but this is the impeachment culture that has been created, and the Democrats are driving the culture, they're expanding that culture. They simply want to remove this president, period. It simply shows again the wisdom very briefly of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65. If we re-read those few paragraphs in Federalist 65 about impeachment, we will say, “Colonel Hamilton, you were spot on in what is happening right now.” People are just lining up. Now, let's hope that cooler heads -- the 31 Democrats or whomever -- will prevail and say, “No, this does not merit impeachment.” Whatever you think about that phone call, whatever you think about the temporary hold on aid, it is not an impeachable kind of offense.

Laura Ingraham:
It’s not even close. And by the way, just so our viewers tonight understand, on Wednesday -- if you thought the previous impeachment hearings were boring, on Wednesday you get to hear from law professors. Okay, as someone who sat along in a lot of law professors’ lectures, one of them is now Noah Feldman. Okay, he's a Harvard law professor, and he's one of the four witnesses who are going to testify on Wednesday. Now, this constitutional scholar -- he's already declared a lot of stuff to be impeachable on the part of Trump.

Okay, here is the list. Trump's pardoning of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio; that was impeachable. Trump's tweet about the Obama administration wiretapping the phones of his campaign; that's impeachable. Number three, the now-debunked Buzzfeed story claiming Trump directed Cohen to lie under oath; he said that was impeachable. And number four, an advertisement for Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort that appeared on a government website; that was impeachable. So, Bob, you managed the Clinton impeachment. What do you make of the lineup? You’ve got him; yo’ve got Pam Karlan -- she taught law when I was at University of Virginia, well-respected liberal, worked in the Obama administration. You’ve got Jonathan Turley; he’s kind of a middle-of-the-road guy, pretty fair-minded. But some of these other characters are pretty out there.

Bob Barr:
It shows just how low we've come, or that the Democrats have come, in the last two decades, Laura. I mean, back during the impeachment trial in the Senate in January and February of 1999, the other lawyers on the other side -- Charles Ruff, Abbe Lowell -- I mean, these were real lawyers. They had credibility; they knew what they were talking about. They weren't right, but they knew what they were talking about. These folks nowadays, Laura, I mean, they have no substance, they have no credibility, and they're just going to go up there on Wednesday and babble and babble and babble, and the Democrats’ case will sink lower and lower and lower.

Laura Ingraham:
I mean, Ken, look, you've taught law. You ran a couple -- at least two law schools, right? As far as I can remember. Pepperdine and -- you know, so you've been around universities, and we have some great people teaching. But as far as the American people are concerned, they're not here to get continuing legal education at the hands of Nadler, right [laughs]? I mean, I actually could use some credits, but I think most people probably aren’t, like, waiting with bated breath about what Pam Karlan, God bless her, is about to say. Final thought?

Ken Starr:
No, some of these are my friends, right? But they are very political. They are very political, and this is simply going to be a political exercise. We’ll probably learn a few snippets of history, but nonetheless, we're on a bad, bad train ride, and we are about to have a train wreck. The president's right. Get the business of the country done in NATO, and just a footnote on that. Isn’t it terrific most NATO countries are now doing 2 percent of GDP?

Laura Ingraham:
Awesome.

Ken Starr:
That's exactly what the president was urging them to do.

Laura Ingraham:
Yeah, and they said it wouldn't happen, and it did happen, one more thing that so-called experts were wrong about. Gentlemen, thank you so much. And coming up, some breaking news tonight. What section of the looming Horowitz FISA report does Attorney General Bill Barr disagree with? And why is disgraced former FBI lawyer Lisa Page breaking her silence now? Solomon and Lee Smith have answers to both in moments.

[commercial break]

Donald Trump:
He and his lover, Lisa Page, I'm telling you Peter, she's going to win, Peter. Oh, I love you so much. I love you, Peter. I love you, too, Lisa. And if she doesn't win, Lisa, we've got an insurance policy, Lisa.

Laura Ingraham:
Okay. Now, you all agree with me, don't you, that Trump could be a voice over guy, okay? He is awesome -- I'm sorry, but lover. We had to play that. It's hilarious. Disgraced former FBI lawyer Lisa Page made her comeback today. The softball interview with The Daily Beast. A writer who is also a proud member of the anti-Trump resistance, of course. And while the article never mentions what was in the texts that landed her on Trump's naughty list, it's full of quotes like this, "It's very painful to see places like the FBI and the Department of Justice that represent so much of what is excellent about this country not fulfilling the critical obligation that they have to speak truth to power." Aren't we tired of that phrase? Joining me now John Solomon, investigative reports, Fox News contributor, along with Lee Smith, also an investigative journalist and author of the great book, "The Plot Against the President." John, why is she speaking out now?

John Solomon:
Got to get ahead of this IG findings. There's going to be a factual road map eight to 12 problems that are going to come to light next week with the FISA warrant and the early Russia investigation. Everybody who has a chance now is going to get out in front because they're not going to look too good on Tuesday morning.

Laura Ingraham:
Lee, she claims that, you know, she's kind of been victimized. She said she felt intimidated because President Trump essentially accused her of treason, probably a little strong on that, but accused her of treason, felt very intimidated, but could she come across to a lot of women as very sympathetic here?

Lee Smith:
I don't think she comes across as a very sympathetic character. I -- for Pete's sake, I sure don't want to speak for all American women, but I think she comes across as a very sympathetic character and some of the different issues they are touching on it's probably not her strong suit to go into the -- to go into her affair. Probably should've just stuck with different facts. Probably shouldn't have done it at all. But it seems to be the least bad choice of a series of bad choices.

Laura Ingraham:
John Solomon, do we know that all of the emails have been actually seen?

John Solomon:
Well, --

Laura Ingraham:
Were some deleted and never recovered?

John Solomon:
Yeah. There are some that have never been recovered. But everything that has been recovered has been reviewed by the IG. Let's just take -- she tried to portray herself. She's been cleared on these emails and these text messages. The FBI just released Peter Strzok's disciplinary file. The FBI has concluded the expression of political bias by both of them in those emails constituted misconduct, brought dishonor upon the FBI, and left the American public questioning the FBI's conduct in two of the most important cases.

Laura Ingraham:
So, who's really hurting the FBI's credibility? Donald Trump or Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, et cetera?

John Solomon:
The FBI, Lisa Page.

Laura Ingraham:
Exactly. I want to read part of what John just referenced and Lee wrote about. This is what the DOJ released about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok last year. "Your excessive repeated and politically charged text messages while you were assigned as a lead case agent on the FBI's two biggest and most politically sensitive investigations in decades demonstrated a gross lack of professionalism and exceptionally poor judgement and went on to talk about the problems that it causes for the overall credibility of the FBI. Lee, this is also a sign, is it not, that we have to get out in front, as John said, of this report because whatever Horowitz, says, even if it's not as strong as some of us might want, it ain't going to portray Lisa Page as some, you know, helpless victim who's just been, you know, victimized by mean old Donald Trump.

Lee Smith:
Right. I mean, one of the ways that they're trying to shape this all sort of is talking about bias, talking about her bias. The fact is, she may have actually done some things wrong. It looks like she may have altered some of the FBI interviews with Michael Flynn. The problem then is not bias. It would actually be what she did, so I hope that the IG report gives us some insight into what this FBI team actually did, not what they thought.

Laura Ingraham:
Molly Jong-Fast, who is this reporter who writes this puff piece just so the folks out there understand how this works in Washington or New York, I don't know where she lives. This is what she said -- she -- actually we had the soundbite of how she describes her about the text messages. Watch.

Molly Jong-Fast:
He always says lover when he says her name because it's a way of dehumanizing her and sexualizing her. It's like -- it's the misogyny playbook. She said, you know, she sees someone with a MAGA hat she goes to a different car. At the end of the interview she was weeping about what had happened to the FBI, the organization she loved.

Laura Ingraham:
Okay. Lee, I'm sorry, on that. So, I mean, she's obviously very sympathetic to Lisa Page, to say the least.

Lee Smith:
I mean, this is not Elliott Ness' G man, right? I mean, if she's weeping --

Laura Ingraham:
Who recognizes -- I just have a question. Who the heck, I mean, we're obsessed. I don't know if I would recognize Lisa Page if I saw her on the street. I mean, she's not -- right? Does anyone recognize Lisa -- like if I got recognized I didn't know if someone's looking at me because they were being friendly or they -- that's a little excessive. That's all a buildup. This is all an act.

Lee Smith:
It is.

John Solomon:
Right. Listen the sense of self-importance that some of these bureaucrats demonstrated in the last few years show why the bureaucracy got so out of control. People were not following the rules. They were following their emotions.

Laura Ingraham:
And also, we're not going to let that happen.

Male Speaker:
That's right.

Laura Ingraham:
We're not going to let that happen to Donald Trump. Remember --

Male Speaker:
That’s right.

Laura Ingraham:
-- we’re not going to let that happen and Donald Trump get elected. Now, the late breaking news tonight, The Washington Post reporting that AG Barr already has a bone to pick with the forthcoming IG report on FISA abuse, saying Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department inspector general on one of the key findings that an upcoming report that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching that investigation into members of the Trump campaign. Now, the DOJ responded to this right before our show tonight saying, “The Horowitz report represents the best of the DOJ and people should wait for the report instead of speculating.” John, what the heck is going on here?

John Solomon:
Again, I think the newspapers that carried the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok false narrative of Russian collusion are trying to get ahead of this story themselves. And I think it’s shameless. There is going to be eight to 12 findings in this report that will be damning and troublesome to the American public. And we should let them speak for themselves and stop all this nonsense and spinning that’s going on.

Laura Ingraham:
They want to put a frame around this --

John Solomon:
Yeah.

Laura Ingraham:
-- report. Because most people aren’t going to read it. And it’s --

John Solomon:
That’s right.

Laura Ingraham:
-- all the appendices. Or maybe they’ll read some of the summary, correct?

John Solomon:
Right.

Laura Ingraham:
They’re not going to read the whole thing. That’s what The Washington Post is banking on.

John Solomon:
I think they also want to frame it so that it does come out, it’s going to look like a politicized document.

Male Speaker:
That’s right.

Laura Ingraham:
Right.

John Solomon:
That’s one of the reasons that they’ll want to frame it.

Laura Ingraham:
Yeah, Bill Barr didn’t like -- Bill Barr must have --

John Solomon:
Exactly.

Laura Ingraham:
-- inserted in this --

John Solomon:
Exactly.

Laura Ingraham:
-- to make it worse. It wasn’t that bad, as we already reported.

John Solomon:
That’s right.

Laura Ingraham:
That’s how Washington works. That’s Washington journalism 101.

John Solomon:
[laughs]

Laura Ingraham:
Gentlemen, thank you so much. Great to see you both. And when we come back, we examine two 2020 storylines. First, what you all need to know about how Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax actually would work and how it would hurt you, not just the super-wealthy. Plus, Biden’s Iowa campaign bus tour, swerving all over the road. Governor Mike Huckabee is here to take us through the highlights and lowlights.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham:
Elizabeth Warren’s campaign promise to bilk the rich with a wealth tax may be catching on with voters. Well, not all voters. The New York Times is reporting only one slice of the electorate opposes it staunchly, Republican men with college degrees. Not surprisingly, that is also the profile of many who’d be hit by Ms. Warren’s so-called wealth tax. The Times wants to make this about class, but there are actually public policy reasons to oppose it. Joining me now, Steve Moore, Trump 2020 economic advisor, author of “Trumponomics.” Steve, why is the wealth tax seeming to gain popularity?

Steve Moore:
I think it’s because there’s a false narrative that’s been told by the Democrats, whether it’s Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders, which is only that only the rich are benefitting in this economy. I wonder if these people went out to the mall this weekend and saw how people are spending money. I mean, we’re in the midst of, you know, one of the biggest Thanksgiving weekends spending. People are making more money than ever. And I’m not talking about Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. I’m talking about middle class people.

Laura Ingraham:
Well, they are making a lot more money, too. That’s how it works. But --

Steve Moore:
[laughs] Well, they are, but I mean, but the middle class is doing well, so --

Laura Ingraham:
But I want you to explain this, though.

Steve Moore:
Yeah.

Laura Ingraham:
Because you talk to college kids, they’ll say, “Well, so, big deal, you know?” These billionaires, they’re not going to miss --

Steve Moore:
Yeah.

Laura Ingraham:
-- you know, if you’re work $100 billion or $20 billion, that’s a very small percentage. But if you’re worth $20 billion, if you’re forced to give up $10 billion, big deal.

Steve Moore:
You’re never going to get -- here’s the problem. You're never going to get the money out of them. I mean, rich people don’t get rich by being stupid. And the evidence -- there’s about 20 countries, mostly European countries that have tried wealth taxes over the last 10, 20, 30 years. It never works. I mean, look at France. Remember, France tried this big wealth tax. We’re going to tax the millionaires and billionaires. They lost tens of thousands of their millionaires. They disappeared. They moved somewhere else. So, people will move. They’ll find any possible way to evade that tax. And I mean, even socialist countries like Sweden tried a wealth tax and it didn’t work and they got rid of it.

Laura Ingraham:
How did it -- well, NPR, I just want to put this on the screen --

Steve Moore:
Yeah.

Laura Ingraham:
-- it kind of amplifies --

Steve Moore:
Yeah.

Laura Ingraham:
-- what you just said. This was from NPR. The experiment with the wealth tax was a failure in many countries. France’s wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated --

Steve Moore:
[laughs]

Laura Ingraham:
-- 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012. In 1990, 12 countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. Okay. So, there’s a few countries.

Steve Moore:
Yeah.

Laura Ingraham:
But not many. And obviously, they’re not the biggest economies in the world, to say the least. But how would it work? Let’s say -- would the government make you account for -- I don’t know.

Steve Moore:
Well, your wealth --

Laura Ingraham:
Your paintings --

Steve Moore:
Yeah.

Laura Ingraham:
-- your jewelry, how would that work and who would enforce it? Would they come into your home? I mean, how do they enforce that?

Steve Moore:
Well, I mean, that’s a great question because how do you assess what someone’s wealth is? I mean, how do you know how much Bill Gates has or Warren Buffett? You'd have to go in their home and assess the paintings on their wall --

Laura Ingraham:
So, it’d be more jobs. More government jobs [unintelligible].

Steve Moore:
[laughs] Sure. I mean, it’s a tax accountant’s, you know, playpen. But look, if you look at even states, you know, there are a number of states that have death taxes. Death taxes are just taxes on wealth. And guess what? People just move out of those states, out of states like New York and Connecticut --

Laura Ingraham:
Right.

Steve Moore:
-- and move to a place like Florida. So, people will change their behavior in response to the wealth tax. And my problem with it is, Laura, look, these people like Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, they’ve paid a lot of tax already.

Laura Ingraham:
Well, I got to tell you, I think those are great arguments. But here’s --

Steve Moore:
Yeah.

Laura Ingraham:
I’ll make it much more simple --

Steve Moore:
Okay.

Laura Ingraham:
-- if I were a Republican. What I’d say is, “Why don’t you trust people?” I’d put it back on them. “Why do you want to take things from people who’ve earned them and just -- we can make decisions with our own money.”

Steve Moore:
You know, I’ll give you a good example.

Laura Ingraham:
I think you’ve got to simplify it. Because I think most young people --

Steve Moore:
I think that’s true.

Laura Ingraham:
-- I want to play Elizabeth Warren.

Steve Moore:
All right.

Laura Ingraham:
Because she sells this --

Steve Moore:
That’s a great --

Laura Ingraham:
-- in a way that doesn’t sound threatening to a lot of people. Watch.

Elizabeth Warren:
The top one tenth of one percent that I want to see pay two cents more, they’ll pay 3.2 percent in America. I’m tired of freeloading billionaires. I think it’s time that we ask those at the very top to pay more.

Steve Moore:
Freeloading billionaires? I mean, I’m thinking about people like Bernie Marcus who built Home Depot, employs, you know, hundreds of thousands of people and, you know, people like Fred Smith who built these great -- most of these billionaires she’s talking about that are freeloaders -- these are people that create -- built iconic American companies.

Laura Ingraham:
She makes it seem, though, that it’s only going to hurt them.

Steve Moore:
They’re heroes. They are not bilkers. They’re heroes.

Laura Ingraham:
She makes it seem like it’s only going to hurt the richest of the rich.

Steve Moore:
Here’s the problem --

Laura Ingraham:
What’s the answer?

Steve Moore:
-- what do you think those people do with their money? You know, Bernie Marcus -- he invests -- reinvests that money and his wealth into the companies. He -- if you want to start a company, what do you do? You go to a rich person, and they’re the ones who put the start-up capital --

Laura Ingraham:
There’s got be a better answer. I think -- I mean, again, I’m not trying to nitpick your answer. I’m -- this is, like, real-time focus-grouping. I think it’s going to be simple. You don’t trust people. They don’t trust people to make their own decisions with their money, and a billionaire tax today is going to be “someone right in the middle” tax tomorrow. They’re never satisfied with taking money.

Steve Moore:
And by the way, they also won’t use the money to reduce the deficit, because they want to spend it.

Laura Ingraham:
Bingo. It’s spending, spending, spending. It’s a spend-o-rama like we’ve never seen before. Steve, great to see you, as always.

Steve Moore:
Thank you. Good to see you.

Laura Ingraham:
Thanks so much, and loved your book. Joe Biden is in Iowa; he’s announcing a truly 21st-century theme, sounds very updated, very modern, very youth-oriented: his bus tour.

Joe Biden:
When my grandfather would think something was really full of you-know-what, he’d say, “That’s a lot of malarkey.”

Laura Ingraham:
“Malarkey.” Well, that catchy term the septuagenarian has slapped on the side of his bus. As you know, nothing gets the juices flowing for the young voters quite like references, well, from his grandfather’s era, the 1925 Biden campaign. Here’s some of the malarkey he’s spewing.

Joe Biden:
Kim Jong-Un is no person that I know him or not. The same with the president of China, Xi Jingping. I spend a lot of time with these folks.

Laura Ingraham:
Okay, one problem. He never actually met Kim Jong-Un, let alone spent a lot of time with him. That wasn’t the weirdest moment on the trail, though.

Jill Biden:
When they cut to the president of the United States –

[laughter]

Laura Ingraham:
Okay, PDA. Get a room. Joe, that’s not what people mean when they say something is a nail-biter. Joining me now, Mike Huckabee, FOX News contributor, 2016 GOP presidential candidate. Gov, is the race over now? I mean, actually, I almost feel -- I do feel kind of bad about talking about Biden. I feel like it’s elder abuse. I mean, this is just -- the No Malarkey express? It’s kind of catchy if you’re back in the Depression era.

Mike Huckabee:
Look, when something is too old for me, it’s stinking old, Laura. I’ve got a little Irish limerick for you since Joe likes to talk about his Irish. There was once a man named Biden, and in Iowa on a bus he was riding; he thought President Trump was too snarky, so he said, “No malarkey,” but now all his voters -- they are hiding. That’s the bus tour that Joe is on. I’m thinking 23-skidoo; groovy. Hey, daddy-o, let’s play some records. I mean, it’s just -- it’s something to behold for sure, and the whole thing about him nibbling on his wife’s finger? You know, a lot of people made a big deal of that. I thought that was fine, nothing wrong with that. I’m just glad it was only her finger that he was nibbling on in public, because this is a man given to some outrageous displays of affection in public, that’s for sure.

Laura Ingraham:
I mean, a lot of people have mentioned this, Governor, but his wife is very enthusiastic, and she seems very with it and very -- I mean, maybe they just kind of, you know, make -- do a re-do on the bumper stickers and the T-shirts and -- they don’t even have to, because it’s not “Joe Biden.” It just says “Biden” on a lot of them. So, she could just -- why can’t they just switch it over to her? I mean, I’m being half-serious here.

Mike Huckabee:
Well, you know, there could be a great slogan. “Find the thrill; let’s vote for Jill.” I mean, there’s all kinds of opportunities here that we could go with. But can you imagine Joe Biden on the debate stage with President Trump?

Laura Ingraham:
No.

Mike Huckabee:
Think about that. [unintelligible] get on the debate stage with President Trump, I’m telling you, that’s going to be pay-per-view, and it’ll pay off the $23 trillion national debt.

Laura Ingraham:
Governor, you’d have to call the fight, okay? Governor, Joe Biden seemed to be campaigning for the current occupant of the White House at one point. Watch.

Joe Biden:
Look at the promise that was made. Look what’s happening. Now, Iowa is growing. Iowa is moving.

Laura Ingraham:
I can barely even hear what he said there, but is praising Trump’s record really the best strategy for Biden?

Mike Huckabee:
Well, it’s really a great strategy for America because it reminds us why this president is going to win in a landslide a year from now. I’ve been saying that for several weeks; I’m out there on the record. It’s a long time before the election, but I think it’s exactly what’s going to happen, because the Democrats are so busy trying to do impeachment. Their candidates are people putting words like “malarkey” on the side of a bus. Think about that, Laura. I mean, can you ever imagine that you would see the word “malarkey” painted on the side of a bus that wasn’t graffiti? I mean, it’s --

Laura Ingraham:
All right, by golly, Governor, well, we’ve got to go now, but you have a good rest of the evening, sir. It’s great to see you as always.

Mike Huckabee:
Good to see you, Laura.

Laura Ingraham:
All right, Gov. Nice palm, too. Loved it. All right, up next, an ahistorical impeachment. Victor Davis Hanson and Craig Shirley tells us how this sham impeachment is disregarding history. Stay there.

[commercial break]

Nancy Pelosi:
What President Trump has done on the record makes what Nixon did look almost small.

Male Speaker:
We are looking at abuse of power and a level of corruption here that makes the Nixon impeachment look like child's play.
Amy Klobuchar:
I see it simply as a global Watergate.

Laura Ingraham:
They all -- this -- they come up with their lines in the morning and then just repeat them all day long. They love comparing Trump to Watergate and his conduct to Watergate, but if that’s true, why aren't they following any of the precedent set by the Nixon impeachment inquiry? Joining me now two historians to set the record straight. Victor Davis Hanson, Hoover Institution senior fellow, along with Craig Shirley, presidential historian and author of the great new book, now this book is coming out tomorrow, I read it when it was in proofs, "Mary Ball Washington: The Untold Story of George Washington's Mother," and she was a woman ahead of her time. Tough but fair and a devoted, devoted woman in prayer. It's a phenomenal book, "Mary Ball Washington. Craig, I forgot it was coming out tomorrow. Fantastic news. Everyone get out and get that book tonight.

Craig Shirley:
Thank you.

Laura Ingraham:
Victor, let's start with you, though. Democrats, they love to, you know, complain about Trump. They say he's upsetting norms. Yet this is how they're conducting this impeachment the way they've been doing it?

Victor Davis Hanson:
Yeah. If they really believe that it's as bad as Watergate all they'd have to do is get another special prosecutor like Leon Jaworski or Ken Starr in the Clinton case. They don't want to do that. They've already done that with the Mueller investigation that found nothing and they him -- they themselves in the case of Pelosi and Nadler have lectured us what not to do about impeachment, not you must have bipartisan support. They told us that in the Clinton era. We don't. We must have public support. We don't.

This is the first time we've done it in the modern era that we've done it with a first-term president. Andrew Johnson over 150 years ago probably wouldn't have run for re-election but this is new, Laura, because we're basically saying we're not going to wait for a year. We're going to impact or influence the upcoming election by the use of impeachment. And that's pretty much what Representative Green and Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in not so many words that this was a way to stop him from being reelected and so I don't think it really has much to do about crimes or high crimes and misdemeanors or impeachment. It's all about fear that if Donald Trump is reelected in 2020 then their notion of what the Supreme Court should be or borders closed would -- closed borders or --

Laura Ingraham:
It's political --

Victor Davis Hanson:
Global warming. It's all about that and they have to stop him by any means necessary, but this is not what impeachment was intended by the founders. This is a way to --

Laura Ingraham:
All right. Craig.

Victor Davis Hanson:
--- destroy a first term president.

Laura Ingraham:
All right. Craig, now you've written books about 1941. You’ve written the seminal works about Reagan's entire life, okay? You’ve written about pretty much every aspect of the American founding. With everything that you've seen that you’ve researched, that you’ve written about, now Mary Ball Washington, the mother of our first president, what do you think about what this is now, what has been happening? Whatever you think about Trump's politics aside, what do you think about this and how this is being used as a cudgel as Victor just said?

Craig Shirley:
I think quite frankly this is going to be a footnote in history, Laura. You know, it's an old cliché now that impeachment is political but it is political. But the fact is that you need the broad support of the American people. You know, Nixon survived for quite a while until the urban committee, you know, began investigation and then the Rodino committee began investigation and slowly, slowly the web was untangled and it became clear that Nixon was guilty of conspiring to cover up the break-in of the Watergate Hotel is that the -- this is -- the simply not getting the support of the broad base of the American people and so what you have really is a polarized country. My guess is the Democrats frankly have peaked on this thing and --

Laura Ingraham:
Yeah, but John Dean, hold on Craig, John Dean has said this is worse than Watergate since June 1st, 2017.

Craig Shirley:
How?

Laura Ingraham:
I think Victor wrote the first column on that on when he fired Comey. So, that's what John Dean has been dining out on. You've known John Dean for a long time.

Craig Shirley:
Sure.

Laura Ingraham:
Watergate days.

Craig Shirley:
But they keep comparing to Watergate, but they don't say how it compares to Watergate. They don't say where the actual crimes are of Richard Nixon. They don't say, you know, how this has played out the way it did for Richard Nixon. They're not making their case. It's kind of -- they're filling the air with hot rhetoric instead of facts and so the American people aren't just kind of tuning it out as just being basically partisan politics and nothing more.

Laura Ingraham:
All right. Gentlemen, thank you so much. Great to have you both on tonight. And get out and get "Mary Ball Washington," phenomenal book by Craig Shirley. Coming up, one of the best moments from this weekend's football games, though it didn't happen on the field. My Alabama lost. Don't rub it in. But over 20 years ago I'm going to explain it in moments.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham:
This rivalry weekend in college football provided lots of great action but it was actually an anecdote from Fox sports announcer Gus Johnson about Ohio State running back J.K. Dobbins that provided the most powerful moment.

Male Speaker:
What a day for J.K. Dobbins.

Gus Johnson:
J.K. Dobbin's mom, Maya, became pregnant when she was 18 years old. She went to the doctor because she was thinking about aborting the baby but changed her mind. That baby turned out to be that young man, J.K. Dobbins, who she calls her miracle baby.

Laura Ingraham:
Oh my God. I get teared up just hearing that again. It was so uplifting, and it was one of those rare moments in TV that made everybody stop and think just for a moment. Choices. Trajectory and history all changed. That’s all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the fantastic "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here. Shannon?

Shannon Bream:
Laura, did you see a little bit of the controversy that came through that, though?

Laura Ingraham:
Yes.

Shannon Bream:
There were people that didn’t think that topic should have been discussed during a football game. So, very interesting.

Laura Ingraham:
I mean, we can share everything else about, you know, various things that are politically correct, but you can’t share that? You know, they can -- you know, I won’t say what I’m thinking, but you can imagine.

Shannon Bream:
Yeah, well, I can probably listen to your podcast and find out [laughs].

Laura Ingraham:
[unintelligible] Thanks so much.

Shannon Bream:
Laura, thanks so much.

Laura Ingraham:
See you.

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