Rep. Collins: Impeachment resolution is just so Democrats can cover their backside

close

Video

Rep. Collins: Impeachment resolution is just so Democrats can cover their backside

Democrats release text of impeachment resolution; reaction from Georgia Rep. Doug Collins.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 29, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right, I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “Ingraham Angle” from another busy Washington tonight.

In moments, I'm going to deliver an important and pointed message to the U.S. Senate, specifically Republicans, about what steps can and should be taken at this impeachment sham, and as it moves forward.

Along the way, I'll be joined by John Eastman, Robert Ray, House Judiciary Ranking Member, Doug Collins.

Plus, I'm going to explain how Congress can actually play a role in stopping this Intel and diplomatic bureaucracy from continuing to defy this duly-elected President, and Presidents in the future. Tom Fitton, Chris Swecker, are both here on that.

Also tonight, Democrat Katie Hill resigned, after Congress found out she was sleeping with two subordinates. So, why is the media now painting her as a "Damsel in Distress," victim of the vast Right-wing conspiracy, or does that sound familiar? The can't-miss debate on that a little later on in the show.

But first, McConnell's time to stand and fight, that's the focus of tonight's “Angle.”

The House Democrats running, it's kind of like a mystery impeachment theater. They think they finally found their Star witness, Army Vet, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient, and a White House NSC staffer.

While we of course salute Vindman's service to this country, that service does not insulate him or any member of the Armed Services from criticism, or scrutiny, especially when they're still on Active Duty.

And let's face it. If the Lieutenant Colonel had been on the call and dismissed any wrongdoing by the President, Democrats and the media probably wouldn't sound like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE SCARBOROUGH, CO-HOST OF MORNING JOE, MSNBC: A hero who has dedicated his entire life to the United States of America.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.: The Lieutenant Colonel who's a patriot.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is an American Hero.

REP. DINA TITUS, D-NV: Cares about the country.

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've never met him but he is a hell of a patriot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Remember what they've done to Tulsi Gabbard. She served - remember Ollie North, I mean you got a lot of - a lot of people who served in uniform, who the Democrats found plenty of fault with, over the years.

But what's really striking is how formulaic this has all become.

Number one, witness testimony is leaked to select media - media outlets. Last night, the media was going gaga about Vindman.

Number two, witness appearance is hyped as a bombshell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: We're beginning with that bombshell breaking news story.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A bombshell opening statement.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bombshell testimony on Capitol Hill.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, D-CALIF.: This is a very, very important moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And three media forecasts doom for Trump.

This headline from NBC is typical. "Extremely disturbing: Top Democrats alarmed over Vindman's testimony on Trump-Ukraine call."

But remember, despite the relentless press build-up, the public is still left in the dark, and even Republicans inside the interview room today, who were trying to question Vindman, were shut down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: It seems interesting to me that Chairman Schiff is so sensitive.

Our witness today is under subpoena. He's supposed to answer the questions from Members of the United States Congress, not just Members from the majority of the United States Congress.

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA: He's directing witnesses not to answer questions that he doesn't want the witness to answer.

He's not cut off one Democrat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Complete outrage, very frustrating. But then, over in the Senate, where Republicans are in the majority, there are more options, and a Senate Majority Leader must start using his power to stand up against the Democrats' political reign of terror.

This is McConnell's moment. He needs to show the American people that the GOP stands united behind the man that they elected to lead this country, run our foreign policy, help advance our economy.

McConnell needs to make sure that every Republican keeps pressure on Pelosi, Schiff, and Schumer. His resolution with Lindsey Graham was a very good start. And as for a possible impeachment trial, McConnell must also stop acting like his hands are tied.

Now, it is true that there are current rules governing how impeachment is done. Those rules have largely been unchanged for decades, and decades. Probably time for some updating, don't you think?

Well, right now, the rules require that a trial begin the day following the Senate's receiving the articles of impeachment. Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts will preside. The Senate can compel the attendance of witnesses. The person impeached could then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him, among other rules.

Well there is some contention though about how hard it would be for McConnell to change these rules. But I will say this. These times require extraordinary measures.

The House Democrats have decided to launch a partisan hit on a sitting President, using members of the foreign policy establishment, to trigger a bogus process.

Voters are supposed to cheer though as Republicans in the Senate respond with what, there's nothing we can do to stop this madness? Republicans aren't going to cheer that. They're frustrated.

And at the very least, McConnell can and should aggressively push for a blisteringly short impeachment trial, giving Democrats an - maybe an afternoon to put on their sham case. I think that's too generous.

If impeachment can be carried out like this one, by just one party driving it, with testimony done in secret, based on one phone call, without a pro - quid pro quo, or any underlying criminal intent, our republic is at risk, future Presidencies are at risk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: This should never happen to our country again. And this should never happen to a President again.

The Washington Post puts out a story, I guess, on Inauguration Day, essentially saying, "And now the impeachment begins."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Republicans in the Senate need to step up or get out. If Democrats can impeach a President, under these facts, in a Star Chamber process, and your responses were powerless, then maybe you didn't deserve the majority in the first place.

Because if Democrats take Congress, let alone the Presidency, in 2020, they'll kick off a multi-year revenge tour on Red State America, they're going to take more than our money. They're going to take our freedom.

They'll brainwash our kids. They'll pack the courts. And then they might even turn off the electricity just for good measure.

And the things you care about, like, you know, the economy, the rule of law, securing our borders, they're going to ignore all of that, and at the same time, they're going to take the shirt off your back while they're at it.

There is no reason to drag the country through damaging partisan impeachment proceedings, predicated not on legal grounds, but on pure sheer hatred for Trump. The fate of Trump's Presidency should be left up to the voters, next November. Trust the people. We do. And that's THE ANGLE.

Here now to respond, John Eastman, a Constitutional Law Scholar, Professor at Chapman University School of Law, and Robert Ray, former Whitewater Independent Counsel.

John, there's a lot of debate on what McConnell can do, regarding the rules. What is your take?

JOHN EASTMAN, CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR: Well, you know, the rules can be changed by a majority. We've saw - we saw that when the Democrats were in charge, when they changed the rules on filibusters for the D.C. Circuit, for example. It just takes the political will to do it.

But even without that, there's a lot of going on here that I think they ought to be conducting hearings about. We've got evidence now that somebody in the White House leaked to a member of our CIA, information on a confidential call within the White House. Why isn't that being investigated?

It was just preposterous in the - in the whistleblower complaint that he said, "Oh, I learned of this in my normal duties." Does the - the normal duties of somebody over at the CIA include spying on the President's phone calls in the White House?

I mean these are the kind of things that we ought to be looking at, and nobody seems to be doing it.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I mean it's - it's a shock, frankly, that the Senate with a healthy majority is not putting the pressure on this, you know, buried bureaucracy, who seems to be trying to run their own little fiefdoms over at the White House and at the Intel agencies.

And, as John mentioned, our Catherine Herridge says that the big question is who Colonel Vindman shared his concerns with.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Vindman writes, "I provided readouts of relevant meetings and communications to a very small group," this is important, "of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relevant need-to-know."

And what you heard Congressman Jordan say today is that when he asked Vindman, who he shared this information with, Adam Schiff shut down that line of questioning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, why didn't they want that question answered? Well the possible violation, Herridge notes, and that Jordan was trying to get to is an answer on 18 U.S. Code 798, leaking classified information.

So Robert, should Vindman and those actions be looked at here under that statute? There's also another statute of - of talking with a foreign government, which we'll get to, but what about that particular statute?

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I don't know why that inquiry got cut off.

I mean I suspect the reason is that Adam Schiff seems to be concerned about protecting the identity of the whistleblower, which may explain why he wasn't going to allow any what amounts to cross-examination of Colonel Vindman about who he shared information with.

But understand, also, all of this is of course behind closed doors, so I don't understand really what the concern is, if there's legitimate cross- examination by Republicans.

And the fact that that got shut down only serves to essentially re- emphasize yet again that this resolution that apparently the House is going to vote on, on Thursday, is flawed, because it's partisan.

And I expect that what we're going to find out, if we learn anything, is as the result of a vote in the House on Thursday, it will be overwhelmingly partisan, which should then counsel in favor, as you suggest Laura, that the Senate take appropriate action in response.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

RAY: Remember, the Senate is in control of the President's party. And even under existing rules, the President makes an appearance in the Senate through counsel. And I would - the first thing I would expect to happen is a properly filed motion to dismiss to end this thing early.

INGRAHAM: Immediately.

RAY: Yes.

INGRAHAM: OK. I want to get into that. OK, John, I want to get into that.

So, and we'll - we'll get back to Vindman, which I think Jordan was getting at, the possible legal jeopardy that Vindman might be facing under that statute that I think that's what also he was getting to.

But John, that's important, is it not? So, let's say the articles of impeachment for what they - we don't know any underlying criminality. There wasn't anything in that transcript, but maybe some general abuse of power, you know - you know, stuff.

So, that arrives, and then Mitch McConnell, at that point, can do what? Could he immediately move to a motion to dismiss--

EASTMAN: Well, you know--

INGRAHAM: --to the Chief Justice?

EASTMAN: They - they - they certainly can. Look, during the Clinton impeachment, you know, there was an effort to try and have witnesses brought forward, and that was shut down. The Senate has full control over how to conduct its impeachment inquiry.

And if it just says this was a rank partisan thing, there's no evidence here, you know, we're - we're going to have a vote right now, and to decide whether we're going to convict on the articles of impeachment, and the vote's going to be 53 to 48, because it'll be partisan there as well, in all likelihood, and the American people will understand that this has been a partisan hit job.

You know, one of the things I found most interesting about what was leaked about Vindman's testimony is the parallel it has with Ambassador Taylor's testimony from last week.

Vindman's complaining about, what do you call it, outside influencers, setting American foreign policy with Ukraine, and - and - and - and Taylor said there was an informal channel as well as a formal channel.

Well guess what? The President doesn't work for the State Department or the NSC. They work for him.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

EASTMAN: And - and he sets foreign policy. These guys are upset because the President has different views on foreign policy.

INGRAHAM: Bingo.

EASTMAN: And the folks in the Deep State who have been screwing up our foreign policy for decades.

INGRAHAM: Yes, only--

RAY: That's the heart of it.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Rob--

RAY: And a policy dispute does not equal an impeachable offense. That's the bottom line.

INGRAHAM: Robert, how many people call themselves China experts over the last 30 years who screwed up our policy towards China, or didn't see it coming down the tracks?

RAY: Yes.

INGRAHAM: How many "Experts" screwed up Middle East policies or recommended that we do certain things that ended up triggering a wave of migration across Europe unlike anything we've ever seen before?

RAY: About--

INGRAHAM: How many "Experts" get it wrong?

RAY: About as many for - about as many former federal prosecutors are all of a sudden expert on how to handle impeachment proceedings and whether or not the President has committed a crime or whether there was an illegal quid pro quo.

INGRAHAM: What do you think, Robert, knowing the Chief Justice in his, you know, his manner, would he be amenable to a motion to dismiss, or is he someone who would be, you know, politically - not politically, but temperamentally disinclined to grant a motion to dismiss right off the bat?

RAY: Well, of course, because under the Constitution he presides, he would receive that motion. But if past practice is any indication, on something as important as that, he would refer that motion for a vote to the full body. I do not believe that he would dispose of that motion on his own.

INGRAHAM: He won't rule on it.

RAY: Right. He would not rule on it. He would - he would - he would refer that to the body for a vote.

INGRAHAM: So then the Republicans vote it through, and it's done. And then Nancy, thanks--

RAY: That - that would--

INGRAHAM: --it's been fun. Yes.

RAY: That would be my view. And I think that's what Senator McConnell should be urged to - to consider.

INGRAHAM: Yes. All right guys, we got to get out, but fascinating. I hope Senator McConnell and Senate leadership is listening. You have a lot more power than you've let on. Maybe that's just the way they're playing it.

All right John, Robert, thanks so much.

Also breaking tonight, we now have the actual text of the impeachment resolution. They just referred to it. The full House is going to vote on it on Thursday. The eight-page document basically puts into writing what the Dems have already been doing behind closed doors, but adds this.

"It would allow the President or his counsel to participate in impeachment proceedings held by the House Judiciary Committee. The resolution explicitly stating that the Judiciary panel will decide whether articles should be reported to the full House."

Here now to respond, Congressman Doug Collins, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Congressman, are you satisfied with this arrangement?

REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA: No. This is - this is a joke. I mean let's just be honest with this. This is covering your backside.

This is Speaker Pelosi who saw 50 Senators say that the process in the House was bad that they didn't want to even deal with it. She went back, and she said, "Oh my goodness, let me go now, and say, look, we believe the Republicans are wrong, but we're going to do what they say."

Look, she knows exactly what she's doing. She knows she's wrong. She put it with her cohorts she left down in the dungeon, said "Go do all this stuff. Maybe nobody will notice."

Well wow, the American people noticed, and people on Capitol Hill noticed, so now they're just trying to cover their backside with proposals, which was - it's really interesting. They're going to give the President some ability to weigh in, in the Judiciary Committee, but not the Intel Committee. This is not about due process for this President.

And also, let me just say something. I've heard all this today. This is not about Russia. This is not about a Ukrainian phone call.

INGRAHAM: No.

COLLINS: This is about the fact that - that Hillary Clinton was crying in Brooklyn in 2016, November. This is all this is about. They hate the President because he's done well, and he's done what he said he was going to do. Let's get this out in the open.

INGRAHAM: Isn't all - this isn't--

COLLINS: It's all it is.

INGRAHAM: Schiff's had a conflict of interest from day one. He had initial contact with that whistleblower that was not revealed. In any other proceeding, legal proceeding, he would have had to have recused himself after failing to disclose that until pressed on that.

COLLINS: Think about what he tried to stop - what he did stop today about today - gentleman not answering the question. He was asking, "Who else did he talk to?" He stopped that question.

What would that have led to? Who did he talk to? Was it his staff? Was Schiff involved in that?

Did Schiff actually stop a question from being answered on who he actually gave that information to, which in addition to what Congressman Jordan was talking about, about leaking classified information, who would it might have led to, to have Adam Schiff run this kind of a - a Star Chamber inquiry with no oversight, with nothing going on, only leaking what they want?

This morning, when you talk about the fact that it's bombshell, that was an opening statement. It was an uncross-examined opening statement. The best we get on Earth is a resume. That's our perfect is our resume. The best you get on Capitol Hill is an opening statement.

INGRAHAM: What about--

COLLINS: This is ridiculous.

INGRAHAM: What about the fact? And a lot of people were talking about this today that we have foreign policy professionals, some who are Active Duty Military, served their country proudly, like Vindman, but nevertheless they might have different world views--

COLLINS: True.

INGRAHAM: --of the President on Ukraine or various issues.

But in The New York Times piece, yesterday, it stated that he had had conversations with Ukrainian officials who were trying to solicit his advice on how to work around Giuliani, and typically those conversations were in English.

Now, what about that? I mean - I mean there are statutes, 18 U.S.C. 794 that reference gathering or delivering defense information to foreign government could be implicated here, might not be implicated here, but that's kind of a wild thing, right?

I mean you're working with - I mean you're supposed to be working with the Commander-in-Chief. That - that's a problem.

COLLINS: Well what was problematic for me was this - in his - let's go back to his opening statement where he talks about, where he's laying out his best case.

But he gets into the fact that what his concern about the call was he had some concerns about this - the - the information in the call. But he said "But this could hurt us politically down the line."

Since when is that becoming the - the process of this?

INGRAHAM: An Active Duty Service Member is supposed to be politically concerned, yes or no?

COLLINS: I'm a member of the military right now. This is not--

INGRAHAM: I know you are. That's why I'm asking you.

COLLINS: No. This is - this is - that - when I hear - when I heard the political concern, that job is of policy. You're here to give policy help. You're to - to be the expert in the room, so to speak. But when he said "He was politically concerned," this is what's happening.

They're giving leaks. Adam Schiff is giving leaks. And what was amazing to me was he said he didn't want to erase the transcripts because he didn't want or have it open to the public, so the witnesses couldn't coordinate. We are already seeing the specific leaks by Members of his Committee.

INGRAHAM: Lang - language. The language being repeated.

COLLINS: And now - and now they're being repeated. So, let's get over this right now.

INGRAHAM: You agree with me on the Senate. They - they got to just - this thing has to be shut down.

COLLINS: I think - I think--

INGRAHAM: This is ridiculous.

COLLINS: --I think that's what they're looking at right now. And every day that Nancy Pelosi does this, Speaker Pelosi keeps this up. This - this resolution she has. These declarations, she's just being, you know, governed by--

INGRAHAM: I mean it's - I mean it's--

COLLINS: --her thoughts (ph).

INGRAHAM: --it's everything's too little too late. It doesn't matter at this point.

COLLINS: It's already out of the door. How do you - how do you--

INGRAHAM: We don't need any White House staffers take on the call. "Oh, there was a word that we wanted put in." We have a transcript.

COLLINS: Yes.

INGRAHAM: "We don't need your opinion. Thank you very much. But you're - you're apparently testifying against the Administration for whom you're supposed to be working."

COLLINS: Right.

INGRAHAM: But we don't need your opinion. We have the transcript. That's what is governing here, correct?

COLLINS: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: There's nothing in the transcript that's impeachable. Period!

COLLINS: There's not. And I mean now - so that's why you're always sharing this in - be careful. Notice what you hear Schiff talk about. He - he's moved away from quid pro quo to obstruction, and this President not being cooperative with Congress. Look what you're going to come in--

INGRAHAM: Yes.

COLLINS: --in next few weeks. That's where he's going to go.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, thank you for being here tonight.

COLLINS: Sure.

INGRAHAM: And up next, my second message to Senate GOP leaders, my advice on how they can actually hobble the Deep State, burrowed inside, now still trying to undermine Trump, when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Now for part two of my message to the Senate tonight. Clean house at the Intel agencies that are actively undermining a duly-elected President.

Why are Republican leaders not - leaders not demanding this at this point? No longer should they rubber-stamp the bloated budgets that allow Deep State renegades to run right over the President's agenda or at least try to throw roadblocks in front of it. And for those who claim the Deep State is some, you know, just an unhinged conspiracy, well former Intel leaders are out in the open now, admitting it.

Take former CIA Director, John Brennan who tweeted today, "As in previous times of National peril, we rely on our military, diplomats, intel officials, law enforcement officers, and other courageous patriots to protect our liberties, freedom, and democracy. May they stay resolute and strong despite corrupt political headwinds they faced."

Joining me now, Chris Swecker, former Assistant FBI Director, and Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch.

Tom, Brennan and his ilk, they're dropping their masks, aren't they now? Now, it's kind of obvious. They're in charge.

TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well you want to know what the motivation was for the illegal spying on President Trump, you see this in the unhinged weights of people like Brennan.

The problem is there's been no oversight of these agencies for years. You'd agree there is oversight of the committees that are essentially run by the agencies themselves.

Remember George Tenet, ran the CIA for 10 years almost, he's a former Staff Director for the Senate. And Senator Burr, frankly, over in the Intelligence Committee, has turned it over to Senator Warner, the Democrat, so that's - that's not--

INGRAHAM: They're running them - they're running roughshod--

FITTON: They're not--

INGRAHAM: --over the President's agenda.

The Senate, Chris, has an enormous amount of oversight power, to hold hearings, to hold these people accountable, and frankly, to shrink budgets when necessary, to - to disempower these bureaucracies.

To hear Brennan, after everything we know about his role in kicking off this whole Mueller investigation, for - to hear him like act like he was elected, or from the - and by the American people, talk about anti- Democratic rule, I've never heard anything like that.

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Yes. I think, Laura, what we need, at this point, is a contemporary version of the Church Committee, which was established back in 1975, to address the Intelligence abuses of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and that actually led to some reforms, at the time, and the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. So, that's right where it should lie.

There's a lot to look at. If you just look at the official sources over the last 2.5 years, the Inspector General reports, a culture of leaking in the FBI, a culture in the State Department of mishandling classified information, CIA targeting U.S. citizens without, you know, violating their - their fundamental charter, and things like misuse of their powers, FISA and that and - and those types of tools that have been entrusted to these agencies, and actually, I think, some pretty serious violations to the Hatch Act. So, all of that needs to be looked at.

INGRAHAM: Unmasking of Americans, as they did, people who normally wouldn't be individuals like U.N. Ambassadors, somehow getting involved in unmasking during the Obama years, Brennan just now on MSNBC, again, playing a part of the narrative, building up anyone who stands in defiance of the President's agenda, inside the White House. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: We have somebody in the White House right now who fears people who are willing to speak out about what is wrong, and be able to expose the, I think, the corruption that is going on right now.

I think we're going to see, in fact, maybe more examples of bravery and - and courage that we have seen in the past couple of weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Tom, if - if Vindman was supporting the President, heard the call, and said, "Nothing wrong," do you think they'd be calling him brave?

FITTON: No. He wouldn't even been called to testify. Look, you had a CIA Official wrongly take classified information, it certainly looks like, as--

INGRAHAM: Was given it by someone.

FITTON: Yes, maybe wrongly given it, certainly wrongly conveyed it to Congress. Schiff lied about it. You had this counterintelligence investigation, a spy operation, targeting the candidate for the President of the United States, and then the President of the United States.

And you remember the Intelligence Community also includes the Justice Department and the FBI.

INGRAHAM: That's right.

FITTON: So, you had Peyton - Peyton Place--

INGRAHAM: Right.

FITTON: --were Strzok and Page. That's the Intelligence Community these days, folks.

INGRAHAM: Let's put this--

FITTON: That's craziness.

INGRAHAM: --let's put the scroll up. 17 Intel agencies, this is just the list, OK? Now, do you think there might be some bloat there. Do you think there might be a lack fo accountability? Chris Swecker, again, we are supposed to act like they were duly elected representatives instead of people who are charged for working for whatever administration is elected, their priorities, their agenda, while obviously trying to keep us safe, not run roughshod over our civil liberties. But that's what the roll is supposed to be. But now, they're kind of roving watchdogs, or another branch of government. That's how Brennan is almost describing it.

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Yes, it's really interesting to see what agencies are considered to be intelligence agencies. The Department of Interior, the Deputy of Agricultural, the Social Security Administration, some agencies that have nothing to do with it.

But really the five are the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the ODNI, and the State Department, those are the ones that really need to be looked at here, because that is where we've seen some real issues. That same committee, this new Church Committee, if you will, should be looking at the use of the whistleblower laws and tightening that up, because there are legitimate reasons to facilitate whistleblowing, but you can't use it as a political cudgel, as a political weapon. And that's what we are seeing here, a very clever use of the whistleblower laws and getting around and lionizing some of these people who really have a political agenda.

INGRAHAM: Fitton, you have been involved in a lot of the FIOA requests to get information. Horowitz is looking at, Durham is clearly looking at. Do you expect we are going to learn a lot more about these deep state actors and their agenda to take around this president, from Horowitz specifically?

TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: I think so. The question is, will DOJ follow up on it. And the leadership of these agencies have this casual approach to criminal leaks. You had Comey leaking, McCabe leaking.

INGRAHAM: They should all be prosecuted.

FITTON: You have 600 security violations on the Clinton email server, no prosecutions, 14 leaks out of the FBI recently.

INGRAHAM: The Kavanaugh leak, Kavanaugh leak, no prosecutions.

FITTON: No prosecutions. There were 27 active investigations into leaks just related just to Trump world. I think there's only been one prosecution.

INGRAHAM: This is where the Justice Department and Bill Barr has got to step up and start making sense of this. This is U.S. tax dollars at work, and our civil liberties, and our entire representative democracy is on the line. We have one president. We don't have more branches of government than the three that our framers laid out in the Constitution. Gentlemen, thank you so much tonight.

And coming up, a Clinton insider offering a warning to 2020 Democrats about his party's lurch to the radical left. And did you know that New York City -- this is de Blasio -- is actually paying its homeless to move to different cities around the country. Dr. Drew Pinsky is here to tell us where they're going next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe it's time to start the national, full-blown conversation about reparations in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Immigration reform isn't enough unless we also decriminalize border crossing spirit

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The growing popularity of radical candidates and policies among Democrats has 2020 hopeful and longshot John Delaney worried. "The Wall Street Journal" tonight reporting that the candidate fears the party may be passing by rank-and-file Democrats as it moves toward 2020, or worse, driving them toward Trump.

Here to weigh in Doug Schoen, former advisor to Bill Clinton and a FOX News contributor. Doug, you say the Democrats' leftward lunge couldn't come at a worse time for the party. Why is that?

DOUG SCHOEN, CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. Look, Donald Trump has been governing with the philosophy of speaking directly to his base. That leaves the center open and accessible, but not to a party that, as you are reporting, is for reparations, open borders, taxing the middle class out of existence, for Medicare for all. That lurch to the left, as you describe it, could cause the Democrats the 2020 election.

INGRAHAM: Doug, even President Obama in Chicago today seems to acknowledge that there's some kind of purity test going on among Democrats that may not be helpful. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: This idea of purity and you're never compromised, and you're always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly. The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: You know what I see when I see him speaking? I don't agree with him on anything, pretty much, but just no one touches Obama as far as ease of speech, and he's comfortable with who he is. You know what I'm saying, when you watch him speaking, there is no one on that Democrat stage, Doug, who even comes close to that, not even close.

SCHOEN: That's exactly right, Laura. But the Democratic base is so far left, their response to what the president said that was so reasonable and thoughtful, is oh, no, we need to be true blue, oh, no, we need redistribution, oh, no, we need to oppose the president at every juncture, whether he's right or wrong. And frankly, President Obama is right, the leftwing Democrats are wrong, and we sit here in mortal peril of blowing an election week in win because of that.

INGRAHAM: Well, Biden, who is probably the only one who can win in the south, if any of these Democrats can win in the south, he is in fourth place now in a new Iowa poll, he's third in New Hampshire. And here's what he said today, Doug, about his, well, lackluster support.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you lose Iowa, and now we understand from a new CNN poll, you're coming in third in New Hampshire, can you lose the first two big races and rely on South Carolina to be your firewall?

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, I plan on doing very well in both of those. The polls, as you know, are up and down. I've been ahead in Iowa, I've been ahead in South Carolina, I'm ahead in all of the national polls, but the occasional one that pops up that's different.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Doug, has his moment passed, or is he still very much viable?

SCHOEN: I sure wouldn't call what I heard just now very much viable. He is the only moderate in the race, but, Laura, he has been so uncertain and so unsteady. His contributors are going south. He is spending ridiculous sums of money on private air travel. And I just don't think he necessarily is bringing the energy, enthusiasm, and spring to his step, if you will, that a victorious presidential candidate needs.

INGRAHAM: All right, Doug, thank you so much. Great to see you tonight as always.

SCHOEN: Thank you. Great to see you.

INGRAHAM: And speaking of disastrous liberal ideas, New York City now has a new way of dealing with its rampant homeless population. Check this out. They are secretly shipping them to other states. The big apple has sent thousands of local homeless families to cities across the country, complete with a full year of rent courtesy of the taxpayers. And it's all thanks to Mayor Bill de Blasio.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We in our generation have to find new solutions. The whole country is grappling with this. And I think it's important that we be honest that the whole country is searching for a solution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, I've heard of passing the buck, but, Dr. Drew Pinsky, this is like passing the homeless, except the people who are receiving the homeless in the Gulf coast and Utah, these mayors say we didn't even know they were coming.

DR. DREW PINSKY, ADDICTION MEDICINE SPECIALIST: They had no idea.

INGRAHAM: And bringing lots of problems, tell us about it.

PINSKY: Of course. It's a sad story. And listen, when I listen to the mayor talk there, I think to myself, we need to struggle with this. There's one city in the entire country that has addressed the homeless population honestly, and that is the city of San Diego, and they are the only city that is having a significant in homelessness. What is the one thing they have done? They have stopped looking at housing and started looking at the mental health disaster that is playing out on our streets.

This is the story, this soda store, as we call it, which is this program where people are given a year of rent and left to go wherever they want, it's one of the saddest chapters in the homeless story. It makes very appealing sense. We're going to give you a year of rent, we're going to let you go wherever you want to. Yes, if housing was the issue, this is the perfect experiment. That tells you housing isn't the issue. If housing were the issue, this would be a thriving intervention. And it's an abject failure.

INGRAHAM: I would give everybody an idea of how successful this program is, dovetailing from what Drew just said. This is what one of the recipients told a local news station, OK? "It was completely unlivable. We could not stay there any longer. We went to a shelter for another six months."

PINSKY: Sad.

INGRAHAM: It's $89 million, and that is what New York City is paying for? They are ending up the Metairie down in Louisiana and these little towns in Utah. And the people there are like, we don't have the budget for this, we don't have the ability, with all of the spillover issues that occur.

PINSKY: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: But that's their answer.

PINSKY: But nobody is providing mental health services they need. This all started in 1963 when President Kennedy started the Community Mental Health Act. They eviscerated the state mental health system, and we belched all those patients out onto the streets, the prisons, and the nursing homes. This is part of that story, and unless we undo that, we will never get to the bottom of this.

One of the sad of elements in this story is exactly what you're pointing out, which is the landlords are given a year of rent, essentially upfront. You don't think that is going to get abused? And they're all kinds of stringent criteria for what you have to provide for a living environment. How are you going to follow that up all over the country? You have given the landlord the money, and you've let the people go, and what, we're going to have social workers from New York scan the country to make sure these landlords have been living up to their deal? Of course not.

INGRAHAM: Well, Dr. Drew, some of the homeless, a lot of them, actually, have made their way back to New York, somehow, and indeed some are filing suit now against the city, saying you screwed up our life even from what it was before. So that's how perverse it is. They are actually suing them for exporting them, paying for their rent, coming back. They want a different situation. But right in D.C., Dr. Drew, next time you come here, you and I are going to walk four blocks from here, and entire underpasses, bridges, tents --

PINSKY: I've seen it.

INGRAHAM: Oh, you've seen it. It's tents as far as the eye can see. And this is like, I don't know, a mile away from the U.S. Capitol, not even a mile away from the U.S. Capitol. It's reprehensible. People shouldn't live this way.

PINSKY: Agreed, they need help, and they need proper kind of help.

INGRAHAM: Absolutely. Dr. Drew, thank you so much, great to see you again.

PINSKY: You, too.

INGRAHAM: And a Democrat congresswoman gets caught having an affair with a staffer, but then says the rightwing media is to blame for it? I called out the hypocrisy, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Democrat Congresswoman Katie Hill resigned on Sunday amid allegations that she was in some type of love triangle that included one of her campaign staffers. But now she is claiming just to be the victim of a rightwing smear job, a narrative the media, of course, is glad to help her spread.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATIE HILL, D-FORMER CALIFORNIA CONGRESSWOMAN: This coordinated campaign carried out by the rightwing media and Republican opponents, enabling and perpetuating my husband's abuse by providing him a platform, is disgusting and unforgivable. And they will be held accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Here now is Harmeet Dhillon, attorney and Trump 2020 advisory board member, and Shane Harris, Democratic strategist and president of the People's Alliance for Justice. Harmeet, imagine if a Republican man engaged in the same behavior. Would we rightfully be calling for him to get on the first flight out of D.C.? How would that have played out?

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY: Absolutely, Laura, we should. This is a bipartisan issue, and anybody who abuses their trust and abuses their status as an employer needs to be held accountable. I personally called for Duncan Hunter, who is a member of Congress who has engaged in affairs, not with subordinates, but affairs, to step aside, and I do think we should all be held to the same standard.

And so Katie Hill is now invoking this sort of feminist drama, but it is really kind of a quaint Victorian idea that she, as a woman, should be protected and held to a different standard than men. No, she should be held to the same standard. She is a modern woman, and she has violated the norms in the workplace and in politics. And that is why she was asked by her party leader, Nancy Pelosi, to step down.

INGRAHAM: Shane, the party knew that this was a bleed on support and it was going to hurt the party in California. And so the party made a calculation, as Republicans have made when they run into trouble, like time to go. So why the damsel in distress act here? How is that working?

SHANE HARRIS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, it's good to be with you, Laura, always good to be with you. And one of the things I have to agree with the colleague that I am debating with, but really not debating on this, is that the congresswoman was wrong here. And the congresswoman data, in fact -- has, in fact, sort of tried to say she is being held to a different standard because she is a woman. I do think that there should be a moral imperative across the line. When it is a woman, a man, a Republican, or a Democrat, wrong is wrong across the line. And if we're going to call for Congressman Duncan Hunter, who has had affairs, along with various other things, we've got to call for Congresswoman Katie Hill.

I do think that what Katie Hill is trying to address, and maybe she is not saying it right, and/or looking at the situation correctly, is the idea -- I don't think she is denying that she was in the video. I don't think she is denying that she did wrong. I think what she is denying, though, is the fact -- or what she is saying is the fact that women, historically, whether Republican or Democrat, are treated on a different level in this country when they make mistakes in the corporate or political space than men.

INGRAHAM: No, that's not my take.

HARRIS: I think that -- I think that is a fair argument that she is making.

INGRAHAM: It's not a fair argument here. She messed up and she had to resign. No one is perfect, and everybody makes mistakes, I get it, no one is perfect, everybody is a hypocrite if they are human being, because we all make mistakes. OK, I get that. But this is something quite different, Harmeet, and MSNBC's Chris Hayes, by the way, I've got to get your reaction, has an interesting take on it all.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: We don't know what we don't know in terms of relationships with staffers. She has denied the relationship with the staff in Congress, and she acknowledged the campaign staffer. So sort of putting aside that, its' not great and problematic, and maybe there is more of that. But it really seems like the bad guys won here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The bad guys won. What? She didn't abuse her office?

DHILLON: As an employment lawyer, I can tell you that what she did here is predatory. There is a presumption that it is not something that is consensual, and she can rebut that, but she can talk about that in employment court. In a court of public opinion, Nancy Pelosi, the leader of her party, who is a woman, did the right thing for the party because, actually, the party just took that seat back from a Republican. And Republicans want that seat back. So I know that the Democrats --

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, what is your thought on -- I saw Papadopoulos is going to throw his hat in the ring?

HARRIS: Oh, goodness.

INGRAHAM: What is that? Hold on, hold on. I want Harmeet on that first.

DHILLON: No. So in congressional district 25, there are a number of good Republicans who have stepped forward, including the member of Congress who held that seat before, Steve Knight, is considering it. But right now the leading candidates on our side in terms of money and support locally are Mike Garcia, a Navy fighter pilot, veteran --

INGRAHAM: Awesome.

DHILLON: -- who flew 30 missions in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Angelica Underwood-Jacobs, or Angela Underwood-Jacobs, sorry, who is a local city councilwoman in Lancaster in that district. Both of them are popular there and have raised significant amounts of money. Papadopoulos has thrown his hat in the ring. I think he has a bunch of baggage, I'm not supporting him, but we have a good chance to take this seat back, whoever the Democrat is.

And Laura, for your information and for your viewers, the Democrats are going to probably going to include our secretary of state on the Democrat side, Alex Padilla, who is somebody who Republicans have sued, including myself, have sued twice so far this year. So it's going to be a hotly contested seat.

INGRAHAM: Padilla versus Mike Garcia, or the other gal.

HARRIS: But here's what we have to be honest about it. Papadopoulos, he has announced, and he is on record --

INGRAHAM: No one is endorsing Papadopoulos. Sorry, panel, we got to go.

HARRIS: He's on record, he's on record lying --

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, he's not somebody Harmeet is pushing, clearly. Panel, thank you.

An honest admission from a legendary journalist, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM BROKAW, FORMER ANCHOR OF NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: They still don't have what you would call the goods on this president in terms of breaking the law and being an impeachable target for them. They are going to start the process, but they don't have the same kind of clarity that the people who were opposed to Richard Nixon had, because it was so clear that these were criminal acts that he was involved in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Andrea Mitchell, did she want to buy a vowel there? I like Andrea, actually. That was like an unexpected moment.

At least a journalist who have seen it before. That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the fantastic "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.