Rep. Nunes on IG report vindicating his memo on the deep state

close

Video

Rep. Nunes on IG report vindicating his memo on the deep state

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes and Kash Patel, special assistant to the president, on IG report on FISA abuse.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 10, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Laura Ingraham: Hannity, stupendous show on your part. I am Laura Ingraham, and this is the Ingraham Angle from New York City tonight. We have a packed show for you. Gregg Jarrett's in the studio with me. Alan Dershowitz, Congressman Devin Nunes, Lee Zeldin, all on tonight on this impeachment farse and the IG report, of course, an Adam Schiff expose we have for you. But first, what if congressional leaders could be impeached? That's the focus of tonight's angle. All right. We've read all of your emails and your tweets about the Democrat's impeachment obsession. Now, this is the general flavor of what I'm reading. Why can't they be impeached? Why doesn't somebody demand that Schiff answer questions under oath? And why isn't a sham impeachment an open and shut case of Democrat's dereliction of duty? In other words, to the country.

Oh, well, if it were only that simple. Article II Section 4 of the United States Constitution stipulates that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be impeached and removed from office on three charges, bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, the House has only impeached one member of Congress, all right? It was back in 1799, a little history lesson here. Senator William Blount had allegedly conspired to incite Native Americans and frontiersmen to attack the Spanish lands of Florida and Louisiana.

Now, the Senate ultimately dismissed the case, arguing that members of Congress do not constitute, under the constitution, civil officers. It’s kind of self-serving on their part, don’t you think? And remember, this issue -- this is very important, it has never been resolved by an Article III judge. Well, tonight, I thought this would be fun, for the sake of argument, for the sake of education, and just for fun, we’re going to proceed as if Congress is not immune from impeachment. So, let’s say the GOP wins back the House next November and the tables are turned. What articles of impeachment could Schiff and the gang be facing? Well, our first article of impeachment in this fantasyland of ours is abuse of power. Now, the Democrats charged Trump with this ambiguous non-crime. So, what’s good for the goose is good for the -- you know how it goes. Well, I think with what we know so far, House Intel Committee Chair Adam Schiff is the one who abused power. Now, his office met with the whistleblower in August. He didn’t reveal this to anyone until he was caught, basically, and he still hasn’t answered questions about what he knew and when he knew it.

Male Speaker: The 300-page report that’s built largely on hearsay, opinion, and speculation, but the purported author of it, Chairman Schiff, is not here to answer our questions.

Doug Collins: Where’s Mr. Schiff? And Mueller, Robert Mueller testified. The Ken Starr report, Ken Starr report. The author of the Schiff report is not here.

Male Speaker: Has any committee heard from the whistleblower either in closed-door hearings or in open hearings? Did Chairman Schiff state that he would call the whistleblower to testify?

Male Speaker: He did.

Male Speaker: Has that happened?

Male Speaker: It has not.

Laura Ingraham: Well, and come on. We know the whistleblower’s political motivation is obvious. But the very fact that he went to Schiff initially, that first decision. But today, Schiff put on the big act, channeling the founders in pretending to be the great protector of the constitution.

Adam Schiff: The framers of the constitution recognized that someday a president might come to office who would abuse that office. And they prescribed a remedy.  And that remedy is impeachment. The argument, “Why don’t you just wait?” amounts to this: “Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?”

Laura Ingraham: Oh, you look at the faces? Those are the faces of defeat, morning, noon, and night today. Well, look, it’s also easy to argue, I think, that Speaker Pelosi is also guilty of abuse of power. Well, this sham impeachment had the effect of freezing action on other really important legislative priorities. Now, although Pelosi today, more than a year later, finally endorsed the USMCA, you know, the replacement for NAFTA. Her calculated, needless delay harmed American workers and the larger American economy. Think about it this way. While aid to Ukraine was delayed for, you know, a number of days, Nancy Pelosi delayed aid to you, the workers of America via this mega-trade deal for a year, actually, 13 months, all for her own personal political benefit.

Nancy Pelosi: I would say that we came a long way from what he originally proposed. And that’s what the Trump administration gave us: a non-starter. There are some people who said, “Why make it look like he has a victory?” Well, we’re declaring victory for the American worker.

Laura Ingraham: Oh, really? Okay. I’ll give you a translation. I know a little bit about this deal. She conceded on all major aspects of the deal except a few provisions regarding drug companies that won’t get protections that they wanted. And look, we know that the president, himself, has wanted to get tougher on the drug companies anyway, so this is a huge, huge win for America and for the president, Bob Lighthizer and his entire team, Jared Kushner. The USMCA was a massive win. And this could have been implemented 13 months ago. But beyond the USMCA -- stay with me. This is abuse of power. Pelosi is doing harm to the country right now by withholding support for infrastructure and prescription drug bill, the bill to lower prices of prescription drugs, affecting all of us. Her party campaigned on both of those issues. Again, she’s doing this, abusing her power merely for her own political benefit. You see how ambiguous this can get? And of course, to deny a victory to the president. Our article two of our impeachment against this Congress: lying under oath. Now, who can forget what Adam Schiff did when he read from the so-called Trump/Zelensky transcript back in September?

Adam Schiff: I have a favor. I want from you, though, and I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.

Laura Ingraham: I mean, that sounded really bad, really nefarious, terrible. But one problem: it was totally made up. It was a complete lie. And when he was called on it, he claimed, “Oh, I didn’t mean -- I didn’t mean that. I was just joking.”

Adam Schiff: My summary of the president’s call was meant to be, at least part, in parody. The fact that that’s not clear is a separate problem in and of itself. Of course, the president never said, “If you don’t understand me, I’m going to say it seven more times.”

Laura Ingraham: Yeah, because when I think of Adam Schiff, I think “comedy.” [laughs] Like, no one bought it. No one bought his explanation, especially not the president.

Donald Trump: Adam Schiff is a deranged human being. And he lies. Adam Schiff made up my conversation with the president of Ukraine. If he didn’t do that in the halls of Congress, he’d be thrown in a jail. But he did it in the halls of Congress. And he’s given immunity. This is a sick person. He’s a liar.

Laura Ingraham: The Ingraham Angle’s impeachment article three: invasion of privacy. Now, without a warrant, Adam Schiff obtained the phone records of Americans, including the president’s personal attorney, a journalist, and his fellow congressman, Devin Nunes.

Male Speaker: They published the phone records of the president’s personal lawyer, the phone records of a member of the press, and the phone records of the chairman of the intelligence committee’s political opponent, Representative Nunes. That’s their effort to impeach the president of the United States 11 months before an election. Pick an even --

Doug Collins: Who ordered to find out if Nunes’s number was on those calls? And be careful, you’re under oath.  Daniel Goldman: I know I’m under oath, sir.

Doug Collins: Then answer the question.

Daniel Goldman: It doesn’t matter.

Laura Ingraham: “I know I’m under oath, sir.” Well, we’ll talk with Congressman Nunes about this in a few moments. Now, think about it. Schiff’s entire investigation was about how the president supposedly used his position of power to dig up dirt on a political opponent. But that is precisely what Schiff, himself, did here. This was a fishing expedition that ensnared 3,500 pages of phone records in its wide net. Now, perhaps Schiff took inspiration, I don’t know, from Comey, McCabe, Strzok. After all, Crossfire Hurricane was all about violating people’s privacy rights for the greater good of the Russia witch-hunt.

Reporter Question: Do you still stand by your statement that the campaign was spied upon?

William Barr: Oh, it was clearly spied upon. I mean, that’s what electronic surveillance is. I think wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations is spying. I think going through people’s emails, which they did as a result of the FISA warrant, they went through everything.

Laura Ingraham: Donald Trump is really fortunate to have that man as our attorney general. I can tell you that right now. Absolutely right. Article four of our impeachment charges against this Democrat Congress: obstruction of Congress. Now, what about Schiff refusing to testify before the House Judiciary Committee hearing and his refusal to allow Republicans to call the whistleblower and others?

Male Speaker: You’re refusing to answer whether you’ve communicated with the whistleblower?

Daniel Goldman: The whistleblower is not relevant to this report in the sense --

Male Speaker: He’s the whole basis of the beginning of this investigation. He --

Jim Jordan: Your staff is the only staff of any member of Congress who’s had a chance to talk with that individual.

Adam Schiff: I do not know the identity of the whistleblower, and I’m determined to make sure that identity is protected.

Male Speaker: What agency was this individual from?

Adam Schiff: If I could interject here, we don’t want to use --

Male Speaker: It’s our --

Adam Schiff: -- these proceedings.

Male Speaker: It’s our time --

Adam Schiff: I know.

Male Speaker: -- chair.

Adam Schiff: But we need to protect the whistleblower. If -- please stop.

Laura Ingraham: Okay, now if Trump can obstruct Congress without any type of court proceeding, then the chairman of the Intel Committee can also obstruct Congress. If they’re going to play this game, then let’s play it. He can obstruct Congress by refusing to give Republicans their rights to call witnesses, including the whistleblower. Adam Schiff, yes, guilty as charged. Meanwhile, back in the real world, that’s kind of our fantasy, but you see why I’m doing this. The target of all their wrath, President Trump, I mean, the man is on a roll. And he even seemed to be kind of basking in the glow of it all tonight in Pennsylvania.

Donald Trump: They’re embarrassed by the impeachment and our poll numbers have gone through the roof because of her stupid impeachment. While we’re delivering historic victories for the American people, the radical-left Democrats and the failed Washington establishment are trying to erase your votes, nullify the election, and overthrow our democracy. The Republicans have never been so united as they are right now, ever.

[cheering]

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Thousands of people, as usual, waiting outside in the rain to see the president. Well, you see, the Democrats, as usual, are guilty of much of what they accuse Trump of doing: a rank abuse of power, lying, and with the added bonus of invasion of privacy, obstruction of Congress. When you think about it, the possibilities are endless, and if we add in all the ways the Democrats work with the media to drive these false narratives against this president and propel their lies, well, there may be enough collusion to call Mueller back into service, and that’s the angle.

[sound effect]

All right, joining me now, Gregg Jarrett, FOX News legal analyst and author of the fantastic book Witch Hunt; Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor emeritus, author of the book Guilt by Accusation; and Congressman Lee Zeldin of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Gregg, Democrats pulled every rotten trick in the book. You saw my -- you know, my articles of impeachment --

Gregg Jarrett: Yes.

Laura Ingraham: -- if we could impeach this House of Representatives, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi. It’s a treasure trove of possibilities.

Gregg Jarrett: Oh, it absolutely is. In fact, I’ve written several columns arguing that Schiff in particular is guilty of abuse of power himself because he is defying the dictates of the federal courts that have said due process applies to congressional investigations, which would include impeachment. He has denied access the White House during his hearings; he cut off cross-examination; and, you know, he has essentially railroaded the process in violation of due process rights. And so, I love your creative argument that he should be impeached over abuse of power.

Laura Ingraham: Yeah. I mean, who’s obstructing Congress more than the guy running the committee who won’t let the other side actually have a fair shake at --

Gregg Jarrett: That’s right.

Laura Ingraham: -- putting on a case? Congressman Zeldin, the weak articles of impeachment today, to me, aren’t all that surprising. The Democrats have spent the last two months offering this really nebulous, ever-shifting series of explanations for impeachment. Let’s watch it.

[begin video clip]

Male Speaker: There absolutely was a quid pro quo.

Female Speaker: -- extortion of a foreign government.

Nancy Pelosi: Evidence of bribery.

Male Speaker: Part of a pattern to obstruct –

Eric Swalwell: Innocent people don’t intimidate witnesses.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Witness intimidation? Boy, I forgot that one. What happened to all those other impeachable acts? They seem to have just disappeared. Congressman?

Lee Zeldin: They exploded. It was -- they detonated. We saw it unfold during closed-door depositions; we saw it unfold during the open hearings in front of the Intelligence Committee, in front of the Judiciary Committee. So, Adam Schiff had said when he was doing his Sunday news appearances that the closed-door depositions -- that they were analogous to a grand jury investigation, and in this particular grand jury investigation Adam Schiff was holding, he was the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, the witness coach. He was in charge of strategizing how to lie and how to leak, and the American people were essentially getting dumbed down through willing accomplices in the media taking some of the cherry-picked information, even though the key information was being withheld. And it started at quid pro quo; we saw the first witness right out of the gate, former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, blew up the quid pro quo narrative. They moved to extortion; then they moved it to bribery. Then it went back to quid pro quo, and now they’re back to -- now they’re to these two articles. They actually did prove abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. To your point, they’re actually guilty, though, of the two articles that they’re bringing, not President Trump.

Laura Ingraham: [laughs] You can’t -- Alan, you said that those two weak sister-articles of impeachment don’t even rise to the constitutional requirement here. Explain that to our viewers tonight.

Alan Dershowitz: They are just simply being made up. There’s nothing in the Constitution about abuse of power; there’s nothing in the Constitution about obstruction of Congress. The Constitution provides the four criteria -- treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors -- and it is an abuse by Congress to impeach a president on grounds not in the Constitution. Congress is not above the law. They can’t just make it up. And the two that they selected, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, can be used against any president if the other side controls the House. It could also, as you’ve suggested, be used against House members. They’re so vague and open-ended, they’re exactly what James Madison rejected at the constitutional convention and what Alexander Hamilton said was the greatest danger. The greatest danger is that impeachment will turn on who has the most votes in the House rather than on the guilt or innocence of a person who has to be charged with specified constitutional offenses. So, what they’ve done is unconstitutional. It raises a very interesting question: What does the Senate do now? They’ve been presented with an unconstitutional --

Laura Ingraham: Yeah, that’s a good segue.

Alan Dershowitz: -- impeachment.

Laura Ingraham: Yeah, that’s a good segue, Gregg, to the next point we want to get to, because we’re hearing now in the Washington Examiner headline tonight, “Republicans poised to call no witnesses during Trump impeachment trial in Senate.” “Here’s what I want to avoid: this thing going on longer than it needs to. I want to end this” -- that’s what Lindsey Graham said. I’m of two minds about this. I think we always let them get away with this. We let them get away with it with the Kavanaugh leak, and now this. They’re going to get away with having done this without actually driving home the point of this abuse. Or am I just -- this is just wishful thinking on my part?

Gregg Jarrett: Well, you know, they have a couple of options. One would be a motion to dismiss, which Bill Clinton had argued. It didn’t succeed because there were eight felony -- 11 felony offenses identified by Ken Starr.

Laura Ingraham: But why not make Adam Schiff come to the Senate and call this whistleblower? I think the county needs to know how this happened.

Gregg Jarrett: I totally agree with you. He should; he should account for his own actions and how it all began. I think Republicans are a little reluctant about the Joe Biden/Hunter Biden as witnesses --

Laura Ingraham: You never know what you’re going to get.

Gregg Jarrett: -- but I agree completely that the whistleblower needs to be identified. He’s not --

Laura Ingraham: This is ridiculous.

Gregg Jarrett: -- a real whistleblower under the law. He’s entitled to no protection under the law. Adam Schiff appears to have lied about contacts with the whistleblower. This appears to have been all collusion between --

Laura Ingraham: A coach.

Gregg Jarrett: -- the whistleblower and Adam Schiff to invent a pretext.

Laura Ingraham: Thank you. A coached employee/staffer-turned-whistleblower through -- I mean, this is what it -- this is what it’s increasingly looking like.

Gregg Jarrett: Exactly.

Laura Ingraham: I know you had that theory long ago, but to anyone watching this, this is what's been going on. I don’t like the fact that people get away with this stuff. Lee Zeldin, the president tonight in Pennsylvania spoke about whether Democrats are going to be sacrificing themselves, congressmen and -women, by going for this vote on impeachment. Watch what he said.

[begin video clip]

Donald Trump: Any Democrat that votes for this sham will be voting to sacrifice their House majority, their dignity, and their career. We have to vote these crazy people the hell out of office, and in 2020 I’m going to work like hell that we take over the House.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Lee Zeldin, do you think this could be an opportunity for Republicans to say, “We need to get back to constitutional brass tacks. We don’t want, you know, impeachment for political motives or to get our enemies” -- Alan Dershowitz just talked about this -- “it’s time to have sensible stewardship of our government. Give us this majority again.” Lee, what’s the pitch?

Lee Zeldin: Yeah, absolutely. And by the way, it’s always time for that, but unfortunately, you go through these periods in our country where it seems like some of our leaders in Washington and our state capitals -- they forget what their duties are. And one of the reasons why you see House Republicans so united right now -- our instincts here as we just look at the facts, it’s not just the procedure, but also on the substance, just how deeply flawed this all is. If the Democrats are going to rely on presumptions, lies, hearsay, and 3 percent of the story to connect dots not connected, and we have the other 97 percent of the story, let’s lean into that. As far as looking forward to the future, I’m confident that those 31 House Democrats in districts that Donald Trump won did not send those 31 Democrats to come to Washington to impeach Donald Trump. They voted for Donald Trump to be their president. So, I think that they’re going to -- many of them are going to be losing their seat. It was nice serving with many of them, but it’s time for them to go now and to be replaced by other people who are actually going to work with this president, work with colleagues in the Senate and the House --

Laura Ingraham: Health care, yeah.

Lee Zeldin: -- Republicans and Democrats. Health care; you said infrastructure earlier.

Laura Ingraham: All of it. Got to do it. All right, got to do it. One more question, Alan Dershowitz. John Brennan was on another network tonight. He uses this opportunity -- everything that we’ve discovered in this IG report -- to say this. Watch.

[begin video clip]

John Brennan: I fail to see how Mr. Barr is, you know, leading the Department of Justice and the FBI in an honest and credible fashion when he continues to make the statements that clearly are partial to Mr. Trump, and does not say anything at all that really would endorse the great work of the women and men of FBI, which requires, I think, on his part great praise and appreciation.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Deflection game. Alan?

Alan Dershowitz: Look, the attorney general serves two roles. One, he is a cabinet member and an adviser to the president, and second, he's the chief law enforcement officer. He's a very distinguished and dignified person who served in this role before and I think he's trying very hard to balance those two roles.

Laura Ingraham: Congressman Alan Gregg, thank you so much. Great to see all of you tonight. Such an important night to have all your voices. And coming up, the IG report on FISA abuse totally exposed Adam Schiff. So why is the left putting him front and center on impeachment when the media's still lionizing him? Nunes next.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham: Nearly two years ago Adam Schiff released a scathing memo attacking then House intel chair Devin Nunes who uncovered shocking evidence of deep state FISA abuse against the Trump campaign. Well, the left predictably jumped on Nunes. The Washington Post calling his memo a joke and a sham. Sounds like it's describing the Washington Post. And they weren't the only ones.

[begin video clip]

Male Speaker: It really underscores just how partisan Mr. Nunes has been. He has abused the office of the chairmanship.

Female Speaker: The Nunes memo is a dud.

Male Speaker: He Devin Nunes memo, it backfired on them.

Female Speaker: This is what all the hype was about?

Female Speaker: It was just kind of like a sad trombone.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: More like a trumpet. Of the course the talking heads praised Schiff.

[begin video clip]

Male Speaker: This was a case of Nunes baselessly claimed and Schiff came back with a 10-page body blow.

Female Speaker: He's a very clear and lawyer-like rebuttal of specific facts.

Female Speaker: The Schiff memo definitely fills in some of the gaps in the Nunes memo and is much more consistent with actually how the FBI obtains these things.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Well, now we know those blithering idiots were wrong. How any of them are in political analysis or prognostication is beyond me. IG Mike Howowitz's new report vindicates Nunes. He was right on the money. Schiff was just peddling lies and misinformation, remember? That abuse of power impeachment article we talked about. Well, for example, the Schiff memo claims the FBI didn't omit any information in its first FISA application for Carter Page. Wrong. Horowitz found at least 17 significant errors or omissions. The Schiff memo also asserts the FBI determined Christopher Steele was credible. Wrong again. The FBI exaggerated Steele's credibility we now know and omitted discrediting details. So, the question is, why is the media still lionizing a habitual liar? Joining me now, Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intel Committee and Kash Patel, who worked on the Intel Committee under Nunes and helped craft the now vindicated report. He currently serves as special assistant to the president and senior director for counterterror. Congressman, does Adam Schiff still enjoy legitimacy? And if so, why?

Devin Nunes: Well, he absolutely does not, Laura, and I should say that I'm glad you have Kash Patel on but there are a lot of members of Congress who were really involved in this, including Trey Gowdy, John Ratcliffe, the entire intelligence committee team on the Republican side that had to sit through two years of this nonsense. And what you really find out is that these dirty cops were covering up a whole lot and if it wouldn't have been for the good work that a lot of people on our team did like Kash, this -- we would not have got to the bottom of this because really, you know, despite what the media keeps saying about oh, well they had a predicate for the investigation. There was no bias. That's not what we claimed. That's not what we claimed. That's for somebody else to get to. We said there was FISA abuse and it's quite clear.

Laura Ingraham: And that's what you stuck to. That was really the focus of your report. Kash, you helped write this report. It's a huge amount of information that had to be culled. Bill Barr spoke about this problem today. Watch.

[begin video clip]

Bill Barr: One of the things that's poisonous about our politics is the use of the criminal law process as a political weapon instead of just debating ideas they want to label their adversary as a criminal and then they start calling for scalps. Nowadays I'm constantly hit why aren't people going to prison for what they did to the president? And on the other side, you know, throw Bill Barr in prison. These things take time. [laughs]

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Weaponizing power to hurt your political opponent. Kash.

Kash Patel: Thanks for having me on, Laura. And as Congressman Nunes said, it was a gigantic team effort and as a former terrorism prosecutor at national security division, and a public defender, due process is one of our most vital important laws that we have to safeguard our community and I was furious at the abuse that was enacted by the DNC funded Steele dossier through James Comey and then the clown car cover operation by Adam Schiff. It is nice today that Attorney General Bill Barr, a well-respected two-time attorney general, gave us in America a piece of our due process back.

Laura Ingraham: Well, Congressman Nunes, I just ran into Carter Page in the green room as I was getting ready for this show and I gave him a big hug and I said, "You and so many others have been through hell" and Congressman Nunes, you as well. I mean, they've called you every name in the book, but the poor Carter Page is hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. They called him a Russian asset. They accused him of pretty much everything. He's totally vindicated. Frankly, as is Papadopoulos and his comments about being weary of Russia and the need to be very careful. But all these people's lives were just dragged down by Adam Schiff and he's going to skate away on this?

Devin Nunes: Well, look, I think there's a lot of lawsuits out there that are still ongoing that I have filed, that Carter Page has filed, that Kash Patel has filed. So, the courts are still going to get involved with this and then let's not forget, John Durham, the U.S. attorney out of Connecticut. I think the important thing that Barr said today that is important for people to understand -- because I’ve been highlighting this to that it’s getting lost on people. It wasn’t just that they used the Democrat and Hillary Clinton dirt, gave it to fake news, and used that as evidence for the FISA. What Kash, and myself, and Trey Gowdy, and John Ratcliffe, what we said for a long time is you need to really know what else is in there, too. And what you’re finding out today is they didn’t wait for the Carter Page FISA to spy on the campaign. They actually were recording their conversations --  Laura Ingraham: Right.  Devin Nunes: -- with listening devices. And then they decided to only put a piece of that to the court. They left out the exculpatory evidence. And you have to remember, we fought so hard for so long. I had to come on your show --  Laura Ingraham: Right.  Devin Nunes: -- nearly every night because DOJ, and the dirty cops, and the FBI and the dirty cops there refused, refused to give us what we called at the time, the “tech cuts.” We had to fight over the tech cuts. Remember? We had to threaten to impeach officers of the Trump administration, okay, in order to get these tech cuts. Well, now you find out why we wanted these tech cuts.  Laura Ingraham: Yeah, well, I certainly get it. By the way, a little breaking news to lighten the moment a little bit. According to the Free Beacon tonight, Time Magazine is set to pick its person of the year, and it looks like it’s going to be the whistleblower [laughs], okay? The impeachment witness, the only person who knows who it is, apparently for sure, really, is Schiff, Kash.  Kash Patel: Right.  Laura Ingraham: I mean, you just can’t even make this up.  Kash Patel: I mean, you --  Laura Ingraham: I mean, maybe you know who the whistleblower is, Kash, but I guess you couldn't tell me.  Kash Patel: No, I mean, I’m not here to talk about the whistleblower.  Laura Ingraham: Yeah.  Kash Patel: But maybe Time Magazine got their act right. The real men of the year and women of the year would be the folks on the Intel Committee under Chairman Nunes. Because that is the only reason --  Laura Ingraham: Excellent point.  Kash Patel: -- we are finally getting to accountability today, which is all that ever mattered.  Laura Ingraham: Excellent point. And Congressman Nunes, McCabe spoke out tonight, taking a sideswipe at Bill Barr. Watch what he said.  Devin Nunes: [laughs]  [begin video clip]  Andrew McCabe: It didn’t happen. I know that. I didn’t need the IG to tell me that. But it’s good that the IG has reported now that there is absolutely no indications of that whatsoever. And I think what the attorney general has done here with that is he’s actually kind of proactively misrepresenting the whole -- the findings of the report.  [end video clip]  Laura Ingraham: So, in other words, no spine. Bill Barr came out and same there was surveillance, but he said that didn’t happen, no bias.  Devin Nunes: Well, let me talk -- let me talk about McCabe, okay? Let me talk about McCabe. Because McCabe wrote a book that came out a few months ago. And at one point, I had to walk into a meeting where they tried to kick me out. And Rod Rosenstein, at the time the acting attorney general, the deputy attorney general, comes up to me and says, “Hey, you’re not going to be allowed in this room.” I said, “Sorry, I’m gang of eight. I’m in this room. I’m the chair of the Intelligence Committee.” I thought at the time that it was the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi that were trying to kick me out of the room. It was actually McCabe.  Laura Ingraham: [laughs]  Devin Nunes: Now, look, that’s obstruction of a Congressional investigation. So, you know, I think McCabe has a lot of other problems that he needs to worry about. And he probably ought to start with actually reading the IG report. Because when you start from page one to 318, every single page has bombshells on it.  Laura Ingraham: That’s -- I mean, the more I read, the more infuriated I became yesterday. Gentlemen, it was great to have both of your voices tonight. So important. Thank you so much, both of you, for what you’ve done for our country. Coming up, new details now about that Saudi national who obtained the gun used to kill three people at a Florida military base. As servicemen speak out about this bizarre program, do we need a moratorium on Saudi visas? Dinesh D’Souza next.  [commercial break]  Laura Ingraham: We have new details tonight on the Saudi national who killed three sailors and wounded eight more at a Florida Naval Airbase last week. According to the FBI, the shooter was able to legally purchase the handgun he used to murder our men in uniform. Well, how did he do this? Well, the attacker exploited a loophole in federal law, which is raising some serious national security questions. Also, tonight, Defense Secretary Mark Esper is halting training for all 852, wow, Saudi military personnel in the U.S. while officials investigate the vetting process. Joining me now, Dinesh D’Souza, conservative author and filmmaker, and Art Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies. Dinesh, do we need to start being able to be a little more clear-eyed about the Saudi kingdom all these years after 9/11?  Dinesh D’Souza: I think we do. Now, certainly no country had more of the 9/11 hijackers than Saudi Arabia. And it seems like we have, to some degree, forgotten the lessons of 9/11. I mean, you have a Saudi guy showing up looking for military training or looking for flight training. You’d think that would ring an alarm bell, but apparently not, or not enough. Now, I realize, of course, that in Saudi Arabia, there are two Saudi Arabias. There are two camps. There is the royal family, and that’s one camp. And there’s the Bin Laden camp. So, we shouldn’t confuse the two. We shouldn’t assume that because it’s Saudi, it’s bad. But the truth of it is that these two camps are more closely connected than we might sometimes think. The Saudi regime, for example, funds all kinds of madrasas religious schools that promote radicalism. Obviously, there are Saudis who can come to America under the auspices of the government. And yet, they might have radical sympathies. And so, while there are two Saudi Arabia’s, the two Saudi Arabias are, in fact, interconnected.  Laura Ingraham: Art, you raised the issue today in a piece you wrote that there should, perhaps, be travel restrictions on some of these individuals. Again, going back to the original 9/11 commission report, we were supposed to be fingerprinting everyone coming into the United States. We’re not doing that. But what about the travel restrictions? Would that be hard to monitor and enforce?  Art Arthur: Well, you look at the situation, Laura, and you’re going to have to have some sort of change. You’re going to have to have some sort of improvement, because there was an intelligence failure in the vetting of this individual by DOS, by DOD, and by DHS when he came into the United States. There was a failure on the part of DOD to monitor him when he was in the United States, and, again, as you said, there are 853 Saudi nationals in the United States who are taking military training right now. Now, Lieutenant Alshamrani used a gun, but what if he’d used a plane? What if he had, you know, done something else to, you know, inflict even greater carnage that he did? Secretary Esper is right to call for review of the vetting program. It plainly has some defects if this individual was allowed into the United States. He was here for almost two years. He was engaged in some pretty sketchy activities in this country, and he was able to get a gun.

Laura Ingraham: Yeah. I mean, here -- by the way, here’s how CNN spun the president’s reaction to that Pensacola shooting. Watch.

[begin video clip]

Male Speaker: There were times where he’s saying this struck many people as just odd that the president’s first instinct appeared to be to defend the Saudi royal family.

Male Speaker: He’s providing cover for the Saudis.

Male Speaker: Trump doesn’t have ideology, that what is most important to Trump is, is he going to pursue his own personal agenda, wherever that takes him, and I think that’s actually quite consistent even though it, you know, creates all sort of paroxysms among those that don’t like those policies.

Female Speaker: Well, I also see consistency in the hypocrisy.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: Dinesh, did Brennan not get the memo about the whole America First thing? And that was Ian Bremer there. I mean, there’s a little -- personal benefit? I don’t see that. I mean, they are an important ally in the region, are they not? I mean, Trump is trying to balance all that.

Dinesh D’Souza: Absolutely. The United States has been allied with Saudi Arabia going back essentially to World War II, and Saudi Arabia has been an important ally, not economically to some degree. Now, of course, over time, America’s dependence on the region for oil has gone down. Huge discoveries of natural gas in the United States; we’re not as dependent on the desert as we used to be, and that might warrant some reevaluation of the sort of automatic deference that we have tended to give to a country like Saudi Arabia in exchange for its sort of economic alliance with us.

Laura Ingraham: Well, the pilots -- the men and women who keep us safe in the skies -- they’re kind of tired of not being able to be armed on these military bases. Senior U.S. Army officer: “We trust 18-year-old privates in combat with grenades, anti-tank missiles, but we let servicemembers get slaughtered because we don’t trust anyone to be armed back here in the United States. Why are we cowering in our offices? It’s insane.” Thoughts?

Art Arthur: Yeah, I mean, you know, this is probably one of the oddest things for the American people to understand. NAS Pensacola was a gun-free zone, so the only people who were going to have guns in NAS Pensacola are bad people. Lieutenant Alshamrani was taken out by an Escambia County deputy. That’s what it has come to. This is a military base that has planes, that has, you know, armaments, and yet no one is allowed to carry a gun. That’s a policy that I think we need to rethink, because if there had been a good guy with a gun there, probably there wouldn’t have been the carnage that we saw occur in Pensacola on Friday.

Laura Ingraham: All right, gentlemen, thank you so much. And coming up, as moderate Democrats continue to get very nervous on impeachment, the party’s argument keeps crumbling. So, have Democrats overplayed their hand? Pollsters Mark Penn, John McLaughlin, and Scott Rasmussen are going to tell us next.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham: As I mentioned earlier, the Democrats’ amoeba-like impeachment narrative has been constantly changing shapes. It’s alienated moderate Democrats in the process; the numbers are flipping, as we predicted. Joining me now to explain what this all means, Mark Penn, former Clinton adviser and Democratic pollster; John McLaughlin, Trump 2020 pollster; and Scott Rasmussen, editor at large for Ballotpedia. John, the Democrats’ arguments are obviously really, really weak here. Are the voters beginning to see that this is -- not only ain’t working; it’s bad for the country.

John McLaughlin: Yes, it’s backfiring because it’s seen as political. As Doug Collins said, this is all about 2020, trying to stop Trump from getting reelected. We saw in the end of October in the national polls the majority of Americans said it was political, not legal, 52-36. They said it was a waste of time and money, 59-33. And now the Trump campaign -- we released polls in three of the 31 districts where you have Democrats sitting where Donald Trump won those districts, and five to four, they’re against impeachment, and on the trade question, they’re 70 percent saying they should do this, and not impeachment. They should pass the trade deal; that’s why it happened.

Laura Ingraham: Now, as an example, a new Quinnipiac poll showing for the first time a majority of voters oppose impeaching the president. Nice job, Adam. Fifty-one percent oppose it, while 45 percent support it. Not only is that an eight-point swing in favor of Trump since the impeachment push started; it’s the first time since House Speaker Pelosi announced the inquiry that more than half of the voters say Trump shouldn’t be impeached. Scott, is this a confirmation here that this is, again, you put Adam Schiff in charge of this, and the thing went off the rails?

Scott Rasmussen: Well, actually, it’s proof that the jobs report last week mattered far more than the side show in Washington. I mean, the economy is always a part of the impeachment debate. All due respect to Mark, you know, Bill Clinton wouldn’t have survived his impeachment if he had a terrible economy. Richard Nixon was forced from office partly because of Watergate and partly because of a terrible economy, and what this means right now for the president, he’s got to focus on the policies keeping the economy going, and that’s what voters care about. They don’t want to get caught up in the partisan political stuff.

Laura Ingraham: Okay, after introducing all the articles of impeachment -- all of them, all two of them, the Democrats suddenly, Mark Penn, decided this whole trade thing that's been around for 13 months that was painstakingly negotiated by Bob Lighthizer, it was time to take it seriously. Now, listen to what they all reported over and over and over.

[begin video clip]

Nancy Pelosi: We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Joe Biden: Walk and chew gum at this same time.

Female Speaker: We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Male Speaker: We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Bernie Sanders: Walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

Female Speaker: But it turns out Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: This was just like -- so they can actually pass a piece of legislation that's wildly popular and that they supported months ago.

Mark Penn: Well, I don't know if that's the threshold for getting elected these days, walking and chewing gum.

Laura Ingraham: Yeah. Yeah.

Mark Penn: Look. I frankly don't understand why if you had an impeachment message, she did the treaty on the same day. She really should've done it a year ago. Now she just did it closer to the election giving Trump more of a win. Doesn't make any sense to me.  Laura Ingraham: No, but she tried to say well, we got some big concessions. They got nothing. They got something on drug companies protection, which Trump was already in favor of, and then something that also helped labor, which Trump was fine with, too. This is where like the whole thing stood. It's ridiculous.

Mark Penn: Well, and this was when no one believed that Trump could renegotiate this deal.

Laura Ingraham: They laughed at him. All the elites laughed at him.

Mark Penn: They absolutely did, and John, I remember this. I did it on the show. I said watch Lighthizer. He's the smartest USTR we've ever had. Watch what he does. His whole team brilliant. Kushner, they laughed at him, too. They worked on it and it happened.

John McLaughlin: And that's what this is all about. It's trying to stop the president from getting reelected. Because once the Mueller report went away, he was able to start moving things like the trade deals to protect jobs. You’ve already created seven million new jobs in the economy. Plus he was able to get people to focus on lowering drug prices. They want to do things like paid parental leave. They do those things his job approval moves over 50 percent, he gets reelected.

Laura Ingraham: Scott, watching him tonight in Pennsylvania, he looks like he's really having fun. He's enjoying himself. I haven't seen him like this like really having fun in a long time and sometimes it's at -- well, the other folks' expense. Watch.

[begin video clip]

Donald Trump: Hey. Do you ever notice where Biden keeps saying he's in the wrong state? Like if he's in Ohio, "It's great to be in Iowa tonight." If he's in Pennsylvania, "It's wonderful to be in the state of Delaware." What is wrong with this guy?

[end video clip]

Laura Ingraham: I mean, it's kind of cruel but he -- I mean, just as a general matter he's having fun.

Scott Rasmussen: It looks like he's having fun and, you know, he's had a good week and he's watched all of this stuff, all of the Democrats have been talking about these issues for a long time. They come with two very week articles of impeachment. The economy is going well. And Nancy Pelosi is in damage control mode. Why shouldn't he be feeling good?

Laura Ingraham: Mark, Bloomberg thinks he can come in and straighten this ship, this Democrat ship. Can he?

Mark Penn: Well, look, I think he's got an opportunity. I think the question is is Biden going to come out of these early states strong? If he does, I don't think there's a chance for Bloomberg. If Biden comes out weakened, maybe without funds, then there's a pretty strong chance that Bloomberg can say hey, I am the moderate who can get things done.

Laura Ingraham: But your old boss, Hillary Clinton, did you see the polls? If she gets in, she's immediate frontrunner.

Male Speaker: His poll.

Male Speaker: His poll.

[cross talk]

Laura Ingraham: Did you see your polls? Okay. I've been doing impeachment all day. Give me a break.

Mark Penn: I'm excited about his polls.

Laura Ingraham: But wait a second. What did I tell you? We -- you and I argued about this like two months ago. I said Hillary's getting back in. You said don't do it. She's the frontrunner if she gets back in.

Mark Penn: Yeah. If she got back in she's -- she's popular.

Laura Ingraham: And you're back at work again. You're back hard at work.

Male Speaker: It's a great Christmas gift.

Male Speaker: I think she missed -- I think she missed the deadline but the democratic voters were there for her.

Laura Ingraham: All right, guys, it's great to see you all. Coming up I answer your emails including a question about Pelosi taking credit today for the USMCA. Unreal. Next.

[commercial break]

Laura Ingraham: It's time again for Ingraham's inbox. Tonight's first email is from Eric. "Watching Pelosi's presser the average citizen would think the USMCA was her idea when it was all Trump." Have to do a better job of messaging. Well, I guess. Yeah. Well, to me it's obvious. But Nicholas writes, "Is it possible to impeach Congress members -- congressional members for abuse of power and failure to act in the best interest of the U.S.?" I swear this came in before tonight's angle. It's good to see our viewers are in a mind meld with me. I love it. Send me your thoughts ingrahamangle@foxnews.com. That's all we have tonight. Shannon Bream, the Fox News at Night team will take all the new news from here. Shannon, you are locked and loaded ready to go. Have a great show tonight.

Shannon Bream: Yeah. Yeah, and we're taking over New York City, Laura. I don’t know if they know what to do with the two of us.

Laura Ingraham: I know. Tomorrow we're going to have fun all week. We're going to have fun here. Take care.

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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.