Should Mick Mulvaney remain Trump's chief of staff amid impeachment probe?

close

Video

Should Mick Mulvaney remain Trump's chief of staff amid impeachment probe?

Former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo and Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz on concerns about Mulvaney's future.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 22, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight. Closed doors, coordinated leaks, and career bureaucrats. Well, can Americans trust this impeachment process as it's currently unfolding? House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Former Independent Counsel Ken Starr, and Former Acting AG Matt Whitaker are here with important insight. You do not want to miss it.

Also tonight, how will Vice President Mike Pence figure into all of this? He is here exclusively tonight to tell us about that, and the recent ceasefire deal in Turkey, will it hold?

Plus, Bill Barr appointed prosecutor John Durham, and he zeroes in now on four key players behind the collusion smear. Former Governor Mike Huckabee and former FBI senior official Chris Swecker react.

But first, over the past few nights, we've been laying out the coordinated effort by a cabal of diplomatic and intel bureaucrats to upend the Presidency of Donald Trump.

Now, when the President called them out for their catastrophic failures of process and policy, they were offended. When he demanded that NATO countries start free writing on the U.S. taxpayers, they were horrified. And when he began making good on his promise to bring home our troops, they were shocked.

And when the deep state's insurance policy and Russia collusion narrative imploded, they decided to bring in reinforcements. And of course, they found them in the House where Democrats are furiously trying to construct an abuse-of-power article of impeachment.

I have a question. If Trump is so obviously off the rails, why not hold their fake impeachment inquiry out in the open? Sunlight is, after all, the best political disinfectant. Well, easy answer. The closed-door shuffle allows Democrats to preset the theme of each witness, spin the secret testimony, cherry-pick then leak the phrases most favorable to their impeachment narrative.

Acting Ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, a never-Trumper himself, had his turn in the star chamber today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ANDY LEVIN, D-MICH.: It's not even noon, right? And this is the - my most disturbing day in Congress so far. Very troubling.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The testimony was explosive. I would say that this is the top witness that we've heard from so far.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And he gave a tremendous testimony today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Spin spin spin spin spin. But sources familiar with the testimony tell Fox News that Taylor didn't offer any new evidence and had zero first- hand knowledge or direct evidence of the quid pro quo that Democrats claimed was a slam dunk. But this isn't about the truth. This is about just confirming a thesis regardless of the fact that, for instance, the Ukrainian President said there was no pressure applied to him and no quid pro quo, which brings us to the media.

They've been aching for impeachment since election night and thus will parrot whatever Adam Schiff spits out. No questions asked.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, ANCHOR, CNN: It is entirely possible that this day may turn out to be one of the most consequential days in the impeachment inquiry.

NICOLLE WALLACE, CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST, MSNBC: Donald Trump's impeachment may have been turbocharged today by the testimony of career diplomat Bill Taylor.

MAX BOOT, AMERICAN AUTHOR: Bill Taylor was not just a smoking gun. This was a smoking howitzer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That's from Max Headroom. And it gets better. They don't just publish articles with completely anonymous sources. Last year, remember "The New York Times" published an entire op-ed written by an anonymous, supposedly a senior Trump official, who even claimed to be himself part of the resistance - patriotic resistance.

Well, of course, Mr. or Ms. Courageous also shopped a book deal. It drops next month. According to the publisher, the author sees this as an act of conscience and of duty. What a crock! Every anti-Trump or tattler is depicted as a selfless saint in the media.

This all - it all smacks of desperation to me. The left's hatred for this President has been well documented. But what they are now openly signaling is that they don't like you, the American voter, either. They don't trust you to deliver a result that they want. So they will try to remove this entire process from your hands altogether.

The President won election nearly three years ago as an outsider. And I was thinking about this. And I think, today, ironically, he's still kind of an outsider. What do I mean? I mean that the bipartisan establishment, they never accepted him as legitimate.

Now, this despite his stellar economic record, record number of judges confirmed, and the leadership he's shown against the China threat. He's still a disrupter. He's still the ultimate Rorschach test for the old guard. The better America does under Trump, the more negatively they think that reflects on the so-called experts, who for decades squandered American prosperity for a globalist fantasy.

So if they can impeach Trump even on a bogus narrative teased out in secret, the permanent resistance can say "See, I told you so" and feel vindicated. This is their revenge. Yet, as usual, they underestimate the common sense of the American people who may just have their own revenge against the globalist impeachment mob on November 2nd, 2020.

Joining me now is House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Congressman, how can Democrats run an impeachment inquiry like we're seeing unfold day-after-day?

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF.: Let me ask, but first, you could not be more right in that angle. Everything you said is 100 percent correct. What they are doing, they are changing every rule we ever had. You know what's happening in the intel community today? In the committee, now you - even the members on the committee, the Republicans, cannot read any information unless one of Adam Schiff's own staffers are in the room next to them. No one has ever done this (inaudible).

And if we're wondering who that anonymous person already, I bet it's Adam Schiff. Remember how he made up the whole transcript when he's talking before the committee of what he wanted the phone call to say? And he won't release anything that said today. They go out to the press and they said, Taylor was terrible. And Adam Schiff won't let us talk about what happened. But I'm hearing - and I just saw Devin talk about this on TV. In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy Taylor's whole argument.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Ratcliffe. Tell us what happened.

MCCARTHY: Well, we can't really talk about it, but what we're finding is, just his questioning in 90 seconds refuted everything of what Adam Schiff believes out there. There is no quid pro quo. And the one thing that you find out in this process is all this information is just like that whistleblower. Remember, we haven't seen that whistleblower anywhere. Everything is second, third and fourth hand information. None of it--

INGRAHAM: I've been hearing a little bit about who this second supposed whistleblower might be. This is becoming more evident to me after reading these 15 pages of drivel of the opening statement from today's star witness.

But Congressman, I want to say that the Democrats are trying to respond to your criticism and justify keeping this all under wraps. This is what they're saying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: In this phase of the hearings, because very few witnesses know some of the very important details, we want to conduct it in a way that other witnesses don't know what witnesses are going to say, because otherwise, they could work together and cook up alibis and tailor their testimony. And the fact that we've been able to keep it so close has protected, in some respect, against that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: They are patriotic, Congressman McCarthy. They are protecting the process by keeping it secret. That's a good trick.

MCCARTHY: You know what they found? Even in the investigations and the lies and metaphor, the longer it goes out, their lies all come to fruition. Remember what Schiff said to us, that their whistleblower in the administration was trying to stop them from coming forward, that somehow there was quid pro quo.

Now we find that in the conversation, there was not. And now we find he met with the whistleblower. And the whistleblower goes to the Inspector General and never says that. As every day progresses, we now find more lies from Schiff. We now find that this is a script written, that's pre-decided, that had the Speaker waited 48 hours, we would never be putting America through this night.

INGRAHAM: An MSNBC analyst today, I'm sure very close to you, is saying - and again, they repeat what Schiff and Swalwell and the rest of them say. But that Republicans are focused on process because they believe the underlying facts are so bad for them. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARRETT HAAKE, MSNBC POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All I hear from Republican lawmakers are concerns about process. Yet either they say this inquiry is unfair, that Adam Schiff is running it like it's - like we're in communist China. They hammer Adam Schiff in the process. But even when there were talking points coming out about some of these witnesses, the Republicans in the House are by and large not bothering to use them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCCARTHY: You know what's interesting? It's the Republicans who are saying let us have the transcript. It's the Republican members of this Congress who are going down there. And who is denying us? Adam. He does not want the public to see this because he knows if the public saw this, they'd find one more time he's lied to America.

INGRAHAM: So I read this entire 15-page--

MCCARTHY: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --opening statement by Taylor. And you know what I find repeatedly through this, is that these are second, third, and in one instance, I kid you not, fourth-hand account of what was said. And we still stick to the same conclusion or the fact that the Ukrainians were not aware that the security aid was withheld or held up until August 29th. It was released on September 11th. So how can there be a quid pro quo when they weren't even aware that it was withheld?

MCCARTHY: It's very simple. They're claiming there was a quid pro quo with the President, a phone call of President Trump with the President of Ukraine on July 25th.

We now find from all of what they said, even in here, on August 29th, Ukraine found out that the money was being held up from "Politico." You know what happened on September 11th? The money was sent forward. You know the money was sent forward? What did Ukraine have to do to have the money sent forward? Nothing. So what's the definition of a quid pro quo?

INGRAHAM: I want to get back to what I stated in the - in that mini ANGLE at the top. I really believe in reading this - Ambassador Taylor. I don't know him. I mean, he's a career diplomat, he was with the Bush administration.

MCCARTHY: He doesn't like the President's style.

INGRAHAM: But they despise his - the President's style, his distrust for the global elite. And they are the global elite. But is it - I mean, I hate to say it so (inaudible), but it seems like it's the revenge of the globalists here. They're so angry that he's been successful on so many levels, and his success reflects badly on them. I think it's actually a very prideful way of going about things.

MCCARTHY: They hate the idea that a man can come into office, never been elected before, stand up to NATO that they have to pay, stand up to China where they think, oh, we'll--

INGRAHAM: We'll get along. That's worked out well.

MCCARTHY: --we'll show you how to deal with China, why they steal everything that what we have. And you know what else that sounds like he's really frustrated with? He's not invited to meetings. So he talks about third and fourth hand. And this is what the Democrats pride, but in his own testimony, we found out July 25th is the phone call with the President.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

MCCARTHY: The Ukraine does not know any money is being held up, and we release the money, and they don't have to do anything for it.

INGRAHAM: Every time Sondland says, well, the President says this is no quid pro quo. He won't take that for an answer. He's like, well, no, but - but I think - but it's like he's arguing with the conversation that the President has already had with other people. So he's upset about that because that narrative then collapses. I think--

MCCARTHY: He won't (ph) accept the truth.

INGRAHAM: I read right through this. And I highlighted it and I dog-ear it.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: It's like, well, back in law school. Congressman, thank you for being here tonight.

MCCARTHY: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: Great seeing you.

And joining me now, Ken Starr, former Independent Counsel, Fox News contributor.

Ken, I want to read you something from Bill Taylor's testimony today. OK. "By mid-July, it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections. It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel that had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani."

Now, did Taylor actually advance the Democrats' case that Trump's conduct was impeachable with that?

KEN STARR, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL & CONTRIBUTOR: No, absolutely not. We're still not - first of all, we are in the context of the President's conduct of foreign relations. You're right, He's a disrupter and he chooses to use a different avenue. Is that wise or not? Hey, that's a policy squabble.

But I simply don't think we're in impeachment land at all, and I would just add to your observations about the whole process. Speaker Pelosi needs to call for the vote, now more than ever, especially since we're hearing from the Senate side that the process is being viewed on the Senate side is illegitimate. All the more reason why, not just Adam Schiff, but Speaker Pelosi needs to be called to account.

INGRAHAM: Well, Ken, when you watch how this has unfolded, and it's - it's like clockwork. Every day that there is a new witness, it's built up as a saint, a courageous hero. It's like a hero worship thing, build him up, testifies in secret, maybe has a prepared statement that ultimately leaks or is released somehow, then they cherry-pick that and then they say, oh, see, we're being transparent and we're just trying to protect the process by keeping it secret. I have heard a lot in my day, but that's a nice little trick that they're trying to pull.

STARR: Secret proceedings are always - when we're talking about politics and not the grand jury process, why is this classified information and there is no legitimate public policy reason, policy or in law as to why this should not be open so we can all assess the credibility? That's the key. Here's a witness testifying for hours on end. We need to be able to take the measure of the person.

INGRAHAM: But Ken, we have these witnesses going up to testify clearly against the wishes - the expressed wishes of, in this case, Mike Pompeo. The White House has said it doesn't believe--

STARR: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --this inquiry is legitimate. Does the White House or the State Department or the Executive Branch have any recourse that would be wise to take legally here? Or would that just look so bad, look like you're hiding something?

STARR: Yes. Yes, there's the politics, but also in terms of the law, you just can't go into court and say this is illegitimate, it's totally inconsistent with our constitutional traditions, we need an injunction. The courts would rightly throw that out. So we're just going to have to see this very unfortunate process unfold. And there would probably be some sort of subpoena enforcement on the part of the House. But we'll have to wait and see about that.

INGRAHAM: Ken Starr, thank you so much. It's great to see you, as always.

STARR: Good to see you.

INGRAHAM: And now the media and political class have hit the impeachment frenzy from just about every ANGLE. But few were asking the obvious question. What could this travesty mean for the future of our republic?

Here to answer that question, Former Acting U.S. Attorney General Matt Whitaker.

Matt, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Long after Trump is gone, whether he is reelected or serves two terms, what happens next if this is what you can do to upend a presidency?

MATT WHITAKER, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I think you're going to see a lot of payback. You're going to see a future Republican House Speaker that's going to be able to declare an impeachment inquiry and then follow it up with exactly what's happening right now.

Secret testimony, selective leaking to preferred outlets, and - I just - I think it's not good for the republic, especially 13 months before we have another election. And it's - from where - from what I can tell and from my experience, really a lifetime in this game, both in the State of Iowa and in Washington, D.C., this is just not good for the republic.

INGRAHAM: And it's corrosive and yet those who are perpetrating it cast themselves as the white knights and that they're saving the republic from the man whose policies they disagree with so vehemently and whose tone and whose demeanor they have utter disdain for. I really go back to that. they never saw him as legitimate. The insurance policy of Peter Strzok failed, Mueller failed, and now they're on to the next thing.

WHITAKER: Well - and he's - again, he's - remember these global elitists, these careerists have made promises to our - and have set in place a world establishment that operate in a certain way. And President Trump has asked questions like why do we do this this way? Why don't people pay - why doesn't Germany and France, why don't they pay 2 percent into NATO? And these kind of questions, which again has completely upset the apple cart--

INGRAHAM: Yes.

WHITAKER: --has - he's being punished for this. And again, I'm a former prosecutor. And what I know is this is a perfect time for preliminary hearing where you would say, show us your evidence, what evidence of a crime do you have? I mean, the Constitution - sort of abuse of power is not a crime. Let's fundamentally blow that down. The Constitution is very clear that this has to be some pretty egregious behavior. And they cannot tell the American people what this case is even about--

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: And I'm reading--

WHITAKER: --to do in secret.

INGRAHAM: Yes. And I'm reading this Bill Taylor opening statement and I - my first reaction was, anything that's 15 pages single-spaced, it's like someone who has to put their resume on two or three pages, that's never someone you want to hire, by the way.

WHITAKER: Right.

INGRAHAM: So 15 endless pages of blah blah blah, it was on - but most of it is third and fourth hand recounting of - he told him and then he told him and then the President told him. But I disagree with that.

WHITAKER: Laura - yes.

INGRAHAM: That's basically how it goes.

WHITAKER: We have the transcript of the phone call.

INGRAHAM: Right.

WHITAKER: We have the primary evidence, which is all, in prosecuting the case, you would put in front of the jury. You don't need witnesses that know of the evidence when you have the evidence. And so - as I look at this - again, this Congress, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are convinced they're going to impeach the President.

They think this is the next best thing after the Mueller investigation failed, and they learned the lesson that if they do it fast before everybody catches up and actually the evidence is distilled down to a prosecutable case, then maybe they can pull this one off. But again, I just - I think until we have - we get through 2020, this is unfortunately our new world that we live in, and I fear that it's going to be our future.

INGRAHAM: Yes. What about the White House's response just far? There's been some concern there is not a war room up and running. People (inaudible) war room, it sounds like, well, it's just kind of going to have coordinated effort, coordinated message of the day. I mean, the Democrats have a message of the day.

WHITAKER: Yes.

INGRAHAM: And they all get parroted by the media. And what is the message of the day or is that even appropriate here?

WHITAKER: I don't - from what I can tell, you don't need a war room when you have a warrior. And this President is going to fight this. This is the fight - he understands what's at stake, and he's going to take his case to the American people. And I have a lot of confidence having served in his cabinet that he's going to be able to communicate what's at stake here, and I think the American people are going to respond.

INGRAHAM: This is a revenge of the global elites.

WHITAKER: It really is.

INGRAHAM: And they maybe didn't like being called fake news, and they feel like they're - this is like payback. And then the elites are like, no, no, you're coming into my world now. OK. That's how I see it.

Matt, great to see you, as always.

WHITAKER: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: Thanks so much for coming in tonight.

Up next, I talk exclusively with Vice President Mike Pence about the ceasefire in Syria he helped negotiate and his new role in the impeachment battle. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: New tonight, the ceasefire of Turkish military operations against Syrian-Kurds has been extended. Russia and Turkey reached a deal to jointly patrol Northern Syria, the same border where U.S. troops were patrolling with the Turks just two weeks ago.

Now, the news coming just hours after I spoke exclusively with Vice President Mike Pence, who negotiated the initial ceasefire last week. The Vice President is also planning to be more vocal in the impeachment insanity and firing back at critics. He discussed all of that in my exclusive sit-down with him early today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

INGRAHAM: Mr. Vice President, great to see you. Thanks for having us.

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT: Great to see you, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Give us an update of the Kurdish pullback from the safe zone. You negotiated the ceasefire last week. Is it holding? And Turkey says they're not out and we're going back in with even a more fierce determination.

PENCE: Well, apart from limited skirmishes and fighting, the ceasefire has been holding and it continues to hold today. And it's all a result of the leadership that President Trump provided here. The President made it very clear when Turkish forces entered Syria that the Turkish military action there was unacceptable. He sent a clear message to President Erdogan to pull back. He sent strong sanctions, and he sent me and Secretary Pompeo there for one mission, Laura, and that was to end the violence.

We're in constant communication with both sides, with the objective of hopefully achieving a permanent ceasefire in the next day and laying a foundation for real peace and stability. A safe zone that would exist between traditionally Kurdish-Syria and Turkey, and it would be a safe zone where we bring international partners to bear to ensure that there is a buffer between those two populations that have been warring for centuries and--

INGRAHAM: Are you surprised--

PENCE: But--

INGRAHAM: Yes. Are you surprised, Mr. Vice President, of the ferocity of Republican condemnation?

PENCE: Look, 63 million Americans voted to send President Donald Trump to the White House. And one of the core messages of that campaign that I was a part of was that we wanted to bring an end to endless wars, we wanted to bring our troops home. We welcome the temporary ceasefire that's been in place and hope it creates a permanent ceasefire.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: (inaudible). What's next for the United States?

PENCE: The President has made it very clear that there are more massive sanctions that will be imposed on Turkey in the days ahead. That being said, we hope for better. We hope that literally before the day is out tomorrow that we'll be moving into a permanent ceasefire. But I will tell you that the criticism that the President has received for bringing our troops home and for now setting the conditions where if we achieve this ceasefire, we'll now finally bring the international community in to secure peace and stability is quite beyond me.

I actually heard - I actually heard one member of the Senate say as our delegation was headed to Turkey to try and secure a ceasefire that it was just too late. Well, President Trump doesn't believe it's ever too late to save lives. And he sent our team there with the expressed purpose of ending the violence and giving an opportunity for our allies in the Syrian defense forces, in the Kurdish population, and our ally in Turkey--

INGRAHAM: I believe that was Mitt Romney.

PENCE: --to end the combat and--

INGRAHAM: Yes. Mitt Romney said that.

PENCE: --secure the air.

INGRAHAM: He's been leading the charge of--

(CROSSTALK)

PENCE: Well, it was very disappointing to me to hear Senator Romney say that. To say that - while literally people were dying on both sides of this conflict, innocent civilians in harm's way in the midst of this Turkish invasion in Syria, simply to say that it was too late to even try was just unacceptable when they--

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Well, I've got to get moved to the USMCA because this is a signature accomplishment of this administration. You were in Pennsylvania. You're heading to Wisconsin--

(CROSSTALK)

PENCE: And it was finished one year ago.

INGRAHAM: Yes. So the White House (ph) or the Mexicans, they've got the Canadian, everyone agreeing. What is Pelosi waiting for? Will she ever agree to this trade deal?

PENCE: I mean, since President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, we literally saw tens of thousands of factories close in this country and move south of the border in Mexico. And President Trump said we can do better. He sat down. He drove a hard bargain with Canada and with Mexico. I was in a lot of those negotiations.

INGRAHAM: What's the delay? Why are they delaying? Is it only to prevent the President and you, the team, from chalking up a huge victory for the country on this?

PENCE: Well, it's - politics is the only thing that explains the delay. I mean, President Trump inked this deal with Mexico and Canada a year ago. It's been sitting on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's desk.

INGRAHAM: Biden said yesterday that you were the President's complicit sidekick on trade deals that haven't worked and you talk tough, but you don't deliver.

PENCE: I was in the Scranton area yesterday, which is I guess where he was born, and he's headed there today. And I was glad to have the debate because when Joe Biden was Vice President, Pennsylvania lost 50,000 manufacturing jobs. And overall, under the Obama administration, this country lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs. So if Joe Biden wants to defend NAFTA, if Joe Biden thinks we shouldn't be getting tough with our trading partners and demanding free and fair and reciprocal trade, we'll have that debate every day.

INGRAHAM: On the issue of impeachment, it was reported that you're going to take a more forward-looking role, that you're going to be more engaged in the impeachment battle. Is that the case? And if so, what form does that take?

PENCE: Look, it has been three years of endless investigations and a partisan attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election. I think the American people have had enough. We went through two-and-a-half years of the Mueller investigation with outlandish accusations of collusion and obstruction until the Justice Department found no collusion, no obstruction, case closed. They took a brief break and we're talking about impeaching Justice Kavanaugh after trying to smear his name and reputation a year ago. And then in the wake of all of this, suddenly we're back to closed-door hearings on Capitol Hill, leaks, leaked information, all in an attempt to gin up --

INGRAHAM: What will you do in this effort?

PENCE: We are going to be out there telling the truth about this president's record, and we're going to be telling the truth about this partisan impeachment. There is no historical basis for what the Democrats in Congress are doing in this so-called impeachment inquiry.

INGRAHAM: How do you have career diplomats now turned into collaborators with the Democrats rolling up to Capitol Hill, against the orders of the secretary of state, they just completely ignore the orders, Democrat subpoena, they testify. And it seems to be in some cases a permanent resistance within some of the career diplomatic corps. What can be done about that, and how does that affect our future as a country, as an executive branch if you have this permanent resistance trying to undo the results of an election?

PENCE: We have some extraordinary men and women in our diplomatic corps who know their work and who are strong and are out fighting for America's interests. But there's no question one President Trump said we're going to drain the swamp, and an awful lot of the swamp has been caught up in the State Department bureaucracy, and we're just going to keep fighting it, and we're going to fight it with the truth.

The American people can read the transcript of the phone call the president had with President Zelensky, and they will see there was no quid pro quo. And with regard to Ukraine, we were standing strong with Ukraine against Russian aggression where the last administration was only sending them blankets. We are sending resources, we're sending missiles. We're going to make it possible for our ally in Ukraine to be able to defend themselves and restore peace.

INGRAHAM: Were you ever uncomfortable with Giuliani's role in getting involved in some of this? It's not against the law.

PENCE: My involvement with Ukraine was all directly from my conversations with the president and, frankly, my conversations with the phone and in meetings with President Zelensky. And what I can tell you is that throughout all of that, we were focused on ensuring the United States was standing with Ukraine for its territorial integrity against Russian aggression, and that we were supporting and encouraging Ukraine to deal with years of corruption, and calling on European allies to do more to support the Ukrainian people.

INGRAHAM: What would you say to those Republicans who are not telling the great story of this economy, the policies that have hit, and the outrage that's being perpetrated with this behind-closed-doors proceeding?

PENCE: I would tell them, draw the inspiration from the fighter that we elected to be president of the United States. But I will tell you that the president and I were very encouraged to see every single Republican yesterday vote against the motion to table a censure against Adam Schiff. And I think in the days ahead, you're going to continue to see almost every Republican in Congress join the millions of Americans who want to see an end to these endless investigations, who want to call out this partisan impeachment for what it is.

I will make you a promise, Laura. Whatever the Democrats want to spend their time doing on Capitol Hill, this president, his vice president, and this administration are going to keep focused on the issues that we were elected to advance, and we're going to keep America great.

INGRAHAM: Great to see you, Mr. Vice President, thank you so much.

PENCE: Great to see you, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Thanks for being here today.

PENCE: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

INGRAHAM: And coming up, one high-ranking senator suspects the deep state is responsible for the delay in releasing the FISA abuse report. What does he know that we don't?

Plus, U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation zeroing in on four key players. We'll reveal who they are in moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: U.S. Attorney John Durham is expanding his investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. Reports tonight indicate that Durham has zeroed in on four figures -- former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intel James Clapper, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, and British ex-spy Christopher Steele. A source is also telling FOX News today if the rumors are true and findings in Durham's review will blast the conduct of the FBI's Russia investigation, it will justify Trump's warnings about the deep state acting to hobble his presidency.

Jenny me now Governor Mike Huckabee, former 2016 presidential candidate and FOX News contributor, and Chris Swecker, former FBI assistant director. Chris, how significant are these reports that Durham is closing in on particular individuals connected to how this whole travesty started?

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Laura, Durham is a bulldog, and I think it spells trouble for those four, but probably more as well when you incorporate the FISA abuse, the potential abuse by some members of the intelligence community who are not accustomed to be held accountable and not accustomed to being held up to the daylight because most of what they do is in secret. I think John Durham and a very capable investigator Jack Eckenrode, former FBI investigator Jack Eckenrode, and Bill Barr are getting to the bottom of some things that we absolutely need to get to the bottom of.

INGRAHAM: John Brennan, Governor Huckabee, I think it was back on August or, excuse me, October 3rd, he expressed his concern that Bill Barr would be involved in this investigation at all. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I am supposedly going to be interviewed by Mr. Durham as part of his non-investigation. Given that Barr is now accompanying Durham on these things, it really makes me think that the hand of politics and of Trump are now being used to massage what this ongoing review, quasi-investigation is. So I am concerned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: He is sweating it a little bit, don't you think, Gov?

MIKE HUCKABEE, FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: I think he's a little bit nervous, and he ought to be. And if anybody in the entire world knows something about using the power of government for political purposes, it's John Brennan. And I think that he ought to be very, very concerned, because it's increasingly apparent that there were many officials in the Obama administration, both in the White House as well as in the DOJ and FBI, that used their power -- and the CIA -- to first of all, try to make sure Donald Trump didn't get elected, and when he did, try to make sure that he didn't last the full four years, that he couldn't go the distance.

I think the significant thing about John Durham leading this investigation is that he doesn't live in D.C. He's not in a bubble. He doesn't care if he gets invited to some Georgetown cocktail party. He's after the truth, he's after the facts, and that's what we all need and that's what we all deserve, nothing less than that.

INGRAHAM: I also think it's important to hear what Brennan said back in February of 2018, and Chris, this is to you, about the origins of the Russia investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: We in the CIA and the intelligence community had collected a fair amount of information in the summer of 2016 about what the Russians were doing on multiple fronts. And we want to make sure that the FBI had full access to it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the Papadopoulos thing coming to the CIA?

BRENNAN: I'm not going to get into details about how it was acquired, but the FBI has a very close relationship with its British counterparts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Chris, one of the people being targeted by Durham is Christopher Steele, himself a Brit. So was Brennan perhaps hinting at that?

SWECKER: What is at issue is predication. There is a legal amount of information that rises to the threshold where you can open an investigation, a criminal investigation, or an intelligence investigation. It's not generally assisted by the CIA. The CIA are information gatherers, they're spies. The FBI are spy catchers. So usually there's not a lot of synergism between those two agencies where the CIA is actually trying to gin up predication for a criminal investigation. And I use the word "gin up" because I think that's the big issue here, did they artificially create predication to get into, open a criminal investigation into a presidential campaign and the president himself.

INGRAHAM: Governor Huckabee, I find it to be extremely disturbing that the American people go through this raucous election in 2016, we had all of these debates, campaigns and rallies and interviews and press opportunities. The people have their say, and yet there is a cabal inside the intel community, inside the diplomatic corps, obviously the media and a number on Capitol Hill, who don't find this to be legitimate. And they are the same people, governor, who talk about disenfranchising American voters, and they're always talking about voter suppression and so forth. I think this is one of the most catastrophic and obvious instances of an attempt to disenfranchise voters. From the beginning of Russia all the way to what we are seeing right now, and I find it appalling.

HUCKABEE: I couldn't agree more. And I think what you just pointed out, this idea that it may be a voter here and there, maybe even a handful that have been disenfranchise, that's terrible. Not even one voter should ever lose his or her right to vote in the country who has a legal right to vote.

But here, we have people within our government that we are paying their salaries, and it would appear that they worked hard to disenfranchise the very millions of people who elected the president.

I think it's significant that Senator Chuck Grassley made the comment that he felt like that there was something about the report of the I.G., the reason it's taking so long to get was because it may be deep sixed by the deep state. Chuck Grassley, one of the most honorable, decent men in the U.S. Senate, has been there a long time, a good man, he is not given to hyperbole. He is not given to being excitable. He is not one who is typically is a person wrapped up in conspiracy theories. For him to say that was very, very telling.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, Chris, thank you so much for being here tonight.

And up next, why does Tulsi Gabbard scare Hillary Clinton? And why don't the Clintons just go away? Dinesh D'Souza is here to tell us, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Democratic leaders are worried about 2020 and are desperate for someone, anyone else, to enter the primary race. And don't take it from me. That's what "The New York Times" is reporting today. "Anxious Democratic establishment asks, is there anybody else?" And into that confidence vacuum steps Hillary. She has been reportedly telling people in private that she would enter the primary if she thought she could win. And the "Washington Post" Bob Costa goes a step further, saying moments ago that Clinton has not ruled out jumping in.

Joining me now, Dinesh D'Souza, conservative author and filmmaker, author of the book "Death of the Nation," now out in paperback. All right, Dinesh, if Trump wasn't happy to start the day, well, he should be to end the day with that news.

DINESH D'SOUZA, CONSERVATIVE FILMMAKER: I think so. Hillary has -- we knew that she was traumatized after the last election result, but she seems to have come completely unhinged. All her public statements have an element of kookiness to them, even her statement where she goes this time I think I could beat Trump again. Again? You beat him the last time, really? Why aren't you in the Oval Office? This would be like the boxer George Foreman after the Ali fight in Zaire, a fight in which he was knocked out, saying hey, listen, I won that fight because I threw more punches. That's not the rules of the game, sorry.

So Hillary has I think been showing a kind of paranoid streak, and this latest Tulsi Gabbard is further reflection of that.

INGRAHAM: The attacks on Tulsi Gabbard are just bizarre. She's a Russian asset, Trump is a Russian asset, everybody is a Russian asset who disagrees with Hillary. What, her reset, which flopped? The woman can't even get a Russian translation right on a button for goodness sakes, and she wants to be commander in chief? I don't think so.

But this is a dream for Trump. They are, Dinesh, they are not wild about this Democrat field. Socialism isn't selling in this economy, the Trump hype of impeachment, I think people are already tiring of that. It seems like beyond an overreach. And so what are they left with? Elizabeth Warren, really? OK.

D'SOUZA: I think that this attack on Gabbard was a massive tactical blunder on Hillary, because it's one thing to keep the focus on Trump and try to say Trump is some sort of a Russian agent or asset, but now to say that's also true of Gabbard, that's also true of Jill Stein, you're basically devaluing the charge by making it preposterous.

Ironically, there is somebody in the field, Gabbard herself, who would actually be a strong candidate, in my view, against Trump. Why? Because she's a veteran. She doesn't hesitate to say that she loves America. Bu precisely the things that would make her appealing to voters in the center are the things that make her unappealing within the Democratic Party, so I'm feeling actually really good because she has a virtually zero chance of getting the nomination.

INGRAHAM: That's All right, because AOC says we just need more publicly owned companies, government owned companies, in order to be more free. That's the other argument being waged to the public. That works in Brooklyn but it doesn't work most other places.

Dinesh, I also want to address this tweet from the president this morning where he used the word "lynching" to describe the impeachment attacks against him. I probably might have used a different word, but the same folks outraged today have used that word for years, including to describe Clinton's impeachment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Even if the president should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching.

REP. DANNY DAVIS, D-ILL.: I will not vote for this lynching in the people's house.

JOHN KERRY, D-MASS., FORMER SENATOR: What you have going on here is a very unfortunate process of a verbal lynching.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Don't you miss him? And by the way, this is the same party that of course has been saying Trump is Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot all rolled into one. This is just beyond hypocrisy, Dinesh.

D'SOUZA: I think historically, it's very easy to look this up, lynching was a practice that was employed by Democratic mobs against two groups of people -- African-Americans to prevent them largely from voting, and white Republicans. Lynching in fact was not confined to African-Americans. Whites were the targets, too. But white Republicans, particularly white northern Republicans who were registering black voters in the south, these were the actual targets of lynching.

So if you are the Democrats, the party of lynching now pretending like lynching is some kind of thing that they didn't do, it's a stain on the nation's history. Well, it's not a stain on the nation's history, it's a stain on your history.

INGRAHAM: On the Democrat Party. Dinesh, thank you very much. It's great to see you tonight. It will great to have you back when Hillary gets in the race.

Coming up, what happens when climate protesters screw up your morning commute? You really got to get to work. My favorite Last Bite in a while is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: We showed you the Londoners upset over climate protests last week, and it looks like that wasn't an isolated incident.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look behind you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got to work. Get the -- out of the way. Get the -- out of the way. Go. Get the -- out of here. You get the (inaudible).

INGRAHAM: Well, he needed to go to work. And when the person loses the phone, what do you expect -- the guy has got to get to work.

Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it from here and that was in San Francisco, by the way. 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.