tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News January 30, 2020 7:00pm-8:00pm PST
this right. we will continue to develop this follow this developing story. we will never be the media mob. let not your heart be troubled. the news continues, laura ingraham is here to kill it as usual. >> laura: hey, hannity. the last desperate ploys of the democrats, at this hour, 400 yards from where we are right now. they are pulling out all of the stops, making up conversations now that trump had with putin. literally, adam schiff just made up a conversation that the president had come unbelievable. unbelievable. >> sean: how do people give them any credit? congenital liar -- three straight years of lying. he lied about the hearsay whistle-blower, lies of everything. >> laura: that's all right, hannity, because pelosi says trumps legal defense team should all be disbarred. that's her answer. >> laura>> sean: my favorite wae opinion witness that said
previously that trump should be impeached, actually tweeting out the words "fake news." okay. that's a great witness. >> laura: fantastic show, as always, sean. i'm laura ingraham, this is "the ingraham angle" from another jam packed washington tonight. senators, as i said, are still asking questions of the president's legal team and the house impeachment managers we expect the trial to wrap up soon, possibly within this hour, that's always exciting. to help break it down, we hope not us down, trump defense team members, congressman mark meadows and robert gray, they both join us in just a few moments. plus, we will also hear from the white house tonight, impeachment spokesperson tony sayegh is here with an exclusive insight on what is going on inside 1600, and uh-oh, joe biden is in some trouble tonight. newt gingrich is exposing the left's pathetic about-face on executive power. and could the president actually just be acquitted outright tomorrow night?
faster than you thought? well, lamar alexander, the last on the side of moderate will announce his vote tonight, very dramatic, and we expect it again during this hour. stay tuned for the entire 60 minutes. but first, 24 hours to victory. that's the focus of tonight's "angle." they never considered him a legitimate precedent. they couldn't allow themselves to. after all, if a man with zero political experience could take down the clintons, the obama's, the bushes, the entire media establishment, in a legitimate election, well, what would that have set up at the democratic brand? early on, left-wing activists, the deep state, and the d.c. swamp decided to devote all of their waking hours to a smear and slash campaign with the goal of convincing you that this trump presidency was invalid. >> i don't see this
president-elect is a legitimate president. >> there is a cloud of illegitimacy hanging over the white house. >> and illegitimate and criminal regime in the american white house. >> he is an illegitimate president, in my mind. >> look, i absolutely agree. >> he knows he is an illegitimate president. >> laura: and three years later, undeterred by the mueller flameout, the democrats are at it again. this time, their outlandish claim emerges from the impeachment circus itself. we all know, unless something really bizarre happens, the next 24 hours, president trump will surely be acquitted by the senate. and that should be the last word on it, right? wrong. >> he will not be acquitted. you cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial. >> no trial, no vindication. no vindication for the president, or anyone else.
>> it cannot be a true acquittal if it's not a fair trial. >> a trial without truth, without key evidence, witnesses, documents, would render the president's acquittal meeting les. >> laura: [laughs] that they keep strict. so the democrat position, justly understand, is any acquittal in a trial where they didn't get their way is illegitimate. it's a classic heads i win and tails you lose scenario, so predictable. don't buy for a second the argument that this is all about witnesses or documents. it's not! this is about power. if two or three or ten witnesses were followed by an acquittal of trump, you would still hear nancy and kamala challenging the outcome. this is how the democrats always play the game. remember, to this day, they don't consider brett kavanaugh a legitimate supreme court justi justice. >> the very fact that he is there, that he was confirmed, makes him an illegitimate
justice. >> he's going to be on the supreme court, with a huge taint and a big asterisk after his name. >> there will be a cloud and a taint hovering over him and any opinion he issues. >> laura: they are even the same people, same stuff. they don't consider any successes of this presidency to be legitimate victories for him. even on issues of a agree with president trump on, that's the amazing thing here. while being hunted and tracked like wild game on the serengeti, the president has th delivered sustained peace and unprecedented prosperity to this country. course, major trade deals, massive economic success, criminal justice reform, va reform, declining opioid deaths. but the pelosi, schiff, schumer, nadler -- these are just flukes. to put it a different way, the roots of a poisonous, illegitimate, presidential tree.
how ironic that this odious impeachment odyssey is, itself, the epitome of an illegitimate undertaking. >> this entire proceeding here is not a fruit of the poisonous tree. it is the fruit of a proceeding that was fatally deficient in due process from the start to the beginning, and as a result of that, it produced a record that is totally unreliable, can't be relied on here for any conclusion other than acquitting the president. >> laura: if anything is illegitimate, it is what adam schiff, nadler, the whole crew did in the house of representatives, courtesy of a whistle-blower no one can question and in ig whose transcript no one can read. and one more point of irony he here. after impeaching the president based on the ukraine actions that they claim were politically and personally motivated, two of the top house managers may be driving this agonizing episode
in large part to bolster their own political future, that's right, schiff and hakeem jeffries are now dubbed the two superstars of the impeachment drama. give me a break. "dancing with the stars" is about as high as these two will ever arise. well, anyone and everyone knows how this movie ends. the president will not be removed from office, and the democrats will continue wasting precious time and our money attempting to entrap him, or just smear him until the election. in calling trump and his forthcoming acquittal illegitimate, the democrats are kettles calling the pot black. with each crazy utterance, they demean their diminished credibility and expose their own abuse of power. the good news is the american people can end the democrats reign of terror and the hateful cycle they have trapped us all in. deliverance is just around the corner.
it's called the november election. and that's the "angle." joining me now is congressman mark meadows, a member of trump's defense team. congressmen, house impeachment team looked really desperate today, as you and i were sitting here, just preparing to go on the air, adam schiff was making up another conversation. he made up the transcript, he made up a conversation that the president had behind closed doors with vladimir putin. you can't make this up, but it just happened. >> it did just happen. he knows he's not going to enact this trial, so he is hoping he wins an academy award, because he is putting on the most unbelievable show tonight. the problem is, it's not based on facts. and we continue to see his hypocrisy each and every hour, and it gets more and more passionate as the evening wears on. and it's a sad day for the house democrats, but it's a saturday for america, to put our country through this and to put the
president through it, shame on them. >> laura: white house attorney, the energizer bunny, otherwise known as pat philbin, swatted down claims that acquittal will strip congress of any of its oversight power. >> see now that all of oversight will be destroyed forever if you ask of the president's argument is totally false. it's totally misleading, because they weren't purporting to do just regular oversight, and as we pointed out several times, the october 8th letter said, specifically, if you want to return to regular oversight, we are happy to do that, as we have in the past with the house democrats that didn't want to take that route. >> laura: by the way, he has become the pinup boy four, you know, outlaw nerds, pat philbin. but that is an amazing point, democrats refuse to work for the white house unless it was total submission to whatever schiff and nadler wanted. >> listen, i was in the rooms -- and by the way, we call pat "jack webb." just the facts, man.
's >> laura: he's not a showboat or. >> he's doing a great job. i was in the deposition room with adam schiff, and he talked about fairness, tonight he went on about fairness, and i was about to pull my hair out as i listened to that, because each and every time we would get in there and ask questions, why don't we call this witness? why don't we go ahead and make sure that we bring forth of this kind of evidence? if it was to the president's advantage at all, the answer was always consistently know. and yet, pat makes a good point, if they were really serious about this, they should have been serious before they voted on impeachment several weeks ago. >> laura: instead of forcing -- are trying to force the senate to do their job for them. >> that's exactly what they are doing, trying to force the senate to do their job because what they wanted was a mark on this president's resume, more so than than they wanted a conviction. >> laura: pat cipollone, the white house counsel, when right at adam schiff for not
responding to a question specifically about the whistle-blower. this was good. watch. >> i listened to manager shift come up here and say he won't even dignify a legitimate question about his staff with a response. i think you deserve an answer to that question. stop. assuming. that everybody has horrible motives. in the puritanical rage of everybody is doing something wrong except for you. you cannot be questioned. that's part of the problem here. >> every time a questions get close to adam schiff and the whistle-blower, and what i would say illegitimate conspiracy, he doesn't want to answer it. he was so right to call him out on that. it was an unbelievable moment, as we were up close, just to see the tension in the room, as pat cipollone did a great job. >> laura: and pat is like, you are laying waste, or attempting, to everyone around you, but you
can never be questioned. that's a nice deal. >> he's above the law. >> laura: there was a moment that just happened on the floor, where the issue of joe biden and what he said in 1999 about the necessity of having witnesses during an impeachment trial, that emerged. watch. >> a new case the senate declined to consider a motion for summary -- go the framers did not mean that this political process was to be a partisan process. instead, they meant it to be political in the higher sense. the process was to be conducted in the way that would best secure the public interest, or in their phrase, the general welfare. that was the biden doctrine. love impeachment proceedings. now , some members of this chamber agreed with that. some members that serve as managers also agreed with that.
i know the rules are different. the rules are different because manager schiff just moments ago did what he is now famous for and created a conversation purportedly from the president of the united states regarding russia packing of burisma. it's the same thing he did when he started his hearings. so this is a common practice. but if we want to look at common practice and common procedures, the biden rule is one. i would like to address something else, because we have heard it time and time again, about true judges have decided this issue of executive privilege. i want to address circle things very quickly. my very first case at the supreme court of the united states was a long time ago. over 30 years ago. 33 years ago. my client lost in the district court. they said we will appeal to the ninth circuit court of appeals. went to the ninth circuit court of appeals. was not so successful.
we didn't win they are, either. my clients and what do we do? we have one option, we can file a petition but is up in court in the united states, and chances are they are not going to take the case, but at this point, it's an important issue to you, so why don't we proceed? my client agreed to proceed. a petition was granted, the court reversed 9-0 the court of appeals and the district court. that is why you continue to utilize courts when appropriate. that is why you do it. >> laura: okay, so you just heard jay sekulow on the biden rule. "politico" just got its hands on this memo from 1999 at about 8:30 tonight. we got word that holly was going to ask a question about this, which is what he was responding to. that is devastating. >> well, so you've got someone who actually argued it with chuck schumer, so it was interesting, a four-page memo that said -- >> laura: not necessary.
>> you don't need the witnesses, you don't need to have it when it comes before the senate, and so here we are with the hypocrisy argument again from my house democrat colleagues. the interesting thing is, at the end of the day, the facts are on the president's side. if the democrats are honest with the arguments they have consistently made throughout history, they will go ahead and vote for no witnesses and will acquit -- and get this over with tomorrow. >> laura: do you see my point? in the "angle," that this is a tactic, this is -- they are always guilty of what they accused trump of. he's illegitimate. know, your inquiry was in legitimate. that's why they are hiding the whistle-blower. that is why they are hiding the transcript. period. >> the "angle" was spot on, exactly right with your analysis. if they continue to point out over and over again what they are accusing the president of, they are guilty of. we saw that with the russian
investigation, the whole conspiracy. we got this evidence, and yet, the evidence wasn't there. the fisa process was all okay -- >> laura: abuse of power. talk about abuse of power. >> it is an abuse of power. the problem is adam schiff knew the truth and lied to the american people over and over and over again. >> laura: what's the ring report they are? is going to run for senator in california. >> maybe they have impeachment in california. >> laura: oh! congressman, great to see you. in one of the most telling moments of the day, house manager adam schiff was full of self-righteous indignation when he was asked about this. >> recent reporting described to nsc staff holdovers from the obama administration attending an all-hands meeting, talking loudly enough to be overheard, saying we need to do everything we can to take out the president. the house intelligence committee hired one of those individuals, sean misko, and the report
further describes relationships between misko, lieutenant colonel vindman, and an individual described as the whistle-blower. why did your committee hire sean misko, and what role he played there at investigation? >> i will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever. nor will i share any information that i believe could or could not lead to the identification of the whistle-blower. >> laura: wait a second, we were asking about misko, not the whistle-blower's name. joining me now is robert ray, trumped legal defense team member. he's trying really hard to deflect, say you're being mean to my staffers, do you think is a little nervous? >> i think he is nervous, and he ought to be nervous. the information we have had that is now publicly revealed is that
there were people inside the white house coordinating with people over at the cia, under john brennan's direction, and coordinating with adam schiff months before this call that supposedly began this whole thing, in order to bring down the president. they were spying -- our cia was spying on the president of the united states, leaking it, and coordinating with the main opposition guy in congress, to try to create a false narrative that would lead to an impeachment. this is stunning, and the fact that schiff thinks he is immune from even being questioned about it when we have enough evidence already to know he is implicated up to his eyeballs in this, i think pat cipollone would was absolutely right to call him out on it, and i hope the senate do, as well. >> laura: democrats have been twisting the words of professor dershowitz. we knew that would happen. here is what schumer said about him today. >> by dershowitz logic, president nixon did nothing wrong and watergate. he was just breaking into the dnc to help his reelection,
which, of course, is in the public interest, according to dershowitz-ian logic. the dershowitz argument, frankly, would unleash a monster. more aptly, it would unleash a monarch. >> laura: oh, great writing. robert, the dershowitz critics have it wrong? if so, why? are we unleashing a monster and a monarch with this standard? >> i don't think so. simply put, otherwise lawful conduct -- this is all that professor dershowitz was saying -- otherwise lawful conduct doesn't become illegal because there is a personal political benefit involved. the other side of the outcome of course, there actually is evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo. the flip side of the argument is, just because there might also be something that is in the public interest it doesn't
excused what would otherwise be criminal behavior. that is, essentially, all that alan dershowitz was saying, which means that a law divides the world between what is criminal and what is not criminal, based upon whether or not what was done was corrupt. that's not a complicated conce concept. that's a standard, as opposed to the standardless impeachment, which is abuse of power can basically be anything the democrats want to pour into that bottle. >> laura: all right, well, chief justice robert today, se sean, refused to even read one of the questions, one that names the whistle-blower. >> mr. chief justice. >> senator from kentucky. >> i have a question to present the desk for the house manager schiff and the president's counsel. >> the presiding officer declined to rea read the questis submitted. >> laura: john, is it really roberts role to decide what question should be read aloud in
the senate chamber? i found that to be disturbing today. >> i found that stunning, as well, particularly because the question that rand paul walked out and had a press conference and read the question, it wasn't about the whistle-blower and naming him, it was a question about a guy who's friends with misko and friends with the staff and adam schiff's committee, who was working at the cia. now, schiff says he doesn't know who the whistle-blower is. none of us are supposed to know who it is. so how did rand paul, by asking a question about a guy whose name is out there, you know, where is the connection with the whistle-blower? unless everybody already knows it. it was really preposterous. >> laura: yeah, that was a disappointment from the chief. there was another moment today -- again, we've been talking with the last gasps of the democrats 24 hours to victory tonight, this is the moment for nancy pelosi, although she looked lovely in a floral print, it all seemed to be -- the petals were kind of
falling off here. wash. spieler the president's team isn of the united states, and some of them are even lawyers. i don't know how they can retain their lawyer status and the comments they are making. >> laura: their lawyer status, that is a translation for they should be disbarred, robert ray. are you petrified tonight that you are going to lose your lawn license because nancy believes you all made specious arguments you knew to be false? >> i'm not trembling or quaking in my boots, no. look, i thought what we've done and what we presented to the senate, in representing the president with integrity, and also trying to be helpful to the senate and making an important judgment, was to point out the fact that if there is anything illegitimate here cometh the fact that the house of representatives proceeded on a partisan basis, meaning there was not bipartisan support for
what they have done, and in the process, legitimacy comes from bipartisan support in the country's best interest. that did not happen here. i am absolutely thrilled to have that constitutional argument, we engaged with that argument, and i don't think my bar license is at stake as a result of making that argument on behalf of the president of the united states and in the country. >> laura: thank you so much tonight. here to respond to biden's '99 -- is a 1999 -- memo, and what we just heard from us on the floor about it, is tony sayegh, the white house impeachment so spokesman. tony, we have heard the word "bombshell" thrown around a lot. bombshell book from bolton, bombshell -- everything is a bombshell. this actually is a bombshell, because this is their guy, schumer was all with him on this memo. they didn't think witnesses were required, but suddenly they are. >> joe biden is a senator was on the judiciary committee, and in
1999 wrote a memo -- >> laura: chairman. >> correct, that we had the majority of the time. >> laura: minority. >> at the time, he had the constitutional role of the senate to try the impeachment did not require them to hear additional evidence or to call live witnesses. he actually said they didn't need a flow blown trial -- that's a quote -- in the senate. and to rightly say that we have to -- the exact opposite of all the democrats. there are seven democrats sitting in the senate chamber who were there in the clinton impeachment. all seven of them, including leader schumer, voted against witnesses in 1999. >> laura: in the "angle" tonight, we explained that this is how the democrats role. when they lose, they win, they think. they want to spread this claim that anything that follows, presuming it is an acquittal, which i imagine it will be tomorrow, will itself be
illegitimate, because it was an illegitimate trial, meaning we still have an illegitimate president and the white house, meaning any vacancies, any judicial confirmations, supreme court confirmations, will all be fruits of the poisonous senate trial. that is what they're setting up here. >> the only thing proven without a reasonable doubt is the legitimacy of their case, and the fact that these technical articles are not even worthy of a real consideration by the senate. to impeach the president or consider removing the president of united states, and that is really the product of the process they created in the house, which really contaminated this whole thing from the start. but this also reflects a greater disdain that, sadly, the modern democratic party has toward people who support donald trump. they don't think that base of support is legitimate. you saw the don lemon, cnn interview, they think everything donald trump stands for, his supporters stand for, has a secondary kind of glory in the country they want to live -- >> laura: you heard it with hillary the other day in
"variety." she has the urge to get back in, because we all know what happened now in 2016, but that is the narrative that they want to sell, because for them, it's the only way to regain the ground they have lost. you can't talk about the successes. that usmca, by the way, raiment mentioned it the other night, but it has gotten no coverage on major media. this is a huge deal, hundreds of thousands of jobs are going to be created over time because of this deal, footnote. >> nearly 200,000 jobs, and $64 billion of extra economic activity. china trade deal. killing soleimani, perpetuating terror against us and our allies. the president is focused on delivering for the people, you know he wants to do? he wants to work with anybody willing to -- >> laura: will he work with them after what they did to him? >> donald trump wants to solve problems, and if anyone in the chambers willing to stand up for
what's right after hearing all of the testimony come all of the facts, and realizing beyond any doubt that the president does not deserve impeachment or removal, i think the president wants to work with anybody who wants to move the country forward and solve problems. the sad part is when you hear the rhetoric and see their actions, when you hear the way they are even trying to create this whole impression that the president himself is illegitimate, his presidency is a legitimate, it's hard to look at those people in the face and negotiate, but i do think he wants to work with them. >> laura: i think of chuck schumer and nadler came to the white house monday and said, you know, this has been a rough time but we want to work on infrastructure, i think -- i mean come on known him longer than you -- >> you have. >> laura: i think he would say let's get it done. they wouldn't do it for him, but he would do it for the country, the president, that's my view. maybe i'm wrong. >> the american people elected a problem solver, not a professional politician, willing to do what it takes to address the issues at hand with the country, and that is what he has been so successful in keeping his promises. >> laura: by the way, adam schiff earlier made up a
conversation as a hypothetical that the president had with vladimir putin. so he is back to making up conversations, to try to make a pathetic point on impeachment. >> he. >> he has no evidence and facts. they said they have an overwhelming case during this proceeding, absolutely all of this substantial evidence that they need, and the first thing they try to do is convince you if you don't have witnesses, don't have more evidence, somehow it's an illegitimate -- >> laura: schumer said the american people are going to stand for this, not going to accept this outcome. i guess we will see a november. tony, thanks for coming on, we appreciated. since democrats case for impeachment has, well, totally been weak, we laid it out for months what they were going to try to do, predicted a lot along the way, they've had to substitute actual evidence with lies, smears, and made up putin conversations. now they have another one. speak with the argument put forth by the president's lawyers yesterday is a king trump defense. >> that's what kings do, not presidents. >> it elevates the presidency to
a place that we, as americans, do not want our presidents to be, this hierarchy, this sort of kingship. >> laura: down with the king! well, i don't remember them fighting over checks and balances under obama, even after he said this. >> i'm also going to act on my own, if congress is deadlocked. i got a pen to take executive actions were congress won't, and i got a telephone to rally folks around the country on this mission. >> laura: obama pen and phoned his way through dac and costly climate policies. joining me and i was newt gingrich, former speaker of the house, fox news contributor and host of "newt's world podcast." all right, the democrats about-face on executor power and how it should be used is quite something to behold tonight.
>> i think there is a very easy model here. whatever trump does, they oppose. they have no historic memory. they are so fascinated by trump that he erases anything they might have said in the past. but i think you put your finger, a minute ago, and probably the key test for the democrats that will define them for the rest of this year up to the election. that is, let's say friday or saturday, that this is over. that the senate has acquitted the president. he's innocent. all of the lies and things told by schiff have collapsed. they have to decide next week at the state of the union, do they want to work with this president for the rest of the year? or do they want to continue this kind of unending hostility, and the country, i think, having gotten very tired by every poll i've seen, really doesn't want to see more bickering. the burden is going to be on the
democrats, having done everything they could for three years, to destroy president trump, having failed, do they continue, for the next eight or ten months to try and investigate, attack, smear, whatever? or, do they say, let's get a couple of things done before the election, to prove that we are a party that can be positive. i think, next tuesday night of the state of union is going to be a very important moment, and the attitude that pelosi and schumer take into this is really important. they better extend an olive leaf and decide they are going to find a way to work together, or the country will decide -- the country will then decide they are pathological. what they are doing with is a psychological condition. >> laura: speaking of pathological, i keep referring -- we have a sound bite now this is adam schiff, after he made up that transcript that got him in so much trouble, he said it was a joke.
tonight, he made up a conversation at the president could have had with vladimir putin. watch. >> if the president went further and said to putin in that secret meeting, i want you to hack marie's mom come i couldn't get the ukrainians to do it. and i'll tell you what, you have burisma, you got me some good stuff, then i'm going to stop sending money to ukraine. >> laura: the man is -- i mean, it is a pathological -- a reflexive, pavlovian response to trump. you have to just make stuff up. you can't argue the case, we have to make stuff up. >> i think it also incumbent on schiff, personally, he is a deranged human being. this is about schiff. schiff is a guy who is a pathological liar. he seems to have no ability to
distinguish between the truth and falsehood. he lied for two and a half years about the russian collusion. it all disintegrated. he looked like a fool. he learned nothing. he came back in lied again and again. here we are at the end of the cycle, he goes back, and the guy is still lying again. i think somehow, people have to decide that adam schiff is a compulsive, uncontrollable liar, to be dealt with that way. listen, a healthy house would strip him of the intelligence committee. how can you expect the president and the cia and others to share secrets with a person who is this profoundly, publicly dishonest? this is a schiff problem that we've learned over the last few months, this guy literally is a path of hunter: hair. >> laura: well, this permeates media, as well, newt, because one msnbc and guest floated this
conspiracy theory about what trump's acquittal would actually mean. >> imagine donald trump deciding sometime in june, i heard this conspiracy theory that a whole lot of illegal immigrants voted in california. we are going to shut down voting in a state. this is literally the kind of thing he will do now. this is step one to actual autocracy. an actual president who will save the state the votes don't count, these people don't have a right to vote. these people can't come into the country. that is what they are allowing to happen here. >> laura: aside from his incorrect use of the word "literally," newt, isn't it lewd ludicrous comments like this that are driving people to the limit? >> of course. what is happening is all through this entire impeachment process, mitch mcconnell, the leader of the senate, and donald trump, have collaborated, i think now, 187 judges who have been approved, almost one out of every four federal judges now ia donald trump judge. if you are a liberal, excuse me,
if you are watching a nightmare. this is like watching a godzilla movie, you are watching your entire system being destroyed. i mean, judges are supposed to be left-wingers imposed on people like you and me the correct values. all of that is now disappearing. >> laura: hakeem jeffries today was basically trying to distinguish -- poor newt. i want to pass you a lozenge over the television screen. i've been there, i know what it's like. basically staying the steele dossier, digging up dirt on your opponent, foreign source doing that, and what happened here, art two different things, try to distinguish. watch. >> the analogy is not applicable to the president's situation because, first, to the extent that opposition research was obtained, it was opposition research that was purchased.
>> laura: it was paid for, newt. that's the difference. [laughs] what? >> the difference between the steele dossier and adam schiff is the steele dossier was more believable. [coughs] excuse me. that's the real difference. nothing schiff does in a factual world would be taken seriously. >> laura: well, we have mazie hirono saying this is where witnessing the coronation thof donald trump, and barbara e saying we are on the verge of a dictatorship, newt. they have gone from coronation to all-out dictatorship, that it will be martial law, and tomorrow it will be of martial law. this is the level of argument and skill on the part of the democrats. no wonder they are not convincing anyone of their obscene point of view. >> i think -- laura, i think what you are seeing is a movement at a party that are in
total panic mode because trump literally is beginning to dismantle their world and beginning to move back to america back to a more stable, a more conservative, constitutional framework. if you are on the hard left, this is terrifying. >> laura: it's like what the remainderremainers must be feele in britain, with brexit finally, slowly happening. we're going to let newt to go pick up a lozenge on the floor. i'm just kidding, newt. take care of that. we are all friends. up next, we bring you the remarkable poll numbers, the media will not talk about. victor davis hanson, tom bevan break it all down. the massive tectonic shifts in american's optimism under trump, and we expect these questions to rap, and senator lamar alexander will announce his vote on
♪ >> the house managers are coming before you and claiming that he is not doing things in the best interest of the american people, the american people by telling you just the opposite. the president's approval rating, while we are sitting here in the middle of these impeachment proceedings, have hit an all-time high. >> laura: and the proof is in the pudding.
i mentioned the presidents sky high approval ratings last night. that's not all. a new gallup poll shows across the board, americans say things are better today than they were three years ago. here the big findings. economic optimism is up 22-point. the number who feel our country is more secure is up 18 points. and here's the kicker, 14% more people see race relations as better. joining me now is victor davis hanson, hoover institution senior fellow, and tom bevan, cofounder and president of real clear politics. victor, the proceedings in the senate mercifully just wrapped up moments ago, and we expect a lot of important news to pour out in the next few minutes, including about lamar alexander finally getting people to pay attention to him. but whether we see witnesses or not. but this dynamic of the public and what they feel about the country, as the democrats are trying to tear at trump, is quite something to see. >> yeah, and it explains it,
doesn't it? i'm never quite seen a consensus emerging abroad where china is in a mess, trump won that war, not just on the trade front, but this disaster with the virus and hong kong, reeducation camps, and the same story is true of iran. the palestinians are looking for help in the arab world aligned with israel in the united states, trump peace plan. in that vacuum from the democrats have two choices. they have an alternative agenda come the new green deal, reparations, wealth tax, medicare -- that didn't cut it. we saw the first two debate before this impeachment inquiry started, and the candidates were very on -- the worst field since '72 or '84 for the democrats. out of that matrix, they decided we better outsource this to adam schiff. he came forward and set i've got a plan, a whistle-blower, some nsc malls, let's go for it. that was the beginning of this
disaster, because he is one of the most unstable and disreputable politicians in america. the democrats mortgaged their future in his hands, and it's an ungodly disaster. >> laura: the hail mary pass was intercepted by the opposing team. these numbers indicate -- at least where we are now, see what happens as we get closer to november -- but that is a prettw the public generally feels about their on standings. forgot washington. just their own standings. who gets the credit, nancy pelosi, adam schiff? unlikely. >> no command we talked about this before, laura, take the broadview, president to preside over this peace and prosperity are normally shoe ins for reelection. donald trump has some of the stylistic issues, some of his supporters don't like of his tweets and the like, but you look at the issues, the economy, you mentioned his approval
rating, the real clear politics average is near all-time high. the approval on the economy, the number one or number two issue on the minds of all voters, is ten points higher -- his approval rating among hispanics is 47% on the economy. so you can really see that there is strength, fundamentally underlying trumps reelection. i think the democrats noticed that. i don't think it necessarily has come up with a plan for combating it yet. trump is in pretty good shape right now. if the economy stays where it is and his approval rating on the economy states that high, he's going to be tough to beat. >> laura: when you think about this witnesses question, not to toot "the ingraham angle"'s horn, but as a week ago, we are talking about this, the idea you were going to get this big number of republicans going against a president who has presided over this level of peace and prosperity, because what, they think they are going to win -- curry favor back home
at a town hall meeting? or not it made any sense. the big question would be, i guess, how trump would react if g.o.p. senators decided to vote against him in trial. chris christie had a theory. watch. >> you could very well see the president encouraging or creating primaries against senators that are up this year, if they went and voted the other way. i could definitely see him attempting -- at least attempting to do that. >> laura: well, victor, i don't think this is ever going to get to that, but don't you think that trump would support a primary challenger to any of these senators who decided, let's prolong this national nightmare? >> may be, but i think it's more likely some democrats will join the republicans, because you don't -- you don't do that, you don't go against the president that is climbing in the polls with a record that he has, and given the pathetic alternatives we've seen from the democrats. i don't think the democrats want
to keep going. i think they want to say they were robbed, is not legitimate, but i don't think they want to call witnesses, because who would witnesses be? adam schiff, the whistle-blower, lieutenant colonel vindman, may be the ig, and all of their stories will not jive, they will be under oath, and may be biden and hunter biden, this inquiry is destroying their front running candidate, because when we hereby did now, we hear hunter as commonly as we do joe, so i think they want to cry crocodile tears and say we were robbed, it was rigged, but i don't think their heart is in it. it's going to be bad for them, much worse for them than republicans. >> laura: i would love to have seem filled in and counsel and dershowitz, cross-examine the whistle-blower and vindman -- i would have loved it. tom, really quick here, does this all give bernie a boost going into iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, because of biden
and how he got caught up in th this? >> yeah, well, i don't know how much of this has to do with the senate trial, but certainly bernie is surging in the polls, leading in the real clear politics average in iowa by three and a half points, new hampshire by eight percentage points. if he takes those first two contests, he will be off to the races, you will see the democratic establishment fight back, especially biden falters. you'll have to come up with a plan in fast. >> laura: oh, boy. well comments likely to be michael bloomberg. victor and tom, thanks so much. will we know tonight whether witnesses will be called? senator burr rick scott just walked off the floor in the senate gallery, and he joins us now. senator, we'll trump be acquitted tomorrow? >> i believe he will be acquitted tomorrow. we are not going to vote for witnesses. the democrats had their choice, had their time, they could have called. they could have called bolton in the house, and they decided not to do it. i don't think we are going to vote for witnesses, and i think
we'll finish this up tomorrow night. >> laura: did you glean anything from some of the questions senator scott, we were listening attentively to what lamar alexander was asking with senator graham and some of the other trump-supporting conservatives. any sense about where he is leaning tonight? >> we don't have anything new. both sides have basically said the exact same thing. nothing has happened, after the first day, the house democrats, the first day, the white house, those two days -- that was the whole case. nothing new came up. we wasted 16 hours. i think everybody is tired of this and everybody wants to get back to doing something. i think the democrats want to get back to doing something. >> laura: right, the democrats believed that using a whistle-blower who could never be identified, never be questioned, and an inspector general whose opinion
and judgment could never be verified, by even looking at a transcript, they thought that was enough, and that they were going to roll into the senate and shame you all and say you are part of a cover-up, you are part of conspiracy, and you are making vladimir putin -- we heard earlier today -- very happy, senator scott. your response to the democrats slash and burn strategy? >> i think they wasted our time. i think people are fed up, even democrats are fed up. i don't think this has resonated. they haven't proven anything here, they have but every shot, and it looks like a partisan charade. and i think it's been horrible for joe biden. i think everyone now knows what he did. we are not stupid. we know what he did. his son got a job, $83,000 a month, and joe biden got rid of the prosecutor. everybody knows that in iowa, and i think it's going to impac.
i think this was a cover-up, pelosi waited to bring it over, tried to help joe biden, and i think it backfired. >> laura: senator scott, we appreciate it. get some sleep. i know it's been a long, long week. >> hopefully by tomorrow it will be done. >> laura: back with me now, robert ray, trump legal defense team member, and john eastman, constitutional scholar. as we'll wait with baited breath, lamar alexander's announcement, what can we expect tomorrow? tell us, procedurally -- not too much mind numbing detail, you know what i mean, give us the highlights of how it will happen tomorrow. it's going to happen? >> i think you just heard from senator scott, they will get to a vote to resolve this, but what has to happen between now and then, there will be argument by senators on motions come i think the resolution calls for the fact that there would be
consideration of a motion as to whether to call witnesses and subpoena documents, that -- that discussion and debate will come in fact, occur over a number of hours. and then i think, likely, we are going to get to the dispositive question, which would be deliberations by senators and a final vote to resolve this before the weekend. >> laura: well, one of the things that was suspected, and it's coming to fruition, because she just announced it. susan collins has said that she will favor witnesses. that was expected. john eastman, collins is for witnesses. markowski hasn't officially announced. lamar, maybe he will show up with the sweater come or was it the plaid shirt? it's all a faded memory, but how
does he want to go out as a republican senator? does he want to go out with the home team or sledding with the other side? i'm not quite sure. but john, is there any late in the game maneuver that the democrats could pull tomorrow? up because i'm always expecting another shoe is going to drop, whatever phrase you want to use, before this witness vote? >> i'm waiting for michael avenatti to have a new disclosure. >> laura: [laughs] >> look, they seem to have the same playbook over and over again. they wait until the last minute to drop something new when they know they have lost the fight, and then accuse people of coverups, or of not wanting to hear from the witnesses. i think the white house team, and robert, please pass on to the whole team, i think you guys have done an incredible job -- an incredible job. both on the facts, but also in the even tone, although pat cipollone look like he was tempted to get hot under the
collar, deservedly so, some of the other falsities that adam schiff was throwing out. the reason this argument was so important about the witnesses, the house, in our system for an impeachment, is the investigative body. you don't come in any trial, bring brand-new witnesses or add charges after the prosecution has rested, and realize they don't have enough evidence. that's just -- rule 101, you get your ducks in a row before you issue the indictment. >> laura: hold that thought, we're going to come back to you in a moment. on the question of article two powers and whether this has just eviscerated any congressional oversight. this is a big issue, they are going to be pushing for the election people i want to check in with cha chad pergram, over n the hill. chad? >> moments ago, susan collins, republican senator from maine who has a competitive reelection
this fall in a battleground state, she indicates she is for witnesses. as i stand capitol hill, it always comes down to the maps. you mitt romney and susan collins, 51-49 vote. lisa murkowski, republican of alaska, unclear what her position is. we were told once they wrap up the q&a. mack, 180 questions over the 16-hour, two-day period q&a, lamar alexander, republican from tennessee not running for reelection, indicated he will announce his position tonight. if they are going to a down this road to have witnesses, maybe that is the universe right there. romney and collins, see what markowski and lamar alexander do. if they vote for witnesses, that makes it hard to wrap this up tomorrow night. i'm told republican senators generally want to complete this tomorrow night, and frankly, when you talk to some democratic senators, even though they want witnesses, the democratic presidential contenders running in iowa, they want to get out of dodge, and they're telling chuck schumer that.
back to you, laura. >> laura: do we know about lamar alexander? >> i will look at my phone. >> laura: he just exited -- chad, this is the level of detail. we've just found out that lamar alexander has exited the building. >> in washington a at this hour. >> laura: he hasn't gotten this much attention, since, what, was it '96 he was running last? >> it was. >> laura: let's go back to robert gray, president trump's defense team member, and john eastman. robert, what we heard from beginning to end today, if the senate doesn't vote for witnesses, there is no fair trial, this isn't the legitimate trial, and we have basically thrown checks and balances out the window. that has been argued, that you all have destroyed the system of checks and balances. your response to that to the audience tonight?
>> i don't think that's it at all. the point i think implicitly that we made clear is that the united states senate is not an oversight committee. the oversight function will continue in the house of representatives and in the senate, as well. any claim to the contrary is way off the mark, and the point of this -- i think it badly damaged the house manager's credibility when senators started to inquire about the issue of subpoenas both before the house resolution authorizing the impeachment inquiry and what occurred afterward. i think once they found out that, my prediction is that will be dispositive. i think, with a lot of the moderate senators, republican senators, as to whether we go forward with witnesses are not. that, really, is the story today. >> laura: john, finally, this issue of a slippery slope,
another point that was raised, a number of times tonight, that if you allow a president who has a motive that he thinks is in the public interest to do something that is contrary to our national understanding, may be on guns or something else down the road, because he campaigned on it and he thinks it's in our national interest, what is to stop him from going in confiscating and out of certain types of guns? >> well, the electorate is what stops him. the reason the president's numbers are up in the polls right now is because he is doing what he said he would do, and that includes cutting off foreign aid to countries that don't deserve it and start paying attention to america's needs first. the fact that that is contrary to the consensus of the bureaucratic intelligence community, i'm sorry, we elect a president to run the policy. >> laura: all right, guys, great to have you both on. thanks for sticking around for the whole hour. just to recap, susan collins is a "yes" for witnesses, alexander is announcing soon from, i don't know, the dubliner bar?
markowski says she will keep reading tonight. we haven't heard from romney. we will be here tomorrow night and unpack it all. that is all the time we have tonight. mike emanuel and the fox news and might team take it all here with an interview from president trump. ♪ >> mike: this is a fox news alert. tonight, an exclusive interview with president trump, peter doocy live in iowa catching up with a president at his rally. you will only see this interview right here on "fox news @ night." stay tuned. plus, taking a live look at the senate impeachment trial, the question and answer phase wrapping up a few minutes ago as we move to what could be the final stage tomorrow. senators internally debating tonight on more witnesses or an end to the trial. another key republican hold out on witnesses ready to make a decision tonight, and we will get an inside scoop from g.o.p. senator ted cruz. hello and welcome to "fox news @ night," i'm mike emanuel info shannon bream. we have fox team coverage you will hear from preside t