tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News November 13, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PST
unfortunately that is all the time we have left this evening. as always we remind you we will always seek the truth, we'll never be the media mob, hannity.com for more, let not your heart be troubled because laura ingraham takes it away. >> hey, hannity, awesome show tonight. i'm laura ingraham. this is "the ingraham angle" from new york city. the democrats really want to impeach based on what we heard today? congressman chris stewart and congressman mark meadows were both at the hearing today and are here exclusively to cut through all the noise. also tonight, president trump's former attorney general says democrats' impeachment push is irreparably damaging our republic. jeff sessions is here with his exclusive reaction. plus, raymond arroyo is going to break down the most hilarious moments. you missed all of this stuff, by the way. from faulty video cues to a certain hair implement in one
congresswoman's bouffant. let's just say the dems and their witnesses weren't ready for prime time. and it's this week's seen and unseen. coming up. day one of this impeachment, it was supposed to but first, the big four takeaways. that's the focus of tonight's "angle." so day one of this impeachment farce. it was supposed to be a banner day for the democrats but what actually unfolded was a complete and utter disaster for adam schiff and his solemn band of inquisitors. here are the big four takeaways. number one. democrats still don't have a real crime. in fact, from what i heard the democrats and their two star witnesses is the only thing that trump is guilty of is not giving away his foreign policy powers to unelected bureaucrats. >> it hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. >> it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out their policy goals. >> i love how the witnesses were lionized as the be-all and end-all of experts and called
the parade of patriots. two people in a parade. but don't forget, again, the unelected elites mismanaged our foreign policy for decades in iraq, syria and even now in china and now that trump is challenging their rule, he has to be taken down. congressman nunes directly addressed the deep-state department witnesses. >> it seems you agreed, witting or unwittingly to participate in a drama but the main performance, the russia hoax, has ended and you have been cast in the low-rent ukrainian sequel. >> yeah, this has all the box office mojo of "grease 2." take away number two. everything in today's hearing was based on hearsay. neither ambassador taylor nor secretary kent were on trump's july 25th phone call that sparked the impeachment scam. neither had any firsthand knowledge of trump's motivations or anything else for that
matter. it was a lot of feelings that were discussed today, and at the outset of today's outset of today's cirque du ukraine taylor even admitted as much. >> what i can do here for you today is to tell you what i heard from people. >> laura: "what i heard from people." how compelling. things only went downhill for democrats from there. >> ambassador taylor recalls that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mr. morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. yarmack, september 1, 2019 in connection with vice president pence's visit to warsaw and a meeting with president zelensky. we have six people having four conversations in one sentence and this is where you told me you got your clear understanding. >> he's the star of the whole hearing, jordan. taylor i think should have starred in one of those shampoo commercials in had the early 1980's. >> you tell two friends and they'll tell two friends and so on and so on and so on.
>> i remember that shampoo. that's how bad it is. and that brings us to my third takeaway. ukraine has actually done better under trump than obama. yeah. that's undeniably true despite these ludicrous statements to the contrary. >> $400 million of bipartisan taxpayer funded military support for a nation at war. >> rules-based order was being threatened by the russians in ukraine so our security systems was designed to support ukraine. >> withholding military aid. does that weaken ukraine? >> a little miscue there. how can democrats even look themselves in the mirror after saying this stuff? ambassador taylor even ended up conceding the point. >> did the obama administration provide lethal weapons? >> no, sir. >> you were happy with the trump administration's assistance and it provided both lethal and financial aid. did it not? >> it did, sir. >> and you also stated that it
was a substantial improvement. is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> laura: what is the beef here? taylor's gripe against trump is not really that he did anything impeachable. the aid was held up for 14 days or something. but that any u.s. aid to ukraine would be delayed for any reason whatsoever. except, again, if you're obama. then you can get away with doing anything. now, of the many telling moments today a few were key to understanding how preposterous this entire undertaking is. neither taylor nor kent could answer the $64,000 question. >> where is the impeachable offense in that call? are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? shout it out. anyone? >> can i buy a vowel, please? an impeachment home version of this game? adam schiff can't answer that question either. you know he can't. finally the biggest takeaway.
number four. investigating burisma is in our national interest. now, for weeks we have been told that it's a conspiracy theory to be concerned about hunter biden's work for burisma. oh, really. >> the company burisma, its leader has a little bit of a storied history of corruption, doesn't he? >> he uses regulatory authority to award gas exploration licenses to companies that he himself controlled. >> how did the ukrainian government ultimately pursue that? >> $23 million was frozen until somebody in the general prosecutor's office of ukraine shut the case and that money went poof. >> essentially, paid a bribe to make the case go away. >> that is our assumption. u.s. taxpayer dollars have been used to try to recover assets. since u.s. taxpayer dollars are wasted, i would love to see the ukrainian prosecutor general's office find who the prosecutor was who took the bribe. >> so there was a ton of corruption going on in ukraine.
is this not wild? that was a key part of what happened today. again, just to sum up what you heard, one of today's star witnesses contradicted the democrats' main talking point. oops. now, what really became apparent today is the democrats -- they should never have gone down this road. it was a cataclysmic mistake for them. the first public hearing did nothing to make their case. in fact, it probably did the opposite. i think americans see right through this kind of a web of lies, waver you want to call it, and despite the democrats' feeble attempt to spin this as some huge victory it was really just a huge dud. i've got to think if if there were any winners today they weren't in the political arena. >> you are not -- >> all right. >> laura: all right.
that kind of day time tv probably had big numbers. come next november, the democrats will regret schiff's show trial. and that's "the angle." joining me is mark meadows, house oversight committee member and chris stewart, intel committee member. let's start with you, congressman stewart. you were there. you got to question, again, the star witnesses. what's your big takeaway? >> i don't think there is a single person in america who watched this and ever said to themselves "holy cow, we have got to impeach this president." there wasn't any surprises. there wasn't any bombshells. i think the democrats set this up like watergate. they expected john dean to appear and have a dramatic moment where people listened and go "this is a problem" and it didn't materialize and it's not going to materialize. upon didn't materialize and it's not
we know what these witnesses are going to tell us. we have been in closed depositions with them. there are no surprises coming. i think a week from now after about a half dozen of these most americans are going to say is that all? you're going to try to remove a president of the united states less than a year from election over this? and i just don't think it's going to sell. >> i want to share something with you, congressman meadows, and this goes to this point about what george kent acknowledged. it was wild. watch. >> i want to thank you again. just conclude by saying because i can't let it go unanswered some of my colleagues made the statement repeatedly that i have met with the whistleblower, that i know who the whistleblower is, it was false the first time they said it, it was false the second through 40th time they said it, it will be false the last time they say it. >> that happened at the end of the hearing, obviously. that was a wild moment as well. we'll get to kent in a moment.
is that incredible? he ends it by saying "i don't know who the whistleblower is." >> four pinnochios ago we heard adam schiff saying he wasn't coordinating with the whistleblower. we know that's just not the case. that's why they don't want the whistleblower to come in and testify. >> listen, today's hearing was a swing and a miss for the democrats. and if i was one of the 31 democrats that won in trump districts not only would i be shaking in my boots tonight, i would be worried that nancy pelosi is going to send them down a path that will ultimately try to impeach the president with really no predicate there. you covered it extremely well, laura, as we look at this. what we've got to make sure of is that there is an impeachable offense and what we really saw today were two bureaucrats that have a ukraine-first really sentiment versus a president that has an america-first sentiment so those collided together and what we saw was that the president was really being vigilant about the american taxpayer dollars. >> congressman stewart, i noticed that as well. there were several points in the hearing when the witnesses were
clearly expressing their deep sense of anxiety. that their country of focus, namely, ukraine, was not going to get the blank check from the american taxpayer. there were going to be strings attached. i don't mean strings look in to biden, i mean you can't play around with our elections. the democrats used to care about that, election meddling, that's what what trump was clearly getting at. that's why he brought it up in that kind of casual way in the call. >> i think there is two things. actually, during this hearing i had a couple of people text me and they seemed disproportionately concerned about ukraine's interest versus america's interest. i'm not saying that they actually feel that way but they certainly had that as a priority for them, and the second thing is this. they are individuals whose responsibility is to carry out the policies of the duly elected president of the united states regardless of who that is. they don't get to say "i disagree and i'm going to sit here and try to subvert the president." i think that's what they were concerned about as much as anything. it wasn't necessarily that they
love the ukraine more than the united states, they were offended that the president's policies were different than they thought they should be. >> laura: i tweeted out today. if they disagree with the president's policies, there are a lot of people that disagree with the president's policies. that's fine. i have an idea for them. run for office. go to the american taxpayers and say we want to give out more foreign aid and we don't want to worry about corruption or concerns about human rights. let them try to run a campaign on that. and you know they will get killed if they do politically. >> you know that they will but here is the interesting thing is. both of them were concerned about what might happen with this policy, and indeed what happened with the policy is that it's stronger than the previous obama administration, and yet both of those people who testified today -- they both still work for the u.s. citizens and for the president of the united states. they're still diplomats. so to suggest that they're at
odds with the president, they were at odds with the president on what they thought might have happened based on what someone else told someone else, and at the end from the day, the president is delivering on behalf of what all americans elected him to do and what they will again elect him to do a little over 11 months from now. >> congressman stewart, i want to get back to the george kent point about burisma that we need to remind the american people of tonight. >> after you expressed the concern of a perceived conflict of interest at the least, the vice president's engagement in ukraine didn't decrease, did it? >> correct, because the vice president was promoting u.s. policy objectives in ukraine. >> and hunter biden's role on the board of burisma didn't cease, did it? >> to the best of my knowledge
it didn't and my concern was that there was the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest. >> the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest. you think? again, the witnesses kept undercutting the main arguments in various ways. not the policy argument but the main argument for impeachment, which were already flimsy i think were shattered by these witnesses if you really listened to what they said. congressman stewart, close it out. >> look, i just think i want to make the point i made today in the hearing, at least one of them. out of the dozens of corrupt nations in the world, out of the hundreds of corrupt government officials in the world there is only one time did the vice president go to that nation and demand the removal of a specific prosecutor and it just happened to be that that was the individual who was responsible for investigating the company that was paying his son. most americans hear that and they think, oh, my gosh, what is that? isn't that worth asking a few questions about? >> laura: you bet it is.
congressman meadows and stewart, we appreciate you being here. >> we need to shut this down, laura. it's time. >> it's clear the democrats are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. now they want to convince you, the american people that playing a game of telephone is exactly the type of evidence we need. >> i think the american public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay, because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed exceptions to hearsay. hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and certainly valid in this instance. >> joining me now ken starr, former whitewater independent counsel and andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney. both gentlemen are now fox news contributors. ken, i get that hearsay evidence can be used, we all know that in criminal cases but is that an acceptable standard to undo the election of an american president under our representative democracy and our constitutional system? >> i don't think so.
the this is the call of the house. but the house should, in fact, be mindful of american norms and fundamental fairness, and i was delighted to hear that some members of the united states senate were saying we do not want hearsay. and you know what? in contrast to federal courts and the federal rules of evidence, the senate can set its own rules. it can say -- the united states senate can say we're not going to allow hearsay. period and full stop. because it's ordinarily nonreliable. it has not been tested adequately. we saw that today. i was told. it was my understanding. and that is not the higher quality evidence when we're talking about the potential removal of the president of the united states. >> democrats have also repeatedly said that we should not condition foreign aid on various points. corruption. it looks like they forgot to tell george kent. >> there are and always have been conditionality placed on
our sovereign loan guarantees for ukraine. conditions include anticorruption reforms as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. the international monetary fund does the same thing. congress and the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the ukraine security assistance initiative. >> i love the word "conditionality," andy. that's why i hate bureaucrats. i dislike some bureaucrats. what is up with this analysis? >> they're trying to make a very technical bribery case under title 18 which is the criminal code. and what we can never forget here is this is not a legal case, this is an impeachment case which is a political remedy, so at the end of the day what you have to have is misconduct that's so serious that there will be a public consensus for the removal of the president that would be strong enough to push two-thirds of the senate to vote to remove the president.
if you have to sit through six hours or whatever that was today and when you get to the end of it you're not quite even sure what it was about or what they were trying to prove, you may be able to go back and fix that and say maybe we can come up with some kind of technical violation, but impeaching a president? >> also, people could kind of get their mind wrapped around what happened with nixon. even what happened with clinton. lying under oath. it's clearcut. you either lied or you didn't. if you're going to call it bribery, ken, the bribery has to mean something. even though it's not a legal proceeding, the word bribery does have a legal connotation. so it can't be completely devoid of any legal grounding, yet they just literally threw that term out there, i think yesterday or the day before, bribery, extortion, lions and tigers and bears, oh my, it was thrown together. >> it's a stretch, and it's one of the reasons why we continue to say this really is not the stuff of impeachment.
it is the stuff of oversight. if you don't like the president mentioning joe biden in the context of rampant corruption including, and one of the things that became clear today was corruption in the ukraine is not only serious and endemic, it's endemic in the energy industry, and that's burisma so it's quite understandable that in that context, this sort of issue would pop up. this is so far removed from bribery, from extortion and the like that to me it is quite unreasonable -- and that's putting it mildly -- for the democrats to say we have evidence here of a crime, and certainly the two witnesses -- and i think we're being a little bit harsh to these witnesses. they were subpoenaed to testify and a lot of what they said i think should be reaffirming and reassuring to the american people that we've got honest public servants, and i really mean that, and they said nothing that suggested that the president should be impeached.
nothing. not one word. >> my point, though, ken and andy, you and i might disagree on some of the policy, that's fine but we're not working for the president. you're working for the president. your own personal views about the u.s. diplomacy and foreign policy after you give the president your advice it's not your role to make the final call and if you really don't like what the president is doing then quit or ask can i be transferred to another part of the administration but it's not up to you to determine foreign policy. >> laura, if we're going to have a self-determining constitutional republic, the guy who gets elected has to be the guy who makes the policy. otherwise if it's unelected making it we have lost control over the government. president has a different view of ukraine. i actually suspect that as we go further in this maybe we'll hear more about what that view is because to my mind we're hearing a fantasy about ukraine that's been built over the last number
of years. there is an alternative version of ukraine. ukraine is a lousy country. it's pervasively corrupt. there are really troublesome elements in the government that we're funding. including -- >> we heard about some of them today. >> yeah. i would not be hesitant to make that case. >> thank you so much, ken and andy, both of you tonight. and up next, ed henry just talked to sources on the hill tonight. they're saying the democrats are disappointed in the outcome of today's hearing and how it's playing nationally. plus former attorney general now senate candidate jeff sessions is here exclusively on why this exercise is hurting our republic big time. stay there. every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you.
>> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. val, vern... i'm off to college and i'm not gonna be around... i'm worried about my parents' retirement. oh, don't worry. voya helps them to and through retirement... ...dealing with today's expenses... ...like college... ...while helping plan, invest and protect for the future. so they'll be okay... without me? um... and when we knock out this wall imagine the closet space? yes! oh hey, son. yeah, i think they'll be fine. voya. helping you to and through retirement.
facts mean for the future of our country? i don't think we can allow that to be the new normal, acceptable in any way, shape or form or it will not only permit this president to seek other ways to bring about interference in our election but it will invite future presidents to do the same. >> the democrats are declaring victory tonight. of course. despite a dull first day in the public impeachment hearings and their witnesses not only failed to prove a quid pro quo, they've kind of just dropped that, but they had no firsthand knowledge of pretty much anything except their own feelings and opinions. so what is the feeling on the hill tonight? fox news correspondent ed henry is live in washington with exclusive insight. what's going on? >> laura, it's great to see you tonight, because i'm hearing a much different story from the hill. i talked to three different
senior republicans, who all said after the first hearings, in the hallways they're having private conversations with democrats who seemed absolutely deflated that they did not get very far at all today. listen to what "the washington post" reported. democratic aide telling the post "we're this week on hearings. no bombshells, no revelations, the onus is on us to wow some people this week." democrats are insisting they're happy they got bill taylor to taylor to reveal some new information today, but even his big reveal that one of his aides overheard a phone conversation in which president trump was allegedly more personally involved in making sure there were investigations in exchange for aid -- even that was third hand, taylor being told by an aide who overheard a phone call at a restaurant, so democrats deflated by a whole series of events. jim jordan declaring all of this is third and fourth hand information, six people having four different conversations. at one point jordan said he's seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this narrative, republican john ratcliffe pressing the star
witnesses, both bill taylor and george kent, "did you see anything impeachable? didn't have anything. adam schiff on defense adam schiff again on defense today on whether or not he knows who the whistleblower is. he insists he doesn't. even though we have been led to believe that at least his staff talked to the whistleblower. and finally george kent we have been talking about went on camera with his concerns that he raised conflict of interest questions way back in 2015 about hunter biden raking in over $80,000 a month from burisma while his father was overseeing ukrainian policy, jim jordan was asking at one point did hunter biden speak ukrainian? the witnesses said no. was he hired for his expertise on corporate governance? of course, no. laura, a lot of problems today for the democratic narrative. that's why republicans might tonight be breathing a bit of a sigh of relief. laura. >> ed, one of the republican aides texted me tonight and said the new scuttle butt is how do we know that the money hunter biden was making wasn't somehow ultimately a kind of indirect campaign contribution to the bidens?
which is -- i never even heard that before, but that's just part of the whole burisma thread that seems to be unravelling. >> that and the question about whether it was just board money or whether it was lobbying because there are documents that a couple of republican senators senators, chuck grassley and ron johnson as you know are demanding from the state department, because they believe there are documents there showing that burisma really hired hunter biden and others to get meetings with obama-biden state department officials and diplomats. that raises all new questions about whether this was a board looking at corporate governance issues or whether in fact they were lobbying hunter biden's father and the obama-biden administration when remember, joe biden was overseeing all ukrainian policy, laura. >> laura: interesting. ed, thank you soefrp. it wasn't just the democrats ed, thank you so much. it wasn't just the democrats.
the media played up the importance of acting >> the media also played up the importance of acting ukrainian ambassador bill taylor's testimony today. >> the democrats, they picked these two diplomats as their leadoff witnesses because they assumed they were the most effective, most credible. >> star witnesses where people like bill taylor and kent. >> bill taylor, i think, is a critical witness. >> but all it took was a republican secret weapon, congressman jim jordan who was just added to the intel committee, remember, to set the record straight. >> you didn't listen in on president trump's call? >> i did not. >> you never talked with chief of staff mulvaney? >> i never did. >> you never met the president? >> that's correct. >> this is what i can't believe. and you are their star witness. >> joining me now jeff sessions, former attorney general and now candidate again for the u.s. senate in alabama. senator sessions, what is your big takeaway from today? >> it certainly to me -- i agree with ken starr.
this is a very serious time for america. it does not appear to me that they have the kind of evidence that would justify going forward. i called it a show trial. what's a show trial? when you decided the person is guilty and then you pretend to have a trial for show. so this is the kind of thing that i think is concerning to a lot of people. the constitution says impeachment is not anything congress says it is, it says it's for conviction of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. those are restraining laws in our constitution that restrains congress, and they need to be faithful to their responsibilities and fundamentally, i would just urge our democratic members of congress to think deeply about the future of this country, the danger to this republic that would occur if we continue to prosecute people basically because we don't like them or because we have a political disagreement. >> senator, what more can members of the republican party serving in congress today do for this president and for his agenda that they're not doing?
not trying to criticize but maybe a little advice of what they can do better or more to help this administration. >> we have to take the case to the people. both on all the issues he's advocating likening ilroll will ever -- likening illegality at the border. -- like ending illegality at the border. both on all the issues he's standing up to china. being more restrained in the deployment of american forces around the globe in hostile places. on this impeachment, i think they've got to speak out pretty aggressively and say "where is the beef? what is the charge? does it meet the constitutional standards? and be open about that. i think we have a lot of members that are, hopefully, but that message needs to be strongly put out there and republicans need to be confident that if the evidence does not support impeachment they are perfectly safe and it's the honorable
thing to do, the only thing to do is oppose impeachment. >> senator, in retrospect when you look back -- we all look back on decisions we have made -- are you glad you left the senate to go work in the trump administration? are you glad you make that decision? >> laura, i don't look back on those kind of matters. i made the decision i thought was right at the time. a lot of people think all we did was deal with russia but we had a tremendous revitalization of federal criminal prosecutions throughout the country. a revitalization of partnerships with our state and local allies. we stood up for religious liberty and issued a new policy. we helped the president appoint the best group of federal judges ever been appointed. we advanced his agenda. we reduced regulations. there was so much that was done. we started a new group to intensify our efforts to prosecute frauds in the i.t. networks, in particularly
china, so a lot of good things that occurred and i have 15 years in the department. i knew a lot about it and i feel like we did a good job, and now i have an opportunity to seek the senate seat again, and i will be pleased to ask the people of alabama to give me that opportunity. >> if you could -- if the president occasionally watches this show. is there anything you would like to say to him tonight? >> he didn't have a better supporter in the united states senate than when i was there. i was his first supporter in the united states senate. and if i go back to the united states senate he won't have a more aggressive, determined supporter when i get back. >> senator, what do you say to those republicans -- and you know who they are, we don't have to name them, who say this president is not a real conservative, he's not really doing the conservative thing, he's not bringing the movement along, he's spending too much time on these side things. what do you say to them? >> this president has moved the conservative agenda in a host of areas. he cut taxes. isn't that conservative? he stands up for america first
throughout the world. isn't that good? defending american manufacturing against cheating by china and other countries. isn't that conservative and lawful? he's trying to defend our borders in a way that affects the rule of law in america. i just think he's been conservative consistently to a degree i think very few people expected, but most importantly, he's been effective and faithful in what we promised. he told the american people what he would do. a lot of people doubted he would do it, but he's done it better than almost any president in my lifetime. >> senator, i know he has had some choice words for you, mostly because of the mueller deal and rosenstein. he wasn't thrilled with that pick either. do you think you will ultimately get his endorsement? >> i hope so. certainly i am going to work for that and we'll be seeking it. he doesn't always get involved
in primaries, so i understand that, and he's indicated he probably would not in this one, but yes, i would love to have his support because i ask people first. i ask the people of alabama and throughout the country to trust him, to support him, that i thought he was the one who could win and if he won i thought he would bring that drive, that energy, that will that was extraordinary to advance his agenda. >> you are absolutely right and i was in alabama over the weekend and overwhelming support for you in the state of alabama and your run. senator sessions, thank you for being with us tonight. we really appreciate it. >> thank you, laura. >> democrats might be enjoying this impeachment circus today but how will they feel about it in a couple of months? dan bongino and chris hahn. - do you have a box of video tapes, film reels, or photos,
fired up now, but how is it going to look in february? think about it. if impeachment moves from the house to the senate, six 2020 democratic candidates will be stuck in d.c. they have to be there. at the height of the primary season. >> i will fulfill my responsibility. there is no question. it's very important that i'm in iowa. as much as i can possibly be. >> we have a constitutional duty. i'll just have to find a way to communicate with them. you can do it by sending out some incredible surrogates. >> the campaign becomes secondary. with the gravity of removing a sitting president from office, i will be there. >> i have constitutional responsibilities and i will be there for the trial. >> i think iowans are saying thank god. joining me now is dan bongino, former secret service agent, fox news contributor. author of the new book "exonerated." also chris hahn, former aide to senator schumer, host of the aggressive progressive podcast. all right, dan. have the democrats really thought out this timing thing with impeachment? >> no, they don't really think about much.
that's why they're democrats. think about it. this was a trifecta of disasters. number one, the impeachment farce today exposed the real gravity of the situation with hunter biden. if anybody thinks today reflected well on joe biden, i suggest you see a mental health professional. secondly, as you just indicated, the u.s. senators running for president, the iowa caucus. what's the iowa caucus? february 3rd? the beginning of february? that's what you want? you want an impeachment trial about a quid pro quo that didn't happen, happening while your candidates for president are supposed to be out there? and third, i think president trump came out of today looking pretty decent and these swing state people in the election running for congress, this was a triple fall disaster for the democrats. >> chris, even "the new york times" on friday had an interesting piece talk about swing state democrats and part of it said that notably doug jones, democrat of alabama could suffer a backlash for voting to remove a president popular with many in their states.
isn't that a little concerning? i mean, if it's this tight, and even jonathan carl tonight -- or today on abc was saying this is a -- this is not a bipartisan movement to impeach this president. it's run by one party, and that's where the damaging prospects could be. >> well, i think we've got miles to go before we get to doug jones or any other incumbent democrat takes a vote that might lead to them losing their election, but i think they need to put their oath to the constitution ahead of any electoral concerns and do what's right by this country, and if the evidence shows that the president should be impeached and removed then that's what all members of congress, democrat and republican, should absolutely do. as for them not being in iowa, that might be one of the consequences of it but the country is going to be riveted to this -- >> riveted? >> laura: did you watch the same thing?
hold on a moment. you said the word riveted. ok? i heard televisions being turned off all day long today, ok? i made a joke earlier that it was the best day that dr. phil has had in like 15 years because it was a dud, ok? the democrats are going to ed henry -- the republican aides talking to democrats in the hallway and said they're not thrilled with the way this is going so far. not the star witnesses that we thought. dan. >> i think you have serious men who take their job seriously and we're talking about things in serious terms and that might force -- be very compelling if you're following the evidence. >> laura: dan, your reaction to that. >> laura, it was a total snooze fest. i didn't need an ambien. turn that disaster on. now we have a quid pro quo like we had a deal initially for security assistance that actually arrived, then the deal changed. it was a deal for a white house
meeting that never happened. and then -- wait, pipe down, i'm not done over there, you, then we had a quid pro quo from a public statement from zelensky that he never made. we had a this for that, then we have a quid pro quo, the only time taylor ever heard directly from someone who heard from trump because taylor never heard from trump, it was in a text that said the president wants to be crystal clear. there is no quid pro quo. this is a great case, democrats. well done. really nice job. >> let me tell you, taylor is a serious person who saw -- who is seriously concerned about the direction of the president's shadow foreign policy led by his political attorney who is working on -- >> laura: why doesn't he run for office? >> pipe down, dan, i'll use your catch phrase now. pipe down.
a political attorney who is out there conducting shadow foreign policy -- >> laura: wait a minute. ok. >> for his personal benefit. that is not good. that is not american. that's not what we do. >> for his own benefit? hold on, hold on. >> not going over to syria, too and talking to the iranians. chris has no problem with john kerry -- >> laura: hold on. chris, it's in donald trump's benefit to ensure that we're not shovelling 10's of millions of dollars of our hard-earned tax dollars to a country that is inherently corrupt? how is that in his benefit? he should be doing that with every country we get money from, and obama didn't give them a nickel of lethal aid. not one nickel of lethal aid. i never heard you complain about it, chris. >> you're right. if this president was looking at corruption all over the world --
>> laura: you bet he was. >> but he's not. he's looking at the corruption about his political opponent not looking at corruption about anybody else. >> if you run for office you're immune from criticism? >> lots of americans doing things abroad that fall into the foreign corrupt practices act that this president has looked the other way, in fact have tried to help so we've got to be very careful about what this president does. he's not looking at the corruption. he's looking out for himself. >> dan, did you ever hear chris complain eight years obama gave no lethal aid to ukraine? not one time did he ever complain about it? >> no, chris just left out the fact that taylor himself acknowledged in the hearing that trump's policies toward ukraine have been more beneficial to ukraine. >> we've got to go. we're way over. today's hearing was nothing but political theater. we've established this. but raymond arroyo is here to break down the nuggets, the blunders, things you saw but did not see. still the right fit? having the wrong plan may cost you thousands of
dollars out of pocket, and that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. with their new fitscore, they compare thousands of plans from national insurance companies to find the right medicare plan that fits you. call or visit healthmarkets to find your fitscore today. in minutes, you can find out if your current plan is the right fit or if there's another one that can get you extra coverage or help save you money. best of all, their service is completely free. does your plan have $0 copays, $0 deductibles, and $0 premiums? if not, maybe it's not the right fit. does it include dental and vision coverage? well, if not, maybe it's not the right fit. how about hearing aid, glasses and gym memberships at no additional cost? maybe there is a better fit for you. call healthmarkets now or visit healthmarkets.com for your free fitscore. we can instantly compare thousands of medicare plans with all of these benefits and more, including plans that may let you keep your doctor and save money.
with the annual medicare enrollment deadline coming, don't waste another minute not knowing if you have the right medicare fit. for this free service go to healthmarkets.com or call right now. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a+ customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. don't assume that your plan is still the right fit. the healthmarkets fitscore makes it easy to find the right medicare plan for you. healthmarkets doesn't just work for one insurance company, they work to help you and they do it all for free. your insurance marketplace. healthmarkets. there may be medicare benefits and savings you're missing out on. only healthmarkets has the free fitscore. call before the deadline.
that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today.
that's why xfinity mobile lets you design your own data. you can share 1, 3, or 10 gigs of data between lines. mix in lines of unlimited, and switch it up at anytime. all with millions of secure wifi hotspots... and the best lte everywhere else. it's a different kind of wireless network designed to save you money. switch and save up to four hundred dollars a year on your wireless bill. and save even more when you bring your own phone and upgraded your network. that's simple, easy, awesome. click, call or visit a store today.
>> all right. we have a special "seen and unseen" edition impeachment style. and today, raymond arroyo is with us. fox news contributor. things that should have remained unseen, raymond. >> laura: what are they? >> the media really oversold this hearing, laura. >> breaking news tonight, bombshell testimony. >> bombshell news. >> the bombshell of today. >> bombshell. >> the biggest bombshell was supposedly that overheard conversation between the president and ambassador sondland, but to my eye the biggest bombshell may have been how much witness george kent looked like jimmy olson from the old "superman" movie. >> i thought he looked more like les nessman, bespectacled les nessman from "wkrp cincinnati." >> he drank a lot of water, laura. fish are not this hydrated.
throughout the hearing took slugs. >> was he on the treadmill? the water bottle. did you see that? i thought he had an oxygen chamber. >> water silo. the democrats' production at the hearing was a bit wanting. >> ambassador taylor, i would like you to listen to what he said. >> i'll read it for you. it's in response to a question. >> laura: that happens to us sometimes. >> he went on to read it. when you're playing a big dramatic moment, make sure the video is loaded. chairman schiff had his own dramatic moment when republican congresswoman stefanik challenged the way he embellished the president's call at the first hearing. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
the transcript from the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky. you yourself, mr. chairman, have mischaracterized the call, in fact, in the first open hearing you had a parody. >> the gentle woman will suspend. >> "the gentle woman will suspend." he has a very priggish presentation, does he not? >> the eyes are hypnotic. >> the cat eyes. >> congresswoman val demings had a dramatic line of questioning near the end of the hearing and i think you could call it an irregular approach. >> when you realize that the interest of this irregular channel, highly irregular, informal channel of u.s. policy making. >> can i get a pronunciation guide for that? >> they're speaking quickly -- and thinking on their feet. >> apparently congresswoman jackie speier was so frazzled
she started misplacing office supplies in her hair. if you look closely there is a paper clip hanging from her hair. >> my gosh, you're right. >> there is a dossier under the bangs, laura. >> wait a second. swalwell is hiding a staple removal. >> another ukrainian source. all in all. such an intense day. it was tense, dramatic, a pet therapy organization called pet partners teamed up with the industry joint advisory counsel to provide therapy dogs that the various members wanted to test the therapy dogs to destress. my question is where do the dogs go to destress from this experience? why don't we loose the therapy dogs on some of the members of this congress. the i think i could get a quorum. >> laura: just say release the hounds. >> release the therapy hounds. we could start a new hound organization. >> release the hounds.
those are the cutest things we saw all day. >> protect yourself with the paper clip in the hair. >> sometimes i forget like i've forgotten, the hair brush is sticking out of the back. women have it harder than you men. stay tuned. what did the real leader of the democratic party think today? my final thoughts. next. t a strong repair that you can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.
they can do all sorts of things in your name. criminals can use ransomware, spyware, or malware to gain access to information like your name, your birthday, and even your social security number. - [announcer] that's why norton and lifelock are now part of one company, providing an all in one membership for your cyber safety that gives you identify theft protection, device security, a vpn for online privacy, and more. and if you have an identity theft problem, we'll work to fix it with our million dollar protection package. - there are new cyber threats out there everyday, so protecting yourself isn't a one time job, it's an ongoing need. now is the time to make sure that you have the right plan in place. don't wait. - [announcer] norton 360 with lifelock. use promo code get25 to save 25% off your first year and get a free shredder with annual membership. call now to start your membership or visit lifelock.com/tv
>> chairman schiff did a phenomenal job. there was a lot of different ways that this could have gone >> adam schiff did a phenomenal job. he did an excellent job keeping the hearings fair but focused and centered on the fact. >> thank you, counselor. the democrat party in a nutshell a surround two people, aoc and adam schiff. the socialist and the inquisitor. why did democrats in the house bother showing up at this point? a collection of potted plants would be just as effective and nicer to look at. democrats should be really worried. here's why, the fed came out with an upbeat economic outlook, no recession and today markets
are hitting another high. democrats have no credible platform to make the country better and no strong 2020 candidate. number 3 the house democrats ran as moderate in 2018 long without democrat leadership have been exposed is nothing but puppets of aoc and the mueller report didn't bring down trump, neither will adam schiff's impeachment sham. the voters have to decide whether they want to avoid the one person in dc whose delivering results a report the democrat party that has literally done nothing for middle america. easy choice. that's all the time we have tonight, shannon bream has the best analysis and they take it from here, big day of news. shannon: we start with a fox news alert. democrats impeachment inquiry is public, bombshell? we bring you key moments to break down the first two witnesses and tell you what you can expect as the impeachment train rolls on.