from the state department and everywhere else, john solomon, an investigative report that we will break right here on the show. but let not your heart be troubled.we don't go to bars bee laura ingraham is next.in d.c. >> can you save a little tidbit of that and toss me a crumb in the 10:00 hour, because i love solomon. just a little bit of a piece of news, please. >> i'll come on as a guest on your show any night you ask the. >> okay, i am anticipate coming on with you next week. >> and you're coming on tomorrow. awesome show. fantastic show tonight, hannity. i am laura ingraham and this is "the ingraham angle" from washington. tonight, just like last night we are going to bring you some of the most comprehensive breakdowns of everything that transpired today and it'som a l. ken starr and his former deputy sol wisenberg explain why there is no smoking gun on this ukraine transcript.

congress and jim jordan, chris stewart who just read the whistle-blower complaint breakdown the fight on capitol hill. former independent counsel robert ray is also here and why allegations against the biden family are far more serious than what trump is facing. and raymond arroyo has a special impeachment edition of "seen and unseen". that's coming up as well. but first, seven lessons from the past 48 hours. that's the focus of tonight's angle. i read through the rough transcript of the call betweenrs trump and the new ukrainian president, and a few things struck me. number one, there's not a single person in washington with any experience in government, not one, who really believes the president was trying to use the ukrainian government to rig the 2020 election. i don't see how anyone in his or her right mind could legitimately say there is an impeachable offense in this transcript.

in the conversation, trump congratulated volodymyr zelensky on his parliamentary win and said the u.s. would continue to support ukraine,d but he was frustrated that the e.u. isn't doing more. zelensky agreed saying the european union should be our biggest partner. technically, the united states is a much bigger partner. we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next stepat specifically. we're almost ready to buy more javelins from the united states for defense purposes. then, the president responds, "i would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot t about it. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. they say crowdstrike, the server, they say ukraine has it. i would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and i would like you to geten to the bottom of it. whatever you can do it's very important that you do it if that's possible." zelensky then interjected that

one of his assistants had met with giuliani and that the investigation was very important for him, as well. adding "i guarantee that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. that i can assure you." okay, handling investigations openly and candidly. that sounds like an evil plot to me! how nefarious of them.t. there is no quid pro quo and the president never once even hinted that ukrainian aid would be withheld if a further investigation wasn't done. at this point i think it's pretty obvious that the democrats overplayed their hand big time. they based their impeachment move on a whistle-blower who didn't even hear the conversation and who grossly exaggerated what happened in it. which brings me to point number two. the president not only did nothing wrong, het went above d beyond his duty to his office hoping to discover what happened in the lead up to the 2016

election so it never happens to another president again. as we know, the biden story is about far more than just huntery biden making big money in ukraine while daddy was setting ukraine policy. >> i fully support transparency on the so-called whistle-blower information but also insist on transparency from joe biden and his son, hunter, and the millions of dollars that have been quickly and easily taken out of ukraine and china. >> laura: if foreign governments were approached to assist in digging up dirt on trump in the lead up to 2016 that's a big problem. and trump is right. we need to get to the bottom of any election tampering. i thought the democrats wanted to stop election meddling by foreign governments. which takes us to point number three. democrats t don't really care about preventing government corruption. any democrat claiming to be interested in corruption should be outraged by the fact that

biden himself bragged on camera about dangling a foreign aid carrot to get a prosecutor firee when that prosecutor was involved in investigating the company paying his son boatloads of cash.to not a single democrat will even concede that biden's actions at the very least were an obvious conflict of interest? it's extremely telling. >> look, i said, we're leaving in six hours and if the prosecutor is not fired you're not getting the money. son of a [bleep]. he got fired. >> laura: number four. if president trump wanted to pressure ukraine to hurt biden with the intent on improving his own reelection chances, there were a hundred better ways to do it. by the way, ways that wouldn't involve speaking to the ukrainian president on the phone when he knowss that the call is monitored and memorialized by intelligence staffers.ni while the democrats insist trump was pressuring ukraine to

investigate biden, what does the ukrainian president himself say? >> we had, i think, good phone call. it was normal. we spoke about many things. and you read it, that nobody pushed me. >> laura: nobody pushed him. so the principal himself adamant no pressure from trump. the call was normal. nothing out of the ordinary. so are the impeachment dems saying that zelensky here on camera is lying? so it's a trump ukrainian conspiracy in plain sight? now, does this all this kind of sound familiar to any of you? phony collusion claims in 2017 phony pressure claims now. number five. there are no moderates left in thee democratic party. this point is beyond debate.

during the midterms, swing district democrats claimed they were anxious to work with the president. now they are the tips of the impeachment sphere. >> the quid pro quo element doesn't need to be there for this to be a crime. >> this was a line that was crossed for the national security dems and something that we thought the caucus needed to move on. >> while it may be a controversial issue, when you look at the facts and you look at the specific instance, i think it's a total game changer. >> laura: it's a game changer for the democratic party. they are all ilhan omar now. when they are up for reelection next year and they insist, they insist they are moderates who just want government to work again, don't believe them. they must be voted out of office for violating their pledge to be more bipartisan. number six, democrat leadership has totally given up on governing. now, time and again, trump has beaten them at their own game. we've seen it.

i'm beginning to think it's made them -- they are losing it. day after day, they are totally delusional. you know the lunatic hobos who blurt out crazy things and they zigzag in the middle of a crowded intersection? adam schiff kind of sounded like that today. >> what those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader. this is how a mafia boss talkse like any mafia boss, the president didn't need to say that's a nice country you have and it would be a shame if something happened to it. >> laura: the man doesn't even know "the godfather." he doesn't know the movie. he doesn't know what a shakedown is. i still remember, by the way, when the democrats told us they were going to work on health care and infrastructure. they were going to take on the drug companies. they're not going to do any of that. c c which takes us to my seventh and final point. it's's biblical here. democrats are possessed with anti-trump rage. maybe there needs to be an exorcism. they are infuriated that mueller

let them down, that trumpp has beaten them pretty much at every turn. they are obsessed with punishing him and anyone who works for him, anyone who is close to him. think about it. does leadership give impassioned press conferences on their plan. for reining in government waste and fraud and abuse? or improving the economy? no, they save all their emotion and bogus investigations and e angry denunciations of anyone associated with this president. the polls are clear. this is not what americans want. these representatives were notic sent to washington to frustrate the people's will. they were sent to washington to do the people's will. at this point, trump is doing that all on his own. soon, though, it's going to turn to the people. they will have their say and they're going to let washingtong know what it thinks about the job they've done. and, properly framed, the election will be a choice between the democrats, revenge

and resist-style politics or the president's results. unfortunately for pelosi and schiff, you can't impeach your own constituents. and that's the angle. uehere to respond is ken starr former whitewater independent counsel. and sol wisenberg,former white y independent counsel. as i mentioned, the favor trump asked for was help investigating the 2016 election, but hosts at cnn and msnbc chose today and the democrats did, as well, chose today to lie about what that favor pertained. watch. >> trump then asked for a favor. i would like you to do us a favor, he says. that the ukrainian president get his government to investigate joe biden. >> he said, will you do me a favor and investigate vice president biden's son?u will you do me a favor and get involved in the 2020 election? vice president biden is my chief

political opponent. >> laura: lying on national television. just moments ago, aoc repeatedra the lie on cnn. >> what we are talking about here is the president essentially participating in what looks like a series of events that looks like extortion. withholding aid to an ally and then quote-unquote asking for a favor to essentially benefit yourself politically. >> laura: sol wisenberg, what is this really all about? >> well, i think the president while the president showed extremely poor judgment in the phone call, i think you're right that it's a complete exaggeration of the conversation. as i said last night, i don't think it comes close to being an impeachable offense. understanding that the definition of an impeachable offense is somewhat amorphous. it's basically what a majority in congress says is an

impeachable offense, but historically, thematically, i don't think we're there and i think they harm themselves by grossly exaggerating what was said in the conversation. >> laura: ken, my specific question was about this favor. when they reference the favor, they kind of meld it into to investigate hunter biden, joe biden, because he is going to be his opponent in 2020. that was never said. i actually read the transcript like five times today. that's not what is said. if either of you have spoken to the president at length, it's usually a pretty freewheeling conversation in a good way.becas mind. he's thrown in a lot of things there. there are literally telling a falsehoodd night after night after night in many ways but tonight specifically about that fact. ken.gh >> yes, i think that the use of the term favor, it's unfortunate. i agree with sol. one can question the judgment

and the wisdom of the call, but my workd, i think it's a wildly extravagant to say that this somehow constituted a crime, a quid pro quo, seeking of favors, of some sort of effort to affect the election of the uniteded states especially when, and we are all trained to do this, we should do this in literature class. read the entire transcript. the context is one of two world leaders having a conversation including about what europe is not doing. you have to read a lot about what france is not doing. angela merkel is not doing. and contextla is critically important. >> laura: what i have to say to both of you, we've had conversations. presidents having conversations with foreign leaders about corruption all the time.a i mean, this is -- america is forever trying to get our allies or get people who are kind of our allies to do better. as for -- you should be investigating this, it's not out of the ordinary.

when the ukrainian president said, you know, it's normal staff. i think most people have conversations like that at a high-level, 50,000 feet, i don't find it out of the ordinary at all. i really didn't. it didn't surprise me at all. >> let me just add that president zelensky was quite eloquent i thought in this translation talking about he wants honest government. you mentioned the open and candid dimension of it. >> laura: is that not what we want? yeah. i i mean, i don't think we should want anything else.ha >> exactly. you know, laura. >> laura: go ahead, sol. >> sorry to interrupt. i don't know if it's ordinary or not. i'm not usually privy to these conversations, that's part of the problem. but the president says we have aided you a lot and it hasn't been reciprocal. zelensky says some things and then the president says you could do me a favor. you're right, he doesn't talk at all about biden right away but he gets around to biden and f

he mentions biden's son and he mentions it a few times. that's why i say it's unfortunate. it's bad judgment. very bad judgment. but it doesn't come close in my view to being a crime or to being impeachable. and that's the problem. >> laura: we're having words like extortion used. shakedown. these terms are casually thrown around by even lawyers. speaking of lawyers, the media have been desperately trying to tag and drag bill barr, the attorney general, someone we all three of us know quite well. into this fray. take a look. >> is barr going to now recuse himself again? >> i don't see how he can't recuse himself in light of the fact that he's named. >> i think attorney general barr should absolutely recuse. >> how can bill barr not recuse himself? >> level 1 to 10.one being the d

10 being the most likely that the attorney general would recuse himself in this matter. ken, what do you think? >> two to three. i don't get this serious issuew. we now know, we've been informed that the president never reached out to the attorney general directly or indirectly, that the attorney general has had no communications with the ukrainian government about all of this. so we saw this in the russia investigation, the mueller report. the president askedin for something to be done or says something to be done, but it doesn't end up getting done. there's no reason for bill barr to recuse himself. >> laura: sol, hold on one second. folks at cnn today are saying we need a special counsel. they are at a special counsel 2.0. if it weren't so serious, it would be like a "saturday night live" sketch if they had any balanced sense of humor. this is what is being proposed by supposedly serious people.

>> i you know, i never promised never to use -- >> bill barr is implicated in this call, or at least verbally being enlisted to assist in this effort. he's now in charge of evaluating whether this criminal referral has any merit under u.s. law. it'slu a conflict of interest. so, technically, there should be special counsel 2.0. >> laura: we stepped on you a little bit, sol. your thoughts. >> it's okay. i promise never to use this word but all the old troupes, democratic tropes are coming out here. i think he should not recuse himself. i think it's even less than what ken talked about with the mueller report because, in the mueller report, you had a couple instances where the president asked somebody tos do something and they didn't do it, thus protecting him. here the president never talkedo about to barr and never asked barr about anything. however, i think it's very

important, and this, really, of all the things in the conversation that upset me the most, is by mentioning the attorney general who has been very careful to set up the durham investigation. >> laura: which is looking into this, by the way. >> looking into fisa abuse looking into fisa abuse and all the things that happened against president trump in the election. he has put this impeccable person of impeccable reputation career prosecutor in charge of it. the attorney general has set it all up so that we can have confidence in it, and then for the president to say something in this investigation, i'm going to have my attorney general -- it's not --it's not a good thin. >> laura: i think he probably knew -- again, we are all lawyers. i think he probably may be understood that this is being investigated already or was in the process of being investigated and he probably knew at some point they were going to likely talk to him.may- i don't know. but it was like durham versus barr. it's a freewheeling conversation..

i think the fact that we are releasing transcripts of our conversations with foreign leaders, i bet there are a lot of foreign leaders out there who are very unhappy right now and i'm worried about what it's going to do to the presidency. great to have you both on tonight. thank you so much. jim jordan is one of the first congressmen to read the transcript of this call with the ukrainian president. congressman chris stewart just viewed the actual whistle-blower complaint, and they are both here in moments.

by the strolle♪s [ growl ] good boy. hey. hey. you must be steven's phone. know who's on your network and control who shouldn't be with xfinity xfi. simple. easy. awesome.

>> laura: now that the democrats are fully embracing impeachment, we want to take you through the next steps. joining me now, chief fox news national correspondent ed henry. >> good to see you. what is significant would be the numbers. the fact that a majority of the 217 house democrats are saying that they are in favor of some sort of impeachment inquiry. what comes next?t?what is speci? it would be the house judiciary committee drafting articles of impeachment. what's interesting tonight is that there is a split among democrats. you have some democrats saying they want kind of a kitchen sink approach. they want to keep their base completely happy by having articles of impeachment about russia and the mueller probe, about hush payments tot porn stars, and ukraine, as well. there is another camp, and it appears speaker nancy pelosi might be leaning more in this

direction, that wants to keep it narrowly focused on ukraine because they believe they can move quicker on that and it would also keep some of the more moderate democrats who won swing districts, d trump districts, in 2018, on board.if you deep just. but, look at the problem. tworo of those more moderatedema maccallum earlier, and they didn't seem to know what they were for. watch. >> do you have the votes to begin the official inquiry if you were to take a vote right now? >> right now it's not about starting an inquiry. it's about getting to the bottom of this. >> i thought that's what nancy pelosi said yesterday, you are opening an official inquiry those were her words. i think a lot of people want to, why not vote on it if there is such a strong feeling about it. >> i'm happy to take a personal vote on the floor on articles of impeachment, but first we need to understand what if anything happened. >> so you see that they are saying we don't necessarily want an impeachment inquiry. we want investigations, even though there's been investigations of the president

for well over two years. interesting, ted lieu, leading democrat, he said today "we have to act quickly but not in haste." that kind of seems to sum up where democrats are right now. they can't quite decidehow quic. >> laura aren't those synonyms, all right. stay right there. and fox has confirmed about a dozen republican lawmakers were there earlier today to read the transcript of trump's ukraine call before it was released and jim jordan joins me now. chris stewart.the house intel c. he just viewed the actual whistle-blower document and congressman, you have some breaking news for us tonight. >> we know that it's been declassified and it's been released, so it should be available for everyone to look at and i encourage everyone to go look at it.you know, laura, before i went in this morning, i was a little bit anxious. i thought am i going to be surprised? in is there going to be something of this where i go, oh, no.

i can tell you that after reading it i'm much more confident tonight than i was this morning that it's going to be, it's going to go nowhere. there's just no surprises there. the entirety of it is focused on the transcript of one phone call, transcript released this morning. there are some reports from "the wall street journal" andnep from politico and a couple other things, but they are ancillary. they have nothing to do with it. it's this one phone call we've been talking about all day. >> laura: at cnn, one of the other congressmen ran out to cameras after seeing it from your committee, had a different take, surprisingly. let's watch. >> deeply disturbing. reinforces the concerns. the white house is selectively trying to control the spin on stuff, as they did with the special counsel's report. when, all i can tell you is ther

lied about the report. they are doing the very same thing here. >> laura: what i'm confused about and i think a lot of people are, did the whistle-blower see the transcript or was told by a friend? how did this whistle-blower -- i'm curious. >> it's an important question because you would think he did not see it. >> laura: or she. we have wagers about whether it's a woman or a man. >> i want to get on that. he or she did not see it, did not read it, did not hear it. this was all secondhand knowledge.that's just one thing. mr quigly, who just came on and claimed how dramatic it is, it's nonsense. if you think it's dramatic, read the transcript and tell me if you think it's dramatic. i think, and most american people go, what is this about? i don't care if there's 217 democrats voting for impeachment. that doesn't matter. it's the american people that matter. look at what richard nixon did.. look at what bill clinton did. they know intuitively this is wrong, but you have to explainfk

to a foreign leader and ask to investigate corruption, most americans go "i don't get it." where's the crime? >> laura: i thought the democrats cared about corruption.up gcongressman jord, for three years almost you've been talking, they care about corruption. for the angle tonight i said they don't care about it at all. they care about getting power back. >> what chris just said is the central focus of the claims is the transcript that we all read today and nancy pelosi is going to base an impeachment on that document? everyone should read it. i hope your viewers do because there was no quid pro quo and no for any favor. the whistle-blower himself was not, as chris just said, had no firsthand knowledge and wasn't part of the call and i bet he hasn't even seen the transcript until today. but he did have a political bias against the president, that was clear. he told the inspector general he was out to get the president. >> so that's what they're basing it all on. >> laura: is there any of that in this complaint? do you have any understanding about the political bias? >> people are going to be able to read it. if you read it, it is snarky and

it claims something expansive that at the end of the day -- >> laura: it sounds like the whistle-blower is doing what some of the democrats are doing in discussing what this is all about. i mean, it's a spin, always the worst possible light for the president. >> for sure. you can read it. it's pretty clear. >> laura: how long is it? >>u six or seven pages. >> laura: is that handwritten notes? interview notesdeeped up? what is it? laughing. >> it's funny, we're kind of laughing. it looks like a fusion gps product. it's a very well organized, well written document that makes one supposition.but, again, it's all based on this one thing. >> laura: so it is the phone call. t it's not multiple other events? earlier this week, there were multiple events involving this. this is wild. >> and arguable political bias. who talks like that? you don't know that sounds like? remember when they went to the

fisa court and talked about the dossier candidate a, candidate b.that's exactly what this souns like.an this is what nancy pelosi wants to base an impeachment inquiry on? president zelensky said he wasn't pushed. he said in a conversation i want to drain the swamp in ukraine just like you're draining it here.krmr. president. >> laura: in russia they say [speaking russian] it was like that. fromou just heard congressman stewart that we have this complaint, it's all released, unredacted, declassified. you have the transcript which now they're complaining about saying it's not really a transcript. it's a conspiracy of the transcribers now. so what are you hearing tonight? are they worried they might hava been over their skis a little bit, the democrats. >> some democrats might be because of something

congressman stewart just said, the whistle-blower complaint was largely about the phone call that we have now seen this transcript on. laura, you said there were news reports claiming that the whistle-blower complaint was a whole lot more than the phone call. a series ofur incidents that may be led this whistle-blower to complain, to speak out and say that there was a whole series of problems with the president. congressman stewart now saying it's largely about the call. i spoke to a senior administration officials tonight who told me that the other stuff the whistle-blower talks about in the complaint is largely stuff you could've gotten from news clippings. stuff that's been in the public domain. remember, and if the congressman can confirm it, originally a lot of people in the media presented this a couple days ago as this whistle-blower inside the government saw things, you know, sort of up close that really alarmed him or her. but instead i'm hearing from a senior administration official this quote-unquote whistle-blower heard about the call secondhand but heard about other things already in the public domain, not stuff that

that whistle-blower has firsthand knowledge of. >> laura: you can get lots of lawyers in washington, they are a dime a dozen, but isn't it a democrat activist lawyer for the whistle-blower? >> it's not largely based on the transcript. it's entirely based. there are some reports, politico and the new york times. >> laura: these are legitimateel supposedly media organizations.. >> zero, nothing was firsthand knowledge of any of it. >> laura: none of this is an impeachable offense. it's ludicrous. it's looney tunes central. i'm telling you, this is like i'm thinking of looney tunes cartoons.remember, the little c. panel, fantastic conversation as always. thank you for the breaking news congressman jordan, ed. when trump is pushing for transparency in this whole ukraine ordeal, you would think some people would like get that corruption. but there's just one big mystery still left. where isis hunter biden? "the ingraham angle" investigates next.

>> laura: joe biden's son hunter is smack dab in the middle of this whole ukraine controversy. i'm asking where the world is hunter biden? why aren't journalists desperately trying to find him interview him, staking outrn his location, where he lives? have they hung up their pens and pads? are they out of the news business altogether? not one media member finds it odd that hunter biden joined a ukrainian energy company,

burisma, despite having zero oil and gas expertise? in>> there is no evidence of anything having to do with joe biden or his son. the president is speaking as if there is. the president is hoping that you will get distracted by that. >> laura: none of them wonder why he got paid an astronomical $600,000 a year fee to consult? >> their strategy is now to try to put the onus on joe biden to in fact distract and attack. >> laura: surely red flags would go up when joe biden bragged about getting the prosecutor investigating his son's company fired, right? >> joe biden's issue has been looked at for a long time. there's been findings that there is no improper involvement. this is a distraction. >> laura: [laughs] nothing to see here. the real distraction is the media's refusal to cover this story. joining me now, robert ray, former whitewater independent counsel. byron

york correspondent for the "washington examiner," fox news contributor. robert, from an investigator standpoint, all your experience in the legal world, one the most respected lawyers out there isn't the biden angle more troubling than what trump is accused of? maybe having some, you know exuberance or ken starr and sol were saying bad judgment to bring it up in a phone call. being accused of that versus what biden did? >> if anybody exercised mafia-like tactics to strong arm the ukrainians, it was joe biden.li now, what the purpose of all of that was, i suppose, is subject still to some debate. i do know that rudy giuliani feels very strongly that there is not only smoke out there in the ukraine but fire, as well,

as to what exactly was going on with our "where'ss waldo" candidate, hunter biden. although i do think, if i can differ with you for just a moment, as an investigator or otherwise, my sense is, if joe biden remains the leading contender for the democratic nomination, and i r have my dous about whether or not that will continue, because this is going to implode on everybody. i don't think this issue is going to drop, and hunter biden and the vice president's role in all of this is going to be looked at whether in an official capacity or an investigative capacity by journalists. this is an irresistible subject matter, and it will be delved into. >> laura: apparently, durham of course the special prosecutor looking into this, is now we found out today looking into the ukraine aspect of this pre-2016 you know, all this funny

business going on with perhaps the dossier and other dirt digging on president trump. >> that seemed to be what the president was hinting at. butng i'm not entirely sure i understand how that related. but somebody -- the only way i think that would have been obvious to the president would have been as a result of his discussions with rudy giuliani. >> laura: the crowdstrike issue. >> maybe knows more than we do and ultimately somebody's going to find out about it. >> laura: let's go to byron. byron, this has been a wild 48 hours. seven lessons from 48 hours, it could have been 20. this has been whipped up into an absolute frenzy. hunter biden, find it odd that he's not even giving an interview to a friendly news organization. where is he? where does he live? >> i don't know r i don't know. >> we've been tracking him and, #*b apparently, last sighted in california, has lived in other locations. maybe lived overseas for a while

but he's living in california. >> we don't have what are called stake outs outside someone's house? ken starr would know a lot about that. it happened every day. actually today james lankford the republican senator on the intelligence committee in the senate said that an investigation of all this would have to start with the bidens because we hear all the time that there's absolutely noan evidence that joe biden did any of the stuff and yet we don't get the sense that people are digging very hard for it. so it's going to have to change if democrats go ahead with what they are saying they are going to do which is to impeach the w president on this ukraine issue. >> laura: again, the fact that hunter biden has not appeared to give an interview on morning jou or, like a friendly forum where they maybe have coffee in the morning and hang out with herri your friend. it's bizarre, strange. >> he did do a story with the new yorker a few weeks ago and everybody thought it was kind of a preemptive story to tryto getf news they could out.

>> laura: it wasn't great. >> it wasn't good but itprobabl, either. >> laura: not complete. i want to get back to this. menendez, durbin, leahy wrote to ukraine demanding that they cooperate with investigations into the trump campaign. they heavily implied their support was to aid -- their aid to ukraine was at stake in all of this. so, ironically, robert ray, this is the exact behavior democrats say is an impeachable offense even without the explicit quid pro quo that you could say in a way exists with the democrat senators. what is this we are talking about? >> what this is about of course is about politics and much less about whether or not really there is an impeachable offense. i just listened recently ont another network to aoc essentially claim that a basis for impeachment is deviation t from our norms of democracy. we don't impeach presidents based upon deviation from

norms. >> laura: the must havee missed that in law school. >> and then the outer edges of their commentators claiming that this phone call represents the demise of our democracy. i'm sorry. i beg to differ. there is no quid pro quo. there is no treason. there is no bribery because the federal bribery statute doesn't apply to foreign government officials.there's no extortion e there is no quid pro quo and there is no illegal campaign contribution because it's a department of justicewe learnedy appropriately found asking somebody to open investigation does not constitute a thing of value. >> thank you, thank you. >> so end of story, there is no crime. >> laura: done, end of story. byron, real quick. we are out of time. where will it go next? will they hit the magic number?e articles of empeachment. >> they are going to hit the magic number but the question is in 1998, the house voted to open a formal impeachment inquiry. 31 democrats sided with republicans voting that way about bill clinton. nancy pelosi does not want to do

that now. the rules do not require her to do that, but at some time, some democrats will have to cast a vote on this issue. >> laura: and they will have to go home to their constituents. most districts, swing areas especially, key states do not want to. byron, robert, phenomenal analysis. the impeachmentit gamut is ingested political play. it could cost them. how much are they risking? doug schoen has all the details next.

>> laura: so what will the followed be if the democrats fail in this impeachment gambit of theirs? joining me now, doug d g schoen former advisor to president clinton. harmeet dhillon, fox news contributor.2020 advisory board. doug, explain for our audience exactly what the democrats'esta. >> they stand to lose the presidency and the house.n they could blow it all. and i worked for bill clinton in '98 and i saw the republicans overreaching on impeachment then. it hurt them in the '98 congressional elections when we ran on progress, not politics. you saw the video that's been shown of the democrats widely decrying the republicans overreaching and having read the transcripts, heard about what

the whistle-blower said, there's no slam-dunk here. if they go forward with impeachment inquiry, which i don't think it's clear yet, but if they gonqnq forward and then vote, it could be curtains for the democrats. and for joe biden, this is calamitous news because this precludes him getting any positive message out. >> laura: i'm going to get to what's going too happen in certain swing districts in a second, but harmeet, nancy pelosi, 1998 she was basically saying that the american people don't want this, don't need it. it's fun to see nancy 20 years ago. we all looked younger. people are paralyzed with hatred, okay, because of their impeachment quest. pot meet kettle. harmeet, any irony here?those o. >> irony i think is beyond these folks. they are unprincipled and desperate and it's reflected in their actions here. i've been saying for the last three years nancy pelosi has been one of the voices of reason in the democratic party. she's very shrewd. i don't think she wanted to do

this but i think she felt like she was being cornered by the left-wing of her party and she gave in. t i think it's going to go down in history as one of the dark days of her political judgment and in going along with this because as doug just said, the american people don't want it. the facts don't support it. this whistle-blower complaint sounds to me like it was written by fusion gps. and it's really going to end up drawing very negative attention to the front runner in the democratic race and really undermine the credibility. >> laura: okay, take biden out of it. every poll including the newest ones released today, quinnipiac, we will put the numbers up. it's not where people want to go. this is it. it's this transcript.. wewe heard the whistle-blower complaint is based on that transcript.we that's it. okay? look at these numbers. look at these numbers for registered voters only 37% want impeachment.the people that areo vote.

doug, let's skip to orange county. let's go to orange county a little bit down the coast from harmeet. she's up in san fran with the fun people.down in orange counte swing districts, we were all kind of demoralized republicans, all these republican districts all flipped democrat. they all promise to be bipartisan. we are going to work with the president where we can agree. they have done none of that and now they're all voting for impeachment? how is that going to work for california? are you kidding me? >> those districts were very very close. two and three in orange county the democrats won by 1% or less and candidly, given those independent numbers which were 34 yes, 58 no, it's a red flag and i want the democrats to win laura. you know that. i worked for some of those through an independent expenditure. this would be a really bad move forr those democrats. >> laura: they already came now the favors of this inquire rye. they've already given the nod. >> they haven't voted yet.they .

>> laura: i think, harmeet you have to force a vote but my guess, if i have to guess and it's just a guess, pelosi is going to step back from this cliff. she is smarter than this. it can't be this easy for us,fo. >> laura, these lemmings are rushing over the cliff while nancy is trying to slow play it. i don't think she can stop this train. i think she wants to. but i think they've gone too far. >> laura: got to go, got to go. aoc says it's extortion. that's it, end of story.she's g. coming up, raymond arroyo is here with a special "seen and unseen" impeachment a edition.

>> time for our "seen and unseen" segment. raymond arroyo and i go head-to-head. you've heard of a bake-off, this is an impeach-off. ray, you looked at the media coverage of this entire bogus claim of wrongdoing and this phone callf they say rises to impeachment. >> we rooked at the way the

media covered the last presidential impeachment. watch the restraint, the caution, even the emmaty the media had when bill clinton was the subject of congressional inquiry in 1991234508 in washington this evening, the supporters of the president of reeling. >> much of the focus in washington son tharying of his videotaped grand jury testimony. >> shortly after the jurors were sworn, the president unveiled a new education proposal. >> after a lifetime of striving forr a celebrated rank of american president this diligent student of history was handed his place. >> that is hill lar zeus compare that to the -- hilarious. compare that to lately. >> this came up a few minutes ago -- >> really, the president isn't telling the truth. >> this is worse than i think people expected. >> republicans on the hill

loathe, loathe, i can't say it enough, they loathe donald trump. >> they loathe the media and this, that flash back is worth of price of admission. >> had n is judge, jury and executioner. the media showed such restraint, caring and empathy when they reported bill clinton, , this is why, i believe when you look at the polls, they found of all the institutions of america the press was lowest in confidence among people. >> laura: shocker. >> raymond: and it is dropping, news list co compiled a list of 81 things president trump should be impeached for. because he called some countries s-holes. because the virginia governor wore black face. and for creating chaos. they've done a horrible job of explaining impeachable defenses

and offered silly offenses up and they go unchallenged. >> we should do on other impeach off. i guess the back face was about northham. >> trump somehow inspired northham back in college days. >> that doesn't even make sense. an imoff, ail go first. the president wore golf attire into a church in northern virginia, clearly breaching presidential protocol and offensives to god, man and the constitution. >> i believe the president shamelessly subverted an under mined authority of the park service when heic allowed this 11-year-old civilian to cut the white house lawn in 2017. did he break under aged worker laws? did the president pay taxes on the tip he gave the child. a congressional inquiry of lawn gate is needed. >> did he pay taxes on the tip? what about thing length of his

ties,bo raymond. i find itable that the tie goes a lily the belt, meaning in a fire emergency cocause danger to other business tripping and would cause harm to the nation. clearly an impeachable offense. >> what if last week we saw the photographic evidence the president is careless with money. look at this video. no wallet, no paper clip no money clip, no rubber band, the president just shoved currency in his back pocket, clearly he is ready to bribe somebody. they will have to immediately inquire. >> won the impeach-off. >> thank you.

..

♪ >> laura: it's time for the last >> time for the last bite. while she is surging in the polls and the media isn't held

by her every word, elizabeth ward was caught off guard when a reporter asked her this. >> with your vice president spy on policy's phone conversations. >> i have to go back and look. >> can i buy a vowel. he doesn't have a plan for that. good for that reporter. we will find out who that is. shannon bream, take it from here. >> we will find something. we begin with a fox news alert. the focus turns to the whistleblower and acting director of national intelligence set to testify in just hours. we are digging in about the details of what the whtl