us. you do make this show number one. we cannot thank you enough. we will never be the hate-11 media mob. let not your heart be troubled. laura ingraham is next. enjoy your weekend. ♪ >> laura: i'm laura ingraham, this is "the ingraham angle" from washington tonight and as "the new york times" reports, the possibility of a second whistle-blower, two big revelations might be blowing holes into the first one's case. former cia chief, will explain later on. remember the ukrainian company that hunter biden got a sweetheart contract from, it turns out the ukrainian government is interested in investigating them. some breaking details on that tonight with peter sweitzer. also tonight, aoc held a town hall in her district last night that quickly went off the rails. raymond arroyo has all the highlights and more in friday

folly. but first, we want to explain to you exactly what is going on, the very latest. in last night "angle," we showed you how time after time the democrats hype and hyperbole keep blowing up in their faces. everything is a crisis, every minute of the day is a new crisis. you've got a watch, this time the president -- you know how it goes. it's almost as if we telegraphed their next move last night because they ramped up a new narrative just after we went off the air. late last night democratic congressman adam schiff, elijah cummings raised a trough of cherry picked text messages from kurt vulgar. without a complete transcript of the testimony, these partisan are arsonists knew darn well these texts were out of context and by looking at them in isolation they would paint the most

damning picture imaginable and they watched the deep state sharks circle. >> text messages between themselves and others who were aware of them. that is essential corroboration to improve in time. speak these text messages advance the story quite a bit. >> the text messages do a very good job of showing that there was a quid pro quo. >> you don't even need the whistle-blower once you have these texts. >> laura: it's just all over. thanks. so what did happen in the testimony? sources are already telling fox it completely upends the left's narrative here. first, he testified that ukraine wasn't pressure to investigate the bidens. they never raised the issue of a quid pro quo and they didn't see trump's july 25th call as inappropriate. "i know time was i pressured to take part with ukraine to investigate joe biden." that is not all. volker also said that calls to

investigate the 2016 elections would not be improper. finally, he also testified that president trump's concerns about ukrainian corruption were completely valid, given the history of that country. now we know full well why schiff and his pals released those text messages. they knew the narrative they were pushing was going to take a hit by volker's own testimony. as we said last night, these democrats think it's fine to yell fire in a crowded theater and the theater is america. so long as there are political opponents get charted in the process, no problem. here to respond, former deputy independent counsel, fox news contributor and robert driscoll, former doj official, how damaging is volker's testimony, just focus for a moment on the quid pro quo narrative that was sold relentlessly. >> you know, i don't know if you

know yet, but one of my colleagues at nelson mullins now represents mayor rudy giuliani in a limited role. i am in an abundance of caution, i shouldn't comment on that. i will say that i'm very disturbed by the way the impeachment inquiry is going forward. particularly with the demands for white house documents, and they appear to be on a very, very fast tracked that is a very dangerous >> laura: let me go into that since this must've been a late-breaking development, every law firm, it seems like every law firm gets conflicted out of discussing issues coming from an old big law for myself, i understand. let me get bob into this conversation but first, this is what happened today and you're referring to the subpoena for the white house for documents. this is from the "l.a. times" account of this, but this is a letter from the house to the white house that accompanied the subpoena. "the white house has refused to engage with or even respond to

multiple requests for documents from our committees on a voluntary basis after nearly a month of stonewalling, it appears clear that the president has chosen the path of defiance, obstruction, and cover up." top democrats wrote in a letter to trump's acting chief of staff staff. take a bite of that apple and then we will get into bob driscoll. >> keep in mind that presidential power, the laws absolutely clear on this, presidential power and privilege is at its height when you are talking about two things. when you're talking about foreign affairs and when you are talking about white house personnel and documents. they don't want to litigate this, the house democrats. they could've litigated it much earlier, as soon as they took power. they know it would take too long to litigate now and they know they will probably lose so what it looks like they are trying to do is simply demand these documents and when the white house doesn't turn them

over, say you know what, that is just another grounds for impeachment. as a constitutional matter i think it is just a farce. >> laura: bob, i want to go with you because using the language of obstruction i think it is very key. and cover up. hearkening back to the nixon impeachment. this is a why this language is used in the letter, but is that like burning the tapes, like going out and telling someone to lie to a committee? is that what happened in the nixon case, which clearly this is what they are trying to hearken back to in this letter tonight. the white house counsel's office basically gave them the heisman on the request for these documents. speak of the white house is taking the position all white houses take where there's alwaya dispute about congressional power when congress wants documents from the white house. the white house is entitled to matter saying you are in an area that the president has the upper hand in foreign policy.

foreign policy is kind of where the presidential power is at its apex and we are not going to revive these documents. that is not obstruction, that is simply asserting a legal right in the right to be vindicated in court but exactly right, the democrats don't want to do that because it wouldn't be resolved until the next election anyway and the whole point of impeachment is to get impeachment out in front of the election. they are setting it up likely to add another article of impeachment for obstruction but that is not -- obstruction is when there is a subpoena out there and you start shredding documents or you bleach your server when the subpoena is upstanding. that would be obstruction. >> laura: i'm getting all excited because nobody has said this on tv tonight. nobody has made the point you just made, saul can get into this conversation too much but this is elementary law school -- this is like con law 101. criminal procedure 101. this is what you learned your

first month of law school. this is bogus and it is absurd. anyone with a shred of credibility in the legal profession knows it and this indicates one more that it is a complete farce. hold on. >> every discovery dispute in litigation, of which there are many, would result in an obstruction of justice charge and that is not the case. >> laura: you fight every document, you're obstructing justice. okay. >> that is not what nixon, very specific -- >> laura: it's absurd. precious time. republican senator ron johnson set off a media frenzy today after it was revealed that he knew of the quid pro quo allegation and then he supposedly confronted trump about it. watch. >> the u.s. ambassador to the e.u. told him there was a quid pro quo. ron johnson had also heard of a quid pro quo. >> ron johnson comes out today and says, he told me there is a quid pro quo. >> laura: what none of those

commentators mentioned, though, is what was in paragraph four of that "wall street journal" article. he actually have to read the news story. and now johnson recalled bringing it up to trump and that the president said the followin following, no way, i would never do that, who told you that? bob, it seems pretty convenient to leave that detail out, does it not? >> it does, the overreach has been unbelievable. what is unfortunate is that we are left in two camps, which is either impeach the guy tomorrow which is where the democrats are asked, or nothing the president can do is improper. i mean if there were her." there might be an issue but the president has clearly denied it. >> laura: everyone has denied it. i want to get into this gambit that was made about forcing

nancy pelosi to call for an impeachment resolution, and actual resolution, there is some debate if that is what ultimately happened. if the white house says we don't call this a legitimate, you need to have a vote, which basically they have said. is that a risky gamble? you may be force the hand and he definitely is impeached or do you think it doesn't matter? >> you're just talking about a formal vote on whether or not to proceed and i think that it makes with the democrats are doing in the house look ridiculous if they are not even willing to stand up and say, look, all we want to do is look into this. we authorize looking into it. what it says to me is that despite the head count on television is that they don't have the votes to do that. is it constitutionally required? no but i think it really lessens the legitimacy and brings home the illegitimacy of what the democrats are doing. i think they're going to lose, lose a lot here not only in the public arena but if these

matters do get litigated in court i could very easily see a court saying, you know what, is this an impeachment inquiry or five different committees who all of a sudden say we are calling it an impeachment? i think she would be in a much stronger position if she did call for a vote but i don't think she's got the vote. >> laura: bob, do you agree that the posture of this is very curious? it's almost like you are half man, half out. what is this here? >> the problem for the democrats is that there is an issue called legislative purpose. most things that congress does have to have a legislative purpose behind it. they are supposed to be legislators. they aren't free roaming investigators investigating whatever they want. the power increases a little bit if it were an impeachment inquiry, and if they are on weaker ground. art of trump's defense on the tax return investigation has been that congress has tried to use a law enforcement function and there is no legislative purpose to what they

are doing. you will see that argument again if the house doesn't have a vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry which would give them certain rights to have an actual impeachment inquiry. >> laura: fascinating, both of you. and while democrats spent on the road towards impeachment, it seems to be in some ways backfiring, at least with swing state voters. cnn spent yesterday scouring for impeachment to support us but came up with this instead. >> six months ago he thought joe biden might be an option. now he says push for impeachment has him supporting the president more than ever. >> there is one thing now and one thing only and that is to try to impeach the president. >> laura: last week msnbc interview to new hampshire and voter who also wasn't sold on the impeachment hysteria.

>> we do deals with countries all the time, we talk to people from different countries all the time, that is his job. >> laura: chairman of the american conservative union and mark levine, radio talk show host. all right, did democrats forget about swing state voters before they started to tiptoe down the road towards impeachment? >> i think you've seen two videos of two voters and their points of view but the fact is the support for impeachment has grown dramatically, by 13% in just a week. the point we are in now, more people support the impeachment inquiry of this president then of richard nixon. a majority of americans support the impeachment inquiry. when nixon started it was only 38%. >> laura: you think not responding to document requests is akin to obstruction? are you going to make that argument because mark >> i think if republicans argue there is no quid pro quo, they should want no cover-up at all. they should say they want trump

to say, we've got nothing to hide, turn it over! >> laura: so the white house should never protect its own branch of government customer if that never happened with the executive branch. >> i was troubled by the idea of releasing the transcripts because once world leaders know that the contents of conversations, private conversations can be leaked, that is a big problem. but let me talk about the whole problem with this impeachment that people aren't talking about is that bill clinton was impeached and richard nixon would've been impeached after they have been reelected. they were years away from another presidential campaign. we have another presidential campaign a year away and that is why the smells of politics. if you don't like trump, don't vote for him, don't make the country go through this process, getting into a presidential race. >> laura: i just think it looks to me that the democrats are not quite as confident of their chances next november, as much as nancy says it's not about politics, there's no -- this is about the constitution. >> she resisted it the whole

time. you said democrats shouldn't cherry pick the evidence. don't cherry pick. bring it all out to light. i think the intelligence committee should of had the hearings in public. i think the public -- >> laura: were you arguing that when eric holder refused to turn over documents? >> i think people should be consistent and i think people should obey congressional subpoenas. the united states versus nixon. at the supreme court is that you cannot cover up a criminal conspiracy. >> laura: right, but there is no conspiracy -- >> but we don't know that yet until you turn over the documents. >> what crimes were alleged, tell me. >> the crime is soliciting aid from a foreign country -- >> laura: go to the transcript. >> because he solicited interference from a foreign country. >> laura: in the transcript? >> yes. >> laura: okay.

>> two days ago, adam schiff. >> laura: this is the conversation. i'm going to play the whole transcript, the actual transcript. they are talking about the missiles and so forth, we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next step, specifically were almost ready to buy more for the united states for defense purposes. did you know with the javelins are? >> yeah, they are tanks. because russia invaded ukraine. >> laura: where they are part of our aid package? >> yes. >> laura: no, they are not part of our aid package. >> $91 million in military aid. we've given it to them before. to be when i'm making a point. i don't expect everyone to know everything. this was a military purchase that was authorized in april before he got in. he was asking -- this is not aid. they are buying this from us. >> i want you to do us a favor,

though. >> laura: he didn't say he wouldn't sell it. >> but he said "i want you to do us a favor. >> laura: i want you to do us a favor because our country has been a lot and ukraine is a lot about it. i want you guys to figure out what has happened here. you are surrounding yourself and some of the same people, i would like you to have the attorney general call your people. i would like you to get to the bottom of this." where did he say he was making military aid contingent upon "digging up dirt on joe biden." where did he say that? >> to everyone on the show, all your readers should go look at the text of volker -- >> let's do that. >> let me finish. she asked me question. if you read the text you will see a quid pro quo and i will tell you up who knows it, senator ron johnson of wisconsi wisconsin. someone is going to have to

testify. this is "the wall street journal" ." >> laura: "the wall street journal" -- >> read "the wall street journal" ." >> if we are going to be consistent with republicans and democrats, if quote you cited as a crime committed by trump, what about what obama did with amanda ford investigation? what about what biden did with hunter biden investigation? >> laura: panel, we could do a whole hour. thank you so much. new details tonight that raise serious questions about the credibility of the whistle-blower, whose complaint actually kicked this whole thing off. plus peter schweizer reacts to breaking news about ukraine now saying that they will look into the center of all of this as part of a wide-ranging look at corruption across the border. that's later tonight.

♪ >> laura: breaking new details tonight are raising serious questions about the credibility of the whistle-blower who sparked this entire impeachment farce. first former u.s. special envoy to ukraine, kurt volker's testimony contradicted the whistle-blower's complaint against the president. we noted earlier that he told congress "at no time was i aware of or took part in an effort to urge ukraine to investigate former vice president biden." but the whistle-blower claim volker advised ukrainians on how to navigate trump's demand to do that. that's not all. today intel community ig michael atkins and revealed the whistle-blower did not disclose the fact that he or she contacted adam schiff's aid. he also said the whistle-blower had a prior working relationship with a "prominent democrat." what does that mean? and does this damage the credibility of the entire

complaint customer joining me now was the former cia station chief who served for a dozen years at various really important overseas posts. scott, you are extremely worried that this entire ordeal could damage the cia's credibility. why? >> absolutely, we've a situation where whistle-blower was basically able to file an unjustified report that was apparently backed up by people in the cia. this individual, a mid-level functionary, thought he could basically put the president on rapport and not face any kind of professional examination afterwards. i think this shows that the climate of the cia and other government agencies has become excessively partisan and libera liberal. >> laura: i have to say there is also now an attempt to completely cast off the need for a quid pro quo, so initially it was quid pro quo, now that has

completely fallen apart, so this is what rachel maddow said about the need for it. watch. speak of the quid pro quo doesn't really matter, is an aggravating factor but that is not it. soliciting a foreign government to help in your election campaign is an impeachable offense and it is also a crime. >> laura: he didn't say help me, it was in general. this is just, again, saying something that is not in the transcript. and what are the are moving a little bit towards impeachment perhaps. >> rachel maddow has a tenuous grasp on reality at this point. exactly, the president was merely exercising his options as indicated by the constitution to conduct foreign policy. nothing he said had anything to do with intelligence in any way, shape, or form, and by definition, that is the type of revelations that justify an intelligence ig report.

>> laura: if it is a whistle-blower or leaker, i think at this point it is just a leaker. if someone wants to be detailed to the white house in the future as a cia staffer think they're going to have a difficult time getting that assignment because nobody's going to trust the cia details of their whole job is to become little moles inside the white house and then get themselves even anonymous notoriety through various channels. thank you. >> exactly. >> laura: thank you, i appreciate it tonight. president trump is not taking his foot off the pedal when it comes to joe and hunter biden to foreign entanglements. >> he is pillaging these countries and he is hurting us! this doesn't pertain to anything but corruption. how that has to do with me. i don't care about politics, i don't care about anything. but i do care about corruption. how would you like to have, as an example, joe biden

negotiating the china deal if he took it over from me? he would give them everything. how would you like to have that? joe biden would just roll out the red carpet. >> laura: that of course forced biden to spend the day defending his son's overseas transactions and his own conduct. >> this is not about me, this is not about my son. there is not a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing. i'm a former vice president. i know what occurred. i know what occurred in terms of china, i know what occurred in terms of russia. this is a president trying to get two of our most serious competitors and not allies to decide this election. >> laura: the ukraine top prosecutor deciding to reopen past corruption cases, many of them including the firm that paid hunter biden a small fortune. joining us now, author of "eager empires," is this real or just

meant to curry favor with american leadership? >> i wouldn't put a lot of credence into and i will tell you why, this is important in the context of president trump's conversation with president zelensky. he came to power with a strong financial backing of the ukrainian oligarch. he is widely believed in ukraine to be partly involved, in fact own for reason, so the fact that he would actually investigate a company that their chief factors are involved in is remote. that is why we need to have the department of justice and americans at the helm of this investigation to find out exactly what went on. >> laura: in other words, don't feel like just because they say we are on it, no worries, keep the aid coming, that is just not going to happen. people also realize, they are

not dealing with extremely sophisticated, developed countries, levels of checks and balances. these are still in some ways very renegade former soviet republics trying to find their way. >> that is a great point, laura. both in the case of china and ukraine, these two countries were hunter biden cashed in. they are two of the most corrupt countries in the world. somebody made the statement once that what goes on and ukraine would make a nigerian blush because of nigeria's reputation for corruption. the notion that there is going to be some kind of serious, detached investigation is simply not going to happen. i think that has to be factored in. that is why it's right to get the department of justice involved in this. >> laura: the only way to get to the answers on this. quickly, joe biden was out there today on the campaign trail, pushing off all these accusations. >> reporter: how would your role as vice president and your involvement in ukraine in your son's job in ukraine, how would

that not of been a conflict of interest? >> it is not a conflict of interest. there is no indication of any conflict of interest, period. i'm not going to focus on that. let's focus on the problem. focus on this man. >> laura: very upset. is he telling the truth? >> how was it not a conflict of interest, joe biden is handing out western aid and his side is cashing in from some of the recipients of western aid. of course it is a conflict of interest. this is basic government 101. >> laura: his son didn't get the position until after, ten days after the trip, it's always ten days later. come on. if hunter biden was supremely experienced in this area and had worked for decades, then maybe it wouldn't be good, but peter, thank you very much. good to see you tonight and coming up, another cloud that

terrorizes your children on purpose. a town hall circus. that was in new york. raymond arroyo and a lot more. friday folly is next.

♪ >> laura: it's friday and that means it's time for an aoc town hall turned into a mini circus. joining us all with the antics

is raymond arroyo, fox news contributor. i remember a few years ago, hearing about this wrinkles the clown character terrorizing people in florida. i understand he is back? >> he never really went away. this all started with a piece of viral video and it showed this freaky looking clown spooking kids for pay. the idea is you scare misbehaving kids into the straight and narrow. there is now a documentary the wrinkles that shows how far parents have gone peter doocy him there coming out, scary >> laura: oh, my gosh, . >> i need you to come get these kids. i've got a child who is misbehaving. >> you don't know if he is trying to kill you. putting them in a situation. you've got to be a fan of wrinkles. he is real.

>> look, they called this guy up, they invite him over, i would call this poop your pants scary. but suggesting that wrinkles is a 65-year-old rhode island veteran living in a trailer, the documentary tells a different story. >> laura: let me just say that someone, when i was little, i checked under the bed every night and in the closet. i was terrified of the dark when i was little. >> were you scared of clowns? >> laura: slightly. i don't like puppets, clowns, dolls, i thought they were scary. they will come at you in the middle of the night with knives. barbie, i didn't like the hair that grew. >> getting back to wrinkles. the problem with wrinkles, the documentary tells a tale of who he really is or isn't. but that is irrelevant. how parents use to this clown -- >> laura: its child abuse. >> i'm calling again for a kid,

i think you need to come get him. he's acting up again. he wants to talk to you. talk, talk. >> i'm sorry. >> you what? >> i'm sorry. >> i mean they are terrorizing their children psychologically. >> laura: are they not able to discipline their children without a demonic clown? >> i guess not but the clown shows up at the house, in the backyard. >> laura: how much does wrinkles get per appearance? >> he says he makes more money doing this routine that he did playing the party circus. clowns have gotten awfully dark. they used to be silly like bozo the clown or emmett kelly. then things changed. >> laura: oh! oh, no. i did not care -- ronald mcdonald. listen, people like ronald mcdonald but ronald mcdonald was not my favorite. i love mcdonald's but i don't

care for that. >> then there was the joker and of course a penny wise from "it." and now you have joaquin phoenix's joker. at the latest movie, the darkest clown of them all. it opens this weekend and it tells the nihilistic back story of batman's nemesis. he is a mentally disturbed and when gotham city cuts its budget he loses his meds and his doctor. >> i've some bad news for you. >> [laughs] >> this is the last time we will be meeting. >> there is a lesson here. he just asks the same questions every week. how is your job, are you having any negative thoughts, all i have are negative thoughts. >> of his meds, he turns into a

mass murderer psychopath. the u.s. service members have been warned to be on high alert because of this movie. they're worried it will inspire other acts of violence and as you can see it justifies these mass murderers. >> laura: i've got to say, i'm old-fashioned, i like the grounds of the jungle and make you laugh. clowns that come at you with knives -- >> jerry lewis and emmett kelly were my kind of clown spirits be. >> laura: remember chuckles the clown? >> a character on mary tyler moore. it's not a cloud, cloud, we looked all day and couldn't find a picture. >> laura: there is a whole seen on youtube of mary tyler moore. >> joaquin phoenix as i don't think it is the responsibility of the filmmaker to teach morality or the difference between right and wrong. he's halfway right but it is the responsible of filmmakers and storytellers to present a moral universe that is coherent, and

this adulation of villains like the joker, like maleficent where you rehabilitate the evil characters and make them the heroes is a real problem. >> laura: i think they are fresh out of ideas is what i think. i think they go back and -- >> kill off all the heroes. >> laura: courage, honor, valor, the brave thing. >> speaking of clowns, aoc town hall turned into a bit of a circus. nearly every response she used what must've been like the word of the day. >> we have to step back, light, the fact that you can name individuals, if you are like, who has power in america, like, that's all of it in a nutshell. one thing i just want to say is like -- i'm like throwing back a lot of people -- a lot of people are like, -- i'm like a consolidating -- and they are putting wolves in charge of the henhouse. >> laura: i do this with my kids. she is young and she is learning and she is the brain trust of

the democrat party and she is very charismatic. and it's like, and it's like. the koch brothers, i think we have the sound bite where it's like, the koch brothers are running everything but one of them passed away and i forgot or didn't know. >> people talk about the role of money in politics, who here has heard of the koch brothers? everyone has heard of the koch brothers, brother, brothers. right, there is one now. >> cherry coke or newco? she wasn't sure. >> laura: the country is run by just a few families, the walls, the koch brothers. you left out tom steyer, he left out bloomberg, let's go down the list. george soros. >> watch those clowns this weekend. to be [laughs] scary. this week alone we saw a u.s. congresswoman tele police chief that certain employees must be black and another race hoax that

the media happily gobbled up. a fiery debate in a moment.

♪ >> need to be african-american, not people that are not. let me tell you, no, it happens all the time. it's true. nonafrican-americans think african-americans all look the same. >> laura: did she just say what i think she said? she is insisting that detroit police only hire african-americans for doing what is called facial recognition analysis, because white people are so racist they can't tell anyone apart. that didn't sit well with detroit's police chief who said this. >> we were appalled when she made that statement.

there is a double standard. if i had made the exact same comment, they would've been calling for my resignation and she would've been leading that charge. that's a fact. >> laura: joining me now is candace owens, author of "black out." democratic strategist and attorney. all right, defendant what she said there. >> there are stats of the defendant the basis for information, so there's information that shows where facial recognition technology is concerned that people who are of the same racial demographic as those that they are being able to identify supposed to be hired to identify have an easier time distinguishing between person and person. that means that what she's saying and what she said actually later was no, i'm not saying that no white people should be involved in doing this job in this crime lab. i'm concerned that this is a city where there is 80% people who are african-american and

here there is a 95% people who are caucasian doing the recognition. it's just a matter of data -- >> laura: the disproportionality. >> it's an issue of the data. if the data says that one person can do something with more accuracy than another, especially where identification is concerned, for crime -- >> laura: if it was at the other way. don't talk over me. if it was said the other way around, wipers and saying something even remotely akin to those even if there were stats about certain type of behavior or good behavior, bad behavior, you would be decried as racially stereotyping and using race as a basis for decision-making, which is what i thought we were trying to get away from as a country. that is, to make about the double standard that is appalling here. it's because there's no question about what she said it was racist. i'm going to take an optimistic take to say that police officer or speak out and call it racist

is largely due to the fact that there is an awakening happening in the black community and we are realizing that the real racist are democrats. i think that is a positive spin on that. you're actually right, if any person said something based on statistics. if somebody said we should only police in black neighborhoods because they commit the majority of crimes, which by statistics would be accurate. black americans commit over 15% of all the homicides in the nation. that fact will be called racist. we should only have black police officers because we don't want white police officers and killed when they are committing more of the homicides. that fact would be considered racist. her problem is racist and inexcusable and i'm really happy that black americans are speaking out and saying i don't care that she was on the other foot. racism is racism. >> laura: the black police officer himself that he would be fired if he said something akin to that. i thought that was, wow. >> what he said was if i had said that, then i would be in trouble meaning he can't speak the truth without getting in

trouble. this congresswoman could. when we have data -- >> laura: are we saying we should determine racial composition by saying, when it is the "monique" show you can interrupt. i'm asking a serious question, if stats alone determine racial classifications, i think we would be going into not a great place for a lot of different people, stats alone determining racial classifications. >> it's not stats alone but that is why i laid out the one-two three event. stats and data say something. we have people in the crime lab that make up a disproportionate -- >> laura: we made this point. this is not only tragic, is an example of how the left's narrative is poisoning the minds of our kids. what happened is a 12-year-old black girl claimed that three white boys pinned her to the ground and cut her dreadlocks with scissors. of the family admitted it wasn't

true and they issued a heartfelt apology. to be clear i do not blame the children. this is a child. i do take issue with adults who tried to use this hoax to push their agenda right off the bat with no investigation like the naacp tried to do. first they tried to cover up the hoax claiming the family reached a private resolution with the school. next they said in a statement that regrettably the assault turned out to be false. regrettably question requires that regrettable? we should be happy she wasn't assaulted. candace, why with with the naay to cover this up? >> the naacp funds off of rate e and race and it's embarrassing because it is revealing an ugly truth which is that victimhood has been become a virtue in the community. my heart goes out to this girl,

she is believing a narrative that is being spun that black americans, what they should aspire to his victimhood and that is what needs to be talked about and that is not a narrative that the naacp ever wants to be talked about because there would be no need for them to exist. exist. to be one victim apology is something we have talked about a lot on the show, and whether it's a white person claiming that he is a victim ors case there does seem to be this narrative that is forwarded a lot on college campuses and even younger now. kids who are younger. most kids aren't even paying attention to skin color. they are beyond that. my kids are peer they don't care about that. what about this, monique? [laughter] what does this tell about us, the reaction that people want to be it's true on the left and they are disappointed when it is not true. >> what ms. owens just said is the most absurd and sad thing i think i have heard since i've been appearing on the show with her. after all the times that young

black girls have gone missing, have been prostituted, have been entered into trafficking and no one cared. not when they were in africa, not when they were in the united states. this one time when this young girl said something happened to her and everybody jumped to her defense and believe her i'm glad they jumped to her defense, and i'm glad they believe her. i'm sorry whatever she went through that letter to the point that she said something that was not true. i am sorry that she said something that was not true. >> laura: what about those three boys? >> like i just that, i'm she said something that wasn't true. i'm sorry those three boys were accused and they were accused and how did nothing wrong. when i'm not sorry about is that she was believed. are we really now going to be in this place, don't believe the victims if they are black girls? >> that's not what i said. this is truly bad acting. >> i've never done that before.

>> obviously not. what i said as i generally feel bad for this girl because she is a part of a culture of literally what you just to come up and had to be a victim like summing happened on the show that you were so outraged about. that is what we need less of. let's have real conversations. >> laura: all right, thank you very much for being here. out of time. >> thank you. >> laura: next, he says the recession is here and you just don't know what yet. i'm going to expose the flaws in the nobel laureates latest plan in moments. because energizer ultimate lithium is the longest lasting aa battery in the world. [confetti cannon popping] energizer. backed by science. matched by no one.

time and time again, you know when i'm doing street magic..i'll walk up to someone and i can just see they're against me right? they don't want to be amazed. they don't want this experience to happen. ♪i needed to try but then the magic happens. and all of that falls away. (amazement & laughter) it's the experience of waking up and seeing things the way you saw them before they became ordinary. ♪i need never get old

i'm looking for that experience of wonder. angle, hype a crisis, promote a sense of impending doom, it's all coming down. that's what nobel laureate paul krugman is doing again. this is the same guy the kay after the trump 2016 election win predicted a global recession with, quote, no end in sight. and he sung that same tune many times sense. >> going to be a smor gas borg recession. >> his middle name should be relate session at this point. but now he's not just warning of an imminent recession, he's saying we're already in it.

around a fifth of the economy is effectively in recession, he said, trump has done this to himself largely by choosing to wage a trade war. while krugman trailed to mention, they do exert some downward pressure on the gdp, the u.s. economy would no doubt be boosted if the democrats finally agreed to pass the u.s.-mca -- the u.s. mexico canada trade agreement along with a robust infrastructure deal that both parties want. they just refuse to give trump a win. but beyond that, does today's jobs report sound like recession to you. >> the unemployment rate fell 3.5% down from 3.7%. that's the lowest level since 1969. >> we just hit market session highs, 324 points. 327 now. it's like a casino, isn't it? >> the most new hires of prime working age are minorities and women.

>> the unemployment rate for african-americans is at the lowest it's ever been in the wrist -- history of our country. >> not by the way just those invested in the stock market either. friday's jobs data showed the unemployment rate for workers without high school diplomas fell to .8%. the lowest level on record. that's great for people at the lower end of the economic spectrum trying to get to the upper -- trump's economy is trying to make a difference maybe he should explore that fact. he's never been one for being honest or right. comedian terrence williams thanking president trump for lifting up the black community.

we have a lot to lose now because president donald j. trump has done so much for the black community. thank you, president trump. >> the other nets are not going to play almost any of this, right? you're not going to see that video anywhere else, except fox, maybe a few websites. but the question we have to ask ourselves is, what if trump loses in 2020. what does that mean? all these people who traditionally have not been able to benefit from what people think is economic -- always hitting the upper echelons of the economy. this is a broad based recovery. it's a broad-based boost to people at every income, tight labor market means increased

wages. no one predicted this on the left. we told you what would happen if you followed the simple rules, it happened. that's all of the time we have for tonight. shannon bream and the fox news at night team take it from here. have a great weekend. >> welcome to fox news at night. i'm shannon bream in washington. a second official considering filing formal complaints about the president's july 25 call with ukraine's president. that's in "the new york times" amid a brand new subpoena showdown between the white house and house democrats. on the same day mike pompeo refused to comply with the subpoenas. joe biden lashing out tonight to reporters asking about ukraine. as that country's top prosecutor says he is going to do an audit of old corruption cases to see if they were handled properly, including the energy company with ties to