this is not what newt gingrich offered bill clinton. the media, the democrats, are lying again. that's all they do. the president did the right thing in terms of ukraine and asking about biden. more tomorrow if he had let not your heart be troubled, we will never be the media mob. here is laura ingraham, how are you? >> laura: hannity, i'm great. and i have to say, for americans who voted for president trump, they voted for a different type of foreign policy. one that was grounded in pragmatism and realism. it was more prudent. it was less just throw money at countries where we didn't have a real good handle on whether they were dealing with corruption or human rights, and that is what people want. if democrats want to have a different type of foreign policy, well, they can actually elect someone who will campaign on more war and more foreign aid, and see how far that gets them. but i've a feeling they won't be running their campaign that way. >> sean: is interesting,

because trump beat back the caliphate. i haven't heard one democrat say mr. president, great job on al-baghdadi, and i will tell you another thing, i'm glad the president is trying to get to the bottom of ukraine election interference. somebody needs to get t to the bottom of the biden, quid pro quo corruption kid that is not a conspiracy theory. >> laura: democrats used to care about corruption, and they actually cared fighting corruption. one of their public and trying to do it, all bets are off your great show tonight, as always. i'm laura ingraham, this is "the ingraham angle" from another busy washington tonight and i'm going to deliver an important and pointed message to the u.s. senate, specifically republicans, about what steps can and should be taken at this impeachment sham, and as it moves forward. along the way, i will be joined by john eastman, robert ray, house judiciary ranking member doug collins. plus, i'm going to explain how congress can actually play a

role in stopping this intel and diplomatic bureaucracy from continuing to defy this duly-elected president and presidents in the future. tom fitton, chris swecker are both here on that. also tonight, democrat katie hill resigned after congress found out she was sleeping with two subordinates. so why is the media now painting her as a damsel in distress? a victim of the vast right-wing conspiracy. does that sound familiar? the can't-miss debate on that a little later on in the show. but first, mcconnell's time to stand and fight. that's the focus of tonight's "angle." the house democrats -- it's kind of like a mystery impeachment theater. they think they have finally found their star witness. army vet, lieutenant colonel alexander vin men, a purple heart recipient and a white house in fc stanford.

we salute vindman service to the country, but that does not insulate him or any member of the armed services from criticism or scrutiny, especially when they are still on active duty. and let's face it, if lieutenant colonel had been on the call and dismissed any wrongdoing by the president, democrats and the media probably wouldn't sound like this. >> a hero who has dedicated his entire life to the united states of america. speak of the lieutenant colonel, who is a patriot. >> this is an american hero. >> cares about the country. >> i have never met him, but he is a hell of a patriot. >> laura: [laughs] what they did do tulsi gabbard, 20 who observed in uniform and the democrats to find fault with over the years. how formulaic this is all become pier number one, witness testimony is leaked to select

media outlets. last night, the media was going gaga about vindman. number two. witness appearance is hyped as a bombshell. >> we began with the bombshell breaking news story. >> a bombshell opening statement. >> bombshell testimony on capitol hill. >> this is a very, very important moment. >> laura: and free media forecast doom for trump. this headline from nbc is typical, extremely disturbing, top democrats alarmed over vindman's testimony on a trump-ukraine call. but remember, despite the relentless press build up, the public is still left in the dark, and even republicans inside the interview room today for trying to question vindman were shut down. >> it seems interesting to me that chairman schiff is so sensitive. i witnessed today is under subpoena! he is supposed to answer questions from the members of the united states congress! not just members from the

majority of the nonstate congress. >> he is directing witnesses not to answer questions that he doesn't want the witness to answer. he has not cut off one democrat. >> laura: complete outrage, very frustrating. but then, over in the senate, republicans are in the majority, there are more options. senate majority leader must start using his power to stand up against the democrats' political reign of terror. this is mcconnell's moment. he needs to show the american people that the g.o.p. stands united behind the man that they elected to lead this country, run our foreign policy, help advance our economy. mcconnell needs to make sure that every republican keeps pressure on pelosi, schiff, and humor. his resolution with lindsey graham was a very good start. and asked for a possible impeachment trial, mcconnell must also stop asking like his hands are tied. it is true that there are

current rules governing how impeachment is done. those rules have largely been unchanged for decades and decades. probably time for some updating, don't you think? right now, the rules require that a trial begin the day following the senates receiving the the articles of impeachment. chief justice of the united states john roberts will preside. the senate can compel the attendance of witnesses. the person impeached could then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him. among other rules. well, there is some contention about how hard it would be for mcconnell to change the rules. but i will say this. these times require extraordinary measures. the house democrats have decided to launch a partisan hit on a sitting president, using members of the foreign policy establishment to trigger a bogus process. if voters are supposed to cheer,

though, as republicans in the senate respond with, what, there's nothing we could do to stop this madness? republicans are going to cheer that. they are frustrated. at the very least, mcconnell can and should aggressively push for a blisteringly short impeachment trial. giving democrats may be an afternoon to put on their sham case. i think that is too generous. if impeachment can be carried out like this one, by just one party driving it, with testimony done in secret, based on one phone call without a quid pro quo? or any underlying criminal intent? our republic is at risk. future presidencies are at risk. >> this should never happen to our country again, and this should never happen to a president. "the washington post" puts out a story, i guess, on inauguration day, essentially saying, and now the impeachment begins. >> laura: republicans in the senate need to step up or get out. if democrats can impeach a

president under these facts, at a star chamber process, and your responses, we are powerless, then maybe you didn't deserve the majority in the first place, because if democrats take congress, let alone the presidency in 2020, they will kick off a multi-year revenge tour on red state america. they're going to take more than our money, they are going to take our freedom. they will brainwash our kids, packed the courts, and then they might even turn off the electricity, just for good measure. and the things you care about, like the economy, the rule of law, securing our borders, they are going to ignore all of that. at of the same time, take the shirt off your back, while they are at it. there is no reason to drag the country through damaging, partisan impeachment proceedings predicated not on legal grounds, but on pure, sheer hatred for trump. the fate of trump's presidency should be left up to the voters. next november. trust the people. we do.

and that's the "angle." here not to respond, john eastman, a constitutional law scholar, professor at chapman university school of law, and robert ray, former whitewater independent counsel. john, there is a lot of debate on what mcconnell can do regarding the rules. what is your take? >> well, you know, the rules can be changed by a majority. we saw that when the democrats were in charge, when they changed the rules on filibusters for the d.c. circuit, for example. it just takes the political will to do it. but even without that, there's a lot going on here that i think they ought to be conducting hearings about. we find evidence now that somebody in the white house leaked to a member of our cia, information on a confidential call within the white house. why isn't that being investigated? it was just preposterous, and the whistle-blower complaint, that he said, oh, i learned of this in my normal duties. do normal duties of somebody over at the cia include spying on the president's phone calls in the white house?

i mean, these are the kind of things we ought to be looking at. and nobody seems to be doing it. >> laura: i mean, it's a shock, frankly. that the senate, with a healthy majority, is not putting the pressure on this bureaucracy who seems to be trying to run their own little fiefdom over at the white house intel agencies. as john mentioned, our catherine herridge says the big question is who colonel vindman shared his concerns with. >> vindman writes "i provided readouts of relevant meetings and communications to a very small group, properly cleared national security counterpart with a relevant need to know" get what you heard congressman jordan say today is that when he asked vindman who he shared the information with, adam schiff, e of questioning. >> laura: oh, why did they want that question answered? well, the possible violation that jordan was trying to get to

is an answer on 18 u.s. code 798, leaking classified information. so robert, should vindman, and those actions, be looked at here under that statute? there's also another statute of talking with a foreign government, which we will get to. but what about that particular statute? >> i don't know why that inquiry got cut off. i suspect the reason is that adam schiff seems to be concerned about protecting the identity of the whistle-blower, which may explain why he wasn't going to allow what amounts to cross-examination of colonel vindman about who he shared information with, but understand also, all of this is, of course, behind closed doors. so i don't understand really what the concern is, if there is legitimate cross-examination by republicans. and the fact that got shot down, only serves to essentially reemphasize, yet again, that this resolution that apparentlyg to vote on on thursday is flawed

because it is partisan. and i expect that what we are going to find out, if we learn anything, as a result of the vote in the house on thursday, it will be overwhelmingly partisan. which should then counsel in favor, as you suggest, laura, that the sun and take appropriate action in response. remember, the senate is in control of the president's party, and even under existing rules, the president makes an appearance in the senate through counsel, and the first thing i would expect to happen is a properly filed motion to dismiss to end this thing -- >> laura: immediately. john, i want to get into that. we will get back to vindman, which i think jordan was getting at, the possible legal jeopardy that vindman might be facing under that statute, i think that is what he was getting to. but john, that's important, is it not? so let's say the articles of impeachment, for what? we don't know any underlying

criminality, there wasn't any in the transcript, but maybe general abuse of power, you know, stuff. so that arrives, and then mitch mcconnell, at that point, can do what? can he immediately move a motion to dismiss to the chief justice? >> they certainly can. look, during the clinton impeachment, there was an effort to try and have witnesses brought forward, and that was shut down. the senate has full control over how to conduct the impeachment inquiry. if this was a rank partisan thing, there is no evidence here, you know, we're going to have a vote right now to decide whether we are going to convict on the articles of impeachment, and the boat is going to be 53 53-48, because it will be partisan there, as well, in all likelihood, the american people understand that this has been a partisan hit job. you know, one of the things i found most interesting about what was leaked about vindman's testimony is the parallel it has with investor taylor's testimony from last week. vindman is complaining about,

what you call it? outside influencers setting american foreign policy with ukraine. and taylor said there was an informal channel, as well as a formal channel. well guess what? the president doesn't work for the state department or the nsc, they work for him. and he sets foreign policy. these guys are upset because the president had different views on foreign policy -- >> laura: bingo. >> the deep state who have been screwing up our foreign policy for decades. >> a policy dispute does not equal impeachable offense, that's the bottom line. >> laura: robert, how many people call themselves china experts over the last 30 years? was good of our policy toward china, or didn't see it coming down the tracks? how many "experts" screwed up middle east policy, or recommended that we do certain things that ended up triggering a wave of migration across europe, unlike anything we've ever seen before? how many experts get it wrong? >> about as many former federal prosecutors who all of a sudden are experts on how to handle

impeachment proceedings, and whether or not the president has committed a crime, or whether there was an illegal quid pro quo. >> laura: what do you think, robert, knowing the chief justice, his manner, would he be amenable to a motion to dismiss? or is he someone who would be politically -- not politically, but temperamentally disinclined to grant a motion to dismiss right off the bat? >> well, of course, because under the constitution he presides, he would receive that motion. but if past practice is any indication, on something as important as that, he would refer that motion for a vote to the full body. i do not believe he would dispose -- >> laura: he won't rule on it. >> right, he would not rule on it, he would refer that to the body for a vote. >> laura: then the republicans can vote it through, and it's done. it's been fun. >> that would be my view, i think that's what senator mcconnell should be urged to consider. spirit all right, guys, we've got to get out, but fascinating.

i hope senator mcconnell and leadership is listening. you have a lot more power than you have let on, maybe that's the way they're playing it. also breaking tonight, with actual text of the impeachment resolution, they just referred to it, the full house is going to vote on it on thursday. the eight page document basically puts in writing with the dems have already been doing behind closed doors, but as this: it would allow the president or his counsel to participate in impeachment proceedings held by the house judiciary committee. the resolution us resolution especially stating that the judiciary paddle will decide whether articles should be reported to the full house. here not to respond, congressman doug collins, ranking member of the house judiciary committee. congressmen, are you satisfied with this arrangement? >> no. this is a joke. let's be honest with this. this is covering her backside, speaker pelosi saw 50 senators say that the process in the house was bad, they didn't want to even deal with it. she went back to him and she said, oh, my goodness, we believe the republicans are wrong, but we are going to do what they say. look, she knows exactly what she is doing. she knows she is wrong.

her cohort, schiff, down in the dungeon, wow from the american people notice, and other trying to cover their backside. with proposal that is really interesting. they are going to give the president some ability to weigh in in the judiciary committee, but nothing until committee. this is not about due process. and let me just say something. this is not about russia, this is not about a ukrainian phone call. this is about the fact that hillary clinton was crying in brooklyn, 2016, november. they hate the president because he has done well and he has done what he said he was going to do. let's get this out in the open, that's all it is. >> laura: schiff has had a conflict of interest from day one, he had initial contact with the whistle-blower that was not revealed in any other legal proceeding. he would've had to recuse himself after failing to disclose that intel, pressed on that. >> think about what he did stop today about the gentleman on answering the question. who else did he talk to? he stopped that question.

what would that have led to? who did he talk to? was at his staff? did schiff actually stop a question from being answered on who he actually gave the information to? which, in addition to what congressman jordan was talking about about leaking classified information, would it have led to, to have adam schiff lead this kind of star chamber inquiry with no oversight, nothing going on, only leaking what they want. this morning, you talk about the fact, bombshells, that was an opening statement. it was uncross-examined statement. that is a resume, the best you can on capitol hill was an opening statement. >> laura: what about the fact, a lot of people were talking about this today, we have foreign policy professionals, some who are active duty military, serving our country proudly, like vindman, but nevertheless, might have different worldviews than the president on ukraine or various issues. but in "the new york times" piece yesterday, it stated he has had conversations with ukrainian officials who were trying to solicit his advice on how to work around giuliani, and typically those conversations

were in english. now, what about that? i mean, their statutes, 18 usc 794 invented reference gathering or delivering defense information to a foreign government, and it could be implicated here, might not be implicated here, but that is kind of a wild thing, right? i mean, you're supposed to be working with the commander in chief. that's a problem. >> let's go back to the opening statement. he's laying out his best case, but he gets into the fact, his concern about the call was he had some concerns about the information in the call, but he said this could hurt us, politically, down the line. since when is that becoming -- >> laura: and active duty service member is supposed to be politically concerned, yes or no? speak i don't remember -- when i heard the political concern, that job as a policy. you are to be the expert in the room, so to speak. but when he said it was politically concerned, this is what is happening.

adam schiff is giving leaks, and what is amazing to me is he said he didn't want to erase the transcript, didn't want them open so the witnesses could coordinate. we are already seeing specific leaks -- >> laura: the language being repeated. >> so let's get over this right now. >> laura: you agree with mama senate? this has to be shut down, it's ridiculous. >> i think that is what they're looking at. speaker pelosi keeps this resolution, she is just being -- >> everything is too little, too late. we don't need any white house staffers take on the call. oh, there was a word that we want to put in. we have a transcript. we don't need your opinion, thank you very much. you are apparently testifying against the administration for whom you're supposed to be working, but we don't need your opinion, we have the transcript. that's what is governing here, correct? there's nothing in the trask if that is impeachable. >> there is not. notice what you hear schiff talk about.

look at what you are going to come in the next few weeks for her that's where he's going to go. >> laura: congressman, thank you for being here tonight. and up next, my second message to g.o.p. leaders, how they can hobble the deep state, burrowed inside, still trying to undermine trump. when we return.

♪ >> laura: now for part two of my message to the senate tonig tonight. clean house at the intel agencies that are actively undermining a duly-elected president. why are republican leaders not demanding this, at this point? no longer should they rubber-stamp the bloated budgets that allow deep state renegades to run right over the president's agenda, or at least try to throw roadblocks in front of it. and for those who claim the

deep state to some, you know, just an unhinged conspiracy, well, former intel leaders are out in the open and mitigate it. take former cia director john brennan, who tweeted today, as in previous times of national peril, we rely on our military, diplomats, intel officials, law enforcement officers, and other courageous patriots to protect our liberties, freedom, and democracy. may they stay resolute and strong, despite corrupt political headwinds they face. joining me now is chris swecker, former assistant fbi director and tom fitton, president of judicial watch. tom, brandon and his ilk are dropping their masks, right? it's obvious they are in charge. >> the illegal spying on president trump, you see this in the unhinged tweets of people like brendan. the problem is there have been no oversight in these agencies for years. you agree there is oversight of the committees come essentially run by the agencies themselves. remember who ran the ca for ten

years? he's a staff director for the senate, and senator burr over in the intelligence committee has turned it over to senator warner and the democrats. >> laura: they are running roughshod over the president's agenda. the senate, chris, has an enormous amount of oversight power, to hold hearings, to hold these people accountable, and frankly, to shrink budgets when necessary, do disempower these bureaucracies, to hear brennan come after everything we know about his role, and kicking off the whole mueller investigation, to hear him act like he was elective, by the american people, talk of an antidemocratic rule. i've never heard of anything like that. >> yeah, i think, laura, what we need at this point is a temporary version of the church committee, established back in 1975 to establis address the ine of abuses of the '50s, '60s, an '70s.

that's right where it should live. there's a lot to look at to come if you just look at the official sources over the last two and a half years, a culture of leaking in the fbi, a culture in the state department of mishandling classified information. cia targeting u.s. citizens without violating their fundamental charter, and things like misuse of their powers, fisa, and those type of tools that have been entrusted to these agencies. actually, i think some serious violations of the hatch act. all of that needs to be looked at. >> laura: unmasking of americans as they did, people who normally wouldn't be individuals, u.n. ambassadors, somehow getting involved in unmasking during the obama yea years. brennan just now on msnbc, aga again, playing part of the narrative, building up anyone who stands in the defiance of the president's agenda inside the white house. watch. >> we have some in the white house right now who fears people who are willing to speak out about what is wrong, and be

able to expose the corruption that is going on right now. i think we're going to see, in fact, may be more of bravery and courage than we have seen in the past couple of weeks. >> laura: thomas, if vindman wasn't supporting the president, heard the call, and said nothing wrong, do you think they would be calling him break? >> no, he would it be called to testify. look, you had a cia official wrongly to classified information from it certainly looks like -- >> laura: given it by someone. >> may be wrongly given it, certainly wrongly conveyed it to congress. schiff lied about it. you have this counterintelligence investigation, a spy operation targeting a candidate for president of the united states, and then the president of the united states. you remember the intelligence community includes the justice department and the fbi. strzok and page, that is the intelligence community these days, folks. >> laura: let's flip the scroll up. 17 intel agencies, this is just

a list, okay? now, do you think there might be some float they are? to think there might be a lack of accountability? again, we are supposed to act like they were duly elected representatives, instead of people who are charged for working for whatever administration is elected, their priorities, their agenda, while obviously trying to keep us safe, not run roughshod over our civil liberties, but that is what the roll is supposed to be. now, they're kind of roving watchdogs, or another branch of government. that's how brennan is almost describing it. >> yeah, it's really interesting to see what agencies are considered to be intelligence agencies. the department of interior, the deformed of agricultural, social security administration, agencies that have nothing to do with it. the o.d. and i, the

state department, those are the ones that really need to be looked at, because that is where we see real issues. that same committee, this new church committee, if you will, should be looking at the use of the whistle-blower laws and tightening that up, because there are legitimate reasons to facilitate whistle-blowing, but you can't use it as a political cudgel, as a political weapon, and that is what we are seeing here. a very clever use of the whistle-blower laws and getting around, sort of, some of these people who have a political agenda. >> laura: you have been involved in a lot of the foia requests to get information. horowitz is looking at, durham is clearly looking at, do you expect we will learn a lot more about these deep state actors and their agenda to take around this president, from horowitz specifically? >> i think the question is that they will follow up on it. agencies have this casual approach to criminal leaks. you had comey leaking, mccabe leaking.

>> laura: they should all be prosecuted. >> 600 security violations on the clinton email server criminal prosecutions. >> laura: the kavanaugh leak. >> no prosecutions. there were 27 active investigation into leaks just related to trump. i think there's only been one prosecution. >> laura: this is where the justice department and bill barr have to step up and start making sense of this. this is u.s. tax dollars at work, and our civil liberties, our entire representative democracy is on the line. we have one president. we don't have more branches of government than the three that our framers laid out in the constitution. gentlemen, thank you so much tonight. coming up, a clinton insider offering a warning to 2020 democrats about his parties lurch to the radical left, and did you know that new york city -- this is bill de blasio -- is actually paying his homeless to move to different cities around the country. dr. drew pinsky is here to tell us where they are going next. billions of mouths.

billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath?

there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart.

♪ >> i believe it's time to start the national, full-blown conversation about reparation. >> immigration reform isn't enough unless we also decriminalize border crossing spirit >> we're going to take your ar-15, you are ak-47. >> laura: the growing popularity of radical candidates and policies among democrats, 2022020 hopeful and long shot jn delaney worried. the candidate fears the party may be passing by rank-and-file democrats as it moves toward 2020. or worse, driving them toward trump. here to weigh in his former advisor to bill clinton and a fox news contributor. doug, you say the democrats' leftward launch couldn't come at a worse time for the party. why is that? >> donald trump has been governing with the philosophy of speaking of directly to his base.

that leaves the center open and accessible, but not to a party, as you are reporting, isn't for reparations, open borders, taxing the middle class out of existence, medicare for all, that lurch to the left, as you describe it, could cause the democrats the 2020 election. >> laura: even president obama in chicago today seems to acknowledge that there is some kind of purity test going on among democrats that may not be helpful. watch. >> this idea of purity and you are never compromised, you are always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly. the world is messy. there are ambiguities. people who do really good stuff have flaws. >> laura: you know what i see when i see him speaking? i don't agree with him on anything, pretty much, but no one touches obama, as far as

ease of speech, comfortable with who he is. when you watch him speaking, there is no one on the democrat stage, doug, who even comes close to that. i mean, not even close. >> that's exactly right, laura, but the democratic base is so far left, their response to what the president said, that was so reasonable and thoughtful, is oh, no, we need to be true blue, oh, no, we need redistribution. oh, no, we need to oppose the president at every juncture, whether he is right or wrong. and frankly, president obama is right, the left-wing democrats are wrong, and we sit here in mortal peril of blowing an election week in win because of bad. >> laura: well, biden, probably the only one who can win in the south, if any democrat can win in the south, he is in fourth place in a new iowa poll, third in new hampshire, and here's what he said today, doug, about his,

well, lackluster support. >> can you lose iowa, and now we understand from a new cnn poll, coming in third in new hampshire, can you lose the first two big races and rely on south carolina to be your firewall? >> no, i plan on doing very well in both of those. the polls, you know, are up and down. i've been ahead in iowa, i've been ahead in south carolina, hated all of the national polls, and occasional one that pops up is different. >> laura: has his moment passed, or is he still very much viable? >> i sure wouldn't call what i heard just now very much viable. he is the only moderate in the race, but laura, he has been so uncertain and so unsteady. his contributors are going sou south. he is spending ridiculous sums of money on private air travel, and i just don't think he

necessarily is bringing the energy, enthusiasm, and sprang to his step, if you will, that a victorious presidential candidate needs. >> laura: all right, doug, thank you so much. great to see you tonight as always paired speaking of disastrous liberal ideas, new york city now has a new way of dealing with its rampant homeless population. check this out. they are secretly shipping them to other states. the big apple has sent thousands of local homeless families to cities across the, complete with a full year of rent courtesy of the taxpayers. and it's all thanks to mayor bill de blasio. >> we come in our generation, have to find new solutions. the whole country is grappling with this. i think it is important we be honest that the whole country is searching for a solution. >> laura: now, i've heard of passing the buck, but dr. drew pinsky, this is like passing the homeless, except the people who are receiving the homeless in

the gulf coast and utah, these mayors say we didn't even know they were coming. >> they had no idea. >> laura: and bringing lots of problems, tell us about it. >> it's a sad story. i listen to the mayor talk there, i think to myself, we need to struggle with this. one city in the entire country that has addressed the homeless population honestly, and that is the city of san diego, and they are the only city that is having a significant in homelessness. what is the one thing they have done? they have stopped looking at housing and started looking at the mental health disaster that is playing out on our streets. this is the story, the soda store, as we call it, this program where people are given a year of rent and left to go wherever they want. it's one of the saddest chapters in the homeless story. it makes very appealing sense. we're going to give it a year of rent, go wherever you want to. yes, if housing was the issue, this is the perfect experiment

that tells you housing isn't the issue. if housing were the issue, this would be a thriving intervention, and it's an abject failure. >> laura: give everybody an idea of how successful this program is, dovetailing from what drew just said, this is what one of the recipients told a local news station, okay? it was completely unlivable. we could not stay there any longer. we went to a shelter for another six months. >> sad. >> laura: $89 million, and that is of new york city is paying for? they are ending up down in louisiana and these little towns in utah, and the people there, we don't have the budget for this. we don't have the ability, with all of the spillover issues that occur. >> absolutely. nobody is providing mental health services they need. this all started in 1963 when president kennedy started the mental health act. they eviscerated the state of the mental health system, and we post all of those patience onto the streets, the prisons, and

the nursing homes. this is part of that story, and unless we undo that, we will never get to the bottom of this. one of the set of elements in this story is exactly what you're pointing out, which is the landlords are given a year of rent, essentially upfront. you don't think that is going to get abused? and they're all kinds of stringent criteria for what you have to provide for a living environment. how are you going to follow that up all over the country? you have given the landlord the money, and he let the people go, and what? we're going to have social workers from new york scanned the country to make sure the landlords are living up to their deal? of course not. >> laura: well, dr. drew, some of the homeless -- a lot of them actually have made their way back to new york, somehow, and some are filing suit now against the city. saying you screwed up our life even from what it was before. so that's how perverse it is. they are actually suing them for exporting them, paying for their rent, coming back, and they want a different situation. but right in d.c., dr. drew, next time you come here, you and i are going to walk four blocks

from here, and entire underpass bridge, tents as far as the eye can see. i don't know, this is a mile away -- not even a mile away from the u.s. capitol. it's reprehensible. people shouldn't live this way. >> agreed, they need help, and proper kind of help. >> laura: dr. drew, great to see you again. and a democratic congressman gets caught having an affair with a staffer, but then says the right-wing media is to blame for it? i called out the hypocrisy, next. best battery can match the power of energizer. because energizer ultimate lithium is the longest lasting aa battery in the world. [confetti cannon popping] energizer. backed by science. matched by no one.

♪ spewing democrat democrat congresswoman katie hill resigned on sunday amid allegations that she was in some type of love triangle that included one of her campaign staffers, but now she is claiming, just to be the victim of a right wing smear job, a

narrative the media, of course, is glad to help her spread. >> this coordinated campaign carried out by the right-wing media and republican opponents, enabling and perpetuating my husband's abuse by providing him a platform is disgusting and unforgivable. and they will be held accountable. >> laura: here now is harmeet dhillon, attorney and trump 2020 advisory board member, and jane, democratic strategist and president of the people's alliance for justice. harmeet, imagine if a republican man engaged in the same behavi behavior. would we rightfully be calling for him to get on the first flight out of d.c.? how would that have played out? >> absolutely, laura, we should. this is a bipartisan issue, and anybody who abuses their trust and status as an employer needs to be held accountable. i personally called for duncan hunter, a member of congress engaged in affairs, not with subordinates, but affairs, to step aside, and i do think we should all be held to the same

standard. katie hill is now invoking this sort of feminist drama, but it is really a victorian idea that she come as a woman, should be protected and held to a different standard than men. no, she should be held to the same standard. she is a modern woman, and she violated the norms in the workplace and in politics, and that is why she was asked by her party leader, nancy pelosi, to step down. >> laura: the party knew this was a bleed on support and it was going to hurt the party in california. and so the party made a calculation, as republicans have made when they run into trouble, like time to go, so why the damsel in distress act year? how is that working? >> it's good to be with you, laura, always good to be with you. one of the things i have to agree with the colleague that i am debating with, but really not debating on this, is that they congresswoman was wrong here. and the congresswoman data, in

fact, has, in fact, sort of tried to say she is being held to a different standard because she is a woman. i do think there should be a moral imperative across the line, when it is a woman, a man, a republican, a democrat, wrong is wrong across the line, do we call for congressman duncan hunter, who has had affairs, along with various other things, we've got to call for congresswoman katie hill. i do think that what katie hill is trying to address, and maybe she is not saying it right, and/or looking at the situation correctly, is the idea -- i don't think she is denying that she was in the video. i don't think she is denying that she did wrong. i think what she is denying is the fact -- or what she is saying is the fact that women, historically, whether republican or democrat, are treated on a different level in this country when they make mistakes in the corporate or political space than men. >> laura: no, that's not my

take. if not a fair argument, here. she messed up and had to resign. everybody makes mistakes, i get it, no one is perfect, everybody is a hypocrite if they are human being, because we all make mistakes, okay, i get that. but this is something quite different, and msnbc's chris hayes has an interesting take on it all. >> we don't know what we don't know in terms of relationships with staffers, she has denied the relationship with the staff in congress, so sort of putting aside that, not great, and problematic, and maybe there is more of that. but it really seems like the bad guys won here. >> laura: the bad guys won. what? she didn't abuse her office? >> as an employment lawyer, i can tell you that what she did here is predatory and there is a presumption that it is not something that is consensual, and she can rebut that, but you can talk about that in employment court.

in a court of public opinion, nancy pelosi, the leader of her party, who is a woman, did the right thing for the party because actually, the party just took that seat back from republicans, and republicans want that seat back. >> laura: what is your thought -- i saw papadopoulos is going to throw his hat in the ring? >> oh, goodness. >> laura: what is that, i want harmeet on that first. >> and congressional district 25, number republicans have stepped forward, including the member of congress who held that seat before is considering it for the leading candidate on our side in terms of money and support locally are mike garcia, a navy fighter pilot, veteran, flew in operation iraqi freedom, and angelica underwood jacobs, a local city councilwoman in lancaster in that district. both of them are popular they are and have raised a significant amount of money. papadopoulos has thrown his hat in the ring. i think he has a bunch of baggage, i'm not supporting him, but we have a good chance to take the seat back, however

democrat is, and laura, for your information for your viewers, the democrats are probably going to include our secretary of state on the democrat side, alex to dia, who is somebody republicans, including myself, have sued so far this year. it's meant to be a highly contested seat. >> laura: versus mike garcia, or the other cow >> here's what we have to be honest about it. he is on record, -- >> laura: no one is endorsing papadopoulos. panel, we got to go. he's not somebody that harmeet is pushing, clearly. panel, thank you. an honest admission from a legendary journalist, next. low. at visionworks, our sales are good on over 500 frames. why are you so weird? for a limited time, get two complete pairs for $49. really. visionworks. see the difference.

>> they still don't have what you would call the goods on this president in terms of breaking the law and being an impeachable target for them. they are going to start the process, but they don't have the same kind of clarity that the

people who are opposed to richard nixon have because it was so clear that these were criminal acts that he was involved in. >> laura: andrew mitchell, did you want to buy a vowel there? that was like an unexpected moment. a journalist who has seen it before. that's all the time we have tonight bream and the fantastic "fox news @ night" team take it all from here. shannon. >> shannon: thank you so much, we start tonight with breaking news on the impeachment front. democrats unveiling a resolution they say will affirm their current inquiry as it heads to a floor vote this thursday but republicans say it's nothing but smoke and mirrors giving a minority and the white house no real due process rights and 1q are public and threatens to call house intel chairman adam schiff himself as a witness. talk about the connection to the ukraine whistle-blower. plus army general alexander vindman wrapping up testimony as republicans claim adam schiff witness not to answer some of the questions.