that's all they time we have left this evening. we will always seek the truth, we will never be the media mob. hannity.com for more. but let not your heart be troubled because laura ingraham looked taking it away. >> laura: this is "the ingraham angle" from new york city. the democrats really want to impeach based off what we heard today. congress and many chris stewart and mark meadows were both at the hearing today and are here exclusively to cut through all the noise. also tonight president trump's former attorney general says democrats impeachment push is irreparably damaging our republic. jeff sessions is here with his exclusive reaction. plus raymond arroyo will break down the most hilarious moments. he missed all of this stuff by the way. from faulty video cues to a certain here implement in one

congresswoman's bouffant. let's say the dems on the witnesses weren't ready for prime time. and it's this week's "seen and unseen" coming up. but first, the big four takeaways is the focus of tonight's angle. day one of this impeachment, it was supposed to be a banner day for the democrats. what actually unfolded was a complete and utter disaster for adam schiff and his solemn band of inquisitors. here are the big four takeaways. take one. democrats don't have a real crime. from what i heard it, the and they are two star witnesses, the only thing trump is guilty of is not giving away his foreign policy powers unelected bureaucrats. >> it hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our job. >> it makes it more difficult to carry out those policy goals. >> laura: i love how the

witnesses were i am ionized. but don't forget. again, the unelected elites mismanaged our foreign policy for decades. in iraq and syria and even now with china. now that trump is challenging the rule, he has to challenge. >> it seems you have agreed wittingly or unwittingly to participate in a drama. but the mean performance, the russia hoax has ended and you have been cast in the low-rent ukrainian sequel. >> laura: this has all the box office mojo of greece two. take away number two. everything in today's hearing was based on hearsay. neither ambassador taylor nor secretary kent were on trump's july 25th phone call that sparked the impeachment sham. in fact and neither knowledge of

motivation or anything else for that matter, it was a lot of feelings that were discussed today. at the outset of today's circuit day ukraine, taylor even admitted as much. >> what i could even do here for you today is tell you what i heard from people. >> laura: what i heard from people. how compelling. and things only went downhill for democrats from there. >> ambassador taylor recalls that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mr. morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak in connection with vice president pence's visit to warsaw. we have six people with four conversations in one sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding. >> laura: he is the star of the whole hearing. taylor should have started one of the shampoo commercials from the early 80s. >> you'll tell two friends and

they'll tell two friends and so on and so on. >> laura: i remember that, that's how bad it is. that brings us to our third take away. the ukraine has done better under trump than obama. that's undeniably true. despite these ludicrous statements to the contrary. >> $400 million of bipartisan taxpayer-funded military support for a nation at war. rules-based order was being threatened by the russians in ukraine. so our security assistance was designed to support ukraine. >> withholding military aid to, does that we can ukraine? >> well, how can democrats even look at themselves in the mirror after saying this stuff? i'm faster taylor ended up seeing the point. >> did the obama administration provide weapons? >> no, sir. >> you are happy with the assistant senate provided both legal and financial aid, did it

not? >> it did serve. >> you also stated it was substantial improvement, correct? >> that's correct. >> laura: so what is the beef? taylor scrap against trump is not really that he did anything impeachable, but the aide was held up for 14 days or something, but any usa to ukraine would be delayed for any reason whatsoever, except, again, if you are obama. then you can get away with doing anything. of the many telling moments today, a few were key to understanding how preposterous this entire undertaking is. neither taylor nor kent could answer the 60,000 question. >> where is the impeachable offense in that call? or either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? shout it out. anyone? >> laura: can i buy a vowel please? and impeachmenhome version of t.

and adam schiff couldn't answer that either. finally the biggest tech away. investigating burisma is in our national interest. for weeks we've been told it's a conspiracy theory about hunter biden's work for burisma. oh, really? >> the company, burisma, it's a leader has a little bit of a storied history of corruption. >> he used his regulatory authority to award gas exploration licenses to companies that he himself controlled. >> how does the ukrainian government pursue that? >> $23 million was frozen until somebody in the general prosecutor's office of the ukraine shut the case and that money went proof. >> that is our strong assumption. u.s. taxpayer dollars have been used to recover frozen assets. since u.s. taxpayer dollars were wasted i would love to see the ukrainian prosecutor general's office find who the corrupt prosecutor was that took the

bride. >> laura: wait a second. so there was a ton of corruption going on in the ukraine. is this not wilder? just to sum up what you heard. when it stays star witnesses contradicted the democrats main talking point. oops. now what really became apparent today was the democrats -- they should have never gone down this road. it was a cataclysmic mistake for them. it did nothing to make the case and in fact probably did the opposite. i think american see right through this, the web or web of lies. it's a feeble attempt, and it was really just a huge dud. i kind of think if there were any winners today they weren't in the political arena. >> you are not the father!

>> laura: all right. that kind of daytime tv probably had big numbers. come next november, the democrats will regret the adam schiff show trial. and that's ankle. joining me now is mark meadows and chris stewart. let's start with you congressman stewart. you were there and you got to question again the star witnesses. what's your big take away? >> there is not a single person that watch this and said to themselves, holy cow. there wasn't any surprises or any bombshells. i think the democrats set this up as like watergate. they expected john dean to appear and have this dramatic moment where people listen and say this is a real problem. it's not going to materialize,

we know these witnesses will tell us. there are no surprises coming. i think one week from now after about a half a dozen of these most americans are going to say, is that all? you remove the president of the united states less than a year from election, over this? i don't take it's to sell. >> laura: i want to share something with you, congressman meadows. it was wild. >> i want to thank you again and conclude by saying, because i can't let it go unanswered, some of my colleagues made the statement repeatedly that i had met with the whistle-blower and i knew who the whistle-blowe wh. it will be false the last time they see it. the one that happened at the end of our hearing. we will get to kent in just a moment. he ends it by saying, i don't know who the whistle-blower is. >> well, for pinocchio's ago we

heard adam schiff say he wasn't coordinating with the whistle-blower and we know that's not what the case. they don't want the whistle-blower to it coming and to testify. today's hearing was a swing at a miss for the democrat. not only would i be shaking in my boots tonight i would be worried that nancy pelosi is going to send them down a path that will ultimately try to impeach the president with really no predicate there. you covered it extremely well laura as we look at this. what we have to make sure of is that there is an impeachable offense and what we really saw today was to bureaucrats that have a ukraine first sentiment versus the president that has an america first sentiment. so those collided together and what we saw was that the president wasn't really being vigilant about the american taxpayer dollars. >> laura: congressman stuart, i noticed that as well. there were several points in the hearing where the witnesses were clearly expressing their deep

sense of anxiety, that they are country of focus, namely the ukraine, was not going to get the blank check from the american taxpayers. they were actually -- strings would be attached. and i don't mean strains like looking into biden. the democrats use to care about that, but that's what trump was clearly getting at hand that's why he brought it up in the casual way in the call. >> during this hearing i had a couple people text me and they said, they seemed disproportionately concerned with the ukrainian interest versus america's interest. i'm not saying they actually feel that way but they certainly had that as a priority for them and the second thing is this. they are individuals whose responsibility is to carry out the policies of the duly elected president of the united states. regardless of who that is, they don't get to say i disagree. and i think that's what they were concerned about as much as

anything. it wasn't necessarily that they love it ukraine more than the u.s. but they were offended that the president's policies were different than they thought it should be. >> laura: i tweeted out today congress meadows, if they disagree with the president's policies, there are a lot of people that disagree with the president's policies. and that's fine. and i have an idea for them. run for office and, we know we are 22 a trillion in debt and we don't want to worry about corruption or concerns or human rights. we want -- let them try to run a campaign on that. you know they will get killed if they do. >> you know that they well but here's the interesting thing. both of them were concerned about what might happen with this policy. indeed, what happened with the policy is, it's stronger than the previous obama administration and yet both of those people that testify today,

they are still diplomats. to suggest they are at odds with the president, they were at odds with the president on what they thought might have happened on based on what someone else told someone else. at the end of the day the president is delivering on behalf of what all americans elected him to do and what they will elect him to do a little over 11 months. >> i want to get back to the george kent point about "the ingraham angle" that we need to remind people of tonig tonight. >> that we express that perceived conflict of interest at least, the vice president's engagement in the ukraine didn't decrease, did it? >> correct. the vice president was promoting objectives in the ukraine. >> and hunter biden on the board of burisma didn't see us did it? >> to my knowledge it didn't end

there was a possibility for perception of a conflict of interest. the not the policy arguments of the main arguments for impeachment which were already flimsy i think were shattered by those witnesses, if you really listen to what they said. >> i just want to make the point i made today in the hearing. out of the dozens of of corrupt nations there are in the world to come out of the hundreds of trump governmencorrupt governmes there are in the world, there's only one time that the president demanded the removal of a precipitouaspecific prosecutor t happened to be the individual that was responsible for investigating the company that was paying his son. and what is that? is that worth asking questions about? >> congressman meadows and stuart, we appreciate you being

there tonight. >> we need to shut this down laura, it's time. >> laura: and of course democrats are throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks. playing a game of telephone is exactly the type of evidence we need today. >> i think the american public needs reminded that -- hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed exceptions to hearsay. hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned in painful instances and certainly valid. >> laura: joining me now is ken starr and andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney. can i get that hearsay evidence can be used, we all know that in criminal cases. but is that an acceptable standard to undo the election of an american president under our

representative democracy and constitutional system? >> i don't think so. this is the call of the house but the house should be mindful of american norms and fundamental fairness. i was delighted to hear that some members of the united states senate are saying, we do not want hearsay. and in contrast to federal courts and the federal rules of evidence, the senate can set its own rules. it can say, the united states senate can say we are not going to allow hearsay. because it's ordinarily not reliable. it has not been tested adequately and we saw that tod today. i was told, it was my understanding. and that is not the higher quality evidence when we are talking about the potential removal of the president of the united states. >> laura: all right, democrats have also repeatedly cited that we should not condition foreign aid on various points for corruption. it looks like they forgot to

tell george kent. >> there are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign lone guarantee as to the ukraine. conditions include anticorruption reform as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. international monetary fund it does the same thing. congress and the executive branch works together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the ukraine security assistance initiative. >> i love the word conditionality. okay. tell us what is up here with this analysis? >> they are trying to make a very technical bribery case on their title 18 which is the criminal code and, what we can never forget here is this is not a legal case. this is an impeachment case which is a political remedy. at the end of the day what you have to have is misconduct that is so serious that there will be a public consensus for the removal of the president that would be strong enough to push

two-thirds of the senate to vote to remove the president. if you have to sit through six hours or whatever that was today, and when you get to the end of it, you are not quite even sure what it was about or what they were trying to prove. you may be able to go back and fix that and say maybe we can come up with some kind of technical violation. but impeaching a president. >> laura: and people could get their mind wrapped around what happened with nixon and clinton, lying under oath, it's clear-cut. you either lied or you didn't. but the bribery has to mean something and the word bribery does have a legal connotation. it can't be completely devoid of any legal grounding. they just literally threw that tomb out, academic term out there yesterday or the day before. it was bribery, extortion, lions and tigers and bears oh, my.

>> we continue to say this is really not the stuff of impeachment. it is the stuff of oversight. if you don't like the president mentioning joe biden and the context of rampant corruption, including -- and one of the other things that became clear today was corruption in the ukraine is not only serious in the endemic, it's endemic in the energy industry and that's burisma. so it's quite understandable that in that context of that sort of issue would pop up. and, they were subpoenaed to testify. and a lot of what they said should be reaffirming and reassuring to the american people that we have honest public servants. and i really mean that.

they said nothing that suggested that the president should be impeached. nothing. not one word. >> laura: my point was, you may disagree on some of the policies but, your own personal views about u.s. diplomacy and informed policy after you give your advice, it's not your role to make the final call. if you don't like what the president is doing then quit. or, as to be transferred to part of the administration. it's not up to you to determine foreign policy. >> if you will have a self determining, the guy who is elected. we've lost control over the government. the president has a different view of the ukraine and i expect as we go forward in this, then maybe we will hear more about what that view is. in my mind we hear a fantasy about the ukraine that's been built over the last number of

years. there is an alternative version of the ukraine. ukraine is a lousy country, it's basically corrupt and there are troublesome animal elements that we are funding. >> we heard about some of them today. >> so i would not be hesitant to make that case. >> thank you so much, ken and andy. just talk to sources on the hill tonight, they are saying that democrats are disappointed in the outcome of today's hearing. plus former attorney general jeff sessions is here exclusively on why this exercise is hurting our republic big ti time. so they'll be okay... without me? um... and when we knock out this wall imagine the closet space? yes! oh hey, son.

yeah, i think they'll be fine. voya. helping you to and through retirement. >> tech: so you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.

>> some of the numbers we think

about is, what do these facts mean for the future of our country. we have to -- if any way, shape, or form will permit this, but they will invite future presidents to do the same. >> laura: the democrats are declaring victory tonight. of course, despite a dull first day of the hearings. they kind of just dropped that. but they had no firsthand knowledge of pretty much anything except their own feelings and opinions. so what is the feeling on the hill tonight? ed henry is live in washington with exclusive insight. >> it's great to hear and see you tonight. we talked to three different senior republicans who all said that after the first hearing in the hallways, they are having private conversations with democrats who seemed absolutely deflated that they did not get

very far at all today. listen to what "the washington post" has reported. democratic aide telling the post "we are screwed this week on hearings. the onus is on us to while some people this week. two and be sure, they are happy to get bill taylor to reveal some new information today but even his big reveal that one of his aides overheard a phone conversation in which president trump was allegedly more personally involved in making sure that there were investigations in exchange for aid and even that was thirdhand. taylor being told by an aide who overheard a phone call at a restaurant. so democrats deflated by a whole series of events. third and fourth, and, six people having four different conversations. at one point he said he had seen church. prayer trains. jonathan radcliffe, and both bill taylor and george kent.

did you see anything impeachab impeachable? adam schiff again on defense today. again, he insists he doesn't even though we have been led to believe that at least his staff talk to the whistle-blower. finally george kent went on camera with has concerns that he raise conflict of interest questions way back in 2015 about hunter biden raking in over $80,000 per month from burisma while his father was overseen ukrainian policy. another point he says, was he hired for his expertise on corporate governments? of course known. so there were lots of problems today for the democratic narrative which is why republicans might tonight be breathing a sigh of relief. the one at one of the republican aides texted me tonight and said, the new scuttlebutt is, how did we know that the money hunter biden was making wasn't somehow some kind of an indirect

campaign contribution to the bidens, which i'd never heard before. that was part of the whole burisma threat that seems to be unraveling. >> that and the question about whether it was board money or whether it was lobbying. chuck grassley and ron johnson you know are demanded from the state department they believe their documents there showing that burisma really hired hunter biden and other to get meetings with and diplomats. that raises new questions about whether the board is looking at corporate governance issues or whether it they were lobbying hunter biden's own father and his administration when it remember, joe biden was overseeing all ukrainian policy laws. >> laura: interesting. thank you so much. it wasn't just the democrats, the media played up the importance of bill taylor's

testimony today. >> the democrats picked these two diplomats because they were assumed these were the most effective and most incredible star witnesses. people like bill taylor and kent. >> l taylor i think is a critical witness. >> laura: but all it took was a secret weapon, congressman jim jordan who is added to the intel committee to set the record straight. >> you didn't sitting in on it and it was sent to the call? >> i didn't. >> this is what i can't believe. and you are their star witness. joining me now is jeff sessions, former attorney general, and it now again for a u.s. senate of alabama. what is your big take away from today? >> it certainly to me -- i agree with ken starr. this is a very serious time for america. it does not appear to me that they have the kind of evidence that would justify going forward. i called it a show trial.

what's a show trial? when you decided that looks guilty. and this is the kind of thing that i think is concerning to a lot of people. the constitution says impeachment is not anything congress says it is, it says it's for conviction of treason and bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. those are restraining laws in our constitution that restrains congress and they need to be faithful to their responsibilities and, fundamental analysts urge our democratic members of congress to think deeply about the future of this country and the danger to this republic that would occur if we continue to prosecute people basically because we don't like them or we have a political disagreement. >> laura: senator, what more can the members of republican party serving in congress today do for this president and for

his agenda that they are not doing perhaps? maybe a little advice of what they can do better or more to help this administration? >> we have to take the case to the people. based on all the issues he's advocating, standing up to china, being part of the deployment, on this impeachment, i think they've got to speak out pretty aggressively and say, where's the beef. what is the charge. does it meet the constitutional standards and, i think we have a lot of members that are. so republicans need to be confident that if the evidence does not support impeachment they wil will they are perfectly safe.

>> senator, are you in retrospect, we all look back on decisions we made. are you glad you left the senate to go work in the senate administration? >> i don't look back on those kind of matters. we made a decision i thought was right at the time and a lot of people think all we did was deal with russia but we had a tremendous revitalization of federal criminal prosecutions throughout the country. her revitalization of partnerships with our state and local allies. we stood out for religious liberty and we help to the president appoint the best group of federal jointed stomach judges that had ever been appointed. there was so much, we started a new group to intensify our efforts to prosecute fraud and the i.t. networks and particularly china. a lot of good things occurred,

and i knew a lot about it but i felt like we were doing a good job. we have the opportunity to seek the senate seat again and i would be pleased. >> if you could -- the president vocationally watches the show, anything you'd like to say to them tonight? >> he didn't have a better supporter in the united states senate then when i was there. i was his first supporter in the united states senate, but, -- what do you say to those republicans? this president, he's not a real conservative. he's not really doing the conservative thing. he's not bringing the movement along, he spending too much time on the side fights. what do you say to them? >> i tell you this president has moved a conservative agenda in a host of areas.

he cut taxes. isn't that conservative? he stands up for america first throughout the world. isn't that good? defending american manufacturing against cheating by china, i know the country. he's trying to defend our borders and that's a way that affects the rule of law in america. i just think he's been conservative consistently. but most importantly, he's been effective and faithful in what he promised. he told the american people what he would deal, and a lot of people doubted he would do it, but he's done it better than almost any president in a my lifetime. >> laura: and senator, i know he had some choice words for you mostly because of the mueller deal and rosenstein. but do you think you will ultimately get his endorsement? >> i hope so. certainly i'm going to work for that and we will be seeking it.

he doesn't always get involved in primary so i understand that and he has indicated he probably would not in this one. but yes. i would love to have his support. i ask people first, i have some people of alabama and throughout the country to trust him and support him. i thought he was the one who could win and if you win, i thought he could bring that drive, that energy, that will because it's extraordinary, to advance his agenda. >> laura: you are absolutely right. i was in alabama over the weekend and overwhelming support for you there. senator sessions, thanks for being with us tonight. democrats might be enjoying this impeachment circuit today but how will they feel about it in a couple of months? dan bongino and chris hahn debate the political fallout for 2020, in moments.

>> laura: impeachment has all the radicals fired up now but how's it going to look in

february? if impeachment moves from the house to the senate, 62020 democratic democrat democrats will be stuck in d.c. >> it's very important that i'm in iowa as much as i can possibly be. >> we have a constitutional duty. >> and and, i think i went there saying, thank god. joining me now is secret service agent and fox news contributor, dan bongino and also chris hahn most of the progressive vodka podcast. have democrats thought out this tiny thing with impeachment?

>> they don't think about much, that's why they are democrats. this is a trifecta of disaster. number one, the impeachment today has exposed the real gravity of the situation with hunter biden. if anybody thinks that reflected weight know mike well today, i suggest you see a mental health professional. secondly you just indicated, it's a quid pro quo that didn't happen. happened while the candidates president is supposed to be out there. and third i think president trump came out and said, it's looking pretty decent. but this was really a triple fall disaster for the democrats. >> laura: even "the new york times" on friday had an interesting piece out talking about swing state democrats and part of its head notably doug jones, democrat of alabama, could be popular with

many in their states. isn't that a little concerning? if it's this type, and even jonathan karl tonight on abc or today on abc was saying, this is not a bipartisan movement to impeach this president. it's run by one party and that is where the damage and prospect could be. >> i think we've got miles to go before we get to doug jones or any other incumbent democrat taking a vote that might lead to them losing the election. i think they need to put their oath to the constitution ahead of any electoral concerns and what's right by this country. if the evidence shows that the president should be impeached and removed, then that is what they should absolutely do. as for them not being in iowa, that might be one of the consequences of it but the country will be riveted to this moment.

>> laura: it riveted? you said the word riveted. i heard televisions being turned off all day long today. i made a joke that this is the best day that dr. phil had had in like 15 years because it was a dud. the democrats are grasping ed henry tonight saying, the republican aides -- talking to democrats in the hallway and, they are not thrilled with how this is going so far. >> i think you have serious men who take their job seriously and were talking about things in serious terms. it was very compelling. >> laura: at your reaction to that? >> it was a total snooze-fest but in my own show, i didn't even need an ambien. just turn that disaster on. so now we have a quid pro quo. we had a deal initially for security assistance that actually arrived.

then come the deal changed to, it was a deal for a white house meeting that never happened. and then -- pipe down. i'm not done over there. and then we had quid pro quo for a public statement for the linsky that he never made it. so we have this for that with know that times three and then we have the quid pro quo. the only time taylor ever heard directly from someone who heard from trump, it was in a text that said the president wants to be crystal clear. there is no quid pro quo. well done, really nice job. >> let me tell you, taylor is a serious person who was seriously concerned about the direction of the president's shadow foreign policy. >> laura: why doesn't he run for office? pipe down now. i'm going to use your catchphrase, pipe down.

the political attorney who was out there could not -- that's not good at. it's not american and that's not what we do. they force their leaders out for them. >> maybe they should stop going over to syria though. chris won't do any of that. >> laura: chris, hold on. so it's in donald trump's benefit to ensure that we are not shoveling tens of millions of dollars of our hard earned tax dollars to a country that is inherently corrupt? how is that in his benefit? he should be doing that with every country we get money from. obama didn't give them a nickel of lethal ada. i've never heard of you about it. >> you're right. if the president was looking into corruption all over the world he might have a case. he's looking into corruption about his political opponent.

>> so if you -- >> there are lots of americans doing things abroad that fall into the foreign corrupt practices act that this president has looked the other way and in fact, tried to help. we have to be careful about what this guy does. he's looking out for himself. you know it and i know it. >> did you ever hear chris complain, eight years he never gave lethal ada. >> and chris left out that taylor himself acknowledged that trump's policies toward the ukraine have been more beneficial to the ukraine. >> laura: we got to go guys, we are way over. today's hearing was nothing but political theater. we've established this. ray mario is here to break down the and the blenders. things you saw but did not see,

how much storage can't look like whitney olson from the old superman movie. >> laura: i thought he looked a little bit more like lesson essman. a bespectacled lesson essman from wk rp in cincinnati. >> well whomever he looked like, he drank a lot of water, laura.

fish are not even this hydrated. throughout the hearing -- >> laura: what is this with a water bottle? >> it's like a medical size water tower. a water silo. but the democrats production at the hearing was a bit wanting. >> ambassador taylor, i'd like you to listen to what he said. i will read it for you. it's in response to a question -- >> and he went on to read it. when you plan a big dramatic moment, make sure the video loaded. and adam schiff had his own embarrassing moment, when released a phonic challenge the way he embellished the president's call at the first year. >> mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent enter into the record the transcript from the july 25 call between trip

president trump and president zelensky. you yourself mr. president have mischaracterized the call. >> gentlewoman will suspend. >> he has a very priggish presentation. does he not? what were those cat eyes? >> congresswoman val demings had a dramatic line of questions at the end of the hearing. and, when they enter this irregular channel, highly irregular channel of the u.s. policymaking. >> can i get an enunciation guide for that? >> there you are thinking on their feet. >> and apparently congresswoman jackie steere was so frazzled today, she started misplacing office supplies in her hair. if you look closely, there is a paper clip hanging from her ha hair.

and there is a dossier the ban bangs. that's congressman swalwell under there. that was tense and dramatic. a pet therapy organization called pet partners teamed up with the joint advisory council to provide therapy dogs at the capitol. the various members wanted to pet the therapy dogs to de-stress. my question is, where did the dogs go to de-stress from this experience? or why don't we loose the therapy dogs on some of these numbers in congress. i think we could get a quorum for that. >> laura: it's will release the hounds? >> released the therapy homes. >> laura: released the hounds. those are the cutest things we saw all day up there on the capital. >> well, she could protect yourself with a paper clip in her hair.

>> laura: well sometimes i forget stuff. we women have it a lot harder than you men. stay tuned. what does the real leader of the democratic party think today? my final thoughts,s next. moste a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.

>> i think chairman schiff did a phenomenal job. there were lots of different ways this could have gone off the rails and he did an excellent job. he's keeping these hearings fair and focused and centered on the facts. >> laura: thank you, councilor. that's the democratic party in a nutshell. aoc and adam schiff. the socialist and the inquisitor. why do all the democrats in the house even bother showing up at this point? a collection of potted plants would be just as effective and frankly, nicer to look at. but democrats should be really worried and here's why. the fed came out with an upbeat economic outlook, no recession. and it today markets are hitting another high. phenomenal news. number two the democrats have no credible platform to make the country better and no strong 2020 candidate. number three. the house democrats who ran as moderates in 2018 along with house democratic leadership have been exposed as nothing more

than puppets of aoc. and number four, the mueller report didn't bring down trump and neither will the impeachment scam. 2022020 candidates have to decie whether they want to reward the one in d.c. or the one who has done nothing for middle america. easy choice. that's all the time we have tonight. shannon bream and the "fox news at night" team have all the best analysis and take it from here. >> shannon: thank you so much. we start tonight with the fox news alert. democrats take their impeachment inquiries public. a bombshell or major dive? we will bring you the key moments and break down the first two witnesses and tell you what you can expect as the house democrats impeachment train rolls on. hello and welcome to "fox news at night." we have fox team coverage tonight. we begin with celia turner live on capitol hill. post of a brand-new