again tomorrow night. i hope you join us again on "hannity." thanks, sean, letting me fill in for you. be sure to set your dvrs and we'll be back tomorrow night. coming up, a great show with our favorite laura ingraham. she's up right now. >> laura: jason, thank you so much for a fantastic show. i'm laura ingraham and this is "the ingraham angle," from another busy night in washington tonight. my angle drives a stake in their folly. before clinton impeachment veteran ken starr and sol wisenberg react. also, three congressmen have been instrumental in exposing the democrat circus. they are all here tonight. have you noticed how many lawmakers yesterday compared trump's impeachment to the civil rights movement? candace owens has a reaction. plus we'll have the first reaction to tonight's 2020 democrat debate.

it's a doozy. some big breaking news tonight in john durham's investigation. you have been waiting for it. a busy hour ahead. but first, america first's fake impeachment. that's the focus of tonight's angle. nancy pelosi and adam schiff were right about one thing. it was historic. but not for the reason they claim. it's historic because it is the first time the impeachment process has been used for purely partisan reasons. >> a slapdash process has concluded in the first purely partisan sin impeachment. not the first time they've introduced articles of impeachment, it's the seventh time. it's the predetermined end of a partisan crusade that began before trump was nominated even

let alone sworn in. >> laura: i'll take it a step further. i think one could make a fairly decent argument that the president wasn't really even impeached. at least not yet. why am i saying that? because nancy and the gang ran out of town without even naming impeachment manager, and without sending the articles to the senate! do you know who else is saying this? the democrats' own lawyer print noah feldman, one o one of the impeachment witnesses wrote today, if the house does not communicate its impeachment to the senate, it actually hasn't impeach the president. if the articles are not transmitted, trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all. again, i repeat. this is from their lawyer. last night, the angle explained that pelosi's stall was the latest sign that the democrats were never serious about any of this. in the end, it was a pretend impeachment because it didn't pass policies on previously stated test.

it wasn't bipartisan. no wonder she stumbled through her year and a press conference whether she would transmit the articles to the senate, she said this. >> we do not know the arena that we are in. frankly, i don't care what the republicans say. we would hope there would be a fair process, just as we hoped they would honor the constitution. >> laura: i would hope she knew what arena she was in. nancy, it's called the senate. did she just wake up today and realize that mcconnell was the majority leader? did she lose her copy of the pocket constitution? that senate has the sole power of impeachment. she does not get to dictate its rules for an impeachment trial or anything else for that matter. but of course, she's smart. she knows that. now that the house has dragged the country through this bogus ukrainian trump-zelensky ordeal, it's time for her to put up or shut up. she chose the latter.

>> any other questions, anybody care about that? i'm not going to answer any more questions on this. i'm not going to go there anymore. >> laura: she's not going to go there anymore? she's not going to tell america what her demands are for a senate trial? she just did this fake impeachment yesterday to get run out of town? how inconvenient. again, it's all fake. this is why the impeachment theater didn't rate well even with the resistance waters both the acting and the script were lame. phage has been dominic fox has been dominating since this sad a began. not trying to brag, but we have. the house impeached itself yesterday by perpetrating a fraud on the american people. because the case where impeachment was nonexistent from the start and because everyone knew the ultimate outcome before it began.

be thou my pelosi's failure to stand the articles to the senate is tantamount to a prosecutor who makes a big show of chargine high-profile individual with a crime only to then announce that he's not sure whether he'll ever prosecute the case, whether he'll take it to trial. you heard of smash and grab, right? well, this is smear and run. remember, democrats assured us, they assured us, that they were rushing this through not because they hated the president. no. because he represented an imminent threat to democracy. >> president trump is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections. >> donald trump has been and remains a threat to our national security. >> congress cannot wait the next election for this misconduct. it's a rush to justice and we must not delay up and nothing could be more urgent.

>> laura: we all now know that's make-believe. >> it's the urgency of the situation? it's an urgent situation? the prosecutors appear to have developed cold feet, a very unusual spectacle. in my view, certainly not one that reflects well on the house. we'll see whether house democrats ever want to work up the courage to actually take their accusations to trial. >> laura: work up the courage? come on pier democrats never intended to bring this case to trial. as pelosi stated last spring, impeachment is only warranted when both parties agree on the gravity of the underlying acute conduct. this fruitless, corrosive exercise was pelosi's attempt to throw a bone to the party's hard-core radicals and protector members from being primary by them. if this is as critical as they

claim, if president trump was colluding with the ukrainians or russians or whoever, to steal the next election? they would've not only immediately sent it to their stomach -- they would not have adjourned for the holidays. nancy did the best to stanch the bleeding. she was not successful. >> reporter: [indistinct] >> i said what i'm going to say. we... when we bring the bill, so you know, it's a bill, made an order by the rules committee that we can call up at any time in order to send it over to the senate and to have the provisions in there to pay for the impeachme impeachment, and then the next step, whatever you want to call it mother trial. the trial of. >> laura: can someone diagram

that, please? no wonder her caucus seems confused. >> i think they should give the house leverage to ensure that it's not going to be paid a quarter there. speaker pelosi is not holding anything. this is not a strategy to try and leverage and get something from the senate. >> are you suggesting it's possible you may never transmit the articles of impeachment? >> if it were me, yes, that's what i'm saying. >> laura: they are all going -- it's like the scarecrow in "the wizard of oz"! which way are they going? just yesterday, pelosi's colleagues the member of the press were ready to petition the national park service to add her to mount rushmore. and today? all she has to show for herself is a not impeachment impeachment. a bewildered caucus in no to go. and that is the angle. joining me now is ken starr,

former independent counsel, and fox contributor sol wisenberg. noah feldman's column is interesting today. he said the president isn't technically impeached until it goes to the senate trial. it speaks to the confusion that pelosi and schumer has caused for the country and her caucus, does it not? >> it certainly does. i have a very different perspective and that's one that's rooted in the language of the constitution. the sole power of impeachment rests with the house of representatives, and the house of representatives wisely, or as i think unwisely, acted. they were called in a formal session, they had a debate, and they voted. and that vote is now a matter of record. now, something is missing. that is the filing. it's almost like the filing of the criminal complaint they were

talking about earlier. you can get the grand jury to indict, but the prosecutor needs to go file the indictment in court. this is not a court proceeding, this is politics. the constitution contemplates and history teaches us, and here history is a guide, that in short order, there is no time limit, but in short order that the speaker will designate the house impeachment manager is, the prosecutors -- >> laura: what has she done, we are not in criminal procedure court. we have people who don't understand the law. but technically, it's not a criminal proceeding. >> correct. >> laura: however, this is a political indicatin undertakingt not? call impeachment, call it not impeachment and letting it hang out there. because we do not like the rules of the court? that's convenient. i want to hear you on this. whether you call it impeachment or call it, whatever you want to call it. the fact that she is not telling us that she's going to send it

to the senate because she does not like mitch mcconnell's attitude, are you kidding me? let's g go to sol now. >> i think it's just petulant. very childish to begin with. it's supposed to be a serious and somber thing, as she said. she is trying do something that the constitution does not allow her to do. as ken said, the senate has the sole power to try impeachment, the house has the sole power to consider impeachment. however, i do not believe the constitution requires her to send it over to the senate. she looks like an idiot for not doing it. but i do not think it requires her to be the interesting question is what about the senate? what if senator mcconnell, doesn't sound like he wants to do it, but what if he decides, look, you aren't bringing it over here, but we have the sole power to try impeachment. we are going to have a trial. >> laura: that's what i

thought. that's a great point. >> i think he can do that. i think the senate can do that. interesting standoff here, but i think it makes them look terrible, the democrats terrible. >> laura: i'm going to get back to the point. we are getting stuck in legalese. but ken, my point here is they did not take this seriously. they knew that mcconnell was senate majority leader. they didn't wake up today and figure out, god, he's running the senate. what does it tell you about the strength of this case, the lack of bipartisan nature, and whether they would ever be serious that this constituted a high crime or misdemeanor? that's why i say it's a fraud perpetrated on the american people. >> it was a fraud on the court, the high court of impeachment because of just what was reported earlier. person after person, this is a running theme. we have to do this now because the president is a clear and present danger. ridiculous hyperbole.

we all saw it as a hyperbole, but now it's been proven. unless she moves forward quickly and in points impeachment managers, it becomes a fraud on the house of course a fraud on the american people. >> laura: i want to go with what happened tonight. before we get to senator graham, i want to play something from amy klobuchar in tonight's democrat debate. this is fresh sound. apparently now, sol, if you don't testify or don't put on witnesses, it means you are defective guilty. this is the democrats, the civil libertarians' new approach to impeachment. watch. >> as we face this trial in the senate, in the president claims he is so innocent, then why doesn't he have all the presidents' meant testify? if president trump thinks he should not be impeached, he should not be scared to put forward his own witnesses. >> laura: sol, response to

that? >> it silly, but it's consistent with what they -- the kinds of things that the house managers, the people in the house -- there are no house managers yet, have been saying. for example, congressman swalwell who said the other day, if you were innocent, you would come and testify. i can't believe the guy is a lawyer. the senator's point is a rhetorical point. you can say if he really did nothing wrong, why doesn't he put his people up to testify? that's a political point. but to say we can vote guilty because of that is ridiculous. her duty, like senator mcconnell's duty, is to listen to the evidence and to make a decision in an impartial way. i do not think the senator should have said -- i do not think it was wise or right to say he is not impartial. >> laura: if he doesn't think it's a legitimate impeachment, fraudulent impeachment, i think it's his duty to say how he would vote.

i disagree with you. i see your point if it was a legitimate impeachment be i don't think he thinks is legitimate from the beginning. i want to play something with matter will make senator graham who met with the president today. >> i just met with the president and he's demanding his day in court. every american accused of a crime or wrongdoing gets their day in court. apparently except for donald trump. he's mad as hell that he would do it for him and denying his day in court, the reason they are denying him in his day in court is because they know their case sucks. >> laura: would you recommend this to the president? forage ahead to a trial? or just declare victory since nancy has... >> declare victory. if there is a default, in light of what the speaker is doing now, take it. and let the senate do what the senate does so well, which is

confirmed judges. i understand it's a matter of pride that the president wants to clear his name. it was a weak case, abuse of power does not fit. i can understand that he wants to bring it on through but let's get out of this as quickly as possible. it's just bad for the country. >> laura: sol, i want to get back to the point you raised earlier that no one has really made. it's really important. the senate, even if they don't receive the articles of impeachment, if i understood your point, they can still take them up and move to hear the case or dismiss the case? >> i believe they can. yeah. i believe if pelosi does not exhibit the articles of impeachment to the house, but to the senate, by the way, the preamble to the article says that once it is voted for, it will be exhibited to the senate. if she does not do that, i believe that the senate has the

power because it has -- i think, number one, i think professor feldman is wrong. i agree with ken. he has been impeached. the president has been impeached. the senate has the sole power to try and i think the senate would be in its constitutional right and senator mcconnell would be to say we are trying this baby. doesn't sound like he wants to do it, that's up to him. i think they have the power to do that and i think it would be challenged in court and i think the court would say constitutionally the checks and balances battle to the senate and the house. >> laura: if it hangs out, ken ken, there's no way to challenge the impeachment. if we do not do what sol says the senate could do, there's no way to challenge the house impeachment legally in any court proceeding. it would not be disheveled, correct? >> that is correct. the drawers are shut, this is all going to be between the

house and the senate. >> laura: wow, everybody gets continuing legal education credit your tonight on the "ingram angle." great to see both of you and have a merry christmas. coming up, how badly he could democrats' impeachment vote backfire? our congressional angle, is zeldin, lee, gaetz here tonight.

( ♪ )

we were paying an arm and a leg for postage. i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order,

print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half. just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/try and get 2 months free. carolyn: vision loss doesn't define us. marina: and we are here shipto let those challenged the #1 choice of online sellers. with blinding retinal diseases know... heather: that together, we are stronger. eric and carolyn: we are the foundation fighting blindness. carolyn: join the fight at fightingblindness.org. >> laura: nancy was wearing red today but democrats losing big time on impeachment and it's cost them a house seats calling into 2020. congressman jeff andrew switching parties from democrat to republican at the white house today. >> jeff andrew, highly respected joining the republican party.

you said it was ten years since that's happened. he's not going to be in the minority for long. 2020, you'll have my undying support. always. >> laura: the media, they were going crazy with the conch meant that comment that lee zeldin of the house foreign affairs committee, matt gaetz, his fiery speech, steve scalise, let's start with you for the democrats are lost in the wilderness as he pointed out in the angle. isn't the damage done, if you are looking at what happened to the president, his family, his legacy, it was a smear and run >> a lot of the damage was done to the democrats for the oil field that when they get to the polls next november.

to vote for these articles in the trump district sent to washington to work with the president, not to impeach him. i think the damage has been done for them and many of them are not going to be here to serve with us in january 2020. >> laura: it's like having a big press conference saying, i'm going to charge him with, you know, robbery, armed robbery. and you never bring the case. >> it's part of the pattern, laura. first they had to hide the evidence in the bunker of the basement, they had to release selected excerpts out of context of the transcripts. actually have live witnesses before the american people, the polling inverted on impeachment now facing a real trial were a full kopelman of witnesses will be called, democrats are trying to cut and run on their own impeachment because they see it's a big failure. >> laura: this is why our system doesn't allow this in a legal context.

you cannot announce charging someone and then say, i don't know if i'm going to bring that case. >> when jim comey brought this to hillary clinton, they acted like it was a human rights violation. now they are doing it to donald trump. >> laura: not an indictment of hillary and they've done it again. congressman scully's, they made a big point that this is serious, all wearing black. and then this video from congresswoman tlaib surfaced. >> hey, i'm on my way to united the house floor to impeach president trump on behalf of my incredible district. 13th district strong. let's do this. >> laura: reaction? >> just the disdain they have for really the 63 million americans who elected donald trump president. all of the hard men and women who have been forgotten by

washington for the arrogance of these liberal elites to walk in to watch it and lives better they didn't agree with the results of the 2016 election and they were hell-bent on impeaching this president. over a hundred, 800 democrats voted to impeach the president prior to the zelensky phone call. now they are seeing the backlash. the country revolting what they just did. it's going to be a scar on nancy pelosi's legacy. >> laura: i was going to say fake news, fake impeachment. congressman gaetz, cnn analyst rachel bad showed her true colors last night. she treated dominic tweeted an image of herself with the captiy

impeachmas. do you believe the real collusion has been the media and the resistance democrats? >> they peddle those lies throughout the process but my problem wasn't that she was in celebrating impeachment. my problem that she pretended to cover it fairly. during the i think that you see the mainstream media transition from reporting the facts to advocacy journalism and i think that she has been exposed as an advocacy journalist. >> laura: president trump spoke today in the overall office about what's happening in the coming weeks. seems like he's itching for a fight. >> it doesn't feel like impeachment. do you know why? it's a phony deal. they cheapen the word impeachment. it's an ugly word. that should never happen again to another president. i think you'll see some very interesting things happen over the coming few days and weeks.

>> laura: do you know what he's hinting at, congressman zeldin? i want some insight. what is a hinting at? >> is a beautiful thing they have the facts on your side. he provided the july 25th call transcript. >> laura: what could he be hinting at? is white house counsel, what he might be doing, what the next move would be, whether or not the articles come. >> he knows he did nothing wrong. adam schiff fairy tale, tried writing the world's greatest parity ever written, relying on 3% of the facts and the president knows he's going to he this team that i have an opportunity to go to the senate if nancy pelosi ever sends articles of impeachment to make the argument to defend him and he's right on the process, it's illegitimate. it's been a legend on the process. the president is excited for the opportunity to actually have -- you know, fairness!

>> laura: there something else he's hinting at. i think zeldin knows what he's not telling us. >> we all know that the ukraine and denver was not the outgrowth of presidential misconduct, it's a distraction from the russia hoax which is a cover up for all the collusion that existed between the hillary clinton campaign, the dnc, and people outside the united states trying to influence the election. i think we've got major bombshells coming in the durham investigation and he understands that's what the american people want to see in terms of accountability. >> laura: congressman scalise, you said that impeachment was a stain on pelosi's record, she responded to "the washington post" saying, it's so pathetic, after they impeach somebody for having a personal indiscretion and lying about it to protect his family, they are calling this partisan? bill clinton lied to protect his family, congressman? that's a nice one. trying to protect his own, you know, himself and the wrath of

hillary. i don't know. >> if you go through the three impeachments that we've had prior to this, whatever you want to call this, everyone of them started with an actual crime. you can debate whether it's a high crime or misdemeanor, but they were all the crime. no dispute about that. there was never a crime. they hoped there was a crime to the mueller investigation was a 22 month witch hunt to try to find a crime. but go look at pelosi's comments just a week ago where she said they've been doing this for two and a half years. again, i went on the house floor last night. some of the things that democrats already voted to impeach president trump on two years ago, they voted to impeach him for criticizing nfl players who kneeled for the pledge. is that really a high crime and misdemeanor? as one of the democrat witnesses, who under oath testified he voted against president trump, said the only abuse of power is what democrats are doing, abusing their power because of the president exercising his legal rights. maybe adam schiff read article

one and two of the constitution, but his version didn't have article three, which is the judicial branch. they don't have a case. there was no crime. >> laura: this happened after andrew jackson, if the house is retaken by the republicans next year, i think we have to move to expunge this impeachment from the record. it has to be moved to a full expungement of this. this is a fraud perpetrated on the american public. i thought i had seen it all until i saw every which way -- >> impeachment in drag. >> laura: that's a good one! but attend the fake impeachment in drag. >> the voters need to expunge the democrats from this majority. the great thing about our country is they can throw them out of office in november. >> laura: if they win and stay in the majority, we'll have endless impeachment rolling. >> that's if it's one-party democratic rule. >> laura: can't have it. can't have people. they are sick of this. time to be representative of the

people, not roadblocks to the people. congressman, merry christmas britt you've all done a fabulous job. scalise, have fun down in louisiana. democrats kept invoking the civil rights movements while trying to impeach the president. is that appropriate? candace owens reacts. and we have breaking news about the john durham investigation and what he's targeting in his probe. this is big. stay there. - do you have a box of video tapes, film reels, or photos,

that are degrading? legacybox professionally converts them to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off.

>> laura: democrats said some doozies during their impeachment-thon, or the fake impeachment i caught it earlier. nancy pelosi compared it to fighting the battle of the bulge and some of the democrats went so far to invoke the civil rights movement. >> i urge you to come down to georgia, find a black man or woman of a certain age, and they'll tell you of brave americans who marched and struggled and sometimes died so that we could have fair and free elections. >> when we came here for the signing of the voting rights act, we were excited, hopeful! for today, this day, we didn't ask for this. this is a sad day. >> laura: to respond as candace owens, founder of the blexit movement, founder author of "blackout," is it

fair, relevant to discuss the struggles of the civil rights movement with what happened in t house yesterday? >> honestly, i find this to be infuriating and disgusting. it goes to prove my point. i've always said in the democrats' aim of chess, chess of power, black americans have always been the ponds. they figure out, how can we make them emotional, how can we make them angry. democrats believe black americans are stupid come on so absent any facts, if they dangle the terms of the civil rights movement, if they like and something to the civil rights movement, if they smart smear somebody as stupid, we are supposed to jump up, be angry, o a burning house to save their party. exactly how democrats view black america and it's so obvious when people invoke imagery from the civil rights era. i mean, to add credence to the boat bogus impeachment, they the

are an absolute joke and infuriates me that they do this time and time again every four years. we have to wake up to this nonsense. >> laura: even congresswoman joined this. >> we have not had to fight very hard for our democracy. dominic recently. we have to fight hard just like the revolutionaries did on the battlefield, just like people fought for it in the underground railroad, just like people fought for it in the civil rights movement. >> laura: she got the revolution we wore in there too. practically thinking she was going to bring out the fife and drum corps. to me, it's a sign that they know the president is gaining support in minority communities. and they are freaking out. i just think they are freaking out about it. >> do you know what i find especially disgusting about it? the democrats are the ones that use this imagery for the democrats are the ones who are the reasons we had slavery in this country, democrats are the ones who fought for the jim crow

laws. the reason we've had this deep history of racism and division in this country is because the democrat party. that's what i've been trying to fix this division has always been the republicans. it's amazing to me that they dig up their own history. their own history of racism and hatred that they can maintain this ideological hold on black americans. >> laura: candace, great to see you. thanks for all your them. so is this year. who knows? i might see you down in florida. i hear i'm going. if you thought ig horowitz's fisa abuse report was the end of the story, guess again. attorney general bill barr rizzi revealed a new stunning detail about the probe. >> he's not looking at just the fbi, he's looking at other agencies and private agents and private actors. so it's a much broader

investigation. >> laura: i love how he says it really calm. scarier that way. as he said that, this broke tonight. "the new york times" reporting that durham "examining testimony by the former cia director john brennan and seeking his comedic asian records." i owe. joining me now, lee smith. the plot against the president," why is brennan -- take us down memory lane, why is brennan so central about this? >> he was in charge of assembling the intelligence community assessment on january 2017, and there is a reason congressman devon union don mcgahn mcdevitt nunez and in my book calls it obama's dossier. it's to do the same thing that the steele dossier did which was to smear trump for this earth to delegitimize his presidency

and complicate the appraisal transition of power >> when you see how he's trotted out. is he on cnn? >> msnbc. >> laura: sometimes i check it out. but he's on the other network, msnbc, there is not even a sense of irony -- "what do you think about the fisa report." there is no sense in irony asking them questions, but from the committee, comey, brennan, clapper, the three icy stooges, we wondered when we'll have accountability. comey the other night was like, i'm glad we are getting to the bottom of this. >> this is an important thing. the story comes from "the new york times" and it appears that they are probably going to be christening a more severe blow. but certainly there is a lot of

different things that john brennan did that investigators are going to be looking at. no congressional investigators looking at it. we hope that u.s. attorney durham is as well. >> laura: just so we refresh every body's recollection on this, this was john durham speaking about -- brennan, excuse me, talking about the dossier. >> if the bureau ever relied on the steele dossier as part of any court filings? applications? petitions? >> i had no awareness. >> did the caa rely on it? >> no. it was not part of the corpus of intelligence investigations we had but not on any way used as a basis on the intelligence community assessment that was done. >> yeah. one of the things that we know it appears that in august 2016, john brennan may have brief harry reid on the dossier. he said different things, and didn't say it much later, but it

appears in 2016 he may have talked to harry reid about it. there is a lot of problems with comey 's brennan's testimony and what will appear in his testimony as well. >> this cannot drag into the summer of next year. have a great, great holiday. great to see you. mary merry christmas and all that jazz. did you forget that there's democrat debate going on tonight? will be one of the first to show you one of the most ridiculous assertions before mercedes schlapp and richard goodstein debate. stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

. but this, this is the future. the future of communicating of hearing and connecting with life. and this, is eargo. no appointments no waiting no hassles.

and they are practically invisible in your ear. now you see it. now you don't. if you have hearing loss now is the time to do something about it. because denying you have hearing loss, well that's the old way

>> laura: that's right. seven of the 2020 democratic

candidates on stage debating elites tonight just wrapped. like most americans, you probably didn't watch it. we did so you didn't have to. most americans care more about the economy, which is booming, if you haven't noticed. unfortunately for democrats, they don't have any good answers. >> my question to you, mr. vice president, what is your argument to the voter watching this debate tonight who may not light everything president trump does, but they like this economy and don't know why they should make a change? >> i do not think they really do like the economy. >> how do you answer top economist that's a tax of this magnitude would stifle growth and investment? >> they are just wrong! >> laura: here to break down the highlights is mercedes schlapp, trump 2020 senior campaign advisor, and richard goldstein, lawyer and former clinton advisor. i watch tonight when i wasn't on the air, and it seemed to me

that david kratz had given up the idea that they will grow th? am i wrong? >> i do not think there is anybody in your audience who knows that more jobs were created in the last three years of the obama presidency than in the first three years of trump's. and obama did not have a big tax cut and super high and so forth, so somehow or other, obama did pretty well in terms of job growth. >> laura: how about wage growth? >> not as good as it is now. i'm just saying. and yet if you talk to those blue-collar workers in terms of their expenses of health care, their lives are -- >> their lives are so much better! >> if they were, donald trump would not be in the lower 40s. >> come on. even looking at poll numbers, he's right about where obama is if not higher in terms of approval ratings but you can look at approval ratings. you look down the rhine in all

these targeted states where i see the polling, americans are better off. they are financially better off. >> and that's why trump lost in plus 30 states. >> laura: i get your point but they are not the best candidates. >> you have to remember in midterm elections, and historical component of the minster in elections it normally goes the other way. >> laura: we have to get our obligatory mention of the usmca which finally pass today. obama in 2008 said he's going to renegotiate and the fta. in eight years couldn't get it up. this guy gets it young del mcdonough and the democrats in it for half of the year. i get that people do not like trump, but my god. they got usmca, they got the south korean trade deal.

that's good for blue-collar americans. speaking of blue-collar americans, joe biden won for the worse response of a debate question and there was some condition. take a look. >> three consecutive american president have enjoyed stands of explosive economic growth due to a booming oil and natural gas production. as president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of their growth known potentially it could displace thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy? >> the answer is yes. >> laura: richard? >> if you don't mind, among millennials, climate change is an issue that i think both of you think is a joke and they don't. >> we don't think it's a joke. >> then -- they don't think it's a hoax -- vehicle you're willing to throw away the fossil fuel industry

that provides thousands, tens of thousands of jobs to americans n texas, in pennsylvania, in ohio. you go across the country by following these utopian type of -- >> the response to you is california. as you know, california has the strictest environmental standards regarding greenhouse emissions. and economic growth that is the envy of most states! california is the envy of most states. >> laura: i don't think so. do you see the video of the ma man -- speak of course, there's homelessness. >> people in california. >> laura: richard is saying the economy doing really well in california! but that's -- that's a laugh, a part because of trump. do you think, richard, knowing what you know, if your life depended on getting it right, who is going to win in november of next year if you had to say now, given all your experience. is it going to be a democrat or

trump? >> very close. i think biden ends up being the nominee. everybody thought he was a dead man walking a couple of months ago. >> laura: i didn't. >> you did not. with all the incoming -- i think people look at him, they compare it to the donald trump we talked about john dingell being in hell and they go, no. we talk about government workers being scum, no. >> president obama is not even supporting biden. >> rakan did not support george w. bush until 88! >> the only issue biden has his son hunter. >> what about the corruption around donald trump! >> pretty hard to beat the peace and prosperity agenda even if you have a colorful candidate. this is going to be a fun, though. we are just glad to, richard and

mercedes, you both have been phenomenal this year on the show. thank you for your contributio contributions. ingram's inbox, i hope we have time. stay tuned. next.

>> laura: it's time again for ingram's inbox. we have time for one, but it's an interesting one. kurt in l.a. writes, it's interesting that they demand mcconnell recuse himself because he will not be an

impartial juror, but shouldn't booker, i knew there was someone smart in l.a. be sure to send your thoughts to incrementgoal .channing: thank you so much >> shannon: i'm shannon bream in washington. we begin with a fox news alert. lawmakers president trump with no plans to launch a senate trial, he says he refuses to play ball with democrats over their demands but we are we in the standoff? and the 2020 democrats face off with the latest debate in los angeles packing in veatch mint and railing against the trump economy. karl rove and juan williams standing by with analysis. and breaking tonight