never miss an episode. we will never be the media, raged, hate trump a mob. let not your heart be troubled. laura ingraham standing by to take it away. >> laura: i've got to say, i thought the democrats were obsessed with ripping trump out of office. what they are stooping to now really is an all-time low. their back on the russia red scare with his "new york times" absurdity that came out today. it's a complete joke. it's actually embarrassing. at some point it's just embarrassing for them. >> sean: they haven't done anything for the american people. they're supposed to serve. public servants. when you serve, i was a waiter, i would serve for the clientele. >> laura: we work for them. we work to pay their sedan. we the people work for the

government. that is how the democrats see it. trump sees it the other way around. you had a great show. i'm looking forward to next week. you and i are going to tag team it. >> sean: i'm thinking about doing a segment, everybody always likes these handoffs. i'm like, why doesn't laura do a segment every week? we can hash it out longer. you can make fun of me like you usually do. >> laura: you do me the same courtesy and go once a week on my show. >> sean: there always has to be a quid pro quo. >> laura: you finally discovered the quid pro quo. >> sean: the real qui. >> laura: this is "the ingraham angle." nancy finally, finally makes her glacial move. moments my angle examines what t the senate should do next. our expert legal panel latest on everything you need to know about the upcoming trial.

what will and what won't surprise you. we have breaking news. we just got our hands on it. tonight, mitch mcconnell opens the door to: hunter biden in front of the senate trial. what about the whistle-blower? we will ask that question. devin nunes has answers. more breaking news, this time on mike flynn. we have new details. more russian hysteria is coming your way as i mentioned to hannity, democrats and the resistance media are foaming at the mouth over this new russia hacking controversy. we are digging into the real truth and the sources there. laura logan is here. first, dismiss the madness. that is the focus of tonight's angle. nearly a month after the house passed two lame articles of impeachment against president trump, nancy pelosi finally, finally announced urgent case needed to be slowly

transmitted to the senate. >> th he abused his power and obstructed a constitutionally instructed impeachment inquiry. in america, no one is above the law. the next step is simple, the senate should conduct a fair trial. >> laura: he is not biased. the slow roll of her articles, that itself speaks volumes about these absurdities of this entire exercise. when pressed about why she decided to send the articles despite zero concessions from mcconnell, senior members of her own party struggled to move beyond gibberish. >> she thought very carefully about this with the conjunction of the committee chairs. you know, she'll make her case and proceed forward. >> laura: can i buy a vowel

please? the senate majority leader is clearly in the driver's seat. >> the house majority thinks political may have started this with frivolity. it will fall to the senate, to the senate to end it with seriousness and sobriety. >> laura: he is right. the senate is not beholden to the lower chamber and determining trial procedures. anymore than they senate can dictate with the house does. nancy pelosi knows this. it's all a farce. mcconnell, frankly has been a beacon of clarity for weeks. raising the requirements of the constitutional questions at every turn. he's repeatedly demonstrated how absurd and have seen this entire ukraine impeachment was from the start. today mcconnell gave the appearance, kind of holding a door open to witnesses at the senate trial. >> we will be dealing with the

witness issue at the appropriate time. i think it certainly appropriate to point out that both sides would want to call witnesses that they would want to hear from. >> laura: you see the trick going on there. as i said last night, he has the opportunity to add to this nightmare. he could in his opening resolution tomorrow include a motion to dismiss the fraudulent articles of impeachment. the facts, the law, and the constitutional requirement. an actual trial is only necessary if preceded by a legitimate indictment. that didn't happen here. the process and the house was infected by partisan tanks and effected legal arguments. first the house failed to make their case under applicable law. the constitution clearly states a person can only be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. here none of that was established. there was no underlying crime.

>> this would be the first impeachment and history where there would be considerablecomm. >> laura: the two articles filed against the president are deficient. the first, abuse of power is just totally made out. according to the radicals and their parties, the president is abusing his power every time he enforces, let's say immigration law. he can't do this, he is abusing his power, would that count as an article of impeachment? ithe president acted squarely with his article one powers in his telephone conversation with ukrainian president. ukrainian president said he felt no pressure, no quid pro quo. this is why the democrats abandon their talk of the quid pro quo and of course all the other stuff they were throwing in the kitchen sink, extortion, you name it. >> there are a number of events

you are investigating for which i cannot bring any first-hand knowledge. >> what i can do for you here today is to tell you what i heard from people. >> you have no testimony today that ties president trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine in exchange for these investigations. >> other than my own presumption. >> which is nothing! >> laura: that's my favorite of all. the second of obstruction of congress is even more legitimate if that's possible. now we will impeach presidents who exercise their rights to observe privileges or otherwise defend their executive authority? that's going to be interesting. from day one adam schefter and company made it clear that they wouldn't go to court to enforce subpoenas, what does that tell you. a no confidence in their case. they claimed there was no time. they pointed to the urgency of the matter. we had to stop trump, he was going to do it again.

remember all that? it was like, hurry up and wait for an entire month. they're going to any impeachment articles to the senate. if anybody should be charged with abuse of power, it pelosi and schiff. >> if you impeach a president's, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. it's your abuse of power. you are doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing. >> laura: the politics of this impeachment stink to high heaven and they always have. democrats didn't get a single republican to vote for it. not one! the framers made it very clear that impeachment had to be bipartisan to be legitimate. the underlying conduct had to be egregious. >> hamilton and federal 65's have the greatest danger is for impeachment to turn on how many votes one party can have against the other party.

that is exactly what happened. it would be ideal if we had impeachments that were neutral, objected, bipartisan. in this case it doesn't rise to that level in any sense. >> laura: it shouldn't be treated as legitimate either. democrats used to agree that impeachment should be driven fully by one party. >> we are here today because the republicans and the house are paralyzed with hatred. until the republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer. >> history is going to question whether or not this is just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standards. the very high bar. >> laura: by then, he actually members were he was. what happened? donald trump happens, that's what. finally it's time that members of congress start earning their paycheck. we face a wide array of challenges that need the

president's undivided attention. i ron, infrastructure, the skyrocketing cost of health care still. this is all a dangerous distraction mcconnell should call it out as such. mid romney and the other folks who are wobbly, mitt romney has the opportunity to be a hero here. i said hero. he had a handful of the other wavering republican senators have the power to preserve the legitimacy and the check of impeachment. allowing new witnesses into the process at this point, it only empowers the partisans that began this madness from the beginning! the constitutional deficiency is obvious on its face. i think romney knows that. it's imperative that they stop the democratic senators itching for a show trial. allowing this impeachment to go forward only serves to set a poisonous precedent for future commanders in chief. long after trump is gone.

this is a time for the g.o.p. to stand together. just like they did in the face of the brett kavanaugh smears. lending any legitimacy to the houses acidic article would burn a hole through the constitution and frankly, the senate's legacy. that's "the ankle." joining me now as babar, former house impeachment manager along with saul wiseman berg. john eastman, claremont institute senior fellow and constitutional scholar. we have a lot to get to tonight. fox news is concerned, confirming that mitch mcconnell met today with g.o.p. senators to discuss trial strategies including the idea of witness reciprocity with democrats. basically, will trade you a hunter biden for a john bolton. john, is this kind of a cutesy game? mitch mcconnell is very smart, he knows the procedure better than anybody on the hill. knowing democrats will never

allow hunter biden or schiff to testify. >> i think so, but if were going to go forward it would be interesting to hear from those folks. we have enough evidence to be here it was collusion months before the call to set this up. we have enough evidence to know hunter biden was in a sweetheart deal getting money. we heard from your opening monologue, they keep saying nobody is above the law. that would include hunter biden and joe biden. it makes a perfectly legitimate for the presidential look into that deal. all of these things ought to be on the table. the whole scandal where, where it is illegitimate for the president to ask for foreign help and investigation of u.s. distance, where they talk about the obama administration investigation of paul manafort? the use of the fbi to spy on the trump campaign? this whole charade is designed to provide cover and hide that

most phenomenal, political scandal in american history. >> laura: and impeachment trial is not going to get to the bottom of any that. that's just wishful thinking. you are wit and wisdom is required here. what about mcconnell including a motion to dismiss in that opening resolution? even if they don't vote on it right away. i know you think that happened in impeachment if my memory serves me correctly. >> if they entertain a motion to impeach, sorry a motion to dismiss. either on the theory that the impeachment articles on their face do not allege an impeachable crime. or on the theory that we've looked at all the evidence from the house and that does improve an impeachable crime. if they decide to dismiss on those grounds, i believe that under the case of nixon, that is walter and not richard. the supreme court cannot

question that. in other words it's a political question the supreme court will not second guess. my first answer to your question is, there is no doubt the senate can do this. they doubt would be considered a trial. there supreme court said, we don't look if something's a trial or not. that's up to the senate alone. >> laura: interesting. i knew i would get a good answer from you. bob bar, you've been through this before. what are your thoughts here about this idea of expanding this out. we have supposedly new documents that the democrats are dropping into the senate tomorrow regarding scribble scrabble on a notepad that's not dated. how does that all play into this process? >> it's more nonsense from a process that has given us

nothing but nonsounds. they're to resuscitate a body that died a long time ago over in the house night. your idea of having a motion to dismiss is, it is so obviously the right thing to do for the republicans that one wonders why there is all of this daily data lying around. it takes a majority vote. they have more than the majority. get it over with. if the democrats want to try and take it to the courts and have the court slapped her hand, that's fine. the senate has the power and the majority ought to do the right thing for once. >> laura: i have to agree. this entire thing of, should we call hunter? you called him and a senate committee. they could call him tomorrow. this idea that we will negotiate and romney will do this, schiff -- this is a joke. this is terrible for the future of our country. it might be good for us, we will

have gangbusters ratings next week. i'm saying something against my own personal interest. it's bad for the country, terrible for the country. >> as you pointed out in your opening monologue, the claims of obstruction of congress for the president, asserting his rights as an executive, he doesn't work for the congress. this is not a parliamentary system. he has his own independent authority from the constitution. what the house of representatives, second article of impeachment is trying to upset that balance and shift power away from the executive. we have a unitary executive for a very important reason. it started to threaten the entire infrastructure of our constitutional system. >> laura: when we read the reporting about nancy pelosi calling mitch mcconnell, a russian asset. i'm paraphrasing. that is what she said.

she said, he has crumble and connections. going along with the far left hashtag that's been flying around twitter. that speaks to the underlying raw tear. this is a partisan attack, the extension of the failed mueller probe and they're trying to go back and get him out of office. i think her comments alone tanked. >> i believe when the history of this is looked at, speaker pelosi is not going to look very good. the reason for that, senator mcconnell, i don't always agree with him but i think he hit the nail on the head. they did not take this process seriously. when you impeach a president, it's serious. you don't get up one day hold a press conference and say, are now doing impeachment. you pass a resolution that says were going to do in impeachment inquiry. if you do it early enough to let people go to the courts and see if they have to testify.

they could have subpoenaed mcgann much earlier. they could have subpoenaed bolton and the boats would have expedited the schedule. on that question, i believe history will show in the whole idea of upholding it for the last two weeks will show she made a lot of tactical and strategical mistakes. all in all, she was not a serious person. the judgment on history of her will be devastating. >> laura: you're being very charitable. that's why we love to have you on the show. for the charitable guest on the panel. really quickly, bob barr, the democrats are already looking past the impeachment vote. to do more russia investigation. this is mike quigley, a congressman today. watched. >> when this process is all over, the committee and intelligence will continue to

investigate this president from all the issues relating to the oppression investigation, including money laundering. i want the public to know that the investigation of this president, the desire to hold him accountable continue. >> i hadn't heard money laundering before. i heard extortion and bribery. everything else. i'd not heard that in a while. final thought? >> what they're doing here is their further eroding the entire process of the intelligence committee, which ought to be involved in a serious oversight. it has no credibility whatsoever. they've done great damage to that process as well to the constitutional process of impeachment. >> laura: dismiss this now. i have to make t-shirts. i'll send each of you one. gentlemen, thank you. coming up, where is hunter? mitch mcconnell hinted he might be interested in calling

hunter bite and a witness in the senate trial. democrats want witnesses, they want witnesses. devin nunes joins us to discuss that. a forgotten witness the heart of impeachment. ♪ - 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.

♪ >> i would love to have the whistle-blower who wrote a fake report. i want to know what happened to the second whistle-blower. what happened to the informer? they all disappeared. >> laura: i lost track of how many whistle-blowers, informants. the president raise some great points with my exclusive interview with him on friday. what happened to the person who launched this entire sham? the connection to adam schiff. how many connections are there with adam schiff? why haven't we heard from the whistle-blower?

they don't get any special immunity. joining me now is devin nunes. ranking member of the house until committee. congressman, is a senate going to try the president? take a vote in this removal in the office with such murky origins? how did it get this far? >> they've been hell-bent to impeach for three years. your last panel, the guests were talking about -- former congressman bob barr, they've ruined and stepped all over the constitution. they've also grew to the house intelligence committee. at some point i would like to be able to come on the show and talk about the work that people sent me here to do. to serve on the committee, where we deal with trade issues and all the important issues people care about. >> laura: how about china? a country that's being done mike on the verge of being larger than ours. that's a threat. >> the republicans, we had an investigation going into china and we still do.

>> we've had virtually no hearis whatsoever. >> laura: they are not interestininterested in governi. they're interested in the removal of the presidents. i want to play something for you. this is tammy baldwin when the issue was raised of hunter biden. watch. >> the idea for a trial is to have witnesses who have knowledge about the articles of impeachment that had been sent over or will be sent over from the house. it's abuse of power. it's obstruction of congress. hunter biden really has no bearing on those things. >> laura: no relevance. >> clearly he has relevance along with all the democratic operatives who were doing exactly what they accuse trump of doing. they were in ukraine digging up dirt on trump. you ask about -- about adam schiff, what is he doing?

he needs to testify. every once guest tomorrow is that he will be one of the managers that will be in a senate try to prosecute this case. >> laura: he walks over to the witness, is there a witness stand? hold on, let me put down this microphone and go on the other side. >> he needs to answer questions because he is the fact witness. he's the one that first had interactions with the whistle-blower. you take on top of this -- >> laura: he said he is not a fact witness. he was on the view today. watch what he said. >> would you if asked to come up you want to testify if you are subpoenaed? >> i'm not a fact witness, so i'm not sure why the senate would call me or nancy pelosi as a witness. >> of course he's a witness. >> they get away with this because the media is letting them get away with it. we don't know how this

whistle-blower ever came to be. we find out new things all the time. we just found out the other day that mary mccord, the former doj personnel had been advised in the democrats. we did know about that. >> laura: we got these notes of scribble scrabble, there is there is no pad and were supposed to say, the democrats have a smoking gun. this is nothing. it's not even dated. >> who was adam schiff hanging out with. he has been indicted on serious federal crimes. they been in negotiations to get this guy a deal, some type of a nullification. remember, this guy has lied about me. he's lied to -- about us several times. he's lied about our staff. this is not someone who is a credible witness for anything.

>> laura: mike glennon has withdrawn his guilty plea due to the government's breach of his agreement. what else can you tell us? >> we knew from early on in 2017 that michael flynn did not lie to the fbi. we actually put that in our reports. it didn't come out until 2018. there were several of us as witnesses. we also told the highest level of the doj that we had been briefed by the fbi that he didn't live to the fbi. >> laura: didn't peter strzok come out of that meeting with flynn? he didn't think you lied? >> interesting you said that. there is interesting documentation we never received. to add further than that -- i want to make sure everybody understands this. we put into our report and some of the things that general flynn is saying, withdrawing his pulley, he sang he's been treated unfairly. remember, we put this in a

report and 2018 and for some reason it was redacted. we had to fight for a couple of months to get that unredacted. we are witnesses here -- we were briefed by the fbi that flynn didn't lie. i just don't see -- some of us need to speak on his behalf. the fbi should have this information. >> laura: vindictive prosecution withholding evidence. that's a real no-no. there seems to be a pattern of misbehavior. >> we alerted the fbi. >> laura: you had a lot in your reports. congressman, thank you for coming in tonight. keep it up for flynn and coming up, 14 days and 22020 and russia hysteria is back. my mini angle explains that and then lara logan joins us to dismantle the latest red scare. stay m right there

♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

i feelbusiness cards...new logo...outdoor sign. you always get me. now, get free 1 hour in-store pick up... ...at office depot officemax and officedepot.com. same time next week. yes!

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. as a doctor, i agree with cdc guidance. i recommend topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved to relieve moderate pain, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu.

♪ >> laura: the democrats tried mightily to use fake anti-russia hysteria, only to flame out spectacularly. now they're at it again if you can believe it. on sunday speaker pelosi wondered if mcconnell is an accomplice with russia. today she was back added, reportedly telling her colleagues in a private meeting that she wondered if mcconnell

has kremlin connections. of course the press happily joins in and they relentlessly fan the flames of this new red scare. now they think they have a new in. yesterday's "new york times" reported, russian military hackers have been boring into the ukrainian gas company at the center of the impeachment affa affair. you might wonder, who are these security experts? it turns out, it's a company called area one. cofounded by oren falco widths. also the "washington examiner" reporting that area one is reportedly working with the campaigns of 2020 democrats. what? somehow the paper record failed to mention those insignificant details. a conflict of interest may be. work on them totally unimportant. either way, it's embarrassing.

forget this antiquated idea of checking sources. potential conflicts before you run with a story. liberal ponded were all too happy to run back to russia. >> russia have played this game before and 2016. are we seeing the groundwork being laid for the same thing? >> the russians are doing the same thing over again. >> they will function as a super packed. not just a trump campaign, but a hostile actor as well. >> this will be a factor in this election. >> this is a redo of that election. >> laura: that diagram. i would like to state that i personally -- if i had to bet the farm on it, if i had a farm, i don't believe any of these details. at least not as their laid out. especially considering the source.

this looks a lot like a planted story meant to paris spanned the 2020 election and maybe even provide cover for joe biden should any inconvenient details come out. if they come out they can say, it's russia. let's consider for a moment the worst-case scenario, that the russians did hack burisma. all it proves is that, hunter biden should never have gotten involved with a corrupt company. susceptible to these types of intrusions. especially while his father was the sitting vice president. here now with me, the investigative journalist, fox nation host, layer logan. noah shackman tweeted about "the new york times" and, "i hope my fellow editors will think hard, really hard, harder than they did in 2016 before publishing any material hacked by the russians.

it seems they haven't learned a lot from the first rossa scare. they are saying basically that because there was a report from a source that russia hacked into paris' mama, anything that comes out about burisma and joe biden should be discounted. that's pretty convenient. >> when i first saw that, i thought the tweet was going to be, i thin hope my journalists k hard before they accept this at face value. it was the opposite. what was unusual about it to me as a journalist, especially is that editors and editors in chief don't normally go out telling other journalists how to react to something. >> laura: talk about groupthink. >> it's kind of odd. any time there is something odd you take a closer look. anytime there is a red flag --

why did someone not want me to look at something? why did someone flagged this? beyond that actually, what i recognize here is reminiscent of what was in "the new york times" during the presidential campaign in 2016. an opinion writer went out and called on journalist to abandon their normal standards and principles of objectivity. to make sure this person wasn't elected. that has echoes of that, he reminded me of that. it also reminds you, as journalists we are supposed to be skeptical of everybody. you're telling me not to do something. >> laura: that's like telling your kids, don't check under your bed for the christmas gifts. what you think about your recovery for journalists? there actually needs to be a place where they all go and they go into recovery from this

syndrome. people call it trump-derangement syndrome. i've never seen anything like it. i've been in this town far too long. way longer than i want to admit. they don't seem to be -- they seem incapable of taking an objective look at stuff that ten years ago they didn't care about at all, like russia. you couldn't get people to cover russia ten years ago. >> how do we know what journalists think? the coverage is dominated and drowned out by one narrative. i think a lot of journalists just know that the price of going against a narrative is so high. what i know from talking to other journalists, it's not worth the problem. that is one part of it. the other problem it is the institutions themselves. where is a accountability from institutions? perhaps russia -- we wouldn't be so quick to rush to judgment if

there had been a real accountability with journalists and publications. >> laura: there needs to be a general, the whole deal. no one ever does that. >> if you are an alcoholic the first thing they say is, you have to admit you are an alcoholic. it starts with admitting what you did. we haven't gotten to that stage. >> laura: don't you think the ends justify the means? i heard it today. this guy has got to get out of office. let's say they don't want money in politics. in 2,060 and it was about money in politics. michael bloomberg says, i'm want to spend a billion and they try to to human pretzels and, it's okay now. the results will be, will read the country of this antidemocratic force owned by the russians. >> i have faith because of my experience and they journalists i have worked with over the years. there journalists we hear that

thing and see that kind of thing. they see it for what it is. they know that is not it. >> laura: where are they? >> that's a very good question. they are there. >> laura: it's like college campuses, it becomes a self-selecting group. there are not that many conservative professors. maybe not the university of chicago. your background, your cultural understanding, your worldview. i'm not shy it should proselytize the students, but there is no intellectual diversity. it's a monochromatic, ideological lurch to the left. the same thing is happening in the media. in "the new york times," if people looked at an old facebook post, you might have said something objective about it trump, i don't see you getting hired at "the new york times." >> forget it. that would be true. being in independent voice gets

you smeared as being right. once you're smeared as being right, who's going to touch you? >> laura: vince vaughn shakes the president's hand, the actor. they're getting all over him on twitter. you can even show up in public anymore. you shook this man's hand. >> that's public shaming, right? if you are associated with this president in any way, or if you stand up for the principles and it happens to work in his favor, that's enough to put you in that basket. >> laura: unbelievable. great to see you. when we come back, the chief who cried wolf? elizabeth warren is losing allies as she feuds with bernie sanders. wasn't she lying? charlie hurt's, scott bolden, that's going to be fiery. that's up next. here, it all starts with a simple...

hello! hi! how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

or here on a wifi hotspot. lte xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $100 off galaxy a50. click, call or visit a store today.

♪ >> this entire situation is so incredibly disappointing. bernie sanders encouraged elizabeth warren to ron and 2016. contextual information is incredibly important to the conversation. he left out to paint a particular candidate as some sort of sexist. >> laura: elizabeth warren's attempt to frame bernie sanders as a woman haters backfiring. she's also feeling the burn the mother using the hashtag, refund elizabeth warren. even from democrats pushing ba back, tulsi gabbard tweeted about sanders. "he showed me the greatest respect and encouragement. just as he always had." charlie kirk, founder of turning point usa and author of, go get it. "the mega doctrine."

scott bolden, former chair. you are rude. i should say, scott bolden -- uh. i would never do that because i adore you. [laughter] >> laura: this has acid reflu reflux. this whole thing. let me tell you. this to me has all of the trappings of 2020. newt gingrich, i urge them to form a coalition. if they had to take on romney, they had to work together and instead they were ripping together. romney comes out smelling like a rose. why would they both focus on joe biden? >> it makes no sense. the running against each other. we are for two weeks from the

primary, or the caucuses. i don't think it's going to work this time. the debate, they both came out strong. they said they are bigger, broader issues and we will not divide. the progressives have said, we are not going to do that. it was a nonissue in the debate. i don't know why warren, and her orbit, a 28 conversation. >> laura: and her toe i think she's lying >this goes back to the enough inauthenticity problem. he called her pocahontas, she is a phony. she claims she was a native american and she wasn't. no one believes her. >> we have fake news and we have fake warren. it was a desperate move. we know that bernie sanders is gaining ground in states like

iowa, new mexico, california. they play to the same type of voters. in her mind she is thinking, biden is the front runner, but he is a weak front runner. i have to go after bernie sanders. i think that was her strategy and it totally backfired. i think sanders came out honest. >> laura: he's like a grandfather figure. elizabeth warren has a long history of pushing false tales. wash. >> i was visibly pregnant. the principal did what principles did in those days, wished me luck and hired somebody else for the job. >> you absolutely have a native american ancestry in your background. >> my dad was raised a janitor. >> her kids went to private school. it goes to that same point. she is doing everything she can

to save a failing presidential campaign. the only thing that could really help joe biden right now it is two divided senators that are helping each other. that soon might be quarantined in a senate impeachment trial. having the fight at the worst possible time. it goes to a broader point, if you add the totals with warren and bernie, that's a formidable candidate looking at the coalition. the tone of the democratic party is much more in their direction. >> laura: scott? >> they're both in the race which is a real problem. >> laura: elizabeth warren is never going to make president of united states. i don't make proclamations like that, but never. she would do well now to drop out and start campaigning for bernie. that is what she should do. >> not even before the first caucus? >> laura: god bless her.

people aren't going to vote for her. she should drop out. >> she's pulling pretty high. you can't deny the polling numbers. >> laura: i knew they were garbage when they said trump was so far down and 2016! >> the bottom line is, if you are right it will be confirmed. >> laura: she will never be president. mercedes, i want to get your thoughts. trump and his aide focused on two rivals. most of the presidents rivals see mr. sanders helping to solve trump's problem with suburban voters. some have concerns that sanders might be more durable and the rust belt states. that goes to the issue of trade. bernie sanders had tonight, he would have done better trade deals with china. >> he also said he would support the usmca which is a bipartisan piece a legislator. we know when it comes to that,

at something both parties support. he is talking about climate change. that's all he cares about. >> laura: if it was so easy, why didn't obama do it in eight years? up next, breaking news about michael avenatti. who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer,

multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

moms love that land o' frost premium sliced meats have no by-products. [conference phone] baloney! [conference phone] has joined the call. hey baloney here. i thought this was a no by-products call? land o' frost premium. a slice above. i thought this was a >i spend a lot of time sin my truck.y? it's my livelihood. ♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service

where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ♪ >> laura: very sad breaking news. michael avenatti, disgraced attorney and constant forward, arrested again tonight for violating the terms of his

previous relief. as he was being locked out of the courthouse he said, "completely innocent." i hope he has something clearly warm to her tonight as he is expected to wear behind bars. that's all the time we have tonight. shannon bream and p "fox news at night" take it from here. >> shannon: thank you. the president holding a massive campaign rally in milwaukee. a final content to the iowa caucuses. linking both to main events. the president said his maximum pressure campaign is working in the middle east. some think they are dragging the brink of war two i wrong. the president citing victories on the trade front to a phrase one agreement with china. the democrats making the case come a little of it matters when it comes to climate change. the most anticipated showdown between the progressives. elizabeth warren and