great job, thank you both but we'll always be fair and balanced. we are not the hate rage media mob, we seek the truth. let not your heart be troubled, the news continues. laura ingraham is next. see you tomorrow night. >> laura: i'm laura ingraham, this is "the ingraham angle." you are looking at the senate floor live with the debate raises over the rules resolution governing how the impeachment trial of donald trump will proceed. for those who have jobs and have been glued to your television all day, let me catch you up, on what matters and what you need to get from the proceedings and if you didn't get it, we were tortured for you. the senate led by majority leader mitch mcconnell has so far voted to table, that means basically kale, four amendment offered by chuck schumer and are currently debating the fifth

amendment. democrats thought they might see a few g.o.p. defections but so far they have not seen one. in the past few hours we seen a number of different developments. this is big. "the washington post" is reporting, this was just an hour or two ago, the now senate democrats are considering a trade. i'll trade you, my kids have pokemon cards. i will trade you a hunter biden for a john bolton. is this really happening? we'll see. politico also reporting moments ago that adam schiff -- this is my favorite story of the day, was caught in another lie. yes. this time, mischaracterizing a communication from the democrats' new darling star witness, lev parnas. they've been dining out on lev parnas for the last week. guess what, they are caught again. the president's team was led by

white house counsel pat cipollone who, full disclosure, has represented me in the past, and you all know because i've talked about it before. he is a dear friend of mine. and impeachment attorney to the president jay sekulow and others. the democrats had most of the house managers give presentations today but it was adam schiff who took center stage. it was a curious move, given some of his blatant partisan tactics during the house hearing but they said that was yesterday. today, it's all a new day. throughout the new day, it was schiff and pat cipollone going back and forth all day long. watch. >> a partisan impeachment is like fueling an election. and that is exactly what we have right now. >> a great many, perhaps even most americans do not believe there will be a fair trial. >> they are asking the senate to

attack one of the most sacred rights we have as americans, the right to choose our president. in an election year. >> they believe the result is precooked. the president will be acquitted. not because he is innocent. he is not. but because the senators will vote by party. >> the senators of the united states declassified that phone call and released it to the public. how was that for transparency? >> you don't get credit for transparency when you get caug caught. >> it's long past time that we start this so we can end this ridiculous charade and go have an election. >> laura: you know how i feel but i will let you determine who has more credibility between those two. during our hour, we expect a number of breaks and action for votes or short recesses. during that time, we are going

to bring you immodestly the best legal analysis, political analysis out there, plus we will hear from the white house directly and senators who were inside that room, but first, or what we can expect in the coming hours and days we are going to go to fox news correspondent mike emanuel. he is live at capitol hill. we have no idea how long this is going to go. mitch mcconnell clearly wants to move this along, as does the white house council. where did they stand now? >> sent a leader mitch mcconnell says democratic leader chuck schumer testing the wills of the democratic amendments that are being offered, seeking things like white house documents, state department documents, even trying to subpoena the acting white house white house chief of staff mick mulvaney. they've all gone down party line vote, 53 republicans, 47 democrats. mcconnell has been proven he has been able to hold his republican conference together so the expectation at some point was they would get through these amendments and late-night

tonight, they would go forward on a trial and that was passed on a party line vote and at some point tomorrow they would come back and the house democrats would start their 24 hours of arguments in favor of the articles of impeachment and when they exhaust their time, the white house attorneys will get their 24 hours to passionately defend president trump on their articles of impeachment. now we are just waiting to see if that will get bumped back and delayed because they are still bickering over these democratic amendments. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has kept his republican conference together at this stage, after all this, h side bid we do expect at some point there may be a vote on more documents and more witnesses. it is not clear if there will be four or more republicans who will cross over and vote with democrats to call for more witnesses. that is at some point this week. but it may also be possible after these marathon sessions, strapped to their desks on the

senate floor, some senators may say they've already heard enough. >> laura: mike, thanks so much. now it's time for our legal eagles to break down today's proceedings. joining me now, bob barker, former clinton impeachment manager, former deputy whitewater independent counsel, attorney and 2020 advisor. it's been wise of chuck schumer or not to call amendment after amendment knowing each will fail beer to explain with the amendments been about and what this strategy might be here. speak of the amendments are both about issuing subpoenas for documents that house members, te house members were not able to get during the house impeachment process, and now they are about subpoenaing the witnesses that the managers have lauded to hear. the strategy behind it, which i think has worked t to in extent,

in the debate over whether or not actually subpoenaed those documents, the house managers were telling their story, and they are telling the factual story about what happened. i think the president's lawyers have been very effective, but for the most part, they have not been arguing facts. i think they may be at a slight disadvantage. >> laura: we also heard from chuck schumer tonight, and i want to go to babar on this, who is claiming that the white house wasn't really making the case for why we don't need witnesses at this point and everyone should understand that they are supposed to be debating resolution as it is, which would allow a vote on witnesses later, but chuck schumer is saying, no, we're not saying this. but this is what schumer said tonight. >> we hear a lot of arguments from the president's council. none of them directly address

why there shouldn't be witnesses and documents. they talk about how bad the house is. i don't agree with that at all. but they don't argue, they don't make a single argument why there shouldn't be witnesses and documents. that speaks volumes. >> laura: is that accurate? what was he listening to? i was listening to cipollone and other lawyers saying there is no underlying case here. they have a chance to do this and now they want the house to play clean up for them. >> that is exactly what the house managers are trying to do and that is exactly what the lawyers are taking them to task four. what surprises me a little bit is the fact that and that is exactly what the w the house managers have been allowed to talk about evidence, there was not evidence in the house record. according to the house resolution, that is, this lev parnas nonsense. that should not be allowed to be discussed at this point, because it was not included in the house

record, yet for some reason, objection has not been made to the house managers straying from what they are supposed to be presenting and getting in that sort of stuff that should not be admitted. >> laura: there was a point today where adam schiff was advancing another interesting new standard, i guess today, the new world we live in, constitutes a neutral juror. watch. >> many of you in the senate and the house have made statements about the president's conduct. for this trial, that is all in the past. nothing matters now but the oath to do impartial justice. and that oath requires a fair trial. >> laura: that was then, this is now. is that how our framers intended the impeachment process to go? you know, impeachment itself should be completely divorced

from the trial and the people who are carrying out the impeachment, their motives, their intentions, their contact, their communications with other people on the outside, none of that matters now? is that right? including the senators who are sitting at hearing this case who are running for president? >> first of all, adam schiff lecturing anybody about objectivity is a farce. but the clip you just played pointed out the problems with adam schiff being a manager in this process in the first place. he is very likely, if witnesses are allowed to be fact witnesses in this case, in any real court you would've been sanctioned, having nothing to do with this whole thing. what he is saying there is that the past doesn't matter and it's all here in the present, some sort of solemn, you know, kind of artificial universe is silly. he is the one who brought us to this point where they have a defective case, now he is the one begging for somebody else to save him. it doesn't make any sense,

laura. >> laura: the president's team is now arguing against this new amendment. amendment number five. let's hear what they are saying. >> today deciding simply the issue of when this body should decide about whether or not there should be witnesses and documents subpoenaed, because that is the issue before the body now. it's not a question, finally, of whether there should be witnesses or documents, as the majority leader has made clear multiple times, the underlying resolution simply allows that issue to be addressed a week from now. the only question at issue now, and house managers keep saying, how can you have a trial without witnesses, how can you have a trial without documents? that's not even the issue. the issue is now whether you have to decide that issue to subpoena documents or witnesses now or decide it in a week after you hear the presentations. why are they so eager to have you take a vote?

why is it necessary to make that decision without having more information? in the clinton trial, this body agreed 100-0 that it made sense to have more information and then decide how to proceed. that it was rational to have more information hear the presentations, and then decide what more was necessary. why is it so important that you've got to make that decision now, without that information? that doesn't make any sense. the rational thing to do is to hear what sort of case they present, and more importantly, to hear the president's defense because the president had no opportunity in the house to present any defense. we've heard a lot about the rule of law and about precedent. what was unprecedented was the process that was used in the house. a process that began with an impeachment inquiry that started without any vote by the house. this is the point i made

earlier. the constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment of the house, not to any single member of the house. so the press conference, that speaker pelosi held on septembee an impeachment inquiry, n nor dd it -- what efforts did they make in their effort to get documents that issued one invalid subpoena customer totally unauthorized under the constitution. it was unprecedented because it was issued in an impeachment inquiry, purportedly, without any vote from the house. never happened before in our history in a presidential impeachment. it was unlawful. >> laura: that was one of the senior members of the trump legal team from the office making the case that the house had the chance to really push trying to subpoena these documents during impeachment and decide, for whatever reason, not

to really pursue that. so, what about this argument late in the night, all of these guys are tired. i don't care who you are, i don't care how strong you are, sitting there most of the time, on your backside for the whole day, making these arguments, and in court a long time, many hours, but you are making long, arcane points about constitutional law and procedure, it can get pretty difficult. >> you know, i'm not an expert on parliamentary procedure, but i think the point that one of the previous speakers made, i think bob barr made, is a good one. this issue wasn't supposed to be decided about, whether or not to have witnesses or additional documents until later in the process, but by allowing them to make these amendments. they are effectively arguing for it now. but what it's allowing to do, tactically, is to get into the

evidence and the president's council is, it's insufficient on its face. tactically, it's been a good move by the democrats. >> laura: bob, i want to go to you on this. a lot of this is show. people think, you're talking to the four wobbly republicans, or you're talking to all hundred senators. but you were there doing impeachment in 1998 and 1999. you are talking to the american people, are you not? because they are the ones who are going to put the pressure on romney, collins, murkowski, cory gardner and any other milquetoast republican who can't get their act together on this. the american people are the ones you've got to hit. >> they are, and that is why it's rather disturbing, as i mentioned a few minutes ago, that the impeachment managers are being allowed to present

evidence that should not even be part of the case and has not even been admitted into the case yet. you know, when you go into court in a real trial, civil or criminal court, you can only argue that evidence which is properly or has been before the court. i don't know why the republicans are allowing this. this is something that has disturbed me in all sorts of proceedings, even though mitch mcconnell is a very strong parliamentarian, i don't know why the republicans are just sitting back and letting the house members argue this. >> laura: you've got to give points to schiff for this. we're going to go back to congressman jason crow who is making a case on this amendment. watch. >> why the information now? the better question is why not now? this trial has started. let's have the facts and information now. ladies and gentlemen, the time

is right. there is no reason why we shouldn't issue those subpoenas, get the facts, get the testimony, have the debate, let the american people see what's really going on here. mr. chief justice, i will yield the balance of my time to mr. schiff. >> thank you. senators, i will be brief but i do want to respond to a couple of points that my colleagues have made. first is the argument that you've heard before, and i have no doubt you will hear again, that this subpoenas issue by the house are invalid. well, that is really wonderful. i imagine when you issue subpoenas they will declare yours invalid as well. what is the basis of the claim they were invalid? because they weren't issued the way the president wants.

part of the argument is you have to issue a subpoena the way we say, and that can only be done after there is a resolution that we approve of, adopted by the full house. first they can claim there was no resolution, no formal resolution of the impeachment inquiry and then when we pass the formal resolution, they complained about that. they complain when we didn't have one and when we did have one. they made that argument already in chorus and they lost. they similarly argued this subpoena for mr. mcgann is invalid, and you know what the judge said? essentially, that's nonsense. the president doesn't get to decide how the house conducts an impeachment proceeding. the president doesn't get to decide whether a subpoena it issues is valid or invalid. no, the house gets to decide because the house is given the sole power of impeachment.

not the president of the united states. counsel says, why are we going through all these documents? aren't all these motions the same? in the fact of the matter is, we are not talking about the same document here. they would like nothing better than for you to know nothing about the documents we see. they don't want you to know what defense department documents they are withholding. of course they don't want to hear that. they don't want you to know what state department documents are, because if it's just abstract, if it's just arguing for documents, they can say, that's really not that important, rig right? it's just some generic thing. but when you learn as you have learned today and tonight what those documents are, when you see the efforts to conceal those freedom of information act emails that my colleague just referred to, and to see what was just released to the public, and it's all redacted!

we find out what is under those retractions, and wow, surprise, it's incriminating information they redacted out. that is not supposed to be the basis of reduction under the freedom of information act. that is what you call a cover up. they didn't want you to see that today. they didn't want you to see the before and after, the redacted and on redacted beer they wanted you to hear from the witnesses about the detailed personal notes that they took. ambassador taylor took detailed, personal notes. now they want you to try to contest what ambassador sondland said. about his conversations with the president. because sondland, after he talked with the president, talk directly with ambassador taylor, talk directly with mr. morrison and explained his conversation with the president. well, guess what, mr. morrison and ambassador taylor took detailed notes.

there is a dispute about what the president told mr. sondland. wouldn't you like to see the notes? they don't want you to know the notes exist. they don't want to have this debate. they want to say, oh, it's just about documents. it's just about when. we want the senators out there come a 16 hours of questions before they can see any of this stuff, then we will move to dismiss this case. the wind, as i said earlier, means never. and finally, the clinton precedent. president clinton turned over 90,000 pages of documents before the trial. i agree, let's follow the clinton precedent. it's not even going to take 90,000 documents. the documents are already collected. you heard the testimony on the screen of ambassador taylor say, they are going to turn it over shortly. well, we are still waiting. but they are still sitting there

at the state department. we can play a video for you of secretary esper on one of the sunday shows saying, we are going to comply with these subpoenas. that was one week, then somebody got to him and all of a sudden he was singing a different tune. they don't want you to know what these documents hold. and yes, we are showing you what these witnesses can tell you. we are showing you what mick mulvaney could tell you. and yeah, we are making it hard for you. we're making it hard for you to say no. we're making it hard for you to say, i don't want to hear from these people. i don't want to see these documents. we are making it hard. it is not our job to make it easy for you. it's our job to make it hard to deprive the american people of a fair trial, and that is why we are taking the time to do it. i yield my time. >> laura: let's now hear what

the white house thinks. you're listening to adam schiff claiming that, it's an attempt by the white house to withhold information from the american people. so now the american people can't get a fair trial. joining me know is the white house impeachment spokesman. your response to schiff saying the white house is basically involved in a cover-up? speak at this entire day has been about desperate democrats trying to get a redo r their failed efforts to prove anything criminal, anything impeachable. and the house process that they completely control. if you want to talk about unfairness, adam schiff created a process in the house that deprived the president of every right possible. his attorney today at the first opportunity to engage in the impeachment since it began some odd days ago when you talk about the hypocrisy of his case, he has no evidence, he has no facts. all the witnesses he has talked about bringing into the senate, he never asked for them in the house process. the evidence he is now saying is

necessary to go forward after one's arguing they had overwhelming evidence proving in the house process. he never asked for it, he never subpoenaed for that in the house. he didn't go to the courts to demand he get the evidence. it is a complete sham -- >> laura: they weren't willing to go to court. >> but that is the process, so if you wanted that evidence, you take the time to get it to strengthen your case. what's really ironic is he keeps talking about when it says. they have 17 witnesses. they controlled that entire process and what is even more ironic, there are seven democrats in the senate today that were here during the clinton impeachment and guess what all seven of those democrats did? they voted against having witnesses during the clinton impeachment. chuck schumer's second vote as a united states senator was to not allow witnesses in a clinton impeachment process. this entire process is unfortunately revealing what we've known all along. cipollone, he's made a point that he made very strongly. >> laura: what about the tactical issue here of schiff pushing this issue of the

amendment, and at least so far, it looks like mitch mcconnell has allowed these motions to pile up. they are all tabled. he's not getting what he wants in these amendments, but it is allowing them, as he just said, to put on part of their case. this is supposed to be about, let's debate this resolution. now they're getting into lev parnas, they're getting into real specifics. and as that put your guys back on their heels? >> not at all. it's a lot of theater, it's a lot of substance and is not going to have an impact on the boats. he saw the republicans today sticking together and they have not taken kindly to the fact that democrats have taken advantage of the process and advanced cost narratives. in our answer, this entire attempt by democrats is an insult to the american people, to the american voters and our election system and it shows the low regard that adam schiff and nancy pelosi and others have for what the american people wanted

reflected in the 2016 election, which is donald trump as president and they are trying to interfere even more so in the 2020 election. >> laura: i think that was a really strong argument by the white house today, that this is about not just invalidating the last election, but basically stealing the next one. the ultimate charge of meddling. namely, the election, as before said this morning, it's nine months away. let the people vote. let's go vote. you govern and then let's vote. for me, to regular people, busy picking up their kids or whatever, why can't i vote? if i don't like trump i will vote against trump. it's because that is this is on unprecedented. the election is supposed to be the ultimate determiner. >> laura: he spoke there before or after greta thunberg, i can't remember, he's on his

way back. have you guys been in contact? have you discussed what he thinks so far? >> i have nothing to report as far as his thoughts on the process thus far. i think he has extreme confidence in his legal team and the case we are going to make throughout this entire process. i know he feels very confident in the fact the republicans have stuck together. even democrats have supported us. the american people support the president. that is very important as pulling has indicated his support has arisen. >> laura: do you think this will get better for him the longer this goes on? i mean, cipollone tonight said let's get this show on the road. >> i think it is pretty darn good when, after all the theatrics the only thing democrats could do was advanced two week articles of impeachment alleging a crime. >> laura: we will have you back. this is going to be going on. we really appreciate you joining us tonight. we want to go with fox's

congressional correspondent chad pergram joining us from capitol hill. they just wrapped up voting on the fifth schumer amendment to subpoenaed documents. any chance they are done after that tonight? or are they going to pull an all night or as we used to say in college. >> they just voted to table or set aside this proposal in dealing with the latest proposal by chuck schumer for the subpoena for documents. in the last couple seconds there was a proposal by chuck schumer on another subpoena to subpoena robert blair and michael duffy, the officials who are probably going to have two hours to debate on that. i'm looking at our monitor here trying to decipher what they might do because of the hour is getting late. people are getting antsy, people are getting cranky, and you know, there might be an effort to wrap this up. last hour they finished about and chuck schumer told the senate majority leader that it might be a while. a number of amendments to go

through here and it looks like they are going to go ahead and start on the next proposal. you will have to get unanimous consent. unanimous consent means all 100 senators agree on how they're going to proceed and as long as the senate minority leader chuck schumer doesn't back down, that means you're kind of locked in he can continue to offer these amendments and keep toggling back and forth in these two hour baits. right now sylvia garcia, democrat from texas, a freshman, she is one of the impeachment managers, she's not talking about the issue of subpoenas from robert blair and michael duffy. this means we are going to be locked back in for at least an hour and a half at the very minimum. it seems like the democrats, the house prosecutors have been taking their entire hour. the president's legal defense team has been taking only 20 to 30 minutes. maybe half that time, maybe less. they look at this at 10:30. someone asked me earlier, when might this wrap up? i predicted midday because

things tentacles around midnight here. chuck schumer said to mitch mcconnell on the floor early, we don't have to do everything tonight, realizing that the chief justice john roberts has responsibilities to hear arguments across the street tomorrow morning at 10:00. that accommodates the schedule of the chief justice. if they go really late tonight you are going to have some bleary-eyed people as they actually get into the oral arguments respectively, which will start tomorrow, presented by the house impeachment managers. >> laura: all right, thanks so much. joining me now is matt gaetz, house judiciary committee memb member. and of president trump's defense team, wow. when did you guys become -- >> last night. >> laura: every minute i turn around someone down the hall is now an impeachment manager or defense team. let's start with you. it seems like the senate

democrats didn't learn from the failed theatrics of the house democrats, but in watching chuck schumer tonight, i really think this has taken on the feeling of punishment. like, this is part of the punishment, these long nights. we are going to keep it going come every amendment, we need unanimous consent and we are going to withhold unanimous consent. >> not only is the punishment we are seeing right before our very eyes, but we now have five amendments from the democrats, which are five more than we were allowed on the house side when you were talking about rules. they haven't learned anything because what they don't understand is that the american people are really rejecting this kind of politics as usual effo effort. it's theatrics. adam schiff there on the floor having faux outrage every circle time he gets up. the american people are smarter than that. >> laura: mitch mcconnell based his rules resolution

pretty much on the clinton impeachment trial. but democrats are still very unhappy. watch. >> we are following the clinton president, then there would've been all this discovery done at the house level and that is not what is happening at all. >> laura: i could hear her turn of phrase. >> done at the house level. over the course of several months, at the end of the process, jerry nadler is on the floor of the house of representatives that they prove the case beyond a doubt. they said their facts were uncontested. they were indisputable, and their first day here at the center trial they want to spend the entire day, what we are seeing right now on the screen, all the different things that they don't yet know. they spent an entire day telling the american public in the senate all the different ways they haven't yet been able to prove their case. we've been saying for several

months that it's totally contested. you're relying on presumptions coming here stays and lies. >> laura: the argument is, why, if they are innocent, if the president is innocent of all these charges, they are not criminal charges, no crime, but if he is innocent and let the witnesses come forth. which is not really the way we as defense attorneys, which i am formally one, you don't have to prove your innocence. they have to prove your guilt but they want to flip the table on the president. >> you could fact-check the entire day. when you talk about executive privilege, were sitting there in closed-door depositions where the president's council isn't even allowed to be there to exert executive privilege. they never exerted executive privilege. jason crow was on the house floor. he was talking about omb, mark sandy. we don't know why there was a hold. mark sandy told us why there was a hold on aid, because the president was concerned about other countries paying their fair share. why are they talking about

president zelensky and andriy yermak saying no pressure, no demand, no quid pro quo. why won't they tell the american public the truth, that president zelensky didn't have a confirmation until august 29th. ambassador sondland earlier today in the reply brief, they don't mention that that was a guess, or ambassador taylor's line, but they don't say that hearsay. >> laura: congressman gaetz, so much of this hinges on discerning the subjective intent of the president. i believe that was on page 28 of the white house brief. 171 pages long but that was a really important section that hasn't gotten much play. they actually mind read the president's intent, saying the call, 13 people listening, he had the subjective intent to try to do something that would abuse his inherent executive authority to hurt the u.s. national security. that is a wild precedent we are setting for the future. >> if the american people are

watching this waterfall of crazy allegations come from democrats, they will see that you can categorize all of them into either hearsay, conjecture, or just a fundamental policy disagreement with the president. >> laura: hold that thought. were going to get back with you. right now i want to go to capitol hill. someone who is actually been sitting through this, joining me now, marsha blackburn. great to see you. how late do y'all expect to go tonight and what is it like in that room? i didn't make it over there today. >> i think that we probably will go until about 1:00 quite frankly. and i think it is important that we get through this. if we set the resolution that we hear from the house managers, then we hear from the president's team. we asked our questions and we decided we want to move forward with this. or if we want to move to judgment and move to acquit the president. >> laura: what is the sense among your colleagues talking about people like cory gardner,

susan collins, mitt romney, and others? any sense from them whether they found mitch mcconnell, he's been quite lenient with these amendments and he hasn't really put a lot of pressure. not that much on schumer to start wrapping this up. >> right. but every vote has been 53-47. every senator has voted with lita mcconnell and voted against all of the schumer amendments. sooner or later the democrats should begin to realize come and i've got to tell you, i think the house managers should begin to realize, we are not going to do their job for them. they keep saying, well, if you would call these witnesses then we would not have to go to court. so we didn't call them because we didn't want to go to court. and they want us to call them so they can get all of this done

before the election. bear in mind, this is not only about, in their minds, damaging donald trump but about removing him and taking him off the ballot. they are talking about how, they keep using some of the same phrases, they talk about people all being in the loop. on some grand scheme, and about how the president is trying to cheat in the next election. so you see what their phrasing is because you know those democrats, they are all going to give you their talking points. as i say, there is a "stepford wives" of liberalism. they will get a point, they will stick to it and say it until the cows come home. >> laura: it's a show. they're putting on a show. complete with exhibits and graphics. senator blackburn, they are already going to sound bites. they are putting on their own cable show. and they think that's enough.

no one is saying this really tonight but i will tell you what really is going on. this is the 2020 campaign. they are running a campaign. they are not really thinking it's going to change anything or get the dod documents or bolton is going to show up and deliver everything on a silver platter. they don't think that. >> you're right. >> laura: this is about the election. >> that's right, it's all politics all the time. all politics, all the time. it is a political, partisan impeachment. nancy pelosi was giving out party favors at the signing of the impeachment document. those gold tipped pens with her named involved in gold. this is just so inappropriate. >> laura: senator blackburn, look, drink your milk, if i hear one more comment about all they can do is drink milk and water like you guys are going to eat -- >> i'm drinking red bull, i'm ready for this.

>> laura: exactly. we will check back in with you later in the week. thank you so much for joining us. joining us, our congressmen. i feel bad for the senators. here is mr. impeachment himself, adam schiff. he did put on quite a performance today on the senate trial rules resolution. watch. >> if you only get to see part of the evidence, if you only allow one side or the other a chance to present their full case your verdict will be predetermined by the bias in the proceeding. if the house cannot call witnesses or introduce documents and evidence, it is not a fair trial. >> laura: congress meadows, this isn't fair and he says, don't try to dictate what we're doing in the house but what we are doing isn't fair. >> adam schiff has amnesia. he's forgotten about the 71 days that we denied the president legal counsel to be in there when it was in the house. yet here he is talking about what's fair? the headline should be today really "corrupt investigators

demand fair trial." how do you do that? it is just unbelievable. >> laura: they push back on what cipollone said this morning. when he said nobody was allowed. he said congressmen were allowed in the skiff, and they went crazy saying, no, congressmen were allowed in the skiff. clear that up for us, because it was only house until members, correct? >> mark and lee were both there, they were on the select committees that allowed you access to the evidence. in the house judiciary committee they had corey lewandowski as their maiden voyage for impeachment but the vote never made it out of the harbor before sinking as a result of corey lewandowski torching them in public hearings. every thing changed from russia to ukraine. russia put out as much information as possible. when it came to ukraine, they learned the lesson that they look more and more ridiculous the more the american people saw the evidence of they tried to hold a secret for as long as humanly possible. if you look at what we learned today, it's been absolutely

nothing. if you woke up today in a medically induced coma and you have only come to be awake as a consequence of "the ingraham angle," you have missed absolutely nothing. no new evidence, and information. >> laura: i get so many emails. so many signs from across the country going, what is going on in washington? that is what people keep saying. what on earth is going on a washington quest recommend and if we had this many hours in a 24-hour period devoted to enforcing our border. devoted to ensuring that people who are in the country illegally and part of a criminal gang are removed. imagine if they actually did their job. >> that would be a crime, though. here this is no crime, no victim. when people cross our border that actually is a crime when they do so. >> laura: we should have a montage and serve it up, nobody is above the law. but wait a second, there are a lot of people who seem to be above the law and the democrats' understanding. the bidens. we haven't put on a case about

the bidens relay yet. people undocumented in the united states. they are not only above the law, democrats are going to give them health care appearance because they are actually in the process of passing a new law with automatic voter registration and they are giving all illegal immigrants drivers licenses licenses. >> laura: plenty of people are above the law. is this, though, when you watch this to the extent the american people are following it closely, which i doubt they are following a very close but if they are, they see this as the democrats' last ditch effort to scuff up this president before 2020? before the democrats in earnest pick their nominee? >> what i'm hearing from people back home is that they are mad. they believe that adam schiff and his colleagues believe that they are more important than the voters who are going to show up in november. they say, how can 100 senators and 435 members of the house believe that there will is more important than the people's will and they are not having a beer they're not buying it.

>> laura: there was a moment in the hearing today where cipollone really personalized it. congressman gaetz, i want you to react to this. specifically, focusing on this guy, watch. >> they withdrew the subpoena, that you created a and they are asking you to become complicit in that evasion of the court. it's ridiculous. obstruction? for going to court? it's an act of patriotism to defend the constitutional right of the president because if they can do to the president, they could do it to any of you and they could do it to any american citizen. >> laura: exerting his right, his right, so they want to punish him. >> last time i checked this is why we have courts, when there is a conflict between branches. that is why we have people who wear black robes around us to solve disputes. but he did a phenomenal job today and i am here for the cipollone dynamic. it is clear those two guys are

little competitive of one another and we are getting the best of both of them. they were both phenomenal and i think they got better as the day went on. >> laura: congressman, thank you very much for being here late night. for all of you. were going to go back to the trial where congressman sylvia garcia is debating pat schumer's sixth amendment for subpoenas of officials. >> again, why this decision made so secretly and without any explanation. why was the president compromising the safety of its strategic ally in the region? why was he harming our national security interests in the process? on july 26, duffy attending the meaning of a high level meeting of officials. the withholding of aid was based

on president trump's express direction but apparently he could not clearly explain why there was a freeze, beyond a vague reference to concerns about corruption. >> the official said -- >> witnesses who testified before the house all provided the same consistent recounting of what happened. as you can see from these statements on the slide, officials who were not provided clear explanations for such a dramatic step. as we have already discussed earlier and will explain in more depth during the trial, these facts contradict the white house's recent claim of whawhy president trump froze the

ukraine aid. those facts clearly show efforts of the president and those around him to fabricate explanations after the president's illegal scheme came to life. in fact, the white house counsel's own review of the freeze reportedly found the mick mulvaney and omb attempted to create an after-the-fact justification for the president's decision. that is the polite way of saying mulvaney's team lead an effort to cover up president's conduct, and to manufacture misleading pretextual information's to hide the corruption. but, senators, there's still more. blair and duffy were also involved in the events surrounding the president's julh

president zelensky. on july 19, blair along with other officials received an email from ambassador sondland. the email described a conversation he had just had with president zelensky. ambassador sondland stated that zelensky was "prepared to receive potus call and will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will "turn over every stone." as reflected in this email -- >> laura: that was congresswoman sylvia garcia, freshman congresswoman from texas. back with you now, our panel of legal those. bob barker, they keep haggling over aid that eventually was released and it turns out, ukraine didn't even know about it, that it was held, until august 29th or something like that. shouldn't the case basically and

there? >> most of the facts have been known for quite some time. as i've said many times on your show, there is an argument for taking everything that has been considered by the house, except it, let it be turned into evidence and arguing from that. can you, would people like to hear from john bolton? i would like to hear from john bolton, i think that would be great theater. as you and i have talked about, be careful what you ask for, i think john bolton is much more likely to be damaging to rudy giuliani than he is to president trump. but the basic facts here are known. each side puts a different spin on it but they are known. the evidence is, for the most part, in. >> laura: i want to now play what cipollone said earlier about the need to move this forward. watch. >> if i showed up in any court in this country and i said,

judge, my case is overwhelming but i'm not ready to go yet, i need more evidence before i can make my case. i would get thrown out in two seconds and that is exactly what should happen here. >> laura: you are somebody who is in court like come every other week, it seems and i'm checking up on your litigation, you're very busy. did pat have that right? >> thrown out and sanctioned with case terminating sanctions, yes. absolutely right. i think saul pointed out that the way this thing is going was argument that includes a reference to evidence, not in evidence being made in this court. house managers are getting away with murder and i think for political reasons, the defense team is not standing up and objecting every other sentence, which is what would be happening in a real court. but pat is absolutely right, this would never fly in court. beard is frankly extraordinary

for a six-year prosecutor, like adam schiff, say with a straight face i was the guy in charge on the other side and now the prosecutor on the other side an, doesn't make any sense. >> laura: on the other side, this is what schumer said tonight about the need to keep this going. >> we believe witnesses and documents are extremely important and a compelling case has been made for them. we will have votes on all of those. we will not back off on getting votes on all of these amendments, which we regard as extremely significant and important to the country. >> laura: bob, again, we keep going back to this point but getting those documents and that testimony, it was incumbent on the house managers to take the deliberation and the time and effort required to pursue those documents and if they didn't get them, go to court to enforce their subpoenas but it was

urgent until pelosi before christmas decided it was not. >> of course that is the case but what chuck schumer was doing was very smart. i saw him operate when he and i served on the house judiciary committee when he ran rings around republicans time and again. chuck schumer is a street fighter, he is tough, and he knows the rules, he will push the limits. he knows if he can keep this going and wear down two or three or four republican senators, those that you mentioned earlier, and if they in fact are hearing from their constituents about the arguments that the house managers are making, why is a administration hiding evidence? why shouldn't there be witnesses, what about this guy, lev parnas? i think chuck schumer is playing this thing very smart and for some reason the republicans are letting him get away with it and the house managers as well.

>> laura: is that a fair characterization? are they letting schumer get away with this? you don't have to be a parliamentarian but you can't move this forward without unanimous consent, meaning chuck schumer is the gatekeeper. he wants to keep going until four in the morning. >> i don't know how much mcconnell can do about it. i do think people are going to get tired of it but if i can go back to a point again, who was mentioned by bob barr, i think it's very important. this official that worked for bolton tried to do the right thing. he got a subpoena from the house and the white house counsel told him you can't obey that and he went to a federal court and said to the court, tell me what to do. i want to obey the house subpoena, but the president of the united states has told me i can't do it.

and the judge there, a great judge, set an expedited timetable to decide this, and the house withdrew the subpoena. why would they do that? as you pointed out, they never subpoenaed bolton. so to say, we need the evidence because the president wouldn't give it to us, you wouldn't even subpoenaed this person. to respond to that by saying, it would've been in the courts for years, that's not true. judges expedite, in this kind of a case, an impeachment hearing, you don't think they would expedite that? of the most important thing the house and senate could do? except for a declaration of war? come on. i just don't understand it. i think it was a tremendous blunder by nancy pelosi. >> laura: the district court judge who actually handled the issue and did it quite

expeditiously. counselors, thank you each of you. i know you will be with us a lot this week so thank you so much. it's no secret that the media for the most part are rooting against the president on impeachment. they want a conviction, they want to remove. but there also letting democrats get away with some pretty outrageous claims. adam schiff told cbs news in an interview that aired tonight. >> it would not be appropriate for the president to call witnesses merely to try to perpetuate the same smear campaign when his plot was discovered. they will continue to attack a political opponent, that is an illegitimate abuse of the trial. the justice who may rule on witnesses, and a senator should not prevent that kind of abuse. to be on here it, fox news contributor and former clinton advisor, john, it is

adam schiff, talking about hunter biden, wyatt does adam schiff seem to have such an aversion, he spends the whole day saying, why don't you want witnesses, why can't we have documents? but when hunter biden's name comes up, he runs for cover. >> the conspiracy is they think hunter biden did something wrong or joe biden did something wrong. they've had that line down for weeks now. it's not a conspiracy theory, is a fact that joe biden had them part of the prosecutor. it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact that under biden's company was under investigation at the moment that joe biden forced the ukraine prosecutor. it's a fact that hunter biden, his firm, collected $3.4 million from the ukraine gas firm while his dad oversaw policy and its effect, with all the stuff between zelensky and president trump, the prosecutors on their own reopen this case because they thought they were new corruption allegations to

investigate. >> laura: it wasn't just you pursuing this. ken vogel of "the new york times." richard, do you think the democrats might become of the republicans have done this before too. if we only got bolton, you all know what you're going to get, ever. might be a good thing for them. >> bolton, i don't think he is going to be -- if that is what you are thinking. >> laura: what about this push for witnesses one by one by one in the amendment? >> as regard to hunter biden? >> laura: this process, then i will get to hunter biden. >> i think the democrats have done a great job preparing for today. if you hadn't followed things and you tuned in, you saw an hour where they were putting up videos, putting up graphics, and they had most of their presenters actually did a pretty good job. they tied things together and they approached each hour of prime time as if somebody was tuning and who really was unfamiliar with the story appeared to be i agree with you,

i think it was smart. >> sean: the white house counsel had the votes, they -- >> laura: i think that is actually fair. >> i agree. >> laura: i think adam schiff has had his best day he has probably ever had in politics. gentlemen, the biden campaign, this is news, they sent a memo to news outlets that says, to fail to make clear that the conspiracy theory and false accusations about joe biden have been comprehensively disproven, they've cropped up these egregious lies to make you an enabler of misinformation. john, the mind as well just be directed at you. and anyone else, hannity. >> he named me in the statement. joe biden isn't the victim of a smear campaign or a conspiracy theory. he is a person who has failed to see an apparent conflict of interest and he didn't recuse himself when he should've. that is just not my position.

state department officials have made that point. >> laura: i want to read, just out tonight from politico. schiff may have mischaracterized parnas evidence, according to new documents. he claimed in this memo, when they relate to this mr. z in these text messages come in the most charitably view, his staff committed malpractice by not looking more than an inch deep to determine the facts befe hoisting this erroneous information on the american public. given the selective reductions and contextual clues it seems as though chairman schiff sought to portray an innocuous meeting with an oligarchy, zelensky, as ian insidious one. same last name as zelensky because both of their last names start with the z. this is schiff throwing out the

transcript and mischaracterizing parnas. >> totally mischaracterized about access to the skiff. yeah, are these guys who were under the gun and have a lot to keep track of going to make some mistakes? yes they will. >> laura: mr. z, it looks like this was not zelensky. again, there are other things that parnas has said that i asked rudy giuliani about last night and he wouldn't answer some of the questions. he did answer the one, i don't know i if you saw it, about bill barr. i've never even had a conversation with bill barr. he was very adamant about that but wouldn't talk about that. >> if donald trump really cared about corruption in ukraine, everything john talked about he would've brought up with whoever the head of ukraine was in 2017, 2018, and he would've actually brought up corruption instead of looking for an announcement of an investigation an investigation. >> laura: we've got to go but the president ran on stopping -- >> but he never brought that up

with zelensky. >> laura: he said that nato has got to pony up more money, that was the first part of the call. great to have you on. tomorrow >> shannon: hello and welcome to fox noon at night, i am shannon bream. tonight with extended coverage of impeachment day one, we are awaiting the biggest vote of the night after republicans had several democratic amendments to the rules that will govern this whole trial. in moments we hope we will know more about what that plan will be. will mitch mcconnell sticks to his guns? or be forced to compromise? plus we will dig into the president's legal strategy and congressional members of his defense team is on deck, go start everything off with capitol hill correspondent, a play-by-play of what is going on right now. ch