Ingraham: Trump impeachment attorneys turn tables on House managers

This post was originally published on this site

This is a rush transcript from “The Ingraham Angle,” February 12, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: I’m Laura Ingraham, this is The Ingraham Angle. And of course, a very busy Friday night, Trump’s team turns the tables and in a devastating fashion. Hemingway, Fleischer, and Dhillon are here in moments. Also, as the anti-Trump Lincoln Project crumbles, we expose those who facilitated their rise with Glenn Greenwald.

And Joe Biden says, we’ll wear masks for the next year, even if vaccinated. What’s the science say? And we told you they were going to do that. Dr. Scott Atlas reacts to all that. Plus, Jill and Joe’s Garden of Love. What is that? Pray tell. And Auntie Maxine’s upside-down hearing goes, upside down. Raymond Arroyo all reveals that in Friday Follies.

But first, former President Trump’s legal team turned the tables, laying out their arguments against impeachment. And forget the brevity and a few concrete ways, they dismantled key pieces of the Democrat’s rather incoherent constitutional arguments. I’m going to break down a few pieces tonight for you. The most important ones.

Number one, the core claim of Democrats impeachment article is that Trump’s speech incited the January 6th riot, his speech on January 6th. But here’s Trump counsel Michael Van Der Veen.


MICHAEL VAN DER VEEN, TRUMP DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The Senate should be extremely careful about the president – the precedent this case will set. Consider the language that the House impeachment article alleges to constitute incitement. If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. This is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years.


INGRAHAM: And he had the examples.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Democrats are going to fight like hell.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We fight like hell.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m going to fight like hell.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’re going to fight like hell.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I and I know many of the senators and members of the House will fight like hell.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are going to fight like hell.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We’re going to fight like hell.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fight like hell.


INGRAHAM: Well, it’s language that they’ve used that Republicans have used big deal shows nothing. Number two, remember, House impeachment managers tried to make the case that Trump’s alleged incitement is based on things he said months beforehand, even though that’s not in the article. Now, Attorney David Schoen responded with this rather inconvenient fact.


DAVID SCHOEN, TRUMP DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Democratic candidates can claim the election was stolen because of Russian collusion or that any explanation at all. And that is perfectly OK and is in no way incitement to an insurrection. And somehow when Democratic candidates publicly decry an election as stolen or illegitimate, it’s never a big lie. You’ve been doing it for years.


INGRAHAM: Well, of course, we documented it. We covered it night-after- night-after-night. Trump was never a legitimate president, any of them from Hillary on down. Number three, last night we showed you how Head Impeachment Manager Jamie Raskin himself tried to block the 2016 election results. Well, today, the Trump team exposed Raskin’s co-conspirators.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I object to the votes from the state of Wisconsin, which would not, should not be legally.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I object to the certificate from the state of Georgia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I objective to the certificate from the state of North Carolina.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I object to the certificate from the state of Alabama. The electors were not lawfully certified.


INGRAHAM: They all guilty, too, they don’t like democracy, no, they had a problem with the certification, so they made their statements, and they said their piece. So, by the Democrats own standard, all of those soundbites, all those comments in some way constitute altogether something approaching sedition, the traitors, of course, that’s what they want you to believe. That’s the bogus threshold for incitement that they offered against President Trump.

But when they use that same language, they openly question the legitimacy of a presidential election. They add the whole Russia collusion on to it with zero evidence. It’s totally innocuous and in fact, it’s constitutionally protected speech.

And finally, the attorney Van Der Veen succinctly exposed the Democrats constitutional overreach.


VEEN: The House managers position, as stated in their trial brief, is and I quote, the First Amendment does not apply at all to an impeachment proceeding. The text of the First Amendment expressly restricts Congress from regulating speech. The position advanced by the House managers is essentially an unlimited impeachment standard without constitutional guardrails unmoored to any specific legal test other than the unbridled discretion of Congress.


INGRAHAM: But it’s certainly the intent of the Democrats. Well, political revenge was and is their main motivation when it comes to the former president. Joining me now is Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary and Fox News Contributor, Mollie Hemingway, Senior Editor at the Federalist Fox News Contributor and Harmeet Dhillon, Civil Rights Attorney and founder of the Center for American Liberty.

Ari, there was a lot of criticism of the Trump team, including from yours truly on day one. I thought it was, as many did, rambling and spent a lot of time praising the Senate. And it was odd they were not prepared. But today, finally, I think a lot of folks felt relieved who thought this entire impeachment from the beginning was bogus. Your thoughts?

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, it shouldn’t have been so hard. The Democrats have hung themselves with their own contradictions, their own hypocrisy over the many years. Stacey Abrams case in Georgia when she still says the race was stolen from her. And you have United States senators, Democrats who backed her up in that, saying it was a stolen election.

And so, the hot rhetoric, easy to show. I’m glad they did. But, Laura, there’s a more complicated issue that still has me hung up here. And this is why I won’t defend the president when it comes to impeachment or conviction. He should have had the wisdom never to have called the crowd to Washington on that day that the vote was taking place. That was like assembling nitro and glycerin.

And whether or not it was incitement, I don’t know. That’s a legal term. But just common sense says don’t bring the crowd to Washington on that day. It is too risky. I wish the president had the wisdom not to have done that. He ought to have not done.

INGRAHAM: Right. But that’s a different question. That’s a commonsense opinion.


INGRAHAM: And I actually agree with you. I think it was unwise given everything that was happening. But incitement means something very specific in our law. Brandenburg versus Ohio, 1969 Supreme Court case. The language has to have an imminent effect, Mollie, to indicate that we would have violence likely to be spawned from those words. It’s a tough standard to meet. They didn’t even come close to meeting that standard, Mollie. And then we’ll go to Harmeet.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST: I thought President Trump’s attorneys did a very good job of talking about the standard and how the House Democrat managers had failed to even meet the first test of the Brandenburg test.

I thought it was really interesting, too, that they weren’t just defending their client, Donald Trump, but really defending the whole notion of free speech. You showed a little bit of those clips from their video montages. Those were utterly devastating. They went on at length showing how senators in that chamber had used the exact same rhetoric that they were complaining about President Trump using or in some cases far, far, far worse, like actually violent rhetoric, sometimes from really prominent people like Kamala Harris joking about murdering Donald Trump or Mike Pence, or Joe Biden with the lesser thing of just constantly talking about wanting to beat up President Trump. Or other people talking about being violent with Trump voters.

And then at the end of it, though, the attorneys talked about how even speech like that is constitutionally protected. So, it wasn’t just about what’s happening in impeachment, but talking about why we have freedom of speech and why we want to protect that so that people can use their words to talk against each other so that worse things don’t happen harm.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, this was CNN’s astute analysis of Trump’s legal defense. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today was basically a legal demonstration of whataboutism?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was really about whataboutism.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was a lot of stuff there, including a lot of whataboutism.


INGRAHAM: I mean, Harmeet, whataboutism? Is really that the best they can do? The standard is imminent, lawless action. Your words have to provoke imminent lawless action. Whataboutism, this is embarrassing. At some point, this just becomes embarrassing for the media. They’ve got to go into another line of work.

HARMEET DHILLON, CENTER FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY FOUNDER: And they’re all using the same term, so they clearly got the talking points, but I’m old enough to remember when First Amendment lawyers on both sides of the aisle would have fought to the death for the right, for any American to say the words that they want in a political setting and not be prosecuted for their thoughts and their words. And so today, the standard has shifted dramatically to the point where even people in the room who use that type of violent language, like Mollie just mentioned themselves, you know, irony in convicting somebody else for using the same language.

And Laura, if we’re throwing the Constitution out the window and the laws out the window, you’re throwing the language of the very impeachment standard out the window, which requires high crimes and misdemeanors. And clearly, the standard is not met here. I’m glad that the defense team kept it tight today and it was very effective. And we’re looking forward to the acquittal, so we can move on to the people’s business.

INGRAHAM: Yes. There’s anything happening that we have to do actually in this country. Ari, Van Der Veen said something that I think undergirds what you were referencing earlier and just this, the hatred of Trump at the core of this. Watch.


VEEN: Hatred is at the heart of the House managers frivolous attempt to blame Donald Trump for the criminal acts of the rioters based on no real evidence other than rank speculation. Hatred is a dangerous thing. We all have to work to overcome it. Hatred should have no place in this chamber, in these proceedings.


INGRAHAM: Ari, I thought that was – it wasn’t a legal argument, but I think that cuts across party lines. And I think people have had enough above of all of this stuff.

FLEISCHER: Well, and this is where I will defend President Trump, right from the moment when he was first elected, he was greeted by what calls for the resistance. The resistance was the group that fought the Nazis in France. They said, not my president. They boycotted his inaugural. They tried to overturn his election in the Electoral College and there was violence at his inauguration if you remember ANTIFA. And then they leaked and weaponized classified information against Donald Trump.

And of course, there was the whole collusion narrative to get him out of office, not to mention the 25th Amendment. So, this has been the Democratic game plan since the day he was elected in 2016. And if you want legitimacy, if you want norms in Washington, you have to act by them yourself. You cannot hold this type of hatred against somebody else and not expect somebody to get mad at you one day. And this is where Washington is just descended into a terrible pit of partisanship.

INGRAHAM: Mollie, today, I believe it was Nikki Haley came out and she made a statement, and it was kind of some similar sentiments of what Ari just said about how we can’t support what President Trump did. She received an enormous blowback, as you can imagine, from Trump supporters online. The divide in the party, is it significant or is it the same old establishment folks who just want to kind of take it back?

HEMINGWAY: I think what Republican voters are looking for are people who don’t fall for the media’s tricks. And Nikki Haley got in trouble because she did talk to a reporter who probably wasn’t operating in good faith in trying to cause problems. She needs to be smarter when she’s dealing with the media to avoid those kinds of traps that are set up that way.

But I think people actually – a lot of people are pretty unified. They’re pretty excited about having made some really much needed policy updates. And then also more people needing to know whether that’s having more restrained foreign policy, an economic policy that focuses on the middle class and an understanding that the Left is actually going to war against the founding of this country and that that needs to be defended against. And it needs to be defended against with word of the day, some fight. And so, people are looking for leaders who have that fight in there and don’t get distracted by media traps.

INGRAHAM: Here’s a key. If you’re getting praised by The New York Times and Washington Post, you’re probably not going to be the next Republican Party nominee. It’s not going to happen. Harmeet, CNN anchor Jake Tapper, I think of everything I saw, he won today’s condescension and snobbery toward.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Not the most constitutionally sophisticated argument, I think it’s fair to say, neither Mr. Schoen nor Mr. Van Der Weak.


TAPPER: Are constitutional scholars. Van Der Veen is actually a personal injury attorney from Philadelphia, as you heard in his voice there. The accent.


INGRAHAM: As you heard in his voice there. Do those glasses make you smarter, Jake? Really Harmeet, your thoughts on this?

DHILLON: Yes. And Jake Tapper was a college cartoonist. And so, you know, look at him. So, this level of snobbery is really out of place here. I think that the lawyers and I say this as a trial lawyer, they started slow. They did a great job today. And I think that the president was well-served by his defense team today. And we really need to move on from this. And any Republicans trying to linger over their hurt and rehashing all of this are doing a big disservice to this country and to the voters who put them in office. So, we need to move on.

INGRAHAM: Ari, this is all over shortly. Do you think President Trump’s numbers go up after this? Stay the same or go down?

FLEISCHER: Stay the same. He’s going to be acquitted and it’s fascinating to watch Donald Trump in Florida without Twitter, without communicating. We really haven’t heard from him, have we? Whoever is going to get that first interview with him, I’ve got a feeling, he’s got a lot he wants to get off his chest.

INGRAHAM: I think his numbers, his approval numbers, that’s what I was getting at, are going up and he’s off Twitter. People are saying, wait, wait, I like those policies. Those are working out pretty well for my family.

Guys, great to see you. You all have a wonderful weekend. And coming up, Biden wants you to wear a mask for, I don’t know, maybe another year. Is that OK with you? Two, three, four. Even if you’re vaccinated, mask up. Dr. Scott Atlas sounds off. Plus, Alex Berenson says that if these COVID edicts continue, we’re actually just going to destroy our entire society. Is that an overstatement? He’s here to tell us it’s not, next.



JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It’s critically important the message that wearing this mask through the next year here can save lives, a significant number of lives.


INGRAHAM: I told you Biden’s mask mandate would be with us forever if he and Dr. Fauci have their way and of course, this mask insanity completely ignores the best science. Now and perhaps the most comprehensive review of the evidence on mask to-date. Dr. Paul Alexander and his co-authors write, it is not unreasonable at this time to conclude that surgical and cloth masks have absolutely no impact on controlling the transmission of COVID- 19.

And current evidence implies face masks can be actually harmful. Well, shocking, but not entirely surprising, if true. Now you see it. Back in May of last year, the CDC released its own study on masks. The focus there was the influenza virus saying that evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials did not support a substantial effect on transmission of lab confirmed influenza. All right.

Well, joining me now is Dr. Scott Atlas, former White House COVID adviser and Hoover Institution Senior Fellow. Dr. Atlas, why has this study from May by the CDC been completely memory hold?

DR. SCOTT ATLAS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COVID ADVISER: Yes, Laura, thanks for having me. Well, masks are really the radioactive issue of this whole pandemic, and it’s really something that is a real case study and how people have just simply ignored all the data that’s contrary to what they want to believe and want everybody else to believe.

The CDC study in May 2020, and all the randomized studies of mask showed that mask on the general population for influenza pandemics do not stop the transmission nor receiving the infection. That’s what they say in two or three different ways. In that article that’s never reported.

It’s also never reported, as Alexander and his colleagues pointed out, the abundant empirical evidence from Europe, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy, the UK, Spain, as well as many states, there are 37 or 38 states in the U.S. and including the other states have had city mandates on masks, yet the cases were not controlled by mask mandates. And then there’s, the other data from Denmark, the one large, randomized study of general population use of mass that showed not a significant reduction in the spread of cases. All of this evidence you’ll never hear about in the news, you’ll never see it in the newspaper.

INGRAHAM: And Dr. Atlas, it’s worse than that when you even raise the issue of studies that were performed by some of them ignored, then you’re an anti-masker. Then you’re a horrible, awful, rotten person who wants the virus to rage all over the world, which is just preposterous, obviously.

But Dr. Fauci, doctor, let me hold on. Dr. Fauci actually said this past week that even after you’re vaccinated, you have to still wear masks, I guess, forever. He also put on a little demonstration, Dr. Atlas, on yesterday. Watch.


DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: So, you wear a mask, then you want it to fit better. So, one of the ways you could do it, if you would like to is, put a cloth mask over, which actually here and here and here, where you could get leakage in is much better contained.


INGRAHAM: Now, Dr. Atlas, if the science is, let’s say charitably, not clear. What is this whole act about leakage and demonstrations and two, three, four masks, what is it all about? Why is he doing this, do you think?

ATLAS: Yes, the usage of mask, again, has taken on a life of its own. I think it shows something more fundamental, Laura, which is that there is a tremendously damaged psyche, particularly in the United States, a tremendous amount of fear that people think, OK, they want to naturally have some control over this when they’re afraid. And the only thing they can really do, besides wash their hands a lot and use social distancing is they can have a mask.

And so, I’m not sure I think that your point is very important. What is the end game here? When are we going to be able to live normally? If everyone is vaccinated, we still have to socially distance wear masks, don’t hug grandchildren.


ATLAS: What’s going on here? Is it true that if we don’t have any cases, we better still be careful because there could be a new strain that pops up? I mean, I just think that people really have to sort of – I believe in giving people the information. We live in a free country. Let’s have people.

INGRAHAM: Well, no we don’t.

ATLAS: Decide what risk they want to take —

INGRAHAM: Dr. Atlas, right now we do not live in a free country. I’m sorry, but we don’t. You can’t go and visit your parents when you want to. I mean, they want to restrict travel, apparently to Florida. I mean, so the idea that I mean, it’s not, so I mean, Dr. Fauci said this week that we’re going to be wearing masks until there is virtually no threat from the virus, apparently, of someone in Uruguay has the virus. That’s still a threat to us. So, we’re all going to still have to be distance and masked. So, that’s disturbing.

ATLAS: I think it’s very worrisome here. The threat to civil liberties, they’re bigger than what we think. There could be curfews forever. You could – it’s conceivable to me that you would be restricted from going outside unless you can prove your COVID-free. I mean, there’s all kinds of things that are down the line here that we – we’ve never known the power of the government until we saw it during this pandemic. And what’s worse, we never knew the power of fear in people acquiescing to things, even if they don’t believe in them. So, I think we’re really in a land here of unknown. Nobody knows what this is going to lead to.

INGRAHAM: So, it’s mask forever. The vaccines aren’t everything. We have to have vaccine equity around the world. I mean, this is going into a direction that nobody, I think anticipated, except a few of us who saw this coming. But, Dr. Atlas, yes.

ATLAS: Let me point one other thing out.

INGRAHAM: Really quick.

ATLAS: If I can, that was that in a survey of the American public that I read recently, 72 percent of Americans said they plan on wearing masks even if the pandemic is over. And I’m pointing out here there’s a tremendous damage to the American psyche and I’m very fearful for the country. I don’t know what’s going to happen here. We’re definitely raising a generation of neurotic children. Can you imagine what young children are thinking? They can’t even see facial cues from expressions. They’re taught that everyone is a potential threat to them. I think it’s very concerning.

INGRAHAM: It’s a form of child abuse. I’m just going to say it. Dr. Atlas, thank you so much. And how many vaccines does this country really need, because President Biden seems to think that the numbers, the short-term, I don’t know, 600 million.


BIDEN: 100 million more Moderna and 100 million more Pfizer vaccines are also able to move up the delivery dates, with an additional 200 million vaccines to the end of July, found on track to have enough supply for 300 million Americans by the end of July.


INGRAHAM: Buy stock in the pharmaceutical companies, I guess. Let’s step back. About 35 million Americans have already gotten the first dose of the vaccine, with more than 11 million getting both doses. And the COVID infection rate is tumbling. It’s down 36 percent over the last 14 days. So, is this wise or even needed? Joining me now is Alex Berenson, Author of Unreported Truths about COVID-19 Lockdowns Part Three.

Alex, are the drop in cases? Is the drop in cases due to the vaccine rollout or something else?

ALEX BERENSON, UNREPORTED TRUTHS OF COVID AUTHOR: No, it’s absolutely not due to the vaccine rollout. The drop in cases began about a month ago. And it’s sort of accelerated in the last couple of weeks. It looks like seasonality may play some role in that. It’s possible we’re getting close in some places to herd immunity, although I hate to even say that out loud, because the virus has made fools of people who’ve said that before the vaccine. I will tell you, the vaccine had nothing to do with this.

The proof of that is in Israel and the UAE, which are two very different countries. But they vaccinated more people than anywhere else in the world per capita, especially Israel, which is using the Pfizer vaccine, which is one of the two vaccines we use here, and MR&A vaccine. And Israel has had – it’s actually an outlier in the wrong direction in the last six weeks.

And one reason I’m hitting this vaccine issue so hard is, it’s clear from the data out of Israel that vaccines are not going to get us to zero deaths or hospitalizations. We are going to have to live with some flu like —

INGRAHAM: Level of the virus.

BERENSON: Yes. And so if the goal is to eliminate this respiratory virus, which is something we’ve never succeeded in doing in history, I don’t know, we’re going to make ourselves crazy. We’re going to destroy our society. And people like you and me are going to be stuck on the outside viewed as these heretics because we have the gall to say, hey, we’re going to have to live with this.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: We have the science. We only have hundreds and hundreds of years, thousands of years, probably, of viral science on our side. And ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and emerging antivirals and therapeutics that provide enormous benefit.

Alex, thank you so much. Great to see you tonight, as always. And congrats on your new book, which I have already started, and I’m going to tweet out all the stuff about your new book.

Coming up, Joe and Jill invite us in for participation, observation of their romance. And another Zoom fail, this time in Congress. Raymond Arroyo has that and more. Friday Follies next.


MARIANNE RAFFERTY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from America’s news headquarters, I’m Marianne Rafferty.

The CDC is offering guidelines to help students across the nation return safely to classrooms. Everyone must wear masks and maintain social distancing. Other guidelines include handwashing and contact tracing if exposure occurs. This comes as some parents are desperate for schools to reopen, fearing the impact of remote learning on kids. But teachers are also worried about the health risks once students return to school full- time.

And the Senate voted unanimously to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman. It’s for protecting lawmakers during the January 6th riots. House impeachment managers shared video this week of Goodman redirecting Utah Senator Mitt Romney away from rioters. Goodman was given a stand ovation in the Senate chambers today.

I’m Marianne Rafferty. Now back to THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. For all your latest headlines, login in to

INGRAHAM: Aren’t you happy. It’s Friday, and that means it’s time for Friday Follies. And for that we turn to author of the forthcoming “The Thief Who Stole Heaven,” FOX News contributor Raymond arroyo. Raymond, it was like a Hallmark card come to life at the White House today. It was very moving, very moving. My heart was pounding.

ARROYO: Just in time for Valentine’s Day, Laura, the Bidens created a long display that you might call Joe and Jill’s garden of love.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What inspired you to do this.

JILL BIDEN, U.S. FIRST LADY: I just wanted some joy, and I think things have been so, with the pandemic, everybody is feeling a little down. So it’s just a little joy, a little hope. That’s all.


ARROYO: A little joy and a little hope, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Cardboard cutouts. It looks like those were made in about five minutes. Could they put a little more work into those, at least? Those were low rent.

ARROYO: It has helped the out of work worker, the kid on Zoom all day long. Look, I appreciate the gesture, but this is a little bit like stapling a valentine to an eviction notice, Laura, considering what’s coming out of that White House. So that concerns me. But don’t worry. The media used the occasion the grill Joe Biden about all the issues on the Americans minds.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is your gift for Valentine’s Day?

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It’s not Valentine’s Day, I’m not telling him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do you extend that love story to the American people that are feeling so down right now, so discouraged?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Next time, bring us coffee too?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Love your dogs.

BIDEN: Yes, thanks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which one is the old one, President?




ARROYO: What jeans are you wearing, Joe?

INGRAHAM: Wait a second, wait a second. No, no, no, no, no. I thought you were serious that they were going to shout out questions about, are you really going to shut down travel, domestic travel in the United States? Are you really going to reach back into Mexico for those illegal immigrants who were sent to Mexico to live pending their application to come here? Are you really going to repopulate our country with people who have already been, at least temporarily, sent elsewhere? But no. It’s like, how do you keep the love alive? You’ve got to be kidding me.

ARROYO: If “Entertainment Tonight” had a White House correspondent, this is what you would have gotten. But look, there was a particularly disturbing moment I need to share with you. This was during a House Financial Services Committee hearing. You might say Chairman Maxine Waters’ hearing was turned upside down by this Zoom witness.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today’s gig economy sprung up from the last recession. It offers a job to anyone who wants one. During COVID-19 we must make sure that our nation’s sole proprietors and the smallest of small businesses receive timely —

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will the gentlemen suspend? I’m sorry, Mr. Emmer.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You’re upside down, Tom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t know how to fix that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can he turn right side up?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can someone turn him and get him right side up?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is this a metaphor?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t know, but he’s upside down.


ARROYO: Laura, I think that was a metaphor. People don’t realize, this was the reconciliation hearing. This is the fast track of that $1.9 trillion bill that they are attaching to the minimum wage, $15 minimum wage to the billion-dollar bailouts for these failed cities. So it is as upside down as this hearing was. It was picture-perfect.

INGRAHAM: Raymond, what I say is Maxine Waters is as humorless as she is rude and incendiary. Couldn’t she roll with it a little bit and give us a little humor, a humorous interlude, maybe to cheer people up? Are you OK? Are you OK? No, he’s actually upside down because he’s having a heart attack. What a ridiculous comment. It makes me less enthused about her.

Raymond, in your home state of Louisiana, Tessica Brown ran out of hairspray and decided, I guess, to just pick up an alternative.


TESSICA BROWN: I used this Gorilla Glue. Bad, bad, bad idea.



INGRAHAM: She couldn’t get the glue out of her hair, that’s a shock. So a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon removed it for her. Poor baby. We do stuff like this all the time. My kids do this stuff all the time.

ARROYO: You’d think that the story would end there, Laura, but it didn’t. Now a Louisiana man, again, our favorite people, Len Martin didn’t believe Mrs. Brown’s viral moment with Gorilla Glue, so he started his own glue challenge.


LEN MARTIN: Watch something. I’m going to take it, put it on this cup, and put it on my mouth.



ARROYO: Guess what, Laura, the Gorilla Glue worked. At least Mr. Martin wore his mask to the emergency room for his cup removal procedure.

INGRAHAM: Remember the ice bucket challenge? The ice bucket challenge, that was a good thing. Then there are all these online challenges, they never go well. They never end up in a good place.

ARROYO: Laura, you know the Proverbs line, idle hands are the devil’s workshop. The continuation of that line is idle lips are his mouthpiece. Both apply here. So Laura, all I have to say to you is happy Valentine’s Day.

INGRAHAM: Are you getting Rebecca a cardboard cutout? Oh no, it’s stuck. We’re going to have to check back next week with Raymond.


INGRAHAM: All right, Raymond, do something nice with Rebecca. Happy Valentine’s Day.

Our reporting on the Lincoln Project last night sent them into an absolute frenzy, but there are others who actually helped their predatory cover-up, and they need to face the music. They will next, with Glenn Greenwald.


INGRAHAM: Last night independent journalist Ryan Girdusky returned to this show to lay out shocking details regarding the Lincoln Project and its cofounder John Weaver. As a reminder, Weaver has been accused of making lewd sexual overtures with promises of employment to dozens of young men and at least one minor. Girdusky told us that the worst allegations against Weaver haven’t even been published yet, but that they are criminal in nature, criminal allegations.

The news apparently sent the Lincoln Project into an absolute tailspin last night. This group, the group posted private Twitter messages between their cofounder Jennifer Horn and a journalist. We don’t know exactly how they accessed the conversation, but since neither Horn nor the journalist consented to it, it actually could be illegal, even if it’s not against Twitter’s rules, whatever those are.

As shocking as this behavior was last night, the rot among the founders of this vicious anti-Trump group founded by corporate America and really rich people, a lot of them in Hollywood, was as clear is day to us for the past year. But again, that did not stop powerful forces from aiding them every step of the way, because they were just obsessed with taking out Trump by any means necessary.

So the Lincoln Project’s biggest funder was Chuck Schumer Senate Majority PAC which forked over, I almost fell over when I read this, $1.9 million. The group got half-a-million from Hollywood heavyweight David Geffen — haven’t had any comment from him, have we — and another $326,000 from Bain Capital, Mitt Romney’s old firm. So are they going to apologize for what they ended up seeding, even, of course, they didn’t know about it, but do they want their money back? And where did that $90 million really go that they raised?

Much of the money was paid to firms, big shock, run by the Lincoln Project’s cofounders, so it’s all an inside deal, including nearly $25 million to Summit Strategic Communications, that’s a firm run by Reed Galan, Reed Galan, of course, with the Lincoln Project. More than $20 million was paid to TUSK Digital run by another founder, Ron Steslow.

Here now is independent journalist Glenn Greenwald. Glenn, I’ve been dying to talk you about this. Success has many fathers, but so too does disgrace.

GLENN GREENWALD, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST: Indeed, indeed, although it’s really interesting to watch the rats fleeing the sinking ship as fast as they possibly can. As you pointed out, Laura, there were a lot of people, you were among them, as was I, pointing out for the last 18 months or so that these people who formed this group are notoriously sleazy, unethical, grifters. They say whatever they need to say in order to fleece people out of their money. That’s what the swamp in D.C. has done. It’s not like any of this is new.

But people on other networks and in liberal outlets chose to ignore that even though they knew it was true, and venerate them, herald them, and in the process convince their audience. It’s true that they got funding from a lot of rich people, but they got a ton of funding from ordinary people as well in the middle of a pandemic and unemployment crisis who forked over huge amounts of their money assuming it was going to ads against Donald Trump when in reality the bulk of the money went to firms controlled by founders of this organization.

INGRAHAM: Glenn, to your point here, folks like Nicole Wallace, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Jake Tapper, they don’t seem to — this doesn’t even register with them. We went to check, and there have been at least 25 media appearances by Lincoln Project cofounders on CNN and MSNBC since the Weaver story broke. So there is a reckoning for their media’s role in propping them up as well.

GREENWALD: For sure. The people who enabled this con to succeed first and foremost were those outlets that you just referenced. And as I said, it would be one thing if they were conned. But all those people are experienced journalists. Steve Schmidt and Rick Wilson and Jonathan Weaver have been around forever. No one is confused about who they are. They participated in the con because they, too, believed that this group was going to sway the election in Biden’s favor.

The irony is a study after the election found that they had almost no impact on the election itself because they weren’t publishing ads for swing voters or even conservative voters. They were only publishing ads to stimulate the g-spot of liberal cable hosts and liberals because they were interested not in affecting the election but in inflating their own bank account. And you’re absolutely right, a serious reckoning is needed, especially after last night’s likely criminality in publishing those private messages without authorization.

INGRAHAM: Just so everyone understands, this is not just aiding and abetting the grift. That is kind of obvious. They are aiding and abetting what was being done on the payroll of this organization. And Weaver, and I don’t know what everyone made, but I know a lot of vacation homes, a lot of luxury lifestyle stuff going on, they made a lot of money. And at least some of that money went to Weaver. Weaver, allegedly, from all of these people, was a predator. And we’ve heard nothing from David Geffen. We’ve not heard nothing from Bain Capital. Maybe they’ve released statements and I’ve missed it. I certainly hope so, but I don’t think so. Glenn, thank you very much for joining us tonight. It’s great to see you, as always.

And Governor Cuomo’s downfall impacts another prominent voice. The Last Bite explains.


INGRAHAM: The news about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s COVID response and cover-up, that has put his political future in peril. But there is another prominent official who spent months hamming it up with the elder Cuo-bro, even promoting his policies as a model for the country.


DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: New York got hit worse than anyplace in the world, and they did it correctly by doing the things that you’re talking about.

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO, (D) NEW YORK: We’ll do an ad telling New Yorkers it’s safe to take the vaccine, to put us together. We are like the modern day De Niro and Pacino.

What food do you miss the most that you can’t get down there that you could get if you were back here in New York and Brooklyn?

FAUCI: A nice Nathan hot dog in a really steaming pastrami sandwich.


INGRAHAM: Oh my God, is that the new normal? Are we going to really have to see that night after night? I guess he’ll just take another shot at DeSantis, go after the winners.

That’s all the time we have tonight. Have a great weekend, everyone.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Related Posts