This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 23, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight.

GOP Congressmen stormed the impeachment breaches today, and they protest, of course, the Soviet-style proceedings being run by House Democrats. Well Jim Jordan, Steve Scalise, and Bradley Byrne take us inside the mayhem.

Also, as we keep hearing Hillary Clinton well floating for another Presidential run, her name, my “Angle” tonight asks why now, and who would benefit most? That's a little later on in the show.

Plus, the NBA China saga takes another unexpected turn. Some iconic directors take on superhero films. And does GQ actually understand masculinity anymore? Raymond Arroyo has it all in Seen and Unseen.

But first, to today's most dramatic story, Republican House Members, frustrated with the continued secrecy of the process, stormed the ultra- secure conference room or SCIF, during a closed-door impeachment hearing, in a call for transparency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Behind those doors, they intend to overturn the results of an American Presidential election. We want to know what's going on.

REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARIZ.: This is a Soviet-style impeachment process.

REP. BRADLEY BYRNE, R-ALA.: We're fighting as hard as we can. We need more people to fight with us.

REP. MO BROOKS, R-ALA.: Show your face where we can all see the travesty that you are trying to foist on America.

GAETZ: Let's see if we can get in.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congressman, please have these (ph) questions.

GAETZ: Let's go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well instead of asking why the most serious political tactic available, impeachment, the removal of a duly-elected President, is happening out of the public view, the Left moved to paint this as just an act of desperation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TED LIEU, D-CALIF.: You may wonder why is it happening now? Because Bill Taylor gave a devastating opening statement yesterday. They're freaked out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All they can talk about is this stuff that these guys got all spun up about today, which is "It's secrets, process. It's the bowels of the capitals."

That's the sign of a losing argument, and they know it.

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: Isn't the whole strategy by Jordan and Meadows is and it - in some ways, is to make it a circus?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Here to respond is House Minority Whip, Steve Scalise, Alabama Congressman, Bradley Byrne, and Jim Jordan, Ranking Member on the House Oversight Committee.

Congressman Jordan, let's start with you. You heard Chuck Todd there.

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: Yes.

INGRAHAM: This is a distraction. You specifically are looking to turn this into a circus. Your response?

JORDAN: Here's the fundamental question. There's one person who started this whole thing, the whistleblower. In the whistleblower's complaint, bullet point number one, he says, "Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials gave me the basis for this complaint."

To date, we don't know who any of those people are. So, 435 Members of the House who represent over 300 million people in this great country, and only one Member of Congress, Adam Schiff knows who the whistleblower is, and who those more than half a dozen U.S. officials, who gave him the information that formed the basis of - of his complaint.

Why don't we know? More importantly, why don't you know in the media? Why doesn't the American people know?

Adam Schiff is doing this unfair partisan process in secret, and our Members finally said, "Enough." We're - we're so frustrated. They reached a boiling point.

And these guys marched in, and said, "We want to know what's going on because we represent three-quarters of a million people back home in our districts, and they'd like to know what's going on, because you guys are trying to take out a President 13 months before an election." That's what happened.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Byrne, this idea of storming the beaches of - of the impeachment proceeding, whatever we're calling the sham, the Bloomberg, other publications are saying that this basically was just our - orchestrated by the White House.

The White House is calling the shots. You can see the headline there. This is - has Trump's blessing. Earlier this week, he said, basically, "Get out there and fight," and you all are just taking marching orders from him.

BYRNE: Look, that's just not true. We're fed up. We've had enough of this. We've had this drip drip drip of leaks. Jim can't tell us what's happening. But they can leak leak leak. We don't know what's going in that room. We had enough.

We walked in that room, and said, "By golly, we represent the people of the United States. Let the people in this room."

INGRAHAM: Congressman Scalise, we've seen a lot over the last - well I have over the last 20-something years here in Washington. But this is pretty dramatic. What did you all accomplish?

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA: Well the first thing we accomplished is I think we exposed to a lot more people what's really going on behind those closed doors. When we walked into the room, it was interesting because they hadn't started the meeting yet, but they were getting ready to. Adam Schiff himself, the Chairman of the Committee, admitted that was not a classified briefing. And so, why were Members, by the way, Members of Congress, shut out from the meeting?

So, when we walked in, he was confused. He's looking around and trying to figure out how he can throw us out. He wasn't going to throw us out. We weren't going to leave. We weren't there to disrupt anything. We just wanted to see what was going on.

But what's interesting is as soon as the lights were turned on, so to speak, Adam Schiff took the witness, and ran out of the room. What is Adam Schiff trying to hide in that room that 75 percent of the voting Members of Congress can't go in, can't have access to the documents, can't even read the transcripts?

75 percent, that's 230 million people being denied when they're trying to impeach a President of the United States behind closed doors in secret. It's never happened before.

We're going to call him out on it. We're going to keep calling him out on it. And let the public see sunshine is the best disinfectant to what is rotten to the core. It's a Soviet-style Star Chamber.

INGRAHAM: You know, when I was listening to some of these Democrats complain today, I thought "Wait a second! You're all complaining that the Republicans, apparently some brought in phones to a secure area, where you're not supposed to bring in phones."

And we got Bennie Thompson writing a note from, of course, from Mississippi Congressman, saying "Today, a group of Minority Members of the House of Representatives intentionally brought their electronic devices into a SCIF. Such action is a blatant breach of security, violates the Oath all Members sign. I'm requesting you take action with respect to the Members involved in the breach."

Now, they didn't get arrested or dragged out of there. I mean there's no real way to do that. But what is that all about? They're suddenly--

JORDAN: All right--

INGRAHAM: They're suddenly hung up on protocol.

JORDAN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I thought protocol didn't matter, process didn't matter.

JORDAN: No. And - and look, as soon as the Members knew that they weren't supposed to have their phones in, these aren't guys on the Intel Committee, these guys just wanted to find out what's going on in this unfair process.

So, they walked in, when they were told, get and take your phone - they took the phones out, had someone take their phone out. But they stayed there to see.

And Steve is exactly right. Adam Schiff said, "I'm going to take my football and go home," because when they all come in there, he says, he asked the witness to get up and leave, and he just left.

INGRAHAM: But they all went back for a vote. And Schiff comes--

JORDAN: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: --Shifty Schiff comes backs in.

JORDAN: Exactly right.

INGRAHAM: And does the deposition, Congressman Byrne at 3:15.

JORDAN: Exactly right.

INGRAHAM: So, I go back, and I say, it's a PR deal, which I like, because I think - they play this stunt game all the time. I think Republicans are frankly quite abysmal at selling the President's record of huge peace and prosperity.

I think it's getting better. But I don't think it's been good enough. He's - his number should be way higher. And I think all - all Republicans got to amplify that message. But he goes back and does the depo at 3:15. So, what did you guys accomplish?

BYRNE: We accomplished showing the people of the United States what a farce this is. Jim had them - been in that room for a long time, and they've been seeing it, and telling us, "Guys, if you were in there, you wouldn't believe it."

My first thought, when I walked in that room, was this is pathetic. And if the American people could walk in that room with us, and see what's going on in there, the American people would say, "This is pathetic. This is not our constitutional democracy. They're trying to take it away from us."

INGRAHAM: A friend of mine texted me this afternoon, and she's - she watches the show, and she's - she was born in another country. And she said, "Is this America? I didn't - I wasn't born here. But this doesn't seem like what happens in America."

It was just a very might be a common sense comment, Congressman Scalise on what's going on here. And it's - people say, "Oh, it's only about process." The process does ensure fairness.

SCALISE: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: Without a process in place, we have no due process in our - our Constitution. Imagine if that's out the window. So, they all claim to stand on right to confront accuser, equal protection, due process.

But when it's, when they say, "Well guys this isn't - this is fundamental fairness being violated here." "Oh, you don't care about the substance." But we don't know the substance because the substance is being hidden. That's what I think you guys actually accomplished today.

JORDAN: Exactly right. Exactly.

SCALISE: Yes, Laura, because they don't want people to know that this is actually going on. What they're doing - Adam Schiff is building a record as a premise for impeaching the President, and he's doing it behind closed doors, because they tried to do it in a normal setting.

If you remember, the Mueller investigation was their idea, 22 months, 2,800 subpoenas. There was every kind of investigation you can imagine, and it yielded absolutely nothing. The President didn't do anything wrong. There was no collusion. There was no obstruction, and it crushed them. They thought that was going to be their basis for impeachment.

So, what did they do? They don't give up. They go on and looking for something else. This is a witch-hunt. They're meandering around, trying to find something, and the only way they can do it is not through a fair process, where both sides get to call witnesses, which has always been the case in impeachment.

Adam Schiff is the Star Chamber, again Soviet-style, like you said. Your friend's going "This isn't America," when only the Chairman gets to call the witnesses. They don't even let the President have legal counsel. And they're using this as the basis to impeach the President of the United States.

INGRAHAM: Well kind of.

SCALISE: Behind closed doors. People get that not only is it not fairness. We have an election next year. Let the people of this country decide, not Adam Schiff or Speaker Pelosi.

INGRAHAM: But what they - but - but I - it's so obvious to me what they're doing. And, of course, they have a complicit media, Congressman Jordon.

JORDAN: Well sure. Sure.

INGRAHAM: When you and I, and Scalise, I mean, during this whole Mueller thing, I mean I don't know how many times both of you are on the show, when this same thing was happening--

JORDAN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --in a different form, wasn't quite so secret, but it was a leak. Then The New York Times had another little thing, and then it was an unnamed source, and then it was a fourth party or third party deal, same thing is happening with this new--

SCALISE: Totally.

INGRAHAM: --New York Times story about Ukraine, about well Ukraine knew of the freeze of aid in early August, but then you have to read down the story, and you find out but they didn't know that it wasn't--

JORDAN: No, they didn't. Not till late August.

INGRAHAM: They - but they well - The New York Times piece today, you know, says that it - they actually had some sense in early August. But then you have to read down in the full piece to actually find out they didn't know it was tied, is still at that point directly to--

JORDAN: Right.

INGRAHAM: --a specific Biden investigation that it was a, you know, broader than that.

JORDAN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: But that's how this whole thing goes down.

JORDAN: No. It's - it's - it's always - it's always how they play. And now the argument that Adam Schiff is using, he's actually resorted to the argument, well he's the equivalent now of an Independent Special Counsel. Go try selling that to the American people.

Adam Schiff, Independent, Adam Schiff, a Special Counsel, that's why he is - that's his basis for running this unfair and partisan process in - in the basement of the Capitol. People can see through that.

The one thing I know about the American people, they get fairness, and they instinctively know that this is not fair, and that's what we tried to highlight--

BYRNE: Yes.

JORDAN: --even more for him today when these guys stormed in the room.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Byrne, today we learned, we don't know that what it is yet. But we have learned that there is an - yet another instance - instance of bias that the whistleblower harbors--

BYRNE: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --politically--

BYRNE: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --apparently--

BYRNE: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --not just having worked in some capacity for Biden, not just being a registered Democrat, apparently there's another thing, again something else nobody knows, and that's why President Trump keeps tweeting "Where's the whistleblower?"

JORDAN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Why are we calling this a whistleblower? We don't even know if this - I mean I don't know this I.G. that none of this was important, I guess, to the Inspector General, and kind of vouched for the whistleblower. But it's just again this - this all seems like cooked in the - cooked in - cooked in the biscuits here.

BYRNE: One of the fundamental things you do when you're interviewing a witness, or you're trying to understand a witness, so try and understand what - what their motivations are.

If we don't know who this person is, we can't tell what their motivations are. So, they're hiding the witness. When they hide the witness from the Triers of Fact, we can't decide what's right, what's true.

JORDAN: Exactly right.

BYRNE: They're trying to keep the truth from us. But in doing so, they're trying to keep the truth from the American people because they know if the American people see the truth that'll be the end of this case.

INGRAHAM: I want to play a sound bite, hold on, from Congressman Castro, not the one running for President, but Congressman Castro, today. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO, D-TX: It looked like a mob scene. It looked like a kind of a mob party coming into that room.

This was kind of the most tense situation in Congress in a long time, particularly with that many people, folks were yelling at each other, it just got very unruly for some time there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCALISE: So untrue.

INGRAHAM: Oh, you were scary! Did you scare him off Scalise?

SCALISE: That's a little bit rich when--

INGRAHAM: Byrne?

BYRNE: It didn't happen that way.

SCALISE: --when people just showing upset, that saying that they want to hear. We showed up to hear what was going on. We didn't show up yelling and screaming. They started yelling and screaming, after Adam Schiff took the witness, and literally ran out of the room. And so, again, it begs the question--

INGRAHAM: "Mommy, Mommy, save me Mommy!"

SCALISE: --what is Adam Schiff trying to hide, not only from us, as voting Members of Congress, not only from the media, but like Brad said, what is he trying to hide from the American people?

Jim's in there every day. He sees leaks that go out that undermine the President that have nothing to do with rational thought, and doesn't have anything to do with what happened in those hearings, but it's trying to set a narrative, because then they say something false that some of the media write about it then--

INGRAHAM: Oh, yes, yes, it's the way it goes (ph). It's like--

SCALISE: --they go back and throw something else at the President.

INGRAHAM: --it's a debunked conspiracy theory.

SCALISE: It's a drip drip drip. That's their only--

INGRAHAM: How many times there is this debunked conspiracy theory.

JORDAN: Oh, yes, which is not true.

INGRAHAM: But don't look into the facts.

JORDAN: Not true.

INGRAHAM: By the way, the tense, the - the tense moment for Congress is when you were shot on that baseball field, Congressman Castro. That was the tense moment. So, that was just - that's--

BYRNE: But this idea that it was a mob scene that is just not true.

JORDAN: Yes.

INGRAHAM: No, we got to--

SCALISE: It wasn't that at all.

BYRNE: And we were very quiet and polite.

INGRAHAM: They have--

SCALISE: We wanted to hear what was going on and we were denied that opportunity.

INGRAHAM: All right, we got to go. Congressmen--

SCALISE: Because Adam Schiff doesn't want people to know the truth.

INGRAHAM: --we're going to be tracking this, obviously, every detail. Thank you very much, all three of you for being here tonight.

JORDAN: Thank you.

SCALISE: Thanks a lot.

BYRNE: Well good to be here.

INGRAHAM: And Democrats in the media have established their quid pro quo, of course, they think, between Trump and the Ukraine.

They claimed the Acting Ukraine Ambassador and noted Never-Trumper, Bill Taylor's testimony yesterday was "Damning." And then, right on cue, two new stories dropped today to further than narrative.

Exhibit A, The New York Times reporting, as I just mentioned, "Ukraine knew of aid freeze by early August, undermining Trump defense." But buried in a story was this interesting and exonerating fact.

"The communications did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the investigations."

Then the AP came out with this on a May 7th meeting in Kiev with the headline "Ukrainian leader felt Trump pressure before taking office." But the article provides no evidence of a quid pro quo. But deep in the article was this line.

"Also in the room, Amos Hochstein, an American who sits on the Ukrainian company's Supervisory Board. Hochstein is a former diplomat who advised Biden on Ukraine matters during the Obama administration."

Gee! I wonder who gave him all this stuff for the article.

Here now to connect all the dots, Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, Bob Barr, former Clinton Impeachment Prosecutor. All right, guys.

Tom, we keep turning up new ties between the Democrats, Biden and Ukraine. What is going on here?

TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well the State Department is controlled by Democratic Party. There are some Republican appointees there. But they're either Democrats or lean Democrats in terms of their outlook.

You have them falling over each other to help the House Democrats with their coup attack on President Trump. You know, we've seen the documents right after he was elected. They were shoveling classified information to the Democrats, in the House and the Senate, to undermine Trump.

The State Department bureaucracy was literally helping Christopher Steele write the dossier and send it over to the Justice Department. And then, to this day, that whole gang is defending Hillary Clinton. We're just still fighting with them to get basic information about the cover-up.

So, as the State Department is protecting Hillary Clinton, covering up her illegal activity, they're doing their darndest to undermine the President of the United States.

And frankly, this Ambassador, when he testified, he should have said, "You know what? I'm the Ambassador to the United - for the United States. The President is the elected official I report to. I may disagree with him on policy. But he has a right to make the policy. And I should be enforcing it. And heck, we should make sure that Ukraine"--

INGRAHAM: Yes.

FITTON: --"is not corrupt. And needs to be held accountable before"--

INGRAHAM: Well I have - I have - I have something more.

FITTON: --"we give them a dime."

INGRAHAM: I have something more, maybe simple to state. If you don't like Trump's "America First" policy, then quit.

FITTON: Right. Exactly.

INGRAHAM: You are obligated to quit.

Bob Barr, you have had your own experience, your oldest - your old work for the CIA. Over decades, we've seen the State Department have burrowed in Leftie elements.

I remember going back to my - my years, working in the Reagan administration, as a young kid, 20-something, hearing the senior people talk about roll their eyes every time the State Department was mentioned. So, this is not a new phenomenon, but Trump is especially feeling this.

BOB BARR, FORMER CLINTON IMPEACHMENT PROSECUTOR: It's not a new phenomenon because - and there's a reason why the State Department is referred to as foggy-bottom.

A lot of the folks over there, these - these careerists and these Deep State folks over at foggy-bottom, they lose sight of who it is that they're representing, and they fall in love with the countries to which they're assigned, and think more highly of them than they do of the United States, and their President, as you say, that they're supposed to be serving.

You know, years ago, as you mentioned, I - I worked for the CIA. And it struck me, even back then, and it hasn't changed, that dealing with our own State Department is sometimes like dealing with a hostile foreign government. It's that bad. And President Trump is right not to trust them.

INGRAHAM: Well they're - you know, their loyalty sometimes, at least, is to globalism, not to whatever policy especially a Republican President is advancing. Reagan had the Dickens of a time dealing with a State Department, and now Trump does.

Tom Fitton, tell us more about Amos Hochstein who was in that room in Ukraine, and who's named in this New York Times piece, interestingly?

FITTON: Well, as you pointed out--

INGRAHAM: APP, so it's an Associated Press, excuse me.

FITTON: --you know, someone close to Biden. And look, these are folks who don't align themselves with the President of the United States. And you've got the Deep State right now, leaking its darndest to The New York Times and The Washington Post to further the effort to overthrow him.

I - I don't know how much more clear-cut it would - could be. You have a New York Times story today, Laura, attacking the Trump's Ambassador to Hungary, because he's actually advancing President Trump's values.

INGRAHAM: I saw that. I saw that.

FITTON: And opposing the - and supporting the Conservative government there. I'd like to see one of these Ambassadors attacking Trump once, complain about the Ukrainian intervention in our election, the leaking targeting President Trump, the attacks on candidate Trump, and the collusion with the Democratic National Committee.

They don't care about that. And they're outraged that President Trump does. And I'm sorry. This is something the President frankly should follow up on.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

FITTON: He should call the Ukrainians back and figure out what exactly they're doing about it.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Bob Barr, why is this whistleblower being kept behind this shroud of secrecy with what's implicated here? People say "Well there's the transcript. So, why - why does the whistleblower matter - matter?"

Why does the whistleblower matter in any biases, now a third instance of bias?

BARR: Of course, this isn't a whistleblower. This is a conspirator. And a conspirator has no right to be protected against the people who he is accusing, he or she is accusing, from knowing who it is. We have a right in this country to confront one's accuser.

The reason that they are calling it a whistleblower, and handling this through the Intelligence Committee, which is not the appropriate committee to be investigating a President, for possible impeachable offenses.

That's the responsibility under the House rules of the Judiciary Committee. But they have vested it originally, initially here, in the House Intelligence Committee, because they can hold secret hearings, classified hearings.

And that's because the reason that the House Intelligence Committee was established, and I helped write the legislation back when I was at the CIA, back in the late 70s, is to provide a special forum that is different from other committees to handle--

INGRAHAM: Yes, that's what they wanted.

BARR: --classified sensitive intelligence matters.

INGRAHAM: Right.

BARR: Not to investigate political matters, involving a President.

INGRAHAM: Yes. But it's convenient. They did it for a reason. It was to shroud this in secrecy, to make it seem like this is a deep Intel issue, where we knew today, it wasn't even a classified - it wasn't a classified deposition, material wasn't - wasn't classified. But they protected it anyway.

Gentlemen, just illuminating, thank you so much for being here tonight.

And up next, is Hillary making a comeback? We dig in deep. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Here's Hillary. That's the focus of Tonight's ANGLE.

Right, appearing recently on PBS, and in response to a question about Trump's urging her to run again, Mrs. Clinton said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: So maybe there doesn't need to be a rematch. I mean, obviously, I can beat him again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well Host Judy Woodruff noted via Twitter that Clinton claims she was joking. But remember, we're talking about the Clintons, so the truth is always a bit elusive.

Well what are the chances that Hillary jumps into the 2020 race? "It ain't zero. And does she think about it all the time? Absolutely." That's what one of Hillary's closest confidants told The Washington Post.

Now, just a few months ago, I dismissed the idea of Hillary 2.0, kind of out of hand. She wouldn't be that arrogant and ungracious toward the current field, no way. But then the weakness of the Democrat slate surprised even me. Nothing's working.

The walking, talking gaffematic machine known as Joe Biden may have dropped in the polls for a few weeks. But now, he's back on top.

And what seems to be the grudging recognition that the other top candidates, Warren and Sanders, are just not going to cut it in key battleground states, where common sense still mean something.

Now, Mrs. Clinton may also feel vindicated by the interestingly-timed release of an internal State Department report that somehow managed to exonerate her in the matter of email deletion and handling of classified information, although Hillary staffers, of course, they were faulted. The review certainly gives Mrs. Clinton cover.

Plus, I mean who doesn't think that Hillary is a stronger candidate than that goofball Biden?

To use one of his favorite phrases, "Come on, man!" Like I know what you're saying, you know, though, come on, isn't it too late? It's too late for Hillary. It's too late to get into this already crowded field.

Well my answer is it's really up to the party. If the voters aren't jazzed by any of the likely frontrunners, they'd be stupid not to seriously consider another Clinton bid.

She has instant name recognition, a massive fundraising apparatus that could be re-activated, and her old campaign team would quickly re- constitute, and key players exit other campaigns the moment she step back in.

And let's face it. She's been to the Trump rodeo before, so she knows the show better than anyone. As another Hillary pal told The Washington Post, "Her view is: I ran against this guy, I know how to do this."

Another reason I think Hillary is inching toward a rerun is her penchant for dipping into the political conversation uninvited. Most recently, it was her gratuitous swipe at Tulsi Gabbard.

While Bernie Sanders gently reproached Hillary for the smear, Elizabeth Warren just seemed nervous about the looming Clinton shadow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator, Secretary Clinton has been back in the news recently. She criticized--

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Do you have a question about public education?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

WARREN: I just want to start there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think she's helping or hurting the Democratic Party? Do you see--

WARREN: I don't have any comment on that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you see a role for her in the 2020 race?

WARREN: I don't have any comment on that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you see--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Gulp! It's like shaking.

Now, of course the other animating force for Hillary may be the Democrats' view, albeit erroneous, that the Trump campaign is gravely wounded by the growing likelihood of impeachment.

Now, I can imagine this, maybe you can as well. These well-paid, overpaid, I should say, political consultants making this pitch, go something like this.

"Madam Secretary, even if the economy remains strong, our internal polling, it's showing that voters will abandon Trump, and choose you, another political name-brand just to stop the chaos, coming out of Washington.

And just think, you'll finally, Mrs. Clinton, be able to make history as the first female President of the United States. Don't let the dream die. America is calling you. History is calling you. Save us from Trump. Do it for the grandkids."

And as for Mrs. Clinton's recent bravado and trash-talking of President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: He knows that he's an illegitimate President.

He's either lying or delusional or both.

It was like applying for a job, and getting 66 million letters of recommendation, and losing to a corrupt human tornado.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, big deal. That is just talk, unless, that is, she wants to back it up with action. Wade back in, Hillary, the water is warm.

And the other thread of this narrative that must not be overlooked is that the instant and hearty support she would receive immediately from the old embattled deep state and professional and diplomatic corps who are now battling Trump. You don't think this group would rather go back to the good old days of Clinton again and kiss this entire America First era goodbye?

So there you have it, a combination of Hillary's pride, her desire for revenge, a weak Democratic field, and a consultancy class that can sell sand in the desert may be pointing us towards another Trump/Clinton face- off. Of course, Hillary is smart enough to know that the only thing worse than losing once to Donald Trump would be losing twice to him. And that too is a distinct possibility.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you suggesting that someone is trying to make a real-life sequel?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who would want to do that? Sequels suck.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Many sequels have surpassed their original.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Name one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Not this one, that's for sure. If you thought 2016 was exciting, you ain't seen nothing yet.

And that's “The Angle.”

Here to respond, Mercedes, senior adviser to the Trump 2020 campaign, and Mark Penn, former Hillary Clinton advisor. Mark, I actually thought about this long and hard. She should get back in. She should get back in.

MARK PENN, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: Six months ago she would be seriously considering it at this time if the field was weak and nobody had take office because, look, she has got tremendous name recognition. She's got - -

INGRAHAM: Did I make the case for Hillary, yes or no?

PENN: Not even strong enough. She's 60 to 70 percent favorable rating among Democrats. She would be a big name, and people would look for that rematch.

But practically speaking, Biden has stayed up there, and if she got it she would split the Biden vote and maybe neither of them, that would probably tip it to Elizabeth Warren at this point.

INGRAHAM: I see it, Mercedes, as Hillary's to take if she wants it. I think Biden is going to stagger right off the stage. If Mrs. Clinton comes in, she is going to suck all the energy out of the room. People want, it's like, what is it, Frazier and Ali? They want it again. They want this rematch again.

I'm hearing it all the time. It's got to be Hillary. These people just cannot run campaigns in a way that is compelling. You could tell with her recent comments, this is just not a book tour. She wants her revenge. She thinks she got robbed last time, and she wants to win this.

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, WHITE HOUSE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Hillary is delusional and she is in denial. She never thought she should have ever lost that race in the first place. And the mere fact that Donald Trump the fair and square and really took over and broke apart this establishment in politics, I think, left the country in shock but Hillary Clinton in shock. And so she thinks that she is the savior of the Democrat Party. We say come on in, Hillary, because it's just only going to add to the chaotic, weak environment that we are seeing in the Democrat Party.

INGRAHAM: Apparently, Biden tonight reacted to this Hillary-Tulsi tussle, and he had a theory as to why Mrs. Clinton is upset. And he apparently spoke about it tonight. So he is even having -- being forced to comment on it.

PENN: I think the Tulsi Gabbard comments were a mistake on Hillary's part if she wanted to run, because once she called her Russian asset, then that in effect meant everyone was a Russian asset, and it really tended to discredit a lot of the case that she --

INGRAHAM: I thought Democrats used to be against war. I've never seen more neoconservative Democrats in my life. And the Syria thing has just completely jumbled the minds of many people who have been in this town for a long time.

PENN: A lot of Republicans are out there, too, on this Syria thing. Everybody got hysterical.

INGRAHAM: But Republicans, there are a bunch of war hawks in the Republican Party. It's like whatever Raytheon wants, Raytheon gets. But not for a lot of the Democrats. They have been very cautious, I think smartly so, about getting reinvolved in a lot of these foreign battles.

PENN: Yes, but look, Hillary, I think, and several others now, are seriously thinking about getting in. And whether that happens --

INGRAHAM: Would she be able to get some of these staffers who are committed to other campaigns? She signed like --

SCHLAPP: She has her own, she has her own apparatus.

INGRAHAM: Mark Penn tonight says Hillary would get all her top people back.

SCHLAPP: The question will be, there has been so much money raised for Bernie Sanders, for Warren, and for Buttigieg that it will be a money game to a certain extent.

INGRAHAM: Hillary comes in and says, Pete, you're my veep.

SCHLAPP: That is a possibility. But again --

PENN: She'd raise a tremendous amount of money.

SCHLAPP: She is so unlikeable. Let's be real.

INGRAHAM: Hillary-Biden, it would be the funniest darn thing. Why not be vice president three times? Is there any constitutional prohibition? I don't think so. So why not?

But are you surprised that we've had all this buildup of Buttigieg, and Castro, and it was Beto, Beto gets his "Vogue" cover, or "Vanity Fair." I've lost track. They only person who isn't on the cover who should be is Melania. And then they go nowhere. And Klobuchar, oh, she had a great debate. What is she, four percent in the polls?

PENN: The only person who has shown real momentum is Warren. Biden is where he's been the entire time. He's got older Democrats.

INGRAHAM: But he's up by 10 points.

PENN: And he's stayed there. He's stayed exactly where he was. He hasn't brought in a new constituency which he needs to get up to 40. Warren has come in, and Sanders is a lot lower than he was before. But he's hanging in there, too.

INGRAHAM: Is AOC plus three or two, however many endorsed old Bernie --

SCHLAPP: Michael Moore and the gang.

INGRAHAM: Does that matter? Does that matter to battleground states what AOC, God bless her, is up there about public -- the thing she did today with Zuckerberg was just absolutely hilarious. I would pop popcorn and watch it, like, this is funny. But is that going to matter?

SCHLAPP: I don't think so, especially when you enter into states like South Carolina and Nevada. I think for the Democrats, what we're seeing, especially in terms of Biden is, yes, he's up in the national polls, but you look at the state-by-state comparisons in terms of the polls, and Warren has surged. So it is going to be competitive to see where the Democrats are. And where the heart of that Democrat Party is, is clearly socialism, which is not at all what the rest of America is.

INGRAHAM: Iowa voters were telling CNN that we are very afraid that we're going to lose and have four more years of Trump. There is foreboding sense of anxiety which I think Hillary is smart enough to hear it, she feels it, she knows it. You predicted she would get in months ago. I think it was on the show that you predicted it. What do you say now, chances one to 10, 10 being most likely?

PENN: I'd say she's got about a 40 percent chance of coming in.

SCHLAPP: I would say about 40 percent to 50 percent, but I still think that she can go, she is incredibly unlikable. President Trump would just beat her in a race in 2020.

INGRAHAM: Mercedes and Mark, great to have you on tonight.

Up next, Shaq teaches Charles Barkley what it means to be an American. And why some iconic directors are targeting superheroes. Meanwhile, "GQ" reimagines masculinity. Raymond Arroyo is here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose the big cultural stories of the day. Joining us now with all the details, Raymond Arroyo, FOX News contributor. All right, Raymond, this China-NBA story shows no sign of ebbing.

RAYMOND ARROYO, CONTRIBUTOR: Laura, it is just heating up. Weeks after the Rockets GM Daryl Morey tweeted support for Hong Kong protesters and LeBron James castigated him for it, one of basketball's biggest stars said LeBron was treated unfairly, you bad, people. He said this Monday TMZ sports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES BARKLEY: I thought everybody was really unfair to LeBron.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, you thought so?

BARKLEY: Yes. Everybody, does business in China. Every American company does business in China. Why should LeBron not be able to protect his financial interests in the NBA and Nike?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: So essentially if the pay is good enough, who cares about those China human rights abuses? But not all NBA stars feel this way. Shaquille O'Neal defended Daryl Morey.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Daryl Morey was right. Whenever you see something wrong going on anywhere in the road, you should have the right to say that's not right. And that's what he did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Money and market, Laura, has taken, blinded the NBA and many of these players. Good for Shaquille O'Neal for calling them out and saying you should raise your voice. You have freedom, use it.

INGRAHAM: Here's the problem is that when you carry yourself off as the great social defender of social justice, which is big shoes to fill, right, social justice, important causes out there, and when you are asked about one of the most oppressive forces on the face of the planet, our mortal adversary right now, and you kind of said oh, no, no, I'm not going there.

ARROYO: This all led to a hot discussion at the NBA pregame show last night. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES BARKLEY: We all have a responsibility to our employer, too, whether you want to call it selling out or whatever. I can't come on TV and say anything I want to politically. I can't do that.

SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: You have been doing it.

BARKLEY: Daryl Morey has done a good job. But his allegiance is to the Houston Rockets and the NBA. Listen, and he can quit if he's not happy with it. He can quit if he's not happy with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Laura, these people find their voices when it's easy. They weigh in on politics, all manner of topics. But suddenly they shut up with money is at stake.

INGRAHAM: No, it's not just that, Raymond.

ARROYO: It is. It's money. A lot of this is money.

INGRAHAM: It's clear they didn't just shut up. They told others --

ARROYO: To be quiet, right.

INGRAHAM: Morey couldn't send an innocuous tweet without getting hammered.

ARROYO: And to give you an insight to LeBron James patriotism, here he is last night, the opening game, disrespecting the National Anthem.

INGRAHAM: No, it can't be.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEBRON JAMES, LOS ANGELES LAKERS FORWARD: Let's go!

(CHEERS)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: He is getting a lot of blowback for that today, as you can imagine.

I have got to move to this Hollywood story that is gobbling headlines. A war of words has also broken out in Hollywood where famed directors are slamming Marvel superhero films. Martin Scorsese is saying, quote, "I don't see them. I tried. You know, but that's not cinema. Honestly, the closest I think of them, the actors are doing the best they can under the circumstances is theme parks."

INGRAHAM: The cartoon.

ARROYO: Francis Ford Coppola backed him up saying, quote, "Martin was kind when he said it's not cinema. He didn't say it was despicable, which I just say it is."

INGRAHAM: Speaking of money, Bob Iger hit back and said that superhero film actually do well. Oh, you're kidding me, they do well? Without these superhero films these studios would be over.

ARROYO: The problem is, it's teaching audiences that the only narratives that matter are these big CGI nightmares.

INGRAHAM: Raymond, it's about cartoons. What about the issue of masculinity in "GQ"?

ARROYO: This story is unbelievable. The November edition of "GQ," the cover new masculinity, the new masculinity. It features singer Pharrell in a sleeping bag gown.

INGRAHAM: Is that a dress.

ARROYO: I'm not sure where or why a man would wear this. But anyway, the issue features 18 powerful voices who opine on masculinity. Only four of them are heterosexual men. Here's how the "GQ" editor in chief Will Welch defined the new masculinity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILL WELCH, "GQ" EDITOR IN CHIEF: For me the new masculinity is very simple. It's I know who I am, and I respect who you are. It comes down to that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That is profound.

ARROYO: What the hell does that mean? "Gentlemen's Quarterly" has become Genderless Quarterly.

(LAUGHTER)

ARROYO: They basically bulldoze masculinity. They say you should act more like a woman to feel like a man. It's ridiculous, Laura. This is an insult to men, and they're undercutting what it means to be a father, to care and defend even aggressively the things and people you love. That's masculinity, not this kind of feminized -- they have a whole thing on makeup, the new moment in glamorous makeup for men.

INGRAHAM: Let's just say the best commentary on this ever was Jerry Seinfeld and the man bag. You remember the man bag episode? He saw this coming a mile. You and I did this in the book.

ARROYO: Of the IZ (ph)

INGRAHAM: The IZ (ph). I forgot the title.

ARROYO: Laura, now always, even feminine products, they're striking to female symbols on it because it offends some people who don't identify quite that way. I'm waiting for bras to go by bros soon just so everybody feels included.

INGRAHAM: There are some men who could use a little support.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: All right, they are yelling at me saying we have to go.

There was a time when liberals would have cheered President Trump's truth telling on foreign entanglements earlier today, so what has changed? Colonel Doug MacGregor will tell us in moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT: We are in constant communication with both sides with the objective of hopefully achieving a permanent ceasefire in the next day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Vice President Pence predicted it yesterday in our exclusive sit-down, and today the permanent ceasefire in Syria was reached.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: This was an outcome created by us, an outcome reached without spilling one drop of American blood. No injuries, nobody shot, nobody killed. We were supposed to be there for 30 days. That was almost 10 years ago.

After all of the precious blood and treasure America has poured into the deserts of the Middle East, I am committed to pursuing a different course. Let someone else fight over this long, bloodstained sand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Joining me now is retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor. Colonel, what do you make of today's ceasefire news? Is it really permanent? Is it going to hold?

DOUG MACGREGOR, U.S. ARMY COLONEL, RET.: The president said there isn't much in the Middle East that's permanent. So he recognizes that this will hold for some length of time. But permanency, the only things that are permanent in life are death and taxes. So what are we looking at? We're looking at two groups of people right now who are really unhappy. One group consists of Washington. Virtually everybody in Washington with the exception perhaps of the Freedom Caucus --

INGRAHAM: You and I and Tucker and a few others.

MACGREGOR: Everybody is miserable because he shoved a red pill down everybody's throat.

INGRAHAM: Explain that.

MACGREGOR: Listen to what he said. He says first of all, we're not going to commit forces to fight anymore unless there's a vital strategic interest at stake. What a novel idea. That's a brilliant change strategically for this country. Secondly, he said, no more global policeman. No more regime change. You just robbed half of the population of downtown D.C. of millions and millions of dollars of income and support and donors.

INGRAHAM: All cranes in D.C. supported by all this.

I want to play something that Leon Panetta, of course, former secretary of defense, said today. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEON PANETTA, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: This is the most disastrous foreign policy blunder I have seen a president of the United States make. And it is sending a terrible message to the world that you can't trust the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACGREGOR: Well, let's look at the Kremlin right now. They are bringing in Alka-Seltzer and Zantac by the crate. Russia's economic forecast for 2019 is down to one percent growth if they were lucky. Mr. Putin has now been stuck with the red pill of all time. He's got about 5,000 men on the ground. He's got some aircraft and a few ships. He is standing in the path of the most powerful armed forces in the Middle East and the second largest armed forces in NATO. That is not a happy place to be.

INGRAHAM: But the most absolutely stunning thing he said, it's the worst foreign policy blunder he has ever seen. Think of how long Leon Panetta has been around.

MACGREGOR: He certainly presided over a lot of --

INGRAHAM: We got Benghazi. We got the failed scam in Iran deal. Of course, other administrations, we're had other disasters. But we had of course Somalia, it goes on. The Iraq War -- foreign policy blunders, are you kidding me?

MACGREGOR: Well, we are disappointing the Chinese because the Chinese were betting heavily that we would to spend trillions of dollars in these vast wastelands to achieve nothing. The Iranians are upset because now they now think they're going to have to defend Iraq against the Turks. They have already warned the Turks not to advance any further. That means that Iran is split now in terms of its capabilities between the Persian Gulf and northern Iraq.

INGRAHAM: I've had people on this air all day long who are saying that this -- they've never seen a sharper betrayal of allies. No one will trust us again. I heard this on every cable channel, including this one. No one will trust us again. Really?

MACGREGOR: Everyone is scared to death of Donald Trump, because Donald Trump plays chess in multiple dimensions simultaneously. He has now checkmated all of his potential opponents, his competitors. So clearly, he is a dangerous man. So I don't think we have to worry about losing respect.

INGRAHAM: Thank you, Colonel, great to see you, as always.

Stay tuned, the Dems beclown themselves at a hearing that got less attention today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you telling me you plan on doing no fact-checking on political ads?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe that in a democracy it is important that people can see for themselves what politicians are saying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And she wasn't the only one. Ask yourself, why did Democrats spend most of the hearing practically begging for restrictions on speech? It got better. We'll play some more of that tomorrow. That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.