Dinesh D’Souza on the destruction of Biden’s ‘return to normalcy’ pitch


This is a rush transcript from “The Ingraham Angle” September 22, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.  


LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Hannity, I thought of you, because I flipped over briefly to see what the other side was doing tonight, and your old friend Peter Strzok what’s on TV.


HANNITY: Oh, no, seriously.


INGRAHAM: Talking about Russia, Russia, Russia.


HANNITY: Well, Russia conspiracy – is he still on that?




HANNITY: Did he talk about his insurance policy? Did he talk about–




HANNITY: –smelly Trump voters like me and you that go to – you know why like Walmart? You get everything in one spot it’s cheap. You save money.


INGRAHAM: No, I’m telling you, I thought, wait a second is my TV stuck on like 2017? What’s going TV?


HANNITY: Well, there’s going to be big news tomorrow, Laura, headline.




HANNITY: Hannity sources tell Hannity, and you will hear tomorrow.


INGRAHAM: OK. I love it. All right, Sean. Awesome show.


HANNITY: Have a great show as always.


INGRAHAM: All right. I’m Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from DC tonight. Is – well, Mike Bloomberg, Florida play for Joe Biden illegal? A top election lawyer is going to tell us why the billionaires plan to pay off felons, in other words so they can vote, could be against the law. An “Ingraham Angle” investigation a little later on in the show.


Also, could the Supreme Court fight undermine the entire rationale behind Joe Biden’s candidacy? Dinesh D’Souza explains how the Left’s radical rhetoric already reveals that Joe has no control. But first, the Dems abortion litmus test. That’s the focus of “Tonight’s Angle.”


We saw it coming for years, but with the possible Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic bigotry within the Democrat Party is now undeniable.


Now, I’m going to say it even more starkly. Joe Biden, a Roman Catholic, is now presiding over a party that has an ugly vendetta against all people of strong, traditional faith. Democrats revealed their antipathy toward Barrett’s faith background during her confirmation hearing to the appellate court a few years ago.




SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): I think your article is very plain, in your perspective, about the role of religion for judges, in particularly with regard to Catholic judges,


SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Do you consider yourself an Orthodox Catholic?


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern.




INGRAHAM: You know, DiFei, what’s really of concern? Is that the Democrats would even sink this low. Do they even know the history of their own party? During the 1960 presidential campaign many Protestants oppose the candidacy of JFK on the suspicion that his loyalty would be divided between the Vatican on one side and the American people and the Constitution on the other.


Now, in response, Kennedy gave a absolutely stirring defense of his candidacy and of religious liberty.




JOHN F. KENNEDY, 35TH U.S. PRESIDENT: If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.




INGRAHAM: Well, that was prophetic. Barrett is everything that they hate. She’s a practicing Roman Catholic, a mother of seven children, a judicial textualist and unfailingly respectful and courteous, even when her critics are the opposite.


Since Democrats have pegged their entire existence on preserving Roe v. Wade – they’ll die on that hill, they’ve shunned and expelled pretty much all pro-Life members of their own party. Now, that means excluding from their ranks every Christian, Jew and Muslim in the entire country who believe in traditional gender roles and protecting innocent life, and so be it.


And now they don’t even pretend to hide their anti-Catholicism. In November 2019, Letitia James, the rabid product- abortion, New York Attorney General, announced that henceforth no money from the Democratic Attorneys General Association would go to pro-Life Democrats. None of those AG candidates would get a penny. In fact, they had to publicly swear fealty to abortion rights to get money.


Now, what a far cry from the time when the Democrat Party still cared about appealing to the country’s religious voters, many of whom were pro-Life. In 1993, President Bill Clinton stated his party’s abortion views this way.




BILL CLINTON, 42ND U.S. PRESIDENT: an approach that seeks to protect the right to choose while reducing the number of abortions. Our vision should be of an America where abortion is safe and legal, but rare.




INGRAHAM: Rare? Well, that’s now totally out of the window. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and her Marxist mavens perhaps don’t realize that the constitution and Article VI expressly states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Get it?


The Left always proclaims that views that they oppose are somehow outside the mainstream. That’s a little trick. First, if you believe in the proper role of judges, you know that their political or cultural views should be irrelevant to judging.


Second, support for abortion-on-demand in America isn’t overwhelming at all. In fact, 47 years after Roe, the country is still bitterly divided on the issue, which is another reason why it was better left up to the States.


And by the way, according to a Gallup poll on abortion from May 2020, 24 percent of Democrats identify as pro-Life. 41 percent of women say they’re pro-Life, as to 43 percent of non-White voters. Are they all out the window for the Democrats as well, they just don’t count?


Additionally – and this always shocks the liberal elites, 55 percent of Americans say abortion should be illegal or allowed in only a few circumstances. But the Democrats have really got themselves in a pickle here, because they’re so invested in using the court as a way to advance a far Left social agenda that they can’t get past and the regular legislative process, that they’ve alienated millions and millions and millions of moderate voters in rural and suburban America, like the people represented in that Gallup poll.


Now, of course, Democrats, all right, they think you’re really stupid. They think that you’re going to forgive and forget all of their efforts to cancel the faithful from public life, by the way, by using meaningless generalities about Joe’s faith.




MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: He is a profoundly decent man guided by faith.


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): He comes from a very devout Catholic family.


BARACK OBAMA, 44TH U.S. PRESIDENT: That’s what stills his faith in God.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But at the end of the day, I think he’s a man of faith.




INGRAHAM: But that doesn’t inoculate Biden, or any of them from being complicit in the Democratic Party’s anti-religious search and destroy mission. They’ve move so far Left on cultural issues, they’re so wedded to Roe that they exclude and demonize people from their own church who hold traditional views on life, marriage and human sexuality. All the while bragging about how they cherish diversity and inclusivity. By the way, those are total lies.


Yesterday Newsweek published a story entitled, How Charismatic Catholic Groups like Amy Coney Barrett’s People of Praise Inspired ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. Now, that’s like saying your church inspired The Da Vinci Code, but it doesn’t make the fiction true, no matter what group inspired it.


Now, this defamatory piece contradicts itself when it states that Atwood was inspired by an entirely different group with no connection to this people of praise. Amazingly, Newsweek left the piece up, despite having to issue this embarrassing correction. “This article’s headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired The Handmaid’s Tale. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of a research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group. People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.”


But this is how the Left always operates. Depict a benevolent, charismatic faithful prayer group, which counts Catholic Bishops, by the way, as their members, portray that as an evil cult and then attempt to use it against a judge who has the audacity to believe in God.


Now, I fully expect the upcoming confirmation hearing will showcase Democrats supreme desire to excommunicate the faithful from serving in any prominent capacity in government. And their actions will once again demonstrate how fundamentally they misconstrue the Constitution, their proper advise and consent role, and the function of nine justices who sit on the court itself.




KENNEDY: For a while this year, it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed. In other years it has been and may someday be again a Jew or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.




INGRAHAM: That’s where the Democrats have taken America, to a place of great national peril. And that’s “The Angle.”


Joining me now is Matt Schlapp, American Conservative Union Chair and Chris Hahn, Former Aide to Senator Chuck Schumer and host of the “Aggressive Progressive” podcast. Matt, let’s start with you. It does seem that anti Catholic bigotry is the last acceptable prejudice in America.


MATT SCHLAPP, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION CHAIR: Yes, that’s right. And just look at Kamala Harris with her treatment of President Trump’s judicial nominees. On several occasions, if these male nominees were members of this really radical group called the “Knights of Columbus,” she considered that to be too extreme.


Now, you have this question and all this writing about whether Judge Barrett should not be considered for the Supreme Court because of her religion. And as your “Angle” says, the Constitution is clear, there can be no religious test, consistent with the law.


And second of all, our federal statutes say that you cannot discriminate people based on religious faith. But that’s exactly what the Democrats are building a case to do. Discriminate against a woman jurist simply because she is a person of faith. It’s un-American, and I don’t think it’ll be politically acceptable.


INGRAHAM: I mean, I was watching that, obviously, famous speech by JFK during the campaign of 1960, and it really just struck a nerve with me. I mean, deep inside – arriving at a place of great national peril, Chris, and I want to get to what Matt mentioned there, Senator Kamala Harris’s smear campaign against another Catholic judicial nominee.


“It was Mazie Hirono and Harris, who raised concerns about membership in the “Knights of Columbus,” while the Judiciary Committee reviewed the candidacy of Brian Buescher, and Harris described the Knights as a “all male society” and asked if Buescher was aware that the Knights opposed a woman’s right to choose and were against marriage equality when joined.”


Chris, it isn’t too absurd to see that these attacks are happening again, on Amy Coney Barrett?


CHRIS HAHN, FORMER AIDE TO SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: So nobody’s attacking her for being a Catholic. I went to St. John’s University School of Law, a Catholic law school. I was born Catholic. I’m going to go to my Godson’s confirmation next weekend. And I’m voting for a Catholic for President of the United States, Joe Biden.


But let me explain something. We don’t have the right in this country to impose our religious beliefs on other people. It’s fine that she’s Catholic. That’s up to her. She has that freedom under this constitution. And you’re right, there is no religious test.


But when you point out that an organization opposes the right to choose, you oppose – they have other positions that have been taken, it is perfectly legitimate to question a potential lifetime appointee about their position on things that could affect millions of Americans’ reproductive freedom.


So yes, so I expect a vigorous debate, especially given the climate that Mitch McConnell has created for judicial nominees. But I do believe that her Catholicism is not the issue and I think that’s way over the top, way out of out of out of line. And we are – the Democratic Party has nominated a–


INGRAHAM: Well, The Handmaid’s Tale?


HAHN: –a Catholic.


INGRAHAM: The Handmaid’s Tale, they had that up on Newsweek that was blasted everywhere. It’s a cultural insult. And no one–


HAHN: How is that Democratic senator’s fault?


INGRAHAM: –where are the Democrats standing up religious liberty?


HAHN: How is that Democratic senator’s fault? Where are they?


HAHN: Newsweek is a owned by a conservative company right now. Let’s be clear who owns Newsweek right now.


INGRAHAM: Where are Democrats, Matt Schlapp–


HAHN: –a 100 percent – religious freedom–


INGRAHAM: Roman Catholic Democrats – hold on. Where are the Roman Catholic Democrats standing up for religious liberty in the same vein that RFK with 12 kids – she would probably be looked down upon by this crew up there on Capitol Hill, who seemed to look down on people with big families, as some type of freak of nature. I’m sorry, but that’s where this is going. And I think the Democrats know exactly what they’re doing with this little Handmaid’s trekaroo (ph). Matt?


SCHLAPP: No, that’s right. And Chris just said, the problem is if they belong to a group that’s anti-abortion. Chris, I love you, my friend, but the Catholic Church is a group that is anti-abortion. If you can block a judge or justice from belonging to a group, that’s anti-abortion, that means a Catholic who is consistent with their faith need not apply. That is a religious test. That is unconstitutional. It is unfair.


For Joe Biden, who literally has a group, Catholics for Biden, OK, this is their moment. If a nominee like Amy Coney Barrett gets picked, somebody of faith gets picked, and they allow these smears to go forward without castigating them, Joe Biden, should this very day say that nobody is–


HAHN: I’m sorry. I’m sorry,




SCHLAPP: –opposed to Amy Coney Barrett based on her religious views because it’s un-American. And JFK himself–


HAHN: Matt.


SCHLAPP: –I don’t think would be a member of that party.


HAHN: Matt, nobody’s questioning her on her religion. You are absolutely allowed to–




SCHLAPP: You just did.


HAHN: –question a judge–


SCHLAPP: Then why are they bringing it up?


HAHN: –about how they feel on particular issues. And if you belong to–


INGRAHAM: OK. I got to play–




HAHN: –membership to a group.


INGRAHAM: Yes, everyone’s losing – we want people to understand specifically what we’re talking about here. Here was Democrat Dick Durbin during Barrett’s 2017 Appellate Court confirmation hearing. Watch.




DURBIN: I can’t tell you how many nominees have been before us in this panel for the Bench and virtually all say the same, I’m following the precedent. I’m following the law. I’m following the Constitution. Don’t worry a thing about who I am, how I was raised, what my religion is, what my life experiences have been. Put it all aside. I don’t believe that for a second.




INGRAHAM: So Chris, in order to be a Catholic in good standing to be on the court, you have to be a Catholic that is pro-choice, that believes in – on all sorts of changes to traditional gender roles, or you’re immediately suspicious because that’s what it sounds like to me?


HAHN: Most American Catholics are pro-choice. They do not follow the teachings of the church religiously as they probably should if they’re not being in good standing within the church. But they do not.


INGRAHAM: That’s funny.


HAHN: So – I am not of the belief that your faith is a judgment. It is what you have done, what you have advocated in your life.


INGRAHAM: What did she advocate?


HAHN: And all those things–


INGRAHAM: What did she advocate? What did she advocate?


HAHN: –all those things are fair game. All those things are fair game.


INGRAHAM: What did advocate?




HAHN: You should have justices who are–


SCHLAPP: Exactly.


INGRAHAM: OK, my question to Chris, and he’s not answering it and I think this speaks volumes and I love having Chris on. What did Amy Coney Barrett advocate accept her belief and her faith, which I understood from the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, could not be something that we took into account for federal appointees.


HAHN: All right. Look–


INGRAHAM: What did she do?


HAHN: –I haven’t done a full, thorough review of Amy Coney Barrett, but we will have one over the next 45 days if she is if she is appointed — nominated by the President of United States.


INGRAHAM: All right.


HAHN: I can assure of it. And I’ll be able to come back and tell you what she’s done.




HAHN: That makes her not–


INGRAHAM: OK. Do little homework.


HAHN: –for the court.


INGRAHAM: Little homework. She’s a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and she–


HAHN: We both know he is going to nominate the Justice – the judge from Florida anyway. So let’s–


INGRAHAM: Want to put some money on that? All right, I got to go. I got to go. I got to go. Got to go guys. Thank you so much, both of you.


And Mike Bloomberg, as we said earlier, a big announcement from him, he’s going to be sending millions of millions of dollars to try to turn out a very important constituency for Democrats, former felons. But is it legal? Election lawyer and us Civil Rights Commissioner Christian Adams says no. He’s going to explain why. It’s fascinating in moments.






SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): He thinks he can buy this election. Well, I got news for Mr. Bloomberg, and that is the American people are sick and tired of billionaires buying elections.


SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): He just can’t hide behind the airwaves. He has to answer questions.


JOE BIDEN (D) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: $60 billion can buy a lot of advertising, but it can’t erase your record.




INGRAHAM: Now those same Democrats seem perfectly fine with what looks like an effort by Mike Bloomberg to actually buy votes. Now, the former New York City Mayor raised $16 million to pay the fines and court fees of 32,000 former felons. Well, what are they – what do they have to do for it?


Well, the 32,000 ex-cons he’s bailing out are all Black and Hispanic and a memo from Bloomberg’s team lays out what’s really going on. “The data shows that in Florida Black voters are a unique universe where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90 to 95 percent.


Joining me now is Christian Adams, election lawyer and Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Christian, great to see you tonight. Now, you say, I believe, that this could be breaking existing federal law. Explain it for the layman.


CHRISTIAN ADAMS, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL: Right. Now, Laura, first of all, I understand it seems like a very nice thing to do for these people to get their restitution paid for, and for the victims of the crimes to get all this money finally, after waiting for it.


But here’s the problem, it might jeopardize these same people who are trying to restore their civil rights, because it might be breaking federal law. Federal law makes it a crime to pay for, or offer to pay for or receive money for voting. And so, if somebody gives you something for voting, that is a crime under federal law, so Bloomberg might be putting these people right back in jeopardy of federal prosecution.


INGRAHAM: Now, is there tax implications here? I mean, that’s paying – so basically giving people money in order to affect their vote, so any expenditure at all in consideration of voter withholding a vote. But what about a tax implication on this, Christian? I’m going back to my law school days. But if someone is – it’s basically income to pay off a debt, do you have to declare that and you have to pay taxes on that?


ADAMS: Yes, and yes. Look, if somebody came and paid off your mortgage, or paid off your car loan, and just paid for it all, that would be a thing of value that you receive, just like Bloomberg has promised to pay off the debt for these individuals who have to pay restitution. That is a thing of value. So he would also be creating tax liability, in addition to jeopardizing their criminal freedom. Now, they’re finally trying to restore the rights and he’s screwing it up.


INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, Christian, you you’ve hit the federal law at play, and now tax implications. But here’s what Florida law says about buying votes. “No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy the person or another person’s vote or to corruptly influence that person and other casting his or her vote,” et cetera, et cetera – a third degree felony there. Could Bloomberg be in violation of that?


ADAMS: Well, this one’s even more interesting because it specifically references indirectly. So if you indirectly give somebody something of value, which is, namely pay their debt, the real question is whether or not you’re buying their vote, you’re getting them to vote in exchange for that. And I think that’s kind of what Bloomberg said he’s doing, isn’t it?


So it really is a real unfortunate situation. You thought you’ve seen everything until this year, the avalanche of money that’s affecting this election is just astonishing.


INGRAHAM: Also the – mentioning the racial angle, I’m trying to think of a third problem for Bloomberg here on this as a civil matter, perhaps, with the racial implication of this and giving a benefit based on race. It’s more opaque. But Christian, fascinating, we’re going to be following this. Thanks so much.


And as Bloomberg meddles in Florida’s election, the GOP is challenging a recent court ruling that could let Democrats steal the race and Pennsylvania. Well, Republicans are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a State High court order that mail-in-ballots received days after the election must be counted. But that’s just one of several recent rulings out of swing states, threatening the integrity of the November 3rd election.


here to break it all down as former acting U.S. Attorney General George Terwilliger. Attorney General Terwilliger courts in Wisconsin, in Michigan, have also extended the deadlines for mail-in-ballots and a lot of Republicans very worried that these votes will be miraculously found regardless how much Trump might win a state by, they’ll always find just enough in the mail ins, a week, two weeks later, to make up the difference. Is that a concern?


GEORGE TERWILLIGER, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, it’s the integrity of the election process is a very valid concern for a number of reasons, Laura, as you know it’s one person, one vote.


When somebody either fakes a vote or gets a vote twice or something like that, it dilutes every legitimate voter’s vote and that that’s a civil right to have your vote counted on the basis of the one person, one vote standard.


But even of more concerned right now, at least to me, is that that judges are already getting into the act with changing these kinds of election rules. The Constitution, as you know, is very clear that it is the legislatures of the states that prescribe the method by which electors for the Electoral College are to be selected.


And while all states use the popular vote, it’s the legislature that lays out the rules for conducting that popular vote election. And with judges already stepping in and changing those rules when elections are already underway, there are a number of laws, including federal laws, that are implicated. And those laws have been cited, at least in the Pennsylvania case, that we are already asking the Supreme Court to step in and take a look.


INGRAHAM: Would this have to be expedited on a federal level in order —  


TERWILLIGER: If it’s going to be meaningful. I’m sorry, Laura.


INGRAHAM: Yes. No —  


TERWILLIGER: If it’s going to be meaningful, it will have to be expedited because we are, what, now 43 days from the election.


INGRAHAM: This is what Pennsylvania election law actually says about mail- in ballot deadlines, and it’s, “Except as provided under this section, completed mail-in ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than 8:00 p.m. on the day of the primary or election.” Now, General Terwilliger, how on earth could a court interpret that to mean ballots can arrive days or even, in some cases, weeks later? What does that do to, actually, what Election Day even means?


TERWILLIGER: That is just a great question, what does it do to what Election Day really means? And apart from the legal problems, this is a practical problem. Election officials, and I trust that many, if not most, election officials in the cities and counties and towns throughout Pennsylvania want to do a good job, and they want to get the results, and they want to report them in a timely way, as their legislature has directed. When courts start stepping in and changing the rules, it makes their jobs impossible.


INGRAHAM: How confident are you that this would be successful federal challenge given what’s at stake in this election?


TERWILLIGER: Well, it’s more that’s what’s at stake in this election, Laura. This is truly the only national election we have. And after the contest in Tilden versus Hayes in the 19th century, Congress set out some very hard and fast rules for how those kinds of — the Electoral College should be administered and how electoral votes are to be determined, and the process for determining them. So there’s very much a federal question here.


INGRAHAM: Attorney General Terwilliger, great to see you tonight. Thank you so much, sir.


And we are just six weeks out from Election Day. So do you know the state of the race now? And did you know that there is a Senate race that could actually threaten to upend the entire Supreme Court confirmation process? The Ingraham pollsters are here in moments to tell you everything you need to know.




INGRAHAM: Tonight we take a look at state of the race exactly six weeks out. Just how much is still up in the air? Real Clear Politics still protects a staggering 191 electoral votes as toss-ups while Joe Biden once again woke up and called a media lid first thing on Monday morning. And today, President Trump was once again crisscrossing the nation. Tonight he found himself in Pennsylvania where he had this to say about the race.




DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This election is a choice between Pennsylvania and China. If Biden wins, China wins. When we win, Pennsylvania wins and America wins.






INGRAHAM: Pennsylvania is a really important state, perhaps the most important in the entire race. Why is that? If Trump takes Pennsylvania, he can still afford to lose Wisconsin and Michigan from his 2016 map and still go on to win.


Joining me now is Tom Bevan, co-founder and president of Real Clear Politics, and John McLaughlin, Trump 2020 campaign pollster. John, can’t believe it, but 42 days to go. What are the state combinations the Trump team is now looking at?


JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN POLLSTER: You can see — again, you were pointing out that Joe Biden is quitting on a lot of days around 12:00 because his teleprompter is very hard to move out and keep up with the president.


But when he does go out, you can tell he’s following the president precisely to the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. He even brushed off the teleprompter to go to Florida and give two speeches.


So when you’re looking at the polls, and the media polls are coming out every day. There’s tight battleground polls that look good for the president, whether it’s North Carolina within the last 24 hours, Iowa, or Georgia, Joe Biden has got a lot of ground to cover with that teleprompter.


INGRAHAM: Well, FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich thinks the entire thing could hinge on Pennsylvania, saying “Our model gives the president” — I think we just lost it on the screen. But what about that? Yes, “hinge on Pennsylvania,” model “gives Trump an 84 percent chance of winning.” What about that when you look at the state of the race in Pennsylvania, Tom?


TOM BEVAN, REAL CLEAR POLITICS CO-FOUNDER: I actually agree with that. For a lot time I thought Wisconsin was going to be the tipping point state, but for all the reasons you mentioned, if you look at that 2016 map, Donald Trump could lose 36 electoral votes and still win 270 to 268. If he holds onto Florida, holds onto North Carolina, and wins Pennsylvania, he can lose Michigan, he can lose Wisconsin, he can even Arizona. And if he hangs onto Nebraska’s second district and Maine’s second district, it will be to 269- 269 tie. But I think Pennsylvania is key. And right now it’s the only one of the battleground states where Joe Biden is performing worse at this point than Hillary Clinton was four years ago.


INGRAHAM: But he is hopping over there a lot, John, because it’s short track from Delaware, it’s not too far, and it’s a short trip. And I’m sorry, but you see Trump’s schedule, every night he is out with the people. I call him the energizer bunny president because he’s always out and about. And Biden is having some virtual events and a few smaller events, but you have the circles and everyone is in the circle. If you’re just judging it on kind of vigorous connection to the material, just looking at that, in my mind, it looks like Trump’s to lose.


MCLAUGHLIN: We don’t think anything for granted, and we, as you mentioned in those states, we want to win all those things. And the president is working very hard to win all those states. And a week from today you have a big debate coming up. So I don’t know whether Biden is resting up for that or he’s got to figure out how to make the teleprompter work during the day, but the president is out there, and he’s going places were no president has ever been before, parts of the country where he’s going into the exurb counties. He’s going into the parts of these states where the people really appreciate that their president is going there and fighting for them and making sure that he’s going to be there for their jobs, for their healthcare, and to keep their taxes low. So President Trump I think is absolutely running laps around the Biden teleprompter right now.


INGRAHAM: And Tom, this was a strategy that seemed to work for him when it looked like people were just going to be completely freaked out moment by moment from COVID. And now a lot of the countries moving on. They know there’s a risk, but they feel like they have to go on with their lives, their kids have to get back to school, they’ve got to go back to smart, commonsense living. And I’m not sure that strategy is hanging back, and Kamala is not doing all that much either, I think that’s a risky strategy, I really do, this late out.


BEVAN: I agree with that. I think we are definitely seeing two separate campaigns in terms of the travel and all of that. And we have seen right now, I think the public — obviously, the narrative has shifted just in the last 72 hours to the Supreme Court. And I would also add, going back to Pennsylvania, it’s the only battleground state, or it’s the state on the list of battlegrounds that has the biggest population of Catholics. And if in fact Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett and becomes — the Democrats attack her as they did in her previous confirmation hearings over religion, it’s going to be interesting to see how that plays out particularly in Pennsylvania.


INGRAHAM: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan has an enormous Catholic voter base. And the president has struggled among some Catholic voters, and a lot of people believe that attacks on her faith, or even opaque attacks on her faith, are going to give a boost to Donald Trump. Gentlemen, great to see you both tonight. Thanks so much.


And has the fight over RBG’s seat already undermined Joe Biden’s entire rationale for running? What can that mean? Dinesh D’Souza explains it all in moments.




INGRAHAM: Biden’s presidential run is predicated on hollow bromides like decency and a return to normalcy. But with a rancorous SCOTUS fight now revealing the battle lines, is Biden’s rationale for running being totally obliterated? Think about it, how can you run on decency and integrity when your party is once again smearing a Supreme Court nominee were before she’s even been nominated? Can you promise a return to normal if your party’s thought leaders are threatening to upend constitutional norms, and with an obvious power grab?


Voters have a front row seat to what many of us have said early on — Biden’s campaign is nothing more than an empty vessel. So take the issue of court packing. Remember, it was a nonstarter for Biden during the primary grades.




JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I would not get into court packing. We had three justices, the next time around we lose control, they had three justices. We began to lose any credibility the court has at all.




INGRAHAM: Now he refuses to answer the question.




JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: It’s a legitimate question, but let me tell you why I’m not going to answer that question. Because it will shift the whole focus.


Let’s say I answer that question. Then the whole debate is going to be, well, Biden said or didn’t say. Biden said he would or wouldn’t.




INGRAHAM: Why is he wearing a mask there? I’m not following that. Joining me now is Dinesh D’Souza, conservative commentator, filmmaker, latest movie “Infidel,” number one last weekend. Dinesh, this fight is good for many reasons, but chief among them is the fact that it clarifies that Biden has absolutely zero control over the radicals in his own party.


DINESH D’SOUZA, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, “INFIDEL”: That’s very true. He has been promising a return to normalcy. We have to ask, who has been responsible for all of the abnormality of the past few years? Which side has been unleashing paramilitary gangs on the street to loot and burn and harass people eating on sidewalks? Which party has been deploying the deep state, the police agencies of government against political opponents? The answer is it’s the left, it’s the Democrats.


And now, who is threatening to pack the court? Let’s be really clear, Laura. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the court must have nine justices. One could have a decent argument, should the court have 15 justices, and that would, of course, diminish the power of any given president, Republican or Democrat, to dramatically influence the court.


But that’s not what the Democrats are talking about. They don’t just want an expansion of the number of justices. They want to stack the court. And that’s a completely different matter. That involves destroying the independence of the judiciary. And Biden is apparently at least considering it.


INGRAHAM: And Dinesh, they are trying to out-radicalize each other when they comment on what should happen next if Trump pushes forward with this nomination before the election. And it’s two people from the previous campaign, Obama’s team, and a far left cultural figure. Watch.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We want Democrats to pull out all the stops, to boycott the hearing, not take meetings with the nominees.


DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: You’re going to have to get rid of the Electoral College. Democrats can stack the courts, and they can do that amendment and they can get it passed.


We’re going to have to blow up the entire system.


DAVID PLOUFFE, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER: They should add statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C. They should have a list of things on healthcare, on climate, on voting rights, and need to do them all. Grab the power and then fully utilize it.




INGRAHAM: He looks like a mad professor there. Grab the power — why not America Samoa? Why are they left out of the whole statehood equation, Dinesh? We have a lot of possible — U.S. Virgin Islands, they should become a state.


D’SOUZA: Well, the Democrats for a long time have counted on the Republicans to be the party of the nice guys. The Democrats basically assume that we will never do to them what they do to us. They can knock down our monuments, we will never knock their monuments. They can stack the court. We won’t stack the court. And I think the answer to this is we have got to learn to call them on their bluff. If they want to put forward a court stacking plan, and we happen to win the House next time, maybe we should adopt their plan, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, pack the court ourselves.


INGRAHAM: And Dinesh, remember, it’s not just these far left figures. It’s global celebrity, former Democrat president at the John Lewis funeral who made an outrageous projection and desire unknown to all. Watch.




BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: If all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God given rights of every American, then that’s what we should do.




INGRAHAM: He adds that whole lilt to his voice. It always has to go back, Dinesh, to a racial angle when you’re trying to push something through like this.


D’SOUZA: This is an embarrassment. First of all, people talk about Obama as a constitutional law professor. Here’s a guy who has never published a scholarly article on any subject in his life. The other point is that I think that we saw in the Kavanaugh hearings when they trotted out one accusation after another, and you notice that at the end of it, when Kavanaugh was seated, all the accusations evaporated.


INGRAHAM: All right, Dinesh, we’ve got to go. Sorry to cut you off there.


What Kamala Harris is doing instead of taking questions? We’ll show you next.






SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, (D-CA) VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: The Detroit Youth Choir, are you kidding me? You all are phenomenal. And I’m so honored to see you in person. I watched you on TV.






HARRIS: I am so proud of you guys. I am so proud of you.




INGRAHAM: She touched her mask three times. That’s why the masks are difficult.


By the way, more importantly, happy birthday to our executive producer Tommy Firth. He’s one of the best and he’s 24 today.


Shannon Bream and the “FOX NEWS @ NIGHT” take it all from here, Shannon.


Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here