why doesn t somebody demand that schiff answer questions under oath? and why isn t a sham impeachment an open and shut case of democrats dereliction of duty? in other words, to the country? if it were only that simple. article two, section four of the united states constitution stipulates that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the united states can be impeached and removed from office on three charges. bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. now, the house has only impeached one member of congress, all right? it was back in 1799. a little history lesson. senator william blount had allegedly conspired to incite native americans and frontiersmen to attack the spanish lands of florida and louisiana. now, the senate ultimately dismissed the case, arguing that members of congress do not constitute, under the constitution, civil officers.
financier employed young flight attendants, or rather, miners dressed as flight attendants, sean. sean: trace, thank you. don t forget to set your dvr, never miss an episode. we will never be the hate-trump media mob. let not your heart be troubled there galore has a big show tonight. laura, take it away. laura laura: had he come a tremendous show on your part. i m laura ingraham, this is the ingraham angle from new york city tonight. gregg jarrett is in the studio with me, congressman devin nunes, lee zeldin, all with me on this impeachment farce, and the ig report, and adam schiff expose we have for you. but first, what if congressional leaders could be impeached? that s the focus of tonight s angle. we ve read all of your emails and your tweets about the democrats impeachment of session. this is a general flavor of what i m reading. why can t they be impeached? why doesn t somebody demand that
put out, you point out names an unnamed white house official. do we know who that official is? why is it unnamed? why doesn t somebody come forward and specifically say this is a statement from the press secretary or a statement from the chief of staff? why is this an unnamed official making such an important statement? reporter: that s the question we re all asking here as well, wolf. no answer so far. it seems to me, or to many of us, if the white house is trying to perhaps clean this up a bit, seeing the reaction that the president s remarks got yesterday, that they would go further and at least attach someone s name to it. because it has more force that way. this is really what it all comes down to and why there is so much criticism of president trump himself. it s a bully pulpit for a reason, folks will say, and arguing the president isn t showing leadership. talks about wanting to unite the country, to bring people together yet won t name, won t specifically talk about the fact
product, the same concern, where is the mode. if this is a great idea why doesn t somebody come along and do it. i would have loved an explanation of the technology mode. on the pitch i give you with a five with a star baseded on a question. you ve been successful in this space before, haven t you? i have, yes. you did not tell me that. if i was not such a business aficiona aficionado, i would not have known that and as an investor, you always want to bet on the jockey, not the horse, so that s the very first thing you should have told us that you have been incredibly successful and sold a business in this space before. if you would have done that your pitch would have gone to maybe nine. why didn t you do that? she s absolutely right. i had that in my pitch and i don t know why i didn t mention that? do you want to tell our audience? we started another online dating company and it was acquired by a public company and that public company we worked
all police are not bad. i want to be clear about that. the culture that we have that has been documented in this the report, that we know is repeated in many different places and must stop. these are taxes on poor people, people of color. we cannot in america say this is normal and acceptable. and we absolutely cannot continue to send money to keep encouraging or funding this type of behavior. so we must pass legislation that will set standards for training. for making sure some of the recommendations given to us are imp plemted through legislation. where is the state of missouri s responsibility here? why do they have to look to washington? all poll the ticks is local. doesn t somebody in missouri got to do something about this? i m sorry. the governor s office has got to step in here. this report came on his watch. this report came on the