Biden sounds like a PSA pitchman while speaking to Florida voters

This is a rush transcript from “The Ingraham Angle” October 14, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: The first turkey we got to cook is Biden. And I'm going to do that in THE ANGLE. Hannity, awesome show. Have a good one. Watch. Get a glass of wine. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE from Washington tonight.

Senator Josh Hawley is here. He's taken on Twitter and Facebook, over their censorship of a story pretty harmful to Joe and Hunter Biden. So what is he doing and why does he say this is a tipping point?

Plus, Dr. Scott Atlas made huge waves last night at THE ANGLE, calling out the so-called medical experts who are still advocating lockdowns. Now, we have a really important update for you on that tonight.

And what is something that Joe Biden should probably stop talking about? Of course, Raymond Arroyo reveals it in "Seen & Unseen."

The third and final day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett came to a merciful close for Democrats. Now, once again, they chose to spend hour upon hour embarrassing themselves with a number of failed attempts to try to intimidate or trip up the judge. I'd like to do these reviews, because I know you have realized you're not watching us. But let's start with dang dick Blumenthal's pathetic attempt to entrap Judge Barrett.


SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Lawrence v. Texas, which held that the government cannot criminalize gay and lesbian relationships. Was it correctly decided?

AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Senator Blumenthal I again, you know, I've said throughout the hearing that I can't grade precedent on the words of Justice Kagan give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.

BLUMENTHAL: So you can't give me a yes or no answer. Again, forgive me for interrupting, but my time is limited.

BARRETT: Well, Senator Blumenthal, I can't give a yes or no.


INGRAHAM: Blumenthal was just positively unbearable. A higher power must have gotten involved.


BLUMENTHAL: Legislative activism from the bench and the kind of activism that I fear you will bring to the bench is one--


INGRAHAM: Now the microphone Gods agree, because Blumenthal is a complete insufferable bore and not to mention, he's a doppelganger of George McFly from "Back to the Future." Do we have it? No. Yes.

For her part, Senator Klobuchar tried to spin Barrett's nomination as some corrupt bargain.


SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Did you have then a general understanding that one of the President's campaign promises was to repeal the Affordable Care Act when you were nominated?

BARRETT: I'm aware that the President opposes the Affordable Care Act.

KLOBUCHAR: Well, I know you're aware now, but were you aware of back then?

BARRETT: It's just been part of the public discourse.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. But it just - then is the answer yes then?

BARRETT: You are suggesting I have animus or that I cut a deal with the president - that isn't what happened.


INGRAHAM: Amy's just mad that she's not up there. She's not going to the court. It was another swing and a miss. And as the hearing full of grandstanding by sorry, buffoonish senators, and it wouldn't be complete without Spartacus creating another unserious spectacle.


SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): Do you think it's wrong to separate children from their parents to deter immigrants from coming to the United States?

BARRETT: Well, Senator Booker, that's been a matter of policy debate. I can't express a view on that.

BOOKER: We're debating things that - to me are basic questions of human rights. I'm sorry that we can't have a simple affirmation of what I think most Americans would agree on.


INGRAHAM: Biden's buddy Senator Chris Coons, he tried to tarnish the reputations of Barrett's and the late Justice Scalia in one fell swoop.


SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Justice Scalia's philosophy is significant. But I also think you've made it clear that it's largely your philosophy. If Justice Scalia had had his way we'd be in a very different country with regards to gender discrimination.

BARRETT: I hope that you aren't suggesting that I don't have my own mind or that I couldn't think independently or that I would just decide like, let me see what Justice Scalia has said about this in the past, because I assure you, I have my own mind.


INGRAHAM: Now, funny, I didn't hear any commentators on CNN or MSNBC charge Coons with mansplaining to Judge Barrett. Why is that? I think Senator Marsha Blackburn summed it up best in her closing remarks.


SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): They projected stereotypes onto you. Those stereotypes are what they think about us, as women on the political right.

And they enjoy being able to mark and to ridicule and to diminish and to demean. To them it is political sport. It is the politics of personal destruction.


INGRAHAM: Joining me now is Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law Professor, Fox News Contributor; and Robert Dunn, Attorney and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Jonathan, this was - it was nowhere near the level of abuse that Kavanaugh got, of course two years ago. But they still had to get in their jabs and to try to make it as painful as possible for Barrett and her family. Your reaction tonight.

JONATHAN TURLEY, FOX NEW CONTRIBUTOR: Well, she did very well. The questions that were asked of her really weren't premised on getting an answer of any kinds, since she had continually cited the Ginsburg rule, so she would not talk about future cases. But that really wasn't the point.

It seemed like the Democratic senators, were really sort of making a case unrelated to the nominee. They were bringing up President Trump and all of the sort of political divisive issues that have gone into this election.

Much of the questioning, I think, all this was rather embarrassing. I thought the high point was Dick Durbin. I thought he did a very good job.

In fact, the exchanges between Durbin and Barrett were the most substantive of the hearing. They almost stumbled on that accidentally. But they actually hit substantive moments where cases were discussed.

But what was most interesting about the hearing was really when she talked about - or when she was allowed to talk about her views of the law. And she gave a full throated endorsement of originalism. One of the most clear and unambiguous endorsements of originalism I've seen in a nominee.

And what's interesting is unlike many other nominees, she clearly means it.

In fact, not since Scalia have I seen a nominee that meant it like she did.

She's a real live originalist.


TURLEY: And she also made very clear in these hearings that she does not believe that Roe v. Wade is so called super-precedent, and that's very important.

INGRAHAM: Well, Robert, Senator Klobuchar, at one point, seem to want to - well, she was inferring or implying I should say, implying that Judge Barrett got nominated because of her role in working for Bush v. Gore, as a young lawyer in the challenge to the 2000 election results. Watch this exchange.


KLOBUCHAR: Many argue that Bush v. Gore hurt the courts legitimacy. If you are confirmed, the Supreme Court will have not one, not two, but three justices who worked on behalf of the Republican Party in matters related to the Bush v. Gore case.

BARRETT: You're asking me whether I was nominated for this seat because I worked on Bush versus Gore for a very brief period of time as a young associate. That doesn't make sense to me.


INGRAHAM: Now, Robert, Klobuchar is a former prosecutor. But back to Jonathan's point, these were just, for the most part, lame questions. I might not think Durbin was as great as Jonathan did, but he's maybe a little bit better. But it's not exactly an all-star lineup to compare yourself to.

ROBERT DUNN, CLERKED FOR JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: No, I mean, the question makes sense, though, given how much love Trump has for Bush, for Bush's brother. I mean, we all know that two of them are thick as thieves. So that line of questioning was spot on.

No, I thought one of the interesting exchanges to me was with Kamala Harris where she was attacking Judge Barrett for rulings on behalf of corporations against employees. And she was counting up statistics as to you've ruled in favor of this constituency this many times and that constituency that many times.

And to me that that was a perfect sort of revelatory moment of the differences in what Judge Barrett thinks she's doing when she's sitting on the bench and what Senator Harris thinks she should be doing. Because I went back and I looked at those opinions and all Judge Barrett is doing is applying the Federal Arbitration Act. It's a federal statute that requires judges to basically give deference to arbitration agreements.

And if Senator Harris doesn't like the outcome, guess what, she sits in the branch of Congress that could repeal, amend or replace the Federal Arbitration Act. So to sit there and judge or sit in judgment of Judge Barrett, for applying a federal statute that Congress enacted, is just insane. Judge Barrett is doing her job, and sometimes employees win, sometimes corporations win, but that shouldn't matter to the judge. And it clearly doesn't matter to her, she follows the law. And that's, I think, what we saw, what the country saw for two days.

INGRAHAM: Jonathan, a few friends of mine who aren't the biggest Trump fans, were messaging me yesterday saying, Wow, I wasn't expecting this type of judge to - and respond the way she did. I don't know what they were expecting, like some scary jurist or someone who was seeming to be too meek or wasn't informed. I don't know what they were expecting. But I think she won over a lot of people who are very concerned.

TURLEY: Well, the polling actually shows that. She went up in the polls.

More people are supporting her nomination. She's very, very good in these confirmation hearings. And I think that, in many ways, she is sort of the Rocky Balboa of nominees. And that in her previous palette confirmation, they threw everything they had at her. They hit her with everything. And they really didn't leave a mark.

And it's interesting on this confirmation they really stayed out of her reach. They - this was not someone that they expect that they would be able to take down. But, what's unfortunate is that a lot of these cases were really misrepresented in a way that I thought was grossly unfair. They brought up a case involving fetal remains, and it's an abortion case. And they kept hitting her with that case.

The Supreme Court agreed with her position in that case. It's that her position ultimately prevailed. And so it was intellectual disconnect.


TURLEY: And I thought she was very diplomatic instead of saying, wait, wait, wait, you seem to be missing the second half of the story?

INGRAHAM: Yes. And for all the law geeks out there, they also screwed up yesterday - they were trying to equate voting to - voting against accepting a case En Banc with a federal court of appeals and ruling on the merits.

And this was from a lawyer. It was quite - I can't remember which senator it was. I was like, you've got to be kidding me.

This is just like - this is like stuff you learned second year of law school. Jonathan and Robert, we got to roll, but thanks--

TURLEY: Well, there's also--

INGRAHAM: Well, we got to roll, I'm sorry.


INGRAHAM: Come back soon. Jonathan and Robert, thanks so much.

Since there is zero doubt that Amy Coney Barrett is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court, Biden's running mate today was relegated to just taking some pathetic, ineffective jabs.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA) VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: This hearing has done nothing to alleviate the concerns raised about why this nominee was chosen to be candidate. People are very, very scared. They are scared that allowing President Trump to jam this confirmation through would roll back rights for generations. They are also deeply concerned about what this means for our nation's continued pursuit of the timeless principle of equal justice under law.


INGRAHAM: That was a really compelling read. I'm concerned that we have senators who can't speak off the cuff. Here to respond is Senator Josh Hawley who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, but was actually in the room. Well, Senator, your colleague Senator Harris says that Amy Coney Barrett will be an affront to the principle of equal justice under the law.

Your response tonight.

SEN JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Well, first of all in terms of sounding scared, I thought Senator Harris sounded scared and I can see why, because Amy Coney Barrett is one tough customer. She sat in there, in that chair for 12 hours, two different days, answered every question that came out. And I think there's a reason Senator Harris didn't want to show up in-person. She didn't actually want to go toe to toe with Judge Barrett, because it's clear who came out on top.

So listen, the Democrats - bottom line, Laura, the Democrats don't know what to do with a strong independent woman of faith who is unabashedly pro- Life and not backing down from her convictions. She carried the day - the last two days. And the only thing that's an affront is the Democrats.

They're an affront to this whole constitutional process. They tried to make a mockery of it. They lost.

INGRAHAM: Senator Hirono, for people who missed it, made this claim about Judge Barrett.


SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): In accepting your nomination you described Justice Scalia as your mentor, that's been mentioned many times before. It appears that you may be even more to the right of Justice Scalia, whom you described as the staunchest conservative.


INGRAHAM: That was another Oliver Wendell Holmes there. Senator, I watched this just having clerked on the court and I had the privilege of knowing Justice Scalia quite well, and of course, Justice Thomas. And I see the senators up there, and I think, is this really the best the Democrats can do? Is Hawaii really proud of Mazie Hirono?

HAWLEY: It was it was quite a performance by the Senate Democrats over these last two days, trying to twist Judge Barrett's words, trying to make stuff up out of whole cloth, attacking her for faith. They said they wouldn't and then they went right on ahead and did. Senator Leahy attacked her for speaking to a group of Christian law students. I mean, imagine that, the horror of it.

Senator Blumenthal, Senator Hirono, attacked her for adhering to the positions of her Catholic faith. Again, imagine that. It's - there are only

65 million Catholics in America. Imagine a devout Catholic who would think this kind of stuff is just outrageous, and they're going to lose, Laura is the bottom line here. They're going to lose. Judge Barrett did not back down one inch. And I couldn't be more proud to support her.

INGRAHAM: And really quickly, senator, your reaction to that story from "The New York Post" today, based on emails between Hunter Biden and Burisma officials. Now, among them was one from this Burisma executive who thanked Hunter for, "The opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together."

Senator, look, this story stunned from the very beginning. But now the aftermath is Facebook and Twitter censored it and anyone who shared it?

You've spoken about the immunity these companies get. What is going on here?

HAWLEY: It's basically at this point, Laura, big tech versus democracy. I mean, that's what it is. These tech companies want to rig an election. They want to control what we read. They want to control journalists in this country. They want to control the news. And we just can't let them.

And that's why I will be inviting and asking Facebook and Twitter to come testify under oath to my Subcommittee in the United States Senate. The American people deserve answers. I've also asked the Federal Election Committee to open an investigation. This is - looks like to me like an in- kind campaign contribution to the Biden campaign.

I want to know what context did Twitter and Facebook and others have with the Biden campaign when they decided to start censoring this "New York Post" story on behalf of the Bidens. This thing just stinks. It reeks. And this is going to pull the lid off, I think, on just the corruption surrounding big tech.

INGRAHAM: No. And Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Senator, put out a statement earlier tonight saying, "Our communication around our actions on the New York Post article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM was zero context as to why we're blocking: unacceptable." Well, that's not saying they're unblocking it though, senator, right? It's just saying that we needed to explain why we blocked it.

HAWLEY: Yes, it's so insulting. I read that statement, and I was insulted by it. It insults the intelligence of every single American citizen. We're not stupid. We can see that Twitter rushed to suppress this story, to censor it on behalf of the Bidens--

INGRAHAM: It's pathetic.

HAWLEY: Just like Facebook rushed to do the same thing. Yes, this is - they

- the fix is in. They want to rig the election and use their monopoly power and we can't let them do it

INGRAHAM: No, no. And Senate has to act. You guys have to hold the Senate and then that legislation has to move forward. Senator, great to see you tonight, thanks for joining us.

HAWLEY: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: Coming up, Dr. Scott Atlas dropped a bombshell last night about those who are still pushing these coronavirus lockdowns. And, well, he said they better be held accountable. My ANGLE provides an important update in moments.


INGRAHAM: "Biden and the COVID experts exposed," that's the focus of tonight's ANGLE. When do you think about it Joe Biden really has only one argument for his presidency that even attempts at cutting through, and it would be that he is better at handling COVID. Well, tonight his running mate made the case on Maddow.


HARRIS: We must trust the scientists. Leave them to do their work. Leave them to guide our decisions and our policies. Joe cares deeply about science. He is knowledgeable, he is fascinated, he is interested. He is engaged in what science can do and must do to help the American people.


INGRAHAM: Oh, he likes reading science. She's reading notes. But there are a number of countries in Europe that listen to those same scientists who advocated widespread lockdowns and the results in Europe are a spectacular disaster.

Now, if you care about daily cases, the U.K. has soared past the U.S. and the EU is close. Check out our case fatality rate compared to the EU and the U.K. Now, on the trajectory of deaths, who's doing better? Well, we are. We're down 37 percent, but Europe deaths are skyrocketing, up 493 percent and 402 percent in the U.K.

Now given all this, and with the W.H.O.'S warning about how lockdowns are hurting the poor, one might think that Europe now sees the folly of its own COVID response, right? No. They're instituting more locked downs. Can you believe it?

But certainly, our experts, the one that Kamala was talking about there, well, they recognize what's happening, surely they do. Well, what's Dr.

Anthony Fauci saying? Mostly, he's worrying about those of you who refuse to skip your normal Thanksgiving with family and friends--



DISEASES: That you may have to bite the bullet and sacrifice that social gathering unless you're pretty certain that the people that you're dealing with are not infected.


INGRAHAM: I'll have the turkey stuffing and a side of antibodies, please.

Come on. Some of this is simple. A thing called Farr's Law tells us that we can't hide for a virus that has a natural ebb and flow. And the obvious conclusion from the European experience is that lockdowns only delay the inevitable. A few months ago, the airheads in the media were freaking out about the Sunbelt's COVID surge. Remember that? Well look at them now.

Here's Texas, and Arizona and look at Florida. Wow.

Last night White House COVID Advisor Scott Atlas appearing on THE ANGLE, he offered a brutal assessment of the public health commentariat. He didn't name names, but he didn't have to.


SCOTT ATLAS, SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT: History will record the faces of the public health expertise as some of the most sinful egregious epic failures in the history of public policy. And honestly, some people say a crime against humanity, these people should be held accountable to what they said.


INGRAHAM: Of course, he's talking about every single public health expert who told us that lockdowns work. They also told us that Europe had a better approach and that vaccines are the only way to get back to normal.


FAUCI: If you're talking about getting back to a degree of normality, which resembles where we were prior to COVID, it's going to be well into 2021, maybe even towards the end of 2021.

DR. PETER HOTEZ, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: Get ready for a really tough time this winter. And get ready to hunker down.


We're still going to have a lot of death and disease between now and the end of the year.


INGRAHAM: Reviled by the same people last spring, we now see that Sweden had the right approach and then the U.S. led by Trump was a close second.

Now, if current trends continue, we'll end up having fewer cases than Europe and a far better economy than the Eurozone as well.

Trump has pushed therapeutics, and as a former patient in a high risk group himself, he showed us he recovered within 10 days. He had, obviously, great therapeutics behind himself. But he showed us with his own actions that we need to get back to work even during a pandemic.

Unless you're a regular ANGLE viewer, you may not know the real truth and that's frightening. America is going in the right direction on the stats that matter. So while case numbers may be going up, because we're testing what a million people a day, deaths are down. And while case numbers are up, because you know we're testing all that, we have to remember, CNN doesn't know the truth.


BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Not a single state in this country is heading in the right direction with coronavirus infections.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: We do this every day. Orange and red are bad. This is horrific, a horrific map.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: There's no green state on that entire map now of the U.S.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Small household gatherings are a growing source of coronavirus spread.


INGRAHAM: Now, what's the chance that none of these people have gone to a dinner party without masks in the past six months? Zero. Public health officials like Fauci have a duty to consider the unintended consequences of the pandemic response. But they rarely if ever do.

Hundreds of scientists have signed on to the Great Barrington Declaration against lockdowns and for a return to common sense anti-COVID measures. But the last thing Democrats want to hear are these four words "Go back to work."


JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We've known for some time that Scott Atlas and the body language from the White House has been that they are supportive of the idea of herd immunity.

CAMEROTA: They are now inflicting their idea of herd immunity on the country.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: This is the embodiment to me of anti-science.


INGRAHAM: The science? Now that's funny. There was never any real science behind COVID lockdowns, and the evidence that all of our mask wearing works is also murky to say the least. A new CDC study shows that the majority of those infected with COVID-19 always wore masks. Oops.

Oh, wait, that must be why Joe wore not one but two masks yesterday when visiting Florida. Tomorrow it will be three masks. By Election Day, I don't know, maybe he will have 20 overlapping masks on his face. Doesn't that make you all feel safe?

And that's THE ANGLE.

Joining me now, Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Medicine. Dr. Risch, beyond lockdowns, you say that the experts who have run our response, and certainly running the European response, or are killing Americans in other ways. Explain.

DR. HARVEY RISCH, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH:  Good evening, Laura. Yes, I think that it's taken a very high toll on people out of work, people limited in their economic opportunities having to pay bills and rent and mortgages and so on, and not being able to do that. And it's taken a toll on their mental health as well. The inability to seek medical attention that they would otherwise have had to get for other diseases is a very important component of the cost of lockdown.

INGRAHAM:  Well, there is a moment from Dr. William Haseltine lately where he is poo-pooing, along with a lot of experts who I'm sure make a lot of money being on a lot of boards, poo-pooing the idea of acquiring or herd immunity. Watch.


DR. WILLIAM HASELTINE, FORMER HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL PROFESSOR:  Herd immunity is another word for mass murder. That is exactly what it is. If you allow this virus to spread as they are advocating. We are looking at two to six million Americans dead, not just this year, but every year. The reason for that is that there is no such thing as herd immunity.


INGRAHAM:  Any response to that? I'm not sure what he's wearing. Is that the "Star Trek" enterprise outfit? Whatever. Dr. Risch what do you --

RISCH:  I don't know how he can say that, honestly. People do have some degree of immunity that lasts for at least a few months if not quite a bit longer. We know that herd immunity does not have to be 80 percent or 90 percent. There was a paper in "Science" by Tom Britton a few months ago that showed that with communities the way they normally mix, people in communities, herd immunity can be obtained somewhere in the 40 percent to

50 percent range. And herd immunity is what's going to save the country from an endemic pandemic, and that's what we have to face.

INGRAHAM:  Dr. Irwin Redlener of Columbia University wants Fauci and company to resign. But here's why.


DR. IRWIN REDLENER, MSNBC PUBLIC HEALTH ANALYST:  I have an op-ed coming out tomorrow morning that will be calling for Fauci and five of his colleagues to step down en masse now before the election. Donald Trump is unhinged and has caused an incredible number of problems, including a lot of unnecessary, unavoidable deaths among people who could have survived if we had been doing things the right way from the beginning of this crisis.


INGRAHAM:  Dr. Risch, you likely think Fauci and Redfield should resign for other reasons, I imagine.

RISCH:  Correct. But blaming the president for the deaths when the FDA caused the deaths is really hypocritical and absurd.

INGRAHAM:  We also don't know how many excess deaths there are. I know in Denver they found out, Doctor, that there were an excess number of individuals dying at home from heart attacks in the two weeks following their really strict lockdown. People were just refusing to notice their own signs of pain or not wanting to act on it. So there are all sorts of ripple effects from these lockdowns that I never hear Dr. Fauci talk about ever.

RISCH:  That's correct. That's all going on.

INGRAHAM:  Dr. Risch, thank you so much.

And up ahead, Joe Biden loses his grip on reality and comes to the defense of his favorite campaign surrogate. Raymond Arroyo explains. "Seen and Unseen" next.


INGRAHAM:  It's time for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we reveal the stories behind the headlines. For that we are joined by our next guest, FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo whose new book "The Spider Who Saved Christmas" is out tomorrow.

Raymond, Joe Biden was off the trail, but the coverage of his Florida campaigning was scant. So what did we miss?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  Laura, Biden went down to Florida to make his case to seniors, but he sounded like a PSA pitch man. Listen.


JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE:  If we do not find an answer to Alzheimer's within the next 19 years, every single solitary bed that exists the United States of America now will be occupied by an Alzheimer's patient.


INGRAHAM:  OK, The Alzheimer's -- what happened there?

ARROYO:  The Alzheimer's Foundation projects 11 million people to be stricken with Alzheimer's dementia in 20 years. Are there only 11 million beds in the United States? There are nearly 5 million hotel rooms, OK.

And why is the president responsible for doing what scientists and researchers can't? This is the problem with politicizing a disease, making it a campaign issue, which we have seen over and over again in this campaign, certainly from the Biden side of things.

INGRAHAM:  It always falls flat, Raymond. And when Trump runs an ad, quoting Dr. Fauci, accurately, I might add, in saluting the administration's handling of COVID, Biden rushes in to defend his surrogate Fauci.


JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE:  He's running a national ad quoting Dr. Fauci out of context. Even after Fauci said that he didn't say that about the president, the Trump ad campaign said they were going to continue to use the ad knowing, knowing it was a lie. Can any of you ever remember anything like that in a presidential campaign with a mainstream candidate?


ARROYO:  Laura, can you ever remember a mainstream candidate lying in a presidential campaign about, say, his background or his son Hunter promising access to his V.P. dad?


JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE:  I don't know what he was doing. I know he was on the board. I found out he was on the board after he was on the board, and that was it.

It's not a conflict of interest. There's been no indication of any conflict of interest from Ukraine or anywhere else, period.

I am a hard coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, Pennsylvania.

HBCUs -- I got started out of an HBCU, Delaware State.


ARROYO:  For the record, Laura, Biden was never a coal miner. He never attended a Historically Black University, Delaware State or otherwise. And once "The New York Post" released those emails from Hunter Biden showing that Joe Biden met with Ukrainian energy officials before lobbying to fire that Ukrainian prosecutor, Biden today shut down coverage and public events, announcing a lid before 10:00 a.m. This man has more lids than Tupperware, Laura. I've never seen anything like it.

INGRAHAM:  That's good. That's good.

It might be hard for people to understand the whole grift thing, but let's just say grift, OK. The Biden family and gripped. Before we go -- before we go, Raymond, you have a picture book out.

ARROYO:  I do indeed. It's called "The Spider who Saved Christmas." It's coming out tomorrow.

INGRAHAM:  Where did it come from? Where did it come from? That's an interesting title.

ARROYO:  Remnants of this title are all around us every Christmas, Laura.

It's the tinsel we see in trees. That's the homage, if you will, the remnant of this story. But somehow we have forgotten the story itself. It's an old legend that goes back centuries. It's about a spider who encounters Mary and Joseph and the Baby Jesus in the middle of the Christmas story.

And I thought it's uplifting for families. It also teaches us that you can find hope in even the darkest places. And sometimes that hope comes from very common things and even frightening things at times.

So kids have loved it. It's a great conversation starter at the holidays.

And I think people are going to love it.

INGRAHAM:  We haven't even had Halloween, and it's already Christmas. We're already pushing the Christmas books.

ARROYO:  Well, we've got to mention it. It's out there.

INGRAHAM:  I'm afraid of spiders, as Raymond know, because he will always say there's a spider on you, and I scream. So I'm terrified of spiders, but the book is fabulous. Of course, I've already read it. The book is fabulous. Raymond, congrats. And you can get to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, wherever books are sold.

And still ahead, what do the Democrats focus? Race, of course, during the Barrett hearing. And what does it tell us about the future of the Democrat Party? Candace Owens is here. You're kidding me. Who better to get reaction on that? Next.


INGRAHAM:  When they weren't fearmongering over COVID, Senate Dems were trying to pelt Judge Amy Coney Barrett with loaded racial questions.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, (D-CA) VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Voting discrimination still exists. No one doubts that. Do you agree with that statement?

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, (D-HI) SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:  Do you believe, Judge Barrett, that voter suppression or discrimination in voting currently exist?

SEN. DICK DURBIN, (D-IL) SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:  Does the president have the authority to unilaterally deny the right to vote to any person based on their race?


INGRAHAM:  Georgetown should ask Dick Durbin for his law degree back.

Senator Booker leveled perhaps the most disgusting of all charges.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, (D-NJ) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I hope you understand my heart when I look at a justice who, it seems that the fixes is in, is going to serve on the Supreme Court and hasn't taken steps to understand the pervasiveness, the facts, the truth about cases of race that are going to come before you.


INGRAHAM:  And the winner for best male actor in a continuing drama goes to Spartacus.

Joining me now, Candace Owens, Blexit movement founder, author of "Blackout." Candace, I just want you to react to Spartacus, because he was trying to conjure up all this emotion. I think he's a frustrated thespian.

CANDACE OWENS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TURNING POINTS USA:  Honestly, it is just always remarkable to see him. And you are correct. This is the "I am Spartacus" guy during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. And he always just seems like he's "Days of Our Lives." There is no one more soap opera.

Laura, I hope you understand with me coming on the show where my heart is in talking about these issues.


OWENS:  He's not even a good actor.

And it's also plainly ridiculous that they keep asking these questions, because what they are trying to examine her on is her emotionality. And that's the last thing Americans should want in the Supreme Court, in a Supreme Court justice. We don't want emotionality. We want rationality. We want to make sure that she is able to serve and apply the Constitution and apply the law equally. And we know she can.

Even under all of this is some sort of an implication that she might be a racist, right, because that always seems what the Democratic attack is.

They want to always paint somebody as a racist if they are a conservative.

She has two black children. So this is falling flat.

And I will say this -- they're not landing any hits on her. She is strong.

She is strong, and every time they attempt to attack her on something and it seems so meaningless, I actually think it helps our side and it makes him look very, very bad.

INGRAHAM:  No, they were just flailing all day long. It got tedious to watch, but it was enjoyable.


INGRAHAM:  Candace, I want to get to this. The media, apparently they want everyone to believe that now if you have to wait in the line to vote your basically living in the new Jim Crow era.


BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC HOST:  Eleven hours to vote in the United States of America. Let's use plain English and call it what it is -- voter suppression.

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO, (D) NEW YORK:  Would you wait 10 hours to vote? It creates a big risk of de facto suppression.

JASON JOHNSON, MSNBC POLITICAL COMMENTATOR:  Voter suppression tactics that are being used in Texas, forcing people, oftentimes black and brown people, to stand in line for three, four, and five hours.


INGRAHAM:  Candace, when did having to wait in a line become a civil rights violation?

OWENS:  I am telling you, we are the most overprivileged people that have ever lived in the history of the world. The fact that this is even a discussion or a debate, mind you, the same people that will wait 20 hours in the line on Black Friday for a black screen TV. These are the people we are talking about, right. And now all of a sudden, it's this great injustice in America. Forget the flatscreen TVs that we're willing to wait for, but what's a great injustice is we have to wait in line to vote.

Am I being oppressed on Sundays when I have to wait at Trader Joe's and the line is wrapped all the way around? Have I been oppressed my entire life, Laura, at the DMV? Have I been scoring oppression points my entire life?

It's waiting in a line. That is not voter suppression. It takes a little bit of patience. And I think it's plainly ridiculous. But again, what are they trying to feed? It's this narrative that somehow we are trying to stop people from voting.

And by the way, do you want to know why half of these lines are so long?

Because of COVID-19 restrictions. They keep showing these aerial images.

Now we all have to be six feet apart. that contributes to this madness that we're seeing.

And also, Laura, it's important to point out this is early voting. This is optional. You can go back another day. So all of this is madness, but that's what the left is always about, emotionality and madness and a lack of rationality.

INGRAHAM:  Before we go, Candace, I have to get your thoughts on this really important story tonight from "The Hollywood Reporter," OK. Jussie Smollett is now to make feature directorial debut with James Earl Hardy book adaption. Candace, didn't he already make his debut when he directed that hate crime hoax?


INGRAHAM:  What happened there? Wasn't that his first production?

OWENS:  This was absolutely his first production. But you know what this really speaks to is just the corruption and the protection that is around him. Could you imagine if a white person faked their own hate crime? The amount of people and the hoops that they have to jumped through, he should be canceled and we should hear from him again. In fact, in my opinion, Jussie Smollett should be in prison for what he did. He went to foster a narrative that there were race issues and he paid people in order to do this. And look at this. He gets another chance. He gets to be a director, Laura.

INGRAHAM:  Unbelievable, rewarding failure. Candace, great to see you.

And still ahead, Trump turns up the heat in Iowa. The Last Bite explains.


INGRAHAM:  Trump was on fire tonight in Des Moines, but it was this moment that really turned up the heat.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Should I take off the tie or not, what do you think? I don't know. Maybe yes?


That feels so much better.


INGRAHAM: It was like a Tom Jones moment. I'm really dating myself by saying that, by the way. All right. That's all the time we have tonight.

Shannon Bream, the "FOX NEWS @ NIGHT" team 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.