tv The Daily Briefing With Dana Perino FOX News September 24, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
impeachment. >> robin biro, appreciate you on the program. and this is breaking. we just found out speaker pelosi will speak at 5 p.m. eastern right after that meeting with the democratic caucus. stay tuned to fox. >> dana: fox news alert. major developments expected this hour as democrats beat the drums on impeachment amid the ukraine controversy. house speaker nancy pelosi said she will make an announcement at 5 p.m. after meeting with other leaders this afternoon. her office now says she will make the announcement at 5 p.m. but first she's set to take questions at a forum in washington. we'll also hear from former vice president joe biden this hour. he's expected to say congress will have no choice, that the house will have to impeach if the president refuses to fully cooperate with all of their investigations. hello, everyone. join me for this wild ride. i'm dana perino and this is "the daily briefing." complete coverage this hour.
we start with chief white house correspondent john roberts covering president trump at the united nations. john, the president gave a big speech this morning. had nothing to do with impeachment but that apparently is what we're going to talk about this afternoon. over to you. >> reporter: it's what we're going to be talking about all day today and likely the next few months depending on what nancy pelosi says. it was confirmed by fox news that the president, back in mid july, put a hold on $391 million in aid that was destined for ukraine. sources have told me the president was concerned about the amount of historic corruption that there has been in ukraine and whether the united states was throwing good money after bad. also in the context of all of america's foreign policy aid, aid to northern triangle countries and central america, other countries oversea, and whether the united states was throwing goodmentny after bad. the third concern as articulated by the president today, was whether the u.s. again was kind
of carrying the world on its shoulders, particularly when it came to ukraine, and whether any of our european allies were going to step up. listen to what the president said in his bilateral meeting with boris johnson this morning. >> because i think other countries should be paying also. why is the united states the only one paying to ukraine? i have been talking about this for a long time. nobody has given more to ukraine. president obama used to send pillows and sheets. i sent anti-tank weapons and a lot of things. >> reporter: now, one thing that hasn't been reported a whole lot in all of this is ohio senator rob portman's role in all of this. august 11th, happens to be the day before that whistle blower filed the complaint with the intelligence community inspector general, portman called president trump because he is the co-chairman of the senate
ukrainian caucus and said ukraine really needs this money, mr. president. i implore you to release it. according to congressional sources that i talked with a short time ago, the president was concerned about whether or not the united states was going it alone here again with ukraine and whether or not any of our european allies were going to step up. i was told that during that phone call, there was no discussion between the president and senator portman about joe biden or rudy giuliani. in a statement issued september 12 after that money was released senator portman said, president zalenski is a long ally of the united states and i support his anti-corruption agenda. this morning speaking with prime minister johnson of the u.k., the president said there was no quid pro quo in his july 25th phone conversation with the president of ukraine. listen here. >> there was never any quid pro quo. the letter was beautiful. it was a perfect letter.
it was -- unlike biden's. who, by the way, what he said, was a horror. ask how his son made millions of dollars from ukraine, made millions of dollars from china. with us, there was no pressure applied, no nothing. >> reporter: president trump suggested that maybe the white house might release the transcript of that phone call. you and i yesterday there on the set of "the daily briefing" talked about all of the reasons not to do it. if nancy pelosi pulls the trigger on putting together a select committee on impeachment, that may push the president to release that transcript. really, at the moment that is his only form of defense. >> dana: what about, john, will the president be having any additional meetings that might be of interest, with the ukrainian leader. you know this white house very well. nancy pelosi expected to speak at 5 p.m. today. she'll make a statement on impeachment after she makes with democrats. what sort of counter programming might we expect from this white
house? >> reporter: well, rudy giuliani intimated in a tweet that he sent out earlier today that today was going to be all about iran, but that tomorrow they're going to roll out more evidence about joe biden. as to nancy pelosi, i don't expect that the speaker's office would say that she's going to make a statement about impeachment at 5:00, if it wasn't a statement that was going to be very, very significant. so we'll see. again, though, the president can talk all he want, but unless you see the transcript and unless that transcript doesn't contain anything, that might be his only form of defense. >> dana: john, i had one other question. i floated an idea -- let me get your take and i'll let you go. i think there is some reason to be against releasing this transcript. because precedent reasons and because the president has to have confidential discussions with world leaders. what if three reporters from the white house briefing room were
selected by the white house. one print, one broadcast, one wire, to all go in and look at the transcript. to then have reporting on it. do you think that's something the white house might do and that reporters would be willing to do? >> reporter: that sounds like an idea that a former press secretary to george bush would come up with. >> dana: doesn't mean it's a bad idea. >> reporter: i'm not saying -- it might be a good idea in terms of communication. if you were to invite the pool in, because the pool does go into all of these things. and they were to read out the letter and to report on it and their reporting was all to line up, then maybe you might have a sense of authenticity of the reporting and you might have a sense that that is all that there was in that transcript rather than releasing it broadly. i think the democrats aren't going to accept anything short of full publication of everything in that transcript.
i don't think the democrats will buy it. >> dana: might not. john roberts, thank you. we are also waiting to hear from joe biden. he will be speaking minutes from now, as the ukraine controversy involving his son continues to grow. mark meredith is live in bloomington, delaware. you made your way to delaware just in time. >> reporter: absolutely, dana. never a dull moment. about half hour from now, the biden campaign said the former vice president will be making a statement. it's unclear if he's going to be taking questions. as john was just talking about, there's a lot of questions about not only his thoughts on this whistle blower complaint, but also what president trump alleged with biden as well as his son hunter biden and hunter biden's relationship with a natural gas company that was in ukraine when the former vice president was in office. now, biden has, for his part, called for president trump to release a transcript of the call, something you and john were just talking about. biden said he wants to see a copy of that transcript. but president trump said the
pressure should be on biden to talk about what ties his son may have had to ukraine back a few years ago. my colleague peter doocy, had chance to speak with the vice president on saturday. here what he had to say. >> how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings? >> i have never spoken with my son about his overseas business dealings. you should be looking at trump. trump is doing this because he knows i'll beat him like a drum. he's using the abuse of power and every element of the presidency to try and do something to smear me. everybody looked at this and everybody's looked at it and said there's nothing there. ask the right questions. >> reporter: we are hoping to get chance to ask the former vice president some questions as he has that news conference about half hour from now. we'll also be looking to see whether he sheds any more light on congress about that impeachment talk.
we'll look for what the former vice president has to say. >> dana: thank you very much. for more on the impeachment, mike emanuel is live on capitol hill. what is the latest? there's been movement that we haven't seen before, especially overnight, by some house democrats. >> reporter: dana, good afternoon. senior house democratic sources say there has been talk about setting up a select committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry into president trump, but several sources say this is all very fluid. they are waiting to hear from nancy pelosi. when she speaks at 4 p.m. eastern time and then make hers public statement at 5 p.m. she seems to be heading in that direction, of at least an impeachment inquiry. house democrat john lewis of georgia said the democracy is at stake and the time to act is now. >> i believe, i truly believe the time to begin impeachment proceedings against this president has come. to delay or to otherwise would
betray the foundation of our democracy. >> reporter: last night seven freshmen democrats wrote in "the washington post" they are joining as a unified group as lawmakers face unprecedented allegations against president trump, in their words. they wrote, quote, these new allegations are a threat to all we have sworn to protect. we must preserve the checks and balances envisioned by the founders and restore the trust of the american people in our government. and that is what we intend to do. the additional members now coming forward saying they favor at least an impeachment inquiry, sets the stage for this 4 p.m. eastern house caucus meeting and then, koufrs of course, statement after that wraps. >> dana: tell me how intense the pressure is on the speaker. i feel like at 5 p.m. she is just going to nod for reality and be for what's going to happen. >> reporter: we've seen some offer this top lieutenants come forward saying they definitely favor an impeachment inquiry, if
not full blown impeachment. you had congress woman alexandria ocasio-cortez tweeting saturday night late night basically blasting her own democratic leadership writing, quote, at this point the bigger national scandal isn't the president's law breaking behavior, it is the democratic party's refusal to impeach him for it. now, prominent republicans are cautioning against a rush to judgment. >> bottom line is, i don't think he should have done it but that's a far cry from what some are claiming to know is fact when we don't know fact. >> reporter: some republicans are questioning the push for impeachment on a whistle blower report that none of these lawmakers have read. dana? >> dana: one other question. tell us about this process. there's an impeachment inquiry. where does that go? what happens next? >> reporter: well, that can be stretched out for a long period of time. you remember the ben ghazi select committee. that could give all kinds of
investigative staffing and resources to that effort. it would take it away from the house judiciary committee headed by jerry nadler, so he may not be happy about that. some of the sources i have spoken with said let's see how this plays out at 4 p.m. this afternoon before we say conclusively 100% what's going to happen. a select committee process could take months, could lead to a massive report, as you've seen many times here in washington. then based on what they find, could eventually head to an impeachment process on the house floor. it also could buy some time for leadership, who want to have their ducks in a row. >> dana: interesting to think about the timing of that. it's like a word problem. i wasn't very good at these. if the train is leaving at this time and it takes them this long to do the inquiry. they could end up next april or may right in the middle of the presidential election try to do this? >> reporter: absolutely. if you're talking ab
interviewing dozens of witnesses and transcripts, you know here in washington, that takes a great deal of time. it could take an extended period of time. >> dana: we'll be back to you, too. thank you very much. joining me for more on this, donna brazile and matt schlapp. i want to play for you a little bit of sound from president trump this morning about impeachment. watch this. >> it's a witch hunt. i'm leading in the polls. they have no idea to stop me. the only way is through impeachment. when you see a readout of the call, you'll understand. that call was perfect. it couldn't have been nicer. >> dana: contrast that with a congress woman who has not been for impeachment up until now. here's what she said. >> in our op ed what we stated is every tool that the u.s. congress has, every tool that we as members of congress have should be employed at this point
in time to ensure that we know the facts and that we can either completely prove or disprove these stunning allegations against the president. >> dana: donna, let me start with you. speaker pelosi has been tapping the brakes on impeachment. she does not like the politics of it. is she basically now having to accept the numbers on her side and the pressure is going to be so intense that she has to move forward with impeachment? >> i think last week when she signaled that she wanted to have the complaint, the whistle blower complaint, come to capitol hill, she signaled once again to the trump administration that, look, comply with the request of members of congress. they have constitutional authority to hold the administration accountable. once again, the president is stone walling. i think nancy pelosi is in a rock and a hard place right now. there are more than 155 members of her caucus that would like to
go directly to impeachment. there are still other, about 75, that would like to have an inquiry or a select committee. you heard from john lewis. what you didn't hear from john lewis today, and he's someone i truly respect. he said, we need to get to the truth. this is about protecting the integrity of our future elections. more importantly, it's about protecting our democracy. at the end of the day, it will be a heated conversation. nancy pelosi, who knows how to count, she will come out and tell the american people exactly what the house will do. >> dana: while you were speaking, donna, the president has tweeted. i'm going to read this and have matt respond to it. i am currently at the united nations representing our country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with the president of ukraine. you will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate
call. no pressure and, unlike joe biden and his son, no quid pro quo. this is nothing more than a continuation of the greatest and most destructive witch hunt of all time. matt, i believe the three of us were all on capitol hill last time impeachment was attempted. the politics of this for the president. how do you see it? >> well, first of all, because we are veterans of this process, when the impeachment process started on richard nixon and obviously he resigned, and the impeachment process started on bill clinton, and he was impeached, both had just recently been re-elected. we had three plus years to get to the next presidential election. what the democrats are showing is that with just a little over a year, people who don't like trump, don't have to vote for him. the end is in sight for those who are part of never trump and hash tag resistance. what it shows is their only political viable avenue is scandal, investigation, impeachment with trump. they can't win on the economy.
they can't win on china. they can't win on america's role in the world. so they can only win when they pick this scab of scandal. i think for the president, it is true. look, donna said he's stone walling. they got to see every document. they got to talk to every white house staffer. they got to see everything in the world they wanted. we did 2 1/2 years of russian collusion. it was a lie in the beginning based on false premises. let me tell you, if this again, just like with brett kavanaugh last week, nothing but sabre rattling, i think the american people are gonna horse whip the democrats for their ridiculous scandal mongering on things that don't deserve this kind of attention. i'd like to talk about some issues now and again. >> dana: donna, just one second. i think we have some pictures now of speaker nancy pelosi at the atlantic. she's at the 2019 atlantic festival. let's listen in now. >> -- that is a path that can
unify us one way. you asked about what? [ laughter ] let me just say last tuesday, last tuesday, september 17th, was constitution day. was the anniversary of that day when benjamin franklin came out of independence hall and people say, what do we have a monarch or republic? he said a republic, if we can keep it. a republic, if we can keep it. on that very day, erupted this remarkable set of facts on constitution day. it was about the i.g., inspector general, director of national intelligence saying that there was a whistle blower complaint. and that we learned it was going
to be blocked from being presented and that we would not allow it to come forward. let me just say this. i have more experience and intelligence than anybody in the conference. i have at least 25 years. i was a member of the committee. i was the top democrat. i was the adam schiff. we didn't have the majority, but i was a ranking remember. that made me the leader of the gang of four. i have been there for the writing of the laws regarding whistle blowers and further protections for them. i was part of writing the bill to establish the office of the director of national intelligence. that's only since 2004. that office has its own inspector general. this inspector general was appointed by president bush -- trump. important difference. by president trump, his own
appointee. inspector generals are greatly respected for their independence. and by law, when a complaint comes from a whistleblower, the inspector general has 14 days to investigate and then the director of national intelligence has seven days to report it to the intelligence committees. it doesn't say may, should. it says "shall." that's a very thoughtful word in legislation. but this administration is blocking the dni from conveying that to the intelligence committee. the dni is at the present time breaking the law at the direction of the administration. it's really unfortunate. so, to the substance -- >> we sort of do. the president has in so many
words said that he raised these questions with the ukrainians and he's admitted that he's intervened on the biden issue. >> and he has referenced that. if that is the case, that the president of the united states would ask a foreign government to assist him in a political way, that would be wrong. >> would it be impeachable? [ laughter ] >> let me just say this. everything we've been doing up until now is about preserving that republic, republic if we can keep it. and that means it's not a monarchy and we have a system of checks and balances. three co-equal branches of government to be a check on each
other. and that is a democracy, it is not a monarchy. the president has said, article ii says i can do whatever i want. that is in violation of the spirit of the constitution. but, our founders want to provide for, shall we say, some activities that they might not be self-engaged in and they put up guardrails, but they never could suspect that a president of the united states would jump over those guardrails. >> i want to talk about the whole of this presidency. but let me just stay on this for a minute. if what we're describing is accurate and if it's not impeachable, what is impeachable to you? >> let me just say i'll be making an announcement at 5 p.m. today. not here right now. >> you're more than welcome to make it right now. [ applause ]
>> it's really sad to think that our president would perform an impeachable offense. it's hard to say we've gotten to that place. but what would be an impeachable offense would be that which is proven in an investigation. >> right. calling for, convening a select committee on an impeachment is the beginning of a process, the beginning of a discovery process, not the end. so you don't have to have enough proof to convict at the outset of the process. my question is -- >> you said is an impeachable offense. that is a verdict. >> given what we know an given what the president has said, the analogy here is crude, but we seem to be in a situation at the moment in which richard nixon, after the watergate break in
said something akin to, yeah, i broke into watergate. i needed to see what the dnc knew. i mean, donald trump says out loud what most people say to themselves. and so i'm not gonna belabor this forever. >> well, i think you are. [ laughter ] let me just say, in terms of the nixon analogy. the president is making lawlessness a virtue in our country. and that call, he is trying to exploit it. so understand that. so we have several concerns about the president in terms of our differences in policy. i'd love to tell you about all the legislation we've passed that we're hoping the senate will take up, starting with gun violence. tomorrow we have a big wear black tomorrow gun violence
activities on capitol hill and beyond and around the country. so we had some differences in terms of policy. you might want to know the president called me this morning about gun violence. he said we're getting close to a solution. >> open parenthetical, what is that call like? >> someone said give us a surreal moment about the president and your conversations with him. i said, it's more like it's always surreal. >> was it a relatively normal call? >> he called to talk about gun violence and segued into other things. >> can you give us an indication of what those other things are? >> not right now. but i was concerned, just in terms of being global, that the
president said, i'm going to go speak at the united nations. it's great. everything is great here. it's great. i didn't have a chance to listen to his speech. i was too busy so that i could have time to come here. but he said that he called upon the countries to reject globalism and embrace nationalism. really? really? so, again, we have some serious policy differences. and in terms of multilateralism and who we are as a country. i'll tell you a story about me. when i was a girl, young girl, i was a student and i went to president kennedy's inauguration. it was freezing cold. much smaller. on the east side of the capitol. i was a student at the time. everybody in the world and all of you are too young, but you can read it in the history book, know that president kennedy said to the citizens of america, ask
not what america can do for you, but what you can do for your country. right? everybody knows that? the very next sentence in the speech is what struck me as a student of political science and international relations. the very next sentence he said, to the citizens of the world, ask not what america can do for you, but what we can do working together for the freedom of mankind. freedom. freedom. [ applause ] the part that really stuck with me was the working together. no condescention. that has been our strength. when i see the president call for rejecting globalism and embracing nationalism. when i see him questioning our involvement in article v of nato and the rest, and i see his actions with afghanistan. we went in together,
multilaterally, but he's coming out unilaterally? then you see why there's some cause for questioning among some of our allies. >> beforehand she said she only wanted the cello. there is already a victory. according to what we're getting on the screen, there's a breaking tweet from the president who said that tomorrow they will release a transcript of the call. so my question to you is, if you see that transcript and it is more benign than we've been led to believe, will you -- do you think your caucus might stand down a little bit -- >> no. >> or do you think the caucus is at a boil? >> it's not about that. this is about the constitution of the united states. we have many other, shall we say, candidates for impeachable
offense. but this one is most understandable by the public. it's really important to know this. there is no requirement there be a quid pro quo in a conversation. if the president brings up, wants them to investigate something of his political opponent, that is self-evident that it is not right. you don't ask foreign governments to help us in our election. that's what we're trying to stop with russia. it's wrong. so it's not only about how to make decisions ab our foreign policy and our global futility, it's about undermining the integrity of our election, a. b, i don't think -- i don't know. i don't think there's a grapple on the part of this administration that the quid pro quo is not essential to an impeachable offense, but if you
have sequences like a couple of days before the president withdrew the bipartisan support for ukraine, bipartisan enthusiastic support for ukraine a few days earlier he withdraws it, then makes this statement. just bringing up the election is bad enough, that there would be a quid pro quo isn't necessarily in the conversation, but in the sequence. so this is not a good thing for a democracy, for the leader of the free world, to be talking like that. and i don't even know if there are any scruples involved. that's why i think lawlessness is a virtue and now they want to exploit it to another country. >> if i may, it sounds as if you think this is a very serious offense. >> let's just put it this way.
i sent in this invitation a while back. >> i'm just noting as an observer of this conversation. >> and i come every year. when i'm invited, i come. since i was in high school, i read the atlantic monthly. they always taught us, if you want to know how to write, you have to read good writing. that's the atlantic. [ applause ] so -- >> you're incredibly manipulative. >> some people would say that. so, so, therefore, what would you be asking me if it weren't today? let's go back when we were happily observing the anniversary of our constitution last tuesday morning. >> the issue is that i live in a
time space continuum. and we are here on a crucial day, in all seriousness, in american history. we can lift up beyond the question of impeachment by talking about lawlessness for a moment. do you think the president understands right from wrong? it's a very serious question. do you think he has the capacity to understand that -- remember, this phone call happened, just using it as an example, it happened the day after mueller testified. there's some object lessons in the whole mueller case for a president about talking to foreign powers about interventions in elections. do you think that -- and you probably have a dozen or two dozen examples if you're not sure if the president's moral compass is true north. do you think, based on your now significant 2.5 year plus exposure to him, that he understands right from wrong in the way other --
>> two years and nine months. 13 1/2 months until -- [ laughter ] let me say that the president is responsible for his actions. whether he has any scruples or understands right from wrong, he certainly has made some decisions that would call that into question. here we are. again, as i said, our founders, our founders wanted to protect a republic. they did not want a monarchy. again, they established a constitution that would prevent that from happening, guardrails. they didn't expect that everyone would be exemplary so they had guardrails. they could not have expected
people would leap frog over them. nor, when we were writing the bill on the director of national intelligence responsibility shell, did we ever think that the director of national intelligence would break the law? would break the law? yeah, whether it's legal or not legal, and in some cases right from wrong. i think we should start our healing process, because it's gonna take awhile. let's be thinking in a positive way as we go forward. 13 1/2 months. 13 1/3 month. because it's going to take some positive repair in addition to natural healing, for us to get to a place. it's absolutely essential that the president be held accountable. no one is above the law. separate from the issues, the
concerns we're talking about here, that we draw on the policy, that we have a clear discussion about whose vision for america is the one we want to go down and that it is absolutely essential that he not be re-elected president of the united states. [ applause ] >> you are talking about this 13 1/2 months. >> every day. >> you're focused on that. you are a very smart political player and very good guest at strategy and tactic. the question is, do you understand putting issues of constitutionality aside and law breaking aside, do you see peril in going down the path that now two-thirds of your caucus wants to go down. is that what we're talking about?
are we talking about a political calculation that impeachment process will turn president trump into a martyr and will activate his base even more? i mean -- >> i don't think politics has anything to do with this, although i read in some metropolitan journals that it's all about politics. has nothing to do with politics. this is about patriotism. what's sad is the republicans have not spoken up about any of this. i would invite them to join us, now that we have gotten to this different place. use any metaphor. crossing an rubicon. new territory, new day has dawned. anything you want to say. this is a very serious class of its own discussion that we're having about the conduct of the president of the united states. so this isn't about politics. if we have to, on our oath of office to, support and defend
the constitution of the united states, from all enemies, foreign and domestic, that's what we'll have to do. but we have to have the facts. that's why i have said -- soon as we have the facts, we're ready. now swre the facts. we're ready. but later today. [ laughter ] so this isn't about politics. people say, you're just trying to protect your members. no. i have absolute certainty, because we're going to make sure it happens, that we will retain the majority in the house of representatives. what's more serious is that he can't win. that is very serious to our country, to us as america. what is america? america is our constitution, with our system of checks and balances, a republic, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, majority of our democracy, the press. that's america. what is america? our people.
unless you are blessed to be a native american, which is a blessing to you and all who know you. we are a nation of immigrants. don't take it from me, take it from ronald reagan. this is the last speak i will make as president of the united states. last speech. did that get your attention? ronald reagan, the last speech? i want to convey a message to a country i love. look it up on google. it's so beautiful. or wherever you look things up. so beautiful. vital force of america's preeminence in the world is a new generation of new immigrants that come to america. when america fails to recognize that, america will fail to be preeminent in the world. it's better. it's more poetic than that. [ applause ] so our constitution, our people, our land, from sea to shining sea, this beautiful patch of mine and beyond, god's gift to
us. he says i'm not making any environmental decisions based on science. oh, really? oh, really? dishonor the constitution, denegrate the we are the people, devalue our values of who we are, the idea of america. so this is another, shall we say, arena for us to have our discussion on the behavior of this president of the united states. but i really didn't come here to talk about him. [ laughter ] did you? you did i guess, huh? they're my caucus, in light of the question. they have been so fabulous, so thoughtful. so patriotic. i couldn't be prouder of them. an our chairman has been magnificent. >> well, there is a suggestion?
what you term metropolitan journals that jerry nadler and you are not seeing eye to eye on these questions, and that you're not seeing eye with a large number of people on that. so my broader question about the caucus -- >> that's not true. >> my question about the caucus -- >> it may be true that that's what they're saying. >> it's definitely true that that's what they're saying. >> you have to make that distinction. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> the question about the caucus is, i'm wondering, since you're focused on 13 1/2 months out, if you are worried -- >> 13 1/3 now. >> we've been up here for that long? really? the question is, are you worried -- you're in an unlikely spot sometimes. you're a, quote, san francisco democrat. yet you've had incidents
throughout the last year where people in your caucus, not only the so-called squad, have questioned your liberal or left leaning status. i want to ask you this question about the party and make believe that we're noted talking about impeachment for a second. just other issues including decriminalization of border crossing, medicare for all. are you worried as you go forward toward the election that the party is being pulled too far to the left to reach those people in places like wisconsin, that you need to achieve your number one goal? >> let me just say that the republicans had 137,000 ads. not donors. ads. in this last election last year, describing me as a san francisco liberal. which i proudly am. and left wing san francisco liberal sometimes. so that didn't work for them.
we were in the most jerry mandered political arena you could imagine and yet we won 40 seats in the house of representatives. but that plan didn't work for them. we had a message where we had our -- see, our caucus is beautifully diverse. we're as diverse as it comes in gender identity, geography, ethnicity, you name it. >> dana: we have been listening to speaker nancy pelosi. she is at the atlantic festival in washington, d.c. she was in front of a very friendly crowd, i would say, as she was asked questions several times about the possibility of impeachment inquiry being instigated. joe biden is expected to address this very issue and will be taking questions from the press. we'll bring that to you as soon
as we have it. right before nancy pelosi was speaking, we found tprout the president that he has authorized a fully, unredacted transcript of this phone call to be released tomorrow. will the democrats accept that? apparently not? they want the full whistle blower report before they give this up. nancy pelosi is going to leave this atlantic festival to go back to capitol hill. she has a closed door meeting with democrats at 4 p.m. and is going to make an announcement at 5 p.m. she won't say what that atphoupbment is. but i think it's clear that democrats will proceed with impeachment. donna brazile, fox news contributor, matt schlapp, both stayed and listened to all of that with me. she was fairly disciplined, donna, in not actually making that news there. she pretty much all but made it. this is a new chapter for the democrats and this president. your thoughts? >> there's no question it's a new chapter. one of the other thing is learned while she was speaking is adam schiff tweeted out the
whistle blower, according to his council, is also preparing to come forward. give congress legally what they're entitled to. let congress make this judgment. let the american people see this transcript. after all this was american taxpayers that was withheld for months until the president felt comfortable enough to send them that aid. i do believe that the democrats, as well as republicans, should take this seriously. if there's nothing there, fine. we will know. but right now we need to see all of the evidence and listen to the whistle blower as well. >> dana: all right, matt. democrats are taking this step nancy pelosi had not wanted to. what did you make from her comments right now? >> that it was incredibly painful to listen to a crowd, i assume of d.c. insiders snickering and laughing and mocking the president, applauding the fact that he doesn't have any moral code. you know, what these left
elitists in d.c. don't understand is that our nation is politically divided. when we treat serious issues like, this like impeachment, the way she discussed, i personally found it appalling. this is all about politics. in the end the senate is never going to convict donald trump. he will be on the ballot, despite what california is trying to do with his taxes. despite every tactic the democrats are undergoing. now it's impeachment. now it's a whistle blower that's going to come forward because he talked to adam schiff. does anybody believe this whistle blower is doing this in the patriotic life of the country? all thof is repugnant. in the face of the fact that joe biden is accused of some serious corruption, nobody is even talking about it. in the end, what's gonna happen in all, this at least i predict, and i don't know a lot of things, there will be a push back from the american people
who are disgusted by a democratic party that's become radicalized and won't engage on ideas and will only try to rip republicans apart. >> dana: actually, donna, republicans do look back to impeachment of bill clinton and realize politically for them, it was a set back and took a while for them to crawl out of that hole. >> i was there, dana. but let me just say to my good friend, matt. matt, i respect you very much. >> i respect you, too, donna. >> this is the united states of america. i know radical republicans, radical democrats. i know radicals of all different sorts. but this is about the constitution of the united states. >> that's right. amen. >> to ask a foreign government to interfere in our election. >> to stop an investigation on your son is morally wrong. >> that is repugnant. >> we didn't ask the russians. it was barack obama who did not stop the russian.
>> we must not allow foreign governments to interfere in our elections. >> dana: can i ask one question? i saw bernie sanders was asked a question, if all of this controversy hurts joe biden's candidacy? bernie sanders said, i'll let you make that determination. do you have an opinion on that? >> look, personally, i know the impact that this will have not on campaigns, but the country itself. that's why we got to stop it. it is sickness. it is stupid. we should be above it. we should come together as americans and say no more. >> dana: one last quick word, matt. do you think this hurts biden's candidacy? >> this is a very sad day for joe biden. there's no way to talk about this conversation donald trump had with the ukrainian leader without going through the reason for all of this. this was the fact that joe biden is charged with interceding with
the government of ukraine to stop an investigation and to get his son out of a jam. >> not true. >> if it's not true, we'll have to go through that as well. >> dana: we are waiting for joe biden. >> they're conspiracy theories. it doesn't make it true. >> it is not. [ talking at the same time ] >> dana: i'm going to send you back to the green room. >> send us back. time-out. >> dana: thank you both. >> thank you. >> dana: let's bring in jeff hergrom. >> nancy pelosi has to spell out where they are. they don't definitively know where they're going to go. there has been talk behind the scenes about maybe putting together a committee that they did on watergate back in 1973 or
even the ben ghazi committee. there will be a resolution this week that deals with the whistle blower. that's the only thing we know. the only other thing we know is the speaker is going to meet with her caucus at 4 p.m. and talk to the press afterwards. the reason this is so muddled is this is kind of impeachment without impeachment. lot of democrats are saying, okay, i'm for an impeachment inquiry. it helps inoculate them from a primary challenge on the left. people say, hey, this is a democratic district, it's going to stay in democratic hands. but they're not going all the way for saying we're all for impeachment. you talked about her remarks at the forum earlier this hour. she keeps creeping right up to the line and then dials it back. this is kind of this process, having impeachment without impeachment, dana. >> dana: all right. while nancy pelosi was speaking, chuck shumer talked about this idea of the president releasing the transcript, but what they
really want is the actual full report from the whistle blower. watch this. >> it's nice to have the transcript. we don't even know if the complaint is about the transcript, in part or in whole. and without the complaint, we don't know what the i.g. thought was so urgent. we do not know what the whist whistleblower thought was so urgent. simply to release the transcript is not going to come close to the need of the american public and congress to see what actually happened. >> dana: what's the senate's role in all this? >> the senate intelligence committee is looking at this. we just learned here that adam schiff, chair of the house intelligence committee, has been in communication with counsel for the whistleblower. we'll have the acting director of national intelligence come before the house intelligence committee in a formal, open session, open session to the intelligence committee are rare. we keep talking about, we've had
such major hearings on this russia investigation going back to jeff sessions, when he was the attorney general, michael cohen, robert muler in july. this one may take the cake. that might be the biggest of all. this one thursday could be the blockbuster of all blockbusters. >> dana: i'm running out of special outfits to wear. thank you. let's bring in emily campagno and james trusty. jim, can i just get your take on one thing? democrats are saying the congress is legally entitled to the full whistleblower report and the transcript, the president releasing that is not going to cut it for them. will they win on that argument? >> well, they may get their way and get that information eventually, but they've got it backwards. the best evidence of the phone call is the transcript, not some third hand party saying here's what i think might have happened or what i heard happened. so it's kind of moving the goal post to say, yeah, we'll take
the real evidence, but we all want speculation about the real evidence, which is where schumer is now. >> dana: that's on the specific law and the point of evidence. what nancy pelosi was asked was, what do you think is impeachable? that is not a legally defined term. you could be impeached for wearing the wrong tie. >> what was fascinating to me, she said what has changed is this simplicity of this in her opinion and that public perception has changed. i want to point out at odds here, the urgent declaration that was declared by the intelligence committee's watch dog, that was overruled essentially by the acting director of the national intelligence. and he said, look, it's not that this isn't urgent, but it's not the sense of urgency. that goes to the subpoena powers of congress. one final point for viewers, though. on the impeachment aspect, if
pelosi designates a select committee today, it really has the same subpoena powers as the existing six committees that have led investigations into trump. the difference is that she hand picks its members. >> dana: jim, one of the things the trump administration and many executive branches when they're run that they are very good at is stalling when it comes to releasing information. in this case it's different. the president saying, i'm authorizing it, fully unredacted. that call transcript is going to come out tomorrow. how different is that from wh we might have seen in the past? >> it's different, certainly suggests one of two things. either crazy reckless or very confident. i suspect he's very confident that the transcript is not as damning as folks on the other side are trying to portray it. it's kind of like throwing jell-o on the wall. they haven't defined the scope. they haven't even characterized
that phone call as a crime. it is supposed to be a high crime or misdemeanor that triggers impeachment. i don't know if we'll hear from michael cohen, the whistleblower or a swedish teenager. that's the lack of precision that makes me worry. >> dana: apparently the whistleblower told his lawyers, he or show, that they want to testify. what's that like when you trying to deal with a client who is about to face the wrath or the support of a bunch of people when they come forward? >> ultimately, it's the client that drives matters of material in court in a case. no matter what, it would be the whistle blower that would make that call. at this point he or she has not been subpoenaed. we'll look forward to that testimony thursday. i think it's interesting that up until now, there was a bifurcated approach, democrats and republicans equally in the transcript and that whistleblower report that trusty just said if and when the president releases the transcript, as he said,
declassified but unredacted tomorrow, the focus will probably shift to that initial report even though from what we understand thus far, it was kind of a third party participation. >> dana: i love that you called him trusty. >> i have been called worse. >> dana: all right. leslie marshall is a fox news contributor. let me ask you, luke, a political question when it comes to joe biden. i am interested in this. all the candidates will be asked, do you think your front runner for the 2020 nomination is in trouble? we expect to hear from him any minute. >> if i'm a democrat running for president, i say, absolutely not. sure, he's slowing down, but he's done great service. let's talk about me. i don't think there's any angle for democrats to come out as a candidate and say this is a problem for joe biden because you know the president's going to do that. you know the press will do that.
ken vogel said the new york times is still running this story down. all that would do is make you look small without actually gaining any advantage. >> leslie, there's a big step for democrats. they've been inching towards impeachment slowly. it's been a slow slog. they really don't want to do it, but now maybe they're finally going to get off the pot. >> we just saw speaker pelosi saying and backing up what she's been saying all along, which is that she needs the evidence, she needs a smoking gun. she all talked about needing bipartisan support. bill clinton was impeached in the house. >> dana: his popularity went up. i'm going to read this poll. president trump tweeting again just now. democrats are so focused on hurting the republican party and the president that they are unable to get anything done because of it including legislation on gun safety lowering of prescription drug prices, infrastructure, etc. so bad for our country.
i'm going to add another one to that. the president is awaiting the passage of the trade bill, the u.s. trade bill, the new nafta. that is something that actually has bipartisan support. if you're going down this path of impeachment, does everything else stall out? >> yeah. i think the notion we're going to get any major legislation in the next 12 months is pretty quickly going out the window. usmca could get some momentum. but also notice things the president mentioned are highly polarizing, like gun legislation, or expensive, like infrastructure. those weren't likely targets anyway, but it's good politics to put the blame on democrats. >> dana: i love an infrastructure week. what about the democrats? there was a thing in 2018, they said put us in charge. right? so they win back the house. what if they don't pass any legislation do they take into the re-election effort in 2020? why vote for us, if it comes down to just impeachment?
>> there are a couple of things. look how many bills we have passed in the house, we sent to the senate and the majority leader hasn't put them on a floor so they stalled there. >> dana: republicans tried that, too, in 2018 and it didn't work. >> correct. but we are in a different time. the voters are in a different mind set. the swing voters and the swing states, the independents who may have voted for trump but aren't happy with him or the party. ukraine is not number one on their mine. russia was not. that's not what voters are caring about. not even the economy like healthcare or immigration or gun control. by the way, the democrats win, win, win, in the polling right now. >> democrats will have to go to the public and say, yes, we know you care about these issues and we wanted to impeach the president. >> they can walk and chew gum at the same time. >> i seriously doubt that. we're looking at an impeachment
election. >> dana: he said when richard nixon was impeached and when bill clinton was impeached, they had already been re-elected. these are unchartered waters. we really don't know. >> even if we look at the history that we do have, bill clinton's popularity increased. he didn't resign. newt gingrich did. the speaker did. speaker pelosi is very aware of that. that's why she keeps talking about the divisiveness of impeachment. that's why she said she wants bipartisan support for this. even adam schiff said if you impeach him in the house and he's acquitted in the senate, what have you done? >> dana: what do republicans do now? basically, they can say, well, gosh, i'm not for impeachment. >> they watch and they wait and let their democratic colleagues go too far away from the median voter in america because they're scared of primary challenges.
>> dana: it's been a fascinating hour, lessy marshall and luke thompson. we appreciate it. nancy pelosi is going to speak at 5 p.m. any moment now joe biden will speak. thank you very much for joining us. >> shepard: calls for president trump to be impeached or growing and we expect an announcement on impeachment action of some kind from the house speaker this afternoon. we are also expecting to hear from joe biden sometime in the next half-hour. this comes after president trump admitted in a phone call with the newly elected president of the ukraine that he asked the ukraine to investigate his political rival and former vice president joe biden and his son. last hour the president tweeted that he has no unauthorized release of the full unredacted transcript of that conversation. he said we should get that tomorrow. days before that phone call, the president ordered withheld