1600 pennsylvania avenue. some contacts they are to let you know how serious it is. thanks for joining us. we'll be back tomorrow night. the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, groupthink. >> we welcome alert. on the ground and capitol hill, will go to the hearings if necessary. we get the latest from fox news congressional correspondent chad pergram is there, on the ground watching and suffering through a lot of the tediousness. speak a good evening, sean. right now the senate is debating a proposal by chuck schumer to subpoena mick mulvaney, the acting white house chief of staff, we heard from hakeem jeffries, the chair of the democratic caucus here.
there will be a vote on this later. what we see over the course of a day day are a lot of motion to table. not the wrecked up and down votes on hand. motion to table means they are going to kill it come euthanize it here. democrats are trying to engineer some of these boats to put republican senators facing tough reelection campaigns this fall on the record. susan collins of maine, courtney gardner of colorado, tom phillips of north carolina. you can imagine this is an effort to do that but they said we didn't vote against witnesses, documents, subpoenas, what we did was we were voting one step away. here is a change. we think the articles of impeachment, the case that the house prosecutors are going to make is going to be spread out over three days. the reason is there was a last-minute change made by the senate majority leader at mitch mcconnell moments before they started the trial today. in fact, it delayed the start of the trial by about 18 minutes. if you look at the document that mcconnell had to vote longhand with chicken scratch and change the length of the amount of time
they were going to debate this from two days to three days. the reason is he didn't have the votes in his conference. mcconnell has said he has the votes to carry out this trial, the framework he propounded a couple weeks ago following the clinton model from 1999, they had to amend that today so we expect that to go to midnight, maybe later, other proposals to amend the framework from chuck schumer tonight, and they actually get to the arguments tomorrow. back to you. >> sean: chad, just to the firm don't let it's the same as the bill clinton impeachment trial. the issue of potential witnesses come up, that would bring the issue of executive privilege, which is why i would expect this motion to bring in mick mulvaney will be tabled for now and discussed later. >> that's right. they wouldn't get back to the witness questions sometime next week. the important thing here is a sub divided this rather than in 12 hour tranches over the next
two days for the house prosecutors wednesday and thursday. they'll probably get wednesday, thursday, friday, they punch back over to the president's team. i'm told, you know, they have two or three audiences here for the presidents depends team. one is the public, two is the senators, the three is the president. >> sean: they want republicans to take a vote so they can use it politically to bludgeon them in 2020, which is behind a lot of this and that's a very revealing. chad, thank you. we will check in throughout the night and any developments as it's happening, we'll go to it and bring it to you live. it's now officially as a call it the schumer-schiff sham show. proceeding in the u.s. senate as you see on your screen. most of you likely working today. i'd like to bring you the full comprehensive rundown, all that has happened earlier. what is ahead in this process, white matter, or it doesn't matter. the democrats, of course, they have been led by somebody
compromised in this very case, i call him the congenital liar, that's adam schiff and his comrades. they've been spewing b.s. for hours and hours, it's still going on but we'll point out something the rest of the media want to tell you, the many lies actually pulled today. we will give you the truth, we will bring you the facts. we'll bring you night after night, give you the insight, all the base developments and sadly we'll talk about what is a great divide in this country as a result of this. like last week while the president did what he was doing, what he said many people were saying was impossible. last week, you remember. the president got a two year, $200 billion trade deal with china that greatly benefits american -- let's see, farmers, american workers, service industry, the energy sector, protecting and creating jobs in manufacturing, jobs were once told were never coming back, and
helping to save jobs in our great auto industry here in america, 220 billion over two years. at the same time simultaneously, what was of her and really her dude nothing to my credit colleagues giving out the pins of hers. while all eyes were on the schumer->> tucker: for sham impeachment show, we will show you what the president was actually doing today, a tale of. we have a lot of news tonight. that's pat cipollone up again today. >> do you know who disagrees with the gao? do not take it from me. they do! they send you articles of impeachment that makes no claim of any violation of any law. by the way, do you know what also doesn't? you can search high and low in the articles of impeachment.
do you know what it doesn't say? quick while pro. there wasn't any. only in washington would someone say that it's wrong when you don't spend taxpayer dollars fast enough even if you spend them on time. let's talk about the judiciary committee for a second. two days in the judiciary committee... >> sean: as warranted, we will dip in and out but we are not going to torture you with -- although i will say that pat cipollone, jay sekulow, and the president's team were pretty amazing today. we'll show you the highlights of all of this. a lot of this to be very blunt is pointless. monotonous. redundant. there is really absolutely nothing you in terms of what we know as is relates to ukraine and impeachment that we don't already know. only now it is real.
it'll have real consequences on the rule of law, the power of the president, and the future of our country. this has been a three plus year -- do not let anybody else convince you otherwise, what's really resulted in the never ending temper tantrum by democrats that have done nothing that i can think of to serve you, the american people, and i mean nothing. can you think of a single thing that they have done for week, the people? have they made you more safe and secure in your home, have they created jobs and prosperity for the american people? after eight years of parnas-obama , things have not worked out very well. it is deep, it's profound, it's been under very difficult circumstances in a never ending series of attacks and allegations and impeachment starting two days since after he got elected. we have the propaganda states tv media mob, friends of all the
friends of radical socialist extremists. all of this culminating into this, an unconstitutional abuse of power by congress. none of what has gone on today of what they are doing as warranted. none of it. none of this is good for the country. everyone in the senate knows how this will end. you at home knows how this will end. there is no suspense. the question will only be the only mystery is a matter of wine. there will be drama and we will carry it at times whether witnesses should be called and the drama that could cause real permanent damage to the office of the presidency, that would be a fight on executive privilege that even george washington used and in 287 days, i have really good news tonight. you, the american people, thankfully, and i mean that to make you get the final say. in 287 days, you can shock the world again. you, the american people, in one sense, are the real jurors and
in my honest opinion, you never take a jury for granted. the democrats have overreached, they have done nothing to serve the american people, they abused power and what they are doing is unconstitutional. it is sad. this impeachment charade is an exercise in futility and it is only a matter of time before the president will get acquitted and vindicated. and let me be clear. the democrats, they do not have a case. in just a few short minutes, there have fake were literally ripped to shreds. we see pat cipollone up there. let's give you a little background that was unfolding by the president, for the first time, the president's defense, the president's expert legal counsel. take a look. >> mr. schiff also talked about a trifecta. i will give you a trifecta. during the proceeding that took place before the judge every committee, the president wasn't denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. the president was denied the
right to access evidence. the president was denied council hearings. that's a trifecta. we don't waive executive privilege and there's a reason we keep executive privilege, and we asserted when necessary. that is to protect. to protect the constitution. and the separation of powers. let's remember how we all got here. they made false allegations about a telephone call. the president of the united states declassified that telephone call and released it to the public. how is that for transparency? overwhelming evidence to impeach the president of the united states, and they come here in the first day, do you know what clicks back with me
need more evidence and american people want stand for won't stand for it. they are not here to steal one election, they are here to we need to steal two elections. >> sean: senate majority leader mcconnell, he is following the president, setting the clinton impeachment trial, each side will fairly get 24 hours to present their case for that to be followed by 16 hours of questions. let's compare that to what happened in the house. remember, all the precedents that was set, all the considerations given to bill clinton and his legal team were all kicked to the side. they didn't even have a formal vote, it wasn't the result of any independent investigation, it was we as we now know crafted in secret in the basement of the house. now we know that, yes, the congenital liar adam schiff lyda. we love to hear from the whistle-blower, we have contact
of the nonwhistle-blower. and then the audition witnesses, the cherry picked the evidence, what they would leak. why? to propagandize you, the american people. the majority of possible cans were blocked, from one case actually forcibly removed from schiff's basement behind closed door audition proceedings. the president's legal team was never allowed to participate. that was not the case of bill clinton. they were not allowed to present evidence or call witnesses or craft a defense, as was granted bill clinton for the president not given any due process, no fairness, the process was rigged from beginning to end, every single due process considerations republicans under newt gingrich gave, his team was denied this president and this president's attorneys, and democrats wanted to enjoy their long christmas vacation, they had to urgently and solemnly and prayerfully ram through two bogus articles of impeachment in record time. they had to get it done.
urgent, urgent, urgent. so they could go on vacation and hold it back for a couple of weeks. what do we see today? whining, moaning, complaining that the senate trial isn't fair. really? we are going to get lectures on fairness and due process from the people that gave no due process to the president and the house? pretty arrogant. take a look. >> leader mcconnell is plotting the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment trial in modern history. to be debating whether you should allow witnesses is to be debating you should have a cover up by definition. there is no trial in this country in which he wouldn't admit the relevant witnesses, in which where it's even a questi question. if the house cannot call witnesses and introduce documents and evidence, it's not a fair trial. it's not really a trial at all. leader mcconnell's resolution would turn the trial process on
the tapmac. >> i thought this was a lamb dunk case slam-dunk case. they have the sole power to impeach. they think the u.s. senate should spend months doing their constitutional job, what they have the sole power to do. they want all new witnesses -- they didn't call witnesses that they failed to subpoena. brought before the senate. the senate should do their job! they want special treatment. that's not how it works. we have a constitution. in it, it's very clear. the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment! not the senate. the house! they impeached it! they impeach the president. that senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. that doesn't say anything about impeaching or investigating or doing the house's job or, well, making a mess out of the garbage that they presented to the senate. they said it's a slam-dunk.
now the house managers, they got there impeachment, they have their trial, everyone sworn in, dressed up, ready to go. present your slam-dunk case. let me speak directly tonight to you, the american people, because a lot of you have republican representatives in the senate. some of them i would argue are pretty weak and some of them are willing to lend credibility to these unconstitutional roles that the house is trying to impose because they didn't do their job or at least to the extent they feel confident about their articles of impeachment. if you give the house democrats, if you representatives allow the house democrats for special treatment they don't deserve, it's unconstitutional, you are literally a part of what is a charade that will live in perpetuity, that is ripping this country apart. you, your representatives, your senators will be adding legitimacy to this unconstitutional corruption. and by the way, only 287 days before the presidential election
and the final jurors in this will be the american people. no senate republican, you representatives you put in the senate should give legitimacy to the slimy compromise, congenital liar, this merry band of do-nothing democrats to spearhead this entire thing. they've been calling for impeachment two days after the president is elected, 2017 through 2018, and all through 2019. have they done anything for we the people, they are supposed to be our servants? the beady-eyed lunatic you've been watching in your screen all day in my view the worst liar in all of politics. he said he had never can evidence. for three years, he told us of trump-russia collusion. that was a lie. four investigations prove them wrong. he told reporters there was more than circumstantial evidence of that collusion. again, a lie. he said there was collusion of evidence in plain sight. that was a lie. he issued a memo, arguing that
fisa abuse did not occur. we now know that was a lie appear he gave complete legitimacy to the dirty clinton bought and paid for russian dossier and said it was all tru. even "the new york times" and recognizes it was likely russian misinformation from the beginning. that was another lie. he said, "we have not spoken directly with the whistle-blower. we wish we could." another lie. and do not forget, schiff completely fabricated a fake version of the president's call with ukrainian president, enter that into the public record. again, that's a lie. and that's not all. just today, he's claiming that the senate rules were nothing like the clinton impeachment trial. that too is a talking point lie and the media is running without lie. he also said president trump try to caress ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election. nope, that's another lie. all election related conversations the president had with ukraine surrounded 2016 and the interference documented in
the 2017 january 11 the politico investigatioinvestigative repor, confirmed by a ukrainian court of ukrainian election interference in 2016 separate and apart from russian in the affair and spirit russians did it. they should've listened to devin nunes 'warning in 2014. of course, speed 24 today saying that the president obstructed congress. that is a huge lie. democrats were were in too much of a rush to let the courts resolve. when you have a conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government, well, the executive branch has the ability to seek remedy through that third branch of government. and, by the way, executive privilege will likely get a supreme court decision sometime in june. they did not want to wait, in a rush to impeach, they had to do it. they never even issued subpoenas now for the people they claim that they need to prove what is a slam-dunk impeachment case for they got there impeachment.
they have the authority because it usually to do it. i don't believe it was right in anyway. okay. now you have your managers take, everyone is sworn in. present your slam-dunk case. the truth doesn't seem to matter to those with what is now a three plus your temper tantrum. this is a political hit job. this is a partisan smear campaign. this is a dirty trick from beginning to end and democrats and their willing accomplices and allies in the corrupt state media mob have not accepted ever the results of the 2016 election. they are now hoping to damage all republicans, including the president, 42020. so that's what we are witnessing. that right now, this is a tale of two americas here. you've got the d.c. swamp democrats angry the pathetic, baseless political smear after smear after smear, lie after lie, perspective and after pest management, attack after attack, do nothing for the american people. the president today ms. and dabo
switzerland where he's meeting with the top business political leaders from all across the world. the envy of every leader there. booming like never before. everyone really is envious of your president. by the way, he has enough respect that he's picked up they now know he means business and none of them want him to challenge them on their trade deals to make them more fair, so they are being really nice to your president let's take a lo look. >> today, i'm proud to declare that the united states is in the midst of an economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen before. we have regained our stride. we rediscovered our. and awakened the powerful machinery of american enterpri enterprise. the agreement with china and the
united states, mexico, canada agreement. these agreements represent a new model of trade for the 21st century agreements that are a fair reciprocal and prioritize the needs of workers and families. >> sean: i want to go back to a question i asked earlier. can you think of a single thing the democrats have done to make us more safe and more secure? i can't. have they done anything for prosperity, job creation? i can't think of that either. it's been a temper tantrum, as i said, for three long years but let's look at what the president has done while being attacked every single second of every hour of every day, signed the biggest tax cut in history, signed major new trade deals people thought could never happen. mexico, canada, japan, our western european allies, and the big one last week with china, 220 billion for americans in two short years. he pulled us out of the horrendous climate accord.
he pulled us out of the horrific iranian nuclear deal. no more driving mullahs in iran. al-baghdadi is dead. the isis caliphate is in ruins, destroyed in syria. to be 23 top terrace, also dead. ththe american economy is soari. facing the best implement situation since 1969 and record low on employment for women in the workplace, every democratic, african-americans, hispanic-americans, asian-americans, almost 8 million new jobs, 8 million fewer people on food stamps in america. wage group for low, middle income earners outpacing the top 10%. oh, that means they are doing great, american workers! we are now energy of independent for the first time as an exportr of energy. what have democrats done for your prosperity, economic growth, create jobs, peace, security? what are they done for anything? what have they done to make the country a safer place?
in 287 days, you the american people will be the ultimate jurors. clear-cut choice. that is you get to choose the prosperity, the security, or a party hell-bent on political vengeance and seemingly nothing else in the eight years they've had, they did add 13 million more americans to the food stamp roles, they did put 8 million more americans in poverty, and they give us the lowest labor per dissipation rate since the 70s and the worst recovery the apostle be 40s and took on more debt than all 43 presence before biden-obama. you know have the chance to shock the world again in 280 days. joining us now, the author of the case against impeaching trump, he's part of the trump's president defense team, harvard law professor alan dershowitz is with us. professor -- actually, i think it was be 24 today, who said you do not know anything about constitutional law. you and i have had our
disagreements but we've had some heated disagreements way back when, that was a long time ago. but you do know law and you do know the constitution. why don't you give, if you will, may be a cliffsnotes education to some of the members of the democratic party, your party. >> thank you. i've been spending the last few days with dusty books going back to the 18th and 19th centuries reading blackstone and reading the debates over the constitution and reading the trial of andrew johnson and i've come to the firm conclusion that the two elements of impeachment directed against president trump are on constitutional, the framers would have rejected abuse of power, would've rejected obstruction of congress, they rejected things like it. maladministration. they didn't want to turn the united states into a british parliament to resist him or congress controlled the executive and a prime minister or president could be voted out of office by a simple
majority vote of the legislatu legislature. so they created very strict criteria. treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. other high crimes and misdemeanors means crimes like treason and bribery. they do not have to be technical crimes. if a person commits bribery but he's out of the just restriction of the statute of limitations, he could still be impeached, but they have to be criminal like akin to treason and bribery. that's why the debate over witnesses is premature. first, the senate should decide, is there a case? if this were a criminal case, i'd be making a motion to dismiss. say somebody is indicted for dishonesty and they have a whole list of things he did but i'd go with the court and say that dishonesty is not a crime and i would go to the senate and say, abuse of power is not a crime. and so, you do not need witnesses if my view prevails. you don't need documents. you get right to the vote and you quit. >> sean: let me go to the
question to the specific constitutional roles of each house. the house, constitution says, has the sole power to impeach. the senate holds the trial. now, with the house impeached, they bring in-house managers, they are present in their case. but they are asking the senate to subpoena witnesses they themselves never subpoenaed. >> right. >> sean: to me, that would be the senate taking on the role, the constitutional role of the house. to me, that's not their role. here is your impeachment. tell us why. and we will either agree or disagree. it's not their job to make the case for the week case that they put forward. if they wanted witnesses, they should've called them. they should've subpoenaed them. >> i agree. i agree. the other thing, nancy pelosi doesn't understand what impeachment is. what she has said that even if the president is acquitted, the impeachment stands. no! that's like saying if a person is indicted and the jury acquits
12-0 in 5 minutes, he still indicted. no! the impeachment disappears. the impeachment is only a grand jury presentment. my colleague larry trite went so far as to argue absurdly that the house could impeach and never send it to the senate and the president has impeachment hanging over his head forever. by the way, larry tribe also called for the impeachment of ronald reagan back in the day on the ground of abuse of power, which shows how absurd some of these academic zealots can be wanting to impeach ronald reagan for abuse of power! if you could impeach ronald reagan for abuse of power, you could impeach every american from washington to the president. >> sean: all right. even one of the so-called experts, the opinion experts under the federal rules of evidence, hearsay is admissible, as you know, what should be viewed here. one of the experts literally
saying that donald trump should be impeached because he once tweeted out fake news. let me go back to arguments made by the president personal counsel, jay sekulow. >> it's clear. >> sean: pat cipollone was amazing too. during the proceedings that took place, the president denied the right to cross examine witnesses. the president was denied the right to access evidence. the president was denied the right to have counsel. that is a trifecta that violates the constitution. it matters because it's based in the constitution. and then he went on the say because due process demands the constitution requires that by the fairness, due process will be granted. you are therefore the clinton impeachment! his president and attorneys were granted for bill clinton. none of them granted to donald trump. >> look, i agree. especially if pelosi maintains
that impeachment is an end in itself, you need full due process. you can't go and announce that he's been impeached and it'll be impeachment hanging over his head the rest of his life. by the way, he had no rights, and the opportunity to cross-examine, no opportunity for lawyers to be present. >> sean: wait a minute. let me dip in. there is a battle going on between the senate majority leader mcconnell and minority leader schumer. i don't know if we can hear it. for some reason we don't have volume on that? we will get to that, report to you. the vote is going on, by the way, on the proposal to subpoena the white house acting chief of staff mick mulvaney. let's go to chad pergram who was there who can tell us what happened moments ago. >> exactly for the just completed a vote here to table this proposal to subpoena mick mulvaney. and then the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell turned to the senate minority leader chuck schumer and said, can you give us some guidance on how much time and how many other
amendments are in order here, and chuck schumer said, you know, we have a number of other amendments. "we will not back down." he said there's no reason we have to have all these votes tonight but there's going to be another number of because they do not think that mitch mcconnell is following the clinton model established in 1999 for the first time since they went into this trial 1:18 this afternoon is what we call if a quorum call. they are not trying to get all senators there. right now, they are meeting on stage to figure out what's next. they want to continue on, go to the next proposal by chuck schumer which would be to subpoena documents for the department of defense. maybe they can come up with what's called in the senate unanimous consent agreement. they do most of their business in the senate, sean, by unanimous consent. that means all 100 senators agree, they can make the sunrise in the west. if they can forge some sort of deal, they can say, all right, we are done for the night, we can come back and pick that up to tomorrow.
but if you have not voted on the actual framework for the trial and the democratic leader chuck schumer continues to pound these amendments, you can't actually get to the oral arguments. the house impeachment managers and the defense by president trump's legal team. this is what this caucus going on the senate floor going on looking down here, there was a moment of exasperation by pat cipollone the white house counsel a few minutes ago on the floor in reference to the amendment to summon mick mulvaney to testify and this is what he said. he said, quote, it's getting late. i ask respectfully we start the oral argument. again, this is a balance of the house democratic impeachment managers, a tight rope they have to walk. we are seeing a lot of adam schiff, democrats tell you that they think he's making a compelling case. he is the face of this. and ted cruz, the republican senator from texas who was president trump's opponent in 2016 and now a fairly big defender, he said during the dinner break around 7:30, god help us if we have to listen to
adam schiff prattle on for 24 hours nonstop. if they get an agreement here, we could wrap up the votes tonight. otherwise, this could go very deep into the night. keep in mind that chief justice john roberts has to preside over the supreme court tomorrow morning. there is a reason why the senate impeachment rule is on mandate that they start at 1:00 so the chief justice can go across the street and handle his duties there and come back and handle the senate trial. if they do punt until tomorrow, and senate majority leader indicated he wants to wrap this up tonight, that means you'll be set further into the weekend into the weekend and next week we'll have the prosecution present its case spread out over 24 hours, three days as part of the modified resolution that mitch mcconnell put out today and probably get well into next week for the defense bid that's what's at stake right now. i'm looking down here at the monitor just below me trying to see if i can get any hand signal or any indication whatsoever about what might come next so we might be here for a long time.
they might get some sort of agreement, wrap this up or in the next few hours, or we might be here all week. we'll see. back to you. >> sean: one last session for professor dershowitz now. both sides will get there 24 hours to present their case just like in the impeachment of bill clinton, then there will be 16 hours of questions just like in the case of bill clinton. then the issue of the siding on the need for any witnesses will take place, just like in the case of bill clinton. we are watching political theater unfold because they know that the vote will come after both sides present their cases and the 16 hours of questions. the last remaining constitutional issue i have for you, professor, is about executive privilege. like george washington, the need for executive privilege. again, the house, they could've subpoenaed mike pompeo.
mick mulvaney, they could've subpoenaed john bolton and anybody they wanted. he decided not to because it was so urgent for them to go on vacation. >> before we get to executive privilege, you say it's theater and i think what's going on now as a trial lawyer, at least i'm speculating, everybody wants to get the last word before intermission at the theater. i think what the democrats are trying to do is frame it so they get to make all their arguments before the weekend. and then everybody goes home for the weekend, or at least sunday, and they've heard only one side. anna begins to filter into their heads. i think probably that the trump defense would like to at least begin to present their case before the weekend for theater strategic and other kinds of reasons. that's just my speculation. as to executive privilege, look: executive privilege is part of our constitution and it's very important. the president doesn't even have to use the words executive
privilege. he has that privilege. he's the one who can invoke it on behalf of anybody in the executive. for example, if john bolton is dying to testify, that's not his decision. that is the president's decision. if congress did not like it, they go to the courts. in the court decides and that is how the decision is resolved. but you don't get the legislature making a final decision on rejecting executive privilege or any other kind of privilege. >> sean: professor, are there any circumstances because this is political -- you are right. that is the president's privilege. the need for it has been well documented, there is precedent on it. the question is will there be any circumstances under which the senate saying this is political, that they could try to circumvent judicial review on that? i don't believe that to be constitutional. >> you've asked a question that i actually have experience in. i resented somebody many years ago in the house.
she pleaded, attorney-client privilege. the chairman said it doesn't apply in the house, doesn't apply in the house, and we took it up and of course it prevailed. it does apply. they can't just willy-nilly overrule it. they would have to go to the court. >> sean: if you had to guess, and i know it's hard to predict especially with the supreme court on the issue of executive privilege, i would argue that you might even get some liberal justices not giving in on indicative privilege because of the impact on the executive branch of government. bigger i think that's right. i think it won't be a strict divide across party-like decisions. i think you will see a mixture. it's a very collocated issue and it's not liberal/conservative, you have liberals who believe very strongly that the president should be able to confer with his advisors like john bolton on national security. >> sean: alan dershowitz, professor at harvard. thank you.
also just now breaking from "politico," moments ago. get this, adam schiff may have also mischaracterized new so-called evidence -- remember, lev parnas and all the hysteria? you documents show in other words that's another lie from the congenital liar. here to break this big breaking development in all of today's news, joining us now is a congressional member of trump's legal team, cumbersome and doug collins, great state of georgia. congressman, very interesting when he sent over the new evidence how he totally exonerated joe, you aren't getting the billion unless you fire the prosecutor whose investigating, but he says a prosecutor who's doing the investigation, don't know anybody who authors evidence for everybody. but schiff says that prosecutor is corrupt. amazing. what do you make of this politico piece. >> what we are hearing, that's just another line of what we seen from the schiff all along.
he's willing to do anything to get at this president. this is not a simple one off, to go off to make regular habit of what this man does. does not want to come to grips with the truth, he wants to do anything he can to take him out. but the whining in the theater that's going on in the senate floor today from him and others is just -- it really takes the cake today. it just shows the american people how weak the case is and how they want other people want to do their job for them. >> sean: those due processes. i watch the whining. you gave no due process to the president! no importantly, there is no case here. there is the second article on obstruction of congress, that's great, but that means that they are saying is obstruction is the president would seek remedy when there is a conflict between the judicial -- i'm sorry, with the legislative and executive branch and seek remedy through the
judicial branch. that's not obstruction. what is abuse of power? what does that mean? what law are we talking about here? >> they don't have an abuse of powers, sean. what they want to do is they want to get every member of the democratic party of the house to say that abuse of power is whatever we make it out to be. if i don't like the suit he has on today, i'm going to say that's an abuse of power. if i don't like the way he talked about a certain issue or how he dealt with people on the wall, immigration, any issue, they can say that it's an abuse of power and i voted for those articles. but let's be real clear today, jean-pierre there are somethings going going on that are misleading. congressman out of colorado saying that ukrainians died because the wait was withheld at come up, a misleading let's look at chairman nadler who said, a jury would convict him in less than a few seconds. we'll put evidence up. the reason we didn't call mulvaney is because he was going
to use his constitutional right to go to court to get a clarification. schiff cannot make his case. and schumer has decided along with chesa boudin and others to put the senate on trial saying that the senate doesn't do what we want to do, then they are corrupt. the last part about this is really the problematic park. let's remind the audience that is. two people on the call, zelensky and president trump, no pressure, no conditionality on the eta. nothing done there. the ukrainians didn't know that aid was held up. at the end of the day, the aide was released and aid was releasd with no meeting. four facts never changed, the president did nothing wrong, the democrats want to do is stretch it out before next november. >> sean: you sounded a little there like jim jordan. and he's right. >> we got these facts that
matter, folks and the folks are seeing through the schiff show and now the schumer exchange. >> sean: i call it the schumer-schiff sham shell. keep up with us, congressman. >> schumer hyphens between four sham show. got it. >> sean: congressman mike johnson, congress and johnson also serving as a congressional member on trump legal team. congressman, what was so glaring, you put out the newness was in fact the clinton dirty unverifiable dossier that even "the new york times" recognizes is likely russian misinformation from the beginning. everything that your colleague adam schiff wrote in his report ended up being a lie. he told us the dossier was true, was not used much in the fisa
applications, and now we see that he has more trouble even tonight in the new breaking news report as it relates to the new evidence that he tried to make a big deal of with lev parnas last week. i'd like you to comment how many lies this person can get away with telling? >> we don't have enough time in your show, sean. i would take up the next four weeks going through all of adam schiff and the democrats lies. when you first start by saying that the senate now is getting to deal with the very first time i've had to deal with for over three years. so i hope they are having fun, especially not being able to play brick breaker or whatever on their iphones. let me talk about specifically about this new breaking parnas story. you member member of a couple of months ago right after thanksgiving, cnn came out with a fake news story that said i was doing the various things with my staff in meeting with ukrainians, meeting with all these dirty ukrainians.
that information went from parnas and his lawyer to cnn. cnn has yet to retract the story. came out that i was in benghazi and no way near the area where they had me. they accused us of doing nefarious things with this lev parnas character. the truth is, adam schiff, adam schiff and the democrats have been doing nefarious things with parnas. you look at what's happening, the guy has been indicted now. now his lawyer came out and the light again, he lied to the southern district of new york. tonight, there's new information that comes out there that accuses the fbi and doj of trying to slow down adam schiff and the intel committee's investigation, not providing the information. the feds now came out tonight and said, no, that's not true. and once again, like we've seen numerous times with schiff, another fake news story of setting he supposedly said that
parnas was saying about zelensky. the fact was that did not happen. it's just a long line of lies that continue. the one i will read from "political," congressman johnson. in one section of the letter that schiff said in his new evidence involving lev parnas, schiff said that parnas tried to arrange a meeting with president zelensky, citing specific text messages exchanged where parnas tells giuliani, trying to get us mr. z. the remainder of the exchange was redacted. but an unredacted version of the exchange shows several days later, parnas sent giuliani a word document appearing to show notes from an interview with this founder of burisma holdings that was paying zero experienced hunter millions and millions of dollars, never knew of any company paying someone millions for knowing nothing. mr. z answers, my brother!
that suggests parnas was referring to the head of the founder of burisma, not the landscaper that would mean another congenital lie in the media mob and the area 51 roswell rachel maddow who had the biggest interview ever. she's going to protect correct the record, is nbc going to make or correct the record? >> the question, sean. they were referring to the wrong mr. z who is the founder of burisma, a terribly corrupt company, burisma. that's everything wrong with adam schiff and everything devin has been complaining about for months, the supersecret hearings in the basement, they are cherry picking facts, misrepresenting the facts all along to reflect their narrative. when you look at all the facts in context, you understand there is no there there. that's why the president is so anxious to put on our case because he understands and knows the american people will understand when you see all of this in its full context, you'll
know there's nothing there. they have cherry picked this, engineered the process, they manufacture this fraudulent process, that's why we've been saying that this is a sham from the very beginning. >> sean: if we look, there are no new facts here. congressman, i'll give you the last fact on this, this is about a phone call where aid was never mentioned but the president did say he was a favor. not me, do us a favor. we've been taught election interference occurred. by the way, you want everybody in 2014 the russians would interfere in our elections and they did. you warned us. they didn't listen to you, meaning biden, obama. then separate and apart from a while we had a ukrainian court, politico january 11th 2017, they talked about ukrainian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election which included a dnc operative meeting at the ukrainian embassy in washington, d.c., it will be in by the name of alexandra
chalupa. ukraine did interfere in the 2016 election. separate from russia's interference by that's called a conspiracy theory, just like joe biden is a innocent. i don't know any businesses that say you get billions not until you fire that prosecutor, not a big deal. joe is innocent, according to everybody. hunter is innocent. i don't think either is innocent. your thoughts? >> you forgot one important point too. fusion gps, the democratic had firm, they also were doing nefarious things in ukraine. the democrats don't like this. the media doesn't like this. but i continue to say, we have an ongoing active investigation, meaning republicans on the house intelligence committee that we had for a long time looking at ukraine. they don't like it. they get mad that my staff was talking to people like lev
parnas. going to continue to do it. do you know why? the corruption was there. house democrats are culpable to this. they do not want the truth to come out that they are the ones that were doing really bad things with high-level ukrainian officials, high-level or large ukrainian companies that are corrupt and they are ts and they cherry pick things and they constantly get it wrong. the senate now is getting to see today, they are getting to see schiff in action and as time goes by, it ends up being a lie. >> sean: vindicated, congressman. thank you for telling the country the truth. we know that between you for light now. here with more reaction to all the proceedings, fox news contributor jason chaffetz, former white house press secretary ari fleischer. jason, this is your wheelhouse. let's see where you are, and
lack of due process. the houses trying to get the senate to do that which they refused to do themselves. they said it's a slam-dunk case, they have their managers, presented their case but they want public and senators now to make their case better. the case was so slam-dunk! why do they need that? >> in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. the burden is on adam schiff yet he's the least critical, the most grading. he's totally been discredited every single step of the way. i think he is pompous in the way he presents this. i can't imagine what it's like for the senators to sit there and be on the receiving end of helm bloviating hour after hour. this is just day one. i think it's going to get worse. when they controlled every aspect in the house, they lost support. people moved away from it. they didn't convince anybody. in fact, they lost a democrat in the vote and they lost the
public support. that's only going to get course in part because this is the adam schiff show. you keep talking about it. there are no facts today. none. >> sean: ij you to say it three times fast. the schumer-schiff sham show. good luck on national tv. i'm a high wire act every night, ari fleischer, first your general observation. then -- we have to look at everything, 287 days away from the ultimate jury, the american people see this through the political prism especially the president in davos, the president keeping another promise, the china deal as nancy pelosi preferably, solemnly smiling with her commemorative impeachment pan. >> let me step back from the daily maneuverings and
personalities on the senate floor in washington. i want to talk about the american people. the american people are a fundamentally fair, sensible, well grounded people. if a crime were committed, this would be bipartisan. and that the flynn mental flaw in impeachment. because no crime was committed and instead you have the one party partisan push for impeachment for people who never liked donald trump in the first place, but there is a tremendous group of americans who are independent, don't really follow politics, republicans as well, who if they thought donald trump committed a crime, they would say so! because crimes are obvious. we know when a crime is committed as a public. that's absent here. that's the point mental flaw. that's why they should have never risen to the level of impeachment and that's why all of the this, sean kromah has been a told a waste of time. in your monologue, when will this be over and we can at least have some pretense of congress going back to how it supposed to be. >> sean: does this impact the election?
>> no. i think this is going to be forgotten by the time the election takes place. i don't really think this changes either party. i don't think it's going to help the president. i don't think it's going to help the democrats. the president will have the talking point because you'll be able to say he was exonerated but i think this election is so polarized, this impeachment will be forgotten and it'll be a blip by spring, let alone october. >> sean: jason chaffetz, ari fleischer, thank you to you. here, geraldo rivera, dan bongino. never know what to expect with those guys. fireworks, sometimes not. i'm the referee. the one thing that i cannot get over, geraldo. you been in this business for over 50 years. in all seriousness, i cannot get over any democrat, anyone in the media mob, joe, he can't get the billion until you fire the guy investigating zero experience.
far worse, all the evidence you need on the very thing that they feign outrage on, i have a hard time with that level of hypocrisy, the lack of fundamental intellectual honesty, reason, and common sense. because you are taking on enormous hypocrisy here! how do they do and justify that? >> then why didn't the republicans today make the same case you just made, sean? i long for you to be on the floor of the united states senate today making an impassioned argument, the republicans were fooled by a democratic smoke screen! this wasn't about these various amendments to this wasn't about the nuances of whether this guy is going to be subpoenaed or that document is going to be subpoenaed. this was a democrats' opportunity for the opening argument and i think the republicans with all due respect
here come up to your pals, i think they missed. they were okay, they were fine, but they did not understand what the democrats understood. you only get one time to make a first impression. this was the first impression for the american people. they should've come out blasting. they should've been clarence darrow and william jennings bryan. they should've been john quincy adams. this should have been oratory. they are hypocrites. hunter biden. they wouldn't let the president go to court. they went about executive privilege -- where was the passion? where was the -- i wanted much more meat. i think to allow the democrats a head start, which is what today was, i think is a mistake, sean. >> sean: there is a part of me that always wants that passion because that is in my dna, dan. it's in your dna. on the other hand, is not going to matter. because we all know how this and
an it doesn't and the way the democrats want. but the biggest -- it's a tale of two americas here! china deal, commemorative pans and smiles, prayerful smiles, solemn smiles. and today this, and a president. the leader of the entire world, the envy of the world with our economy. now in davos talking about the great american economic success story and his great foreign policy success. >> yeah! it's profound. you have essentially a very c-spany news look with the president trump overseas. and you have "renin stimpy" with schumer and schiff. a shocker, ordinarily i agree with geraldo when it's time to bring the fire and i think there's a time for that.
i don't think what devin nunes said was correct. the real this is a smoke screen.i thougha raging inferno today. i thought he did a great job. let me just say, sean, i've been watching coverage, glued to the tv all day in preparation for this appearance tonight. can we just nail down one simple talking point and put this thing to bed? everything was, located, we get it. does the audience realize that to this day, this is an alleged crime with a zero victims? quick, anyone in the audience, tell me who the victim is. oh, it's the ukrainians? why can they not get a ukrainian to say anything that happened? they have the ministers of foreign affairs on cnn, they said that lev parnas is a liar, and the ukrainian president is like, guys, i do not know what you're talking talking about. there is no victim expect >> member johnny cochran? if the glove doesn't fit, it
does nodoes you must acquit! why did not one of the lawyers say no crime, no conviction, where is the primary? they needed to hammer that. >> i get it. you totally get it. i am not a litigator, you are a lawyer. i'm saying at this point in time, i do not think that's the time for that. i think the perfect foil here was having conspiracy theory promoting adam schiff on the house floor promoting these nonsensical twilight zone fairy tales and having pat cipollone and jake cyclical up jay sekulow go up there. >> i think you're missing the point. >> sean: i was pretty happy with it. >> i thought so too. >> the democrats want to draw this up. they want to get to the point where you are so exhausted, let's have a witness.
>> sean: by the end of the 24 hours, americans are going to hate them. i got to run. joining me now with the reaction, trump 2020 advisors mercedes schlapp, katie pavlich. we only have about a minute each for you but let me make your best case. >> at the end of the day, they are hearing all about aid being withheld by the president for they ask themselves, is this really a bad thing the president is being a good steward of american taxpayer money? that's a case the democrats are trying to make, he should've just let it go and the white house can make the argument they were trying to be prudent with the funding that americans work very hard for it. as you pointed out, the president, they look to lock down a lot of wins both domestically and overseas as the house has been focused on impeachment and after we see that continuing in the senate. >> sean: and aid was never discussed, corruption was and the four facts of jordan never changed. they were consecutive meetings
high level including the vice president, not much was aid mentioned. wilensky didn't feel it. the foreign minister didn't feel it. >> clearly the president has been so transparent in this process that he has played by the rules for the ones who broke the rules, abused power have been democrats. schiff has taken the lead on his hypocrisy how he's basically run the whole impeachment process. it's been a sham, disgraceful to our republic, and the mere fact is that these democrats have wanted to impeach the president from day one while this president has been focused on the work of the american people. it is why i think when geraldo said it's the first impression for american people? no! they have been calling out the lie for months and i think at the end of the day, the ones who are going to hurt are the democrats. they are going to hurt politically and that's why the president will win again in 2020. >> sean: i agree by that final point by both of you.
great job, thank you both but we'll always be fair and balanced. we are not the hate rage media mob, we seek the truth. let not your heart be troubled, the news continues. laura ingraham is next. see you tomorrow night. >> laura: i'm laura ingraham, this is "the ingraham angle." you are looking at the senate floor live with the debate raises over the rules resolution governing how the impeachment trial of donald trump will proceed. for those who have jobs and have been glued to your television all day, let me catch you up, on what matters and what you need to get from the proceedings and if you didn't get it, we were tortured for you. the senate led by majority leader mitch mcconnell has so far voted to table, that means basically kale, four amendment offered by chuck schumer and are currently debating the fifth