tv Special Report With Bret Baier FOX News September 24, 2019 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
witch hunt, echoing the president's words. mike emanuel has been following all of this up on capitol hill and he has got the behind the scenes of what we expect from the republican leadership. >> good evening to you. we respect republican leaders to come out inside of the democrats have gone too far, that this is all pure politics, it's all about the 2020 campaign and trying to make sure president trump is not reelected. this comes of course after an action-packed day here on capitol hill with house speaker nancy pelosi announcing her intentions to go forward with a formal impeachment inquiry of president trump. >> the actions of the current presidency reveal dishonorable fact of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. therefore, today i'm announcing the house of representatives moving forward with an official
impeachment inquiry. >> that represents a major shift for pelosi, who has resisted calls from her most liberal members and their base to go forward for months. but there's been a momentum shift in recent days with democrats demanding to see a whistle-blower report on the president's communications with ukraine's president amid allegations the president pressured him to open a corruption investigation of former vice president joe biden and biden's son. today biden signal -- the probe. >> i can take a political attack. they will, and i'll go and in time will soon be forgotten. but if we allow our president to get away with shredding the united states constitution, that will last forever. speaker pelosi faced intense pressure, including from her own freshman alexandria ocasio-cortez from new york, who blasted her on twitter writing "at this point the bigger national scandal is not the president's lawbreaking behavior, it is the
democratic party's refusal to impeach him for it. last night several freshman democrats with national security backroads wrote in "the washington post" they are joining as a unified group, including these new allegations are a threat to all we have sworn to protect. then today, georgia democrat john lewis issued this call to action. >> i believe, i truly believe, the time to begin impeachment proceedings against this president has come. to delay or to do otherwise would betray the foundation of our democracy. >> on the senate side, majority leader mitch mcconnell said the approach there would be bipartisan. >> we are going to find out what happened in the senate through a process preestablished by the intelligence committee behind closed doors initially with the acting director of the nia. >> after president trump called for release of the transcript of
his conversation with ukraine's leader, senate democratic leader chuck schumer quickly said that's not enough. >> we do not know what the whistle-blower thought was so urgent so simply to release the transcript is not going to come close to ending the need of the american public and the congress to see what actually happened. >> the expectation is on the house side all six committee chairs will continue investigating all matters of president trump as it relates to this ukraine conversation with the leader of the country and exactly what was promised and how things developed. there will be hearings, there will likely be subpoenas and we understand it will all be funneled through the judiciary chairman jerrold nadler and at some point he and speaker pelosi will have a conversation about whether they have enough to impeach the sitting president. brett. >> bret: that will be a fascinating conversation indeed, mike emmanuel live on the hill. thanks. president trump is tonight facing what could be the most serious threat to his presidency, at least in the eyes
of democrats. john roberts up here in new york covering all of this today. we are supposed to be focused on the united nations, a lot of different focus today. >> you didn't think were actually going to focus on the united nations. >> bret: 's every day for you. >> it is. we call this tuesday in my world. president trump has beaten back talking impeachment by saying it's politically unpopular. say how do you impeach a president who has helped create the best economy in the history of this nation and he continued on that offense today. >> it's just a continuation of the witch hunt. it's the worst witch hunt in political history. >> at the united nations today president trump defiant in the face of house speaker nancy pelosi's announcement. >> i just heard that she would like to impeach and i figure this is a thing to do, this never happened where we are in the election -- if she does that, they all say that's a positive for me from the election. >> what tipped the push for impeachment over the edge was the revelation that in mid-july,
a week before his phone call with ukrainian president vladimir zelinski -- >> speaker pelosi -- >> bret: looking live on capitol hill, the house minority speaking out, let's listen in. >> they have been investigating this president before he even got elected. they have voted three times on impeachment on this floor. twice they voted before one word of the mueller report came back. our job here is a serious job. our job is to focus on the american public. our job is to make tomorrow than today. our job is to legislate, not to investigate something when you can't find any reason to impeach this president. i realize 2016 did not turn out the way speaker pelosi wanted it to happen but she cannot change the laws of this congress.
she cannot unilaterally decide for an impeachment inquiry. what she said today made no difference of what's been going on. if it's no different than what nadler has been trying to do. it's time to put the public before politics. thank you. >> are you afraid that you're on the wrong side of this? >> bret: house minority leader, a quick statement there on capitol hill. we interrupted john roberts piece but you hear that basically they are saying there's nothing to this, let's move forward. >> and the truth will be told, or the tale will be told when the president releases the transcript of that telephone call that he had on july the 25th with volodymyr zelensky. the ukrainian president. as mike emmanuel pointed out, democrats are already saying that's not enough, they want to see the complaint that the whistle-blower sent up to the
intelligence community inspector general. we understand that the whistle-blower has, through his attorney, notify the director of national intelligence, the acting director joe maguire that he plans to go before congress. we do not know in what forum or what format at this point, but i would imagine that he behind closed doors interview, select intelligence committee staff will probably be in the offing as well. we're going to her a lot more about this tomorrow. not only for the fact that the transcript will be released of that telephone call and the president is promising it's going to be in its entirety, unredacted, because bret, if there was one reduction in the transcript, you can bet the people would say the entire thing is invalid. >> bret: they are already saying on twitter. they're saying it's going to be adjusted. >> i don't know how you say that before you seen anything but the other big element tomorrow is president trump tomorrow afternoon's meeting with ukrainian president and they will have a press conference
afterwards so we are going to hear a lot more about this. this is going to be good for them, they are going be the democratic party, which is now become in their eyes the party of impeachment. >> bret: andy mccarthy still here. getting to articles of impeachment is a different hurdle then he announcing a formal inquiry to impeachment. it is a constitutional process, not a total political one, but it is a big hurdle to finally get to where you're putting on articles of impeachment. >> yeah, there's a big difference, bret. what's done today in the parlance of prosecutors would have been to say to the extent a grand jury hadn't been convened yet, now we convened a grand jury. doesn't mean that charges will be filed. it means that they will possibly issue subpoenas, they will interview witnesses, but if they are talking about the emoluments clause, one of the things that that would say to me is that
they haven't articulated in their own mind what high crime and misdemeanor do we have here, and that's an important element for an investigator. as a prosecutor, i always wanted to have a crime in mind when i commenced an investigation, because it kind of has a discipline in terms of how you organize what you need to prove, what witnesses you need to interview, what other evidence you need to collect. this is why i really think that what happened today is more show than anything else. basically they're doing what they were already doing, except pelosi has announced it, but i don't think they have a firm idea at this point about high crimes and misdemeanors. >> bret: andy, thank you. we will continue this. at war with panel in just a bit. meantime, here in new york and the united nations. president trump is calling for nations to further isolate iran over its nuclear policies in support of terrorism to what he
termed "iran's blood lust." eric shawn reports tonight. part of the president's unapologetic defense of his pro-america policy today. >> it was a wide-ranging speech that defined the trump doctrine. america first, rooted in the nation's values and freedoms, willing to work with those of goodwill. >> if the future does not belong to globalists. the future monster patriots. >> in a somber and deliberate tone, the president laid out his case for containing iran. now that britain, france, and germany have joined the u.s., and blaming tehran for the saudi arabian oil attacks. >> all nations have a duty to act. no responsible government should subsidize iran's blood lust. >> he criticized china, accusing it of gaming the global system for its own benefit. >> the united states lost 60,000 factories after china entered the wto.
the wto needs drastic change. >> he reiterated his commitment to afghanistan despite his previous outreach to the taliban. >> my administration is also pursuing the hope of a brighter future in afghanistan. unfortunately, the taliban has chosen to continue their savage attacks. >> he then decried socialism is the venezuelan representative on diplomatically read a book in impolite defiance. >> socialism and communism are about one thing only, power for the ruling class. >> he also had strong words for illegal immigration activists, branding them a cottage industr industry. >> this open border activist who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice. your policies are not just. your policies are cruel and evi
evil. >> outside, the voices of iranian american demonstrators echoed in the streets, protesting against the iran regime and for the president. they cheered his personal attorney. >> and went to the good people of iran want? they want freedom! >> the president's remarks about iran may have had their intended effect. so afternoon, iranian president rouhani indicated he may be willing to accept some small changes in the nuclear deal. we will likely know a lot more about that when he addresses the general assembly tomorrow. bret. >> bret: eric shawn at the u.n., thanks. in the run-up to this week's united nations session, perhaps the biggest question was would president trump meet with iranian president hassan rouhani talk about the increasing hostilities between those two nations. so far has not happened. not likely to happen.
earlier today, president trump called on allies to intensify pressure on iran, as you just saw. tonight "fox news sunday" anchor chris wallace talks exclusively to the iranian leader. >> chris: mr. president , you heard president trump's speech today, he said no nation should support iran, and i quote "blood lust" and fanatical quest for nuclear weapons. your response? >> i am amazed at the interpretations of mr. trump vis-a-vis terrorism. those who succeeded in syria and iraq to bring terrorism to an end eradicate isis. with the help of the iraqi people and the syrian people, that was iran, that was the country of iran and the country that is present and flying over
the airspace of and bombarding the soil of the country of syria without permission of the government is the united states of america and today america unfortunately is the supporter of terrorism in our region and wherever america has gone, terrorism has expanded in their wake. wherever we have gone on the other side, we have defeated terrorism. one example is isis in our region. vis-a-vis the nuclear issue, we are committed to the nonproliferation treaty as well as the protocol -- the additional protocol. it's peaceful. those who are going outside the framework is the united states of america that is against the framework of the npt conducting nuclear weapon tests. >> chris: will get into your contention that is the u.s., not a run, that the sponsor of terror in a moment, but
president trump has spoken often about being willing to meet with you, even sometimes without preconditions. what you think are the chances that this week at the united nations, either in a formal setting or perhaps as they have in these diplomatic sessions where you just happened to bump into each other, that you and president trump will speak to each other. >> why would we bump into one another? if we seek to pursue higher goals, to benefit both countries, both people, it must be planned and talks must be based on those plans, but prior to that, we must create mutual trust. in the trust is something that mr. trump took away from this framework. we had an agreement. mr. trump exited without a valid justification and illegally from
an international agreement, so if united states of america has government is willing to talk, it must create the needed conditions. >> chris: but it is no longer just president trump, because this week the european countries who signed on to the iran nuclear deal -- i'm talking about britain and france and germany -- now say that they agree with president trump that it was iran that was responsible for the saudi attack. the attack on saudi oil facilities and, like mr. trump, they say iran should now agree to a bigger new deal on nuclear weapons and on regional stability and missile systems. when you agree to reopen the talks? >> translator: well, once we carried on negotiations with the united states of america for two years and during a 17-day period, the foreign minister of the islamic republic of iran and u.s. secretary of state had
continuous talks without returning to their countries. it was extremely difficult, but we did reach an agreement, which was signed and it was enshrined in the united nations security council resolution and without a valid reason or cause, the united states left this agreement. so it took away the foundation of the needed trust. i think more than the issues touched upon, the most basic needed issue is trust and that trump damaged the trust between the two countries. trust must be restored and the restoration of trust consists in taking away the pressure imposed on the people of iran which shows that there is clearly animosity even towards our children, our ill people because they even have difficulty in
obtaining basic medications and medical equipment. this is a type of terrorism, this is inhumane and if there is a sensation to this than the atmosphere will change. of course then it can be envisioned and then we can talk about many mutual interest for both sides, just as vis-a-vis the nuclear issue in the year 2015. we reached an agreement, we can reach agreements on other topics as well. >> chris: it seems for the last year and a half, since the u.s. pulled out of the agreement, as if iran's policy has been to drive a wedge between the u.s., president trump, and europe, which has stood by the agreemen agreement. now, this week, it seems because of the fact that iran was responsible for this attack on saudi oil facilities, that you have in fact united the countries. it has backfired on you and now europe has agreed with the u.s. that they need to reopen new talks.
>> translator: well, first of all, vis-a-vis the oil installations in saudi arabia that were attacked, that returns to the saudi attack on the country of yemen and the people of yemen have the inherent right, even brought in the united nations charter, to defend themselves. they have been the subject of apartments for over five years, of course the people of yemen have the right to defend themselves and attack -- >> chris: but mr. president, the saudis say the drones were not yet many, were iranian. they were delta wings and delta waves. the saudis say the cruise missiles were not yemeni, they were iranian, they were those systems and even your bosses partner in europe from a french
president macron seems to agree. he has agreed to. he says it was iran that was responsible for the attack on saudi arabia. >> translator: well, because you are quite an experienced reporter, mr. wallace, you did not allow me to complete my previous answer. not a problem. i will return to what you were speaking of. see, mr. trump has leveled an accusation, an unfounded accusation against iran when the saudi arabian spokesperson announced that the equipment by which the attacks were conducted were not yemeni because on the weapon they saw that name. well, there are shiites in yemen as well. so that spokesperson that thinks iranians are all shiites and yemenis are not shiites, they are mistaken.
it is a chant and a slogan of aspiration that is chanted in iraq, in yemen, in iran. it is really egregious for someone to say because of those words, for them to attribute that to iran, but let's assume if it was from iran, all of the money received from the united states for these defensive systems for these weapon systems, radar systems installed in saudi arabia and throughout the arabian peninsula, how can they were not able to prevent that missile from hitting the target? so what was the point of sending all of the antimissile system? so that's, quite frankly, even worse, and if we accept the u.s. accusation, then it is even more embarrassing perhaps for the united states and they must answer as to why they were not able to stop and intercept the system, the missile. the yemenis have quite advanced military capabilities, so why is
it that the intelligence agencies of the united states of america that are receiving large budgets from the taxpayers base in the united states, why is it that they were completely unaware of these military yemeni capabilities? so they must be held to answer. if america must answer why did it sell the region so many systems, so many weapons, so then they must answer why have they not been able to establish where it came from and then show the proof of it? which radar system intercepted these weapons? which one put a lock, a radar lock, on it as they were coming towards the target? if this is all proven, then they must answer whether defensive capabilities did not suffice, and why is it that america and the europeans have been aiding the saudi arabians and their partners in conducting daily killings of the people of yemen. so those who share in the bloodshed of the yemeni people have no right to make such unfounded expressions and last night and my meeting with
mr. mccrone, i asked him why do you say that iran is responsible? he set our technical experts have said that the yemenis have not yet reached that type of technical capability, advanced technical capability, and in response i told him that you are unaware of their capability. so if there is no cease-fire moving forward, you will see once again and you will witness the military capabilities of the yemeni. so let's come together and find a solution, leveling unfounded accusations are not constructive. let's help the people of yemen and not let them continue -- let's not let the saudis continue the daily bombings. peace is a much more attainable, beneficial place to go rather than retrieving accusations at one another. >> chris: you talk about coming together and in fact you are bringing to the u.n. a new peace plan called the hormones
peace endeavor. there are many that say iran is less country that should be proposing peace. since may they say you have mind tankers in the persian gulf, you have seized a british ship, you have shot down a united states drone, and now the saudi oil attack. they say and iranian peace plan is like putting the fox in charge of a henhouse. >> translator: iran during the past four decades fought against terrorism unequivocally. and those who conducted killings inside iran and murdered over 70,000 innocent civilians are now living their lives under your auspices here in the
united states of america and mr. bolton, who up until not too long ago was your national security advisor, was on your payroll giving speeches on their behalf, so iran is a country that has brought peace in the region. >> chris: expose me, sir, and i say this respectfully , for you've given hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion dollars to hezbollah, to hamas, to various groups. that is not a supporter terrorism? >> translator: well, when you label people who fight for the defense of their country and their land as terrorism. so those are the subject of occupation, what should they do? be passive and just look? you call the people in yemen who are defending their countries terrorists and those who make the bombs and the missiles and the weapon systems and make them readily available to the saudi arabians with which to target school buses, schools, and weddings and hospitals, you do not find them guilty.
do you say "why did you shoot on an american drone" but i ask you why did you bring down a civilian airliner in which you killed over 290 civilian passengers? if we defended, we defended our territory, our country, advise united states president in our region? why has the united states brought down a civilian airline airliner? >> chris: that's true and it was a terrible, terrible act and many years ago, but we are talking about hamas, we are talking but hezbollah, we are talking about firing missiles onto civilian areas. we are talking about blowing up people in civilian areas of israel. that's not terrorism? >> translator: you defend in israel, sir, the foundation of which is based upon attacking and usurping on the rights of others and on a daily basis has
targeted the people of palestine, lebanon, and most recently, even iraq as well as syria. there is no terrorism throughout the world that matches the activities of israel that has been seeking for the past 71 years, since its inception, since its founding, so those who fight for the freedom of their land and their homes are not terrorists. those are terrorists who render aid to isis. israel is the country that takes care of the injured isis fighters. and they make weapons available so isis other terrorists. >> chris: israel supports isis isis? >> translator: certainly, undoubtedly, to have any doubts? would you like to see the proof? you should visit israeli
hospitals and see the injured daesh, isis war fighters, how they are being taken care of. we should see the weapons captured from isis fighters and see that they are is really-made. the challenge is that sometimes american media outlets failed to reveal the truth to the american public and they only receive the news from one specific viewpoint or channel, if you will. so that's why the people of america are quite frankly not very well aware of the realities in our region. if the american people were to know that so many yemenis on a daily basis with their money and their weapon systems are being innocently killed and their lives taken away, they would not stay silent. >> chris: since president trump pulled out of the nuclear deal last year, iran has now taken steps to violate the agreement themselves. you have broken the limits on enriching uranium, on stockpiles
of enriched uranium, and now you're using advanced centrifuges. if you were a year away from a nuclear weapon when you signed the iran deal back in 2015, how much closer are you to a weapon today with the steps that you have taken? >> translator: well, the construct of your question, sir, is one that is based on prejudgment. first of all, the jcpoa -- if we were seeking nuclear weapons, we would not have signed on to the jcpoa. if we sought nuclear weapons, we would not have accepted additional protocols. >> chris: but you agree that you have -- you agree that you have taken -- >> translator: allow me to finish, please. mr. wallace, you are a veteran reporter. allow me -- but today i don't understand why in the middle of my responses you are not giving
me -- you're not allowing me to complete my responses. allow me to clarify one thing for everyone. allow me to clarify what we are saying. no country in the world would accept that the nonproliferation treaty and the additional protocols, and for someone to accuse them of seeking nuclear weapons, if someone seeks nuclear weapons, why would they go under the controls of the iaea? this is not correct. we are not seeking nuclear weapons. the countries that have killed japanese people with nuclear weapons and today has left the agreement previously signed with russia for medium-range missiles and nuclear missiles and against the npts, today building nuclear arsenals, today that country is america. iran has lived up to her
commitments and according to those commitments, we see that the ones who have broken the commitment is the united states of america, not iran. >> chris: have you made a calculation to wait until after the 2020 election and to negotiate, to wait and see if president trump is defeated? to believe that perhaps mr. mr. biden or another democratic president would be easier to negotiate with? >> translator: for us, it doesn't matter whether the united states president is a democrat or a republican. this is the purview in the prerogative of the united states of america and her people, of every american, whom they wish to choose. if we say that america should live up to her commitments. be the democrat or republican president, a national commitmen commitment, the commission of a country not based on the party
in control of the presidency, of the executive branch. and so it was the country, the nation that gave the commitment, so we want to see someone who will live up to these commitments, takes these commitments seriously. and it is us, the islamic republic of iran, whom today come as you mentioned in one of your questions, we have given the hope initiative for peace, meaning the hormuz peace initiative. the hormuz peace endeavor. therefore we seek peace. if that is why we have invited all countries in the region to come together so that we can reach peace and not allow the flames of war to continue to be
fanned. what makes the difference and is important for us is living up to one's international commitment. the commitment is something that was given by the government of the united states of america, so it really doesn't matter for us, our counterparts, which political party they come from. >> chris: mr. president, thank you so much for speaking with us. >> thank you. >> bret: chris wallace with the iranian president today. obviously an abundance of news today. earlier this afternoon i spoke with the u.n. with the turkish president, erdogan in a wide-ranging interview that at times turned fiery. ask him about u.s. and european officials insisting that iran was behind that attack in saudi arabia. >> translator: i don't think it would be the right thing to blame iran. we need to recognize that attacks of the scale come from several parts of yemen, but if we just place the entire burden on iran, it wouldn't be the
right way to go, because the evidence available does not necessarily point out to that fact. >> bret: obviously the u.s. believes it is iran, multiple officials have said that, but let's talk about sanctions. the u.s. is sanctioning iran very firmly. are you worried about running into penalties for violating u.s. sanctions on iran? >> translator: in my point of view, the world should not be such a world where only the powerful are the right ones. when i was listening to president trump this morning, that was the idea that i was trying to understand, the idea "i'm strong, powerful, so i'm the right one." that shouldn't be the case. and i for one know that sanctions have never solved anything. >> bret: a few days ago you hosted the leaders of russia and iran. would you consider those you're closest allies? >> translator: the region has very urgent problems to be settled. that's why these meetings are of crucial significance, so it doesn't depend on whether we are the closest allies with iran or
russia. we are not looking at that from the point of a strategic partnership. they are our neighbors and our relations steak back a long time, centuries ago, and iran is exactly the same and of course with iran, we have certain common values. >> bret: will have that complete interview with president erdogan tomorrow on "special report." there is other news today, here are some of the headlines. great britain's highest court has ruled prime minister boris johnson's decision to suspend parliament for five weeks in the crucial count on to the country foster best brexit deadline was illegal. at the speaker of the house of commons immediately announced parliament would resume business tomorrow morning. johnson is not ruling out another suspension. the trump administration is escalating its fight with california. it is accusing the state of failing to enforce the federal clean air act. if the of administration is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars in highway funds. president trump has ordered an end to waivers, allowing california to set its own vehicle emissions standards.
the state and 22 others are now suing. massachusetts governor carly baker is declaring a public health emergency and ordering a temporary ban on all vaping products in that state. it'd administration says 61 expected vaping-related illnesses have been reported to state officials, five cases have been reported to federal officials. at market today, stocks were down, the dow lost 142, the s&p finished off 25, the nasdaq plunged 19. the president just tweeted a reaction to the official impeachment inquiry. secretary of state pompeo received permission from the ukraine government to release the transcript of the telephone call i had with their president. they don't know either what the big deal is. a total witch hunt scam the democrats. we will get reaction from a panel on all of this when we come back. ♪ , frankly, you're missing out. uh...
the mobile app makes it easy to manage your policy, even way out here. your marshmallow's... get digital id cards, emergency roadside service, even file a... whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa! oops, that cheeky little thing got away from me. my bad. geico. it's easy to manage your policy whenever, wherever. can i trouble you for another marshmallow?
"fine. no one leaves the table "fine! we'll sleep here."." "it's the easiest, because it's the cheesiest" kraft. for the win win. and i don't add trup the years.s. but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life.
help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. ...and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com. if ylittle thingsate tcan be a big deal., that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. ♪
>> i'm announcing the house of representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. the president must be held accountable, no one is above the law. >> he it continues to obstruct congress and flout the law. donald trump will leave congress, in my view, no choice but to initiate impeachment. that would be a tragedy, but a tragedy of his own making. >> they are going to lose the election in the figure this is a thing to do. if she does that, they all say that's a positive for me from the election. >> bret: house speaker announcing a formal impeachment inquiry starting today and this is the politics shifted really in the past 24-48 hours. seven democrat signing onto an op-ed in "the washington post" seemed to uphold and defend the constitution, congress must determine whether the president wasn't he willing to use his power and withhold security
assistant funds to persuade a foreign country to assist him in an upcoming election. if these allegations are true, we believe these actions represent an impeachable offense. it goes on. worth noting that without a resolution voted on by the house, the actual authority, the official formal house inquiry, impeachment inquiry, is not active as far as subpoenas in a court of law and there is a difference between an inquiry and moving forward with impeachment proceedings. as we've been pointing out at the break in coverage all day. let's bring in our panel, bill mcgurn, mainstream colonist for "the wall street journal." leslie marshall, democratic strategist and former cia analyst buck sexton. it doesn't seem, bill, that formally things have changed much from where democrats were. >> no, i don't think it's changed at all. mrs. pelosi announced -- i think her words were "official impeachment inquiry" ," but what kind of an inquiry as this? official inquiry but just calling it that doesn't mean it. it's amazing that she hasn't
been pressed on that word because i am i understanding is it requires a vote to authorize committees to do this. this is a problem for two reasons. one, it's the same kind of fake impeachment because impeachment has a built-in accountability. you have to vote for it. and it's not congress beginning impeachment proceedings, it's mrs. pelosi authorizing them. the second one, as you point out, the courts look very differently on an oversight inquiry from an informal impeachment proceeding where they are entitled to a lot more information. so i think they're going to have a harder time and less they do have that boat but of course this is the one thing mrs. pelosi doesn't want, which is to make our members vote. >> bret: was take a listen to some of the other sounds on capitol hill today. >> i truly believe the time to begin impeachment proceedings against this president has come. >> we are going to find out what happened in the senate through a
process preestablished by the intelligence committee behind closed doors initially with the acting director of dni. >> simply releasing the transcript is not going to come close to ending the need of the american public and the congress to see what actually happened. >> bret: 's of the president saying, leslie, that is going to put up a transcript unredacted. the call between president trump and the ukrainian president. chuck schumer saying that's not good enough. >> i would disagree with them because that is the evidence he needs, so even if the present is extremely confident or extremely reckless and i think the democrats have actually jumped the gun on this because you need to have this evidence -- look at what happened with the mueller investigation, look what happened with this testimony and for them it wasn't a gain and now that we are in an election year, this is very different. remember that richard nixon and bill clinton had already been reelected when they were impeached. donald trump is not yet been reelected, so we are not only at a different time with a
different candidate in different voters, but they know what happens historically with clinton, his ratings went up, republicans lost seats in the house and the senate, newt gingrich resigned, not bill clinton, so speaker pelosi is wise to be cautious but she has always said that she needs that smoking gun, she needs the fact and she wants bipartisan support because otherwise she has had and adam schiff said you haven't impeachment in the house, and acquittal in in a sd and this could actually hurt democrats politically. >> bret: buck met >> the democrats seem confused right now. why are they doing this at this point in time? i think the timing of the most problematic aspect of this? the president says he's going to release the transcript now, why do this now? why not at least wait until that point? and i agree that as a procedural step is not that big of an issue, as a political step this is certainly signaling to the left wing base that they should be getting more of this in the future and i would just note that this is based on something -- a transcript that they have not seen, the conversation that was secondhand in the first place, they don't even know what's in the whistle-blower complaint, and
then i pretend but the real holdup here is there waiting for more evidence. usually wait for evidence before you bring charges. they taken a step here that indicates they believe whatever the reporting has been up to this point. i think they'll realize that if the transcript isn't as damning as democrats seem to be acting like it will be, then they will go back to the narrative work he should be impeached for x, y, or z region. it seems like it was politically based and not evidentiary and that's why they taken a step altogether. >> bret: we heard alexandria ocasio-cortez. she was asked about impeachment articles of impeachment, she said the emoluments clause was where they should go. that's not even what nancy pelosi is talking about. >> she also said, i think it was a week or so ago, she wants a vote because she wants republicans to be accountable if they let president trump off the hook, right? but that cuts two ways, right? the vote is a big deal. that's the way the system is supposed to work because the impeachment process when it's carried out properly has a real account ability. you want to impeach a president?
find, deliver the goods or pay the price for not doing it and once again this is just -- it's just amazing to me that the press doesn't say what you mean by the word "official" here? it's a joke. >> you said this -- you talk about politics and everybody talks about this being politically motivated. i know a lot of people are going to disagree with me but it's just they are in and white. if this was politically motivated, this hurts democrats because this could end up hurting the number one nominee for the democratic -- the democratic candidate, joe biden. this could end up hurting him more so if it is political, and i don't believe it's political -- but i don't believe it's political because, again, if it was just political and not saying look, we has a body, the house, have a constitutional responsibility to do this, even if it hurts the front runner. >> that's the point. they did not say that. mrs. pelosi. >> they seem to want to move on
from the aborted attempt to relitigate kavanaugh last week, that clearly was a flop and they were talking about impeaching him and now i think we can all see it as an inspector general report about fisa abuse, the democrats are not going to be happy with, so i think about also factors in. >> bret: let's also talk about the inspector general on the other side of the break. you have this inspector general of the intelligence community going up to capitol hill. he has said this was an urgent situation, the complaint, the whistle-blower, if you'll call him or her that, will also be in front of the house and senate intel committees. more on that and the politics of this on the other side of this break. ♪ to meet someone. this is jamie. you're going to be seeing a lot more of him now. -i'm not calling him "dad." -oh, n-no. -look, [sighs] i get it. some new guy comes in helping your mom bundle and save with progressive, but hey, we're all in this together. right, champ? -i'm getting more nuggets. -how about some carrots? you don't want to ruin your dinner. -you're not my dad!
gas-x. woi felt completely helpless.hed online. so no one needs to know you've got gas. my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. vo: take control of your online reputation. get your free reputation report card at reputationdefender.com. find out your online reputation today and let the experts help you repair it. woman: they were able to restore my good name. vo: visit reputationdefender.com or call 1-877-866-8555. ♪ go where my baby lives b[ growl ]olle♪s good boy. hey. hey.
acting director of national intelligence joseph maguire will appear in open session before the house select committee on intelligence thursday. and that testimony obviously will become very crucial. back with the panel, politically, leslie, joe biden has two poles that show him now trailing elizabeth warren. within the margin of error, but in iowa and new hampshire, a "des moines register" and monmouth pole. how does this affect him? >> we all know he doesn't have to win iowa to become the democratic -- >> bret: 's campaign has said -- >> to become the democratic nominee. it doesn't just change the landscape for joe biden and for the democrats, but it certainly the landscape, i believe, even more for bernie sanders because i think the burning or bust folks -- especially when you look at new hampshire, that's really bernie's estate. it borders vermont and vermont and new hampshire are like brother sister states.
i think elizabeth moore has not only shared some of his base but is taking it and i think we will see the lovefest between those two and the hubs will be gone and it's going to be a lot more attacks and everybody's going to start attacking joe biden, elizabeth warren, and then i think elizabeth warren is going to take off her white gloves and put on the boxing gloves. >> bret: bernie sanders was asked whether this all affects joe biden's chances and he said i will let you decide that, didn't answer it. meantime, "the daily beast" is reporting that ukraine is likely to reopen a probe of hunter biden and ukraine, according to sources saying the investigatio investigation, if they happen, which took place in the context of the new law signed by the ukrainian president just before his departure for the united nations general assembly in new york. we should point out the ukrainian president's meeting with president trump tomorrow, so that will be an interesting moment as well. >> this is where the bidens have a problem. he was paying hunter biden $50,000 a month at a time when his father was vice president and also -- policy and ukraine.
anybody looks at that would say at least it looks like an attempt or perhaps have a biden insurance policy. this is going to happen when the vice president is on the board. that may just be an appearance of an propriety issue but it still looks bad and they are going to have to litigate that when in the public now. i think it's rich for democrats who have spent endless months of times it seems over the last few years trying to investigate and reinvestigate and relitigate every aspect emoluments clause, thou they are saying what's corruption and ukraine. it is because that provide in a party, it doesn't mean that laws were broken, maybe we should see. >> bret: semiquickly this day, if you're sitting on the couch, what does it mean? >> for me it just means -- you go back to jerry nadler, he says if you're going to get on the impeachment probe, a year ago, this is like overturning election, we have to have bipartisan support, even from
trump supporter's, which they don't have. >> bret: thanks for inviting us into your home, that's it for this "special report" and special coverage, fair, balanced and unafraid as always, "the story" hosted by martha starts after a break. snacking can mean that pieces get stuck under mike's denture. but super poligrip gives him a tight seal. to help block out food particles. so he can enjoy the game. super poligrip.
they're america's bpursuing life-changing cures. in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar?
and the 12-hour pain-relieving strength of aleve. that dares to last into the morning. so you feel refreshed. aleve pm. there's a better choice. >> martha: this is a fox news alert. in moments, the white house will respond tonight here on "the story" for the very first time for the launch of a formal impeachment inquiry into the president of the united states. white house principal deputy press secretary standing by live in our studio. good evening, everybody, i martha maccallum and this is a big story tonight. nancy pelosi now going where she had not wanted to go all through the last two and a half years of the mueller investigation, pushing back against this idea, but she tonight made this explosive announcement just a while ago.