tv The Daily Briefing With Dana Perino FOX News September 25, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
that impeachment is the story. you know who will be overshadowed? the other presidential candidates because there's a laser focus on the house. >> again, no oxygen left in the room. thanks, howie. i'm harris. here's dana. >> dana: fox news alert. just minutes from now, president trump will be meeting with the president of the ukraine, the man on the other end of the phone call that speaker nancy pelosi says forced her to launch an impeachment inquiry. hello. i'm dana perino. this is "the daily briefing." it's coming hour after the white house released a transcript of their conversation. it shows president trump asked for a review of the biden family business dealings in the country but did not mention military aid as part of a quid pro quo. the president insisted earlier today he did nothing wrong. >> it's the single greatest
witch hunt in american history. probably in history. but in american history. it's a disgraceful thing. the letter was a great letter, meaning the letter revealing the call. that was done at the insistence of myself and other people that read it. it was a friendly letter. there was no pressure. the way you had that built up, that call, it was going to be the call from hell. turned out to be a nothing call. >> dana: a top democrat says the call looks like something out of organized crime. >> the president has now admitted the notes of this call and we don't even know if these are the complete notes of that call, indicate president of the united states shaking down a foreign leader, essentially undermining the national security of this country for a personal political gain and one that violates his oath of office. >> dana: we have fox team
coverage. mike emanuel has more on the impeachment push. ed henry joins me with analysis. first, it's catherine herridge. catherine, sum it up for us. what is in this transcript? >> dana, good afternoon. this is the transcript. mine is marked at this point. it outlines the 30-minute phone call. about ten minutes in, president trump has two asks for the ukrainian president. one has to do with a cyber security firm and the other is a request to look into the allegations against joe biden and his son. the first key section reads "there's a lot of talk about biden's son, that biden stopped the prosecution and people want to find out about it. so whatever you can do with the attorney general will be great. biden bragged about stopping the prosecution. sounds horrible to me." the president continues, i will have mr. guliani give you a call and i'll also have attorney general barr call and we'll get to the bottom of it.
i'm sure you will figure it out." what we found in the transcript, there's eight references by the president to his personal attorney, rudy guliani, who has been doing investigating in ukraine on these issues and also attorney general william barr, the justice department was firm with reporters saying that mr. barr did not learn about this conversation until weeks after the fact and they also said that mr. barr had never been asked by the president to investigate joe biden on his son or to call the ukraine to follow up on this conversation, dana. >> dana: what else have -- have you learned anything about the whistle-blower, who he or she may be? >> justice department officials told reporters that there were conversations among white house officials, and this information was relayed to the whistle-blower. that is the foundational or a foundational piece of the complaint. according to the office of legal counsel memo, which was the justice department's assessment of these issues and whether
there was some kind of criminal investigation. what they said is that the whistle-blower had a political bias. that reads, although the icig, the inspector general for the intelligence community's preliminary review found some indications of a political bias on the part of complainant, the whistle-blower in favor of a rival political candy, the icig said the complainants allegations nonetheless appeared credible. so here's what has happens next. we'll have the acting director of national intelligence, the top intelligence official, up here on capitol hill tomorrow for public testimony. the reason joe maguire matters is because he made the call not to share the information and the full report of the whistle-blower with congress. so they want to drill down on that. the other issue i would say on this particular matter is the fundamental question really to
me at this point is why wasn't the inspector general in the intelligence community deciding to ring the bell on this complain when they did not have access to the transcript and the whistle-blower did not have first hand knowledge of the phone call? you know these i.g.s get hundreds of complaints from individuals who have documents or have first-hand knowledge of what they allege to be corrupt activity. so what was it that made the icig ring the bell and escalate this matter so it's gotten to the pipeline with that very tight timeline that we've seen play out over the last month. >> dana: as you are always able to do, you zero in on what is the question that needs to be answered. that's the one. we don't have the answer yet. we're looking for it. >> we'll get it. >> dana: now for reaction on capitol hill, mike emanuel. mike, what is it like up there now? >> dana, good afternoon to you. it's clear that the chairs of these various house committees are not buying what they have read today. take a look at this. "the transcript is an
unambiguous shocking damming of the presidency for a personal game. a co chair of the house progressive caucus offered this reaction. >> this has never been about the transcript. this is about the president admitting publicly that he raised these issues to a foreign power. he withheld aid that congress had appropriated and he asked that foreign power to manufacture evidence against his political opponent. >> on the other side of the capitol, the republican chairman of the senate judiciary committee says democrats oversold this transcript phone call. >> the president said some things that i don't like. but the point of the matter is, the president's actions in this phone call is not remotely subject to articles of
impeachment. he did nothing wrong under the law or otherwise. >> the top republican on house judiciary said this could damage a president's ability to conduct foreign policy. >> this is a sad day in america when another world leader has to worry if i talk to the president, can anybody just complain to the president and the speaker, go off and release a -- get a transcript. this is something we don't need to have happen. the president has done what's right here. that's what needs to be emphasized. >> things are so polarized, the two parties cannot agree on what is in the text of that transcript. >> dana: thanks. let's bring in ed henry. you had breaking news on fox at night. now you're here. tell me a little bit about what catherine herridge said. she used that image of ringing the bell. nancy pelosi rang a bell yesterday and you can't unring it. >> what is shocking is, you have adam schiff saying this is like
organized crime. this is the same adam schiff that spent two years saying he had evidence, not allegations, evidence of collusion between the president and russia. that didn't out to be true. how do you build an impeachment on this supposition? >> dana: why did they move forward with nancy pelosi's dramatic announcement at 5:00 p.m. yesterday before having read the transcript of a call -- >> that's what is shocking. kim strossel tweeted that the democrats moved forward on impeachment based on a whistle-blower complaint they had not seen, based on a phone call that the democrats had not seen yesterday. i would go a step further. the whistle-blower himself or herself didn't see the call either. when they filed that complaint as we learned, the whistle-blower didn't have first hand knowledge of what the president did wrong. so let's figure that one out. and then i would go beyond that, what catherine herridge was reporting. that's what i talked about last
night on the political bias point. so the whistle-blower we're told by the inspector general has some kind of political buys against the president and is supportive of another candidate in 2020. we don't know if it's joe biden or somebody else. also went on to say that there was credibility to the allegations against the president. here's my point. i got new information too that this was idea there was credibility to the allegations is not a lot. it's a base level of credibility. we looked at it. the whistle-blower works in the intelligence community. my point being, it doesn't prove the allegations that they had are true. this is a bit of exaggeration. >> dana: so the consequences are big. >> yes. >> dana: first, we have senator chuck schumer. watch. >> because i know accusations of partisanship are already being written, this inquiry was not taken up for partisan reasons.
it does not prejudge an outcome. our framers in their wisdom assigned to one chamber of commerce, the right to accuse and to the other, the right to judge. >> dana: now, ed, listen to. trump about the legislative agenda and options going forward. >> he's wasting their time on a -- let's use the words they used to use a lot. a manufactured crisis. remember what they came up with the word nobody heard of? every media group in the country said the same thing the same day. nobody heard of the work in relation to what they were talking about. they said it was a manufactured crisis. okay? they came up with a manufactured crisis. i don't know whether or not they're going to have time to do anything deals. we were working on guns. gun safety. they don't even -- all they're talking about is nonsense. >> dana: the only thing they might get done are the things
they have to. the spending. >> there's people on the left that say i don't like the president these folks are saying but we're calling up to the senate finding out where if gun control is. we're getting briefings on impeachment. we're not doing that anymore. the usmca is probably shelved. there's real world consequences. by the way, if the democrats believe in a principled they should impeach the president, got for it. if the gun control gets shelved, fine. for chuck schumer to say this is not partisan, come on. as a journalist, this may not be the president's fine's hour. but the transcript is not his finest hour. that should be said. to say it leads to high crimes and misdemeanors is another threshold that will be very hard for the democrats. >> dana: can i read to you from a former presidential candidate? this is hillary clinton tweeting
this morning. she weighed in. >> look, she's been saying variations of this for a couple years now. hasn't moved on from the last election. those tweets feed in the president's narrative that a lot of democrats are upset about the last election and not looking to the next one. lindsey graham said something interesting on "hannity." nancy pelosi was holding back. then she jumped ahead without the transcript: why? political pressure from aoc on the left. and a lindsey graham saying, him, not me, that nancy pelosi has made the political calculation that she can't beat the president at the ballot box. the democratic field is too weak. elizabeth warren is too far
left. but graham saying this is saying they can't beat them at the ballot box and they want to take him out of the office. there's not enough senate votes to remove him today. >> dana: and you remember when it backfired on republicans and clinton. it was the same time of year that impeachment articles were put forward in september and had it go up through christmas. is that what you see happening? >> again, on a principle basis, democrats think they need to remove this president, go for it. i see this playing out quickly in the days ahead, number 1. number 2, think about where the democrats were almost a year ago. right? they were running for the mid-terms on the idea that they would focus on healthcare, jobs, all of these -- >> dana: infrastructure. that was my favorite. >> the president said he was going to do that and didn't follow-through. here's my point. nancy pelosi and everyone else in the democratic party said
we're running on these kitchen table deals. day 1, representative talib that let the cat out of the bag. let's impeach the blank. >> dana: you think the american people have the appetite for this? >> it's clear that they don't from the polls. so nancy pelosi made a calculation yesterday that maybe this transcript would be so inflammatory that it would change everything. >> dana: doesn't seem like you would go out on a limb without seeing it first. she had been so cautious up till then. >> you're right. it's odd. think about what i said about adam schiff and others. they went ahead of the facts many time. >> dana: thanks, ed. we appreciate it. stay with us, actually. let's bring in guy benson, penny lee and annie mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney. annie, first, let's talk to you. on the point that ed was making, does it reach this threshold of a high crime and misdemeanor by the reading of this transcript?
>> no, i don't think so, dana. one of the interesting things about this is there's a lot of feeling around even to try to articulate high crimes and misdemeanors. i think that's relevant because if you think about the modern history of the kinds of investigations that have led to at least the preliminary stages of impeachment, i'm thinking about nixon and water gate, iran contra, clinton and lewinsky, they were all triggered by either actual felony violations of law or allegations of concrete abuses of power that were egregious. everybody knew what they were investigating when they launched. whereas here, you don't really get that. you know, to ed's other point, which i thought was very interesting, i really don't think pelosi -- when the rubber
meets the road, i don't think she did much of anything yesterday. before she spoke, we had already heard from jerry nadler, the chairman of the judiciary committee, that they were doing an impeachment inquiry. so she has now said in an ipsy kind of way on behalf of the house what nadler said on behalf of his committee also without any even vote from the committee much less the house. they're letting the standing committees do the work. they haven't convened a specific impeachment committee. i just don't really see what is different today than before she spoke and -- >> dana: let me try to get penny on this. i do think something is different. technically all that is true. there's nothing changed. but penny, the speaker, when she has a 5:00 p.m. announcement, there's a teleprompter and it has all the bells and whistles of a major announcement, she
fundamentally changed the conversation to we're doing impeachment. it was different from we're going the stave this off and tap the brakes. >> i think it's important to also say what we're doing. it's not impeachment. she's opening and has called for an impeachment investigation or an inquiry. so that is much different than calling for the impeachment of a president. it's important that we clarify what we're actually saying. she felt she had an obligation that there was information that was not forthcoming in which congress is legally an constitutionally allowed to receive that they haven't been able to get. >> dana: you think she should have waited to make that announcement until she saw the transcript? >> it goes beyond the transcript. there's the whistle-blower complaint -- >> dana: they didn't see that either. >> she was not willing to turn it over. they asked for it and certain documents. they haven't been able to have
it afforded to them. they felt this was the process in which would best allow the facts to become the facts. >> dana: so let me -- let me get your take on this, guy. here's why i find this a little bit hard to take. okay? so they hadn't seen the transcript. they don't want anything to look different but made everything different last night before having done all of that. i don't see how they unring that bell. now have their far left saying we have to do something. they have constituents agenda. then they get the transcript. maybe publicly they'll say this is enough to go forward with impeachment. privately they say we should have waited. i don't know how they can get away on a process point. no, it's not really the case. we don't want to do impeachment when yesterday to me was very different. >> now they're doing the whip counts of who supports
impeachment. now do they support the inquiry that could lead to impeachment or support impeachment? that is a distinction. i'm not sure many voters will make it. especially when you have the giant press conference, the big event under the lights like we saw from the speaker of the house. that was the big seat change. pelosi had been opposed to the i word for many months and probably smartly so given the evidence or lack there of after the russia saga. now there's a new controversy. >> dana: we're going to pause to let our fox stations join us for this news. >> he has a great reputation. >> dana: fox news coverage of the president's meeting with the president of ukraine. i'm dana perino. let's listen. >> one of the primary reasons he got elected is his reputation is
sterling. it's an honor to be with you. we spoke a couple times, as you probably remember. they'd like to hear every word and we gave them every single word. they said what about today? i think the press would like to say, we have lots of witnesses if you'd like to have it. but the country of -- our country is doing phenomenally well. we have the best economy we've ever had. we have the best employment numbers we've ever had. we have now almost 160 million people working, which is more than we've ever had. so we're doing very well in every respect. i have a feeling that your country is going to do fantastically well. whatever we can do. >> thank you very much, mr. president. thank you very much. my pleasure to be here. it's better to be here than home. [laughter] mr. president, thank you very
much. i'm not -- i know that you never been in ukraine. >> that's right. >> you're predecessor also, how do you say in english, didn't find time. so can you give me your word that will you come to our great country? >> i'm going to try. i know a lot of people -- i will say this. i know a lot of people from ukraine. they're great people. i own something called the miss universe pageants years ago. sold it to img. when i ran for president, i thought maybe it wouldn't be the greatest thing to own the miss universe and miss usa pageant. it's a great thing. we had a winner from ukraine. we've really had -- we got to know the country very well in different ways. it's a country that i think with tremendous potential. >> i know it. i'm from this country. >> right. [laughter] >> i want to thank you for your
invitation to washington. you invited me. but i think -- i'm sorry, but i think you forgot to tell me the date. but i think in the near future. >> we'll tell you the date. >> they know before us. i want to thank you especially, mr. president, to u.s.a., to your government. like i said, i know many people, many faces like the second family after my ukraine. we know each other. thank you for your support, especially now when we have two really wars in ukraine. the first is with corruption. but we'll fight -- we'll be winner in this fight i'm sure. and the priority, my priority, to stop the war and to get back
our territories, crimea. thank you for your support in this case. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. president. if you remember, you lost crimea in a different administration, not during the trump administration. >> so you have a chance to help us. >> that's right. that was during the obama administration that you lost crimea. i didn't think it was something that you should have, but that was done a long time ago. i think it was handled poorly. but it's just one of those things. one of the elements that yes discussed is the united states helps ukraine. other countries should help ukraine much more than they're doing, germany, france, the european nations should help you more. i think maybe together we'll work on that they have to feel guilty about that. they're not doing what they should be doing. you're very important to the european union and very important strategically. they should spend more in helping ukraine.
they know that also. they actually tell me that. but they don't seem to produce. so i'm sure you'll talk to them and i'll certainly be talking to them. >> thank you very much, mr. president. you know, now we need -- i want to tell you that we now -- i'm sorry. we don't need help. we need support. we thank everybody, thank all of the european countries that help us. also want to have more, more but -- on defense. so together america and e.u., all together, we can stop the war. you know, we already -- we just want to tell that we remember that we are the biggest country in europe. we want to be the richest one.
>> you know, you have great people in ukraine and very talented people. great manufacturing. in terms of some of the things they do. we're doing trading already. but we should be doing more trading with ukraine. you have very talented people. they make great things. they're at the top of the line really. the other thing, i've heard you have over the last fairly short period of time, you've made progress with russia. i hear a lot of progress has been made. keep it going. it would be nice to end that whole disaster. >> i want to tell you that relationship with russia, i -- have to know, i want the world to know that now we have the new team. the new government. so now we have 74 new laws that
help for our new reforms. land reform. the law about concessions. we reload that general for security. we launched the terrorist secretary. an anti corruption court. we launch the anti-corruption court. it began to work on september 5. it was after five days, we had the new government. so we are ready. we want to show that we just come. if somebody -- if you want to help us, so just let do business cases. we have many, we are ready.
>> and stop corruption in ukraine. that will really make you great. that will make you great personally and also be so tremendous for your nation in terms of what you want to do and where you want to take it. thank you very much. it's a great honor. >> thank you very much. >> have you felt any pressure from president trump to investigate joe biden and hunter biden? >> i think you read everything. so i think you read texts. i'm sorry. i don't want to be involved to democratic -- elections of u.s.a. no, sure. i think good phone call. it was normal. we spoke about many things. so i think you read, nobody push
me. yes. >> in other words, no pressure. >> president trump -- >> there was no pressure. you know -- by the way, you know there was no pressure. all you have to do is see it, what went on on the call. you know that. you could ask the question and i appreciate the answer. go ahead. >> would you say the president needs to investigate joe biden -- >> this was not his fault. he wasn't there. he's been here recently. whatever he can do in terms of corruption because the corruption is massive. now, when biden's son walks away with millions of dollars from ukraine, he knows nothing and they're paying him millions, that's corruption. when biden's son walks out of china with $1.5 billion in a fund and the biggest funds in the world can't get money out of china and he's there for one quick meeting and he flies in on air force 2, that's a horrible thing. it's a horrible thing. but i'm going far beyond that.
i know the president and i've read a lot about ukraine. i'm read a lot about a lot of countries. he wants to stop corruption. he was elected number 1 on the basis of stopping corruption, which has flagrant ee eed -- pd ukraine. >> mr. president, why do you think it's appropriate for your personal attorney to get involved in government -- >> you'd have to ask rudy. i'll tell you this. rudy is looking to also find out where the phony witch hunt started, how it started. a russian witch hunt that turned out to be 2 1/2 years of phony nonsense. rudy guliani is a great lawyer. he was a great mayor. he's highly respected. i've watched the passion he's had on television the last few days. it's incredible the way he's done. he wants to find out where did this russian witch hunt that you people really help perpetrate,
where did it start. how come it started? it was nonsense, a hoax, a total hoax, a media hoax and a democrat hoax. where did it start? rudy has the right to find out where it started. other people are looking at it to, where did it all come from, the enablers. it was out of thin air. i think he has a very strong right to do it. he's a good lawyer. he knows what he's doing and it's very important. >> do you believe that the e-mails from hillary clinton, you believe they're in the ukraine? >> i think they could be. the 30,000 that she deleted? >> yes. >> that was a nice question. i like that question. frankly, i think that one of the great crimes committed is hillary clinton deleting 33,000 e-mails after congress sends her a subpoena. think of that. you can't even do that in a civil case. you can't get rid of evidence like that. she deleted 33,000 e-mails
after, not before, after receiving the subpoena from the u.s. congress. i mean, i have never heard -- she's done far worse than that, although i don't know how much worse it can be. there's many other things that she did that were wrong. that's so obvious. she gets a subpoena from the united states congress. she deletes them. then she said, as i remember it, that oh, well, they had to do with the wedding and yoga. she does a lot of yoga, right? they had 33,000 e-mails about the wedding of her daughter and yoga. i don't think so. how she got away with that one is just -- it's one of many. it's corrupt government. because we have corruption also. when you see what happened with hillary clinton, when you see what happened with comey and mccabe and all of these people. we have a lot of things going on here, too. hopefully it will be found out soon. i think that a lot of progress has been made. a lot of progress has been made.
>> can you assure the work low pressure continue in the future? >> we work with ukraine in the money. when i said work, i mean money. we put up a lot of money. i put up anti-tank busters. president obama was sending you pillows and sheets. i gave you anti-tank busters. a lot of people didn't want to do that. i did it. i hope that russia, i believe that president putin would like to do something. i hope that you and president putin get together and can solve your problem. that would be a tremendous achievement. i know you're trying to do that. >> you said that he was looking into joe biden, would ask your prosecutor to look into the matter. have you -- >> no, i haven't. i think that -- i think that somebody -- if you look at what he did, it's so bad, with his son, he goes to china and walks away with $1.5 billion? he goes to ukraine and walks
away with $50,000 a month and a lot of money in addition to that? the whole thing with a prosecutor in ukraine? he's on tape. this isn't like maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. he's on tape doing this. i saw this awhile ago. i looked at it and i said that's incredible. i've never seen anything like that. either he's dumb or he thought he was in a room full of really good friends. or maybe it's a combination of both in his case. >> i'm in that -- we have independent country and independent general security. i can't push any one. that's a good question. that's the answer. i didn't call family, the general security, i didn't ask him or push him. >> you feel obligated to fulfill your promises to president trump? >> obligated to do what?
with president zelensky of ukraine. the president of ukraine is right now taking a question from his country's home press. so he's speaking his language. they will have an interpreter now. >> we have a new general in the ukraine, a highly professional man with a western education. he's free to investigate anything. while we have many more issues to care about and tackle. we have corruption cases as the president trump mentioned about. so we know what to do and we know where to go, what to tackle. >> president zelensky -- >> did you ask house speaker about the impeachment? >> not at all. she's lost her way. she's been taken over by the radical left. she may be red call left
herself. she's really host her way. i spoke to her about guns. she didn't know what i was talking about. i'll tell you what, nancy pelosi is not interested in guns and gun protection and gun safety. all she's thinking about is -- she's been taken over by the radical left, the whole democratic party. you take a look what is happening in the media today. the whole party is taken over by the left. thank you very much. my phone numbers have gone up. i don't want it to go up for this reason. when they look and when you see what is happening, people are angry at democrats, they're really angry at the democratic party. things like -- as an example, drug pricing, getting drugs down. things like gun safety, infrastructure. the democrats can't talk about that. they've been taken over by a radical group of people and nancy pelosi as far as i'm concerned unfortunately she's no longer the speaker of the house. thank you very much.
thank you very much. >> dana: that was the president of the ukraine meeting with our president, president trump in new york. this is just hours after the president and the white house released the transcript of a call that the two of them had over the summer. it's the subject of much conversation. we're glad to bring that to you this afternoon. please stay tuned to fox news channel and your local station for continuing coverage. i'm dana perino in new york. john roberts is in new york city as well at the same hotel where the president just met with the ukraine's president. the president covered a lot of ground. i'd love to get your take on what you heard. basically i took away is nobody was pushed, there was no pressure. they want to cooperate on corruption.
the ukrainian president seemed very comfortable in the room. >> yeah, he seemed very comfortable with the conversation he had on july 2 five. we should point out, too, that was the second conversation that the two leaders had. that was after the elections. the president talked to zelensky after he won the presidential election. now they're beginning to bubble up calls for that transcript of that first phone call to be released. what i thought was interesting, i took away the same thing that you did. president zelensky and president trump agreed there was no pressure on zelensky to conduct any kind of investigation. president zelensky says that he is investigating corruption in his country because he wants to get out of the long history of corruption that ukraine has become infamous for. president trump also defending rudy guliani's role in going to speak with ukrainian officials in madrid earlier this year. saying he's investigating the
genesis of the election interference in 2016 on behalf of hillary clinton that came out of ukraine. the president said that rudy guliani is absolutely allowed to investigate something like that. what the problem for the president though remains, whether or not he can be seen as trading off military support, other support for the ukraine for this idea of investigating joe biden's son. initially we had heard yesterday that there were potential ties between the president putting a hold on some $400 million in aid to ukraine unless zelensky undertook some sort of investigation. according to the transcript, that conversation never happened. there was some mention of aid to ukraine and javelin missiles. we're told they were not included in the $250 million in military aid that the president had put a hold on. now democrats are going down this road that the president was seeking dirt on a political
rival from ukraine. that is going to form the basis of the impeachment investigation the house democrats are undertaking. president trump said he was within his bounds to send rudy guliani to meet are ukrainian officials in madrid to try to get to what happened with hillary clinton in the election. >> dana: the president was very forceful talking about the origins of the russia hoax, he blames the media. does he believe -- what do you know about the white house's thinking about what they think is happening or happened in ukraine back then? >> well, they believe the government that was in place in ukraine back then was meddling in the 2016 election in order to try to help hillary clinton. the president mentioned in the conversation that we got the transcript of with president zelensky on july 25, the u.s.
i.t. security company crowd strike, which did an investigation of the dnc server. the president said something about the server being in ukraine. we don't know, was that the server that hacked the dnc or is that the dnc servers are now there or are the e-mails from hillary clinton that were allegedly deleted in ukraine, that that part of it is muddy. the president started off the conversation with zelensky back on the 25th asking for him to investigate this whole business involving crowd strike, which would be a reference to the 2016 election. it's after that it starts to divert to hunter biden and a prosecutor that was looking into burisma holdings, which was the natural gas company that hunter biden was on the board of. they let the oligarchs skate, not prosecuting the right people. so the united states and other
countries wanted him out. that's when joe biden went to ukraine and said we're going to withhold $1.2 billion in loan guarantees until he was fired. the president referenced shokin would referencing him by name in that call. zelensky a suring the president the new general council will investigate all of this stuff that the president has asked him to look into. >> dana: john roberts with the president. thanks very much. let's bring in alex, johanna and andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney and fox news contributor. i'm told we have a new statement from joe biden, the former vice president. it says this.
>> dana: andy mccarthy, can i go to you on two things? first of all, joe biden certainly figuring out a way. he thinks in my mind reading that statement that he just put out, he has to fight fire with fire. the president just now was basically laying it all out there saying i want to know everything. joe biden now basically says -- sounds like he's for impeachment when he says hold the president accountable. your thoughts on that. >> yeah, i think that what he's saying, dana, doesn't square with what we're seeing in transcripts. for example, the last bit about, you know, russia, the transcript has zelensky thanking trump for the extraordinary assistance to
the united states under the trump administration is giving to ukraine in connection with the russian federation and favorably compares it to what they're getting from germany and france. and on this idea of whether trump, the quid pro quo here has helped me with my personal political agenda by making a case on biden, which would help my campaign, i think if you read this transcript, what he's asking for help hahn is the justice department's investigation into the origins of the trump russia investigation, which is an investigation democrats don't like. they would like to portray it as simply a political exercise. it's a legitimate investigation by the united states justice department. >> dana: to that point, andy, can you clarify in your mind, when the president was talking about the e-mails in ukraine from hillary clinton, was he
talking a about the server or -- what do you understand about that? >> this is like one of the most garbled parts of the conversation. because in short order, the president refers to crowd strike, he says that i guess you have one of your wealthy people and then -- >> dana: we have that. let me pull that up for people. i'll read it, this is from the transcript. this is president trump speaking; "i would like you to do us a favor because our country knows a lot about you crane. i want you to find out what about with this situation. the server they say ukraine has it." what do you take that to mean? >> i'm not sure if he's -- i can't imagine he's talking about the clinton e-mail server because the fbi has that. as far as the dnc server, i can't think of any reason why
ukraine would have that unless it's a weird illusion to hacking. it's hard to make out what that means. seems to me when the press was just asking the president questions when they asked if he thought that ukraine had hillary clinton's e-mails, that that must have been a question that was spawned by this part of the transcript and the illusion to the server. >> dana: stands by. i want to bring in alex and johanna here. i want to -- pull up the sound bite 41. this is david axelrod, famous political adviser to president obama talking about the issue of impeachments and democrats now. watch. >> i think there's great risks here. nobody knows how this is going to play out. you could end up in fact invigorating the president's chances. you could end up losing many democrats in the house if people react poorly to this. you could end up with a president re-elected and
unbridled in his power. that's i'm sure what nancy pelosi has been mulling over for months and months and months. >> dana: that changed yesterday. now listen to karl rove, the adviser to president george w. bush. >> the democrats have put themselves in a place. think about this. this is going to hurt joe biden badly. because we're going to be talking and ukraine and the idea of hunter biden being hired by a moscow leaning oligarch to demonstrate that he had juice with the united states. >> dana: alex? >> i agree with david and karl in those clips. so far this is bad for democrats. they have clearly gotten ahead of the facts here. they don't know the facts and rushing to impeachment. it's bad for joe biden. now we'll have a deep dive on how his family profited for him being in office. it's bad for donald trump. i don't think what he said in that call was impeachable. people say it looks improper but right now the only person that comes out looking good in this
is the president of the ukraine what we just saw with the president who said, i didn't feel any pressure. did a huge favor to for the president of the united states there. so i think now, a, he's not going to have problems getting future aid from the trump administration and trump owes him there. it's hard for the democrats to go after him if the president of the ukraine said he didn't feel any pressure. >> dana: he's not a career politician. he was in television before. now, he might be the biggest winning. that's a great job. not exactly what the press office does. you go ahead. you look ahead. i want you to look back with me yesterday. when nancy pelosi at 5:00 p.m. comes to the podium, teleprompter, flags in the background, big statement to announce they're going to do an impeachment inquiry without getting the whistle-blower report or the transcript. you think they might have
buyer's remorse this morning? >> no. you and i were involved in these bilats and all of these statements. you have an official look that co notes something, right? i think that it was important for her to display the gravitas by which she made this decision. because she's making it because she's a patriot and not because of her party. that is going to be the continuation of what the democrats are talking about. because if you look at this call, you look at it notice as a republican or a democrat, you look at someone saying we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we're ready -- we want to buy more javelins from the united states for defense purposes and then you hear a president say i would like you to do us a favor though. and then go into series of conspiracy theories that have not been proven with any agency in the u.s. government and then have the ukraine president say can you give us more information? >> dana: we've got that.
>> you know, if you're just looking at it through a nonpartisan lens, do you want a democrat to be going to a foreign leader with their personal attorney and saying that the attorney general is going to be there and saying, okay, we want you to cooperate and give us the dirt without going through a process and the united states of america -- >> dana: alex, johanna and andy will stick around. joining us from california is congressman khan and sander's national campaign co-chair. you, sir, were for an impeachment proceeding about a month ago. what has changed in the last 24 hours since nancy pelosi made this announcement in your mind? do you have more members coming on board? >> i think you have a lot of the national security democrats, democrats that have won trump districts coming on board for an inquiry. the reason is they're concerned about our national security. dana, president george w. bush would never have done this against john kerry.
george herbert walker bush wouldn't have done this against bill clinton. ronald reagan wouldn't have done this against walter mondale. this is not partisan. this is why we have the president of the united states seeking information about a political rival from a foreign government. >> dana: when you saw the transcript today, did you think that it rose to the level of going for impeachment? that is the straw that broke the camel's back? >> i think this is the most serious allegation against the president. it goes to national security. you have a senator romney saying he was deeply troubled, deeply concerned about the transcript. we need to have an investigation that gets all the facts out there. we ought to have the whistle-blower's complaint go to congress. the speaker conveyed that to the president just make the complaint public or at least get the complain to the intelligence committee so we can have the facts, so we can protect our democracy. >> dana: can i ask you one last
question. we're in the president of a presidential campaign. the democrats are in the middle of a primary. joe biden involved, being at the top of the pack now. one of the attributes being electability. do you think any questions now about biden's electability in the light of this could change the dynamics in the 2020 race and perhaps help someone like bernie sanders that you co-chair the campaign? >> i don't. i think bernie sanders is going to win because he has the best vision for working class americans, working families. i don't think the attack by donald trump will turn off democrats. if anything, it could bring you sympathy with democrats. so i don't think this is going to hurt the vice president. >> thanks so much. >> thank you. >> dana: and let's bring in sol wisenberg, a fox news contributor and neil clinter
that worked on the impeachment of clinton. wonderful to have you here. maybe i should start with you, sol, to get your take if this goes to high crimes and misdemeanors? >> i don't think it does at all. shows very poor judgment on behalf of the president in a number of ways but not everything an icky president does, not every improper thing a president does rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. i don't think it's close, dana. >> dana: neil, when you look at this, how do you see it differently? especially when you have democrats that said we, the law says that we should get the whistle-blower report. they don't have that at the moment. we'll have testimony tomorrow from dni. do you think that that is an important piece of this? >> i i do think it's an important piece. it demonstrates why the house democrats have been driven to impeachment. another brick in the wall of the
case for impeaching president trump. it's not the only thing. he attempted to collude with russia. he certainly obstructed justice and flops the law left and right like his tax returns. couldn't be clearer. now he's -- now the administration is required to turn over this whistle-blower report and they're stone walling again. so the democrats have been driven to impeachment as their only remedy. >> dana: i want to get to that in terms of the timing. how do you react to former speaker gingrich on "fox and friends" talking about the differences between president trump and president clinton. watch. >> the case with clinton, he committed a felony in a case involving sexual predator against an employee. if that happened today, people would be going crazy. that's not the case here.
>> sol, any reaction to that? >> it certainly is true that president clinton without question criminally obstructed justice based on his testimony in a civil rights lawsuit. whether or not that is impeachable is a different question. you don't have to commit a crime to have an impeachable offense. it's clear from the history of that clause. if you look at what the framers have said about it, which is very little and look at our history, it's ridiculous to think that any of the things that we've seen so far, even put together rise to the level of impeachment. 8 times 0 is still 0. i'm not saying this is unimportant. it does not rise to that level. i think it's a very serious miscalculation. i agree with andy who said yesterday and others that have pointed this out, the speaker really -- all she's done is said what we've been doing all along is an impeachment. i'm calling it an impeachment
inquiry. nothing has changed. >> dana: neil, how about the attorney general's name being brought up on the phone call? >> it demonstrates how the attorney general is acting as the president's personal lawyer, not as the attorney general of the united states, which is what his job is and has been historically. that is certainly how trump thinks of him as his personal lawyer -- >> dana: he said he's had no contact with the ukraine, et cetera. >> they said that. he has had no contract -- >> i didn't interrupt you, sir. >> i'm sorry. go ahead. >> they have denied it. all they have is evolved denial. we haven't seen any investigation or phone records or anything to verify that. i'm personally inclined to believe him but it's worth investigating. it will emblematic of how the president thinks about the attorney general. >> dana: thanks. we're running out of time here.
let's bring our panel back. andy, i want to ask you about this question of the attorney general barr being brought up in a conversation. there were conversations this morning amongst democrats saying he should have to recuse himself from all of these matters now because his name was brought up on this call. your thoughts? >> i think it's absurd. the fact that his name gets brought up in a conversation that he doesn't participate in and is not involved in is no basis -- not even an accusation that he has an interest in it or wrong doing in it. it's not a basis for recusal. what it does go to is the fact that he is running an investigation, which is what trump basically asked zelensky for help in. the government's investigation. not trump's campaign. the justice department investigation into the origins of the trump russia
investigation. and i think that's a big difference from what we heard yesterday, which was this was strictly a quid pro quo about trump's political interests. >> dana: in the interest of talking about things that will never go away, this is a question of trust. if you can pull up number 40. this is about trust in the transcript. is it accurate? there's going to be a whole conversation surrounding this. take a listen. >> we still don't have the complaint. this is again bill barr's justice department trying to put out a misleading spin, in this case in the form of the department's opinion. >> it's never about the transcript. it's about the president admitting publicly that he raised these issues to a foreign power, he withheld aid that congress had appropriated and he asked that foreign power to manufacture evidence against his political opponent. >> this is a white house that
has false filed information from showing a doctored hurricane man to promote ago video that an outside group alters of a cnn recorder. so who knows if the transcript will be complete. >> i can't imagine it being very thorough. the other thing, i don't expect it to be a direct transcription of everything said on the call. >> dana: we have about 30 second. joanna? >> i think the transcript is helpful. it shows that he it shows up that he brought his political opponent and his personal attorney. i think barr should be very important to the investigation because of the fact that he wasn't involved in this is troubling. he should be involved. it shouldn't be the personal attorney of the president. >> the factor the matter is there's no smoking gun in the transcript. democrats decided to impeach the president a long time ago. once the story came out, they pulled the trigger they are searching for the facts. >> dana: do you think they will go forward?
>> they have to get all the information. they should have the ambassador come testify. >> dana: the train is about to run into shepard's show. i'm dana perino. here is shep. >> shepard: we begin with breaking news as we wait to hear from president trump minutes from now we are told on a day that could shape the rest of his presidency in the course of the nation. this morning transcript of a phone call released by the white house clearly shows president trump as a foreign leader, the ukrainian president, to do him a favor and investigate his political rival, joe biden, head of the 2020 presidential election. days before asking for the favor, president trump froze hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid for ukraine. we just saw president trump and the ukrainian president meet face-to-face amid the fallout and face questions from reporters.