tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News September 29, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
eastern. but we're back if one hour. we hope you can joins us then. paul. my call was perfect. the president yesterday of ukraine said there was no pressure put on him whatsoever, none whatsoever. and he said it loud and clear for the press. what these guys are doing, democrats are doing to this country is a disgrace. and it shouldn't be allowed. paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul giv gig got. president trump lashing out at democrats, as they launch a formal impeachment probe. the allegations were laid out in a whistleblower complaint made public this week, claiming that president trump encouraged the president of ukraine to
investigate political rival joe biden in a july 25th phone call. the complaint also says that there was a concerted white house effort to lock down records of that call afterwards. james trustee is a former justice department prosecutor. welcome, good to see you again. >> you too. hey, paul. paul: so we've got the main documents now in public, the transcript, the whistleblower complaint, the office a of legal counsel opinion on how that should have been han handled. do you see as a first look at this any violations of law? >> i really don't. i mean, i think you've got a phone call that to the extent that we're happy with the transcript that's created, it's a phone call that's probably not a perfect call as the president would statement i kind of wish he would stay away from some of the things he said. but i don't see a quid pro quo. i don't see an obvious link to what's called a thing of value. i don't think it's a likely criminal violation and certainly not a willful criminal violation of campaign finance laws in that
call itself. but again, that said, i kind of wish he had let other people do the talking when it comes to what he was hoping for ukraine to look into. paul: is your judgment maybe it was a mistake in judgment, maybe it was undisciplined but it is not a crime to be able to ask a foreign leader to investigate corruption and including the mention of my pligh political r? >> ukraine has a history, going back to world war ii where there's an awful lot of intrigue, espionage, corruption, affecting very high ranks there. it's like quicksand to get into a conversation with anything about ukraine or to na anyone fm ukraine addressing public corruption. it's not out of line to say we're happy for your country, we want you to address corruption but delving into the biden family situation is something he could have a avoided and still t
answers. paul: adam schiff says this is mafia-like behavior, basically an offer you can't refuse mr. zelensky and therefore it's an abuse of you power. what do you think of that term, abuse of power in this context? >> there's a couple things that make you cringe when you hear adadam schiff raise these typesf comments. first of all, this is no mafia call. i've heard some of those from my old job and this ain't the mafia. that's an overstatement. schiff is a former federal prosecutor as well and most federal prosecutors realize if you overstate your case, if you say i'm going to prove, a, b and c and you can only prove a, a jury loses all trust in you. that's kind of where we've gotten with mr. schiff, he's been so relentlessly extreme, he has very little credibility when he recharacterizes a phone call.
doesn't mean there's not room for criticism, doesn't mean for instance there's not room to explore rudy's role as a foreign policy person or the classification issue, did they do it to avoid leaks, do they do it regularly or is it something where someone in the white house thought this call doesn't have the optics we don't like. i'm not seeing anything that rings as criminal. the problem with impeachment is impeachment is whatever the hell congress says it is. they can pretty much call things abuse of power, betrayal of this that, or the other or mafia impersonation and they can probably go forward with it. paul: i want to ask about this issue of the whistleblower. because he's a person in the federal bureaucracy, the intelligence bureaucracy and files a complaint and then because of the complaint says we must turn over the -- look into
-- congress must investigate the contents of that telephone call between the president and a foreign leader. you now, if you take this to its logical conclusion, it means any time anybody in the bureaucracy has a complaint that they say this is a problem, sends a memo, says you must turn it over to congress and pretty soon does -- can any presidential conversation be turned over to basically be listened to by congress and for that matter the whole world? >> it's a very fair question, right, which is we want to encourage actual whistle blowing but we don't want a situation where there's no privacy, no diplomatic channels that exist anymore because of whatever, partisanship. but let me just say a couple things on that. the first thing is, i have a hard time actually calling this whistle blowing. i know it's probably typical in the intelligence community to write something the way this is written. but it's kind offed to me. historically, a whistle blower was someone who said i'm around something that i think is
criminal and i need to talk about it and turn it over to investigators. this one comes off more like a term paper where the person is citing all sorts of mead consider sources, giving a theory. third or secondhand, but giving a theory of what happened here and why. i wonder, is therebyas creeping into things -- is there bias creeping into things. it will be curious to see how this whistleblower does on the witness stand, whether there's a robust cross examination or whether they point out this is all secondhand or third hand. paul: the whistleblower is supposed to be about intelligence abuses. the president is not formally part of the intelligence community. and the whistleblower works for the executive branch. is this -- i mean, are we eroding the power of the presidency in a fundamental way i guess is the way i would put the question. >> well, history will tell us, right. this is new territory and may see a flood of this type of behavior in the intelligence community. the options for the director of national intelligence, who was
guided by office of legal counsel, doj, is this report credible enough to turn over to either congress because it's urgent or the attorney general because it's not urgent. so again, normally these things would be handled internally, investigated intern l nailly by either -- internally by either the attorney general or a committee that's looking you out for justice rather than trying to grandstand or use it for impeachment but here we are in this new transparent world, i. paul: thank you for being with us. as we come back, as he faces a formal impeachment probe, how great is the political and legal peril for -meg! there you are. did you take a picture of the cake to put on our website? i mean i would have but i'm a commercial vehicle so i don't have hands... or a camera...or a website. should we franchise? is the market ready for that? can we franchise? how do you do that? meg! oh meg! we should do that thing where you put the business cards in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. -meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding. -we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands.
♪ (poof) (eraser squeaks) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ when you have diabetes, ♪ dietary choices are crucial to help manage blood sugar, but it can be difficult to find a balanced solution. try great-tasting boost glucose control. the patented blend of protein, fat, and carbs is part of a balanced formula that's clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels. in fact, it provides 60% more protein
than the leading diabetes nutrition shake and contains only 1 carb choice. enjoy the balanced nutrition of boost glucose control as part of a healthy diet. too many people a restless night's sleep. there's a better choice. aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid 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. they had i think good phone call. it was normal. we spoke about many things and i -- so i think and you read it that nobody pushed it, pushed
me. >> in other words, no pressure? paul: that was ukraine's president, vladimir zelensky, saying that nobody pushed him during the july 25th phone call at the center of the whistleblower complaint. let's bring in our panel, dan henninger, kim strassel and senior fellow jason riley. so we're going to get to the politics of all a this. but first, i want to address the merits o of issue and the case against donald trump here and start with the phone call to zelensky, the mention of biden, the request for corruption probe. was this an abuse of power? >> well, let's try to choose our words carefully here. i think bringing you a political opponent in a conversation like that is a misuse of presidential power. all right. now, that it came out. the american people can sit out there and decide whether on that
basis that's another reason why i don't want to vote again for donald trump. or you could say that doesn't bother me so much. i don't care what he did. paul: you think as a fact -- it was a bad idea, a mistake. >> i think it was a bad idea. i don't think presidents should bring up political opponents in that type of context. paul: with a foreign government and say investigate my opponent. >> but the issue before us, paul, is whether this is cause to impeach the president of the united states. paul: okay. >> and i don't believe it rises to that level. paul: i want to get to that specific issue. what about the idea that the president had the-the allegation that the president suspended military aid, u.s. aid, to ukraine in earlier july before the phone call, implicitly putting a strong arm down on zelensky. >> that's what the media, the press reports leading up to the release of this information told us would be in there. but it's not explicitly in there. paul: the transcript.
>> in the transcript. no, it's not there. this quid pro quo that we were told would be there. if you dig up dirt on my political opponent, i will release foreign aid to you. i don't read that into what was said. paul: would it be in the back of his mind if he had thought -- zelensky's mind -- >> i'm not a mind reader. none of us are mind readers. that's the problem here. this is pretty weak tea compared to what we were told would be in here. and i think it shows the sort of over-eagerness of the democrats here and, remember, this started out as them wanting to impeach trump for not releasing this information. they didn't he know what was in the whistleblower report or what was in the transcript. they thought that alone was an impeachable offense. they now released it and we've been over108d o oversold on the ingredients. paul: kim, let me get you in here, talk about the whistlebloweral plea cases --
allegations, which includes anil he lee gas station that the transcript of the phone call was put into a special server that wasn't able to be viewed as normal presidential phone calls are. and this is being called a coverup by nancy pelosi and others. how do you see that? >> well, first of all, it's awfully hard to have a coverup of a phone transcript that now the entire world has read because the white house itself released it. so we had to go through hours of this, based on this allegation. reporting since then has suggested there might be some confusion about the actual storage systems and the way in which presidential calls and transcripts are actually handled. that is something that there still needs to be a lot of digging on. but in terms of this pure allegation, process aside, again it's a hard to make a coverup claim when everybody is actually reading the things which we're talking about. paul: of course, the whistleblower complaint has now been released as well.
and as well as a legal judgment by the office of legal counsel, explaining why this didn't necessarily have to be reported to the congressional committee. i want to ask about rieu city giuliani. you mentioned -- rudy giuliani. we talked about this this week. the president clearly kind of -- he was operating as a sort of independent envoy, on tv all the time, trying to get a meeting with ukrainians, trying to press this biden story, reckless behavior? >> well, look, i think one thing that's important here is that rudy giuliani is a private lawyer. okay. and while he was open about what he was doing -- and i think this is notable, paul. because he's been doing it for months. he's been out there, publicly doing this. it was never particularly wise to have a private lawyer acting freelance as it were on an issue like this. he'll say oh, it's because i'm representing my client's interest. but when your client is the president of the united states, there needs to be some different
boundaries. i think it was totally appropriate for official channels to be asking ukraine about their involvement in the 2016 election. that is information that is valuable. and i also don't think it was a problem that the president asked for it either in that call, to know what happened in 2016. but rudy giuliani i think it would be better for the president and land him in fewer troubles if he weren't out there doing these things. paul: do you agree with dan on the point about whether this is an impeachable offense. >> absolutely. i'm not sure what we see in the transcripts is a crime, let alone a high crime that would lead to impeachment. paul: i don't think there's any crime in here but impeachment is in fact a political exercise. >> there is nothing in here that would cause me to say we need to overturn the results of the 2016 election. paul: do you agree with that? >> i absolutely agree. there is nothing in here that remotely rises to an impeachable
offense, especially when you look at the context of the conversation and the main issue that was originally raised by president zelensky, not by donald trump. paul: all right. a lot more to come on this. when we come back, the politics of impeachment, ho house speaker nancy pelosi says she supports an official inquiry but why is she ducking a vote? >> they're getting hit hard on this witch hunt because when they look at the information, it's a joke impeachment for that? run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835, because when others take rain checks... we take the wheel. run with us. search "john deere gator" for more. why accept it frompt an incompyour allergy pills?e else. run with us. flonase sensimist. nothing stronger. nothing gentler. nothing lasts longer. flonase sensimist.
24 hour non-drowsy allergy relief the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪ not owing anyone anything is the best feeling in the world, i cannot stop smiling about it ♪ >> vo: my car is more than four wheels.y? it's my after-work decompression zone. so when my windshield broke... >> woman: what?! >> vo: ...i searched for someone who really knew my car. i found the experts at safelite autoglass. >> woman: hi! >> vo: with their exclusive technology, they fixed my windshield... then recalibrated the camera attached to my glass so my safety systems still work. who knew that was a thing?! >> woman: safelite has service i can trust.
foreign government to help him in his political campaign at the expense of our national security as well as undermining the integrity of our elections. that cannot stand. he will be held accountable. no one is above the law. paul: house speaker nancy pelosi launching a formal impeachment inquiry into president trump this week, acwhicplunging washington into n election year clash between congress and the president that is likely to have unforeseen political consequences. so kim, we've been hearing for weeks that -- months that nancy pelosi was opposed to an inquiry. why did she change her mind? >> well, the short answer, paul, is she got rolled. i'm pretty sure that nancy pelosi still doesn't think this is a good idea but what you had is these activist groups out there who for months have been demanding it and when this
ukraine issue came up, they steadily increased that drum beat, they laid out the law, they said get on board or you're going to lose us and our support. i think there were moderate freshmen who were worried they were going to get challenged in primary. they moved over and said we're in favor and she was suddenly surrounded by what was pretty much the majority of her caucus saying we need to do this. paul: what ever happened to those swing state democrats, dan, we heard so much about that they were going to be in jeopardy if they went ahead with an impeachment? has that calculation changed for them? >> it did to some extent because apparently a lot of them were being threatened with primary challenges from progressive candidates. i do not quite understand the logic of how a left wing candidate then wins in a district that was formerly held by republicans, that sounds like a long shot. progressives aren't thinking in those terms, though. they want this impeachment vote. they want it not merely to
overturn the 2016 election, but they want to use it as a political cat's paw against the republicans, impeach trump in the house, then push it to a trial in the senate and then you start forcing republican senators who have tight races, cory gardner in colorado, susan collins in maine, thom tillis down there in north carolina, mark mcsally in arizona, to perhaps vote against president trump. so you've got the republicans then on the defense. i think that's the game plan. whether that's the right strategy or not, pushing it that far, is another question. paul: so get the left off the backs of her members from primary challenges, throw this into the senate, hope that some of the senate republicans break, a mitt romney, say, of utah, doesn't like the president, turns, votes for conviction, and then maybe you divide the republicans in the senate? >> that could be part of it. i'm sure that is part of it. but i would also argue that
nancy pelosi and maybe is just listening to her caucus here. several months ago there weren't as many many democrats calling for impeachment. now they are. those numbers have ticked up. public poll has also shown an increase in support in the general public. paul: it's still not over 50%. >> it's not over 50 but it's measurably gotten higher, that support. and we've seen that even in the past week. paul: it's riskier now to not go ahead with impeachment for her. >> she could say i'm listening, i'm listening to my caucus. kim's right. they've been looking for reasons to do this. they are flailing out there. they wanted to impeach trump over his tax rushes, over stormy daniels, over russia. this is the latest excuse to move forward on it and she couldn't hold out any longer. paul: let me ask a process question. in the nixon and clinton impeachments the house of representatives voted with imagers to go ahead with a impeachment inquiry.
31 democrats voted to proceed with an impeachment inquiry, not an actual impeachment but to go ahead with inquiry. nancy pelosi stood up and said this is official. well, i mean, is that kosher? >> no, it's not kosher at all. that's why in some ways she hasn't really committed her caucus to impeachment. there's an accountabilit accoune here, that they are ducking a very serious responsibility. because impeachment is a powerful tool and there's a constitutional obligation that there be some sort of vote to implement it, to use it. it's unclear when exactly that needs to happen. but they need to -- she needs to demonstrate to the country that a majority of the house of representatives is actually in favor of taking this enormous step but she doesn't want to because for all of the talk about the strategy, she knows
there is still enormous risk to her moderate members of putting them on the record for this. paul: you and i are old enough to remember the nixon and clinton impeachments. the nixon impeachment was much more bipartisan and it ultimately pushed the president from office. the clinton was more partisan in the end and it did not. and there was a backlash. can a partisan impeachment succeed in ousting a president? >> it's a question of the politics and how much ground swell you can build around it and to be sure, the democrats have the media working full-time. unless you're new york or washington, you have no idea the volume of stuff that's being thrown at the trump presidency over this. but bear in mind, nixon and clinton both involved large casts of characters. the nixon impeachment was about watergate. there were a lot of people involved. the clinton impeachment involved a whole cast of characters. this is about one thing t
transcript of a conversation between the president of the united states and the president of ukraine. it's hard to imagine that the balance here can add up to succeeding with a partisan impeachment. paul: still more to come on the politics. still ahead, former vice president joe biden calling allegations of his own misconduct in ukraine politically motivated. could the 2020 presidential hopeful be collateral damage in the democratic push for impeachment? >> when vice president biden called for the prosecutors to be fired and we will cut off all aid, there is a conflict if in fact your son is on the board of a company being investigated. i think that's something that somebody should look at here. carl, i appreciate the invite here. as my broker, what am i paying you to manage my money? it's racquetball time. (thumps) ugh! carl, does your firm offer a satisfaction guarantee?
i knew when i decided to run this president would attack me and anyone else who he thought would be a threat to his winning again. even though every reputable publication looked at the charge that has been made against me and found it baseless and untrue and without merit, that's not about to stop him. i can take the political attack. paul: that was former vice president and 2020 democratic hopeful joe biden this week, claiming that he and his son,
hunter, have been cleared of any wrongdoing in their own dealings with ukraine and calls president trump's accusations of misconduct politically motivated. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and jason riley. before we get to you biden, i want to finish up the point about impeachment politics on the house. jason, do you think having committed now to this inquiry, that nancy pelosi will drive the house to actually vote to impeach donald trump? >> i'm more certain that he will be censured than impeached. paul: you don't think it will be a vote to impeach? >> no, sir necessarily. >> i think they will try to get the momentum behind the politics behind them and try to drive down support for donald trump. paul: what do you sunshine. >> i don't think there's any way she can stop it. paul: that's three to one, jason. let's go to joe biden. how much trouble is joe biden in
here? his candidacy, from being wrapped up in the ukraine business? >> he's in a lot of trouble, paul. partly because if you're right about impeachment, on this issue, he can't go there with the president. he's sort of in a situation that hillary clinton was in with donald trump and talking about his woul womanizing. biden won't be able to use this against donald trump because the wathe -- against donaldtrump ths will to. paul: some may say i don't want to go through this again. on the merits, is this something that is legitimate, this issue that biden went over there and said to ukraine, sack this prosecutor or you don't get the aid while the prosecutor was
investigating a company on which his son was on the board of directors, is it is legitimate to ask about this issue at this juncture? >> i think it's politically legitimate certainly in this context if we're going to elevate donald trump's conversation with president zelensky over this, this is inevidence intabley going to cos people point out joe biden had to know at this point could emerge. the fact that his son was getting $50,000 a month from the head of the ukrainian gas company who was under investigation looks like a conflict of interest for the vice president of the united states. he was probably the wrong person to send over there if hunter was going to be doing this business. so certainly it's -- paul: he should have seen it as an appearance at least of a conflict of interest. do you think it's an a actual consistenconflict of interest? >> i think it's the appearance of a conflict of interest. we're going to find out the details of the relationship between hunter biden and his
father and the ukrainians, it's going to be explored now, by the republicans if nothing else. paul: on the merits, is this -- do you think this is unfair to biden. biden says look, i did nothing wrong, the president tasked me to go over there and make this point. i was trying to clean up corruption. i wasn't trying to interfere with the corruption probe. the prosecutor was a bad guy. we got rid of him. and sure, this is fine for me to do. i mean, so what's the problem? >> well, of course it's a conflict. i mean, i would like to present the notion, imagine if donald trump had got a prosecutor fired that was investigating a trump company. okay. it wouldn't matter if there was nothing to it. it wouldn't matter if the prosecutor deserved to be fired. the people would go bananas. right? and i don't think that joe biden gets a pass just because he's not donald trump. and look, this has been the view of the press corps right up until the point at which this
became an issue, they've been writing stories the past year about the problems with this, in particular with hunter, and expressing the fact that even joe biden's aids had been very concerned at the time that hunter biden would look as though he was leveraging access, there's a trip to china as well and joe was essentially taking decisions that could benefit his family. he should never have been in this position. paul: the dirty little secret, not so secret on the political left is hey, we can tarnish trump and get rid of joe biden and nominate a real progressive. >> yeah, i mean, joe biden has been running as a candidate of a return to normalcy and the last thing he needed was to be pulled into the trump malestrom and look as if he's part of the problem. he was trying to rise above all that and now he's down there in the mud. >> he's not their candidate. this is a more progressive party
now. he's a white male. and they would prefer someone else and so would the media. so yeah. paul: still ahead, as the impeachment drama unfolds on capitol hill, who is likely to benefit on the campaign trail? a look at wh at why elizabeth wn could be the big winner, next. ♪ the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪ not owing anyone anything is the best feeling in the world, i cannot stop smiling about it ♪ i get to select my room from the floor plan... when i book at hilton.com free wi-fi... ...and the price match guarantee. so with hilton there is no catch. yeah the only catch is i'm never leaving.
no i'm serious, i live here now. book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. you may be at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia - a potentially serious bacterial lung disease that can disrupt your life for weeks. in severe cases, pneumococcal pneumonia can put you in the hospital. it can hit quickly, without warning, making you miss out on what matters most. just one dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia. it's not a yearly shot. prevnar 13® is approved for adults to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. don't get prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems
may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash. ask about prevention. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13®.
wenit gave me a leafput in the names almost right away. first. within a few days, i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. i didn't know that using ancestry would be so easy. paul: the impeachment drama on capitol hill playing out in the midst of the 2020 democratic primary race and even before this week's developments, new polls showed massachusetts senator elizabeth warren on the rise, taking a narrow lead over joe biden nationally and in some key early battlegrounds including the state of iowa and the first primary state of new hampshire. so who stands to benefit most from the democratic impeachment push? well, is it elizabeth warren? >> yeah, i think it could be elizabeth warren. i mean, she's the one who keeps raising the issue of corruption
and so this has the smell of corruption in it on boats the trump and biden side. not saying that's the way voters are going to come out. if she's the one with the message that could benefit from what's going on right now, i think warren could push it forward. paul: what about, though, jason, if biden falls, could some of the other moderates, one or two of the other moderates, michael bennett, tim ryan of ohio, break through? >> i don't see that at this point. and here's why. not only is she seeing a rise in the polls, national polls from the early states like iowa, when people are asked who is your second choice, her numbers have gone up significantly as the second choice of people. which is why i think she is poised to take advantage of the situation if biden does falter here. paul: let me ask you, kim, because -- could there be another winner from all this? and a i say this, knowing that some people who -- maybe donald trump, and in this sense.
nobody wants to be impeached. no president wants to be impeached. when you think about it, could there be a backlash politically that this mobilizes trump supporters in a way that it wouldn't have otherwise, it might have hurt trump more if they just used this ukraine issue to knock him around and say, see, this shows he has terrible judgment but didn't try to remove him from office? >> i think it's highly possible. that's the reason why nancy pelosi put off impeachment for as long as she d she was exactly worried about that kind of backlash, particularly against her more moderate democrats in the swing districts. and you know, it's worth noting that in the 48 hours after mrs. pelosi announced her impeachment inquiry, the trul tp campaign took in millions of dollars, something like $8 million in 48 hours, which is a suggestion that trump voters are very unhappy about this and
intend to send a message back to those who are pursuing this path. >> i think the person to keep an eye on is bernie sanders. i think a lot of warren's rise is coming at his expense. the question is when will he take off the gloves and go after her? >> let's mention two events that are coming up that will be a big deal. justice department inspector general michael horowitz's report on the fisa warrants connected to the steele dossier which was a an attack on the trump campaign and the prosecutor bill barr appointed to look into the intelligence community, he's also looking into ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election. these will be big stories and they're not going to help the democrats when they come out. paul: let me ask you, somebody else, a question about somebody else who might benefit from this, chuck schumer, in the sense that if this -- trump is impeached, it goes to the senate and get a mitt romney or mike
lee voting to convict trump it will make it difficult for susan collins of maine and she's up for re-election and you could cross-pressure republican senators who cost the republicans the senate. >> they're not likely to get to the two-thirds vote that they need. paul: if you get five, six, seven republicans voting to convict and a majority above 50 in the senate you could put pressure on those candidates. >> that's a conversation for mitch mcconnell to have with the four senators and decide whether they need to make that vote to survive. paul: what do you think about that scenario? >> i think it's unlikely that you get those numbers. we've had some people like mitt romney come out and be very critical but the majority of the caucus is not there and i think there's a similar risk to some democratic senators from having to take this vote as well too. paul: all right. thank you all. when we come back, as world leaders gather at the united
nations, america's western allies call for a renegotiation of the iran nuclear deal. so is europe's turn a vindication for president trump and his maximum pressure campaign? my joints... they hurt. the pain and swelling. the psoriasis. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain of active psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. get real relief, with cosentyx. run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835, because when others take rain checks... we take the wheel. run with us. search "john deere gator" for more.
all nations have a duty to act. no responsible government should subsidize iran's blood lust. as long as iran's menacing behavior continues, sanctions will not be lifted. they will be tightened. paul: that was president trump tuesday addressing the united nations general assembly in new york and urging other nations to join his campaign of maximum pressure against iran.
in a joint statement this week, german chancellor angela merkel, u.k.'s prime minister, boris johnson and emmanuel macron blamed tehran for the september 14th attack on oil facilities in saudi arabia and called on iran to enter into talks to bolster the fraying nuclear deal struck with the west in 2015, a pact the u.s. withdrawn from. mark dubowitz leads the iran program. welcome, good to see you again. thanks for coming in. >> thanks, paul. paul: let's start with the european statement this week, how significant is it about iran policy? >> well, i think it's very significant. as you know, europeans have ben opposing the trump policy of walking away from the iran deal and imposing maximum pressure. because of the iranian strikes against the saudi oil facilities which is a an talk on he global energy supplies, they're moving closer to the president's
position. i think this is a reminder to the iranians that they will be increasingly isolated if they continue their activities. paul: this basically takes off the table any of the ideas of providing tax credits that the french president has had for iran to help them get over sanctions. what needs to happen now from the europeans if we really want to continue to pressure iran? what should they do next? >> well, i actually think, paul, they're going to continue to try to convince president trump to offer sanctions relief in some form. paul: oh, okay. >> i think the french are not going to give up on this. they've floated the idea of a $15 billion credit facility the irans can draw down on. i think l they'll continue to try to push this idea to give the iranians sanction relief to come back to the table. i think what the europeans need to do is to send a stark warning to the iranians that if they continue escalating on the nuclear side, the europeans will walk away from the nuclear deal and if they keep striking
infrastructure the europeans will snap back their own sanctions. paul: is the president likely to take that invitation from the french, each after the strike on the oil facility? i mean, the president was looking to really talk to rouhani, the president of iran, at this u.n. meeting but it didn't happen. >> it didn't happen. it's a good thing it didn't happen. i certainly don't think that the president is going to a allow himself to be blackmailed by the regime in iran and offer them billions of dollars for merely the opportunity to come back to the table. so i hope the president sticks to his guns and makes it very clear that unless iran comes back to the table to negotiate a comprehensive agreement based on the president's terms, then the maximum pressure campaign is going to intensify. paul: i was at a media breakfast this week with rouhani, with several members of the press, and he was asked about negotiations with trump and he said we will not negotiate as long as -- until --
unless the sanctions are lifted. of course, if you lift the sanctions then they have less incentive to cooperate. so do you think -- do you see any bend in the iranian position from here? >> i see some bend. because i think the iranians recognize that they're facing imminent economic collapse and -- paul: it that bad? that's a fairly forceful statement. imminent economic collapse? >> i think the iranians are running out foreign exchange reserves, they won't have money to pay for imports they need to run factories, with factories closing they'll have massive unemployment and so their situation is getting worse every day and i think the administration with a few moves could actually bring about that kind of economic collapse which will then put the regime in a position where it will have to choose between negotiations and the survival of its regime. paul: one of those actions, so-called snapback sanctions which were part of the original 2015 deal in there. but that involves the united
nations, does it not. explain how that would work and what it would mean. >> so the way it works is under the obama nuclear deal, the one good thing that the president negotiated at the time, it 'twas unilateral snapback, the ability of the united states to unilaterally snap back u.n. sanctions against opposition from russia, china, or even europe. so the united states can still move unilaterally to snap back the u.n. sanctions and that's important because it would bring back all the security council resolutions. it would force the europeans to have to comply with these u.n. sanctions and asian countries. and it would isolate iran politically, also would do something that's very important. there's about $5 billion worth of iranian european trade this year. if you could shut down $5 billion worth of trade, you're essentially in the position i suggested earlier where they can't buy essential goods from the germans and italians and the dutch, that they need to run their economy, sophisticated machinery, that they need for their factories. you get rid of 5 billion euros
of trade and you're putting iran closer to that position of economic collapse. paul: just so i understand, this unilateral decision, if the united states could call for the snapback, it couldn't be vetoed by china, couldn't be se be vety russia and others. >> that's correct. it's unilateral against the opposition of those countries. the obama administration wisely understood we'd never get chinese and russian support. some are saying the united states can't do that alone because the united states has walked away from the jcpoa. that is not the administration's position in terms of the legal interpretation of that snapback. paul: i guess the question is, if you're talking about maximum pressure, why hasn't the administration done this so far? >> well, i think the administration is -- there's an indearcertain nail debate about- internal debate about whether this is the time to impose the
snapback. when you impose the snapback, everyone walks away from the nuclear deal. it's dead and buried. then you've got to deal with the fallout from that and part of the fallout would be continued iranian nuclear escalation. you've got to be prepared for that. paul: thanks, mark. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week.s fall sale e sleep number 360 smart bed. you can adjust your comfort on both sides your sleep number setting. can it help keep us asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to
so we reward every purchase . let's see what kate sent. for you. for all of us. that's for me. navy federal credit union our members, are the mission. now you can, with shipsticks.com! no more lugging your clubs through the airport or risk having your clubs lost or damaged by the airlines. sending your own clubs ahead with shipsticks.com makes it fast & easy to get to your golf destination. with just a few clicks or a phone call, we'll pick up and deliver your clubs on-time, guaranteed, for as low as $39.99. shipsticks.com saves you time and money. make it simple. make it ship sticks.
♪ ♪ ♪ paul: time now for hits and misses of the week, kim, start us off. >> so, paul, this week we saw 16-year-old swedish environmental activist greta lecture world leaders on climate change at un general assembly, the speech that won her huge praise for some, enormous criticism from others, i'm not going to weigh into that debate, i will give enormous miss for the un for putting on the stage, our institutions need to stop turning to teenagers and using them as props in political
campaigns, too much hostility, too much rage, keep wit the adults. paul: here, here, jason. >> complaint in the u.s. about activist judges who want to legislate from the bench, not only u.s. problem, britain can't leave the european union without trade deal in place, it's been 3 years since brexit and prime minister boar sis johnson wants to leave deal or no deal, the supreme court should get out of the way. paul: dan. >> depends on how old you r folks at kentucky fried chicken have decided to reinvent the colonel sanders, the white gentleman he has put out to pasture and retired replaced by a new, young sexier cartoon of colonel sanders includes a video game to win his heart. kfc says young people like the new dude, old people would rather prefer colonel sanders who kind of look like santa
claus' uncle. paul: another reason to go to chick-fil-a if you ask me. eric: impeachment inquiry against president trump, this morning personal attorney rudy giuliani told fox news he's been trying get the fbi to pay attention of allegations involving ukraine for almost one year now and then it was ukrainians who came to him as the president's personal lawyer to try to start an investigation. he said he was not digging up dirt on joe biden. hello, everyone, i'm eric sean, brand-new hour of america's news headquarters. arthel: i'm arthel neville, all triggered by the whistleblower complaint alleging the president misused the power of his office to get ukraine to investigate business dealings with joe biden's son, fox news also learning the president decided