Does Trump’s targeting help Joe Biden’s campaign?
GOP Strategist Karl Rove, Fox News political analyst Juan Williams, Washington Bureau Chief for The Associated Press Julie Pace, and President of Cavalry Josh Holmes weigh in.
This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," October 6, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: I'm Chris Wallace.
President Trump ups the ante, now calling on China to investigate Joe Biden. As House Democrats forge ahead with their impeachment inquiry.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: We are looking at corruption. We are not looking at politics.
WALLACE: The president lays out his defense and dares Nancy Pelosi to hold a formal vote to authorize the probe.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Some Republicans are very nervous about us bringing that bill -- that vote to the floor.
WALLACE: As voters remain deeply divided over impeachment, we'll explore new revelations in the case that helped and hurt both sides.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Well, it reads like a classic, organized crime shakedown.
REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TX: Chairman Schiff should be disqualified. They are fact witnesses in the same investigation that they are now running.
WALLACE: This hour, we are joined by two members of the House intelligence Committee, which is leading the investigation -- Democrat Val Demings of Florida and Republican Chris Stewart of Utah. Both only on "FOX News Sunday".
Plus --
TRUMP: I never thought Biden was going to win. Obama took him off the garbage heap.
JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They are not going to destroy me and they are not going to destroy my family.
WALLACE: We'll ask our Sunday panel about the politics of impeachment and how it is already shaking up 2020.
And our "Power Player of the Week," the Kennedy Center's stunning new expansion, giving audiences a peek behind the curtain.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We can put the artist in the audience really close together and see what happens.
WALLACE: All, right now, on "FOX News Sunday".
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: And hello again from FOX News in Washington.
We begin with breaking news. FOX News has confirmed a report there is now a second whistleblower in the Trump impeachment case. As first reported by ABC News, another intelligence official has spoken to the intelligence community inspector general and says he has firsthand knowledge of some of the allegations in the original complaint.
The impeachment inquiry has now formally reached the White House with House Democrats issuing a subpoena for records on President Trump's contacts with Ukraine and his request for that country to investigate Joe Biden. President Trump acknowledges Democrats now have the votes to impeach him but he refuses to comply with their subpoena, challenging them to hold a formal vote authorizing their investigation.
In a moment, we'll speak with two members of the House Intelligence Committee, which is now leading the investigation. But we begin with Kevin Corke live at the White House with the latest -- Kevin.
KEVIN CORKE, CORRESPONDENT: Chris, about on the House for would actually vote for lawmakers, that is, to be on record on impeachment. But the real issue is, what happens to those new House Democrats? Especially those who come from those recently flipped red districts?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CORKE: Subpoenas from three house committees looking for detailed information about the president's conversation with the leader of Ukraine. "The New York Times" reports a second whistleblower allegedly expressed concern about the president's conversation. Over the weekend, skeptical President Trump reacted saying coming from in the deep state, also with secondhand info.
The White House is expected as early as Monday to tell Speaker Nancy Pelosi it will not cooperate with any requests until the house move forward with the vote.
TRUMP: We will be issuing a letter. As everybody knows, we've been treated very unfairly.
CORKE: The president also going after critics such as Senator Mitt Romney, one of the few Republicans to criticize them for calling on foreign powers to investigate the Bidens, a tweet Saturday calling Romney a pompous ass and a fool.
This as pressure builds to release transcripts of former Ukraine Ambassador Kurt Volker and intel community inspector general Michael Atkinson. Republicans and Democrats have accused each other of selective leaks of the men's testimonies to shape public opinion.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CORKE: Again, Chris, the breaking news that we are following, a second whistleblower, with confirmed her at FOX News alleging to have firsthand knowledge of some of the information in that original whistleblower complaint, something the White House I'm sure we'll have a great deal of interest in, Chris.
WALLACE: Kevin Corke, reporting from the White House -- Kevin, thank you.
Joining us now from Florida, Congresswoman Val Demings, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and the former Orlando police chief.
Congresswoman, welcome to "FOX News Sunday".
REP. VAL DEMINGS, D-FLA.: Good morning, Chris. It's great to be here.
WALLACE: Based on the witnesses that the committee heard from this week, based on the documents that you have received, do you believe that there is now hard evidence that President Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors? And do you believe that the House will now vote to impeach him?
DEMINGS: Well, Chris, let me begin here -- as you've already indicated, I served a lot of years in law enforcement. I had the honor of serving in every rank at my department. I even was appointed to chief of police. I took that job very seriously as I take this job.
When I made the decision to run for Congress, I said that the safety and security of our nation is my number one priority, as it should be, because that is the foundation I believe that we build the American dream upon.
I believe, if you look at the evidence over the past about 10 days or so right now, I think it's pretty clear that the president tried to coerce a foreign country into investigating a political rival and use much-needed military aid as a condition of the deal. When you look at the readout from the administration, from the president himself, it corroborates everything, all of the information that is in the whistleblower's report.
And so, we cannot ignore what is painfully -- or obviously right in front of us and yes, I do believe that the president dangerously abused his oath of office and his administrative powers, which risks our national security.
WALLACE: So, to again ask you my question directly, do you believe he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and that the House will impeach him?
DEMINGS: I believe that an abuse of power as we have seen over the last 10 days that have been so detailed and appropriately laid out by the whistleblower, I think the elements are there. I think that the evidence we need are there, and I do believe, based on that, that we will have to take a serious look at articles of impeachment.
WALLACE: What's your reaction to the report this morning that there is now a second whistleblower, a second intelligence agent? Apparently, he has not filed a complaint yet with your committee but he -- or she, I should say -- has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general?
DEMINGS: Well, let me just say this, Chris, let's deal with the first whistle-blower. I believe this is a career service employee, a public servant. I consider him or her a patriot, someone who is aware of wrongdoing and has stepped forward at risk, I believe, to themselves.
Of course, I support what Senator Grassley said last week that we need to protect the whistleblower. I'm concerned about statements that were made from the president about maybe we should handle this person like we used to in the old days, and the reporting that a second whistleblower has come forward or is about to come forward, I believe again would be someone who sees wrongdoing, hears wrongdoing, and wants to do something about it.
WALLACE: Now, the White House, as I pointed out at the beginning, that your committee, the House, has voted to subpoena documents from the White House. The White House says that it will not release those documents, will not turn them over, unless the full House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry, as was done in the cases of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.
Why is House Speaker Pelosi refusing to hold a formal impeachment inquiry vote?
DEMINGS: Well, Chris, let me say this, I would hope -- you know, this is been a painful time, this past couple of weeks now. I would hope that the White House would cooperate with Congress and actually acknowledge the oversight that we have a responsibility to do.
However, there is no requirement under the Constitution that we have a full House vote. There is no requirement under House rules that we have a full House vote. And there is no precedent that we have a full House vote that vote that really drives what we do.
WALLACE: But wait, wait, wait, Congresswoman, you said there's no precedent, there've only been two times in the history under the rules that we now have -- Andrew Johnson back in the 1860s was different. In both, the Bill Clinton case and the Richard Nixon case, there was a clear precedent. The full House voted and authorized a full impeachment inquiry. So, there's a precedent.
DEMINGS: There is no requirement, again, under the Constitution, and no requirement under House rules that that is the procedure that we follow.
But, Chris, let me just say this: this past 10 days has been painful for members of the House on both sides of the committee. Obviously, it's been quite painful for the Senate, even though too many senators are quiet on this issue. And so, we need to conduct a very methodical, very thorough investigation. We need to talk to all fact witnesses, we need to identify or review all documents as we begin the process of making a very, very important historical decision.
(CROSSTALK)
DEMINGS: And so, based on the information that we have, I believe that every American should be painfully concerned about what they have witnessed over the last couple of weeks.
WALLACE: We also learned this week that the original, the first whistleblower, originally reached out to the Democratic staff of the House Intelligence Committee all the way back in August and yet on September 17th, your chairman, Adam Schiff, was asked about any contact with the whistleblower.
Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, "The Washington Post" gave Chairman Schiff four Pinocchios, their highest level of falsehood, of dissembling, for that comment.
And here's how President Trump reacted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I think it's a scandal that he knew before. I'd go a step further -- I think he probably helped write it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: First of all, is there any excuses for Chairman Schiff not being upfront and saying, yes, there was contact? And secondly, didn't Chairman Schiff in effect get advance word -- maybe it wasn't detailed, but some advance word about the nature of the complaint, which led him to push the story even before all of you got the transcript of the president's phone call?
DEMINGS: Chris, let me just say this. With the president being accused of using his power and abusing his office to coerce a foreign country to assist in an election, it's kind of amazing that we would try to make the news of the day around -- centered around Chairman Schiff's words as it pertains to contact with whistleblower. Chairman Schiff has, as you know, has served several terms in Congress. He has been a person who has provided exceptional leadership and Chairman Schiff said, he could have stated -- responded to that question in a more clear way.
When he was asked the question, my understanding is that he was thinking of -- has the whistleblower come before the committee. Is the committee aware of the nature of the complaint? No. The whistleblower had not come before the committee, nor was the committee or even staff aware, necessarily, of the nature of the complaint. It was a question about procedure and process.
WALLACE: All right. Let me -- I'm running out of time, so let me ask you my final question.
There is also criticism of Chairman Schiff for the way he laid out, the way he basically seemed to state President Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president in that congressional hearing with the director of national intelligence.
Here is Chairman Schiff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: I have a favor I want from you though, and I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: As President Trump says, that -- it's just not true. It isn't what the president says.
You know, it's one thing -- because there are questions about Chairman Schiff, he at one time talked about having evidence of collusion in the Russia case. The special counsel found no evidence of collusion. It's one thing to talk like that even in a press conference. It's another thing to make stuff up in a congressional hearing on the possible impeachment of a president.
DEMINGS: Chris, I believe what the special counsel's report said was that the elements of conspiracy, that the information that they were able to obtain through all of the obstructive efforts to prevent the special counsel from getting all the information, that the elements did not rise to the level of charging conspiracy. What the president said was, after President Zelensky indicated that he was ready to purchase more military weaponry, the president said, but I need you to do me a favor though. That's not disputed in any way and we know that the president made reference, on multiple occasions.
As a former police detective, Chris, I've seen -- when evidence was so painfully obvious, I've seen the subject of an investigation turn and attack the investigators. We not only see that from this president in this particular case, this is something that we have certainly seen before from him.
WALLACE: Right.
DEMINGS: We need to keep our eye on the ball.
WALLACE: Congresswoman Demings, thank you. Thanks for speaking with us today. Please come back.
DEMINGS: Thank you so much. I will. Thank you.
WALLACE: Up next, we'll get reaction to the impeachment inquiry from a Republican on the Intelligence Committee. He says the House should take action against the committee chair, Adam Schiff.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: House Republicans are standing firm in their support for President Trump, and damaging revelations this week have so far done nothing to shake that support.
Joining us now from Salt Lake City, Congressman Chris Stewart, a Republican on the Intelligence Committee.
Congressman, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday".
REP. CHRIS STEWART, R-UT: Good morning.
WALLACE: I want to ask you first about this -- this new report, which Fox News has confirmed that there is now a second whistleblower in this case who has spoken to the inspector general for the intelligence community, says he has firsthand knowledge that corroborates some of the allegations made by the first whistleblower.
Does that concern you?
STEWART: Well, actually not at all. First, we've known a little bit that this individual was probably going to come forward. And one of our concerns has always been there hasn't been firsthand knowledge of this. The first whistleblower, virtually everything that he accused was second and third hand knowledge.
But, Chris, it does not matter. This person is going to come forward and say, yes, the president had this phone call and, yes, that's the transcript. I mean why should I care at all what his perspective or his opinion and judgment of this transcript is? You and I can read it.
WALLACE: But -- but, sir --
STEWART: We can make our own judgments of it.
WALLACE: Conceivably -- and the -- and -- and the allegation by the first whistleblower, and a lot of it has already been corroborated, if (ph) it wasn't just this phone call, that there was a whole campaign before the phone call and then even more intensely after the phone call involving the president's private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to link support for the Ukrainian regime, even military aid, to an investigation of Joe Biden.
STEWART: Yes.
WALLACE: So -- so --
STEWART: Yes, but --
WALLACE: It's more than just a phone call.
STEWART: But, Chris, that's just not true. I mean all of these accusations he makes about linkage after he just pulled from "The New York Times" and from "The Washington Post." There's no classified or secret information in that. It all comes down to this one thing. It comes down to one sentence in one phone call. And when you read that in its entirety, it's very clear, he doesn't ever link it to military aid. It's never even mentioned. He doesn't ever offer a quid pro quo. He never even mentions the upcoming election.
He talks about one thing, we want to investigate corruption. And I think that's a reasonable thing for him to ask. And these other assumptions are things that some people, in their judgment, are concerning, but it's simply not found in this phone call.
WALLACE: OK, let's -- let -- let's --
STEWART: And anyone can read it.
WALLACE: Let's unpack what you -- what you just said here, because President Trump made it very clear this week, he says his call for Ukraine and now China to investigate allegations against Vice President Biden and his son Hunter have nothing to do with the 2020 election, as you contended.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm only interested in corruption. I don't care about politics. I don't care about Biden's politics. I never thought Biden was going to win, to be honest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Congressman, can you tell me of any other instance during the time President Trump has been in office where he asked a foreign leader to investigate a specific American on the issue of corruption?
STEWART: You bet. Attorney General Barr is doing it right now.
WALLACE: No, no, no. I asked -- I -- forgive me. I said President Trump -- can you tell me of another instance where President Trump, on a conversation, a call, has publicly or privately asked for a foreign leader to investigate a specific American?
STEWART: Yet. Absolutely. Now, look, he may have done it personally, but it doesn't matter, Chris, there's no difference between the president making the call or the president saying to Attorney General Barr or other of his subordinates, you make the call and investigate this. And he's been very clear on that.
WALLACE: So -- but -- the answer is you cannot (ph) --
STEWART: They want to go back --
WALLACE: You -- I mean -- I don't mean to interrupt, but you can't tell me of another case where we have a record of the president specifically asking for a foreign leader to investigate a specific American?
STEWART: I'm saying he's -- he's willingly and -- and acknowledged that he's doing that through his attorney general.
WALLACE: And -- and other than Joe Biden, can you tell me of another -- I mean there are millions of Americans who do business overseas, all kinds of activities.
STEWART: Yes.
WALLACE: Do you think it's just a coincidence that the one person that he has asked a foreign leader to investigate, specifically by name, investigate this person, just happens to be his chief rival for the 2020 campaign?
STEWART: But -- but, Chris, you're missing the whole reason for why. He did that because he has knowledge of possible corruption. I mean Vice President Biden and his son -- he was dragging his son to the two countries that the vice president had primary responsibility for, Ukraine and China. And he's taking his son to those two countries with him.
And while he's doing official business, his son is signing, in some cases, $1.5 billion deals. And I think that a lot of people when they -- Americans, when they hear that, they think, you know what, that doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's worth asking a few questions about that. That's all the president is doing here.
WALLACE: And you think it's just a coincidence that-- I mean there are a lot of businessmen doing a lot of business a lot bigger than a billion dollars and the only person that he asked for -- incidentally, we should point out, there has never, never been a specific allegation of any crime committed -- I mean I -- does it look bad? Of course it does. But there's never been an allegation of a specific crime that Joe Biden or Hunter Biden committed.
STEWART: Yes.
WALLACE: And -- and -- neither in China nor in Ukraine.
You don't think -- you think it's just a coincidence that he's talking about Joe Biden?
STEWART: Well, but, Chris, you keep using that word coincidence. It's not a coincidence at all. It is just that those are the facts presented to him and he's responding to those facts.
If someone else brought other accusations against other Americans, and -- and they had reason to investigate that, I -- I'm sure the president would as well. But these were the facts that were brought to him and these were the individuals that were associated with those facts.
WALLACE: All right, I want -- I want to pick up on what you said at the very top, which is that there is no quid pro -- no linkage between President Trump's asking the Ukrainian president Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and U.S. support, including $400 million in military aid to Ukraine.
There are a number of documents that your committee has received this week, and bear with me I'm going to go through just three of them and read them.
July 25th, this is the morning before the phone call between Zelensky and Trump. U.S. envoy Volker to a Ukrainian aid, heard from the White House. Assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.
August 10th, the Ukrainian aide to Volker, once we have a date for Zelensky to visit Trump, we'll call a press briefing announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of U.S.-Ukraine relationship, including other things, Burisma -- that's the company where Hunter Biden was on the board -- and election meddling in investigation.
Finally, September 1st. The top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, to Ambassador Gordon Sondland, are we now saying that security assistance and White House meeting are conditioned on investigations? Sondland, call me.
Now, Sondland later says that there was no quid pro quo. But I've got to tell you, you read these e-mails, both before and after, and I just took three, Congressman, it seems that Ukrainian officials and some top American officials saw -- sure saw a quid pro quo.
STEWART: Yes. I -- Chris, it's just -- it's just not true. And this is a great example of the dishonesty of how this investigation is being run. And I wish we could elaborate that on Chairman Schiff and the dishonesty that he has displayed.
This is another example of it. They take little snippets of e-mails and texts, they leak those without releasing the transcript. If you released the transcript of this -- of this entire hearing, it's very clear that Mr. Volker and others have said there was no quid pro quo. There was no linkage between us (ph).
When you read the transcript of what the president says, he's very clear the reason he's withholding aid is because he wants to pressure the Europeans, particularly Mr. -- Ms. Merkel in Germany, that they have been dragging their feet for months on this.
And, by the way, we heard as early as late spring that they were probably going to withhold this aid. We had been hearing, those of us who work in national security, they were going to do that to pressure the Europeans. This is just an example of, hey, let's go sneak some stuff out there and let the press run with it for a while and eventually the transcript will show that it's not true, but by then we'll already have done our damage. It's malicious for them to -- to -- to leak like this and to not do it fairly.
WALLACE: All right, I -- I got one final question for you.
You are a member of the Utah Congressional Delegation. And, over the weekend, President Trump has really gone after Utah Senator Mitt Romney. I want to put up some tweets.
He has called him a, quote, "pompous ass," a, quote, "fool," and added the hashtag, quote, "impeachmittromney". Of course senators can't be impeached.
But, Congressman, do you have any problem with the president going after your senator that way?
STEWART: Chris, I'm shocked you'd ask me this question, right? Look, I know that the media loves for Republicans to criticize each other, to fight with --
WALLACE: I -- but we're -- I'm not criticizing --
STEWART: I'm saying, well, look --
WALLACE: I'm not criticizing another (ph) Republicans --
STEWART: I know you're not.
WALLACE: It's the president who called Mitt Romney a pompous ass.
STEWART: I know you're not, but you're hoping that I will, I'll criticize one or the other and I'm just not going to -- and I'm just not going to --
WALLACE: I'm -- I'm just asking you whether -- well, OK, I'm just asking you, what do you think?
STEWART: I'm just going to say, you know what, Mitt Romney is a big boy. President Trump's a big boy. They can settle their differences. I'm not going to weigh in on that.
I mean they've had disagreements in the past, and I understand that.
WALLACE: Final --
STEWART: I've got to come back to one -- one thing, real quick, Chris, and that's Ms. Demings, who I have a lot of respect for. She said something earlier I just think I have to respond to. She says there's been a lot of pain over the last 10 days.
Oh, my gosh, these guys are giddy over this. They're not paining over this. And it's not been the last 10 days, it's been three years.
Three years they've been trying to impeach this president. Three years they've been looking for reasons to remove him from office. They're not pained by this.
They're excited about this. And it's -- and it -- but it's terribly divisive for the American people.
WALLACE: Thank you for that statement.
Congressman Stewart, thank you. Thanks for your time. Always good to talk with you, sir.
STEWART: Thank you.
WALLACE: Up next, we'll bring in our Sunday group to discuss where the House investigation stands now after a hectic week of witnesses, documents, and presidential pushback.
Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about whether there needs to be a vote in the full House to launch an impeachment inquiry? Just go to Facebook or Twitter, @FoxNewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: Coming up, President Trump concedes the House has the votes to impeach him and sent his case to the Senate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So, the Democrats, unfortunately, they have the votes. They can vote very easily, even though most of them, many of them don't believe they should do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: We'll ask our Sunday panel about chances for impeachment, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: It's hard to imagine a set of circumstances that would have alarmed the founders more than what's on that call.
TRUMP: Not a thing wrong, unless you heard the Adam Schiff version, where he made up my conversation. He actually made it up. It should be criminal. It should be treasonous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Well, the bruising war of words this week between President Trump and House Intel Committee Chair Adam Schiff, as Schiff takes the lead in the impeachment probe.
And it's time now for our Sunday group. GOP strategist Karl Rove, Fox News political analyst Juan Williams, Julie Pace, Washington bureau chief of "The Associated Press," and Senator Mitch McConnell's former chief of staff, Josh Holmes.
Karl, at this point -- and I understand we're just probably at the beginning of this process, who's winning the argument, the Democrats making the case for the impeachment, the president making the case that basically Democrats are just out to get him, and add into your answer the fact that there now is the second whistleblower?
KARL ROVE, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.
Well, first of all, I'd say, if you look at the polls, the numbers for impeachment have grown, so you'd suggest the Democrats are winning the argument, but I think they're both losing the argument. The president should not have said what he said on that call with Ukraine. He should not have said what he said to China. But, on the other hand, the Democrats are far from making the case that this is worthy of removing the president from office. And they're going about it in the wrong way. They're rushing to judgment. They want to get this thing done by Thanksgiving. It's going to take them probably until Christmas. And they want to do it in a highly partisan way.
A wonderful article this week by Robert Doar, the presidency of the American Enterprise Institute, whose father, John Doar, a Republican, was chosen by Peter Rodino, Judiciary Committee chairman, as the council for the impeachment committee. The House voted to -- to -- to formally move forward. There was a unified staff. The president was allowed to have his counsel present at all hearings and depositions, to receive all documents, to state the president's position at the end of the testimony. There was all the evidence was received initially behind closed doors, so we didn't have a bunch of hot dogs, and Rodino operated in a strictly non-partisan way.
None of that is being done here this time. It is being done just the opposite by Adam Schiff. And -- and -- and the country is not going to be well served by this process.
WALLACE: We asked you, just picking up on this, we asked you for questions for the panel. And on the issue of Nancy Pelosi's decision not to hold a formal vote to launch this probe, we got this on Twitter from Nurse Gwendo. I am a Democrat and I am for an impeachment inquiry. I don't understand why the Democrats don't want a vote. I believe Americans want to see the vote.
Josh, following up on Nurse Gwendo, the White House is apparently going to refuse to release documents to comply with the subpoena based on the argument that it is challenging the House to hold a formal impeachment vote.
Do you think they can turn this into a debate over process?
JOSH HOLMES, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: Well, sure, I think they can, because Democrats have largely made it a debate over process. I mean, look, I -- that nurse has an absolutely excellent point. What Nancy Pelosi has been trying to do for the better part of two years, and actually since they won the majority in the House in 2018, is to try to deflect and distract the base of her party and the base of her conference away from impeachment because she knows the politics are no good.
Now, they had to get there one way or another. I would argue that it was inevitable they were going to find a reason to justify this one way or another. But she does not want, on the front end of all of this, to put all of those moderate House Democrats, those freshman who are in purple and red districts, on the record on the front end of an impeachment inquiry to try to convict this president. It is horrible politics for her, it is horrible politics for that conference and I think she could lose the majority if she went on the road.
WALLACE: So do you think this is an argument over process, over -- or over what the president did or didn't do?
JUAN WILLIAMS, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think the president would like it to be an argument over process because we know what he did. I mean everybody can read the letter for themselves. And this week you can also read the text that went back and forth between diplomats that again was quite explicit in saying the president wants President Zelensky of the Ukraine to agree to this kind of investigation probe of Joe Biden in exchange for the military aid and a meeting at the white House.
But in terms of the process, I think it's very important to say there's nothing in the Constitution, nothing in House rules that says you have to have an upfront vote. In fact, I think the president of the United States wants an upfront vote, both for the reasons that Josh elucidated, which is to say I'm going to put some of his moderate Democrats on the spot, but also, I think, he wants it to slow down the process a little bit. He wants to -- it's interesting to me that he wants that.
WALLACE: OK, let me back up for a second because people say, well, he doesn't want to do it because -- I mean he -- it -- that she doesn't want to do it because she would put those 31 House Democrats who were -- won in districts that Trump won in 2016.
WILLIAMS: Right.
WALLACE: More importantly than that, if you had a House vote and it was 99 percent Democrats for it and 99 percent Republicans are against it, wouldn't that just put the lie to the idea that there is any bipartisanship in this? Wouldn't that in effect say it's a party line vote?
WILLIAMS: Excuse me, we live in highly polarized times and people, such as the people you interview this morning, are clearly lined up by tribe or team. But that doesn't take away from the reality. And that's why I say the vote is basically an effort by the White House to distract from what we know and can read for ourselves in that letter and in the texts that were released this week.
WALLACE: OK, the president seemed to concede Friday that the House will impeach him and send the issue of his removal to a trial in the Senate.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So if they proceed -- and, you know, they'll just get their people -- they're all in line because even though many of them don't want to vote, they have no choice, they have to follow their leadership. And then we'll get it to the Senate and we're going to win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Julie, is impeachment now inevitable, that the House will vote to impeach the president? And, secondly, almost everybody in Washington, Republicans especially, have been saying, what -- where's the war room? Where is the president's concerted effort to deal with this issue? And the war room seems to be whatever is in President Trump's head.
Is there, from what you're talking to your White House sources, do they have a strategy here?
JULIE PACE, "THE ASSOCIATED PRESS": On the first question, I think impeachment is likely inevitable at this point. The fact that Nancy Pelosi took this step to launch the inquiry means she knows where her caucus is on that latter question at this point. And the fact that the whistleblower complaint that's at the center of this has largely been proven to be true, based on documents that are now public, I think bolsters her -- her case there.
On the White House strategy, this has caught the White House off guard. It caught a lot of us off guard that we're suddenly in impeachment right now. But the White House was not prepared to be in this situation right now. And so the strategy is basically the president's Twitter account. He is leading his own defense. It's vastly different than what we saw in the Clinton impeachment were Clinton himself tried to act as though he was governing, act as though he was -- he was doing things on behalf of the American people. Trump is all in on impeachment. He is going to be leading his own defense.
I think the big question for the White House right now, though, is about their -- their practical cooperation with Congress. If they choose to stonewall on documents, an interview's, that actually guarantees his impeachment. And the article of impeachment that it focuses on obstruction of Congress is a -- is a -- is a definite for Democrats at this point.
WALLACE: Josh, you are our Senate expert as the former chief of staff to Mitch McConnell. Let's assume the house votes sometime November, December, whatever, to impeach the president. It goes to the Senate. They need two- thirds, 67 votes, there are 47 Democrats. That means that you would need 20 Republicans to jump ship and go with the Democrats to remove the president. That's assuming that all the Democrats vote to remove, which we don't necessarily know is true.
Does it matter what the evidence is or is it just impossible that 20 Republicans will jump ship and vote to remove this president?
HOLMES: Well, it's highly unlikely. It's not irrelevant what the evidence is. But what I -- I think what Julie laid out is what House Democrats are doing to try to prosecute this that will result in an almost entirely partisan process in the House. If that results in an entirely partisan vote in the House and it comes over to the Senate, I imagine it will be dealt with very similarly, in an entirely partisan way.
I haven't seen -- you know, to Juan's earlier point, we live in polarizing times. No kidding. I mean I -- I think right now almost every Republican in the entire District of Columbia looks at Adam Schiff with zero credibility. There is nothing that this guy can put out in front of anyone that any of them believe. And more often than not, we find out, two or three weeks down the road, that it was complete made up anyway.
WALLACE: OK. OK. I -- one last quick question. We're running out of time. You're stealing from the next panel with whatever your answer is here.
You were Mitch McConnell's chief of staff. He said -- and, you know, he's - - he's playing chess, three-dimensional chess when we're all playing checkers. They asked him, if it's impeach and it goes to the House, will there be a trial? He said, under Senate rules, I have to take it up.
HOLMES: Yes.
WALLACE: Does that mean a trial, or does that mean he just puts it up, says, are we going to take this up? There's a vote no and there's never any trial?
HOLMES: So the rules of the Senate are really specific on this and it's unlike sort of the Merrick Garland and the way --
WALLACE: WE need a short view here.
HOLMES: The way that everybody views it is basically that McConnell can make a decision, one way or another, whether to take it up. You can't. In the -- impeachment articles that come over for the Senate, you have to consider it. It comes to the floor, it displaces everything else. The Senate will have to deal with it one way or another.
WALLACE: Well, you didn't answer the question, though. Deal with it, can that just be a vote or do they have to have a trial?
HOLMES: Well, they're going to have to have a vote to dismiss it if nothing else.
WALLACE: Right. He could have to -- but he could do that?
HOLMES: There will have to be a vote. Sure, it could be -- it could be that or it could have a full trial. I mean I think a lot of this depends on what the House ultimately ends up doing.
WALLACE: All right, panel, we have to take a break here.
When we come back, the impeachment inquiries impact on 2020, and brand new Fox News poll on where the race for president stands right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: But Biden and his son are stone cold crooked. You know it and so do we.
BIDEN: He is unhinged. I worry about what he's going to do. Not about me or my family. I worry about what he'll do in the next year in the presidency as this thing continues to rot on his watch.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden engaged in a running battle this week with President Trump over whether his son Hunter's work in Ukraine and China, while he was vice president, was a conflict of interest.
And we have brand new Fox polls that show Biden with a continued strength in two key states. In South Carolina, Biden still has a commanding lead with support from 41 percent of Democratic primary voters. Elizabeth Warren is a distant second at 12 percent, and Bernie Sanders at 10. Biden's lead up six points from July.
And, in the key swing state of Wisconsin, which helped put Mr. Trump over the top in 2016, Biden leads the president by nine points. Sanders and Warren also beat Mr. Trump, but they are within the margin of error.
And we're back now with the panel.
Karl, I think most people would agree whether what Biden and his son did in Ukraine and China was illegal, it stunk.
ROVE: Yes, it's really stinky.
WALLACE: It -- it -- it just smells. It was -- it's classic swamp.
But couldn't you argue -- and -- and the president has been hammering him on that, couldn't you argue that at this point, with the campaign, and we'll get into some of the details, that it's somewhat faltering that President Trump's continued targeting of Joe Biden may be the best thing Biden has going for him right now?
ROVE: Well, it would be if Biden knew how to respond. The president started going after him the weekend of September 16th and his first real tough response was October 5th, delivered late in the afternoon on the West Coast so that none of us saw it, and it was, how dare you attack my family.
Ironically, Biden's best defense would be to say, you know what, in retrospect I should have said something to Hunter about getting off that Burisma board while I'm -- while I'm focused on corruption in Ukraine and said you've got to make a living someplace else. But he didn't. So the more that he says, how dare you attack my family, the more we talk about the stinky arrangement and the stinkier it gets.
But, yes, no, it's -- it's -- it's weird. People have exit ramps here. Biden has an exit ramp. The president -- if the president went out and said, you know what, I do want John Durham to investigate all these questions about Ukraine and I do want the attorney general to be in touch with his opposite numbers in Ukraine, but maybe I shouldn't have said that about Ukraine and China. That's an off ramp for him. And people say, you know what, OK, fine. But nobody is looking for an off ramp, they're looking for a raucous fight.
WALLACE: And let's look, because I was talking about Biden's campaign, let's look at the fundraising numbers for the third quarter, which are pretty dramatic, on the screen.
Bernie Sanders, in the third quarter of this year, raised $25 million and Elizabeth Warren, $24.6 million. Pete Buttigieg, $19 million. And all the way back in fourth place, the supposed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Joe Biden at $15.2 million.
Josh, do you think that at some point President Trump may come to regret his efforts to get Joe Biden out of this race?
HOLMES: NO, because he's -- because he's -- well, I mean it's an easy question.
I think the fundraising is a very interesting component of this because as the world of politics has adapted, the Joe Biden's of the world have not, right? They all -- everybody's gone to the digital low dollar sort of renewable resource to try to keep your campaign funded.
He had a huge boom, bang, max out dollar thing first quarter and now here he is in fourth place. What is he going to do in the fourth quarter? It's not going to get better and it's not going to get better in the first quarter of next year either. He's going to be outspent and outraised four, five, six to one down the stretch, all of it because, you know, frankly this campaign is a little antiquated.
ROVE: It may get better in this next quarter for him because he is Trump's target and he's -- I'm -- my inbox is inundated with Joe's requests. If Joe wants me to send him $5, Joe's upset about Trump, look at what Trump is saying about me or saying --
WALLACE: Let me just say, if they're sending Karl Rove messages, their campaign is antiquated.
All right --
ROVE: Somebody has signed me up for all these different candidates --
WALLACE: OK.
ROVE: (INAUDIBLE) --
WALLACE: Then, let's look at the potential damage to President Trump in all of this for 2020.
And I want to play a clip of Mike Pence. He wasn't vice president then. But this was in the vice presidential debate back in 2016.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT (October 4, 2016): Now, you all need to know out there, this is -- this is basic stuff, foreign donors and certainly foreign governments cannot participate in the American political process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Juan --
WILLIAMS: Well --
WALLACE: Mike Pence. Basic stuff. Foreign governments can't participate in our elections.
How badly do you think what we've heard so far -- and -- and, you know, it's not just a whistleblower complaint, because a lot has been corroborated by what the White House turned over and what we found out from two officials from the State Department this week.
How badly do you think the president has been hurt by the revelations so far?
WILLIAMS: Well, the polls show that it has hurt him and, you know, we've all said that there's increasing numbers of people who not only now favor impeachment -- by the way those numbers include House Democrats, increased number in those who said they're -- now they want impeachment. But it also is an indication more people say they want conviction in the Senate. I think it's 44 percent in the latest "USA Today" poll, which was a surprise to me.
But what you get here is, I think that the president's base will be hardened in terms of support by impeachment. They will see this as people picking on the president. The president makes the case he was duly elected. These people are involved in a coup if not treason. They're just trying to undo because they're losers.
But the contrary, impact, I think, will be that you will start to see moderates -- I think you'll start to see especially suburban white women in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, just turned off by all the static, all the noise, all the recrimination. I think it, there, hurts the president's re-election bid.
WALLACE: Julie, what's your sense of how worried they are at the White House and how worried they are inside the Trump campaign? Assuming that this doesn't end up with a removal in the Senate, and I think we all agree that's over -- the overwhelmingly likely result, how much does this damage his prospects for 2020?
PACE: I think -- I think Trump allies and advisors are still looking at this situation very much like they looked at the Mueller investigation, feeling like the tactics that they used, having Trump cast this as a hoax, as a witch hunt, will be enough to carry him through, that his base remained loyal, that they will look at this as a partisan process and Trump will be able to -- to sort of message and tweet his way -- his way out of this.
What you are privately, though, and I know Josh has heard this too from Republicans, what you hear privately from a lot of Republicans in Washington right now is that they do think that this is different. They do think that a -- if Democrats are able, and it's a big "if," if they are able to do this, if they are able to carry out a process that looks serious, that focuses not on Trump personally, but on his actions in office on the idea of abusing his office for personal gain, that that message could resonate with exactly the type of people that Juan is talking about, women in the suburbs. This is an election that could swing completely on those voters and they are already voters who have moved away from Trump over the last several months.
WALLACE: I've got half a minute, Karl, and you can't clear her throat and half a minute, so I'm going to -- I know we -- he didn't like that.
How about for the president and how bad for congressional Republicans who are just standing by their man?
ROVE: Well, look, House Republicans are going to get an advantage because there are 19 Democrats in seats that Trump won by four points or more, 31 in seats that he won, 43 in Republican seats, so they're going to be helped. Republican senators, on the other hand, in places like Arizona and Colorado and Maine, states that are going to be close or leaning away from Trump, are going to be problematic.
But, look, I -- we don't know how this is all going to play out. Thank God from the White House they ought to say every morning for Adam Schiff being in charge of this process. It's -- isn't it amazing, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler, has, poof, disappeared, and he has been replaced by Adam Schiff, who's about the most partisan guy you could ever imagine, channeling his inner Martin Scorsese.
WALLACE: OK. And I -- and I was going to say, they put in Schiff because they thought Nadler was a bad face for the -- for the whole thing.
ROVE: Yes.
WALLACE: Thank you, panel. See you next Sunday.
Up next, our "Power Player of the Week," bringing JFK's vision for the arts into the 21st century.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: It's recognized as a living memorial to John F. Kennedy, and it's the nation's busiest performing arts center. But it has just expanded its mission for the 21st century.
Here's our "Power Player of the Week."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DEBORAH RUTTER, PRESIDENT, KENNEDY CENTER: We need a place that is informal, inviting, and a place where we can put the artist and the audience really close together and see what happens. And the Reach was born.
WALLACE (voice over): Deborah Rutter is president of the Kennedy Center, and the Reach is the center's sprawling, striking addition, to create a new link in the performing arts.
The center opened in 1971, and over time the staff felt it was a bit unwelcoming as people came to sit and watch.
RUTTER: The downside of that is that somebody's on stage and you're in the audience and there's no connection.
WALLACE: The $250 million Reach opened in September and is exactly what its name implies, built for these times, to reach out to audiences.
RUTTER: You want to know the artist, you want to know the process from which the art was created, you want to know the back story, you want to know where did they buy that beautiful costume. There's a much deeper connection.
WALLACE: It is a living, interactive complex with 11 performance spaces that honor the 35th president, including the Moon Shot Room.
But the remarkable pavilions are in service of an ambitious mission. People can walk around and see artists and their works at all stages, from creation and tinkering, to the final product.
Like Oscar-winning composer Alan Menken, who wrote the music for "Little Shop of Horrors" and "Beauty and the Beast," conducting a master class.
ALAN MENKEN, OSCAR-WINNING COMPOSER: You know, we're taking you through the town and we're learning Bell is different. She doesn't want to be in this provincial town.
WALLACE: The Reach opened with a two week festival, 500 events that attracted more than 100,000 people.
RUTTER: To see the place filled with families, bike riders or scooters that come up the bridge and go through the garden, it has been an experience that you dream of in a career, but you're not sure you will ever experience directly, and I have.
WALLACE (on camera): How happy are you with all of this?
RUTTER: Ecstatic.
WALLACE (voice over): Rutter says the Reach is built for accidents. A jogger peeking in a window and seeing a dance rehearsal. We were walking through a field of flowers.
WALLACE (on camera): So this is the kind of accident you're talking about, not in the arts --
RUTTER: Right.
WALLACE: But here's a gorgeous butterfly in the middle of --
RUTTER: It makes you feel like you're in nature while you're right here in the middle of the city.
WALLACE: And it makes you feel better.
RUTTER: Yes, that's the idea.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: That's the idea.
Most of the performance halls in the Reach are underground beneath the sprawling green grass roof. It's Washington's largest at almost 70,000 square feet.
And that's it for today. Have a great week and we'll see you next “Fox News Sunday.”
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Fox News First
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can opt-out at any time.