Sen. Lindsey Graham on calls for witnesses in impeachment trial

close

Video

Sen. Lindsey Graham on calls for witnesses in impeachment trial

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joins Chris Wallace on 'Fox News Sunday.'

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," January 19, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I'm Chris Wallace. The Senate begins the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): The House's hour is over. The Senate's time is at hand.

WALLACE: Ahead of Tuesday's opening arguments, the president names a high powered legal team to defend him. The Senate sworn in as the jury.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The impeachment of Donald John Trump.

WALLACE: And Chief Justice John Roberts set to preside but the battle is just starting over how it will play out.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): A fair trial has witnesses.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): They had a chance to call witnesses. They chose not to because they were in such a rush to do it.

WALLACE: We'll sit down with Senator Lindsey Graham, chair of the Judiciary Committee and a close ally of the president -- only on "FOX News Sunday". And we'll talk with Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, one of the Democrats' House impeachment managers, arguing the case against Mr. Trump. It's a "FOX News Sunday" exclusive. Plus --

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What?

WALLACE: A hot mic captures a tense exchange between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. We'll ask our Sunday panel how their split shakes things up just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses. And our "Power Player of the Week". Doctors said he'd never walk normally again. Now he's pushing the limits of human potential. All, right now, on "FOX News Sunday".

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And hello again from FOX News in Washington. The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump is set to begin in just two days. But we still don't know exactly what the trial will look like, how long it will last and whether senators will hear from witnesses. In a moment, we'll speak with Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch supporter and confidant of the president. But, first, let's bring Mark Meredith with the latest from the president's Mar-a-Lago retreat in Florida -- Mark.

MARK MEREDITH, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Chris, President Trump is spending part of this weekend here in Florida, but he's scheduled to fly to Switzerland for an economic summit on Monday, only hours before the Senate starts its impeachment trial.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you solemnly swear --

MEREDITH: Senators return to Washington Tuesday to begin battle over establishing rules governing President Trump's impeachment trial.

MCCONNELL: Our members feel that we have an obligation to listen to the argument.

SCHUMER: A fair trial seeks the truth. No more, no less.

MEREDITH: Last night, the president's defense team led by the White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump attorney Jay Sekulow responded to the Senate's impeachment summons, writing, quote, this is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election. The president's eight-member defense team includes some famous faces. Among them, former independent counsel Ken Starr and former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, although Dershowitz insists he'll play a limited role. House Democrats have selected seven members led by House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff to be impeachment managers. On Saturday, Democrats sent the Senate a 111-page brief calling the evidence of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress overwhelming and the Framers, quote, worst nightmare. But they argue more witnesses should still testify.

SCHUMER: Let every senator reflect on that choice and let history weigh on every one of our shoulders.

MEREDITH: For Democrats to get their way, they'll need to convince at least four Republican senators and all of their caucus to stand firm to force the Senate to hear new testimony.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MEREDITH: Republican leaders are pushing for a quick trial, possibly ending before the State of the Union, but no final timeline has been established -- Chris.

WALLACE: Mark Meredith, reporting from Mar-a-Lago -- Mark, thank you. Joining us now from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham, one of President Trump's closest allies and the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Thank you.

WALLACE: The Democratic House managers, the prosecutors, filed their trial brief last night and they said that the president is trying to put himself above the law. Here is their key quote: That is what President Trump has attempted to do and why President Trump's conduct is the framers' worst nightmare. Your response, sir?

GRAHAM: Well, as to obstruction of justice, the president tried to exercise executive privilege. He said to the House, who was trying to impeach him in 48 days, from the time they authorized impeachment until they voted on the articles was 48 days. It's the first impeachment in modern history without outside counsel. It was a partisan railroad job. And one of the reasons he's being impeached is that they had to do it in such a hurry, he could not exercise executive privilege. And I have got a quote from Senator Schumer I won't read today, but I'll let it out tomorrow, saying that any president has the right to defend the office, and Article II obstruction of Congress is about the president saying, I want to go to court and exercise executive privilege over documents and witnesses. Instead of allowing him to do that, they impeached him for obstructing Congress. They tried to put Trump below the law. Abuse of power is so poorly defined here, I don't know how presidents in the future can conform their conduct. It's the first impeachment in history where there's no allegation of a crime by the president.

WALLACE: You have been very clear over the last few months where you stand on this case. Here are a few --

GRAHAM: Right.

WALLACE: -- of your clips.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: This is un-American at its core. What the House of Representatives is doing is a process of political revenge. I think this is a bunch of B.S. This thing will come to the Senate and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: All right. Let's talk about that "die quickly." First of all, counting votes, have you given up on the idea that the Senate Republican majority is going to vote to dismiss this case right away on Tuesday? Is that dead for practical purposes?

GRAHAM: Yes, that's dead for practical purposes. There are a lot of senators who I think will wind up acquitting the president but believe that we need to hear the House's case, the president's case, answer to the House's case, and ask questions and then that's when the witness requests will be. So the idea of dismissing the case early on is not going to happen. We don't have the votes for that. So we'll play it out along the Clinton model.

WALLACE: All right. You say then -- the next big issue, you say there is no need to hear from witnesses in this trial, but, sir, that directly contradicts what you said as a Republican House impeachment manager in 1999 during the Clinton impeachment trial. Let me put up a quote from then. You said: "There may be some conflict that has to be resolved by presenting live witnesses. That's what happens every day in court and I think the Senate can stand that." Question, why were witnesses OK then, but they're over the line now?

GRAHAM: Well, the people being asked for by Senator Schumer are the secretary of state, the chief staff to the president of the United States, the national security adviser to the president of the United States, and the acting OMB director. All of these witnesses were available to the House. The president said he would claim executive privilege. Here's what has happened. In the House, they did this in 48 days. They never allowed the president to exercise executive privilege. And when he suggested he might, they impeached him for obstructing Congress. Now I'd like you to ask Mr. Jeffries the following. What are we supposed to do in the Senate regarding executive privilege? If it's going to be invoked, who determines whether or not the privilege applies? Clearly to me any president would ask for executive privilege regarding these witnesses. And if they were that important, why didn't you call them in the House? Do you need them to make your case? The people called by the Senate were Blumenthal, Vernon Jordan, and Monica Lewinsky. Blumenthal asserted executive privilege. But that was litigated in the House, and the court ruled against Blumenthal. What they're doing here is they've got a railroad job in the House and they're trying to fix it in the Senate, and I'm not going to be part of that.

WALLACE: OK. Let me ask you about this question of executive privilege because you're quite right, President Trump has said if the Senate tries to call Chief of Staff Mulvaney or former National Security Adviser John Bolton that he will assert executive privilege. And you've indicated you'll support him. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: I'm not going to defy executive privilege. The president said he would invoke executive privilege. I hope no Republican will destroy execute privilege.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: But in the 1974 case of the United States v. Nixon, during the height of Watergate, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on the Nixon tapes. And here was the key quote from the court. "The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial." So, isn't the precedent, the legal precedent about executive privilege, is that it must yield to the need of evidence? And there is evidence that John Bolton, for instance, could give that it was impossible to get any other way. Isn't the precedent clear that he cannot invoke executive privilege to prevent John Bolton from testifying?

GRAHAM: No, he can invoke executive privilege. There's a Supreme Court case that says when you deal with national security issues the privilege of the president is at its highest. The president has never had a chance to invoke executive privilege regarding John Bolton or anybody else. They're asking the Senate now to destroy that privilege. You have a supreme court case on executive privilege because it went to court. And here's what Schumer said in 1998. "To suggest that any subject of investigation, much less the president with obligations to the institution of the presidency, is abusing power and interfering with an investigation by making legitimate legal claims using due process and asserting constitutional rights is beyond serious consideration." They've literally impeached President Trump because he wanted to exercise executive privilege. They said, no, that is obstructing Congress. This privilege attaching to Bolton has never been to court and, at a minimum, it should go to court.

WALLACE: Well, I guess I just -- I don't want to get too much into the weeds here and litigate this, but there's two points. One, in the Nixon tapes case in 1974, the court said the assertion of executive privilege must yield to evidence in a criminal case. And the president is being tried in a criminal case. And in an --

GRAHAM: This is not a --

WALLACE: Let me --

GRAHAM: There's no crime (INAUDIBLE).

WALLACE: Well, he's being tried for high crimes and misdemeanors. You can argue that it doesn't rise to that, but that's what the trial is all about. And secondly, the Supreme Court has also ruled that when it comes to deciding whether or not executive privilege, it doesn't -- it's not going to go to the court, because there was a case involving a judge named Judge Walter Nixon, in which the court basically said, you know what, we're not going to weigh in, when the Senate is involved in an impeachment trial, their word stands.

GRAHAM: So the point you're trying to make here is that we've got a Supreme Court case that was litigated after Nixon invoked executive privilege. The president has never been able to go to court because they wouldn't let him. I'm not going to legitimatize a House impeachment process that calls the secretary of state, the chief of staff, and the national security adviser of any president and deny them their day in court to protect those essential national security advisers, come to the Senate and destroy the privilege because it could never be used in the House. The bottom line here is if these people were that important to the case, they should have called them in the House. Executive privilege was raised by Clinton. He went to court and he lost. You're trying to get the Senate to legitimatize what I think is a political railroad job. I'm going to vote to honor the privilege. And if the privilege is to be decided by the United States Senate, I hope we will all honor the privilege because here's the way to destroy it. You impeach a president. You don't let him to exert executive privilege in the House. You deny him or her their day in court. You come to the Senate and you strip it away. You've destroyed executive privilege through the impeachment process. That would really make the presidency far less effective and would hurt the constitutional balance of power. That's exactly what they're trying to get us to do. Listen to Schumer in '98 if you don't believe me.

WALLACE: Let's get out of law and let's get back to politics.

GRAHAM: OK.

WALLACE: Because more and more of your Republican colleagues are saying -- not committing to it, we've put five up here on the screen, that they're at least open to the possibility of witnesses. Now, the Democrats, if they hold firm, would need only four GOP senators to come over to their side so they would be able to call witnesses. Your best guess as a vote counter, will the Senate end up calling witnesses?

GRAHAM: If we call one witness, we're going to call all the witnesses. There's not going to be a process where the Democrats get their witnesses and the president gets shut out. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to be consistent. I'm going to vote against calling the four witnesses requested by Senator Schumer. They're all covered by executive privilege. They're part of the national security team of the president. They could have been called in the House. They chose not to. Apparently they don't need them to make their case. Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and the whistle-blower, we can look at those allegations of misconduct outside of impeachment. I want this trial to get over with as quick as possible. I want the people of the United States to pick the next president, not a court of impeachment. And I'd like to be spending my time working on prescription drugs and national security issues instead of this.

WALLACE: OK. I've got two more...

GRAHAM: Now let me just say one thing -- OK, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, go ahead.

WALLACE: I've just got two more quick questions to ask you. And we'll try to get through this as quickly as possible. You talk about wanting to get through this, the trial, as quickly as possible. There are reports that Republican Senate Leader McConnell is going to put out a rule on Tuesday that for the opening arguments, 24 hours for each side, he's prepared to put the Senate in session 12 hours a day. So basically the House prosecutors would get two 12-hour days and the defense would get two 12-hour days to make their opening arguments. One, is that true? And two, if it is, how do you respond to the Democratic impeachment managers who say this is just a rush to get this over with?

GRAHAM: Well, to my friends on the Democratic side, you know, I like Nancy Pelosi. I have known her for years. And I think she is a very religious person. But when it comes to Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi may pray for him privately, but she has orchestrated the church of holy hell. From the time Trump has been sworn in to now, it has been one thing after another. Here's what I would say to the House folks. You took 48 days to impeach this president. You did not allow him to call any witnesses. He could not have a lawyer present during the House Intel Committee. This has been a partisan railroad job. And you're asking for fairness in the Senate? You violated every norm of what we do. It took five years for Starr to look at Clinton. Mueller looked at Trump for almost two years. And you took 48 days. So here's what I would say. The sooner this is over, the better for the country. We can get back to do the business of the American people and do things that really matter to them. I have been very consistent. I supported Mueller. I trusted him to be fair. This has been a political hit job. This is political revenge. And what they're doing to the presidency is a danger to the institution itself.

WALLACE: And finally in 30 seconds, I think it's fair to say that you are the senator who is personally closest to President Trump. And at various points you've said he's mad as hell, he's demanding his day in court. I assume you've spoken to him recently. What's his mood? How does he feel about the fact that he's about to undergo a trial for removal in the Senate? And what does he want from the Senate?

GRAHAM: I think he wants to have a chance to have his day in court that he didn't get in the House. It would be nice to have a lawyer present. It would be nice to request witnesses. I guarantee you, he'll get a better deal in the Senate than in the House. But his mood is to go to the State of the Union with this behind him and talk about what he wants to do for the next -- rest of 2020 and what he wants to do for the next four years. He is very much comfortable with the idea this is going to turn out well for him. He believes politically this has helped him. He thinks it's a threat to the presidency. The one thing he talks to me constantly about is, what does the next president do after this if this is successful? He does not want to legitimatize attack on the presidency. And that's my number one goal is to do this trial in a fashion that no House Republican or Democrat ever again will do again what this House did.

WALLACE: Senator Graham, thank you. Thanks for joining us. Always good to talk with you.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

WALLACE: Up next, Speaker Pelosi chose the impeachment managers who will prosecute the Democrats case against President Trump. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, the highest ranking leader on the team, joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Speaker Nancy Pelosi has named seven Democratic lawmakers to serve as impeachment managers or prosecutors trying to convince the Senate to convict President Trump. Joining us now from New York, a member of that team, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries.  And welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: Good morning, Chris.

WALLACE: The White House defense team last night sent out their responses to the Articles of Impeachment, calling impeachment a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president. "This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election now just months away."  They say Democrats have been trying to impeach and remove this president since the day he took office.

JEFFRIES: Our case is simple. The facts are uncontested. And the evidence is overwhelming. Donald Trump pressured a foreign government to target an American citizen for political and personal gain, and withheld $391 million in military aid from a vulnerable Ukraine without justification as part of his effort to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election. That is a corrupt abuse of power. And that is precisely why we are here right now getting ready to proceed with a Senate trial.

WALLACE: Let's talk about the trial. As we talk, and we're now just a little over 48 hours from when the trial will actually start with motions on Tuesday. Do you -- the Senate impeachment managers, do you know what the rules of this trial are going to be, that you're going to have to operate under?  And secondly, what about this talk that Senator McConnell is going to put out a rule that you have two days, 24 hours, basically two 12-hour sessions, to deliver your opening arguments? Do you have any problem with that? 

JEFFRIES: Well, we do not know what the rules are going to be at this moment. We certainly look forward to being able to review the resolution.  The most important thing is that the American people deserve a fair trial. The Constitution deserves a fair trial. Our democracy deserves a fair trial. And we believe that a fair trial involves witnesses, it involves evidence, it involves documents. We intend to present that to the American people.  We're going to proceed in a serious, solemn, and sober fashion, as we've done in the House, now as we transition to the Senate. We need to just follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the Constitution, present the truth to the American people as it relates to the solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 election.  The senators are going to have to decide. The American people are going to have to decide is that the right thing for a president to do? Should we protect the corruption of our democracy?

WALLACE: OK. But to answer my specific question, there is talk, and it appears that it's informed talk, that McConnell is going to say, you have got two days. You have 24 hours, but you have got two days. And we'll keep the Senate in session from 1:00 in the afternoon to 1:00 in the morning. Are you OK with that?

JEFFRIES: Well, again, I don't want to speculate as it relates to what the resolution may look like because Senator McConnell hasn't presented that resolution. And ultimately the decision will be made by the 100 senators, all of whom have sworn an oath to be impartial. We certainly hope that they conduct themselves in that fashion. We have a very strong case to present.  There were 17 different witnesses who testified in the House proceeding, 12 of whom testified publicly. Many of them were Trump appointees, individuals like Ambassador Sondland, who gave a million dollars, of course, to Trump's inauguration, who testified under oath that this was a quid pro quo.

WALLACE: But here's what I think a lot of people find curious. That your team, in your opening arguments, is basically going to be making two arguments that are completely contradictory. One, you have an overwhelming case. The case that you have built is sufficient that the president should be removed from office. But, two, we need to call more witnesses. Don't those contradict each other?

JEFFRIES: They don't. There's a strong case that was developed in the House. But as was the situation in the Clinton impeachment, and Senator Graham just acknowledged, there were three additional witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky, who was at the center of the impeachment in 1998, who did not testify before the House proceedings but was called to be present as it relates to what took place in the Senate.  And if Senator McConnell is saying that we're going to follow the Clinton model, then let's just follow the Clinton model.

WALLACE: What about the argument that we heard from Senator Graham in the previous segment, why should the Senate take the time and go to the trouble to litigate whether or not they can hear from witnesses, like former National Security Adviser John Bolton, when the House could have done it and you decided that you were in too much of a rush to do that?

JEFFRIES: Well, we proceeded expeditiously because Trump's abuse of power, his pressuring of a foreign government in this instance for his own personal and political gain related to an urgent matter of national security. You know, the notion of withholding $391 million that was allocated in a bipartisan basis...

WALLACE: Well, but, wait, you can't have it -- but, again, you can't have it both ways, Congressman. You say it was an urgent matter, it was a threat, and then Nancy Pelosi waited a month to even hand over the Articles of Impeachment.

JEFFRIES: Yes, I'm glad you raised that, because there's two parts to this process. There is the impeachment process and then, of course, there's the removal trial that takes place in the Senate. And Speaker Pelosi's decision, which was the right one, to temporarily, for a short period of time, hold those Articles of Impeachment, have created the space for us to have a discussion about a fair trial.  And in that space, what we've seen is John Bolton has come forward to say he's willing to testify before the Senate. Lev Parnas has come forward to say he is willing to testify before the Senate. We've acquired additional information in terms of correspondence between the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, which says that the president was the one who directed the aid be withheld from Ukraine.  We've had five Republican senators say that a fair trial should involve hearing from witnesses. And we've also seen that the non-partisan Government Accountability Office has concluded that the White House broke the law. That's additional information that I would think senators who believe in a fair trial would want to hear.

WALLACE: You heard Lindsey Graham before say, look, he doesn't want witnesses, but he says, if we're going to have witnesses, and a number of other Republicans are saying this, there should be reciprocity. If Democrats get to call witnesses, then Republicans get to call witnesses.  If you want -- and I assume he's your top witness, former National Security Adviser John Bolton. If you want to call John Bolton and the Republicans say, well, then, we're going to call Hunter Biden, are you willing to pay that price?

JEFFRIES: Well, ultimately, this is a decision that the 100 senators will make, perhaps with some involvement from Chief Justice John Roberts, who is proceeding over the trial. What I will...

WALLACE: Would that be -- would that be a fair trade for you?

JEFFRIES: Well, what I will say, Chris, is that the standard that should apply is relevance as it relates to the central allegation in this case of the president pressuring the Ukrainian government for his own personal and political gain. What I would think is relevant is the fact that in 2017 the Trump administration allocated $150 million in military aid to Ukraine and allegedly there were no concerns with corruption in Ukraine.  In 2018, the same Trump administration allocated $200 million in military aid to Ukraine. It was never held up. There were never any congressional hearings about alleged corruption in Ukraine under Republican control. The president had two different calls with the Ukrainian president. In April on the 21st and on July 25th...

WALLACE: Well, I mean, I suppose his argument would be that's when he became -- I assume his argument would be that's when he became aware of it.

JEFFRIES: Well, the key question is, what was the intervening event? Because the president had two calls, of course. He never mentioned the word corruption. In May of 2019, the Department of Defense, Trump's Department of Defense, indicated in a letter to Congress that all necessary preconditions for the receipt of the aid had been met, including the implementation of anti-corruption reforms by the Ukrainian government. It seems that the intervening event may have been the announcement by Joe Biden that he was running for president.

WALLACE: OK. One final question. And that is, House Speaker Pelosi, who has been saying for weeks that she takes no joy in the impeachment of Donald Trump, she used the words that you have used, solemn, sober, serious, here she is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: This is a very serious matter. And we take to it heart in a really solemn way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Which is why even some Democrats were surprised to see the ceremony where she signed the Articles of Impeachment, handing out pens like it was a celebratory bill signing, and as we can see from these pictures here, all the participants look pretty happy. Doesn't that blow a hole in your narrative that the Democrats aren't enjoying the impeachment and the effort to remove this president?

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): I was at that ceremony. And there was no joy  in that ceremony.

WALLACE: Well, there -- we -- we just saw the -- we just saw the pictures, Congressman.

JEFFRIES: There was no joy in that ceremony. And from the very beginning, through the end, Speaker Pelosi has been clear that we are going to proceed in a very serious and solemn and sober fashion. We don't dislike this president. We work with this president on criminal justice reform. I did personally on the First Step Act. We worked with this president to pass the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. We worked with this president to fully fund the government. We don't dislike --

WALLACE: But you've also been talking about impeaching, a lot of your remembers, since he took the oath of office.

JEFFRIES: We don't dislike Donald Trump, but we do love America, we do love democracy, we do love the Constitution. And in America, no one is above the law. Not even the president of the United States. George Washington, in his farewell address, said the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all.

WALLACE: Right.

JEFFRIES: That means everyone.

WALLACE: Congressman Jeffries, thank you. Thanks for your time today. And we'll, of course, be following the action on the Senate floor this week, which could go well into the evenings. Thank you, sir.

JEFFRIES: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Up next we'll bring in our Sunday group to discuss the case against President Trump, with key details about the impeachment trial still not clear. Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about whether the Senate should call witnesses for the trial. Just go to FaceBook or Twitter at FOX NEWS SUNDAY and we may use your question on the air.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Coming up, the impeachment trial pulls some Democratic presidential candidates off the campaign trail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would rather be in Iowa today. There's a caucus there in two and a half weeks.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've just got to get back here. I'm a mom. I can do two things at once.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: We'll ask our Sunday panel where the race stands, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A lot of presidents, some good, some not so good, but you got a good one now, even though they're trying to impeach the son of a b****, can you believe that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Well, President Trump weighing in on impeachment, even as he welcomed the national champion LSU Tigers to the White House on Friday. And it's time now for our Sunday group. GOP strategist Karl Rove, Charles Lane of "The Washington Post" Jonathan Swan from "Axios," and pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, also a Fox News contributor. Jonathan, let's start with the White House defense team and let's put it up on the screen because it's a really good cable news panel with people like Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, but more a panel, it seems to me, than a cohesive team of lawyers. How comfortable do you think White House Counsel Pat Cipollone is with having to try to run this operation?

JONATHAN SWAN, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "AXIOS": I don't want to speak for Pat Cipollone. I know that he's leading this. He's very much in charge, him and Jay Sekulow, the key lawyers here. And they have a very good relationship with Jane Raskin. She was on the -- on the Robert Mueller defense team. There are a number of people inside the White House at a very senior level who did not want the president to have Alan Dershowitz on his team. That was an issue of great consternation, particularly given the recent reports about his very close ties to Jeffrey Epstein. They did not want that association. So that was probably the most controversial part of it. But I actually don't think that this has been a huge issue having these additional people. The president wanted it and he sees it as a television trial.

WALLACE: The big question after opening arguments will be whether or not the Senate actually calls live witnesses to testify. Here are the two senate leaders on that subject.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Well, I think we'll be dealing with the witness issue at the appropriate time into the trial.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The Senate must conduct a fair trial. A fair trial has witnesses. A fair trial has relevant documents as a part of the record.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Karl, what's your vote count? What's your sense? Will the 47 Democrats and independents stand firm, united, and will at least four Republicans jump ship, join with them to call witnesses? And if they do, which witnesses?

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. I think the 47 Democrats will hang tight in this, in large part because a couple of them are likely to flake on the ultimate question of, should the president be removed from office? There are more -- there are -- it's much more likely that we will have more Democrats voting to retain the president in office than Republicans voting for removal (ph).

WALLACE: And what about the Republicans?

ROVE: I this this all depends upon how these first several days play out. You have five members of the Senate, I think three in particular, Alexander, Collins and Murkowski, who are inclined to have witnesses, two others who say they're open to it. But I think it all depends on how -- what's the sense of the end of 48 hours of the presentation of the two cases, do they need to hear from more? But think about this, the Democrats are basically saying, we did not prove our case in the House and in order to prove the case in the Senate we've got to have these witnesses. And I think that speaks to the underlying flaw in -- in this whole -- whole approach.

WALLACE: Well, you've actually brought us to the next subject, because we asked you for questions for the panel and on this issue of whether or not the Senate should call witnesses, we got this on Twitter from Gloria Perry. Quote, why should the Senate be doing the job of the House? The jury hears the evidence and decides on its validity. Let's present it. The House should have collected all the evidence already. Chuck, how do you answer Gloria?

CHARLES LANE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's not unheard of in an ordinary criminal trial for -- after the indictment for additional evidence, and new witnesses and documents to come up in the actual trial in chief. But I think this whole business is -- underlying it is all politics. And the Democrats, I think, for political reasons, did not want to spend a year litigating the president's claim of executive privilege. They wanted to get this thing into the Senate. And now I think they have a very plausible, and for many people, politically popular argument there ought to be witnesses. I think even a lot of Republicans in polls say we'd like there to be witnesses. Of course, I think the witnesses the Republicans want are people like the whistleblower and Hunter Biden and it could be a big can of worms. What this is about is putting those moderate middle of the road senators Karl was referring to on the spot, particularly Susan Collins and Corey Gardner and Martha McSally for --

WALLACE: People who are up for election.

LANE: Re-election. And, by the way, they spent this weekend in Florida at a fundraiser, spearheaded by Rick Scott, putting those people on the spot.

WALLACE: Kristen, let's -- let's talk some politics. Assuming the president is not removed from office, and I think that's still the overwhelming assumption, he'll be running for re-election, as he is already, in 2020. First of all, do you think impeachment will be a big issue given the way we consume news these days or do you think it will be largely forgotten by next November? And, secondly to the degree that it is an issue, and, obviously, we don't know how the trial's going to play out, who does it help, the Republicans or the Democrats?

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: So barring something -- a blockbuster change that happens over the course of the next week or so, or a decision to call witnesses that bring some kind of blockbuster testimony there, I don't expect this to affect the president's re-election chances in any marked way. His job approval has stayed extremely steady throughout this entire process, even as a majority of Americans in Fox News' own polling say that they would like to see the president impeached. The trial thus far -- or, pardon me, the hearings in the House did not move the president's numbers. I don't expect this to take the place of key issues like health care and immigration that are going to be much more top of mind to voters when they cast ballots in November.

SWAN: I'll just put one asterisks next to this, impeachment has been great for business on the Trump campaign.

WALLACE: They've raised a lot of money.

SWAN: Oh, have they ever. Have they ever. And to the extent to which this has grown their fundraising base and actually really engaged the Republican donors, but also the grass roots, they've collected data, they've already got a formidable data machine, text messages, FaceBook. I mean it's been significant.

WALLACE: And -- and really --

SWAN: And that has long term dividends.

WALLACE: And, quickly, Jonathan --

SWAN: Yes.

WALLACE: I want to ask you the same question I asked Lindsey Graham, because we saw that really interesting clip where he's celebrating with the LSU football team and then he suddenly brings up impeachment. How much has this gotten under his skin?

SWAN: He's -- of course he's thinking about this all the time. And, you know, he's watched -- because he watches TV all the time and it's the -- it's the subject on, you know -- but -- but this is also how Trump talks. Like, anyone who's had a conversation with the president would know that he will jump from one topic to a completely different topic in the same sentence. It's -- it's sort of quite typical.

WALLACE: All right, panel, we have to take a break here. But when we come back, what the war of words between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders is really about, and what effect will it have on the 2020 primary race?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: After taking all the hits, I go down, and everybody who's hit me is out. You all declare me -- not you, editorially, in a broad sense, declare me dead. And, guess what, I ain't dead and I'm not going to die.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Joe Biden speaking to "The New York Times" editorial board, declaring his campaign alive and well after some bumpy months on the campaign trail. And we're back now with the panel. Well, Karl, I think it's fair to say Joe Biden has not gotten a lot of love from political insiders and from the political media. But the fact is, he's still leading in the polls. Some state polls, certainly national polls by double digits. One, is he still the favorite to win the Democratic nomination? And, two, is he still the toughest challenge to Donald Trump in a -- in a general election?

ROVE: I think the answer to both is yes. I loved it, last spring people were writing him off because he came out and sort of bumbled around and said weird things. And I wrote in my column in "The Wall Street Journal," don't count him out because there's a certain resiliency to him. We -- we all know that he's goofy, but we all have a goofy uncle that shows up at the summer picnic that we sort of like. And that's the quality of Joe Biden. He's sort of the goofy uncle at the summer picnic that we have a sort of confidence that if he were president, we'd make it through. So, yes, he represents, in my opinion, the most serious threat to the president of all the field. And I think that at a -- as I wrote in my column two weeks ago, he is likely to be the Democratic nominee but if -- if I had to pick one. But -- but, ironically, I'd like to take the field against him, but you can't do that because I don't think he's a 50/50 candidate and all -- better than 50/50. And -- and all kinds of weird things are going to happen.

WALLACE: I think in a Canada casino (ph) you can take the field against him. But, in any case, one thing that's clearly helping him, at least right now is, this nasty split between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders among -- over among other things whether or not a woman can be elected president. Here's the famous clip from the debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What?

WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SANDERS: No, let me -- let's not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion.

WARREN: Anytime.

SANDERS: You called me a liar. You told me -- all right, let's not do it now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Chuck, how do you see the fight on the left playing out?

LANE: I think Joe Biden sees it as kind of like the Iran/Iraq War, you know, that -- let those two keep fighting forever and destroy each other. And it's a -- it's a great bonus for him. I think Elizabeth Warren played this card in part because she really needed to, that -- she wasn't winning the progressive wing of the party and I think she wanted to, you know, sort of stir up sentiment among women in the Democratic primary race. But there's a huge risk in that because Bernie Sanders' people are now firing back and saying this whole thing was an unfair setup, that it's a -- it's -- she's not accurately portraying their conversations, so on and so forth. Between this and the fact that the senators will have to sit quietly through a week or so of impeachment at least, I think you have to say that Joe Biden comes out ahead. And just to pick up on something Karl said. African-Americans have stood by Joe Biden. They are a key piece of the Democratic electorate. And it turns out the most pragmatic segment, because clearly they are focused on somebody who can beat Trump in the fall and they see it as Joe Biden.

ROVE: This hurt her badly. She didn't shake his hand. And in Iowa, that matters. If she had shaken his hand and said the same thing, I think people in Iowa would say, well, at least she was showing some strength. But she was disrespectful. And this reinforces the image that she can't tell the truth. She (INAUDIBLE).

WALLACE: All right, let me switch subjects because, meanwhile, in a -- it's -- it's hard to say this in a week where the president goes on trial possibly to be removed from office, but, in fact, the president had a pretty good week. First he signed that big trade deal with China and then the Senate, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, approved his great deal with Mexico and Canada. And here's the president on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today we just had passed the USMCA. It's going to take the place of NAFTA, which was a terrible deal. And the USMCA will probably be second to this witch hunt hoax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Kristen, how do you explain the gap between rising and very strong numbers of approval for the president's handling of the economy and his much lower numbers when it comes to overall job approval?

ANDERSON: You're right, that there's a gap of about ten points in almost every poll where you ask both of these questions. And I think that gap is driven by folks saying, I like what's going on with my 401k, I like what's going on in my bank account, but I wish he would stop the tweets. I wish he would conduct himself much more conventionally, presidentially. There's a lot in terms of tone and style that Donald Trump does that will rub people the wrong way, even if those very same people feel like the economy is doing better. So the big question is, which one of these is going to win out when it comes to people making their voting decision? I think, in a normal environment, you would see a president with these kinds of economic numbers and political scientists would build their models that would say, yes, the incumbent is likely to get re-elected. But with this big gap, it's possible that the economy does not win out. That people say, look, I like what's going on in my bank account, but I don't know that I want four more years of this, the atmospherics, the tone, the style.

WALLACE: Let --

ANDERSON: And that's going to be the big conflict.

WALLACE: Let me pick up on that with you, Jonathan. How confident is the Trump team, both in the White House, at the campaign headquarters, that no matter how divisive and polarizing he is, that the economy is going to see him through?

SWAN: Look, this is something that they're watching very closely. And I wouldn't call it confidence because it's sort of like knocking wood every, you know, couple week. Trump didn't have that many tools after he passed the tax cuts to keep the economy frothy. He's now put in place two of them, USMCA, which was very significant, and then the China deal really calmed the markets. It was -- you know, we're probably not going to see a phase two deal. That was a phase one. We're probably not going to see a phase two deal before the election. But if nothing major happens with China between now and November, they feel, you know, pretty -- as good as you can with something as unreliable as the economy.

WALLACE: Let -- let me just pick up on that with you, Karl, because I famously remember that in 1945, the Brits threw out Winston Churchill just after he had let them to victory out Hitler and the Nazis. He still lost. And I guess the question is, is a president with an economy -- and the numbers are really quite extraordinary, is a president with an economy this strong beatable?

ROVE: He is. But the economy is very -- a very strong weapon in his arsenal. And I would expect from -- from my contacts inside Trump world, that they're going to make a very strong effort to get a trade deal moving with the United Kingdom in order to keep this sense of amendment. We've got a second act. There are things that we're going to do to keep the prosperity growing. But -- but I think this tension between the strong economy and the president's re-election numbers points to one very important thing, who his opponent is as a Democrat. And then the conduct of that Democratic campaign and the president in the period of July, August, September, and October are going to be critical probably how each day plays out more than any election since probably 1980 when people were sitting there saying, well, we've got concerns about Jimmy Carter, but is that guy, Ronald Reagan, up to it.

WALLACE: Fifteen seconds.

SWAN: One thing I am stunned to pick up when I talk to people inside the Trump orbit is, they are -- they are starting to talk about Mike Bloomberg and this -- this enormous spending he's doing is catching their attention.

WALLACE: I've got to say, two New York billionaires. That would be a pretty fun show to watch. All right, panel, thank you. See you next Sunday. Up next, our "Power Player of the Week." From being told he'd never walk normally again, to trekking to the ends of the earth. A real life adventure story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: After suffering a terrible accident, he chose to make feats of extraordinary endurance his brand. Now he wants people to test their own limits. Here's our "Power Player of the Week."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Why? Why take on these challenges?

COLIN O'BRADY, PROFESSIONAL ENDURANCE ATHLETE: You know, for me, I think it's two-fold. One, I want to push my own limits for the human potential, but I also, for me, my larger purpose is really to inspire other.

WALLACE (voice over): Colin O'Brady is talking about his athletic endurance achievement. In a world full of records, his are astonishing, becoming the first person to walk across Antarctica solo. And, just last month, rowing across some of the world's most treacherous waters, from South America to Antarctica.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We did it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We did it.

WALLACE (on camera): Do you ever think, in the middle of one of these challenges, expedition, what the hell am I doing?

O'BRADY: All the time. All the time. You know, I've definitely thought like, whose idea was this anyways? Oh, wait, it was my idea.

WALLACE (voice over): His idea started with a freak accident in Thailand in 2008.

O'BRADY: There was a flaming jump rope that other people were participating in. It looked like a good idea to me. And, unfortunately for me, it went terribly wrong. The rope wrapped around my legs and lit my body completely on fire to my neck.

WALLACE: Doctors said he'd never walk normally again.

O'BRADY: That was kind of the deepest, not just physical pain, but also emotional sort of downward spiraling to be kind of told that my life would never be the same.

WALLACE: He says his mother pulled him out of it.

O'BRADY: Colin, your life's not over. What do you want to do when you get out of here? So at first I didn't want to play along. But, eventually, I -- I closed my eyes one day and I opened my eyes and said, mom, I just, you know, pictured myself crossing the finish line of a triathlon.

WALLACE: Eighteen months later, O'Brady finished first in the armature field at the Chicago Triathlon. He went on to climb Mount Everest and break ten world records.

O'BRADY: Top of the world!

WALLACE: Which brings us to 2018 and that solo trek across Antarctica.

O'BRADY: I was carrying a 375 pound sled, mostly full of fuel and food, just enough kind of food to get me to the end, which I was nearly running out of when I finished. Still a long way to go.

WALLACE: He was alone with his camera for 54 days, braving windchills of 80 degrees below zero and brutal storms.

O'BRADY: I'm hoping these tent poles hold.

WALLACE (on camera): Did you ever think either, one, I'm not going to be able to finish this, or, two, it may finish me?

O'BRADY: You know, when you're alone for that long, it's like throwing a party for yourself, but all of your angels and all of your demons are all invited. They're all kind of competing in there -- in your brain. I'm trying to hold it together.

WALLACE (voice over): Then, late last year, the row across the 600 mile Drake Passage in 13 punishing days.

O'BRADY: We had to keep the boat moving constantly 24 hours a day because the currents and the swells would push us around too much. The only way we thought to do that was to do 90 minute shifts. I just threw up. Ninety minutes rowing, 90 minutes resting. Ninety minutes rowing, 90 minutes resting.

WALLACE: O'Brady explains what drives him in his new book, "The Impossible First."

O'BRADY: I made it!

WALLACE: He hopes people will seek out their own challenges.

O'BRADY: I want them to set this down and say, now my impossible first is to do this and go out and take action in their own lives. Anything is possible if you believe in yourself.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Colin isn't done with his adventures. This spring he wants to climb Mount Everest again, but this time with his wife Jenna. Now, these program notes. Ahead of a big week in Washington and on the campaign trail, join the Fox News team this Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. Eastern for special coverage of the Senate impeachment trial. And next week, FOX NEWS SUNDAY will be live from Des Moines ahead of our town hall with Mayor Pete Buttigieg. That is 7:00 p.m. Eastern on Fox News Channel, just a week before the Iowa caucuses. And that's it for today. Have a great week. And we'll see you next FOX NEWS SUNDAY.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.