tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News October 6, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
on this. it's very difficult to do when you see what is happening in this process. i'm one of the few people who has made an attempt to have a rational conversation in that debate. it is going to be very difficult to continue to do that. >> it's been a pleasure to be with you. see you next time onchris: and x
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 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. >> reporter: chris, a vote on
the house floor 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? 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 a skeptical president trump reacted saying: coming from in the deep state the, 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 moves forward with a vote. >> well, we'll be issuing a letter. as everybody knows, we've been treated very unfairly. >> reporter: the president also going after critics such as senator mitt romney, one of the few republicans to criticize him for calling on foreign powers to investigate the bidens, a tweet calling romney a pompous ass and
a fool. this as pressure builds to release transcripts of testimony from a form you are ukraine ambassador and inspector general michael atkinson. republicans and democrats have accused each other of selective leaks to shape public opinion. again, chris, the breaking news that we are following, a second whistleblower. we have confirmed here 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, will have a great deal of interest in, chris. chris: kevin corke reporting from the white house, 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." >> good morning, chris, it's great to be here. chris: based on the witnesses that the committee heard from this week, based on the documents that you have received, do you believe 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? >> 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 in 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 ten 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 right 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. chris: 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? >> i believe that a abuse of power as we have seen over the last ten days that have been so detailed and appropriately laid out by the whistleblower, i think the elements are there. i think that the evidence that we need are there, and i do
believe based on that, that we will have to take a serious look at articles of impeachment. chris: 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? >> let me just say this, chris, let's deal with the first whistleblower. 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 about the -- 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 with who sees wrongdoing, hears wrongdoing and wants to do something about it. chris: now, the white house -- as i pointed out at the beginning -- 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 inimpeachment inquiry? >> well, chris, met me say this -- let me say this, i would hope, you know, this has been a pain ifful 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 really drives -- chris: wait, wait, wait. congresswoman, you say there's no precedent, there have only been two times under the history under the rules we now have in the both the hillary clinton case and the richard nixon case, there wases a clear precedent. the full house voted and authorized a full impeachment inquiry, so there's a precedent. >> 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 jutte -- just say this, this past ten 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 author owg investigation. with we need to review all documents as we begin the process of making a very, very important historical decision. 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 weeks. chris: 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. >> we have not poken directly with the whistleblower, we would like to. -- spoken directly. chris: now, "the washington post" gave chairman schiff four pinocchios for that comment, and here's how president trump reacted. >> i think it's a scandal that he knew before. i'd go a step forward, i think he probably helped write it it. chris: first of all, is there any excuse for chairman schiff not being up front and saying, yes, there was contact? and secondly, didn't chairman schiff in effect get advanced word -- maybe it wasn't detailed -- but some advanced word about the nature of the complaint which led to him to push this story the even before all of you got the transcript of the president's phone call? >> chris, let me just say this, with the president being accused of using his power and abusing his a 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, center around chairman schiff's words as a it pertains to contact with the whistleblower. chairman schiff has, as you know, has served several terms in congress. he has been a person who has provided exceptional leadership are, and chairman schiff said he could have stated, responded to that question in a more clearer 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 -- chris: 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. >> 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. chris: 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 ed of collusion. it's -- no evidence of collusion. it's one ting to talk like that
in a press conference, it's another to make stuff up in a congressional hearing on the possible impeachment of a prime minister. >> chris, i believe what the -- of a president. >> chris, i believe what the special counsel's report said was that the elements of conspiracy, the information that they were able to obtain the 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 the -- 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 the 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 a, something that we have certainly seen before from him. we need to keep our eye on the ball. chris: congresswoman demings, thank you for speaking with us today. please come back. >> thank you so much. i will. thank you. chris: up next, we'll get reaction from a republican on the intelligence committee. he says the house should take action against the committee chair, adam schiff. ♪ take prilosec otc and take control of heartburn. so you don't have to stash antacids here... here... or, here. kick your antacid habit with prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn.
a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing. ♪ ♪ chris: 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 the, congress juan chris stew -- congressman chris stewart. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good morning. keys chris i want to ask you about this new report 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? >> well, actually, not at all. first, we've known a little bit that this individual was going to come forward, and one of our concerns has always been there hasn't been firsthand knowledge of this. the first whistleblower, basically everything he accused was second and thirdhand knowledge. it does not matter. this person is going to say, yep, the president had this phone call and, yep, that's the transcript. why should i care at all what's
his perspective or opinion, judgment of this transcript? you and i can read it. we can make our own -- chris: but, sir, conceivably --
and the allegation by the first whistleblower and a lot of it has already been corroborated, is 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. so -- >> yes. chris: it's more than just the phone call. >> but, chris, that's just not true. i mean, all these accusations he makes about linkage after he just pulled from "the new york times" and 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 link it to military aid, it's never even mentioned. he doesn't offer a quid pro quo, he never even mentions the upcoming election.
he talks about one thing, we want to investigate corrupt, and i think that's a reasonable thing for him to ask. and these other assumptions are thing that some people, in their judgment, are concerning. but it's simply not -- chris: okay. let's unpack what just said here because president trump made it very career 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. >> 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. chris: 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? >> you bet.
attorney general barr is doing it right now -- chris: no, no, no, i asked -- forgive me. i said president trump. can you tell me of another instance where president trump on a conversation, a call has public wily or privately asked for a foreign leader to investigate a specific american? >> yeah, 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 oh of his subordinates, you make the call and investigate this -- chris: but the answer, i mean, i don't mean to interrupt, but you can't tell me a case where we have a record of the president specifically asking a foreign leader to investigate a specific american. >> i'm saying he's willingly and act a knowledged that he's doing that through his attorney general. chris: 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. 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? >> 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 respondent 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, 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. chris: 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 he asked for -- incidentally, there has never
been a specific allegation of any crime committed. i mean, 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. and neither in china, nor in ukraine. you don't think -- you think it's just a quips dense that he's talking about joe biden? >> you keep using that word coincidence. it's not a coincidence at all, it's 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 they had reason to investigate that, i'm sure the president would as well. but these were the facts and the individuals that were associated with those facts. chris: all right. i want to pick up on what you said at the very top which is there is no quid pro, no linkage between president trump's asking the ukrainian president certificate eleven key 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, or 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 volcker to a ukrainian aide: 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 day for visit to washington. august 10th, ukrainian aide to volcker: 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 barisma -- the company where hunter biden was on the board -- and election meddling and investigation. finally september 1st, the top u.s. diplomat in ukraine, bill taylor, to ambassador: are we now saying that security assistance and white house meeting are now condition on
investigation? sunland: call me. he later says there was no quid pro quo, but i've got to tell you, you read these e-mails before and after -- and i just took three -- it seems ukrainian officials and top american officials sure saw a quid pro quo. >> yeah. chris, it's just not true . this is a great example of the dishonesty of how this investigation's being run, and i wish we could elaborate that on chairman sniff and the dishonesty he's displayed. this is another example of it. they take little snippets of e-mails and texts, they leak those without releasing the transcripts. if you release the transcript of this entire hearing, it's very clear that mr. volcker and others have said there was no quid pro quo, there was no linkage between it. 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 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've been hearing 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 run with it for a while -- the press run with it for a while. eventually the transcript will show it's not true, but by then we'll already have done damage. it's malicious to leak like this and not do it fairly. chris: all right. 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, impeach mitt romney. of course, senators can't be impeached. but, congressman, do you have any problem with the president going after your senator that way? >> chris, i'm shocked you'd ask
me this question. [laughter] look, i know that the media loves for republicans to criticize -- chris: i'm not criticizing, i'm not criticizing, it's the president who called mitt romney a pompous ass. >> i know you're not, but you're hoping i will -- chris: i'm just asking -- well, okay, i'm just asking what you think. >> i'm just going to say, you know what? mitt romney's 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. i've got to come back to one thing real quick, chris, and that's ms. demings. i have a lot of respect for her, but she said there's been a lot of pain over the last ten days. oh, my gosh, these guys are bidty over this. they're not paining over this, and it's not been ten 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, but
it's alternative devisive for the american people. chris: thank you for that statement. always good to talk with you, sir. up next, our sunday group to discuss where the investigation stands now after a hectic week of witnesses, documents and presidential pushback. plus, what would you can ask about what there needs to be to launch an impeach 789 inquiry. go to twitter or facebook @fo
>> it's hard or to imagine a set of circumstances that would have alarmed the founders more than what's on that call. >> not a thing wrong. unless you heard the adam schiff version, what he made up, my conversation. he actually made it up. it should be criminal. it should be treasonous. chris: 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 for 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 impeachment, the president making the case that basically democrats are just out to get him, and adding to your answer the fact that there now is a second whistleblower. >> yep. 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 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 argue this week by robert door, whose father, a republican, was chosen by the judiciary committee chairman as counsel for the inpeachment committee. the house voted to formally move forward. there was a unified staff, the president was allowed to have his counsel present at all hearings and depositions, receive all documents, to state the president's in position in e testimony. all the evidence was received behind closed doors, and ridino operated in a strictly nonpartisan way. none of that is being done here this timings it is being done just the opposite by adam schiff, and the country is not going to be well served by this process. chris: we asked you, just picking up on this, we asked you 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 glenda. i am a democrat, and i am for an impeachment inquiry. i don't understand why the democrats don't want to vote. i believe americans want to see the vote. josh, following up, 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? >> well, sure i think they can, because democrats have largely made it a debate over process. look, that nurse has an absolutely excellent point. what nan i pelosi's been trying to do for the better pat of two years -- part of two years to try to deflect and distract the base of her party and 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 it was inevitable, they were going to find a reason to justify this one way with --
one way or the other, but she does not want to put those freshmen in purple and red districts on the record on the front end of an impeachment inquiry to try to impeach this president. it is horrible politics for her, for the conference, and i think she could lose the majority if she went down that road. chris: so do you think this is an argument over process or over what the president did or didn't do? >> well, i think the president would like it to be an argument over process because we know what he did. everybody can read the letter for themselves and also the texts 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 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 up-front vote. in fact, i think the president of the united states wants an
up-front vote both for the reason that josh e elucidated which is to say i'm going to put some of these moderate democrats on the spot, but also i think he wants it to slow down the process a little bit. he wants to -- kristin: it's interesting -- chris: it's interesting because people say, well, she doesn't want to do it because she would put those 31 house democrats who won in districts that trump won in 2016. more importantly than that, if you have a house vote and it was 99% democrats for it and 99% republicans against it, wouldn't that just put the lie to idea that there is any bipartisanship in this? wouldn't that, in effect, say it's a party line vote? >> excuse me. we live in highly polarized times, and people such as the people you interviewed 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 effort9 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. chris: okay. 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. >> 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. chris: 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 it seems to be whatever is in president trump's head. is there, from what you're talking -- do they have a strategy here? >> on the first question, i think impeachment is likely inevitable, the fact that nancy pelosi took the step to launch the inquiry means she knows
where her caucus is on the latter question, and the fact that the whistleblower complaint at the sent center of this that largely been proven true, i think, bolsters her case this. on the white house strategy, this has caught the white house off guard. it caught a lot of us off guard, but the white house was not prepared to be in this situation right now. and so the strategy the 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 where clinton himself tried to act as though he was governing, act as though he was doing things on behalf of the american people. trump all in on impeachment. he is going to be leading his own defense. i think the big question for the white house is about their practical cooperation with congress. if they choose to stonewall on documents, on interviews, that actually guarantee it is his impeach. , and if it focuses on an obstruction of congress is a definite for democrats. chris: josh, you are our senate
expert as the foreman chief of staff to mitch mcconnell. let's assume the house votes sometime november, december, whatever to impeach the president, they need 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 necessarily know is true. does it matter what the evidence is, or is it just with impossible that 20 republicans will jump ship and vote to remove this president in. >> well, it's highly unlikely. it's not irrelevant what the evidence is, but i think what julie laid out is what house democrats are doing to try to prosecute in 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 to the senate, i imagine it will be dealt with similarly. you know, we live in polarizing times, no kidding. i mean, i think right now almost
every republican in the entire district of columbia looks at adam schiff with zero credibility. there is nothing 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 completely made up anyway. chris: okay. we're running out of time, and you're stealing from the next panel with whatever your answer is here. [laughter] you were mitch mcconnell's chief of staff. he said, and, you know, 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. 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? >> so the rules are vail specific -- chris: short view here. >> the way that everybody views it is basically mcconnell can make a decision one way or the other. you can't. in an impeachment article, you have to consider it. it comes to the floor, us displaces everything else.
the senate will have to deal with it one way or another. chris: you didn't answer the question, can that just be a vote or a trial in. >> they're going to have to have a vote to dismiss it if nothing else. chris: but it could be that. >> sure, it could be that or a full trial. i think a lot depends on what the house ultimately leads up to. chris: all right. when we come back, the impeachment inquiry's impact on 2020, and brand new fox news poll on where the race for president stands right now.
that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy...
next year of his presidency. chris: democrat front-runner joe biden engaged in a running battle with president trump over his son's work in ukraine and china and whether that was a conflict of interest. we have brand new fox polls that show biden with a continued strength in two key states. in south carolina biden till has a commanding lead -- still has a commanding lead with support from 41% of democratic primary voters. elizabeth warren is a distant second at 12%, and bernie sanders at 0. biden's -- at 10. biden's lead up six points since july. and in the key swing state of wisconsin which helped put mr. trump over the top in 2016, biden leads the president by 9 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. it just smelled. it's classic swamp.
but couldn't you argue, 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 president trump's continued targeting of joe biden may be the best thing biden has going for him right now? >> it would be if biden knew how to respond. the president started going after him the weekend of september 16th, and his first response was late afternoon on the west coast, and none of us saw it. and it was how dare you attack my family. ironically, his best defense would be to say, you know what? in retrospect, i should have said something to hunter about getting off that, make a living someplace else, but he didn't. the more he says how dare you attack my family, the more we talk about the stinky arrangement, and the stinkier it gets. no, it's weird. people have exit ramps here. biden has an exit ramp. 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 members in ukraine, but maybe i shouldn't have said that about ukraine and china. that's an offramp for him and people say, you know what? okay, fine. but no even looking for an offramp, they're looking for a raucous fight. chris: 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. bernie sanders, in the third quarter of this year, raised $25 million. elizabeth warren, $24.6 million. peat buttigieg, 19 million. and all the way back in fourth place, the supposed front-runner 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 in. >> no, because he's -- well -- [laughter] it's a question. i think the fundraising is a very interesting component to
this because as the world of politics has adapted, joe bidens of the world have not, right? everybody's gone to a 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 forty place. what is he going to do in the fourth quarter? it's not going to get better. he's going to be outspent and outraised 4, 5, 6 to 1 down the stretch because, frankly, his campaign is antiquated. >> it may get better in the next quarter because of president trump. my inbox is inundated. chris: let me just say, if they're sending karl rove -- their campaign is antiquated. [laughter] 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. >> now y'all need to know out there this is basic stuff, foreign donors and certainly foreign governments cannot participate in the american political process. chris: juan? [laughter] mike pence, basic stuff. foreign governments can't participate in our elections. how badly do you think what we've heard so far -- and, you know, it's not just the 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? >> well, the polls show that it has hurt him and, you know, we've all said that there's i increasing numbers of people who not only now favor impeachment -- by the way, those numbers include house democrats increased number of those who have said now they want impeachment -- but it also is an indication more people say they want conviction in the senate. i think it's 44% 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 loser. but the contrary impact, i think, will be that you will start to see moderates, i think you will start to see especially suburban white women in states like pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, just turned off by the static, the noise, the rekrill mission. -- recrimination. i think it hurts the president's re-election bid. chris: julie, what's your sense of how worried they are at the white houses and how worried they are inside the trump campaign assuming that this doesn't end up with the removal in the senate -- and i think we all agree that's the overwhelmingly likely result -- how much this damages his prospects for 2020. >> 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. his base remains loyal, they will look at this as a partisan process, and trump will be able to sort of message and tweet his way out of this. what you hear privately though, and i know josh has heard this too from republicans, what you hear privately from a lot of republicans in washington is they do think this is different. they do think that if democrats are available -- 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 the voters who have moved away from trump over the last several months. chris: i've got half a minuting
karl, ask -- and you can't clear your throat in half a minute. how bad for republicans who are standing by their man in. >> well, look, house republicans are going to get an advantage. 31 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, colorado and maine, states that are going to be close or leaning away from trump are going to be problematic. look, we don't know how this is all going to play out. thank god from the white house, and they ought to say every morning for adam schiff being in charge of this process. isn't it amazing? jerrold nadler has disappeared, and he has been replaced by adam schiff who's about the most partisan guy you could ever imagine -- chris: i was going to say, they put in schiff because they thought nadler was a bad face for the whole thing. 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.
kennedy, and it's the nation's busiest performing arts center. and it has just expanded its mission for the 21st century. here's our power player of the week. ♪ ♪ >> 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. chris: 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. >> the downside is that somebody's on stage, and you in the audience, and there's no connection. chris: the $250 million reach opened in september and is exactly what its name ill plies. ♪ chris: built for these times, to reach out to audiences.
>> you want to know the artist, you want to know the process for 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. chris: it ises a living, interactive complex with 11 performance spaces that honor the 35th president. ♪ chris: including the moonshot room. but the remarkable pa rifl ons are in receives 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. ♪ ♪ chris: like oscar-winning composer alan menkin, conducting a master class. >> you know, we're taking you through the town, and we're learning bela's different, she doesn't want to be in this pro vince, town. chris: the week opened with a
two week festival, 5003 events that attractedded -- 50 events that attracted more than 100,000 people. >> to see the place filled with families, bike riders or scooters that come off the bridge and go through the gardens, 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. chris: how happy are you with all of this? >> ecstatic. chris: 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. so this is the kind of accident that you're talking about not in the arts -- [laughter] but there's a gorgeous butterfly in the middle of -- >> it makes you feel like you're in nature while your right here in the middle of the city. chris: and it makes you feel better. >> yeah, that's the idea. chris: that's the idea. most of the performance falls in the reach are underground.