tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News November 24, 2019 4:00pm-5:01pm PST
jon scott, we hope you have a happy thanksgiving, see you again next week. chris: i'm chris wallace, inspector general report awaited for months is expected to find the fbi investigation into russia and the trump campaign was not politically motivated. this was above an over though at at presidency. to sharply criticize lower level fbi officials. in launching the original trump-russia investigation. then democrats wrap up their impeachment hearing blitz after two weeks and 12 witnesses, what more do we know? >> everyone was in the loop.
it was no secret. >> i did say to him, ambassador sondland, i think this is going to blow up. chris: as investigation moves to house judiciary committee, now questions about how the process lo -- will go. >> i will go where the facts take us. >> putting the country through this is not helping particularly 11 months before the next election. we will discus a potential senate trial with republican senator john kennedy and ask swawell are democrats in a hurry. 10 candidates take the stage in fifth democratic debate, we will ask the panel on head of the race as we look ahead as the first of the nation contest. and our power player of the week going viral by giving away cash on twitter. all right now on fox news
sunday. ♪ ♪ chris: hello again from fox news in washington. well, after 30 hours of public hearings, house democrats are entering what may be the final phase of their impeachment investigation. the house intel committee is writing a report to house judiciary committee, full house vote could come by christmas, senate trial would follow in 2020, a move president trump says he'd welcome. meanwhile we are learning some of the main conclusions of the inspector general's report and how the fbi conducted its investigation into possible links between the trump campaign and russia. in a moment, we will talk with republican senator john kennedy, but first, let's bring in kevin corke with the latest from the white house, kevin. >> legally justified with no political bias, that's expected to be the findings of a soon to be released general's report on
the fbi's opening of trump-russia probe into the trump campaign leading up to the 2016 campaign, however, there's also some criticism about surveillance of one-time aide carter page leading up to the campaign. >> however, those familiar with the report's findings, say michael horowitz will cite serious missteps by officials including alter race -- alteration by fbi agent, then followed 2 days later by horowitz's testimony on capitol hill, over 2-week span a dozen witnesses testified, and republicans plotting a senate trial that the president says he wants. this while one of the key figures at the center of ukraine controversy, the president's attorney rudy giuliani insists he has done nothing wrong.
>> are you afraid that you can be indicted? >> you think i'm afraid, you think i get afraid? i did the right thing. i represented my client in a very, very effective way. i was so effective that i discovered a pattern of corruption at that the washington possess has -- press has been covering for 3 or 4 year. >> could still interview more witnesses in that inquiry, of course, then that report over to judiciary where they'll ultimately make the decision whether or not to move forward for the articles of impeachment. chris. chris: kevin corke reporting from the white house, kevin, thanks. joining us now louisiana senator john kennedy, republican on the senate judiciary committee and senator, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> thank you, chris. chris: president trump has been pushing a narrative for years that the fbi and other agencies of the government engage in a conspiracy first to spy on his campaign and then to try to end
or oust him from the presidency, here he is just a couple of days ago. >> this is spying on my campaign, something that has never been done in the history of our country, this was an overthrow attempt at the presidency. chris: but as we've reported the inspector general is expected to find that, yes, there was some misconduct, a low-level fbi lawyer may have doctored a document which was troubling but on the other hand, proper basis for opening the trump-russia investigation, not political bias, does that blow a hole in what the president has been saying? >> i haven't read the report. here is what i think right now. i think the fbi is the premier law enforcement agency in human history. i also think that there were a handful of men and women at the fbi and possibly in other
agencies who in 2016 acted on their political beliefs both against president and against secretary clinton. now, whether that activity rose to some inappropriate level, i'm going to wait and read the report. mr. horowitz is a serious, intelligent man and i will read the report with interest. chris: we should point out michael horowitz is inspector general. i want to press this senator, here are his main conclusions, the ig's, the opening of the trump-russia investigation legitimate and reportedly no finding that james comey or andrew mccabe or peter strzok took actions based on political bias, if that's -- we have
newspaper reports, haven't read the report directly, if that's what the inspector general finds, will you accept that, sir? >> well, there's this person running around washington, d.c., chris, by the name of anonymous source and he keeps repeatedly getting quoted in articles, i'm not saying you do that but others do. until i read the report, i'm not going to draw conclusions based on allegations by the anonymous source, i will read mr. horowitz's report carefully and draw my own conclusions. after reading mr. strzok's emails and mrs. page's emails and watching mr. comey's behavior particularly with respect to secretary clinton, i think any fair-minded american would look at those actions and say there's a real possibility those people acted on their political beliefs.
i will read the report. chris: all right, let's turn to the impeachment hearings and let's look at the highlights over the last 2 weeks, here are they. >> the meeting president zelensky wanted was on the conditions of investigations of barisma and alleged ukraine interference in 2016 elections. >> it's improper to demand foreign government and investigate u.s. citizen and political opponent. >> mr. giuliani's request were a friday quote quo for arranging a white house individual for president zelensky. chris: senator, you've drawn an interesting distinction, in asking a foreign country to investigate corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival is okay, but asking a foreign government to investigate a political rival is over the line, so what do you see here? do you see president trump pushes on investigation or looking for dirt on joe biden?
>> here is what i see, i think that speaker pelosi is acting in a manner that's insincere even by the standards of congress, i think she's turning impeachment into a routine political weapon. i think nobody is above the law but nobody is beneath it and i find it unconscionable that they have not allowed the president to defend themselves on the house side, can't call witnesses, can't offer rebuttal evidence, in terms of the substance, i think the quid pro quo is a red hairing, i think there are two issues in this case, number 1, according to speaker pelosi president trump asked for the investigation of a political rival. there's another scenario, and that is that president trump asked for an investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival. the latter would be if proven would be in national interest,
the former would be in his personal interest. when i raised this -- this point of view about the analysis many of my friends in the media say, well, there's no evidence of any impropriety by hunter biden and my response to that is that the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence or the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence if you don't look. chris: if i may -- >> i was going to say -- chris: go ahead, sir. >> i was going to say speaker pelosi is not -- has not allowed to defense to offer rebuttal evidence in terms of possible corruption. chris: well, obviously if there's a senate trial he'll get the opportunity, not to say maybe he should before. i want to focus on phone call, on july 25th, the president is talking to ukrainian president zelensky, he doesn't talk about
corruption, he doesn't talk about barisma, he just talks about two americans, joe biden and hunter biden, doesn't it seem like he was really trying to get dirt on a political rival and if so, do you think that's a serious act on his part? is that a crime? >> in my opinion and if i were back teaching in law school this is the way i would teach this case, doesn't mean i'm right but this is the way i see it, there are only two questions that have to be answered, why did the president ask for an investigation, and number 2, this is linked to the first question, what did hunter biden do for the money? now you answer both of those questions and you can resolve this case fairly and that's the way -- that's the way i view it. the quid pro quo, i think it's red hairing, the quid pro quo
tells you nothing, whether it was and illegal quid pro quo, the correct analysis which i just gave you, that's just one person's opinion. chris: if the house and it's not a done deal, if the house votes to impeach there would be a senate trial, a couple of questions quickly, do you think that the motion to dismiss or no trial at all, do you think it would be a two-week trial or trial that goes to 6 or 8 weeks or do you favor democrats and republicans to call witnesses? >> i think they'll be articles of impeachment issued. i think that speaker pelosi's judicial philosophy has been guilty, when it comes to the senate, i do not think that the allegations will be dismissed, i think there will be a trial and i'm in favor of doing it in accordance with due process and let everybody offer whatever they want to in terms of
evidence and bring whatever witnesses they want to if it takes a long time, you know, i was sent to the senate to be a senator,i don't mind sitting there as long as it takes. chris: finally the president and his supporters have said that ukraine was behind the hacking of the dnc computers and that it wasn't russia, that was a big issue this week because former nsc official fiona hill said that that is russian disinformation, she debunked that but on the other hand, president trump doubled down on that the very next day. take a look, sir. >> this is a fictional narrative that's been perpetrated by the russian security services themselves. >> they gave the server to crowd strike or whatever it's called which is a company owned by a very wealthy ukrainian and i still want to see that server, you know, the fbi has never gotten the server, that's a big part of this whole thing.
chris: senate kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the dnc and clinton campaign computers, their e-mails, was it russia or ukraine? >> i don't know nor do you, nor do any of us. ms. hill -- chris: let me interrupt to say, the entire intelligence community says it was russia. >> right, but it could also be ukraine, i'm not saying that i know one way or the other, i'm saying that ms. hill is entitled to her opinion but no rebuttal evidence was allowed to be offered. we know at least the republicans in the house wanted to call a witness, dnc political operative who lobbied the ukrainian embassy to be involved and get involved in 2016 election, we don't know if ukraine did that and we don't know to what extent because they won't let the president offer his evidence and that's why i will say once again
the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence if you're not allowed to call your own witnesses. senator kennedy, always interesting to talk to you and even more interesting to listen to you, thank you and thanks for joining us today and have a good thanksgiving holiday, sir. >> you too, chris. chris: up next democrats push investigation despite the white house blocking key witnesses, could that backfire leaving big gaps against case of president (vo) the flock blindly falls into formation. flying south for the winter. they never stray from their predetermined path. but this season, a more thrilling journey is calling. defy the laws of human nature. at the season of audi sales event.
(danny)'s voice) of course you don'te because you didn't!? your job isn't doing hard work... ...it's making them do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time. quickbooks. backing you. around here, nobody ever does it. i didn't do it. so when i heard they added ultra oxi to the cleaning power of tide, it was just what we needed. dad? i didn't do it. #1 stain and odor fighter, #1 trusted. it's got to be tide. set yourself free with fleet. gentle constipation relief in minutes. little fleet. big relief. try it. feel it. feel that fleet feeling. little fleet. big relief. try it. feel it. 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?
chris: democrats may vote on articles of impeachment to capitalize on momentum from their public hearings but they still face big hurdles when it comes to drumming up public support for impeachment. joining us in washington congressman eric, top democrat on both house intel and judiciary committees, congressman, welcome back to fox news sunday. as i discussed with senator kennedy, inspector general is expected to say when he releases report in a couple of weeks that the original trump-russia investigation was legitimate, was not based on political bias but he also is going to find that there was some serious misconduct, low-level fbi lawyer doctored some documents, new questions about the steel dossier, isn't that alarming? >> no, and i reviewed most of this evidence on the intelligence committee and, you know, we had concluded they had all the reason in the world to open the investigation and this report shows that we want fbi agents if they are told that any
campaign is being reached out to foreign government or agency, we want them to investigate this, now, if a lawyer at the fbi acted improperly, that person should be held accountable. chris: and what do you think this says about the president still saying that this was an attempt to stop him and to overthrow presidency? >> looks like the evidence is going to show otherwise, it's time for us to move on but to just respond to senator kennedy's remark earlier that maybe it was russia or ukraine, no, not at all, it was russia and as a country we have to make sure that we absolutely acknowledge it was russia, condemn russia for it and plays into russia's hands if they have equivalence with ukraine saying we don't know what it was. chris: you're a member of both house intel and house judiciary, so what happens now, when does the intelligence committee issue report and when would judiciary start hearings and do you expect
judiciary to hold open hearings and hear from fact witnesses or just, for instance, talk to constitutional scholars of what impeachment means? >> thursday was the last publicly-scheduled hearing, we are reviewing the evidence to determine what if anything should be, you know, done to the president for this misconduct, but i don't want to speak for the chairman, chris, but it would go to judiciary if we decided that there needed to be a remedy, and, of course, the president as we voted on would have rights in the judiciary committee to be part of the process. chris: all right, let's talk about rights in the judiciary committee, under the house resolution that passes the inquiry, the president does get to have a lawyer in the judiciary committee and it even talks about him being able to cross examine, call his own witnesses, but there's an interesting article in that and it says if the white house continues to block witnesses from testifying, then the chairman, jerry nadler in this case well within his rights to shut down the white house
lawyer. even in the clinton impeachment hearing, the president's lawyer, president clinton's lawyer got to question ken starr, are you really saying that you may shut down the white house lawyer? >> well, the amount of obstruction here is unprecedented and it was frustrating to the american people to watch the last 2 weeks of hearing and hear the president and defenders say we don't have direct evidence, all you have is hearsay evidence, you need to hear from x, y, z person when the president is telling mick mulvaney, john bolton, secretary pompeo and perry not to come in. that goes to consciousness of guilt, i don't think he should be rewarded and be able to play such a large part of the proceedings in the judiciary committee if they're not going to give us any of the documents, that's chairman's nadler's call. chris: you just heard senator kennedy saying this is unfair and you haven't allowed us, the republicans, to call their own witnesses, some, yes, but some no, and now here is a chance finally for the president's lawyer to participate and you're
saying you may not allow that either? >> well, i'm saying it's unfair to prevent witnesses who are key witnesses from coming forward. that is monumentally unfair. chris: wouldn't it be worst to shut down the president's -- the white house lawyer. >> i don't know that that decision has been made yet, i'm just saying that we see for this process to go productive for the american people we need to have all of the documents, and if the president is going to say i'm not giving you any documents, i'm not letting any relevant witnesses come, however, i want to throw shots from the gallery and try and fog up this investigation, i don't know if that's productive either. chris: democrats say that you have enough evidence to proceed and -- and arguably right articles of impeachment, vote articles of impeachment but you haven't heard, you could say it's not your fault but you haven't heard from a number of top witnesses including national, former national security john bolton who is asking a court on december 10th, tell me, i have an order from the white house not testify, the
house wants me to testify, you tell me what to do, "the new york times" had editorial this week and i want to put it up on the screen, "the new york times" editorial argued no matter is more urgent than impeachment but should not be rushed for the protection of the nation's security and for the integrity of the presidency and for the future of the republic, so why not slow down, why not wait to see what the judge decides on december 10th, why not take some of the cases to court, why are you in such a rush when you're going to be missing some of the most important evidence you could conceivably get? >> most important the president invoked an upcoming election and voters, you know, in just a few months are going to be voting in the upcoming caucuses so making sure there's integrity in the election, we are on the clock to make sure that that election is protected. chris: the election isn't until next november.
>> the iowa caucuses -- chris: well, the president isn't going to be, the democrats is running against each other. >> one of the candidates is who the president asked foreign government for misinformation on. your question is a fair one, what we have seen, though, the president every time we've asked for documents or witnesses locks the documents and the witnesses and the court process 9 to 12-month process and we could lose everything that we value in our democracy waiting on the courts when we already have powerful firsthand accounts from the witness who is have come forward and, chris, as a former prosecutor what i think is most remarkable here, i don't think in modern day history you have seen a bigger investigation that relies entirely on firsthand accounts, most prosecutors today to prove cases they put emails, text messages, financial documents. chris: wait a minute -- you talk about watergate.
no, you had firsthand witnesses in the oval office, john dean, john mitchell, you don't have any of that? >> we don't have -- as many courageous men in the white house like them right now, but we do have a lot of the president's appointees who have come forward, you know, people like fiona hill, people like ambassador sondland. >> most of them never talked to the president, i'm just saying why not -- here is the argument, you guys say that the president used his political powers for his -- used his office for his political benefit in what he was asking ukraine to do, aren't you in a sense doing the same thing, using your power for your political benefit which is, well, we can't really wait, we have to get this before iowa. >> we have powerful evidence already, if the president thought the witnesses could clear him, he would allow them to come in. it's more relevant on how much we should wait in courts is the fact that the president won't let them come in.
go cooperate with congress, i did nothing wrong. chris: while you're hoeding hours of -- holding hours of hearing, people favored impeachment 52 to 46, plus 6, now that's turned to 48% for removal and 50 pester against or minus 2, that's an 8-point swing against removing the president while you've been making your best case. >> well, i saw abc poll says 70% americans thought what the president did was wrong. chris: they didn't say impeach and remove. >> the majority in the poll did favor removing the president, so i'm not focused on the polls, i know my colleagues aren't either. this president leveraged his power, his great vast power to ask a foreign government to help him cheat and election and i don't think we should be looking at the polls to decide what we should do, most americans recognize that is wrong and
there has to be consequences. chris: all right, i want to play something that you said this week, here you are. >> this is a crime spree in progress, we have what the president did with the ukrainians and shakedown scheme of asking them to investigate his opponents. chris: congressman, the hardest evidence -- that's true. people will have to go to the internet to find out what we are talking about. the hardest evidence that you've got is that the president conditioned a white house meeting, not military, a white house meeting on investigating the bidens, when it comes to actually holding up military aid all you've got are presumptions, nobody who direct i will says that's what happened, does that rise to the level of what you call a crime spree and more important, does it rise to the level of ousting, removing a dually elected president of the united states? >> i'm not going to decide, you know, ultimately on impeachment
yet. we learned that there was a condition, that to get the call the investigations had to happen, ambassador sondland said that and to get the white house meeting investigations had to have evidence. we can prove the fact that the aid was withdrawn after the department of defense certified it on may 23rd, the aid was withdrawn for the ukrainians and everything we knew about the president when it related to ukraine was condition, so july july 25 call, white house meeting, the fact that aid was withdrawn, circumstance. chris: does that rise to the level? >> if proven, we are getting
pretty close to making a conclusion here, if proven anything any president should leverage their office to have another congressman cheat our elections. chris: you're a busy guy between two committees, thank you, sir. >> my pleasure. chris: up next sunday group to discuss what's in the inspector general's report on the fbi trump-russia investigation, plus, what would you like to ask the panel on whether democrats should look at the polls on deciding whether to go with impeachment, facebook, twitter on fox news sunday and we may use your question on chevy silverado hd. it offers head-up display. wow, that's dialed in. i can still keep my eyes on the road. my truck doesn't have that. it offers an optional technology package with up to 15 different camera views. that's quality picture. it even offers one enhanced view that makes your trailer appear invisible - to help you see what's behind you. oh, wow! which in this case happens to be the competition - since they don't offer the same amount of cameras as the silverado.
we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian. can you tell me that story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered. this holiday, start the journey with a dna kit from ancestry. for your worst sore throat pain journey with a dna kit try vicks vapocool drops. it's not candy, it's powerful relief. ahhhhhh!
vaporize sore throat pain with vicks vapocool drops. >> they tried to overthrow the presidency, this is a disgrace, i'm not surprised to see it. chris: president trump standing by his claim that the fbi was trying to bring him down when it opened trump-russia investigation in 2016. now we are starting to learn what's in the inspector general's report that will be released on december 9th, it's time for sunday group, cofounder
of federalist ben domenech. charles lane from the washington post, jessica tarlov and pollster kristin soltis anderson who is now a fox news contributor. ben, as we have been saying the president and supporters have been pushing the narrative for years now that he was the victim of a deep state conspiracy by the fbi, other intel agencies, but we've now gotten the initial report about inspector general michael horowitz, everybody agrees he's a straight shooter, yes, lower-level fbi officials may have done something wrong or fbi lawyer doctored document unacceptable but the origins of the investigation was not politically motivated. >> first of all, we are discussing a report we haven't read yet, we are getting early reports of what's inside of it, i think we should keep our judgment waited, but i do think
there's concerns about the process that went on, people that might have done things at various points within it, the real question that i have stepping back from all of this, what do we think needs to change about the process going forward, how can we prevent any kinds of questions about what the fbi does in future elections because we know that there's going to be attempts by foreign agents in a lot of different ways to interfere with our process going forward, that's not going away, we need to make sure that those processes are really kept away from any political biases in the system. chris: jessica, your reaction of the report, the report,i will say they were widely circulated over the weekend, how do you expect the president and his supporters to respond if it turns out that their narrative about this conspiracy turns out not to be true? >> well, i think they'll respond as they do always when their narrative is taken down a notch like it was last week by fiona hill, they will turn around and
say exactly the same thing, they did consistently with bob mueller, this is a witch hunt, no legal, factual basis for anything that they're claiming, democrats will have to figure out a way to effectively message this and probably not make it a linchpin of 2020 campaign but get the information out there for those who care that there was not political bias at the top level of the fbi and carter page warrant was legal. chris: there was a doctoring of the document in the renewal. >> right, horowitz still found that it was proper and legal to be surveilling carter page. democrats have to walk the line and i believe the president and his supporters will do just as they have and maybe throw horowitz into the deep state pool and say that there was something wrong with the investigation. chris: of course, we also have john durham, u.s. attorney and he's conducting a criminal investigation, so that's still out there.
let's turn to impeachment and to i guess the democrats star witness gordon sondland, here he is. >> was there a quid pro quo, the answer is yes. you really have no testimony today that ties president trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine in exchange for these investigations? >> other than my own presumption. >> which is nothing. chris: we ask you for questions for panel this week about polls that begin to go show rather than show support, support seems to be drain get away, we got this on twitter from brian foster, how can democrats look at the polls now with regard to impeachment. aren't they all in at this point? how do you answer brian and what do you make of the polls which show not just dramatic dropping away but certainly is not an increase in support as -- as the democrats have been making their case over the last couple of weeks.
>> impeachment is our constitution in case of emergency break-glass provision for the overturning of an election result in the face of enormous malfeasance on the part of the president, has been in some cases a game of telephone quite literally. whether you're in kleined to believe the president is good or bad view will effect how you view things. in the absence of something that dramatically changes that we already knew from the transcript, there hasn't been anything more dramatic than that that would really dislodge the polls one way or the other on this issue than what you're seeing for support for impeachment. chris: as political matter and not matter of justice, when you see the polls and you don't see the tremendous bipartisan buy-in, is it dangers or risky for the democrats to impeach the
president? >> it'll go to senate and be very different if we actually wound up with removal of a president, the ultimate dramatic conclusion i think the act of impeaching and saying, we have put this down in history books, many voters who say, look, issues like health care, issues like the economy are top for me, i don't understand why congress is spending so much effort on this, i wish we could get back to the things that matter to me, i think that's the big risk for democrats. chris: chuck, let's play this out and conventional wisdom for what it's worth. we assume, first of all, any doubt in your mind the house will impeach? >> i don't see how they could not after everything they've put in, indeed, after all the evidence. chris: any doubt in your mind -- he was pretty good lawyer, any doubt in your mind, if it does go to the senate they will not vote to remove? >> that's a negative. he would be acquitted is the way i look at it and for many reasons kristin outlined.
chris: let's take -- impeachment acquittal, where does that leave the president and where does that leave the democrats? >> i believe in a way for the president and the republicans, this has been just the latest in a long series of loyalty tests, things that you have to go through with donald trump as a republican to kind of prove you are in the party and the results show that he's cemented the party behind him even the person like will hurd -- chris: relatively moderate republican from -- from texas who is not running for reelection so he doesn't face that threat. >> the democrats had high hopes of peeling him off, he said no, there was wrongdoing here but it's not impeachable and i think that the president comes through actually with his base fortified from this. on the other hand, i think the democrats come through with
their base fortified. i think in that sense it wasn't that risky for them, actually never thought impeachment was politically risky for the democrats that might have upside just in recementing their base. chris: what about the argument that kristin makes, it allows republicans, let's say this all goes up, plays out, he's acquitted, republicans, you've wasted all of our time on this. >> they can say that, there's a lot of democrats if they had not gone forward with this would have faced internally challenges and internal criticism from their own people, maybe even primaries for not going through with it. so i think that kind of cuts both ways and frankly i don't think voters had a whole lot of expectations for legislation in this term to begin with. chris: not wasting any time. we do have usmca which is important. >> and that is for the moderate democrats, that is a significant -- chris: we have to take a break here panel, joe biden remains a big target in the latest democratic debate as he
maintains lead nationally, but what kind of threat does he face from mayor pete buttigieg who is at the top in iowa and close to the top in new great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
(employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy.
wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.
ry i do not have the experience of ever having discriminated against because of the color of my skin, i do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a strange near my own country. chris: rising democratic candidate mayor pete buttigieg arguing at this week's debate he can identify with african americans because of what he's had to deal with as a gay man, a comparison senator kamala harris said was neither productive nor smart and we are back now with the panel, let's start with the latest real clear politics
average of the race among democrats, at least the top 4, joe biden as you can see has 10-point lead nationally but pete buttigieg solidly iowa and basically tied with elizabeth warren and biden in new hampshire, kristin, how serious a contender is pete buttigieg with on the one hand the strong support in the early states but his continuing almost complete absence of any support from african american who is down the road are an immensely important democratic voting block? >> i think lee have to come first or second in both iowa and new hampshire in order to gain the type of momentum he need to build the support with the key pieces to have democratic coalition who have not really given him much of a second look, don't really think he's the guy for him. he's in quite shape in iowa, you have to go back to early 90's, 1998 if you don't count '92 campaign because of iowa
politician running for president, democrats choose whoever wins iowa to be nominee. iowa is a huge deal, for mayor pete to build that he will need momentum, nationally he's not in top 3. chris: i did know that no democrat has ever won, sometimes they've lost both and still won like bill clinton but no democrat has ever won iowa and new hampshire and then not got onto win the nomination, so where does that put pete buttigieg, obviously all of this can change but if he were to go ahead and win iowa and either finish first or second in new hampshire? >> he would be in super strong shape. chris: even if he goeses to south carolina? >> that's where he would hit a wall, what the effect of biden candidacy of pete buttigieg sweep of iowa and new hampshire
and at the same time it would be lowering biden and biden would sort of be in the same position as jeb bush was in in the republican side last time of having to make a last stand in south carolina, i have a feeling that's the theory of the duval patrick candidacy here, he's the guy who would say, look, joe biden has kind of fallen flat in this thing, turn to me because i'm more electable in the fall, i'm more experienced so on and so forth, i can appeal better to african-american voters than pete buttigieg can. i think there's just one asterisk for pete buttigieg, he doesn't appeal to black voters and not only issue for him in the primary but could be issue for primary in the whole if he were the standard bearer in the general. chris: joe biden who in this last debate this week had some more bumps, this may have been the bumpiest. >> 3 former chair it was black
caucus, the only african-american woman elected to senate, a whole range of people. [applause] >> the first african american. chris: he said -- the only woman, the second woman kamala harris is right there on the stage with him. jessica, can -- can biden stumble his way all the way to the nomination because that is sort of what he's doing so far, i think, and how seriously do you take late entrance duval patrick, former governor massachusetts, formerly in the race and apparently in 30 million-dollar ad buy that start former mayor mike bloomberg of new york city ends it bloomberg for president, he hasn't made formal announcement when you're spending $30 million and saying bloomberg for president, it's sounds like -- >> intend to go say bloomberg for president and for full disclosure i used to work for
doug jones, just to put that out there. joe biden can stumble to nomination, a lot of african-american support. we are talking about pete buttigieg having 0% in south carolina but two other people in the race, elizabeth warren and bernie sanders who have shown ability to get over 10%, so you could make more of an argument that warren would be more palatable candidate, for instance, to white college educated liberals and african-american voters than pete buttigieg. i do think his surge is largely overrated. i think something is going on at this moment but we know that polls are a just a snapshot in time and he's having moment like warren a month ago when we are all saying she's the nominee but joe biden continues to hang on in mid-20's there and the debates, his supporters at least campaign would say are not paying attention because of the crux is you have known me, you know what i stand for and what i'm going to be delivering to you.
as far as the late entrance, i'm not sure it makes much of a difference and i see duval patrick actually getting more of a vp consideration to introduce himself to the national audience and then potentially be considered by a biden or a warren down the road. chris: i want to bring in ben, and bloomberg with unlimited amounts of money. >> unlimited amounts of money, yes, that doesn't mean that money will make you like you, issues that matter for him, climate change and gun violence. chris: right, ben, how much does somebody on the other side of the political debate are you enjoying the democratic field? >> i think they'll be a whole wrench thrown by what's going to happen with impeachment, if we have a situation where all of the senator is come back to washington and a trial which joe biden will be brought in in a number of different ways, we saw this past week lindsey graham and others on capitol hill --
chris: you heard john kennedy say that, let's bring this in. >> that's something that will help mayor pete, i actually think he could ride the momentum further than some of the other folks at the table necessarily think, i think that he has a lot going for him especially for people who have taken heat of what president obama was saying just this past week warning a lot of democrats, let's not get too extreme, let's not go too far, let's not go to the revolution and let's be more gradual in our approach and understand where the country. chris: jessica, you have 30 second, every political's reporter fever dream that we would have a contested convention, multiple ballots like 1950's, smoke-filled rooms, i know that's not politically correct. that's unhealthy. what do you think? >> i think it's still a possibility, you could see 4
different people taking the first primary states, i think biden will get south carolina and north carolina. but still i think right now low likelihood. chris: just once in my reporting career a contested convention. [laughter] chris: good, do it for me, thank you, panel, see you next sunday, up next power player of the week, man give get away some of his fortune one tweet at a saturdays happen. pain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.
sleep number 360 smart bed. you can adjust your comforthe on both sides, your sleep number setting. can it help us fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep us asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. so you can really promise better sleep. not promise... prove. only at a sleep number store during the ultimate sleep number event, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. ends cyber monday.
it offers head-up display. chevy silverado hd. wow, that's dialed in. i can still keep my eyes on the road. my truck doesn't have that. it offers an optional technology package with up to 15 different camera views. that's quality picture. it even offers one enhanced view that makes your trailer appear invisible - to help you see what's behind you. oh, wow! which in this case happens to be the competition - since they don't offer the same amount of cameras as the silverado. literally in the rear-view. where they should be. ♪
it's a familiar story, about the person giving the big bucks to charities or foundations but social media has led one man to rethink that process and use twitter to help individual people in need. here is our power player of the week. >> i went out on my patio and said "what the hal"? i give away $10000 and see how it goes? i pumped out this week and the
next thing you know, it went viral. >> is talking about the moment last summer that led to what he calls twitter philanthropy. >> it's using social media for good, time we connect americans and humans from all across the globe to solve each other's problems. >> poteet gives away money -- >> i'll give away $10000. >> or who tweet him asking him for help. >> i've given over $300,000 in the form of cash. i gave away a tesla. >> just to build awareness for giving. when we give, we receive. >> he mobilizes twitter followers who he called teammates to gave their own donations. >> viking inspire tens of thousands or millions of americans, that's when it becomes interesting. >> he made headlines when he tweeted he give a veteran 30,000 dollars if trump retweeted him. the president did and he gave yvette a new car.
porky's following exploded. >> 's focus was on people who have immediate needs are facing a crisis. >> it keeps spreading joy and love, keep doing what you are doing. >> she's getting evicted, a cancer patient terminally ill, these are the life transforming things. $500 to $700,000, you can change people's lives. >> he helped a veteran get new teeth. he encouraged donations for a homeless guy. >> people gave $5, $10, $20. >> he pushed for a drug company to lower the cost of life-saving treatment for a baby. >> given us an opportunity to give our baby a life.
that's the power of what the internet is for. >> i say of 10% of the people are trying to get at me are scams and i helped 90% of people, i'll take those odds all day long. >> grandson of a billionaire, the younger quilty made his own fortune. >> if you wanted us to work hard what we had -- >> 30,000 teammates when he started, now he's close to 2 million. they've recently built proud crowdfunding website. >> i don't know where this is going to go. >> you just changed my life. >> i wake up every day and it changes. >> he's helped raise money so some families can buy thanksgiving turkeys and is considering 100,000-dollar
giveaway for christmas. that's it for today, have a great weekend. happy thanksgiving and we'll see you next fox news. mark: before we start they have to prove to you that they are noble, courageous and beyond approach. let me give it a try, the new york times likes to refer to me was a right wing radio host. my grandfather, my mother's father served in the united states marin