tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX November 10, 2019 6:00am-7:00am PST
>> chris: i'm chris wallace. democrats prepared to go public with their impeachment probe, but will the televised hearings change anything? ♪ >> those open hearings will be an opportunity for the american people to evaluate the witnesses for themselves, but also to learn firsthand about the facts of the president's misconduct. >> they've gone out of their way to find the people that hate president trump the most. >> chris: after weeks of closed-door testimony, lawmakers will question witnesses in public about whether the president abused his office to get ipo research from ukraine. we will ask to members leaving inquiry, republican will hurd, a moderate whose actions will be watched closely by other members
of his party, and democrat sean patrick maloney. then, former new york city mayor and billionaire businessman michael bloomberg weighs a late entry into the democratic race for president. >> he's not going to do well but i think he's going to hurt by it naturally. little michael will fail. >> chris: we will ask our sunday panel how bloomberg's possible move could reshape the democratic campaign. and our power player of the week, the iconic horse-drawn caisson performing a solemn duty honoring our nation's veterans. all right now on "fox news sunday." ♪ >> chris: and hello again from fox news in washington. the house democratic effort to impeach president trump moves into a key new phase this week, public hearings, in which career government officials will testify on camera about how
president trump pressured ukraine to investigate his political rivals. the big question:will this change the dynamic of the inquiry that so far has remained strictly partisans? in a moment we will speak with two members of the house intelligence committee that will hold the made-for-tv hearings. republican will hurd and democrat sean patrick maloney. first let's bring in ellison barber, who has the latest from the white house. ellison. >> one of the first witnesses we expect to hear from this week is a career diplomat who testified behind closed doors. it was his understanding that everything, military aid and an oval office visit, was contention contention on ukraine investigating the bidens in 2016. >> the 45th president cheered at the game of the century hours before the start of the week that could turn his political future upside down. three public hearings are set to take place on two different dates. on wednesday, the house intelligence committee will hear
from a top u.s. diplomat in ukraine and a top state department official. on friday, the former ambassador to ukraine. if house democrats released their close door testimony this week. taylor argued with the most explosive. if the diplomat testified it was his clear understanding security assistance money would not come until the president of ukraine committed to pursue the investigation for less president trump wanted. president trump continues to call the inquiry -- >> the witch hunt continues -- >> but claims his party is on the same page. >> the republicans never been so united. >> congressional republicans want to hear from at least 14 witnesses, including former vice president joe biden's son hunter and the whistle-blower was complaint help initiate the impeachment inquiry. chairman adam schiff responded with a warning, the committee will not serve as vehicles to carry out sham investigations into the bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016. rules approved by the house essentially give democrats veto
power here. it witnesses must be approved by the chairman of the intelligence committee or the full committee. chris. >> chris: ellison barber reporting from the white house. allison, thank you. joining me now, congressman will hurd, a republican member of the house until committee that will conduct those public hearings this week. congressman, the top republican on house intel, devin nunes, says that he would like to call the whistle-blower, the unnamed whistle-blower to testify in public in these hearings and here's what president trump has to say about the whistle-blower. >> the whistle-blower is a disgrace to our country, a disgrace, and the whistle-blower, because of that, should be revealed. if >> chris: now, the whistle-blower report of the works for the cia, where you work for almost a decade. should his identity be revealed? should be he called to testify in public? >> representative hurd: i think we should be protecting the identity of the whistle-blower.
i've said that from the very beginning because how we treat this whistle-blower will impact whistle-blowers in the future. having this whistle-blower law on the books is important. it's an important checks and balance are not only the intelligence committee, but what her government. what i do would like to see happen is for adam schiff, chairman schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee to answer questions about what was his engagement with the whistle-blower before the information -- the whistle-blower's allegations were transmitted to congress. he has misled the american public earlier in the year on what he knew about -- or the contact that he had with the whistle-blower, so if you want to protect the identity of the whistle-blower i think it's important for chairman schiff to answer questions about his interactions with them. >> chris: what to think about as the republicans are seeking, calling hunter biden, the former vice president's son, as a witness? >> representative hurd: i would love to hear from hunter biden, i would love to hear from
other americans that served on the board of burisma. i'm curious to know of someone who doesn't have any experience in ukraine nor experience international -- natural gas company comes on board in ukraine. we also need to hear and understand the corruption. we know corruption in the ukraine is an issue. ambassador taylor has said that in his testimony. dr. hill has said that in her testimony. this is something that was a concern even in this current new administration in ukraine, so hearing from people that can help provide insight into that, since that is central to this conversation would be valuable. >> chris: now, congressman schiff responded last night to the g.o.p. witness list that had been offered by chairman nunes and here's what he said. "the intel committee will not be used "to carry out the same sham investigations into the bidens and 2016 that the president wanted ukraine to conduct."
given that response, congressman hurd, what does that say about the fairness of a process the democrats are running and holding these hearings? >> representative hurd: unfortunately, chris, this has been a partisan exercise from the very beginning. one piece of information that comes, people who don't like the president say this is an example for impeachment. people that support the president say this is a -- you know, evidence of an exoneration. i think we should just turn over every rock and pursue every lead to ultimately get to the truth and it's unfortunate that the democrats on the committee and the democrats in the house have created this partisan exercise. in a normal hearing, the minority, the folks that are not in power, have the ability to offer a witness. we can't do that in this case. if under previous impeachment inquiries, the minority and the president has had the opportunity to call witnesses,
be involved. the majority of the house department select committee on intelligence and chairman schiff has prevented some of the lawyers for the administration to come in and be there with the folks that were testifying. that's not a fair process. if we are interested in trying to uncover the truth, then let's not put our thumb on the scale, but unfortunately that's what this process has been and what's even crazier is there trying to have this completed by the end of the year and i think we'll have 16 or 17 legislative days left in the year. half of those days are what's called fly the end, out days. people are coming in from their location. so to try to get that, try to pass nafta, to fund the government, trying to do all that in that short period of time, i think that's next to impossible. >> chris: your chuckle at the extreme partisanship may be on both sides, republicans and democrats. you are not -- while you are supportive of the president, you
are not a party line supportive. you oppose some of his policies, it for instance, constructing the border wall. you've opposed and spoken out against some of his language during his time in office. for you, what specifically do you want to learn from these hearings [boos] >> representative hurd: so i think talk about impeachment has been premature. i think impeachment is one of the most important and consequential things a member of congress can do at i think there's 535 different opinions on what impeachment is. to evaluate that question i think it's a violation of the law and so i want to see does this establish a criminal intent and yes, for me, i agree when i agree, i agree when i disagree. and i was the guy in the back alleys collecting intelligence. i also did this to embassies. i know how and embassies work and the fact that ukrainian officials weren't contacting their u.s. counterparts until
august 29th, when they read in -- i believe it was a political article about aid being withheld. that was the first time that any ukrainian had contacted a state department or government official about this. that was more than a month after the july 25th phone call between the president and president zelensky. what do i want to see? -- to >> chris: go ahead sir. >> representative hurd: what i want to see is their inability to establish criminal intent, do the ukrainians know that this was some kind of quid pro quo. when you look at our relationship between the u.s. and ukraine over the last three years, there's been no more aid going to ukraine this administration than the previous administration. ukraine is an important partner. >> chris: let me ask you specifically though about this because there seem to be two issues one that are part of the quid pro quo. one was military aid, one was
the meeting that ukraine very much wanted between their president zelensky and president trump. if all three of the witnesses that are going to testify this week -- you see them up there, william taylor, george kent, marie yovanovitch, say there was a clear connection between support for ukraine, various forms of the u.s. support for ukraine and ukraine investigating the democrats. if you are satisfied that that is true, that there was this connection, this nexus, is that an impeachable offense? >> representative hurd: i don't know if it was necessarily investigate the democrats. i think it was investigation of corruption -- >> chris: forgive me, sir, but specifically what president trump said on that fifth phone call was investigate the democratic role in the 2016 election, whether they were involved in hacking the dnc server and also specifically the
bidens and burisma. >> representative hurd: welcome on the 2016 elections, some of that information was based on what has been kind of fringe thinking, but back when even democrats start investigating, there was a ukraine nexus, so trying to get to the bottom of that, is that a violation of the law? was that an understanding based on debunk information? it yes. but is it a violation of the law? i don't think so. >> chris: but specifically, sir, the question is if there was a quid pro quo, u.s. aid for ukraine was going to depend on their doing is investigations of political rivals of the president. is that an impeachable offense? >> representative hurd: i think if you're trying to get information on a political rival to use in a political campaign
is not something a president or any official should be doing. i think everybody has -- most republicans have said that would be a violation of the law. >> chris: so that, in your view, if that were established to your satisfaction, f, i repeat, that would be an impeachable offense? >> representative hurd: i believe that is something that would make it -- have to truly consider whether impeachment is the right tool or not. >> chris: we will see what happens this weekend whether or not it persuades you. congressman hurd, thank you so much, thanks for your time, good to talk with you, sir. >> representative hurd: thank you, chris. >> chris: up next we will get reaction from a democrat on the intelligence committee about what some say is his party's timetable to impeach the president before the end of the year. ♪ (fozzie) ma! (mom) oh honeybear! (fozzie) hey, i'm trying some new material. you think i can run one past you? (mom) oh of course, dear...
(fozzie) good good good. [clears throat] so, why do bears wear fur coats? because we'd look silly in sweaters! ahhhh! (mom) wocka wocka. (fozzie) wocka wocka, ma. (fozzie vo) portal. from facebook. new with a nation-leadingg for th$150 billion commitmentss. to infrastructure, we're creating state of the art, 21st century transportation hubs, constructing new bridges, bringing high-speed internet to every corner of the state, and committing to low-cost clean energy. with infrastructure built for the future, the companies of tomorrow can thrive here today. see your future at esd.ny.gov [ slow dance♪music plays ] sfx: record scratch music (plays throughout): [ 'watch me walk' by spencer ludwig ] yo dj, can i put in a request? ♪ don't have no sass about this ♪
♪ >> chris: house republicans have complained for weeks about democrats interviewing key witnesses in the impeachment probe behind closed doors. now the public hearings are about to start. if the g.o.p. is still complaining. let's bring in congressman sean patrick maloney of new york, a democrat on the intelligence committee. congressman, as i discussed with congressman hurd, republicans have now put out there written list of witnesses. it includes hunter biden, the unnamed whistle-blower, and nellie ohr, who folks may remember she worked for fusion gps, which sought information from sources and ukraine and put out the steele dossier. will democrats agree to call any of these witnesses? and if you don't, what does that say about the fairness of this
entire proceeding? >> congressman maloney: well, i can't speak for the chairman, but what i can tell you is that i think we will end up calling some of the witnesses on that list and here's my test. my test is, do these witnesses have important information, knowledge, or evidence about the president's conduct? and if it passes that test, then we should call them, sure. >> chris: so specifically, hunter biden, nellie ohr, the unnamed whistle-blower. do any of them pass that test and therefore should be called? >> congressman maloney: the first two, no. the third one you've just heard congressman hurd give a very eloquent explanation of why we don't force the revelation of a whistle-blowers identity, so no in all three cases, but for different reasons. >> chris: let's focus on hunter biden. hunter biden is at the center of this. there are allegations of corruption. you know, there certainly are questions why a fellow named hunter biden would get a big job and ukraine when his father was then the vice president and
conducting relations with ukraine. isn't that a fair person to talk to? >> congressman maloney: let me ask you, mr. wallace, what information mr. biden, hunter biden, a private citizen who was broke no laws by serving on the board of directors, would have about the president's withholding of military aid to ukraine? in other words, he has no knowledge of what the president did or didn't do here, that is the subject of the impeachment inquiry. there are certainly questions, of course, and many people have asked them, but it's not relevant to this week's hearings. >> chris: i don't have the list right in front of me but you obviously saw it. you're a member of the committee. which member of the republican potential witnesses would you agree to call? >> congressman maloney: there witnesses on the republican list to have been interviewed in depositions already and of course those transcript are going to be released fully and so i would expect the witnesses who have been interviewed, because they have material information, would be likely called in public, but again, those are not -- >> chris: for instance, kurt
volker, a special emissary to ukraine? >> congressman maloney: he testified for the committee, so did mr. morrison. those witnesses are on the list. mr. hale is similarly a witness who has been interviewed, is on the list. those of the witnesses i have in mind, but again, this is not my decision. i can't speak for the chairman, but those witnesses do have material information about the president's conduct in this case. that's the proper focus of this inquiry and if i could just say, chris, i hope your viewers will keep an open mind. if this is veterans day weekend, god bless all who serve and where the country's uniform as my dad did, as my grandfather did. you know, these are also military veterans. ambassador taylor was an infantry officer with 101st airborne division in vietnam, served in combat. west point graduate. lieutenant colonel benjamin earned a purple heart in iraq. these are veterans and credible witnesses. i hope people will keep an open mind and hear their testimony unfiltered and read the transcript. by all means, they are all coming out in public.
>> chris: let's talk about another apparently nonwitness at that point and that his national security advisor -- former national security advisor john bolton. here is what his lawyer wrote this week to the committee. bolton was involved, according to his lawyer, in many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far. continuing the quote, if the house chooses not to pursue through subpoenas the testimony of ambassador bolton, let the record be clear, that is the house's decision. isn't -- congressman, isn't john bolton perhaps the best witness other than the president as to what was going on inside the oval office, and why on earth wouldn't you wait to see what he has to say? >> congressman maloney: we have invited ambassador bolton to appear, and that sounds like a nervous lawyer to me, because they are refusing to honor a legal request to provide relevant testimony. excuse me -- >> chris: it wait a minute. let me just -- wait a minute. the point is he has gone to a
judge and said you tell us i got an order from the white house, in order from congress, you tell me what to do. >> congressman maloney: mr. wallace, that's not how it works. you show up and you respond to a subpoena or you go to a judge and get it quashed, or you show up and you invoke a legitimate privilege and refused to answer a particular question. it is unprecedented to say you, congress, go to a judge and tell me to appear. that's not how it works in the massacre bolton is a better lawyer than that. he knows that personally. >> chris: that isn't what they're doing, they are not saying congress, go to the judge. they are going to the judge. that's what they did with another one of the clients who was an assistant to a deputy to bolton and bolton -- they are going to the judge and they are saying, judge, we've got these competing claims, you tell us what to do. they are not asking the house to do anything. >> congressman maloney: mr. wallace, i agree with you that he has important information and we would love to hear from ambassador bolton. i think the public deserves to hear from ambassador bolton, who remember call this a drug deal and wanted nothing to do with it.
who instructed his subordinates to report this conversations to the lawyers at the white house because he knew they were improper. ambassador bolton does have important information. i don't understand why the white house has instructed him not to cooperate. you should ask them. >> chris: i guess what i'm saying is this is an impeachment, this isn't just oversight. this is the potential impeachment of the president of the united states. there is going to be a court hearing in early december, charles cooperman, the deputy to bolton and bolton now would be part of that suit, why not wait -- we are talking about a month, exactly a month, to find out what a judge says? why wouldn't, when you're talking about the impeachment of the president, why wouldn't the house intelligence committee be willing to wait to find out such key evidence? >> congressman maloney: again, we would love to have mr. bolton's evidence. there's nothing preventing him from giving it, but remember -- and by the way, any notion that that's going to be favorable to the president i think is defunct by everything in the public domain already. ambassador bolton called this a
drug deal. i'm not sure the president will want to hear from ambassador bolton, but we sure do, but here's the point, the point is do we have sufficient evidence from credible witnesses we are going to present in public testimony to move forward with an inquiry which may result in a referral to the senate, where there will be a trial, where witnesses like ambassador bolton will have an opportunity again to to to provide the information they know. i encourage them to do it now, i encourage them to do it then and i don't think it will be favorable to the president. it is ambassador bolton who saw clearly how abusive and inappropriate the president's conduct was. >> chris: he's not going to be justified because you guys have a timetable that you want to get this done at the end of the year. let me ask you a couple questions to finish this up. president trump now says that he is going to release the transcript of a phone call -- not the july 25th a phone call that we've already seen but an earlier phone call in april just after president zelensky was
inaugurated between the two presidents. what value does not transcript have for your committee and your investigation? >> congressman maloney: i don't know of any evidence that would be relevant from the first phone call except that it was a routine phone call to congratulate the president. if the president wants to release it, that's fine. i don't think it's relevant to this investigation. >> chris: let's turn to the public hearings this week. you've got three witnesses testifying, we've already seen the transcripts of their interviews. people know what they're going to say. if the argument that you're basically -- people are going to read the book but they're going to read stomach see the movie? that didn't work out very well in the robert mueller testimony. >> congressman maloney: mr. wallace, the point is that the republicans have been demanding for weeks that the public be able to see this testimony, so they should take yes for an answer. i think it's very important to the public be able to judge for itself, and i really encourage your viewers to just watch the hearings. read the transcripts or watch it live and make up your own minds.
you won't have any filter, you won't have the pressure politicians in the way, you'll have witnesses giving opening statements, and these are military veterans. these are career nonpartisan civil servants. the first witness, ambassador taylor, an appointee of a republican president who serve this country in the military. >> chris: you've already made that point and i'm running out of time, i'd like to get one last question in if i might. here's what president trump says about all those witnesses, take a look. speak of the testimony has all been fine. for the most part i never even heard of these people, i have no idea who they are. it seems that nobody has any first-hand knowledge, there is no firsthand knowledge. >> chris: the president does have a point. none of these officials actually talked to the president. when we think back to john dean with richard nixon, he took us into the oval office. he told what he told the president and what the president told him. as the president says, all of the information we are going to hear this week is secondhand. is that enough to impeach a
president? >> congressman maloney: mr. wallace, if you're talking about this week -- but of course there witnesses like ambassador sondland, who spoke directly to the president. there are other witnesses who have refused to cooperate. by the way, the state department has refused to produce all the notes and corroborating evidence, but there are absolutely direct witnesses to the president's phone call. lieutenant colonel vindman was on the call and went immediately to the embassy legal department because he knew it was wrong, what he heard. that's a military veteran. there are a lot of people with direct knowledge and honestly, if i can say, it is heartbreaking to the president, any american president, deride an important process where reliable witnesses are giving information. it's also heartbreaking to realize once you see this evidence that any american president would engage in misconduct. it gives me no pleasure to tell you the american president has abused his office and he should be accountable. >> chris: as you say, people are going to get to see for themselves this week.
congressman maloney, thank you, thanks for joining us and of course fox news will cover the hearings this week live. >> congressman maloney: thank you. >> chris: up next, we will bring in our center group to discuss whether anything will change out of the public will hear from these witnesses themselves. ♪ e? we see patterns. relationships. when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪
kerrygold has a taste so rich it can take you to ireland's lush, green pastures. where grass-fed cows produce rich, creamy milk for a truly delicious taste. kerrygold. the taste that takes you there. >> those open hearings will be an opportunity for the american people to evaluate the witnesses for themselves, but also to learn firsthand about the facts of the president's misconduct. >> as we are more testimony, in
fact the testimony that we are hearing today, it's actually getting easier to defend the president. >> chris: house intelligence chair committee adam schiff and mark meadows setting very different expectations for this week's public impeachment hearings and it's time now for our center group. g.o.p. strategist karl rove. mo elleithee of georgetown university's institute of politics and public service. former democratic congressman donna edwards and senator mitch mcconnell's former chief of staff, josh holmes. congresswoman edwards, let me start with you. what do you expect these public hearings to accomplish? we know what these witnesses are going to say. their opening statements were leaked, the full hours long transcripts have been put out there for anybody who's interested to read. they've been widely covered. it doesn't seem to have moved anybody. i mean, democrats are foursquare in favor of impeachment and it doesn't seem to have been a single vote that's been swayed
so far at least by house republicans in favor of impeachment, so what's the point? >> i mean, now it's time for the american people to see the evidence. let's admit it, even -- i've read some of the transcripts but haven't read all of them and i think for the american people to be able to see these witnesses, to know their backgrounds and that they are public servants and that they have a sense of duty coming before the committee, and i think that that will be really compelling and maybe it's not about swaying individual members of congress right now, but it's about making sure that the american people put it out there because congress are followers, right? they follow the public and i think that it's really important for the american people to hear the lawlessness and the unconstitutional behavior the president of the united states. >> chris: karl, let's talk about what we are going to hear in terms of the testimony this week. you worked in a white house, we are going to hear from three
career foreign service officers. one of the william taylor, a military veteran, served presidents since 1985. ronald reagan. they're going to talk about an off the books foreign policy. if they're going to talk about an ambassador, marie yovanovitch, who was smeared and recalled because of comments that were being made, a campaign being run by rudy giuliani, allegedly. they're going to hear about a link between u.s. support for ukraine and ukraine conducting investigations of the president 'has political rivals. obviously there's another side to the story, but that story, does it bother you? >> a somebody who served in the white house it does bother me, yes, but on the other hand, there is constant friction between the state department and an administration. we saw this during the iraq war where we had the people in the state department leaking against the administration's policy. that's going to be the sideshow. the thing that's going to happen when we have this testimony is
republicans are going to be able to ask questions. think about where we've been. we have selective leaks of what these people said, which is done to spin it as much as possible against the president. we have their entire transcripts, which most people don't read. now we are going to have televised hearings in which they're going to be able to say their piece and it's going to have an impact, but there also going to be questioned and the questioning is going to get to -- we have a quid . military assistance for ukraine. and we have a quo, investigative items, but so far we don't have the pro, that is to say that what we know today is that the ukrainians were never aware of a delay in their aid until they were given the eight and told that it had been delayed and we never had that grant of the aid predicated upon them making a commitment to investigate joe biden. and the democrats -- schiff statement last night was very
problematic because the american people are going to want to hear about joe biden and hunter biden and devon archer and the stinky situation involving burisma and if the democrats say we are not going to allow you to have those people called, it's going to simply add to the impression that this is a partisan witch hunt. >> chris: mo? >> ambassador sondland did revise his testimony to say he did inform the ukrainians that the aid would likely be contingent on this, so that's about where we are on that point. look, ultimately i agree with the congresswoman that now the american people get to see this stuff and if you think about this politically and what actually -- based on the very few precedents we have in american history, looking back on richard nixon. republicans were with him. republican voters were with him up until the very end. the day he left, pulling show that about 30% of republicans thought he should be removed from office. but that 30% was a significant number because that's what put a
lot of pressure on the republican members of the senate, when goldwater finally broke with the president when trump said -- when he said mr. president i've been your guy, but it's become unsustainable for us. right now you don't see that kind of breaking from republican voters. so the question becomes do these hearings, as the congresswoman was saying, begin to mobilize and catalyze republican voters? we know it's doing it for democrats and we know it's doing it for independent voters. >> chris: here's the question i have and let me bring in josh on this, because i understand that, you know, we pay much more attention to the leaks, we pay much more attention to the transcripts than most people do, but they are out there and they have been widely reported. they've been the lead on the evening news, the front page of the papers, and so far, josh, it hasn't moved a single republik and vote. >> nor has it moved the republican primary electric. what it ultimately did for nixon, his party basically beginning to turn on him. if you look at the american people, particular the republican primary electorate,
not only moving away from him, it's heartening. this being a quote unquote witch hunt. we are a long way away from republicans moving away from president trump and embracing an impeachment inquiry. my guess is an open hearing in the house will only serve to exacerbate that. i don't think there's any chance that this is going to come off looking like a fair hearing or something that the president has had basically his say in. >> chris: i mean, that is the concern, that it hasn't moved the needle, and we've gotten a lot of information so far. i understand -- i don't know if i understand because everybody kept saying they won't read the book, they'll watch the movie and the mueller hearing turned out to be a disaster for democrats, i think we would agree. so let's assume that this is more effective than robert mueller as a witness. does it really move the needle? because it hasn't so far, congresswoman. >> this is actually very different kinds of behavior even than what we saw in the mueller
report. we have a president of the united states who withheld aid from an ally who was on the front lines against our chief adversary and i think when the american people here that it wasn't -- this isn't about 2016, this is about what is happening right now in 2020 prospectively for the 2020 election and i think that these witnesses are going to make all the difference. i mean, when you look at a lieutenant colonel, vindman for example, he will be there and you will be in his dress blues and fully decorated, raising his hand saying that he is telling the truth. i defy republicans to challenge on that. they are not challenging on the substance, they are challenging on process, and that is a loser argument. >> chris: you get the final word. >> process matters, fairness matters, that's why nixon went down, because the process was fair. this is not fair. they will not allow any of the rights granted to president clinton during his impeachment or any of the rights granted to president nixon during his impeachment and i love the
fact -- i love the fact that the democrats are now decrying the president's decision not to move aid -- lethal aid rapidly to ukraine. after all, the previous administration, a democratic at administration, did nothing to send lethal aid to ukraine and the nonlethal aid they refused to fly into ukraine on c-130s because they didn't want u.s. military presence in ukraine so they drop them off in poland and citizens had to take that nonlethal aid and put it in the back of their little vehicles and trucks and convey it to ukraine. this president at least had the guts to give the ukrainians the lethal aid needed to stave off the russian attempts to subvert that country. >> chris: i think this is probably going to end up being a game changer and it will be a bipartisan game changer varied panel, we have to take a break here. when we come back, former new york city mayor michael bloomberg looks ready to make a late entry into the 2020 democratic race. can he win the nomination? plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the impact of a bloomberg candidacy?
just go to facebook or twitter, @foxnewssunday, and we may use your question on the air. ♪ years ago i got laid off. i did not know what i was going to do. and then a light bulb went off. i had a sewing machine that was still in the box. i pulled up youtube. i kept watching videos over and over, i finally got to the point where i could make a stitch. and that's how knotzland was born. we make handmade bowties out of repurposed fabrics. because of youtube i'm an entrepreneur. it's been a crazy journey. because of youtube i'm an entrepreneur. thisdoin' more...bout... ...with less. doers need energy. and demand for it is expected to grow. so chevron's finding more homegrown energy, more precisely. digitizing the way we work with advanced data analytics helping us develop more productive wells. and we're exploring ways to use renewable energy in our operations. doin' more... ...with less. more data and precision... to help meet growing demand. that's going to get a lot of likes. chevron. innovating to meet the energy demands of today and tomorrow.
>> i'm a new yorker and i know akon when i i see one. >> there is nobody i'd rather run against the little like michael. >> tonight we say to michael bloomberg and other billionaires, sorry, you ain't gonna buy this election! >> chris: well, former new york city mayor michael bloomberg getting pretty strong pushback from both president trump and democratic candidate bernie sanders on a possible run for the white house, and we are back now with the panel. mo, let me start with you. does michael bloomberg have a
realistic path to the democratic nomination, and what you think of what his strategists say if he does get in, and it seems likely will, his plan, skip the first four, skip iowa, new hampshire, and basically begin your campaign on super tuesday in early march? >> it's an uphill climb i would think for mayor bloomberg. and there's no evidence -- we've never seen anyone who has successfully tried to skip the early states and go on to win the nomination. at least in the modern era. we've seen candidates who have tried to escape a state, skip iowa and go straight to new hampshire, skip new hampshire -- >> chris: rudy giuliani wanted to skip them all go to florida. >> it doesn't work out so well. i think what bloomberg is hoping here is that he can position himself to be sort of the moderate's last line of defense against the elizabeth warren bernie sanders wing of the party. if biden stumbles and is falling behind --
>> chris: fourth place in iowa and not leading a new hampshire either. >> and that whoever sort of stumbles out of those early states is going to be spent in terms of resources and organizations. in leadership, to his credit, sort of air were states than they are ground game states. he's got the money to invest heavily in advertising. he can be the guy who consorted with the moderates' last line of defense. i'm a little skeptical that it works but it is a strategy that if biden stumbles, it looks like he's going to try to put himself in position to execute. >> chris: we ask you for questions for the panel and on the possibility that michael bloomberg will get into this race, we got this on facebook from brad gates. he writes "how does bloomberg's stance on corporations stand against the current democrat parties push toward socialism"? congressman edwards, how do you answer basically on the question is who just way too far to the right for this current
democratic party? >> i think that -- i think that's a reasonable question but look, there's no push toward socialism in the democratic party but i do think there is an understandable concern about income inequality and michael bloomberg candidacy actually puts that front and center in the question of are we going to allow 749 billionaires to control all of the wealth of 60% -- the bottom 60% of americans and i think that's a legitimate debate for democrats to have. we've been having that within our party -- >> chris: how about the argument that billionaires like bill gates, like michael bloomberg, create enormous wealth and tremendous job opportunity and that's actually what kind of feeds the bulldog? >> absolutely they do and i worked for a corporation early in my career and i think that is important, with the question is how do you pay your fair share to make sure certain that other americans can aspire to their highest dreams too?
creating that wealth but also creating other opportunities for other americans. i think that is a front and center debate of the democratic party but i think michael bloomberg's candidacy puts it right there in the middle and i'm looking forward to the debate because i think we've been engaged in this conversation for a long time and it's going to be important for any democrat who wins in the democratic primary to be able to unite the party and i'm really not sure that a michael bloomberg is a candidate that can come and unite all of the factions of the democratic party. >> chris: all right, let's turn to the elections that were held this last tuesday night which were very interesting, where democrats took control of the virginia legislature for the first time in a quarter-century and also it appears, although the republican governor of kentucky still won't concede, it appears that the democrats have won the governor's seat in kentucky. president trump talked in kentucky, campaigning for the republican governor of the night before. here's what he said. >> you've got to vote.
because if you lose, it sends a really bad message. if you lose, they are going to say trump suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world. >> chris: so carl, how words are the president and republicans be, not so much about those specific results and those specific races, but what you saw and decide in 2018 and saw it again, the suburbs. the suburbs in virginia, the suburbs in kentucky. the suburbs in pennsylvania around philadelphia, this continuing move away from a republican party to the democrats? >> all suburbs are not the same. you mentioned kentucky. in kentucky -- >> chris: you brought your whiteboard? >> first time appearance on "fox news sunday" ." the republican got 48.8% of the vote. a fresh first-time candidate, african-american republican candidate for the attorney general who gets 57.8% of the vote. 75,000 votes ahead of the guy above him on the ballot, runs
nine points ahead of him. the rest of the ticket for agriculture commissioner, auditor, secretary of state -- >> chris: this is kentucky. >> i understand but the point is that in the suburbs those candidates run 11 to 12 points ahead of the republican candidate for governor and for the first time in the modern era the republicans take all those -- which says if you've got good candidates who make an appeal, they can carry the republican suburbs. but warning, negative. southeast pennsylvania. montgomery box, delaware and chester, republican strongholds. the democrats took delaware county for the first time. 5-0 democrat, first time they found a majority on the county council since the civil war and then in virginia we've known about northern virginia fading away from the republicans. in this election it was the richmond suburbs, the republicans have got a problem in the suburbs and kentucky says if you run the right kind of campaign pain and have the right kind of democrat. >> chris: i want to bring josh in. it is the continuing fallout
from elizabeth warren's continuing plans spending, taxing trillions of dollars and there was blowback this week from two relatively surprising sources, take a look. >> when you say i should pay a hundred billion, okay, then i'm starting to do a little math about what i have left over. >> i don't like vilifying anybody. i think we should applaud successful people. >> chris: josh, bill gates and jamie dimon, the ceo of jpmorgan, are certainly rich but they are not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. what does that say to you? obviously they are two billionaires -- two rich guys. what does that say to you about their problems that elizabeth warren will have with her taxes and policies in a general election? >> i think the best sign that elizabeth warren has a real problem with sort of your center left democratic constituency is the fact that we started this segment talking about michael bloomberg. michael bloomberg said back in
february as long as joe biden is in this race and feels like he's got a comfortable hold on the nomination he's not interested in running, but if the democratic party looks like it's auguring towards nominating somebody who's in that sort of left wing more extreme categories -- >> chris: we should point out michael bloomberg at some billionaire. >> absolutely, but here's the point, the point is that this also is a lot more about joe biden then it says about anything else. joe biden is now in a place where he has lost his hold on the democratic primary electorate in the democratic primary electorate is looking for elizabeth warren. with all due respect to bill gates -- >> chris: elizabeth warren? >> with all due respect to bill gates and the billionaires who have critiques about where the democratic party is, the democratic primary electorate is saying loud and clear for anybody who will listen, we like elizabeth warren. we like bernie sanders. we have had five or six candidates try the center wrote here and we have run them out of town in this primary electorate. >> biden and buttigieg are doing about as well combined as warren and sanders are doing combined.
>> the other two are at 18 and 20 -- >> in iowa with those are clustered very closely together. look, in 2018, more center left immigrants won congressional primaries than far left democrats. >> it's not happening in the 2020 cycle. >> this has shaken out here. it hasn't shaken out at all. >> chris: thank you all, panel, see you next sunday. up next, our "power player of the week," the dedication it takes to support the nation's greatest to their final resting place. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses
go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. (kermit) fozzie! you're on my tv! kermit! (fozzie) and you're on my tv! (dr. teeth) and i'm on both your tvs. (miss piggy) and of course, moi is on tv. (statler & waldorf) nobody cares! hahaha! (dr. teeth) woah woah woah. how are we all on each other's tvs? (animal) me on tv! (fozzie) oh i believe i have the answer. you see... (miss piggy) the thing on the tv is a portal tv and it lets you video call... (all) on your tv! (dr. teeth) ah!
(animal) me on tv! hahahaha! (fozzie vo) portal. from facebook. ♪ >> chris: on this veterans day weekend we want to introduce you to a special military unit whose mission is to pay final tribute to the men and women who have defended our freedom. here is our "power player of the week" ." >> it's our honor to be able to provide them the best ceremony that they deserve and that their families deserve, just pay it
back to them the way they paid it to us. >> chris: captain zachary stillman is talking about the old guard case on platoon that bears the casket for military funerals at arlington national cemetery. two teams go out, one with white horses, one with black. each participating in as many as four funerals a day. but the platoon is determined everyone will be special. >> that family isn't going to get a second funeral. we have to put as much effort and time into making sure every detail of what we do is the best we can make it. >> chris: a squad is up at 4:30 each morning to make sure it's perfect. the horses are sprayed, the attack is shined. and so is the case on that carried a canon back in the first world war.
then the horses are hitched up. the lead team that takes the caisson through the cemetery. the swing team that gets around tight corners and the wheel team that acts as breaks. then, they call out the mission. >> attention to order! zero nine, 12 oh four, colonel, united states air force. swing -- >> ready! >> caisson forward! >> chris: why do you have to do all of that? >> it's not that we have to do any of those things, it's really that we get to do those things. we are about to perform a funeral and we are about to perform a mission for that family and we want to make sure that we're doing it to the absolute best ability that we have for them. >> chris: the caisson platoon is part of presidential funerals. a writerly source named black jack was in john kennedy's procession. when he stepped on his handlers
toe, the soldier kept marching. in 2004, the military honors were for ronald reagan. the writerly source was named sergeant york that he is still part of the platoon. >> sergeant york is the oldest horse that we have here in the barn. he's actually 29. >> chris: 29? >> yes, sir. >> chris: reagan used to say there's nothing as good for the inside of a man as the outside of a horse. >> yes, sir. >> chris: he would have loved this one. captain stillman signed offer the armies of armed branch. when he joined the platoon he had never been on a horse. now he thinks it's as important as any other mission. >> chris: how long do you want to keep being in the caisson platoon? >> if i could, sir, i'd be there for the rest of my life, i absolutely love this job. i get to see soldiers every single day put in a lot of hard work for someone they really don't even know. i'm honored to be able to bring
them to their final resting place and it's just an honor to be a part of that mission. >> chris: horses in the caisson platoon are put up for adoption after the service is complete and right now elvira, a member of the swing team for 16 years, is available. if you want to find out more, please go to our website, foxnewssunday.com. and before we go, here's a live look at the u.s. military academy at west point. our colleagues at fox nfl sunday there for a special veterans day broadcast as a salute to the troops. and that's it for today. have a great week and we will see you next "fox news sunday" " ♪
the san francisco district attorney's race while there are votes to count, dudine declared victory. still a lot of questions this morning including when he takes office. an investigation underway in san francisco after a body found at the lincoln park golf course. shots fired during a traffic stop. a san jose officer pulled his gun. what we know about the man killed. good morning, to you on this sunday morning. it's november 10th. i'm claw dean wong. >> good morning, rar
IN COLLECTIONSKTVU (FOX) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on