Transcripts For FOXNEWSW The Journal Editorial Report 202001

Comes after 3 days of arguments by house impeachment managers with democrats outlining the president s corrupt scheme to abuse power and warning that he will do it again if hes not removed from office. He has shown neither remorse nor acknowledgment of wrongdoing, if you can believe that july 25th was a perfect call that asking for investigations of your political opponents and using the power of your office to make it so is perfectly fine, then there is nothing that would stop you from doing it again. President trump abused his office and must be removed from that office. Paul lets bring in wall street journal columnist Deputy Editor dan henninger, columnist kim strassel, Editorial Board Kyle Peterson and constitutional attorney and frequent wall street journal contributor david rivken, david, let me start with you, the aim of the defenders of the president , punch holes in the argument that arguments,w well did they do . It was good day for the president s legal team, they focused in a much better way much better than rhetorical presentation by the white house managers, punches a lot of holes, basically the entire theory is corrupt motive which is by the way incoherent as a matter of law. All we have is presumptions, assumptions and suppositions, absolutely no evidence that the president had a corrupt motive, absolutely no evidence that the president actually said what he said he did, talk to ukrainian leader, talk with burden sharing, meaning the europeans, surprise, surprise, not doing enough to help ukraine and asked them to look in past corruption believeing that ukraine is quite corrupt. No evidence that he pushed for it, lots of suppositions, the smart lawyers, pick up evidence a little. Okay. Its your argument that you cant impeach somebody for having motives, especially when you havent, if the president havent committed actually impeachable acts that violate oath of office and that the president objected to what the president has done is nothing wrong, slogans like he tried to invite foreign country to interfere in the elections, he tried to investigate political opponent. Let me theres no evidence of corrupt, period, if theres evidence that he had a personal intent to benefit himself politically, paul, as youve written, every single politician always had mixture of motives, National Interest but political interest and nothing wrong with that. Paul kim, keeping on the abuse of power argument, what the do you think of the case made this morning. We had a preview of whats going in more indepth on monday and while the White House Team did talk about big broadcomm plaints which theyve made that this was not a fair, the democrats have been out to impeach the president since the start, what was new here was the introduction of evidence that really did point out that there were other reasons for withholding aid to ukraine. They pointed out an email back in june before the telephone call which became clear the white house had become interested in how much other nato countries contribute today contributed to ukraine. Presented evidence to suggest that there were plenty of reasons for the delay of the aid that had nothing to do with investigations of biden, thats all the stuff thats persuasive to viewers. Paul in a sense we need to impeach him as preemptive, preemptive act, even if the case is not up as it were, we have to do it to stop him. Well, i think that was basically the argument they made from the beginning of Trump Presidency which is to say thats a political argument, i mean, they feel that donald trump cannot be trusted to be president. Paul hes unfit. He should show somehow be stopped, they have done the impeachment, but lets understand this, political the adults on trump up to this point. We are now in a constitutional process, you impeach the president in the house, goes over to the senate for a trial, not simply a political event, in a trial you have to convict somebody beyond all reasonable doubt as we have just been discussing here its pretty clear that they have not made the case legally beyond a reasonable doubt regarding abuse of power or corrupt scheme. Paul nadler calling the senate out, some of you want to conduct a coverup, probably not a good way to persuade senators. Moving to dans point, one of the best moments i thought saturday morning for the republican and white house lawyers was they ran a supercut of the u. S. Ambassador to the eu gordon sondland, his testimony i presume, i presume, that was presumption, pure guess on my part, goes to show that the House Democrats, theres no direct testimony as to President Trumps state of mind, what exactly happened with the hold on the aid, those are still black boxes and so to your point, i mean, thats why the democrats are moving into the stronger rhetoric. Paul okay, all right, thank you all, when we come back from abusive power to obstruction of congress, a look at the case that democrats made this week for their second article of impeachment. This president ial stonewalling of congress is unprecedentedded in the 238year history of our constitutional republic. Puts even president nixon to shame. Take your bad days with your good walk through this storm i would id do it all because i love you, i love you unconditional, unconditionally i will love you unconditionally theres a booking for every resolution. Book yours, and cancel if you need to. At booking. Com an unprecedented fashion the president ordered the entire executive branch of the United States of america to categorically refuse and completely obstruct the houses impeachment investigation, has never occurred in our democracy. Democrats presenting their second case arguing that President Trump obstructed congress by stonewalling requests for documents and witnesses while the house was conducting its impeachment inquiry. David, let me go to you, factual question first, is it true that no president in American History has resisted congressional subpoenas . President nixon and president clinton have extensively litigated their privileged claims on way to supreme court, no such opportunity was created here and the democrats know perfectly well it was because they chose not to litigate the impeachment process. Paul what do you think they decided not to litigate, those president s resisted subpoenas from the independent counsel or from congress, but they congress won substantially in those cases and wouldnt the house have had a chance to win here too . Two explanations, first as a matter of law, a lot of people misread the nixon case, the nixon tape that president asserted privilege and court 90, National Security anchored privileges would be fair better, the president s advisers, i think they really i personally believe, paul, they would have lost, but second, they didnt care, this is a theater exercise that wanted to rush the impeachment process and i dont believe that they felt even if they would have win that the facts properly developed would be helpful to them. They claim that they have in articles of impeachment, the second one, the house has sole power of impeachment and the house gets to determine when executive privilege applies. Thats how i read it. In other words, they had the unilateral authority to define executive privilege. Any history of that as standing up in the courts. Executive privilege mean absolutely nothing, executive privilege with con constitutional shield. If you take it away the executive away, the basic position, whenever they declare impeachment inquiry, the president loses i cant put it plain, its preposterous. Paul the white house said today that they resisted some of those subpoenas because they didnt think that they were actually lawful especially at the start of the probe where the house has said, long list of managers, long list of days where they said the president could have cooperated and didnt, what do you make explain that controversy there. Well, its part of basically the house to show you how willing to disregard the constitutional procedures, remember, it has done things for almost 5 weeks without taking a vote to unleash the impeachment power which is not a legislative power, it needs to take a vote, delegates to committee, there was no vote and frankly i remember the journal scorning for them and nancy pelosi voting but 5 weeks have past, this is not valid subpoenas, total disregard to constitutional proceedings. The president wants to be a king. Youre not really much of a king if you cant even decide to protect your conversation with your senior advisers on the most pressing questions of National Security. Yes, as with so many things in this impeachment trial nadler got the opposite, the only body thats doing anything here is, in fact, congress and arguing that it alone gets to decide this. In the past it has always been the case of tussle between the two branches ultimately decided upon by a court and they shortcircuited the process, one of the things that i thought was interesting about the white houses presentation this morning, again, was the argument where they came and they said, look, in each and every one of these cases theres a valid and legitimate reason why we resisted this. Its clear that on monday theyre going to spend more time laying out to the American People why they didnt just roll over for congress and why they had a right to resist it. Its a paradox, dan, on the one hand the democrats say we have overwhelming evidence that the president is guilty and on the other hand, its a coverup, so we need more evidence. Yeah, and so therefore we bring this article of impeachment called obstruction of congress because hes fighting them. Paul right. If the house of congress is controlled by the Opposition Party, any president probably wakes up every morning thinking how hes going to obstruct the Opposition Party and that is what is going on here and usually if theres a dispute like this, courts have been reluctant to get involved because its a political dispute and the parties, the white house, the congress usually work it out politically, if you throw it over into the courts, then the courts get involved in the kind of highlevel political dispute such as this that they typically, historically have kept at arms length. Paul the house had a chance especially for lowerlevel aides to win and win on a lot of the documents, so i mean, at least they should have fought the issue david rivken mentioned, that was a strong argument that made patrick today and that argument would have been made to the courts as well, they would have had to address the legality of those votes. Paul which is why they ultimately had authorization vote, david, thanks, appreciate you being here. When we come back the fight over witnesses in the impeachment trial, so what should we expect when senators take up the question next. If we are going to call witnesses i think its clear we must call hunter biden and we probably need to call joe biden. Snacking should be sweet and simple. The delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. Glucerna. Everyday progress while helping you manage your blood sugar. Wthats 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 twohour Service Appointment windows, its all on your schedule. Awesome. So while moving may still come with its share of headaches. No kidding. Were doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. Go to xfinity. Com moving to get started. Every day more and more of the public is watching and more and more of the public is say to go their senators, democrat and republican, have a fair trial. And so i am more hopeful than ever that four conscientious brave republicans will come forward and tell mitch mcconnell, you cant shut this down without witnesses, you cant shut this down without documents. Paul set to take center stage with democrats hoping to persuade four republican senators to Cross Party Lines and join their call for additional testimony and documents, we are back with dan henninger, kim strassel, and Kyle Peterson. So kim, is the minority leader Chuck Schumer going to have his hopes confirmed and get those four republicans . Right now the betting is no and if it does because of Chuck Schumer. If you want to make friends and allies, the best way to do it is not to go out and accused people of being partial, of not being able to conduct a fair trial, of engaging in a coverup, it doesnt help when jerry nadler as you mentioned earlier come out accuses the senators of the same thing and one of the things that schumer has managed to do is really put off a lot of the republicans who have come to suspect that this is much more about Chuck Schumer trying to win the senate by putting them in awkward spot than anything about impeachment, and so theyre very reluctant to go along with that roost. Paul what about the idea that they are going trade john bolton, former National Security adviser that the democrats want say for hunter biden as a witness, one for one, that seemed to be something democrats were talking about, republicans were, but that seems to be dead, why . Well, i think it just faded over the past weekday by day, senator schumer say more people are putting attention, i think the truth fewer and fewer people were paying attention and the impeachment project has really lost altitude, so i suspect on the part of the senators who they thought might have voted on behalf of john bolton and Mick Mulvaney testifying, less imperative for doing that at that point. Theres nothing to be gained by it and perhaps not open the hunter biden can of worms either. Paul among republican senators, if they dont call witnesses, particularly john bolton who has said hes writing a book, okay, we dont know what the book is going to say, if they dont call him as a witness at the trial, he comes out and says in a book, well, things that that are critical of the president or that would somehow have played in the trial, the democrats will say see, it was a coverup, theres some anxiety there, should john bolton speak up and maybe not at the trial but just say, here is what i would have to say. Perhaps speak up privately. Paul yes. Publicly. They suggested they would exercise executive privilege to limit what he has to say. He can say what he wants and go on television and say what he wants. Thats right, better alternative to extending impeachment further than it has. Paul kyle, i heard at the end, this president is a dictator and thats why he must be removed. Your response. Well, part of what makes this so strong its not clear that anybody really wants witnesses because if you we wanted to convince 4 senators to vote with the democrats for calling witnesses you wouldnt speak like that and the same goes for Chuck Schumer, this is all a coverup, this is a coverup, susan collins, moderate republican senator said that she doesnt really think that Chuck Schumer isnt interested in her opinion, interested in beating her in maine, shes one of those that would have to swing and they dont seem to be making the argument or appealing to her. Paul kim, the adam schiff quoted an anonymous source from newspaper saying that trump had warned republican senators if they voted against him, heads on pikes, end quote, this was not taken very well by a lot of senators including a couple that the House Democrats would need to call witnesses. Yeah, again, paul, i think thats why even those mentioned about john bolton are not going to prove decisive in the end because republicans understand that democrats are doing this in a way that no matter what happens in this trial that the minute that the president is acquitted, the democrats claim see it was a coverup, it doesnt matter what they do, doesnt matter how they vote or how witnesses come, they will say that one way or another, its the only way out of losing on acquittal and that is what is guiding a lot of people. Doesnt look like this has moved Public Opinion at all, kyle. No, thats its basically been stable since late september, late october, and so if youre in Nancy Pelosis shoes, i dont know if youre thinking, having regrets of opening can of worms now. Paul you hear critics, liberal media saying you know what, the evidence will come out some day, so theyre almost conceding that this isnt going to work. Still ahead the Justice Department now concedes that at least 2 surveillance warrants against carter page lacked probable cause raising new questions about the fbis investigation into the Trump Campaign. Im your 70lb st. Bernard puppy, and my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem. Ahh no, come on. I saw you eating poop earlier. Hey my focus is on the road, and thats saving me cash with drivewise. Whos the dummy now . Whoof whoof so get allstate where good drivers save 40 for avoiding mayhem, like me. Sorry hes a baby the Justice Department now says that at least 2 of its applications to secretly monitor former Trump Campaign adviser carter page lacked probable cause. This according to a newly declassified order from the foreign intelligence surveillance, that striking admission another embarrassment for the fbi which doj Inspector General Michael Horowitz which found repeated errors and misrepresentations before the fisa court as bureau sought to surveil page in 2016 and 2017. We are back with dan henninger, kim strassel and Kyle Peterson. Dan, we know that at least the last 2 of the four of the fisa Court Warrants were illegal. I dont think you can overstate the significance of this, paul, not only what happened with the fbi and the Deputy Editor<\/a> dan henninger, columnist kim strassel, Editorial Board<\/a> Kyle Peterson<\/a> and constitutional attorney and frequent wall street journal contributor david rivken, david, let me start with you, the aim of the defenders of the president , punch holes in the argument that arguments,w well did they do . It was good day for the president s legal team, they focused in a much better way much better than rhetorical presentation by the white house managers, punches a lot of holes, basically the entire theory is corrupt motive which is by the way incoherent as a matter of law. All we have is presumptions, assumptions and suppositions, absolutely no evidence that the president had a corrupt motive, absolutely no evidence that the president actually said what he said he did, talk to ukrainian leader, talk with burden sharing, meaning the europeans, surprise, surprise, not doing enough to help ukraine and asked them to look in past corruption believeing that ukraine is quite corrupt. No evidence that he pushed for it, lots of suppositions, the smart lawyers, pick up evidence a little. Okay. Its your argument that you cant impeach somebody for having motives, especially when you havent, if the president havent committed actually impeachable acts that violate oath of office and that the president objected to what the president has done is nothing wrong, slogans like he tried to invite foreign country to interfere in the elections, he tried to investigate political opponent. Let me theres no evidence of corrupt, period, if theres evidence that he had a personal intent to benefit himself politically, paul, as youve written, every single politician always had mixture of motives, National Interest<\/a> but political interest and nothing wrong with that. Paul kim, keeping on the abuse of power argument, what the do you think of the case made this morning. We had a preview of whats going in more indepth on monday and while the White House Team<\/a> did talk about big broadcomm plaints which theyve made that this was not a fair, the democrats have been out to impeach the president since the start, what was new here was the introduction of evidence that really did point out that there were other reasons for withholding aid to ukraine. They pointed out an email back in june before the telephone call which became clear the white house had become interested in how much other nato countries contribute today contributed to ukraine. Presented evidence to suggest that there were plenty of reasons for the delay of the aid that had nothing to do with investigations of biden, thats all the stuff thats persuasive to viewers. Paul in a sense we need to impeach him as preemptive, preemptive act, even if the case is not up as it were, we have to do it to stop him. Well, i think that was basically the argument they made from the beginning of Trump Presidency<\/a> which is to say thats a political argument, i mean, they feel that donald trump cannot be trusted to be president. Paul hes unfit. He should show somehow be stopped, they have done the impeachment, but lets understand this, political the adults on trump up to this point. We are now in a constitutional process, you impeach the president in the house, goes over to the senate for a trial, not simply a political event, in a trial you have to convict somebody beyond all reasonable doubt as we have just been discussing here its pretty clear that they have not made the case legally beyond a reasonable doubt regarding abuse of power or corrupt scheme. Paul nadler calling the senate out, some of you want to conduct a coverup, probably not a good way to persuade senators. Moving to dans point, one of the best moments i thought saturday morning for the republican and white house lawyers was they ran a supercut of the u. S. Ambassador to the eu gordon sondland, his testimony i presume, i presume, that was presumption, pure guess on my part, goes to show that the House Democrats<\/a>, theres no direct testimony as to President Trump<\/a>s state of mind, what exactly happened with the hold on the aid, those are still black boxes and so to your point, i mean, thats why the democrats are moving into the stronger rhetoric. Paul okay, all right, thank you all, when we come back from abusive power to obstruction of congress, a look at the case that democrats made this week for their second article of impeachment. This president ial stonewalling of congress is unprecedentedded in the 238year history of our constitutional republic. Puts even president nixon to shame. Take your bad days with your good walk through this storm i would id do it all because i love you, i love you unconditional, unconditionally i will love you unconditionally theres a booking for every resolution. Book yours, and cancel if you need to. At booking. Com an unprecedented fashion the president ordered the entire executive branch of the United States<\/a> of america to categorically refuse and completely obstruct the houses impeachment investigation, has never occurred in our democracy. Democrats presenting their second case arguing that President Trump<\/a> obstructed congress by stonewalling requests for documents and witnesses while the house was conducting its impeachment inquiry. David, let me go to you, factual question first, is it true that no president in American History<\/a> has resisted congressional subpoenas . President nixon and president clinton have extensively litigated their privileged claims on way to supreme court, no such opportunity was created here and the democrats know perfectly well it was because they chose not to litigate the impeachment process. Paul what do you think they decided not to litigate, those president s resisted subpoenas from the independent counsel or from congress, but they congress won substantially in those cases and wouldnt the house have had a chance to win here too . Two explanations, first as a matter of law, a lot of people misread the nixon case, the nixon tape that president asserted privilege and court 90, National Security<\/a> anchored privileges would be fair better, the president s advisers, i think they really i personally believe, paul, they would have lost, but second, they didnt care, this is a theater exercise that wanted to rush the impeachment process and i dont believe that they felt even if they would have win that the facts properly developed would be helpful to them. They claim that they have in articles of impeachment, the second one, the house has sole power of impeachment and the house gets to determine when executive privilege applies. Thats how i read it. In other words, they had the unilateral authority to define executive privilege. Any history of that as standing up in the courts. Executive privilege mean absolutely nothing, executive privilege with con constitutional shield. If you take it away the executive away, the basic position, whenever they declare impeachment inquiry, the president loses i cant put it plain, its preposterous. Paul the white house said today that they resisted some of those subpoenas because they didnt think that they were actually lawful especially at the start of the probe where the house has said, long list of managers, long list of days where they said the president could have cooperated and didnt, what do you make explain that controversy there. Well, its part of basically the house to show you how willing to disregard the constitutional procedures, remember, it has done things for almost 5 weeks without taking a vote to unleash the impeachment power which is not a legislative power, it needs to take a vote, delegates to committee, there was no vote and frankly i remember the journal scorning for them and nancy pelosi voting but 5 weeks have past, this is not valid subpoenas, total disregard to constitutional proceedings. The president wants to be a king. Youre not really much of a king if you cant even decide to protect your conversation with your senior advisers on the most pressing questions of National Security<\/a>. Yes, as with so many things in this impeachment trial nadler got the opposite, the only body thats doing anything here is, in fact, congress and arguing that it alone gets to decide this. In the past it has always been the case of tussle between the two branches ultimately decided upon by a court and they shortcircuited the process, one of the things that i thought was interesting about the white houses presentation this morning, again, was the argument where they came and they said, look, in each and every one of these cases theres a valid and legitimate reason why we resisted this. Its clear that on monday theyre going to spend more time laying out to the American People<\/a> why they didnt just roll over for congress and why they had a right to resist it. Its a paradox, dan, on the one hand the democrats say we have overwhelming evidence that the president is guilty and on the other hand, its a coverup, so we need more evidence. Yeah, and so therefore we bring this article of impeachment called obstruction of congress because hes fighting them. Paul right. If the house of congress is controlled by the Opposition Party<\/a>, any president probably wakes up every morning thinking how hes going to obstruct the Opposition Party<\/a> and that is what is going on here and usually if theres a dispute like this, courts have been reluctant to get involved because its a political dispute and the parties, the white house, the congress usually work it out politically, if you throw it over into the courts, then the courts get involved in the kind of highlevel political dispute such as this that they typically, historically have kept at arms length. Paul the house had a chance especially for lowerlevel aides to win and win on a lot of the documents, so i mean, at least they should have fought the issue david rivken mentioned, that was a strong argument that made patrick today and that argument would have been made to the courts as well, they would have had to address the legality of those votes. Paul which is why they ultimately had authorization vote, david, thanks, appreciate you being here. When we come back the fight over witnesses in the impeachment trial, so what should we expect when senators take up the question next. If we are going to call witnesses i think its clear we must call hunter biden and we probably need to call joe biden. Snacking should be sweet and simple. The delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. Glucerna. Everyday progress while helping you manage your blood sugar. Wthats why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. And tv with you a breeze. Really . Yup. You can transfer your Service Online<\/a> in about a minute. You can do that . Yeah. And with twohour Service Appointment<\/a> windows, its all on your schedule. Awesome. So while moving may still come with its share of headaches. No kidding. Were doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. Go to xfinity. Com moving to get started. Every day more and more of the public is watching and more and more of the public is say to go their senators, democrat and republican, have a fair trial. And so i am more hopeful than ever that four conscientious brave republicans will come forward and tell mitch mcconnell, you cant shut this down without witnesses, you cant shut this down without documents. Paul set to take center stage with democrats hoping to persuade four republican senators to Cross Party Lines<\/a> and join their call for additional testimony and documents, we are back with dan henninger, kim strassel, and Kyle Peterson<\/a>. So kim, is the minority leader Chuck Schumer<\/a> going to have his hopes confirmed and get those four republicans . Right now the betting is no and if it does because of Chuck Schumer<\/a>. If you want to make friends and allies, the best way to do it is not to go out and accused people of being partial, of not being able to conduct a fair trial, of engaging in a coverup, it doesnt help when jerry nadler as you mentioned earlier come out accuses the senators of the same thing and one of the things that schumer has managed to do is really put off a lot of the republicans who have come to suspect that this is much more about Chuck Schumer<\/a> trying to win the senate by putting them in awkward spot than anything about impeachment, and so theyre very reluctant to go along with that roost. Paul what about the idea that they are going trade john bolton, former National Security<\/a> adviser that the democrats want say for hunter biden as a witness, one for one, that seemed to be something democrats were talking about, republicans were, but that seems to be dead, why . Well, i think it just faded over the past weekday by day, senator schumer say more people are putting attention, i think the truth fewer and fewer people were paying attention and the impeachment project has really lost altitude, so i suspect on the part of the senators who they thought might have voted on behalf of john bolton and Mick Mulvaney<\/a> testifying, less imperative for doing that at that point. Theres nothing to be gained by it and perhaps not open the hunter biden can of worms either. Paul among republican senators, if they dont call witnesses, particularly john bolton who has said hes writing a book, okay, we dont know what the book is going to say, if they dont call him as a witness at the trial, he comes out and says in a book, well, things that that are critical of the president or that would somehow have played in the trial, the democrats will say see, it was a coverup, theres some anxiety there, should john bolton speak up and maybe not at the trial but just say, here is what i would have to say. Perhaps speak up privately. Paul yes. Publicly. They suggested they would exercise executive privilege to limit what he has to say. He can say what he wants and go on television and say what he wants. Thats right, better alternative to extending impeachment further than it has. Paul kyle, i heard at the end, this president is a dictator and thats why he must be removed. Your response. Well, part of what makes this so strong its not clear that anybody really wants witnesses because if you we wanted to convince 4 senators to vote with the democrats for calling witnesses you wouldnt speak like that and the same goes for Chuck Schumer<\/a>, this is all a coverup, this is a coverup, susan collins, moderate republican senator said that she doesnt really think that Chuck Schumer<\/a> isnt interested in her opinion, interested in beating her in maine, shes one of those that would have to swing and they dont seem to be making the argument or appealing to her. Paul kim, the adam schiff quoted an anonymous source from newspaper saying that trump had warned republican senators if they voted against him, heads on pikes, end quote, this was not taken very well by a lot of senators including a couple that the House Democrats<\/a> would need to call witnesses. Yeah, again, paul, i think thats why even those mentioned about john bolton are not going to prove decisive in the end because republicans understand that democrats are doing this in a way that no matter what happens in this trial that the minute that the president is acquitted, the democrats claim see it was a coverup, it doesnt matter what they do, doesnt matter how they vote or how witnesses come, they will say that one way or another, its the only way out of losing on acquittal and that is what is guiding a lot of people. Doesnt look like this has moved Public Opinion<\/a> at all, kyle. No, thats its basically been stable since late september, late october, and so if youre in Nancy Pelosis<\/a> shoes, i dont know if youre thinking, having regrets of opening can of worms now. Paul you hear critics, liberal media saying you know what, the evidence will come out some day, so theyre almost conceding that this isnt going to work. Still ahead the Justice Department<\/a> now concedes that at least 2 surveillance warrants against carter page lacked probable cause raising new questions about the fbis investigation into the Trump Campaign<\/a>. Im your 70lb st. Bernard puppy, and my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem. Ahh no, come on. I saw you eating poop earlier. Hey my focus is on the road, and thats saving me cash with drivewise. Whos the dummy now . Whoof whoof so get allstate where good drivers save 40 for avoiding mayhem, like me. Sorry hes a baby the Justice Department<\/a> now says that at least 2 of its applications to secretly monitor former Trump Campaign<\/a> adviser carter page lacked probable cause. This according to a newly declassified order from the foreign intelligence surveillance, that striking admission another embarrassment for the fbi which doj Inspector General<\/a> Michael Horowitz<\/a> which found repeated errors and misrepresentations before the fisa court as bureau sought to surveil page in 2016 and 2017. We are back with dan henninger, kim strassel and Kyle Peterson<\/a>. Dan, we know that at least the last 2 of the four of the fisa Court Warrants<\/a> were illegal. I dont think you can overstate the significance of this, paul, not only what happened with the fbi and the American People<\/a> over the last 3 years. Lets understand that carter page was not predicate for fisa application but this was the predicate for russian collusion narrative. The other people related to it and so forth and we tip forward into Robert Muellers<\/a> that on 8 separate points there was no basis to establishing collusion and carter page was being investigated by the fbi possibly at the suggestion of the intelligence agencies as well and turns out there was not basis for investigating carter page and there was basis for putting the American People<\/a> for what we went through with the russian collusion. Paul so this order was declassified earlier this week, says that the Justice Department<\/a> hasnt taken position on first two warrants perhaps because theyre still looking into the evidence based on that. This is a real repudiation and people around him who let these kinds of misconceptions. You have the federal government going to the court and saying we would like to surveil this person, process standing up for his right, and the judge signs off on it, the fbi director can say well, i got permission from the judge to do this, the judge says the fbi withhold from evidence. [laughter] paul kim, what does it say if anything what john durham, the u. S. Attorney, all of this from a criminal point of view, what does this say, tell us that justice admission about what he might be looking into . Does it suggest hes still looking as potentially criminal matter . Well, this is why its important what you said that the doj left open the caveat that potentially the first two applications were also flawed because thats what durham is looking at, the beginning of this investigation, its origins and whether or not the fbi should have reason to believe that that dossier was flawed from the very start because, again, the reason we got to the point we have on the past 2 applications, the later two applications is because mr. Horowitz exposed everything that happened from the start of that july investigation and he made clear that by late fall and early january of 2017, the fbi had understood that christopher steele, the author of the dossier, his credibility had been shattered and therefore you could no longer rely on it for the last two applications, mr. Durham will get to the question whether or not they did know that in fact, much earlier which would go to the entire credibility of this counterintelligence investigation from the start. Paul of course, we know that from the igs report that the fbi, through a doctored email tried to hide the fact that carter page had been working for the cia even as the fbi was saying he might there was probably cause, russian agent, they hid that from the fisa court. So thats something that is really, really troubling. Very troubling and one other thing that people are glossing over here, paul, the last two applications, the final one was filed around the time that bob mueller was named special counsel. Paul i think it was a month after he was appointed. A month after, basically illegal surveillance applications that had no proper predication, i think theres legitimate question if he used those as part of the prosecutions, the legitimacy of those actions. Closed down the fisa court, whole process, shut it down and make the executive branch take responsibility for their behavior, subject to congressional oversight, thats my reform suggestion, still ahead the democrat president ial front runners locked in tight race heading into the iowa caucuses, so can any of the candidates break out in the final week of campaign . Is that net carbs or total . Eh, not enough fiber chocolate would be good snacking should be sweet and simple. The delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. Glucerna. Everyday progress while helping you manage your blood sugar. I was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. But my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. She said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. Go pro with oralb. Oralbs gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. For cleaner teeth and healthier gums. And unlike sonicare, oralb is the First Electric<\/a> toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. What an amazing clean ill only use an oralb oralb. Brush like a pro. And my side super soft . Yes. With the sleep number 360 smart bed, on sale now, you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. Can it help me fall asleep faster . Yes, by gently warming your feet. But can it help keep me asleep . Absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. So, you can really promise better sleep . Not promise. Prove. And now, during the ultimate sleep number event, save 50 on the sleep number 360 limited Edition Smart<\/a> bed. Plus 0 interest for 24 months on all smart beds. Only for a limited time. Paul week to go now until the first votes are cast in 2020 president ial race and all eyes are on iowa where the latest real clear politics polling average shows former Vice President<\/a> joe biden and vermont senator Bernie Sanders<\/a> in a tight race with massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren<\/a> and former south bend, Pete Buttigieg<\/a> behind, so what should we expect as the candidates head into the final week of campaigning in the Hawkeye State<\/a> and as 3 major contenders are sidelined by the impeachment trial, mark penn, managing director and chairman of harris poll, chief strategist to bill clintons 1996 president ial campaign and Hillary Clintons<\/a> 2008 president ial campaign, mark, good to see you. Thank you. Paul first question on impeachment, the houses trial its not what voters seem to be particularly interested in. Im not hearing back from elected officials that people are getting energized about the impeachment, i think democrats want to defeat donald trump and i think they are prepared to do it at the ballot box. Paul seem people think it might be helping joe biden because hes getting sympathy because the president s attacks on his son and on joe, the democrats and theres a little backlash, is any evidence of that . Not particularly, i think where its helping joe biden is hes out there campaigning and a lot of the senators were stuck in the senate and, you know, right now this race is really going to be a fascinating race to the finish year when you look at poll numbers as close as they are. Paul in iowa. Where are we right now, does anybody have an edge . Theres a saturday morning poll showing that Bernie Sanders<\/a> is up in iowa by 7 points, do you believe that . Well, look, i think i think that poll shows that sanders is back, that in the seesaw race, sanders has come back off of her attack on him, its kind of interesting; again, biden has gone been steady throughout, more older voters come out, the better he will do, the more Younger Voters<\/a> the more better pete will do. The most interesting is the klobuchar vote, if she continues to surge, she takes a lot of votes from biden, if shes below 15, a lot of her votes will then be recalibrated as people have to move over to another candidate and most of those go to biden and that could put biden over the top. Paul this is the 15th percent threshold in caucus halls that if you dont get 15 on the first vote you are out and those people have to reassign who they want to support, thats how the process works . Exactly, thats where klobuchar if you look at the poll that came out, 55 of it would go to biden that could be another 4, 5 points for biden if she doesnt goat 15. Paul so how do you explain bidens stay in power so far, oneover the biggest stories. These are members of congress saying theres no way hes going to make it but here he is and if he wins iowa, he gets a lot of momentum and becomes a real favorite to win the nomination . Well, good news is he hasnt gone down and the bad news is he hasnt gone up, hes not able to expand his base and his base of loyal, older, deeply committed democrats who know that he was a loyal Vice President<\/a> to president obama, has remained absolutely steady throughout this thing and will be a strong factor in this iowa race and any other primary. Paul he seems to have a theory of the race and the mood of the electorate which any candidate has and basically goes Something Like<\/a> that, im the most electable democrat, im the guy that wants to beat trump, i want to return to normalcy, stop the madness of the white house, get the crazy man out of here, im a grown up, you dont have to worry about me, by the way, i can take the poison out of the national dialogue, thats his theory of the case, that competing with warren and bernie whose theory of the race is we need to counter trumps whitewing populism with leftwing economic. Is this a debate about two theories of the race in part . Well, yes, you can see a moderate segment of the electorate represented with biden, with klobuchars increase vote, maybe some of mayor petes and those further in the left and the left votes are split, the moderate votes are split. I think biden is able to consolidate more of the moderate vote, warren and sanders have been battling for the leftwing vote, this is one of the most fascinating in American Democratic<\/a> history. Paul whose theory, the mood of the electorate is closer to what the mood of the electorate is bidens or bernies . Well, i think in terms of winning bidens perspective and issues are more likely to win, i ran in harris poll a set of issues represented by the left, if you run those issues against trumps issues, those issue lose to trumps issues almost 2 to 1. If you take biden, more moderate take, it becomes a 5050 race, so i think the country is much more in moderate base but the two parties are working the extremes. Paul what happens if bernie wins iowa . Does all heck break loose in the Democratic Party<\/a> as they start to panic . Yes. [laughter] he will surge in New Hampshire<\/a> as well, he did well in New Hampshire<\/a>, and so that will give you South Carolina<\/a> and nevada as stoppers for him but he will do pretty well in nevada. Paul you have a big union contingent in nevada as i recall follow caucus . Exactly. Paul all right, mike penn, thank you very much, itll be fun, as the candidates make closing arguments in iowa, former Vice President<\/a> joe biden touts his electable, so will voters agree that hes the best pick to take on President Trump<\/a> in november . Hey, saved you a seat. This rounds on me. Hey, can you spot me . Come on in. Find your place today, with silversneakers. Included in most Medicare Advantage<\/a> plans. Enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers. Com with truecar, to sell just enter your license plate and see your cars value in real time. Sports package and low mileage . Nice. Within minutes, youll have a true cash offer, and you can head to a dealership and get paid, today, right now. Oh no, here comes gthe neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his Xfinity Customer Service<\/a> is. Im mike, im so busy. Good thing xfinity has twohour appointment windows. They have night and weekend appointments too. Hes here. Bill . Karolyn . Nope no, just a couple of rocks. Download the my account app to manage your appointments making todays Xfinity Customer Service<\/a> simple, easy, awesome. Ill pass. Paul joe biden heading into the final stretch in iowa with a blunt message for democratic voters, this is no time to take a risk. The former Vice President<\/a> making his closing arguments in an ad emphasizing his electability. Every day hes President Donald Trump<\/a> poses a threat to america and the world. We have to beat him. Joe biden is the strongest candidate to do it. He beats trump by the most nationally and the states we have to win. This is no time to take a risk. We need our strongest candidate. Paul we are back with dan henninger, kim strassel and Kyle Peterson<\/a>, so kyle, you were out in iowa last weekend following joe around, does that ad mesh with his stump message . Yeah, he talks about electability but he talks more about himself as anecdote and talks about when i first got in the senate in the 70s, republicans an democrats would fight like the devil and go downstairs and eat together at Senate Dining<\/a> room and we need to get back to that. He presents himself assort of a centrist, he wants public option in health care, he doesnt want medicare for all which would cost 35 trillion he says, one of the difficulties with that, hes in the center while he himself has been pulled to the left. Paul in terms of the agenda . Public option, for instance, you know, couldnt pass in 2010 when obama paul even though democrats controlled both houses. Correct. Joe biden, hes proposing twice as many taxes tax increases in Hillary Clinton<\/a> in 2016 and dont forget he want to repeal the amendment. Paul you talked to a voter out there who used that analogy directly, thats 100 years ago warden v. Harding. A lot of democrats, a lot of voters, even republicans in the suburbs, stop the madness, trump is chaotic, we have the impeachment polarized politics, joe is positioning himself as somebody who says, look, i can bring both sides together, is that does that capture the right mood, does it capture the voter mood . Exactly, hes presenting himself as a uniter and not very much talking about his policies which are not going to be passed by acclamation. Paul right. Kim, the argument is, you know, youre hearing from Bernie Sanders<\/a>, the campaign is starting to go after joe biden in a much more aggressive way, you had an oped by supporter of sanders saying biden is actually a weak candidate because hes got that long history in washington, hes part of the swamp, trump will be able to use that against him. So hes not the most electable candidate, is this the fact that sanders needs to take the bark off joe if hes going to win . Yeah, hes got to bring him down and this is also bernies theory of the election. As we just discussed biden is saying what people care about, electability, i think theres truth to that, bernie is the Democratic Party<\/a> is tired of old, old politicians, sameole, sameole, hes got trump populism and his argument im the purest on this, you know, joe is not hes not certain on social security, he could cut it, you know, those are one of the arguments against it, hes not willing to be brave enough to tackle the problems in health care which is a human right as bernie says, so you have to elect bernie instead. Theres certainly a big part of the progressive base out there for whom that is the motivating influence and if the polls are right, its working for bernie in iowa. Paul and, you know, electable socalled electable candidates dont always win, right, i mean, Hillary Clinton<\/a> was more electable than bernie last time, she lost, mitt romney was supposed to be more electable, he lost. Its been known to happen. Its been known to happen and what we have known has happened at least twice as the joe biden loses at the president ial level, right, hes not been successful running for president. Paul never won the nomination before. Never won the nomination before, but Bernie Sanders<\/a>, back in 2016 when he was running against Hillary Clinton<\/a> and he woukd the head to head polls, hillary versus trump, bernie was always equal to trump, he has some sort of mystical level of support out there, certainly among progressives, but i think ultimately both Bernie Sanders<\/a> or joe biden, bernierump the most corrupt president in history, they have to run against trumps record, thats one of the lessons coming out of the impeachment. They wont be able to run just against Donald Trumps<\/a> personality and the biggest thing hes done revive the American People<\/a> which you can argue is a pretty good return to normalcy. Paul if bernie does look like hes surging in iowa, can you see this, the democratic establishment and the Biden Campaign<\/a> just tearing into him . Yeah, i think democrats, prominent democrats who have stayed in the sidelines could rally around biden too, thats also, you know, the best argument he might make for himself is that if bernie cleans up in early states and then biden does well in nevada or South Carolina<\/a> and you have a split and we hit super tuesday and bloomberg says im the guy can put it together Paul Bloomberg<\/a> is spending more than 2 million, when we come back hits and misses of the week. What the motorcade driver drives, when theyre not in the motorcade . [ car engine revving ] this one drives a volkswagen passat. Its an honor to tell you that [ applause ] thank you. Liberty mutual customizes your Car Insurance<\/a> so you only pay for what you need. I love you only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Time now for hits and misses of the week. Kim first year. Paul, this is a hit to the three americans and veterans who lost their lives this week fighting lot wildfires in australia. Its not wellknown but american australia had a long history of pooling resources to fight these deadly scourges which both countries share. Over the years hundreds of americans and australians have gone back and forth. We mourn their passing but we celebrate the union this represents. I will give a hit to the unidentified father who was hit on tape confronting Elizabeth Warren<\/a> talk about student debt this week. His argument was i saved money and worked extra shifts, are you going to give my money back . It was an excellent question and if the press isnt gonna raise it we can have the. Paul and she said now don asked. Paul for just a moment i want to climb down from the impeachment spaceship and return us to the real world talk about the Environmental Protection<\/a> agency for proposing the pomo water ruled that extended to private water including paddles from rainstorms and roadsides ditches. They propose it be applied to real bodies of waters, lakes, rivers, streams. Its a big hit for regulatory reality and common sense over regulatory overreach. And the original understanding in that statute. Paul thank you dan and thank you all. If you have your own hit or miss sure to tweet us. Thats it for this week show, thanks for watching. Hope to see you right here next week. Arthel President Trump<\/a>s defense team beginning their opening argument in the Senate Impeachment<\/a> trial this morning. As we get new video from a dinner with the president and lev parnas. Hello Everyone Welcome<\/a> to americas headquarters i am Arthel Neville<\/a> and i am eric shawn. Of the dinner given to fox news by doctor parnas this is an effort to quote provide clarity to the American People<\/a> and the sentence as to the need to conduct a fair trial. With witnesses and evidence. In the video President Trump<\/a> appears to demand the firing of United States<\/a> former m bassett or you have a","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia802803.us.archive.org\/18\/items\/FOXNEWSW_20200125_200000_The_Journal_Editorial_Report\/FOXNEWSW_20200125_200000_The_Journal_Editorial_Report.thumbs\/FOXNEWSW_20200125_200000_The_Journal_Editorial_Report_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240618T12:35:10+00:00"}