House impeaches President Donald Trump for unprecedented second time

close

Video

House impeaches President Donald Trump for unprecedented second time

FOX News congressional correspondent Chad Pergram joins 'Your World' with the latest and a look at what comes next

This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto" January 13, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  We are moments away from seeing Donald Trump
impeached yet again in the House of Representatives.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto, and this is YOUR WORLD.

Two hundred and seventeen votes, that's what's needed to approve a
resolution that calls this an incitement of insurrection, a single charge
against the president of the United States that he gravely endangered the
security of the United States and its institutions of government, of
course, referring to the rate on the Washington Capitol just one week ago.

We already know of at least a half-dozen Republican congress men and women
who are going to be part of that, including Liz Cheney, who argued
forcefully for the president's impeachment here, saying that this went
beyond the pale, paraphrasing here, and that the situation around this
requires that he immediately be leaving office.

Again, given the fact that there are 433 members there -- two are not there
-- you need 217 votes to make it pass. The votes are easily there. Where it
goes after this is anyone's guess.

While Mitch McConnell has left open the possibility of voting to convict
the president of the United States, he has urged Republican members that
he's not made up his mind on the matter. He has reportedly made up his mind
on the timing of all of this, and that the Senate won't even be taking this
up until at least January 19.

Let's get the read right now on where this particular part stands with Mike
Emanuel with the latest from Washington.

Hey, Michael.

MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT:  Neil, Good
afternoon.

The debate is over. All we are waiting for is the final vote count, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi making the case President Trump must go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):  The president must be impeached. And I believe
the president must be convicted by the Senate, a constitutional remedy that
will ensure that the republic will be safe from this man who is so
resolutely determined to tear down the things that we hold dear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL:  The House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, criticized President
Trump, but stopped short of impeachment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA):  The president bears responsibility for
Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately
denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.

These facts require immediate action by President Trump. Accept his share
responsibility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL:  Other Republicans say this taking place exactly one week after
the Capitol riot means it's being rushed and is unfair.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH):  If it continues, it won't just be Republicans who
get canceled. It won't just be the president of the United States. The
cancel culture will come for us all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL:  At least seven Republicans are in favor. We await the final vote
count. Democrats are expected to have the votes to pass this impeachment
article for incitement of insurrection.

Their tone is serious.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX):  Today, we not only demand accountability for
his gross misconduct, but, more importantly, we declare to the next Trump-
like aspiring tyrant, not in America. We love our democracy too much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EMANUEL:  And Steny Hoyer saying today he plans to send that article of
impeachment over to the Senate. He would like to send it as soon as
possible.

Timing for action in terms of a Senate trial is unclear. Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell says he is not planning to bring the Senate back before
next week -- Neil.

CAVUTO:  All right, Mike Emanuel, thank you very much.

Bret Baier joining me right now.

Bret, if he holds true to that timetable, that is, Mitch McConnell,
impeaching the president in the Senate would obviously be a Herculean time
leap, but what are you hearing?

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  Yes, I think that's right, Neil.

Good afternoon. In the House, Nancy Pelosi will cobble together the votes,
with some Republicans. We don't know yet how many Republicans. But remember
that the magic number is 217. So, once they reach that number, we will be
able to say that the House has the votes to impeach President Trump for the
second time, the first president to face that.

In the Senate, you're right. It's a lot of question about process and
timing and whether this is a fair process. Critics are calling it a snap
impeachment, without due process for the president, without committee
hearings, without witnesses, without an effort to defend himself, the
president of the United States.

And supporters of it are saying that his actions were so egregious that
they need to do this before he leaves office, or even after, some say. I
don't think the votes are going to be there, Neil, but the Mitch McConnell
back-and-forth has been interesting to watch.

CAVUTO:  Yes, I caught some of the things he had said to CBS News, I guess,
Bret, and maybe others, where he held open the possibility that he might
convict, or that he tried to clarify to Republican members that wasn't his
intention. He just wants to see how this all lays out and then make a
decision later.

But regardless of the timing of a Senate move to take this up, if one even
avails itself, there's obviously a sign that, if there ever was a bloom on
the rose, it's gone now between Mitch McConnell and the president of the
United States. What do you think?

BAIER:  One hundred percent.

And he's telling privately people that he's extremely angry with the
president, that the president has put Republicans broadly in this boat. And
after Wednesday, what happened on Capitol Hill, there's a lot of anger and
efforts to figure out how to go forward, not only as a party, but as a
country.

And I think you're seeing a lot of that on the floor of the House, and
you're seeing a lot of it in backrooms in the Senate.

Neil, I don't think they're going to have the votes. Remember, you have to
have the requisite votes to impeach, and then to try and convict. That's a
big mountain, even if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is one of
those votes.

CAVUTO:  You know, I'm just curious.

There's this effort. A lot of people said part of speeding this effort,
trying to see the president get impeached in the Senate would be to cement
forbidding him from ever running for office again.

Do you know, Bret, that, barring that, that it doesn't get to the Senate or
it's rejected the Senate -- I would think you need 17 Republican senators
to go along -- that the president could run for office again?

BAIER:  He could.

I mean, in the current -- if the Senate does not convict, there is nothing
to prevent him again from running. And there is some behind the scenes that
some Republicans are hoping to do that.

There's a balance here. There are some people saying, we just want this --
that, from Wednesday, all of the power that he's lost, and it was really
devastating, not only for the Trump political machine, but also for a lot
of supporters who were in the middle and voted for the president.

They were disappointed. The biggest emotion was sadness. But could he come
together and run again in 2024? It's possible if they don't convict him.

CAVUTO:  Is it your sense, Bret, that the president remains a force within
the Republican Party? He might not Garner the 74 or 75 million votes he did
in the electorate a couple of months ago, but he certainly has a formidable
lock on a strong plurality of Republican voters, or is that too
significantly waning?

BAIER:  I think it took a major hit, a major hit last Wednesday. And
whether -- what percentage of the 74 million are still in the president's
corner, I don't know.

But it really took a major dive, I think. And how he has dismounted here
has raised the question of how powerful he is.

But think about the other side, which is an impeachment that's called a
snap impeachment by critics, social media that shuts down his ability to
communicate on social media, and then suddenly there is this whip-back of,
he has become a political martyr of sorts to some people.

And that is the balance, the calculation that Republicans are making up on
Capitol Hill.

CAVUTO:  All right, they have exhausted the time remaining. And do they
reset the clock, then, essentially, Bret, so that the vote can continue?

We're obviously shy of the number needed to make this happen. But is this
sort of one of those...

BAIER:  Right.

CAVUTO:  ... just administrative details they tend to and reset it?

BAIER:  Yes, the clock is never the clock on Capitol Hill.

CAVUTO:  Yes.

BAIER:  It's just a thing that runs to zero until they get the votes.

There are people coming in. COVID makes it a little bit different, Neil, in
that they have to...

CAVUTO:  Right. Right.

BAIER:  ... come in, in different waves.

Again, 217 is the number. And you see "the not yet voted" 137. So you have
a lot of people yet to vote. Probably around, I'd say, 4:30, we would get
to about the number.

But you see 149 for the positives on this resolution.

CAVUTO:  Now, we know that there could be a half-a-dozen Republicans that
would be on board, as it's indicating right now. It could be more. There's
talk that that could lead or encourage still more Republicans to follow
suit, but this would be a bipartisan impeachment effort in the House,
lopsided though it may be.

But that is how it's going to be signaled, as different from the last
impeachment vote, certainly in the House, 13 months ago. How is that going
to be impacted?

BAIER:  Well, that's significant.

And I do think Liz Cheney's statement her decision to vote for impeachment
changed the dynamic for some Republicans. And while you say it's six right
now, I think you could be heading towards 10. I'm not sure.

I have talked to some Republicans that it's 20, but still significant, in
that the first impeachment didn't have any. So there is a distinction
between those two. And, really, the question is how it goes forward, if it
goes forward in the Senate.

The other thing to consider here, Neil, is that the Senate -- the Biden
administration wants to get on the right foot with the Senate, and they
want to push, ideally, stimulus and COVID through the Senate as fast as
they can.

How this cobbles that together and screws up the time frame also factors
into all this.

CAVUTO:  Finally, one last question.

I mean, it seemed like, as you indicated, that even to get to a vote in the
Senate, regardless of the number of Republicans who might, in fact, vote --
Lisa Murkowski comes to mind, Ben Sasse comes to mind, even Mitch
McConnell, possibly -- but leaving that aside, this idea of holding it off
100 days, so that Joe Biden would have a chance to do what he's got to do,
I can't even imagine the Joe Biden would welcome that.

BAIER:  No.

I mean, at that point, to go back to a president who's already left office,
to convict him, it's tough to connect those dots politically, let alone the
substance of it.

And, remember, I mean, this isn't impeachment that does not have the
traditional setup.

CAVUTO:  Right.

BAIER:  So, you would get criticized from the beginning.

I think it's going to be a tough -- a tough road.

CAVUTO:  Bret Baier, thank you very, very much, my friend. We will be
monitoring your coverage of all of this tonight.

But this is where we stand right now, as Bret said, this vote that would
require 217 congress men and women to, for the second time in little more
than 13 months, impeach the president of the United States, this on a
single article of impeachment, an incitement of insurrection, specifically
saying that the president gravely endangered the security of the United
States and its institutions of government.

Nancy Mace joining us right now, the South Carolina Republican. It was her
first time arriving in Washington, D.C. And, boy, what a welcome, with all
that craziness over the last week.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO:  Congresswoman, you were not a fan of this impeachment move.

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC):  Right.

CAVUTO:  But you were for some sort of action against the president.

I don't know whether that would be censuring him or what, but could you
update me?

MACE:  Right.

In the House of Representatives, I gave my first floor speech today. It was
not my intention to do a floor speech in my first week as a member of
Congress. But the House of Representatives does have every right to impeach
the president.

But the way that they're going about it today, the lack of due process,
bypassing the Judiciary, and doing articles of impeachment in a few hours
of debate on the floor in one day, is -- is reckless, and it is
unconstitutional.

And it puts due process really at risk. There was a bicameral, bipartisan
effort in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House to look at censure as an
option. That would prevent the president from holding office again, and
would condemn him for what happened last week.

But, unfortunately, because impeachment was politicized, largely by Speaker
Pelosi, she wouldn't allow censure to come up for a vote or a debate or
even have that as an option.

So, that just wasn't simply an option. But I do know there were Democrats
and Republicans that were working very hard this week to try and make that
happen.

But, unfortunately, impeachment was the only option. And with impeachment,
articles of impeachment, they only get to the U.S. Senate until January 19.
And Biden is sworn in on the 20th.

And, from my understanding, I read this morning that, if the president is
not an office, then there cannot be an impeachment trial. So, then what is
all of this effort for? Is it moot at the end of the day?

CAVUTO:  Congresswoman, do you believe the president incited that crowd a
week ago, that, if he had not done that, it wouldn't have turned into the
tragedy it ultimately did?

MACE:  I do hold him responsible for much of what happened last Wednesday.

I also believe that there were members in Congress, members of my own
party, who also contributed to it. If you look at the rhetoric, the
transcripts, the speeches of the rallies even leading up to that, I
personally was concerned that Sunday night

I had my kids up there with me for my swearing-in. And because of virtual
school, because of COVID, they were supposed to be out there all week for
me -- with me.

But because of the rhetoric I was seeing, the way things were being talked
about online, I was worried about violence days beforehand. And I put my
kids on the first plane home on Monday morning. And thank God I did,
because I would be beside myself if they witnessed what I witnessed on
Wednesday.

And rhetoric does have consequences. And I do believe people do need to be
held accountable. And, unfortunately, it was a sad day in America. And this
is another sad day today.

CAVUTO:  Congresswoman, do believe the president has a future in the
Republican Party?

MACE:  I do not.

I don't know how you go forward and defend the indefensible. What happened
last week was a national tragedy. People violently attacked the halls of
Congress, our United States Capitol. And I believe that every
accomplishment that Republicans and the president had -- and I was a big
supporter of the president over the last four years and worked for him on
his campaign -- but I believe that those accomplishments were wiped out.

We had a great economy pre-COVID. We had low -- low tax rates. We had
Operation Warp Speed during the pandemic, so many enormous gains. I think
that the principles and ideas that he espoused are things we're going to
have to champion in the future, but without -- without his support, his
brand or his name. It's tarnished.

I don't know how you -- I don't know how you defend what happened last
week, by any means.

CAVUTO:  Congresswoman, I know you're new, and talk about a baptism by
fire.

MACE:  Right.

CAVUTO:  You have been very brave throughout all, in how scary it was,
certainly with your little girls and all.

But I'm curious...

MACE:  Right.

CAVUTO:  ... about your intentions next week for the Joe Biden
inauguration. I assume you plan to attend. But are you anxious? Are you
worried?

MACE:  I am.

And, originally -- and I said a couple of days ago I was intent on
attending. But I have heard there's chatter on something happening on
January 17, and there's potential violence on the 20th.

I'm not sure I am going to attend now, because it's just -- it's a sad day
when you have to worry about your safety to go to an event or to go to
work, that -- what might happen.

And last week was a real wakeup call for us. And part of my speech on the
floor today was talking about not just the violence we saw last week, but
violence we have seen all across the country for the last nine months.
Rhetoric by Republicans and Democrats, by the fringes of the far right and
the far left have contributed to the division, the divisiveness we have in
this country.

And I asked my colleagues today to take a step back, take a deep breath,
one, acknowledge that we have a problem in this country, two, take
responsibility for it. It's all on us to do that. And, three, stop being
part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

And I have a real problem with both -- fringes on both sides. I have a real
problem with QAnon conspiracy theorists leading us through this crisis. To
me, it's indefensible.

And I want to be part of the solution moving forward. And I intend to do
that in the days, weeks and months ahead.

CAVUTO:  Congresswoman, thank you so much, Nancy Mace, the South Carolina
newly elected Republican congresswoman.

I'm sure she did not have this in her planning for arriving in Washington,
D.C., but she handled it very calmly, very adroitly.

With us now, James Clyburn, the South Carolina Democrat. He's the House
majority whip.

Congressman, good to see you.

This might not go anywhere after the House. Does that concern you,
Congressman?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC):  Thank you very much for having me again.

No, not the least bit. We're doing our jobs here in the House of
Representatives. It is our job to impeach. And once the impeachment is
done, it's up to the Senate to decide whether or not to convict.

Now, if you recall, when we were here the last time with an impeachment,
please remember the closing comments made by Adam Schiff, when he says, if
you don't convict this man, we will be -- he will not stop. He will
continue to do what he's been doing all of his life.

And here we are back to another impeachment, because he continued to do
what he's always done. And what he did last week was the worst thing any
the president of these United States ever -- has ever done. To that, he
deserved to be impeached. and, quite frankly, he should be convicted and
forever barred from holding any office of honor in this country for the
rest of his life.

CAVUTO:  Well, the only way I guess that could happen, sir, is if the
Senate were to take up this measure. It wouldn't look like it would happen
so soon, before the inauguration, when they come back.

So, I know another idea has been pushed. And I think you're for this,
visiting it 100 days into the Biden administration. But that would be going
after a former president at that point. Are you still for that?

CLYBURN:  We won't be going after him. The impeachment still stands. The
Senate can take it up whenever they want to take it up.

But there's also another option here. It's resting in the 14th Amendment.

CAVUTO:  Well, do you understand, sir -- I'm sorry.

Do you know whether Chuck Schumer, who will be the Senate leader, would
indeed support that move to take this up, again, if the Senate doesn't act
now, before the inauguration -- that seems unlikely -- to take it up in the
Biden administration?

CLYBURN:  I have no idea what he will do. But, as I said, I'm not too sure
it's up to Schumer if we were to take the 14th Amendment route.

And I would have to say, I always equate the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
with the institution of slavery and its aftermath. And it's kind of
interesting that we are dealing with that here, after a group of people
descended upon this Capitol, fanning the flames of racism.

That's what was going on, on last Wednesday. And that's what's been going
on with this president for a long time. It would be good to use the 14th
Amendment to bar him from office.

CAVUTO:  So, you played a very key role, in fact, I think you were
instrumental in making Joe Biden the president of the United States. Your
support in South Carolina turned everything around. I think it's fair to
say you were a kingmaker there, still are.

So, when you hear from Biden people, sir, who wonder that this fixation on
then impeachment, if it goes into the Biden administration, might rob him
of getting his agenda through, doing the things that he wants to do, what
do you say to them?

CLYBURN:  I would say that's a good concern to have, because I have the
same concern.

But you have to prioritize things. And I think the priority here is the
preservation of this democracy. This democracy is worth saving. And I think
I have said here on your show that this country is a great country. It's
not in need of being made great.

I would like for somebody to tell me, when is it that the country was ever
-- has ever been anything but great? It was great enough to get beyond the
institution of slavery, great enough to get beyond Jim Crow, great enough
to make it possible for people like me to be a part of this government,
after such an inhumane condition of 244 years called slavery.

And that's what we have been trying to do. But there seem to be some people
who would like to turn this clock back to relive some of that stuff.

And when I hear some of the speeches being made, and when I hear a former
mayor of the biggest city in this country saying let's have trial by
combat, when I hear a member of this House using all kinds of profane
language, egging people on to come up here and to participate in an
insurrection, when the president of the United States...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO:  Congressman, I don't mean to interrupt you, sir. I don't mean to
interrupt you, sir.

But the president has formally been impeached in the House of
Representatives; 217 votes was what you needed. He's now -- they have
gotten that much, at the very least, and a number of votes to come,
including talk that we could get anywhere from a half-dozen to, when all is
said and done, maybe up to 10 to 12 Republicans.

Your thoughts on the number of Republicans who are part of this and agree
with this, Congressman?

CLYBURN:  Well, as I look at the board, it's now nine Republicans out of
the 222.

I have been saying between five and 10. I have got a staffer that tells me
it's going to get beyond 10. And I'm going to see if he has to buy me an
ice cream cone.

(LAUGHTER)

CLYBURN:  Well, it's now at 10.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO:  Finally, the president today put out a statement...

CLYBURN:  I may have to buy him two ice cream cones.

CAVUTO:  ... denouncing violence, doesn't want to see violence, doesn't
want to see any problems for the inauguration.

What do you think of those remarks to sort of tamp things down?

CLYBURN:  Well, I don't think anybody takes this president's remarks
seriously.

He has not said anything in the last several weeks, that -- anything akin
to the truth. And he's very seldom told the truth since he's been in
office. So, I don't pay any attention to what the president says.

CAVUTO:  Finally, I just spoke to your newly elected and sworn-in
Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who isn't quite sure she's going to go
to the inauguration next week. It wasn't a political statement, as much as
a safety one. She's concerned.

Are you, I assume, going? But do you hear a lot of talk like that from
congress men and women, senators who are leery and worried about how safe
it's going to be in the Capitol next week? Do you share their concern?

CLYBURN:  Yes, I do.

I have talked to a lot of members over the last several days. And within
the last 24 hours, I have seen a reversal in their attitudes. Members are
now very, very apprehensive about next week.

I'm going to be spending sometime this weekend. As you know, I hold an
honorary position as chair of the Inaugural Committee. I'm not making the
hard-and-fast decisions as to what should or should not be done.

I am offering my suggestions. I am encouraging all of my constituents to
stay at home and watch it on television. They had a pretty good experience
with our national convention. I think they're going to have the same kind
of experience watching this inauguration on television.

So, I have been discouraging people from coming to Washington. The mayor of
Washington have asked them not to come. I think that what we ought to do is
stay in the safety of our homes because of COVID-19 and because of
impending dangers, because so much of this surrounds the celebration of
Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, which is on Monday.

So, you hear them saying they're going to be here on the 17th and come back
on the 20th. I think a lot of this has to do with the symbolism of the
weekend that we celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr.

CAVUTO:  Finally, sir, the president, as you know, will not be at Joe
Biden's inauguration. We don't know where he will be or what he will be
doing. What do you think of that?

CLYBURN:  Well, I think that that is indicative of who and what this
president has been since he's been in office.

He has very little respect for the noble traditions that have kept this
country together. If you just think about what we were doing last
Wednesday, we were really formalizing an effort to get beyond an election.

As you know, these elections are certified in the states and the one
territory of Puerto Rico, and they come up here in mahogany boxes. We go
through a ceremony on the floor of the House of Representatives. It's
basically ceremonial. We're actually counting up the votes from each state.
They have already been tallied at the state levels.

And then what we try to do is say, this is an effort of letting the whole
world see what the transfer of power look like. Look, Al Gore had just lost
a very contentious election, but, as vice president and president of the
Senate, he stood on that floor, he did the transfer of power in one of the
closest elections ever in the history of this country, lose about 580-and-
some-odd votes,

Here's a guy that loses by seven million votes, and he wants to overturn
the traditional process.

Al Gore was a classic -- a class guy back in 2000. It's a pity we don't
have that in this president.

CAVUTO:  You curious at all, one little bit, where Donald Trump is going to
be on January 20, where he's going to go, what he's going to do?

CLYBURN:  I have absolutely no idea where he's going to go. I suspect he
doesn't have an idea either.

CAVUTO:  Congressman, thank you very, very much, James Clyburn, the House
majority whip.

CLYBURN:  Thank you.

CAVUTO:  Very good seeing you again, sir, on this historic day.

For those of you who are just tuning in here, you can see those numbers,
more than enough right now for the House of Representatives, for the second
time in 13 months, to impeach President Donald J. Trump on a singular count
of inciting insurrection and violence in the nation's Capitol.

Chad Pergram on what happens now -- Chad.

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT:  Well, good afternoon,
Neil.

This House vote is still open, but they're going to close it any minute
here. So far, 10 Republicans have cast their ballots in favor of impeaching
the president of the United States. For the first time in history, Neil,
the House of Representatives has impeached a president of the United States
twice.

For only, the second time, the House has impeached the same government
figure twice. For President Trump, the House has now impeached him twice in
13 months. There have been 21 successful impeachments in House history, and
two of them are of Donald John Trump, the president of the United States.
That's where we stand with history.

Now what happens in the next couple of days? The House of Representatives
has to pass some sort of a resolution to send over the articles of
impeachment to trigger the Senate trial. You might remember, in late 2019
and early 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held the ball. She did not send
over those articles of impeachment for 28 days.

Now, just a couple of moments ago on the House floor, the impeachment
managers, the prosecutors essentially who Nancy Pelosi has tapped to
president the House's case on this article of impeachment in the Senate,
they all met on the floor. She's already named them. She announced them
last night. And they are formally set up to present that case.

But we don't know what the situation is, whether or not the Senate -- they
have special authority where, under emergencies, they can come back into
session. And if that's the case, if the House, in fact, votes to send over
that article of impeachment, then you have to probably start right away.

January 15 last year is when the House voted to send the article of
impeachment across to the Senate. They started the Senate trial the next
day. That's where you formally president the articles of impeachment before
the Senate. The impeachment managers are there. People are sworn in, and
then you get going a couple -- a day or two or two later here.

We don't know if that will be the case, if they can work out a deal.
There's some people saying, well, can you continue with an impeachment
trial after President Trump leaves office?

Yes, there is precedent for that. You had that with William Belknap, who
was the secretary of war in 1876, who was impeached, and was in fact
acquitted, even though he had resigned, in his Senate trial.

You had this happen with the very first impeachment, the only other person
other than President Trump who's been impeached twice. This was William
Blount, who was a senator from Tennessee, in the 1790s. And he had left the
Senate, but they still went ahead and at least had a Senate trial in his
instance there.

So, this is up in the air and which side you want to do this on. Just this
afternoon, a couple of hours ago here, Mitch McConnell, for now, the Senate
majority leader has indicated that he would not announce whether he would
vote to convict President Trump, but there have been intimations from
McConnell that he is open to all of this.

He is very displeased with the president. He believes that the president
cost Republicans the Senate. He is very upset at what happened up here to
the legislative branch, and he, as the majority leader, is kind of one of
the guardians of this branch of government.

He thinks that maybe the president, this was a bridge too far. And so he
seems to be open to that process. But keep in mind that it takes two-
thirds, a supermajority, to convict.

Now, earlier, I know you were talking with Bret Baier about what could
happen to President Trump later. You have to pass some sort of a resolution
often after you have convicted somebody in the Senate to make sure that
they don't hold public office. It talks about this in the Constitution.
It's there.

But I will give you an example where they didn't do kind of this auxiliary
motion in the Senate, in the case of Alcee Hastings, the Democratic
congressman from Florida. That tells you enough right there. He has been a
member of the House of Representatives since 1993.

He was impeached and convicted and removed from the federal judge as a --
in an impeachment trial in the Senate in 1989. They didn't do that
secondary resolution. And that's why Alcee Hastings is a member of the
House of Representatives and has been for almost 30 years now. So, that's
something to look at.

But, again, you know, what the mechanics are here, can they actually start
this, is it beneficial for Democrats to start this process right now? Is it
better to wait until they have the majority, once you have sworn in these
two new senators from Georgia, and you have Vice President Harris on board
here, and you technically have 51?

Is this machination between Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader for
now, and Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, is this part of them may be
trying to work out some sort of a power-sharing agreement? You're going to
have a 50/50 Senate. Nowhere is it written down that just because it's
50/50 that the party with the vice president has the majority.

And what you had had happen 20 years ago, when there was a 50/50 Senate
between the Republicans and the Democrats, Tom Daschle, the Democratic
leader, Trent Lott, the Republican leader, they worked out a power-sharing
agreement where you had -- Trent Lott was basically the majority leader,
but Tom Daschle had some rights. You had a 50/50 Senate there.

That has to be approved. Could that be part of this?

And let's just say they agreed to say, OK, let's go ahead, let's have
emergency authority, let's start this trial. Under the Senate rules -- and
we saw this happen with the Senate rules in the impeachment trial last time
around -- you meet every day, except Sunday, at 1:00.

The chief justice presides. There's some question whether or not this
continues past when President Trump's term, whether or not John Roberts,
the chief justice of the United States, would preside. We have had the
president pro tem, the most senior member of the majority party, preside
over other impeachment trials of lower figures.

We had that with a couple of federal judges in 2009 and 2010. So there are
some tremendous questions right now about how they proceed. But make note
of this. There were 10 Republicans who so far have voted for impeachment
here.

I was told that it was going to be somewhere between about five and
probably 20. So we're somewhere in the middle here. We have had a couple of
members come on board that we didn't know last night. Peter Meijer, who is
a Republican freshmen from Michigan, has voted to impeach. You also had
Anthony Gonzalez, Republican congressman from Ohio, who voted to impeach.

Those are some of the new ones today, Dan Newhouse from Washington state.
So that kind of tells you that this is a bipartisan impeachment -- Neil.

CAVUTO:  So, if it ever did get to the Senate -- and that's an uphill
climb, I get that -- I could see a Lisa Murkowski voting for impeachment, a
Mitt Romney, a Ben Sasse, maybe a Mitch McConnell?

And he's -- if you buy by some of these reports of conversations he's had
that he supported what the Democrats are doing in the House, but you would
still need about 13 more. Is that doable?

PERGRAM:  That's right.

Neil, let me just interrupt you for one second. I will answer your
question.

But it sounds like they're just about to close the vote. Nancy Pelosi is in
the chair here, and she's going to announce the vote total. She's just
asking right now if there's anybody else who wants to vote here, so, right
now, 231 yeas, 197 nays, five members have not voted.

And remember that they can vote by proxy. So let's listen here for a
minute.

CAVUTO:  Just to let you know, the vote is now final; 231 U.S. congress men
and women have voted to impeach the president of the United States. That
includes 10 Republicans.

That number was going up throughout the day, and a bigger margin that did
not go strictly along party lines, as it did in the House 13 months ago.
They're calling this over now. As this now moves to the United States
Senate, the timing is the issue here.

Mitch McConnell has already indicated that it is probably unrealistic for
the time being to get them to move before the 19th, the day before the
State of the Union. Let's listen.

PELOSI:  On this vote, the ayes are 232, the nays are 197. The resolution
is adopted. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the
table.

CAVUTO:  All right, back to Chad Pergram.

There you have it, and the House voting to impeach the president of the
United States for the second time in little more than a year.

I was mentioning about the next stop, the Senate, if that ever gets that
far, Chad. Even allowing for the possibility that they can meet and do
something, how many Republicans would likely vote to impeach the president?
They need about 17.

Would they get close to getting there?

PERGRAM:  Right.

And this is reflective of the fractured nature of the Republican Party.
There are some members, obviously, on the Republican side who would like to
convict him. There are others who believe that Donald Trump still has some
juice in the Republican Party.

They have been reluctant to get crossways with him, despite what happened
with this melee here at the Capitol the other day. We're seeing some of
that moving right now. There are some who believe that going down this road
with a trial in the Senate for President Trump, that this kind of
martyrizes him. That's something that some Republicans want to try to
avoid.

So, these are the types of conversations that Mitch McConnell has to have.
Mitch McConnell has been known very well for keeping his conference
together. You started to see attrition that on the COVID bill, when the
president initially balked at signing the coronavirus bill and said, wait a
minute, I'm not going to sign it unless you add $2,000 checks to that.

So, you had Republicans all over the map on that. There certainly has been
attrition in support for the president naturally, because his term is
coming to an end. Number two, there are many Republicans in this building
right now who are apoplectic at the president over his conduct last week,
and just how malignant that was, and what happened to the legislative
branch of government.

So, that is a bit of a moving target. People don't really know what's going
to happen there. And, again, as you say, it's two-thirds. It is a high,
high bar.

Now, Neil, as I'm listening here, I'm listening to Betty McCollum, the
Democrat from Minnesota, who presided over the debate. As far as I could
tell, they did not approve that other resolution. So, what that means is
that we're in a very similar position here where, at least for now, they
are holding the ball.

So, the 15th is when the House of Representatives comes back. We don't see
any indication that they would send this directly over. Again, we have
asked aides and people all over the building for a couple of days what the
process is here, because we have only done this now 21 times in American
history. It doesn't always work out the same way.

And we don't have any indication that they passed that separate resolution
to trigger the trial. So, if they just went out of session, that tells me
that Nancy Pelosi is holding the ball.

After President Clinton was impeached in late 1998, about 10 minutes after
the impeachment vote, there were two articles of impeachment that he was --
that they voted out of the four. There were four total articles of
impeachment with President Clinton. And they approved two.

They approved that second resolution and sent it over to the Senate about
10 minutes later, and it included who the impeachment managers were. You
had Henry Hyde, who was the top manager for that Senate trial.

You also had -- Lindsey Graham was a Republican congressman in those days,
and he was one of the impeachment managers for that. But we know who those
impeachment managers will be. Jamie Raskin will lead the charge this time.
It was Adam Schiff last year.

And, Neil, regardless, here's the other thing. This is where I was talking
about Schumer and McConnell getting together and trading horses. What
happened in the Clinton trial in 1999, again, Lott and Daschle got together
and worked out an agreement that was approved by the Senate to set up the
parameters as to how they were going to handle the trial, how much time,
how much time that the prosecution, the House managers would have, the
defense, the president's counsel, what the conditions would be for
witnesses, if they ever got to that stage.

They didn't really have a similar ground framework back in about a year's
time ago here. So, that is very important, that you get to some sort of an
agreement. And if you don't, then those Senate rules kind of apply, those
Senate impeachment rules, which they updated in the mid-1980s.

CAVUTO:  All right, amazing, Chad. Your mastery of detail was stunning,
Chad Pergram, again, talking about the historic nature of this and what
happens now, a separate resolution to begin sort of the trial particulars
to go to the United States Senate.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms here. As it stands right now, while the
U.S. Senate would be the next stop regardless, it's a timing issue. And we
have already heard that the Senate majority leader for the time being,
Mitch McConnell, has rejected this emergency session, in other words,
bringing the Senate back earlier than the planned returned on January 19,
the day before the inauguration, that, because of that, it seems unlikely
that action could be taken in the Senate.

There's a separate effort to see, well, maybe, in a Biden administration,
with a Democratic Senate, could they take this up then, and therein an
action against a former president? There is precedent for this sort of
thing when it comes to senators and judges. It's never been tried with a
U.S. president, in this case, a former U.S. president.

Let's go to Tom Dupree, the former deputy assistant attorney general.

Tom, so many legal possibilities here. But assuming that things stand as
they are, that the Senate will not have an emergency early session or take
this up any time before the 19th, at a minimum, where's all this going?

TOM DUPREE, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Well, I suspect that this
is going to be question number one for the new Biden administration and for
the new Senate that comes into office.

They are going to have to decide whether they want to move ahead with a
trial on the impeached former president and, if so, whether it's going to
be something that will dominate the agenda for the first few weeks of the
new Biden administration, or if they will try two-track it.

So they might in the morning have a trial of the former President Trump
and, in the afternoon, address new Biden Cabinet appointees. But it
definitely throws a curveball into the works. And I suspect that we're
going to hear a lot of debate in the days ahead about whether the Senate
even should take up this resolution.

CAVUTO:  The other issue then becomes taking it up against a former
president, Donald Trump, and whether there would be much appetite for that,
allowing for the possibility, as I even raised with Jim Clyburn, a close
Biden confidant, that, yes, it could muck up his 100-day action agenda as
he takes office.

But it could happen. What would have to happen?

DUPREE:  Well, I think what would have to happen is, first, the Senate or
the Senate leadership would have to get comfortable with the idea of
continuing these proceedings against a former official.

There is precedent in our nation's history for doing it, although it's not
something that's ever been sorted out definitively one way or another by
the courts. The next thing they would have to do is, will this approximate
a trial?

We have seen that before. We saw that in the prior impeachment of President
Trump. We saw that in the Clinton impeachment, where you actually have
evidence, you have prosecutors presenting a case, because, if they do that,
I suspect that will consume days and days of Senate time in order for the
Senate to reach its ultimate verdict.

CAVUTO:  So, let me just ask you a couple of just general legal questions
here.

It would take a Senate impeachment to prevent Donald Trump from ever
running for office again. So, as things stand out, this is the final stop.
And this is as far as it gets. He technically could run for office again,
right?

I left him -- just no, no.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO:  We had a video problem there. But, again, that is the issue.

You hear a lot of talk back and forth about, what is more likely here and
what is the environment that would warrant taking the president out of
running for any office ever again? And it does seem to be found and
convicted in the United States Senate.

I think Tom is back with us.

Tom, what do you think?

DUPREE:  I was saying that, if they elect to move ahead with a trial, the
only possible consequence for former President Trump would be
disqualification for holding future office.

Obviously, removal would be a moot point at that stage. So, they really
would just be holding the trial for purposes of disqualifying him from
holding office in the future.

CAVUTO:  So, let me just be clear. One last thing, Tom. The -- we're going
to uncharted waters here, at least regarding a U.S. president or a former
president by that time.

But it does raise a lot about what actions you could take against a former
president and how long it would take to go after a former president, to say
nothing of how each side sets up their legal teams and what have you. I
would imagine that would last a while.

Now, I know I heard from Clyburn, the House majority whip, saying, look, we
can, that old line, walk and chew gum at the same time. But the history of
Congress is oftentimes, no, they can't.

So, I'm just wondering if this becomes all impeachment all the time, and
not in Joe Biden's interests.

DUPREE:  I think impeachment does have a tendency to become all-consuming.

I suppose they could try to do impeachment in the morning and confirmation
of Biden officials in the afternoon. But that's a very tall order.

CAVUTO:  No way.

DUPREE:  And, look, you're right.

The way these impeachment trials work in the Senate is, they are like a
trial procedure. You have prosecutor. You have evidence. You often have
testimony. It's not something that you can really just do for an hour or
two a day. You need focused, lengthy amounts of time to hear the case and
make an informed decision.

So, although it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, I think,
in this case, it would be a real challenge.

CAVUTO:  Are you surprised -- and maybe -- this is maybe a more political
question, so you don't have to take this, Tom -- but that so many
Republicans were on board?

Because leadership was not giving them any guidance, more or less saying,
vote as you feel. And that seemed to be some of the signals Mitch McConnell
was sending to Republicans in the Senate, commending what the House was
doing and Democrats were doing, not necessarily indicating he supports it,
but was fine with it, that they raised a number of very good, solid issues.

He has sent out reminders to Republicans he has not made up his mind on
this, but he seemed to signal, if it ever got to them -- and this is me
taking the leap here -- he's not telling him to vote for or against
something, that it's their call.

What do you think?

DUPREE:  That's exactly right, Neil.

And, no, I'm not surprised at all. I think the reason for the Republican
votes that we have seen so far are attributable to two things. One is the
fact that leadership has not sent a strong message that they need to fall
into line behind the president here.

We have seen, in other cases, for instance, with Supreme Court vacancies,
when Leader McConnell gets out in front the moment news breaks, signaling
to his people how he wants them to vote and to make public statements. He
hasn't done that here. He's left people to vote as they see fit.

The second thing is, I have gotten a strong sense from public statements
and from talking to people both in the House and the Senate, a lot of
Republicans are incredibly inflamed by what unfolded last Wednesday. They
saw it as an assault on the citadel of our democracy. They take it
personally. And they have very strong feelings.

So, even if leadership were to tell them to vote one way, this is a case
where I think a lot of people are going to be voting their conscience.

CAVUTO:  Yes, there's a lot of anger the U.S. Senate, to your point, Tom.

I think, as one senator was telling me, because of the president and his
actions, particularly in Georgia, and questioning the vote again and again
and again, he grabbed defeat from the jaws of otherwise easy victory.

We shall see.

Tom Dupree, thank you very, very much. Sorry for the technical
difficulties.

I want to go to John Roberts at the White House.

John, any response as yet from the president to this?

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT:  Yes, we had a
written statement earlier today. And I will get to that in just a second.

Right now, the president is in the throes of trying to put together a video
message that the White House will put out on some platform that will host
it. There aren't a whole lot of those left, but the president earlier today
trying to de-escalate the situation, particularly given the fact that the
FBI says that there are violent protests, armed protests that are planned
for all 50 state capitols some time between now and Inauguration Day.

The president, in a statement earlier today, saying -- quote -- "In light
of reports of more demonstrations, I urge that there must be no violence,
no lawbreaking, and no vandalism of any kind. This is not what I stand for,
and it is not what America stands for. I call on all Americans to help ease
tensions and calm tempers. Thank you."

The president is hoping to get that statement and whatever video statement
that he puts out hosted on some of the big social media platforms, like
Twitter, like Facebook, like Instagram, all of which have banned him right
now.

An adviser to the president's telling FOX News' Brooke Singman,
FOXNews.com, Brooke Singman -- quote -- "President Trump is asking all
Americans to join with him in ensuring that there is an orderly and
peaceful transition next week. President Trump is also asking that the big
tech companies join with him in this effort."

And the RNC chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, putting out her own statement
earlier this afternoon, saying -- quote -- "Violence has no place in
politics, period. Let me be clear. Anyone who has malicious intent is not
welcome in Washington, D.C., or in any other state capitol. The peaceful
transition of power is one of our nation's founding principles that is
necessary for our country to move forward."

Now, the president has been impeached for a second time. That's historic.
He becomes the first president in American history to carry with him that
particular designation.

Now the attention turns toward whether or not, Neil, there will be a trial
in the Senate. I am told that the president's aides have reached out to
possible outside counsel. It's highly likely that the team who supported
him the first time around, including Pat Cipollone, Patrick Philbin from
the White House Counsel's Office, Jay Sekulow, the president's outside
counsel, and Pam Bondi and Marc Kasowitz, likely will not be involved.

It is possible, though, that Alan Dershowitz could re-up if this thing ever
gets to the Senate. But White House aides are telling me today that, the
further away from Inauguration Day this thing gets -- if Congressman
Clyburn is correct in saying that they might hold these impeachment
articles until after 100 days to send them over to the Senate, then the
possibility of a conviction really becomes less and less likely.

And if you're not going to get a conviction, you're not going to prevent
the president from running again in 2024, what's the purpose of even
sending it over to the Senate?

CAVUTO:  Right. Right. Very good point.

John Roberts, thank you. We will wait to see if we do get a video statement
or anything like that from the president of the United States.

Want to go to Jennifer Griffin. She's been looking at how the Capitol is
getting ready for next week's inauguration, amid ample security concerns.
Thousands of National Guard are troops already in the city, more to come.
They have beefed up police forces and the like.

They're ready, I guess, Jennifer, for anything and everything.

(LAUGHTER)

JENNIFER GRIFFIN, FOX NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT:  They certainly
are, Neil. And what a difference a week makes.

We have been seeing dozens of platoons, if you will, of National Guard
walking the perimeter here, some of them armed with him M-4 rifles. They
have been briefed, we're told, that there could be a vehicle-borne IEDs, in
other words, word truck bombs brought into the Capitol in the coming days
to disrupt the inauguration events.

They are being given the same kind of briefs they would be given if they
were going to a war zone. I think it's notable that there are more National
Guard troops right now on Capitol Hill than there are in either Iraq or
Afghanistan.

And by the time that the National Guard deploys the 20,000 troops that have
now been approved to come to the Capitol over the next coming days, that
will be more than three times the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan combined, so, things very tense in the city, no sign of really
large protests right now, but the threat level very high, according to the
D.C. police chief and also the attorney general and FBI alerts.

That is why you are seeing the Capitol Police asking for reinforcement, and
you see all of these National Guard troops inside the Capitol. We saw some
of them sleeping with their rifles last night. We're told they won't be
sleeping in the Capitol. They will be staying in lodging nearby.

But they are on alert. There is barbed wire going up; 12,000 feet of fence
have been put around the entire Capitol Hill complex in anticipation of the
inauguration. And there are roadblocks across the city, with more to come.
Tunnels and bridges will be shut down in the coming days. It'll be very
difficult. The mayor is saying, do not come to Washington for the
inauguration. They do not want outside visitors, given the current threat
levels -- back to you.

CAVUTO:  Yes, even some congress men or women aren't too keen on it.

I had Nancy Mace, the newly elected South Carolina Republican, who said she
was not inclined to come. It's a safety issue for her. She has two young
daughters. She just doesn't want to go. And I'm wondering if there are
others like her.

GRIFFIN:  I think, right now, Neil, the real concern -- the Capitol will be
secure. I have spoken to senior officials at the Pentagon and elsewhere
responsible for security who are involved in coordinating. The Secret
Service will be in the lead.

There will be a massive federal law enforcement and National Guard
president in the Capitol. But the threat, according to the FBI, is also on
the 50 state capitols. There are armed protesters threatening those state
capitols. And so they will need National Guard. They will need law
enforcement to protect them.

So, again, this is a very hardened target at this point. It looks like the
Green Zone in Baghdad. It does not look like the U.S. Capitol.

CAVUTO:  All right, Jennifer Griffin, thank you very much, my friend. Great
reporting, as usual.

We are getting a statement from Mitch McConnell again, what would come
next.

"Given the rules, procedures and Senate precedents," he writes, "that
govern presidential impeachment, there is simply no chance" -- again, this
is from about Mitch McConnell -- "that a fair or serious trial could
conclude before president-elect Biden is sworn in next week."

He goes on to say: "The Senate has held three presidential impeachment
trials. They have lasted 83 days, 37 days, and 21 days, respectively." Even
if the Senate process were to begin this week and move promptly, no final
verdict would be reached until after President Trump had left office.

All right, so reaction now from Phil Wegmann of RealClearPolitics.

So, the Senate thing, at least this go-round, under this president, seems
unlikely, Phil.

Your thoughts?

PHILIP WEGMANN, REALCLEARPOLITICS:  I think we're going to learn a lot of
civics lessons from Chad Pergram in the days to come, as he explains a lot
of these intricate rules in the Senate.

(LAUGHTER)

WEGMANN:  But what we saw from Mitch McConnell right now is that, yes,
while there is a 50/50 split in the U.S. Senate right now, he's not going
to bring the Senate back with an emergency session.

And we can't forget that, frankly, there's not a lot of love lost between
McConnell and the president. There are a lot of Senate Republicans who
blame the president for losing the majority.

And, look, even if McConnell was not to vote to impeach, certainly, he
could give a signal to the rest of his caucus that they can go ahead and
vote their own consciences.

CAVUTO:  You don't, Phil, if you think about -- I know you and I discussed
this before -- it is a stunning fall from grace.

I mean, if you think about where we were right after the election, it was a
close election. The president, of course, protested a lot of what he saw.
But it quickly morphed into, we were robbed, stolen, chicanery, and all of
that was shot down in one legal case after another, even administered by
judges appointed by Donald Trump that dismissed it as well.

And then, last week -- and I'm just thinking of a figure who did get 74, 75
million votes, who could have been a credible threat on the national front
as a conceivable candidate for president four years from now, even if the
Senate doesn't move on any of this, and thereby negate that possibility.

I wonder if it's even a possibility now. What do you think?

WEGMANN:  Well, listen to Representative Nancy Mace that you had on the
program just a second ago.

She was a member of President Trump's 2016 campaign.

CAVUTO:  Right.

WEGMANN:  And, as we heard, she said that his accomplishments, from tax
cuts to the vaccine to other things, are wiped away.

And other Republicans that I have talked to have shared similar sentiments,
because the conversation about Trump will start and end with what happened
last week. So, yes, this is a debate about whether or not President Trump
should be impeached, whether or not he should be barred from running for
office again.

But I think the subtext here is also about whether or not President Trump's
sort of brand of populist conservatism, whether or not that remains
orthodoxy in the GOP. And, right now, his stock is down.

CAVUTO:  It might be down, but even allowing for the possibility -- let's
say he's lost half those supporters who voted for him -- that might be a
stretch -- it's still tens of millions of people who like him, admire him,
respect him.

I don't know. It's like a Teddy Roosevelt Bull Moose Party there that is
just ready to be remade and re-visioned, but I wonder. What do you think?

WEGMANN:  Look, I think that Donald Trump surprised the political world in
2015 and 2016. He might have more surprises in the future.

But I think that Republicans, at their own peril, dismiss the Trump
supporters, because, even if you disagree with some of their views -- and,
obviously, Republicans, to a member, condemn the attack on the Capitol --
you still, as an elected member of Congress, need to understand their
thinking and need to understand their concerns, while, at the same time,
condemning violence, because we have been saying this for a long time.

Even if the populist president is gone, the populist sentiment still
remains. And Republicans are going to have to grapple with that, even if
Trump's personality is not on the table.

CAVUTO:  Phil Wegmann, very good catching up with you, my friend, Phil
Wegmann of RealClearPolitics here.

So, for those of you just tuning in, the president of the United States has
been impeached yet again, the second time in a little more than 13 months,
this time by a wider margin, though; 232 congress men and women voted to
impeach, and that included 10 Republicans.

That is unprecedented, in and of itself. That number was growing with early
signs Liz Cheney was not a fan of the president's actions last week and how
they triggered the violence and what she called the insurrection that
evolved just hours after.

It is a whole new political landscape. We have yet to hear from the
president of the United States. He will probably provide a video
announcement what he makes of all of this.

But he's been impeached yet again.

Here comes "THE FIVE."

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may
not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of
the content.