This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday" February 7, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


The Senate impeachment trial starts this week as the GOP struggles to find
its way after Donald Trump.


REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA):  This Republican Party is a very big tent.
Everyone is invited in.
WALLACE (voice-over):  But is the big tent big enough for a leader like Liz
Cheney who voted for impeachment, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who says she
is being targeted for her pro-Trump views?

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA):  Republican voters support him still,
the party is his.

WALLACE:  We're joined by Congresswoman Cheney in her first interview since
the furor over her vote to impeach Donald Trump. It's a "FOX News Sunday"

Then, the Senate trial starts Tuesday as House managers make their case the
former president incited a mob to storm the capitol. We'll talk with
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who says Mr. Trump needs to be held
accountable and Republican Senator Rand Paul, who says it's time to move

Senators Paul and Murphy only on "FOX News Sunday".

Plus, President Biden expresses concern about Mr. Trump continuing to get
intelligence briefings.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  What impact does he have it all
other than the fact he might slip and say something?

WALLACE:  We'll ask our Sunday panel about the new commander in chief
cutting off his predecessor.

And Super Bowl Sunday, Brady versus Mahomes, and the prediction FOX Sports
Joe Buck made on this program at the start of the season.

I promise you we will play this tape next February.

All, right now, on "FOX News Sunday".



WALLACE (on camera):  And hello again from FOX News in Washington.

Donald Trump may no longer be in the White House, but his presence is still
being felt on Capitol Hill. This week, the Senate will conduct a Trump
impeachment trial for the second time and in a House, the split between his
supporters and critics is creating deep divisions inside the Republican

In a moment, we'll speak with Congresswoman Liz Cheney in her first
interview since surviving an attempt to remove her from leadership for
backing impeachment. But, first, let's turn to Mike Emanuel with what we
know about this week's trial.


MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):  The charge from
Democrats that former president Trump incited a violent mob, causing the
riot at the capitol on January 6th. Top Democrats say the trial will be
fair and speedy.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY):  Senators will have to look deep into their
consciences and determine if Donald Trump is guilty.

EMANUEL:  House impeachment managers ask the former president to testify
under oath. The Trump legal team called it a stunt and rejected it. Details
in terms of format, timeline and witnesses are still unknown.

Many in the GOP argue it's unconstitutional to try a former president.

SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN):  Democrats are now wanting to get this over
as quickly as they can. They're beginning to realize they may have opened a
door they did not want to open.

EMANUEL:  On the House side, Republican conference chair Liz Cheney, who
voted for impeachment, was censured Saturday by the GOP in her home state
of Wyoming. Cheney survived a challenge of her leadership post this week
and won big, 145-61.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY):  We're not going to be divided and that we're not
going to be in a situation where people can pick off any member of

EMANUEL:  House Democrats and 11 Republicans voted Thursday to remove
Georgia Republican freshman Marjorie Taylor Greene from the Education and
Budget Committees. Greene addressed statements she made in conspiracy
theories she supported before being elected.

TAYLOR GREENE:  I'm sorry for saying all those things that are wrong and
offensive and I sincerely mean that.


EMANUEL (on camera):  House GOP leaders are eager to shift the focus to
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats and trying to win back the majority
next year -- Chris.

WALLACE:  Mike Emanuel reporting from Capitol Hill -- Mike, thanks.

And joining us now, Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, still the number
three Republican in the House.

Congresswoman, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY):  Great to be back with you, Chris. Thanks for
having me.

WALLACE:  So, as Mike Emanuel just reported, yesterday, your home state
Wyoming Republican Party censured you and called for you to resign
immediately, saying that you had betrayed the trust of Wyoming voters.

Are you going to step down?

CHENEY:  I'm not, Mike, and, Chris, sorry.

And, look, I think people all across Wyoming understand and recognize that
our most important duty is to the Constitution. And as I've explained and
will continue to explain to supporters all across the state and voters all
across the state, the oath that I took to the Constitution compelled me to
vote for impeachment and it doesn't bend to partisanship, it doesn't bend
to political pressure. It's the most important oath that we take.

And so I will stand by that and I will continue to fight for all of the
issues that matter so much to us all across Wyoming.

WALLACE:  They debated -- your home state Republican Party, they debated
for 11 minutes before deciding to censure you, the congresswoman, the
number three Republican in the House. What's that about?

CHENEY:  Well, I think you have to read the language of the censure partly.
I think, you know, that people in the party are mistaken. They believe that
BLM and Antifa were behind what happened here at the Capitol. It's just
simply not the case, not true and we're going to have a lot of work we have
to do.

People have been lied to. The extent to which the president, President
Trump for months leading up to January 6th spread the notion that the
election had been stolen or that the election was rigged was a lie and
people need to understand that. We need to make sure that we as Republicans
are the party of truth that we are being honest about what really did
happen in 2020 so we actually have a chance to win in 2022 and win the
White House back in 2024.

WALLACE:  You know, there really, Congresswoman, are two questions here,
one of which is the role of President Trump. That's going to be debated in
the Senate next week but also the future of the Republican Party. In
Washington this week, you survived a challenge to your position as the
House Republican conference chair.

But there was fierce blowback to your decision to vote to impeach the
president. Take a look at some of that.


REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH):  She didn't just go vote her conscience on the day
of the vote, she spoke ahead of time, 36 hours, put out a statement.

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL):  Why is it that America has such a disappointing
Congress? Because in a lot of ways, Liz Cheney is exactly like Congress!
Deeply unpopular and owned by special interests.


WALLACE:  Does it bother you that there was more open outrage among House
Republicans to your vote to impeach the president, a vote of conscience, as
you say, then to the years of misstatements by Congresswoman Marjorie
Taylor Greene?

CHENEY:  Look, I think that, first of all, with respect to Congressman
Greene, we've all been very clear. The things that she has said don't have
any place in our public discourse and we as a Republican conference should
deal with that issue. We should have dealt with it. That's not something
the Democrats should be addressing on the floor of the House, we should
have dealt with that.

With respect to where we are as a party, I think this boat and conference
made very clear, we are the party of Lincoln, we are not the party of QAnon
or anti-Semitism or Holocaust-deniers, or white supremacy or conspiracy
theories. That's not who we are.

We believe in conservative principles and conservative values and we
believe in the Constitution.

And the extent to which -- if you think about the threats that the nation
faces, you think about what happened on January 6th, I talked to Officer
Sicknick's mother this week and I pledged to her as I know many of my
colleagues have that we will not forget what happened on January 6th and
that the single greatest threat to our republic is a president who would
put his own self-interest above the Constitution, above the national

You know, we've had a situation where President Trump claimed for months
that the election was stolen and that apparently set about to do everything
he could to steal it himself, and that ended up in an attack on the
capitol, five people killed that day. That's the kind of attack that can
never happen again.

Our institutions held, but we all have an obligation to make sure that they
continue to do so and don't look past what happened on January 6th. We --
you know, it was just over a month ago.

WALLACE:  I just want to ask -- 


WALLACE:  I just want to ask you one more question about January 6th. When
you voted to impeach the president, you said this, he, quote, summoned this
mob, assembled the mom and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that
was followed was his doing. There has never been a greater betrayal by the
president of the United States of his office and his oath to the

Congresswoman, one of the things you certainly are is a straight talker.
Would you vote to convict President Trump of incitement of insurrection?

CHENEY:  If I were in the Senate, I would obviously listen to the evidence.
I think that's the role the Senate has as jurors.

But I would also point out, though, Chris, that the Senate trial is a
snapshot. There's a massive criminal investigation underway. There will be
a massive criminal investigation of everything that happened on January 6th
and in the days before. People will want to know exactly what the president
was doing.

They want to know, for example, whether the tweet he sent out calling Vice
President Pence a coward while the attack was underway, whether that tweet,
for example, was a premeditated effort to provoke violence. There are a lot
of questions that have to be answered and there will be many, many criminal
investigations looking at every aspect of this and everyone who was
involved, as there should be.

But I stand firmly by my statement. We have never seen that kind of an
assault by a president of the United States on another branch of government
and that can never happen again.

WALLACE:  So, just to press that, if you were in the Senate, would you vote
to convict?

CHENEY:  If I were in the Senate, I would listen to the testimony. I would
listen to the evidence. If you're a senator you have a responsibility to be
a juror and I think that's very important.

But I obviously believe and did then that what we already know is enough
for his impeachment. What we already know does constitute the gravest
violation of his oath of office by any president in the history of the
country, and this is not something that we can simply look past or pretend
didn't happen or try to move on. We've got to make sure this never happens

WALLACE:  I want to pick up on -- because you criticized at the very
beginning, you criticized Democrats for voting to strip Marjorie Taylor
Greene of all of her committees. After the House voted this week to remove
her from those committees, you issued a statement and you said this:
Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority have no business determining which
Republicans sit on committees.

But, Congresswoman, your GOP caucus debated this issue and ended up giving
Congresswoman Greene a standing ovation.

So, can you really blame Democrats for moving to act when the House
Republican caucus didn't?

CHENEY:  We should have, Chris. This is exactly the kind of issue that we
should address inside of our conference. You know, if you get into a
situation where whoever has the majority in the House decides who sits on
committees from both parties, you might as will not have anybody in the
minority on any committees.

So it should not have gotten to the point that it did. I don't believe the
Democrats have any business determining who from the Republicans sit on
committees, but we should have dealt with it ourselves. And I think it's --
it's very important that we are absolutely clear that those views and those
beliefs do not have any place in our public discourse. And, you know, we
will want to see action now from Congresswoman Greene, you know, that backs
up the kinds of words that we've seen over the last few days and the kinds
of apologies.

But we have to be very clear, that's not who we are as a party.

WALLACE:  I mean, that, of course, is the question, whether it is who you
are as a party or not because all of this gets to where the GOP is.

Here was Congresswoman Greene's defense on the House floor this week. Take
a look.


REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA):  I never said any of these things since
I have been elected for Congress. These were words of the past and these
things do not represent me. You see school shootings are absolutely real. I
also want to tell you 9/11 absolutely happened.


WALLACE:  You say that her opinions have, your words, no place in the
party, but she said this week that she raised $330,000 in 48 hours and that
President Trump supports her.

And I want to remind you that just the week before last, your House
Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, met with Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago and
said the former president will campaign for Republicans in the 2022

So the question is, is this still the party of Donald Trump? And does
Marjorie Taylor Greene still hold a solid place in that party?

CHENEY:  Chris, we're the party of Abraham Lincoln. We're the party of
Ronald Reagan. We have to really take a hard look at who we are and what we
stand for and what we believe in.

I think when you look at both his actions leading up to what happened on
January 6th, the fact that he was impeached in a bipartisan fashion, the
fact that he lost the presidency, the fact that we lost the Senate, we have
to be in a position where we can say we stand for principle, we stand for

Somebody who has provoked an attack on the United States capital to prevent
the counting of electoral votes, which resulted in five people dying, who
refused to stand up immediately when he was asked and stop the violence,
that -- that is a person who does not have a role as a leader of our party
going forward.

We have to make sure that we are able to convey to the American voters, we
are the party of responsibility, we are the party of truth, that we
actually can be trusted to handle the challenges this nation faces like
COVID and that's going to require us to focus on substance and policy and
issues going forward but we should not be embracing the former president.

WALLACE:  All right, let's focus on the other side for a moment. Joe Biden
has been president for two and a half weeks, how's he doing?

CHENEY:  You know, it's really -- it's heartbreaking in many ways, Chris,
because, you know, we watched the inaugural speech where he spoke of unity,
where he spoke of trying to work together in the immediate actions we've
seen with respect to, you know, things like canceling the Keystone
pipeline, it's heartless. It really is.

The people that are being put out of work, when you look at the ban on
additional permits for oil and gas leasing on public lands -- you know, my
state of Wyoming not only is absolutely devastating to our energy industry,
but the resources that come from those leases are what we used to fund our
schools. It's what we used to fund services in our local communities.

So we've seen a number of immediate executive orders that really are very
damaging, very negative, and the COVID package that's been proposed, the
$1.9 trillion, even Larry Summers has said that, you know, this could cause
real fiscal challenges for us. It could bring increased inflationary

So I think that we really do have to fight back against, stand up against
the kind of far left governing that we've seen so far out of the Biden

WALLACE:  Congresswoman Cheney, thank you. Thanks for your time. Always
good to talk with you.

CHENEY:  You too, Chris. Thanks for having me.

WALLACE:  Up next, Republican Senator Rand Paul on why he calls this week's
impeachment trial dead on arrival.


WALLACE:  The Senate impeachment trial starts on Tuesday and in order to
convict Donald Trump, at least 17 Republican senators will need to join
with all 50 Democrats. That's an unlikely move considering most Republicans
have already indicated they think the trial is unconstitutional.
Joining us now from Kentucky, GOP Senator Rand Paul.

Senator, we'll get to the procedural questions about the Senate trial that
I know you're concerned about in a moment but first, you just heard Liz
Does President Trump bear any responsibility from the attack on the Capitol
on January 6th?
SENATOR RAND PAUL, (R-KY):  I opposed the notion of -- which I think was a
misguided notion, a voting to overturn the election either with Congress or
with the vice president. But I think if we are going to criminalize speech
and somehow impeach everybody who says, oh, go fight to hear your voices
heard, really we ought to impeach Chuck Schumer then.
He went to the Supreme Court, stood in front of the Supreme Court and said
specifically, hey Gorsuch, hey Kavanaugh, you've unleashed a whirlwind and
you're going to pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you continue
with these awful decisions.
This inflammatory wording, this violent rhetoric of Chuck Schumer was so
bad that the chief justice, who rarely says anything publicly, immediately
said this kind of language is dangerous as a mob tried to invade the
Supreme Court.
So if people want to hold President Trump accountable for language, there
has to be a consistent standard and to my mind it's a partisan farce
because they're not doing anything to Chuck Schumer, not doing anything to
Representative Omar, not doing anything to Maxine Waters. It's just not
fair. It's just partisan politics under a different name.
WALLACE:  This is the case that Republicans -- rather the Democratic house
managers will make before the Senate this next week. They will note that
Mr. Trump tweeted his followers a number of tweets, but one of them to come
to a big protest on January 6th. "Be there, will be wild," he wrote.
And then they will play videos of what happened that day, what he said, how
they reacted. We made our own compilation of those, including some clips
that are circulating on the Internet.
Take a look, Senator.
hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country
UNKNOWN:  Raid the Capitol! Raid the Capitol!
UNKNOWN:  Vote (ph) for Trump! Vote (ph) for Trump!
UNKNOWN:  They're traitors --
WALLACE:  Senator, you talk about other people who have said things, but
you know, here there had been weeks of misrepresentations about the
election. Then he called people to come to Washington. Then he talks about
fighting like hell. People in the crowd are talking about going to the
Capitol and then they demand to find Speaker Pelosi and to hang Mike Pence,
the vice president of the United States.
Is that not incitement for insurrection?
PAUL:  I don't condone any of the language and, like I say, I opposed
philosophically and voted against overturning the election. However, I
think you're going to see the Trump defense play video of Maxine Waters
telling crowds to mob Trump administration and restaurants and attack them.
They'll probably show clips of Cory Booker saying, get up in their face of
these Congress people. You'll probably see comments from Representative
Omar wishing and celebrating the violence that happened to me when I had
six ribs broken and part of my lung removed.
I think you're going to see all of this and people are going to have to
judge for themselves, are we going to impeach and potentially criminally
prosecute people for political speech when they get -- say, get up and
fight for your country, let your voices be heard.
Has nobody in this country heard of figurative speech? You could argue that
his position was wrong and that it was misguided. I accept all of that. But
if you're going to criminalize his speech, you have to do it with the same
standard. You can't just criminalize Republican speech and ignore all the
Democrats who have incited violence.
Look at the mayor of Seattle. She went on and on about this being a summer
of love. Kamala Harris went forward and said, we should bail out these
violent protesters. One of them has gotten out three times, committed
crimes three times, including cracking the skull -- fracturing the skull
and causing a brain injury after Kamala Harris advocated for getting him
out of prison.
So the thing is we can't just have a double standard. Both parties have to
be treated the same.
 PAUL:  I think Democrats had any bit of self-reflection, they would be
saying this is a really terrible idea.
WALLACE:  All right, let's talk about the other issue, which is the one
that you raised I guess a week and a half ago, which is whether this whole
procedure, this whole trial is constitutional.
You offered a motion contending it is not because you said a former
president, a president who has left office, cannot be the subject of a
Senate trial. The other side argues that under that standard, a president
could abuse his power, quit at the last minute, and could not be held
accountable by the Senate for -- obviously, if it's a legal crime he could
be but for a political crime, the Senate would be unable to touch him under
your standards.
PAUL:  I think that argument ignores the fact that yes, the president can
be prosecuted. And if they think he incited a riot or an insurrection --
which is such an overstatement and such a conclusion without any sort of
presentation of evidence, all the left-wing media just concludes it.
But the thing is, yes, they can take them to court, they can take them to
trial and do it. I think he has suffered under public opinion and his
numbers are greatly reduced.
And so I think there's all kinds of punishment. But we have to -- look,
we've had a country for 250 years and every other congress thought it was
unwise to keep going after an ex-president. Constitutional scholars --
WALLACE:  But --
PAUL:  -- and professional (inaudible) have said that the constitution says
you impeach and disqualify. If the person isn't there to impeach, you can't
do either one of them. And so there are constitutional experts (inaudible)
WALLACE:  But Senator Paul, that's --
PAUL:  Also (inaudible) of my colleagues would say --
WALLACE:  Senator Paul, that's not quite true. If I may, if I may. In 1876,
the then-secretary of war, Will Belknap, serving under Ulysses S. Grant was
about to be impeached for accepting bribes. He raced to the White House and
resigned but the house impeached him anyway.
And the Senate decided that it had the authority to try him. And it did try
him and although a majority sought to remove him and to convict him, they
didn't get the two-thirds. But isn't that, the 1876 case of William
Belknap, a solid precedent?
PAUL:  No. Because we've never impeached a president because we always
thought it would destroy and tear up the country and divide us further.
The thing is, is when you look at impeaching the president the constitution
has some very specific requirements. It says when the president is
impeached, the chief justice shall preside.
And to me, this is one of the shocking things. When we showed up and we
found out that yes, Chuck Schumer had called Justice Roberts -- and this
hasn't been reported widely, but he did -- and Justice Roberts said heck,
no, I'm not going to cross the street because you're not impeaching the
This was a strong signal to all of us that this was going to be a partisan
hearing with a Democrat in the chair who's already voted for impeachment.
You think we're going to get any fair rulings out of a Democrat that's
already expressed favor for impeaching him previously and is going to vote
this time to impeach him?
So it is a farce, it is unconstitutional. But more than anything it's
unwise, and going to divide the country.
If Biden thinks he really -- if he really meant anything about that unity
and he really wanted to be a statesman, you know what he would have done?
He would have come out and told his party enough's enough, let's move on,
we won the election and let's move on with our agenda.
But instead, they can't let go of President Trump and they're going to keep
kicking and kicking and kicking. But to the rest of the country and to most
of the Republicans, it looks like bitter rancor that they can't get the
election -- they can't get over the election.
WALLACE:  Senator, I've got about a minute left. I want to ask you a couple
of quick procedural questions.
Do you think the senate will call witnesses, how long do you think the
trial will last, and is there any chance that the Senate will vote to
convict Donald Trump?
PAUL:  Zero chance of conviction, 45 Republicans have said it's not even a
legitimate proceeding so it's really over before it starts.
As far as witnesses, i think unlikely to be witnesses. If they do want
witnesses there's going to be so much evidence that the president had
nothing to do with this; it was planned previously on Facebook, the bombs
were planted the night before. People were attacking the Capitol who
weren't part of the speech, they were already attacking the Capitol while
he was just beginning to give the speech down there. There's all kinds of
evidence that goes against them.
The FBI's investigating all these people and -- 
WALLACE:  And --
PAUL:  The people who are being investigated --
WALLACE:  -- how long do you --
PAUL:  -- are being investigated for plotting this in advance.
WALLACE:  And, Senator, how long do you think it'll last?
PAUL:  Hopefully, as short as possible because is really bad for the
country so I'm for getting it over within a couple of days and moving on.
And look, let's debate policy and let's quit sort of just all this
craziness that everything has to be about attacking President Trump.
WALLACE:  Senator Paul, thank you. Thanks for joining us today; always good
to talk with you, sir.

PAUL:  Thank you.

WALLACE:  Up next, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy on holding President
Trump accountable for the capitol riots even after he's left office.


WALLACE:  Coming up, Democrats clear the way to vote on a massive COVID
relief package along party lines.


BIDEN:  I'd like to be - ]I'd like to be doing it with the support of
Republicans, but they're just not willing to go as far as I think we have
to go.


WALLACE: We'll ask our Sunday panel whether that's the end for
bipartisanship when we come right back. 


WALLACE: The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump comes at a time when
the new Senate Democratic majority is eager to focus on President Biden's
agenda, but they are still determined to hold Mr. Trump accountable for the
attack on the Capital on January 6th.

Joining us now from Connecticut, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy.

Senator, I want to start off where I left off with -- with Senator Paul. No
one in Washington thinks that the Senate is going to vote to convict Donald
Trump this week, but you're going to relive all of the anger, all the
division of January 6th, you're going to interrupt the Biden presidency

I guess the question is, to what end?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Well, let me answer that in two ways.

First, I think we have a constitutional responsibility to hold this trial.
And I think you laid this out for Senator Paul, there is clear precedent
for the Senate moving forward on impeachment trial, once being sent
articles, even after an official has left office. And so, you know, my
analysis here sort of begins and ends with what is my constitutional
responsibility. I don't think our job ends just because a president has
left office, in part because impeachment comes not only with the provision
to remove an official from office, but to disqualify them for future
office. So there is still a consequence to President Trump if convicted.

And, second, this doesn't stop the rest of the business we're considering.
In fact, the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time. We will next
week. We'll start off on Monday by confirming another cabinet nominee by
the president. We will likely hold hearings and committees next week to
move other nominees forward. And because last week we moved forward the
process on the COVID relief bill that is going to save this country's
economy, we will also spend next week writing that legislation, working
hopefully with Republicans like Rand Paul to make it bipartisan in the end.

The Senate's going to do all three things next week. We're going to do our
constitutional responsibility and hold a trial. It won't last very long. We
are going to move forward nominees and we are going to continue to push
forward COVID relief legislation. The Senate can do all of those things,
and we will.

WALLACE: I just want to lock this down because I'm not sure that this had
been said yet. You are going to set rules that allow for a bifurcated
process where you can do things in the morning before 1:00 p.m. and then go
to the Senate trial after 1:00, that's been approved?

MURPHY: So I -- I think the -- the exact rules of the trial are still being
locked down, but normally you would start a trial at noon and that would
allow you, through the committee process, to continue to hold hearings,
getting nominees ready for action on the Senate during the morning. And
throughout the day we will also be working on making sure that those $2,000
checks are teed up for passage, that the new money for vaccines is ready to
go. We'll do all of that work next week while we are also moving forward
with impeachment.

WALLACE: Will Senate Democrats vote to call witnesses, and how long will
the trial last?

MURPHY: Well, I think we should be consistent. Obviously we were very
strongly in favor of witnesses during the first impeachment trial. We were
very disappointed when the House asked for the ability to call witnesses
and Senate Republicans denied them that ability. So if the House managers
want to call witnesses, then I think we should allow them to do so.

It's a different trial in the sense that, you know, in the first trial we
didn't see what happens. The American public didn't have a window into the
decisions that were being made behind closed doors to trade American
influence in order for campaign help. This time we saw what happened in
real time, President Trump sent that angry mob to the Capitol on live TV.

So it's not as important that you have witnesses, but if the House managers
want witnesses, we should allow them to be able to put them on.

WALLACE: All right, there -- there are two issues here that I explored with
Senator Paul and I want to do the same with you. One is the case, one is
the Constitution. Let's go to the case first.

Did the president insight this mob to attack the Capitol? There's no
question that he fired up the crowd, but he also said this, Senator.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT (January 6, 2021): I know that everyone
here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and
patriotically make your voices heard.


WALLACE: A number of legal scholars say that does not come close to the
legal standard of inciting violence.

MURPHY: Well, of course you played a clip for Senator Paul in which he said
we need to fight like hell to preserve our democracy. And that really
stands in context, right? But (INAUDIBLE) had spent --

WALLACE: But in this -- well, wait, but in this clip he talked about
peacefully and -- and patriotically going to the Capitol.

MURPHY: Right. So he -- he incited people to go fight like hell, then he
said something different. And then as they were attacking the Capitol, he
had a chance, right, as the insurrection was beginning, to tell them to
stand down.

I was in the Senate chamber literally as those rioters were outside our
doors while we were being locked down in the Senate chamber. Instead of
sending out a tweet saying that everybody should leave the Capitol,
President Trump sent out a tweet attacking Mike Pence, the very person that
those rioters were there to hang. And so even as the riot was occurring,
the president had a chance to turn it around and instead he incited it,
knowing what was happening at the Capitol. So I think the case is
absolutely clear both in that rally at the White House and during the riot
itself, the president was taking steps to make it worse, not better.

And there is, of course, reporting from inside the White House that
suggests the president was slow walking the response because he was very
happy with what was happening over at the -- at the United States Capitol.

WALLACE: Senator --

MURPHY: So I think once all that evidence is put on, there will be no
choice but to convict.

WALLACE: Senator Rand Paul also brings up the question of being consistent
if you're going to sanction political speech. And he notices -- or he -- he
noted a statement made by Congresswoman Maxine Waters back in 2018 when
there was a furor over's family separation.

Take a look at this.


REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a
restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and
you create a crowd! And you push back on them.


WALLACE: In fact, protesters did for a period of time harass, get in the
face, of Republican officials, cabinet officials, elected officials in

Is that incitement? Should that be sanctioned?

MURPHY: There is no comparison. This was an effort to overturn an election,
in and of itself an unconstitutional endeavor. This was a crowd of tens of
thousands of people. The president had access to intelligence to tell him
that there were individuals there who were intending to storm the Capitol.
And then, once again while the attack was happening, the president had the
ability to turn them around and he didn't.

The circumstances are completely different. The president's responsibility
is completely different, especially as the actual attack was happening. I
just think these are all false equivalencies by Republicans that don't want
to face facts. And, frankly, there's a lot of Republicans that feel
differently. I think the conviction will be a bipartisan vote. I think it's
also very important to know that many Republicans in the House of
Representatives believes that the president's conduct was impeachable.
That's different than the trial that we can (INAUDIBLE) a year ago.

WALLACE: Well, only ten -- ten voted to impeach on the vast majority

I want to -- I've got less than two minute left, sir, and I want to ask you
one final question, which gets to the constitutional issue, whether it's
legal to try a former president.

Article one, section three of the Constitution says this, judgment in cases
of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor, trust, and profit
under the United States.

The argument is you have to remove, by that language, before you can
disqualify and you can't do that and you can't remove because President
Trump is already out of office.

MURPHY: So, listen, I will admit that this is, of course, a matter of first
impression. And so I don't think the case that Senator Paul is making here
is a ridiculous one.

I come to a different judgment. I think that that clause that gives
Congress the responsibility to deny an official future office requires us
to take this step even though the president has left office. And, of
course, as you cited there, is precedent for that. It sets up a strange
circumstance by which a president or any official could very quickly resign
to preserve their right to run later on even though they engaged in pretty
serious misconduct.

So I think we have this responsibility. But I -- listen, I admit that
Senator Paul's case is, you know, not from outer space.

WALLACE: Well, and that -- and these days in Washington, saying something's
not from outer space is a compliment.

Senator Murphy, thank you. Thanks for coming in today. And, of course,
we'll be tracking the Senate trial this week.

MURPHY: Thank you.

WALLACE: Up next, Joe Biden says he doesn't think Mr. Trump should receive
the intelligence briefings former presidents usually get. We'll bring in
our Sunday group to discuss this break from tradition. That's next.



NORAH O'DONNELL, CBS NEWS: Should former President Trump still receive
intelligence briefings?

giving him an intelligence briefing? What impact does he have at all, other
than the fact he might slip and say something?


WALLACE: Joe Biden in his first television interview as president telling
CBS Anchor Norah O'Donnell he's concerned about giving Mr. Trump classified

And it's time now for our Sunday group.

GOP strategist Karl Rove, Catherine Lucey, who covers the White House for
"The Wall Street Journal," and Fox News political analyst Juan Williams.

Well, Catherine, I didn't realize that this issue had been percolating
around the White House this week. Good for Norah for asking the question.

Was this just President Biden expressing an opinion, or is this now policy
that President Trump is going to be cut off from getting classified

CATHERINE LUCEY, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Yes, Chris, that's right, this
had been brought up, there have been questions asked about how this was
going to work. Typically, former presidents do get access to some amount of
classified information and briefings, especially if they're doing some kind
of travel or overseas work.

Our understanding is, you know, President Biden was expressing a lot of
concern here. You heard those words. They are very strong. But the White
House is saying that he was expressing his concern and an opinion and that
ultimately he trusts his intelligence team to determine what to do if Trump
does seek a briefing.

But it really is important to note here just how serious and how
unprecedented this is, the fact that the president is raising these
concerns about him being a security risk.

WALLACE: Karl, as the one person in his group who has worked with a
president and a former president, why do former presidents get intel
briefings, how often do they get them, and what do you think of the
possibility that this administration might cut off President Trump?

first it's a courtesy extended from a president to a former president, or
former presidents. And it's to keep them abreast of world affairs,
sometimes to keep them from getting off the reservation in the case perhaps
of Jimmy Carter, or because they might be called upon to give advice and
counsel to the current president. And so it is a courtesy. It's at the
discretion of the president. There's no mandatory requirement, no statute
that requires it.

My suspicion is, is that if former President Trump were to ask for
something, for a briefing on an issue that concerns, say, for example,
foreign travel for him, that they might extend it, but this is entirely at
the courtesy -- as a courtesy and entirely at the decision of the sitting

WALLACE: Juan, I -- there was a very interesting exchange in the interview.
At one point Norah O'Donnell asked President Biden, what's your worst fear
about what might happen, and he said, I hesitate to speculate out loud.

The implication seemed to be that he was worried that if President Trump
got classified information, he might just share it with somebody else.

President Biden, I think, was being polite, respectful. But in plain
language, I think what he's saying is that President Trump can't be trusted
with classified information. And, you know, let's be honest here, I don't
think President Trump could pass the lowest level clearance for getting
secure information. This man, you know, is estimated to owe $400 million at
the moment. Forbes estimates it at a billion dollars. He has lots of
business overseas. He owes money to foreign banks. So I think that what
you're seeing here is an expression of politeness from President Biden in
simply saying that in his judgment it's not appropriate at this moment.

I think you have to keep that in mind because, you know, it's also the case
Trump is -- I think it's fair to say a bitter defeated man who, you know,
believes in conspiracy theories and the like. But I think the most
important thing is that, you know, Biden feels it's important to keep him
at a distance, because, as Karl was saying, this is not just a courtesy,
but oftentimes that you rely on a former president to give you advice about
foreign difficulties overseas. And I don't think Biden is going to rely on
President Trump in that way.

WALLACE: Yes, I think a lot of these presidents don't rely on former
presidents to give them counsel, including, as you mentioned, Jimmy Carter,

And then let's turn -- switch subjects because there was another notable
development in Washington this week, and that was the move by congressional
Democrats in the Senate and the House to set the stage for passing COVID
relief, this huge package, currently slated at $1.9 trillion on a straight,
party line vote, Democrats jamming it through Congress, especially the

Here was President Biden this week on that.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe the American people
are looking right now to their government for help to do our job, to not
let them down. So I'm going to act and I'm going to act fast.


WALLACE: Catherine, you know, it seemed that there was a noticeable change
in a president's tone this week from that meeting early in the week in the
Oval Office for two hours with a number of Republican senators who had come
up with a very different plan, to the end of the week when you had the
Senate setting the stage for a straight party line vote.

Is that where you think Joe Biden is now, full speed ahead, we're going to
get this thing through on a straight, Democratic vote and forget about

LUCEY: I think this was a notable moment, Chris. You really did hear Biden
say, you know, he was prepared to move forward with or without Republicans,
which given that he has, you know, campaigned and long-held himself as
someone who can work at a bipartisan way, this is a key moment.

That said, I mean, his staff is still staying they would like to talk to
Republicans, they want to incorporate Republican ideas if they can, that
they are really saying that this is an urgent moment and they don't think
that they can wait. They're citing the latest jobs report and they've also
talked about the fact that, you know, the president said this on Friday,
that he thinks that in 2009 Democrats didn't go big enough with economic

One other thing that I think we are going to see more of from them is that
they're really counting on the idea that -- that there is Republican
support from voters around the country, you know, even if they're not
getting a lot of Republican support on The Hill.


LUCEY: And so they've been -- they've been pitching this plan naturally,
they're talking to governors, they're talking to mayors and they've been
really citing polling that shows some level of bipartisan support. And I
would expect to hear more from that on them.

WALLACE: Karl, I've got just a minute left.

The president says I'd like some Republican buy-in here, but he also says
that his job one, his top priority, is to get this money, hundreds of
billions of dollars, close to $2 trillion, to Americans as fast as

Is he making a mistake moving off bipartisanship?

ROVE: A big mistake.

WALLACE: He's only been in office two and a half weeks.

ROVE: Yes. Yes, big mistake. The only bipartisan about this is the
criticism of it. The Obama economics czar Larry Summers and Senator Phil
Graham wrote op-eds in "The Wall Street Journal" criticizing the size of
the package and its bad design.

Look, this is a rush and it's an unnecessary rush. For the first time since
the passage of the 1974 Budget Act, the Budget Committee has had no hearing
on a budget resolution. Instead, the leadership is writing the budget
resolution, bringing it to the floor without passing it through a
committee. They're cutting corners left and right. We're going to end up
with a badly designed bill.

They can wish all they want by pointing towards polls showing Republicans
support it, but that same thing was around in 2009, Republicans in polling
said we like the stimulus and it blew up in the Democrats face in 2010.

WALLACE: Panel, we have to take a break here, but when we come back,
tonight's big game in Tampa and a prediction on this program some months
ago that came true. 


WALLACE: Well, we're just hours away from Super Bowl IV. And for those of
you who are surprised by tonight's match up, you weren't watching this
program on the opening Sunday of the NFL season when Fox Sports announcer
Joe Buck made this prediction.


Buccaneers collectively, they will be a team that will get to the
postseason this year and -- and really, I believe, be a threat to make it
to the Super Bowl.

WALLACE: We're going to mark this tape, Joe. If you -- I mean if they end
up, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, in the Super Bowl, I promise you we will play
this tape next -- next February.


WALLACE: A gutsy prediction from Joe Buck, although I'm not sure how gutsy
it is when you're picking Tom Brady.

Juan, I'm going to go out on a limb here and yours -- and say that you're
the biggest sports fan in his group.

Who's going to win the Super Bowl and why?

WILLIAMS: Well, if I was with you in Vegas, Chris, I'd have to bet on the
Kansas City Chiefs. They -- they're the better team. They have the better
record. They are coming back to the Super Bowl. We were in Miami last year
for it and we saw them put on an incredible show against San Francisco. So
for all those reasons, I would have to say, they are going to win the Super

But I -- you know, I love a great story. So Tom Brady is the story. As a
guy who once was a little bit of a sports writer, you can't beat a man
who's there for the tenth time. That's unbelievable!

WALLACE: Karl, it's not quite Joe Buck vintage from last September, but in
your year-end column in December, you predicted that the Kansas City Chiefs
were going to get back to the Super Bowl and win the Super Bowl.

Are you sticking with that prediction?

ROVE: I am, though I'm worried that the Kansas City's offensive tackle,
Eric Fisher, is out with an Achilles tendon and the match-up, whoever they
put in his place to match up against the Buccaneers' Jason Pierre-Paul, the
Haitian sensation, that's going to have a great deal to do with the outcome
of the game.

And if it sounds like I know what I'm talking about, don't believe it. I
got this entirely from my hunting companion yesterday, Texas A&M Coach
Jimbo Fisher. Otherwise I'd be saying, yes, I'm with the -- I'm with the --
I'm going with the --

WALLACE: Yes, I was going to say -- all right, wait, wait, I've got to get
-- I've get -- I've got to get Catherine in here and I knew that you hadn't
come up with that on your own.

Catherine, real quickly, is this a clean sweep, and you picking KC too?

LUCEY: No -- you know, no one's ever confused me for a sports pundit, but
I'm going to go with Tampa. I think Tom Brady is a man on a mission and he
could do it once more.

WALLACE: Well, as I say, betting against Tom Brady is never a wise
prospect. And the game, of course, will be on tonight on another channel.

Thank you, panel. See you next week.

Now this program note, join me and the new Fox daytime lineup for coverage
of former President Trump's second impeachment trial. That starts this
Tuesday on Fox News Channel.

And that's it for today. Have a great week and we'll see you next FOX NEWS


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.