This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," December 1, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: I'm Chris Wallace. The House Judiciary Committee takes over the impeachment inquiry. Will the White House participate?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The failed Washington establishment is trying to stop me because I'm fighting for you and because we're winning.
WALLACE: As the Intelligence Committee wraps up its work and prepares to issue its report, the Judiciary Committee must now decide whether to write articles of impeachment. And President Trump must decide whether to send a lawyer to represent him.
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: As we continue to gather evidence and the facts from the testimony, we'll go where the facts take us.
WALLACE: This hour we'll sit down with two members of the judiciary committee, the top Republican on the panel, Doug Collins of Georgia, and Democrat Hakeem Jeffries of New York, only on Fox News Sunday. Then.
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, it's very encouraging but we're not going to let it go to our heads.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The same answer, it's always been I don't do polls.
WALLACE: Buttigieg up. Warren down. We'll ask our Sunday panel about the top tier of 2020 Democratic candidates getting reshuffled. All right now on "Fox News Sunday."
And hello again from Fox News in Washington. President Trump returns to the White House after a surprise trip to Afghanistan and some golf in Florida and, right away, he faces tough choices. He must decide whether to send lawyers to participate in impeachment hearings conducted by the House Judiciary Committee. Meanwhile, Democrats on the Intel Committee will deliver their report making the case to impeach a president for the third time in American history. In a moment we'll talk with two members of the judiciary committee, Republican Congressman Doug Collins, and Democrat Hakeem Jeffries. But first, let's get the latest from Kevin Corke live from the president's Florida retreat at Mar-A-Lago. Kevin.
KEVIN CORKE, FOX NEWS: Chris, for the president there will be scant time to reflect on the Thanksgiving holiday as his administration now braces for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. In a letter to the president, Chairman Nadler issued a Friday deadline for the White House to declare whether counsel intends to participate in the hearings and to specify if counsel will cross-examine witnesses or present evidence. That's two days after lawmakers expect to hear testimony from four scholars on the constitutional grounds for impeachment, a process already being criticized by ranking member Doug Collins who wrote the committee asking that the witness list be expanded, noting that it's less than a quarter of those called to testify during the Clinton impeachment. Collins' letter is just the latest example of the political and process tug of war playing out on Capitol Hill as the inquiry shifts to the Judiciary Committee from the Intelligence Committee, whose members will be able to review a draft of their impeachment report on Monday before voting to forward their findings on to Chairman Nadler Tuesday. For President Trump, the resumption of the hearings might seem a cold reality following a warm welcome by U.S. service personnel during his surprise visit to Afghanistan on Thanksgiving. A brief respite from the war on terror to visit with the commander-in-chief and just ahead of his trip to the NATO summit in London where two were killed and three were injured in an ISIS-claimed attack on Friday. Speaking of that trip to London, the president said on Twitter he'll be there representing our country while Democrats will be back here conducting the most "ridiculous impeachment in history." Chris.
WALLACE: Kevin Corke reporting from Mar-A-Lago. Kevin, thank you. Joining us now, the top Republican on the judiciary committee, Congressman Doug Collins, and welcome back, sir, to Fox News Sunday.
REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA.: Good morning, Chris. Good to be with you.
WALLACE: So, as we said, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, has written you asking whether or not Republicans want to subpoena any witnesses to testify on the president's behalf. Will you?
COLLINS: Well, we're going to take care of that. We're making sure that we get out witness list in but let me just point out something here. Chairman Nadler sent a letter asking us by Friday to present this list and present all the things that we would like to do. However, we're not even going to see the Schiff report, as it's going to be known, out of committee until Tuesday night, possibly even Wednesday morning before we get to see it. There's a lot of problems here that we have to investigate here. As an attorney if you have a case going forward you want to know exactly what you're facing and Chairman Nadler is simply asking for an arbitrary deadline because we've not seen the Schiff report. We've not seen any -- we've not even heard from him what he actually wants to have for hearings. This is just another example, I think, of him being told I need to do something and we go from there. This is a problematic part for us to have to go forward with.
WALLACE: Okay, but I just want to be clear in the first part of what you said. Will Republicans on the committee call for subpoena witnesses to testify and if so, who are you going to ask to testify?
COLLINS: Oh, of course. We're going to testify. The first and foremost, the first person that needs to testify is Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff is the author of this report. Adam Schiff has been the author of many things, a lot of them found to be false over the past couple of years. But he's going to be the author of this report. He's compared himself in the past to a special counsel. This is what he said he was doing. Well, if we go back to Clinton and even back to Nixon, but in Clinton, Ken Starr was the special counsel, he presented a report that we're going to get his judiciary. He actually came and sat and testified under oath and took questions from all sides, including the White House. My first and foremost witness is Adam Schiff.
WALLACE: So, you want to bring him in before the committee, not just to present a report, but to take questions from Democrats and to be cross-examined, if you will, by the Republicans?
COLLINS: He needs to be. He's put himself into that position. If he chooses not to then I really question his veracity and what he's putting in his report. I question his, you know, the motives of why he's doing it. It's easy to hide behind a report. It's easy to hide behind a gavel and intelligence committees behind closed door hearings, but it's going to be one -- another thing to actually get up and have to answer questions about what his staff knew, how he knew, what he did about the whistleblower report, his interactions that he's had with Ukraine, the other things that he's had over time in this process and also why he has still not released documents to our committee and reports to our committee that we need to actually proceed in our committee of judiciary committee, which is the committee of impeachment. I have a question. Why are they hiding this stuff from us? If they think they have such a case, give us all the materials and don't let Jerry Nadler write a crazy letter that says on the 6th let us know who your witnesses are. We don't even have the information from the intel committee yet. This is why this is a problematic exercise and simply a made-for-TV event coming on Wednesday.
WALLACE: Okay. Chairman Nadler has also written to the White House asking if they want to have a lawyer to represent them at Wednesday's hearing which is going to be with constitutional scholars and to actually mount a defense of the president the next week, a week from Monday. Do you know whether the White House is going to participate?
COLLINS: Well, I think they're still -- we're still looking at that but I'm going to have a question for you, Chris. Why would they want to participate in a -- just another rerun? We're back, by the way, in rerun season here in the Judiciary Committee. We've already had constitutional scholars in the committee talking about from the Mueller report and others is there an impeachable offense? This is a complete American waste of time right here. The problem is is Jerry Nadler and the rest of them have already got in their mind they're writing the articles of impeachment whether they have fairness or process or all. So, if the White House participates with a bunch of constitutional scholars, which by the way, I wrote a letter to Chairman Nadler, why are we doing this on a normal three-to-one ratio? If it's so important like we did in Clinton where we had almost four times as many of these witnesses, why don't we at least get two-for-two? Why don't we at least have more witnesses in this process?
WALLACE: Let me interrupt for a minute here because --
COLLINS: No problem.
WALLACE: --- that's what you're saying is that three of the four constitutional scholars are going to be pro-Democrat, pro-impeachment, and one of the four is going to be basically questioning whether or not there are grounds for impeachment.
COLLINS: That's exactly right. That's what we're seeing here. And look, I think the problem is here is they're on a timeframe. It's an internal kind of timeframe to try and finish this out by the end of the year, because they want to get at this president right now, before the -- before everybody completely sees through the process sham of the elections for next year. So, we're rushing this, Chris. I don't think the American people -- even if they support an impeachment inquiry, or even trying to remove and overturn the votes of these 63 million people for this president -- they don't think this is fair. And I've talked to Democrats who do not believe this is fair. If the Judiciary Committee simply has a constitutional scholar hearing, and then they have a presentation of a report by Adam Schiff, and we go straight to a mark-up, that is a failure on Chairman Nadler of ultimate proportion, because this is a failure of the Judiciary Committee to be able to talk to fact witnesses, to be able to talk to the people that have actually been a part of this, and actually have the president viably participate in his own defense, which he's not had the opportunity to do now.
WALLACE: Okay. Okay.
COLLINS: To simply -- go ahead.
WALLACE: [laughs] Okay. You're pretty wound up, I got to say. You obviously had some --
WALLACE: -- turkey this Thanksgiving. Let's talk about --
COLLINS: And a little bit cranberries as well.
WALLACE: Okay. Well, me too. Let's talk about the merits of this. You say there's no basis to impeach the president. I'd like to play some of the key testimony that the House Intel Committee heard the last couple of weeks, basically making allegations or stating evidence against the president. Take a look:
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
AMB. BILL TAYLOR: The meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.
MALE SPEAKER: It is improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and a political opponent.
MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
WALLACE: Congressman Collins, before we get to the question of whether this is an impeachable offense or not, simply, do you see anything wrong with that? The president conditioning support for Ukraine -- whether it was a meeting -- whether -- with Zelensky, whether it's military aid -- conditioning support for Ukraine to that country investigating some of the president's political rivals?
COLLINS: Well, I think it's interesting that the premise of your question is based on witnesses who agree with your premise. I disagree and say that Mr. Volker, Mr. Morrison, even Mr. Sondland -- who presumed it was being conditioned -- the president himself told Senator Johnson there was no pre-condition; there was nothing to be presented on this. So, if you want to show one side, then also show the other side as we go along with this. President Trump has always been concerned about foreign aid. He's always been concerned about what's going on in the Ukraine, in Europe, and how is Europe participating, and how our tax dollars --
WALLACE: But --
COLLINS: The question is -- the question is, though, if we're looking at corruption, does it matter who's involved? That's the problem and the policy issue that got discussed in intel. He was looking at the corruption part of this. And yes, if they were -- if the Bidens were involved, then they would have been a part of that. But the problem is is there was never a discussion in Intel, that we saw -- as I just pointed out -- several key fact witnesses who actually said there was no conditioning on this. So, you can put --
WALLACE: But let me --
COLLINS: -- put words [inaudible] --
WALLACE: But let me ask you, if I may, sir, because we're about to run out of time --
COLLINS: No problem.
WALLACE: -- July 25th phone call, where the -- between President Trump and President Zelensky. He never mentions corruption and Ukraine. He never mentions Burisma. He just mentions "investigate two Americans," and he names them: Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
COLLINS: Well, again, if you look at the call itself, there was an overall discussion, which had been had previously, about others in discussion with Ukraine. And also, just go back to the fact of the president looks after our tax dollars, and the president is looking out for the fact -- was there problems there? When we look at this process, we do not see a president who conditioned anything. He just wanted the facts, whether it be the 2016 election, whether we're looking at -- of what was happening. He was looking at the fact of "Is there corruption, so I do not spend dollars that I don't need to spend in the Ukraine because of corruption that was still there."
WALLACE: Okay. Let me just --
COLLINS: This is an issue.
WALLACE: Let me just ask you a thought experiment. Just bear with me for a minute.
WALLACE: If you believed that the president had used the power of his office to try to get Ukraine to interfere with our elections, if you believe that, would that be an impeachable offense?
COLLINS: I do not believe it, so that I'm not going to answer a hypothetical in which it's designed to simply say that the president did something improper. Chris, he did nothing improper. There was nothing about a problematic giving aid to another country, in which you're talking about corruption -- which he's required to do by law. And it just so happened that a presidential candidate's son, who was getting a massive amount of money from a company that had been under investigation -- in which even other witnesses that had been favorable -- quote -- to the Democrats in the investigation have said needed to be looked at. This is a problem of overall proportion, but there's nothing here that the president did wrong, and this is a thing that we're going to move forward on.
WALLACE: Okay. I got one last question; I've got a minute for it.
WALLACE: A U.S. Senate seat in Georgia comes open at the end of the year. Johnny Isaacson, the senator there, is retiring. President Trump has pushed hard for Georgia governor Brian Kemp to appoint you as the senator. But it appears, from all reports, that the governor is going to go ahead and appoint Kelly Loeffler, a big Republican and a financial executive, to that seat instead. What do you know about where this stands? And if he appoints her and not you, how are you going to feel about that?
COLLINS: Well, the governor still has that appointment to be made. I appreciate the support that I've received from the president and many others. But right now, as you can see, in this interview this morning, I have a big job to do in the next three weeks, and that's impeachment. We'll have to see where the governor goes with his pick, and then we'll have a decision to make after that. But right now, my full focus and attention is on impeachment. And also, as I look forward, it is what it is best for Georgia. Those will be the things that play into my mind. But right now, first and foremost, is defending against this faux sham impeachment that we're going to get started on Wednesday with.
WALLACE: Just real quick: When you say you'll have to make a decision after that if it happens, does that mean that you might potentially run against her when she's up for re-election?
COLLINS: Well, Chris, let's see what the governor does first. I think he's heard from a lot of folks. But if he does, then that'll be a decision we have to make at that point.
WALLACE: Congressman Collins, thank you. Thanks for joining us today.
COLLINS: No problem.
WALLACE: Always good to talk with you, sir.
COLLINS: Yes, Chris. Always good to be with you. Take care.
WALLACE: Up next: we'll get reaction from a top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, as they make their case against the president. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries of New York joins us next.
WALLACE: House Democrats have invited President Trump to send lawyers to participate in hearings starting this week, as the Judiciary Committee decides whether to draft articles of impeachment against him. Joining us now from New York, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, a top Democrat on that committee. And Congressman, welcome back.
JEFFRIES: Good morning, Chris. Great to be with you.
WALLACE: Let's start with what President Trump said about the Democratic impeachment effort at a rally this past week in Florida. Here he is:
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
TRUMP: The failed Washington establishment is trying to stop me because I'm fighting for you and because we're winning. It's very simple. [cheers]
[END VIDEO CLIP]
WALLACE: Congressman, wouldn't Democrats have a stronger case against the president if you hadn't been talking about impeaching him almost from the day he took office?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.: Well, Chris, I disagree with that premise. And as it relates to this impeachment inquiry that we're in right now, we are here reluctantly. The impeachment of a president is not something that we came to Congress to do. We came to Congress to get things done, to work with this president to drive down the high cost of life-saving prescription drugs. And we hope to be able to pass a bill in the House over the next three weeks that would do that. We've actually indicated that we want to work with President Trump to fix our crumbling bridges, roads, tunnels, airports --
WALLACE: All right.
JEFFRIES: -- and mass transportation system, and to work with him on a re-negotiated NAFTA agreement. We've been clear about that from the very beginning.
WALLACE: But Congressman -- excuse me, Congressman. But I mean, the fact is, almost since he took office -- first it was collusion with the Russians, the Mueller report -- that it couldn't make a case there -- obstruction, which Democrats still believe is the case; now Ukraine. There's been an awful lot about investigating the president, impeaching the president, removing the president, since he took the oath of office.
JEFFRIES: Well, the House is a separate and co-equal branch of government. We don't work for this president or any president. We work for the American people. We do have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance on a potentially out-of-control executive branch. That is not the Democratic Party playbook. That, in fact, is the James Madison playbook. Madison indicated that the House should serve as a rival to the executive branch because the Founders didn't want a king, they didn't want a dictator, they didn't want a monarch. They wanted a democracy. So, we do have a responsibility to defend our democracy. We're here at this moment right now because the president decided to pressure a foreign government to target an American citizen for political gain, and at the same time withhold $391 million in military aid from a very vulnerable Ukraine, which is an ally to the United States and is still at war with Russian-backed separatists in Crimea. That's why we are at this moment, Chris,
WALLACE: But, Congressman, Democrats have been making that case. You've been making your best case to the public for two months now. You just finished 30 hours of televised hearings, 12 witnesses, and the public apparently isn't buying it at this point. I want to put up a recent poll. Back in early October, people approved of impeaching and removing the president by a margin of 52 percent to 46. Now, after you have presented your evidence, it's 48 percent for and 50 percent against. And, you know, while you could argue that those are well within the margin of error, it's clear that there is none of the bipartisan support that Speaker Pelosi said for months was essential to impeachment.
JEFFRIES: Well, the most recent poll that I saw actually had 50 percent of the American people supporting the impeachment inquiry and the potential removal of the president; 43 opposed. More significantly, I think 70 percent of the American people indicated that the president did something wrong. That said, our job is to follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the U.S. Constitution, and present the truth to the American people no matter where it leads, because no one is above the law. That's what we have been doing; that's what we are doing; that's what we're going to continue to do, moving forward.
WALLACE: All right. I want to get to some of the issues I discussed with Congressman Collins. Judiciary Chair Nadler has asked the White House whether they want to participate in this first hearing on Wednesday, this coming Wednesday, with four constitutional scholars. Let me ask you a question first. Who are the witnesses that the Democrats are calling?
JEFFRIES: Well, that's a question that's best directed at Chairman Nadler. The committee hasn't been provided that information yet. I think they're still trying to work out the details. Even my good friend Congressman Collins didn't indicate who the Republican witness will be. So, that remains to be seen. My expectation --
WALLACE: Let me pick up on that, though. How can you ask the White House to participate in a hearing three days from now when they don't even know who the witnesses are going to be? And by your own admission, three of them are going to be for you, and one of them is going to be for President Trump. I mean, how is that a fair process?
JEFFRIES: Well, it's not my understanding that three of them are going to be for me. We're for the truth. I think --
WALLACE: When I say "you," I'm talking about for the impeachment, for --
WALLACE: They're going to side with the Democratic view of impeachment.
JEFFRIES: Well, three witnesses, consistent with the congressional rules, will be called by the majority on the House Judiciary Committee, and then one witness, as Congressman Collins indicated, will be called by the minority. That is --
WALLACE: But why three to one?
JEFFRIES: -- consistent with --
WALLACE: Why not two and two?
JEFFRIES: -- the current House rules. Well, that's something to be discussed, but what's most important is -- let's have a discussion, Chris, about the 12 fact witnesses who have already testified, all of whom were members of the Trump administration. Ambassador Volker, Trump appointee; Ambassador Sondland, Trump appointee; Ambassador Taylor, Trump appointee; Dr. Fiona Hill, Trump appointee; Jennifer Williams, Trump appointee --
WALLACE: All right --
JEFFRIES: -- Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Trump appointee; all of whom confirm the central allegations here of the wrongdoing engaged in by the president with respect to pressuring a foreign government to target an American citizen. That is the abuse of power that we are concerned about. That act undermined America's national security.
WALLACE: Chairman Nadler has also asked the White House, not just for this hearing this week, but whether or not they want to participate -- they have a deadline of this coming Friday on this -- whether they want to participate in hearings starting a week from Monday, December 9th, to mount a defense of the president. But House Democratic leaders are already talking about -- all right, next week; the week of the 9th -- by the end of that week, that the House would have voted out articles of impeachment, and then the following week, the last week before Christmas, that the full House will vote on whether or not to impeach the president. I guess the question is, how fair is that? It looks like, "All right, a week from Monday, come in, mount your defense, and by the end of the week, we're going to impeach you."
JEFFRIES: Well, no timeline has been set. As a member of the House Democratic leadership and a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can tell you that the only thing that Speaker Pelosi has said, and she said a very solemn, somber, and serious tone, is that we are going to proceed expeditiously. That's because this matter relates to an urgent of -- a matter of urgent concern that was set forth by the inspector general to the Intelligence Committee, another Trump appointee, and we're just going to be guided by the truth. At the same time, we want to give the president every opportunity to present exculpatory information.
WALLACE: So, what -- so, let me just pick you up on that, sir. Are you saying that if the White House decides to fully participate, and they say, "We want to call a half a dozen witnesses; we want to take this on into the -- past the first of the year," which is not that long a period of time from now -- I mean, this has moved at warp speed -- are you saying you personally would be okay with that?
JEFFRIES: Well, we'll see what happens. I mean, we need to be guided by the truth. If they come forward with relevant witnesses -- I think we all may want to hear from John Bolton; we all would like to hear from Mick Mulvaney.
WALLACE: How about --
JEFFRIES: We'd like to hear from --
WALLACE: How about --
JEFFRIES: -- the Secretary of State.
WALLACE: -- Joe Biden and Hunter Biden? Would you like to hear from them?
JEFFRIES: Well, I think that if they're relevant, but the reality is, Chris, if you look at the testimony from Ambassador Taylor, for instance, what he said -- and this is a West Point graduate; this is someone who was a Vietnam War hero and a Reagan administration appointee subsequently appointed by Trump. He said that there was no legitimate national security reason for withholding the aid, no legitimate public policy reason, no legitimate substantive reason. If the president would like to come forward and present an actual witness who can provide some exculpatory information as to why the aid was withheld, we all would welcome that.
WALLACE: Okay, got a couple of minutes left. While the Judiciary Committee -- at the same hour that you're holding your hearing this Wednesday, President Trump will be overseas in London at the NATO summit representing this country. Do you have any problems with that?
JEFFRIES: Well, again, we have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance. That means that we do need to investigate evidence of wrongdoing, much of which is hiding in plain sight. We have the July 25th phone call that the president himself made and pressured the Ukrainian government with the words "Do us a favor, though," at the same time withholding the $391 million without justification. But we also want to continue to work with this administration. You know, the American people pay five or six times the amount as other countries who are developed for the same drug, often manufactured in the same location. That's wrong. The president has indicated that --
WALLACE: Well, no, but I --
JEFFRIES: -- we should give the federal government the power to negotiate.
WALLACE: I was just asking whether --
JEFFRIES: We want to work with him on that.
WALLACE: -- you had a problem with the juxtaposition. You're discussing whether to impeach the president while he's representing the country overseas.
JEFFRIES: Well, we're giving the president every opportunity to participate in the impeachment inquiry in a very fair and balanced way.
WALLACE: We like that phrase, "fair and balanced," here at Fox. Congressman Jeffries, one final question for you. As you mentioned, you're a member of the House Democratic leadership. At this point, do you know for certain of a single Republican who is going to vote to impeach this president?
JEFFRIES: No, we haven't had that conversation, but ultimately every single member of the House of Representatives is going to have to decide whether they want to put principle over party, whether they want to put the Constitution ahead of corruption. This is about abuse of power. This is about national security. This is about the undermining of the integrity of our elections. This is about betrayal, and this is about the United States Constitution. We'll see what people decide to do moving forward.
WALLACE: Congressman Jeffries, thank you. Thanks for your time. Always good to talk with you, sir.
JEFFRIES: Thank you, Chris.
WALLACE: Up next, we'll bring in our Sunday group to discuss what to expect in those big impeachment hearings starting this week. Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about whether the White House should send lawyers to participate? Just go to Facebook or Twitter, @FoxNewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air.
WALLACE: Coming up, Mayor Pete Buttigieg goes from an underdog to a frontrunner according to new polling.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
BUTTIGIEG: Our message is resonating here. I think because Iowans are looking for bold future oriented vision.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
WALLACE: We'll ask our Sunday panel about the latest shakeup in the 2020 Democratic race.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
TRUMP: And now the same maniacs are pushing the deranged impeachment -- think of this, impeachment, impeachment, a witch hunt, the same as before.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
WALLACE: President Trump blasting the ongoing impeachment hearings and receiving a strong response at a rally this week in Florida. And it's time now for our Sunday group: Former Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz; Fox News political analyst, Juan Williams; former Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, director of the Wilson Center, and Rich Lowry of National Review and author of the new book, "The Case for Nationalism."
All right. We asked you for questions for the panel and on this issue of whether the president should send a lawyer to participate in the impeachment hearings we got this on Facebook from Greta Kraft, she writes, "Since the president and Republicans have consistently expressed concerns about due process, doesn't it behoove the president's counsel to attend these hearings and participate to their full ability?" Congressman Chaffetz, how do you answer Greta? Should the president send a lawyer to represent him and the White House at the hearings starting this week?
FORMER REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, R-UTAH: I do think the president should send an attorney, but it is ridiculous that given these hearings on Wednesday, we don't even know who is going to be -- who are the witnesses going to be. I think this process start to finish has been a sham, but at the same time the president should send counsel. They do have no idea how this process is going to move forward except we know they're going to go as fast as they possibly can rather than getting it right.
WALLACE: Yeah. I was going to ask you because Hakeem Jeffries was talking about well, you know, we will just follow the -- whatever the -- wherever the truth leads us but on the other hand, the timeline they've got is all right, president, you can mount your defense and then we're going to impeach you.
CHAFFETZ: They haven't gotten the report out of the Intel Committee and the Republicans are supposed to name who their witnesses is going to be. I mean, you can kind of guess the direction they're going to go but they're going for speed rather than getting it right. I don't think they should be moving forward on this at all. I just think it's a whole sham and I think the president's making a good point and they have not converted a single Republican throughout this process.
WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, the White House officials have said from the very start this is an undue process and they're suggesting this call now, "well, why don't you bring in your lawyer to represent the White House and present a defense" is simply to try to add some credibility to an unfair process. Do they have a point?
FORMER REP. JANE HARMAN, D-CALIF.: Well, I think the process is being rushed at this point. It is the clock. Next year is an election year and that's a problem but I think as Speaker Pelosi said she was reluctant to do this. It was the facts that drove the Democratic majority, whether the rest of you agree or not, to this point. I think one of the problems is there are three committees involved instead of just one committee, which was the case in both the Nixon and the Clinton impeachments. I was a member of the House during the Clinton impeachment and it's a very tough and miserable process and the people pushing it paid a severe price. So, what do I think now? I think the names of the Democratic witnesses should be public this minute. And I think the White House, I agree with Jason, should participate. In the Clinton case the White House presented a 30-page document making its case.
WALLACE: Well, and they also got to cross-examine Ken Starr, the independent counsel.
HARMAN: Again, it was a different process. There was an independent counsel. There wasn't an independent counsel here.
WALLACE: Well, the argument could be you could interrogate Adam Schiff who was --
HARMAN: Well, I -- you could. I think that's an awkward idea but I think that his report and the names of the witnesses should be public immediately.
CHAFFETZ: Adam Schiff should have to -- he should have to be there, answer questions about why we're not hearing from the so-called witness, all of these types of things.
WALLACE: You mean whistleblowers?
CHAFFETZ: Whistleblower, yes.
HARMAN: You mean the whistleblower? Well, I think because the law protects him or her.
WALLACE: Let me bring the other half of the panel in. Rich, House Democrats really do seem to have a tight timeline.
RICH LOWRY, NATIONAL REVIEW: Yes.
WALLACE: Two weeks of hearings, the end of not this week but the following week, articles of impeachment and there's the final week before Christmas, vote to impeach. I -- here's the question I have at this point. Which is a bigger political risk for Democrats? Risk for Democrats to go ahead and vote to impeach or to decide to pull back and go for something lighter like censure?
LOWRY: They've crossed the rubicon long ago. They have to impeach. It'd be extremely dispiriting to their base. It'd be humiliating, in fact, if they didn't do it for some reason at this point. I think the main process concern here, Chris, is they're not going to take the time to actually try to get any of the firsthand witnesses that have direct knowledge of this matter and the president's statements and state of mind. Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, Rudy Giuliani, any of these people, because it might take, you know, another two months or so. And I think a lot of the process arguments at the moment will be forgotten in the fullness of time but the fact that they're sending a flagrantly incomplete factual record to the Senate on this most, you know, consequential constitutional process, that will be remembered and I think that's why history will look dimly on this process. And it's just sheerly because it doesn't work on their political timeline.
WALLACE: On Thursday, President Trump paid a surprise visit to U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan. Here he is.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
TRUMP: There's nowhere I'd rather celebrate this Thanksgiving than right here with the toughest, strongest, best and bravest warriors on the fact of the earth. You are indeed that.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
WALLACE: Juan, as I was watching that and we were all surprised when suddenly we heard the president was in Afghanistan, I'm sure he genuinely wanted to support the U.S. forces, those wonderful men and women who are defending us on the frontlines in Afghanistan. On the other hand, I also thought, because everything is political, doesn't it make it a little bit harder to impeach the president when you see him right there acting as our commander-in-chief?
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS: Well, the reports this week were that he's emulating Bill Clinton, who stayed busy during the impeachment hearings and did so quite to his political profit. But remember, Clinton's travels didn't stop Newt Gingrich from impeaching President Clinton. So, it doesn't -- it's not, you know, determinative. But it has this political spin that you put to it. But the other part of the political spin is that with Trump it seemed, and I think this is why you had the thought, I certainly had it, that it looks like a photo op. Remember, he hadn't gone to visit any war zone until last year. He was criticized for it. This is his first visit to Afghanistan, our longest war, 2,000-plus Americans dead. He had no preparation. He talked about a cease fire but his military people said we know nothing about any ceasefire with the Taliban and the Taliban said they know nothing about a ceasefire. He then talked about negotiations with the Taliban and again his own diplomats said we know nothing about any ongoing talks with the Taliban. The president canceled talks with the Taliban last September, if you'll recall, after they were engaged in a violent incident. So, it seems to me that if you come back home and say because this picks up on what you were talking about with Congressman Jeffries, why don't we get things done? You know, you think about well, why is it that the president hasn't moved on prescription drugs? Why is it the president hasn't --
WALLACE: Why hasn't the House moved on USMCA?
WILLIAMS: Yes. Exactly. That's where I was going. So, the big victories for him would be if he can get a trade deal, USMCA, or the China trade deal. But that thing -- he's simply saying, "Hey, give me this opportunity so that I can somehow distract from the reality of impeachment hearings."
CHAFFETZ: The Democrats continue to play into the hands of Donald Trump, because no matter what the president does -- he visits our troops in Afghanistan; he's going to go to the NATO meetings next month -- then they're going to complain that that's just --
WALLACE: Not next month. This week.
CHAFFETZ: I mean, next week. That is so fundamentally wrong. And again, somehow, going into 2020, Donald Trump looks like the victim. He looks like the Washington, D.C. outsider, and that he will gain more political support -- it will -- what the Democrats are doing --
HARMAN: I don't think that's –
WALLACE: Wait. Let Congresswoman Harman --
WILLIAMS: You guys made the case --
HARMAN: Thank you. Thank you.
WILLIAMS: I mean, Rich made this case as well. "Oh, it's obstruction, but Democrats aren't bringing forward witnesses." Who was obstructing? Who was --
HARMAN: All right.
WILLIAMS: -- keeping Mulvaney from --
HARMAN: So, so --
WILLIAMS: -- testifying?
HARMAN: So, let's go to USMCA. The Democrats have made some good points in the House, and those changes are being vetted with Canada and Mexico. I salute President Trump for trying to get that done correctly. I also think he was right to go to a war theater for a three-and-a-half hour visit. Should have stayed a little longer and maybe worked harder on the Taliban negotiations so he knew what he was talking about.
WALLACE: Well, wait, wait --
HARMAN: And he --
WALLACE: -- no president --
MALE SPEAKER: [laughs] Yeah.
WALLACE: -- spends a lot of time in the --
HARMAN: Well, three-and-a-half --
WALLACE: -- [unintelligible] as if they're negotiating.
HARMAN: No. But he should have worked at -- on the --
WALLACE: I mean, did Barack Obama spend overnight in --
HARMAN: I'm not saying he --
WALLACE: -- Iraq or Afghanistan?
HARMAN: -- that he should negotiate with the Taliban. But I'm saying he should have known -- he should have been brought up-to-date on where we were. He is the one who called off the negotiations. But on NATO, I think he should go to that. That -- those talks were set two years ago --
HARMAN: -- by Theresa May, and hopefully --
MALE SPEAKER: [inaudible] --
WALLACE: All right.
HARMAN: -- progress will be made.
LOWRY: As a practical matter -- [speaking simultaneously]
WALLACE: Not that anybody ever gets the final word, but I'm going to try.
LOWRY: As a practical matter, he's going to come back home, and he's not going to be above it all anymore. He's going to be tweet -- live tweeting the hearings. So, he's never going to fully adopt the Bill Clinton strategy. And Juan, on these witnesses, no White House aids in its own impeachment, and there's at least a colorable case that there are legitimate privilege claims for these witnesses. The courts should decide, but Democrats don't want to wait because they're on a political timetable. So, they're going to have a partisan impeachment vote on a political timetable.
WALLACE: Panel, we have to take a break here. When we come back, another terror attack on London Bridge. The suspect, a man already convicted of terrorism, who was recently released. And 2020 politics, Elizabeth Warren dropping sharply in a new national poll as the Democratic race gets another shake-up.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
BUTTIGIEG: It's very encouraging, but we're not going to let it go to our heads. There's still a long way to go.
WARREN: So, it's the same answer. It's always been I don't do polls. I'm out here fighting every day on behalf of working families.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
WALLACE: 2020 Democratic candidates Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren reacting to recent polls showing he is surging and she is dropping. And we're back now with the panel. So, let's look at the national Quinnipiac poll that came out this week. Joe Biden is solidly in first place, as you can see. But the news is what happened behind him. Buttigieg went from fourth to second in the last month in this national poll, while Warren went from first to third -- and, as you can see, went all the way from 28 to 14 and lost fully half of her support. Juan, what happened to Warren? And how seriously do you think we should take Buttigieg as a potential Democratic presidential nominee?
WILLIAMS: Well, I think you take him pretty seriously. He's also done very well in fundraising, which we didn't mention there. But he's a leader in terms of fundraising, which is a surprise to many people, because he's clearly not a leader in the polls, even though he's been rising. I think Warren is the one that came as a shock to me, Chris, as you said, losing 50 percent of her support, principally among white, educated Democrats who previously were tremendous boosters for her. So, the other thing that strikes me as the headline --
WALLACE: Let me just ask you specifically about that.
WALLACE: Don't you think the problem -- I don't think it's coincidental -- is she came out with her Medicare for All plan, how much it's going to cost, how she's going to pay for it, and people didn't like it.
WILLIAMS: People did not like the prospect of losing your private insurance. But I think, even more so, her whole sort of raison d'etre for her candidacy is "I have a plan. I have a way to deal with this issue." And when people were asking her, "How do you plan to pay for this?" people found it unacceptable. They did not like the plan. And so, I think that undermined her thesis, if you will.
WALLACE: All right. Then there is former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who's now officially in the race. A video surfaced in the last few days of him making a speech last year in which he seemed -- I don't think seemed; he did -- favor regressive taxes, taxes that hit the poor more harshly, especially on issues like cigarettes and sugary drinks. Take a look.
Michael Bloomberg: The problem is in people that don't have a lot of money. And so, higher taxes should have a bigger impact on their behavior and how they deal with themselves. So, I listen to people saying, "Oh, we don't want to tax the poor." Well, we want the poor to live longer so that they can get an education and enjoy life.
WALLACE: So, Rich, basically, tax the poor so they won't do the things to harm themselves that they would do if they had the money. How do you think that's going to go over with Democrats?
LOWRY: I don't think well. [laughter]
And this is not a gaffe in the sense of misspeaking; this is something he legitimately believes. It's rank paternalism and goes to how there's something to dislike about the Bloomberg candidacy for everyone. Republicans don't like the taxes. Democrats don't like the taxes on the poor. And pretty much everyone likes soda. So, I just think this campaign is preposterous. The idea he's going to wait out the first four contests, and then swoop in, you know, on a $100 million ad buy, I just think, is ridiculous and is going nowhere.
WALLACE: Okay. Let's turn to the terrible scene we all saw on Friday of this holiday weekend. A man stabbed several people on London Bridge, killing two of them. The man in the foreground is walking away with the knife. Some bystanders subdued the attacker. But when police told them to back off, the man flashed a suicide vest, which turned out to be fake, and the police -- and we froze it there -- shot and killed him. And there was another attack in which a man in the Netherlands stabbed three teenagers. They're all going to be okay. Congresswoman Harman, while all this is going on, ISIS put out --
WALLACE: -- photos of what it said are new ISIS recruits. It appears, despite the attack and the takedown on their ISIS leader al-Baghdadi, ISIS isn't going away, is it?
HARMAN: I -- they're not going away. And our new strategy -- or non-strategy -- on Syria means that ISIS will go through the porous Turkish border, and some of the fighters will return to Europe. Some of them are European, and these attacks are going to go up. So, first of all, kudos to the brave citizens who made this -- you know, put the extinguisher --
WALLACE: They took the guy down. One person had a fire extinguisher --
HARMAN: A fire extinguisher.
WALLACE: -- and someone had a narwhal, which is a kind of whale -- a long pointed narwhal tusk and was --
HARMAN: Well, but kudos --
WALLACE: They took him down.
HARMAN: -- to them --
WALLACE: No, absolutely.
HARMAN: -- for being brave. They took him down, and then the cops came and took him out because he was wearing a suicide vest. So, I think that was the right strategy.
WALLACE: Well, we should point out, a fake suicide vest.
HARMAN: A fake suicide vest. Turned out to be fake, but no one believed that at the time. At any rate, I think we need more brain cells focused on ISIS. I think our policies are making it more like that ISIS will reemerge in Europe, and I think that copycat attacks can happen, which is why let's not denigrate the intelligence community, which is trying to get ahead of this. Let's not do things with the Navy that make the Pentagon really question whether the commander-in-chief is making good decisions, and let's please reinstate our relations with allies who are the ones who are going to keep us safe, and let's confirm if we can all these vacancies at the Homeland Security department.
WALLACE: Congressman Chaffetz, you know, as we saw the Baghdadi attack, now these attacks, and there's no indication that it was anything other than individual people -- we're not even sure in the Netherlands; that was a homeless person. But this fellow -- no reason to believe at this point that he was working under the direct orders of ISIS, but it's still out there, and I can keep thinking of Bush 43, who said, "This is a war, the war on terror, that's going to last generations."
CHAFFETZ: It was terrorism. We need to call it out as terrorism.
CHAFFETZ: And let's understand -- and I'm certainly not blaming Democrats in any way, shape, or form, but when the House Intelligence Committee spends all their time over here focused on Trump, Trump, Trump, they are not doing their job and what they should be doing and looking at the spread of terrorism and ISIS and these types of things around the globe. There is an opportunity cost to how the Democrats have been spending their time, and they're not working on these things that will actually cause terror around the world.
WALLACE: Well, as a former ranking Democrat on the Intel Committee, is that fair or not?
HARMAN: Well, I don't know what they're doing with a lot of their time because those hearings are classified and closed, as they should be, but I surely --
CHAFFETZ: But they're not even having them.
HARMAN: Well -- but the bigger point is that we need more brain cells on the terror target. It's coming here to -- ISIS is not over, and to claim that it's over, I think, will shortchange U.S. security.
WALLACE: Rich, do you worry that -- President Trump on the trip to Afghanistan is talking about making a deal, drawing down troops; we certainly are pulling back from Syria -- that all of that is creating a breathing space for terrorists?
LOWRY: Yeah, that would be the word. So, this is a dangerous group, dangerous ideology. We need to keep our boot on its neck in the Middle East, and Trump's reflex is to liquidate our presence in the broader Middle East, where we actually figured out in recent years a way with minimal forces to defeat the caliphate and to keep ISIS on the run. So, it'd be a mistake to pull out those forces.
WILLIAMS: I think that's exactly right, and it's a rare moment of bipartisanship in Washington where most people say, "What are you doing? Why are you doing this?" The president's explanation, Chris, obviously is he promised to get us out of these never-ending wars, and it's pretty popular with the American people. But the execution is the -- where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, and in the execution, he has not been sufficient in saying, "Here's how I'm not only dealing with ISIS, but I'm dealing with the Russian larger presence now in places like Syria; I'm dealing with" --
WALLACE: But he did deal with ISIS. He killed Baghdadi.
WILLIAMS: No, no, no, but stopping --
LOWRY: And [unintelligible] caliphate.
WILLIAMS: Yeah, but stopping -- saying that "I have eliminated it" is an overstatement. That's like a "mission accomplished," you know, reiteration, Rich, and it serves people to think, "Oh, it's done away," and it's not done away. In fact, it's a cancer that spreads pretty much through social media as they continue to recruit and use incidents like the one in London to somehow say to people, "Yeah, we should be doing this."
LOWRY: And next week's important meetings with NATO should not be overshadowed by a Democratic Congress that is trying to impeach a president.
CHAFFETZ: Someone is on message this morning.
WALLACE: [unintelligible] -- go ahead.
HARMAN: No, I mean, NATO is an important organization. We are a keystone part of it, and I hope that President Trump makes that clear when he goes over, and that he fully supports Article V, which is problematic now that he's met with Erdogan and given Erdogan a pass with respect to --
WALLACE: Article V; an attack on one country is an attack on all countries.
HARMAN: Right. That's buying Russian --
WALLACE: I'm very proud of myself [inaudible].
All right, we'll see you next Sunday. Up next, our Power Player of the Week. Once again, I dance with the turkeys.
WALLACE: Here's a holiday riddle we ask every Thanksgiving. Who founded a huge tech company, created a successful cosmetic business, and now raises turkeys like the Native Americans did? Once again, here's our Power Player of the Week.
SANDY LERNER: Farm with the land; farm with the seasons. Know your soil; know your rainfall; know your weather; know your animals.
WALLACE: Sandy Lerner is talking about sustainable farming, raising livestock and growing vegetables without the chemicals that are so common in what she calls factory farming. Just days before Thanksgiving, she took me out to see and, yes, to dance with her 1,300 turkeys, heritage breeds that trace back to the Indians.
LERNER: Come on, raise your arms. Gobble, gobble, gobble. Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble.
WALLACE: Lerner is mistress of Ayrshire Farms, 800 acres in Upperville, Virginia, but as interesting as her business is how she got here. She grew up on a farm in California, making enough from raising cattle to send herself to college.
LERNER: What I learned was to love work. I'm really happiest when I'm engaged and working and thinking and am striving.
WALLACE: She got into computers. In 1984, she and her then-husband started Cisco Systems that found a way to link networks of computers, the foundation of the internet, but six years later, venture capital people were running Cisco. How do you get fired from a company that you started?
LERNER: We just basically got taken to the cleaners, and part of that was if you don't have an employment contract -- I got fired by the same guy who fired Steve Jobs.
WALLACE: [laughs] Lerner had a second act. She started a cosmetics company called Urban Decay, with edgy colors for women like her, and in 1996 she bought Ayrshire Farm.
LERNER: It's historically been people who had disposable income who made strides in farming. Look at George Washington, or look at Thomas Jefferson. You're such a pretty girl, because pretty is as pretty does.
WALLACE: She raises Shires, warhorses that go back centuries; Scotch Highland cattle; and those turkeys, which she says taste better because of the lives they lead. How much does an Ayrshire turkey cost as compared to what I'd get in a grocery store?
LERNER: Well, our turkeys are expensive. They're between -- I think they're running this year about $160 to $200.
WALLACE: At those prices, there are questions about how to make this kind of farming profitable, but while Lerner is determined to run a sound business, it's not just about the bottom line. There's a 40-room mansion on the farm. What's it like living there?
LERNER: I don't know.
WALLACE: What do you mean?
LERNER: I live in a little log cabin, and I love it.
WALLACE: Do you think you're a bit eccentric?
LERNER: I am now that I'm rich. I used to just be weird.
WALLACE: And so, just days before Thanksgiving, Sandy Lerner and I danced with a turkey. She grew up on a family farm and she wants to see those values live on.
LERNER: I'm a cowgirl. I can tell what cows are thinking. It's very much my success as a farmer which is what George Washington was. He wanted to be a really good farmer. And I think I've been -- I've become a good farmer.
WALLACE: Sandy Lerner sold 800 turkeys this Thanksgiving and she donated 200 to local charities. And that's it for today. Have a great week and we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 Fox News Network. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.