Sen. Coons on upcoming public impeachment hearings
Senate Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations Committee member Chris Coons weighs in on impeachment probe developments.
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," November 7, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Yes, that's pretty good. Thank you, Bret.
So, good evening, everybody. Tonight on “The Story,” could this presidential race turn into a head-to-head between two wealthy businessmen from New York?
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, reportedly about to enter the Democratic primary. He's got Judge Judy's backing. As we told you here first on “The Story.” But can he get Democrats across America onboard?
Plus, today, the Dow took off like a rocket in the early trading. Hopes of a China trade deal out there. All of that as John Bolton took a pass today on testifying and he got away with it for now.
Some Republican senators are pushing Secretary of State Pompeo to begin an investigation of their own at the State Department, looking into the Bidens and their dealings in Ukraine. All that as the president railed at the whistleblower's attorney who has been tweeting against him, it turns out, since day one.
In moments, we are joined by White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, Representative Devin Nunes, and Senator Chris Coons. But we begin tonight with chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel as the transcript that was unveiled today described as bombshell. Mike, tell us about it?
MIKE EMANUEL, CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Martha, good evening. Yes, George Kent testimony is now out, he's one of the State Department officials. We expect to hear from in a public hearing next week.
More than 300 pages of George Kent's testimony behind closed doors was released late in the day. In it, Kent raises concerns about President Trump's private attorney Rudy Giuliani.
Kent testified about Giuliani, "He attacked Mascha," Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. "And he's tweeting that the new president needs to investigate Biden and the 2016 campaign. And Kurt's reaction," envoy Kurt Volker, "or responds to me at that was, well, if there's nothing there, what does it matter? And there is something there, it should be investigated. My response to him was asking another country to investigate a prosecution for political reasons undermines our advocacy of the rule of law."
But Ken also acknowledged under questioning that he did not have direct information. Testifying, "The initial readouts I got were, yes, secondhand from the three people. It was my understanding.
"In on the meeting?"
"My understanding is again Fiona didn't give it directly to me. My understanding is that she may have gotten it from deputy, then deputy national security adviser Kupperman.
"She sent you the readout?"
"No. She had a conversation with Brad Fredon (ph), who was the acting deputy assistant secretary at the time. To the best of my knowledge, I received the readout from Brad once I came back from my vacation."
There's also been testimony from Bill Taylor, the acting top diplomat to Ukraine about the desire to have Ukraine's president do an interview with CNN. Signaling a willingness to open up investigations the White House wanted. The hope was that would lead to an invitation to the White House for Ukraine's president and also free up that military assistance. Martha?
MACCALLUM: All right, Mike, thank you very much.
EMANUEL: You bet.
MACCALLUM: Joining me now, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham. Stephanie, thank you. Good to have you on “The Story.” Thanks for coming in tonight.
STEPHANIE GRISHAM, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Thank you for having me.
MACCALLUM: You bet.
GRISHAM: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: So, let's go through a couple of the things that were brought up in Mike's report. One is that John Bolton did not testify today. That might happen in the future. Is the White House glad that he's so far is resisting, sitting down to speak to the folks on Capitol Hill?
GRISHAM: Well, I think anybody who works at or has worked at the White House, you know, they've got a lot of confidential information. And so, executive privilege is very, very important.
We, we have concerns about national security information getting out there. So, we'll see what happens. No matter what, no matter who ends up testifying, whether it's behind closed doors or in public, the fact won't change that the president did nothing wrong.
So, we're not concerned about that portion of it, but we do want national security manners to stay confidential.
MACCALLUM: So, if the judge ends up saying that John Bolton needs to testify, that he's no longer an employee of the White House, and that there's nothing holding him back if he's subpoenaed, the White House would be supportive of him doing that?
GRISHAM: That would be up to John Bolton on what he would want to do. I think what the White House knows is that the President did nothing wrong. So, that we wouldn't have any concerns about what he would. And again --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: About what he may or may not say.
GRISHAM: Correct.
MACCALLUM: One of the things that was reported that he said was that Rudy Giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to take everybody down, and that he wanted no part of the drug deal that Mulvaney and Giuliani were cooking up.
A lot of focus obviously in all of these testimonies on Rudy Giuliani -- just, you know, one question on that front, is Rudy Giuliani is still the private attorney of President Trump?
GRISHAM: To my knowledge, he is, but I don't get into conversations or information about anything that the president does with his personal attorney.
MACCALLUM: So, but he is no longer involved in any investigation that would be ongoing with regard to the Ukraine?
GRISHAM: Again, I would have nothing or any information with, with Rudy Giuliani. That's something you would have to ask him. He's not an employee of the White House, and I wouldn't have any information about what he and the president talked about that would be his president -- the president's personal attorney.
MACCALLUM: OK. The Washington Post reported something that I know that you guys have shot down that the president wanted Bill Barr to go out and, you know, sort of publicly vouch for him with regard to this Ukraine situation.
But they also reported that there's a bit of distance on all of this between the White House and the Justice Department. Is there any change in the relationship or the president's support of Attorney General Bill Barr?
GRISHAM: No, there is not. And exactly what you said, you know, the president made clear this morning that the Washington Post piece was a fake news and is full of anonymous sources. And the facts there are that the Justice Department did look over the transcript and their Criminal Division. And they said publicly that the president did nothing wrong.
MACCALLUM: That's true.
GRISHAM: So, I think that what the Washington Post reported was just more palace intrigue. It's unfortunate that the media continues just tried to find palace intrigue when there's a lot of other things that they could be covering.
MACCALLUM: Yes, well, there's a lot of things going on. There's no doubt about that.
GRISHAM: Absolutely.
MACCALLUM: Back during the Russia probe, the president was openly frustrated that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was not more supportive and that he backed off that investigation.
Now, it looks like Jeff Sessions may be running for Senate in Alabama. Will the president support him, will he endorse his former attorney general in that race?
GRISHAM: I -- we'll see what happens. I honestly don't know the answer to that. We'll see what happens there?
MACCALLUM: Would there be any reason why he wouldn't support him in that race?
GRISHAM: Again, I haven't talked to the president on that one. So, I'll wait and see and talk to him and maybe do your show another time and tell you that.
MACCALLUM: OK. All right. (INAUDIBLE). So, with regard to this China trade deal that looks like it may be coming together, at least, parts of it. I know that the president, I assume, was very happy with the fentanyl agreement in terms of the arrests that took place of Chinese members -- people in China who were pushing fentanyl into the United States.
But are we getting anywhere on intellectual property or technology theft as part of the initial phase of this agreement?
GRISHAM: Right. I cannot get ahead of the talks with China, but we are very, very optimistic that we will reach a deal soon, and hopefully have some good news to report.
MACCALLUM: All right. What about reaction from the White House with regard to Michael Bloomberg potentially getting in this race?
GRISHAM: I don't even think I can talk about that in without getting a Hatch Act violation. But, no matter who runs against the president is not going to matter. He's got the results to show that he's doing great things for the American people. So, it doesn't matter who ends up running against him, the president will win.
MACCALLUM: In terms of the first lady's trip to Boston.
GRISHAM: Yes.
MACCALLUM: There were reports that there were lots of protesters outside of this event. Your reaction to that.
GRISHAM: So, the first lady went to Boston Medical Center to speak with them about some of their wonderful programs that are helping babies who are born addicted to drugs and programs to help mothers and families who deal with that.
You know, it was very, very sad and disappointing to me that the media chose to say that it was a group of 200 -- 250 employees who protested out of 6,000. So, not a lot of protesters.
Personally, of course, people have the right to protest but what she was doing was very, very important and she's going to continue to do that. She's shining a light on a lot of programs across this country to help children. And I don't know how anyone can protest that to be honest with you.
MACCALLUM: All right. Stephanie Grisham, thank you very much. Good to have you on THE STORY. We hope to see you back here soon.
GRISHAM: Thank you. Absolutely.
MACCALLUM: Thanks for coming tonight.
GRISHAM: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: You bet.
So, coming up next. Breaking news as we were saying. On 2020, billionaire Michael Bloomberg set to blow up the Democratic primary or so he hopes with what could this mean potentially for Elizabeth Warren, for Joe Biden, for President Trump? We'll dig in coming up next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, FORMER MAYOR, NEW YORK CITY: The bottom line is Trump is a risky, reckless, and radical choice, and we can't afford to make that choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: THE STORY is brought to you by National Car Rental. Go National, go like a pro.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: Big news tonight. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg sending some shockwaves through the Democratic Party this evening. The New York Times is reporting that the former New York City mayor is expected to file for the Alabama presidential primary. They have a deadline on Friday. So, candidates have to get in now if they are thinking about running.
Remember, he had some tough words for candidate Trump back in 2016.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLOOMBERG: Through his career, Donald Trump has left behind a well- documented record of bankruptcies, and thousands of lawsuits, and angry stockholders, and contractors who feel cheated, and disillusioned customers who feel they've been ripped off.
Trump, says he wants to run the nation like he's running his business? God, help us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Joining me now, Fox News analyst Juan Williams. Juan, good to see you tonight.
JUAN WILLIAMS, POLITICAL ANALYST: Nice to be here.
MACCALLUM: What's your initial reaction to this news?
WILLIAMS: Trouble for Joe Biden. There is no other reason for Michael Bloomberg to take the step other than that his perception is that Joe Biden is stumbling, uncertain on the stage, and having trouble raising money. And he thinks that there is space in the middle of the Democratic primary right now that he, Michael Bloomberg can claim.
This is a really -- you know, I have read this afternoon, someone said it was a seismic event for the Democratic race. And I think it could be potentially. Let me just be clear. I know that he has limited support in our most recent Fox poll. Only --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Yes, but that number of six percent said that they would definitely vote for him, 32 percent said they would never vote for him.
WILLIAMS: Right. So, six percent. As you can see there, Michelle Obama at 50, Hillary Clinton at 27.
MACCALLUM: We'll see -- we don't know who he is even still. I mean, across (INAUDIBLE)
WILLIAMS: Right. But here is the big thing. I mean you got to go back and remember that he was a Democrat. He just became a Democrat in October of 2018, right? So, that's just a year ago.
MACCALLUM: Kind of like President Trump being a Democrat before it became a Republican.
WILLIAMS: Well, a little different in the sense that he was an Independent from '07 to '18.
MACCALLUM: Right.
WILLIAMS: A Republican from '01 to '07. Three terms as New York City mayor, to '02 to '13. So, he's been a chameleon, if you will, Martha, changing political stripes.
And now, remember the key issue for so many of the Democrats on the left. And here I'm thinking about Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.
MACCALLUM: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Income and equality, increasing taxes on the rich. Here comes Michael Bloomberg who's a billionaire. I think it's $45 plus billion.
MACCALLUM: Here is -- let's put up Elizabeth Warren, welcome to the brace, Michael Bloomberg. And she provided his billionaire -- her billionaire calculator so that he can figure out how much he would owe because Bill Gates came out and said -- let's buy the Bill Gates soundbite.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL GATES, FOUNDER, MICROSOFT CORPORATION: I've paid over $10 billion in taxes. I paid more than anyone in taxes. But I -- you know, I'm glad to pay -- you know, if I'd had to pay $20 billion, that's fine. But, you know, when you say I should pay $100 billion, OK, then I'm starting to do a little math about what I have leftovers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: I mean, it's so crazy what makes him do a little math right? Like he got over $20 billion. But you know, it's interesting to me, Juan, because you've had Jamie Diamond come out, you had Bill Gates come out, Leon Cooperman, the big hedge fund manager saying that he just thinks that what Elizabeth Warren is proposing is just fundamentally wrong in terms of the American way and capitalism. So we've got this convergence of all these guys speaking out, and then boom, Michael Bloomberg, I think I'm going to get into this race.
WILLIAMS: Martha, I think you've connected the dots. That's exactly right. I think that the Wall Street crowd is absolutely apoplectic at this moment, about the rise of Elizabeth Warren.
MACCALLUM: Absolutely.
WILLIAMS: And also that Bernie Sanders, by the way, he's not that far away from Elizabeth Warren, that there you have two of the three top contenders in the Democratic race. And Wall Street sees that they are in some -- to some extent are under attack. They are not necessarily comfortable with Donald Trump, but this puts them in a position where they are --
MACCALLUM: I mean, you know, no one -- no one cares what Wall Street guys think about who they should vote for, but the way that they're speaking out is so focused on the overall economy and the impact that they think it will have. But look at this from Michael Bloomberg back in 2016 talking about what he saw as the potential impact on the Trump -- of Trump presidency on the economy. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLOOMBERG: Trump's business plan is a disaster in the making. He wouldn't make it harder for small businesses to compete, do great damage to our economy, threaten the retirement savings of millions of Americans, lead to greater debt and more unemployment, erode our influence around the world and make our communities less safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
I would say about 90 percent of that statement with regards to the economy is completely wrong. We've seen the exact opposite.
WILLIAMS: Well, remember, a lot of people on Wall Street and not only that some of the farmers and manufacturers say that the trade war prospect is something that's unsettling to them. But you're right in the sense that what you see is Wall Street at a high and unemployment at a low.
MACCALLUM: Thank you, Juan.
WILLIAMS: You're welcome.
MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight. We'll watch the Bloomberg development as it moves along here. Thank you.
WILLIAMS: You're welcome.
MACCALLUM: Coming up next, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh faces angry cries to recuse himself from LGBT cases after he was photographed with the president of a pro-traditional marriage group.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you say that you wouldn't be fair to members of the LGBT community?
LAWRENCE VANDYKE, ATTORNEY: No, I did not say that. I did not believe that. It is a fundamental belief that all people are created in the image of God. They should all be treated with dignity and respect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: That was a stunning scene in the Senate last week. President Trump's judicial nominee Lawrence Van Dyke brought to tears over claims by the American Bar Association that he could not be fair to the LGBT community.
Now, this week, you've got a photo of Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh with Brian Brown, who's the president of a pro- traditional marriage group, and it's igniting calls for these two justices to recuse themselves from any LGBT cases that come before the court, and there are a couple pending.
Now, take back the court is a liberal judicial activist group that is demanding in a letter, "the credibility and impartiality of the current Supreme Court is in tatters, they write, posing for photographs with the president of an advocacy organization that has filed briefs in matters pending before the court makes a mockery of Justice Roberts' assertion that a judge's role is to impartially call balls and strikes.
Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute scholar and Fox News Contributor and Robin Biro, Democratic Strategist and former Obama campaign director. Robin, let me start with you. Do you have any problem with this photo?
ROBIN BIRO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You know, I didn't at first because it was my understanding that this was just a Catholic charity event. But once I got to the meat of the situation and understood that this was someone -- he was posing for a photo with someone who literally their stated purpose is to roll back rights for LGBTQ Americans, I have a problem with that as an openly gay man myself. And it raises questions. It's got a stink on it, Martha. Can they rule impartially? I'd like to think so, but this calls it into question.
MACCALLUM: Marc?
MARC THIESSEN, CONTRIBUTOR: That's ridiculous. The other person in that photograph other than the Catholic Cardinal was a German royal princess. Are they now monarchist who can no longer rule and separation of powers cases? It's ridiculous. Look, the fact is, this is a form of anti- Catholic bigotry that the guy has gotten Democrats in trouble earlier.
You remember, Senator Dianne Feinstein got Democrats into deep trouble when she did -- when she challenged Amy Coney Barrett over a Catholic belief. She said, the dogma lives deeply with you. I'm very concerned about that. And you know, that was basically a bigoted comment because that's 150-year- old stereotype which says that Roman Catholics can't be trusted because they put the pope above the Constitution. And that is not what these justices do.
There are tons of Conservative justices, Catholic -- in fact, I think there's a Catholic majority on the court, and you had people like a Catholic justice like Anthony Kennedy who was the deciding vote to create the right to same-sex marriage. You have Catholic justices -- the Pope has basically said that Catholics cannot support the death penalty, yet Catholic justices vote all the time to uphold capital cases. So the idea that these justices can't rule because they're Catholic is absurd.
MACCALLUM: I mean, one of the things that Justice Antonin Scalia said was that he would, you know, often you go home and you regret what you had to do as a judge because it conflicts with your personal beliefs. But as a judge, you understand that you have to evaluate the law and rules accordingly.
So I mean, Robin, I think this idea that you can't stand with someone in a picture to assume that it represents a lack of the ability to have judgment and to perform your duties as a judge seems like a pretty big leap.
BIRO: It did to me at first, Martha, until I read more about this story. This has absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism or religion. This has to do with the fact that their stated mission is to roll back, literally roll back rights for LGBTQ Americans. That's not OK. The Constitution says we the people, not just we the straight people, and that's pretty cut and dry.
MACCALLUM: Yes, but you're not understanding -- you're not hearing what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that even if -- and I have no idea what their personal beliefs are about that, but even if they had personal prejudices in that regard, what we do when we put people on the Supreme Court is we assume that they have the ability to leave those behind, and to look at each case and to judge it on its merits.
So, Robin, you're essentially saying that you don't believe that they have the capacity to do that, which seems unfair.
BIRO: If you pose for a photograph with people who has --
MACCALLUM: Oh, come on. You've never posed for a photograph with people who believed things that you don't believe? I who knows -- I mean, Marc, do you want to hop in?
THIESSEN: Well, also, but you know, a Roman Catholic can believe it. I mean, we're allowed to believe in this country if you're if you're a Catholic that marriage is between a man and a woman. But a judge -- a judge doesn't necessarily have to rule that way in the court case if the law requires -- if the Constitution requires otherwise.
I'm not weighing in on whether it does or doesn't. But I mean, what's happening here is the left is projecting their judicial philosophy on conservatives. The Conservatives are judicial -- believe in judicial restraint, as Justice Gorsuch said that sometimes, if you're a good judge, you're going to have cases where you don't -- you don't agree with the decision you made.
The left believes in outcome-based judicial philosophy. They believe in a living constitution which can be twisted to mean anything they want, and so it matters more, with the justice feels. And Conservatives don't care what the justice feels, they care what the law says. And I'm sure these justices will hold up the law.
MACCALLUM: I got to leave it there. Robin Biro, Marc Thiessen, always good to see you both. Thank you very much.
BIRO: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: So coming up next, protest takeover City Hall after Las Vegas votes to ban homeless people from sleeping on their city streets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMERICAN CROWD: Hey, hey, ho, ho, the war on the poor has got to go! Hey, hey, ho ho, the war on the poor has got to go! Housing, not handcuffs! Housing, not handcuffs! Housing, not handcuffs!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman is sponsor of that bill and she's here to defend it coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: The homelessness crisis is sweeping across parts of the country but one city is taking action today. Las Vegas City Council voted to ban homeless people from sleeping on their city streets and it goes into effect this Sunday. Violators could face $1,000 fine or six months in jail.
While criminal penalties wouldn't start until February 1, 2020, it's being met with fierce opposition and chants in their council room war on the poor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROWD CHANTING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Joining me now, Las Vegas Mayor, Carolyn Goodman, who is behind this move. Carolyn, mayor, good to see you tonight. Thank you very much for being with us. So, what's your reaction --
(CROSSTALK)
MAYOR CAROLYN GOODMAN, D-LAS VEGAS: That's fine. And you can call me Carolyn, it's fine.
MACCALLUM: Thank you. What is hear reaction when you hear those chants that there is no compassion, that they don't want handcuffs, they want homes for the homeless, what do you say to that?
GOODMAN: What I say is I'm so glad you are involved and did we have a good discussion and a first conversation really out and open yesterday. I am so energized by the people that live here and everything that's happening and we are an action place. That's Las Vegas. And so, we are taking the first step. We've been working on it actually for three years.
MACCALLUM: All right. So, what does that mean? How does that going to be put into place and how, you know, how do you answer? Is it compassionate as well as taking care of some of the problems that you have on the street there?
GOODMAN: Absolutely. And here are some of the places where the same ban already exists. We're not the lone ranger here but we are a very caring, diverse community and this is all in an effort to get the homeless community in for service and health and back into a life of the wonderful offerings that we have. Of compassion and involvement, good jobs, and then ultimately, ready for housing again.
Because we are finding what we offer already, for some, they're not ready to work in an apartment, live in an apartment, and to get ready for the job.
But that's the whole purpose of this ordinance, a choice making time for those who can make choices, to get help. That's what we are doing, that's what we are about, and we see great value in so many of the homeless that has been caught in very hard circumstances.
MACCALLUM: So, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, if you -- if there is a bed available in one of the existing city shelters and you don't go there --
GOODMAN: Yes.
MACCALLUM: -- and you don't take advantage of it, that's when this fine, which I would imagine a lot of homeless people would not be able to pay, but the alternative would be, going to jail.
GOODMAN: Of course.
MACCALLUM: And a lot of people feel that, you know, criminal penalty is not the right solution here and among them are a lot of the Democratic presidential who want to be presidential nominees.
Elizabeth Warren said that it caters to the interest of business groups, rather than families and communities. Former Vice President Joe Biden said it effectively criminalizes homelessness.
GOODMAN: Well, to be perfectly honest, first of all, nobody called to ask what is the purpose of this ordinance. And so, they were ill-informed to make a statement like that. It is not the purpose of penalty or criminalization, it's the question of choice and providing service beds, training to get back in a life of great integrity, success and back with the loved ones that you share.
So, shame on these candidates for making those kinds of blatant statements to get somebody to listen and hopefully a vote, but unfortunately, most of the homeless population doesn't vote.
So we have had great response to this and more offers of contribution than help because in watching the entire thing, so many of them said, we were with you the entire time and we would like to contribute towards a porta- potty or some containers or help with the vet -- the veterinarian care that is going to be given to the pets that come in with the homeless.
And that's unusual in a community to get that kind of reaction and support.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Yes. Well, obviously --
GOODMAN: And we saw and heard so many --
MACCALLUM: Yes. You know, I mean, obviously a lot of cities have had a huge problem, their businesses have had a huge problem with people not wanting to come into their doors because too many people are sleeping in front of those doors.
So, I would love for you to check back in with us in a few months and let us know, you know, how this is going --
GOODMAN: Well --
MACCALLUM: -- and if it is actually benefiting the population.
GOODMAN: Certainly.
MACCALLUM: Carolyn Goodman, thank you very much. mayor of Las Vegas, good to see you tonight.
GOODMAN: Thank you for having us.
MACCALLUM: You bet.
GOODMAN: Thanks.
MACCALLUM: Coming up next, is there a trial of bias that leads directly from the -- to the attorney for the whistleblower who sparked this whole impeachment inquiry. This is a fascinating development. Congressman Devin Nunes coming up next on that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: So, the whistleblower touched off this whole impeachment inquiry. But now his lawyer is under some pretty great scrutiny tonight after a series of anti-Trump texts that he wrote shortly after President Trump was inaugurated started to come to light.
President Trump calling for an end to what he called the impeachment hoax after it was revealed that attorney Mark Zaid tweeted in January of 27, "hash tag, coup has started. First of many steps. Hash tag rebellion. Hash tag, impeachment. Will follow ultimately. Hash tag lawyers."
And in July of that year he wrote, "I predict CNN will play a role in at real Donald Trump not finishing out his first full term as president." This is from the lawyer who now represents the whistleblower.
Here now Republican Congressman Devin Nunes. The ranking member of the House intelligence committee. Congressman, good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here.
REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: You know, it struck when I was reading those tweets that I remember that in the beginning of this whistleblower situation, the I.G. for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, said that he was aware that there were some partisan affiliations that the whistleblower had but that there was no indication that they had in any way affected him coming forward. And so, they consider that to be a non-event.
I mean, in light of this, that makes that a little more difficult to swallow, doesn't it?
NUNES: Well, I would go further than that, Martha. And that is that we still don't know who this whistleblower is or if the whistleblower even exists because the whistleblower has not been made available to the Republicans. And you know, that is -- that is just -- that's not evidence. It's not evidence for a court of law.
We have to know who this person is. We have to meet who the person is so we can make up --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Are you suggesting when you say that he doesn't exist that it could be someone like Mark Zaid, is that what -- are you are suggesting that?
NUNES: No. But I think in a court of law, this is not evidence. And you work, this is like at the highest level, we are talking about impeaching a president. We have to have this whistleblower come in and talk to us in person so that we can measure this person up.
I would say though, when I read those quotes or read those tweets, I had flashbacks to the Strzok/Page text messages. You know, we're in the fall of 2016 as they're investigating President Trump or then candidate Trump and they're exonerating candidate Clinton and you have them testing things like Hillary Clinton should win 100 million to zero. I had flashbacks to that. I don't know why. It seems like it just reminded me that.
MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, I think you know, if nothing else, and this is totally separate from, you know, what people think or don't think about what President Trump did on that phone call but there's one thing that appears to be indisputable now. And that is that there was a very large movement of people who, from day one after the inauguration, made it their business to try to figure out a way to take the president down.
NUNES: Yes.
MACCALLUM: I mean, I don't know how you can look at this and go back to these tweets and --
NUNES: Well, I just --
MACCALLUM: -- connect this to the whistleblower and think anything other than that at this point?
NUNES: Well, the other thing that I don't understand that's not happening in the White House is that all of these career bureaucrats that are either in the NSC or other departments in the White House, I mean, my gosh, you want to see where the leaks are coming from, it's coming from the White House is owned bureaucrats that are sitting in there.
MACCALLUM: And you know what, people who work in the White House have said that --
(CROSSTALK)
NUNES: And you know, they need to clear all these people out of there.
MACCALLUM: -- since day one, you know, that there were people who work in the White House who were against the president and as I said, this is separate from, you know, what may or may not be decided about the actual content of that phone call.
You know, with regard to the whistleblower and who is going to force this testimony, I mean, it seems Democrats are perfectly happy to kind of let that whole thing go by the wayside. And you say, and Lindsey Graham was here last night, saying that we must hear from the whistleblower and I think the American people probably feel that way too. Who is going to make sure that happens?
NUNES: Well, look, we don't have subpoena power so, you know, we are going to put our list forward.
MACCALLUM: Nope.
NUNES: And of course, we've already said for many weeks now that we have to interview the whistleblower so that's going to be on our list. But this is another troubling thing that the media is not paying any attention to.
And that is that, you know, we don't have a right to subpoena people. We have to basically create a list that meet certain criteria and then go back to House Democrats to let us have some of our witnesses.
MACCALLUM: yes.
NUNES: I mean, it's -- and look, I'm not complaining about -- I don't like to complain about process, but I can tell you this. That every one of the witnesses that we put forward are going to be substantive and it's going to lead back to the corruption of the Democrats and what they were doing in Ukraine.
Not to mention, whatever this whistleblower, whoever this whistleblower is and whoever he is connected to --
MACCALLUM: Yes.
NUNES: -- we will be trying to ask those questions and I think if they don't give us --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: You know, let me ask you something.
NUNES: -- several witnesses, I don't see how this is going to have any credibility.
MACCALLUM: I just have one more question for you before you go. With regard to Rudy Giuliani, because his name comes up in every one of these testimonies. And I asked the press secretary Stephanie Grisham if the president is still represented by Rudy Giuliani and she did not want to respond to that. She said that's a personal matter.
But it became more than a personal matter when he sort of, injected himself in the, you know, in the sort of State Department duties and that's what a lot of this is about with these people. So, if --
NUNES: Yes.
MACCALLUM: -- if he was onto something, and I know you believe he is onto something, why shouldn't he still be a part of the process?
NUNES: Well, the president makes that decision and one of the things, that you are exactly right on, is that many of the people you're going to see next week, what they are most mad about is that they were being circumvented by Ambassador Volker, by Ambassador Sondland, and by Rudy Giuliani.
MACCALLUM: Yes.
NUNES: And look, the reason that it's very clear that you were hinting at, Rudy Giuliani was representing the president while he was under investigation by Robert Mueller and the special counsel. The origins of much was in the Steele dossier that was then given to the FBI, originated in Ukraine that was paid for by the Democrats.
MACCALLUM: Well --
NUNES: So, Giuliani has every right and responsibility to be over there trying to figure out who these Ukrainians are.
MACCALLUM: OK. I mean, it sounds like that's not happening anymore. He's hired three lawyers himself so, you know, it just makes me curious if that was so determined to be so important, now it appears that the White House is moving beyond that. So, we'll see.
Thank you very much, Congressman Nunes. Good to see you tonight.
NUNES: Thank you. Thank you.
MACCALLUM: Also joining me now Democratic Senator Chris Coons, a member of the Senate judiciary and foreign relations committee. Senator, good to have you with us tonight. Thank you very much for being here.
SEN. CHRIS COONS, D-DEL.: Always good to be on with you, Martha. Thank you.
MACCALLUM: Thank you.
COONS: Thank you for the chance to be on with you.
MACCALLUM: Absolutely. We always like having you.
So, with regards to this whistleblower and his lawyer, what are your thoughts when you look at all these text messages?
COONS: Well, my principal thought here, Martha, is that the whistleblower needs to remain protected, should not be hauled in front of Congress, because frankly, that's what whistleblower protection statutes are there for.
When there is someone who works for the federal government who see something wrong --
MACCALLUM: Yes.
COONS: -- they need to be able to come forward and offer that evidence. What matters here in the ongoing impeachment inquiry in the House is that not the whistleblower, but other folks, Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman, Ambassador Gordon Sondland have confirmed the core of what he was saying was going on.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: I think, you know, that's very true. But you know, we all keep hearing even in --
(CROSSTALK)
COONS: That the president was using his office for his own benefit.
MACCALLUM: I'm sorry. Let me ask you a question if I may interrupt for one second.
COONS: Sure.
MACCALLUM: Nancy Pelosi said that without the whistleblower this whole thing would have never begun. And in the beginning of this process we heard from Adam Schiff he said we absolutely have to hear from the whistleblower.
COONS: That's right.
MACCALLUM: And he said that we will find a way to do it. We'll find a way to do it behind closed doors, but you know, there's no protection --
COONS: Right.
MACCALLUM: -- in this law for, you know, the protection is against retaliation, the protection is against losing your job. At this point, why is it no longer important to hear from him when it used to be very important to Democrats?
COONS: Well, I think if it were possible to hear from the whistleblower with confidence that his identity would not immediately be released, and that the whistleblower would as a result, face retaliation or even physical threats, I think it would be constructive.
But Martha, let's not miss the core point. What the whistleblower alleged, which was that the president didn't have just one call with President Zelensky of Ukraine, there was an entire organized campaign to establish a quid pro quo to hold up $400 and badly needed military aid for a country that was under Russian assault.
That's been confirmed by folks who were on the call like Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, or folks who are not career bureaucrats, not never-Trumpers, but in the case of E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a strong supporter of President Trump. He's testified there was a quid pro quo here.
MACCALLUM: Yes, there's no doubt that those --
(CROSSTALK)
COONS: So, I think the core allegations brought forward by the whistleblower --
MACCALLUM: There's no doubt.
COONS: -- are being confirmed and that's important.
MACCALLUM: If those individuals feel strongly that something was happening that was proceeding not as normal, we heard that from one of the vice president's aides as well today.
COONS: Yes.
MACCALLUM: So, their testimony is absolutely part of this and it is perfectly understood.
COONS: That's right.
MACCALLUM: I want to ask you one, and you know, we're going to have public hearings next week and the American people can decide if they think it's impeachable or not --
COONS: That's right.
MACCALLUM: -- which is really the bottom-line question here that we'll to in the public testimony next week.
Before I let you go, what do you think about the emergence of a potential candidate, Michael Bloomberg, for New York?
COONS: Well, I just heard it as I was coming on that he was considering filing in Alabama. I assume as a Democrat. The striking thing, here is someone who has a three-term mayor of New York who is worth, I think more than $50 billion, it will certainly made for a more vigorous debate about Medicare for all and a number of other proposals. I think I'll just say off the top --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: What does it do to Joe Biden? What do you think he's thinking tonight?
COONS: -- my head that I welcome -- I welcome a successful businessman to the race. I still think Joe Biden will win the Democratic primary. He represents the heartland of America, America's middle class, his values, his background will make him a great candidate, and I think a great president.
MACCALLUM: All right. Come back soon and we'll talk longer, sir. We're little short tonight.
COONS: Thanks, Martha.
MACCALLUM: Thank you very much, Senator. Good to see you.
Coming up next, after Donald Trump, Jr.'s. appearance on The View, wow. Did you see this? Explosive today. Daniel Krauthammer breaks down where civility in politics stands in America. Listen. Not very apparent there today. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, JR., DONALD TRUMP'S SON: Or he is afraid of being attacked like so many of us have for so long by a vicious left that's running a one- sided --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please. Let's go to a break.
TRUMP JR.: Adam Schiff --
(CROWD BOOING)
WHOOPI GOLDBERG, CO-HOST, ABC: Children --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: An explosive day to say the least at The View Donald Trump, Jr. went into the lion's den and it got insanely wild. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLDBERG: I guess this is the fight you want.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP, JR.: It's not the fight I want.
GOLDBERG: Yes, it is.
TRUMP, JR.: But if we're talking about character, we're talking about the --
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDBERG: We're talking about you because - are you questioning my character?
TRUMP, JR.: I'm not questioning your character.
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDBERG: No.
TRUMP, JR.: I'm talking about you're questioning my father's character. And I say, we all have done --
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDBERG: I'm not -- I'm sorry. I can question anybody.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop yelling. Stop yelling.
TRUMP, JR.: He says some things --
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDBERG: He's afraid of perjury. He's afraid of going to jail.
TRUMP, JR.: -- on the record. Or he is afraid of being attacked like so many of us have for so long by a vicious left that's running a one-sided campaign by Adam Schiff --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let's go to a break.
(CROWD BOOING)
TRUMP, JR.: Adam Schiff who --
GOLDBERG: Children. Children. Children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: My gosh. It's like a wrestling match in there. Here now Daniel Krauthammer, son of Charles Krauthammer and the editor of his dad's final book, "The Point of it All."
Daniel, great to see you as always. So, I guess, you know, that's the big question for you tonight, when you look at that, when you look at the politics in America today, what is the point of all of that? Can you tell me?
DANIEL KRAUTHAMMER, CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER'S SON: Yes. It's a -- it wasn't the most pleasant thing to watch or I'm sure to experience it on set. And it's the kind of question that I have gotten a lot this past year, with my father's book coming out I've gone around the country to speak about it and talk to many people who look to his voice as one of reason that they trusted to --
MACCALLUM: Yes.
KRAUTHAMMER: -- makes sense of a lot of the craziness out there. And I do think there is a yearning out there for more civility and more reasonableness in what we talk about. And that's what I've tried to address in this new paperback edition, and that's what I tried to instill, you know what -- I can't say what my father, what he would say today to all of this, but I can talk about how I know he would say it and the principles that he always embodied when he did approach a public debate.
MACCALLUM: You know, I mean, he saw some of early stages of this, but you do wonder what he would counsel at this point watching how incredibly irate and intense this has become.
This is Senator John Kennedy, who is a frequent guest on this show. We like Senator Kennedy a lot. But here's what he said last night at a rally. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA: Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to impeach him.
(CROWD BOOING)
KENNEDY: I don't mean any disrespect but it must suck to be that dumb.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: I mean, today he kind of, you know, said I didn't really mean to offend anyone, but it's kind of hard to see that as anything other than that, Daniel.
KRAUTHAMMER: Yes. I think, you know, both the clips you showed I think are pretty illustrative of how the debate has gone off the rails in a lot of ways. And there was one line spoken in another part of the segment of The View that really struck of when someone said, whose side are you on.
And it struck me as so much the antithesis of what civil debate should be in a democracy and what my father really stood for and was an example of that he didn't just pick a side and draw a permanent battle lines over which anything was justified and anything was fair game.
And he really saw his job as being truthful to what he believed in of not shaping things just to match some party or please anyone. To be logical and start with those principles all the way to the conclusion. To argue in good faith and not assault the other side's character, but actually meet their ideas and their words.
MACCALLUM: Right.
KRAUTHAMMER: And with the ultimate intention to persuade and not just over power.
MACCALLUM: Thank you, Daniel Krauthammer, "The Point of it All." Thank you very much. That's “The Story” on Thursday, November 7, 2019.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox