tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News February 7, 2021 11:00pm-12:00am PST
>> here's to tampa both 56 in l.a. absolutely. absolutely. chris: i'm chris wallace. the senate impeachment trial starts this week. as the gop struggles to find its way after donald trump. >> this republican party is a very big tent. everyone is invited in. chris: is the big tent big enough for a leader like liz cheney who voted for impeachment and marjorie taylor greene who says she's being targeted for her pro-trump views. >> republican voters support him still. the party is his. chris: we're joined by congresswoman cheney in her first interview since the furor over her vote to impeach donald trump. it's a fox news sunday exclusive. then, the senate trial starts
tuesday as house managers make their case, the former president incited a mob to storm the capitol, we'll talk with democratic senator chris murphy who says mr. trump needs to be held accountable and republican senator rand paul who says it's time to move on. .senators paul and murphy, only on fox news sunday. plus, president biden expresses concern about mr. trump continuing to get intelligence briefings. >> what impact does he have at all, other of than the fact he might slip and say something. chris: we'll ask our sunday panel about the new commander in chief, cutting off his predecessor. and super bowl sunday, brady versus mahomes, and the prediction fox sports' joe buck made on this program at the start of the season. >> i promise you we will play this tape next february. chris: all right now on fox news sunday. ♪
chris: and hello again from fox news in washington. donald trump may no longer be in the white house, but his presence is still being felt on capitol hill. this week the senate will conduct a trump impeachment trial for the second time and in the house the split between his supporters and critics is creating deep divisions inside the republican party. in a moment, we'll speak with congresswoman liz cheney in her first interview since surviving an attempt to remove her from leadership for backing impeachment. but first, let's turn to mike emmanuel with what we know about this week's trial. >> the charge from democrats that former president trump incited a violent mob causing the riot at the cam toll on january -- capitol on january 6. top democrats say the trial will be fair and speedy. >> senators who have to look
deep into their conscience and determine from donald trump is guilty. >> the former president wag asked to testify under oath. it was called a joke and it was rejected. time line and witnesses are still unknown. many in the gop argue it's unconstitutional to try a former president. >> democrats are now wanting to get this over as quickly as they can. they are beginning to realize they may have opened a door they did not want to open. >> on the house side, republican conference chair liz cheney who voted for impeachment was censured saturday by the gop in wyoming. she survived a challenge of her leadership post this week and won big. >> we're not going to be divided. we're not going to be in a situation where people can kick off any member of leadership. >> marjorie taylor greene was voted to he remove from the education and budget committees.
greene addressed statements she made and conspiracy theories she supported before being elected. >> i'm sorry for saying those things that are wrong and offensive. i mean that. >> leaders are eager to shift the focus to nancy pelosi and the democrats an try to win back the majority next year. chris. chris: mike emmanuel reporting from capitol hill. thanks. joining us now, wyoming congresswoman, liz cheney, still the number three republican in the house. congresswoman, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> great to be back with you, chris. thanks for having me. chris: so as mike emmanuel just reported, yesterday your home state, wyoming republican party censured you and called for you to he resign immediately, saying that you had betrayed the trust of wyoming voters. are you going to step down? >> i'm not, mike -- chris, sorry, and look, i think people
all across wyoming understand and recognize that our most important duty is to the constitution. and as i've explained and will continue to explain to supporters all across the state, voters all across the state, the oath that i took to the constitution compelled me to vote for impeachment and it doesn't bend to partisanship, it doesn't bend to political pressure. it's the most important oath that we take. and so i will stand by that and i will continue to fight for all of the issues that matter so much to us all across wyoming. chris: they debated -- your home state, republican party, they debated for 11 minutes before deciding to censure you, the congresswoman, the number three republican in the house. what's that about? >> well, i think you have to read the language of the censure partly. i think people in the party are mistaken. they believe that blm and antifa
were behind what happened here at the capitol. that's just simply not the case, not true. and we're going to have a lot of work we have to do. people are been lied to. the extent to which the president, president trump for months leading up to january 6th spread the notion that the election had been stolen or that the election was rigged was a lie. and people need to understand that. we need to make sure that we as republicans are the party of truth and that we're being honest about what really did happen in 2020. so we actually have a chance to win in 2022 and win the white house back in 2024. chris: you know, there really congresswoman are two questions here, one of which is the role of president trump, that's going to be debated in the senate the next week, but also the future of the republican party in washington this week, you survived a challenge to your position as the house republican conference chair. but there was fierce blowback to your decision to vote to impeach the president. take a look at some of that.
>> she didn't just go voter conscious on the date of the vote, she spoke ahead of that, 36 hours, put out a statement. >> why is it that america has such a disappointing congress? because in a lot of ways liz cheney is exactly like congress. deeply unpopular, and owned by special interests. chris: does it bother you that there was more open outrage among house republicans to your vote to impeach the president, a vote of conscience, as you say, than to the years of misstatements by congresswoman marjorie taylor greene? >> look, i think that first of all, with respect to congresswoman greene, we've all been very clear. the things that she has said don't have any place in our public discourse and we as a republican conference should deal with that issue. we should have dealt with it. that's not something that the democrats should be addressing on the floor of the house. we should have dealt with that. with respect to where we are as a party, i think that the vote
in conference made very clear, we are the party of lincoln, we are not the party of qanon or of anti-semitism or holocaust deniers or white supremacy or conspiracy theories. that's not who we are. we believe in consistent sowf testify principles -- conservative (pells and values and the constitution. when you think about the threat that the nation faces and when you think about what happened on january 6th. i talked to officer sicknick's mother this week and i pledged to her as many of my colleagues have, we will not forget what happened on january 6th and the single greatest threat to our republic is a president who would put his self interest above the constitution and national interest. we had a situation where president trump claimed for months that the election was stolen and apparently set about to do everything he could to steal it himself and that ended up in an attack on the capitol, five people killed that day, that's the kind of attack that can never happen again. our institutions held but we all
have an obligation to make sure that they continue to do so and don't look past what happened on january 6th. it was just over a month ago. chris: i just want to ask you one more question about january 6th. when you voted to impeach the president, you said this. he, quote, summoned this mob, you -- assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack, everything that followed was his doing. there has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the united states, of his office and his oath to the constitution. congressman -- congresswoman, one of the things you certainly are is a straight talker. would you vote to convict president trump of incitement of insurrection? >> if write in the senate i would obviously listen to the evidence. i think that that's the role the senate has as jurors. i would also point out though, chris that, the senate trial is a snapshot. there is a massive criminal investigation underway.
there will be a massive criminal investigation of everything that happened on january 6th and in the days before. people will want to know exactly what the president was doing. they will want to know for example whether the tweets that he sent out calling vice president pence a occurred, while the attack was underway, whether the tweet was a premeditated effort to provoke violence. there are a lot of questions that have to be answered and there will be many criminal investigations looking at every aspect of this, at everyone who was involved as there should be. but i stand firmly by my statement. we have never seen that kind of an assault by a president of the united states on another branch of government and that can never happen again. chris: so just to press that, if you were in the senate, would you vote to convict? >> if write in the senate, i would listen to the testimony, i would listen to the evidence. if you're a senator, you have a responsibility to be a juror and i think that's very important. but i obviously believe and did then that what we already know is enough for his impeachment.
what we already know does constitute the gravest violation of his oath of office by any not the history of the country and this is not something that we can simply look past or pretend didn't happen or try to move on. we've got to make sure this never happens again. chris: i want to pick up on -- because you criticized at the very beginning, you criticized democrats for voting to strip marjorie taylor greene of all of her committees. after the house voted this week to remove her from those committees, you issued a statement and you said this. speaker pelosi and the democrat majority have no business determining which republicans sit on committees. but congresswoman, your gop caucus debated this issue and ended up giving congresswoman greene a standing ovation. so can you really blame democrats for moving to act when the house republican caucus didn't?
>> we should have, chris. this is exactly the kind of issue that we should address inside of our conference. if you get into a situation where whoever has the majority in the house decides who sits on committees from both parties, you might as well not have anybody in the minority on any committee. so it should not have gotten to the point that it did. i don't believe democrats have any business determining who from the republican sits on committees but we should have dealt with it ourselves and i think it's very important that we're absolutely clear that those views and those beliefs do not have any place in our public discourse and we will want to see action now from congresswoman greene that backs up the kinds of words that we've seen over the last few days and the kinds of apologies. but we have to be very clear, that's not who we are as a party. chris: that of course is the question, is whether it is who of you are as a party or not. because all of this gets to where the gop is. here was congresswoman greene's defense on the house floor this week.
take a look. >> i never said any of these things since i have been elected for congress. these were words of the past and these things do not represent me. you see school shootings are absolutely real. also want to tell you 9/11 absolutely happened. chris: you say that her opinions have, your words, no place in the party. but she said this week that she raised $330,000 in 48 hours and that president trump supports her. and i want to remind you that just a week before last, your house republican leader, kevin mccarthy, met with mr. trump at mar-a-lago and said the former president will campaign for republicans in the 2022 elections. the question is, is this still the party of donald trump and does marjorie taylor greene still hold a solid place in that party? >> chris, we're the party of abraham lincoln, the party of
ronald reagan. we have to really take a hard look at who we are and what we stand for, what we believe in. i think when you look at both his actions leading up to what happened on january 6th, the fact that he was impeached in a bipartisan fashion, the fact that he lost the presidency, the fact that we lost the senate, we have to be in a position where we can say we stand for principles, we stand for ideals. somebody who has provoked an attack on the united states capitol to prevent the counting of electoral votes which resulted in five people dying who refused to stand up immediately when he was asked and stop the violence, that is a person who does not have a role as a leader of our party going forward. we have to make sure that we are able to convey to the american voters, we are the party of responsibility, we are the party of truth, that we actually can be trusted to handle the challenges this nation faces like covid and that's going to require us to focus on substance and policy and issues going
forward but we should not be embracing the former president. chris: all right. let's focus on the other side for a moment. joe biden has been president for two and-a-half weeks. how's he doing? >> you know, it's really -- it's heart-breaking in many ways, chris, because we watched the inaugural speech where he spoke of unity, where he spoke of trying to work together and the immediate actions we've seen with respect to things like canceling the keystone pipeline, it's heartless, it really is. people that are being put out of work, when you look at the ban on additional permits for oil and gas leasing on public lands, my state of wyoming not only is that absolutely devastating to our energy industry, but the resources that come from those leases are what we use to fund our schools, it's what we use to fund services in our local communities. so we've seen a number of immediate executive orders that really are very damaging, very negative and the covid package that's been proposed of,
$1.9 trillion, even larry sommers has said this could cause real fiscal challenges for us. it could bring increased inflationary pressures. i think we really do have to fight back against, stand up against the kind of far left governing we've seen so far out of the biden administration. chris: congresswoman cheney, thank you. thanks for your time. always good to talk with you. >> you too, chris. thanks for having me. chris: up next, republican senator rand paul on why he called this week's impeachment trial dead on arrival.
chris: the senate impeachment trial starts on tuesday and in order to convict donald trump, at least 17 republican senators will need to join with all 50 democrats. that's an unlikely move considering most republicans have already indicated they think the trial is unconstitutional. joining us now from kentucky, gop senator rand paul. senator, we'll get to the procedural questions about the senate trial that i know you're concerned about in a moment. but first, you just heard liz cheney. does president trump bear any responsibility for the attack on the capitol on january 6th? >> you know, i -- i think it's a misguided notion of voting to overturn the election with congress or the vice president. if we're going to criminalize speech and somehow impeach everybody who says oh, go fight to hear your voices heard, i mean, really we ought to impeach chuck schumer then.
he went to the supreme court, stood in front of the supreme court and said specifically, hey, gorsuch, hey, kavanaugh, you unleashed a whirl wind and you're going to pay the price. you won't know what hit you if you continue with these awful decisions. this inflammatory wording, this violent rhetoric was so bad to the chief justice, who rarely saying anything publicly, said this is dangerous as the mob trying to invade the supreme court. there has to be consistent standard and to my mind it's a partisan as far as, they're not doing -- partisan farce, they're not doing anything to chuck schumer or ilhan omar or maxine waters. it's partisan politics under a different name. chris: this is the case that republican -- rather, the democratic house managers will make before the senate this next week. had they will note that mr. trump tweeted his followers a
number of tweets but one of them to come to a big protest on january 6th. be there. will be wild, he wrote. and then they will play videos of what happened that day, what he said, how they reacted. we made our own compilation of those including some clips that are circulating on the internet. take a look, senator. >> we fight, we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. >> [chanting] >> chris: senator, you talk about other people who have said things but here there had been weeks of misrepresentations about the election, then he called people to come to washington, then he talks about fighting like hell. people in the crowd are talking about going to the capitol and
then they demand to find speaker pelosi and to hang mike pence, the vice president of the united states. is that not incitement for insurrection? >> i don't condone any of the language. like i say, i oppose philosophically and voted against overturning the election. i think you'll see the trump defense play video of maxine waters telling crowds to mob and attack. they'll show clips of corey booker saying get up in the face of congress people. you'll see congresswoman omar celebrating violence. i think you'll see all of this. people will have to judge for themselves. are we going to impeach and potentially criminally prosecute people for political speech when they get, say, get up and fight for your country, let your
voices be heard. has nobody in the country heard figureative speech. you could argue it was misguided. i accept that. if you criminalize his speech, you have to do wit the same standard. you can't just criminalize republican speech and ignore the democrats. the mayor of seattle went on about the summer of law. kamala harris said we should bail out violent protesters, one of them has gotten out three times, committed crimes three times, including fracturing the skull and causing a brain injuring after kamala harris add vo calletted for get -- advocated for getting him out of prison. we can't have a double standard. both parties have to be treated the same. democrats if they had self reflex, they would -- self-reflection, they would say this is a terrible idea. chris: let's talk about the other issue, the one that you raised a week and-a-half ago, which is whether the whole procedure, this whole trial is constitutional. you offered a motion contending
it is not because you said a former president, a president who has left office, cannot be the subject of a senate trial. the other side argues that under that standard, a president could use his power, quit at the last minute and could not be held accountable by the senate for obviously if it's a legal crime, he could be, but for a political crime, the senate would be unable to touch him under your standard. >> i think that argument ignores the fact that -- he yes, the president can be prosecuted. if they think he incited a riot or insurrection which is such an overstatement and such a conclusion without any sort of presentation of evidence, all the left wing media just concludes it. the thing is, yes, they can take him to court, can take him to trial and do it. i think he has suffered under public opinion. his numbers are greatly reduced. i think there's all kinds of punishment. we've had a country for 250
years. every other congress thought it was unwise to keep going after an ex-president. constitutional scholars have said that the constitution says you impeach and disqualify, if a person isn't there to impeach you can't do either one of them. there are constitutional efforts who -- chris: senator paul, that's not quite true. if i may, in 1876, the then secretary of war, william bellnap, serving under ulysses grant was about to be impeached for accepting bribes. he raced to the white house to resign. they impeached him anyway. they did try him. a majority of sought to remove him, to convict him, they didn't get the two-thirds. isn't that the case a solid precedent. >> no, because we've never impeached a president. we always thought it would destroy and tear up the country
and divide us further. when we look at impeaching the president, the constitution has very specific requirements. it says when the president is impeached the chief justice shall preside. to me this is one of the shocking things, when we showed up we found out that chuck schumer called justice roberts. this hasn't been reported. justice roberts said i'm not coming across the street because you're not impeaching the president. this was a strong signal to all of us that this was going to be a partisan hearing with a democrat in the chair who has already voted for impeachment. you think we're going to get any fair rulings out of a democrat that's already expressed favor for impeaching him previously and is going to vote this time to impeach him. so it is a farce. it's unconstitutional. it's unwise and it's going to divide the country. if biden meant anything about the june at this and wanted to be a -- unity, and want todd be a statesman, he would have said enough is enough, let's move on. we won the election and let's move on with our agenda.
instead, they can't let go of president trump and they're going to keep kicking and kicking. to the rest of the country and to most of the republicans, it looks like bitter rancor that they can't get over the election. chris: senator, i've got about a minute left. i want to ask you a couple of quick procedural questions. do you think the senate will call witnesses? how long do you think the trial will last? and is there any chance that the senate will vote to convict donald trump? >> zero chance of conviction. 45 republicans have said it's not even a legitimate proceeding. it's really over before it starts. as far as witnesses, i think unlikely you to be witnesses. if they want witnesses there's going to be so much evidence that the president had nothing to do with this, it was planned previously on facebook, the bombs were planted the night before. people were attacking the capitol who weren't part of the speech. they were already attacking the capitol while he was just beginning to give a speech down there. there's all kinds of evidence
against them. the fbi is investigating all these people. they plotted this in advance. chris: how long do you think this will last? >> hopefully as short as possible. it's really bad for the country. i'm for getting it over within a couple of days and moving on and look, let's debate policy and let's quick all this craziness that everything those be around attacking president trump. chris: senator paul, thank you. thanks for joining us today. always good to talk with you, sir. >> thank you. chris: up next, democratic senator chris murphy on holding president trump accountable for the capitol riot even after he left office. ♪ ♪ the chevy silverado trail boss. when you have a two-inch lift. when you have goodyear duratrac tires. when you have rancho shocks and an integrated dual exhaust.
♪ if you could see you through my eyes instead of your ego ♪ ♪ i believe you'd be surprised to see that you've been blind ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪ ♪ yeah before you abuse, criticize and accuse ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪ ♪ well before you abuse, criticize and accuse ♪ ♪ walk a mile in my shoes ♪ chris: the second impeachment trial of donald trump comes at a time when the new senate democratic majority is eager to
focus on president biden's agenda but they are still determined to hold mr. trump accountable for the attack on the capitol on january 6th. joining us now from connecticut, democratic senator chris murphy. senator, i want to start off where i left off, with senator paul. no one in washington thinks that the senate is going to vote to convict donald trump this week. but you're going to relive all of the anger, all of the division of january 6th. you're going to interrupt the biden presidency agenda. i guess the question is, to what end? >> well, let me answer that in two ways. first, i think we have a constitutional responsibility to hold this trial and i think you laid this out for senator paul. there's clear precedent for the senate moving forward on impeachment trial, once being sent articles, even after an official left office. my analysis begins and ends with what is my constitutional responsibility.
i don't think our job ends just because the president has left office in part because impeachment comes not only with a provision to remove an official from office but to disqualify them for future office. there's a consequence to president trump if convicted. and second, this doesn't stop the rest of the business we're considering. the senate can walk and chew gum at the same time. we will next week. we'll start off on monday by confirming another cabinet nominee by the president. we will likely hold hearings in committees next week to move other nominees forward. last week we moved forward the process on the covid relief bill that is going to save the country's economy, we will spend next week writing that legislation working hopefully with republicans like rand paul to make it bipartisan in the end. the senate's going to do all a three things next week. we're going to do our constitutional responsibility and hold a trial. it won't last very long. we are going to move forward nominees. and we are going to continue to push forward covid relief legislation. the senate can do all those things and we will.
chris: i just want to lock this down because i i'm not sure that this had been set. you are going to set rules that allow for a bifurcated process where you can do things in the morning before 1:00 p.m. and go to the senate trial after 1:00, that's been approved? >> so i think the exact rules of the trial are still being locked down. normally, you would start a trial at noon and that would allow you through the committee process to continue to hold hearings, getting nominees ready for action on the senate during the morning and throughout the day we will also be working on making sure that those $2,000 checks are teed up for passage, that the new money for vaccines is ready to g we'll do that work next week while we're moving forward with impeachment. chris: will senate democrats vote to call witnesses and how long will the trial last? >> i think we should be
consistent. obviously, we're very strongly in favor of witnesses during the first impeachment trial. we were very disappointed when the house asked for the ability to call witnesses and senate republicans denied them that ability. so if the house managers want to call witnesses, then i think we should allow them to do so. it's a different trial in the sense that in the first trial we didn't see what happened. the american public didn't have a window in the decisions that were being made behind closed doors to trade american influence in order for campaign help. this time we saw what happens in real-time. president trump sent that angry mob to the capitol on live tv. it's not as important that you have witnesses but if the house managers want witnesses we should allow them to be able to put them on. chris: all right. there are two issues here that i explored with senator paul and i want to do the same with you. one is the case, one is the constitution. let's go to the case first. did the president incite this
mob to attack the capitol? there's no question that he fired up the crowd. but he also said this, senator. >> i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building. to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. chris: a number of legal scholars say that does not come close to the legal standard of inciting violence. >> well, of course you played a clip for senator paul in which he said we need to fight like hell to preserve our democracy. and that rally stands in context. right. chris: wait, wait, wait, but in this clip he talked about peacefully and patriotically going to the capitol. >> he incited people to go fight like hell, then he said something different and then as they were attacking the capitol, he had a chance, as the insurrection was beginning, to tell them to stand down. i was in the senate chamber,
literally as those rioters were outside our doors, while we were being locked down in the senate chamber. instead of sending out a tweet that everyone should leave the capitol, he sent out a tweet attacking mike pence, who the rioters were there to hang. as the riot was occurring, the president had a chance to turn it around. instead he incited, knowing what was happening at the capitol. i think the case is clear. both in that rally at the white house and during the riot itself, the president was taking steps to make it worse, not better. and there is of course reporting from inside the white house that suggests the president was slow walking the response because he was very happy with what was happening over at the united states capitol so i think once all that evidence is put on there will be no choice but to convict. chris: senator, rand paul also brings up the question of being consistent if you're going to sanction political speech and he notices or he noted a statement
made by congresswoman maxine waters back in 2018 when there was a furor over family separation. take a look at this. >> if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get up and you create a crowd. and you -- chris: in fact, protesters did for a period of time harass, get in the face of republican officials, cabinet officials, elected officials in washington. is that incitement? should that be sanctioned? >> there is no comparison. this was an effort to overturn an election in and of itself an unconstitutional endeavor. this was a crowd of tens of thousands of people. the president had access to intelligence to tell him there were individuals there who were intended to storm the capitol.
and then once again, while the attack was happening, the president had the ability to turn them around and he didn't. the circumstances are completely different. the president's responsibility is completely different especially as the actual attack was happening. i just think these are all false equivalencies by republicans that don't want to face facts and there's a lot of republicans that feel differently. i think the conviction will be a bipartisan vote. i think it's also very important to know that many republicans in the house of representatives believe that the president's conduct was impeachable, that's different than the trial conducted a year ago. chris: 10 voted to impeach. a vast majority different. i want to ask you one final question which gets to the constitutional issue, whether it's legal to try a former president. article 1, section 3 of the constitution says this. judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor, trust and profit under the united states. the argument is you have to remove by that language before you can disqualify and you can't do that and you can't remove because president trump is already out of office. >> so listen, i will admit that this is of course a matter of first impression. and so i don't think the case that senator paul is making here is a ridiculous one. i come to a different judgment. i think that that clause that gives congress the responsibility to deny an official future office requires us to take this step even though the president has left office and of course as you cited there is precedent for that. it sets up a strange circumstance by which a president or any official could very quickly resign to preserve their right to run later on even though they engaged in pretty
serious misconduct so. i think we have this responsibility. but listen, i admit that senator paul's case is not from outer space. chris: [laughter] well, these days in washington saying something is not from outer space is a compliment. senator murphy, thank you. thanks for coming in today and of course we'll be tracking the senate trial this week. >> thank you. chris: up next, joe biden says he doesn't think mr. trump should receive the intelligence briefings former presidents usually get. we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss this break from tradition, that's next.
welcome, today's discussion will be around sliced meat. moms want healthy... and affordable. land o' frost premium!!! no added hormones either. it's the only protein i've really melted with. land o' frost premium. fresh look. same great taste. should former president trump still receive intelligence
briefings? >> i think not. what value is giving him an intelligence briefing? what impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something? chris: joe biden in his first television interview as president telling cbs anchor nora o'donnell he's concerned about giving mr. trump classified information. and it's time now for our sunday group. gop strategist karl rove, katherine lucy who covers the white house for the wall street journal, and fox news political analyst, juan williams. katherine, i didn't realize that this issue had been percolating around the white house this week. good for nora for asking the question. was this just president biden expressing an opinion or is this now policy that president trump is going to be cut off from getting classified information? >> yes, chris, that's right. this had been brought up. there had been questions asked about how this was going to
work. typically, former presidents do get access to some amount of classified information and briefings, especially if they're doing some kind of travel or overseas work. our understanding was president biden was expressing a lot of concern here, you heard the words, they are very strong. the white house is saying that he was expressing his concern and opinion and that ultimately he trusts his intelligence team to determine what to do if trump does seek a briefing. but it really is important to note here, just how serious and how unprecedented this is, the facts that the president is raising concerns about him being a security risk. chris: karl, as the one person in this group who has worked with the president and a former president, why do former presidents get intel briefings? 0:hoven do they get them -- how often do they get them and what do you think of the possibility that this administration might cut off president trump? >> well, first it's a courtesy extended from a president to a
former president or former presidents and it's to keep them abreast of world affairs, sometimes to keep them from getting off the reservation in the case perhaps of jimmy carter or because they might be called upon to give advice and counsel to the current president and so it is a courtesy. it's at the discretion of the president. there's no mandatory requirement, no statute that requires it. my suspicion is that if former president trump were to ask for something, for a briefing on an issue that concerned, say, for example foreign travel for him, that they might extend it. but this inentirely at the courtesy -- as a courtesy and decision of the sitting administration. chris: juan, there was a he very interesting exchange in the interview. at one point nora o'donnell asked president biden what's your worst fear of about what might happen and he said i hesitate to speculate sot out o. tim mri case -- the implication
seemed to be that he was worried from president trump got classified information, he might share it with somebody else. >> yeah. i think, chris, you know, president biden i think was being polite, respectful. but in plain language, i think what he is saying is that president trump can't be trusted with classified information and let's be honest here. i don't think president trump could pass the lowest level clearance for getting secure information. this man is estimated to owe $400 million at the moment, forbes estimates it at a billion dollars. he has lots of business overseas. he owes money to foreign banks. so i think that what you're seeing here is an expression of politeness from president biden and simply saying that in his judgment it's not appropriate at this moment. i think you have to keep that in
mind because it's also the case trump is -- i think it's fair to say a bitter, dehe feeted man who -- defeated man who believes in conspiracy near rise and the like. -- theories and the like. biden feels it's important to keep him at a distance because this is not just a courtesy but oftentimes you rely on a former president to give you advice about foreign difficulties overseas and i don't think biden is going to rely on president trump in that way. chris: yeah, i think a lot of these presidents don't rely on former presidents to give them counsel including as you mentioned jimmy carter, karl. and then let's turn, switch subjects because there was another notable development in washington this week and that was the move by congressional democrats in the senate and the house to set the stage for passing covid relief, this huge package, currently slated at
$1.9 trillion on a straight party line vote, democrats jamming it through congress especially the senate. here was president biden this week on that. >> i believe the american people are looking right now to their government of for help, to do our job, to not let them down. so i'm going to act. i'm going to act fast. chris: katherine, it seemed that there was a noticeable change in the president's tone this week from that meeting early in the week in the oval office for two hours with a number of republican senators who had come one a very different plan to the end of the week when you had the senate setting the stage for a straight party line vote. is that where you think joe biden is now, full speed ahead? we're going to get this thing through on a straight democratic vote and forget about bipartisanship. >> i think this was a notable moment of, chris. you really did hear biden say he was prepared to move forward with or without republicans,
which given that he has campaigned and long held himself as someone who can work in a bipartisan way, this is a key moment. that said, i mean, his staff is still saying they would like to talk to republicans. they want to incorporate republican ideas if they can. they are really saying that this is an urgent moment and they don't think that they can wait. they're citing the latest jobs report and they've also talked about the fact that the president said this on friday that he thinks that in 2009 democrats didn't go big enough with economic relief. one other thing that i think we are going to see more of from them is that they're really counting on the idea that there is republican support from voters around the country even if they're not getting a lot of republican support on the hill and so they've been pitching the plan nationally. they're talking to governors, talking to mayors and they've been really citing polling that shows some level of bipartisan support and i would expect to hear more from them on that. chris: i've got a minute left.
the president says i'd like some republican buy-in here but he also says that his job one, his top priority is to get this money, hundreds of billions of dollars, close to $2 trillion to american as fast as possible. is he making a mistake moving off bipartisanship? he's only been in office two and-a-half weeks. >> big mistake. the only bipartisanship about this is the criticism of it. the obama economic czar larry sommers and senator phil graham wrote op-eds in the wall street journal criticizing the size of the package and its bad he design. look, this is a rush. and it's an unnecessary rush. for the first time since the passage of the 1974 budget act, the budget committee has had no hearing on a budget resolution, instead the leadership is writing the budget resolution, bringing it to the floor without passing it through a committee. they're cutting corners left and right. we're going to end up with a badly designed bill. they can wish all they want, by
pointing towards polls showing republicans support it. that same thing was around in 2009. republicans in polling said we like the stimulus and it blew up in the democrats' face in 2010. chris: panel, we have to take a break here. but when we come back, tonight's big game in tampa and the prediction on this program some months ago that came true.
♪ ♪ chris: well, we're just hours away from super bowl lv, and for those of you who are surprised by tonight's matchup, you weren't watching this program on the opening sunday of the nfl season when fox sports announcer joe buck made this prediction: >> i think the tampa bay buccaneers collectively, they will be a team that will get to the postseason this year, and really i believe be a threat to make it to the super bowl. chris: we're going to mark this tape, joe. if you -- if they end up, the tampa bay buccaneers in the super bowl -- i promise you, we will play this tape next february. a gutty prediction from joe buck, although i'm not sure how gutsy it is when you're picking tom brady. i'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're the biggest sports fan in this group, juan.
who's going to win the super bowl and why? >> well, if i was with you in vegas, chris, i'd have to bet on the kansas city chiefs. they, they're the better team, they have the better record, they're coming back to the super bowl. we were in miami last year where we saw them put on an incredible show against san francisco. so for all those reasons, i would have to say they are going to win the super bowl. but i, you know, i love a great story, so tom brady's the story. as a guy who once was a little bit of a sports writer, or you can't beat the man who's there for the tenth time. that's unbelievable. chris: carl, it's not -- karl, it's not quite joe buck, but in your year-end column in december you predicted that the kansas city chiefs were going to get back to the super bowl and win the super bowl. are you sticking with that prediction? >> i am, though i'm worried that the kansas city's offensive tackle, eric fisher, is out with an achilles tendon.
and the matchup -- whoever they put in his place to match up against jason pierre-paul, the haitian sensation, that's going to have a great deal to do with the outcome of the game. and if it sounds like i know what i'm talking about, don't believe it. i got this entirely from texas a&m coach jimbo fisher -- chris: i was going to say -- wait, aye got to get katherine in here, and i knew that you hadn't come up with that on your own. katherine, real quickly, are you picking k.c. too? >> no, no one's ever confused me for a sports pundit, but i'm going to go with tampa. ing tom brady is a man on a mission, and he could do it once more. chris: betting against tom brady is never a wise prospect, and the game, of course, will be on tonight on another channel. thank you, panel, see you next week. join me and the new fox daytime lineup for coverage of former president trump's second impeachment trial.
that starts this tuesday on fox news channel. and that's it for today. have a great week, and we'll see you next "fox news sunday." ♪ ." steve: welcome to next revolution, i am steve hilton, home of popular pro american. this week, a team from the w.h.o. did finally visit the wuhan institute of virology. to map out of pandemic origin, and the nih response to our special investigation in a moment. but first, an absolutely incredible corruption story that amazingly has gotten barely any attention, december 10 we learned that department of justice was running