tv Outnumbered FOX News February 9, 2021 9:00am-10:00am PST
♪ ♪ >> harris: fox news alert, we are one hour away from the beginning of the second impeachment trial of donald j. trump. less than a month after the house voted to impeach without any hearings or formal investigation. democrats are demanding the senate convict the former president and bar him from seeking public office again, but republican lawmakers are warning today's proceedings will set a dangerous precedent and further divide america. let's bring in capitol hill correspondent chad pergram on what we expect to see today. chad? speak up for the first time in history and american president faces a second impeachment tria, one article today incitement of
insurrection. an issue today is the constitutionality of holding the trial itself, counsel of her former president trump argue the campaign tried because he's out of office. tom cotton agrees. >> no one is ignoring what happened over the last couple of months and of course this is a part of his legacy. but that doesn't change the fact that i believe, the house passed this article of impeachment, it simply beyond the constitutional authority of the senate. >> democrats .2 article one section three of the constitution, the sole power to try all impeachment spirit the senate voted to set aside a plan by g.o.p. kentucky senator rand paul declaring it was unconstitutional but five republicans joined the trial saying it is unconstitutional. minnesota democrat amy klobuchar says expect the managers to rely on video evidence. >> we are going to see evidence that has not been revealed. i haven't seen it, there is
videotapes from law enforcement, that's not been yet on tv. i think it's really important for us to hear all the evidence. >> we will hear four hours of debates from the house impeachment managers on the constitutionality of the trial, the prosecutor's opening arguments begin tomorrow. 16 hours spread out over two days for the house manager and then towards the end of the week mr. trump's attorneys. the impeachment managers argue president trump knew what he was doing with the campaign and the managers are not ruling out calling witnesses later on. harris? >> harris: thank you for setting it all up, now it's more than 55 minutes away. you are watching "outnumbered." here today, emily compagno, anchor and executive editor, martha maccallum, fox news contributor mollie hemingway, and joining us today former assistant u.s. attorney from the
southern district of new york at fox news contributor andy mccarthy. if you'd not been reading his op-ed on foxnews.com, cancel the rest of your day and do that. some of what you're writing educates us in such a high level. i've learned a lot about impeachment from you and what you write. i'm curious, what is the headlines for today as we go into impeachment? >> that's very kind of view. i think we are all getting good at impeachment since we do it more often than we used to do. [laughter] i think if i had like one theme i would want to make out of this it would be instead of going as a senate trial, i would call it the orwellian trial and that's because almost everything you hear and almost everything were going to be told is kind of the opposite of what is actually going on. and to be concrete about that, i think you were going to hear again and again that it's it's
important to go through with this trial because we must make sure that donald trump is disqualified and can never seek office again. the thing is, the democrats know that the outcome here is that former president trump is going to be acquitted. they are clearly not doing this in the hope of actually getting him to qualify. i think they're doing it because at the end, what ends up happening is a raises his profile in this very controversial, political time when the biden administration is rolling out a unity message, but they're doing things that aren't very unifying. i think they also hope that when trump claims vindication at the end after he's been acquitted he becomes a fracturing figure in republican politics for the next two or three election cycles. i think that is what they're trying to achieve here.
impeachment is political, sure, but they are now looking to disqualify and they're raising his profile and they know they are doing it. >> harris: that's interesting. you had a lot of hope in there, hope is not a strategy. i wonder if the democrats have calculated that. i want to get to lindsey graham calling this a sham as some republicans have been. >> what the democrats have done is declared war on the presidency. the impeachment in the house took place without a hearing, without one witness being called and without a lawyer for the president of the united states. you can't get a traffic ticket based on the procedures they use to impeach president trump. when you combine and impeachment within impeachment with a president who is out of office you will destroy the presidency itself. >> harris: martha, your reaction? >> i think snap impeachmentnt is an apt and important phrase in this whole process. we've heard it a lot from
lindsey graham and jonathan turley. a nation, you have to step back and look at the larger implications of the action that's being taken. if it was so very important to hold these impeachment proceedings regardless of the fact that the president is now out of office than it should have been approached in a way that took the time that is required to have hearings and hold witnesses. if it was so vital to the future of the country that it should be done properly or not at all. let's also remember joe biden had an important moment and decision to make of his own where he could have gone a very bold route which would have been probably unpopular with a lot of democrats, but it might've gone a long way to laying the groundwork for future unity in this country. you remember when they pardoned richard nixon, it was a difficult choice but he did it and a selfless and somewhat apolitical, as apolitical as a move like that can be because he
wanted the country to move beyond and to try to come together. joe biden did not decide to make that move. he may regret it down the road. some of the politics and the theater we are about to see may ultimately be used on the trump side on his behalf in terms of the way they wanted to drive a stake through the heart of the presidency and make sure it dies forever. that may be a rallying cry if the president decides to play those cards in the future. he's been very quiet which we are not used too, but we will hear from him. >> harris: he has a lot of attorneys around him. i will think if he speaks up, testify, so you are example obviously in the party for those two. what i would say though, and i will pose this to molly. joe biden did have a move to make here. it may not have looked like
that. it may not have been a situation involving someone of the prime or whatever we would want to call this in the democrats eyes, but it could have been, i want my agenda, bro, can you move out of the way? it could have looked like that. >> actually the agenda that joe biden ran on was hatred of donald trump. he was very vague about what his policies are, but that's the thing unifies the democratic party. i totally agree with what andy mccarthy is saying, this is an attempt to unify the democratic party that is driven between progressive and less progressive factions. it's also an attempt to paper over the failure of a lot of people who are in power and very importantly, it's about dividing republican party from its voters. and trying to make, to form a wedge so that the republican
party will be less accessible in the future. yes, joe biden joe biden won, but the republican party has never had so many voters and new and different types of voters. that's a big threat to the democratic agenda. they're trying to see, for those those weak republicans we can peel off? of course there are some republicans and media outlets that do in fact cater to whatever leftists media they tell them to. >> harris: interesting. they will need 17. that's a huge number. emily, last hour i had on sol wisenberg, former deputy independent counsel. he made an interesting point. he said when the house pushed for and passed impeachment last month they didn't do an investigation, they didn't do all those things. he said it's not a courtroom, but you want legality to be a part of that. that is what he thinks will be missing. what are your thoughts on it?
>> i watch that and he made such excellent points and ultimately it was under the rubric of, this is a political proceeding but it doesn't mean our framework goes out the window. i echo my colleague's brilliant points and think, nothing is a common unifier than an enemy. i think the democratic party has president trump cornered. that beast was cornered in the election and they have resurrected him to make sure he remains in the windshield for the democratic party so they have this enemy to rally behind. the op-ed in "the wall street journal" today was so apt and so on point to bringing up how valuable the former president trump is to the democratic party. i would like to underscore underscore viewers, the question of constitutionality will not be settled today, they are with this particular proceeding. let's say even if the motion to
dismiss was granted, more than 45 senators come on board, which likely won't happen, but it begs the question, how long is it before the article or articles of impeachment is brought to the senate to maintain this? here it was weeks, next time will it be months? is the rule just as long as the impeachment took place while the defendant was in office? what is the statute of limitations? this raises so many more questions and it's important for all of us to remain top of mind because going down the pike, it sets a precedent that won't sit well with most of us. >> harris: such excellent legal points that you always make. i want to give andy the last word. >> i would just say, it's politics more than it is law. the senate for better or worse is the final arbiter. in 1970 when the house, the
republicans were trying to impeach justice william o douglas, gerald ford was asked, what's a high crime and misdemeanor and he said, it's whatever the house of representative thinks it is. right or wrong the senate gets to decide this in the courts are not going to intervene. we are in a political setting and it's not going to be driven by legal principle. >> harris: we continue counting down the start of the second impeachment trial of donald j. trump. how will house managers respond to claims that trying a former president this way is not constitutional. plus, critics warning the biden administration's new deportation guidelines could lead to a repeat of the tragic killing of kate simon. how the white house is defending the expected move. ♪ ♪
lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) for those also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. it lowers the risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes.
taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ you may pay as little as $25 for a 1-month or 3-month prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. here's exciting news for veteran homeowners who need cash. refiplus from newday usa. it lets you refinance at today's record low rates plus get cash. with mortgage rates low and home values high refiplus can help you lower your rate plus turn your home equity into an average of $50,000. money for security today. money for retirement tomorrow. refiplus from newday usa.
>> welcome back. the biden administration taking heat as it reshapes our system. they are expected to issue new guidance that would limit deportation for illegal immigrants convicted of crimes like drunk driving, assault or tax ride. fraud. he was asked about it yesterday. >> the priorities for immigration law will be on those who are opposing a national security threat. of course public safety threat. and recent arrivals. nobody is saying that dui are acceptable behavior and those arrested should be tried by a local law enforcement. we are talking about the prioritization of who is going to be deported from the country. >> there pointing to the death
who is accused killer was an illegal immigrant, he had been deported five times and to the officials had sought to deport him again, but he was charged for marijuana. prosecutors dropped the case. he was arrested for killing her and july the same year and the jury leader found him not guilty. i would like to start with you. part of my issue about this in terms of the classification of crimes is the inherent assumption that certain classification of crimes means there is no danger to public safety and also, the removal of judicial discretion. we've been seeing that with the law from covid, judges saying, my hands are tied even if they know that person indeed poses a danger to public safety. your thoughts on this? >> i think there is a large golf between a national security
problem and a dui. i'm not trying to trivialize a dui, but there are crimes in the middle they are and what i feel like we are seeing is a rerun of the obama administration where under the pretext of discretion, what they did was try to amend immigration laws. in a sense you get amnesty. they don't want to call it amnesty because that's two politically explosive, but what it is is immunity for people who are actually criminals who are not only in the country illegally in the first place, but people come here and violate our laws. i don't want to be unsympathetic, but i would say everybody on the democratic side wants to focus on donald trump the person, the way you got donald trump was by doing the stuff they're doing today. i think the memory of president trump is going to fade over time.
these issues are important. >> marth, the exception to this rule and policy are really horrific and the nation still remembers bambi larson, kate steinle, and the likes. does this bring those tragedies back to the forefront and to the conversation? >> i think it absolutely does. the moms we have talked to, you look at the individual case and you see what has happened, you see the travesty of these policies that allowed these individuals to be in the country. it's one thing when someone is attacked and killed by an american citizen and then it goes to the court system. it's another one that person has a record and they been allowed to get back into the country time and time again. it is what leads to citizens feeling like the system doesn't work, that were not doing enough to keep our borders safe and it's interesting, a sheriff from maryland talked about his agents
believing the pendulum has swung so far that they basically were told to not enforce the law. to not do their job. that is something i think cuts politically when you look at the suburban areas, places where president trump lost to joe biden. once again, joe biden has an opportunity to define his own presidency. so for what we have seen is a ton of rewind. this is a man who believed in the 2006 act, so why not stand up and say, what i want is an analysis. i want to see who needs to stay in this country. instead of just a rewind to come putting these things back in place that will put us in a different situation, you have 3,000 people crossing the border and being apprehended. that number was at 1200 a couple of months ago. be your own president, carve out your own path. if you want unity, stand up and
speak up for it. >> just because there is a new administration doesn't mean the plate has been wiped clean and these agents are still reeling from the refusal of local and state law enforcement to work with them on a basis goal towards law enforcement. your perspective on how this will shape us moving forward? >> it does seem more moving towards the california occasion of the federal government. it's no surprise that kamala harris and her husband are so involved in california politics. these are the things that are being brought to bear. it's true that these are threats to public safety, to victims of violent crime. it rips at the very fabric of the country. before you have law and order you have to have a conception of who you are. that is built on shared space, shared land, but culture, language. we don't have a system where
people are getting any say into who we the people are. you have open border policies like those advocated by biden who is portrayed as a moderate when he's quite radical and able to take advantage of people who are more radical. it can really cause a breakdown in the republican self i do see that not only in this country, but other countries where they have been populace uprisings. failure to enforce orders, rule of law is what can drive a complete instruction of the republic. it's not about violent crime, but the country and whether we can withstand these policies for years at a time. >> your perspective? >> harris: it so interesting what molly is talking about, knowing who we really are. under barack obama, that president was called the chief end with him was joe biden. i would just like to know who
joe biden is, what is his doctor in? we know that. because he hasn't sat down and taken that hard follow-up question. i know we did a quick interview with the super bowl and you can. those follow-up questions, the drill down on the 50 executive orders and actions he is put into play since his first day in office. to get that detail on immigration might tell us who he thinks we are. and then as martha said, we should have a discussion about that. otherwise what you got from him and his administration was kids in cages, reporter in chief, maybe we didn't get as much detail. were they having conversations as they were kicking them out of the country? did they have these rules? or did they not. we need to know more. >> indeed. switching gears, a live look at the capitol as we await the
start of former president trump's historic second impeachment trial. plus, new worries about president biden's agenda and the damage some of the policy like raising the federal venom wage could actually due to the job market. >> the president remains firmly committed to raising the minimum wage to $15. ♪ ♪ only pay for what you need? really? i didn't-- aah! ok. i'm on vibrate. aaah! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
♪ ♪ 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. when you have all that, the last thing you'll need... is a road. the chevy silverado trail boss. ready to off-road, right from the factory. [laugh] dad i got a job! i'm moving out. [laugh] dream sequence ending no! in three, no! two, keep packing! one. with mortgage rates at their lowest in history, it's time to refi. but if you're a veteran homeowner and need cash, here's big news. introducing refiplus from newday usa.
it lets you refi at all-time low rates plus you could take out $50,000 or more. money for security today, money for retirement tomorrow. refiplus. it's only for veterans and it's only from newday usa. >> harris: president biden's agenda raising concerns, specifically his plan to boost the minimum wage. the nonpartisan congressional budget office finds doing that would cause 1.4 million jobs and increase the federal budget deficit by $54 billion. while reducing the number of americans below the poverty line by 900,000. this comes as biden's team is still getting slammed for canceling the keystone pipeline.
here is press secretary jim saki sparring with our own peter doocy over the expected job losses. >> one will they let the thousands of fossil fuel industry workers, whether it's pipeline workers or construction workers who are either out or will soon be out. when it is and where it is they can go for their job? >> when he gave his prime time address to talk about the rescue plan he talks about his plan to put forward a job plan in the weeks or months following. he has every plan to do exactly that. >> there are people living paycheck to paycheck. what if these people need money now? >> he has every plan to share more about his plan in the weeks ahead. >> harris: counting how many times she said plan, what we
didn't know, we heard that from joe biden, have a plan, have a plan, we heard from elizabeth warren. what we need now, the product of that plan because people are losing their jobs. 11,000 already from the keystone pipeline cancellation. >> this plan and it reminds me. i keep hitting that rewind button, it reminds me what we heard a lot about the job, green jobs, all of that, it was going to create all these jobs. there is nothing wrong with pursuing those jobs, but the better way would be to not bite the hand that's feeding people by eliminating the pipeline. it's the fact that now president biden ignored the fact that when they were supportive of the xl pipeline, the first time around in the obama administration the state department did five
studies on the pipeline and saw no environmental impact of that pipeline. once again, you've got this broad sweep instead of looking at the facts. what he should be saying, how many jobs did he create? let's look at those state department studies we did in the last administration and see if they hold up over time. you don't have to throw the baby with the bathwater. these jobs are happening in this was approved on solid ground. it makes it look like another knee-jerk reaction to undo everything he did just because president trump did it. >> what we need to further that metaphor is someone standing outside trying to catch that baby as it's being thrown out. you can't just take away the infrastructure of your economy that's based on all the sidelined small businesses around something like a pipeline. you can't wipe everything away.
you don't have it raining yet. molly? >> yeah, the time to implement a plan is not well after you have gotten rid of these jobs. last year the phrase was two weeks to flatten the curve, this year it's flattening the economy, raising the minimum wage which is so bad for those low income workers and small businesses that employ those workers. one of the few campaign pledges is that he was going to raise taxes, get rid of the tax cut and then also not opening up schools. president biden had been unable to stand up to the teachers unions who are holding children hostage. they are all these things that are flattening the economy and it could be a big problem in the days to come. >> harris: andy?
>> i am reminded of the great economist mike tyson who said everybody's got a plan till they get punched in the mouth. it seems like we are, they will punch themselves in the mouth to the points martha and molly have made, common sense says you don't take away the jobs people have because you have a plan for something that's going to be implemented down the road. you implement your plan, but in the meantime, that's not economics it's just common sense. what i worry about when they talk about a plan is two things. number one, they had a plan for covid vaccination. how is that going? as soon as they got in, it turns out were not going to be able to change the dynamics here for a considerable period of time. the other thing, their plans are ideological. the economy is dollars and
cents, so if you would like your plans to be ideological and you think you will bend reality and common sense, this is your demonstration. >> harris: it is so interesting what you say because that is what it feels like. some ideology, they have a checklist of things. when you interview as i have, when you talk with the people who have lost their jobs, who have had to fire others, who have been in those towns and areas around sections of the keystone pipeline and watch their economies negatively impacted by this one decision, did they talk to anybody? did they do any investigation about how this would do as they were forming their plan before they decided to take the action of checking that off the list. last thought? >> i love that you brought that up. when you lose your job, that is one job to many.
these people are not statistics. their providers for their family that have lost their job. for an administration that has relied astronomically on the power, it's as if they have no idea what that power looks like. that day that president biden, the day he signed that order, people had to put down their tools and walk off the job. it was a net carbon emission of zero. it's absolutely unfathomable for a president who has relied on what he calls equality and equity to not realize that right now 11,000 americans are jobless because of him. >> harris: preach it. here's how i know i'll never be president. [laughter] >> they have them all lined up! don't worry. >> harris: they do! so true. i have to go to staples.
anyway, as we await the second impeachment trial in the senate which is less than 30 minutes away, thousands of national guard troops remain stationed in our nation's capital and lawmakers say they still have not been told why! this is the cost of taxpayers keeping them there, it's reaching eye-popping levels, of course that is! it is our money. ♪ ♪ if your dry eye symptoms keep coming back, inflammation in your eye might be to blame. looks like a great day for achy, burning eyes over-the-counter eye drops typically work by lubricating your eyes and may provide temporary relief. ha! these drops probably won't touch me. xiidra works differently, targeting inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. what is that? xiidra, noooo! it can provide lasting relief. xiidra is the only fda approved treatment specifically for the signs and symptoms
of dry eye disease. one drop in each eye, twice a day. don't use if you're allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye or any surface. after using xiidra, wait 15 minutes before reinserting contacts. got any room in your eye? talk to an eye doctor about twice-daily xiidra. i prefer you didn't! xiidra. not today, dry eye. here's huge news for veteran homeowners who need cash. refiplus from newday usa. record low mortgage rates have fallen again, while home values just keep climbing. refiplus lets you refinance at record low rates plus get an average of $50,000 for retirement tomorrow and for peace of mind today. refiplus. it's huge news. it's only for veterans. and it's only from newday usa.
♪ ♪ >> fox news alert, we are waiting for the start of a former president trumps impeachment trial, just minutes away. growing among questions on why thousands of troops are still on duty, more than a month after the riot and three weeks after the biden inauguration. michael waltz telling martha on the story that lawmakers are waiting for answers on why the
capital remains a fortress. >> we have national guardsmen out there away from their families, supplementing the police and yet we can get a briefing on what is this? >> the pentagon estimates it will cost american taxpayers half a billion dollars to keep you national guard at the capital through the middle of march. martha, what an amazing interview that was. share more about that. >> i'm so struck by our earlier conversations about what is happening at the border and letting people enter the country who have committed crimes and then you have this fortress. i don't think the rest of the country can appreciate what it looks like across the capital. it looks like it's a concertina wrapped zone. everybody i think is on the same page with the fact that there
was not enough protection, but the question remains, as former colonel waltz not representative said, no one can tell them what is the threat worchester marked there are threats with this process. you have thousands of national guard's protecting this institution and no clear indication of what or where these amorphous threats are coming from and whether or not this is merited quite frankly. i think in some way it adds to the political theater environment that we have heard a lot about. there is an investment to remind people about january 6th over and over. >> molly, to the congressman's point, is this a 483 prop? >> it say prop with a nefarious end in mind. people don't realize how horrifying it is for people to see their capital surrounded by
troops while the previous president is in front of cameras for a show trial. this is nana her public or third world country. it was happening in russia, it's not just that this is happening in response to a few very bad hours on one day, with no subsequent threat, it's done after a summer of rage over cities nationwide were seized, buildings were attacked, businesses were looted and ransacked, thousands of police were injured and when senator tom cotton suggested that the national guard should be brought out, it caused a meltdown. they fired their editor at "the new york times" because they ran that op-ed. it's just crazy making to see what they are willing to do unnecessarily, what they weren't willing to do to protect average americans. it's all in an effort to get rid of political opposition and that
is what impeachment, censorship, big tech, military uses with the pluralization of the military. a very serious threat. it's good some are standing up asking questions, but much more needs to be done >> molly paid t they are, thoughts on this? >> i couldn't agree more and i also think it's a piece, not only the presidents with the capital and what we will see and hear in connection with the trial, but i looked with the big piece of legislation, one big piece they want to run with, domestic terrorism prevention act we will be hearing more about soon. what it tells you, they're not interested in all terrorism, there interested in one specific kind come await the premises of an neo-nazi is. what you will see in that trial and the presence of the capital
is an effort to tie those domestic groups to january 6th, tie that to trump and ultimately tied to supporters meaning, conservatives and republicans to tar everybody with this broad brush. it's a sophisticated strategy, it's coming at us in various iterations, but it's unified in the theme and it's what it is about. >> you are right, in terms of those iterations, the prop we have discussed is currently in an operational stand-down for that reason to ascertain the scope of white supremacy and that sort of extremism happening per the leadership there. looking forward to your perspective in the next block. minutes from now managers will walk it to the senate to open the second trial of former president trump. no president has ever had to deal with such a trial.
to unfold at our u.s. capital. the house sergeant at the impeachment management will walk against former president trump over his senate to begin his trial. this will be the first time in american history that a president begins its term watching his predecessor be tried in the u.s. senate. president biden has not weighed in on the proceedings leaving it all to congress. questions remain with how this will impact his agenda. a time of space here but i want to hear from everyone. andy mccarthy, set this up for us. >> it's very interesting that i didn't actually is a stand or position to the point that this trial should be provided by kamala harris, the vice president who constitutionally is the president of the senate. i think the administration has an idea of how politicized this
not only looks, but how it's going to be. they're trying to create some separation. the other thing to look at, there seems to be a difference of opinion and approach between the house impeachment managers who want to play out a full-blown trial that would take 2-3 weeks, and what looks like the leadership of congress and the white house that wants to get this over with quick. which makes you believe that they overplayed their hand. >> harris: i want to give everybody a programming note. as you watch the doors to the left we are waiting for the single impeachment article to be walked from the house to the senate. that kicks us into the action that's about to take place. we will watch lawmakers make their way over. emily? >> thank you, harris. it's important to see this
through the rubric of the leadership of president biden. that he could have extended the mercy that might have gone a long way in terms of his overarching pleas for unity. we are watching the impeachment article be walked to the senate floor. it's really an incredible moment despite being against a backdrop of a contentious congress at the moment. >> harris: that is so true. this historical moments in time as you talked about it, as we take this moment in, it's a single article and it is about a single event, january 6, but democrats had said they wanted to impeach the former president for many different reasons. you are to? >> i'm not sure if i see it as has to work as much as a complete farce. the democrats work to impeach president trump multiple times over the course of his
presidency, mostly related to their russia collusion hoax, that completely fell apart and the realization that the guy running the investigation wasn't in charge of it. they turned to ukraine. that one so poorly for democrats that they didn't mention it at their convention a few months later. republicans did because they knew it backfired. and now this which is not a serious thing at all. it's not serious constitutionally. they're very serious legitimate questions of whether this is even constitutional. you have every major democrat who has used violent rhetoric such as chuck schumer threatening to supreme court justices saying if they didn't rule the way he wanted to that they would have a problem. that was less than a year ago. good nancy pelosi, maxine waters telling people to be violent towards trump and supporters.
even on the merits it's ridiculous that they're impeaching someone to be peaceful and patriotic and here we are. >> harris: here we are as the house is about to reach the senate with the article of impeachment against a former president, donald trump. the action begins and continues here on fox news. >> the first senate impeachment trial set to begin here in washington, the managers as you see there, donald trump's legal team must make their cases to the senate, their task proving whether or not he incited an insurrection at the capitol on january 6th. hello, and welcome to >> sandra: former president trump is the third president to be impeached in u.s. history, but he is the only one to have been impeached twice and the first on trial after leaving
office. >> john: so today both sides will debate whether the trial is constitutional. four hours set aside for this. then the senators will vote. simple majority is required to move forward. >> sandra: we've got fox team coverage for you on all of this. >> john: also our legal panel, jonathan turley and kent starr joining us. first, bret and martha, the first question is whether or not this trial should even move forward, whether it is constitutional to have an impeachment trial for a president who is no longer in office. >> that's right. you've got the constitutionality question. this came up two weeks ago. there was a vote 55-45. five republicans went with the democrats to say this is constitutional and should move forward. you're likely to see that split again. they'll make the case, the republicans will, that you cannot impeach a former official.
however, it is the impeachment happened while president trump was president. this is the trial portion of it. democrats will still plow through and likely you're going to have a vote that breaks about the same way that it did two weeks ago. >> sandra: you look at the impeachment element of this that jonathan turley talked about and i'm sure he'll bring up in our coverage today. that's one of the big questions. this is a political process, not a legal process, to impeach a sitting public official. the president is no longer a sitting republican official. it's an impeachment, if it is so important -- here we see senator mitt romney walking in to the room. if it is so important based on the evidence for them, the process is extremely important. we don't want to find ourselves in the situation of the country where we can snap impeach government officials in a very short tearse way and it becomes a political weapon that could be used against others in the
future. >> sandra: bret, it struck me this morning, why democrats want a trump trial. they think it will hurt the gop. it points to public answers you can get from democrats when they say they want to impeach the president. one is to prevent a president from doing something like this again in the future and, two, to prevent donald trump from ever holding office. the wall street journal takes it a step further and says, so why hold this trial? the answer is transparentsy political. hatred for donald trump is the single most unifying principle. they've like to keep him as a foil for as long as they can, bret. >> bret: i question that political judgment for democrats. if you look at the last impeachment of donald trump, it was not even factor in the election. the word impeachment didn't come up in the primaries for the
presidential election. it didn't factor into senate races or house races. if you argue that donald trump was the foil, it didn't work for the senate races and the house races for democrats this last time. it is a double edged sword here going down this road. however, january 6th was a big event. it sticks in people's minds. getting it out, democrats argue, telling that story, hurts the gop overall and really provides a wedge between the republicans in the house and senate. >> sandra: martha? >> martha: that wedge is a big part of what we're seeing. watch senator mitch mcconnell, now minority leader. he has been very outspoken against president trump's actions. liz cheney as well on the house side. there's a group that's carved themselves out, a future where they don't see a future for donald trump in politics to
come. that wedge has been driven between these two groups. the future of the republican party is in question here. >> john: you get some of the senators by their eyes and hair. jonathan turley, george washington university law professor and ken starr former independent counsel. his filing, president trump contends conviction at an impeachment trial requires the possibility of removal from office without that possibility there cannot be a trial. is he right, jonathan? >> well, this is a very close question, even those of us who have resolved it on one side or the other. depends what your national default is. you have to go with the text of the constitution which being the removal of the president in a trial presided by the chief justice of the united states. you'll notice the per