Skip to main content

tv   The Journal Editorial Report  FOX News  February 1, 2020 12:00pm-1:00pm PST

12:00 pm
paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. the united states senate wrapping up the second week of president trump's impeachment trial on friday. the vote paved the way for the president's widely expected acquittal next wednesday on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress over his dealings with ukraine. let's bring in wall street journal columnist and deputy editor, dan henninger and kim strassel and bill mcgern. how did mitch mcconnell win the fight over witnesses? >> i think he did it by -- he's a political master, that's for sure. let's try to characterize it
12:01 pm
properly. i don't think mitch mcconnell is a brawler, he doesn't do hand to hand combat. he's a master of political judo. he uses opponents weight against them. they overplayed their hand, went too far and i'm sure that mitch mcconnell was monitoring his caucus every step of the way on witnesses. so the trial put everyone through the pain and suffering of sitting through the same arguments over and over and over again. and they would have had the witnesses come in to basically make the same argument for another two weeks and i think mcconnell saw the impeachment just wasn't reaching the point where he was going to have to start twisting arms to get his members to vote for witnesses. paul: a week ago there was that curve ball in the form of the new york times story about what is supposedly in john bolton's forth coming book. >> surprise, surprise. paul: the timing was
12:02 pm
kavanaugh-esque. the risk for republicans is that somehow john bolton will say something or write something that comes out that is damaging to trump and the democrats will say ahha, this is a sham trial and it will hurt the republicans. what do you sunshine. >> i thin-- what doyou think? >> i think that is their strategy. from what we know of john bolton, i think he would say i hate this thing, i was against it, but it was the president's decision, not impeachable. paul: what about the risk to republicans? the danger of not calling witnesses ramped up after that called out. >> we're talking about the danger to republicans. in the house, the impeachment trial, the only bipartisan vote was on the republican side where the democrats lost a member. to dan's point, mrs. pelosi is treated like an oracle and issues these things and mitch mcconnell says very little but
12:03 pm
counts his votes and gets it done. i think that's what the democrats are going to do, they'll find some way to say this is a sham. but i think their big mistake was playing to their base when they -- paul: democratic mistake. >> yes. in both the house and in the senate, instead of trying to create some bridges to split the republican party. paul: how important, kim, was the argument that if you -- to senators that if the house didn't call witnesses, why should we in the senate have to be doing your make-up calls? >> well, it was immensely important because it was a question not just of politics but of constitutional duty and a lot of republicans understood the risk as it is reframing the senate's job and putting them in a bad precedent for the future. but in the end, one of the reasons that mitch mcconnell managed to pull this off is because a lot of republicans ended up reframing this at the end of the week to a threshold question which was, look, even if everything john bolton said
12:04 pm
is true does it in any way rise to the level of an impeachable offense and if the answer to that was no and that's what you saw many crucial senators say in the end, there was simply no reason for any more witnesses. paul: that's a really important point, kim. lamar alexander framed this probably most pointedly. he said there is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld u.s. aid, at least in part to pressure dwrien investigate the buy dense --- da the bidens. it's not the he question of whether he did it but deciding what to do about what he did. i believe the constitution says the people should make the decision in a presidential election. basically what he said is what the president did is inappropriate. but it's not -- doesn't rise to the level to oust him from office. >> there was a remarkable statement by senator alexander. he said one other thing. he noted the framers required in the senate a two-thirds vote to
12:05 pm
convict and the reason for that is he said the framers believed that ultimately an impeachment should not be wholly part san and he said this one -- partisan and he said this one obviously is partisan and that's why it was failing. they were not bringing across any republicans in the house or in the senate and this thing but the fact that they weren't able to get any republicans to come across ultimately meant that it was not going to qualify as a successful impeachment. paul: bill? >> i agree with that. as i said, they made their case to democrats that already wanted trump removed. this comes on basically as making their case and making it now in february of 2020, months away from an election. some have said publicly they don't trust -- i think they don't trust democracy, they don't trust their own candidates to be strong enough and i don't think they trust the american voter. i think this fit into that, to
12:06 pm
the impeachment, fit into that narrative. paul: on the vote next week, next wednesday on conviction or acquital, how many democrats do you think will end up voting to acquit on one or more articles? >> well, all the focus has been on west virginia's joe manchin, alabama's doug jones and i think both of those are still very big possibilities. the tide within their states is certainly running on the president's side and they -- i think the political calculation for them in the end is a vote for conviction is far more dangerous than a vote for acquittal a. there's other people you look at, kyrsten sinema in arizona, there's a high possibility that this like the house he vote will be bipartisan on behalf of the president. paul: any republicans vote to convict, kim? >> i don't see it. mitt romney had his moment on the sun on witnesses. but i'm not quite sure he's willing to be the single one to break with his party here.
12:07 pm
paul: when we come back, from executive privilege to corrupt motives, this week's legal arguments in the senate trial, did it set new precedent for future impeachment? i love rakuten, it's basically free money. it's an easy way to earn cashback on the stuff i'm already buying. sometimes it's 3% sometimes it's 8% but you're always getting cashback. so it's like getting free money. go to and sign up today for a $10 bonus.
12:08 pm
of course i'd love to take an informal poll. i used to be a little cranky. dealing with our finances really haunted me. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business. (live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! hey! you got the burnt marshmallow out! (delivery man) he slimed me. (janine) tissue? (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business. and here we have another burst pipe in denmark. if you look close... jamie, are there any interesting photos from your trip? ouch, okay. huh, boring, boring, you don't need to see that. oh, here we go. can you believe my client steig had never heard of a home and auto bundle or that renters could bundle?
12:09 pm
wait, you're a lawyer? only licensed in stockholm. what is happening? jamie: anyway, game show, kumite, cinderella story. you know karate? no, alan, i practice muay thai, completely different skillset. it's not getting in my way.? i had enough! joint pain, swelling, tenderness... ...much better. my psoriasis, clearer... cosentyx works on all of this. four years and counting. so watch out. i got this! watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are feeling real relief with cosentyx. cosentyx is a different kind of targeted biologic. it treats the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis to help you look and feel better. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability... fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen...
12:10 pm
...or if you've had a vaccine, or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i just look and feel better. i got real relief with cosentyx. watch me! feel real relief. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. >> all elected officials to some extent have in mind how their conduct, how their decisions, their policy decisions will aa expect the next election -- affect the next election. to say now if you have a part motive that's for your personal electoral gain, that that's somehow going to become an offense, it doesn't make any sense and it's totally unworkable and can't be a basis for removing a president from office. paul: the trump legal team rejecting house impeachment manager's claims that the president can be impeached because democrats think his motives were corrupt. let's bring in james trustee, an attorney and former justice
12:11 pm
department prosecutor. thanks for coming in again i appreciate it. >> sure thing. paul: the house manager's case is the senate was obliged to call witnesses that the house refused to call and subpoena. what do you make of that argument? >> well, we know how it turned out and the bottom line is, it's not really set up to be a model of like a grand jury proceeding followed by a trial. these are not really jurors, these are 100 judges sitting in review. so i don't think you can square the notion that there's a need for new witnesses or at least you can't say what that it's a fullproof winner at any point because you're supposed to have a record and the record has to close at some point. i think that was a very nice point that was being made by deputy counsel for the white house that you've got to at some point a closed record, you can't have surprise after surprise by way of potential witness testimony. paul: the house said we couldn't call witnesses, subpoena many them, because the
12:12 pm
president had demanded total resistance and, therefore, we couldn't -- and he claimed executive privilege and we didn't want to fight that out lealegally in court because it would take too long because therefore we must impeach him for obstruction of congress. >> right. paul: that i've never found a credible argument. but what about it? is the president obliged to sort of say, you know, congress says -- can define what executive privilege is? >> well, look, here's the bottom line. we don't like the thought of kind of blanket rejections coming from the white house. i will never cooperate. but nobody forced his hand. at the end of the day if you're trying to have a subpoena and create an issue and fight over things like executive privilege, you've got to go formal. you've got to involve the judicial branch and they specifically he chose not to do that. they either didn't subpoena witnesses or withdrew witnesses saying we want to be done by christmas, we can't have this
12:13 pm
fight. lawyers fight over process, motions to quash, assertion of privilege, we didn't have an opportunity to do that in this case because democrats chose to keep it from going formal, to keep it from going to court. it's an unclean hand situation. if you do that, you have to live with the consequences of not establishing any sort of obstruction. paul: let's assume that the house had decided to subpoena john bolton and john bolton's attorney, chuck cooper has been waving his hand saying subpoena, subpoena. let's assume they did, what would have happened? would they have lost on bolton or mulvaney or would they have won? >> i think it's a mixed bag. usually executive privilege they try to work out behind closed doors, maybe do a videotaped deposition and agree or disagree on what should be allowed to be
12:14 pm
part of the public record. i think the interesting wrinkle is justice roberts, whether roberts would have taken an active role in dealing with issues of executive privilege on the fly. i think based on how he answered the question about being a tie breaking vote that he probably wouldn't. once again, the democrats are looking at a situation where if they tried to fight this fight, butt bolton on the stand, it's not his privilege to assert, it's the white house's, if that privilege is asserted, you lose l time. paul: the chief justice presides over impeachment as a presider, he's not there as an article three judge, litigating cases in controversy. the executive privilege claims are litigated outside in the appellate court and ultimately the supreme court. >> i think he would have stuck with that process if that's how it went out. we had this siren song where
12:15 pm
people were saying here's a chief justice right here, but he realizes the role is to be more passive. the wrinkle to all that is he wouldn't ask that question of senator paul. that was a gate keeper function. he was refusing to let the question about the whistleblower's identity be read out loud. that was a moment of activism that we didn't see with rehnquist during the clinton. paul: one of the other things that puzzles me is the idea that the house managers, they out put together an article of impeachment on you abuse of power but they didn't list anies specific crimes, they didn't say there was a bribery violation, didn't say it was an extortion here but then outside of the article itself, they claimed all of those things. so why didn't they include specific violations of law in the article? >> i think the answer is because there were not specific violations of law. and doj, nonpolitical people with doj reached that conclusion early on, that's kind of
12:16 pm
forgeten or dismissed as being part of the guard for trump. the reality is, you heard early in the process democrats object the house kind of stumbling around, saying well, maybe it's bribery, maybe it's extortion. and you just don't have it. you can't have a bribery or extortion where the victim doesn't know he's being bribed or extorted. so i think they went vague and that lowers the standard, that's the kind of thing that is easier to prove that he's a bad guy as opposed to he violated a federal statute and the republican team was all over that. that's really why we're at this summary judgment point where they're going to say even if we accept these kind of half baked proceedings from the house, it's not adding up sufficiently to establish an impeachable offense as a matter of law. that lends itself to no witnesses and dismissal. paul: do you think the legal debate lowers the bar on future impeachments. >> the debate doesn't but articles do would be my position. that second article is a horrible precedent that if you
12:17 pm
resist a completely one-sided process, administered by adam schiff who is splitting his time announcing guilt before the investigation was done and putting on witnesses with inadmissible hearsay for a normal trial, if that's the base is for obstruction, then we've got a bad precedent and a shift of power. paul: thank you very much. when we come back, democrats preview their political strategy as they attack the senate trial as a sham. >> here's the deal. you cannot have a true acquittal if you've not had a fair trial.
12:18 pm
12:19 pm
a sommelier searches for the perfect wine. but i hear a different calling. the call of a schmear of cream cheese. for i, am a schmelier. i practice my craft at philadelphia. here, we use only the freshest milk... that one! go! go! and the finest ingredients... what is this? until perfection is achieved. she's ready. schmears! philadelphia. schmear perfection.
12:20 pm
>> the president's acquittal will be meaningless because it
12:21 pm
will be the result of a sham trial. if there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be an asterisk next to the acquittal of president trump, written in permanent. paul: democrats reviewing their post impeachment political strategy. arguing this week that president trump's acquittal in the senate will be meaningless and the result of a sham process without new witnesses and documents. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel, and bill mcgern. so bill, what do you make of chuck schumer's argument because of course the president will claim exoneration. >> right. well, it would be right if he's acquitted. look, what it will do politically is donald trump will look very strong addressing congress and the democrats that tried to get him. paul: at the state of the union. >> the state of the union. he's going to look strong and they're going to -- to me, he's like one of those japanese creatures like godzilla where you he throw your spears and pull out your tanks and a he's
12:22 pm
still standing. that's what the message will be. paul: explain to me why the democrats didn't anticipate this. they knew that dark- >> i thin-->> i think some of . if you look at the polls, only like 9% of people wanted -- 9% of republicans wanted donald trump impeached. 40 something percent independent. it was 80 something percent for democrats. that's where the democratic party was. this is a pattern, first james come oh, then mueller, it's always we're going to get him. paul: are we leakin looking att impeachment may not be over in this sense, the democrats say it's a sham and therefore they will investigate everything on ukraine from here to the election and every new fact that comes out will say look, we told you it was a coverup. is that the strategy here? >> of course it is. absolutely it is. that's one of the reasons we see this trial proceeding now with no witnesses. it goes back to what dan said at
12:23 pm
the top of the show. overplaying your hand. if you shout coverup, coverup, coverup, after a while even republicans get the hint that this was always what democrats were going to say and no number of witnesses were ever going to make them stop because they always knew trump was going to be acquitted so their only response is going to be able to say it's not legitimate and, look, here's more information as to why he should have been convicted. so that was very clear to republicans and now what we're going to have is a dueling narrative out there where democrats say, look, this guy should have been removed from office and republicans are to say, look, this has been partisan from the beginning and these are the tactics you'll see if you put democrats in control. paul: what happens in john bolton's book comes out and a i think it's 500 pages and it's highly critical of the president and includes some facts on ukraine, may not be impeachable but will be critical. is that going to have any impact here? >> yes, i think it probably
12:24 pm
could have an impact on the election which is an important distinction because it was not going to have much impact on the outcome of the impeachment trial in the senate. it was not going to raise the facts to the level of an impeachable crime. that said, i don't doubt that john bolton's book is going to be highly critical of president trump's conduct of foreign policy and that if it's released out there during the election it will be picked up by democrats, ultimately by their nominee, and used as an argument against president trump which is an interesting point because as kim was suggesting, the entire democratic critique now is of donald trump's personality. they they really are staying away from his policies as president. it's all about his persona. bolton's book at least will talk about something real. the question is whether democrats will take advantage of that. paul: by impeaching the president on this evidence, have democrats defined an impeachable
12:25 pm
offense down to the extent that we're going to get a lot more impeachments? >> i think we've editorialized about that. i think they have to some degree, but only to a republican president. it's not just the impeachment. it was said what we've editorialized as the impeachment press, egging them on. i think the response to the acquittal shows the same, egging them on at every point, i don't see a democratic president ever having a press that's going to join in as whole-heartedly as the press has done in this case. paul: kim, on the election, is it too early to tell what impact impeachment will have on the election or do you think maybe it won't have any impact because everybody already knows what they think about trump. >> well, in one way, look, let's step back. bottom line here is that we've been doing this now for three months and democrats have never moved the needle on public
12:26 pm
opinion. the majority of americans are still opposed to removing this president from office. and that's the risk of their going back after this and continuing with the same tactics. there are a number of democrats in very crucial district. remember what they were demanding the same week that impeachment passed the house, a vote for usmca. because they want to prove that they can do something beyond just dog this president. s that's the risk pelosi and others have going into this election. paul: as the democratic candidates make their closing arguments in iowa, a look at what's at stake in monday's first in the nation caucuses. m . and i like to question your every move. like this left turn. it's the next one. you always drive this slow? how did you make someone i love? that must be why you're always so late. i do not speed. and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate. stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me.
12:27 pm
this is my son's favorite color, you should try it. [mayhem] you always drive like an old lady? [tina] you're an old lady. and then what happened? where's our family from? was he my age? so nana and pops eloped? ...and then what happened, daddy? well, before us, there were your great, great, great grandparents. turn questions you've always had into stories you can't wait to share; with ancestry.
12:28 pm
12:29 pm
when youyou spend lessfair,ys and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at
12:30 pm
paul: it's the final weekend before the first votes are cast in the 2020 presidential race. the democratic candidates are making their closing arguments in iowa where the real clear politics polling average shows vermont senator bernie sanders holding a narrow lead over former vice president joe biden with massachusetts senator elizabeth warren, former south bend mayor pete buttigieg and amy klobuchar rounding out the top five. what should we be looking for as the caucuses get underway on monday? pollster scott rasmussen is editor at large at ballot-pedia. is it really the results on monday as fluid as they say could any of the five win. >> i don't know that any of the five could win but things are very fluid.
12:31 pm
one of the things that's going to be confusing is the democrats will announce three different sets of results. they'll announce the set of results from the voters' preference when they first walk in the door. if your candidate doesn't have enough support, you have to go for the second choice. paul: that threshold is 15. >> 15%. we've got a result from when you first walked in the door. we'll get a result from the way that the votes end up after the reshuffling and then you'll end up with a delegate count. it's conceivable bernie sanders could win the first round and joe biden win the second and that sets up all kinds o arguments. paul: sanders supporters, they're not goin anywhere. -- not going anywhere. biden could benefit from klobuchar doesn't get 15%, michael bennett doesn't get 15%, those voters might go to biden. >> they might go to biden. on the flip side, elizabeth
12:32 pm
warren has received big endorsements, she's been slipping in the polls but she is likely to attract a fair amount of support that would likely go to bernie sanders. paul: a lot of the precincts get over 15%. >> that's right. paul: what about klobuchar. she put it all in, all the chips are in on iowa, a nearby state. she's been gaining in the polls. do you see her potentially maintaining that? >> i have identified her as really the candidate to watch. if she does very well in iowa, she has a chance to stay in the game. if not, her candidacy is over. paul: how do you define very well? does she have to win? >> she doesn't have to win, she has to finish in the top three. paul: if bernie sanders is ahead in new hampshire, he won last time. >> home state advantage. paul: doesn't she have to beat biden in iowa? >> biden is the key in this. joe biden is the candidate who has been the frontrunner all along, a lot of people have saying he's a soft frontrunner, he's sooner or later -- the
12:33 pm
campaign will collapse. if that doesn't happen, klobuchar has no chance. if he begins to fade, the question is, who will pick up that slack. senator klobuchar to have a chance would have to do well in iowa. i think the most likely person to gain from a biden collapse is michael bloomberg. paul: the bernie sanders surge reported nationally, he's now even with biden in some polls nationally and in iowa he is now a slight favorite. what happens if he wins iowa, even narrowly, over biden and he goes into new hampshire where he's the likely win rer. >> the likely winner, sure. paul: that's significant, because then he's really got momentum. >> if we were talking 20 years ago, i would say in that circumstance bernie sanders would be the nominee. paul: wow. >> things are different. california voting for super tuesday starts on monday. paul: march 3rd. >> minnesota, several other states are already voting. texas begins voting before new
12:34 pm
hampshire or really before we he know much about new hampshire. so momentum isn't quite the same. and if some of these candidates don't do as well, they're still going to pick up votes on super tuesday. paul: biden's closing argument, his main argument generally, is i'm the most likely to defeat presidendonald trump, i'm elect. if you lose primarilies the shine comes off the electability argument, does it not? >> it certainly does. democrats are saying the most important thing we want is somebody who can beat the man that we loathe in the white house. that's what they want. but there are two theories of how to do it. sanders' supporters say the problem is you nominated a centrist the last time and if we do that again we'll lose again. paul: you need left wing populism to motivate the voters. biden's argument is return to
12:35 pm
normalcy, get this crazy guy out, i can do it. >> on the issues they're going to say you put bernie sanders in, he wants to ban fracking, that loses you pennsylvania. he wants to take away private health insurance. that loses you the suburban support that help give the democrats a majority in the house. the issues, the centrists are saying the issues of bernie sanders, they're just too far left for the american people. paul: bloomberg scenario is -- the best scenario for mike bloomberg is what, coming out of iowa? >> for joe biden to finish third, fourth, somewhere down in the pack. and then biden will lose in new hampshire most likely, to continue that, to not do as well as he would expect in south carolina, and bloomberg has already spent more than $150 million blanketing these super tuesday states. that could set up a situation where the odds of a contested convention go up. paul: bloomberg makes a play on
12:36 pm
super tuesday and democrats looking at a bernie sanders nomination go anybody but bernie and if biden can't do it, who are they looking for, klobuchar maybe still in i it or bloomberg with that pocketbook. >> he would be the only viable candidate at that point because he's got the money. he's been spending the money not just on tv, but on people. now, a long time ago or maybe not so long ago, rudy giuliani decided he would skip the early states and try this. he didn't have the resources that bloomberg- paul: he didn't have $64 billion. it's the battle of the billionaires and president trump and mike bloomberg shell out big money on dueling super bowl ads liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need.
12:37 pm
♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
12:38 pm
12:39 pm
we all use our phones very differently. we need a great network all the time. (vo) everyone in your family is different. these two are always gaming and this one is always on facetime. (vo) so verizon has plans to mix and match starting at $35. and up to $700 off the latest iphone. the network more people rely on, gives you more. the better question would be where do i not listen to it. while i'm eating my breakfast... on the edges of cliffs... on a ski lift... everywhere. ♪ download audible and start listening today. robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. paul: president trump and democratic presidential hopeful
12:40 pm
michael bloomberg shelling out $11 million apiece on super bowl ads tomorrow night with the president touting his first term record and bloomberg touting his issues on gun control. he has poured $3 million into advertising so far, propelling him to fourth place in the national polling average. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and bill mcgern. kim, let's talk first about the bernie surge and what the stakes are in iowa for him. >> well, it matters a great deal. i would rather than call it a surge, i would say more he has consolidated some of that support on the progressive wing, that's probably the better way to look at it. he comes out of this and he wins and he goes into new hampshire, that really makes him a force. i think the other question too is the bigger point of iowa is some of these other candidates and if they don't do well, it's
12:41 pm
more of a knockout for them. i'd be watching more klobuchar, buttigieg, the stakes for them are higher i think than anybody else in this race. paul: bernie has something like $50 million coming out of here. he's got staying power too and even getting more if he wins new hampshire and iowa. >> he's got one other thing that i think is important which -- he's done better this time around, which is that he's attracting the attention and support of a wider range of the democratic base these days, doing better than he did in the last time around with minorities, et cetera. joe biden still the guy to beat there in terms of all dar-around popularity among all the different players but bernie is putting in a better show. paul: the stakes for biden, dan, they're pretty high for him too. i mean, if he wins iowa and then new hampshire he moves to i think a really good chance to win the nomination. if he doesn't win eye iowa, tha
12:42 pm
blow. >> it will put doubt in people's minds. joe biden is probably the choice of moderate democrats, centrist democrats, bernie as kim suggested is consolidating, probably pulling votes from elizabeth warren, some from pete buttigieg who splits between the progressives and mod rests. goa has to come in one or -- goa has to come i -- joe biden has e in one or two. if he doesn't, people will think about michael bloomberg. the $300 million figure is quite extraordinary and it's having an effect. paul: that's more than mcgern makes. is this the last chance for klobuchar, buttigieg and warren? >> i think it is. going back to the last panel with scott rasmussen, the two biggest blocks on monday in iowa are undecideds, it's up as much as 50% haven't decided and the second chance. it might kill amy clock cha klof
12:43 pm
she doesn't get delegates but the delegates could put her over the top. paul: her supporters. >> give the other ones delegates. i don't know why the dnc has rules where they tell you who got the -- it's opening up the complaint, i was robbed. paul: the reason they do that, they want to winnow the field pretty fast. >> they're not changing the rules, just announcing the second and first place. it leaves it open for people saying we were robbed. i was the real choice and i got robbed by this. paul: here's something i wonder you about for the democrats. why has warren fallen off whereas bernie is consolidating his support. it's interesting, they're both basically appealing, you know, similar messages. >> it's the real deal test in my mind. look, they're both appealing to this progressive base that want radical change out there. and when you look at bernie sanders, you know that this guy, he means it. he's been consistently
12:44 pm
advocating all of the proposals he's been putting out there since his first day in politics. and he doesn't let any kind of -- anything dissuade him from that. you look at elizabeth warren, and, well, she came out with a medicare for all plan and then she backed away from it. she's' changed her mind on a number of things and people just worry that this is the sort of person that would go too much with the flow. that's very much an attribute that these particular progressive voters prize and, again, bernie sanders wins that fight. paul: accept no substitutes. >> elizabeth warren put meat on the bones of socialism. iwas frightening. paul: she made the mistake of saying this what is we're going to do and this is what it will cost. people said are you kidding me. >> bernie will never make that mistake. it's all free. it will be great for you, bad
12:45 pm
for mcgern because he makes $300 million. >> he said -- he was interviewed this past week, i think it was nora o'donnell. she said some estimates, 60 trillion and heed said that s just a number republicans use. she said how much is it? and he said nobody knows. paul: it's not hurting him. it seems to be helping him. >> it's a smart plan. elizabeth warren gave plans that gave you a better idea and it hurt her. paul: do you think -- coming out of these early races, do you think bloomberg will be in the mix on super tuesday. >> i do think he'll be in the mix. i think it' impossible to ignore someone that is spending that much money. people will start looking at mike bloomberg. paul: that's the result bloomberg wants out of iowa, a biden phasbuy fade -- biden fad.
12:46 pm
dr. mark siegal when we come back on what you need to know as the first person to person case is confirmed in the united states. he wanted a man cave in our new home. but she wanted to be close to nature. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. it's an easy way to earn it's cashback on the stuff i'm already buying. when you have a child and they're constantly growing out of clothing, earning cashback from rakuten just makes everything easier. sometimes it's 3% sometimes it's 8% but you're always getting cashback. the way cashback works on rakuten is so they get a
12:47 pm
commission from the store and then they share that commission with me. and you have money, more money to spend because you got free money. go to and sign up today for a $10 bonus.
12:48 pm
12:49 pm
paul: the trump administration he declaring the coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency on friday as the number of people infected worldwide reacheses nearly 12,000 with 250 deaths reported. there are eight known cases in the united states with the cdc confirming the first person to person transmission within the u.s. this week. dr. mark siegal, the fox news medical correspondent, professor of medicine at nyu. good to see you, mark. how does the scale of this
12:50 pm
outbreak compare with some of the past, like sars and the birtbirdflu. >> i studied both. sars was a similar virus. when it happened in 2002 and 2003, we had a similar fear, reaction to it. paul: right. >> it started to spread and it spread around toronto and we locked down toronto and it was more deadly than this particular virus. it was about one out of 10. then it petered out. why did it do that? one reason and one theory is the great public health measures. the second is that it wasn't as contagious as we originally thought. both of those issues are appropriate now. paul: this one is more contagious, so less deadly, it seems. >> so r far. remember, we have no immunity to this. as it spreads, the immunity that gets built up could slow it down. it doesn't look like it now. i want to point out, paul, that maybe the reason we're seeing so many cases skyrocketing in china
12:51 pm
now, 1,000 or two every day, is they now have a coronavirus hospital and they're testing people. a lot of us think that there were thousands and thousands of cases there that were undiagnosed before. paul: what does it mean in practical terms when the united states calls -- declares a public health emergency? what can they do under that designation that they couldn't do otherwise. >> they put more resources in it. it's an excellent question. they put more boots on the ground. they'll send cdc officers over to china which is a good idea. cdc has a method that's tried and a true where they identify, isolate and contact, where you tell everyone that someone has been in contact with, who has a suspected infection, that's what we're doing in the united states and so far we've contained it to eight cases. paul: do you agree with the ban on chinese nationals or any foreign nationals who have been in china from coming to the united states? >> i do. i think it's a controversial move, for obvious reasons. i do. i think it's necessary to really
12:52 pm
control this at the source right now because 99.5% of the cases are in china. we can't just let them spread around the world. i also like the idea that americans coming back here be quarantined for two weeks. paul: even though they might not be able to work. >> it's a huge economic cost. we don't know how easy it is to spread the virus when we don't have symptoms. once we find that out, we may be able to lift the restriction. paul: how well has china done on transparency and quarantining aspects compared to 18 years ago or 17 years ago. >> i don't think they've done well. i think they suppressed information to begin with. i think that this was burgeoning for months. the fact they quarantined an entire region -- paul: 60 million people. it's like quarantining the entire west coast. >> people get her just and spread more -- nervous and spread more virus. we've been doing quarantine throughout the centuries. there's a plus and minus to it. it may help to squash it.
12:53 pm
it has a huge economic cost, billions of dollars. it may also spread virus. paul: some people give china credit in the later stages for putting the virus online so people could see its biology, work it out. have they been better of late or no? >> that's helping cut from the fears of. we know it came from a bat pretty much now. we have the sequence online that people are analyzing. that will help us move towards more anti-viral drugs, potentially, and vaccines are in the works now that maybe actually affect-that actually may be effective in a year or so. paul: that's a long time. >> tony fol shvment -- they cae them to human volunteers on a wide scale until it's proven safe and effective. paul: they might be able to do
12:54 pm
something like that, let's say we had a really huge emergency, literally tens of thousands of cases, then they might accelerate all that. >> for two reasons, one, they have one in dogs that works, for sars they had one in the pipeline and this is going to be very similar. you're right, they would move it up. paul: if you had to predict, looking at this at this point, is this going to fade away? do you think we have a good sense of control over this? >> i think we have a better sense of control over this than we had a you few weeks ago. i'm optimistic we can control its spread. i'm optimistic it's not going to take over the world. i think people walking down the streets wearing masks when there's eight cases are reacting to fear and personalized fear rather than risk. paul: if you go on the subway, you don't have to worry about getting coronavirus, you don't have to wear a mask. >> you have other things to worry about. paul: dr. mark siegal, thank you very much for being here. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪
12:55 pm
♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
♪ ♪ paul: time now for our hits and misses of the week. kim, start us off. >> so, paul, this is a hit to carter page who this week filed a defamation lawsuit in federal court against the democratic national committee can and a law firm over their role mint famous dossier. we know from the i.g. report how the fbi used that dossier to violate mr. page's civil liberties, but what we don't have is any information yet about the private actors in this. this is a first ten toward discovery that would give us that and also some justice for mr. page. paul: bill? >> paul, a hit to our british cousins. 250 years after, they finally learned in thomas jefferson and issued their own declaration of the independence from the european union. nigel farage waved the british
12:59 pm
flag and made clear that their disagreement is not with i europeans, but with the undemocratic and unaccountable european group item. i think with -- union. think the british future's very bright and strong. paul: dan? >> paul, we know the u.s. centers for disease control are preoccupied with the coronavirus are, but they managed to release some great news this week, life expectancy in the united states ticked up, and this is the result of lower mortality rates from cancer, accidents and death from cover doses of drugs dropped 4%, first time in 27 years. so it's really good news, but people are living longer despite the fact that elizabeth warren and bernie sanders think we're living in hell. paul: the good news about brexit shows that democracy can work. >> that's what they opted for. paul: took them three years to get it, but they got it, and i think there's a huge chance here. and remember, if you have your own hit or miss, tweet ittous@je
1:00 pm
e r on fnc. thanks for watching. i'm paul gigot, hope to see you right here next week. ♪ ♪ >> well, welcome to des moines, a super-sized weekend on tap. president trump is putting the finishing i touches on the state of the union address. an end to impeachment trial is coming, in fact, it paved the way for his expected a acquittal wednesday just hours after that state of the union address. welcome to "america's news headquarters," i'm ed henry, live in des moines, iowa, site of the other big story that's brewing, the very first presidential contest of 2020. that is just two days away. back in


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on