tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News October 10, 2020 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. with just over three weeks to go now until the election, president trump is getting set to return to the campaign trail after being sidelined during his coronavirus recovery. the president looking to make up ground in some key battleground states after more than a week off the road. so what has changed since his covid-19 diagnosis and can the campaign regain its former momentum? let's ask wall street journal columnist, karl rove, he was a senior advisor to president george w bush. good to see you again. you wrote this week that the
president here, 25 days or so out from the election, is in dire straits, will have to mount an almost unprecedented comeback. explain. >> well, the first debate was a debacle and then he got with covid which puts you covid back in the middle of the campaign, dominated the news for the last seven days and as a result he's fallen behind from about 6% in the real clear politics poll back to about 10%. and this is a point at which he needs to have forward movement and not be falling back. paul: all right. so what's the comeback strategy here. >> well, first of all, generally throughout every day they've got to do three things, find a way to say here's what i've done, a little bit of that, more on what it is i want to do in the future. you cannot get reelected without saying i have a second act in me. i know what i want to do and it sounds good to you what i want to do in the next four years. he needs to turn it into being a
contrast with joe biden and frankly we saw in the vice presidential debate a very effective job by mike pence in doing exactly that. and he needs to be able to say the emphasis is on the economy. we're doing the best we can on fighting covid. but you know and i know that i'm the better guy to reignite the american economy as we start to put this behind us but we've got a lot of work to do to get it behind us. i know that because here's what i'm doing. but i'm the guy with the second term agenda that will get the economy roaring like it was until february of this year. paul: it is too late, given the magnitude of the gap between the candidates, though? i mean, a lot of people say in the trump camp, look, this is exactly the date at which the tape came out -- >> access hollywood tape. paul: access hollywood tape, billy bush and all that and that was hillary clinton's biggest lead in the polls and yet the
president won. he's the incumbent now, which makes it harder to close that gap. >> i think that's right. but i also think compensating for that is biden is not well-defined. we would have -- he secured his party's nomination m march. in a normal campaign we would have had march, april, may, june, july, august, september with him being defined by the fact that he was out on the campaign trail a lot, being asked questions by the press, having to deal with all the hinges of being an active campaigner. instead he's been quiet and out of sight. that's helped him because it put the focus on trump. it hurt him because we don't have a well-defined sense of who he is. missteps on his part or surprises by president trump -- if trump were able to show empathy and make a complex with questioners, didn't treat them as antagonist, but they were people trying to get him to help
them understand something so he could make a decision, if he pulled off that surprise that could be a benefit to him because biden is not locking in people. people are primarily for him because they're not for trump and they want to have change but if it suddenly becomes the wrong kind of change or trump's presence in the office becomes more palatable to them, biden's doesn't have deep allegiances among his voters. paul: briefly, karl, supreme court hearings next week likely to change much? i guess it would help the president just by changing the conversation. >> that's it, change the subject, the subject becomes the supreme court. it will highlight the unwillingness for reasons that are inexplicable to me for joe biden to answer the question are you going to pack the court and are you going to get rid of the 60 vote rule in the senate. this will help trump but he has to do more. paul: still ahead, the vice presidential candidates squaring off in salt lake city. our panel takes a closer look at their lines of attack and what
>> they knew you what was happening and they didn't tell you. can you imagine if you knew on january 28th as owe pose opposeo march 13th what they knew what you might have done to prepare? they knew and covered it up. the president said it was a hoax. they minimized the seriousness of it. >> joe biden and kamala harris want to raise taxes, want to bury our economy under a $2 trillion green new deal which you were one of the original
co-sponsors of in the united states senate. they want to abolish fossil fuels and ban fracking which would cost hundreds of thousands of american jobs all across the heartland. paul: the vice presidential nominees squaring off this week in their first and only debate. senator kamala harris attacking the trump administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic and vice president mike pence accusing the democratic ticket of pushing a far left policy agenda. let's bring in our panel, wall street journal columnist, dan henninger, columnist kim strassel and editorial board member, kyle peterson. dan, seems to me this debate showed, again, what has been the democratic strategy all along. boils down to me to two words, could individual and donald trump's character and that's pretty much it. you throw in healthcare but that's about it. but it's working for them. how do you see it going?
>> yeah, i'd say that was the strategy going in and not only that, but kamala harris proved that their strategy is to say pretty much anything they want about donald trump. i mean, they blame him for more than 200,000 -- personally for more than 200,000 deaths from the coronavirus. she claimed that his trade deal with china has cost the united states 300,000 jobs. there's no real fact checking going on there. so yeah, they're getting away with it. but i think mike pence showed that the problem on the other side is that joe biden has essentially been running for president as casper the friendly ghost. you can barely make out who hes is or where he is. as mike pence made clear, there is a set of policies relating to climate, the green new deal, abortion, taxes, that align this
cacandidacy with the far left of the policy with bernie sanders and aoc. that has not been -- lines have not been clearly drawn and i think mike pence did a good job of trying to make some distinctions that need to be made by the trump campaign. paul: kim, on that point, it astonishes me that the -- you have a major party candidate. he's not running on any policies that i can tell other than he's not donald trump, wants to return to normalcy, and he has a better plan on covid-19, although the plan that i see looks a lot like donald trump's plan for covid-19, other than a national mask mandate. that's the difference that i can detect. but he's going to have a mandate for doing something about covid and for not being donald trump. but what else is he running on? everything else is, well, let's not talk about that. >> well, he doesn't want to talk about it and that gets back to the overriding story of the last years which has been the split in the democratic party and his
you agenda is a problem for him. it was essentially defined in large part by the man he defeated in the primary, bernie sanders, who helped come up with the ultimate biden agenda to make peace in the party and the problem biden has is that that agenda is radical. it threatens to scare average americans. but if he doesn't talk about it or if he disavows it he turns off progressives who he needs to come out and vote for him. and so he just doesn't talk about it at all. what was important about the debates was mike pence teased it out, on energy, on taxes, on the supreme court, those kind of far left positions and they didn't have much of an answer for him. for many americans that might have been one of the first time they were hearing about joe biden's agenda. paul: where else do you think, kyle, did pence open up some of potential debate going forward in the last three and-a-half weeks of the campaign? let's start with the supreme court court packing. kamala harris avoided answering
that question just like joe biden had. how big an opening is that for the republicans? >> i think it gets to be a bigger opening, the more times they refuse to answer that question. joe biden after the debate said you'll know my opinion on this after the election and the more he says that, the more i think people are going to wonder what he's hiding. as far as pence's performance, the thing i think he did of of so well was being specific on things, giving people at home something they can google later, like when he said -- he went after the obama's administration's response to the h1n1 flu and quoted biden's former chief of staff, saying that they didn't do a very good i don'job. and when he said according to newsweek, kamala harris is the left ward most senator in the united states senate, to the left of bernie sanders. and maybe you can quibble with that ranking. i bet a lot of people wondered i wonder if that's true and a typed that into their internet search bar. paul: they wouldn't have heard of that from any of the news
reporting. pence's discipline and specificity as kyle pointed out seems to me -- i think he's exactly right, pence was excellent. but the president just doesn't have a consistent message. i know a lot of listeners may not want to hear it. he's tweeting for example on friday about gretchen whitmer the governor of michigan who you attacked him again, but people don't care about that. what they want to know is what car rove said, what are -- karl rove said, what are you going to do for a second term and what are the differences from biden. >> that brings up the issue of whether donald trump should or should not participate in the townhall next week, whether it's virtual or real. i happen to think that president trump does very well in the townhalls i've seen him perform in. he's relaxed. he relates to people. he talks a little bit more in a kind of extended way about the subjects that are brought up. i think it's kind of a mistake on their part not to do that
because i think it's an opportunity for the president to do exactly what you're saying. empathize with people, talk about these things in a way that they can understand. paul: all right. thank you. when we come back, president trump's critics accusing him of not taking covid-19 seriously even after contracting the virus himself. so has the president's response to his own diagnosis fit the public mood? our panel debates, next. (vo) businesses are always making choices.
as he recovers from the virus himself. the president urging americans in a tweet monday not to be afraid of covid and not to let it dominate their lives. critics say that message downplays the threat that it poses but supporters insist the president is simply trying to project optimism as americans learn to live with the virus. so does his message fit the public mood? kim, obviously covid dominating the news since the president's diagnosis. how well do you think he's responding? >> well, i mean, i'm neither critic nor supporter. i think all of this is just incredibly overwrought. the president got out, he said i am doing better. he thanked the healthcare professionals around the world that are doing all the work that they are and those at walter reed who treated him. he celebrated american ingentlemen new at this with all of the -- ingenuity with all of the therapeutics we have. he said look, yes, be careful
but don't let this dominate your life. i think a lot of americans would be more appreciative of a leader who is celebrating america's ability to get through things rather than tell them to cower in fear. paul: kyle, what's your view? i want to point out what kamala harris said in the previous block, in the debate, about trump saying that covid was a hoax. he never said that. that's a distortion of what he said. but what do you think about the last week, because this has put covid front and center and as you know, there are millions of american seniors out there in particular who feel particularly vulnerable to covid. >> well, i think the critics have two reasonable points. one is that trump was treated with an antibody cocktail that is not available to the general public and hopefully it will be soon. but the second is, i agree with the message, don't let it dominate your life. but that sort of implies also taking prudent measures to protect yourself and your family and your workplace. and there's a renale recen reces
two-thirds of americans think the president did not act responsibly and the result of that has been a flurry of headlines about who is positive, trump is positive, melania is positive, the body man is positive, the campaign manager is positive, other aides whose names people know, and i think people think to themselves the president of the united states, he's the president, he's the most powerful man in the world but he's also a 74-year-old grandfather and he should have taken more precautions than he did. paul: kim, what do you think of that? >> well, you know, look, we're treading into the mask territory here. we're talking about if anyone can prove that if everybody had been wearing a mask, nobody would have got this, you know, and that's the dominant theme you see in the media. the one thing that's still a problem out there is any kind of hard research, random clinical trials that explain just how quality that actual assertion is. look, this is a white house. it does the people's business.
a lot of people are running in and out of it all of the time. is there some sort of moral failure that somebody got a disease? that is one of the weird places we have gone with this. instead of i think talking about the fact that the president got this and has recovered, he has a better experience of what it means now, instead we're talking about pointing fingers and blame and i'm just not sure we've ever done that before in a question of infectious disease. paul: before i get to dan to adjudicate this, kyle, you get another shot here. kim makes obviously reasonable points, i guess what i -- one point i would -- some point the people have made is that rose garden ceremony for the supreme court, there was no social distancing for sure and very little mask wearing. >> right. and i don't think it's a matter of casting moral blame on anybody but you didn't have to have a rose garden ceremony with 200 or so people there. you could have had a smaller ceremony and it's interesting,
so mitch mcconnell this week made news when he says he hasn't been of to the white house since august. he's four years older than trump. he said it was his perception that the white house had a different approach to coronavirus precautions than he was taking in his life. paul: dan, where do you come out on this? >> well, the president's numbers on the coronavirus aren't good. so there's that reality. paul, i think maybe we're at a tipping point on this. the key thing the president said is don't let it dominate your life. here in new york city, we've had the positivity rate rise above 3% in nine or 10 neighborhoods. governor cuomo ordered shutdowns of schools and churches. we have revolts in the streets going on, parents, public school parents, lawsuits have been filed against andrew cuomo. similar protests are taking place in colorado, in los angeles.
i think the american people are at a breaking point on the shutdowns and there's an opportunity for the president if he explains it properly to make an argument on behalf of learning to live with the coronavirus. paul: yeah. i mean, the democrats have a contradiction. they blame trump for the job losses caused by the lockdowns that the democrats support. i mean, that ought to be a pretty simple argument for trump to make. all right. when we come back, it's full speed ahead as supreme court confirmation hearings begin for judge amy coney barrett. so what should we expect as the senate judiciary committee begins its work on monday amid the coronavirus concerns. if it's not safe for the senate to meet in session, it's not safe for the hearings to go forward. a virtual hearing is virtually no hearing at all. is that net carbs or total?... eh, not enough fiber... chocolate would be good... snacking should be sweet and simple.
>> mitch mcconnell seems to be jamming through the hearings on amy coney barrett even though three senators have covid, even though he has said it's not safe for the senate to meet in session, but it's okay to have the hearings. it makes no sense. if it's not safe for the senate to meet in session, it's not safe for the hearings to go forward. and the idea of having virtual hearings where no one is with
the witness for the highest court in the land, for a life appointment that would have such effect on people's lives, makes no sense. paul: the senate judiciary committee set to begin hearings monday on the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to the supreme court. a much anticipated showdown taking a somewhat different form as coronavirus concerns force some senators to attend the hearings remotely. so what can we expect when the committee convenes on monday? let's ask greg munziotta, he served as chief nominations counsel for the senate judiciary committee where he played a leading role in the confirmation of john roberts and justice samuel alito. good to see you again. with the monday hearings, very tight schedule, obviously, between now and the election for hearings and then debate on the floor. can they get it done? >> yeah, they certainly can get it done. it's true, this is going to be a
swifter confirmation process than we've seen for the last several supreme court justices, but not at all unprecedented. it's a timeline that's pretty close to the one followed for ruth bader ginsburg in fact and before that, before the fights got truly nasty in the reagan years, confirmation processes used to take a matter of weeks or days. so there's nothing really historically unusual about it. it's just a little tighter, part of how they shape time off was starting the formal process of the hearings earlier and they're able to do that because in part they considered this woman for a confirmation to her current position just three years ago so the senate and the committee has already completed a very extensive vet of judge barrett, just three years ago. so this process for them is largely updating that file. so they're ready to get going quickly. paul: so take us through the timeline. we start monday, we have four days of planned hearings and the committee has to vote.
when would you expect, anticipate a committee vote? >> a little over a week after that. what has to happen by the committee rules is you put the nomination that's been considered in a hearing on the agenda and the minority has the right to object to voting on that nominee the first time she appears on the agenda which has the effect of pushing the nomination back a week to the next meeting of the committee. but they will be able to hit, barring the unforeseen and the unforeseen does happen in supreme court confirmation process. paul: tell me about it. [ laughter ] >> right. but we've seen in the past the need to come back for supplementary hearings and these things can happen. but if nothing unexpected happens, they can hit all their posts, all the stuff that we're used to, the hearings, the debate in the committee, the debate in the senate, and the final vote and get it done that week before the election. paul: so when a vote comes, so the democrats can delay it by one week in committee. okay. then you have the committee vote which would be week after next,
later that week and then how fast can it go to the floor of the senate? >> a matter of days. matter of days. it can get done pretty quickly. there will be some debate. there will be most senators will want to speak on the nomination for a period of time. but two or three days in the t senate and then we should see a vote and remember, there's no longer a filibuster. we just need a minority -- sorry, majority of senators to support the nominee and it looks like senator mcconnell and republicans have that majority of. paul: and the -- what do you expect to hear from the democrats next week? it's interesting to me that when i hear them in the run-up to it, they're not going after her personally in the way that they have some of the other -- some of the male, bluntly, candidates, nominees for the supreme court. they're focusing an more of a parade of horribles of what will happen if she is confirmed on all kinds of issues like healthcare, abortion and so on. is that what you expect to hear? >> yeah, i think certainly the
leadership of the democrats want the focus to be on issues that they believe will resonate in the fall elections, abortion is one of them, more important i think from their perspective is healthcare. and i think they would be wise to try to do that because personal attacks really do backfire and some members on committee may be tempted to do the personal attacks because they resonate with the base. but i think owe opposing parties should learn historically that these things backfire and nominees tend to get sympathy from the american people not be diminished. on the policy issues, they're going to try to do it. it's probably their strongest play. but i think their hand is not as strong as they believe it to be. judge barrett is going to be able to speak through her academic writings, her decisions, and very precise ways and in ways that make it kind of very clear that what she's written is quite reasonable,
quite balanced. often legally technical and it's just not reflected by the hyperbole that democrats are going to try to place on it. paul: if somebody, if a senator asks judge barrett to declare herself on whether or not she would repeal a prominent supreme court precedent, let's say just, oh, roe v wade and josh holly, for example, a republican from missouri has previously said he wasn't going to vote for anybody who didn't declare opposition to roe v wade. now he's backed down from that in judge barrett's case. but if a senator does ask that question, what do you expect to hear her say and should she just say i can't commit myself? >> you know, there's been a long norm in these hearings that nominees can't give hints or suggestions on how they're going to actually decide cases that might come before them. justice ginsburg was particularly firm on that in her confirmation hearing and many nominees repeated her phrasing
so i'm sure that judge barrett would refuse to answer direct questions. but she's actually really well -- unusually well prepared to talk about how she would approach existing precedent. she's written about that question i think more than any supreme court nominee we've seen in recent years. and she's multiple, very thought provoking law review articles on how to handle precedent and originalists have a wide range of views on this. some think that the job of the judge is always to get the law right, regardless of precedents. judge barrett clearly doesn't think that. from her writings she's clearly in line with more pragmatic originalists like her old boss, justice scalia or chief justice rehnquist, both of whom thought there were occasions when a court should uphold a precedent, especially when a decision has become well embedded in the legal tap industry of our country or which the american people really rely on, as they
go about their lives. so she can talk at great length as she has in writings and with students about how to respect precedent and when. paul: thanks so much for joltincomingin. still ahead, democrats hone their you attacks against judge barrett after an unsuccessful attempt to postpone next week's hearings. our panel weighs in on what might work and what might backfire as they try to push a final confirmation vote until after election day. did you know you can go to libertymutual.com to customizes your car insurance so you 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. ♪
are your asthma treatments just not enough? then see what could open up for you with fasenra. it is not a steroid or inhaler. it is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. it's an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. nearly 7 out of 10 adults with asthma may have elevated eosinophils. fasenra is designed to target and remove eosinophils, a key cause of asthma. it helps to prevent asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can reduce the need for oral steroids like prednisone. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. could you be living a bigger life? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra.
that i've started to do on ancestry. having ancestry to fill in the gaps with documents, with photographs, connecting in real time means that we're having conversations that are richer. i have now a closer relationship with my grandfather. i can't think of a better gift to give to my daughter and the generations that come after her. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com
paul: judge amy coney barrett speaking by phone with a half a dozen democrats on the senate judiciary committee in recent days. as both sides gear up for next week's confirmation hearings. democrats focusing on the issues of aborings and healthcare -- abortion and healthcare as they frame their opposition to president trump's nominee.
will attacks on her faith be off the table in next week's showdown. we're back with da dan henninge, kim strassel and kyle peterson. do you expect a reprise from the anti-catholic attacks from her appellate court nomination hearing or is that going to be off? >> well, i expect the leadership hopes there will be none of that because i agree that would backfire in the middle of an election year. the question i think is whether anybody will be able to not resist going there. but aside from that, i mean, i think there will be some -- you're starting to hear some attacks on her as being too inexperienced. that she's only been a judge for three years instead of a decade or something like that. i just don't think will wash very well especially when she gets up in front of the committee and i think she'll be very knowledgeable about the constitutional issues she'll be facing. paul: that inexperience point, i remember justice thomas was on the appellate bench i think only for a year before he was
nominated. i mean, three years -- is that going to have any chance of working, the inexperience argument? >> no, i don't think it does. but they are -- i think they're sort of grasping at straws because she seems like a solid nominee. she seems like someone who knows the issues and republicans appear to have the votes. so the democrats i think are trying to get whatever they can out there to show that they're putting up some opposition. paul: dan, the parade of horribles i mentioned to ruts to greg nungregg nunziatta, your an rights will be taken away, healthcare will be taken away, affirmative action will be taken away, voting rights will be taken away, sounds like they're running basically an election campaign, they're really not trying to defeat judge barrett. >> i think that's precisely what's going on. they don't -- they're not going to be able to defeat judge barrett so i think she herself is secondary. i do not think there will be any
attacks on her catholicism because even liberal catholics draw the line at crude stereotypes like that. but i think those senators, the democratic senators will be talking about the current supreme court case, it could come up, thats has to do with pre-existing conditions. they will be talking a lot about gun violence. the audience for those speeches is going to be the general electorate, presumably will be tuning in to watch, as well as voters in battleground senate campaigns such as susan collins in maine, cory gardner in colorado, thom tillis in north carolina. that's who i think is what is going to be the audience for a lot of these speeches about gun violence and abortion and healthcare especially. overand over again, they're going to try to tip those races against the republican senators who are in very close races. paul: kim, on this, the healthcare bill, this is a case
that comes out of attorney generals, republican attorney generals. i argues you can overturn the affordable care act. i would bet you a hundred bucks right here that there is zero chance, i mean zero chance that the supreme court is going to overturn obamacare. they might overturn the mandate tax, but they'll severe that from the rest of the bill and the bill will survive. how long am -- how wrong am i? >> i'm not going to take that bet. i think there's a very high probability that this is what happens. then you have to ask yourself two things about republicans and healthcare. one, why over the past you few years have they not invested their time in actually coming up with their own healthcare alternative that they can put out and run on? and two, therefore, why did they instead revert to this lawsuit which has now come and become
ready right at the moment we're having an a election and allows democrats to pile on this issue of pre-existing conditions and other things that are still republican vulnerabilities. so expect the court hearings to revolve around this and this will be one issue in which this was something republicans handed to them. paul: another issue that's going to come up, kyle, is democrats are going to seek to get her to declare, to recuse herself from any election, post-election cases involving controversies over the election. should she recuse herself and will she? >> no, i don't think she should and i don't think she will. i mean, the standard is whether you're conflicted or there's a perception you're conflicted in a specific case and there's a long line of stories, opinions on this. for example, scalia not recusing in a lawsuit where it involved cheney who he had gone hunting
with but the legal standard for recusal is pretty specific and i don't think this meets it. paul: dan, just briefly, we've got about 30 seconds. the supreme court packing threat by the democrats, biden and kamala harris don't want to talk about it. how seriously should we take it? >> i think we should take it fairly seriously. it would be a big step for the democrats to take. it would be very disruptive of the system. you know, it alliance with the idea that they might then try to admit washington d.c. and puerto rico and bring in four more democratic senators. i think if they were to win the election and win control of the senate, that is not going to be their highest priority. they'll have a lot of policies that they want to get to before packing the senate of the supreme court. paul: i think you're right. but wait until the supreme court
makes a controversial ruling they don't like. then we'll see whether they'll do it. still ahead, director of national intelligence john ratcliffe releasing more documents in the trump russia probe. what we learned this week about the cia's role when we come back. staying on top of your game takes a plan. that's why at aetna, we take a total, connected approach to your health and wellness. with medicare advantage plans designed to surround you with the care you need every day. aetna medicare advantage plans.
paul: new documents released this week by the director of national intelligence showing that former cia director john brennan briefed former president obama on a purported plan by the clinton campaign to tie then candidate donald trump to russia ahead of the 2016 presidential election. dni john ratcliffe declassified brennan's hand written notes as well as a cia memo which revealed officials referred to the matter to the fbi for potential investigate action. hillary clinton denied any such
plan and ratcliffe has said that they don't know if that in fact was true. but john brennan believed it enough to brief the president of the united states. how important is this? >> well, right. and the cia was concerned enough about it to send an investigative referral directly to jim comey at the fbi. and this to me is the most stunning aspect of this news. put aside the question of whether or not the clinton allegation is true. the fbi did nothing to investigate this. so think about this, paul. they are five weeks into an unprecedented counter intelligence investigation into a presidential campaign. they get a tip from the cia that the allegations were potentially fabricated by the rival campaign. and they don't even bother to look into it. and i think that raises real questions of the fbi either about competence or bias. paul: james comey who was director at the time testified to -- on capitol hill the other
day, was asked about this. he said, you know, i really just don't recall that memo. don't really remember. does that wash? i mean, he's a smart guy. >> it doesn't wash at all. especially if you think about what jim comey can remember. i mean, this is a guy who has basically admitted to micro managing every aspect of the hillary clinton server investigation that went before him, down to actually writing some of the words of her exoneration and gaming out how he was going to go around his superiors to give that infamous press conference. it's very hard to credit jim comey's selective memory on these things and that was really a stand-out moment at that hearing. paul: so what -- put this in the larger context of the overall russia probe. is this something that is -- we're going to learn a lot more about here in the coming weeks or not? >> well, look, first of all, i think what everything adds up to in the past couple weeks of
releases is a picture is growing here of an fbi that was warned again and again and again, all through september, october, november, december, even past inauguration that it was going down the wrong road, that had no basis to engage in this. and yet it blew through every one of those stop signs. now, i think the question that still remains unanswered and this goes more to john durham and his investigation is what preceded that investigation. what politics was involved? was all of this done by the book? was there a reasonable reason to even begin this investigation to start with? paul: and durham though, everything he's releasing will be put off until after the election but we could get crucial documents before the election from ratcliffe, is that a correct understanding? >> yeah, i think we will see more disclosure. there is a process going on right now to see what aspects of durham's investigation are still ongoing and so therefore you don't necessarily want to
undermine them but what piece is it okay that you could put more information out to the public? and i think that, look, as these documents show, that information is crucial as we head into this election. paul: dan, john johnson said, the senator this week, called it an attempted coup. is that too strong, in your view? >> you know, that's a strong word of, paul. and i think we're getting to the point where we have to come to grips with the implications of something like that. conservative concern across the decades has always been about the dangers of the permanent bureaucracy which are real enough. but i think what we've seen here in the last several years is not merely the permanent bureaucracy but the agencies like the cia, the obama white house, raising the question of whether something like the deep state does exist in washington and it is a problem that the political system is indeed going to have to address. paul: sure is. we have to take one more break.
for hits and myses. start us off. kimberley: this is a stunt. the speaker knows she doesn't have a snowball chance to pass it. in this case the president's health, something that they have been doing for months it's all becoming a bit beyond the pail. paul: but she said it has nothing to do with the election. kyle: i would give a miss on announcement that he won't run in 2022.
ban stock buybacks and pat toomey is one to have voices that keep the places economically grounded and he's been in washington for 18 years, okay, give the guy a rest but conservatives will miss him when he's gone. paul: dan, i am giving a miss to illinois governor, state democrats are trying to get rid of a few things keeping people in the state and is income tax of 4.9%. the state has $137 billion and unfunded pension like -- liabils and putting referendum for steeply progressive income tax. i'm afraid if it goes through, paul, the u hauls will be moving out to illinois to take people out. paul: the destruction of illinois is a real tragedy. you have your own hit or miss, be sure to tweet it to us at jer
jer@fnc. i'm paul gigot, hope to see you right here next week. ♪ ♪ i'm feeling great. i don't know how you? how is everyone feeling? good? we are starting really big with our rallies and everything because we cannot allow our country to become a socialist nation. we cannot let that happen. sleepy joe biden has betrayed black and latino americans, if you think he can run the country, you're wrong. eric: you heard president trump saying he feels great. he's back up there on the balcony speaking to a crowd of supporters at the white house just within the last 2 hours. you know it was first in-person event since the president tested positive for covid-19 on october 1st. he doubled down on his law and order theme