benjamin hall, in london. thank you. >> sandra: that was a heck of a week. [laughs] happy friday to you. >> jon: good working with you today. >> sandra: you, too. we'll see you back here next week. have a great weekend. "outnumbered" starts now. >> julie: fox news alert, republicans are demanding to know which white house staffers spoke to the whistle-blower at the center of the complaint over president trump's call with ukraine's president. as democrats step up their impeachment inquiry. this is "outnumbered," i'm julie banderas. here today, fox business network anchor, dagen mcdowell. fox news contributor, lisa boothe. fox news contributor, jessica tarlov. joining us in the center of the couch, fox & friends weekend carlos, pete hegseth. he is "outnumbered." let's get going here. first of all, this is a very busy week. is it friday? >> lisa: i thought it was slow! >> julie: friday came quickly, i have to say. we will talk about a lot of things going on, meaning republicans. they are questioning now.

why is this a second party? that's a question. as "the new york times" is reporting that the whistle-blower is a cia officer, detailed to the white house. now new video obtained by bloomberg showing that president trump slammed the whistle-blower during a private event in new york city yesterday. watch this. speak out the person became the whistle-blower, you know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? we used to handle it a little to family than we do now. those people are sick. they are sick. >> julie: some g.o.p. lawmakers suggesting the whistle-blower complaint is part of a much larger effort against the president. >> if you really want to get to the truth, i guess we have to find out who the whistle-blower talk to. i would like to know who helped the whistle-blower put together the complaint, because it surely seemed to have been written by someone of high professional

abilities. it seemed like a legal document. >> julie: democrats accusing the white house of the cover-up. watch. speak of the current strips with ukrainian president, which were in an open system that white house employers could access, or moved into a top-secret covert action system, which is not to be used for political reasons or to protect anyone. only for the most sensitive secrets, which i think shows a consciousness of guilt. >> julie: meantime, we are of any more about the timing of events surrounding that ukraine called with the president. sox confirming at least one senior doj official was made aware of that call at least ten days before the complaint was turned over. that official went to the white house to read the transcript of the call. now we're getting a detailed timeline of all this. we are also getting this interesting report from "the new york times," which is a bit concerning to me. that this is a cia officer. because you are not outing somebody. how hard is it to figure out who this person within the cia is?

the question is, does the whistle-blower's identity get protected as much as it should, considering this was a secondhand account and not firsthand? jessica? five you would hope so. it's concerning for everybody, that we know that they were at the white house and is now back at cia headquarters. that is something that dni maguire was talking about that was incredibly important. we know michael atkinson, the idea for some of the complaint and did the two peaks of research afterwards to corroborate what he heard from the whistle-blower, he is concerned about that. there are some he twists and turns to the story, it's hard to focus on one thing. getting the timeline obviously matters, but the new information we got in from yesterday about the president directing nsc lawyers to store the information about the call in a top-secret clearance area, so people would be looking at it, is deeply concerning. >> julie: i need to read from the whistle-blower protection act. that doesn't address this whistle-blower come out of this personal health information. this is the intelligence

community was similar act. the ic wpa. it states that the ig rc must be in possession of her level firsthand information, not secondhand knowledge of wrongdoing. not information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee since they witnessed some type of wrongdoing. does this person then deserve the same protection, because this is secondhand information? >> pete: i don't think so. we have used the phrase "whistle-blower," and i know it's become legal because it was conferred upon this person properly or improperly. we no space and hearsay, secondhand. i believe whoever is individual is is a leaker who used a legal process. this is information they felt would be damaging to the president. we are hearing there were political motivations for this person at one level or another. there is a process, you can get it out and leak it to the press. it turns out it's legal. so he heard steps, he lawyered up, and he went through the whistle-blower process. so mistakes were made in giving this person, whoever it is, that

kind of title that gives them a shield. gives them credibility. who are the hearsayers? who turned this information in? if you are the president of the united states, you're mad and that private phone calls with foreign leaders are making their way -- >> jessica: but it doesn't matter that there was an alleged -- we read the memorandum, it wasn't too transcript -- an alleged abuse of power by the presidency. a request for interference so i could interference in an election. >> pete: that's not ultimately what happened in the call. >> jessica: it is, actually. >> lisa: the justice department criminal division took a look at this and found that they didn't believe there was anything there on campaign finance violations. these are career prosecutors that took a look -- >> jessica: also didn't know -- >> lisa: we also had kenneth vogel, retreated from "the new york times" last night that the ukrainians were not made aware of the assistance being delayed or reviewed until one month after the call, which i also think changes the context of the conversation a little bit, as well. additionally, i think we should question the whistle-blower, because we had the intelligence

inspector general said the whistle-blower had a political animus and actually preferred a political rival of president trump's. considering the fact that if you look at the context, even with the russia investigation, you see people like james comey, like brennan, peter strzok. all this people in that community who had a bias against present term. that's a concern, especially when the inspector general race that point himself. >> jessica: michael atkinson? >> lisa: the intelligence and sector general so that. it's in the olc opinion the release of the public. >> dagen: one thing jessica said to dotson is and cross some ts, let's call it what it is. in the whistle-blower confront don my complaint, delegation pay the transcript was moved. the report is out. john roberts mentioned this on "special report," that the trump administration began to basing

transcripts with several foreigs and highly classified repositories after leakers publicly divulge the contents of trumps private calls with leaders of mexico and australia. in 2017. there is exhalation to this. at the end of the day, does that was a boy does or protections? the point is that this is moving ahead in the way that it should. we publicly do not know who this individual is. this individual will likely be testifying before the senate and house intelligence committees at some point. maybe that happens in a matter of days. the point is, this is progressing as it should. and the reason there is no cover-up is because we have found out about all this, because the transcript of this call -- you want to call it a memorandum. the memo of this call was

revealed by the white house. >> pete: released. >> dagen: that the complaint was released by the white house. again, you want to talk about transparency? the person who deserves protection is getting them. >> julie: we have to admit that was a primitive strike. because they knew the impeachment inquiry would be launched. >> dagen: we will get to that later. that begs the question, they announced the impeachment inquiry based on what? because nobody really knew any of this information. >> lisa: there was critical information also wrong in the whistle-blower report. the report said there wasn't anything of sensitive information on the call of president trump. that's not true. he talked to zelensky about other foreign leaders, also about russian sanctions. it was marked "sensitive," and president trump had to declassify to release it. that's a key, critical piece of information that was wrong. >> julie: but the information was already out there. giuliani appeared -- >> lisa: but it raises questions about that whistle-blower's current ability. >> julie: the information was

already out there. >> dagen: but some of the information we had before the transcript was released, based on newspaper reporting, wasn't right. it was inaccurate. just like the acting dni maguire, he threatened to quit. he said, "no, i didn't threaten to quit." a lot of the information being revealed by the white house, waiving executive privilege, if you will, it's because information out there has been wrong. >> jessica: you have to be honest with the fact that it is critical, when people say it's not cooperated and they're going after the whistle-blower -- what president trump said in that brick's meeting was disgusting. "we used to be able to do these things a little bit differently." when someone commits treason. no one has committed treason here. they are working to protect united states of america. they believe this president is abusing his office. you think this is funny? >> pete: this is the most visited investigated president ever. he's been under siege even before he was elected and they

still found no crimes. it's a pathetic obsession by the media, who got we are in front of their skis on this, reporting inaccurately on something they thought would be the silver bullet. once a white house release the end of her but he looked into it, it turned out leaders have conversations with foreign governments. >> jessica: doesn't concern you there is reporting that the president's own staff was trying to keep him off the phone with ukrainian president because they were worried was going to bring up vice president biden and hunter biden? doesn't that concern you that he use the words "reciprocity?" >> pete: maybe there was mass obstructions, like the clintons and the bite ands using their political influence to -- >> julie: maybe go to another source revenue to try and dig up information. is it proper to go to another world leader to -- >> jessica: of course not, it's foreign interference. >> lisa: to dagen's point earlier, who i think is absolutely right in this, there has been so much information that's incorrect and reported by

the media. everyone should take a bit of a step back, because the dynamics can change so much even next week. >> julie: i think the concern of leakers is another concern. more on that in a moment. first, president trump cashing in as impeachments dominate headlines. have democrats unwittingly become his biggest fund-raisers? plus, speaker pelosi is standing by her push for impeachment proceedings as district dems reportedly expressed concerns behind closed doors. >> nancy pelosi has been hijacked by the radical left, and everybody knows it. thank you. ♪ biopharmaceutical researchers.

pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

thand find inspiration who win new places.ct... leading them to discover: we're woven together by the moments we share. everything you need, all in one place. expedia. our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.

>> it's about national security

for our country. the president of the united states being disloyal to his oath of office, jeopardizing our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections. >> dagen: speaker nancy pelosi in her first televised interview since formally announcing an inquiry defending her decision to push ahead with impeachment. this, after freshman democrats in swing districts met with the speaker yesterday. they reportedly wanted guidance on how to handle the impeachment messaging to their constituents. meantime, members of the progressive squad headlined a pro-impeachment rally in the nation's capital yesterday. michigan congressman rashida tlaib led the crowd and they reprise of her more viral moments earlier this year when she used profane language about the president. >> you're not a king. you are elected. you are a public servant. we are ready to impeach [bleep]!

[applause] thank you all so much. >> dagen: pete hegseth, i wonder how those 30 or so carefully-chosen centrists who won the trump district are feeling about that glee fullness. >> pete: look at the code, there, huge. what, 20 people there? there's 20 people at that rally but they've been driving with speaker pelosi has been forced to do in that process. they couldn't beat him in 2016 since the beginning. but nancy pelosi has been forced to engage with the evidence. rush and mueller was supposed to deliver it on a silver platter. they were going to move forward and they had nothing. they leaked on this ukraine thing before the information came out, before they even got the memo or the transcript. they said, "this is our silver bullet." now you've got these vulnerable democrats in tougher districts with trump on the ballot who need help on how to message it? if you need help on how to message it, you don't believe it or you know you're in a bad place. in this case, they are. they are selling something people don't want.

they've been through the ringer. you go go to america, this is a white noise of nonsense. this they want to party that ser something. for the last few years, the democrat party -- that podium right there says everything about the mantra of the democrat party right now. it is "impeach," its trump derangement syndrome. how do you message that for people who want their country to move forward? >> dagen: now jessica is smiling i kind of laughing. [laughter] >> jessica: i do it all the time! if the democrats don't stand for anything, you wouldn't have won back in 2018. we won talking about health care. the republican party is the one that has nothing but "witch hunt," "trumped arrangement syndrome." by the way, it's a little derogatory. walls that are unpopular, migration immigration plans that are also in popular. a president who was popular. to your point about americans not wanting this -- i am someone who is very concerned about the

electoral implications of an impeachment inquiry, let alone a vote. you seen a 10% jump in support for impeachment nationwide since april. 39%, to 49%. this is argument people have been making, like what happened during nixon. when you have televised hearings at a public conversation about the high crimes and misdemeanors the president has committed that people will pay attention and public opinion will swing. >> dagen: to that point, in the nixon case and in the bill clinton case, and both of those cases, the full house voted to authorize the judiciary committee to investigate if impeachment was warranted. where's the vote here? because nancy pelosi is smart, and she's being careful, because she doesn't want to put democrats -- particularly centrist democrats -- on the record with a yea on impeachment when they don't have a very, very. >> lisa: she wants it both ways. if you look at the house rules, no committee has jurisdiction over impeachment.

that's why with nixon clinton the house took a full vote to give jurisdiction to the judiciary committee and set the parameters of the investigation. that hasn't happened because nancy pelosi doesn't want to put those democrats actually on the record on this issue. so she gets to placate the base while also not putting her moderate democrats in trouble. i think this is going to suck up all the oxygen. it will be difficult for democrats in these moderate districts, these previously republican-leaning districts, to talk about things like health care or about anything else. this will drive the conversation. if you look at 5:30 eight, it's an aggregate of all these polls going back to 2017. the vast majority of americans have been against this. those numbers even increased after mueller testified. >> julie: i think this part numbers are discrediting the democratic party. when i watch those rallies, and then screaming mother-f'er -- and they have those t-shirts.

if you're looking for something sweet to give her children. i don't know, i think pelosi is against a wall and a hard place. she is getting dictation from these junior freshmen congresswomen, and she has been on the line about this. i believe that when she came forward you might have jumped the gun a little bit, because the transcript hasn't been made public now. i think the purpose of this increase because they don't have all the answers. it is a response -- >> pete: your point, people look at this from the outside and say, "what answers are they still looking for?" there was a whole bob mueller investigation, we dragged the whole country through it. >> julie: i guess they are looking for the testimony from the whistle-blower. >> pete: there's always something else. "i need testimony, i need this transcript." and never ends. >> jessica: it does, because it's an abuse of power. some people think we should have another special counsel.

>> pete: [laughs] let's do that. >> jessica: okay. it's not funny to millions of americans. i'm just saying that. you need to also consider the fact there are many moderate democrats that are supportive now if the inquiry. there was the piece in "the washington post," seven democrats -- the majority of whom came from intelligence community backgrounds -- they publish it the night before nancy pelosi and out the inquiry, saying they are ready now for this period that they see this as a national security threat. >> pete: and i laugh at that. millions of people laugh at that, also. not you, but that idea that we should somehow take that seriously. >> jessica: i don't think people left veterans have served our country who are saying that -- >> lisa: of course not. >> jessica: but pete is saying that. >> lisa: when they wrote that transcript, there has not been high crimes and misdemeanors. you can say its review of an investigation. congress, go ahead. but to move forward with impeachment or even this fake impeachment inquiry, come on. >> dagen: i will add this -- "the wall street journal" wrote an editorial about this today. "that she was political accountability.

impeaching a president means nullifying the results of a presidential election trade which is correct american legitimacy. if they have an obligation to stand up and be counted in a way that the public can examine. "she went through her own husband's impeachments. now hillary clinton is back and sounding off on president trump in an interview set to air this weekend. is this just sour grapes? will be here more from her as 202020 heats up? >> we have known who donald trump is from some time now. we know he was a corrupt is this man who cheated people. ♪ i'm about to capture proof of the ivory billed woodpecker. what??? no, no no no no. battery power runs out.

lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't. guaranteed monthly income for life. nooooo! stimulant laxatives forcefully stimulate guaranteed monthly inci switched to miralax for my constipation. the nerves in your colon. miralax works with the water in your body to unblock your system naturally. and it doesn't cause bloating, cramping, gas, or sudden urgency. miralax. look for the pink cap. - cusfeel like they'reeople part of a team. my name is timothy chi and i'm the ceo of weddingwire. we're very proud customers of custom ink. we keep coming back to custom ink because of the quality of the product, the customer service, and the ease of use. that moment you walk in the office and people are wearing the same gear, you feel a sense of connectedness and belonging right away and our shirts from custom ink help bring us together.

- [announcer] custom ink has hundreds of products to help you look and feel like a team. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com

♪ >> and now she must, as she has explained, proceed with an impeachment inquiry into the president, who has betrayed his

oath of office to uphold the constitution and protect and defend our country. this occupant of the oval office poses a clear and present danger to our future. >> julie: hillary clinton saying there that she backs the impeachment inquiry against president trump. no supplies there. chiming in on the debate as someone who personally experienced the process with her husband's impeachment, back in 1998. in an interview promoting her new book, she wrote along with her daughter chelsea, every calling was a blur complaint incredibly troubling and post trump an illegitimate president who will be reelected. she also talked about losing them in 2016. >> it was like applying for a job in getting 66 million letters of recommendation, and losing to a corrupt human tornado. [laughter] >> jessica: now i'm laughing. >> julie: i will say it's a

bit ironic to hear hillary clinton talking about a president being impeached. i don't know, does that weight into the 2020 candidates? do you think this will be her way to help the campaigners? it doesn't seem they want to help. they never bring her name up on the debate stage. >> pete: does she think they want to help? i'm pretty sure they want her money and ability to fund raise. elizabeth warren isn't going to reach back to hillary clinton and say, "give me your playbook." she wasn't a good candidate to begin with. the whole idea of a "corrupt tornado," is a bit ironic. human tornado is right. donald trump is a human tornado at washington, d.c., the status quo of the ruling class, the way everything is in washington. that's why people elected him. they didn't want the clinton machine. they wanted the human tornado to go into the china shop and break a bunch of stuff and expose what's going on. he speaks differently than other presidents and people want to take him one way or another based on that.

so she's half right. but the corruption piece, for her to say that, she should just do her thing, so her book with her daughter. but if if you want the democras did when back in 2020, she shouldn't -- >> dagen: i will let just get in here. her lecturing people about corruption is like me giving folk lesson in diction. [b3 your diction is great ! >> dagen: not really! >> jessica: i take issue with the accusation that she is the correct one here. many of the things donald trump accused her of, factually, the stuff that she's done, he had a fig university, for instance. he had a fake charity. the clinton foundation has a letter a rating is it a point of maturity to make money? >> pete: the number of donations they achieve -- >> jessica: listens, accusations against the clintons for nepotism -- jared kushner's in charge of mideast policy while ivanka trump is racking up trademarks in china.

it's ludicrous. the point about hillary clinton, she is right -- 66 million americans voted for her. the way republicans talk about her discount that. it's very upsetting to many people who supported her and believed in her candidacy who didn't think it necessarily that she was a terrible candidate, but also wanted her policies. she does campaign for those who want her there, and she does a great service for them. the clintons -- say what you want about it, but you don't understand -- >> lisa: but she didn't win, jess. she didn't win the election. she's obviously still very bitter about it. >> jessica: okay. but that doesn't make her the of all your jokes. >> dagen: i was joking about myself, not her. >> dagen: that her corruption makes her addiction look good -- >> lisa: if you want to talk about election meddling, it was every clinton that colluded with the russians via paying for russian sources via the christopher steele. >> jessica: oh, my god. >> lisa: it's been well

documented by a politico investigation, as well as john solomon at "the hill," democrats seeking the help of ukrainians in 2016 in releasing information about paul manafort. >> jessica: i can't. >> lisa: it's a fact. >> jessica: it is not a fact. >> lisa: i will send you multiple investigations about this. >> jessica: i look forward to your email. >> lisa: he was the intermediary going to the ukrainian embassy to get information about paul manafort. they were the ones who release information about paul manafort that led to him stepping down, it was a bad piece of information for trump. specifically with the russian collusion narrative. that's document or, jess. >> jessica: bob mueller, document and many thanks, documented there was a russian interference in the selection to benefit donald trump. >> lisa: this ongoing investigations about this, as well, with john durham. >> jessica: including his own senate campaign manager come with a book about hell. "why don't you swing by trump tower cannot" >> pete: every really still talking about it? >> jessica: she was talking about this. >> pete: we are still bringing russia mueller stuff? to max

before she did. just a me know i'm not going crazy, did you say russia and democrats colluding first connect us for pete's information. >> lisa: i brought it up because contacts -- >> jessica: she brought it up. >> lisa: the context of the conversation is accusing president trump of trying to get the ukrainians to metal with 2020 in regard regard to joe biden. if you want to look at the facts, democrats are the ones who documented -- 's be when she's not a candidate, right? >> dagen: and reading her mind, i think. we've got a mind meld happening. the issue is, who does she benefit, other events in herself humping some books? allow democrats look at her and think that you are the reason -- meaning hillary clinton, that we've got donald trump. you are to blame. the people that hate the president the most should be blaming her all day long, every day. >> lisa: is also not what

about is whataboutism if she's actively out talking about this. >> julie: the democrat, the candidates, they are not talking about her. that says a lot about her impact. >> dagen: in the meantime, michelle obama got the best selling memoir of all time and is selling out stadiums. >> julie: maybe she should run for office. democratic donors on wall street are reportedly threatening to hold onto their cash, or even give it to president trump, if one particular candidate wins the democratic nomination. we will tell you who. ♪ without my medication, my small tremors would be extreme.

without it, i cannot write my name. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right. the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪ not owing anyone anything is the best feeling in the world, i cannot stop smiling about it

♪

♪ >> dagen: wall street democratic donors reportedly warning the party that elizabeth warren is a deal breaker for them in 2020. and if she is the nominee, they may even back president trump. some of those donors telling cnbc this week that they might

refuse to support the massachusetts senator, who wants to put a 2% wealth tax on families earning more than $50 million. wealth confiscation. this, as recent state and national polls show warren edging out of the pack, newly leading joe biden in making gains against bernie sanders. one senior finance executive saying this -- "you are in a box because you're a democrat, thinking you want up the party, but she's going to hurt me. so i'm going out president trump." do some background, it's not just about the wealth tax. it is about her going after internet companies, wanting to pick them up. it's about upending the entire energy business. destruction of millions of jobs, potentially climate change ideas. it's about destroying millions of jobs through medicare for all, which would get rid of private insurance. which she, frankly, since she plans to do. what do you make of this? does she need the money on the support from wall street finance securities and the like? >> jessica: she needs the

money, though she's not taking-value donor dollars. not working with any super pac. she's running a grassroots campaign here. she needs the votes more than anything. for democrats to put together a winning coalition, we need all the people who showed up for bill clinton and showed up for barack obama. they ran moderate centrist campaigns. that is really the danger there. i went to her rally at washington square park, and that's where she rolled out her line, "i'm not afraid, don't be afraid." you don't have to vote for somebody out of fear. but you do need to vote being cognizant of where the country is and how people are going to vote in critical states that we need to enact. that concern, i think, is quite real. >> dagen: pete? >> pete: these executives on wall street her democrats might be for a number of reasons. but they are not democrats because they are socialists. they are capitalists. they want to make money and increase their bottom line. elizabeth warren claims not to be a socialist, but her policies

nearly reflect identity what democratic socialist bernie sanders stands for. if you're a democrat in new york and you see the stock market going where it is, of the tax and regulatory changes that have helped business drive, it's tough to turn around and say, "i want to invest in a big government wealth tax." most people don't know what wealth taxes. that's not an income tax. its confiscation, every year of money that you have. these are radical ideas that wealthy people, democrat or not, are not going to like. speech he likely unconstitutional. i will turn this on its head. hillary clinton was the one who raised millions of dollars more from the securities industry. from the investment industry. hedge funds and private equity, versus president trump. he didn't need the money to enact. >> lisa: hillary clinton lacked the message and she lacked conviction. those are two things elizabeth warren does have. so actually think -- we see in lot of tribal officials think that joe biden, they would rather face elizabeth warren then joe biden. i think that's wrong. elizabeth warren is a much better candidate than joe biden,

who has no message. even a local i will report or say why iowans should vote for him over donald trump. that's not the guy you want out there. although elizabeth warren has her challenges. i think the pocahontas thing is a bigger deal than people make it out to be. extort nearly bad judgment on her behalf to try to put out this campaign rollout. undercoat it undercuts her message. >> julie: i would be concerned the big time donors will support me and they would rather support donald trump. that seems alarming. she's been a critic of big banks and corporations. i would also be allowed to aid you in needing the middle class, because not only does she want y that she wants to do this wealth tax, but she wants to rae taxes in order to make health care, which parts in a c. so she's alienating the democratic party. how to get a nomination? >> dagen: and union voters, if you want to take away their private health insurance. >> jessica: that's why britney created a carve-out for union

voters last night, stephen colbert has been the best journalist and getting to the bottom of what's going on with this medicare for all proposal and taxes going up on the middle class. he was the only one that really went at elizabeth warren about this. bernie sanders was on last night and he answered honestly. see to her answer was kind of like -- [laughter] >> pete: you're right. i would note one thing you mentioned about elizabeth warren's fund-raising and grassroots. she raised a bunch of corporate -- >> jessica: from her settlement money. >> pete: g string to have her cake and eat it too. >> jessica: a take that point there was a big point in the "the washington post" about that. it's not reminiscent of deplorables we have to talk about you have to be careful about how you talk to people whe for you. if you're demonizing entire industries, those people leave and we do. i'm not passing judgment on tha that. >> dagen: you can't go to a fund-raiser with a bunch of

hedge fund managers. if you are elizabeth warren, the optics would be, well, awful. could democrats' decision to launch an impeachment inquiry against president trump be backfiring? ahead, a new report on how some trump supporter's are fighting back with their wallets. big time. ♪ if you live with diabetes, why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us you can do it without fingersticks. and you'll experience a whole new range of emotions like... of a travel site

the relaxing feeling of knowing you're getting the best price. and the magic power of unlocking your room with your phone. i can read minds too. really? book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee.

>> dagen: this fox news alert, democratic congresswoman in 20 presidential candidate, tulsi gabbard, now backing the impeachment inquiry against president trump. should have been holding on for support and that just a few days ago, sitting impeachments would be terribly divisive for the country. also expressing concern over the electoral consequences. said at that point there was no compelling case. well, in a statement that congresswoman gabbard has put out, "up to this point, i have been opposed to pursuing impeachment because it will further divide are already badly divided country." but she adds, "however, after looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with ukraine's president, the whistle-blower complaint, the

inspector general memo, and president trump's comments about the issue, unfortunately i believe that if you do not proceed with the inquiry it will set a very dangerous precedent." i will leave it at that. again, tulsi gabbard now getting behind the impeachment process by the democrats in the house. i will add, she did qualify for the democratic debate next month. so maybe the timing is related to that. speaker democrats are doing everything they can to try and get rid of a legitimate president, some of that was elected by the people, someone that they know they are going to have a very hard time beating in 2020. i think it's infuriating to people, they are showing their frustration by doing into our campaign. so we would like to say thank you to the democrats for that. >> jessica: you're welcome. [laughter] president trump is cashing in on speaker pelosi lodging a formal impeachment inquiry. the president's 2020 campaign and the rnc reportedly raising for $2 million since pelosi's announcement on tuesday.

democrats also cashing in themselves. the fund-raising group reports it raised nearly $5 million in donations on tuesday after taking in more than $4 million the day before. i didn't need to see that we've been having this conversation for a long time about the rnc numbers. the rnc has been beating the dnc's butt in fund-raising, but we have a bunch of candidates running for the people are dirt into their individual candidate candidates. how important is this early lead, though, in cash for donald trump? >> pete: what you said is probably true. the monies being split on the democrat side. we've known, especially as this impeachment talk has drummed on, this will be a base election. this will be the election widely accept what you can galvanize and motivate your people to get them out, you make an appeal to the people in the middle. are you better off now than you were four years ago? that will be president trump's response, and democrats will hopefully maybe eventually find their message, other than

impeachment. this is an indication that people are still highly motivated by a man they said they sent it to disrupt washington. they believe he has kept his offices in the face of an ounce of the the no president has evr seen. in writing $5 checks to a billionaire. that's because they believe in them and they see what democrats are doing. five if it's a base election, and the nominee is warren, how do you think it'll work getting back to the middle? >> dagen: you got ahead of yourself there. [laughs] you have if it is warren! >> lisa: i think for a trump does come down to the economy. it makes it more difficult. for impeachment, it'll fire both sides. they're going to get fired up, donate, get out there. it's the people in the middle. those independents, swing voters, those counties in iowa, pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, that president trump flipped. those of the people fighting for it. who knows where they will end up coming down on the issue of

impeachment? we will all be watching the polls. >> jessica: always say -- and dig in, a comment on this -- the supreme court is an issue that democrats should be campaigning on more. if donald trump wins another four years, that's a seat or two. not that anyone is dying, but maybe retiring. >> dagen: talk to me about the economy and how you make it better than it already is. >> jessica: i will tell you of a break. [laughter] high-profile university opening -- this is a real quote. "a kindness institute" to teach how to show respect and empathy. is this a sort of thing that will gifts don might give a good bang for your student at bucks connect people we will will debate it kindly, next. ♪ saturdays happen. pain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven better on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.

today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

["cruel to be kind"] ♪ >> lisa: they say little kindness goes a long way.

how far can it go on $20 million? that's how much a wealthy couple gave ucla to open its new kindness institute. i'm being serious. schools chancellor says it will take an interdisciplinary approach to teaching students to "reach across lines of difference and treat one another with empathy and respect." and ultimately build more humane societies." i got the word right. we were wondering that on the brink. [laughter] julie, do you need $20 million to study this? why? you one i'm a mom, pay me $20 million and i will teach you about kindness! they have anthropologists to teach and examine how kindness runs from person to person. no cut, not kidding. for kind of somebody, most likely they will be be kind back unless they are a jerk. they should talk to them. there you go, $20 million. i want my check. b3 dagen, during the break you said you will all migrate to this. why? speech

erie >> dagen: i try to practice this in my daily life. kindness as it used to be called church where your place of worship. now come in the secular society, we have to rely on college professors to teach us what the bible did, where i went to church. ever since my mother got sick, i really do practice this every single day. i have turned new york city into a small town. i saw a perfect strangers and tell them they looked nice. if you smile at them, they will smile. >> julie: >> julie: kindness is contagious. you don't need -- >> lisa: this is a couples money on this so they want it spent page they take their findings to congress? [laughs] >> pete: they can spend the many wherever they want. is ucla a kindergarten now connect human kindness in kindergarten. you learned it from your parents. they teach you to be kind and respect was of the people. you learned it from your churches. because we stripped all of this, and we put social media out of it, we coddle our kids and put them in self safe places, theyt

know how to interact properly with other people and suddenly got a kindness institute. the five i went to a school called the real doll like red schoolhouse. if the political affiliation was more obvious. it went also to things and i seem to be coping find. i'm kind others. >> pete: your parents probably taught you. >> lisa: your mom is lovely. >> jessica: judy is the best. their mission is to study how human interaction affects society. i think that links in the social media. you can look at cultures doing better because people do have more interaction, because they have more diversity, because they have been taught tolerance. it's more of an active -- >> dagen: you do need this in a way, because social media is essentially a cauldron of buttheads. [laughter] it's not a kind and sensitive, it's a "how not to be a jerk" institute. >> pete: we renamed it!

>> lisa: we are back monday at noon eastern. here is melissa francis and for harris. have a great weekend! >> melissa: fox news alert, top republicans now pushing to identify the white house sources who spoke to the whistle-blower as inconsistencies emerge in the complaint of a president trump's contact with ukraine. welcome to "outnumbered overtime." i'm melissa francis in today for harris faulkner. president trump defending his call with ukrainian president president and taking aim at the whistle-blower whose complaints sparked democratic impeachment inquiry. the president unleashing during remarks at a private event in new york yesterday. in this video obtained by bloomberg. >> the person who gave the whistle-blower information. you know what we used to do in the old days, when we were smart, right? spies who commit treason. we would have a different way to do with it than we do now. people are sick.