howard: this sunday, wall to wall television coverage of the house impeachment hearing and a deep divide on whether the three veteran diplomats were persuasive or irrelevant. >> i think bill taylor is an incredible witness, straightforward. >> neither had any firsthand knowledge of trump's motivations or anything else, for that matter. it was a lot of feelings that were discussed today. >> all this evidence show that is the only thing the president cared about ukraine, he didn't care if these people were dying -- >> you found something that made the mueller hearing look sexy, a witness who witnesses nothing, hearsay based on hearsay, a bloated spectacle designed to turn a phone call into a crime. >> if you were not moved by the

testimony of marie yavanovitch today, you don't have a pulse. >> she was an inconvenient ambassador x they speared her. >> yes, another self-important, very narcissistic diplomat snowflake who can't take minor, baby criticism. howard: how are news outlets handling the charge of president trump's tweeted attacks on marie yavanovitch while she was testifying amounted to witness intimidation. msnbc features lawyer george conway on its impeachment panel, and cnn asked his wife kellyanne to respond. >> you want to put it in my husband's voice because you think that'll help your ratings or that you're sticking it to kellyanne conway. you didn't stick it to kellyanne conway. howard: should journal is be pressing the white house counselor on her husband's anti-trump crusade? plus, pete buttigieg surges

to first mace in iowa, will that bring more scrutiny of the mayor? i'm howard kurtz, and this is "mediabuzz." there has been, there has been saturation coverage of the house impeachment hearings, gavel to the gavel on the broadcast and cable news networks as acting ambassador william taylor and state department official george kent were lauded by democrats and grilled by republicans. >> i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. >> where is the impeachable offense in that call? >> i would just like to say that i'm not here to do anything having to do with, to decide about impeachment, that is not what either of us are hered to do. this is your job. howard: president trump called the hearings a sham. >> how about when they is ask these two never trumpers what exactly do you think you would impeach him for? we're fighting the democrats,

but much more difficult to fight is the fake news, i'm telling you. [cheers and applause] and they're a partnership. i call them a partnership made in hell. howard: dramatic term when ousted ambassador marie e yovanovitch testified -- >> i couldn't believe it. i mean, again, shocked, appalled, devastated that the president of the united states would talk about any ambassador like that. howard: and the president tweeted in realtime everywhere marie yavanovitch went turned bad. the ukraine january president spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with her. >> comes out like a joker, jack nicholson, interrupting the hearing today with a stupid, a stupid tweet how this person is needs to be intimidated. >> criticizing a witness who's leveling false accusations based on multiple hearsay is not witness intimidation, for god sakes. the president was right to tweet

it. howard: joining us now, emily ya sin sky and gene zado. emily, the president's tweeted attack on marie yavanovitch changed the media narrative. most conservatives didn't rush to cameras to defend him. did the president give the media some ammunition? >> oh, certainly he gave the media ammunition to use against him. i think the media latched onto it because largely -- and i know they're a little sensitive, some people on the left are sensitive to this criticism, but the hearings were pretty boring. there wasn't a lot of new information presented, there wasn't a lot of fireworks. this was some grandstanding on both sides of the aisle, but there wasn't a lot new going on. i think when the president tweeted, that was the excitement that they needed. howard: kristin, in fact, several journeyses said the first -- journalists say the

first day was dull, it was a slog. so let's go to moment when democratic chairman adam schiff read the tweet or part of the tweet to witness, marie e yovanovitch, and we'll see her response. >> what effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing? >> well, it's very intimidating. howard: she, of course, was abruptly recalled from kiev by the president. so is this the kind of moment that breaks through the media static? this. >> it's unclear to me yet that this is the kind of thing that breaks through the static because all we've seen over the last few weeks are poll numbers that have sat very fla. they moved pretty quickly after it was announced there'd be an inquestion true -- inquiry, but since then democrats have not moved a lot of people. swing voters tell pollsters like me that they feel exhausted by impeachment and that they're not terribly interested in following it. it's really these short sound bites that can end up on other

newscasts that may have the potential to breakthrough, but i haven't seen any numbers backing that up. howard: i think exhausted is a keyword, but let me go to president's defense on this because he smoke to reporters, i believe the next day, hey, i'm entitled to free speech. here are questions he got from abc and shouted questions from april ryan. >> why did you attack the ambassador, 34r-79? why did you attack her? >> [inaudible] >> quiet, quiet. quiet. >> [inaudible] do you believe your tweets were intimidating? >> i don't think so at all. howard: with the coverage of the president's tweets, would it have been as critical if he had done them after the hearing, the next day, or was it something about that pact that she was up on the hill at that moment? >> it absolutely a had to do with the timing. donald trump was tweeting, this is what he does especially when somebody is criticizing him, so he did -- i think, gave a gift to the democrats and a gift to

the media by tweeting in realtime. you know, he's right, he has a right to say what he wants, but it doesn't make it a good idea. before earlier in the day the white house had said he is going to listen to devin nuñes, and then he's going to do the business of the american people. that's what he should be doing, not tweeting creatism of this woman while she's -- criticism of this woman while she's up there because people who weren't paying attention then suddenly started paying attention. howard: now, most journalists think the career diplomats came off as sober, serious, unflappable, liberals praised them as heroes, conservatives not so much. but does that matter, they're fine public servants and they may look that way, if the democrats are trying to sell the country on impeachment? >> i was just going to use that phrase, higher bar. they did come across as sober, they did exactly what they needed to do, i thought. i think largely they were good witnesses to serve the

democrats' purpose. but at the same time, when you need to move those poll numbers, that is -- they have a high burden to meet. they need to be bringing new information to the table. you saw compelling personal narratives with yovanovitch, don't think donald trump is going to break through with the american people, that's not shocking, but don't think they met that high bar at all. howard: 13 million people watched the first day of the hearings, but that's far less than the kavanaugh hearing or when james comey testified. are most people so enstretched now -- entrenched now that the hearings almost don't matter that much? >> i think they have the potential to matter if new information is introduced. next week if any of the witnesses come forward with firsthand information about manager that the president did that suggests an abuse of power, the new term democrats are using is bribery. they've shifted from quid pro quo to bribery, if any evidence

really suggest that has occurred, i think that could change the narrative. but this past week even though these witnesses were sober, clear, they still were not presenting the are firsthand testimony as i saw the president do bad thing x that i think would have potentially broken through. howard: i understand somebody close to you did not watch the hearings. >> my son will kill me, but he said a new pokemon game came out, and it took the wind out of the sails for him. [laughter] howard: people have priorities. >> you know, you have to make your decisions. howard: do during the punditry, conservative commentators say these witnesses couldn't tie anything directly to turn, they saw a text, ukraine got the aid that had been held up, that the real scandal is hunter biden, but they didn't really challenge the account of the witness for the most part. are their arguments breaking through that, basically, this doesn't amount to all that much politically? >> i think they were smart not to attack the witnesses. i think these were strong

witnesses. they said what they wanted to say. but the fact is when you talk about impeachment, this is the death penalty for the president. and the fact that she was removed, it wasn't done professionally, i felt badly for her, doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. so maybe next week with sondland and some of these others we hear firsthand accounts, but at this point we've heard three people with important stories to tell, but i think it's really, really difficult at this point to think you swayed hearts and minds in those purple-red districts where you need to if to get to the point of impeachment. howard: i have a theory about the lacking of pizazz. i don't think that something as serious as impeachment has to be a scintillating tv show. this is the third round. we found out most of what they had to say. then in the second round they put out the transcripts, the democrats did, and we saw their actual words, and now they do it again for the tv cameras.

why it was certainly -- while it was certainly interesting to see their demeanor, almost everything in terms of the substance we knew whereas if it had been held back, maybe it would have had a more shocking effect. >> that is exactly it, because they need to move hearts and minds to go about the process of impeachment. they need to have those poll numbers moving in their direction, and when they've been presenting this information -- like you said, this is the third round and the numbers haven't moved, it doesn't have to be great television. i think the cup prefers we -- country prefers we don't see a soap opera impeachment. they didn't bring new information, and we saw the way they land latched on to the information about the phone call that an aide had heard, that was framed as a bombshell, that is not the bombshell they need. howard: since you mentioned that, the let me go to jeannie on this, late friday embassy official in kiev named david holmes testified that he was in a restaurant with gordon sondland, theword to e.u.,

overheard a phone call from the president in a restaurant -- in which, according to this testimony, the president says, so he's going to do the investigation, meaning zelensky of ukraine. sondland replies that he loves your ass, he'll do whatever you want. and sondland also said trump only cares about the big stuff, meaning investigating the bidens. the new"the new york times" sayt proves trump is preoccupied with this stuff. it just took me 30 seconds to explain it, but he wasn't even on the call. >> he overheard this call, apparently, and we may hear from him in open testimony, but, you know, the fact that the president is preoccupied with something or the fact that we don't like the policy the president is pursuing, again, doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. so the democrats, and, you know, and kristin mentioned, you know, they moved from this idea to a quid pro quo, they started moving to bribery, right? they did that based on focus groups in purple states where people are saying they don't

understand -- howard: everybody doesn't speak latin. [laughter] >> so, you know, they are paying attention. they know they have to move of the needle on this, and i'm not sure they've gotten there yet. they may next week. howard: when president trump says this is a joke, this is a witch hunt, this is russia all over again, the hearings shouldn't be allowed, most of the media is pretty dismissive of that. do you have the sense that the press is sort of taking sides here? in facting they're somewhat heavily invested in impeachment? >> credible polling has about a quarter of america think this is a witch hunt, this is ridiculous. about half want to see trump impeached. it's that remaining quarter who who are the real focus here, consider they don't think this is a joke, they think it's important to get the facts, but they're not yet persuaded that the facts rise to the level of impeachment. and they're also the folks report most likely being exhausted, uninterested and are probably not watching hour upon hour of these hearingsing. which is why the individual moments that rise to the level of popping into national nightly

newscasts are going to be so critical if either side wants to move numbers one way or the other. howard: i think the exhaustion all comes from the coffer an of the russia -- coverage of the russia investigation. in fact, president trump says this is sort of a replay and though the facts and situation in ukraine is very different. i think the country is heavy with like a brick. when we come back, the media are feasting on the conway versus conway segment. is that unfair? and later, how roger stone's conviction in the russia probe is playing in the press. ♪ chevy silverado hd. it offers head-up display. wow, that's dialed in. i can still keep my eyes on the road. my truck doesn't have that. it offers an optional technology package with up to 15 different camera views. that's quality picture. it even offers one enhanced view that makes your trailer appear invisible - to help you see what's behind you. oh, wow! which in this case happens to be the competition - since they don't offer the same amount of cameras as the silverado. literally in the rear-view.

where they should be. ♪

is your business still settling for slow internet? well time is money. switch to comcast business now and get a great deal when you get fast, reliable internet. with a 30-day money-back guarantee, installation when it works for you, and 24/7 customer support.

so what are you waiting for? get this great deal when you sign up for fast, reliable internet. call 1-800-501-6000 today. comcast business. beyond fast. ♪ ♪ howard: msnbc featured a new anti-trump commentator on its impeachment panel, washington lawyer george conway. >> it's astonishing, and it's just a direct violation of his

oath of office. it's foundational. it's the ultimate impeachable offense. howard: and that became fodder the next morning for cnn's wolf blitzer when he had on the other conway. >> i don't want to talk about your marriage. i want to talk about a substantive point that your husband, george conway -- >> why? and why are you doing that? >> because he's a legal scholar, he's a lawyer, and he was really going after the president to have united states -- >> and the relevant -- and, come on -- >> [inaudible] >> and he's married to me? >> well, you know, he happens to be married to you. howard: wolf then played a clip of george conway and kellyanne unloaded. >> you wanted to put it in my husband's voice e because you think somehow that'll help your ratings or that you're really sticking it to kellyanne conway, and let me be very clear, you didn't stick it to kellyanne conway. i think you embarrassed yourself, and i'm embarrassed for you because this is cnn now. i really respected you for all those years as somebody who -- >> you know, kellyanne --

>> now it's what somebody's husband says -- howard: was it unfair for cnn to play a clip of george conway's anti-trump remark when he had, after all, been on msnbc all day? >> i think she's right that wolf blitzer embarrassed himself. i think she's subject to misogynystic, biased coverage on a daily basis. i do think there's a let jilt mate question to be -- he quit mate question to be asked. i think there's a substantive question to ask. wolf blitzer wanted to play the clip, he wanted a juicy moment. he said i don't want to talk about your marriage because, obviously, there are issues there. he was going to set her off, and he knew what he was doing, but he wasn't prepared for her defense. i think he came out on top of that, absolutely. howard: well, george conway is a smart lawyer and has a lot to say about the trump presidency, but she's right, nobody would care what he had to say if he wasn't married to the white house counselor. so despite wolf's disclaimers,

wasn't a this a way of getting at her marriage? >> i think pretty clearly. and you wanted to put this in my husband's words by showing the clip instead of just saying there are commentators who have been making the point x, y and z, specifically meaning her husband. now, there have been time when you've had, say, james carville, mary madeleine -- howard: and they go on tv television. >> that's not what's happening here. kellyanne does not want to be -- she does not want her marriage to be brought in, and i think that's a fair position for her to have. howard: this has come up before, but did she have to make it so personal with the i used to respect you comeback? >> i thought her comeback was strong. you know, listen, you know, if george conway had said something that was different than other people have been saying -- howard: ah, right. >> but the clip that wolf played was just the same kind of standard argument people have been making.

and there was one piece people haven't been talking about, but right before he plays the clip, he looks at her in a very paternalistic way and says listen to what your husband had to say, and then he plays the clip. and to me and to some of my -- it was a little bit shocking because here was this reporter, but he literally cut her off because she was going back and forth. listen to what your husband had to say, not listen to what this commentator george conway had to say. and to me, it really showed -- howard: i'm glad i have women on the panel so i can be more woke about this. [laughter] all right. i want to talk about the cable coverage of -- [inaudible] fox news was anchored by bret baier, martha maccallum, cnn had anderson cooper, dana bash. all journalists. msnbc had brian williams talking to george conway, former democratic senator claire mccaskill, an obama solicitor general and nicole wallace, the former republican who despises

trump on msnbc. on friday chris matthews was the lead anchor, they didn't bother with journalists. and no one in the mainstream media raises an eyebrow. >> i watched the totality of msnbc's coverage on wednesday and friday. i thought it was disgraceful for a news network that purports to be sharing information with news consumers to have absolutely zero balance on their panels, and they did have zero balance. they had george conway as the person on the right, and he was completely in favor of impeachment. if you want balance, you have to have somebody who doesn't take that position. if you purport to be giving information to people, i'm perfectly fine with msnbc leaning left, but disgrateful that they would have an entire -- disgraceful that they would have an entire panel. howard: how do you not mention that they just sort of abandon the notion during the daytime, and another question, why is msnbc having george conway on in the first place and how is it that -- his wife, kellyanne,

she's a white house official, what do you have to say about her position? >> and to your point, they did not raise a question about kellyanne or their marriage. "the new york times" said it was stunt casting. it was a big get for msnbc. he said at the beginning he doesn't watch tv, he doesn't want to be there but somehow felt compelled to be there. to the point about the lack of balance, it signifies to me that the idea that during the day that these cable networks are going to at least be balanced and neutral may be going by the wayside at this point and that prime time may be creeping in, and i think that msnbc has shown they're willing to do that. howard: i don't have any problem with any network putting on people as long as there's some representation from both sides. maybe i'm old fashions. this is the impeachment of a president of the united states, and you don't have journalists as anchors? you have a guy who -- i'm not knocking the people individually, but chris matthews is a former democratic anchor

who does this for a living. >> i think in a country where you have about 50/50 or close thereof -- howard: gotta go. we'll be right back. health markets compares your current plan with thousands of options nationwide from national insurance companies. don't miss the deadline. there are only days remaining in open enrollment. funny thing about health insurance, you don't think about how much you need it until you need it. he's not going to be okay. with so many changes to health insurance plans,

are you still sure you have the right fit? having the wrong fit can cost you thousands. new plans are available that can save you money. that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. they guarantee you won't find a lower price anywhere for the plans they offer. their new fitscore instantly compares thousands of plans, both on the government exchange and off, to find the one that best fits your insurance need. call or visit healthmarkets to find your fitscore today. in minutes, you can find out if your current plan is the right fit or if there's another one that can get you extra coverage or help save you money. best of all, their service is completely free. their new fitscore makes it easy to compare your plan to new ones that could lower your costs and save you money. try the new fitscore today. you may even qualify for free health insurance with no monthly premium. don't get stuck using the government exchange either. healthmarkets can find you the right health plan and make sure you get all the subsidies you deserve without all the hassle. they even have new alternative options most

don't even know about that can save you thousands. they work to help you and do it all for free. don't assume that your plan is still the right fit. the healthmarkets' fitscore makes it easy to find the right plan for you. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a+ customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. for this free service, go to healthmarkets.com or call right now. your insurance market place, healthmarkets. call healthmarkets before the december 15th enrollment deadline to see if you qualify for $0 premiums. call the number on your screen now.

♪ ♪ howard: the forthcoming book by anonymous seems to be, well, a bit of a dud. why is that? well, the senior administration official who once trashed president trump in a new york times op-ed can't go out and promote it, but more importantly, the early reviews, warning, are pretty awful. washington post, it's like profiles in thinking about coverage. it's mostly stuff you already know because the author avoids specific scenes that might compromise his or her identity. new york times, how can a book that's been denuded of anything too specific do anything more than pale against a formal whistleblower complaint? it's hard to look like a heroic truth-teller by comparison. the author admits that by saying behind the curtain, quote: some

will call this cowardice. my feelings are not hurt, but anonymous also decries the washington parlor game of guessing the author's identity which, let's face it, is driving what interest there is in this book. the students that run the newspaper at northwestern university have been taking flak, and the irony is they did their job right in the first place. one reporter was assigned to jeff sessions and another to cover the pro segment. that's called journalism. but then the editors apologized for what they had done saying some students found it traumatizing and invasive. they were also sorry for using the school directory to call and text students to be interviewed. sorry, this is how reporting works. you track down people for interviews. protests are public events, and students shouldn't be such

snowflakes they're offended by routine journalism. the chicago tribune called the apology campus coddling, and that's exactly right. ahead, are the media starting to sour on almost candidate mike bloomberg? but first, rich lowry on the coverage of impeachment and why he's defending donald trump's brand of nationalism. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ howard: how are this week's house impeachment hearings playing on the right? joining us now is rich lowry, editor of national review, and author of the new book, "the case for nationalism." rich, you're a conservative who hasn't always been donald trump's biggest fan, especially during the campaign. how do you see the coverage of impeachment as it played out this week? >> it was just inevitable that these witnesses would be valorized by the media. and taylor and yovanovitch, they're serious, credible people, but what's been most stark to me -- and like you, i'm

old enough to remember the last impeachment fight in washington -- republicans were portrayed as a general matter as the partisan fanatic on a doomed mission, and you get zero sense of that now. even though democrats are on an equally doomed mission to 'em peach and remove trump. howard: i certainly don't agree that the most likely outcome in the senate that the president will be acquit, but what do you make of some conservative commentators attacking these career diplomats, you know, not on grounds that they don't have any firsthand knowledge, that's fine, not on grounds that they are pursuing policy differences, that's fine, but that they're snowflakes, they're bad people, they're deep state never trumpers? >> yeah, i don't like the term deep state. yes, you have bureaucracy who are dug in, have progressive attitudes, but on this you had people even who are very supportive of the president's agenda who are insiders, foreign

policy pros who didn't like the call, didn't think it was appropriate and opposed this effort to squeeze some statement about investigations out of the ukrainians with the withheld aid. so i don't think you can chalk this up to deep state conspiracy. howard: well, in fact, you have written that that the, it was improper, using your word, for president trump to press ukraine for an investigation that at least touched on the bidens, but you also say democrats need something stronger, and i'm quoting here again, wrong and troubling. they need to shock the conscience. so is that the standard? you have to shock the conscience of america? >> yeah, i think so. i mean, that's sort of built into the system, right? you need to get 67 votes in the senate. it's hard to get 67 votes in the senate on anything, and you only get that to remove a president, obviously, if there's a deep national consensus that what he did justifies it. and you're not even close to that consensus. and we just need to step back, howie. you know, we talk about this

being the fourth impeachment inquiry which is extraordinary the on its own, but if you're actually going to impeach and have the senate remove, that would literally be an unprecedented act in american history. so you need a sense of the enormity of the gravity that would justify doing it, and doing it within the 12-month window of the campaign that the incumbent president has a significant chance of winning. howard: why is it that the mainstream media consensus, i don't think anybody would dispute this, is that what happened with trump and ukraine is shocking to the conscience? >> well, because they find everything he's done over the past three years pretty much shocking to the conscience, and this is one reason republicans are jaded on this and think there's a huge pretextual element of it. they, democrats have wanted to impeach him from day one, and the immediate. ya -- media was spun up for over two years in a

hysteria over russia. we saw the screaming headlines, and it was a bust on the russia front, a complete bust. there's no apology, no reflection, and immediately we're on to the next thing which is this. howard: i want to touch on the president's tweeted criticism of marie yavanovitch during the hearing we talked about at the top of the show. andy mccarthy in your magazine says the tweet was unseemly, it reinforced the idea that president trump is demoralizing the foreign service, and he says the public saw yovanovitch, not the president, as the victim of an unfair attack. that doesn't mean it rises to the level of impeachment, but what's your thought the on -- >> yeah, i agree with all that. i agree with all this. but, howie, this is kind of the weird environment you're in. you is say what andy says, which i think is all sound, and, but the media can't stick with that. they just can't say this is wrong, this is inappropriate. they immediately go to witness tampering, you know?

the legal implications, and this could be an article of impeachment, which is completely absurd. so there's a line somewhere between improper and blowing him out of office, and the left and many people in the mainstream media see no such line. they immediately go to 11 on every single thing. howard: right. i want to play a clip from msnbc because you talked about the difference between the way republicans impeaching bill clinton was treated versus democrats impeaching or attempting to impeach president trump, both pretty much party line efforts. this is elise jordan, an msnbc analyst, saying this about the president -- >> they know he's a moron. they know he's corrupt. they know that his behavior is just classic scumbag. howard: imagine if a conservative had said that about president obama. i mean, and nobody would run a story about it. nobody blinks about it. >> it would be a weeklong story the, you know?

it would dominate some element of the news. so it again goes to the people who imagine themselves protecting our norms in the media and institutionally and politically for the last three years have been violating them themselves in their hysterical opposition to the president. howard: right. now, in your book you say that republicans should embrace the power and legitimacy of president trump's brand of nationalism. there isn't anything inherently nationalistic about wild presidential tweets, extreme boastfulness, excoriating attacks on the media or even protectionism or populism, but how do you separate that from the larger approach of nationalism that you tend to support? >> yeah. i think nationalism at the bottom is concern with your sovereignty, with your border, with your interests and concern with the core elements of your culture. in this country it means speaking english, honoring our founders, honoring our heroes,

telling our story as an inspiring one rather than the unrelieved tale of oppression and woe. that is the basics of nationalism. that's why it's very powerful, it's very natural sentiment. and the reaction to me saying that in this book has just been outrageous on the part of a lot of people in the left in the media. there's a new york times columnist who's called it a crypto-racist piece of trash without even reading it. so that's the level of reaction you've had. howard: yeah. i prefer to read books before i comment on them, but it's nice to have you back. rich lowry, good to see you. >> appreciate it. howard: still to come, roger stone upstages the impeachment hearing as he's convicted on all counts. is the press using that to resurrect the russia scandal? ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ howard: the networks all interrupted their impeachment coverage to cover a courthouse verdict. roger stone, the longtime political operative and informal adviser to president trump found guilty of obstructing a congressional probe into russian interference in the 2016 election. joining us now, national reporter for npr and a fox news contributor. sort of feel like i should play a roger stone sound bite there. he's always been a fringe character going back to the nixon days. this takes us back to the russia probe. is the press playing this as a big deal or as kind of a footnote to that investigation?

>> i think it's kind of a footnote, but because roger stone has spent his entire life making himself into a very colorful character, it's really hard. you can't avoid cutting in to put this piece of breaking news out. he was one of the president's confidants, flashy dresser -- howard: yeah. >> -- self-made dirty trickster -- howard: self-promoter, yeah. >> you can't possibly avoid that, yes. howard: stone's defense described him as an exaggerator when he claimed to be a conduit e between wikileaks and the trump circle. but since he was convicted of lying, the media can't turn around and say, well, this proves donald trump knew about. >> oh, absolutely not. but, you know, he was convicted by a jury of his peers. the only connection is that that was about russia and and tangentially the president holding up or maybe not so tangentially, the president holding up aid e to ukraine helped russia. howard: so the president tweeted

about this and he said so thousand they convict roger stone of lying. what about crooked hillary, comey, strzok, page, mccabe, brennan, clapper, shifty schiff, and it goes on with several more names. but to your point, a jury convicted -- >> he lied under oath. there's perjury and then there's just lying which people do in the resource of -- howard: right x. prosecutors haven't charged any of these people who the president feels should face -- >> right. howard: so is the double standard charge by the president getting any media traction? >> i don't think so. i haven't seen it. of course, there's a lot of media, i might have missed something. no because, look, the kind of lying you can be convicted for is different from the everyday exaggerating, lying, shaving the truth, inaccurate statements that many, many public figures do. howard: right. in politics and perhaps the media as well. so the president tweeted on impeachment a quote from rush limbaugh saying my support for donald trump has never been

greater. trump often says, well, look, i'm right because rush limbaugh said this, mark levin, other conservative supporters. is he accomplishing anything more than playing to his base? >> that's an excellent question. there is this kind of feedback loop, somebody in right-wing talk radio said something nice about the president, the president tweets they did it. i think, somebody once described this to me as a cable news business model. you don't necessarily make your base any larger, but you do keep them watching you 24/7. in other words, he's got the engagement and intensity, but he isn't growing his audience. howard: a lot of other news has been squeezed out by this, the dow hitting 28,000, normally the president would get a fair amount of credit for that. yesterday president trump went to walter reed medical center for tests, about two hours of tests, exams, apartment of his annual physical. -- part of his annual physical. since it wasn't scheduled, the media are kind of openly skeptical. and my question is do they now

not believe anything the white house says? the guy goes for what he says is a physical? >> right. the white house says they took advantage of a kind of down weekend to get started on some portion of his annual physical. look, curiosity about the president's physical state is absolutely legitimate. that's really important. he's the president of the united states. that's why physicals are done and then the results are reported. now, wild speculation about why he's going, why it wasn't on the schedule, the white house sometimes doesn't put things on the schedule. i think that's not as legitimate. howard: yeah. it just occurred to me that, you know, i don't see any reason to not believe the white house account, but this is so much baked into the media attack of this president. well, he's probably sick but he's not telling us -- >> well, okay, same thing when hillary clinton coughed on the campaign trail, donald trump said she was dying -- you know, others said that she looked sick, and that became a whole thing. i think that's just, unfortunately, baked into the

cake now. howard: hurt are. mara, great to see you this sunday. thanks so much for joining us. after the break, pete buttigieg now polling in the first place in iowa. why he's getting so much positive press. ♪ ♪ when we started our business we were paying an arm and a leg for postage. i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order, print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half. just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get 2 months free.

the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing. ♪

thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪

♪ ♪ howard: pete buttigieg is making headlines this morning as he continues to surge past the other democratic candidates in iowa, which the press always treats a make or break state. joining us from new york, hank, a democratic political strategist. hank, the mayor of south bend finishing first in this poll, 25% in iowa, biden and warren 16%, bernie 15%. pretty remarkable. mayor pete, he's done a ton of

interviews, he has these on the record bus tours where reporters can ask tons of questions, he's kind of been a favorite of the media, and will this change? >> he's new because he's -- excuse me, he's news because he's new, he's fresh. six months ago people couldn't pronounce his name. he comes from a state with a maul population and from aty that few people in the united states will ever go to. so what's new here? he's new and that's why he's getting the coverage. howard: but now, of course, we say this every four years iowa is largely white, largely rural, it's unrepresentative, but nevertheless, the press treats it as such a big deal that if he does win in iowa, i would imagine that would be a pretty big milestone. >> it would be a very big deal. the problem is iowa represents nothing, and it's a bad deal for other candidates. why in because of the small population. it's not reflect f of america overall. it's a caucus state, howie, and guess who controls it?

the labor unions. howard: okay. well, campaigning, i will say that, along with new hampshire. so the former massachusetts governor jumped into the race the other day. generally positive, but some brought up his work for bain capital, others are saying you got into the race so late. we went through a bunch of interviews he did, i couldn't find one that was interesting to put on the air. he's conflict-avert, why do the pundits think he would have a shot? >> again, new. howard: we're tired of the field already? >> these polling numbers are all so absurd. why? nobody's been tested by the electorate yet -- howard: oh, right. that's true. the campaign's been going on for a long time, lots of people haven't tuned in. you worked in the past for michael bloomberg, i know you think highly of him. there was huge media hype because, look, he could spend zillions of dollars to try to win the nomination and he was a

very good mayor of new york city. but lately, there's been a wave of skepticism, can he really win, and "the new york times" ran a piece with some of his crude remarks of women in the past, some as long as two decades ago. is the press now becoming more dismissive, skeptical or antagonistic toward bloomberg? >> the press has certainly not been helpful to bloomberg in any way. he's not new, you know? he's not pete buttigieg, he's not the fresh face. he's been around new york, and new york is the place where the press tends to be. so they're not giving mike bloomberg the kind of shot he ought to get. he is a self-made man, he is an american success story, middle income guy from medford, massachusetts, who rose become one of the richest men in the world and ran new york city. that's a good story, but it's an old one to reporters where it's looking for new and fresh. howard: well, him being in the race is newing but he hasn't quite gotten in, so he could change his mind, and after filing in a couple states he hasn't made a speech, we haven't heard from him.

so i would think that might be holding them back, not engaging with the media, it's all being done through one of his top aides. >> howie, i think that's true, and the way to cure that is to make a speech, to figure out the way that he creates a large impact. and you can rest assured that he's surround ised by very, very good people who know what they're doing and will, frankly, try to make that happen quickly. howard: he just got a little free advice from hank shinecoff. barack obama warned against revolutionary change. he said americans don't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it, a pretty clear shot at elizabeth warren and bernie sanders. is the press agreeing, essentially agree with the obama criticism that too far left a candidate is not going to win the general election? >> interestingly, this is a repeat of -- this is kind of an echo of something that's been said for quite some time which is things are moving too far to left on the left, and things are moving too far to the right on

the right. it's not a new story, but what it is and when the president, when a former president of the united states says it who was certainly no right-wing fellow and certainly maybe not a centrist by some opinions, when he says it, it is news. howard: it's absolutely news. do you think it'll have an impact on the candidates? just briefly. >> elizabeth warren should watch her left flank. barack obama threw a bomb at her, and guess what? because the party as he sees it can lose the election in the fall. howard: i love the way you don't actually have to mention the person's name, but everybody knows who we're talking about. [laughter] thanks, hank, great to see you. >> thank you very much. howard: and that's it for this edition of "mediabuzz." hey, check out my podcast, we're getting a lot of attention for it, "mediabuzz" meter. subscribe at apple itunes, google play or fox news podcast.com. we hope you'll also like our facebook page where we post my daily columns, and let's continue our conversation on twitter. in this impeachment environment,

i know there are a lot of strong opinions out there, shall we say? we'll be back here next sunday, you know the time, 11 eastern. see you then with the latest buzz. chevy silverado hd. it offers head-up display. wow, that's dialed in. i can still keep my eyes on the road. my truck doesn't have that. it offers an optional technology package with up to 15 different camera views. that's quality picture. it even offers one enhanced view that makes your trailer appear invisible - to help you see what's behind you. oh, wow! which in this case happens to be the competition - since they don't offer the same amount of cameras as the silverado. literally in the rear-view. where they should be. ♪

heather: good morning. it is monday, november 18th. happening right now at 4:00 a.m. here on the east coast, a fox news alert for you. four people are dead and six more injured after a gunman sprayed bullets into a backyard at a football watch party. what police are revealing about a motive as atf agents go door-to-door overnight. >> the president could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants to. >> you don't expect him to do that? >> if he wants to take the oath of office. heather: a political weapon, house speaker pelosi calling on the president to testify during public impeachment hearings. the warning that she just gave democrats in