>> it's great to look back at his life and legacy and we will do that today. it was great to have you, our first date together. >> i feel like we've been doing it for a long time. >> thanks for joining us. "outnumbered" starts right now. >> this fox news alert, president trump's legal team unleashing in a new brief filed moments ago. fleming what it calls democrats flimsy impeachment charges and labeling them a "dangerous perversion of the constitution." this with the impeachment trial set to resume tomorrow, white house counsel kellyanne conway weighing in after speaking with the president's defense team this morning. >> what you look forward to is arguing the facts. they look forward to taking these two articles of impeachment, which are abuse of power, and obstruction of congress, and saying this is the first time in american history

that a president hasn't even been charged with a crime in the articles of impeachment. >> this is "outnumbered," i'm dagen mcdowell in here today fox news contributor lisa boot lisa boothe, kennedy, iona college gaels a professor and david webb, host of reality check on fox nation. you, sir, are outnumbered. we will get back to you and moments and have more from the couch but first let's go to fox news congressional correspondent chad pergram life on capitol hill. >> a lot going on in the past hour here and capitol hill. the white house has submitted its trial brief for the impeachment trial and i will read a couple of items that have just come in. the brief from the white house says "that the house of representatives was determined to overturn the 2016 election and interfere in the 2020 election and the white house is arguing here that the impeachment articles are structurally deficient." we will get a rebuttal from the

house impeachment manager before they get to the trial tomorrow, that's due before 1:00 tomorrow afternoon and you can bet that the impeachment managers will start to sifter this document from the white house. they just finished in the past few minutes, a walk-through on the senate floor of the impeachment of managers walked again from the outside of the capital over to the senate and this is a reconfigured senate chamber for a trial. it's no longer a legislative assembly for the next couple of weeks as they deal with this trial. the big question is we still don't have the resolution from the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, on the framework. we expect a vote on the debate tomorrow. here is chuck schumer. >> why is mitch mcconnell being so secretive about his proposal? well, there are two obvious answers. one, he wants to rush this thing through so quickly because he's afraid of what the american

people might hear. because the other thing in the cards tomorrow is possibly a motion to dismiss. lindsey graham says that's not going to happen. >> there are a lot of senators who i think will wind up acquitting the president, but believe that we need to hear the houses case, the president's case, answer to the houses case and ask questions and that's when the witness requests will be. the idea of dismissing the case early on is not going to happen. we don't have the votes for that. >> so tomorrow, debate and vote on the framework, chuck schumer will offer an alternative that will probably be voted down and the prosecution, the house managers, present their case on wednesday and thursday. and then early next week consideration of witnesses and documents. >> chad, really quickly and just to be clear these days will likely go into the wee hours of

the following morning based on the timetable. >> that's correct, if they use all the time. the fact that we are less than 24 hours starting the trial and they don't actually know the parameters. considering the fact they are going to go slung the democrats are going to suggest that the administration and republican leader mitch mcconnell are trying to bury these impeachment charges and the dead of night. >> chad, thank you so much. more from him as the day wears on. let me bring in former assistant u.s. attorney fox news contributor andy mccarthy. based on what we know so far and what do you have looked out about this brief from the president's attorney, it looks like they are arguing that these two articles of impeachment don't amount to impeachment offenses. we heard kellyanne conway mention arguing the facts, which is something you heard might be off base. what you note based on reading this brief so far? >> i think as chad points out to the extent they are saying there

is structural insufficiency in the articles of impeachment, which i interpret to mean that they don't state the kind of egregious misconduct that the framers had in mind when they put impeachment in the constitution. i think on the outcome of the president is fighting on the ground where he ought to be fighting done on the place where it is most strong. the problem i think they have come a dagen, when they get into the facts is if they are going to make sweeping claims that the president didn't do anything wrong, there is no quid pro quo come in the brief they filed over the weekend they said he even told sans blend there is no quid pro quo. it was a preemptive summary of what's on lynn's testimony had been. that invites inquiry into the facts into whether there was a quid pro quo or whether he did nothing wrong. that kind of helps the argument that we ought to be able to hear

from witnesses who can weigh in and are knowledgeable about those two subjects. i think that is the weak part of their case and to me, it's the part they shouldn't want to get into because the bottom line here is that these are not impeachable allegations. >> andy, it's kennedy. i have a question about the document because this is a political exercise. how much of a brief like this would be political and how much would it be legal? who exactly is, who are the president's lawyers trying to reach with this? >> well, you are quite right, kennedy, this is more of a political process than a legal one. it's going to take place in these sort of legal framework that the constitution lays out for impeachment trials. at the end of the day, impeachment really has a political test more than a legal one. we can talk in an abstract legal

way about what an article of impeachment or a high crime and misdemeanor is, according to hamilton's articulation of it and what the experience was in the colonies before the constitution was adopted. the genius of the constitution is that they gave us an impeachment standard where, unless the public is so convinced that the president needs to be removed that it exerts political pressure on two-thirds of the senate to vote to remove him, despite what their partisan affiliations are, then you really don't have impeachable misconduct because there's no chance of removing the president. >> andy, lisa boothe here, as you mentioned abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't criminal. those aren't crimes that they are charging the president with. what is the long-term impact for the house to move forward with impeachment now we will see this trial in the senate, what's the long term impact of the constitution into the country?

>> i think we are not going to be able to make a judgment on that until we see how this trial plays out and what the public take on it is and how the public reacts to it. what i would to be worried about is what the framers were worried about, which is that the reason for putting the two-thirds of a super majority requirement in the senate was that the framers were worried about that impeachment could be used in a partisan way. or could be triggered by frivolous grounds. in order to push against that, the idea was unless you had conduct that could move two-thirds of the senate to remove the president, you don't have an impeachment case. historically, that has had been enough to stop the house from going down this road in the first place. the question becomes, we have now launched into this new era of partisan impeachment and i think the only way we can answer that question is if we have this

trial and it looks like it is very political and the public is really turned off by it, may be that chastises people who would want to do this again that this isn't such a hot idea. i don't know if we can judge that now. >> andy, i will point out that support for impeachment is underwater still based on the real clear politics average that more people are against impeachment and removal then for it. one last thing, is it possible, based on what you said, based on this brief filed by the president's attorneys are giving structural inefficiency, is it possible we see a case presented by the house impeachment managers where they are brief even cited talking about the lev parnas information and the government accountability report that was requested by democratic senator chris van hollen did originally. could you see them present that case? then the president's attorneys don't even argue what was

presented, they just essentially ignore whatever they say and then just say these two articles don't stand up to the test of impeachment? >> i think, dagen, that's where they would like to be at the end. the way i would look at it is, what are the democrats trying to accomplish here? once you grapple with that and you get a read on it than everything else makes sense. they don't think they are going to have the president to remove, they know there is not 20 republican votes to do that, which is what they would need. what are they trying to accomplish? i think they've given to half-baked articles of impeachment to get in the door of an impeachment trial, and now what they are doing is continuing their investigation with the house leadership coordinating with senate democrats, and to the idea is they are going to continue to throw new allegations, new witnesses, new documents into the mix in the hope of extending

this. the real objective here is not to remove the president, it is to bruise him up politically heading into the 2020 elections. the longer this goes on, the longer it gets extended, the longer it focuses on misconduct that while it's not impeachable, does not make the president look good. the more it could hurt him politically going into the election. i think that is the theory they are operating under. >> andy, great to see you. thanks for jumping in that chair so quickly. jeannie, what you make of this? >> number one i am truly happy we are talking about hamilton and the founders. can i celebrate that for a minute? i think what andy just said about the timing here is what has her democrats so much. i have long said, nancy pelosi was right back in march when she said it's got to be bipartisan. they needed to do this on a time frame that allowed them to collect all of the information

before they rode these articles. i think that's what's going to come back to haunt any democrat who really does want to see a trial here, is because the articles themselves lack of the teeth that are needed. i think we are going to see that. to me the time get the better of them and they are playing in a political calendar and this is going to obviously work to their disadvantage and it already has. >> one if you ever been silent? [laughter] >> first of all, in honor of all the democrats i can trigger, minute trump presidential conflicts. now that i've triggered them. and he brought up a couple of points that were important. opening a door in a court of law's what you don't want to do. a lawyer doesn't want to open the door to further questions of quid pro quo. the democrats have told us we should ignore president zelensky's response that said they were not pressured to. do democrats want to go down the

road where republicans can introduce president zelensky come his response, he wasn't pressured, they did get the eta. this is not a true court of law, it is a trial in the senate. if they open that door and republicans put that out there, democrats want you to believe president zelensky is lying or they want you to believe otherwise. the american people have made up their mind on this. if the polling is consistent, they've made up their mind. >> under 8% of republicans when i left my office i looked at the 5:30 eight tracking poll. under 8% of republicans are for removing the president. >> obviously she is shifting the criteria here and if andy mccarthy is right, that democrats and house democrats just want to bruise the president going into the election they have to be careful. for them but it might be bruce inc., for me it might be tenderizing.

he may be going into the fall a little bit more succulent than he wants. i think his fund-raising bears that out. they still haven't figured out how to run against him. they are going to win on ids, impeachment may be the worst idea of all. >> they are keeping bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, michael bennett, and amy klobuchar locked up. >> i love that part. >> it really does seem like they are stacking the deck in favor of bloomberg and biden. >> the white house alleges that this is a dangerous version of the constitution. if democrats could come up with the crimes discharged president trump in these articles they would. they have not. now impeachment has become a partisan tool to weaponize against a president that you cannot defeat. democrats and not just that. >> is nancy pelosi set on the bill mark shall come in peach

forever she said with a grin. as she was signing the article she was smiling. a fist bump and a crane. >> michael bloomberg you mentioned, michael bloomberg is prepared to send a couple of billion to help defeat president trump. how his deep pockets are changing the president told race. plus 2020 democrats sharpening their attack of one another as we get near the iowa caucuses. two weeks, whether that strategy could backfire. ♪ with va mortgage rates near 50-year lows, one call to newday can save you $2000 a year, every year. activate your va refi benefit now and start saving.

l@ lu =!÷(]b2m ÷b÷gú i need all the breaks as athat i can get.or, at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ the end might not be as happy as ayou think.end. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke! but the good news is you can rewrite your ending and get

screened for stroke and cardiovascular disease. life line screening is the easy and affordable way to make you aware of undetected health problems before they hurt you. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries for plaque that builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and heart disease. so if you're over 40, call to schedule an appointment for five painless screenings that go beyond annual checkups. and if you call us today, you'll only pay $149-an over 50% savings. read it again, papa? sure. i've got plenty of time. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. speak on the issue of social security come a time and time again joe biden has been clear in supporting cots to

social security. we have a difference on that issue as well. and other issues. is not personal, people have a right to know. >> that saying that i agree with paul ryan, the former vice presidential candidate, but wanting to privatize social security. i have been a gigantic supporter of social security from the beginning. >> we've got a billionaires who think they can just buy an election. he plans to skip the democracy part of the election. >> she's right about that, that's going to resonate. just two weeks until the iowa caucuses on the democrats claws are finally out. bernie sanders and his campaign ramping up attacks on joe biden over race in the former vps openness to the social security cuts. sanders is a distorting his this position. meanwhile warren is also ripping biden about social security.

all of this with the top four candidates neck and neck in the first in the nation caucus sta state, biden and sanders in a deadlock on poles. you can see they're not even at percentage point separating them. pete buttigieg still nipping at their heels. social security come i think joe biden should own it and i think he absolutely should say yes, that's right. this program is going to be insolvent in 15 years. the people who are nearing retirement age are in the gravest danger. >> the medicare hospital trust fund runs out of money in six years. now that we are into 2020. sanders is right, elaine owen who writes for the editorial page of "the washington post" says he does have a history of wanting to cut social security or at least being open to it. there is going back to 1984 in the inflation rate was more than 4% come he called for a one-year moratorium on the program's annual cost-of-living increases.

he talked about raising the retirement age. he was the point person with obama administration's attempts to reduce the deficit, which did include not on the table were social security cuts. i'm waiting for them to cut a granny off the cliff commercial because that's what democrats did to republicans. their viciousness knows no bounds. >> i'm surprised it's taken this no long to get vicious. i think some of the criticism that elizabeth warren is out for michael bloomberg, they are spot on. will that resonate with democrats? saying here's this guy come he's not going to debate, he's going to spend billions of dollars trying to buy the nomination. >> the granny off the cliff lies ended up being one of the biggest lies of the year. about a bloomberg come i don't think he's a bible in iowa. that's why he's focusing on the super tuesday state come he's not paying attention to the first four contests. what i think is interesting is

in third of likely caucus but voters they are either undecided or support a candidate that's lower in the polls. if a candidate that is less than 50% they are considered nonviable in those caucus voters have to shift their support to someone else. if you look at the most recent "des moines register" pool, joe biden's at 15%. he's in danger of becoming a nonviable candidate. keep your eye on data. >> let's not forget "the new york times" this weekend because "the new york times" endorsement was a very big deal for democrats. this year they are trying to split the tr and half and they did a double endorsement. elizabeth warren and amy klobuchar both receiving an endorsement. both radical and realist models. if there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. if there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it. does that mean that we get to vote for two presidents? are they lobbying for a copresidency?

>> let's take the two things we are talking about here. these are the same leftist democrats who tell us they want to get rid of the leftist college. so bloomberg is playing right to that. is going to let the people this out on march 3rd. now you have amy klobuchar and elizabeth warren. globalstar is unlikely to go beyond it this. she hasn't left yet. she has no chance of this. warren is a believer in "the new york times," which has a diminishing return on their audience and on their viewership or readership, wants to tell us that that's who they endorsed. >> are they trying to have it both ways? i think what they're saying is there is a clock chasm in the democrat party that is unbridgeable. >> all these candidates that i'm the most progressive in the race. they are all running the left, the chasm is anything to the right of the democrats. >> i will let jeannie get in here, they say sanders is too old and he just had a heart

attack. let's remind you of that. what are they say about pete buttigieg? we look forward to him working his way up. and then they called the elizabeth warren gifted storyteller. if she is a gifted story teller come i think that's code for a liar. >> think about this point, all of them like social security except for buttigieg. >> he's working his way up. >> i think it's a signal that these endorsements don't matter in the way they used to. the world is changed from the time when newspapers made endorsements and people followed them. them endorsing two people is an indication that democrats are going to go in a way they want to go. these are two people with such different worldviews. you're hard-pressed to imagine how the editorial board could have decided they are both viable. >> did they flip a coin? >> it doesn't make much sense.

as a democrat you have to say where is the party heading? that is into completely different directions. >> it also diminishes their endorsement. kennedy, who do you have in super bowl? the chiefs and the 49ers. >> amid the debate over calling witnesses and impeachment trial, mitch mcconnell considering a kill switch option that would cut the trial short if necessary. are his republican colleagues on board? we will discuss next. ♪ what's going on? it's the 3pm slump. should have had a p3. oh yeah. should have had a p3. need energy? get p3. with a mix of meat, cheese and nuts.

walkabout wednesdays are back! get a sirloin or chicken on the barbie, fries, and a draft beer or coca-cola - all for just $10.99. hurry in! wednesdays are for outback. outback steakhouse. aussie rules.

this round's on me.eat. for outback. hey, can you spot me? come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans. enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

>> mitch mcconnell reportedly considering adding a so-called kill switch rule to its resolution, setting the parameters for president trump's impeachment trial. it would let the president's defense team moved to dismiss the articles of impeachment after some initial evidence is presented. josh holloway telling axios he would be "a very surprised if the resolution said to be released tomorrow did not include that rule. the so-called kill switch wide and the trial if it appeared to be dragging on for too long, which one g.o.p. senator says is a real possibility. >> i think it is certainly possible this trial could last 1-2 weeks. on the other end of the senate makes the decision to go down

the road of additional witnesses, that could extend it to 6-8 weeks or even longer. there are two paths here. >> david, what are you betting on? >> i'm betting on short period of always had the american people deserve vindication for a couple of reasons. have an expeditious trial, make sure there is a sound vote. it takes away the democrats long-term arctic argument. they can't sit there for months and months and say, they probably will, but they can't say you never got a trial. the president was never tried. try it, expeditious, get it over with, get the vote, the president will still be your president. don't try get on for six or eight weeks. that kills the democrats, but there is business that needs to get done. >> we already know democrats are going to try and drag it on. they wait until the 11th hour to release new information about lev parnas and documents from him. one thing to keep in mind about

that as he went on rachel maddow and said look, the only reason i was trying to get rid of ambassador marie jovanovich was because she was standing in the way of the biden investigation and this all has t to do with giuliani and trump. if you read the indictment it talks about the fact that he was working on behalf of ukrainian government officials to try and get rid of her. the indictment itself contradicts what he has been out there saying. i don't think democrats have that strong of a case. >> i don't think this is going to be expedited. clinton's was 37 days, i think mcconnell knows this very well. he also is very cognizant of the fact that you want have everything to be heard so that nobody can come back and say this wasn't a fair trial. that is something that the polls, they don't support removal but people think trial means you get a full and fair hearing. unless people feel that way i don't think -- >> to most his point about the democrats throwing everything

against the wall. the american people are going to see this. brent cavanagh, clarence thomas, look at what it is always done against conservative minded people. the american people get this. they are sick of it. >> republicans aren't victims here, they have the majority in the senate but they still have to be smart about it. the whole thing is about political posturing and, in some cases, manipulation. voters are going to get sick of that. i think the trial does have to be concise, three or four people who are the ones the senators you listed who are still the democrat senators are still running for president would love a fast trial. i think nancy pelosi did a great disservice. they are trying to tip the campaigning scale. joe biden's favor. if i am bernie sanders -- >> do you think she did that on purpose? >> absolutely. >> we are past super tuesday. there was no reason and nothing was added, the investigation was

not reopened in the house. there was no reason to have that lag between when they took the vote and when she signed the articles to be delivered to the senate. if i am bernie sanders, i feel like a woman in labor on the way to the hospital they just got stuck in traffic and it's like really? i'm sitting here in the senate for this trial, we know the what the outcome is going to be, and that may compromise his chances of getting the nomination. >> one thing that's interesting as i heard a lot of focus on people like susan collins, but also doug jones in alabama, a state the president trump won by almost 30 points, or you look at somebody like gary peters and michigan. john james is a formidable challenger. his been running neck and neck with polls. both sides have these political calculations. >> this is something that karl rove is talked about. chuck schumer is saying it's up to four republicans because they need for republicans to get

witnesses. you might need to worry about hanging onto members of his own party. the ice firing off subpoenas to new york city officials for info on for immigrants to the city is shielding, including one accused of murdering and sexually assaulting get a 92-year-old woman. what this means in the battle over sanctuary cities next. ♪ i'm your 70lb st. bernard puppy, and my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby!

>> a growing battle between the trump administration and new york over the city sanctuary policies. ice firing off for subpoenas. among them a suspect accused of murdering a 92-year-old woman in queens this month. officials say he had been previously arrested on assault and weapons charges in november but released under sanctuary policies. an ice officials saying like any

law enforcement agency, we are used to modifying our tactics as criminals shift their strategy. it's disheartening that we must jump through so many hoops with partners that are restricted by sanctuary laws passed by politicians with a dangerous agenda. that is a strong statement. you look at these for subpoenas and the individuals that are on the other end of it. it got to individuals who are wanted for murder. one of rate. and one of math. why would a city shield people like that? >> ask mayor de blasio in the left waving the policies he's putting in place. this infuriates me. first of all this woman has a name, it's maria port as in this illegal alien has a name from a gascon. he attacked his father with a broken mug. he was re-arrested. he has a long rap sheet. and they let him out. bill de blasio and all you democrats and new york's are to blame for this woman's death.

her family deserves some recompense. i talked to ken cuccinelli about this and the question was over and over and for everyone out there, one does she come the wind as her family, because she is dead, wind as her family get some sort of justice here. she could be your grandmother, your aunt, or your neighbor. these policies killed her, there's no doubt about it. new yorkers come in new york city they release hundreds of these illegal aliens with multiple charges that are felonies every month onto your streets. put that into perspective. >> from a political landscape these policies are new york city, as i mentioned the subjects of this subpoena, this is a local issue. that being said, we'll display out on the national scale as we head into 2020? >> it will. when you're talking about the

economy, the president wins this election. 80% of president students in the 20th century re-when their election if it's a strong economy. if democrats can switch to the environment, immigration, health care, and may be guns that changes the dynamic of this race completely. i would add to what david said, we have to be clear. this is the result of failed national immigration policies going back decades. the blame goes, there is a reason we have sanctuary cities in new york and elsewhere. the reason is the national government has failed and that is congress' responsibility. >> they've got a let the president exercised that. if you constantly have left-wing judges shutting down attempts to have border security, more immigration judges, you get nowhere. >> there are two things that democrats and republicans can agree on. one, they are never going to cut

spending. both parties love spending money. also both love ignoring immigration. i don't think democrats are going to make it a central theme of this 2020 era because they don't have answers for it. our national immigration policies are all over the map. both sides could come together and do something. it's got to be cohesive. >> there was a story over the weekend that access reported about the trump administration getting ready to pass a new rule and cracked down on birth tourism. women who come here very pregnant to have their children. usually from china and russia to come here and have their children on american soil so the children are american citizens and can come back here at a later date. i will point out that president obama and his administration were busting up berth tourism hotels in california right before president trump was elected.

it goes both ways. >> stay tuned for that debate. former new york city mayor michael bloomberg says he is willing to spend billions of his own dollars to defeat president trump. that would make 2020 the most expensive election in united states history. but, what else could it mean? that's next. stay with us. you $2,000 every year. an se and once you refinance, the savings are automatic. thanks to your va streamline refi benefit, at newday there's no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. activate your va streamline benefit now. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream.

it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

i need all the breaks, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ and with the sxfinity stream app, screen is your big screen. which is free with your service, you can take a spin through on demand shows, or stream live tv. download your dvr'd shows and movies on the fly. even record from right where you are. whether you're travelling around the country or around the house, keep what you watch with you. download the xfinity stream app and watch all the shows you love.

>> $10 billion. that's how much mike bloomberg is willing to spend on his presidential campaign, or to help the democratic nominee if it's not him.

that means the defeat president trump. the former mayor telling reuters his number one priority is getting rid of donald trump. political reporting that bloomberg has already spent $248 million in advertising, squeezing out inventory in every state and prompting stations to raise their ad prices. one democratic strategist to link politico there is no doubt that rights are being driven up and it is making it much more expensive for congressional candidates and down ballot races to communicate in their own primary. david is also driving up this cost of staffers because he signed people on through the election. he has spent at least three quarters of the amount spent by all of the other campaigns so far, including president trump. >> for presidents to want to complain about bloomberg with money in elections. if you want to buy inventory later on, bloomberg has to give it up. whether it's tv, radio, or digital. digital matters in this campaign and he is going to buy more digital between now and super

tuesday. >> i would say i had a piece on fox opinion saying that bloomberg is the biggest threat the trumpet. he is also the biggest threat to democrats as well. elizabeth warren better watch herself if she keeps criticizing him. he's got the targets for the voters in his got the digital components. >> how about him being a threat to himself? you see so many of these ads, i don't know, it makes my neck read. >> i don't know if he's doing is himself a big favor. think about something like andrew yang. if he had $2 billion to spend on educating people and introducing himself and giving a comprehensive and rosy picture of his life and his ideas, i think he would be at the top of the polls. that's what money can do for somebody that's not as well-known. but michael bloomberg his name is on an entire news organization. he is more of a known quantity. i watch these as and i am not moved. i will cry during tied

commercials. i will go with you and your emotional journey. >> i am full of tears and i cannot find a remote fast enough when bloomberg comes on. you can't get away from him. >> real quick nobody in history is put this much money into an election, particular with the focus on super tuesday. if somebody try to get on super tuesday it wouldn't matter because you were dead at that point if you lose the first four contests. it's interesting as a political nerd i will be watching. >> potentially he has to socialize with the voters out there. i don't know if they will find him that likable. prince harry speaking publicly for the first time on the makes it drama. granny did him wrong, next. ♪

>> the decision that i have made for my wife and i to step back is not one i made lightly. there were so many months of talks, over so many years of challenges. i know i haven't always gotten it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option. >> kennedy: prince harry breaking his silence on megxit. the duke of sussex saying he wanted to continue supporting queen elizabeth without public funding, but unfortunately that wasn't possible. this follows saturday's buckingham palace announcement that he and his wife, meghan markle, are no longer working members of the royal family. the couple will no longer receive public funds for real duties. they will lose their royal highness titles, they will have to repay the equivalent of about 3 million u.s. dollars t spend n renovating their home. that was the renovations for frog more cottage lisa, obviously you have been just consuming this story. i don't know that the duke and duchess of sussex have fared

very well in some of this press coverage. why is that? >> lisa: because they are spoiled brats. [laughter] he says this out of charity for people with hiv and aids, people struggling. he makes us about himself. it's the same thing we did after their tour of southern africa. meghan markle is that, "nobody asked about me, i'm not doing okay." you to spend time with people in abject poverty, people actually struggling, but again you are making it about you digress. >> kennedy: can you possibly know what you're getting into when you enter in the royal? for emily? >> david: he married somebody wanted to be kim kardashian, and instead got a real housewife, not really a buckingham palace. the fact is they took this the wrong way. i have a lot of respect for the queen. she has modernize the monarchy. she's been through this. edward the eighth abdicated when she was 10, she's at it again. somewhere in between she's managed to keep the u.k. together. while they may have issues with their royals, they don't like

when they act badly prayed for everyone out there, queen elizabeth has earned the respect -- >> kennedy: and more adoration thanks to shows like "the crown." >> jeanne: that's a fabulous show. >> kennedy: that show was amazing! it gives you historical context for what she's been through. part of the reaction, keep your hands off the queen! >> jeanne: i understand them wanting some more freedom, but they could have done it without embarrassing or trying to embarrass the queen. i would just say it's bizarre that this is consuming so much energy, because britain has a lot of other issues going on. brexit still being a major one that could impact them so completely. and this has just consumed the oxygen in the air. >> kennedy: not to mention, man, getting a couple million bucks from your dad every year? that's a great job! [laughter] thanks so much to david webb. hope you had a great monday. >> david: it's great, i'm still having it. >> kennedy: mlk day all day long. thanks again.

we'll be back here on the couch, noon tomorrow, noon eastern, 9:00 in the west. "outnumbered overtime" for dagen mcdowell who is in prayer is faulkner stoltz right now. dagen >> dagen: thank you, fox news alert, the battle lines drawn as we are 24 hours away from the formal start of the president impeachment trial. this is "america's news hq" " 's teacher need to come i'm dagen mcdowell into harris faulkner calling the new charges flimsy and a perversion of the constitution. sing the president did "nothing wrong. and that house democrats have not met the constitutional standard for impeachment. >> you have a lot of evidence, disputed evidence. you can go both ways. the vote was to impeach on abuse of power, which is not within the constitutional criteria for impeachment. an obstruction of congress. >> dagen: the democrats lead impeachment manager, adam schiff, calling that position