♪ >> tucker: this is a fox news alert. the senate impeachment trial of the president of the united states is still underway on capitol hill. senators have taken a dinner break. it's all scheduled to begin once more very soon. we're going to listening to the key moments tonight. what exactly is happening? what are you watching? how long will it continue? what does it mean? the man on first is the one to answer those questions. bill hemmer, host of "bill hemmer reports" which just premiered yesterday to the delight of everyone at fox news. >> thank you. >> tucker: recovered the last impeachment more than 20 years ago.

what are we watching? >> not quite sure we know. we were in the russell senate office building all day today on the fox broadcast network and just listening to it and watching on the monitor, write out the window just yet. i do believe the audience who came to this process for the first time today probably heard some things that have not heard before and probably have some questions about it. if, however, you've been following this, i don't know if you learned a lot new today. the question becomes who is the audience? i think the audience is still the three or four republican senators. mitt romney, lisa murkowski, senator collins out of maine. that's where the votes will come from that determine whether this goes for a long time or whether he is led to impeachment. >> tucker: so you're saying that group of senators, three or four perhaps, will determine the length of the trial. >> not only the length but ultimately will determine guilt or innocence.

i think that's the audience for the house impeachment and managers. >> tucker: could they lose senators? >> we could. depending on how late this goes tonight, it could go until 1:00 in the morning. at 1:00 tomorrow the senate comes back and we believe after a few motions are filed, the house impeachment managers will start the clock. 24 hours. do they go wednesday, thursday, friday? do they take the entire time? and then the presidents attorneys will start their 24 hours. in 1999, neither side took the allotted 24 hours so i wouldn't expect that this time. i am hearing that the lawyers for the white house will come nowhere near the 24-hour slot. if they get the opportunity to start saturday and in all likelihood they might punt until

monday. >> tucker: the iowa caucuses are on monday. great to see you. thank you. congrats on the show. if you watched today, you know parts of the impeachment proceedings have been stultifying the boring but they have generated some fairly amusing and revealing clips. chuck schumer explained how even with no chance of removing the president at the end of the process, impeachment is still absolutely necessary for this country and every other problem we face must go on hold to pursue it. watch. >> the only power the american people have when the president abused his power is this impeachment process. >> tucker: it turns out we have been in this place before if you are getting a creeping feeling of deja vu. impeachment, chuck schumer, yeah. you are not misremembering it. a little over two decades ago

schumer weighed in on another impeachment with a very different take. >> i think today is a sad day. it's a sad day for the country. it's a potentially sad day for the senate. it seems no good cases been made for witnesses. there is no need to continue forward because there are certainly not two-thirds for impeachment. >> tucker: okay, it wasn't a completely different point of view. chuck schumer was still extremely sad about impeachment even back then. was he prayerful? we will be investigating it. even if this impeachment trial ends quickly and it may, in some sense it may never really stopped. congresswoman maxine waters of los angeles is pointing the way for her party. if this impeachment fails, she is telling us, we will just try something else. watch. >> we will not stop. whether it leads to another impeachment activity, i don't know. but i know we must continue with

the work that our constituents have elected us to come to congress to do. >> indeed, carreon, ma'am. >> tucker: the work of course is impeachment. impeachment now. impeachment tomorrow, impeachment forever. before long, impeachment will have its own cabinet secretary. hunter biden is at the heart of the story. so far it remains unclear whether we will see him here in washington if he will testify. mitch mcconnell doesn't seem to want him to. congressman adam schiff meanwhile says asking hunter biden about work fairly corrupt business dealings in ukraine is not a valid use of the public's time. >> hunter biden, for example, can't tell us anything about whether the president withheld military aid, whether he withheld that aid to force ukraine to conduct political investigations or what he wouldn't meet with the president of ukraine. the only purpose in putting him on their list is that they wish to trade material witnesses,

like mr. bolton and mulvaney and others for immaterial ones will allow them to continue to attack a political opponent. it's an illegitimate abuse of the trial. >> tucker: so, as impeachment continues, adam schiff tells you you should know less. jeff sessions was donald trump's attorney general. he is running to reclaim his senate seat in the state of alabama. lucky for him, that means he's not trapped tonight in the senate chamber and instead he joins us live. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: if you are still in the senate, what kind of trial -- presumably wouldn't want to see any trial at all but given the senate was handed this by the house, would you like to see a long protracted trial in which hunter biden testifies? or would you like to see a truncated two or three day trial? >> what we know now is there promise that they had an overwhelming case is totally false.

it's what i believed all along and so many have said. it's nowhere close to an impeachment. now they are commanding a fishing expedition to be started in the senate after they produced a charge that's not sustainable. it's really a total abuse of the impeachment process, an embarrassment to the house. they won't admit it. they want to continue this paid political attack ad, paid for by the taxpayers. for untold weeks. they could have fought for this evidence in the house, ask the courts to complete a hearing as to whether or not these witnesses should be compelled or not. they send it over with no basis, unsubstantiated, not justified. now they want the senate to go on a fishing expedition. i really think the senate would be correct to complete hearing all these facts that the house managers present, listen to it

fairly and objectively, and i think they would be able to make a decision at that point whether or not witnesses are needed. i certainly think it's likely they are not needed. they were needed in the clinton matter. there was clear evidence president clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice, specific crimes that are nowhere here. i hope you'll stay with us. >> tucker: hope to see you in a minute. thank you very much. if you have been paying any attention today, you know the outlines of what's happening. the presidents impeachment trial has begun in the senate and its simulcast on television. if you watched, the situation is complex and tiresome and very boring. no one can do the jobs they were elected to do all this is in progress. that's not a side effect of impeachment. in many ways, it was the point all along of impeachment, to

stall the president's policy agenda. it's frustrating. so frustrating you may have lost sight of the reason we are here in the first place. what is that reason? the articles before the senate accuse the president of use of power and obstruction of congress, they are broad charges and could mean anything. here's what they actually mean. donald trump is being impeached because he asked questions about what the vice president's son was being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars every year by foreigners for what effectively was a no-show job in industry he knew nothing about. the obvious answer is it was a crooked deal. at the same time hunter biden was getting rich from the ukrainian energy company, his father joe was overseeing the obama administration's ukraine policy. that's corruption. there is no other way to describe it. i don't know what they are telling you on cnn. it's not the only example. the biden name was also used at one point to sell a bond scheme that defrauded an american indian tribe in south dakota.

one of hunter biden's closest business partners is still battling charges in that case. and then there's the question of joe biden's brother frank. according to abc news, in 2009, frank biden signed on as the front man for a florida charter school company called mavericks for education. frank biden openly bragged that his last name was an asset for the company. that's why they hired him of, of course. he bragged it would assure him automatic acceptance as they sought regulatory approval and it did. biden's brother wore presidential cufflinks to school board meetings. the arrangement made frank biden hundreds of thousands of dollars in the company's been accused of mismanaging the school and inflating enrollment to secure more government money. eventually the schools were sold. frank biden was speculating in the caribbean. biden began working with the solar energy company seeking to build plants in costa rica and jamaica. frank biden had no experience in

solar energy. he had a brother serving as vice president. both those projects were boosted by loans from u.s. government backed by you, the taxpayer. and then there's joe biden himself. in an era where millions of americans are suffocating under mountains of high interest debt, biden spent his entire career in the senate serving credit card companies. the same time, making it harder for regular people to get out of their debt and bankruptcy. in return for that service, the credit card company mbna gave hunter biden a job. here is noted nonright winger tom brokaw confronting joe biden. >> your son was working for the company the same time. in retrospect, wasn't it inappropriate for someone like you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money from a big credit card company while you are on the board? >> absolutely not. >> tucker: servant to the

credit card companies? think of something more than disgusting, more harmful. selling liquor to children? it's hard to imagine what's worse than that. even leftists are offended. bernie sanders campaign surrogate rode "biden's career was bankrolled by the credit card industry. he delivered for by spearheading a bankruptcy bill that made it harder for americans to reduce their debt and help caused the financial crisis. he not only authored and voted for that bill, he split with barack obama and led the battle to vote democratic amendments." that's all true. look it up. is biden apologizing for what he did? no, he's not. somehow bernie sanders is apologizing. for the crime of telling the truth about joe biden. the entire democratic establishment had landed on bernie sanders with both feet for days he's been savaged by establishment robots like

paul krugman of "the new york times." "this is a really bad look. " krugman tweeted. there is nothing to distrust about the column. it was factually accurate in every way. sanders got the message. apologize or we will destroy your candidacy. he probably groveled for mercy. >> i've known him for many, many years. he is a decent guy. we have strong disagreements but are number of issues and will argue those disagreements. but it's actually not my view that joe is corrupt in any way. >> tucker: joe is not corrupted anyway, he repeated. that's not a campaign message. it's a hostage tape. taped under duress. what's happening here? simple. the self-sustaining organism that is the democratic establishment is dumping antibodies into the system to protect itself.

bernie sanders, like donald trump, is a threat to their power. joe biden is not a threat to their power. it's like they care about joe biden as a person. if they cared about joe biden, they would've convinced him not to run. biden is in no condition to be president or even to run for the child, as you've noticed. he is humiliating himself and his family. for now, biden is all they've got. if hillary clinton jumps into the race or michelle obama, biden will be tossed aside and forgotten. they are vessels for temporary use. what the left cares about is regaining control of the country. that's why they will do whatever's necessary to protect joe biden for now as long as it's necessary. whoever threatens their power must be crushed. hence the spectacle you watched today. senior clinical analyst brit hume joins us tonight -- senior political analyst brit hume joins us tonight. lawson always conversations why we're here in the first place. the central story, the president has been criticized for appearing to tie aid to ukraine to this question about hunter biden. the fact remains he was asking about what the hell they were

doing giving hunter biden all his money. >> what this get that it seems to me is the question of whether of someone by virtue of being a presidential candidate should be immunized from investigations by an administration of the other party. obviously if you're going to investigate someone who might be your leading political opponent, you need to tread carefully because that's not how we are supposed to do things. who are testimony from hunter biden, for example, might get at is the question of whether there were legitimate reasons other than potential political benefit to president trump of getting the ukrainians to investigate the bidens relationship with that company and what possible benefit was to him, his family and so on. therefore to his father. i think that's where we are. >> tucker: i think that's a smart point and it gets to something that sincerely

confuses me. maybe it's my bias as a journalist but i want to hear more. i don't mean it for partisan reasons. i want to hear more about the story. i want to hear from witnesses, including hunter biden. republican leadership in the senate as opposed to that. why? >> i think there's a sense that we get too far afield and string the process out and that bringing on this obviously troubled son of joe biden would turn the impeachment drama in the senate into even more of a circus than it already appears it's going to be. i think institutionalists like mitch mcconnell feel like we all make this any longer than necessary. we want the president acquitted as quickly as possible and would don't want to string it out and we don't want to make the senate and embarrassment. who knows what would happen if you start bringing the hunter bidens of the world in. there's a potentially legitimate reason perhaps for doing so. >> tucker: i suppose i can see both sides. stay with us.

we're going to dip into the proceeding and progress. we have a graphic on the screen. behind it is hakeem jeffries who appears to be saying something that we are going to now. >> the possibility of new witness testimony. in fact, it departs from any criminal or civil trial procedure in america. why should this president be held to a different standard? second, the proposed amendment for witness testimony is necessary in light of the president's determined effort to bury the evidence and cover up his corrupt abuse of power. the house tried to get mr. mulvaney's testimony. we subpoenaed him. mr. mulvaney together with other key witnesses, national security advisor john bolton, senior white house aide robert blair,

office of management and budget official michael duffy, and national security council lawyer john eisenberg. they were called to testify before the house. as part of this impeachment inquiry. but president trump was determined to hide from the american people what they had to say. the president directed the entire executive branch and all of his top aides and advisors to defy all requests for their testimony. that cannot be allowed to stand. third, mr. mulvaney is a highly relevant witness to the events at issue in this trial. mr. mulvaney was at the center of every stage of the president's substantial pressure campaign against ukraine. based on the extensive evidence, the house did obtain, it's clear

that mulvaney was crucial in planning the scheme, executing its implementation, and carrying out the cover-up. emails on witness testimony shows mr. mulvaney was in the loop on the president's decision to explicitly condition a white house meeting on ukraine's announcement of investigations beneficial to the president's reelection prospects. he was closely involved in implementing the president's hold on the security assistance and subsequently admitted that the funds are being withheld to put pressure on ukraine to conduct one of the phony political investigations that the president wanted. phony political investigations. a trial would not be complete without the testimony of

mick mulvaney. make no mistake. the evidentiary record we have built is powerful and can clearly establish the president's guilt on both of the articles of impeachment. but it's hardly complete. the record comes to you without the testimony of mr. mulvaney and other important witnesses. that brings me to one final preliminary observation. the american people agree that there cannot be a fair trial without hearing from witnesses who have relevant information to provide. the constitution, our democracy, the senate, the president, and most importantly the american people deserve a fair trial. a fair trial requires witnesses. in order to provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

the truth. that is why this amendment should be adopted. before we discussed mr. mulvaney's knowledge of the presidents geopolitical shakedown, is important to note that an impeachment trial without witnesses would be a standing departure from this institution's past practice. this distinguished body has conducted 15 impeachment trials. all have included witnesses. sometimes those trials included just a handful of witnesses. as indicated on the screen. at other times they included dozens. in one case, there were over 100 different witnesses. as the slide shows, the average number of witnesses to appear at a senate impeachment trial is

33. in three of those instances including the impeachment of bill clinton, witnesses appeared before the senate who had not previously appeared before the house. that's because the senate, this great institution, has always taken its responsibility to administer a fair trial seriously. the senate has always taken its duty to obtain evidence, including witness testimony, seriously. the senate has always taken its obligation to evaluate the president's conduct based on a full body of available information seriously. this is the only way to ensure fundamental fairness for everyone involved. respectfully, it's important to honor that unbroken precedent today.

so that mr. mulvaney's testimony, without fear or favor as to what he might say, can inform this distinguished body of americans. this amendment is also important to counter the president's determination to bury the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. as we explained in detail today, despite considerable efforts by the house to obtain relevant documents and testimony, president trump has directed the entire executive branch to execute a cover-up. he has ordered the entire administration to ignore the powers of congress, a separate and coequal branch of government to investigate his offenses in a manner that is unprecedented in

american history. there were 71 requests by the house for relevant evidence. in response, the white house produced zero documents. 71 requests. zero documents. president trump is personally responsible depriving the senate of information important to consider in this trial. this point cannot be overstated. when faced with a congressional impeachment inquiry, a process expressly set forth by the framers of the constitution in article one, the president refused to comply in any respect, and he ordered his senior aides to fall in line. as shown on the slide come as a

result of president trump's obstruction, 12 key witnesses including mr. mulvaney refused . no one has heard what they have to say. these witnesses include central figures in the abuse of power charge. what is the president hiding? equally troublesome, president trump and his administration did not make any legitimate attempts to reach a reasonable accommodation with the house while compromise -- president donald john trump wasn't interested in cooperating. he was plotting a cover-up. it's important to take a step back and think about what president trump is doing. complete and total presidential

obstruction unprecedented in american history. even president nixon, whose articles of impeachment included obstruction of congress, did not block key white house aides testifying in front of congress during the senate watergate hearings. in fact, he publicly urged white house aides to testify. remember all those witnesses who came in front of this body? take a look at the screen. john dean, former white house counsel, testified for multiple days. h.r. haldeman, president nixon's former chief of staff was subpoenaed and testify. alexander butterfield, the white house official who revealed the existence of the tapes, testified publicly.

and so did several others. president trump's complete and total obstruction makes richard nixon look like a choir boy. two other presidents have been tried before the senate. how did they conduct themselves? william jefferson clinton and andrew johnson did not block any witnesses from participating in the senate trial. president trump, by contrast, refuses to permit relevant witnesses from testifying to this very day. many of president clinton's white house aides testified in front of congress. even before the commencement of formal impeachment proceedings. during various investigations in the mid-1990s, the house and senate heard from more than two dozen white house aides, including the white house

counsel. the former chief of staff, and multiple senior advisors to president clinton. president clinton himself gave testimony on camera and under oath. he also allowed his most senior advisors including multiple chiefs of staff and white house counsel's to testify. as you can see in the chart, their testimony was packaged and delivered to the senate. there were no missing witnesses who defied subpoenas, no aides who had personal knowledge of his misconduct, directed to stay silent by president clinton. we have an entirely different situation in this case. here we are seeking witnesses.

the president has blocked from testifying before the house. apparently president trump thinks he can do what no other president before him has attempted to do in such a brazen fashion. float above the law and hide the truth. from the american people. that cannot be allowed to stand. let me address some bedrock principles about congress' authority to conduct investigations. our broad powers of inquiry are at their strongest during an impeachment proceeding when the house and senate exercises responsibilities expressly set forth in article one of the constitution. nearly 140 years ago, the supreme court recognized that when the house or senate is determining a question of impeachment, there is no reason to doubt the right to compel the

attendance of witnesses and their answer to proper questions in the same manner and by the use of the same means that courts of justice can in like cases. our nation's founders and greatest legal minds recognize these principles early on. supreme court justice joseph story explained that the president should not have the power of preventing a thorough investigation of his conduct. or of securing himself against the disgrace of a public conviction by impeachment if he should deserve it. president trump cannot function as judge, jury, and executioner of our democracy. it wasn't just the courts who confirmed this for us.

some of our nation's leading public servants. representative john quincy adams, speak on the floor of the house after he had served as president, once exclaimed "what mockery would it be for the constitution of the united states to say that the house should have the power of impeachment extending into the president of the united states himself and yet to say that the house had not the power to obtain the evidence and proof on which there impeachment was based." as hamilton, story, adams, and others have recognized, the president cannot insulate himself from congresses investigation of his wrongdoing. the president deciding what evidence was presented would

fundamentally nullify the constitutional power of impeachment. the amendment is important because president trump simply cannot be allowed to hide the truth. no other president has done it. the supreme court does not allow it. and the president is not above the law. witnesses matter. documents matter. evidence matters. the truth matters. let me now turn to the third justification for this amendment. mr. mulvaney's testimony is critical to considering the case for -- >> tucker: we are going to take it back and go to brit hume. i'm trying to stay professional here but i'm wondering as i'm watching congressman jeffries speak, who the intended audience is? it's hard to imagine many people

watching at home will have their minds changed or understand what he's saying. what is the point? >> what i would say is lots of things are being said and introduced here which did not really bear all that directly on the question of whether witnesses t should be heard. on this the first day and evening of the proceedings, when i think it's fair to say based on what we've seen so far, the audience is probably going to be the highest it's ever going to be for a while anyway, they are trying to get as much of their case and as much of their allegations and dispersions as possible before the public. remember, they don't have much chance of convicting this president and removing him from office but they have a chance of doing two things. they can put some republican senators up for reelection on the spot if they are in states where the president didn't carry and isn't particularly popular. the second thing they can do is further touch him up, the

president, for purposes of preventing his reelection. they are probably not going to win on this impeachment conviction but they have a couple political things they can do that will help them and i think they are trying to do that. >> tucker: for sure. that's clearly been the plan from day one. it prevents the progress of the agenda of course in the administration and also to help their case politically. i wonder this is the way to go about it. i'm obviously not a disinterested party. i've got strong opinions. i put myself in the shoes of someone undecided and i think this guy hasn't convinced a single person. by the end, i'm thinking i don't know what they are accusing trump of but this guy's not winning me over to put it mildly. >> that is in the eye of the beholder. i understand what you're saying and i suspect there's a very large segment particulate of our audience will find him as annoying as you do. >> tucker: that was the word i was searching for, annoying. >> [laughs]

i think that's kind of where we are. they are doing the best they can with the people they have. all of this is being led by adam schiff, man who's pretty well established himself to any fair-minded observer as someone was a great deal of difficulty at times telling the truth. theory is leading the way. put yourself in the mind of a republican senator and what you are listening for is do they assert or establish anything which would make it hard for me to vote to acquit and that's one good way to look at it. are they getting anything through here that will make it hard for republican senators to do as republican senators would be inclined to do which is to vote not to convict. >> tucker: there is a flip side. having covered, as you did, 22 years ago, the last impeachment which in the end read downed it politically to the benefit of

democrats. i wonder if they are not running a risk of doing that here. as a possible it helps trump? >> remember this. it's possible. remember this. one of the things that we've heard about bill clinton a lot and we've heard about donald trump is the accusation that he's a liar. let's assume for a second that he is. so was clinton. the difference between them was bill clinton was a guy who could pee down your leg and he would say it was raining and you would believe it. as a teller of tall tales, i don't think trump is as gifted as he is and i don't think he's as popular. the president, with all the scandal that surrounded president clinton, he had a great economy and it buoyed his standings in a way that this great economy hasn't seemed to. this president, to a lot of

people, is obnoxious. remember that when you start thinking about the impeachment helping him. i don't think impeachment ever really helps. in fact i don't think that following the clinton impeachment, the next candidate up wasn't clinton. it was his second term. it was al gore. what did president bush run on? he ran principally on restoring honor and decency, i forget the exact words. honor and integrity to the oval office. it proved to be a winning message. it wasn't really about al gore. he was about clinton. >> tucker: i think that's true. democrats gained seats in the midterm election of 1998. i guess what i'm saying is whatever you think about trump, these people strike me, one man's opinion, as extremists and scary. that's my take away. >> what i don't think is if you look across america and you think of the places were dropped as popular, the case and the

performance being put on by these people i don't think has moved the needle against president trump at all. >> tucker: [laughs] i think that's fair to say. brit hume, great to see you. thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: the impeachment trial on capitol hill, no matter how absurd it gets and can it get more absurd? it's still technically a trial and with a trial comes rules. we are monitoring everything that some of those rules have senators grumbling as they suffer through this interminable experience to make. to sorted out and add some facts, chief breaking news correspondent trace gallagher joins us. >> they are grumbling because they are hungry and can't tweet. for nearly 200 years, the only drink allowed in the senate chamber was water and then in 1966 an unnamed senator had an unusual urge for a glass of milk and so technically milk is also allowed in the upper chamber along with water but water remains the decorum of preference though it can be still or sparkling. on the other hand, food is a

known altogether in the food happens to be from pennsylvania. you can find that candy desk where not surprisingly pennsylvania senator pat toomey is in charge of making sure there's an ample supply of hershey, milky way, three musketeers and reese's. senator toomey admits he has mounds of responsibility. the milk and the milk chocolate traditions began in the mid 60s and even of the sweet desk is on the g.o.p. side of the outcome of democrats are welcome to dig in. candy is allowed. apples are not. but now neither are samsung, microsoft, dell or any other electric devices. a cabinet has been installed that you can ditch your electronic devices in the cabinet before you go inside the chamber. the goal is they want you listening, not blogging while the proceeding is underway. if you get tired of listening,

tired of water, or just plain listening, there's a cabinet of coffee. >> tucker: that's the most interesting thing i've heard all day. what you said gripped my attention more than anything i've seen out of the united states senate. i appreciate it. the impeachment trial so far has been a lot of dull haggling over rules punctuated by eruptions of interminable self-righteousness and absurdity. but at msnbc, it's quite literally being treated like a new political thriller on netflix. watch. >> donald trump on trial. for only the third time in history, an american president impeached, charged with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. >> this thing is a big hoax, big hoax. >> threat to national security and the constitution if allowed to remain in office. >> today the impeachment trial

donald trump. >> tucker: donald trump on trial! somewhere in los angeles and man is standing in a voice-over booth reading those words into a microphone. donald trump on trial. for millions of americans totally confused by what's going on and why it's a good use of your u.s. government, chris matthews on msnbc had a simple explanation. if you are not into it, you're just too dumb to understand it. >> the whole topic became can you impeach a president who hasn't committed a crime? to the right wing, that's a good talking point. trump loves the low information guy, "dancing with the stars," who cares more about harry and meghan and brad and jennifer. there are a lot more people care about those topics. it works. >> tucker: what was that? [laughs] deroy murdock is a country bidding editor at national

review online which means he watches this for a living absolving us of the responsibility to do so and he joins us for a recap. >> i am waiting for my chocolate. i didn't know you can get free chocolate. that's reason enough to run. >> tucker: it's the best thing about the u.s. senate as of tonight. what exactly are we watching and to reiterate a point i asked brit and i'm still pondering, from the point of view of democrats, who are they trying to convince? >> i think it's an ongoing, latest fermentation of what we seen. yesterday was the third anniversary of the trump administration, of his inauguration and at 12:19 in the afternoon after he had been sworn in, "the washington post" ran the headline "campaign to impeach president trump has begun." this has been going on for three years and a day. >> tucker: seems a little premature. >> well before the folks had

spoken to trump, the conversation, the perfect phone call. they've been after him from 19 minutes into his presidency. they hate his guts. they can't stand him. >> tucker: you are traditional person. you've covered this for a long time. let me ask you, wouldn't it be easier to do what political parties have done for a couple hundred years now which is if you don't agree with the other guys position explain why it and provide an alternative. we've had peaceful transitions all this time. why not stick with that? >> i think that's what they ought to do. a positive agenda, serious ide ideas. this could get bipartisan support. 55% of the country in the stock market. 45% were not. have 45% not benefiting directly as the stock market goes up. why don't the democrats come up with an idea, anyone who wants to be the stock market invested

and come up with a way to get those barriers out of the way for anybody who wants to participate. something sensible for the democrats to push. republicans would say that's a good idea. let's work on it. rather than this ongoing charade and circus, maybe something positive could come from an interesting idea led by democrats perhaps with bipartisan support. >> tucker: i don't even know what i think of it but it would be an interesting conversation from which all of us would benefit. i'm not sure who would benefit from this, leading a trial whose ending is certain based on a story that's both confusing, very limited significance, and in fact implicates the other side, joe biden and his son. whwho is benefiting? >> i will tell you, donald j. trump. his numbers have been going up come up, up and support for impeachment has gone down, down, down. the president is becoming more popular. democrats seem to be involved in

this endless pattern of collective masochism. you would think at that time the schiff hearing started, 9% margin in favor of impeachment and that's now in negative figures. you would think at some point they would stop hitting themselves over the head with a skillet and say that hurts. we should stop. but they are doubling down and continuing and the only person it's hurting is the democrats and the only person it's helping is the president of the united states. >> tucker: bernie sanders, like trump, also through one of his surrogates tried to bring the public's attention to focus on joe biden's history with the credit card companies. no criticizing joe biden. why do you think the most significant crime right now in america in the view of the democratic party is criticizing joe biden? >> these people are very good at one thing: circling the wagons. defending themselves. if you get out of line, they will knock you down or run you

over. it's one of the things that benefits the democrats. >> tucker: because the goal is not to figure out the best way to govern the country or sort out ideological differences, to come to terms. the goal is to take power right? >> the goal for the democrats' control. they want to tell you what to do when you wake up, what you have for lunch and what you have for dinner and what happens until you go to bed and even after that. they want control of our lives. under obama, you couldn't buy mecca dishwasher. you couldn't buy and ice making machine without obama getting in on it and decide how it was going to operate and how many bolts and what it was going to look like. they want control. increase their control over all of our lives and that's a terrible thing. >> tucker: of course. spend the afternoon shopping and you will find the degree to control. life evolves. water in your shower.

>> fortunately president trump has deregulated them. >> tucker: thank you. continuing to monitor the impeachment trial, debate, whatever. it's going on on capitol hill. we will dip in shortly. hillary clinton meanwhile can't help but jumping on all of this. a short time ago she tweeted "i thought everyone wanted my authentic unvarnished views but to be serious, the number one priority for our country and world is retiring trump and i as i always have will do whatever i can to support our nominee." in a new campaign ad, documentary, sorry, hillary is in fact not doing that. she is savaging bernie sanders. "nobody likes him" she said with no trace of self-awareness. nobody wants to work with him. he got nothing done. in 2016, millions of trump

voters were deplorables and now millions of sander supporters are nobodies. tammy bruce joins us now. so much going on here. quickly to what we have been watching all day with one eye, this unfolding whatever it is. what do you make of it? >> impeachment theater. this is democratic campaign for 2020. they have nothing. being paid for by the taxpayers. they are showing their base they hate trump as much as they do. they are vindictive. nancy pelosi says trump will remain in peace forever and they still can't see what it is they are actually doing. it won't be forgotten. but it is they who will live in infamy. the american people and history will not be looking back on this kindly, as though it was something done to trump. it's her reminder to the american people about why trump was elected and why this country was a dumpster fire before 2016 and why we had to get a

president so that we can have normal light bulbs and so the people in san francisco could have a fire in their home, fireplace, and do barbecue. things were so out of control. this is why we did this because of the absurdity of what we are watching right now in the senate. >> tucker: you've got to wonder if barack obama wherever he is now, saint barth's, asks himself, if i did such a great job, why did they elect trump after i left? maybe he doesn't go there. >> that would require some self reflection which i don't think is his high point. >> tucker: where do you think this is going exactly? >> clearly what we've seen, it's a clear reformation going on politically. you have establishments here and certainly in europe and absolutely in england. where the average person, the

nobodies and the deplorables i've had enough. when you saw england with they did in their last special election, reject your entire system which is remarkable for that class-based structure of a country to have done, we are in the process of that. i think trump and what we did in '16 give them energy and enthusiasm and confidence to do it. we will continue this process. the 2016 election was one first step of getting this country back on her feet and every date of this goes on, we are reminded about the necessity of having done it and the necessity of doing it again so it's an honor to be able to do this, for us to have this conversation and for us to be able to take advantage of what the founders gave us which is to punish people who abuse the constitution in the way democrats are doing right now. >> tucker: i got to ask you one last question, do democrats say republicans are obsessed with hillary clinton but if she had retired like most losing candidates do, we wouldn't be

talking about her. she keeps reinserting his all for the conversation. what does that mean? it's pretty clear she wants to run for president again. her spokesman implied it. do you think she will? >> she said before she doesn't want to run for president. but she wouldn't mind being president. how do you get that? you get it, brokered convention. we are responding as anyone would. if you defend yourself against a stocker it means you want to protect yourself. she was managed to offend the rest of the country by her attacks on bernie sanders and without first tweet that you posted where she said in all seriousness she would support the nominee, she couldn't even keep her own stand for 24 hours. she folded like a rotten

lawn chair after having attacked him and reiterated and doubled down in the hollywood reporter interview and then everyone said what is wrong with you and she folded. that's why she's not president. she believes in nothing. she won't take any stand except in hating the american people, calling us names, playing blamir people and not taking responsibility. >> tucker: so many good analogies, i wish i'd written it down. tammy bruce. >> just remember the rotten lawn chair. >> tucker: we are going to go to jeff sessions. senator, you've been watching this to the extent that you can. some of it is tough to take. does what the democrats are doing right now, does it seem to you to be a comprehensible strategy? do you understand or they are trying to achieve?

>> i think they will not and feel like they cannot abandon this narrative that they have created that donald trump needs to be impeached. they have set it from day one. the facts have not supported it. when i was a prosecutor, i've taught my assistance if your case doesn't develop, don't keep digging. end at. they should've ended it before seeking impeachment. they didn't even seek the evidence that they claim they want to have. they impeached on these vague charges, no crime. none charged. it's not justified. they would rather lose it. try to spin it into a victory in november. that's why they won't stop, in my opinion. >> tucker: yeah. what do you do with an opponent who loses but won't stop coming. senator, thank you for coming on and giving us your perspective. we appreciate it.

we are going to dip back into the impeachment trial in progress. that is a graphic on the screen placed there by manager congressman hakeem jeffries of new york who has been given quite a long stem winder. some of it is hard to understand but move you can do it. here it is. >> the only checks that are left when the president abuses his power, tries to cheat in the next election. undermines our national securi security. breaks the law in doing so and then tries to cover it up. this is america. no one is above the law. but if the president is allowedf he's allowed to decide whether he should comply with lawful subpoenas in connection with an impeachment inquiry or trial, then he is the ultimate arbiter of whether he did anything wrong. that cannot stand.

if he can't be indicted any can't be impeached and he can't be removed and can't be held accountable, that's inconsiste inconsistent. with the united states constitution. you will know down here that the reason that the president blocked these witnesses including mr. mulvaney from testifying is because of some lofty concern for the office of the presidency and the preservation of executive privilege. let's get real. how can blocking witnesses from telling the truth about the president's misconduct help preserve the office of the presidency? this type of blanket obstruction undermines the credibility of the office of the presidency and deals the constitution of potentially mortal deathblow.

to be clear, executive privilege does not provide a legally justifiable basis for his complete and total blockage of evidence. in fact, as you heard earlier today, president trump never even invoked executive privilege, not once. without ever asserting this privilege, how can you consider his argument in a serious fashion? instead, speaking through mr. cipollone, the distinguished white house counsel, president trump simply decided he did not want to participate in the investigation into his own wrongdoing. it was a categorical decision not to cooperate without consideration of specific facts or legal arguments.

in fact, even the words that president trump used through his white house counsel were made up. in the letter, mr. cipollone referred to so-called executive branch confidentiality interes interests. but that is not a recognize jurisprudential shield, not a proper assertion of executive privilege. to the extent there are privilege issues to consider, those can be resolved during testimony, as they have been for decades. finally, the president claimed mr. mulvaney could not be compelled to testify because of so-called absolute immunity. every court to address this legal fiction has rejected. as the supreme court

emphatically stated in unanimous passion in his decision on the nixon tapes, confidentiality interests of the president must yield to an impeachment. when there is a legitimate need for the information, as there is here today. there can be no doubt that mr. mulvaney, as the president's chief of staff and head of the office of management and budget is uniquely situated to provide this distinguished body with relevant and important information about the charges in the articles of impeachment. the president's obstruction has no basis in law and should yield to this body coequal authority to investigate impeachable and corrupt conduct. one final point bears mention. if the president wanted to make

witnesses available even while preserving the limited protections of executive privilege, he can do so. in fact, president trump expressed his desire for witnesses to testify in the senate just last month. let's go to the videotape. >> i would love to have mike pompeo, mitch, rick perry and many other people testify. >> if president trump has nothing to hide as he and his advisors repeatedly claim, they should also flee testify in the senate trial. >> tucker: house member hakeem jeffries of new york. he is an impeachment manager. just referred earlier, not during this, earlier to the president is the grand wizard of

1600 pennsylvania avenue. some contacts they are to let you know how serious it is. thanks for joining us. we'll be back tomorrow night. the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, groupthink. >> we welcome alert. on the ground and capitol hill, will go to the hearings if necessary. we get the latest from fox news congressional correspondent chad pergram is there, on the ground watching and suffering through a lot of the tediousness. speak a good evening, sean. right now the senate is debating a proposal by chuck schumer to subpoena mick mulvaney, the acting white house chief of staff, we heard from hakeem jeffries, the chair of the democratic caucus