byron york was praised saying this is just the beginning of the end. thank you, byron york.fic reporting. give me the name of that democratic candidate. >> i don't know. but the story goes back to august 26 when the inspector general of the intelligence community writes this letter that we have seen, a letter to the director of national intelligence. it said the whistleblower had sound cases of what he called an arguable political bias in favor of a rival political candidate. imagine that. lou: political bias. >> a few weeks later we had press reports that said we found out what the bias was. the whistleblower is a registered democrat. a lot of come terry said -- a lot of common terry saying that republicans i region station in the democratic party is bias. the inspector general testified friday to the house. he was asked, just base's registered republican? the answer was no. it's because the whistleblower had a working or professional relationship with a person who is now one of the democratic 2020 candidates. lou: with that, the plot is spilling out before our very eyes. w

thank you, byron york. joining us tonight, byron york.hief political correspondents for the "washington examiner." byron, terrific reporting. give me the name of that democratic candidate. >> i don't know. but the story goes back to august 26 when the inspector general of the intelligence community writes this letter that we now have seen. a letter to the director national intelligence. it says the whistleblower who was anonymous, had some indication of an argue iewbl bias. lou: a democrat and work for a democratic presidential candidate. >> a few weeks later we had press reports saying we found out what the bias was. the whistleblower is a registered democrat. there was a lot of commentary about republicans think simple registration in the democratic party is evidence of wrongdoing. but now we found out there is more to the story. inspector general friday did testify to the house and republicans asked him. what about his political bias. is it just because it's a registered republican? and the answer was no. it's because the whistleblower

, joining us the afore said byron york for the washington examiner's fox business contribute givethe name of that did democratic candidate. >> i don't know don't know but the story goes back, to august 26 when the inspector general the intelligence community writes a letter that we now have seen a letter to the director of national intelligence said the whistle-blower who is anonymous had indications of arable political bias in favor of a rival political candidate. >> imagine that divine a political bias, a democratic working for a democratic presidential candidate. >> a few weeks later we had press reports that said hey we found out what the bias was whistle-blower is a registered democrat a lot of commentary said you know, republicans are crazed by partisanship so much think system registration in democratic party is evidence of wrongdoing there is more to story inspector general friday did testify at it house republicans asked him so what about this political bias what is the story just because he is a registered republican? and the answer was no. it is because the whistle-blow

lou: joining us tonight, byron york. great to see you, byron.'s start with the vote tomorrow on impeachment process. inquiry or whatever you want to call this sham that's being conducted by schiff and pelosi. >> i would call it the adam schiff empowerment act of 2019. i think nancy pelosi has been the chairman of the board, she made her choice of schiff over jerry nadler. lou: i wonder why she did that. >> look at some of the hearings nadler had, the corey lewandowski hearing, the robert mueller sharing. lou: schiff lied for two years. he's doing it in secret and leaking things out. all the news follows all everything he says so it looks like there is a terrible damning process going on. in the mediate's been damaging to him. but we don't have the substance. people say the republicans are arcing about process. they are arguing about substance. they want the public to see what the witnesses have said. lou: we are not going to until the end, if we do then. >> this is where the adam schiff empowerment act comes in. it gives the chairman to do anyth

it was just fine, he's right on, byron york is spot on in his reporting about this. >> laura: it's going to get worse. the state department ordered gordon somnolent not to appear for his deposition with house investigators, it would make sense which of course is drawing the ire of schiff, watch. >> the failure to produce this witness, the failure to produce the documents, we consider additional strong evidence of construction, a coequal branch of government. >> laura: if you assert a privilege, executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, deliberative process privilege, you are guilty of obstruction -- there's no winning in this scenario. >> i would like to explain to little schiff that propounding and presenting a false, completely false narrative, someone's guilt is called obstructing justice. he did it, he did it right in front of the american people, he did it for about 20 minutes. he did a total, fictitious claim and he did it again earlier when he claimed he had evidence of russian collusion. schiff, where is your evidence? you're a liar, i'm calling you out as a lawyer, where's

>> martha: byron york, always good to have you here. good to see you. we'll be talking to you next week as the saga moves on and we come back, new information from the trump advisor taps with investigating joe and hunter biden's business ties in china. what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ it's what gives audible themembers an edge.listening; it opens our minds, changes our perspective, connects us, and pushes us further. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories: audible. performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? so, you bought those "good enough" paper towels? [daughter laughs] not such a bargain. there's only one quicker picker upper. b

let's discuss with leslie marshall and byron york. great to have you with us.ere -- byron is here with me on the floor of the spin room. what do you make of this? she said she started this inquiry in a way that should satisfy her base is something moving ahead and getting done but they are not allowing the republicans or the white house to have the other side of this which is subpoena, transcript and those things. >> we heard many times neither the constitutional rules of the house require that they do this. the reason to do this was a legal reason. of how subpoenas the white house the white house refuses the subpoena the house goes to court, the house can say to the judge we've got a big impeachment proceeding going on tantamount to a judicial proceeding because we all voted on it. that was important because pelosi has a lot of democrats telling her we don't need that. we have enough stuff. the president confessed we have this evidence and we can go straight to impeachment without this long court case we might not win anyway. shannon: i talked to tom stier who

byron york, chief correspondent of the "washington examiner."next steps, public hearings to calm. your thoughts on this day and what it means big picture? >> this has a lot of about the republicans have said they want to the democrats to do. public hearings, transcripts available, some kind of due process for the president. his lawyers will get to cross examine. the most important thing about this is that this formalizes the process and that gives democrats a slightly stronger hand when they go to court to try and compel or enforce the subpoenas they issued. once they formalized it, it gives them a little bit stronger hand. >> bret: congressman collins earlier said this does not change their complaints about this process. it doesn't -- they believe a fair take because of the guidelines that are set up at the minutia of the resolution. >> i think congressman collins speaks for a lot of his colleagues when he says that. this is it going to change anything about the approach of the republicans have had. they reject this process as something that is

john, byron york, he made an's what about that?uld the democrats think long and hard about the televised aspect? it's great for the media, but isn't necessarily great for them? >> no, but this is a railroad. and the senators -- 50 senators got on a resolution, saying this whole process was wrong. and the republicans should do it againut tomorrow. the senate should get together and say mcconnell and graham should leave them and end this process right now, because it in secret, it partisan -- >> laura: it's not an impeachment that i wouldn't even recognize -- i would say, you know, we're going back to the work of the american people. this has been a sham from the beginning. there is no underlying crime of criminal intent. there is certainly a lot of leaking coming out of the committee, and not fair access to republicans. we don't even recognize it. it would be kind of bold to do that, but what are they going to do, take them to court? okay, the court would say it's a political question and we are not voting on it. >> republican senat

byron york did great reporting of the "washington examiner" ," and we should credit him. but let's go back a couple weeks. i broke this story on sean hannity's programs down my program a couple weeks back that the inspector general found there whistleblower may have some political bias. i underline, "may have." some of the left responded and said, "no, this person was just a registered democrat. it's not a big deal. there was no real political bias." now byron york has filed a bun said, "no, behind doors with the committee committee revealed the are some kind of ties between the first whistleblower and a 2020 democrat. we don't know which one and we are not extensive it is, to be fair. we don't know, would they have posted something on facebook you might have the committed many? we need to find all that out. >> melissa: when you go down that road and try to find out, they say, "hang on, this person deserves protection." "the rolling stone poster making an art event that this doesn't fit the case of a traditional whistleblower, in one of the biggest senses that he whistleb

byron york says yeah. i think he is working for the candidates.d not identify the candidate with whom the whistleblower had a conviction. unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was. to think that somebody is going to take down a president who is saying by the way i'm affiliated with somebody on the other side that wants the president's job is astounding. back to what the "wall street journal" says, the person who makes the accusation anonymous. it's a secret. the other person it's a secret. it's anonymous. the president is just supposed to give in and say okay, what can i do? steve: the first whistleblower has whistleblower protection. that's why they went and filed that thing. but there is a new poll that has come out from harris should the whistleblower testify before congress? 51% say yes. and it should be public. 35% say yes, and it should be private. extraordinarily, only 14% think that the whistleblower should not talk. but, nonetheless, now that we know that they had a professional relationship with a democrat

whistleblower had a professional tie to a 2020 democratic candidate, in washington examiner by byron york was a registered democrat, prior working relationship with a current 2020 democratic presidential candidate said a third person, what kind of inspector general is this? guy comes to you, he has second-hand information, none is first, he said, i am a democrat, i have a connection with one or more of democrats running for president in 2020, honest to god, he said, okay you are a whistleblower? i have never seen anything like this before. form is suspect, he checked first hand information, he did not have first han information, there is more, no wonder that democrats to want to keep the gy in witness protection program or whatever basement he is in. from catherine herridge fox news, ig could not explain 18 day window between ukraine call and whistleblower complaint sources say. this so-called whistleblower waits 18 days. until he files his complaints. it is urgent, get it to congress, but waits 3 weeks? why? there are a lot of questions, breitbart.com, great piece, a small nonprofit help

shannon: i want you to reply to the reporting by byron york that the inspector general told folks behind closed doors that not only was the original whistleblower a registered democrat, but he had a significant -- one of the presidential candidates currently trying to challenge donald trump inaccurate selection. >> we knew there were multiple reasons the inspector general thought the whistleblower had partisan bias and it couldn't be just that he was registered democrat. learning that he had professional ties to one of the candidates is important but also reason to believe the whistleblower wasn't just blowing whistle is repeating hearsay. he got a lot wrong with what he claimed about this phone call and this is the problem with the impeachment inquiry. we already have the phone call. we can read it. we don't need whistleblowers. we don't need to hear about it. the -- shannon: there's a big effort to get testimony directly from this whistleblower. everyone in dc hopes that happens, we get more answers. >> we deserve that testimony and the evidence to be protected that he has. shannon: a

byron york why they should terrify democrats. ♪ >> laura: the swamp blues america.hat is the focus of tonight's "angle." now, it may have felt good for trump haters in the moment. >>now, he wasn't the first president to be booed at a major sporting event and he probably won't be the last. for millions of americans happily living outside of the beltway, the 15 or so seconds of disrespect merely confirms what they already thought about this town. it took place teeming with lawyers, lobbyists, consultants and journalist. it was never going to treat trump fairly. now the president surely knew the reception he had received from the swamp venison, but he went anyway. to represent america at its greatest past time. and the snarky cell phone video that flew around twitter last night stirred a backlash. the left is so caught up in their own season hatred of the president that they don't realize the millions of americans, it felt like they were booing them. and they relished it. if trump was loved by the swamp, well, he would not deliver results for everyday americans. a visc

byron york quoting government reporting that pelosi won't go to court to enforce the subpoenas. the house will keep turning out subpoenas based on what's known now, which is nothing, plus obstruction which answers the uncovered subpoenas bit like mcdonald's, running out in a minute. running deep in the democrats ' his words were devastating, i'll get to that. we take a step back. we have to remember how did we get here? now there are three fund mental things at play. one, the left in america, the media mob, they have never been able to accept the truth and the reality which is the results of the 2016 election. two, we had four separate investigations into trump-russia collusion, bipartisan senate committee, and guess what, culminating with mueller's report. no collusion. impeachment dreams shattered. three, they know they can't beat trump. they've been saying it. take a look. >> are you concerned that impeachment talk may help the president's reelection? >> i'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected. if we don't impeach him, he will stay. he has

byron york of the washington examiner says about the secrecy of the hearings. >> this is being handled as if they were huge state secrets and they're not classified information. it's nothing that has to be kept secret. so what you're hearing republicans say is we shouldn't just have this little leak or that little leak of what took place in these interviews, we should have the entire transcripts released and the future meetings should be held in public so people can see what was said. >> i read -- i listened -- i read it this morning and listening to that, that make sense to me. i'm wondering if there's a compelling legal reason to keep the testimony behind closed doors. >> absolutely not. again, this is a democracy. we want the people to be able to be informed and then to listen to what their elected representatives say about what's unfolding. impeachment is the ultimate political act overturning an election, i view it as political capital punishment. so let's let the sunshine in. it's a great disinfectant. how dare you decide this is an impeachment inquiry and keep it behind closed d

byron york writing about this. he talks about how they were transcribed interviews. the last couple have been depositions which means no one is allowed to talk about them. adam schiff can decide if the transit are released even lawmakers are getting a chance to look at them. he talks about the former ambassador yavanovitch saying as the yavanovitch interview began her statement quickly lakes, democrats and yavanovitch got their side of the story out without any revolt from republicans. >> republicans are afraid that the democrats on the committee will do to them or one of them what they did to devon nunez which is want to charge that he mishandled classified information. it was a baseless charge but he had to step down from the committee or felt he had to while the inquiry was done into that. they are afraid of that little bit, but this game is so transparent what is going on here, they hold the questioning session in secret, then the democrats week to the media whatever portions they think are advantageous to their side of the republicans are afraid to do the same t

let's bring in our panel from ohio, byron york chief political correspondent with omar edgington theer" and mar elias mara eliasson. >> she wants to make sure the vote happens when support is at its absolute peak. i think she would have the votes, the majority of the house for impeachment inquiry, sure. she doesn't want to put her moderate, vulnerable members in harm's way. that has been her northstar, she wants to protect them. it's only when seven of them wrote an op-ed piece in "the washington post" that said she was for this that she ahead. >> the value of the vote was if the house subpoenas for the white house for information, the house goes to court and they say to the court we have a formal impeachment inquiry under way, this is a weighty enough procedure, it's like a judicial procedure, the white house must comply. pelosi has a lot of democrats giving her the advice that we already have enough, we don't have to go through this long process. there is enough evidence right now to go forward. >> based on what the president has said in public and the transcript of the white house

byron york reporting tonight. here she had a professional tied to a 2020 democratic candidate which means that he or she works with or for one of the democrats that is running against tromp. that would be a conflict of interest especially when the giving hearsay evidence in the first place. let's recap. nonwhistle-blower whistle-blower. registered democrat. clear political bias. professional relationship with one of the 2020 democrats who want to be tromp. complete based on hearsay not first-hand knowledge and also media reports. doesn't even matter what the complaint claims because as we know now to the transcript, what was said and what wasn't said don't we? by the way, the call in question shows no quid pro quo. nothing. no funds were withheld from ukraine. ukrainian officials didn't even know the president was considering delaying aid at the time of the call. but then you have the cowardly adam schiff, known congenital liar, then you have nancy pelosi come another liar who lost all control over her party in th

washington examiners byron york and ed rollins on the efforts to overthrow a president underway now on hill. we will have the latest on the left's attempt to do just that. we will also be talking about one of their so called star witnesses trying to alter the transcript of the trump zelensky phone call, and will a change in the location of apex next month affect the possibility of u.s. china trade deal? gordon chang with us at the top of the hour. hope you will join us. liz, thank you. liz: sounds like you will be busy. good to see you, lou. we have the next big bubble about to burst that no one saw coming, the 2020 democrats and the progressive agenda. we will bring in a former fbi official on the criminal probe of the russia probe. those stories coming up. the game doesn't end after that insane buzzer beater. because with nba league pass on xfinity you can watch the out of market games you want- all season long. and with the all-new xfinity sports zone, you get everything nba all in one place- even notifications about your favorite teams. watch the dropped dimes, monster blocks, and

byron york, wash b to washingtor respondent is reporting the whistleblower had a professional tie to presidential candidates for 2020. joining us now, washington examiner commentary writer kayla mcgee. questions this morning, which candidate and how does that conflict of interest, if you will, change the impeachment inquiry and the circumstances? >> first of all, we don't know what candidate the whistleblower allegedly has ties to and we don't know what kind of relationship it is. so there are a lot of questions that we still need answers to. but it really does call into question the motivations of the whistleblower complaint. doesn't really change the content. we know for the most part what the whistleblower said is indeed true in terms of the ukraine phone call transcript and now we have have another whistleblower saying the same thing. the motivation, those -- we should be questioning those at this point. lauren: we certainly will. at least we are here on this network. it begs the he question, how much of this is just noise. i want you to look at this wall street journal nbc poll.

jeff mason, white house correspondent for writers and byron york, political correspondent for the "washingtone vice president, the treasury secretary after this long meeting at the white house saying sanctions are coming. >> yes. that's their answer to what has become both a military and political mess for this white house. they did threaten this just a few days ago and they are following through on it, but it seems pretty clear from what president erdogan is saying that that threat doesn't make a lot of difference to him. he's got a geopolitical goal that he wants to achieve and he is doing that and i think it's worth noting despite the fact that i understand the vice president also said president trump didn't sanction this, it was his decision to take u.s. troops out of that region that allowed it, gave sort of the green light, whether it was deliberate or not, to president erdogan to go ahead. >> bret: necessarily or, byron, the vice president insisting that he didn't get the green light to erdogan and the president reiterated that in the call to erdogan today. we are where we are though i

. >> shannon: let me quickly -- i want to get you to reply to the reporting by byron york tonight that the inspector general called folks that he was testifying that not only was the original whistle-blower somebody who was simply a registered democrat, everybody around here in d.c. is registered for something but a significant title i of the presidential candidates currently buying two challenged president trump in next year's elections. only a few seconds but i want to get your reaction. >> we already knew there were multiple reasons why the inspector general thought the whistle-blower had partisan bias and it couldn't be just that he was a registered democrat, learning that he also had professional ties to one of the candidates, that's important. but more than that we have a religion to believe the whistle-blower was interested blowing a whistle is repeating hearsay. he got a lot wrong with what he claimed about this phone call and this is the whole problem with the impeachment inquiry to begin with. we have the entire phone call. we all can read it so we don't need whistle-blowers,

. >> shannon: byron york writing about this. they were transcript interviews. the last couple have been depositions, which means no one is allowed to come out and talk about them. adam schiff can decide if there transcript are released and even lawmakers are getting a chance to look at them. talks about the former ambassador, marie yovanovitch, who testified last week. he says this, "as the interview began her ten page opening statement quickly leaked. democrats and marie yovanovitch got their side of the story out without any rebuttal from republicans." if they are afraid to say anything. >> the republicans are afraid i think that the democrats on the committee, on the intelligence committee, will do to them, or someone of them, what they did to devin nunes, which was they walked up a charge that he mishandled classified information or whatever, it was a baseless charge, but he had to step down from the committee, or felt he had to while there independency was done into that. i think they are afraid of that a little bit but this game is so kind of transparent,

byron york writing, "under questioning from republicans during last friday's impeachment inquiry interviewhe inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered democrat. it was that he had a significant tie to one of the democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge president trump in next year's election." lisa, i don't know that that so much is what concerns me as much as the whistleblower's action of going to the committee before going to the ig. >> lisa: right. >> melissa: go ahead. >> lisa: it was the inspector general that noted the complainant had a bias which was noted in the doj release in response to it was a blur complaint. >> melissa: everybody has a bias, though. >> lisa: well, i know, but if you are trying to essentially lead to the impeachment of the president, i think that's a fair concern. just to confirm, i asked mark meadows on the commercial break, adam schiff has not release the transcript of kurt volker testimony, which i think speaks to the process and the concerns there. not just the way adam s

back at the bureau byron york chief political correspondent of "the washington examiner" and ben, publishere white house. that letter is essentially saying forget it. issue a vote or don't do it. >> they weren't even saying unless you vote won't cooperate. background briefing about the press were asked repeatedly if the house meets your criteria and vote on this would you cooperate then that's a hypothetical. they are the not even guaranteeing they will cooperate if the house take as vote. >> bret: ben, your thoughts on this move. >> i think this is a political document obviously. it's not a legal one. meant to send a message to capitol hill and i think it sends a very clear one which is that as mara said even if you do vote in this way, you know, we might not cooperate but, at the very least, you need to vote. and i think it sends a message about the way that republicans ought to be responding to this inquiry, that they should be demanding transparency. demanding public hearings which we haven't gotten yet from the congress. >> bret: here is the speaker adam schiff and republican lee zeldi

melissa: let's bring in byron york from the "washington examiner." he is fox news contributor. byron, i'm hoping, assuming you were listening through most of that. what did you think about the response from the president when he was asked why would anybody be an american ally again after this? do you worry about that, he basically said no. what did you think of that response? >> he basically ended the whole thing with a very emotional discussion of american host have been wounded and what he called these endless wars in iraq and afghanistan and presence in syria. basically offering kind of an emotional picture of americans who have lost their children in these, in war and have the body of the young soldier returned home to dover delaware. emotional scenes there. he said there is a time and place for these things and these things have to end. so i think the president is not only saying that he is fulfilling a campaign promise but saying that this is, this is something that he actually believes in. he doesn't think, he doesn't think the united states should be extended all the wa

this is exsagger rate offed and byron york has taken that and moved it forward and said the inspectoreneral for the intelligence community when he went behind closed doors said that there is more here than just being a registered democrat. so, there is some sort of political bias. we just don't know the extent of it. and the president has been on offense. he has been punching and punching. and that's important because it is turning the focus a bit away from what happened on the call and saying hold on a second, who is really behind all of this? steve: right. because that says a lot. remember, we were never going to see the call and see the transcript. because that's never been done before. but because the whistleblower it, sounded so sensational quid pro quo, big promise by the president? and the president smartly said, you know what? this is not going to go away unless i show it to everybody. hey, take a look. there it is right there. so now we know what was in that phone call, the big question is will we know the identity of the whistleblower. i have heard there are a lot of people

had byron york on earlier.ican people are finally being, you know, they're getting some truth here because they have been largely in the dark. as these -- the testimony has been going on behind closed doors. watch. >> it's all about secrecy right now. which is, of course, the democrats, the majority party in the house. they run this process. they can basically do what they want. now, democrats say they are not doing this. they are keeping it all secret because they don't want any of the witnesses to coordinate their stories. and they say that at some point in the process they will release transcripts. but right now this is -- the public is totally in the dark about what's going on inside these hearings. except for a few leaks. griff: now in fairness the public growing in support four impeachment inquiry. at the end of the day, whether or not it holds water. it based now on democrats saying trust us, it's bad. the american people at some point are going to want to see it. jedediah: people supported a look into p

byron york answers that next. >>> and southwest employees turn singers serenading passengers stuck inrt. the incredible moment everyone joined in on. coming up next. ♪ ♪ there's a power in listening; it's what gives audible members an edge. it opens our minds, changes our perspective, connects us, and pushes us further. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories: audible. you'rethat's why at aetna,sing what matters. we're committed to taking care of the whole you. with medicare advantage plans that offer health coaching and fitness memberships. plus hospital, medical and prescription drug coverage in one simple plan. with monthly plan premiums starting at $0. aetna medicare advantage plans call today to learn more and we'll send you a $10 visa reward card with no obligation to enroll. or visit us online at aetnamedicare.com/tv if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong? life is full of make or break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prol

joining us right now is fox news contributor, the washington examiner chief political correspondent, byron yorkfirst, your reporting, tell us about the ties between the whistleblower and joe biden. >> well, you know, when the inspector general of the intelligence community first wrote a letter, explaining what was going on with this whistleblower, he said that there were some indications of arguable political bias in favor of a political candidate. okay. that's all he said. we didn't he know what was going on. there were reports a few days later that we found you out what the bias is, he's a registered democrat. l democrats and others in the media kind of scoffed at that, saying my goodness, is that supposed to be the indication of bias? then we learned actually there was more, that in an interview a few days ago the inspector general told congress that the whistleblower had a, quote, working or professional relationship with one of the 2020 democratic candidates. don't think that means now, but one person who is now running for president had this professional or working relationship with the w

let's bring in byron york. good morning to you. what do you think is going on here? >> this is actually kind of stunning news when hillary clinton did this. we've had three years of some democrats accusing president trump without evidence of being a russian asset and now you have one of the most prominent democrats in the country hillary clinton is still a very big deal in the party, accusing a fellow democrat without evidence of being a russian asset. and now you just heard tulsi gabbard suggesting it is payback for gabbard having supported bernie sanders in that really rather bitter primary fight in 2016. but whatever the reason, it's really an extraordinary development in democratic politics. >> sandra: here is hillary clinton in her own words on the podcast with the former obama advisor. she doesn't name gabbard by name but here she is. >> i'm not making any predictions but i think they have their eye on somebody currently in the democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. she is a favorite of the russians. >> sandra: one thing to ask

steve: there is story couple days ago, byron york broke, apparently a whistleblower had connection toeblower probably worked with joe biden at some point when he was vice president of the united states. i know in washington everybody is trying to figure out who the whistleblower is. >> right. >> they will be surprised if they show up or eventually named. if you're a whistleblower provided protection, are you guaranteed anonymity? >> no, you're not. you're guaranteed you can't be retaliated against. that is the whole reality behind the whistleblower statute. the idea that that wouldn't be safe is ridiculous. this person is making a huge allegation against the president of the united states on derivative information, from a phone call. we've seen the evidence. i think they should testify and stand in front of the american people and importantly in front of congress to answer these questions. brian: rudy giuliani's associates tieded to ukraine scandal were arrested yesterday on campaign finance charges. they were linked to the pressuring of the u.s. ambassador in the ukraine to out of he

the president is highlighting this report initially "the washington examiner" byron york reporting thestleblower has ties to a democratic presidential candidate. president highlighted in this tweet here she should be exposed and questioned properly. no whistleblower. the whistleblower lawyer is a big democrat and ties to one of my democratic opponents. referencing back to that report that there is some sort of tie there. i know you were in the questioning of the inspector general atkinson. can you confirm the whistleblower has ties to one of the presidential candidates? >> i won't talk about anything that happened within that particular conversation because it was a closed hearing. supposed to be. i'm not one who goes and leaks things from various interviews that are supposed to be closed. let me say this. those are the types of things we need to know which goes further did why did adam schiff lie and say he and his staff had no contact with the whistleblower and then we found out that they did? he becomes a witness at this point. we need adam schiff under oath and maybe nancy pelosi a

. >> bill: byron york has analysis. good morning to you. impeachment secrecy is the title of your op-ed. you have a problem with the stuff behind closed doors. make your case. >> katherine just reported what happened on the question of michael atkinson on friday. it was held in secret. the volker and atkinson interviews were held in a scif, a room that's specially constructed to make sure there can be no electronic penetration of everything and everything remains secret. these are being handled as if they were huge state secrets and nothing that has to be kept secret. what you're hearing republicans say is we shouldn't just have this little leak or that little leak of what took place in these interviews. we should have the entire transcripts released and the future meetings should be held in public so people can see what was said. >> bill: maybe at some point they are in public. what are you afraid of right now if you made these hearings public? >> i don't know. the democrats have said the secrecy is necessary to protect the an imtee of the

one of the journalists zuckerberg met with the byron york for "the washington examiner" and fox newstributor. perhaps you could tell us exactly from what you heard from mark zuckerberg what his intentions were by holding these meetings? >> the actual content of the meeting was off the record by agreement beforehand. facebook is facing a lot of issues in washington there are issues about privacy, about the way it handles its users' personal information. there are issues how it handles political speech. there are antitrust issues. people who in washington who want to break facebook up. they have a lot of stuff going on in washington and the way i understood it is that zuckerberg wanted to talk to conservative opinion people from washington, mine was not the only dinner, there were four of us there. and according to what zuckerberg said yesterday he also has dinners with other people across the political spectrum. >> sandra: some of the speculation is that he is trying to appease the trump administration and warm to bill barr who could -- there could be a concern from a company like fac

when i talk about a dispute i first saw this reported by byron york and then our own capitol hill producer there was a dispute ongoing behind closed doors in the transcribed interview. three committees running the investigation, matt gates walked into the room showed up uninvited and said he wanted to sit down in the interview. he sits on the judiciary committee. matt gates stepped out of that room and said he was kicked out of the room. that's the last we heard. what are you hearing? >> matt gaetz isn't afraid to speak his mind. this is a strange impeachment inquiry not because it's just behind closed doors and no one can reveal anything about it. normally impeachment is conducted by the judiciary committee. a lot of your viewers will remember it was the judiciary committee that conducted the impeachment of bill clinton. this is being done by the intel committee in principle giving an excuse for keeping things more tightly under wraps. a lot of this information is not classified. i'm not aware of classified information that is being spoken about in there. so i think that matt gaetz is say

it was pretty remarkable and my colleague byron york, who conducted the interview, wasn't necessarilyomething that he wanted -- he felt he wanted to say. and i think that it's part of this theme if you go back to the mueller report, there were a lot of instances where the theme was that people around trump were protecting him from his worse instincts. and certainly, john kelly was echoing a similar theme. >> joe. >> yeah. you also, of course, very busy week for the washington examiner. also, had kelly conway trying to -- one of your reporters for actually reporting on the news. and it was a remarkable moment and a remarkable sort of insight into how at least kelly ann conway tried to intimidate your reporter who didn't back down. >> yeah. and it -- it sort of an example kind of shows what happens behind the scenes sometimes when there's this sort of aggressive pushback on a legitimate news story. >> yeah. you kind of wonder why she doesn't think that is legitimate. so you have written a book that actually -- i -- i -- i -- i've been wanting to write a book. you know, came to congress