Fox News

Fox News 30 Jan 2020

Trey Gowdy on the progress made in the impeachment trial

Description:

Has the impeachment trial accomplished anything for lawmakers still on the fence? #FoxNews

FOX News operates the FOX News Channel (FNC),


Jeff Van Gundy joins First Take and addresses the biggest challenges the NBA could face if the 2019-2020 season resumes. Van Gundy also discusses how he managed to prepare the New York Knicks to face Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls in the 1990s.
#FirstTake #NBA

✔️
Omar Raja talks with Derrick Jones Jr. of the Miami Heat about being one of the best dunkers in the NBA.
#NBA

✔️
Booger McFarland takes his pick between Joe Burrow vs. Tua Tagovailoa, Justin Herbert vs. Jordan Love, and finally Jerry Jeudy vs. CeeDee Lamb. McFarland then explains why he views Chase Young as the top player in the 2020 NFL draft.

✔️
Jesse Palmer joins SportsCenter with Scott Van Pelt to discuss all the quarterbacks taken in the first round of the 2020 NFL Draft. LSU's Joe Burrow went No. 1 overall to the Cincinnati Bengals, Alabama's Tua Tagovailoa went No. 5 overall to the Miami Dolphins, Oregon's Justin Herbert went No. 6 to the Los Angeles Chargers, and the Green Bay Packers traded up to take Utah State's Jordan Love.
#NFL #NFLDraft #Sports

✔️

… show captions ↓
BOGUS. >> Martha: SENATOR HAWLEY,
>> Martha: SENATOR HAWLEY, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU. JOINING ME NOW, TREY GOWDY NELLY
JOINING ME NOW, TREY GOWDY NELLY FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR.
FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
TONIGHT. GOOD TO SEE YOU.
GOOD TO SEE YOU. IS IT OKAY FOR RAND PAUL TO
IS IT OKAY FOR RAND PAUL TO MENTION THE NAME IN HIS TWEET
MENTION THE NAME IN HIS TWEET TODAY.
TODAY. HE SAID HE MENTIONED A NAME,
HE SAID HE MENTIONED A NAME, KNOWS WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON
KNOWS WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON IS WHISTLE-BLOWER BUT WANTS TO
IS WHISTLE-BLOWER BUT WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT THAT PERSON’S
KNOW ABOUT THAT PERSON’S POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE
POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL THIS.
BEGINNING OF ALL THIS. >> MARTHA, I ACTUALLY THINK BOTH
>> MARTHA, I ACTUALLY THINK BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG IN THE SPIRIT WE
SIDES ARE WRONG IN THE SPIRIT WE MAKE 4-YEAR-OLDS TESTIFY IN
MAKE 4-YEAR-OLDS TESTIFY IN COURT.
COURT. WE MAKE WOMEN WHO WERE SEXUALLY
WE MAKE WOMEN WHO WERE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED IN COURT.
ASSAULTED IN COURT. YOU COULD ESCAPE THE
YOU COULD ESCAPE THE CROSS-EXAMINE, WE DON’T DO IT
CROSS-EXAMINE, WE DON’T DO IT FOR ANYONE ELSE, WHY THIS
FOR ANYONE ELSE, WHY THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER?
WHISTLE-BLOWER? THE OTHER THING, ABOUT THIS
THE OTHER THING, ABOUT THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER, I DON’T NEED
WHISTLE-BLOWER, I DON’T NEED HIM!
HIM! WHY DO I CARE SOMEONE WHO
WHY DO I CARE SOMEONE WHO OVERHEARD THE CONVERSATION FELT
OVERHEARD THE CONVERSATION FELT ABOUT IT OR THOUGHT ABOUT IT OR
ABOUT IT OR THOUGHT ABOUT IT OR BELIEVED ABOUT IT.
BELIEVED ABOUT IT. I CAN READ IT FOR MYSELF.
I CAN READ IT FOR MYSELF. THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS RELEVANT
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS RELEVANT BUT HE’S NOT MATERIAL AND THERE
BUT HE’S NOT MATERIAL AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF WITNESSES I THINK
ARE PLENTY OF WITNESSES I THINK WOULD BE MORE PROBATIVE THAN THE
WOULD BE MORE PROBATIVE THAN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER OF A TRANSCRIPT
WHISTLE-BLOWER OF A TRANSCRIPT YOU AND I CAN READ OURSELVES.
YOU AND I CAN READ OURSELVES. >> Martha: TO THE POINT THAT I
>> Martha: TO THE POINT THAT I HAD BEEN TALKED ABOUT EARLIER,
HAD BEEN TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, PUSHED OPEN A PROCESS THAT
PUSHED OPEN A PROCESS THAT VIOLATES THE ISSUE OF THE
VIOLATES THE ISSUE OF THE PRESIDENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE
PRESIDENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE NOT PUBLIC,
DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE NOT PUBLIC, PUSHED OUT IN THE PUBLIC, EVEN
PUSHED OUT IN THE PUBLIC, EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS OR KNEW AT THAT
THOUGH HE KNOWS OR KNEW AT THAT TIME THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE ON
TIME THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE ON THE CALL BUT THEY ARE IN THE
THE CALL BUT THEY ARE IN THE CIRCLE FOR THAT REASON.
CIRCLE FOR THAT REASON. ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE
ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT’S BEEN SET WITH
PRECEDENT THAT’S BEEN SET WITH THAT WITH ALL OF THIS?
THAT WITH ALL OF THIS? >> THE REMEDY OF THAT IS TO
>> THE REMEDY OF THAT IS TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THOSE CALLS.
THOSE CALLS. THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES ANYBODY
THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES ANYBODY TAKES UNPRECEDENTED ACTS, IF YOU
TAKES UNPRECEDENTED ACTS, IF YOU LISTEN TO A CONVERSATION OF A
LISTEN TO A CONVERSATION OF A PRESIDENT AND THE LEADER OF
PRESIDENT AND THE LEADER OF ANOTHER COUNTRY AND THEN YOU
ANOTHER COUNTRY AND THEN YOU VOIDED TO NULLIFY THAT
VOIDED TO NULLIFY THAT CONFIDENCE AND TELL SOMEBODY
CONFIDENCE AND TELL SOMEBODY ABOUT IT, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
ABOUT IT, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD SHRINK THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON
SHRINK THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE CULPRIT THAT’S THE REMEDY OF
THE CULPRIT THAT’S THE REMEDY OF THAT.
THAT. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, A DOZEN
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, A DOZEN PEOPLE OUT OF THIS CALL, DO YOU
PEOPLE OUT OF THIS CALL, DO YOU REALLY NEED A DOZEN PEOPLE TO
REALLY NEED A DOZEN PEOPLE TO TAKE NOTES?
TAKE NOTES? >> TAKE IT TO A VOTE ON
>> TAKE IT TO A VOTE ON WITNESSES?
WITNESSES? >> YOU KNOW, MARTHA, I TALKED TO
>> YOU KNOW, MARTHA, I TALKED TO MY SENATE BUDDIES ON THE WAY
MY SENATE BUDDIES ON THE WAY OVER TONIGHT IN MY TRUCK ON THE
OVER TONIGHT IN MY TRUCK ON THE CELL PHONE.
CELL PHONE. I’M NOT CONVINCED THAT THEY HAVE
I’M NOT CONVINCED THAT THEY HAVE THE VOTES FOR WITNESSES.
THE VOTES FOR WITNESSES. I THINK THAT’S STILL VERY MUCH
I THINK THAT’S STILL VERY MUCH UP IN THE AIR AND I THINK MY
UP IN THE AIR AND I THINK MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS IN THE SENATE
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS IN THE SENATE ARE WORRIED THAT THEY -- SOME
ARE WORRIED THAT THEY -- SOME FOLKS MAY VOTE FOR BOLTON AND NO
FOLKS MAY VOTE FOR BOLTON AND NO FOCUS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
FOCUS ON THE OTHER SIDE. THAT MAY BE AN UNMITIGATED
THAT MAY BE AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER FOR REPUBLICANS.
DISASTER FOR REPUBLICANS. IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE BOLTON
IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE BOLTON AND HAVE HUNTER BIDEN, IF YOU
AND HAVE HUNTER BIDEN, IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE MULVANEY, YOU
ARE GOING TO HAVE MULVANEY, YOU ARE GOING TO NEED JOE BIDEN.
ARE GOING TO NEED JOE BIDEN. THE NOTION THAT YOU’RE GOING TO
THE NOTION THAT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE THE HOUSE WHO COULD’VE
HAVE THE HOUSE WHO COULD’VE CALLED ALL OF THEIR WITNESSES,
CALLED ALL OF THEIR WITNESSES, BUT DID NOT, WE ARE GOING TO
BUT DID NOT, WE ARE GOING TO REWARD THAT WITH AN APPEARANCE
REWARD THAT WITH AN APPEARANCE IN THE SENATE?
IN THE SENATE? I WOULD JUST CAUTION MY
I WOULD JUST CAUTION MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN THE
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE, DO NOT FALL FOR THAT HE
SENATE, DO NOT FALL FOR THAT HE WOULD EITHER HAVE NO WITNESSES
WOULD EITHER HAVE NO WITNESSES OR HAVE SOME PARITY AMONG THE
OR HAVE SOME PARITY AMONG THE WITNESSES.
WITNESSES. I DO NOT THINK IT’S A FOREGONE
I DO NOT THINK IT’S A FOREGONE ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL NOT
ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL NOT VOTE TO HAVE WITNESSES.
VOTE TO HAVE WITNESSES. NOT YET.
NOT YET. >> Martha: INTERESTING.
>> Martha: INTERESTING. EVEN SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
EVEN SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM SOUNDING PRETTY CONFIDENT ABOUT
SOUNDING PRETTY CONFIDENT ABOUT ALL OF THIS.
ALL OF THIS. SENATOR McCONNELL SEEMS TO
SENATOR McCONNELL SEEMS TO HAVE MORE OF A SPRING IN A STEP
HAVE MORE OF A SPRING IN A STEP THAT HE DID YESTERDAY ON THIS
THAT HE DID YESTERDAY ON THIS ISSUE, ARE THERE SPECIFIC
ISSUE, ARE THERE SPECIFIC SENATORS YOU ARE GETTING WORD OR
SENATORS YOU ARE GETTING WORD OR MAYBE NOT SURE AT THIS POINT?
MAYBE NOT SURE AT THIS POINT? COLLINS?
COLLINS? LAMAR ALEXANDER?
LAMAR ALEXANDER? >> I MEAN, ROMNEY FOR SURE.
>> I MEAN, ROMNEY FOR SURE. MAKOWSKI, COLLINS.
MAKOWSKI, COLLINS. I THINK YOU GET A SENSE OF THE
I THINK YOU GET A SENSE OF THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED.
QUESTIONS BEING ASKED. MOST OF THE QUESTIONS ARE
MOST OF THE QUESTIONS ARE LEADING ANSWERS DOWN THE
LEADING ANSWERS DOWN THE QUESTIONS THAT ASSUME THE ANSWER
QUESTIONS THAT ASSUME THE ANSWER BUT THERE ARE SOME SENATORS THAT
BUT THERE ARE SOME SENATORS THAT ARE REALLY ASKING A LEGITIMATE,
ARE REALLY ASKING A LEGITIMATE, DIRECT OPEN QUESTION.
DIRECT OPEN QUESTION. SOLICITING MORE INFORMATION.
SOLICITING MORE INFORMATION. TO THE EXTENT THOSE ARE
TO THE EXTENT THOSE ARE REPUBLICANS AND I’VE HEARD IT
REPUBLICANS AND I’VE HEARD IT FROM COLLINS, I’VE HEARD FROM
FROM COLLINS, I’VE HEARD FROM MURKOWSKI --
MURKOWSKI -- BE WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION BY
BE WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION BY COLLINS AND MURKOWSKI
COLLINS AND MURKOWSKI ASKING IF THE PRESIDENT HAD DISC
ASKING IF THE PRESIDENT HAD DISC THE BIDENS WITH REGARDS TO THE
THE BIDENS WITH REGARDS TO THE LARGER ISSUE OF CORRUPTION AND
LARGER ISSUE OF CORRUPTION AND WHEN THE FIRST TIME THAT CAME
WHEN THE FIRST TIME THAT CAME UP.
UP. IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU SAW AS
IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU SAW AS A RED FLAG?
A RED FLAG? >> THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION
>> THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I HEARD WHICH WAS IS IT
THAT I HEARD WHICH WAS IS IT EVER APPROPRIATE TO INVESTIGATE
EVER APPROPRIATE TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT?
A POLITICAL OPPONENT? AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?
AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES? I REMEMBER ADAM TOOK A PASS ON
I REMEMBER ADAM TOOK A PASS ON THAT AND I DIDN’T THINK IT WAS A
THAT AND I DIDN’T THINK IT WAS A GREAT ANSWER FROM THE
GREAT ANSWER FROM THE PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEYS.
PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEYS. BUT THAT’S A REALLY GOOD
BUT THAT’S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
QUESTION. WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE?
WHICH IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? THE FACT THAT SOMEONE’S RUNNING
THE FACT THAT SOMEONE’S RUNNING AGAINST ME DOES NOT GIVE ME AN
AGAINST ME DOES NOT GIVE ME AN IMMUNITY FROM CRIME.
IMMUNITY FROM CRIME. IT MEANS I SHOULDN’T INVESTIGATE
IT MEANS I SHOULDN’T INVESTIGATE THEM BUT DOESN’T MEAN THEY
THEM BUT DOESN’T MEAN THEY SHOULD NOT BE INVESTIGATED.
SHOULD NOT BE INVESTIGATED. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
QUESTION. I THINK KYRSTEN SINEMA PROBABLY
I THINK KYRSTEN SINEMA PROBABLY NOT ON THE WITNESSES, CERTAINLY
NOT ON THE WITNESSES, CERTAINLY ON THE ISSUE OF ACQUITTAL OR
ON THE ISSUE OF ACQUITTAL OR CONVICTION, I THINK SINEMA ASKED
CONVICTION, I THINK SINEMA ASKED A GREAT QUESTION LAST NIGHT AND
A GREAT QUESTION LAST NIGHT AND KNOWING HER THE WAY I DO I WOULD
KNOWING HER THE WAY I DO I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF YOU ARE NOT
BE SURPRISED IF YOU ARE NOT GENERALLY UNDECIDED ON THE
GENERALLY UNDECIDED ON THE VERDICT BUT NOT ON WITNESSES.
VERDICT BUT NOT ON WITNESSES. >> Martha: DO YOU THINK WE’LL
>> Martha: DO YOU THINK WE’LL SEE SOME DEMOCRATIC SENATORS
SEE SOME DEMOCRATIC SENATORS VOTE TO ACQUIT?
VOTE TO ACQUIT? >> FOR SURE YOU’LL SEE ONE FROM
>> FOR SURE YOU’LL SEE ONE FROM ALABAMA IF HE WANTS TO BE CALLED
ALABAMA IF HE WANTS TO BE CALLED SENATOR AGAIN, HE’LL BE CALLED
SENATOR AGAIN, HE’LL BE CALLED CALLED TO ACQUIT, JOE MANCHIN.
CALLED TO ACQUIT, JOE MANCHIN. SINEMA IS HER OWN PERSON AND
SINEMA IS HER OWN PERSON AND SHE’S NOT AFRAID OF ANYONE AND
SHE’S NOT AFRAID OF ANYONE AND SHE IS GOING ABOUT HER
SHE IS GOING ABOUT HER CONSCIENCE AND DOESN’T MATTER
CONSCIENCE AND DOESN’T MATTER WHAT ANYBODY ELSE THINKS AND
WHAT ANYBODY ELSE THINKS AND THAT’S PART OF WHY I LIKE AND
THAT’S PART OF WHY I LIKE AND RESPECT HER SO MUCH.
RESPECT HER SO MUCH. I HAVE NOT TALKED TO HER ABOUT
I HAVE NOT TALKED TO HER ABOUT IT.
IT. I DO NOT THINK YOU’LL LOSE ANY
I DO NOT THINK YOU’LL LOSE ANY ANY REPUBLICANS.
ANY REPUBLICANS. YOU MAY PICK UP COLLINS MANCHIN

Share Video:

Embed Video: