Skip to main content

tv   Americas Newsroom  FOX News  January 9, 2020 6:00am-9:00am PST

6:00 am
briankilmeade.com/events . that'll be generally fifth in westbury, new york. if you are in oklahoma or nebraska you have time to join me there. streaming live, 8:00 saturday. i hope to see everybody there. >> check it out. in the meantime we will see you back here. >> see you friday! >> bill: thank you, guys. let's get right to it. first off, america's top general saying iran didn't intend to kill americans and missed rights in iraq. speaker pelosi plans to vote today on a resolution that will try the president's ability to take more military action against iran if it comes to that. qaddafi with us today. a lot to get to. i'm bill hemmer life here in new york. how you doing? >> sandra: good morning, bill. are you? i'm sandra smith. the vote coming u up to the ministry should give the classified briefing to the whole house and senate on the decision to take out iran's top general. democrats still unconvinced. most republican seemingly satisfied, but the administration maintains its
6:01 am
actions were justified. >> as long as i'm president of the united states, iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. >> as i speak to you this morning from the white house, we continue to receive word that iran is standing down. >> the question is, should the united states be at war with iran? president trump, in a series of back-and-forth escalations in the last 18 months, has brought us to that place. >> i think it's unfortunate that so many democrats are making the question of the imminence of this attack a partisan measure. it was very clear, the intelligence suggested a major attack against our troops in iraq and the middle east. >> i came away from this briefing deeply angry and dissatisfied. this briefing was almost an insult to our intelligence. >> bill: so now every angle covered. in a moment, michael and tom as a reaction. trey yingst back in baghdad for the latest in iraq, we start today in washington there with
6:02 am
griff jenkins. graph, good morning. >> good morning, bill. lawmaker said the president didn't consult them before striking soleimani. we will get their say today in the house. if it passes, it directs the president to terminate the use to engage in hostilities and or against iran or any part of its government or military, unless congress declares war or an imminent threat exists. that's why the mistress and officials were trying to convince lawmakers that killing soleimani was the right option. the briefing so short for some, including republican senator mike lee, who called it the worst briefing he seen since he's been in the senate. >> that briefing is what brought me on board. together with the amendments that we make. i walked into the briefing undecided, i walked out decided. specifically because of what happened in that briefing. >> early this morning, vice president pence was asked what he would say to those unsatisfied like mike lee. >> i was there every step in the way.
6:03 am
to protect sources and methods we are simply not able to share with every member of the house and senate the intelligence that supported the president's decision to take out qassem soleimani. >> but democrat senator tim kaine, who now has supported similar message measures, strongly supports the strikes. >> especially not striking them in iraq when they haven't given us permission to wage military action on their own soil. >> the house will start debating the rule for the resolution, then debate it itself. if the house passes, the senate will take it next, where a majority is needed. with only 53 republicans in the senate, the math could be something to watch. walk it out further, if it passes both chambers, the veto was virtually guaranteed to come. that didn't stop the president from treating a few moments ago, encouragement to house republicans to vote against it. >> bill: thank you, griff.
6:04 am
washington, d.c., griff jenkins. center has more. >> sandra: and officials thing iran did intend to kill americans and its retaliatory strike on those iraqi bases. a top u.s. general touting the military's early warning system for saving the lives of american troops. >> i believe, based on what i saw and what i know, that they were intended to cause structural damage, destroy vehicles and equipment and aircraft. >> sandra: trey yingst's life in baghdad with more. trey >> sandra, good morning. uncertainty remains in baghdad as iranians continue to send mixed signals. no one knows exactly what is going to happen next. no one is really sure if the response to the killing of qassem soleimani is over when it comes to the iranians. last night, two rockets were fired into baghdad's green zone. this, as alarms sounded with the words "incoming, incoming, incoming." after tuesday night, iran fired
6:05 am
16 blissfu16 ballistic missiles. president trump respond yesterday trying to de-escalate tensions, sanctioning iran but not responding militarily. today a senior commander in the revolutionary guard said a harsher revenge is coming. caught between iran and u.s. is a rock. there are new questions about if and how the united states will be able to coordinate with the iraqi government on a military level moving forward. the u.s. abruptly stopped the coalition against fighting isis this week, where they were working alongside iraqi security forces. overnight, iraq conducted its first mission. we talked of the major about the bulls of missile attacks on tuesday, and the american stopping there participation. listen to what they had to say. >> translator: there is cooperation. in fact, the forces were there is no casualties amoe iraqis or the international coalition. i hope this will be the end of the crisis, and we will be able to return to our goal of
6:06 am
identifying the terrorists of isis. >> that general telling fox news that even if american troops are ultimately forced to leave iraq, they weren't actually doing a lot of the fighting on the ground. their role was nora more trainingintelligence. it's uncertain what will happen, is not only isis continues to be a threat against american forces and iraqi forces in the region, but of course iran, as those threatening stamens are coming in today. >> sandra: trey yingst, thank you. >> bill: president trump calling on the international community to follow america's lead in pushing for a new and improved to deal with iran on its nuclear program. >> the time has come for the united kingdom, germany, france, russia, and china to recognize this reality. they must now break away from the remnants of the iran deal, or jcpoa. and we must all work together toward making a deal with iran
6:07 am
that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place. >> bill: michael anton, former national security spokesperson for the president. good morning to you there in washington, d.c. 36 hours removed, where do you think we are at the moment, michael? >> we seem to be in an extended -- and let's hope it remains very extended -- period of calm. i keep coming back to the fact that the foreign minister of the iran sent a tweet yesterday. there's a sentence you never thought you'd hear yourself say. zarif tweeted, and the key word was "we have concluded our retaliation." things are still quiet. does that mean they have concluded these kinds of activities forever? i doubt it, they've been in the terror business for 40 years. you don't just give that kind of thing up overnight, especially if you are a regime committed to destabilization and revolutionary action. member, the body that one of the organizations that soleimani had it is called the revolutionary guard. what do they do? they foment revolution. but they've been quiet for now.
6:08 am
i would expect they are going to be quiet for a while, because i think the president's action and his clear determination have the intended effect, to act as a deterrent. >> bill: michael, "wall street journal." "trump's reply, returns show deterrence beats appeasement with iran." what's next, michael? >> we've seen examples of that before. one of the reasons the united states is so active in the middle east and is particularly in the persian gulf is to protect oil supplies that have to go out a very narrow channel called the strait of hormuz. iran has been known to harass shipping in the persian gulf in the past, as it's done recently. for instance, in 1986, president reagan took strong action against the iranian navy over such issues. the activity stopped for quite some time. when iran has faced consequences and pushed back in the past, it
6:09 am
tends to shrink back. like i said, it doesn't shrink back necessarily forever, but for a time. longer is better. the more the iranians are convinced they will face pushback from the united states and our allies, probably the less they will do for the time being. that's good for everyone, including people in the middle east but don't have to face the prospects of conflict and war. >> bill: two things that struck me. i will go back to the president yesterday in a moment. mike pence, the vice president, earlier today on "fox & friends" talked about the warning that perhaps went out, in different forms. >> we would be in a very different place today if those missiles had hit their intended target. all the credit goes to our team, our military on the ground. there is no doubt in my mind that when the iranians fired those missiles they were intending to kill americans. >> bill: i think about that comment, and this from the present yesterday. when he stepped to the microphone, before he even said
6:10 am
hello, as long as i'm president, iran will never have a nuclear weapon." that's critical statement. whether he's got another year or five years in office, that's his next redline. would you agree? >> yes. that's a perfect of the sanctions. a nuclear program is extremely expensive. even a rich country, like around, with a lot of natural resources. they have to spend a pretty high proportion of gdp on the nuclear program. sanctions that significantly curtail the iranian economy means that iran's leaders have less money to spend on terrorism and also quite a lot less to spend on the nuclear program. that's before you even get to all the ways the united states works with other countries to restrict the importation of illicit materials and things like that. so the president will make it as hard as possible as he can for iran to get a nuclear weapon, for as long as he's around. that's been his clear policy since he took office. he really didn't say anything new there, he just reiterated it to make sure there is no confusion on that point. v7 thank you, michael.
6:11 am
michael anton in washington. we will bring you back for more analysis. a lot to think in. thank you. >> sandra: a lot to come up on the show pray congress and michael burgess is on the house rules committee preview will be i guess 11 9:30 to talk the vote on a war powers resolution. also, senator james resch, who chairs the foreign relations committee, will join us. he is our headliner, that will be at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. a bit later we hear from senator marco rubio about the next steps with iran. that will have been top of the 11:00 hour. the big show, love newsmakers. >> bill: some of these republicans were not happy with what we heard, so we will share that with you. the former vp joe biden firing back at the white house and president trump. how foreign policy now is playing a significant role now in biden's 2020 strategy. that's coming up. >> sandra: and a judge sentencing the man convicted of killing a u.s. border agent. in the case that brought the botched gunrunning operations
6:12 am
fast and furious to light. >> bill: speaker pelosi under intense pressure from members of her own party on these articles of impeachment. the lawmaker now suggesting that delay is draining the democrats'. that's next. >> she's losing democrats and the senate. the impeachment hats off to mitch mcconnell for pulling this very well. we will take a trial up next week. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ the ups and downs of frequent mood swings can plunge you into deep, depressive lows.
6:13 am
(crying) take you to uncontrollable highs. (muffled arguing) or, make you feel both at once. overwhelmed by bipolar i symptoms? ask about vraylar. some medications only treat the lows or the highs. vraylar effectively treats depression, acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar i. full-spectrum relief of all symptoms. with just one pill, once a day. elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. metabolic changes may occur. movement dysfunction, restlessness, sleepiness, stomach issues are common side effects. when bipolar i overwhelms, vraylar helps smooth the ups and downs.
6:14 am
6:15 am
>> sandra: fox news alert, the man convicted of killing u.s. border agent sentenced to life behind bars. he was convicted of first-degree murder last year, following his extradition from mexico in 2018. the death in 2010 exposed fast and furious, the etfs botched gunrunning operation. two of those guns were found at the scene of the killing. his sister is reacting to the sentencing. >> he doesn't deserve to walk among the innocent. i'm happy. i would rather have brian.
6:16 am
>> it doesn't get any easier. that's how much of an impact he made in our family. >> sandra: u.s. attorney robert b were saying a life sentence for the agents murder cannot eliminate his family suffering. but he hopes it brings them some comfort. >> bill: joe biden hitting the current strategy in iran, tweeting this. "instead of his stomach using his team to lay out a coherent strategy on iran, donald trump use it to mislead the country on the obama biden record. his been present for three years, it's time he saw explaining president obama for his failures." dan henning jerry, with me now how are you doing cannot good morning. we are only in this mess because donald trump pulled out of the iran deal, to that you say what? >> joe biden keeps wrapping himself in barack obama as something of a security blanket. eventually he is going to have to start proposing his own candidacy rather than obama's
6:17 am
candidacy. i think there may be a political reason for this. he's currently running in the primaries, he has a lot of support from black democrats, he has to win the south carolina primary. we get that. there's a point where he has to run its own campaign and engage with president trump on the substance of what is going on in iran. i don't think there's any question that the iranians use the money from the iran deal with the obama administration sent them to buy and develop these missiles. also the destabilization that's been going on in the middle east since then that came in the wake of the iran nuclear deal. he will have to talk about what president trump is actually doing. it's clearly not the case as of yesterday that there is no plan. the president addressed the nation. he said he's going to talk to the iranians, the foreign minister zarif himself responded that the missiles they sent over there was a proportionate response. it's what looks like we are at the brink of a possibility of a
6:18 am
negotiation. that is a strategy. joe biden has a start about th that. >> bill: if it's a general election campaign of trump versus biden, this is a clear difference of opinion on foreign policy. done and injury says joe biden the strategies where it was a 1972, a year their candidate lot big. here's a line i picked up. "a byproduct of mr. trump some editing persona is that it causes his opponent to lose their ability to think straight about anything." why did you write that? >> i wrote that because i was struck, as well as joe lieberman, who wrote on the editorial page this week, that the democrats are running their risk looking as though they will not any longer use force in foreign affairs. i was reminded of the fact that years ago they used to be national security democrats like joe lieberman or sam nunn who understood the idea of having a
6:19 am
credible deterrent force, which means the willingness to use military force against provocations by adversaries. in the cold war it was the soviet union, no it is iran. and the response of the democrats to the killing of soleimani seem to fall into two paths of proposition. one, that we were on the brink of war, and the only alternative to that was, as joe biden said tuesday, "only diplomacy." in other words, there is no middle way anymore. this struck me as basically being the kind of antiwar proposition that senator george mcgovern made in 1972 when his campaign got completely wiped out by richard nixon in the november election. >> bill: you are saying two things. "no more" is the headline. that's what you're saying. >> we can't even see what it is. moderates like joe biden, amy klobuchar, seem to be saying that they are unwilling to use force. i think the defining event was in 2012, remember, when
6:20 am
barack obama drew the redline in the sand against assad's use of chemical weapons but did nothing when he use those weapons. so that's a proposition of diplomacy only. democrats are very vulnerable by showing that they are unwilling to use a credible deterrent force, as i believe the president just did by killing soleimani. >> bill: nixon blew out mcgovern in 1972. is that a prediction? >> i think we could be heading in that direction, unless the democrats begin to act as though they can be entrusted with the nation's security. >> bill: dan, thank you. interesting piece in the wall street journal. nice to see you. sandra, what's next? >> sandra: more mystery surrounding a plane crash into round that killed 176 people. why is iran refusing to hand over the black boxes to boeing? >> bill: also the bombshell from paris don't like prince harry and duchess of meghan, saying we will set back from their roles in the royal family and split their time between the u.k. and
6:21 am
north america. when are they moving across the pond, we wonder? what's behind this? ♪ ♪ ocolate would be good- snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. glucerna. everyday progress
6:22 am
6:23 am
while helping you manage your blood sugar. here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone.
6:24 am
let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. >> bill: a missing florida man
6:25 am
rescued after his boat reportedly ran out of gas. that's the u.s. coast guard helicopter. spotted and 9 miles off the coast of fort pierce in florida. crewmembers able to lift him into safety and give his boat a tow back to land. well done, coast guard. job completed, success. >> sandra: meanwhile, more democrats now urging speaker pelosi to send over those articles of impeachment to the senate. the speaker says that she will not do that until she knows the format of the senate trial. dianne feinstein tells politico the longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. if it's serious and urgent, send them over. running is now, andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney in fox news contributor. good morning to you. the longer yo shields on those articles, which impact does it have >> i think it was america very confused. look at what we have now seen just ove over the last two mont. they don't actually catch the
6:26 am
president doing anything. this is an abatement or nothing actually happened. and if they tell us we can't wait for the november election, we can't wait to hear from important witnesses, because the president is an imminent threat. at the same time, we have iranians and the networks they control attacking americans again and again. the president takes out a guy who has killed 600 at least americans. their current position is, why would he do it? because are not an imminent threat. i must think people look at this and are fairly confused. >> sandra: some democrats in the center are clearly making a point. we will see where that goes. when it comes to her reasoning for not sending them over, does she have a point? she wants to know what exactly will be the details and the constraints, and how exactly that senator i will be laid out.
6:27 am
>> she doesn't have a point. they put the sun and chart of trying impeachment just like he puts the house in chargf whether there is to be impeachment or not. in any normal child, you don't get a guarantee there will be any witnesses who will testify. obviously if the home of these witnesses were that important they would present them in the house. in every trial, there is. if period were both sides get to make their pitch to the court about what the case is about. the accused actually gets a right to try and dismiss the case before it actually gets to the stage of a trial and witnesses. i think speaker pelosi knows the process that she is looking at is going to be a bifurcated process in the senate, where at first out of -- when she finally deigns to appoint them -- and they're going to argue with the case is about. and if they decide they want to hear witnesses, they will be able to do that. >> sandra: i want to get into
6:28 am
really important pieces of sound. mike pence making the case that now is the time. here's the vice president. speak of the time come for the senate to take action that is necessary come to take this matter up and acquit the president and move onto the important business facing the american people. >> sandra: and to lindsey graham, who says nancy pelosi's dam is about to break. here is the senator. >> if you want us to start the trial under the current senate rules, you must transmit the articles. if by the end of the week she has not transmitted the articles, i hope we will change the rules so we can start the trial without her. >> sandra: final thoughts, andy. what does that tell you about what comes next and all of this? >> well, there is a push, obviously, sandra, to begin the impeachment even if they haven't gotten the articles transmitted. i must say i am not in the same
6:29 am
camp as lindsey graham on that. i think it's on the house to transmit the articles of impeachment, and if she doesn't want to transmit them, every day she doesn't do that it shows how frivolous this is. if you had a real impeachable offense, they wouldn't be able to wait to get this stuff over to the senate. >> sandra: that leaves us at today. we will see what happens next with all of that. andy mccarthy, thank you. i appreciate your time this morning. >> bill: ices the ante. the house expected to move forward in eliminating president trump from taking more military action toward iran if it comes to that. how the president is reacting on that in a moment, plus senator rand paul from yesterday. check this out. >> i wanted to hear the intelligence first. what i hear was less than satisfying. our duty under the constitution is to debate when we go to war. we, for one, are not going to abdicate that duty. >> sandra: some fiery reaction from two top republicans as they slam an administration briefing on the decision to kill general soleimani. congressman michael burgess
6:30 am
joins us to talk about that, and today's house vote. be next.ag i felt gross. it was kind of a shock after i started cosentyx. four years clear. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx.
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
>> sandra: house lawmakers expected to debate and vote on a war powers resolution today, despite signs of de-escalation between the u.s. and iran. my next guest will manage the republican response on the floor to the democrat-backed measure. texas congressman michael burgess serves on the house rules committee and joins us now. congressman, great to have you here this morning. it will be a big day as we look at this. first, can you just tell us what we need to know about the war powers act? what are war powers? >> well, it goes back to the early 1970s. it was a way to attempt to circumscribe the power of the president. things that had happened in korea and vietnam, the nixon administration and congress was attempting to research some of his authority. i got into quarrel with it. and the rules committee we did
6:34 am
review some of the principles in the war powers act. i think one of the things -- i can't obviously talk about what i heard in the briefing yesterday afternoon. what i heard in the committee last night from committee democrats was the issue that the authorization that the administration seeks to use is the iraq war resolution from 2002. i wasn't here when that resolution passed. actually, there were three democrats in the room last night who were here without resolution passe passed. if we want to go back and argue, if it's time to sunset the 2002 authorization for use of military force, okay. i think that's a reasonable argument to have. but you have a president who is making decisions based on what the safety and security of the united states of america, and other want to circumscribe that authority. we shouldn't talk about how we want to limit our president. we should be talking about how we are going to support the
6:35 am
individual protecting our country. >> sandra: to go back to earlier point, congressman, this is nothing new. we've seen so many times in the past that opposing party's on sitting presidents over their war powers and try to limit those. obama in 2011, clinton, 1993. the somalia mission. bush 41 in 1990 with the gulf war, and reagan, his lebanon policy in 1983. so why does this have such an uncertain history? and why is it not more clearly-defined? >> hmm, that's probably the question of the hour. "uncertain" as the operative word here. what i should say in this situation is it's perfectly legitimate for congress to have the argument over the war powers, but at the same time, under article two of the constitution, the president does have the authority to do what is necessary to protect the nation. he does need to come back and talk to the congress about what
6:36 am
has happened and why, and if there's further authorization needed, congress can have that debate and have that vote. a lot of the anxiety -- i've certainly seen this not of this it administration but in the last in the station. a lot of the anxiety is the authorizations for use of military force were passed in 2001 and 2002. most of us were not here when those authorizations were pass passed. they seem to continue in perpetuity. if that is a problem, then that's a problem that congress should fix. we shouldn't be quarreling with the president about that. that is our obligation to fix. i was upset when president obama went into libya. he did notify us. he kind of give a brief press conference while he was boarding a plane for brazil. i thought that was wrong, i thought it was handled inappropriately. there was never the requirement that congress put on the president to come back and explain himself. as a consequence, we have even continued unrest in that country because of the actions that were taken by the administration.
6:37 am
i wasn't here in somalia, i wasn't here in kosovo. but it's one of the most important inconsequential votes that a member of congress can make. the fact that we haven't had a secondary authorization for years and years is perhaps of some concern. but this isn't even a real authorization, because what it says -- when you read the context of the joint resolution, it says the president may not continue the war in iran. there is no war in iran right now. right? unless i missed something in the headlines today. >> sandra: it's taking place at a time where it can be described as a de-escalating situation, that could change at any moment, obviously. which makes it even more important. but when it comes -- >> but the president did de-escalate. look, for the 24 hours between tuesday night and wednesday night, i thought things looked pretty dire. i think the president handled it with just the right measure, and then spoke to the nation at just the right tone.
6:38 am
>> sandra: put the decision to take it soleimani was the imminent nature of that. they did all that to be briefed on that. that happened yesterday. i want to get your take away from that briefing. first, to senator mike lee. >> probably the worst briefing i've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years i've served in the united states senate. one of the messages we received from the brief-dr s was, "do not debate, do not df the appropriateness of further military intervention against iran." "if you do, you will be emboldening iran." i find this insulting and demeaning. >> sandra: so, what was your take away from that briefing, congressman? >> well, first off, senator lee and i had different briefings. they briefed the house and then they went over to brief the senate. so i can't speak to anything that senator lee heard in his briefing. really, i'm obligated not to talk about what happened in our
6:39 am
briefing. but i came away from that briefing completely confident that the actions taken by the administration in regards to general soleimani were absolutely appropriate and correct. you know what? i think back to the mid-1990s, i'm just a regular guy, clinton apparently have the opportunity to take out mid don't like bin laden and we learned later he didn't. look at the consequences we suffered because the administrative folder. we had an administration willing to take decisive action, minimize the consequences, but take the consequent as was required. you have to respect that. >> sandra: a big vote, we will watch all of that. thank you for your time this morning. >> bill: another alert, or intriguing by the day. the mystery surrounding the crash of that passenger jet in tehran on the same night those missile strikes hit iraq. the ukrainian airlines plane went down in flames moments after take off, killing 176 people. many of them, canadians. iran has said it will not hand over the black boxes to boeing, and dan springer has more.
6:40 am
>> a big develop meant today is that ukraine now says a missile strike or some act of terrorism are possibilities that must be looked into. remember, initially those things will ruled out by the embassy in iran as officials their immediate he pointed to mechanical failure. the early statement was taken down in the country said it was too early to tell what happened. now the president of ukraine laid flowers at a memorial at the kiev airport today. he said the investigation must be open and the information from the black boxes shared in accordance with international law. the plane crashed just 3 minutes after takeoff from the tehran airport, about four hours after iran fired missiles at air bases in iraq. flight tracker data shows the plane ascended to about 8,000 feet at normal speed and then lost all contact. witnesses say the plane was engulfed in flames as it plunged to the ground. there never was any communication between the pilots and the tower as the plane was going down, but officials in
6:41 am
iran now say the pilots were attempting to turn around the plane and landed back at the airport. iran is blaming engine fire and the western intelligence agencies also believe there was a technical malfunction that caused one engine to overheat. but many crash experts in the u.s. are skeptical. the boeing 737 -- 8s most popular jet in use with a good safety record. the wreckage showed the plane was in small pieces don't i pieces indicating it was breaking up in the air, as something catastrophic happened quickly. >> they got almost 8,000 feet, so it wasn't right after takeoff. the fact there was nothing coming from the cockpit probably meant it was destroyed upon impact with something, and the pilots were there to make any kind of comment. >> canada is also expressing the desire to have a very open investigation. they lost a majority of the 176 passengers on board. iran says it will not allow boeing to inspect those black
6:42 am
boxes, and we will have to see if that changes in the coming days, bill. >> bill: thank you, dan springer on that in seattle. thank you, sir. >> sandra: apparently six super bowl rings is not enough for tom brady. after losing a game, the quarterback suggesting he is not ready to retire just yet! writing this on an instagram. "in both life and football, failure is inevitable. you do not always win. you can, however, learn from that failure. pick yourself up with great enthusiasm, and places of in the arena again. that is right where you will find, because i know i still have more to prove." this lit up social media. >> bill: it did. i think he lives in england, he goes to l.a. and place for the chargers. >> sandra: really? >> bill: that's the theory. i'm going to go with them on this. on the trail, michael bloomberg going after president trump on the strategy. charles payne will gauge it coming up.
6:43 am
but first, there is >> trump has brewster of the deterrent. we need to maintain deterrence. the lesson from ronald reagan, one strike, however bold and courageous it was -- and it was -- is not enough to deter them. >> sandra: next, why our guest is coming president trump's decision to take out the top general "reaganesque." [alarm beeping] {tires screeching} {truck honking} (avo) life doesn't give you many second chances.
6:44 am
but a subaru can. (dad) you guys ok? you alright? wow. (avo) eyesight with pre-collision braking. standard on the subaru ascent. the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. and let me tell you something, rodeo... i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more.
6:45 am
call now and get your free info kit. other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love. you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing... and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio, and so much more. look, reverse mortgages aren't for everyone but i think i've been 'round long enough to know what's what.
6:46 am
i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust 'em, i think you can too. trust aag for the best reverse mortgage solutions. so you can... retire better. >> the fact that we have this great military and equipment, however, does not mean you have to use it.
6:47 am
we do not want to use it. >> bill: a wild 24 hours. the president at one point threatening all that were in the wrong come to a measured call for peace. you hurt you yesterday. his one headline, political rights this. "after ripping up the obama iran playbook, trump quickly pieces it back together." what about that point? marc thiessen, fox news contributor. how are you doing? i redo chuckling. >> i'm laughing, bill. >> bill: maybe politico has a point. there are a lot of shortcomings in this deal. i will give you four of them. it was going to expire in ten to 15 years, that's one. we did not secure any time, anywhere extractio inspections e nuclear program pay no estrogens on bozek muscle testing some of those started the other night. i set that up and give you a chance to return serve. i do see it? >> [laughs] you just listed all the reasons why trump was right to pull out of the iran deal.
6:48 am
the idea that donald trump is channeling his inner obama when it comes to iran is one of the most farcical things i've ever heard. first, unlike obama, donald trump drew a red line and enforced it. he told iranians, "if you kill a single american, we will hold you responsible for the actions of your proxies and come after you." and he did it. second of all, that iran nuclear deal, one of the worst parts about that deal is that barack obama, and giving iran $150 billion, directly subsidized soleimani's campaign of terror. donald trump killed qassem soleimani. big difference. number three, the obama strategy was to appease iran. they said, "if we sign this deal, iran would alter its maligned behavior." all of that money they sent over to iran was an accelerant of iran's behavior. when donald trump came into office, he was on the march across the middle east and lebanon, syria, in iraq, in yemen. what donald trump did was cut
6:49 am
off that deal, imposed crippling sanctions, and take away that accelerant. then, by killing qassem soleimani, he restored deterrence. the iranian regime understands, before they doubted donald trump's resolve, now they understand that if they kill another american, if they cross that redline, he will make them pay. he will hold them responsible for the actions of their proxies. >> bill: here is your headline, "trump wins an standoff with iran. he understood what his critics did not, that the iranian regime's number one priority is the preservation of the regime." that's the point you're making. >> he understood that bullies, they only win when you have from them. when you punch a bully in the nose, he backs down. that's what the iranian state. they've been escalating for months. they attacked norwegian and japanese oil tankers. they shut down an unmanned u.s. drone. they attacked the saudi oil facilities. in all of those cases, donald trump restrained himself. he responded with a
6:50 am
cyber attack, he put on sanctions, but he didn't hit them back. when they crossed his red line, he killed soleimani. you look at the iranian response the other day, they literally carried out an attack that was intended not to kill any americans. we had 80,000 troops in the middle east. they could have attacked our bases and united arab emirates in saudi arabia, other places where they were tens of thousands of american troops. instead, they fired at a base in iraq that was sparsely populated, they warned the iraqis beforehand. a warning they knew would get back to us, so we saw it coming. they planned the attack in a way that no americans would be killed. what they wanted was the pictures of missiles, but they didn't want to kill any americans because they knew donald trump would take it to them. >> bill: i apologize for the interruption, i'm out of time. thank you for your time. 5,000 troops in iraq alone, your right to point that out. marc thiessen, thank you for your time and analysis there in washington. >> sandra: fotis dulos could
6:51 am
be arranged though mike remained in the disappearance of his estranged wife, jennifer. we have a live report from connecticut. ♪ ♪ our retirement plan with voya gives us confidence. so we can spend a bit today, knowing we're prepared for tomorrow. wow, do you think you overdid it maybe? overdid what? well planned, well invested, well protected. voya. be confident to and through retirement.
6:52 am
that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein.
6:53 am
6:54 am
>> sandra: 5:00 somewhere. if you're looking for a buzz with less calories, anheuser-busch is releasing bud light seltzer. the spiked seltzer comes in four
6:55 am
fruit flavors. it's 5% o alcohol with 100 calories per can. live from a bud light seltzer paris in new york. hey, greedy ! >> sandra, this is the only bud light seltzer brewery. it's 15 degrees outside, but in here they are cranking out 2,000 cans a minute to get ready for the big launch of this product come monday. a lot of people think of this as a summertime drink, but that's the message -- this is a year-round drink. that's what budweiser and bud light say, anyway. the parent company of bud light says they already have seltzer's on the market, but this is a little bit different from the ones that they have as well as the ones that are very popular right now, which includes white cloth. they say this has a crisper flavor without the aftertaste, and you can really taste those natural flavors. that being said, this is a huge
6:56 am
growth area for a beat and bev and all of the local companies. it brews 210% from 2018 to 2019. they really see this as an area as beer sales decline in the last few years. an area where they can see a lot of growth. sandra, as i said, this is a growing market and they expect to have these on the shelf on monday. >> sandra: unbelievable. the market for this stuff is huge. we will be watching it, thank you. >> bill: democrats moving into trying to rein in president trump from taking more military action against iran, if it comes to that. they are expected to vote on a war powers resolution today. we'll have a new reaction. our headliner, james rush, the center. he's coming up in moments. marco rubio still to come. come on back. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection
7:00 am
and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. >> sandra: thursday morning, fox news alert. we are awaiting brand-new reaction from speaker of the house nancy pelosi after announcing the full house will vote to limit president trump's war powers. all this as a top general says iran did have intentions to kill americans in those strikes. welcome to a brand-new hour of "america's newsroom." i'm sandra smith. >> bill: i'm bill hemmer, good morning at home. we are learning tehran did in fact try to kill u.s. troops by firing ballistic missiles at bases in iraq. where that from a leading general, most of the vice president sang the lack of casualties was a close call. this really today. >> we'd be in a very different place today if those missiles had hit their intended targets. when the iranians fired those
7:01 am
missiles, they were intending to kill americans. they struck bases my wife and i visited just this last thanksgiving. thanks to our preparedness, thanks to these measures that were taken, thankfully no american lives were lost. >> bill: we have all angles covered now. mike emanuel live on capitol hill, but we begin with lucas tomlinson at the pentagon. another day there. lucas, good morning. >> good morning, bill. we now know more about those measures the vice president mention. u.s. military's top officers telling reporters here at the pentagon and early warning system tipped off american forces, sending them to shelters, saving lives. but general mark milley warned, "make no mistake, iran's goal was to avenge qassem soleimani's death and kill american troops." >> i believe based on what i saw and what i know is that they were intending to cause structural damage, destroy vehicles and equipment and aircraft, and to kill personnel. >> president trump downplayed the impact of the iranian
7:02 am
missile strike in his address to the nation. >> we suffered no casualties. all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases. iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned, and a very good thing for the world. >> until general milley spoke yesterday, pentagon officials have privately said iran wanted to avoid killing americans, a message echoed in tehran today from iranian commanders. officials say they did not attempt to shoot down any of iran's missiles because they did not have antimissile defense systems in place. an expert explains why. >> it's ai-demand scarce asset. there's a lot of different targets within the middle east being protected, and we just don't have enough patriots to go around to blanket the desert and protect everything. >> as a vice president mention,
7:03 am
it would be much different story if americans have been killed, and missile defense would be much bigger issue today. >> bill: lucas tomlinson, back with you throughout the day at the pentagon. >> congress needs to do what congress needs to do. part of the frustration that i have had is that congress is an equal branch of government, a coequal branch of government, and they've never been treated that way. >> it's way past time. after 19 years of war, thousands of americans have died over the last two decades. tens of thousands have been wounded. we spent over $4 trillion executing these wars. it's time that we have a national conversation but what's in our national interest. congress needs to leave that discussion. >> sandra: house democrats gearing up for today's vote on the resolution limiting the president's war powers against iran. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel is live on capitol hill on that for us this morning. hey, mike. >> sandra, bill, good morning to you. it's a nonbinding vote on this resolution that is expected to be on the house floor today.
7:04 am
house speaker nancy pelosi announced there would be a vote, noting the trump administration conducted what she called "a provocative and disproportionate military air strike, targeting high level iran military officials." and plus he adds, "the trump administration took this actiont consulting congress." democrats argue that it endangered u.s. troops, diplomats, and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with iran. the resolution reads, "congress has not authorized the president to use military force against iran. congress hereby directs the president to terminate the use of united states armed forces to engage in hostilities in or against iran or any part of its government or military." here is part of the pitch for it, as the house rules committee prepares the measure for the floor. >> this is no time for us to sit on the sidelines. congress shouldn't be an afterthought. the constitution is crystal clear. the president may be commander in chief, but only congress has the power to declare war.
7:05 am
we are the voice for the troops being deployed. >> but a senior house republican says the commander in chief was doing his job. >> the president very clearly has the legal authority under article two of the constitution to use defensive military force in response to immediate threats to american personnel, even in the absence of congressional approval. >> president trump tweeting today, "i hope all house republicans will vote against crazy nancy pelosi's war powers resolution. also getting the impeachment hoax voted on and done. just another democrat fraud. president to harassment!" the measure is nonbinding, but members of the house will go on the record on the use of force against iran today. >> sandra: mike emanuel, thanks. >> bill: thank you. senate majority leader , he's talking about the impeachment articles. no movement from nancy pelosi yet, but there might be this hour, she will talk is expected,
7:06 am
30 to 45 minutes from now. bringing the a-team, welcome back. leslie marshall, progressive or your talk show host, fox news contributor. mcshane, anchor of ""after the bell"." nice to see you all. happy new year. a lot of different angles we can dissect here. i think it significant what mike emanuel describes. this war powers resolution is nonbinding. however, there will in all likelihood be a vote later this afternoon we will likely have the votes to pass. that being said, big diplomatic test for the president this past week. how did he do? >> i think we could say he has been successful in the primary goal, to deter iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. this maximum pressure campaign is obviously working. the fact that -- i agree with your previous guest who said that he very much wanted to draw a line in the sand about killing u.s. personnel, and he responded
7:07 am
and iran backed off. however, i will say this is really important that he brings in the diplomatic community, that is a weakness so far that we've seen. i would say that's the one mark against the president. he needs to shore up support to make sure our allies are also applying maximum diplomatic and economic pressure to make sure we continue to push iran away from nuclear weapons. >> i would take the so far, so good argument. a lot of what we do it fox business is seen through the prism of the financial market reaction. at the other night when the operations from the iranian started, you saw how quickly markets -- not only stocks, but the price of oil -- reacted, shooting at 5%. just as quickly when he found out there no casualties, when the president came out the next day that in his view iran was sitting down. the price backs off. >> sandra: brand-new eyes this morning. >> exactly. that feeds into that so far, so good argument, not knowing with the next steps will be. >> bill: leslie, what have you
7:08 am
jump in? >> depends who you ask, obviously preleft to right , stopping iran, we went from p5 years to less than five with this action. the iranian experts i have focused, i spoke to said this is not over. many of us are breathing a sigh of relief and saying, "there's no world war ii -- world war iii, excuse me. that was a hoax." we are very fearful and should be of terrorist attacks, cyber attacks. >> bill: we could be of the very beginning of the next chapter in the story. standby, mitch mcconnell. >> th the american people won. 77% told a harvard survey that the basic outline of the clinton trial, reserving the windows question until later in the proceedings, ought to be good enough for this president, as well. fair is fair. in the same survey, 58% of
7:09 am
americans said they want speaker pelosi to do her job and send the articles to the senate rather than continue delaying it. and it makes sense, madam president, that american families have lost patience with this act just like we senators have lost patience with it. because this is not just some intramural tiff between two houses in a bicameral legislator. this recklessness affects our entire country. when you take a step back, what has really happened over the last three weeks? what has happened? when you take a step back from the political noise and the pundits discussing leverage -- by the way, that never existed --dash what have house democrats actually done? this, madam president, is what they have done. they have initiated one of the
7:10 am
most grave and most unsettling processes in our constitution, and then refused to allow a resolution of it. now she is unilaterally saying you cannot move forward to resolution. it's bad enough that house democrats given to the temptation of subjective impeachment that every previous house, for 230 years, had managed to resist. however unwise, that is their constitutional prerogative. they get to start it if they choose. they do not get to declare it can never be finished. they do not get to trap our entire country into an unending groundhog day of impeachment without resolution.
7:11 am
alexander hamilton specifically warned against a procrastinated resolution of impeachments. in part, that is because our duly elected president deserves a verdict, just like every american who is accused by their government deserves a speedy trial. look, this goes deeper than fairness to an individual. this is about what is fair to the entire country. there is a reason why the framers did not contemplate a permanently unsettled presiden presidency. that is true under any circumstances, but consider especially the circumstances of recent days. even as the democrats have prolonged this game, we have seen iran escalate tensions with our nation. we live in a dangerous world. i was majority can create this
7:12 am
temporary cloud over commander in chief they choose it if they choose. but they do not get to keep it in place forever. look, there is real business for the american people that the united states senate needs to complete. if the speaker refused to take her own accusations to trial, the senate will move forward next week with the business of our people. we will operate on the assumption that house democrats are too embarrassed, too embarrassed, to ever move forward. and we will get back to the people's business. for example, the senate continues to process president trump's landmark trade deal, the usmca, three are committees of jurisdiction. it passed the senate finance committee this week by a landslide vote of 25-3, a major victory for the president and for working families. now our other committees will
7:13 am
continue their consideration. there is more. the epidemic of opioids, functional, and others continues to plague our nation. some colleagues have said they will raise provisions on more powers. the senate has plenty of serious work to do for our country. while the speaker continues her irresponsible games, we will continue doing the people's business. >> bill: mitch mcconnell on the floor, we will see where this goes. we will hear for nancy pelosi, standby for more on that. >> sandra: some democrats now breaking with nancy pelosi saying that if it's urgent, send over those articles to the senate and let's get going. >> bill: it's all about political timing now. don't you lose some of your leverage, to the point of dianne feinstein and other democrats, if you don't send over the article sooner? the only way to see this -- i'm not sure why speaker pelosi has delayed as much as she has -- but the only way to see this is through the prism of the 2020
7:14 am
presidential election now. you still have five democrats from the senate running for president. is there really a "good time" for them to send up these articles now? the 8th of january, the iowa caucus, the 3rd of february, a week and a day later. march 3rd, super tuesday. so if you're looking out from there and saying, "here's the time we should do this, it makes the most political sense," there really is no "good time." sooner rather than later would seem to make sense. >> sandra: i want to quit mitch mcconnell just now, "they may keep the cloud over the president if they choose, but they do not get to keep the cloud forever." what is nancy pelosi's next move? 's because she has set all along -- and i believe she will do as she said come as she has throughout her career -- that she will send them over once it set. this is a game of who will blink first and chicken at this point. which is unfair, quite frankly, to the american people on both sides. leader mcconnell has the votes to set the rules. when you set the rules, the american people aren't stupid.
7:15 am
they're watching him today, what they're saying paid some of them are going, "set the rules and send them over." that's what needs to happen. the fact that there are more democrats coming out and saying, "let's do this already," does show there's a concern about the timing because so many of those nominees for president. >> bill: you will probably get movement in the next 48 hours. to that point, chris coons, democrats in delaware, concerned about it, time to get with it. senator feinstein, "the more it goes on, the less urgent it becomes." "if it's serious and urgent, send it over. if it isn't, don't send them over." >> i think you will hear a lot of that. the interesting part about all of this is plus the engine work in concert uses is more of an exercise to frame up and take away the republican talking points that this was the sham impeachment. set up their messaging and their
7:16 am
campaign ads for the 2020 races, that this is an unfair trial. that we should have had more witnesses available, those types of things. i think the longer this goes, the more the narrative turns. especially as mcconnell continues to make light and make fun of the fact that pelosi, in his mind, doesn't have any leverage on this. if he's not blinking, she's losing the messaging battle. >> this whole idea of a cloud over the president is interesting to talk about. i know if it's true or not, but from the democrat political perspective, the best tool they have in their arsenal. the economic win, no matter what you think of his policies, the financial times has a plot this morning. for the first and the majority, 51%, see the president's policies are helpful for the country. there either strongly or somewhat helpful on the economy. >> sandra: mitch mcconnell just said on the floor, "if the houses and send over articles by next become of the senate will move next week to get on with other issues."
7:17 am
to that point, leslie. >> to that point, people get angry with me that this is not political. because if it was, this is not necessarily win. i wouldn't do it it was purely politics. but speaking to politics, speaking about the voters, the voters don't care left or right about this issue when they go to vote. when you talk about a cloud, it's not a win for republicans were a win for democrats. issues like health care. if you look at states like arizona, where you have bite and then come head-to-head, and arizona is a pretty red state, i would expect a far larger margin but the president should have over every nominee. >> i was not a political process if the outcome is nothing but a foregone conclusion? there is no one that expects the president to be convicted in the senate. moving forward, if it's not political, you move forward with something -- a trial you essentially know you are going to lose. >> that's why i think schumer has set this up to put the 2020
7:18 am
-- the vulnerable republican senators on the record on some things and set up his campaign attacks against them. it is a foregone conclusion. any glimmer of hope went by when murkowski and collins lined up with mcconnell last week saying they wouldn't even challenge the witness process, and the fact they were going forward with the clinton impeachment precedent. i really do think this is more about politics, more about 2020 senate control. the democrats cannot do anything until they regain control. >> sandra: are you worried about cracks in the dam, lindsey graham's point? >> i'm not worried about cracks in the dam. the reason i say it's not political, if you look at the more than two dozen democrats -- over 30 democrats are in red trump districts. districts have voted for trump that support the president. 22 of those are freshmen. those freshmen voted, those more than 30, voted to impeach the president at their own political
7:19 am
peril in their districts. if this was purely political, they would have already cracked. >> sandra: you got in the final point there, leslie. thank you. much more on tensions with iran coming up in just moments. our headliner, senate foreign relations committee chairman james rush will be our guest. he will weigh in on all of that straight away >> bill: jennifer dubose expected to be released the latest on the fotis dulos investigation as it unfoll time this week. >> we are relieved, optimistic, looking forward to getting the discovery, and we very much want to try this case. mr. dulos wants to clear his name. so every veteran can save $2000 a year. $@'0a[óñ4hx40y@zx2x our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy!
7:20 am
whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.
7:21 am
7:22 am
7:23 am
7:24 am
>> sandra: fox news alert now in the case of connecticut mother of five jennifer dulos. missing and presumed dead for months now. her estranged husband, fotis dulos, expected to be released on the $6 million bond today after he, his ex-girlfriend, and his former lawyer were arraigned on criminal charges in connection with jennifer's murder. laura ingle has been following this for us from the beginning. she's live from the grouse in stamford, connecticut. what to be expect to see from all of this today? >> good morning, sandra and bill. after the arraignment yesterday of fotis dulos, his ex-girlfriend, and former attorney, there was word here at the courthouse that all three could make their bond and walk out of here. it didn't happen, so we are back here again today. lawyers said yesterday there were problems with paperwork that couldn't be resolved in time, so the three went back to correctional facilities and spent another nigh night in loc. lawyers for dulos, his ex-girlfriend michelle troconis, and dulos' former civil attorney, tried for a bond
7:25 am
reduction, only troconis had her amount lowered from $2 million to $1.5 million. the lawyer's remained the same, and dulos' bond remains at a large $6 million due to the gravity of the new charges. dulos, arrested for the murder, felony murder, and connecting, kidnapping of his estranged wife, jennifer dulos, who has been seen since he dropped off their children at school on ma may 24th. arrested for despite learning of the new and seemingly devastating evidence in the case, including dulos' dna and fingerprints on some of the items were covered with jennifer's blood on them, his attorney said yesterday that he is actually relieved. >> if there doesn't appear to be a crime scene weapon. there doesn't appear to be any admissions or statements. there is nobody. what we have is a suspicious disappearance and an entirely circumstantial case.
7:26 am
>> if released on bond today, all three will be fitted with gps tracking devices and will be under house arrest until they go to trial. sandra? >> sandra: we are learning a lot more about the evidence that's been recovered in the don't like this case. what are police revealing about that? >> we've been finding out a lot. we are talking about these very large arrest warrants released on tuesday for all three. investigators have been working on all this time, they haven't made that public. we are finally getting a look at what they believe happened to jennifer dulos. police say they recovered 22 items, including zip ties with jennifer's dna. some of those items had blood, and they believe all of them were discarded by dulos and troconis the night the mother of five vanished in hartford, connecticut. investigators revealed they found blood-like stains for us on ponchos, plastic garbage bags, paper towels, and jennifer's range rover. those tested for either her dna were the dna of troconis and
7:27 am
dulos. according to previous warrants, police believe fotis dulos was lying in wait in the garage the morning she vanished. we also learned tuesday that fotis dulos' dna was found on the doorknob inside her home, a home he was never allowed to be inside. the medical examiner calling her death a homicide of violence, which likely, he said, included blunt force injuries such as bludgeoning or beating, along with injuries such as stabbing or slashing. i sat down with fotis on december 20th, inside his home, where he was just arrested tuesday, and asked him point blank if he was involved. >> did you have anything to do with jennifer's disappearance? >> again, i will refer to the gag order. so i cannot answer that. >> can you tell us what you think she might be? >> the same answer. >> bonding out or not, fotis dulos will have his next court appearance on february 28th. sandra? >> sandra: one more thing we
7:28 am
are learning, additional property that fotis dulos had paid something about a grave that was found? >> this is a property, we had never had this before, sandra. this is a property that there was a connection with the civil attorney. we mentioned he was arraigned yesterday, charged with conspiracy. here is the story behind that. police say that two men who are members of a gun club, that the lawyer once belonged to, and as asked for access to in the weeks before jennifer's disappearance, found an empty grave on the wooded grounds that had blue tarp and two unopened bags of lime in the hole. they said somebody had filled that hole and made it need as a pen. they used canines and never found in human remains. as the search where body continues, sandra. speed learning more about all of that. laura ingle, thank you. >> bill: on the hill now there's a battle over the president's war powers. speaker pelosi moving to try and handcuff the commander in chief,
7:29 am
to prevent further action militarily against iran. she will speak in a matter of minutes. we will cover that for you, coming up shortly from capitol hill. >> sandra: plus, lawmakers wreckage of the intelligence briefing as president trump moves to reduce tensions with iran and following that missile strike in iraq. senator james risch is our headliner. he will join us live, next. >> i don't know. i think a third grader could figure out that soleimani was up to no good. that the evidence, to me, was compelling. into a smaller life?
7:30 am
7:31 am
7:32 am
are your asthma treatments just not enough? then see what could open up for you with fasenra. it is not a steroid or inhaler. it is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. it's an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. nearly 7 out of 10 adults with asthma may have elevated eosinophils. fasenra is designed to target and remove eosinophils, a key cause of asthma. it helps to prevent asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can reduce the need for oral steroids like prednisone. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. could you be living a bigger life? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra.
7:33 am
>> i can assure your viewers that there was a front of an imminent attack. it was after those air strikes the president ordered on those five militia bases that we received word that soleimani was traveling the region to make preparations for a larger attack on american forces. the >> bill: there was the vice president, mike pence, making a case of it earlier today.
7:34 am
chuck schumer is now making the case of impeachment. we heard from mitch mcconnell a moment ago. there could be action on this today. we will not know until nancy pelosi speaks, that's about 12 minutes away. state and for all of that. in the meantime, idaho republican senator james risch, chairman of the foreign relations committee, he's our headliner from the hill. good morning to you, welcome back to our program here. >> think you for having me. >> bill: you bet, happy new year to you. a disagreement over democrats and some republicans about what they are yesterday. what did you hear bond close doors about the threat that soleimani post? >> well, look -- this is democracy, and debate is very healthy. i have to start with a little bit of a disclaimer -- i'm also on the intelligence committee and spent almost a dozen years they. my understanding of this background, first of all, was a little deeper than what is generally out there right now. secondly, it has a history of about 12 years.
7:35 am
look, that briefing that they had yesterday was done by five of the best people the administration has. it was good, it was in depth, it clear. i fully understand there's a partisan divide on this. they disagree, but for different reasons. we will get through this. it's been going on since george washington was present. this is democracy. >> bill: in a word, were you convinced of what they said yesterday? yes or no? >> absolutely. i was convinced of it long before we have a briefing yesterday. as i said, the day before that i had spent most of the day sitting through intelligence briefings by a number of them. >> bill: here is your colleague, mike lee from utah. he disagree strongly with your assessment. >> probably the worst briefing i've seen, at least on a
7:36 am
military issue, in the nine years i've served in the united states senate. it is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government. i don't care whether they are with the cia, the department of defense, or otherwise. to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against iran. it's un-american. it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong. >> bill: worst briefing in nine years. what you make of that? >> mike is a dear, dear friend. he is a really bright guy, and as you can see from that, he has strong feelings about when the law allows the president to use military force. the president has three things available to him. his got his inherent article to, constitutional authorities. he has the war powers act, and he has the 2002 declaration of the use of power in iraq, which at this specifically covered. mike feels strongly that the point at which the president can use power should be handled the
7:37 am
family prayed specifically, mike was frustrated -- i sat there and watch him argue with these people --dash he wanted them to give it definition of when we were at war and when we're going to war. they brought the lawyers and everything else. i set for lots of hours of debate on this. it isn't a bright line prayed and forcibly, it's a gray line in today's world. unlike what it was when the constitution was written. this is a robust debate. we should approach it in good faith and do our best to resolve this. >> sandra: the american people sure hope that's the case, senator. what can you tell us about the current threat iran poses today? >> the threat really hasn't changed that much. one of the things that has been lost in the national reporting on this is all the criticism that's been given to the president. he doesn't have a neuron strategy, he doesn't know where he's going, he's shooting from the hip. we need to do is take that
7:38 am
speech he gave yesterday morning. that wasn't an off the hip speech. it was a text to speech. he was giving it off a text. that is the policy, and said suddenness rations policy, on iran. it was the policy before the events of this week, it was the policy during this week, and it is the policy going forward. i guarantee you and around they are taking it sentence by sentence, pulling away the punctuations and looking at it. and the american people. especially my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and especially the national media ought to do the same thing, which was a clear, clear expression of this administration's policy on iran. >> sandra: senator, can you tell us more? we've heard military generals on the president give so much credit to the intel that was given to the united states, the heads up to get our american troops out of harm's way before that strike actually hit those bases. what was that, and what did you learn about that? >> yeah, a lot. but unfortunately that stuff is
7:39 am
classified and i can't talk about it here. there is tremendous amounts of intelligence that go back and forth. a lot of communications that go back and forth between countries, that, i'm sorry, we can't unpack here. it's important stuff. >> bill: it seems as if -- you are saying one thing and people like mike lee and rand paul are saying another. if i hear the distinction clearly, what mike lee is arguing is whether or not the president has the authority to take military action. >> correct. >> bill: i think with the reporters are curious about learning yesterday is whether or not people like you are convinced that soleimani was a clear and imminent threat to americans serving in iraq or other places in the middle east. i understand the distinction correctly? if that's the case, was soleimani on the verge of killing americans in iraq or elsewhere? >> in answer to that last
7:40 am
question, the answer is yes. clearly, yes. emphatically yes. the question of what the difference is on the use of military force, i think it's quite a bit more sophisticated than what you laid out. i don't mean that derogatorily. it's just a difficult and complex question. i think that the? lee is arguing is, at what point in the president do it? that's, again, and over supplication, but it's a complex question paid one that deserves to be. >> sandra: are we in a time of de-escalation right now? how long is that last? >> i really hope so. you've heard the debate over whether they intentionally put their rockets in a place were no americans would be hurt or killed. look, they knew what the red line was. this had been escalating for the last year. the president said a red line that, "if you kill someone, we will do something."
7:41 am
they did, he did. what he did was not proportional, it was substantially more than proportional, and done intentionally to restore deterrence against iran because they've been pushing the envelope. they've been escalating. he did what he did. look, we are in a spot right now where there is a debate as to whether or not the intention was to hurt or kill somebody or whether they didn't. i hope they did not. i knew what was coming next, once those rockets for lunch. i was praying. have they taken american lives in that attack, we'd be in a very different place than we are right now, and evan help us all. >> bill: senator, thank you for your time. we must begin. >> sandra: fox news alert now from capitol hill, speaker nancy pelosi about to step up to the microphone and speak with reporters there. we are going to bring that to live when she begins, and with the full house preparing to vote on a nonbinding war powers resolution, we will get reaction this morning from senator marco rubio. he will be our guest at the top of the hour.
7:42 am
>> bill: also michael bloomberg sing his plan is to go after him on the economy. as of the right move? the moneyman charles payne has an answer, too. check out the sneaks! i like it. nice to see you. ♪ i have huge money saving news for veterans. mortgage rates just dropped to near 50-year lows. one call to newday usa can save you $2,000 every year. }dú thlook at all this ink no more bit comes with.es. big ink tanks. lots of ink. no more cartridges. incredible amount of ink. the epson ecotank. just fill and chill.
7:43 am
7:44 am
7:45 am
7:46 am
>> bill: 2020 democratic candidate michael bloomberg laying out his agenda for his campaign, saying the best line of attack against the president is to challenge him on the economy. what about that, charles payne? hello sir. >> there used to be this old commercial called snausages. this weird meat thing. every time the dog would say, "snausages?" what the hell is this, are you serious? snausages? jobs gone through the roof, we've got a job claim today. down again. 50 are low on that. tomorrow we will find out that
7:47 am
more women are working than men in this country. really? i mean, snausages connect this is what you want to challenge him on? 's vat can make a point that he's a self-made billionaire who has built multiple successful countries from the ground up. >> he can. when bloomberg left office, the coefficient was 547. fourth worst. there was a bill to have he thought that was misguided. almost shelters, when he came into office, less than 30,000 people living in them. more than 50,000 when he left office. 400,000 people living with routes. lead poisoning paid by the way, he stopped checking the lead poisoning. he did say one thing i thought was pretty good trait he wants his vp to be in charge of education. you know why this is good? when he left office, third-eighth graders math proficiency, which proficiency
7:48 am
was 26% in new york. if he's president, i hope there is someone different in charge of that. >> bill: here's his quote, "i will work on building an economy where all americans, not just people like me, can share in our prosperity. >> where in the midst of one of the most amazing shared prosperity explosions in a long time. i'm talking decades. people are doing so much better. at the lower economic runs. i think it's a mistake for anyone to say they can mess that up. it's an old democrat talking point. it's all political talking point. if the democrat was in office, the republican would say the same thing. the facts suggest we are really in an amazing economy, lower economic run, so much better than it has a long time. speed weekend and a segment with you today without pointing out that the dow and the stock market is on fire. all-time highs. again, no approaching 29,000. >> we will see what happens with the jobs report tomorrow. we got a groups of it yesterday. the official government number is as good as that.
7:49 am
it really means -- again, our economy is reigniting. even though we've got an expansion, there are signs it's re-igniting, which is amazing. speed charles payne, thank you. the question of the day, bill hemmer. prince harry and meghan markle shocking the world after announcing plans to set back from their royal duties. why? ♪ is that net carbs or total?... eh, not enough fiber- chocolate would be good- snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. glucerna. everyday progress while helping you manage your blood sugar. "1917" is the winner of the golwe need to keep moving!ctor. and best picture, drama. tomorrow... experience "1917".
7:50 am
7:51 am
that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. nah. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening
7:52 am
and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind.
7:53 am
♪ >> sandra: the royals shocking rose from big announcement of the duke and duchess of sussex. prince harry and meghan markle planning to step back at senior members of the royal family and work toward becoming financially independent. splitting their time between north america and the united kingdom. carley shimkus here with us. on the say shock the world, et cetera. >> i think it's a big deal! they have answered some questions. after they made this announcement, they launched a website where they say they want to be members of the royal family with financial
7:54 am
independence. that's a phrase they're using. so they will no longer take money from the sovereign grant, the money taxpayers give the queen every single year. they want to continue living in from more cottage. they will pay for their own travel. they won't pay for their security, because the metropolitan police has classified them as "internationally protected people." >> bill: is it true they didn't tell the queen before they went forth with this information? >> that is the widely reported story, that the queen was totally caught off guard by this. and she is going to have a meeting with prince charles later in the day, and they will try to hash this out. i cannot believe they would do this without telling the queen first. that is the biggest shock to me. >> sandra: let me make my point here. having gone and reported on the royal wedding of harry and meghan come of country and brace them. they filled the streets. they were signed up there were signs up in front of every house, "welcome
7:55 am
meghan." the really embraced her into the royal family. what changed? >> that's why this is getting so much criticism today. a lot of people do you feel they welcomed her with open arms. she was given this huge honor of becoming a member of the royal family. a lot of people feel like she is ripping harry apart from that. whether or not that's true, that's personal for them, their family, and their relationship. but what changed was the media. she said she tried to become remember, try to fit in, and it didn't work. harry has a lot of history of being at odds with the media and all the attention. so now they want to try and take a backseat. the only problem is, you're a member of the royal family even if you try and distance yourself from that. >> bill: fair point. >> i don't think this will end the media attention on them at all. >> bill: we can agree there's a back story we don't know yet. >> it's kind of sad. i think it said. we will see what happens. they could still stick with it and scrap this whole plan, who
7:56 am
knows? >> bill: we will see them in manhattan when they ar arrive. marco rubio straight ahead. we will have him and more, coming up top of the hour. ncing a strong economy... ...that is certain. but history tells us that economies don't live in a vacuum. we need to prepare for uncertainty. and you can... with rosland capital - a trusted leader in helping people acquire precious metals. call rosland capital today at 800-630-8900 to get started. gold bullion, lady liberty gold and silver proofs, and our premium coins, can help you preserve your wealth. call rosland capital at 800-630-8900 to receive your free rosland guide to gold, gold & precious metals ira and silver brochures. with rosland, there are no hassles, no gimmicks, and we have the fastest shipping around. prepare for uncertainty. make gold your new standard. call rosland capital today at 800-630-8900,
7:57 am
800-630-8900. that's 800-630-8900. 800-630-8900. when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. you could say align puts the pro in probiotic. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies, with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health.
7:58 am
7:59 am
8:00 am
>> bill: fox news alert from washington, nancy pelosi heading a news conference out of the s house vote. growing pressure from within her own party on the articles of impeachment. we will take you to capitol hill as she starts now. >> we have a responsibility to consult with congress. we hold it close. whoever close means. as you see, there has been criticism from the republicans about the briefing put forth by the administration on this subject. some of asked, do you agree that
8:01 am
the worst intelligence classified briefing congress has received from his administration? some of you have heard me say, there is stiff competition for that designation of worst. here we are, to protect american lives and values. we are passing today a war powers resolution to limit the president military actions. the administration must de-escalate and must protect -- prevent further violence for america and the world cannot afford war. some of you have heard me say that in december i took a bipartisan delegation, the 75th anniversary of the battle of the bulge. it was so remarkable to meet our vips, are veterans who served the battle of the bulge. some of them also at normandy. imagine the courage. teenagers, most of them, at the time. the compelling message from the veteran who spoke for them, along with the king of belgium and the archduke of luxembourg and the president of germany,
8:02 am
veteran who spoke, he spoke about the band of brothers, about allies working together, multilateralism. he spoke about the challenges they faced in those winters. reminding me, really, of washington crossing the delaware. because it was in december and it was snowing, and they were not as prepared for snow, and camouflage from snow, as they needed to be. just seeing their patriotism, their courage, those young people, this veteran coming to speak for them. 90 some years old. at the end of his remarks, he said, "i just want one message. i don't know if it's appropriate to say, but i will. pray for peace. pray for peace." that's what we all do. protecting the american people is our first responsibility. protect and defend. those we take. not only of our constitution,
8:03 am
but of the american people. pray for peace. that's what we must do. what happened -- a few of many of us is not promoting peace, but an escalation. not that we have any confidence of the good intentions of iran, and we certainly did not respect -- by, for my intelligence background, know just how bad soleimani was. it's not because we expect good things from them. but we expect great things from us. in terms of impeachment, you all keep asking me the same question, and i keep giving you the same answer. as i said right from the start, we need to see that the arena in which we are sending our managers. is that too much to ask?
8:04 am
in october we put forward the resolution which talked about the terms under which we would proceed, to further proceed with the investigation so that people knew what the battlefield would look like. we expect to see that here. i hear different things. i hear that they might want to -- you've probably heard -- one way or another some of them have suggested they might want to dismiss. dismiss equals cover up. dismiss equals admission that the truth, the witnesses, and the augmentation. we want to proceed as with the clinton process, that there would have been a bipartisan resolution determining how to proceed. contrary to what the majority leader said, he said this is like the clintons. no, it's not at all.
8:05 am
i said to our members yesterday, i sent them six of the points in which it is different. nonetheless, at some point we would hope that we would see from them what they do in terms with the terms of engagement will be. we are ready, we are proud of our defense of the constitution of the united states. we are concerned that the senators will not be able to live up to the oath that they must take to have an impartial trial. so much for that. at the same time that this is all going on, it's important to note that there are still many other things of concern to the american people. one is the assault on the affordable care act that this administration is engaged in. in the courts, in the congress. and we are fighting them in the courts, the congress, and the country. right now they are in the court
8:06 am
instead of defending the law of the land, as is the responsibility of the justice department. this administration is fighting the law of the land. that means benefit for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime limits or annual limi limits, child stain, being a woman no longer being a pre-existing condition. the list goes on and on that they want to pare down. with all of the other, shall we say, distractions going on, which are a collateral benefit to the administration because it's a distraction as they are masterful at, of what's going on. in addition to that, the statement from the administration that they are no longer going to enforce the national environmental protection act. this mean pluralism over this means more
8:07 am
polluters x of the water our children their denial of climate, they are going to not use the climate issue has anything to do with environmental decision-making. the public should know this. denial, denial about the climate crisis in the midst of fires in australia. have them in our own country. i will close by just talking about how proud we are of the work our members have done for the people. we have moved to lower health care costs by lowering the cost of prescription drugs. hr three, wildly popular in the country. past the house before he left. we also are proud to pass the mexico-u.s. -- the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement, which is sitting over in the senate. it's sitting over there with me before hundred bills we sent over. more than 275 of them are
8:08 am
bipartisan legislation. one of them, we observed yesterday, the ninth anniversary of the assault on gabby giffords' life. a bullet. thoughts of the highest priority. if they pass this bill, it would save lives. to have sensible background legislation. we are proud of our legislative agenda, to lower health care costs, keep the american people safe, build bigger paychecks by building infrastructure. this coming week, in the next period of time, our chairman, chairman defazio will be putting forth our most current initiative on -- i say climate because you can't do infrastructure without having a recognition of resilience and green technologies. that's where we are there.
8:09 am
today we again send sad condolences to the person who lost his or her life in puerto rico. others whose homes were damaged. we call upon the white house to stop its unlawful withholding of funds from puerto rico. there are needs that need to be met. there has been a disaster designated, but the ongoing withholding of funds appropriated by congress to puerto rico is illegal, and we call upon the administration to cease and desist that illegal activity. what else do we have here? maybe we will just take some questions from all of you. >> reporter: you say you need to know what the arena looks like in the senate. how long are you prepared to hold onto the articles of impeachment if you don't get the answers you're looking for? >> well, it's interesting to listen to what they say.
8:10 am
because -- the other day you probably heard the leader say, "i'm glad to show you what it is when i'm ready." but we don't know when he's going to be glad to be ready to show it to us. so there is something that they will have. and then he says, "well, we will pass it once we get the articles." in the past few weeks since we've had this, shall we say come in past -- because they will reveal the terms of engagement -- many things have been accomplished that are collateral benefit to the discussion. they relate to -- on december 20th, new emails showed that 91 minutes after trump's phone call with the ukrainian president, a top omb aide asked d.o.t. to hold off on sending military aid to the ukraine.
8:11 am
directly related to the call. on the 729, it was reported public revelations about mulvaney's role, the effort of lawyers at omb/doj, and the alarm the delay caused within the administration. everyone was not in agreement. emails expose serious concerns by administration officials about the legality of the president's hold on the aide. the legality of the president's hold on the aide to ukraine. just this week, bolton announced that he would comply with a subpoena compelling's testimony, his lawyers have stated he has new relevant information. our investigation and our articles necessitate a fair trial with documents and witnesses. they don't want documents, the documentation. they don't want witnesses.
8:12 am
they may want a dismissal, which is proof that they cannot, cannot clear the president of the wrongdoing that he has put forth. >> reporter: are you holding on to the articles definitely? >> no, i'm not holding them a definitely. i will send it over when i'm ready. that will probably be soon. he said, "if you don't send them over, i'm going to pass the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement." okay. we want to see what they are willing to do. and the manner in which they will do it. but we will not let them say, "this is just like clinton, fair is fair." it's not. documentation, witnesses, facts, truth. that's what they're afraid of. >> reporter: the democrats call the danger to democracy. house democrats, calling -- >> oh, i thought you meant
8:13 am
mitch mcconnell, okay. [laughter] >> reporter: [indistinct] >> no, i think we should move smartly and strategically. >> reporter: good morning. on iran, this is not a joint resolution. >> a concurrent resolution, yes. >> reporter: there's been some criticism from both sides that this should be binding. i know there are some parliamentary questions about it being privileged over there. but why not make this with real teeth, to make this like an aumf? >> this is with real teeth. if you are familiar with the war powers act -- and i will get you the text -- the war powers text enables two approaches to go forward. one is a concurrent resolution, and it gives the procedure for that, which we will be following today. and it gives a password concurrent -- for an h con resolution. we are taking this path because
8:14 am
it does not require a statement -- a signature of the president of the united states. this is a statement of the congress of the united states, and i will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not. >> reporter: madame speaker, many of your members have raised serious concerns about the timing of the strike against soleimani, the administration's justification. you've been briefed. do you think the administration misled the american people about an imminent attack? >> i think it is very unfortunate that right now -- because i was briefed in the gang of eight and i was briefed in the dash what did he call it? demeaning classified briefing, that the republican sinners had ever heard, yesterday what is in the public domain, it's difficult to address some of what they contended. however, i will say this, because i was informed by what i
8:15 am
mentioned earlier. i think i did, anyway. that when i was briefed by the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs over the weekend, taking responsibility for the killing, it was disdainful in terms of not consulting with congress. dismissive. we held it closely. so if you want us to all join together, let us have a strategy that we work together on. i do not believe, in terms of what is in the public domain, that they have made the country safer by what they did. and that is what our responsibility is. we will have more discussion of this on the floor today at some length. again, i go back to the battle
8:16 am
of the bulge. pray for peace. we must avoid war. the cavalier attitude of this administration... it's stunning. the president says, "i'll inform you by reading my tweets." no, that's not the relationship our founders had in mind in the constitution of the united states, when they give power to the white house to do one thing in terms of our national security, and to the congress, to declare war and allocate resources. this is does your question is an important one. again, we will have two hours of debate. two hours on the bill today to put forth some of the factual basis of the concern we have. let me just say this -- you hear the administration say, "well, we were justified because the office of legal counsel said."
8:17 am
the office of legal counsel as a tool of the president of the united states. the two that is. so whatever the president wants to be declared legal, his office of legal counsel declares it so. so it's misleading to the public as to what the war powers act, article two that gives the president certain powers, article one that gives the house, congress, certain powers, are. it's a very big issue now because it's nothing left preventing war. our first responsibility is to protect the american people. >> reporter: the brief phrase yesterday akin to the senate, several people came out and said that they told them putting out information, debating the war powers act, would empower iran. they are debating more powers around iran. what would you say to the trump
8:18 am
administration if they are telling you that? >> i don't spend a lot of time telling many things, because i don't know what the basis of judgment is to receive information. i will say this -- if they think any statement they make is there to curtail public debate on the subject as serious as this, it just explains to you the seriousness of the situation we are in. we will debate on the floor of the house. now, we are not going on the floor talking about will be learned. they said in the beginning, "even if you read it in the newspaper, if you hear it in here, you can't talk about it." and they proceeded to tell us many things we read in the local metropolitan journals that are seen on tv. that's foolish. it's completely foolish. as i say, we have no illusions about iran. no illusions about soleimani. he was a terrible person.
8:19 am
he did bad things. but it's not about how bad they are, it's about how good we are. protecting the people in a way that prevents war and does not have us producing again and again generations of veterans who are suffering. let me just close by saying this -- when we were there, i met many of these veterans, the 70th anniversary of normandy. when i met them there, i said "my uncle was in report to close the battle of the bulge." and they said, "we went there next." they were so brave. teenagers come most of them were. some 17 years old. when we talk to them this time, because deeper relationships over time, they said, "i never wanted to kill anybody. i didn't want to kill the germans. i was incapacitating them. i would shoot them in the leg or something." one of them told me, "i killed somebody and found out later
8:20 am
that he was a doctor, and i've always carry that with me." and they said, "well, you were instructed to shoot end. a superior said, "you take him, i'll take him." and they still will never forget that. we will all die for our country. we take pride in saying that. but you kill for our country is a pretty traumatic thing. when we want to engage in whatever we want to call this that the president engaged in, we have to be really careful about how we endanger our men and women in uniform who courageously, patriotically put themselves out there to protect and defend. any other questions? >> reporter: because the air strike targeting general soleimani happened in iraq, is it time for the house to consider a broader aumf? the legal justification the administration has put forward with this air strike.
8:21 am
is it time for congress to get rid of the 2001, 2002 aumf? >> we did get rid of the aumf of 2002. it was in an appropriations bill, and passed in a bipartisan way. in the dark of the night, speak a rent check it out. it was highly unusual and highly unusual. they just went and took it out. it's ridiculous. but that's what he did. so congress has already passed rejecting -- after it passed both houses, he took it out, what was signed. we will have that resolution coming up soon under leadership of congresswoman barbara lee, whose wedding we observe today. then the question is, what do we do about aumf? that's harder than you would think. and aumf, whose president back democrat or republican? how much power or confidence to have that person can back
8:22 am
regardless of party, to execute and aumf and the decisions that have to be made, it's important to note -- what is the timing of it? this one is too long. it should have a date. not one that couldn't be renewed, but nonetheless it should have a date. the timing, the geography, what are we talking about? it was used to pursue al qaeda in different places, and here we are. third, wher what is the scope? boots on the ground, air cover? what are we talking about? the timing, geography, and scope. when you have that debate, it's, "well, i want the president to have as much power or a not to e as much power." it's harder than you would think, but we have to do it. we have to do it with enough
8:23 am
time it's realistic militarily but also not unless, so that we are in the situation we're in now. here point, the argument would be made that putting the shoe on the other foot is the united states had a high level -- maybe the second most important person in the country -- assassinated wherever the united states might consider that assault on our country. right? and the iranians might as well, even though this took place at the iraqi airport. it's foggy. there are those that think it was in iraq, so it counts. it was an assault on iran, so it shouldn't count. i don't think there's anybody who thinks that the aumf would apply in iran. to your other point on it,
8:24 am
though, it needs to be addressed, rewritten. because we need to have an authorization of use of military force specific to the danger that we are addressing. one last question. >> reporter: [indistinct] >> well, they are in the senate's hands. they have tried to have a bipartisan approach to how they would conduct the investigation. what i recalling it? the trial feebly, the majority leader has said this is just like clinton.
8:25 am
except it isn't. it's exactly not like clinton, in that he won't do it a partisan agreement on how to proceed. that's very important. it's not incidental to say, "but for the documentation and witnesses." no. separate from all of that, under house-senate rules of 1986, what is allowed for the presentation from the house is one person to speak. one person to speak. are those the terms? is that what we should be ready for? or is there something else that they have a nine? if one person speaks for the house and one person speaks for the white house. did you know that? 1986. is that the rule under which they are going? it doesn't mean we have to agree we have to
8:26 am
agree with or electricals can we just have to know what we are. active sports, because i thought we live. football, college, high school, professional. we send in our team, or we have to send in the special team as well as the team. p >> reporter: [indistinct] >> they've had the negotiation. the senator says he doesn't have to have witnesses. we may send them over. i'm not responsible to mitch mcconnell or to anybody else except my members, and the people who have worked so hard on this. members and staff. patriots honoring the oath of office. the constitution of the united states. i will give them the best shot to find the truth for our bosses, the american people.
8:27 am
thank you all very much. >> reporter: are you going to the niners game? >> it would be my intention to go. i went to the one game in san francisco. we watched all together the second game in seattle. i have unfortunately responsibilities to save our country from payroll. [laughter] i'm wearing that hat of pulls a good leader this weekend. so my family will enjoy our season tickets at the game this weekend. >> reporter: baltimore san francisco super bowl? >> we had the baltimore san francisco super bowl, and that was hard because i had been rooting for both teams all along. and again, going to the 49ers game and watching on tv right there at the stadium, what
8:28 am
happens when they both win. nobody was in a more difficult situation than i, then the mother of the coaches. [laughs] those coaching the teams. then he saw what happened at that game. the d'alessandros from baltimore came all dressed in purple, and the pelosi port left from san francisco came and read, and had a lovely family reunion. i hope we have a similar result, that we have both teams. because of my, shall we say, responsibilities to win the house for the democrats and hopefully the electoral college for the american people, i was scheduled to be in florida that weekend. almost. when we or another. [laughter] reported back to you think they will move to california? [laughter]
8:29 am
>> we will talk about tom brady. who knows what happens all this connect isn't it interesting hi it's wonderful because it is so unifying. whatever your politics, forget it. it's about the team. we all like to say and believe that we are all teen usa. so however it turns out. thank you all very much. >> sandra: even listening to the speaker of the house nancy pelosi there on capitol hill, ending on a lighter note after taking on the two big topics the moment. that's impeachment and iran. on impeachments, she said she is ready to send over the articles of impeachment but reiterated she needs to see the rules of engagement. she used a sports analogy talking about needing to see the arena in which we are sending over our managers. bret baier on the and a second, but first to iran and we just heard. let's bring in retired four-star general jack keane, chairman for the institute of the study for an fox news strategic analyst. good morning, even listening along with us. nancy pelosi said -- these are
8:30 am
her exact words -- "the administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate air strike against iran, which endangered americans. this, of course, is that of a vote to limit the president's war powers in congress this afternoon. >> well, that makes no sense to me. yes, was it provocative in terms of taking down soleimani? was the risk involved in it? yes. was it bold? yes. but it was about protecting american lives in doing that. and it has changed the strategic equation as a result of it. i think it's likely even exceeded anything the administration had in mind at the time when they made the decision to do that. what am i talking about? well, look what we got as a result of it. the iranians, for only the second time in 40 years, have exercised restraint. and they back down based on the feeble response they had. more for propaganda reasons inside their own country than anything else. iran's credibility in the region
8:31 am
is going to be diminished, and it is being diminished as a result of what has taken place here. we already know their economies in the tank, and they are declining economically rather significantly. you say to yourself, "well, why didn't iran do something more, then?" here's why, sandra. they know full well that an american response to an attack on one of our u.s. air bases -- and those bases are vulnerable, let's put it right out there. it's well known. i'm talking about our major airbases, navy bases, and ground bases in the region. not even talking about iraq. those bases can be penetrated by their cruise missiles and our pretrip missiles would not be able to stop them. as they capably demonstrated when they took down the saudi airfield. oil field, excuse me. so why didn't they do that? they didn't do that, sandra, because they believe the president demonstrated by killing soleimani and by the air strike that had preceded it, based on the other in
8:32 am
provocation, that he would come out than full throttle. what do i mean by full throttle? we would have taken down all eight of their refineries, most of their power plants in the country, either electricity grid, and we would have taken down their cruise missiles at all of their strategic short range and ballistic missiles. they would have been done at that point. that's what their calculation is. they are dealing with a completely different president. then, even after their feeble response, the president read it completely right. he sighed as restraint. he know they are backing up and he offers them what? and all of branch. he says, "get back to what we wanted to do from the very beginning. let's craft a new deal based on negotiations." that's kind of where we are. >> sandra: i will have to leave it there because of all the breaking news. we appreciate you standing by with us. nancy pelosi said we have no illusions about their own or soleimani. those were her words. she talked about the timing, the geography, and the scope when it comes to the vote happening in
8:33 am
the house this afternoon. we appreciate you staying with us. general jack keane, thank you. >> good talking to you. >> bill: life in prison for men convicted of killing the u.s. border patrol agent. the case connection to fast and furious. in a moment, how the agents families reacting on that. alexa tell me about neptune's sorrow.
8:34 am
it's a master stroke of heartache and redemption. the lexus nx. modern utility for modern obstacles. lease the 2020 nx 300 for $359 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.
8:35 am
8:36 am
8:37 am
>> as i said right from the start, we need to see that the arena in which we are sending our managers. is that too much to ask? >> bill: that was pretty much that line a moment ago. meanwhile, senate democrats, some of them breaking with speaker pelosi over a decision told articles, saying it's time to end the stalemate. we want to bring in bret baier, an acre of "special report," do double duty this week. good morning to you and hello. what are you hearing in terms of -- let's say the timetable for when she makes a call on this. >> i thought was interesting to listen to the news conference with speaker pelosi saying that she is getting ready. she is saying that it'll probably be soon, but she wants
8:38 am
to see the arena. she is likely not going to see that. mitch mcconnell is saying it's done, and if they don't send them over by next week, he is moving on to other things like usmca. i think it's going to happen soon. i think it's a little bit of face-saving for speaker pelosi, and this move may not be looking the best. her aides told "time" magazine that she got from john dean, watergate figure, talking about this idea. the other thing to point out is she still has control over that caucus. she had the house armed services committee chairman adam smith cough this morning and say, "yes, it is time to send over the articles of impeachment." the short time later he walked out back on twitter, saying he misspoke. >> bill: my guess is the nonbinding war powers resolution takes front stage for headlines this afternoon, and that maybe later she moves toward that. not tomorrow, early next week. sensing like like the schedule? speak of the senate democrats
8:39 am
i've talked to think that it's all beginning next week. it could be a likely schedule. she is signaling that it's coming soon, that she's getting ready to do it. how she justifies that, if the unit isn't set, she described in the news conference. we will see. she said that by doing it if he things of come out. john bolton saying he will answer a subpoena. they will testify. the unprotected emails, all of these things that she lists. however, in the big picture when you have democrats stepping up publicly saying it's time to move on, the pressure builds. >> bill: here's senator dan find some time for them. "the longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes." if it's serious and urgent, said it over. if it's not, don't send it over." i don't want to get too deep in the weeds, i got chad pergram's note early. he posed this question, could it wait until senate majority leader mitch mcconnell reese' releases a piece of paper
8:40 am
spelling of the frame work trial? see any dominic and the ac under any obligation to release the rules before she makes a call? >> no, he has the votes. you heard from lisa michalski li and susan collins, they would be open to it as is. "i'm into mitch mcconnell's process, let's have the opening statement sent to capote." only needs 51 votes to make the rules and set the groundwork. it's been the same way for the past week. so maybe that's how she climbs down what she has kind of drawn in the sand, not sending it over. >> bill: i want to complete the circle. program said they have to have a short debate and vote to send the articles across to the capital. >> that's a formality. they've been saying one of the reasons they are holding it up is they don't know who they are going to say are the managers, the people who have to make the
8:41 am
case, interview witnesses, people who argue. either way, push comes to shove, it's coming in the coming days. i think speaker pelosi signaled that today. >> bill: one more thing, joe manchin said something similar, so did chris coons. does that she wasn't democratic senators? or is she more concerned, as you point out, of the control of her own pockets? >> i think it's the latter. when it starts to build and you have seven, eight, nine democratic senators -- i had tim kaine on "special report" last night saying he expected to happen, that it needed to move forward. i think it does send a signal even though it's not a house democrat. it was interesting to see the house committee chairman armed services committee chairman say it's time and then walk it back on twitter this morning. >> bill: see you at 3:00, see you at 6:00. thank you, bret. >> i'm just going to hold your seat for a little bit. [laughter] >> bill: i hope it's comfortable. thank you, bret. >> sandra: have you heard
8:42 am
about this? they are calling it "megxit." prince harry and duchess meghan markle nothing they will step back from their senior roles in the royal family. how is the queen reacting? we go beyond the headlines next. ♪ here's record-breaking news for veterans. va mortgage rates have dropped to near 50-year lows. newday usa can help you refinance your mortgage and save thousands a year. i urge you to call newday usa now. i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. of course i'd love to take an informal poll.
8:43 am
i used to be a little cranky. dealing with our finances really haunted me. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business. (live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! hey! you got the burnt marshmallow out! (delivery man) he slimed me. (janine) tissue? (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business.
8:44 am
8:45 am
8:46 am
>> sandra: it's time to go beyond the headlines or we take a break from the fast-moving new cycle every day. today we are focusing on the royals, meghan and harry stepping down officially from their royal duties. joining us now is abby hornacek, fox nation host. >> i will step in for them! i'll take over the will duties! >> sandra: meghan really wanted this, right? harry has always been the
8:47 am
beloved royal, they've always loved him since he was a baby. son of diana. and then he married meghan and they embraced her. so what happened here? >> i don't think we will truly know what happened. i don't understand why we as americans and we as a society in general feel like we can judge the royal family. we don't know what's going on within their own family, but i honestly -- i might be going against the grain here, but a kind of respect this move. they want to be financially autonomous, nothing wrong with that. you bring up the point, what will he do with the money? >> sandra: a lot of breaking news today, standby on that the president talking impeachment and taking questions right now. let sit and listen. >> president trump: there probably was none or maybe you know who the second was a blur was. maybe we do, but he never showed up. all of the sudden they don't talk, because they were really unexpectedly met with the actual conversation, the exact conversation. if we do that, i would like to have those people plus others testify. because it's the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the
8:48 am
united states government. this has gone on since the day i came down the escalator. this isn't just here, this isn't just the ukraine hoax. this is the witch hunt, this is the whole thing with russia that turned out to be a total fabricated plot. the ones who are guilty are the democrats, the dnc, and all of the dirty cops that were involved that we caught. >> reporter: mr. president, i'm sure you saw mike lee's comments. did your national security team really say that it would be wrong for congress to debate military action on iran? >> president trump: here's what happened on that. had calls from numerous senators and numerous congressmen and women saying it was the greatest presentation they've ever had. mike and rand paul disagreed because they want information that, honestly, i think is very hard to get. it's okay if the military wants to give it, but they didn't want to give it. it really had to do with sources and information that we had that really should remain at a very high level. could we individually maybe give one or two of them some information?
8:49 am
possibly, if we can do it. i get along with mike lee. i've never seen them like that. other people have called and said it was the best presentation of ever seen. let me tell you what was the best -- forget about presentation. the result. we killed a man who killed many, many americans and many, many people. thousands and thousands of people. when i go over to walter reed and i meet these young incredible folks, mostly -- it seems mostly men, but also women -- where their legs are gone, their arms are gone. in some cases, both legs and arms are gone. in the face in the body is badly damaged. frankly, five years ago they couldn't have lived. today they can live because of the wonders of medicine and the wonders of walter reed, and the people over there. whawhat a job they do, the medil doctors. i will say this, we caught a total monster. we took him out. that should have happened a long time ago. we did it because they were
8:50 am
looking to blow up our embassy. we also did it for other reasons that were very obvious. somebody died, one of our military people died. people were badly wounded just a week before. and we did it. and we had a shot at him, and i took it. that shot was pinpoint accurate, and it was the end of the monster. really, that was the second attack. we didn't start it, they started it by killing one of our people and wounding badly other of our people. so that, you call retribution. ukraine, if you look at what happened with ukraine, that's a hoax. well, this is a hoax, too. arend went in and hit us with missiles. shouldn't of done that, but they hit us. fortunately for them, nobody was hurt, nobody was killed, nothing happened. they landed very little damage, even, to the base. they landed. but we had a chance to take out a monster. we took him out, and it should have been done a long time ago.
8:51 am
>> visited upon congress to take further military action against iran? >> president trump: it would all depend on the circumstance. i don't have to. you have to make split-second decisions sometime. you have to move very quickly, john. in some cases it would my junior. what bothers me is when i seen nancy pelosi trying to defend this monster from iran who has killed so many people, who so badly -- so many people are walking around out without legs or arms, because he was the big roadside bomb guide. he was the one they would send them to afghanistan. he'd send them to iraq. he was big, that was his favorite thing. he thought it was wonderful. he doesn't think it's wonderful anymore. when nancy pelosi and the democrats want to defend them, i think that's a very bad thing for this country. i think that's a big losing argument politically, too. >> reporter: outside of the jcpoa and also with total
8:52 am
sanctions implemented, what's left? >> president trump: it's close to expiring. in other words, if i didn't exterminatterminated, it expirea short period of time. one of the problems -- of which there are many pay $150 billion, $1.8 billion in cash. that money was used for terror. if you look at iran, it wasn't so bad until they got all that money. they used it for terror. that's when it became really bad. you just take a look, he really got bad when they have $150 billion, $1.8 billion in cash. the agreement -- i was caught the iran nuclear deal that didn't work. the iran deal, it was just something that is no good for our country. it expires in a short time. that means they would be on their path to nuclear weapons. for me it's about nuclear weapons more than anything else. iran cannot have a nuclear
8:53 am
weapon. iran will never have a nuclear weapon. they understand that. we have told them very strongly. iran now is not wealthy like it was when president obama handed them $150 billion. they are much different country. we will see whether or not they want to negotiate. maybe they want to wait until after the election and negotiate with a weak democrat. somebody like a biden or a pocahontas or buttigieg for one of these characters. maybe they want to wait. i think they're better off doing it now. if you look at the polls and what's going on, we are doing very well. they're losing a tremendous amount. they are getting hurt very badly by the sanctions. as to whether or not they want it, that's up to them. not up to me. it's totally up to them. they can straighten out their country. iran right now is a mess. they can straighten out the economics of their country very, very quickly. let's see whether or not --
8:54 am
>> reporter: when should we expect to see sanctions on iran following the attack? >> president trump: immediately. it's already been done. we've increased them. they were very severe, but i was increased substantially. i just approved it a little while ago with treasury. >> reporter: what sort of sanctions? >> president trump: you will see, we will put out a minor announcement. it's a major event. like this, this used to be a major event, so far i've had no questions on the fact that we can build a highway, and a small fraction of the time, that we can but dominic build all these beautiful bridges we want to build but they can't get approval. i've had no questions on that. are you shocked, sean? honestly but should be having some questions. >> reporter: mr. president, the plane went down yesterday from iran. what do you think happened to that plane? >> president trump: well, i have my suspicions. i don't want to say that, because other people have their suspicions, also.
8:55 am
it's a tragic thing, when i see that. it's a tragic thing. because somebody could have made a mistake on the other side. could have made a mistake. it was flying. not our system, it has nothing to do with us. it was flying in a pretty rough neighborhood, and somebody could have made a mistake. some people say it was mechanical. i personally don't think that's even a question, personally. so we will see what happens. reporter meg do you think it went up accident? >> president trump: i really don't know. at some point they will release the black box. ideally they get it to boeing, but if they give it to france or if they give it to some of the country, that would be okay, too. ideally that will be released. i have a feeling that it's just some -- something very terrible happened. very devastating. >> reporter: mr. president, the situation in venezuela has not gone as smoothly as some people, like leaving yourself, have hoped.
8:56 am
what are you prepared to do -- >> president trump: i never thought it would go smoothly. venezuela hasn't gone smoothly since it became a socialist -- or worse than that -- country. i never expected to go smoothly. we will see what happens with venezuela. they are doing poorly. when i say this country will never be a socialist nation, there is a great case. it was a wealthy country 15 years ago, 20 years ago. that was like a really wealthy country. now they don't have water, they don't have food. we are supplying a lot of food, we are supplying a lot of water. so no, it takes a period of time. i've only been here a relatively short period of time, we will see what happens. >> reporter: >> are you prepared to do anything else? >> president trump: we are helping a lot of people, columbia is helping a lot of people, but i think we are doing a good job. they have a system right now that is very broken. we will see what happens. stay tuned. >> reporter: do you know what
8:57 am
the plot was? >> president trump: this was the anti-benghazi. they showed up a long time after it took place. they saw burning embers from days before. i said get out today immediately. we think they can have them tomorrow. i said no, they have to go right now. they were on their way very quickly. and they got there quickly. they could've done that with benghazi. the same thing. had they gotten there. had they done what i did, you would not have had -- she would not know the name benghazi. it would not be a famous name. now it is a famous name. this was the anti-benghazi. we got the apaches they are, they were doing the players. people did not know what was happening. but if you look at the protesters, they were rough warriors. they were rainy and backed somewhere from iraq. but they were irani and backed, and they were looking to break the windows, and there were
8:58 am
strong windows, and they went through, had they gotten through, i believe that we would've had a hostage situation or we would have had worse, a lot of people killed. those people are going to do serious harm. there were soldiers and warriors, and he stopped it. that was a totally organized plot, and you know who organized it. that man right now is not around any longer. and he had more than that particular embassy in mind. >> reporter: what about john bolton testifying in that trial? >> president trump: i always got along with him. he did not get along with some people, but that is up to the senate. i don't stop it. but it would be, no, i do have to ask the lawyers. because we have to meet for the future. we have to protect presidential privilege. when we start allowing national security advisors to go up and say whatever they can say, we cannot do that. we have to protect presidential
8:59 am
privilege. for me, but for future presidents. i would have no problem other than we have to protect. we have to be able to protect. people cannot go up and say whatever my thoughts are, whatever your thoughts are about us, countries, views, we don't want that to be out. so we have to protect presidential privilege. >> you said yesterday you want nato to do more, could you be a little -- the information from them? >> president trump: i spoke to secretary general yesterday, and we had a great conversation. he was very -- i think he was actually excited by it. and i actually had a name. nato, right, then you have mee, middle east. they call it natome. usmca, like the song ymca.
9:00 am
think of the song "ymca." now they do not remember the previous name of the bad deal, commonly known as nafta. if you add the words and the two words middle east at the end. that is a big problem. and natome, doesn't that work beautifully, john. nato plus me, he is not smiling. he used to smile. before iran he was smiling, now he is not smiling. you know what i'm talking about. >> reporter: more nato personnel in the region? >> president trump: as opposed to us, this is an international problem. and we can come home, or largely come home and use nato. it is an international problem. we caught isis. we did europe a big favor. we got 100% of the caliphate. we have thousands and thousands of isis fighters killed, and thousands and thousands, tens of thousands are in prison right now.

115 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on