Fox "Fox News Sunday" - Transcript: Sen. John Kennedy on upcoming FISA report, potential Senate impeachment trial
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Joining us now, Louisiana Senator John Kennedy, a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And, Senator, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA.: Thank you, Chris.
WALLACE: President Trump has been pushing a narrative for years that the FBI and other agencies of the government engaged in a conspiracy first to spy on his campaign and then to try to end or oust him from the presidency.
Here he is just a couple of days ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This was spying on my campaign, something that has never been done in the history of country. This was an overthrow attempt at the presidency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: But as we've reported, the inspector general is expected to find that, yes, there was some misconduct -- a low level FBI lawyer may have actually doctored a document which would be very troubling. But on the other hand, that there was a proper basis for opening the Trump-Russia investigation, not political bias.
Does that blow a hole in what the president has been saying?
KENNEDY: I haven't read the report. Here's what I think right now. I think the FBI is the premier law enforcement agency in all of human history.
I also think that there were a handful of men and women at the FBI and possibly in other agencies who, in 2016 acted on their political beliefs both against President Trump and against Secretary Clinton.
Now, whether -- whether that activity rose to some inappropriate level, I'm going to wait and read the report. Mr. Horowitz is a serious, intelligent man and I will read his report with interest.
WALLACE: Yes. We should point out, Michael Horowitz, of course, is the inspector general for the Justice Department. Again, I just want to press a little bit on this with you, Senator.
The I.G. report is expected to say that, yes, there was this low level lawyer at the FBI who doctored a document. That's alarming. It could be critical -- but here are his main conclusions, I.G.'s -- the opening of the Trump-Russia investigation was legitimate. And reportedly, there is no finding that James Comey or Andrew McCabe or Peter Strzok took actions based on political bias.
If that's -- we have newspaper reports, we haven't read the report directly -- but if that's what the inspector general finds, will you accept that, sir?
KENNEDY: Well, there's this person running around Washington, D.C., Chris, by the name of "anonymous source" and he keeps repeatedly getting quoted in articles. I'm not saying you do that, but others do.
And until I read the report, I'm not going to draw conclusions based on allegations by the anonymous source. I will read Mr. Horowitz's report carefully. I'll draw my own conclusions.
After reading Mr. Strzok's emails and Ms. Page's emails and watching Mr. Comey's behavior, particularly with respect to Secretary Clinton, I think any fair-minded American would look at those actions and say, there's a real possibility those people acted on their political beliefs.
Now, if Mr. Horowitz says otherwise, I'll consider it carefully. But I'm going to read the report.
WALLACE: All right. Let's turn to the impeachment hearings and let's look at some of the highlights over the last two weeks. Here they are.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL TAYLOR, U.S. ENVOY TO UKRAINE: The meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.
LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN, WHITE HOUSE NSC UKRAINE EXPERT: It is improper to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and a political opponent.
GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, Senator, you've drawn an interesting distinction. You've said, in asking a foreign country to investigate corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival is OK, but asking foreign government to investigate a political rival is over the line.
So, what do you see here? Do you see President Trump pushing on investigation or looking for dirt on Joe Biden?
KENNEDY: Here's what I see. I think that Speaker Pelosi is acting in a manner that's insincere even by the standards of Congress. I think she's turning impeachment into a routine political weapon. I think nobody is above the law but nobody is beneath it, and I find it unconscionable that they have not allowed the president to defend himself on the House side -- can't call witnesses, can't offer rebuttal evidence.
In terms of the substance, I think the quid pro quo is a red herring. I think there are only two issues in this case. Number one, according to Speaker Pelosi, President Trump asked for the investigation of a political rival. There is another scenario, and that is that President Trump asked for an investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival.
The latter would be, if proven, would be in the national interest. The former would be in his parochial, personal interests.
When I've raised this point of view about the analysis many of my friends in the media say, well, there's no evidence of any impropriety by Hunter Biden. And my response to that is that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence -- or the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence if you don't look. And --
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: But -- if I may --
KENNEDY: I was just going to say, speak --
WALLACE: Go ahead, sir.
KENNEDY: I was going to say Speaker Pelosi has not allowed the defense to offer rebuttal evidence in terms of the possible corruption that the president was looking into.
WALLACE: Well, obviously, if there's a Senate trial, he will get the opportunity, not to say --
KENNEDY: Yes.
WALLACE: -- you know, he should before.
But I just want to focus on this phone call because on July 25th, the president is talking to Ukrainian President Zelinsky. He doesn't talk about corruption. He just -- he doesn't talk about Burisma for that matter. He just talks about two Americans, Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
Doesn't it seem like he was really trying to get dirt on a political rival? And if so, do you think that's a serious act on his part? Is that -- is that a crime?
KENNEDY: In my opinion, and if I were back teaching in law school, this is the way I would teach this case. It doesn't mean I'm right, but this is the way I see it.
There are only two questions that have to be answered here. Why did the president ask for an investigation? And, number two, this is inextricably linked to the first question, what did Hunter Biden do for the money?
Now, you answer both of those questions and you can resolve this case fairly, and that's the way -- that's the way I view it.
The quid pro quo I think is a red herring. The quid pro quo tells you nothing, Chris. What matters is whether it was an illegal quid pro quo which leads you right into what I think is the correct analysis, which is what I just gave you. But that's just one person's opinion.
WALLACE: So, if the House -- and it's not a done deal -- if the House votes to impeach, there would be a Senate trial.
A couple of questions, quickly, do you think that the motion to dismiss and there would be no trial at all? Do you think it would be a two-week trial or a serious trial that goes on for six or eight weeks? And would you favor allowing both sides, Democrats and Republicans, to call witnesses?
KENNEDY: I think there will be articles impeachment issued. I think that Speaker Pelosi's judicial philosophy from the beginning has been guilty.
When it comes to the Senate I do not think that the allegations will be summarily dismissed. I think there will be a trial. And I'm in favor of doing it in accordance with the due process and let everybody offer whatever they want to in terms of evidence and bring whatever witnesses they want to.
If it takes a long time, you know, I was sent to the Senate to be a senator. I don't -- I don't mind sitting there as long as it takes.
WALLACE: Finally, the president and his supporters have said that Ukraine was behind the hacking of the DNC computers and that it wasn't Russia. That was a big issue this week because former NSC official Fiona Hill said that that is Russian disinformation. She debunked that.
But on the other hand, President Trump doubled down on that the very next day. Take a look, sir.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FIONA HILL, FORMER WHITE HOUSE NSC AIDE: This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.
TRUMP: They gave the server to CrowdStrike, or whatever it's called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI has never gotten that server. That's a big part of this whole thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Senator Kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign computers, their emails? Was it Russia or Ukraine?
KENNEDY: I don't know, nor do you, nor do any others. Ms. Hill is entitled to her --
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: Well, let me interrupt to say -- the entire intelligence community says it was Russia.
KENNEDY: Right, but it could also be Ukraine. I'm not saying that I know one way or the other. I'm saying that Ms. Hill is entitled to her opinion but no rebuttal evidence was allowed to be offered.
We know, at least the Republicans in the House, wanted to call a witness, a DNC political operative who lobbied the Ukrainian embassy to be involved, get involved in 2016 election. We don't know if Ukraine did that, we don't know what extent because they won't let the president offer his evidence.
And that's why I'll say, once again, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence if you're not allowed to call your own witnesses.
WALLACE: Senator Kennedy, it's always interesting to talk to you and even more interesting to listen to you. Thank you. Thanks for joining us today, and have a good Thanksgiving holiday, sir.
KENNEDY: You, too, Chris.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source