Fox News contributor Ken Starr downplays Bill Taylor's testimony about quid pro quo: Trump is a “disrupter”

Video file

Citation From the October 22 edition of Fox News' The Ingraham Angle: 

LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Joining me now, Ken Starr, former independent counsel, Fox News contributor. Ken, I want to read you something from Bill Taylor's testimony today. "By mid-July, it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelinsky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel that I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani." Now, did Taylor actually advance the Democrats' case that Trump's conduct was impeachable? With that?

KEN STARR (FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR): No, absolutely not. We're still not -- We're in the context of the president's conduct of foreign relations. You are right, he's a disrupter and he chooses to use a different avenue -- is that wise or not? Hey, that's a policy squabble. But I simply don't think we are in impeachment land at all and I would just add to your observations about the whole process, Speaker Pelosi needs to call for the vote, now more than ever, especially since we are hearing from the Senate side that the process is being viewed, on the Senate side, as illegitimate. All the more reason why, not just Adam Schiff, but Speaker Pelosi needs to be called to account.

INGRAHAM: Well Ken, when you watch how this has unfolded, and it's like clockwork. Every day that there is a new witness, it's built up as a saint, a courageous hero, it's like a hero-worship thing. Build them up, testifies in secret, maybe has a prepared statement, that ultimately leaks or is released somehow. Then they cherry-pick that and then they say we are being transparent and we are just trying to protect the process by keeping it secret. I have heard a lot in my day but that's a nice little trick that they are trying to pull.

STARR: Secret proceedings are always, when we are talking about politics and not the grand jury process. Why is this classified information? And there is no legitimate public policy reason, policy or in law, as to why this should not be open so we can all assess the credibility. That's the key. Here's a witness testifying for hours on end, we need to be able to take the measure of the person.

INGRAHAM: But Ken, we have these witnesses going up to testify clearly against the wishes, the expressed wishes, of in this case Mike Pompeo. The White House has said it doesn't believe this inquiry is legitimate, does the White House or the State Department or the executive branch have any recourse that would be wise to take legally here? Or would that just look so bad, look like they're hiding something?

STARR: There is the politics but also in terms of the law, you can't go into court and to say this is illegitimate, it's totally inconsistent with our constitutional traditions. We need an injunction. The courts would rightly throw that out, so we are going to have to see this very important process unfold, and there will probably be some sort of subpoena enforcement on the part of the House, we will have to wait to see about that