Fox News "Hannity" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Tom McClintock, Rep. Michael Waltz

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Here with more reaction are some congressmen who I served with in previous life when I was in Congress, Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona, Congressman Tom McClintock of California, and Congressman Michael Waltz who I didn't serve with but a great guy from Florida and I appreciate all three of the congressmen here are joining us tonight.

I want to talk about the Supreme Court ruling, because it really will have an impact; particularly, on your state, all of your states. But really let's start with you, Congressman Biggs. Arizona needs this wall. The president has been fighting for it. I think you have been supportive and fighting for it.

Tell us what the ruling means in Arizona.

REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARIZ.: Well, it means probably 100 miles offense in southern Arizona. That is really important for us. As w you say, we have been advocating for that for some time. What that means since you have the vast majority of illegal drugs that are coming across are coming across our border, that's going to help slow that down and that's good for the entire country.

So, I was so pleased with that. I did get a hoot from Nancy Pelosi, when basically it's her allies and circus that took this up and sued the president in the first place to prevent this. Then when he appeals to the court and wins, all of a sudden, you have a judicial monarchy, you know? That is kind of humorous.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, it starts with her and then it ends up in Trump's favor. Congressman McClintock, you're from California. You are a one of the great experts on the budget. That is another topic. Tell us from your vantage point what the Supreme Court ruling means.

REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK, R-CALIF.: It's a great big "duh." The president has explicit statutory authority to do precisely what he did. It was held up by a left wing activist judge, but ultimately, this is a power that has been used by the presidents going back to mid 1970s, dozens of times. And now, it means we can actually use the funds to defend our own border.

I was with the president when he was explicit in his instructions to the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the project. He wants 400 miles of new or replaced fencing by the end of next year. I think now, he's going to get it.

CHAFFETZ: Congressman Waltz, we still don't hear Democrats put forth any legislation. You hear Congressman Collins complained about the fact that the Judiciary Committee doesn't even take up legislation. What do you see about the Supreme Court ruling and what do you see moving forward on the immigration issue in general and the Supreme Court ruling?

REP. MICHAEL WALTZ, R-FLA.: Well, yes, I'm on the Armed Services Committee, 23 years in the Army. The National Guard and the military have supported our border forces for decades down there. It's perfectly reasonable. It's perfectly legal what, you know, befuddles me is that Democrats have said now for months if not years this is not a crisis. We shouldn't be shifting funds.

Congress after Congress has kicked the can. I don't like that we have to use defense funding to do this but nobody else is solving the problem. And so, for the president to shift funds, which the Supreme Court now upheld, when we have over 1 million people -- we are on track to have over 1 million people flood over the border from 60 different countries, it's a humanitarian crisis, a national security crisis. We know terrorist groups, any pathway that will move drugs and people will also move weapons and individuals.

And I think this is absolutely appropriate and within his authority as commander-in-chief, which we have now upheld despite what Speaker Pelosi may tweet by the Supreme Court, and their interpretation of the law.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. I totally agree with you. Now, I want to switch gears and I want to go to infatuation on Democrats on impeachment. Congressman Biggs, the Democrats cannot figure out what are we going to do? Because Mueller produced nothing. In fact, I think it is now proving the point more and more what Donald Trump always said there was no collusion and there was no obstruction. But they are just so focused on impeachment. They are essentially doing impeachment, aren't they?

BIGGS: Yes. That is exactly right. They have been doing this since they came back and took over the House. I like to think of it as the impeachment cul-de-sac. That is where they are. That is where the Democrats all are. They are in the cul-de-sac. The rest of the country has gone forward.

As soon as Mueller let out the report the rest of the country went forward and said so what? That is what happened this week with the Mueller hearing. We're on a track with the president and his policies, the economy is growing and doing well. We've got to take care of the immigration stuff.

But the Democrats are over there in the cul-de-sac; particularly, Nadler, Schiff and Cummings and the various groups that want to just keep investigating the committees in Congress that want to keep investigating. It's a problem. Yes.

CHAFFETZ: Congressman, McClintock what is your take on it?

MCCLINTOCK: Well, they don't call it "Trump derangement syndrome" for nothing. It requires a certain amount of derangement. That is what we are seeing Democrats.

The Air Force calls it target fixation. That's when a pilot gets so fixated on the target, he forgets to fly his airplane and ends up crashing into a mountain. Now, we need to remember, the first calls by the Democrats for the Trump impeachment came within days after his election in 2016.

The very day after the 2018 election made Jerry Nadler judiciary chairman, he was overheard by a reporter on a train already plotting out their impeachment strategy. The only problem they have is there is no "there" there. And but that is not going to stop them from doing everything they can from now until the 2020 election to perpetuate this monstrous lie that has been now so thoroughly debunked.

CHAFFETZ: Congressman Waltz, we have just a few seconds left, but what's your take on it?

WALTZ: Well, you know, I shake my head watching the narrative progress from collusion, to obstruction to now it's the Republicans and the president don't care about the Russians and election security. It's absolute garbage. If you look at DHS, DNI, the director of national intelligence.

I was just up at NSA and with the Cyber Com, they have new authorities to go after this. I coauthored legislation with Democrats on a public notification protocol that if voters lose data through being hacked, through voter data bases, they have to be informed. Legislation just went through the Intel Committee.

CHAFFETZ: Well, listen, Congressman --

WALTZ: That's just a bunch of garbage. We are taking it seriously and we are moving forward on it.

CHAFFETZ: Congressmen, I thank all three of you for your service and thank you for joining us tonight. We do appreciate it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source