Citation From the November 13, 2019, editing of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom

BILL HEMMER (ANCHOR): Ken Starr joins our coverage as well. You were there 21 years ago, and thank you for your time today. I want to play a clip from Lindsey Graham, from last night with Sean Hannity. He's making the case about how the process is being carried out. I think you're the perfect person to answer this point here. Lindsey Graham:

(VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think it would be a danger to the presidency in the future, for us to legitimize what's going on in the House. There's no civil proceeding in America, no criminal proceeding in America, that denies a person to tell their side of the story by calling witnesses, except in the House.

(END CLIP)

HEMMER: So he's talking about any case — this is impeachment. Your experience from 21 years ago, is Lindsey Graham on to something or not, Ken Starr?

KEN STARR (FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR): Well, I think he is, because of the concern about basic fairness and openness. The fact that this has been closed-door thus far does not speak well. The Democrats have their explanation for it — we needed to do this, and so forth.

But I think Sen. Graham is onto something broader, and that is we are dealing with the context of the foreign relations of the United States, the give-and-take of foreign relations. That doesn't justify bribery, or however it's going to be characterized.

But the other thing is, Bill, we are living in this culture of impeachment — that everyone cries impeachment. And we inherited this process from the mother country. But the mother country hasn't employed impeachment for executive branch officers — it's a parliamentary system, of course — in two centuries. So we need to find a better way to hold the executive accountable. If the Democrats believe that the president stepped over the line, discuss a motion of censure, resolution of censure, and say this is really bad.

But there's no suggestion, to go back to Andy [McCarthy]'s point very briefly, that the president somehow was profiting from this, right? Bribery in the traditional sense means — and I know the statute is very broadly worded — but this does not seem like bribery. To the person on the street, this is going to seem like a stretch.