tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News March 7, 2015 11:00am-11:31am PST
have. this marks the first visit ever to a dwarf planet. >> quite a journey. that's going to do it from us here in d.c. i'm uma pemmaraju. make it a great day. >> see you next weekend. this week on "the journal editorial report," supporters scramble to defend hillary clinton as questions grow over her private e-mail use. but do democrats have backup plan in case of presidential ambitions implode? plus, benjamin netanyahu makes his case. can congress keep the administration from cutting a bad deal? and the future of obamacare. now in the hands of a sharply divided supreme court. so what's next if the subsidies don't survive? welcome to "the journal editorial report," i'm stuart varney in this week for paul gigot.
well, she's reportedly set to launch her presidential bid as early as next month. but revelations this week that hillary clinton used a private e-mail " -- account to conduct official business is reportedly adding to concern in some liberal circles that putting athe ticket in 2016 may not be the democrat's best move." so just how much legal and political trouble could she be facing and do democrats have a backup plan if her candidacy runs aground? let's ask. "wall street journal" columnist, dan henninger. dorothy rabinowitz and james taranto. to you first, dan. days after the revelation i'm still shocked that she did this kind of thing. why on earth would a woman with that experience do something like that? >> well, because the clintons as usual think that the rules apply to everyone else but not to them. and they make them up as they go along.
i think the thing to address here is -- stuart, the really kind of bloodless political calculation as she famously said what difference does it make? is this going to hurt her? look, bill clinton went through eight years of the presidency with all of these sorts of things happening and he got re-elected. it didn't hurt him. i think what that taught us was that the powers of the presidency are enormous. once you're in that oval office you can get away with virtually everything, but you have to get in there first. if we had known everything about bill clinton before he was elected president, i think it would have been very difficult for him. so hillary clinton suddenly has all of this landing on her, just as she's about to announce for the presidency. and at the margin, look, you want tremendous enthusiasm for a presidential candidate and it's eroding for her. this is a serious political problem for the democrats. >> james taranto how worried are the democrats and do they
have a plan "b"? >> well do they have a plan "b" is an odd question because normally it's not a question at this stage of whether there's a plan. what's the republican's plan "a"? there the none, there are a bunch of candidates contending in a primary and people say that the republicans are the ones who usually pick the next guy in line. yeah, they usually do it after the primaries and there's a lot of unease among the democrats about the coronation that the party seems to have gone along with in deference to the clinton machine. we have seen a lot of defenses as well, but some of them are rather mild defenses that -- you know, people -- i think they're trying to decide what to do here. >> how many senior democrats are now looking elsewhere other than hillary clinton? >> all right, not very many openly. but i suspect behind closed doors they are talking about it and worried about it. >> dorothy i'm going to run a sound bite from hillary clinton
as she appeared before emily's list and then i want your comment. roll tape. >> don't you want to see more women running for congress who will follow in the footsteps of barbara mikulski and champion equal pay and equal opportunity? and i suppose it's only fair to say don't you some day want to see a woman as president of the united states of america? >> i was dying to roll that tape for your reaction. >> yes. well, there's the key because what we're facing now is a huge question at what will the electorate do? will you pick someone who represents our first chance at the presidency? will women of america do this, will it be driven by gender politics and will gender become the force that racial politics was in the last election? so the question is this is the
presidency of the united states. and what we know about hillary clinton, which we did not know about as dan said about bill clinton going back to the first huge ethics scandal, the travel gate. there's no time to represent everything that went on in this horrendous moment in the clinton administration. it went on forever. and this produced her famous comment, the great right wing conspiracy. >> did she just play her best card? >> yes. >> which is the woman presidency. >> she -- >> really a desperation move. >> no, i think it's -- i think it's simply just ended. it is a part of her to believe that she is going to run this. the question again is, the american electorate are they going to make this choice that we are going to vote for somebody entirely because of
this political correct point we need a woman in the white house. the presidency of the united states with this history? >> look, we are a long way from the nomination. the democrats have to be worried if there's more to come, either from the e-mail scandal or the clinton foundation. how many time bombs are out there waiting to go off on the road to this coronation? >> yeah. a lot. well, i'm speculating. i would suggest a lot given the history of the clintons. james? >> one of the groups that mrs. clinton that is skeptical the progressive left wing wing of the party. well, their favorite is senator elizabeth warren who is the same sex as mrs. clinton. >> that is true, james. now, what about the time line for her declaration going for the presidency? is that going to be affected by the fund-raising scandal and the e-mail scandal, james?
>> well, we have heard -- we heard a week or so ago that she was going to announce in april. we haven't heard anything to contradict that. i'm not sure what she'd gain by postponing an announcement other than it allows her to lie low and avoid questions. i would guess she announces in april as we have heard. unless she decides at some point there's a tipping point and she's not going to run at all. >> why am i absolutely convince we will return to this subject on numerous occasions in the future? >> because it's the clintons. >> so right. when we come back, an impassioned plea from benjamin netanyahu as the deadline looms for the iran nuclear agreement. did the israeli prime minister change any minds on capitol hill? and can congress move quickly to keep the administration's deal making in check? >> the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis, and let iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war.
we can't let that happen. your daughter has a brilliant idea for her science project. and you could make it happen. right? wrong. because you're not you you're a cancer hospital and your daughter... she's a team of leading researchers... and that brilliant idea is a breakthrough in patient treatment that could save thousands of lives. which means you need a diverse team of advisors helping you. from research data analytics all the way to transformation of clinical care. so you call pwc. the right people to get the extraordinary done. i'd rather do anything else than sit at a dealership. it's a lot of haggling and it takes so long. craig's experience is completely different than mine. yeah. yes, mike has used truecar. at truecar, we'll show you how much others paid for the car you want and how much you should. because i used truecar there was no haggling about the price. they treated me so well, and it was just such a quick, easy experience. get your car, and get back to the
life you love. welcome to the future of car-buying. man (sternly): where do you think you're going? mr. mucus: to work, with you. it's taco tuesday. man: you're not coming. i took mucinex to help get rid of my mucusy congestion. i'm go od all day. [announcer:] mucinex keeps working. not 4, not 6 but 12 hours. let's end this
the days when the jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. >> a defiant benjamin netanyahu addressed the united states congress tuesday and made his case against the nuclear agreement currently in the works with iran. a deal the obama administration is hoping to seal before a march 24th deadline and without congressional scrutiny. we're back with dan henninger and dorothy rabinowitz and "wall street journal" board member mary kissel joins us.
so did benjamin netanyahu change any minds? >> i think he did. he made a serious case against the iran deal and at the moment you know for instance in the senate you have senator bob corker who introduced a bill saying that the senate needs to be able to vote -- to approve this deal once it's announced. and he now in the past days has gotten 64 members of the members to sign on. that means there's a lot of democrats who decided that they want to sign off on this bill and i think part of that is the result of prime minister netanyahu expressing the seriousness of what we're committing ourselves to in this deal with iran. >> and john kerry is in the gulf and arab governments now agree with netanyahu. >> they're publicly saying that the kaqataris, saudi arabia feels
like they're being thrown under the bus with this deal. >> before we leave this speech, i do want to show you one brief item that occurred within the speech. it is former speaker nancy pelosi. i think she turned her back on prime minister netanyahu. there you have it. she's turning her back. that happened several times. i'm rolling this videotape quite deliberately before i invite dorothy rabinowitz to pass judgment on what we have just seen. dorothy, it's yours. >> well, it's only a foreshadowing of the very strange comment stormer speaker pelosi made which she was moved to near tears by the israeli president's condescension and by his failure to respect his american audience. i kept saying as she said that, you know, she should understand how americans have been feeling if that's her worry.
the kondzcondescension has been the prime part of the obama administration. i kept thinking of the prayer breakfast, islamic fundamentalists. you can keep your doctor if you want it, on and on and on. nothing being embarrassment and then let us conclude. we have the president of israel coming before congress, grateful to receive at last some huge glow of truth which is in scarce supply in washington. and that is what you saw on the faces of those congress people. the recognition that they are listening to the real thing. democrats and republicans, i watched that speech many times. so we can say ask yourself this.
he comes to america to put forth this enormous danger all of the world is facing from the nuclear armed iran and what is the white house busy doing? something you have heard all week. they are busy in this extraordinary opera, this aria of disgrace directed -- >> i hope i never cross you. that's a fact. bring us up to date with congress. dan's told us that senator corker has 64 votes in the senate to make sure that any deal with iran goes through congress. >> 67 would be veto proofed. >> where does it go from here, mary? >> there's never been a significant arms control agreement without congress and so congress wants to be involved. there's a bipartisan coalition as dan explained that needs to be involved. i think netanyahu's speech put the democrats in a difficult
position. it didn't just expose rouhani as really not a moderate, but also laid out how iran has a vast nuke laugh infrastructure -- nuclear infrastructure, all of these facts are going to make it very, very difficult for democrats to approve the kind of deal that obama is doing. >> 30 seconds, dan. wouldn't it be true to say that prime minister netanyahu alerted everyone to the danger and congress really did listen? >> they did listen, but i think nancy pelosi's behavior has done some political damage to the democrats'. national security will be a voting issue and she's making it seem as though the democrats are not interested in taking it seriously. >> all right. now when we come back, all eyes are on the supreme court and two justices in particular as they weigh the future of obamacare. so what's next for those eight million people if the subsidies don't survive?
okay, listen up! i'm re-workin' the menu. mayo? corn dogs? you are so outta here! aah! [ female announcer ] the complete balanced nutrition of great-tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals antioxidants and 9 grams of protein. [ bottle ] ensure®. nutrition in charge™. ♪ ♪ ♪ tigers, both of you. tigers? don't be modest. i see how you've been investing. setting long term goals. diversifying. dip! you got our attention. we did? of course. you're type e* well, i have been researching retirement strategies. well that's what type e*s do. welcome home. taking control of your retirement? e*trade gives you the tools and resources to get it right. are you type e*?
a sharply divided supreme court heard oral arguments in the case that could determine the future of president obama's signature health care law. with the the subsidies appearing to rest in the hands of two justices we're back with dan henninger and james taranto and joe rago also joins the panel. wrap up the oral arguments, please. >> i think we learned three things. first, we have no idea where john roberts the chief justice stands on this. his questions were completely unrevealing of his inclinations. second, the four democratic nominees to the court have all made up their mind. we're defending -- we're aggressively defending the administration's position and with we're making arguments that
the administration itself was not making arguments that have been made in various press commentaries. and third, we learned that one of those arguments, an argument involving federalism, the relationship between the federal government and the states, have some appeal to justice kennedy who's the second potential swing justice here. although it's an argument that cuts both ways. the liberals want to argue that it means they have to accept the administration's interpretation of the law, but i think it could also point the way for another constitutional challenge to obamacare. >> okay. joe rago two questions. number one, what does it mean if the subsidies are struck down and "b," do the republicans have a plan if the subsidies are struck down? >> yeah, the big question for republicans right now is whether they're going to try to repair some of the damage that democrats are going to create or just allow this damage to grow, so if you look at the subsidies obamacare's rules and mandates
artificially increase the cost of health insurance. the subsidies are supposed to off set some of that if the subsidy goes away the democrats are saying look the problems are rules and mandates. they're calling it the freedom option and then saying let's restore some kind of subsidy not an obamacare subsidy but a reformed one to make a down payment on some of these health care changes we'd like to see in maybe the next administration. >> but wouldn't it have to go through congress and therefore be subject to the presidential veto? >> it would be subject to the presidential veto, but look, if the subsidies are overturned you're going to have a lot of disruption, a lot of turmoil in the health care market. and president obama will really need something from congress maybe they can strike a deal. not putting any money on it, but you are seeing some kind of development of a coherent republican alternative. >> interesting. dan, the governors of the states
if the subsidies within those states are struck down, do the governors have a new approach? >> they definitely do not have a new approach. i mean, they're going to be relying on the republicans in the congress to come up with an alternative to obamacare. the politics of this are just going to be overwhelmingly difficult for the republicans if it's turned down. remember that obamacare rollout how bad that was for the democrats. you're talking about an insurance system. it's complicated. you're talking about subsidies and things like that. and people who have insurance under obamacare, if it's overturned will immediately turn to the republicans and say, what do i do in the next week? and i think they have not shown themselves able to manage much of anything well politically in the last five years and the question is are they going to be able to take on this huge political challenge? as joe has been describing it. >> sure. in the supreme court strikes down the subsidies it is taking
away something which is already been given on a mass scale. >> the republicans need both a substantive answer to this and they need a good political answer. >> james taranto would you have as a guess after listening to the oral arguments, would you happen to guess at how this decision comes down? >> all right, no, because chief justice roberts was completely delftic. the best i could do is quote something he wrote in the 2012 case, that upheld obamacare against the constitutional challenge. he said it's not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political decisions. now, that would tend to militate in the direction if congress passed a statute that has senseless and disastrous consequences it's not up to the supreme court to reinterpret the statute in order for the whole law to make sense. but -- >> tough to interpret there. >> i don't have much confidence
time now for "hits & misses" of the week and mary you are first. >> i'm going to give a big miss to netflix. the biggest cheerleader for government internet regulation. this week, the cfo came out and said that the company was hoping that their -- there might be a nonregulated solution to the nonproblem of the internet. the problem is, stuart, when you invite the government in to help, you're always asking for trouble and i think that netflix should have known better. >>. good one. joe? >> well, stuart congress and its wisdom bans sledding down capitol hill. now, this is allegedly to prevent lawsuits but you can see some politician coming out like dean wermer in animal house saying no more fun of any kind. this week washington had a snow
day. hundreds of kids defied the ban, came out and slid down the hill. so this is a hit for rebellion against petty government control. >> see, this is why i like this show. you deal with hillary, you deal with obamacare, you deal with netanyahu and then sledding down the hill on the capital. >> needless to say a miss for barack obama. we know about the energy boom. well, the united states is producing so much oil there will be nowhere to store it. storm tanks are overflowing with oil. you might say why don't we sell it overseas where they need oil? guess what? there's a federal law that forbids selling this kind of oil and no way that barack obama will turn around that law. >> there's a miss for barack obama? >> for not helping the exports. why not? let's bottle it and drink it. >> if you have your own hit or
miss, be sure to tweet it to us. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and to all of you for watching. i'm stuart varney. catch me weekdays on "varney & company" on the fox business network. we hope you can join us next week. fox news alert, we are waiting for president obama to speak in just a moment. thousands of people gathering in selma, alabama, to mark a turning point in our nation's history five decades ago today. it was march 7, 1965, a peaceful march across a short bridge turning terribly violent. iconic moment in the fight for civil rights and the right to vote. hello, everyone. welcome to america's news headquarters, i'm gregg jarrett in for kelly wright. >> president obama arrived moments ago. we'll of course bring you his remarks live as they happen. the march of course started