tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News March 15, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
and all that information feels pretty good. come to transunion.com and get in the know. buzz. >> i am chris wallace. hillary clinton finally talks about her private e-mails but the controversy over that arrangement only intensifies. >> i opted for convenience to use personal e-mail account. i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails. >> if she wanted somebody do -- to show her how for put two e-mails on one phone i will do it. >> and trey gowdy is chair of the house benghazi committee will be joining us. >> and we will talk to adam
schiff, a democrat on the senator. >> 47 republicans send a letter to the leader of iran asking for a depraying of the nuclear deal. >> this is ironic. >> we will discuss the tug of war between the white house and congress with two members of the senate foreign affairs committee senator senator barrasso and ben cardin. >> two missouri police officers were ambushed. >> this is not someone trying to bring he willing to ferguson but a punk a punk, a punk. >> we weigh in. >> our power player of the week, afghanistan's first lady ashraf ghani on taking a stand for women's right. this is all, right now on "fox
news sunday." >> hello, again from fox news in washington. it began as an investigation into benghazi. now hillary clinton is being forced to answer for her handling of mails while secretary of state. the house benghazi committee has issued a subpoena for clinton's e-mails and called for an independent review of her private server. joining us now is the chairman of that committee, south carolina republican trey gowdy. the state department has turned over 300 of clinton's e-mails on benghazi, some 900 pages last month, to the benghazi committee you are the chair of. based on what you have seen, did she do anything wrong? how can you be sure those are not all of the e-mail on the subject? >> i am not sure what you noon by "doing anything wrong." we have not obviously seen any evidence of a christmas and if we do get a level of assurance
that we have all of mails and we don't have any level of assurance because of the arrangement she had with herself i will let your viewers decide what there everyone any mistakes made. i have no guarantee we have everything we are spilitessed to, to be able to do our job. >> why do you have cuts about that, sir? >> there are huge gaps. if you think back to the photograph of her on the c-17 with her blackberry in her hand she is on her way to libya and there are no e-mails for weeks and weeks on either side of that trip including the trip itself. it may be that there is a plausible explanation but we will have to ask her before we will know that. >> in her news conference secretary clinton said she basically turned over 30,000 mails to the state department after a routine request to her and to all of the secretaries of state. >> after i left office the state
department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related mails from our personal accounts. i responded right away. >> nbc chairman, what role did your committee play in bringing about the state department asking her to turn over mails she did not turn over for the two years since she left office? >> well, i will not be able to answer that question definitive only the state department knows the impetus behind the letter i fine the timing curious and i think the state department has what to correct the testimony on multiple occasions. we asked for those e-mails as early as august of 2014 and we got eight of them. we ratcheted up the conversations and we got 300 in february. why they decided to try four
former secretaries of state under a routine records machine program does not pass the smile test but you have to ask the state department that question. >> only way to say she said in her news conference that she turned over 30,000 mails and she deleted 30,000 mails the only way to see the 30,000 she said were personal is to look at her private server but she made it clear in the news conference the answer to that is "no." take a look. >> the server contains personal communications from my husband and me and i believe i have met a my response pills and the server will remain private. >> you say your committee cannot subpoena personal prosecute, documents or papers but not a server but the house of representatives, the full house of representatives can. should they? >> we should not have to.
i hope it doesn't get to this point. it is an open legal question. when you lit gate something you are talking about years and years, an eminently reasonable alternative is for her to turn over that server to an independent and neutral third party. she said she deleted personal e-mails. i have zero interest in looking at her personal e-mails why care about her yoga practice or bridesmaids dresses. why want to see that but who decides what is personal and what is public? if silt a mixed use e-mail and a last e-mails we get in life are both personal and work, i cannot trust her lawyers to make the determination the public is getting everything they are spilitessed -- entitled to. >> she was specifically asked about having an independent someone neutrally agreeable come in and look at the server and that is when she said it will remain private. >> there are a lot of ways to motivate people.
one is public pressure. if it becomes an issue for her, if the public believes it is reasonable for her to turn over that server which contains public information to a neutral detached around -- arbiter, she will be forced to otherwise the house of representatives could be forced to go to court to get access. the house of representatives has in business lobbying at purely personal e-mails but she doesn't get to decide what is purely personal and what is public. >> in her news conference clinton said she has complied with every rule every law, during the time that she was secretary of state. as a former federal prosecutor do you believe that to be true? >> chris, i was a very mediocre prosecutor and i does no federal reports cases. i will have to let smart lawyers
decide whether she complied with the law or not. i know this: i have been asked to fund out what happened before, during and after benghazi and i feed horrors to do that and i cannot take her lawyer's word that he went law and used all the right search terms. that is a question she did not answer. how did you sent for public records? how did you reconcile personal versus public? there are a lot more questions we will have to go to her for the answers. why want a second conversation with her. two weeks ago we were not planning on having a second conversation but she had an arrangement with herself as it relates to public records. that is why we are having this conversation. >> i want to ask you about this document, this is the separation statement that every member of the state department must sign called of-109 form. every employee of the state
department must sign it before they leave and certify "i have republican decembered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the government aquired by me while in the. ploy of the department." two questions: do you know if secretary clinton signed that form before she left the state department? second, whether she met that pledge which is to be enforced as a felony by either prison time or a disqualification from public office? >> i do not know if she signed it. it would be irresponsible for me to guess. the responsible thing to do is to ask her and to ask the state department to row a copy of it. if she did not sign it, ask her why she did not sign it. if she did sign it we go over the document with her. when you do not have evidence one way or the other, i am not in the business of speculating.
i will have to ask her and the state department. >> finally, we will talk to congressman adam schiff a democrat on your committee and he said that you are turning this investigation and this committee interest an arm of the republican national committee aimed at hurting hillary clinton. your reaction? >> first of all, chris, i like adam very much and he is a very good attorney. if you look become at the three hearings we have had so for i have mentioned hillary clinton's name a whopping zero times. we would never be.ing this conversation and adam would not be on where are set right now if she had not had an arrangement with herself to decide what is public record and what is personal. if he is is frustrated with last two weeks, he needs to talk to secretary clinton. we were interviewing witnesses that had nothing to do with secretary of clinton when the story break. to the extent that democrats are frustrated they should talk to secretary clinton not me. i didn't tell her to get a personal server or to hire her
attorney to go how the 60,000 reports and lord knows i didn't tell her to delet 30,000 of them. he should probably direct that frustration to her and not to the house of representatives. >> chairman gowdy, thank you for joining us today and now a member of the benghazi committee, democrat congressman adam schiff of california. what did you thing of his response? whatever happened here is all on hillary clinton. >> we would be exactly where we are regardless of what the secretary did with her e-mails. the reality is we have not been talking about hillary clinton because they wanted to put off her testimony as far into the presidential cycle as possible and this is only the most recent justification for that. we have been asking for her to come in and she has volunteer order to testify and this really, is unfortunately just an effort to push this as far into the campaign as possible. >> wait a minute. wait a minute here. doesn't it bother you that clinton and her lawyer by themselves decided which of the
60,000 e-mails were public and government turned over and which were private which she deleted s that your idea of transparency? >> say she did it exactly the way that we with like and she had a separate e-mail account for her government e-mails and private. we would be in the same place. people would be saying, how can you trust she only used the official e-mail account. >> forgive me i am not sure it is exactly the same because she would have been sending these -- there is a different vantage point in 2015 than in 2009, 2007 and 2011. >> you are giving our too much credit. we are where we are because the purpose of the committee is secretary clinton. it is long since been about anything else. we would be in the same place. my chairman who i respect would be saying the same thing.
you think this was adequate transparent? >> we have handle it properly. when we learned the chief of staff under george w. bush and senior white house officials were using the republican national committee mail server for official business, we did not say we demand to have the server. we need to get the server to an independent person. we said we would have people to certify they have given us the documents and talk how they did this searches. >> that isn't quite what happened because i looked back and this was during the question of the firing of united states attorneys during the george w. bush administration and you were one of the people saying this was outrageous they were using one set of accounts government accounts and doing other bit on
rnc accounts. you were objecting to that. >> i was on generalling to political -- i was objecting to the politicizeing and firing and hiring of the we public attorneys. the question is why are we handling this different? is it because secretary clinton is running for president? the answer is, absolutely. that is why we are handling it different. the reason we are reluctant to talk about jeb bush and the use of his server has everything to do with the presidential race. why isn't that a fair top snake he used a private mail server for official business. do we let him be his own judge and jury? >> first of all he turned over hundreds of thousands of mails in addition do which you would grow the security implications of the governor of florida and the secretary of state are different. >> but this, too in fairness it has taken 7 1/2 years and people criticize hillary clinton
for doing this last year two years out. it has taken him 7 1/2 years and we still get documents from governor bush. >> this former 109, the separation statement the it is clear and every low he of the state department has to sign and swear they have turned over all of their papers all classified and unclassified they had when they were in the office of the state department. if they don't, if they sign it and they have protecten that pledge, it is a felony and they can go to prison and be disqualified great public office. one, do you know if she signed it two, did she live up to the pledge? >> i assume we will find out and i hope we find out whether all prior secretaries have signed it. >> let's talk about her. >> talk about benghazi. >> i am asking forgive me i am asking about, she clearly did not live up to the pledge. >> i don't know the terms that
required. >> it is what i have said "i have turned everything over." >> that i acquired and i don't know what that means we have to study it. be fair. we are talking about an investigation on benghazi right? what does this have to do with benghazi? absolutely nothing. the committee long since departed from being a committee about benghazi and now it is a special investigation of secretary of state hillary clinton. identities, what possible relevance does it have? >> if trey gowdy is act as an arm of the rnc are you acting as an arm of the dnc to protect her. >> i am keeping the committee on track to do what they are supposed to be doing. >> i think trey gowdy has prived the pressure of turning this into an arm of the rnc but we knew of the private mails last
august. it is only when this became public in the "new york times" that the pressure became too great on chairman and the committee to politicize this and that is where we are. >> i have 30 seconds last and i know you went to talk about the letter that the 47 republicans sent to the leader of iran over a income deal. >> it is appauling to speaker fear with new yorks look ice this the commander in clear are engaged in democrats and republicans, and house of representatives and senate members should see if this is a deal, see the terms of the deal, but i am shocked and it is a term thing for the institution. >> congressman schiff thank you for coming in today. we follow where your committee goes next. did hillary clinton's explanation of how she handled the mail help her or raise more questions? our sunday group joins the conversation. what would you like to ask the panel about the mail controversy?
williams. you had to have a political account because you could not do political business on the government account. how big a deal is this hillary clinton and how big a role will it play if her campaign? >> it will be big and reaffirm the vision, the narrative people have of the clintons that they are governed by a different set rules whether it is foreign contributions to their foundation or someone getting a salary from a private company selling intelligence to foreign entities on american politics at the same time she is getting a salary at state department, we will have a series of these things that are the clintons' sense of entitlement. i was amused at congressman schiff. rnc accounts were there for political activity at the white house because of the hatch act we had to have a separate account but we were told these were presidential reports swept and added to the white house archives. in fact, there was a problem
because they were in the to be missing and congressman schiff was the loudest and strongest with secretary hillary clinton had was running for president accusing the white house of secret e-mail accounts. >> she said it is a threat to the constitution. >> they found the 22 million e-mails in the white house archives and they went before the committee and it was a circus. one had to do with the governor of... >> let's not relitigate that. >> the bottom line i laughed listening to him to defend something after listening to him scream and shout about secret e-mail accounts in 2007 and 2008. >> we asked for questions and from paul on facebook, how will this affect hillary clinton's big time donors some do they continue to invest if her or do they start shopping for another candidate to support?
kirsten powers, how do you answer paul's question? >> they are worried about it but there is no one else that is in her league. the idea that there is anyone to "shop around," the feeling she is the best candidate and there is no one that comes close to her. one of the concerns is what karl rove raised, it feeds into a narrative the clintons are secretive and she is very defensive and the way she handled the press conference was concerning. some does not seem like someone ready for prime time which is strange to say for someone who has been in prime time for such a long-term. the flip side is she is good at turning things around to where she is the victim. you see republicans piling on and she will probably be able to turn this around and say, see, here they come. the clinton syndrome coming after me and it will make people
rally around her. >> our colleague had a column "clinton burned the tapes," saying if rich around nixon handled watergate the way hillary clinton has handled this he would have survived in the presidency not to compare the crimes of watergate and next on white house to what we know so far here but doesn't he have a point that she deleted 30,000 mails and we do not know if she destroyed the hard drive but she has rendered at the -- a lot of the discussion moot. >> even if you believe the clintons and how they have describe their process the key word searches and they deleted e-mails that were not from doc.gov mail addresses it does not solve the problem. director point that the questions you asked adam schiff there is not just the form
oh-109 but 1904 has to be certified by a state department official that the person who removes this has permission. where is that form? was that signed? was it requested? there is all this documentation she hasn't provided in addition to her server in addition to the missing e-mails and until she does these are questions that will follow her around. >> we can agree there are a lot of good tinges, they had relative peace balanced budgets and welfare reforms which was forced on the president by in the newt gingrich but there were scandals and playing by a different set. does this feed into that and remind people of the bad parts of the clinton years? >> it does. just to pick up on something that my friend was talking about from a historical point of view
you want the historical record that is why a.p. is suing you should have transparency and now the political part, i don't think that when people look back on file-gate whitewater all it amounts to a bunch of morning and that is largely the response of the d community. initially, concern that, we are setting a residence through her behavior that others can follow. there has been such a feeding frenzy that people think it is way out of line to the point it is like a poker player and a big bluff. they have nothing as far as winning the 2016 campaign. hillary clinton is seven or eight points ahead of any republican candidate at this point and you can see the republicans, e-mail e-mail,
e-mail, and when karl was in trouble, zero press coverage. zero. >> wait wait, you are saying the press was protecting george mason w. bush? [ inaudible ] >> wait wait wait. >> there was one "washington post" editorial saying --. >> this could have been one but i remember more op-eds than one. if you are trying to say, they were not stuff on rove but they are too tough on clinton make because she was the secretary of state and i was a white house aide and she is violating the rules. we she fired an ambassador. she fired an ambassador for having a private e-mail account. >> if you doubt your power let me affirm you were powerful in
the bush white house and --. no no, no, no i hate to have to direct you. >> sorry to --. >> no, you like correcting. >> sorry to correct you. >> even the obama justice department found there was no improper white house interference. i appreciate the remarks but get your facts straight. >> jeb bush had private mails and you had private mail. >> i had no private e-mail. >> you worked for the rnc for years. >> it was treated as a presidential record and swept and dumped into the white house archives. >> one second. >> one thing on private e-mails we learned that two others were using private e-mails, the chief of staff and --. >> someone was instrumentally involved in putting down --. >> it contradicts that if she is
sending e-mails to them they were being saved. >> and uma we know she is the person who requested it be established for hillary clinton. >> okay. that is interesting. there you go. glad we setted this. we have to take a break. stay off the caffeinated coffee. >> next, the deadline is now two weeks away for a deal on i nuclear program. the white house warned conditioning to stop interfering and we talk with two key members of the senate foreign phone. did that letter to the ayatollah cross the line? everyone loves the way dark clothes make them feel...
secretary of state john kerry will resume talks on iran's nuclear program head of the program to strike a deal complicated when 47 republican senators sent this letter to iran's leaders writing the next president could revoke the agreement with a stroke of a ten and future congresses could modify the terms of the
agreement at any time. the white house responded last night warning congress to stop interfering in the negotiations. join us are two members of the senate foreign affairs committee republican senator barrasso who signed the letter inventory ran and democrat ben cardin said it was a partisan letter to weaken the president at a critical town. senator barrasso here is how secretary john kerry described your letter to iran's leaders. >> all right. he was unhappy with it and he said it was a terrible negotiation and interfering with the efforts to make a peace deal and white house chief of staff and i put this up, a warning last night that legislation that is being proposed suggesting that congress must approve a deal would likely have a brother foundly negative impact on the
ongoing negotiations. senator barrasso is it unreasonable for the white house to say wait until we see what the deal is, if there is a deal before you weigh in? >> the president has said only after they signed the deal, will congress get a chance to weigh in and this let last night from the white house was do both parties because it was bipartisan saying the president wants to go to the security council of the united states before going to the congress of the united states and you have to ask, why is that? why is he saying, both to republicans and democrats, sit down and be quiet? i think because it is a bad deal and the president is so eager and desperate because of his legacy to get any deal that he will sign a bad deal. >> senator cardin as senator barrasso points out there is a bipartisan group of senators proposing legislation to say
when you get a deal we want to weigh in and it is chess to a veto proof majority. what do you think of the demand that congress must not interfere with the white house. >> the objective to get an agreement with iran where they give up nuclear weapon break out capacity. that is our objective. we want the president to have the stress of the united states behind the negotiations. the letter signed by the senators weakened the president's negotiating ability. that is wrong. >> you were in fay of the -- favor of the corker legislation. >> congress has to be engaged. >> what do you think of the president say staying out? >> he doesn't want any action before march 24 deadline. >> i think he was saying until there was a deal, per.
>> he said during the negotiation, there will be plenty of time after and congress has to take action in regard to the sappings. i think congress has a role to lay and there is a bipartisan effort and any agreement to review this because we imposed the sanctions. >> if there is a deal the white house said it will not be a treat treaty but an executive agreement and secretary john kerry was very clear about what that will mean. >> as far as we are concerned, the congress has no ability to change an executive agreement. >> he is saying, when that is signed, you guys are out of it. i want to get back to senator barrasso because at the same time the white house is saying and it is in the letter, we will take this to the u.n. and get
them to lift sanctions so what do you think of a vote at u.n. but congress or secretary john kerry has to stay out? >> the president has certain powers as president of the united states and the cog has powered of the legislative branch and we respect both branches. the president has every right to enter into agreements and every president has done that in a major peoples agreements with other countries and multinational agreements. he has every right to do that. ultimately the congress has the right to pass legislation and we can counter what the president has done and support what the president has done. in regard to iran we had a common objective and that is to prevent iran from having the capacity for a nuclear weapon. >> when jesus john kerry says congress has in ability to change the agreement. >> i don't think that is what he said. >> but it was in con text to an agreement entered with the
president and other countries he has the right. congress can pass laws and if they become effective they control. >> senator barrasso for all the going outrage of the arrangement and an executive agreement the fact is it isn't so unusual. here is some history: the it will 12 strategic partnership that president obama work out with afghanistan was an executive agreement. so was the 2009 status of forces agreement that president bush negotiated with iraq. what is the different presence? >> when president obama was in the senate and senator biden was in the senate they cosponsored legislation that said the bush arrangement with iraq had to come to congress. this is my concern: a world where iran has a income weapon is less safe less secure. the concern is this will be a bad exempt. we were supposed to dismantle iran's exist for a nuclear weapon.
new the president is at a point where it is just about delaying. not about stopping. it is abouting inning. those are the conditions i see, a bad agreement coming. we are seeing iran taking more and more power and across the whole middle east they have the arc of dome unanimous including not just iraq but syria and all the way to the mediterranean. >> here is the letter that you and 46 other republicans signed sent to the leaders of the islamic republic of iran and you got an answer from the ayatollah who says the gone letter shows washington is disspeak grading and is a "sign of a decline in political ethics in the united states." senator barrasso if there is no deal haven't you given iran a weapon they can say if the talks break down wait you have half
of the senate saying, whatever the deal is we will not abide by it. have you given them a weapon to blame it on the united states and it will make it harder for an international coalition of us with our allies to maintain sanctions against iran? >> it is very person with regard to iran to make sure that no dole is better than a bad deal and i am very concerned. >> but that is a moot point. by sending this letter could you have sent it to the president or the american people by sending it to the leader of iran haven't you given an excuse to drop out and say, 47 republicans say this is worthless. >> i will focus the attention where it should be on the deal. the president hasn't wanted to talk about it for six years and now the focus is what it means if iran gets a nuclear weapon to use by terrorists against us.
they want the money. iran wants the money so they can spend it in other ways for trim. >> i have a minute left and doesn't president obama bear some responsibility for this taking an executive action ignoring congress, whether it comes to immigration or climate change or cuba and isn't this a response to the fact that the president has ignored the separation of powers under the constitution? >> president's actions is where congress didn't act the congress would have passed immigration form. >> but congress has to act? >> congress has not acted. >> but --. >> he has inherent powers and if congress takes action, congress will speak. we can always have the last word but we have to pass action. >> senator barrasso to what degree do they play interest it? >> a lot. the american president is
concerned about this president and he does a bad job with foreign relations and has done it with isis and yemen he called a success story until the the iranians took over yemen. he needs input from congress. he with benefit from input from congress. >> and wyoming is going to going to to the tournament. >> so is harvard. >> so and maryland. >> racial continues re-ignited in ferguson, missouri, after two police officers are shot during a protest. who was to this is kevin returning to his childhood home. this is the smell of baked pears, making him feel warm. then pie crust as he wonders if it's too soon to ask what's for dessert. now vanilla, reminding him of pep talks with mom and slightly inappropriate advice from dad.
>> my beggest fear when president obama and eric holder and de blasio trashed the reputation of an entire profession. >> wrong impression was created by the president making a big deal out of this. >> david clark and former new york city mayor giuliani said president obama and attorney general holder bear some responsibility for the shooting of two police officers in ferguson, missouri, this week. we are back with the panel. karl you heard this, the president and attorney general piled on the white police officer who now has been cleared in the shooting of michael brown. then they went after the ferguson, police department. do you think they played any role in the climate that led to the shooting of the two police officers? >> i want to divorce these things were they led to the climate but i am not sure the climate reacted the act. it was created by an individual who tried to kill police
officers. i am worried about the president's language, when he goes on jimmy kimmel and says and i quote, "whoever fired the shots should not deflect from the issue," like he was detracting from the important issue which was the conduct of police department. >> that is interesting i was going to bring that up >> what has been happen manage ferguson was oppressive and objectionable and worthy of protest. but there was in excuse for criminal acts. whoever fired those shots should not detract from the issue. >> the attorney general holder, if his 24 minute news conference said account of unconstitutional practices the hisd routinely violated the 4th amendment and the use of tasers was not merely
unconstitutional but abusive and dangerous and i pet this is not a specific indictment of a specific officer over any of the practices. they hyped it. if there were unconstitutional practices they should be putting people in front the bar of justice. look, they went back before and they raised the expectations, and there was going to be an aindictment and there wasn't. in was going to be an indictment of the department. this wasn't. if there is actionable grounds, do something. do not go out there and say these things particularly the president's weird comment. >> juan, i want to ask you about that it seemed off kilter. two police officers were shot. saying i hope that doesn't detract from the issue... >> look, the shooting of the police officers is horrific act and a tragedy and should be prosecuted. i hope they fund the guys as
soon as possible and convict them and in missouri they could get the death penalty. >> it is more than a distraction. >> let me speak to this. there is a long history of racial i think there's a long history of racial resentment, high levels of criminal behavior and i think that in urban america you also have to deal with -- >> are you talking about ferguson? >> i'm talking about urban america, police dealing with them and this is an ongoing issue that we, as an american family, need to deal with. and it's not to say that we should stop dealing with it because you have this horrific act, shooting of the two officers. so to describe it as something that is separate, picking up on carlson's use of that term, separate is exactly right. you should separate this out and say this is a terrible act, criminal act. that is not to say that in any way it fosters the shooting -- the attorney general or president's language and it shouldn't stop us from dealing with the real issue on the
table. >> this is where we get to the balance here. clearly if you believe the justice department's report, there are some bad things going on. >> very bad thing. >> in ferguson. if you were an african-american you were more likely to get arrested. >> yes. >> you were more likely to be the victim of excessive force. on the other hand, as the milwaukee county sheriff said you don't want to trash a profession. you don't want to trash policemen. and you don't want to help incite if not the shooting this sense of agreement. >> i read the entire report on ferguson from the justice department. i was surprised. i found it deeply troubling. everybody should be troubled. blacks, whites, republicans, democrats. what was in that report was is sort of a picture of an aggressive police department that made decisions in many cases based on race. not just because of the impact but there's context to back that up. having said that, i think the comments from the president were reprehensible.
this wasn't a side issue. if you look at the way the white house and eric holder, in particular particular treated the original shooting of michael brown, which was to hide it, to give it a ton of attention when, in fact the other justice department report completely exonerates darren wilson and then there's a shrug of the shoulders about the shooting of these two cops. i think it's disgusting. >> the reason the president responded -- he was responding to the fact that you had demonstrations going on. it wasn't like he came out to inform us about this. >> but the demonstrations were wrong. >> hey, hold on. i sat here and listened to you guys talk the whole time. so let me just say they were there -- the police department is completely out of control. you're wrong, carl, there are specific instances. a man was wrongly arrested and beaten and charged for the blood -- his own blood on the police officer's, you know,
uniform. there has been a ton of abuse. but that's not the only reason they were there. they were there about this police department that has been treating these black residents badly. >> i never saw in those protests we object to these other things. i read the report, too. it is disgusting. my point is, go after the bad actors. don't use the kind of language that leaves the sense that this is all bad but we're not going to do anything. >> thank you panel. see you next sunday. to be continued. up next, power player of the week. how the first lady of afghanistan is working g g g g g
week. >> it's no longer a place you can say oh, what a pity this girl was born in afghanistan. afghanistan is starting to be a good place for a woman to be. >> if that's true, she is part of the reason. she is the wife of afghan president. >> there are a lot of very -- >> and the very public first lady in almost a century. how challenging a role is that? >> yes, it's true, it's unchartered water. because they are unchartered i can dry a lot of things. >> we met ghani when she visited the u.s. on her own last month. she introduced laura bush, champion of women's rights in afghanistan. she could have been describing herself. >> she's resourceful. she gets things done. >> reporter: ghani has her own office and staff of six in the president presidential palace. she meets delegations, mostly of women and says she's a
facilitator, working within what she calls existing structures to help women carve out better lives. >> i dress properly. i talk properly. i don't make waves. >> reporter: ghani met her husband in the early '70s at the american university in beirut. they moved to new york, but between the soviet invasion and then the taliban, they couldn't return to afghanistan for more than 20 years. >> you take what's thrown at you and you make a life out of it. >> during last year's bitter presidential campaign she became an issue, attacked for being a lebanese christian with u.s. citizenship. is that painful for you, when critics of your husband use you to try to hurt him? >> it was said that i didn't know the language. i spoke it in front of them for an hour. it was said that i didn't know anything about afghanistan. and i spoke about afghan issues.
>> in his inaugural address, her husband made news singling out his partner for helping afghan women. >> it was very moving. he almost choked when he said it. and i felt like choking too. >> life for women in afghanistan is improving. they can travel without a man from their family. there are more opportunities for education and work. they make up 28% of the parliament. but there's a threat. what will happen to women in afghanistan if the taliban were to regain power? >> i don't think it's in the cards. i don't think the taliban are coming back. >> and so she will do what she can, as first lady. >> i don't think i have magical powers but i will be very happy if, at the end of the five-year mandate, women are better appreciated and more respected for who they are. >> ghani says when she first came to afghanistan in the '70s,
women there had a good deal of freedom and opportunity. she's just trying to help them get it back. that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see from new york. they shake the earth. they believe they're holy warriors. >> they started shooting at us from all directions. >> there's nothing holy about them. >> if a girl refused sex, they would rape her. >> the evil known as isis tonight. >> they tied them to a chair threw water on their bodies, and attacked electrical cables to them. >> this this house right here 18 members of the family were killed. over there 30. >> can they be stopped? >> to defeat them is very possible. >> is america doing enough? >> how do americans and other