tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News August 23, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
oh, it's over isn't it? thank you, joanne. i love you. >> the controversy over hillary clinton grows. can her presidential campaign recover? >> in retrospect, this didn't turn out to be convenient at all. >> we will talk to one of her biggestne of clinton's biggest critics, former attorney general michael mukasey. >> did you wipe the ser sfler. >> with a cloth or something? r chat account. >> i love it. those messages disappear all by themselves. >> reporter: is the former secretary of state taking the investigation seriously?
we'll sit down with ellen tauscher, a clinton supporter and friend. new poll numbers show an opening for vice president joe biden. what will it mean for hillary? we'll talk to josh alcorn with biden 2016 and a close family friend. plus, where does the iran nuclear deal stand? we'll sit down with republican presidential candidate mike huckabee who just met with the deal's biggest critic, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. i'd like to have the election tomorrow. i don't want to wait. >> donald trump attracts 30,000 to a football stadium in alabama. is he now the man to beat? we'll ask our sunday panel. and the fight over government funding for planned parenthood after a new video draws outrage, all right now on "fox news sunday." >> hello again for fox news in washington. exciting news in d.c., something everyone many this divided town can actually agree on. [ squealing ]
>> the national zoo's giant panda mei xiang had two panda cubs yesterday. she delivered the first cub in the afternoon, but the surprise second cub came after 10:00 last night. >> we developed a bunch of strategies to be able to swap the cubs, but it's ultimately up to mei xiang and how cooperative she is with us. obviously these are her cubs and she's not too keen on us taking them from her. >> the cub's big sister bao bao celebrates her second birthday today. now to the new information about hillary clinton's use of a private server while serving as secretary of state. more than 300 of her e-mails have been flagged for potential classified content. we've also learned ms. clinton's blackberry was not government issued and therefore not government encrypted. what does it mean for her president campaign? we'll get to our interviews with ellen tausher, and josh alcorn a
senior advisor to draft biden 2016 in a minute. first, joining me is former u.s. attorney general michael mukasey who served under president george w. bush and an adviser on national security measures on the jeb bush campaign. welcome today, sir. good to see you. >> good to be here. >> okay. let's start -- the clinton camp says this is a mischaracterization of the facts. we heard from her press secretary this week, brian that len. here is what he says. >> what's going on is something that happens all the time. you have a bureaucratic tangle over what counts as classified and what doesn't. >> he says everyone agree has the definition of classified is flexible. is this nothing more than a political witch hunt? >> no, it is not a political witch hunt. so far as definitions of what's classified and what's not, obviously at the margins there are some things that may or may not be classified. we're talking about information that went to the secretary of state who is the highest foreign relations officer of the united
states. it's inconceivable to me that a great deal of that was not classified, and that's something we're going to have to find out when we find out what was on the server. >> you have speculated that there are a number of potential legal charges she could be facing including felony charges under the same federal statute that swept up general david petraeus. that would require some knowingness, she knowingly removed materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at an unauthorized location. here is what she said about this in las vegas on tuesday. >> whether it was a personal account or a government account, i did not send classified material and i did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified which is the way you know whether something is. >> okay. so she says it was never marked classified. if not, could she be -- meet the requirements that a prosecutor
would have to fulfill for knowingly violating some of these laws? >> sure. because the statute protects information. it doesn't protect documents simply that are stamped or not stamped. that's not the determining factor. the determining factor is the information and the question, as you pointed out, is what she knew about what was on those e-mails that she sent and that she received and what she did with respect to them. >> okay. her camp points out that the fbi is investigating the security of the devices that contained information and about who may have transferred classified information on or off her private server. they say the investigation is not about her. for some that sounds like splitting legal hairs, but is it accurate to say that this investigation of the fbi is not about her and may not impact her personally? >> it may not impact her personally eventually if it comes -- if it comes to show that she didn't know what was on the server. but to say that the
investigation is not of someone personally is ridiculous. the fbi does not investigate machines. it investigates people. she's certainly one of the people who is being investigated. >> okay. her attorney says that she followed the preservation ideas, the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, also, by couching her e-mail queries with the state.gov e-mails of other state employees knowing they would be secured and preserved in the process of their government e-mail server. does that solve her problem? >> no. because it doesn't end the fact that information was removed and put in an authorized place. the fact that you happen to have put it also in an authorized place, does not change that. that's number one. number two, what about her communications with people who were not on dot gov, communications with foreign leaders, with people in foreign governments, people in the united states government who may have been communicating outside
the dot gov system. >> okay. what does it say to you? we have reports that close confidants of the former secretary, jake sullivan and cheryl mills will be speaking with the interview by the benghazi committee. we're told by one reliable source september 3rd and 4th. what do you make of that? >> they will obviously be disclosing what it is that they know about how documents were selected for production. they will talk about their own documents that i gather appear in this carb of documents that have so far been identified. presumably they can talk about what secretary clinton either knew or didn't know or directed. >> the state department has said it has no record of her signing this form of-109, saying it's an optional form, it would essentially certify that she turned overall important classified information. if she didn't sign it, does that alleviate her of some of the potential liability?
>> perhaps one piece of potential liability that might arise from making a false statement on the document. obviously if she didn't sign it, she cannot have made a false statement on the document. on the other hand she did, i believe, sign a statement to the court within the last week or two says that she had turned over all the information. that was done, as i understand it, on penalty of perjury. that one is still very much alive. >> what's your confidence level of the justice department, the fbi's ability to investigate this thoroughly? >> my confidence level in both the justice department investigation and the fbi is very high. the unit within the justice department that's investigating this is the national security division. that has always been an outstanding division since it was stood up recently, and i know that the person who heads it, john carlan, a superb civil servant, they handled the
petraeus investigation. i have no doubt they'll handle it appropriately. the fbi is the premier investigative agency within the united states that handles civilian investigations. they can certainly be relied on. they've got a long tradition of independence and integrity. >> former attorney general and judge michael mukasey, thank you, sir, for joining us today. >> thanks for having me. joining us now ellen tauscher, a close friend and supporter of hillary clinton who also worked under her at the state department and was an early backer of ready for hillary. congresswoman, welcome to "fox news sunday." >> thank you, shannon. nice to be here. >> let's talk about what some of what we discussed with the former attorney general, this idea of federal statutes that have swept up very important people. former cia director john deutsche was investigated under the same law as general david petraeus for keeping classified material on a government owned computer at his house. it was designated only for use with unclassified material,
referred this investigation to the doj. reportedly mr. deutsche was in talks for a plea deal when he was pardoned by then president clinton. obviously that was a good deal for him in the end. general petraeus, a different end, two years probation, $100,000 fine. how are those cases different than mrs. clinton's? >> they're completely different. you're talking about classified information. i think part of the problem we have here -- by the way, i think former attorney general mukasey did a very good job as an adviser to jeb bush right now, but i was embarrassed by his complete lack of understanding of the federal records act, the low side and high side classified and unclassified systems of the state department, and going way out there in talking about things like the espionage act and perjry when this is not a criminal investigation. this is about the low side computer system at the state department which is unsecure which only carries unclassified
e-mails. that's what we're talking about. to some extent we're talking about whether some e-mails, some people in the intelligence community and some people in the state department differ on whether they should be classified one way or the other. what is clear is that while she was secretary, hillary clinton did not receive on her unclassified, unsecure e-mail system the same as the dot gov system at the state department anything that said, header or footer, that it was classified. we can quibble about whether things should be reclassified as they go out to the public, but there is no question, all of the classified e-mails that hillary clinton used, saw and supervised as secretary are on the classified server. there's no question about that. so this idea that we're spinning everybody up about perjury and talking about previous cases between john deutsche and david petraeus, it's just dancing on the head of a pin and, frankly,
partisan politics. >> what do you make of the reuters report that came out? non-partisan, mainstream news organization. people would agree on that. they say by their estimation at least 30 e-mail streams involved information that was foreign government information by its nature, it would be classified. former director of the u.s. government, called that kind of information, quote, born classified. as secretary of state, shouldn't mrs. clinton have known that? >> look, secretary of clinton has a fail langs of people in, foreign service officers, former ambassado ambassadors, civil servants, i did as undersecretary, too, that make sure all this information is protected. it is physically impossible to move things from the classified system to the unclassified system. we are only talking about the classified system -- unclassified system. everything on the classified system is where it belongs, and
there is no question about that. the federal records act makes very clear the person that transmits the information is responsible for the classification of the information. is it possible secretary clinton was passed something by somebody and somebody and somebody? yes. that would have been true if it was on the state.gov e-mail system. we all understand that hillary clinton is held to a different standard, but let's get it straight. let's be lawful and let's be smart about this. we're talking about unclassified e-mails, not talking about classified e-mails. we're talking about unclassified e-mails and they are clearly subject to what people interpret. there are differences between the state department and the intelligence community right now. >> there are, because there are at least two non-partisan, again neutral inspectors general who pointed out they believe there was classified information, enough that they referred it to the doj for investigation. one of the e mills that's come
to live involves uma abidine, close associate and adviser to the first lady forwarding along a note from aide to former david miliband, wanted it to be seen by the secretary only. it talks about important information in afghanistan. it is five pages. all five pages are redacted. that is classified information at least per some concerns. we also have a judge appointed by then president clinton, judge emmett sullivan, during a heated hearing on thursday he said we wouldn't be here today if this employee had followed government poll seechlt does she have herself to blame for being in this position? >> look, secretary clinton has made it very clear that what was done for convenience has become anything but convenient. in hindsight, some mistakes were made. let's face it, secretary clinton is not someone who takes her national security responsibilities lightly and has
done a fabulous job as secretary and as senator making sure she's done everything she can to keep america safe. so i think what's really important here is, if we're going to cherry pick, let's stay with the cherry tree. you talked about what judge sullivan said. judge sullivan's extraneous remark was about something completely different, and it was about something going on with somebody else, an employee. so it has really nothing to do with what is going on right now which is this review -- >> at the end of the day it has to do with the former secretary's use of a personal e-mail server, not just a personal e-mail address, unpris dented. >> it is not unprecedented. >> they may have used private e-mails, they didn't have pry sat servers housed in their home and out of the control of the government, containing potentially classified information. that is unprecedented. >> everybody knows that four previous secretaries had private e-mail addresses including one
current cabinet secretary. >> addresses are different than private servers. that we can agree on. >> i don't know why you are splitting that hair because unsecured is unsecured. the current unclassified low side system at the state department is unsecured. lots of people including people from the archive it's office have saiding therer there is no different between the way secretary clinton handled these erksz mails and if they had been on the state.gov system. let's keep this where it should be about, on the classified server. that's the treasure of the national american security system. all this is really a distraction. >> the fbi now has possession of the personal server, and we will allow their investigation to go where it does. >> exactly. >> and we'll see. former congresswoman, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you so much. as the clinton controversy gross, is there an opportunity for joe biden to launch a
campaign. a new quinnipiac survey shows he's performing better than hillary clinton in head-to-head match-ups in key swing states. he's spent the summer in seclusion following the death of his son beau. yesterday he met with massachusetts senator elizabeth warren. he is expected to make a decision very soon. joining us now, josh alcorn, a close friend of the bidens and senior adviser for draft biden 2016, a super pac hoping to get biden into the race. thank you for being here. >> great to be here. >> you said this isn't about hillary clinton. given what we just talked about, would the vice president be considering this if there wasn't this opening, a lot of trouble for her campaign? >> this isn't about anybody in the current democratic primary race. this is about joe biden. he's run for president before. he knows the process he has to go through. he knows the american people are looking for authenticity in their presidential candidates this year.
that's joe biden, the original authentic candidate. >> you know you're starting at a disadvantage with key things you need, money. outside groups supporting hillary clinton, $70 million backing her. bernie sanders done surprising fund-raising as well. you start from zero and the first debate is only a few weeks away. how do you get up to speed? >> that's the great thing about draft biden, we've been around since march, a grassroots list of about 200,000 people that's growing every day. we may not have the financial resources. we certainly have a groundswell of support. i've traveled the country over the last three weeks talking to potential supporters, to donors, activists, they're enthusiastic to see joe biden in this race. >> what's your timeline on the dnc side first debate is october 16. >> having him on the debate stage is an important part of the campaign. his decision will be what his decision is. his timeline will be what his timeline is. job to speculate on
that. having him on that debate stage will be important. >> yesterday on the train from new york to d.c., we pick up a very important passenger in wilmington. we thought he was going to be in wilmington for the weekend. i see with my own eyes he's going to be in d.c. our white house producer was on a plane with elizabeth warren, and we find out they're meeting. what was that all about? >> i don't know what they talked about, i do know the vice president has had -- he's got his core inner circle of people. over the last couple weeks we've seen reported on this channel and other media outlets that he's expanding outside of that small circle of advisers and family. he's sounding out people in early states, activists, potential supporters, talking to someone like elizabeth warren who's got important, incredible ideas on how to make the economy work for everyone. it's no surprise he would want to talk to somebody like that. joe biden has been fighting for the middle class for his entire elected career. talking with her is another way to get more ideas. >> of course, it raises
speculation about whether they would join forces on a ticket. biden-warren 2016? >> you'll have to let the vice president talk about that. i'm not here to speculate on his actual campaign. >> okay. let's talk about a few things that are potential critiques for him not getting in the race. his age, he would be the oldest incoming president at 74 on inauguration day. >> i don't think that's an issue at all. joe biden, when i was on his campaign in 2008, we had to block time out for the gym, he's there every day. he feeds off the energy of people around him. i don't think that age is an issue at all. >> on the gop side, the people doing the best are outsiders, non-politician washington outsiders. he's been here for deck kaetsds. how does he address that concern? >> i don't think the people on the republican side are doing well because they're outsiders. i think there's a sense in the american electorate now that they want a candidate who can look him in the eye, tell him what he thinks or she thinks the
issues of the day are and what they would do to move our country forward. that's joe biden. he's been doing that for years. >> he lost in 1988 and 2008 in his presidential runs. what would be different this time around? >> again, i think it's what people are look for. president obama in 2008 won because he embodied what the american electorate wanted which was change, which was moving forward. i think biden -- the vice president has that now. >> let's talk about polling that has been very good for him. not even in the race and showing up double digits in important states like florida, ohio, pennsylvania. let's talk about ohio, usually a bellwether for presidential elections. when you look at trustworthiness, the numbers show people, 59% think he's trustworthy in contrast to 60% who do not think secretary clinton is trustworthy. he also does well when you go to head-to-head match-ups, beating donald trump by ten points and other top contenders, more narrowly, but he comes in over jeb bush by three points and
marco rubio as well, leading him by a couple points in that important state as well. is that added incentive, these poll numbers for him to go in. >> i don't want to go down this polling number line. early polls this early out are incredibly unreliable. what's important here is the folks that have gone to draft biden 2016 and signed our petition to see joe biden in the race, they want to see joe biden in the race. they near florida, ohio, nevada, south carolina, all over the country. that's really what matters, is the folks who want to see him in this race. >> speaking of which, we've heard stories his late son beau wanted to see him run. you worked very closely with him as well. do you feel the vice president has had sufficient time to grieve? you know a presidential campaign is so grueling. do you think he would be pressed into service, as it were, by anything he heard from beau before his death? >> i know he wanted his dad to
be president. he want thad in 1988 and in 2008. i think the biden family in general had a firsthand view of what it takes to be president and the strains that puts on your family. i think the vice president is weighing that as part of his deliberative process. >> we hope you'll keep us up to date. the time is closing in on us fast. josh alcorn, thanks for coming in. >> thanks for having me. our sunday group joins the conversation on hill's e-mail scandal and what a joe biden run scandal and what a joe biden run could meet for her
and be able to help the community. we always have the safety of our customers and the community in mind. my family is in oakland, my wife's family is in oakland so this is home to us. being able to work in the community that i grew up in, customers feel like friends, neighbors and it makes it a little bit more special. together, we're building a better california.
here is a simple question. who would you rather have negotiate with china, japan, mexico? trump or bush? >> donald trump speaking to tens of thousands of supporters in mobile, alabama, the largest gathering we think of the presidential campaign. kimberly stras el from the "wall street journal," peter baker who covers the white house for "the new york times." robert cassell and fox news political analyst juan williams. donald trump, juan, it looks like he's sticking around. >> i think he's going to be around. i think bob was at the event in alabama. we'll hear more in a moment. it seems to me that trump is the surprise that keeps on giving in this summer of trump. i thought he'd be done right now. he has resisted this time and again. at this moment you have jeb bush having to react to donald trump in a way that to me is very surprising, saying trump is not
a conservative, trying to appeal to conservatives, but clearly jeb bush worried that the donor class is getting anxious at this point at his failure to engage trump or slow trump. >> bob, i'm interested, because you were there, listen, i knew things were different when he threw nascar under the bus in alabama, mobile, alabama, and got cheers for doing it. these people siding with trump over nascar and mobile. >> it was quite a moment to be there on a hot, sweaty friday night in mobile, alabama. trump comes out to "sweet home alabama." the crowd roars. this is not just a political moment, but a cultural moment. senator jeff sessions of alabama, a real favorite of the hard right, the immigration border laws, he put on a "make america great" had, didn't endorse trump. but to have a sitting u.s. senator there said a lot. >> he helped him draft his immigration plan. peter, what do you make of what the rest of the gop field needs
to do? clearly there's something that's anti-washington, anti-establishment. we see with trump, carson, outside politician final moving now the the polls. how do others -- juan mentioned jeb bush, how do others harness it? >> eergt you run with it like ted cruz is trying to do, or you try to run against it and jeb bush is trying to do, saying this is not a solution, you can't turn over the government to persons because you like his hat. >> or his hair. >> frankly, neither one, any of these camps absorbs all the oxygen in the room. whether it lasts or not, we've seen multiple obituaries written so far. it's a long way between now and iowa. >> kimberly, he's polling well in iowa which is a place we've all spent a lot of time. voters are sophisticated, want to shake your hand and grill you. do you think months from now
they're going to show up to those caucuses in the cold of winter? >> what's interesting about trump is he's acting like a very serious candidate. he's out on the ground and putting a lot of money into this. he's got a lot of paid people on his staff and he does seem to be more in it to win. although, if we go back four years, who was leading all the polls for the republicans? herman cain, there is always, especially in republican primaries, a biggerest on people new on the scene, who try to go in and bust things up. this is not anything specific to trump. we have to be careful about where the electorate might be in its mind six months from now. it's also summertime. people are going to get back and be a little more thoughtful. that's why bush is doing what he's doing. he's attempting very much to try to make the real contrast between his policy positions and trump's, and sometimes that gets lost in the back and forth. >> what's interesting to me is to hear jeb bush say about trump, he's not a conservative,
he's not electable, not a serious person, which i think when i listen to you kim, you're saying come the end of summer, maybe we'll get over this summer fling in terms of the voter's affect shuns for trump. but to hear trump shoot back at bush and say, gosh, this was in new hampshire this week, he's got a couple people over there, it's not exciting. but to secondly say, you know, bush is a low energy guy. if you want a change in washington, he's not the guy to go to. this is so interesting. >> that message is resonating with obviously thousands of people, tens of thousands of people, polling and in person. i want to make sure we get to the other side of the ticket. we have hillary clinton and the mounting issues she's constantly being pulled off message to talk about this e-mail situation. a little frustrated with her own ed henry bupushing her in vegas. here is what happened at the end of that press conference.
>> nobody talks to me about it other than you guys. >> nobody is talking to her about it but us. >> people are talking about it. when i was in iowa and new hampshire, people are bringing it up. it's a cloud over her campaign. vice president biden is still not in the race. senator warren -- still the front-runner. bernie sanders is coming up on the left, not so much because he's countering her on the e-mail controversy. when you look objectively at her strengths across the country, they remain. >> her numbers are taking a hit. when you talk about trustworthiness, 58% of people in our most recently poll think she knowingly lied about the e-mail server. 67% of independents think she lied. that's obviously the group everybody wants in 2016. >> what it does, it reminds people of some of the parts of the '90s they didn't particularly like about the clinton era. she had done a very good job, i think, as secretary of state,
moving past that and redefining herself as a formidable figure on the world stage, as somebody credible to both party ifs a lot of ways. this brings back some of the circus that always seem to surround that last white house, and it does cut at credibility. the details, you saw, with your interviews, get pretty arcane at times. it may not matter in the end, but it does sort of bring down the sort of lofty places she had been. >> having to explain. kimberly, how worried do you think her camp is at this point about a potential biden candidacy? it sounds like there's an organization ready to go should he decide to do it and he's taking very serious meetings. >> based on the conversation you had with the congresswoman, i would say they're very worried about this. to what bob said, i'm not sure she does have strength everywhere and this is why they're concerned. what she's always had is inevitabili inevitability. this is what they built up. it's why she is where she is, because she told the party at
the last four years, i'm your only ticket to the white house. >> i mean in terms of being a historic candidate. when you meet base democratic voters, they see her as a fresh face, because she would be the first feek male candidate president of the united states. there are a lot of vulnerabilities out there. >> if biden gets in -- this was the thing that was interesting about your draft biden thing, does he get in to win? right now bernie answers and martin o'malley are dancing around hillary clinton's ethics problems. i'm waiting for her to go after her on that. i think it would be a big problem. >> the problem for the vice president, at this point he would be an alternative to sanders and the left, a more credible challenge. really is he a challenge to hillary clinton? democrats are not -- >> we'll see if it makes a difference. stick around panel. up next, governor mike huckabee is just back from a trip to the
one of the obama administration's toughest critics on iran is republican presidential candidate and former arkansas governor mike huckabee. he's just back from a meeting with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. governor, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you, shannon. >> good news and bad news. let's look at poll numbers. you didn't slip after the first primary debate but you're holding steady just at 6%. what's the plan for moving that number up? >> the key for us is just stay in the race. a lot of people think that the polls at this point matter.
they only matter in getting you on the stage. but what really matters right now is building organization and structure in the early states. i think it's one of the advantages of having done this before. everybody gets panicked about who is leading, who is heading up the polls. if you go back historically, whose ever is in first place even with a two-to-one margin t one thing you can be certain of, that person is not going to be the nominee if history holds to the way it's been. >> do you think donald trump has staying power? what does the rest of the gop field do with the tsunami that is the donald? >> you don't worry about donald trump. he's a force to be reckoned with, but you don't reckon with him by dealing with it. i quit answering donald trump questions. he's getting ten times the amount of coverage that any other candidate is getting. and the dumbest thing a candidate can do is give him more coverage by answering all the trump questions. i think i know what i'm doing is i'm talking about my campaign,
my issues, the things that i'm standing for, and in time that's what's going to be more important than simply reacting to any other candidate. there's 17 of us out there, plenty to react to. we need to focus on swimming in our own lane and helping to explain to the american people what it is we're going to do to make this country better, not what someone else is going to do to make it worse or whether we like their plans for making it better. >> you, along with all your domestic campaigning were internationally this week with israeli prime minister, a good friend of yours. you've both been very vocal about the up copying nuclear deal that congress is going to vote on. president obama reached out detailing his reassurances enough to convince a congressman to say he's going to vote yes on the iran nuke deal. here is a little bit of what he wrote to win over representative nadler. he said should iran seek to dash
toward a nuclear weapon, all of the options available to the united states including the military option will remain available through the life of the deal and beyond. he also said no administration has done more for israel's security than mine. i am prepared to furtherrelatio. why is that not good enough for you? >> that's not true. for him to say his administration has done more for the security of israel, it's laughable on the streets. if you walk along the streets of tel aviv, you'll never hear, boy, president obama sure does care about israel. israelis oppose this deal by a margin of 7-1. 69% to 10%. in america it's 57% to 28% against it. i think members of congress ought to ask themselves a simple question. who do i work for? do i work for president obama or do i work for the people who elected me? if they work for president obama, if he's their boss, vote pour the deal. if they're serious about making
sure this deal gets derailed because it's dangerous, then they better listen to the people who hired them. let me tell you why this is dangerous, this notion we can go in militarily, well, the way this deal is structured, it's going to be much more difficult because the iranians are going to be able to build fortresses under ground to make even or most capable weapons unable to do any bunker busting. the iranians are right now, even before the deal is signed, negotiating with the russians to get s-300 anti aircraft weaponry, some of the most sophisticated, sophisticated enough that no american aircraft would be able to get through. this is just -- it's balloon juice for the president to get out there and pretend that this deal is a good one, in part, shannon because this let's iran do their own inspections, their self reporting. it's like letting a tenth grader grade his own algebra exams or
letting hillary clinton take care of her own server. both are nonsense and this deal is none ses. >> a lot of people think the u.s. shouldn't be at the table with iran for a number of reasons. i want to note something you said in a speech in 2007, you said this about iran. we haven't had diplomatic relationships with iran in 30 years, most of my adult life. and a lot of good it's done. putting this in human terms, all of us know when we stop talking with a sibling or parent or friend, it's impossible to resolve the differences to move that relationship forward. the same is true for countries. should we be talking with iran? >> i stand by everything we said. let's keep in mind the analogy i used was a parent talking to a teenager. you don't let the teenager run the house, let the teenager tell you when he's going to come and go. you don't let the teenager decide at 15 he's going to have keys to the family car and the liquor cabinet at the same time. negotiation and sitting down and having diplomatic talks is great
if the talks result in some type of concession. the beginning of any talks with the iranians should have been, you put those four americans you're holding hostage on the next airplane out of tehran. number two, you stop this crazy talk about wiping israel off the face of the map and you don't publish, by the way, this week, 416-page book by the ayatollah comes out saying the destruction of israel is its number one priority. you tell them that's got to stop and you must at least behave like a grownup. then you can have diplomatic conversations. you don't cap pit late to the worst instincts of this terrorist state iran whose weaponry and financing has killed americans, kidnapped americans and maimed a lot of americans fighting in iraq and afghanistan. >> a bit of a lightning round because we're just about out of time. i want to make sure to give you a clans to respond to critics. immigration, it is a hot topic on the campaign trail.
here is what you said in the 2006 "washington post" interview. you said, quote, i tend to think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship. you also as governor of arkansas advocated for some type of financial assistance or help for those attending in-state colleges but in the country illegally. where are you on immigration? >> i've always been in the same place, secure the border first, don't provide amnesty, but don't be irrational. people are not angry about immigration because they hate immigrants. they're angry about immigration because they see their way of life threatened. they see their jobs disappearing, going to mexico, to china, to indonesia. if we deal with the real acute problems, the immigration problem is not going to be as acute. as far as some of the things like students, look, when you have a student who is valedictorian in one of the state's largest high schools as we did in my state, the question is, if he's been in our school since kindergarten and he's the
top student in his class, should he qualify for a scholarship that other top students qualify for or not? would we rather have him one day become a neurosurgeon or a tomato picker? those are the kind of tough questions governors face every day. i've never regretted for taking the stand that you don't punish children for something their parents did illegally. if you did, the next time the person gets stopped in a car, give the kid in the back seat the ticket instead of the dad. >> very quickly on common core. you wrote a letter to oklahoma lawmakers in 2013 calling it near and dear to your heart. you also went to say, like many of you i've heard the argument these standards threaten local control of what's taught in oklahoma classrooms. speaking as one conservative to another, let me assure you this simply is not true. do you now believe it is? >> common core has changed dramatically. it's gotten federal fingers all over it and it's ruined it. everybody i think now realizes that it was an idea about standards that would be the
state level. now it's gotten into federal control. it went beyond the basic things of language, arts and math, and it needs to be eradicated. it's become a cancer instead of a cause. so unfortunately a lot of people want to use this to get rid of all standards. i hope not. we need high standards, but we don't need common core and we do need to get rid of it. >> governor huckabee, we'll see you on the campaign trail. thanks for joining us today. >> thank you, shannon. great to be with you. >> when we come back, major rallies across the country this weekend against planned parenthood. the organization continues to the organization continues to come under fire as
here at the td ameritrade trader group, they work all the time. the organization continues to come under fire as sup jj? working hard? working 24/7 on mobile trader, rated #1 trading app in the app store. it lets you trade stocks, options, futures... even advanced orders. and it offers more charts than a lot of the other
country this weekend as outrage over planned parenthood's practices continues. we're back with our panel to talk about this. kimberly, i'll start with you. do you feel like the political conversation is any different this time around because of these undercover videos coming out with conversations and footage, frankly, that is very uncomfortable for people, even those who many of whom identify as pro choice? >> definitely different. this has made people think of the limits of where they want to go with this. even having this debate in the states already, you look at places like texas. people have been more focused on where do we want to draw lines and having more thoughtful conversation? i think it's going to change more. congress will come back and we'll get more information on this, too. what you had so far are the videos come out. we've had planned parenthood say they're false or edited. what you'll have, there are two committees in the house that will be talking to members, doctors at planned parenthood, getting in touch with the research groups that have been
taking some of the -- been involved in all of this. then we'll maybe get more answers about what actually happened. >> i notice, too, that late in the week congressman elijah cummings t ranking democrat on house oversight, reached out to the group center for medical progress that exposed and taped these videos wanting to investigate them. we want to play a little of the video they put out. a woman identified as holly o'donnell, she worked for stem express, stationed inside a planned parenthood clinic and describes something she saw there. >> she's like okay, i want to show you something. he she has one of her instruments, she taps the heart and it starts beating. i'm sitting here and looking at this fetus and its heart is beating. i don't know what to think. >> she went on to describe the process of harvesting a brain from that fetus. it's tough material. >> very tough material. it's aimed at people in the middle, not people on the pro
choice, pro life side because those guys have made up their minds and trying to tell ordinary americans this isn't just about an septic idea. it's sort of like the partial birth abortion debate in the '90s, rather than attack abortion rights as a whole-on thing, it says look at some of the aspects of it that are most objectionable and try to appeal the conscience of someone who might find it something they can't live with. it's energized the pro life side of this debate. the pro choice side of the debate used the terms we've used, is trying to fight back by saying it's a smear, it's energizing, their rights are under attack. for the moment, the momentum is on the side of those trying to expose this. >> late friday, the group center for medical progress behind these videos had a victory in california court. multiple things pending, but at least dealing with stem express, the springboard that was keeping
them from releasing some of the material was dissolved, they're promising more. >> the politics are similar herring. i checked with my sources on capitol hill. they say come fall this could become a boil. congress comes back, senator cruz, so many want to see, perhaps a defunding fight. that could lead to a government shutdown. that could thrust itself into the 2016 race. governor huckabee, carson, every conservative looking to win iowa, they're going to rally to this as well. for a party that wanted to gently avoid social issues for the most part, now they will be front and center because of planned parenthood. >> with the first three or four of these videos that came out, hillary clinton did say she found some of the images disturbing, although many on the left said they haven't watched the videos. we're told the president hasn't watched them. most in the administration are not watching them. within just two days of her making those comments, she put out a video about two minutes long. here is a portion of it. >> we're not going back.
we're going to fight back. i'm proud to stand with planned parenthood -- >> juan, she has made her decision that for this campaign, despite what she feels about some of these videos, she says she's fully behind the organization. >> i don't think there's any choice for a democrat, especially a leading democrat at this moment. there's no moving away from plachbd parenthood or women. of americans support ls, you planned parenthood, want planned parenthood to continue in terms of contraception, disease prevention and the like. but when you get into it in terms of the politics, this is where it becomes more intriguing because i think you can stir the republican base. but what happens when you threaten to shut down the government? we've seen that story before, it doesn't work out well. i think you are, as bob was suggesting, we're moving forward where there's such excitement in the republican base about these videos. it's not just one more to come. i think there's a series of additional vied i don'ts to
come. this will continue to steam. the question is how far do they want to take snit. >> we did see a couple of democrats on the first vote, the only vote we've seen in the wake of these videos in the senate. they had to get past this procedural vote. they needed 60 votes to get to the first pass at defending. they had two democrats that went with them. kimberly, do you think the numbers will grow? >> the question for democrats who are so easy to do this war on women theme, if they don't turn off people in the middle who are really disturbed watching these videos. the question for republicans meantime is, do you want to do this again where you end up putting all the focus on shutting down the government, loss of services and taking away from the actual question and substance of these videos which is a big concern. >> and the messaging is going to be difficult for them because there are some of them who say based on these videos they can't in good conscience vote for anything that would allow funding to move forward. it's a potential shutdown and who gets blamed for that on the
can. there was a very special guest i wanted to introduce you to today but we've run out of problem. so after the show i hope you'll visit foxnewssunday.com. vernon brewer was here and i talked to him about their organization. very real threats from isis. we want you to see that piece. before we go, a program note. chris will be back next sunday. he'll sit down live with presidential candidate and new jersey governor chris christie.
you do not want to miss that. that is it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday." out foxbusiness.com. have a great sunday. see you tomorrow. on the buzz-beader this sunday, the mainstream media. pundits portraying hillary clinton badly wounded by the e-mail debacle, especially after her contentious exchange with ed henry. >> did you wipe the server? wh >> what, like with a cloth or something? >> i don't know. you know how it works digitally. >> i don't know how it works digitally at all. and i know you want to make a point. and i can just repeat what i have said. >> is this an indication this issue isn't going away for the remainder of your campaign? >> nobody talks to me about it, other than you guys. >> but is the press overdramatizing the damage to the democratic front-runner, and why isn't she doing more