tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News August 7, 2016 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
don't do it! fox news sunday's next. i'm chris wallace. hillary clinton opens a big lead in the polls. what can donald trump do to cut into it? >> donald trump is not qualified to be president. >> she's a monster. she's actually not strong enough to be president. >> today, a debate between one of trump's most trusted backers, former house speaker, newt gingrich, and clinton supporter, congressman javier bacera about the race, the issues, and trump's missteps. then -- >> $400 million gets flown at night into iran. who could approve a thing like that? >> we do not pay ransoms. we didn't here and we won't in the future. >> the uproar over the cash
payment to iran, just as american hostages were being freed. senator tom cotton, one of president obama's sharpest critics on whether it was a ransom payment. plus, as clinton and trump both face high unfavorable numbers, we'll ask our sunday panel whether the election will be about who voters dislike more. all, right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. it's been a remarkably rough week for donald trump. a series of self-inflicted wounds and one poll after another showing him falling behind in key swing states. but on friday, hillary clinton once again stirred up a controversy over her private e-mails, which is why this race between two unpopular and distrusted nominees remains competitive. joining me now to discuss the state of the campaign, former speaker newt gingrich, one of trump's top advisers, and clinton advocate, congressman javier bacera.
gentleman, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good to be with you. >> let's start with the two candidates, as trump has gone from one misstep to another this week, speaker gingrich, you have been as sharp as any critic about your man. here are some of the things you've been saying about him. "very self-destructive," "take a deep breath and learn some new skills," "trump is helping her to win by proving he is more unacceptable than she is." i know that you think that clinton would make a lousy president, but is trump -- how close is he to disqualifying himself? >> i don't think very close at all. i think that welco, first of al you look at the last few days, he's gotten the message. he came out and endorsed paul ld have done in the first place. endorsed john mccain, which he should have done in the first place. endorsed kelly ayotte. it's very tricky if you've never run for public office to jump from being a businessman and being one of the two candidates
running for the presidency, and he's made some mistakes. the biggest mistake made last week was made on your show. it's one thing to lie and another thing to lie about lying. and on friday she gave us an explanation. her brain apparently had short circuited while she was talking to you. but using a short circuit as an explanation when you're doing something is very dangerous in a presidential campaign. so i think she managed to trump trump in terms of mistake. >> well, that brings us to hillary clinton. congressman bacera, who has a different problem than trump, honesty. last week i asked her about the fact that fbi director comey said that what she had been telling the american people for a year about her private e-mails was untrue. was false. here's how she responded in that interview. >> director comey said that my answers were truthful and what i've said is consistent with what i have told the american people. >> and after independent fact checkers came down on here -- on her, here's how clinton responded to that question on friday.
>> i may have short circuited, and for that, i will, you know, try to clarify. because i think chris wallace and i were probably talking past each other. >> but congressman bacera, she didn't short circuit. and we didn't talk past each other. the problem was that clinton misrepresented what james comey told the american people. >> chris, what director comey told the american people was that after a thorough version by the fbi, that of the more than 30,000 e-mails that hillary clinton had provided for this investigation, that there was no wrongdoing. and -- >> well, no, he didn't say that. that's not even what i'm talking about. what he said was there's not enough grounds to prosecute her. he did stay that she had been extremely careless and negligent, but specifically what he had said that what she had told the americmeramerican peop
the course of the last year was wrong. and let's play what he said on july 7th to congress. >> secretary clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received. is that true? >> that is not true. >> secretary clinton said i did not e-mail anyone classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. is that true? >> there was classified material e-mailed. >> congressman comey directly contradicted what clinton had been telling the american people for a year. >> chris, what you don't also show is director comey also said she had no knowledge of some of those classified e-mails, because they were either not marked or they were not classified at the time, or they were incorrectly marked. so he did come out and say, you don't show that. he did come out and say that she did not know. >> they were marked. >> improperly marked. >> and more importantly, he said, there was classified material that she had e-mailed. >> but she did not know it.
if there were intention to send classified e-mails, the fbi would have pursued it much further. i think you're trying to make more of this than it is. >> she said, i didn't intend to send classified material. she said there was no classified material. >> she has made it very clear that she's looking back at this, she would have done it differently. that she did make some mistakes, but she never intended to send classified information over e-mails. and the fbi investigation confirms that. so while we may want to make more of it, the fact is the fbi has said we should move on and get to real important matters of the country. >> but i think you're missing the genius of her friday comment. now you can say in july to that mother of benghazi, it was a short circuit. you can say, did you forget the 76 secret meetings in the secretary of state's office? no, it was a short circuit. she has a way to say, it wasn't that i lied, it was that i didn't remember what i said. >> after 30,000 e-mails having been disclosed, what we don't yet know is one tax return from
donald trump. we don't know how his wife gained her immigration status, because he won't reveal that either. >> that's not true. >> and it's time for donald trump to start providing one iota of information on his tax returns, which he's never agreed to do. >> first of all, we know that his wife had a green card before she met him. >> how'd she get the green card? >> she came here legally. >> how'd she get the green card? >> she applied for the green card. >> she came her legally. >> before she applied for the green card? >> this is the only immigrant in america you're worried about? i think it's amazing the one person you decided to pick on happens to be the wife of donald trump. >> interesting gnat immigrant barber is unwilling to explain how his wife, an immigrant, got a legal status. >> he's not an immigrant barber. he just likes his immigrants to be legal. >> it's great for misses trump to have her status. but when some guy goes out and
bashes immigrants, not only undocumented, but legal immigrants, and won't explain how her wife got her immigrant status, i think -- >> i think we have made the point. let's turn to the economy. here is what trump says about his plan. >> we're going to cut our taxes for the middle class. we're going to cut our taxes for business we're going to have massive dollars pouring into this country. and we're going to create jobs like we've never seen before. >> but, speaker gingrich, trump would cut taxes $9.5 trillion over the next decade, most of it going to top earners. and adds $11.2 trillion to the debt with unspecified spending cuts. mr. speaker, his numbers don't add up. >> of course not. i mean, i think that historically, no candidate's numbers add up, particularly in the media. but -- >> so you're saying his numbers don't add up, but his -- >> i'm going to have to quote
you on that one. >> all candidates. but, let me give an example. if you open up america's energy and mining opportunities, there's at least $7 trillion in potential additional revenue, just from making it easier to develop our own energy and develop our own resources. there are a number of steps you can take to dramatically decelerate the economy. if you dramatically shrink the 600 new regulations obama has imposed, you have an explosion of small business getting created. in a period of economic growth, such as the reagan area, you, with in fact, do raise a tremendous amount of revenue. >> congressman becerra, you can respond to that, but i also -- >> it's breathtaking. the plan that you just outlined, which sends money mostly to folks at the top have been scored to probably lose about 3.5 million jobs by senator mccain's former economists. it is also very clear that increasing debt, donald trump really meant that he was the,
quote, king of debt. and this is a guy who thinks, and his quote was, wages are too high. the problem in our economy isn't that wages are too high. we've seen a lot of jobs created. some 1,500 jobs created in the last year or so. but the problem is americans haven't seen their wakes go up. >> but president obama's been the president for the last eight years. you make it sound like, you know, somebody has been in charge. and let me ask -- >> jobs are good. what's not good is that we have to see american's wages go up some. that's what we have to work on. >> but the jobs aren't good. the jobs aren't good. you're not get manufacturing back. what you're getting back are bartender -- >> and who outsources jobs, right? >> let me ask you about clinton's numbers, because, in fact, they do add up. she would raise taxes $1.2 trillion. raise taxes, $1 trillion over ten years, most of that on the rich. and even with big new spending programs, adds only $250 billion to the debt. but as i discussed with clinton last week, what it is,
basically, is more of the obama plan. here's that discussion. >> you're offering more government programs -- >> well, but let's -- >> -- more spending, more entitlements, more taxes, more tax penalties and tax credits. >> but let's unpack that. what i'm offering is the biggest job creation program since world war ii. and i hope to be able -- >> but it's infrastructure. that's what obama did. >> but he didn't get to do enough. >> the problem with the weakest recovery since 1949 is that obama didn't get to do enough? >> we didn't invest in our roads and our bridges and our schools the way we should have. >> a $1 trillion stimulus package. >> and only a small portion of that went to infrastructure, to investments in our roads, our bridges, our classrooms. what he's saying, you want to put -- my dad was in construction. construction was the hardest hit industry in the 2008 recession. you put a construction workers to work, you're putting restaurants to work, because somebody has to go get lunch. and you're doing a lot more to
ripple that -- >> just briefly. >> notice what he just said. we had a chance, we had $900 billion, we blew it, but now trust secretary clinton -- >> isn't blowing it. >> a lot of them are not very good jobs and a lot of americans are working part-time. >> only in the world of grinch and republicans would creating 15 million jobs after george bush left the economy hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month. >> you campaign on things that are good enough. we'll campaign on things can get better. we'll see who can win the general election. >> we've got a little bit of time left and i want to get to an important issue. and that, of course, is isis, the external threat. here's what clinton and trump are saying about each other. >> it was hillary clinton that she should get an award from them, as the founder of isis. >> there is no doubt in my mind that donald trump is unqualified to be president and unfit to be commander in chief. >> congressman becerra, we are running out of time. briefly, what is clinton's plan? because i have to say, i don't
understand either of their plans. what is clinton's plan to destroy isis, and why is it better than trump's? >> just as she was there to green light the raid on osama bin laden, just as she was -- >> she didn't green light it, president obama was. >> but she was there to give advice to green light that. she was the one who assembled the coalition that helped stop the nuclear buildup in iran. >> what's her plan to stop isis? >> she's made it very clear. you get tough on them, at the hours. you make sure we're doing everything we can to protect the homeland. >> how is that different from what we've already done? >> what you don't do is you don't call for torture to be used by the u.s. military, you don't cozy up to people like putin and saddam hussein. you don't say, why haven't we been using nuclear weapons, the way donald trump has said. you create stability and partnerships you need. you don't go out there and show you're unfit to be president the way donald trump has. >> so 15 years after 9/11, we're not winning. we're not winning in afghanistan, we're not winning in iraq, we're not winning in syria, we're not winning in
libya, we're not winning in yemen, we're not winning -- >> but that's a knock on our troops. >> no, it's a knock on two administrations -- >> that's a knock on our troops. >> no -- our troops will tell you they're not winning. >> do you think going in again and again -- >> do you think donald trump's going to -- >> attacks a gold star family. what's going on with that? >> look, first of all. he also defends a lot of gold star families. and the fact is -- >> he sure attacked the khan family and went after the mother. >> and mr. khan attacked him pretty tough, too. so politics is a tough business. >> but -- >> he should get out of the kitchen if he can't take the heat. >> for both of them. but the fact is, clinton's got -- disrupting, failing with russia and on iraq, and she will do more of the same failure, including, by the way, paying $400 billion in cash, which the president assures us was not, in fact, in any way a ransom -- >> $400 million and we'll be talking about that. which is a good way to get you
guys off the stage. speaker gingrich, congressman becerra, thank you both. i hope when they have the big debate, the nominees do as well the two of you did. thank you for your time today. up next, we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss both candidates' troubles. they're shaking hands. and new polls that track the changing shape of this race. we're back in a moment.
honestly, i don't care for him much. and i certainly don't trust hillary. >> president obama calling out republicans for supporting trump. and gop congressman mike coffman of colorado coming out against trump in a commercial as part of his campaign for re-election. and it's time now for our sunday group. syndicated columnist, george will. jerold sigh of the "wall street journal." lisa herrera who covers politics for the associated press, and "washington examiner" contributor, lisa booth. well, jerry, how damaging was this week for donald trump and was it irreparable? >> very damaging, but not necessarily irreparable. the number that scared republicans most is that hillary clinton is up nine points, eight points or ten points in other polls. but we have a number that asks people, what kind of congress do you prefer after this election, one controlled by democrats or republicans? a month ago, that was an even question, an even break, 46-46.
now democrats are up by four points. i think what really changed this week was republicans looked at the trump campaign and said, it's in trouble, but you know what, it's the kind of trouble that can drag us down. and now you're seeing a separation in the party. a presidential campaign going this way, congressional election campaigns going that way. >> i want to pick up on that with you, lisa booth. we saw the long, unwinding road that trump went to to finally on friday endorse paul ryan and john mccain and kelly ayotte, after first saying he wouldn't endorse them. we just saw that ad from a republican congressman, running for re-election, beginning it by saying he doesn't like donald trump. how much trouble is trump in with his own party? >> well, that does present challenges for donald trump, obviously. it's not good when your own party is coming out with ads distancing themselves from you. but i think some of the disaster donald trump has faced could potentially have been the best thing that could have happened to him. sometimes candidates need to get their teeth knocked in to force directional changes that are needed for the e beneficial for.
and what we saw in donald trump endorsing paul ryan, senator mccain, and ayotte as well, which is a recognition that he needs the republican party, he needs the republican base to win a general election. what we also have seen, he's hired cam bridge analytics, hiring the firm that was behind brexit, who identified first-time voters and was able to wring them out and get them out to vote. that's a positive step for his campaign. we actually saw the fact that he actually out-raised hillary clinton in direct donations, $64 million to her $63 million. a 69% increase in small-dollar donations, which is a positive step for his campaign. and also, after getting hit with $234 million in radio and tv buys by clinton and her allies, there has been reports that his campaign is finally looking into securing some ad time and ad buys for this election. i think maybe it was a bad couple of weeks. we're all going to agree on that, but perhaps this is sort of the forced change that his campaign needs. >> and then we have hillary
clinton, who by all accounts had a very strong week, until, as we've said on friday, she once again kicked up the controversy over her private e-mails, and what fbi director comey said about them. and last night, donald trump had some fun with how she explained it. here trump is. >> unstable hillary clinton. i think that the people of this country don't want somebody that's going to short circuit up here. >> george, how do you explain hillary clinton and her continuing troubles with the e-mails? >> well, there's no good explanation, which is why they throw a lot of dust in the air. the old saying, in law, if you have the law on your side, you're the law. if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. if you have neither, pound the table. she's in the pounding-table mode at the moment. the question really is, however, does this resonate? have people said, well, we've already made our mind up about
this, for or against her, or with comey or against him. and of i have a doubt as to whether this resonates when people go in the voting booth in november. >> why? >> because it's already baked in the numbers. it's in your poll, which is, they said, not honest and trustworthy. that's largely, not exclusive, but largely related to this, and they've made up their minds. >> so in other words, if you're against her, you already -- whatever your feelings are, you've already baked the private e-mails into it. >> it's unclear how many undecided voters there are in the country. but surely those who are undecided, are not undecided about this. it seems to me people have probably said, if we're for her, we're for her, in spite of that. if we're opposed to her, we're opposed to her because of that. but they've factored it in. >> lisa, how much frustration at clinton headquarters in brook lynn was the fact that she just -- even though that politically or, rather, legally,
she's in the clear, fbi director comey and attorney general lynn say that they're not going to prosecute her, politically, she can't seem to get rid of this. >> and perhaps a surprising twist. folks at campaign headquarters agree with george here. they say this issue is a rorschach test for how voters view clinton. if you don't like her, you like her lest. if you do like her, you think it's a conspiracy against her. but, look, there's little question that this underscores her weakness as a candidate. a campaign is not a court case. public opinion is not a jury. she is unable to provide anything but these very legalistic answers, when this topic comes up. and it continues to be a drag on her campaign. she can't put it behind her. now, look, none of that may matter. donald trump is having problems that may surpass voters' views of this issue, but it is something that could follow her into the white house, should she win. it's hard to get things done when voters don't trust you. and that's exactly what this issue speex to. that weakness of hers. >> let's take a look not at the
national polls, but at swing state polls that came out this week. they were pretty alarming. trump is now down 15 points in new hampshire. down 11 points in pennsylvania. down 9 points in michigan. and down 6 points in florida. gerry, there's even a poll that shows that trump is down four points in reliably red georgia. this is trouble. >> and utah is drifting the other way. the number in that group that ought to worry the trump campaign the most is florida. it's only six. the other numbers are bigger, but for me, it's hard to put together the electoral map that wins for trump without florida. and the fact that he's down there is a bad sign. if he doesn't win florida, it doesn't matter if he wins florida. if he doesn't win florida, he's not going to win pennsylvania. these are all leading indicators. i think the -- i think when you step back from those numbers, one of the things you see is that what happened in the last week was that hillary clinton and the democrats consolidated their base in the wake of their vngs. the republicans went in the
opposite direction. donald trump is bleeding right now among some of his core supporters, white males, non-college-educated voters. these are the people who are the trump voters. that's where he's eroded in the last week or so since the conventions. that also may be the place where it's easiest for him to recover. >> i want to ask you, lisa, about the thing that surprised me most in the previous session debate between gingrich and becerra, that becerra, representing clinton, went after donald trump's wife and her immigration status. were you surprised by that? >> no, because i think this is something that the clinton campaign is starting an attack. we've seen a lot of articles out there questioning her immigration status. and you know, if proven -- if their line of attack proves to be true, that is a very damaging line of attack against donald trump, who has made immigration sort of the central point of his campaign. so, you know, clearly, if there's enough information there, that's going to be devastating for his campaign. so i think it's sort of
incumbent upon the donald trump campaign to prove them wrong and to put that information out there. >> i mean, we should point out that melania, now, as her maiden name, came to this country long before she got involved with donald trump. is this something -- is this a new line of attack from the clinton campaign? >> well, their goal is to make voters think that donald trump the not who he says he is. so he's -- he plays by different rules in his own life than we would as president and his policies. they see that also with his attacks on his outsourcing. he wants to bring jobs to the u.s., but hillary clinton has spent the last week for slamming for making his products overseas and moving jobs to bangladesh and china and all these places. so they're trying to undercut his narrative, undercut his imagine and i think these thoughts play into that. >> final thoughts on melania trump's immigration status? >> they may be trying to do that and they may be trying to provoke him. he is provokable, and when he's
provoked, he goes on twitter, and when he goes on twitter, he says interesting things that take up another two or three days. we're some 90 days away from the election. we're not talking about 1.2% economic growth. we're not talking about the things that might embarrass mrs. clinton. we're talking about something that might detonate an easily detonated candidate. >> and we have to take a break here. we'll see you all a little bit later. up next, questions about that $400 million cash payment to iran. we'll ask senator tom cotton, a leading critic of the iran nuclear deal, was it ransom to free four u.s. hostages? if you have a typical airline credit card, you only earn double miles when you buy stuff from that airline. wait...is this where you typically shop? you should be getting double miles on every purchase! switch...to the capital one venture card. with venture, you earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, everywhere, every day. not just ...(dismissively) airline purchases.
a rolook outside the beltwa at martha's vineyard, where president obama is spending his final summer vacation as commander in chief. now to the $400 million cash payment to iran, which the administration maintains was not ransom, even though the exchange coincided with tehran's release of those four american hostages. let's bring in arkansas senator tom cotton, a member of the armed services committee, and a fierce critic of president obama's nuclear deal. senator, we've known since the formal announcement of the iran
deal last january and the release of the four american hostages, that the u.s. would pay iran $1.7 million as part of a settlement of an old arms deal. so why are you so upset by the revelation this week about this $400 million cash payment to iran? >> chris, it's good to be on with you this morning. at the time, i said that that $1.7 billion payment was a ransom itself. but the administration has consistently stonewalled congress and the american people. we didn't know the cash payment, for instance. we didn't know that it was paid for with bills that can be easily laundered and used for terrorism or support for iran's allies throughout the region. and we didn't know that the department of justice opposed it. i think it's really shocking to most americans that the united states government was acting like a drug cartel, or a third world gun runner, stacking cash on a pallet and wrapping it in cellophane and flying it an unmarked aircraft to give to the
world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. there are a lot of questions left to be answered. >> let me quickly point out, if people are wondering, that you're on the cotton family farm in arkansas. i must say, it looks like a very nice place to be on this sunday. president obama didn't keep it a secret. i mean, he announced last january that we were giving this money to iran. let's look back at what he said. >> the united states and iran are now settling a long-standing iranian claim against the united states government. iran will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest, but much less than the amount iran sought. >> i understand the point you made in your first answer. we're talking about $400 million in cash, we're talked about an unmarked plane, we're talking about the hostages waiting on the tarmac until the plane landed. but you certainly would agree that the administration did not keep this payment, maybe the nature of it, was they didn't keep the payment secret.
>> well, they didn't keep the nature of it -- and when you give $400 million in straight cash, in euro notes, a note notoriously known for drug running, so much so that the european union is taking it out of circulation, that's an important fact for the american people to know. but i said at the time in january paying them $1.7 billion, not money that they deserve or money that they had a right to, on the very weekend that four americans were released from captivity and the nuclear deal was implemented, was a ransom payment. and that would lead to the detention of more hostages in iran, which is exactly what has happened in the meantime. >> now, you've talked about it like a drug cartel, money laundering. former bush attorney general, michael mukasey, was also a former federal judge. had an article this week in the "wall street journal," under the headline, "legal but not right." do you agree that whether you like it or not, the payment was legal, and, what do you plan to do about it, to try to stop this
kind of thing. obviously, you can't undo it, but to try to stop it in the future. >> well chris, lawyers disagree about the legality of it. but in the end, this is not a question of whether this was legal, but it's whether it was smart and if this is the right thing to do to keep american safe. president obama said we don't pay ransom this week. he said this payment was not a ransom. but it doesn't really matter what president obama said. it matters what the iranians think and it matters what dictators and terrorists and gangsters all around the world think. and they clearly think that this was a ransom payment and that if they take an american hostage, maybe they, too, will get a $400 million windfall in 500 euro notes on an unmarked plane. that's why it's so dangerous. >> now -- >> we have to stand up to iran, chris. i've introduced legislation with bob corker and bob menendez and joe manchin called the counteriranian threats act that we need to enact almost as soon as we get back into session, next month, to stop iran's elicit activity and its support for terrorism. >> well, i want to get into the
larger question of iran, because one of the concerns is that iran used this money and the many more billions they had got as part of the nuclear deal to support terrorism. but cia director john brennan staid that that's not true. let's listen to director brennan. >> the money, the revenue that's flowing into iran is being used to support its currency, to provide, you know, moneys to the department agencies to build up its infrastructure. >> is director brennan misleading the american people, senator? >> well, when you give iran more than $100 billion, there's no doubt that some of that money might go into domestic purposes, because a lot of the support for terrorist groups like hezbollah and hamas, may not require that much money. but there's also no doubt, and even senior white house officials have said that some of this money very likely ended up in the hands of terrorist organizations, or the revolutionary guard corps. and it's president obama's own director of national intelligence, iran's behavior in the middle east has gotten worse and more aggressive since the
nuclear deal. it hasn't gotten any better. >> you oppose the iran nuclear deal, as we've said, from the very start. at the time that the deal was announced, the general assessment was that iran was weeks, at the most, months away from breakout, the point at which it would be able to assemble enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb. now most outside experts say they're at least a year away. so the breakout period has been brought back. isn't that a good thing? >> chris, the nuclear deal is still a failure. remember, the fundamental objections of the deal was not that iran would break the deal, but iran would uphold the terms of the deal and they would still be on the path to a nuclear weapon, because we allowed them to keep a vast nuclear infrastructure, in just a matter of years. it only took north korea 12 years from the time we signed a similar deal with them in 1994 to detonate a nuclear weapon. but many other outside experts have said that iran could easily walk away from the deal and turn it back to a few months. and that's because iran is
violating terms of the deal. germany's intelligence service says they've expanded their clan december tine procurement network throughout europe, trying to obtain dual use information. they continue to test ballistic missiles, in violation of associated u.n. security council resolutions. iran is not upholding its end of the deal, but even if they were, the deal would still be fundamentally flowed, because it allows iran to keep a vast, nuclear infrastructure. >> now, donald trump is trying to link hillary clinton to this payment of the $400 million. given the fact that she stepped down as secretary of state three years before any of this happened, is that fair? >> well, hillary clinton was the architect of barack obama's foreign policy in his first term, and much of the groundwork for the negotiations that ultimately culminated in this deal did, in fact, begin, under hillary clinton. >> but you've got to agree, she had nothing to do with the actual payment? >> well, the decision to make this payment, like all decisions
in the end of foreign policy, rest at the feet of barack obama. he's the president of the united states. it's his job to keep our country safe. and i think paying ransom for hostages clearly is not going to keep americans safe, if you see what's happened in iran since we paid that ransfinally, you've b quiet about donald trump, beyond the fact of saying that you support him, given his fight with the khan family, given his comments about russia, given the fact that he has at least raised the possibility we wouldn't come to the aid of some of our nato allies if they were to come under attack, how do you feel about donald trump's readiness to be commander in chief? >> well, chris, i've had my disagreements with donald trump. i have stated them clearly in the past and i will in the future. donald trump might not have said some of those things that you just recounted. but hillary clinton ought not have done the things she's done. she is in no small way responsible for the deaths of four americans in benghazi and she lied to the faces of their families. she set up an unsecured server
in which she used classified information that put americans at risk and then lied about it for a year. and just last week, chris, she's lying about lying. all week long, since you've interviewed her, she's been telling lies about her lies. donald trump ought not to have said some things, but hillary clinton ought not to have done so many things that she's done. >> but in 30 seconds, if i may, are you confident that donald trump is ready to be commander in chief? >> i am confident that if the american people elect donald trump as president and a republican congress, that this country will be safer in the world, our streets will be safer, and we will be more prosperous. >> senator cotton, thank you, thanks for joining us, and enjoy the rest of your day on the cotton family farm in arkansas. >> thanks, chris. up next, we'll bring back our sunday panel to get their take on the $400 million payment to iran and how it will play on the campaign trail. plus, waddle you like to ask the panel about the timing of the payment to iran. coincidental or cash for american captives? go to facebook or twitter or fox
we've just learned about $400 million ransom payment, same day, just a coincidence, right? cash. cash. >> we do not pay ransom. we didn't hear and we don't -- we won't in the future. precisely because, if we did, then we would start encouraging americans to be targeted. >> donald trump and ly at odds week's revelation about that $400 million cash payment to iran last january. and we're back now with a panel. well, george, when is $400 million in cash flown in, in an unmarked cargo plane, with four american hostages, sitting and
waiting on the tarmac. when is that ransom and when is that a coincidence? >> well, to use the term, the optics are not good, as you describe them. senator cotton said the whole $1.7 billion was a ransom. so he thinks it's an illegal claim, i gather. he's a lawyer. driving from a 1970s shah era, arms deal that never was consummated. there is, however, a difference between what looks scandalous and what is actually a scandal. the cash makes it look terrible, because the only reason to want cash is to make it untraceable. they could have done all of this without the plane, without the palettes full of currency -- >> now, wait a minute. because the president says the reason they had to do cash was because of the fact that we have all of these banking restrictions and the sanctions, and if we had tried to do it through a wire, they couldn't have gotten it. >> seems to me they could have found a way to digitally bounce it off somewhere. this is a way of evading the
letter of the law and they could have evaded it in some other way. what struck me as passing strange in the piece we just showed is mr. brennan say, well, they're using this money for infrastructure, child care, for all we know. money is fungible. you give a nation $400 million, that's $400 million -- >> i mean, they've given them over $100 billion. >> but that's money they can use for something else. >> we asked you for questions, for the panel. and we got a bunch like this one. don james tweets, can there be any legal repercussions against potus, president of the united states, for ordering what is obviously ransom. jerry? how do you answer don? >> i don't think so. you know, lawyers, are enmeshed in all of this, but i think the nub of the matter, what you discussed with senator cotton is, is this iran's money or american money. in the view of the administration and most lawyers, this is iran's money. i want goes back to a 1979 deal
in which the iranians bought, under the shah, some fighter jets that were never delivered. the rest is supposed to be interest on that unpaid amount of money that's been sitting in escrow ever since. if it's not taxpayer money, it's hard to see what the recourse is. if it is taxpayer money, you have a different situation. but i think the issue here is not so much the payment, it's the manner and timing of the payment. and underneath all of that is a much bigger issue, which is, is part of this effort to clear the decks with the iranian's nuclear deal, the americans held hostage, and this money, is that going to produce some change in iranian behavior, or is this simply a case in which they're going to pocket what they have, and then move on to the next attempt to get more out of it? that's the real question that hangs in the air here. >> lisa, lara, what makes this even harder for the obama administration to argue is that one of the hostages, pastor say i'm abedini said this weekend that they were sitting there on
the plane waiting to leave, after years of captivity, waiting to leave tehran, for hours, while they were told that they were waiting for another plane to arrive. here is the pastor. >> everyone was ready to leave the country. they said, we are waiting for another plane, and until that plane doesn't come, we never let you go. >> how worried is the clinton campaign that somehow, this washes up on hillary clinton and her stewardship of foreign policy with barack obama and becomes a campaign issue? >> well, frankly, it's not something they've talked about much in the past week, since it sort of became a national issue. she has dismissed it as old news, saying this is something that was publicly announced and that she's very supportive of the nuclear deal and thinks that's the right approach and she'll be very touch in enforcing that deal. i think when you talk to clinton advisers privately, they say that this underscores how donald trump is really not fit to be commander in chief. and they point out several things that happen, which is that he essentially made up facts about this deal. there was no video, as he later
admitted. hillary clinton was, he said that he sort of blamed her for the whole negotiation. that's not quite true. she was out of the state department for 18 months and as george points out, this is a case that dates back to the 70s. and, you know, of course, he claims to have seen these payments happening, but he just didn't see any claim that was secret. it wasn't secret. it was announced on january 17th. so, advisers and surrogates -- >> not the $400 million and tun marked cargo plane? >> right, right. but the fact this agreement and a settlement had been reached. advisers are really focusing on that. that he made up facts, and they had some basis for that. you know, "the post" did an analysis of his description in the video and they said that he said nine untruthful things in 300 words. so, that, you know, that is a concerning attribute in a commander in chief, and that's really what they're focussing on when they talk about -- >> the interesting thing about that, lisa, is that just after trump seemed, for one of the rare times, to walk back and say, well, no, actually, i didn't see video of the cash arriving in tehran, i saw the
hostages get off a plane when they were freed from iran, there was an iranian documentary, which seemed to show cash coming off pallets off a plane. so maybe pallets. >> i don't think he did a good job of explaining that clear i. to senator com cotton's point, he pointed -- it doesn't matter what they believe to be the truth. it mattered the perception of the iranians and other bad actors in the country. that is the big problem here. iran has used this in propaganda video. you look at their own military is saying it was a ransom deal. and they're pointing at the weakness of the obama administration as a result. i think what this does, regardless of the details are, the perception of it is a ransom deal, and i think it continues to undermine what has been, you know, an embarrassing sequence of events since implementation of this deal. you have just two weeks after the deal, iran put ten u.s. sailors on their knees, put guns
at their head and used that as propaganda. we also look in march after the deal, iran thought their third ballistic missile that flies in the face of international law. you look in april, the u.s. made the unprecedented purchase of heavy water, you know, for nuclear purposes. and you go to june and may where we had ben rose admitted to lying about the deal, deceiving the american public. and as in june, the obama administration doctoring video, trying to give the illusion that they didn't lie about the deal in the first place. then we also have the state department once again declared the fact that iran's is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. so we've seen time after time since the implementation of the deal one embarrassment after another, which undercuts the deal, undercuts the obama administration on foreign policy as well as -- >> i think you bring up a very good point. let's get to that, which is forget the deal. we're going to forget about the $400 million over the course of the next couple of months. but the whole question of
engaging iran -- hillary clinton was clearly an architect of that under the order of barack obama -- that is a legitimate issue in this campaign. how do you expect that to play? and, you know, you've got iran continuing to be a bad actor. you've also got them further away from the nuclear weapon than they were when the deal started. >> this is the question that ought to be debated. it's the 10,000 foot question. clearly relations with iran are at some kind of inflection point. the question is does engagement produce over the next ten years a different kind of iran, or does it simply produce the same kind of iran just with more money in its pocket? hillary clinton is going to argue one, and donald trump is going to argue the other. is what we're seeing now in this bad behavior of the iranians, is that simply a predictable reaction by the hard-liners who didn't want the iran nuclear deal from their side at all? is it a last gasp of the hard line or a sign nothing has really changed and will never change? that's the real question that ought to be discussed. >> george, your thoughts?
who's got the better side of this argue president. -- argument? >> that's the problem, there is no overlap between electoral cycle and the cycle of policy. the psychicycle of policy akin t we had in the cold war. we're going to hold the line and wait for internal regime change. it worked. they did that regime change, and the regime disappeared. we're wagering now that a very different kind of regime can be as pliable and changeable as the soviet union was. it's a big wager, and we won't know the answer. >> but your sense, in 15 seconds, are voters going to take the critics' view of this or the clinton/obama view of this? >> i don't think it will matter a lot until there's an event. if there's a terrorist event here or a big one abroad, it will change the campaign dramatically.
here's our power play of the week. >> wake up at 4:15, practice from 5:00 to 6:30, go to school. katie ledecky is discussing her daily schedule, a regimen that has made her arguably the best swimmer in the world. she has no thoughts of slowing down. is that ever too much? >> no. i've gotten used to it. i think the swimming has helped mywork. and the school day always helps my swimming. so it goes both ways, i guess. >> it certainly seems to be working. what world records do you know how old? >> the 400 free, the 800 free, and the 1,500 free. >> that's all? >> yeah. i broke them a few times. >> when we met up almost two years ago, the then 17-year-old had just started her senior year at a private high school outside washington. how tough is it to be a normal teenager? >> it's not tough at all. it's been a lot of fun these past couple years, just swimming and going to school.
>> is there any time for boys? >> no. i don't -- i don't have a boyfriend, and i never have. >> katie started swimming competitively at 6. her enthusiasm stronger than her form. but by the time she was 8, she was starting to win. >> you can improve that time, and that's a result of what you do every day in practice. and i think you can really see the correlation. >> numbers don't lie. >> exactly. numbers don't -- don't lie, and they show what you do in practice. and i like that aspect of it. >> in 2012 at age 15, she made the olympic team, but she was no favorite. >> i would have been happy if i got first or last. i was just really grateful to be at the olympics, and i didn't have many expectations for myself. >> and what happened? >> i won. it was a thrill night. this is the 2012 olympic gold in
the 800. >> may i? it is gorgeous. >> yeah, it's -- >> i mean that's -- >> it's a nice keepsake. >> the keepsake got some company in 2014. five more gold medals from another competition. now katie is back in training, focusing on the olympics. >> i think it's more a time goal rather than i have to make this meet or i have to get these medals. >> so if you met your time goal and finished third, would you be happy or disappointed? >> i would be happy. you can't control what other people are going to do. but i try to set my time goals so that it will put me up there, put me in contention for a medal. >> but ledecky's gold rush will have to wait. she anchored the u.s. team in a relay last night that won silver. she's scheduled to swim in three individual events and one more relay, and she's favored for gold in all of them. now this program note. be sure to tune to fox news