tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News December 4, 2016 11:00pm-12:01am PST
on sunday nights, and she loved weekdays watching outnumbered. i'll see you there for that tomorrow at noon eastern. obje object iified hosted by harvey levin is next. takes a victory lap and previews what's in store when he takes the oath of office next month. >> i'm going to discuss our action plan to make america great again. >> and trump is already acting, intervening to keep jobs in the u.s. and naming a retired marine general to lead the pentagon. >> we are going to appoint mad dog mattis as our secretary of defense. then insults fly when top officials from the clinton and trump campaigns meet at a harvard forum. >> i would rather lose than win the way you guys did. >> no, you wouldn't np.
>> yes. >> we'll get the latest on that and the trump transition live from top adviser kellyanne conway. then jill stein, who is pushing for recounts in three states donald trump won narrowly. it's a fox news sunday exclusive. plus, we'll ask our sunday mantle what democrats should do now after their members in the house refle-elect nancy pelosi their leader. and hour power player of the week. veterans training service dogs and healing themselves. >> the human/animal bond has worked better than any intervention i'm aware of. >> all right now on knfox news sunday. this week donald trump demonstrated for any doubters still out there just how unconventional a president he will be intervening directly to keep a thousand jobs from going to mexico, holding a campaign-style rally where he continued to bash the media, and
holding conversations with foreign leaders that break with decades of u.s. diplomacy. joining me now from trump transition headquarters in new york, kellyanne conway, one of mr. trump's top advisers and, kellyanne, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> thanks for having me. >> let's start with the controversy over the call mr. trump took from taiwan's president, the first time leaders of our two countries have to the best of our knowledge spoken since the u.s. broke off relations in 1979. now, you say that mr. trump was fully briefed, knew what he was doing before this call which raises the question does he intend to change a one china policy which recognizes only beijing? >> well, president-elect trump is well aware of our one china policy. he accepted congratulatory call from the president of taiwan. that's the 48th or 50th world leader that has reached out
since they won the election last month. they talked to the prime ministers or presidents of israel, of singapore, of china -- >> but this one is different. the question is does this signal a change in policy or was it call? >> it is just a phone call at this point. it signals the fact that he accepted a congratulatory call. i know snchina has a perspectiv on it, i know the white house has a perspective on it and certainly taiwan has a perspective on it. the president-elect's prote perspective is he accepted a call. people shouldn't read too much in it. some of the press coverage, not here necessarily, is really astonishing when you think about how it was covered when barack obama was going to try to reach out to iran and come up with an iran nuclear deal. this man received -- the president-elect received a phone
call from someone -- from a world leader in another country. we know about one china. he knows about one china. he's routinely briefed on these matters and that's just what it is. >> let me ask you about this and i think one of the reasons such a big deal was made of it is because of the fact that the president-elect has had a number of controversial phone calls with foreign leaders. he reportedly told pakistani program sharif he would, quote, play any role you want me to play to address and find solutions to the country's problems despite their relationship with terrorists. he spoke with president duterte who has been accused of ordering the murder of thousands of suspected drug dealers which raises the question, kellyanne, why is mr. trump refusing the state department's offer to brief him before these calls and why is he skipping the daily briefings, intelligence briefings, that president obama gets every day? >> he is not always skipping
those briefings and he's briefed by any number of credible sources on these issues, and i think people, chris, frankly, are cherry picking about these world leaders and then they're accusing the president-elect of countenancing some of the behaviors in these other places. it's really unfair when you think that we just had an election and the opponent, hillary clinton, was using the state department to get money from foreign governments like saudi arabia which doesn't even respect girls and women. so it's -- i think people just have their hair on fire, particularly those who believe we're still entrenched in the permanent campaign are trying to reverse the election results. let's give this man time to form his cabinet and he's also showing respect to the current president, president obama, who still is the president for about 6 1/2 more weeks and the commander in chief certainly. he's not out there -- president-elect trump is not out there making policy or announcing new policy prescriptions worldwide. he's merely taking phone calls,
and he will, i'm sure, re-engage with many of these leaders once he takes the oath of office. >> speaking of people with hair on fire, last week you went on several of the other sunday talk shows to express the concern of trump supporters about the consideration of mitt romney as secretary of state. here is a clip. >> i'm hearing from people who say, hey, my parents died penniless but i gave $216 to donald trump's campaign and i would feel betrayed. >> i know that you say mr. trump gave you permission, but there's a bigger question which is, is that a proper way to treat somebody who is talking about accepting a role in public service? >> well, first, the president-elect has satisfied he gave me permission, he's quoted in "the new york times" and elsewhere saying that's true. i would not say something publicly i hadn't expressed privately and i would
purposely embarrass him -- >> i'm not talking about mr. trump. i'm talking about mr. romney. is that an appropriate way to treat a guy who is just discussing public service to say people are going to feel betrayed? >> well, first of all, i'm reflecting the news, not trying to make the news. i was astonished, chris, that in a week when president-elect trump told "the new york times" on the record he would relook at waterboarding, relook at the paris accords on climate change, he was not particularly interested in focusing on prosecuting hillary clinton any further because he was focused on health care and immigration, he understands other agencies and individuals are charged with that responsibility, but in a week when he said that, the breathtaking backlash was really about this particular prospective cabinet member. i would turn the question around and say was it appropriate for governor romney to stick his neck out so far in attacking donald trump and never walking it back and never encouraging people to support the nominee
once mr. trump has won the nomination squarely and fairly? so i have spoken my piece on that and certainly the president-elect knows and i said publicly and i will say here again, whatever he chooses and whomever he chooses has my full support and backing and he know that is. >> let me just quickly follow up on that. clearly romney is under consideration. we just showed a picture of them having dinner on tuesday night. if mr. trump picks romney, what are you going to say to those trump supporters who are going to feel betrayed? >> i'm going to say what i say to those who did not vote for the new president-elect, chris, who -- some of whom seem to have a problem accepting the fact he's their judgment. the man is brilliant. the man is the best negotiator. he's the best connector and communicator obviously. he just pulled off the upset of the century perhaps, and the fact is that you have to trust his instincts and his judgment because it's what brought so many people along to his
movement in the first place and it certainly is what inspires me daily to work with him. so everyone i hope will accept that and the president-elect and the president-elect alone will make the decision as to whom he should have serving him at the highest levels of government. >> let's talk about mr. trump's instincts because he went to indiana this week to celebrate after his intervention the fact that carrier is going to keep a thousand jobs in the state. here he is. >> companies are not going to leave the united states any more without consequences, not going to happen. it's not going to happen. >> but in an editorial friday with the headline trump's carrier shakedown, "the wall street journal" said america won't become more prosperous by forcing companies to make noneconomic investments. a nation gets rich when individuals and business are allowed to take risks as they see fit in a competitive economy. kellyanne, i don't have to tell
you that's the conservative view of how a free market works and that politicians shouldn't be picking winners and losers. sarah palin called this an example of crony capitalism. >> the president-elect just simply disagrees, and if you look at what happened, this is what leaders do. certainly what people who have been wildly successful in building businesses across the globe, as the president-elect has been. you produce. you deliver. you achieve results. everybody looks at the result here which is 1,100 workers are going to stay in indiana. his running mate, the vice president-elect, is the governor of indiana. i think together they worked with carrier, and, you know, everybody looks at it as a stick. there are carrots here. they worked with carrier. it's astonishing to see this happen. the current president could have done it, he never did it. the president-elect did it even before he's sworn in. $7 million in incentives, they
carry over ten years. about $700,000 per year in incentives. that's about $785, maybe $800 per worker. people have to put this in perspective before they act like it's a big footed int eed inter. he ran on this interest day one and he's already delivered. harvard's institute of politics holds a forum every four years where representatives of the winning and losing campaigns get together and try to have a kind of academic review of what happened and why one side won, one side lost. well, it wasn't that way this year. it got pretty ugly and here are some of the exchanges between you and clinton communications director jennifer palmieri. >> do you think i ran a campaign where white spram cysts had a platform. are you going to look me in the face and tell me that? >> it did. it's providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a
brilliant tactician, i'm glad to have lost. i'd rather lose than win the way you guys would. >> no, you wouldn't. >> yes. >> that's very clear today. no you wouldn't, respectfully. >> what did you take away from that? >> well, the rest of the exchange was me telling her and her team as politely as i could that you missed america. all you needed to do was recognize that a lot of voters had a very hard time accepting hillary clinton as this outsider disrupter who ethically clean and would treat all americans fairly. that had an aspirational campaign, that had an economic message. they can say what they want about me and my team. we've got very broad shoulders over here as you can imagine. but to besmirch over 60 million hard working men and women in this country who became part of the trump movement, to pretend that donald trump was not out there every single day, chris,
sometimes four or five, seven stops in a single day bringing his case directly to the american people and saying what to them? that we're going to reform the veterans administration which leaves veterans to die. that we're going to stand behind law enforcement and the thin blue line. that he's going to create 25 million jobs over ten years. have an infrastructure program. repeal and replace obamacare which has really reduced the quality and the choice and the access and increased the price of health care for many americans, left others behind. that he's going to defeat radical islamic terrorism and president obama saying they're the jv team that's been brushed back. nobody believes that. to besmirch those voters is beyond the pale. that's a 2 1/2 hour forum. i had already credited them as brilliant strategists, as people i respect. that was all done. but there was no grace. there would say no congratulations from them. and there's no self-awareness
they lost the election because they missed america. they blame bernie sanders. they blame jim comey. it's typical of hillary clinton. and hillary clinton's world, it's always somebody else's fault. >> all right. one last thing. i'm glad to see that this was such an academic discussion. finally, we're going to in a couple moments have jill stein on the program, the green party presidential nominee who is pushing recounts in wisconsin, in michigan, in pennsylvania. what do you say to her about those efforts? >> i say to her give it up as it seems like you're doing in pennsylvania for a very simple reason -- even your friends in the clinton campaign have admitted that these recounts will not change any result. hillary clinton gained a whopping one vote, chris, one, and so i read one article that said at this pace hillary clinton could change the election results in wisconsin in 74 1/2 years. i don't think america is going to sit around and wait for that to happen. the people have spoken. i was asked on this program and
many others will you accept the election results? so the question for jill stein and hillary clinton and those who just are still in the grief, anger, and denial stages, will you start moving over to acceptance and let this president-elect and vice president-elect get on with the business of government, have a peaceful transfer of power. the other thing is i'm just astonished how jill stein is now the favorite flavor of the left. they ignored here and ridiculed here and -- >> i have to cut you off so i can get her on the show. >> go ahead. wish her well for me. it's good to be gracious and to admit what you see in front of you. in this case donald trump won 306 electoral votes, 30 of 50 states, 2600 counties. it wasn't even close. >> thank you. thanks for your time today. >> thanks, chris. up next, we'll bring in our sunday group. plus what would you like to ask the panel about trump's deal with carrier to keep 1,000 jobs
here? just go to facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday and we may use @foxnewssunday and we may use your question on the air. i thought my bladder leakage meant my social life was over. wearing depend underwear has allowed me to fully engage in my life and i'm meeting people. unlike the bargain brand, depend fit-flex underwear is more flexible to move with you. reconnect with the life you've been missing. get a free sample at depend.com.
they say it's not presidential to call up these massive leaders of business. i think it's very presidential and if it's not presidential, that's okay because i actually like doing it. >> donald trump speaking at the carrier plant in indianapolis this week after working out a deal to keep a thousand jobs there from moving to mexico. and it's time now for our sunday group. monica crowley. fox news political analyst juan williams. lisa lara and from "the wall
street journal" kimberley strassel. kim, you're a member of that "wall street journal" editorial board that -- >> guilty. >> -- wrote that editorial that we just talked to kellyanne conway about, the carrier shakedown. what about the argument that, look, this was a powerful, symbolic message that president trump is going to have american workers' back and when he gets into office in a month that then he can begin macro economic changes like cutting taxes and rolling back regulation? >> i agree with all of that. i think politically this was very, very smart. this was a campaign promise he made and he fulfilled it. i'm just saying economically this is not really the way you want to run an economy. we just had a president who for eight years decided they were going to politically allocate capital in the country, pick winners and losers. we were very critical of him for doing that, solyndra, et al. this is a similar version of this. these companies are not leaving the united states because they're anti-american or they want to stick it to indiana.
they're following the laws of economics, too expensive to do business here. so mr. trump has a choice. he can go from company to company, thousands of them and sort of beat all of them into submission and threaten them with tariffs or focus, and i think this is what he is going to do, on macroeconomic policy like cutting taxes and cutting back -- >> but he is also talking about tariffs and punitive taxes. in fact, we should say he's on a twitter storm this morning and he's talking about th going to t the long-term economy and how you keep businesses here, there's i think a real risk here that if you start doing that and saying that, people aren't going to build their businesses in the united states in the first place because they will be too worried about what they have to do if they want to leave, and so this is just -- this is something governors do. the president of the united states has more resources to do bigger policies. >> i want to play another clip from mr. trump's speech at that cincinnati rally on thursday night. here it is. >> the era of economic surrender
is over. we're going to fight for every last american job. it's time to remove the rust from the rust belt and usher in a new industrial revolution. we're going to do it. >> we ask you for questions for the panel, and we got this one on twitter from someone named steelers slob. for taxpayers, is it better for the government to assist businesses or is it better for the free market to weed out the weak? we should point out this all happened on the same way that the employment rate hit a night-year low of 4.6% but how do you answer steeler slob? >> well, i think -- >> and i want you to use his name in answering. >> well, steeler slob, i think a lot of people in washington would pick the latter, would say the free market and you see that in the reaction to this carrier deal. it wasn't just "the wall street journal" editorial board, so did bernie sanders, so do laid larr
summers, sarah palin. what washington can take away from this decision is that this is a new brand of politics. this is trumpism, not republicanism. i think that's certainly sending a little bit of a chill and a little bit of a sense of foreboding up to capitol hill up there because people don't quite know what they can expect other than something fairly unpredictable. >> monica, i want to turn to another subject i talked about with kellyanne and that was trump's phone calls with foreign lead effort leaders, especially with the president of taiwan. should he be better briefed, should he be accepting state department briefings, should he be taking the presidential daily brief that most president-elects usually get every day and mike pens is apparently getting every day should he be getting all the briefings he can before he steps into this world? >> the president-elect is getting regular briefings from people he trusts, experts like general flynn who will be the incoming national security
adviser. he's incredibly well briefed before he takes these phone calls. the phone call with the taiwanese president was a congratulatory phone call. it was only about ten minutes. they discussed a range of issues, but i think donald trump was elected not to reinforce the status quo but to shake up the status quo, to challenge the conventional ways of doing things. this conversation -- donald trump understands one china policy very well. there will be plenty of time to discuss the whole range of issues regarding china and the pacific rim once he is sworn in. but what he also understands is that this is important for the president-elect and then the president of the united states to stand for freedom and to stand with those who challenge those who would oppress them and that includes the chinese government. so i don't know what his policy will be with regard to china once he is president of the united states, but what i do know is he felt that it was incredibly important to send a signal that, yes, that he will take a whole new look at the
range of issues. >> so, juan, are you persuaded by monica or -- i mean, is the media making too big a deal of these phone calls? >> no. but let me just say i think to his supporters there's not much that donald trump can do at this point that would cause them some offense. the idea is that we shouldn't take him literally, that he's acting on a symbolic level whether it's with carrier or with the phone calls. the problem is that in terms of the journalism, the intelligence community, the national security community, the diplomatic community here in washington is alarmed by this. we have a one china policy. this has been in place since richard nixon. so suddenly go outside of that, you mentioned not taking the daily briefings but it's also not been consulting with the state department about how do i prepare to talk if i'm deciding i'm going to do this, that i'm going to change the policy, how do i talk to this person in an effective way. we have seen china file a formal complaint about the call, so clearly it's had an impact there
even if i was to sit here and say to you no big deal. it's having an impact in terms of our global relationships and going forward there are questions about, well, what about his business dealings? as you know, it came up this week so you have ethics people here in washington saying, oh, well, he should make sure that he is totally divested, but trump has not agreed to that, and when he's meeng with prime minister abe of japan and brings in his daughter when he's talking to the british about windmills near his golf courses, people are like what is going on here? >> well, i think this uproar is totally overwrought. a lot of this is being driven by state department functionaries who are very unhappy that donald trump is not coming to them and they're not being allowed to formulate all american policy. by the way, that was what he was elected to do to a certain extent. the think the other point is that you got to look at what donald trump says and also what he does. to me the far more important message that got sent this week to the world was the appointment
and the naming of mad dog mattis as secretary of defense. now, if i was pyongyang or tehran this is what i would be paying attention to. this is a clear-eyed general who is going to be a lot tougher than this current administration. >> lisa, i want to get to you because you were at this forum at harvard about rehashing the campaign. how ugly did it get? >> it got pretty ugly. i think it's important to talk about what this normally is. this is normally a very stayid affair where the campaign managers sip coffee and eat canapes while they -- >> canapes, these good right there. >> as they discuss their strategy for the historical record. that's not what this was. this felt like a collective nervous breakdown. it wasn't just ugliness between the two campaigns who really were reduced to shouting on numerous occasions at each other. republican campaign managers heckled cnn president jeff
zucker. pollster nate silver came in for some heckling. there was a lot of tension and i think it really shows how raw these divides still are and it sends a little foreboding sign for our politics going forward. it doesn't feel like there's going to be an awful lot of kumbaya moments in our future but maybe we'll all be pleasa pleasantly surprised. >> monica, are you surprised the clinton camp are still so bitter? they are extremely bitt. i talked so tto some on the camn and i think they're surprised it still is so raw. donald trump's message was he was going to try to unify the country. i think the one way, the most effective way for him to do that is to create a booming economy. if the economy is roaring, that will likely silence a lot of his critics. >> panel, we have to take a break. when we come back, president-elect trump's allies go to court to block vote recounts in three states. we'll talk with green party
a look outside the beltway of des moines, iowa, where president-elect trump is set to take his thank you tour next thursday. well, the election cycle that seemed like it would never end technically still hasn't. a recount is currently under way in wisconsin about additional challenges in michigan and pennsylvania. joining us now to discuss her push for the recounts is green party presidential nominee dr. jill stein. dr. stein, you say that your goal here is not to change the results of the election but to ensure the accuracy of the count. my question is why then did you choose three states that mr. trump won narrowly but not a state that secretary clinton won much more narrowly, new hampshire, which she won by only 3,000 votes?
>> we didn't go into new hampshire mainly because the deadline for filing a recount had passed, but, in fact, at the time that we launched the recount, two of the states had gone to donald trump. michigan was still uncertain as to which direction it would go, and as far as i'm concerned if we do find evidence that there's a systemic problem here with these machines which are extremely unreliable, prone to error, human error and machine error, as well as hacking and security breaches, if we find evidence there's a systemic problem, we need to expand the recount in my view. that's what the american voters are calling for, an election result and a voting system that we can have confidence in. >> let me ask you a question -- down the largest switch of votes in a recount in american political history? >> well, i can tell you one, for example, in toledo in 2004. there were 90,000 votes that were marked blank which were discovered actually not to be
blank at all, and those -- when a hand recount was done. it would have been enough to change the outcome in ohio. um unfortunately, that wasn't found until after the election was called. >> let me tell you, the biggest actual switch of votes in any election in u.s. history was back in 2000 when roughly 1200 votes were switched from bush to gore. we're talking about throw states, michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin that donald trump won by more than 10,000 votes. there's not a chance in the world here, dr. stein, that the vote is going to change in those -- >> actually in michigan -- chris, actually in michigan there are 75,000 votes which are blank which are sky high compared to all other past elections. they are concentrated in detroit. that's 75,000 votes which may very well be machine error or human error. that is about seven times the
margin of difference in michigan. so these results could, in fact, change the outcome, but we don't know that until we actually examine the evidence, and that means a hand recount of the ballots -- >> but it's never happened. there's never been a 70,000-vote switch. the most is 1,247. >> that's actually not true. if the recounts were gone in time, they could affect 90,000 and -- >> i'm talking about recounts that actually happened, not one that is could have happened. >> that's because we don't do them and, in fact, we should do them. that's how we ensure that we have a system we can trust, and right now as you know, chris -- >> let me ask you, dr. stein -- >> this trust is running wild. we need to address the fundamental concerns that the american voters are expressing. >> dr. stein, let's talk about what a lot of people think is the real point here, and that is let's take a look at how much money you raised in your presidential runs.
in 2012 you raised $893,000 in your presidential campaign. in 2016 $3.5 million, but for this recount you have raised more than $6.5 million from almost 140,000 donors. isn't that what this is really about, dr. stein? using this recount to raise lots of money and build your list of supporters? >> let's be very clear. this money is going strictly into a segregated account which can only be spent on the recount. so this money is entirely, will be completely used and we'll be lucky if we can cover the costs at the rate that there is a bait and switch going on here. in wisconsin we just saw this cost triple. so to my mind it really underscores why we need a fundamentally secure voting system that has built-in safeguards that should have automatic audits, recounts. we need to get rid of these voting machines, these
electronic touch screens which have been proven highly vulnerable to tampering, to hacking, to human and machine error. >> so the fact you have 140,000 donors is purely coincidental, dr. stein? >> well, put it this way -- the american people have made it very clear what they want done here. chris, coming out of this election, 80% -- >> wait a minute. i don't think -- where do you get off saying the american people -- where do you get off saying that the american people are calling for this? i think the vast majority of the american people think we should accept the result of the election. >> 80% of americans said that they were disgusted with this election and we -- >> i don't think that -- given the choice they had, i don't think it was the system or -- >> in is a time that people have an entire loss of faith in our political institutions. the way that the money is coming in from small donors makes it very clear, and, in fact, polls, a poll just last week showed the american people support the
recount and that they feel that if donald trump was in the reverse position, he would be doing exactly the same thing. remember, he said that it was a rigged system and that he was not going to accept the result. he has articulated what many americans feel. it's time to respect the views of the american voter and ensure that we have a -- >> some would say that the views of the american voter were that donald trump was elected president. you've now decided -- >> well, remember -- >> if i may ask my question -- >> -- by the electoral college -- >> you have decided to go to the federal court to try to get a recount in pennsylvania after the state court said that you would have to post or your supporters would have to post a $1 million bond and you said they can't afford that. you will hold a news conference tomorrow in front of trump tower. what does he got to do with it? >> we want to hold this conference where america will see that we are standing up for everyday americans who do not have confidence in this election system, who have lost confidence actually in our political
system, and we are standing up loud and strong to say that we will not be intimidated. we will not be frightened by having to jump through all these legal hoops. we say what is donald trump frightened of because he is delaying -- >> how many votes did you get -- dr. stein, how many votes did you get in that election z? >> how many votes did donald trump got? >> he got 62.5 million votes. >> he got less votes than hillary clinton. >> he got 62.5 million votes. how many votes did you get, dr. stein? dr. stein, could you answer the question? >> you dot know until you look at the evidence -- >> how many votes did you get? >> i am not the -- i am not going to be the beneficiary of this juan wone way or the other. gee got 62.5 million votes. how many did you get? >> it's not about me. >> if you're speaking for -- >> this is not about donald trump. it's not about hillary clinton. it's not about my campaign. it's not about gary johnson. this is about the american voter
who deserves to have a voting system we can trust. when something like 75,000 votes in detroit may, in fact, be an error because -- why would people come out in detroit, fill in all the other positions but not vote for president. >> dr. stein, let me ask you -- >> it's a little bit suspicious. we deserve to know what's going on because that could, in fact, change the outcome of the vote in michigan. >> in the third presidential debate, dr. stein, i asked donald trump whether he would accept the results of the election and the principle of the peaceful transfer of power. here is what he said. >> are you saying you're not prepared now to -- >> what i'm saying is that i will tell you at the time. i'll keep you in suspension, okay? me respond to that because that's horrifying. you know, every time donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him. >> dr. stein, at that time a lot of liberals' heads exploded because donald trump wouldn't accept the results of the election. aren't you doing precisely that
right now? aren't you doing exactly what hillary clinton called horrifying? >> i am not here to help hillary clinton or to express her point of view. in my view the recount should have happened in the democratic primary as well where there were also very suspicious results, where voters appeared to be stripped from the rolls in brookl brooklyn. where hundreds of thousands of votes went uncounted in california. this is not about helping democrats, it's not about helping -- >> i didn't ask you that. that's not the question i asked you, dr. stein. >> this is the question though that the american -- sgr >> i said why not accept the results of the election because what you're doing is exactly what hillary clinton said was horrifying. >> i don't care what hillary clinton thinks about this and i don't care -- i care what the voters think about this not what the politicians or the pundits or the party operatives think about this. this is about responding to the american voters who are standing up and saying, we deserve an election system that we can trust and that is accurate, that is secure against hacking,
against human error, against machine error, and that -- which the votes are being counted because right now it's not clear that all the votes are being counted. we deserve that so we can go forward with an election system that we can trust. >> dr. stein, thank you. thanks for joining us today and we'll stay on top of the recount. up next, we'll bring back the panel. what's next for the democrats after nancy pelosi was re-elected to lead her party in the house? plus, what do you think? why are democrats sticking with pelosi despite their election losses? let me know on facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday and use the hash tag
everyone together as we go forward. >> congresswoman nancy pelosi reacting to her re-election as house minority leader after beating back a challenge from ohio congressman tim ryan. we're back with the panel. house democrats have had a bad run under pelosi. after the 2008 election when barack obama won, they held 257 seats in the house, but after this election on another 8th, they now hold 194. that's a loss of 63 seats. juan, how do you explain given that record house democrats putting her back as their leader? >> she's a tremendous fund-raiser. there's just no question about it. secondly, in this environment where you just had potentially the first woman for president defeated on the democratic side, i think women on the hill have rallied to her support and so much of the base of the party in congress comes from california, the west coast, and the east coast. so she's there for them. she'll do it. tim ryan, who was running against her, as you pointed out
from ohio, said he could reach out, do better with blue collar voters, but, in fact, his legislative record is not that distinct. if you look at pelosi, jim clyburn, steny hoyer, these are politicians in their 70s who have suffered defeat after defeat and the decimation of democrats on capitol hill and also, by the way, in state governments around the country. also another point to be made is the people who vote democratic these days millennials, they voted overwhelmingly for hillary clinton and yet they don't see it represented in this leadership in their 70s and who don't seem to be in touch with the new, more vibrant message. more of that kind of energetic ashth vism. >> you're saying they did it for the old reasons, the old-fashioned inside political reasons but in terms of appealing to the country in the future, not so smart. >> not so smart and the question is how do you then get this older group that's ensconced and
has the money because you're going to have to rebuild the party. there's an agreement about who is going to run the democratic national party. the question is how do you rebuild and what is the message going forward? just sitting on the sidelines going forward as a journalist, i don't see these folks as the ones you would want to entrust with that new message. >> it was clear from this election that house democrats do not have a message that resonates with millions of american voters, millennials, working class, rural. why do you think they kept pelosi? >> part of this is nancy pelosi's failure for all of those reasons have solidified her role there. at this point one-third of all house democrats hail from just three states in the country, new york, massachusetts, and california. everyone that was an opposing voice in that caucus has been driven out of the party, lost elections because of the very liberal governance of nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama.
so there are no voices left. of course they re-elected her because this is what's left of the party believes that nancy pelosi is correct even though she's 4 for 4 out there. it was amazing, when i listened to that har regavard forum, the extraordinary thing was democrats with their heads in the stand about why they lost it, they believe it was jim comey, that the media was mean to them. they lost because people disagree with their policies. >> let's talk about another potential face of the democratic party and that's the front-runner to be the new chair of the democratic national committee, congressman keith ellison, the first muslim elected to congress. monica, the anti-defamation league says that a speech that ellison made in 2010 in which he basically said u.s. foreign policy is run out of israel, they call that speech, quote, disqualifying. so what does it say that he may be the front-runner to be the face of the democratic party? >> and that's one problematic
example with representative ellison. in addition, in the past he's called for a separate black state in america and he also has very close ties to c.a.r.e. which some argue may be a front group to the muslim brotherhood. he's very far out there on the left, and the fact that the democratic party is now serio seriously considering him as their head tells me where the party is. this is no longer bill clinton's democratic party. this is barack obama's democratic party. obama over the last eight years has taken the party and moved it from center left to the far left. it turns out the coalition that elected him and re-elected him was unique to him and that without him on the ticket, they suffered massive losses, 2010, 2014, and now 2016, and a big part of this with the carrier deal and so on is that democrats have ignored, blown off, disrespected the working class and it's not the first time they
have done this. these people these people who came out for donald trump, a lot of them independents and democrats, disaffected from their own party came out for richard nixon if in 1968 '72. and came out for ronald reagan and the democratic party leaves behind barack obama and they're going to continue to suffer these kind of eleg -- >> what do you make of jill signs recount effort? >> hillary clinton's campaign did extensive assessment of voting irregularities. they brought in technologists, all kinds of people and found no evidence of any kind of systemic flaw in the system whether it's hacking or failed machines or anything like that. so this is a very, very unlikely to change the results of this election. you have to wonder why is jill stein pursuing this so hard?
the integrity of our elections is very important. but i think this is good business for jill stein even though the money is in a separate account. she compiles a list of supporters that she can take. that's what third parties need, to build up their brand. on the flip side, donald trump is acting aggressively to stop the recounts. you have to wonder why he's doing that as well given it's unlikely to change the outcome. in the words of a disney princess, you just wonder why he doesn't just "let it go". >> wow. that's a first. >> you know, he's creating a certain amount of smoke as well that i think could make people wonder whether there's something real here. they may find some irregularities but unlikely to have an impact on who the president is going to be. >> i think that the real seasan to your question would be building a third party stronger.
she said the money is segregated but i think you'll find that once we'll beyond this she's going to say the green party is stronger and the voice of people who were bernie sanders supporters on the left and we are building a structure that will allow us to be a success and that would be a successful third party operation in 2020. >> and sending lawyers to monitor is one thing and to stop it completely is another. >> it would be criminal malpractice for donald trump not to take this seriously. look, there's one reason jill stein is doing this. she was just on our show. that's more time she's had. >> we had her before. >> look, this is jill stein's moment, building for the next presidential race. >> it would be political malpractice not for donald trump to try to resist this. the recount is pointless people say but the whole point is to try to delegitimize it.
>> oh, c'mon. >> i'm glad we got this much discussion about jill stein. the only time that my grand daughter will have understood anything said. up next, our power player of the week. puppy love. how veterans train therapy dogs and in the hey, need fast heartburn relief? try cool mint zantac. it releases a cooling sensation in your mouth and throat. zantac works in as little as 30 minutes. nexium can take 24 hours. try cool mint zantac. no pill relieves heartburn faster. tit's what's inside the person insidwho opens it. give ancestrydna, the simple dna test that can reveal their ethnic origins. order now at ancestrydna.com and save 10%.
warrior canine connection, a unique program that taps into the healing power of dogs. disabled veterans have been getting service dogs for decades. >> good girl! >> he decided who better to train those dogs than other vets suffering from post traumatic stress or brain injury. >> the human/animal bond has worked better than any other intervention. >> better than drugs or talking? >> yes. i was asked how soon does it take for you to see effect in the service members you're working with. it's usually about five minutes. >> good boy! >> retired army specialist christian was injured in afghanistan in 2013. his nurse said training dogs like cody could help him. >> depression, anxiety, ptsd. i didn't want to socialize w she said try the service dogs program. >> good job! yes, good boy! >> he says in teaching the dogs
starting as puppies the vets teach themselves, that the world is a safe place. >> these veterans have to challenge their intrusive thoughts. that the dumpster door slam was an ied. no just a dumpster door. >> he recalls one story. >> the patients learning to train this dog has saved my marriage. >> he was a social worker 20 years ago when he brought his job on a job, driving a child to foster care. the crying stopped. >> the 4-month-old golden retriever puppy with a boy petting this dog. >> he uses gabe's 12-year-old son huff for therapy. >> since he was 12 weeks old he started working with folks and he is still doing it today. >> at any one time the
warrior/canine connection has 30 vets training dogs at four sites across the country. he says the dogs can tell their trainer's emotional state. >> if the leg is bouncing we train the dogs to lay their head on the veteran's leg and we train the veteran to keep the training going and pet the dog. >> over the last five years almost 4,000 vets have helped train these dogs and he says helped heal themselves. >> i know this has been a difference between life and death by many of the veterans, no question about it. one marine took ten different medications and couldn't sleep. we had the dog stay overnight. the first night, he had six hours straight through. >> he wants to scale up the program to serve 48,000 vets over the next ten years and open ten new sites. 70% of the funding comes from private donations. if you want to learn more, go to our website, foxnewssunday.com.
that's it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next fox news sunday. eeeeee with -- and intense. >> thank you so much. >> believe me. his campaign was unlike any other. ♪ >> when mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. they're bringing drugs. they're bringing crime. they're rapists. >> and he was written off as soon as he began. >> the republican party is not going to nominate donald trump. >> i think this is a stunt for attention. >> yet, overlooked americans were getting on board. >> i hope he can save my job. >> we need someone to take a sledgeham tore this [ bleep ]. >> and in the end donald trump beat the odds. >> this election year's not about ideology. it is about insurgency. >> t