tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News December 25, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm PST
"government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul. a pair of attacks this week capping off a bloody year in europe. isis claimed responsibility for the deadly truck rampage at a christmas market in berlin monday. while russia's ambassador to turkey was assassinated by a lone gunman who shouted in arabic, god is great and don't forget aleppo. don't forget syria. in this week's violence adding to the wave of attacks including the march bombings at the brussels airport and the truck attack in nice, france. joining the panel this week, dan
henninger, jason riley, and mary o'grady and bill mcgurn. dan, i remember we had a visitor from the counterterrorism group in the white house a couple months ago telling us this person telling us on background that they were concerned about europe. now we see it manifesting itself here at the christmas season. >> absolutely, paul. i was thinking very much the same thing. it was just a month ago, recall, that the pentagon made it known that they were going to move on an invasion of raqqa which is the islamic state head quarters in syria. this is a time when the iraq army and the coalition partners were trying to retake mosul. i thought that's a lot to bite off at the same time. but the pentagon said back then that they were concerned that the islamic state was going to try to project terror into
europe and elsewhere, and clearly they were right. not merely europe. yemen and jordan have both experienced terrorist attacks in the last week. obviously the west has to be on alert. the german situation raises the questions of if, in fact, some of these western societies are adequately sensitive to the nature of the attack. >> well, and i think that in germany in particular, jason, you have a couple of problems. when is the migration issue. angela merkel, the chancellor brought in a million refugees from north africa and syria. a your ago two years ago, and some of those terrorists seem to have slipped in. and then you also have the problem of the germans don't do very well from all reports on surveillance, and intelligence. >> so far germany had avoided the fate of france and brussels and some other places. but not this time. and this was the softest of soft targets. a christmas marketplace visited
not only by native germans but tourists alike. this is a huge blow for the terrorists there. angela merkel herself remains popular. she's well above 50% but the refugee policy isn't popular. around 80% of germans want more restrictions. she's going to be coming up for a fourth term. that's not until the fall. there is time for her to deal with this situation. something like this does not help. and you have to think there will be pressure on her to reform this policy. >> for all her popularity, and it's true, i think this is the sort of thing that could topple here, mary. >> she started back pedaling in the spring, actually, about the immigration policy. the fact of the matter is that these incidents happen with home grown terrorists as well as with migrants. i think the point about intel surveillance, yes, vetting migrants is important and germany took a huge number
relative to the size of the country. but in the end, really, this is something that is going to have to be fought in the middle east. the wins of isis or the potential or the perception that isis is winning is very empowering for terrorists in the west, and i think that's what germany and the u.s. have to work on is action in the middle east. >> and on that point, the ankara murder, that's really the one consequence of syria. obviously the terrorist is responsible, but germany has not done very much at all to help us and help in syria or the middle east, because they just don't want to participate in any military operation. >> i think further to mary's point, what we're seeing in europe is the failure of middle eastern policy. even the most generous country cannot take everyone from all the disruptions there. and we need a reasonable level
of stability in the middle east. a lot of people have washed their hands of it. and syria is the best example. and to mary's point, for the united states there's a lot of debate over whether we should let people in. i think the german example shows they're not very good once people are in at separating the good guys from the bad guys. one of the problems in the united states is the people trying to do that with intelligence, remember, the mapping program in new york city and how much it was opposed. if we're going to take people, we need good intelligence. -- >> the mapping of groups of people that they thought, particularly students, some came from different countries -- >> i think it was more fundamental. it was finding out pakistani neighborhoods. you're trying to separate the law-abiding majority from the minority. and the left just has a war on the kind of intelligence that is correct -- >> what do you think about donald trump's reaction?
donald trump said, look, this proves i was right all along, and i'm going to, in fact, be as tough as i said i was in the campaign in blocking immigrants from muslim countries or terrorist muslim countries that have a terror problem from coming into the united states. >> well, he's never been very clear about exactly how he plans to do all this. he's spoken very forcefully, but very vaguely, and i think the one thing that makes everybody uncomfortable whether you're on the left as bill describes people who don't want this intelligence, the one thing that unites people is that we need the local, the muslim communities, the good muslims in this country to help us on the intelligence scene. so if he institutes a policy that alienuates all muslims, it will be counterproductive. >> you can't stop this problem unless you go to the source in syria and the middle east. if you think this is just an immigration problem, you're not going to solve.
>> true, but this is one of the reasons he won. people are scared that what happened in germany will become a regular occurrence in this country. they've seen san bernardino. isis sympathizers seem to be able to strike at will. president obama says this is this norm. get used it. donald trump says no. >> we'll see how he decides to implement it. law enforcement in the u.s. on high alert following the attacks in europe. how much progress are intelligence officials making in combatting the terror and cyber terror threat here at home? credit karma? why are you checking your credit score? you don't want to drive old blue forever, do you? [brakes squeak] credit karma, huh? yep, it's free. credit karma. give yourself some credit. for over 100 years like kraft has,natural cheese
cities across the united states bolstering security following monday's attack on a christmas market in berlin. as officials deal with the ongoing terror threat at home, there's another danger with a growing number of cyber attacks including the russian hacking of the democratic national committee this year. mitch silver is the head of intelligence and the former director of intelligence analysis for the new york city police department. welcome back. >> thank you. >> this german attack, is it the future we're going to see not just in europe but here for these terror attacks which are
basically people grabbing a truck, grabbing a car, grabbing a gun, and just making individual or small group attacks? >> you know, we saw a preview of this in israel where as israeli security forces were able to increase their intelligence and capabiliti capabilities, the type of attacks they faced in a sense become less sophisticated. people grabbing a truck. people grabbing a plow, driving into a crowd. >> or knives on a bus. >> exactly. so we saw last summer in france for bastille day and now a second example, relatively simplistic, grab a truck and plow it into a group of people. >> but does this mean the threat overall is getting better. or is it, in fact, just changing in a way that actually spreads more terror because if you're walking down the street and you think you could be just grabbed by a knife or hit by a truck, in a way it's more terrifying. >> it is because of the
diversity of the threat. but i think what you are seeing is a dim you in addition of carrying out the massive threats. that's a credit to intelligence and security forces being that much more advanced in their capabilities and having much better connections worldwide with other entities. what you're left with is is individuals or duos acting on their own who may or may not be inspired by isis or al qaeda. >> there's a report the suspect in this case had been tracked in advance by german intelligence. we've done that in the -- and then dropped it. we've done that in the united states, the tsarnaevs were on a list of the boston bombing, and then the orlando bomber, mar teen was on it and fell off. are the agencies that have to follow these people simply overwhelmed by the numbers? >> it's two things. one is that there are
limitations in resources. you can follow someone -- you can't follow someone all the time for a number of years. there's a vetting process. >> a priority list? >> yeah. even the 7-7 bombers back in july of 2005 in london were monitored by intelligence but vetted and put down on the list, categorized as less of a threat. number one, there's limited resources. you can't track everyone all the time, and number two there are thresholds. if someone fails to cross a certain threshold after monitoring for a period of time, most investigations have to get shut down. i think that may have been the case in some of these other examples of tsarnaevs in orlando, waiting to learn about how this happened in berlin. >> do we need to change our rules to allow for a more extensive monitoring instead of having expressed limited periods?
>> we nigmight. for me personally, one of the most anxiety inducing events was closing down an investigation when you didn't have sufficient intelligence to keep it going knowing it could be a person that surprises you in six to 12 mon month? >> did that ever happen? was there an event after that? >> there wasn't, but it's always a fear for any intelligence official. >> let's talk about cyber. it's been in the news with the russian hacking of democratic politicians the democratic national committee. they tried to get into the republican national committee, apparently did not succeed in that. this is a growing threat generally, you would acknowledge, correct? >> yeah, and i think that when we're talking about cyber hacking, it takes a number of different forms. you know, one is intelligence gathering, but what we have seen here is not only the gathering of information but then the putting it out on social media. >> right. >> which is, you know, sort of a whole nother strategy.
>> which is a disruptive strategy they're trying. what do you think the russians are really up to? you don't doubt that the russians did it, do up? >> no, i don't. >> what do you think they were up to, just to spread the misinformation and reduce confidence in the american electoral process. >> i think it was two-pronged. one was to hurt the u.s. electoral process. i think the second was to potentially wound hillary clinton as a presidential candidate. and then it morphed as things moved along to provide opportunity to assist donald trump. >> so, you know, as i followed the obama administration's response to this, they haven't done much at all. they filed a couple of lawsuits, indicted some lower level chinesee officials. president obama said in his news conference last week, well, i told putin to cut it out, and he did it. and i told the same to xi jinping and that seemed to do some good, the chinese president. shouldn't we respond more forcefully? >> it's all about deterrence, right? deterrence was such an important element during the cold war on so many different factors.
nuclear or otherwise. we have not established what our deterrence doctrine is in the united states. there's been something that was released last year in 2015 that said we might do sanctions. we might do indictments. and we might do covert actions. but, you know, there's really no understanding as to what thresholds will trigger what reactions. now the administration would say, listen, we want to maintain full flexibility, so we don't want to s necessarily lay it al out there. that's understood, but, you know, if you go back to 2011 and iranian hackers attacking the u.s. financial system, 2014, north korea and sony, and you say -- and then the chinese, we've got a couple of indictments. we've got some sanctions on north korean officials. whatof really have we done to demonstrate that there is a pricee to pay for hacking the united states? it doesn't seem apparent that there is a price to pay. therefore, there's no deterrent. >> well, and that's something that the next administration is
stream all your entertainment! anywhere! anytime! can we lose the 'all'. there's no cbs and we don't have a ton of sports. anywhere, any... let's lose the 'anywhere, anytime' too. you can't download on-the-go, there's no dvr, yada yada yada. stream some stuff! somewhere! sometimes! you totally nailed that buddy. simple. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. only xfinity gives you more to stream to any screen. people want to take their country back. they want to have independence in a sense, and you sigh it with europe. all over europe, you're going to have, i think, many other cases where they want to take their borders back. they want to take their monetary back. they want to take a lot of things back. so i think you're going to have this happen more and more. i really believe that, and i think it's happening in the united states. >> that was then-candidate donald trump in scotland this summer following the united
kingdom's stunning vote to leave the european union. the now-president-elect predicting his own upset victory here in the united states as a wave of peep yew liz many sweeps across the west. we're back with dan henninger, jason reilly, mariana o'grady and bill mcgurn. what do you think is behind this? >> for one thing, people use populist a lot and no one really defines it. it's not always popular. i think there are a lot of different motivations for people going around. the one thing they have in common is it seems to be rebellion against the governing classes or what they consider the ruling elite. >> right, it's we, the people are pure, and these people are corrupt, and we're going to sweep them out. but i think it's very different. in britain, i think they had the sense they were chafing under the european union rules and regulations and so forth. in germany, i think it's a lot more about migration and so
forth. in fran france, i think, is very interesting because you have lapin, but you also have the rise of a free-market catholic that could be an alternative. >> i think, mary, a lot of this is economics. when you have growth of 3%, 4%, a lot of these anxieties go away. when it looks like the political class is failing to deliver peace and prosperity or failing to deliver security, that's when these tensions exist and populism rises. >> i think the populism we're seeing is largely a push-back against decentralization. they feel like washington has failed them, and they want a return to something where they feel like they have some power. and donald trump is promising to return power to them. now, whether he does that by, you know, centralizing power in
other aspects, for example, industrial policy -- >> we'll see. >> -- we'll see, yeah. but for sure people were rebelling against the establishment. >> well, yeah. and it seems to me, jason, that if populism mobilizes people to break up the status quo that isn't working, particularly if it leads to faster growth or an economic reform, breaks up some of these special interest groups, it can do a great deal of good against elites that aren't listening. >> that's one way that populism can push things although in some of these european countries, i don't think it's that kind of populism that is going on. when you look at france and the national front movement there or even in germany with this alternatives for deutscheland or germany party -- you talk about an old right, paul, which you have going on there. so it's different. it depends on the country. it depends on the type of populism. i think in your, you're dealing
with a lot of ethnic nationalism going on. i don't think we have that in the united states to the extent they have that in europe. >> i agree. >> it depends. >> you have to define populism. >> but it's also true i think that if you had faster growth, i mean, in both europe and the united states, you've had slow growth since the financial crisis, and i think when that happens, people look for scapegoats. they look for someone to blame. so it might be blaming immigrants, but it might be just pushing back against the existing economic policy. >> bill mentions francois fillon in france. this coming election in france is a very important one because he is pushing the most aggressive free market reform that i have seen come out of a french candidate in my lifetime. you just never see that in france where they have socialists and the right is almost as socialist as the left. that's an alternative to the blood and soil nationalism that
marine lapin is pushing. >> it will be a key election in that respect, paul, because here is the paradox of populism. by and large it can be summed up as people saying, i'm mad as hell, and i'm not going to take it anymore except when the government starts suggesting that they pair back, say, labor regulations and rules that protect people. and at that point, a lot of these mad as hell people say, whoa, wait a minute. i'm not giving up any of the stuff that protects me. let somebody else take the burden. >> i'm not giving up my entitlement payments. >> spain, italy, france, it has been the same thing reflected. so that election will be very key in suggesting whether people are ready to bear that burden. >> i think dan's right on that. france is very exciting for that reason. however, i give the populist movement a little more credit in diagnosing a problem. people don't feel that their governments are keeping them safe, and they're right about that, or delivering growth, and they're right about that too.
the question is there are prescriptions. that's what makes the french election so exciting. >> growth in america, i think, can solve a lot of our differences. in europe it's a different matter because you're dealing with huge welfare states and growth in and of itself isn't going to solve all of europe's problems. >> in america it's getting bigger too. >> still ahead, it was the biggest story of the year and one very few in politics and the press saw coming. so just how did we get the 2016 election so wrong, and what can we learn for next time? we'll ask larry sabato next.
the 538 members of the electoral college met this week in 50 state capitals. it was the final chapter in what was no doubt the biggest story of 2016 and the biggest surprise to pollsters, pundits, and many even in the media. larry sabato is the director of the university of virginia's center for politics. he joins me now from charlottesville. good to see you again, larry. >> thank you, paul. >> so you have owned up that you got it wrong, and so have i. so have most of us. but as you look now a couple of months -- you know, a month, five, six weeks later and you look back, why do you think we got it so wrong? >> paul, because all of the usual indicators misled us, and then we misled our readers and
viewers. the usual indicators being not just polling but other metrics that we've used for years when the rules of politics applied. well, the rules didn't apply this year. that's fundamentally what happened, and it happened starting with the primaries. you remember when donald trump entered, and you had 16 other republicans in there. you couldn't find a leader in the republican party who thought donald trump would even be one of the finalists much less the nominee. and then the general election, look, even trump and his people thought he was going to lose on election day. >> election evening. election evening. >> so let's be honest. this was a surprise to everybody. it's really our generation's 1948 dewey defeats truman when truman actually beat dewey. that's the same thing all over again, because the polls, although there weren't many of them back then, were wrong in
300-plus polls at least in the battleground states were wrong this year. the national poll, some of them were way off, but the polling average interestingly was pretty much on target. it had clinton up by 3.2%. she won the popular vote by 2.1%. >> you're a political scientist, and you know some of these political science models. alan lichtman's for example. some of these people who build in economic factors in the previous four or eight years, and then they look at, well, is this a party seeking a third term? some of those models looked like they were saying a republican, a normal republican, could win. were we just misled so much that because donald trump wasn't a normal republican and said some things that would normally be disqualifying, this somehow we've said he can't win when in fact if we look at the fundamentals of this being a change election, we would have said, you know what, he has a very, very good shot. >> sure. i buy that. we carried 13 political signs
models on our crystal ball website, and some of them were very accurate in predicting a republican victory. but you know what's interesting? the authors of the more accurate models spent most of their space explaining why their models were wrong. this is in advance of the election. >> this would be the exception to their rule. >> yaeah, the exception to thei rule. so i think essentially we all, as a system, as a group of analysts, maybe we gathered together too much, and we tried to establish a mean, and we all hug it. >> i think that's part of the problem is we in the press corps and a lot of academia, we talk to each other too much maybe and not enough to actual voters who would be giving us other information about this election. and maybe too slavish as well to pollsters. we look at the polls and say, well, they can't possibly be
wrong. yet, when you look at what has happened across the west, whether it be brexit, whether it be the israeli election, whether it be a couple of british elections, the polls have not always been right. >> well, that's correct. i always call polling the science of abc, almost being certain. and the most important word there is "almost." they are right most of the time. but every now and then, you have an election that, as i suggest, violates the rules. what's interesting about this year other than trump himself is that we learned that maybe increasingly the electoral college and the popular vote are going to be separate, at least in close elections. normally when a candidate like clinton wins by nearly 3 million votes, it carries the electoral college with it. it moves with the popular vote. well, guess what, it didn't. and i don't think it was a fluke. the more i study the actual voting patterns on election day, the more i think that we've established a new rule which will eventually be broken of course.
>> whatever happened to the coalition of the ascend ant as it was called on the democratic side, minorities, young people, women? that seems to not have been able to deliver. hillary clinton thought it was going to deliver for her, but she couldn't replicate it. is that something that is still coming, or is that now broken up? >> well, the demographics suggest it is coming eventually, and states like arizona and georgia got uncomfortably close for the republicans this year. >> right. >> they stayed with trump. so i think the coalition of the ascendant is still part of our future, but i'll tell you what one of the problems is that they gather mainly on the two coasts. and there are so many excess democratic votes on the west coast and the east coast that don't help democrats pull in extra electoral votes. the other thing it comes down to a basic that did apply this year. candidates really matter. hillary clinton was a boring candidate. she couldn't get minorities to turn out. she couldn't get millennials to
turn out. so, you know, when you're looking for a candidate, it's important to find somebody who stirs the bates, and sse, and s. >> larry sabato, thanks for being here. still ahead, the blame game continues as democrats search for answers to november's election loss. but, you've got hum. so you can set this. and if she drives like this, you can tell her to drive more like this. because you'll get this. you can even set boundaries for so if she should be here, but instead goes here, here, or here. you'll know. so don't worry, mom. because you put this, in here. hum by verizon. the technology designed to make your car smarter, safer and more connected. put some smarts in your car.
answers and continuing to point fingers. bill clinton is even getting in on the action, telling a local paper in new york this month that president-elect donald trump, quote, doesn't know much. but one thing he does know is how to get angry white men to vote for him. the former president went on to blame his wife's defeat on the fbi's decision to reopen the investigation into her private e-mail server, telling the paper, quote, james comey cost her the election. we're back with dan henninger, jason rile, mary anastasia o'grady and bill mcgurn. so, dan, you know, bill clinton, i don't think he's an outlier here. i think he's speaking for a lot of democrats about what they think really happened. >> yeah, but i think bill still in his own way remains an outlier. this thing about angry white men, bill clinton was the guy who back during the campaign was telling his wife's campaign, you got to go out there and campaign more among those blue collar workers in places like pennsylvania and michigan. and they told him, don't worry
about it as you were just discussing with larry sabato. don't worry about it. the coalition of the ascendant is locked. we're going to win. so bill himself campaigned in those sorts of areas two times in the 1990s, got himself elected president. so i think bill clinton understands what's going on inside the democratic party. the question is whether the clintons have any relevance to that party anymore. >> jason, russian hacking, jim comey, racism, bigotry, everything except for the fact that maybe we should have campaigned in wisconsin, for example. >> yes. the election was relatively close in the electoral college. >> and she won the popular vote. >> you're talking about 100,000 or so votes and three states that could have swung this thing her way. so the democrats, you know, all of these factions have a plausible explanation here. did the fbi stuff tip it a little bit? did wikileaks tip it? was it bernie sanders?
was it jill stein? whatever faction you're in, you can plausibly point the finger and say, it wasn't my fault. it was your fault. so i think the democrats do need to decide on why they lost so that they can move forward and learn how to win. the other mistake they want to worry about making is, you know, maybe they're all right, and maybe donald trump is a unique political figure and should she change their entire game plan because of, you know, to take care of the next donald trump? maybe they didn't do anything wrong. >> well, there's no examination so far, mary, at all about the agenda. no examination about the economic policies of the last eight years. no examination about their identity politics of focusing on ethnic and gender groups as opposed to the broader public. >> well, i think first of all, they would like to delegitimize the trump win so that, you know, there's a sense that he really doesn't have a mandate to govern. but the other problem is that they are not looking at the fact that, you know, trump was a very
unpopular candidate in many ways. this should have been a walk in the park for republicans. you had eight years of democrats. you had very low growth over that period. and if you had a -- you know, a reasonably mainstream republican candidate, he probably would have won quite handily. so the surprise was partly in the fact that trump was so unpopular. >> well, but i think that's part of the problem the democrats are having now, bill. it's a little bit like jon lovitz on "saturday night live" with mike dukakis looking at george h.w. bush saying, i can't believe i'm losing to this guy. how do we possibly lose to donald trump? they can't quite get over it. >> i have a slightly different view. i don't think it's clear that another republican candidate would have done better. i think donald trump might have done better if he didn't step on himself several times. but, you know, john kasich got two votes in his own party. even the other candidates, when they had him one-on-one, they couldn't move the ball. trump fights.
the other thing is to put that in perspective, it wasn't just trump who won. the republicans won all -- i mean the democrats are in a big, big problem now if you look at the makeup of the country. and i think though we've had all these skirmishes with bill blaming comey and jennifer palmieri blaming racism and so forth, the real e-mails i'd like to see would be between the bill clinton camp and the hillary camp because you can bet that there is some analysis going on. and i think, as dan said, not just bill clinton, but a lot of these people probably felt ignored and that they could have won. >> i think there were really two main things going on here that no one is talking about. okay, they broke down the blue wall and, you know, rural and working class whites voted heavily for trump. however, catholics voted for trump in numbers that they normal wouldn't, i think because they cared about the court. and white, college educated males voted for trump. i think a lot of that had to do with going into the voting booth on the last day and saying, i
can't take eight more years. >> dan, i'm going to disagree here a little bit in the sense of i think the democrats actually -- i do think they need to do something on energy. they do need to adjust their message somewhat. but, you know, the truth is they're going to come back. the opposition party always comes back. i mean the republicans were written off in 2008 and 2009. look what happened in 2010. if the democrats simply admit that they lost, accept the defeat, and then move on and look like they're accepting it and being the opposition party, i think they have a very good chance of doing very well in 2018. >> well, i guess i'm going to disagree a little bit with that. i think they do at the national level, paul, at the presidential level for sure. and the democratic party seems to be wholly focused on the presidential level. but, boy, they're really taking it in the neck below that level. certainly at the level of the senate, the governorships, state legislatures. the political map is looking very red out there. and unless they figure out a way
to broaden their appeal in a way that has relevance beyond just the presidency, i think that blue wall out there is going to continue to erode for democrats. you know, it's hard to see them doing that. the party is basically owned by the grassroots, the political left, and the climate left. there's no charismatic leader like bill clinton in sight. i think they've got their work cut out for them. >> another leader will show up. they always do. when we come back, our hits and misses of 2016. (my hero zero by lemonheads)
zero really can be a hero. get zero down, zero deposit, zero due at signing, and zero first month's payment on select volkswagen models. right now at the volkswagen sign then drive event. time now for our hits and misses of the year. we're going to start with misses. dan. >> well, i think the miss of the year is pretty obvious, paul. it's the person who lost the
presidential election she was supposed to win in 2016. and that of course would be hillary clinton. it goes beyond that, paul. back in 2008 when she was running in the primaries against barack obama, it was expected she would win back then. nobody could challenge the clinton machine. now hillary clinton has lost two big presidential elections. i'm not sure how she sleeps at night, but i think this also raises questions about the future of the vaunted clinton machine. are they going to have a role in the democratic party, or are though not? are they finally washed up? >> well, you know, it's interesting. some people are saying that maybe this attempt by john podesta and others to delegitimize trump suggests that he was her campaign chairman, that she wants to give it one more time, dan, in 2020. >> you can't keep the clintons down. but, boy, just think about hillary four years from now. it ain't going to happen. >> all right. jason. >> paul, this is a miss for the media coverage of the election. when so many people are shocked
by the outcome, perhaps including even the winner of the election, we're doing something wrong here. and the gap between what the public and voters are looking for in a president and what the media was looking for in a president was simply epic this time. so i think we have to do a better job going forward. >> well, okay. i didn't predict a trump victory. did you? >> no. >> okay. so what are you going to do differently? >> the lesson i got from this is humility. i'm going to try and not project my sensibilities in terms of what is appropriate in a president onto voters. i think that's what i'll do going forward. >> good lesson. all right. and maybe even actually talk to a few of them more often, okay. mary? >> paul, this is a big, fat miss for canadian prime minister justin trudeau, who when he found out that fidel castro had passed, sent out a message saying, among other things, that he and his wife joined the
people of cuba in mourning the loss of a remarkable leader. he also said that fidel castro was a man who loved the cuban people very much. the good news is that it spawned a series of messages on social media that mocked him mercilessly by posting parodies praising people like stalin and hitler. and in the end, mr. trudeau, did not go to the castro funeral. >> oh, he didn't go to the castro funeral? so has he really been damaged by this in the sense of the perception of him as a serious leader? >> absolutely. i mean even people that i know on the left in canada were embarrassed by the ridiculous praise that he gave to a guy who just has such a terrible track record. >> all right. and william? >> paul, among the biggest misses of the year has to go to marilyn mosby, the baltimore state's attorney who indicted six police officers in the death
of freddie gray. gray was a prisoner who was being transported in a police van when he suffered a spinal injury that was fatal. it helped cause the riots. she indicted these officers on outrageous charges and made statements at a press conference that you'd kind of hear at an al sharpton rally. this year she her comeuppance when a judge threw out some of the charges against the first officers. then she was forced to abandon the other ones, and she still blames everyone but herself. >> my miss of the year is the tragedy, the catastrophe of aleppo, russia, syria, the syrian regime are laying siege to that city. now they seem to have won a victory in aleppo, but at tremendous human cost. tens of thousands of people dead. the syrian civil war continues. it's one of the great nightmares maybe of this whole century, and the united states stood by and did almost nothing about it. president obama said he didn't have a solution. this is what happens -- aleppo is what happens when the united
states decides to back off and not execute word leadership, and i think we're going to see -- you get peace, but you get the peace of the grave. >> people say there's no military solution. vladimir putin is imposing a military solution right now with the assad. >> it was the russian ambassador that was assassinated, and that's significant. they are now seen -- the russians are now seen as the heavy in that region. and that's who the islamists are targeting. >> when we come back, our panel's hits of 2016.
yeah, at first i thought it was just the stress of moving. [ sighs ] hey, i was using that. what, you think we own stock in the electric company? i will turn this car around right now! there's nobody back there. i was becoming my father. [ clears throat ] it's...been an adjustment, but we're making it work. you know, progressive.com makes it easy for us to get the right home insurance. [ snoring ] progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto. [ chuckles ] all right.
time now for our hits or winners of the year. dan. >> well, my winner of the year is the flip side of my miss to hillary clinton, and, no, i don't mean donald trump. i mean reince priebus, the head of the republican national committee. paul, has any political figure in recent times been more vilified, booed, run out of time? i mean first the idea was he allowed 17 republican candidates to run for the presidency. what idiot would allow that? then he throws in with donald trump, and the idea is he's taking the republican party to per digs. hey, reince priebus is now chief of staff to the next president of the united states. whatever your politics, this was an amazing story of political survival. >> and how many months do you give him working in the white house as chief of staff when donald trump doesn't really like a chief of staff? let's face it. he wants to talk to everybody directly.
>> priebus himself says he thinks maybe two years. >> if he's lucky. all right. jason. >> this is a hit for the chicago cubs and major league baseball. paul, we could not have asked for a more exciting world series. a comeback. it's a reminder of why baseball became the national pastime, and the players even stood up for the national anthem. imagine that. >> i know you're a big football fan and a long-suffering one with the buffalo bills. are you saying you think the nfl could potentially be in trouble in terms of its popularity relative to baseball? >> no, i don't think we've reached that point yet. but i do think that what happened this year is something to pay attention to and that the nfl shouldn't write it off. >> mary. >> my hit for this year is the stock market. the dow jones industrial is up 9% since november 8th. the total value of global equity markets is up roughly $3 trillion. all of that new wealth is
pouring into 401(k)s and other kinds of savings accounts, and of course what really is left to be seen here is whether donald trump will deliver on his promises, and that will be sustainable. >> well, i think some of our viewers would say, you know what, isn't that a barack obama economy paying for for people, mary? >> well, it didn't happen until trump was elected. >> the most recent run-up, but there's been a huge run-up in the stock market during the obama presidency, no? >> it moved back to where it was, but what you're seeing now is an expectation for greater growth. >> are you short or long for 2017? >> i don't have to hold off for the year, do i? >> no, you don't. at the start. >> i'm going to be a trader. >> you're going to play short. wow, interesting. i think i'm going to go long. >> i think you have to wait and see until everyone is in, and that's when it comes down. >> william. >> my hit of the year goes to a tremendous american couple, mr.
and mrs. anton scalia. justice scalia of course left us too soon when he died in february. but instead of being quickly forgotten, his sudden absence sparked a newer and fuller appreciation of his role on the supreme court. mrs. scalia understood this when in october she put a trump sign on her front lawn, and i'd say in the end justice scalia, even in death, helped dominate this election. >> i think that donald trump would not have won the election if the supreme court had not been so directly in play. do you agree with that? >> i agree with that. >> it made a lot of conservatives come out and vote. >> i think the pressure on donald trump to name someone in the mold of justice scalia is a benefit too by coming up with his list. >> is this the easiest victory that trump is going to have going into the new year? >> i think the first one. he can claim -- i mean you can't think of an election before where a supreme court nominee has played such a role. and i think by releasing his names, he can claim he has a mandate.
>> all right. my hit or winner of the year, ron johnson, the senator from wisconsin who was all but written off even by republicans. the republican senate campaign committee said, well, you're done, man. we're not giving you any money. what he did, he decided he and his brother decided to create some ads on his own. they're great ads on obamacare, the joseph project, a jobs connection project he has in wisconsin. and he came out of nowhere, and he won when nobody expected to, and he outperformed donald trump in the state of wisconsin. >> and i think he outperformed a lot of the expectations, right? >> oh, for sure. >> he's written off as the businessman and so forth and showed he could do it. >> i'll give ron johnson a lot of credit, but i think there's some wisconsin show shoev niz many going on here. >> wisconsin shoev niz many? come on, it's a bellwether state, man. it was right on the money in terms of predicting this election as some of the rest of us were not, i might add. okay. remember if you have your own
hit or miss, be sure to tweet it to us @jer on fnc. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and to all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot. merry christmas. we hope to see you right here next week. i'm chris wallace. president-elect trump turns his focus to national security as a wave of terror attacks hits europe. [ sirens ] >> an attack on humanity. that's what it is. it's an attack on humanity. and it's got to stop. >> as the president-elect huddles with his national security team, we'll discuss his plan for taking on isis and protecting the homeland with one of his most outspoken supporters, former house speaker newt gingrich. then on this day of faith and family, a look