Skip to main content

tv   The Journal Editorial Report  FOX News  May 27, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT

12:00 pm
gregg: bring your trunks, it's time for a swim. two young elephants at the oregon zoo -- get it, trunks? -- taking a break from the heat with the pool, big enough for ten elephants to be fully submerged. >> how fun. that's a good weekend. that does it for us, we'll see you back here at four. ♪ ♪ >> the recent attack on manchester in the united kingdom demonstrates the depths of the evil we face with terrorism. all people who cherish life must unite in finding, exposing and removing these killers and extremists. paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report," i'm paul gigot. that was president trump in brussels on thursday addressing fellow nato leaders and calling for a united front in fighting terrorism following this week's
12:01 pm
deadly bombing at a concert in manchester, england. the islamic state took credit for that attack carried out by a 22-year-old british-born muslim who recently returned from a three week trip to libya and may have had isis training. the assault came just one day after president trump addressed arab leaders in saudi arabia, urging them to drive out terrorists and extremists in their midst. >> drive them out. drive them out of your places of worship. drive them out of your communities. drive them out of your holy land. and drive them out of this earth. paul: joining the panel this week, "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editor, dan henninger. editorial board member mary kiss el, and columnist bill mcgurn. so, bill, let's take a look at the whole trip. what do you think? success or not, this first excursion abroad? >> i think he's been largely
12:02 pm
successful in getting his message across. you know, the first part was the middle east along with rome, trying to get the three big relations in the -- religions on the same page. now, the greatest gift to donald trump is barack obama -- paul: especially in the middle east, israel and saudi arabia. [laughter] >> eight years without american leadership, he was there basically to say american leadership is back. and, look, i think the cities are -- have changed too. they recognize this threat against themselves -- paul: you mean the sunni-arab nations like egypt and saudi arabia, the gulf states. >> but there was just an attack on coptic christians and so forth. they understand that they're not going to have a future unless they arrest this extremism and terrorism on their home soil. paul: the, mary, one of the big themes that the president offers was, look, you need to take on the radicals in your midst yourselves. okay? be we can't just do it, you have to root them out. that's not a message that i don't think any previous
12:03 pm
president has addressed that directly to arab leaders. >> well, that's because the last president thought that terrorism was a war that needed to be resolved in the muslim world, and americans were simply collateral damage in that war. he didn't want to take a leading role. i think president trump is doing well in sending that message that they need to be involved, but he also made the point in saudi arabia, paul, that more than 95% of the victims of terrorism are muslims themselves. and that's why they have an interest here. and, look, these nations know it. saudi arabia's fighting a war on its southern front in yemen, fighting the iran-backed houthi militia. you have moderate nations like, for example, israel who are threatened to their north by what's going on in syria. the nations of europe understand this as well, they're dealing with refugees. so it's time to have this message come across. paul: go ahead, dan. >> you know, look, the press after this trip is making the point that when donald trump
12:04 pm
went to brussels and nato, that he didn't make a full-throated commitment to nato in article v -- paul: which is what? >> which is an attack on one is an attack on all. paul: okay. >> as though the united states and europe were now threatened by the soviet union coming through the gap in germany. [laughter] no. the western world is threatened by islamic state. donald trump made a campaign promise to get rid of the islamic state. this trip was the beginning of assembling a strategy to do exactly that. first, he goes to saudi arabia, gets a commitment from the saudis to create an arab coalition, the saudis are going to work with israel -- paul: to fight islamic state. >> i'm sorry, then he goes to brussels, and the secretary of nato says we are now formally joining this coalition to fight islamic state. this is done in the midst of the attack in manchester, so i think it was a very successful trip. he's beginning to build a coalition to do exactly what the point of it was.
12:05 pm
paul: what about the charge, and we've heard the criticism that in tilting, going to saudi arabia and so overtly aligning with them, he's tilting too far to the sunni-arabs, and that ignores the shiite persianings and the shiites in iran in particular. and that that's a strategic mistake. >> once again -- [laughter] let's roll the clock back 40 years. and if iran were just sitting there pumping oil whether it was under -- [laughter] you know, the ayatollahs or under the shah, this would not -- that would be an issue. but iran is now a centrifugal force trying to project itself and subsidizing terrorists in the rest of the middle east. that's the shiite problem. >> iran is a thousands-year-old culture, a real nation with all this projection of power and surrogates and proxies. look, i think that the president -- it's welcome that the sunni-arabs now say we want america's leadership in the region. they haven't had it.
12:06 pm
and and i think it was welcomed to go to nato and shake them up. they don't pay their fair share, and they have been a little lax on terrorism. you know, jen keane was on fox -- general keane was on the other day calling them feckless. i think he said 32 attacks in eight nato countries, yet they won't commit be ground troops to going after the centers of isis and so forth -- paul: go ahead, mary. >> it was also nice to see a little bit more discipline out of the president too. he wasn't on his twitter account, we didn't see scandals there. [laughter] he was reading from the teleprompter. the message was clear, and i think it was consistent during the trip. paul: but did he miss an opportunity to just say flat out, look, i endorse article v? his colleagues -- his aides were setting that up early. the europeans were saying they were disappointed he didn't say that overtly given the fact in the campaign he'd said nato was obsolete. he's worked that back, but did he miss an opportunity? >> what matters?
12:07 pm
do words matter or do actions matter? paul: well, words matter. >> the president was there for the commemoration ceremony. he talked about the threat from russia which ises why the nato allies -- which is why the nato allies are would. he dropped a bomb in syria that obama didn't do, couldn't do for years. he's taking action. so if they're worried about, you know, the rhetoric, i think they're worried about the wrong thing. paul: well, but, i mean, you do need to send a strong signal rhetorically to the russians, it seems to me. don't go over that line. >> no, he hasn't used sanctions. he's talked about the ukraine incursions. i'd say that's a pretty good signal. paul: all right, thank you v.. president trump adopting an aggressive approach on his first trip abroad, reviving old alliances in the middle east and sending a message to iran. >> iran's leaders routinely call for israel's destruction. not with donald j. trump.
12:08 pm
♪ ♪ oscar mayer is making big changes to hot dogs. we went back to the drawing board... and the cutting board. we removed the added nitrates and nitrites, by-products, and artificial preservatives in all of our meat. every. single. one. why? for the love of hot dogs. even if you're trying your a daily struggle, along with diet and exercise, once-daily toujeo® may help you control your blood sugar. get into a daily groove. ♪ let's groove tonight. ♪ share the spice of life. ♪ baby, slice it right. from the makers of lantus®, ♪ we're gonna groove tonight. toujeo® provides blood sugar-lowering activity for 24 hours and beyond, proven blood sugar control all day and all night,
12:09 pm
and significant a1c reduction. toujeo® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar or if you're allergic to insulin. get medical help right away if you have a serious allergic reaction such as body rash or trouble breathing. don't reuse needles or share insulin pens. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be life threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose of insulin without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor about all your medicines and medical conditions. check insulin label each time you inject. taking tzds with insulins, like toujeo®, may cause heart failure that can lead to death. find your rhythm and keep on grooving. ♪ let's groove tonight. ask your doctor about toujeo®. ♪ share the spice of life.
12:10 pm
12:11 pm
♪ ♪ >> for decades iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror. it is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of israel, death to america and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room. paul: president trump in riyadh singling out iran in his address to arab leaders. that speech in saudi arabia kicked off the president's first foreign trip which culminated this weekend at the g7 summit in sicily. cliff may is the founder and president of the foundation for defense of democracies. he joins me now from washington. cliff, welcome back. good to see you. >> good to see you. paul: so in the nato -- i want to ask, first, about this nato address where the leaders are all standing there, and the
12:12 pm
president really gets pretty blunt about saying you need to spend more money on defense. i don't think some of them liked it. i'm just reading from the body language and some of their comments later. what do you think of that challenge to those leaders? >> i think it's a necessary challenge. they need to spend more. they also need to do more. too many of our nato allies do not have sufficient capabilities. too many of the generals love hanging out in the more than billion dollar nato center drinking espresso -- [laughter] but they don't expect ever to see combat in their entire lives. combat is so 19th century to them. we have real challenges and real threats, and nato will become obsolete. i don't think it is, but will become obsolete if nato doesn't face those challenges, and particularly the challenges represented by jihaddism and islamism, both in its shia or iranian form and its sunni form. paul: so you think it actually is an improvement that nato's announced it's going to join the coalition against islamic state? that's clearly a response to trump. >> that is a response to trump.
12:13 pm
look, i think the -- it's clear that the european leaders were not pleased by trump, they don't like him particularly. paul: right. >> they see him as gauche. i think his job was to send them a very clear message that they can't be free riders -- and that's also a word obama used -- they can't simply use nato to be protected by the u.s. while they disrespect the u.s., they have to participate in mutual self-deoffense or it's not really a mutual self-defense alliance. paul: do you think the press is making too much of this failure of the president to address specifically article v which was invoked once in nato history after 9/11? the nato allies said after the attack on 9/11 this, they triggered article v, and they joined us in the alliance to fight afghanistan the taliban. do you think trump should have stated more explicitly, look, i endorse that? >> i think that would have been a reasonable thing to consider,n
12:14 pm
mind he did mention article v -- paul: yes, he did. >> -- and he praised article v. that sends a pretty good snag that he hasn't deviated or nullified article v. he still holds by it. but he didn't emphasize it as much as one might, but he also said -- and i think this is part of the carrots and stick approach -- you want me to be strong on protecting you, help me protect the free world. don't make it my job alone. paul: let's talk about the middle east and and especially that visit to saudi arabia where the president really, i think, took the biggest change of direction from president obama in trying to revive the traditional alliance with the sunni-arabs. yet he's getting some criticism on that from some people who say, look, he was too hostile to iran. what do you think the president was up to there, and how do you see this, how do you see this moving ahead with his policy in the middle east? >> first of all, he's being very clear that he intends to be the corrective for the policy of appeasement that president obama
12:15 pm
understand took -- undertook. paul: towards iran. >> the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world, according to our government, is getting a patient pathway to nuclear weapons and billions of dollars that it does and can use for military purposes, for intercontinental ballistic missiles and to support terrorism. he's making it clear that he doesn't accept that, that appeasement is now off the table. i think we've been talking a lot about the words, there's also symbolism that i think was very effective when he has the leaders or rulers to be more precise -- [laughter] dozens of sunni nations lined up behind him. that sends an important, symbolic message. when he flies, first president ever to do so, from saudi arabia to israel, that sends a message. when he also on the same trip visits the vatican, that sends an important message. and i think you have to give credit for these things x i think if this were a normal presidency, i think more journalists would. paul: all right.
12:16 pm
what do you think about the arms sales to the saudis? we're selling a lot of arms, and do you worry that that could potentially be a threat to israeli security? >> i do worry about that. the israelis have been promised by the u.s. that they will maintain a qualitative military edge, and it's important that they do. i think the israelis worry about it, but they're also not protesting it because they do know that the saudis are very much on the front lines, that the islamic republic of iran represents an existential threat not just to israel are, but also to the saudis and the gulf -- and most of the gulf sunni states. and, in fact, it's a more imminent threat represented by iran. so they understand why the saudis are going to have that. israel needs to stay ahead of the game. this is a tricky maneuver, everybody's walking on a tight rope. but at the end of the day, i think it is necessary. and by the way, from a trumpian perspective, selling lots of arms to the saudis so they can help defend themselves, we don't
12:17 pm
have to defend them entirely. that's a good thing and perhaps a lot of jobs coming out of these sales as well. paul: well, and moving towards a policy, it sounds to me like, containment against iran's regional ambitions even if he doesn't withdraw from the nuclear pact. briefly, cliff. >> containment for now, but i think we know that the trump administration is working on a coherent, comprehensive strategy towards iran. doesn't have one yet, needs to have one and it gets that. paul: thank you, cliff may. appreciate your coming. when we come back, the senate faces new hurdles in its effort to repeal and replace obamacare. after the congressional budget office released its report on the house version of the bill. how to read those health care predictions, next. ♪ ♪ the unexpected ... ...doesn't happen by accident.
12:18 pm
that goes beyond assuming beingredients are safe...ood to knowing they are. going beyond expectations... because our pets deserve it. beyond. natural pet food. ♪ depression is a tangle of multiple symptoms. ♪ that's why there's trintellix, a prescription medication for depression. trintellix may help you take a step forward in improving your depression. tell your healthcare professional right away
12:19 pm
if your depression worsens, or you have unusual changes in mood, behavior or thoughts of suicide. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens and young adults. do not take with maois. tell your healthcare professional about your medications, including migraine, psychiatric and depression medications, to avoid a potentially life-threatening condition. increased risk of bleeding or bruising may occur, especially if taken with nsaid pain relievers, aspirin or blood thinners. manic episodes or vision problems may occur in some people. may cause low sodium levels. the most common side effects were nausea, constipation and vomiting. trintellix had no significant impact on weight in clinical trials. ask your healthcare professional about trintellix.
12:20 pm
but we've got the get tdigital tools to help. now with xfinity's my account, you can figure things out easily, so you won't even have to call us. change your wifi password to something you can actually remember, instantly. add that premium channel, and watch the show everyone's talking about, tonight. and the bill you need to pay? do it in seconds. because we should fit into your life, not the other way around. go to ♪ ♪
12:21 pm
paul: a much-anticipated report by the congressional budget office was released this week outlining costs and coverage predictions for the house bill to repeal and replace obamacare. the cbo forecasting that the plan will cut taxes by $992 billion, cut spending by $1.1 trillion and the deficit by $119 billion over ten years. but also estimating that 23 million fewer people would be insured by 2026. that headline raising the stakes for gop senators working on their own version of the legislation that passed the house earlier this month. we're back with dan henninger, columnist and manhattan institute senior fellow jason reilly and editorial board member joe rego. so, joe, how much stock should we put in these cbo estimates? >> what we should do is take these as an educated guess about what the future might hold but not treat them as some kind of holy writ carved in stone
12:22 pm
tablets. the cbo has a track record of overestimating the effects of government-directed policies, underestimating the effects of market-based policies. so it's one opinion, and take it with a grain of salt. paul: but do other people think there'll be fewer people who will lose their insurance down the road here? >> certainly, there may be some kind of erosion in coverage whether it's in absolute numbers working off an imperfect cbo baseline, maybe different types of insurance that the congressional budget office doesn't considered a adequate. but certainly, if you get a richer, more liquid market with more choices, more competition, you're likely to get a healthier market over time. paul: jason, the politics of this, what damage does it do? >> that's the problem. i think joe's absolutely right, but the gop still has a political problem with this number being out there and
12:23 pm
bandied about by democrats. it's going to impact how the senate tries to put together their version of this bill. you already see certain senators coming out citing this number, saying we have to come in under it whether it's orrin hatch, susan collins, dean heller who's very vulnerable next year, they are worried about this number. so it does present a big political problem. >> well, look, i mean, donald trump is getting more political sport from leaders in the middle east than he is from senate republicans, which is kind of pathetic commentary on the republican party right now. but they cannot be intimidated by this cbo report. the cbo is described as this nonpartisan, disinterested body, just the facts, ma'am. but the idea of the health bill, in great part, is to put money back in the hands of the state, allow governors and legislators to decide how -- paul: particularly with medicaid. >> particularly with medicaid. the cbo says they think
12:24 pm
one-third of the states will alter obamacare based on it. how do they know that? that is a political judgment. that is not based on any facts or data. so this is in great part a political document. >> i think, however, paul, that the strategy of the republicans should be to talk about the effects of obamacare in the real world right now. there's been -- the -- obamacare is failing, we see the evidence of it week after week after week whether it's insurers pulling out of exchanges or making plans to pull out of exchanges like kansas city, blue cross blue shield did recently, talk about the real-world effects that the status quo is not an option. this cannot -- this is not sustainable. instead however, though, and this is why i think for democrats it was a good week, all the focus has been on that number. and republicans have been playing defense all week. they need to go on the offense here. paul: joe, our friends on the left are blaming trump and the republicans for what's happening, for the decline in
12:25 pm
the obamacare exchanges. that doesn't really add up. >> no. i mean, look, this process started in 2015, 2016 you started to see the insurers start to withdraw, you started to see premiums really start to spike. so unless you have a time machine going back to before trump was elected, what you're seeing is an acceleration of an already-existing trend. paul: and that was something that a lot of critics predicted would happen. >> right. except for the congressional budget -- paul: which way overestimated by millions of people how many people would now be covered by obamacare. what is it, i think they said 15, 16 million would be covered on the exchange? >> right. under their original prediction, it was 23, 25 million for this year. we're actually looking at 9. paul: wow. >> so just a huge overestimate. on the politics, republicans have to decide whether they want to defend an achievement that will fix some of these problems in the market or apologize for a failure. i think that's a pretty clear political decision.
12:26 pm
paul: and that achievement would be actually passing a bill and then saying, look, here's what we did to fix this problem and then defend it going into the election rather than saying, oh, well, we failed. let's all go home, sorry. >> right. we had this great opportunity and we wasted it on in-fighting and congressional budget office scores. paul: all right. thanks to you all. still ahead, the white house unveils its 2018 budget, but critics say its economic forecast is far too optimistic. so is 3% growth really within reach? ♪ ♪ i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced, our senses awake, our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say: if you love something... set it free. see you around, giulia ♪
12:27 pm
you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief, try doctor recommended gaviscon. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon. and helps keep acid down for hours. z282uz zwtz y282uy ywty
12:28 pm
12:29 pm
12:30 pm
♪ ♪ >> the foundation for the plan is 3% growth. in fact, people can me, you're the budget -- ask me you're the budget director, whatever can get us to 3% growth. paul: white house budget director mick mulvaney this week unveiling the trump administration's budget for 2018, the $4.1 trillion plan seeks to eliminate the deficit in ten years while avoiding cuts to medicare and social security. all this based on the premise that the u.s. economy will reach 3% growth by 2021. so is that a realistic goal? let's ask economist douglas holtz-eakin, president of the american action forum and former director of the congressional budget office. welcome, doug, good to see you. >> thanks for having me. paul: so let's deal first with the 3% growth issue. jason furman, foreman white house economist under president obama, wrote for us this week
12:31 pm
that you just can't really get there for any extended period anymore because population growth is too slow, and there are too many structural barriers. what do you think of that? >> i don't agree with that. i mean, a lot of the structural barriers were erected by jason furman and the president he served, barack obama. so if you got serious about tax reform, if you got serious about regulatory reform, if you had a sensible, targeted national infrastructure program that enhanced national connectivity with economic performance and if you took off the table the potential that the u.s. itself would have a sovereign debt can crisis by getting the budget back to balanced as they promise, you could get the 3% growth. that's certainly within the reasonable bounds. 4 or 5, no. but 3 is a sensible number. paul: well, but we had 4% growth over an extended period of years in the reagan years in the 1980s and the late 19ed 0s. why can't that happen again? is that just because the population growth isn't going to be as great? >> right. it's the population.
12:32 pm
i mean, the building blocks of growth are simple. you've got workers and productivity, and the growth in workers is slower now because of the demographics, and this is all about getting productivity growth back to where it should be. it's declined preci and to do that, you need some ability to start businesses. we've seen business start-ups decline recently -- paul: right. >> -- you need capital investment in new technologies. there are lots of pieces that we know go into better productivity growth, and we haven't done those for a number of years. paul: well, and if you look at trumponomics, deregulation reduces the barriers to capital investment and business confidence. then you have tax reform, if it's done right -- and that's a big if -- [laughter] but if it's done right, you're going to reduce the taxation on corporate income and small business income, and then you, that's going to help investment. and those things both would drive greater business and worker productivity. >> sure. i mean, if you took, for example, the house proposed tax
12:33 pm
reform, that's a plan that taken as a whole would incentivize firms to invest, innovate and grow in america as opposed to elsewhere. you'd get a one-time pop from a lot of money coming back to the u.s., you'd get sustained better investment, better allocation of capitol. you let markets do it, not the tax code. all that can give you a half a percentage point, if you do that. as you said, it's a big if, but remember, the president's budget is what will happen if the president gets everything he wants the way he wants it. so every president's budget is at some level an elaborate fantasy, but they're trying to stake out policy. paul: all right, let's talk about some of the specifics. what's your biggest disappointment in the budget? i'll tell you mine, it's that there's no touching medicare or social security which takes a huge chunk off the table for any kind of fixes. >> you've got it exactly right. that has to happen. we have social security, medicare and medicaid, the affordable care act, those programs are driving the
12:34 pm
ever-rising spending that fuels the red ink. if you take those two off the table, you can't really make sensible adjustments to the rest of the budget that add up. and you see that in the fact that they don't really have the out-year defense money that they need -- paul: right. >> -- made room for it, and they don't have a sensible strategy on cutting non-defense discretionary program. there's some massive cuts in places like national institutes of health, but they need that in the budget. that's the problem. paul: so what do you like about the budget? is there anything you really think is useful that's in there that's much needed? >> there is a medicaid reform. we're going to have to reform all of our entitlement programs, and critics don't like this one, but they are missing the point. there has to be one. so if you don't like this one, propose another one that you like better, but don't take medicaid reform off the table. they're doing that, they're aiming for better growth, i think those are two big pluses in this budget. paul: and the medicaid budget, the big reform is sending the
12:35 pm
program back to the states in the sense that you take more responsibility for it, and if you have more stake in the game, the states, then reform it. and we've seen that in a lot of states. you know because you were watching that program. >> sure. paul: a lot of states have done some very good things, democrat and republican governors, that get that program on a better footing and don't hurt the poor. >> yeah. i mean, there's no substitute for putting something on a budget. once something's on a budget, and this puts it -- gives it to the states and says here's the money, they have every incentive to use that money more wisely, it's way better than an open-ended draw on the treasury, and when we've done anytime the past, look at indiana and wisconsin, they have managed to cover those populations, get better health care and not spend as much money. that's the key. paul: all right. general economic question here at the end. why is the stock market doing so well here if there's so much uncertainty still in washington about the trump policies? >> i think the firm one thing is the fact -- number one thing is the fact that the regulatory freezes really worked.
12:36 pm
obama was cruising along at $3.2 billion a week in new regulatory costs, and now it's zero. paul: wow. >> people notice that. if you're running a business, people are happy. [laughter] paul: you think if you got tax reform, it'd be even better. >> yeah. i think the promise of tax reform is keeping people's hopes up. i sincerely hope the president and congress deliver, it's something this country needs. paul: thank you very much, doug. still ahead, president trump wraps up his first foreign trip and returns to the washington maelstrom. a look at where the russia probe heads next when we come back. managing blood sugar is not a marathon. it's a series of smart choices. and when you replace one meal or snack a day with glucerna made with carbsteady to help minimize blood sugar spikes you can really feel it.
12:37 pm
glucerna. everyday progress. my belly pain i could build a small city with all the over-the-counter products i've used. enough! i've tried enough laxatives to cover the eastern seaboard. i've climbed a mount everest of fiber. probiotics? enough! (avo) if you've had enough, tell your doctor what you've tried and how long you've been at it. linzess works differently from laxatives. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. it can help relieve your belly pain, and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements that are easier to pass. do not give linzess to children less than six, and it should not be given to children six to less than eighteen. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach-area pain and swelling. talk to your doctor about managing your symptoms proactively with linzess.
12:38 pm
12:39 pm
♪ ♪ paul: president trump returns to washington this weekend, and the ongoing controversy over russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. even in his absence, the drip-drip of stories continued with former national security adviser michael flynn taking the fifth on monday and refusing to comply with a senate committee's
12:40 pm
subpoena for documents. in his testimony tuesday, director of national intelligence dan coats refused to comment on reports that president trump asked him to publicly deny allegations of collusion between his campaign and russia. and the president himself has reportedly retained the services of new york attorney mark cass wits to help him navigate the probe. we're back with dan henninger, mary kissel and bill mcgurn. one other detail, mary, jared kushner, the president's son-in-law, white house aide, is now a person of interest as the investigators want to ask him about meetings he had with russian officials. what do you make of that? >> okay. that's interesting, but it's just part of this big what i think is becoming a blur to the american people of, you know, illusions and insinuations. paul, the only thing that we know for sure that was a criminal act was the leak of classified information to the media. we know that for sure. then let the special counsel go and figure out the facts of what's happened with other
12:41 pm
people. personally, i find far more interesting a washington post story that came out this week that said that james comey may have acted, gone to the public with his findings about the clinton e-mail investigation based on a russian document that might have been planted by russian intelligence sources. now, why was -- paul: this was last summer. >> yep. and why was this document interesting? because it claimed that somehow loretta lynch had talked to the clinton campaign and said, don't worry about that e-mail server, we're not going to investigate that. and then as "the washington post" reported, comey may have acted on that information. if that's true, that means the russians duped the fbi and doj, maybe not the trump campaign. paul: which is entirely possible, that that happened, although we haven't seen that document, so we don't know what it is, bill, we don't know -- you know, there's so much of this, it's all kind of murky -- >> right. paul: and i want to ask you has this probe now gotten any sharper focus in your mind?
12:42 pm
any more clarity about what it is that we're actually learning? >> well, that's a good question because i think the purpose is not to have clarity. it's not to -- paul: well, whose purpose? >> well, i think democrats and the people that are pushing this. they don't want to reach a conclusion and find out what happened. i think what they would like is to create this constant stir around president trump and hope something sticks and maybe there's an impeachment. now, he doesn't help when he lobs a tweet or something in there or says something, you know, that he shouldn't say. i mean, i always thought he needed an editor, not a lawyer -- paul: he needs both now. [laughter] >> a lot of this this is, you know, i worked in the white house when there was an investigation into scooter libby and karl rove, and it really is designed to handicap you and freeze you up and change a debate from what you want to talk about to russia. and we've had dni, fbi, cia and no, no conclusion. paul: on bill's point that trump sometimes is his own worst enemy
12:43 pm
in this thing, the story about trump having asked dan coats and i think general rogers is it, the head of the nsa, please go out publicly and vouch for the fact that there was no collusion. you can't do that when you're president, ask those advisers to do that. and his general counsel should have been in the room telling him you can't do that or -- and been in the room when he asked them. >> yeah. paul: and this is the problem with this president, because there's no self-discipline there to try to say, look, i want to try to contain this probe and this damage. instead it's i'm innocent, and he blurts things out that only create another week of stories. >> right. yeah, normally a president would be sitting with his advisers in the oval office and say why can't we get directors of national intelligence to say that there's no collusion. that would be vetted, there'd be a reason why you can't do it. this brings up the subject of the fact that mr. trump has now hired an outside attorney to handle these investigations who
12:44 pm
is his personal lawyer, he's a new york corporate lawyer who's handled new york corporate cases. he is not a lawyer who specializes in these kinds of investigations you have in washington. i can understand mr. trump wanting a lawyer who he personally trusts, but he -- mr. cassowitz has got to add some lawyers who are expert in document retrieval, investigation, subpoenas in washington or he's going to remain vulnerable. paul: and he's known as a guy who really fights which you might want -- on the other hand, you want to have somebody that cooperates enough. you can't get anywhere in these things stonewalling. that just leads you down a terrible path, bill. >> yeah. i think, look, a lot of it for president trump is just don't feed the beast. don't throw something into the mix that, you know, gasoline onto the fire that gives them more reason to scream and holler. and try to work with these guys to get conclusions. let's look into these things and
12:45 pm
let's reach a conclusion about what happened and what didn't happen. >> well, i think the other takeaway here was just the incredibly poor judgment that trump showed in hiring general michael flynn. this is a guy who was paid by turkish group during the campaign, he registered later as a foreign agent. we know that somehow he misled the vice president, now we're learning that he maybe didn't disclose everything that he should have disclosed when he was getting his security clearance renewed. so trump came out and defended him. i think at this point you start to distance yourself from a guy like that, but trump just can't seem to do that. paul: the question is, some people have suggested, that maybe he, you know, trump worried that flynn might be able to implicate trump in something. i'm not saying he has any evidence, i'm just saying that's the scuttlebutt. >> evidence is the right word. i don't disagree with mary, but let's look at what has been going on in this investigation for months. everything is based on hearsay and insinuation. things that any prosecutor would say to a detective give me something i can take into court, and they have not done that to
12:46 pm
this point. paul: all right. thank you all very much. when we come back, state legislatures struggling for years with just how much they can or should consider race when redrawing political districts, so did this week's supreme court decision clear that question up or create more confusion? i'll never find a safe used car. start at the new show me minivans with no reported accidents. boom. love it. [struggles] show me the carfax. start your used car search at the all-new i count on my dell small for tech advice. with one phone call, i get products that suit my needs and i get back to business. ♪ ♪
12:47 pm
12:48 pm
12:49 pm
paul: the legislature in north carolina improperly used race in redrawing the lines for two congressional districts resulting in boundaries that disadvantaged black voters. "wall street journal" editorial board member col colin levy
12:50 pm
joins us with more. what's the big takeaway from this decision? >> i think it's that the supreme court has made things more complicated. you know, for years basically we've been telling state legislatures they have to use the 1965 voting rights act when drawing districts. they have to take some race into account to make sure that minority voters are able to elect a candidate of their choice. and what the supreme court basically said this week w okay, you do have to take the voting rights act into account, but you can't use that as a defense because if you put too many minority voters into a district, that violates equal protection. so this has actually gotten more confusing, i think for states, not less. paul: where do they draw the line between not enough and too much? >> right, exactly. that's sort of what people call the goldilocks problem here. this was a matter of moving just a few percentage points of minority voters into some of these districts. and, you know, republicans there
12:51 pm
who control the state legislatures said they were doing this because they wanted to sort of increase republican chances in surrounding districts. and, you know, what happens here, what's so difficult is that because about 90% of the african-american community votes democrat, moving black voters often means moving democrats. so it gets a little muddy. paul: well, and that's right. i mean, they have -- there's no question that republicans have used redistricting to pack some districts with more black voters -- >> which is legal. paul: they're commanded to, in some -- >> as collin was saying, because here race can be a proxy for your political views because of the high percentages that blacks vote republican -- for democrats, they find themselves in uncharted waters here x. the supreme court has given them no guidance. they use the same language when it comes to affirmative action higher education. they tell schools race can be a factor but not the determinant factor. now you go figure it out. [laughter]
12:52 pm
and it's -- but, you know, clarence thomas -- paul: that's what i wanted to can about. >> yeah. paul: so clarence thomas was the fifth vote here. now, you'd say clarence thomas, i've looked at his jurisprudence for years, he abhors the use of race as a, in redistricting and anything else. he thinks the constitution is essentially race-neutral. >> right. and that's why he voted -- paul: why did he vote for the liberals -- >> because, again, it's not whether race is a fact or or the factor, he says once you're talking about using race here, he thinks that's just an outdated notion, and that should not be -- and he's right. the thinking behind this gerrymandering is that we need to segregate voters by race in order for black elected, black figures to be elected x. this is nonsense in this world we live in. under obama lots of whites voted for obama, and he wasn't the first black candidate to receive a lot of white votes. so i think this is just an outdated interpretation of the voting rights act.
12:53 pm
paul: but, collin, is clarence thomas with that vote for different reasons empowering the liberal interpretation of the voting rights act? >> right. i think that's very interesting because i think what's happening here is the court has now acknowledged that there needs to be strict scrutiny on any use of race. and that's something that, you know, the whole court may consider again if there's another case that ever challenges section two of the voting rights act. now, paul, one of the other interesting things here though is how much this is probably going to increase litigation, you know, on these voting rights cases. paul: right. >> as samuel alito said in his opinion, the danger here is that you actually have a situation where you're taking federal courts and empowering them as political weapons, you know, in these sort of local and state political battles, you know, where the states try to get through the courts what they're unable to get through the political process. paul: yeah. race again will become more of a partisan weapon -- >> exactly, and that's what's going on here.
12:54 pm
political gerrymanders are legal, racial jerry mappedders are illegal, and the democrats have discovered when they can file lawsuits, generally they win. it's a complete act of hypocrisy -- paul: racial gerrymanders are sometimes illegal. sometimes, jason, they're legal. >> well, we look to the courts for some clarity on this. again, they continue to punt as they've done again in this case. paul: and as samuel alito in his dissent pointed this out to. thank you all very much. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. snuck. ♪ ♪ ♪ the sun'll come out tomorrow... ♪ for people with heart failure, tomorrow is not a given. but entresto is a medicine that helps make more tomorrows possible. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow... ♪ i love ya, tomorrow in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto helped more people stay alive
12:55 pm
and out of the hospital than a leading heart failure medicine. women who are pregnant must not take entresto. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure... ...kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow i love ya, tomorrow ♪ ask your heart doctor about entresto. and help make tomorrow possible. ♪ you're only a day away.
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
♪ ♪ paul: time now for our hits and misses of the week. joe, start us off. >> paul, i think we've all had the impulse to strangle a journalist from time to time, but somehow we managed to resolve our differences civilly. so this is a miss to the montana
12:58 pm
republican who body slammed a reporter for the guardian ahead of a special congressional election on thursday. he went on to win, believe it or not, but only by about five or six points in a a state with an 11-point republican advantage. this could be an ominous sign for the republican majority ahead of the 2018 midterms and certainly an ominous sign for decent behavior in congress. paul: all right. collin. >> paul, we've become sort of accustomed in recent years to mobs on college campuses shutting down conservative speakers the way that middlebury college did with conservative author charles murray this spring, but some legislatures are starting to look at laws that will make sure that college campuses have free speech all over them, not just in designated free-speech zones, places like wisconsin and tennessee are are doing it. and some of them are better than others, but i think, you know, it's a sign that these states have finally had enough and it's
12:59 pm
a ten in the right direction. -- step in the right direction. paul: jason. >> a hit for roger moore who has died at the age of 89. he was not my favorite james bond, but he did play the character in "for your eyes only." i also thought he wore the celebrity well. he didn't complain about being typecast or this wrongs throngs of fans bothering him. he seemed to appreciate there are worse things in life than being rich and famous. paul: bill. >> the puerto rican day parade in new york coming up, the board of the parade announced that they were designating oscar lopez rivera as a national hero, freedom hero. and that's backed by the speaker of the city council. it's provoked backlash. these people get a hit. the yankees, the nypd, spanish society for pulling out of the parade. look, the truth is this guy is
1:00 pm
no different from the people who plotted manchester, no moral difference, and there'd be no controversy if president obama hadn't commuted his sentence. paul: thank you all. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and to all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot, hope to see you right here next week. >> president trump's first overseas trip since taking office now in the books. the president currently enroute to the white house departing italy earlier today where he praised his nine-day trip as a great success. hello, i'm laura ingle, welcome to a brand new hour of "america's news headquarters." gregg: and i'm gregg jarrett, thanks for joining us. the president capping off his trip with a speech to u.s. troops stationed in sicily, vowing to overcome and defeat the growing threat of global terror. amy kellogg is live in italy with more on this. amy, what was accomplished on this trip? >> reporter: well, gregg, lots of sweeping