tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX December 31, 2017 9:00am-10:00am EST
>> i'm dana perino in for chris wallace. the world is watching as protesters rise up against the regime. we will have a live report on the wave of rallies, reaction from the white house, and how it is raising the stakes. then lawmakers face a host of issues when they returned to washington as the clock ticks down to 2018. >> the truth is, we are going to have a lot of bipartisan work done and maybe we start with infrastructure. >> dana: what are the odds republicans and democrats can find common ground? >> we hope the future will be different and a republicans friends realize that legislative and political roles are better served by bipartisanship and compromise rather than quick gridlock and strife. >> dana: will spend the hour with her sunday panel. bruce mehlman, marie harf, and
bowlby c. plus, from natural disaster to the opioid epidemic, we will find out the state of the nation's most pressing crises. all right now be seven. and hello again and happy new year's eve from fox news in washington. we begin with breaking news. the protests in major cities across iran including the capital for college students and others anchored by the country's worsening economy are challenging the government and the way not seen since the islamic republic disputed 2009 presidential election. president trump has tweeted his support of the protesters and it's sparked pushback from iran. let's go live in west palm beach, florida, for the latest from the winter white house. >> the protest across iran clearly a focus for president trump. he has tweeted about of them for the last three days in a row including just three days ago drawing attention to the
demonstrations and showing his support for the protesters. the president tweeted "many reports of peaceful protest by iranian citizens fed up with the regime's corruption and its squandering of the nation's wealth to fund terrorism abroad. iranian government should respect their people's rights, including right to express themselves. the world is watching." both remarks to a sharp spines for moran's foreign ministry saying the iranian people give no credit to the deceitful and opportunist remarks of u.s. officials or the protests which have spread to cities across iran again over anger at higher food prices and food shortages. but the anger has expanded to target the islamic regime itself and its supreme leader by name. on saturday, president trump retweeted a portion of its address to the united nations from september in which he predicted the uranian people would soon face a choice. >> oppressive regimes cannot endure forever. >> it is hard to tell where the protests are heading, but as
their scope has gotten wider, so too has the intensity of the crackdown which has seen her tear gas, water cannons, and now shots fired and at least two protesters killed. one thing that is clear no matter how these protests do develop is if this president will not sit by silently on the sidelines. and this just in from the rands state tv, the government has at least temporarily shut down instagram and the internet messaging app telegram. back to you. >> dana: steve harrigan west palm beach, thanks for that. time to introduce our sunday panel. bruce ♪ ♪ , former assistant secretary of commerce for technology policy under george w. bush. former dnc communications director, marie harf, former state spokesperson under president obama and head of heritage action for america. right before the show, president trump tweeted again about iran. take a look at this.
he says. let's see if we can pull it up your. big protests in iran. the people are finally getting wise as to how their money in their wealth is being stolen and squandered on terrorism. looks like they will not take it any longer period of the usa is watching very closely for human rights violations. >> dana: what will the protest tell us about what's happening inside iran and does the fact that there are these protests perhaps as unorganized as they are but they are growing. put aside the theory that president from how you a radians behind the regime because he has been tough about iran and vowed to decertify the nuclear deal? >> as you mentioned, "the new york times" it in a big story headline that president trump was unifying the iranian people behind the regime. that's clearly not what's going on. these were protests that started over some economic issues, the price of poultry and eggs but clearly it's about much more than that, it's about terrorism,
they're saying desta has below, the exact type of things you need to see going on and around for a change in the behavior of not the actual regime. all of that said, you have an extraordinarily powerful regime. it's a resume is powerful with money that will have the iran deal that president obama struck it it has arms, has proxy militias all through the region that are set up. so the protests are certainly up against a very powerful regime. that's where the united states can come in, help provide them with access to secure communications they need going forward. lead ambassador haley to do something symbolically at the u.n. you need to put pressure on your european partners to step up. it's pretty embarrassing right now that all of these close nationalist human rights defenders in europe are completely silent when you actually have people standing up for themselves, standing up their economic rates, standing up for the human rights in europe and canada frankly have been completely silent. the one we seen a lot of video of women are being very brave in particular because the crackdowns that they have to go
through. how important is it for the united states to consider helping on this issue of being able to communicate? you heard steve harrigan say the uranian's have shut the ability to communicate via instagram, twitter, or other social media. it's also how western media find sources and gets information. >> i have two thoughts on that. first, we've got to be careful. too often in these kind of conversations we make the rest of the world politics all about us. it's not about them supporting trumper hating trump were supporting obama or not and the reality is this reflects a population's unhappiness with the repressive regime. it's not delivering positive economic results and in some ways, rather than the global terrorism story, it is better fits into the global populism story. and the concerns with establishments that are delivering the type of growth to the nation of the type of freedoms for the nation that people want. that also explains a brexit, what to do with the election of 2016 here. with respect to shutting down technology, people often forget
the internet and all of these social media applications are neither good nor evil. they are forces that can be used for great good and encouraging population or in problematic ways to crackdown on people. the united states certainly want to see the success of the people michael described at the same time. the policy of the united states becomes we are going to weigh in on the domestic politics of other nations around the world and getting involved through technological means, that sounds a lot like something a former fbi director is spending time looking at. >> dana: i were not on the broadcasting board of governors for a while, trying to give people the axis that they need. let's go to your expertise. there is no secret that part of the story line here in america as we focus on ourselves is comparing president obama's reaction or lack of support for protesters in 2009 to what you see from president trump when the rest of the administration today. is that criticism unfair or do you look at it and think that it was circumstantial and different back then? >> i think as we are looking
today in 2017, all of 2018, the united states has to walk a very fine line here. it will not help protesters to have overt united states support for them. the iranian government is already accusing protesters of being western lackeys, u.s. lackeys. that does not help their cause. while we should and the president did say the world is watching, we should stand with people standing up to repressive regimes. there is a fine line here because if the goal is to make sure these protesters actually have space to express themselves, united states weighing in on their behalf stronger than -- some people wanted us to do that in 2009. the reason we did that is because it was our judgment and we were hearing from iranians protesting on the street that your support will not help us. so that the line the trump administration has to walk here. i hope they continue to look at it from that perspective. >> dana: this is all happening while there's another geopolitical imminent problem, and that is of north korea.
it is a regime that is racing towards becoming a nuclear powe power. with capability to wipe out any city in the united states as they say. this is a race against time of china and russia are not going to fully cooperate? >> i think so. there's no question that china is really the key here. that they will have more leverage on north korea than almost anyone else. russia needs to play an important role here. and if they don't step up, then i think north korea is headed on a trajectory that's going to be very hard to slow down. this past year, losing a lot of back and forth with this administration and the best way to do with it now looking back on the first year of the trump administration, i don't think the tone of the president has set was as successful as he thinks it is. i don't think it has slow them down at all. i think our diplomatic efforts need to be focused more on china
and on russia getting them to step in to the very important roles that they need to play because otherwise we are heading in at a very dangerous trajectory. >> dana: president obama's handling of national security issues played in large part in the midterms of 2014. do you see that as a big part of going into the 2018 midyear for president from? >> i think there's a lot of issues that play in 2014. i'm not sure that national security will be number one or number two. the people should look at this and say we finally have a president of the united states with a coherent national security strategy. he's taking all the things he talked about about america first and putting them to the context of a coherent national security. we finally have an around strategy that's about more than just cutting a deal with iran on the nuclear issue but is dealing with the fact that they are striving to be regional hegemonic power. we have a real policy towards north korea. i think like you said, needs to be stronger to get the chinese to engage her to do in the first term of the bush and administration grade we took stationary sanctions on a bank and hong kong that had the
behavior of the north korean regime. we need to be doing that again. secondary sanctions on 12 chinese banks that could be targeted. but we finally have a coherent national security strategy, coherent engagement with the rest of the world. it is making us safer. if you look at this at the end of eight years in the bush and administration, the world was safer for america. at the end of eight years in the obama administration, the road was left safer country and i think we are well and the trajectory right now and people should keep that in mind in 2018 and beyond. >> dana: i should mention while they have only about a minute left, there was the issue of isis in 2017. they administration points to the fact that they were quite diminished not only distant territory, but 90% of the territory is diminished. and that the fighters are out. the cybersecurity threat and also the online recruitment of terrorists and by isis, is that something you're going to be looking at 2018? >> i think everybody has to look at that. there's a threat not only from isis but around the world. the internet has empowered more
people, been better for the world that any prior technology and it also creates greater vulnerabilities and greater threats than any prior technology. we are brilliant at connecting and creating those opportunities and pretty inept at defending ourselves and defending our allies around the world. a lot is going out to change and hopefully can change before something really bad happens. >> dana: we have to take a quick break here. when we come back, the effort to avoid a january federal shutdown. and what is on what to-do list when congress returns?
>> were going to get back to reforming health care in these entitlements and take on health care reform which is another big entitlement program which is enabling able-bodied people not to work. >> democrats are not going to be interested in entitlement reform so i would not expect to see that on the agenda. >> dana: house speaker paul ryan and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell somewhat at odds over what to tackle next is part of the revoking party's agenda in 2018. we are back now with the panel. let me start with you. the republicans pull it together and they're able to leave with several accomplishments. they're going to economic growth in the regulatory rollback, judicial appointments, the fight against isis, and now the tax bill. i'm wondering if at this point as you look back on the year, is the republicans were coming to an end as they figure out a way to work together? >> we need to work together, we need to get things done. there are still differences of
position within the republican party. i think part of the reason that donald trump got elected was he recognized that the chamber of congress at the end of that the republican establishment in washington likes to fight for his and actually what people across the country who are anxious need. we need growth which is by think the tax bill is so important. i think when you look at speaker ryan talked about welfare system, which not only keeps able-bodied people out of the workforce which again hurts growth but is a complete attack on the human flourishing and people being able to go in and find self-worth and dignity. those of the types of policies that we need. that's different than what the republican party in which love to come to town and work and worry about insurance programs for companies or the export import gator the typical agenda of the chamber of commerce. i don't think the republican civil war is over. we need to come together and give dignity and achievement to people across the country who feels like washington doesn't care about them.
>> dana: a lot of republicans at this point i think even if they felt like the populism strain of the trump campaign wasn't something we could go for, the agenda they could largely agree on when it comes to tax cuts wasn't necessarily what they thought would happen at the end of this year. i wonder, are democrats starting to get a little concerned that will rage against president trump will not be enough to carry them into successes in 2018 or even 2020 if they don't have a coherent message and accomplishments of their own? >> there's two parts of the successful campaign missions. one is when there's a party in power making the aggressive case against the party that is in power which you have to offer an alternative as well is that democrats do need to offer some sort of an agenda. i will say this about 2017 and the balkans in congress. and by every measure, you prepare this first year of this administration and compared to the first year of the four previous administrations. two democrats and two
republicans. they got far less done legislatively than his four predecessors did. one big thing they have to hang their hat on, the tax bill at the end of the year could not be less popular. in the eyes of the public. >> dana: that could change. >> sure, that could change. but the historical president of something that big, public opinion shifting as aggressively as they need to before the midterm elections, there's not a lot of precedent for that. the big thing they say they want to do now is infrastructure which you can even get the house and senate republican leadership on the same page on this. >> dana: they certainly have work to do. is it difficult to cast 2017 other than an economic success story [boos] the stock market rose every month of the year which is the first time that's ever happened. the last two quarters had a 3% gdp growth, something that in the last decade we were told might not actually be possible
again. and then there's the unemployment rate which is at 4%. as a way to track legislative accomplishments and electoral successes through the economy still? is it still the economy? >> nothing matters more to voters on the economy. i think that's the single best predictor but there is 2018 or 2020 with the economy looks like. if you got peace and prosperity, you tend to do well as a party in power and if you don't, you're challenged. i also think presidents get more credit for economic successes than they deserve and more blame than they deserve as well. so i wouldn't simply say the barometer for republicans either in 2018 or 2020 or four republican policy successes is look at the economy, therefore we did that. but i do think mo was a little unfair. there are a lot of republican compliments we didn't talk about in areas such as energy and labor policy. there was a big fourth-quarter
push but a whole lot got done. >> dana: a lot of that was done administratively. remember him saying he had a pen and a phone. the president that will come after him. rick leaders are going to go to the speaker's office on wednesday when i get back into town because they have a lot to do. getting together on the third of the month, on the eighth is when the house comes back. how to deal with daca are the dreamers as both sides said that they want to do that but how they will do it still a questio question. with the way did not shut down the government? 's because they have to get a budget pass and i think a lot of these debates are going to be overspending, over deficits and how we pacing things. or that the budget that republicans have proposed blowing through the budget caps that the republican-controlled congress put in place to control spending. whether it's daca and immigration, there is a bipartisan way to get an immigration to daca with some
funding for border security, possibly the visa. there's a question about paying for it. whether it's infrastructure. there are conservative deficit hawks not running again like bob corker and jeff flake that i think are not going to be sure in the senate. the republican civil war over this issue of deficits will continue to grow. if you want to do infrastructure, if you want to do this large budget, if you want to even think about entitlement. i think paul ryan is probably going to lose to mitch mcconnell only entitlement issue. what this is going to be the big fight. how do we pay for everything? we can't keep writing these huge checks. >> dana: i see you nodding your head. it seems like whenever parties are in power, the deficits don't matter. when they're out of power, the deficits matter a lot. from the perspective of conservative republicans in the house freedom caucus, are they going to continue to swallow some of this extra spending? >> i'm not sure that all republicans care that much about deficit even during the obama years. they just pretended for partisan
reasons to be. our country needs to control our spending. there's absolutely no doubt about it. marie is correct that when you have a budget caps that have been put in place by republican congresses, though should be respected. i think they need to be re-changed to allow our defense to be defunded the way it needs to be funded. it would be outrageous to blow up the budget caps on both the defense and the nondefense side in january and we will probably see it and people should be disciplined to see that out of the republican party. i don't think there's any chance that you can immigration bill done by january 19th that actually solves our nation's immigration problems. everyone wants to have an immigration system that makes sense for you bring in the people that you should be bringing in. that's not what we have. it's because of chain migration, president trump has been absolutely clear that he will not sign a dream or bill that doesn't deal with chain migration. the idea of people that when they are left in this country can bring relatives with them, distant relatives, we should have a system that allows people to come into this country because they can contribute to this country, so they can
assimilate to these country. that's what needs to be changed in the president is correct to require that to be part of any deal that happens. >> dana: you think will be able to reach an agreement? president from, the republican leaders? chuck schumer nancy pelosi when they are with the president in the summer him to think that there could be some common ground there. >> i think everyone is still hopeful. what we've seen and i think since that meeting is a lot of people gearing up for a midterm election instead of rolling up their sleeves and tackling the issue. i think the easiest point of entry here. the one thing that everyone seems to at least say on the same page on on the dreamers. because of everything else in the other political pressures that people are feeling, they are attaching lots of conditions now for the dreamer. so these kids become that. >> dana: are not all kids anymore.
♪ ♪ it all starts with a wish. the final days of wish list are here. hurry in and sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down and a complimentary first month's payment. >> as we approach the 2018 elections, they're going to be hotly contested and nothing should be taken for granted by republicans and certainly nothing should be taken for
granted by democrats. they need to also put their best foot forward. >> dana: that's alabama senator elect doug jones will be sworn in this week on the impact of his surprise election on the 2018 midterm. we are back now with the panel. let me ask you historically, you know what happens in midterms. the president in power often loses seats. that's almost always the way it goes. who is most likely to win in the midterm elections and who has what hand? >> is a great question. on the republican side, there are districts, demography, and dollars. thanks to gerrymandering, most republican districts are safely republican. they're not a threat of losing to democrats. in 94 was true. the midterm elections are always older, they're always more white. they're always more conservative voters. and republican party committees and super pacs have outraised their democratic counterparts. that said, the single best predictor for a midterm typically the president's popularity in the president's over 60% popularity and as you
in 2002, you can gain seats. this president is at 39%. historically, they would lose 33 seats which is enough to lose the majority. similarly with democrats, they have a massive enthusiasm advantage. "wall street journal" poll said 39% of democratic voters are very enthusiastic versus 34% of republicans. in the last thing that report professionals tend to look at is the generic. republicans are democratic control congress. and now, democrats are sitting on an epic 13-inch point lead in that. >> dana: which hand would you rather play with? >> as a rule, it's more fun playing the insurgent hand anyway. certainly 2010 at 2014 were fun. says a republican, i'd probably want to play the insurgent hand this year. we want to me ask you if you could look at this graphic here, we have the senate toss-up seat,
these are the ones that everybody is sort of looking at, nevada, arizona, and missouri, minnesota, indiana, west virginia, tennessee, maybe even north dakota. if you are working or advising the democratic senators in red states, how would you advise them to approach this upcoming election. because this is where president trump won. for the president's and a lot of these states was -- i'm not a fan of the president but i give him credit for recognizing that we are in a popular stage. so his rhetoric was very populous. i would encourage any democratic weather in the suburbs are in the states on that map to realize that the spectrum has changed. it's not left versus right. it's more up versus down. there is a disconnect between people and the elites. so if you can go into the states and talk about the need for people to have a champion in
washington, take trump out of it for a minute. you can go after him and he is unpopular and every one of those states that you have up there. his popularity is underwater. if you can go after him where it makes sense to you. but the other side of the equation is to offer something as an alternative. if that alternative is a champion, a true champion, then i think democrats are going to be in a very, very good position. i would much rather have a democratic hand on the republican hand this time. the president's numbers are underwater. this congress has not delivered the things that people said that they wanted it if they don't like a signature accomplishment. all those things are and i set up for democrats. democrats have to close the sale. if they can do that by showing they will be a champion for people who feel disconnected from the establishment, then i think this can be a very good year for democrats. >> if you take a look at off year elections, the party in power has won 110 out of 114
since 1982. 110 out of 114 senate elections and off year elections of the party in power with 96% is 104 out of 128. that's 80%. >> dana: he talked about democrats having a lot of enthusiasm behind them as best it was a little a turn. use on virginia and alabama, not obviously going to make or break the case but that suburban women voting for democrats and big turnout for african-americans. to think that kind of energy can sustain itself the 2018? >> i do. there's a couple places to look. suburban women and suburban men who are getting frustrated with the republican-led congress, president trump also looking you see that in virginia and pennsylvania as well, independence or another place to look. independents are now increasingly by double digits say they would rather vote for generic democrats than a generic republican. republican party self identification as at the lowest point since 1991. so all these numbers say that we
are going to have a democratic wave but mo is right. democrats need to close the sale. i think with the parties looking to do is find in cabinets that fit their district, not having litmus test across the board, not a national election. this is about a district by district, state by state, and the fund-raising on a candidate level, democrats are doing historically well and fund-raising at the individual level, not at the party level which is the challenge for 2020 but a 2018 election that's less of a challenge. we'll see if democrats can close the deal. >> dana: at me ask you about this. to build a blog about was going to be sworn in again as new york city mayor. >> as a new yorker, this depresses me. >> dana: i'm a new yorker to you and i was born in wyoming. four years ago, was sworn in by bill clinton. this week, he'll be sworn in by bernie sanders. what does this tell you about the shift in the democratic party in any advantages you see for republicans? >> at its core, the democratic party has a huge divide right now from its left which cares
about issue matrix that is just gigantic way different than the issue matrix of the rest of the country and they care about climate change and they care about lgbtq issues, and that is about half of the democrat party right now versus of still working class part of the democratic party that feels in claire's about a lot of the same issues. dave winston just did a great report for something called a boater's study group looking at this that cares about jobs, that cares about the fact that mo was talking about, that many people in this country feel like our nation's elites have moved on from caring about america and caring about their struggles and are more cosmopolitan only to want to be well accepted. people around the country who feel that washington is corrupt. the democrat party has a divide. i don't know how they're going to bridget between these two very powerful blocks within it. the republican party has the challenge of recognizing we are not 1984 again. we have to do elections differently, have to talk about different issues. we can get there pretty easily
on our side showing how our same conservative principles can work for the day the same way they did during ronald reagan's time. i don't know how you square the hashtag left and linda dunham with this. >> dana: we have the perfect person to ask right here on the panel. can the democrats win back working-class democrats so the voters that had voted for obama but decided to vote for president from this time around? >> i think they can and both parties struggled with it in 2016. donald trump defeated the republican party before he did so mike defeated the democratic party. both parties became very disconnected from the working class. i think democrats where would disagree with my goal is there's a huge fish are within the democratic party. i think the democratic party, the differences between these two factions if you can call them that are really more of a matter of degree than a matter of direction. they do still fight for the same thing, how they get there and what tone there is one faction is angrier than the other.
but you compare that to the fissures within the republican party, i would still rather be trying -- shepard the democrats and the republican party where they seem to be all over the map right now. >> there's a great opportunity on the legislative agenda to expose this issue within her publican party and that's on the infrastructure bill. you need stomach cancer was much money at the infrastructure as you want with all the regulatory hurdles actually doing it. it's impossible to get that money out the door. >> dana: the problem is president trump could help on that front from the regulatory standpoint. >> this infrastructure bill needs to be about making it possible to do infrastructure projects and if you do that, you drive a wedge right into between the labor unions and the workers in the democratic party and the environmentalists in the democrat party. it's going to be huge opportunity to expose that divide and their party. >> there are also 36 36 governs races in 2018. if we talk about what actually impacts voting, the district in 2020 and who wins governors
mansions in 2018, 36 governors races and democrats have nowhere to go but up there. >> dana: should you turn off your phone for the next few months? >> if you haven't turned off your phone, something is wrong with you. >> dana: we have to take a break there. coming up, the impact of the russian investigation on the white house in 2018. president trump says he thinks special counsel muller is going to be fair even as some republicans raise allegations of political bias. ♪
australia may have raised a red flag prompting the fbi's investigation. former campaign advisor george papadopoulos allegedly told one of australia's diplomats that russia had thousands of hacked emails that would hurt hillary clinton months before wikileaks published them. as an interim's lawyer ty cobb release this statement. out of respect to the special counsel and his process, we are not commenting on matters such as this. we are continuing to fully cooperate with the office of the special counsel in order to complete their inquiry expeditiously. we are back in there with the panel, i think expeditiously is what everyone would like. how important is the peak stomach piece that "the new york times" ran yesterday, and is add an additional piece of this puzzle that the investigation may have originated before the dossier was ever in play? >> one of the big questions that had been on the stomach on answered up till now was what got this whole thing started. what was the impetus behind the investigation and you had trump supporters blaming the dossier and a lot of conjecture.
this article seems to answer the question that it was george papadopoulos popping off while drunk in a bar to australia's top diplomat in england that got this thing going. when australia which is one of america's top intelligence partners because the fbi, you know they're going to take it seriously. i think this is a big deal and provide some much-needed important context to where things are. >> dana: let me tell you something that president trump said "new york times" in an interview when he was at mar-a-lago this week. he didn't say maria. going to go to you next. there was tremendous collusion on behalf of the russians and the democrats. there was no collusion with respect to my campaign. i think i'll be treated fairly. timing wise, i can't tell you. i just don't know but i think we will be treated fairly. i think that he benefits from being magnanimous towards a special counsel for now but has he also benefited from
republicans trying to undercut the investigation? >> absolutely. i think that campaign to undercut the credibility has had an impact. but in 2018, the proof will be in the pudding. if he doesn't come up with anything, then people will say the president hasn't done anything wrong. but we already had new information not covered throughout this investigation of what russia was trying to do about contact with the russians during the campaign and i think that bob mueller will continue pulling on all of those threads into 2018. and if at the trump campaign has always said, the trump team has always said, they have nothing to hide, the show this investigation play out, and they should let it come to the end if they really are innocent as they say. i think the american people deserve that. >> dana: what about the president's point he says that the collusion was actually between the russians and the democrats? is not going to go anywhere? >> the one thing we know is that the dnc hired fusion gps which then hired christopher christopher steele to put
together this dossier and relied on at least two high-ranking members of the kremlin for some of the information in it. that is the one thing that has come out this year that we know with a reasonable amount of certainty happened, and it was coordination between the dnc through the fusion gps but kremlin officials. with all of this, we are better off waiting, letting this investigation play out, every month new stuff comes out and trickles out. the american people deserve this investigation. they deserve it to play out fairly. they deserve to know what happened and we are best served by waiting to get all the facts before we try to interpret each piece along the way. >> dana: this attack on institutions is not new. is this something we saw and doing they monica lewinsky scandal as well. take a look at this sound between comp don't want to congressman. >> i would like to seize the directors and say we've got a lot of great agents, a lot of great lawyers here. those of the people that i want
the american people to see and know the good work that's being done. because the type of purges he's talking about hearkens back to the cold war when there was a purge by mccarthy to find communists and that were hidden in the federal government. >> dana: what i'm wondering about is regardless of what muller decides, have the people already made up their minds that the system is corrupt and they're either going to think that trump did something bad or that he never did anything bad and is that there's the way it's going because of becoming so politicized? >> is definitely way too politicized and i don't think you can say regardless of what he's found because facts don't matter a lot but when you and i were talking about this year in my observation, i think 2018 is going to make 2017 seem tame. we are going to see a war on a special counsel. we sought in the nixon era, it succeeds against ken starr, in part question one is a special counsel on the investigation
vulnerable if you hire people who are democratic donors which they did, if you have people high up related to people who were in the fbi, there is one ability. you have the media. how is the media playing it? the media was entirely for clinton. in the movie is going to be mixed here because a fox and because of "the wall street journal" and others, going to have media on both sides. i like that he of republican senators in the case of nixon willing to go famously to the white house and say we don't have your back anymore. when bill clinton was proven right under oath and otherwise came out only joe lieberman was willing to stand up and say this is wrong. we can't stand for this. i think it's going to be potentially mixed in 2018 and a lot more supported because folks like flake and got for a bed of the likely senator mccain and others may not be there in 2019 and the senate. and then it comes down to the facts. at the end of the day, if the
facts are nearly debate about a structure, i think you're going to have a fight over this, whether what they found is a high crime and misdemeanor. that's not going to be helpful for a lot of the policy talking about and certainly will the election. >> dana: have the democrats seated too much ground on policy and letting those things get done while they focus on russia? is there a bowl vulnerability there if they have a litmus test to call for impeachment such as he is recommended? >> to the latter question, yes. i don't think democrats should be pursuing in all impeachment strategy. and i do think that could be incredibly counterproductive. if the investigation plays out and make it a lot more information that starts pointing towards the direction of high crimes and misdemeanors, was have that conversation but at this point, i think putting all your eggs in that basket is incredibly dangerous. the first part of your question,
i don't think they are doing that. i think there are some democrats out there who are doing that but you look at what's going on in the senate, there are a lot of democrats in the senate who are standing firm and trying to challenge this administration on policy issues, what it was trying to repeal the aca, whether it was trying the most recent tax. democrats are having the policy debate while also trying to keep the appropriate focus on the investigation and people like mark warner in the senate is leading the charge over there. >> dana: what about looking forward to? i want you to comment on this too. the integrity of elections and the alleged interference where the attempted interference by foreign powers trying to influence our elections. as the united states doing enough to try to prevent that from happening at 2018 or 2020? >> i don't think we are in part of that is because for president trump, i think it's hard for him to separate out the idea that foreign powers are
trying to meddle in our system from the collusion investigation. there's a story this week that state election boards are going to have to wait up to nine months almost to the election to have dhs scanner systems but their most exhaustive security screening. and of think the administration is taking seriously preventing it from happening in the future because it gets clouded with this issue of collusion that they see as unfair and we should also be doing more. i think 2018 at 2020, they need to focus on that. >> our elections are part of our critical infrastructure and they should be defended. we should also keep it in context. the russians spent $54 on facebook ads in wisconsin. that's neglecting wisconsin even worse than hillary clinton did. so donald trump one this election because he tapped into real emotions and that's a lesson that should be learned from this and we can overflow the russia angle. >> dana: i will write that down as best quote of 2017 right here on "fox news sunday." time for a quick break.
>> we can be the generation that ends the opioid epidemic. >> dana: has a look back at some of the big stores at 2017 that will have an impact in the new year. and we are back now with some bonus time with the panel paid and let me start with you. went to ask you about the president and charlottesville. that seems to be the big moment of the year and is that continuing to drive the frustration, the disapproval of the president from democrats? >> it's a big part of it. i think it was one of the greatest missed opportunities of this administration. the way the president failed to seize the opportunity to unite the country against eight, against racism, against the white nationalism and allowed himself whether it was in his heart or just rhetorical blundering, allowed himself to appear to the white nationalists, to the racist as their champion was a huge,
hugely problematic thing. that set the tone and any hope he had of reconciling with a huge portion of the electorate, it ended right there. >> dana: and yet the president did seem to have his finger on the pulse of how people felt about the protests of the anthem at the nfl. he really drove that home is a cultural issue. >> he did, and this is a nation that's having a civic breaking apart. and that the tragedy. that something was bad for the country. it's indefensible that we can't as a nation agree that it's unacceptable for people in inner cities not to feel like the police can be there for them. it's also unacceptable that cops feel that they have to go out on the street and if they make the wrong decision in a split second that they could be part of racist. so we need to find a way as a nation to come together to have a civic reawakening going forward and there's no doubt that the president has not healed in some of those ways. there's no doubt that barack obama missed opportunities and lighting at the white house in a rainbow
flag the day that something was deeply destructive to have for the country happen in supreme court. we need to step back and figure out as a country had to be unite, how do we have the type of civic reawakening that this nation has been able to have in the past and if not, it's going to continue to get uglier. >> dana: rumor that study that said our civics education in america is a disaster. we have to get on that in 2018. i did want to talk about another issue that was certainly in a lot of peoples minds and on their hearts and not the opiate crisis. take a look with the surgeon general has said. a person dying every 16 minutes from an opiate overdose is what makes this an epidemic and that's what i absolutely want to make sure we do first and foremost. he also want to connect people to treatment. we don't want to keep resuscitating them. we want to have bridges to treatment also at the nation's doctor, it's important that we address prescribing alternatives to opiates for pain management. the number of people who are dying from overdoses has contributed to the fact that our life expectancy in the
united states for the second year in a row has declined. is america starting to come to grips with the scope and scale of the opiate epidemic? >> i think americans are. the question is for policy leaders likewise doing it and playing their role? there's a lot of debate about the proper role of government, and i think is bipartisan agreement the proper role of government here is to make sure that we regulate adequately so that there is not unlimited addictive substances out there without people understanding, without doctor's understanding what they do and what the risks are. there's a lot of relief that canon needs to happen. that's one of the few bright spots in 2015 with senator klobuchar put a legislation together try to help deal with the opioid crisis. there's more bipartisanship opportunity there, one of the rare issues that i think any democrat would work with president trump on not withstanding otherwise general disdain. >> dana: a lot of the new opiate problem is coming from across the border or from overseas, and its synthetic fentanyl or others.
do you think that whether it's the cna or when the outcome is that needing to be more mobilized to deal with that problem? >> absolutely. we need a holistic government approach here. when 99 americans are dying every day, fentanyl is so addictive that even people, first responders are having to be very careful when are handling it. we need a whole government approach led by the white house, led by the surgeon general, led by scientists and led by a bipartisan congressional effort to get funding for treatment, a real long-term treatment because we know this is -- addicts need a long time in recovery and treatment. we need more first responders having the overdose antidotes that isn't a solution, but it helps keep people alive. we need prevention and we need all of those things. they all require money. they all require time, they all require focus and during an election year, hard to lose all those things but for the sake of our country's health, we have to stay focused on it. we absolutely do.
>> dana: the president's speech that day in the white house when he talked about his personal experience with this brother in addiction, one of the most powerful moments and of course, we can't leave without mentioning the dramatic national disasters of hurricane harvey, irving, and maria and in the shootings in las vegas and in saloon springs. no we also have citizens in puerto rico who are trying to recover from the hurricane. of all of these things, they were moments where we realize humanity still exists in 2017. and there is hope and healing that can be done. >> my most optimistic moment in 2017 was in the wake of the hurricanes that ravaged texas and how we all came together to support those communities. federal government did what it needed to do, state government did what you needed to do, humanitarian efforts did what they needed to do and we all came together. it breaks my heart a little bit to hear at the end of the year we are not seeing that same kind
of rallying behind people in puerto rico who are still ravaged months later. they deserve so much better from the government from the rest of us. >> dana: is the wonderful to have all of you here to end 2017 and to begin 2018. i wish you all very well. thank you so much. that's it for us from today. from all of us, a very, very happy new year to you. i will see you next week for the daily briefing 2:00 p.m. eastern on the fox news channel and your very own favorite chris wallace will see you next fox news sunday. . week 17, and all to the 017
nfl regular season, the eagles with one final piece of business before the calendar flips to 2018. >> oh, yeah! oh, yeah! >> a home date with the dallas cowboys. what better way to say good-bye to 2017 than with another win over them cowboys. >> 13 wins is great, all that, we have to make it worth something that means building and next week playing our best. >> inside analysis as the eagles end the regular season with visions of playoffs dance tion in their heads. fox 29 game day live starts