tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX Business March 30, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. the special counsel may have wrapped up his investigation but the political battle far from over. as democrats this week called for attorney general william barr to immediately release the entire mueller report and pushed back on some of the top line conclusions on obstruction and collusion. adam schiff on thursday doubled down on his charges against the president in the face of republican calls for his resignation. >> my colleagues may think it's okay that the russians offered dirt on th a democratic candidae
for president as part of what was described as the russian government's effort to help the trump campaign. you might think it's okay. you might think it's okay that their only disappointment after the meeting was the dirt they received on hillary clinton wasn't better. i don't think it's okay. i think it's immoral. i think it's unethical. i think it's unpatriotic. and yes, i think it's corrupt. and evidence of collusion. paul: joining the panel this week, wall street journal columnist, dan heniger and james free man and kim straws he'll. what do you make of the hanging onto the idea that there really was collusion between the russians and trump despite mueller? >> well, i guess you would have to say back to business as usual for the democrats. nothing has changed. which does suggest a couple things, paul.
one, the democrats more than anybody defended robert mueller and the special prosecutor. and it now appears in retrospect that their support for the special prosecutor was an act of bad faith. they had no belief in the institution of the special prosecutor. what they were supporting was a result which they fully expected to get. and now that they did not get that result, they're trying to discredit not only the special prosecutor, the attorney general, and the sis system itf and that seems to become their momodus operandi and they're gog to revisit the whole idea of discrediting donald trump's election in 2016. they won't let it go. paul: is there some prospect, james, they're making a big deal of the fact that barr used to turn this over, is there some prospect that barr hadn't cleared his four page letter with mueller in advance? >> unless you want to start fainfaintedfantasizing that bare
and made it up and is quoting mueller incorrectly here, but in the letter from barr, it's a summary, it has the direct quote from mueller's report saying no one in the trump campaign coordinated or conspired with the russian government to influence the election. paul: i assume barr understood he would be on capitol hill at some point to have to explain any difference between the letter and what the report said. >> adam schiff said two years ago he had seen more than circumstantial evidence of collusion. he's been playing the game with the media, hinting of some grand conspiracy to be unveiled. it turns out there wasn't one and that's why you see these calls for him to resign. paul: kim, where is adam schiff going with this with the intelligence committee? is this going to fly at all? is there a new place he can investigate? >> i think it's incredibly dangerous, now that mueller has come out with his report.
we know what direction he's going. he has taken yet some more accusations from the same organization, fusion gps, that has to do with the trump organization and its talks for a while to potentially build a high-rise trump tower in moscow, so they're looking into the financial questions there. there's been allegations of money laundering and bank fraud. none of that has been ever established. but adam schiff's goal here is to have a phase two of russian collusion. okay, so mueller didn't give us the goods. we're going to go down another road and keep this alive. the danger is mueller having reached this conclusion and essentially exonerated the president on the collusion charge, i think schiff definitely risks some backlash from voters if he won't let it go. paul: what about the obstruction of justice point, dan, a separate point where mueller was less definitive and the ultimate conclusion was made
by mr. barr and his colleagues in the justice department. is that some place where the democrats could possibly elevate again this charge for impeachment? >> well, i think that's exactly right. they will elevate it for political reasons. paul: they're going to try to. >> they're going to try to. paul: is it going to fly? >> no, i don't think it's going to fly. obstruction of justice is a judgment call, it's a process crime. yes, lying to the court is a crime and, say, contempt of court is something that judges enforce. but whether it was obstruction of justice is something prosecutors decide and rod rosenstein and attorney general barr decided there was no underlying crime here. so it's difficult to cite obstruction of justice. the only thing the democrats presumably are doing is to find something suggesting it and take it impeachment. i doubt they're going to do it. they want to raise the issue, trying of to appeal for somes piece of the electorate that still has its doubts about
donald trump. it's wholly a political enterprise. paul: if you read between the lines of what speaker pelosi is saying and jim kliburn, i don't know if that agree with schiff and some of these other democrats. they kind of want to change the conversation. >> that's right. you can bet that those more moderate democrats who got elected in 2018 in swing districts and are looking toward a re-election effort do not want this to be all about schiff and all about the continuing collusion claims. i think as kim noted, i think there may be a voter pushback, not just -- not necessarily in his own district but in the districts of other democratic colleagues, saying enough. paul: when democrats put so much credibility on the shoulders of mueller and mueller came down with his conclusions, i think it doesn't really leave much political room for them to go, unless there's some new bomb
shell. when we come back, with the mueller probe concluded the focus now turns to just how the fbi's investigation into the trump campaign began, with president trump saying he'll finally release some key fisa documents. ♪ ♪ you got a side that wants more space, ♪ ♪ 'cause every day starts like a race. ♪ ♪ you got a side that loves that style, ♪ ♪ but to fit in those shoes gonna take awhile. ♪ ♪ today life's got you runnin'. ♪ ♪ tomorrow big things are comin'. ♪ ♪ that's why nationwide is on your side. ♪ ♪ run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835,
and be prepared to go the extra mile. because when others take rain checks, we take the wheel. with three-wide seating, heat and ac, this is the coolest, most comfortable gator yet. nothing runs like a deere. run with us. save $300 when you test drive and buy a gator xuv835 at participating john deere dealers. ifor another 150 years. the fire going and buy a gator xuv835 ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪
when it comes to the fisa warrant, the clinton campaign, the counter intelligence investigation i has pretty much been swept under the rug except by a few republicans in the house. those days are over. paul: senate judiciary committee chairman lindsey graham saying he'll get to the bottom of how the fbi investigation into the trump campaign began. president trump said he would
declassify fbi and fisa related documents now that special counsel robert mueller's investigation has concluded. so kim, let me ask you, what do you expect or hope that these documents, once they're released, will show? >> well, we're finally going to get some answers about how these incredible allegations, which seem pretty clearly to be false, untrue, because of the mueller report, saying that the evidence did not establish collusion, we're going to find out how those allegations came to be lodged at the top echelons of the fbi and given enough credibility by the fbi to actually start a counter-intelligence investigation into a presidential candidate and we're also going to learn about the methods that the fbi used, the surveillance tools that were used against american citizens, in particular the fisa warrants, what so-called evidence they used to justify that and whether or not they were straight up throughout this process.
because this is a failing of our law enforcement that we have gone through this for two years and we'll finally get some answers. paul: do you have any reason to suspect the fbi's origin story here, which is they started the counter-intelligence probe against papadopoulos in july 2016, is there any reason to think it might have started earlier? >> oh, yeah, absolutely. there's plenty of reason to believe that because we have all kinds of very mysterious interactions between individuals who have relationships with the cia or other intelligence services, who were interacting with members of the trump campaign way earlier than july and the fbi has never given congress the documents that explain those circumstances and that hopefully is something we will get to. paul: the steele dossier, christopher steele, that was solicited by fusion gps, paid for by people associated with the clinton campaign, is that
totally discredited now in your view, james? >> well, i think it's -- you can't prove everything in it is false. you can say it's discredited in that a number of things have been found to be false and the outrageous claims were never corroborated. i think how did this incredibly thin partisan document become a tool to allow the government to conduct surveillance on political adversaries and i think we've looked at this sort of amazing claim from jim comey, former fbi director, saying he really didn't know much about the -- where this thing came from and kim's column recently pointed out how that doesn't really square with lawyer james baker's analysis or testimony on how they knew a lot about where it was coming from. but we need to know who made the decisions and what communications there were with the political leadership of this country. paul: james baker was the general counsel under comey at the fbi. >> right, right.
>> and the question is how do we get this information, how do we get to the bottom of it. president declassifying all these underlying documents is a big start. lindsey graham intends to hold hearings in the senate judiciary committee to try to get to the bottom of it. senator graham is proposing that we appoint a special prosecutor. i think that's a bad idea, paul. it's a bad idea primarily because it underminings the credibility of attorney general bill barr and we've got an inspector general at the justice department looking into this and i think in terms of cleaning up the fbi and even the cia, bill barr looks like somebody who is determined to go in there and use his time in the a.g.'s office to restore the credibility of those institutions. paul: kim, we have a prosecutor from utah that jeff sessions appointed, mr. hubber, that's been looking into this. you name a special counsel to look into this, you have to start the clock all over again. he or she will have to get up-to-speed on everything and it buries it for another two years.
what we want is public accountability here. we don't want necessarily people to go to jail. but we want to know what happened. >> yeah, the country's already been waiting two years to get this information because of the first special counsel, right. and that was one of the problems all along, is with the president according to him was told that you can't release any of these documents, you can't put anything out there because it might interfere with the special counsel's work. so everyone has had to wait for that to finish in order to get their answers. you appoint another special counsel, it's a black hole again, probably for the space of years. we need to get the information out of. americans can make some of their own judgments on what -- after they see what the documents say. paul: james, last question, 30 seconds. what about the role of obama intelligence people here, john brennan, former cia director, james clapper, director of national intelligence. they were fanning the narrative using words like treason in brennan's case. what account able foability form
should we get. >> it's the adam schiff problem. people essentially abusing their access to classified data to then go out i in public, with pe assuming they know all the facts, make allegations that didn't prove to be true. i think there should be accountability there and above that level we have to know where did this go. you look at the decision to investigate a political rifle that doesn't look like a middle manager decision. who made it. paul: when we come back the battle over obamacare heats up again as the trump administration reverses course and says the entire affordable care act should be thrown out. so is that a winning political strategy heading into the 2020 campaign? building a better bank starts with looking at something old,
and saying, "really?" so we built capital one cafes, with savings and checking accounts you can open from here in 5 minutes. this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet? when it comes to type 2 diabetes, are you thinking about your heart? well, i'm managing my a1c, so i should be all set. actually, you're still at risk for a fatal heart attack or stroke. that's where jardiance comes in. it reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event for adults who have type 2 diabetes and known heart diseas. that's why the american diabetes association recommends
the active ingredient in jardiance. and it lowers a1c? with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening, bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. so, what do you think? now i feel i can do more to go beyond lowering a1c. ask your doctor about jardiance today. now i feel i can do more to go beyond lowering a1c. my mom washes the dishes... ...before she puts them in the dishwasher. so what does the dishwasher do? cascade platinum does the work for you, prewashing and removing stuck-on foods, the first time. wow, that's clean! cascade platinum.
we're going to be the party of great health care and the democrats have let you down. they've really let you down. obamacare doesn't work. it's too expensive. and if the supreme court rules that obamacare is out, we will have a plan that's far better than obamacare. paul: that was president trump declaring republicans the party of great health care after his administration reversed course this week and said the entire affordable care act should be struck down. in a filing with the fifth circuit court of appeals, the justice department said it agreed with the ruling of a federal judge in texas that invalidated the health care law. a high risk political strategy heading into the 2020 campaign. we're back with dan henninger and kim strassel and kate o'dell. is this a smart legal strategy for the administration? >> no, i don't think this is a
smart legal strategy for the administration i think it's unlikely to prevail at the appellate level and the supreme court. they might decline to take the case if the appellate court overturned the constitutional at constitutionality. one of the big issues is whether the law is severeable. i think it clearly is. and that means that the rest of the law can stand and operate even if the mandate is found unconstitutional. i would say this has zero percent chance of success. paul: when you say the mandate, you mean the individual mandate to buy health insurance that was as a penalty zeroed out by the republican congress in 2017 under the tax law. the rest of the law, though, they didn't repeal. so it's standing, it's still working. >> right. i mean, the logic here by the state attorney general is just try to hoist up chief justice john roberts on his own thinking that the individual mandate was
a fair exercise of congress' power to tax. now, that was always sort of a political invention in my view to save the law, not really a robust legal theory. so that's why i don't think the supreme court will be eager to revisit the issue in light of already having made that decision in 2012. paul: kim, what about the politics of this, because my reporting suggests that house and senate republicans are maybe furious is too strong a word but just short of furious about this. they were surprised. >> they were definitely blind-sided, because as you pointed out, this is a high risk strategy. for this reason. look, you go back, why did democrats win the house back last year? and it was because they talked about issues like this. they generally had proposals for how they would improve obamacare. we can argue about whether or not they would actually work but they were presenting an idea to voters. you know, republicans, it would be great if they had an idea and
an idea that was better than that and they were willing to run on it in the coming presidential election. but what those members of congress know is that they don't really have a plan, the white house doesn't necessarily have a plan and the risk here is that you go out and you say you're going to fix all this, no one's on the same page and, worse, what if the supreme court did strike down the law and somebody knew no one had health care and republicans didn't have a plan. >> to be precise, 20 million people wouldn't have it, 15 million on obamacare, 5 million through medicaid, politically, paul, health care is the great white shark of american politics. it is big. we know it's out there and it's really dangerous to get near it and the question is which party wants to get near it. look, democrats were talking about medicare for all. it polled well until you asked people if they're willing to pay the cost or lose r their their insurance. support dropped to about 30%.
democrats were on defense. now, donald trump -- this is kind of typical for the art of the deal. make a decision, force everybody to react to it and come up with a solution. as kim was describing, the republicans at this point don't have a solution and what could be put at risk here really, given the importance of the health care issue, is control of the senate in 2020, because some of those senate republicans like cory gardner and susan collins do not want to have to run on health care but have nothing to say about health care. paul: kate, what about the idea that the republicans in 2018 were in a defensive crouch, they had nothing much to say about health care and the democrats took them to school on it. shouldn't republicans at least have some kind of plan, argument, vision on health care going into 2020? what's wrong with that? >> they absolutely should, paul. we've been arguing that, fighting medicare for all is not enough especially since it makes medicare look like some great program. but yes, i do think that
republicans should be working to co-aless around ideas. i think they've been working on different approaches, one of which would try to block grant some of the funding to the states so they would have more flexibility on how to use it. what i don't think republicans should do and what the lawsuit is risking is having another fight that surrounds around whether people with pre-existing conditions should be able to get insurance in the individual market. and by using this lawsuit that basically would strike down some of these provisions, that's what republicans are setting them up for right now in 2020. paul: all right. thank you all. still ahead, signs of recession in the bond market. so are they real? white house economic advisor larry kudlow is here, next. ♪ limu emu & doug
mmm, exactly! liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business.
beyond fast. we're finally going on the trip i've been promising. because with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. ♪ so even when she outgrows her costume, we'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure together. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only when you book with expedia.
the last two years, we've embarked on an unprecedented economic reviral, unprecedented. america is now the hottest economy anywhere on the planet earth. there's nobody close. paul: that was president trump thursday night, touting the strength of the u.s. economy at a rally in grand rapids, michigan. the president hoping to make his
economic record a cornerstone of the re-election campaign but are there signs of a slowdown heading into 2020. let's ask larry kudlow, the chairman of the national economic council. welcome. we know the economy is slowing, fourth quarter revised down to 2.2 from 2.6. how do you explain what's going on? >> you know, it's tricky business right now on the data. because first of all, you always have lousy seasonal adjustments in wintertime. commerce department, i wish they would get their act together. you did have a government shutdown which did impact some of the numbers. but, but, but, but, let me say, inside that report cap goods, business investment spending looked good. that's a keystone of our lower tax rates and deregulation, continues to pay off, cap ex, productivity, jobs and wages, that's the strongest part of the story. all that h creates plenty of income.
so i think we're going to get all that back and then some once we get into the second quarter. we've got to get through the first quarter. historically, the first quarter is always the low ball quarter. i can't help it if the commerce department, maybe they should do condominiums there instead of the economic analysis. paul: come on, so you're going to see a low number in the first quarter. but here's another signal, it's the bond market. okay. and now the 10 year i think is -- 10 year treasury is lower than the fed funds rate. that's telling us something. what is it telling us, if not recession? >> i don't know if it tells us -- it is a warning, no question. second point, i think it tells us the fed is probably too tight in its policy. paul: really? cut again? >> you asked my view. i would say that my view is coinciding with president trump's view on this. i think market people, you see it everywhere now, believe that
their actions in the fourth quarter were much too stringent. that's what it's telling us. i speak to fed people, of course. they believe that that's something they have to watch very carefully. paul: you could see, you think, actually a 25 basis point cut here coming up? you would not be surprised if you saw that? >> i d don't know the timing of. i'm reading it in the market. i'm looking at the fed funds futures market, commodity market, tips market, wouldn't surprise me. to tell you the truth, probably make me quite happy. paul: all right. so we also have problems overseas. europe is not doing well. italy maybe already in recession, maybe germany too. and of course the brexit woes and china has slowed considerably. how much is that going to wash up into u.s. growth? >> look, it affects us, there's no question. but you can over-play that card too. i mean, our incentive structure with lower taxes and regulations
in energy and trade reform, incentive structure is in very good shape. the president is rebuilding the economy. so i don't deny that these overseas weaknesses will have an impact. but you know, on the trade basis, it's really not a large part of gdp. we're a home-grown economy. we're the strongest economy in the world. as the clip said. the president is still bragging on the economy. he's right to do so. money is pouring into the united states for direct investment which is what we really want in autos and manufacturing and whatnot. so i'm not going to deny the overseas weakness, but i don't want to over-play that card either. i don't see any reason why we can't get back to a 3% growth path by the spring. paul: . okay. the one reason i would suggest maybe we wouldn't would be trade and we've got these tariffs that are on the economy, on imports, and we also have retaliation that's hitting the farm belt in particular as you h know.
how close are we to a china trade deal that would release some of this uncertainty? >> well, the early reports from the lighthizer mnuchin trip, they're on the plane back, so i haven't talked to them, more progress was made. that's been a pretty steady drumbeat, more progress is being made. paul: is it true that 70, 80% of this thing is already written and you're waiting for the toughest end game here? >> we're coming down to the final strokes. i want to try to make a point. i haven't really been successful about making this point to the media. i'm going to try you. [ laughter ] >> the deal as the president has said has to be a great deal for the united states, structurally, i.p. protections. paul: take on the tough issues. >> transfer of technology, ownership, cyber hacking, et cetera, et cetera, and enforcement along with the commodity purchases and so forth. look, it's not time sensitive.
it's never been time sensitive. now, you i've been saying that, however unsuccessfully, for the past week. you're an exception to the rule regarding the media. [ laughter ] paul: larry, my view, it is time sensitive because the economy needs this uncertainty lifted off its shoulders. >> we will have to have a great deal for this to work and if that takes a little longer, it will take a little longer. i have spoken to ambassador lighthizer on this many times. federal reserve is data-dependent. the china deal is not time-dependent. for another few weeks, i was quoted as saying a few weeks or a month, i don't know. i'm just saying it's got to be the right deal and, look, you know the enforcement aspects of this are crucial and we have a very good multitiered enforcement plan. it will be backed up by tariffs
and we believe if complaints are registered and we accept them, we will use tariffs and china cannot retaliate. that should fix the complaint. paul: it will be fascinating. >> the i if these things take me days, a week or a month, so be it. it could be the most historic important pro-growth trade deal. we have to get it right and be patient. we have to be patient. paul: we're going to be patient by necessity. one thing we're not impatient about, but when are you going to lift the steel tariffs on mexico and canada. you promised to do it if we got a new nafta. you still have them tied on. >> tied up with the usmca vote in congress which i think the outlook there is pretty good. again, i don't know the timing of. speaker pelosi's been very good to lighthizer, she's given him complete access to the democratic side. he's talking to canada and mexico. he wants to shift this away from tariffs and towards some sort of quota system.
he's gaining on it. it's not easy. we're working hard on it. i'm going to play that from the optimistic side also. you know, for the administration -- paul: we've got to go. >> highly protectionist and so forth, we're close to a major deal with north america and china and we're talking to japan and we're talking to europe, sir. i think things are looking okay. paul: we'll be watching that, thank you, mr. cud kudlow. still ahead, democrats vote present on climate change as the green new deal is put to a vote. >> instead of confronting this generational challenge, senate republicans and their leader, mitch mcconnell, have scheduled a sham vote. run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835, and be prepared to go the extra mile. because when others take rain checks, we take the wheel. with three-wide seating,
heat and ac, this is the coolest, most comfortable gator yet. nothing runs like a deere. run with us. save $300 when you test drive and buy a gator xuv835 at participating john deere dealers. i switched to geico and saved hundreds. that's a win. but it's not the only reason i switched. geico's a company i can trust, with over 75 years of great savings and service. ♪ now that's a win-win. switch to geico. it's a win-win.
we need to pass a green new deal. this should be our nation's moon shot. paul: that was new york senator and 2020 democratic hopeful, kirsten gillibrand tuesday, ahead of a procedural vote on the green new deal that failed zero -- that's zero to 57. gillibrand and all senate colleagues making a presidential run voted present on the measure with democrats accusing mitch mcconnell of staging a sham vote in an effort to make climate change a wedge issue in the 2020 election. so kate, how do you vote present on a threat that should be our generation's moon shot? >> sure, paul. i mean, that was sort of the amusement piece of a press conference on tuesday. he's saying we must act now, this is a threat, but also please vote present on this sham
vote on a bill that i introduced. so it is a confusing concept. democrats have been saying for months that we only have 10 years left on the planet. it does seem pretty urgent to argue that mitch mcconnell shouldn't bring it up without first having hearings which is a an argument we heard from markey and those that support the bill. paul: i guess they voted present because they didn't want to vote no, but they also didn't want to really -- didn't sound like they want to take full responsibility for what the green new deal represents. >> well, who wants to take full responsibility for claiming that you're going to get rid of all fossil fuels in the next however many years and all of the consequences that would come from that. you know, shoulding down every energy -- shutting down every energy job that is out there, shipping the remaining manufacturing jobs we have back overseas, destroying millions of acres of grounds for solar panels and windmills. this is crazying crazy, crazy sy
some estimates, $94 trillion in cost over the next 10 years. the senators, it sounds good to go there and say we've got to do something urgently on climate and look, we have a plan, but actually committing themselves to it and putting themselves on record, they know there could be real voter blow-back from something like that. >> i completely agree with everything kim said, except for one thing. i'm not sure this is such a tremendous political setback. it sounds good. there's a lot of public sentiment in favor of doing things for the environment. they will be back, breaking a lot of this up into pieces, making it more sensible and then they will present to it a lot of republicans who i think are intimidated by the environmental issue. this is the way democrats do things, piecemeal and so they've gotten a lot of publicity for the issue of greenness right now, through ocasio-cortez, she's going to raise money off of this issue going forward. they'll be back and they may
win. paul: here's the par paraox of this issue. it's great for democrats and people that want to be associated with the cause, doing something about climate, makes millennial voters feel good, sort of we need to do something. but then they run into trouble when you actually see the specific things that have to be done to do something about it a and that's where it always fails. >> right. i mean, because the americans understand it means radically lower living standards for them and they're not willing to make that tradeoff. what i think is interesting here is that as you mentioned, the six presidential candidates that voted against it are all co-sponsors of the original bill. i do think politically it's going of to be hard to put that back in the bottle. so i wonder if politically this benefits 2020 hopefuls like beto o'rourke who tried to say i really admire the green new deal's passion without trying to get bogged down in the specifics. paul: kate, kim, rather, break
this henninger, o'dell split here on the political cause, damage for democrats or no? >> yes, damage for democrats. i don't think there's any question about that. [ laughter ] paul: all right. when we come back, president trump warns moscow that all options are open as russian troops land in ca caracas, genel jack keane on the escalating crisis in ven us as people.
open after two russian air force planes landed outside of caracas last weekend, carrying nearly 100 russian troops. general jack keane is a fox news senior strategic analyst. general, welcome. what do you make of this russian intrusion, so overt into venezuela? >> yeah, it's a bold yet dangerous move and further complicates the standoff we have with maduro, to be sure. i think putin is bouyed by the mill you tri intervention in syria and the success they've enjoyed as a result of it. their motivation was to prop up a regime that was in trouble and they have largely succeeded in doing that along with the iranians. here they are in the western hemisphere, certainly are a partner to ma did your he row a- ma dimaduro, as they are to anyg ranicaraguaand cuba.
i think 100 soldiers on two airplanes doesn't make a serious military intervention in itself. paul: this isn't syria and the middle east. this isn't ukraine. this is our backyard. to do that, can we allow that to continue to happen and particularly with the president making such a blunt statement? >> i don't think we're in a place to conduct a military intervention ourselves. there's no consensus for that in the region and i don't believe we would act unilaterally. however, we should do more than calling out putin on it which is what we are doing. we should go to his backyard, ukraine, increase the significant amount of lethal aid to the ukrainians. we should also -- the russians are in violation of the u.n. resolution of sanctions dealing with north korea. paul: for sure, for sure. >> they've never complied with it. i think we have evidence of that. expose it and call them out on that. and at the same time, tell them once again to get out of south
america. paul: well, but it seems to me that this is -- i thought that the intervention in crimea was a test of president obama, when president obama didn't stand up enough to that, they escalated in ukraine and went into syria. they haven't paid any real price for certainly the syrian side of that. now i think putin is testing donald trump. do you agree with that? >> i agree. as i suggest, there are things that we can do other than just rhetoric. and hopefully they'll move in that direction. paul: why don't you think that we could act militarily if they don't leave? and we know the cubans are there as well. we certainly could do something to topple maduro if we wanted to. >> there's no doubt about that, in terms of military action and would be successful. but i think what the president -- and i think this is the right strategy, along with the allies in the region, are waiting to let sanctions play out.
squeeze this regime a little bit more, before we start taking military action. just like every military action we've ever taken, paul, the way it starts is usually not the way it winds up. there are always consequences. paul: okay. all right. we'll be watching that closely. let's turn to the decision by the president to recognize formally the israeli control over the golan heights on the border with syria, the right move? >> i think it is. it's largely due to one reason and one reason only. and that's called iran. if iran had not established syria as its strategic anchor in the middle east and from where they fully intend to encroach on the sovereignity and security of israel which they have been doing for the last two to three years, this probably would not have happened. but i a absolutely believe it's the right move. we have got to counter the iranians and their significant regional ambitions that they have. the israelis conducted 100 plus
air strikes in the last couple years alone, dealing with the iranian proxies that are operating in syria. and people in our audience may not have been to the golan heights. paul: i have been there. >> it's a strategic piece of land. paul: of look at the d damascus plane there. >> you can see the proxies where the pro h regime forces are tod. they don't intend to give up that strategic piece of land. paul: what about the international law argument, if you sanction the fact that israel has taken this territory in war, which it did 52 years ago and hasn't returned it, that this allows putin to do what he did in crimea and we won't have a legal leg to stand on to criticize that or the chinese, that they're doing in the south china sea with those islands, do you see the comparison? >> i see the comparison.
i think it's legitimate for us to do this. we voiced opposition to annexation of cry mer crimea, hd absolutely no impact on putin. we voiced opposition to the militaryization of the south china sea, no impact on the chinese. i think this is in israel's national interest and we're supporting it. paul: do you agree with the president's decision recently to keep some u.s. troops, different numbers you hear, 400, 1,000 in syria. >> absolutely. we have three missions there. make certain that the syrian kurds don't get slaughtered by the tuckers and establish a safe zone. second, even though the territory has been removed from isis, the ability for them to re-emerge is real, 10 to 20,000 of them between iraq and syria, so the advisers with the syrian democratic forces have got to do that and we have to counter the iranian land bridge in the south. those are the three things.
is it to carry cargo... greatness of an suv? or to carry on a legacy? its show of strength... or its sign of intelligence? in crossing harsh terrain... or breaking new ground? this is the mercedes-benz suv family. greatness comes in many forms. lease the glc 300 for just $479 a month at the mercedes-benz spring event. going on now.
mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. ifor another 150 years. the fire going ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪ you can earn $100 off your deductiblee, for every year of safe driving? sing that. ♪ vanishing deductible, you can... ♪ ♪ earn $100... ♪ earn $100 off... ♪ off your deductible. ♪ deductible. ♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ ♪ for every-- for every-- ♪ ♪ for every year of safe driving. ♪ what are you-- what key are you in? "e." no, no, go to "g." "g" will be too high. not for me. ♪ vanishing deductible.
oh, gosh. sweet, sweet. ♪ >> time now for our hits and misses of the week. kim, first to you. >> an enormous miss to those cook county prosecutors who dropped the charges against actor jussie smollett who has been accused of filing a false claim of a hate crime. look, the chicago police department did a remarkable investigation, a grand jury returned 16 indictments. the prosecutors themselves continue to say he is guilty. and, yet, they let him off with a fine and even got to say he -- claim he was innocent. so this is an enormous kick in the teeth to equal justice under the law.
let's hope the feds are doing their own investigation. >> kate? >> paul, my miss this week is for a set of bills, a bill introduced this week that would allow americans to tap into social security as a way to finance paid family leave after they have had a child. now, marco rubio says he is going to preach the gospel of this to the skeptics in his own party but i don't think it's the good news to expand an entitlement that's already going bankrupt which will make it that much harder to reform when the bill comes due. >> okay. kate, thank you very much. dan? >> paul, i'm going to give a miss this week to facebook which announced it's going to ban white separatist and white nationalist content on its site. let us admit there is a difficult here. there are issue of speech and ideas abhorrent to all of us. there is also a real tension here between first amendment free speech guarantees and hate speech. i think if i had to trust facebook to protect the first amendment, i don't think i would entrust them