tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News April 3, 2016 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
it looks therapeutic. as long as nobody put rocks in it. >> looks like everybody had a good time. that's it for us. >> "fox news sunday" is next, see you soon. i'm chris wallace facing more fire than ever before, donald trump sits down with "fox news sunday." are you in the process of blowing your campaign of president? we discuss the fallout from his statements on abortion. you offended the prolife and prochoice movement. his defiant support for his campaign manager. those controversial ratheemarks about letting countries develop nukes. >> you haven't studied you wing it too often. >> donald trump face to face on "fox news sunday." convention chaos the other
candidates back out of their loyalties. >> nominating donald trump is train wreck. >> let's see what happens at a convention. >> rnc chairman joins us live on the possibility of a contested convention. we'll ask our sunday panel whether the stop trump movement is gaining momentum as ted cruz surges in wisconsin and our power player of the week. one family's decades long service at the white house. >> only in america could something like this happen. >> all right now. on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. donald trump has seemed bulletproof in this campaign surviving and thriving on one controversy after another. trump now trails in polling for tuesday's primary in wisconsin. on friday we sat down with trump for a candid and sometimes
contentious interview at trump tower in new york. welcome back to "fox news sunday." this may sound harsh, but are you in the process of blowing your campaign for president? >> i don't think so. i just got great polls from nbc, nationwide. i think we're doing very well. you have been thinking about that or asking me that question numerous times over the last -- since june 16th. i've had the statement made many times he just blew his campaign only to end up having higher poll numbers. >> but you like to talk about polls, let's talk about some in a wisconsin poll, a month ago, you were leading cruz by 10 points. in the say poll. the marquette poll, you're trailing by 10 points. 67% of women nationally have an unfavorable view of you. if you had purposefully set out to turn off voters, especially women voters over the last two weeks i'm not sure you could
have done better job. >> all i can do is do what i can do. i'm self-funding my campaign. i am not controlled by people who are giving them money. was this my best week? i guess not. i could have done without the retreat. >> i want to talk to you about that. wisconsin, how important is wisconsin how big a setback if you don't win? >> i'd like to win. is it a big setback, i would like to win. >> would it jeopardize your ability to get to 1,237? >> it would be better to win. i like the people of wisconsin, i think they like me. i've had tremendous crowds. we had a tremendous response. and i think i'm going to do very well in wisconsin. >> you say you've had better weeks. let's talk about your comments this week about what you would like to see if abortions became illegal. here you are. >> do you believe in punishment for abortions yes or no as a principle? >> the answer is that there has
to be some sort of punishment. >> for the woman. >> there has to be some form. >> it took you two statements. the president of national right to life tweeted this, the inept thing donald trump said about women who have abortions is making prolifers cringe. you did something pretty remarkable you offended both the prolife and the prochoice movement with one statement. >> it was asked as a hypothetical. and talked about if it's illegal, and it was hypothetically asked. >> you gave that answer. >> there would have been a very strong conservative very conservative group would have said that was the appropriate answer. i'm not saying it was the appropriate answer. it's the doctor's fault or whoever performs their act. there was a time when that would have been. maybe today that would have been. that was asked as a hypothetical question. >> why did you say the woman? >> because it was asked
hypothetically. i said the woman because it was asked hypothetically. i also corrected it and i made it very much so that i think everybody -- it's acceptable to everybody. >> do you agree it was a mistake? >> well, as a hypothetical question i would have rather answered it in a different manner, ye manner. >> the growing knock on you. and you read everything you know this is what people are saying, you haven't studied, you wing it too often. do you think it's fair? >> i've been a really successful businessman for long time. i was never asked many questions, like i was asked a question about nato the other day. i said it's obsolete, we spend too much money we're not getting benefits we should be getting for the money we're carrying a lot of countries. 28 countries. 68 years old. we are not being treated fairly by the world. i mean that. i've been a politician for eight months. >> i understand.
>> we're going to make america great again, politicians can't do that. i've been a politician for a very short period of time. >> do you still have a learning curve? >> you always have a learning curve, especially when you're talking about nato, because it is a very movable subject. i will say this, nato, is obsole obsolete. nato doesn't cover terrorism. nato is based around -- >> i was going to bring this up. >> it's important. >> do you know how many nato soldiers have died in afghanistan helping us after the 9/11 attack on the u.s.? do you know how many -- >> i'm not saying it's a bad thing. >> 1,000 is the answer. >> fine. i'm saying -- that's a lot of soldiers. i'm saying it's unfair to us, it's unfair to us -- >> they have been defending us against terrorism. >> excuse me. we are paying so much money.
we have countries that are being carried along. it's not fair to the united states. not fair to the citizens and not fair to the taxpayers. what i said was kplaekexactly r. i think nato is fine, i think nato has to be readjusted and cover terrorism. we're really not covering terrorism. we're not -- >> in afghanistan we are. >> sure. >> that counts. >> excuse me. sure it counts. i'm saying we have to be specific on terrorism. nato is not specific. why are we taking the burden of the cost? when big beneficiaries are paying very little. because they're ripping off the united states, just like everybody else that does business with us. they're ripping off our country and that's why we owe $19 trillion. >> you talk about the fact you've been a politician for eight months. there are other issues that you've got in in trouble in that have more to do than just judgment and temperment.
the fact you spent days going after ted cruz's wife and his look. >> excuse me, ted cruz came after me. and -- >> no, he didn't. >> he did through my wife. >> no, he did. >> he took a picture. >> he didn't. >> of course he did. >> do you have any evidence that he knew about the attack by the independent superpac? >> my evidence is total common sense. he knew those people, those people are 100% for them. they coordinated together. i have no doubt about it in a million years. he did that attack. >> even if it did was it worth you spending a week on. >> probably not. if i had to do it again i wouldn't have sent it. i didn't think it was necessarily bad. >> the michelle fields battery case. you said she made it up. one of your surveillance
videos,videos, you got your places covered. >> i'm very well covered. i was happy to give them that tape. >> he showed he did touch her. >> i think it's something that's disgraceful. i think that you as a reporter and all of you as a repor treated a lot rougher than that on a daily basis. >> i agree with that. >> why not just apologize to her? >> because -- >> he did grab her. >> let me tell you why. i'm a loyal person number one. >> i'm not saying to fire him. >> when she wrote out early on before she knew she was on tape that she was practically thrown to the grown. >> i know what she said. >> that didn't happen. >> i agree with you. >> okay. >> why not apologize -- >> she lied. do you agree she lied? >> i think she completely misrepresented it early on. i do. >> early on is all that matters. >> why turn one day into two weeks? >> chris, well, at least it shows i'm loyal. the easiest thing for me to do would have been to destroy that man's life. and i would have fired him
immediately. had she fallen to the ground or almost fallen to the ground like she said, she didn't even change the expression on her face. she kept walking. >> you have no regrets about letting this thing go on for two weeks? >> i think, frankly, i don't think she would have used that as ammunition. a lot of times when you apologize they use it as ammunition. the easier thing would have been, cory, you're fired you're not good at that. okay? i don't want to ruin -- the man has a wife and four beautiful children. he lives in new hampshire. he's a good person. i don't want to destroy him. >> you weighed in this week on foreign policy, national security. here is what you said about japan and south korea defending themselves against north korea. >> no problem with south korea and japan having nuclear weapons. >> at some point we have to say, you know what we're better off if japan protects itself against this maniac in north korea.
better off if south korea is going to start to protect itself. >> we're defending japan. we can't afford it. >> i understand. but the question -- that's not the question. the question is, letting them develop their own nuclear program. for more than half a century, u.s. policy has been that we protect those countries with our nuclear umbrella so they don't -- >> and lose a fortune doing it. >> i understand. but the idea is not to have a nuclear arms race in -- >> ready -- >> in the northern pacific on the korean peninsula. you want to throw that away. >> are you ready? i'm not throwing anything away. this is commonsense. like trade. we lose on every trade deal. sometimes you're better off saying wait a minute, we're defending japan, we're -- what we're doing is costing us a fortune. and not only japan, south korea, we have 28,000 soldiers on the line. and part of that defense is nukes, right? at some point, they have to pay us because we cannot continue -- >> they do pay us.
>> they pay us peanuts. >> $2 billion in japan. >> that's peanuts compared to what we're talking about. >> you want to have a nuclear
arms race on the korean peninsula? >> in many ways -- i say this -- the world is changing. right now you have pakistan and you have north korea and you have china and russia and india and you have the united states. many other countries have nukes. it's not like nobody has them. north korea has nukes. japan has a problem with that. they have a big problem with that. maybe they would be better off if they defend themselves. >> with nukes? >> including with nukes, yes. >> south korea with nukes. >> they're right next door. you already have it, chris. you already have a nuclear arms race. when a guy like kasich gets up and talks about trump wants to give everybody missiles. i don't want to give missiles. i'd leave it the way is, my number one choice is leave it
the way it is. but they have to pay us. we cannot afford to continue to lose the billions and billions of dollars that we're losing in order to defend japan, and germany and south korea and saudi arabia. >> this week you said you no longer continue to pledge that you will support the republican nominee for president. then on thursday, you had a meeting with the rnc you said was nice and they treated you well. are you pledging to support the nominee or not? >> i will be looking at who the nominee is. and i think people will be very happy with my decision. >> here's the point, in south carolina, it turns out you took a pledge to support the nominee e. if you break that pledge, then you lose all those delegates. are you going to keep the pledge or not? >> what the real point i made in that whole transaction or, you know, talking point that you're talking about, was that i
released ted cruz he does not have to endorse me if i win. i don't need his support. i have the support of the people. >> you still need their support if you're going to -- >> their support? i was very popular. i watched the turmoil in his brain when they were talking about trump and support and well, i don't know. you know, he's going crazy. all i want to do is relieve the pressure. he does not react well under pressure. it's a basket case. in order to relieve the pressure, i'm telling you, ted, don't wereopy about. you don't have to endorse me. >> are you ruling out running as an independent third party candidate? are you ruling that out? >> i'm by far the front runner as a republican. i want to run as a republican. i will beat hnillary clinton. >> if you don't get the nomination? >> we'll have to see how i'm
treated. it's a question of treatment. i want to be treated fairly. >> after the last two weeks, after all of these controversies, any plans to change your campaign? any plans to play off the personal attacks? any plans maybe to study some of these issues more? >> originally when i went out with 17 people, we're down now to three. i have two leftovers, okay. i call them leftovers. they haven't been nice to me. i will beat them. after i beat them, i'm going to be so presidential you're going to be so bored. this is the most boring human being i've ever interviewed. >> mr. trump, it's always interesting. i don't think you could be dull if you wanted to be. >> if i act presidential that will be dull but that will be fine. >> watch more with our interview with donald trump by going to
a look outside the beltway at the milwaukee public market. ahead of tuesday's wisconsin primary. as you just saw, republican front runner donald trump says he doesn't necessarily stand by his pledge to support the gop nominee. he won't rule out an independent run. republican national committee cha chairman priebus. you just heard donald trump he's keeping open the possibility he may not support the republican
nominee if it's not him keeping open the possibility that he might run as an independent candidate. does that worry you? >> well, not really. i mean, i think some of this stuff is leverage and candidates that are posturing for a potentially open convention. look, one of the things i think people are missing is that this pledge, this pledge to support the eventual nominee comes from a data agreement that the candidates signed. without the boring everyone to tears, we spent hundreds of million dollars on data and information over the last several years. the candidates have access to the data. we say are you willing to support the nominee, they say yes we are and they sign a document. my point would be, if a candidate isn't willing to commit to the principle and values of our party, then they ought to just tell us. but if they commit to it they should do it.
and these candidates are running to be the nominee of our party. we're not running for their loyalty. they're running for the -- one of them will be chosen by us. and so i can't imagine a candidate for any position anywhere in america running in front of a group and saying, well, we don't know if we want to be part of this group but we want to be the chairman or that group anyway. >> respectfully, i feel like you're missing the point. they're running to win. what trump is saying -- actually to a certain degree cruz and kasich as well as if they don't win, and if the other guy wins, then they may not support the candidate. i mean, the result of that would be that the gop would be split we'd have a harder time winning in november. >> certainly. and you can't win by subtracting and dividing. i understand that. we're the party of the open door, which means you've got to let people in, we've got to grow and unify. with unity, anything is
possible. so certainly there will be work to do in cleveland, especially if it's an open convention in bringing the party together. we'll have a lot of time to do that. yeah, is it going to be a challenge with rhetoric like this on all sides? sure. but that's what we have to do in putting on a convention that unifies and is it open and transparent and people feel they had a fair shake. we have to respect the voice and vote of all of the folks out there and the delegates and voters. i get the challenge. >> i want to get to back to this question, you say that when trump and the other candidates got the voter data from the rnc they signed an agreement. did they in that agreement, did they pledge in return for getting the data did they pledge to support the nominee. are you prepared to enforce that agreement? >> well, i mean, listen i'm not going to get into every detail of the agreement. it's a data exchange agreement with the rnc.
among the things they can use, one of the things they say is we'll give you these things but you have to agree you'll support the party and the eventual nominee. they've all agreed to that. and we'll see what happens. i would just say this, i really do believe, though, that this is posturing. i know posturing can have an effect and it means that the challenges could be greater. so i'm not dispelling your point in these questions. but i personally think that these folks are posturing. and i think that they want to be loyal to the party. i think they will be loyal to the party. but, really, it's about the people out there and respecting the voices of the folks, both in the states and on the floor of the convention. >> i want to button this down, briefly if i can. you say there's an agreement. you gave them something of value which was the -- this voter data. access to your files. are you prepared, if they break the agreement, to enforce it? in effect what i'm saying is are
you prepared to sue donald trump or one of the other candidates if they don't support the nom19 as they pledged to do to get the data? >> well, look, no one has broken the pledge. talking about what might be hypothetical is one thing. it's not any standing -- doesn't provide standing to do anything. it's a bunch of talk at this point. certainly, we expect that when candidates make commitments they keep them. and that's about what i'm going to say about it. >> okay. after mitt romney's defeat in 2012, you commissioned what has been called an autopsy of what went wrong and what the party needed to do differently going forward in 2014 and 2016. and the report clundoncluded thp had to do a better job reaching out to hispanics african-americans women and young people. "the washington post" has a new poll out this month 85% of hispanics viewed trump unfavorably. 80% of african-americans view
him unfavor able. 80% of young people. 75% of women. chairman, priebus, the post concluded that trump at this point would be the most unpopular candidate for president in modern times in either major party. >> well, look, i mean obviously, we're having a conversation within a small circle of people. and, you know, tone and tenor have consequences. and it means that the challenges in the general election will be there for us to make the message to every american, no matter who they are that our party is a door we want them to walk through. but, look, if you -- >> haven't you done a good job -- >> you look at hillary clinton -- >> if i may, just briefly, hasn't donald trump, hasn't ted cruz closed that door for a lot of these groups you wanted to reach out to? >> no, i don't think so. i think there's a lot of time, chris, in the general election. we're going to be having ten
people every ten blocks in these communities. you saw the difference we made with what we learned from that growth and opportunity report in 2014 when we won 46% of the hispanic vote in colorado. we spent $8 million on the ground doing it. we have won 28% of the black vo that didn't just happen because of just coincidence. it happened because we reached out to tell people the values of quality and freedom and opportunity our party provides. we're going to do the same thing. we didn't do that in 2012. atri. tone matters. >> do you think hispanic voters, sir, are going to forget what donald trump has said about illegal immigrants? what ted cruz has said about illegal immigrants. they're not going to forget it. >> listen, but i don't know what the outcome is going to be over the next several months. certainly if you're on the ground making the presentation to hispanic voters across this
country with a real operation, with real people talking about the values of our party, i think that you can improve over 2012. we have to improve over 2012. it's my job at the rnc to make sure we're providing an infrastructure in place so you can go door to door. go to the black chamber meetings and talk about the economy. i think that's how you move voters across the country. >> one last question i want to get in the time we have left, the rnc set up a website this week to explain how an open contested convention would work. i want to focus in on one specific issue that could become a big deal in july. that's rule 40 b of the republican convention. it says, each candidate for nomination for president of the united states shall demonstrate the support from the majority of the delegates of each or eight or more states. they have to have a majority from eight or more states or they can't place their name in
nomination. the question is what happened on the second ballot? if -- a lot of these delegates become unbound if a number of them then decide to go for somebody else. can that person become a candidate for nomination? i guess the real question is, do you have to be a candidate for nomination? can somebody completely outside if the 1,237 delegates vote for that person, does that become the nominee? >> that rule is a rule that was drafted by the romney delegates of 2012. and that rule, obviously, will be reviewed by the 2016 rules committee which will be made up mostly of trump and cruz delegates. you know, they will likely have an incentive to probably not change that rule. let's play out your hypothetical. if in fact, that rule stays in place, you're asking, number one, can someone on a later ballot when most of the delegates are unbound, be nominated, i think they can be. but that would be an extreme
hypothetical i think and highly unlikely. you asked the question, i think it's possible. at this point if you get into a multiballot convention where you have five, six seven rounds. it's possible a person can be nominated that's one of the three. my position is -- i think it's absolutely correct -- our nominee is likely to be the one of the three people running. i mean, i think it's interesting, how far out we can play this out. but it's possible as you lay out. >> chairman priebus, to be continued. thank you, thanks for talking with us today, sir. >> you bet. up next we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss trump's troubles and what a loss in wisconsin would mean for the republican race. plus, what would you like to ask the panel about trump's statements on abortion? how damaging are they? just go to facebook or twitter at "fox news sunday" and we may use your question on the air.
here's the plan. you're a financial company that cares, but your logo is old and a little pointy. so you evolve. you simplify. you haven't changed. you still help people live their best lives. and finally your new logo is ready, and you decide the perfect time to show the world is right... now. twell what if i told you that peanuts can work for you? that's right. i'm talking full time delivery of 7 grams of protein and 6 essential nutrients. ever see a peanut take a day off? i don't think so. harness the hardworking power of the peanut.
come on in. there's no doubt that donald trump is the kim kardashian presidential candidate. he sits on twitter and makes a lot of noise but has no solutions. >> he's really not prepared to be president of the united states. >> well, ted cruz and john kasich piling on donald trump after all his recent problems. al and it's time for our sunday group syndicated columnist george wills. steven of the washington times and charles lane from "the washington post." julie, you were covering the trump campaign this week. and i guess the question i have, are we making too much of his troubles? you look at the delegate count, he's still 273 delegates ahead of ted cruz. after wisconsin, the primaries head to the northeast where he should do well.
big picture. how much trouble is he in? >> trump is still in the strongest position of any of the candidates that are left. according to the delegate count he's the only one that can clench the nomination through the voting process. at the same time he has to do much better than he's been doing in order for that to happen. there is room for ted cruz in particular to go on a good run in the remaining contest and get close to him in the delegate count, which would put us in a contested convention. and i think the problem for trump with what's happened, while he's been teflon on a lot of the comments he's made. politicians tend to get in trouble when they do things that reinforce a negative perception of them. he did that on two fronts, one was highlighting what seems to be a lack of depth on policy with his comments on abortion and two is highlighting problems he has with women. and so i think reinforcing both of those negatives could have problems going forward. it's important when you look at the math to note he's the only one that can clench through the
regular process. >> we asked you for questions for the panel and we got a bunch on this topic. al blair tweeted the issue hurting trump is not abortion or women. it's his failure to properly prepare on most substantive matters. there was this from barbara on facebook. if trump spent his time thoroughly researching the prolife principles as well as any other topic instead of tweeting for hours each day he may not have made these small mistakes. >> how do you answer al and barbara? >> there's a policy and process side to running for president. he was asked a question that every novice republican candidate knows he's going to be asked. he's been prolife for 15th minutes. he's just beginning to think about these things. the world needs more nuclear weapons nations.
there are sophisticated theorists who can tell you why there's an argument to be made. no one thinks that donald trump arrived at that conclusion via game theory. take the process side. he has been surfing on the wave of free publicity. other candidates, particularly cruz have a very granular on the ground approach. i spent time in houston with jeff roe and the others. campaign manager where they knew this weekend, the center of the political universe was fargo, north dakota where they were selecting 25 uncommitted delegates. they're preparing for the second ballot. they say, you're a trump delegate, bound on the first, maybe second ballot. afterwards, we want you to have good feelings about this. they know that they want to put in place all the party regulars, people who are delegates who are county commissioners, sheriffs, all these people, who will respond to someone who wants to
be a party headed by someone who has been in the party for a while. and then finally they're stacking the rules committee. rule 40 b will come up. and when the vote comes to perhaps repeal that, they're going to run into a wall of people sympathetic to ted cruz because they're working -- >> that of course is the point. that's what i was talking about with chairman priebus. a they can vote for whom ever they want. if they're a cruz partisan, once they're released legally in the second or third ballot. they'll go for the person they like not donald trump who they were supposedly selected at least in the first ballot to support. it's not just trump. a pro kasich super pac has started running this ad
portraying ted cruz as pinnochio being strangled by his nose. he went after cruz himself. >> he has no record. his record is shutting down the government and making everybody he works with upset. >> steven, you know, this goes back to what i was discussing with reince priebus, is the gop headed for a train wreck in cleveland? >> they could be. these conventions, you really, as you said there are a lot of option and heighttheticypotheti. the most important thing going into this is that those areas where ted cruz and donald trump have common cause, say that rule 40 b to block out another candidate from being entered into nomination. those are the areas where it's least likely you'll see changes. kasich may be on the outside looking in when it comes to rule 40 b. >> he couldn't have his name placed in nomination for the
first ballot. >> that's correct. and then, you know, beyond that you also -- it's not just -- depending on how they write and do with the rules. it could go beyond the first ballot as well. look, the main issue here is that ted cruz, he desperately wants us to be a two man fight, him versus donald trump. his numbers absolutely. he has gained support from those other people when other candidates drop out. the problem right now is that with these three candidates -- you look at the first four contests we had, iowa through nevada. you had donald trump got about 33% of the vote there. ted cruz got about 21% of the vote. john kasich got 8% of the vote. except for the data you had ohio voting john kasich hasn't gotten beyond that. the support has gone between ted cruz and donald trump. still as long as he's getting 15% or so you're going to have a three man race. the nomination won't be settled before then. >> i want to go back to that autopsy that i was talking about with chairman priebus, the autopsy after 2012 in which the
party studied the problems, why mitt romney lost. we've got to reach out to women and young people, then you see the trouble they're in, especially that trump is in. and ted cruz, also, certainly the fastest voting block in america is hispanic. he would have a tough sell with them as well. >> the achilles heel of the rebranding strategy has turned out to be the gop primary electorate which has dominated by the traditional gop base of older white voters. and it's gotten even worse for them from the point of view of trump because what he excites are the most if you want to say nationalistic of that segment. the people that are most hostile to the voter demographics they were trying to reach out. from the point of view of that post 2012 autopsy they've gone in reverse and facing a
tremendous problem of rebranding, not just from 2012, but rebranding from their own primary race in 2016. >> briefly, george, i asked priebus, he said there's a long time between the convention and november. do you think so? >> they'll have to set a land speed record for healing to get well with all of the people that have been offended by this campaign. >> all right. we have to take a break here. up next, despite trailing in the delegate count, bernie sanders seems to be getting under hillary clinton's skin. what do you think? is a string of losses starting to bother the democratic front runner? let me know on facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday. oh remotes, you've had it tough.
watching tvs get sharper, bigger, smugger. and you? rubbery buttons. enter the x1 voice remote. now when someone says... show me funny movies. watch discovery. record this. voila. remotes you are back. the x1 voice remote is here. x1 customers get your voice remote by visiting xfinty.com/voiceremote.
i am so sick of the sanders' campaign lying about me. i'm sick. >> these are not just workers in the fossil fuel industry. these are paid registered lobbyists. secretary clinton, you owe our campaign an apology. we were telling the truth. >> hillary clinton feeling the heat from bernie sanders over his charges that she's getting big dollars from the fossil fuel industry. and we're back now with the panel. this became a hot issue in the democratic campaign this week when hillary clinton responded so vigorously to that green peace protester. the campaign maintains they hav or gas political action committees. pacs. but the sanders' camp says industry employees, including lobbyists have given $300,000 to her campaign. have raised another $1.5 million for her campaign. and have given more than $3 million to super pacs that are supporting clinton.
what does the argument say about where this race stands now? >> it's interesting when you look at those numbers. actually when you look at the whole of the fund raising on the democratic side that's a minuscule portion of this. this is more about sanders knowing that he has an argument that really irks the clinton campaign. that is the idea that she is influenced and bought by her donors. whether it's fossil fuel industry, wall street, that argument bothers her because her campaign feels like he's implying this but never showing an example of how she has been bought or influenced. you saw her frustration start to boil over there. and i don't necessarily think this will change the dynamic in the democratic race substantially. the overall point that sanders is making is one that really motivates his supporters and democrats broadly. the idea that there's too much money in politics. he's the only one that is willing to completely upend the system. she is still a part of the system. he may want to tweak around the edges, but that he's the only
one who will push for a complete overhaul. >> we should point out the reason they're talking about the fossil fuel industry and not wall street is because there is a big debate in new york, the primary on april 19th. about fracking. that has become an industry that's being targeted right now. george, bernie sanders has won five of the last six contests. he's leading in the polls in wisconsin. he's closing the gap. not all the way there but closing the gap in new york. what is going on? >> we have all these complicated algorithms and other metrics for deciphering what's going on. use your eyes. look at a group of clinton supporters and look at a group of sanders supporters. who is having the most fun? bernie sanders is fun. hers is the joyless pursuit of joy kind of enshrouded in entit entit entitlement. he's energized people. i think they're having the fun of being naughty, they think being a socialist is out there. nothing much to the content, he
wants to redistribute a lot of wealth. all the federal government does is redistribute wealth. the fun represents itself in a big number. in march he raised $44 million. that's astonishing for a campaign. he's finding plenty of money in the energy, probably more energy than is shown in small donors in any campaign. >> small energy, not energy sdr industries. >> small donors. >> meanwhile, as if that wasn't enough, four of clinton's top former advisors at the state department have hired the same lawyer to handle possible investigation by the fbi of her private e-mails and server. and there are reports that the fbi is going to interview clinton herself sooner rather
than later. chuck is our legal expert. what does that tell you? >> it tells me that fortunately for america, this may becoming to a head. and that a recommendation about whether or not to indict hillary clinton may soon by forthcoming from the fbi. i say fortunately because whatever you think about the merits of these charges, she is running for president. she is likelynominee. we need information before this gets to october or something like that. the fairest situation is one in which we find out sooner rather than later. and -- >> what's your time line. when you hear that the aides are lawyering up, are we talking weeks? are we still talking months? >> look, you know, how long is a piece of string. it looks to me like may or june this thing would have to come to a head. and certainly you know, i have a lot of respect for jim comey, the fbi director.
he's fundamentally has a reputation as a fair person. he must understand how political this is. he's got a dilemma. i think the sensible thing to do in that situation is to move this thing forward, you know, between may and june. and, you know, lay it out there. >> if they don't make a criminal referral, the first thing the fbi has to decide is if they're going to refer criminal charges to the attorney general to decide. is the possibility of a report? >> of course there's a possibility of report. not only a responsibility i would think a likelihood. given how high profile this thing has been. they're going to have to lay out some kind of findings to back up whatever decision it is. they can't say we've decided not to indict her. >> would that be the fbi or the attorney general? >> the fbi would provide -- as i understand it the raw data. the justice department would
authorize such a report. >> just wrap your head around this, indictment, criminal referral, report, none of those, obviously, indictment by faer the worst. none of those would be good for hillary clinton headed to the convention. unless the report is a complete campai exoneration. >> fbi agents who wanted to go the other direction leak their own interpretation of the facts they came across. this gets messy at best and very bad at worst. >> can i add something? think about the politics of this. bernie sanders gave this issue away. so within the democratic party, this is not a liability for hillary. she's got other liabilities but not this one. if she's running against trump who we've been discussing how unpopular he is. it's not clear to me that however bad this gets unless it's an indictment, it's enough to out weigh trump's negatives.
she's broadly headed toward being in the clear. >> do you buy that? >> on the other hand may could be an exciting month. as you say, the fbi investigation could come to a head. it is possible if the judge has his way, that donald trump could be testifying in a fraud trial having to do with trump university which was something short of oxford. >> but do you buy the argument that because of the fact that bernie sanders, i'm not sure i agree he gave it away. he said he's not going to press it himself. do you think democratic voters are going to want to nominate someone -- all speculative -- indictment is one thing, but there was a criminal referral that was not acted on or a negative report. do you think it would be damaging? >> terribly damaging. it would be damaging on top of the mountain of evidence she's having trouble connecting with a electorate who views her unfavorably.
>> democratic voters are making their choice. if you look at hillary clinton's lead in pledge delegates, the overall vote her lead in the super delegates. the party establishment looking toward the general election she leads in those categories. there is a choice being made. the e-mail situation has been out there. whether bernie sanders is raising it or not. and she's still winning. >> two quick points on may could be interesting for hillary clinton because she's likely to face discovery over how she ran her e-mail server. there are things that could come out with the open records request. the most important thing in the race right now is looking to the super delegates. in 2008 obama had begun flipping superdelegates that had been pledge today clinton to himself by february until that happens this is clinton's race. >> but, obviously, those super delegates will take a look at what develops. thank you, up next our power
at the end of this long campaign, a new family will move into the white house. but for close to eight decades, one family saw presidents come and go while they continued to serve. here is our power player of the week. >> if you think about my family and the origin from my granddad being a slave and then with my career added to that, it's just remarkable. >> john ficland is talking about his family's extraordinary journey in just two generations. from slavery to special assistant to the president.
>> only in america could something like this happen. >> it started in 1939 when his uncle charles was hired as a white house servant. he got his brother, john a job. which led him to share an elevator to fdr. >> being speechless and nervous, mr. president. kind of thing. >> his father would serve nine presidents over 43 years. ending up as serving food for the first family. then there was a kennedy assassination. >> it was at least four or five days i did not see my dad. because he was at the white house full time. >> nine members of the ficland family served presidents in good times and bad. at weddings and parties and daily life. in the 70s richard nixon was consumed by vietnam and watergate. >> we challenged that. you know, how can you work for this president? he's awful.
and my dad would push us away and say hey he's the president of the united states. >> when his father retired in 1983. the reagans invited a member of the staff to a state dinner for the first time. >> it was a treat for my dad to be seated at the table as opposed to serving the table. >> i'd like to invite you to the state dinner next week. >> if all this sounds like the movie the butler, that was about another member of the white house staff. but filmmakers seemed to have taken a lot from the ficland story and john ficland refused to see the movie. the best was yet to come. he went from the pantry to courier to file clerk for the national security council. >> did you have a sense that was a big transition from service staff to policy staff? >> i went from apron, so to speak, to shirt and tie.
every day. it was a leap. >> over the years, he became the senior director for records. handling some of the nation's top secrets. in 2014, he was named special assistant to the president and when he retired. >> mr. john ficland and mrs. john ficland. >> he and his wife were invited to a state dinner. >> the ficlands have been just such an integral part of the white house. it's been a career of service all nine of us that worked in the white house. have done that by our service to the president of the united states. >> ficland has two sons, one of whom is getting his phd in biology. and he says he might like to work at the white house someday. in the office of science and technology policy. and now this program note, be sure to tune in to fox news channel tonight at 9:00 for fox news reporting rising threats, shrinking military. bret baier talks with three of president obama's former defense
secretaries about cuts to our military. that's it for today, have a great week and we'll see you next "fox news sunday." crash kills two individuals. we'll see you next weekend. >> have a good day, everybody. good the battle for wisconsin in its final stages. the badger state a pivotal stop. ted cruz and donald trump going at each other tooth and nail hoping a win on tuesday can act as a spring board for their campaigns. and help them nail down the top spot on their party's ticket. welcome to sunday morning futures. as the fight plays out donald trump and ted cruz telling voters that victory is at hand. >> i think we're going win before we get to the convention. if we get to the convention the establishment politicians who want to protect their jobs and