tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News April 29, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
radically and they change in one way. mark: the only problem is what takes place when they change -- is a violent change then we have a problem. i want to thank you. i could've done this for five chris: i'm chris wallace, the leader of north and south pledge to clear the peninsula of nuclear weapons. now can president trump seal the deal? >> it's going to be a very important meeting, the denuclearization of the korean peninsula of north korea, denuke, denuke. chris: we will discuss what comes next for kim jong un and president trump. >> i look forward to the meeting, should be quite something. chris: with john bolton first appearance at white house security adviser and then the president's new lawyer meets with robert mueller, as the senate panels moves to protect the special counsel, we will ask democrat chris coons about the
bipartisan bill and whether it will make it to the full senate for a vote. plus trouble for the trump cabinet, nominee to lead the va withdraws while epa chief gets grilled over ethics. >> facts are facts and fiction is fiction. a lie doesn't become truth just because it appears in the front paper. chris: we will ask the panel about the president's promise to drain the swamp. and our power player of the week, we meet a leader of the arm's race for ideas in washington. >> the guiding mission of this institution is to be that true north for the conservative movement. all right now on fox news sunday. ♪ ♪ chris: and hello again from fox news in washington. this week's historic summit between the leaders of north and the south korea has set the stage for a face to face meeting between president trump and kim jong un.
it will be the first time the leaders of the u.s. and north korea have ever met and central to the agenda trying to get kim to abandon his nuclear weapon's program. joining us now john bolton in his first sunday show interview as the president's national security adviser, ambassador, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> glad to be here. chris: let's start with the trump-kim summit, is it going to happen, when and where? >> well, i think it is going to happen. the dates and the places are still under discussion, i think the president is eager to do it as soon as possible but we still need to work out the precise parameters. chris: well, you say do it as soon as possible, is the u.s. side ready to sit down and talk? >> we will be when we do sit down. i think it's something that the president has thought a good deal about already and i think people around the world have already given him credit for establishing the preconditions for this to happen in the first place, president moon of south korea, for example, has been
very clear that for the economic pressure, military pressure that president trump has put on north korea, we would not be where we are today. chris: given how apparently well the meeting between kim and the south korean president went on friday, what could stop a trump-kim summit from happening? >> well, we need to agree on a place and -- and that remains an issue, but if, in fact, kim has made a strategic decision to give up his entire nuclear weapon's program, then i think deciding on the place and the date should be fairly easily. chris: okay, let's talk about your position, the u.s.' position going in, what the u.s. wants from kim. will president trump insist that kim give up, ship out all of his nuclear weapons, all of the nuclear fuel, all of the ballistic missiles before the u.s. makes any concession?
>> yeah, i think that's what denuclearization means. we have the libya model from 2003-2004, there's obviously differences. the program was much smaller but that was basically the agreement that we made. so we will want to test north korea in this first meeting for evidence that they have made that strategic decision and we have -- we have history to give us some assistance on it. 1992, the joint north-south denuclearization agreement had north korea pledging to give up any aspect of nuclear weapons and to give up uranium enrichment and plutonium and we have other things to talk about, american hostages, the japan's abductees but it's a pretty good start. chris: just to pin this down, north korea has to give up
basically the whole program before the u.s. begins to relieve economic sanctions? >> yeah, i think that the maximum pressure campaign that the trump administration has put on north korea along with the political military pressure has brought us to this point. i mentioned president moon just before past week macron, merkel of germany, prime minister abe of japan and this morning prime minister malcolm turnbull of australia, relieving the pressure isn't going to make negotiations easier but harder. chris: what kind of time frame for north korea to give up its weapons, how quickly would they have to do it and is there any possibility that the u.s. would accept north korea as a nuclear power and allow them to keep some of their infrastructure? >> i don't see how that's possible, again, the north koreans have agree today --
agreed to this with south korea. it's also the case that they lied about it and broke commitments. there's nobody in the trump administration starry-eyed about what may happen here but giving decision to give nuclear weapons could be possible to move quickly. chris: when you say quickly, by tend of the year? >> well, it's a matter first to finding out just how much there is to dismantle. it's not possible to go to this meeting with a set of screwdrivers and think we are going ta take it apart beginning the day after the meeting and therefore the full complete total disclosure of everything relate today their nuclear weapon's program with full international verification and i think following libya by americans and other inspectors could be very important here. chris: now the joint statement from the two koreas called for, i want to put it on the screen, a nuclear-free korean peninsula
and some people have suggested the north koreans will give up everything they've got but in return the u.s. would agree that we are not going to allow any nuclear armed airplanes or nuclear-armed ship tons korean peninsula. is that acceptable? >> well, we certainly have made that commitment and, again, i'm looking at the declaration, in the context of south korean agreements. again, looking at 1992, when they said nuclear free, they meant with respect to the two koreas. chris: you don't view this as involving any kind of commitment from the u.s.? >> i don't think it binds the united states, no. chris: after summit on friday president trump tweeted this, korean war to end. the united states and all of its great people should be very proud of what is now taking place in korea. i don't have to remind you,
mr. ambassador, that up to this point, kim has said some stuff but he has given up precisely nothing. any concern that president trump is getting carried away? >> not at all. as i said, there's nobody starried-eyed around here, we have been called a number of things and naive is not one of them. i think the president sees historical agreement, breakthrough that nobody could imagine months ago, but as he said repeatedly, the potential for no deal at all is also there and we are not going to know until we actually have the meeting and see what kim jong un is prepared to do, it's certainly the case that mere words aren't going to sway anybody. chris: certainly the case that you have never had any allusions about the kim regime, i suspect you expect me to do what i'm about to do. here are some of the greatest hits. >> i think the only diplomatic option left is to end the regime in north korea by effectively having the south take it over.
here is an all-purpose insult that you can use, i will apply it to the north koreans, question, how do you know when the north korean regime is lying, answer, when their lips are moving. chris: i have to tell folks that while you were playing ambassador bolton had a smile on your face, who should we believe that john bolton or this one? >> i will give you the same answer that i gave to martha mccallum the president tweeted my nomination when i didn't know i had been relieved of my duties of fox news, i have said and written a lot of things over the years and standby every one of them but i was a freelancer then, hayed the luxury of voicing my own opinion. that's not my job now. i'm simply an adviser. the discussion-maker is the president and i don't think there's really anything to be served by going back to those golden oldies and comparing to what the president's position is now. my advice to him, i give in private, he makes the decisions, that's how it works.
kim jong un now, kim told koreans that he would give all of his weapons up if the u.s. promises not to invade, is that a guaranty that we would be willing to main? >> a discussion that remains to be had, while we should be optimistic in pursuing the opportunity, we should be skeptical of rhetoric until we see concrete evidence. chris: well, i'm not going to pull your old bites now but i will pull president trump's from this week. >> kim jong un was -- he really has been very open and i think very honorable from everything we are seeing. chris: kim jong un open and honorable. >> i think the president is focused on doing everything he can to make this meeting a success. it's somewhat different than what he said before, but i think he's saying, look, if you're
going to come with a real strategic determination to give up nuclear weapons, we are going to have a very serious conversation. chris: okay, let's turn to iran where president trump has a may 12th deadline to decide whether or not to reimpose sanctions on the regime in tehran and to pull out of the iran nuclear deal. the administration is talking with our european allies about a plan to stay in the deal but to add agreements that would limit iran's ballistic missiles, sanction regional aggression and end sunset clause when iran can start to break out and rebuild nuclear program in 2025. would president trump accept that? stay in the deal if you have those kind of strengthening add-ons. >> he had made no decision on the nuclear deal whether to stay in or get out. he's certainly considering the framework for pillars the president macron layed out in
meetings last week, the iran nuclear situation now and the iran nuclear situation in the future, iran's ballistic missiles and regional peace and security and that's something of interest to the president and worth pursuing. but in terms specifically of the nuclear deal, there's no decision on that yet. chris: but i guess what i'm asking is does he feel that the deal itself is fatally flawed or does he think if you address some of the other concerns like ballistic missiles, like the sunset clause, like the regional actions as bad actor around the world that he -- you could fix the deal? >> well -- chris: fixable is really the question. >> implies that the other steps wouldn't really address that concern, look, it's possible in the discussions with european allies that we will be able to see some possibility there. he would make the decision when it's appropriate to make the
decision and that's be up to may 12th. chris: finally, we have been colleagues and gotten along but you are a controversial figure in washington and i want to talk briefly about that, former secretary powell said of ewe publicly, he's absolutely brutal manager and treats people like dirt and since you came three weeks ago top officials have been pushed out or left, how do you plea to the charge, doesn't play well with others and in your new role as you say, you're not a free actor, now you're a member of staff, are you changing your ways either softening your views or softening the way you conduct business? >> it's also possible that the news media have that wrong and the people who have disagreed with me in the past have a certain view of my conduct that i don't agree with. i will let others speak to it, i have my views, i express my views and try to manage fairly. i have made changes in the staff of the national security
council. i think that's per electrify appropriate, change and continuity are key elements in any conversation and we will try going forward to get the right people there. but i think much of this mischaracterization was addressed back in my confirmation process for un ambassador in 2005 and invite all of those interest today read the report of the senate foreign relations committee. chris: do you think you get a bad rap? >> i think that's almost inherent in washington today. we have seen even last night in white house correspondent dinner which i was happy not to attend just reprehensible behavior by somebody addressing the gathering and sadly it's par for the course in washington today. chris: i have to say i'm glad i didn't attend either. [laughter] chris: ambassador bolton, thank you, thanks for sharing your time with us, please come back, sir. >> we will do. chris: chris coons on the president's policy moves and senate efforts to protect robert
♪ dance party boom. ♪ simple. easy. awesome. come see how you can save $400 or more a year with xfinity mobile. plus, ask how to keep your current phone. visit your local xfinity store today. chris: as president trump prepares for a summit with kim jong un and negotiates with european leaders about the future of the iran nuclear deal, we want to get a different perspective. joining us now democratic senator chris coons, one of the leading voices on the foreign relations committee and senator, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> thanks, chris, great to be with you. chris: you have been very critical for president trump with some of his threatening of north korea over the last year or so, here you were last summer when the president talked about raining fire and fury on the kim regime.
>> i don't frankly think rhetoric is what's called for at this time. we shouldn't as a super power make threats we are not fully prepare today follow through on immediately. chris: looking back now, was president trump right and were you wrong and did his unconventional style of threats and insults and especially the maximum pressure of his economic sanctions, did that get us to the place where are right now that kim was at the table. >> we have, we have been three times before under previous administrations of both parties. kim jong un, his father, grandfather, the regime that rules north korea has done two steps forward and one step back progress where they make progress on nuclear weapon's program and then agree to come to the table and negotiate denuclearization which doesn't come through. i will give president trump credit for having helped create this opening through, the sanction's regime he helped put together in place and i was encouraged by what i heard from
ambassador bolton, determination to not lighten up on north korea until there are verifiable changes to nuclear weapon's program, there's going to be a lot of hard work ahead, a summit isn't a strategy, but having upcoming summit with an opening where supreme leader of north korea have made a number of encouraging offers i think is a terrific opportunity. chris: so i want to pick up on the quite hard line that ambassador bolton just took which in effect was you have to give up everything before we give up anything, do you think that's practical and do you think that's the way to go? >> my hunch is we are going to have to take several confidence-building steps on both sides but for us to back off the sanctions against north korea without a process in place for verifiable or irreversible would be a mistake. chris: and what about when kim talks about a denuclearization of the entire peninsula and the
possibility that that means that we would keep nukes in the form of either planes or ships in peninsula. is that something that you can live with? >> it's not something that i would embrace but i think there's a lot of players that need to be included and consulted, the south korean government, japanese government, vital allies of ours in the region that have been directly threatened by kim jong un as well as the united states. but to be clear one of the things kim jong un has been saying recently, i've developed this nuclear weapon's capability to defend my country, my regime from aggressive united states. i do think we can and should repeat commitment to not seek regime change as long as they are also making positive steps toward signing end to korean conflict, restoring relations with south korea and making progress and negotiations with the united states. chris: i want to turn to iran because you've also criticized president trump for threatening to pulling out of the iran nuclear deal but because this
threat president macron this week chancellor merkel came to washington to plead with him, to make what i was just discussing with john bolton, kinds of side deals on issues the nuclear deal doesn't cover, again, is mr. trump's hard line in the case of iran, is that also working? >> well, i think this is a terrific opportunity for president trump who made his reputation as a builder to build on the iran nuclear deal and to deal with as you just said the areas that were not fully resolved through iran nuclear deal, the ballistic missile program, support for terrorism in the region, terrible human rights record. the iranian regime is a dangerous threatening regime and if president trump can successfully lead effort with european allies to rein in or end ballistic missile program, to change the outcome of the current iranian deal so that there isn't a sunset clause, i think these would be positive things that i would support. chris: the president fired back friday at iran's threat to pull
out of the nuclear deal if these added sanctions, added threats are put on the deal. here was president trump's response. >> they restart their nuclear program, they will have bigger programs than they have ever had before. they will not be doing nuclear weapons, that i can tell you, okay. they're not going to be doing nuclear weapons, you can bank on it. chris: given how successful president trump seems to have been with his threats at least so far -- >> so far. chris: so far, do you have any problems with that? >> i think making it clear to iran that it continues to be our position that we will not allow them to develop nuclear weapons it's completely appropriate. iran has threatened both our vital ally israel and european allies and the united states as has kim jong un, north korea and drawing a clear line that we will not tolerate a nuclear
capable iran i think is completely appropriate and it's my hope that the president will pursue wiser path of continue to go get the advantages we are currently getting out of the iran nuclear deal. don't take my word for it. his own secretary of defense jim mattis has said the same, the chairman of foreign relations has said this same even those who oppose see we get more benefits by staying in it than tearing it up. chris: i'm just curious because this might be interesting time for you who have been critical of the president when it comes to foreign policy and at least for now, preliminary stage, nothing has been decided with kim, nothing has happened specifically with iran but it does seem to be working. >> if it works i will be the first to cheer on the president because frankly although we are politically opponents we have different values and we come at politics and services at different ways, i want the united states to succeed, so if president trump's strategy
succeeds with north korea, succeeds with iran, that's in our country's best interest. chris: let's turn to the special counsel's russia investigation, you were one of four senators, who democrats, two republicans who sponsored a bill the senate judiciary committee passed this week by a wide margin to protect the special counsel if president trump were to move to fire him, why do you think that's necessary? >> well, i think it's necessary because president trump himself keeps tweeting or saying things that suggest he hasn't fully given up the idea of possibly firing robert mueller, he called in to "fox & friends" last thursday, issued a wheel series of tweets saying that it is a witch hunt, attack on him and democracy, it shouldn't be allowed to go on, as long as he's making these threatening statements and as long as it's not clear why the republican leadership in both the house and senate who say robert mueller should be left alone, should be unmolested and able to complete investigation, they say they have confidence that president
trump won't fire robert mueller, i have no confidence and obviously my colleagues both republican and democrat on the judiciary committee looked at this bill which is an ounce of prevention as my mom used to say well worth a pound of cure, they looked at it and said this is a modest but reasonable step to make it just a little bit harder for the president to abruptly and without cause fire robert mueller, this would be in the best interest of the country and of the president frankly. chris: i just want to pick up on that because senate minority leader mitch mcconnell has said out flatly he will not let the full senate vote on the bill which was approved by the senate judiciary committee this week, let's take a look at the senator. >> i'm the one who decides what we take to the floor, that's my responsibility as the majority leader, will not be having on the floor of the senate. one, why do you think mcconnell is refuse to go bring up the bill and, two, is there anything you can do about it? >> well, folks said this bill would never get a hearing, it
would never get a mark-up, never get through generalry -- committee, i think they prefer not to, i think the president to bring this to the floor will build, if it were put on the floor this coming week, i think we would get 60 votes for it, frankly it's my hope that the majority leader would change his mind. chris: why do you think in his mind is no bill, no vote? >> he continues to say it would be disastrous for the president to interfere with the investigation but i have confidence he won't, i don't know what the confidence is based on. the bill would be a responsible small pressure to preempt some constitutional crisis, frankly, i will say to the president, if you're watching, mr. president, saying that you will sign the bill is the single boldest things you could do to shut up critics saying that there's a risk that you might fire robert mueller.
with the free audible app, your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road... on the trail... or to the beach. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. no matter where you go this summer make it better with audible. text summer10 to 500500 to start listening today. >> i don't consider a leak, i told him about unclassified conversation with the president r. >> you refer john lovitt, he's a
liar, well, comey is worst, he's a liar and a leaker. chris: former fbi director james comey and president trump at a campaign-style rally last night continuing their war of words over who is telling the american people the truth. and time now for sunday group, former trump campaign senior adviser jason miller, mo elleithee of georgetown university, fox news analyst marie harf and rich lowry. rich, as the comey book tour rolls on, who do you think is winning the battle for public opinion, the former fbi director or president trump? >> well, i think comey is obviously winning the battle for book sales but i view this as michael wolff phenomena, the reputation took a dent, i think same with comey, careerist, not
the worst thing to be in washington and there are a lot of them but makes really hard to take and the private definition he has of what con tit outs leaking that's tailored from own leaking is also really hard to take. chris: let me pick up your sense about how james comey is doing, two things he said in interview with bret baier this week, one, what's a leak, and the other is that he claims he didn't know the democrats had paid for the -- for the dossier even when -- into 2017? >> i agree with rich on this. chris: you agree about -- >> i agree that it's raising a lot of questions about him, the more this book tour goes on, but at the end of the day, to your question about public opinion, if you love donald trump, he's going to be winning the war of
public opinion here, if you hate donald trump, comey is probably winning the war. chris: no minds are changed? >> i don't think anybody's minds are getting change and bob mueller's investigation goes on undeterred. chris: i want to pick up on that because the president made it clear that his patience with the mueller investigation is running out, take a look. >> i'm very disappointed in my justice department but because of the fact that it's going on and i think you'll understand this, i have decided that i won't be involved. i may change my mind at some point because what's going on it's a disgrace, absolute disgrace. chris: at this point, do you think the president may still pull the plug on the mueller investigation or do you think the real likelihood of that is receding? >> i don't know. that's the problem here is that we don't know. he's given no real indication that everyone should just feel confident that it's going to
continue, but, you know, i would hope that he takes the advice of the democrats and the republicans on the hill that he should keep his hands off and let this thing play out and if he has nothing to worry about, he should want to plan. chris: it isn't helpful to say i may change my mind. >> i think the situation is imploding on the weight of there being absolutely nothing there. chris: we don't know that. we don't know -- >> but nothing in -- chris: i'm talking about the mueller investigation. we have no idea what he's finding. i'm not saying he's finding anything but we don't know -- >> if there would have been something on collusion that would have leaked out, gotten out so long ago -- chris: so you're now saying because there isn't a leak? a leak is good or bad? >> it's terrible, if there's a
way to hurt president trump it would have leaked out. there's no evidence of year and a half plus of searching any collusion, nothing that's been proven to that point. comey has gone to g-man to political hack. this is very clearly a politically driven operation. chris: i'm talking about mueller and not comey. >> so i think that most of the people around the country are taking a look at this saying, you know what, the president is probably right and there's a witch hunt and needs to get wrapped up. chris: if nothing been found why not let mueller finish investigation? >> i think that's ultimately what will happen. it's a very good team. advice that they will give him is is smart and hopefully this will be wrapped up soon. chris: i want to continue with you because we had a troubling case of admiral, president's
personal doctor, leave department of veterans affair after allegations of democratic senator john tester, take a look. >> getting to the bottom of the accusations is critically important and there should be no -- there should be no stone unturned. >> tester started throwing out things that he's heard, well, i know things about tester that i could say too. [cheers and applause] >> fanned i -- and if i said them, he would never be elected again. chris: not only were none of the allegations verified but perhaps the most explosive one that tester raised that -- that jackson had gotten drunk at secret service going away party and crashing car was specifically denied, will republicans now go after tester who is up for reelection this year? >> absolutely and i think a lot of republican strategists that you talked a week or so ago would have said that tester one
of the strongest of the so-called vulnerable democrats. i think really was despicable, senator tester will be in the cross hairs for this election. this is what happens in the swamp. if it can't be on the merits, they go to personal attacks. chris: marie, what struck me about the case was that there was plenty of smoke about admiral jackson, a lot of it supplied by john tester but no fire at all. there was not a single verified allegation and yet he still was forced out. >> here is the challenge, 20 service members came to john tester as senator and said these are our concerns. you're right, john tester had not verified them, these weren't his allegations, these were people who served with ronnie jackson. senator tester worked with the
republican committee chair to postpone the hearing because republicans were so concern about the severity of these and i take it back to the way ronnie jackson was announced. if the white house had gone through a vetting process like most white houses do, some of these, they would have been able to run them down if, in fact, were not true and head off allegations instead of pulling the nomination back at a time when they really need of va. tester was put in a tough position. these weren't his allegations, people came to him with them. he has voted for every one of trump's va nominees, the president has signed 8 bill that is tester put forward. this is a guy who fought for veterans. >> you don't bring them forward without doing due diligence. he should have checked with the
secret service. i think jackson should have been duty-bound to fend himself if these allegations were untrue and a number of them seem to be but i think the problem with the nomination it was on tenuous ground to begin with, the slightest additional weight on the scale made it indefensible. chris: all right, panel, i'm glad we settled that, up next more on the president's moves on north korea and iran, plus, what would you like to ask the and about the risks and rewards of a trump-kim summit, go to facebook or twitter on fox news sunday and we may use your question on the air.
watching does not fulfill the unfulfilled proms. >> one of the groups was saying, what do you think president trump had to do with it, i will tell you what, like how about everything. [cheers and applause] chris: i think he was probably funnier than the comedian at the white house correspondent dinner, north korean leader kim jong un pledging this time agreements he makes with south korean leaders won't fall apart and president trump taking credit for bringing kim to the table and we are back now with the panel, well, we asked you for questions for the panel and ever since we got this one i have been excited about asking marie harf, spokeswoman for the john kerry state department, the question we got on facebook from mark beldon who asked will trump win the nobel peace prize if successfully negotiates the denuclearization of north korea if not why not i will point out rally nobel, nobel, marie, how
do you answer, mark? >> i have no idea but this isn't about donald trump at the end of the day, the u.s. plays a key role but this is really about north and south korea and you have seen with the new south korean president the south koreans stepped up and take the initiative. this isn't about taking victory laps and campaign rally it can seem like -- i have never heard that campaign-style rally in my life, we will see what happens here. this is not all about the u.s. and we need to remain tempered about the expectations. chris: you're really not going to give donald trump credit for the fact that kim under pressure, under military pressure, under economic pressure has come to the table? >> yes, i will absolutely give the administration credit for ramping up the pressure and for getting us to where we are today and for being willing to sit down and talk and investing in diplomacy, absolutely, but we have to remember the north koreans have before to
denuclearized and end korean war and every time they have fallen apart. so we have to be very prudent as we go into these talks about not giving up too much, not letting the pressure up because we heard the game before and it's never ended the way we wanted. chris: jason i understand that there's warranted i told you so from trump supporters like yourself as kim comes to the negotiating table, but is there a danger and i pointed out to ambassador bolton the korean war is ended, is there a danger of trump getting swept up in summit hype? >> well, i think the comments that you have seen from the president very cleared-eyed about this, about recognizing that we still have a long ways to go but to answer the question that marie danced around a little bit, i would go and give president the nobel peace prize, i'm sure it comes to total shock. someone has to start the ball
rolling. [laughter] >> ly help the president out this morning but based on what we have already seen so far with the steps that they've taken towards ending the war, even moving into the same time zone, these might seem like small things to us, but these are pretty big and also what we saw with ambassador bolton with his comments, the u.s. isn't just going to, you know, listen to lip service, that we will make sure con secrete steps are taken. i think the administration has taken strong approach of this but let's be clear about the bigger picture that's going on here is what president trump has done he has proven wrong all of the experts who wanted hillary clinton to win who basically have gotten into the foreign policy messes, if we had taken the strong approaches with regards to economic sanctions, military threats and being tough, we started doing that back during clinton, we won't have been in the mess in the first place. chris: all right, let's turn to iran because you to say that president trump seems to be
bending the world to his will here, here is french president macron this week addressing congress on the need to toughen the iran nuclear deal. >> it is true to say that this agreement may not address all concerns and very important concerns. this is true. chris: mo, that's what president trump has been saying all along and this week both macron and merkel seem to agree with them that, yes, standing by itself the iran deal is not enough and you need some strengthening provisions. >> marie can correct me if i'm wrong, i can't remember anyone saying that the iran deal was perfect. a lot of people even in the obama administration said, yeah, this isn't where it needs to be but this is an important step forward and anyone would be open to it be strengthen, what you see now are american allies -- chris: excuse me, why didn't the
u.s. kerry and obama strengthen in time in office? >> they went as far as they could go at the time. and now you see our allies like france and germany really worried that the united states is going to pull out begging for us to try to stay in it and if we don't talking about trying to figure out some new deal without us and this is what worries me about the trump administration's foreign policy is that time and time again whether we are talking about trade or iran deal, we are leaving our allies out there to try to figure out how to move forward in the world without us, and that worries me. >> i think trump has moved very useful within the obama legacy, we can't enforce the red line, too complicated, too hard, it wasn't. policy of strategic patience which was obama's policy with north korea, basically means waiting around for north koreans to develop icbm that can
threaten the continental united states, trump is i'm not going to take that and shake something loose, the iran deal was boom to the iranians, influenced in israel and a lot of the nuclear provisions will expire in ten years, that's a wonderful deal for iranians, not a good deal for us and i think he's right to try to shake something else loose as well. chris: marie, as someone who was involved in the negotiations under secretary kerry with iran, i mean, the president is pointing out a lot of things that he says was wrong with the deal that your secretary negotiated that we gave them all the benefits up front and that -- that we didn't control their bad acting in the world, we didn't control their ballistic missile program and there was the sunset clause, he's basically saying, you made a bad deal and fixing it.
>> he's not -- chris: he's talking about adding the provisions, we are not sure what he will do by may 12th? >> exactly, he has principles, we did not give them up the benefits up front with nuclear program today under transparency, monitoring and verification with what they have, they cannot make a nuclear weapon. if you're concerned about sunset, 15 years, 20 years, fine, i will take that as a criticism, work to make it longer, don't make it shorter by pulling out of it now. so i actually think many cron was very smart this week in saying, the nuclear deal was very good in a lot of ways, let's not just throw that out, let's work to shrinken the other pieces of it. >> he would not be as motivated to try to do that if trump wasn't pressuring or threatening to pull out of the deal. >> fine line between pressure and being irresponsible. let's see what happens on may 12th because if donald trump walks away from the deal and we
lose all of the transparency and monitoring and verification, if they go back to enriching uranium that will be on president trump. if you're going to pull out of something you have to replace with something better. chris: but you presented one possibility which is that he pulls out of the deal. what if he agrees with the europeans and add toughening tensions stopping holes that john kerry negotiated. what then? >> if we can agree with longer timelines from 20, 25 -- chris: they're not saying to agree to it, that's what the europeans and -- and president trump are saying, this isn't a treaty and that the europeans and the u.s. can unilateral say you do this, we will impose sanctions, you do this, we will impose sanctions? >> that's not how dip tip cri works, both sides have to agree to tough decisions and, look, the europeans rightly agree with us that we want to address
ballistic missiles, let's do that in separate agreement. joint comprehensive action that addresses the nuclear program has a lot of stuff in it that nonproliferation experts agree is good. it's not perfect, why would you discard all of that? >> constrains the ability of sanction iranians for other behavior. >> not true, that's not true. >> moderate iranian behavior. >> that's not true. that was never our argument, our argument was actually this deal is more necessary if the when are -- iranian regime -- >> they are funding hezbollah and hamas, this is doing nothing from stopping them. it's slowing them down a little bit. iran's goal is the full destruction of israel. that is the full goal here and i think that if we -- the only thing we are trying to do is slow them down a little bit on their nuclear capabilities, i think we are completely short-sided here. chris: i know that you are die
chris: as republicans and democrats clash over ideas both sides are supported by private organizations that supply data and research. in this intellectual arm's race there is no bigger figure than our power player of the week. >> operating in the town it's more about people and people's lives and it's not simply about policy and battles and fighting ideological wars. chris: kay coal james is talking about policy struggles in washington and her role since january as president of the heritage foundation, one of dc's top think tanks. >> the guided mission of this
institution is to be the true north for the conservative movement. chris: founded in 1973, heritage has been on the cutting edge of conservative thought and republican policy. chris: has heritage struggled to find a role in donald trump's washington? >> absolutely not. there is no struggle. one of the things that i love about being the president of the heritage foundation is i don't have to navigate, i just have to stand. >> thank you all. chris: heritage played a big role in the tax cut bill the president signed last year but they don't always get their way. president trump has been embracing tariffs, that's hardly a conservative idea. >> i would agree. chris: james grew up in public housing in southern virginia. her mom was on welfare. >> my definition of a conservative is someone who has the audacity to believe what their grandmother taught them. chris: such as? >> not relying on government or
anyone else by the way to -- to clear the path for you. chris: she was in junior high in early 60's when she was chosen to help integrate her school. >> we had to walk past dogs and angry parents and shouting people and it was a very traumatic period and i've been a fighter all of my life. chris: james served in republican administrations from reagan to bush father and son. she was on the trump transition team but says she was blocked from working for him. >> i don't like keeping the amarosa story alive but i am told that she and the chief of staff, priebus at the time didn't think it was a good idea. chris: james is doing just fine running a think tank. besides policy, she says her role is to grow the conservative movement. >> you don't have to be painted
with the angry white mail image. chris: does she think it's just image that's let african americans to get republicans 4 to 8% of the vote in the last three presidential elections. >> the first thing you do with any republican candidate, any candidate is find whatever evidence you can, big or small, and paint them as a racist. chris: james intends to change people's perceptions. >> it's important to reach out to women. it's important to reach out to minority groups with our message. so i'm not talking conservative light, i'm talking about true north conservative values that all of us can relate to. chris: james says her target audience is, wait, for it, bernie sanders voters, they want the same things conservatives want she says but without the unintended consequences of misguided compassion, and that's it for today, have a great week
and we will see you next fox news sunday. ♪ ♪ howie: in an extraordinary interview with "fox and friends" president trump defends michael cohen. rips the media and slams his own justice department. president trump: when you look at the corruption at the top of the fbi it's a disgrace. the justice department i try to stay away from. but at some point i won't. our justice department ought to be look at that kind of stuff, not the collusion with russia. >> he has created a world of hurt in exchange for an hour of free psychotherapy on "fox and friends." >> it makes sense