tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News March 2, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
it was a very interesting two days and i think actually it was a very productive two days. sometimes you have to walk and this was just one of those times. paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. president trump walking away from a deal with north korean dictator kim jong un in an abbrunabrupt end to their summin vietnam. >> basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety and we couldn't do that. they were willing to denuke a large portion of the areas that we wanted but we couldn't give up all of the sanctions for
that. so we continue to work and we'll see. but we had to walk away from that particular suggestion. paul: retired four star general jack keen is a fox news senior strategic analyst. welcome, general. >> glad to be here. paul: what did we learn this week do you think about north korea and the willingness to denuclearize. >> they used the same pattern they've always done, that is, give us something and in return we have to give up sanctions on them with the promise that they would eventually give up their nuclear weapons. well, this is the first president that didn't take the deal. and he walked away from it. so i think it's not a setback. it's a step forward. because we have declared that denuclearization is truly our objective. there has been reporting that really what president trump was seeking is some kind of normalization of relationship with north korea. and possibly let them keep their nuclear weapons in exchange for security in the peninsula and
economic prosperity. we'll, that's not the case. paul: we're learning more details about what some of the negotiations were specifically about and the north koreans were willing to dismantle according to our sources the yongbyon nuclear facility but that was as far as they were willing to go. why isn't that sufficient? that's a big chunk of their program. >> well, it's a significant facility, to be sure. bluplutonium, uranium enrichmen. they have two other facilities that they also do enrichment. it has nothing to do with the arsenal of nuclear weapons they have acquired. i think they have sufficient fuel for the weapons they have, somewhere between 40 and 60. paul: wow, 40 to 60. >> somewhere in there, that's what the report is. if the fuel is there, they're willing to give up something, it is a significant facility, i'm not disputing that but it is not the core issue. the core issue are the weapons.
we're not talking about the rest of it, chemical and biological weapons also that are quite significant. paul: the other thing we are told by our sources that the north koreans wanted was in particular to get rid of the post-2016 sanctions. the sanctions before that were aimed specifically at the nuclear program. the 2016 sanctions, after the most recent round of tests and so on, were aimed at the economy, really cutting off the economy as much as possible and the cash flow. that seems to be what they wanted from trump in particular. >> yeah, absolutely. and listen, there's problems with the sanctions. the truth is, russia and china are not in compliance with the u.n. resolution. paul: the enforcement of them is a problem. >> absolutely. russia has never complied and for the life of me i don't know why we don't expose it. we've got satellite photos, we can catch them in it. put them out there for it. they violated a resolution they
posted for. the chinese post singapore opened up the appe aperture. paul: that's after last year's summit in singapore, they said the era of good feeling is here so we don't have to work as hard to enforce it. >> possibly the reason we don't call out the chinese on this is because we're working a trade deal with them, we're gettin gee to a decision. i think we have to double down on the sanctions. it's the thing that brought north korea to the first summit. it is the thing that will keep them in this if there is some realization that they're going to denuclearize. it remains to be seen whether they're going to or not. paul: it doesn't appear that kim jong un has made the decision in a practical sense to denuclearize. >> i can't speak to that i just don't know. paul: practically speaking, the evidence -- th -- >> the evidence would suggest he's not going to. it took him 20 years with the ancestry to acquire the arsenal
of weapons and ballistic missiles. it's done for one reason only, preserve the regime. what he wants in return for that i don't think is necessarily economic prosperity. he would like that. but what's essential to him is security. and that will take time to acquire the trust that's necessary between the united states and north korea, south korea and china to be able to work that. paul: you mentioned -- let's talk about what comes next. you mentioned doubling down on sanctions and enforcement and calling out violators. what else do we need to do? >> we need to finally get a path going forward. the truth is, north korea refused to talk to us up until a few weeks ago when steve bening, the envoy was able to talk to his counterpart. let's put a pathway forward where we get experts talking to each other before we engage the heads of state. let's not send the president of the united states over there with the page blank.
let's get it on the table, let's begin negotiating positions before we ever think about having another summit. let's put that kind of negotiating structure in place. paul: what do you make of the president's criticism of the military exercises between south korea, japan, and the u.s. he said they cost us too much money, they don't do much good. what do you make of that? >> i don't agree with that. the military exercises is the way we maintain readiness. we have to have the exercises together. north korea has one of the most formidable armies in the world, buttoned up on the dmz. they have thousands of artillery pieces in the mountains on railcars. what they could do to seoul is truly significant in terms of damage. we have got to work our conventional war with north korea in the evidence p only itt it would occur. it's also a significant deterrent. paul: if we don't renew those
exercises, you're talking about a deteriorating ability to operate. >> that's absolutely the case. we canceled nine exercises in that period of time and i'm hoping we get back to doing some of them. we don't have to do all of them but we've got to do at least half of them. paul: thank you. appreciate you being here. when we come back, the political fallout at home from the summit in hanoi. is president trump getting any credit for walking away from a bad deal? what makes this simple salad the best simple salad ever? great tasting, heart-healthy california walnuts. so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org.
so, you're open all day, that's what 24/7 means, sugar. kind of like how you get 24/7 access to licensed agents with geico. hmm? yeah, you just go online, or give them a call anytime. you don't say. yep. now what will it take to get 24/7 access to that lemon meringue pie? pie! pie's coming! that's what it takes, baby. geico®. great service from licensed agents, 24/7.
we always have to be prepared to walk. i could have signed an agreement today and then you people would have said oh, what a terrible deal, what a terrible thing he did. you have to be prepared to walk. paul: that was president trump in hanoi thursday, defending his decision to walk away from a bad deal with north korea. so is he getting any credit for that decision here at home? let's ask wall street journal columnist dan henanythinger and
kim strassel and mary grady. was it a good decision to walk away? >> it was a good decision to walk away. obviously it was not a deal that was going to come close to denuclearizing north korea and you have to give this president for being willing to do that. compare it for instance for what barack obama did in his negotiations with iran on that nuclear deal. i mean, there was a point beyond which obama seemed to be obsessed with just getting a deal and there were a lot of holes and flaws in that deal, so he got one for the sake of doing it and in this case you've got north korea and the general described this is a heavily nuclear armed chemical, biological weapon, a very dangerous country and it would have been very bad to go in there and gotten a bad dealt thedeal theycould have taken ad. >> he definitely did the right thing. it was only the thing he could
do given the rhetoric we've had up to now and the criticism of the way president obama dealt with iran. my big problem with this whole exercises the human rights angle. i understand that he wants to deal with this very dangerous country but i don't think it's necessary for the president to go out there and say you know, i like him, he likes me, what's not to like. paul: wait a minute. the president is thinking this is a regime run by this family, i've got to connect with him at a personal level in order to reassure him we don't want to topple him so he can make the decision on nuclear arms. if i have to butter him up on the top, that's okay, that's the price of city blow massey. -- diplomacy. what's wrong with that argument. >> countries will wonder why doesn't he do the same thing for them, wh doesn't he have the sae attitude with other dictators
who are abusing the rights of people. the u.s. has always had -- tried to have a moral stance towards human rights. i think when the commander in chief says what's not to like about the north korean dictator, that's disturbing for a lot of people. paul: kim, what about the political fallout here at home from the president's decision? i think he was praised for walking away by no less than chuck schumer, the democratic leader in the senate. i have to say i think that had he done a deal and come back schumer would have roasted him and so would most of the democrats for having made too many concession. >> absolutely. he's getting praise certainly from republicans, even from some republicans who are frequent critics of his foreign policy like marco rubio, also from some democrats. and i think there's a growing realization this complaint out there that this all fell apart because there wasn't enough leg work done, that he rushed this summit and made it happen before things were ready.
i'm not really sure that holds a lot of water. one, my own reporting, they were working this very hard in the months leading up to this at a lower level. but that also i think neglect the fact that who you're dealing with, you're dealing with north korea. in the end, it's a dictator. the only person that's going to make the final big decisions are kim and that is going to require at some point a meeting like this and then you see what comes of it. paul: the president, dan, wants a victory. he wants a foreign policy victory like all first term presidents. wants a good economy and he wants a foreign policy victory to be able to say see, here's what i've achieved. >> well, i think he should move on. and the next thing would be perhaps trade deal with china. which would be a big foreign policy victory. paul: on that point, do you think walking away from this will help with the negotiations with china, telling the chinese, look, it's not guaranteed you're going to get a deal. >> i do. because china is obviously a much more serious negotiating
partner. the problem with kim is it's a one man show and the nuclear arms are the reason for being in north korea. china is a big country, a lot of political, economic interest. i think they want a deal with the united states on trade of some sort. but i think they now understand that if they don't do something serious with the united states, with president trump, he will walk away from it. paul: briefly, mary, otto warmbier, the young american who was captured by the north koreans and ended up being killed essentially by them before he was returned. president said he believes kim told him he didn't know about it until afterward. do you buy that? >> no. nothing happens in a state like north korea without the big cheese knowing about it and so i think that's either naive or intentionally misleading. paul: all right. march ribs kim, dan. thank you. when we come back, former trump
fixer michael cohen unloads on his old boss but did we learn anything new in this week's fiery hearing on capitol hill? >> those that question my motives for being here today, i understand. i have lied. but i am not a liar. one hour pickup order? got it. ran out of ink and i have a big meeting today and 2 boxes of twizzlers.. yeah, uh...for the team... the team? gooo team.... order online pickup in an hour. get up to $200 off on pcs and your tech destination. at office depot officemax at outback, your steak & lobster wish is our command. get up to $200 off on pcs and your tech destination. steak & lobster is back by popular demand, starting at only $15.99. hurry in to outback! and if you want outback at home, order now!
what do you charge for online equity trades?. ♪ ah, i'll look into it. [phone ringing] [beep] lisa jones! hey carl, what are you charging me for online equity trades? [nervous laughter] and do i get my fees back if i'm not happy? like a satisfaction guarantee? ugh...schwab! oh right, i'm calling schwab. thanks, carl! wait, lisa! lisa?!... are you getting low costs backed by a satisfaction guarantee? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. not having a good breakfast can make you feel like your day never started. get going with carnation breakfast essentials®. it has protein, plus 21 vitamins and minerals including calcium and vitamin d, to help your family be their best. carnation breakfast essentials®.
to help your family be tall of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. mr. trump knew of and directed the trump moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. mr. trump knew from roger stone in advance about the wic which y leak drop of e-mails in july of 2016, days before the democratic convention. the president of the united
states wrote a personal check for the payment of hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws. questions have been raised about whether i know of direct evidence that mr. trump or his campaign colluded with russia. i do not. paul: that was president trump's former lawyer and fixer, michael cohen, thursday on capitol hill, testifying before the house oversight committee and leveling a host of accusations against his former boss. cohen who will soon begin serving a three year sentence for his own crimes including lying to congress, denounced president trump as a con man, racist and a cheat. does this reveal anything new about the legal troubles facing the president. we're back with kim, dan and kate o'dell. kim, how much damage did cohen do to the trump presidency this week? >> well, look, it's never great
to have a guy out there for hours talking about you and reminding everyone that you have a pretty steamy tabloid and new york past. okay? but the problem though i think for those who were really investing a lot in the cohen testimony is that americans already knew most of this about donald trump and they elected him anyway. and then in terms of the actual allegations he made, not only are they disputed by some people, but it's not clear that they are necessarily crimes, those things that he's talking about. paul: let's talk about some of those in particular. i want to talk about the campaign finance, the payoffs to the women that cohen claims came from money personally from trump to him to reimburse him for that. how vulnerable is the president on that specific issue? >> well, in terms of th issue of campaign finance? paul: >> here's the problem with that. we've had -- the question goes
to the president's intent. whether or not he -- when he knew about this, these things are in dispute, if he wrote the check, this is the claim from mr. cohen. if he did, was the intention to help his campaign which is what mr. cohen claims or was it to protect his family and hide this information from those because it's an embarrassing episode. if it's the latter, it's a harder case to make that that is a campaign finance violation. paul: dan, what about the new thing we didn't know was that cohen's assertion that trump knew in advance about a wikileaks dump of democratic e-mails that had been hacked in july of 2016? >> well, the question is to what extent would that pertain to any sort of criminal behavior. i mean, he said well, that's swell and then if there was going to disadvantage his he opponent, i guess the president was going to be in favor of that but there was no evidence --
roger stone he didn't have a conversation with the president about that. paul: there's no evidence by the way that roger stone actually had any contact with julianne assange of wikileaks, even though cohen asserts stone bragged about it in the meeting. >> the question at the end of the day is what effect as we asked earlier will this have on the american people and their judgment about president trump. pretty clearly the democratic party has decided that their job going forward is to diminish and drive down trump in the public's mind. so you've got bernie sanders out there. he's got this line, he calls him a liar, racist and some how you're going to diminish his standing in the american public. at this point, what difference can that make? everybody knows this already, 99% of democrats hate him, maybe 45% of the country agrees with that. is it going to move the needle between now and 2020? i really doubt it.
the question is, at what point does this begin to backfire on the democrats who have this obsession with the character of the president when the president's out there like meeting in north korea with kim jong un and doing things presidents do. paul: it was interesting to watch--to hear nancy pelosi when asked about this, she said she wasn't watching. that's related to the fact that she doesn't want the democrat toss be seen by the country as reoccupied with he potential for impeachment. when you look at what the committee chairmen are doing, the hearings they're setting up, they indeed trying to set up enough information so if they want to they can bring impeachment charges. >> they're grinding towards impeachment. i think at this point it will be hard to tamp that down. we have here a campaign finance violation that may or may not be a crime. i think brad smith, former fcc commissioner, has made a compelling analysis about why
it's not he's person even if it was a mixed motive about wanting to avoid embarrassment or wanting it not to be an issue in the campaign, it would be harder legal issue to press. the democrats have a questionable impeachment case. i don't think you can impeach a be president for campaign finance violation. i don't think it will work. yet they're moving in that direction so fast that they kind of are getting pushed in that direction. paul: and kim, what about the russia probe? is there anything new that we learned here that would play into the evidence of collusion or be able to kind of make i guess a circumstantial case that trump knew about some things with russia in advance of them being disclosed? >> put it this way. in terms of the russian collusion case as the way it has been advanced for the past two years, no. michael cohen said i have no
evidence of collusion. the question, though is democrats are very worried that bob mueller is going to come out with a report that also makes that case. they're already on to phase two of their collusion theory which is about donald trump's finances and whether or not there wasn't some collusion or bad practice in terms of his investment interest in russia. and in particular trump tower in moscow. apparently this is what mr. could you hen was asked a lot about in some of the closed sessions he had this week. this is where democrats are focused now. paul: so there's going to be that, that new salient open. all right. so still ahead this week's cohen hearing seen by some as the start of the democratic push for impeachment. but would that strategy backfire? >> impeachment is a divisive issue in our country. let us see what the facts are, what the law is and what the behavior is of the president. ensure max protein... to give you the protein you need
or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith. who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs. at humana, we take a personal approach to your health, to provide care that's just as unique as you are. no matter what your name is. ♪
arthel: hello, i'm arthel neville. president trump wrapping up a whirl wind week with an address at the conservative political action conference in maryland. the president telling supporters he will win the 2020 election and do it by a wider margin than in 2016. he mocked democrats' new green new deal and called the push to investigate him, quote, sick.
we are awaiting an announcement from the sacramento district attorney on whether two police officers will face charges in the deadly shooting of stefan clark. he was shot and killed last year after running from police and going into his grandparents' backyard. clark was suspected of vandalism. the news conference is underway right now. we will bring you the announcement as soon as we get it. keep it right here on fox news. i'm arthel neville, i'll be back at 4:00 with eric shawn. having a fake hearing like that and having it in the middle of this very important summit is really a terrible thing. he lied a lot. but it was very interesting because he didn't lie about one thing. he said no collusion with the russian hoax. paul: president trump reacting to the testimony of his former fixer and attorney, michael cohen and questioning the timing of wednesday's hearing on
capitol hill. cohen's appearance seen by some as the first step in the democratic plan to impeach the president. so would that be a smart strategy heading into 2020? let's ask wall street journal columnist karl rove, a former senior advisor to president george w. bush. welcome. good to see you. what's your take-away politically from the hearing this week? >> well, look, cohen is not a very credible figure. the only time he really has credibility is when he says things that work to the advantage of the man that he called a conman and a racist. so when he said he was not aware of any russian collusion, that was of benefit to president trump. but if the democrats pursue an impeachment strategy, unless there is a lot more that comes out from mueller or a lot more that comes out from the southern district than we think that is out there or likely to come out, democrats can't go it alone. when a political party is seen
pursuing impeachment on a partisan basis and not a bipartisan basis, it redounds to the disadvantage of the party calling for it. we saw it in 1998 in the midterms. the democrats gained seats as a counter reaction to what the voters perceived as an overreach. paul: what about the campaign finance point? if donald trump wrote a check to michael cohen, to reimburse him for payoffs to these two women and the president said i didn't have the affairnd i had no role in the payoffs and now you've got a canceled check from the president personally, i mean, that looks really bad. >> well, it look bad but i'm not certain it necessarily is bad because he could simply assert i was doing this in order to protect my family and in order to keep this hidden from my wife and in order to stop public embarrassment. public and private em bearment. we have candidates who pay their tax liens in the middle of a campaign. is that a campaign expenditure
because they paid their taxes? paul: what about the issue of credibility? if the president lied to the public, you wouldn't have told president bush, you better lie to cover that up. >> no, no. look, though. i thought the point that dan made earlier was right. we didn't learn anything new about the president. did we know he had affairs? did we know he was an unpleasant person? sure. we already knew those things. what did michael cohen tell us that we didn't know? we already new he reimbursed michael cohen. what new did the american people get that would cause them to say i'm going to re-evaluate what i thought about president trump, good or bad. i'm not sure there was much of that out there. paul: we've got the russian collusion narrative which is going to be told to us i guess at some point by robert mueller. what about this new avenue that kim said the democrats plan to open up on trump's personal finances? is that something that could get him into trouble?
>> i think so. kim talked about it with regard to the financing of the moscow project. there's also we saw this in a committee hearing this week with the boss, alexandria ocasio-cortez, asking about well, did he inflate numbers or deflate numbers on insurance, on doing business with insurance companies? so we're going to see two different lines of thought here, i think. one is going to be did he have any financial ties to the russians based on the trump moscow project and a second one saying let's go back and see did he ever have problems with telling banks or insurance companies wrong numbers, telling the banks that the properties were worthles worth less thane or overstating assets. i don't know what kind of legal vulnerability that would be, because i think it would depend upon the specifics that might been uncovered and was it of a magnitude that would cause people to say this constituted fraud. paul: i think the question woulwould be, look, if this hapd
before he was president, unrelated to the presidency, is that politically salient enough story to justify impeachment? >> right. the constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors which has not got a lot of definition around it. paul: right. >> it's sort of like art, what's good art, i know it when i see it. what's a legitimate grounds for impeachment. i think we'll know it when we see it. that's why the democrats have to be very careful. again, if this is done on a partisan basis, if this is driven by the shrill voices, some of which we saw this past week, when congresswoman tlaib of mexico goes after mark meadows, in a personal fashion, calls him a racist, that's the kind of over-the-top behavior that causes a political party to be seen as unwoul unworthy of hg power. paul: you wrote in your column that robert mueller when he issues his report if he doesn't indict people, he should not
include in that details about people that might be critical if there is no decision to indict. explain that. >> well, actually slightly different than that. robert mueller is obligated to give a confidential report on all of his decisions to indict and also all of his decisions not to indict. there's called declination. it's up to the attorney general, william barr, to decide which of this he makes public. my point is the rules at the department of justice say you have to be sensitive to the privacy of reputational rights of people who are not charged. i don't think it does the country a lot of good for the attorney general to go into a lot of detail about well, here are all the people that we decided not to charge and here's how we decided not to charge them. one exception would be is if they said, look, the president did something that is indictable but since our justice department policy is not to indict a sitting president, this will have to wait until he leaves office and that one instance the
congress ought to receive that information so they can make a determination if it rises to high crimes and misdemeanors. other than that, let's not repeat what jim comey did to hillary clinton did and trash her reputation, even after he decided not to indict her. paul: thanks for being here. a trump judicial nominee comes one step closer to confirmation. naomi rous' trouble else may not be over yet. there is a key test of the first amendment's establishment clause, coming up. it's not sexy. or delicious. or fun. but since you need both car and home insurance, why not bundle them with esurance and save up to 10%? which you can spend on things you really want to buy, like... well, i don't know what you'd wanna buy because i'm just a guy on your tv. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.
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 company who invented car vending machines and buying a car 100% online. now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a few years old or dinosaur old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car and say hello to the new way... at carvana. paul: president trump's pick to he replace brett kavanaugh on the dc circuit court of appeals came one step closer to consistent firmation this week. neomi rao was voted out of the senate judiciary committee thursday but she may not be out of the woods yet as her nomination heads to the full senate. democrats have tried to portray her college writing as racist and sex it and she has faced head winds from some republican
as well. we're back with dan, kate o'dell and wall street journal editorial member, allysia. we knew the democrats were going to oppose reo. what were the republican concerns? >> well, paul, we had a bit of an event this week when on sunday josh holly emerged and told axios he had concerns about neomi rao. they seemed to center about her personal views on abortion and a legal theory known as substantive due process. that evolved throughout the week. he mate wit met with her on wedd he said they had a productive meeting he ended up voting on her. she was recommended 12-10. paul: i did a lot of reporting on this this week as you did. what i found out, there was no substance behind the holly accusations or i guess they weren't formally accusations.
concerns. and yet he went public with them. that struck me as odd. >> sure. i mean, especially on the question of whether she was pro choice. first of all, this is not a relevant question to whether she can be a fair and impartial judge. she has a record that shows she can distinguish her own policy preferences from what the law says. and so i don't think republicans should be in the business of starting these litmus tests in the first place. but also you're right, it was based on very thin evidence that she was personally pro choice or that there was any concern here at all. so to take that public, i do think that was irresponsible. paul: is she going to get through at the senate floor? >> i think so, paul. i think the judiciary committee was probably her biggest hurdle. i don't think any other republicans are going to want to go alone on taking her nomination but i do think the democrats will be pretty unanimous in voting against her. paul: okay. all right. so let's turn to the bladeensburg cross case,
allysia, this is about the establishment of religion, about a cross on public land. it was fur first built as a war memorial for world war i veterans. can you have that kind of symbol of christianity on public land. >> the cross was built 93 years ago. it was on actually originally on private land. the state took over, took it over because of traffic reasons. of all things. the american humanist association, a left wing group that opposes any kind of religion, religiouse entanglemet sued. the question whether or not this violates the law. it has been notoriously messy. in 2005, the supreme court came down on the same day, upheld the
ten commandments,. paul: in one place. another one -- >> another one, it struck it down. steven briar was in the majority in both case. paul: what do you think is going to happen in this case. >> i think the supreme court is going to provide a narrow ruling, maybe even 7-2. if you follow oral arguments, even elan he'll lay alaina kagat similar pathetic to this. paul: doesn't look like this will be clarified by the supreme court in terms of setting a standard where governments can say, yes, no, and a clear line. >> which is very unfortunately. we remember about three decades ago the supreme court had this decision banning a christmas kresh. a lot of the country went crazy when that happened. steven briar i think in 2005 decision when they were talking
about removing a display of the ten commandments said the establishment clause exists to avoid creating the kind of religious divisiveness that doing something like take causes. i think that is absolutely right. former justice kennedy said the standard should be it is okay if the government is not actively prove lepropheljtiss on behalf f religion. paul: as calls grow on the left for medicare for all, more than 100 house democrats signed on to a new bill that would eliminate private health insurance in the next two years. >> it is time to ensure that health care is a right and not a privilege, guaranteed to every person in our country. it is time for medicare for all. [ cheering and applause ] with 25 million bookable [can we switch sides?]
[yeah!] in hotels... [maybe, like tilt] resorts... homes and more... [you got it?] [oh that's good, yeah] bookers always find what they're looking for... be a booker at booking.com p3 it's meat, cheese and nuts. i keep my protein interesting. oh yea, me too. i have cheese and uh these herbs. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. starts with looking buiat something old,nk 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?
paul: move over green new deal. house democrats unveiling sweeping legislation to address another progressive priority, medicare for all. the bill introduced wednesday and co-sponsored by more than 100 democrats would eliminate private health insurance within two years and move all american toss a government-run plan. we're back with dan, kate and allysia finley. so allysia, the bill, what would it do precisely? >> well, beyond what you just said, it would also create quote, unquote, global budgets for hospitals which is rationing. they want to control costs by imposing budgets on these -- which they could ratchet down, these are price controls by another means, bring back the dh
panels. paul: they would say you get a pot of money and we decide how much you get and we decide -- this is the government, we decide what you can spend it on, what you can reimburse. >> it's a fee for service, medicare, traditional medicare. this is actually new single payer system, more like what you have in the u.k. paul: what about, say, kate, employer sponsored health insurance that most americans have? is that -- that's gone too? >> that's gone, paul. i can't believe i'm saying this. this bill is much more radical than person se bernie sanders mr all two because of the two year transition time. bernie would have allowed for four years. we're talking about dismantling employer sponsored health insurance over 24 months. you remember the technical problems in the obamacare rollout. this would be an enormous undertaking. paul: 100 democrats are for it,
politically. does that create some problems for nancy pelosi? is she going to have to have a vote on this in the house this year? >> i think she is, paul. she'll try to avoid it. one interesting thing is that there are 100 democrats on the bill. there were more on the past bill, including jim klineburn who is no longer on the bill. that shows you some of the rift here. there are a lot of democrats who are skeptical about medicare for all and want to throw more money into obamacare or allow people to buy into medicare at an earlier age. paul: go ahead, dan. >> i think medicare for all is in a sense laughable. republicans should take it a little bit seriously because some of these democratic candidates are not buying into the whole thing. they say we should do it incrementally. health cashealth care is a significant issue for a lot of american people. the republicans better come up with their own answer. paul: one of the problems is
politically what it would do for traditional medical coverage. >> it would end medicare as you know it and private plans which are growing. paul: republicans would be able to say, dan, look, to seniors, you like your medicare, you won't be able to keep it. >> yeah. paul: that's a potential real political downside. >> the only role for private insurance would be to provide supplemental things that are not covered by medicare for all which virtually covers everything. it would be a sliver of the market. paul: republicans think this is a political gift for them but i guess i would argue it's only a political gift for them if they make the case against it and if you're spending all of your time or a lot of your time arguing against michael cohen, you're not explaining the downside to the american public about medicare for all. when you think about the slogan, memedicare for all, it sounds better than government run
health insurance. >> that's exactly right. republicans have stumbled on explaining health care in the past on obamacare. they used it in 2010 but really over the last couple years they've really been on the defense and have not been able to articulate their position on expanding consumer choice and competition. the question is if they can really break through on this issue. >> one word, socialism. paul: has some punch these days. >> not working for the democrat these days. paul: we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. i switched to miralax for my constipation. stimulant laxatives forcefully stimulate the nerves in your colon. miralax works with the water in your body to unblock your system naturally. and it doesn't cause bloating, cramping, gas, or sudden urgency. miralax. look for the pink cap. what do you charge for online equity trades?.
♪ ah, i'll look into it. [phone ringing] [beep] lisa jones! hey carl, what are you charging me for online equity trades? [nervous laughter] and do i get my fees back if i'm not happy? like a satisfaction guarantee? ugh...schwab! oh right, i'm calling schwab. thanks, carl! wait, lisa! lisa?!... are you getting low costs backed by a satisfaction guarantee? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.
soon. the american action forum actually put out an analysis this week trying to put a price tag on some elements, and just moving to a carbon-neutral power grid would be $5.4 trillion over ten years or $39,000 from every household. so i think it's good that republics are trying to put democrats on the record about whether they want to impose these phenomenal costs on the economy. paul: $5.3 trillion, real money. >> paul, a hit for the u.s. economy which grew 2.6% in the fourth quarter. it actually grew 3.1% fourth quarter 2017 over fourth quarter 2018. credit goes to the trump administration. the treasury department for its tax reform, which lowered corporate profits, brought -- paul: corporate rate tax rates. >> sorry, corporate tax rates and brought profits back from overseas. and the big thing here is that business investment is up, and that's really important for
productivity. paul alicia. >> wisconsin's governor who proposed capping private school vouch ors and chart or schools which primarily benefit low and minority kids. this is anything but progressive. paul: dan? >> well, ooh i'm going to give a miss to, yes, our favorite socialist, alexandria ocasio-cortez, who during an instagram video says is it still okay to raise children. i have my own basic question, should there will legislative limits on self-absorption. [laughter] and more than that, will self-absorption eventually become a threat to humanity. [laughter] just asking. paul: good question. we'll invite her on. all right. and remember, if you have your own hit or miss, be sure to
tweet it to us, jer on fnc. thanks to all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot, hope to see you right here next week. ♪ ♪ eric: well, president trump taking to the stage at cpac in washington this afternoon and relishing every minute of it. you know, he spoke for more than two hours. it was a wide-ranging speech as the president defended his emergency declaration on the southern border, touted the economy and predicted that his victory in 2020, he said, will be larger than the one in 2016. hello, everyone, and welcome to a brand new hour of "america's news headquarters." i'm eric shawn. arthel: and i'm arthel neville. the president touching on many subjects ranging from the green new deal to his second summit with