tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News March 3, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PST
the dogs seem full of energy -- lee he they seem happy right now. molly: by day nine, we'll see. leland: have a great sunday, chris wallace and with the fox news sunday" coming up. chris: i'm chris wallace. president trump faces stiff new challenges after a failed summit in vietnam and his former fixer accuses him of crimes in the oval office. ♪ >> it was a very interesting two days and i think, actually, a very productive two days, but sometimes you have to walk. chris: we'll sit down with white house national security adviser john bolton to discuss what's next in the north korea threat. and back in washington -- >> i am here under oath to correct the record. chris: michael cohen returns to congress this week to call out his former boss. >> i am a ashamed, because i know what mr. trump is. he is a racist, he is a con man,
and he is a cheat. chris: we'll talk with congresswoman debbie dingell about the road map cohen laid out for investing the president, and we'll ask our sunday panel who from trump's inner circle democrats will zero in on next. >> we have to look at these on a case-by-case basis. we are going to try to do as much as we can. chris: all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. president trump is coming off a rough week and the collapse of his summit with kim jong un is just part of it. on capitol hill michael cohen called his former boss a criminal. "the new york times" reports the president ordered a top secret security clearance for son-in-law jared kushner over his staff's objections. and there's outrage over the president saying he believes the north korean leader's claim he didn't know about the savage treatment of otto warmbier.
in a moment, we'll speak with national security adviser john bolton who was in the final session in vietnam between the president and kim. but first, here's chief congressional correspondent mike emmanuel on mr. trump's rocky ride. >> basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn't do that. >> reporter: president trump walked away from negotiations with kim jong up in vietnam, cutting their second summit short. in the end, each side gave conflicting accounts of its terms for denuclearization in north korea. >> 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. >> translator: what we proposed was not the removal of all sanctions, but their partial removal. >> reporter: half a world away in washington -- >> do you swear or affirm -- >> reporter: his former attorney, michael cohen, testified in front of congress calling the president a racist and a con man. >> over time i saw his true
character revealed. >> reporter: cohen admitted he did not know of any direct evidence that the trump campaign colluded with russia but said mr. trump had potentially committed criminal activities since becoming president. president trump disputed the testimony claiming that cohen reportedly shopped a book which directly contradicts his testimony, calling it a love letter to trump. house intelligence committee chair adam schiff said cohen will be back next wednesday for more closed door testimony. >> he was fully cooperative and answered all of our questions. >> reporter: the committee will also publicly question a promoter of the trump tower moscow project. meanwhile, the house oversight committee chair elijiah cummings has suggested his panel will reach out to the president's children and his chief counsel for potential testimony. chris? chris: mike, thank you. joining me now is the president's national security adviser, john bolton. ambassador, welcome back to "fox
news sunday." well, following the failed summit in vietnam, where does diplomacy stand between the u.s. and north korea? what is president trump looking for, and what is he willing to give? >> well, i don't agree at all that it was a failed summit. i think the obligation of the president of the united states is to defend and advance american national security interests, and i think he did that by rejecting a bad deal and by trying again to persuade kim jong un to take the big deal that really could make a difference for north korea. as the president said, sometimes you have to walk away, and i think he made a very important point to north korea and to other countries around the world about negotiating with him. he's not desperate for a deal, not with north korea, not with anybody. if it's contrary to american national interests. chris: well, i want to puck up on that, though, because apparently it had become clear in negotiations over the preceding weeks and finally days before hanoi that the north koreans were asking for a much greater sanctions relief than the president was willing to
give. under those circumstances, did it make sense to even hold this summit? >> well, you never know what the north koreans are actually going to come with or if they're going to adhere to it, and a big part of the problem here in all these discussions where the experts are saying, well, the north koreans will give up part of their program, and the u.s. will release some of the economic sanctions that has bedeviled prior administrations is the problem of incommence rabbit. and what north korea has done consistently in the past is promised to denuclearize and then, by the way, not do it to get economic benefits which which provide their economy a lifeline, get them out of the trouble they're in and allow them to go back to the nuclear program. that kind of mistake is exactly what president trump said he would not permit in his administration, and he did not do it. chris: you didn't really answer my first question, i'm now realizing -- [laughter] which is where do things stand, and what is the president, what does he want and what's he willing to give? >> what he has said from the
beginning, that north korea -- if it makes a strategic decision to denuclearize -- can have the prospect of a very, very bright economic future. the president held that door open for north korea in singapore. they didn't walk through it. he held it open for them again in hanoi, they didn't walk through it. he's ready to hold it open again. no fixed date for a third summit, but he's turned tradition aldi proposal city -- traditional diplomacy on its head. and why not? it has failed in the last three administrations. chris: you would agree it has failed so far with you too. >> well, after eight months. he's got a record of 24 year of failure to stop north korea -- chris: but would you agree that so far this move with kim has failed? >> i don't think we're in any worse shape than they were in past administrations. i think, in fact, we're in a stronger position because the maximum pressure campaign, as it's been called, of putting tighter economic sanctions on north korea and enforcing those sanctions more effectively is
what brought them to this point. and that program of maximum pressure will continue, and i think, have a real impact on kim jong un. chris: i want to ask you about exactly that, because before singapore the president said he would not accept north korea as a nuclear power. and here's what you told me last april. is there any possibility that the u.s. would accept north korea as a nuclear a power and allow them to keep some of their infrastructure? >> i don't see how that's possible. chris: but this week the president kept saying over and over again there's no rush for north korea to give up its nuclear weapons, to give up its missiles. the key is no testing. and according to intelligence reports, u.s. intelligence reports, in the last year -- while they have not tested -- north korea has produced enough nuclear fuel for 5-7 more nuclear weapons. so i guess the question is, in effect, despite what you said,
despite what the president said, aren't you accepting north korea as a nuclear a power? and haven't you, in fact, given a big concession which is that, in return for no testing, you've agreed to cancel major joint exercises with the south koreans? >> no, i don't think the president sees it that way at all. the objective of making sure that north korea denuclearizes is still the policy of the administration, and i think -- chris: but why does he say no rush? >> the fact is at the moment the leverage is on the side of the united states as the economic sanctions continue to take hold. there's no doubt over a protracted period of time that the time does work in favor of the proliferater. but i think our judgment right now is that time works in the favor of the president's position as north korea sees the effect of these sanctions taking greater effect. chris: just briefly, can you give us a little of the mood music? you're in that meeting, you're at that table, you and the president and the secretary of
state and the white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney, at the same time with kim and the other people. how did it fall apart? who said what? >> i don't think it fell apart -- chris: all right, how did they end up leaving? >> well, they left on good terms, and that was part of -- chris: you can look at this picture, was it at that meeting? who said what? >> there were several meetings, and it would take a long time, but i can them you this, the president stressed to kim jong un he thought progress had been made, he thought that there were still negotiations that were possible. i would say the north koreans were very disappointed we didn't buy their bad deal. you know, that's life in the big city. chris: did kim say anything? you remember famously gorbachev and reagan, and gorbachev said what more could i have said, and reagan said you could have said yes on sdi in iceland. any moment like that? >> well, i think there were several. he kept saying take, what he called, the big deal. make the decision, give up the nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons, give up the ballistic missiles. he handed kim jong un a piece of paper -- actually two, one in korean, one in english -- that laid out what we wanted, and you get this piece of real estate that could have an extraordinary economic future. chris: and what did kim say? >> he walked away from it. chris: all right. meanwhile, the president seemed to absolve kim jong un of any responsibility in the torture and death of otto warmbier. take a look. >> in those prisons, in those camps you have a lot of people and some really bad things happened to otto, some really, really bad things, but he tells me, he tells me that he didn't know about it, and i will take him at his word. chris: well, the warmbier family was shocked at that and so were top republicans. >> the blood of otto warmbier is on the hands of kim jong un. chris: and the warmbiers issued
this statement: kim and his evil regime are responsible for unimaginable cruelty and inhumanity. no excuses or lavish praise can change that. question: why did the president take kim's word that he didn't know? >> look, the president has been very clear both in public, and i've heard him in private in the oval office, that he considers what happened to otto warmbier to be despicable and barbaric, and i think he made that clear in hanoi and made it clear subsequently. i think the best thing -- chris: let me just interrupt for a second. he says, i mean, i'm going to read you the quote back again. he, kim, tells me he didn't know it, and i take him at his word. >> you know, what he's trying to convey is that he's got a difficult line to walk to negotiate with kim jong un and at the same time demand what i think north korea would find very much in its own best interests. give us a complete accounting of who was responsible for what happened to ott otto warm beer.
that would go a -- otto warmbier. that would go a long way to improving relations. chris: this is not the first time the president has taken the word of an autocrat over outside evidence -- >> when he says i'm going to take him at his word, it doesn't mean that he accepts it as reality. he accepts that's what kim jong un said. chris: so when he says i take him at his word, it doesn't mean he believes kim jong un? >> that's what he said. i think one way to prove that is to give the united states a full accounting. chris: this is not the first time the president has sided with an autocrat over outside evidence. here's what the president said about the murder, the saudi murder of jamal khashoggi. >> i hate the crime, i hate what's done, i hate the cover-up, and i will tell you this, the crown prince hates it more than i do, and they have vehemently denied it. chris: and here is the president at the helsinki summit with
putin on whether russia interfered in the 2016 election. >> i have great confidence in my intelligence people, but i will tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. chris: why does the president trust putin and mbs and kim over u.s. intelligencesome. >> i don't think that's what he's saying. and, again, if you take the case of khashoggi, he and others in the administration have said repeatedly we want from saudi arabia a complete top to bottom explanation of what happened. chris: it's been months, and you haven't gotten it, and the senate has been calling for stricter sanctions, and you guys are opposing it. it certainly would happen in the case of putin. he specifically said u.s. intelligence says this but putin says no. >> and fundamentally in the case of all three of those countries, we've got to pursue american national interest. and that involves matters much weightier, much more important than some of these statements by
the leaders. look, foreign leaders who are friends of ours lie to our face as well with. this is nothing new in international relations. chris: but, forgive me, and you go back to the reagan years too. ronald reagan when he was dealing with gorbachev over the most sensitive issues continued to call him out on human rights and the abuses in the soviet gulags. he didn't shy away from confronting gorbachev with the tough, tough issues. >> and i don't think president trump has either. certainly, as you heard even in the tapes you played, again on the khashoggi thing or on otto warmbier, he's decried the acts as barbaric. chris: okay. there are reports -- [laughter] i'm going to say there's a lot of tough stuff to talk to you today. two more issues. one, there are reports -- none denied so far -- that president trump ordered the white house to give a top secret security clearance to jared kushner over the objections of the white house chief of staff, john kelly, over the white house
counsel, don mcgahn, and over the cia. as national security adviser, do you have any concerns about jared kushner having access to the nation's top secrets? >> i don't have any concerns. i deal with jared all the time on the middle east peace process and a number of other issues. i trust him. i have no idea what the story is on the security clearance. it's not something that falls within my area of responsibility. but if asked do i trust jared kushner, the answer is, yes. chris: you do not think he is a security risk. >> i do not. chris: will the white house meet a deadline tomorrow to turn over to the house all documents about -- that they're seeking on white house security clearances? >> well, you know, i'm involved in that since they have some nonsensical ideas about me which i'll one day be free to discuss as a private citizen, but all i can say is the whys counsel and the department of justice the are handling that. and whether i like it or not, i
will leave it to them. chris: meaning what, when you say -- >> what they're going to respond to the congress. chris: do you know whether they're going to turn over the paper? >> i don't know. i think it's up to them. as i say, if i were a private citizen, i'd have a lot to say about this. chris: well -- [laughter] you know me too well. you've dangled a piece of meat in front of me. do you think that congress doesn't have a right to that information? >> i think, look, i've been from my days at the justice department a strong proponent of executive privilege and the ability of the executive branch to function free from unwarranted congressional interference. so if by chance that's the stance that the white house counsel and the justice department take, i'll be fine with that as a matter of constitutional will. i'm just saying if i were unfetteredded by my official responsibilities, i'd be delighted to take on these allegations about me. chris: okay. final question. venezuela. for all the declarations from you and from other top white house officials, and the quote is maduro must go. the fact is he continues to hold
on to power. there was this big faceoff last week about humanitarian aid coming in or not. they were able to block it, generally speak, with some defections. the generals and the military are standing by him. one, what do you do next to try to force him out and, two, if the opposition leader, juan guaido, returns to venezuela in the next day or so and is arrested, what will the u.s. response be? >> look, the opposition is very united. think tour row made a big -- maduro made a big mistake by trying to block the aid. it was bands of motorcycle gangs organized and trained and financed by cuba. that's really one of the big problems in venezuela which in parts of latin america they call cuba because of the influence of the cubans that we need to get rid of. with respect to the military, there are countless conversations going on below the as far as as to -- surface as to
where the military will go. i think maduro's situation is very precarious. we want to see a peaceful transition of power -- chris: if guaido is arrested, what will the u.s. response be? >> we're going to watch what happens. we have warned mature row and the -- maduro and his henchmen very clearly. if maduro took that step, i think it would just hasten the day that he leaves. chris: ambassador bolton, thank you. thanks for answering all our questions. always good to talk with you, sir. >> glad to be with you. chris: up next, we'll discuss the fallout of the trump/kim summit, plus what would you like to ask the panel about president trump demanding top security clearance for his so many, jared kushner? we may use your question on the air.
♪ here i go again on my--- you realize your vows are a whitesnake song? i do. if you ride, you get it. geico motorcycle. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more. you turned a family recipeher, into a brewing empire before prohibition took it all away. i promised our family i'd find your lost recipe. by tracing our history on ancestry, i found the one person who still had it. now, i'm brewing our legacy back to life. i'm david thieme, and this is my ancestry story. now with 100 million family trees, find your story. get started for free at ancestry.com. we really pride ourselvesglass, on making it easy to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what you love most.
>> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ did you know you can save money by using dish soap to clean grease on more than dishes? try dawn ultra. dawn is for more than just dishes. with 3x more grease cleaning power per drop, it tackles tough grease on a variety of surfaces. try dawn ultra. thisyeah.ice. yeah, this is nice. mmmm how did you make the dip so rich and creamy? oh, it's a philadelphia- -family recipe. can i see it? no. new philadelphia dips. so good, you'll take all the credit. ensure max protein... to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. (straining) i'll take that. (cheers) 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar.
with xfinity home. demo in an xfinity store, call, or go online today. >> we actually had papers ready to be signed, but it just wasn't appropriate. i want to do it right. i'd much rather do it right than fast. chris: president trump on why he did not strike a deal with kim jong un at the vietnam summit. it's time now for our sunday group. the co-founder of "the federalist," ben dominic. marie harf, former democratic congresswoman jane harman, director of the woodrow wilson center, and fox news correspondent jill january turner. congresswoman, there are reports before the two leaders ever got together in vietnam -- and i talked about this with john bolton -- that the north koreans were demanding a lot more in terms of sanctions relief than the white house was ever willing to give. two questions, basically, that i asked ambassador bolton. one, should this summit ever have been held and, two, does
its failure, how much does it set back u.s./north korean relations? >> well, should it have been held now? no, it wasn't ready. and bolton is right that over three administrations the efforts to negotiate a good deal with north korea have failed. does it hurt u.s./north korean relations? i don't really think so. i think if you look at it in terms of north korea, they won. i mean, here is kim on his 2,000-mile trek on his train going to a state visit in vietnam after the summit, and now going back and maybe meeting with xi jinping, and he keeps all his nukes, and he's an operator on the world statement. world stage, and he's got a closer relationship with china than he used to have, and so i call that a win for kim. it does hurt us on the world stage. people are looking at us, and i think it makes our leverage even less than it has been in other parts of the world. chris: i want to pick up on that with you, ben, specifically in
terms of u.s./north korean relations. while the president walked away from this summit, it does appear that he is softening his terms. originally, they were talking about no concessions until north korea gives up everything. now they seem to be saying, well, this was too big an ask, but we would give up some things, corresponding measures, it's called, in return for some progress on denuclearization. >> let's make clear the north koreans are never going to give up their nuclear program. they are never going to fully denuclearize, and that's something i think the intelligence community has very much agreed on. i am not always in agreement with them, but i think in this case it's very true. second, i think that the frame of this whole sort of conversation around this summit was a little inaccurate from the get go. all of the analysis going in was warning against the idea that the president was going to be willing to agree to a bad deal just in order to have a win in terms of the frame of what this was viewed at on the world stage and here at home. i think, clearly, this sort of
surprised a number of people who went in there expecting that the president would give up a lot as opposed to doing what he did, which was walk away, which i think was the right decision in this context. i do consider the congresswoman to be correct when she says this is a temporary win for kim. but i think in the grander scheme of things, we would have been much more hurt by a bad deal in this instance than taking a step back and saying let's come at this again, particularly after withdrawal from the inf. we have the ability to potentially deploy a lot different sort of material around that region than we did when we were part of that agreement. chris: one way of saying sewer mediate-range nuclear missiles. [laughter] we asked you for questions for the panel, and on another issue, the issue of president trump reportedly ordering his staff to give jared kushner a top secret clearance, brian castaldo tweeted this. what does jared actually bring to the table that demands he have a security clearance? marie, how do you answer brian both on the question of the security clearance and on
kushner's performance on the international stage? >> well, there's nothing that jared kushner brings to the table in terms of substantive expertise or history or knowledge of these issues that require he have a clearance and work on these issues. the president does have the ability to say, jared, you're my guy on middle east peace, i want you to work on that. he also has the authority the give him security clearance over the express wishes of the intelligence community. but it raises two questions. the first is should the president have done that. he has the authority, but was it in the u.s. national security interests to do so. congress is investigating that right now and, hopefully, they'll get some answers. the second question it raises is why the president and other people keep lying about it publicly. that is a problem, i think, for national security and just for the president's -- chris: and we should point out that the prime minister denied in ap interview to the new york times that he had done anything to interfere or push kushner's security clearance, and so did
ivanka trump. >> exactly. for those of us who have gone through the tedious for process of filling out these clearance forms, there's a reason they're adjudicated the way they are, and we need a clear answer why jared is so needed to have this clearance that they overrode the cia's concerns about jared and his foreign contacts. chris: what about the argument, hey, i'm the president, i got elected, i trust him? >> he has the authority to do it, chris, you're right. he got elected, he can do it. it doesn't mean he should do it, and it certainly doesn't mean that congress should not can tough questions about why jared so needed to have this clearance. and this just shows another complication with hiring family members. it can cloud your government. there's reporting that in at least 40 cases people were denied security clearances. were those overridden as well? there's a process for a reason here, and it's to protect -- >> marie, you know that ben rhodes was denied a clearance, okay?
chris: we should point out he was on the national security council staff for barack obama. >> look, this is all about the president being able to hire who he wants and have them in the position that he wants -- chris: all right, wait, guys. let me bring in gillian -- >> i haven't been able to confirm it. as far as the reporting i've looked at, nobody else has been able to confirm this. the key question is whether jared kushner actually ever took a polygraph and whether he passed or failed. as somebody who had a top secret security clearance for five years, an important part of the process for 95 president of the people is, ultimately, whether they passed or failed a polygraph. if a passed the test and it was the judgment of the cia and the intel community that he shouldn't get the clearance and the president overrode it, that is one matter. if he failed a polygraph test and the president overrode it to deny him a clearance anyway -- chris: i have to say, that's a pretty explosive -- i'm not saying you're alleging it. >>, no i'm not.
chris: why would you even bring that up? >> well, because again, as somebody who had a security clearance, i know that that's a major component of the process. >> not all the time. >> i said about 90% -- >> because i have one. i served on the defense policy board and the cia board, and that was not a requirement. >> right. as i said, about 90% of people also undergo a polygraph test as part of that. cru chris what do you think, the question i asked marine, i mean, all of this is because the president thinks this guy i really trust. so far in the two years that he's been a top adviser to the president, how do you think jared kushner has done? saudi arabia, china, now the mideast, he supposedly is the architect of the -- >> we haven't seen the proposal, so we don't know really what avenue he's going to launch from. we've been hearing for two years that the deal on the u.s. side, proposals are sort of nearing conclusion and that jared has been traveling to the middle east to talk about it with both
sides, you know, the israelis and the palestinians, but we haven't seen -- chris: congresswoman, you've got about 45 seconds. >> how he performs is not the issue. the issue is whether he is a threat to national security because of relationships he has with foreign governments. so i, you know, i didn't know ben rhodes didn't have a security clearance, and i don't know why he didn't -- >> denied initially by the fbi. >> i don't think it's relevant how he performed, i think it's relevant whether he's deeming a national security threat. chris: i seem to be the only one on this panel who has never had a secret security clearance. [laughter] what impact does michael cohen's testimony have on future investigations into the president's private and public conduct? we'll talk with a member of the house democratic leadership, congresswoman debbie dingell, next. ♪ ♪
that's not a bug, that's not a bug! (burke) hit and drone. seen it, covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ it's been a long time since andrew dusted off his dancing shoes. luckily denture breath will be the least of his worries. because he uses polident 4 in 1 cleaning system to kill 99.99% of odor causing bacteria. polident. clean. fresh. and confident.
♪ ♪ chris: michael cohen's testimony is just the tip of the iceberg of what house democrats plan for investigating the president. joining me now to discuss what comes next, congresswoman debbie dingell. she is co-chair of the democratic policy and communications committee. congresswoman, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> crust, it's good to be with you. chris: this is the first chance i've had a chance to talk to you since you lost your wonderful husband of 38 years, john dingell. i know i speak for a lot of people, how are you doing? >> it's hard. but i can hear him in my ear saying get back out there and work. he was a great man, and we had a love affair -- you were there when i -- i remember talking to you about whether i should accept that first date with him. and we were -- chris: and what did i say? >> well, you didn't want me to marry him. [laughter] most people don't know that you
and i lived next door -- chris: we did. and you were the fatherly godmother to my children -- fairy godmother. >> we had a love affair, and i've got a hole in my heart. chris: good, good. well, it's a hole in a lot of our hearts, and you have a lot of friends. president trump spoke yesterday with and said with the russia investigation, his terms, now basically falling apart, house democrats want to go after him on a bunch of other things. take a look. >> so they don't have anything with russia. there's no collusion. so now they go and morph into let's inspect every deal he's ever done. we're going to go into his finances. weaver going to check his diegos -- we're going to chick his deals. these people are sick. right now we have people in congress that hate our country. chris: and, in fact, there are at least six house committees -- got 'em up on the screen -- looking into various areas from
russia to mr. trump's tax returns, to his charitable foundation. i know that the house democratic majority is also passing bills. you passed the gun control bill this week, but do you really want trump investigations to take up so much of the time and drown out so much of the other things you're doing? >> so i'm going to actually say that we as a congress -- not just democrats, democrats and republicans -- can walk and chew gum at the same time. congress has a fundamental responsibility for oversight in investigations, and i think we abdicated it the last two years. at the same time, we have a fundamental respondent to the people that elected us -- responsibility, and i think that we've got to the make sure we did guns this week, which is a subject that matters deeply to me. it's very complicated for me, as you well know too, but we've got to do something about health care. there isn't a republican that cannot care as much as we as democrats do about how much the cost of understand lin is. he need to do something about
our broken infrastructure. the president said he would work with us. we need to do something about pensions and trade and a lot of other. we can do both. chris: but even though you passed the gun control bill this week, most people don't even know that because the only thing that got attention from the news media, and i think rightly so, was the cohen hearing. >> so, look, i think the cohen hearing is a first step in a very legitimate oversight process where we need to understand. i don't think -- i don't quite agree with the president. i don't know what the mueller investigation is going to say. i'm waiting for facts. i think we need to get the facts. people are asking questions. and not all oversight needs to be, as you see chairman schiff is holding closed door hearings. they're gathering the facts and getting information. that's legitimate. but we are also in need to deliver for the american people. and they're holding us accountable. do you think people aren't worried about what's happening to the cost of insulin?
we need to do something on drug prices, and that's something we should be able to agree on. chris: you talked about the mueller report. the president spoke out very graphically and forcefully yesterday at cpac about the mueller, special counsel, investigation. in fact, we had to bleep out some of this. here it is. >> all of a sudden they're trying to take you out with bull [bleep], okay? [cheers and applause] [laughter] chris: you've said before this, you've said that democrats moving to impeach the president could, in your words, tear the country apart. where are you on impeachment now? more importantly, where is the house democratic leadership? is that off the table? >> i think that we're waiting for the facts. i've always said that. and i do not think an impeachment should ever be a partisan event. i think we need democrats and republicans, or it will tear this country apart.
that's why oversight's a legitimate function, this investigation is a legitimate function. you know, one of the things i thought about as everybody started talking about why do we need to know about russia or why do -- you know, during this government shutdown i met with tsa, fbi, custom and border patrol, secret service, and all of them were scared to death that their credit rating could be impacted, and they could lose their job. and why would they lose their job? because people think that they might be subject to some kind of blackmail. so if we're going to hold a tsa or an fbi or a secret service who puts their life on the line, isn't that a legitimate role of government, to make sure that our top leaders are not -- that we're just getting the facts to make sure that there isn't any interference in this russia, by russia in our election process, or there isn't something that's being held over the head of -- chris: you talk about a best partisan effort, but the fact is in that five hours or whatever
it was of actual running time, every republican with the possible exception of your fellow justin amash strongly sided with the president and went after michael cohen. there was no bipartisan agreement about even looking into the allegations that cohen was making. are you disappointed that republicans aren't -- >> i think that republicans, you know, we talked about john at the beginning of the show. he was equally hard on members of his own party as he was to republicans. he believed that was one of the most fundamental responsibilities of our congress, is to hold people accountable. i don't know what's going on behind closed doors with chairman schiff. i have talked to republicans who are concerned that there not be interference by russia. i think that some people need to get the courage to ask questions, and i think that we've got to ask the questions and build the case. and we've got to do it objective hi and fairly. and the more we do it together,
the better this country is. chris: okay. so you talk about asking questions, and that raises the question how far should democrats be willing to go? for instance, should house democrats move -- even if it takes a subpoena to get the president's tax records -- should they, particularly given the testimony that we heard from michael cohen this week, should they require in that the president's kids -- eric, don jr., ivanka -- come up and testify? >> well, i think that people are going to have to really do some strong thinking about that. i think that there's some reason to think that they may have answers to questions or have been part of discussions. i think these tax returns are a very interesting discussion. you know, we have financial disclosure on the hill. we have to, well, we have it in the executive branch as well. and when you're seeing the kinds of discussions that you are seeing, it's a very legitimate question, and we have to talk
about it. i think that if he makes his tax returns public, a lot of people if you're running for president, do you need to make your tax returns? i think it becomes the question, should everybody have to make them. chris: okay. last month congressman omar of minnesota suggested on twitter that israel's supporters in congress are, in effect, being bought by pro-israel lobbies. she said this: it's all about the benjamins, baby. omar apologized for that, but this week she was at it again. she said at a town hall, i want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it's okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. the chair of the house foreign affairs committee said those more recent comments by omar are anti-semitic. will the house democratic lindies palin congresswoman omar? >> you know, i'm going to say what i'm worried about in this
country, which is this fear and hatred that we're seeing. anti-semitism is not okay. we can never forget what happened in germany, and we have to remember that. but, you know, i come from my -- i represent the largest muslim population in this country too. and the hatred and the targeting we're seeing, one of the most fundamental pillars of our constitution is under attack, and that is freedom of religion. and we have got to make sure on both sides that everybody is being very careful. when you look at what happened to herr -- to her in west virginia on friday, she needs to be careful of her language. we cannot attack. we have to be very, very careful of anti-semitism. and i think, i've talked to nancy and steny on monday and see, you know, how we all bring ourselves together. but i see it on both sides. i see too much hatred period. chris: finally, 2020. you're not running for president, are you? >> i am not. [laughter] chris: you are, relatively
speak, in the center, one of the more moderate -- i know you're part of the progressive caucus, but in this group you're relatively moderate in the democratic party. do you worry that some of these announced candidates for president are moving so far to the left and proposing programs that are so expensive that you could conceivably open up an avenue and make it easier for donald trump to win re-election? >> i'm a pragmatist, by the way, just for the record, i told you two years ago donald trump could win, and you all thought i was crazy, and he could win re-election. we have got to be very smart. i'm a pragmatist. i am for universal health care, medicare for all, but i want to get there. if you don't have the vision, you're not going to get this. we've got a problem with global climate change. you know, people are mad at me all the time. the auto industry's mad at me because i say we need to set -- chris: to remind people, you are a congresswoman from michigan. >> michigan and an auto person
you, so what i do is i went to aoc and said we want to go to a car bonnless society, will you work with me to wild an electric electric -- to build an electric infrastructure? chris: what did she say? >> she's coming to detroit. why can't we work together for common goals? chris: congresswoman dingell, we are so sorry for your loss. john dingell, you know, you pointed out we were personal friends, you and i have been friends for a long sometime. he's a remarkable, was a remarkable man. thank you for coming in today, and we share in your loss. >> thank you, chris. chris: when we return, we'll bring back our sunday group to discuss president trump's comments about the increased scrutiny he's facing from congressional democrats who, as you just said, says they a hate the country. ♪
>> 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. >> he speaks in a code, and i understand the code because i've been around him for a decade. chris: michael cohen and president trump with very different takes on what the president's former fixer said this week. we're back now with the panel. ben, michael cohen -- as the president said -- he said a lot about campaign contributions, about potential bank fraud, insurance fraud, tax fraud, but he had almost nothing to offer when it came to alleged collusion with the russians. so in the end, how much do you think he hurt the president? >> well, i don't think that he actually told uses a lot that was new, but it was a circus, and it was salacious, which is why it got as much attention as it did. certainly entertaining at various points. i think that michael cohen
indicates where things are going in terms of the conversation about the legal situation surrounding the president which is that we're shifting away from this collusion narrative that we've been given for the last two years and instead talking about campaign finance issues and things that are much more under the purview of the southern district of new york. and that's going to be, i think, the legal challenge for the president moving forward. in terms of what democrats on capitol hill are going to do with this information, this all is taking place in the context of the push backed by the democratic base for impeachment of the president, impeachment which, i think, is unlikely to happen given the leadership of the democrats and what they want to have going forward, the risks that they think would be entailed in a situation as they have it today. chris: all right. weaver going to get more into that in a moment, but marie, what about this argument? the president said it and ben suggested it as well that the russia collusion, obstruction of justice is basically a dry hole, so democrats are shifting the terms of the debate to,
basically, what the president did before he ever came to office as citizen trump. >> i think that's wishful thinking on the part of a lot of republicans and the president. there are two big buckets of things that we heard from michael coto hen this week that will be important going forward. the first is about the russia investigation. michael cohen testified that donald trump had advance knowledge of wikileaks releasing information it had gotten from the russians that they had stolen -- or. chris: wait, wait. he claims that he overheard a conversation between roger stone and the president, but there's no backup -- i mean, it's his word. >> so it opens the door. it doesn't answer any questions, but it puts a lot more on the table. donald trump has said he never discussed wikileaks with roger stone. so again, not an answer, but more questions about donald trump, wikileaks and the russians. also not all the criminal conduct that was aled in that hearing -- was alleged in that hearing was before donald trump became president.
michael cohen testifying he knows of other criminal behavior that is being investigated currently by the southern district of new york that donald trump undertook, those are two big places where going forward we're going to be focused. russia, absolutely, still a key part of that, chris. chris: let's step back and take a look at the big picture. congresswoman, you were in congress in 1998 when the republicans were hell bent on impeaching bill clinton. they did and they ended up facing a big backlash for doing it. it was seen as an overreach. how do you think democrats handle impeachment, and what about all these investigations that trump -- six, at least six committees looking into every part of the president's dealings both as a private citizen and as president. >> let me say, first, that during my nine terms in congress, i served with john dingell. he was the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, on which i served. he was a magical, magnificent leader, and debbie is such a worthy successor. it was really touching to see
your interview. on this, yes, i was there. and i was also there as a young lawyer in the early '70s during the saturday night massacre when richard nixon was impeached. and two very different scenes. but in the late '90s, everything stopped, and it was viewed as totally political. and during the that time, let's understand that al-qaeda and osama bin laden grew in strength. there had been attacks right before that on the african embassy. everyone took our collective eye off of critically important national security things to focus on this impeachment, and it was damaging. yes, it was damaging to one party, but i rather say it was damaging for the country. i'm not saying impeach. impeepment is never worth it, but segway to now with all these investigations. i think the good news about that is is that nancy pelosi is an adult, and she's exercising an iron hand over where all this is
going and keeping people in their, in their places. are a few people favoring impeachment? yes, they are. but i think bob mueller is going to have a major word here when his report, in system form, comes out. chris: gillian, we are talking about all of this perfect ignorance of what's going to be in the mueller report and, you know, was supposed to come out last week, now people talking maybe this weekover whatever. we don't know what he's going to say or how hard the ed is going to be about possible collusion, possible obstruction of justice. we don't know what bill barr -- because he gives the, quote, confidential report to the attorney general, and the attorney general decides what to give to congress. >> we, the american people, may not get a bite at this report ever. of i think the best possible scenario based on what the law spells out is it goes from mueller to barr, barr to
congress, and they decide to release some portions of it or some heavily redacted portions. my worry for the country with that likely scenario is, is this report ever going to amount to anything more than a rorschach test. we've got video of president trump talking to president putin about the, about wikileaks, something short of that direct both sides will take from this report what they want to see and retreat to their corners, and we will be exactly where we are today. i think that will be very foxic for the country. chris: congresswoman, if -- and i want to repeat, this is just speculative, but it's a legitimate issue. if bill barr, he decides what to release to congress and, therefore, to the public, if he decides to limit what he's going to release particularly if mueller says there's not the basis to diet the president, for instance, what'll nancy pelosi
and the democrats do? >> well, i can't speak for them -- chris: right. your guess. >> i think that congress is an independent branch of government. i think they will demand to see as much as possible of the report, and we don't know what would be in it. and there may be some indictments, more indictments that have come down before the report. and, remember, he's very good -- mueller -- at the speaking indictments. so you learn a lot through each indictment. but whatever that is, i think what she will do in some very coordinated and disciplined way with exercise the oversight responsibilities of congress, do the investigations where they lead. and there are investigations about the connection to russia, and there are reasons to think there might have been a connection to russia. and then we'll see. i'm hoping that the country sticks together, that the toxic partisanship starts to somehow magically disappear. chris: good luck with that. [laughter] thanks, panel. see you next sunday. and we'll be back with a final word. ♪
♪ ♪ >> it was a very interesting two days. and i think, actually, it was a very productive two days, but sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times. paul: welcome toti "the journal editorial report," i'm paul gigot. president trump walking away from a deal with north korean dictator kim jong un in an abrupt end to their two-day summit in vietnam. the president claimed -- >> basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn't do that. were willing to denuke a large portion of the areas that we wanted, but we couldn't give