tv Outnumbered Overtime With Harris Faulkner FOX News October 21, 2019 10:00am-11:00am PDT
>> newt: it comes out tomorrow. i'm very excited about it. >> lisa: congratulations, and thank you for being here today. we are back at 12:00 eastern tomorrow, and here is julie banderas emperor harris. >> we begin with a fox news alert, good afternoon to you. we are awaiting new remarks from president trump at his cabinet meeting amid the impeachment showdown, questions over his serious strategy. "outnumbered overtime" starts right now. i'm julie banderas emperor harris faulkner. the president just a short time ago, doubling down on defending his decision to pull u.s. troops out of northeastern syria saying that the u.s. never gave a permanent commitment to protect the kurds. meanwhile the president is also calling for republicans to get tougher when it comes to pushing back against the democrats impeachment inquiry. as acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney is denying that he denied a quid pro quo with ukraine. >> a couple of things, you said
a few seconds ago that i said that there was a quid pro quo, you never use that language. >> but you described a quid pro quo and said that that happens all the time. >> reporters will use their language all the time, my language never said quid pro q quo. >> julie: kevin couric is life at the white house with more. >> we await the playback of the recording from the cabinet meeting, and as soon as they get that, i promise to pass it along. but you heard mick mulvaney, and you can tell them to walk back and backpedal a clarification by any definition, still trying to explain what he meant from the briefing on thursday where he was asked by abc's jonathan carl about a possible quid pro quo. well, okay. and the cooperation into the investment of the joe biden interference, the white house that we release the transcript. we made it clear that that is not what happened. in fact, mick mulvaney said
slowing down aid to address things like corruption and what other countries are doing to chip in, frankly is the right thing to do. >> it is legitimate to tie the aid to corruption. it is legitimate to tie the aid to foreign aid from other countries. that's what i was talking about. can you see how people took at the other way? absolutely, but i never said there was a quid pro quo. >> meanwhile on capitol hill, democrats say what mick mulvaney really did was lay out for all to see what actually happened, which is to say an admission to corruption. >> what was done is extraordinary and extraordinarily wrong. the president extorted or was seeking to extort president zelensky of ukraine. he held $400 million in foreign assistance that in bipartisan members of the congress voted to give the ukraine to fight to? russia. >> bob menendez right there at
the white house obviously rejecting the suggestion, pointing again to the fact that not only did the aid reach the intended target, in this case ukraine, the ukrainians themselves said that there was no quid pro quo. and say that with the white house for votes, that is the end of it. we await the playback from the briefing. it was a lengthy briefing that concluded not long ago. a lot of talk about the economy. you will hear the administration touting what they have been able to do as we wait for the president, julie. >> julie: kevin corke, we will have that as human as it comes in. thank you very much, joining us to talk about this with me as vilma mclaren, fox news contributor. we will talk about mick mulvaney, with chris wallace, trying to walk back his talk on the quid pro quo issue. the bottom line is this. this is what he said to chris. look at the facts. they did not stop the flow of the money. in other words, the military
aide proceeded to ukraine. so there was no quid pro quo, however, jonathan crofts question was there a quid pro quo? yes, we do it all the time. paraphrasing. >> he made a terrible statement, trying to walk it back. at the facts are pretty good. it is not as big a deal as they say, but he said something embarrassing to the white house, and now he is struggling to walk it back. and he is making his point on the language that they used that he did not explicitly use the words quid pro quo. >> julie: i want to talk about the cabinet meeting, we will get a two minute heads up and then play it for you when it gets to us. he talks about the g.o.p., some of the things that need to get tougher on impeachment. vice president has in fact come forward, mike pence is going to be a stronger advocate for the president on this. what do you think the behind the scenes thinking is on that? >> in the house it does not matter what the republicans want, because they are a
minority. and the way that mrs. pelosi has gone about the impeachment is totally unfair and arbitrary and of course, the president has no right to defend himself. so i think that he will be impeached. and in the senate, here is the president advantage, in some sense at this point, the less fair the democrats are to them, the better off he is including in the senate when that might be an issue for the republicans why they would not vote for anything. with impeachment, jerry nadler recognize this. you are not just following a political process. you are trying to persuade america that this is the right thing to do. nancy pelosi does not seem to care whether it is the right thing. it is a democratic thing to do. spend the president will also talk about syria. the president and the white house is maintaining that the cease-fire is holding. it was five days cease-fire, and we know that a bout 24 hours later after the cease-fire, after mike pence and the secretary of state left, they in fact fired off shell fire.
and this was the turkish army, they were basically directing the firings from starting. can we trust turkey? erdogan has promised he would follow through. it is clear he is not. by the white house remains at the cease-fire is holding, so what are we to make of? >> i don't trust france much less turkey on things. and that is a problem, our paper is disagreement with the president on syria. there were relatively few troops. and they kept an unsteady piece when they did a good job, and the president says rightly, we never made a lifelong commitment to the kurds. but we never made that commitment in south korea, and we are still there. we never made that commitment in germany. so sometimes an uneasy peace is the best solution. >> julie: we are getting the two-minute warning, we will take the president's remarks in just 2 minutes. but i want to ask you, jennifer griffin has conducted an interview, she says the top commander in syria speaks about
turkish cease-fire violations. here's what he said to her. calling on the president to leave u.s. troops in syria, saying if they don't stay there, he calls that there will be an ethnic cleansing of kurds, and goes on to say that there is still time for the president to change his mind. today in this cabinet meeting, he will be, the president will be saying that the u.s. never agreed to protect to the kurds for the rest of their lives. so this is a very strong statement. it shows that the president will not be changing his mind. >> that was my point just before, we did not make any lifelong agreement with the south koreans, and we are still there. and by and large our troop presence in asia has been great for asia and great for the united states. it is a largely peaceful region, the same as europe. i think that this is the president, and i know that this is a campaign promise. i think his position is probably more popular, but i think that it could come back to haunt him, because he will be blamed if there is bloodletting. >> julie: the kurds have been
helping us wipe out isis, now they don't have our protection. syria, you know, limited troops there. troop pullout, now we are understanding that some troops are in fact moving to iraq, is this perhaps a slow pullout or maybe a change in direction? >> i don't know. i think the problem is that we have all of these new problems created by leaving. the truth anywhere, but especially in the middle east is when there is a vacuum left by america, somebody is going to fill the vacuum. and usually it is filled by people that have interest hostile to the united states. >> julie: thank you very, very much. awaiting some big news from the white house, the president with the cabinet meeting at the white house, let's watch. >> we have done very well, if anybody has any questions, please. >> reporter: do you have a limited number? >> we don't think it will be necessary, i don't want to leave troops there. it is very dangerous. we had 28 troops, people said 50, it was 28, and in army on
both sides, so they would've been wiped out. i don't think it is necessary, other than we secure the oil. it is in a different section, but we secure the oil. any other region where we have been asked by israel and jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section of syria near jordan. and close to israel. that is a totally different section, that is a totally different mind-set. so we have a small group there. other than that, there is no reason for it in our opinion. and the kurds will be watching, we are working with the kurds. we have a good relationship with them. but we never agreed to protect to the kurds, we have supported them for three and half-4 years, we never agreed to protect them for their entire life. remember this, when iraq was fighting the kurds, everybody thought we would fight with the kurds, and they said that it is a little bit strange that we are fighting with the kurds we spent
$4 trillion on iraq, now we will be fighting a rack. as to what i did as i said we will not take a position. let them fight themselves. i thought that the kurds would do very well. while coming rack moved in, and the kurds left. they did not fight, because they did not have us to fight with. a lot of people are good when they fight with us. when you have $10 billion worth of airplanes shooting 10 miles in front of your line, it is much easier to fight. but with that is anywhere, but we were a great help to them too, they were fighting isis. you know who hated isis, so they were fighting isis, but where's the agreement that says that we have to stay in the middle east and the rest of humanity for civilization to protect -- it was never said. and we have protected them. we have taken very good care of them. and i hope that they are going to watch over isis, because again, most of it is not in the
safe zone, as we call it. some places are called a demilitarized zone, and areas like this are a demilitarized zone. and our relationship with the kurds is good. and they will be safe. but it will say this, if shooting did not start for a couple of days, i don't think that they would have moved. i don't think frankly you would've been able to make a very good deal with turkey. i think when it started for a few days it was so nasty that when we went to turkey, and when we went to the kurds, they agreed to do things that they never would have done before the shooting started. if they did not go through two and a half days of hell. i don't think they would've done it. and people have been trying to make this deal for years. we will see what happens. again, they have been fighting for 300 years that we know of. 300 years. so why should we put our
soldiers in the midst of two large groups, hundreds of thousands, potentially a people that are fighting. i don't think so. i don't think so. yes. >> reporter: when you say fight, what are you talking about? >> i think the democrats fight dirty, they are lousy politicians with lousy policy, they want open borders. they do not care about crime. they want since we're cities. they do not care about drugs. they don't care about almost anything. they don't care about usmca. i think they are lousy politicians. the two things that they have, they are vicious. and they stick together. they don't have mitt romney in their midst. they don't have people like that. they stick together. you never see them break off. you never see somebody go out -- and that's why i respected so much when i watched with will hurd today, because he was one of the few that did not seem to be there, and yet he made a
statement, he said, well, i have not seen any complaints whatsoever from the ukrainians. and they did not tell any other ambassadors. this thing is all about a letter that was perfect. you never hear the letter anymore. it was all about whistle-blowers coming in ever hear what happened of the whistle-blowers, they are gone. because they have been discredited. what happened to the informant? and where is the ig? why did the ig read the letter, the transcript, he could've gotten it i guess, i assume. it would've declassified it for them if i had to do that. why did he not read this and see that the whistle-blowers account was totally different than the letter? then he would've said, oh, there is no problem. the whistle-blower gave a false account. now you have to say, well, do we have to protect somebody that gave a false account? the whistle-blowers, they have them like they are angels, do we have to protect somebody they
gave a false account with my conversation? i don't know. you tell me. do we have to protect the informant? i think that there probably was not an informant. the informant went to the whistle-blower, the whistle-blower had second and third hand information. you remember that. it was a big problem. but the information was wrong. so was there actually an informant? maybe the informant was schiff. it could be shifty schiff. in my opinion it is probably schiff. why did he not say that he has a staff, why did he not say that he met with the whistle-blower? he knew all about the whistle-blower? why did he not say? he is a crooked politician. it is very bad for our country. this whole thing is very bad for our country. in the midst of that i'm trying to get out of wars. we may have to get in wars too. okay, we might have to get in wars, we are better prepared than we have ever been. if you ran does something, they will be hit like they have never been hit before. we have things that we are
looking at, but can you imagine? i have to fight off these lowlifes at the same time i'm negotiating this very important thing. it should've been done during obama, bush, even before that. all right? so that's where we are right n now. go ahead. >> reporter: [and distinguish bull question] >> they will be sent to different parts , and we have elections on bringing our soldiers back home, very popular within the beltway. because you know, they do not like it, and the great military companies don't like it. it is not very popular, and outside the beltway, my largest year in dallas, and 25,000 people close, in that arena. a record grab, and so many people outside of the arena, and thousands. largest chair that night was two
things. we are building the wall, and that is number one, and number two, and probably tied for number one was we are bringing the soldiers back home. that was our largest cheer in dallas. great state, texas. tough state. they are tough. when i said, we are bringing our soldiers back home, the place went crazy. but within the beltway, you know, people, they don't like it, and it was tougher for me, and let our soldiers be there, let them continue, i go out to dover, and a half to meet the parents, it is not a pleasant thing. it is the most unpleasant thing i do. most unpleasant thing i do. when i see that big cargo plane, and i see the coffins get rolled off, or when i go over to walt arena hospital where the doctors are incredible, by the way peer to saving people that could have never been saved even five years ago, you know that, but those people are horribly wounded, horribly, horribly wounded. wounded warriors.
it is the toughest thing that i do, toughest thing is sending letters. i send many letters. home to parents, and they speak to parents, and i send many letters home to parents about their son or daughter that has been killed over in the middle east. for what? there are times to fight. and there are times not to fight. there are times to be smart. we have tremendous economic powers. and we are using our economic power. much more powerful in certain ways than playing with guns. and much better for our country. a much better for everybody. and actually much better for humanity, okay? thank you all very much, i appreciate it. thank you very much. doral was a very simple situation. i own a property in florida. i was going to do it at no cost or give it free, there is a
question if you are allowed to give it, because it is a contribution to a country, but i would've given it for nothing. a lot of money that it would have given away. like i give away my salary. i gave away my salary. close to $450,000. nobody says that he gives away his salary, now it comes up because of this. but i give away my presidential salary, they say that no other president has done it. i'm surprised to be honest with you. they say that george washington may have been the only other president to do it. but see whether obama gave up his salary, see if all of your other favorites gave up their salary, the answer is no. they think george washington d did. $450,000, not a lot of money, but close to, and they give that up. so i have a place that is in the best location. i'm very good at real estate. much better than you understand. when you see my financials, which i will give it the right time. you will say, man, he was much better than we thought.
this guy right here, steve mnuchin, because he was in the private sector. he knows exactly what i have. he would tell you. someday maybe he will tell you. but i'm very good at real esta real estate. in miami, this facility, everybody would've had their own building, everybody in the g7 would've had their own building. it was so good, florida loved it. they loved the economic development. it is a beautiful place, it is new, it has been totally rebui rebuilt. massive meeting rooms. unlimited for security, because it is on hundreds of acres. it's a vast location. right next to the airport, one of the biggest airports in the world, some people say it is the biggest paired one of the biggest airports in the world. only minutes away. it would have been great. but the democrats went crazy. even though i would have done it free. to save to the country a lot of money. then they say, well, the promotion. you don't think i get enough
promotion? i get more promotion than any other human being that has ever lived. i think i can say that fairly safe. i think i got more promotion than any other human being that is ever lived. some good, some bad. the people that like me give me good. the people that don't like me gave me only bad. but that's the way life is. i don't need promotion. i don't need promotion. okay? but i was willing to do this for free. and it would've been the greatest g7 ever. and i would've said to my family, because they run my business now. i don't run my business. i put all of the stuff in trusts. i did not have to do that, but under no obligation, and i don't know if you know george washington, he ran his business simultaneously while he was president. there weren't too many rich presidents, but there were a few, but they ran their businesses. obama made a deal for a book?
is that running a business? i'm sure that he did not discuss it while he was president, he has to deal with netflix? when did they start with that? that's only a couple of exampl examples. but other presidents if you look, other presidents were wealthy. not huge wealth, george washington was considered a very rich man at the time. but they ran their businesses, george washington they say had two desks. a presidential desk in a business desk. i don't think you people with these phony monuments flaws, and i would say that it has cost anywhere from 2-$5 billion to be president. that's okay. between what i lose and what i could have made. i would've made a fortune if i just ran my business. i was doing it really well. i have a great business. i have the best properties. but between -- and some properties, doral is an example.
it was setting records when i bought it. setting records, it was going to, there was nothing -- i was making a fortune. and then what happened? i announce that i'm going to run for office, and all of a sudden, and i say, we will have borders in this and that, and all of a sudden, some people did not like it. they thought the rhetoric was too tough. and it went from doing great, to doing fine. it does very nicely now. it is actually coming back, i understand. very strongly. but doral was setting records, and i knew that this would happen. most of the stuff that i have, because now instead of having 100% of the market that loves you and loves to your brand and it is luxury and great, now you have 50 percent in the market. that is politics. i fully understand that. so it has cost me between 2000000000-$5 billion, and if i had to do it again, i would do it in an instant, because who cares? if you can afford it, what difference does it make? i'm doing a big difference for
the country, the country is stronger now than it has been now in years, maybe ever. if the military, the economy is hitting records, best unemployment numbers. best employment numbers. we are strong. we are bringing our soldiers back home from endless wars. we are doing great. so whether it is $2 billion, $5 billion, more or less, does not make any difference to me. i don't care. if you're rich, it does not matter. i'm doing this for the country. i'm doing it for the people. that show up. i have not had an empty seat at a rally. i always say, where's the rally? okay, just get the biggest arena. i go to these massive basketball arenas like in dallas where the mavericks play, and fill it up and set a record. to set a record in most every place i have been, because we need a small stage paid we don't need basketball courts or ice hockey courts, and they take less than musicians, because they have bands. i don't have a band.
i set the world record for somebody without a guitar. i don't have bands, right. so that is the story. and you know, those people are the polls, and i have had great poles, and i think it's because people think it is terrible what they are doing. nancy pelosi, shifty schiff. schumer. these people are trying to destroy the country. it is a very bad thing what they are doing. the president of the united states should be allowed to run the country and not have to focus on this kind of, while at the same time doing a great job on syria and turkey and all of the other things that we are doing. north korea, okay, maybe someday, but i will tell you what, if somebody else became president with that same mind-set that they had, you would be in a big war with north korea. you don't hear too much about it. it could happen. it could happen. i don't know, i always say, who knows. it is a deal. who knows? but in the meantime,
north korea, i like him. he likes me. we get along, i respect him, he respects me. you could end up in a war. president obama told me that. he said the biggest problem, i don't know how to solve it. i said, did you ever call him? no, actually, he tried, 11 times. but the man on the other side, the gentleman on the other side did not take his calls, okay, lack of respect. but he takes my call. thank you very much, everybody. >> reporter: what is the plan for the g7? >> we will look at other locations. it won't be as exciting and good, it will cost the country a fortune. i know that france had a budget of many, many millions of dollars. they did a great job, by the way. but france had a budget of many millions of dollars. it will cost a fortune for the country. i was willing to do it for free. but people did not like that. they thought i would make promotional value, and need that
so badly. i don't need promotion, go ahead, what else? you mention the word impeach? i think that they want to, any democrat wants to, because it will not beat me in the election, why would they want to impeach me? it is so illegitimate. it cannot be the way that the founders, our great founders meant this to be. but i see this guy, congressman al green say that we have to impeach him, otherwise he will win the election, what is that all about? but that's exactly what they are saying. we have to impeach him, because otherwise he will win the election. look, the strongest economy ever, it is the economy standard, at the strongest economy in the history of our country. okay, we are setting records, over 100 times, i think it is 118, but over 100 times we have
had the highest stock market in the history since november 8th. over 100 times. and by the way, the day i got elected, the following day from there until january 20th, the market went through the roof, you know why? because they got rid of obama, and they got rid of clinton. and if anybody else, any of these people that i've been watching on the stage got elected, your 401(k)s will be down to twos, not 20%, but 30%. to 70%, 80%, 90% and you destroy the country. so, i think they want to impeach me, because it is the only way that they will win. they have nothing. all they have us a phone call that was perfect. all they have is a whistle-blower who has disappeared. where is he? he is gone. then they have the second whistle-blower, the second whistle-blower, where is he? disappeared. then they have an informant, oh,
the informant, where is he? they are interviewing ambassadors, who i have never heard of. i don't know who these people are. i've never heard of them. and i have great respect for some of them. one of them said just recently, a very highly respected man. i'm not going to get into their names, but said no, no, we were very bothered by joe biden and his son, back during the obama administration. he said, he is supposed to be their witness. many of these people were put there during obama, during clinton, during the never-trumper bush era, they might be worse than the obama supporters. the good news is they are dying off fast. their artificial respiration. but impeachment, no, they want to impeach, and they want to do it as quick as possible, and that is pretty much the story.
>> reporter: are you working behind -- >> i think i have great republican support. no, i don't think so, you know it, look. no, you don't, i have to do what i have to do. i tell you what, i want to bring our soldiers back home. if people want to leave them there, i will take that every day. all i know, you were at dallas, all i know is that the place went crazy when i said we are bringing our soldiers back home, within this little area, a very unique area, they may feel that. but i have to do what i got elected on, and i have to do what i think is right. if i got elected on something and thought i was wrong i would second-guess myself, i would change, but they want our soldiers back home. and i think that we can do as well or better, frankly. they have to keep going. it is artificial to have these soldiers walking up and down between two big countries. and by the way, i have just informed, larry cutler is going to say a few remarks. would you like to stay for
larry's remarks? because he is a great remark maker. larry, after that whole thing, get up and go get it. let them know how we are doing. let them know, but i don't think that's going to happen. >> julie: there you have become the president's remarks about 21 minutes long as he was speaking to his cabinet members at the white house. just turning back to us, talking about many things. and at the forefront was syria pulling troops out. he talked about the golf course doral on why the g7 will not be held there despite all of the reasons why he thinks it would have been the perfect reunion place. joining me now is bob scales who served more than 30 years in the army, and we always love to get your expertise on all things when it comes to military and the middle east. and we want to talk about syria with you. first of all, what did you take away from the president's comments, he just now talked about the fact that the cease-fire is holding. and that he would describe it as
a successful cease-fire, would you agree? >> absolutely. there's been a little bit of leakage around the edges. whenever you put two armies, clashing them together and they start shooting each other, the hardest thing to do is to withdraw both sides and disengage, in fact, as cease-fires go, i have to admit that this one actually, julie, it's going pretty well. >> julie: so what is the next step? we talk about the president bringing those troops home and he talked about that just now. he said one of the most difficult parts of his job is sending those letters to family members, loved ones, moms and dads that today just lost a son or daughter in this war. he talked about how it has been going on for 300 years and that there has to be a time in history where the united states needs to pull out. is that this time? >> first of all, julie, if you were to ask me that i would support a war in which american soldiers are getting killed routinely and, i would absolutely disagree with that. i have also written letters home
to families whose soldiers under my command died in combat. and a second thing, i would not disagree with the president that we have soldiers in places where they probably do not run belong, why do we have hundreds or thousands of people in south africa, there are hundreds in southeast asia where basing american soldiers makes no sense. but it will push back on the fact that at this critical juncture in syria where we are facing isis coming back by pulling american soldiers out so precipitously, we have done one thing i think that will come back to haunt us in the future that we have lost our intelligence connection to the kurds, we have lost that relationship. you know, julie, there is an old saying in the military that terrorists and mushrooms have one thing in common, and that is that they grow in darkness. and by creating this intelligence black hole, this void in the middle of syria, we
have number one lost our intelligence light, and we have allowed the russians to come back in and fill the void. when you create a void in the middle east, somebody is going to fill it. and it is not always a good guy. >> julie: you must look at history, so in the former presidents, president bush, former vice president clinton, i remember bush at that time said that something will rear its ugly head, and uglier than anything we have seen before, that was al qaeda. since then, isis. that is the next step. the kurds were able to penetrate isis, because you talk about the intelligence that they had on the ground. we will no longer have that. if isis returns, and it is not about whether they do, it is if and when, and you believe that they will. that means that u.s. counterterrorist forks are going to have to take them on a loan. >> this is the point, when isis was regenerated in 2014, we had other folks in the region to do
our killing and dying for us. what happens when they come back next time? who is going to be the ally to take on the enemy face-to-face in close combat? the kurds, you saw them throwing rocks and potatoes at our soldiers in syria, i don't think so. so the great danger in the future as the people who will wind up doing the fighting against the kurds may be american soldiers, because they may be the last ones left willing to fight isis, julie. >> julie: the president is considering leaving just a few hundred troops in eastern syria and the cabinet meeting right now, he said that limited troops are necessary, or not necessary in syria, he said that there will be some to secure the oil, showed some troops be kept in syria? >> i think the troops in the south need to be kept there, it is a long story that really does not fit into the segment. there are a series of roads that paralleled jordan in syria that
the iranians have been using to smuggle in arms. and to reinforce the revolutionary guards, particularly in the southern regions of syria. we need to have troops down there that can at least keep eyes on this movement and introduction them if necessary with air power, because that particular region is an existential threat to israel. and we afford to let that go. >> julie: always great to see you. thank you very much for joining me now is russell vaught, acting director at the excess of management and budget, in the cabinet meeting, how did you think that the meeting went? >> it went great, julie, the president heard a great update on his deregulatory initiatives. $50 billion in cost savings to the american people since he took office and put it in charge early in the administration to have two regulatory initiatives for every single one, and outperform that with a 9-1 rat ratio.
about $221 billion savings to the economy and $3,000 per family. it's a lot to be updating on, and also to move forward on figuring out how we will accelerate the initiative going forward. >> julie: this update was to inform the american public that the administration has conducted successful rollbacks to what they are calling the abuses in the high cost of a bloated regulatory deep state. it is frustrating for the white house. because they do not get a lot of positive press. in fact, since i got into the office. is there any positive press that you believe the mainstream media will take out of this? considering what you're talking about. $3100 in the coming years. back to the american people do to the regulatory reform, it will save the average household a lot of money. are we the only ones talking about that today? >> i hope not, but that's why we are trying to tell the story of the accomplishments. we think it is positive. it's about getting the arms wrapped around the
administrative state. the president signing two executive orders to be able to get a hold of the fact that agencies under prior administrations have been bolding the american people into doing what they wanted to do. often in violation of the ball, so joe robertson, 77-year-old navy veteran who spent 18 months out of his last three years in prison, because he dug some ponds in his backyard to help wildfires. we are trying to get out of the business of that and guarantee small businesses acros across te country. >> julie: i want to touch on something else that the president brought up, a lot of scuffle between republicans and democrats over the hosting of the g7. the president came out and slammed it. he called it phony emoluments clause. he went on to repeat the fact that he does not need the promotion. he was going to do it for free. he reminded us that he does not accept a salary as the sitting president of the united states. $450,000, he mentioned if
president obama had foregone his salary? he did not. is it ethically immoral? is it a conflict of interest to hold the g7 at one of the president's golf courses? considering he has recused himself of any financial real estate, any personal dealings when he took the office, what is your reaction? >> that obviously he was trying to do a good thing for the american people. he received criticism for it, and at the end of the day he felt it was not worth going forward, but you can tell from his comments today, he continues to feel like he was doing it on behalf of the american people. and he was not going to receive any profit. we are a little questioning all of the outrage that came from it. but we move forward, we move forward to try to get up each and every day to accomplish the policy objectives that this administration, this present and in particular was put in office to do. >> julie: i want to talk about the emoluments clause so that we can go over it. this constitutional clause forbids federal officeholders
from accepting gifts from foreign states. where were the gift exchange in the case of the president hosting a g7 if he is to completely remove himself from the situation, not be accepting any money and not be exchanging any gifts per se but these foreign leaders that will be visiting? do you see any issue with this? >> we don't. and the administration would not put it forward as an idea if there was concern that it would be a violation of the constitution. the president gets up trying to restore power and influence to the american people. and accomplish what he said he would accomplish. today that looks like the deregulatory initiatives that we were getting an update with at the cabinet meeting, but he looks at it from the standpoint of trying to make sure that the diplomacy and foreign affairs of the country are negotiated and done on the most efficient process available.
>> julie: i want to ask you to go back to the cabinet meeting for a second. democrats are preparing for a big week on impeachment. you are among the administration officials that house democrats have asked to testify this week. following the white house's lead and you will not show up, do you want to elaborate? >> this is a sham process, jul julie, trying to influence the next election. there's nothing beyond that. the administration has a very high view of the oversight responsibilities that congress has to do. in general as it pertains to legislate. this is not what they say is. it is an effort to influence a decision that the american people made. end we think that they will make it again when they were elect donald trump as president of the united states. so, look, we had a letter from the white house counsel office about what a fair process would look like. nothing has changed. and to the extent that there is still reporting that goes on that says that some of us are going to go up and be deposed, we are not.
>> julie: did the president specifically ask you not to testify? >> look, we have been instructed by the white house counsel's office to be able to comply with the reality of what this process -- >> julie: did the president himself ask you not to testify? >> absolutely not. we are thrilled to get this president back when it comes to the unfair attack that the democrats have congress have levied against him. i get a lot of sleep at night because we have not done anything wrong. and i wake up everything with a with a lot of passion and enthusiasm to accomplish with the president wants to do for the american people. >> julie: thank you very much for hanging in there during the cabinet meeting. we appreciate it. president trump weighing in on hillary clinton's attacks on tulsi gabbard, suggesting that she is being groomed by the russians to run as a third-party candidate. wait until yo you here what he s to say about that. ♪ look, this isn't my first rodeo...
and let me tell you something, i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back.
find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. call now and get your free info kit. other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love. you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing... and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare,
>> julie: we just heard from the president at the cabinet meeting talking about all things. of talking about syria pulling out. if talking about the cease-fire that is holding general bob scales on the air moments ago, a sentiment that that is holding. if so a deal has been done. we watch that. but interestingly enough talk about the g7, and reporters singed in, after getting a lot of pushback from the though republicans and democrats on whether it was a conflict of interest on holding the g7 at his resort in florida. joining me now, trump campaign spokesperson kate mcenaney, and jessica tarlov, and we just had our guest talk about the fact that there was no issue whatsoever, just cut, withholding the g7. i know that you disagree on th this. he slammed what he called the phony emoluments clause, which basically holds anyone, forbids anyone from accepting gifts from
foreign states. to the president said, i won't be accepting any gifts, but i was going to do it for free. what are your thoughts? >> first fall, you cannot do it for free, the security cost would be in the millions to do this. in the untold benefit to the trump brand, having your resort everywhere. we have been watching like a three day ad for doral since this came up. >> julie: he says that he does not need the promotion. >> he can say whatever he wants, he says a lot of things that usually have a lot of bluster, the press conference was no different. but the truth of the matter is is that the law is very clear that this would've been a violation of the emoluments clause, we have heard that from a number of legal experts, and as you said, democrats and republicans. the president wants to continually pump up his brand. he wants the family to keep benefiting. we found out a couple of weeks ago that jared and ivanka made
$82 million last year while serving as guides in the white house. and it was a completely absurd thing to even suggest in the first place. and i'm glad that it will be gone from our psyche and the next couple of days. >> julie: do you believe that the president had to know that this was going to blow back in his face? >> i think that nobody expected the kind of vast media criticism for the president offering to do something free for the american people that would not in the end be a very good g7 at doral. but people are surprised that democrats are once again going to any length to go after the president. first it is doral, you listen to the first three answers, they talk about the emoluments clause, they cannot get their reason for impeachment straight. there is an obsession with donald trump among democrats. they want to take him down at any cost. and they will go all the way to forcing him to back down from giving the american people an
opportunity to host a g7 in a freeway at doral, it's just more games and given tree by the democrats. >> julie: given all of the information in the examples that you cited, isn't that all the more reason why you don't hold it at the g7? his phone call, the transcript, the president ukraine conversation, mick mulvaney coming out on thursday, and the whole he said-he said over the quid pro quo issue. it just builds and builds, so it seems like it may not have been the best timing to throw in his doral resort as being a location that could host the g7, considering that he recused himself when he took office. donald trump is the most powerful retail tycoon among the most in the world, but certainly in this country. given that and having it at the resort, great that it would've been free, but he would've had to get a ruling, so as not even set in stone that there would be possible. but you don't see any reason why
this potentially could create a conflict of interest? not just because of the promotion, not just because of the money or gifts, but nonetheless, it was a resort owned by the president of the united states. >> he is also one of the best businessman in the united states, with some of the best property is, and this was a perfect fit given the distance from miami and the proximity to the airport. it was a good choice. but nevertheless, what i think that it did do, of course not being held there, as you know, julie, as we all know. what it did do was expose the democrats, their obsession with the president, not focusing on issues like bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, which president trump is doing unilaterally, they are obsessed with this president. everything he does is wrong in the eyes of democrats. so it just exposes them again. backfiring. we will see on november 3rd 2020, how much this exposes the democrats. >> can i say quickly, the
prescription drug pricing that important, the republican party, there are number house bills that could've been passed. >> julie: we are going to break girls, we can come back after the commercial and you guys can come back with me. stay tuned. ♪ with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.
devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today.
between the 2020 dam tulsi gabbard and hillary clinton after the presidential nominee suggested in an interview that gabbard is an "russian asset," the hawaii congresswoman coming back as hillary clinton smearing her for supporting bernie sanders in 2016, and vowing not to back down. >> they can look at me as a traitor, they can do it anyone. if you stand up against hillary, they will destroy you and discredit your message. but here's the truth, they will not intimidate us. >> julie: i'm going to bring my panel back now, and i want to talk to you first, jessica, since i left you off on the last commercial, fox news contributor jessica tarlov, and kayleigh mcenany, i know you were talking prescription, but we need to move onto this this other topic. >> russian aspects and prescription drugs work nicely. >> julie: what is tulsi gabbard's mission?
it clearly trying to go after hillary in order to get above maybe one or 2% of the poles. there are democrats i don't like hillary, but they are probably going to be siding with bernie. does hillary think, do you think that she has evidence that perhaps she is going to come back into the race at some point? >> if you listen to the podcast with david cough. hillary is clear that she is talking about the republican party grooming her to run third party. based on the past 30 days of the media that she has done that hillary is not far off base that that is what is going on, tulsi gabbard finds a home in conservative media basis. if you listen to the clip, that's exactly what republicans want to hear. and it drives a wedge within the democratic party that we saw over 1 million votes to jill stein in 2016, which there were a number of reasons that we lost the election, but you can point
to jill stein's vote share in the three states that president trump took to swing the election as being due to the impact of jill stein. >> julie: the president is saying that hillary clinton is basically calling every candidate a russian asset, what is her mo there? she is calling everybody a russian asset. you are a russian asset. so nobody can avoid -- i guess i am a russian asset. >> jill stein is a russian ass asset, hillary clinton has lost it, she sees them in her dreams and behind her lamp posts. she cannot accept that she lost the 2016 election. that's what this is about. but what an insult to the democratic party, and tulsi gabbard who is working hard to get the nomination and has to deal with hillary clinton calling her a russian, false defamatory conspiracy theories out of jill stein herself. >> julie: we have to go, jessica tarlov, thank you very
much. kayleigh mcenany, we have another topic we had to move on to, we have to tell you about a team of historians announcing that they have made an incredible find. they have found a second world war ii japanese warship under the pacific. to the is incredible. last week researchers found this vessel which u.s. forces sank during the battle of midway, and they announced the discovery of another aircraft carrier, joining me now to talk about it on the phone, one of the crew members currently on the research vessel frank thompson, historian at naval history and the encouragement command. tell us about your incredible find. >> it has been a wonderful experience watching the team, and you know, in the search area now since early september, and fingers crossed, the first draft, that i believe footage is playing of the japanese aircraft carrier that was sung during the
battle of midway in 1942. it is incredible looking at this, where the first scene in 1942, and to see the aftermath of the battle is quite an experience for historians like myself. >> julie: yes, it really is. it came on the heels of the discovery of the other japanese air force carrier, the video that we are showing our viewers, if you can see it at home, maybe you can explain what it is we are looking at. >> i don't know exactly where you are in the video, but -- >> julie: it is video taken at the bottom of the sea. >> correct, you are looking at the wreck of a 38,000 member aircraft carrier that was a
battleship hole that was then an aircraft carrier under terms with the 1922 -- >> julie: thank you so much. frank, we are out of time. thank you very much for coming on. i am julie banderas, next "the daily briefing." >> president trump putting his party on notice, and they need to get tougher to impeachment. hello, everyone, i am dana perino, and this is "the daily briefing." ♪ the president holding his first cabinet meeting since house democrats launch their impeachment inquiry, slamming the investigation while taking aim at critics and both parties. >> i think the democrats fight dirty. i think that the democrats are lousy politicians with lousy policy. i think that they are lousy politicians. but two things that they have, they are vicious, and they stick together. they don't have mitt romney in their midst.