tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX March 3, 2019 6:00am-6:58am PST
>> 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 it was a very productive two days but sometimes you have to walk. >> chris: we will sit down with white house national security advisor john bolton to discuss what's next in the effort to end north korea's nuclear threat. and back in washington. >> i'm here under oath to correct the record. >> chris: michael cohen returns to congress this week to call out his former boss. >> i am ashamed, because i know what mr. trump is. he is a racist, he is a con man, and he is a cheat.
>> chris: we will talk with congresswoman debbie dingell, house democratic leader about the road map cohen laid out for investigating the president and we will 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. if we will try to do as much as we can. >> chris: all right now and "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 auto warm beer. in a moment will speak with national security advisor john bolton, who was in the final session in vietnam between the
president and kim. but first, here's chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel on mr. trump's rocky ride. >> basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety and we couldn't do tha that. >> president trump walked away from negotiations with kim jong un in vietnam, setting, cutting their second summit short. in the end, each side gave conflicting accounts for their terms for denuclearization in north korea. >> they were willing to do nucearized a large portion of the areas we want to but we couldn't give up all of the sanctions for that. >> what we proposed was not the removal of all sanctions, but their partial removal. >> half a world away in washington. this former attorney michael cohen testified in front of congress calling the president a racist and a i saw his true character revealed. >> cohen admitted he did not
know of any evidence saying he had potentially committed crimes was becoming present. president from disputed is this testimony is here of tweets saying he reportedly shops the book that contradicts his testimony calling it a love letter to trump. house intelligence committee chair said cohen will be back next wednesday for more closed-door testimony. >> he was fully cooperative and answered all of our questions. >> the committee will also publicly questioned a promoter of the trump tower-moscow project. meanwhile elijah cummings had suggested his panel will reach out to the president's children and trump organization finance chief for potential testimony. chris. >> chris: mike joining me now, just back from vietnam, is the president's national sec following the failed summit in vietnam, where does diplomacy
stand between the u.s. and north korea give mike is president trump looking for and what is he willing to >> john: 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 interest and i think he did tha 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 interest. >> chris: i want to pick up on that. apparently it had become clear in the negotiations over the preceding weeks and finally days before hanoi that the north koreans were asking a much greater sanctions relief in the president was willing to give. under those circumstances, did it make sense to even hold the
summit? >> john: you never know what the north koreans are actually going to come with or if they're going to adhere to it. a big part of the problem here in all these discussions were the experts saying well, the north koreans will give a part of their program in the u.s. will release some of the economic sanctions that has bedeviled prior administrations if the problem of incommensurability, that we are talking about things that don't have common measurements and what north korea has done consistently in the past is promised to do nucearized and then, by the way, not do it, to get economic benefits, which provide their economy a lifeline, get them out of the trouble they are in and then allow them to go back to the nuclear program. that kind of mistake is exactly what president trump said he wouldadministration and he did o it. >> chris: you didn't really answer my first question, i'm now realizing, which is where do things stand and what does the president want and what is he willing to give? >> john: he said, except from the beginning north korea, if it
makes a strategic decision to do nucearized can have a prospect of a very, very bright economic future. the president held the door open for north korea and singapore. if they didn't walk through. he held it open for them again in hanoi, they didn't want throat. he is ready to hold it open again, no fixed date for a third summit but he's turned traditional diplomacy on its head and after all in the case of north korea, why not, traditional diplomacy has failed in the last three administrations. >> chris: you would agree that it's failed so far with you too? >> john: after eight months. 24 years to stop north korea for that so far shape than they were in past demonst i think in fact we are in a stronger position because the maximum pressure campaign, as it's been called, affording tighter economic sanctions on north korea and enforcing no sanctions more effectively is what brought them to this point in the 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 that 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 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 itsg 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 five to seven more nuclear weapons. so i guess the question is, in effect, despite what you said, despite with the president said, aren't you accepting north korea as a nuclear power, and having 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? >> john: i don't think the president sees it that way at all. the objective of making sure that north korea de nuclearizes is still the policy of the administration >> chris: . >> chris: why does he say no rush? >> john: the fact is that at the moment the leverage is on the side of the united states, the economic sanctions continued to take hold. there's no doubt over a protracted period lack time at the time does work in favor of the proliferator but i think our judgment right now of the president's position as north korea sees the effectively 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 on the president and the secretary of state in 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? >> john: i don't think it fell
apart. >> chris: how did they end up leaving? >> john: they left on good terms that was part of the president wanted. >> chris: you can look at this picture, at that meeting who said what? >> john: if there were several meanings that would take a long time but i can tell 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. that's life in the big city. >> chris: did kim say anything? remember famously gorbachev and reagan and gorbachev said what more could i have said and reagan said you could have said yes on sti in iceland. any moment like that? >> john: i think there were several. if the president kept saying take what he called the big deal, denuclearization, make a decision, give up the nuclear chemical and biological weapons, give up the ballistic missiles, he handed kim jong un a piece of paper, actually to go, one in korean and one english that laid out what we expected there and in exchange for that you get
this well-placed piece of real estate as the president charges it from his business experience, that could have an extraordinary economic future. >> chris: what did kim say? >> john: 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 most prisons and those camps if you have a lot of people and some really bad things happened to otto. really bad things but he tells me he didn't know about it and i will take him at his word. >> chris: 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 warmbier policy issue the statement. "kim and his evil regime are responsible for the death of our son otto. kim and his evil regime are responsible for unimaginable cruelty and inhumanity."
no excuses or lavish praise can change that. question, what are the president take kim's word that he didn't know? >> john: look, the president has been very clear both in public and i've hurt him in private in the oval office that he considers what happened to otto to be despicable and barbaric. and i think you made that clear in hanoi and made it clear subsequently. >> chris: let me just interrupt for a second. he says, i'm just going to redo the quote back again that we just play. he, kim, tells me that he didn't know it and i will take about his work, and what he say that? >> john: 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 what happened to otto warmbier. that would go a long way to improving relations. >> chris: but this is not the first time that the president has taken the word of an
autocrat over outside evidence. >> john: is not taking the word -- when he says i'm going to take him at his word, it doesn't mean that he accepted as reality, it means that he accepts that's what kim jong un said. >> chris: so when he says i take him at his word it doesn't mean that he believes kim jong un? >> john: that's what he said -- i think one article that is to give the eunuch states a complete accounting. >> chris: okay, regardless of it -- this is not the first time president has sided with an autocrat over outside evidence. here's what the president said about the murder, the saudi murder of jamaal 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 rush or interfered in the 2016 election. >> i hav
tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. >> chris: why does the president trust putin and nbs and kim over u.s. intelligence? >> john: i don't think that's what he's saying and if you take the case of jamaal 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 said this but putin says no. >> john: fundamentally in the case of all three of interestsy thel this is nothing new in international relations. >> chris: but forgive me, and you go back to the reagan years,
as do i. ronald reagan, when he was dealing with gorbachev over the most sensitive issues continue 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 issues >> john: and i don't think president tomei president trump has either. even in the tapes he played on the premises decried the acts that we are concerned about as barbaric. >> chris: okay. there's a lot of stuff to talk to about today. two more issues. one there are reports, none denied so far the president trump ordered the white house to give a security clearance to jared john kelly over the white house counsel, duncan over the cia. as national security advisor do you have any concerns about jared kushner having access to
the nation of foster's top secrets? >> john: i don't have any concerns. i deal with him all the time on the middle east peace process in 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 is a security risk? >> john: i do not. >> chris: other question or not, will the white house meet a deadline tomorrow to turn over to the house all documents that they are seeking on white house security clearances? >> john: i'm involved in that since they have some nonsensical private citizen is a white house official, all i can say is the white house counsel in the department of justice are handling that and whether i like it or not i will leave it to them. >> chris: meaning what when you say whether you like it -- >> john: what they are going to respond to the congress. >> chris: to know whether they are going to turn over the papers? >> john: i don't know. i think it's up to them.
if i were a private citizen i would have a lot to say about this. >> chris: well, you know me too well, you've dangled a piece of meat in front of me. if you think that congress doesn't have a right of the information? >> john: look, for my days at the justice department i've been a strong proponent of executive privilege and the ability of the executive branch to function free from unwarranted congressional interference. so if by chance stance that the white house counsel and the justice department take, i will be fine with that as a matter of constitutional law. i'm just saying, if i were unfettered by my official response abilities i would be delighted to take on these allegations about. >> 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 onto power, there was this big face-off last week about humanitarian aid coming in or not. they were able to block it
generally speaking with some defections. the generals in the military are standing by him. one, what you do next to try to force him out and two, if the opposition leader returns to venezuela and the next day or so and is arrested, what will the u.s. response be? >> john: the opposition is very united. i think maduro made a big mistake by trying to block the aid and let's be clear, it wasn't so much of the regular venezuelan military that blocked the aid coming across the borders, it was the collective owes committees bands of motorcycle gangs organized and trained and financed by cuba. that's really one of the big prlewhich in pa call cubazuela because o influence. it may say with respect to the military, there are countless conversations going on as to where the military will go. i think maduro's position is very precarious. we want to see a peaceful transition of power. >> chris: if he is arrested,
what will the u.s. response be? >> john: we are going to watch what happens. i think we warned maduro and his henchmen and the cubans very clearly but the opposition is united in ways unprecedented in the last 20 years and 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 questions, always good to talk with you sir. >> john: glad to be with you. >> chris: up next we will bring in our center group to discuss the fallout from the trump-kim summit. plus, what would you like to ask the panel about president trump demanding top-secret clearance for jared kushner? just go to facebook or twitter, @foxnewssunday, and we may use your question on the air. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers.
"activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. what do you charge for online equity trades?. ♪ ah, i'll look into it. [phone ringing] [beep] lisa jones! hey carl, what are you charging me for online equity trades? [nervous laughter] and do i get my fees back if i'm not happy? like a satisfaction guarantee? ugh...schwab! oh right, i'm calling schwab. thanks, carl! wait, lisa! lisa?!... are you getting low costs backed by a satisfaction guarantee? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.
>> we actually had papers ready to be signed but it just wasn't appropriate. i want to do it right. i would much rather do it right then do it fast. >> chris: president trump on why he did not strike a deal with kim jong un at the vietnam summit. and it's time now for our sunday group. the cofounder of the web magazine the federalist, been dominant. marie harf, cohost on fox news radio. a former democratic congresswoman jane harman, director of the woodrow wilson center and fox news correspondent gillian turner. congresswoman harmon, there are reports before the two leaders ever got together in vietnam and a talk 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 the summit have ever been held, and two, does its failure -- how much does it setback u.s.-north korean relations? >> should 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. 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 in meeting with xi jinping and he keeps all his nukes and he is an operator on the world stage and he's got a closer relationship with china then he used to have so i would call that a win for kim and i don't see how that hurts his view of us. it does hurt us on the world stage, people are looking at this and i think it makes our
leverage and even less than it has been in other parts of the world. >> chris: i want to pick up on that with you, ben and specifically were terms of u.s.-north korean relations because what the president walked away from the summit, it does appear that he is softening his terms. originally they were talking about no concessions until north korea gives up everything and now they seem to be saying well, this was too big and ask what we would give up some things, corresponding measures it's called, in return for some progress on delocalization. >> just to be clear, the north koreans are never going to give up their nuclear program. they're never going to fully nuclearize in that something that i think the intelligence community has very much agreed on and i'm 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 moment was a little bit inaccurate from the get-go. all of the analysis going and was warning against the idea that the president was going to be willing to agree to a bad deal just in order to have it
win in terms of the frame of what this was viewed out on the world stage and here at home. i think clearly that 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 and taking a step back and saying what, this again, particularly after withdrawal from the inf. we have the ability to potentially deploy a lot different sort of material around that region then we did when we were part of that agreement. >> chris: one way of saying intermediate ranged nuclear missiles. 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 tweeted this. "what does jared actually bring to the he
have a security clearance? marie, how to answer brian both on the question of the security clearance and on his performance on the international stage? >> 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 are my guy on middle east peace, i want you to work on that. the president also has the authority to give him a security clearance over the expressed wishes of the intelligence community. but it raises two questions, the first is sure the president have done that? he had the authority, but was it in the u.s. national security interest to do so? congress is investigating that right now and hopefully they will get some answers. the second question it publicly. that is a problem i think for national security interest for the presidredibility. >> chris: when you say that, we should point out the
president denied an interview in "the new york times" that he had done anything to interfere or to push his security clearance and so did ivanka trump. >> exactly, sold for those of us who have gone through the tedious process of document and every corner and contact, there's a reason they are adjudicated the way they are and we need from donald trump and his administration 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: on the president, i got elected, i trust him. >> he has the authority to do it, 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 ask tough questions about why jared so needed to have this complica can cloud your judgmend he overwrite in any other cases? their supporting that in at least 40 cases people were denied security clearances. were those overwritten as well? there's a process for reading
her and is to protect national security. >> you know the ben rose was denied a clearance. >> chris: should point out ben rose was on the national security council staff for barack obama. >> this is all about the president being able to hire who he wants and have them in the position that he wants. >> you think a process and unnecessary? >> the key that nobody is talking about, i am been able to confirm it. as far as the report i have that nobody else has been able to confirm this, the key question is whether jared kushner actually ever took a polygraph and what he passed or failed. so i somebody who had a top-secret security clearance for five years, an important part of that process for 95% of the people who get that clearance ultimately is whether they passed or the polygraph. if jared kushner passed a polygraph test and it was then the judgment of the cia and the intel community he shouldn't get the clearance and the president overrode it, that is one matter. if jared kushner failed a polygraph test and then the president overrode the deciof ty him a clearance anyway, that is
an entirely different -- >> chris: i have to say, that's a pretty explosive -- i'm not saying you're alleging it, but even to bring up, why would you even bring that up? >> i bring it up because again as somebody who had a security clearance, i know that that's a major component of the process. about 90% of the time. >> i have one, i serve on the defense policy board and it was not a requirement. >> right, as i said, about 90% of people who have the security clearance also undergo a polygraph test as part of that. >> chris: what do you think of the question i asked marie. 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 advisor to the president, how do you think jared kushner has done, saudi arabia, china, now the mideast is the architect of the midi steel? >> we haven't seen a deal yet. seen the proposal, so we don't know really what avenue is 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 that jared has been traveling to the middle east to talk about it with both sides, the israelis and the palestinians, but we haven't seen exactly -- >> chris: congressman, you got 45 seconds. >> i think the issue is whether he is a threat to national security because of relationships he has with foreign governments. so i didn't know penrose didn't have a security clearance and i don't know why he didn't have a security clearance. >> not initially by the fbi. >> i don't think it's relevant how he performs, i think it's relevant what foreign ties he had and what it is deemed a national security threat. >> chris: let me just say as we end this conversation, i seem to be the only one on this panee and probably with good reason. we have to take a break here. up next, what impact does former trump lawyer michael testimony have on future investigations into the president's private and public conduct? will talk with a member of house
♪ >> 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, congresswomdingell. if she is cochair of the democratic policy and communications committee and congresswoman, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> congresswoman dingell: it's good to be with to see you sinc husband of 30 years, john. i know i speak for a lot of
people, how are you doing? >> congresswoman dingell: it's hard. but i can hear him in my ear saying get back out there and work. it was a great man and we had a love affair, you know the love affair we had. you were there. i remember talking to about whether i should accept that first date with him. and -- >> chris: what did i say? >> congresswoman dingell: you didn't want me to marry him. most people don't know that you when i lived next door to each other. >> chris: we did. if you are like a fairy godmother to my children, i didn't want you to move. >> congresswoman dingell: i didn't wantr d you know the love affair that we had enough of a hole my heart. withu have a lot a 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 are going to go into his finances, we are going to check his deals. for going to check -- 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 them up on the screen, looking into various areas from russia to mr. terms tax returns to his charitable foundation. i note that the house democratic really wantalso passing bills, trump investigations to take up so much of the time and drown out so much of the other things are doing? >> congresswoman dingell: 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 and investigations. and i think we have to for the last two years.
at the same time we have a fundamental responsibility to the people that elected us to be for the people. and i think we've got to 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 got to do something what health care. a republican that cannot care as much as with democrats to about how much the cost of insulin is. we need to do something about our broken infrastructure. if the president said he would work with us. we need to do something about pensions and trade and a lot of other -- >> chris: the fact is, 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. >> congresswoman dingell: 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 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, adam schiff is holding closed-door hearings. they are gathering the facts, getting information, that's legitimate. but we are also you need to deliver for the american people. they are holding us accountable. if you think that people across this country aren't worried about what's happening to the cost of insulin, which has gone up by 300, $400 a month? we need to do something 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 sea pack about the mueller investigation. in fact, we had to leave out some of this. here it is. >> all of a sudden they are trying to take you out with [bleep]. >> chris: you've said before this, you've said that democrats moving to impeach the president
could come in your words, "tear the country apart." where are you on impeachment now, more importantly, whereas the house democratic leadership? is that off the table? >> congresswoman dingell: i think that we're waiting for the facts. i've always said that. they do not think that impeachment should ever be a partisan event. i think we need to have republicans and democrats or it will tear this country apart. it's a very serious movement but that's why oversight is a legitimate function. this investigation is a legitimate function. one of the things that i thought about is everybody started talking about why do we need to know about russia? during this government shutdown, i met with tsa, fbi, custom and border patrol, secret service and all of them were scared to death that the credit rating and why would they lose theiruld job? because people think that they might be subject to some kind of blackmail. if we are going to hold a tsa or
an fbi or secret service who puts their life on the line, isn't that a legitimate role of government to make sure that our top leaders aren't -- that we're just getting the facts to make sure that there isn't any interference by russia in our election process? where there isn't something that's being held over the head of any of us? >> chris: you talk about a bipartisan effort but the fact is in that five hours, whatever it was a factual running time, house oversight committee hearing, every republican with the possible exception of your fellow michigander chest and managed cited strong with the president and when after michael cohen. there was no bipartisan agreement about even looking into the allegations that cohen. are you disappointed that republicans aren't -- >> congresswoman dingell: i think republicans -- we talked about john at the beginning of the show, he was equally hard on members of his own party as he was too republicans. he believed that that was one of the most fundamental
responsibilities of our congress. to hold people accountable. i don't know what's going on behind closed doors with chairman shift, i have talked to republicans who are concerned that they are not being 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 have to do it objectively and fairly. and the more we do it together, the better this country is. >> chris: okay, so you ask about asking questions, and it raises the question, how far should democrats be willing to go? for instance, should have democrats move -- even if itve ? should they, particularly given the testimony we heard from michael cohen this week, should they require that the president's kids, eric, don, jr., ivanka, come up and testify? >> congresswoman dingell: i think people are really going to have to do similar strong thinking about that.
i think that there some reason to think they may have answers to questions, there have been part of discussions. i think his tax returns very interesting discussion. we have financial disclosure on the hill. we have to -- 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 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 s -- i think t the question, should everybody have to make them? >> chris: last month congresswoman ill ho omar of minnesota suggested on twitter that israel supporters in congress are in effect being brought down mike bought byshe t the benjamin's, baby. she 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 that those more recent comments are anti-semitic. will the house democratic leadership discipline congresswoman omar? >> congresswoman dingell: i'm going to say what i'm worried about in this country, which is the fear and hatred that we are seeing. anti-semitism is not okay. we can never forget what happened in germany and we have to remember that. i come from -- i represent the largest muslim pop and hatred in the target we are seeing, one of the most fundamental constitute domestic pillars of our constitution is under attack, that is freedom of religion. and we've got to make sure on both sides that everybody is being very caref when you look at what happened to her in west virginia on friday was not all right either. change to be careful of her language, we cannot attack.
if we have to be very, very careful of input though mike anti-semitism. and i think talk to nancy on sunday and see what they are -- how we all bring ourselves together but i see it on both sides. i see too much hatred, period. >> chris: finally, 2020, you are not run for president? >> congresswoman dingell: i am not running. >> chris: you're the only one of the democratic party who isn't. you are, relatively speaking, in the center. one of the more moderate. under part of the progressive caucus but in his group you are relatively moderate in the democratic party. do you worry that some of these candidates, announced candidates for pr far to the left and proposing programs that are so expensive and make it easiereivably open for donald trump to win reelection? >> congresswoman dingell: i'm a pragmatist, for the record, i told her two years ago donald trump at win and you all thought it was crazy and he could win reelection. we just got to be very smart about running this election.
i'm a pragmatist. i am for universal health care and medicare for all but i want to get there. if you don't have the vision you're not going to get there. we've got a problem with global climate change. people are mad at me all the time. i say we need to set 30 fuel economy standards for 2030. >> chris: to remind people, you are a congressman for michigan. >> congresswoman dingell: michigan, so what i do is i went to aoc and said aoc, we want to go to a carbon list society, will you work with me to build an electric infrastructure that will help give confidence for people to buy electric vehicles? >> chris: what did she say? >> congresswoman dingell: she's coming to detroit, i invited her to detroit and she's going to work with me. everything's got to be. why can't we work together for a >> chris: congresswoman, again, we're so, so sorry for your loss, john, you pointed out, personal friends, you and i have been friends for a long time, he's a remarkable man,
thank you for coming in today and we share in your loss. >> congresswoman dingell: thank you, chris. >> chris: when we return, we will bring back our sunday group to discuss president trump's comments about the increased scrutiny he's facing from congressional democrats was you just heard says they hate the country. okay, i picked out my dream car. now's the really fun part: choosing the color, the wheels, the interior. everything exactly how i want it. here's the thing, just because i configured this car online doesn't mean it really exists at a dealership. but with truecar, i get real pricing
>> 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 doesn't give you orders, he speaks in a code and i understand the code because i've been around them for a decade. >> chris: michael cohen and president trump with very different takes on what the president's former fixer said this week and we are back now with the panel. then, michael cohen, as the president said, he said a lot about campaign contributions, but potential bank fraud, insurance fraud, tax fraud, but he had a most nothing to offer when it comes to alleged collusion with the russians so
in the end, how much you think you are the president? >> i don't think he actually told us 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 are 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, ims fore 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 is i think 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 pursuing impeachment in a situation as they have it today.
>> chris: will get more into impeachment in the moment but marie, what about this argument, the president said it and been suggested 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 citizens from. >> i think that's wishful thinking on the part of a lot of republicans i'm present. there are two buckets of things that we are for michael: 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. >> chris: he claims that he overheard a conversation between roger stone and theackup for th. it's his work. >> it opens the door. it is an answer to questions but if it's a lot more on the table. donald trump i said under oath in answers to bob mueller that 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 alleged in that hearing was from before donald trump became president. some of it, including with checks, with documentary evidence is from when donald trump was in office. 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 are 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 ended up facing a big backlash for doing it. it was seen as an overreach. how do you think what about all these investigations, at least at least six committees looking into every part of the president's dealings both as
president, >> lumi just say i served with charmed and look at him he was the chairman of the energy in congress 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. in two very different scenes. but in the late 90s everything stopped and it was viewed as totally political and during that time, let's understand that al qaeda and osama bin laden grew in strengt there had been them on the afrin embassy. so 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 would rather say it was damaging to the country to go through the exercise. i'm not saying impeachment is never worth it, it has to
happen, if the constitutional remedy but segue to now with all these investigations going on. i think the good news about that 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 places and are a few people already favoring impeachment you might guess they are but i think bob mueller is going to have a major work here when his report in some form comes out. >> chris: i want to pick up on that with you, gillian turner, because we are talking about all this imperfect ignorance of what's going to be in the mueller report and it was supposed to come out are talkino say and what is going to find out how hard the evidence is going to be about possible collusion, possible obstruction of justice. we also don't know what bill barr, because he gives the confidential report to the attorney general, then the
attorney general decides what took her worked on much of the congress. >> we don't know if we will ever get to see anything come in we the american people. we may not get a bite of this report ever but i think the best possible scenario based on what the law spells out here is that it goes from mueller to william barr, and into congress and they decide to release some portions of it or some heavily redacted portions of it. my worry for the country with that scenario, with that likely scenario, is, is this report going to ever amount to anything more than a rorschach test for the two political sides anyway? short of collusion in the form of we got video of president trump talking to president putin 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 exactly where we are today now having had a report releasec for the country. >> chris: congressman, if, and i want to repeat, this is just speculative, but it's a legitimate issue.
if bill barr, because under the regulations he decides what to release to congress and therefore what to release to the public, if he decides to limit what he's going to release, particularly if mueller says there is the basis to indict the president. for instance, what will nancy pelosi and the democrats do? >> well, i can't speak for them. >> chris: right, your guess. >> i think 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 will be in it. and there may be some indictments, more indictments will come down bef the report and remember, he's very good, mueller, at these speaking indictments. we learn a lot through each indictment but whatever that is, i think what she will do in some very coordinated and disciplined way is exercise the oversight response abilities of congress through 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 will see, but i'm
comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. when i heard the stats about being a big marker for success, i was sold. it's really about bridging that gap. it's about laying the foundation to be able to create change and be able to change lives. our kids need to see somebody that look like them, that went through what they went through. ♪
>> chris: for the latest on the fallout from the summit with north korea and from michael cohen's continuing testimony on capitol hill, keep it on this fox nation and fox news channel. and that's it for today, have a great week and we will see you next "fox news sunday." next "fox news sunday." ♪ ife that leave a lasting impression. like the feeling of movement as a new journey begins, or the sight of soft fur, warmed by the morning sun. you might remember new flavours, the sound of an old friend's laugh,
is mornings on 2. good morning two. welcome to mornings on 2 . >> i am frank mallicoat. here are some of the headlines. the search continues for two young girls who been missing since friday afternoon. the girls are just 5 years old and 8 years old. >> we have more where they were last seen aware authorities are searching this morning. teachers weigh in on a tentative agreement with the school district. >> things are delayed resident in the north bay but there's an