tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX March 20, 2016 10:00am-11:00am EDT
the world. i'm chris wallace. europe's most wanted man is captured alive. what will they tell authorities about isis plots against the west? we'll have a live report from europe and we'll ask the white house chief of staff denis mcdonough what it means on the war on terror. then the showdown of the president's supreme court nominee. >> i fulfilled my constitutional duty. now is the time for the senate to do theirs. >> this nominee is not going to be considered. >> mitch mcconnell says judge merrick garland won't get a hearing or a vote. the white house argues the senate should do its job, not wait until after the election. today mcconnell and mcdonough face off. plus, governor john kasich wins his home state of ohio and vows to press on in his campaign for
>> you better believe it's about america. it's about pulling us together, not pulling us apart. >> we'll ask the gop candidate what's his path to the nomination? amist talk of a con tegs. plus we'll ask about the plan to stop trump. and our power playersst week, baby bald eagles steal the spotlight, all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. we begin with the capture and questioning of most wanted man in europe believed to be the sole fugitive from the paris is massacre that killed 130 people n a moment we'll get reaction from the white house chief of staff dennis is mcdonough this week and mitch mcconnell is standing by on.
news correspond benjamin hall in london with the latest on the terrorist investigation. >> he could be an intelligent gold mine. today french and belgium authorities are looking closely in what happened in the lead-up to the paris attacks and how he was able to evade capture so long hidden under their noses. it was a bullet to the knee that ended his four months on the run during raids on friday in which he and four others were arrested. france quickly issued a new arrest warrant with more charges to speed up the extradition but the process may still take up to three months. investigators into the paris attacks now hope abdul salam will reveal information about the isis network behind him. he confessed already to prosecutors that he planned to blow himself up that night but he changed his mind. prosecutors also claim that leading up to the attack, he traveled around europe picking up other attackers and that he was the one who bought hydrogen
his lawyer said was cooperating. >> there is a cooperation with the belgium justice. let's go further on with that corroboration. i think it's very important that he talks with the judge. >> reporter: abdul salam was caught 500 yards from his parents' home. he was tracked down when a friend called the police and passed on the cell phone number he was using. today the belgium interior minister said he was shocked at the level of support he received while on the run. it was a lot higher than previously expected. and now the hunt is on for anyone else that may want to commit attacks. benjamin hall, thank you for. that now let's get reaction to the white house from denis m mcdonough. welcome back to "fox news sunday." what's the significance of the capture? what is it going to help us do in terms of stopping future isis terror attacks.
sends a very strong message that our allies and we in support of them are not going to stop until we get all the facts of this case figured out. and now i know there will be an intensive process to figure out what he knows an what he did and what he knows about what others may be doing. and that's why it's important that we dig very hard into this case and why the president called the french president and the about belgium prime minister on friday. >> what have we heard from european authorities? we know that he is said some stuff to belgium prosecutors. but do we know whether or not in fact he is cooperating, the degree to his cooperation? and what about an electronic trail that he may have left? >> i don't know much about. that. >> what are we learning both from this and the prior investigation over the last four
isis terror network in europe? how many operatives they have? >> we do know that they say and we have to listen to what they say. they intend to do this again. we take that seriously. not only from our friends ready but well trained. we're sharing the intelligence and training with them. that is what we're doing. >> and do we believe that the attack on paris and abdeslam was involved in, do we believe it was directed and planned by isis or inspired and self radicalized people were involved? >> we believe that there are indication that's in fact that it goes back to some of those folks back in the middle east. but we're going to get to bottom of this storey. but what we're not going to do is let our guard down. that means staying on offense against isis and in syria and iraq. that's why we did that over the course of the last many many months. we're not going to sit and wait.
>> i'm going to ask you stond by for a moment. >> the other big news this week is the president's pick for the supreme court judge merrick garland. senate republicans have vowed not to hold hearings or vote on the nomination and let the next president fill the seat. we'll get mr. mcdonough's reaction in a moment. first, mitch mcconnell junz me from louisville. senator, support for your hard line on the garland nomination seems to be breaking half a dozen republican senators have now said they're going to meet with garland and late this week illinois senator mark kirk said this just man up and cast a vote. it's been only four days and it seems like your ranks are breaking, sir. >> senator kirk is a terrific senator. he's going to be re-elected in november. i think what we need to focus on is the principle, the principle. who ought to make this appointment? you have to go back 80 years the
supreme court created in a presidential election year was filled. you have to go back to 1888 when grover cleveland was in the white house to find the last time when a vacancy was created in a presidential year, a senate controlled about it party opposite the president confirmed. the senate has a role to play here. the president nominates, we decide to confirm. we think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election is that american people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision. not this lame duck president on the way out the door, but the next president. >> you talk about principle, anything that happens in washington involves principle and politics and what we see with mark kirk is a senator or republican senator up in a tough re-election battle and thinking this is a hard line to hold. and i guess i have to ask you, isn't this going to be a hard argument to make over the next
if you're going to say the president can't decide something, can't get his nominee confirmed because it's an election year, couldn't you say the same thing about the u.s. senate that you shouldn't pass any laws? you shouldn't do anything because in a sense you're a lame duck congress? >> no, we're following the biden rule. he said the senate should not act on filling a supreme court vacancy if it had occurred that year. harry reid when he was back in 2005 said the president nominates but the senate doesn't have to vote. chuck schumer who will be the next democratic leader said in 2007 they wouldn't confirm. the democrats were in the majority in the senate. they wouldn't confirm a bush appointment to the supreme court if one occurred within 18 moves a presidential election. so all we're doing, chris, is following a long standing tradition of not filling vacancies on the supreme court
election year. >> i am going to ask mr. m mcdonough about the biden rule in a moment. frankly, isn't there a fair amount of hypocrisy on both sides here? right now president obama is calling for an up or down vote on his nominee. you oppose. that but back in 2005 when george w. bush was president, you made exactly the same argument that obama's making now. take a look, sir. >> in a democracy, an up or down vote should be given to a president's judicial nominees. it's not complicated. it's simple. it's fair. it worked for 229 years. and it has served us well. >> senator, if an up or down vote for a judicial nominee was simple, fair, and a principle that has served us for 229 years, i guess over 230 years now, if that's true then, it is still true? >> yeah. we're talking apples and oranges.
connection with the supreme court vacancy an sichlt . they're not the same. the supreme court very different from the other courts. what we're talking about here is a supreme court vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year made by a lame duck president who is on the way out the door and the impact that will have on this court for the next quarter of a century. that is the issue before us right now. >> some of your republican colleagues are already suggesting that if your side, if the gop loses the election in november that perhaps they would consider judge garland in a lame duck session because, in fact, he might be more moderate than, let's say, hillary clinton's nominee would be. here is republican senator jeff lake. >> i think republicans are fully justified in doing what we're doing. waiting. but if we happen to lose the election, then i think we ought
we can. >> senator, is jeff lake wrong? >> yeah, i think so. look, barack obama calling judge -- this judge a moderate doesn't make him a moderate. this judge would move the court dramatically to the left. he's enthusiastically supported by moveon.org. i don't think they would be signing up and have all this enthusiasm about a liberal judge. the principle is the same. whether it's before the election or after the election. the principle is the american people are choosing their next president and their next president should pick this supreme court nominee. >> so, final question. just to make it clear. you're saying no consider -- no consideration of judge garland by this congress even if hillary clinton wins the election? no consideration by this congress? you're going to stand firm on that even in a lame duck session? >> yeah. i can't imagine that a republican majority in the united states senate would want
session a nominee opposed by the national rifle association, the national federation of independent business that represents small businesses that have never taken a position on the supreme court o pointment before. they're opposed to this guy. i can't imagine that a republican majority senate even if it were assumed to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge that would most court dramatically to the left. that's not going to happen. >> senator mcconnell, thank you. thanks for your time today, sir. >> thank you. >> now let's bring back the white house chief of staff denis mcdonough. president obama is calling now for an up or down vote on the nomination of merrick garland. back in 2006, senator obama participated in the filibuster of sam alead yoe owe lead yoe's nomination. he said the senate should not
nomination in an election year. let's watch. >> the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. >> question, aren't obama and biden making exactly the opposite argument now from what they made back then? >> chris, you said justice oledo. >> yes. >> who has been it is sitting on the supreme court for the last ten years. >> but obama tried to filibuster him. >> so he's been on the court for the last decade. president obama did not object to a hearing. did not object to private meetings, and did not object to votes in the committee and ultimately on the floor of the senate. >> he tried to filibuster him. >> whether you think of vice president biden and the role he played as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, nine supreme court justices came before him when he was chairman. everyone was given a hearing, meetings, a vote, and even when
votes in the committee to pass him with that justice with majority vote, they still went to the senate floor this vote at the full senate. we think that's what should happen here. >> but a lot of those things happened either in spite of or over their opposition. >> on the contrary. he was chairman of the judiciary committee. thing don't happen in the judiciary committee over or in spite of the objection of the chairman. in fact, it happens because the chairman makes it happen. vice president biden ensured that every one of those justices had a hearing, including, by the way in, 1988, an election year when president reagan proposed a republican president, proposed a democratic senate a supreme court justice. and in fact, justice kennedy who has now been on the court since 1988 was passed unanimously by the senate. we think the same thing should happen for judge garland. >> do you think that the senate
>> we think that it is quite clear in the constitution that when there is a vacancy, they propose the nominee and we think as been the practice for decades, in fact, centuries in the senate that advise and consent means meetings, public hearing where that judge in this case judge garland is willing to go under oath on national television and answer their questions and then a vote in the committee and a vote in the senate. that's what should happen here. >> "the washington post" did a fact check. they actually gave that idea that there is a constitutional obligation, they said first of all the constitution says nothing about a vote. it says advice and consent before a confirmation. and secondly, there has been a long history, mostly in the 19th century that the senate has decided not to act in a number of cases. >> look, chris, we don't need to jump back to the 19th century or the 1800s. we're in the 21st century. look at the precedent over the course of the last many decades and as was the case on vice
the committee, every nominee got a hearing, got meetings, got votes and committee and got a vote on the floor. there is not difficult. this is the way they operate in the senate the this he have not reached back to the will 1800's. >> as we discussed with senator mcconnell, several republican senators are now saying that they're willing to meet with judge garland and illinois republican senator mark kirk is saying that they should just man up and vote. how big an issue do you think that you can make this in the november election? how much heat do you think can you put on senate republicans? >> well, like we don't think there is an election issue. we think this is a straight up governance issue. when senator mcconnell -- >> wait. the president, you, you're all meeting and mobilizing various groups on your side. there is nothing wrong with it being a political issue. i mean, you're trying to put heat on these people.
big an issue it will be in the election? this can be resolved. the average time from announcement of nomination to election is 67 days. they indicated to us that they'll meet -- the republican of maine -- indicated she'll meet with judge garland after the senate gets back from the two week break. we think that's good progress. we'll continue to make this progress. this shouldn't be an issue in any election. they can resol of this in plenty of time and in the time they have. we believe there is consistent with the comments that senate mcconnell made when he took over the senate. he wanted to get congress working again. well, getting congress working again would mean just obviously giving him a hearing, a vote, and getting this ton. not taking this unprecedented step. >> one final question. some republican senators say, look, if the democrats end up winning the white house in november, let's say hillary
consider judge gar land land in a lame duck session. has the president made a commitment to garland that he'll stand about it nomination or might he, let's say clinton wins in november, might he pull the nomination and let her pick the next supreme court justice? >> the president will stand by his nominee. this is an unbelievably qualified, extraordinarily decent man who comes to this nomination with more federal court experience than any nominee before him. he led our effort into the investigation and prosecution for the oklahoma city bombing, the unabomber and he's just as you've seen in the stories, an extraordinarily decent man. we'll stand by him from now until he is confirmed and he is sitting on the supreme court. >> through the end of the president's term? >> that's correct. >> mr. mcdonough. thank you for coming in. always good to talk with you. >> thank you. >> up next, we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss judge garland's nomination and what you would tlik as the panel about the supreme court bat snl just go to facebook or twitter and we may use your questions on
this week. >> that was judge merrick garland. now time to introduce george will, lisa leer and kristen soltis anderson and bob woodward. your opinion about the nomination. >> the republicans have two reasons for taking a position. one is to demonstrate to the republican base something that they very much doubt which is there is some reason to want the republicans to control the senate. they can't defund planned parenthood, they can't repeal obama care. this they can stand up and say we can actually do something. second, this is a way they say of protesting executive overreach by the president. although this is a clear
the president to nominate people to the federal judiciary. what's puz slg zling is they all said he'll support donald trump if he's the nominee. we're quite content to have judicial nominations made by mr. trump whose quaufgss lifications are fogy. and it's puzzling to hear mitch mcconnell saying that we must follow the biden rule. a biden rule endorsed by harry reid. the biden rule was he said no confirmations during a political season. when are we not in a political season? it's just not an election year. by what principle do we decide when a president's ability to nominate people becomes progressively obtained? after the midterm elections of the second term of a president? when is it? i don't understand. >> we asked you for questions for the panel.
that george made, we got this from rob danger. he tweeted this. will senate majority leader mitch mcconnell keep his word or fold like he usually does? kristen, at a time, want to pick up on this question of trying to keep faith with the base, at a time when grassroots support for the republican leadership here in washington is at all time low, when can you just see this in this election, how little they trust that the d.c. establishment is going to stand up for them, is this an infective way infect ive effective way for him to mobilize the base? can he keep the soldiers in line? >> remember that mitch mcconnell came out with a strategy pretty much the day that vacancy came open. he knew that if there was even a hypothetical that this would be the sort of thing where senate republicans might entertain the president's nominee, might allow the court to move to the left, that there would be outrage. he wanted to shut that down right away.
senate who are beginning to say i would be willing to have a meeting with the nominee. they are republicans up for re-election and they are in seats where it is a blue or a purple state. there are states that unlikely to vote for a republican nominee in a presidential election. and maybe to differentiate themselves from the national party narrative so at the same time their state is voting for a democratic candidate at the top of the ticket, is still sending them back to washington further down on the ballot. >> bob, i thought that the white house chief of staff made some news in our interview here. went further than the white house has so far in saying that obama is going to stick by the garland nomination even into a lame duck, even if, let's say, hillary clinton is elected president that he would stick by the garland nomination. kind of interesting that he's saying, you know, i'm going to stay by him and if hillary clinton, even if he's just been lekted ed elected president, if they want
>> this is all about politics. this is pure politics on both sides and as you pointed out, hypocrisy on both sides. >> both sides argued exactly the opposite side. >> exactly. and what mcconnell, the senate majority leader is saying, hey, look, we -- and it's the advice and consent provision in the constitution. we can do it any way we want. and he's actually quite right. there is nothing in the constitution that says you have to do it in a timely fashion and so forth. so this -- this -- the issue is whether you can make the court a majority liberal body. everyone concedes that if garland goes on the court you're going to have five votes on the liberal side. what is interesting and george has pointed this out. garland is an extraordinary
he is somebody -- i did a book years ago on the supreme court and tried to follow it since. and he's exactly the sort of person that should be on the court. he's reasonable. he listens. he is not really partisan in any way. >> wait a minute. wait a minute. you know what a lot of pep are going to say is when it comes down to a decision and it's 5-4, he'll end up being with the liberal judges as opposed to the conservative justices. >> he will. look, step back. there will be liberals and conservatives on the court and if you are going to have some liberals have the sensible -- have rational person, i mean, like lots of people said about scalia, they didn't agree with him. he served an important function on the court. that's the way it works. you have to be a consensus builder and garland is somebody like. that but i don't think he's going to make it. i don't think he's going to be confirmed.
from the political side of the democrats. democratic aspect, they clearly found that this argument, do your job. you're there. you're there for another eight months or whatever it is. and the idea that you're simply going to refuse to have a hearing, refuse to vote, when you talk to the sanders and clinton camps, do they think this is effective and will move votes in the fall election? >> it was interesting to hear denis mcdonough say it's not a election year issue. they think it is an effective issue. they'll need to do two things in the fall, rally their base and pull over independents. they think they can allow them to do both. it's a strong emote vat he motivator for base democrats. they also think if trump is at the top of the republican ticket, they may be able to pull over some moderate republicans who may not like the idea of donald trump next -- picking the next supreme court justice,
to point out, he said that his sister would be an excellent justice and she has a record of being very pro abortion rights. so they think this is an area where they can make a really strong political argument. the politics get a little more complicated once you get into a lame duck session. because quite frankly, merrick garland is not the nominee that i think hillary clinton would like to choose. >> she would pick someone more liberal. zbh a lot of the liberal groups feel that way. that's why you see them focusing on the need for a vote and not really talking all that much about the nominee and certain not saying whether they would keep him and renominate him should either hillary clinton or bernie sanders win the presidency. >> so george, in less than a minute we have left in the segment, what about the lame duck scenario? that hillary clinton wins or donald trump wins and some of those republicans say, you know what? merrick garland doesn't look
>> if president crews uz is president-elect, you wait for the nominee. if trump is president-elect, you have to guess who will be the nominee. let's say the president says i know what mcdonough said to wallace, but let's adhere to the mcconnell rule. the mcconnell rule is that nominees should be sent up by a president after the people have spoken. the people have said mrs. clinton and mrs. clinton says, fine. let's draw mr. garland and appoint a 43-year-old, not a 63-year-old, not a moderate but a 43-year-old firebrand, certainly republicans are right. >> all right. we have to take a break here, panel. see you later. up next, governor john kasich is hanging his hopes on a contested convention. we'll ask the presidential candidate about his path to the nomination, plus what do you think? would an open convention divide
let me know on facebook or twitter@ twitter. and can you explain why you recommend synthetic over cedar? "super food?" is that it's a great school, but is it the right one for her? is this really any better than the one you got last year? if we consolidate suppliers, what's the savings there? 467 horsepower? ...or is a 423 enough? good question. you ask a lot of good questions... i think we should move you into our new fund. sure... ok. but are you asking enough about how your wealth is managed? wealth management at
a look outside the beltway of salt lake city ahead of this week's caucuses there. governor john kasich won his home state of ohio tuesday. even though it's his only victory so far, he said that's enough to keep him in the race for president. i spoke with kasich who was campaigning in utah. >> governor, let's start with
republican nomination. right now donald trump has 678 delegates, ted cruz has 423. you have 143. even if you win every one of the remaining delegates, 1 00%, you would still be short of the 1,237 majority you need. so what is your path? how does the republican convention turn to you? >> well, first of all, chris, nobody is going to have enough delegates. we are going to go to a convention. it's going to be open. and let me also tell you that for the first time in this race in the last 2 1/2 or 3 weeks, i received more national media attention in the last three weeks than i did in the last six months. and we're rising. our rallies are strong. we are raising money. we're bringing more people in to our effort. and we're going to get to the convention and i've been to a convention that was contested in 1976 as a young guy. but let me tell you, when you get to a convention, there are two considerations, one, who can win in the fall?
and then there is a second issue, i know this was a crazy one. who actually could be president of united states? i think that kind of matters, too. so i see the convention as nothing more than an extension of this whole political process. and i'm very comfortable with heading to that convention with momentum and more delegates and we'll let the people there make a choice. >> if step one is to stop trump, to keep him from the 1237, some people questioning why you're even campaigning in utah because the fact is that if ted cruz were to win 50% of vote, he would get all of the delegates. but you by campaigning there are splitting the anti-trump vote. i want to put up what mitt romney said. he'll vote for cruz in utah, explaining, a vote for governor case nick future contests makes it likely that trumpism would prevail. your response, sir? >> i don't agree with him.
out of the race and said that rubio should be the pick. and i didn't stayed in the race and won in ohio, trum whop have won both florida and ohio. but i want to make something clear to people. i'm not in this to try to stop somebody. i'm in this to tell people about my experience, my record, my vision, and my ability to bring people together and to be a successful president of the united states. this is beginning to deteriorate into some sort of a political science class with a bunch of pundits trying to play a parlor game. i'm not interested in that. chris, my entire lifetime has been to bring about change. do you know how many people in the establishment i made angry whether i reformed the pentagon? do you know how many people in the establishment i made angry when i balanced the federal budget? do you know how many people got upset what wh i brought change in ohio? i'm a change agent. we're seeing the establish. people one more time trying to stop me.
country and being a good president and that's precisely why i'm running. and people are beginning to understand my vision and my message because finally people are beginning to allow me to be heard. >> well, i want to ask you about being allowed to be heard. fox news was scheduled to hold a debate tomorrow in salt lake city. trump said, number we were still going to hold it with you and ted cruz. and then you surprised a lot of people by saying you weren't going to participate in the debate including charles krouthammer. >> he complained sec ignored, not getting enough time, whining about it again and again. he and carson. and here he is being offered two hours without the interruptions of trump to him and cruz. he can present his case and he turns it down. >> governor? >> i'm disappointed to hear charles say. that he says that i was whining? let me tell you "the new york times" had a piece the other day that showed that donald trump received $1.8 billion worth of
and i was like tenth. look, i'm not going to go to a debate where we don't have everybody involved in the race involved in the debate. so what am i doing? i'm using my time to campaign the most effective way i can. i have never thought that these debates were the best way to pick a president. if somebody wants to sit down with me for an hour and interview me and ask me any question about my record, my policies, my foreign policy experience, my domestic policy experience, i'm willing to do that. but, you know, i love charles krouthammer. he's a good guy. maybe smimd people ometimes people just don't understand the way i wosh in politics. i'm not a plodder or schemer. i look at problems and try to solve them which i've done all of my career, creating jobs in washington, creating jobs in ohio. not me creating them, but creating an atmosphere and having the experience to run this country. >> you have talked, as you say, about running a positive
you also have criticized donald trump for creating a toxic atmosphere when it come to violence for speaking in what you consider objectable ways about women. what do you think of trump and the campaign he's running? >> well, you know, look, i heard threatened. and that disappointed me. there is no place for this kind of back and forth in violence. so from that regard, i was disappointed to hear that people were threatening that family. that's a disgrace. but i also have pointed out at times when i thought his language was inappropriate like if i don't get nominated, there is going to be a riot. what kind of talk is that? but i have to tell you, chris, i've done more town halls and more interaction with all the voters. i take questions from the crowd. you guys follow it. and at the end of the day, i rarely ever rarely mention anybody else's name because i spend my time giving them the answers about what i want to do, what my vision is and that's the way i really proceed. >> let me ask you about a specific question and the time
i want to explore your position illegally. you have called them a critical part of our society. you called them good people. they're not criminals. >> well, look, chris, what i've said is that, you know, reagan tried to fix this whole thing in 1986. and it didn't work. we didn't finish the border. border. once it's finished, people cannot sneak in. they shouldn't sneak in now. they have to be sent home. we should have a guest worker program. and for the 11.5 million here who are illegal, if they didn't commit a crime, i would give them a path to legalization, delay in any kind of benefits they get. i think that is a reasonable approach approach. but not a path to citizenship. my position has not changed. the idea that we're going to yafrpg people out of their homes and leave kids crying on the porch, that's not what we're
that is more promises that will never happen and the people will become more cynical. i don't make promises, by and large, that i can't keep. i try to keep what i say. i'm not deviated from this position at all. >> but you know what ted cruz calls that. he calls it amnesty. >> he can call it anything he wants. to i'm just telling you my position and i believe that position will be accepted by the american people and that position can pass the congress. i lay this out in every town hall meeting. if somebody asks me, i tell them. look -- >> in the 30 seconds we have left, what about the argument they did break the law? they came into this country illegally. >> they d. >> and you're letting them basically -- be able to stay in the country despite that. >> chris, chris, i know that you don't believe that we can go house-to-house and block to block trying to track these people down to ship them out. you know that. come on. the people know it, too. that's just silly. you know what?
things, not to go out and make crazy promises that are not going to happen that, are going to further aggravate the american people. so, look, you know, people don't like that position, that's okay. i'm cool with it. but i'm not going to change my position because i think it's reasonable and this whole problem is fixable. i believe it. reagan tried. i will get -- i will finish the job. >> governor kasich, thank you. always good to have you. >> thank you. i enjoyed it to day, chris. i was fun. >> it was fun. up next, will bring back the panel to discuss the republican party's stop trump movement.
your path to retirement... may not always be clear. but at t. rowe price, we can help guide your retirement savings. for over 75 years, investors have relied on our disciplined approach to find long term value. so wherever your retirement journey takes you, we can help you reach your goals. call a t. rowe price retirement specialist or your advisor ...to see how we can help make the most of your retirement savings. t. rowe price.
cross-traffic. cameras and radar detect dangers you don't. and it can even stop by itself. so in this crash test, one thing's missing: a crash. the 2016 e-class. now receive up to a $3,000 spring bonus on the e350 sport sedan. man 1: [ gasps ] man 1: he just got fired. man 2: why? man 1: network breach. man 2: since when do they fire ceos for computer problems? man 1: they got in through a vendor. man 1: do you know how many vendors have access to our systems? man 2: no. man 1: hundreds, if you don't count the freelancers. man 2: should i be worried? man 1: you are the ceo. it's not just security. it's defense.
protesters shut down a highway before a donald trump event yesterday. we're back now with the panel. there were protests not just in arizona but also in new york city outside the trump tower on fifth avenue. you can see the protest there. and all of this adding to concerns among the republican establishment and movement conservatives about donald trump actually winning the nomination. kristen, every day there is a new story whether it's a bunch of fat cats have dinner atsome
story about a third party and tom coburn, the retired senator from oklahoma running as a third party cancandidate. how seriously should we take this talk? >> the stop trump movement may have run out of time. there is so much time spent last fall attacking donald trump and be insufficiently conservative. those attacks fell flat. most voters don't like him because they think he's conservative and they think he's strong and a winner. the time has ee he lachsed. if you like donald trump, it's unlikely you'll be persuaded to chafrpg your mind. so i think at this point the math or for anybody to stop trump before the convention becomes very hard. he'll pick up delegates in arizona. we'll move forward into a state like new york or the last poll showed him up by 50 points. this looks pretty good for him for the next month and a half or. so it's going to be very difficult for folks to stop him from winning the republican nomination. >> do you agree with that, bob?
i mean, first of all, if you try to excavate this, you realize the only way for trump probably now to get the nomination is for him to withdraw. and that is not going to happen. piif there is one thing that trump does, he never quits. and so, you know, he's got -- he's the heavy in this. and there's something that he's brought forth in the populous that those of us who try to understand this don't understand. >> i was going to ask you about. that you covered a lot of campaigns. a lot of candidates. can you put this -- i'll ask george the same thing, in any kind of historical perspective? do you compare it to, you know, some people are saying richard nix none nixon in '68. what do you compare trump to? >> you can't compare him to anything. and i think there are people out there who just kind of say let's repot the plant. let's give sebody else a
it's not just anger or disappointment in their lives. it's the sense of let's shake this up. and no one is shaking it up as much as trump. >> george? >> stylistically, trump is in the george wallace tradition. there is too much dignity in american politics, we have to have more meanness. wallace got 36 electoral votes because he is a regional bait. he has support all over the country. the problem is this, not only are his negative 61% almost doubled his positives, 32%. but he's appealing entirely to white people. now, in 1988, george herbert walker bush got 59% of the white vote which is high. that translated in 426 electorate votes. mitt romney in 2012 got 59% of the white vote that, translated
romney got 17%, that is all, of the nonwhite vote. trump by every measure would do worse than that which means he would have to get not just the 65% of the white vote to win that reagan got sweeping 49 states, he would have to get 70% of the white vote. a, it won't happen. b, it would destroy the republican party by making it the party of white people. >> now, i'm sure that clinton camp and the sanders camp, they look at exactly that same demographic and say that country, the democratic face -- demographic facest country is changing. on the other hand, you do hear talk, lisa, about trump reshuffles the electoral deck. that suddenly the rust belt, the industrial midwest, pennsylvania, michigan, states, wisconsin that have gone reliably for democrats for several election cycles, something would be in play. how seriously do they take that? >> smart democrats, the ones that i'm talking, to at least are not overly confident about.
trump is so wildly unpredictable. like, yes, they agree on the demographics point. they're certainly going to try to boost support among the latino voters and women. but with trump, he had the republicans had obviously a lot of trouble taking him out. and you just don't know what you're going to get. you don't know -- he doesn't play by the standard rules. so that makes a lot of democrats a little nervous, particularly given that hillary clinton by her own admission is not the world's best campaigner. but the case is basically three cs, credentials, character, and controversy. so they're digging through the business records. they're going to highlight deals that went badly. they'll bring back the statements about latinos and women and all those things and talk about his temperment. is this someone you want with the finger on the button trying to pull over moderate republicans particularly women and the swing states. >> it's important that the people in the clinton campaign and as you called smart
and that, you know, this is a serious worry. and just from the polling perspective, what are there almost half the people don't vote, right? and trump is getting some of those people. the polls -- there are good number on that. that's maybe why people are worried. >> let's face it. if trump is a target rich environment, so is hillary clinton. and lord knows there is plenty of research to be done there. i want to ask one more thing here, kristen. trump is going to be in washington tomorrow. he's going to meet with apac, the pro-israeli lobby. he is going to have a meeting with a lot of mainstream republicans. how possible is it that he could, having taken this dance to get this far in the primaries, change his tune. i mean not change it completely but become a much more mainstream figure and somehow make an accommodation with the gop establishment?
will want to co-op donald trump, make peace with him, find a way they can still show their face at a republican convention that is nominating him and call themselves republicans and get through the next couple of months. but i think there is going to be a big division for folks consider themselves hard core conservatives who care deeply about things like limited government, who oppose someone who sounds like an authoritarian and wants to expand executive power. they're troubled by him and says if he define what it means to be a republican, then maybe i'm not anymore. >> george? >> i think it's a big, big tent can expand to include donald trump at least through november or is this a -- stretching tight far. >> it cannot expand that far and remain a conservative party. which means it would be -- if he's the nominee, there would be no conservative running in the race and the republicans who are coming to terms with -- as collaborators with the takeover of their party have to understand that. >> and do you see a third party under those circumstances? >> possibly.
ticket? >> no. i would vote for it. >> you would vote for it. >> certainly. >> all right. wow. i think we made news ourselves. thank you, panel. see you next sunday. next, our power players of the week. washington's newest celebrities have a comi (ee-e-e-oh-mum-oh-weh) (hush my darling...) (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) (hush my darling...) man snoring (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) woman snoring take the roar out of snore. yet another innovation only at
supreme court nominee, someone more important stole the spotlight, a symbol of our nation. here is a power player of the week. >> hundreds of thousands of viewers tuneded to the web as an eaglette hatched. even i got caught up. how is the eaglette doing? >> almost all the way out. >> bird watchers have been minding the nest since mid february when a pair of bald eagles laid two eggs. excitement turned into anticipation when the first crack was seen late wednesday on one egg. and friday, just after 8:00 in the morning, a fuzzy wing flopped out and d.c. had the latest star. the eaglette was quieted first but quickly pepped up. the proud parents nicknamed mr. president and the first lady first nested there in 2014 when they gave birth to one eaglette. they take turns, one monitoring
food often a big fish. the hatching is trending on facebook and the arboretum's eagle cam is getting millions of clicks. and on this first day of spring, we have a big happy announcement, the second baby eaglette was born this morning. forget march madness and check out the legal cam link on our website, foxnewssunday.com. be sure to watch fox news channel tomorrow night for a must see prime time lineup, interviews with all three republican presidential candidates starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. and that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news
pills, crazy workouts, and those unbelievable claims of incredible weight loss. but none of it has even come close to working for you. well, quit wasting your time and money and get the body that you've always wanted now by doing it the smart way. that's right -- with wonder core smart. the wonder core smart is the revolutionary new fitness breakthrough designed to target your entire core like a laser, focusing on your upper, middle, lower abs and your obliques. in fact, wonder core smart is so effective that it's guaranteed to get you the strong, sexy six-pack abs you've always wanted or your money back. but wonder core smart does so much more. in all, it combines six great exercises plus cardio to give you the ultimate total-body, calorie-blasting workout. >> the first time i used wonder core smart, i couldn't believe it. it's such a compact machine, and yet i was able to work out my arms, my legs, my core, and the next day, i was sore. i didn't realize i was getting