tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX July 16, 2017 9:00am-10:00am EDT
>> chris: i'm chris wallace. new revelations about a meeting between from family members and russian operatives shake washington just as the senate gets ready for a make or break vote on health care. >> my son is a wonderful young man. he took a meeting with a russian lawyer. most people would've taken that meeting. >> an arrogant disregard for what is ethical. >> chris: we will discuss how donald, jr.,'s meeting affects the potential case against the president with jay sekulow, a member of the trump legal team. then, republicans make changes to their health care bill, but some in the party say it's still not enough
>> i can't vote for something that doesn't repeal obamacare and doesn't fix it. >> chris: we will ask senator rand paul, one of the biggest critics of the bill, what needs to be done to finally replace obamacare. plus, senate republicans put off a vote this week as one of their own deals with his own health issue. we will ask our sunday panel what happens if the g.o.p. fails to keep a major promise. all right now on "fox news sunday" ." and hello again from fox news in washington. first some breaking news. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has put off that big health care about this week while senator john mccain recovers from surgery to remove a blood clot from above his left eye. we will have much more on the effort to repeal and replace obamacare a little later. first our top story. for months, donald trump and his team have tried to put questions about links to russian interference in the election
but that is now much tougher with a stream of revelations about a meeting donald trump donald trump, jr., and other campaign officials held with russian operatives last summer, expecting to get damaging information about hillary clinton. how does this affect the credibility of the trump lighthouse? what does it mean for at least four investigations into possible collisions. joining me now is jay sekulow, a member of the president's legal team. since the story first broke about possible links between the trump campaign and russian, the president and his team have repeatedly dismissed this as a hoax and fake news. here are a few examples. >> it's disgusting, it's so funny, at that exactly goes to show you with the dnc and the clinton camp will do, they will lie and do anything to win. >> i had nothing to do with russia, and what do i have to do with russia? >> chris: was there any contact in any way between trump
kremlin or cutouts they had? >> of course not, why would there be any contacts between the campaign. >> the entire thing has been a witch hunt and there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign. but i can only speak for myself and the russians, zero. >> chris: do you now acknowledge that all of those denials are at the very least suspect? >> jay: you have to put them in context of what the president said and exactly what took place here, chris. it's important to put the framework here. how did we end up with a special counsel? here's how. former fbi director, james comey, at a series of meetings with the president of the united states. in those meetings he took notes. he put them on his government computer, put them in his government task and when he was terminated from position, which she acknowledged the president had the authority to do, he gave them to a friend of his two-week to the press. conversations he had with the president of
>> chris: i'm aware of the history, but this doesn't have anything to do with my question, which is whether or not there were contacts. can you answer the question? >> jay: i'm going to answer your question, i am, and you're going to let me answer it. >> chris: depends on how long we are going to take to get there. >> jay: not long. he leaked the information for one purpose and one purpose only, he said to get a special counsel and the special counsel is appointed. the entire premise upon which this entire investigation has been based was based on illegally leaked information based on what is that with the president the president of the red states and today it's announced that james comey has signed a book deal where he's going to discuss all this. you tell me you think that's okay? >> chris: i'm not asking about any of that. i let you finish, now let me finish. the question i'm asking you is very simple. the president, his vice president, his son repeatedly denied any contacts
given what we've learned this week about the contact between a number of top campaign officials, including the president's son, are those denials that that's just fake news and a hoax, are those suspect? >> jay: i just answer the question on white -- the president's statements have been clear on what this was involving in his view and i gave you just now on how in fact the investigation started. chris let's not go through that again. it was the question you asked. >> chris: no it wasn't. the question was whether or not the denials are suspect. i didn't ask you about james comey. >> jay: i do not think the denials are suspect. i do not think the denial by the president of the united states is suspect at all. >> chris: here's the email exchange in june of 2016 between don, jr., setting up the meeting between don, jr., and the russians. rob goldstone writes the
prosecutor of russia met with his father this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate hillary and her dealings with russia and would be very useful to your father. this is obviously very high-level and sensitive information that is part of russia and its government support for mr. trump. don, jr., response, "if it's what to say, i love it, especially later in the summer." doesn't that contradict the denial of any contact between the trump campaign and the russians? >> jay: what it states was there would be a meeting -- use of the russians, this was a lawyer who was russian. this was a lawyer who ended -- was russian. what took place at that meeting, it's been well reported and you reported this as well, the discussions involving the magnitsky act and russian adoptions. it was quickly ended in the middle of the campaign. the
research which never materialized. the fact is that the ukrainians at the very same time or working with the dnc and the clinton campaign to get, what, opposition research on donald trump and his associates. everybody's acting as if -- had. he >> chris: what i was going to say is doesn't it indicate -- you say it was a meeting about adoption, we will get to that. the fact of the matter is the reason that don, jr., went into that room and jared kushner went into that room and paul manafort went into that room was not to talk about adoption, it was because they had been promised by rob goldstone that there would be information as part of the russian government's effort to tip the election to president trump. >> jay: of course nothing in that meeting that would have taken place was about the topic of an opposition research paper from a russian lawyer is a legal or a violation of the law. by the way, i'm not the only lawyer, and you know this, chris, most lawyers, many, i would say a vast
lawyers you interviewed and others have interviewed and said that those meetings would not be a violation of the law. >> chris: the point is it does show intent, willingness, perhaps not actual collusion because none of us know what really went on to the meeting, but assuming that at least on that point everybody is telling the truth, doesn't it show intent and willingness on the part of don, jr., and jared and paul manafort to collude with the russians. let me just point out natalia veselnitskaya it was not just some russian of the street, she had close ties to people in the kremlin. >> jay: number one, the discussion was going to be about -- if it was going to be about russian opposition research at a russian lawyer had, the fact is you know that goes on the campaigns all the time. opposition research is a big part of campaign. >> chris: it doesn't go on with russians all the time. >> jay: this is what happened, first of all, nothingap
information. but in the meeting, the relevancy of the differential, the relevancy of whether it was a russian lawyer or other individuals that donald trump, jr., knew, the fact is what took place during that meeting, even on the basis of the emails as donald trump, jr., laid them out, or not violations of the statutes. when you talk about russian collusion, colluding to do what? colluding to violate what law? >> chris: let's talk about the legality of the meeting. the u.s. code, let's put it off bars a foreign national of giving money or "thing of value" in connection with an election and it bars anyone from soliciting such assistance. wasn't the trump campaign, in agreeing to that meeting, not talking about what happened, but what they thought when they went into that meeting, wasn't it soliciting something of value, which was the kremlin, as they believed it, the kremlin's effort to tip the election to donald trump
the meeting and you know that by reviewing the meeting. >> chris: they agreed to it and donald trump said i love it if you agree to the meeting on the 25th floor of trump tower. >> jay: opposition research, if it would materialize, is not a thing of value. there's never been a case that opposition research is a thing of value. defendant fec awards that have talked about that as well. you don't conflict -- i don't think it's appropriate to conflate -- it was not a solicitation by the trump campaign to get information, it was an offer of opposition research. compare that to what took place with the ukrainians and the dnc where they were working in collusion with each other. or when the dnc was leaking to one of the other networks the questions but they were going to ask during the debates. everyone's acting as if there's this massive collusion statute that only applies here. the fact is there is no collusion statute. >> chris: there are a couple of points here in one of them is that you seem to be sliding over
the fact that this wasn't cnn that was given questions to hillary clinton, this was according to the offer that was being made by rob goldstone, this was the kremlin, a hostile power, offering information. if the president's own fbi director nominee christopher saw it this way. take a look. >> to the members of this committee, any threat or effort to interfere with our elections from any nation-state or any nonstate actor is the kind of thing the fbi would want to know. >> chris: is not saying any actual interference, kissing any offer is something the fbi would want to know. would you agree that donald donald, jr., and jared and paul manafort should have notified the fbi? >> jay: this is what wray just said. he would investigate any type of involvement of interference. the president of the
the same thing. he said that on multiple occasions he could go back and check the record on this, the president said to james comey, if satellites were doing something -- remember that whole statement? but here, what you have. what took place between what we know took place, was not a violation of the law. there's not a liability, violation of the. the question is the engagement on the global scale, that's being investigated. the president has asked vladimir putin himself about that, talk to them about that on multiple occasions when they were just at the g20. the idea that what chris wray said is somehow inconsistent with what the president said is a false narrative, it's not true. they are not inconsistent statements. >> chris: you began this interview by going after james comey for leaking information, for writing a book, and our last interview last month you were talking critical of james comey and i want to play some of that for you.
would not discuss that with you. unlike james comey, who leaks information to the press, i actually respect the attorney-client privilege, and apparently he did not. >> chris: you said that a couple of times and that interview. let me ask you, with the attorney-client privilege exists between the president and the fbi director? >> jay: there's the presidential executive privileges and the delivery privilege. >> chris: you would agree there's no attorney-client privilege? >> jay: james comey is an attorney -- go >> chris: but he's not acting as an attorney, he is acting as fbi director. he doesn't work as the personal attorney for the president. >> jay: of course not. i want to be clear, he has an executive privilege, no one denies there was a privilege that existed between the president of the united states and james comey and james comey willfully without the consent of the white house released information that was covered by that privilege. that's illegal.
that james comey violated attorney-client privilege, that's really misunderstands the role of the fbi director, he's not the president's private lawyer. >> jay: i have the attorney-client privilege, unlike james comey, i respect the attorney-client privilege as james comey should have respected the executive privilege that he waves, which he had no authority to do, in order to get evidently a special counsel and a book deal. >> chris: one final question -- he got the book deal because he got fired by the president. >> jay: do you think it's okay that in the book deal, according to the press reports, that he's going to go into details in his conversations with the president? to think that's good, do you think that's okay? >> chris: i asked the questions, you answer them. >> jay: you won't answer that one. go ahead. >> chris: let me ask you one final question, and i hope you can answer this, who's paying you and all of the outside
lawyers? >> jay: i'm retained by the main law firm that's involved in the representation of the president. i'm retained of counsel, so our billing that i would do for this kind of case goes to his firm and they pay us. >> chris: yes, but you're kind of ducking the question, who's paying them? >> jay: that situation is between mr. caso -- we are sub paid by the council. i can't give you -- i'm not an privity of contract as we say in the law with a person that's paying for the organization that's paying the bills of that firm. >> chris: do you know president trump is personally paying for his private legal defense? the reason i ask is, the campaign committee is pain, there is talk about an effort to have the rnc pay, so this is an
>> jay: none of those would be illegal or outside the norm. that happens in these cases. >> chris: i'm just trying to get an answer. >> jay: i'm not an privity of contract, as we say, with the party that is responsible for the actual payment of the pill. i'm just of counsel for that firm for the purposes of this case. >> chris: i think it went better than last time and we will still keep trying to get this -- >> jay: i don't mind a good joust. a good joust is all right, even early in the morning. >> chris: thank you, thanks for your time. >> jay: appreciated, thank you. >> chris: up next we will bring in our sunday group to discuss whether the don, jr., meeting is more fake news or the first hard evidence this is a real scandal.
>> i'm more than happy to be transparent and i more than happy to cooperate with everyone. as far as you know, this is everything, this is all of it. >> chris: donald trump junior telling sean hannity he had disclosed the full story about his meeting with a russian lawyer that was three days before we learned there was someone else in the room with reported links to soviet intelligence. it's time now for our sunday group, fox news senior political analyst brit hume. dr. ezekiel emanuel, one of the architects of obamacare and author of the new book "prescription for the future." julie pace, washington bureau chief of the associated press and the head of heritage action for america, michael needham. julie, how badly does the white house, officials in the white house, think all the revelations this week about the don, jr., meeting, how badly has a damage their effort to sideline this whole thing as fake news? >> as terms of sidelining i think this is a lot of damage.
when you talk to officials after the first couple revelations there was a change. they knew that this was more serious, they knew this would be harder to talk their way out of for a couple reasons. one, we're talking with the president's son. two, we're talking about actual emails that say in black and white that they were told this is part of a russian government to help trump. he licked those emails himself, it wasn't anonymous sources, it wasn't something that could blame on the intelligence agencies and say it was coming from disgruntled officers. i do think the overall strategy from the president's office and lawyer is to be be fighting back. even though -- to continue to deny that there is any reason for any of these committees and for more investigation to continue. >> chris: i have an understanding that there really is a lot of disarray
particularly the legal team for don, jr., and the legal team for jared are at cross purposes as to how to handle this, but nobody in the white house feels they can coordinate, because if they do talk to the outside lawyers that will be called to testify before the committee and i also understand that there is growing concern about the kind of dual role of jared and ivanka, are they top officials, are they family, are they -- in jared's case subjects of an investigation? this becomes very, very hard for a white house to manage. >> it's very complicated internally because you have people that have interests that are starting to diverge, who were all working in the white house that are related to the president and they have their own legal team. these legal teams are looking up for the client and if your client is jared kushner that is her top priority. not the president of the united states despite the fact that jared kushner is married to the president's daughter. don, jr., will have a legal team fose
frankly, a lot of people in the white house think the president's legal team has not been doing the president a great point. >> chris: here's how he defended the meeting this week. >> it's called opposition research, or even research into the opponent. i've been in politics for two years. i've had many people call up, we have information on this factor or this person or frankly, hilary. that's very standard in politic politics. >> chris: does that explanation fly and as a veteran, as i am, of a lot of washington scandals that we have covered, how damaging do you think these revelations are? >> the revelations are damaging in one particular sense, which means there's no end in sight for this firestorm. once you have, as julie was explaining and you were pointing out, all these people getting lawyers and preparing to testify and all the rest of it, the burden on the white house
enormous. there was already a burden on this white house to fight these allegations whether they add up to anything illegal is a second matter. a political consequence of this is very serious because it means this is the atmosphere in which this administration and this white house is going to have to operate going forward. and then it begins to matter about how well staff to the white house is, how will staff the administration's. the administration and white house can become paralyzed by this. that's one of the dangers faced here. the explanation the president gave isn't sufficient. >> it is worth noting this isn't the first time russia has tried to influence american elections. it goes back to the 1960s, kennedy versus nixon, algor versus bush. every time they've approached some other candidates they've spurned it turned it over to the fbi. the notion that the president says this is opposition research and everyone does it, this is
not true. people do have standards, there are rules of engagement and getting a foreign government to try and give you dirty information is something the american political system has not permitted. that notion is wrong. >> chris: let me just pick up on that. at one point, we will get back in a second, michael, you have been generally supportive of president trump, but doesn't this set of emails and the fact that this meeting -- here are the people who were in the meeting, john, jr., jared kushner, campaign chairman paul manafort and natalia veselnitskaya, doesn't the email exchange and the fact that those three trump officials showed up at the meeting show at least an intent, a willingness to collude? >> there was a willingness to except opposition research from a foreign agent and that should be concerning. i thought it was interesting, i agree with what zeke said, he conveniently left out ted kennedy in 1983 try toor
the russians to be to be ronald reagan, which in no way justifies anybody working with the russians now to get opposition research. that's what all americans recognizing that russia is a hostile foreign actor in the country deserves to see what comes out of the investigation, the challenge that those of us who care about policy face is how is all of this going on to get the necessary attention as we will talk in the second panel about health care and taxes and other issues, these are investigations that need to go on and are going on and we look forward to seeing the results. >> chris: sent to a panelist i'm not going to call your doctor, i'm going to call you zeke. how far is a committed democrat are you prepared to go? are you willing to see the country paralyzed for the next year? if more information comes out are you willing to see the president impeached? how far do we need to go on this? >> democracy is at stake here in america. having our biggest enemy, russia, come in and
change our election, that is the bedrock of democracy. that is the most important thing. i do not want to see this country paralyzed, but i do not want to see our democracy undermined by having the president of the united states colluding or his officials colluding with russia. remember, when people go into government, they actually have to abide by the laws here and one of the laws is you can't get anything of value, whether money for other things of value from a foreign country. opposition research is true, it's of value, it may not be dollar value. >> chris: i was going to say, you heard what jay sekulow had to say about that. no response? >> he's grandstanding. we should allow the investigation to play out, we should look at what happens when the investigation plays out and we should have a discussion right now, the emotion that was just explained was nice but it's grandstanding until the facts come out. >> democracy is a very fragile thing. we've seen other countries, turk
how someone can win an election and totally undermine democracy by taking down judicial independence, the press, and reelection. >> chris: let me just say, grandstanding has gone before on this panel, you have 15 seconds. >> american democracy has survived this effort and we don't really know how far it when we don't know whether it had any noticeable impact on election or any of that. it seems to me me to become overwrought is a little premature at least. >> chris: panel, we have to take a break here. we will see you all a little later. up next, senate republican struggle to hold a crucial vote on health care, but does the bill do enough to repeal and replace obamacare? one of the plan's biggest critics, senator rand paul, joins us next. here's the thing: just because i configured this car online doesn't mean it really exists at a dealership,
on actual cars in my area. i see what others paid for them, and they show me the ones that match the car i want, so i know i can go to a truecar-certified dealer and it'll be right there waiting for me... today, right now. this is truecar. >> chris: coming up, senate republicans continue to make changes to their health care bill, but some in the party still aren't happy. >> unfortunately the new plan doesn't repeal obamacare. that promise to repeal obamacare, not to continue obamacare. >> chris: senator rand
golfers are competing in today'. women's open. last night senate majority leader mitch mcconnell put off consideration of health care legislation this week after it was announced that senator john mccain had surgery to remove a blood clot from above his left eye. republicans are struggling to pass a revised bill, which some say still doesn't go far enough to repeal and replace obamacare. joining me know, one of the biggest critics, senator rand paul. senator, let's start with the bottom line. whenever it comes up, whenever senator mccain is in good health and comes back, does senate majority leader mcconnell have the votes to pass this revised bill? >> senator paul: i don't think right now he does. the real problem we have is that we won four elections on repealing obamacare, but this bill keeps most of the obamacare taxes, keeps most of the regulations, keeps most of the subsidies, and create something that republicans have never
bailout superfund. that's not a republican idea to give taxpayer money to a private industry that already makes $15 billion in profit. >> chris: so if this bill does not pass, what happens? >> senator paul: you know what, i've suggested to the president, and i talked to the president again when he was in paris just this last weekend were i guess on friday, and i told him i think we can still -- if this comes to an impasse, i think of the president jumps into the fray and says look, you promised to repeal it, let's just repeal what we can agree to and then continue to a try tox and replace whatever happens afterwards. the one thing we should do is try to repeal as many of the taxes, as many of the regulations and as many of the mandates as we possibly can. i still think the entire 52 of us could get together on a more narrow, clean repeal and i think it still can be done. >> chris: this is a change of heart because back in january
you said that you had told the president and that he agreed with you that you need to repeal and replace at the same time. >> senator paul: it's interesting that it's not, i'm still for replace, it's just my definition of replace is different than some of the big government republicans. my idea was always to replace it with freedom, legalized choice, inexpensive insurance, allow people to join associations to buy their insurance. i'm still for all of those and i think those that could be part of clean repeal and most of the ideas i've had on letting people join groups to buy their insurance, letting the plumber and his wife join a large group like the chamber of commerce, those ideas are actually welcomed by virtually every republican. that past in the house unanimously. >> chris: here's what the president said in his weekly address this weekend about the merits of the current, new revised bill. >> if the senate health care bill stops the obamacare disaster.
expand choice and drives down cost. >> chris: is the president wrong, senator? >> senator paul: i would caution about overselling what's going to happen. i've been involved with health care for 20 years as a physician. it was in terrible shape before obamacare, got worse under obamacare and i predict that the fundamental flaw of obamacare will remain with the republican plan. this is a big reason why they can't supported. the fundamental flaw is that mandates on insurance cause prices to rise and young, healthy people say i will just wait until i get sick and the insurance pool gets sicker and sicker, it's called adverse selection, we also call it the death spiral. the republican plan admits that it will continue. if they just say we will subsidize it. we are going to dump billions of dollars into the insurance companies and say please charge less and try to counteract the death spiral, but the republican plan doesn't fix the death spiral of obamacare, it simply subsidizes it.
everybody would agree that this bill does not repeal obamacare, does not fix all the problems with it, but here is why conservatives say it is still worth supporting. it is, they contend, the most significant medicaid reform efforts. it turns an open-ended entitlement into a block ramp for states. compare the current law, it cuts medicaid spending $772 billion by 2026. are you willing to see all of that go down the drain? >> senator paul: i think some of the medicaid reform is probably good. slowing down the rate of growth is what they do -- or they don't actually cut, so that's the wrong term to use, but they do slow down the rate of growth. a lot of the slow down doesn't kick in until years and seven, eight, nine, and ten. the sad thing is we do these 10-year plans, the kind of remind me of this ovary to
there's a new congress, maybe those democrats and the whole medicaid reform goes out the window. but the bottom line is i'm not willing to trade medicaid reform for an insurance company bailout and insurance company entitlement. the collet is temporary stabilization fund of nearly $200 billion, it's not going away because they do not fix the death spiral of obamacare. the death spiral will remain with the republican plan and ask why i can't supported as it's written. >> chris: usually given the balance of power in the way the boats are up that you would like to see a straight repeal at this point and then try to fix it later. your republican colleagues, there are not 51 votes for straight repeal and two if you do that, and then as you say you try to fix it later, because it won't be part of budget, budget reconciliation, you will have to work with democrats and you will end up with a lot of stuff that's even more liberal. >> senator paul: there is a way we can do
we do a more narrow, clean repeal, but we can also at the same time put forward a bill that has some of the big-ticket spending items that conservatives object to. i will vote against that. there are many bills that all the democrats always vote for. if it has government spending on it, democrats vote for it. there's a chance we could take the things that i object to on the repeal bill that arm repeal, that are big government spending, but them on a bill the democrats typically vote for, one is called s chip, it will be a big spending bill and if they want to spend billions on bailing out the insurance company they can do that with democrats because in all likelihood democrats will vote for that, conservatives will vote against. they can be advanced simultaneously, really on the same day. moderates would get what they want, more debt for the country and more spending. conservatives look at what we want, a clean repeal, which is really the only thing we promised in the electi
it kind of annoys me that republicans are going back on their work to repeal obamacare. >> chris: a lightning rod, quick questions, quick answers. there are a number of ideas as it looks like the senate maybe deadlocked. first of all, ted cruz has gotten the measure put into the bill that says that insurers can put out what they call skinnier, cheaper plans, fewer benefits for healthy people as long as they put out one -- at least one plan that has all of the health benefits required by obamacare. what's wrong with that? >> senator paul: i'm for more choice, so i've been supportive of the amendment in general. however, it will still be in the context of having the fundamental flaw of obamacare, all of these mandates. adverse selection will continue even without amendment and some of argue that it made it worse. ted cruz himself says we are going to have to increase government subsidies to insurance coan
prices. if that's just not a very republican idea to have taxpayer money going to a private industry. insurance companies make $15 billion a year. i'm generally forward the idea of the amendment because it gives more freedom, but it's in the context of a bill that still has the fundamental flaw, still retains the death spiral of obamacare so ultimately i won't work. republicans don't understand this, when they passed as they are going to completely own health care and people have been unhappy with health care ever since i've been in medicine, one because of the large sort of bullion way that we are treated by insurance companies deny everything. my family alone, we fight tooth and nail to get our insurance company to cover anything. i'm like the rest of america, we are frustrated with insurance companies charging us and then not paying for the stop when we go to the doctor. >> chris: let me explain again the idea of the lightning rod is quick questions and quick answers. >> senator paul: [laughs] >> chris: let me ask you one other quick one, the senators cassidy
saying of the federalism route and let each state decide what they want. >> we will take that $500 billion into some kind of formula, get it to the state was that the following, if you want to repair obamacare you can repair it. if you want to replace it you are going to replace it. >> chris: briefly, what's wrong with that? >> senator paul: the problem is obamacare was a trillion dollar tax increase. if you tell me it's federalism to increase taxes by a trillion dollars collective in washington and send them back to be sent by the states, that's not really federalism. federalism would be devolving the power and the size and scope for the federal government to the states and i'm all for that. but i think their proposal -- i don't know exactly what it is as far as what we will do with the regulations. does it wipe out all the regulations of obamacare, what happens to the regulation? a nonstarter. >> chris: i've got 30 seconds left for this one. some of your colleagues say if this goes down you're going t
because this is, it's either this or obamacare. you would rather keep obamacare? >> senator paul: i think that the current system is terrible, the death spiral of obamacare is unwinding the whole system and it will continue, but i don't think republican should put their name on this. key part of obamacare and we will be blamed for the rest of the unwinding. it's about political strategy and it will not fix the problem. >> chris: senator paul, thank you, thank you for joining us, we will watch what happens on the hill, when it finally does come to a vote. it's a pleasure to talk to you. >> senator paul: thank you. >> chris: we will bring back our sunday group to discuss. plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the g.o.p.'s revised health care bill? go to facebook or twitter, @foxnewssunday, and we may use your question on the air.
♪ our first name has always been 'american.' at at&t, we employ more than 200,000 people with good-paying jobs. connecting consumers and business through mobile, internet, and entertainment. at&t invests more into america's economy than any other public company. bringing americans more choices, more freedom, and entertainment everywhere.
>> i just want to say i am thrilled to be our new captain. i want this to be an efficient shift but also one that you are serving on >> i'm sitting waiting for the bill to come to my desk. i hope that they do it. they've been promising it for years. mitch has to pull it off, he's working very hard, he's got to pull it off. >> chris: president trump putting it on senate
leaders to fulfill his campaign promise to repeal obamacare. we are back with the panel. i was struck by the president saying that he sitting there at his desk waiting for the bill to come there. i know he's made a few calls, but this sure seems different from ronald reagan or bill clinton actively lobbying, bringing people in them. am i wrong? >> you are not wrong. there's not a lot of hands-on effort happening by the president certainly on the details of the legislation. it made a couple of phone calls, he's done a few interviews where he talked about this, but when it comes to the actual policy details in this legislation it's a hands-off strategy. particularly, republicans are not that upset about it, they prefer that he would not start meddling with the details on this. they would like to see him do is try to use the pulpit he does have, the audience he does have on twitter to sell the bill. they see him do this sometime and be pretty off message. he talked about trying to put more money in the bill, which is not exactly a republican argument. he's talked
favor of, said it was mean. what republicans would like is for him to stay out of the policy details but try to at least sell this to the american people. >> chris: we may be surprised, but i think you would agree that whenever this bill does come up for a vote, probably not this week, but maybe next week within the week after, passing it is a bit of a long shot. >> i would look at it a little bit differently. it seems to me -- remember when the first version of this measure came out and about a dozen or so senators made a point they couldn't vote for it. it goes back for a little rehab and it comes out again and we are down to work two or three republicans -- that doesn't mean all the rest of them who were against it before will vote for it, but it suggests to me that considerable progress has been made and republican leadership in the senate is now quite close to where they could pass the bill. when it gets down to it, the question you asked rand paul at the end of your interview with him is a
republican senator will have to face. that is to say, when it gets down to it, are you going to cast a vote, the effective which is to leave obama carefully in place? remember when those house members all resisted the first version of the house bill? they went home and then they thought they were going to be heroes, they weren't. the result was fairly minor changes. i think there's a significant chance that will happen here as well. >> chris: in the time we have left i want to try to drill down into the relative merits of the current system versus the revised bill and here is what president trump had to say this weekend. >> we are very, very close to ending this health care nightmare. we are so close. the legislation working its way through congress provides the choice and control people want. the affordability they need and the quality they deserve in health care. >> chris: zeke, i want to get you into a debate with your policy counterpart
michael needham. i'm going to let you go first. and the president wrong? when it comes to the question of obamacare versus the current senate bill, why is obamacare better? >> the current senate bill will throw 22 million people off of insurance. >> chris: we don't know that. >> it's going to throw at least over 50 million because that's the medicaid part. it's going to throw something like 22 million people off of insurance. second, it totally undermines the insurance marketplace with the amendment. it makes the bill worse because the adverse selection rand paul was talking about will be even worse. >> chris: that says that healthy people can buy cheap plans, sick people have to go for the full plan. >> it undermines the freedom of cancer patients that i take care of because they will not be able to afford any health insurance given the ted cruz proposal. >> chris: what about the companies in the cruz? >> everybody knows they are inefficiently distributed and they were nowhere near enough.
$35 million for opioid care over ten years may sound like a lot of people, but it's the president's own admission that they need $220 million. 20%. high insurance, undermining in the insurance market, and you don't solve the opioid crisis. it's a terrible bill. >> chris: we asked if her questions for the panel and we got this on facebook. from mark hall, he writes repeal the aca as promised, do not fix, repeal it outright. what is wrong with the free market and patient joints just like we have an auto insurance? how do you answer mark and how you answer zeke on whether the revised bill is better or worse than the current system? >> mark is actually right, the problem when you talk to people in the senate, this probably only 15 or 20 votes in the senate. for seven years of republican party promised repeal, we need to move towards that free marke
market. it's because unfortunately the republican party wasn't serious about repeal and that's a tragedy. >> chris: you are saying that we should leave obamacare in place? >> i think this bill is the first step in a process of repealing obamacare. zeke is doing what a lot of people in washington do, he's playing baseline games. the cbo said 23 million people would be in the individual markets because of the employer mandate, the individual mandate, it turns out it's only ten. when the cbo scores that they assume that magically it's a bill for 10 million people in the individual market up to 16 noise before they even do some scoring. he's playing games on that side. >> the medicaid expansion is real, taking 800000000000 out of medicaid is not going to expand the number of people who are covered in the second point i would make is there is no freedom in this bill for people who have pre-existing condition conditions. this completely removes the promise to them that if you have a pre-existing condition you can have affordable insurance.
>> chris: michael? >> the problem to his point is that this still keeps -- it takes away what was created by dr. emanuel and others to ensure able-bodied people, rather than more vulnerable populations. it takes away that incentive but it actually keeps the federal subsidy for the medicaid expansion population. zeke is not being entirely fair on that point. >> remember this, chris. obamacare is this coverage for pre-existing conditions, which basically defeats the whole idea of insurance. for example, in the automobile market, if you could wait till you had a wreck and then buy insurance and have the repairs cover, that's comparable to what we're doing here. let me finish. the idea of insurance is that you purchase it to guard against risks and things that may occur in the future. it's not that you purchase the coverage after you are already
once that idea is gone, obamacare remains. >> chris: 20 seconds. >> if i had cancer thermal wow no halt of my own, this bill does nothing to cover those people. it cancer patients and patients with multiple sclerosis, alzheimer's disease get written out of coverage. >> chris: where not going to settle this, and we don't have to because we will have more time to talk. let's bring you all back and continue the conversation. thank you, panel. up next, our "power player of the week," the man behind donald trump's tweets. >> i'm always training with a purpose
>> chris: remember when president trump took office and people wondered whether he would give up twitter? well, as we told you back in february, that was never a question for the president and one trusted aide. here's our "power player of the week." >> directly reaching out what we call the trump train out there. the movement and delivering your message directly to the american people. >> chris: dan is describing his job as white house director of social media. getting donald trump's message out unfiltered by the press or anyone else. when the president took office there was some question whether he would keep tweeting. >> let me ask you, should i keep a twitter going are not? keep it going? >> chris: and why
mr. trump now has 113 million followers on eight different white house and personal platforms. how important is that that it's his authentic voice reaching directly to the supporters? >> it's very important. it's him speaking, his mind as president of the united states of america. >> chris: spends his day near the president. >> he will start speaking into it which i know is that we and we will simply send it out. he's been called the hemingway of twitter many times with 140 characters. there are so many times he will give me a message when we are traveling or in the office and it stops at 139 characters. >> chris: pets during working hours. then there are the tweets the president types himself early in the morning or late at night. >> i get a little note and i get the tweet and i will take that and amplify onto instagram as well as his facebook account. >> chris: this is the trump facebook page, filled with
presidential musings and behind the scenes video that scavino takes. as he is dictating a tweet either in the campaign or as president, have you ever said to him, maybe not? >> there have been times, but not too often. i've always believed -- being with the men from day one, let frumpy trump. >> did anybody at care of dan? he's become quite famous in social media. >> chris: scavino was -- he goes back a lot longer than tha that. they met when scavino was 16 working at a country club in suburban new york. >> often when he would come up i would either caddy or clean his clubs upon departure of the concourse and he said to me you were going to work for me one day. >> chris: he ended up running a trump golf course but was about to start his own social media business when he heard the boss might run for president. do you ever think to yourself
dan scavino, 16-year-old caddy, assistant to the president? >> it's overwhelming, it's real that we are here and we are here to serve the american people. >> chris: now scavino spend more time around donald trump than almost any member of his staff in a relationship that is close to family. >> he knows i'm there for him, he knows i have his back. everything we've been through, nobody is taking more incoming than donald j. trump and to be with him in the foxhole, just being here in the white house when everybody said, and i can't say it enough, you he zero chance, scavino, what are you doing? >> chris: like his boss, scavino takes to his personal twitter account to defend the administration. he got a warning earlier this year for violating the hatch act when he urged trump supporters to vote against a republican congressman who opposed the president's policies. that's it for today, have a great week and we will see you next "fox news sunday" ."
[music] >> joel osteen: well, god bless you. it's a joy to come into your homes, and if you're ever in our area, please stop by and be a part of one of our services. i promise you we'll make you feel right at home. i like to start with something funny, and i heard about this pastor, he was walking down the street when he came upon this group of young boys that were surrounding a small dog. he asked what they were doing, and they explained they were having a contest. whoever could tell the biggest lie would get to keep the dog. he launched in to a 10-minute sermon starting with, "don't you know lying is a sin?" and ending with, "when i was your age, i never told a lie." there