The border wall, the constitution and the path ahead to 2020. Plus, fired fbi acting director Andrew Mccabe speaks out on why he opened an investigation into President Trumps ties to russia. I was very concerned that i was able to put the russia case on absolutely solid ground that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace. Chris well ask our sunday panel a what this means for the Mueller Investigation. All right now on fox news sunday. And hello again from fox news in washington. Congress used the power of the purse to deny President Trump all the money he wants to build a wall on the southern border. So the president invoked executive powers to free up billions of dollars to do it anyway. The president says theres a crisis at the border, but critics including some republicans say the president s move has created a crisis of its own. In a moment well speak with white house Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller. But first, lets get the latest from kevin corke at the white house. Reporter the president may have avoided another shutdown fight by signing off on a funding bill, but his use of executive power will very likely create a new battle in the courts. We have tremendous amounts of drugs flowing into our country, much of it coming from the southern border. Im going to be signing a National Emergency. Reporter in laying out the reasoning for declaring a National Emergency, President Trump lit a political fuse, reigniting a separation of powers debate and setting the stage for a possible constitutional crisis. At issue, border wall funding, illegal immigration and the use of power given to the president by congress. But criticism has come from both the left and the right with Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi issuing a statement calling the president s declaration unlawful over a crisis that does not exist. Meanwhile, trump loyalists howled because they believe the president signed off on a funding bill that restricts much of what and where a wall could be built, accusing mr. Trump of setting off an illegal immigration stimulus. The only National Emergency is that our president is an idiot. Reporter if the white house spends the money sequentially, they would spend over 5 billion before any emergency funds are tapped. Thats money to get moving, if you will, while this battle makes its way through the courts. Chris kevin corke reporting from the white house, thanks for that. And joining us now for an exclusive interview, white house Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller. Stephen, welcome back to fox news sunday. Great to be here, thank you. Chris i want to start with something President Trump said friday when he was declaring a National Emergency. Here he is. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didnt need to do this. But id rather do it much faster. Chris i didnt need to do this. How does that justify a National Emergency . Well, as you know, chris, we already have 4,000 troops on the border in light of the National Emergency, a decision that was made almost a year ago as weve seen an increasing number of people crossing the border as well as increasing violence in mexico. What the president was saying is that, like past president s, he could choose to ignore in the crisis, choose to ignore this emergency as others have, but thats not what hes going to do. Chris the president talks about an invasion, used that word multiple times on friday, an invasion on the southern border e. But lets look at the facts. I want to put them up on the screen. 1. 6 Million People were stopped crossing the border illegally back in 2000. Less than a quarter that many were caught last year. The governments own numbers show for all the president s talk about drugs streaming over the border 8090 of the cocaine, heroin and fentanyl seized at the border is seized at ports of entry, not along unfenced areas. And in 2017 twice as many of the new people in the country illegally were from visa overstays as were from crossing the border. Again, wheres the emergency, the National Emergency to build a wall . This is a lot of data you just presented there, so id like to go through it one piece at a time. So lets start with your point about the border crossings in the year 2000. As you know, when george bush came into office, illegal immigration doubled by the time he left office. Im not going to sit here and tell you that george bush defended this cup on the southern border, because he did not. One of the biggest changes thats happened since then and now is the mass release of illegal aliens due to a patchwork of Court Rulings and loopholes in our federal laws and changing tactics from smugglers and chris i dont want to go into all of this, but lets just focus on that one issue. Four times as many people were coming across the border in 2000 as now, so why is that a back then, 95 could be turned around in a matter of days. As a result of loopholes, activist judicial rulings and increasing sophistication from cartels, the reality is, is that more than half the people crossing the border are what we call nonimpactful, they cant be turned around. What you see is sophisticated operations and smugglers will actually push out migrants and children and family units to divert border agents, and then because theres not secured areas with the wall, theyll then cross. A fundamental level, we could go could down to the details as much as you want to chris please dont. [laughter] but the bottom line is this, you cannot conceive of a nation without a strong, secure border. It is fundamental and essential to the idea of sovereignty and National Survival to have control over who enters and doesnt enter the country. We can get into the statistics. You want to talk about drugs, theres been a huge increase in drug depths since george w. Bush and barack obama were in office. Chris i understand that, but 8090 of drugs come from ports of entry. Those are your own customs and Border Patrol numbers. Which is the reason why we also asked for Additional Resources at the ports of entry. Chris which you got. The problem with the statement is thats like saying you apprehend most contraband at tsa checkpoints at airports. Thats where you have the people and the screeners. I assure you if we had screenings of that same density, youd have more drugs interdicted in those areas. You dont know what you dont know. As a matter of National Security, you cannot have uncontrolled, unsecured areas of the border where people can pour in undetected. Chris okay. One more point. I guarantee you this, if donald trump had said hes invoking the National Emergency authority to build a security perimeter in iraq, afghanistan, a military installation in syria, there would not have been one word of objection from congress. This is defending our own country. Chris i question whether, in fact, thats the case. But in any case, lets talk about the constitutional aspects of this. In talking to you over the years, i know that you are a constitutional conservative, and you believe the constitution should be interpreted as written, correct . Yes. Chris okay. Heres article i, section nine, clause seven of the constitution as written. No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Isnt what President Trump wants to do a clear violation of what the founders, of what James Madison talked about as giving congress the power of the pursesome. No. Because congress in 1976 passed the National Emergencies act and gave the president the authority as a result of that to invoke a National Emergency in many different circumstances, but among them for the use of military Construction Funds. And that was the point i was making earlier. If the president were to say were going to use military Construction Funds to increase a base in bagram or syria, nobody would even say anything about it. We have 4,000 troops on the border right now, and as a result of that mission, they need to secure those areas where theyre patrolling. Chris but lets talk about National Emergencies. National emergencies have been declared 59 times since 1976 when the law was passed, the National Emergencies act. Can you point to a single incident, even one, where the president asked congress for money, congress refused to give him that money, and the president then invoked National Emergency powers to get the money . First of all, can you chris one case. What youre missing, chris, is that the National Emergencies dont all have the same authorities and the same justifications chris i understand that. But there have been 59 this specifically refers to the use of military Construction Funds. Chris if you want to talk about military constructions, do you know how many times military construction has been invoked as a National Emergency . That one chris twice. Once by george h. W. Bush during the middle of the gulf war, and the second time by george w. Bush right after 9 11. Chris, can you name, can you name, can you name one foreign threat in the world today outside this countrys borders that currently kills more americans than the threats crossing our southern border . Chris you know, the joy of this is i get to ask you questions the answer is, no. Chris then answer my question. Can you name one case where a president has asked congress for money, congress has refused, and the president has then invoked National Powers to get the money anyway . Well, this current wrist chris just yes or no, sir. The Current Situation pertains specifically to the military construction chris im just asking when Congress Asks for military construction, Congress Said no the meaning of the statute, chris, is clear on its own terms. If you dont like the statute or members of congress dont chris would you agree the answer is, no, there hasnt been a single the premise of your question is false because congress has appropriated money for construction of border barriers consistently. This is part of a National Security chris but theyve never done this under a National Emergency but weve declared National Emergencies to promote democracy in belarus, to promote democracy in zimbabwe chris taking into effect money that congress refused to appropriate. They didnt refuse, they passed a law saying the president could have this authority. Thats in statute. If people dont like that, they can address it. But to my point that i made, this would not be even an issue if the president wasnt invoking that statute to support some foreign adventure overseas. You and i both know the president s for years have engaged in one military adventure after another, not to mention the fact we do operations to destroy drug fields in foreign lands, in afghanistan or colombia, and we cant even deal with the criminal cartels operating on our border . These organizations chris i want to move are destabilizing the western hemisphere. Fundamental Foreign Policy issue. Chris i want to move on, respectfully. If the president gets access to the entire 8 billion hes seeking, how many miles of barrier will he be able to build and how quickly. Well, if you look at the authorities we have both in terms of drug corridor funds, in terms of National Emergency funds, in terms of treasury funds as well as appropriated funds and other reprogramming authorities that may exist, in combination with the existing chris answer the question. Youre looking at hundreds of miles collectively. Chris and how soon . Well, youre going to see a couple hundred miles in time, i would say, by the end of the next appropriations cycle altogether in terms of what we have underway right now chris so by the end of this year, hundreds of miles . Next fiscal year. One more after this. Chris okay. So by september of 20. Right in the middle of the president ial campaign. If you look, weve already outlaid. We have 120odd miles that are already under construction or obligated, plus the additional funds that were going to outlay, youre going to look at a few hundred miles. Chris okay. Final question. If both the house and the Senate Approve a resolution of disapproval, which theyre allowed to, specifically called for in the National Emergencies act, and if they a pass it in the senate, it would be with bipartisan support because its republican control, will the president veto that, which would be the first veto of his presidency . Well, obviously, the president is going to protect his National Emergency declaration, chris. And i know were out of time, but i again want to make this chris so, yes, he will veto . Hes going to protect his declaration, guaranteed. But the fact that theyre talking about shows you this is a statutory issue that congress made. But again, i want to make this point, this is a deep intellectual problem that is plaguing this city, which is that weve had thousands of americans die year after year after year because of threats crossing our southern border. We have families and communities left unprotected, International Terrorist organizations. This is a threat in our country. Not overseas, not in belarus, not in afghanistan or syria or iraq, but right here. And if the president cant defend this country, then he cannot fulfill his constitutional oath of office. Chris stephen, thank you. Thanks for coming in. Its always good and always challenging to talk to you. Thanks. Chris up next, well bring in our sunday group to discuss the legal and political battles ahead as the president tests his powers to make his border wall a reality. Plus, Rush Limbaugh joins us live. You dont want to miss that. Guys, its that time. And nothins happenin. Well now theres score , from force factor, to rev your libido and maximize physical response. Its no wonder walmart offers score in more locations than any other performance enhancer. Unleash your potential in the bedroom, with score . Were talking about an invasionf our country with drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs. You want to talk about a National Emergency . Lets talk about today, the oneyear anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in america. Thats a National Emergency. Crest chris president bush justifying chris President Trump justifying his declaration of a National Emergency at the border while House Speaker pelosi warns republicans of the precedent his actions may set. Mark short, former director of legislative afavors for President Trump affairs for President Trump, charles lane from the washington post, bob woodward author of fear trump in the white house, and Katie Pavlich from townhall. Com. Well, bob, as we saw from the aforementioned book, you spent a lot of time reporting on this president. How do you explain, why do you think he declared a National Emergency over warnings from Top Senate Republican leaders and from some of his own top lawyers . Two reasons. Its a political promise. And each though what hes saying or trying to do here is unsupportable in terms of the facts, he looks tough. He looks strong. Im protecting you, and thats very appealing not just to his base, but to lots of people. And so its not out of the zone of plausible president ial action, but as a constitutional matter, its absurd and, you know, everyone knows that, and hes found an angle and, my god, he looks tough to lots of people. At the same you know, this is going to go to the courts, but that will be resolved in about a year or so. And so its not going to be on the radar. Chris all right. Mark, im going to give you an opportunity to respond to all of that, but it isnt just coming from bob woodward, it isnt just coming from democrats. Theres been considerable blowback if some republicans, especially in the senate. They say its a violation of the separation of powers you should the constitution. They under the constitution. They say youre taking money that had been specifically appropriated for some important military projects. And now the president faces the possibility of a resolution of disapproval being passed not just by the house controlled by democrats but by the senate, controlled by republicans. Yeah. I think that the reality is this is actually a statute that has been authorized by congress to the executive branch. Not just in 1976, but in 1982, military construction act that basically says the secretary of defense can reallocate dollars. So its fair that congress will want to say were going to have a vote of disapproval because they never like the executive branch exerting that influence, but theyve given the executive branch this influence. If they want to change that, they should change the statute, thats the reality. Any republican would vote against the president s commitment to try to secure the border, and thatd be a pretty perilous vote for any republican. Chris katie, whatever you think of the wall, the president defends it using, as i discussed, some would say even argued about with Stephen Miller with some very questionable facts. For instance, facts from his own administration from cpb, the customs and border protection, that the vast majority of drugs that are seized come through ports of entry, not through unfenced areas. Heres how the president responded to that on friday. When you listen to politicians, in particular certain democrats, they say it all comes through the port of entry. Its wrong. Thats wrong. Thats just a lie. Chris does that bother you, the president dismissing facts, as i say, from his own administration as democratic lies . Well, i wouldnt say that the statistics we have coming through ports of entry are not true. However, saying that there are no drugs coming through these nonports of entry with no fencing is kind of like saying if a tree falls in the forest, did anybody hear it or see it. If you dont have anybody there to look and see or to confiscate chris but thats all supposition. But you cant prove that its not happening. Chris youre going to spend billions of dollars because a tree may have fallen in the forest . We do know that walls work in yuma, 98 of Illegal Drugs and traffickers went down. Human trafficking is a billion dollar industry. This is not about the president simply trying to look tough. The fact is that in the bill that he signed, take away the wall, the unaccompanied minor crisis is about to get a lot worse because it allows anybody, any adult who has any connection to an unaccompanied minor to get amnesty and not be deported by i. C. E. People are going to use children as human shields since theyve been doing since 2014 under barack obama to come into the country illegally. There are 22 Million People here who are on this underground of the economy who, both republicans and democrats have not decided what they want to do with them. Theyve created an underclass of people which is antiamerican, and instead of saying they want to do a resolution condemning the president , maybe they should try to fix the problem, changing the asylum laws and making sure this crisis stops at the border, because there is one. Chris chuck . What strikes me about this whole crisis here is that if you really stop and think about the issue of just getting money for the wall, the president could have done a lot of that without the National Emergency. Because its gotten too little attention to almost half of the money hes reprogramming within the executive branch does not require a declaration of National Emergency. Chris thats right. More than 2. 5 of the 6 million. Correct. And if you put that together with the 1. 4 appropriated, youre within shouting distance of the famous 5. 7. So clearly, he feels it is in some other way to his advantage to declare this National Emergency and precipitate a crisis. And i would argue it is a political calculation that he believes that putting pressure on these wavering republicans in the senate, by rousing his base, by doing something dramatic to keep the political promise, this is to his longterm benefit. He said himself i dont need it. I dont need an emergency. Theres no hes doing it because it dramatizes this issue politically and allows him to play a role. Chris all right. Then there was the president predicting the legal journey of his declaration of National Emergency over the next few months or years. Take a look. And they will sue us in the ninth circuit even though it shouldnt be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then well get another bad ruling, and then well end up in the Supreme Court and, hopefully, well get a fair shake. [laughter] chris which is actually about how this is going to play out. Heres the question. As our court watcher, how do you think this will go in the courts . Because, obviously, there are some feeling, there are some people on the court, brett kavanaugh, expansive president ial powers. On the other hand, if youre a strict constructionist, a textualist, article i as i read to Stephen Miller seems pretty clear. Well, you know, i think the way this boils down legally is, basically, as mark said, Congress Kind of created a loophole to that provision of the constitution in the event of National Emergencies in certain specific contexts such as this military construction rule. So the questions going to come down to two questions. One, is it really a National Emergency. And, two, is this military construction . And on the first one, courts would be very loathe to start weighing whats an emergency and whats not chris and try to overrule the president. Correct. But the military construction theme, were talking about a wall in the middle of nowhere. Its nowhere near a military base, and that one is tougher. Where are the opponents going to immediately find somebody with standing to sue over this . Because, by the president s own account, the money isnt going to start flowing for months and months. It is different. Chris okay, weve got 30 seconds. Obama appropriated money out of thin air and told the treasury to pay those payments to people on obamacare. This is different. You can be a strict constructionist and support this decision because congress is given this authority in statute to the president to do this. If Congress Wants to change it, they can. But it is perfectly legal can i just say, its on a Sovereign International border, and the president certainly has the military authority to protect that. Chris you know what . Nobody ever gets the last word here. [laughter] thank you, panel, for listening to me, bob. When we come back, we want to save time because were joined by the king of conservative talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, to get his take on the National Emergency, the Mueller Investigation and democrats move to the left. Chris he is the most listenedto talk show host in america who this week said the Budget Deal Congress handed the president was an outrage by both parties. Rush limbaugh joins us live from his eib studio in florida. Welcome back to fox news sunday, were delighted to have you for your annual visit. Its great to be back, chris. Thank you very much for having mentioner as always. Chris all right. So i know that you are a constitutional conservative, an original u. S. To you really have originalist. Do you really have no problem with President Trump declaring a National Emergency and taking money that congress refused to give him . You know, no, i dont. I just listened to your panel, and i think so many its all minutiae. All you guys were talking about was minutiae. Katie pavlich had it right, we have an emergency. This is an invasion. The very existence and definition of american culture, the rule of law, why does nobody talk about the fact that millions and millions and millions of people are breaking the law coming here illegally and that the Democrat Party wants that to happen . We cant have the breakdown of rule of law and law and order in this way. That alone would suggest that this has gone on way too long and needs to stop. The argument about where drugs come into the country, can anybody deny theyre coming in, and it needs to stop, and its destroying future generations of the country . Were so caught up in the game of how washington debates issues, it is undeniable that we have a major immigration problem and a Political Party that needs a permanent underclass of voters that wants that parade of illegal people who are uneducated, dont even speak the language, they want them here. Chris all right. And you and i have this agreement that i can interrupt you you can chris but i want to ask you about the game that you say we play in washington. Because the fact is that when president obama took executive actions, you were outraged. And as you would expect, ive got a couple of examples of Rush Limbaugh over the years. Lets put them on the screen. In june of 2012 when president obama deferred action against the dreamers, you said this 40 years ago Richard Nixon was hounded out of office supposedly for his illegal actions. And im telling you that whatever nixon did pales in comparison to just this move by obama today. In november of 2014 on reports mr. Obama was going to protect millions of parents of dreamers, you said this we cant just stand idly by and try to find some political opportunity while the president basically. Is reds the constitution reds the constitution and flushes it down the toilet. Heres my question, rush. I understand that you like what President Trump is doing and you didnt like what president obama was doing, but thats the concern here, is that to the degree that you give the president more and more powers, yes, youre going to get some things, executive powers from one president you like, but youre going to get executive powers from another president that you dont like. You may look at it that way, i dont. I look at it right and wrong. And what obama was doing was furthering this existing problem in a he was politicizing this using whatever executive powers he wanted to use. Yes, i objected to that but primarily because of what he was doing with these executive powers. He was taking action that i deemed to be harmful to the country. I look at what trump is doing as something he has to do because hes not getting any cooperation whatsoever both parties, chris, lets be honest here. Both parties have people that are still trying to get rid of donald trump. I read bill, this spending bill. This bill is outrageous, the things welcoming centers for huh newlyarriving illegal aliens and all kinds of medical care. The purpose of this bill, i think, was to eventually be used by the democrats and some republicans to tell the American People, see, electing trump was pointless, worthless. He cant protect you, he cant stop us, we hate him so much were not going to allow him to do it. Thats what this bill is. So to me, all of this boils down to where the heck are we going as a country, and what kind of country are we going to have. And if anybody is willing to go to the limit to make this country remain as founded, theyre going to have my support. Chris all right. President trump talked about you on friday. Here he is. Rush limbaugh, i think hes a great guy. He can speak for three hours without a phone call. Try doing that sometime. For three hours, he speaks. Hes got one of the biggest audiences in the history of the world. I mean, this guy is unbelievable. [laughter] chris now, youve gotten upset with me and for some others for saying President Trump listens to you. Lets go back to what were talking about, which is last december. Vice president pence goes to the Republican Senate leaders and says youve got a continuing resolution, and im finish the president has authorized me to tell you hes going to sign it. And then you get on the radio and some others get on the radio, and the House Freedom caucus gets up and say, look, this continuing resolution doesnt have a dime for the wall, and he shouldnt sign it. And the very next day after they told the Senate Republican leaders hes going to sign it, the president says, no, ive changed my mind. And you put on the radio that he sent a message directly to you saying, hey, im not going to sign this bill. So, look, im not saying that youre a puppetmaster, but would you agree that he cares about what you say and what your millions of listeners hear in. Of course he does. He cares about what everybody thinks. But i dont make policy. Can i take just a brief few seconds what happened here . Im on the radio, im reviewing this bill. It doesnt even have the 1. 6 billion chris this was back last december. Yeah. Hes getting less than nothing. And i said he cant sign this thing, this is crazy. I get an instant message from somebody close to the president with the message, dont worry, hes not going to sign it. So i report that. The media then takes that to say that he was almost ready to say it, he had the d in his first name signed, and somebody ran and said, no, mr. President , Rush Limbaugh says no. Thats not what happened. And if these people in the media really thought i was telling trump what to do and when, theyd be calling me, asking me about it, theyd want to get down to the dirty details. I havent had one call. I havent had one inquiry. People dont really believe what theyre saying about this. Its just another effort to continue to try to diminish the president , diminish or trump as somebody who doesnt know what hes doing, cant do it without guidance from the socalled whacko right. Its not at all the way hes governing, and there isnt anybody doing what i do that has a thing to do with actually making policy for this president. Chris okay. Im going to switch subjects now [laughter] weve had enough about the wall. Former acting fbi director Andrew Mccabe is going to say on 60 minutes tonight im not predicting this, hes already done the interview that after james comey was fired, the Deputy Attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, raised the possibility of invoking the 25th amendment to remove the president. Here is mccabe. The discussion of the 25th amendment was simply if rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort. Chris now, mccabe say that is there was no serious conversation, as you just heard. He said this was raised. Rosenstein says, to the degree he ever discussed it, it was sarcastic. Why do you call what was going on inside the fbi a silent coup . Because these people are unelected, they took it upon themselves to overthrow the Election Results of 2016 ignoring the potential real collusion and conspiracy between democrats and russians to undermine the trump candidacy and the trump presidency. The Mueller Investigation, i believe, is a coverup of all of that. Its to distract everybodys attention. You know, again, the washington game. Were losing sight of what happened here. People unelected simply because they dont like a guys hair style or like where he came from decides the American Peoples decision was invalid and began a systematic process to get him thrown out of office. This is a silent coup, and these guys if you ask me ought to be the ones in jail. They ought to be the ones under investigation. What they have done working with agents from the obama intelligence agencies is simply unprecedented. This is a kind this is one of the gravest political hoaxes that has ever been perpetrated on the people of this country. Certainly in a couple of generations. Chris federal prosecutors, speaking of people in jail, federal prosecutors have recommended that Paul Manafort, for a few months the president s Campaign Manager in 2016, that he serve up to 25 years in prison. Basically, be a life sentence. Hes 69 years old now. What do you think of the sentence, and should the president pardon Paul Manafort . I do not know about president ial pardons on Something Like that. I just think that every one of these things that has happened here is designed to make it look like there was some kind of collusion between trump and russia. Manafort is probably going to die in prison. They have him in solitary confinement. All of these are process crimes that have been committed. There isnt one crime that has been found under the umbrella of what they were ostensibly looking for, collusion between trump and russia. Its serious, chris. I saw paul the other day. 42 of the American People, after two years of this, believe the russians tampered with votes and affected the outcome of elections. There is no evidence to suggest so, and rosensteins even said that thats the case when the indictment of those Russian Internet trolls was announced. But wearing a wire to somehow entrap the president of the unite . This is classic. You know, you asked me one time when i was here deep state, you liked the term. This is it. Its all of washington, d. C. , and its all arrayed against donald trump, and its designed to get his approval numbers down maybe into the 30s or 20s, they can then go to him and say, mr. President , youve lost all support, you have no support. Or then, you know, this has been an effort to impeach him, the effort that was underway for collusion didnt work. Now the Mueller Report that may not happen is going to be used to continue to leak things that may be in it. Theyre going to ratchet this up for the next election, and were going to face two more years of this collusion stuff, and its i think its just, its something people need to be paying a hey price for, for what theyve done on the investigatory side. Chris all right. Lets talk about the next election, 2020. Is there anyone in either the announced or potential democratic president ial field who you think would offer President Trump a real challenge. Well, i think first thing im doing here, im trying to be one of the first to book a first class seat on the train to hawaii. After we enact [laughter] the Green New Deal or whatever it is from al. Alexandria ocasiocortez, i think what were going to have, these people are so convinced theyre going win that thats why so many of them are running. And they are going to be in a contest to see who can outextreme the other, who can move the country furthest to the left the soonest. Its going to be very entertaining to watch. I hope it is eyeopening for the American People. Chris do you see anybody in that field though who you think that person could give the president a run . Well, i dont know that any of them right now could give the president a run, but i think the frontrunner would probably be right now joe biden. 77 years old, plagiarist, nicknamed plugs. I think hes the guy who theyre probably thinking is the leader in the polls. But its going to be crowded. Theyre going to be knocking each other off. Incumbency carries with it a lot of power, as you know, and i think theyre convinced that theyve already won this election like they were convinced in 2016. Theyre getting way ahead of the game, and i dont think its going to be as easy as they think chris let me ask you about that because you talked about the Green New Deal and the trains to hawaii [laughter] isnt that great . Isnt that wonderful . Chris well, yeah. Where was it, in back to the future, where we go, we dont need roads. The calls for medicare for all, calls for huge increases in taxes on the very wealthy. How potent an issue do you think the president has and how much do you think he will make this case that the democrats want to make this a socialist country . I think its a huge case because were not a socialist country, and and even fox news polling the other day pointed out how many people prefer capitalism. Weve done a real disservice to our younger generation. They have more opportunity for contentment, happiness, success than ever, and they think they live in a country thats unjust and immoral. They have an eleducated illeducated, maleducated, and its really a same. I know young people who really think that by the time theyre 65, the world is not going to be habitable because of Climate Change, which is another hoax. Theres no ed for it Climate Change is nothing but a bunch of computer models that attempt to tell us whats going to happen in 50 years or 30. Notice the predictions are never for next year or the next ten years. Theyre always for way, way, way out there when none of us are going to be around or awe live to know whether or not they were true. In the meantime, they get to push for more government, big government, more tax increases, more control over people. I its sad, what has been done in k12 education, in Higher Education for these i mean, graduating economics degree graduates like cortez that doesnt know what you could put on a thimble about economics. Its really a shame, and its a problem going forward. Theyre going to have to be defeated, beaten. Yes. Chris thank you. [laughter] thank you for joining us is that it . Oh, my gosh, thats it . Were out of time. Ah, gee chris 15 minutes flew by. It really did. Chris if you want to come back, youre always welcome, sir. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. See you next time. Chris up next, our sunday Group Returns to discuss Andrew Mccabes account of what happened in the days after the president fired fbi director james comey. Plus, what would you like to ask the panel . Just go to facebook or twitter foxnewssunday, and we may use i was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of russia. Chris former acting fbi director Andrew Mccabe explaining the reaction at the bureau after President Trump fired james comey. First, trying to protect the russia investigation and then some even discussing invoking the 25th amendment to remove the president. Were back now with the panel. Well, we asked you for questions for the panel, and we got this oven facebook from timothy d on facebook from timothy, does everyone on this panel believe that mccabe and rosenstein were talking about the 25th amendment . What do you think should happen to these individuals if it is found to be true . Katie, how to you answer timothy . Well, the reporting by the New York Times a couple of months ago showed that Rod Rosenstein did talk about this. Now, President Trump called him to the white house. The reporting at the time was he thought he was getting fired. He did not get fired. That could be for political reasons, the president not wanting to show that he was firing anybody that had to do something with the special counsel, but the idea that this was even brought up is terrifying to Everyday Americans because of the implications it has not for highpowered government officials who may have a lot of money for their legal defenses, but for individual people who the fbi could go after. Keep in mind that Andrew Mccabe has been referred to the u. S. Attorney in washington, d. C. For criminal charges after lying under oath both doj Inspector General investors and to the fbi. So you have to take what he says with a grain of salt. The fact that this was going on after donald trump was elected the president by the American People says a lot about the way that the fbi used to run, and i do think that christopher wray, the new director, has done a decent job of cleaning the place up. However, theres much more to be done, and there has to be accountability for the people who were engaged in this kind of behavior. Chris all of this was happening in the immediate if aftermath, in may of 2017, of donald trump firing thenfbi director james comey. And heres how mccabe talks about that. I was very concerned that i was able to put the russia case on absolutely solid ground in an indelible fashion that, were i removed quickly or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace. Chris chuck, what do you make of what mccabeing says about those days in may of 2017 . First of all, that he was trying, as he said there, to protect the russiatrump investigation to make sure that people of justice didnt just sweep it away and, secondly and there seems to be some question how seriously this was discussed, but that there was any discussion of invoking the 25th amendment to remove the president. You know, on the 25th amendment part, i it sounds very defull story, sort of desuggest story, blue skying this idea chris what about what katie says, the idea theyre even discussing it . I was ability to say, to the extent, its very troubling. Its way above their pay grade to get into a head count. On the other hand, i dont think it went any further that then one or two desuggest story conversations. The attitude is a little bit troubling. On the question of the comey firing and preservation of justice case, i think this gets right down to the heart of this paradox weve all been wrestling with since the beginning here. Who is really watching the watchmen, and who is really the top Law Enforcement officer of the United States . Is it the president which is, hes the top guy of the executive branch. Or are there people somehow below the president in the chain of command who do have the authority or should have the authority to hold him accountable when necessary . Bob knows it well, we went through all of that in watergate. Weve wrestled with this for decades as country. The expedient weve come up with now is the special counsel, and i think thats, ultimately, going to be to be how this one gets worked out. Chris it seems to me, mark, looking back on this there are two theories of the case when it comes to the fbi. One is that the fbi and now special Counsel Robert Mueller have been involved in a legitimate dont know how its going to turn out but a legitimate investigation of possible collusion and possible obstruction of justice. The other theory of the case is that the real scandal here is how comey and mccabe and lisa page and peter strzok and bruce ohr have behaved and how they acted and particularly how they acted to some degree in the clinton case, but even more so in the trump case. Where do you come down . Well, i think the actions of some of those actors cast a dark spell on the fbi. I dont know why we continue to talk about Andrew Mccabe or listen to him. The Inspector General determined he lied multiple times including three times under oath. Andrew mccabe, in here theory, s supposed to be leading the investigation into hillary clinton, and he says he was worried about russia collusion. Theres 145 million from russians given to the hillary and bill Clinton Foundation when she was tear of state. Secretary of state, and hes sitting here saying that he was really worried as to how this was going to interfere with his investigation into President Trump . I mean, i dont know why we still listen to the guy. Hes been proven to to be a serl liar again and again. Chris bob woodward, you have been covering and dealing with fbi officials for more than 40 years, since watergate. How do you think they have conducted themselves in all of this . Not well. I think there are a lot of legitimate questions. But theyre gone. Comeys gone, mccabe is gone, the really interesting point here is bill barr. Hes now attorney general. He was attorney general for bush sr. 30 years ago, and he has a record. Hes a very interesting man. He believes that at the time it was the end of the iran contra investigation by lawrence walsh. He was very he said at one point that he had an itchy finger for 18 months to fire walsh. And he was very upset about what he called the dragnetting in that investigation. Going down every possible chris so are you suggesting he might interfere with mueller . No, hes made it clear he will not, but hes going to look at it, and hes got a very interesting perspective on all of this. At the end of the iran contra investigation when thenpresident bush sr. Decided, oh, well, lets pardon casper if weinberger who was Casper Weinberger who was indicted, it was barr who said, well, lets pardon more people, the cia people and elliot abrams. So hes somebody who is going to protect the president. But i think he also knows legally and politically its very important that the Mueller Investigation proceed. So the spotlight should be, as marc mark suggests, not on the past, but on the future. We dont know whos going to run against trump if trump runs in 2020. We know who now is the attorney general, and this is the important player in the coming months, maybe coming two years. Chris and, katety, ive got less than about 45 seconds left. How transparent should barr be . When the Mueller Report comes out in saying i think he should release as much of it as possible was compromising any kind of a technique. The American People, because its news, they absolutely deserve to know what is in the Mueller Report. As were looking in the future, yes, the guys at the fbi, colmmy, mccape, theyre gone. However, i know the Senate Judiciary committee are going to be looking into fisa abuse chris hes talking about subpoenaing. Right. Going back to the 2016 campaign and looking at how the fbi used those tools because they dont want it to happen again, and there should be accountability. Chris oka thank you, panel. See you next sunday. Up next, well be back with a final word. Uhoh guess what day it is . Guess what day it is huh. Anybody . Julie hey. Guess what day it is . Ah come on, i know you can hear me. Mike Mike Mike Mike mike. What day is it mike . Ha ha ha ha leslie, guess what today is . Its hump day. Whoot whoot ronny, how happy are folks who save hundred of dollars switching to geico . Id say happier than a camel on wednesday. Hump day get happy. Get geico. Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. Please stay tuned to the station and Fox News Channel for the latest on the president s declaration of a National Emergency at the southern border and that is it for today have a great week and we will see you next fox news sunday. Howie a media uproar in a wild News Conference as President Trump declares a National Emergency to get funding for a border wall after a fears debairtd. Some anchors accuse the president of the selling the wall through falsehood. Hes pretending to fulfill his Campaign Promise by pretendinged to build his wall. The president is lying to you about his wall. Hell be doing photoops. Any republican who supports this garbage compromise, you
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.