Transcripts For FOXNEWSW The Journal Editorial Report 201801

General joins me now. President trump said this week he wants to speak to Robert Mueller, looking forward to it. As somebody who has represented private clients, would you recommend it . You have to consider the alternatives. On this basis, yes, i would recommend it. The alternative is if he doesnt speak to him, he can get a grand jury subpoena. If he speak to him, he gets to speak to him with his lawyer present, they get to talk about the topics, on so on and so forth. If he gets a grand jury subpoena, once hes there, he cant have anybody with him. He can do out and talk with his lawyer but it would look awkward. Paul even the president of the United States cant have his lawyer present . The only people in the grand jury room are the grand jurors, the lawyer for the government, the witness and the that nothing fer. Paul the president is known for somewhat inprecise statements on occasion and the fbi has been known to interpret statements as lying that may have been false memories. Thats a risk. Its a lesser risk if you have your lawyer sitting there able to reach over or interrupt and start a conversation that gets you back on the right track. Paul there are news reports that the president wanted Robert Mueller fired back in june and talked to his general counsel to do so and then mcgann threatened to resign. Thats the story. Now the white house says it wasnt exactly like that. They talked about it but there was no threat to resign by mcgann. What you make of that story . It was hard to m imagine how that went down. The storiance the times source, not to somebody who was there but the four people who heard about it. Paul presumably there were only two people there. Correct, the president and mcgann. Does the president say i order you to call up and fire mueller. Mcgann says, i quit. Or is it, you know, i think im going to we ought to fire mcgann, you ought to call over there and fire him. Mcgann says thats a lousy idea, mr. President , because its going to blow back on you plus the idea that im not going it, id sooner quit. It sounds more like the second than the first. Paul thats a conversation that probably happens a lot in any administration with a general counsel. Sure. Paul yeah. Sure. Paul is it a good idea . Would bit a good idea for the president to fire mule center. No. Its a lousy idea. First of all, it would make it appear that hes got a lot to hide. Paul right. And secondly its not going to stop the investigation. Paul just like firing comey didnt stop the investigation, if that was in fact the intent. As you look at what mueller is constructing here in all of the news reports, we dont know because hes not in the prosecutors room. But does it look like to you that hes examining whether or not there was an o obstruction f justice in firing comey . Its possible that thats what hes examining but i really cant tell. I dont think anybody else can tell either. Its very much like the blind man with the elephant. One touches his year, says it looks like a fan and somebody touches his tail and says its a rope. We dont know. Well know when its over. And examining it based on snip snippets of fact and speculation that we get based on who hes talking to is a mistake. Paul as you read stories about what the fbi did and the Justice Department did and the whole controversy over the 2016 cam paincampaign, do you find any of that troubling, somebody who was in the Justice Department . I found a lot of it troubling. I find the notion that somebody went and got a fisa warrant and the question of what kind of evidence was used to get it. I find that extremely troubling. Paul particularly it was based on russian misinformation. We dont know that it could be. And the House Intelligence Committee is doing that and prepared a fourpage memo theyve shown based on documents that theyve seen. Theyve examined them in the Justice Department and the fbi and now theyve prepared a memo that they said all members of the house can read and theyre preparing to make that public over the opposition of people in the Justice Department and democrats. What do you make of the desire to make this public . I make what i make of it is obviously that think theres something there to pu publicized they dont think theres a danger in doing so. For people to say with, well, this is a very dangerous thing to do who hasnt seen the memo seems to me a little rich. Theyre going to get to see the memo. Theres a fiveday delay between if the house votes to make it public, theres a fiveday delay to allow the president to determine whether its going to be public or not. The president could make it public with the stroke of a pen. He hasnt done that. But they give it to the executive to decide whether it ought to be made public and theres a fiveday lapse. Its a fourpage memo. Even if you read slowly paul and its presumably if theres something that really does jeopardize National Security they could redact it. All sorts of things they could do. Paul but it seems to me we need to find out what really happened here. That ought to be the main public goal. Right. And the more we find out at this point, the better. Ppg okay. Thank you. Appreciate it when we come back, extraordinarily reckless. Thats what if Justice Department is calling plans by House Republicans to release details of alleged surveillance abuses by the fbi during the 2016 campaign. So should if the memo in question remain under wraps . Our panel weighs in next. Managing blood sugar is a series of smart choices. And when you replace one meal. Paul the Justice Department warned this week that it would be quote extraordinarily reckless for House Republicans to release a classified memo alleging misconduct by federal officials investigating the Trump Campaigns tie to russia. The fourpage document compiled by aides to House Intelligence Committee chair devin nunez claims that fbi officials abused the fisa to target the trump came pain last fall. The memo has been described by republicans as alarming and shacking. Democrats call it misleading and a distraction to derail the mueller probe. Lets bring in Deputy Editor dan hen gar and kim stros l and big mcgurn. So kim, youve been following the story closely. Whats likely to map next week with this memo and are we ever going to see it . I think you see two things happening. Most likely the House Intelligence Committee meets. They have the ability if a majority votes to declassify that memo and make it public so that everyone can finally see whats in it. But not immediately. They the can declassify it and then the president of the United States has five days in which he can object. If he does not object it goes public. If he objects, the full house would have to meet to vote to override him to declassify it. Paul and the president could see side to say to the House Intelligence Committee, keep out this bit of it or redact certain things. Could he also do that . I believe he has the ability to negotiate with them on some of that or simply ask that they take that into consideration. They would modify it and then go through the process again. But i think the bigger point is youre going to see a campaign you already are seeing a campaign by democrats, by the fbi and other Intelligence Services to try to pressure the president into objecting so that this memo never gets made public. Paul bill, what is in it that they would find so objectionable. It iits not whisper tight so it would be a crime to do so. Were getting a sense of things. Were getting a sense that it does deal with the fisa implications. To get a fisa warrant, you have to pt them being an agent paul i think its probable cause. Not someone thats just proprussia. Its a serious charge. What people who have read it said is that the information there includes storying of abuses, probably how the steele dossier or used or not. Paul this is the key point. The steele dossier, basically paid for by the Democrat National party through fusion gps, was that used as part of the evidence to get the fisa warrant . Thats one of the things we want to know. Remember, they had a warrant rejected before. So the question is steele dossier comes in, do they use the steele dossier and do they represent it accurately to the judge looking at it . Afternoon i thinand i think part representation would be this is a campaign piece opposition researcher piece. It doesnt disprof it. Maybe mrs. Clinton discovered real things. But its something a judge would want to take into consideration. Also striking this justice official who said it would be extremely reckless, im not sure hes read it. The Justice Department is claiming they havent seen it. So you have a man thats the kind of campaign kim was talking about. You have a lot of people making claims. Adam schiff is out there blaming russia, saying therefore release the memo and asked twitter and facebook to investigate. All i can say is the russia bot seems to be more for disclosure. Schiff and feinstein are saying that the russian bots are taking advantage of what the republicans are doing and theyre on your side. This situation is beginning to spin out of control politically. But i personally think its conjecture but this is probably something larger than the fisa courts. This is Donald Trumps Justice Department trying to lean on the republicans not to release this memo. And im convinced that the fbi was not only surveilling Trump Campaign workers but surveying the russians. This has to do with trying to figure out how the russians were trying to penetrate our politics. Theyre afraid of exposing the methods and means of what they were doing. Does that mean you agree, dont release the memo . No, i dont. They put this game in play by leaking to the press about the Trump Campaign. I dont think chairman nunez at this point has any alternative other than to make the memo public because the justice and the fbi will not discipline themselves. Paul well the president of the United States has the ability to declassify anything immediately at the stroke of a pen. Why doesnt he go ahead and say not only go ahead and release the document in the house wu you know what, i think i want to get the underlying document out as well, to the extent they dont violate sources. It would be magnificent if he did that. But you know and i know and the entire press corps knows and is using it to its advantage that the president s legal team has told him not to touch anything to do with this investigation if he ask in any way help it. The fear is, and i think some of it is justified, that muellers team and the president s critics out in the media and in the Democratic Party are waiting for another opportunity to accuse him of obstruction or interference. And so theres a great reluctance within the white house to get directly involved in this matter. Paul briefly, bill, would you release the memo . Yes, i would. What the American People need to know is did the trump team collude with the russians. I dont know. And they also need to know did the fbi and the Justice Department put their finger in the campaign. Its amazing all of these arguments against disclosure. Even bob mueller recognized the threat that peter strzok was long before we knew the reasons. The texts are troublesome. Paul when we come back, the Trump Administration releases an immigration plan that offers a path to citizenship for so called dreamers in exchange for Border Security and other resphrikses. So can the whois sell the deal to skeptical lawmakers on both sides of the aisle . Heartburn. No one burns on my watch . Paul the white house released the outlines of an immigration plan that could offer a path to citizenship for 1. 8 million undocumented immigrants bought to the United States as children. That in exchange for 25 billion for Border Security including President Trumps long promised wall as well as other changes to u. S. Immigration. A proposal coming a day after the president told reporters that he would allow the immigrants known as dreamers to morph into citizens over a period of 10 to 12 years. The white house is expected to brief lawmakers on the details of the blan early next week but the proposal is already drawing fire from the right and the left. Dan, as you say, right and the left giving it grief. Donald trump is talking about a path to citizenship for the dreamers, and the other side hes going to get 25 billion to build the wall, which was a basic campaign promise. I dont see how you can give up on that, plus some other security measurings. But not things like e verify. The problem is here the goal should be to keep it simple. Youre going to need votes in the house and the senate. The right and the left have problems with this. The problem is when you get into stuff like chain migration, how many members of the family can come in and how much security youre going to proposal, immigration is a pa pandoras bx in legislative terms. Paul you have to give trump and the restrictionists something for the dreems. And not first r just fo drea. That could be 1. 8 Million People. If youre democrats or one of the dreamers yourself, you say thats a pretty good deal. So what are you going to give the restrictionists that trump trump he ran on it. I dont agree with that policy but we need to break the logjam on immigration. What are you going to give them . Youre going to have to give them something on the limit side. The restrictionist basically want, after this is done, they want immigration stopped and copped period, zero. All right. Paul i understand that. But thats not what this would end up with, bill. It would reduce probably maybe 4 or 500,000 if you restricted family immigration. The democrats caved on the government shutdown, it angered the prodaca community because they said they sold out. The original position was were not going to reach any deal unless daca is resolved. The question for the democrats is can they say yes. And maybe some of the details will change, numbers paul should be in gesh yaition. But the question is can they say yes. Same thing for the republicans. They have to make tradeoffs. Dwro onno one likes what we havt its a test of sensibility. Im with you even the details dont interest me as much as someone who was there during the collapse of the blushkennedy deal, congress is the proper venue for this and congress has been unable to deal with this through several administrations. And clearly the comprehensive thing is not in play for the reason that dan says. It complicates negotiations. We need to solve one piece of the puzzle and move on and do other things later. Paul the way ive look at immigration politics for a long time, the defendant has a veto over restrictions and the right has a veto over anything that legalizes anybody. So you end up with the status quo. The deadline of the dreamers, march 5th, because trump basically killed the obama legalization, that is now a forcing act that basically says if you do nothing now, if we still give boat sides a veto, youre going to have these people illegal and theyre going to be deported. Thats not a fair humanitarian position to take because these people did not come here by their own volition. And now we have this incrediblement of truth. And its going to be very revealing. It already has been revealing. You have to give the white house credit here. Theyve not only come out with the contours of what a deal generally needs to look at, theyve been very generous, like saying to the democrats 1. 8 Million People and not just legalization but a path to citizenship. So now theyre saying can you take that deal . We already know that the restrictionist right is going to say no and thats been very revealing. Theyve already come out and said that border money is good but the rest is a nogo. The president is going to have to look beyond that if he ever wants to see this happen. The ball is really in the left court and whether or not theyre willing to finally make good on promises that they have been making to their constituents for years about getting this situation finished. Paul i agree with both of you. All of you about that. But the restrictionist right has some to do. Are they going to get a veto . Heres the question. I think we could be in an interesting place where democratic activist who are prodaca start attacking the democrats for rejecting that deal that would resolve their problems and donald trump could be going after the republicans saying, youre costing me my wall, right . Should just argue that this is going to cost him republican votes. I think the dreamer issue altered the politics of immigration. 80 of the American People want something done on their behalf. It say save republican seats that belong to people from the freedom ka caucus. Among the general population theres a sense that weve got to get something done in a positive way on the immigration issue. Paul still ahead, President Trump goes to davos and brings his american first message to the political and business elite. How was it received. Insurance it was really easy. I believe in america. As president of the United States, i will always put America First just like the leaders of other countries should put their Country First also. But America First does not mean america alone. When the Robert Mueller<\/a>, looking forward to it. As somebody who has represented private clients, would you recommend it . You have to consider the alternatives. On this basis, yes, i would recommend it. The alternative is if he doesnt speak to him, he can get a grand jury subpoena. If he speak to him, he gets to speak to him with his lawyer present, they get to talk about the topics, on so on and so forth. If he gets a grand jury subpoena, once hes there, he cant have anybody with him. He can do out and talk with his lawyer but it would look awkward. Paul even the president of the United States<\/a> cant have his lawyer present . The only people in the grand jury room are the grand jurors, the lawyer for the government, the witness and the that nothing fer. Paul the president is known for somewhat inprecise statements on occasion and the fbi has been known to interpret statements as lying that may have been false memories. Thats a risk. Its a lesser risk if you have your lawyer sitting there able to reach over or interrupt and start a conversation that gets you back on the right track. Paul there are news reports that the president wanted Robert Mueller<\/a> fired back in june and talked to his general counsel to do so and then mcgann threatened to resign. Thats the story. Now the white house says it wasnt exactly like that. They talked about it but there was no threat to resign by mcgann. What you make of that story . It was hard to m imagine how that went down. The storiance the times source, not to somebody who was there but the four people who heard about it. Paul presumably there were only two people there. Correct, the president and mcgann. Does the president say i order you to call up and fire mueller. Mcgann says, i quit. Or is it, you know, i think im going to we ought to fire mcgann, you ought to call over there and fire him. Mcgann says thats a lousy idea, mr. President , because its going to blow back on you plus the idea that im not going it, id sooner quit. It sounds more like the second than the first. Paul thats a conversation that probably happens a lot in any administration with a general counsel. Sure. Paul yeah. Sure. Paul is it a good idea . Would bit a good idea for the president to fire mule center. No. Its a lousy idea. First of all, it would make it appear that hes got a lot to hide. Paul right. And secondly its not going to stop the investigation. Paul just like firing comey didnt stop the investigation, if that was in fact the intent. As you look at what mueller is constructing here in all of the news reports, we dont know because hes not in the prosecutors room. But does it look like to you that hes examining whether or not there was an o obstruction f justice in firing comey . Its possible that thats what hes examining but i really cant tell. I dont think anybody else can tell either. Its very much like the blind man with the elephant. One touches his year, says it looks like a fan and somebody touches his tail and says its a rope. We dont know. Well know when its over. And examining it based on snip snippets of fact and speculation that we get based on who hes talking to is a mistake. Paul as you read stories about what the fbi did and the Justice Department<\/a> did and the whole controversy over the 2016 cam paincampaign, do you find any of that troubling, somebody who was in the Justice Department<\/a> . I found a lot of it troubling. I find the notion that somebody went and got a fisa warrant and the question of what kind of evidence was used to get it. I find that extremely troubling. Paul particularly it was based on russian misinformation. We dont know that it could be. And the House Intelligence Committee<\/a> is doing that and prepared a fourpage memo theyve shown based on documents that theyve seen. Theyve examined them in the Justice Department<\/a> and the fbi and now theyve prepared a memo that they said all members of the house can read and theyre preparing to make that public over the opposition of people in the Justice Department<\/a> and democrats. What do you make of the desire to make this public . I make what i make of it is obviously that think theres something there to pu publicized they dont think theres a danger in doing so. For people to say with, well, this is a very dangerous thing to do who hasnt seen the memo seems to me a little rich. Theyre going to get to see the memo. Theres a fiveday delay between if the house votes to make it public, theres a fiveday delay to allow the president to determine whether its going to be public or not. The president could make it public with the stroke of a pen. He hasnt done that. But they give it to the executive to decide whether it ought to be made public and theres a fiveday lapse. Its a fourpage memo. Even if you read slowly paul and its presumably if theres something that really does jeopardize National Security<\/a> they could redact it. All sorts of things they could do. Paul but it seems to me we need to find out what really happened here. That ought to be the main public goal. Right. And the more we find out at this point, the better. Ppg okay. Thank you. Appreciate it when we come back, extraordinarily reckless. Thats what if Justice Department<\/a> is calling plans by House Republicans<\/a> to release details of alleged surveillance abuses by the fbi during the 2016 campaign. So should if the memo in question remain under wraps . Our panel weighs in next. Managing blood sugar is a series of smart choices. And when you replace one meal. Paul the Justice Department<\/a> warned this week that it would be quote extraordinarily reckless for House Republicans<\/a> to release a classified memo alleging misconduct by federal officials investigating the Trump Campaign<\/a>s tie to russia. The fourpage document compiled by aides to House Intelligence Committee<\/a> chair devin nunez claims that fbi officials abused the fisa to target the trump came pain last fall. The memo has been described by republicans as alarming and shacking. Democrats call it misleading and a distraction to derail the mueller probe. Lets bring in Deputy Editor<\/a> dan hen gar and kim stros l and big mcgurn. So kim, youve been following the story closely. Whats likely to map next week with this memo and are we ever going to see it . I think you see two things happening. Most likely the House Intelligence Committee<\/a> meets. They have the ability if a majority votes to declassify that memo and make it public so that everyone can finally see whats in it. But not immediately. They the can declassify it and then the president of the United States<\/a> has five days in which he can object. If he does not object it goes public. If he objects, the full house would have to meet to vote to override him to declassify it. Paul and the president could see side to say to the House Intelligence Committee<\/a>, keep out this bit of it or redact certain things. Could he also do that . I believe he has the ability to negotiate with them on some of that or simply ask that they take that into consideration. They would modify it and then go through the process again. But i think the bigger point is youre going to see a campaign you already are seeing a campaign by democrats, by the fbi and other Intelligence Services<\/a> to try to pressure the president into objecting so that this memo never gets made public. Paul bill, what is in it that they would find so objectionable. It iits not whisper tight so it would be a crime to do so. Were getting a sense of things. Were getting a sense that it does deal with the fisa implications. To get a fisa warrant, you have to pt them being an agent paul i think its probable cause. Not someone thats just proprussia. Its a serious charge. What people who have read it said is that the information there includes storying of abuses, probably how the steele dossier or used or not. Paul this is the key point. The steele dossier, basically paid for by the Democrat National<\/a> party through fusion gps, was that used as part of the evidence to get the fisa warrant . Thats one of the things we want to know. Remember, they had a warrant rejected before. So the question is steele dossier comes in, do they use the steele dossier and do they represent it accurately to the judge looking at it . Afternoon i thinand i think part representation would be this is a campaign piece opposition researcher piece. It doesnt disprof it. Maybe mrs. Clinton discovered real things. But its something a judge would want to take into consideration. Also striking this justice official who said it would be extremely reckless, im not sure hes read it. The Justice Department<\/a> is claiming they havent seen it. So you have a man thats the kind of campaign kim was talking about. You have a lot of people making claims. Adam schiff is out there blaming russia, saying therefore release the memo and asked twitter and facebook to investigate. All i can say is the russia bot seems to be more for disclosure. Schiff and feinstein are saying that the russian bots are taking advantage of what the republicans are doing and theyre on your side. This situation is beginning to spin out of control politically. But i personally think its conjecture but this is probably something larger than the fisa courts. This is Donald Trumps<\/a> Justice Department<\/a> trying to lean on the republicans not to release this memo. And im convinced that the fbi was not only surveilling Trump Campaign<\/a> workers but surveying the russians. This has to do with trying to figure out how the russians were trying to penetrate our politics. Theyre afraid of exposing the methods and means of what they were doing. Does that mean you agree, dont release the memo . No, i dont. They put this game in play by leaking to the press about the Trump Campaign<\/a>. I dont think chairman nunez at this point has any alternative other than to make the memo public because the justice and the fbi will not discipline themselves. Paul well the president of the United States<\/a> has the ability to declassify anything immediately at the stroke of a pen. Why doesnt he go ahead and say not only go ahead and release the document in the house wu you know what, i think i want to get the underlying document out as well, to the extent they dont violate sources. It would be magnificent if he did that. But you know and i know and the entire press corps knows and is using it to its advantage that the president s legal team has told him not to touch anything to do with this investigation if he ask in any way help it. The fear is, and i think some of it is justified, that muellers team and the president s critics out in the media and in the Democratic Party<\/a> are waiting for another opportunity to accuse him of obstruction or interference. And so theres a great reluctance within the white house to get directly involved in this matter. Paul briefly, bill, would you release the memo . Yes, i would. What the American People<\/a> need to know is did the trump team collude with the russians. I dont know. And they also need to know did the fbi and the Justice Department<\/a> put their finger in the campaign. Its amazing all of these arguments against disclosure. Even bob mueller recognized the threat that peter strzok was long before we knew the reasons. The texts are troublesome. Paul when we come back, the Trump Administration<\/a> releases an immigration plan that offers a path to citizenship for so called dreamers in exchange for Border Security<\/a> and other resphrikses. So can the whois sell the deal to skeptical lawmakers on both sides of the aisle . Heartburn. No one burns on my watch . Paul the white house released the outlines of an immigration plan that could offer a path to citizenship for 1. 8 million undocumented immigrants bought to the United States<\/a> as children. That in exchange for 25 billion for Border Security<\/a> including President Trump<\/a>s long promised wall as well as other changes to u. S. Immigration. A proposal coming a day after the president told reporters that he would allow the immigrants known as dreamers to morph into citizens over a period of 10 to 12 years. The white house is expected to brief lawmakers on the details of the blan early next week but the proposal is already drawing fire from the right and the left. Dan, as you say, right and the left giving it grief. Donald trump is talking about a path to citizenship for the dreamers, and the other side hes going to get 25 billion to build the wall, which was a basic campaign promise. I dont see how you can give up on that, plus some other security measurings. But not things like e verify. The problem is here the goal should be to keep it simple. Youre going to need votes in the house and the senate. The right and the left have problems with this. The problem is when you get into stuff like chain migration, how many members of the family can come in and how much security youre going to proposal, immigration is a pa pandoras bx in legislative terms. Paul you have to give trump and the restrictionists something for the dreems. And not first r just fo drea. That could be 1. 8 Million People<\/a>. If youre democrats or one of the dreamers yourself, you say thats a pretty good deal. So what are you going to give the restrictionists that trump trump he ran on it. I dont agree with that policy but we need to break the logjam on immigration. What are you going to give them . Youre going to have to give them something on the limit side. The restrictionist basically want, after this is done, they want immigration stopped and copped period, zero. All right. Paul i understand that. But thats not what this would end up with, bill. It would reduce probably maybe 4 or 500,000 if you restricted family immigration. The democrats caved on the government shutdown, it angered the prodaca community because they said they sold out. The original position was were not going to reach any deal unless daca is resolved. The question for the democrats is can they say yes. And maybe some of the details will change, numbers paul should be in gesh yaition. But the question is can they say yes. Same thing for the republicans. They have to make tradeoffs. Dwro onno one likes what we havt its a test of sensibility. Im with you even the details dont interest me as much as someone who was there during the collapse of the blushkennedy deal, congress is the proper venue for this and congress has been unable to deal with this through several administrations. And clearly the comprehensive thing is not in play for the reason that dan says. It complicates negotiations. We need to solve one piece of the puzzle and move on and do other things later. Paul the way ive look at immigration politics for a long time, the defendant has a veto over restrictions and the right has a veto over anything that legalizes anybody. So you end up with the status quo. The deadline of the dreamers, march 5th, because trump basically killed the obama legalization, that is now a forcing act that basically says if you do nothing now, if we still give boat sides a veto, youre going to have these people illegal and theyre going to be deported. Thats not a fair humanitarian position to take because these people did not come here by their own volition. And now we have this incrediblement of truth. And its going to be very revealing. It already has been revealing. You have to give the white house credit here. Theyve not only come out with the contours of what a deal generally needs to look at, theyve been very generous, like saying to the democrats 1. 8 Million People<\/a> and not just legalization but a path to citizenship. So now theyre saying can you take that deal . We already know that the restrictionist right is going to say no and thats been very revealing. Theyve already come out and said that border money is good but the rest is a nogo. The president is going to have to look beyond that if he ever wants to see this happen. The ball is really in the left court and whether or not theyre willing to finally make good on promises that they have been making to their constituents for years about getting this situation finished. Paul i agree with both of you. All of you about that. But the restrictionist right has some to do. Are they going to get a veto . Heres the question. I think we could be in an interesting place where democratic activist who are prodaca start attacking the democrats for rejecting that deal that would resolve their problems and donald trump could be going after the republicans saying, youre costing me my wall, right . Should just argue that this is going to cost him republican votes. I think the dreamer issue altered the politics of immigration. 80 of the American People<\/a> want something done on their behalf. It say save republican seats that belong to people from the freedom ka caucus. Among the general population theres a sense that weve got to get something done in a positive way on the immigration issue. Paul still ahead, President Trump<\/a> goes to davos and brings his american first message to the political and business elite. How was it received. Insurance it was really easy. I believe in america. As president of the United States<\/a>, i will always put America First<\/a> just like the leaders of other countries should put their Country First<\/a> also. But America First<\/a> does not mean america alone. When the United States<\/a> grows, so does the world. Paul that was President Trump<\/a> delivering an address at the World Economic<\/a> forum in davos, switzerland friday. Mr. Trump, the first sitting u. S. President to attend the annual gathering in nearly 20 years. Brought his America First<\/a> message to skeptical crowd of the worlds political and business elite. So how was it received . Well back with dan henninger, bill mcgurn and wall street columnist mary ogrady. Donald trump arriving with the elites, how did he do . I think he did an excellent job. First of all, it was a very good speech. I dont know who wrote it but it was a good speech for its content and brevity. We had other president s in the past who would speak for very long periods. And i think it was good to keep it short and sweet. He also talked about america is open for business a lot and he talked about the importance of security to prosperity and the need for the world to come along with us in those efforts. If i was going to criticize anything, i would say that on trade hes still completely wrongheaded about this. He talked about intellectual property theft. Ill give him that. Thats a big problem. But in terms of countries that subsidize their exports and do Central Planning<\/a> which he said shouldnt be allowed in the International Trade<\/a> regime, we already know thats a failed strategy and that is not a reason not to trade with other countries. Paul and it does seem that the mood there at davos a year ago it would have been trepidation. Six months ago it would have been horror. And now i think its almost okay, this is the tax reform growth. So maybe this is not going to be the catastrophe for america that we thought. I think what he explained was America First<\/a> meant making us attractive. He said, were open for business for people to come here. The night before he met with all of these European Business<\/a> leaders, head of neck ya, siemens an. Im with mary, it thought it was a good speech. All president s never say free trade, they say free and fair trade. Thats a big as risk. I agree with mary on the trade part. The irony is like the idea that the weak dollar is going to promote your economy. Thats one of the favorite chestnuts of people like those who met at davos, right . I think it undercuts his message. I dont think he sees that. But i think that would be the little quibble i had. My reaction is a lot more positive. I think its a big deal. Davos represents one thing. What is that one thing. The word, globalization. Paul i thought you were going to say money. Globalization, thats the criticism of globalization. Its all about money for the big corporations and so forth, workers being set aside. I think trump redefined it. Hes saying, look, globalization is about the business sector and the private sector functioning. Weve taken steps in the United States<\/a> to allow or private sector to function, massive tax cuts, deregulation making burr rlurebureaucrats responsible ag. Hes describing this as the model for a proper global economy. But on behalf of workers and jobs, not only in our country but in other countries. I think it was re defining the issue in a way that comports with private sector economy. Paul he was using the u. S. And its policies and an example to follow instead of attacking europe or attacking the eu. And thats a different way of approaching this. And i think probably likely to win more converts than the opposite. Yeah. I think the message was a u. S. Leadership message which we didnt have in the last eight years from president obama. President obama tended to more apologize for u. S. Strength. This president went out there and said were strong and thats good for you. I think that was very positive. Lets talk about steve meneau chin, the treasury secretary. He created turmoil in the markets by talking about the low dollar, a low dollar is good for america. And now donald trump was really interesting, two days later, he said, well, i think he was misinterpreted. And i actually think that, yoi,u know, he shouldnt talk about the dollar. The dollar will do what the dollar does. Thats interesting. Hes usually said im for a weak dollar too. Maybe theres learning a little bit here about that. Yeah. The dollar is down 8 against the index in the first trump year. So i think that, you know, while donald trump might have wanted to weaken the dollar, he also understands that a 20 fall on the dollar would impoffish americans. When the dollar falls you get weaker and poorer. Its a tax on people with assets. Paul because theyre buying oil, gasoline and oil. Helps people with liabilities. Paul still ahead, the u. S. Economy kronting to grow at a solid pace in the Fourth Quarter<\/a> and starbucks spending some of the trump tax cut on its employees. Thank you clients . Well jd power did just rank them paul the u. S. Economy continued to grow at a solid pace in the Fourth Quarter<\/a> of 2017 with gdp rising at an annual rate of 2. 6 , down slightly. Starbucks announced it will use some of the savings from the gop tax cuts to give its u. S. Workers pay raises, Company Stock<\/a> and expanded benefits. All together the coffee chain said it would spend more than 250 million on its employees and create 8,000 retail jobs. Were back with dan henninger, kim strassel and mary 0 gaiddy. How do you read the 2. 6 growth figure. Down a little bit from what the economists expected. Down below the 3 that he had seen in the second and third quarters but still strong and solid. Representing a very strong spending spree by american consumers, reflecting optimism through thanksgiving and christmas and most importantly a number that does not take into account any real measure the effects of the upcoming tax cuts. Paul if you look inside the numbers, the reason for the decline again from the second and third quarters which were above 3 is inventories fell off. Thats going to rebounded in future quarters naps a temporary effect. Output was up 7 as well. And now in the First Quarter<\/a> of this year a tremendous amount of what looks like output, Capital Investment<\/a> across the board. Its extraordinary. The tax cut, notingly cutting the tax cut, one corporation after another is citing this as the reason theyre going to cake the Capital Investment<\/a>s, raise the wages of their workers, raise 401 k matches flps a tremendous amount of Economic Vitality<\/a> happening in the First Quarter<\/a>. The question is it going to be sustainable over the long term or will something break it, whether its a Foreign Policy<\/a> event, north korea, a political event or perhaps the feds eventually raising interest rates. Paul thats all a risk. But i want to talk about one particular thing that were seeing. That is a capital strike, so called, that we saw under obama. Seems to be ending. For years, you know, in the recovery you had really Capital Investment<\/a>, much lower than you usually get in an expansion. And now its actually popping up. Yeah. Its up and that is really important component here going forward. Caterpillar tractor was out last week with their earnings. They really surprised on the upside which is showing you that people are companies are wanting this heavy machinery, not just in the United States<\/a> but theres kind of a global which i think is going to be an important component of this going forward. Paul Capital Investment<\/a> is not just important for building machinery. Its an investment in productive pi. Anproductivity. And if you increase productivity, what does that do, it flows through to workers. If each worker is more productive, theyre worth more. You can pay them more. Its pretty clear that the business was beaten down over the obama years, the rhetoric, the kind of negativity made a very hostile business climate. But the other thing is that you have, going forward, you have some risk of no levers, monetary levers and no fiscal levers to get the economy growing. Thats why this tax cut was so important because its going to bring capital off the sidelines back into the market. Paul lets talk about the political impact of all of this, not the gdp figure per se but more of whats happening with tax reform, hundreds of companies announcing bonuses, raises and so on, new investment. Is this going to have an impact politically on voters. Well it should have a huge impact. Now, remember, democrats immediately came out and poohpoohed this bill saying it was a payoff for fat accounts and that no workers in america would benefit whatsoever. Theyve been remarkably proven wrong on that. Republicans are going to go out with that, theyre going to talk about how right they were with this tax policy in terms of the economy, talk about rising fortunes for americans and try to take credit for it. It could help them very much, especially if, and its a big if, if the president can stay on message this year and talk act that as well too, maybe notch a few more victories and try to do something about improving his approval rate. The generic ballot earlier in this month, in january, people prepared democrats to republicans 16 points. Four weeks later its collapsed to a sixpointe lead. Paul i think it was more like 7 or 8. I think the average right now is 6. Paul giving credit to the tax reform for that . What else can it be . The president didnt speak for a week. I dont know. Could save the rm house in november. Paul when we come back, President Trump<\/a> preparing to deliver his first state of the Union Address<\/a> on tuesday. Should we expect a conventional speech from our unconventional commander in chief . Paul President Trump<\/a> set to deliver his first state of the Union Address<\/a> before a joint session of congress on tuesday. The speech seen as a chance for the president to outline his agenda. Ahead of the crucial midterm election. But should we expect a conventional state of the Union Address<\/a> from our own nonconventional president . Our own bill mcgurn seshed as a speech writer for president bush. Bill, youve worked on these. I gather it takes weeks and weeks collating suggestions from everybody. Every year speech writers get together saying this is not going to be a laundry list. And every year its a laundry list. Its the nature of the beast . Why . The president is laying out his list. Whatever youre working on, you want the president to mention it. And what the president usually does is lay out what he wants to do in foreign affairs, the economy and domestic grab bag from education to the environment and then he goes out and sells it. If hes talking about the economy, he goes out to an auto plant or something and sells it. Paul is there any difference between a speech, state of Union Written<\/a> in Election Year<\/a> versus one in a nonElection Year<\/a> . Im not so sure. Theres all of the little trickses. You know the democrats, you say were going to spend 10 million on the environment and the republicans say were going to do more for our troops and the republicans get up. Thats part of the little games. I think donald trump could be a little different. His davos speech was a little different. I think hes going to maybe he doesnt get into the weeds as much as the normal state of the unions do. Paul how many draft dos you go through . Sphwhr when it was there, a draft was if you changed one word, that was a new draft. So wed do 50 drafts. But that doesnt necessarily mean its all been rewritten. And a president practices it a lot. The one thing about the state of the union, probably the most majestic setting for a president , the most formal setting. Typically theres some Supreme Court<\/a> justices there. Paul military generals. Both houses are there. So its all of the government there. Its a grand setting for a president. Which is why most of them, you know, like to give it there and they get prime time tv. Paul and did president bush edit a lot . Yes, we used to call him the editor in chief instead of commander in chief. You would go through a draft and then everyone each of these policies involves tricky words and then youd edit as he gave it, wed change things or look up things. Paul as a speech writer you have to put your ego into a box. Yes. Yeah. Paul fall in love with your words. Its the time of the year. Everyone is working on the state of the union so they throw the speech writers out to the press to do profiles. The only speech hated more by speech writers is the United Nations<\/a> speech. Its the longest speech the president gives and its just a lot of Different Things<\/a> you have to tie together. Paul what do you think trump needs to do, mary . What would you like to see him do . Hes accomplished a lot. He certainly has bragging rights before the American Public<\/a>. But i think his challenge will be to take credit for those things and highlight them but at the same time you know, have a good tone that brings people along. Dan was talking about all of the voters who had shifted during the last month. The tone that the president sets in this speech will have a lot to do with it. I think his accomplishments, hes popular for but hes not popular personally. He has to put on a better face. Paul dont make it about him. Make it, were doing this for the American Public<\/a> and here are the benefits of it. Its not just about me. Yeah. And i think one issue will be his relationship with congress, specifically the democrats. I mean, donald trump likes to mix it up. And the thing is he going to be in your face with the democrats or is he going to say come, let us all reason together. Paul what do you think the balance will be there . No. I think perhaps he should put the burden on them saying were making progress, weve got an immigration bill coming up, trying to move forward. And i think trump makes them put the burden on Chuck Schumer<\/a> and the democrat to say hey, are you going to come along and join in with this great thing were doing with the United States<\/a> or are you going to resist . One item i think is important again is trade. He said in switzerland that hes kind of interested in the Transpacific Partnership<\/a> again, something that he pulled us out of. So i would hope he would rein in his hostility on trade where hes constantly saying if we dont get the deal we want, were going to pull out of these multilateral trade partnerships. Its not good for the u. S. Economy. Paul do you think the democrats will boycott, a number of them, the speech . I think some of them will boycott. I think youll see a lot of women there led by jackie speer, the democrat in the house who has been focused on Sexual Misconduct<\/a> encouraging all of the women to wear black. I think theres going to be a lot of symbolism on the democratic side in which we seek to express their dislike of the men giving the speech. Paul when we come back, hit and misses of the week. I take pictures of sunrises, but with my back pain. Paul time now for our hits and misses of the week. Kim, start us off. So, paul, this is a hit. A relatively unknown tennis player who burst on to the scene by making tight the quarter finals in the australian open. In the middle of this, the media looks into it, shock, horror, hes a trump supporter and not only that, he follows people in on twitter who they dont approve of. So they begin to hound him over his political views. He didnt take it lying down. When he lost, he shamed the press in a statement that would have made Sara Huckabee<\/a> sanders proud. Good for him. Paul, facebook banned a libertarian who publishes the libertarian review, playing off of the craze for teenagers eating pods of tide detergent. The offending meme pictures a teen biting into one under the caption, this is why we cant pay for your health in insurance. He was banned from facebook. Its hard to know what facebook object to more. A his for the state of california where Coffee Companies<\/a> are being sued because they dont put warnings labels on their coffee cups saying that coffee causes cancer. This is a shakedown by lawyers. Prop 65 says that if any product has even a tiny bit of a cancer again icarsgeneral ifcars jenin. Paul dan. Im going to give a semi hit to apples tim cook who said he would just assumed not have his nephew using social media. I agree with this. They all have their upsides but theyre buried under an avenue launch of dumbing down antisocial problems. Tim cooks problem is this is the gateway drug, his iphone and that guy has a lot of work to do if hes going to solve this. Paul thats it for this weeks show. Thanks to my panel and thanks to all of you for watching. I hope to see you right here next week. Steve wynn stepping down from his post as finance chair of the Republican National<\/a> committee in the wake of ooh bombshell report revealing numerous allegations of Sexual Misconduct<\/a>. Hello and welcome to americas news headquarters. Im melissa francis. And ill kelly wright. Steve wynn actually now denying those allegations and this story is far from over. Will carr is live from our west coast bureau with more details. And kelly, the wall street journal laid out alarming and detailed allegations against steve wynn and it didnt take long for a wave of political fallout to follow. The journal reporting that he","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801005.us.archive.org\/24\/items\/FOXNEWSW_20180127_200000_The_Journal_Editorial_Report\/FOXNEWSW_20180127_200000_The_Journal_Editorial_Report.thumbs\/FOXNEWSW_20180127_200000_The_Journal_Editorial_Report_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240617T12:35:10+00:00"}