tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News January 27, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PST
all these activities russian interference in the election, obama. it's been in the room as pleasure to have you. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa couple of. we'll see you soon. john: i'm john roberts in for chris wallace. the special counsel nets another member of the trump campaign's orbit, and the shutdown fight comes to a temporary halt. ♪ ♪ >> i will sign a bill to open our government for three weeks. john: but without funding for the border wall and with new threats of action. >> if we don't get a fair deal from congress, the government will either shut down, or i will use the powers to address this emergency. john: we'll discuss the political fallout from the shutdown fight with acting white house chief of staff mick mull vain and the path forward with republican senator roy blunt and joe manchin, the lone democrat
to vote for the wall measure. plus -- >> i will plead not guilt to these -- not guilty to these charges. john: what does the indictment of roger stone mean for the mueller investigation? we'll ask the sunday panel how problematic this is for the president. then, the democrat-controlled house moves to block president trump from pulling out of nato. >> it's quite simply the most successful political/military alliance in world history. john: we'll discuss the future of the u.s. role in this strategic alliance with jens stoll ten berg, secretary general of the north atlantic treaty association all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from washington. the clock is reset in the battle over the border wall that led to the longest shutdown in u.s. history. federal workers will soon be returning to the job, but their a paychecks could be in jeopardy once again if congress cannot strike a deal by february 15th
when the spending measure runs out. if congress comes back with a plan that does not include the $5.7 billion president trump wants for his proposed wall, or at least some percentage of that, he has threatened to let the government shut down again or declare a national emergency to bypass congress. joining me now to talk more about this is the president's acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney. mick, welcome back to "fox news sunday." i know you got back to south carolina to see your family for the fist time since new year's. >> thanks for having me, as always. john: so did the president here cave to democrats? i think a lot of republicans think he capitulated because he really came away from 35 days of a government shutdown with nothing more than he could have and maybe even back to before this whole thing started. >> no. i think what you've seen here is the president seeing an opportunity. what he did, why he did what he did was because many democrats had come to us, some of them privately, many of them spoke out publicly, that they were
starting to agree with him on the necessity for a barrier on the southern border, and they had come to us and said, look, we agree with you, you're winning the battle on the importance of a barrier on the southern border, but we simply cannot work with you while the government is open -- excuse me, while the government was closed. that's a marked difference when they said they wouldn't talk to us about border security ever. nancy pelosi said she wouldn't give us a single dollar for the wall. so i think the president saw a chance here to try and take the democrats at their word. some of the rank and file, also some of the leadership. dick durbin, jim clyburn, my former colleague from south carolina, said that if the experts thought we really needed a barrier, he could vote for it. this gave a chance for the democrats to prove whether they're willing to go against nancy pelosi or whether or not they are so beholden to their leadership that they're never going to vote for a barrier on the southern border. john: the president is under no illusions, mick, he tweeted out yesterday: 21 goes very quickly,
negotiations with democrats will start immediately. will not be easy to make a deal, both parties very dug in. nancy pelosi is on record several times as saying no money for a wall. how do you get democrats to move her off of that position? she seems to have the sol towerty of the democratic party behind her. >> i laugh every time she says there's no money for the wall. she also just voted for almost a quarter billion dollars for a barrier on the southern border with this deal that just got approved last week. i think what we simply do is go to the democrats and say, look, are you telling people the truth? when you look at your constituents and say you agree we have to do something about security at the southern border, are you telling the truth or just doing something politically expedient? keep in mind the last time the democrats sort of followed nancy pelosi blindly down a path on policy, we ended up with obamacare and bailouts and cap and trade, and they lost control of the house. so the question is, is nancy really leading the democrat
party, or is she just being led by the hard left wing of her party, and will the rest of the democrats follow her? so, no, this is just the next step in the negotiation. we thought it was the exact right thing for the president to do at the time. and i think, ultimately, he'll be judged by the end, by what happens at the end of this process, not by what happened this week. john: there is some money in the continuing resolution for border security, but that's to upgrade existing fencing. that's not for construction of new mileage of border wall, which is what you want. if we could stipulate that. >> absolutely correct. but let me jump in very quickly. when you go from a 2-foot-high barrier to a 30-foot wall -- john: it makes a difference. >> that counts as new security. john: the vice president took an offer of, i think it was $2.4 billion. are you stuck on the 5.7, or will you take less than that? >> i want the president wants his $5.7 billion. keep in mind, why that number? it's not a number that's made up. he's listened to dhs. i've been in on the meetings.
he's listened to cbp and i.c.e. we have identified the top 17 highest priorities in terms of where we can put a barrier to discourage people from crossing the border illegally. it's about 243 miles. that's what's driving this discussion. it's not a made-up, magical number. it's the wall where we need it the most and where we need it the quickest. that's what's driving this. this is not something where the president's married to a number, he's married to border security which is the right thing for the president of the united states to do. john: it's not lost on me that you shrewdly ducked my question. will he take less? >> oh, i wasn't ducking your question, just wasn't negotiating with you on tv. [laughter] you know i'd never do that. john: is he prepared to take less than the 5.7? you were willing to take 2.6 going into christmas, there was the offer of 2.4. i mean, clearly, he's not hard and fast on that number. >> again, i don't mean to dodge. let's look at it this way, the president has already gone to the democrats and said, look, it's not a 2,000-mile sea to
shining seawall, it's not a giant 30-foot concrete barrier that so many democrats seem to have any difficulty with. he even put daca and tps on the table at some point during this process, and they refused to even engage. so i think the better question is what are the democrats willing to do. the president from the very beginning here actually has been the one willing to negotiate. he was the one staying in washington, d.c. when nancy went to hawaii. he's the one who stayed in d.c. when democrats all went down to puerto rico. he was in d.c. when she tried to go to europe and the middle east last week. he wants to negotiate on the deal. the democrat leadership simply refused to take him up on it. john: it is fordue choice that we have senator joe manchin coming up. would you recommend another shutdown to the president if there's no deal by february 15th? >> look, we look at it going backwards, what do we need to protect the country. and we need border security, and that includes a barrier. keep in mind, lost in all of this are requests we've made for things like more technology at
our ports of entry -- john: yeah, but would you recommend he shut down the government again? >> no one, no one wants a government shutdown, or john. it's not a desired end. but when the president vetoes a bill that's put in front of him on a spending package, sometimes that has the effect of shutting the government down. john: he also threatened an emergency declaration and use money that's already appropriated to build the wall. omb, which you used to head and still officially do, has been looking around for pots of money. how much money did you find to build a wall? >> more than $5.7 billion. the president told us several months ago to try and find money in every nook and cranny. he told every member of the cabinet to do the exact same thing. omb's been working on this for months now, and there's a lot more than $5.7 billion. it's still better to get it through legislation, that's the right way to do it. but at the end of the day, the president is going to secure the border one way or another. john: so if president says,
mick, should i declare an emergency, would you recommend he would do that? it would certainly almost immediately be enjoined by the courts, and that could be playing his last card. >> we're just as aware of all of those contingencies you just laid out as even else is, so if there's ways to try and mitigate those risks, we certainly will. some pots of money are easier to get to, so again, this is not something we're shooting on from the hip. we've been working on this for months. we have been hoping for months to do it by legislation with the democrats, but at the end of the day, the president will do it either with or without congress. scrop john for the $5.7 billion, you want to build about 170 miles of border wall through texas. one thing i find curious that nobody's talking about here is that in most places along the rio grande you can't build fence in the floodplain of the rio grande, so you have to build it anywhere from a couple of hundred yards to in some places
a mile which might help you interdicting drug trafficking, but all those migrants, honduras, el salvador, nicaragua, the northern triangle countries, they can still even with a border barrier get feet on u.s. soil, and their goal is to be apprehended by the border patrol. so how would building a barrier in texas affect this problem of illegal immigration that the president talks about each and every day? >> that goes back to the larger discussion about border security. yes, there are a barrier -- there's a barrier, and the part that sometimes gets forgotten about is something the president's talked about many, many times is to change our laws. you're absolutely right. if the barrier is back one foot from the or border and someone can get one foot on our soil depending on what country they're from, they can claim asylum and stay here almost indefinitely. it's why some of the other things we've done, the deal we've negotiated with mexico to allow folks who are claiming asylum here to have to go back to mexico while their asylum has been adjudicated. that's been a major improvement.
but it does, your point does raise the larger picture that we need to change the laws. that's part and parcel of this comprehensive border security concept. it's not just about a barrier. it's not just about technology. it's about changing the laws that right now act as this giant pull. we encourage people to come here from other countries, to enter the country illegally because of the way our laws are structured, and those need to be fixed as well as part of a larger national security package. john: we should also point out though that this remain in mexico policy right now only applies to people who are entering from a port of entry, not people who cross the border illegally. i've got to ask you quickly because time is running short, venezuela. is the u.s. ruling out military action if maduro refuses to cede leadership? >> i don't think any president of any party who's doing his or her job would be doing the job properly if they took anything off the table. so i think the president of the united states is looking at this extraordinarily closely, i can tell you without giving away
anything i shouldn't, that we're in constant communication with the secretary of state, constant communication with the other parts of the federal government to find out what's going on on the ground down there, making sure our people and our property is safe down there and also to make sure that we can do everything we can to encourage the maduro government -- which we consider to be illegitimate -- to leave and to back the new national assembly leadership that declared this week. so it's a very serious situation. the president takes it very seriously. and i think it's fair to say that no options are off the table. john: we'll keep watching that. mick, thanks for taking time away from your family to be with us. really appreciate. >> thanks, john. john: up next, can congress avoid a return to where this all began, with a government shutdown? two key lawmakers from both sides of the aisle join us next. ♪
♪ ♪ john: the clock is ticking on what could be three weeks of intense negotiations over border security before the stopgap spending measure the president signed into law expires. joining us now from washington, republican senator roy blunt and joe manchin of west virginia, the only democratic senator to consistently vote in support for funding to build a wall. senators, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good to be with you. john: senator manchin, mick mulvaney posed the question what are democrats willing to do here. what are -- >> i think democrats want to look at, basically, the holistic approach; immigration reform, pathways forward to some people, basically. i've always said people came two ways. they came the wrong way for the right reason, the wrong way for the wrong within. the people who came for the wrong reason we need to make sure they go out and stay out.
but i think there ought to be a pathway for some. that would change the whole complexion of this, the whole dialogue would change if that could be done. as far as the 5.7 billion if that's the number, we're figuring how to you split that up. and let the professionals -- we've proven it's hard for us because with the president and white house and the legislature, we've locked horns on this thing. no wall, all wall, halfway in between. let the professionals tell us what it takes to keep us safe. drugs is a big problem in my state. john: absolutely. >> how do we stop the drugs. people that, basically, the terrorists, everything that's been reported. i don't know, i would talk to will hurd and ask will, are you having that problem in texas. we need to talk to the professionals that can be a dealmaker, if you will. john: senator blunt, you're going to be in on these negotiations. do you think that compromise is possible here knowing that nancy pelosi has said time and time again no money for a border barrier? >> i think compromise is the
essence of what we do, and, you know, i think the american people are tired of watching a government where people get locked down for no reasons except maybe political reasons. i mean, clearly the president showed, shown real flexibility here. for a guy who's not always that flexible. i mean, he has changed his view of this as he's gotten more information about how you secure the border, about ways to do that. we have consistently said that barriers were part of that. the president went from talking about a wall along the entire southern border at one point during the campaign as part of a campaign discussion to, well, let's have barriers where they work, and let's have something elsewhere barriers wouldn't work as well. four presidents have built barriers. joe and i both supported that when we've been in the congress, and i think there's certainly a way forward here. of but part of the way forward is to look at the other issues that are out there too that need to be dealt with and deal with those, the spending issues that
are going to be right in front of us as soon as we get this done. one of the things we learned this year was if you do in the right way, you can have, you could have 100% of the government funded by the beginning of the fiscal year. this time we got 75% of the government funded. that should be one of the lessons we learn here. what do we need to get on the table right now so that we get 10% of the government funded -- 100% of the government funded. i've always thought securing the border first made the most sense, and then i think the other problems related to immigration are much easier to solve if people think that the government has done its fundamental job. you know, nobody will have ever had more credibility on this than president trump if he says the border is secure at the level that the american people should expect, then the other discussions about what are the legitimate work force needs of the country, what do you do with people who came or stayed illegally -- about half the people here not legally came
legally and said, gee, we're in the united states of america -- john: sounds like you've got a lot to talk about. >> we do. these are not new issues, is the other point, john. john: no, of course. >> these are issues that members of congress don't know a lot about. there's nothing we're going to learn, frankly, in the next three weeks we don't know now. so let's get started, let's find solutions. let's not continue to disappoint the people we work for by not showing the ability to work together. john: and ronald reagan learned in the 1980s the dangers of cutting a deal on -- >> in 2013 we passed major immigration reform, bipartisan bill, which took everything. it was a 40 list ec approach. it was security. $44 billion for security. it was a pathway forward. it was a queue number that you basically got in the back of the line. we did everything possible to look at the whole immigration problem. on top of that, nobody -- if they went through ten years of doing everything they were
supposed to do, learn english, get a job, pay taxes, get in the back of the line, when your time came, you still couldn't be a citizen until we had total border security. john: sure. >> but if we're not going to fix one and we think one takes care of the other, so security only without -- john: but i think, but i think the president has indicated that he's willing to negotiate a bigger package on immigration. here's the question i have for you, senator manchin. you have voted consistently for a border barrier. many of your democratic colleagues, nancy pelosi in particular, don't want anything to do with that. what do you know the that they don't see about a border barrier? >> the only thing i know is that i had 800,000 people that were furloughed, were not getting paid. i had 12,000 in west virginia -- john: but why, why is a border barrier acceptable to you but it's not acceptable to so many of your democrats? why to you see -- >> i can't speak -- john: why do you see value in a border -- >> i've talked to the custom border patrol people, and these
are the progressals that i rely on. they've showed me and told me what needs to be done. we already have 600-plus miles -- john: so why is that lost on all of your colleagues? >> because now it seems like the border's going to protect us with 700 miles of wall or fencing, whatever, i'll call it a secured structure the, is downing to be the catch-all. that's not the case. we can stop -- most of our ports of entry is where our drugs are coming through. can't we have screaming, sensors, things of that sort? john: isn't that what he's proposing? >> senator manchin, we are good friends, he's been consistent on this. i frankly think, and his position has been consistent, many of the democrats in the last few months have looked at the president making this a big issue in his campaign, and they've decided, well, we can't be for that anymore. 2013 virtually every democrat who's still in the senate voted
for 70 miles of barriers and a whole lot more money than anybody's talking about right now. speaker pelosi has been for barriers in the past. you know, the whole idea that somehow 650 or 700 miles of barriers are appropriate but 702 miles are immoral, that is a incredibly interesting place to draw your line about what's moral and what's not moral. i think this debate got with way too political. i do think, let me say again, i think the president has shown more willingness to move so far than others have. but we need to solve this. we need to solve it in three months. it may look like right now that speaker pelosi got what she wanted, open the government again and we'll talk. the we'll talk part of that now is where we really are going to see the speaker either step up and talk along with senator schumer or find out that we'll talk really didn't mean anything. it just meant give us what we want, and you not going to get
what you want. john: you talked to the president a lot in december heading into the christmas holiday just before the shutdown. what were you telling him then? >> well, basically, i didn't think this would ever happen. i said, for the first time, mr. president, you've got six bills ready to go that we all voted on. the breakdown came, basically, the request for the fiscal year 2019 budget for the homeland security was 1.6 billion. that was appropriated. then it went to the house, and the house bumped it up to 5. then it become in contention. so they were going to put that one on a 30-day or let's say to february the 8th or put that at 1.3 continuing resolution and fight that one out. i thought that's exactly where the president would go. he got pushed from the base, jumped up and says, no, we're not going to -- never before have i ever seen when we all agreed unanimously on six bills that would have kept 96% of the
government open, to hold that hostage. i don't know if anyone realized, and the white house or the president, how that would react, and i think we saw the pushback. >> well, and on the 1.6 billion which, frankly, is what the administration asked for this time last year, 1.6 billion, that clearly included walls or barriers or whatever. i think surely we can deal with the semantics of this. and then the house stepped in with a much bigger number. the president liked that number better. john: 5.7 always sounds better -- >> exactly. and lots of democrats, john, in the last week put 5.7 out there as a number they were willing to do. they just wanted to be a little more specific about how you do this. you know, the, under president george w. bush we had a major move going toward a virtual wall -- john: yeah. >> -- for the parts of the barrier, of the border that the president now says needs something like a virtual wall rather than an actual wall -- john: well, he uses the word smart walls.
look, the clock is running. time's running out on us. [laughter] >> that's right. john: senator blunt, the president has threatened either another government shutdown or an emergency declaration at the end of this if he doesn't get what he's looking for. you had said, quote, shutdowns are bad politics and even worse government. and on an emergency declaration, that precedent could create real problems in the future on other issues. >> right. john: so, i mean, what -- are we looking at another shutdown? >> my guess is after 35 days of in the president also thinks shutdowns are not such great politics and bad government. i think i just heard mick mulvaney say the same thing. we would all prefer to see this negotiated the way it should be negotiated. i happen to agree with the president on barriers at the border and border security as an important first step. but there might be a future president that i don't agree with that thinks something else is an emergency. i think it's a bad precedent. i hope the president doesn't have to go there.
if we'll do our job, he won't even have to consider going there three weeks from now because we'll have reached the right -- >> the only way we could ever stop, i've thought everything about how you stop this from happening, a shutdown. the one thing we could do to help the american society, the american economy and the american people is to make sure if a shutdown ever occurs by our own making, our pay stops immediately the day it's shut down. trust me, there will not be a shutdown. everything else we can talk about all the policies. you stop the paycheck the same as everyone else -- the only people that got hurt was all the people working for the government. congress didn't get hurt. nobody felt the pain. john: do you predict success or failure in this negotiation? >> i'm reasonably optimistic. i think we've all seen everybody step out into the new world we're in, republican senate, democrat house, new speaker, republican president. the initial touching of the gloves was not producing the kind of result finish. [laughter] that we need to produce here, so i'm optimistic, and we need to
work hard to see that we find how we can solve this in a way that the president gets what he needs, but the american people fundamentally get the government that they deserve. john: we will see. i mean, the very fact that we got you two on together -- >> and we both want the same thing. we want our borders to be safe and secure. we want to stop the flow of drugs. we want to keep the people who basically are coming for the wrong reason and preying on our economy, keep them out. and -- take them out. make sure they don't come back. all these things are set. but there's a people that need a pathway forward that have been very productive, and there should be some compassion towards that. john: senator blunt, senator manchin, thank you. up next, we will bring in our sunday group to discuss this week's winners and losers in the ongoing battle over the border. ♪ ♪
from enough democrats and republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside, i think. >> that bodes well for finding an eventual agreement, the fact that we have so many areas where we can agree. john: president trump and senate minority leader chuck schumer finding common ground on ending the longest government shutdown in history, before for how long and at what expense? time now for our sunday group. jason reilly is with us along with columnist for the hill juan williams, julie pace with the associated press and fox news correspondent gillian turner. i love that declarative statement by the president, they're willing to put aside partisanship. i think. [laughter] winners and losers here, jason. who won and who lost? >> it's hard to see how this could have turned out any other way. the president said i'll take the blame, the government shut down, and he got blamed. i think nancy pelosi is, obviously, the big winner here. a month ago people were questioning whether she should
even be speaker again. i think she's put that to rest. [laughter] but they feel like they're on a roll here. they picked up the house majority, 40 seats or so, and the president's approval rating has declined significantly during the shutdown. so clearly, they're the winner. now, the onus is now on pelosi and the democrats to negotiate like they said they would in good faith if the government is reopened, and we'll see if they do that. one thing that strikes me about this, the real losers here are the dreamers. i think those dreamer immigrants have just been treated like pawns, particularly by pelosi and the democrats. john: and i think as senator manchin was saying, they're looking for a bigger deal -- >> remember, the dreamers were told, or you know, nancy pelosi keeps saying i'm negotiating on your behalf, i'm putting you first. no. she's putting keeping funding for the wall away from trump first. and i don't know that there are a lot of dreamers who agree with that priority. john: she certainly did seem to win, or julie, on that front in terms of keeping money away from
the situation. >> it is definitely nancy pelosi not only on the shutdown itself and how she negotiated with the white house, she comes out of this with her caucus more united than they were when they were sworn in as the new democratic majority just a few weeks ago. she's got those freshmen who were emboldened coming out of their elections who are now firmly behind her because they see she is willing to hold a tough line against the president. and for the president, i think one of the things that we really learned through this last few weeks is that he really does not have a strategy for dealing with the democratic house majority. not just on the shutdown, but more broadly. this is the first time in his presidency that he has an opponent that has real power, and he does not seem to know how to deal with it. john: certainly doesn't seem to have a strategy for dealing with nancy pelosi. >> one of the losers i wanted to mention that people are not spending enough on this week is u.s. cybersecurity defenses. i've had federal government sources ringing alarm bells every day for the last two week,
one source went so far as to say this particular week the u.s. federal government before the shutdown ended was more vulnerable to cyber attacks, phishing, spearing attacks and terrorism online than at any point in history, and it's going to take months to retube the losses to get -- recoup the losses. john: i think a mutual friend of ours was saying if you were going to attack the united states if you were a terrorist -- >> now's a great time. john: so chuck schumer goes into the negotiations really kind of saying, i told you so, juan. let's listen to what he said then get your reaction. >> no one should ever underestimate the speaker as donald trump has learned. the unity of our two caucuses really worked because i believe the president himself believed and was told by a couple of his advisers, you've written about them, that, oh, just hold out, and we'll get the democrats to crack and join us. he was unable to do that. john: all right. so we've got 19 days of negotiations. can the president get the
democrats to crack at all on funding for a border barrier? >> i don't see it right now, john. i mean, what we know from the polling, and we've had some recent polls indicating very clearly now, i think it's 54% of the american people don't favor the wall. so that the wall itself, which is a huge political symbol for this president, does not seem to have the political power that he thought. we have seen his numbers drop. the ap poll, julie is here, now has him at 34% approval. that's a drop for him. i'm particularly in touch with the idea that independents who i think are key as we look towards 2020 and the president and his team are increasingly focused on his re-election prospects, you look at the independents and what they're saying is disapproval up ten points. that is 63%. and so overall, even just the general discussion of the topic of border security, republicans historically hold the advantage. what we see now is that the two sides are equal at 42% trust
pelosi and the democrats to 40% trusting trump and the republicans. it's one thing to hear from people who, you know, are pretty critical of trump about who won and who lost, but why don't you go ask the base. and then you hear from people like ann coulter or the talk radio crowd, and they think trump lost. john: oh, yeah, bigtime. okay, so people are staking out positions. the president tweeting: only fools or people with a political agenda don't want to protect our country from crime, drugs and human trafficking. it will happen, it always does. listen to what nancy pelosi said on friday. >> have i not been clear on a wall? okay. no, i have been very clear on the wall. john: so mick mulvaney believes that pressure will rise from democrats who say, you know what? like senator manchin, maybe we do need some sort of border barrier. can she hold her coalition together? >> look, the democratic opposition to a wall is clearly situational, not principled. we know that because so many in
the past have voted for a wall. i think some might come around to that. i don't know that trump will get all of the money he wants, but i think he will get something. at the very least. and i think there will be pressure coming from democrats on nancy pelosi to do that. the thing here for the president though, he clearly believes that the border security was his ticket in 2016 and that it will be his ticket to re-election. the question is whether there are diminishing returns here for the president on this issue. >> i don't think there's going to be a wall. and what you hear from democrats is talk about now, john, of a smart wall, more sensors, more trones, more border security agents, more immigration judges. they will take those steps. and when it comes to the dreamers, to jason's point, remember, it was president trump who created the crisis by undoing what president obama had done. of. john: so is this going to give him real trouble in 2020? was he was -- because he was claiming that's what this is all about. >> and i think a lot of it is at
this point. trump politically is in a situation where he has had for the last two years a solid base that has been behind him no matter what happens. but, john, you were at these rallies in 2016 as i was, and i was constantly struck by the fact that a lot of trump supporters when he had the chants about build the wall, who will pay for it, that wasn't just a political talking point for a lot of people. they actually wanted the policy to be implemented. john: exactly. >> this was not just rhetoric. is so i think he knows that base that has been so loyal, this is one issue where they could crumble. john: gillian, does this loss have coat tails with negotiates with xi. and with kim and his approach to putin, are they going to say, wow, we've just got to wait him out? >> i think that is a calculation foreign leaders from across the globe are making this week. they're looking at this and they're saying, you know what? turns out that the democrats winning the house in the midterms actually did matter for the president's foreign policy agenda. everybody was saying regardless
what happens, the prerogative remains with him. he fell, the president fell on his sword on the wall issue. he sort of had to. but it's had some real world consequences in terms of u.s. foreign policy around the world. john: we'll bring you back to talk about some other pressing issues, roger stone, venezuela. but when we come back, the house sends a message to president trump, stay in nato. but is the president right, does the u.s. pay more than its share of the military burden? we'll ask the head of the alliance, jens stoltenberg, coming up next.
wouldn't it be great to have epix? this is it guys. you ready? absolutely. woooo! you'd laugh. oh, ow. [ chuckles ] you'd cry. look, look, look, look, look, look, look,. maybe even laugh while crying. what the fertilizer? sounds pretty great, right? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! just say, "add epix" and it can all be yours. it's easy to upgrade. and you don't want to miss out on everything epix.
what's a gig of data? well, it's a whole day's worth of love songs. [ baby crying ] or, 300 minutes of baby videos. a gig goes a long way. that's why xfinity mobile lets you... ...pay for data one gig at a time. and with millions of wifi hotspots included, you'll pay even less for data. or, if you need a lot, we have unlimited too. plus get $100 back when you buy an lg or moto phone. it's simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today. >> we're going to be with nato 100%. but as i told the countries, you have to step up. >> what we have to realize is that nato is not just a transactional relationship. our sole focus can't just be on who pays what and who gets what.
john: democrat congressman jimmy panetta the, sponsor of the house bill, reiterating strong congressional support of nato after reports the president discussed pulling out of the military alliance over allies failing to pay their fair share. joining me now is jens stoltenberg, secretary-general of nato. thank you for being with us today. >> thank you for having me. john: first of all, another pressing issue, venezuela, and it's one that a lot of nato members are involved in, france, spain, germany, the u.k., or pressuring maduro to hold elections in seven days or they will recognize juan guaido, maduro sort of laughing at the idea. the situation in venezuela, how tenuous do you think it is, and could it devolve into civil war? >> it's a very serious situation, and many nato allies are trying to help to find a solution, but i think the most important thing now is to avoid a civil war, avoid violence. and, therefore, nato allies
support the effort to try to find a negotiated solution. john: recently here in washington, d.c. the house voted overwhelmingly on a measure that would require congressional approval for the president to pull out of nato because the president has threatened that he will pull out of nato if other nato nations don't live up to their financial commitment. he has since said i'm 100% behind nato. to you really have any concerns that president trump would pull the united states out of the alliance? >> president trump has been very clear, he is committed to nato, he has stated that cleary just a few days ago, and it is also at the nato summit in july. but at the same time, he has clearly stated that nato allies need to invest more. and, therefore, at the summit in july last year we agreed to do more to step up, and now we see the results. by the end of next year, nato allies will add $100 billion extra u.s. for defense. so we see some real momentum and
some real results, and we see that the clear message from president trump is having an impact. nato allies have heard the president loud and clear, and our nato allies are stepping up. so this is good news meaning that we actually see more fair burden-sharing. john: so that's interesting that you say the nato allies have heard the message, and it's a good thing. because president trump gets roundly criticized here in the united states and abroad for being hostile to nato, for putting too much pressure on them to live up to their financial commitments. so from your perspective, what he's saying good thing or bad thing? >> there is no doubt that his very clear message is having an impact. the message on the summit last summer was very clear with all the leaders sitting around the table, and the message was that the u.s. and president trump is committed to nato, but we need fair burden-sharing. john: right. so are you happy with what he's
saying? did nato nations, did nato as an organization need a kick in the pants? >> i'm happy with the fact that he has helped us to now move on the question of burden-sharing within the alliance. and this is important for european allies for a strong nato, it's good for europe, but it's also good for united states. we have to remember that the only time we have invoked article v was a after the attack on the united states. and hundreds of thousands of canadian, european soldiers have fought shoulder to shoulder with u.s. soldiers in afghanistan. we have worked together with u.s. in defeating daish, isis in iraq and syria, so it's a great advantage for the united states to have 28 allies. russia doesn't have that, china doesn't have that, but u.s. hassal ryes and friends. john: you mentioned russia, and one of the knocks on president trump is what he says about president putin and his criticisms of nato is giving putin a way to try to create divisions within nato. listen to what congressman eliot
engel of new york said last week. >> today nato plays a critical role in keeping an increasingly aggressive russia in check. and that's one of the reasons splintering the nato alliance is one of vladimir putin's top goals. and that's why it's so disturbing, troubling to see the united states sending mixed signals about our commitment to the alliance or treating it as a burden. john: nancy pelosi, the new speaker of the house, went so far as to tweet on friday night: why has the trump administration continued to discuss pulling the u.s. out of nato which would be a massive victory for putin? that could be connected to other issues regarding the president and putin, but what president trump is saying about nato and the way he is saying it, is he giving an advantage to putin here? >> what he is doing is to help us adapt the alliance, which we need because we live in a more unpredictable world with a more assertive russia using violence, force against a neighbor, ukraine. and, therefore, nato has to
adapt. partly by increase in the readiness of forces, partly stepping up our fight against terrorism, we are doing that in iraq, but also by investing more. and you have to remember that the increase in defense spending by european nato allies comes after years of decline. so before they were cutting billions, now they're actually adding billions. john: so you're not concerned that he's helping putin splinter nato like so many of his critics are? >> what i see is actually nato is united because we are able to adapt, to deliver. north america and europe are doing more together now than before. we have more u.s. troops in europe and more exercises, so we welcome that. but we also welcome the fact that european allies are stepping up. and this is a clear message to russia, and i think they see that. john: in your mind, mr. secretary-general, what is the greater threat to nay? is it that russia may move into the baltic states or what happens in the black sea in the
balkan area? >> the challenge for nato is that we are faced with many different threats at the same time. russia using violence against neighbors, but also daish, isil in the south and cyber proliferation of nuclear weapons. so we are now in the midst of the biggest reinforcement of nato since the end of the cold war. john: there are real concerns that vladimir putin may make a play on a part of estonia. if he were to do that, estonia's a nato member, would that invoke article v? >> first of all, we don't see any imminent threat against any nato ally. second, the main reason we have nato is to prevent the conflict, prevent war. as long as all nato allies make it clear that an attack on one ally will trigger a response from the whole alliance, then no one try to be aggressive against nato because they know we are by
far the strongest alliance in the world, half of the world's economic might and half of the world's military might. so as long as we stand together, we prevent conflict. john: mr. secretary-general, we'll see you next december in brussels. >> yes. john: have a good meeting, by the way, with the defense ministers next month. up next, roger stone maintains his innocence as he faces arraignment in the mueller investigation. we'll ask our sunday panel about the arrest, the charges and what it tells us about the state of the probe.
>> i intend to fight because this indictment is fabricated. this indictment is thin as can be. my attorneys are highly confident that they can win an acquittal. john: longtime trump confidant roger stone talking to tucker carlson hours after his arrest by fbi agents in robert mueller's ongoing investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. and we are back now with the panel. the president tweeting about this saying. cbs reports that in the roger stone indictment data was released during the 2016 election to damage hillary clinton. oh, really? what about the fake and unverified dossier, totally phony con job to damage me and the trump am pain? roger stone didn't even work for me anywhere near the election. so this indictment connects somebody close to the president with wikileaks buzz doesn't make the connection all the way to
russia. julie? >> no, it doesn't, and that's certainly what the president and his allies are leaning on here, that the charges against stone relate to lying. and that's actually what we've seen with most of the people who mueller has indicted through this process. it hasn't gotten to the core of russian interference in the election or any kind of conspiracy. that being said, you know, one thing we know about robert mueller is that we don't know everything that he has right now, and there is definitely a whole avenue in terms of the relationship between people around trump and around stone and wikileaks that haven't been touched yet. so i think it's an open question on whether the charges that we've seen filed against stone thus far are the extent of those charges. of. >> just to pick pup on that very quickly, why are all these people lying? why do they feel the need to perjure themselves? you think, oh, there's a lot of smoke here -- john: yeah, everybody keeps talking about this being process crimes -- >> they are. of roger stone is a gadfly. he's --
john: well, a process crime is still a serious crime. >> the president's right, digging up dirt on a political opponent is called opposition research. it is not collusion. i mean -- john: but if you're working with an organization that's working with russia -- >> it is not criminal activity. >> to john's point, the issue isn't that they were trying to dig up opposition research, they were trying to see what roger stone knew about wikileaks, having information they obtained via russia. >> digging up dirt to impress the trump campaign and then lied to -- >> and work with a foreign government to do that, that's the problem. >> despite that, republicans and democrats both fell short on messaging. the democrats had a real opportunity to go in for the kill, but they stuck, you know, nancy pelosi specifically stuck with this, well, you can tell a lot about a person by their friends, and president trump doesn't have good friends. when it's incumbent upon them, as you said, john, to make the connection of collusion between russia, between wikileaks and between roger stone.
the republicans, by contrast, failed by saying, you know, the president -- they stuck to the tired line of no collusion and didn't go any further. john: let me connect a couple of dots. this is a, quote, process crime, and roger stone claims he's broke. listen here. >> no matter how much pressure they put on me, no matter what they say, i will not bear false witness against donald trump. i are not make up lies to ease the pressure on myself. john: that was actually the wrong sound. let's play the right sound. [laughter] >> this has been financially devastating. the leaks from the general -- from the special counsel's office have devastated my private consulting business. i am this close, i mean, in all honesty i struggle to pay my lawyers, first and foremost, pay my rent, pay my taxes. it is not a fun existence. john: so he's in exactly the position that robert mueller wants him in. i'm broke, i can't pay my taxes, i might have to sell my dog -- [laughter] oh, well, why don't we cut a
deal, and you tell me everything you know about president trump. >> roger stone is in this position because of the actions of roger stone, and i don't think people are going to be shedding a lot of crocodile tears -- john: but he's in a perfect position for mueller to squeeze him. >> he is, that's true. and what this also tells us is that mueller isn't done yet. he's still out there searching for scalps, and this is something, this is going to be a cloud over the administration for the foreseeable future. and that is the long-term consequences of this. these may be small fry figures, but it's going to keep this story in the press going forward and off of the president's agenda to the extent that he has one. john: limited time left, let me swing to another topic, venezuela. >> now it's time for every over administration to pick a side. either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you're in league with maduro and his mayhem. john: we are between an irresistible force and an
immovable object. maduro says, you know what? i'm not going anywhere. >> you're either with us or against us. more sort of axis of evil talk. i spoke the to the national security council, and they're putting a lot of stock into venezuela's attach they has now thrown his support away from maduro. they're saying, you know, the possibility of armed conflict, as mick mulvaney said earlier, is alive and well. this thing could go either way -- john: 15 seconds. >> well, i mean, we don't want to see american intervention, but i'm a little put off by russia telling us, given their experience with ukraine, what we can't do. that's not good, and i think that might alarm president trump. as to civil war within venezuela, that also remains a policy. john: next week chris will be back to continue the conversation. have yourself a great weekend, we will see you next "fox news sunday." ♪
♪ howie: on our buzz meter, the president strikes a deal with the congress to reopen the government. >> the president is backing down from abject humiliation in a fight that he started. >> 35 days of federal workers rationing, living in cars. this man single handedly shut down the government. >> trump did lose the shutdown fight over the wall. but at least he made an effort to find a middle ground and stand for national security