tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX September 17, 2017 6:00am-7:00am PDT
>> chris: i'm chris wallace. north korea fires another missile while london is hit by a terror attack. as president trump prepares to take the world stage and address the u.n. ♪ >> north korea is now a global threat and it requires a global response. >> we've been kicking the can out of the road and we are out of road. >> i've no problem kicking into general matters because i think he has plenty of options. >> chris: we will discuss foreign hot spot and preview the president's message at the international community on north korea, iran and terror with national security advisor general h.r. mcmaster. then, this president trump have an immigration deal with chuck and nancy or not? >> we have reached an understanding on this issue, we
have to work out details. >> we have an agreement to move forward. >> the wall is vital. if i don't get the law -- >> chris: we will break down the daca discussion and whether there's a new balance of power in washington with two senate leaders, democrat dick durbin and republican roy blunt. plus, big tech comes under fire. we will ask our sunday panel about how russia used facebook in the 2016 election. and our power player of the week. breaking barriers while keeping some of the sports biggest in the game. >> what does it mean to you to be the first female head dr. in the history of both major league baseball and the nfl? >> chris: all right now on "fox news sunday" ." and hello again from fox news in washington. the united nations general assembly has been called the super bowl of diplomacy and this week president trump goes to
new york to join other world leaders there for the first tim time. with plenty of hot spots to discuss, what
will the president focus on and what action will he seek? joining us live here in washington the president's national security advisor general h.r. mcmaster. in general, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> general mcmaster: thanks, chris, good to be here. >> chris: as we say, president trump speaks to the u.n. general assembly on tuesday, first time on that stage. how important does he think the speeches and how will he fit it into his appeal to world leaders into his doctrine of america first? >> general mcmaster: he thinks the speech is a tremendous opportunity obviously to reach so many world leaders at the same time. and to emphasize really three things. first is to protect the american people, the second is to promote american prosperity, and the third is really to help promote accountability and sovereignty. in those three things will allow him to communicate his vision for america's role in the world.
also what his expectations are for international bodies. like the united nations, but also other nations. the expectation that they are up to protect the sovereignty of their citizens and respect the sovereignty of other nations. >> chris: let's unpack that and let's start with issue number one, that of course is north korea. the president tweeted about that this morning. let's put it up on the screen. the president said "i spoke with the president of south korea last night, asked him how rocket man is doing, long gas lines forming in north korea, too bad." before i get to the substance, rocket man, have you heard that from the president before or is that anyone? >> general mcmaster: that's a new and i think maybe for the president but it reminds me of a cover of the economist a few years ago. portraying him as rocket men. of course that's where the rockets are coming from. rockets we ought to not laugh too much about because they do
represent a great threat. to everyone. it's a global problem. >> chris: let's pick up on that, here's what you had to say on friday. >> we've been kicking the can down the road and we are out of road. so for those who have said, and have been commenting about the lack of a military option, there is a military option. >> chris: general, what does that mean, out of road? the fact is you want to get sanctions more time, you are not about to go to war. >> general mcmaster: it really depends on how we see this threat continue to manifest itself and our judgment about how much time we have. we are out of road because in the past the approach taken to the problem of north korea and the kim regime over decades has been to enter into long, drawn out negotiations that then deliver and on a satisfactory agreement, an agreement that north korea then breaks. what that agreement does that is particularly dangerous oftentimes is locked in the status quo as the new normal.
this regime is so close now to threatening the united states and others with a nuclear weapon that we really have to move with a great deal of urgency on sanctions, on diplomacy and on preparing, if necessary, i military option. >> chris: how do you draw that line? how do you decide we've reached the point that we have to move to a military option? how long do you get sanctions? >> general mcmaster: the president has asked all of us to work on this so we can't really talk about specific timelines for what conclusions we are coming to you but we are working very hard. very hard to make everything we are doing militarily, diplomati diplomatic, economically. with our allies and partners to be as effective as we can and what we recognize is not really much time. >> chris: the administration, i want to pick up on one part of that, the administration talks about getting tough with north korea's trading partners. here's treasury secretary mnuchin this week. >> we will use economic
sanctions to bring north korea to the table. >> stopping trade with china? >> stopping trade with anybody. nobody would be off the table. >> chris: the u.s. did $648 billion of trade with china. there are single largest supplier for imported goods. we are not about to cut off trade with china, it would crater our economy. >> general mcmaster: it's an indication of how serious this problem is with north korea and why it's in all of our interest to work together to resolve it. of course when he china to help as much of the can. if they have a great deal of economic power over north korea and certainly we think and the chinese agree it's in their interest to have adina clear eyes peninsula. >> chris: let's be serious, we are not going to cut off all trade with china. >> general mcmaster: they have to take some steps that restrict trade in any way that we can with this regime to choke off the resources that allowed this regime to continue to
prioritize their military efforts, their missile efforts, their nuclear efforts over the well-being of their own people. >> chris: let me just pick up on that, isn't it possible, in fact isn't it likely, that can has decided that the key to his survival is to have a nuclear capability? he talked this week about having equilibrium with the u.s. and that there's nothing that can be done diplomatically, nothing that can be done economically that will stop him from pursuing that effort. >> general mcmaster: what he should conclude is the exact opposite, they can turn in pursuit of this nuclear capability makes him more and more vulnerable and makes him less and less secure. >> chris: let's turn to another subject, the president has also been talking about getting tougher on iran at the united nations but this week he had the opportunity to reimpose sanctions that were lifted as part of the nuclear deal. he didn't do that, so for all his talk about tearing up the agreement. i know he has to recertify in october whether or not they are complying with it, all this talk
about tearing up the agreement, in fact isn't he going to live with it and try to find other ways to confront iran on other fronts? >> general mcmaster: we have to see what live with it means. live can't be giving this regime cover to develop a nuclear capability. a lot of things have to happen immediately. if rigorous of that agreement. it is under enforced now. if they have artie violated parts of the agreement. the iaea has identified and we've identified some of these breaches. what does that tell you about the behavior? they are crossing the line at times. there has to be much more rigorous enforcement of the deal and we have to recognize the fundamental flaws in this deal. as the president said, it is the worst deal. it gave all these benefits to the iranian regime upfront in these benefits now they are using to formant this
humanitarian catastrophe in the east. the broad range of destructive behavior including support for terrorist organizations, support for proxy forces like 80% of the affected fighters biting on the side of the brutal murders in syria are iranian proxies. we have to recognize the broad range of the destabilized behavior and we can't allow this deal to enable that. their missile programs for example, the way they are ceding this iranian network with more and more destructive capability that places all their neighbors at risk. >> chris: i want to turn to that next subject, tara. at the president is going to call at the u.n. for the world to continue its war on terror. here's what he had to say this week. >> we have done better in eight months of my presidency than the previous eight years against isis. >> chris: thought, i don't have to tell you, a bomb went off in the london subway this
week, that's the fifth terror attack in great britain just this year. experts say, as we succeed, and we are succeeding, in pushing iraq -- i says back in, shrinking its territory, it is y getting them to focus more on launching attacks in europe and the u.s. >> general mcmaster: the president has told us we have to do three fundamental things very effectively. the first is to ensure that these terrorists have no safe havens and support bases that allow them to organize, plan, and conduct attacks against us and against our allies. the second thing is we have to cut off the financing, the way that they resource these kinds of operations. in the third, we have to defeat their evil ideology. this has a lot to do with some of prime minister may's' top priority, to constricted their ability to use the ability to communicate with each other. none of this is a substitute for
important law enforcement actions across the world and proving even further our ability to share information and to gain visibility of these terrorist networks and defeat them. >> chris: there is a report this weekend, i'm sure you read, that says that president trump has decided he's not going to pull out of the paris climate accord, that we may reduce our commitment to curb greenhouse gas emissions but he's going to live with the agreement. stay in the agreement with a reduced commitment, is that true? >> general mcmaster: that's false. that's a false report. if the president decided to pull out of the paris accord because it was a bad deal for the american people and because it was a bad deal for the environment. it gave the worst polluters the ability to continue polluting and emitting carbon without significantly reducing those levels. the president is committed to the cleanest water on earth, the cleanest air on earth, to an energy policy that reduces carbon emissions but then also
provides clean fossil fuels to generate growth in this country and globally. these priorities he felt we could not pursue effectively within this flawed agreement. >> chris: so he's out of the paris climate court? >> general mcmaster: he's out of the paris climate record but he says the door is open. what he set on the date he announced we are withdrawn from the accord, he said at some point in the future if there can be ideal that addresses the some fundamental flaws -- >> chris: the ally said they are not going to negotiate. >> general mcmaster: the president's ears are open no if some point they decide that they can come forward with an agreement that addresses the president's very legitimate concerns about paris. >> chris: one final area. it's widely known in washington that you and steve bannon have sharply different views of the world. at one of the first things you did as national security advisor is kick him out as a regular official member of the nsc, he has dismissed you and some of the other advisors as globalist, he has sharply disagreed with
the decision to commit, to double down in afghanistan. question: is the administration better off with steve bannon out of the white house? >> general mcmaster: the administration is better off when we can serve the president by integrating, coordinating across all of our departments and agencies with our key allies and partners and to present the president with multiple options and then based on his decisions to help the president implement these policies that prioritize, protecting and advancing the interests of the american peopl people. so what's important is to have an inclusive process, not to try to manipulate into a particular decision or to advance her own agenda. guessing the president's agenda and we are advancing policies ad strategies that are for the american people. >> chris: you striking is a pretty straight talker, are you saying that steve bannon was manipulating, but he was trying to work around and advance his own agenda?
>> general mcmaster: the national security council, i think, has served the president well and bringing him multiple options. there were some who try to operate outside of that process for their own narrow agendas and that didn't serve the president well. >> chris: some people, does that include steve bannon? >> general mcmaster: i think this has been too hyped on one individual. reports of feuding, it just really didn't even happen. we had our doors open to all's perspectives and it was up to those individuals whether they would walk through the door and participate in an open and transparent process. >> chris: general mcmaster, thank you, thanks for your time. if you are a busy guy, we covered a lot of ground there in about 12 minutes. >> general
mcmaster: always a pleasure, thank you. >> chris: thank you, we will be watching the president's speech to the u.n. on thursday. up next, we will talk to two leading senators about the president deals to democrats.
how long will it last? and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable. we're talking to you, cost inefficiencies, and data without insights. and fragmented care, stop getting in the way of patient recovery and pay attention. every single one of you is on our list. at optum, we're partnering across the health system to tackle its biggest challenges.
at optum, we're partnering across the health system >> chris: president trump a dinner with democratic leaders chuck and nancy this week they seem to have cooked up at least the outline of a deal on immigration that has many of the most devoted from supporters worried. so where do we stand on daca and whose driving the agenda now here in washington? joining us from chicago, dick durbin, the senate's number two democrat. and here in washington, republican senator roy blunt. it lets start with the big question here in washington, the most immediate question, does president trump have a deal with speaker -- former speaker pelosi
and democratic leader chuck schumer when it comes to daca or not? here is part of what was a shifting conversation on thursday. speak of the wall is going to be built, it will be funded a little bit later. >> it was a very, very positive step for the president to commit to daca protections without insisting on the inclusion of or even a debate about the border wall. >> they cannot obstruct the wall. if the wall, to me, is vital. if i don't get the wall then we will become -- >> chris: senator durbin i want to push them to specific points, is there a deal to protect the dreamers without funding for the wall, and is there a deal to give the dreamers a path to citizenship? >> senator durbin: , there's a basic understanding, chuck schumer and nancy pelosi met with the president thursday night, they came to a basic understanding. without the details, without the obvious negotiations i have to follow and then chuck and nancy said to the president and the
white house we are going to put out a press release so it's clear on both sides what we've agreed to. they did exactly that. there was great pushback from the right. they didn't like the parameters of this understanding and there has been a lot of conversation since, but we are going forward. we are going forward with the understanding that we can work with the white house to come up with an agreement that includes daca, that includes citizenship for those who are protected under the dream act and also has a substantial commitment to increase border protection. at those of the two pillars of this understanding. >> chris: very briefly, in this understanding do you believe that the president committed to those pillars over chinese food on wednesday night? >> senator durbin: yes. >> chris: that's pretty brief. senator blunt, the president seemed to walk away from at least the citizenship part of this deal later on thursday, let's take a look at that. >> we are not talking about amnesty at all. we have not talked about amnest
amnesty. there will be no amnesty, we are not talking about that. >> chris: so, senator, helpless clear this up, because there's generally confusion here in washington, do you believe that there is a deal on these issues and is this something that republican senators could support? >> senator blunt: i think there's a desire to come to a conclusion on both sides and senator durbin just mentioned border security as part of their understanding, but the details haven't been worked out, another thing that he mentioned. the details here matter. it's always been three separate questions in my view, how do you secure the border, what are the legitimate workforce needs of the country, and three, what you do with people who came or stayed, or in the case of the dreamers, or brought to the country illegally? i think it would be very shortsighted not to try to do all we can to solve the first problem, and the president has unbelievable credibility here. if you solve the first problem
for other problems i think are reasonably solvable, we are seeing that to happen as people come together and want to deal with the issue who of kids who were brought here illegally. it's not going to solve it in a satisfactory way in less you give the present at the leeway he needs to be able to some point in the future say the border is now operationally secure. that allows everybody who moved us all these other problems in a better way. >> chris: again, briefly, i hope you will be as brief as senator durbin is, giving them leeway to secure the border, does that have to include funding for the wall, specifically funding for the wall as opposed to other measures, and secondly, citizenship for dreamers? >> senator blunt: it appears it would not preclude the wall but it doesn't have to include the wall at this point i don't think. lots of things have to happen to secure the border and in terms of citizenship, does that mean you wouldn't have to take the test that everybody else takes, how long would you have to be here? there are lots of things that
can and will be worked out there. >> chris: let's turn to the bigger issue, whether or not president trump is forming a new alliance with congressional democrats at the expense of republicans. here's what the president had to say about that on air force one. >> if the republicans don't stick together then i'm going to have to do more work. if they are unable to stick together that i'm going to have to get a little help from the democrats and i've got that. >> chris: senator blunt, given the failure of senate republicans to pass obamacare repeal and replace, isn't it wise for this president to go to democrats and look for some boats? >> senator blunt: i think the minority can't abuse the rules of the senate but under the rules of the senate you have to have some democrats work with you to get most things done. if the tenures i was either the chief deputy whip for the deputy whip in the house, who had two years were democrats didn't vote for them. that's how you get the work done
here in a way that allows everything else to move forward. looking for democrats on every bill is a good idea, but making it impossible to get your work done because you lost your own side is not part of that either. >> chris: senator durbin, do you think that there is the potential for a real -- not permanent, but working alliance between president trump and congressional democrats, and what you say to those folks on the left who don't trust this president and don't trust making deals within? >> senator durbin: of course there will be people on the right and left will be critical but senator roy blunt and i are good examples of how this can work. i have joined him and applauded his leadership and dramatically increasing biomedical research in the united states on a bipartisan basis. two weeks ago schumer and pelosi sat down with the president and the other leaders and said we can help you move immediately
for hurricane harvey assistance to have a short-term spending bill so the government doesn't shut down and to extend the debt ceiling of the united states, we will do it on a bipartisan basis, that's what american wants in the president said i will take it. if we did it and we can do more like that as long as we trust one another, respect the differences that we obviously do have, but try to work toward a goal. penny murray and lamar alexander have accomplished more in the last two weeks of strengthening our health care system and moving forward to make the affordable care act more affordable and more transparent than we achieved in seven months of partisan wrangling on the floor of the senate. it can be done. if >> chris: but there are some differences. you talked for instance about spending, the trump administration wants to cut nia spending and let me talk about another big difference on the hot issue of tax reform. the president wants to slash corporate taxes and end the estate tax, democrats opposed both. the president talks about paying for tax cuts based on
assumptions of dramatic growth, democrats reject that. senator durbin, is there a deal given those very sharp differences, fundamental differences, is there a deal to be made on tax reform? >> senator durbin: there will be differences but that's what the senate is all about, sitting down with democrats and republicans and the republicans are in the majority, and really working out a process that comes to a conclusion where both sides have to compromise to some degree. that's where you get the best legislation and that's where you get something the american people can trust. jamming something through on one side or the other is just not the way to achievement, we proved that with repeal and replace. that did not achieve what america wanted, a stronger health care system with more people with insurance coverage and quality insurance policies they can trust. >> chris: senator blunt, what are the implications of all this for the 2018 midterm elections. you have the president out on the stump recently with north dakota senator heidi heitkamp, this is somebody who
was a vulnerable democrat, one of the prime targets for republicans to knock her off in 2018, the president is saying nice things about her. when you add that to the president appearing to compromise on some of his basic campaign pledges, couldn't this hurt republicans in 2018? >> senator blunt: on the tax from its very important we get something done, increased take-home pay for working families, we are almost into a decade now of very flat opportunities for families with their take-home pay. a tax bill that increases take-home pay and in the future creates better jobs with more take-home pay, more pay to start with, where we should be headed. we ought to be looking for anybody who wants to be part of that period of 46 democrats sent a letter to the president that said we would be glad to work with you as long as you don't do these three things that you think are important part of the tax package, that's not a good way to start. >> chris: finally, senator blunt, about a minute left, there was more violent protest in st. louis overnight.
people angry about the acquittal of a white police officer who was charged with murder in the death of a black drug suspect, i know everyone opposes the violence, but even the mayor of st. louis said she was appalled by the shooting and appalled by the verdict. what is your reaction to the situation there in the clear anger of a lot of people in the african-american community? >> senator blunt: i talked yesterday to the police chiefs that are involved in what the chiefs are doing, i talked to a number of community leaders and african-american pastors. i do think this is a place where we have to figure out how to come together. we do have to accept what the judge who has the obligation to look at this case determined, but at the same time you have to look at what we need to do to bring the community together in ways that both law enforcement and community leaders have been trying to do, particularly since ferguson. this happened before that happened and we just need to
continue to watch this. the division in the country whether it's st. louis or baltimore is not a good thing and we all need to be working hard to make our system work. >> chris: senator blunt, senator durbin, thank you both, we will stay on top of how all of this work between the president and chuck and nancy plays out in congress, thank you gentlemen. coming up, we will bring in our send a group to discuss president trump's new search for boats on both sides of the aisle. plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the president's potential deal to protect dreamers without getting funding for the border wall? just go to facebook or twitter, @foxnewssunday, and we may use your question on the air.
>> chris: senate democratic leader chuck schumer caught on the hot mic on the senate for describing his advice to president trump to deal with both democrats and republicans in congress. it's time now for our sunday group, former speaker of the house newt gingrich. rachael bade, who covers congress for politico. julie pace, washington bureau chief for the associated press. and guy benson of townhall.com. mr. speaker, he worked with bill clinton in the mid-1990s as he wasn't doing what was called triangulation, trying to negotiate apart from both
republicans and his own democratic party, is that what president trump is doing here and will it work? >> i think trump is a dealmaker. he wants things to work, he wants to get the job done. the other day he was faced with two visits to houston, terrible devastation, a hurricane coming to florida, and he had the usual partisan infighting for two or three weeks, take a deal. and he took a deal and it worked and he thought maybe i will do a little bit more. the challenge will be that the goals of schumer and pelosi and their base are so radically different from trump that the margins were deals may be smaller than people would like. i think it's perfectly reasonable. if i advocated for months that they start with infrastructure because it was inherently bipartisan. and i think the presidents govern best when the courage a lot large block out of the -- >> chris: how frustrated i
think with republican leaders and particularly their inability to deliver on obamacare repeal and replace and how much hope for the hold given that, as i said and the speakers that, a lot of the basic issues, or they want on tax and immigration, such big differences, and how much hope today holds for a working alliance with the democrats? >> put this in context of the relationship the president has with mcconnell and ryan. with mcconnell, there's just not much of a relationship there so when you come out of something with the obamacare debate in the presidencies that mcconnell just can't get it over the finish line, there's not a lot of personal bonding there to keep that going. there's a lot of frustration in the white house after that specific debate on the capital. since then the president looks at schumer more so than pelosi, but schumer in particular, he sees someone he likes and this is a president who likes personal relationships, he likes to have a bond with someone. there will be differences on the policies, yes they are not going to be aligned and everything but where he can make an agreement,
he's been hearing from people like speaker newt gingrich and others per month that this is actually what he should do, that this is an advantage for someone like trump, who isn't particularly ideological, doesn't have deep roots to the conservative movement or republican ideology. >> chris: so when it comes to daca does not mean the wall, maybe not, citizenship, may be asked? >> i think on the wall, this is something you've seen the president multiple times when he's had a chance to say i will hold up a person piece of legislation, he's backed off. for his base that's going to continue to be a frustration but he has certainly shown the ability to kick it on the road a little bit. explain what we asked you for the panel, bastions for the panel and on this issue, on dact of confusion as there has been here in washington. does trump even want to get funding for the wall, build that
wall got him elected. how else will he rally his base? rick connor posted this on facebook, how do you think amnesty for these illegals will square with the campaign promises to the contrary? is this just a negotiating troy to get his agenda through, wall and all? >> that's what everyone is trying to figure out in this town, including both senators that you just interviewed a little while ago. i went back and try to figure out may be what a deal start to look like on daca, but with the contours perhaps start to come together with and i think with the wall seems to be out, at least for this particular piece. he says maybe sometime in the future, unclear. but it seems like ancient history at this point, democrats agreed in principle to a whole swath of border security and immigration provisions that i think would probably form the basis for something or trump could potentially, somewhat
credibly, claim a victory. i went back and look at some of those provisions, $40 billion for border security, 20,000 new security agents. 700 miles of fencing, that's a physical border. agreed to in the so-called "border surge." if there's a chance that while the law might be part of a daca deal, there could be something that could be spun as or framed as a wall or a physical barrier. >> chris: how do you think, i'm going to ask you, what do you think the reaction of the real trump hardliners, the real base, will be if they get a deal on daca that include citizenship and doesn't include a wall as it had been commonly thought to exist? >> last week i had a long car ride so i listen to talk radio for about six hours straight and it was really interesting, i opened the phone lines and it was trump base voters coming in and there was some trepidation, there was some concern about where this might go, but overall
there was a sense that they trust president trump, that they think that he is three steps ahead of anyone else and that ultimately he's got their interests at heart and that was sort of reflected across-the-board for most of his supporters, so that's what i would guess would be the case, and less it is egregiously bad. >> chris: rachel, from your post covering capitol hill, what do you think the prospects for a deal that can be passed on daca and its prospects for a deal on tax reform? >> you talk to republicans right now, in terms of white house striking a deal, while cutting out g.o.p. leadership, you mentioned that a lot of the base still has faith in trump and they say that he knows our interest, he's going to do what is best for us. there's a totally different feeling on capitol hill with g.o.p. leadership. i heard a lot of frustration in question are staying questionit is a strategy, what is his end game? cutting out leadership is not the smartest thing for the president at this point in time,
at least republicans will tell you that. if for instance, take the daca deal, i was talking to folks in leadership or saying that they don't understand why he took the wall off the table to begin with. at the number one bargaining chip they said in terms of negotiating a deal. if it will take it off the table with democrats, you should get something for it. they will try to push them to put that back on the table and sort of use that to get a deal that is possibly conservative leaders could go for. >> chris: they are so different on tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy, on whether or not it's going to add to the deficit or not, unless you put in what they called dynamic scoring and include a lot of the growth that is a gas whether or not it's going to happen. >> i don't mean to sound alarmist but tax reform is also in trouble. it goes back to the shift we are seeing in the president going from just working with republicans to now wanting to work with democrats. for instance, republicans on the hill, speaker paul ryan, mitch mcconnell, treasury secretary
mnuchin, they've all been writing a republican bill and they are about to unveil it. last week we saw the president come out and float the idea of increasing taxes on the wealthy, which goes against -- 100% against what republicans want to see in a tax bill. there is fear that he's overstepping right now and there's concern that he's going to undercut them, not only the republican base with the president and what he wants to do. >> chris: quick reactions, speaker? >> an interesting side story was democrats one this big agreemen agreement, the democrats will have this huge leverage because the debt ceiling ended in december, a few days later mitch mcconnell pointed out as majority leader he controlled -- they took out the provisions shimmer most wanted. >> chris: which means they can keep the debt ceiling until march. >> he said -- shimmer faced with that reality, he couldn't say n no. so we are a long way, this dance
is going to continue for a while. i think the democrats face the real risk. do they hate the walt more than they love the dreamers? if i were the president, that's the way i would drive it. these people are so ideological they would rather sacrifice the dreamers. >> chris: all right. we have to take a break here. when we combat, growing tension between washington and silicon valley, powerful internet companies face talk of war on government oversight. we will bring back the panel to discuss congress' new scrutiny of big tech.
the fact is i don't think facebook has put the resources, the time. my understanding is they didn't even go back and check all those accounts to see if they put out other ads. >> chris: democratic senator mark warner of virginia after facebook admitted it sold $150,000 worth of ads in the 2016 election two groups linked to russia, spurring investigations by both congressional committees and special counsel robert mueller. speaker, how big a development is this and are we beginning to see the end of washington's hands-off approach to big tech and especially these huge internet companies? >> i think this is probably 4-6 years behind the curve. these companies are so big, they control so much of our lives, they can set so many different policies internally with no supervision that having not just the russian angle but really looking at the underlying nature of these companies, what they do, how they make decisions, the equivalent of gigantic public utilities.
in the information age them enormous power. in a free society you can't have power hidden away in secret controlled by a handful of the liners. >> chris: one of the things mark warner, who was a tech guy himself before he went into politics, it's the wild, wild west. some of the people say that's the reason it succeeded, are you saying put government claims on a? >> i think having the wild, wild west when companies or small is exactly right. several of these companies are so enormous that there is some sense of what does it mean to us as a free society to have global corporations run by founding billionaires who are in effect totally out of control and who internally can wipe out a company, they can be anti-conservative, they can be antiliberal, they can do all sorts of things with almost no supervision, just to serve as the information. >> chris: rachael, president obama and democrats, i think he would agree, generally had a pretty cozy relationship with the bank internet companies facebook, like google, like
amazon. is that changing on capitol hill now as the speaker suggested it should, and is there a partisan divide and how republicans and democrats see these internet behemoths? >> absolutely. the days of the industry basking in the sun, from washington, basically coming to an end right now. for a long time congress had sort of a light touch with the tech industry but now you have democrats who are furious about these russia ads that ran in 2016, republicans are worried that google is oppressing conservative voices, both sides are concerned about people's private information being gathered. yes, generally republicans control everything right now in washington and they are typically anti-regulation but it's safe to say that this sort of darling industry is now becoming a target as much as anything else. >> chris: do you have any thought about how you do it when the rubber hits the road?
how do you allow these companies to grow and prosper but with some guardrails? >> i think that's the question that the hill is sort of grappling with random, how do they allow an industry to continue to grow? there's a test case going on on capitol hill, there will be some hearings coming up in the senate this week to examine whether big websites and tech companies can be held liable for child sex trafficking on the internet. right now they cannot be sued if a user were to put illicit content on the internet. the senate will look at re-examining this, but i think this is an interesting first test. if they are not going to see something as heinous as child trafficking as a reason to regulate than it safe to say that big tech still has a lot of power. >> chris: it is amazing, the big center of lobbying here in
washington, there was a chart and "the wall street journal" that show the lobbying expenditures by these companies has just skyrocketed in the last few years. truly, where are president trump and his administration on this coming talk about utilities, speaker, steve bannon used to talk about treating facebook and google as public utilities, which meant heavy regulation. >> of course outside the white house. rhetorically the position of this white house when it comes to big tech is so different from the obama administration, which really wrapped its arms around the googles and amazon's and facebooks and presented them as examples of american companies that are growing strong and dominating on the global stage. trump i think has been turned off a bit by the fact that the liberal leaders of these companies are not particularly pleased with his administration and have spoken out on a lot of issues. i don't think you can divorce this conversation when it comes to the white house. he is also taken on amazon, he's
taken on amazon on his twitter account. i think that you are seeing some of this coming from the president's populist message in general. he's upset wall street and some of the big firms there. he looks at tech and somewhat of the same way, a massive company that can get out of control. you look at his base, you can see that frustration, the frustration of small business owners who see themselves getting taken over by a giant like amazon. >> chris: there's also this whole question before i get to you about the fact that internet companies don't have to pay taxes but the mom and pop store in the town on main street does have to pay taxes. >> that's when you see him go after amazon in particular for. he's done that in a series of tweets. i think that will be interesting to see if we do end up talking about a big tax reform package. >> chris: that would actually add a lot of of revenue.
growing questions about the culture in silicon valley, but three former female employees of google justify what they hope will be a class action lawsuit charging them with pay and promotion discrimination and as you know there have been a number of complaints and lawsuits alleging harassment in these companies. the wild, wild west attitude applies also to the culture in silicon valley. >> that's right, you will have democrats in particular i think focusing on those problems and equal pay and is there discrimination in silicon valley and then you will have on the other side as rachael alluded to, a lot of conservatives and republicans look at what happened to mozilla a few years ago and brandon ousted for having traditional views on marriage. is there rampant discrimination in terms of viewpoints against conservatives and how might that play out in terms of average
users having information potentially stifled in searches. there are real concerns about that on the right. big tech might be waking up these days and saying we have real problems culturally on the left and the right in this country and what could be a problem for us on capitol hill as lawmakers on both sides start today again. >> chris: i want to pick up on something, there's no question that these companies have been engines of huge economic growth in this country. is there a downside to washington -- obviously there's a downside, how big a downside is there to washington getting more involved in regulation of the internet? >> a huge downside. i think some of the concerns the speaker raised are fair and reasonable and people would agree with them. my faith in the ability of government to respond to that wealth or regulation is very lo low. i think government is slow-moving, it is the opposite of innovative and the internet is a miracle and it wouldn't exist as it does today if the governments clumsy hand had been
on its neck from day one and i think putting more hand on the neck and applying more pressure from d.c., i'm just not sure that works out well. >> chris: 15 seconds to respond. >> the fact is, when huge concentrations of power are not directly challenged by government and that has overall been good for protecting our liberty. >> chris: will continue this debate. this is an important subject we will keep talking about. thank you panel. if a flex the power player of the week, the doctor who keeps both the redskins and nationals healthy while breaking down barriers and pro sports.
(honking) (beeping) we're on to you, diabetes. time's up, insufficient prenatal care. and administrative paperwork, your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you too. at optum, we're partnering across the health system
to tackle its biggest challenges. >> chris: the pro football season is now in full swing and as we fans dream of how our team will get to the super bowl, we know injuries have a way of derailing those hopes. which brings us to our "power player of the week" ." >> and sports medicine people are very highly motivated to get better. >> chris: orthopedic surgeon robin west as a busy schedule. most of the time she's the head of anogo sports medicine in virginia except when she is the lead position for both the washington redskins and the washington nationals. >> chris: what does it mean to you to be the first female head dr. in the history of both major league baseball and the nfl? >> dr. west: i don't even think about it.
it never really crossed my mind. i never think of myself is different. >> chris: we saw for ourselves at a skins exhibition game. nose tackle phil taylor went down on the play and west ran on the field. she examined him there and back on the sidelines for what turned out to be a season ending terror of his left quadriceps muscle. west told us how different injuries are in the two sports. >> dr. west: over used typically in baseball, dealing with a lot of shoulder and elbow injuries and baseball. in football it's a lot of traumatic injuries, high-energy injuries, but you have to really manage quickly. >> chris: that's another difference. in baseball an injured player is out of the game but in football -- >> dr. west: is on examining the player, is he going to play, it is he going to play, i have to decide pretty quickly. >> chris: west emphasizes how she makes that decision. >> dr. west: on the players with dr. so i want the best for the player.
obviously i don't work for the team, i want the team to do well but i have to look at the players' best interest. >> chris: is being a woman an advantage or disadvantage? >> dr. west: in football a lot of them were raised by the mothers and grandmothers so they hold women in a very high regard and they come to me and tell me more information and i would say they are very trusting i think. >> chris: dr. west usually does any reconstructive surgeries but she says psychological outlook is key to getting players back on the field. >> dr. west: one of my players today said he's a mental fortress. another player was coming to me saying i'm so depressed, i'm not around 19 and they are coming to me and asking for help on the mental side. >> chris: growing up west was interested in the human body, her mom noticed. >> dr. west: when i was five she got me an anatomy book.
>> chris: now the big concern is brain injuries but she says the nfl has developed a much stricter policy on concussions. >> dr. west: i think football is the safest it's ever been. >> chris: before washington she was old doctor for the pittsburgh steelers and got two super bowl rings. if her dream now, to win championships in both football and baseball. >> dr. west: that's our goal, that's everyone: the team, to keep the players healthy and to be as successful as we can. it's a pentacle, you can't get any better than that. >> chris: dr. west says the redskins have 15 medical professionals at each game on the field and up in the stands watching to see if any player gets hurt and relaying that information to her. that's it for today, have a great week and we will see you next "fox news sunday" ." ♪
this is ktvu mornings on 2, weekend . let's talk about what is making news this morning. thank you for joining us. >> they are tired but feel a great sense of accomplishment. first responders are returning. they have been busy at work. a hero's welcome they got when they returned back to the bay area. oversees a second man is in custody in connection to the london subway attack this past week. >> he is being questioned. what officials are saying about the
IN COLLECTIONSKTVU (FOX) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on