tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX September 29, 2019 10:00am-11:00am PDT
>> we cannot have a president of the united states undermining his oath of office. >> explosive charges, house speaker in a week that saw her declare, without a single vote on the house door, and impeachment inquiry, but that didn't stop house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff, who promised that his panel will be worhking t the two week congressional recess. indeed, along with a foreign affairs and oversight committee, schiff's intelligence committee issued a joint subpoena for secretary of state mike pompeo, demanding records of the president's communications with ukraine by an october 4th deadline, a decision that walked washington, but appeared to seal the resolve of an embattled and defiant president trump. >> what's going on now is the single greatest scam in history of american politics. they are trying to stop me because i'm fighting for you, and i'll never let that happen. >> this is the mystery deepens over who is the alleged whistle-blower and who changed the intelligence community's
rules just last month eliminating a requirement that whistle-blower complaints contained only direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing. >> if democrats have their way, this could all move very quickly, including more subpoenas this week. hearings scheduled and a possible vote to impeach by november, chris. >> chris: kevin corke reporting from the white house, thanks for that. joining us now, stephen miller, senior advisor to the president, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thanks for having me, chris. >> chris: let's start with the house democratic subpoenas of the state department of a massive set of documents as well as five witnesses for this week. it will president trump comply with the house subpoena? >> to >> stephen: that's going to be between the president's attorneys, white house counsel's office and the house committee. i have no news unfortunately to make on that issue but what i do want to say is that i think it's unfortunate that the media continues to describe this individual is a whistle-blower and honorific that this
individual most certainly does not deserve. a partisan hit job does not make you a whistle-blower just because you go through the whistle-blower protection act. >> chris: well, first of all, how do you know that this is a partisan hit job, and how do you know that this is not a whistle-blower in fact under dni, the department of national intelligence rules -- well, you know what, let's go back to this, and we're going to jump around a little bit because i didn't know you were going to go here. here is the comment from the dni, the acting dni before congress, joe maguire, in his testimony this week, take a look. >> i believe that the whistle-blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout. i have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and follow the law. >> chris: that is the director of national intelligence, joe maguire, a lifetime servant of this country, a navy seal, he says that the whistle-blower was acting in good faith and action
by the book. on what basis do you say that this was a partisan hit job? >> stephen: first of all, if you read the seven-page nancy drew novel for the whistle-blower put together, it drips with condescension, righteous indignation and contempt for the president. it's also ludicrous on its face. it describes an elaborate cover-up that also, by the way, the president discussed on sean hannity, april 25th. what kind of secret cover of are you also discussing on the airwaves of fox news? furthermore, the inspector general found evidence of political bias in the individual, which is not disputed by anybody -- >> chris: wait a minute. he also -- both the director of national intelligence and inspector general said they also found his comments to be credible and a matter of urgent concern and they turned it over to the justice department, so despite all that, they thought that this was a credible -- a complaint. >> stephen: and they are wrong. >> chris: on whose basis? >> stephen: i work in the federal government now for
nearly three years. i know at the deep state looks like. i know the difference between whistle-blower and a deep state operative. this is a deep state operative, pure and simple. people who haven't been in the federal government, who haven't worked in the white house memo may not appreciate this but the situation as you have a group od bureaucrats who think that they need to take down this president. i'll attend interagency meetings where i know for certain fact if i don't buy the right people at the meeting will leak. if i don't say the right thing, it will go to the hill. if we propose a policy idea that they don't approve of, they will work with democratic appropriators to try to block it. if they lick this president's phone calls, the publisher hit pieces, they publish fake stories. they've been doing this continuously for nearly three years and their motives and their agenda is clear. this is about do you want a democracy in this country or do you want a deep state. it's a binary choice for the american people. >> chris: again, this person you are accusing them all the scum of the director of national intelligence, joe maguire, a
lifelong servant of this country said was actingn good faith and going by the book. enough with the rhetoric, let's talk about some specific facts in this. why did president trump uses private attorney rudy giuliani, and as we just reported, to other private lawyers to try to dig up dirt from the ukrainian government on joe biden rather than going through his state department? >> stephen: first of all, and most imporantly, when we could talk about "digging up dirt," it's an interesting choice of words. one of two things is true, chris. either the ukrainian government, or people associated with it, possess a real and actual knowledge of corrupt dealings by the bide family, or they don't. if they do, is it not in the interest of all americans to know that is? >> chris: we are going to get to the biden's in a minute but i ask you a specific question, i'd like a specific answer. the president has the state department, he's got the cia, he's got the pentagon, he's
got a number of other agencies. why did he use three private lawyers to get information on biden from the ukrainian government rather than go through all of the agencies of his government? >> stephen: two different points. >> chris: how about answering my question? >> stephen: john durham, as you know -- >> chris: wait a minute, john durham is investigating some a completely different. i'm asking you a direct question, what are the president use private attorneys rather than go to the state department? if you don't know, that's an acceptable answer, but let's not talk about john durham, who was investigating the trump -- speech of their two issues -- >> chris: why did he do it? >> stephen: i understand. i understand that you have your question, i have my answer. there's two issues that were brought up a phone call -- >> chris: it's a nonanswer at this point. >> stephen: there were two issues brought up in the phone call. one was ukrainian knowledge about the nature of the collusion investigation that is inflicted so much pain and damage on our country. my point is that the attorney general has appointed
somebody from the justice department to look into that issue. then there's the additional matter of ukrainian corruption, which giuliani, among others, are looking at. and it is proper and natural for frankly anybody concerned about the future of ukraine and the united states to want to know information about corrupt dealings. what i find astonishing, chris, is that the people that are so enraged about an effort to find any true and actual knowledge of foreign crook dealings related to ukraine are the same ones who have been using the foreign produced dossier by a british spy to put this country through unending political turmoil. spirit i'm asking question as to why -- i'm simply asking you a question as to why the president didn't use his government. if you apparently are not going to answer that, i will ask another question. why did the president decide to withhold $391 million in military aid to ukraine last july? that had been approved by
congress? >> stephen: the president has been clear and consistent on this issue, not merely for the time is been in office, his whole time as a candidate and frankly decades before that. >> chris: i simply asking why in july did they decide to withhold the aid? >> stephen: the problem of burden sharing in ukraine and with our nato allies, he's been clear and consistent on this issue. plus the matter of ukrainian corruption. for reasons i cannot fathom, the media, which is ordinarily interested in sunshine and transparency above all else, is remarkably unserious about the information ukraine possesses about the corruption of the previous at administration -- >> chris: okay, but let's just make this point. in may, as part of a regular interagency process, in may, two months before he withheld the aid, the pentagon certified to congress -- certified, a formal process -- certified to congress after a rigorous process and after consultation with the state department that ukraine had made dramatic progress in
fighting corruption and that the aid should be released. why did the president, if the argument is corruption, why did the president go against his own pentagon and his own state department? >> stephen: chris, i don't understand how you can ask aske question while at the same time admonishing the president or wanting to get to the bottom of perhaps one of the biggest corruption scandals concerning ukraine in the last few years -- >> chris: are not admonishing anybody, absently asking why did he -- i mean this is -- with a due respect, this is an exercise in obfuscation. why did the president go against his own pentagon and state department? >> stephen: there's a tone of judgment in all of your questions, so yes, you are admonishing -- >> chris: that's judgment on your part. >> stephen: i can't speak to every mid-level and low level bureaucrat in the u.s. government -- >> chris: this is the deputy secretary of defense. what you considered john brood a minyan in the state department? in a pentagon? >> stephen: it's the president 'his job and sworn duty to
safeguard taxpayer dollars and the united states government's foreign policy. getting to the bottom of a corruption scandal in ukraine is in the american national interest if you want to understand why that complaint is so obviously politically biased, when he says that the president is threatening national security by trying to expose corruption -- when he says, or she, that the president is hurting national security by trying to get to the bottom of a gigantic scandal that nobody has on earth, the president is the whistle-blower here. the president of the united states is the whistle-blower in this individual is a saboteur trying to undermine a democratically elected government. >> chris: saboteur, is he a spy? is a committing treason? >> stephen: i do not know -- >> chris: the president said that, you kn. >> stephen: the president correctly pointed out that the behavior of this individual is close to a spy. i don't know who the individual is, all i know is at some point, chris, we have to focus the real scandal, which is three years of deep state sabotage. >> chris: i'm going to talk about a different scandal and you'll be very happy that i'm
headed a tear. the president says the real story is the corruption by vice president biden and his son hunter biden, who was on the board of the ukrainian energy company. how, specifically -- i'm going to give you one minute uninterrupted -- how specifically to the bidens break the law in ukraine? >> stephen: the burisma company, as you know, was under investigation. it has a ukrainian oligarch behind it who was under investigation. we know that there was severe concerning the obama administration of the time about biden being appointed as the lead on ukrainian policy and his son getting a lucrative $50,000 a month deal with the company. the sun had no experience in the legal issues -- >> chris: how did you break the law? >> stephen: knew nothing about ukrainian law and nothing about natural gas, the issue of the heart of the company. the biden men threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid unless the prosecutor was fired. >> chris: you realize that also the international monetary
fund, almost every other government in the west was also asking for that prosecutor to be fired and that in fact, in fact, there was no investigation going on of burisma, the name of the company at that time. >> stephen: i don't know that to be true. >> chris: it is true. >> stephen: i know what people have said but the reality is that why is the media so obsessed with every single aspect of this investigation but they don't want to uncover the potential corrupt dealings of hunter biden and his father? >> chris: i have one less question to ask you and i do want to put this on -- >> stephen: while thornton about china? >> chris: here is the prosecutor general of ukraine for three years, including the period during which president trump spoke with president zelensky in july of 2019. here he is this week. take a look. >> i don't know any violation of
ukrainian law -- once again, ukrainian law, by biden and biden jr. >> chris: he was the prosecutor general at the time the president called the ukrainian president -- says joe biden and his son did nothing wrong. >> chris: if you're going to use them as a witness you have to also analogies made incredibly damning allegations against ukraine and the government involving the origins of the 2016 russian collusion experience e. if you're going to use a witness you have to take all of it are none of it. you can't pick and choose, it's not a buffet. >> chris: okay, but i guess the point is if he is clearly saying those things about ukraine and the 2016 election, he's not carrying water for joe biden, he says joe biden -- you can't pick or choose either. >> stephen: i'm not. >> chris: your saying "we agree with him on this but we don't on the other." welcome to the buffet. >> stephen: i'm saying an investigation is urgently needed when you look at the pattern of facts but the single most important point is this. the american people in 2016 said we want in a completely new
direction for our country. they elected new lawmakers and they elected a new president to deliver that direction. he's the the sole elected person in the executive branch. >> chris: that's not true. it got the vice president as well. >> stephen: yes. the all executive power is vested in the president but there are deep state operatives who for three years have done nothing but try to leak, undermine, hurt, and harm the ability of this president to institute this change. do we want to be governed by an unelected bureaucracy or by a democratically elected president? is the sole issue facing the american people. >> chris: the only point i would make it, and i have to move on, is that in 2018, the american people elected democratic house, so they are a coequal branch of government. stephen, thank you, thanks for your time, always good to talk with you. up next, we will ask house democratic leader where they are headed on possible impeachment of president trump. congressman and chair of the democratic caucus, hakeem jeffries, joins us next. ♪ as a small business owner,
the one thing you learn pretty quickly, is that there's a lot to learn. grow with google is here to help you with turning ideas into action. putting your business on the map, connecting with customers, and getting the skills to use new tools. so, in case you're looking, we've t all the ways we can help in one place. free training, tools, and small business resources are now available at google.com/grow [music (plays throughout):le lack of afro - recipe for love] ♪ whoaahoooo oo ♪ ♪ yeahhh aa aa aye ♪ i've got so much love to give ♪ ♪ i've got so much more to give, baby ♪ this is a moment you plan for. to start your retirement plan, find an advisor at massmutual.com [sfx: mnemonic]
without it, i cannot write my name. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right. with truecar, to sell just enter your license plate and see your car's value in real time. sports package and low mileage? nice. within minutes, you'll have a true cash offer, and you can head to a dealership and get paid, today, right now.
inquiry into president trump, issuing a subpoena to secretary of state mike pompeo with promises of more to come. joining us now, congressman hakeem jeffries of new york, chair of the house democratic caucus and a member of the judiciary committee, congressman, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> representative jeffries: good morning, thanks for having me on. >> chris: let's start with that subpoena of the state department documents and witnesses. if president trump refuses to comply with that subpoena, is that an impeachable offense? >> representative jeffries: we hope that the administration will cooperate. that certainly hasn't been the case up-to-date, though there is some reason to believe that moving forward, given the seriousness of these allegations, that we will see cooperation from secretary pompeo. we are going to follow the facts, we are going to follow the law, we will be guided by the constitution and we will unearth the truth for the american people, which relates to the fact that the president has betrayed his oath of office. he's engaged in serious wrongdoing here.
he pressured a foreign government to target an american citizen for political gain. that is classic abuse of power which undermines our national security. this is a serious as it gets. >> chris: to press my point, in previous cases, i certainly know in the nixon case that one of the things that the house impeached nixon for was failure to cooperate, he was in contempt of congress. it was failure to comply with a subpoena be an impeachable offense? >> representative jeffries: we are going to remain focused on the rebukes of power that clearly exists. there's evidence clearly hiding in plain sight of that fact, including the rough transcript of the july 25th phone call between the president of the united states of america the president of ukraine, but, chris, to your question, as adam schiff indicated in the letter, to the extent that there is continued obstruction, to the extent that there is a continued cover-up, that could provide potential grounds for an obstruction of congress charge.
>> chris: democratic leaders are talking about a tight process focused just on ukraine with a potential vote on the house floor and articles of impeachment by thanksgiving. isn't that a bit like the queen of hearts in "alice in wonderland" sentence today, verdict afterwards? you already are deciding when and how you're going to proceed before you actually conduct the investigation? >> representative jeffries: speaker pelosi has been tremendous and strong she has laid out the focus of the impeachment inquiry moving forward. we are operating under an umbrella. the intelligence committee is going to take the lead. what she has said, and the only thing she has said publicly or privately about timeline is that we are going to proceed expeditiously, we have course are going to proceed fairly. we are going to proceed comprehensively, we are going to unearth the truth, we are going to provided to the american people and then make some decisions. >> chris: use a make some decisions but you've arty laid out a pretty dramatic case about betraying the country, betraying the oath of office.
based on the evidence you've seen, while the house vote to impeach donald trump? >> representative jeffries: that remains to be seen. because we are in the middle of a process, but here's what's clear and here's the story that needs to be told to the american people. if the congress on a bipartisan basis allocated $391 million in military and state department aid to the ukrainian government. ukraine is an ally, they are under attack right now by russian-backed separatists in crimea. in february, the administration said to the congress that the age of the ukraine is on the way, yet it never was sent. then in may, the administration again said to the congress that the aid to ukraine is on the way and that all necessary preconditions, including as it relates to anticorruption activity, has been met. yet the aid never made it. then comes the july 25th call with the president of the united states pressures the president of ukraine to commence an investigation against a
political opponent, thereby soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election. the president of ukraine agrees as based on the rough transcript. sometime thereafter all of a sudden in september the aid is released after it's clear that there was a whistle-blower complaint. these are very troubling facts here and we are going to bring them to the light for the american people. >> chris: i want to pick up on exactly that point, that's the basic charge of the whistle-blower, that the president the leverage of aid to try to get the ukrainian president to dig up dirt on vice president -- former vice president joe biden. here, this week, the ukrainian president zelensky met with president trump, and here's what they said. >> it was normal. we spoke about many things. i think that nobody pushed me. >> in other words, no pressure. >> chris: he says right there, nobody pushed him.
>> representative jeffries: he can say that nobody pushed him, but understand that the united states is the most powerful country on earth and that we, in many ways, are the only thing standing between vladimir putin and ukraine being totally overrun by russia. the united states is strong, ukraine is vulnerable, so when the president of the united states withholds military aid that had been duly authorized by congress, and then on the july 25th phone call says do us a favor, forwards, chris, that will likely live in infamy in terms of the history of our republic. that is what you call a high-pressure tactic, and of course the ukrainian president got the message. >> chris: what about the argument, sir, that impeachment is a drastic action, that you basically are talking about the possibility of overturning a democratic election in which donald trump was elected
president of the united states. we are basically already in the presidential campaign. why not wait until next november and let voters decide whether or not they want donald trump as their president? >> representative jeffries: as the whistle-blower has indicated, as the trump-appointed inspector general to the intelligence committee has indicated, as the acting director of national intelligence, who was himself appointed by donald trump as indicated, this is a matter of urgent national security concern and that is why we are compelled to ask. were going to continue to work with the president on a host of other issues of importance to the american people, like driving on the high cost of life-saving prescription drugs and enacting a real infrastructure plan to fix our crumbling roads and bridges and tunnels as well as getting to yes on the renegotiated united states canada mexico trade agreement, but chris, the house is a separate and coequal branch of government. we don't work for this president or any president, democrat or
republican. we worr the erica people. we have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance on the executive branch. that is not the nancy pelosi playbook, that's not the adam schiff playbook, that's not the house democratic caucus playbook, that the james madison playbook. he said that we should be a rival to the executive branch because the founders didn't want a monarch, they didn't want a king, they didn't want to dictator, they wanted a democracy, and these allegations strike at the heart and soul of our democracy. >> chris: finally, and we are running out of time, i want to talk a little politics with you. there are 31 house democrats, moderates, who won in districts that president trump had carried in 2016 and the republican national committee is already going after them about the possibility of impeachment. here is an rnc ad targeting new york congressman max rose. >> instead of fixing health care and lowering drug prices, rose
both with the radicals for endless investigations of president trump. >> chris: are you putting those moderates and in effect the house majority in jeopardy fight -- look, for two years you pursued russian collusion, that fell apart. now you're going to spend another few months at least pursuing the president on ukraine. are you putting all of them in the house majority in jeopardy? >> representative jeffries: we are going to continue to focus, as i indicated, on the kitchen table pocketbook issues to make life better for everyday americans. >> chris: you know this is going to soak everything up, congressman. >> representative jeffries: we have this constitutional responsibility and we will undertake it with the seriousness and solemnity that it requires. it's not about politics. this is about betrayal, abuse of power, this is about national security. this is about the integrity of our elections and this is about the united states constitution. >> chris: congressman, thank you, thanks for coming in today, we will be tracking this week's developments, thanks. >> representative jeffries: thank you. >> chris: up next we will bring in our sunday group to discuss the impeachment inquiry, the risk to democrats, and the
potential damage to joe biden. ♪ this is a story about... doin' more... ...with less. doers need energy. and demand for it is expected to grow. so chevron's finding more homegrown energy, more precisely. digitizing the way we work with advanced data analytics helping us develop more productive wells. and we're exploring ways to use renewable energy in our operations. doin' more... ...with less. more data and precision... to help meet growing demand. that's going to get a lot of likes. chevron. innovating to meet the energy demands of today and tomorrow. spokesman: fraudsters - they're out to get your medicare number so they can bill fake claims in your good name. don't give them that chance. fraudster: just calling to confirm your medicare number. do you have your card available? spokesman: for example, if a caller says they're from medicare, watch out. it's probably a scam. don't give out your card number. and always check your claim statements for errors. report fraudulent charges to 1-800-medicare. guard your card.
>> today's release of the notes of the call, by the way, have confirmed this behavior which undermines the integrity of our election, the dignity of any presidency and are national security. >> when they look at the information, it's a joke. impeachment for that? when you have a wonderful meeting or you have a wonderful phone conversation. >> chris: president trump and house speaker nancy pelosi with very different reactions to the release of that rough transcript of his call with ukraine's president this summer as house democrats launch a formal impeachment inquiry. it's time now for our sunday group, rich lowry of national review, mo elleithee of georgetown university's institute of politics and public service. former democratic congresswoman donna edwards and fox news correspondent gillian turner. rich, how much trouble is donald trump in? what are the chances for impeachment, what are the
chances for removal? >> i think he's obviously in trouble and there's some idea what he wants to be impeached or welcomes the politics of impeachment and from people who talk to him, it's what you see in public, he hates the idea of being impeached, he doesn't want this to happen and i think what happened last week as nancy pelosi was really pushed by her own caucus and became unsustainable for her to oppose this anymore, but i think it's a sign of weakness that she didn't have a vote on the house floor to actually open the impeachment inquiry the way he did with -- that's a sign would be very narrow partisan vote, it would be awkward for some. i think this was improper, the president shouldn't have done it but he of a impeached and removed on the basis of anything like this universe of flexible fact, it would blow a hole of legitimacy in the center of our politics that wouldn't be healed for years. the right way to do this if you oppose the president, want him to go, there's an election 12 months from now. >> chris: gillian, you have an
advantage over all of us, you actually worked in the national security council under both bush 43 and obama, so i want to ask you a couple of specific things about what stands out for you. what stands up you about the phone call, what stands out for you about the president's handling of the aid and what stands out to you about the president's use off the books of several private attorneys? >> first point quickly on the transcript, a lot of hay being made about the fact that white house officials ordered the transcript moved from a top-secret system to an even more highly classified code word system. way way not enough information is known at this point to make a determination that was problematic. people are saying that move is unprecedented, it's not. people are saying it shows and proves in and of itself there was a cover, it doesn't. >> chris: what about the call itself? >> the call itself, what stock knew about the call in terms of things or problematic was rudy
giuliani's involvement running point man on ukraine. anytime you have somebody who is a government official purporting to represent the united states, purporting to represent the president, it's highly unethical. not saying it's illegal, not saying it's impeachable, obviously that's not for me to decide but it is unethical and i think that's what the administration is going to have to contend with now. they are not upset with giuliani already, there are to be. >> chris: and what about the fact that the state department, the pentagon, they all said, congress, let's put this ate out on the fact that the president sometime in july just before the phone call goes against all of them and withholds the aid and then makes his call to the president. how troubling is that to you? >> we don't know if it's true yet. i think assumedly the investigation -- congress about service -- >> chris: we do know he withheld the aide. >> we know he withheld the eight and we know what he said in the phone call purportedly, but the correlation has not been proven yet. that's what the congressional inquiry will get to. >> chris: congresswoman
edwards, speaker pelosi didn't want to go down the road of impeachment. she now has decided to end you have some problems with the process of having six committees all do thehing, why? >> first of all, i think that the speaker didn't want to do this and she went on this road because the president actually forced her hand. and i think that the process has to be really narrowly circumscribed. it's really important not to spread it across six committees, six chairman, six different investigations. i do think the move ler in the week to try to contain this within the intelligence committee is probably a smart one, but we need to -- i think we need one lawyer, one committee, one chairman asking questions in a sequence that really makes sense so the american people can understand what happened and so that congress can get to some of the real answers. >> chris: the president's focus, at least part of his focus in all of this, apparently was to dig up dirt on joe biden,
who at the time of the phone call, perhaps know much now was his clear top rival, the front runner for the democratic nomination. here is former vice president biden this week. >> it seems to me it's awful hard to avoid the conclusion that it is an impeachable offense and a violation of constitutional responsibility. >> chris: i don't want to ask you a legal question, i want to ask a political question. there is no hard evidence that either -- as are presented to to stephen miller that either biden or his son did anything illegal, we've got to admit it sure looks bad that when joe biden is vice president of the united states, hunter biden, his son, is doing business with all of these countries that joe biden is also doing business with. it seems to be just kind of a perfect example of the swamp. >> that's what the president is hoping for, right? the facts we do know is that hunter biden went to work for this company to consult for this company but all the allegations of corruption against the
company took place two years before that. we know that the vice president and others in the obama administration specifically went after the prosecutor for pulling back on the ukrainian investigation, not for being too aggressive, or not being aggressive enough and tying foreign aid to that, we know that much, -- >> chris: i'm asking of the appearance. >> the political -- this is what the president is trying to do. the president now is one of the few lifelines he has right now is to obfuscate and confuse and make this look like some sort of loss equivalency here. there is not. the reality is that the president went to the ukrainian government and asked them for help that would benefit him politically. forget about the whistle-blower for a second. at the president admitted it in the white house released a memo that corroborated it. if that's the conversation we're having. >> chris: 30 seconds left, how
damaging to joe biden? >> i think it's pretty damaging. the arrangement with hunter was corrupted not in any legal sense but this is the worst aspect of our public life, that if you are in some proximity to power, people throw money at you for nothing and he got $50,000 a month from this company just on the basis of being the vice president's son and if biden is a nominee, which i have a lot of doubts for, trump would hammer this every single day. >> chris: panel, we have to take a break here. when we come back, iranian president hossein rouhani did not meet with president trump at the u.n., but we sat down for a wide-ranging interview. we will play the highlights and get reaction from our sunday p next. ♪ i've had patients in here,
40 to 50 year old men and women with chronic diseases and mental health issues, often untreated and ignored. it's incredibly rewarding when a patient sees that i care. i'm a nurse at wellpath. along with over 8,000 doctors and nurses, we provide healthcare in jails, prisons, psychiatric hospitals, and treatment centers.
♪ >> chris: it now our interview with iranian president hassan rew honey. the big question this week at the u.s. general assembly was rather rouhani and president trump would meet and try to ease tensions. based on our interview, it may have been just as well they didn't meet. rouhani accused president trump of economic terrorism for his stiff sanctions on iran and he pushed back on u.s. charges iran was behind that missile and drone attack on saudi arabia, suggesting yemen struck back against saudi aggression.
here are highlights from our interview. >> this week the european countries who signed onto the iran nuclear deal, i'm talking about britain, france, and germany, now say that they agree with president trump that it was iran that was responsible for the saudi attack, the attack on saudi oil facilities and like mr. trump, they say iran should now agree to a bigger new deal on nuclear weapons and on regional stability and are missile systems. will you agree to reopen the talks? >> translator: the most basic needed issue is trust and mr. mr. trump damaged the trust between the two countries, so this is very unfortunate, trust must be restored and the restoration of trust consists in taking away the pressure imposed upon the nation and the people of iran, which show that clearly there is animosity even towards
our children, our ill people, because they even have difficulty in obtaining basic medications and medical equipment. this is a type of terrorism, this is inhumane and if there is a cessation to this, and of course the atmosphere will change. >> chris: but it seems for the last year and a half, since the u.s. pulled out of the agreement, as if iran's policy has been to drive a wedge between the u.s., president trump, and europe, which has sto by the agreement. now, this week, it seems because of the fact that iran was responsible for this attack on saudi oil facilities, that you have in fact united the countries, it has backfired on you and now europe has agreed with the u.s. that they need to reopen new talks. >> translator: the people of yemen have the inherent right even brought in the
united nations charter to defend themselves. when have been the subject of bombardment for over five years, of course the people of yemen have the right to defend themselves. >> chris: but mr. president, the saudis say the drones were not yemeni, they were iranian, they were delta wings and delta waves. the saudis say the cruise missiles were not yemeni, they were iranian. and even your closest partner in europe, french president macron seems to agree. he has agreed, he says that it was iran that was responsible for the attack on saudi arabia. >> translator: well, because you are quite an experienced reporter, mr. wallace, you did not allow me to complete my previous answer. not a problem, i will return to what you were speaking of. see, mr. trump has leveled an
accusation, an unfounded accusation against iran, but let's assume if it was from iran, all of the money received from the united states for these defensive systems, for these weapons systems, radar systems installed in saudi arabia and throughout the arabian peninsula, how come they were not able to prevent that missile from hitting the target? and if we accept the u.s. accusation, then it is even more embarrassing perhaps for the united states and they must answer as to why they were not able to stop and intercept the system. >> chris: you are bringing to the u.n. a new peace plan called the hormones peace endeavor, but there are many nations in the region that say that iran is the last country that should be proposing peace. since may they say you have mind tankers in the persian gulf, you have seized a british ship, you
have shot down a united states drone and now saudi oil attack, they say and iranian peace plan is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. >> translator: iran during the past four decades fought against terrorism unequivocally, so iran is a country that has brought peace in the region. >> chris: excuse me, sir, and i say this respectfully, you have given hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion dollars to has blocked, to hamas, to various groups. that is not a supportive terrorism? >> translator: well, when you label people who fight for the defense of their country and their land as terrorism, so those were the subject of occupation, what should they do, be passive and just look? >> translator: we're talking
about firing missiles onto civilian areas. we are talking about blowing up people in civilian areas of israel, that's not terrorism? >> translator: there is no terrorism throughout the world that matches the activities of israel that has been seeking, for the past 71 years, since its inception, since its founding, so those who fight for the freedom of their land and their homes are not terrorists. >> chris: have you made a calculation to wait until after the 2020 election, to wait and see if president trump is defeated? do believe that perhaps mr. biden or another democratic president would be easier to negotiate with? >> translator: we say that america should live up to her
commitments, be the democrat or republican president. the commitment is something that was given by the government of the united states of america, so it really doesn't matter for us are counterparts, which political party they come from. >> chris: mr. president, thank you so much for speaking with us. >> thank you. >> chris: and we are back now with the panel. jillian, there was a lot of talk at the u.n. this week and apparently french president macron was really pushing to get trump and rouhani in a room together. what struck me is just how far apart these two sides are. i'm not sure a meeting would have accomplished anything. >> anything at all, that's absolutely right. there's also this unprecedented reversal of international norms written over the u.s.'s closest european allis, germany, france, the u.k., are teaming up with iran, siding with iran to pressure the u.s. back into the 2015 nuclear deal. it was just i think now like ten days ago maybe that french president emmanuel macron floated this $15 billion bailout package for iran to return to the 2015 deal.
they are still legally beholden to the terms of that deal. >> chris: congresswoman edwards, iran is clearly being hurt by the sanctions, you could hear that as he was talking about we can't get medicine for our children. on the other hand, you can just tell that there is a sense of anger about the fact that the u.s. did pull out of this deal, president obama, whether it's a good deal or not, people can judge, agreed to his one iranian official said you don't buy the same rug twice. >> when i was in congress are supported president obama going into the deal not because it was perfect, but because it had the measure of containing the iran nuclear program with the idea that in the future you could leverage more negotiation with them around some of their other bad acting around the world, and when president trump pulled out of that deal i think he lost some of his leverage and what was protectable is that iran would escalate and escalate and
escalate, because that's what it does. i think we have to get back to someplace where the united states and its partners are acting in unison with respect to iran and i do think that there's got to be a level of trust built up, that it took several years to happen to even get to the nuclear deal that we have. >> chris: rich, looking back on it now, was president trump right to pull out of the nuclear deal and do you see since then a clear trump strategy at work here to try to make a new deal and deal with not just the nuclear issue, but also missiles and regional terrorism? >> i think that the ultimate end game and i think over the past week you saw some progress in that regard because the european allies and are talking about a new deal that would bring iranian behavior as part of it, that would bring missiles and as part of it and that was the trump position at the
outset, so that's progress. the question is how you get there and i think the iranians want to get back to negotiation, but they don't want to give anything up in their strategy has been to provoke and provoke to try and scare the europeans, create a pain for trump by disrupting the international oil market, which they haven't had success at doing even after the brazen attack on the saudi so this is where i agree with donna, they are going to continue to escalate and go up further. >> chris: mo, as i discussed with president rouhani, their plan clearly was to try to drive this wedge between the u.s., which pulled out, and the other european signatories, which had stayed in the deal, but it does feel in their effort to escalate that maybe they've gone too far, because it was the attack on the saudi oil facilities and suddenly this week just before the u.n. general assembly there was france and germany and britain were all saying we need to come back and it needs to be a bigger deal. what trump has been saying, president trump has been saying, which is not just the nukes, but also missiles and regional
stability. >> sure, but you're still seeing some fissures between the western coalition that weren't there before and i think that's the most dangerous part of the u.s. strategy since president trump took over. if you wanted to scuttle the deal and put forward something new, he didn't do the work he needed to do to bring the rest of the western coalition together. that was the strength of the obama deal, that it brought the western coalition together behind this common goal and put real pressure on iran. since then, iran has felt emboldened to be more aggressive and the west has been fractured. >> chris: and in less than 30 seconds, jillian, where do you see this headed between washington and tehran? war, peace, or continue stalemate? >> well, you're such an experienced reporter -- [laughter] >> chris: i didn't even interrupt you! >> i don't unfortunately think it's going where president trump wants it to go, a trumpet nuclear deal 2.0 even though the european allies are now showing an openness to doing that.
i don't really see a way forward for that unfortunately, because as your sources told you, you can't buy the same rug twice. there is no real legal flame work without the deal dying to sit back down again. >> chris: shall continue stalemate. thank you, pal, see you next sunday, and we will be back with the final word. ♪ what if people with type one diabetes
had the power to manage their condition without fingersticks? to always know their glucose levels and where they're heading with just a glance at their smart device. the power to make treatment decisions. to customize alerts and alarms to help keep them in range. the power to lower their a1c. all this knowledge... powered by a small wearable. the dexcom g6.
♪ >> chris: for the latest on the whistle-blower complaint against president trump and the house impeachment inquiry, stay with us, fox nation and fox news channel. that's it for today, have a great week and we will see you next "fox news sunday" ." ♪ (announcer) who can you always rely on to be there
when you need immediate help? any time of the day or night, even when you're hundreds of miles away from home, always giving you and your family peace of mind with people, benefits, and services always there for you to make your life a little easier? a company you know is always with you. aaa, a company built by and for members. (sentimental music) hi there, i'm jeff thisted. chances are you know about aaa's legendary roadside service, but you might be surprised at what you don't know about aaa. so come along and discover how aaa not only gives you peace of mind, but helps you enjoy life's little pleasures