tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX August 16, 2015 10:00am-11:00am EDT
>> i'm chris wallace. the first fox news national poll since the big debate. who is surging and who is falling behind? we'll tell you. >> people are listening. they're not going to hear just political speak from me. >> we'll sit down with one candidate who has gotten a big post-debate bounce in iowa, dr. ben carson. plus, clinton's e-mail server. how will her campaign handle the latest setback? >> the bureau usually doesn't ask you to do things, they demand that it happen. >> we'll talk with republican congressman trey gowdy, chair of the house benghazi committee about the investigation. plus our sunday panel weighs in on the new poll numbers and the rise of the anti-politician. >> people are tired of
professional politicians. people are tired of politics as usual. >> who do you think they're watching, jeb bush? i don't think so. all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. there's been a big shake-up in the republican presidential race since the gop debate. today we have the results of the first fox news national poll since that. donald trump still leads the field with 25% support among gop primary voters. but dr. ben carson has now jumped into second place at 12%. also on the rise, senator ted cruz and carly fiorina. among those who dropped since the debate, jeb bush down five points to 9% and it's his first time in single digits since april. when it comes to who won the debate, the highest net scores go to fiorina, carson, governor john kasich and senator marco rubio and lowest net scores go
to chris christie, rand paul, and donald trump. joining me now, the candidate with the biggest post-debate bump, ben carson, who is campaigning in iowa at the iowa state fair where he's running second to trump among likely caucus goers. dr. carson, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you, chris. nice to be with you. >> congratulations on those strong numbers. i not only want to talk to you about your surge in the polls but also that of carly fiorina and donald trump. what do you think republican voters are saying about the appeal of nonpoliticians? >> well, i think people are starting to recognize that the same old, same old, will take us to the same place. you know, we're sort of at a precipice right now. are we going to continue down this road which is leading to a very bad place or are we going to try to make a change? i think they're also looking at the lives of people who have had very significant accomplishments
because that's what we need right now is accomplishment, not just more of the same. >> how do they distinguish because, yes, you all three have had extraordinary accomplishments but some would say some of you are fit to be president and some aren't. how do they distinguish between you and fiorina and donald trump? >> well, i hope they are actually listening to our plans. you know, i want more people, for instance, to talk to me about the economy and about foreign affairs. i tend to get a lot of questions about race and medicine. i think as time goes on and as i get out there and i talk to audiences, i talk about those things and they're hearing it. >> let's get into that especially now that you're a top tier candidate. you say you want people to examine your policies, both foreign and domestic. let's scroll down first of all into your position on taxes. you say that income inequality
is a big issue. you favor raising the minimum wage. you also want to impose a flat tax of somewhere between 10% and 15% for all americans, all taxpayers, and the allegation is, the charge is that would be a big tax increase for low and middle income wage earners but a big tax cut for the wealthy. >> first of all, what i want to do is i want to equalize -- i want things to be fair for everybody. i don't want to pick and choose who the winners and losers are. i think when you do things in a proportional basis, it works very well. 10% of the easy number to use calculations. you make $10 billion, you pay a billion. now, i know there are a lot of people that say that's a problem because the guy still has $9 billion left.
we need to take more of his money. that's called socialism. i recognize that there are a lot of people here to believe in socialism, that number is increasing, but the problem with socialism is they all end up looking the same way with a small group of elite at the top, rapidly diminishing middle class and vastly expanded dependent class. that's not america. we're different than that. >> the idea of a -- go ahead, sir. >> the other thing i want to mention is when you have a tax system that includes everybody, it's very difficult for the politicians to engage in their favorite activity of raising taxes. it's easy to do it on 1% or 2% or 5% but hard to do it on 100% and you have to live within your budget. >> what i was going to say is we've had a principle in this rate. the tax rate is lower for lower income people and gets higher for the wealthier for decades. let's look at what the
congressional budget office, a nonpartisan government agency says would be the impact of your policy. currently the bottom fifth of households in terms of their income in the u.s. face an average federal tax rate of 2%. the top fifth pays an average federal tax rate of 21%. again, if your flat tax is somewhere between 10% and 15%, just looking at that statistic, the bottom gets hit while the top makes out. >> okay. what we have to think about, chris, is how do we fix the economy so that it encourages entrepreneurial risk taking and capital investment? how do we create a ladder that allows people in the lower income brackets to move up that ladder? that's what we need to concentrate on. not how do we make them comfortable in that situation. that's not what america was all about. we can do that. >> but what do you say to that
person who is making $30,000 or $40,000 and paying an effective tax rate of 5% or 10% and basically you're saying you'll get a tax increase. >> i say the thing that is really impacting that person making $30,000 or $40,000 is all of the regulations that we're coming up with. every single regulation costs us in terms of goods and services. it increases the price of everything. who gets hit by that the most? the people in the lower economic brackets. that's what we need to be concentrating on. those are things that are driving income gap. opportunities we make available. we create a ladder. we create opportunities and the can do attitude rather than what can you do for me attitude. that's what made america great. >> let's turn to foreign policy. as president you say you would revoke the current iran deal and negotiate a better one and you also are fiercely critical of
president obama for you say attacking his critics. here's an article that you wrote this week in the jerusalem post. you called the president the divider in chief and you write this. shockingly there was coded innuendos involving implied disloyalty and influence related to money and power. question, barack obama anti-semitic? >> all you have to do, chris, is like i have go to israel and talk to average people on all ends of that spectrum. i couldn't find a single person there who didn't feel that this administration had turned their backs on israel. i think the position of president of united states should be one where you begin to draw people together behind a
vision. not one where you castigate those that believe differently from you. it's a great possibility for healing if used in the correct way. >> one could argue your policy differs from israel but you say in your article and you're talking about domestic critics in this country that there's anti-semitic themes there. what specifically is anti-semitic in what the president is saying? >> well, i think anything is anti-semitic that is against the survival of a state that is surrounded by enemies and by people who want to destroy them. and to sort of ignore that and to act like everything is normal there and that these people are paranoid, i think that's anti-semitic. >> one sign i guess of your rise in the polls is that you were attacked by the left this week
for your involvement in a 1992 study that involved fetal research. the charge is that you're hypocritical now when you call for defunding planned parent hood because you were involved in a study that involved fetal research 23 years ago and rick santorum says that the position you're taking is morally suspect. how do you respond to all this? >> i say a lot of people are getting pretty desperate if they're going back almost a quarter of a century looking for things that aren't even true. you know, what i did as a surgeon is take tissue samples and give those to the pathologist who then compared them with their archives. it's sort of like if you were an archaeologists and you find something in a dig that has some writing on it, you don't recognize it, you give it to your archivist and they go through all of the archives that they've been able to maintain over the many decades and they
say, you know, that looks like something from somewhere else. it has nothing to do with an abortion or touching fetal tissue. it's a desperate attempt by some people to change the argument and also to justify some of the things that are being done by planned parenthood. completely different from anything that i was doing. >> let me ask you, dr. carson. there seems to be confusion on the issue of abortion and exceptions in the case of rape and incest. you said recently that if somebody is a victim of that kind of an attack, they can go to an emergency room and get the pill but there are right to life groups that say that's a chemical abortion pill. where are you on exceptions in the case of abortion? yes or no? >> well, i think that when conception occurs, life occurs.
and i do believe in contraception. at an appropriate time you have to know what the cycle is. the egg is only fertilizable at certain periods of time. there are certain types of drugs that can prevent ovulation. if someone was raped and they tr are administered that drug, it prevents an egg from coming down. if ovulation doesn't occurring, there won't be conception. >> we have a minute left. we'll dig into the hillary clinton e-mail scandal later in this program. i want to ask you whether, one, you think she's broken the law and, two, by her actions with private e-mails, classified information, she has disqualified herself as a potential president.
>> well, you know, i will leave the legal discussions to the lawyers after they've gone through all of the evidence because i think it's foolish to make a proclamation without seeing it all. however, what we do know is she was a united states senator. she was secretary of state. and she makes this information, which should have been known to be something you didn't want to be available to our enemies or anybody else putting it on a private server shows incredibly bad judgment. so would you take someone with judgment like that and hand them the keys to the white house? i would not. >> dr. carson, thank you. thanks for joining us. sir. congratulations on those good poll numbers. >> thank you, chris. i appreciate it. >> up next, our sunday group joins the conversation as we have still more results from the latest fox news poll. which candidates do debate watchers think are the most and least qualified to be president? plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the rise of
state fair this weekend touting how effective he would be as president. we asked voters whether candidates are qualified to be president. 67% say jeb bush is very or somewhat qualified followed by rubio and hillary clinton. on the flip side, 52%. >> a majority say trump isn't qualified to be president and it's time now for our sunday group. george will, anne garrian, arthur brooks, and bob woodward also from "the washington post." george, pretty interesting poll results. candidates like jeb bush who voters say overwhelmingly is qualified to be president are now lagging in the polls. meanwhile, candidates like trump
and carson and cruz voters say are not qualified are the three front runners which raises the question what is going on here? >> what's going on is those deemed least qualified to be president are most qualified to do what voters want done today, 160 days before the first votes are cast in iowa which is send a message. that was george wallace's engaging theme in 1968. he said send them a message, anything you wanted it to be. that's what they're doing. this is a version of the 1960s fad where you're supposed to shout and get rid of all your repressed pain from childhood. this is particularly so for mr. trump and what makes him fragile as a candidate is, first of all, he's a one-trick pony. he consists of saying i'm rich. everyone who disagrees with me are stupid and all our problems are simple if you put me in charge. second, people haven't yet
reminded themselves of the peculiar intimacy we live with our presidents. they are in our living room every night and third, since we are at the end of this going to send a president, people have to say do we really want to give nuclear weapons to donald trump at which point i think things change. >> you think that's a rhetorical question. >> yes. >> we asked you for questions for the panel. we got a bunch like these. from facebook, see what politicians have done to our country? time for something different. david tweeted, is this a second phase of a trend starteded by the tea party movement to shift power away from career politicians. anne, how do you answer them? >> they're onto something here. there's definitely a mood where there's an anti-establishment visceral interest in people who are not career politicians to use the phrase that donald trump frequently does.
but there's not -- that really has something that's been largely missed by the clinton campaign and by the jeb bush campaign. they were the establishment candidates. they have credentials on paper that people are going, we're not so interested in right now. i think that will change over time. right now it's -- >> that's precisely the question. george says it's a primal scream and acts as if this is a phase. is it a phase or is it conceivable that we could be headed for a real shake-up in american politics and the people governing us in washington? >> history would suggest that the electorate will get this out of its system and that candidates who are currently not faring as well on the republican side will rise back up. bush probably among them. the question for clinton is can she hold onto the front runner status and build on that at the same time as sanders is tapping
into something that, yes, it will peat ter out but it won't go away. >> arthur, as a student of the conservative movement, how do you explain the surge as we see in this latest fox poll of trump, of fiorina, of ben carson at the expense of sitting and former governors and those with credentials? >> this is a low information, high entertainment, high protest movement. it's summertime. same thing in the movies. low information, high entertainment. if this persists past labor day, it's something for the republican party to panic about. it's worth pointing out the protest vote as we see is only about a third of the voters and about half of the voters still have this mainstream candidate. republican voters always aggregate up toward this mainstream person. >> i get e-mails. maybe you do. i certainly get e-mails.
when you say low information that just makes people's blood boil. they say this isn't low information. this is a considered judgment. we think the politicians we elected -- give us majority in 2010, 2014, things haven't changed. president obama talked about hope and change. they haven't changed in the right direction. they say this isn't low information. they have something that you haven't gotten. >> i'm not saying people are ignorant. i'm saying they're not asking specifics about policy. that's not what people are interested in at this point in the cycle. they will become more interested in that and republican voters will gravitate toward the person most qualified to be president. the challenge for the protest candidates is to get those numbers up. that's the most important thing. republicans always come back to that they came back to mitt romney. they come back to the candidate who is most qualified to have the nuclear arsenal in his or her hands. >> people e-mailing me say that's the problem. we came back to john mccain and mitt romney and those weren't the right guys.
let me put up the latest data point. gop voters say ben carson is the most likable followed by rubio. least likable trump leading by a wide margin. bob, what do you make of the trump phenomenon? >> i think george has it right. it's reflective of a primal scream attitude but as john kasich said in your debate, trump has struck a nerve. i think your poll in a way answers the question who is best qualified to be president and it's not trump. it's the traditional candidates and having spent too many decades trying to understand presidential decision making, it's really important. presidents make important decisions and the presidency is
not a roulette wheel. if you look at trump, any time he talks, any number can come up. anything can come out of his mouth. i think people are entertained by that. i think it's got a gravitational pull on a certain level but to say we want to make this guy president, i suspect it's not going to happen. >> i have to tell you, george, this is really on my mind. i got a lot of e-mail about you and your somewhat unkind comments over the last couple of weeks about trump. do you want to take any of that back? >> no. not at all. >> another rhetorical question. >> i would simply say a lot of people sending you e-mails are angry at mitch mcconnell and john boehner and they should be angry at james madison. the problem is we sent all of these republicans to washington and they still can't work their will from congress. the fact is the separation of powers, which is there for a reason and served us well over
hillary clinton was forced to turn her private e-mail server over to the fbi amid revelations at least two of the e-mails in her private account contain top secret information. in the latest fox news poll, 58% of registered voters think clinton knowingly lied when she said last march there was no classified information on her private server. joining us now to discuss the investigation is republican congressman trey gowdy. congressman, what do you think is the significance of the developments this week, first the fact that clinton had to turn her private server over to the fbi and also the revelation that at least two of the e-mails on that private server had top secret information. >> chris, i think it validates
what we asked her to do. the fbi had jurisdiction. i wish she had done this in march. she swore she would never turn the server over again. it wasn't turned over. it was taken. >> you talk about wanting a neutral detached observer and one question i have for you is whether or not the fbi in your mind fits that bill. how much confidence do you have that the fbi, which is part of the obama justice department, will conduct a thorough investigation, one, into weather clinton mishandled classified information and secondly whether she turned over all of her work e-mails to the state department and whether perhaps that she deleted, destroyed, scrubbed some of those e-mails. >> i'm 100% confident in the first. i'll tell you why, chris. from 1994 to 2000, i worked for the department of justice under a president named clinton and i
don't think i know the political ideation of a single fbi agent. to premiere lawor they're as apolitical as anything can be in this culture and they'll go wherever the facts take them. that's with respect to classified information. the completeness or wholeness of the record, i frankly don't think that's what the bureau is looking into. that's what the inspector general wanted to look into. when the bureau was through with the server, i hope they'll turn that server over to the inspector general to determine whether or not the record is full and complete. >> that raises the question. what if it turns out and this is actually what clinton and her lawyer have said, the server has been scrubbed clean and any 30,000 e-mails she destroyed that were about yoga lessons and chelsey's wedding, what if they're not available? >> i don't know whether you do yoga or not, i don't. i don't have any yoga e-mails but greater steps you take to
clean something or delete something, that's a higher level of concealment. that's a higher level of consciousness of concealment. your viewers have to ask themselves to what lengths would they go to delete a yoga e-mail? would they call in forensic experts to triple wash a server so they could get rid of bridesmaids e-mails or yoga practice e-mails? of course not. we hit delete and forget about it. the more energy she put into cleansing or wiping this server clean, i think your viewers should take or infer from that that perhaps there was something on there she really didn't want us to see. >> congressman, i want to ask you a question that when i told folks that you were going to be on this show they asked me, why is all of this your business? what does this have to do with investigating what happened around benghazi? >> probably not much of anything. it was just us that determined this unique e-mail arrangement she had with herself.
we interviewed three dozen witnesses. not a single one is named clinton. in fact, while i'm happy to be on your show, had she not had this e-mail arrangement with herself, you wouldn't be talking to me this morning. my focus is on the four murdered americans in benghazi but before i can write the final definitive accounting of that, i have to make sure that the public record is complete. all of this started with my desire to get her e-mails and the e-mails of her top aides. that's when we learned she had this unprecedented e-mail arrangement with herself and thanks to some folks in your line of work who did some good journalistic investigation and thanks in part i guess to my colleagues on the committee, we have determined that there's a lot more to her e-mail story than just the completeness of the record. in terms of what i'm interested in, it's doing a good job for those four murdered americans and their families. the classified information, the rest of it, is in other people's jurisdiction and i'm content
with that. >> now, and you know this, clinton says this is all politics. republicans like yourself trying to hurt her presidential campaign. here she is in iowa this week. >> i won't get down in the mud with them. i won't play politics with national security or dishonor the memory of those who we lost. i won't pretend that this is anything other than what it is, the same old partisan games we've seen so many times before. >> congressman, same old partisan games? >> the inspector general isn't partisan. neither one of them. they were nominated by president obama. the fbi is not partisan. i get that she's frustrated. her poll numbers of tanking. folks who never thought about getting in the race are getting in the race. she need not blame house republicans for having her own personal server for exclusively
using private e-mail for telling us e-mails were unsolicited and we later find out they were not. they're telling there was no classified information and we later find out there was. they're telling us that it was complete and we found 15 e-mails she never turned over to the state department. i get that she's frustrated. sometimes when people are frustrated, they look in the mirror and engage in self-reflection. sometimes they lash out and blame nonexistent right-wing conspiracy and she has decided to do the latter. >> i want to show a clip from a video that house speaker john boehner put out this week about your investigation. >> if hillary clinton wants the benghazi committee to finish their work, she could help them by turning over all of her e-mails sooner rather than later. >> we're not going away until we get it because it's really important. >> congressman, i have to tell
you that it looks like a negative campaign commercial. >> well, i haven't seen it. i can tell you this, chris. we've interviewed three dozens witnesses. not a single one of them has been named clinton. she hasn't been called before the committee yet. once she comes before the committee, i suspect people's interest in talking to me is going to dissipate down to being non-existent. we have tens of thousands of pages from other executive branch entities that no other committee of congress has gotten. so again, i would tell you this, had it not been for this unusual e-mail arrangement that she had with herself, you and i would not be talking this morning. you don't know the name of a single other person we've interviewed as a part of our committee. you haven't seen any of the documents that we've acquired from the executive branch entities. we're trying to run the investigation the way that serious investigations are run. low and behold, we find something that all seven of those other committees that she
claims looked into benghazi never found. we're going to follow facts wherever they go and if that impacts people's perception of her fitness to be commander in chief, so be it. i can just tell you this, for the first three public hearings, i never mentioned her name. >> let me ask you about this. clinton's lawyer says she will testify before your committee on october 22nd. i'm a little confused. have you agreed to that date and have you and the clinton team agreed on the ground rules for that testimony? >> we have agreed on the date and ground rules are simple. you're going to stay there until all of the questions are asked and answered with respect to benghazi and libya and part of that is ensuring that the public record is whole and complete, which means we necessarily have to discuss your unusual e-mail practices but we're going to stay there until all of the questions -- if she's going to insist that she's only coming once, i'm going to insist that
once be fully instructed which means she'll be there for a while. >> you made it clear that mishandling of the classified information is not part of the jurisdiction of your committee. i want to ask you about something interesting that secretary of state john kerry said this week. take a look. >> do you think the chinese and/or russians are reading your e-mails? >> the answer is it is very likely. it's not outside the realm of possibility. >> question, congressman. when the inspector general for the intelligence committee says that on these private e-mails was information that came from satellite intercepts, imagery or electronic surveillance and you have john kerry saying it's likely that foreign powers are reading his e-mails, does that raise the stakes here? >> absolutely. it was one of the most reckless decisions that have been made in public service in a long time. and the notion that she did this
for convenience -- i would ask you, chris, convenient for whom? it hasn't been convenient for the american people or our intelligence apparatus. it may have been convenient for her but it hasn't been convenient for anyone else. i don't know who accessed her e-mail. i know members of congress have not. i don't know who has. >> finally, as we had mentioned, clinton's position in all this is evolved. she said there was no classified information. then she said there was no information that was classified at the time. now she says there was no information that had been marked as classified at the time. i know the state department is checking into whether or not any aides, officials, advisers, may have changed the marking on some of those to remove the classified designation. what do you think are chances that one of her aides will take the fall for this and that that will get hillary clinton off the hook? >> i don't know about getting
someone off the hook if you are talking about criminal exposure, i would leave that up to the bureau. talking about the court of public opinion, i don't think it ever works when the person in charge blames those under him or her. it's never worked in any position i've ever been in in life. she's the secretary of state. she's the top diplomat for the country. either she knew or should have known what was being sent to her. the notion that somebody under you is going to take the fall metaphorically speaking, my fellow citizens would reject that. she wanted to be secretary of state. she's auditioning for a job more important with that. with that comes responsibility. i think my fellow citizens, if that proves to be correct, that classified information was mishandled, i think they'll apportion culpable ility appropriately. >> thank you for coming in today. next, we'll have more results from the latest fox news national poll.
this time on the democratic race. plus, what do you think? will clinton's troubles draw more rivals into the race? let me know on facebook or brilliantly practical scientist harriet tuttle's search for a more efficient life concluded with an unorthodox solution. harriet created four more harriets. together, they were a model of efficiency. however, while identical, they had their own interests, and their own retirement plans. each customized with a raymond james financial advisor, allowing them to enjoy life. separately. and together. life well planned. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you. do you want to know how hard it can be to breathe with copd? it can feel like this. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my airways for a full 24 hours.
spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva respimat does not replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva respimat. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain or problems passing urine, stop taking spiriva respimat and call your doctor right away. side effects include sore throat, cough, dry mouth and sinus infection. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. to learn about spiriva respimat slow-moving mist, ask your doctor or visit spirivarespimat.com
>> i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. i am confident that i never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received. the state department has confirmed that i did not send nor receive material marked classified. >> marked classified. hillary clinton's changing accounts since last spring on whether she had any classified information on her private e-mail server. according to our fox news poll, the e-mail scandal is hurting clinton. she still leads the democratic
field with 49% but that's down ten points from last month. and in head to head matchups, jeb bush leads clinton by two points. marco rubio beats clinton for the first time although well within the margin of error and donald trump has narrowed his gap to five points down from 17 two months ago. we're back now with the panel. bob woodward, you discovered a scandal or two, how big of a scandal now that clinton has been forced to turn her e-mail server over to the fbi and it's not politician versus politician but being handled by law enforcement and the courts and do you see any parallels to the nixon tapes? >> fascinating question. first of all, i think this potentially is a really big deal. first of all, because the volume. we're talking about potentially 60,000 e-mails and for people to make declarations it never had
this, or it might have that, we don't know. it would take somebody a month to just go through and sort this stuff out. yourself. suppose somebody got all of your e-mail. you may think it's clean and everything is fine. then when you start looking at things, there's going to be some problematic interchanges and somebody would send you something and no one wants all their e-mail out. so this is going to be -- what about e-mail 22,974? we're going to go through endless process here. in fairness, nothing has been proven and i think the clinton team wants to make sure this is not a protracted legal fight like what happened with nixon on his tapes. if you look at nixon on the history of this, nixon would
say, yeah, everything was fine. it looked good. he didn't remember the bad stuff. and that's human nature. we don't remember the bad stuff and 60,000 e-mails, my god. >> that ends the conversation. it doesn't. how much trouble is hillary clinton in legally and politically? >> we don't know how much trouble she's in legally. i would suspect it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. the problem is this is what happens when a party chooses coronation over competition. and the whole idea that there's only one candidate and put all of the eggs in this basket and this is somebody who has not succeeded in the past of getting the nomination. four years ago george and i had lunch. i was asking you what about mitt romney? you said something that was very telling. you said political markets one time found him wanting and they will again. now this is actually in modern political campaigns this is what you find.
once you lose, you lose again. astonishing thing about the democratic party today is alternatives they come up with are people that lost in the past. kerry. gore. why not just dust off dukakis. let's fill out the line for people that could be alternatives. this is a big problem for the democratic party. >> there was a guy named nixon who lost -- >> the point is in the new environment, political markets are much more efficient than they were in the past. this bodes very, very poorly for the democrats. >> all right. this moves us exactly to what i want to discuss with you, anne. barack obama and bill clinton, you'll enjoy these videos, were playing golf yesterday on martha's vineyard. seem to be enjoying themselves. while they were having a good time, what's the mood inside the democratic party? how worried are they about hillary? how vulnerable do they think she
is and how seriously do you take this talk about people like joe biden or even al gore this week getting into the race? >> i'm break those into two. how worried are democrats? more worried than a month ago. we just a couple of my colleagues and i heard quite a bit over the last week from supporters of hillary clinton who said we think she'll be the nominee and win the white house, we just wish she was doing it better. >> is there a specific thing that's been the turning point? >> they point to two things. they point to sanders not so much the surge because that's just happening, it's her reaction to it. how fast on her feet does she appear and does her campaign appear in responding to that. she never says his name. she doesn't address him directly. that is a calculated decision by the campaign to only attack republicans at this point and to save whatever
say whatever she has to say. not so much that she should punch him in the nose every day but speak to some of the same things that's fueling the surge. >> what about the rivals? >> the other thing they say is the e-mail issue. people are worried about it. they don't know where it's going. any time you get the words fbi in front of the public consciousness, that's a risk so people are worried about that. on the rivals, i mean, it's more plausible this week than last that joe biden could see a path for himself. he still has huge structural issues he would have to overcome in order to be a viable candidate. he's been around the track a few times. he would know that. i think it's not hugely likely that he eventually gets into the race. the fact that he's being discussed first of all, there's a reason, right? he should be a viable candidate. >> what about somebody out of
left field as arthur suggests, andrew cuomo, elizabeth warren, somebody in the new democratic party and not a failed presidential nominee. >> i mean, we're not hearing that. it certainly could happen. andrew andrew cuomo would look at this from afar. if she continues to look weak and things don't turn around quickly, there may be a path for run, maybe not it win but to get out there and be a part of it. we're seeing that dynamic on the republican side and it could happen on the democratic side. >> george, how politically vulnerable is hillary clinton right now and do you see a land rush of democrats getting into the race? >> i don't see the land rush but we don't know yet whether the former attorney general how right he was in his opinion piece in "the wall street journal" yesterday saying that she's vulnerable to prosecution
for one misdemeanor and three felonies. we don't know, also, whether the justice department will be less less -- in 2010 and 2014 because of obama and obamacare, the democratic party suffered wave elections that wiped out a generation of potential competitors for her. there are now 60 some fewer members of the house, 11 fewer senators, many fewer governors than there would have been if he hadn't been such a disaster for the democratic party. peter hart says go back to elections since world second world war. in every election since nixon election, the most likable candidate win. hillary clinton to many people
raidiates fury that she has to work for the nomination. this does not bode well for her. >> quickly, i read the article as well. i found it very interesting. both talking about her legal liability or jeopardy and also this question of her common sense and it seems reckless what she did. >> her judgment suggests she's not qualified for the office she had or that she's seeking. >> thank you, panel. see you next sunday. up next, our power player of the week. the man who keeps america's
clock ticking on time. a look at the iowa state fair. a must stop for presidential candidates this time of year. time is a big deal in television news. this show starts on time and ends on time. but as we asked in october, what does that really mean? here's our power player of the week. >> i would not say i'm obsessed with time, but i do think about time all the time. >> he's talking about his job at the u.s. naval observatory's department. >> we provide the time for gps and via gps it goes to much of the world. >> it's not an exaggeration to say you're the time keeper?
>> we are the time keeper. >> and keeping time, precise time, is important. for the financial system, for the internet, for the pentagon. the department has more than 100 atomic clocks and there are three different types. one measures the oscillation of cesium atoms. we went to see another kind of clock called an atomic fountain. >> we use lasers to freeze atoms to a degree above absolute zero and we launch them. >> all that information which varies by nanoseconds is then fed here. >> this is the nation's master clock. all of those hundred clocks -- >> these are national clocks for the department of defense.
>> the time transfer room sends the time out to the nation and the world. even that phone number you call to get the time. >> at the tone eastern daylight time 15 hours 50 seconds exactly. >> he started in 1997. he's now the chief scientist. he says the job comes with a certain amount of time pressure. >> there have been three times in my tenure when the master clock itself has broken. always when i've been on an airplane. when people leave working for time service, it doesn't take long, maybe a week or two, when they realize that they're not do it anymore. >> all this talk about time got me thinking. i got 3:15, what do you got? >> i don't wear a watch. i don't wear a watch. >> he explains he doesn't want the measurement of time,
especially something as imprecise as a watch to get confused with time as an object objective reality. it's pursuit of absolute truth that drives it. >> beauty is a satisfaction. there's a tremendous beauty to it. what's beautiful is an explanation of how things are happening, an explanation of what's going on. what's beautiful is doing the job right. that's all beautiful. that's the only way to put it. >> he says his atomic fountain clocks are so accurate that taken together, they won't lose or gain a full second in 300 million years. he says they're working on a new master clock that will be even more accurate. that's it for today.