>> chris: i'm chris wallace. the russia investigation hits up as the trump white house deals with a barrage of leaks. now the attorney general vows to crack down. >> we will not allow rogue anonymous sources with security clearances to sell out our country and lakers will be held accountable. >> chris: will discuss if investigators can plug the leaks, and the latest developments in the russia probe with deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. it's a "fox news sunday" exclusive. then, as special counsel robert mueller takes evidence about russian interference in the election to a grand jury, the president keep saying there's nothing there. >> the

fabrication. it's just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of american politics, that's all it is. >> chris: we will talk with republican senator thom tillis, who was just introduced a bill to protect the special counsel for being fired. plus, as congress leaves town for a long august recess, we will ask him sunday panel about all the unfinished business they will face when they come back after labor day. all right now on "fox news sunday" ." and hello again from fox news in washington. if you still had any doubt how serious the leaks problem is, all you had to do this week was open your newspaper or turn on your television and see transcripts of president trump's conversations with world leaders. this comes as we learned, again through leaks, robert mueller is

to a grand jury. on friday, attorney general sessions announced research to try and stop leaks that he says endanger american security. joining me now for his first sunday show interview is rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general and the men who appointed the special counsel after sessions recused himself. welcome to "fox news sunday." >> rod: thank you, chris, glad to be here. >> chris: attorney general sessions says there has been a surge in criminal referrals from intelligence agencies about leaks of classified information since president trump took office. he says there have been as many in just the six months as the work in the previous three years. my question is, do you see a concerted effort by people inside this government to hurt, or takedown, or try to take down, president trump? >> rod: we evaluate every referral we receive bay, taxonomic facts and circumstances. without a surge in referrals to the department and we are

responding appropriately. we will devote more resources, reevaluate procedures and make sure we investigate every one of those leaks in an appropriate way. >> chris: you must have some thoughts about why there has been a surgeon is referrals, as many in the six months of the current presidency as in the last three years of the obama presidency. >> rod: we have seen a surge in referrals, an increase in the number of leaks and we will respond appropriately and try to establish an effective deterrent. prosecutions and the only way to prevent it but it's an important part of the solution. >> chris: the attorney general says your department is pursuing three times as many criminal investigations as you inherited from the obama administration. give us a sense of scale, are we talking 1-3 or are we talking more in the neighborhood of 10-30? >> rod: we don't publicize the precise number of leaks, precise number of referrals so we only talk about it in terms of the proportion. that significant increase has necessitated an increase in resources so we have to

the national security division, we are providing appropriate supervision at a high level. we've created a unit within the effective focus on those leaks and we will devote whatever resources are necessary. >> chris: you say you can't give the exact number, can you give is a sense of scale? >> rod: that would give the number. i think we've been very clear about that, with only talk about the proportion, a tripling of the number of referrals so far. >> chris: i take it if it were 1-3 this wouldn't be a serious problem. >> rod: 1-3 wouldn't be as many as we have, that's true. i had a feeling this would be a tough interview and i'm preparing for it. some of the people who engage in leaks, i don't have to tell you, are not the so-called members of the deep state faceless bureaucrats inside intelligence agencies, they are white house officials, members of congress. if you find any of them have committed these leaks, have disclosed classified informatio information, will you prosecute? >> rod: what we need to look at in every link referral we get,

circumstances, what was the potential harm caused by the leak in the circumstances. that's more important to who is the leaker. if they violated the law, if it works prosecution will prosecuted. >> chris: included white house officials and members of congress? >> rod: including anybody who breaks the law. >> chris: the attorney general says that you're going to to also review the policy when it comes to reporters and whether or not you will try to subpoena information from them to disclose their sources. here's how mr. sessions pointed. >> we respect the important role at the press place and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited. they cannot place lives at risk with impunity. >> chris: they had of the reporters committee for the freedom of the press says what the attorney general is suggesting is a dangerous threat to the freedom of the american people to know and understand what their leaders are doing and why. your response?

overreaction. the attorney general has been very clear that we are after the leakers, not the journalist. we are after the people committing crime so we will devote the resources we need to identify who is responsible for those leaks and whose violated the law and hold them accountable. >> chris: a couple of aspects to that. worst of all you say you are after the leakers, not the reporters. president trump has reportedly suggested at one point prosecuting the reporters if they leak -- if they publish classified information. you ruling out? >> rod: we have the same position on that as attorney general holder, we don't prosecute journalist for doing their jobs. we look at the facts and circumstances of each case and determine whether it's appropriate to hold them accountable. >> chris: you don't consider publishing classified information a crime? >> rod: and you think you can draw any general line like that, it depends upon the facts and circumstances. generally speaking, reporters who publish information are not committing a crime. there might be a circumstanc

haven't seen any of those today but it wouldn't rule it out in the event that there were a case where reporter was purposely filing the last thing they might be a suspect as well but that's not our goal here. our goal is to prevent the leaks and that's what we're after her here. >> chris: there's another aspect of this, which is if a reporter gets information from somebody, puts it out in the beginning of the obama administration they were very aggressive in going after their sources. if you subpoena information and they refused to disclose it they can still end up in jail at the end of the obama administration after a backlash from reporters they loosened up on that. if it had to be approved specifically by the attorney general and it was kind of a last resort to go after reporters sources. you are reviewing that? >> rod: yes, that's a different issue. that policy has been in existence for a very long time. they revised that 2015. it's possible they got it exactly right but maybe he

didn't. we will take a fresh look at that come up with got feedback from our career prosecutors and agents. some of the hurdles are delaying the investigation. i think it's important for us to take a fresh look and evaluate whether there are any improvements that should be mad made. >> chris: what that means in your effort to get sources that you are not putting a reporter who refuses to disclose that source in jail? >> rod: i will not answer a hypothetical, i think it depends upon the facts and circumstances in each case. >> chris: we learned this week that special counsel robert mueller is taking his case to a grand jury. i know you can't and won't talk about the details of that case, but as a general proposition, does the fact that a prosecutor takes a case to a grand jury, what does that say about the likelihood of indictments? >> rod: you are right that i'm not going to comment on the case, i will not comment about whether director mueller has or hasn't opened a grand jury. we read a lot about criminal investigations in the media and some of those stories are false. we just don't comment on investigations, that's important for a number of reasons. first of all you don't want to

subject of an investigation. number two we don't want to interfere with the investigation. >> chris: i'm asking a different question. what does it say when prosecutor takes a case, in general, to a grand jury in the likelihood of indictments? >> rod: in general it doesn't say anything about the likelihood of indictments because we conduct investigations. >> chris: what's the advantage in terms of an investigation into taking a case to a grand jury? >> rod: many of our investigations involve the use of a grand jury. if you gather documents, bring witnesses and to get the full testimony. it's just a tool that we would like any other tool in the course of the investigations. >> chris: there are reports that mueller has expanded his investigation to go into the presidents finances. he was asked about that recentl recently. [indistinct] >> chris:

dangerous territory here but hear me out on this because i'm not asking about the investigation. when you appointed mueller, and you were the one who did, you had to sign in order authorizing the appointment of a special counsel and you said that he was authorized to investigate any coordination with russia and, i want to put these words on the screen, any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. my question is, does that mean that there are no redlines that mueller or any special counsel can investigate under the terms of your order, anything he finds? >> rod: the special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the department of justice. we don't engage in fishing expeditions. that doesn't detail who may be the subject of the investigation because we don't reveal that publicly. but bob mueller understands and i understand the specific scope of the investigation and so as not a fishing expedition. >> c

fishing expedition witness to any matters that arose or may arise directly from investigation. in the course of his investigation of the issues that he is looking at, if he finds evidence of a crime can he look at that? >> rod: if he finds evidence of a crime that's within the scope of what the director and i have agreed is the appropriate scope of the investigation than he can. if it's something that's outside that scope needs to come to the acting attorney general. we don't talk about that publicly so the speculation used in news media, that's not anything i said, it is not anything director mueller has said. we don't know who's saying it. >> chris: people ask about this of course because you had ten star and white water this began with a failed real estate deal in arkansas and ended up with monica lewinsky. to expand, he would need to get approval from you to expand the investigation? >> rod: that's right. it just as ken starr. he received an expansion initiated by

justice that resulted in that investigation. >> chris: in a speech on thursday the president called a russia story a total fabrication and he said here's what justice department people should be investigating. >> what the prosecutors should be looking are hillary clinton's 33,000 deleted emails. >> chris: do you view that as an order from the president? >> rod: chris, the president has put very responsible people in charge of the department of justice, attorney general sessions, rachel brand, chris wray who just took office last week. we have many other qualified and responsible officials will be joining us as soon as they get their senate confirmation. i can assure you we will do the right thing and follow the rule of law. >> chris: when the president, because he can order the justice department to do things, when he says here's what prosecutor should be doing, they should be looking at hillary clinton, do you view that as an order? >> rod: no, i view what the

something he said publicly. if the president wants to give orders to us on the department he does that privately. if we have any feedback we provided to them. >> chris: will you tell me whether or not he's given you in order? >> rod: i won't but i can tell you the president has not directed us to investigate particular people, that wouldn't be right. that's not how we operate. >> chris: a couple of quick questions on other issues. let's turn to the department back down on illegal immigration. the attorney general sent a letter this week to four cities struggling with gun violence warning they won't be eligible for federal money to fight drug trafficking and gang crime unless they cooperate with immigration officials. how do you respond to critics who say the solution here, which is to cut off federal funding to the cities who have a real crime problem, is worth on the problem? >> rod: the challenge the attorney josh general is addressing there is cities who release criminal aliens put everybody at risk. they put citizens at risk and

horrible case where we had an illegal alien who was subject to a detainer and he committed a violent crime after they released him. we put law enforcement officers at risk because when somebody is already in jail and they are to deportation order, if they are back the street that means our federal agency to go down to track them down and that puts them at risk. that's the kind of danger he is addressing. >> chris: finally, the attorney general has told prosecutors to pursue the toughest sentences in all cases, including mandatory minimums. conservatives like senators rand paul and mike lee, who have been pushing for criminal justice reform, say the result of this, going to end up filling the prisons with nonviolent, low-level drug offenders instead of going after serious criminals, violent criminals, your response that? >> rod: our priority and the department of justice is to prosecute high-level drug dealers, not to fill a presence with low-level dealers or users

the policy returns us to a traditional policy since we've been following since the carter administration, the presumption in each case is talks the most serious. in the event the prosecutor believes that not justified they can make an exception, they just need to document it. >> chris: thank you for your time, good to talk with you. i got to say, it was a challenging interview but i really enjoyed it, it was really quite interesting, thank you. >> rod: thank you very much, good to be with you. >> chris: up the next republican senator thom tillis who has introduced a measure to protect the special counsel from being fired for improper reason reasons.

beltway at the queen city, charlotte, north carolina, . as robert muller's investigation heats up there is a move by senators from both parties to protect the special counsel from being fired. our next guest, republican senator thom tillis, cosponsored a bill this week to do just that. senator , why did you introduce the red legislation and how would it work? >> senator tillis: the reason we introduce the legislation, it's something i talked about last year in the year before under the obama administration, what this legislation does is codify the current procedures within the department of justice. the only thing it adds is a review after the fact, after a special counsel has been removed, subject to a three-judge panel so that we can make sure it was done for proper cause. >> chris: your cosponsor, democratic senator chris coons said that the reason this bill was introduced, this is up on the screen, to expressly designed to restrain the

abrupt and inappropriate way. if you say you've been thinking about this for years. there seems to be some belief, and there certainly is backed up by what senator coons said, concern about this president and his reaction, very negative reaction to special counsel robert mueller's investigation. >> senator tillis: i think that's right. if that's what we put the effective date back to the date of the higher of the current special counsel. this is an opportunity. often times when you have the other party in the white house, people want these kinds of things but they don't have the majority support to do it. this is an opportunity to put something on the books that applies to this current situation that will then be in effect going forward. it's an important part of what we need to do to reestablish the public trust in the department of justice. that's why i'm taking the opportunity to do it now because i know the people on my side of the aisle who have concerns that would be pounding the table for this if we were talking what a

president hillary clinton and similar circumstances and investigation that may or may not involve her. >> chris: is some of this directed at president trump? >> senator tillis: there's no question that it is because clearly the date that we've made the bill retroactive to, but this is about the department of justice. this is about my confidence in the attorney general and my confidence in the department of justice to move forward in an appropriate manner. we just want to have -- we don't want to restrict administration's authority or the department of justice from removing a counsel, we just want to make sure to the american people they can be convinced it was done for the right reasons. they went let's talk about confidence or lack of confidence in the justice department and investigation. president trump has over recent months called the russian investigation a hoax and a witch hunt. he cares what he said this week. speak out the russian story is a total fabrication.

it's just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of american politics, that's all it is. >> chris: senator, do you think the russian story is a total fabrication and a hoax? >> senator tillis: i don't know. i think what we have is an investigation that if we allow it to lead to its conclusion when you get a definitive answer to that question. i don't believe that the investigation is a witch hunt, for example. i think that this is just a way to put this behind us because there's so many other things we want to get to, health care, tax reform, infrastructure. i'm trying to do everything i can to remove these distractions so that i can continue to support the president's agenda. >> chris: what do you make of the big news this week that the special counsel is taking his investigation to a grand jury? >> senator tillis: i think that that's just a part of the process. i don't read anything into it. a grand jury are convened all over this country for good reasons. i don't have

not an attorney, i'm not a lawyer, i'm not going to get into the procedures. if it gets us to an expedient conclusion, i am for anything that does that. if i happen to think it will probably turn out just fine. i want to get away from the distractions and get to our agenda. >> chris: i will get to the agenda in the minute. but i do want to ask you about something else apart from the russian investigation that surprising. republicans have recently been pushing back on this president. i want to put up a list. you passed a bill limiting his ability to lift sanctions on russia. that was bipartisan, republican and democrat. there's your bill to protect the special counsel from being fired, and republicans are keeping the senate technically in session to block recess appointments. senator , that's something that one party usually does to the president of the other party. >> senator tillis: i think, actually, it may be the republicans should get some credit for

and not necessarily deferring to a white house that happens to share their party. one of the mistake that congress has have made over the past 70 or so years is convey a lot of authority down the street that they should never have allowed to leave the congress. take a look at the difference is made to all these bureaucrats writing regulations with very little control on the part of congress. there's a number of things now that i think we should focus on that wrestle back power that is appropriately centered in the congress, not down the street. it's not about this president, it's about institutional -- it's about our institution. >> chris: let's turn to health care. the president said that congress should say in session and should move and try again to repeal and replace obamacare. senate republican leaders decided to go on recess and are talking now about "moving on from health care." where are you on this, sir? >> senator tillis: i signed a letter to extend into recess. we got a week. i would have been here all month. as much as i love being here in th

d.c. fulfilling the promises were made, whether it's health care or tax reform. i still believe we will continue to work. we have to have a solution to health care. the fact that we did not get the votes a few weeks ago doesn't mean that there is no problem so we have to stay on that and we have to get onto tax. >> chris: let's talk about the problem. are you willing, it seems now the repeal and replace instead, to work with democrats to try to find ways to help deal with the immediate problem, to stabilize the obamacare marketplaces, and how would you respond to conservatives who may say look, instead of trying to repeal obamacare, you will work out to profit up? >> senator tillis: i think that propping up a failed platform is problematic. i'm willing to look at anything that may soften the blow as we continue to convince our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some in my own conference that we have got to fix this problem. i will continue to support a measure that would go to

reconciliation, the 51 vote threshold, i'm willing to look at what the democrats maybe are willing to offer. the problem is the going in position seems to be nothing more than nipping around the edges at a failed obamacare platform and we simply can't do that. we can't sustain it. it will continue to destabilize the market and i think it will put people at risk, far more so than what we try to get done two weeks ago. >> chris: in the time we have left, let's do a lightning rod, quick questions, quick answers. one of the things you have to do when you get back is to raise the debt limit or their country will default on its obligations for its first time in history. are you willing to pass a clean bill without attaching any spending cuts to his? >> senator tillis: yes. if that's what's necessary, i hope that we can get the spending cuts. at the end of the day, the american people need to know all we are doing is saying that we are committed to paying her bill. this isn't about new spending, this is about agreeing to pay for the obligations that have already been made, many have which, incidentally, i disagree with.

we are spending in this country. >> chris: what are the chances for tax reform this year, and remember if you don't pass a budget you don't get the reconciliation process where you can pass tax reform with just 51 votes. >> senator tillis: we have got to pass a budget so that we have that reconciliation vehicle. we do tax reform in north carolina and has had extraordinary results, we have to do it as a nation, it's a promise we made and when we need to keep. >> chris: finally, the president this week proposed cutting illegal immigration in half, especially cutting lower skilled, lower paid workers. with that be good or bad for your state? >> senator tillis: i think it could be bad. if you take a look at the number of the coastal communities, the agricultural community, we have an immigration system here that's broken. i don't know what the right numbers are but i think an arbitrary cut without being driven by the data is problematic. after we just got the visas released a couple weeks ago there are a number of communities that h

them, up to and including mar-a-lago. there's obviously a need is not being filled by the indigenous workforce and it puts american jobs at risk if we don't get this policy right. i'm glad the senators offered something to at least get the debate going but now let's get to the facts and make sure that we are not harming american businesses and american jobs by doing this in a way that's not driven by information. >> chris: senator tillis, thank you. thank you for joining us, sir. >> senator tillis: thank you. >> chris: up next we will bring in our sunday group to weigh in on the administration's plan to go after leakers. plus, what would you like to ask the panel about special counsel robert mueller taking his russia investigation to a grand jury? go to facebook or twitter, @foxnewssunday, and we may use your question on the air.

>> chris: coming up, attorney general sessions vows to crack down on leaks. >> this natio

culture of leaks. we will investigate and seek to bring criminals to justice. >> chris: we will ask our sunday panel if investigators vo: the saudi's, the uae, israel correctly saying, qatar has been funding terrorist organizations. nikki haley: tell qatar, quit funding hamas, quit doing these things in gaza.

a funder of terrorism, at a very high level.

>> most people know there were no russians in our campaign, there never were. we didn't win because of russia, we won because of you. >> chris: president trump at a rally thursday pushing back against the expanding investigations by special counsel robert mueller. it's time now for our sunday group, jason riley from "the wall street journal" and author of the new book "false black power." charles lane of "the washington post." rachel and rich lowry. there were two

developments in the russia store this week. first of all, the fact that the special counsel robert mueller is taking his case to a grand jury and second now reports that his investigators have gone to the white house and are asking for documents concerning the former national security advisor, general michael flynn. where is this investigation? >> i don't think mueller is going away until he indicts people. obviously michael flynn and paul manafort are in jeopardy. others could be as well. the question is how much tolerance to the president of the united states have for that? i think president trump needs to realize, if he fires robert mueller there is some significant chance that eventually mueller will be the lead witness in his impeachment hearings. >> chris: of course if you get those legislation, either the senator tillis b

to fire robert mueller. >> i'm skeptical whether it will pass, on order that it won't pass. you can have the judiciary siding whether the header of the executive branch can fire someone who works for him or not. >> chris: why do you think that they are specifically in trouble? >> flynn has had to serially redo his financial disclosure forms. some of these payments from this firm that might've been a cut out the turkish government are highly suspect, so i think that's the very center of the criminal investigation. but one last point, he brought this up with a deputy attorney general. i think he may have made a really momentous mistake in not being more specific in that initial charge to mueller about what specific crimes he should be investigating. make mueller come back and be very public about what new crimes he might be investigating because there's no way to know now whether it's a fishing expedition or not.

if he might be fired on the presumption that he's engaged on a fishing expedition that he is in. >> chris: we asked you for questions for the panel and on precisely this issue we got this on twitter from tom. he writes how does an investigation of russian hacking in 2016 get to private business deals eight years past? how do you answer tom, and also this question. i discussed it at considerable length with rod rosenstein. what if the special counsel's investigation goes into donald trump's finances over the years? >> i guess the theory of russian collusion has always depended on the russians having some sort of leverage over donald trump, some ability to exercise blackmail-type control. the famous dossier that's out there with some really salacious stuff in it. >> chris: completely uncorroborated. >> completely uncorroborated we should add. the more possible theories had to

institutions financing his business enterprises over the last eight years. if that somehow in some way connected back to the kremlin and vladimir putin and so forth. i do think, in some ways i guess i'm agreeing with rich, there was a risk for this investigation if it becomes perceived as arranging way, way beyond the question of who might have manipulated 2016 election, the michael flynn stuff is fascinating because that's about turkey now, not about russia. undoubtedly michael flynn has got all kinds of problems with exploring asian registration and someone, but he was only national security advisor for 24 days and it's going to take some explain to link that somehow back to the ostensible mission of the investigation. presumably what mueller is up to, like a good prosecutor, is finding leverage on flynn to flip him to tell what other things you may know about russia. >> chris: theth

discussed with a deputy attorney general, the barrage of leaks this past week and a new effort to find a leakers. here's the director of national security. >> understand this: if you improperly disclose classified information, we will find you. >> chris: jason, we've been through this before, what's the likelihood that they can find the leakers and really stop the leaks? i have to say, there has been a torrent of leaks since this president took office. >> we should also distinguish between the type of leaks. there's licking about what's going on in the west wing in terms of personnel and then there's the leak we had this week with regard to the conversations that trump is been having with other leaders which i think are much more serious. the president of the united states cannot speak in confidence to world leaders. >> chris: intel picked him up with surveillance. >>

russia investigation i think will be very difficult to stop. under bill clinton, his office also had lots of leaking during that investigation. a lot of it was to gain leverage and witnesses, by the way. they will be very difficult to stop. i think a problem that trump has dates back to the campaign. that has been his treatment of the intelligence community. he has a very dicey relationship with people who weapon eyes information for a living. it's dragged into his presidency and it's still haunting him. one thing that attorney general sessions said during the news conference this week was that the cabinet, the members of the administration need to be more disciplined in terms of leaking. i think he's absolutely right. the president himself i think has to also take the lead here. i think he has to change his tone and how he's been dealing with the members of the intelligence community.

rod rosenstein, it isn't just members of the so-called "deep state" who are leaking. we've known this for years, members of congress leak. white house officials leak, often times for political gain. what you make what rod rosenstein said in the interview, which is if it's a white house official or member of congress, will prosecute them, and as somebody who coverage, covers congress, how much concern as they're out there? >> the department of justice is suspicious that some of the stuff is coming from the home. i think regarding the leaks, it seems like this had some mixed reception when i talk to lawmakers about it after this press conference. on the one hand a lot of them are just as upset as trump about the leaks. they find them to be a distraction from talking about their agenda. they are working on veterans and reporters are raising their hands and saying what do you think about the

conversational president had, so in that regard they're happy about them going about the leaks. but the second piece of this, they seem wary about going after reporters. you might see some republicans on the hill sort of stop short of praising. right now the last thing the republican party needs when they're trying to get their legislative agenda actually moving is a bunch of headlines saying trump administration is jailing reporters who are refusing to give over their sources. this is not something they want to see right now. >> chris: less than a minute left and i want to pick up on that. if rosenstein seemed to be making a distinction, not where the president is apparently gone, which is prosecute reporters for doing the job, he said we're not going to do that but he indicated they might be tougher about trying to get reporters to disclose their sources so you can find out who the leakers are. >> that's the most direct and simple way to finou

it's also the most radioactive way. if they end up subpoenaing and they are held in contempt because they won't give him up, it will be portrayed as a war on the press and will also be portrayed as a retaliation for an arab coverage since pretty much all the carpet from all the press is negative. >> chris: how do you feel about that? >> i don't think the press has immunity by any means but i think in a highly damaging week that really hurts national security as a last resort if something must be willing to do. >> chris: we have to take a break here, when we come back, congress is off on summer break with a lot of unfinished business left behind. will they can anything done when they returned?

z2e2dz z1a2z

>> what we need to do i believe it, and congress, is not be distracted by the stories of the day. i understand you all have to cover those but we don't. what we need to do is maintain our focus on getting your work done. >> chris: the number two republican in the senate warning congress can't afford to get sidetracked from its long legislative agenda when it returns from lisa's in september. back now with the panel. as somebody who covers congress, what you read on health care, is repeal and replace finished, dead, and what are the chances for bipartisan compromise? but i was talking about with senator tillis to try and stabilize the obamacare markets. >> there's no sugarcoating it, it's in big trouble, the agenda. i can say that most of them are saying privately they think repeal and replace is dead, at least for now. we are scaring a lot of chatter about a

make a few fixes, which is very interesting because it's very different from what they campaigned on. trump, in trying to get this moving, calling them quitters, saying they need to get this done, he actually made a threat to unilaterally roll up the insurance exchanges by stopping federal payments and subsidies that has actually pushed republicans closer to democrats. all the chatter and hearing on the hill is about a bipartisan fix that would force them to make these payments. >> chris: as i was discussing with senator tillis, it will get a lot of people back home saying you promised to repeal it, now you're propping it up. >> absolutely. but talk to conservatives on the health, freedom caucus, a lot of these guys are saying let's just repeal and we can work on replace for the next few years. they are so divided on this. everybody wants to get rid of obamacare, but when it comes to actually putting it together, that replacement, they are all a mess right

>> chris: chasen, health care is only part of it. when they get back in september they're only going to have a couple of weeks. they've got to fund the government, they got to raise the debt limit. they really are nowhere on tax reform in this republican-controlled congress has yet to pass and send to the president a single major legislative goal. >> i think the difference here is that while the president doesn't seem to be have pay worried, nor does his base, a lot of these republicans up for election next year in both the senate and in the house want something to run on. they need something to go back home and campaigned on. i agree that -- i think the health care reform repeal and replace is probably dead. i think they will have to bail out the insurers, i'm hoping they can get something in return for doing that. perhaps something with the medical device tax, perhaps something on the individual mandate, but something in return. >> chris

nancy pelosi hearing last week and i said what you going to give in return and she looked at me like i was speaking martian. >> the democrats are very emboldened right now. i think chuck schumer as well, as nancy pelosi, both leaders are very emboldened. i hope that mcconnell and folks can wrangle something out of this in return. this idea trump has that they can let the exchanges fail and avoid being blamed, i don't think is realistic. i think both the media and the democrats will blame republicans if these exchanges fail. and if obamacare -- if there's no replacement in place. >> chris: then there is the big news from the white house this week, that is that retired four-star general john kelly has taken over as chief of staff. president trump gave to his new man a big welcome. >> we just warning general kelly. he will do a spectacular job, i have

staff. >> chris: how much of a difference do you think john kelly can make? >> i think you can make a pretty serious difference. the problem with reince priebus, he never really had the authority to do the job properly and he didn't really have -- she's a very nice guy and didn't have the personal bearing to make people pay attention to him. that's not a problem with john kelly on either score. he has the authority from the president, he has his military bearings, it makes people pay attention to him. the problem ultimately is at the top. there's no changing donald trump's character in the way he operates. based on the campaign, there was a marginal difference between kellyanne conway and stephen bannon trump. the difference might have been enough to get him over the top and the election so hopefully the kelly difference will also be telling here. >> chris: even before he took office, which was

assuming power. he apparently called jeff sessions, the attorney general, the beleaguered attorney general to tell him he was safe in his job. in a fight with conservatives going after the national security advisor, h.r. mcmaster, kelly has cited with mcmaster and strength contempt. i want to put up this picture that has just come out. this is john kelly over there on the far left. this is in the old executive office building addressing the entire white house staff late this week and telling them their responsibilities, the chain of command and saying your duties first to country, second to the president and as far as your own self interest is concerned, that doesn't count. some trump supporters are suggesting that this could be a turning point in the trump presidency. it is not overly dramatic? >> it depends on which kind of trump supporters were talking

somebody who will stabilize and it will be a turning point in that sense. there are some trump supporters who see this as a betrayal of the truth trump, that john kelly is in some way being brought into blunt the sharp ideological edges, the nationalism that trump as promised. that white house is a snake pit. you talk about the military bearing of john kelly impressing people. h.r. mcmaster has i believe three stars on his shoulder but his military bearings hasn't protected him of the campaign of vicious leaks coming from people with within the white house. kelly -- he has his hands on that problem right now. i think a lot of people inside the staff are looking to see if he can really get control of it because if he can, i think you will have established his authority and people will do what he says but if somehow people find ways to work around even john kelly, the back channeling directly to the president and sending h m

that reflect the latest alex jones conspiracy theories, then i think kelly still is a problem on his hand. >> chris: we are learning a little bit more about the trump white house under reince priebus by hearing the changes that are being made now. one of the things that apparently kelly has done is he has closed the door to the president's office because what used to happen is people would just walk in. people would bring in articles. >> like seinfeld. people just barging in the door. >> chris: [laughs] i hadn't thought of that. >> this is a good move putting him in charge but we've seen these bouts of sanity before. they don't seem to last very long. there's only so much kelly can do. obviously this week trump was still out there commenting on an ongoing investigation regularly when he should have been answering questions as coyly as the deputy attorney general was with you. that's the way you handle this

sound off on this. these rivalries in the white house that we are talking about in the west wing. i think this russia investigation is going to be hanging over these rivalries. with people from stephen bannon to jared kushner, under oath, when they are questioned by investigators, assuming that they will be. will they turn on one another? trump has been encouraging the competition since the campaign. the different power centers. these investigations are going to hang over the west wing while trump is trying to govern and pursue his agenda. >> if i may, there's a really interesting contradiction between what trump said, this is a hoax or a fabrication and his own lawyer, who almost the same day said we look forward to cooperating fully. that's the kind of stuff that just continues at the top. >> chris: 30 seconds here. the view from capitol hill, how much did they see dysfunction in his white house, how hopeful are th

on kelly right now. a lot of people are talking about what he's going to do in the white house but this is an opportunity to push the reset button with the help. you are increasingly seeing a dynamic shift between republicans and this white house. the president is tweeting out lawmakers, he's calling them forth, calling them quitters and erasing a lot of lawmakers were now pushing back saying we need to be a stronger check on him. the other day in a republican conference somebody stood up and blame the president for why health care field. kelly can repair those relationships. >> chris: thank you, panel. see you next sunday. up next, jane goodall on her decades long work with chimpanzees at her continuing mission to save the planet.

>> chris: she's an icon who set off to study a subject she loves since childhood. as we told you earlier this year her findings are still inspiring generations. here's our "power player of the week" ." >> dr. goodall: i'm away from home about 300 days a year. all over the world. >> chris: jane goodall is 83 now but she still on the mission raising awareness and money to protect the planet and the animals who prepared. >> dr. goodall: one of the greatest rewards i have is the number of people around the world who say thank you, it taught me that because it you did it, i can do it.

>> chris: why are you still keeping up such a schedule? >> dr. goodall: because we humans, the most intellectual beings who have ever walked the planet, are very busily destroying our only home, how is that possible? >> chris: it was 1961 goodall, then 26, set out for the animal preserve what is now tanzania. she was trying to find the link between demand and eight. >> dr. goodall: exciting moment when i first saw a chimpanzee eating. >> chris: observing chimpanzees in the jungle by herself, she discovered a number of links. chimps can show compassion or wage war, but most important, the way they use twigs to hunt for termites. >> dr. goodall: a chimpanzee, when he strictly is offered to eight is actually modifying a natural object is suited to a specific purpose. >> chris: why was that such an important discovery? >> dr. goodall:

science thought at that time that humans, and only humans, used tools. we were defined as a man the toolmaker. >> leading to a possible redefinition of the word "man." >> chris: in 1965 "national geographic" did a film about goodall's work that created a sensation. >> dr. goodall: it was kind of beauty and the beast. the whole thing wasn't really about the science, it was about this young woman going out into the jungle, and became a geographic cover girl. >> chris: the fact that you were such a striking role didn't hurt either, did it? >> dr. goodall: it didn't hurt at all. >> chris: bonded with the chimpanzees she even learned their language. >> dr. goodall: if in greeting you, a dominant male, because males are dominant. [chimpanzee noises] >> chris: and if you were laughing? >> dr. goodall

>> chris: passe [laughter] >> dr. goodall: that's if i'm being tackled. >> chris: she ended her career as a field biologist 30 years ago but she set up the goodall institute to continue research on jim's. to turn young people to into activists. time is something she thinks about now. >> dr. goodall: the older you get the nearer you get to that end. i've still got so much to do. >> chris: this year at the goodall institute is celebrating its 40th anniversary. to learn more, please go to our website, "fox news sunday".com "fox news sunday".com. that's it for today, have a great week and we will see you next

[music] >> joel osteen: god bless you. thanks for letting us come into your homes today. we love you and if you're ever in our area, please stop by and be a part of one of our services. i promise you, we'll make you feel right at home. i like to start with something funny. i heard about this pastor. he was finishing up a fiery sermon on self-control. he said with great passion, "if i had all the beer in the world, i'd throw it into the river." with greater fervor, "if i had all the wine in the world, i'd throw it into the river." almost at the top of his lungs, "if i had all the whiskey in the world, i'd throw it into the river." he sat down. the song l