tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News February 12, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PST
that does it for us. we'll see you back here next weekend. meantime, here's chris wallace. ♪ ♪ chris: i'm chris wallace. president trump says he'll move this week to protect the u.s. homeland after a federal appeals court blocks his controversial ban on travel from the seven largely muslim nations. ♪ ♪ >> we will continue to go through the court process and, ultimately, i have no doubt that we'll win that particular case. chris: we'll discuss what the president will do next on the ban, his domestic agenda and his supreme court nominee with white house senior policy adviser steven miller. and and we'll ask ben cardin can, the top democrat on the senate foreign relations committee, on his party's plans to block trump's policies and his nominee. then, the president lashes
out at senators on the left and right. >> the president is accusing you of lying. are you? >> i am simply repeating what judge gorsuch said to me. >> he attacked john mccain, one of the most respected voices on national security. chris: we'll ask our sunday panel whether mr. trump's personal attacks are getting in the way of his agenda. plus, our power player of the week trying to prevent conflicts from turning into wars. >> peace is very practical. it is a set of learned skills, approaches and frameworks that it is essential for our national security. chris: all right now on "fox news sunday." 9 and hello again from fox news in washington. we begin with breaking news. north korea launched a ballistic missile overnight. japanese prime minister abe meeting with president trump at mar-a-lago called the test absolutely intolerable, and president trump agreed.
>> the united states of america stands behind japan, its great ally, 100%. chris: we'll have more on that in a moment. we should also learn soon what president trump's next move is in the legal battle over his controversial travel ban. the president and top aides have talked about everything from rewriting the executive order to taking the case over the current order to the supreme court. mr. trump says he will announce new security measures this week to keep america safe. joining me now live from the white house is the president's senior policy adviser, steven miller, who was a key player in writing the original travel ban. steven, let's start with the breaking news. what's the white house reaction to that north korean ballistic missile test, and are you -- is the white house going to put that regime on notice as you did with iran? >> last night what you saw was
the president of the united states sending a powerful and unmistakeable signal to north korea and to the entire world as he stood shoulder to shoulder with the prime minister of japan and declared our steadfast and unwavering support for that alliance. and the meaning of that symbolism will be lost on no one. chris: but you say it's an unmistakeable message. other than the fact that we're standing with japan, what's the message? >> the message is, is that we are going to reinforce and strengthen our vital alliances in the pacific region as part of our strategy to deter and prevent the increasing hostility that we've seen in recent years from the north korean regime. more broadly as you know, we're inheriting a situation around the world today that is deeply troubling. the situation in north korea, the situation in iraq, the situation in syria, the situation in yemen. and this president is committed to a fundamental rebuilding of the armed forces of the united states that will, again, send a signal to the world that
america's strength will not be tested. chris: let's turn to this week's big controversy over the travel ban. is the trump administration -- and you as a key player in it -- are you at this moment rewriting the president's executive order limiting the visitors and the refugees can come into this country, and will that be released this week? >> right now we are considering and pursuing all options. those options include seeking an emergency stay at the supreme court, continuing the appeal with the panel, having an emergency hearing en banc or going to the trial court in the district level and a trial on the merits. they also include, as you have mentioned, the possibility of new executive actions designed to prevent terrorist infiltration of our country. but i want to say something very clearly, and this is going to be very disappointing to the people protesting the president and the people in congress like senator schumer who have attacked the president for his lawful and necessary action. the president's powers here are beyond question.
the president has the authority under the ina section 8usc1182f to suspend the entry of aliens into this country, and he has article ii foreign powers to also engage in conducting border control and immigration control into this country. those powers are substantial. they represent the very apex of presidential authority. and so we are contemplating new and additional actions to insure that our immigration system does not become a vehicle for admitting people into our country who are hostile to this nation and its values. chris: i want to follow up on that, steven. you, that's an argument you've been making this week, that the courts have no place interfering with the president's constitutional powers over immigration. but i want to take you back to what the ninth circuit court of appeals said in its ruling upholding the stay of the president's executive travel ban. here, first of all, is what you had to say this week. >> an unelected judge does not have the right to remake the immigration laws and policies
for the entire united states of america. chris: but the ninth circuit court disagreed. although courts owe considerable deference to the president's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action. steven, the three judges say you're flat wrong. >> no, the three judges made a broad, overreaching statement about the ability to check the executive power and did not even address what i was talking about which was ina212f8usc1182f, the power of the president to -- chris: but they say the courts have a long history -- >> no, the ninth circuit has a long history of being overturned and has a long history of overreaching. we don't have judicial supremacy in this country. we have three co-equal branches of government. the ninth circuit cannot confer onto a yemeni national living in
yemen with no status in our country a right to enter with our country. such a right to exist be, chris, that would mean every time we deny a visa to a foreign national, they could sue in an american court for damages for lost benefits in terms of welfare and employment. that would be ludicrous. 80 million people visit this country every year through airports, land ports and and seaports. of course the president has the authority to impose be moderate, necessary and sensible restrictions including putting in place new vetting procedures to protect this country. that power was delegated to him explicitly by congress and adheres to him under his article ii powers under the u.s. constitution. this is a judicial usurpation of power, it is a violation of judges' proper role in litigating disputes. we will fight it, and we will make sure that we take actions to keep from happening in the future what's happened in the past. we've had hundreds of individuals enter this country through our immigration system
on visas who have gone on to do enormous harm to this country from 9/11 through san bernardino, through the boston bombing, in chattanooga, and on and on and on it goes. chris: all right. i want to pick up on that and your criticism of the judges, because after judge robart's initial order, president trump tweeted this, i want to put it on the screen. just cannot be believe a judge would put our country in such peril. if something happens, blame him and court system. people pouring in. bad. but now, steven, that judge is getting death threats. so the question is, if something happens to him, should we blame president trump? >> this is one of the most ludicrous things that the media does where when any crazy person in this country issues a death threat, that they then blame a politician or a mix official. that is -- or a public official. that is reckless and irresponsible and should never be done, the reality is -- chris: but some people would say
that personally attacking a judge is reckless and irresponsible. in fact, your own supreme court nominee, judge gorsuch, called it disheartening and demoralizing. >> statements that you can't criticize a judge demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of what it means to have separate and equal branches. of course one branch can criticize another branch of government. it's ludicrous to say that congress can criticize the president and the president can criticize congress and judges can criticize the president, but the president can't criticize judges. chris: so neil gore -- neil gorsuch was wrong? >> i have my opinions, and judge gorsuch had his comments misinterpreted by senator blumenthal who, as we all know be, has profound credibility issues. chris: wait, wait. first of all, on the question of his saying that he found these remarks disheartening and demoralizing, it wasn't -- >> that's different than saying -- chris: wait a minute -- >> that's different than saying you can't criticize a judge.
i don't think judge gorsuch would say you can't criticize -- chris: no, he said these comments were disheartening and demoralizing. he said it not only to senator blumenthal, he said it to ben sass, a republican. >> kelly ayotte put out a statement, that is not what she said he said. what we do know is senator blumenthal -- we all know his vietnam scandal, how much he has a credibility problem. it's a serious problem. that's what should be the focus of this conversation, the degree to which that senator has a serious credibility issue. but not to get off track here because we're going all over the place. let's be very clear and straight forward in saying the following: the united states of america has a terrorism problem. we have had hundreds of cases of foreign nationals entering our country from other countries and plotting, attempting or even carrying out terrorist attacks. we spend countless dollars a year, and we have thousands of federal officers and investigators who do nothing but run around the country trying the stop terrorist attacks for
no other reason than because we make the mistake of letting people in who harbor hatred for this country. our immigration system should not be a vehicle for admitting people who have anything but love in their hearts for this nation and this constitution. chris: i want to ask you, steven, about how this was all rolled out because you and steve bannon were, reportedly, the prime movers behind the rollout of this executive order before it had been fully vetted by everyone, all the key players in the administration or congressional leaders. and, of course, now it has been blocked in several courts. do you and bannon take responsibility for all the problems with this rollout? >> first of all -- [laughter] people are giving way too much credit to me and steve bannon. steve bannon has no role whatsoever in drafting executive orders. this executive order was drafted by congressional experts and lawyers, career experts on immigration. it was approved and vetted through the homeland security council, the national security
council, the department of justice office of legal counsel, key people at departments and and agencies were realize into the executive -- chris: you agree it hasn't gone smoothly. >> well, here's where you're wrong, chris, and i hate to say this, because i think you're fabulous. [laughter] but we issued three executive orders on immigration that have profoundly improved the security posture of this country. on border security, interior security and national security. most of those provisions remain in full, total and complete effect. aspects of the national security order have been wrongly enjoined in an unprecedented step by the ninth circuit and the district judge to extend rights to citizens of other countries who don't live in our country. but even parts of that executive order still remain in full effect, including the process that begins to set in place the new extreme vetting mechanisms, including the lowering of the refugee ceiling and then the other policies. but something is going to come out of this which will be very good. in the end, the powers of the
president of the united states will be reaffirmed, and the whole world will see clearly and unmistakably -- and it's a message i want the world to hear today -- that this country will protect its borders, it will protect its people, and it will insure we have an immigration system that promotes wage growth, that promotes employment opportunities for our people and that, importantly, promotes compassion for working class citizens who want to live in safe, secure, upwardly mobile communities. chris: let many ask you about protecting the border, because there has been ramped-up immigration this week. hundreds of people in the country illegally and some with criminal records besides the fact that a they came in illegally have been detained. the president tweeted this morning: the crackdown on illegal immigrants is merely the keeping of my campaign promise. gang members, drug dealers be and others are being removed. now, the immigration officials said this was, had been in the works for some period of time. the president seems to indicate
that this is happening at his order. which is it? >> right now as a result of the president's order greatly expanded and more vigorous immigration enforcement activities are taking place. it is true that operation cross-check is something that happens every year. but this year we've taken new and greater steps to remove criminal aliens from our communities. i had a phone call yesterday with someone from dhs who talked about an immigration enforcement activity at 4:00 in the morning where a gang member was removed, a wife beater, somebody who was a threat to public safety with a long arrest record. but because they didn't have the right kinds of quiks, they weren't -- convictions, they weren't considered a priority by the previous administration. because of rump's actions, innocent people -- because of trump's actions, innocent people are being kept out of harm's way. we spend too little time thinking about the effects of open borders. chris: steven?
>> who have to deal with the scourge of cartel violence -- chris: steven? i -- >> that we're now removing from this country. chris: all right. i get your point. we're way over time. i have one more question to ask yo i -- you, and i want to ask you about the personal attacks that president trump engaged in week. he dismissed the so-called judge who had stayed his order, judge robart in seattle s and he sad to say this about the appeals court. >> i listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful. chris: when democratic senator richard blumenthal said the president's nominee judge gorsuch found the attacks disheartening, here's how president trump responded. >> he's comments were misrepresented, and what you should do is ask senator blumenthal about his vietnam record that didn't exist after years of saying that it did. chris: and when senator mccain
raised questions about the yemen raid, the president tweeted this, i want to put it on the screen. senator mccain should not be talking about the success or failure of a mission to the media. only emboldens the enemy. he's been losing so long, he doesn't know how to win anymore. look, i take your point that you're not a punching bag here and that the president and and the white house, they take incoming, they should be able to fire back. but does this kind of personal attack help the president in building the kind of coalitions he's going to need for the bold agenda that all of you want? >> thank you, chris. it's an important question, and i'm glad to have the chance to answer it. chris: just briefly, sir. [laughter] >> our position is that we are the ally of millions of hard or working, forgotten men and women all across this country, and president trump is their champion. that's our coalition. our coalition is millions and millions and millions of decent, patriotic citizens who just want a pay raise, who just want a
good school, who just want a safe community. and donald trump will never apologize for looking out for their interests and and being their champion -- chris: but does he need to insult john mccane in the process? >> he needs to protect the integrity and protect the honor and decency of our armed services. chief special operator william ryan owens did not die for a failure. he died as a hero. he died in defense of his country. he died in defense of our values in a successful mission that yielded valuable intention. the bottom line, chris, is that the president of the united states won 306 electoral votes by being a champion for people when haven't had a voice in washington; democrats, republicans, independents, people of all incomes and races. and he will continue to be their champion, and he will continue to be their voice. chris: all right. steven, thank you. thanks for your time today. thanks, we enjoy hearing your voice. and, of course, we'll be tracking what the president announces this week on the issue
of immigration and travel bans. thanks so much for talking with us, sir. >> thank you. chris: up next, democratic senator ben car dip on mr. trump's -- ben cardin on mr. trump's executive order and charges of democratic obstruction. ♪ ♪ fees? what did you have in mind? i don't know. $6.95 per trade? uhhh- and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee? guarantee? where we can get our fees and commissions back senator ben cardin on what schwab is offering? what's with all the questions? ask your broker if they're offering $6.95 online equity trades and a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. what makesheart healthysalad the becalifornia walnuts.r? the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. insult john mccain in the califo.
grow into further success. it just feels good to know that i'm helping someone else. my first goal is to learn about their business, what they're currently doing in their advertising. pull some research, create a great story. trying to figure out some way of building some kind of trust in a very quick moment. you have to love to work with people. our goal, without a doubt, is that all customers are satisfied before they leave. ♪ ♪ chris: a look outside the beltway at the ninth circuit court of appeals in san francisco which ruled against reinstating president trump's travel ban. finish to discuss the president's executive order and other issues, let's bring in senator ben cardin, the top democrat on the foreign relations committee. senator, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good to be with you, chris, thanks. chris: you just heard steven miller on the travel ban. your reaction.
>> well, i find his comments very concerning. look, we all want america to be safer. i can tell you that his executive order, if implemented, would make us less safe. i've talked to leaders from be around the world who tell us that it would be used as a recruitment for terrorist organizations. that would put americans at greater risk traveling abroad, that it adds to self-radicalization. our concern about terrorism is real, but look at the numbers. the numbers of self-radicalization are much higher than people coming into our country. so we really need to have a start policy, and we already have extreme vetting for refugees particularly. chris: well, i want to pick up on this because you made similar remarks in a letter that you and five other democratic senators wrote to defense secretary james mattis this week, and i want to put what you said on the screen. this executive order provides isis and other enemies with a propaganda coup of unimaginable proportions. honestly, do you really think
that isis needs another tool to get people to kill us? they already hate us, senator. >> but they need a recruitment message. and i was talking the king abdullah last week -- chris: the king of jordan. >> and he said, look, we have 650,000 syrian refugees in our country, and they're integrated into our country. they're not the security threat. the security threat is who can be recruited, how the palestinians are recruited towards terrorism. isis is on the run, but if we give them a message -- look, they're losinger the or story, the caliphate's shrinking, we're making progress. what america does when its immigration policy gives them a message. chris: but, senator, the new secretary of homeland security, general john kelly, says that while the courts go through this long process of considering the president's order, it's -- his words -- entirely possible that someone will come into this country and do us harm. here's an exchange he had this week in a congressional
committee hearing. >> but you don't have any proof at this point. >> not until the boom. >> not until what? >> not until they act and blow something up or go into a mall and kill people. so we won't know until then. chris: he is saying, the president is saying, steven miller is saying while the courts, while senator argue about, well, this tine-tuning -- fine-tuning of the executive order, we won't know until the boom. >> well, you don't know. we want to keep americans safe, and there are risk factors. there's risk factors that this executive order could be used for recruitment here or self-radicalization, and that person may cause people to be harmed. these are -- if you look at what we've seen as far as the terrorist threats in america, it's not the refugees. it's not the people that are coming in through our regular process. they're not, have not billion an unusually high threat to america. do we want to do better where we can? absolutely.
chris: u.s. officials -- i'm going to turn the subject. u.s. officials now say that p contrary to previous denials, that the president's national security adviser, retired general michael flynn, did discuss u.s. sanctions with the russian ambassador before he took office in december at the very time that president obama was imposing new sanctions because of russia's role in interfering in the election. be -- here's an exchange that i had before the inauguration with vice president pence. did mike flynn ever discuss lifting sanctions in any of those conversations, do you know? >> i talked to general flynn yesterday, and the conversations that took place at that time were not in any way related to new u.s. sanctions against russia or the expulsion of diplomats. chris: despite that, the white house said yesterday that president trump still has, quote, full confidence in michael flynn as his national security adviser. question: do you? >> no.
i think what general flynn did with the vice president, misleading him or giving him wrong information, that's not the type of person you want with to have around you giving you advice. he has very much questioned his credibility. we need to get to the bottom of this. but it goes broader than just general flynn. the relationship between russia and our elections is something that needs to be independently investigated. i've called for an independent commission similar so what we -- to what we had in 9/11. russia attacked us, and general flynn's comments just add to our concern about the relationship with russia. chris: well, one of the reasons that all of this has come out is because, apparently, the fbi or the nsa, one of our intelligence agencies -- doing what they should do -- had electronic signal intelligence on any conversation the russian ambassador was having. i'm sure they do it to our people in moscow. so they knew what was going on in this conversation. should congress, should there be
an investigation of what exactly it is that michael flynn said? and i guess a larger question a lot of people asking, what's wrong? in about a month he was going to be the national security adviser. what's wrong with him at that point talking to the russian ambassador about what the policy was on sanctions? >> we have one president at a time. that president's conducting a major foreign policy initiative by imposing sanctions for russia's attack on the united states. be -- that message had to be clear, and if someone was trying to undermine that in a private conversation with the president, the prime minister -- president of russia, that's wrong. and that's why a law was passed a couple hundred years ago to make that illegal. what our concern is, what is the relationship? why did russia do what it did in our elections? russia's continuing to be active not just in the united states, but in western europe, in these elections. we've got to get to the bottom of this as to how, what russia's employing in order to try to bring down our democratic system of government. yes, there should be investigations in congress, and
there's some that are taking place, but there needs to be an independent investigation where people devote their full time to finding out what russia was doing, why they did it, who was involved here in the united states and making sure this never happens again. chris: let's take a look at where we stand with the trump cabinet at this point. the statistics are interesting. so far seven of president trump's cabinet nominees have been confirmed. at same point in 2009 12 members of the obama cabinet were in place, and in 2001 bush 43 had his entire 14-member cabinet confirmed. senator, isn't this blatant democratic obstruction? >> not at all. we can't stop these nominees, we know that. what we're trying -- chris: no, but you're doing everything you can to slow it down. >> because these people, many of them, have never been appointed to positions before -- chris: some people would say that's a positive. >> well, let's find out about it. when you have a person who's already been vetted for other offices, it's a lot easier for
the information to move. we have a person like betsy devos who we knew nothing about her commitment to public education. i think it was important to take as much time as possible so the american people understood our concerns and we could hold her accountable. now she's secretary of education. we're going to the use our time to make sure that people understand the background of these individuals, their commitment to the agency that they are being appointed to so we can hold them accountable. and, yes, in some cases we would hope that republicans may join us in questioning whether this person's the best person -- chris: but, senator, back in 2013 when republicans delayed the confirmation of two members of president obama's second term cabinet, here's what you had to say about that. this is a pattern of blocking president obama's confirmation votes on his key cabinet positions. senator, aren't you and other democrats engaged in exactly the same practice that you criticized four years ago? >> i think my recollection was then the republicans controlled
the senate at the time and were not scheduling these votes. we don't control the agenda, the republicans control the agenda -- chris: yeah, but you have ways of blocking it. >> no. all we can do is take our time. we can take our time for debate, the 30 hours that are given to us. we can't block when it's brought to the floor, when the votes take place. the republican leader decides. all we can do is use the time allotted to us to make our points p and that's what we're doing. we're not blocking these appointments. we scheduled the earliest possible days for hearings in our committees. i'm the ranking democrat -- chris: yeah, but then some of the committees you boycotted so they couldn't have a vote. let me bring up one last question, and that is the nomination of neil gorsuch to the supreme court. you say that he must be in the judicial mainstream. i understand he's clearly more conservative than you are, president trump, a more conservative president than president obama. is there anything in his record that would indicate just besides the fact that he's conservative
that he isn't in the judicial mainstream? >> well, i'm just starting to look at his background. i am concerned about whether he will represent individual constitutional rights or whether he's going to be more concerned about business with constitutional rights, and we'll get into that -- chris: yeah, but that's a judicial mainstream mission. >> we're just getting into it. give me the chance to meet with him. i have not met with him yet. let me review the record. chris, i want to tell you, this is a backdrop to republican leadership in the senate that denied president obama for ten months a vote on his nominee. we want to make sure we get a fair process, and many of us are concerned as to whether this republican leadership will allow us to have a fair process in the united states senate. and you're already, as you showed earlier on the show, we have a president that's shown a real disrespect for the judicial branch of government. we need to make sure we have an independent judiciary. chris: senator cardin, thanks for coming in today. always good to talk to you. up next, our sunday group will come in to discuss what president trump may do next to restrict people from coming into
the u.s. from countries with a history of terrorisming. and new allegations that general michael flynn discussed easing sanctions with the rug ambassador despite flynn's repeated denials. ♪ ♪ tech: don't let a cracked windshield ruin your plans. trust safelite. with safelite's exclusive "on my way text"... you'll know exactly when we'll be there. giving you more time for what matters most. (team sing) safelite repair, safelite replace.
>> we'll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country. in addition, we will continue to go through the court process and, ultimately, i have no doubt that we'll win that particular case. chris: president trump appearing to preview a two-track approach with the new executive action while at the same time defending his current travel ban in the courts in what he calls his continuing effort to keep the country safe. and it's time thousand for our sunday group. michael needham, head of heritage action for america. fox news political analyst and columnist for the hill, juan williams. julie pace, who covers the white
house for the associated press, and laura ingraham, editor of life set and a fox news political analyst. laura, what do you expect from the president this week? do you think that because steven miller didn't tell us he will issue a new executive order addressing some of the legal concerns raised by the courts? >> the ninth circuit made a complete legal mishmash of the doctrine of standing, of hinting that there's a due process right of individuals outside the country who are not american citizens to enter the country. that having been said, the rollout of this executive order was not the finest hour for the administration. i believe they're going to withdraw the order, they will write a more narrowly-tailored order that will probably allay the concerns of most, although some of the language of the ninth circuit opinion, it might not even be enough for them, but they'll lose standing. that case will probably go moot. i would be very surprised if they wanted to take a gamble going back to the district court, then going again to the
ninth circuit, then going fen again to the supreme court. this has been a major distraction for the administration. i'd have a bit of a different approach. you've got to repeal and replace obamacare, you've got to do tax reform, you've got to do the things you talked about. there's some wisdom in the things they're saying, but the way this was rolled out -- when john kelly at homeland security says he wishes we had done it differently, in my view, that's a tell. it's okay, we can redo this, but they have to learn, you know, running full bore into a buzz saw of the democrat resistance in the ninth circuit is probably going to distract you for a while. chris: julie, president trump, i think it's fair to say, doesn't like to lose. he suffered a major setback with the ruling by the ninth circuit court. this controversy over the travel ban has, obviously, you can just see from this show and all the coverage this week, an enormous amount of time and energy when, as laura points out, there's a big agenda out there. do you get any sense of how
unhappy the president is with this development? >> he's told people privately that he does not think the rollout went well despite what he said publicly about the strength of the order and what he said about what he feels is the national security interests of the country. if you talk to trump's supporters, people who voted for him, yes, they believe this is part of what he promised he would do, but they are more focused on obamacare, they are more focused on jobs and the economy, and trump knows that. and i think he is going to want to shift his administration's focus to those issues which, frankly, are going to be even more difficult to implement than some of what we've seen on this executive order. chris: michael, donald trump came in as a disrupter. it can't be good when in his first major initiative -- and this is, i mean, he's had some orders or speeches, but this was the first major policy initiative -- the disrupter gets stopped this his tracks by the federal court. whether rightly or wrongly, it doesn't add to the momentum of i'm going to shake up the system. >> that may be true, but the courts are wrong in this instance. that's his points. this is an instance of the
president at the apex of his political power. he has statutory power given to him by congress, constitutional power, and we want the presidency running the national security. what do these judges in industries, what information do they have from classified briefings that they've gotten about the national security threats that our nation -- chris: but judges have done this before. the supreme court -- again, not saying it's right or wrong. in one case they slapped down president bush's ability to handle detainees at guantanamo. >> sure. courts have a right, but when we come to immigration policy, it's very clear as steven miller said that statutorily the president of the united states has the ability whenever he wants to restrict people coming into this country as he sees necessary. on top of that, he has through -- chris: do you think he should double down on this? >> i think it is urgent for the national security of the united states. i think he's probably this week going to do something to make sure that there's security measures put into place. it is urgent for the national security of the united states, however, that the principle is reaffirmed that it is the executive branch which has the information, that holds the
meetings to think about trade-offs, and it's the executive branch, by the way, that is held accountable at the olds, not the judiciary. and it's urgent that we reaffirm the executive is at the apex of its our -- in what if it goes the other way? be what if the court actually sur couple scribes executive power and we have precedent on the books that is deleterious to the separation of power because maybe we rushed in before we had an attorney general and solicitor general? that's a big albatross -- >> i think the american people are losing -- >> you didn't answer the question. what if they lose at the court? >> it is urgent -- >> okay. so you're not answering the question. it'll be a disastrous precedent. the second circuit probably wouldn't have done it. the supreme court, try to predict what antithink kennedy is going to do -- anthony kennedy is going to do on executive power. chris: juan? >> i don't think the ninth circuit is to be demeaned here. i think they made an argument and specifically an argument
that touches on rollout, it wasn't clear that people with green cards would be allowed back in the country. secondly, the suggestion that they don't have a right to intervene, we have a case involving president obama where the courts in texas said that with regard to immigration, the courts do have some right to look at potential damage to state interest or private interest -- >> they don't have the right to intervene. i said they got this case exactly wrong, and in their decision, they didn't even cite the shoot that steven miller was talking about earlier that is very clear that -- >> but the courts have a right to review, michael, and that's what they were asserting. i don't think that they got it wrong, but they have a right to -- [inaudible conversations] intervene on this subject. it's not the case. yes, the president has the prerogative with regard to immigration, but it's not beyond judicial review. chris crest okay. we have one more minute here, and i want to get into another subject i wanted to talk about which is the case of the national security adviser, michael flynn.
he denied that sean spicer denied, vice president pence sitting at this table denied that he had talked to the russian ambassador about sanctions, it now turns out -- apparently from signal intelligence -- that he did talk about it. is he in trouble? >> i think that this week will be clarifying on whether he's in trouble u. to understand how many times this story has changed. first, it was the date cans of the calls that changed, second it was the number of times he spoke to the russian ambassador, now we're told that the content has changed. and the fact that the vice president went to flynn -- and this has been backed up by the vice president's aides -- went to flynn and asked what happened in those calls and was told a story that may not be true, it's hard to see how a national security adviser can continue on in that role if they're giving incorrect information to the vice president of the united states. chris: interestingly enough, apparently flynn and the vice president on friday met twice. so flynn knows he's in trouble with the vice president -- >> and flynn, presumably given his history at the pentagon where he was running intelligence, knows that there
are plenty of systems in place in the u.s. intelligence agencies to actually capture content of these types of -- chris: oh, there's no question. that transcript exists somewhere. >> exactly. >> either he lied to them or they're lying for him, but in either case -- >> leaks, there's a lot of leaks -- [inaudible conversations] chris: all right, guys, you're taking time from your up next segment. we have to take a break here. when we come back, the president backs kellyanne conway after she urges the public to go out and buy ivanka trump's fashion line. go to facebook or twitter on fox news sunday, and we may use your question on air. ♪ we've got that thing! you know...diarrhea? abdominal pain? but we said we'd be there... woap, who makes the decisions around here? it's me. don't think i'll make it. stomach again...send! if you're living with frequent, unpredictable diarrhea and abdominal pain, you may have irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea
or ibs-d - a condition that can be really frustrating. talk to your doctor about viberzi. a different way to treat ibs-d. viberzi is a prescription medication you take every day that helps proactively manage both diarrhea and abdominal pain at the same time. so you stay ahead of your symptoms. viberzi can cause new or worsening abdominal pain. do not take viberzi if you have or may have had pancreas or severe liver problems, problems with alcohol abuse, long-lasting or severe constipation, or a blockage of your bowel or gallbladder. if you are taking viberzi, you should not take medicines that cause constipation. the most common side effects of viberzi include constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain. stay ahead of ibs-d... with viberzi.
>> i've got -- she was warned. she was given an eczema nation. explanation. nevertheless, she persisted. chris: well, that happened this week. [laughter] democratic senator elizabeth warren forced to stop participating in the debate over jeff sessions for attorney general after senate republicans voted she violated senate rules by impugning sessions' character. and we're back now with the panel. michael, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is an extremely strategic politician. do you think he was purposely trying to elevate elizabeth warren to make her the face of the democratic opposition, or do you think he was just worn out and fed up with all the democratic obstruction? >> maybe. the democratic opposition's in big trouble if elizabeth warren's its face. i don't think anyone wants the regulations she wants, the expansion of obamacare that she wants, the social liberalism. but i think he also is legitimate concerned about the
complete breakdown of decorum that exists in this country. you did a segment about president trump and some of his tweets. let's talk about the left. ivanka trump went to an exercise class in washington, d.c. earlier this week, didn't make a big deal of it, trying to enjoy herself, and the ceo decided she had to go on facebook and grandstand about how much she didn't want ivanka trump there. ivanka trump is trying to fly across the country with her family and left-wing people, a senior member of the white house in a shopping store getting dresses with her bridesmaids, and there's a complete breakdown. nobody's asking chuck schumer hey, do you have the courage to stand up to these crazy people on the left who are uncivilly and just unreasonably attacking people? nobody's asking nancy pelosi these questions. i think if we want to talk about donald trump's tweets, kellyanne conway and all this stuff, we should talk about the complete lack of respect and deroar couple that the left has -- decorum, that the left has. chris: well, we're going to
start with juan williams. how do you plead? >> i mean, i just sit and listen and wonder. to me, where this starts, a lot of it has to start with donald trump. >> donald trump's a counterpuncher. >> oh, i think he's tweeted out -- >> juan, do you think that nancy pelosi should have to condemn the way that ivanka trump has been treated -- >> i don't want any uncivil behavior. but i'm just saying to you elizabeth warren, the way you describe her, she's a threat to the nation. she's not. she was reading from a letter from coretta scott king on the senate floor, and king had been critical of jeff sessions, the senator, now the attorney general. but is that a reason to say that elizabeth warren is not allowed to speak? in fact, picking up on chris' point, because i had the same perception that senator mcconnell is a strategic, smart player, an inside player in the game. so what was the point? because it looks to me like he all of a sudden elevated elizabeth warren and her comments and her criticism -- >> but here's what is a threat to the nation, the breakdown of
civility in this country is a threat to the nation. i think it's important for people like you to start standing up and and demanding that elizabeth warren and nancy pelosi and chuck schumer -- we spend all of this time talking about donald trump. it is important to start standing up and asking nancy employees and i and -- pelosi and chuck schumer whether the complete breakdown in civility we see -- >> we can't pretend like this lack of civility in our politics has started since the november election. if you look at things that were said about president obama and president bush, especially at the height of the iraq war, we've been dealing with this for years. >> right, and we spend countless amount of time talking about donald trump, and we spend no time asking elizabeth warren and chuck schumer and others -- >> let me get in here, we have protesters who this week, they call themselves protesters. many of them are just criminals, and they're criminals because they're denying a government official the ability to do government business at a public school, talking about secretary of education devos.
they complained that, oh, she doesn't know anything about public schools, she's going the kill all public schools. then she goes to a public school, and the most vicious, horrible thing said about her, preventing her from actually entering the school at one point. so i think there's a good point to be made that the resistance movement that has been fueled and fomented by many in congress who are encouraging it, even former president obama's heartened by all the enthusiasm. enthusiasm, protests, fine. what we've been seeing at berkeley and even at this devos thing which i think, frankly, gets scary, is that there's a push to bring this to this powder keg moment where at some point force will have to be used to keep people safe, and then they're going to say, see? trump has a police state. >> wait a second -- >> the volume pitch that is being brought up because they lost, they're bitter about it, and they have nothing to do except stop other people from speaking. >> laura, do you think -- >> resistance is fine as long as -- knox. >> laura, so when the president
speaks about a so-called judge, you don't think that's demeaning and threatening and scary in terms of the independence of our jewish douchely? >> -- judiciary? >> that's never happened before. >> i'm telling you, where's the source? he goes after the judiciary. if that doesn't scare people, i mean, he goes after the acting attorney general. he goes after a judge in the trump university case and suggests that he's incompetent because he has mexican heritage. >> okay, that's during the election. people are still mad about that. i get that. now the president of the united states, these things will go through the legal channels. debate the substance of these issues, the substantive debate, i think, are lacking. we're talking about ivanka's shoe line -- >> that's not the resistors, that was kellyanne coming on fox and saying go buy ivanka's -- that's not right. [inaudible conversations] >> desire to debate the substance of the issue. >> oh, really? >> i really do.
>> they lose every time. they lose on immigration, on trade, on fighting all these wars in the middle east. they've lost -- chris: let julie finish. >> part of the rob is every time you get into the substance of the issues, i speak as someone covering the white house, you get pulled offside by a tweet from the president. the white house in some way has an interest in focusing -- chris: we're being pulled aside by our clock, but this is an interesting discussion, and the best part, i just got to listen to it. thank you, panel. up next, our power player of the week. how one woman is leading an effort to bring peace to hot spots around the world. good gummies , a good source of fiber to help support regularity. mmm...these are great! my work here is done. phillips', the tasty side of fiber.
who's he? he's green money, for spending today. makes it easy to tell you apart. that, and i am better looking. i heard that. when it's time to get organized for retirement, it's time to get voya. chris: a look at the lincoln memorial on the former president's 208th birthday. just across the lincoln memorial on the national mall is a striking building dedicated to trying to bring peace to . here's our power player of the week. >> nobody is suggesting that you can eliminate conflict from human interaction, but there is an opportunity to manage it so that it doesn't become violent. chris: nancy lindborg is
president of the u.s. institute of peace, a government-funded, independent organization that's spent the last 32 years trying to prevent wars. >> peace is very practical. it is a set of learned skills, approaches and frameworks that is essential for our national security. chris: with a staff of 180 usip has people on the ground in ten hot spots across the middle east and africa. partnering with locals to head off violence such as right now in iran. >> when isis was finally pushed out of tikrit, you had the tribes poised for repeated cycles of tribal blood feuds. chris: usip worked with iraqis they had trained to get the key players to talk. >> that peace accord led to the ability of quarter of a million iraqis who had been displaced by the fighting to return home. chris: lindborg has directed
efforts to stop conflicts from turning violent in central africa, and there's generation change, bringing 28 young leaders from 13 be nations -- >> first of all, i want to thank you -- chris: -- to meet with the dalai lama and discuss how to promote peace. >> the key message is you need to stay on that journey, and it it takes a lot of inner resilience and a lot of fortitude. chris: the institute is next to the state department on the national mall in a striking space lindborg says symbolizes its lofty purpose. >> we look across at the lincoln memorial, and across the river we have the arlington cemetery, so it's a daily reminder to all of us here on the importance of resolving violent conflict. we>> we are all patriots, first and foremost. chris: last month usip tried to broker a different kind of peace be, hosting a conference called passing the baton to heart attack the transition from one president to the next. >> the gravity of this moment is
a bit overwhelming. chris: then the past and future white house national security advisers had a symbolic handoff of responsibility. [applause] how'd you get into the peace business? >> i have spent the last two decades going to terrible places. chris: lindborg worked first for the mercy corps and then usaid providing relief for people caught in syria's civil war and african droughts. two years ago she came to the institute to try to get ahead of conflicts. >> how exactly do we get at the roots that are causing all this violence and all this suffering, how do we prevent that from happening. and after it happens, how do you resolve it so that you have a more enduring peace. chris: lindborg says there's been a spike in violence in recent years from civil wars and religious extremism which means her institute faces an even bigger challenge. to learn more about usip be, please go to our web site, foxnewssunday.com.
and that's it for today. have a great week, and we'll see you next "fox news sunday." ♪ ♪ >> welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul, federal appeal on thursday upheld a temporary suspension of president donald trump's travel. paul: ing order on the new policy should remain in effect. president trump called the ruling a political decision and vow that had his administration would ultimately prevail. joining the panel this week, wall street journal columnist, deputy editor dan, columnist kim