tv The Daily Briefing With Dana Perino FOX News January 4, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PST
answers on twitter. clap back about something that you saw on "outnumbered overtime" weekdays at 1:00 p.m. eastern or read other people's comments on facebook. and check my stories and pictures on instagram. at the bottom of your screen, "outnumbered overtime," i am harris, here is dana. >> dana: fox news alert, the white house briefing set to start at any moment now. as a contentious battle heats up between president trump and steve bannon. hello, i am dana perino, this is "the daily briefing." white house lawyers are taking steps to stop the publication of that book containing highly disparaging comments according to bannon. with the white house now, what is it saying about the former true strategist? >> saying a number of things, but if i use the vernacular of the day, "stay in your lane" the message from the president. they are pushing back in according to the flurry of cease and desist letters, it is obvious that the president was none too pleased by what he read
and heard about what steve bannon is said to have told michael wolff. the president was asked about mr. bannon. and he said, look, the forthcoming book is obviously an issue. it is called "fire and fury" for the folks at home that do not know. bannon in the book makes a number of assertions including one of the president once refused to hire somebody because he had a mustache. that the president's daughter, again, this is according to another exert was "dumb as a brick." bannon did not disavow those comments, but he told a radio audience that he supports the trump agenda. when asked by the president if he felt betrayed by mr. bannon, the chief said this. >> he called me a great man last night coming so he obviously changed his tune pretty quick. thank you very much. i don't talk to them. i don't talk to them. that is just a misnomer. >> we also have pointed out that the president's lawyers, and
other cease and desist letter, this were not for steve bannon, but also for the publisher of the book. and this is a very interesting strategy. if you have been following the president's career, you know that this is par for the course, you fire off a letter, you get your lawyers to put one out there and then you never follow through. to this one, the president's lawyers sending out that letter saying that it contained, the book caned "liable list allegations." we will keep an eye on that and see if they follow through. >> dana: thank you so much, we have a lawyer coming up that will tell us more about that. thank you so much, kevin. for more on all of this, let's bring in fox news contributor guy benson, political editor. and leslie marshall host, of the "leslie marshall" show. let me have you react to the sound bite that president trump was reacting to when he said last night after a flurry of news all day long about the book, steve bannon said this about the president. >> the president has a great
man, you know that i support him day in and day out, going through the country giving the trump miracle speech. or on the website. you don't have to worry about that, but i appreciate the kind words. >> dana: from what i have read, steve bannon does not say anything disparaging about president trump himself, it was other people within the white house that he took issue with including the family. your thoughts? >> if you want to really infuriate donald trump, there is a pretty good way of doing it. that is to call his daughter ivanka dumb as a break to come in and to call don jr. treasonous. and may be forthcoming, we have no idea that the infamous trump tower meeting, the potential or collusion with the russians involve the president himself. that is a trifecta of bad on the part of steve bannon. that's why we saw the volcanic response from the president yesterday and that's really blistering statement, and so, i think that bannon and then comment that he made on the
radio, maybe he is trying to lie low at this point recognizing that he has already said far too much to a reporter that he granted massive access to the trump white house resulting in what is clearly a giant distraction. and really an embarrassment for the administration. >> dana: leslie, i was saying when it comes to book p.r., if it is negative for ureter principles, there is no way around it, you have to plow through it. and you have to suppress it or counter it. what do you think about the white house move to try to distance themselves from bannon at this point? >> i think it is laughable, quite frankly, it is almost like pretty soon if ivanka says something negative, the president will say, ivanka, never met her. the americans are smarter than this, and the president should rise above this. regardless of somebody's political leanings left or right, we have seen scathing books written about a president's first lady, their children, and unfortunately even met romney has said it is par for the course when you are in public office. it is sad, but i think you
should ignore it. my father-in-law once said, you are an elephant, and those who make such remarks are little dogs nipping at your ankles. and i honestly think that the president should look look at e remarks as such. he is giving more attention to the book then to the comments within. into bannon's comments by addressing it and tweeting about it and commenting about it. >> dana: either way you slice it, you just have to know that no matter what it is, a book that is good for you are negative, it will end at some point. they are going to have to get through this week. in the meantime, let me ask you about this. the daily brief is reporting that the justice department is , hillary clinton's emails, certainly one of the most scrutinized email servers of all time, as one of her staffers has said. what do you think about this? >> i have a mixed mind on this. i think that the die was cast in july 2016 when james comey decid wrongly in my view not to file charges against
mrs. clinton for her gross negligence. i do not really know if they are going to be able to go back and dredge up new charges. i think that there will be concerns, among democrats that this is a president demanding things of the justice department. for a political prosecution. we will hear a lot about that from the left. there are, however, i will say a few questions that i think remain unanswered that are serious about how that investigation played out in particular some of the decisions that were made by those investigators to grant immunity to some of clinton's aides. we have seen the russian investigation go against president trump, mueller is going after low-level people for lying to the fbi and other infractions and trying to build a case up from there. in the clinton case, the opposite happened. there was lying to the fbi by at least three -- now, senior clinton aides who were never charged and given immunity for reasons that are now unclear. there are parts of data that i think we need answers to. why did comey draft a memo
exonerating clinton before the interviews were over? i don't know if it looks great for the president to beat the desk every day and say, we need to cross cook at hillary and the doj, which is supposed to be independent hops to it and salutes. >> dana: that's something i was going to ask you leslie about, there was a quote from a leaning republican, it is about time you had an investigation that was into hillary clinton's emails that had no fear or favor figuring out what went wrong, and there is somebody who says it is the white house having an impact on the justice department, finally trying to calm the president town and saying, okay, we will look into it. what you think? >> i think that is exactly what it is, dana, the president has been going on and on and cannot look beyond lock her up. a lot of people on the right one to lock one of the clinton's up even if they have no reason to. negligence is not criminal. i am all for, by the way, opening this further, looking into whatever they can find. i'm very confident, i would go
to vegas betting that they will not find anything as they did with benghazi, and you cannot have the hypocrisy both ways. if you want to rip open every detail and to reanalyze a million times at taxpayer expense the clinton emails, the sum that then the same courtesy has to be done to russian collusion. >> dana: they are telling me in my ear that i have time for this. but today the attorney general making -- marijuana laws, rescinding the guidance is as you do not have to go after them and imports the laws for marijuana of the states that have legalized it. here is cory gardner, the the h on the senate floor moments ago. >> i would like to know from the attorney general, what has changed? what has changed president trump's mind that though: memorandum would be reversed and rescinded? what has changed the president's mind.
why is he thinking differently today about what he promised the people of colorado in 2016? the reverse course today, what changed? i would like to know that. i think that the people of colorado deserve to have that answered. >> dana: colorado one of the first states to go ahead and legalized credit is fully entrenched now for better or worse. what you think about what cory gardner was saying? he is demanding an answer to the question of what changed? >> well i understand why he is frustrated. i'm not an advocate of marijuana use, it is not something that i've ever done myself, but i also question with all of the challenges that we face in this country -- and all of the challenges that the law enforcement faces everything with a pair to stopping terrorism, ms-13, really serious threats. i really strongly believe that taking government and federal resources to go after states that have made a decision on their own to decriminalize or legalize marijuana is just really the wrong approach. on a number of levels.
>> dana: let me give leslie the last word, i would put this out there that it is true that congress has not passed the law that would say that we do not need to do this anymore. basically this was just guidance. and once again have the executive branch is saying at the congress, if you want this, then you have to do something. you have to pass along yourself. >> very true, guide, we start the new year agreeing on someth. with regards to not only priorities in this country, let's look at priorities with regards to drugs. we have opiates that come in from other countries such as afghanistan, cocaine that comes in from south america through central america and mexico, and an opiate crisis here in this country that is reaching epidemic proportions. we do not see this with marijuana usage. it is not a proper use of the dea's funding or staffing. it does not help the american people. and quite frankly, it will hurt a lot of small business owners in washington and colorado and
this week california. >> dana: oh, yeah, california, you are flying high now, california. the revenue that state governments are using too -- >> it is about priorities indiscretion, and in this case, marijuana is the wrong move. >> dana: hopefully we will hear from them later and get an answer to the question that was posed. thank you so much. fox news alert, a major's norm smack in the northeast. blizzard warnings from coastal new virginia to new england. the winds are expected to pick up tonight. and boston is having problems with flooding, high tide impacting the entrance to the railway station and our own brain -- is there. brian, we send you to all the hot spots. >> [laughs] hey, dana, i can confirm that it is snowing, we have seen gusts of winds. in downtown boston by the waterfront, and emergency crews are here near the aquarium station here in downtown.
reports that we can confirm that water has definitely seeped into the station here, the chief station, boston subway system down into the aquarium station. they are no entries according to fire officials here, we do know however that the water here is now the second highest on record, the second-highest tide boston has ever seen as of right now according to the national weather service of boston. we are talking about 4.7 feet. if you look over here, this is why it is so dangerous, this right here is actually water. that car is actually stuck in water right now. you cannot tell because it is frozen, and if you look in the back over there, that is boston harbor this way. so if you were to walk over here, you would see chunks of ice. this is what the concern is all throughout boston right now, especially on the cape and to the south shore, because what is happening is you have 40, 50, 60-mile-an-hour winds that are
coming along the cape and the waterfront here, and now you have heavy snow and precipitation. and you add all of that with the freezing temperatures, and you can have power outages. the last thing you want in this freezing weather are power outages. so they are telling people that if you do lose power and you do lose heat, you need to go to a warming shelter as soon as you can. now, the peak of the storm is going to be really up until four neck 4:00 or 5:00 today. aaron second-highest time that the city has seen thus far. luckily i said, no injuries out of that station here in downtown. >> dana: it certainly looks like the perfect storm with high tide, are we safe to tell the children of boston that they do not have to go to school tomorrow? >> [laughs] that is a good point, i do not know. i cannot confirm. i know that marty walsh, the mayor of boston is going to have a press conference at 3:00. i'm sure that we will know about the schools tomorrow. schools, majority have been close today. remember, this is not just about
the snow. we are talking about extreme heartache blasts after the storm. a deep freeze, minus 20 windchill over the next two days. if that is dangerously cold. so that is why the power outages are such a big deal. >> dana: indeed, glad that you can get that message out to the folks. thank you so much. the white house press briefing is about to start any minute now on a very busy news day. we will take you there when it starts. the white house is stopping to move publication of the new book, disparaging members of the trump family. while the rest between the president and steve bannon her to mr. trump with his core support? >> i think that him and the president have common interests, but the notion that the president needs him for his base, i soundly reject that. the president has his own base. ♪
glucerna. >> dana: as promised, here is sarah sanders. >> secretary sanders: with that in mind, we have a message from a special guest of that i would like to share with you. i will ask you to tune into the screen. i will continue from there. >> thank you for being with us today, the historic tax cut i signed into large just two weeks ago before christmas is already delivering major economic gains. hundreds of thousands of americans are seeing larger paychecks, bigger bonuses, higher pension contribution, and it is all because of the tax
cuts and a tax reform. and i want to thank all of the companies that work so hard to do it. workers at at&t, bank of america, comcast, southwest airlines, american airlines, and many other companies are receiving bonuses of $1000 or more. aflac, others are investing more in employees 401(k)s. cbs announced that it will hire 3000 new workers. boeing and another great company is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in employee trading and infrastructure. more than 60 companies have announced they are raising wages, including many that have voluntarily raised with their minimum wage to $15 per hour. and i mean, they did that voluntarily. which many politicians said could only be achieved by a government mandate. investing in the american workers, the most important of investment a business will ever make. i want to thank all of these companies were putting their tax
savings to the best possible use, by creating more jobs and higher wages for the american family. these great results are just the beginning. when the dreams of the american people are unleashed, there is nothing, absolutely nothing we can't achieve. we are going to make america great again, and it is happening a lot faster than anyone thought possible. thank you. >> secretary sanders: thank you mr. president. as i said, this is only the beginning, we are excited to see the economic growth and optimism continued to soar in 2018. earlier today the president hosted republican senators to talk about responsible immigration reform. he integrated the view that any action on daca must come with the actual reform principles that were released last year. these include a physical border wall on the southern border, interior or a reinforcement which is more border patrol agents as well as a crackdown on sinks where he said and reforms
to the legal immigration system like ending chain migration and the visa lottery program in favor of a merit based immigration system. next week the president is inviting a bipartisan group of senators to the white house to discuss the next steps on responsible immigration reform and to continue that discussion. and with that, i will take your questions. >> a follow up on the steve bannon account issue, the white house staff including steve have to sign nondisclosure agreements when they came to work at the white house? >> secretary sanders: there is an ethics agreement, beyond that i cannot get into any additional details. >> did the president went to have the support for antiestablishment political candidates in the midterm election? >> secretary sanders: the president once all american support. he hopes every american in the country wants to see us do bigger and better things. that is his focus. he is not trying to single out the support from any one individual, but he wants to bring everybody together to move
the country forward. that is what he campaigned on and what we have done over the last year. that's where we will continue to do for the next seven years. >> the white house has said that there were false statements in the book. the president's lawyer says there were no viable statements, can you give a few examples of things that have been said in the book that are false, that you would like to set the record straight on? >> secretary sanders: i will not go through every single page of the book, but there are numerous examples of falsehoods that take place in the book. i will give you one, just because it is really easy. the fact that there was a claim that the president did not know who john boehner was is pretty ridiculous considering the majority of you have seen photos, and frankly, several of you have tweeted out that the president not only knows him, but has played golf with him, tweeted about him. that is pretty simple and basic. ages of employees, which would be super easy to affect track are wrong. there are numerous mistakes. but i'm not going to face my
time or the country's time going page by page and talking about a book that is complete fantasy and just full of tabloid gossip. because it is sad, pathetic. and our administration and focus will be moot on moving country forward. >> thank you a lot, sarah. i saw the cease and desist letter was sent by the lawyers to the publisher of the book, to stop the selling of his book. it did the president's lawyers to share with the president the idea that this is a prior restraint and that prior restraints are generally unconstitutional? >> secretary sanders: i'm not sure about the specific details of the conversation between the president and his personal attorney, but i would refer to you to them for questions on that matter. >> does the president believing first amendment and prior restraints as the one here? >> secretary sanders: the president absolutely believes in the first amendment. as we have said before, the president also believes in
making sure that information is accurate before pushing it out as fact when it certainly and clearly is not. >> what is the president's reaction of the suggestions in this book that he is mentally unfit? >> secretary sanders: the same way we have had when it is asked before that it is disgraceful and laughable. if he was unfit, he probably would not be sitting there and would not have defeated the most qualified group of candidates, the republican party has ever seen. this is an incredibly -- strong and good leader, that is why we have had such a successful 2017 and why we are going to continue to do great things as we move forward in the administration. >> thank you, sarah. two questions, first, the book repeatedly says candidate trump, his family, and a top officials of the campaign did not believe that he would be elected. it was the farthest from their
mind. you said yesterday that you believed in this campaign and felt that he would win. can you name anyone else who said at the time on the eve of the election that they felt that he would win? did the president himself believe that he would not win? >> secretary sanders: as we stated many times before, go ahead and look at some of the interview specifically kellyanne conway, i know that she did several leading up to the days just before the election saying directly that the president can win and would win. i know that there were a number of other campaign officials that echoed the same sentiments. the president, the first lady, his family. they would not have put themselves through the process if one, they did not believe that they could win and two, they did not want to win. they were committed to it and have been since taking office and will continue to do so over the next seven years. again, it is absolutely laughable to think that somebody like this president would run for office with the purpose of
losing. if you guys know anything, you know that donald trump is a winner. and he is not going to do something for the purpose of coming out on top and not coming out as a winner. it is just -- that is one of the most ridiculous things i think the claim in the book. >> my other question is, tomorrow, can we expect a major personnel change? i particularly ask is gary cohn going to stay where he is? >> secretary sanders: i've no reason to know of any personnel change whatsoever. gary has stated that he is committed to being here. we just have come off of a very successful win on the tax cuts and reform package which gary was one of the key leaders of data efforts, and we are moving full force of her head into 2018 to try to get that accomplished. >> i want to follow up on something you said yesterday, the last time that the president was early december -- that is one thing. if the secondly the president
said that he does not talk to steve bannon. so how much were they in contact from the time that he left the white house to cover the call that you mentioned and also, how close were they when they were in the white house? what acquaintance did they have? unless he was already embedded? >> secretary sanders: he said that he had been sidelined by april, which goes further to indicate that he has very little credibility to give much information, particularly after that point which most of the book is based after the time frame. this book is a mistake after mistake after mistake. >> where they not quotes by the time? >> secretary sanders: i'm not ever aware that they were particularly close. i would certainly say that they have spoken a few times since he left the white house, but it does not like they were regularly scheduled calls or certainly no meetings between the two of them. >> thank you, sarah. this is regarding the recognition. and the president's tweets that follow that.
does the president favor a national voter i.d.? >> secretary sanders: we are still going to continue to review the best way forward, just because the election commission is no longer in existence, we are going to send the preliminary findings from the commission to the department of homeland security and make determinations on the best way forward from that point. >> why the dhs instead of the doj? it seems to be more of an investigative body? >> secretary sanders: that was the agency that was best determined by the administratio administration, and we are moving forward and letting them take over the process. >> thank you, sarah. does president trump see marijuana as a safety issue or a federal issue? >> secretary sanders: the president is forcing federal law, that would be the top priority, regardless of what the topic edges. whether it is marijuana or whether it is immigration, the president strongly believes that we should force federal law. if the move that the department of justice has made, i'm guessing what you are
referencing. he simply gives prosecutors the tools to take on large-scale distributors and enforce federal law. the president's position has not changed, but he does strongly believe that we have to enforce federal law. >> on behalf of the president, the meeting this afternoon with the rnc chairwoman, do you imagine a potential run by mitt romney in utah? this is something that the president would like to discuss with mitt romney? >> secretary sanders: like you said, i'm not going to get ahead of a meeting that has not taken place and try to guess what would be discussed, maybe we can follow up with that question at a later time. >> there was an incredibly high bar for the speaker to win a liable case, especially like the president, ken and explain why the president thinks it is an appropriate use of attention and resources on the west wing and the legal team against the book of the author and a former staffer? >> secretary sanders: in terms of a legal arguments, i would refer you to the president's
attorney, but in terms of the merits, i think it is pretty clear, we do not have tiptoeing around our feelings are misprinted as catholic gossip full of false and fraudulent games. and i would refer you to the president's attorney is and what that looks like in the court of law. >> thank you, sarah. will the president go to court to to stop the publication of this book? >> secretary sanders: that is something that i would refer you to the president's attorney, but our position is very clear that we think that it is full of false and fake information. >> the book will be published on tuesday, how far is a president willing to go to prevent the book from being published? >> secretary sanders: he certainly believes that it should not be, but in terms of the legal process, i would refer you to the legal team on that. >> sarah, i know that we are talking a lot about steve bannon, but he is not the only
person quoted in the book. kate walsh who worked for the white house and put it on record extensively -- >> secretary sanders: she has also denied that the quotes are attributed to her. >> is there any action from the white house to any of these individuals to verify whether they made the statements were not? they are the us reports that they are going to be indications for her and establish groups that would support the president from the outside? >> secretary sanders: i'm not aware of any action being taken, she has said that the quotes were not attributed to her as have many other people that this has been coded in this book. >> there will not be invocation? >> secretary sanders: absolutely, particularly like secretary mnuchin who has pushed back this and several others, i think that you have to look also at this author's track record in which he has had a real problem with this in the past. and i think that that is something that has laid a
foundation for us to make the assumption that he is definitel definitely -- this is a practice that he is used to doing. >> and the legal action against any of those who? >> secretary sanders: not that i am aware of at this time. >> just a couple. i want to ask you broadly speaking, what is your level of exhaustion when you have to have this issue out there when their other policy issues that you are trying to get to and communicate to the american people, how do you balance that? i guess the obvious would be, did you speak to the president specifically about what has been said or at least has been released about the book? >> secretary sanders: i have spoken to the president about the specifics that have come up in terms of the level of exhaustion, i am less concerned with my exhaustion as the people of this country who frankly, probably could care less about a book full of lies and would really like to hear more about the booming economy, the crushing of isis, all of the great things that are happening in this country or the big
problems that were focused on tackling. i don't think that they really care about some trash that an author that nobody had ever heard of until today or a fired employee wants to peddle. this is the focus of this administration moving our country forward and hopefully everybody in this room will join us in that effort and focus on some of the policy components instead of some of the ridiculous lives that we have to spend all of our time in here focused on. >> very quickly, is it your arm arm -- impression that something will be done, and a grand announcement of some sort that the president would like on that? >> we like to know that we have responsible immigration reform. we would like to have a deal where we have daca as well as those priorities and principles that we laid out last year matt, and that is the reason that the president is providing members of the democratic party to come over next week so that we can have the discussion and see if we can move the ball forward in that process.
>> as candidate president trump recognized 20 law students, follow through with two of them? less should steve bannon and michael wolff be concerned? >> secretary sanders: regardless of whether there is a lawsuit, they should be concerned about peddling fake stories. they should be concerned about putting out information that is not true. they should be concerned that we are spending all of our time focus on talking about this instead of things that people in this country care about. i think that that is a really sad process, and i think that that should be everybody's concern. >> is the president committed to following through with the lawsuits? >> secretary sanders: would have to talk to the attorney is about that and whether or not the move forward and what that looks like. >> is a drawing more attention to this? >> secretary sanders: i think that you guys are the ones that are drawing the attention, every question that i have been asked has to do with that. i do not come out here and read excerpts from the book, so i do not think that i can re-responsible for the questions that you ask.
in fact, if i tried to do that, i would be attacked for trying to do that. i did that once, he did not go over very well. >> i have a response to the revelations in the book? >> secretary sanders: absolutely not, that is a ridiculous care isolation. it is about the security and the technology here at the white house. this is something that has been in process and in the works for over six months, and we were making sure that all of the information and ability for the government phones to increase their ability for other applications, so that we can comply with presidential records act, that was a big piece of making sure that this was done now that the process has been completed, we can move forward and start next week. >> how would you describe the president's relationship with the mercer family? how would you describe that? >> secretary sanders: i believe it is good, i have not heard otherwise, not sure of
anything specific. >> you were eager to call on espn to fire one of the sportscasters, president trump president trump -- >> secretary sanders: it was not just criticizing. >> did you part ways with steve bannon after the comments in the books? >> secretary sanders: is certainly think that it is something that they should look at and consider. >> i would like to go on some of the aspects yesterday, and i profess my ignorance, but next week -- >> secretary sanders: you said it, not me. if you want to call yourself ignorant. i'm not going to argue. >> so next week, when he goes to the physical, are those memos that go along with that or is it physical in nature? >> secretary sanders: we will discuss as i announced that he is going to be doing the physical, we will have a readout of that after that is completed and let you know that time. >> the second question, yesterday you said steve bannon was entitled to his own
opinions, but not its own facts. this administration has said on many occasions that they are entitled to alternative facts, so how is that different with steve bannon? >> secretary sanders: this administration has not said on numerous occasions that they are alternative facts. i know that there was one reference in which they were saying that there were two sides to the story. i think that that is very different then completely false information and an opinion. >> the president said today that steve bannon changed his tune about him last night, does the president feel that the cease and desist letter has the desired effect on steve bannon? >> secretary sanders: i'm not sure what aspect made him change his tune, but i think that there was certainly a difference in some of the language that he used for this book versus the language that he used last night. >> i have a question on oil drilling, rick scott, the governor of florida is expressing concerns about the administration's new oil drilling plan which would allow
drilling on most coastal waters, can the president of ford to cross less important political ally? what do you plan to say to governor scott about the whole plan? >> secretary sanders: our goal is not to cross governor scott. we have a great relationship with him. we will continue working with him on a number of issues. just because we may differ on issues from time to time does not mean that we cannot have an incredibly strong and good relationship. we will continue those conversations with him, and hopefully all comes to an agreement. i will take one last question. >> recalling the michael wolff book full of lies, denied to this white house give michael wolff all the access to what he? >> secretary sanders: absolutely not, in fact, they are probably more than 30 requests for access to information for michael wolff that were repeatedly denied including within that, at least two dozens of requests of him
asking to have an interview with the president, which he never did. he never discussed this book with a president, and to me that would be the most important voice that you could have if you are looking to write a book about an individual would be to have some time with him. he never dated. he was repeatedly denied that, because we saw for what he was in there was no reason for us to waste the president of the united states time. i will let you have one follow-up. >> showed the letter from the president's lawyers aimed at steve bannon and aimed at it's interpreted as a threat from the united states government from this administration to not public the book? >> secretary sanders: it is not from the united states government, it is from the president's personal attorney, and i think that it is very clear what its purpose is and there is nothing beyond that if you have specifics on that. i would refer you to the president's attorney. thank you so much, guys. >> millions of people --
>> dana: that is sarah sanders leaving the briefing room. the press secretary that has to get up there and answer lots of questions about a decision that she did not make which was to have michael wolff, the author come into the white house and interview a lot of officials and she is going to have to get through this. it will end, but for now this is the story of the day. joining me now is attorney james rossi, a former justice department official who served under the obama administration. leslie marshall rejoins us. if fox news contributor, in case you forgot. and joshua brossard, while i have you, james, let me start with you. one of the questions was about the lawsuit and the filing against steve bannon for a cease and desist and the publisher asking them not to publish the book. do they have legal standing to win these types of cases? >> they have an opportunity to file, but it is a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
it requires a level of malice on behalf of bannon and the publishers that it's going to be impossible to establish. so there may be some good bluff power to a cease and desist, but in terms of litigating it, my sense is that it would not go very far. >> dana: do you think that these are lawsuits i would be filed or is it more of a chance to push back on the p.r. front? >> i think that they could -- i think that they can file them, but i think that there is more mileage of threatening and then filing it. it does not help anybody but the book sales to go forward with an actual case. >> dana: earlier leslie on the show before sarah sanders briefed, we talked about the possibility of full more countering a book or trying to start a -- starve it of attention. i think that she could allege that stan and refused to answer any more questions, that is not what they did. how do you think she did today and pushing back? >> you know, dana, it's funny
that i am talking about this, even though you serve for a republican president, and always thought that you handled yourself very well in that role. i would not say the same about the current press secretary paid her style is not my style. i do not find it palatable. what you suggest it would have been the right thing for her and the administration to do. i think that it helps the book sales, and it does not help the administration. i do not think it is a good start for 2018. >> dana: i could argue either way, i feel for her. it is not a decision that she made. she inherited a bad decision by steve bannon to invite michael wolff into the white house and give him access, now she is the one who has to clean up, that is her job, she does it well. what do you think about what she was saying that the american people do not care about any of this? i kind of agree with that. this is a story that lasts for a few days and then it will go away. do you think you will have any lasting impact? >> the biggest political news
that she made in the briefing was that they should consider firing steve bannon, and that divides the political party. and divides the trump base. we see a lot of comments on the breitbart comment board last night that sided with donald trump over steve bannon, and as much as steve bannon likes to fashion himself as the keeper of the trauma base, it is really all about the president. if bannon is declaring war on president trump, now you have the press secretary saying that breitbart should consider firing steve bannon, shocking coming from the white house podium. and concludes a split in the republican party base going forward. >> dana: when i saw somebody clo bannon saying that he is unshaken. and we played his comments earlier saying that the president is -- the radio show, he said that the president is a good man and did not disparage him and went anyway. but from your political view, do you think that bannon has done something he would never see
witches reunited the republican party behind donald trump? and the populist movement that steve bannon wanted to push? >> it was fascinating to see in the controversy that mitch mcconnell's operation put out a tweet showing the majority leader smiling. because the biggest fear from republicans in washington was that steve bannon would boost these not ready for prime time primary challengers and conservative senators and really hurt the republican's ability to hold the senate majority in 2018. and they were worried and really trying to strategize of how they could diminish steve bannon's influence into the midterm election. steve bannon made their job really easy. he self immolated by attacking trump so easily. and it looks like a lot of candidates that were looking to give steve bannon support are trying to distance themselves from the former trump adviser. that's why a lot of the advisors republican -- publicly spiking
the football. >> dana: regarding paul manafort's lawsuit against bob mueller for going beyond the scope of the investigation, do you think that that one will have any standing? >> i do not think that it as much of a chance. i think it has as much of a chance as matt lauer cohosting your show. >> dana: that is not going to happen. >> a different vehicle for it, which would be a criminal motion to the smith, that is a logical avenue to attack the scope of the investigation. that may still come, but i do not know what the strategy would be to go with the civil motion that is going to have all procedural burdens and may be substantive ones as well. >> dana: thank you so much for being with us after the briefing. we will talk to karl rove next and get his 2018 predictions as well. ♪ n with 15 grams of protein to help you be your best. try our high protein drink. and look for our coupon in sunday's paper.
moments ago. karl rove, a former white house chief of staff and fox news contributor. you had some great predictions for 2018. we have to talk about the news of the day. do you remember when books would come out during the bush administration and he would try to figure out, do you ignore it or try to counter it? i found that ignoring it was hard to do from a communication standpoint because your heart stops every time you see a bad headline. but i don't know if cease and desist is going to work. >> i think that the president statement was very, very strong yesterday. there was poor steve bannon out in a field someplace slogging across the field when all of a sudden half a dozen aircraft came in and dropped bombs all around them. so i would have left it like you said earlier, i would've left it by saying that the president statement speaks for itself and move on, but this white house does have a tendency to punch and punch back and keep punching back even if it is punching down. in this instance they were clearly punching down up to the
president statement last night. >> dana: we are in an election year right now, 2018, the midterm, what happens to the candidates who have been endorsed by steve bannon? do they try to shed that? do they encourage it, what will happen? >> depends on whether their opponents make it an issue. we have seen that in the last 48 hours, 24 hours, we have seen the issue being made in arizona, kelly ward for whom steve bannon appeared is walking back from him in west virginia, congressman kevin jane comes is pounding his opponent over the issue. morrissey is trying to have it both ways in nevada, only one instance as the candidate stepped forward who has had five straight losses in general election has stepped forward to say, i am standing with steve bannon. but steve bannon's influence was going to be infamous in the 2018 election after what he did earlier this year. if you walk out of the
white house and say the presidency of donald trump is over because i am leaving the white house, that is going to unsettle a lot of people. and the maniacal, egotistical, self-aggrandizement that we have seen ending up with him not once, but twice with relatives at roy moore has caused a lot of people who might be inclined to send them a check or support or welcome his support is saying, i don't think that is the way to go. >> dana: the last question is do you think the president has benefit in terms of conflict by having a complete severing with steve bannon? >> absolutely, bannon, when he left the white house he said, i'm leaving the white house, so therefore the trump presidency is effectively over. he has a huge opinion of himself, and people have a huge opinion of themselves and service to presidents, tend to have honestly poor views of the man that they serve. so yes, i think it is better. he was clearly designed out there creating problems for the president by taking on the president's allies and primaries
and by saying extraordinarily bizarre things but he has now marginalized himself. he is like that famous photograph in the vietnam war of the monk who goes out there and pours gasoline on himself and then lets himself on fire. steve bannon did that over the last two days. >> dana: that is quite an image to end on, karl. check out the call in today and the street journal. thank you. north and south korea reopening talks, what that means for the united states. south korea military exercises that we are going to have. ♪ is this a phone?
>> dana: south korea and the united states deciding to delay the joint military exercises so that they do not interfere with the winter olympic games and south korea. the agreement coming one day after north and south korea reopened their border hotline prior to joining me now is micro mouse, the author of "dear reader."
what should we know about this? is this good news? >> any time north korea is offering a knowledge branch -- olive branch, it is good news. all of the stud and they are being doves and peacemakers. the fact that they are changing the rhetoric means that something changed in the background, we are getting to them on some level. >> dana: does that mean that president trump, that his approach is working? are they reacting to that? >> north korea is a very unique nation, you call them a freak show, so that we should speak to them in the same tone with an alley like u.k. is false, we should be speaking to them on their level. so if they talk to us, they will have to be taken aback when the president is threatening them with the bigger button desk. >> dana: one thing that president trump has said that we will not settle for anything other than a dilute the nuclear last north korea. we want to open up the hotline, but as a nuclear power, how does that get resolved? >> the last time that
south korea had the olympics, they killed 100 people and ended up on the state sponsored terrorism list. we have gone long way and 30 years, south korea having their back in anyway after china china has publicly turned their back on them is that they are running scared. >> dana: is there any concern that the south koreans basically doing this diplomacy with north korea will split off the region and sort of fracture of the diplomatic? >> the one thing is if there is communication to the north and south, more and more koreans will see how bad they have it and how good south koreans have it. and this will be able to bring down the regime from within. >> dana: we just found out to the 20 set off one of the missiles last april, and landed in one of the cities? >> so that is the other problem with the system. it is not that they will be the victims, but they have no problem of their citizens being the victims of their policies. >> dana: is there anything to the recent defections that we
saw of the soldiers crossing the dmc? is there a pattern there or desperation? >> my friend just visited north korea and he showed the guys that footage. they are showing their own people trying to escape, that is another sign that they are real so realizing that kim jong un is not exactly what his grandfather was. >> dana: they are showing it outside of the military. >> yes, it is increasingly hard to keep information quiet. specifically because of technology. >> dana: that is another place where we could help. >> and mouth. >> dana: he is from brooklyn, he talks fast. that is it for me, and a great hour. thank you for being here. shep smith after the break. patrick woke up with back pain.
>> shepard: it's noon on the west coast. 3:00 in the east. an enormous snowstorm the clamming the coast. a bomb cyclone even. paling in comparison to the political winds blowing in washington. the white house now attempting to stop the publication of a controversial book which contains extraordinary stories from inside the white house and explosive quotes from steve bannon. bannon himself now talking about the turmoil, even as the white house orders him to knock it off. we'll have the fight, the fallout and what may be the future happening now. plus, words the justice department will unleash federal prosecutors to enforce marijuana laws in states which