>> i'm chris wallace. will hillary clinton face an fbi investigation over the handling of special secrets on her personal e-mail? >> i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. we are all accountable to the american people to get the facts right. i will do my part. >> plus -- the fallout over a new planned parenthood undercover video and what it means for the abortion debate. we'll discuss both issues when presidential candidate carly fiorina debates jess mcintosh, a top official with emily's list. senator rand paul tries to

reignite his campaign. >> i'm rand paul. i'm trying to kill the tax code all 70,000 pages of it. >> we'll ask the kentucky senator about his strategy to regain his momentum ahead of the first presidential debate. and our sunday group weighs in on a slump in the polls for clinton and donald trump's threat to run as a third-party candidate. >> look i'm a republican. i'm a conservative. i'm running. i'm in first place. >> all right now. on "fox news sunday." >> hello, again, from fox news in washington. hillary clinton's campaign has been hit by a bombshell. news that two inspectors general sent a referral to the fbi about the mishandling of classified information on clinton's e-mail account. we'll have a debate between carly fiorina and a top official of the liberal group, emily's list about that and those

undercover planned parenthood videos. first let's get the latest on the clinton case from chief white house correspondent ed henry. ed? >> reporter: this weekend hillary clinton is trying to rip the band-aid off and get this scandal behind her but there are new signs today more political and even legal problems could be coming. >> i never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received. >> reporter: eager to turn the page on her e-mail troubles, she revealed she'll testify before the house select committee on benghazi in october setting up a showdown with republican chairman who could uncover new revelations four months before the iowa caucuses. >> i have said repeatedly that i will answer questions before the house committee. >> reporter: yet there's a dispute over which questions. clinton lawyer david kendall, a veteran of the monica lewinsky scandal wants to limit it to

benghazi and lock in october 22nd's only appearance. the state department has been slow to hand over e-mails and they worry key documents will be held back until after the appearance and while clinton wants only benghazi questions, her e-mail arrangement clearly falls within the scope of the select committee's jurisdiction. that arrangement came under fire again after two inspectors general found clinton sent at least four e-mails with classified information despite this promise. >> there is no classified material. >> reporter: in fairness to clinton, the e-mails did not contain classification markings though investigators believe her server may contain hundreds more classified e-mails. while clinton aides pounced on "the new york times" dialing back on its original report suggesting it's a criminal matter, republicans note that mishandling of classified information could lead to charges and clinton will release more e-mails in response to a

court order which could lead to more revelations, especially if the intelligence committee blocks the release of some of those e-mails to prevent the leak of more classified information. >> ed thanks for that. joining us now, one of the clinton's toughest critics, republican presidential candidate carly fiorina and jess mcintosh. let's start with the security referral by two inspectors general to the fbi. do you think that hillary clinton broke the law? >> it's clear she broke the rules. it's absolutely crystal clear she broke the rules. it's crystal clear that she has been engaged in a coverup of lots of things. benghazi, the fact she broke the rules. how amazing that she's had this server in her basement all this time and decides to wipe it clean two years after she leaves the state department and just before she gets ready to run for president. of course she's engaged in a

coverup and of course she's broken the rules. >> ms. mcintosh, here are two inspectors general, two independent government watchdogs who said in the referral to the fbi that there was classified information that was being transmitted. classified information at that time, not subsequently, that was still classified and this is information that never should have been transmitted through private e-mail. >> you know, questions about the e-mails have been asked and answered for months. she said repeatedly that she's looking forward to testifying before the committee and i know she intends to do that. i think she's very smartly kept her presidential campaign focused on the lives of every-day americans and what she wants to do for them as president. i think that's where voters want her to be. i think that's the kind of debate they want to have with her candidates and i think she's doing the right thing by keeping it there. >> ms. forenoenven -- fiorina, is

the information irrelevant? >> it's completely relevant. it's right at the center of what voters care about. you see we know voters care about whether a potential president is trustworthy. and what voters are discover inging day after day drip by drip is that hillary clinton is not trustworthy. it's the heart of the matter. she's not trustworthy. she has engaged in coverups and she's not been truthful. every day that goes by we learn that over and over and over. no amount of spin and no amount of talking points is going to change that reality. >> ms. mcintosh the fact is that voters in the polls say by substantial numbers they don't find hillary clinton honest and trustworthy trustworthy. >> and she's leading republican rivals in the polls. >> that's not true anymore. in fact, she's trailing in three

key swing states in a poll this week. >> there are some discrepancies with how many republicans they sampled. consistently voters are excited about her message to make the american economy work better for families. >> i want to keep this balanced. you're not answering my question. what about the honest and trustworthiness? >> i think she has a long campaign to talk to voters about who she is and why she's doing what she's doing and what she wants to do for them. i think that we'll see those numbers change. i think that we're seeing voters still very interested in what she's going to do for them as president despite those numbers. there's a bill bit of strangeness there. she's going to keep the conversation going and it's going very well for her so far. >> lets turn to undercover videos that anti-abortion activists have released in the last two weeks. here's what would planned parenthood officials said about altering abortions in order to

retrieve fetal tissue. here it is. >> less crunching technique. crushing above and below specific organs to be used for fetal research. what's wrong with that? >> my gosh by the way, this has nothing to do with whether you're pro-choice or pro-life. this has to do with the moral foundation of our nation. if a woman was sitting outside of planned parenthood in her ob-gyn's office looking at this ultrasound at the same point in her pregnancy, her doctor would say to her look at your baby. look at its heartbeat. look at its fingers and toes.

planned parenthood has lobbied against a woman's opportunity to look at an ultrasound before she makes an incredibly difficult choice to end the unborn life within her and yet they are using that same technology to harvest body parts which they claim are not a life, in order to sell them to save another life. it's unbelievably hypocritical and i find it astounding that anyone can defend it. >> well, ms. mcintosh, let me ask but what specific aspect of this. the law on this is clear. let's put it up on the screen. no alteration of the timingetiming method or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was used solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue. this is what a planned parenthood official says.

>> then ms. mcintosh, the same woman says she's going to ask the surgeon at this planned parenthood facility about violating the protocol about switching procedures in order to get better parts. isn't that a direct violation of the federal law? >> after hours of talking to this staffer in this dishonestly edited video, they got her to say she would talk to a doctor. that's not an admission of a crime. listening to this language is ugly and uncomfortable and i completely understand that. the whole concept of organ donation is a really difficult thing to think about. the families that benefit from this life saving medical research are immensely grateful for kindness that patients do

when they donate these things. we're talking about people with loved ones with alzheimer's, parkinson's, this tissue donation was used to make the rabies vaccine chicken pox vaccine, polio vaccine. this directly relates to americans health. this is live saving medical research. >> that's certainly one of the points that defenders of this procedure make. fetal research has been used to find cures for diseases. the national institutes of health spent $76 million on research on fetal tissue. you may not like the way it's happening but don't these tissues don't these organs, go to a good cause? >> let's just start with her comment about a heavily edited video. i mean, i find it fascinating that planned parenthood, emily's list and the rest of the pro-abortion lobby are now suddenly so concerned about a heavily edited video. i don't recall them ever being concerned about a heavily edited

video of mitt romney at a fund-raiser. i don't remember them being concerned about edward snowden. we've had a lot of things where information has come out that we needed to see. so instead of going after the people who have put out this video information we clearly need to see, let's talk about the issue here. of course they're trying to change the subject. of course they're trying to say this is life saving research. i find it amazing that this group of pro-abortion lobbyists continue to say that they are protecting women's health. really? late-term abortion is bad for women's health. they continue to lobby against parental notification. really? it's protecting a teenager's health that she can go to a tanning salon or a tattoo with her mother's permission but get an abortion without her mother's permission? this is not about someone else's health. this is about a woman's health. a woman's opportunity to have all of the choices in front of her and it's about a life that

she is bearing. so let's talk about -- once again, i'm pro-life as you know but there are plenty of pro-choice women who are horrified by this as they should be. and by the way, after hours honestly. the fact that these officials can sit here swilling their wine, drinking their salad, laughing over getting a lamborghini and talk about specimens of fetal tissue, you find horrifying and the majority of americans do as well. >> there are two issues here. specifically whether or not you are in favor or not of abortion, ms. mcintosh, the altering of the procedure and the procedure has to be altered to get fetal body parts and there's the question of price. selling fetal tissue for profit. this is undercover video of a planned parenthood official haggling over price. here she is.

>> what would make you happy? what would work for you? >> you can't deny what you're seeing there, ms. mcintosh. she's haggling over the price. >> i saw a tasteless joke absolutely. >> it was more than just a joke. she also said talking about what the price is the first person to offer always ends up at the low end. the law is they are allowed to recover costs. cost is cost. if it's $100 it's $100. she's talking about something more than cost. >> she had also said in the same video that had been so long since she had a conversation where somebody wanted to discuss compensation that she didn't even know what cost was. so i think talking about the deceptively edited videos does

matter when they take out the ten times where the planned parenthood staffer very clearly says they wouldn't be able to sell this because it violates the law and they're not going to do that. >> that was the other staffer. not this one. >> correct yes. i think that republicans maybe risk alienating folks they're not thinking about alienating when they talk about the abortion debate the way ms. fiorina does. it's important to know that 65% of the women who get abortions are moms already. and the decision when to have a child is the most important economic one that most american families will ever face. i don't believe that politicians should be involved in making that choice for them. >> for heaven's sake, the left side of the aisle politicians are involved all the time. emily's list is involved in politics every single day and consistently emily's list

lobbies for pro-abortion candidates. there's no justification anymore for federal funding of planned parenthood. the only reason planned parenthood is standing up asking to be federally funded -- >> this will work better if you let me ask the question. we'll talk about federal funding. ms. fiorina, you have called for an end to federal funding. it's about half a billion dollars a year goes to planned parenthood. i want to put up these statistics. it is the single largest provider of abortions. 327,000 in 2013. it also performed 487,000 breast exams and hillary clinton says it's a matter of women's health. >> i hope that this situation will not further undermine the very important services that planned parenthood provides.

>> let me pick up on that with you ms. fiorina. doesn't planned parenthood do a lot of things? if you defund them are you going to lose things likes breast exams and pap smears and hiv tests? >> i thought obamacare was supposed to take care of that. i'm tired of the conard about women's health. there are plenty of places where women can achieve and have these services. if planned parenthood is so concerned about women's health, why don't they accept, for example, federal funding of pregnancy centers. one next door to every single planned parenthood clinic so women can look at an ultrasound before they choose to have an abortion or so that they can have options presented to them if they choose to bring the life into the world but, no, planned parenthood doesn't want that. it's not about women's health. it's about planned parenthood wanting to preserve their political power so they can lobby consistently on behalf of

pro-abortion democrats. why should they be given federal funding? why should they get federal funding so they can continue to lobby for certain candidates as emily's list does every single day. >> ms. fiorina, ms. mcintosh, we have run out of time. thank you both for joining us today. up next, republican presidential candidate rand paul looks to revive his campaign ahead of the first gop political debate. we'll ask how he plans to do that when we come right back. kid: hey dad, who was that man? dad: he's our broker. he helps looks after all our money. kid: do you pay him? dad: of course. kid: how much? dad: i don't know exactly. kid: what if you're not happy? does he have to pay you back? dad: nope. kid: why not? dad: it doesn't work that way. kid: why not? vo: are you asking enough questions about the way your wealth is managed?

wealth management at charles schwab do you toss and turn? wake up with back pain? if so, call now! the sleep number bed supports you with a cushion of air that conforms to your body for more proper spinal alignment and better sleep. before i had my sleep number bed i just had a hard time getting us because i'd been tossing and turning all night. now with my sleep number bed, i'm able to sleep through the night and i wake up refreshed. call or click now for a free $50 savings card and catalog. it's the perfect bed for couples

because you adjust each side of the bed to your sleep number setting. the sleep number bed is the bed clinically proven to reduce back pain and 93% of participants reported back pain relief. plus it costs about the same an innerspring yet lasts twice as long. so if you want to sleep better or find relief from back pain, call now! call this number or click now for your free $50 savings card and catalog with price list. call now or click for your free $50 savings card and catalog.

a look outside the beltway at the new jersey festival of ballooning this weekend. but now back to the race for the white house. just 11 days before the fox news/facebook presidential debate on august 6th in cleveland. republican rand paul will almost certainly be on the stage as one of the top ten candidates in the national polls. senator paul, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thanks for having me, chris. >> i want to start with a couple subjects we discussed in the previous segment. do you believe that hillary clinton broke the law in her handling of classified information on her private e-mail and what if the justice

department decides not to investigate? >> well, i think it's pretty damning that president obama's justice department has even brought this up. the fact that they are saying that they're concerned that classified information was transferred. people have to understand how many things are classified. even her daily schedule is classified to protect her and to protect the people who protect her. think about if she had e-mailed the ambassador in benghazi. i don't think she ever did communicate with him. had she tipping off people to his whereabouts through e-mail would be something that would be very sensitive if not classified so that's why we have a rule and that's why even she knew there was a rule. they actually admonished one of her ambassadors because he wasn't using the proper server. i don't understand how she can skate by and act as if she wasn't aware of the law. >> let me ask you about the planned parenthood videos after they were released you offered an amendment to the highway funding bill to defund planned

parenthood but senate majority leader mcconnell is not even going to offer you a vote on that amendment. what are you going to do now? >> i think conservatives across the country are outraged by this. i've submitted a discharge petition. this is highly unusual for a nonleadership position to submit a discharge petition. this means i'll try to force a vote on this. i think the time is now to discuss whether taxpayer dollars should go to such a gruesome procedure. the doctor on video in a casual voice while sipping wine and eat eatingeat eating bree talks about getting baby parts to sell to research. do people want their taxpayer dollars going to this type of procedure? >> what happens if it looks like you won't get a vote on the senate floor? >> they may block me today on a vote on an amendment to the

highway bill but i'm trying to file for a discharge position to have a separate bill. if i have 16 senators sign a bill saying they think we should defund planned parenthood, people who are outraged will call senators and say have you signed rand paul's discharge position because they want a vote on defunding planned parenthood because even pro-choice people are horrible of the idea of preserving part of the baby and not crushing brain to harvest the liver. people are outraged by this. i think the american people deserve to have a vote on it. >> senator, let's turn to the state of your campaign. back in december of 2013, you were running second in the polls with 17%. last november you ranked first in the polls with 11.8% but now in the latest real clear politics of polls you are in

seventh place with 5.6% support. why has your campaign lost momentum sir? >> i'm not so sure we have. there are a lot of polls out there. some of the polls that we find very interesting are when you poll my candidacy head to head with hillary clinton, we actually beat hillary clinton in five states won by president obama. we lead her in pennsylvania that hasn't been won by a republican since 1988. so this is what i've been saying about my candidacy. i'm a different kind of republican. i'm a republican who can win independent vote. in all five of those states we beat hillary clinton by nearly ten points among independents. that's how you win. we have to convince enough republicans that this is a winning message that i could win the purple states and that's what the early polling shows. >> there is also a sense in terms of your diminished status at least in the republican primary polls that the world has changed on you. you were running strong in the polls a couple years ago, even a year ago, when your positions on

limits to foreign intervention, limits to domestic surveillance were very popular. but now with isis on the march and with increased domestic terrorism at home, there's a concern that maybe you aren't tough enough on those issues. >> i think the interesting thing is we poll these issues and we asked these questions of voters all of the time. there was a poll not too long ago in iowa and they ask should we be more involved in foreign war like john mccain who wants to be everywhere all the time or do you think we should be less involved or moreand it polls equally in iowa and same in new hampshire and nevada. so i think the party is split on some of these things. i do want to defend america. i will defend against terrorists. i think i would do a lot more than the others on the stage because i think they are distracting ourselves from the real terrorist threat by

collecting so much information that we get inundated by the information and we get distracted. i want to collect more information on terrorists but i want to do it according to the fourth amendment put forward that suspicion shoulding individualized and there should be a warrant with the judge's name on it. >> we are asking the viewers to submit questions either written or videos that we're going to ask candidates on that stage. facebook tells us that the top three issues among people who talk about you are taxes, intelligence gathering and privacy and homeland security and here's a comment from johnny anderson on facebook who writes senator rand paul is working overtime to protect homegrown terrorists. americans are dying. senator how do you answer johnny? >> i think it's kind of a

misunderstanding of the situation. the interesting thing is we just had another terrorist shooting in chattanooga. we had boston bombing. all of these occurred under mass accumulation of data. bulk collection of data that president obama is doing which is ruled illegal by the courts. so we've been having these terrorist attacks despite collection of all this information and when you look at it, i think maybe we're distracted by too much information. malcolm gladwell says good decision making isn't about knowledge or data it's about understanding the data. i actually want to collect more information about terrorists but i don't want to indiscriminately collect all americans information and invade their privacy. i think what we've been doing, even the government admits we haven't been catching many terrorists with this bulk collection of data. congress says we shouldn't do it. courts said we shouldn't do it. i think it goes against every sense of what the founding

fathers put into the fourth amendment amendment. i think my position on privacy is very popular. people under 40 83% of people under 40 think the government shouldn't be collecting your phone records all the time. >> senator you put out a video this week that showed you destroying the irs tax code and at various points you set it on fire, you feed it into a wood chipper, you use a chainsaw to take to it. and i guess the question i have because it doesn't seem to be a bit of a stunt, is this an effort to take the spotlight away from donald trump who seems to be soaking up all of the media's attention these days. >> you know i have three teenage sons. the teenage sons don't watch the news channels but they pass things around from friend to friend. so i think what you find is that if you have something interesting or people think is clever or funny, it gets passed around from teenager to teenager so i try to put things out that

sometimes will get into the hands of youth who aren't watching traditional news. >> senator, one of your big issues in this campaign, i think you have been talking about it more than any of other republican candidates is trying to grow the party. you're campaigning in inner cities and reaching out to minorities. do you worry that trump's comments about illegal immigrants coming over the mexican border is going to hurt that effort and alienate the very kind of voters that you're trying to attract? >> you know, every candidate is going to have to do what they want to do. my concern is i want to reach out to new people and go places no republican has been going. so i've been to detroit. i've been to ferguson. i've been to the south side of chicago. i've been to inner city philadelphia at a boys latin school. i've been trying to go places that no one else is going. i've been to historically black colleges. i'll keep doing that and reaching out. when i think of immigration i think that you do have to have a secure border.

i don't automatically think that immigrants are bad people. i think most immigrants come here seeking the american dream. i'm not going to vilify all immigrants with a broad brush. i think that there are some bad people. i put in legislation on the sanctuary cities to make sure that never happens again but i think by in large people that come to our country want the american dream. >> senator paul, thank you. thanks for coming in. we'll see you on the campaign trail and most likely at that first debate. thank you, sir. >> thank you. up next our sunday group joins the conversation about hillary clinton's potential legal problems and donald trump's threat.

>> i'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material. we all have a responsibility to get this right. >> hillary clinton in march and again on friday defending her use of a personal e-mail server as she now faces the possibility of an fbi investigation. it's time for our sunday group. fox news senior political analysts brit hume cheryl stolberg and juan williams. brit, there was bad news for the clinton campaign this week as we

saw referral by two inspectors general to the fbi about the handling of classified e-mails, classified information on her private e-mails and then also some polls. let's put these up on the screen. quinnipiac polls in swing states of colorado, iowa, and virginia showing her trailing marco rubio, jeb bush and scott walker in all three of those states and in those states, her numbers have dropped on the question of whether she's honest and trust trustworthy trustworthy. how serious for hillary clinton, both the polls and this potential new investigation? >> i was stunned by those polls. i didn't believe that she had fallen that far in the eyes of voters in states where she would normally be expected to get a decent reception. i think it's striking. i think this whole e-mail controversy feeds that and the news that these inspectors general looking at 40 out of thousands found ten instances in

which they thought -- four instances, 10%, in which classified material that they said was classified at the time the e-mails were written and sent that to me says -- that goes to the question of whether she's as i think she's proven herself to be many times, a liar. she said there's no classified information in these e-mails of hers and on a small sample they found 10% took classified information. whether the justice department will ever do anything about it is highly dubious but it does feed the public perception of here. >> how big a deal for clinton? the fact that you have two inspectors general. these are government officials but they're independent outside the bureaucracy, state department and intelligence community saying that there was classified information, classified at the time, that was being sent and some of it was being sent by hillary clinton and referring to this to the fbi. how big a deal and do you think it's big enough that it may

begin to nudge somebody else like joe biden or elizabeth warren to get into the race? >> intentionally releasing classified information is a big deal. david petraeus, the general, was sentenced to probation for doing that just this year. whether or not mrs. clinton did that, i think we should set that aside. she said she didn't release classified material. as britt said, this goes to a narrative about her campaign. questions that voters have. is she trustworthy and one of us and the existence of the private e-mail server raise the questions in the minds of many americans. most ordinary americans don't have a private e-mail server at home. they expect their government officials to be using government e-mail servers. it's striking to me that we're still talking about this story five months after "the new york times" broke the initial story about this private e-mail server. i think these are the questions that are going to continue to

percolate throughout her campaign. whether or not it will nudge joe biden in or anybody else in is hard to say. she's clearly going to have to continue to address these questions and we know she's going to testify or she says she will in october. this isn't going away. >> i want to switch to the other big political story this week and that involves donald trump who has raised the possibility, in effect a threat, if he doesn't feel he's being treated fairly by the republican national committee, he may run as an independent third-party candidate. george looking back at ross perot in 1992 who got 19% of vote, didn't win electoral votes but george h.w. bush thought he was the difference between winning and losing, what's the possibility if trump decides to go ahead and run as an independent he hands this presidency over to the democrats. >> that's a real possibility i should say at this point. my wife works for scott walker.

that said, you put your finger on successful third-party candidates have two things in common. they're all unsuccessful. they don't win. they have a regional base. they actually won electoral votes. ross perot didn't. it's a marathon and not a sprint. there's a long time before votes are cast in iowa. there is going to be information that gets out after all of it about his manners or lack thereof and they'll find that he's unprincipled and that he was pro-choice, very pro-choice as he used to say. they're going to find that he gave money to hillary clinton chuck schumer reid, nancy pelosi, because he obviously wanted a democratic congress and they're going to want to think about that.

other issues. the worst supreme court decision probably of this century which vastly expanded the power of people like donald trump using government to take away private property. he supports that. we'll see how people like that. >> trump went to the border with mexico, the southern border on texas this week, and to talk about illegal immigration and he got a tough reception from reporters. take a look. >> have you seen any evidence here to confirm your fears about mexico sending criminals across the border? >> yes i have. i've heard it. i've heard it from a lot of different people. >> what evidence specifically have you seen? >> we'll show you the evidence. >> we'll be showing you the evidence at some point. yawn juan, what do you make of that and this threat to run as an independent? >> that was big news of the week. if he runs as an independent, it reminds me of ralph nader.

george makes a relevant point. he doesn't have a regional base but a national base. i thought after last week's events where he was so harshly critical of senator mccain that he would cave but according to what we've seen in sketchy polls that have come out since, he's still in this race and in some cases leading. i think he's still around. one of the more ridiculous things he said on the border was he's going to win the hispanic vote. i don't know where he gets that idea from. they have him like 70-20 versus a hillary clinton. what you see instead is he's damaging the republican brand. i think that's what's going on here. you see a poll this week indicating the republican favorability rating has gone down first six months of this year. i think that's directly tied into the kind of extremism that you're seeing from donald trump and its impact on independent and swing voters. >> it's interesting. i talked about that with rand

paul. some people trying to grow the party and he seems in some respects to try to contract it. when we come back secretary of state kerry goes to capitol hill to try to sell the nuclear deal with iran. the reaction? not so good.

>> not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, i believe he had been fleeced. >> we set out to dismantle their ability to build a nuclear weapon. >> we're back now with the panel. brit we always knew that republicans would oppose this deal. do you get any sense that the president and his team may be losing some support among congressional democrats who will decide whether this deal goes through or not?

>> i think there are a lot of congressional democrats who are opposed to this deal and perhaps wile hear about more of them. the question, however, is does that mean that the president will be unable to hold 34 senators and/or a third plus one of the house of representatives. >> he only has to do that to sustain his veto. >> i think it will be damaging to him and to the attitude that the people have about this agreement if it isn't approved. it won't be approved. it will likely be disapproved but not by enough to withstand a veto in which case the president gets an agreement on paper until the end of his term but that will be a big deal for him and he'll claim it as a victory. >> sheryl, there are a number of issues that critics have with this deal. the whole inspections regime. the fact that the arms embargo against iran is lifted starting in five years. the fact that while we limit it

their basic nuclear infrastructure remains intact through this deal. what do you see as the biggest problem in trying of those trying to get it through congress over the next two months? >> i think the biggest sticking point is that it's not a permanent fix. over time, beginning in about ten years and over time from 10 to 15 years iran will be able to enrich uranium again. that's number one. members of congress also have concerns about the fact that there's a 24-day wait period for the iaea's inspections to take place and concerns that money will flow to bad actors in the region and once sanctions are lifted and money starts flowing into iran, that some of it will flow into the bad actors in the region. i would say also in addition to what brit said, one democrat to watch is chuck schumer. >> senator from new york.

>> senator from new york. in line to become democratic leader after harry reid steps down. this week in new york there were 10,000 protesters in times square demanding chuck schumer vote against this deal. senator schumer is usually very outspoken and talkative. he's unusually quiet right now. his aides say he's not made a decision about what he's going to do. >> i'm going to ask an unfair question. what do you think schumer is going to do? >> i have no idea. i tried to find out yesterday. the answer was he's still thinking about it. >> would you agree that if schumer goes against this it may sink the deal? >> i think schumer is in a really difficult bind. he's supposed to be someone who is carrying president obama's water on capitol hill and if he goes against it and already there's one democrat openly against it and that's bob menendez of new jersey. >> he'll vote against it if his vote is not needed. if the vote is needed, he'll

vote for it. we see moderate democrats that vote for the affordable care act. it's always the same dance. the question to me is how many democrats have enough institutional pride to vote against this in part because the president has gone out of his way to insult congress by going first to the united nations saying congress' opinion is interesting but optional and a real afterthought. those who hold to the constitutional oath they took to defend the constitution who understand this should have been a treaty anyway should vote against this on procedural grounds. >> another issue is the fierce opposition to the deal from israel and there was an interesting development on that front this week. jonathan pollard not directly related to this but you'll see in a moment bear with me, u.s. officials say they're preparing to release pollard who spied for israel and gave them u.s.

secrets that they may release him even before possibly his mandatory 30-year parole consideration comes up. he's been in prison for just about -- in november it will be 30 years. the thought is although administration flatly denies it juan, this may be a way to get israel to be less opposed to the deal. what do you make of all this? >> this is a real spy. he stole classified information. stole it and then he pled guilty to it and of course the -- >> and sold it. >> so what you have here is a real bad actor. from president reagan through president clinton through the second presidential bush and first president bush, everybody said no to this because you can't allow that to happen as an example to the rest of the intelligence community. nonetheless, i think this would be a conciliatory gesture. it would be a consolation in some sense to netanyahu and to israel. would it be effective? i don't know. remember, he's eligible for

parole in november. i think what happened this week is they floated it as a kind of, you know, is this a possibility and what would america say and what would israel say? it doesn't look like it's getting great acclimation from anybody. i think for israel they would like to see their guy out of jail. >> do you think that's enough to get israel and netanyahu to soften their criticism of the iran deal? >> on the iran deal absolutely not. conceivable it would have softening effect on the tensions between the united states and israel that relate to a range of issues but not on the iran deal. israel believes it's a threat to the very existence. they won't change that view because some long sought spy of theirs gets out of the pokey. >> you don't hear the word pokey very often. sheryl, the white house flatly denies that there's any linkage between release of pollard and

trying to smooth things over with israel. the fact is if the white house goes ahead with it and they were leaking the possibility heavily this week they would be going very much over the very strong objections of the cia, the fbi, other agencies who feel this is a guy who spied and stole secrets, sold secrets to israel, was a civilian analyst but was working along with the navy, military secrets your thoughts about that and also the impact it would have on israel? >> frankly to little effect. relations between barack obama and netanyahu are so sour it's not going to cure that. israel does view iran and this deal as a threat. >> thank you, panel. see you next sunday. up next our power player of the week. how one of the biggest names in hotels is appealing to the next generation of travelers.

his name has been one of america's best brands for more than half a century. as we told you last november, now he's trying to tailor that brand for the next generation. here's our power player of the week. >> before you walk through the lobby, you checked in and went to your room and never came back to the lobby unless you were on the way out of the hotel. today the lobby is a gathering place. that's totally different. >> bill marriott is talking about millennials.

folks in their 20s and early 30s and what they want in hotels. while marriott has been in the business 60 years -- >> i traveled 110,000 miles last year. >> at age 83 he's all about the future. how much of your focus is on the millennials? >> right now about 45% to 50% of our business. in another three to four years it will be 60% of our business. >> we got talking about a portfolio project in new york city that we have going on. >> marriott has an innovation lab where staffers brainstorm and talk with millennials and even have mockups of potential hotel rooms. edgy, not much color, big beds and big tvs. but often no desk since they're on their laptops. this is the shower? >> almost right in the guest room. >> it's bare bones. you have a bed, a shower, a sink. and a big tv. you can tell marriott is having

to adjust to some of it. >> we were not exactly cool with flowered bedspreads. now there's no bedspreads. there's a cover over the sheet and blanksets but no real bedspread. this is what customers want. >> that could be the motto for marriott's success. bill's dad started with a root beer stand in 1927. >> he opened on the same day lindbergh flew the atlantic. he said we went in business on the same day. you got all of the publicity. >> now marriott has 19 brands. more than 4,000 hotels. 720,000 rooms and a lot of guests. >> probably over a million people a night. >> how does that make you feel? >> concerned that they are being well taken care of. >> three years ago marriott stepped down as chairman and ceo. you haven't exactly retired though, have you? >> i don't think i will until they carry me out feet first.

i average 40 to 50 hours a week. >> why do you keep doing it? >> i love it. >> when we asked what the satisfaction of the job is, marriott surprised us. he talked about 360,000 employees. >> 50% of our general managers in our hotels have been with the company 25 years or more and have started out as hourly workers and that to me is terrific. when we bring someone in as a waiter and make them president of the company that's just the way america is supposed to work. >> even though he's moved upstairs in the company bill marriott visits about 200 of his hotels each year. he shows no signs of slowing down. and that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you back next "fox news sunday."

. oh oh oh oh oh! . . (applause) well god bless you. it's a joy to come into your homes and if you're ever in our area, please stop by and be a part of one of our services. i promise you we will make you feel right at home. thanks so much for tuning in and thank you again for coming out. i like to start with something funny. i heard about this country grandmother. she would go out on her front porch every morning and thank the lord for another day. her neighbor didn't believe in god. he'd shout back, "there's no such thing as 'the lord'!" one day, he overheard her asking god to give her groceries for the week. he snuck over the next morning and put some groceries on her front porch. she got up and said, "thank you, lord. you did it again."