tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News March 20, 2016 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
before. >> that is an admission. >> it is, true. that's it for us here in washington. >> we'll leave you with the eaglet cam, bald eagles that just hatched. there they are. mama eagle. >> adorable. until next sunday. >> bye. i'm chris wallace. europe's most wanted man is captured alive. what will they tell authorities about isis plots against the west? we'll have a live report from europe and we'll ask the white house chief of staff denis mcdonough what it means on the u.s. war on terror. then the showdown of the president's supreme court nominee. >> i fulfilled my constitutional duty. now is the time for the senate to do theirs. >> this nominee is not going to be considered. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says judge merrick garland won't get a hearing or a vote. the white house argues the senate should do its job, not
wait until after the election. today mcconnell and mcdonough face off. on "fox news sunday." plus, governor john kasich wins his home state of ohio and vows to press on in his campaign for president. >> you better believe it's about america. it's about pulling us together, not pulling us apart. >> we'll ask the gop candidate what's his path to the nomination? amist talk of a con tegs. amidst talk of a convention. plus we'll ask about the plan to stop trump. and our power players of the week, baby bald eagles steal the spotlight, all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. we begin with the capture and questioning of most wanted man in europe believed to be the sole fugitive from the paris massacre that killed 130 people in a a moment we'll get reaction
from the white house chief of staff denis mcdonough this week and mitch mcconnell is standing by on that. but first, let's bring in fox news correspond benjamin hall in london with the latest on the terrorist investigation. benjamin? >> reporter: hi, chris, is a la could be an intelligence gold mine. today french and belgium authorities are looking closely in what happened in the lead-up to the paris attacks and how he was able to evade capture so long hidden under their noses. it was a bullet to the knee that ended his four months on the run during raids on friday in which he and four others were arrested. he's now been charged with participation in a terrorist murder. france quickly issued a new arrest warrant with more charges to speed up the extradition but the process may still take up to three months. investigators into the paris attacks now hope abdul salam will reveal information about the isis network behind him. he confessed already to prosecutors that he planned to blow himself up that night but
he changed his mind. prosecutors also claim that leading up to the attack, he traveled around europe picking up other attackers and that he was the one who bought hydrogen peroxide to make the explosives. his lawyer said was cooperating. >> there is a cooperation with the belgium justice. let's go further on with that corroboration. i think it's very important that he talks with the judge. >> reporter: abdul salam was finally caught just 500 yards from his parents' home, the place he grew up. he was tracked down when a friend called the police and passed on the cell phone number he was using. today the belgium interior minister said he was shocked at the level of support he received while on the run. it was a lot higher than previously expected. and now the hunt is on for anyone else that may want to commit attacks. chris? >> benjamin hall reporting from london. thank you for that. now let's get reaction to the
arrest from white house chief of staff dennis mcdonough. welcome back to "fox news sunday." what's the significance of the capture? what is it going to help us do in terms of stopping future isis terror attacks. >> it's important because it sends a very strong message that our allies and we in support of them are not going to stop until we get all the facts of this case figured out. and now i know there will be an intensive process to figure out what he knows an what he did and what he knows about what others may be doing. and that's why it's important that we dig very hard into this case and why the president called the french president and the belgian prime minister on friday to commend them for this good work. >> what have we heard from european authorities? we know that he has said some stuff to belgium prosecutors. but do we know whether or not in fact he is cooperating, the degree to his cooperation? and what about an electronic trail he may have left through cell phones or other devices we can begin to follow? >> i don't have any news on
that. i do know people are looking at that closely in europe. i'm sure we'll hear more about that in the days and weeks to come. >> what are we learning both from this and the prior investigation over the last four months about the extent of the isis terror network in europe? how many operatives they have? how extensive it is? >> we do know that they say and we have to listen to what they say. they intend to do this again. we take that seriously. we are trying to draw lessons from what happened on that terrible night in paris and make sure not only our friends are ready but well trained. we're sharing the intelligence and training with them. that is what we're doing. >> and do we believe that the attack on paris that abdel salam was involved in, do we believe it was directed and planned by isis or inspired and self-radicalized people were involved? >> we believe that there are indication that's in fact that
it goes back to some of those folks back in the middle east. but we're going to get to bottom of this storey. but what we're not going to do is let our guard down. that means staying on offense against isis and in syria and iraq. that's why we've done precisely that over the course of the last many months. we're going to continue doing that. we're not going to sit and wait. we're going to go get this. >> i'm going to ask you to stand by for a moment. the other big news this week is the president's pick for the supreme court judge merrick garland. senate republicans have vowed not to hold hearings or vote on the nomination and let the next president fill the seat. we'll get mr. mcdonough's reaction in a moment. first senate majority leader mitch mcconnell joins me from louisville. senator, support for your hard line on the garland nomination seems to be breaking half a dozen republican senators have now said they're going to meet with garland and late this week illinois senator mark kirk said this, just man up and cast a vote. it's been only four days and it seems like your ranks are breaking, sir. >> senator kirk is a terrific senator.
he's running for re-election this year. he's going to be re-elected in november. i think what we need to focus on is the principle, the principle. who ought to make this appointment? you have to go back 80 years the last time a vacancy on the supreme court created in a presidential election year was filled. you have to go back to 1888 when grover cleveland was in the white house to find the last time when a vacancy was created in a presidential year, a senate controlled by a party opposite the president confirmed. the senate has a role to play here. the president nominates, we decide to confirm. we think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election is that american people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision. not this lame duck president on the way out the door, but the next president. next year. >> you talk about principle, anything that happens in washington involves principle and politics and what we see with mark kirk is a senator or
republican senator up in a tough re-election battle and thinking this is a hard line to hold. and i guess i have to ask you, isn't this going to be a hard argument to make over the next seven months? if you're going to say the president can't decide something, can't get his nominee confirmed because it's an election year, couldn't you say the same thing about the u.s. senate that you shouldn't pass any laws? you shouldn't do anything because in a sense you're a lame duck congress? >> no, we're following the biden rule. he was chairman in 1992, a presidential election year. he said the senate should not act on filling a supreme court vacancy if it had occurred that year. harry reid when he was back in 2005 said the president nominates but the senate doesn't have to vote. chuck schumer who will be the
next democratic leader said in 2007 they wouldn't confirm. the democrats were in the majority in the senate. they wouldn't confirm a bush appointment to the supreme court if one occurred within 18 months of a presidential election. so all we're doing, chris, is following a long standing tradition of not filling vacancies on the supreme court in the middle of a presidential election year. >> i am going to ask mr. mcdonough about the biden rule in a moment. frankly, isn't there a fair amount of hypocrisy on both sides here? right now president obama is calling for an up or down vote on his nominee. you oppose that. but back in 2005 when george w. bush was president, you made exactly the same argument that obama's making now. take a look, sir. >> in a democracy, an up or down vote should be given to a president's judicial nominees. it's not complicated. it's simple. it's fair. it worked for 229 years. and it has served us well. >> senator, if an up or down vote for a judicial nominee was
simple, fair, and a principle that has served us for 229 years, i guess over 230 years now, if that's true then, it is still true? >> yeah. we're talking apples and oranges. that comment was not in connection with the supreme court vacancy. they're not the same. the supreme court very different from the other courts. what we're talking about here is a supreme court vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year made by a lame duck president who is on the way out the door and the impact that will have on this court for the next quarter of a century. that is the issue before us right now. >> some of your republican colleagues are already suggesting that if your side, if the gop loses the election in november that perhaps they would consider judge garland in a lame duck session because, in fact, he might be more moderate than, let's say, hillary clinton's nominee would be. here is republican senator jeff
lake. >> i think republicans are fully justified in doing what we're doing. waiting. but if we happen to lose the election, then i think we ought to push him through quickly if we can. >> senator, is jeff lake wrong? >> yeah, i think so. look, barack obama calling judge -- this judge a moderate doesn't make him a moderate. this judge would move the court dramatically to the left. he's enthusiastically supported by moveon.org. i don't think they would be signing up and have all this enthusiasm about a liberal judge. the principle is the same. whether it's before the election or after the election. the principle is the american people are choosing their next president and their next president should pick this supreme court nominee. >> so, final question. just to make it clear. you're saying no consider -- no consideration of judge garland by this congress even if hillary clinton wins the election?
no consideration by this congress? you're going to stand firm on that even in a lame duck session? >> yeah. i can't imagine that a republican majority in the united states senate would want to confirm in a lame duck session a nominee opposed by the national rifle association, the national federation of independent business that represents small businesses that have never taken a position on the supreme court appointment before. they're opposed to this guy. i can't imagine that a republican majority senate even if it were assumed to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left. that's not going to happen. >> senator mcconnell, thank you. thanks for your time today, sir. >> thank you. >> now let's bring back the white house chief of staff denis mcdonough. president obama is calling now for an up or down vote on the nomination of merrick garland. back in 2006, senator obama participated in the filibuster
of sam alito's nomination blocking an up or down vote. and back in 1992 joe biden, when he was the chairman of the senate judiciary committee said the senate should not consider a supreme court nomination in an election year. let's watch. >> the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. >> question, aren't obama and biden making exactly the opposite argument now from what they made back then? >> chris, you said justice alito. >> yes. >> who has been sitting on the supreme court for the last ten years. >> but obama tried to filibuster him. >> so he's been on the court for the last decade. president obama did not object to a hearing. did not object to private meetings, and did not object to votes in the committee and ultimately on the floor of the senate. >> he tried to filibuster him.
>> when you think about vice president biden and the role he played as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, nine supreme court justices came before him when he was chairman. everyone was given a hearing, meetings, a vote, and even when there were not enough votes in the committee to pass him with that justice with majority vote, they still went to the senate floor with a vote at the full senate. we think that's what should happen here. >> but a lot of those things happened either in spite of or over their opposition. >> on the contrary. he was chairman of the judiciary committee. thing don't happen in the judiciary committee over or in spite of the objection of the chairman. in fact, it happens because the chairman makes it happen. vice president biden ensured that every one of those justices had a hearing, including, by the way in, 1988, an election year when president reagan proposed -- a republican president -- proposed a
democratic senate a supreme court justice. and in fact, justice kennedy who has now been on the court since 1988 was passed unanimously by the senate. we think the same thing should happen for judge garland. >> do you think that the senate has a constitutional obligation? to take this up, to vote? >> we think that it is quite clear in the constitution that when there is a vacancy, they propose the nominee and we think as been the practice for decades, in fact, centuries in the senate that advise and consent means meetings, public hearing where that judge in this case judge garland is willing to go under oath on national television and answer their questions and then a vote in the committee and a vote in the senate. that's what should happen here. >> "the washington post" did a fact check. historical fact check. they actually gave that idea that there is a constitutional obligations, three pinocchios, they said, first of all, the constitution says nothing about a vote. it says advise and concept consent before a confirmation. and secondly, there has been a
long history, mostly in the 19th century that the senate has decided not to act in a number of cases. >> look, chris, we don't need to jump back to the 19th century or the 1800s. we're in the 21st century. what we ought to do is look at the precedent over the course of the last many decades and as was the case on vice president biden was chairman of the committee, every nominee got a hearing, got meetings, got votes in committee, and got a vote on the floor. this is not difficult. this is the way they operate in the senate. they have not reached back to the 1800s. >> as we discussed with senator mcconnell, several republican senators are now saying that they're willing to meet with judge garland and illinois republican senator mark kirk is saying that they should just man up and vote. how big an issue do you think that you can make this in the november election? how much heat do you think can you put on senate republicans? >> well, like we don't think there is an election issue. we think this is a straight up governance issue. this is what -- when senator mcconnell --
>> wait. the president, you, you're all meeting and mobilizing various groups on your side. there is nothing wrong with it being a political issue. i mean, you're trying to put heat on these people. >> you just asked what -- how big an issue it will be in the election? my answer is that it needn't be an issue in any election. this can be resolved. the average time from announcement of nomination to confirmation is 67 days. senator collins has indicated to us that she'll meet -- >> susan collins of maine -- >> the republican of maine, indicated she'll meet with judge garland after the senate gets back from the two week break. we think that's good progress. we'll continue to make this progress. this shouldn't be an issue in any election. they can resolve this in plenty of time and in the time they have. we believe this is consistent with the pledges senator mcconnell made when he took over the senate. he wanted to get congress working again. well, getting congress working again would mean just obviously giving him a hearing, a vote, and getting this done.
not taking this unprecedented step. >> one final question. some republican senators say, look, if the democrats end up winning the white house in november, let's say hillary clinton, well, then maybe we'll consider judge garland in a lame duck session. question -- has the president made a commitment to garland that he'll stand by his nomination or might he, let's say clinton wins in november, might he pull the nomination and let her pick the next supreme court justice? >> the president will stand by his nominee. this is an unbelievably qualified, extraordinarily decent man who comes to this nomination with more federal court experience than any nominee before him. he led our effort into the investigation and prosecution for the oklahoma city bombing, the unabomber and he's just as you've seen in the stories, an extraordinarily decent man. we'll stand by him from now until he is confirmed and he is sitting on the supreme court. >> through the end of the president's term? >> that's correct.
>> mr. mcdonough, thank you. thank you for coming in today. always good to talk with you. >> thank you. >> up next, we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss judge garland's nomination and what you like to ask as the panel of the supreme court battle is just go to facebook or twitter and we may use your questions on the air.
here in washington speaking at the white house this week after president obama nominated him to the supreme court. syndicated columnist george will, lisa leer and kristen soltis anderson and bob woodward of "the washington post". george, your thoughts about the garland nomination and the stand republicans are taking in the senate, no confirmation hearing. >> the republicans have two reasons for taking this position. one is to demonstrate to the republican base something that they very much doubt which is there is some reason to want the republicans to control the senate. they can't defund planned parenthood, they can't repeal obamacare. they can stand up and say we can actually do something. second, this is a way they say of protesting executive overreach by the president. although this is a clear constitutional right and duty of
the president to nominate people to the federal judiciary. what's puzzling is the republican senate leaders who are saying this have all said of course they will support donald trump if he's the party's nominee. they're saying we're quite content to have judicial nominations made by mr. trump whose qualifications are foggy. and it's puzzling to hear mitch mcconnell saying that we must follow the biden rule. a biden rule endorsed by harry reid. the biden rule was he said no confirmations during a political season. when are we not in a political season? it's just not an election year. by what principle do we decide when a president's ability to nominate people becomes progressively attenuated? after the midterm elections of the second term of a president? when is it?
i don't understand. >> we asked you for questions for the panel. and following up on the point that george made, we got this from rob danger. he tweeted this. will senate majority leader mitch mcconnell keep his word or fold like he usually does? chr kristen, at a time -- i want to bick up on this question of trying to keep faith with the base -- at a time when grassroots support for the republican leadership here in washington is at all time low, when can you just see this in this election, how little they trust that the d.c. establishment -- the republican d.c. establishment is going to stand up for them -- is this an effective way for him to mobilize the base? can he keep the soldiers in line? >> remember that mitch mcconnell came out with a strategy pretty much the day that vacancy came open. he knew that if there was even a hint this would be the sort of thing where senate republicans might entertain the president's nominee, might allow the court to move to the left, that there would be outrage. he wanted to shut that down
right away. look at the members of the senate who are beginning to say i would be willing to have a meeting with the nominee. they are republicans up for re-election and they are in seats where it is a blue or a purple state. there are states that unlikely to vote for a republican nominee in a presidential election. and they need to differentiate themselves from the national party narrative so at the same time their state is voting for a democratic candidate at the top of the ticket, is still sending them back to washington further down on the ballot. >> bob, i thought that the white house chief of staff made some news in our interview here. he went further than the white house has so far in saying that obama is going to stick by the garland nomination even into a lame duck, even if, let's say, hillary clinton is elected president that he would stick by the garland nomination. kind of interesting that he's saying, you know, i'm going to stay by him and if hillary clinton, even if she's just been elected president, if they want to confirm my nominee, so be it.
>> i think this is confusing to people. this is all about politics. this is pure politics on both sides and as you pointed out, hypocrisy on both sides. >> both sides argued exactly the opposite side. >> exactly. and what mcconnell, the senate majority leader is saying, hey, look, we -- and it's the advise and consent provision in the constitution. we can do it any way we want. and he's actually quite right. there is nothing in the constitution that says you have to do it in a timely fashion and so forth. so this -- this -- the issue is whether you can make the court a majority liberal body. everyone concedes that if garland goes on the court you're going to have five votes on the liberal side. what is interesting and george has pointed this out.
garland is an extraordinary judge. he is somebody -- i did a book years ago on the supreme court and tried to follow it since. and he's exactly the sort of person that should be on the court. he's reasonable. he listens. he is not really partisan in any way. >> wait a minute. wait a minute. you know what a lot of people are going to say is when it comes down to a decision and it's 5-4, he'll end up being with the liberal judges as opposed to the conservative justices. >> he will. look, step back. there will be liberals and conservatives on the court and if you are going to have some liberals have the sensible, rational person, i mean, like lots of people said about scalia, they didn't agree with him. he served an important function on the court. that's the way it works. you have to be a consensus builder and garland is somebody like that. but i don't think he's going to
make it. i don't think he's going to be confirmed. >> lisa, let's pick up open this from the political side of the democrats. democratic aspect, they clearly found that this argument, do your job. you're there. you're there for another eight months or whatever it is. and the idea that you're simply going to refuse to have a hearing, refuse to vote, when you talk to the sanders and clinton camps, do they think this is effective and will move votes in the fall election? >> it was interesting to hear dennis mcdonough say it's not an election year issue. they think it is an effective issue. they'll need to do two things in the fall, rally their base and pull over independents. they think they can allow them to do both. it's a strong motivator for base democrats. particularly african-americans. they also think if trump is at the top of the republican ticket, they may be able to pull over some moderate republicans who may not like the idea of donald trump next -- picking the
next supreme court justice, particularly as democrats like to point out, he said that his sister would be an excellent justice and she has a record of being very pro-abortion rights. so they think this is an area where they can make a really strong political argument. the politics get a little more complicated once you get into a lame duck session. because quite frankly, merrick garland is not the nominee that i think hillary clinton would like to choose. >> she would pick someone more liberal. >> a lot of the liberal groups feel that way. that's why you see them focusing on the need for a vote and not really talking all that much about the nominee and certainly not saying whether they would keep him and renominate him should either hillary clinton or bernie sanders win the presidency. >> so george, in less than a minute we have left in the segment, what about the lame duck scenario? that hillary clinton wins or donald trump wins and some of those republicans say, you know what, merrick garland doesn't look like such a bad nominee.
>> if president cruz is president-elect, you wait for him to name the nominee. if trump is president-elect, you have to guess who will be the court. let's say it's president-elect clinton and the president comes out and says i know what mcdonough said to wallace, but let's adhere to the freshly minted mcconnell rule. the mcconnell rule is that nominees should be sent up by a president after the people have spoken. the people have said mrs. clinton and mrs. clinton says, fine. let's draw mr. garland and appoint a 43-year-old, not a 63-year-old, not a moderate but a 43-year-old firebrand, certainly republicans are right. >> all right. a strong letter to follow. we have to take a break here, panel. see you later. up next, governor john kasich is hanging his hopes on a contested convention. we'll ask the presidential candidate about his path to the nomination, plus what do you think? would an open convention divide the republican party?
let me know on facebook or twitter. @foxnewssunday and use the #fns. it takes a lot of work... to run this business. i'm on the move all day long... and sometimes, i just don't eat the way i should. so i drink boost to get the nutrition that i'm missing. boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a great taste. i don't plan on slowing down any time soon. stay strong. stay active with boost. now try new boost® compact and 100 calories.
a look outside the belt waif at salt lake city ahead of this week's caucuses there. he says that's enough to keep him in the race for president. earlier i spoke with kasich who was campaigning in utah. >> governor, let's start with the republican nomination. right now donald trump has 678 delegates. ted cruz has 423. you have 143. even if you win every one of the remaining delegates, 100%, you would still be short of the 1,237 majority you need. so what is your path?
how does the republican convention turn to you? >> well, first of all, chris, nobody is going to have enough delegates. we are going to go to a convention. it's going to be open. and let me also tell you that for the first time in this race in the last 2 1/2 or 3 weeks, i received more national media attention in the last three weeks than i did in the last six months. and we're rising. our rallies are strong. we are raising money. we're bringing more people in to our effort. and we're going to get to the convention and i've been to a convention that was contested in 1976 as a young guy. but let me tell you, when you get to a convention, there are two considerations, one, who can win in the fall? i'm the only one that can win in the fall. and then there is a second issue, i know this was a crazy one. who actually could be president of united states? i think that kind of matters, too. so i see the convention as nothing more than an extension of this whole political process. and i'm very comfortable with heading to that convention with momentum and more delegates and we'll let the people there make a choice.
>> if step one is to stop trump, to keep him from the 1237, some people questioning why you're even campaigning in utah because the fact is that if ted cruz were to win 50% of the vote, he would get all of the delegates. but you by campaigning there are splitting the anti-trump vote. i want to put up what mitt romney said. he'll vote for cruz in utah, explaining, a vote for governor kasich in future contests makes it extremely likely that trump-ism would prevail. your response, sir? >> i don't agree with him. secondly, people tried to get me out of the race and said that rubio should be the pick. and if i hadn't stayed in the race and won in ohio, trump would have won both florida and ohio. but i want to make something clear to people. i'm not in this to try to stop somebody. i'm in this to tell people about my experience, my record, my vision, and my ability to bring people together and to be a
successful president of the united states. this is beginning to deteriorate into some sort of a political science class with a bunch of pundits trying to play a parlor game. i'm not interested in that. chris, my entire lifetime has been to bring about change. do you know how many people in the establishment i made angry when i reformed the pentagon? do you know how many people in the establishment i made angry when i balanced the federal budget? do you know how many people got upset when i brought change in ohio? i'm a change agent. we're seeing the establishment people one more time trying to stop me. i'm interested in improving this country and being a good president and that's precisely why i'm running. and people are beginning to understand my vision and my message because finally people are beginning to allow me to be heard. >> well, i want to ask you about being allowed to be heard. fox news was scheduled to hold a debate tomorrow in salt lake city.
trump said no, but we were still going to hold it with you and ted cruz. and then you surprised a lot of people by saying you weren't going to participate in the debate including charles krouthammer. >> he complained he is being ignored, not getting enough time, whining about it again and again. he and carson. and here he is being offered two hours without the interruptions of trump to him and cruz. he can present his case and he turns it down. >> governor? >> i'm disappointed to hear charles say that. he says that i was whining? let me tell you "the new york times" had a piece the other day that showed that donald trump received $1.8 billion worth of national media attention. and i was like tenth. okay? look, i'm not going to go to a debate where we don't have everybody involved in the race involved in the debate. so what am i doing? i'm using my time to campaign the most effective way i can. i have never thought that these debates were the best way to pick a president. if somebody wants to sit down with me for an hour and
interview me and ask me any question about my record, my policies, my foreign policy experience, my domestic policy experience, i'm willing to do that. but, you know, i love charles krauthammer. he's a good guy. maybe sometimes people just don't understand the way that i work in politics. i'm not a plodder or schemer. i'm a guy that looks at problems and try to solve them, which i have done all of my career, creating jobs in washington, creating jobs in ohio. not me creating them, but creating an atmosphere and having the experience to run this country. >> you have talked, as you say, about running a positive campaign. you also have criticized donald trump for creating a toxic atmosphere when it comes to violence for speaking in what you consider objectionable ways about women. what do you think of trump and the campaign he's running? >> well, you know, look, i heard yesterday that his family was threatened. and that disappointed me. there is no place for this kind
of back and forth and violence. so from that regard, i was disappointed to hear that people were threatening that family. that's a disgrace. but i also have pointed out at times when i thought his language was inappropriate like if i don't get nominated, there is going to be a riot. what kind of talk is that? but i have to tell you, chris, i've done more town halls and more interaction with voters, all the candidates together. i take questions from the crowd. you guys follow it. and at the end of the day, i rarely ever rarely mention anybody else's name because i spend my time giving them the answers about what i want to do, what my vision is and that's the way i really proceed. >> let me ask you about a specific question and the time we have remaining. i want to explore your position on people in this country illegally. you have called them a critical part of our society. you called them good people. they're not criminals. >> well, look, chris, what i've said is that, you know, reagan tried to fix this whole thing in 1986.
and it didn't work. we didn't finish the border. i think we need to finish the border. once it's finished, people cannot sneak in. they shouldn't sneak in now. they have to be sent home. we should have a guest worker program. and for the 11.5 million here who are illegal, if they didn't commit a crime, i would give them a path to legalization, they pay a fine, back taxes, delay in any kind of benefits they get is a reasonable approach but not a path to citizenship. my position has not changed. the idea that we're going to yank people out of their homes and leave kids crying on the porch, that's not what we're going to do. that is more promises that will never happen and the people will become more cynical. i don't make promises, by and large, that i can't keep. i try to keep what i say. i've not deviated from this position at all. >> but you know what ted cruz calls that. he calls it amnesty. >> he can call it anything he wants. i'm just telling you my
position and i believe that position will be accepted by the american people and that position can pass the congress. i lay this out in every town hall meeting. if somebody asks me, i tell them. look -- >> in the 30 seconds we have left, what about the argument they did break the law? they came into this country illegally. >> they did. >> and you're letting them basically -- be able to stay in the country despite that. >> chris, chris, i know that you don't believe that we can go house to house and block to block trying to track these people down to ship them out. you know that. come on. the people know it, too. that's just silly. you know what? i'm in this race to try to fix things, not to go out and make crazy promises that are not going to happen that, are going to further aggravate the american people. so, look, you know, people don't like that position, that's okay. i'm cool with it. but i'm not going to change my position because i think it's reasonable and this whole problem is fixable. i believe it. reagan tried. i will get -- i will finish the job. >> governor kasich, thank you. always good to have you.
>> thank you. i enjoyed it today, chris. it was fun. >> it was fun. up next, will bring back the panel to discuss the republican party's stop trump movement. is it too little too late? this little guy is about to make his first deposit. we'd like to open a savings account for him. yes yes. great thanks to mom and dad and their safe
driving bonus check from allstate. oh. look at this. safe driving bonus. are you a safe driver? lucky little fella. only allstate gives you two safe driving bonus checks a year for driving safe. see how much more an allstate agent can do for you. call 877-644-3100. like in most families, dad's always the last to know. that's why accident forgiveness was the first thing he asked for when he switched to allstate. michael james! middle name. not good. get accident forgiveness from allstate and keep your rates from going up just because of an accident. find out how a local allstate agent can help better protect your family. call one right now. and if you're a safe driver, you can save up to 45%. just a few more ways the good hands are doing more than ever before. see what the personal service of an allstate agent can do for you. call 877-644-3100.
protesters shut down a highway before a donald trump event yesterday. we're back now with the panel. there were protests not just in arizona but also in new york city outside the trump tower on fifth avenue. you can see the protest there. and all of this adding to concerns among the republican establishment and movement conservatives about donald trump actually winning the nomination. kristen, every day there is a new story whether it's a bunch of fat cats have dinner at some club here or now there is a new story about a third party and tom coburn, the retired senator from oklahoma running as a third party candidate. how seriously should we take this talk about a stop trump movement? >> the stop trump movement may
have run out of time. there was so much time spent last fall attacking donald trump as being insufficiently conservative. those attacks fell flat. most voters don't like him because they think he's conservative and they think he's strong and a winner. the time has elapsed. if you like donald trump, it's unlikely you'll be persuaded to change your mind. so i think at this point the math or for anybody to stop trump before the convention becomes very hard. he'll pick up delegates in arizona. we'll move forward into a state like new york or the last poll showed him up by 50 points. donald trump, the math looks pretty good for him for the next month and a half or so. it's going to be very difficult for folks to stop him from winning the republican nomination. >> do you agree with that, bob? >> yes. i mean, first of all, if you try to excavate this, you realize the only way for trump probably now to get the nomination is for him to withdraw. and that is not going to happen. if there is one thing that trump
does, he never quits. and so, you know, he's got -- he's the heavy in this. and there's something that he's brought forth in the populous that those of us who try to understand this don't understand. >> i was going to ask you about. that you covered a lot of campaigns. a lot of candidates. can you put this -- i'll ask george the same thing, in any kind of historical perspective? do you compare it to, you know, some people are saying richard nixon in '68. what do you compare trump to? >> you can't compare him to anything. and i think there are people out there who just kind of say let's repot the plant. let's give somebody else a chance. it's not just anger or disappointment in their lives. it's the sense of let's shake this up. and no one is shaking it up as much as trump. >> george?
>> stylistically, trump is in the george wallace tradition. wallace famously said there is too much dignity in american politics, we have to have more meanness. wallace got 36 electoral votes because he is a regional bait. what makes trump more interesting he has support all over the country as he's demonstrated. almostblem is this, not only doubled his positives, 32%. but he's appealing entirely to white people. now, in 1988, george herbert walker bush got 59% of the white vote which is high. that translated in 426 electorate votes. mitt romney in 2012 got 59% of the white vote that, translated into 206 electoral votes. romney got 17%, that is all, of the nonwhite vote. trump by every measure would do worse than that which means he would have to get not just the 65% of the white vote to win that reagan got sweeping 49 states, he would have to get 70%
of the white vote. a, it won't happen. b, it would destroy the republican party by making it the party of white people. >> now, i'm sure that clinton camp and the sanders camp, they look at exactly that same demographic and say that country, the democratic face -- the demographic face of the country is changing. on the other hand, you do hear talk, lisa, about trump reshuffles the electoral deck. that suddenly the rust belt, the industrial midwest, pennsylvania, michigan, states, wisconsin that have gone reliably for democrats for several election cycles, something would be in play. how seriously do they take that? >> smart democrats, the ones that i'm talking to, at least, are not overly confident about this, and, in part, that's because trump is so wildly unpredictable. like, yes, they agree on the
demographics point. they're certainly going to try to boost support among the latino voters and women. but with trump, he had the republicans had obviously a lot of trouble taking him out. and you just don't know what you're going to get. you don't know -- he doesn't play by the standard rules. so that makes a lot of democrats a little nervous, particularly given that hillary clinton by her own admission is not the world's best campaigner. but the case is basically three cs, credentials, character, and controversy. so they're digging through the business records. they're going to highlight deals that went badly. they'll bring back the statements about latinos and women and all those things and talk about his temperament. is this someone you want with the finger on the button trying to pull over moderate democrats particularly women in the swing states. >> it's important that the people in the clinton campaign and as you called smart democrats are worried. and that, you know, this is a serious worry. and just from the polling perspective, what are there almost half the people don't vote, right? and trump is getting some of those people. the polls -- there are good
number on that. that's maybe why people are worried. >> let's face it. if trump is a target rich environment, so is hillary clinton. and lord knows there is plenty of research to be done there. i want to ask one more thing here, kristen. trump is going to be in washington tomorrow. he's going to meet with apac, the pro-israeli lobby. he is going to have a meeting with a lot of mainstream republicans. how possible is it that he could, having taken this dance to get this far in the primaries, change his tune. i mean not change it completely but become a much more mainstream figure and somehow make an accommodation with the gop establishment? >> i believe there are many who will want to co-op donald trump, make peace with him, find a way they can still show their face at a republican convention that is nominating him and call themselves republicans and get through the next couple of months. but i think there is going to be
a big division for folks consider themselves hard core conservatives who care deeply about things like limited government, who oppose someone who sounds like an authoritarian and wants to expand executive power. they're troubled by him and says if he defines what it means to be a republican, then maybe i'm not anymore. >> george? >> i think it's a big, big tent can expand to include donald trump at least through november or is this a -- stretching tight or is this a -- stretching it too far? >> it cannot expand that far and remain a conservative party. which means it would be -- if he's the nominee, there would be no conservative running in the race and the republicans who are coming to terms with -- as collaborators with the takeover of their party have to understand that. >> and do you see a third party under those circumstances? >> possibly. >> are you going to lead the ticket? >> no. i would vote for it. >> you would vote for it. >> certainly. >> all right. wow. i think we made news ourselves. thank you, panel. see you next sunday. next, our power players of the week. washington's newest celebrities have a coming out party.
d.c. was taken by storm this week, no, not by the presidential race or the new supreme court nominee, someone more important stole the spotlight, a symbol of our nation. here is our power player of the week. hundreds of thousands of avid viewers turned to the web as an eaglette hatched. even i got caught up. how is the eaglette doing? any progress? >> almost all the way out. >> bird watchers have been minding the nest since mid february when a pair of bald eagles laid two eggs. excitement turned into anticipation when the first crack was seen late wednesday on one egg.
and friday, just after 8:00 in the morning, a fuzzy wing flopped out and d.c. had the latest star. the eaglette was quieted first but quickly pepped up. the proud parents nicknamed mr. president and the first lady first nested there in 2014 when they gave birth to one eaglette. they take turns, one monitoring the nest while the other gets food often a big fish. the hatching is trending on facebook and the arboretum's eagle cam is getting millions of clicks. and on this first day of spring, we have a big happy announcement, the second baby eaglette was born this morning. forget march madness and check out the eagle cam link on our website, foxnewssunday.com. be sure to watch fox news channel tomorrow night for a must see prime time lineup, interviews with all three republican presidential candidates starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. and that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday." show.
>> bye, everybody! logon for the after-the-show show. happy palm sunday. high drama on the high drama on the road to the republican nomination, a lot surrounding this candidate, donald trump, who is making headlines, campaigning ahead of critical contests in arizona and utah. this upcoming tuesday. hi, everyone. i'm maria bartiromo. welcome to "sunday morning futures" this sunday. here now some of that chaos on the campaign trail. just yesterday in arizona, anti-trump protesters jammed traffic, blocked the only main road leading to trump's rally in fountain hills, all of this raising questions about the possibility of even more turmoil as we get closer to the gop convention in cleveland coming up this july. let's talk about it all right