This is a rush transcript of "Fox News Sunday" on April 2, 2023. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I'm Shannon Bream.
In just days, Donald Trump will face a judge in New York, and the U.S. will face a new political paradigm.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is unprecedented.
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (D-MO): This is burning down the rule of law.
BREAM (voice-over): Republicans react after word that former President Trump has been indicted, right in the middle of another run for the White House.
We bring in one of the former president's lawyers to discuss the legal strategy, as Trump prepares for an unprecedented surrender.
And we'll get reaction from former Attorney General Bill Barr who says the case is weak but could be a win for Democrats.
Then, on the Hill and on the campaign trail, lawmakers and potential 2024 rivals walk a fine line.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Nobody's above the law.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): This is literally legal voodoo.
MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: It's a political prosecution.
BREAM: Now, House Republicans want D.A. Alvin Bragg to testify. Bragg says those demands are unlawful political interference. And the White House is trying to stay above the fray.
REPORTER: Do you think that the charges against Trump are politically motivated?
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have no comment on Trump.
BREAM: We'll get reaction from senators from both parties, Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.
Plus, the Kremlin holds a "Wall Street Journal" reporter hostage.
KARINE JEAN PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The targeting of American citizens by Russian government is unacceptable.
BREAM: Republicans say past prisoner exchanges embolden Putin to abduct more Americans.
REP. MICHAEL WALTZ (R-FL): They're going to keep doing it because at the end of the day, they always get something for it.
BREAM: And the loss of six innocent lives in the Nashville school shooting ignites lawmakers' passion.
REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN (D-NY): They don't have the courage to do anything to save the lives of children!
BREAM: But they remain divided over how to protect our kids. Our Sunday panel will take you behind the headlines of this singular week in Washington.
That's all right on "FOX News Sunday".
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BREAM (voice-over): Hello from FOX News in Washington.
It's a week for the history books, the indictment of a former president, a legal first. And it's only just beginning to play out.
We expect former President Trump to appear in court as soon as Tuesday. It's also a first for U.S. politics as the Republican presidential front runner faces charges and fallout. The early assessment appears to be that this may actually boost Trump's primary campaign chances. But if he's the nominee, it could cost them with those all important swing voters.
In a moment, we're going to speak with Jim Trusty, who is one of the former president's lawyers in yet another investigation.
But first, let's turn to Bryan Llenas for the latest on the first of its kind court appearance we expect this week.
Hello, Bryan.
BRYAN LLENAS, FOX NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Shannon, the former president's team is set to fight the legal merits of this case every step of the way, which could mean months of delays. As of now, they tell Fox it's still too early to talk about possible motions, but there's reportedly a discussion about requesting that this criminal case be moved from Manhattan to more conservative Staten Island for fear Trump won't get a fair trial.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOE TACOPINA, LAWYER FOR FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP: Look, it would be better to get a change of venue. That being said, you know, while I understand the political geographics of New York City and New York County, New York jurors are smart. And they're gritty.
LLENAS: Trump's attorney Joe Tacopina says the former president is ready to fight, with zero chance he'll take a plea deal. Trump allegedly face dozens of charges stemming from alleged hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels and possible former Playboy model Karen McDougal, in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.
Trump's lawyers say Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is stretching the law for political purposes, arguing the charges are meritless because the payments were personal and never filed with the IRS or FEC.
TACOPINA: This is something that would have been made irrespective of the campaign. So, there was no filing made. So, where is it a false business record, in his own records, his own personal files?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LLENAS: Still, the exact charges Trump faces are unknown. So are the details about his arraignment on Tuesday. While Trump won't be in handcuffs, well, his attorney says it's possible he could have a perp-walk and get a mug shot.
And that mug shot could affect his presidential 2024 presidential run. It could actually help him. Why? Well, because his campaign says they raised $4 million in the day after he became the first U.S. president to ever be criminally indicted -- Shannon.
BREAM: Bryan Llenas reporting for us from New York -- Bryan, thank you very much.
Joining us now, Jim Trusty. He represents former President Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation, the federal one.
Jim, welcome to "FOX News Sunday".
JIM TRUSTY, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Hi, Shannon.
BREAM: So, let's start here. A lot has been made about the fact this is a, quote/unquote, a political prosecution. But as Brian points out, we haven't seen the indictments. I mean, there are chances when Tuesday comes, there's more to this cases than we know. No?
TRUSTY: It's conceivable. I mean, look, think about the grand perspective we have here. We're talking about what could be a sealed indictment which is completely consistent with how Donald Trump is treated differently than any citizen in this country.
And before we get too procedural, Shannon, you know, the starting point is, we should never have prosecutors acting out on political promises to target people. We are supposed to have prosecutors -- now, I was a prosecutor for 27 years. We were supposed to be judicious when we got started, to figure out, where does the evidence lead, follow the rule of law. And instead, we have people announcing, if you elect me, I'll indict Donald Trump.
So, it's no real surprise that when you have people breaking the ethics of prosecution for political persecution, that they're going to have suspect indictments. Their motivations are suspect. Their willingness to listen to a witness like Michael Cohen makes them suspect.
And in this case, it seems like what we're guessing the indictment will look like is it will have legal frailties that will be subjected to a very legitimate motion to dismiss early on.
BREAM: So, this is not the only one out there. There is the impending potential special grand jury Georgia situation, the federal investigation with the special counsel. You're working on that.
Now that there has been this historic change, do you feel like other prosecutors will be more willing to come forward and indict, you know, the president, the former president? Because they won't be first ones. I mean, that seal has been broken.
TRUSY: Yeah. It's hard to know. I mean, look, I think most of the American public, whether you're a lawyer, whether you're a Donald Trump fan or not, a lot of people are recognizing the blatant persecution angle that's being pursued here.
So, you know, I'm not going to crawl inside the heads of D.A.s in Georgia who have similarly announced that they want to indict President Trump, or a DOJ led by an attorney general who had unprecedented press conferences to celebrate his raid on Mar-a-Lago, something I have never seen from any prosecutor, state, federal or local in 35 years.
So, it's hard to creep into their minds and figure it out. There is a commonalty here which is they are pushing the envelope legally because they decided to target a man and try to put charges on him rather than actually follow evidence and begin judiciously as prosecutors like your ethics tell you to do.
BREAM: The president has quite a bit to say, including this post from Friday. I'll read in part, talking about the judge overseeing this case. He says: The judge assigned to my witch hunt case, a case that has never been charged before, hates me. Well, that's in all caps.
He goes on to say: That's the same person who railroaded my 75-year-old former CFO Allen Weisselberg to take a plea deal. He strong armed Allen, which a judge is not allowed to do and treated my companies, which didn't plead, viciously. Appealing!
So, a couple of things to break down there. First of all, I'm an attorney. If I client posted that, and was facing that judge, it wouldn't make my job any easier.
Does it worry you?
TRUSTY: Well, look, the president is a big believer in free speech, as you know. He's got strong opinions. I think he's very frustrated for some of his very loyal employees being caught up in the machinery of a prosecution. And so he feels strongly about.
But, look, I've never had a case in front of this judge. I certainly reserve judgment. I think we're in a position where a fair-minded judge -- never mind getting to a jury and changes the venue and some of the issues there -- I think a fair minded judge is likely to recognize there's something fundamentally wrong that we're crossing the Rubicon with this political persecution.
And thankfully, I suspect the indictment is going to be legally frail, and there'll be an opportunity for a judge to do the right thing. You know, we wish prosecutors would do the right thing. But the judges are kind of the backstop on that.
So my hope is that despite some of the hysterics at the moment, despite some emotionality and frustration, the president certainly deserves to feel that this judge will do the right thing when he's faced with significant legal motions.
BREAM: Okay. So you are going -- you're talking about things like motions to dismiss. There are other ways. This thing maybe never gets to trial.
If you do get to trial, would you ask for a bench trial? For folks at home, that is essentially letting the judge decide this case instead of going to a jury. What do you think is the better route for the president?
TRUSTY: Yeah. I mean, way too early for that. There's certainly some legal obstacles that we expect that there will be a problem for this prosecution if it gets that far. But, you know, I think it's early to figure that out. I mean, God knows anybody that's ever even watched the legal show would like the opportunity to cross examine Michael Cohen.
You know, the grand jury in this case probably should have issued one indictment and that would be for Cohen perjuring himself once again in front of the grand jury, if you track what Bob Costello had to say as a lawyer afterwards.
So, you know, I think the opportunity to expose the underpinnings of this prosecution and the frailty of their witnesses is a golden opportunity for anybody in terms of cross examination and showing the case really letting the truth come out. And right now, the truth is not anywhere close to coming out in terms of how this thing came together, or why.
BREAM: Yeah, Michael Cohen has told several different versions of the story, but in this case, it was enough. If we think we know what we know about this indictment, that it convinced enough grand jurors to vote yes, to make this case proceed forward.
If you do get to trial in any of these cases, if there's an indictment in Georgia or on the federal cases, would you put President Trump on the stand? I've got to imagine he's going to want to get up there and defend himself.
TRUSY: Well, yeah, we're light years away from that, and hopefully, it's an academic question, frankly. But let me just say this, you know, we always talk about the president's strong personality, his resilience which is amazing to me. I mean, if I were him, I would have retreated to golf a long time ago.
But, you know, at the end of the day, he's frustrated for the country, and I think that's starting to kind of creep out and resonate. He's worried that he is literally the first person subjected to this new model of upside-down justice, of political persecution.
And you know, it -- if you let the genie out of the bottle with this new mode of prosecution, it's not going to go back by itself. It's going to be a problem for generations, and I think he's very aware of that very concerned and certainly has a strong voice opposing it.
But, you know, we're a long way off before we start talking about legal tactics at trial.
BREAM: Well, given that he is a big proponent of the First Amendment and enjoys expressing himself if there were a gag order in any of these cases, do you think he'd comply?
TRUSTY: I think he'd comply, but I also don't think it's going to happen. I mean, you're talking about, you know, one of the reasons he's being politically persecuted as he's running for president against somebody who unleashes DOJ against him during the election season.
So I think it would be very difficult for a judge to impose a gag order on a person running for president. You talk about having a profound effect on this country, a gag order would do just that.
BREAM: Well, we'll wait to see what comes of the indictment on Tuesday. Jim Trusty, thank you very much for your time.
TRUSTY: Sure. Good to see you, Shannon.
BREAM: You, too.
Joining us now, former Attorney General Bill Barr.
Welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".
WILLIAM BARR, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, Shannon.
BREAM: Okay, a lot to impact there. We don't know about this indictment on Tuesday. Fair to say you and the president have had a complicated relationship at times. Disagreement over whether you quit, whether he fired you, all of those things.
But when it comes to this, you do seem to agree, this is a political prosecution, based on what we know.
BARR: Yeah, based on what we know, it certainly appears to be. And I think the American people see that. It's the very essence of the abuse of the prosecutive function which is pursuing a person rather than pursuing a real crime.
BREAM: Do you know his critics say that, okay, every American should be subjected to rule and order and justice. And this president, well, according to "New York Times" editorial board, not surprisingly, they think he flirted with that.
They say: President Trump spent years as a candidate in office and out of office ignoring democratic and legal norms and precedents, trying to bend the Justice Department and judiciary to his whims and behaving as if rules didn't apply to him. And as the news of the indictment shows, they do.
Okay. Piece in "The Atlantic" back in 2021 talked about your time at DOJ and said that you were widely seen as a Trump lackey who politicized the Justice Department.
So, did you ever feel pressure to bend the law or to ignore it? And what do you make of, you know, the president's critics saying this is all just catching up with him now?
BARR: Well, as I've said repeatedly, he never direct -- directly pressured me to do anything in a criminal case. Now, he's out there tweeting all the time which made my life difficult. And he was calling for people's scalps and, you know, from what he said after I left, he was mad at me for not delivering scalps.
But the idea that I was a toady, it was something fostered by the -- you know, the mainstream media. And (INAUDIBLE) -- which of his enemies were prosecuted? Who did I, you know, use the criminal justice process against? And there's usually crickets because there's not a case of that.
But the other thing about this is I think the case, based again on what's being reported, the case lacks any legal basis. It's pursuing somebody on the -- there's nothing inherently wrong or illegal about making a hush payment.
They're saying he falsified the corporate record. But for that to even be a misdemeanor you have to be trying to defraud somebody. And it's unclear exactly who was defrauded. This is his own company.
And then, finally, and most importantly from the federal standpoint, the idea that this was a campaign finance violation is simply wrong. It's wrong on the law.
BREAM: So he is facing other cases. We've got special counsel investigating the Mar-a-Lago, the documents, the January 6th lead-up. As somebody who headed up the DOJ, are you confident they can be neutral, that they will be in this case?
BARR: I hope -- I hope they will be. And, you know, as I've said repeatedly, I think the document case is the most serious case. I don't think they went after those documents to get Trump. I think they actually wanted the documents back.
And what's at issue in that case is not the taking of the documents. It's what he did after the government sought them and subpoenaed them, and whether there was any obstruction. And I think that's the most serious one out there.
And the other one, I think the January 6th one, is a difficult case to make. It also runs into First Amendment issues. You know, where are you going to draw the line between legitimate First Amendment activity, protesting an election and actually conspiring to undo an election? So, that's a difficult case to make.
But, you know, I'm hopeful the department will approach it properly.
BREAM: I'll ask you what I asked Jim Trusty as well. If the president was your client, would you put him on the stand? Because I've got to imagine, in any of these case, if it gets to trial, he's going to want to defend himself.
BARR: Yeah. Well, I mean, I'm not his lawyer. Generally, I think it's a bad idea to go on the stand and I think it's a particularly bad idea for Trump because he lacks all self-control. And it would be very difficult to prepare him and keep him testifying in a prudent fashion.
BREAM: Okay. Let me ask you about this back and forth, your legal opinion on the House Committee chairs. Several of them are going to Bragg's office saying, we want answers on this side (ph) and the other, how you're using funding. We want you to come testify. There's been a lot of back and forth.
So, Bragg's office fired back, the latest volley in these letters. His general counsel on Friday saying this: President Trump has directed harsh invective against District Attorney Bragg and threatened on social media that his arrest of indictment in New York may unleash death and destruction. You and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump's effort to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges.
Basically, the Bragg office is saying, we're not cooperating with any of this stuff from the House committees.
Would they have jurisdiction or any authority to call him in to answer these questions?
BARR: Well, that's -- you know, that's going to be a constitutional issue. But it's actually Bragg, it seems to me, that's jumped into the federal arena. He's interfering in a federal election process. And his case is built on an alleged violation of federal law.
He wouldn't be able to survive the statute of limitations and not be able to juice what is a misdemeanor into a felony without claiming that there's a violation of federal law. So, he's the one that has essentially weighed into the federal arena.
And the real danger of this thing over the long term isn't so much narrowed to Trump. It's now we have thousands of D.A.s around the country, now that the Rubicon has been crossed, any one of them can find federal candidates or federal office holders and so forth, can find some state law they want to pursue the person on and get themselves into the national political arena.
BREAM: Well, you have served this country as A.G. more than once. You've seen a lot in your years in Washington and this country. Does this feel like one of those moments that we have crossed a line that will make it kind of an historical marker about the before and after of these prosecutions?
BARR: Yeah. Well, one would hope this would be nipped in the bud by people who have some judgment. But, you know, I'm doubting that. So I do think that this is a watershed moment and I don't think it's going to end up good for the country.
Part of the problem, of course, is the corruption of the media which has essentially contributed to the creation of a mob mentality in our country, instead of being the restraint on mob thinking. They've essentially encouraged this kind of thing.
BREAM: We try to be that here on "FOX News Sunday".
BARR: That's right.
BREAM: Mr. Former Attorney General Bill Barr, thank you for your time.
BARR: Thank you. Yep.
BREAM: We appreciate it.
BARR: Thanks.
BREAM: All right. Up next, we get reaction to the Trump indictment from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Democratic Senator Joe Biden.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BREAM: It is an understatement to say former President Trump's indictment has overshadowed everything else in Washington, talk of it for weeks. That includes a Republican senator's tense exchange with the treasury secretary over how to shore up Social Security. And it includes a Democratic senator's blistering op-ed about the White House's plan for high profile tax credit.
In a moment, we will speak to the man behind that op-ed, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
But, first, Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy joins me.
Senator, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".
SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): Thank you, Shannon.
BREAM: All right. I want to start with news of the president's indictment, the former president this week.
An opinion piece in "The Washington Post" says this: It's perfectly plausible that the charges against Trump prove damning, the process is handled with integrity and Trump is found guilty. And a large swath of voters cannot accept that as legitimate reckoning precisely because one of our major political parties refused to acknowledge it as such.
So, what do you feel as a Republican to communicate out there to folks that we got to let this play out and it may be legit? We don't even know what's in the indictment. As of Tuesday, we may.
CASSIDY: Well, no one should be above the law, but no one should be a target of the law.
As Bill Barr has said, this is less about the crime and more about the target. So, it has to play out. This is kind of set in motion.
But on the other hand, where I think this particular problem is it's going to lead to all kind of political theater. Theater that is going to distract from addressing the issues that are incredibly important to our country right now, that are not about just one person or somebody running for reelection as a D.A. in New York, but rather about the future of our country, whether it's Social Security, inflation, crime on the streets. And, unfortunately, the theater will distract from that discussion.
BREAM: Let me ask you. We've had very full-throated defenses by a number of House GOP lawmakers, but not really so much on the Senate side.
Do you think we'll hear more? Will we get a statement from Mitch McConnell on this?
CASSIDY: I cannot speak for Mitch McConnell. And I'll leave Mitch McConnell to himself.
I wouldn't be surprised if they feel that's kind of like I feel. Again, it's wrong. I'll put it this way -- no one should be a target of the law. This seems to be more about the person than about the crime.
Well, on the other hand, I think they'd probably also agree, we've got major issues that are affecting family gathered around the kitchen table and this distracts from that discussion from the urgency of addressing those issues.
BREAM: Yeah. We got the debt ceiling. We've got the budgets.
The White House says this, that there are going to be no negotiations over the debt ceiling. It's blasting what Speaker McCarthy has offered up, saying this, it's holding the full faith and credit of the U.S. hostage and risking economic chaos and catastrophe.
The White House also says the president's budget is about protecting and strengthening Medicare and Social Security.
You said that's not exactly true, at least not a conversation about how to get there.
Here's a bit of an exchange with you and the treasury secretary a couple of weeks ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY: Then why doesn't the president care?
JANET YELLEN, TREASURY SECRETARY: He cares very deeply.
CASSIDY: Then, where is his plan?
YELLEN: He stands ready to work with Congress --
(CROSSTALK)
CASSIDY: That's a lie because when a bipartisan group of senators has repeatedly requesting to meet with him about Social so that somebody who is a current beneficiary will not see her benefits cut by 24 percent, we have not heard anything on our request.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: Okay. Essentially calling the treasury secretary a liar there about the engagement from the White House.
Have you heard anything from the president about this very real problem?
CASSIDY: Actually, the statement she picked up and read was a lie. That she was not a liar. She was giving something which was a lie -- number one.
Number two, the president has a plan for Social Security and his plan is to have no plan. He and, frankly, President Trump, former President Trump, are both telling the American people that there is no issue with Social Security and you don't have to do anything about it -- because I think they think it's a political third rail.
The third rail of Social Security should be allowing it to get a 24 percent cut. That's what's going to happen. And we've learned yesterday or Friday that it's going to happen a year earlier than it originally was going to.
That should be the third rail. We should be working to prevent that 24 percent cut. And so far, the two leading candidates for either re-election or election are refusing to acknowledge.
BREAM: Yeah, to that point, you cite this. So, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund we're told in insolvent by 2031. Social Security Trust Fund is insolvent by 2034.
But here's the deal, when we put this to the test, here's the polling that we just had in FOX News polling. We asked people about how to get our fiscal house in order. Seventy-one percent of them say they want these programs to remain untouched.
And you know how Democrats are going to play this.
Here's a little bit of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar talking about this.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): Republicans have made it perfectly clear they do not want to govern. They would rather target vulnerable communities, scapegoat minorities. They would rather gut Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, slash SNAP and housing assistance that makes sure people have the housing and healthcare they need.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BREAM: So Democrats are going to say, you guys are going to rip apart entitlements. Our polling shows people are afraid for those programs to be touched. But at the same time, you touch on the insolvency that's coming and the automatic cuts that will happen if you guys don't act. So, how do you work against all of those tides to actually get a substantive conversation going?
CASSIDY: So, Shannon, you put your finger on it. If 71 percent of Americans don't want Social Security touched, per the poll you just quoted, under current law, if we do nothing, those benefits will be touched. They will be mashed down by 24 percent because this president and the leading Republican candidate refuse to take the issue on. Oh, they're going to be cut.
People need their benefit, not just that they want them. For many, that's how they pay their bills. But under current law, it will be cut by 24 percent because neither of two leading candidates will take the issue on.
That's frustrating, and that is working against the interest of the American people. That's what we should be -- that's what we should be discussing.
BREAM: Well, it is something you're bringing to the forefront. Lot of people are afraid to touch it because they know how it's going to be used against them, even broaching the topic.
And we'll watch and see what you do on this. It's a very important point you make -- the cuts are coming if nobody does anything.
Senator Bill Cassidy, thank you very much for your time.
CASSIDY: Thank you.
BREAM: Joining us now, Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat from West Virginia.
Senator, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): Hey, Shannon. Good to be with you.
BREAM: Okay. So, you're getting a lot of attention this week for an op-ed that you wrote. It sounds like you're having potential second thoughts about the deal you made to get the Inflation Reduction Act passed.
You say: The administration is attempting at every turn to implement the bill it wanted, not the bill Congress actually passed.
Have you discussed it? Will you discuss it with President Biden?
MANCHIN: I sure hope so and I've been discussing it with all of his -- you know, basically, administration.
And I'm very, very disappointed in how they have interpreted a piece of legislation. That is not how it was written. It was the intent. It was not the agreement that President Biden and I had.
So, I'm hoping he intervenes and basically says, listen, we're -- we need energy security. We have to produce. Fossil energy, cleaner and better than ever before, but we need an amount of it that we can energy independent and secured as a nation. We can also invest in the technologies that will have energy for the future. We did both.
And they're trying to now implement a bill, Shannon, that we didn't like and it's a bill they didn't pass.
So, just do our job, follow the law. Do your job.
BREAM: So, I know that one of the sticking points seems to be the new regulations that came up, the proposed regulations with respect to electric vehicles, about how much of that should be domestic production.
MANCHIN: Yeah.
BREAM: You know the White House is going to say. They're relying on experts for these regulations and there's now a public comment period open to anybody who wants to weigh in.
I mean, isn't that the protocol?
MANCHIN: Well, the protocol would have been to implement the bill exactly. We laid out the bill and wrote the bill in a way that told you that was sourcing and processing and what was manufacturing. The whole purpose was, is to bring basically reliable supply chains to America, be able to manufacture the batteries and cars here to get the tax credits.
That's what it's about -- energy security, bringing down the cost of health care, pharmaceuticals. And we've done that.
But if they don't implement it in a way that was written and implement it the way they desire, they just want to throw caution to the wind and put more money out and throw money from the Treasury in credits that are basically not going to accelerate how quickly that we can be totally self- reliant in America.
There's nothing wrong with us bringing manufacturing. We should not be dependent and relying on China's supply chain. You know, I said I'm old enough to remember standing in line in 1974 to buy gasoline to go to work. I don't want to stand in line to buy a battery to run a vehicle and waiting on it from China. That's what we're doing. And that's what the intent of the bill was.
BREAM: OK. OK, to the point of whether or not you got snookered in making this deal with the White House, "Hot Air" writes this. It says, Manchin wants to distance himself from the administration he enabled with the Inflation Reduction Act and really wants to distance itself from its results, but that's impossible. The vote on the IRA came down to Manchin. Manchin negotiated its terms and Manchin endorsed its policies and the lack of control the legislation had on Biden's use of the bill. If Manchin wants to talk about political malpractice, maybe he should look in the mirror.
Your response?
MANCHIN: Well, that's ridiculous. I mean from the standpoint, we write pieces of legislation. We expect the administration to adhere to the intent and how we wrote it. It's in the bill. Read the law. So, anybody who has that opinion has not read the bill. What we have to do now, we have a process, so we can hold their feet accountable.
I can tell you, we brought down inflation. We can do an awful lot more. We've got more drilling going on. We're producing more oil and gas than we did before. And we're more reliant on ourselves than we were on foreign supply chains. We can do all of this.
This bill was written for one purpose, energy security, bringing down the cost of drugs, be able to have -- pay down debt, which we hadn't done in 20 years. But now when they want to blow the cap off of it, I'm going to fight and fight back hard. And I would hope that my Democrat and Republican people, friends, in legislature especially, would feel the same way and work with us to hold the administration's feet to the fire.
BREAM: So you have -
MANCHIN: It was not throwing caution to the wind.
BREAM: Yes.
MANCHIN: We have runaway inflation right now. We still have high inflation. We have a debt ceiling that's going to be crashing upon us and we're not doing anything to address that. Not even talking about it.
BREAM: Well, some of the analysts out there, though, will look at the Inflation Reduction Act and say, you know, even looking at CBO scoring and other, you know, Penn Wharton (ph), they will say, this Inflation Reduction Bill was never going to solve that problem. So, even if we still have those problems now, does that lie somewhat at your feet for voting for this?
MANCHIN: Shannon, the bottom line is, when you have a chance to do something and make it better, when you have basically an administration was going away from the dependable, reliable fossil fuels that we have to have to run the country for energy security, when we're relying - we were saying, maybe we can take the sanctions off of Iran. Come on, you're going to take the sanctions off of a country that promotes the most horrific terrorist support around the world and give them more revenue to do harm to humankind? And we know that we have to have our own reliable resources. And we can do it right here in America. And we weren't doing it. You're going to sit back and say, well, I'm afraid politically it might not be popular. I've got to do what I think that is the best thing I can for my country.
And I think that we did a piece of legislation that will do exactly what it was intended to do. We've got to make sure the administration now administers the way it's supposed to.
The bottom line is, we have brought down - we have put more product into the market. We have just done more leasing and permitting that we've done. We need a permitting bill that changes how fast we're able to get it this done, and we have Democrats and Republicans agreeing that it needs to be done, we've just got to put a piece of legislation that works. We've got to work together as the United States and not allowing the political diversity of this country keep pushing us further and further to the extremes. That's what's happening.
BREAM: And I know that you think the extremes are pulling both parties to the far left, to the far right. You've said you'll do what's best for your country.
MANCHIN: That's right.
BREAM: And a lot of People are wondering whether you think that might mean a third party run for the White House. "Politico" says this, that you're not deciding on anything until the end of the year, but you're also pointedly refusing to rule out a presidential run on a third party ticket.
Do you rule it out today? Is it still on the table?
MANCHIN: Here's the thing, only in America do we start the next election the day after the last election.
BREAM: It's underway.
MANCHIN: And I've not done that. I said I -- it's underway but not -- I'm going to do my job. I want to get this - this credit - this debt ceiling. I want to get this behind us, pay our debts, start trying to get our expenses down. We can do this. We can reel in - them in, the expenses that we have, and the debt that we're accumulating.
For 21 year, Shannon, we have spent more money in America than we've taken in. You can't run your household that way. No business can survive that way. But yet here we are.
We're not doing our budget process the way we're supposed to, to get it done on time. That saves billions of dollars. I've got a lot of work to do. And every other senator and congressperson does. Everybody's worried about the election.
BREAM: Can a president Manchin - can a president Manchin, though, better influence that conversation?
MANCHIN: Well, you know, everybody's worried about who's running for what and who's going to be this. My main concern, can we start a dialogue? Do people -- are - I'm - people are wore out, Shannon. They're tired. All we have is this bickering and fighting. They says, can't we come together?
BREAM: OK, I'm going to -
MANCHIN: So, if we can start a dialogue where (ph) the middle, can't we basically bring the extremes back to where they're supposed to be in a sensible, reasonable middle.
BREAM: I'm going to put you down - I'm going to put you down for not ruling it out. We'll leave that there. But I want to get a quick reaction from you about President Trump's indictment.
MANCHIN: Sure. It's just a very, very sad day for America. Very sad day. Especially when people are maybe believing that this -- the rule of law or justice is not working the way it's supposed to and it's biased. We can't have that.
You know, Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand. And we cannot divide our country. But, on the other hand, no one's above the law, but no one should be targeted by the law. So, let's wait and see what comes out next week.
I pray that what they come out - and whatever comes out, that they have done a thorough examination and done a thorough job as far as showing that the rule of law does work for all of us. And we'll just have to wait and see on that. But it's a very sad day.
BREAM: All right, Senator, thank you very much for your time. Always good to see you.
MANCHIN: Thanks, Shannon. Good to be with you.
BREAM: Well, the former president's indictment puts his 2024 GOP rivals in a complex predicament. Up next we'll bring in our Sunday group on how the bombshell indictment news is reshaping the `24 campaign, and the other major stories this week, including the arrest of an American reporter now detained in Russia.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL MAHER, HOST, "REAL TIME": You're running for president?
GOV. CHRIS SUNUNU (R-NH): Well, I'm going to wait to see what percentage of the potential candidates get indicted. And if it's over -- if it's over - if it's over 25 percent, then we'll see.
MAHER: But you - you - I mean -
SUNUNU: And we're halfway there. So, you never know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: New Hampshire governor, possible 2024 candidate, Chris Sununu dropping a searing one-liner about this very unusual primary season.
Time now for our Sunday group.
"USA Today" Washington bureau chief Susan Page, "Forbes" contributing writer and Fox News contributor Richard Fowler, former chief of staff for Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short, and director of the Ronald Reagan Institute, Roger Zakheim.
Welcome to everybody.
OK, so let's start there.
Marc, this has had a very unusual predicament for a number of potential GOP runners in 2024 in that they've had to rush to the former president's defense this week. They've had to do it. So they're now all coalescing behind this guy that many of them are trying to run against.
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF FOR VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, sure, but I think that also could be somewhat genuine too. I think there's a lot of concern for people who look at a prosecution that a previous D.A. passed over, a prosecution that the Department of Justice passed over. The reality that this D.A. campaigned on a promise and pledge to prosecute Donald Trump. I think there's a lot of concerns.
I think also, Shannon, there's a real concern about what this precedent sets. Are you going to have now Republican district attorneys decide, I'm going to go ahead and charge a Democrat for political gain? And so I think it's a real abuse of the justice system. And I think it's right for Republicans to denounce it.
BREAM: One of them who weighed in was Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is not running, but many people think is edging that way. I want to read part of his tweet where he called out this whole thing. And he says, Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda.
Susan, there was no extradition request, but does he get some points on the board with his full-throated defense of the man he may soon run against?
SUSAN PAGE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "USA TODAY": Well, I'm not sure Trump is going to give DeSantis points for much of anything. And I think -
BREAM: Well, not from him, but maybe from voters I mean (ph).
PAGE: Yes, but I think it - I think he was trying to repair some ground maybe that had gotten a little dusty for him from his efforts to portray himself as somebody who gives you Trumpism without Trump, that gives you Trump policies without Trump chaos. And so this is, I think, of all the candidates you could think of, the worst for him because it does not reshape - re-shake up the field. It solidifies the Republican field around the man who's been the frontrunner. And now, according to your poll, has a 30-point edge over DeSantis.
BREAM: We can put that up. Yes.
PAGE: That is a big - that is a lot of ground for anybody to make up, especially when the frontrunner is -- somebody who's so familiar to Republican voters.
BREAM: Yes, you see it there. And this is before the indictment, but President Trump had picked up 11 points since February.
Roger, do you think that -- now that he's officially indicted we're going to have potentially a perp walk, the whole thing? Does it only gain him even more points?
ROGER ZAKHEIM, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, RONALD REAGAN INSTITUTE: No doubt Republican voters who were on the fence about President Trump now will feel more beholden to support him in this moment. But there's other polling we have to take into account here, Shannon, and that is the impact of voters across the country in terms of their feeling about the presidency and their feelings about key institutions, whether it's the justice system, presidency. It was down in the low, you know, 16 percent, 15 percent when we looked at it at the Reagan Institute. And this whole circus that's going to play out now is just going to bring those numbers further down. And that's a loss for the country.
BREAM: Yes, that loss of institutional confidence, we've seen that from a number of different agencies and the presidency, certainly Congress. Congress gets beat up all the time, though. Like, you're always going to have a better approval rating than Congress around here.
But somebody who was also struggling a little bit in our Fox News poll, President Biden. A majority of folks -- these are Democratic primary voters -- said they would rather see someone else than him. And for comparison you can see President Obama at this same point back in his presidency where 81 percent were like, yes, we love him, we'll keep him.
Richard, what does this president do? What is the plan B?
RICHARD FOWLER, "FORBES" CONTRIBUTING WRITER AND FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Look, I think that President Biden is in an interesting situation right now. I think what was working in Obama's favor is he had some youth on his side. And I think what we've seen the media do over the past two years under Biden's - in Biden's presidency is talk about the president's age over and over again.
BREAM: Well, but they love him. Most of them love him.
FOWLER: Sure, you could say that. But I think this ideal of him being older is way you see the polls look the way that they look. If you take a look at the entire political field at this moment, what you're going to have going into 2024 is a president that will likely - a presidential candidate likely on trial in New York and at the same time what you're going to have is President Biden governing. The question is, is what do the American voters like more? Do they like somebody who's governing and keeping the country afloat, or do they like the bombastics of a trial with a porn star and a former lawyer?
BREAM: Well, they - they also -
PAGE: But -- so you know there's no -- there's no other name in that poll because there is no number two. There's no alternative -- clear alternative to President Biden.
BREAM: Right. No one else.
PAGE: And it's hard to beat somebody with nobody. And I think Biden has that going for him. And also the argument he makes that he's the Democrat who can beat Donald Trump. The same argument he made four years ago.
BREAM: Which he's done before. But all of our polling shows he's upside down on all of the big issue, on inflation, on foreign policy, on the border and immigration. I mean President Biden has got a lot of ground to make up on all of those issues and he would be running against those headwinds too.
We know when people can't pay their bills and they're worried about their kids and crime and everything else, they tend to vote against whoever's in charge, whatever the party is.
This is another poll I thought was very interesting in our polling this week. What's more important to your presidential primary vote, your views matching up with the candidate's, 73 percent, or whether they can actually win in November, only 18 percent.
Marc, what does that say to you? I mean a lot of people are going to be purist about the person that they want and not so much about how they shape up in the general.
SHORT: Well, I think that's actually healthy if we're actually saying we're going to put issues first. I think so far in the conversation we've struggled from the media perspective actually to put issues first and it's much more of a debate around personality. So, if we can actually get to the point that the American people are having honest conversations about what's your plan for inflation, what do you think we should be doing in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, what should we be doing to combat China, what we should be doing on the border, I think that's going to be healthy for Republican primary voters.
FOWLER: But, hold on a second, Marc, because I think there's an interesting point happening. If you go to Florida, right, where Ron DeSantis is the governor, he is putting issues first and he's divided the state pretty clearly. He said he wants to ban book, he said he wants to take on Disney World.
BREAM: Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, there's a lot more nuance to what you're saying.
FOWLER: Sure. WE could -
BREAM: I mean, come on, he just won by 20 points down there. I don't know how divided Florida feels.
FOWLER: Yes, no, fair enough, but I think if you talk to Democratic voters in Florida, they will say that Ron DeSantis stands on the opposite side of everything they care about, which galvanizes them to engage in the primary debate, galvanizes them to engage in the conversation and creates a world in which Republicans are -- if Ron DeSantis is the nominee, how do you win back independents when they seem to be siding with Democrats on many of these issues?
ZAKHEIM: But to back up what Marc was saying a moment ago, it's about Republicans focusing on issues. The question in the polling was about the primary. And for Republicans in 2024 to focus on issues is progress compared to where they've been in the previous election cycle. That's -
FOWLER: But if the issues are being the most anti-woke, I mean, which is not really an issue because they don't know what anti-woke means, then I think the Republicans have a problem.
ZAKHEIM: Well, there's a suite of issues here. Marc outlined a bunch. China would add -- at the top of the list when it comes to foreign policy and national security. It's good for Republicans to be exploring issues as opposed to personalities.
BREAM: And that is a good place to put a pin in it because we're going to talk about China.
Panel, stay with us for a quick break. Issues about China's threat over the Taiwanese president's trip to the U.S. We'll discuss that and more, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's your message to Russia right now as they're detaining this -
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To who?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To Russia as they're detaining this "Wall Street Journal" reporter?
Biden: Let him go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BREAM: President Biden after Russia arrested an American "Wall Street Journal" reporter on spying charges. "The Journal" denies those allegations.
We are back now with the panel.
Susan, would you - is that the right tone or would you have expected something more forceful from the president?
PAGE: Well, let's see what he does. A real test for Biden and terrible news, not just for the United States, terrible news for the world when -- Evan is guilty of committing journalism. That should not be a crime. It should not land you in a Russian gulag.
Putin trying to get, I guess, leverage with the United States. We'll see how President Biden reacts to that.
Tough thing, you know, these situations are horrifically tough for - for leaders, but this is outrageous and it's a return to the kind of Cold War politics that we haven't seen since then, a seizing of journalists by Russia.
BREAM: Yes, back in the '80s.
"Wall Street Journal" editorial board, obviously, speaking out on behalf of their reporter, Evan Gershkovich, says this, thuggish leaders keep doing thuggish things if they think they will pay no price. The Biden administration will have to consider diplomatic and political escalation.
Roger, what could that look like?
ZAKHEIM: Well, it has to be more than a condemnation. It could involve sending reporters from Russia back to - who are in the United States back to Russia. It could also involve their ambassador being sent back to Moscow. But those are the sorts of things that have to happen to escalate, to respond in kind and the condemnation is not sufficient.
We have to recognize what's going on here. Vladimir Putin is feeling the pressure with respect to his war in Ukraine. Gershkovich - the last article that he wrote was speaking about how the Russian economy was tanking. This is the sort of thing that, you know, Putin does not want to see written about. He is censoring all media in Russia, now including foreign press.
BREAM: And, Richard, we were sitting here talking about, during the commercial, glad to get Brittney Greiner back, I mean that was another situation that felt completely leveraged and exploited by the Putin administration. But we gave up the merchant for death - merchant of death for her. What bargaining chips do we have now? I mean that was a pretty powerful get for the Russians.
FOWLER: Listen, I get that. I mean we know that the merchant was almost to the end of his term, but it's worth pointing out here that in Biden's getting Brittney Greiner back, what you have is a president that's willing to use all back channels to make sure that Americans come home safely. And I think, in this case, where you have a journalist over there, because we can all agree that journalism isn't a crime. It's actually part of chronicling history.
I think it's really important that the Biden administration use that same type of pressure. But if you're questioning whether the Biden administration is going to use pressure to bring him back, all you have to look to is how they brought Britney Greiner back and also the outrage from folks in American to insure the Biden administration did it.
BREAM: Marc, Paul Whalen, an American, is still there.
SHORT: Sure, an American who's still there. And all respect to Richard, I feel like - I applaud the Biden administration for their stand with the Ukrainian people. But the reality is, the Biden administration has been weak from day one. They've emboldened Russia. The started - the very first issue they did was to approve Nord Stream 2. I think that Vladimir Putin saw the surrender and withdrawal in Afghanistan. It emboldened them. And as you said, glad we got Brittney Greiner back, but to exchange for a known terrorist I think has only encouraged Putin to do this more.
And this is not something that's unique to - to him. It's what despites do across the globe is to jail journalists. We need to have a much stronger reaction. We should be taking out all diplomats from Russia today. We should be sending their ambassador back today. It shouldn't be waiting.
BREAM: WE have some polling on this too on how the president has dealt with different threats and different adversaries. In every column you will see here, with China, with Russia, with North Korea, with Iran, he is in a double digit deficit that he's been too accommodating with these. And now, Roger, we have this issue with China threatening retaliation for Taiwan's president who is transiting through the U.S., meeting with key leaders here. He's met with the top House Democrat. He'll meet with the speaker in the coming week. But they're threatening us over that.
ZAKHEIM: Well, we have to understand what's happening here. This is China changing their policy. They have ratcheted up, increasing their aggression. And, you're right, I think everybody's expecting, after the meeting between president Tsai of Taiwan, and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy this week, we'll see additional aggression and intimidation from the Chinese against Taiwan this week.
But the United States has to be clear here. And this is what the polling needs - you know, indicates, is that we have to demonstrate to the Chinese that it won't be tolerated, they can't intimidate us and that when China threatens Taiwan, the United States policy, since President Reagan was in office, was to support Taiwan and to give them security in the forms of security assistance. That has to be ratcheted up. Can't be the sort of thing we're seeing in Ukraine where it's a slow drip.
BREAM: Want to bring this back domestic here because the week, of course, started off with the tragic shooting. Six innocent lives taken, the shooter killed as well, in Nashville at a Christian school. And immediately in Washington the talk always becomes what more could we do to protect these kids and talk of gun control. "The Washington Examiner" has this. Senator John Cornyn, one of the key Republicans who negotiated the package that actually passed last summer, rejected the call to ban assault-style weapons, saying some people like to use them for hunting or self-defense. Quote, they have a constitutional right to do so.
There seems to be this obsession with the gun and not with the actual person pulling the trigger.
Susan, does anything move here in Washington legislatively?
PAGE: I think to the astonishment of a lot of Americans, there is no possibility of gun measures passing Congress any time soon.
But one thing that was notable, earlier in March, before this last horrible shooting, President Biden issued an executive order expanding background checks. In your poll, more than seven out of ten Americans supported that executive order on - and that included a lot of Americans who do not support Biden on almost anything else. That should be a message to politicians everywhere.
BREAM: And, quickly, Marc, to the point of focusing on a lot of things but not everything with respect to the shooter, the person who makes the decision to take these lives.
SHORT: Well, Shannon, I think, as a society, if we tell little girls they can be little boys and little boys they can be little girls, we shouldn't be shocked when there's a mental disorder problem. So, I think there should be focus. It's much broader than a gun control issue.
BREAM: Richard, really quickly. I've got to go.
FOWLER: Listen, I think gun control is far bigger than just what's happening in school shootings. In cities across the country, as we have this conversation about crime, these mayors are dealing with illegal guns on their streets. So, Congress should do something because mayors are hamstrung.
BREAM: There are a lot of laws out there on the books, so, let's see.
Thank you, panel. We'll see you next Sunday.
Up next, a preview of my just replaced podcast on possibly one of the most misunderstood marriages of all time.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BREAM: A quick note, my podcast, "Livin' the Bream," drops this morning. This week TV personality, actress, author Megan Alexander joins me to talk about one of the Bible's most well-known maybe least understood marriages, Queen Esther and King Xerxes. Just one of the stories in my new book, "The Love Stories of the Bible Speak," out this week.
That's it for today. Have a great week. We will see you right back here for next FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2023 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2023 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
