'Fox News Sunday' on July 9, 2023

close

Video

America cannot ‘shoulder the burden’ of military aid for Ukraine alone: Sen. John Barrasso

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., joined ‘Fox News Sunday’ to discuss Secretary Yellen’s trip to China and Ukraine President Zelenskyy’s ongoing push for NATO membership.

This is a rush transcript of ‘Fox News Sunday’ on July 9, 2023. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I'm Shannon Bream.

President Biden heads to Europe to visit with key allies as the Ukraine War marks more than 500 days.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States fully -- fully, fully supports Sweden's membership in NATO.

BREAM (voice-over): The president gears up pressure to secure Sweden's NATO membership as Western leaders get ready to meet. The summit coming at a point of rising tensions in the region as the White House reportedly plans to move forward with giving Ukraine controversial weapons.

We'll sit down with two key members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican John Barrasso and Democrat Tim Kaine.

Then, President Biden takes his economic message to the home state of two of his 2024 rivals.

BIDEN: Starting here in South Carolina, talk about progress in building the economy from the middle out and the bottom up, not trickling down.

NIKKI HALEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's nothing good about Bidenomics.

SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We can do better by trusting the American people with their own money.

BREAM: Today, we'll ask former New Jersey governor and presidential hopeful, Chris Christie, about his plans for the economy and whether he can break out of the pack.

Plus --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's more than stopping collusion, it's also about stopping coercion.

BREAM: A federal judge blocks a number of Biden officials and agencies from coordinating with big tech social media.

We'll ask our Sunday panel how the July 4th ruling has sparked the debate over what qualifies as free speech, censorship or misinformation.

All, right now, on "FOX News Sunday".

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BREAM (on camera): Hello from "FOX News Sunday" in Washington.

President Biden departs for Europe this hour as he readies for a pivotal overseas trip centered around meeting with NATO leaders. The main focus for the U.S.: next steps in Ukraine, and pressing to expand the alliance to include Sweden whose membership has been blocked by Turkey and Hungary.

In a moment, we'll hear from two voices on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Wyoming's John Barrasso and Tim Kaine of Virginia.

But, first, let's turn to Jacqui Heinrich live in London ahead of the president's high stakes meetings.

Hello, Jacqui.

JACQUI HEINRICH, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Shannon.

President Biden's three-nation trip begins in the U.K., but the center piece of this visit is the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. The president's decision to supply Ukraine with cluster bombs, weapons banned in more than 120 countries, expected to feature prominently in the meetings.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BIDEN: It took me a while to be convinced to do it.

HEINRICH (voice-over): Russia's use of cluster bombs in Ukrainian soil since the beginning of the invasion, a key factor in President Biden's decision to ultimately supply them to Ukraine.

But the Russian foreign ministry was quick to seize on the White House position from last year.

There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians. If that's true, what is next step of this administration?

JEN PSAKI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We have seen the reports. If that were true, it would potentially be a war crime.

HEINRICH: The weapons are considered risky because of their potential to leave unexploded bomblets behind that could cause future harm. But officials say the U.S. supply is less likely to do that than Russia's.

JAKE SULLIVAN, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: That area is going to have to be demined regardless. These are their citizens they're protecting.

HEINRICH: Nevertheless, some NATO allies quickly oppose the move, including Canada, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. Biden expected to make the case to the U.K. prime minister in London and again at the NATO summit, Ukraine cannot be left defenseless.

BIDEN: I think they needed them.

HEINRICH: Also on the president's agenda, working to convince Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan to approve Sweden joining NATO

SULLIVAN: I think you can expect that President Biden and President Erdogan will talk in Vilnius.

HEINRICH: NATO leaders also expected to discuss what steps Ukraine would have to take to join.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HEINRICH (on camera): President Biden's trip comes days after his Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen arrived in Beijing to try to simmer U.S.-China tensions. Tomorrow, the president meets with King Charles for first time since the English monarch was crowned -- Shannon.

BREAM: Jacqui Heinrich live in London, Jacqui, thank you.

Joining us now from Wyoming, Republican Senator John Barrasso, member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Great to be with you, Shannon. Thank you.

BREAM: OK. So, let's start with Secretary Yellen's visit to China. She says there are still significant disagreements between the two countries, but she also adds this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANET YELLEN, TREASURY SECRETARY: President Biden and I do not see the relationship between the U.S. and China through the frame of great power conflict. We believe that the world is big enough for both of our countries to thrive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: So, given that the U.S. and China see the world very differently, they have different ambitions, they have competing interests, do you agree it's possible for both countries to thrive, as she said?

BARRASSO: Joe Biden is playing right into the hands of communist China. Never again can we allow ourselves as a nation to be dependent upon them for anything. And to see Secretary Yellen there bowing down repeatedly in China, it's embarrassing and it's emblematic of this administration.

You know, just a couple of days before she got there, they choked off supply of key minerals that we need for semiconductors, for solar panels. These people are the people that are stealing our trade secrets. They're buying up our farmlands. They're killing our citizens with fentanyl.

This foreign policy is a national security disaster. You know, we ought to be less dependent, we need to be diversifying our supply chain. Instead, the president is making it worse. He's shutting off mining for critical minerals in the United States, while forcing people to buy expensive electric cars.

He's making us poorer. He's making China richer, and it's going to get worse next week when we sends John Kerry to China to continue this surrender.

BREAM: But the fact is, I mean, our economies are interwoven. American businesses have enormous interest there in China. So, how do we coexist?

You know, we see these Biden officials going saying they're trying to reopen communication, that it's important for things like avoiding military misstep. But American interests are very much tied up in China as well on many fronts.

BARRASSO: Well, they most certainly are. China is watching closely what we do on all fronts, but specifically in Ukraine, because as we know, China and Putin said that there are no limits to their friendship and they both view the president as weak and indecisive.

China, as you talk about militarily, they are gearing up significantly. They're looking at Taiwan. I think Taiwan needs the weapons and the technology to be able to porcupine themselves.

This is a time for the United States to be showing strength, not this slow surrender that I see from this administration.

BREAM: So, let's talk about Ukraine. This week, the president is headed to NATO. They're going to talk about inclusion of Sweden potentially joining that alliance, but also there are conversations about NATO welcoming Ukraine at some point.

A couple of foreign analysts writing over at "Foreign Affairs" under this headline: Don't let Ukraine join NATO said this: If Ukraine were in NATO, the U.S. would be pushed to come to Ukraine's defense by deploying troops and even threatening to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine's behalf. American policymakers may hope to deter future Russian aggression Ukraine by creating a path for Kyiv into NATO, but doing so creates real possibility of drawing the United States into what Biden has called a World War III scenario.

So, how does the U.S. -- how does NATO balance those very real concerns?

BARRASSO: Well, first and foremost, this is what the president needs to do with NATO. He needs to hold their feet to the fire.

Five hundred days into the war, of all the money that's been contributed, the United States has doubled what all other NATO countries have done combined. Of the 30 NATO nations, only seven of them are actually meeting their commitment to a 2 percent of their gross national product and that number has dropped since Joe Biden has come to office.

I think it's very important for the president to point out all those countries are a lot closer geographically to Putin, therefore much more vulnerable to him. Putin is not going to stop until he is stopped. And the president needs to say that loud and clear at NATO this week.

BREAM: So, President Biden has said that Putin's calculation was when this attack on Ukraine happened, it could potentially splinter different allies and NATO, but that NATO is stronger and more unified than it has been in a very long time.

Do you give President Biden any credit for keeping that coalition together, for being the leadership voice?

BARRASSO: Well, I think it's important that NATO stay together and that we act in unity, and I think NATO has to be held accountable and do more. We cannot shoulder this burden alone, nor should we.

There's lots of support in Congress for Ukraine, and it's for technology, it's for weapons, it's for information, it's not for troops. The best thing we can do now is to step up.

And I see the president doing that with the cluster bombs. I support those. This should have happened long ago. Russia has been using those for a long time.

It just does seem to me, Shannon, that there's much delay in the activity of this administration in ultimately getting to Ukraine what they need, but it's taking too long. You know, the president has this misguided fear that any time we send anything to them, it's going to just add to escalation in ways that Putin will then attack more.

"The Economist" magazine this week reported in the last year, the Russians and Putin fired 10 million -- 10 million, I mean, just astonishing number, of shells into Ukraine and by so many of delays we've had in this administration, I think it's just prolonged the war and added to increased death.

BREAM: Do you think Ukraine should be invited to join NATO at some point?

BARRASSO: You know, every time I visit with President Zelenskyy, he brings up this issue. I think he may want to come out and should come out of this meeting seeing a pathway to joining NATO, what steps they need to take only after this conflict with Russia is over.

BREAM: I want to ask you quickly about the cluster munitions, very controversial, a number of our allies have come out and said that they ban these weapons. They don't think that we need to be supplying them, the U.S., to Ukraine.

Congress has had language in the defense appropriation saying that we can't send out these cluster munitions that have a dud rate higher than 1 percent, meaning some of these bombs, some of the ordnance does not explode but it's out there, and somebody could happen upon it later and it could be tragic, it could be deadly for years to come.

The White Houses says that they're going to go around, essentially using the Foreign Assistance Act. It's going to go beyond what Congress has said is that 1 percent limit.

It is usurping your power as a lawmaker and the standard you've set for these weapons?

BARRASSO: I voted against that bill back, I think, it was in 2009. I support the use of these weapons. Russia has been using them all along. I think this fills a gap that the folks need in Ukraine in their battle. I wish they would have had them sooner.

But, you know, right now, Shannon, the Congress, the House and Senate are debating the National Defense Authorization Act and they may -- that discussion will probably be part of those debates as we come to votes in Congress again.

BREAM: All right. Senator Barrasso, always good to see you. Thank you for your time.

BARRASSO: Thank you.

BREAM: Right now, we talk to the other side of the aisle, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia.

Welcome back to "FOX News Sunday," Senator.

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Great to be with you, Shannon. Thanks.

BREAM: All right. I want to start in the same place we did with Senator Barrasso, with Secretary Yellen. She's coming back and while she was in China and there to ease tension, they fired up aircraft and warships in the Taiwan Strait.

This comes on the visit by Secretary Blinken that a lot of people think there haven't been any deliverables from these other than us getting lectured by the Chinese communist government.

Here's what former Secretary Mike Pompeo said a couple of days ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: They'll continue to steal our stuff, our intellectual property and they'll continue to conduct espionage operations like the balloon all across America. These are things that I think the administration should take much more seriously, and sending emissaries to bow down to the Chinese communist party in the way that appears that we are to gain almost nothing seems like a big foreign policy mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: All right. Skeptics say China is lecturing us privately. They are embarrassing us publicly. We aren't getting anything from these meetings. Our latest FOX News poll shows that 57 percent of Americans disapprove of how this president is handling foreign policy.

What are we getting from this relationship with China? How would you manage it differently, if you would?

KAINE: Well, Shannon, you know, I'm not sure we're getting a lot, but you have to communicate. The two most powerful nations in the world have to communicate to avoid unnecessary escalation and risk. Nobody in the United States wants to see an unnecessary military skirmish with China, and that's why communication is so important.

Communication doesn't guarantee a positive outcome, but the absence of communication does.

But here's what we're doing, even if China isn't giving -- we're building a stronger Taiwan, helping it defend itself to unprecedented levels. We are forging a partnership with Australia and the U.K. in the Indo-Pacific region to provide more democracy -- support for democracies in the region.

I'm going to be in Norfolk at the Naval base this week with officials from those nations to talk about what we can do to strengthen our combined defense in the region.

And what we've shown with NATO is that our alliance is second to none. We are strengthening alliances and that's very obvious to the Chinese that are very worried about it, and we're strengthening Taiwan. And that's what we need to do.

BREAM: Yeah. You mentioned NATO. Obviously, the president is headed there.

This issue of Sweden's admission has been held up. I mean, frankly, Turkey and Hungary and a couple of your Senate counterparts are blocking various arm sales to them.

KAINE: Yeah.

BREAM: You weighed on that, saying, too, you think Sweden should be admitted.

How far should the U.S. go in getting tough with Turkey, with Hungary? Why is it important for you that Sweden is admitted?

KAINE: Well, we need to do this and, Shannon, remember Secretary Esper, President Trump's final secretary of defense, in a book said that President Trump's plan was to pull out of NATO if he got a second term and he's running for president, and that would still be a live threat.

But look what's happened with NATO since the war in Ukraine began. It has strengthened. It has shown that it can work together and has surprised Vladimir Putin. It's grown. Finland is in NATO, and President Biden will be there to celebrate their accession.

I believe Sweden is going to be in very soon. The, you know, the -- it's -- it's hard to predict Erdogan's behavior. I viewed some of his opposition to Sweden as pre presidential election, campaign style opposition. But I'm really glad that President Biden will have the chance to go directly to him at this NATO Summit, and to encourage quick access to Sweden. And Turkey has taken some positive steps recently. They've returned some prisoners to Ukraine that made the Kremlin very, very mad. They've shown that they want to help in this situation in Ukraine. And I think you're going to see a positive decision on Sweden soon.

BREAM: I'm going to ask you, too, about this decision about whether Ukraine should be admitted to NATO a little bit more from that foreign policy piece I read earlier. They say admitting Ukraine to NATO would raise the prospect of a grim choice between a war with Russia and the devastating consequences involved or backing down and devaluing NATO security guarantee across the entire alliance. Is it in the -- in the U.S. interest? Is it in NATO's interest to admit Ukraine?

KAINE: Well, I kind of agree with my colleagues, Senator Barrasso on this. The focus right now should be helping Ukraine win this war, that should be the focus. And we needn't complicated with other matters. You know, Russia's narrative is the West hates us. That's what they're trying to tell their citizens to lie and cover up the fact that they've engaged in this illegal invasion of a -- of a sovereign nation. And Ukraine coming into NATO right now with sort of further the false Russian narrative. This is a war to protect Ukrainian sovereignty against an illegal invasion, committed by a dictator who's committing one human rights abuse after the next. Let's focus on helping Ukraine win this war. And then we can talk about matters like NATO accession and other important matters about Ukrainian alliances with Western democracies.

BREAM: The President has said part of helping them now is going to be sending these cluster munitions that you have seen the backlash, a lot of folks out there not happy about this, including many of our allies. A couple of your Senate colleagues, one former one current, both Democrats write about this, they think it's a terrible idea. They say sending cluster munitions to Ukraine would not only reverse decades of U.S. policy and practice, it would also kill more civilians and exacerbate the very problem we're seeking to address when we provide millions of dollars for ordinance clearance, talking about those duds that are left later that may later activate. Where are you on this? Because a lot of our allies, including two-thirds of NATO don't want us to do this.

KAINE: Yeah, and Shannon, look, I share -- I share this concern. There is an international convention against use of these cluster munitions that dates back to 2008. And the reason the prohibition was put in place, as you have described is that these are kinds of munitions, that can lead to some downstream risks to civilians.

Now, let's -- let's acknowledge we wouldn't even be here, if it weren't for the fact that Russia is indiscriminately using cluster munitions to target Ukrainian civilians. That's obviously not what Ukraine is going to do. They're not going to use these munitions against Russians -- Russian civilians. And rather than maximizing harm to Ukrainian civilians, they've given us a variety of assurances that they're going to do this in a way that will focus on Russian military, but minimize risk to their own people.

I would still say, though, I have some real qualms about it, when there's an international prohibition, and the U.S. says, but here's a good reason to do something different. It could give a green light to other nations to do something different as well. So it causes me some concern. But I do appreciate that the Biden administration has really grappled with the risks and reached agreements with Ukrainian military about using these munitions in a way to dislodge Russian military while minimizing risks of Ukrainian civilians.

BREAM: Few points of agreement between you and your Republican counterpart this morning on Fox News Sunday. So Senator, thank you for coming for the conversation.

KAINE: Glad to be with you, Shannon.

BREAM: So a federal judge cracks down on the link between the Biden administration and big tech, comparing the U.S. government to the Orwellian Ministry of Truth, the Justice Department is bowing an appeal. So up next, we'll ask our Sunday panel what happens when one person's free speech runs up against another person's of idea of misinformation?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Our view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take action or to take account of the effects of their platforms are having to the American people.

ANDREW BAILEY, (R) MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's a scary world when bureaucrats and Washington D.C. decide what is and isn't true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Both the White House and the Attorney General of Missouri reacting after a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies. They move in response to a lawsuit by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general, claiming the government overstepped its power and limited free speech primarily during COVID. Now, the Justice Department says it will appeal.

Time to talk about it with our Sunday group. Emily Compagno, co-hosts of Outnumbered on Fox News Channel. The Federalist Editor in Chief Mollie Hemingway, Fox News, Senior Political Analyst Juan Williams, and Josh Kraushaar, Editor-in-Chief of Jewish Insider. Welcome everybody.

OK, so let's start there. Here's the Washington Post reporting on Judge Doughty's decision, saying this, the opinion says the division between government power and corporate power effectively collapsed when the government, "has so involved itself in the private parties conduct be writes, 'it cannot claim the conduct occurred as a result of private choice." Emily, you're my fellow attorney on the panel here today. What do you make of this decision?

EMILY COMPAGNO, OUTNUMBERED CO-HOST: That's right. You know, the -- the government has now on appeal said that the injunction posed a grave danger. But the point and you raise it there is that the judge in application of the last soundly knew that the grave danger was that extinguishment of the First Amendment and that blurred line between government and social media companies. And in that injunction, the judge said, look, this was frankly a coercion. This was a self-described partnership between the government and the social media companies to the detriment of censorship of Americans. And note as well that in the injunction to the potential of actually extinguishing the First Amendment rights of some government officials in their private conduct, that was still worth it for him to issue this 155- page decision that was quite unprecedented in that way.

Keep in mind, too, of how this has shaped. So we have those on the left saying, well, if there's a Republican President, that he might commandeer then private companies for conservative policies. But of course, conservative policies are protecting free speech and limiting government intervention, then that should be a win for all Americans, because it seems pretty clear based on this decision, and then based on the arguments that according at least to the liberal left, free speech only matters if it's parody in certain approved talking points.

BREAM: And that's been the whole concern, Josh, with -- with this tackling by the two state attorneys general on this saying that there was some collusion there just, you know, silence people who the -- the U.S. government did not want their viewpoints to be out there primarily on COVID. With this judge, I mean, it's a temporary decision. So we'll see where it goes and finality but I mean, he has very strong language, like we said, referring to the government at points is the Orwellian Ministry of Truth.

JOSH KRAUSHAAR, JEWISH INSIDER EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: So it's clear there were many, many abuses between government and the private sector in the social media companies in terms of limiting speech, in terms of saying things about COVID or like fear over election misinformation that really led to abuses that we all know about. I think there's a worry, though, that this ruling is too wide ranging and could actually as Emily just said, could limit the free speech rights of government employees. And look, there are a lot of essential elements where you need these public-private partnerships with hate speech online, election -- there is attempts from bad actors internationally to disrupt our election and create chaos on social media. So I think there is a need for some of this private-public partnerships. It's a question of where that line is drawn?

BREAM: And so, Emily, you referenced this, there's been a motion filed by the Justice Department to block this injunction while this case is proceeding, they say that it could be read to prevent the government from engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct, including speaking on matters of public concern, and working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people in our democratic processes. How do you think this shakes out?

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, THE FEDERALIST EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Well, actually the ruling itself specifically said that this doesn't affect government involvement when it comes to law breaking. And so you've heard people kind of shade that detail. But that's an important distinction.

But the First Amendment actually protects Americans rights to expression and to seek the truth, it doesn't protect the government, in fact, restrains the government to ensure that all Americans are free to discuss whatever it is they want to. And it is shocking the breadth of information that was controlled by the government working in collusion with these big tech companies, not just COVID. And the response to the same and elections, but pretty much anything that different from in this case, the Biden agenda, or the Biden -- Biden policies.

And we also have to remember that the biggest agent of disinformation recently has been unfortunately, the U.S. government, whether it was an officials within the U.S. government saying things like the Biden family business, any discussion of that was Russian disinformation, that itself was disinformation, and that itself affected our election integrity. And so I think this is an important ruling that -- to watch.

BREAM: So, Juan, shouldn't people across the political spectrum be happy that the government can't limit speech? Because what if it's a Conservative government that's calling the shots?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I just think this was a bad decision. I got to tell you, I kind of stand apart from my colleagues this morning, because we know that foreign governments, Josh touched on this, are pushing misinformation, disinformation, in order to attack American democracy, our ability of citizens to be informed about what's going on, they want to create political, social instability in our country. They want to divide us racially in this country. We know this, the FBI, the CIA, the Mueller report, there's a -- and the threat is growing. This week, we had a candidate running for president using artificial intelligence, Shannon, to create an I guess, what do you -- what would you call it, you know, an image of himself to raise donations in the like.

So to me, it's no threat to freedom of speech. It's no threat to social medias ability to moderate its forums. It's no threat to freedom of debate, for government to warn these social media platforms, not tell them not mandate them, but warn them that the wider group in Russia is pushing a new wave of disinformation.

BREAM: You can have a regulatory advantage over these entities that know the government can make life very difficult for them. How much is it a suggestion or a conversation or an implication, you need to listen to what we're saying? And you know what I mean, wink-wink.

WILLIAMS: Well, they can wink-wink if the government violates that and then threatens them and uses extreme power in an abusive way. The social media companies are big boys. They're the biggest company in America. They can go and say, hey, these guys are up to bail. But right now, in terms of both what Mollie talked about crime and what Josh talked about foreign government interference, there's a threat to us.

BREAM: Well, and as you said, Mollie, the opinion does talk about that. And again, it's temporary in order so we'll see where the case goes. But another headache aside from this ruling this week, our continued conversations and stories about Hunter Biden. And NBC News reports this, President doesn't want to hear about it. President Joe Biden has made it clear to his closest aides in no uncertain terms, that he not only will reject any political advice that he tried to limit his son Hunter's public visibility, but that he also doesn't want to hear such suggestions. The message one of the sources said was hands off my family. Josh, I mean, he'd says if I'm going to have that state dinners or on the balcony, he's my son. That's what I'm going to do.

KRAUSHAAR: Well, if you can understand it from a personal perspective, but from a political perspective, having Hunter Biden at the state dinner with the Indian leader, having him in April, on his trip to Ireland, he's become almost a regular feature of this White House. And I don't think it's going to help this President politically as he prepares for re-election, as investigations ramp up on Hunter Biden's conduct. He's going to be a political headache that keeps on giving problems to the Biden administration.

BREAM: And I do think people are empathetic and expect that a son would always be defended by his father. I mean, that makes sense to a lot of us but National Review says this on this idea that the President doesn't want to hear about keeping Hunter kind of behind the scenes. He says, the instinctive sympathy that many people have for drug addicts should not be used as a shield to deflect from the legitimate concerns that Hunter Biden was selling his family's name to any foreign entity willing to pay. Those are the obligations. But again Emily, how do we have this conversation while also being empathetic?

COMPAGNO: That's right, I mean, Reuters poll reflects that 50% of Americans think Hunter has received preferential treatment from the Department of Justice, probably the other 50% just hasn't listened to the whistleblower testimony. And that additional flaunting, for example, you mentioned the state dinner with the Attorney General presents, that's sort of hard to stomach. You add that into the Irish to the professional, official trip to Ireland, when the President defends it as simply being an unconditionally loving father. That's first of all sort of at odds with his teams and his legal team suggestions with the Democratic Party suggestions and advice and strategy on him running again for president. And the notion that he continues to deny the existence of his seventh grandchild, it really sort of, I think rings hollow. And then the recent surge of accompaniment with Hunter, with the President, it adds an additional distaste because it wasn't steady this entire time. And because it really flies in the face again of the perceived at least objectivity of the -- of the office.

BREAM: Yeah, we'll talk about that whistleblower and that Hunter Biden case a little bit with my next guest. So take a break, panel don't go far.

Up next, former New Jersey Governor and GOP Presidential Candidate Chris Christie joins us to talk about his plan to earn a spot on the debate stage. And as former U.S. Attorney, what he thinks of how the Hunter Biden investigation is being handled?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BREAM: To the campaign trail now where former President Trump remains the clear front runner among the Republican field. Half of the dozen contenders for the GOP nomination are either current or former governors, including our next guest, one of the most vocal critics of the former president. Joining me now, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Governor, welcome back to Fox News Sunday.

CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks for having me, Shannon.

BREAM: All right. We're going to start with a reality check. Our latest Fox News poll has you at 1%. New York Magazine Intelligencer has this headline, Chris Christie is Running. What is he even thinking? They say, there is, to put it mildly, a thunderous lack of demand for a Christie bid among Republican voters. And a much-discussed CBS' YouGov survey in early May, an incredible 70% of Republicans said they would not even consider voting for Christie, by far the worst showing in the field.

So, are you in this simply as a spoiler for President Trump? Or what is your path forward? Because, you know, people who support you say, hey, even if that's what you're doing, they think it's a laudable goal. But what's the plan?

CHRISTIE: Now, Shannon, we're in this to win. And, by the way, we'll have some announcements this week that are going to show people that the Intelligencer is wrong, that there is a broad and wide demand for our candidacy. And, quite frankly, what the demand is for, it's for the truth. The people in the Republican Party, and quite broadly across America, are tired of having political candidates who are snake oil salesmen who just don't tell them the truth, who tell them whatever they think they want to hear at the moment, and then don't fulfill any of those promises. They've lived that in the Republican primary. I was there in 2016, when Donald Trump said he was going to repeal and replace Obamacare and failed to do it. When he said he was going to build a big, beautiful wall across the entire border of Mexico. And then Mexico was going to pay for it. We've got a quarter of a wall, and not one peso for Mexico. When he said he was going to balance the budget in four years, and added $6 trillion to the national debt.

And now yesterday in Iowa, telling people that he would solve the war between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours. The only way he could do that is do what he normally does, which is bend down to Vladimir Putin and get him whatever he wants. So there's a long way to go in this campaign. And by the way, Shannon, when you talk about polls, at this time in 2015, Donald Trump was at 4%. So I don't think anybody should be worried about the polling right now. And some of our announcements this week will lead people to believe that there's a lot of support for this candidacy.

BREAM: OK. You've said that President Trump, "doesn't give a damn about the American people." Millions of them think he is the only guy out there fighting for them. That is their perception. Tens of thousands of them show up at each of his campaign stops. So do you really think you could convince those folks otherwise?

CHRISTIE: Well, first of all, tens of thousands don't show up anymore. That's another one of the real big lies that happened.

BREAM: But we did have pick in -- let's -- just for a second, pick in South Carolina just a week or so ago, it's a town of maybe 3500 people and local estimates their authorities, their officials, police and stuff there, they said 50,000 people potentially.

CHRISTIE: Well, that was -- look we have to do is look at the pictures and realize, Shannon, that 50,000 absurd is absurd. But I'm not going to get into an argument about that. Here's why he doesn't care about the American people. He droned on for an hour and a half yesterday in Iowa. He lied about the farm deal with the Chinese. They haven't even complied with a quarter of what they agreed to Donald Trump to do in terms of buying soybeans and other things from the farmers in Iowa. And he spent the rest of the time talking about his own indictment. This is not somebody who's fighting for the American people and their future. This is all about his ego.

What he cares about the most is trying to undo the loss he had to Joe Biden in 2020. But since he's a three-time loser, having lost in 2018, the House of Representatives, lost the White House and the Senate in 2020 and in 2022. He winds up losing two more governorships another seat in the Senate, and we barely won the House by five votes, when in fact, you know, you had a president whose popularity was it, 35%. So he's in this for himself and himself only. And not in for the American people. And over the course of time, Republican primary voters are going to see that too. If we want to lose to Joe Biden, again, and have an 82-year-old Joe Biden in the White House, then let's nominate Donald Trump.

BREAM: All right, you are one of the few willing to talk about entitlement reform about potential changes to programs like Social Security. How do you do that against headlines like this? Current Affairs says, Why The Right Hates Social Security and How They Plan to Destroy It. What's your plan? And how do you sell it to people?

CHRISTIE: Well, you sell it to people because in 2034, Shannon, if nothing is done, then there will be an automatic by law 24% cut is Social Security benefits. So I want every Social Security recipient out there right now who intends to still be receiving those benefits going forward to see what a 24% cut in their benefits would mean.

We need to look at all the different options to try to fix Social Security. We don't need to look at raising taxes. We've got plenty in taxes right now in this country. But we need to look at things like, do the extraordinarily wealthy need to collect Social Security? Do we really need to have Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk collecting Social Security and others that are very, very wealthy.

And also, when you look at -- you look at the age of retirement, you don't want to change that for people who are now in their 50s or 60s. That would be unfair, they wouldn't have time to plan. But I say this, I have a son, who will be 30 years old this fall, if we change the Social Security age for somebody like him, and he can't figure out how to plan for that over the course of the next 35 years, he's got bigger problems than worrying about what his Social Security benefits are going to be. We need to be real about this, Shannon. And I don't hate Social Security. I love Social Security. And that's why I don't want to see a 24% cut in benefits because we were too timid and too afraid. And this is another place where Donald Trump says he will do nothing to change it. Well, he won't care because even if he ran again, he'd be out of the White House before this cut happened. And he would be able to say that it was somebody else's fault. I want to take on the big problems in this country and solve them for the American people.

BREAM: OK, let's talk because of your background as a U.S. Attorney. I'm really curious about what you think about this Hunter Biden investigation, U.S. Attorney David Weiss. We have a whistleblower, Gary Shapley, who quotes from the meeting that he and others attended with Weiss, so there are other people there in October 2022. He said Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. Now, both Weiss and the Attorney General have said he's got the authority to do whatever he wants. Should Weiss testify? Should he explain, where do you think there is daylight or truth in this conversation?

CHRISTIE: Well, listen, U.S. Attorney Weiss has to explain himself, and he has to explain himself in public. You know, the fact is that this investigation, the Hunter Biden in Delaware is either a lie or it's incompetent. There's no way that it could take five years to get to a two- count misdemeanor tax plea. And then to dismiss the gun charges. You know, those gun charges carry up to a 10-year sentence to lie on the application. Democrats are complying -- crying and complaining all the time about wanting more gun laws, yet they won't even enforce the gun laws that exist. And the Hunter Biden shouldn't have been charged under those gun laws.

Add to that, that you have to count misdemeanor tax plea that should not have taken all the time that it did. So either David Weiss is incompetent and taking five years to do that, or he's not telling the truth. And Merrick Garland is not telling the truth. Either way, there's a lot more work to be done on this case. And these are the kinds of things that given my background as a U.S. Attorney, I'm the only one in this race, who will be able to fix the Department of Justice in a way where they don't proceed any longer without -- what they have to do with fear, no fear, no favor, no partisanship. And that's the way those decisions need to be made.

BREAM: But Governor --

CHRISTIE: That's what I did it when I was U.S. attorney and it's not being done now.

BREAM: Part of your plan, though, is to keep the FBI Director Christopher Wray, which most of the folks in your field say they're -- they're firing him on day one. He's going to testify this week before the House Judiciary Committee. What does he need to say about whistleblowers, how they're being treated in this case, and real problems at the FBI as uncovered in the Durham report?

CHRISTIE: Well, look, all those problems happen, Shannon, during the Jim Comey era. And Christopher Wray has come in and fired every person that was in the Comey leadership team, in the FBI. These whistleblowers have come out because the atmosphere has allowed it to happen now, not during the Comey era, not during the Loretta Lynch era when she was attorney general. And they weren't charging Hillary Clinton, which is what they should have done. You know, the fact is that these other folks in the race, they just are looking for a scapegoat. They want to blame anybody. Well, I will tell them who to blame, blame Joe Biden, and Merrick Garland, who have not provided the type of leadership in the country or at the Justice Department that you need.

Look, Shannon, people should go to Chrischristie.com. They should look at what we have to say and to donate to the campaign. And we'll have these debates right on the stage.

BREAM: All right. So Governor, it sounds like maybe the FBI Director gets to stay but not the Attorney General. Governor, we'll see out there on the campaign trail. Thank you.

CHRISTIE: Thank you. Thank you, Shannon.

BREAM: All right. Fox News Channel host the very first '24 Republican Primary Debate just six weeks from now in Milwaukee. Bret Baier, Martha McCallum are going to moderate. Candidates take the stage 9 p.m. Eastern.

Up next, the panel is back for look at our South Carolina's taking center stage for '24 with two very different visits by President Biden and former President Trump. What does it say about a potential rematch between these rivals?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think, of any Republican in the country, I have the best record of defeating the left on issue after issue and we'll be making that case over the next six or seven months. I'm running to win in January and February, I'm not running to juice polling now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Republican presidential candidate, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis responding to questions about why he hasn't been able to close the polling gap with former president Trump. We are back now with our panel. And Mollie, he is up against headlines like this one from Newsweek. "DeSantis' campaign is deep trouble." DeSantis has failed to take advantage of Trump getting indicted and has not made traction in the GOP primary polls while also seeing favorability rating plummet. What do you make of it?

HEMINGWAY: It's interesting because a lot of people liked Ron DeSantis because they viewed him as sort of an heir to the Trump legacy. In 2016, Republican voters made a very bold and strong decision to move away from the old Republican Party and toward these new approaches, you know, caring about the border, caring about China, having foreign policy in the national interest. And they saw that DeSantis was in that mold, but maybe without some of the drama or problems that are associated with Trump.

His campaign seems to have been more a reversion to that old Republican Party that Republican voters are not as excited about. So, my advice would be, if he wants to hang in there and he is definitely the solid number two here, is to remember why people like him and really focus on taking on that old establishment D.C. and what Republican voters are trying to move away from.

BREAM: Yeah. So, in fundraising though, his team pointing to this massive number, their haul -- 'Never Back Down' is the PAC that's supporting him. They say this in Newsweek as well, the DeSantis campaign reported a massive $150 million haul between his campaign and his affiliated 'Never Back Down' PAC, far exceeding the $35 million reported by the Trump campaign earlier in the week. One, so far, it is not moving poll numbers in his direction, but they say that amount of money coming in shows that there is a real tailwind for him.

WILLIAMS: Well, some of that money is transferred from the gubernatorial campaign, so let's be clear about that. Look, I think though it is true that GOP establishment is very interested in Ron DeSantis, they want him to do well. So that is the donors, that's the conservative media. But it is hard to see Shannon, in terms of actual numbers, actual voters. We don't see it yet.

To me, I think back 2008, John McCain -- John McCain looked like he was sinking, but then he came back. Can Ron DeSantis come back? You think of Jeb Bush, you think of people like John Glenn, they never took off, they never launched, and everybody thought they were the front-runners.

DeSantis at the moment, I really was troubled this week by the ad he ran attacking Trump for saying positive things about gays and transsexual. I mean, do you think that someone who supports Donald Trump is going to actually change their vote because of this? It also makes DeSantis less attractive to main-stream voters who are looking for an alternative to Donald Trump because he seems like he is trying to be or mimic Donald Trump when Donald Trump is in the race. If you are looking for Donald Trump, he's right there.

BREAM: Well, Emily, the ad struck people -- a lot of people as odd. But there is this sense that many in the pool of candidates for the GOP are trying to run to the right of President Trump and these cultural issues, the DeSantis team will say he is much better equipped to speak to these. It's much natural -- more natural fit for him than it is for President Trump, that is their argument.

COMPAGNO: Right and I think oftentimes, especially with this particular issue, the devil is in the details. With the DeSantis campaign coming out and saying, look, this is a nuanced issue and this is exactly what we stand for, which is the government encroachment to be pushed back to recede, but to Juan's point, even the log cabin Republicans came out and said, "Look, we are absolutely for protecting biological women in sports and parental rights preserved in the public education system, et cetera." But this however goes too far.

Oftentimes, people say, well, polls don't matter but trends do. And interestingly, at the end of March, he was equal to DeSantis in terms of unfavorability and favorability. By the end of June, his unfavorability now is about 45 percent, favorability 39 percent. And while he is clearly the second choice, he is being trounced in those initial polls by Trump. But that $150 million in contrast, even if you take away the gubernatorial infusion and.

BREAM: Just about $82 million.

COMPAGNO: Right.

BREAM: $83 million.

COMPAGNO: The hotelier from Vegas, his donation of $20 million.

BREAM: Another $20 million.

COMPAGNO: There you go. That's still a $45 million being raised by his PAC, nothing to sneeze at and that still exceeds what the Trump campaign has reported. On the other side, you have Trump obviously having the senior senator in South Carolina and the governor and three congressmen, so it's really -- it seems like, on paper, dead even. But the initial GOP primary polls reflect a large gap. I think what it points to is that the GOP needs to, no matter what happens, be cohesive after whoever that primary runner is finally decided upon.

BREAM: Yeah, we'll see if they can. OK, so you mentioned South Carolina. Let's talk about this because a lot of attention there. Obviously, President Biden wants it to be the number one state for the primary. It was a turnaround, Josh, for him. It 2020, it was critical to him moving forward. So, both he and former president Trump have had these events.

This is how Politico describes President Trump being there, it says, he takes over a small city in a show of force, in front of a crowd. The local officials again estimate it may have reached 50,000. Trump barged to the home state turf of two of his primary opponents, Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott. You notice that we're talking very little about them and this is their home states. The president then quickly follows on after that, making his own visit there too.

KRAUSHAAR: Yeah, I mean, first of all, Trump is the elephant in the room. Ever since Ron DeSantis got into the race, he has only expanded his advantage. And South Carolina would actually be a state you have two very popular -- Senator Tim Scott and former Governor Nikki Haley, and neither of them have gotten traction in their home state. They have name ID, they have a profile, but it was Trump that got tens of thousands of people to his rally this past week.

So ,look, Trump is the clear favorite. I think one of the points that Emily made, electability, that was the DeSantis argument. That's the Nikki Haley, the Tim Scott argument. But when you look at DeSantis' favorability numbers and you look at the match-ups between him and Biden, he's not doing any better than Donald Trump against Joe Biden. So that takes another major point away from the DeSantis campaign.

Now South Carolina for Biden, it's also a big state because the DNC moved that state to the very front of the primary line. He is not going to win South Carolina in a general election, but it is a very important state. It was in 2020 when he won the nomination and he is hoping on, like, the energy that he hasn't shown so far in the campaign this year to show up and really help him win the presidency (ph).

WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think he is running general election campaign in South Carolina in which he is out there touting the economy, the good Jobs Report, pointing out you'd have some growth in wages, inflation is under -- he is running right now in red states, to say to red states, don't worry about my name, just remember the economy is doing well.

BREAM: Our polling says that people don't think it is.

WILLIAMS: Right.

BREAM: At least, that's their perception. So we'll see if that changes as they closer to the election.

WILLIAMS: He's selling it.

BREAM: All right, panel, thank you very much. We'll see you next Sunday. Up next, a grim milestone for imprisoned "Wall Street Journal" reporter Evan Gershkovich, passing 100 days behind bars. What the White House is now saying about efforts to get him home.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BREAM: Friday marked 100 days since Russia detained "Wall Street Journal" reporter Evan Gershkovich. The front page of the paper marking the milestone with the headline "100 Days" and #IStandWithEvan. The journal vehemently denies the spying charges Russia has levied against Evan. The newspaper's publisher Almar Latour sat down with their own Bret Baier in a Special Report to discuss the efforts to bring the journalist home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALMAR LATOUR, PUBLISHER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: There is a lot of commitment from the U.S. Government, from the administration and across the board. There is a lot of sympathy and offers to help from around the world and then there is a lot of grassroots support, and those things coming together, we trust will create a hopeful path for Evan's eventual release.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: On Friday, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan confirmed the U.S. is in talks with Russia, but a possible prisoner swap -- but said those discussions have not yet produced a clear pathway to a resolution.

Just a quick note, my latest podcast drops this morning. This week, I sat down with Law Professor Stephen Vladeck who has a new book out, arguing it's what happens behind the scenes at the Supreme Court that should really concern Americans. Critics say that is an unfounded scare tactic. Well, you can listen to our chat on this week's " Livin' The Bream" and decide for yourself.

Plus, you can hear all of today's program on the "Fox News Sunday" podcast. Download and subscribe at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you'd like to get your podcast. And don't miss the best moments of "Fox News Sunday," always set your DVR to record the show each week on your local Fox Station or Sundays 2 p.m. Eastern on Fox News Channel.

That is it for us today. Thanks for joining us. I'm Shannon Bream. Have a great week. We'll see you 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.