Booster vaccines 'extend, enhance' COVID protection: US Surgeon General
U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy says the White House is focused on getting more booster-eligible individuals vaccinated ahead of the winter season.
This is a rush transcript of "Fox News Sunday" on November 14, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I'm Chris Wallace.
Public health officials warned of a winter surge as COVID cases rise across
the country. And the Biden administration's vaccine mandate faces
challenges in court.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE (voice-over): States and private businesses suing the government
over rules requiring shots or testing for tens of millions of workers.
KEN PAXTON (R), TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL: The president does not have the
authority to force people to get a vaccine and then threatened them with
their jobs.
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: We're confident in
our authority to protect American workers.
WALLACE: We'll ask surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, about the debate
over public health versus personal freedom. Then, we'll get reaction from
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose state is at the forefront of legal
battles over vaccines, masks, abortion, and voting rights.
Plus, Trump advisor Steve Bannon hit with contempt of Congress charges for
refusing to provide to the House committee investigating the January 6
attack on the Capitol.
We'll ask our Sunday panel about the test of a president's executive
powers.
And our Power Player of the Week, Virginia's incoming lieutenant governor,
Winsome Sears, and how she made history.
WINSOME SEARS (R), VIRGINIA INCOMING LT. GOVERNOR: I think they wanted to
take a chance on me. They're tired of politicians who won't let the wounds
of the past heal.
WALLACE: All right now on "FOX News Sunday".
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE (on camera): And hello again from FOX News in Washington.
There's a new spike in COVID cases across the country. Just as a federal
appeals court has blocked one of the main ways President Biden wants to
fight the virus. The court ruled for the second time against a new
administration rule that businesses with more than 100 workers must mandate
vaccines or weekly tests or face thousands of dollars in fines.
The court says that the rule grossly exceeds the government's authority and
rejects the argument stopping the mandate could cost dozens or even
hundreds of lives per day. In a moment, we'll speak with U.S. surgeon
general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, and we'll get reaction from Texas Attorney
General Ken Paxton who is suing the administration.
But, first, let's bring in David Spunt at the White House with the latest
on the administration's fight against COVID and against its critics --
David.
DAVID SPUNT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Chris, during his first few months in
office, President Biden pushed back against vaccine mandates. But COVID
infections rose and that all changed.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPUNT (voice-over): The Biden White House receiving another blow from a
federal court, halting the vaccine and testing requirements pending review.
A judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in an opinion
late Friday wrote that the public is maintaining our constitutional
structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely
personal decisions according to their own convictions even or perhaps
particularly when those decisions frustrate government officials.
White House officials insists the mandate is literally a lifesaver.
JEAN-PIERRE: We are confident in our authority to protect American workers
as this virus is killing 1,100 -- approximately 1,100 Americans a day.
SPUNT: The Department of Justice prepared to fight all the way to the
Supreme Court, writing in part: The department will continue to vigorously
defend the standard and looks forward to obtaining a definitive resolution
following consolidation of all the pending cases for further review.
The mandate lost in federal court to a growing list of supply chain issues
and the highest inflation rate in 30 years and it spells trouble ahead for
a president not even a year into his term.
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Even though wages are going up,
we still face challenges that we have to tackle on. We have to tackle them
head-on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SPUNT (on camera): Tomorrow, President Biden will sign the bipartisan
infrastructure package into law, Chris. Then he'll head out on the road in
Michigan and New Hampshire to tout the plan -- Chris.
WALLACE: David Spunt reporting from the White House -- David, thanks.
And joining us now, U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy.
Doctor, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".
DR. VIVEK MURTHY, U.S. SURGEON GENERAL: Thanks so much, Chris. It's good
to see you again.
WALLACE: COVID cases are up 11 percent over the last two weeks and you can
see the spike across the country.
The virus is on the rise in 26 states from California to Maine. In some
states, increases of more than 50 percent. And the CDC says 68 percent,
two-thirds of U.S. counties, now have, quote, high community transmission.
As the weather gets colder and people spend more time indoors, what are the
chances that we're going to see another winter surge?
MURTHY: Well, Chris, the good news is that we are certainly well down from
the peaks that we hit during the delta wave earlier, we see in the late
summer. But as winter does approach, people do go indoors, and virus is
also better able to transmit in cold dry air. So, we know that increases up
the possibility that there will be spread.
A couple of things that are critical, though, for people to keep in mind.
And number one is if you are vaccinated, your chances of both getting sick
and transmitting the virus to someone else are much, much lower. So, this
makes it all the more important as winter approaches to get vaccinated.
And second, if you are eligible to get a booster shot, it's especially
helpful if you can go ahead and do that now as winter approaches again, and
as people get prepared for the holidays.
So, we should be prepared for the fact that there may be an uptick in cases
that we see in various parts of the country with cold weather. But what has
held true for the last year is so true, which is vaccines still give you a
high degree of protection, especially against the worst outcomes of COVID
like hospitalization and death.
WALLACE: You talk about being eligible for the booster. Three states,
California, Colorado, and New Mexico, have jumped ahead of federal
authorities and said that anyone, everyone above the age of 18 can now get
a booster. Do you have a problem with that?
MURTHY: I certainly understand, Chris, why these states are doing that.
You know, they are looking at what's happening in their own states, that
they are seeing cases go up and they want to have broad protection for the
entire state. And I get that.
What people should know, though, is that the FDA has already made millions
of people eligible for booster shots -- people who are above 65 who have
other illnesses that put them at higher risk and who are at higher risk of
exposure based on where they live or where they work. Millions of people
are eligible who have not yet gone their booster shot and we want to focus
on that.
What people should also know, though, is that the FDA is considering
broadening that eligibility after a request from Pfizer to do so. But what
they're going to do is take a close look at the data. They want to make,
you know, especially sure that the booster shots are both safe and
effective for the populations that are not currently eligible. And once
they determined that, then they will make a recommendation there.
But the bottom line is that millions of people can get boosted right now
and we want them to get boosted, because that will both extend and enhance
the protection that they've already been getting from the vaccines.
WALLACE: There is reportedly a split inside the Biden administration
between folks like Dr. Fauci and you who, reportedly, favor making boosters
available to all adults, and CDC director, Dr. Walensky, who is reportedly
not as persuaded that young, healthy adults need the extra protection.
Does the split inside the administration add to the public confusion about
vaccinations?
MURTHY: Well, Chris, I'm glad you ask that question because the reality is
that there is much more agreement here than I think people appreciate. In
August, in fact, all three of us, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Walensky, myself, as well
as other medical leaders within the administration, including the FDA
commissioner, the NIH director and others, all signed a letter saying that
we believe that protection was starting to wane and that boosters would be
needed at some point later in the year for people across the age spectrum,
you know, 18 and above.
What we also said, though, in that letter was that we wanted the CDC and
the FDA to weigh in on both the efficacy and the safety of booster shots.
And all that actually remains true. And so, you know, while we haven't
millions of people eligible for booster shots, we are going through an FDA
process and we'll go through a CDC process to see if that eligibility
should be widen.
But the bottom line is all of us are in the same page about the strong
protection that the vaccines afford and we know that where boosters are
indicated, that they will be hopeful to extending people's protection
against COVID-19.
WALLACE: On Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans for
the second time continued to block the Biden administration's mandate that
all businesses with more than 100 employees vaccinate their workers or get
a test. And here's what the judges wrote: Rather than a delicately handled
scalpel, the mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly
any attempt to account for differences in workplaces.
Now, you're not a lawyer, so I'm not going to ask about their legal
reasoning. But as a public health expert, if the courts continue to block
the vaccine mandate for big companies with over 100 employees, what's the
impact on public health?
MURTHY: Well, Chris, I think it would be a setback for public health. What
we know very clearly is that when people get vaccinated and the more people
who get vaccinated, the quicker we're able to bring this pandemic to an
end, the more lives we can an ultimately save. And that's my primary
concern as a doctor and as a public health expert is how do we end this
pandemic as quickly as possible and save lives in the process?
Look, Chris, what's really important that people understand about these
requirements in workplace are a few things. Number one, they are not new.
We've had requirements in various settings in our country since the
founding of the United States of America, including in schools since the
1800s, workplaces like hospitals have had requirements for vaccines for
years. The military has had such requirements.
But we also know, Chris, that they work remarkably well. Even with COVID-
19, we've seen a 20 percent bump on average in vaccination rates with
organizations that put requirements in place, and many already have.
Keep in mind, many businesses are not waiting for the federal mandate. In
fact, a third of Fortune 100 companies have already put requirements in
place and millions of people gotten vaccinated as a result.
What's really at the heart of this for a vaccinate requirement strategy is
to create safer workplaces for workers, for customers, and to increase
vaccination rates overall, because that's ultimately how we're going to end
this pandemic. And that's our collective, shared goal as a country.
WALLACE: But if public safety is the issue, how do you balance the drive
for more vaccinations with the fact that police and health care workers in
a number of cities are walking off of the jobs and now -- now, you have the
Oklahoma National Guard refusing the mandate to get vaccinated?
MURTHY: Well, Chris, what I think is important to appreciate in the
broader picture is that the vast, vast majority of people across this
country, vast majority of workers are, in fact, in line with and will be in
compliance with the general requirements. We've already seen that in the
businesses that have put these requirements in place. Many of them have
achieved greater than 95 percent, sort of, adherence, if you will, with the
vaccine requirements. So, I think that's really important to keep in mind.
But ultimately this is about --
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: Well, I mean, I just want to say, but on the other hand, there is
a large percentage, thousands of Border Patrol agents who haven't been
vaccinated and are threatening to leave the job. You see in police
departments in big cities, health care workers, and as I say now, the
entire Oklahoma National Guard.
MURTHY: So, here's what's important there, Chris. I think, number one,
look, I think everyone's point of view matters. And for those who are
concerned about the vaccine requirements, I think it's important for them
to have their questions answered, their concerns heard.
But if we're concerned about the safety of the workforce, Chris, the single
biggest threat to our workforce in hospitals, our police force, and other
workforces has been COVID itself. The number of workers who've gotten sick,
who have been quarantined and off of the job as a result, who have lost
their lives is extraordinary and really heartbreaking during this pandemic.
So, if we want to protect our workers, Chris, these vaccine requirements
will ultimately help us to advance that caused to the greatest extent that
we need to.
WALLACE: For a lot of people, though, this comes down to personal freedom.
And Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers came down -- and I can see
you nodding, you know -- with COVID after deciding to take alternative
treatments instead of the vaccination. He spoke out this week. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AARON RODGERS, GREEN BAY PACKERS QUARTERBACK: I believe strongly in bodily
autonomy, and the ability to make choices for your body. And not have to
acquiesce to some woke culture.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Doctor, what do you say to Aaron Rodgers?
MURTHY: Look, I think the principle of freedom, when it comes to health,
but in general, is a very important one. Freedom is an important value that
brought my family to this country, as immigrants years ago, and has brought
so many immigrant families to this nation. It's extraordinarily important.
But keep in mind, we are a community of 300 million people. We are not sole
individuals entirely on our own. In any community, sometimes our decisions
do affect other people. It's why, Chris, we have speed limits on highways
because we know our decision about how we fast we drive affects the safety
of others.
When it comes to getting vaccinated, we know that people who are
unvaccinated are high risk of getting sick and spreading it to others,
which is why in many settings, Chris, we have made the decision as a
community to require vaccines in schools, for example, all across our
country --
WALLACE: Right.
MURTHY: -- and in certain workplace settings.
That's why these are so important here, too, Chris. So, while freedom is
absolutely important, we also have a collective responsibility to one
another when our decisions impact the health and well-being of others.
WALLACE: Dr. Murthy, thank you. Thanks for your time this week and always
good to talk with you, sir.
MURTHY: Always good to talk to you, too, Chris. Take care and stay well.
WALLACE: You, too.
Up next, we'll get reaction from one of the state attorneys general
fighting the vaccine mandate. Ken Paxton of Texas joins us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: Texas has been taking on the Biden administration on a range of
issues, from abortion, to voting reform, and now vaccine mandates. They all
have one thing in common, they cross the desk of the state's top law
enforcement officer.
And joining us now is the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton.
Mr. Paxton, you're suing the Trump -- rather, the Trump -- the Biden
administration over this vaccine mandate which you say is unconstitutional
and a federal overreach. But coronavirus, the virus is still killing more
than 1,000 people every day. And a top White House spokesperson had a
question this week. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: The question is
really that I have is, why are these legislatures, these Republicans,
getting in the way of that, getting in the way of saving lives, getting in
the way of us making sure that the economy is working as well and getting
out of this pandemic.
And so that's the question for them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: How to answer that question, sir?
KEN PAXTON, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, first of all, I'm not in the
legislature, so I can't quite answer for our legislature.
But I think that they want people to have choices over their own decisions
as to their health care with their doctor's advice. And so people have
different opinions about what that should be for them and it shouldn't be
made by the federal government from -- from Joe Biden's desk.
WALLACE: I want to play a clip of you from this week going over, going
against the vaccine mandate.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAXTON: I would urge businesses, don't listen to the president. He's
bullying Americans. He's bullying businesses. And what they should do is
take care of their own businesses, take care of their own workers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: You say Texas companies should take care of their own workers.
So, given that, how do you justify the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott,
issuing an executive order that bans any business in Texas from issuing a
vaccine mandate and -- and how do you justify the governor issuing a ban on
all school districts on mask mandate, a ban that was overturned just this
week by a federal judge?
PAXTON: So, I justified that the governor has the authority under state
law, in an emergency, to respond to these types of issues. And so he's done
just that.
Obviously, it's his view that these mask mandates are unnecessary and that
vaccine requirements are also unnecessary. So it's my job as a state's
attorney to go defend what he's done and what the legislature's done. And
I'm perfectly comfortable doing that.
WALLACE: Well, I just want to drill down on this a little bit. You said
that you think that Texas company, businesses, should take care of their
own workers. Is that consistent with the governor's executive order and
your enforcement of that order which bans companies from taking care of
their own workers as they see fit?
PAXTON: Yes, so what I was trying to say in that clip was the governor --
the -- the president doesn't have the authority to force companies.
Obviously, we've gotten a stay in the Fifth Circuit to stop him from
forcing companies to require their workers to get the -- the vaccine or be
fired. And what I'm saying to these companies is, you don't have to listen
to him because he's out there saying now you should do it anywhere -- do it
anyway, despite the fact that we have a stay from a higher court.
WALLACE: Yes, but -- but you said that the business should take care of
their own workers and the governor is saying that they can't take care of
their own workers as they see fit, they're prohibited from deciding if they
so choose to issue a vaccine mandate. That's not consistent.
PAXTON: Yes, so -- well, we're dealing with different types of
requirements here. We've got state government requirements. So it's clear
that the governor has a different executive order for them. And we've been
in all types of litigation with school district and counties trying to stop
them from forcing mandates, in San Antonio, vaccines, and we've been
successful.
We've actually had no lawsuits against businesses. There's a lot more
freedom with businesses to make their own decisions. But what I would say
is that they -- they should definitely consider their employees because
we're in a situation right now with our economy where we can't afford to
lose transportation employees or health care workers or law enforcement
officers. And that's -- that's happening all over the country. And I think
it's going to have a negative impact on our economy and our ability to help
people.
WALLACE: But -- but, I -- I -- I just want to go through this one more
time. You're saying that they should have the authority and the ability to
decide what their workers should do. The governor's executive order
prohibits them from deciding what they want to do. He bans vaccine
mandates.
Isn't a mandate by the federal government -- are you saying there's a
different between a mandate to get a vaccine from the federal government is
different in terms of the ability to take care of their own from a state
mandate not to have vaccine mandates?
PAXTON: Well, I think your question is a little confusing, but, yes, the
federal government has no authority to do this. Right now we have OSHA
guidelines that have not been authorized by Congress. They absolutely have
no authority to do this. The governor has a different authority under state
law that the legislatures give him and he's operating under that state law.
And so we're doing our best to defend --
WALLACE: So -- so he can -- so he can tell private businesses what to do?
It's -- it's OK? And -- and they can't take care of their own?
PAXTON: Well, look, I've -- I'm more -- I definitely agree that states
have more authority over these areas than the federal government. The
federal government has limited authority. And if Congress has not granted
that authority to OSHA -- and -- and I would even question whether Congress
has authority. Yes, states have a lot of authority to deal with what's
going on in their states. And -- and I think that's -- that's been clear
from the founding of our country.
WALLACE: You're also in court defending the new abortion law in Texas that
deputizes anyone, however disconnected from it, from -- for charging, for
suing anyone who assists in an abortion.
And I want to put up what you said. You said that this law, the Texas law,
is not at odds with Roe v. Wade, but merely creating the potential for
liability for some abortions is not a ban.
Mr. Attorney General, are you saying if someone wants to assist with an
abortion and just pay the $10,000 fine, that's OK?
PAXTON: I'm not saying it's OK. It's a violation of state law. But you'll
have to realize, I am not responsible for drafting these laws. I defend
them. And we are doing that. And I think the -- the legislature has made a
choice about how they're going to relate abortion and how they're going to
protect the unborn. And they've done it here. And my job is go defend those
lawsuits. And we've done it all the way to the Supreme Court.
And you should know that this case, so far, is really not about the
substance of whether Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned. It's about
whether these -- whether the federal government, this other plaintiff, have
-- have standings to sue me, the attorney general, who has no authority
right now to actually implement any of this.
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you a direct question. What do you think of the
new abortion law in Texas?
PAXTON: Well, look, I -- I applaud the legislature for -- for doing
anything they can to protect human life. They try to balance the current
Supreme Court provisions and cases with -- with what they want to do in the
state. They're elected by people in this state and they have the right to
go pass whatever laws they want and we'll deal with them in court when --
when it comes up.
WALLACE: But you applaud the law.
Let me ask you about one aspect of the law. It makes no exception for cases
of rape and incest. You know, if a pregnancy results from a crime, like
rape or incest, you have no problem with forcing the woman to carry that
fetus to term?
PAXTON: So, again, I didn't pass this law. My job is to defend it. Whether
-- if I was a legislature, I would have made some changes to this, I -- I
don't know. I -- I would have -- I would have certainly had that
opportunity. I defend what the legislature put in place here and I'm glad
to do my job representing the people of Texas.
WALLACE: Well, again, I'm -- I'm asking you, as a public official, you
must have an opinion. Do you think there should be an exception for rape
and incest, as there are in most abortion laws in the country, or do you
favor what Texas did, which was to say that there's no exception for rape
or incest?
PAXTON: Here's what I'd say. I think it's very important to protect life.
I think this bill is defensible and I think we're going to -- we are going
to do a really good job defending it. We already have.
It's gone to the Supreme Court twice. And the first time we were
successful. I have no idea what's going to happen on the second round. But,
again, we're not even talking about the substance right now, we're talking
about the procedure, which is whether they even have standing to sue us,
which we don't believe they do.
PAXTON: You face your own legal problems, as you well know. You're under
indictment on an allegation of securities fraud, and you're also the
subject of an FBI investigation because some former top officials in your
own office accused you of bribery.
George P. Bush, the son of Jeb Bush, is running against you next year.
You're seeing re-election as attorney general. Here's what he says. Our top
lawyer needs to be above reproach. There shouldn't even be a question of
one's character and competence for this important role. How big a problem
do you think these allegations against you will be in your efforts to win
reelection?
PAXTON: Look, I've been dealing with this kind of fight. When you go out
and do the types of things that I've done, your going to be challenge.
You're going to have issues like this pop up. And -- and I've -- this
happened seven years ago, almost seven years ago. I was re-elected when it
happened. And I think we've done a great job defending the state of Texas.
That's what I'm going to talk about, what my job is to do for the state of
Texas and make sure that I am defending the state, that I'm defending the
governor, the legislature, and I'm going to continue to do that job.
WALLACE: Attorney General Paxton, thank you. Thanks for coming in today.
Good to talk with you, sir.
PAXTON: Hey, have a great day. Thanks for having me on.
WALLACE: Up next, we'll bring in our Sunday group to discuss former Trump
advisors Steve Bannon's indictment on contempt of Congress charges for
refusing to appear before the January 6 committee. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: Up next, President Biden doubling down to sell his build back
better plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: This bill is going to ease inflationary pressures, lowering the
cost to working families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: We'll ask our Sunday panel about the president's effort to
reassure members of his own party.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST (JANUARY 5, 2021): All
hell is going to break lose tomorrow. Just understand this, all hell is
going to break lose tomorrow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Former Trump advisors Steve Bannon on
January 5th, the day before the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Bannon
has a first court appearance tomorrow on contempt of Congress charges for
refusing to provide information to the House committee investigating the
riot.
And it's time now for our Sunday group. Former RNC communications director
Doug Heye, Julie Pace, executive editor for the "Associated Press," and Mo
Elleithee of Georgetown University's Institute of Politics and Public
Service.
Julie, it is rare for the Justice Department to prosecute criminal contempt
of Congress charges. But what does this prosecution, what does this case
say about the ability down the line for the House committee investigating
the January 6th riot to actually be able to hear from former Trump advisors
despite the former president's claim of executive privilege?
JULIE PACE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "ASSOCIATED PRESS": I think that this is
potentially a boost for this committee, which has been struggling to get
some key people to actually show up, to talk with them, to turn over
documents. And this is a warning shot from the Justice Department that if
individuals who were close to President Trump are refusing to participate
in the process, they could face criminal prosecution.
I do think Bannon's case is a bit unique because he was trying to fall
within the executive privilege umbrella, even though he had left the White
House in 2017. I think there are big questions that we'll be looking to get
answers from the Justice Department on in terms of Mark Meadows, who was
chief of staff, who was in the White House, does executive privilege extend
to him? But certainly, for this committee, which wants to move rapidly,
wants to get answers from key people around President Trump, I think this
is a real potential boost for them.
WALLACE: Yes, Doug, I want to pick up on a couple of the points that Julie
made, because the banning case is different. First of all, President Trump
was no longer the president. He's the former president. As she points out,
Steve Bannon was not a current White House official at this time. He had
been out of the White House since 2017. And, also, we're not talking about
the official business of the president. What we're talking about is
investigating a crime, which was the insurrection at the Capitol.
So what does all that say about the strength of Bannon's case, and is there
a big difference between Bannon's case and that, let's say, of former White
House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows?
DOUG HEYE, FORMER RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Sure, there's an enormous
different. Obviously, the former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, is going to
go through the process of seeing what is allowed in executive privilege and
what isn't. And we don't know those answers yet. That's part of what we'll
find out.
Bannon just does not have those protections. And, you know, I can tell you,
Chris, when I worked in the House of Representatives for then Majority
Leader Eric Cantor, Congress held Eric Holder, the then attorney general,
in contempt for not appearing before Congress.
Congress takes these things very seriously. And whether you're talking
about a Republican House or a Democratic House, the primacy of Congress and
its oversight is paramount. And Republicans and Democrats should be able to
unify on this. They obviously won't. But if we have a Republican House in
the future, they will have no hesitation in holding Democrats to contempt,
just as we're seeing right now. It may be why the best option should have
been having an independent committee all along.
WALLACE: Of course that was blocked the Senate Republicans.
Congressman Jamie Raskin, who's a member of the January 6th House
Committee, had a very strong reaction this week to the Bannon indictment.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): It was a criminal offense. He violated the law
when he stood us up, when he blew off the subpoena, and he violated the law
when he refused to produce the documents and the papers we were looking
for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Mo, the problem for the committee is that undoubtedly Steve Bannon
and his lawyers are going to try to delay this case as long as possible, do
everything they can procedurally to play it out. And there's a good chance,
I think probably better than 50/50 we'd say now, that a year from now, in
the midterms, that Republicans may take control of the House, in which case
no matter what happens in this case, they would probably kill the committee
and there would be no place for Bannon to testify even if he's ordered to.
MO ELLEITHEE, GEORGETOWN INSTITUTE OF POLITICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE: Yes.
And, look, I agree with what Doug just said. I think there are a couple of
long terms implications here. One is getting to the truth, right, of what
happened on January 6th, and that is first and foremost what this is all
about.
But, number two, it is about establishing and defending the role of
Congress in oversight. And that cannot be a partisan thing.
Republicans have held people in contempt. Democrats have held people in
contempt. If you believe in the rule of law, if you believe in the
Constitution, if you believe in the role that Congress plays, then -- then
you've got to support this.
And I do think if Republicans take over a year from now and kill this whole
endeavor, they are completely undermining their ability to hold oversight
in the future.
So there's a lot of different balls at play here.
WALLACE: Yes, but, Mo --
HEYE: Chris, can I say quickly, this will make the lame duck Congress in --
in next December one of the wildest that we will ever have seen in
Washington.
ELLEITHEE: Yes. Yes.
WALLACE: But, Mo, let me just pick up on this idea that -- that this should
be above partisanship, this should be about the law.
The House held Eric Holder, then the attorney general for Barack Obama, in
contempt, and the Obama administration and Obama Justice Department refused
to prosecute that case. I mean there's politics all over these kinds of
cases.
ELLEITHEE: Sure. But, look, I do think -- and you've already alluded to
this in -- in your -- in the early conversation, what happens with Bannon
may be different than what happens with others. Bannon was not there. He
was not in the White House. He talked about this on air the day before.
There's no way to make the executive privilege claim.
Whether or not others are successful in that, that will play out. That is -
- you know, whether or not you're in government, that will play out.
But this, I think, sends a very strong message that they're not playing
around and that they want to get to the truth.
This is unprecedented. And -- and it's -- it's going to be treated as such.
WALLACE: Julie, you know, we're -- we're talking about all of the reasons
that the Bannon cases is different, but there is talk here in Washington,
concern that it could open up a dangerous precedent. And -- and, you know,
seeing the willingness of the Biden administration to go after Steve Bannon
and potentially to go after people with a -- maybe a stronger case, like
the White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, that this opens the door for
one administration to go after officials in the previous administration.
PACE: And that's why I think the decisions that are still to come for the
Justice Department are potentially even more significant. You know,
because, again, I think Bannon is a bit of a unique situation, having left
the White House in 2017 and still trying to claim executive privilege
because there is a precedent that will be set by the decisions that come
forward. If a sitting chief of staff is going to be prosecuted for failing
to appear before Congress and talk about his direct conversation with the
sitting president of the United States. I do think that that is something
that -- that both parties would have some measure of concern about, but I
think that the Justice Department here is also weighing, as you mentioned
earlier, the incident that is at the center of this discussion. You know,
this -- this is -- and it was an attack on American democracy. It was an
insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. And I do think that that raises the
significance of these decisions that they're making right now.
WALLACE: Finally, Doug, you wrote an interesting article this week talking
about the continued drag that you feel that Donald Trump and especially his
claims of a stolen election have on the Republican Party going into the
2022 midterms. Explain.
HEYE: Yes. Well, it's not just 2022, it's 2024 as well. And my big concern
is if Donald Trump doesn't run again, and, obviously, nobody knows what
he's going to do, perhaps except for Trump himself, is that we could have a
scenario where we have 17 Republicans running for president, like we did in
2016, and that there is no incentive for any Republican to accept the
results of the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary. In fact, they'd be
incentivize if they come in second or even third to say that it's a fraud,
to say that it was fixed, which could cause an entire presidential primary
system to be in chaos in a state-by-state almost rolling tour. And that's
something that I don't think the Republican Party is prepared for or really
the country.
WALLACE: And what that means is that you have to make a break with the
idea, if you're -- if you're going to establish this principle, we're going
to abide by the results, you have to make a break with the -- President
Trump, and that's a dangerous position for a Republican.
HEYE: It's a dangerous position for any Republican. It's also a challenge
for the party and for state parties as to, will they accept their own
results or not indifference to Trump or indifference to any of those
candidates who might call into question again say the Iowa caucus, which
Donald Trump said was fixed when he lost it in 2016 to Ted Cruz.
WALLACE: Panel, we have to take a break here, but when we return, how a
surge in inflation will affect a president's agenda and your plans to
celebrate the holidays.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People are feeling it. They're
feeling it. Did you ever think you'd be paying this much for a gallon of
gas? In some parts in California, they're paying $4.50 a gallon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: President Biden reacting to the latest inflation numbers that
consumer prices rose 6.2 percent from a year ago.
And we're back now with the panel.
Well, I think it's fair to say this is the week that inflation really hit
home and became a top political issue beyond that overall 6.2 percent
increase, that figure.
I want you to look at some of the spikes on specific items. Gas prices, up
50 percent. Beef prices, up 20 percent. Used car prices up 26 percent.
Doug, how big a problem for President Biden and Democrats just a little bit
less than a year out from the midterms?
HEYE: This is a big problem that's going to get worse for Biden and the
Democrats. And I -- think of "Game of Thrones," Chris, winter is coming.
And what does that mean? Home heating oil prices. And if you're a Democrat
in the Northeast, where those prices are going to be felt the most, you now
have a new issue where you need to separate yourself with the president,
whose popularity continues to fall in every poll that we see.
WALLACE: Mo, I think what makes it even worse for this White House is that
for months they've been talking down the threat of inflation.
Listen to them and also to former Clinton and Obama top economic advisor,
Larry Summers, who's been sounding the alarm for a long time.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Economists called all these
things a transitory fix.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM, SECRETARY OF ENERGY: There is a transitory nature to the
inflation problem.
LARRY SUMMERS, FORMER SECRETARY OF TREASURY: I think that the policymakers
in Washington, unfortunately, have almost every month been behind the
curve. They said it was transitory. It doesn't look so transitory.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Mo, when Larry Summers says he told them so, he did tell them so.
He was right all along and they were wrong.
ELLEITHEE: Rule number one of political communications is don't tell people
what they're feeling isn't real. You can tell them that -- that the
situation is temporary, that we're going to turn a corner, but
acknowledging the pain and the concern people are feeling right out of the
box is critical.
The president's popularity was -- was sky-high for a while because they
were pointed to results. They were able to go out there and say, we put
money in your wallets, we put shots in your arms. Then they got into this
big, big fight. They were getting ready to say, we put jobs in your
communities with infrastructure. That got overcome by a big, internal party
fight over a big pile of money. Over a number that didn't really have
anything to it that people could wrap their heads around.
Inflation layered on top of that, it's a big mess. They've got to get back
out there and say we get it, as they started to this week. We get it.
Here's how we're going to turn the corner. And here's what the next waiver
of results are going to look like and how soon you might start to feel
them.
They can still turn the corner on this, but they squandered a couple of
months, they being the broader Democratic family squandered a couple of
months. They've got to get back to pointing to those results and helping
people understand that they get the problem.
WALLACE: But, Julie, President Biden's answer to how he's going to get an
handle on inflation, as he says, let's pass this $1.7 trillion big social
spending plan, which he say is going to lower inflation because it will
increase worker productivity through a lot of program. But almost anybody
who analyzes that bill, if it gets passed, says that in the short term it's
going to boost inflation before, in the long term, perhaps it damps it down
a bit.
PACE: And this is the problem that I think the Biden administration is
going to face here. If they can get this bill passed, and we'll see how the
next couple of days go here, but if they can get it passed, they are going
to have to go out and argue that it was worth all of the time and energy
and all of the procedural debate that consumed Washington for the last
couple of months. And the reality is that the actual implementation of
those policies will take time.
And so if you're an American who is not following the ins and outs of the
debates in Washington every day, as we are, and thank goodness for most of
you that you're not doing that, you know, you're looking at practical
measures. You're looking at how much everyday items cost. You're looking at
your grocery bill. And you're going to be looking, next year, at those
prices and seeing if there's a change.
And Democrats will argue that long-term that -- that the positions in this
bill are good for the country. But I think the short term impact is what
most people are going to be looking for, particularly heading into those
midterms.
WALLACE: Doug, and then you've got some other really striking numbers that
just came out this week. It turns out, in September, 4.4 million Americans,
3 percent of the total national workforce, quit their jobs.
HEYE: Yes.
WALLACE: What does that say about the state of the economy and the impact
for Democrats going forward?
HEYE: Yes, it says that voters are nervous about what their future might
have, that their jobs aren't paying as much as they need to, to, you know,
keep their family going. And, ultimately, you know, the word "transitory"
is a word that's used in Washington, D.C. It's not used at kitchen tables
throughout this country. Those conversations are about the rise in gas
prices and how much more it costs to put beef on the table. That's a
problem that Democrats need to address and need to understand. And right
now they're not showing that they really understand it at all.
WALLACE: Mo, there was an interesting debate in Washington this week -- I
think a lot of it sparked by a -- I thought quite an interesting article by
two Democrats, although they've strayed in the Republican side at various
points, Mark Penn and Andrew Stein, who argued very strongly that this
president needs to make a sharp turn back to the center the way Bill
Clinton did in 1994 after that midterm debacle.
How -- first of all, do you think this president's going to take that
advice?
ELLEITHEE: I think we obsess over left versus right versus center in this
town in a way that nobody else does. I think we keep it not left versus
right or center, but it's -- it's front verses back, right? People feel
like they are stuck at the back of the line and they can't get ahead. So
just talking about people is the way to go.
You're starting to see the White House to do this week a little bit. You're
starting to see them talk about the immediacy and the urgency for their
agenda getting passed, that if it passes, that in 2022 you'll see child
care costs come down by x amount, you'll see prescription drug prices come
down for seniors by x amount. At least that starts to bring the
conversation to the kitchen table that Doug was just talking about.
That's what this president does very well and he needs to get back to doing
after a couple of months where Washington was just talking about a big pile
of money.
WALLACE: I'm not sure, Julie, that I agree with Mo there, because it seems
to me that whether it's this spending this huge amount of money or
immigration or crime or what goes on in schools, that there is an increase
in perception out there. And we certainly saw it played out in Virginia and
New Jersey, that Democrats and President Biden have moved to the left.
First of all, do you think that's legitimate, that -- that they feel that
and, secondly, do you -- I mean do you feel that he's going to take this
advice and move back -- tack back to the center, or is that just not who he
is?
PACE: I think there's just a huge blank space ahead of Joe Biden as he
looks into next year and questions about how he is going to try to fill it.
You know, what -- is he going to try to make a run at police reform
legislation, at voting rights, two big Democratic priorities, particularly
on the left that have been really stalled out in Congress. Does he see that
as a way to energize the base heading into the midterms? Does he spend the
year campaigning on what he hopes will be a successful package --
successful passage of the Build Back Better plan? I think that's the big
dissension for him. You know, what does next year look like. How does he
position himself? Because, again, they have spent so much time on these --
on these two big pieces of legislation and there are a lot of promises that
were made to a lot of Americans the votive for him that have gone
unfulfilled.
WALLACE: But, I've got 20 seconds, do you think Joe Biden has it in him to
triangulate, to move sharply back to the center the way Bill Clinton did in
the '90s?
PACE: I think it's certainly where he's comfortable. And if he feels like
that's where he needs to go for the party to succeed, I think that might be
where he would want to be.
WALLACE: Thank you, panel. See you next Sunday.
Up next, our "Power Player of the Week," Virginia's lieutenant governor-
elect, Winsome Sears, on her long shot win and her powerful story.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: Glenn Youngkin's victory in the Virginian governor's race was the
big story on election night. But there was someone else on the ballot who
also won. And she's also creating a stir, taking on tough issues and
nailing one-liners.
Here's our "Power Player of the Week."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WINSOME SEARS, VIRGINIA LT. GOVERNOR-ELECT: I've just always assumed that
whatever room I am in, I belong. Whatever I want to pursue, it's mine for
the taking.
WALLACE: Virginia Republican Winsome Sears will soon be taking the office
of lieutenant governor.
SEARS: How sweet it is.
WALLACE: Once considered a longshot, she'll be the first black woman in
that post.
WALLACE (on camera): What do you think Virginia voters were saying on
Election Day when they made you lieutenant governor?
SEARS: They're tired of the black against white and the Asian against
Latino. They're tired of it and they're tired of politicians who won't let
the wounds of the past heal.
I think we're going to have to go all around. Yes.
WALLACE (voice over): We were with Sears this week as she toured the state
capital in Richmond, checking out the senate floor, where she'll preside.
SEARS: Wow. How awesome is this.
WALLACE: The power of the moment was not lost on her.
SEARS: A black lieutenant governor was handing off to another black
lieutenant governor, and that has never happened.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So that's history.
SEARS: That is history.
God bless Virginia.
WALLACE: Sears ran at a time when race and education are the focus of
charged debate.
SEARS: Nobody is denying that we don't want to hear all the history, least
of all me. I certainly don't want the sins of the past to be repeated. We
don't have to tear one person down in order to build another up. That's no
way to be. That's not America.
WALLACE: Sears' love for America is routed in her life story. She
immigrated from Jamacia and served in the Marines.
SEARS: Everything that I've had, I've had to work for. No one gave me
anything.
WALLACE: She isn't shy about how her lived experience shapes her worldview.
SEARS: In case you haven't noticed, I am black and I have been black all my
life. But that's not what this is about.
Sometimes what happens to you isn't because you're black or because you're
woman, it's simply life. I mean some days you're the pigeon and some days
you're the statute. It's just life.
We need to wake up.
WALLACE: Her victory, her politics, and this photo made headline beyond the
commonwealth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was elected as Virginia's first black female lieutenant
governor. But this is actually a win for Democrats because nothing will get
Republicans to support gun control faster than this picture.
WALLACE (on camera): Did you think the joke was funny?
SEARS: Well, I did, because I thought, well, I don't think he knows what
he's saying. And the fact that his audience thought it was quite hilarious
was also very telling about their character. So, you know, it's a bunch of
hypocrisy, but it's all right. I can handle it. I'm a big girl.
WALLACE (voice over): It's that tenacity that has political insiders asking
already if she has bigger plans.
SEARS: I just want to serve, you know, in the end. And I really want other
to see me, especially the children, to say, well, if Winsome can do it, I
can do it, because I didn't do anything special except stay in school and
study. And I never let anybody walk over me. And if they did, they didn't
get a second chance.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Winsome Sears is ready to go. She takes office on January 15th.
And that's it for today. Have a great week and we'll see you next FOX NEWS
SUNDAY.
Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 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.
Fox News First
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can opt-out at any time.