'Special Report' All-Star Panel on Biden's comments towards Putin

close

Video

Ben Domenech: Biden's comment was a mistake

'Special Report' all-star panel reacts to Biden going off script to criticize Putin.

This is a rush transcript from "Special Report," March 28, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It means that I would hope -- I just was expressing my outrage. He shouldn't remain in power.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: On the fallout from President Biden's comment that Vladimir Putin cannot remain in power. The walk back, non walk back, plus the latest developments in Ukraine, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROB PORTMAN, (R-OH): By saying that, that regime changes are strategy, effectively, it plays into the hands of the Russian propagandists, and plays into the hands of Vladimir Putin.

JEH JOHNSON, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I'm not sure I would have walked it back. He is a war criminal. He's slaughtering innocent men, women, and children. He illegally invaded Ukraine. And he has got command and control of nuclear weapons. Such a person should not remain in power.

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not walking anything back. The fact of the matter is I was expressing the moral outrage I felt toward the way Putin is dealing, and the actions of this man, just brutality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: It's been an interesting three, four days for the president, reacting to that comment, other comments. "The Washington Post" writes it this way, "Biden's Putin remark pushes U.S.-Russia relations closer to collapse. If Moscow decided to throw out the remaining U.S. diplomats it would mark a diplomatic low that was avoided even during the worst moment of the Cold War when Soviet leader Joseph Stalin expelled U.S. Ambassador George Kennan in 1952 for likening conditions in Moscow to what occurred in Nazi, Germany. The U.S. embassy remained opened."

What about this? Let's bring in our panel, Ben Domenech, host of "The Ben Domenech Podcast" on FOX News Radio, Leslie Marshall, Democratic strategist, and Trey Gowdy, former Congressman from South Carolina. Trey, what's your reaction to what the president said today and over the past three, four days?

TREY GOWDY, FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA REPRESENTATIVE: Shocked, because remember, we were told he was the most experienced candidate to ever run for the presidency. And yet he began this debate by saying he might excuse a small incursion but would not overlook a large incursion. That's how this began. And it ends by giving Vladimir Putin his best talking point.

So, look, every thought does not need to be verbalized. Someone needs to share that with President Biden. You are not a senator anymore. It is not charming. It's not -- there are real world ramifications. Jeh Johnson is right. Lots of us are thinking it. But when you are the commander-in-chief, you cannot verbalize it. Strategically it gave Putin a gift.

BAIER: Yes, and that's what I was talking to Brit Hume about earlier. Leslie, here is Congressman Mike McCaul giving credit to the administration, but then kind of criticizing as well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL, (R-TX): I do. I give the administration marks for getting NATO together. But then, when he goes off script, Harris, every time he does that, he seems to cause international incident and we get way off messaging.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Leslie, what do you think?

LESLIE MARSHALL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I don't think this was gaffe. I think Trey touched upon it, that the president, a shoot from the hip guy, has always been, and even though he is the commander-in-chief, he didn't say "Putin." He said "him." And in addition, I think he is echoing the sentiments of people not just in the United States but throughout the world.

The president and others have referred to Vladimir Putin as a butcher, a thug, and a war criminal. Some might say that's worse than a regime change. And right now, when you look at Russia, this is not going to escalate tensions between Russia. You had Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Kremlin, basically shrug his shoulders at this comment and say it's up to the people of Russia to decide if Vladimir Putin -- if there should be a regime change, which we all know is laughable because the Russian people don't have that power when Vladimir Putin obviously makes that decision, not the people of Russia.

So I don't think it's as damaging. I understand people look at this politically. But if we look back, Ronald Reagan said something many of us know, my kids learn it history, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall. That line was not supposed to be in his speech because they thought it would be too prevocational, and former President Reagan said leave it in. and I think that President Biden in not walking this back is --

BAIER: He did, Leslie. But he did that on purpose. He did that on purpose. Biden is not walking back something his White House has walked back.

MARSHALL: Yes, but I have to say, we have seen this before. Whether it's President Biden or another president. The president will say something, and the White House goes crazy and scrambles. And then the leader, the commander-in-chief, whether Democrat or Republican, comes out and said no, that's what I said. And that's what Joe Biden said, our president said. And I think a lot of Americans agree with him. And I don't think we are going to see negative ramifications as a result.

We already have somebody, Vladimir Putin, who knows strategically that he is lost, and we're already hearing different verbiage come out from Russia when you hear things like "neutrality" or "disarmament." Certainly we will see how that goes tomorrow.

BAIER: Ben?

BEN DOMENECH, PUBLISHER, "THE FEDERALIST": I do think that it was a mistake. I think it was part of a series of mistakes, including the president's comments about the 82nd Airborne which he tried to do some cleanup for today. His comment about the use of chemical weapons leading to a response in kind. This is, to Trey's point, someone who has spent his career in the Senate and in other roles, spouting off, really, quite a lot.

And I think that's an ill service to the country in a moment like this when you want to make clear that the extreme sanctions that have been taken against Russia and against the Russian people are ones that can go away, that they don't have to be permanent, they don't have to lead to us cutting off our relations to a much greater degree, and that they are not tied to regime change, they are tied to negotiating a peace in terms of Ukraine. And that's something that I think it's important for the president, any president to stick to. And the amount of time that the White House spends running around cleaning up for the mistakes that he has made or the gaffes that he says is time that they are not spending working on actually solving this problem, and I think that that's an error.

BAIER: Trey, speaking of the negotiations, there is some hope, some indication that President Zelenskyy is getting ready for this negotiation with Russia and that possibly they're going to have some success. "POLITICO" writes "Ukraine ready to discuss neutral status to reach Russian peace deal. For Ukraine, neutrality would mean dropping its long held ambitions to join NATO, making it a buffer state between Russia and the western military alliance. Zelenskyy attached strict conditions for these possible concessions. Russian troops would have to withdraw to pre February 24th positions, and any peace deal would be put to the Ukrainian people in a referendum which could take up to a year to organize. While Ukraine's neutrality is a key demand for Moscow, Zelenskyy refused to give ground in other areas such as demilitarization of the country.

Trey, the hope that there is negotiation, that is what everybody is hoping for, an offramp, but is that realistic with what we have seen from Putin so far?

GOWDY: My heart goes out to President Zelenskyy. Can you imagine trying to negotiate while your own life is at risk, civilians are being killed, your population is being displaced? Talk about negotiating under duress and coercion. Ukraine is either sovereign or they're not. And if they are sovereign and they want to be neutral, that's fine. Finland is, some other countries are neutral. But the notion that we are going to continue your civilians, target civilians, and continue to try to assassinate you unless you agree to something, that is textbook coercion. Would I say it to get them out of my country? Probably. But I wouldn't mean it and I wouldn't own up to it.

BAIER: All right, panel, stand by, if you would. Up next, the Iran nuclear negotiations and another immigration surge at the border.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: As neighbors, and in the case of the United States, as friends, we will also work together to confront common security challenges and threats, including those from Iran and its proxies.

REP. MIKE WALTZ, (R-FL) HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: If Iran gets a bomb, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the rest of the Middle East will want one as well. We'll have an arms race in the Middle East. The Emiratis, the Saudis and others won't return the president's phone calls right now, and are moving closer to China.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Obviously a lot of focus on Ukraine, what Vladimir Putin is doing with Russia. There is some focus on China and Taiwan and what will happen there. But for the Israelis they are focused on Iran. Here is "The Jerusalem Post," "With the Iran deal delayed, will Ayatollahs weaponize their uranium? If Tehran took this step it would force Israel to make new unprecedented kind of choice. Would Jerusalem finally order a high stakes preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent the ayatollahs from having the possibility of fielding a functional nuclear weapon?"

We're back with the panel. Ben, this negotiation continues, even with the Russians at the table, as we talked about last week. Where do you think we are on all of this?

DOMENECH: Where we are is that this White House doesn't seem to have a limit on the number of problems they want to try to tackle at once. I just can't -- I can't see the point in pursuing this at this juncture just given the level of discomfort having those Russians at the table as they are, obviously, compelled to be.

This is a White House with enormous problems here at home. They have enormous domestic challenges. They have enormous challenges around the world. And the fact that they want to pursue this in this moment, I think, is really shaking things up as it relates to our relationship with the Israelis. It seems again to me to be very unwise. Yet, this is a group of people who under the Obama administration were dedicated to this deal. It was part of their major priorities. It was a priority as a candidate, again, this time around, and they seem dedicated to trying to make it happen even if it unwise.

BAIER: Leslie?

MARSHALL: It's very rare. I think I agree with almost everything Ben just said. And this is taped, Ben, so you have that on the record. No, I said it before. I know, true. I said it before, this is not the time for this. There are some elephants in the room with this deal. And I think everybody, where we see some of our Arab counterparts like Egypt, Morocco, Bahrain, certainly Israel in the Middle East, or even Democrats and Republicans in our own nation's capital have a concern that this will be a watered-down version of what happened in 2015, and that's just not going to be strong enough to appease everyone.

Another elephant in the room is who stands to gain from this? And certainly not just Russians at the table but Vladimir Putin could make billions of dollars because Russia could help Iran build not one but two nuclear facilities under a new deal. This is not the time for this. The White House certainly has, I don't want to say bit off more than it can chew, but there is enough on its plate. Not that they or any administration can't walk and chew gum at the same time, this is not the time for this deal.

And there are other issues. We saw with this summit, we still saw people saying, isn't somebody missing from the table? And we saw the Arab allies there still talking about a sovereign state for the Palestinian people to the Israelis, and we also know that in Yemen, we have the Saudis that are involved in that, and we also have on the other side Iranians that are involved in that at least with weaponry.

BAIER: Another thing at the table is the U.S. border and the problems there. "The Washington Post" writes it this way, "President Biden faces an influx of migrants at the border amid calls to lift limits that aided expulsions. Authorities are on pace to make more than 200,000 detentions along the Mexican border in March, the highest monthly total since August. Of greater concern it CBP officials, the agency has been holding more than 15,000 migrants per day at border stations and tent facilities exceeding capacity limits. Last month CBP averaged fewer than 7,500 in custody per day records show." And now there are changes potentially because of COVID rules, Trey. And this could be a surge. It's been kind of on the backburner because of Ukraine, but Bill Melugin is heading down to the border again, and we expect that this is going to be a big story coming weeks.

GOWDY: Yes, Bret, I'm not a political expert anymore, but I'm pretty sure that when two Democrat senators use the word "chaotic" to describe the border -- not Republican senators, two Democrat senators say it is chaotic, then you have real problems. I have talked to I think will be the house incoming house judiciary chairman today, and he listed the border as the number one issue is he going to tackle if he gets the gavel come next January.

So it's chaotic. It's disastrous. It's unnecessary, and it's going to be a political liability come November. It's just a question of how much damage is done between now and then.

BAIER: Last thing. We talked about the president talking to reporters today, and there are a number of things he was challenged on, the walk back or not walk back what he said. Republicans are now jumping on this exchange being asked about Ketanji Brown Jackson's hearings. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you get any chance to watch much of the Judiciary Committee hearing?

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I didn't get to see any of it unfortunately.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president watched portions of Judge Jackson's hearing yesterday and today and is proud of the way she is showcasing her extraordinary qualifications, her experience, and her evenhandedness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Ben, he said he didn't see any of it, and they are saying he is proud of how she is presenting. It's like there's a disconnect between the president and his staff.

DOMENECH: It's not like there is a disconnect, there is a disconnect, Bret, between the president and his staff on this issue and on so many other issues that are even more important. It's a routine problem with this White House. It's one that still remains and actually may be getting worse in the recent weeks as we've dealt with these situations around the world. And it can't give anybody any confidence to see that kind of play out with regulator right in front of us on TV.

BAIER: All right, panel, thank you very much.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 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.