Amb. Sergey Kislyak on efforts to defuse Ukraine crisis; Cardinal Donald Wuerl on the 'Francis effect'

Written by Chris Wallace / Published April 20, 2014 / Fox News Sunday

Special Guests: Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Amb. Sergey Kislyak

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," April 20, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace.

The U.S. helps broker a deal between Russia and Ukraine. But now, word of new violence.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I think there is the possibility, a prospect that diplomacy may deescalate the situation.

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: It is absolutely clear now that what is important is that these words are translated immediately into actions.

WALLACE: We'll have a live report from Ukraine. And we'll discuss the potential for new sanctions if separatist forces refuse to stand down with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. It's a "Fox News Sunday" exclusive.

Then, the president says ObamaCare is working. And the laws critics should move on. Our Sunday panel weighs in.

Plus, the Francis effect. A look this Easter Sunday at the impact of a Catholic Church's leader in his first year.

CARDINAL DONALD WUERL, ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON: He touches people and he shows them a face of the church that's always been there that hasn't always been quite as evident.

WALLACE: The archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl joins us.

And our power player of the week, offering a taste of George Washington's other profession.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was running this distillery 12 months a year. It was the large whiskey distillery in the United States.

WALLACE: All, right now, on "Fox News Sunday."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And hello again. And happy Easter from Fox News in Washington.

A deadly gun battle at a checkpoint in eastern Ukraine has broken the fragile truce there. The checkpoint set up by pro-Russian separatist was reportedly attacked by far right Ukrainian nationalists, all of this is raising new doubts about the peace agreement the U.S. helped broker between Russia and Ukraine.

We want to bring in our FOX News correspondent Leland Vittert live from eastern Ukraine with the latest -- Leland.

LELAND VITTERT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Chris, as is typical in this conflict, the Ukrainians are blaming the Russians. Meanwhile, the Russian foreign ministry put out a statement blaming Ukrainians for breaking this truce. Actual truce on the ground are hard to come by. Certainly though this morning the attack moved a region which is on the brink of war already closer.

Video from the scene shows two burned out cars and the remnants of a large firefight. Ukrainian interior ministry has confirmed that three Russian separatists are dead and a number of others are wounded. Who exactly was behind the attack and who fired first remains in dispute.

The Ukrainian government claims the separatists are following orders from Moscow, supported by Russian special forces and the intelligence services who are providing support to the separatists and also helping to organize them in cases. The Russian separatist control a number of government buildings in eastern Ukraine, including the regional parliament building. They are dug in, well-armed, and are demanding a referendum to decide whether eastern Ukraine becomes its own country or perhaps part of Russia.

This Easter morning, a number of the separatists left their compounds without the fear of arrest to attend Easter services. They say they feel protected by President Putin of Russia who said he reserves the right to use force in Ukraine to protect either Russian interests or supporters.

The Ukrainian government for their part is trying very hard not to give Moscow an excuse to order the tens of thousands of troops it has on the Ukrainian boarder, across into Ukraine and in an invasion as the Russians already did in Crimea.

Chris, back to you.

WALLACE: Leland Vittert, reporting from eastern Ukraine -- Leland, thanks for that.

Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak joins us now.

Mr. Ambassador, welcome to "Fox News Sunday."

SERGEY KISLYAK, RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Thank you very much for inviting me.

WALLACE: What do you know about this gun battle that Leland just reported about at that checkpoint and does it threaten the troops between Russia and Ukraine?

KISLYAK: Well, first of all, this is very recent happened. I don't believe I have more information to share with you, except to suggest that we are outraged by the attack on the checkpoint. And I suppose -- I understand the checkpoint was manned by people who didn't have arms. So they were attacked by people who representative of the outright movement in the Ukrainian political spectrum.

WALLACE: The far right, ultranationalist movement.

KISLYAK: It is far right. And it's a problem. And that kind of event among the other suggests that the Geneva document calls for disarmament of all illegal entities in -- that have arms in Ukraine need to be comprehensive and that should include the right center among others.

WALLACE: So, does this put an end to the deal between Russia and Ukraine?

KISLYAK: Well, first of all, it's not a deal between Russia and Ukraine. The deal was --

WALLACE: Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the E.U.

KISLYAK: No, it's about Ukrainians talking to their own people. That is the most important thing. And the whole message of the Geneva document as far as I'm concerned is that the Ukrainians need to resolve these issues themselves.

We, the U.S. and the Europeans are called to support that kind of process. But unless the Ukrainian government or temporary government, whatever they call themselves, and the region of Ukraine talk to each other, agree on things, agree on what country they want to leave them, that certainly would include expanded authorities of the regional government.

Unless they do so in a fateful way, that will be no solution to the crisis.

WALLACE: Let me pick up on that. You talked about the fact that this nationalist group, the far right group, needs to put down its arms. As part of the agreement, the pro-Russian separatists also agree or at least this was an agreement they were not party to it, but the agreement was that they would put down their arms and leave the building. They are refusing to do so.

So, let me ask you a question. Will President Putin, will the Russian government tell the separatists to leave the occupied building?

KISLYAK: We signed the Geneva agreement. That is a message in itself. What is important is that all the measures provided for in the Geneva statement are equally applied throughout Ukraine, not only in the east but also in Kiev.

WALLACE: But I'm asking you a direct question. You say you signed the statement. Will you -- they were refusing to leave the buildings and disarm. Is the Russian government prepared to tell the pro Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine disarm and leave these buildings you have occupied?

KISLYAK: I have said to you that it has to be a process that includes everybody, including people in the eastern Ukraine, including and not exclusively. The problem currently is that the moment the Geneva statement was issued, Ukrainian colleagues have suggested that it's not applicable to what is happening in Kiev, that the far right groupings are going to be disarmed and on such circumstances, you shouldn't expect the other part of the political spectrum will be willing to rush in and implement the agreement.

I hope -- I sincerely hope as a result of diligent process that we'll have to bring the key part of the agreement implemented -- we will see things develop in the right direction. But it calls for several things. One, all -- and I underline the word all -- groups that do have unauthorized arms have to be disarmed. That is, by the way, one of the things that America promised (ph) --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Let me talk to you though -- I understand your point, which is you're saying that the militias in western Ukraine, the ones that want a separation from Russia, they have to be disarmed. I fully understand that point.

But I'm talking specifically now about your aspect of it which is the pro-Russian separatists and in eastern Ukraine. The commander of NATO forces, General Philip Breedlove, said this on Friday: "What is happening in eastern Ukraine is a military operation that is well- planned and organized and we assess that it is being carried out at the direction of Russia."

And President Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice added this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: We expect Russia indeed is committing to use that influence to try to deescalate and diffuse the situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Again, I fully understand what it is that you're saying about Kiev. I'm asking you a direct question though, one, can Russia get the militias to stand down. And two, will you?

KISLYAK: First of all, we are going to do whatever is necessary in order to see the Geneva agreement implemented, because it's in the best interest of Ukrainians and best interest of everybody including ourselves. But it has to be a process that includes all as a part of this effort we are going to work with all the parties involved. And I would underline once again the word -- all militias need to be disarmed.

WALLACE: I want to talk to you about a very deserve is incident that took place in eastern Ukraine this week. Jewish residents of the city of Donetsk leaving Passover services this week were met masked men who give them flyers that said that they must register with the authorities. Can -- first of all, do you condemn that action? And can you firmly state that pro-Russian separatists had nothing to do with that?

KISLYAK: First of all, I think it's an outrageous provocation. We certainly condemn any manifestations of anti-Semitism. Moreover, we have always been concerned very much that the rightist movement that came to power in Kiev or held to bring the new government in Kiev have shown themselves to be very anti-Russian but it's separate issue. We have always been concerned.  So, in the Geneva document, if you look at these characters, we all -- all of us or parts of it condemn all demonstrations of extremists, including anti-Semitism. So, when it comes to this provocation, I do not have any information as to who has done it. But it certainly is an outrageous provocation.

WALLACE: President Obama says if Russia does not diffuse the situation, he was speaking specifically about the Russian separatists leaving these buildings in eastern Ukraine, that if you do not help diffuse the situation, that the U.S. will impose new sanctions, further sanctions on Russia. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What you've already seeing is the Russian economy weaker. Capital fleeing out of Russia. You know, Mr. Putin's decisions are not just bad for Ukraine. Over the long term, they're going to be bad for Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mr. Ambassador, are you prepared to take another hit to your economy.

KISLYAK: First of all, we don't believe that the language of sanctions is a good one to talk in the 21st century. But secondly, you cannot work with Russia and try to achieve anything with the language of sanctions. Third, sanctions that have been introduced certainly significant gesture of the cold world mentality. But it's Russia. It's very solid state -- well to do, well developing country. We can withstand pressures.

Moreover, the sanctions --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: I must -- excuse me. I must interrupt, because you say, well, this revival of a Cold War.

KISLYAK: I didn't say that (INAUDIBLE). I still believe the basis for the Cold War is --

WALLACE: But the point I would make, sir, is when Crimea is the annex, and, you know, President Putin said no Russian troops in Crimea and then in his four-hour call-in show this week, he said, well, yes, we did send some Russian troops into Crimea.

When you have 40,000 troops on the border of eastern Ukraine and before, it was -- well, they're going to be exercises and now Putin says we may need them to restore order. That -- isn't that a cold war?

KISLYAK: Oh, no. First of all, you are talking about Crimea like it is a peace state that we annexed. It's not. There are 2.2 million people living there, first. So the future of Crimea was decided by Crimeans themselves. It was --  WALLACE: Under the thumb of pro-Russian separatist and Russian troops.

KISLYAK: What we have there were military presence that was absolutely legal, at the agreement with the Ukrainian government at the time. And there was an unconstitutional armed overthrow of the government in Kiev, when there were threats issued to Crimea, when there were people sent to take Simferopol to take over the local government buildings, we and the people on the ground understood that there was a threat.

So, we have to organize ourselves in a way to protect first and foremost Russian presence there. That was absolutely legal.

WALLACE: I --

KISLYAK: And we also certainly did to protect people there. But we didn't influence the processes within Crimea that was organized by local --

WALLACE: There are a number of independent experts, observers, who would disagree with that.

One last question, sir, finally, NATO announced this week that it is shoring up its defenses along its borders with Russia. Here is the secretary-general of NATO this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: We will have more planes in the air, more ships on the water, and more readiness on the land.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: This week, President Putin in that call in show talked about Russia's historic ties to eastern Ukraine as New Russia. And today, Ukraine's acting prime minister said that Putin has dreams of restoring the old Soviet Union. How far is President Putin prepared to go? What are his territorial ambitions?

KISLYAK: First, any statements about us of having dreams of restoring Soviet Union is a false notion in its very nature. Secondly, the illusions to the history of relations between Russia and Ukraine by the president, as we're suggesting, show that we are so intertwined. We are. There are so many families that are spread both in Ukraine and Russia. We have been --

WALLACE: So to answer my question, how far is President Putin prepared to go?

KISLYAK: We are not going anywhere. We just want the Ukrainians to find a way of a dialogue, a new constitution, that will help them live in a country that is democratic, that supports the rights of all the ethnic groups including certain Russians, and we want to have a friendly neighbor, because for us all, irrespective of what is happening, Ukrainians are just our brothers.

WALLACE: Just your brothers.

KISLYAK: I'm Ukrainian (ph) myself, technically.

WALLACE: So is my family historically.

Mr. Ambassador, thank you. Thank you so much for coming in today. We'll stay on top of development, sir.

KISLYAK: Yes, thank you very much for having me.

WALLACE: Up next, the president argues a surge in signups proves ObamaCare is working and the debate is over. Our Sunday panel debates that.

And what questions do you have about the new enrollment numbers? Just go to Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday when we may use your questions on the air.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The repeal debate is and should be over. The Affordable Care Act is working. And I know the American people don't want us spending the next 2 1/2 years refighting the settled political battles of the last five years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: President Obama is announcing 8 million people have now signed up for ObamaCare and hammering Republicans for continuing to try to repeal the law.

And it's time now for our Sunday group.

Syndicated columnist George Will, author of the new book "A Nice Little Place on the North Side", about Wrigley Field at 100; Time Magazine's Rana Foroohar; Robert Costa of The Washington Post; and former Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.

Did you just raise your hand? I thought you wanted my attention right away.

I'm going to ask you the first question. The president says ObamaCare is working. The debate is over. Is he right?

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, "the debate is over" is something of a mantra. The debate is over about climate change -- everyone, be quiet. The debate is over about early childhood education -- everyone, be quiet.

Lots of things are supposedly over. You hear that from people who are finding the evidence inconvenient.  Now, is it working? That's a fairly minimal claim. I mean, the farm subsidies in this country are working. Whether or not they are doing good work is another matter.

So, and this is -- the argument about ObamaCare is not just about ObamaCare. It's about the nature of the American regime. What kind of country do we want to live in? And therefore, it's going to take on for some while.

Furthermore, we haven't seen how the distribution of enrollees, how many are young and how many are female are going to have the work of adverse selection. So, I'd say it's a minimal claim.

And he is contradicting himself. He says, we should all stop talking about this except Democrats this fall should campaign on the basis of the multiform excellence of the Affordable Care Act.

WALLACE: We asked you for questions from the panel -- for the panel, rather.

And we got this from Tim Chastain on Twitter, who wrote, "If it is such a success, why won't they put out the true numbers on who has paid and how many were previously uninsured?" George's point.

Rana, it's not just those numbers. We still don't know how many people are going to be able to keep their doctors, go to the hospitals they used to, and especially next year we don't know what their premiums are going to be and what their deductibles are going to be. So, a lot of questions of how people are going to experience ObamaCare, we still don't know.

FOROOHAR: That's right. And I think that goes to the budgetary issues here, which I'm very interested in.

You know, the CBO, the Congressional Budgetary Office, a nonpartisan group, has said that this is going to bring down costs. That this is going to help the deficit. We don't quite know why that's happening. We don't know if that's because people are spending less because they simply can't afford to spend more. We don't know if it's because the quality of the health care programs have gone down.

So all this, we need to understand before the jury is really out.

WALLACE: Before the jury is in.

FOROOHAR: Or the jury is in.

WALLACE: President Obama had advice for Democrats running for office this year, as you just heard from George. Don't run away from ObamaCare.

Here's the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't think we should apologize for it. I don't think we should be defensive about it. I think there is a strong, good right story to tell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Bob, is that good political advice for Democrats seeking re-election? Defend ObamaCare forcefully?

COSTA: Broadly speaking, I don't see Democrats taking their cues from the White House. You're seeing them continuing the strategy which is almost to run away from the law. Democrats who are in these vulnerable seats, you look at Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Udall in Colorado -- they're trying to localize their races, talk about different issues.

If any national issue they're bringing up, it's income equality. It's not ObamaCare. They're not getting any strategy advice from the White House.

WALLACE: But do you think that at least to the extent, Bob, that they're going to have to talk about it because they're going to be attacked by it on their -- by the Republican opponent, that this, the announcement of the facts by the president and his argument gives them at least a talking point to respond?

COSTA: I talked to my Democratic sources on Friday, they said they're still not going to run on the law, but they will run on Medicaid expansion. If Medicaid expansion is working in a place like Michigan, maybe Democrats will able to make an argument against Republicans or repeal case.

But I still don't see Democrats running towards the president's case, which is supporting the law and touting that 8 million number.

WALLACE: Senator Bayh, let me come at this a different way. Now that the Web site is working and now that 8 million people have signed up, will ObamaCare be less of a burden for Democrats than it appeared it was going to be in the depths of the mess with the Web site this last fall?

BAYH: Well, it's less of a burden than it appeared six months ago, Chris. At that point there was a real fear of a complete implosion, the danger (ph) to being an unmitigated disaster. I think speaking politically, which is your question about the best Democrats can hope for this fall is to fight to basically a draw.

The problem with that is that in the midterm election, it's all about turnout. And when you look at the polls, the Republican base is just a lot more excited against this law than the Democratic base is for it. So, you've got a turnout problem.

I suspect what the Democrats will do, and Bob alluded to this, is cherry-pick some things. For example, the drug coverage for seniors, catastrophic coverage, those sorts of things and say, the Republicans want to roll that back and going the attack. But you kind of net this out, substantively it's a draw. Turn out is the real problem. I don't know what can be done about that on this issue between now and November. The Democrats have to pivot to something else.  WALLACE: George, do you think it's substantively a draw?

WILL: No. And I think the reason Evan gives is these are mobilizational actions, and the Republicans are mobilized by ObamaCare. It's a great gift that keeps on giving for them.

But also, there are two court decisions that may come down between now and November. They're going to change everything. Four different courts are hearing an argument that in the 34 states that have not established state exchanges, language of the law makes clear they cannot distribute ObamaCare subsidies.

But more than that, on May 8th here in the second most important court in the land, the D.C. circuit court of appeals, there will be an argument that this is objectively a revenue measure. The Supreme Court said as much. It's a tax measure.

It did not originate in the House. The Constitution says all revenue measures must originate in the House. And under the standards of origination, the whole thing is unconstitutional. So, this argument again is far from over.

WALLACE: But that part of it probably is not going to be a hot election issue in November. Ron, do you think this -- how do you see this playing out in November? I mean, it clearly is not the unmitigated disaster it was in October. Is it a mitigated disaster? Or is it a substantive draw --

FOROOHAR: I'm a little more optimistic. I actually think that, you know, some of the exemptions that are going to allow certain signups between now and November actually favor younger people. That's one point. You may see more younger people signing up between now and then.

I also think it's important to recognize that we're basically where Massachusetts was in the first year in terms of statistics when it rolled out a similar plan. So, I think the trajectory is somewhat favorable to the president. But we really going to see -- need to see more numbers about who signed up, whether or not they had insurance before, how many of them bought insurance on exchanges.

WALLACE: Real quickly --

BAYH: Real quick, Chris. There is one big event to look for between now and November, that's the insurance companies coming out with projections for the increases in premiums that people will pay for next year. If that's a big number, then it becomes a big problem for Democrats. If it's muted, not so much.

WALLACE: And they're probably going to see that in October, aren't they? Before the November election.

BAYH: When you ask Americans what they care about most is what they pay for their health care. And so, if they were led to believe that the cost increase -- 

WALLACE: And this has to do with the young people signing up because now we're dealing with risk pool. Now, we're dealing with premiums. Now, we're dealing with deductibles. So, this could be a real hit --

BAYH: All across America, people are looking at this and saying, how much is this costing us?

WALLACE: All right. We have to take a break here.

When we come back, the Obama administration delays a decision on building a Keystone pipeline again.

And the Pulitzer Prize goes to newspapers that reported Edward Snowden's leaks about the NSA.

Our panel tackles both when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARY DOER, CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: When you look at the amount of oil coming from North Dakota, Montana, and Canada, it is very cleanest, safest way to proceed. And that's -- the debate has become symbolic, but not substantial in terms of the why we should proceed with this project.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Canada's ambassador to the U.S. Gary Doer slamming the Obama administration's latest delay of a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. And we are back now with the panel. Well, the State Department faced a May 7TH deadline for reviewing whether to go forward with the pipeline. Now with another delay, it seems almost certain that there will be no decision by the administration before the election in November. Bob, what do you think of this, another delay, both in terms of policy and in terms of politics?

COSTA: I think in terms of politics, you're seeing a real skittish reaction from Democrats. Mary Landrieu, the chairman of Senate Energy Committee, she issued a statement really criticizing the administration for this delay. And she just issued a first ad in Louisiana running on her ability to get things done on energy in Washington. And so for people like her in Utah and Colorado, where the pipeline would have a part, they are I think really struggling with the administration right now. They need something else to talk about. And the administration is just not helping them out.

WALLACE: 11 Senate Democrats including several of those running for re-election had sent a letter to the president recently asking for a decision, a final decision whether to go ahead by the end of May. Senator Bayh, by delaying again, is it smart politics on the part of the administration because you don't tick off or maybe you tick off both sides equally, but at least you don't finally disappoint, you know, the environmentalists on one side or the independent voters in conservative states.

BAYH: Well, first, Chris, let me say -- I'm shocked at the cynicism implicit in this line of question that politics might actually intrude in important decision ...

WALLACE: But you know, I didn't have that for the first five years. That as we got into year six.

BAYH: Thank you. Thank you. Well, look. The State Department has issued their analysis that on the merits about CO2, this is basically a wash. It doesn't matter much one way or the other. So we do get to the politics. And it basically allows the administration to, you know, have the best of both worlds. To put off a real dilemma. On the one hand, as we were talking, this is a base election. The base in the Democratic Party cares about this issue. So that would argue for denial. Environmentalists also contribute a lot of money. So that would argue for denial. On the other hand, as Bob was mentioning, many of the Key Senate races are in red states. And particularly in Louisiana and Alaska, which are energy producing states. This is a big issue. So by putting it off, six and seven month, the administration has probably concluded, look, that's not a real deal breaker putting it off that long. And in the meantime, it allows us to avoid this dilemma leading up to November. So to answer your question, it is smart politics.

WALLACE: But it is also not an unmitigated disaster for Mary Landrieu who is being criticized for being too close to President Obama to be able to blister on and say I'm -- he's wrong here. He's completely wrong.

BAYH: A lot of Democrats in blue states to run for the denial of the pipeline and Democrats like Mary to say -- to distance themselves from the administration and prove that they're independent.

WALLACE: Rana, are you going to say something?

FOROOHAR: Well, I just want to mention this. This is also a foreign policy issue, because if you think about who is going to benefit most if we don't do the pipeline is Venezuela. Because they actually produce the same kind of oil that Canada does. So, I think that's an issue that we need to think about. You know, who is our neighbor? Who is our friend? Who we want to really benefit from this? Canada or Venezuela?

WALLACE: And particularly at a time when we might -- some people say should be in an energy war with Russia in terms of supplying ...

FOROOHAR: Absolutely. Energy independence, I think it really does in this case trumps -- and jobs, trumps the environmental concerns.

WALLACE: George, I want to switch subjects on you. This week "The Washington Post" and the Guardian newspaper received the highest award in newspapering, the Pulitzer Prize for their reports based on the leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Then Snowden appeared on that four hour call in show. He was talking about with the Russian ambassador where Putin took questions from people in the audience, questions from people calling up all over and there was a pre-reported call, video from Edward Snowden. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARD SNOWDEN, NSA LEAKER: Does Russia intercept, store or analyze in any way the communications of millions of individuals?

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (via translator): This kind of mass surveillance, this kind of uncontrolled mass surveillance, we're not allowing for itself and I hope we won't ever allow it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: A couple of questions. First of all, what do you make of the Pulitzer committee giving its highest prize to reporting on a leak that a lot of top U.S. officials say was an act of treason and secondly, what do you make of that phone call which obviously had been prearranged to Putin? Some people say he was playing the stooge in a propaganda game. He says, Snowden says that he was trying to put Putin on the spot.

WILL: Well, I take the last question first. Lennon whose spirit still infuses the government of Russia had a name for people like Mr. Snowden. "Useful idiots," he said. Idealists so-called who served the interests of Lennon's country. We don't need to listen to Snowden any more giving us lectures about the virtues of an open society when he chooses to go to earth in Putin's Russia. Now, about the Pulitzer Prize. In 1972 "The New York Times" won the Pulitzer Prize for the publication of the Pentagon papers. The question occurs, what work did they do? Maybe the award should have gone to Daniel Ellsberg who leaked them. Did the paper do more than receive and published? Now the "Post," "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" did go to court and did establish an important principal about prior restraints that is now part of our constitutional law. Still, the question is, I think in the normal readers' mind, what journalistic effort went into this? What journalistic initiative? This is leaving aside whether the NSA should be doing what it's doing, leaving aside whether people actually are going to get killed because of what Snowden leaked when no one was killed because of the Pentagon papers. They were just an embarrassment.

WALLACE: But I want to pick up on that, Rana, and whether this leak is different than that leak. Because I think particularly from the vantage point of 40 years later and there were certainly plenty of people who screamed when Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers. And he was a former Defense Department analyst who worked for the RAND Corporation, and these were papers that history that have been written by the Pentagon that basically said what they were telling the American people is not what they knew and what they believed themselves. I think from the vantage point of history, while it certainly was an embarrassment, it was not seen as giving up huge facts that were going to endanger people's lives. There is certainly a very active debate about that with Snowden's leaks.

FOROOHAR: There is. And, you know, he's not a particularly savory character. I think most of us can agree on that. But if you look back historically, what the Pulitzer for public service has given for us since 1918 is typically being given for journalism that looks at abuses of government power, which, you know, a federal district judge has ruled in fact that most of what was done here by the NSA would probably be -- be unconstitutional. So I think that there is a precedent for this, I don't think that there is that much difference in terms of these leaks. And I think that we're just the beginning of seeing what the consequence of all this is going to be.

WALLACE: Well, I guess I'm a little surprised. Does anybody else want to contest that, because ...

BAYH: I'll let the force of state judge the force of state, but as someone who follows intelligence matters, some, Chris, I can tell you Russia, China, Iran, non-nation state actors who are involved in terror have changed their behavior because of these leaks. That damages the national security interests and possibly the physical well-being of the American people. It's difficult for me to see how that is an act of public service.

WALLACE: Bob? I mean is this another Daniel Ellsberg, which I guess as I say now is an act of public service or is this something that shouldn't have been honored regardless of what the papers did?

COSTA: I think "The Post" was ambitious with this journalism. It took a risk on behalf of something they thought was in the public interest. And that is just old school journalism.

WALLACE: You don't buy it?

BAYH: Well, yes, so if we published the Rosenberg's giving up the nuclear secrets to the Russians, would that have been an act of public service? I don't think so.

WALLACE: Or when the troops' chefs are going to arrive in Europe?

BAYH: Yeah, you know, look, as I said, I leave it to the press to judge the press. But this has damaged the nation's security.

WALLACE: All right. Thank you, panel. We have to take it -- we have to leave it there. We'll see you next week. Be sure to tell us what you think about the administration's latest delay to propose the Keystone pipeline on Facebook and share your favorite moments from today's show with other FNS viewers. Up next, on this Easter Sunday, we'll look at what Pope Francis has accomplished in his first year and where he'll take the church now. Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPE FRANCIS (speaking Latin)

(END VIDEO CLIP)  WALLACE: Pope Frances led his second Easter mass at the Vatican today under sunny skies and before an overflow crowd of more than 100,000 people in St. Peter's Square. The pope prayed for peace in Syria and Ukraine. Earlier, I spoke with the archbishop of Washington Donald Cardinal Wuerl.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Your eminence, welcome back to Fox News Sunday.

CARDINAL DONALD WUERL, ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON: Thank you, Chris, it's great to be back.

WALLACE: Let's start with what's called the Francis effect, the impact of the pope, his first year in. Has he made a difference in the life of the church here in Washington?

WUERL: I think so. I think there is a demonstrable difference. It's in a certain sense intangible. There is a sense of spirit. There's a sense of being uplifted. There's a great sense of people feeling a lot closer to the church than they did, say, two years ago. That's part of the Francis effect. He touches people and he shows them a face of the church that's always been there that hasn't always been quite as evident. The face of a loving, forgiving Christ in his church.

WALLACE: Let me pick up on that. Because the pope famously said that he sees the church as a field hospital after battle and he wants to spend less time arguing over doctrine and more time ministering to the poor. Has it changed your approach and that of your priests?

WUERL: I think what he is saying to us, and this is very important and I like to think that he's helping us do what we have tried to do. He is saying to us the teaching is there. We all know the teaching. But here's how you do it. Here's how you do it in a way that people can experience it and can come onboard with it. I like to think that it's reaffirming for all of us, what we've been trying to do. And if nothing else, it's saying you're on the right track.

WALLACE: The pope appointed you to the congregation for bishops to help choose the new leaders of the church. He said bishops should not have, and I want to get those -- the quote right, the psychology of princes, but rather should enchant the world, seduce the world with a beauty of love. It's an interesting choice of words.

WUERL: It is. Because we are mindful that we have an office we have to discharge in the life of the church. But he's saying to us, the heart and soul of that office is transmit the love of God. Transmit the love of Christ. He -- when we met with him to talk about what he expects of that congregation for bishops, he said bishops have to be patient. They have to be patient. They have to be patient. And he said find bishops who love being pastors of souls. And we'll simply be patient with them.

WALLACE: You have written a new book called "The Light is on for you" about the importance of confession. And the pope stunned the world when he took public confession a few weeks ago. What is it that he and you are saying?

WUERL: We're saying that the love and forgiveness of God is always there. This is something that Pope Frances said that I love and I repeat it over and over again. He said God never gets tired of forgiving us. We sometimes get tired of asking to be forgiven. That's what confession is all about. God is always there. God is always forgiving. And he's given in Jesus Christ he's given the power to his church to forgive sins. Why don't we take advantage of it? That's what the pope is saying. And simply by kneeling down and going to confession in public, he said to the whole world, it's okay to do this. We still do this. And that's what the light is on program has been here in Washington for years now. Come. Experience the forgiveness of God. Experience the love of Christ.

WALLACE: You know, we see all of these public moments just this week he took those two young boys out on the pope mobile around St. Peter's Square and he washes the feet of not only Christians, but Muslims and sinners. You have dealt with him in your new post for the congregation for bishops. And you'd say that even in private meetings, meetings that the world doesn't see, that he conducts himself differently than other popes you've been -- you had contact with.

WUERL: Chris, he is the same at these meetings as we see him in the square. He has such a sense of humanity, of ease and comfort. At a recent meeting, we were all -- he came and he stayed for three hours which is unheard of for pope to come and attend a meeting. We're all sitting around the table. And he comes and pulls up a chair. But we're about two hours into the meeting. And he says, don't we usually get a coffee break?

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: He didn't decree a coffee break? He was just asking.

WUERL: Don't we usually? Because he is a member of that commission years ago and he knew that we always stopped for coffee in the afternoon. But he was making the point that let's try to keep this as normal as possible. One of the things I loved about the first meeting, he came to was one of the senior cardinals said to him, well, we're working on this. What do you think? And he said, if I told you what I think, you would all agree. I want to hear from you what you think.

WALLACE: So, it's really a collegial process?

WUERL: It's a -- and he said this over and over again. He wants there to be this process, through which the Holy Spirit can be -- can be heard. And the Holy Spirit isn't going to be heard if just one person speaks.

WALLACE: Even the pope?

WUERL: Well, it will certainly be heard if the pope speaks, but he wants all of us to be speaking with him, so at the end of the day, he can say this truly was the fruit of the work of the spirit.

WALLACE: You are part of a lawsuit that the Court of Appeals here in Washington will hear next month on the birth control mandate for ObamaCare. Now under the law, the exemptions, the church proper is exempt, but you say that's not enough. What is it that President Obama is missing?

WUERL: At the heart of our lawsuit is the constitutional issue. We have said all along that it is not the role of any administration, any government to tell us what is our ministry. We've said all along our identity and our ministry are one. When we listen to Matthew's Gospel to feed the hungry, give grape to the thirsty, cloth the naked, that's part of the gospel just like "Do this in memory of me" is. So, it's not up to the government to say these are the things that are Catholic Church and these are the things that aren't. And that's why we're ...

WALLACE: When they're talking about a catholic hospital or a catholic school, even if they have non-Catholic workers, you're saying, no, that is still part of the ministry.

WUERL: Because here, in the district, for example, in our catholic schools in the inner city, the largest percentage of them are not catholic. We're educating them because that's our responsibility as Catholics to educate, to help people get ahead in life. They don't have to become Catholics to come to our schools. But as we said all along, we do it not because they're catholic. We do it because we're catholic. But we don't want the president to say if you're going to do this, this is the way you must do it.

WALLACE: Easter is, of course, one of the most sacred days in the church calendar. But there are some people who are saying that next Sunday, a week from today will actually be an even bigger day in St. Peter's because the pope and we have the pictures on the screen is going to preside over the canonization of two of his predecessors, John Paul II, John XXIII to be canonized as saints. Do you think that Francis is making a statement canonizing both a man who was seen as a progressive pope and one who was seen as a conservative pope on the same day?

WUERL: I think what he's saying to us is there is a continuity in the life of the church, the doctrine of the church never changes, but we're living in an age of the Second Vatican Council. It was John XXIII who called the council. He was beloved by people because of his simplicity, a lot like Francis. And Pope John Paul II said when he was elected pope, I see my ministry as implementing that council. And he spent 26 1/2 years doing that. I think what Pope Francis is saying is there is a wonderful continuity in the ongoing updating of the life of the church. And these two men happen to be very holy examples of it.

WALLACE: Finally, your eminence, do you have an Easter message for us?

WUERL: Easter is always for every Christian the time of celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. So it's a time for us of great hope, but for the whole world it's also a time of hope to realize we never have to live in desperation, despair. God holds out for us the pledge of new life, of eternal life. And that's the message of Easter, look to the future and know every one of us is capable of building a better world. In its fullness, it will be the kingdom of God, the glory of God. But in the meantime, each one of us is capable of doing that. Resurrection is all about new life and that's why we say hallelujah.

WALLACE: Cardinal world, thank you so much for coming, especially on this very busy week and Happy Easter, sir.

WUERL: Happy Easter to you, thank you.

WALLACE: Coming up, our "Power Player of the Week," a taste of George Washington's whiskey.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: We know him as a great general and the father of our country but it turns out George Washington had other skills you may not have known about. Here is our "Power Player of the Week."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CURTIS VIEBRANZ, PRESIDENT, MOUNT VERNON ESTATE: He realized that if he did it, he could make money. He was the consummate -- he was the consummate capitalist.

WALLACE: Curtis Viebranz is president of the Mt. Vernon Estate. And he is talking about how George Washington got into the distillery business in the last years of his life.

VIEBRANZ: By the time of his death, in 1799, 11,000 gallons were distilled. It was the largest whiskey distillery in the United States.

WALLACE: Mt. Vernon now distills and sells rye whiskey, apple and peach brandy using the same methods and recipes Washington used.

(on camera): How much demand is there for your product?

VIEBRANZ: It sells out immediately.

WALLACE: And what is the top price you charge for a bottle of ...

VIEBRANZ: The aged rye whiskey we sell for $195 a bottle.

WALLACE (voice over): When Washington left the presidency in 1797, his Scottish farm manager said they have the water, crops and gristmill to start a new business.

(on camera): Now, as the former general of the Continental Army, as the former president of the United States said the idea of distilling whiskey give him pause?  VIEBRANZ: It did. I think for him he was nervous about what sort of a message it might project, what kind of an element it might attract. But ultimately, I think he satisfied himself to the fact that he could control that, but mainly that he could make a lot of money doing it.

WALLACE (voice over): After Washington's death, the distillery fell into disrepair and burned down. But seven years ago they rebuilt it exactly where it stood and they make whiskey the same way they did back then.

VIEBRANZ: I'm going to take the water.

WALLACE (on camera): Right.

VIEBRANZ: And put the water into the barrel.

WALLACE (voice over): It is hard work. They put rye and malt and yeast into barrels and let it ferment for three days. Then they carry the mash over to the spills to heat it into vapor and turn it eventually into whiskey.

VIEBRANZ: Some of it comes out as water and some of it comes out in the back as alcohol. And you'll actually distill it twice and we're testing regularly to see what proof we've got. Because we want to make sure we have the right proof of whiskey.

WALLACE: Washington was not a heavy drinker. But there is a famous if unconfirmed story of him visiting a fishing club in Philadelphia.

VIEBRANZ: He was invited at one moment to go and to take the fish out of punch, and he kept a diary every day. And after having this fish out punch, his diary was empty for three days straight. So he would say that it was strong stuff.

WALLACE: There was only one thing left to do. Sample some of the peach brandy made at the distillery.

VIEBRANZ: So, this is a very valuable bottle. And we're glad to have you here.

WALLACE (on camera): Thank you. And this is as close to what George Washington drank as you can make it.

VIEBRANZ: Absolutely. And we say "Hooza" (ph) before we drink it.

WALLACE: Hooza?

VIEBRANZ: Hooza is a Revolutionary War cheer.

WALLACE: Hooza!

VIEBRANZ: Hooza!

WALLACE: Whoa!

VIEBRANZ: Yeah.

WALLACE: It's pretty good.

VIEBRANZ: It's great.

WALLACE: If you like peach brandy.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: It was strong stuff. Mt. Vernon sells 2,000 bottles a year of whiskey and brandy and they have special permission from the Commonwealth of Virginia to sell it without a liquor license. And that's it for today. Have a Happy Easter and a great week. And we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

FNS Guests

Sunday December 04, 2016

This Sunday, we’ll have the latest on the Trump transition and Thursday night’s heated forum at Harvard with Clinton aides-- with Trump Senior Advisor Kellyanne Conway.

Chris will sit down with Green Party Presidential Nominee Dr Jill Stein, to discuss her controversial push for a presidential election recount in several states.