Mitt Romney on Hillary Clinton's candidacy, crowded GOP field; Sen. Bob Menendez on indictment, Iran and Cuba

Former Republican presidential nominee on 'Fox News Sunday'


This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," April 12, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


Hillary Clinton getting into the 2016 race for president. Can any Republican stop her?


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Don't you someday want to see a woman president of the United States of America?

WALLACE: We'll discuss Clinton's candidacy and the crowded Republican field with the GOP's 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.

Then, Congress prepares to vote on whether it must approve an Iran nuclear deal, as President Obama tries to prevent the talks from unraveling.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is not done until it's done. The next two to three months of negotiation are going to be absolutely critical.

WALLACE: We'll hear from one of the administration's fiercest critics on Iran and restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez in his first television interview since his indictment on bribery charges. It's a "Fox News Sunday" exclusive.

Plus, the police shooting of an unarmed black man in South Carolina reignites the debate over race and justice.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: The system is working and please don't politicize this. It is working.

WALLACE: Our Sunday group weighs in.

And our Power Player of the Week: Redskins' quarterback Robert Griffin III, on football and his unique foundation.

ROBERT GRIFFIN III, REDSKINS QUARTERBACK: This is not just the money. It's about the relationships.

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


WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

The 2016 presidential field is starting to come into focus. On the Democratic side: Hillary Clinton entering the race as the clear favorite for her party's nomination. For Republicans, Florida Senator Marco Rubio set to announce tomorrow, joining Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in what shapes as a crowded GOP contest.

Here to discuss all that and more, the Republicans 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.

Governor, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Thanks, Chris. Good to be with you.

WALLACE: Let's start with Hillary Clinton's entry into the presidential race. What do you think is the most effective way for Republicans to make the case against her?

ROMNEY: Well, I think the American people are making that case already. You've seen in polls and in discussions across the country a feeling that Hillary Clinton is just not trustworthy. This whole story about her having erased all of her e-mails even though they were subject to recall and review by Congress, I think that's made people remember that with the Clinton's it's always something.

And I think also the fact that she's been there a long time. She's a creature of Washington. How many years did she say, 18 years she hasn't driven a car. She's been driven by Secret Service and other securities. I mean, she's been there a long time. I think people want to see change, want to see something new and Hillary Clinton is just not that person.

WALLACE: Let's talk also about her policy agenda. Top Clinton advisers say she is going to frame the economic message around the idea of fighting for the middle class and that she's a pragmatist who can make Washington work, which seems to be little bit implied criticism to Barack Obama, that they say specifically on economics. She's going to talk about responsible capitalism and she's going to say this in effect, "Business needs to be responsible in how they make money and what they need to give back to society."

Governor Romney, your reaction to that idea of responsible capitalism?

ROMNEY: Well, there's no question, but the businesses have to be responsible and have to follow the law and have to do what's in the best interest of their employees and their shareholders and customers and their suppliers. So, there's nothing new in the message.

I think the real charge she'll have is trying to run away from foreign policy. She has, after all, been the secretary of state for four years. And the Clinton/Barack Obama foreign policy has been a bust. I mean, you see that around the world. The world is not safer.

And I think she's going to try to run away from foreign policy. But it's going to come back to be once again an issue that I think really dogs her throughout the campaign.

WALLACE: Let's turn to what looks like will be a very crowded Republican field. You say that you are going to be -- and I love this phrase -- aggressively neutral. But there are some reports that you may have a soft spot for Florida Senator Marco Rubio who is announcing tomorrow.

You say that the party has to connect with minorities. He's a Hispanic/American. You say it's time to turn to the next generation of Republican leaders. He's in his 40s. And frankly, I was surprised to see how many members of your 2012 staff are working for Rubio this time.

Do you have a kind of soft spot for Rubio?

ROMNEY: I have a soft spot for almost all the folks that are running for president in 2016 on our side. Very close to Jeb Bush. He and I have been friends for a long time and served together as governors.

Chris Christie and I get together a lot and enjoy his company. I'm just getting to know Scott Walker a little better.

Marco campaigned for me in 2012. Did a very nice job.

But there are a lot of good folks. I met with Carly Fiorina the other day, spoke with Lindsey Graham time and again. But he, by the way, is one of the funniest people I know.

So, there's a good crowd of people. Rand Paul has been kind enough to come out and speak at my conference a couple of times. So, we've got a good group, and frankly I think we have the advantage of having an exciting debate in the Republican Party. It's going to go on throughout the primary season.

Compared to the Democrats side, it looks like it's going to be quiet over there. We'll have the energy, the eyeballs of America on our process, and I'm looking forward to see who it is that is able to get some distance and become our nominee.

WALLACE: But, you know, there's a downside to that and you saw it to some degree in 2012 in which the long, drawn-out primary fight may have moved you and may have moved the party too far to the right for the general election.

In the last couple of weeks, there was a controversy over these religious freedom laws in Arkansas and Indiana. All of the Republican presidential candidates supported the law but there was a backlash that they had to fix the laws to explicitly -- to rule out any discrimination against gays.

And I guess the question I have is, do things like that, where you have Republican pieces of legislation and such a backlash that the Republican governors of Arkansas and Indiana had to, quote, "fix them," does that make this party or run the risk of making this party look out of touch?

ROMNEY: Well, there of course will be circumstances that arise, whether it's laws or events that happen in the world and each side is going to try to take advantage of those things politically. The Democrats did that. Those that were very concerned about some of these issues, made it a big issue. It's appropriately something that has to be considered.

I think Jeb Bush said it well. He said, look, we have a couple of principles in this country that are fundamental. One is people have the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscious. At the same time, we also oppose discrimination of any kind.

And so, legislatures are going to have to deal with both of those realities and harmonize them and it's going to be a process that will have some bumps and starts, and legislatures are going to have to make corrections from time to time. And I know that there will be people who try to take political advantage of that circumstance, but it's an important series of topics, and we're going to have to work at it and hopefully give people the benefit of the doubt as they try and wrestle with ways to try to protect both of those fundamental principles.

WALLACE: But I guess what I'm asking is, and you saw I think in 2012 on the issue of immigration, isn't there a danger that an appeal to the base to try to win the primaries, you're forced to say things or take positions that could end up hurting you in the general election.

ROMNEY: Well, I do think that people running for office whether in the past or in the future will stick to the principles that they have, but sometimes during these debates the moderators focus on issues that are highly with divisive issues and end up having people pull away from us.

So, I think the Republican national committee is probably wise to say, hey, let's have eight to 10 debates. Let's not have 20 or 22 debates like we had because at some point you just keep on rehashing some of the same attack lines that are coming from the left.

WALLACE: Senator Rand Paul is toughening -- and he just got into the race this last week, is toughening some of his foreign policy positions. Now, he supports foreign aid to Israel. Now, he supports a bigger defense budget.

But there's a conservative national security group that put out a very tough ad against him. Take a look at this.


AD NARRATOR: Rand Paul supports Obama's negotiation with Iran. And he doesn't understand the threat.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: You know, it's ridiculous to think that they're a threat to our national security.

AD NARRATOR: Rand Paul is wrong and dangerous.


WALLACE: Governor, is Rand Paul too soft on national security?

ROMNEY: Well, we're going to get a better chance to see exactly where Rand Paul is on these issues. He wasn't a senator 10 years ago. He is now a United States senator. He is experiencing what's happening in the world, and I think as he gets greater perspective, he's going to be very clear on where he stands on foreign policy issues and we'll give him the benefit of the doubt, take what he says today, and that will be the platform he runs with as a candidate for president if he gets into this race.

WALLACE: Well, no, he's in the race. He got in last week. I know it's hard --

ROMNEY: I'm sorry. I haven't kept my score card up as to who is actually officially in and who is just kind of in.

WALLACE: Yes. So, let me ask you a foreign policy question because you've been quite critical of President Obama's negotiation with Iran.

And what I want to ask you is, what's the alternative, if on the one hand you have the deal that the president seems to be working out with the Iranians right now, and on the other hand, you have taking military action to try to degrade or destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure -- what's the alternative in terms of finding a way to a deal that there's any realistic chance that the Iranian leaders will accept?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, you have to have effective negotiators and President Obama and John Kerry have been amateur negotiators, have not done the job they should have done.

But the alternative is pretty straight forward, that is to return to put in place more and more crippling, tightening sanctions so that Iran feels more and more pressure and is more willing to come to the bargaining table, willing to give things up as opposed to us going to the bargaining table and giving things up.

Look, the president was saying there's no reason for Iran to have Fordow, for instance, which is developing advanced nuclear technology and plutonium. And he was right. I mean, he drew a red line.

But, you know, there doesn't seem to be a read line the president meets that he is not willing to walk away from. And this is another circumstance where he's walking away from that, just trying to get a deal done and a bad deal is not as good as no deal.

And the right thing to do is to cripple -- cripple them with tougher sanctions, bring them back to the negotiating table six months or year from now and get the kind of agreement that doesn't do what happened with North Korea. Don't forget what we're doing is going down the same path we went with North Korea. North Korea now has a bomb. They also have technology they send to others around the world. This deal that the president has laid out is not the kind of deal that will protect us and protect the world.

WALLACE: A couple of final areas I want to get into with you. Democratic leader, Harry Reid, took to the Senate floor in August of 2012 and declared flatly that you had not paid any taxes, any income taxes for the previous 10 years. He didn't offer any substantiation for that.

He was asked about that the other day and did he have any regrets and he said, "Well, Romney didn't win, did he?" And then he said this, take a look --


JORGE RAMOS: No apologies to Mitt Romney?

SEN. HARRY REID (D), NEVADA: Oh, none whatsoever, zero, none.


WALLACE: Question, is that just political hardball or did Harry Reid go over the line, sir?

ROMNEY: Well, he surely went over the line, but disappointed in Harry Reid. That's really not appropriate for someone in his position to make unsubstantiated claims and, of course, they're entirely wrong. I wish we could somehow go back and pay no taxes but the truth is I paid a lot of taxes, released tax returns so people could see that and Harry, I guess, just isn't big enough to admit it.

WALLACE: What do you think of Harry Reid?

ROMNEY: I think he was effective in his party but terribly ineffective in pursuing an agenda that's right for America. I'm glad he is retiring and I wish him well in his retirement. But I'm glad he is out of the Senate soon.

WALLACE: Finally, and this kind of pains me, but I must say I have real admiration, you finished in the 99.9th percentile in your March Madness bracket. You picked all of the Final Four. You picked Duke to win the championship.

And I have question, how the heck did you do that, Governor?


ROMNEY: Well, you know, I looked at the capabilities of the team. I looked also what the attitude of the team would be, overconfident versus challenging underdogs and I looked at the experience of the coach. And all that together accounted for 10 percent of my success. And 90 percent was luck.

So, I'm not going to fill out another bracket. This was the high point. I'm retiring after some success.

WALLACE: Did you get any help or was that all Mitt Romney?

ROMNEY: I got no help whatsoever. I got the bracket, filled it out in a relatively short amount of time and then crossed my fingers.

WALLACE: Well, since you're not going to do any more brackets, if I call you next March, would you give me some help?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. You bet, Chris. I'll give you al the help I got. No, it won't do any better than my prior brackets.

WALLACE: Governor Romney, thank you. Thanks for coming in today. Always good to talk with you, sir.

ROMNEY: Thanks, Chris. Good to be with you.

WALLACE: Up next unarmed black man killed by a white police officer in South Carolina, but is the case being politicized? Our Sunday group joins the conversation.

Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about Hillary Clinton getting into the race for the White House? Just go to Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air.



HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Let's talk. Let's chat. Let's start a dialogue about your ideas and mine, because the conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Used her personal e-mail account to conduct official business.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wanted to reset relations with Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not really working out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Potentially catastrophic move for Hillary Clinton.


WALLACE: Hillary Clinton's warm and fuzzy announcement of her candidacy eight years ago and a Republican attack ad released this week before Clinton even got into the race.

And it's time now for our Sunday group. FOX News senior political analyst, Brit Hume. Welcome back. "USA Today" columnist, Kirsten Powers, syndicated columnist, George Will, and Charles Lane for "The Washington Post."

Brit, there's been a lot of talk about how Clinton is going to take a softer, more intimate approach this time than eight years ago. What struck me looking back at that video, that's exactly the kind of tact, the tone she set last time. So, it seems to be her go-to move.

What do you see going in? What are her strengths and weaknesses on day one of her campaign?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: She has huge advantages. She's better known than any Democrat in America or any Democrat running in this election year. She has tremendous body of support and supporters that dates back years.

She has a huge fund-raising apparatus. She has, you know, professional people around her. She has long experience. She knows the issues.

But at the same time, she has tremendous baggage. I mean, do America -- American people really want another four, eight years with the Clinton and their weird marriage? Do they really want more of the kind of behavior -- you know, the deceptive behavior we saw with regard to the e-mails and all the rest of it which is so redolent of Clinton administrations and Clinton experiences past?

And then, there's the fact that the public is hungry for someone new, she is not somebody new. She is old. She is not the new.

WALLACE: We ask you for questions for the panel and we got this question on Facebook for Hillary Clinton from Joan Goloskov. She writes to Clinton, "How do you explain your silence from Benghazi and your decision to destroy government information from your private server? Are these the actions of a leader?"

And take a look at what we got today. This was sent out to political reporters all over the country, I guess, who might have something to do with the campaign. It is a thumb drive sent by the RNC, which supposedly -- you plug into your computer and it has, quote, "secret Hillary Clinton e-mails."

Kirsten --

KIRSTEN POWERS, USA TODAY: There's nothing on it.

WALLACE: My question is do you think this is at least in the beginning, won't last for the whole campaign, a good tact for the Republicans to take, whether it's the specifics of the scandal or just what it brings up about kind of secretiveness and entitlement of the Clintons?

POWERS: They can do it. But I think, first of all, the minute they say Benghazi, they're going to lose a lot of people. Whatever you think about the merits of that situation, the Democrats did a very good job convincing people that's for -- you know, people who are conspiracy theorists, who hate Hillary Clinton. And so, if they want to do that, she's going to be able to turn that around, I think.

I also think the e-mail thing will dog her but to a certain extent, people who have been in the public eye for as long as Hillary Clinton, people have already made up their mind about her. They don't -- they're not -- they're not developing new opinions of her.

So, people who like her know that she's secretive. This is not a new thing. I don't think they're going to change their position for supporting Hillary Clinton over it.

WALLACE: But you do see her ratings on trustworthiness and honesty have taken a hit in the last couple of weeks.

POWERS: They have. But when you ask the same people, do you think she's a good leader, they say yes. And so, I think it's going to be something that if the Republicans really go overboard on it, which we can almost guarantee you they will, she's going to turn it around and turn it into like, oh here they come with their fanatical, like Clinton hatred, and she'll be able to turn it around to her advantage.

WALLACE: Perhaps the most explosive story this week, certainly the most surprising was this horrific video of a white police officer shooting a black man repeatedly in the back and by the end of the week, Hillary Clinton sent out this tweet, "heartbreaking and too familiar. We can do better, rebuild trust, reform justice system, respect all lives."

But Senator Lindsey Graham pushed back.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: With all due respect to Hillary Clinton, I think we're proving in South Carolina that our justice system is working.


WALLACE: George, given the fact that the police officer was fired from the force, charged with murder and is being held without bail, does Lindsey Graham have a point?


The default position of Eric Holder's Justice Department, from Florida to Trayvon Martin, to Ferguson, Missouri, is that racism is so undiminished to force in the American life that local institutions cannot be trusted. What we're seeing is some -- a very interesting phenomenon how technology, this thing the smart phone, is changing capabilities which change expectations which changes rights at the end of time.

We've got an enormous number of litigations all over the country about the right of people to film public officials in the performance of their duties, most especially, of course, policemen who have the lethal force of the state behind them. And this is going to change American life profoundly and for the better.

WALLACE: You know, I must say, Chuck, I was struck by that part of Hillary Clinton's tweet, "too familiar," which made it sound like this is the kind of thing that goes on all the time. Of course, that was the narrative in Ferguson, "hands up, don't shoot," get shot in the back as we now know, it didn't happen after multiple investigations.

So, what do you think Hillary Clinton saying, well, what happened in South Carolina, too familiar?

CHARLES LANE, THE WASHINGTON POST: I think it's a fact that the Democrats have treated these incidents as an opportunity to remind a big part of their political base, namely African-Americans that the Democratic Party is on their side to put it very politely.

Now, to Lindsey Graham, that's politicizing. To me, that's the natural response of a party to one of its constituent groups. She is playing that same game.

But to George's point, I think what we have here is a big difference between what happened in Ferguson and what happened in South Carolina. Basically, the local officials responded much more transparently, not just in pressing charges against the officer, but talking about it more openly and expressing and it was -- but, of course, it was a much different incident.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's the key, different facts.

LANE: This situation where the guy is running away --

WALLACE: And we have video of it.

LANE: And it's -- but that's the point where I somewhat disagree or would put a variation on with George, with all this accountability and transparency be happening without that citizen and his cell phone? I'm a little less sure, because these police officers, there's some indication they were ready to put on a cover-up and try and sweep this under the rug and obfuscate it. And that is something that is quite familiar, but it does happen in a lot of cases.

HUME: It's unknowable.

LANE: Right. Well, no, I'm not sure it's so unknowable. There is some evidence that there was an effort to do that.

WALLACE: I want to get into one other political development this week, and that was Rand Paul. His first week, his bumpy roll-out and part of it may be the highlight or low light is when he tangled with a woman reporter. Take a look.


SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Why don't you ask me a question, have I changed my opinion?

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: Have you changed your opinion?

PAUL: That would be sort of a better way to approach an interview.

GUTHRIE: OK. Is Iran still not a threat?

PAUL: No, no, you've editorialized.

No, no, no, no, no, no. Listen, you've editorialized. Let me answer your question.


WALLACE: Kirsten, you're shaking your head.

POWERS: You know, I don't buy into the woman thing as much. I just think he just came off as really not ready for primetime.

And one of the problems is -- first of all, Savannah is not some hyper-partisan terrible interviewer to start with. She was asking normal questions and he actually was lying to her. I mean, on one of the questions where she was asking him something very valid about whether he cut off foreign aid and he did.

So, you know, I mean, he's put forward a bill basically saying, I'm going to zero out foreign aid and specifically spoke about Israel and he's acting all self righteous that he's being asked about it. So, I think that he needs to answer the questions. And if he can't answer these questions, he shouldn't be running for president.

WALLACE: Is Rand Paul's I guess we'll call it grumpiness a legitimate issue, Brit?

HUME: Well, it's a hindrance to an effective campaign. When you're tangled in disputes with, you know, television anchor people, you're not making your case.

He's in a crowded field. He's a relative new comer to the national politics. He's got -- he seems to be forming his opinions as he goes and he can't afford to have this kind of stuff going on, even though it is certainly the case from time to time when a conservative politician hauls off and delivers a haymaker to some news person that that plays well with conservative voters. But you can't make a career of it -- and he seemed this week or in recent times to be doing too much of it, to me.

WALLACE: All right. Panel, we have to take a break. We'll see you a little later in the program.

Up next, one of the Obama administration's fiercest critics on Iran nuclear talks and restoring ties with Cuba -- Democratic Senator Bob Menendez in his first television interview since being indicted on bribery charges.


WALLACE: A look outside the Beltway at Miami's Little Havana neighborhood. President Obama met with Cuban President Raul Castro this weekend at the summit of the America's in Panama as the two leaders keep working on a new relationship between the U.S. and Cuba. This as Mr. Obama continues to sell his framework for a nuclear deal with Iran. We want to drill down on both issues with Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, a critic of U.S. policy. This is his first television interview since he was indicted two weeks ago. Senator Menendez, welcome to "Fox News Sunday.""


WALLACE: Before we discuss -- and I promise we will -- these serious policy issues, I think we have to deal with the case against you right at the start. Federal prosecutors have charged you with bribery for accepting almost $1 million in gifts, rides on private jets and campaign contributions. In return, they say your office helped Dr. Salomon Melgen with three problems including millions of dollars in Medicare billings.

Senator, I know that the doctor is a long-time friend of yours, but in accepting these gifts and in helping him with business, there's no other way to ask the question, did you betray the public trust?

MENENDEZ: Absolutely not, Chris. And when all the facts are known, of course, prosecutors take out snippets of story to make their case, we will have an opportunity in court to make the entire case. And when all of the facts are known, I know that I will be vindicated and we will win. What I have been doing over the 40 years of public service that I've had is fight for the people of my state in New Jersey to get them back into their homes after Superstorm Sandy, to make sure that we pass laws against the rate shock they were facing on flood insurance, to help the autism community be able to help their loved ones and pass major laws signed by the president and to fight for our national security and against a nuclear-armed Iran, among other things, and that's what I have been doing and that's what I will continue to do.

WALLACE: Senator, it's been suggested I must say without much evidence that the Obama administration may have brought this prosecution against you because you are such a critic of administration policy on Cuba and Iran as we're going to get to in a moment. Do you think that had anything to do with this case?

MENENDEZ: Look, it's very clear that I have very strong views about democracy and human rights in Cuba and a policy that I think undermines our efforts to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba about a very clear concern to the national interests and security of the United States and our ally to the state of Israel about Iran and its nuclear weapon ambitions, but I cannot imagine that an administration, this or any other, would go to such lengths and undermine our constitutional democracy.

WALLACE: All right. Let's turn to Cuba, President Obama, met a historic meeting this weekend with Cuban President Raul Castro, and he seems determined to normalize relations between the United States and Cuba after 50 years of isolation. He also seems determined to take Cuba off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Two questions, what did you think of yesterday's meeting and what do you think of the president's apparent action on the terror -- the state sponsors of terror list?

MENENDEZ: Well, look, I think there's a fundamental problem in this process. Number one, if you're going to give the Cubans just about everything they want -- international recognition, take them off the list of state sponsors of terrorism and infuse their economy with money at a time in which Venezuela could no longer continue to carry them as the patron and for which there was a real opportunity to create change inside of Cuba, then you should have gotten something significant in return and we got nothing in terms of the people of Cuba, in terms of human rights and democracy, we just saw even at this summit that human rights activists and political dissidents were attacked by Castro's bullies.

So the reality is, is to take Cuba off the list of state sponsor of terrorism when we have Joan Chesimard, a woman who killed a New Jersey state trooper and is on the FBI's list of the ten most wanted terrorists, a Cuba that ultimately violated the U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea, shipping arms to North Korea, or that recently had a cargo that was being shipped to it that the Colombians stopped with arms, which were probably going to go to the FARC, or that holds (ph) terrorists like ETA, the Basque separatists terrorists out of Spain and a whole host of other fugitives.


MENENDEZ: If you can violate international arms ...

WALLACE: So, Senator, let me ask you.

MENENDEZ: ... items and have terrorists in your country, it seems to me that that's not a country you take off your terrorist list.

WALLACE: So, if this is so misguided and if Cuba is doing nothing to relax political repression, why is the president doing it?

MENENDEZ: Well, I think the president has a misguided calculation that if you open your hands to dictators that they will un-clinch their fists. And while Raul Castro may have said some nice things about President Obama, at the same time, just last month, we had 600 arrests of innocent people inside of Cuba who were detained, many political activists and human rights activists who were not allowed to leave the country to go to the Panama Summit. And last year we had 1,600 detentions and there are still many long political prisoners sitting and languishing in Castro's jails. And when you say that and provide those facts as well as their violations of armed shipments in contravention to international law and a whole host of other things like having one of the ten top terrorists of the FBI list in their country, then people change their attitude about what this policy is all about.

WALLACE: Let's turn to Iran and as we've said, you have been a very tough critic of President Obama's efforts to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. In effect, at one point you said administration arguments sounded like, your words, talking points straight out of Teheran. Here is what Iran's supreme leader said this week about the United States.


AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI, IRAN SUPREME LEADER: The other party who is stubborn, treacherous and hard to deal with and is known to be after trickery, after haggling, after stabbing others in the back.


WALLACE: The president -- rather, the ayatollah says that all sanctions must be lifted right away when the deal is signed, not lifted gradually as Iran complies with the deal, they also -- he also says that there can be no inspection of military installations where it is believed that a lot of the work, particularly in weaponization of a nuclear bomb is going on. When you hear these kinds of comments from the supreme leader, what does it tell you about the framework the president says that he got from the Iranians?

MENENDEZ: Well, this is my concern. First of all, Chris, we have gone from the national imperative, we have had globally, to stopping nuclear proliferation to trying to contain or administer it. That is a fundamental change in our global policy. Secondly, many of us before the framework agreement was announced said is this going to be in writing because if, in fact, it's not in writing then you're going to have different interpretations and sure enough, you have different interpretations, you have different interpretations on sanctions relief. The Iranians shouldn't get a sign-in bonus. Secondly, you have different interpretations about research and development, that's critically important because how far can they advance their research and developments? Or at some point their breakout could even be shorter. Thirdly, these inspections are incredibly important. They still have not come clean with the International Atomic Energy Administration over their past militarization efforts weaponizing their nuclear program. So, we need to know how far did they get in their weaponization efforts so that we understand not only the breakout time, but how quickly they can weaponize that effort. All of these and many other elements are clearly in dispute.

And that's why I do believe that, you know, the legislation that Senator Corker and I have, which is to give Congress a rightful role, particularly a role when it was the one who passed the laws that ultimately provided the sanctions that got Iran to the table, to have a say on whatever a final agreement is.

WALLACE: OK, so let's get into that. The Corker/Menendez bill that you co-authored with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bob Corker is coming up for a vote this week. It would be a Congress at the end, if a bill -- if an agreement is finally signed, it would give Congress 60 days to review and either approve or disapprove or take no action on that deal. The White House is apparently pressuring Democrats to back of so that there won't be a veto-proof majority, and if the (INAUDIBLE) -- the president has to veto this bill if it passes that his veto will stand up. Have you gotten any pressure from the administration or some of its supporters to try to back off this bill and are you going to insist, are you going to stand firm on the idea of mandatory, binding congressional review of this deal?

MENENDEZ: Well, Chris, I'm not going to talk about conversations that I've had recently as it relates to advocacy on this bill.

WALLACE: Honestly, Senator, the reason I asked the question, is I'm told that in fact somebody has talked to you about backing off.

MENENDEZ: Well, let me just simply say, I'm not backing off. I honestly believe that it is congressional duty -- and I would say to all my colleagues who originally believe that there was a congressional duty here, to review whatever agreement comes about. This is simply a review process. That review may determine that at the end of the day people will think that it is an inappropriate deal. They may determine that it is not, they may or may not be a vote. But at least after 2 1/2 years of negotiation the Congress should have 60 days to be able to review probably the most significant nuclear nonproliferation agreement of our times.

WALLACE: And Senator ...

MENENDEZ: One that impedes our national -- that can risk our national security as well as of our ally the state of Israel.

WALLACE: And Senator, you also have a measure in this bill, which would mandate that the president must certify that Iran has stopped its terror actions against the U.S. Are you going to insist that that stay in the bill?

MENENDEZ: Well, I'm going to work with Chairman Corker to assure that we have a bill. Look, this is not about, as some would suggest, jamming the administration. This is about having a responsible congressional role. If there is a better way to have that certification, then the way it's written, I'm certainly open to considering it, but what I am not open to considering is delaying and/or not pursuing a vote for the Congress to ultimately have a process, an organized, thoughtful process to review any final deal that may be achieved. And I believe such a process no way undermines any potential negotiations from here to June.

WALLACE: And again, ten seconds left, we're not talking -- because the administration says, well, a non-binding vote, something that would be a sense of the Senate, you're not talking about that, are you?

MENENDEZ: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an opportunity for reviewing any final agreement, in which the possibility could exist of a vote or maybe the Congress won't take any vote and any vote, by the way, as we devised it in the Cork or Menendez bill would have to have a 60 vote threshold. So, this couldn't be just a purely partisan view. This would have to be a bipartisan view

WALLACE: Senator Menendez, thank you. Thanks for joining us.

MENENDEZ: Thank you.

WALLACE: And we'll follow ...

MENENDEZ: Thank you.
WALLACE: Up next, we bring back the panel to discuss Iran and restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba. And what do you think about removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terror? Let me know on Facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday and use the #FNS.


WALLACE: Now you can connect with "Fox News Sunday" on Facebook and Twitter. Be sure to check out exclusive material online at Facebook and share it with other Fox fans. And tweet us @foxnewssunday using #fns. Be part of the discussion and weigh in on the action every "Fox News Sunday.""



BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think we are now in a position to move on a path towards the future and leave behind some of the circumstances of the past.


WALLACE: President Obama during what he called a historic meeting this weekend with Cuban president Raul Castro as the two leaders continue efforts to restore diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba. And we're back now with the panel. Brit, what do you make of President Obama's continuing push to normalize relations with Cuba and what seems very apparent that in a short matter of time he is going to remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terror.

HUME: Well, the question you would have then is what is Cuba going to do to alter the behavior to remove some of the behaviors, if you will, that led to their being placed on that list in the first place. This is always the question with Barack Obama and his dealing with foreign affairs, especially ones that were hostile to the United States, is -- all right, he's going to open the door, he's going to lift the sanctions or whatever it is, what is he getting in return? The criticism of him and I think some of it has been valid is that he gets very little in return, and that is what we would worry would be the case here with Cuba.

WALLACE: Well, and that's interesting because I think it's clear to say that the hope is that with engagement that Cuba will relax its political system. Take a look at this and this goes directly to what Senator Menendez just said. This is what's happened since President Obama announced the relaxation of relations with Cuba. There were 178 political detentions in Cuba in January, 492 in February and 610 in March. Kirsten, as in the Iran talks, are we making all the concession and the other side is making none?

POWERS: Well, I think these are long-term relationships that you build. And so ...

WALLACE: But shouldn't you get something?

POWERS: Well, you often can't with these type of governments. And look, the idea -- first of all, I think -- I don't know who can think that these sanctions have done -- accomplished anything that this policy with Cuba has accomplished anything in the first place. The second thing is we have relationships with terrible governments, close relationships with terrible governments like Saudi Arabia, for example, if you want to talk about oppressive governments and people who also foment a lot of trouble in the world. Second of all, China. I mean China does everything Cuba does times 100. And we still have a relationship with them and I think we should have a relationship with them. I think engagement is the way to move countries along. So, I don't think the fact that President Obama hasn't gotten something immediately means that it's a failure. I think it's a step in the right direction.

WALLACE: I want to move to Iran. But Brit, quickly your response.

HUME: What I would just say, you know, this engagement makes me think of Ronald Reagan and Chester Crocker. Remember him? I guess he was the assistant Secretary of State.

WALLACE: South Africa.

HUME: South Africa. And his view was we needed to have constructive engagement with the apartheid regime in South Africa and because of that it would open things up. Well, it didn't ever really work, then subsequently sanctions were imposed and over time by judging by the results the sanctions did work.

POWERS: Over a very short period of time, though. I mean how long -- we've been doing this with Cuba for decades. It's not making any difference. He's not changing. I mean ...

HUME: Some constructive engagement will work here? You think Cuba is going to change?

POWERS: It was -- it could work better than what happened now.

LANE: The trouble with Cuba is nothing works, guys, because they're absolutely determined to maintain an iron fist there and they've said so all week long. In fact, they sent thugs to Panama to make that point quite vividly in the summit. So, the purpose of this policy or the results if any are going to be things like the benefit the U.S. business, which will trade with them, wealthy Americans with lots of discretionary income can go -- run around the beaches of Cuba, but I don't think any dissidents are going to get out ahead, at least in the short run.

WALLACE: Then, there are the nuclear talks with Iran. And the big development this week was that that country supremely -- the Ayatollah Khamenei seemed to walk away from a lot of the supposed agreements in the framework deal that President Obama announced. Take a look at this.


KHAMENEI: The statement that they issued and called the fact sheet is bogus for the most part. No unconventional method of inspection which can turn the Islamic Republic of Iran into a special case in terms of inspection is acceptable at all.


WALLACE: So, George, what do you think? Is the ayatollah just playing to his political base, the hard liners in Teheran or is this deal that the president so proudly announced in the Rose Garden not really a deal yet?

WILL: Well, if the ayatollah means what he says then the framework agreement is 98 percent framework and two percent agreement. Because the sanctions and the inspections are the heart of the ongoing negotiations between now and the end of June or wherever they come to an end. This is really reminiscent of the Cold War. During the Cold War and our arms controlled negotiation with the Soviet Union, there was always a chorus in America saying, you have to concede more to Khrushchev or to Brezhnev or to Andropov or whomever because of the hawks and the Kremlin who presumably were always to the right of this peace-loving fellow who wanted accommodation with the United States.

Sometimes, sometimes dictators mean exactly what they say. On the eve of Second World War, Hitler said if the Jews bring on the Second World War, and in his framework, the Jews caused everything, it will mean the destruction of European Jewry. He meant what he said.

WALLACE: President Obama said this week that the negotiation, these negotiation are the, quote, best bet by far to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. After the events of this week and the ayatollah statements, Chuck, do you still believe that?

LANE: I guess I no longer understand these negotiation because you have a situation where the supreme leader stands up and he says the United States and Barack Obama are a bunch of liars.

WALLACE: Back stabbers.

LANE: Yes. And they now tell you can't trust them. And the administration's response to that is say, don't worry, he is a liar.


LANE: In other words, he doesn't really mean what he just said. And I think the serious point here is that when the ayatollah does this, what he does is he moves the goal posts back a little bit and he's trying to leverage further concessions from the administration just to get the administration back to the point where it thought it already was at the end of the talks in Switzerland. So I guess I come down somewhere in the middle. I think he does mean what he says, but I think he is doing it for a tactical reason, which is to just continue raising the pressure on the president who very precipitously declared victory at the end of this thing in Switzerland before all the i's were dotted.

HUME: So, this is in effect a new demand. And if it is, the question arises will the administration concede on this as it has on so much else already ...


WALLACE: the demands on sanctions.

HUME: Right.

WALLACE: That they have to be relieved immediately and also on the inspections.

LANE: Yes.

HUME: And those are the two critical parts of the deal as we understand it. One is that the sanctions can be snapped back into place when the inspections determine that there's been a violation. Now, there's great deal of skepticism about the effectiveness of inspections even more so in the light of these comments this week and then there's the question of whether, if you ever got the sanctions regime lifted, which is difficult to impose and sustain it to begin with, whether you could ever, quote, snap them back into place. I think thoughtful people think that that's unlikely.

LANE: The supreme leader is basically saying no snap backs.

WALLACE: Right. He's also saying no inspections of places like Parchin, which is where the military base where they did the weaponization, other than that, it's a deal.

LANE: It's a deal.

WALLACE: Thank you, panel. See you next Sunday.

Up next, our power player of the week, Washington Redskin quarterback, RG3, on giving back, three families at a time.


WALLACE: One of the joys of this job is to sit down and talk with people you admire. And sometimes you leave liking them even more than when you went in. Here is our power player of the week.


ROBERT GRIFFIN III, FAMILY OF 3 FOUNDATION: We will give them money, but we're also going to give them our time, our networks and, you know, allow them to continually grow, to not only get to where they want to be, but to maintain that.

WALLACE: Robert Griffin III is talking about his Family of 3 foundation and how it is different.


WALLACE: They raise money for a variety of causes. But they also plan to find three families each year and bring them into the Griffin family.

GRIFFIN III: So, to incorporate them into the everyday process of what a family is, you know, whether it's, you know, Thanksgiving dinner, Easter celebrations, those kinds of things we want to be able to let them enjoy that and let us enjoy it, too.

WALLACE: Last summer Griffin and his wife Rebecca made a surprise visit to the home of Tim and Shannon Maxwell. A Marine colonel (ph), he suffered a traumatic brain injury in Iraq, but the Maxwells started a fund to help other wounded soldiers. Griffin gave them a check and a promise.

GRIFFIN III: It's not just the money, it's about the relationship. And, you know, we want you guys to be in contact with us all the time. We're trying to help you out in as many ways as we possibly can.

SHANNON MAXWELL: Thank you. Thank you ever so much.

GRIFFIN III: My dad served 21 years and my mom did 13, so through that process, they taught me that I always have to give back.

WALLACE: The foundation slogan is "Go catch your dream." And Griffin seemed to have caught his when he was the rookie of the year quarterback for the Washington Redskins in 2012. But the last two years have been rough, serious injuries and lots of criticism.

(on camera): Did it turn out to be tougher and meaner than you thought it would be?

GRIFFIN III: Oh, no. I don't know how to answer that. It's an interesting -- it's an interesting league, let's just put it that way.

WALLACE (voice over): And there's talk the Redskins may draft another quarterback to replace him.

(on camera): Does it hurt your feelings?

GRIFFIN III: Come on, man.


GRIFFIN III: Because the way I look at it is as long as I'm here with the Washington Redskins and they say I'm the guy, then I'm the guy. I'm ready to go.

WALLACE: Right now Griffin is more concerned about another addition, he and Rebecca expect their first child next month.

GRIFFIN III: We don't know what it is, but if it's a boy, it will be a IV. So, I go ahead and say that.

WALLACE (on camera): RG IV.

GRIFFIN III: It's going to be RG IV, you know.

WALLACE: And if it's -- if it's a girl, is it Roberta Griffin?

GRIFFIN III: No, it's not.


GRIFFIN III: Come on, man, I'm not George Foreman. I'm not doing that.


WALLACE (voice over): In case you're wondering boxer George Foreman named each of his five sons, George.


WALLACE: Griffin has an ambitious agenda. In addition to the foundation, he is getting a Masters' degree in communications and considering law school.

GRIFFIN III: I just try to make sure every day that I'm blessed to live on this earth that I seize that day. I'm 25 and, you know, I know with each passing second, I'm getting older. So, I might well seize every single one of those seconds and make sure I'm doing as much as I possibly can in the community to know we worked hard for this and to instill that into everybody around me is truly my goal.


WALLACE: Griffin even auctioned off his ankle cast for $1,500 to raise money for his foundation. If you want to learn more about the Family of 3, please go to our website,

And that's it for today. Have a great week. And we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 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.