This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," July 5, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Congress remaining skeptical of any final nuclear dealing with Iran. Good morning, everyone. Happy Fourth of July weekend. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Welcome to "Sunday Morning Futures."
Would Iran hold true to any deal? I will talk with a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee in a few moments.
Plus, the Pentagon shifting its strategy for the first time in four years. The first Navy SEAL to serve in the House of Representatives on the threat of lone wolf attacks, and his push for more resources for our troops.
And new e-mails shedding more light on the relationship between Hillary Clinton and her unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal while Clinton was secretary of state. Our panel on whether it will hurt her chances in 2016 as we look ahead this morning on "Sunday Morning Futures."
Negotiations toward a final deal aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program going into overtime. Secretary of State John Kerry and leaders of five other countries agreed to continue talks until at least July 7th. But will they go anywhere? And how is Congress feeling about all of this? Senator Dan Coats of Indiana is a member of the Intel Committee. He joins us now.
Sir, good to have you on the program. Thanks so much for joining us.
SEN. DAN COATS, R- IND., INTEL COMMITTEE MEMBER: Good morning.
BARTIROMO: What will be different after July 7th that we haven't been able to agree on so far?
COATS: What I'm concerned about, Maria, is that what will be different won't be different, but it will be sold as being different. It'll be nuanced and I'm very, very deeply concerned that this administration is simply trying to get a deal at any price for the legacy of the president.
We, in Congress, on a bipartisan basis, will be looking at this. We'll have a chance to vote it down if we think it's a bad deal. But I'm concerned that we won't have the votes to override a presidential veto and we'll be ending up in a situation like we were with North Korea where we were promised by the Clinton administration, don't worry, we'll know if they have a breakout. We didn't know. We didn't find out. They cheated. They now have more than a dozen nuclear weapons and delivery systems. I'm afraid the same thing may happen here in Iran. It's going to have negative consequences for the world, not just the United States.
BARTIROMO: Yes. Why do you think the president is so eager to do this deal? I mean we know Iran is a sponsor of terrorism, we know Iran is the most disruptive in the region and we know that they do not want U.N. inspectors in their military sites checking on whether or not they are, in fact, enriching uranium.
COATS: You know, we've conceded on a number of major goals that were stated at the beginning, and I think it's just doing anything to get a diplomatic, quote, "success" here so the president can add this to his legacy list. It's very dangerous in terms of how we go forward in what's going to happen in the Middle East and how that may spread throughout the rest of the world are extreme consequences. So we have to be very careful here, examine it very carefully and, frankly, right now what we see is not something that's going to be good for America.
BARTIROMO: Which is why, by the way, a number of our friends in the Middle East are also skeptical of this.
Plenty to talk about with you today, senator. Please stay with us. We want to first, though, take a look at Iran's history of denial as it continues to build the nuclear program. And Fox News' senior correspondent Eric Shawn joins us with that angle.
Good morning to you, Eric.
ERIC SHAWN, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Maria, and good morning, everyone.
You know Iran has long denied it wants nuclear weapons, but critics say history tells us otherwise. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said the specter of Iran racing to build a nuclear bomb is, quote, "a myth." And while a United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency report says Iran has met a benchmark of reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium. Critics point out Tehran's behavior has always been inconsistent, secretive and duplicitous.
You know Iran is accused of researching nuclear warhead explosions at its Parcha (ph) military site. That has been off limits to those U.N. inspectors. It hid secret enrichment work at that underground facility buried deep into a mountain in Com (ph) and a full extent of its covert nuclear program was not known to the world until first exposed by the leading opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran back in 2002. As "Foreign Policy" magazine ominously now puts it, quote, "world powers have long feared Iran has moved closer to obtaining the means and resources to build a nuclear bomb, even as the Islamic republic insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes." That is an innocuous stance Iran's leaders have always maintained.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you want to pursue a nuclear bomb?
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, FORMER PRESIDENT OF IRAN (through translator): Is there a law that tells me that I must swear to convince others? I have said on numerous occasions that we do not an atomic bomb.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why should we believe you? You are violating four U.N. resolutions, you've kicked out U.N. inspectors. Why should the world believe anything that you say on this subject?
AHMADINEJAD: We do not insist that you should believe us. We've never said that you should. You are free not to believe us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAWN: Well, now, many still do not believe Tehran. After all, throughout the negotiations, the regime has continued to ignore six United Nations Security Council resolutions dating back to 2006 demanding that it suspend uranium enrichment. So for nine years Tehran has denied that demand, even as it sat down and negotiated with the very world powers that it thumbs its nose at.
BARTIROMO: All right, Eric, thanks very much for that.
And we are back now with Senator Dan Coates of Indiana.
And, senator, let me ask you if a deal does not get done, what are the implications for the world?
COATS: Well, we don't know for sure what the implications are, but what we do know is that if we maintain strong sanctions and even ratchet those sanctions up, Iran will be in desperate economic trouble. They cannot sustain this forever. Many believe that they will come back to the table and deal with us on a straight up basis. Frankly, what was just said, there's really no basis to put trust in Iran in terms of what it will say or what it will do. So I continue to think that any kind of a deal that is not absolutely meeting the goals that we have set out, and this one doesn't look like it's going to, is something that we should not undertake. We will have to deal with what comes after that, but I think a bad deal is worse than no deal.
BARTIROMO: Yes, I mean, Senator Corker has told Senator Kerry exactly that, cautioning him that there is no need so -- to be so desperate that requires either accepting a bad deal or yielding to unacceptable Iranian demands, but it feels like that's what we're doing.
COATS: It sure looks like it. And there's been nothing said and done. What, again, my concern is, is that it will be coached and marketed as something that is nuanced and, yes, we can put our trust in them. Iran has done nothing to secure the trust of the United States or the world or anyone involved in these negotiations. They have a history of deception. It's going to be another North Korea all over again. So I think we have to be very, very careful to explain to the American people why a bad deal is actually worse than no deal.
BARTIROMO: Let me -- let me move on, senator, and ask you a bit about Cuba because, of course, this past week we know that the administration has agreed to re-open embassies regarding Cuba, whether it be in the U.S. or U.S. embassies in Cuba. You have real opinions on this and you've told the president that you -- you released a statement regarding the president's announcement that he wants to pursue normalizations with Cuba. Where do you stand on this?
COATS: You know, the president thinks that the hand of friendship, reaching out to leaders in the world is going to accomplish a Kumbaya experience. Well, he tried that with Putin. That didn't work so well. He's tried that with the Middle East. That not working so well. Now he's trying this with Cuba, a state that gives us nothing back in terms of their human rights, their abuses, people in jail, the kind of a government that they have, suppressive, oppressive government. And yet it, once again, I think, is a state, a nation taking advantage of a very weak president who's willing to concede anything for the purpose of achieving a, quote, "diplomatic victory," and the consequences always turn out worse than he anticipated.
I'm not sure where the president's coming from in terms of this strategy. It hasn't worked in Russia. It hasn't worked in the Middle East. It hasn't -- and I don't think it's going to work with Cuba.
BARTIROMO: And I guess, you know, it will be the next president, given we're talking about a limited time here for President Obama, it will be the next president who really picks up the ball and deals with actually executing relations with Cuba and, by the way, as well as relations with Iran.
COATS: I feel for the next president. Whether it's Republican or Democrat, that president's going to have a heap load of trouble that has been created by a president here who has not provided leadership for this country. And we have lost the fears of our enemy and the respect of our allies. There's going to be a lot of makeup work that has to be done.
BARTIROMO: Senator, good to have you on the program. Thanks so much for your insights.
COATS: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: We will see you soon.
COATS: All right, thank you.
BARTIROMO: Up next, three U.S. adversaries highlighted as major threats and a new military strategy released by the Pentagon. The first Navy SEAL to serve in the House, Congressman Ryan Zinke is with me on that and the growing home grown terrorist threat.
Follow us on Twitter @mariabartiromo, @sundayfutures and stay with us as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" this morning.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back to the program. As we celebrate our nation's independence, we want to thank our current and former service members for protecting this country and our freedom.
The Pentagon this past week admitting that freedom and safety is facing a growing threat here at home. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey highlighted the threat of lone wolf attacks and dangerous moves by Russia, Korea and Iran in a release of the Pentagon's first updated military strategy in four years.
Congressman Ryan Zinke is with us. He's a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former Navy SEAL.
Sir, good to have you on the program and thank you so much for your wonderful service.
REP. RYAN ZINKE, R-MO.: Great to be with you.
BARTIROMO: Let me ask you about this most recent report.
How would you characterize the threat that America faces today?
ZINKE: Well, it shouldn't be any surprise. What we've seen is the emergence of non-nation states. Our foreign policy, I would characterize as our enemies no longer fear us and our allies don't trust us. So I think it's reflective of when America and this administration doesn't lead and forms a vacuum and power.
I think what we're seeing is an expansion of ISIS, expansion of Al Qaeda and nation states that have, in the past, not been as aggressive, becoming more aggressive, you know, like Russia -- and certainly China is flexing its muscles as well.
BARTIROMO: So what do you think the U.S. should be doing at this point?
How do you handle this growing number of countries sort of skeptical of America at a minimum?
ZINKE: Well, in the case of Russia, for instance, I think we should look at energy independence. I think we should look at hitting Russia with the free market, export our liquid natural gas. Certainly that would check, I think, Russia's ability to be as aggressive.
China, forward engagement, forward presence; our Navy needs to be deployed forward.
And in the Middle East, we need a policy what to do in Syria. We need an adequate check on Iran. And I think the only thing that keeps me up at night really is Iran having a nuclear weapon.
And under no conditions should we allow Iran a legal path for a nuclear weapon. I think that would be a disaster in the Middle East. We would have an arms race. And unfortunately I think the probability of having a nuclear weapon coming in the United States through a surrogate increases.
BARTIROMO: Yes, we keep talking about this and the potential for an arms race and yet we have got these ongoing talks with Iran right now. Of course, Iran is pushing back on any checks from U.N. inspectors, pardon me, on their military sites.
What would you like to see happen with these talks in terms of these six super powers talking with Iran over its nuclear ambitions?
ZINKE: Well, I think it's a false surrogate to put us in a position -- either we take a bad deal or we go to war against Iran. Even John F. Kennedy, you look at his presidency, he had the resolve and the leadership -- he called it a quarantine. It's a blockade.
Certainly we could increase sanctions. The reason why they're at the table is because of sanctions. Look, Iran in many ways identifies themselves as Persia. They want to be the main player, expand their influence and territory within the Middle East. I think the United States and our allies, we have options.
But to give Iran that -- on the Defense Department's own study, looked at Iran as sponsoring terrorism, terrorist activity throughout the world. They are not a responsible nation state. To give a legal pathway for a nuclear weapon for Iran is -- I think is reckless.
ZINKE: And I think Congress will stand and stop it.
BARTIROMO: What about ISIS?
I mean, that's a whole 'nother element that we've been obviously faced with over the last year plus.
The airstrikes that have been taking place since last November, how would you characterize that strategy?
ZINKE: Well, the lack of strategy, really. I think where we're at in ISIS is -- I think we need to make sure we support the Kurds directly and not to the centralized government, now is having more influence by Iran.
You have a Shia militia which is heavily influenced if not controlled by Iran within the territory of Iraq. I think with ISIS, I think we need to look at Syria, of shoring up our support of the Free Syrian Army, decide what we're going to do with Assad, but look at Syria, that's fine, Sunni tribes that will fight and support them directly.
And in Iraq it's as much a war between -- within Islam as it between East and West. But certainly air operations have not been successful, have not been -- it's not going to change the course of the war. We've seen that. That's been known.
And this is, once again is, without American leadership, which this administration has been consistent in not providing, nothing will happen. But I do think there's -- the biggest threat is -- still is Iran and their continuing influence in Iraq.
When we push ISIS out, if the net result is just to have Iranian forces move in that vacuum, then I think we have to be very, very cautious with more involvement and sending our troops into harm's way.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, good to have you on the program today. Thanks so much for joining us. We'll see you soon, sir.
A change in the ranks at one of the world's biggest banks meanwhile. The outgoing CEO of Credit Suisse will join us on his quarter century with the company and the outlook for the stock and bond markets and business in banking as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" today.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
Credit Suisse kicking off the second half of the year with a new leader after CEO Brady Dougan announced he will step down. Dougan oversaw the bank during the darkest days of the financial crisis and still managed to generate growth. Mr. Dougan joins us to take a look at the new normal in banking, which includes heavy regulation and higher capital levels throughout the industry.
BARTIROMO: So as you leave Credit Suisse, talk to us about where we are in the state of business today. There's a lot of populism out there where the banks have been pointed to as sort of, you know, the bad guys after the financial crisis in 2007. How do you characterize the environment today?
BRADY DOUGAN, CEO, CREDIT SUISSE: Well, obviously, there's been huge change in the industry over the past, you know, six years since the crisis. So lots more capital. You know, safer liquidity, you know, lower leverage. The business models have really been, I think, improved quite a lot. So things are a lot safer and sounder in the regulated financial industry.
But obviously that's come at a cost. Clearly a lot of the activities of the banks have been cut back. There's obviously been a discussion recently about liquidity and the fact that the regulated banks will be less able to provide that liquidity when things are difficult. I think that's true. I think that's a natural outcome of a lot of the changes that have happened and that's one example of it.
So I think the question of how the regulated banking industry can continue to help the economy grow, to help job growth is something that's very, very important. And I think to date the industry's done a pretty good job of changing their business model in ways that actually makes it safer and sounder but still allows us to contribute.
But the question really from here is how much further does the regulatory change go and how much more is going to be required? And, you know, I think that's going to have real impacts on our ability as an industry to ensure the economic growth and the job creation around the world that we've been able to do historically.
BARTIROMO: One thing about you, I think your people love you, and that's really an important thing as a leader. A number of employees just feel like you've had their back over the years. What's your take? Let me ask you to put your trader's hat on for a second for me. You come from a trading background and investment bank background first. So what do you think of the markets here? How do things feel to you?
DOUGAN: You know, they feel pretty good in the -- in the -- in the sort of short run. Short to medium run, they actually feel pretty good. So I think the dynamics are good. There, obviously, is a lot out there in terms of potential issues that could disturb the markets.
Obviously Greece, questions around, you know, the sort of nearer term issues around interest rate increases. But I have to say, the longer term issue that I'm most focused on is just the fact that we've been living in an environment with very low interest rates, negative interest rates, you know, particularly in Europe and -- and I think people have gotten used to that. And so the question is, as we get back, assuming we do get back into a more normal environment of higher rates, how are we going to be able to transition to that? How's that going to work?
And, you know, I think that's going to be an important transition. And, as usual, you worry when people get complacent about the current interest rate environment. I'm not sure people really -- you know, you just get used to the environment and you don't appreciate how unusual it is to have negative interest rates across all these markets.
BARTIROMO: And what is the bond market telling us with interest rates negative?
DOUGAN: Yes, it's -- obviously it's a -- it's saying that I think people believe that rates are going to have to be kept at low rates for a very, very long time. And the question is, when that changes, it'll be one of the -- you know, one of the most surprising -- unsurprising things that happened. I mean everyone knows eventually rates will need to go up, but it could have a big impact.
BARTIROMO: When you look back at your legacy, you have overseen some of the biggest events for the industry in recent memory. Obviously the financial crisis, you took control of the CEO spot in 2007 and then the world fell apart. Give us some color on what happened then and then, of course, fast forward to a smaller event but also incredibly stressful when, you know, regulators removed the peg in the currency market of the -- of the Swiss currency relative to others. So talk to us about -- give us some color on some of these big events and how you dealt with this being at the helm of Credit Suisse.
DOUGAN: Well, I think, you know, the -- the events in '08, and particularly in September '08, were, obviously, pretty cataclysmic for everybody -- you know, for the markets around the world. You know, we were -- I was personally at the table down at the Fed, you know, on the weekends, as were most of the major bank CEOs. And actually interestingly, I think, the beginning of the crisis, there was -- it was a very global group that was basically looking at it and participating and trying to solve the issues. It was an interesting weekend. I think actually the industry did a lot to try to come to a successful conclusion. Didn't actually -- it didn't actually work out that way in the ends and, obviously, we had to deal with the aftermath of that.
BARTIROMO: And that weekend being, you know, what do you do about Lehman Brothers? You know, Lehman ultimately went away. What do you do about AIG? And ultimately the government came in and charged 14 percent interest rates and took control of 80 percent of the company. These were huge changes.
DOUGAN: Huge issues. And, obviously, a number of other institutions were in the middle of a lot of -- a lot of issues as well. So, you know, we try -- again, even on that weekend, we tried to be constructive. We tried to work together to come up with solutions that would help the industry. And I have to say, through all that, you know, I felt like we had -- you know, we had positioned the bank really from the time I came in May '07, we had been de- risking the bank. That was actually something that we actually criticized for early on. You know, people said, well, you're missing opportunities. Why are you derisking? And our view was that things were -- things were pretty frothy in the markets and also we felt like with everybody moving towards taking more risk, we felt like a focus on clients was something that would make sense and so that helped us a lot.
BARTIROMO: That is a big deal.
So I hope you'll come back and give us your take on the industry as things develop.
DOUGAN: Absolutely. Any time. For you, Maria, any time.
BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. Brady Dougan joining us.
BARTIROMO: Up next, a new document dump of Hillary Clinton's e-mails telling more of the story of her tenure as secretary of state, as her campaign announces a big first quarter of fundraising. Are these e-mails impacting Clinton's run for the White House at all? Our panel begins right there as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES.
GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: A Fox news alert. Hello, I'm Gregg Jarrett.
Secretary of State John Kerry about to make a statement any minute now on the Iran nuclear talks. A live look at the podium in Vienna where world powers and Iran are racing against the clock to reach the headline on Tuesday. We're monitoring Mr. Kerry's remarks and we'll bring that to you as soon as it happens.
Also overseas, it is crunch time in Greece, the polls set to close in about 90 minutes, on a crucial referendum there. At issue, should voters accept more austerity measures in exchange for an economic rescue package from creditors?
Opinion polls show Greeks are evenly split. The country's prime minister is urging people to vote no on the referendum. Greece, of course, in a dire financial crisis after yet another bailout expired earlier this week. We'll have live reports from Athens.
I'm Gregg Jarrett. We'll see you at noon Eastern Time with Arthel Neville for more news. Now back to "Sunday Morning Futures."
BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Hillary Clinton's campaign on track to raise $45 million in the first quarter of her 2016 run. But as Hillary stays on the campaign trail to garner votes, the State Department is gathering her e- mails, making another document dump last week with some new revelations over how close she really was to confidante Sid Blumenthal, when the administration knew she was using her private e-mail account.
Team Clinton, however, just passed the latest document dump off as some light, sometimes pretty funny stuff, actually.
We want to bring in our panel, Ed Rollins, who's the former principal White House adviser to President Reagan. He's been a longtime strategist to business and political leaders. He is a Fox News political analyst.
Judith Miller is adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. She's a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist and a Fox News contributor.
And Don Peebles, founder, chairman and CEO of the Peebles Corporation and former National Finance Committee head for President Obama.
Good to see everybody. Thanks so much for joining us.
Don Peebles, let me kick this off with you because I think the supporters of Hillary continue to say, look, she has to be able to communicate that all this stuff is no big deal, that the document dump doesn't matter, that the foundation and money going to the foundation while she was secretary of state is small potatoes.
Do you think she'll be able to do that, convince the American people?
DON PEEBLES, FORMER OBAMA FINANCE COMMITTEE HEAD: Yeah, I do.
PEEBLES: I do. She -- you've got to think about the Clintons. For 30 years they've lived in controversy. When the president ran for -- when President Clinton ran for the nomination initially as a Democrat, there was controversy surrounding him and he weathered the storm.
The big thing with the Clintons is they're not going to run away. They're not going to back down. They're going to weather the storm. And they are the best at weathering political storms. I don't think there's anybody out here in the political world that's more comfortable in that zone. So I'm confident that they'll get through it.
BARTIROMO: Hard to argue that point, Judy?
JUDITH MILLER, PULITZER PRIZE WINNING REPORTER AND AUTHOR: No, I -- I agree. I mean, look, the e-mails, if anything, humanized her a little in terms of making her vulnerable. You know, she wasn't sure where she was with Obama. Was she getting invited to the right meetings?
This other stuff, her closeness to Sidney Blumenthal -- is that really a surprise to anybody who's been watching the Clintons for a long time?
That's a deep, longstanding relationship. He was going to go on giving her advice no matter what. I don't think it's affecting her standing and ratings at all.
BARTIROMO: But people -- do people understand that this is a person that the Obama administration had banned from actually working...
MILLER: That may be a mark in her favor...
... at this point.
BARTIROMO: Ed, what do you think?
ED ROLLINS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I agree with Don that the Clintons have lived in controversy, but the country's lived in controversy when they've been in the leadership position, and I think the only thing this is doing is distracting her campaign from getting out what it is that she wants to talk about.
I mean, she's been in the business now for four months. It's been a pretty mediocre campaign -- other than raising money. She's done a very effective job of that and will continue to do a very effective job.
This is a very long campaign. She's going to be the nominee. You know, there's obviously a protest vote that the senator is getting, you know, big, large crowds, but at the end of the day she will basically -- Sanders -- she will basically be the nominee. Plenty of time to face off against Republicans, whoever that may be, and right now we've got a big donnybrook going on our side.
BARTIROMO: Yeah, it's interesting that Bernie Sanders has been commanding the presence and getting the audiences that he has been getting. That's why she's probably going all the way to the left on a lot of these issues, because she's got lefties like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, sort of, breathing down her back? Isn't that right, Don?
PEEBLES: Oh, yeah, well, that's the -- look, the Democrats have a similar problem that the Republicans have, right and left. And they pull. And in order to get through the nominating process, you have to go and appease that part of the party.
Hillary, though, is in a position where she really is liberated from that. There is no way that she is not going to get the nomination, short of a catastrophic event and revelation that damages her to a point where she's irreparable. I don't see that happening. So she really has the freedom to play much more in the center so that she can be electable when it comes time for the general election. And she should exercise that freedom to do that, too.
MILLER: But that's what she's not doing. She's moving to the left in all of her statements, and how you walk that back in a general election may be a little bit harder than she thinks it is.
PEEBLES: But she's doing it in a surgical way, though. She's not going left on everything, by the way. You can look at her. She's still preserving her central position. And you're going to see, as she gets through this -- I think she's letting these e-mails help her tread water a little bit, as well. Because this is a long race and she -- the less she has to weigh in on other issues --in fact, it's better for her in the general election.
ROLLINS: I would trade two Bernie Sanders and one Elizabeth Warren for Donald Trump. Donald Trump can go on their side...
I'd be very -- I'd be very happy.
BARTIROMO: Unbelievable. You know, he showed no remorse whatsoever about what he said about Mexicans. I wonder -- I wonder what this -- I mean, everyone is, sort of, trying to alienate -- you know, he's alienated so many people and they're trying to distance themselves from him right now.
ROLLINS: There's a certain segment out there that's going to support him. And I want to put things into proper perspective. If you're not -- if you don't have to live with the numbers like I have.
Twenty-five percent wins Iowa -- 25 percent wins Iowa. The last time, you know -- and the day of the Iowa Caucus, no delegates are picked. They pick for -- go to a convention. Delegates aren't picked until afterwards. But 25 percent was what both Romney and Santorum got last time. So, you know, he gets 10 percent, 15 percent, he's right in the hunt.
I think, over time, he will self-destruct. But he may not. But there's a certain appeal, that anti-establishment appeal, a blue-collar -- some of those Democrats, the Reagan Democrats that switched over. He may appeal to them.
PEEBLES: I don't know if he gets Iowa, though.
Look, Iowa requires -- Ed, Iowa requires significant organization. The way Barack Obama won Iowa is he was on the ground, had on-the-ground people making sure that he did well in the caucuses.
ROLLINS: He has -- he has...
PEEBLES: Trump has no organization.
ROLLINS: Wait a second. He has one of the best guys in the world in Iowa, a former party chairman, who was the guy who put Santorum in his pickup truck and drove him around to all the counties. He has been Trump's guy since day one. So, you know, one thing about money, you can buy organization.
PEEBLES: If you're willing to spend it.
ROLLINS: If you're willing to spend it.
MILLER: But that's really the problem. So he wins Iowa or comes in second. He is bad for the Republican Party. I mean, he's not only a challenge to everybody else who is serious up there, he is bad for the brand. This is the party of Lincoln. This is the party that's supposed to be inclusive, trying to be more inclusive, and instead they're driving away the very voters they need to win. I don't get it and I don't know why Republicans aren't tougher on him.
PEEBLES: Look, Arnold Schwarzenegger -- my wife and I went to see the "Terminator" last night, the new "Terminator" movie.
BARTIROMO: Yeah, how was it?
PEEBLES: And there we are. It stars the governor the California.
PEEBLES: And so I remember when Arnold was running to unseat Gray Davis. People laughed at him. He won. And not only did he unseat Gray Davis and win, he got reelected. And during that time period, there was talk about him being president and talk about a constitutional amendment to remove the restriction of where, in order to be eligible to be president, you had to be born in the U.S.
So if the Terminator can win, Donald Trump could be the republican nomination.
ROLLINS: As a Californian, longtime Californian, I wish he would have made "Terminator 3" before he became governor.
What he did is destroy the Republican Party of California.
BARTIROMO: Stranger things have happened, now, but you are right.
All right. Let's take a look at what's coming up at the top of the hour on "MediaBuzz." Howard Kurtz standing by right now with that. Howie, good morning to you.
KURTZ: Good morning, Maria. Speaking of Donald Trump, I've got an exclusive interview with the Donald. He talks about his comments about Mexican immigrants, his war with NBC and Univision, why he loves picking fights with the press, with journalists who take him on, and why he's doing a lot better in the polls than most of the media establishment had expected, as well as we talk about some of his past bankruptcy filings and his thoughts on gay marriage.
BARTIROMO: Well, you have to see if you're going to get Donald to apologize for any of this commentary that's certainly sparking debate all over the place, throughout the country. He would not apologize when I spoke with him last week. Howie, we will be there. I look forward to that interview very much.
KURTZ: Not expecting an apology.
BARTIROMO: We'll see you at the top of the hour.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, presidential chances gaining steam, as he forms an exploratory committee. When he's set to announce that official run and who else is behind him, as we look ahead this morning on "Sunday Morning Futures." We'll be right back.
BARTIROMO: All right, the GOP field growing to 14 last week. Now it appears it is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's turn next. Walker is expected to make his announcement that he is officially running a week from tomorrow. That is July 13th. Walker is already leading in some polls. The latest Quinnipiac University poll shows he's holding the top spot in the ever important Iowa caucus among GOP candidates. Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson rounding out the top three.
Our panel is with me today, Ed Rollins, Judy Miller and Don Peebles.
Interesting to see this poll. Donald Trump is up there. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. What do you think?
ROLLINS: Well, the two -- the two non-politicians, Ben Carson --
ROLLINS: Who's held -- held a good 10 percent for a long time, and Trump, are right there ahead of most of the other politicians. Walker has a solid relationship and a good campaign on the ground there, so I would expect him to be the favorite the rest of the way. But you can move quickly in Iowa. And as I said, it's -- it's 1,700 precincts, 50,000 votes will win it for you. There's a lot of people can come forth. The national polls don't matter at this point in time. It's really Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina that matter.
BARTIROMO: I see. Well, look at the CNN poll, because the CNN poll shows Jeb Bush in the lead, followed by Donald Trump --
BARTIROMO: Followed by Huckabee, Ben Carson, Paul Walker, Rubio.
Judy, your thoughts on this?
MILLER: Well, look, I know that Donald Trump is now number two in that poll and he may do very well in Iowa, but I think that this ceiling is really a ceiling. I don't think he goes further than this despite his money, despite the braggadocio, despite the chutzpah.
BARTIROMO: This is it?
MILLER: This is it for him. And then you're going to have some -- the serious candidates, like Walker and the others who are coming in late, really get a lot of the attention. Walker will definitely be the flavor du jour with his anti-union policy, at least for a week or so.
PEEBLES: Well, I wouldn't say that Donald Trump's not a serious candidate, by the way. I think Donald Trump is a very successful entrepreneur and a successful business person and a master of media relations.
PEEBLES: So think he's in -- in it to stay. I think Trump is probably going to occupy the third spots in a lot of these races early on for a while and I think that Jeb and Scott Walker fight out for the top two right now. And I think in Iowa, I think it's Jeb Bush is in a good position to do well there. But, ultimately, it's a long, you know, campaign and I think, you know, California and other places where a moderate candidate is going to do well, I think Jeb will, you know, do well as -- in the later part of the primary season. You know, I just don't think that these -- you have got 14 candidates, soon to be 15, and possibly 16, and so the -- it's a smorgasbord of candidates right now.
PEEBLES: So, who can make up their mind?
BARTIROMO: Well, you wonder if, in fact, the number of candidates is actually hurting the GOP or does it help because people feel like there's a bench? I don't know.
ROLLINS: It -- no, no. It would -- it would be helpful if even of them had a forum. The problem is, a bunch of them are now going to go to New Hampshire because they can't win in Iowa. People like Bush and others. Christie, who basically has a strategy of starting in New Hampshire. That worked for John McCain because there was nobody else up there. At this point in time you're going to have eight or 10 candidates who are going to try and launch into New Hampshire. They're going to do the town halls. It won't be quite the same thing. But it is a primary, at least. And even though independents and Democrats can vote in it, it's more of an election. The caucus is a very unique system and, obviously, it doesn't matter a whole lot at the end of the day.
BARTIROMO: But it's -- but it's difficult to ascertain what the platforms are when you have so many people running, you know?
ROLLINS: There's no question about it.
BARTIROMO: I mean, so how do you differentiate yourself? What are you running on? Look, at the same time, I still don't know that we know what Hillary is running on, by the way, Don. I mean she has said that she's running for the average guy and gal out there, but we haven't heard her really give us a sense of foreign policy, of the Iran talks, of ISIS and degrading and destroying them. So what do you think?
PEEBLES: I think that she will carve out this area that -- the topic of the moment, and that is income disparity and wealth disparity and she'll --
BARTIROMO: That will be her platform?
PEEBLES: I think that will be a big part of her platform. And it will allow her to carve out a place in the center because she'll be pro-business and it will be a private sector approach to solving this income inequity, a partnership between the government and the private sector. But I think that will be her number one place and -- and this being an environment of opportunity. And I think she'll take on immigration now that it's at the forefront.
BARTIROMO: And you don't have that kind of sort of distinct granularity from the 14 or 15 candidates on the GOP side right now.
MILLER: Exactly. She's a little lonely and that's her problem because all of the attention is really on her. I mean we can talk about the Bidenistas (ph) out there saying he may run, he may run and, you know, Bernie Sanders attracting 10,000 people wherever he goes. But the fact of the matter is, Don's right, this is -- she's the only real player and that's a lot of pressure on her. I find it amazing that she has gotten away so far with answering so few questions from the press.
MILLER: The press lets her get away with it. Bad on us.
BARTIROMO: Well, I wonder, though, if that changes as we get -- it's got to change.
ROLLINS: Oh, it has to change. I mean she's going to be a viable candidate. She actually was a better candidate than Obama at the end of the campaign. You know, she lost by 120 delegates. She lost to the super delegates. She will be a better candidate. Her problem is, she's going to be tied to Obama. Where's Obama going to be in a year and a half? This is really about leadership. Most Americans don't think he's been a very strong leader. And my sense is that will be what Republicans have to argue, that they have the decisions, they have the ability to move the economy and basically you're strong enough to basically do the international arena that we're -- they're dealing with every day.
PEEBLES: I don't know about that. I think, look, the president had a good week last week. You know, things they're doing --
ROLLINS: Thanks to the court.
PEEBLES: Yes, right, the Supreme Court, but things are going well. I think that, you know, Obama's not going to be the burden that say George W. was to his party, to John McCain, in that last election. Also, Iowa has -- can have a huge impact. It made the president and made Barack Obama president because it legitimized his candidacy very early and African-American voters who were prone to go with Hillary Clinton because of the relationship with bill Clinton saw him as a legitimate candidate --
PEEBLES: And that's why he was trounced, you know, he did very well (INAUDIBLE) in South Carolina as a result of that. And so I think if Trump were to win Iowa, it would legitimize him in a way that nothing else could. And that's his best shot, don't you think, Ed, for him to win Iowa?
ROLLINS: You know, he has a shot. I'll bet a lot of money he's not going to win Iowa. But I will bet that he can be in the race for a while. I think it's important to always replay the history. Hillary lost because of the super delegates, who she paid no attention to, which are 450 congressmen, party leaders and what have you. Basically they went with Barack Obama because Ted Kennedy and the former leader of the -- Harry Reid took her there. She ran dead even 120 delegates at the end of the day. She ran dead even with him everywhere in the contested races. Iowa is important to make him a viable candidate. But at the end of the day, she was a strong candidate in the end and we need to be prepared for her being the strong candidate this time.
MILLER: But I really think you have to factor in the terrorism potential. If something happens in between now and the election, that something is bad, all bets are off in terms of Hillary and her ability to distance herself from the foreign policy that she was a part of.
BARTIROMO: That's a good point.
All right, a mixed bag on the economy, meanwhile, this past week. What the unemployment and Labor Department job numbers tell us. As well there's Greece, the uncertainty there. We'll get into it next on "Sunday Morning Futures."
BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Big Fed meeting this upcoming week. We're going to get the Fed minutes from the last meeting -- that on top of...
JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: It is now time. There we go. It's now time to see whether or not we are able to close an agreement. In many ways this negotiation has been going on for literally a number of years.
And over the past few days, we have in fact made genuine progress. But I want to be absolutely clear with everybody. We are not yet where we need to be on several of the most difficult issues. And the truth is that, while I completely agree with Foreign Minister Zarif that we have never been closer, at this point, this negotiation could go either way.
If hard choices get made in the next couple of days, and made quickly, we could get an agreement this week. But if they are not made, we will not. So our teams remain very hard at work in the coming hours and days. We're going to go as hard as we can. We are not going to be negotiating in the press. We'll be negotiating privately and quietly. And when the time is right, we will all have more to say.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, how long are you willing to (inaudible) extend the deadline beyond Tuesday? How long are you (inaudible) making continued progress? KERRY: Well, right now we're aiming to try to finish this in the time frame that we've set out. That's our goal. And we're going to put every bit of pressure possible on it to try to do so.
QUESTION: Would you walk away from it if...
KERRY: If we don't get a deal, if we don't have a deal that -- if there's absolute intransigence; if there's an unwillingness to move on the things that are important, President Obama has always said we would be prepared to walk away. It's not what anybody wants. We want to get an agreement.
But I've said from the moment I became involved in this, we want a good agreement, only a good agreement. And we're not going to shave anywhere at the margins in order just to get an agreement.
This is something that the world will analyze, experts everywhere will look at. There are plenty of people in the nonproliferation community, nuclear experts, who will look at this, and none of us are going to be content to do something that can't pass scrutiny.
Most importantly, President Obama has made it clear that we have to close off the four pathways to the potential of a bomb. Our Iranian counterparts have been working hard. They've put in a lot of time. Everybody is negotiating hard. That's what makes this difficult. But our hope is that we get an agreement that is fair and gets the job done and we can hold our heads high and show the world that countries can come together and make things happen.
But we're not there yet. I emphasize that. We have difficult issues still to resolve.
KERRY: Thank you all very much.
Thank you all. Thank you.
JARRETT: Secretary of State John Kerry giving an update on the progress being made on the P-5-plus-1 nuclear talks with Iran. The United States and other world powers working to exchange sanctions relief to keep Tehran from the nuclear bomb.
There was a 1st -- a July 1st deadline that, of course, has since passed. It was extended to roughly July 7th. The absolute deadline, perhaps, is two days later, July 9th, because congressional action would expire at midnight then, Congress weighing in on whether this is a good deal or not and approving it or not.
So these talks, of course, have been going on for several years. They began to accelerate when the framework was reached early April, but Mr. Kerry saying there is no deal yet and the United States is willing to walk away if it is not a good deal.
We'll continue to follow the events live in Europe. We'll be right back.
BARTIROMO: We're back with our panel. What is the one big thing to watch in the upcoming week? Ed? ROLLINS: I think the ISIS battle in Egypt is very, very important. Egypt is trying to put together a military -- an Arab army, and I think that the killing of their prosecutor this week shows that they can kill anybody in that country. I think it's a very serious thing and we need to watch it very closely.
BARTIROMO: I thought you were going to say Puerto Rico, because Puerto Rico is facing this huge cash crunch and I guess 60 percent of hedge funds have exposure to the -- to the debt there, which is a very high number. That...
MILLER: Yeah, I'm watching that and the overflow from Greece. If you have -- you know, Puerto Rico just squeaked by and was able to repay what it owes, in terms of debt. Greece may not be, or they may be. But those two things together highlight the financial instability across the board. I'm looking at the -- at what happens after the referendum and what the E.U. does about Greece and the Greek-like other countries.
BARTIROMO: That's going to be impactful. Don, what are you looking at?
PEEBLES: A poll coming out in the next two weeks showing Donald Trump leading in one of the key primary states.
BARTIROMO: Come on.
PEEBLES: Oh, I believe that that is extremely possible. He's in number two position right now, fighting. And he's still in it and he's not backing down. And -- and we're still talking about him.
BARTIROMO: All right. I'm going to be watching Greece. I'm with you, Judy. The IMF says Greece needs 60 billion euros in new aid. That's about $80 billion. We'll be watching the results of that referendum.
That will do it for us for today. Thank you so much for joining us, all of you on the panel.
Happy Fourth of July, everybody. I wish you a safe and happy weekend this holiday weekend. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Thanks for being here. I'll be back next week on "Mornings With Maria" from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. Eastern on the Fox Business Network.
Take a look at where to find the Fox Business Network on your cable network or your satellite provider. Click on "Channel Finder" at foxbusiness.com to get more.
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.