This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," July 26, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARIA BARTIROMO, ANCHOR: Good morning.
A scathing message from Iran's supreme leader highlighting the mixed messages from the country barely two weeks after finalizing a nuclear deal.
Hi, everyone. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Welcome to "Sunday Morning Futures."
Secretary of State John Kerry continues his defense of the deal this week as Congress is set to begin its August recess. So what if any impact will lawmakers have on the agreement? I'll ask a Texas congressman who served in the CIA.
Then, several plans on Capitol Hill right now to clamp down on sanctuary cities which do not cooperate with governments. A senator who crafted one of those bills explains how it will keep communities safer.
Plus, the State Department contradicting statements from Hillary Clinton, admitting some of the Democratic front-runner's private e-mails were actually classified. How big of a bump in the road will it be for her campaign? Our panel will look at that as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."
Secretary of State John Kerry will be back on The Hill this upcoming week after taking a verbal lashing from lawmakers last week. While testifying in defense of the Iran nuclear deal, Mr. Kerry telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the deal is vital in neutralizing Iran's threat to the region. But Republicans who oppose the deal are vowing to prevent the agreement.
Joining me right now is Texas Congressman Will Hurd. He is a member of the task force on combating terrorism and a former CIA undercover operative.
Congressman, it is great to have you in the studio today.
REP. WILLIAM HURD, R-TEXAS: Thanks for having me.
BARTIROMO: Thanks so much for joining us this morning.
First, your anticipation of Secretary Kerry in front of the House this Tuesday, what are you expecting to come out of this testimony?
HURD: Look, I've heard some of his comments already. He's going to say that you have to have a deal because no deal means war, which is completely erroneous. He's going to talk about how they held out for the strongest deal they possibly can. You know, these are going to be the same messages that he's already been talking about.
BARTIROMO: You know, it's so extraordinary when you look at the fact that we've got the ballistic missile development. You've got the lifting of the conventional arms embargo. Sanction relief on individuals. And yet the administration keeps saying that this is a good deal for the U.S. It feels like it's a really good deal for Iran.
HURD: You're absolutely right, it really is a -- it's a great deal. Think about this. Iran has been the largest state sponsor of terrorism for almost four decades. They had no money because of sanctions. Now they're going to be flush with cash. And what they're going to be able to do with this is absolutely scary. The bottom line is this, we cannot trust the Iranians. They have lied to the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, on a number of occasions. They have lied to the U.N. Security Council. They're supporting terrorist organizations in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan. We can't trust them.
BARTIROMO: And then this morning we have this tweet from the supreme leader of Iran basically making fun of President Obama. I mean they're taunting the U.S. I want to get your take on that. And I guess the bottom line question that I've got to get your take on is, is this deal a done deal or can Congress actually have an impact here?
So stay with us on that. A lot to talk about with you this morning, Congressman Hurd.
But first, let's dig into this showdown on Capitol Hill over the Iran nuclear deal. Fox News' senior correspondent Eric Shawn with that angle.
Eric, good morning to you.
ERIC SHAWN, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Maria, and good morning, everyone.
You know, Iran has lied, cheated and deceived the word before about its nuclear program and now it seems Tehran could be up to its familiar tricks yet again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BOB CORKER, CHAIRMAN, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS CMTE.: Mr. Secretary, I'm sorry, not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bath robe on its back, I believe you've been fleeced.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAWN: Sharp words on Capitol Hill where Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz were trying to win over skeptical members of Congress. Kerry insisting the deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for at least 15 years. But today Iran's strange behavior continues. The supreme leader Ali Khamenei tweeting that photo that appears to show President Obama pointing a gun to his head.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN RHODES, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We have, again, a diplomatic pathway to achieving that objective. And we've been very clear that's not going to erase our differences with the Iranian government. What it is going to do is resolve what is the greatest potential threat and the greatest challenge to the national community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAWN: But there are new signs Iran may not fulfill its promise to open its military sites, like the key Parchin facility. Khamenei's foreign relations adviser, Ali Akbar Velayati saying, quote, "the access of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency or from any other body to Iran's military centers is forbidden. Inspectors do not have any separate agreement on visiting the Parchin military site."
And what critics cite as especially galling is that Iran will provide soil samples from Parchin and other installations. The U.N. inspectors, believe it or not, will not independently get them themselves.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JIM RISCH, R-IDAHO: Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was, you -- we can't even take samples there. IE -- IAEA can't take samples there. They're going to be able to test by themselves. Even the NFL wouldn't go along with this. How in the world can you have a nation like Iran doing their own testing?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAWN: Now, Secretary Kerry says the soil sample issue is classified. But you know when senators say the NFL drug testing program is stricter than the Iranian agreement, it seems before the secretary of state considers going wind surfing again, he's going to face very choppy waters on Capitol Hill.
BARTIROMO: All right, Eric, thanks very much. Eric Shawn with the latest there.
And we are back with Congressman Will Hurd this morning.
Let me first talk about this tweet from the supreme leader of Iran. He tweets out basically saying, look, we don't want a war, but if there is a war, we're not going to show the picture, we don't want to get involved and worsen the situation here, but it is a graphic depicting a gun to President Obama's head. Three days after we do this deal with Iran.
HURD: But here's the problem, this is -- this is par for the course. This is not a unique thing. This is something that the supreme leader has been doing for years. The day after the agreement was signed, he was speaking at a university talking about how we're going to continue to have to fight against the great Satan, referring to the United States of America. We can't trust the Iranians. And anybody who thinks we can is being incredibly naive.
BARTIROMO: So then why is the president and John Kerry so intent on making sure this deal goes through? The president, in no uncertain terms has said, any challenges to this deal, I will veto.
HURD: Right. No, and we know, and that's why for us in the House and the Senate, we have to get enough of our colleagues to vote against this deal so that we can override a veto. This isn't a Republican or a Democrat issue. This is about the security of the world and hopefully my colleagues realize that in a number of years when their children and grandchildren say, did you do absolutely everything you can to stop a nuclear Iran, I hope my colleagues are going to say "yes."
BARTIROMO: All right, so let's talk about that for a moment because there is a -- there was an expectation out there that this is a done deal and that Congress won't be able do anything. Give me the numbers. What do you need to see in order for Congress to actually have the power to reverse this?
HURD: Sure. So starting this past Monday, the clock started and we had 60 days since then. We're going to need -- if all the Republicans vote against this, we're going to need about 13 senators and 43 members of the House to vote against this deal. And what's really been interesting is, is my colleagues are really listening to both sides of the argument, trying to understand this. And the more they learn about this deal, the harder it is to -- for them to support it because some of the things are just outrageous.
BARTIROMO: What do you think about Chuck Schumer? It all does come down to him, doesn't it, as he enters his new role of majority leader.
HURD: He's a very influential person in the Senate. He's taking over the role as majority leader. And he's going to have a huge influence in how many of his colleagues are going to vote.
BARTIROMO: What are you expecting out of Schumer? We have not heard from him. Everyone's wondering, what is -- what is he going to? What are you expecting?
HURD: Well, I wish I knew, but I'm hoping he's going to come out against this deal.
BARTIROMO: Of course. I mean, we'll see. So you do think there is a chance that Congress can actually reverse this?
HURD: I'm hopeful. And we're working every single day to try to convince our colleagues and the American people to speak up because we need to hear from them. You know, I represent a very big part of Texas, rural area, and this is the single question I get asked at every event, every town hall, is, what are we doing against Iran? And we need folks to speak up and talk to their congressmen, talk to their senator and say, please, kill this deal.
BARTIROMO: And, well, you know, we've got this clock ticking, as you said. It started on Monday and yet now congress is going on August recess. What is the -- how does that play into things? Will you have an opportunity during the August recess to take the temperature of your colleagues?
HURD: Absolutely. I think this is a good thing because everyone is going to be back in their district, barnstorming their district, and they're going to hear from very vocal constituents how they feel about this deal. So I'm hoping this is going to influence a number of my colleagues when we come back in September and start gearing up for taking this vote.
BARTIROMO: Well, what was most troublesome to you about this deal?
HURD: That we're actually -- that we truly believe that we can trust the Iranians and that we think that they're going to follow through on this. You know, some of the sanctions relief that they're going -- they're -- that this is going to allow, within the first six to eight months, you know, the possibility of $150 billion going to the Iranians.
HURD: You know, that is three times their budget for the -- their -- the IRGC, which is kind of like their special forces and CIA together. You know, these are the folks that are exporting terrorism and it's unconscionable that we're going to let that happen.
BARTIROMO: Yeah, and then there's also the idea that, even if you want to trust the Iranians, that they are not going to develop, you know -- or that they're not going to use a nuclear bomb, who is to say they're not going to sell it to Hezbollah, to Hamas?
I mean, this is -- they've been supporting terrorists.
HURD: For almost four decades. And here's the deal. I would like to see diplomacy happen. But there have been no confidence-building measures between the United States government and the Iranian government that says, "We can trust them." And that's why we should walk away from this deal. And what the president and Secretary Kerry is going to say is that, if we walk away from the deal, that means war? No. When we walk away from this deal, it should be continued financial sanctions against them -- against the Iranians.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, we'll be watching. Thanks so much for joining us.
HURD: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: We appreciate it. Congressman Will Hurd joining us.
Action on Capitol Hill this past week facing a veto threat by President Obama. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on his plan to target cities that protect illegal immigrants but don't cooperate with the feds.
I hope you'll follow us on Twitter @mariabartiromo @sundayfutures. Let us know what you'd like to hear about sanctuary cities, up next. Stay with us as we look ahead this morning on "Sunday Morning Futures."
BARTIROMO: Welcome back. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary this past week unveiling a plan to target so-called sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration officials.
Meanwhile, President Obama issuing a veto threat against a similar measure which would cut off some federal funding for cities and states that shield undocumented immigrants from federal law enforcement. Joining us right now is Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
Sir, good to have you on the program. Thanks so much for joining us.
SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, R-IOWA: Thank you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Can you talk to us about sanctuary cities and what you're hoping to achieve?
GRASSLEY: Yeah. Well, first of all, remember that this is related to not just one incident, the killing of the Steinle girl in San Francisco. Over the last five years, there has been 121 like killings by fugitives and -- and criminals that have been deported and then come back into the country.
So two things we want to accomplish. One, when a sanctuary city gets a person that's a criminal alien and they get a detainer from the federal government immigration service and law enforcement, we want that turned over -- that person turned over to the federal authorities.
If they don't turn them over, then they will lose federal funding that they get for detaining these people. Then, the second thing we do, for people that are criminal aliens under these circumstances who have been deported, come back into the country, the present law says, at present, two years, but it's never used.
So we're going to have a mandatory five-year sentence for people that are deported as criminal aliens and then return to the United States.
BARTIROMO: But, Senator, the president has already said any challenge to the sanctuary cities, he will veto. So where does that put you and this bill? I mean, what position does that put you in?
GRASSLEY: Well, all we can do is make law. The president takes an oath to uphold and faithfully enforce those laws. The president, by recognizing sanctuary cities, they are violating immigration law. So the president can't have it both ways. He wants to allow sanctuary cities to violate immigration law. And yet, when Arizona tries to pass a lot of laws to protect their citizens from criminal aliens, he goes to court and gets those laws declared unconstitutional.
The president should be enforcing law. And if the immigration laws were enforced, we wouldn't have these problems that we're talking about. We're talking about a person that was deported five times coming back into the country and murdering somebody and not being turned over to the federal government.
Is the president of the United States going to say that that person with five convictions and that that's OK for that person to come back and murder? Of course, the president isn't going to say that. But by his inactions, he's allowing it to happen.
BARTIROMO: What are your thoughts on Donald Trump, who of course was at the border in Texas just this past week? Any -- any takeaways from what Donald Trump has been saying, in terms of putting this issue on the front burner?
GRASSLEY: Yeah. Yeah, two things. Number one deals strictly with the subject. We do have a broken immigration system. One of two things, either we have to pass immigration reform, which I think we should do, and secure the border, or else, under existing law, we have to have a president that will enforce it.
The second thing is more of a political answer I will give you. I follow the Reagan 11th commandment, "Don't speak ill of another Republican." And that's just not directed towards Trump. That's people that, in turn, have directed bad things towards Trump in regard to his campaigning.
BARTIROMO: Senator, final question here about gun control. Because this is obviously on everybody's minds now, post another deadly shooting this past week in Lafayette, Louisiana. What are your thoughts on putting an end to these shootings that we see continuing to happen, these tragedies that should not be happening?
GRASSLEY: Yeah. In most of these incidents -- and I don't know about this specific case. But in five out of six previous mass murders we had, five of the six had mental issues.
So the one thing that we have to do to get this under control is to make sure that we have -- get people who have mental problems, get them in the database at the FBI so that they can't get the guns in which they kill. But this all boils down to two principles we have to live by.
Number one, we have to be concerned about the public safety of our citizens. But, number two, we can't do anything to compromise the Bill of Rights and the second amendment, the right of an individual to protect themselves. And if they want to protect themselves through ownership of guns, we've got to respect that constitutional right as well.
BARTIROMO: Senator, we so appreciate your time today. Thanks very much for joining us.
GRASSLEY: Yeah. Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Senator Chuck Grassley there.
Coming up next, the U.S. economy looking to break out of a holding pattern in the second half of 2015. Where are the jobs? The latest predictions on the GDP report, which is out this upcoming week, and when the Fed will raise rates, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." Stay with us.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
We are at the halfway mark of the year. This week's GDP report out on Thursday will bring us the latest reading on where we are in terms of growth for this economy and where are the jobs. The first half of 2015 has shown a flat performance with a contraction in the first quarter and mixed numbers so far in the second quarter.
Joining us now with an outlook is Rich Peterson. He is senior director with Global Markets Intelligence at S&P Capital IQ.
And you are tallying up all the numbers all the time. You're getting a great read on where things are. Thanks so much for joining us.
RICH PETERSON, SR. DIR., GLOBAL MRKTS INTEL AT S&P CAPITAL IQ: My pleasure to be here, Maria.
BARTIROMO: First, the GDP number out on Thursday. What are you expecting?
PETERSON: The consensus expectations are for a gain of 2.8 percent. Now, that comes on the tails of -- we had a contraction of 0.2 percent in the first quarter of this year. But the initial numbers for the first quarter were for a negative 0.7 percent. So they made the revision improve, but still a dismal performance in the first quarter.
BARTIROMO: All right, so a dismal performance in the first quarter. And now you're looking for growth of 2.8 percent in the second quarter based on that GDP number. How come we've sort of switched from contracture to now you're looking for growth? What happened?
PETERSON: Well, we saw some stability in energy prices.
PETERSON: We had the -- we had the port strike earlier this year, which contracted activity, as well as the horrendous weather in the northeast. Now the fact that the second quarter numbers are going to be impacted really by exports, they're going to be affected by the strong U.S. dollar, as well as consumer spending. In some areas we've seen gains, some improvement in existing home sales, but (INAUDIBLE) we've seen retail sales really volatile.
BARTIROMO: All right, so retail sales have been volatile. We've been waiting for the consumer to use some of that money that they saved at the gas pump and start spending it. They haven't.
PETERSON: Well, it's been really non-existent and there have been many factors why that hasn't been.
PETERSON: The theory I put out for middle class Americans is the tuition bill. Their children started college in the first quarter of the year and they got a bill saying we owe how much?
PETERSON: And that money has been taken -- or their spending ability has been taken back. Likewise, some states have been raising taxes. For example, in the state of Connecticut they put a sales tax on the parking fees at beaches. So if you're going to a beach spending $15, now they're putting a tax on their own parking fees. So your digging deeper and deeper.
BARTIROMO: Are you kidding me? So that's happening in Connecticut.
PETERSON: Well, you can thank Governor Malone for that -- Malloy for that.
BARTIROMO: Yes, Governor Malloy.
Well, what about -- look, Hillary Clinton is out with her own tax plan. She wants to take capital gains taxes up. If you look at -- if you're holding them for -- holding stocks for just a two-year period. So we're going to talk about that later with the panel.
BARTIROMO: But let's talk about earnings for a moment because we've been seeing lots of earnings come out for the second quarter. Generally speaking, how are the second quarter earnings?
PETERSON: Well, for second quarter numbers, on first impressions, they looked very downbeat. Again, according to Wall Street consensus, it's for a decline of 1.9 percent from where we were a year ago.
BARTIROMO: Oh, wow!
PETERSON: But that's an improvement from where we were at the start of earning season when -- when Alcoa reported expectations were for a decline of 4.5 percent. So at the end of the day when all 500 companies in the S&P 500 will be reporting, we should be flat. That being said, it's really been a deceleration in earnings growth. The last time we had double digit earnings growth was in the second quarter of 2014 when it was over 10 percent. Third quarter was 9 percent. Fourth quarter was 8 percent. The first quarter of this year was only 3 percent --
PETERSON: Because we're steadily declining. Expectations for the full year of 2015, it's basically flat.
BARTIROMO: Unbelievable. So you get these numbers out and you look at unemployment. That looks like it's getting better. And you get better economic data and you feel like things are, in fact, improving. But at the end of the day, it's really not.
PETERSON: Well --
BARTIROMO: I mean next week we've got some healthcare companies and oil companies reporting earnings.
BARTIROMO: I'm just wondering what's priced into the market and whether or not it's going to send the market lower because you definitely have an earnings period that is not living up to some expectations.
PETERSON: Well, the bar has been set so low. As I said, we've started out with negative 4.5. We may end flat for the quarter. We may see improvement in 2016, really led by energy, where energy was -- is now a headwind given the fact that prices are making the comparison from last year, when next year it will be -- will be really a tail wind. We'll see improvement in the energy sector going --
BARTIROMO: Real quick, what are you hearing in terms of guidance? I mean are companies saying, look, things will get better in the next quarter? What -- what do you take -- your takeaway in term what was companies are saying later on in the year?
PETERSON: And generally very cautious. You know, we're seeing that really in terms of the multi-nationals, companies that have large exports abroad, like Colgate Palmolive, Procter & Gamble. They're being hurt by the weakness in China, the weak -- the strength of the U.S. dollar. So really, you know, while we're seeing a flatness in earnings, revenue growth has been declining.
BARTIROMO: Well, it's not a great story, Rich Peterson --
PETERSON: I wish I could tell you some better news.
BARTIROMO: Yes, I wish so, too. Good to have you on the program.
PETERSON: Great to be here.
BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us. Rich Peterson from S&P Capital IQ.
Presidential Candidate Donald Trump taking a tour of the southern border. Where he was met by fans cheering his focus on illegal immigration, as well as his share of critics. How will this trip play out with voters? Our panel will weigh in next as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." Back in a moment.
SHAWN: From "America's News Headquarters," I'm Eric Shawn. Here are some of the other stories making headlines at this hour.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad speaking out about the turmoil in his country, as his forces lose ground against ISIS. More than half of his nation is under the control of the terrorist organization and other militant groups, Assad saying his army has given up certain territories in order to protect more vital areas of his nation. He also blamed his setbacks on a shortage of troops. Assad's speech was his first in a year.
Police in Paris still looking for the suspects who tried to crash their car into barricades at the Tour de France, officers opening fire on that car, but the driver and passengers got away, that incident happening right near the U.S. embassy at the Place de la Concorde, just hours before the riders will be making their final laps in that race.
And I'll be back with Molly Line at noon Eastern with more news. And the doctors, as always, are in. Doctors Siegel and Samadi join us for "Sunday Housecall," two hours from now at 12:30 Eastern.
So, for now, I'm Eric Shawn, and back to "Sunday Morning Futures" and Maria.
BARTIROMO: Thank you, Eric. Donald Trump making a big impression this week at the Mexican border, the trip coming after igniting a firestorm of controversy suggesting Mexico is sending criminals, including rapists and murderers, over the border illegally into the United States, the Mexican government slamming him for those remarks, but Trump not backing down as he rises to the top of a RealClearPolitics poll, this coming as Trump hints at an independent run.
Let's bring in our panel on this. Ed Rollins is former principal White House adviser to President Reagan. He has been a longtime strategist to business and political leader. He is a Fox News political analyst.
Stephen Sigmund is the senior vice president of Global Strategy Group, a Democratic strategist, and a former communications director for former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine. And Gerry Baker -- he is the managing editor of The Wall Street Journal.
Gentlemen, good to have you on the program. Thanks so much for joining us.
Donald Trump at the border this week. Your takeaway?
ED ROLLINS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the bottom line is, it's all part of a reality show. It's his reality show. And unfortunately for the other candidates, they can't break through. Over time, they will. But, at this point -- I mean, the absurdity of going down there for a photo op, is what it really was, and to basically say all these people that were protesting, the Hispanics, were for him and, at the end of the day, he's going to get the Hispanic vote when he's the nominee, in my lifetime, there was one other guy who bragged as much as he does, and that was Mohammad Ali. He could back it up. I don't think Donald Trump can back it up.
BARTIROMO: Yeah. Well, is he hurting the entire GOP, Steve?
STEPHEN SIGMUND, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yeah, I mean, I think he's a real headache for the GOP. But, in part, he's -- he's also the GOP reaping what it sows. I mean, in the last 10 years, the two elections, national elections, that Republicans have won have been by capitalizing on anger and capitalizing on this notion of the nation failing. And that's the campaign that he's running, right?
And so it is not exactly the "Morning in America" that -- that wins presidential elections, but it gives him enough of a slice of a big field to make a big problem for the Republican Party, and he's eating up all the oxygen, as Ed says. New candidates who are not as well known, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, who just got in, have no opportunity to -- to get known.
BARTIROMO: Right. It's amazing, though, actually, that John Kasich announced his presidency (sic) and it just, sort of, went out there...
BARTIROMO: And everyone's still talking about Trump.
How do you see it, Gerry?
GERRY BAKER, MANAGING EDITOR, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Maria, this is, I think, probably the summer of Trump. I think that's probably how it will come to be known. You know, we had the summer of love and we had...
... in 2012, we had the summer of, you know, Ben Carson and we've had the summers of -- look, this is -- nobody really, who matters -- primary voters are not really focused on this election yet. So anybody who is in the news who is able to somehow get publicity -- and, my goodness, we know that Donald Trump is very, very good at getting publicity for himself.
Anybody who is able to create a little noise and publicity for himself, claim that he's a Republican despite apparently all evidence to the contrary, is going to shoot to the top of the Republican polls, because the level of interest is so low that it's going to depend on essentially exposure and name recognition. And Trump has those things.
Once -- once the campaign really gets under way -- and we start with the Fox News debate in two weeks time -- people really start to pay attention; they really start to see what these candidates actually stand for and they see that Donald Trump, as far as his record is concerned, is not even a Republican in name only, a RINO, he's not a Republican at all. He hasn't really stood for Republican things.
As soon as people focus on that, I suspect the summer of Trump will turn into the fall of 15 other candidates.
SIGMUND: I think there's some truth to that except that he seems to be throwing out the rule book, right, and being successful at it. And he has money, right? So even if he starts to fade a little bit, he can still stay in the race for as long as he feels like staying in the race. And in a 16- candidate race, it really doesn't take much -- it doesn't take much of a slough.
I mean, I think John McCain, sort of, got it right that he was stirring up a portion of the party. But he wasn't stirring up the crazies; he's stirring up the angries. And they can stay angry for a long time.
BARTIROMO: Well, I mean...
ROLLINS: The critical thing is, is he going to really spend money? I've been around -- I've run millionaire, billionaire campaigns before and they're really tight with money.
BARTIROMO: They don't want to spend their own money.
ROLLINS: They don't want to spend their own money, and that's why they become billionaires, I'm sure.
What he does is every week he gets in his plane. He has an advanced staff. And he goes out and he does what he did last week. And he plays to the mainstream media.
Pretty soon, a campaign is about organization; it's about television; it's about advertising; it's about driving a message. He has no message. His message is "Me, me, me, me."
BARTIROMO: Right. And how about policy, Gerry?
BAKER: Yeah. I mean, as I say, if you look at what he has said in the past, he's called for universal health care; he's called for very strict gun control. He's said incredibly positive things about Hillary Clinton in the past. He said positive things about Barack Obama before he discovered that he apparently wasn't born in the United States.
BARTIROMO: Right. That's right.
BAKER: You know, he's said all kinds of things that -- you know, when people start to look at that record, that support is going to fade pretty quickly.
The only thing I will say, though -- and this is important. And this reflects politics more generally, not only in this country but around the world. What he is doing, he is tapping into real resentment among the voters. There's a real populist mood in this country and other parts of the world, resentment about the governing classes, resentment about big business, about big corporations, about everybody in positions of power. They've lost -- they've lost the trust of the people. People are unhappy.
And so when somebody comes along and appears to speak authentically and appears to say things that other people are not prepared to say and appears particularly to say things like "I'm standing up for the little guy," then I think that does resonate with people.
As I say, I think once they look at what he actually stands for, Republican voters certainly are not going to like the look of him. But, right now, he is speaking to the resentment, the mood of a lot of people in this country.
BARTIROMO: Yeah, it's a great point. And by the way, he has been attacking everyone from, you know, John McCain and Lindsey Graham to now Scott Walker. So we'll talk about that.
I also want to get your take on Hillary and whether or not her speech this past week actually has resonated. Stay with us on that, more from the panel.
First, though, let's get a look at what's coming up at the top of the hour on "MediaBuzz." Howard Kurtz standing by.
Howie, good morning to you.
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST Good morning, Maria. We'll look at the coverage of the summer of Trump, as Gerry Baker put it, and how the pundits have been spectacularly wrong about Donald, week after week.
Plus, the New York Times softening its story about Hillary's e-mails and a potential Justice Department investigation.
And I don't know if Jon Stewart has ever made fun of you, Maria. He's certainly taken lots of whacks at me. But we're going to take a look at his seventh and final interview with President Obama. It was a pretty positive, kind of a love-fest atmosphere.
BARTIROMO: Yes, he has taken shots at me, actually, thank you very much, Howie.
KURTZ: Welcome to the club.
BARTIROMO: We will be there in 20 minutes, Howie. Thank you so much.
Hillary Clinton's team says she will answer questions from Congress about the deadly terror attack at Benghazi. But that hasn't reduced the drama over setting up her testimony. How will this play out into the race for the White House?
Our panel weighs in on Hillary, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
Now to Hillary Clinton headed to The Hill to deal with Benghazi, as well as bombshell revelations about her e-mails. Her campaign saying that she, quote, "will testify," before that select congressional committee on Benghazi at a hearing on October 22nd. This date, though, is not confirmed. The hearing will also delve into the classified material that government watchdogs say was found in her e-mails, despite Mrs. Clinton's contention there was no classified information that she e-mailed.
Let's bring back our panel, Ed Rollins, Stephen Sigmund and Gerry Baker.
Ed, the Clinton campaign is very clear, they're saying, we did not e-mail anything from my private server that was classified. What's your take?
ROLLINS: For 30 years the Clinton strategy has been deny, deny, deny, deny. And what I can't understand about this campaign, as someone that's run a lot of campaigns, is why she didn't dump this stuff out early. Why didn't she bring -- she made a mistake by having this e-mail thing in her home. She should have brought someone independent in to basically verify what's there and what's not there. It's the drip, drip, drip. And the biggest issue she has is the American public, a majority of the American public do not trust her and it's starting to be a factor in her favorability and everything else.
BARTIROMO: Gerry, do you think this is impacting Hillary Clinton's campaign?
BAKER: Yes. I -- clearly. I mean this is a big problem. This question -- I mean as Ed says, this strategy of denying has been characteristic of the Clintons for a long time. I think what this does -- whatever comes of this -- and, you know, these inspectors general do say that despite -- they directly contradict what she said famously in her press conference, that there was no classified material on her private e-mail. They say there was and that actually it was classified at the time, which is an important distinction because sometimes material can be classified after the fact. It was classified at the time and therefore they've essentially said that she was not telling the truth. Whether she was mistaken or lying remains to be seen.
Look, this is just as -- a part -- part of a pattern with the Clintons and it just will remind people rather depressingly that this unfortunately is the modus -- was the modus operandi of the Clintons for a very, very, very long time. A culture of secrecy, a culture of denial, a culture of -- a culture always (INAUDIBLE) and of never really being transparent and telling the truth. And I think, yes, I think it will reinforce the doubts that a lot of voters have about whether or not Hillary Clinton is fit to be president.
BARTIROMO: Stephen, what is the strategy to counter all of this?
SIGMUND: Yes, look, I -- I don't think it has affected her. Clearly in polling it hasn't affected her, maybe yet, but I don't think overall it will. I think Ed is right that it is hard to understand why strategically they don't just get everything out at once. And certainly that would be the strategy that I think anybody who's been in politics for a long time would recommend.
But I sort of disagree with Gerry of the notion that it -- that it reinforces everything that people dislike about the Clintons, reinforces what people -- what the Clintons' opponents have certainly tried to make people feel about the Clintons for a long time. But, in fact, you had a president who was very popular in Bill Clinton, you have a -- you had her as a very popular candidate and secretary of state and continuing to lead in the polls and have high favorability numbers. They are eroding a little bit. But overall high favorability numbers.
BAKER: Their unfavorability numbers are very, very high. I mean they --
SIGMUND: So is every candidate in the race.
BAKER: Well, up in the high 40s. I'm not sure about that.
BAKER: I think they're higher than Jeb Bush. I mean I think that is -- that is a problem. And I think the other -- the other point here, Maria --
BARTIROMO: It's the trust issue.
BAKER: Is the trust issue. And also, if -- if the -- everybody's saying yes, why on earth does she have this private server? Why didn't she -- why doesn't she bring -- put all the material available? Why have so many e- mails been destroyed? Look, the question -- and these are all good questions. The doubt that will be in people's minds, or the suspicion that will be in people's minds is that there's some connection here between this story and the stories well documented, particularly in "The Wall Street Journal," of the Clinton Foundation of work that the Clinton -- of money that the Clinton foundation got from foreign governments while she was -- and foreign -- and people who worked for foreign governments while she was secretary of state.
BARTIROMO: Did that dictate policy?
BAKER: Yes. Well, and, you know, well -- again, I'm not saying it was, but people will want to know, was -- is there some connection there between the fact that there were -- yes, some countries got remarkably good -- some countries and some companies got remarkably good treatment from the U.S. government while she was secretary of state, while they had given -- after they had given money to the Clinton Foundation. Again, nobody's necessarily saying there is a connection there, but it creates a suspicion.
ROLLINS: And -- and --
BAKER: And what she's got to do --
BARTIROMO: And that's the issue.
BAKER: I think it will be on her, concumbent (ph) on her to demonstrate that those suspicions are not justified and that those decisions that were made about certain foreign countries were made on the basis of the merits. And that's the problem she's got.
BARTIROMO: On the basis of merit.
ROLLINS: The underlying -- the underlying issue that's also here is that inspector generals are independent. The State Department inspector general, this is the intelligence agency's inspector general. But for this report to be thrown out to "The New York Times" or what have you, someone in the White House put that out. And clearly there's -- there's an effort in there to undo her candidacy.
BARTIROMO: They're undermining her.
ROLLINS: They're undermining her. And I think --
BARTIROMO: They're saying it's Valerie Jarret. I mean I'm just --
ROLLINS: Well, I don't -- I don't know whether it is or not, but at the end of the day it's someone serious. You don't make these kinds of decisions. You don't push these things out. It's like when the Justice Department indicts a very high powered congressman or senator, it clears right to the top.
ROLLINS: And my sense is, this is something where there's -- there's a -- the White House hand prints are all over this.
BARTIROMO: Do you think so, Stephen?
SIGMUND: I have no idea who -- who -- who put it out. But what I can say is there are two separate issues here, right? There is the -- there's the issue of the e-mails and the -- and the server, which I think they have made a mistake on and I guarantee you if she could go back in time and do it over again, she wouldn't do it this way. And then the issue of what's the policy and what's -- what are her policy positions and where was she on -- on these pieces?
SIGMUND: All of those pieces are -- are not in question. There are people who disagree with her. But all of those people -- pieces are not in question. There's never been some clearer tie between the Clinton Foundation and the policy and the secretary -- secretary of state's office. All there's been is a question of -- of the servers, what's on the servers, and whether there -- what was the information there, and they ought to turn that information over.
BARTIROMO: Yes, well, there is also a question about the -- about the foundation just because there were certain treatments for certain countries --
SIGMUND: But there's never -- but there's never been anything demonstrated that -- the connection between the foundation and the policy of the -- of the State Department.
ROLLINS: Except -- except the president getting $750,000 -- to President Clinton, $750,000 to make a speech for someone who basically was illegal in selling stuff to Iran.
SIGMUND: But he was not the secretary of state.
BARTIROMO: Right, her husband.
ROLLINS: But she was. And they signed documents when they went in that they wouldn't basically -- that they'd abide by the new rules, whatever they may be, that they sat down and they clearly violated that.
I think the real serious issue here is, she's run a terrible campaign for three months now. She has not gotten out front on anything. The first thing we're going to talk about later is her new economic package.
BARTIROMO: I want to talk to you about that, yes.
ROLLINS: But -- but the reality is, she should be out there running a super campaign. When you've got Bernie Sanders having gigantic crowds and Trump with gigantic crowds and she has 100 people --
ROLLINS: Or 20 people, I mean that's -- that's an amateur operation and that's --
BARTIROMO: All right, let -- hold that thought. We want to continue this conversation. I want to get into economics and Hillary's proposals which she came out with last week. Our panel will discuss that next on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES. We'll be right back.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back. And we are back with our panel, Ed Rollins, Stephen Sigmund, Jerry Baker.
And I want to talk about Hillary Clinton. Last week she was at NYU Stern School of Business. She made an economic speech, talked about short-termism versus long-termism and -- and also hitting on executive pay, Gerry. What was your takeaway from Hillary's speech last week?
BAKER: Well, this is clearly going to be one of the big themes of her campaign, or she plans to make a big theme of her campaign. And I think it's quite adroit politically because I think it taps into concerns that people have about the economy. We've talked about populism; we've talked about the concerns that people feel they're being left behind.
The U.S. economy's performance in the last few years has not been good. It's been better than the rest -- much of the rest of the world, but...
BARTIROMO: But wages are down?
BAKER: ... by historical standards, it's not been good, and particularly for ordinary Americans, it's not been good. Wages have not been good. So -- so she's tapping into that sentiment without being, I think, aggressively populist in the kind of Bernie Sanders way, if you like, or the, sort of, Mayor Bill de Blasio here in New York City.
So she's trying to -- she's trying to capture that sentiment and do it in a way that is -- but doing it in a way that preserves the fundamentals, if you like, of the American capitalist economy.
BAKER: And so I think that's quite adroit politically.
I think the specific proposal that she came up with -- so what she's -- what's she's talking a lot about is the dangers of too much short-termism, that -- that investors think too short-term, that what we need is a longer- term strategy; companies need to have more space to be able to make big investments, to be able to see forward, to look forward over a three, five, ten-year horizon rather than by quarter by quarter.
BAKER: And one of the ways she's, kind of, trying to tackle this is with this proposal essentially to increase -- to increase capital gains. If you don't -- if you hold onto assets for -- right now, the rule is, if you hold onto capital gains for more than a year, then you don't have to pay the higher rate.
BAKER: She's extending that to two years, so she's encouraging people to hold onto capital gains for longer.
BARTIROMO: She wants to take capital gains taxes up from 20 percent to almost 40 percent? ROLLINS: Democrats always have a policy, what I call a Robin Hood policy, of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. This is -- but you forget, with capital gains taxes, people have already paid a tax before they basically make that investment.
So by raising this to 40 percent, to force people...
BARTIROMO: It's 39.6 percent.
ROLLINS: Plus the Medicare tax puts...
BARTIROMO: Oh, that's true.
ROLLINS: It's substantial. You're going to basically diminish this investment factor that we desperately need in this country, and I think it's -- I think it's the traditional Democrat strategy; it's not going to work. And I think...
BARTIROMO: Stephen, it sounds like a third Obama term?
SIGMUND: No, it's not a third Obama term because Obama hasn't done this. Look, there -- two things. One, it hasn't been working right now. There is too much short-termism. I think the American people agree with that. I think it's had an impact on the economy and I think she's -- she's capturing something and talking about that policy, right?
Whether the exact policy proposals are right, I can't answer that question yet. But what I can say is government policy encouraging savings over time -- you know, there's a long tradition of doing that and doing it successfully, 401(k)s, mortgage interest deduction rates, for example, right, and...
BARTIROMO: But it's punishing that person who wants to...
SIGMUND: Well, she's not punishing them if they're extending it from one year to two years, for example. But -- so she's shifting the burdens, essentially.
But the most important thing, I think, politically, is that she is actually talking about an important policy piece, an important economic policy piece where you have the Republicans -- you know, again, back to Donald Trump, who are just sucking up all the oxygen attacking each other and -- and, sort of, screaming and yelling, essentially.
ROLLINS: I promise you he'll attack her, too.
SIGMUND: And he already has. I mean, he's an equal opportunity attacker.
SIGMUND: But talking about policy that the American people care about is in fact the way to win presidential elections.
BARTIROMO: All right. We've got to get to a quick break and then the one thing to watch for the next few weeks on "Sunday Morning Futures." Back in a minute.
BARTIROMO: I want to thank our fabulous panel for us this morning. Thank you so much for being here, gentlemen, Ed Baker -- Gerry Baker from The Wall Street Journal, Stephen Sigmund and Ed Rollins. Thank you, gentlemen.
That will do it for "Sunday Morning Futures." Thank you at home for watching. I'm Maria Bartiromo. I'll see you next week on the Fox Business Network, "Mornings With Maria."
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.