Sign in to comment!

Fox News Sunday

Corey Lewandowski previews Trump's general election strategy; Key lawmakers on fallout from scathing Clinton report

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," May 29, 2016. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  I’m Chris Wallace.  

Donald Trump clinches the GOP nomination for president, but his attacks on fellow Republicans continue.  

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Poor Mitt Romney.  Poor Mitt, he choked like a dog.

Many of the people I have competed against have now endorsed me.  No, Jeb hasn’t done it yet.  He will get a burst of energy and he will do it.  Believe me.

WALLACE:  As he sets his sights on the general election.  

TRUMP:  Crooked Hillary, she’s as crooked as they come.  

WALLACE:  Today, a preview of Trump’s strategy going forward, with campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.  It’s a "Fox News Sunday" exclusive.  

Then, the scathing report from the State Department inspector general on Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server.  

HILLARY CLINTON, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  It was still a mistake.  If I could go back, I would do it differently.  

WALLACE:  We’ll discuss what Clinton did and the political fallout with two key members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff and Republican Senator James Lankford.  

Plus, President Obama calls out Trump while meeting with foreign leader.  

BARACK OBAMA, D-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  They’re rattled by him, and for good reason.

WALLACE:  We’ll ask our Sunday panel whether the president will help or hurt Democrats in this election.  

All right now on "Fox News Sunday."  

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE:  And hello again on this Memorial Day weekend from Fox News in Washington.  

Well, it's been another rollercoaster week for Donald Trump.  He clinched the GOP nomination, appeared to sign on to a debate with Bernie Sanders, was targeted by President Obama and attacked fellow Republicans.  Despite calls from party leaders to unify, just another week in Trump world.  

Joining me now from New York is Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

Corey, let's start with the highly anticipated Trump-Sanders debate.  At first, Trump said that he would love to debate Sanders and then he backed out saying that it was inappropriate to debate the second place Democrat which he knew Sanders was from the start.  Here’s what Sanders had to say about all of that.  

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT., DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Trump claims to be a tough guy, pushes people around.  Hey, Donald, come on up.  Let's have a debate about the future of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  Corey, as the senator asked, what is Trump afraid of?  

LEWANDOWSKI:  Also, hey, first, thank you for having me on and second, I want to thank all of our he veterans as we celebrate Memorial Day, or remember Memorial Day.  

But as you know, that that question that was asked of Mr. Trump was asked in gesturing Jimmy Kimmel when he said, sure, if they want to pay me enough money, as a joke, tongue in cheek, I’ll be happy to debate Bernie Sanders.  

The bottom line is the Democratic Party is stealing this election from Bernie Sanders.  The party bosses will not allow him to be the nominee.  Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee and we're squarely focused on defeating Hillary Clinton come November.  So, for us, if Hillary Clinton is going to debate Bernie Sanders, because he’s not going to be the nominee, we're solely focused on making sure that the American people know that Donald Trump is going to be the next president for the United States and lay out vision for that.  We're not going to waste our time debating Bernie Sanders when he’s not going to be the Democratic nominee.  

WALLACE:  All right.  Trump wasn’t just fighting Democrats, but he also was taking on Republicans.  He, for instance, he went after the Republican governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez.  Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP:  The governor has to do a better job.  She’s not doing the job.  Hey, maybe I’ll run for governor of New Mexico.  I’ll get this place going.  

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  Corey, why on earth would the now Republican nominee since he’s clinched the nomination, why would he call out the poplar governor of a swing state like New Mexico who just happens to be the head of the Republicans Governor Association?  

LEWANDOWSKI:  Well, here’s what happened, Chris, and you know this.  Every time Mr. Trump goes to speak somewhere, he lays out the problems with that given location, whether it's Ohio or Michigan, or Indiana, you know, your country is a mess right now.  Our jobs are leaving.  Our trade deals are killing us.  People are worse now than they were 10, and 12, and 15 years ago and those statistics that he outlined are the statistics of the state of New Mexico.

And what he is saying is, as a president of the United States, he will bring jobs back to our country.  He will make sure Americans are first.  That doesn’t matter if we're in New Mexico or if we’re in Indiana, or if we’re in Michigan, people are hurting.  And we need a president that’s going to bring back our jobs back.  

And so, outlining the economy of a specific location is something that he has done across the country everywhere we’ve gone because we need to highlight the problems that we have and what we’re going to do to fix those problems.  

WALLACE:  But I think you would agree that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been very supportive of your campaign.  Here’s what he had to say about Trump’s comments this week.  

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER:  I think that the attack last night was very, very destructive.  I think it sent all the wrong signals.  You particularly don’t want to see your candidate who needs to vote, get stronger with Latinos, and stronger with women, attacked a Latina woman Republican governor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Gingrich went on to say that Trump sometimes, quote, "goes off the deep end."

That doesn’t sound like something you want in a president.

LEWANDOWSKI:  Well, Chris, what you have here is there's no attack on a Latino or a woman governor.  What this was, was laying out the economic perspective of what the state of New Mexico was doing and he’s saying we need to do a better job.  That’s what our country needs, is we need to create jobs, we need to have more people back to work, we need to build a wall, we need to stop illegal immigration.  

These are things that are said everywhere we go.  And so, you know, if Donald Trump is winning with Latinos, if you look at the last poll, he’s winning with Hispanics.  If you look at the polls, he’s doing very well with woman.  He has a much more --

WALLACE:  Wait --  

(CROSSTALK)

LEWANDOWSKI:  He is so close that in the state of California, Donald Trump is now, the state of California is now in plane.  Clinton is scared to death.  

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE:  But, Corey, wait, he’s not winning with woman and he’s not winning with Hispanics.  His numbers are hugely underwater with both.

And on the specific question of this, he didn’t just say, well, gee, things could be better in New Mexico.  He said, I’m looking at the quote here, "she," the governor, "is not doing the job."  He is going to go around the country saying that the Republican governors in states are not doing the job?

LEWANDOWSKI:  It's not about being the Republicans.  It’s not about being the Democrats, it’s about doing what’s right for the country.  If this was said in the state of Nevada, if that would have been Democrat female governor, this wouldn’t be an issue.  It’s about the economy.

So, you guys want to make a story about something that doesn’t exist here, let's make it right.  We need to do a better job.  We need to stop illegal immigration, we need to put people back to work, we need to cut taxes.  That's what this is about.  

So, anything else other than that is not the case.  But the bottom line is, our country is in trouble, and we don’t put someone in the White House who can actually knows how to create jobs and get things down, our country is going to continue to deteriorate to a point where the middle class will disappear, and we can’t have that.  

WALLACE:  So, bottom line, do you stand by, does he stand by his comment that Susana Martinez could be doing a better, is not doing everything she can to help the people of New Mexico?

LEWANDOWSKI:  Well, this is not a Republican issue.  It’s not a Democrat issue.  It’s about the economy.

WALLACE:  I’m asking about Susana Martinez.

LEWANDOWSKI:  We absolutely stand by our statement that the states of New Mexico could be doing better and what we need to do is we need to stop illegal immigrants from coming across the border illegally, we’re going to build that wall so that American citizens have a chance to have their jobs first and not have taken from someone else outside of the country who doesn’t belong here.

WALLACE:  Where do things stand with getting House Speaker Paul Ryan to endorse Trump?  And how worried are you and how worried is Trump about the possibility, the continued talk about a third party conservative run perhaps by Mitt Romney?  

LEWANDOWSKI:  Well, look, a third party ran by any candidate is a complete disaster and you're handing the White House to the Democrats, which means four or five potential U.S. Supreme Court justices that Hillary Clinton would have a chance to appoint.  If she does that, you can say goodbye to the Second Amendment amongst other things, right?  You can say goodbye to your rights.  

And so, the bottom line is that Mitt Romney decides he wants to get in this race, number one, he is failed candidate.  Number two, he’s failed twice.  And if he runs a third time, he’ll fail again.  But what he will do to the detriment of our country is he will allow a Democrat to appoint four or five Supreme Court justices that are going to be devastating long term to our country.  So, if Mitt wants to do that.  It’s failure.

Number two --  

WALLACE:  And what about Paul Ryan?  

LEWANDOWSKI:  Think of all of the people who have come out in the last two weeks and endorsed Donald Trump, U.S. senators, congressmen, governors.  We are growing this party bigger.  We are bringing people into it.  

Paul Ryan and Mr. Trump have had a conversation and they continue develop that relationship.  They had a great meeting in Washington, D.C., where they talk about what was important to both of them.  They agree on many issues.  

The bottom line is, Donald Trump is now the head of the Republican Party as the Republican nominee.  And what we know is that he brings people together and him and Paul Ryan are going to have a great relationship, because at the end of the day, the choice is binary. You either have Hillary Clinton and the White House, or you have Donald Trump.  

Now, I think that we know that the American people, Paul Ryan and Donald Trump are going to work very well together to cut taxes and renegotiate our trade deals.  

WALLACE:  All right.  New subject.  You're in charge of the team that is going to vet vice presidential candidates for Donald Trump.  He said almost three weeks ago that he is down to a short list of five or six candidates.  Are you really down to that small a universe?  

LEWANDOWSKI:  Well, let me clear. There’s one person in this country who’s going to pick the next vice president of the United States, as a running mate, and that’s going to be Donald Trump.

My role and others is to make sure that he has the resources and knowledge to make that decision.  Once he’s made that decision, he’s very comfortable with it.  

We’ve begun this process.  We start to shrink that pool, and what we are doing right now is making sure that we’ve done our due diligence, so that when he chooses a person that he wants, we can give him the pros and cons of each of those individuals and he will always make the final decisions.  So, we feel really good where we are in the process.  

WALLACE:  But you're not prepared to say at this point you're down to five candidates?  

LEWANDOWSKI:  I can say that the list is very small and we have a very good understanding of those handful of individuals will be.  And ultimately, the decision will be made by Mr. Trump.  

WALLACE: Meanwhile, your campaign is far behind Clinton's when it comes to campaign infrastructure, state organization, polling, data analytics  And there even seems to be some confusion about which super PAC, outside group, that Trump would like people to contribute money to.  Isn't that a problem?  

LEWANDOWSKI:  It's not, because here’s what you have.  You have the mindset of Hillary Clinton where you have to have hundreds of -- she’s got 800 people on staff.  We got 70 people on staff, right?  They think that bigger is better.  That's the mindset that a Clinton administration will take to the federal government.

You know, you juxtapose that with the Trump mindset, which is smaller, leaner, more efficient and better results, that’s the mindset you need for the federal government.  

So, what you have seen for us, as Mr. Trump dispatched 16 candidates in the primary, you know, we spent less money and had better results on all of them.  Clinton spent over $200 million in this race, and Trump has spent $50 million in the race, we got better results.  

What you need is you need people who can be effective and efficient and making sure that we’re getting things done.  We don't need to grow this campaign to 700 or 800 people like the Clinton campaign.  It’s ridiculous.  

WALLACE:  Well, let me --  

LEWANDOWSKI:  What you need to do is you need to be efficient.  So, in our state operations, we're very efficient.  And what we’ve seen success time and time again with a smaller, leaner, more efficient team because that's the way to run the government should he be the president of the United States.  

WALLACE:  Let's talk about the team because there are continuing reports about battles inside of the campaign.  You and campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, are said to be at each other’s throats.  The national political director was just fired.  There was a story in The New York Times this week that the staffers are worried and suspected that they're being bugged inside of the Trump Tower.  

Respectfully, this sounds less like a presidential campaign and more like "Game of Thrones."  

LEWANDOWSKI:  You know what this is?  This is media hype.  

You know, I can tell you this, that Paul and I have a fantastic relationship.  We work together very closely every day, we’re making decisions together every day for not just the campaign but for the future of what we want to accomplish here.  

It's very important to know, very, very important to know that there's no sunlight between Paul and I.  Every decision is made together.  We talk 10, 12, 15 times a day.  We each have our own respective responsibilities in the campaign and we’re moving forward.  

You know, the media wants to perpetuate this story that there’s infighting amongst the campaign.  The bottom line is, we're winning.  This week, Donald Trump became the Republican nominee by securing more than 1,237 delegates.  It was done two weeks ahead of schedule.  That was done with Paul and I working together to make sure that those unbound delegates came over and supported Mr. Trump.  

So, we're weeks ahead of where we thought we were going to be, thinking that we wouldn’t have the nomination wrapped up until June 7th.

We can only do that as a team.  This team is very cohesive.  It’s small, it’s lean, it’s efficient, and it's going come right at Hillary Clinton for this presidency come November.  

WALLACE:  And in 10 seconds, is there any bugging going on at the Trump Tower?  

LEWANDOWSKI:  Well, I think that’s a lot of speculation.  I don’t think that’s the case at all.  I think we're happy with how our offices are set up.  

WALLACE:  Corey, thank you.  Thanks for sharing part of your holiday weekend with us.  We appreciate it, sir.

LEWANDOWSKI:  Thank you.  

WALLACE:  Up next, we’ll bring our Sunday group to discuss how Trump is preparing for the general election now that he has clinched the GOP nomination.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA:  They’re rattled by him, and for good reason, because a lot of the proposals that he’s made display either ignorance of world affairs or a cavalier attitude.  

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  President Obama at a summit in Japan relaying the concern of other world leaders about Donald Trump.  

And it's time now for the Sunday group: Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, Susan Page from USA Today, syndicated columnist George Will, and Ron  Fournier of the National Journal, author of the new book, "Love That Boy", it is a perfect gift for Father's Day.  

RON FOURNIER, NATIONAL JOURNAL:  Thank you very much.  

WALLACE:  There you go.  

Brit, some people were up upset that the president criticized Trump while he was on a foreign visit, an international summit, bringing up the old axiom, which seems kind of quaint now, that politics stops at the water's edge.  

First of all, were you offended by what -- by what Obama had to say?  

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST:  Oh, I wasn’t offended.  

WALLACE:  Secondly, let me get the questions out.  One, were you offended?  Now that Obama’s approval rating is back up over 50 percent for the first time in a long time, how effective do you expect him to be for the Democrats in this election?

HUME:  Well, he is going to be effective to the extent that his approval rating remains high.  I mean, there is a very high correlation between an incumbent president's approval rating and the success of his party’s nominee in the fall.  So, if that stays up, that's a significant plus in Secretary Clinton's favorite as she runs here.  

Whether he will be in -- how effective he will be out on the stump is anybody's guess.  But the approval rating does correlate with winning, and that’s obviously a key factor here.

As for whether I was offended, no, I was not offended because the customs of politics stops at water edge is long gone.  And besides that, he got a question which he answered and a way that Trump managed easily to turn into a talking point on his own.  So, everybody is saying he wants these foreign leaders to be rattled because they’ve been getting a free ride of us for too long.  So, that’s all good.  That’s a negotiators stance.

WALLACE:  Trump not only took incoming from the president, he also took it from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts over his statement in 2006 that if the housing bubble bursts, he’d be able to make some money. Here she is.  

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASSACHUSETTS:  And roots for people to get thrown out of their house.  A small, insecure money-grubber who doesn’t care who gets hurt so long as he makes the profit of it.  

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  Well, Trump had, Susan, an answer for that.  He said that Warren has a big mouth and he called her Pocahontas, referring to the fact that she once claimed American Indian heritage.

SUSAN PAGE, USA TODAY:  Still claims. She’s never back off that.  She says that still -- she still believes that to be the case.

You know, she figured out how to do something that eluded 16 Republican rivals, which is how to get under Donald Trump's skin.  She’s not yet endorsed Hillary Clinton.  She’s the only woman senator who hasn’t endorsed Hillary Clinton.  But she is doing Hillary Clinton a world of good by engaging with Donald Trump, and making him respond.  

I think she has figured out how to irk him.

WALLACE:  And irking is good?  

PAGE:  Irking is good if you’re running against somebody and you want to get them a little bit off their game.  I’m not sure how valuable it is to call her Pocahontas.  It doesn’t seem to me that does her a lot of damage.  She doesn’t seem to mind that.  

WALLACE:  How about big mouth?  

PAGE:  Big mouth, you know?  I mean, she is somebody who has demonstrated an ability to throw a punch.  And that’s to the good of the Democrats, it seems to me.

WALLACE:  George, I want to go slightly a bigger picture than big mouth and Pocahontas, because Trump was asked this week where he sees the GOP in five years, and he said, "I love that question."  And he said, "I see it as a worker's party, of people who have not gotten a raise in 15 years", I think he said, "who feel angry and left behind."

Could he possibly be reshaping the Republican Party?  

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST:  I think that’s what he’s obviously saying (ph).

Fifty weeks ago when he began running for president, he had a verbal tick that he subsequently suppressed.  He used to be talking to an arena full of people and said, the Republican say this, or you Republicans says this and that.  That's perfectly natural for someone who’s changed his party registration at least five times in the last 20 years or so, when asked recently about his many deviations from conservatism, he sort of shrugged and said, it’s called the Republican Party, not the conservative party.  

So, it seems very clear he intends to make it not a conservative party, at least his conservatism has been defined.  If he means to make it by a worker's party, the party of those downscale, many non-college educated white voters, he can do that, but that's nowhere a majority.  He may be counting on independents.  A decade ago, 30 percent of Americans said they’re independents.  Today, 42 percent do.  

But then you get back to his strange idea of addition I guess by subtraction, you talk about Susan Martinez.  He has a problem with woman, Hispanics and Republicans.  So, he attacks a Republican Hispanic woman governor, forgetting the fact that Mitt Romney got 93 percent of self-described Republicans and lost.  

WALLACE:  You know, I want to pick up on this, because I was fascinated that Trump did it and even more interested in the fact that you kind of got an aggressive push back today, defense from Corey Lewandowski.  I mean, what do you make of the idea that the I guess now unofficial Republican nominee, the man who’s clinched the nomination 1,237 plus votes, is going after Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley and a bunch of other Republicans?  

FOURNIER:  These two things are linked, set aside the fact that workers party is the 20th century bearings in the socialist movement.  Nowadays, what it is, what he’s talking about is a dog whistle to the white working class angry voters.  And when she is taking on Susana Martinez, when she’s taking on a female Hispanic governor, that’s part of his play to the grievance vote among white male voters.

He is trying to divide us and he’s trying to create this new Republican coalition that would be mostly white, would be mostly angry white males, that the math does not add up, as George says, unless he completely reshapes the electorate.  We have to have a completely different kind of electorate come out in November than we’ve had in the past.  

Somehow you have to increase the white vote, but while not increasing the Hispanic and African vote.  I don’t know how you do that.  Maybe he’s figured a way.

HUME:  Contrast between how he handled Paul Ryan's initial reaction, when Ryan said he was not prepared to endorse him, and indeed he isn’t yet prepared to endorse him, at first he lashed out.  Remember, he said, you know, I don’t support Ryan's agenda.  Then, he apparently thought better of that tactic, and sat down with Ryan and apparently having continuing conversations with him and you can sense Ryan moving in Trump’s direction.  

That first impulse appeared to be at work in his attack on Susana Martinez.  He attacks her.  But as you just pointed out --

WALLACE:  She said she was just too busy to show up at his rally --

HUME:  She didn’t show up at his rally, so he took that as a slight, as he had what Ryan said, and lashed out at her, which has been his traditional, habitual way of dealing with things.

But politics as George has suggested is always and everywhere about addition and not subtraction.  So, I think it’s a mistake and I was surprised, as you suggested, the Corey Lewandowski doubled down on it today, because it just doesn’t make any sense.  It's so much easier for him to win her over.  

FOURNIER:  And you can tell they’re living in the fantasy land, when he says things like --  

WALLACE:  Well, wait, you said they’re living in the fantasy land.  He is the Republican nominee.  

FOURNIER:  They are living in the fantasy land.  You had him on your show and you put -- you called him on this.  He said, we're winning the Hispanic vote.  

They are living in a fantasy land.  They’re not winning the Hispanic vote.

In a way that you go after him is exactly the way that Susan suggested, and exactly what Elizabeth Warren was doing.  When you have a playground bully, a bully in the playground, you punch him in the mouth.  And you punched him in the mouth and you punch him in the mouth.

Get him back on the heels.  He’s obviously very thin-skinned and very small minded man when you say things to him like, I’m too busy to show up.  If he was a bigger man, that wouldn’t bother him.  It gets under his skin.  If you call him small like Elizabeth Warren, that touches him in a place that most people --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE:  I mean, for all of the Trumpism, he is tied in the polls with Hillary Clinton.  I mean, we do have to reflect the reality that it seems to be selling.  

PAGE:  Not only is he tied or almost tied in the polls with Hillary Clinton, he has cleared the Republican field and clinched the Republican nomination while she has not.  He did that in May and she won't do that until June.  She still has, you know, a serious challenge in California.  

So, you don't want to dismiss Donald Trump but the question is, has he rewritten all the rules?  He rewrote all the rules for the primaries.  Does that mean he’s rewritten the rules for general election when it comes to things like having a campaign infrastructure across the country, because she’s building one and he is behind on that?  

WALLACE:  So, let me just quickly ask you about that and we have to go.  When I asked Corey Lewandowski and he basically said, hey, we’ve got a tenth of her staff and we’re winning, do you buy that?  

PAGE:  So, I think, historically, you’d say, no, that's not going to work.  But he’s been a different kind of candidate this year, so you don't dismiss it out of hand.  

FOURNIER:  You can his candidacy seriously, but not take him as a person seriously.  That’s where I am.  

WALLACE:  Well, I think we probably should do both.  

Anyway, panel, we have to take a break.  We’ll see you a little later.

Up next, the State Department inspector general issues a highly critical report on Hillary Clinton's use of private e-mail.  We’ll ask two key lawmakers whether she broke the law.  

Plus, what would you like ask the panel about the I.G. report.  How will it affect the presidential race?  Just go to Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air.  

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE:  The Democrat candidates jockey for support in California as Bernie Sanders warns the convention could get ugly.  

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS:  It’s going to be messy, you know?  Democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle.  But that is where the Democratic Party should be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  The panel discusses the Democratic divide, coming up on "Fox News Sunday."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE:  A lookout side of the beltway at the town of Davis Junction, Illinois, and it's memorial honoring local veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice.  

Now to the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal.  A new report by the State Department inspector general says Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state violated department policies.  

Joining me now, two members of the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees.  Here in Washington, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff.  And in Oklahoma, Republicans Senator James Langford.  

So, gentlemen, the way that I want to structure is to show what Clinton said and then what the inspector general’s report concluded.

And, first, on the issue of whether or not Clinton's exclusive use of private email and personal server was allowed.  

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON:  It was allowed under the rules of the State Department. And, again --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So nobody signed off on it?

CLINTON: No. No. It was allowed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But here’s what the report from the inspector general said. "OIG," Office of Inspector General, "found no evidence that the secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal e-mail account on her private server."

Senator Lankford?

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD, R-OKLA., INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Yes, that -- that’s entirely accurate. She didn’t go -- try to get permission. She didn’t -- if she would have asked permission, the inspector general said she would not have received that.

Since 2002, the State Department has not even allowed employees to be able to forward on from a private e-mail to their official one because they said it wasn’t secure. So this is an established issues, has been established a long time for the State Department. You cannot do this.

WALLACE:  Congressman Schiff, it actually gets worse when that when two members of the State Department’s record keeping division complained about this, expressed concerned, a superior instructed them this way. He "instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal e-mail again." That's a quote from the OIG report.

Congressman Clinton never got approval.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALI., RANKING MEMBER, INTELLIGENCE CMTE: No, she was mistaken about that. She thought that it was approved, that the practice was allowed, and she was wrong. The report also makes clear that Secretary Powell also thought it was appropriate to use a personal server, private server --

WALLACE:  But that’s not -- that’s not true. That is not true. And I -- I had a feeling you were going call me on that and that’s discuss it right now.

SCHIFF: Yes. I am going to call you on that.

WALLACE:  Secretary Powell had two computers in his office. He used one, a government computer, for classified information. He had a second computer for private e-mails. Some of those included business, State Department business, but he did have a separate office of the State Department, secretary of the state, computer.

SCHIFF: He had a -- a laptop, a State Department laptop, which the OIG report says he never used for e-mail. Not for official business.

WALLACE:  That’s now what -- that's not what Secretary Powell said.

SCHIFF: The -- the -- the -- the -- the OIG report says that he used personal e-mail exclusively for all of his official e-mail business. And the OIG also says that when the -- Secretary Powell was asked to provide --

WALLACE:  Did he use -- let me ask another question.

SCHIFF: No, no, -- let me -- this -- this is very important.

WALLACE:  Well, let me just ask you this, though, did he ever use a private server?

SCHIFF: He did use a private server. It wasn’t his own private server. It was a server owned presumably by America Online. But he -- yes, he used exclusively a private server. And --

WALLACE:  And he had a laptop that goes to the State Department.

SCHIFF: But let me -- let me -- let me make one other point, which is -- is I think very critical, which is, the OIG also found that the retention by Secretary Clinton of her e-mails, the fact that she provided 55,000 pages of e-mails, mitigated the fact that she used a private server. In the case of Secretary Powell, there was no mitigation. None of those e-mails were turned over. So the -- the person who was secretary of the state during the decision to go to war in Iraq did not preserve any of his e-mails, one of the most consequential decisions in recent history. That, to me, is far more consequence than the fact that the secretary did preserve them and turn them over.

WALLACE:  When -- when did -- when did Secretary Clinton leave the State Department?

SCHIFF: I believe it was in 2012 or 2013.

WALLACE:  It as January of 2013. Do you know when she turned over the 55,000 pages?

SCHIFF: After she left office and she was --

WALLACE:  No. No, sir, and you -- and you know it was --

SCHIFF: And she was -- and she was requested by the State Department.

WALLACE:  Wait a minute, you know it was December of 2014. It was two years later.

SCHIFF: Yes. Yes, that’s right. That's absolutely right.

WALLACE:  OK. Let me just bring in --

SCHIFF: But -- but -- but let me ask you this, Chris. I mean --

WALLACE:  Well, no, no, no, let me -- I have to --

SCHIFF: Yes.

WALLACE:  Bring in Senator Lankford.

This idea of comparing it to Secretary Powell?

LANKFORD: Yes, I’ve -- I’ve heard this over and over again. It’s -- it is apple and oranges. What Secretary Clinton did was she kept a private serve in her home. This was all about her political security, not about national security. It was about retaining and controlling all these records. And she still has not turned over all these e-mails.

And I keep hearing these large numbers. She’s turned over $55,000 pages. Well, wonderful. The inspector general's report, when you read it, says that there were e-mails from David Petraeus that they found on the Department of Defense website that were to Hillary Clinton in David Petraeus' official e-mail that she had sent that were never turned over. So we still don't know what it is. She self-filtered all these e-mails --

WALLACE:  All right.

LANKFORD: And said these are official and these are not and we still don’t have those.

WALLACE:  All right. I’m -- excuse me for interrupting both of you, but I want to -- to move on to another subject.

There’s also the security of the information that Clinton kept on her private e-mail server. Here is Clinton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: There were no security breaches.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  But, the IG report found in January of 2011 a technical support staffer shut down the server twice because, quote, "someone was trying to hack us." The next day, a top State Department official told Clinton's staff not to e-mail the secretary anything sensitive. Now, in her defense, Senator Lankford, Clinton says there’s no evidence anybody actually got into her server.

LANKFORD: Well, that -- that is the defensive that no one got in, but can -- that’s something you cannot know. Right now we have about 1,300 plus e-mails and are at some level of classification from what we have and what we know of right now, many of them top secret. That is a major problem. You do not keep that. The issue is, she willfully retained information on a non-secure server that was separate from the government system, that she knew was classified, or that should have known was classified and kept that in a non-secure location. That is a major national security breach that no other cabinet level official did. And all this talk about Colin Powell and everything else, no other cabinet official in the Obama administration did what she did. Everyone else seemed to understand the rules but her.

WALLACE:  All right.

LANKFORD: But she seems to prioritize her political security over national security.

WALLACE:  Congressman Schiff, one, we had never heard about these attempted attacks until the IG’s report. So that's new. Two, if the sever was so secure, why did they have to keep turning it off? And, three, as Senator Lankford points out, you don’t always know if somebody has a successful attack because hackers don’t leave fingerprints.

SCHIFF: No, that’s true. What we do know from the OIG report is that there were a couple of attempts to hack into the system that were unsuccessful. So we don't know that there’s any evidence of a successful breach.

But I do want to get back to the point that -- that I want to finish, and that's -- Senator Lankford mentioned, and that is, the comparison with Secretary Powell is --

WALLACE:  Oh, come on. Can we -- well, forgive me. Forgive me.

SCHIFF: Well, no, you -- you told me you would allow me to -- to push back, and I want to push back.

WALLACE:  Wait a minute. No, no, I’m sorry, I’m sorry.

Hillary Clinton is running for president. Colin Powell is not running for president. The rules in 2004 were completely different. They're complete different guidelines. Sir, the guidelines were repeatedly strengthened in 2005, in 2006, in 2007 -- 20011. Hillary Clinton was operating in a different world. Can we please stay to the issue of what Hillary Clinton did or didn’t do and not talk about Colin Powell?

SCHIFF: Well, I know you don’t want to talk about Colin Powell because you -- you don’t want to --

WALLACE:  It’s not -- it’s irrelevant to the issue.

SCHIFF: It isn’t irrelevant in this sense. If you look -- please, let me -- let me finish. The rules --

WALLACE:  Did -- how can she say -- how can she say it was secure when they had to turn -- turn off the server because there were attacks?

SCHIFF: Chris, the rules --

WALLACE:  Just answer my question.

SCHIFF: I will. I will answer the question. She should not have used the private server. She’s admitted she should not have used a private server.

WALLACE:  How did she know it was secure?

SCHIFF: Look, we -- we know from the OIG report that there were two attempts to breach the server that were unsuccessful. That's what we know. But -- but please let me at least finish the point.

WALLACE:  Not on Powell. I’m -- I’m -- forgive me, I’m going to keep going. I -- I -- I -- we’re done with Colin Powell.

SCHIFF: I think it's very telling --

WALLACE:  We’re done with Colin Powell.

SCHIFF: OK. I they it's very --

WALLACE:  OK, well, then we’ll move on.

SCHIFF: I think -- I think it’s very telling, though, Chris, that there’s no interest in anyone here but Secretary Clinton. That, to me, is a very different standard.

WALLACE:  Really? Because she’s the only one running for president.

SCHIFF: Yes, but does that mean that other secretaries didn’t use the same practice, that their practices are irrelevant here?

WALLACE:  I -- I think, first of all, we’ve shown that it is -- it is different. And, secondly, I think it’s, frankly, a red herring, sir, and I would expect more from you.

From the start, Clinton said that she would cooperate with any investigation. Here she is just last month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: We made clear that I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody might have and I stand by that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  But here is the inspector general's report. All right, let's talk about Powell and Powell’s standard here, congressman. "OIG interviewed Secretary Kerry and former Secretaries Albright, Powell, and Rice. Through her counsel, Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview."

Congressman Schiff, what happened to answering anybody's questions at any time?

SCHIFF: But now you bring up Secretary Powell.

WALLACE:  Oh, come on, I -- did he agree to an -- he agreed to an interview.

SCHIFF: Yes -- but -- he agreed to an interview.

WALLACE:  Why -- why did he agree to an interview and Secretary Clinton not?

SCHIFF: Well, if you let me -- OK. I don't know why Secretary Clinton --

WALLACE:  Do you think she should have agreed to an interview?

SCHIFF: I think she certainly could have agreed to the interview. She --

WALLACE:  Should she have agreed to an interview?

SCHIFF: She’s -- she’s going to meeting with the Department of Justice and if there are any (INAUDIBLE) questions, she can answer them. But let me say this.

WALLACE: But why -- why shouldn’t she speak to the inspector general of her own department?

SCHIFF: But, Chris -- Chris, you brought up Secretary Powell this time. So -- so --

WALLACE:  I brought it up in the fact that -- in the fact that he spoke to them and cooperated with the investigation and she did not.

SCHIFF: That -- yes, that he (INAUDIBLE). But you didn’t -- you didn’t -- you did not bring up the fact that when Secretary Powell was asked to provide whatever e-mails he retained or to work with the private provider of those e-mails to provide them, he did not respond and still has not responded to the IG. You did not bring that up. Now --

WALLACE:  OK. So, you know what, I’m not going to vote for Colin Powell for president this time.

Senator Lankford, your reaction to the fact that Hillary Clinton did not cooperate and did not participate in this investigation.

LANKFORD: Not only did she not participate in the investigation, the other staff did not participate. The IT folks did not participate. They barred all folks from participating and blocked them from talking to the inspector general. They had very limited access. In fact, the IT person that actually handled this resigned from the State Department, which made them ineligible for the inspector general to be able to pull in (ph). What the inspector general has identified, even though all the other information is there and Hillary Clinton would not step up and actually speak to the inspector general. The inspector general has noted that clearly Secretary Clinton violated the rules. Now the FBI will step forward and will find out if she’s actually violated the law. And that is a big issue. She clearly, willfully retained this, though she would not speak to the inspector general about it. Now it’s time for the FBI to settle the criminal part of this.

WALLACE:  And -- and -- and very briefly, if I can, senator, since Congressman Schiff seems to think that Colin Powell is so important to this discussion, your reaction to that?

LANKFORD: Well, my reaction to that goes back to the same thing. This is a distract type method. It’s the same thing the Clinton’s always do, they’ve always done. It's to say it’s not just us, everyone else -- there’s a conspiracy about this or we’re not the only ones that has done it. The ethics of it are extremely important. The law was clear on this, that you have to retain, you have to use government systems, you have to be able to step forward and testify. All those things are clear. They failed to do any of those things. This really was about her political security, not about national security, and I think that's the most telling part about this. No other cabinet official did this.

WALLACE:  Gentlemen, I’m -- I’m sorry --

LANKFORD: No other cabinet official did this but the secretary.

WALLACE:  OK, Senator Lankford, Congressman Schiff, thank you both. Thanks for your time this holiday weekend.

SCHIFF: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE:  Up next, we’ll bring back our Sunday group to discuss the political fallout from the IG report on Clinton's use of a private e-mail server. How badly has she been damaged?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: As I say, crooked Hillary. Crooked Hillary. She’s as crooked as they come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  Donald Trump piling on after the State Department IG report found Hillary Clinton violated the rules in using a private e-mail server.

And we're back now with the panel.

Well, let's take a look at how Clinton's numbers have dropped since the story first broke back in March of 2015 about her private e-mail and personal server. Back then, it’s interesting to note, 47 percent had a favorable view of her, 50 percent unfavorable, basically even. Now that’s down to 37 percent favorable, 61 percent unfavorable. Same with whether she’s honest and trustworthy. In March of 2015, 44 percent said yes, 52 percent said no. Now it’s 31 percent to 66. Which raises the question, Brit, does the IG report do any damage to Clinton or has the damage already been done?

HUME: Well, the damage has been done, but political campaigns are fluid and people’s opinions can shift and change. This, however, I think, helps to cement in place the notion that she cannot be trusted. And it’s just one more step in that direction. And, you know, this is an unusual campaign, Chris, in which each of these candidates, Trump and Clinton, seem to be each other's best hope and, you know, the best -- really what’s striking about the recent rise in the polls of Donald Trump is that it coincides with a period of bad news for Hillary Clinton and her vulnerabilities become his possibilities and this is just a further example of that. It’s remarkable.

WALLACE:  We asked you for questions for the panel and we got a bunch about the IG report. GuyGracie Senter, I don’t know if that’s one person or two, wrote us on FaceBook, "if she did this when in the State Department, what will she do if she becomes president?" And John Garnett writes, "does anyone really think Hillary will be indicted? Will she be prosecuted or will Loretta Lynch," the attorney general, "give her a ‘get out of jail free’ card?"

Susan, how do you answer them?

PAGE: Well, I don't think we know what the results of the FBI investigation are going to be. Legal analysts have looked at this, and I think have been skeptical, that she’s going to be indicted. But you never know where investigations go.

And while the inspector general’s report is -- is very critical, I don't think it does new damage to Hillary Clinton. An FBI conclusion that was more serious, I think, could do some real damage to her.

You know, it’s interesting, she’s going to be the first woman nominated by a major party to be president. Women candidates usually have to deal with whether they’re strong enough. She’s fine on that. Competent, people think she’s competent. This honest and trustworthy issue, this is her Achilles heel when it comes to her election. It’s an issue she really needs to figure out a way to -- to address, to at least improve those numbers to some degree.

WALLACE:  Susan, do you think the -- the Colin Powell defense gets her off the hook?

PAGE: No, because, number one, Colin Powell is not running for president. She is. And, number two, I think all of us, of a certain age, understand that use of e-mail has changed -- changed even in the period from when Colin Powell left the State Department.

WALLACE:  He left (INAUDIBLE) 12 years ago.

PAGE: Yes, and -- and Hillary --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the (INAUDIBLE) policy changed under (INAUDIBLE).

PAGE: And then the policy changed. But we know that Hillary became --

WALLACE:  (INAUDIBLE) server.

PAGE: Yes. So I think there -- number one, there are some -- some differences in the context. And, number two, he’s not running for anything.

WALLACE:  And, as I said, I’m not going to vote for him for president anyway.

Meanwhile, the Democratic primary race continues, even though Clinton has declared victory over Bernie Sanders. Here they both are.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That’s -- that is -- that is already done in effect. There is no way that I won't be.

SANDERS: Just a ting arrogance there, I think, though.

And I kind of thing that on June 7th, people of California will have a message for Secretary Clinton.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE:  George, how much damage is Bernie Sanders doing to Hillary Clinton? And what -- and it certainly seems possible now from these closing polls, what if he actually beats her in California?

WILL: Well, it will be 2008 all over again. Indeed  his persistence in this campaign is an exercise in what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In 2008, California came late, as it always does, and the elected -- the nomination contest was really over. She persisted in California against Barack Obama, beating by some 400,000 votes, eight points, handily. Didn’t make a particle of difference and -- and didn’t prevent the party from being united. People say, what is -- is Sanders doing this?

First of all, look at him. He’s having the time of his life. Huge crowds for a back bencher from Vermont. So that’s part of it.

Second, people said, well, yes, but he’s not being a good Democrat. This is the first time he’s ever run for anything as a Democrat. So his attachment to the party might be slight. Third, in 1960, Barry Goldwater, junior senator from Arizona, went to the podium of the Chicago convention and said, let's grow up conservatives. If you want to take back this party, and I think we can, let's go to work. He’s the nominee four years later. Now, Sanders isn’t going to be the nominee four years later or anytime, but he may have the sense that Barry Goldwater did, that there’s a movement out there that needs fuel to transform the party. And he may do it.

WALLACE:  Do you think he’s hurting her by staying in? I mean I understand your argument that she did this to Obama, so it certainly is right. Do you think it’s hurting her for him to stay in the race?

WILL: I don't think it’s doing lasting damage. I think a month from now people won’t remember.

WALLACE:  I was going to ask you about that, Ron. How confident are you or how likely do you think it is that Sanders, in the end, gets on the podium and holds hands with -- with Hillary Clinton, holds them up? And -- and more -- much more importantly, what about his millions of supporters?

FOURNIER: Well, 80/20, he gets up on stage, she gets a lion’s share of the voters -- of his voters. Some might stay home. In the end, it really doesn’t matter. What does matter is this authenticity and honesty issue. I mean look what we have today. You have the spokespeople for two of the campaigns come out and lie to you. Corey Lewandowski saying that they’re winning among Hispanics. You called him on that. and the spokesperson for Hillary Clinton repeating her misleading statements about the e-mail over and over and over again. And it’s why we now have a situation where, among independence, among people who haven’t decided who they’re going to vote for, the unfavorable -- the unfavorability rating for both Clinton and Trump is minus 74 percentile. So the biggest casualty in this campaign is the truth. Neither one of these candidates are worth trusting. And campaigns aren’t just about who’s going to win on election day. Campaigns are about how we’re going to be led. And no matter when wins this race, we're going to have somebody in the White House who has shown again and again and again they can’t be trusted.

WALLACE:  What do you think of that, Brit?

HUME: I think that’s what a lot of voters fell, that -- that the choices -- you know, everybody is always saying and always did going back to -- to 1960s. I remember my parents just saying, you know, Nixon and Kennedy, what terrible choice we have. So this is -- this is a -- this is a quadrennial, parental, if you will. And --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not to this degree.

HUME: But this -- to this extent, it’s greater than I’ve ever seen it. I mean I think most people believe that the top two finishes in both parties are -- were unacceptable choices.

FOURNIER: Can I trace it back to a conversation here?

PAGE: And this --

HUME: And at -- and at a time when we badly need a successful presidency and a serious and able leader --

FOURNIER: Yes.

HUME: We’re not likely to get one from either -- in either candidate.

PAGE: And --

FOURNIER: Shortly after the e-mail scandal broke out, I talked to one of her senior people. Right after I wrote the, Democrats and people close to Clinton were saying, this is all about the e-mail. Hiding the e-mail is all about the blurring of lines with the Clinton Foundation. This senior official sat in her office and told me it really doesn’t matter. Trust doesn’t matter. Because I was saying, this is going to bring down her trust figures. And even if she wins the election, it’s going to make it so she can’t lead. And -- and a senior official, a longtime friend of Hillary Clinton’s said, trust doesn’t matter because Bill Clinton won despite the fact that he wasn’t trusted as much as Bob Dole.

Well, obviously, that’s not the case. Trust does matter. You can’t lead if people don’t trust you. You might be able to win if you run against Donald Trump, but trust does matter. They were wrong about that then and they’re wrong about it now.

WALLACE:  Susan?

PAGE: Well, you know, it -- just looking at this politically. Here’s the question. If --if voters look at these two candidates and find them both unacceptable, do they note turn out? Do you have very low turnout and only people on the (INAUDIBLE) or do they -- or do they --

WALLACE:  There's a new poll today that says people are -- are --

PAGE: Right, not excited. (INAUDIBLE) --

WALLACE:  They’re interested but not excited about this choice.

PAGE: Right. That’s right. Or do they feel so alarmed by the prospect of the other guy that even though they’re not enthusiastic about this candidate, they turn out and we have very high turnout. And that’s one of the effects. The very first question you ask, the impact of Barack Obama, that’s where Barack Obama could have some impact on really ginning up turnout among African-Americans and helping Hillary Clinton among younger voters, which is her -- the demographic group with whom she has the biggest problems.

WALLACE:  Although we found -- we had found that Barack Obama can do that for himself. He’s not been very good at doing that for anybody else.

HUME: Exactly right.

PAGE: Yes. Right.

WALLACE:  All right, thank you, panel. See you next Sunday.

Up next, our "Power Player of the Week," honoring American's fallen with 24 musical notes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE:  Soldiers placing flags in front of 230,000 grave markers at Arlington National Cemetery. It's a holiday tradition here that we profile a man who created his own special program to make every day a Memorial Day for our fallen heroes. Once again, he’s our "Power Player of the Week."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM DAY, BUGLES ACROSS AMERICA: When you're playing it, it's only 24 notes, but it's so meaningful to that family.

WALLACE (voice-over): Tom Day is talking about playing taps at the funerals of military veterans. And he should know. He’s the founder and president of an organization called Bugles Across America.

WALLACE (on camera): All told, h ow many funerals have you done since you started Bugles Across America?

DAY: Two hundred thousand.

WALLACE:  Really?

DAY: In ten years. Right.

WALLACE (voice-over): It started back in 2000, when Congress gave every vet the right to a funeral with military honors, including two uniformed officers to present a flag and play taps. The problem was, the military only had 500 buglers. So they sent someone to play a recorded taps on a boombox or an electronic device inside a bugle. Tom Day, who played in the Marines in the 50s, didn’t like it.

DAY: I call it stolen dignity that these veterans cannot get live taps when we are out there ready to perform live taps.

WALLACE:  So he started his organization, recruiting 400 horn players within a year.

DAY: Now we have 6,270 horn players and we’re doing 2,200 funerals a month.

WALLACE:  It’s become quit an operation that Day runs out of his basement near Chicago. Families can go on his website to ask for a bugler. A message is sent to ever horn player within a hundred miles of the funeral. Day gives away bugles and helps with uniforms. While they get support from foundations, he runs a deficit every year.

WALLACE (on camera): Well, how do you make up for the shortfall?

DAY: I kind of make it up myself.

WALLACE:  $15,000 to $20,000 a year.

DAY: Probably ten.

You finish. You’re the last of the 24 notes. You put the horn down. And the flag has been presented. Then the family comes over. The kisses, the handshakes from these families, there is nothing -- no amount of money could ever buy the feeling that I get from the family once I finish the 24 notes.

WALLACE:  With soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan plus 1,800 veterans of World War II dying every day, there is a flood of military funerals. Day, who is 69, says he wants to keep ongoing until he dies, then leave his organization in solid shape to carry on.

DAY: I want every family to have live taps at that going away presentation of their veteran and it kind of tells the Marines who are guarding the gates in heaven, live taps, we're going to let this veteran right in.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE:  Since we first ran this story seven years ago, Tom Day's organization has grown to more than 5,000 active members who play at more than 2,300 funerals a month. If you want to learn more, go to our website, foxnewssunday.com.

And that's it for today. We hope you’ll take a moment this weekend to remember all the men and women who have given their lives defending our freedom. And we’ll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

Content and Programming Copyright 2016 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2016 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.