Giuliani: Clinton owes the American people an apology; Sen. Ben Cardin defends Hillary Clinton from perjury claims

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," August 21, 2016. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  I’m Shannon Bream, in for Chris Wallace.

With less than three months to Election Day, Donald Trump hits the reset button again.  But will we see a new Trump or more of the same?  


DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE:  Sometimes in the heat of debates and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words.  I have done that, and believe it or not, I regret it.  

BREAM:  With new leadership at the top, will Trump be able to reverse his tumble in the polls?  We'll discuss with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who's helping Trump prepare for the presidential debate.  

Then, new developments in the Hillary Clinton e-mail saga, as a judge orders her to answer questions about her secret setup under oath.  We'll talk to Senator Ben Cardin, a top Clinton supporter, about the continued pressure from both the court and Capitol Hill.  

Plus, new details on the cash payment between the U.S. and Iran.  

JOHN KIRBY, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN:  It would have been foolish, imprudent, irresponsible for us to not try to maintain maximum leverage.  If you're asking me, was there a connection in that regard -- I’m not going to deny that.  

BREAM:  We'll ask our Sunday panel whether leverage amounts to ransom.  

Then, she was blind.  

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He wrote in great big red letters, no more driving.  

BREAM:  But now he can see and he's working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to help others gain access to the kind of clinical trials that helped him.

All right now on "Fox News Sunday."


BREAM:  And hello again from Fox News in Washington.  

It has been a dramatic week for the Trump campaign, one that included a complete management overhaul.  Campaign chairman Paul Manafort resigned amid controversy over some consulting work in the Ukraine.  

Earlier in the week, Trump named the chairman of the Breitbart News website Steve Bannon as his chief executive, and Kellyanne Conway, a veteran pollster as his campaign manager.  

This comes as Trump attempts to broaden his appeal, launching a major ad campaign and expressing regrets over comments he's made.  

Joining me now is former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an advisor to the campaign.  

Mr. Mayor, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK MAYOR:  Great pleasure to be here.  

BREAM:  OK.  Let's talk about the week you had.  It was mixed.  There's been praise for some scripted disciplined speeches by Mr. Trump this week. There's been talk of the campaign shakeup.  

But let's take a look at the polls, because this is the reality of what you're dealing with right now in several key battleground states.  From Ohio to Virginia, you’ve got Mrs. Clinton leading from 2.8 up to 11.2 percentage points.  How do you turn that around at this point?  

GIULIANI:  Well, you know, it's really early in that sense.  I mean, at this stage of the campaign, George Bush 41 was behind Michael Dukakis by 16 percent, by 16 percent.  At this point in the campaign, Ronald Reagan was behind Jimmy Carter by numbers fairly similar to what you just showed right there.  In fact, some of those are within the margin of error.  So, I’m not concerned at all.  

I think Donald Trump this week had an excellent week, much, much better than Hillary Clinton.  In fact, she kind of disappeared for the week except for her one appearance that I remember where she sat with a couple of Democratic appointed police chiefs trying to claim that she has police support, and I know -- I don't know a single cop in the United States that supports her.  And I know a lot of cops.  And --

BREAM:  Let's talk about --

GIULIANI:  He -- he -- he -- what he did this week was he outlined in great detail what he wants to do for this country, about Islamic terrorism, about the economy, about bringing jobs back.  He then made an audible -- meaning he changed his schedule to go down to Louisiana to bring attention to the people of Louisiana while the president is still up there, wherever he is, playing golf.  

And I can, as a mayor --

BREAM:  The president says, of course, he's going down on Tuesday.  But that was part of a very busy week for Mr. Trump.  Let's talk through some of these speeches that he's had.  The first one, he talked about that he's outlined his plan to go after -- to stop the spread of radical Islam.  He numerous times in that speech about, quote, "extreme vetting."

We also have a little bit of his general election ad now airing in several key battleground states.  Let's play a bit of that.  


AD NARRATOR:  In Hillary Clinton's America, the system stays rigged against Americans.  Syrian refugees flood in.  Illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay, collecting Social Security benefits skipping the line.  Our border open, it's more of the same but worse.  


BREAM:  All right.  Critics say, they’re pointing to the imagery in that ad and saying it paints immigrants in a discriminatory fashion or uses scare tactics.  They want to know what the words "extreme vetting" mean.  Can you tell us?  

GIULIANI:  Extreme vetting means that from countries that house terrorists, countries from which attacks on the United States have been launched, there is going to be a very, very strict test in order to get into the United States.  

You don't have a right to come to the United States.  There's no such right to come to the United States.  So, we should be taking in people who believe in us, who believe in what we believe in, and who are dedicated to the principle of a nation of laws, not Sharia law but American law, and from certain countries where we've had problems it's going to be pretty hard to get in.  And it should be.  

For example, taking in Syrian refugees, which Hillary Clinton wants to increase by 550 percent, that's 5.5 times more than Obama has brought in.  She wants to be the Angela Merkel of the U.S.  ISIS has told us they are going to put terrorist operatives in with those Syrian refugees. They've actually told us.  

Now, we would have to be stupid to allow them to come into the United States.  We would have to be out of our minds.  

What we should do is set up a no fly zone in Syria and put them there.  Keep them in their country so they're not flooding Germany.  

Look at how crime has gone up in Germany since they've allowed Syrian refugees in.  All of a sudden, you had terror attacks in three or four different places in Germany.  

So, we don't want that to happen in the United States.  We have enough home grown problems than to bring in a bunch of Syrian refugees -- I’m sure many of whom are legitimate people, but we’ve been told they are going to hide terrorists with them.  

BREAM:  All right.  Let --  

GIULIANI:  And Hillary Clinton -- Hillary Clinton wants to increase that by five times.  So she wants to make the risks five times worse than it already is, and we already have 1,000 investigations, according to the director of the FBI, of terrorists here in the United States.  She wants to add to the 1,000 investigations.  

BREAM:  Let's talk about another speech that Mr. Trump gave this week.  He did something that we have not seen before, at least publicly.  He talked about having regrets.  Let's play a bit of that speech and also Mrs. Clinton's response.  


TRUMP:  Sometimes in the heat of debates and speaking on a multitude of issues you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing.  I have done that.  Believe it or not, I regret it.  

HILLARY CLINTON, D-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE:  He is still the same man who insults Gold Star families, demeans women, mocks people with disabilities and thinks he knows more about is than our generals.  There is no new Donald Trump.  This is it.  


BREAM:  Mayor, do you think he can win over his critics, convince them he's truly sorry?  

GIULIANI:  Well, first of all, I'd like to see her apologize to lying to Gold Star mothers when she gave them a false narrative of how their sons were killed at Benghazi and said it was about a Muhammad video when she darn well knew it was a terrorist attack because she had told her daughter on an email the night before or the night before that.  

I'd like to see her apologize for all the money that the Clinton Foundation has been taking, let's say from Saudi Arabia where women are not allowed to drive.  You tell me she's a feminist and she takes money from a country where women are not allowed to drive?  

You tell me she's a feminist when she spent a great deal of time covering up a lot of the misdeeds of her husband and engaged in a lot of the attacks on the women who were telling the truth?  She's a feminist except where it comes to her husband where she attacks the women who are telling the truth about him.  

So, she deserves to give the American people an apology.  She certainly should give us an apology for having been found completely careless in handling national security information.  

Jim Comey said that.  She should apologize for lying on this show about what Jim Comey said.  

BREAM:  But we're going to talk more about that, but with the specific focus on him, do you think that it's possible for him at this point, for people who have written him off because of some of his comments, do you think they're going to accept that -- expression of regret, not an apology but expression of regret.  Do you think it’s enough?  

GIULIANI:  I think it is.  I think you're going to see that throughout the rest of the campaign.  Donald Trump is extremely focused now.  If you look at this entire week you can see it was focused on issues, hard issues, tough issues, issues on which the American people agree with him and with us maybe 60, 65 percent.  

Sixty-five to 75 percent of the American people believe the country is going in the wrong direction.  And if he can convince them that he is the person who will lead us, then certainly he's the only one that will give us change.  

What they're trying to do -- the Clinton campaign has no campaign.  She hardly appeared this week.  I don't know where she was.  

BREAM:  Why is she doing so well in the polls?  

GIULIANI:  Why?  Because --

BREAM:  It's working for her.  

GIULIANI:  Well, what's working for her is she has an entire -- read Michael Goodwin's column in The New York Post and you can figure out what her campaign is.  

She doesn't have to campaign.  She has The New York Times.  She has The Daily News.  She has ABC.  She has CBS.  She has NBC.  

She has an entire media empire that constantly demonizes Donald Trump and fails to point out that she hasn't had a press conference in 300 days, 200 days, 100 days, I don't know how long.  Fails to point out several signs of illness by her.  What you’ve got to do is go online.  All you have to do --


BREAM:  Which her campaign and other people defending her saying there's nothing factual to the claims about her health and that that's speculation at best.  

GIULIANI:  So, go online and put down Hillary Clinton illness, take a look at the videos for yourself.  

BREAM:  OK.  I want to make sure that we get to something that is criticism coming from within the party and give you a chance to answer that because this week, 123 Republicans, some current lawmakers, former lawmakers, other top GOP leaders wrote a letter to Reince Priebus, urging him to divert his money away from the Trump campaign and any money available to the down ballot races.  

They’re worried about the Senate and the House, saying, quote, "We believe that Donald Trump's divisiveness, recklessness, incompetence and record-breaking unpopularity risk turning this election into a Democratic landslide, and only the immediate shift of all available RNC resources to vulnerable Senate and House races will prevent the GOP from drowning with a Trump emblazoned anchor around its neck."

Your response?

GIULIANI:  You know, the most amazing thing to me is that Republicans would do that to other Republicans.  I had the great honor and privilege of working for Ronald Reagan.  In fact, he's the only president I ever worked for.  

He always believes the 11th commandment was don't attack another Republican.  So I’m embarrassed for the other people who wrote that.  I’m also embarrassed for how frightened they get so quickly, which is certainly not a sign of leadership.  And I wrote a book about leadership.  One chapter is about courage.  

And the reality is he is not that far behind.  He is well within striking range in every one of the key states and in a couple of other states that most Republicans don't have a chance of winning.  

So, this is unnecessary fear on their part.  And I’m sort of really disappointed in them but, look, Donald Trump is not a typical Republican/Democrat/liberal/conservative candidate.  This is an insider versus outsider campaign.  She is the consummate corrupt Washington insider, and she is thoroughly corrupt, and so is the Clinton Foundation.  

If I were back in my old job as U.S. attorney I would probably indict the Clinton Foundation as a racketeering enterprise.  They took money from money launderers, criminals, dictators, people who abuse women as a matter of government policy.  She did favors for those very people who gave money to the Clinton foundation.  

For example, UBS gave the Clintons altogether over $1 million.  She made a call to the IRS asking the IRS to go easy on their attempts to get identities from UBS.  

In my day, that was considered bribery when I was a U.S. attorney and I prosecuted several very prominent politicians and convicted them of bribery, including two congressmen.  

BRENNAN:  Mr. Mayor, we've got to leave it there.  

Again, the Clinton Foundation and all those associated say they are not under investigation and they've been clear and transparent.  So, we will stay tuned because there are those urging a closer look.

GIULIANI:  That's the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever heard.  

BREAM:  Mr. Mayor, we appreciate your time.  

GIULIANI:  The biggest bunch of garbage.  They are, I believe, under investigation.  There was a leak of that the other day.  And number two, if they're not, the Justice Department should be ashamed of itself.  

BREAM:  All right.  We’ve got to leave it there.  Thank you so much for joining "Fox News Sunday" sir.  

GIULIANI:  Thank you.  

BREAM:  Up next, Hillary Clinton is rising in the polls but could questions, new questions about her e-mail testimony hurt her campaign.  A top Clinton supporter Ben Cardin joins us, next.  

Plus, what do you think of Trump's campaign shuffle?  Is it going to get him the kick-start he needs?  Let us know on Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday and please use the #fns.  


BREAM:  A look outside the beltway at the city hall in Baltimore.  

Now to a major story on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton will have to answer questions about her private e-mail server set up under oath.  On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, a president Clinton appointee, ordered Hillary Clinton to respond to written questions from Judicial Watch, a conservative group that has extensively looked into her e-mails.  

Joining me now to discuss the challenges ahead and some foreign policy issues as well is Senator Ben Cardin, a major Hillary Clinton supporter.  

Senator Cardin, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."  Good to see you.

SEN. BEN CARDIN, D-MD., CLINTON SUPPORTER:  Good to be with you.  Thank you very much.  

BREAM:  All right.  Let's talk about the Friday ruling by Judge Sullivan.  He wants answers under oath, he says because, quote, "Secretary Clinton has not answered for the record and under oath questions relevant to the limited scope of discovery authorized in this case for the purpose and creation and operation of a system for State Department business -- and because her closest aides at the State Department do not have knowledge of her purpose in using the system."

OK, in response to this Democratically-appointed independent judge, will Mrs. Clinton have a chance to clarify this once and for all before the election?  

CARDIN:  I think she's going to fully cooperate.  She's pleased it can be done by questioning rather than live questioning.  So -- but this has already been done.  Mr. Comey has already made his findings that there's no criminal involvement here.  Three former secretaries of state used private e-mail servers.  

BREAM:  They did not use private e-mail servers.  There's questions whether they used private e-mail accounts, Gmail, but they did so only under secured purposes and never with their own servers.  It's an important distinction.  

CARDIN:  Well, it is.  But they also indicate that there is supposedly sensitive information by former secretaries of state that were used in that context.  So, this is not unique.  

And, quite frankly, Senator Corker and I want to look at this after the elections to find the best way that we can use electronic transfer of information by the State Department.  So, this is an issue that we need to deal with.  

But as far as what's being done now, look, this lawsuit is being done by a group that since the 1990s has been a right wing partisan group attacking Hillary Clinton.  This is a partisan attack.  At the end of the day, it's used to try to distract from the important issues of this campaign, the differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  

BREAM:  And they have, Judicial Watch, made it very clear that they are very dogged about going after these e-mails.  They've uncovered a lot of things that Congress couldn't get, that other bodies couldn't get.  So, they've had success with this, from their view point.  They'll continue to that.  

In the meantime, the GOP leaders of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees are now pushing for a potential perjury investigation, taking Director Comey's -- his own statements and putting them up against Mrs. Clinton's statements, saying there are some discrepancies.  They've asked the U.S. attorney here in Washington to take a look at that.  

Do you think the American people can be convinced there will be an open and transparent potential investigation into that issue?  

CARDIN:  Look, I think what is being requested by my congressional colleagues is strictly a partisan witch hunt.  I wish they showed the same degree of interest in Paul Manafort's connections to Russia and what we've seen in regards to the Trump campaign and the business deals Donald Trump has had in Russia.  It’d be nice to see if they had some interests as to what Russia’s involvement is in our campaign.

But instead, they continue to go after the e-mail issue even though as I said, the FBI, the Director Comey, has indicated that that case is closed.  

BREAM:  He has.  There will be no criminal prosecution.  But he did raise a number of concerns there about extreme carelessness and the handling of classified material.  

In the meantime, we have this poll from NBC News, Washington Post about whether people believe that Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy -- 38 percent believe she is, 59 percent believe she's not.  

Where do you think that perception comes from?  

CARDIN:  I don't know.  I’ve known Hillary Clinton for a long time.  She's trustworthy.  She's ready from day one to assume the office of presidency in the United States.  

She's qualified and she's ready, as compared to I think Donald Trump who has shown his recklessness and dangerous statements that he's made.  His temperament to be commander-in-chief, his qualifications -- no, it's not there.  

BREAM:  OK, let's talk about the fact that the Clinton foundation has been abuzz this week.  There's been talk about a potential hack, again, potentially by Russian interests and there's been a statement by Bill Clinton that the foundation will no longer accept foreign money or corporate money if she’s elected president.  

"The Boston Globe" said it should be shut down all together.  It just creates a view of potential conflict of interest.  They said in part, "The inherent conflict of interest was obvious when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009.  She promised to maintain a separation between her official work and the foundation, but recently released emails written by staffers during her State Department tenure make clear that the supposed partition was far from impregnable."

They go on to say, listen, "If donors really care about this, the foundation's goals, they can find other ways to use their resources to that end."

Do you think the foundation should shut down altogether?  

CARDIN:  Well, first, let's recognize what the foundation has been able to do.  The Clinton Foundation has helped millions of people, over 10 million HIV/AIDS alone, has saved countless lives.  Its work is extremely important to global health.  So, they've done some really great things.

Now, with Hillary Clinton being elected president, which we hope it will be, they clearly need to change the way they do business.  And they've indicated that they will.  They're not going to accept any donations from foreign entities, they're going to change the way that the Clintons themselves interact with the foundation.  Those decisions will be made appropriate to Hillary Clinton as president of the United States.  

BREAM:  And we will watch.  

And, by the way, you mentioned the health benefits and things they worked on.  The Clinton health access initiative apparently is a part of the foundation but saying it's not yet made its own decision about what it's going to do.  Those activities and donations may continue as well.

Let's talk about Donald Trump because I’m sure you would like to do that.  This week, he made several appeals to the African-American community.  I want to play a bit of what he said Tuesday in Wisconsin.  


TRUMP:  The African-American community has been taken for granted for decades by the Democratic Party.  We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton which panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes.  


BREAM:  He talked about crime rates in minority neighborhoods, failing education, high unemployment.  Does he have a point?  

CARDIN:  No.  I think there's a clear difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on their economic message which is critically important to the African-American minority communities, and that is Hillary Clinton's program will help all.  She wants to invest in building our infrastructure, to build our roads, to build our energy infrastructure.  

She wants to invest in people, debt free higher education, so that all of us can grow.  And she pays for it in a responsible way by asking those who are taking jobs away from America to pay an exit fee, as well as closing loopholes.  Donald Trump's widening loopholes for the wealthiest in the nation.  

No, there's no comparison as to which candidate speaks to the needs of the middle class families.  

BREAM:  We'll talk a little bit more about their economic plans coming up, but I want to talk to you about foreign policy.  You're the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  

You were very vocally and publicly opposed today Iran deal.  You felt that there were flaws there that you couldn’t support.  There are new revelations this week, new fallout about the $400 million payment that was converted into foreign currency, given to the Iranians.  This week, the State Department admitting that there was some direct connection with the release of Americans that were being held in Iran about that.  

I want to play what President Obama said August 4th and what the State Department is saying this week.  


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  We do not pay ransom.  We didn't here and we don't -- we won't in the future, precisely because if we did, then we would start encouraging Americans to be targeted.  

JOHN KIRBY, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN:  It would have been foolish, imprudent and irresponsible for us not to try to maintain maximum leverage.  So, if you're asking me, was there a connection in that regard at the end game, I’m not going to deny that.  


BREAM:   To a lot of people it sounds like a ransom payment.  What was it?  

CARDIN:  Well, first, this was done, as you know, announced in January of this year.  Secretary Clinton was no longer secretary of state.  This is under Secretary Kerry.  

Clearly, what was done here is we paid money that we owed.  We were going to have to pay this money.  It was clear.

And to the extent it had anything to do with hostages, I think Secretary Kerry made it clear that money would not be released unless our hostages were back home.  

So, I think what they're saying is, no, it's not paying ransom.  We won't do that.  But we made it clear we understand we owe the money and we're going to have to pay the money, but we want to make sure our people are protected.  

BREAM:  OK, a top Iranian general said this, quote, "This money was returned to the freedom of the U.S. spies", his words, "and it was not related to the nuclear negotiations."

So, if there's a perception here, regardless of whether anyone wants to use ransom or not, that there is leverage in taking Americans and getting something in exchange, isn't the perception part of the problem anyway, especially for our enemies?  We've had at least two more Americans taken by Iranian authorities since this payment.  

CARDIN:  Well, first, let's make it clear, whatever the Iranians say, you can believe just about the opposite.  They rarely tell us what is going on.  

America has a very strong policy.  The Obama administration has carried out that policy.  No, we will not pay ransom because that only encourages more to be taken.  So, I agree with that point.  But we are not going to pay ransom.  

Here, we had to make this payment.  It was a matter of when we were going to make it.  It was being litigated in international courts.  It was money that America owed, that predates this Iranian administration.  It was going to have to be paid.  And the administration made judgments as to when to pay it.  

BREAM:  OK.  But you can understand the perception would cause a problem.  

CARDIN:  I understand perception.  But understand, of course, that this was well-understood at the time in January.  It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.  She was not secretary of state at the time.  Just make sure people understand.  

BREAM:  Right, not asking in that context but just about this administration.  

I want to ask you about Syria as well because this week, the video and the pictures and images of this little boy, the 5-year-old, being taken out of the rubble after this airstrike hit his family.  We've since learned his 10-year-old brother wound up dying as a result of that airstrike.

This comes five years after President Obama said it was time for Bashar Assad to step aside.  Five years later, we have millions of refugees who have left the country, hundreds of thousands by all accounts who are dead.  

Why is this apparently worse than ever before, the chaos in Syria?  

CARDIN:  Yes.  Part of the problem, of course, is that Russia is helping the Syrian regime.  The Syrian regime has committed atrocities and we see that in Aleppo, we see that in other parts of Syria.  And then we have, of course, the ISIL forces that are also causing these problems.  

BREAM:  But what could we have been doing better over the last five years?  

CARDIN:  Well, what you have to do, you have to work with our international partners.  And that's what the Obama administration has done.  

We can't police the world.  We -- if we put our troops there, it's going to be counterproductive, we know that.  So, we have to build up local capacity.  It’s exactly what the Obama administration has done.  

We are regaining territory, at the same time building the local capacity to hold that territory.  And that in fact we have done that.  And we have to continuously do that until there is no longer an ISIS and the caliphate is over.  

BREAM:  We all look forward to that day.  Senator Ben Cardin, thank you for coming back.  Good to have you on "Fox News Sunday".

CARDIN:  My pleasure.  Good to be with you.

BREAM:  Up next, Trump resets his campaign again.  We're going to bring in our Sunday group to discuss the shakeup.  

Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about House Republicans pressing the FBI over whether Hillary Clinton perjured herself?  Go to Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday.  We might use your question on the air.  Stick around.



KELLYANNE CONWAY, TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I think what he doesn’t like is people telling him exactly what to say and how to do it and how –


CONWAY: Maybe that’s Hillary Clinton’s game. You know, what do the focus groups say? Who should I be? What do I believe? The fact is that with – with Donald Trump, he is still his own best messenger.


BREAM: Donald Trump's new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, on Trump’s strategy to be himself, after a major management shake-up this week.

It is now time for our Sunday group. Head of Heritage Action for America, Michael Needham, Fox News political analyst Juan Williams, Julie Pace, who covers the White House and the campaign for The Associated Press, and Charles Hurt, political columnist for The Washington Times.

All right, we’re going to get to this new Trump in a moment, but first, I want to begin with the news out late Friday that Hillary Clinton will have to testify under oath about the use of a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of state.

Michael, her campaign – by the way, we have a statement from Brian Fallon, I should put up, from her campaign, kind of taking this as a sort of victory. They said, "Judicial Watch is a right-wing organization that has been attacking the Clintons since the '90s. This is just another lawsuit intended to try to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign and so we are glad that the judge has accepted our offer to answer the questions in writing rather than grant Judicial Watch's request," which originally was a deposition, which is a different thing. But, still, these answers are under oath and they're very specific questions about her server.

MICHAEL NEEDHAM, CEO, HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA: And it's important. It's good for the American people. There's been a lot of conversation about Hillary Clinton's e-mails from a national security standpoint. This gets at a different question, was she trying to hide her e-mails, was she trying to hide her business from public scrutiny?

But I think there's an even more important aspect to this. Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is a master at parsing words to the point where they have no meaning and then using those new, meaningless words to say something that's a lie to the American people.

Let me give you an example. A couple of weeks ago she was on this show and she was asked by Chris Wallace a number of very specific questions about whether or not she lied to the American public. And she says that the FBI director said that she had been truthful in her responses. Well, the FBI director was talking about her responses to the FBI, not the American public. It's kind of the functional equivalent of saying at that – it depends what your definition of the word "is" is. And so what Judicial Watch has done, is they’ve given the American people the opportunity to get more answers to questions, to force this conversation into the – into the public. And I think that’s a great public service. Judicial Watch has done a great job on the issue.

BREAM: Well, and, Julie, we’ll see on the timing of this because she has 30 days to answer the questions once they get to her. We expect Judicial Watch will get them out promptly because they obviously want these answers before November 8th. But, listen, her team at the State Department and many of these private cases involving Citizens United, Judicial Watch, they filed for lengthy delays. You know there’s one that’s pending regarding e-mails into October of 2018. Do they try to push this past the election? Will they be successful?

JULIE PACE, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: I think they would be smart to not try to push it past the election because it would just look so blatant at this point. They have made this big deal about wanting to answer questions and wanting the public to see those answers. So this is a perfect opportunity. They do see this as a win in the sense that they can do these written answers, which, obviously, gives them more control than if this were in a deposition where she would be pushed in real time. So I think that if they did push for a delay, it would be very fair for Republicans and Democrats to criticize them for that.

BREAM: Well, we'll stand by to see how quickly those questions get to her because that's the key at this point.

All right, from Facebook we have a question from Annette Demoss Alt. "I would like to know if the standard for justice is the same for average Americans as it is for Hillary? Charles.

CHARLES HURT, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: A fair question. You know, just last week we saw where a Navy SEAL that was involved in the – in the Osama bin Laden raid and wrote a book about it, "No Easy Day," was forced to – you know, to hand over all of the proceeds, some $6 million, from the book and has to pay, I think, $100,000 in the next couple of weeks basically for – for violating the nondisclosure agreements, which is a serious issue. But, you know, my goodness, I mean, you have the secretary of state showing such cavalier disregard for national security, our secrets, and nothing happens to her, and then you have a guy – a guy that was actually, you know, in there risking his life doing the same sort of thing and, man, they really – they drop a ton of bricks on him. And – and it looks – it looks incredibly unfair.

BREAM: Juan, are you ready for the story to go away?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Ah, yes. Well, I – I don't think it goes away. In fact, it's the way it goes away, Shannon. If it goes away because people perceive that there is, as the Facebook writer suggested, an unequal dispensation of justice in America and that the rich and famous and politically connected have one standard while the rest of us have another, then I think it damages everybody, not only Hillary Clinton, but it plays into the idea that you hear from so many Trump supporters, oh, the system’s rigged, the election’s rigged. I just think you’ve got to move away from that at some point to get back to the legitimacy of the American political structure.

So in response to what Charlie was saying, I just want to add that the FBI said quite explicitly when it released information on its background interviews of Mrs. Clinton and others to the United States Congress, that they did not make a mistake. They reiterated that they made the right decision in deciding not to prosecute. There is no legitimate basis for prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

As to whether or not there is mischief to be made with what she said about this or could it be interpreted differently, I think we’re going to see a lot of that because, guess what, Republicans are under pressure given the poll numbers that you have cited this morning that show her beating Donald Trump convincingly.

BREAM: Well, and it’s –


BREAM: We have to mention too, Comey was – I mean he didn't treat her with kid gloves. He said she made a lot of mistakes. That she was extremely careless.


BREAM: And he also said it’s possible that foreign hostile actors were able to access her communications. But this is somebody who wants to be the commander in chief and handle the most sensitive information.

WILLIAMS: That's a legitimate argument to be made. But the thing is that when Comey was asked, again, in response to that Facebook question, is there a different standard of justice, not only was this exhaustively reviewed by the FBI – remember, we – if you’re talking to the Clinton campaign people, they’ll tell you there were hours of testimony by Mrs. Clinton, in public, before the Congress and we still have no evidence that she violated the law.

BREAM: And not – and not – not under oath.


HURT: But it does – but it does go to –


HURT: Yes, exactly. But it does go to the issue of her judgment and whether she is fit to be, you know, to be the top commander on – you know, when it comes to positions (ph).

WILLIAMS: Well, I think that's fair. I – I think she comes across, to my mind, as entitled, privileged, deciding she can set the rules, right?

BREAM: Well, let’s –

NEEDHAM: Well, she doesn't just come across. She is, in fact, entitled and privileged.

BREAM: Well – well – well, let’s –

NEEDHAM: But we also –

BREAM: Let’s talk about the other side of this ticket, which is Donald Trump and the shake-up this weekend, that was trickling at the beginning of the week with the word of Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway being elevated to new positions or added. It was – we were told it was an addition and there was no shake-up. And, believe me, my Twitter blew up when I used the word "shake-up." But then by the end of the week Paul Manafort was gone. So, Michael, what do you make of the changes in the Trump campaign?

NEEDHAM: Well, I think there was a period where a lot of people thought that Donald Trump needed to stop being provocative. He just needed to give poll tested answers that are the same answers politicians give in which they never follow through when they get to Washington, D.C. That's not Donald Trump's brand. It's not what got him this far. And it shouldn't be what the Republican nominees is doing.

The Republican – using provocation to get attention, to talk about serious issues, let's talk about the serious issue of how ISIS got on the scene. The reason that ISIS is the global threat that it is today and not the JV team that President Obama talked about is because a void that President Obama's foreign policy of weakness created in Iraq which has been filled. And so I think when Donald Trump is being provocative by starting conversations about that, by starting conversations about whether liberal domestic policies have helped the people of Detroit, or African-Americans around the country, that's the type of provocation that is Donald Trump getting earned media, being at his best, and then linking it to an actual purpose is when sometimes these provocations are more nihilistic and just about attention and not tied to a policy proposal that can make life better for all Americans.

And so I think this is Trump saying, I'm going to be provocative. I'm going to be myself. And it needs to be connected to good, conservative policy solutions.

And, look, Kellyanne Conway’s been a part of the conservative movement for a long time. Steve Bannon is very competent and is obviously kind of tapped – tapped into this populist energy that Donald Trump has (INAUDIBLE). And so these are two very good people, very confident people, who are going to be in there, and allowing Donald Trump to be Donald Trump and hopefully tying it to good conservative policies that can make life better for people.

BREAM: And, Julie, we’ve seen a lot of praise for him this week for these disciplined, Teleprompter scripted speeches on important issues, making appeals to the African-American community, talking law and order, talking about going after ISIS and expressing regret.

PACE: This was no doubt Donald Trump's best week in quite a long time. The problem for Trump is that he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt anymore when we see him have a one off good speech or a strong week because we've seen that before. If you remember when Paul Manafort was hired earlier this year, Donald Trump actually was performing quite well in the aftermath of that hire and then we saw him fall off again. It’s consistency that’s the problem. It’s, can Donald Trump get up there day after day, week after week and, to Michael's point, both be himself but also focus on his core message, focus on policy, because he actually does have a message that should be resonating with the electorate. When he talks about being an outsider, when he talks about being – being the only candidate in this race who can actually bring change to Washington, that will resonate with people. But it gets lost under so many other things and I'm just not sure that he can maintain this for two and a half more months.

WILLIAMS: Yes, I just think the pivot reminds me of Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown. You know, she keeps holding it and then every time Charlie trusts that she's really going to hold the foot – no. I mean who's he going to apologize, Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz's dad, Ted Cruz's wife, the Khans, the gold star families?

HURT: And in this analogy Lucy is the media, right?

WILLIAMS: Lucy, right now, is the American people, or I would say Republicans who want to vote for a Republican and who keep thinking, if he changes, I could do it, but he – he hasn’t changed.

BREAM: All right, panel, we've got to leave it there for now, but please don’t go anywhere because we’re going to take a quick break.

Then, when we come back, the State Department admits the U.S. held off on paying Iran until American hostages were freed, but do not call it ransom.

Back in just a minute.



BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We do not pay ransom. We didn’t here and we don’t – we won’t in the future.

JOH KIRBY, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: We took advantage of the momentum. And it would have been foolish, and you and I would be having a much different conversation, if we had when it – gone ahead and released the money and then Iran reneged on the deal.


BREAM: The Obama administration under fire this week after the State Department conceded a link of some kind between a $400 million payment to Iran and the release of U.S. prisoners in January.

We're back now with our panel.

And, Charlie, it's interesting because we're hearing from families who have been paid out damages related to the death of their loved ones (INAUDIBLE) Iran. That $400 million that was sitting there that everybody keeps saying was Iran's money, those families thought they were being paid from that money, that it wasn’t still sitting around waiting to be returned to Iran. And this week they find out – or, you know, in the past few weeks they find out, that's not the case with that money.

HURT: Yes, it’s – it really is – this whole – they’ve – the administration has handled this whole thing so terribly. And, you know, and – and I love the – the – or, I don't love it. It's – it’s tragic that they – they regret the appearance of – that it looked like a ransom. Well, the appearance is all that matters because this is why, you know, Iran abducts people. This is why we have this problem in the first place is because of the appearance that you can actually, you know, win one over on the United States. And – and this – and, of course, obviously, the 400 million is – you know, that's the – the highest bounty that, you know, you could ever dream of in terms of encouraging this sort of – this sort of behavior.

BREAM: Well, and the fact that, Juan, Iran had taken we know at least two Americans in since that payment and who knows what's going to happen or what kind of negotiation there will be over the two of them. As Charlie said, at the end of the day, does it – OK, maybe they don’t want to use the word ransom. We’ll never hear that out of the State Department or the White House, but if the end result is the same, that Americans are now in danger, what's the difference?

WILLIAMS: Well, there is none if it’s appearances, and I think Charlie’s right, the appearances and the – the way the State Department and the Obama administration handled this really seems to me to be guilty of malfeasance because it – it – initially they said we are being so transparent. We talked about this in January. We put out a press release, et cetera. What's the news here? There was no connection.

Now we know this week, given Admiral Kirby's statement, the State Department’s spokesman, that there was a connection. But the connection, according to the administration, is one of using leverage. That it was negotiated on a separate track. The timing came together because we're finally talking with the Iranians now. We had the opportunity to insist that the hostages be in flight before the money landed.

OK. I get that. But I think that the appearances that we're talking about present a real problem. On the other hand, if I was doing a negotiation and I was holding the money and Shannon had my hostage, I'd say, Shannon, let my people go before I give you the money. I understand that. I'm just saying, hmm.

The other point to be made quickly is, there are some families out there, American families, who still have their loved ones being held and obviously the United States is not paying any ransom money for them.

BREAM: We, and, Julie, we all remember a couple of years back the – there were families who had loved ones missing who said they were threatened by the U.S. government they would potentially face prosecution if they engaged in a ransom-type deal.

PACE: Absolutely. I mean this is part of a much larger debate about how the U.S. deals with countries that are holding – or – or terror groups that are holding American citizens. And when you talk to some of these families, they actually, in some cases, want the U.S. government –


PACE: To be paying ransom or taking steps that we don't take. You hear about families that go to really unbelievable measures to try to get money to release their loved ones. I think any of us, if we were in those situations –

BREAM: Any of us would do it.

PACE: Would look for some way around this. So you can understand, if you are a family member of someone who has been killed while held overseas or is a family member of someone still overseas, why this just rings really hollow I think to you.

NEEDHAM: It should also be put in the context, though, of the entire Iran deal. So we now know at this point that the United States gave $1.7 billion of foreign cash to Iran. We gave $150 billion of sanctions relief. We allowed them access to ballistic missiles technology. We allowed them access to international arms and we released seven criminals that the United States was holding for violating sanctions relief, all to get an extraordinarily complicated framework that's going to be hard to enforce and at the end of which Iran will be a nuclear state.

This was a horrible deal. This ransom is one component of this horrible deal. And there was one done by a – a naive foreign policy and one that was so intent on getting a deal, getting the foreign policy achievement that it wasn't ever willing to take a step back and look at, what are we giving, what are we getting, does it make sense for the American people?

BREAM: And it – from that I want to lead into Syria because we saw the images this week of this little boy who lost his brother after this family was hit with this air strike. He comes from the rubble. He's stunned. You see him touch his forehead and realize, looking at his – his little hand, that there's blood here. I mean this conflict has been raging for years, but it took this little boy to restart the conversation and get the attention.

Now, if, you know, we look at the money that just went to Iran, their admission that they've been propping up the Assad regime, now they have an extra $1.7 billion that they could use to that end, five years ago this is what the president said about Syria. "We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."

Juan, five years later, we have that little boy, we have millions displaced, hundreds of thousands dead.

WILLIAMS: Well, it's a tragedy. I mean there’s no way. You know, I have a grandson and you look at that little guy and you just – your heart just goes out to him. And, you know, Shannon, there was a picture also of a dead child washing up on the shore earlier.

BREAM: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

WILLIAMS: So you understand the – the number of people – I think it's now more than 400,000 that have lost their lives in this conflict. And, again, you come back to, what can we do? So the argument would be, well, do we want to enforce that red line and what would that mean? It’s not – it doesn't just mean airstrikes. It would mean potentially putting American forces at risk. And I don't think the American people want to do that. But what can we do?

HURT: Well, one thing – one thing is, you don't draw a red line that you then ignore. You know, when the president made that statement five years ago, Assad was in a very, very tough position. It looked like he might – his government really might fall. There probably could have been some things that we could have done that would have helped that happen.

But the problem – and this is a problem we've seen with this administration all along, is that they – they just squander our leadership. And now – and, of course, obviously, Vladimir Putin has gone in there. Russia is now flying sorties out of Iran, firing tomahawks missiles out of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. You know, these are big developments where the Obama administration has moved – completely removed the United States from being a legitimate voice.

WILLIAMS: Well, let me just quickly add –


WILLIAMS: That I think that the – this story is going to be in the news for the next few weeks because the United Nations is now, I think, going to issue a report indicating that the use of chemical weapons has continued.

HURT: Yes.

WILLIAMS: And if that's the case, then the – it will be the United States confronting the Russians over this.

BREAM: Well, and we're back to the red line though.

PACE: We – we are. And I – but, look, I think this is – if you are a voter in this election, and you look at that picture of that little boy and you feel sick to your stomach, like most of us do, you should look at your presidential candidates and demand a plan. Neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump have a plan for addressing the civil war in Syria. So much of the debate about Syria has been overtaken by the Islamic State and that is very fair. But there is a civil war that has been raging for five years and I have not heard a presidential candidate lay out a plan for how they would address that.

NEEDHAM: But what we do know is what’s going on in Syria is a direct result of the foreign policy of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, which has said, America is going to give up our position of leadership in the Middle East. We are going to give leadership to Russia, to Iran. You look at what could have been done. We shouldn't have left a void in Iraq. We should have enforced our red line. We should have gotten involved earlier in supporting Syrian opposition sources. We could have not only started the bombings when we did, but had more threatening bombings to the Assad regime that could have put more doubt in his mind about whether he has a long-term future.

This is an administration that does not perceive America as having a leadership position in the world. It’s been – the result of it is what's going on in Syria and history is going to look back very, very ill-favorably upon what's going on.

WILLIAMS: But, Michael, I think that the American people would say this, there's a longer history than the one you described, that when it comes to nation building, to promoting democracy in the Middle East, we can go back to Republican administrations as well. And that when you are talking about that kind of American involvement, lots of people would say, hey, the Congress of the United States never voted to support President Obama on the use of military strikes against the Assad regime.

NEEDHAM: That’s all – Juan – Juan –

BREAM: But remember what was happening as that vote was coming forward and the back down that happened. And one has to remember when they really thought they were going to have to face that vote in Congress.

PACE: Absolutely.

WILLIAMS: Yes, but they –

BREAM: That changes things.

WILLIAMS: They wanted it but they never got it.

BREAM: Yes. Well, sometimes you don't want what you got and you don't got what you want.

All right. Thank you very much, panel. We'll see you next Sunday.

Up next, we're going to bring you the story of one man who was inspiring Congress to actually work together. Huh.


BREAM: It was a life changing diagnosis, but he didn't take no for an answer. After beating the odds, Doug Oliver is inspiring Congress to work together to help others gain access and to fund medical studies that can immediately change lives.


DOUG OLIVER, MEDICAL RESEARCH ADVOCATE: There was no treatment available, no cure and no hope for a treatment in the near future.

BREAM (voice-over): Doug Oliver was in his mid-40s when he noticed a rapid decline in his ability to see. He had no idea when he went to see his eye doctor that he would leave with a grim, life-changing diagnosis. He would soon go blind.

OLIVER: The most difficult thing was at that same appointment he wrote in great big red letters, no more driving. And so my life changed that day.

BREAM: Oliver gave up his driver's license, but not his determination to find a cure. He combed through medical journals and looked for clinical trials, eventually finding one in Florida, but it came with a hefty price. He raised the money through scores of donations. And within days of treatment, he began to regain his sight.

Now Oliver is lending his voice to a bipartisan coalition of senators, hoping to pass legislation that will make cutting edge treatments both more accessible and affordable. By rolling back unnecessary regulations and funding viable studies, their aim is to spur cures in the short term and money saving solutions over the long term.

LAMAR ALEXANDER, R-TENNESSEE SENATOR: Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health says within the next ten years we'll be using stem cells from your own body to restore a diseased heart. Up to now, you've got to have a heart transplant. He says we'll have a vaccine for Zika, a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. He believe we’ll be able to identify Alzheimer's before you see its symptoms.

BREAM: The House has already passed its version of the legislation. And although it isn't an exact mirror to the package of 19 bills the Senate is hoping to pass, House Speaker Paul Ryan has agreed to work out the differences in a conference this fall, giving supporters real hope that it will reach President Obama's desk before the end of the year, and that he'll sign something that skeptics say rarely comes together anymore in Washington, a major legislative package hammered out by crossing the aisle.

ALEXANDER: So you would think that if President Obama, the Republican House and a bipartisan Senate are for this, we could get it done. That's why I'm optimistic.


BREAM: Doug Oliver not only got his driver's license back, but was also able to see his grandchildren for the first time.

Lawmakers still need to hammer out exactly, though, how they're going to fund these new medical initiatives. To find out more about Doug’s work with cellular therapy providers, you can go to our website.

That’s it for today. Chris will be back next Sunday. Have a great week. 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.