This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," May 14, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good morning, the President could take a new FBI Director by the end of this upcoming week. The White House's revised travel ban back in court tomorrow morning and a new commission gets to work on an investigating voter fraud. Hi, everyone, Happy Mother's day, thanks for joining us, I'm Maria Bartiromo ,this is "Sunday Morning Futures." It is full speed ahead for interviews to replace James Comey as head of the FBI. Where does the bureau go from here? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom will be here live for that.
Plus a closer look at allegations that the Obama administration spied on Rand Paul and at least one other senator. Then, the widespread voter fraud have an impact in the 2016 election, a new White House Commission, we will find out. I'll talk with the vice chairman of that commission, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach on deck. And the president's travel ban facing a new challenge tomorrow from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Is it headed for showdown in the Supreme Court? The attorney general for one of the states supporting the ban, Ken Paxton of Texas will join us live as we look ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."
The search for new FBI Director gaining steam this morning. President Trump saying that the White House would name James Comey's replacement as soon as this upcoming Friday. That is the day Mr. Trump heads overseas for his foreign trip as President. The Justice Department is interviewing candidates, they interviewed eight candidates so far this weekend with a few other names reportedly in the mix. All of this taking place as James Comey says he's willing to testify before Congress, however, he only will do it in public, not behind closed doors. Newt Gingrich, the Former White House Speaker, the author of the book Understanding Trump, he's also a Fox News Contributor and he joins me right now. Mr. Speaker, always a pleasure. Thanks so much for joining us this morning.
NEWT GINGRICH, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's great to be with you and Happy Mother's Day.
BARTIROMO: I want to - I want to ask you - thank you so much and to you as well and your wonderful wife. Let me ask you about some of the headlines I just mentioned. Number one the FBI replacement, who would you like to see in there? What kind of pedigree do we need to see as Lead for the FBI?
GINGRICH: Well, I think we need somebody who's very experienced and who has focus on law enforcement as part of their career and ideally somebody who can go before the Senate and answer questions in a very direct way. We - you know, the FBI has been a remarkable institution for a hundred years. It has done amazing things. It's the preeminent investigative organization in the world and you need somebody there who is stable, calm, professional, dedicated to the rule of law and frankly going to count the facts as they are. He shouldn't be loyal to the President and he shouldn't be loyal to the Congress, he should be loyal to the United States and to the constitution or she should. I mean, I think we - you could easily - a first-class woman who is committed to the rule of law and who has an experience in enforcing the law and I think there are a number of good candidates who are women as well as men.
BARTIROMO: Yes. I wonder if the President considered Condi Rice?
GINGRICH: I'm not sure Condi wants to do that -
GINGRICH: But she - but she'll be a kind of personality, very smart, vert dedicated and impeccable honesty, nobody would doubt that she was going to call him exactly as the cards fall.
BARTIROMO: Would Trey Gowdy be too political? I hearing a lot about Trey Gowdy. I'm also - I understand sources tell that the President called Ray Kelly, former NYPD commissioner. What do you think about those two candidates, Trey Gowdy and Ray Kelly?
GINGRICH: Well, look, Trey Gowdy is terrific whether or not as a Republican partisan member of Congress that would make the most sense, he's certainly is a very qualified person, he was great attorney back when he was -- practices law, great prosecutor and I think in that sense, has a great reputation. I really think that Ray would be terrific. You know, the New York City Police Department is the largest city police force in the world. They do an astonishing job. They protect the U.N., they protect all the different countries that have people, they protect all the dignitaries who visit. And they have an outstanding tradition of enforcing the law and of having a very sophisticated intelligence program.
BARTIROMO: And Ray Kelly would probably get confirmed easily on both sides of the aisle -
GINGRICH: I would think so.
BARTIROMO: - as well. Let me move on to the other headline that I want to get your take on. Jim Comey says he's willing to testify but not in - not in private only in public. Newt, we know what happened when you're in public. Sally Yates and Jim Clapper over and over again last week saying, I know the answer but I can't tell you. Yes, I know the answer to that but I'm not going to reveal it in a public setting. Is that what Jim Comey wants? He wants to be in public setting so that he could say I can't reveal anything?
GINGRICH: No, I think what Jim Comey wants is to avoid one or two people leaking their version of what he said. If I were Comey, I absolutely would insist on testifying in public. I wouldn't trust either side because the democrats are going to take anything he says that seems to hurt Trump and they're going to distort it and leak it. The republicans will take anything he says which seems to exonerate Trump, they'll distort it and leak it. We live in a period unfortunately where we are surrounded by 24-day leaks and I think we're much better off to have these things out in the open. Let it flow and let Comey tell his side of the story and just let it be out there. I'm not worried about the kind of "oh, I can't tell you because this or that" and frankly on some of the things that they won't tell you about because it affects the ability of doing it and goes out to sources and our methods. I don't want him to particularly say that in private either because you know it'll leak.
BARTIROMO: Well, we know that there were leaks and we know that it is illegal to pass information on that is critical information to the media and where is the investigation around that? This whole idea that these agencies have become politicized has been outrageous, Newt. I spoke with Rand Paul the other day - not sure if you heard what he told me on Fox News on Thursday, but listen to this. This is something I have to get your take on. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY.: I've gotten two reporters that came up which says they have multiple sources, some of this has been published already saying that the Obama administration was looking at my private information and there are rumors of other people who ran for President as well. I'm trying to get to the bottom of this. I've asked the White House to look at the logs of all the previous Obama administration people to see if are they were searching my name and unmasking me in any way. I know one of the senators who's already confided to me that he was surveilled by the Obama administration including his phone calls.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: Another senator revealing to Rand Paul, confiding in him that he, in fact, was also spied on by the Obama administration. What's going on here, Newt?
GINGRICH: Look, you had an enormous breakdown in the rule of law. You had it with the Clinton foundation, you had it with Hillary Clinton, you had it with Barack Obama, you had it with his staff. I mean, when you send the National Security Adviser out to lie on six different television shows about Benghazi, the Sunday after an American ambassador is killed, and she knows she's lying. You can tell that there's a collapse of any kind of honesty and any kind of measure of enforcing basic sound principles. I'm not at all surprise that the - that the Obama administration was prepared to flout the rules. And look, their core model was a radicalism going back Saul Alinsky in which middle-class rules and middle-class laws don't count. And I think that we ought to take seriously what their intellectually pedigree is. I do believe we need a serious investigation, I do believe this administration ought to be more aggressive in going after these things and more aggressive in going after these leaks. But the truth is, you now have a news media that's totally out of control and that thinks it's more important than the President of the United States, it's more important than the constitution, it's more important than the rule of law and at some point there's going to be a collision over that. And I actually applauded what the President said the last few days. I think it might be very healthy for the White House Press Corps to suddenly not have a space, to suddenly not have the daily opportunity to taunt whoever the spokesperson is. You know, let him go over the Starbucks and drink coffee and re- speculate in what's happening in the White House. But the game that we now have going on is really sick.
GINGRICH: And it actually weakens the ability of the American people to know what's going on.
BARTIROMO: Yes. And I'm just wondering if that's one of the reasons the President fired Jim Comey because here we are constantly hearing about this charade of an investigation over potential collusion between Trump and the Russians with no evidence whatsoever and yet where is the investigation of the unmasking? Where's the investigation of the passing of classified information to the media? Is it happening?
GINGRICH: Well that's right. Now, remember, 95 percent of all donations by federal employees went to Hillary Clinton. 97 percent of all donations at the Justice Department went to Hillary Clinton and 99 percent of all the donation at the State Department went to Hillary Clinton. So, what do you think the culture is like?
GINGRICH: This is not a neutral culture, it's not an obey the president culture, this is an anti-Trump culture of people who will do everything they can to undermine or weaken the elected legal President of the United States.
BARTIROMO: Right. So if Jim Comey knew that his boss Loretta Lynch really did not want him to cover the Hillary Clinton conflict, really did not want him to do it. I mean, everyone in the FBI knew because you knew where the donations were going, what should he have done, step down? Can he have just said look, "I'm stepping down? I'm not going to have this on my shoulders?" Rather than becoming the judge, jury, and the executor during the election.
GINGRICH: Well, first of all - first of all, the minute that Attorney General Lynch met in private on an airplane with Bill Clinton, she in effect should have been rescued, at that point, Comey's assignment and Will Barr wrote a great essay on this, a former U.S. Attorney General who explained this. At that point, Comey's job was to report to Deputy Attorney General who I think at the time was Yates.
GINGRICH: But it's not Comey's job to take upon himself as FBI Director the job of the Attorney General. That's what he did.
GINGRICH: And I think, that was an enormous arrogation of power. Frankly, I finally lost total faith in Comey at that hearing about a week ago where he goes off on how it almost made him nauseous to do this. And that I thought you know, we don't need psychotherapy on national television. The Director of the FBI ought to be somebody who knows what they're doing, he's prepared to defend it, does it with dignity and is willing to take the consequences.
BARTIROMO: Right. That was too much. Mildly nauseous. What an ego. Mr. Speaker, always a pleasure. Thanks very much.
GINGRICH: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: We appreciate your time this morning. Newt Gingrich joining us there. And we'll continue this conversation with Jim Kallstrom coming up. A new White House Commission now investigating voter fraud after President Trump claim that millions of people illegally voted in the 2016 election. Kansas Secretary Kris Kobach is Vice Chair of that Commission, he will join me next live. And then remember, follow me on Twitter @mariabartiromo, @sundayfututres, let me know what you'd like to hear from our line-up of guests today. We've got a big show. Stay with us. We're looking ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures" this Mother's Day.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back, President Trump launching a new Commission on election integrity. The move coming after President Trump raised questions about widespread voter fraud in the2016 election. Kris Kobach is the Kansas Secretary of State and Vice Chairman of the new Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. Sir, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.
KRIS KOBACH, KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE: Great to be with you. Happy mother's day!
BARTIROMO: Then to you. Tell us what you're looking at and how you believe you can actually get to the bottom of this whether or not there was a widespread fraud?
KOBACH: So the Commission is looking at more than just the 2016 election. It's looking at the entire issue of voting irregularities and fraud and registration problems. So what we'll be doing is for the first time in our country's history, we'll be gathering data from all 50 states and we'll be using the federal government's databases which can been very valuable. The Social Security Administration has data on people when they pass away. The Department of Homeland Security knows of the millions of aliens who are in the United States legally and that data that's never been bounced against the state's voter rolls to see whether these people are registered. So, we'll be doing like that that have never been done before and we'll try to get some numbers, some actual statistics because you know, this debate is so contentious but often times the debate doesn't have enough facts in the - in the debate and we're going to be providing those facts, putting them on the table and letting the people decide in going where the facts take us.
BARTIROMO: Yes. I think it's terrific that you're doing this especially after all of the conversations surrounding this issue in the last couple of elections. Let me ask you, how do they do it? Somebody dies and then they just get their name, they - and they use their identity? How do they do it? What's the typical track that these people are taking?
KOBACH: You know, I think voting the names of deceased people, although that's, you know, sort of the subject of lore in Chicago and places you hear about people talking about that. I think that's one of the less frequent forms of voter fraud, but I could be wrong. We'll find out. But the way that would happen is a person dies for whatever reason the county doesn't know that and the name remains on the voter roll and then somebody - it's a matter of public record the voter role, somebody discovers that so-and-so's name is still on the voter roll and then benefits the state the state without photo I.D., they can just walk out and say I am that person. But the more common forms of voter fraud - I think the most common that I have seen in Kansas is double voting. People voting twice in the same election. Either in Kansas and in another state or in two different counties of Kansas.
BARTIROMO: Or you can also argue that what we've been talking about in terms of spying on people is also a form of voter fraud. Right? I mean, we have just been talking about this situation where Rand Paul says he was surveilled and another senator has confided in him that he too was spied on by the Obama administration reading the record of their phone calls and their correspondents, etcetera. Doesn't that fall under the umbrella of voter fraud during the election?
KOBACH: It might very well be a crime and it certainly is in the case as you've described but well, depending on the circumstances of whether he had - whether there was consent and who was doing the spying. But in - we usually don't define those as voter crimes. You're right that it might have some direct effect in the election. But the voter crimes are classically ones where you are trying to vote in somebody else's name, you're trying to alter a ballot, you're trying to commit vote by mail fraud. We'll be looking at - you know, the things that are classically defined as election fraud.
BARTIROMO: Well, Secretary, what about for example the IRS targeting conservatives? I mean, the IRS was targeting conservatives, right? And we know that John Koskinen is still in charge of the IRS. A lot of people scratching their heads about that one. How is he still in that job after we know that targeted conservatives. Is that under the umbrella of voter fraud?
KOBACH: Probably not because again - and by the way, these are great topics that you know, maybe deserving of their own commission to look into it. But the subject of voter fraud is itself pretty vast. I mean, you're talking about maybe eight or ten different forms of fraud. We'll also be looking at the effect on voter participation. You know, one of the argument you hear from people that oppose things like photo I.D. which we have here in Kansas is they say, well, depresses participation rates. We haven't seen that in Kansas but we'll look at the evidence from the other 49 states and see what it shows. So we're trying to keep it - you know -
BARTIROMO: Well, I don't understand that. How is it possible that in some areas of the country you don't need an id to vote? I mean, you need an I.D. for everything. You need an I.D. to buy a beer and you don't need your I.D. to participate in a Presidential Election?
KOBACH: I agree. I mean, look, you need an I.D. to get on a plane, you need I.D. to enter a federal building, to open a checking account and pretty much need photo I.D. to function in an American society. You even need - you need one to buy kind of suit of feds that work too if get a call.
BARTIROMO: So, how does that fly -- how does that even fly? That OK, we're going to use - we're going do away with I.D.'s and that's politically incorrect. I don't understand the thinking.
KOBACH: Well, so, I mean, what happened in those states is they didn't have I.D. requirement for the - or you know, the early years of the 20thcentury going all the way to1980's and then states started realizing that voter fraud was happening. And so, state by state we starting adapting. So now, you've got about a dozen states like Kansas that have a very strict voter I.D. requirement. And you've got another maybe six or eight states that had ones with loopholes in them and then there's a whole bunch of states, in fact, the majority still don't have it. And our constitution allows the states to define the rules of voting. I - we'll see if more states adopt it and maybe this commission can shed some light on the subject.
BARTIROMO: When are you expecting to go report your findings, Sir?
KOBACH: We're expecting to do so in a year, so next spring, maybe May but the Commission stays in existence for up to two years. If for some reason we have to go later, we can. But our hope is one year.
BARTIROMO: An early look at what you will produce, can you give me an expectation of where you're going to be providing some evidence?
KOBACH: Well, I can't forecast what the conclusions would be but I can give you some idea of what we might do. So, one thing that's never been done before that I eluded to earlier is the Department of Homeland Security has a database of all known aliens, green card holders, temporary visa holder in the United States. And that is never been bounced against the state's voter rolls to say well, hey, how many of these people with these names these date of birth so you can get an exact match. How many of them are registered to vote in state A or state B. We can do something like that again which would be very informative and I don't know what the results will yield but I know that for example in Kansas, we have seen a large number of noncitizen register on voter rolls and that's one of the subjects were actually locked in battle of the ACLU in court right now.
BARTIROMO: Wow. Yes.
KOBACH: Because we require proof of citizenship in our state.
BARTIROMO: Great. Well, very informative indeed. Kris Kobach, come back soon. We'll be watching with the development. Thanks so much.
KOBACH: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: We appreciate it.
This morning the FBI looking for a new Director after the firing of James Comey. What is next for the Bureau? What about those allegations the Obama administration spied on Rand Paul and another senator? FBI Assistant Director Jim Kallstrom next.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Now this news are all breaking news. The search for the new Director of the FBI, Merrick Garland reportedly the choice of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He will make that recommendation to President Trump. This according to the Senator's Chief of Staff who spoke on Fox News Sunday today. James Kallstrom is the former Assistant Director of the FBI, he joins me now to talk more about it. And Jim, it's always a pleasure to see you.
JAMES KALLSTROM, FBI FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Nice to be with you.
BARTIROMO: You've been very critical with me over the - over the last year of Jim Comey, of the politicization happening or that has taken place at the FBI. First, what do you think about the Merrick Garland idea, who would you like to see as the leader at the FBI?
KALLSTROM: I don't think that's a good idea at all. The leader at the FBI should be someone who's really vested in experience in investigation, a solid person, smart, articulate, a good communicator. Someone who can motivate the agents to excel, you know, for the good of the country. Somebody who can deep - get deep down into gut of patriotism. You know, the FBI works for the American people, it doesn't work for either party, it never should. And that was Jim Comey's big mistake. Was big mistake, that's criminal referral comes over briefly you know, and says, you know, you can't call it criminal, no grand jury. He needs to stand up at that point in time, have a press conference and resign from the FBI. The FBI, you know, cannot be whiplashed around for political reasons. As soon as it does, you know, that's the end of it. That can't happen.
BARTIROMO: And that's really what you have been saying for several months now. That the FBI had become too politically oriented. I mean, look, granted, Jim Comey in a tough -- was in a tough spot when his boss Loretta Lynch has meeting in tarmac with Bill Clinton and it was obvious that everybody knew where Loretta Lynch was on the election, where Barack Obama was on - they wanted Hillary. So he really need to step down, Jim Comey.
KALLSTROM: Yes. I mean, it was obvious to anybody with a brain that they were never going to indict Hillary Clinton ever. No matter what the evidence, ever. It was never going to happen. So what was Jim Comey thinking five months down the road when he has this sort of shallow investigation, but there was so much evidence that they found files of it anyway and that they articulated. You know, really, a lot of evidence.
BARTIROMO: I mean she said, she was incredibly careless, she sent thousands of emails to Anthony Weiner, you know, she had all of these things in terms of conflicts around her but we wouldn't recommend.
KALLSTROM: Well, because he made the point no intent which is crazy. There was - you know, like a 100-mile long train of intent. You know, and the notion that Hillary Clinton was not a right mind to understand that she was really violating the law. You know, she - I mean, come on.
BARTIROMO: But what was the point of the private server in your basement anyway?
KALLSTROM: To violate the law.
KALLSTROM: Yes. And to have your own communications - I mean it's plane - I mean, it can't be any plainer.
BARTIROMO: Convenience to have a server at home -
KALLSTROM: You know, and then all the different thins Comey did, you know, releasing things on Friday afternoon like the bad guys do and, you know, all this other stuff made no sense. I mean, a smart guy, lacking in common sense, and just wasn't built to be the FBI Director.
BARTIROMO: So, takes us back, what happened to the FBI to make it so political over the years. I mean, a lot of people talk about the Muslim brotherhood as part of the issue here. What's your take?
KALLSTROM: Yes. I mean, I've spoken about that and a lot of people don't want to hear this. But you know, right after 9/11 in my view, Bob Mueller who was then the Director, you know, sort of the equiest with care which is actually a front group in my view of the Muslim brotherhood. And there's a lot of connections of the Muslim brotherhood.
BARTIROMO: They really infiltrated.
KALLSTROM: In the White House.
BARTIROMO: Yes, in the White House.
KALLSTROM: In the White House, without getting in the detail. And the FBI really took away from the training materials of the FBI the whole history of radical fundamentalism. I mean, it can it be like, OK, we're not going to - we're not going to know anything about (INAUDIBLE) we're not going to know about their habits or why they do things. I mean, it's just nonsense.
BARTIROMO: So you weren't allowed to study the background of Islam?
KALLSTROM: How can agents investigate radical fundamentalist without knowing the whole history, where they are coming from, what their mindset, you know, that they want to - basically infiltrate the United States and take the country over along with killing people.
BARTIROMO: But that's what you're saying. Mueller took away the tools to do that.
KALLSTROM: He took away the tools and he kept - he kept them away.
BARTIROMO: And Comey kept that up.
KALLSTROM: And Comey kept that up and the agents you know, training - well, basically not the agents were dumb, the materials were dumb. You know, and basically, this blanket of political correctness tied behind the back at least one arm of the FBI, made it really impossible for the FBI to better protect the United States of America without question. You know, you look back to the Boston - you look at the Boston marathon and all those other cases, right? It turns out that the FBI knew about those people, right? But they kind of dropped them off the side. Well, yes, in the FBI, there was a culture of, boy, you better not get too out there. You better not lean too forward too much on somebody's people.
BARTIROMO: Why? I don't understand why.
KALLSTROM: It would take all the psychiatrists in world to figure it out.
BARTIROMO: Because they just buy the narrative?
KALLSTROM: You know, and why and how the political elite went along with this is just really disgusting. You know, it's conspiracy of numbness and stupidity that has really harmed the ability to have the FBI to protect the United States of America.
BARTIROMO: And you have to say that that continued just recently with this whole Russia probe. So this Russia probe has been on-going for ten months. We still don't have any evidence of collusion between the President and the Russians.
KALLSTROM: Guess what, Maria?
BARTIROMO: And where's the investigation of the leaks?
KALLSTROM: Guess what, the Russian probe is being conducted by the foreign counterintelligence division of the FBI. It's not a criminal investigation. It's not a criminal investigation. Where's the crime? All you democrats out there, there is no crime.
KALLSTROM: There's no articulated crime. It's an intelligence matter.
BARTIROMO: But we know that it's a crime to release and leak information that's classified to the media. Where is that investigation?
KALLSTROM: I don't know where that is. That's a major big-time crime. You know --
BARTIROMO: Is that why he got fired? One of the reasons.
KALLSTROM: Well, I think one of the reasons. I think there's a whole host of reasons. You know, and that reason, the leaks - and then look at this unmasking of - it's reported -- thousands of names of people. I mean, that is a huge, huge scandal and a huge violation of the privacy laws of the United States, a huge violation of the very laws that enabled the FBI to protect the country.
BARTIROMO: Should that be the priority number one for the incoming FBI director?
KALLSTROM: That - I mean, that's right up there. Priority number one, the leaks, that thing is just outrageous. The new FBI director, you know, should be someone, you know, that has the intestinal fortitude to protect this country regardless of people that want to politically bend that away from certain things.
BARTIROMO: Is that going to be easy? I mean, how tough is it now to turn this ship around with all of the politicization?
KALLSTROM: No, I think - I think what I just 90 - I think what I just said, 98 percent of the people that want to be the FBI director are not qualified. They're not qualified in a lot of ways. You know, just because you're an attorney or you worked in the justice department, let's get away from that. Let's put someone in there that understands investigations. Let's put someone in there with -
BARTIROMO: And law enforcement.
KALLSTROM: -- with a strong intestinal fortitude. Let's get someone in there who can motivate police officers, FBI agents, Secret Service agents, everybody to be a better person to protect this society. We live in a very dangerous world. Now is the time, Mr. President, we've got to pick the right person for this job and they've got to get rid of this political correctness.
BARTIROMO: Really, really great insights from you, as always, Jim, thank you so much.
KALLSTROM: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Jim Kallstrom joining us there. The U.S. and China are working out a brand new trade deal. We'll talk with Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, next. Right here.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back. The Trump administration not mincing words about North Korea after it test fired yet another ballistic missile early this morning. The White House says that that the "rogue regime" has been, quote, "a flagrant menace for far too long." The tough talk raising the question if more sanctions against the rouge regime are on the way. Joining us right now is Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. Mr. Secretary, always a pleasure to see you. Thanks so much for the time this morning.
WILBUR ROSS, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: Thank you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: So I want to talk about this new deal with China, for sure. But first, let me get your reaction to North Korea firing another missile this morning. Would this be the kind of event that will trigger more sanctions against North Korea?
ROSS: Well, I don't know exactly what action the President will take. The White House did put out a press statement indicating that the missile actually landed a lot closer to Russia than to Japan. So whether that will give the Russians some interest in doing something, I don't know.
BARTIROMO: Very important point that you make there. So I know that the President and yourself have been talking with China in terms of a lot of issues, not just the North Korea issue, but certainly on trade and getting American companies a better foothold than China. Listen to what former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told me this week when she joined me on my morning show on the Fox Business Network, Sir. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: China is really the only country with any influence, I don't think complete influence, but some influence with the North Koreans. They've always been reluctant to do really tough things with the North Koreans because they worried about the collapse of the regime more than they're worried about a nuclear North Korea. The administration is saying to them, worry more about a nuclear North Korea because if you can't do something about the path that they are on, we will have to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: Do you think China is getting it at this point, Secretary Ross, in terms of participating, working with the Americans to rein in North Korea and then perhaps hoping that a better trade deal, better participation with America will also be part of an arrangement?
ROSS: Well, at Mar-a-Lago we initiated two dialogues, a strategic dialogue which deals importantly with North Korea, and the economic dialogue which is the part that I've been involved with. In terms of the strategic, it's my impression that what the Chinese are worried about is if the regime does collapse, there would be a huge flood of refugees into China, and they really don't want that. And they're already getting quite a little flow just because of the turmoil. So, I can understand they're in a very tricky position.
BARTIROMO: Yes, sure. Understood. They want to see change, they want to see a nonnuclear North Korea but they don't want it to mean a democratic North Korea, changing leadership in that regard, they don't want to see refugees flowing into China. I understand they have a balance to walk. Having said that, the U.S. and China agreed to take action by mid-July to increase access for U.S. financial firms and expand trade in beef and chicken among other steps as part of the drive to cut its trade deficit with Beijing. Tell us what's most important in this most recent trade deal with China, Wilbur, and what you're expecting out of China in terms of working with the U.S. on trade?
ROSS: Well, the most important things that we got from the Chinese were the deal on beef. China already is a $2.5-billion a year market for beef but that represents a very, very small amount per person. About $1.70 per person. So, with the rising standards of living there, it's pretty clear that this already big $2.5-billion market could grow very rapidly. It's been quite a few years that there's been discussion about opening that market. We finally have gotten them to agree to a precise state by which the beef imports into China would start from America. So the American livestock industry is quite thrilled with that.
ROSS: Second thing that we got is LNG Exports. As you probably remember, LNG prices have been very depressed in the U.S. but now we're opening it up that there could be even long-term contracts to supply China. And China is the world's largest consumer of LNG than the world's largest importer, so while there have been a few scattered little spot shipments, the idea of having big, long-term contracts is very, very attractive to our industry. And then, the third and fourth and fifth things that we've got where they had sort of banned our credit card companies from doing dual currency, dual label cards with the Chinese banks. Now, they've agreed to let them do that, and to take on the U.S.-based electronic payment services. So, that helps the service industries.
And then lastly, they've agreed to grant two licenses to foreign-owned firms in order to underwrite bonds and to clear the trades. And then lastly, in food biotechnology, there are quite a few applications. I think something like Eight Pending and we've agreed on a protocol for going forward with them where by the end of May, those fellows will know if there are any remaining problems in their application, if not, it will go forward. So, it's --
ROSS: -- it dealt with a lot of sectors but there's a lot more to do.
BARTIROMO: Yes. And lot more because a lot of people wonder if American companies will ever get a shot to actually own something in China rather than just being part of a joint venture where a financial firm can only own 49 percent because American companies want to sell to the 1.1 billion people of China.
ROSS: Right. And that's certainly one of the --
BARTIROMO: Go ahead, sir, sorry.
ROSS: Yes. That's certainly one of the issues, the intellectual property rights are an issue, the oversupply and overcapacity in steel and aluminum and other products. There's a host of issues. But, strategy here was get a few quick kills, a few tangible deliverable items that could be done quickly, make sure that there was actual performance on them because many of these things had been premised for a long time. Now, it's time for delivery, assuming that those are delivered, then we'll go into a one-year program of negotiations. If that produces more deliverables, we'll go into a longer-term period of negotiation.
BARTIROMO: Secretary Ross, it's great to see you. Thank you so much for walking us through it. We'll be watching.
ROSS: Thank you, Maria. Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Secretary Wilbur Ross joining us there. President Trump's revised travel ban, meanwhile, back in court tomorrow morning with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But, is this case inevitable headed for the Supreme Court? The Attorney General from one of the states supporting the ban, Ken Paxton of Texas will join us next. We're looking ahead right now in "Sunday Morning Futures." Stay with us.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to hear arguments tomorrow on President Trump's revised travel ban after a judge in Hawaii blocked it.
Joining us right now is the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton. His state is one of the many backing the travel ban. Good to see you, sir. Thanks very much for joining us.
KEN PAXTON, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL: Happy Mother's Day.
BARTIROMO: What do - and to you, thank you. What are you expecting from tomorrow's hearing in terms of this travel ban?
PAXTON: You know, it's hard to say, you know, every court has their little different nuance. And this, if you'll remember the judge in Hawaii found a constitutional right for non-resident aliens based on the first amendment, we don't think that's right, so we're hopeful that they'll overrule that, and instead, base it on clear federal statutes that gives the president the authority to do this.
BARTIROMO: You know, most people are scratching their head, saying, look, the President has the authority to come out with his executive orders, and he's being blocked left and right. I mean, this immigration ban can't get past go, what do you make of this?
PAXTON: Well, it's interesting for us because we filed a lawsuit based on the Syrian refugees coming to our state without us knowing much about it. Now, we were told by a federal judge that the federal government has complete authority over immigration. And so, it's a little surprising to us that now that we're with a different President, that we have courts all over the nation saying the President doesn't have - does not have the authority to do that when we think clearly under federal statute that he does.
BARTIROMO: Yes, exactly. So, I mean, obviously the Ninth Circuit has been against the president. And so, it keeps coming from the Ninth Circuit but can the Ninth Circuit keep this up and actually create a barrier for the President to get his executive order on immigration to throw it all?
PAXTON: Well, you make a good point. We had - you know, we had the first travel ban, the lawsuit was in Washington State, which was the Ninth Circuit, then the second one was in Hawaii, which is the Ninth Circuit. Obviously, there's a reason they're filing it in Ninth Circuit, tends to be more liberal court. But ultimately, I expect this to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. I think the Supreme Court, obviously, now that it has all nine justices, we're, you know, more hopeful that we're going to get ruling on this.
BARTIROMO: Tell me what you're doing in Texas at this point, Mr. Attorney General, because we know that, you know, you have been supportive of this ban, and actually are trying to create borders and ensure that the law is being followed?
PAXTON: So, you know, we actually filed a lawsuit, as I said on this - related to Syrian refugees and we basically pulled out of the program, the federal program because we had no way of monitoring who was coming into our state. So the program still continues for us but we're not part of that as a state, and the reason we're not part is our governor did not feel comfortable saying that we were going to be part of a program where we could not vet these people and know who was coming into our state. So, we're very concerned about this, and obviously, we have a huge issue here with crimes in our state with illegals, and so, we want to make sure that this is resolved.
BARTIROMO: In terms of the vetting process, what would you like to see? You're right there at the border and have a good idea in terms of what needs to be done and where we're lacking. What can you tell us?
PAXTON: Well, we don't get any information. So, we'd love to have background checks, so we know the history of these people so that we know if they have terrorist ties, so that if they're going to come in to our state, we can at least track what's going on, we find out where they're going, where they're at, so that we have some idea of the thousands of refugees that have come to our state, we literally know nothing about them.
BARTIROMO: Attorney General Paxton, thanks so much for joining us this morning. We appreciate it.
PAXTON: Thank you. Have a great day.
BARTIROMO: Good to hear from you, Ken Paxton joining us there.
We're going to take a break. When we come back, the Comey firing sending shockwaves throughout Washington. The fall-out continues, our panel is next. We're talking with Ed Rollins and Garry Kasparov as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures," next.
BARTIROMO: Welcome back. President Trump looking to move quickly on naming a new FBI director, saying an announcement could come as soon as this Friday. I want to bring in our panel, Ed Rollins, former White House adviser to President Reagan and a Fox News Contributor; Garry Kasparov is chairman of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation, former world chess champion, and author of the new book, "Deep Thinking". Great to see you, both. Thank you so much for joining us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: What a week it was. Let's look back and look ahead, Ed Rollins.
ED ROLLINS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Well, as I sit here with Garry, who's one of the world's great strategist in his book called "Deep Thinking", we need some deep thinking in this White House. I think this -- and we need a strategy. This was the worst week, I think, this President has had, and it's all self-inflicted. He could have gotten rid of Comey on January 20th, he couldn't gotten - remember Comey this last week and what he should have done is sat down, as Jim said, I want to make a change, you want to resign by the end of the week or I'm going to fire you, and even firing him, he should have said thank you for your service and move on. The problem is he made it into a much bigger story than needed to be. The White House staff basically is all over the place. When they start comparing you to Carter and Nixon as a former President, that's not a good place to be.
ROLLINS: In my sense, is he goes on his first international trip that shows this week should be all about what he's going to accomplish as he leaves this country. And again, there's no strategy in what he wants to accomplish.
BARTIROMO: What would be - what should be the strategy, Garry? But you know what, you make a good point because he turned it into a fight and he threatened, oh, there are tapes. If you - but that's because Jim Comey obviously leaked to the New York Times what was said at dinner.
GARRY KASPAROV, HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION NEW YORK CHAIRMAN: But the moment you say tapes, it reminds people of Richard Nixon.
BARTIROMO: You're right.
KASPAROV: And it says - I just followed what Ed had said, there's no strategy. Comey's story is questionable, the timing, of course, but then receiving Russian foreign minister and Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office and allowing Russian photographer to make pictures that go around the world. That's - this -
BARTIROMO: That was insane.
KASPAROV: People start combining it. By the way, receiving Kissinger at the same time. You want more connections to Nixon, you receive Kissinger. So, it created - it created an atmosphere of suspicion, and of course, because we have the story with this ongoing investigation, so people are just trying to put one-on-one together, and it looks very bad for the White House.
BARTIROMO: Now, you made a good point during the commercial break that on the same day that he met with Russians, he also met with the head of - the Ukraine Ambassador.
KASPAROV: But nobody knows about it.
BARTIROMO: Why not?
KASPAROV: It's amazingly that it's compared to Obama administration, Trump administration is doing some right things about Ukraine but is kind of a secret. I don't know why, this is a good thing, this is the right things to do, and maybe, you know, they didn't want to upset Russians in public. We don't know. But it's amazing that bad things are publicized, good things --
ROLLINS: So, what he needs to do is he needs to quit looking back. He won the presidency, she won 3 million more votes, that's not going to change. Commissions (INAUDIBLE) the rest of it. He basically has to focus on the future. And this next week, these foreign leaders will look him in the eye and they're going to make a judgment, and the judgment had better be that he -- this is a significant leader, he can take this country in a new direction. And I think if he doesn't do that, it fails on that front because he's distracted by all the rest of this stuff, it'll be a terrible, terrible month here, and I think it's very key at this point.
BARTIROMO: And he's going to be meeting with the King of Saudi Arabia, and the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.
ROLLINS: And the leaders of Israel which are very important.
BARTIROMO: And -- yes, of course.
ROLLINS: And then - and then you follow up with NATO. I mean, it's just - - this is going to be a measurement week. The leaders are going to look him in the eye, and make a judgment on him.
KASPAROV: But it's also important to remember that the American credibility has been so severely damaged by the Obama administration, and now, there was an opportunity to restore it and Trump so far is missing so many good moments to actually show the leadership and to demonstrate that America is back in the world stage.
ROLLINS: Three weeks ago when he fired the missiles at Syria -
BARTIROMO: That was maybe his best week.
ROLLINS: It was his best week. And people basically said, this is a new game, a strong leader, we need to take him seriously. And my sense is this week's stumbling around, blaming your staff, all the rest of it, and talking about getting rid of your staff, is absurd at this point in time. Right now, focus on your foreign trip, talk about what you wanted to accomplish and come back with a victory.
BARTIROMO: Turn the conversation into what you're going to do.
ROLLINS: What you're going to do.
BARTIROMO: And why you're on this first international trip as President and why you chose Israel than Saudi Arabia first.
ROLLINS: Absolutely. Absolutely.
BARTIROMO: Great conversation, guys. Thank you so much.
ROLLINS: Great. Thank you very much.
BARTIROMO: Garry Kasparov, Ed Rollins, joining us. That'll do it for us on "Sunday Morning Futures." I'll see you tomorrow morning on the Fox Business Network, "Mornings With Maria" 6:00 a.m. Eastern. Have a great Mother's Day, everybody.
Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.