Transcript

Committees want to see Comey's memos; Rep. Scalise on future of health care, tax reform

Insight on 'Sunday Morning Futures' from Rep. Peter King and former U.S. attorney Bud Cummins

 

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," June 10, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good morning! A big week ahead, Attorney General Jeff Sessions set to testify on the Russia probe before the Senate Intel Committee on Tuesday, lawmakers digging to tax reform and health care overhaul and the blockade on Qatar for supporting terrorism enters its second week.

Hello everyone, I am Maria Bartiromo, Welcome to "Sunday Morning Futures." As Attorney General Jeff Sessions gets set to appear on the Hill Tuesday, Lawmakers are demanding to see James Comey's memos. Did the fire and FBI Director break the law when he helped leak them to the press? I'll talk with House Intel Committee Member Peter King coming up, along with a one-time colleague of Comey's, former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins is here. Also, President Trump's agenda, could the push for tax reform and the repeal of ObamaCare actually happen by September. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise is with us to walk us through the timeline, that's live. The war on terror, what role is Qatar playing in supporting terrorists behind the attacks like the one in London. One of the richest men in the world this morning tells us why the President Trump's tough stance on that oil-rich country could help defeat ISIS. We're looking ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."

And another blockbuster hearing is in the works. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is set to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee this Tuesday, going under oath to answer questions about Russian meddling in the 2016 election. His turn in the spotlight coming on the heels of testimony from former FBI Director James Comey last week, Congressman Peter King is on the House Intelligence Committee and Bud Cummins is with us here in the studio, he's a Former U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas. He worked with Jim Comey and is now a partner with Avenue Strategies. Gentlemen, good to have you both on the program, thank you so much for joining us.

BUD CUMMINS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Thank you.

REP. PETER KING, R-N.Y., HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Good to see you. Congressman King, let me kick it up with you. You being on the House Intel Committee, you want to see those memos from Jim Comey, the memos that he wrote about the President? What are you looking for?

KING: I think it's very important for us to see what is contemporaneous (INAUDIBLE) was. And also, to look at those memos and then try to figure out why he didn't take memos - prepared memos in his dealings with Loretta Lynch. I mean certainly, she seem far more intrusive into the Hillary campaign - Hillary investigation than President Trump did and (INAUDIBLE) General Flynn. So I like to see what he was thinking contemporaneously. Also, why is January 6 meeting he decided to do a memo is after he showed the dossier - he asked for the private meeting with President - at the time President-elect Trump, showed in this precious dossier and then James Comey felt he had to go back in and memorialize what went on at the meeting. I don't know why he then would distrust Donald Trump at that stage. If I were President-elect Trump, I would be the one wondering why Jim Comey showing me this. Is this in a way, you know to intimidate him? I say this is as someone who's always had a good relationship with James Comey, by having said that I was disturbed by his testimony the other day.

BARTIROMO: Well, I think you're right. I mean, I think one of the main headlines that came out of the testimony last week was the fact that Jim Comey was a leaker. He leaked data, property of the FBI to The New York Times via that professor, that's number one, that he's a leaker. And number two making headlines that came out of the hearing was that Loretta Lynch tried to obstruct the Hillary Clinton Investigation Directing James Comey to call it a matter, not an investigation. What was that all about?

KING: Obviously she wanted to downplay it and what was doing - really they were the same talking points as the Hillary Clinton campaign was using. So that was a - to me a direct attempt to inject politics into what was a criminal investigation. And remember, Hillary Clinton was being invested at that time, Donald Trump has never been investigated. That's something I would like to know what everything is leaked out of the last several months and probably 99 percent of the country thought that Donald Trump was being investigated, in fact, he was never under investigation. And that is what I felt most frustrating is being on the Intelligence Committee, we had known months ago that Donald Trump was never the target or the subject of this investigation and yet nobody tried - nobody on the inside tried to clear that up. They let this whole impression develop that somehow Donald Trump was being investigated. So again, I think, the memo would be interesting to see what his thought was.

BARTIROMO: Yes, just the opposite. They, in fact, wanted that narrative to go and actually pushed it forward.

KING: Right. Absolutely.

BARTIROMO: Bud Cummins, you know Jim Comey for a long time. What are you - I want to get back to what we are going to hear from Jeff Sessions on Tuesday but first, walk us through your most important points from that hearing.

CUMMINS: Well, like Congressman King I've been a long-time admirer of Jim Comey and I still am. I was very concerned at the beginning because I'm also a supporter of President Trump. But I just haven't heard the testimony and thought about it. I think Jim has overplayed his hand here. And he's raised more questions than he's answered. If you go back to his situation with Loretta Lynch, you've got to remember the dynamics here. The Attorney General is in charge of the Department of Justice, the FBI Director works for the Attorney General. It's the Attorney General job to determine if there's improper political influence and to deal with that. When he determined that he didn't like the way Loretta Lynch was manipulating the Hillary Clinton investigation, he just took the role of the Attorney General on himself. Well, really he's probably what he should have done. We need to look at what he should have done and that was go to her and probably offered to resign if she would not change her ways. Similarly he - instead of going to Attorney General Sessions, his boss if he was uncomfortable or queasy, he just decided to be the Attorney General again and write memos. Why didn't he how those memos to his boss? Or write those numbers to his boss and say I am uncomfortable so Attorney General Sessions could know what was going on and if he thought there was action needed to be taken and to take it. But for some reason, Jim has decided that he can judge who his boss is and whether to let them do their job.

BARTIROMO: So your issue is he should never have tried to fix his boss' obstructionism.

CUMMINS: That's right.

BARTIROMO: And that is what it is.

CUMMINS: I think because of his background and his reputation that he felt like that he could fix all of this. And I think it was a major mistake to do that and he's never undone the mistake and his credibility was really in jeopardy. Before he was fired, the Democrats who were accusing him of committing crimes, were using words like appalling and calling for his - so he lost credibility there and now he obviously - I think in retrospect, when you see why the President was so frustrated trying to determine what was James Comey's agenda over there?

BARTIROMO: Yes. What happens next Congressman King? I mean, in terms of your Committee on House Intel, are you looking into the way Jim Comey behaved at the testimony? Did he break the law by leaking information to The New York Times?

KING: Well, certainly it has to be looked into either by our Committee or the Judiciary Committee as to whether or not the law was broken. And even if the law were not broken, I'm not sure exactly how the guidelines put it. To me, it's really unseeingly for the Director of the FBI, the former Director of the FBI to be leaking to a third party memos to the New York Time. I mean, that's a - you know, man up. Come right out and say hey, this is what happen, this is what I'm saying happened. Don't hide behind somebody else and leak it out. It somehow creates the impression what was he doing when he was Director of the FBI? Was this the first time he ever leaked something? It seems like he know exactly how to do it. So again, it makes you wonder then about all those leaks that were coming out in December, January and February about President Trump.

BARTIROMO: Yes, what do you expect from Tuesday and this hearing with Jeff Sessions, are you surprised that Jeff Session is basically wanted to testify in front of the Senate Intel Committee?

CUMMINS: If I'm Jeff Sessions, I'm asking questions - the same questions after hearing Jim Comey's testimony. I want to say, why didn't I know what was in those memos at the time that you are writing them? I am your boss. And I think he is probably going to come raise those questions and explain that he was not able to do his job as Attorney General because Jim Comey was not for whatever reason reporting to him.

BARTIROMO: Yes. That's a really good point.

CUMMINS: He cut him out.

BARTIROMO: Congressman King, what you think about that? Weigh in here, what do you expect on Tuesday?

KING: I have a great respect for Jeff Sessions. To me, he's one of the most decent guys I've ever met in politics or anywhere for that matter. The fact that he wants so quickly to get out in the public stage, public arena and announcement happen, his version of what happened, I think is very significant. And again, I think you have the media and Democrats running wild here right away based on one remark by Jim Comey ready to almost indent Jeff Sessions. He's a guy who has a record of high integrity throughout his career, he is totally open and so, I think what he's going to do is lay it out and basically say that he was doing his job and wishes Jim Comey had done his job and reported to him the way he should have.

BARTIROMO: You know -

KING: Going back, if he served so - yes, go ahead.

BARTIROMO: Yes, go ahead, now. Please.

KING: No, I'm just going to say that if Jim Comey was so upset about what President Trump has said to him about General Flynn, he should write to the Attorney General Sessions or said to the President, Mr. President, this is inappropriate. I think this is all exposed factor raising now here. Him saying, how somehow he's being intimidated or pressured or in any way threatened. Again if was, he could have set up and said something at that time.

BARTIROMO: That's what you said. That was his boss.

CUMMINS: Right. I don't understand. He was obligated at the time, if he really thought there was a problem, he go to his boss and say Attorney General, the President is calling me again, it makes me uncomfortable, you and I should take this call together and let's deal with it and let's tell the President if we think he's crossing lines. But instead, he's writing memos to be kept for what? It's not clear.

BARTIROMO: And where was the memo of Loretta Lynch telling to call it a matter instead of an investigation? For me, that's right there in your face obstructionism but he never wrote a memo of that. See, I think that's why Jim Comey was fired because he told the President three times in five occasions that he wasn't under investigation but he failed to do so publicly. He allowed that narrative to take place where there was some conversation and collusion going on between the Trump campaign and the Russians, that in and of itself is obstructionism.

[10:10:01] CUMMINS: Yes. I think - I think like I said, I think we can see now and appreciate more why the President was so frustrated with this guy. He was trying to communicate with him, he was trying to open a dialogue with him, trying to figure out what his agenda was and for some reason, Jim thought he was (INAUDIBLE) out there. The FBI needs to maintain its independence but it's not an independent organization, it's under the Department of Justice and he works for the Attorney General. And for some reason, it was clear that he wasn't really answering to anybody.

BARTIROMO: Right. So, real quick, before you go, Congressman King, what you want in terms of the memos that you want from Jim Comey? What are you hoping to actually uncover?

KING: First of all, find out what he was thinking at the time, why he did it and also to see whether or not he had memos with Loretta Lynch. If not, how does he explain doing such detailed memos supposedly about President Trump when actually it was 128 second - 128-word conversation we're talking about. And on the other hand, with Loretta Lynch, he had directly involving herself interfering with a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton. And why he kept memos and why he didn't on the other. I want to see if there's any memos on Loretta Lynch and also goes to all of the memos he's done on President Trump and look at them from beginning to end. Not just excerpts but his leaks from somebody, you know, to the New York Times.

BARTIROMO: Right. It's pretty extraordinary how politicized this agency has become Bud.

CUMMINS: Yes and I think that's part - Jim Comey has never run for office but he stepped into the political arena. I do not know he saw the warning signs when he did it and I think he really hurt himself when he leaked this memo. I think there was probably a reaction. The President hits hard and Jim, he hit him hard in the public and I think he reacted poorly to that and leaked this memo and I bet he regrets that. Because I think it really hurts his credibility.

BARTIROMO: We'll see about that. Bud Cummins, great to see you, Sir, thank you very much.

CUMMINS: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Congressman Peter King, always a pleasure. Thank you, gentlemen. How much of this has created a noise and a distraction for those trying to get an agenda passed? Coming up next, the push for tax reform and health care overhaul, could a single piece of legislation accomplish both by September? House Majority Whip Steve Scalise will join us on that angle. That's next. Follow me on Twitter @mariabartiromo, @sundayfutures, let me know what you want to hear from Congressman Steve Scalise, he's on deck next. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back. The White House and Republicans in Congress are looking to make a new push for President Trump's agenda. Some Lawmakers now think they found a solution to help speed along tax reform and a health care overhaul at the same time. Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows says his colleagues are now in talks with the White House to combine the two bills and do it by September. Listen

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C., HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS: The quicker we can get these tax reforms in place, make sure that they're retroactive, the better the economy goes quicker. And so, whether we combine them or not by the end of July, at least we need to be prepared to do that and make sure that at the latest were looking at September but there is real discussion going on right now with that. Not as much in the Senate but certainly with the administration and others that are talking about it on Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: That was Mark Meadows on Fox last week. Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise is the House Majority Whip and he joins me right now. Congressman, it's good to see you.

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA., HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP: Good to be with you, Maria. Good morning.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us. So what do you think, is that a viable plan combining healthcare and tax reform bills trying to make that one piece of legislation and get out there by September?

SCALISE: Well, obviously we want to do this as quickly as possible because we know cutting taxes is going to inject so much momentum into the economy, create a lot jobs. We also have the healthcare bill moving through the Senate and I know they are trying to get the tax finalizes so they can ultimately get to a vote by July 4th. And I think both are important to do and to do them as soon as we can. The process is important but the policy is even more important. And right now, we're working on getting an agreement on best way to get these tax cuts put in place just like we did with healthcare, putting that coalition together is a delicate balance but we did it in the House on health care. We're working on that right now with tax cuts to cut taxes and simplify the code.

BARTIROMO: So just to be clear, will you accept what the Senate brings about on the health care bill? Are you done or are you going to have more tinkering or will you accept what the Senate delivers?

SCALISE: Well, we want to see what the Senate does. I mean, obviously we sent over to the Senate a bill that lowers premiums, that actually puts family back in charge of the health care, protects people with pre-existing conditions and it defunds Planned Parenthood. And I think we're going to be looking for all of those things. If the Senate can find a better way to thread those needles, that's great and that's what they're working on right now but those are the things we wanted to achieve in the House and we did in our bill.

BARTIROMO: Are you looking seriously though at combing the two bills to create a legislation that will lower premiums in healthcare, reform Obamacare, turn it around and also have tax cuts and tax reform on the table?

SCALISE: Well, I think that the Senate is a lot closer to a consensus on healthcare right now than they are in tax cuts but ultimately, we need to do both and we need to do both as soon as possible. I agree with Congressman Meadows that having the tax cuts in place and having them apply to the current year. In other words, retroactive is really important to creating jobs and boosting economy and we're working on all of those in conversations with the President Trump and the White House staff.

BARTIROMO: You probably have had the most success, you and your colleagues in terms of deregulation. Rolling back regulations that has already helped the business sector loosen up money and they are doing so and responding by investing in their businesses and hiring new workers. Let's talk about the passage of the financial choice act. Why was that so important in terms of rolling back some of the burdens that were holding business back from hiring new workers?

SCALISE: Maria, obviously you know this, Dodd-Frank has crushed our local community banks. It's made it harder and more expensive for first-time homebuyers to get loan, for small businesses to get a loan. It's increase the cost of things like checking. Free checking used to be common place. It's becoming less common now because of the unworkable burdens of Dodd- Frank. And again, Dodd-Frank was all positioned as some (INAUDIBLE) to go after the big banks. Frankly, Dodd-Frank enshrine too big to fail and bail out and it crushed our community banks. We're losing a community bank a year. Chairman Jeb Hensarling and his committee did a great job of putting a bill together that guts Dodd-Frank, returns power back to local communities and gets the weight and burdens of all of these regulations off of families so that they can go out and create the American dream again. Buy a home, create a small business. It was a great bill, we had a very strong vote and that's the kind of thing we've been doing in the House is passing bills to get some of these unworkable regulations off of the backs of people so that we can get the economy moving again. And you're already seeing very positive results.

BARTIROMO: Yes, I know that you are. Congratulations on what you've done with deregulation. But Congressman, you got to admit, the American people are just outraged by the calendar in terms of Congress. I mean, you've got - what you have, what, 38 days left for les1 in terms of actually working? How is it possible that you guys have the entire month of August off? Is it possible that if you don't get tax reform done, that you will forgo your August recess and you'll keep working until you get this done?

[10:20:17] SCALISE: Well, I've always been somebody who says you get your work done while you're there. you know, there are deadlines for a reason. It forces people to come to the table. You know, we've been working on healthcare and tax cuts for months now. And ultimately, you need those deadlines to force the folks that are still not there yet -

BARTIROMO: So you'll get it done?

SCALISE: - to focus and get the job done. We've got to get the job done. We've got to pass health care reform and we've got to cut taxes and simplify the code. Imagine if you can actually do your tax returns on a postcard, over 90 percent of Americans will get that with our bill. And you cut tax rates for everybody and repeal the (INAUDIBLE). A lot of good things are going to come out of this.

BARTIROMO: And if you don't will you not take vacation? If you don't, will you not take vacation?

SCALISE: We're just going to stay in and get it done Maria. That's a thing. You know, we're going to get the job done. We have to for the American people. And this economy is waiting. There's so much to (INAUDIBLE) let's get it done.

BARTIROMO: Great. Congressman, thank you so much Congressman Steve Scalise. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Texas following a brief with the Supreme Court in support of the temporary travel ban on six majority-Muslim countries. The state, part of the 16 state coalitions, urging the justices to reinstate the President's executive order. The Attorney General of the Lone Star State Ken Paxton taking the lead role in this effort, he joins me now right now live from Dallas. Mr. Attorney General, good to see you. Thanks so much for joining us Sir.

KEN PAXTON, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hi! Great to be back, thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Well, I mean, the states are keep pushing back and keep pushing against Donald Trump's everything. How are going to be successful here?

PAXTON: Well, how about the law? We think we're absolutely right in the law, there's a federal law that clearly gives the President the authority to do this. His travel ban is right in line with that statute. And so we're confident that the court actually follows federal law that the President will be just fine.

[10:25:11] BARTIROMO: You know what's incredible is that the success that this President has had already on this issue in terms of immigration, in terms of deportation is the number of people trying to come to America right now is weigh down. Already we have seen an impact from this President's talking points without even executive order.

PAXTON: I can tell you as a Texan, we deal with this issue every day. We've been dealing with it for years. We begged for help from the federal government and this President has more impact on illegal immigration in the last four or five months in any President that I've ever seen.

BARTIROMO: Tells what it is like at the border. I mean, there you are in Texas really seeing things firsthand. Can you give us a sense of what is going on at the border in terms of understanding who's coming in and who is going out and our vetting process?

PAXTON: So our public safety officials do statistics on crimes along the border in illegal immigration and it has been a significant problem. We've had over 500,000 crimes over the last five years from sexual assaults, to drug crimes, to assaults and what's great about this immigration policy, not just the policy but some of the plans for the future is starting to cut down on the crimes and also significantly impacting illegal immigration in Texas.

BARTIROMO: So this filing that - this brief that you filed in Texas with the Supreme Court - give us the background in terms of why you believe that you want to support the travel ban and you urging the justices to reinstate that travel ban?

PAXTON: So, we've been frustrated with this issue for years. We asked the Obama administration to deal with the vetting process. We've had lots of refugees from you know, terrorist like countries come into our state. We've known nothing about them. We actually filed a lawsuit about this and we were told that the federal government has control over this issue. And now that somebody is actually doing something about it, President Trump, now suddenly there's a limitation on his ability to do that.

BARTIROMO: When you say you have these people coming into your state and we knew nothing about them. I mean, explain that. What do you mean you know nothing about them? Do you not know who's coming in and out of Texas?

PAXTON: So, we had this Syrian refugee program. And I believe Texas had the largest number of Syrian refugee brought into our state. We knew nothing about them, there was no vetting that we were told about. We were asking for information, our governor actually pulled out of the refugee program. Now, these people were still coming in but we don't want to be complicit and participating in a program where we knew nothing about, people coming from a terrorist country and that's why we pulled out.

BARTIROMO: What you're saying is just extraordinary. That you know nothing about - you tried to pull out of the refugee program but they were flooding in any way. Who is in charge?

PAXTON: So the federal government is in charge and then these private organizations help them resettle. Texas participated for a long time but when we realize we had no control over knowing who these people were and the risk associated with it, our governor didn't feel like in good conscience that he could support the program. And so we pulled out so that we would not be complicit in helping potential terrorists come to our state.

BARTIROMO: Isn't it incredible that this travel ban was supposed to be only 90 days. Had they just gone with the travel ban, the 90 days would be over and we would be moving forward and beyond this at this point. How do you think this plays out, timeline from your standpoint in terms of getting the justices attention on this?

PAXTON: Well I think - I'm pretty sure they'll hear it. It's such an important issue. Usually, when the Justice Department asked for Supreme Court hears that you'll get the hearing. What's amazing in this case is there'd been I think 44 travel bans since Jimmy Carter. And these are the first two to be enjoined or stopped or even challenged. So it's really unusual that the courts have stepped in and tried to impose their own views on this.

BARTIROMO: Yes. It's really incredible. Attorney General Paxton, good to see you, Sir. Thanks so much for joining us this morning.

PAXTON: Have a great day. Thank you.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate it. Ken Paxton joining us there. So now, let's take a look at the Middle East. Cracking down on Qatar, one of the richest men in the world was telling us why President Trump stands on that oil-rich country could help stop ISIS dead in its tracks. We're looking ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right here, new information on the Qatar story next.

BARTIROMO: Welcome back! Big changes in U.K.: back in April, British Prime Minister Theresa May rolled the dice and called for a snap election in the hopes of earning a greater majority in parliament which would have eased the upcoming Brexit talks. On Thursday, that move turned out to be a major miscalculation on her part, as her party lost the majority in parliament. Now, her job as Prime Minister, actually, could be in jeopardy. Steve Hilton is the host of the "NEXT REVOLUTION" here on Fox News and was Director of Strategies for former British Prime Minister David Cameron. Steve, so is great to see you. Welcome.

STEVE HILTON, "NEXT REVOLUTION" HOST: Hi, Maria! Great to be with you!

BARTIROMO: Yes, and I want to congratulate you on your new show which is absolutely spectacular, we look forward to it tonight. What's your takeaway-

HILTON: It would be even better if you can come and join us here, Maria. We would love that one-time.

BARTIROMO: I would love that, and we are going to definitely set that up. Thank you for that invitation, Steve. What's your takeaway from what took place in Britain last week?

HILTON: Well, it was a complete disaster, obviously, for Theresa May, personally. She was - she called this to try and show that she was the one could offer strong and stable leadership in her work. She wanted - she expected to get a landslide victory against someone who everyone dismissed as unelectable, so it's a massive personal defeat for her and to her party. But the really important thing is that actually, it potentially puts Brexit at risk.

That huge vote, the British people took. That big decision last year to leave the European Union, that is now at risk because her position as leader of the party is vulnerable, there are people in her party who actually want to get rid of her. And even if she stays, they want to soften her negotiating position and call for what people in the U.K. describing as "soft Brexit." That means, that the U.K. would lose what still not have control over its borders. And also, that European law would still be superior to British law. So, basically, it would actually contradict and undermine the whole Brexit vote. This is a real mess.

BARTIROMO: It's a real mess. And I want to get your input on how it impacts the United States because that's real important. But first, let me talk about terror for a moment. The U.K. has seen three terrorist attacks in just three months. Obviously, the world is worried, and the U.K. is now in ISIS' crosshairs. I spoke with Naguib Sawiris, who was the third richest guy in Egypt, and he has been talking about the Qatar. Is the state of Qatar being complicit and basically supporting terrorism? Listen to what he's telling his colleagues in business in terms of getting their money out of Qatar. I want to get your reaction. Here's Naguib Sawiris.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NAGUIB SAWIRIS, EGYPTIAN BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN: I'm not just advising them to take their money out of Qatar; I'm advising not to deal with Qatar because we are all watching. We every day we wake up hearing a lunatic death or a savage person that goes with a car and kills innocent people; or a like0 in my own country here, they stopped the bus with children and women-shot them, shot the men in front of the eyes the women, and every day we hear all these incidents, you know. And nobody is doing anything against it, and we need to come to the bottom of that.

And the one country that declares openly that they support terror event in Lakhamas or other organizations that are deciding with Iran, openly, that all international service of the world have all materials showing that they're supporting all the terrorist and extremist groups in the Middle East from Libya, and Syria, and Iraq, and everywhere. And nobody is doing anything because they are the richest country in the world, because of their oil situation, and oil, and gas, and all of that. So, that's just - what happened last week is a wake-up call for Qatar and its leaders, you know.

The Arab - the other Gulf countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and the Emirates, all of them woke up now and said, you know, enough is enough. You need to stop doing that because if you play with the fire it will eat you up, you know. So, as a businessman, I also want to do my contribution. We can't just stay like that, and watch them continue doing that, continue of anything watching; like what's going on in Manchester, in London, and Paris, and everywhere, and nobody's doing a damn thing to stop this.

BARTIROMO: Now, so, you do equate what went on and the acceleration of ISIS to President Obama. You basically, his leadership allowed them to flourish. Maybe that was why the Middle East countries, the leadership- including Saudi Arabia-really rolled out the red carpet for President Trump when he was there two weeks ago. Do you think that was more testaments Donald Trump or is that a testament to they are happy for change away from President Obama?

SAWIRIS: I think it's both, you know. I mean, in the past, our excuse behind not going after terrorists, they were in (INAUDIBLE), and they were in Afghanistan. We didn't know where they had the hours, so we couldn't go after them. Now, we know where they are. They're in Raqqa, and Syria, and safety Libya. We know where they are, in the Iraqi Muslims and what do we do? Nothing! They place loose sight-seeing tools that are on the ground, and we have two chickens to go down and get it done. And it's a big mistake because they're coming to your doors. They're knocking at your door.

So, now, we know where they are and we don't do anything, you know. I (INAUDIBLE), no boots on the ground they would come to you, so I think the Arab world is frustrated because - and also during the Obama administration, we believe that the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood at best, utmost. And we believe even in Egypt after the revolution, to make sure that the Muslim brotherhood's come to rule and so, you know. So, people are frustrated of course, in that position because we believe in the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization with all of the people who are behind them, you know. And they command they-

BARTIROMO: Yes. And you think President, President Obama, sided with the Muslim Brotherhood before he sided with the Egyptian leadership? And Egypt was and is one of our key allies.

SAWIRIS: Yes. And not only with leadership, but even with the Liberal forces. We're not given the chance, you know. You can claim that the election in Egypt was fair; they were not fair, they were - the Muslim Brotherhood have been there for 8000 years, and worked underground, and were prepared for this, you know. And when the U.S. supported them, they became a not utmost, not abiding by the democratic rules that brought them to power, you know.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

SAWIRIS: So, it's the same situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: And that was Naguib Sawiris, joining me there from Egypt. I'm with Steve Hilton this morning. And Steve, what he says is important because that was one of the big issues that the Middle Eastern country, our allies, were upset with President Obama about because he blew off Egypt's leadership when the Egyptians really need us.

HAMILTON: That's exactly right. That was so great that you got that interview, Maria. And to set the position out so clearly, is incredibly important for us to understand and that's what has been going on for so long with Qatar and some others in the area who on one hand say that they are allies, and we have military bases there and so on, and we have cooperation on intelligence.

But at the same time, they've been funding terrorism; they have been funding ISIS and its Islamist ideology. And what you saw from President on his visit the other week, in that incredible speech that he made to so many of those Arab leaders was that it's time to have a united front against this Islamist ideology. And that's what you're seeing happen now with Saudi Arabia and its other allies isolating the Qatar, it's a really important development.

[10:40:39] BARTIROMO: Let's not forget that the U.S. has its main Middle Eastern military base in Qatar. So, you know, it in involves the U.S. as well. We've got a huge military base in Qatar, so give implications in terms of the United States. I mean, earlier we started the segment talking about Theresa May, and now there's a pressure that she's under. What are the implications there, and do see implications on this Qatari story and the U.S. as well?

HAMILTON: Well, I think the Qatari's story is a bit clearer and simple, and it's good news. If President Trump, really is showing strong leadership around the world and the world is responding, and that's great for our security here in America because it's clear now that the fight against terrorism is not going to be the sort of passive leading from behind; we're really taking to them, and that's good news. In terms of the U.K., it could be really worrying because it is not possible that actually, the outcome of this very election is that Jeremy Corbyn, who is the Labour Leader, who's basically, the Bernie Sanders of the U.K. but actually with a bit less charisma but he had a great campaign.

He could become somehow the leader of a government. He can't put together the majority in parliament but he's just saying this morning that he's going to try and vote down the legislative agenda that Theresa May puts forward in a couple of weeks. Who knows what can happen? It's a really messy situation. If you end up with someone other than a Conservative leading the government in the U.K., particularly, Jeremy Corbyn, he is anti-American has been his whole career. It's a really big change in the relationship between the two countries. So, I think everyone watching a better hope that whether it's Theresa May or some other candidate like Borris Johnson. Even though we don't have - that's not a majority; you end up with a Conservative-led government in Britain.

BARTIROMO: Yes. You make a great point. Everybody is calling him, you know, Bernie Sanders times 10: Jeremy Corbyn that is. Steve, great to see you. We will see you tonight on your show here on the Fox News Channel 9:00 p.m. Eastern. Steve Hilton, great to see you, sir.

HILTON: Thanks, Maria. See you soon.

BARTIROMO: Thank you. I appreciate it. Steve Hilton, there. Join Steve tonight, 9:00 p.m., right here on the Fox News Channel. A bombshell from the James Comey testimony: Loretta Lynch' obstructionism, telling the fired FBI Director to call the Clinton e-mail probes a "matter," call it a matter, not an investigation. Why that sparked such little outrage in the mainstream media, why? Our panel gives us their take. We're looking ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right now. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back! It is the bombshell that barely anybody in the mainstream media is talking about. Once again, James Comey, revealing how former Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Hillary Clinton email investigation as, "a matter." Let's take a look at this with our panel: Rich Lowry, is the Editor of National Review; Betsy Woodruff, is Politics Reporter for the Daily Beast. It is good to see you both. Thank you so much for joining us. He said that straight out. He said that it made him queasy, Rich because his boss was telling him just calls it a "matter", not an investigation. Your thoughts?

RICH LOWRY, NATIONAL REVIEW EDITOR: And he goes on to call it a "matter". Look, this is a very awkward situation for the FBI Director to be in, obviously, highly sensitive investigation of someone who's running for President of the United States. But this is my problem with Comey, both in this matter and his dealings with Trump: he never really stepped up to the plate. When he felt the Attorney General was telling him to say something based on political talking points: you can resign, he can go out and blow things up and say a Special Counsel should be employed to investigate this matter because the Attorney General is conflicted and has a political agenda-he never did any of that.

BARTIROMO: Now, if this were the other side. If these were a Republican who told Jim Comey, call it a matter instead of an investigation, this would be all over the mainstream media, Betsy. And yet, it's just this convenient thing that no one is talking about on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, New York Times and Washington Post.

BETSY WOODRUFF, THE DAILY BEAST POLITICS REPORTER: I think part of the reason hasn't gotten more play is that it didn't actually work, right? If Hillary Clinton became President-

BARTIROMO: No, it did work. He actually did do it. He suddenly opened the matter.

WOODRUFF: But if Clinton had won and then turned out that the Attorney General is telling the FBI to use a term that wasn't typically used-I think that it would get much more play. But yes, of course, this is a major new revelation and it's fascinating. That said, it's important for context to remember that in the month after that happened, Lynch seems to have realized she didn't have as much influence over James Comey as she would want.

The most important moment was October 27th, the day before Comey announced that he re-opened the e-mail investigation. We know that Main Justice, DOJ Headquarters, didn't want Comey to make that investigation - to make that announcement. But Lynch, herself, was really concerned about it-but according to the Post that she actually did not tell James Comey to stay quiet because she thought he would defy her. And of course he did, that was really-

BARTIROMO: Well, he did follow her orders to a tea and called it a "matter" instead of an investigation. What gets me about this story, Rich, is that for the last five months, the mainstream media has been going with this narrative that the Trump campaign had all these conversations with the Russians. Meanwhile, that was also fake news. And Jim Comey allowed the New York Times to report that and didn't get involved in it. So, we're talking about all this potential obstructionism by the Trump campaign, when in fact the obstructionism was from Loretta Lynch.

LOWRY: Right. Well, what we're seeing really is a not-so-subtle shift, away from the Russia's story to the obstruction story. And when Trump wrote that letter firing James Comey, every political insider scoffed at the idea that the FBI Director actually told him three times he wasn't under investigation. There were news reports written about how James Comey would never say such a thing, and it turns out Comey did really tell him that.

And I think what drove Trump crazy about this was not - you know, that Paul Manafort or Roget Stone might be investigated for a shady dealing with Russia. It was that his name was dragged through the mud. And he knew he wasn't actually being under investigation, and Comey wouldn't clear the record. I think that's why he fired him. And by the way, Trump would've been better served to be upfront about that rationale from the beginning.

BARTIROMO: That's what I just said also. That I think that's why he was fired because he allowed this narrative to continue without ever saying no, Trump is not under investigation, you know he told the President three times. The mainstream media has also been complicit in this, Betsy. Have reported this in the Daily Beast, about what Comey did?

WOODRUFF: I believe so, yes. We've definitely reported pretty extensively on the way that he related to both the Trump administration now and to his relationships with Lynch.

BARTIROMO: Did you find it stunning that he basically said, yes, my boss wanted me to obstruct in the Hillary Clinton investigation. That's what I mean. Have reported that on the Daily Beast?

WOODRUFF: You know, I don't remember for a fact that I've talked about that in an article but it's definitely been part of the context.

BARTIROMO: Have you reported it?

LOWRY: We have. Certainly, we have. But I can vouch for Betsy, she's a former colleague, and she's straight down the middle reporter who follows the facts readily.

BARTIROMO: Let's talk about what else we learn. Thank you for that. It's very nice to see camaraderie here. We're going to take a short break. When we come back, the President plan to file a complaint against former Director Comey for leaking his personal memos. Is branding Comey a "leaker" the way to go here? What's the difference between that and a whistleblower? And is there a legal distinction that could land Comey in court? We'll have that next on "Sunday Morning Futures."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: And we are back right now with our panel, Rich Lowry, and Betsy Woodruff. And of course, going into the firing of Jim Comey, Betsy, both the right and left were upset with him.

WOODRUFF: Right. Exactly. And not only that but also folks at the Bureau had some concerns about him going into that firing. Remember, the last public testimony, I believe, that he gave before he was fired was to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And he made a statement, the FBI actually had to correct. They had to write a two-page letter to the committee saying that what he said about - the way that who has said or shared e-mails with her husband wasn't actually accessed-

BARTIROMO: He said it was hundreds of thousands of emails which wasn't true.

WOODRUFF: Which wasn't true, right. I've talked to a former Senior FBI officials who's retired, who said if he made a mistake like that under oath before Congress, he would've been fired.

BARTIROMO: Rich, earlier in the segment you said, look, you don't like the fact that he said and President Trump lied, and that's going to have a big impact on the American people. But listen to what Betsy just said. I mean, the truth is, they're worse than people in the FBI who are uncomfortable with Jim Comey. So, the President's saying that the FBI is in disarray, that wasn't a lie. It was an opinion; by the way, it's not a lie. So, him saying the President is a liar, to me, made no sense.

LOWRY: Yes. I don't think the White House is upfront about - the reasons in that Rod Rosenstein memo that eventually put out had nothing to do about it. It was Trump's anger at being - at the thought maligned, and Comey not correcting the record. Now, Comey is a master manipulator, a bureaucratic process in the press, and we saw this in the light of day in the way usually don't. When he admitted he leaked this memo - gives the memos over to his friend, who's a Columbia professor, to give them to the media. And this has opened a major avenue of attack against him. And as one of your prior guests was saying, he made a misstep because he got punched in the face by Trump. He was stewing about it as much ordinary people would. And woke up in the middle of the night and occurred to him to do this. But this will be used against him.

BARTIROMO: How much of all of this, this whole charade of a narrative that the Dems have been pushing for so long that there was collusion. How much of it has been a distraction to the agenda? Will we actually see health care and tax reform happen this year? What you guys think?

WOODRUFF: I think it's likely the Senate has a vote on health care that doesn't mean it's going pass; it's going to be really tough to get it through. And in fact, if they have a vote and does not pass, it is likely health care just gets canned, gets put on the back corner until next year.

BARTIROMO: Wow! Rich?

LOWRY: It does not help. I think this sends a little closer along than people give it credit for on health care. But what the White House and every republican needs to realize: this is about the impeachment of Donald Trump. If the House Democrats take the House in 2018 and have any margin for error, they will try to impeach Donald Trump. And that's why the President, himself, has to be extremely careful because everything can and will be used against them.

BARTIROMO: That's a really good point. If they lose the House and it goes in Democratic leadership, then you are saying 2019, 2020 ---

LOWRY: It will be about impeachment.

BARTIROMO: Yes, that's true. Great to have you both. Thank you so much.

LOWRY: Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Fantastic panel this morning. They're all good for us on "Sunday Morning Futures." Have a great Sunday everybody. I'm Maria Bartiromo. See you next week on the Fox Business Network, "Mornings With Maria," 6:00-9:00 a.m. Here's "MediaBuzz" with Howard Kurtz.

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.