Rep. Gowdy on possibility McCabe leaked information to media

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," March 4, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Good Sunday morning everybody. Thanks for joining us. The world responds to President Trump's tough talk on trade. The former Deputy Director of the FBI goes under the microscope and Congress grapples with what to do about gun control. Good morning. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Thanks for joining us. This is SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES. There are new reports this morning that the Justice Department I.G., Inspector General is set to fault ex-FBI Director Andrew McCabe for leaks to the press in the Hillary Clinton e-mail probe. Is it one more example of corruption at the top of the FBI? House Intel and Judiciary Committee Member and the Chairman of Oversight Trey Gowdy will join me live coming up along with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. President Trump talks tough on trade but what impacts will these new tariffs on steel and aluminum have on American jobs and the economy? I'll talk live with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross who himself a former steel executive. And then in the wake of that deadly Florida high school shooting spree, are changes coming to U.S. gun laws? Former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly is with me live this morning as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES.

President Trump continues his tough talk on trade with a new threat of higher taxes on vehicles made in Europe. This comes after the E.U. and some members from his own party condemned last week's announcement that they plan to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports. On Friday, the president defended his decision tweeting this. When a country is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good and easy to win. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross joins me right now. Good to see you, Secretary. Thanks very much for joining us this morning.


BARTIROMO: What -- so do you agree with that, trade wars are good?

ROSS: Well, I think what the president was saying was that because we have the big deficit and the other sides have big games from trade, they have much more to lose in the trade war than we do.

BARTIROMO: OK. I want to point your attention to that Op-Ed out of the Wall Street Journal on Friday, Secretary Ross because the obvious title is Trump's tariff Folly, and obviously the journal is against this move, writing this. This is going to punish American workers, invite retaliation that will harm U.S. exports, divide political coalition at home, anger allies abroad and undermine his tax and regulatory reforms, pointing of course to the market reaction when the Dow was down 1.7 percent on this news. What are people missing?

ROSS: Well, let's go through the points that they made. Europe has announced some retaliations in its own some $3 billion worth of product. That's a tiny fraction of one percent. So while it may be painful for those particular companies, in the overall scheme of things, it doesn't mean very much of anything. Similarly, in terms of the inflationary impact, we're talking about a total of $9 billion of tariffs. That's about one-half of one percent of the economy. So this business that the sky is falling is just silly.

BARTIROMO: What about the industries that use steel? I mean, you yourself were an executive in the steel industry and saw the impact first hand. The Journal writes that steel using industries in the U.S. employ 6.5 million Americans while steelmakers employ 140,000. So the impact on those in putting steel is a lot bigger than just the steel industry.

ROSS: Yes, you need to put this into proper perspective. The impact on the cost of a car will be about one-half of one percent to three-quarters of one percent depending on the price of the car itself. The impact on a can of beer will be a fraction of one percent. Beer sells for over a dollar a can, impact on bumble bee tuna packages again trivial. So it isn't the important fact that there are more people working in steel- consuming industries than in steel-producing. The important fact is how trivial these amounts are relative to their business. That's the proper measure.

BARTIROMO: Are you expecting retaliation? Should we expect international steel makers, aluminum makers to start raising prices, start retaliating and putting their own tax in place?

ROSS: Well, I'm sure that there will be some kind of retaliation from somebody. You've already seen the announcement from Europe. I don't think the retaliation is likely to be on steel as such. I think if it is on anything, it'll be some little product in a key state to try to get Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan feeling some pressure. I think it'll be very targeted and that certainly was the approach that the Europeans took

BARTIROMO: Wilbur, can you explain the President's use of so-called section 232 saying that it is a threat to national security? Is that true that the threat from foreign steel is actually a national security? Can you explain that?

ROSS: Yes. Well section 232 has a very broad definition of what constitutes national security. It focuses a lot on economic security. And as General Mattis and others have said, economic security is national security so that's the big connection. Steel is only used in a small percentage of the total output in military goods. That's certainly true, but we're down to only one producer of the armored plate that's used in military vehicles. If that company goes out of business or shuts that mill, we'll have no domestic producer of it. Similarly in aluminum, we only have one producer domestically of the high purity aluminum needed for military aircraft and for satellites. The military demand is not enough to keep the steel industry or the aluminum industry going. They have to sell lots of commercial products. And that's the interaction that mays it important to do it on a broader basis.

BARTIROMO: Secretary, what do you make of all this pushback even from within your own party? You know you hear somebody like an Orrin Hatch, Senator Hatch saying this is a mistake, we hope the President reconsiders. Ben Sass, same thing saying, look, this is going to create upset among our friends, allies, who will turn around and retaliate, make things more expensive for consumers. At the end of the day, it's on the back of consumers. This is from Republicans.

ROSS: Well, in general, the Republican Party has been a free-trade party. Trade deals generally go through with a lot of Democratic votes so I don't think that trade is necessarily a partisan thing. And the 232 is within the President's power to decide in any event. It's not something that will be voted on by the Congress, so there are views within the Republican Party that are very pro-free-trade.


ROSS: And I understand that, but the facts are we do have a huge trade deficit. The facts are before we made all of these deals, including admitting china to the WTO, well into the 1970s, we had trade surpluses. The reason we now have the big trade deficits is we gave away so much unilaterally and then what we didn't give away unilaterally we tended to give away through trade deals and through very weak enforcement of the rules on China's accession to the WTO.

BARTIROMO: Well, I guess the President has spoken about a reciprocal tax. I know that when you look at somebody like India, they're charging 100 percent on Harley-Davidson. Why can't we do the same thing? But that can't be done by executive order, right? You -- that is sort of longer term the President would like to see a reciprocal tax in place, is that right?

ROSS: Yes, yes, that's true but I think the important point that he was making is that we're not in a level playing field and we are not protectionists. China and Europe talk free-trade and they practice protectionism. They have far more protectionists than we are. Take cars. Our tariff on automobiles is 2.5 percent. Europe's tariff 10 percent, China's tariff 25 percent. That's a funny kind of comparative advantage and free-trade, the theory is those countries that inherently make a better product and/or make it cheaper are the ones who will prevail in the export market. That gets very distorted when you have these lopsided tariffs.

BARTIROMO: You're right. It's certainly not a level playing field. Secretary, before you go, tell me where we are on NAFTA? I know you're just finishing another round of talks in Mexico City last week. What can you tell us in terms of what change we will see there? Justin Trudeau, just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Canada said he's willing to walk if in fact, he doesn't like the deal that you're putting forth.

ROSS: Well, we all hope that a sensible deal can be put together, but the President has made quite clear that if it comes to a done deal or a no deal, he's very likely to opt for no deal. He doesn't need to take a terrible deal. That terrible deal is how we got here. Take Mexico, and I don't mean to just pick on them but I have to give an example.


ROSS: Prior to NAFTA, we had regularly four to $5 billion a year trade surplus with Mexico. Subsequent to NAFTA, we had accumulative deficit of more than $1 trillion. That's trillion with a T. That's a very big transformation of the relationship.

BARTIROMO: It sure is. All right, Secretary Ross good to see you this morning. Thanks very much.

ROSS: Thank you, Maria. Good to be on with you.

BARTIROMO: We'll keep watching the moves which were expected next week. Wilbur Ross there. The Department of Justice's Inspector General meanwhile expected to criticize former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as part of its investigation into the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail probe. Is it another sign of corruption at the top of the FBI? House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy is with me next. Follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures. Let us know what you'd like to hear from the Chairman Trey Gowdy as he's up next after the short break. We're looking ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES right now.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. An upcoming report from the Justice Department's Inspector General is expected to criticize former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The report is part of the I.G.'s review on how the FBI and the Justice Department handled the Hillary Clinton e-mail probe. McCabe is reportedly taking to task for improving an improper leak to the Wall Street Journal back in 2016. Joining me right now is House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy. He's also a Member of the House Intel and Judiciary Committees. Mr. Chairman, it's good to see you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: What are you expecting from the Inspector General report? Your take on this zeroing in on Andrew McCabe's action and the way this Hillary Clinton email probe was handled.

GOWDY: Well those are three separate issues. You know I talked to Inspector General Horowitz a couple days ago and I know not to ask him what he's found and he's an honorable enough person not to tell me primarily what he's found so I'm a little amused that there's a leak about him finding a leak within the FBI. I want to know everything that happened in 2016 and whether Andy McCabe was leaking for or against Hillary Clinton. I think it's important for all of us to know. I do find it interesting that you and I work in a town where leaks are so pervasive. We have an Inspector General who’s not supposed to discuss his report until it's made public and yet you and I are having a conversation about what is in his non-public report. So I have a lot of confidence in him. I think he's going to find out what happened in 2016 with respect to decisions made and not made but I don't think it's fair to the Inspector General for us to guess about what is in his report based on media reporting.

BARTIROMO: But really what I'm getting at is people would like to see accountability, Congressman. And I'm wondering if in fact at the end of the day if it is proven that they handled the regulators, lawmakers handled the e-mail investigation with kid gloves and really let her off the hook while you have others going to jail for doing things in the same manner. So do you expect accountability in this case?

GOWDY: I do. I expect the Inspector General to issue a fact-centric fair report. Look at what he's already found. He found the Strzok and Page texts. Nobody else found that so I think he is uniquely well suited to el us all what happened in 2016. We already know that the FBI and the Department of Justice handled this case differently. We already know that Jim Comey had an unprecedented press conference where he usurp the decision away from the Department of Justice. I've never seen that before but we also know he sent two letters to Congress in the fall of 2016, both of which were unusual. So I think Michael Horowitz is uniquely well suited to put all of the public's fears at ease with a thorough fact-centric investigation.

BARTIROMO: Should the Attorney General be looking at this, Jeff Sessions? You know, the president tweeted out last week that he thinks it's disgraceful that Jeff Sessions is leaving it all to Michael Horowitz and the I.G. to look into these matters.

GOWDY: I'm smiling only because, you know, Jeff Sessions picked President Trump when he was a candidate out of 16 other candidates including some colleagues and even President Trump picked Jeff Sessions out of the entire universe of lawyers in the country, he picked him to be his Attorney -- his Attorney General. So I really wish they would communicate more privately as opposed to via Twitter. In this particular fact pattern I think Attorney General Sessions is right that the Department of Justice itself should not be conducting this investigation. I also think the President's right from this limited standpoint, I don't think the Inspector General himself can answer all of our questions. Some of these witnesses have already left the department which means the Inspector General does not have jurisdiction and there are other agencies like the State Department where Michael Horowitz at DOJ has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Maria, over the weekend, I'd counted up almost two dozen witnesses that the Inspector General would not have access to where he alone conducting this investigation. So I think we're trending perhaps towards another special counsel because of this unique fact pattern and the fact that there are witnesses outside the reach of the Inspector General.

BARTIROMO: So we should have then, you believe another Special Counsel to investigate these matters? How does one investigate itself frankly?

GOWDY: Well you don't. I wish that I had been able to grade my own papers in college and law school, but I was notable to. I would have done better first of all, but we don't put family members on the jury. We don't put friends on the jury. You need an independent arbiter, and the Department of Justice cannot investigate itself. Horowitz can. Horowitz is a fair guy but when there are two dozen witnesses that have left the Department or worked for other agency, someone else has to do it and I am reluctant to call for special counsel but I think it may be unavoidable in this fact pattern

BARTIROMO: Let me switch gears and ask you about the FISA abuse and of course we know that the FBI omitted a lot of information about the dossier, in particular, did not tell the FISA Court that the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for it. Here's what Attorney General Jeff Sessions told me two weeks ago when he joined me on this program.


JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES: Every FISA warrant based on facts submitted to that court have been accurate. They will be investigated and looked at and we are not going to participate at the Department of Justice in providing anything less than the proper disclosure to the court before they issue a FISA warrant.


BARTIROMO: Will we see justice here, Congressman?

GOWDY: I hope so. It's been a year. And you know, this is a unique court, Maria, and most courtrooms across the country, there are two lawyers and we rely on the adversarial system to arrive at the truth. And a FISA Court is just the government going in front of a judge.


GOWDY: So there's a unique responsibility, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. This footnote alone, this footnote where they go to great lengths to avoid mentioning the Democratic National Committee is dumbfounding.

BARTIROMO: It's incredible. Stay right there. Stay right there, Congressman.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am.

BARTIROMO: We'll be right back.


BARTIROMO: And we're back now with House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy. And Mr. Chairman, you were in the middle of a thought about that footnote, was it the footnote in the Democratic rebuttal?

GOWDY: It was. But you know, Maria, this Democrat memo, it makes me smile. If it were up to Adam Schiff, if it were up to him, it would have been haiku and not a memo because he did everything he could to keep us from finding out any of the information that was in either one of those memos. So Congress has proven itself incapable of investigating this FISA abuse. DOJ should not be looking into it. We need an independent arbiter that's either the Inspector General or special counsel.

BARTIROMO: Let me ask you, a lot of people have been disappointed to learn that you will not seek re-election congressman. You've been doing such important work, obviously, and you have been seeking the truth and we thank you for that, congressman. Do you worry that once you are gone, because you're not seeking re-election that these investigations slowdown, that we will actually not get to the truth?

GOWDY: Well, first of all, thank you for saying that. Second of all, I don't because there's some really good members of Congress, guys like Johnny Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, they're not incredibly well known because they don't drive drunk and they don't cheat on their wives and they don't do the other things that unfortunately you have to do to get well known in this modern day culture but there's some really good women and men that will be left in Congress. And the one job that only I can do is be a good husband and a good father so I'm going to come back to South Carolina and try to do a better job with that.

BARTIROMO: I wonder if the president decides to make a change in the Attorney General's office and would like you to be his A.G. if that would change your mind.

GOWDY: Well, I would tell the President, with all due respect that he can do a lot better than me and while I love that system, I love the justice system. It's the best job I've ever had. Unfortunately, I've been in politics for eight years and in the current modern day political environment, it would be a tough confirmation so I would advise him to pick a woman or a man who has a career in law enforcement that's never donated to a political campaign and never run for public office before. That's a unique job where you work for a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales, it has nothing to do with politics and there are lots of really good people not named Trey that he ought to look at.

BARTIROMO: It's disheartening to see how much politicization has gone on in government. Is it -- how hard is it to turn this ship around given the fact that we know what went on at the IRS, the targeting of conservatives, we know what went on at the top of the FBI in terms of these omissions and the bias against President Trump. How hard is it to turn this ship around in terms of the politicizations that has gone on in our government agencies?

GOWDY: Well it's been proven -- it's proven difficult for the last seven years. I haven't done a very good job of it. Maria, it takes three different groups in our culture to provide proper oversight. It does require Congress, it requires the media, and the media has to ask tough questions on both sides but it also requires the voters to insist upon it. And what I really hate is relativism which is we're going to judge this party by a different standard than the one that we judge another party. I think the same rules ought to apply to both sides and I hope the voters get to the point where they do apply the same rules to both Republicans and Democrats then I think we'll see the change that you -- that you reference.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will be watching. Congressman, it's good to see you, sir. Thanks so much.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Congressman Trey Gowdy there. Meanwhile, President Trump last week meeting with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle on gun control. Some of his suggestions include the expansion of background checks, that they've been met with resistance from the NRA. I want to talk about that right now with Ray Kelly. He's former NYPD Commissioner, Vice Chairman of K2 Intelligence and it is great to see you, Commissioner.


BARTIROMO: Thank so much for joining us. Your thoughts on getting our hands around school safety, let's start there.

KELLY: First of all, I think we have to give credit where credit is due and that's to President Trump. He raised issues that probably would never have seen the light of day, but for his speaking about it the meeting as you said, he raised the, you know, obviously better background checks. We need that. They're really woefully deficient.


KELLY: We need information about mental health. The states are not mandated to provide that information. He raised the 21-year age requirement to buy a weapon. These are all good. He even raised the assault weapons ban. So he has really added to the discussion. Congress is going to have to speak about these things. Now, there are no easy answers and I think a lot of those things that were raised are movements in the right direction that should be done. But is there an easy answer? No. There's 300 million guns out in this country.

BARTIROMO: There are 300 million guns right now out?


BARTIROMO: OK. So the reason that I raised this is because there were so many signs and signals when certainly you look at Nikolas Cruz in the Florida school shooting that were missed. There was obvious failure on the part of the local police and the FBI. Yes?


BARTIROMO: What should have been done differently?

KELLY: Well hindsight, of course, is 20/20. Obviously, the FBI has a pretty sophisticated system of taking in calls, taking in complaints and investigating. Something happened here, something fell through the cracks. We're not certain exactly what it is. If you have the local police going to a location over 40 times, that should have raised somebody's antennas to go and respond to it.

BARTIROMO: So that's what the NRA is saying. Look, don't push back on guns and try to impact our Second Amendment and try to change a constitutional right before fixing the things that were obvious failures.

KELLY: Well, I think you have to probably move in both directions. But clearly, mistakes were made. Now the Florida Department of Law Enforcement is doing an investigation. Hopefully, we'll know much more about this incident. We know that the sheriff down there has accused the school safety officer of not taking proper action, that sort of thing. We haven't seen the videos publicly so there's still a lot of questions about what went on there.

BARTIROMO: Ray, I want to get your take on this reciprocity conceal carry bill that's moving. The House had already passed it. Congressman Steve Scalise is among those pushing it. You have real opinion here because you've seen it running the NYPD, so I want to ask you about it. Here's Steve Scalise in favor of the Reciprocity Bill. Listen to this.


REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-L.A., HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP: The House did pass a bill, the bill dealing with fixing problems with our background check system. We also combined with it a bill that advanced conceal carry reciprocity. In other words, people have concealed carry permits in one state being able to have that same ability in another state with conceal carry laws that are on the books.

If you look at the concealed-carry population, these are people, by and large, who are helping us stop crimes. These are people who are well trained, and who actually go out there and help prevent crimes.


BARTIROMO: All right, this reciprocity bill obviously says if I have a gun and I can carry it in Virginia, I can bring it to New York.

KELLY: Right. Well, the requirements are so uneven throughout the states. For instance, I think there were 12 states that don't require any permit at all. If you have a gun, you can carry it.

BARTIROMO: Including Virginia.

KELLY: So it's unfair for instance to the people in New York State. We have a very high threshold to get a license, to be able to carry a gun.

BARTIROMO: But what if I'm just traveling. I have the gun in my -- in my belongings? I'm traveling across state lines.

KELLY: I think look, we want to use common sense. If you're just traveling through, I know people have been arrested for that and I think, we have a modicum of intelligence here but I think it's a bad idea. It also puts a tremendous burden on the police. Now, New York, is a tourist center, Las Vegas, Miami, people are going to come in with thousands of guns. What are they doing and how do they enforce the laws?

BARTIROMO: Well Chicago has the strictest gun laws around and look at all of the murders in Chicago?

KELLY: That's because the guns are coming in from the outside, from the surrounding areas.

BARTIROMO: So it makes your point…

KELLY: That's a whole other issue. Yes, right. Exactly.

BARTIROMO: Commissioner, it's good to see you this morning.

KELLY: Good to see you, Maria. Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. Commissioner Ray Kelly, joining us. We'll be right back.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. President Trump renewing attacks on his Attorney General Jeff Sessions this past week, after Sessions announced that the Justice Department's Inspector General would head up the investigation into claims of FISA Court abuses. Joining me right now is Michael Mukasey. He is former Attorney General himself in the George W. Bush administration. Judge, it's good to see you this morning.


BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us. Something about the president's attacking Sessions on Twitter is just an uncomfortable thing. Why don't they have these arguments in private?

MUKASEY: Well, that's a good question, but you'd have to ask the participants. I'm not an expert on that.

BARTIROMO: What's your take on how Sessions is doing?

MUKASEY: My take on how Sessions is doing is he's fine. He has pursued the president's agenda aggressively whether it's in drug enforcement, whether it's anti-gang activity, whether it's across-the-board, and I think that he has -- he virtually alone has been somebody whose carried through the agenda quietly but effectively.

BARTIROMO: You're right and he was the first lawmaker to support president Trump.

MUKASEY: That goes back in the (INAUDIBLE) but in the job, he's been doing a great deal at the Justice Department to follow and pursue the President's agenda.

BARTIROMO: But is he doing enough about the FISA abuse? Is he doing enough about the fact that we now know in retrospect as a result of all of these texts between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that they hated Donald Trump, they wanted an insurance policy should he win, maybe that insurance policy is Robert Mueller, I don't know, but we know -- is he doing enough to look at that and the way that they have handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation versus the Trump investigation?

MUKASEY: He -- what he has done is I think precisely the right thing which is to get the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, on this. And you know, Trey Gowdy was pointing out in the last -- in the last segment or two segments ago that Michael Horowitz is a person of absolutely an impeccable reputation and the reputation is well-deserved. It's more than that. He is also -- he also occupies a kind of unique position because he reports not only to the Attorney General, he reports to Congress by law as well. So he is in essence in the Justice Department, but not completely of the Justice Department and that's an important distinction. So it's not just the Justice Department investigating itself. He is -- he stands in a way apart. He's also on a personal level as Trey Gowdy said and as I've said, impeccable.

BARTIROMO: Having said that, do you think there should be another Special Counsel investigating, for example, the FISA abuses?

MUKASEY: I don't think so. The way it stands now based on what I know. First off all, I'm not a fan of Special Counsel generally. We have a Justice Department, the Justice Department can do criminal investigation.

BARTIROMO: Right, 10,000 lawyers in the system.

MUKASEY: Hey, if weren't, what is the conflict in this Justice Department in investigating that episode? I don't see any. You have a Special Counsel only when there is a criminal investigation to be conducted and there is some good reason why the Justice Department can't do it. And every time you appoint a Special Counsel, you're in essence saying well the Justice Department can't be trusted to do this and I'm not in favor of that.

BARTIROMO: But how long can this special counsel's work go on, judge? We've been waiting to see Russia collusion between President Trump and the Russians. It doesn't exist.

MUKASEY: Part of the problem here is that this special counsel was appointed in a situation where the letter of appointment was not consistent with the regulations that apply to appointing special counsel. As I said, you're supposed to appoint a special counsel when there's a crime and when there some reason the Justice Department can't do it. What the letter appointing him says that he is to pursue the investigation that James Comey testified about when he testified in front of the House Subcommittee on Intelligence in March of 2017. That investigation was not a criminal investigation. It was a counterintelligence investigation and the investigation is kind of metastasize into a whole lot of other things. The person who can kind of pull this in a little bit is the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who can limit or help limit Mr. Mueller's scope.

BARTIROMO: By the way, we now know that Jim Comey himself leaked, I don't know if it was classified information but he wanted something out to the New York Times, he leaked it. We know that there are 27 open leak investigations of classified data at the Justice Department right now, Jeff Sessions told me that two weeks ago. What's your take on these leaks that are happening with increasing frequency as well as the abuses to the FISA Court? The FBI took this so-called dossier to the FISA Court and did not tell the FISA Court that Hillary Clinton paid for it.

MUKASEY: Yes, the -- I think that is something for the -- for the Inspector General initially to look into and then to file a report and then if there's a criminal -- if there's a criminal prosecution to follow, a lot of the spadework and the fact gathering will have been done but I don't see appointing another Special Counsel to do that. So far as leaks, that is -- it is impossible to function when people are releasing information so far as what Jim Comey did. From what I can see, it was inexcusable not only that but the person to whom he leaked it. Dan Richman is somebody he's now hired as his lawyer. I don't know whether that's an attempt to cover what he did with the attorney-client privilege, but if it is, I don't think he ought to succeed.

BARTIROMO: Will justice be served here in all these cases?

MUKASEY: Eventually, sure because the press is on to this and as Trey Gowdy pointed out, there are a number of participants here. There's the press, there's the Congress and there are the voters. And this is out now. There's too much out now for it not to prevail.

BARTIROMO: So you do think that we will see some accountability?

MUKASEY: Oh, for sure.

BARTIROMO: And do you think that the beginning is with this I.G. report that we're supposed to get in the next couple weeks?

MUKASEY: That's the first step. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

BARTIROMO: You're saying, the journey -- it sounds like you think this is going to take a long time?

MUKASEY: I don't know whether it's going to take a long time or not.

BARTIROMO: How long will the special counsel in the Russia probe, how much longer do you think that goes on?

MUKASEY: I have no window into that and I don't -- I can't predict that. My own view is he would disserve his own interest if he drags it out to the point where -- there was a prior special counsel who was there for -- Lawrence Walsh was there for about three years plus. And it was -- and what everybody can see is that was a mistake.

BARTIROMO: Incredible. Judge it's really great to get your insights. Thanks so much.

MUKASEY: Good to be here.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate it, Judge Michael Mukasey. Coming up, the debate over gun control versus Second Amendment rights. Why the White House maybe walking back some of President Trump's suggestions on gun laws. Governor Mike Huckabee joins me weighing in next as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES. Back in a minute.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. And back to the contentious gun debate happening in Washington. The White House announcing President Trump declared his support for Second Amendment gun rights during a meeting with the NRA late last week. The news following a meeting with lawmakers where he expressed support for gun control measures opposed by the NRA. Let's bring in right now Fox News contributor and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Governor, good to see you. Always a pleasure.

MIKE HUCKABEE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks a lot, Maria. Great to be with you this morning.

BARTIROMO: What do you think the president wants to do here in terms of Second Amendment rights and any changes around gun control, will we see it?

HUCKABEE: I think the big question is when we talk about gun control exactly what are we talking about? Are we talking about making it so that law-abiding legal citizens who own firearms, who have never committed a crime, who have really no inclination to commit a crime, no recollection to commit a crime, are we going to restrict them or are we going after the people that we need to be worried about, the people who have mental illness, the people who have made threats? You know, if we're not taking care of the laws we have, I guess a lot of people are asking why would a new law suddenly matter when the old laws that aren't being followed haven't yet changed the course of human behavior?

BARTIROMO: So it sounds like you think the president is more interested in making sure in the laws that are on the books are followed. Obviously, we saw lots of failures on the part of the FBI and the local police in the Nikolas Cruz Parkland shooting, but you think that he wants to see change in terms of mental health, in terms of background checks, and perhaps in age.

HUCKABEE: And I think that's reasonable, and I think a lot of people support the notion that -- first of all, you mentioned it a moment ago, 40 different visits to this person's home and if that wasn't a red flag, that was a thousand red flags. The FBI had this guy, his Facebook post saying I want to be a school shooter, and they said well we couldn't find him even though his name was on the post. I mean, those are the things that we ought to be asking how did that happened? What I think the President is looking for is a way to mitigate what has happened in our culture which is violence. And by the way it needs to include a broader discussion of what is it that's conditioning kids to do these murders? Maria, I grew up in a time when we have lots of guns at my school, lots of guns. They were in the back window of pick-up trucks in almost every student's vehicle. Nobody murdered anybody at school. We never thought about it. But -- so what's happened? Well, one thing that's happened is kids are exposed to tens of thousands of violent acts using these very weapons that everybody says we want to get rid of. But let me ask this. Tell me what would happen in Hollywood if you said you can never show an AR-15, an M-16, a fully automatic or semi-automatic, either one on screen again. You cannot show them on screen, ever. You can't show people getting shot and killed, got to stop all that. They can throw paper wads at each other but no more shooting on screen. Would Hollywood accept that, would they accept a restriction of their First Amendment rights? No, they would go crazy. So when people say well the NRA is nuts. I hate hearing that because no NRA member has ever been a mass shooter, and I think there's a resentment among those of us including me who say we're not murders. You know, we want to defend ourselves but we're not murders.

BARTIROMO: Yes, and I mean, and there's also a lot of misinformation in terms of what an AR-15 is. I mean the types of guns that are legal and not legal right now. There's a fair amount of misinformation. And because one gun looks scary, people think that it is military style.

HUCKABEE: Well, and that's a real problem because an AR-15 is really a matter of function. It has nothing to do with it lethality. The gun I used to shoot with deer and other wildlife whether it be 300 mag is way more powerful than the AR-15. There's just a misinformation and people call it an assault weapon. Maria, if I take a pencil and stick it in your neck that's an assault weapon.

BARTIROMO: That's a good point. Governor, it's good to have you on the program. Thanks so much.

HUCKABEE: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Mike Huckabee joining us there. President Trump talking tough on trade, what is the follow-up to the U.S. economy? Our panel is up next as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES. Back in a moment.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. A lot to talk about this morning. Let's bring in our panel, Fox News Contributor Michael Goodwin is with us of the New York Post, also with us is Lee Carter, President of Maslansky and Partners. Great to see you both.


BARTIROMO: A lot of outrage and uproar over the President's trade policies on these tariffs on aluminum and steel and you say?

MICHAEL GOODWIN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well look, these tariffs are aimed at helping the people who elected Donald Trump. This is about the blue collar workers who have been marginalized, the manufacturing jobs that have left America. And don't forget, in the last campaign, Bernie Sanders was arguing for those people. Hillary Clinton actually came around toward the end because she needed to attract the blue collar workers that Bernie Sanders had attracted, so it was unanimous among the major candidates that something needed to be done to try to bring manufacturing jobs back. This is Donald Trump's answer.

BARTIROMO: The fact is, is that the trade deals that are on the books right now always have America at a disadvantage, Lee.

CARTER: That's right. And it's been going on since the 1990s. Since it started, people have been saying this is unfair. The reason that the President won the Presidency was Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio. He won on trade. He won with a promise to bring jobs back, so why the outrage? Why are people so surprised and why don't the Democrats have an argument or a solution if this -- if they knew this was coming?

BARTIROMO: Well, they're upset because the U.S. companies are going to raise their prices to merely match the tariffs, Michael, they upset because they think it's going to invite retaliation that will harm exports, divide political coalition and anger our allies.

GOODWIN: Well, look all that may be true but as Wilbur Ross said to you earlier, you know the sky is falling reaction is overdone. I mean, we will have to see. I mean -- because we are the largest economy, the retaliation may be more bark than bite.

BARTIROMO: But what is the answer? What is the answer to the fact that the U.S. has to face all of these tariffs and unfair trade practices?

GOODWIN: Right. Well, look, I mean, and I think this is Donald Trump's answer, that we are going to fix all of these trade deals. I mean, I think he has very clearly said and correctly said that these trade deals have cost American jobs.

CARTER: This president has more -- has such a high threshold for chaos. A lot of people didn't -- weren't willing to make this risk. We're saying it's too scary and he's saying I'm going to do it. And will deal -- and you know what, the question is, is he going to go as far as he's saying it's going to go or is it going to go somewhere in the middle? We've seen over and over again he lobs things out there and that people get really afraid of and then he comes back to the middle. This is part of his strategy and I think the Democrats need to come to the table and say this is our solution in a way that resonates with the American people. It should be a policy, it shouldn't be wonky, and it should be fair-based.

BARTIROMO: We will leave it there. Lee Carter, Michael Goodwin, always a pleasure.

GOODWIN: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us. That will do it for us today on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES. I'm Maria Bartiromo. I'll see you tomorrow morning on 'MORNINGS WITH MARIA' on the Fox Business Network. Join us from 6:00-9:00 a.m. Eastern over on FBN. Stay with us Fox News righty now. And "MEDIA BUZZ" with Howie Kurtz is up next after the short break.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.