Darrell Issa: Sessions giving credibility to probe of DOJ

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," April 1, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Good Easter Sunday morning! Thanks for joining us. Some Republicans say Jeff Sessions got it wrong by not naming a second special counsel. Is North Korea or Russia the bigger threat to U.S. security right now? And just how much of your personal data is being sold out on Facebook, Instagram and Google among others Good morning everyone I'm Maria Bartiromo thanks for joining us here in 'Sunday Morning Futures.' The Attorney General for now holding off on appointing a second special counsel looking into DOJ, FBI and Hillary Clinton investigation, but revealing a veteran federal prosecutor is reviewing allegations of wrong doing by all three. House Judiciary Committee Member Darrell Issa plus legal expert Alan Dershowitz and a former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins all on whether justice will be served. Both North Korea and Russia say that they can strike anywhere in the USA with a nuclear weapon. But which is the bigger threat is Washington faces a showdown with Moscow? Plus a potential breakthrough with Pyongyang, General Jack Keane is here weighing-in. Should you trust Facebook to protect your personal information let alone your life? The leak memos sparking a P.R. crisis this weekend at Facebook. All that as we look ahead on 'Sunday Morning Futures' right now.

Mixed reactions from lawmakers after Attorney General Jeff Sessions says no for now, to a second special counsel. Sessions instead putting U.S. Attorney John Huber of Utah in charge of reviewing a range of concerns raised by Republicans. They includes FISA abuse the claims, alleged unlawful dealings related to the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One controversy. Joining me right now to talk about all of that is Congressman Darrell Issa. He's a member of the House Oversight, House Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs Committees this morning, good to see you sir thank you so much for weighing in.


BARTIROMO: Happy Easter to you. Your thoughts now on Jeff Sessions saying no not yet on a special counsel -- for a second special counsel.

ISSA: Well I think the speed with which he goes sort of to this methodical process we can all second-guess. But the fact that he is going through a process that could and likely will lead to some sort of outside investigator but at the same time, going through and saying let's have the Inspector General look at this for what in his jurisdiction, let's bring a U.S. attorney who isn't tainted by the previous items. I think what he is doing is giving credibility to the fact that he is looking to the truth, not quickly trying to jump to something to find scape goats. He will, in my opinion though, end up with an outside entity that has to deal with some of the rotted activity of people still at the Department of Justice and the FBI.

BARTIROMO: Well I think they make a good point because the Utah Federal Prosecutor can, in fact, seek indictments, can bring charges something that Michael Horowitz in the I.G.'s office can't do.

ISSA: Exactly. What Michael Horowitz has going for him is he's been before Congress for decades, complaining about some of the problems, showing us some of the things wrong at Department of Justice including double standards for how they enforce harassment in the work place, other things of that sort, and so Congress should give him the benefit of the doubt that he's going to turn over to if you will be the U.S. Attorney, anything that needs to be prosecuted and he will get answers or he will get an outside subpoena, I have no doubt about it.

BARTIROMO: Well there's a lot to look at from the bias at the top of the FBI and the Department of Justice against Donald Trump to really handling the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation as a so-called matter not a criminal investigation, do you think that he is equipped to look independently at both of those two things?

ISSA: I don't think anyone or even a dozen people could look at all that was done wrong during the Obama administration. Remember, Eric Holder withheld documents lied to Congress about what his involvement was and was the first Attorney General, first cabinet officer ever held and in contempt and he is actually you know, still very actively part of the Obama network. He is one of the lead councils representing California and advising them on some of the absurd things they are doing. So we are a long way from getting to the bottom of a lot of it.

BARTIROMO: Well, it's true not just Eric Holder but now we're talking about new text messages that suggest a meeting at the White House of some sort where Brennan was involved, Clapper was involved and here you have these two individuals on CNN umpteen times a day trashing this President even though they apparently know well -- they were well aware of what was going on in terms of this incredible bias and is creating a narrative that Donald Trump had anything to do with the Russia meddling.

ISSA: Well, perhaps the best way to hide initially their own involvement with Russia was, in fact, to say look at Trump, look at Trump. But it is coming back to the -- there was only one passing of money that we can find to the Russians and it was through the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton.

BARTIROMO: Right. Exactly because they pay for the dossier which was used to wiretap Carter Page and the among others. Let me ask you this because there has been so much stonewalling. Do you actually have confidence that you are going to get the documents that have been requested? Your colleague and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee joined us two weeks ago and basically suggested he was about to send in subpoena for documents. Listen to this. Here's what he told us. I want to ask about the fallout.


BARTIROMO: Congressman, let's be clear, there 1.2 million documents. You've only seen 3000 of them. You've been stonewalled for five months.

REP. BOB GOODLATTE, R—VA., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We have seen some documents. We've see more than we saw from the Obama Administration Justice Department but we need more documents and we need them now. And we need them unredacted by the way, Maria.

BARTIROMO: If you keep getting stonewalled and you do not get these the documents, are you going to subpoena these documents?

GOODLATTE: Well the answer is yes.


BARTIROMO: And of course, now we know that the subpoena has gone through, the FBI has responded and Christopher Wray, the director said he's going to double the amount of people who are coming up with these documents. You laugh but you know the truth is I appreciate Wray in responding and saying that he is doubling the efforts. But if 27 people produce 3,000 documents in less five months, do 54 people produce 6000 in the next six months? I mean they need to get the documents.

ISSA: Here is the challenge that Congress faces. And we will leave aside who is in the White House. These bureaucracies have gotten very used to using the, 'we have to look through them, we had to reject them, we have to decide what to get' and so rather than saying OK, we will agree on release later but we will let you look at all of the documents in their original forms that are appropriate. They don't do that. And this is in fact, probably the area which the constitution needs to be tested because whether it was Benghazi or the Fast and Furious or the IRS. In every case, these institutions, these bureaucracies absolutely said we have to look at them first, redact them first and decide what you get. And then they used us a technique to drift and drag documents. I mean it is been a close to a decade since Brian Terry was gunned down in Arizona in the Fast and Furious case that Eric Holder was involved in. And we still do not have the last of the documents cause we only learned a few weeks ago that Eric Holder and his Justice Department didn't used word searches that would have gotten some of the documents we were asking for. So, yes, we have to have a different system altogether and it is one of the challenges. No president, no administration wants to say yes, we will look at the raw data, and yet if you do not have the opportunity, what ends up happening is you do not get any kind of real-time investigation and the guilty get away, they usually retire.

BARTIROMO: Right. So is there anything that can be done to get them moving. Because I appreciate the spirit that Christopher Wray is showing us by doubling the number people but the point is to make this a priority and send the documents unredacted over to the committee.

ISSA: Exactly. There's only one privilege that an attorney normally looks for and that is attorney-client privilege, and that generally doesn't even exist within the document we ask for. And there is only one other privilege of any significance and that is the question of was it communication related to the president covered by that constitutional decision by the court? These documents being asked work cover neither of those. In most cases what they're going to do is they're going to redact based on 'law enforcement sensitive,' this is a hogwash invention of the Department of Justice. It needs to be ignored. To be honest, my chairman is a is a good man but he's been very slow to not only issue the subpoena but to start saying no, we want to at least have in camera review of the documents in real-time. And if we can't get that, then we need to get into the court system not because it's President Trump or President Obama but because Congress needs to have the authority to look at things in real time and right now there has been an elongation. I'll give you an example. Each of those investigations I mentioned, you know Benghazi, IRS and a Fast and the Furious, they all took longer to get not done, than it took from the day of the Watergate break in to the resignation of Richard Nixon. That's a difference in the time it takes to get discovery and that's what's changing the relationship that the American people object to, where no one's accountable. You know for better or worse, Nixon was held accountable in the matter of months not decades.

BARTIROMO: Right. Exactly right. And at the end of the day for the IRS there was really no there was no accountability. I mean what ended up happening to people who targeted of those who they didn't agree with? Nothing! So you know and American the American people need to be able to trust their government, their IRS, their CIA, their FBI and the incredible amount of bias here has been shown. And now we actually know. The next question is how high up does it go? Was President Obama directing all of this?

ISSA: I have no doubt that Valerie Jarrett, the President were aware of what Eric Holder and others were doing. You know Eric holder told us he didn't text, he didn't email and he said this in under oath. And of course, as we started getting documents we found out just the opposite. He was very, very closely directing it. As a matter fact my favorite quote is on a t-shirt now for my staff about Issa and His Idiot Cronies. He was -- he was very active. And that's one of the challenges. Clapper lied to Congress and eventually admitted that he been you know not candid but outright lied. Eric Holder lied to Congress. None of these people had been held accountable for what is in fact, a crime.

BARTIROMO: These are felonies!

ISSA: Yes.

BARTIROMO: Congressman, stay with this. We got a lot to talk with you about from Sanctuary cities, in your state California, to the fallout for Facebook after this data mining scandal as a leak memo from a top executive shows, the shocking length the company would go in the name of continued growth and making money. Congressman Darrell Issa returns after a short break to discuss all of that. Call me on twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures. Let us know what you'd like to hear from the Congressman as well as Alan Dershowitz and Bud Cummins coming up. Stay with us. We're looking ahead on 'Sunday Morning Futures' this Easter Sunday.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is reportedly planning to testify before Congress. His company under fire since the revelation of a political consulting firm improperly accessed the data of millions of users. Facebook's public image taking another hit with the release this weekend of a leaked 2016 memo where a top executive prioritizes the company's growth at any and all cost even if bullies or terrorists use the site to take human lives. I am back with a Congressman Darrell Issa talking about this. And congressman I know you're a free market guy, you were a businessman before becoming a Congressman and you watch small government but learning what we have about Facebook and about the incredible amount of power these technology companies have, should there be better guardrails in place to protect user data?

ISSA: Well I think any time a company is essentially monetizing data, there has to be a lot more protection for the consumer. You know if you contrast Apple and Facebook, Apple has a strong tendency to believe in your privacy. They, for years, all the way back when Steve was running the company, they instituted protections that are well publicized every employee knows it. Meaning they get it at all levels from top management down which is going to reduce the chances of your data being falsely used. Mark Zuckerberg for better or worse, formed this company by taking other people’s data and if you will, using it without their full permission and that culture seems to perpetuate itself all the way into a many multibillion-dollar dynamo.

BARTIROMO: Yes I know but at this point what can you do? What can be done in terms of technology companies and their use of data? How can the public feel secure that in fact, they're not selling their personal information? I mean I did a documentary on Google almost 10 years ago. And it was -- we won an Emmy on it because we reported that Google would anonymize your searches after two years. Why? Why save my search results for two years that is mine? I mean when people go on that search line, you're putting in there your deepest secrets. Yousd're searching for things that you may not want anybody to know about. Why does Google save them for two years?

ISSA: Well, that was a fair question then and I think in the case of Facebook, in the fair question now is, where is government appropriate if you will, oversight and regulation and very much as a libertarian, I would ask people, there are two historic documents or laws that people are aware of most people agree with. Truth in lending, which allows you to know what your real interest rate is and it makes it mandates that would be understandable so that you give consent and people kind of get that. And then when we look at other consumer protections that we enjoy, including you know protection from under HIPAA protection from your healthcare information being used even by a doctor in any inappropriate way. As a matter of fact, the medical profession has to guard against the laws of that data in a uniquely more secure way. So do people agree with the HIPAA law the protection of healthcare? Yes. Do we believe in truth of lending? Yes. So when we start looking at regulating these industries I think there are good bill whether of appropriate and necessary protections for the consumer that the consumer is going to want.

BARTIROMO: Yes. I would imagine so. Really quick Congressman before you go, because it's your state, California, now you said Orange County, voting to go against the Century City laws of California. Will that go anywhere? What's your take on the current state of play there?

ISSA: This fight, both Orange County at the sheriff level and San Diego -- I'm sorry, Escondido where the mayor is leading the fight, these are examples where you have communities that want to protect their community and see the California laws that actually hurting them. And so, what was originally a fight with President Trump trying to protect 49 states from one bad actor in California is now within the state that people do not want the criminals released in Orange County, they do not want them released in Escondido. But let's understand, if you lease a criminal alien, they can go anywhere. So the only way to really protect America is at the federal level, but I'm really proud of a lot of the sheriffs who have stood up and said I'm tired of California tying my hands.

BARTIROMO: Yes, you are right. It's absolutely true. We'll watch that. It's very courageous. Congressman, it's good to see you, sir. Thank you so much!

ISSA: Thank you. Happy Easter again!

BARTIROMO: And to you, Congressman Darrell Issa. How serious is the President about pulling the U.S. military out of Syria 'very soon.' General Jack Keane joins me on that as look ahead on 'Sunday Morning Futures.' Back in a moment.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. President Trump freezing more than $200 million of State Department funds meant for recovery efforts in Syria after two members of the U.S.-led coalition fighting there were killed. And after his off-the-cuff comment during speech in Ohio this week that U.S. troops would be 'Out of Syria' 'very soon.' Retired four-star General Jack Keane, he's Chairman of the Institute for the Study of War, he's also a Fox News senior strategic analyst. And General, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thanks for joining us this morning.


BARTIROMO: We've spoken a lot, the two of us about President Obama pulling out of Iraq too soon and triggering a lot of pain afterwards. First, talk to us about that. Was that one of the president's -- then President Obama's biggest mistake in the Mid-East?

KEANE: He had two major strategic failures. One was pulling out of Iraq and the consequences were ISIS that (INAUDIBLE) over the Middle East. It was absolutely a joke for radical Islamist worldwide, all of their recruiting went up. And we all saw the horrible barbaric consequences of that. President Obama is accountable for that strategic failure. The second was the nuclear deal that we talked about many times.

BARTIROMO: That's right. So those were his two major mistakes. We'll talk about the nuclear deal in a moment, but first, let's listen to the President Trump in Ohio this past week. here's what he said, general.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Went knocking the hell out of ISIS. We'll coming out of Syria like very soon. Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon, very soon we are coming out. We're going to have 100 percent of the caliphate as they call it sometimes referred to as land taken it all back quickly, quickly. But we're going to be coming out of there real soon. They're going to get back to our country where we belong, where we want to be.


BARTIROMO: This concerns you, general. Tell us why? Is he walking down the same road that President Obama did when he pulled out of Iraq to soon?

KEANE: Yes, pretty much, but even worse consequences. Yes, I think you know, the President gets advice from people who you know, want to have the United States you know, pull out of the world and come home and take care about people and grow our economy etc. And certainly, there's some truth to that. But the United States is a global leader. And the reality is the president went to Riyadh last summer and stood there in front of 55 leaders and said I'm going to stand with you against the number one strategic enemy, the Iranians, I'm going to stand with you to put down and drive out the radical Islamists. Now, if we pull out of Syria, what we got on hand and what I want the audience to understand is how we end a war is actually more important than how we began it. You've got to not just win the conflict of the work, Maria, you have to win the peace that follows after that. And that's about stability and recovery. As it pertains to ISIS and Syria, there's 3000 or so fighters still left between Iraq and Syria. The leaders of ISIS are down in the Euphrates River Valley in the southeastern part of Syria. We've got to clean that up. And even after we do that, we have to help the region in Syria there, the eastern region stabilize itself and recover. If we do not, I guarantee you, guarantee that ISIS will re-emerge and it will be another jolt in the arm and the barbarism will start all over again. The second thing that will happen is we will be turning Syria over to the Russians, to the Iranians and Hezbollah, and they will encroach on Israel and it's a potential on the horizon between Israel and Hezbollah. All of that is the potential of this. And then there's this final thing which troubles me because President Trump renewed the relationship between the United States on the Sunni Arabs to stand against the Iranians and the radicals. He has done that. If he pulls out of Syria, he's doing the very same thing that Obama has did, letting our Sunni Arabs down. It makes no sense to me.

BARTIROMO: I assume the Saudis would not -- would not like that at all. So who is the bigger threat here, Russia?

KEANE: Russia is a major -- go ahead.

BARTIROMO: -- or the Mid-East?

KEANE: What Russia is trying to do, Maria, is they are trying to replace the United States as the most influential country that's outside the region in the Middle Easter. They have a strategic foothold in the Middle East like they've not had in the past and it's in Syria. And they're going to leverage this against our Sunni Arabs. That is the reality. They want -- they want geopolitical controlling influence. Why? 55 percent of the world's economy still passes through the Middle East.


KEANE: That is the reality of it.

BARTIROMO: This is really --

KEANE: And who influences that, is major geopolitical influence in the world. The United States cannot disengage. We did not choose this civil war in Syria. That is for sure. And we didn't -- we contributed to ISIS being in Syria. That is also for sure. We've got -- we've got to stay the course here and do what's right. We're not talking about a lot of troops here, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Right. Well, you make a lot of good points. You just said, 3000 troops, right? Is that -- that's the number that we're talking about?

KEANE: The enemy has 3000. We've got a couple thousand. The other thing is, we forget history. We stayed in Europe post-World War II, post- conflict for stability and recovery. In Germany, in Italy and Japan. We stayed in the Korean War in South Korea for the same reason. We stayed Bosnia and Herzegovina for ten years after the conflict was over. We won the peace in all of those conflicts. And as a matter of fact, in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea, we still have our troops there.

BARTIROMO: That is right. That's right. That's a good point. All right, let me move on. You're making so many important points this morning, general. Let me move on to North Korea. The month of May is going to be really critical. Not do we only have a May 12th deadline for the Iran deal which many people feel that if it's not fixed, the President will not renew the U.S. participation in that Iran deal, but then you've got this North Korea meeting. The President will meet with Kim Jong Un. How extraordinary is it to you that you've got the North Koreans meeting with South Koreans, then Kim Jong Un taking a secret mysterious train to Beijing to meet with President Xi and now of course, on the horizon is this deal to me with President Trump in the month of May. What are you expecting? Lay out what your positions for us?

KEANE: Well, first of all, the speed of which this diplomacy has moves has nothing short of remarkable and as largely due to one thing. And that's the Trump administration maximum pressure campaign and also put in the military option back on the table. And I'm hopeful this is -- this is real on the part of the North Koreans and the Chinese and it is not just a delaying tactic to advanced their technology which is what they've always done. But when I think about the framework for this, I think what will happen is the North Koreans will come in there and they'll want some concessions I suspect just for having the meeting because that's what they've done in the past. We won't buy into that. They will also way we want to denuclearize the peninsula. That's an interesting term that President Xi and President Kim uses.


KEANE: And what they really mean by that is they want to not just take nukes out of North Korea, they want to take -- dissolve the alliance between South Korea and the United States and remove the nuclear umbrella that the United States has to protect South Korea. And they also want to pull all of the U.S. troops out of South Korea. And then, of course, they want the sanctions to be removed. That's kind of their negotiating points.

BARTIROMO: General, it's great to see you this morning. Thank you so much.

KEANE: Good talking to you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: General Jack Keane joining us right there. Alan Dershowitz and Bud Cummins on the decision not to appoint a special counsel, next. Stay with us.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. The Justice Department dismissing Republican calls for a special counsel in the FISA abuse investigation. Instead, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has revealed that he has appointed U.S. Attorney for Utah, John Huber to see if a second special counsel is necessary to determine if the FBI abuse its surveillance authority back in 2016. Our panel right now to talk about this Alan Dershowitz a Law Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School and Bud Cummins is a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas and Partner at Avenue Strategies. Gentleman, it's good to see you both. Thank you so much for joining us.



BARTIROMO: Alan, let me kick it off with you because you're happy with this decision. You think this was the right call on Jeff Sessions.

DERSHOWITZ: It should have been the call that was made when Mueller was appointed. We should never have seen the appointment of a special counsel as the first step. First, it should have been done within the Justice Department, Investigator General, Inspector General, maybe Office of Professional Responsibility, maybe assign an existing career person to do it. Then let's see, is evidence of criminal conduct? We have to make sure we never confuse political sins with federal crimes. And I think this is going about it at the right way in a calibrated step-by-step way. I think it would have been -- look, the answer to having one bad appointment of a special counsel is not to make a second bad appointment of a special counsel. I'm against the criminalization of political differences wither it's Republicans trying to criminalize Democrats or Democrats trying to criminalize Republicans.

BARTIROMO: And of course, Bud, the prosecutor can bring charges, seek indictments and probably get results even quicker than a second special counsel would have.

CUMMINS: I think the last point, the time element is, it should not be ignored. The appointment of the special counsel almost inherently adds a lot of time to these processes. But I agree with the Professor Dershowitz, this is exactly the right call by the Attorney General. What he's trying to do is restore credibility to the process and really, I see no reason for the appointment of special counsel right now. Apparently, he does not either. And so he has appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber to evaluate it and make a report to him and see if he is missing something.

BARTIROMO: But how can you make the American people who are looking for justice, feel content in all of this? Look, we know that there were two side-by-side investigations going on during the 2016 election. One was on Hillary Clinton, one was on Donald Trump. They created this narrative that there would be collusion between Trump and the Russians. We never saw any evidence of such a thing. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton with all her e-mail and the scandal of having emails all over the place, classified emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop for heaven's sake, and that was just called 'call it a matterxx' not a criminal investigation. Is Hillary Clinton above the law, Alan?

DERSHOWITZ: No, of course, no one is above the law but we do have absolute equality when it comes to Republicans investigating Democrats and Democrats investigating Republicans. One reason that I suggested right from the beginning, the appointment of a nonpartisan commission of inquiry to look into the whole election. The election has real problems, not who got elected, not whether it had an influence on the election but the Russian attempt to influence the election, these are issues that should be investigated in a nonpartisan way. What Americans do not want to hear is one standard for the Republicans, one standard for the Democrats. That's what really creates problems of lack of credibility in the justice system.

BARTIROMO: So assess Robert Mueller then because so far, the charges that he has brought down, well, it was 13 Russians, OK, we know that, but then there was you know, Paul Manafort, the charges there are completely unrelated.to what we are talking about in terms of potential collusion.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, there are three categories of investigations going on. It's important to keep them separately. One investigating the president's constitutionally authorized act, pardoning, firing, that clearly would create a constitutional conflict that we went there. Then there's the purely private acts of the president. The allegations by women, business allegations, those it seems to me are beyond the scope for the special counsel. And then there is the hybrid acts of collusion, the emoluments, but I think they haven't failed -- I think they failed to really understand what a constitutional conflict we would have if a president were ever charged with a crime or with impeachable conduct for simply exercising his constitutional authority.

BARTIROMO: Well, Bud, what about that? I mean, is there a larger plan here in place that the Democrats want to take back the House, have Robert Mueller come up with some charges and then give it to Congress so that they can move to impeach President Trump?

CUMMINS: Yes, it's all politics. And the Professor Dershowitz called it criminalization of politics. I call it the weaponization of politics. This idea that we have to seek a criminal prosecutor on someone every time they're alleged to have committed some wrongdoing is wrongheaded. And to do it in the special prosecutor process really compounds the problem because it takes away the secrecy and discretion that a typical investigation. You know, most of the time we investigate people when I was a prosecutor, you did not know about it and they might not know about it until they were charged. And sometimes there's a decision not to charge and that secrecy has protected their reputation because they don't -- they deserve to not have all of their information dragged to the media during the course of investigation.

BARTIROMO: I understand. But don't we already have evidence of wrongdoing on the Democratic side? I mean, Hillary Clinton, you know, the Clinton Foundation got $145 million around the uranium sale, selling 20 percent of the U.S. stockpile of Uranium. We know that there was you know, grossly negligent approach to her e-mail.

DERSHOWITZ: But there's an enormous difference between political sins and crimes. I would be just as much against the cries of lock her up, lock her up as I was against Bill Clinton's impeachment. We have to be neutral. I do not want us to be criminalization whether it's directly against Republicans or directed against Democrats. My friends do not understand that. My liberal colleagues, my colleagues do not understand that. They think I've suddenly become a Conservative Republican supporter of Trump. I voted for Hillary Clinton. I'm trying my best just to have a neutral approach to criminal justice.

BARTIROMO: And I'm sure you're really doing a really good job at it but I know that already the conversation leaked between Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador, leaking that was a felony. We have evidence of felonies here, guys. That's what I'm trying to understand. How come we don't see justice, Bud?

CUMMINS: Well, it's difficult because you know, frankly, I would hate to see the Department of Justice under the Trump administration attempt to go prosecute Hillary Clinton for instance unless it was just a laydown, clear-cut, violation because it would -- it would feed the narrative that it was all political. Professor Dershowitz makes a good point. Perhaps we ought to explore a commission because what we really need is the truth. We need to know if bribes were paid to the Foundation because of her position of Secretary of State and candidate for president. We need to know what happened in some of these instances. It's not necessarily imperative that Hillary Clinton sits in a jail cell.

DERSHOWITZ: I completely -- I completely agree. You know, right now we have Republican truth, we have Democrat truth, we need to get to the nonpartisan truth. We need to know what the Russians actually did. We need to know how to stop them from doing it. We need to make sure that what happened with e-mails never happens again. We need to make sure that all of these sins are not repeated. And the worst way to do it is in secrecy behind closed doors with a special counsel in front of a grand jury where we never learn anything.

BARTIROMO: Which is why Robert Mueller's investigation is continuing and people are questioning it. Gentleman, stay with us. We're going to take a short break and then continue this conversation as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES. We'll be right back.


BARTIROMO: And I'm back with Bud Cummins and Alan Dershowitz. You both agree that a second special counsel, not a good idea. What should the President do at this point?

DERSHOWITZ: The president should under no circumstances testify about allegations concerning about his private sex life. That's what Clinton did, he has walked into a perjury trap, that's what got him impeached. He should be preparing to defend himself against constitutionally authorized acts. He should be preparing right now a big constitutional defense and he should try to testify as little as possible and as constrained a manner as possible.

BARTIROMO: Because the evidence is right in front of us but I mean when you look at the Department of Justice, you believe they can handle all of these cases independently and you don't -- you think with the people who have been fired that the cleanout has begun.

CUMMINS: Well, yes. And I believe they have a tradition of operating in a neutral, nonpartisan fashion. Apparently, this has been a stumble with McCabe and his crew but they live on credibility. When they come to drag your mom and your dad or your brother, your sister, often take them to jail, you have to believe that their doing it because they believe that that person has committed a crime, not for political reasons. They have to restore their credibility. That is what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. And I hope that the other two branches of government stay out of it. I hope that they let him do his job.

BARTIROMO: Well, I mean, look, even Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the Judiciary said this is a handful of people who were incredibly biased and who just wanted to abuse their power, Alan.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, we have to make sure that the American restores the credibility of the justice. There is no department more important to the credibility of America than the justice under law, that objective justice for both sides. We have -- we have begun to lose that and we have to restore it.

BARTIROMO: You would think both sides of the aisle agree with that?

DERSHOWITZ: In abstract, they do, but nobody wants justice with a political opponents. That is the problem. Everybody wants justice for themselves and their perfectly happy to see the roles of the law stretched when it comes to their political opponents so they have to have one standard.

BARTIROMO: Really important conversation. Thank you both for your insights. I appreciate it. Bud Cummins, Alan Dershowitz, great to see you.

DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. President Trump is doubling down on his promise to build that wall. He just sent out a new tweet this morning reacting to hot-button issues. How will this go over with voters ahead of the midterms? Our political panel is next. Stay with us as we look ahead on 'Sunday Morning Futures.'


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. President Trump touting his infrastructure plan in a campaign-style speech on Thursday. He renewed his vow to make good on one of his big campaign promises, building the wall. Brad Blakeman, former Deputy Assistant to President George W. Bush is here along with Ed Rollins, former White House Adviser to President Reagan and a Fox News contributor. Time for the panel. Good to see you guys.


BARTIROMO: The president on his infrastructure plan, good idea?

ROLLINS: It's great idea. It just wasn't so very well the other day. He's got to sell this plan because otherwise, it's not going to happen. Congress is going to divide it up. There's no -- there's no unanimity before today and it's a very, very critical thing to get jobs going and I think he just has to knock it off (INAUDIBLE). He can't be talking about Syria, he can't be talking about North Korea, South Korea. When you're making infrastructure, you have to talk about infrastructure.

BARTIROMO: You are right because this is something that's needed. But with all of the talk about no money, perhaps, I mean, look at the spending omnibus, $1.3 trillion where the Republicans got their butts handed to them because it's too much spending. Where does the money come from and what about those people who push back and say no more spending?

BRAD BLAKEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, it's not money that we want to spend. It's money we need to spend. Some of the infrastructure goes back 100 years in our country. We cannot continue to have infrastructure that is not maintained or rebuilt. So we can be creative in the way we fund this. I happen to think that President should announce MAGA bonds. We should be investing.

BARTIROMO: The Make America Great Bond!

BLAKEMAN: Right, spread and amortize the cost of the improvements. Although a life of improvement. Why are Ed and I and you pay for an improvement that's going to last 50 years? Spread the wealth, private partnerships with public-private partnerships, there are a lot of ways to fund it where the tax payer today is not going to put the bill.

BARTIROMO: I like this idea, by the way. But the President says, it's only $200 billion only, $200 billion in federal funding, the rest should come from the private sector.

ROLLINS: But the problem is ever since the interstate highway system we built 40,000 miles, it was 80-20, 80 percent federal. So the states don't have any money, the cities don't have any money, and so you've got to get the private sector and you got to convince people that the federal government is really there for the long-term and will basically speed up the process of getting these things built and that's very important.

BARTIROMO: Alright, so this is on the agenda here ahead of the midterms I guess, infrastructure, possible phase two of the tax plan and possible regulation on opioids.

ROLLINS: I don't -- I don't think any of these is passed. I think Congress is done.


ROLLINS: I think they're basically --

BARTIROMO: This Congress is done?

ROLLINS: This Congress is done. I think they all got to start campaigning, Republicans are going to start looking at poles and they're going to see in trouble. And so my sense is you've got to just keep pushing, pushing and pushing.

BARTIROMO: Can they keep the House?

ROLLINS: It's a challenge.

BARTIROMO: Brad, what do you think? What's your prediction for the midterm?

BLAKEMAN: It's going to be tough. Look, since the civil war lost, we know that historically we lost an average of about 33 House seats and two Senate seats. It's going to be very tough to defy history. The good thing for Republicans is Democrats are defending many more seats than we are which means they got to spend a lot of money they don't have.

BARTIROMO: Well, look at what is going on right now in California with Orange County saying, wait California, we do not agree with this blowing off federal law. I mean, there's all of this happening on the left. I'm wondering if this comes up during the midterms?

ROLLINS: Well, it should. There's three or four seats in Orange County area. There are our seats that are competitive that should never be competitive but they are. There's seven races in California that are competitive and are all Republican. So at the end of the day, we have to get aggressive. We can't just sit there and let the Democrats define us.

BARTIROMO: New members in this administration, John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, getting ready to start. How is the President doing right now?

ROLLINS: Well, he's got people that he's kind of comfortable with. People who support his positions and I think that's very important.


BLAKEMAN: Political professionals, something he did not have with Tillerson, who is not neither political person or a government person. I think now the President is getting his sea legs and he's getting competent professional political people to help him.

BARTIROMO: So you like these changes? You look --

ROLLINS: I do. I like the changes. He -- it's important that I think the President has now decided, he know what he's doing in his job and he can do it.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will leave it there. Brad Blakeman, Ed Rollins, it's always a pleasure gentleman.

ROLLINS: Thank you.

BLAKEMAN: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us. That will do it for us on 'Sunday Morning Futures.' Thanks so much for joining us. Have a beautiful and blessed Easter everybody. I'm Maria Bartiromo. I'll see you back here tomorrow morning on Fox Business Network. Join me for 'Mornings with Maria' 6:00 to 9:00 Eastern on Fox Business. Stay with fox news right now. A quick break and then 'Media Buzz.'

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.