Sen. Graham on what a good North Korea deal looks like

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," June 10, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good Sunday morning everyone. Thanks for joining us.

The count-down is on to President Trump's historic summit with Kim Jong Un. Four days from right now, the Justice Department's watchdog will release a highly anticipated report about the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail probe. And President Trump has a message for our trading partners and allies at theg7 about fairness.

Good morning. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Thanks for joining us. This is "Sunday Morning Futures." Both President Trump and Kim Jong Un are now on the ground in Singapore ahead of their first-ever face-to-face meeting. The president appears optimistic going into the high-stakes meeting but what kind of deal is the commander-in-chief hoping to strike with the North Korean dictator? Senator Lindsey Graham of the Armed Services Committee will join me momentarily.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is set to unveil his findings on how the FBI and the Department of Justice handled their investigation into Hillary Clinton in 2016 and then heads to Capitol Hill to explain them. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte will be one of the first lawmakers to question Horowitz and he will be here with me first to tell us what he wants to hear.

An intense meeting between President Trump and fellow G7 members ends on uncertain terms when it comes to tariffs and trade. Canada's former Prime Minister Stephen Harper is here joining us live on what it all means for your bottom line. We're looking ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."

And the countdown is on until President Trump meets face to face with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. The two leaders arriving in Singapore just this morning. We showed you the picture as they are set to meet in person on Tuesday. Let's bring in Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He serves on the Senate Armed Services as well as Judiciary and Budget Committee. Senator, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thanks for joining us.


BARTIROMO: Pretty incredible morning this morning I have this meeting. Your reaction.

GRAHAM: It's amazing. It's a direct result of maximum pressure campaign. The (INAUDIBLE) in North Korea sitting down on the table with Trump is that they believe for the first time that they've got somebody in the White House they don't know how to deal with and Trump his goal is to eliminate their nuclear missile program not contain it and I think he's got North Korea and China's attention. And what would a good deal look like? I want to tell you this. Seven Democratic senators, Senator Schumer led the effort, wrote a letter to President Trump, I have it right here. In this letter, they lay out what a good deal would look like. Give up your nuclear weapons, give up your enrichment program, dismantle your missile capability, anytime anywhere inspections any place in North Korea verifiable. I embrace that letter as a good deal. Now here's my challenge. Telling the president the United States what a good deal were built like is very good but you got to help him get that deal. You got to help the President convince North Korea and China that this program is going to come to an end hopefully peacefully but there's no more kicking the can down the road. So here's my challenge to every Democrat and Republican. You need to help the president where you can, not undercut him. Writing a letter telling him what a good deal it should be is good only if you're willing to back it up with use of military force. There is no way North Korea is ever going to give up their program unless they believe nuclear -- military forces on the table. So I'm asking every Democrat who wrote that letter and all my Republican colleagues to tell North Korea and China that if diplomacy fails we will have the President's back, we'll authorize the use of military force as a last resort to stop the nuclear threat in North Korea to the American homeland and the world at large. And if we're not willing to do that, we're never going to get a good deal.

BARTIROMO: Because we know that pressure works. That kind of pressure, the U.N. sanctions, U.S. sanctions has helped. Look, you have to be optimistic about where we are right now.

GRAHAM: Yes, I am.

BARTIROMO: This President having gotten this North Korean leader to the table is good. But as you say there's a lot to do and a lot to get done so how do you convince this dictator to do just that? I mean, what are the practical steps in your view that this President can use as tools?

GRAHAM: Well number one, we're not going to let this drag on forever, that I want to win-win. I'm willing to sign a peace treaty to end the Korean War with you China and South Korea, I'm willing to guarantee the security of your regime. I'm not here to spread democracy to North Korea, to unify South Korea and North Korea, I'm here to end your nuclear program, your missile program in a win-win fashion. We need the Congress involved. Democrats never wrote a letter to Obama about what a good deal will look like. I'm really surprised they wanted to do it to Trump but I'm glad they did and I'm going to embrace this letter. I hope the President will. But how do you convince North Korea that America is different is to have the Congress having President Trump's back pursuing peace but let North Korea know that if peace fails, if you play the same old games of talking about giving up your program and backing out and building it up, we're going to use military force to stop this threat as a last resort. So put in place a mechanism for the next year to implement the Schumer letter.

BARTIROMO: This would be an incredible change to what we've seen in North Korea and obviously the North Korean economy so this will take structural change over a period of time. Estimates are that this country spends 30 to 50 percent of its state funds on the military, on its nuclearization program, correct?

GRAHAM: Yes. And in the letter by Schumer, they say give up all your plutonium and uranium. Well, if you're serious about ending your nuclear program, you don't need plutonium and uranium. We should be able to do that in pretty quick order. The goal here is to dismantle your nuclear program, give up your nuclear weapons and give up your ballistic missile program. In return get security guarantees and economic assistance. I agree with a Democratic letter as what a good deal will look like but I'm here to tell you and everybody else. North Korea is not going to change the way they do business unless they believe that the military option is on the table. President Trump, if he has to will use military force to end this threat to the American homeland. I want my Democratic colleagues not just telling him what a good deal would look like but having his back telling North Korea and China yes, even the Congress believes it's got to come to an end one way or the other. And Congress prefers diplomacy, supports diplomacy but we will back our President to end this program by military force as a last resort if we have to. If that were said, clearly, then I think we've got a good chance to get a good deal. If they're not willing to say that, then they're undercutting President Trump and really stabbing him in the back which means that we're more likely to have a war.

BARTIROMO: Well, you are portraying a very clear and serious message. You want your Democratic colleagues to get behind this President --

GRAHAM: And Republicans.

BARTIROMO: -- and Republicans to support this President. Have you seen that even a little on the left so far?

GRAHAM: No, I said this just a few minutes ago and everybody went nuts on the left. But here -- you can't have it both ways. You know, I don't know why they wrote this letter. They sure as hell didn't write one to Obama. I don't know if they're playing a game. I'm going to take them at their word that this letter actually lays out a plan I could support. I'm going to adopt this letter as the American position with some minor changes. Here's the question, are you willing to do what you can to make sure we achieve peace not war? The best way to get peace not war is to convince North Korea that they're going to be in a war and they will lose it if they don't pursue peace. Everything else before has failed. Nobody in North Korea believed that the past presidents would use military force. If they don't believe Donald Trump will use military force as last resort, the people in North Korea are making a very big mistake because he will if he has to. He doesn't want to. And to my Democratic friends, have President Trump's back. I know you don't like him. I know we disagree. But this is a chance to bring the North Korean program to an end in a way that's good for North Korea, good for the world, good for the United States. The least you can do after writing him a letter is to have his back in let North Korea know that you would support military force as a last resort. And if you're not willing to do that, you've done more harm than good.

BARTIROMO: Now, you would think that our friends across the world would agree with this sentiment. If we were to see denuclearization, this is a huge positive for the world.

GRAHAM: They don't.

BARTIROMO: But when we look at those pictures of the president with Angela Merkel and the other colleagues at the G7 meeting, it looks tense. Once again, we see our friends upset over trade issues forgetting the major, major most important issue we're dealing with right now and that is a nuclear North Korea. What are your thoughts on the trade story and the President insisting on these tariffs against the European Union, against Canada, Mexico etcetera on aluminum and steel?

GRAHAM: I will be glad to share that with you but I want to say something very important here.

BARTIROMO: Go ahead.

GRAHAM: The world got behind President Trump when it came to sanctions on North Korea. The United Nations, Russia, and China adopt sanctions against the North Korean regime because their missile program is getting out of control. They're developing more bombs and missiles that could hit the American homeland. So I want to compliment China, Russia, and the international community for standing behind President Trump when it comes to sanctions on North Korea. This will only work if the world will tell North Korea that it's going to come to an end. If diplomacy fails, then military force will be used. It'd be nice to have our allies say that. As to the trade dispute between us, Canada and Mexico, I was informed by National Security adviser Bolton last night before I went to bed that they had a good meeting with the G6 plus us, G7 that they had a statement they could support. The President was in a good mood. The Prime Minister of Canada for some reason went out and did a news conference basically throwing it back into the President's face. And the one thing I can tell you that Donald Trump will not tolerate as double-dealing. So I hope North Korea is watching this interchange between the United States and the G6. A good deal was had, everybody was on board, the Canadians went off by themselves, stabbed the President in the back in his mind and now we're out. He's not going to tolerate being treated like that nor should he.

BARTIROMO: Yes. I want to I want to get back to North Korea in a second but I want to say that I had an opportunity to speak with President Trump on Friday before he left for the G7 and he wanted me to make it clear that this is a negotiation with regard to trade. He's not done yet. He is in the middle of negotiating and he is going to get better trade deals with China, with European Union, with Canada, and with Mexico, so I want to get that out. He also mentioned to me that this has been going on years. He's not necessarily blaming only the Obama administration, he's going back 50 years to look at these trade deals that are really with the U.S. at the losing end of the -- of the agreement. So let me ask you this, how did North Korea come to the table? Do you think China was helpful to this President?

GRAHAM: Yes. I believe China for the first time saw North Korea is a liability. China -- there would be no nuclear program in North Korea without China. There would be no North Korean economy without China. There -- 90 percent of all trade between North Korea is with China. All their military equipment comes from China. What happened? Donald Trump came in early on and said listen, this is going to end on my watch. Everybody before me kicked the can down the road. I'm not going to try to contain the missile program, contain the nuclear weapons on top of a missile, I'm going to eliminate them. I prefer a peaceful resolution, a win-win deal to eliminate North Korea's nuclear threat to the United Nation -- United States and the world and I think China believes Trump. Here's the question. What the Democrats who wrote the letter outlining what a good deal looks like, will they support the President to make sure he can get the best deal possible by telling North Korea we're not going to play these stupid games anymore. If you don't take this deal, if we can't make it a win-win, we're going to use force and you're going to lose a war with the United States over your nuclear program. Survivability cannot be had by having nuclear weapons that can hit America. The only way you'll survive is to give up your nuclear weapons and your missiles.

BARTIROMO: And that -- because he was afraid of that, that was one of the pushes to get him to the table.

GRAHAM: 100 percent.

BARTIROMO: And it is connected with trade. I just want to mention this because what I'm also understanding is that President Xi of China called President Trump directly and asked him to help him with ZTE two weeks before this summit. So you've got a call from the President of China asking President Trump for help with the telecom company of ZTE two weeks before he's about to go face-to-face with North Korea. This is all connected. That's perhaps one of the reasons that the President thought he needed to do something for ZTE.

GRAHAM: I think you're right. I think the President has convinced China that North Korea is a liability, not an asset. China likes it when North Korea keeps us off balance and creates chaos in the world, but they would not like a war in China's backyard between the United States and North Korea because we would win the war. North Korea would lose and it would be devastating for the region and the world particularly China. Now, to help --

BARTIROMO: Right, Senator --

GRAHAM: -- to help -- go ahead.

BARTIROMO: Yes, I want to take a quick break because you're going to get the first crack at Michael Horowitz. I want to turn to that so stay with us, Senator Graham. You're going to talk to us next about that highly anticipated DOJ watchdog, the I.G. report and this upcoming testimony. Back in a minute


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. And I'm back with Senator Lindsey Graham. And Senator, you were making a point about North Korea, please finish your point before we move on to the DOJ.

GRAHAM: So the President of China calls President Trump and says help me with ZTE. It's a big Chinese tech company. It employs a lot of Chinese. They were found to violate Iran sanctions. I'd be open-minded to doing a deal with ZTE if we could make sure it's not a bad deal for America. Wilbur Ross is coming up with ways to make ZTE a more reliable person to do a group to do business within the United States. We'll see where that goes.


GRAHAM: As to my Democratic friends, you've laid out what a good deal would look like, there are three endings to how the North Korea nuclear missile threat piece where everybody wins. War where North Korea loses which would be devastating for the region but it would in their program, capitulation by Donald Trump where he just gives up like everywhere the president, the third one is not going to happen. So if you want to make sure peace prevails, then tell North Korea and China that is a last resort. You would support the use of military force. If you're not willing to do that, we're probably not going to have peace and you're undercutting the President.

BARTIROMO: Meanwhile, you are getting your first crack at Michael Horowitz, the I.G. The DOJ Inspector General Horowitz announcing he will release his report on the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation this upcoming week on June 14th. Horowitz has accepted an invitation from the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about that report a few days later. Tell us what you'd like to hear, that is your committee who will speak with Michael Horowitz.

GRAHAM: Mr. Horowitz, you have a good reputation. You've been in this business for a long time. Do you believe the way the FBI handled the Clinton e-mail investigation, it was on the up and up, do you believe it was fair, do you believe they were in the tank for Clinton and hated Trump, was it really a serious investigation or was it apolitically compromised? As to the FISA warrant, do you believe it was appropriate for the Democratic Party to hire foreign agent to go to Russia to get dirt on candidate Trump and the FBI and the DOJ used that dossier that's never been verified to get a warrant against an American citizen. I want to hear him say one way or the other whether or not the Clinton e-mail investigation was professionally done on the up-and-up and how -- what he thinks about the FISA warrant?

BARTIROMO: Senator, do you believe laws were broken?

GRAHAM: Yes, I do. I believe that Michael Steele who was the confidential informant used by the FBI and the Department of Justice to prepare the dossier was told or he told the FBI I'm not talking to the press and actually he did. I think he gave false information to the FBI. I want to ask Mr. Horowitz that do you believe laws were broken. I really worry about how this dossier was used to get a warrant on an American citizen. I don't know if the checks and balances that exist around FISA if they need to be made stronger but I want to know did these two FBI agents in charge of the Clinton e-mail investigation, did they -- were they in the tank. And the final thing I want to know, who is Andy? Who was the person called Andy that Strzok and Page met with to get an insurance policy when it came to the 2016 election.

BARTIROMO: Yes. And we all have assumed that was Andrew McCabe but we'll get more when you speak with him. Senator, it's good to see you. Thanks so much.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate it, Senator Lindsey Graham. We've got a lot more reaction to that forthcoming Inspector General report as House lawmakers are also preparing to question the Inspector General at a joint hearing next week. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte is next


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Inspector General Michael Horowitz not only expected to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee but also in a joint hearing before both the House Judiciary and Government Reform Committees. All this on his highly anticipated report on the Justice Department and the FBI's handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation. Joining me right now is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Virginia Congressman Bob Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: What should we expect from this I.G. report which is expected to drop on the 14th on Thursday? Well, I think this is going to be a very thorough report. It's been a long time in the making. I know the Inspector General has examined thousands if not hundreds of thousands of documents to get to this point and I think it's going to shed a lot of light on what the Judiciary Committee in the Oversight and Reform Committee have been investigating for the past eight months and that is this unbelievable bias on the part of our nation's premier law enforcement organization, the several leaders at the top of the organization in handling one investigation, Hillary Clinton's compared to an investigation into the so-called Trump Russia collusion about which so far there has been no evidence brought forth.

BARTIROMO: Exactly. So do you believe there were laws broken, sir?

GOODLATTE: I do believe that there have been laws broken. I think that the matter with regard to Andrew McCabe and leaks related to that reflect on that. But I also think that there are a number of other things that we have uncovered examining the Peter Strzok-Lisa Page texts for example that show activities within the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that I hope the Inspector General's report will shed light on and may make it clear whether or not criminal laws have been violated. But certainly one thing is very clear, and that is that the Federal Bureau of Investigation needed a housecleaning. The current a new Director Christopher Wray has been doing that. I think he's made great progress. And we need to make sure that this never happens again. We got the2020 Presidential Elections coming up in not too long a time and it's very, very important that the FBI has -- gets back to its protocols with regard to how it conducts investigations particularly ones as sensitive as these have been.

BARTIROMO: Yes. Devin Nunez came on this program a month ago or a month and a half ago and said we've done our digging and we've done our due diligence and now we know that there was actually no official intelligence used to actually launch an investigation into Donald Trump. And here we have the special counsel continuing. So let me ask you, do you believe there will be an accountability at the end of the day? You don't have the authority to prosecute, the inspector general doesn't have the authority to actual prosecute, so how will there be accountability?

GOODLATTE: Well, I think there already has been accountability into some extent based upon the people who are no longer at the Federal Bureau of Investigation including the director and the deputy director. But I also think that this report is going to shed additional light and put some of the pieces together because he's had the opportunity to examine more documents than any of the committees in Congress have been able to examine to this point. So we're very interested in seeing this. We will examine it, we will have a hearing. Part of that hearing will be classified so we can get into the classified aspects of his report but we're also going to have a public hearing so that the public can learn as much as possible about this investigation. And we will have the Inspector General there to answer our questions.

BARTIROMO: So what happens now in terms of the referrals of criminal charges? The last I.G. report from Michael Horowitz recommended criminal charges against Andrew McCabe, the number two Deputy Director at the FBI. This weekend Jim Comey has been taunting the President on Twitter basically taking shots at him over the relationship between the U.S. and Canada and we are expecting that there could be some real significant issues brought up about Jim Comey in this upcoming I.G. report. So what are your thoughts on that in terms of what happens next?

GOODLATTE: Well, two things. First of all, the Attorney General Jeff Sessions did a point United States Attorney Huber from Utah to look into the matters also being looked into by the Inspector General. He does have prosecutorial authority and he can make referrals for -- the Inspector General can make referrals for prosecution. So if there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing and I believe we've seen some already as you just referenced the Inspector General's reference with regard to Andrew McCabe, we will see that happen. But the question is who will actually do that prosecuting? Will it be Mr. Huber or do we need somebody who is completely independent of the Department of Justice? Mr. Huber got the matter outside of what we call main justice, outside of Washington D.C. but I think and many others in the Congress continue to think that we need to have an independent special counsel separate and apart from the work that Mr. Mueller is doing to handle these potentials for criminal referrals and to look into this matter for the possibility of finding further matters beyond what the Inspector General does.

BARTIROMO: All right, we'll talk more about this once that IG report hits on Thursday. We're going to have a lot on that on the Fox Business Network on the morning show "Mornings With Maria." Let me turn to your immigration bill. Will it ever get to the floor?

GOODLATTE: I think we're -- it is coming to the floor. It is coming to the floor this month and the discussions that we've been having in the Congress, we had a very important House Republican Conference this past week where 40-50 members of the conference got up and spoke. There is a lot of desire to work together to pass a bill. We've had some negotiations going on led by our leadership but with people from across the spectrum of the conference in the room and I think that that is going to yield a bill that can get 218 votes. A lot of the things that are in the legislation that I introduced along with Mike McCaul Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Raul Labrador Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, Martha McSally Chairman of the Border Security Subcommittee will be in this bill, but there will be some changes made to it as well. And our hope is that this will get 218 votes. It will turn off the discharge petition which is a very bad way to legislate and would likely lead to a very unbalanced bill where the Democrats would effectively control that process joining with a small number of Republicans to pass something that is not going to become law. This effort that we have ongoing right now has the prospect of actually becoming law. And I think that we should continue to be all hands on deck like all of the conference's fully engaged in this now to get this done and get this one this month.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will see about that. Is it fair to say though, nothing happens on immigration before the midterm elections, sir?

GOODLATTE: Well, I think we'll have a bill out of the house very soon. That'll put a lot of pressure back on the United States Senate because this is an issue both in terms of solving the problem for the DACA recipients and for doing the President's four pillars making sure our borders are secure, interior enforcement, and moving away from chain migration to a merit-based system. These are things that the American people want and can and can get.

BARTIROMO: Mr. Chairman, good to see you, sir. Thanks so much.

GOODLATTE: Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We will be watching the developments, Bob Goodlatte. The Trump-Kim summit, tariffs, and trade in the fate of NAFTA. Who better to talk with about all of that than the former Prime Minister of Canada. Stephen Harper, my guest next right here on set as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."


BARTIROMO: Welcome back President Trump arriving in Singapore for his high-stakes summit with Kim Jong Un on Tuesday. The President expressed some optimism going in to this meeting saying that he's hoping at a minimum to start a dialogue with North Korea. Let's bring in former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, another Author of the upcoming book Right Here Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption. Great title Mr. Prime Minister, it's good to see you again.


BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us. I want to ask you about your book certainly, but when you look at these pictures of the President stepping down in Singapore about to meet with North Korea's dictator, what's your reaction?

HARPER: Look I was just in the region and you know, I think President Trump gets a lot of credit for bringing it this far. It's been an interesting use of carrots and sticks. That said, I'm not telling you anything would surprise you in saying that allies in the region are pretty skeptical of the North Koreans so we'll see what happens but it's an interesting development.

BARTIROMO: Just the fact that he got to the table has to be seen as a positive, right? I mean, some -- I mean there's a lot to do obviously. Would you do you believe that we could actually see denuclearization?

HARPER: I -- you know my own time in office I learned to be quite a skeptic of the North Koreans but here they are at the table and President Trump has made it clear he's not going to accept a half deal or a weak deal so let's hope something comes of it.

BARTIROMO: So what's your take on the conversations that have been taking place around trade? It looked like an icy relationship there between the President and Justin Trudeau, the new the new Canadian Prime Minister because of failed talks over NAFTA. What should a NAFTA deal look like? What are your thoughts around this?

HARPER: Look, I tell people that you know, we try and understand for -- in Canada, we try and understand the American perspective. I could understand why President Trump, why the American people feel they need some better trade relationships. You know, if they wanted to take on the relationship with China, even some aspects that our relationship with Mexico around autos, I'd be you know, the first person telling our government to be a partner in those things because I think Canada shares those concerns. I don't understand the obsession with you know, trade relations with Canada, not only as the deficit, trade deficit with Canada small, the United States runs a current account surplus with Canada. Canada is the biggest single purchaser of us goods and services in the world. It's not China, it's not Mexico, it's not Britain, it's not Germany, it's Canada. So you know, it just seems to me this is the wrong target and you know, from what I understand of American public opinion, I don't think even Trump supporters think the Canadian trade relationship is a problem.

BARTIROMO: Could it could it be that it's so different from what we have with Mexico and he can't get a deal between the three together so maybe a bilateral is better because, in order to do a new deal with Canada on NAFTA, you got to have Mexico agreeing to it. I mean, could that be it?

HARPER: Look, I'm not in a position to try and direct the trade negotiations of the Government of Canada. All I say is this, that this is a vitally important relationship that we have between Canada and United States. And you know, look, when I was in office with President Bush, with President Obama from time to time we had disagreements on issues. With President Obama, we disagreed on the Keystone pipeline. Ultimately President Trump made a great decision on that. But you know, the important thing is --

BARTIROMO: You stood tall on that. You were strong on that. You got a lot of pushback from the Obama team. I remember that.

HARPER: Well, look, and that's fair enough. But what we did do, what Canadian presidents and prime ministers -- Canadian Prime Minister's and American Presidents have done in the past is that when we've had those disagreements, we keep those disagreements isolated to the issues we're disagreeing with because on other things you know, international issues of security, of frankly economic relationships and trade, of democracy and values, we're on the same page. We're the closest partners in the world and you don't want to see dispute over one particular issue poison everything.

BARTIROMO: Well what about an idea around autos, something different there? The idea of origination, where should the car originate in terms of production? That's where the jobs are, that's one of the things this President has been pushing. Would that be something that you believe could be tinkered with?

HARPER: You know, look, as I said before, I think there's lots of opportunity for Canada and the United States to partner on areas where we share basic trade concerns. I think in -- you know, in the case of the auto sector I work with the Bush and Obama administrations to help bail out that sector during the global financial crisis. Then the sector starts moving to Mexico. I think that's a concern we both share. But you know, I don't see any fundamental problem in the Canadian-American trade relationship. This is a more or less balanced relationship and one that's vitally important to businesses and consumers on both sides of the border and one that Trump supporters have no problem.

BARTIROMO: Yes, I want to -- I want to take a short break. When we come back, I want to ask you about the G7 meeting. You've been at these meetings before and the President made a remark about Russia. The one I got -- I got to get your take on that. We'll be right back with former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and get his reaction to the President saying that Russia should be reinstated to make it to the G8 once again. Stay with us.



PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I love our country, I have been Russia's worst nightmare. If Hillary got in, I think Putin is probably going, man, I wish Hillary won because you see what I do. But with that being said, Russia should be in this meeting. Why are we having a meeting without Russia being in the meeting? And I would recommend and it's up to them but Russia should be in the meeting. It should be a part of it.


BARTIROMO: As President Trump saying that Russia should be included in the G8 once again, now it's the G7 because Russia was kicked out. I'm back with the former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and my guest today. Mr. Prime Minister, you were among the leadership that led the charge against pushing Russia out of the G8, is that right?

HARPER: I was. Look, I diplomatically disagree with the president on this. I don't think that could be more the wrong direction. The fact of the matter is this. I watched two American presidents, very different people with very different agendas, President Bush and President Obama. I watched them try and make a strategic partner of Vladimir Putin and they couldn't. And the reason they couldn't is because Vladimir Putin does not want to be a strategic partner of the United States and the West. He is determined right to his core to be a strategic opponent. The purpose of the G7 in my mind is to bring together the most important western allies in the world, the big economies who share strategic interests, who share basic questions of value. Vladimir Putin is in none of those categories. And in fact the reason I pushed even before his invasion of Crimea. The reason I push for his expulsion was that frankly he inhibited open dialogue around the table among allies because you simply couldn't trust anything he said or anything he did. You know, this is a man -- let's be frank he's a very impressive guy in many ways but this is a man who kills his political opponents. You know, there's no place around an allied table for somebody like that.

BARTIROMO: So you are uncomfortable with the idea that they would be back into the G8, you also are questioning why we're picking a fight with Canada. You say that the Canadian people are worried.

HARPER: Yes. Well, look at -- you know, our relationship is vitally important to this country. There's a reason why for a hundred years, you know, we've been the closest partner of the United States and the fights against imperialism, fascism, communism, and today you know, international Jihad, Islamic extremism, and terrorism, and it's because we share vital interests. We have a great balanced trade relationship that balance -- that benefits people on both sides of the border that business is overwhelmingly supportive of. As I say, if the President wants to take it on the trade relationship with China, I think he's absolutely right to do that. I think the Government of Canada should be a partner in that. He has some concerns certain aspects of the Mexican relationship around autos, I absolutely understand why that is. The Government of Canada in my judgment should be a partner in those things. But us fighting over you know, us fighting over our trade relationship when the Chinese have a four- to-one imbalance with both of us is in my judgment just the wrong priority.

BARTIROMO: So you agree on the China pushback. You also agree on the Iran deal, what he did --

HARPER: I absolutely agree on the president on --

BARTIROMO: -- taking the U.S. out of the Iran deal?

HARPER: I absolutely agree with that. Look, I understand why -- I thought the deal was weak from the beginning. I understand why the previous administration did it. They felt that if you normalize relations and normalize this -- you know, had this deal normalized relations you'd get a less belligerent Iran, one that would gravitate to better relations with its neighbors, with the world but the opposite happened, Maria. Once we signed this deal, Iran became more belligerent. Iran began -- used the money from that deal to fund even more its military and terrorist allies around the region. This is why every ally and every country in the region supported the President on canceling the Iran nuclear deal. It was the right thing to do. I think was a courageous thing to do and I congratulate him for it.

BARTIROMO: You have to believe that Iran is watching how the present deals with North Korea?

HARPER: Absolutely.

BARTIROMO: So what are you expecting out of this historic meeting? Obviously, this is the first time that the U.S. President will face off against North Korea and its leader.

HARPER: Honestly I'm not sure what to expect. I know the President has as I say, used a really interesting mix of carrot and sticks to get Kim Jong- un to the table. You know, on the other hand, in the past when we've seen Korean peace efforts or initiatives before, North Korean peace efforts, they've always frankly been disguising their move to the next level of militarization and nuclearization so --

BARTIROMO: We can't trust them.

HARPER: We can't trust them so look -- but on the other hand, as I say, the president is not a fool and he's going to be tough with these guys and hopefully you know, through the Iran cancellation of the Iran deal they're getting the signal.

BARTIROMO: Mr. Prime Minister, this is all going to be discussed in your upcoming book.

HARPER: Some of it will be discussed. My book is more about what's kind of happening in the world of Western politics and Western society generally who we see just tremendous disruption but now political disruption, populist movements, what's happened here in the United States with Trump and with -- President Trump and with Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party. I talk about why this is happening and really what we need to do about it. I'm looking at this from a conservative angle, what we as conservatives need to do to make sure that we address the concerns that our people are -- that our people are raising and address those concerns with good conservative principles of values

BARTIROMO: I'm really looking forward to the book. Prime Minister Harper, good to see you.

HARPER: Thanks for having me.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Stephen Harper there. Lots of developments to digest this week as we look ahead to the week ahead. Our panel is next as we look ahead on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES back in a moment


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. President Trump arriving in Singapore earlier this morning for this historic summit with Kim Jong Un. I want to bring in our panel on that note. Ed Rollins is the former campaign manager for the Reagan-Bush Ticket in 1984, James Freeman is the Assistant Editor at The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Page, both are Fox News contributors and it's a pleasure to see you both.


BARTIROMO: Thank you for joining us. Your thoughts on this meeting, Ed?

ROLLINS: It's critical to me. The next 48 hours is probably most critical part of Trump's presidency to date. I think he has to pass a message and the message is listen we're neighbors, we can be neighbors in the world. You can't throw beer cans in my backyard when I'm barbecuing. And if you can't do that, we're going to burn your house down. That's the message in a very simple way. And if you be a good neighbor, we don't want anybody else burn your house down.

BARTIROMO: That is a good message. And this -- right after he met with all of the other world leaders who he just basically put new tariffs on James, so he went from the G7 to Singapore.

JAMES FREEMAN, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, if you go with the solo cups maybe avoid the beer can problem but I think in the -- in the G7 context, I think to me the most encouraging moment in a very odd weekend was the President saying we want a free-trade zone with our friends in the G7, no tariffs, no subsidies, no protection for individual industries. You never really know. If that's his goal, that's good news.

BARTIROMO: Saying it's a free trade zone?


BARTIROMO: Because he's basically saying we're already in a trade war. The U.S. has been at a disadvantage for decades.

FREEMAN: Yes. But you never -- given his statements, sometimes you're not sure what his goal really is. Is it to put up more barriers in the U.S., is it to try and manage the numbers of exports and imports. You don't want government doing that. And this was a statement to say no, you know, this is really pointed toward freedom to trade and that is good news that that's the goal.

ROLLINS: And even though I admire that and I want that to happen eventually, it's very tough politically. And I think the key thing here that we don't talk much about, agriculture is a very, very important entity. And obviously, agriculture in Republicans are very important. That's our constituency base, the Midwest what have you. And my sense is that needs -- there was much dialogue about that. We're not going to have a friend on the new -- the new government of Mexico and all probability not going to be friendly towards us. the Canadians will come back I'm sure to the table but you can't call them too many more names.

BARTIROMO: But you know, you could talk about agricultural products all day long and our friends buying more of them but I know James and I both agree that that does nothing for the more important issues of the day, and that is the theft of intellectual property and the forced transfer of Technology with China. Everybody agrees that this pushback against China was the right move.

ROLLINS: It was the right move. We shouldn't -- we shouldn't have backed off on my sense on that.

BARTIROMO: And let ZTE back then.

ROLLINS: We should not. We should not.

BARTIROMO: Well, as we were talking earlier in the program, the President told me that one of the reasons is that President Xi of China called him directly and said I need that favor, I need your help on this two weeks before the North Korean summit. I mean --

FREEMAN: Yes, this was their big and you heard it correctly, this was the big ask from China. It means a lot to them. It's a huge telecom player. It obviously collapses without the ability to use U.S. technology. I think the question is did the President really get something good in return or is he going to? Does he -- does he think he's got a favor that is now going to be repaid from the Chinese leadership and we'll see in North Korea.

ROLLINS: And it's very important. If we set sanctions, you can't violate the sanctions and that's what this whole issue was. They had sanctions against Iran, sanctions against North Korea and they violated. They're going to have to promise they're not going to violate our sanction.

BARTIROMO: What is this all me for the midterm election set? I mean, we've been talking about a blue wave happening. Is that --

ROLLINS: There's no -- there's no blue wave. It's a very competitive environment. Republicans disadvantage is obviously the historical disadvantage. We have an advantage in the Senate. We have a lot of Senate candidates on their side. The House, we have unfortunately 44 members not. It's still a dead even race. We can still hold it if we -- if we do but candidates have to run on his agenda, not their own agenda.

BARTIROMO: All right, we will leave it there. James Freeman, Ed Rollins, great to see you both gentlemen. Thank you so much.

That'll do it for us on "Sunday Morning Futures." I'll see you tomorrow morning on the Fox Business Network, "Mornings With Maria" 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. Eastern. Stay right here, "MediaBuzz" coming --

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.