Dr. Ben Carson talks surge in polls, fundraising; Rep. Jim Jordan on status of the Benghazi investigation

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," October 25, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


Ben Carson surges in Iowa, taking the front runner spot from Donald Trump.


DR. BEN CARSON, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I think a lot of people in the country realize that we're in critical condition.

WALLACE:  We'll sit down with the GOP presidential candidate to discuss the latest surprise in the year of the outsiders.

Then, it was one of the most dramatic moments of Hillary Clinton's testimony on Benghazi.

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO:  You tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story.

HILLARY CLINTON, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Well, I think if you look at the statement that I made, I clearly said that it was an attack.

JORDAN:  Calling it an attack is like saying the sky is blue.  Of course, it’s an attack.

WALLACE:  We'll talk with Congressman Jim Jordan, a member of the House Committee about Benghazi and Clinton.

Plus, Paul Ryan announces he's running for speaker.

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-WIS., WAYS & MEANS CMTE CHAIRMAN:  If I can truly be a unifying figure, then I will gladly serve.

WALLACE:  Our Sunday group tackles whether he can heal a divided Republican Party on Capitol Hill.

And our power player of the week.  The NBA’s John Wall, growing up on and off the court.

JOHN WALL, WASHINGTON WIZARDS:  I understand that you're not put on this Earth just to be a basketball player.

WALLACE:  All right now on "Fox News Sunday."


WALLACE:  And hello, again, from Fox News in Washington.

Well, this weekend marks 100 days until the Iowa caucuses, and it’s been a big change in the Republican race.  The front-runner there for months, Donald Trump has fallen behind to Ben Carson.  We'll speak with Dr. Carson live in a moment.

But, first, the shrinking field of Democratic candidates gathered last night in Iowa for a big dinner that's often been a turning point.

Chief White House correspondent Ed Henry is live in Des Moines to tell us what happened -- Ed.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT:  Chris, for Hillary Clinton, this was a political equivalent of a prevent defense.  She's back in the lead, did not want to make a mistake.  So, she played it so safe, it really opened the door for Bernie Sanders, the Democratic socialist senator, to electrify this crowd of over 6,000 Iowa Democrats.

To gin up her own crowd at the speech, she brought along her husband Bill for his first rally of this campaign cycle, plus pop star Katy Perry.  The Comeback Kid declaring that after what was obviously a brutal start to her campaign, his wife has had a remarkable few weeks from a strong debate performance to a series of Democrats simply dropping out of this race.

So, the front runner used this big Democratic dinner to focus instead on hitting Donald Trump, Ben Carson, the rest of the Republican field and basically acting as if she's already the general election nominee.  Listen.


CLINTON:  When Republicans debate, they compete to insult each other, demean women, and they double down on trickle down.  Actually, it is reality TV, with a cast of characters who don't care much about actual reality.


HENRY:  Now, that cautious approach tripped her up at the 2007 Jefferson Jackson Dinner, but that was an historic night where she was taking on Barack Obama.  This field is much weaker.  Though, Bernie Sanders basically said hold off on the Clinton coronation without naming them, he directly slammed both Hillary and Bill Clinton on a range of issues from NAFTA to the Defense of Marriage Act, even the Iraq War, saying they were too far in the middle.  He's been the consistent liberal drawing the wildest applause of the night.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I’m the only Democratic candidate for president who does not have a super PAC.  And we are going to prove the experts wrong.  Because we're going to win this campaign!


HENRY:  Now, the only other Democrat left, Martin O'Malley basically called Clinton a weather vane.  And remember, despite her resurgence, she still has this looming FBI investigation of the server.  And this Friday, the State Department releases more of her e-mails as the drip, drip continues -- Chris.

WALLACE:  Ed Henry reporting from Des Moines -- Ed, thank you for that.

Now to the Republican race where Dr. Ben Carson is now the front runner in Iowa.  He's also the author of a new book, "A More Perfect Union".

And, Dr. Carson, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

CARSON:  Thank you.  Good to be with you, Chris.

WALLACE:  Let's start with those new numbers out of Iowa, a Des Moines Register poll shows you leading Trump 28 percent to 19 percent, a swing of 14 points in your favor since August.  A Quinnipiac poll has you leading from 28 percent to 20 percent.  And in that poll, an astronomical 84 percent of Iowans have a favorable opinion of you, only 10 percent unfavorable.

Dr. Carson, what's going on?

CARSON:  Well, I think people are actually having an opportunity to listen to me.  It really shows the power of social media and of word of mouth because as you know, you know, a lot of the media has it in for me.  But, you know, if people listen to them, you know, I would be polling at less than zero.

But the fact of the matter is, you know, this is a very serious time in our nation.  And it's a time when people have to make a clear decision of which direction do we want to go in?  Is truth and integrity something important?  Are traditional American values something important?  Or are we ready to turn over everything and get rid of all of our values for the sake of political correctness?

This is a very crucial election.

WALLACE:  This is also one of the first times, one of the few times that Donald Trump has trailed in the polls.  Here was his reaction.


DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  We have a breaking story: Donald Trump has fallen to second place behind Ben Carson.  We informed Ben, but he was sleeping.


WALLACE:  Now, he went after you as even more low energy than Jeb Bush.  He said you're very weak on immigration.  He even questioned your faith as a Seventh Day Adventist.

Dr. Carson, what do you make of that?

CARSON:  Well, it's kind of interesting because the conflict that we had a couple of months ago is he thought I was questioning his faith and he went ballistic on that.  So, it seems a little interesting that he would now be doing that.

You know, I really refuse to really get into the mud pit.  You know, Hillary actually was right when she said, you know, that the Republicans are there trying to destroy each other.  I really think that was a huge mistake in the last cycle, and I’m certainly not going to get into that no matter what anybody says.

WALLACE:  Do you think it shows something about Trump?  Says something about his character?

CARSON:  Well, he is who he is.  I don't think that's going to change.  And I am who I am.  That's not going to change either.

So, you know, neither one of us probably is going to be somebody who is going to be managed by handlers, because that's not who we are.  And the way I kind of look at it, if people resonate what I’m talking about, they will know it's the truth and what I truly believe.  And if they like that, and it works with them and they feel I’m the good representative for them, that's great.  I would love to have their vote.

And if they don't want me, that's fine, too.  Because I would never lie just to get an office.  I wouldn't be happy and the people wouldn't be happy.

WALLACE:  You have also started a $500,000 ad buy in the four early voting states, with the tag line "heal, inspire, revive".  Here's a clip.


CARSON:  Washington is broken.  The political class broke it.  Together, we can drain the swamp and protect our children's future.

I’m Ben Carson, and I approve this message.


WALLACE:  Doctor, you're doing well with social conservative, but what's your pitch to Republicans across the political spectrum?

CARSON:  Well, basically, the pitch is America right now is in terrible trouble.  I mean, we have to stop all the divisiveness, recognize we're Americans first, not Republicans or Democrats.  We have to begin to take care of those who are coming behind us.

Our children are precious.  The fact that we could be spending up their future and some people don't even think it's a problem, we have to become fiscally responsible.  And it's absolutely crucial that we deal with the global jihadist movement and with Putin's ambitions, and with all of the things that are going on that are because we have not taken a leadership position in the world.

WALLACE:  Well, let me pick up on that, because, obviously, as you rise in the polls, your policies, you plans attract new attention, especially your plan to end Medicare, which serves 49 million senior citizens, and Medicaid, which serves 72 million low-income Americans.

Before we get into your plan, let me make sure I’ve got this right.  Dr. Carson, you would end Medicare?

CARSON:  No, that's completely false.  And that's a narrative that somebody's putting out there to scare people.

What the program that I have outlined using health savings accounts starting from the time you are born until the time you die, largely eliminates the need for people to be dependent on government programs like that.  But I would never get rid of the programs.  I would provide people with an alternative.  I think they will see that the alternative that we're going to outline is so much better than anything else that they will flock to it.

WALLACE: Well, I -- let me make sure I got this right, because this seems to me to be a bit of a change.

So, you’re saying that you would have a choice.  You could either do health savings accounts or you could have the traditional Medicare?

CARSON:  Oh, yes, I do not believe in imposing things upon people.  I believe in presenting things that are so attractive that people will very quickly migrate to them.

WALLACE:  But here's the concern a lot of people have about this plan.  You would give the same $2,000 a year to every individual whether it's a low-income --


WALLACE:  -- sick person.


WALLACE:  Well, that's what you were saying, sir.

CARSON:  No, that -- that's the old plan.  That's been gone for several months now.  The plan now for funding health savings accounts is using the same dollars that we use for traditional health care.  We already spend twice as much per capita on health care as many other countries in the world.  Utilizing that money, the place where the government would come in is with the indigent because that's where Medicaid comes in.  The Medicaid budget is $400 billion to $500 billion a year and we have 80 million people who participate, which is way too many and we can fix that by fixing the economy.


WALLACE:  So, how does the health savings account work if there's no government subsidy?

CARSON:  Well, let me just tell you.  I’m telling you right now, with the indigent people, 80 million into $400 billion goes 5,000 times -- $5,000 each man, woman and child.  What could you buy with that?  A concierge practice generally costs $2,000 to $3,000 a year.  And you still have a couple thousand dollars left over for catastrophic insurance, which is much cheaper now because the only thing coming out of it is catastrophic insurance.

WALLACE:  So, what about --

CARSON:  Everything else is going to come out of your health savings account.  So --

WALLACE:  How do you get the money for your health savings account?  I’m not talking about Medicaid, I’m talking about Medicare, because you used to say you were going to end Medicare and have a $2,000 government fee to every individual, man, woman and child.

CARSON:  That's gone.  That is off the table.  We're not having the government do that.  I don't want a big government program.

You know, I’ve -- the one thing about me, I'll tell you something.  I’m not a politician.  So I don't say that because I thought this a while ago before I had an opportunity to talk to a lot of economists and various people and cost it out that I can't change my mind.

One of the things that's very important about our country, we have a lot of incredibly smart people with a lot of experience doing things.  I listen to that.  When I’m out on the road, I listen to people have to say --

WALLACE:  But, sir, I’m a little --

CARSON:  -- because how can you have a representative government --

WALLACE:  Let me -- don't mean to interrupt, but I’m a little bit confused.  So, if I’m a regular person, I’m not indigent and I -- you're going to give me a health savings account, but you're not going to give me any money, why wouldn't I want Medicare?  What's the advantage of the health savings account?

CARSON:  Well, remember, you already if you're a regular person have a job.  And they're already giving you some health benefits.  So, instead of that money going into the inefficient system that it goes in now, it gets divided and divvied up into your family's health savings account over which you now have control and to which you can contribute anything you want.  That's the difference.

WALLACE:  But isn't that the --


CARSON:  That money -- that money is already there.

WALLACE:  Doesn't that mean there's going to be government money going into my health savings account?

CARSON:  If there's already government money going into it, it certainly could, absolutely.

WALLACE:  And would that be $2,000?

CARSON:  But not -- but not new government money.  No, the same -- listen carefully, because this is the concept that sometimes can be confusing.


CARSON:  The amount of money that we are already spending for health care in this country is astronomical.  And it's almost twice as much as many other countries in the world.  And yet, we have terrible problems with access.

If we take those same dollars and divert them into a system that gives you control over your home health care, you and your health care provider cut out the middle man, the bureaucracy.  Those dollars go much further.  We won't have to use a many of them.  The dollars are already there, Chris.

WALLACE:  I understand, but they're in a government system.

Last question, I want to understand -- all right.  Let's say I’ve retired, OK?  I had a job, I had health insurance, now I’ve retired and I need government help for my health care.  Where's that money coming from?

CARSON:  The same place -- the same dollars that would be going to you through Medicare would go into your health savings account.  You continue to use it just like you have been using.  However --

WALLACE:  So, in other words, does the government (INAUDIBLE) as a senior citizen?


CARSON:  Right.  If you decide you don't like that system and you prefer just to keep the system like it is, I’m not going to deny you the privilege of doing that.

WALLACE:  Well, this is interesting, obviously, to be continued.  And as you know, and I suppose it's a good thing.  With more prominence in the polls, more discussion of your proposal.

Dr. Carson, thank you.  Thanks for talking with us.  And, of course, we'll see you again on the campaign trail, sir.  Good luck.

CARSON:  Oh, it's a pleasure.  Thank you.

WALLACE:  Up next, as Carson surges, Jeb Bush downsizes.  Our Sunday group discusses the changing state of the GOP race.

Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about Paul Ryan's almost certain election this week as speaker of the House.

Just go to Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday and we may use your question on the air.



JEB BUSH, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  This means lean and mean, and it means that I have the ability to adapt.

TRUMP:  You have Jeb Bush has $125 million.  Honestly, I don't think it's going to help him.  I'll be honest.


WALLACE:  GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush announcing major cuts to his campaign.  While Donald Trump calls on Bush and others to tell their super PACs to give back the money as he is now doing.

And it's time now for our Sunday group.  Head of Heritage Action for America, Michael Needham, "The Washington Post’s" Bob Woodward, author of a new book "The Last of the President’s Men", conservative pollster, Kristen Soltis Anderson, and Fox News political analyst Juan Williams.

Well, Michael, it's been a big week in the Republican race.  As we've been saying, Carson is up, Trump is slipping, at least, in Iowa, and Jeb Bush announcing major cutbacks to his campaign, 45 percent cut in payroll.

What's going on?

MICHAEL NEEDHAM, CEO, HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA:  Well, it's a sign of how fluid this race actually is.  And that's especially true in Iowa where voters are paying attention.  Money has started to be spent by the candidates.

And in many ways, the reason the race is fluid, the Republican Party is going through a transformation, a healthy debate about what its future is.  And I don't think you could have seen the extent of that transformation more than some of the stories over the weekend about George H.W. Bush and his advisers, people who have been involved in Republican politics for 63 years, not knowing how to make of this, how do we understand it.

And it's that grassroots conservatives who felt unheard by Washington, unheard by the Washington establishment for so long, taking over the party.  That's what become Donald Trump’s enthusiasm comes from.  Ben Carson, very traditional Iowa candidate, socially conservative, upset with Washington, D.C. in the way that's working.  I think the difference, and we saw it a little bit in that last segment, is that Carson doesn't have the same policy proposals laid out yet that Mike Huckabee did, that Rick Santorum did.

So, it will be interesting over the next several months, does he match up with that rhetoric, that populist outrage of Washington, D.C. with the type of policy agenda that a blue collar conservatism of Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee, a former governor, had to ultimately lead them to winning Iowa.

WALLACE:  Do you think Ben Carson’s -- I think you’d certainly have to say fluid discussion about what he’s going to do about Medicare and Medicaid.  Do you think that hurts them?

NEEDHAM:  Well, I think, you know, you had that conversation, you had a conversation over amnesty.  He's traditionally supported amnesty and now laying out what he thinks about those types of issues.  So, I think there's 2 1/2 months, people are rightly open to Ben Carson for all the right reasons.  He's not part of this corrupt Washington establishment and now he's going to lay out a policy agenda that connects the dots.

WALLACE:  Kristen, what's the bigger deal?  Which is the bigger deal?  Trump's slide, and I want to point out, just in Iowa at this point, but there's been a slide in Iowa in a couple of polls, or Bush's continued problems, especially given the fact he has a super PAC that has been advertising heavily in New Hampshire and he has seen no rise in the polls there.

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, AUTHOR, "THE SELFIE VOTE":  It’s got to be frustrating for Jeb Bush because he came into this race wanting to run this joyful campaign where it was going to be all about his ideas and his record as governor of Florida.  And it's been hard for him to get enough oxygen around that despite the over $100 million with the super PAC.

But he's making the smart choice now by choosing to kind of retrench and sort of pull back in terms of what his campaign is spending.  You know, this is what you saw from the McCain campaign in 2008, had a very rough summer.  He came back to be the nominee.  The Gingrich campaign in 2012.  Had a rough summer, retrenched, changed strategy, came back and won South Carolina.

So, I think by making smart choices now, the Bush campaign has a shot at putting itself on a path back to being a strong contender.

WALLACE:  And how much should we make as a pollster?  How much should we make of the fact that Donald Trump in Iowa in two polls is now in second place?

ANDERSON:  Bear in mind that the big message out of the Trump campaign is I’m a winner, whether it's I’m a winner in business, I’m winner in the polls, when he's not winning in the polls anymore, that undercuts his core message.  And that's why I think you've seen him sort of lash out very frustrated trying to dismiss the polls.  I don't think he quite knows what to make of a race when Donald Trump isn't the winner.

WALLACE:  Let's turn to the other big news for Republicans this weekend.  And that is that Paul Ryan is almost certainly going to be elected.  The new speaker of the House next Thursday after getting the support of all wings of the Republican caucus in the House.  Here he is.


RYAN:  We have become the problem.  If my colleagues entrust me to be the speaker, I want us to become the solution.


WALLACE:  We ask you for questions for the panel, and we got a bunch about Ryan from you.

Marc Grass writes on Facebook, "How is Paul Ryan going to be any different than John Boehner?"

And Tim Cameron sent this, "Is he, Ryan, ready to fight, get back Congress’ constitutional authority?  Including shutdowns, if that’s what it takes?  If he won't fight, nothing is gained."

Bob, how do you answer?  What do you expect from Paul Ryan?

BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST:  Well, I spent hours three years ago interviewing Ryan.  And first of all, he's a real conservative.  And there's a time he went to John Boehner, the speaker, and said to the speaker, what we're talking about are not big ideas.

And, actually, Ryan is the big ideas person.  He wants to really reform entitlement spending.  I think it's possible.

And, you know, you see him there, he just kind of vibrates reasonableness.  He's calm.  And I think he has a possible path to doing some deals with Obama in the last year.

WALLACE:  Is he able to quell the House Freedom Caucus who some would say are not so reasonable by Bob Woodward's definition?

WOODWARD:  Well, no, by anybody's definition, but apparently as an agreement with them.  And remember, those people are true conservatives in their own eyes.  And Ryan really wants to conserve, wants to fix the government.  He talks about big ideas, he talks about things that are deep change, deep reform, and so, you know, it's a moment to be optimistic if that's possible.

WALLACE:  Juan, will Ryan, I think it's the big question.  Will he be able to satisfy the right wing of his House Republican caucus any better than John Boehner did?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST:  Well, rather than me just -- let me say, look at the record here.  So, last week, he meets with the Freedom Caucus, he gets the Freedom Caucus to go along, 2/3 of them, not the 80 percent, 2/3 of them said, yes, we'll support him.

But what did they agree to?  They didn't agree that they would not use the procedural measure to say we won't use the step to vacate the speaker seat.

What did he say?  He said I’m going to stick with the Hastert rule, which means that you have a majority of Republicans agree to anything he puts forward on the floor for a vote.

WALLACE:  Let me just explain.  So, what you’re saying is a majority of the majority before you'd even bring something up.  In other words, you're not going to go in with 20 Republicans and then count just on Democratic votes.

WILLIAMS:  Correct.  So, what we have, then, is a basic agreement that we're going to operate on the basis of faith and trust in each other.  But when you come to something like the debt ceiling, which is coming up very soon, how do you see the Freedom Caucus, which has defined itself as in opposition, defiant to Republican establishment leadership -- Boehner, McConnell in the Senate -- how are they supposed to shift and say, oh, yes, we're going to go along at raising the debt ceiling without talking about things like Planned Parenthood?  We're going to talk about a budget.  But it just doesn't make sense on that level.

So, I don't see a honeymoon coming.  In fact, I see that we're pushing down the line to yet another implosion.

WALLACE:  So, Michael, as the head of Heritage Action and, you know, one of these more hard line, more conservative groups, is there going to be a honeymoon for Paul Ryan, or not?  And what about when you get to these specific issues?

NEEDHAM:  Well, we’ll see.  I think that's up to Paul Ryan.  I think I radiate reasonableness just like Paul Ryan does, as Bob raised.

No, look, at the end of the day, people are right to be skeptical of Paul Ryan.  This is a party that since 2010 has done very little to unite ourselves around big, bold ideas, to united ourselves around the conservative reform agenda and has looked down the nose at Republican voters.

I think Paul Ryan’s somebody who could change that.  If you go back to 2006, he put forth his Medicare premium support ideas, only had 18 fellow Republican congressmen sign on to that piece of legislation.  Over the course of five years, he united the party around those big, bold ideas.

Since that time, he's done very little to join the debate, between the conservative base, and the special interests, the Chamber of Commerce that run this party.  He's largely voted with John Boehner's agenda.  He’s largely done very little.  And sometimes he's stood up --

WALLACE:  So, what are you saying?  He’s going to be on a short leash?

NEEDHAM:  If Paul Ryan wants to put forward and he’s one of the few people I think capable of putting forward a bold conservative reform agenda, he's going to find that the Freedom Caucus and all of us who want to take the fight for the American people to Washington and to President Obama and he'll find that he has very, very strong support.  If it's going to be more of the same and more of the Chamber of Commerce, then I think not --

WALLACE:  OK.  In 15 seconds because we're running out of time, if Paul Ryan says, look, I will push a strong, conservative agenda on things like entitlements, but I don't want to get in fights about shutting down the government, I don’t want to get in a fight about the debt limit, can you guys go along with that.

NEEDHAM:  If Congress doesn't use the power of the purse, we don't need a Congress and we just have an executive with no check.  If Congress doesn’t use the debt limit, there's no purpose in having a debt limit and saying we're going to force ourselves to address the fire that's burning in our country’s fiscal future.

I think Paul Ryan wants to use that leverage.  I think he wants to unite the party around big, bold ideas and we want to be a part of that.

WALLACE:  All right.  We have to take a break here.  We'll see you a little later.

Up next, we'll talk about this with Congressman Jim Jordan, but we’ll also talk to him as a member of the House Benghazi Committee about his sharp questioning of Hillary Clinton this week.  What did we learn about the terror attack that killed four Americans?


WALLACE:  Coming up, what Hillary Clinton told her daughter Chelsea the night of the Benghazi attack?

Congressman Jim Jordan asked her about it at this week's hearing.


JORDAN:  There's no evidence for a video inspired protest.  And where did the false narrative start?  Started with you, Madam Secretary.


WALLACE:  He joins us, next.


WALLACE:  After Hillary Clinton testified for 11 hours before the House Benghazi committee this week, the consensus was Republicans found no smoking gun.  But there were some tense moments, especially when Congressman Jim Jordan confronted Clinton about what she told the American people after the attack and what she was saying in private.

Congressman Jordan joins us now from Ohio, and welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

JORDAN:  Good to be with you, Chris.

WALLACE:  Before we get to Clinton and Benghazi, I want to pick up with what the discussion we were having with the panel about Paul Ryan, who as we say, is almost certain to be elected speaker this week.  When you were here just two weeks ago, as head of the Freedom Caucus, you were saying that you were going to demand all kinds of assurances from Ryan about changing House rules, almost none of which you got.  I guess the question is, so why are you supporting Paul Ryan?

JORDAN:  Well, we do have a commitment from Paul to work on changing the rules, and we may get even some of those changed before the vote this coming Wednesday and Thursday.  So we think that's a good step.  Plus, also, one of the things Paul wanted was this change to the motion to vacate the chair.  We have not agreed to that.  But we think, as Mr. Needham discussed in your previous segment, we think Paul has the kind of vision and is the kind of messenger our party needs to accomplish the things we told the voters we're going to accomplish.  So we're excited about that.  He didn't quite get the endorsement threshold we have in our group, but our members said, a super majority of our members said we think Paul Ryan's the right guy at the right time to lead our conference.

WALLACE:  So what happens, and you know it's going to happen.  At the first time that you and other members of the Freedom Caucus feel that Paul Ryan is being insufficiently hard-line.  Are you going to give him some running room?

JORDAN:  Well, we're going to work with him.  And we think we can come together as a group and fight for the things -- Paul has talked to us, when we met with -- an hour with Paul.  He told, we're going to have our initiative on how we're going to reform the tax code.  We're going to come forward on how we're going to reform our out of control welfare system and empower people who are stuck and trapped in that system.  He talked about our replacement to Obamacare.  That big bold agenda and vision that we need, particularly as we head into a presidential election.

Paul's the right kind of guy to do that.  And we think we can unite around those big bold ideas and push those forward.  And actually pass them in the House of Representatives, send them to the Senate, and talk about those ideas with the American people.

WALLACE:  All right.  Let's turn to Benghazi.  A lot of people, I have to say, including me, thought the most dramatic moment was when you confronted Hillary Clinton about what she said about the attack.  How she described it in public and in private.  That night, the night of the attack, 9/11, she put out this statement, "some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."  But you revealed this email to her daughter Chelsea, just an hour after that public statement, "two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group."  And the next day, here's what she told the Egyptian prime minister, "we know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.  It was a planned attack, not a protest."  That set off this exchange.


JORDAN:  I'm reading what you said, plain language.  We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.  Why didn't you just speak plain to the American people?

CLINTON:  I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative, Congressman.  I can only tell you what the facts were.


WALLACE:  But in the end, Congressman, most of the mainstream media, I think, the consensus was that you and the other Republicans on the Benghazi committee didn't come up with much new.  How do you respond to that?

JORDAN:  Well, I think it is new to tell the American people she said something completely different in private.  She was telling the truth in private, she was telling spin to the American people.  I mean, who talks in language like that?  Some  have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.

Contrast that with what she said to the Egyptian prime minister.  We know the attack had nothing to do with the film.  It was a planned attack, not a protest.  That's plain language, that is being straightforward.  That's being forthcoming.  Why didn't she talk in those kind of terms with the American people?

And here's why it's relevant, Chris.  At the end of that hearing, we asked her, relative to her e-mail situation.  You know, her and her legal team determine which e-mails are public and which emails are work related.  And we said if the FBI finds -- remember, the FBI has got her server, they are going through that -- if they find deleted e-mails, will they agree, will Clinton and her team agree to allow a neutral third party like a retired federal judge to examine those deleted e-mails and determine if some of those are applicable to our investigation?  Her response was, no, they wouldn't agree to that.

So we have her doing all this spin the night of the attack, and now when it comes to her e-mails, she gets to determine which ones are work related and which ones aren't.  And she won't let some neutral third party do it.  It calls into question her evaluation of those e-mails, and she wouldn't agree to allow a neutral third party to do it.  That's why I think it's relevant.  And that's why I think the American people will think it's relevant.

WALLACE:  But Clinton in her response to you said, look, things changed, Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda-like group, retracted its claim of responsibility.  I see you're shaking your head.  But this is what she said.  She said the intel community analysis changed.  She said it was the fog of war.

JORDAN:  Chris --

WALLACE:  Go ahead.

JORDAN:  That may have happened, but her public statements didn't change.  They continued all the way through Susan Rice, five days later on five different TV shows said the same thing.  She said it was a consequence of the video.  So things may have changed and intel reports may have changed, but their public statements didn't.  They knew the truth from the get-go and they didn't level with the American people.  And I think they didn't level with the American people because Libya was supposed to be their baby.  This was supposed to be the shining success story for the Clinton State Department, the Obama White House, and they couldn't have a terror attack here just 56 days before an election, so they had to stay with this muddled-up narrative about a video-inspired protest leading to an attack.  They stuck with that all along so that didn't change.

WALLACE:  Critics would argue, sir, that after spending 17 months and almost $5 million, what you came up with, and I think you might agree, that was the highlight of the hearing, was an e-mail and a phone call that, however convincingly or not, she was able to explain away.  I guess the question is, is that all there is?  Where's the beef?

JORDAN:  Chairman Gowdy has been very clear about this.  She's one witness of 70 some witnesses we're going to get to.  We have yet to get Patrick Kennedy's e-mails.  Here's the guy, who was cited by the ARB (ph).  He's the guy, the undersecretary in charge of diplomatic security.  He's in charge of the security situation, and we have yet to get his e-mails.  Imagine that, a year and a half into this investigation.  We can't get Patrick Kennedy's e-mails yet.  Just this past week, we got 5,000 pages of Chris Stevens' e-mails.  We just now have gotten the ambassador's e-mails.  So one thing that would be helpful, instead of the Democrats on the committee always criticizing and saying it's about politics, remember, the politics started with Clinton on the night of the attack.  Instead of them doing all the criticizing, why don't they help us get the information so we can get to the truth and can get our report written in a much more timely fashion.

WALLACE:  Congressman, stepping back for a second, what is your theory of the case?  What do you believe that Hillary Clinton did wrong on Benghazi?

JORDAN:  Oh, I think it was pointed out in the hearing.  The security situation was not in any way adequate to what had taken place leading up to it.  In the months and weeks leading up to it, we had over 200 security incidents in Libya.  And when they repeatedly asked for additional security, the people on the ground, the people there, it was repeatedly denied.  And then we have the spin that took place after that we just discussed.  So I think all those things are important -- important elements and important truths for the American people to understand, and for the people of the four individuals who gave their life that day, their families of those four individuals, for them to understand.  And now, if we can actually get more of the information, I think we'll even uncover more details about what happened that terrible night.

WALLACE:  So when you hear, and I'm sure you've read the reviews of that, if you will, the analysis of the hearing.  When you hear people say, look, if you didn't trust Hillary Clinton going in, you still don't trust her, and you feel confirmed in that belief, and if you basically feel this has been a political witch-hunt, you still feel that way and you still trust her, is that frustrating to you?

JORDAN:  What's frustrating is the lack of help we've got from the administration.  What's frustrating is the five Democrats on the committee who haven't wanted to push the administration to give us the documents in a timely fashion.  Why in the world should it take this long to get Ambassador Stevens' e-mails?  There is no excuse for that.  Why in the world should we just get them in the last week, 5,000 pages, approximately 5,000 pages of his e-mails.  That's the part that frustrates me, frustrates Chairman Gowdy, frustrates, I think, the American people who have been watching this and trying to get to the truth.

WALLACE:  Congressman, I've got about a minute left, I want to get into a new subject with you.  The Justice Department on Friday announced it is going to bring no charges against Lois Lerner or anyone at the IRS for the targeting of conservative groups.  They say they found evidence of mismanagement, evidence of bad judgment, but no crime.

JORDAN:  Yes, that is just flat out wrong, in my judgment.  Here's a lady who systematically and for a sustained period of time targeted people for exercising their most fundamental rights, their First Amendment free speech rights.  The president prejudged this case.  Remember the facts here.  The president said, there's no corruption here, not even a smidgen.  The chief investigator, the chief lawyer assigned to the Justice Department to evaluate this was Barbara Bosserman, a maxed-out contributor to the president's campaign.  So it shouldn't be any surprise the Justice Department said there's nothing wrong here.  But the American people know that there is.

WALLACE:  Let me just ask you quickly, is there anything you can do about it?

JORDAN:  Unfortunately, I don't think so.  We got Loretta Lynch coming in front of the Judiciary Committee.

WALLACE:  The attorney general.

JORDAN:  I plan on asking her some serious questions and hopefully some tough questions about how they -- this investigation went and who they actually talked to.  What happened in this investigation.  And why they could arrive at this kind of conclusion, when I think all the facts point to someone was involved in criminal activity, and I think it was Lois Lerner.

WALLACE:  Congressman Jordan, thank you.  Thank you for joining us.  Always a pleasure to talk to you, sir.

JORDAN:  You bet, thanks, Chris.

WALLACE:  When we return, our Sunday group weighs in on Benghazi.  Plus, what do you think?  What did we learn from Clinton's testimony?  Let me know on Facebook or Twitter @FoxnewsSunday and use the #fns.



CLINTON:  You know, a lot of things have been said about me, but quitter is not one of them.


WALLACE:  Hillary Clinton taking a victory lap on the campaign trail after her 11-hour appearance before the House Benghazi committee.  And we're back now with the panel.

Michael, Clinton and her supporters say that the committee Republicans basically didn't lay a hand on her during those 11 hours.  Are they right?

NEEDHAM:  Well, look, there was obviously no great historic, made for TV moment that came out of it.  But I don't think that was the goal.  Trey Gowdy is a great prosecutor, he's trying to conduct an investigation, he is trying to get answers to questions, and I think the American people need and deserve if we're going to have the type of governance that we should have.  Why is it that we kept embassy staff in Benghazi when other countries like Britain had pulled them out?  And if that reason was valid, why did we ignore 600 requests for additional security?  Why is it that Hillary Clinton told her family this was a terrorist attack at the same time she was telling the American people it was caused by a video?  She told the father of one of the slain Americans that this was caused by a video.  What's the role of Sidney Blumenthal?  What business conflicts did he have with all this information that he is sending in?  And ultimately, what role did the fact that all this is going on 56 days before a presidential election, these are reasonable questions.  They are questions that the American people deserve to have answers to, and I think are highly relevant if we want to hold the Obama administration, the secretary of state, and a future presidential candidate to the highest values that you would want to have in our government.

WALLACE:  I want to ask you about another side of the hearing.  Obviously, we talk about Watergate a lot.  And parallels or differences.  One of the differences, I thought, was I remember well on the Senate Watergate committee, some of the Republicans actually asked tough questions of -- about Richard Nixon.  And in fact, as you point out in your book, it was a Senate Republican staffer who elicited the information about the Nixon taping system.  Here is the kind of thing the Democrats were asking Hillary Clinton during this hearing.


REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, D-MD:  Do we want badger you over and over again until you get tired, until we do get the gotcha moment that he's talking about?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALI.:  I wonder if you would like to comment on what it's like to be the subject of an allegation that you deliberately interfered with security that cost the life of a friend.


WALLACE:  Are you surprised that not a single Democrat on that committee had a single pointed question for Clinton about the very real issue about what happened in Benghazi?

WOODWARD:  Well, Watergate was about a series of crimes, well established.  And so, it was the Republicans who eventually turned on Nixon, and it was a bipartisan inquiry.  Here, it's not.  It clearly is partisan.  And, you know, look --

WALLACE:  But the death of those four Americans isn't partisan.

WOODWARD:  No -- and there are legitimate questions here.

WALLACE:  But they didn't ask them.

WOODWARD:  Yes.  Well, here's the issue.  You have inconsistencies.  But there -- this is a tragedy.  And it should be investigated.  You're right.  And she should answer.  And, you know, she did or attempted to answer all of those questions.  But there's no crime here on her part.  And to try to criminalize this or suggest, as some people have said, oh, she'll be in jail.  There's no evidence of a crime.  There is evidence of inconsistency.  I mean, my God, this is our business, our lives.  People saying one thing privately and saying something different publicly.

WALLACE:  Does that bother you?  As Gowdy, I'm sorry, as Jim Jordan seemed to point out that she was saying, blaming it on the video publicly, but telling Chelsea that it was an attack and telling the Egyptian prime minister.

WOODWARD:  It better bother us.  And this is the question we're going to look at.  And, you know, if she's the nominee, she's going to get a full field investigation by everyone.  So will the Republicans.  So we don't get what we got with Nixon, which we didn't know about, quite frankly.  I mean, this was hidden.

So I think there's a big burden on journalists, on television and in the newspapers, bloggers.  Let's -- so when we get to election day next year, people can say, you know what, I know or I had the chance to know everything possible about these people.  And so, this hearing is one of the pieces of the puzzle.

WALLACE:  So what's your read on the hearing?  Is -- as seems to be the consensus in this town, is she now free and clear politically both on Benghazi and the e-mails?

ANDERSON:  I think they're two very separate issues.  I think the Benghazi investigation unveiled the fact there was potentially very classified information being stored on a private server in her own home.  But that's a very separate issue from did she as secretary of state handle the Benghazi issue correctly?

I don't think either of them are necessarily behind her, because you have 52 percent of Americans who said they viewed the Benghazi hearing, they said the investigation into Benghazi is justified.  And she is -- Hillary Clinton is only viewed as honest and trustworthy by about a third of Americans.  So I don't think she's put this behind her.  Though ultimately, at the end of the day, it may come down to the FBI investigation that determines whether this affects the race or not.


WILLIAMS:  Sometimes I'd listen.  It sounds to me like, you know, Michael wants to relitigate this and what about this?  We've had seven committee hearings, spent millions of dollars.  I thought conservatives were concerned about spending money recklessly.

Look, the hour after this ended.  Remember, this went on from 10:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night.  So in the hour afterwards, Hillary Clinton raised the most money from small donors, anybody, but a majority of them were small donors, that she's raised in the whole campaign.  So that tells you that Democrats -- and remember, we're talking about a Democratic primary here -- Democrats thought she did exceedingly well.  You look at the poll numbers.  Her numbers have gone up in Iowa and nationally since these hearings.  So the fact is, if you even talk to conservatives, conservative writers in this town, from Erick Erickson, to Byron York, to Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, they all said she did very well.  One of them said, you might as well have sworn her in.

WALLACE:  Michael?

NEEDHAM:  Yes, look, this will have an impact on her.  It'll have an impact because everybody has built into their baseline when you're dealing with the Clintons that they're going to mislead, they're going to opt to escape.  There's always going to be a scandal hanging over them.  That's just something that everyone knows about the Clintons.  The case that Hillary made in 2008 was take all that for granted, at least I'm competent.  You want me to pick up the phone at 3:00 in the morning, when there is a scandal -- and I think that coming through this, she doesn't look competent.  The British pulled their embassy staff out of Benghazi.  Why didn't we, and why did we ignore 600 requests for extra security?  She had an e-mail server in her house with classified documents on it.  She surrounded herself with staff.  You can tell a lot about somebody's management style by who they surround themselves with.  And nobody either had the good judgment or felt comfortable enough saying to Hillary, hey, you know what, maybe storing e-mails on a private server in your bathroom isn't a good idea.  She no longer looks competent.  And I think--

WOODWARD:  These are all legitimate questions, but the hearing was a big home run for her.  Let's face it.  Part of the job of being president is dealing with inconsistency, dealing with adversaries, and endurance.  She really showed that she can sit it out, and, you know, she said she's not a quitter.  That is, in fact, true.


ANDERSON:  Let's not forget that the other reason why her poll numbers might change in the next week or two is that half of her competitors have either left the presidential race or decided not to enter it.  So we won't know necessarily if Hillary Clinton's path to the Democratic nomination is sealed at this point.  We won't know if that's necessarily because of this one hearing or a variety of other things that have sort of broken her way.

WILLIAMS:  Remember, she also did well in the debate.  Biden didn't get in, but most of all, there was no gotcha moment.  And Republicans were girding.  They had built up this hearing.  This is where we're going to expose Hillary.  Didn't happen.

NEEDHAM:  If you want a president who can testify for 11 hours, then Hillary Clinton may have helped herself.  If you want a president who has the judgment not to keep confidential information on a private server, she didn't do a good job.


WALLACE:  All right.  Nobody ever gets a final word around here, except now I'm going to.  Thank you, panel, see you next Sunday.  Up next, our power player of the week, playing like a superstar on and off the court.


WALLACE:  The NBA pro basketball season starts Tuesday.  And too often, the game is overshadowed by players getting into trouble off the court.  But Washington's best player handles himself very differently.  Here's our power player of the week.


JOHN WALL, WASHINGTON WIZARDS:  You still can learn something new every day, every year.

WALLACE:  John Wall is the star point guard for the Washington Wizards.  The league's No. 1 draft pick at age 19, now starting his sixth year in the NBA.

How do you feel your game has matured over the last five years?

WALL:  A whole lot.  Come in early, just playing that one speed.  And not being able to knock down open shots and trusting my teammates as much early on.  I feel like I'm not even reaching the best I can be in this league and I'm just scratching the surface.

WALLACE:  But even more impressive is his growth off the court.  As someone who gives back to the D.C. community.

WALL:  Understanding that you're not put on this earth just to be a basketball player.  You're blessed and have the opportunity to help other people that's less fortunate and make things better.

I'm a franchise guy now.

WALLACE:  Two years ago, Wall signed an $80 million contract extension, but that was just part of the announcement.

WALL:  I'm going to donate $1 million to the charities in D.C. and area.  And just want to donate my time along with the money.

WALLACE:  He's kept his promise.  Starting last year, he teamed up with the Boys and Girls Clubs to give hundreds of kids backpacks filled with school supplies.

WALL:  They don't understand.  They think I'm making their day, but they're making my day even more brighter.

WALLACE:  Then in September, he donated $400,000 to a center for homeless children.

WALL:  The most important thing for me is the kids.  Those kids get an opportunity to get an education, have somewhere to lay and have some food to put on their plate.

WALLACE:  You're a veteran.

WALL:  Time flies.

WALLACE:  What would you tell the 19-year-old John Wall?

WALL:  To take it more serious when you first come in.  And understand what it is.

WALLACE:  The last time basketball fans saw Wall in action was in the playoffs last season, when he fell and suffered five fractures in his left hand and wrist.

Was that something that fueled you in the offseason?

WALL:  Yes, definitely.  And made my fuel and my motivation even more better and my job to determine to get where I want to get for this organization.

WALLACE:  Wall says his goal this season is for the Wizards to get to the Eastern Conference finals or even the NBA championship.

And goals for John Wall.

WALL:  Goals for myself is being all NBA defensive first team, all NBA first team.  Being in MVP conversations, leading the league in assists, and being a starter in the all-star game.

WALLACE:  Given his record so far, don't bet against him.  As a player or a man.

WALL:  Can I get a five?  There we go.

I want to be remembered by this, building my legacy.  If people remember me as John Wall, that gave back not just because he could, but because he wanted to and because he loved to do it.


WALLACE:  Now, at the ripe old age of 25, Wall will lead the Wizards as they kick off their season Wednesday against the Orlando Magic.  And that's it for today.  Have a great week.  And we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 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.