Mike Pompeo on potential Trump-Kim Jong Un summit; Sen. Elizabeth Warren on North Korea, Trump's tariffs

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," March 11, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JOHN ROBERTS, GUEST HOST: I'm John Roberts, in for Chris Wallace.

They have traded insults and threats of war. Now the stage is set for direct talks between President Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un.


MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will continue to apply maximum pressure until North Korea abandons its nuclear program once and for all.

ROBERTS: We'll discuss what's bringing both sides to the table for this unprecedented meeting and what it says about the president's approach to foreign diplomacy with CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Then, President Trump leaves wiggle room for allies in his announcement of new tariffs on steel and aluminum.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's going to be very fair to other countries, especially those that treat as well.

ROBERTS: We'll discuss the impact on jobs and the global economy with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren in her first "Fox News Sunday" appearance.

Plus, from the departure of Gary Cohn --

TRUMP: He maybe a globalist, but I still like him.

ROBERTS: To the latest on the Mueller investigation and the lawsuit from Stormy Daniels, we'll ask our Sunday panel about the state of play in the Trump White House.

All, right now, on "Fox News Sunday."


ROBERTS: And hello again from Fox News in Washington where President Trump made bold moves this week on trade and diplomacy with global implications.

First, enacting tariffs on imported steel and aluminum over the objections of many in his own party, but leaving the door open for exemptions for some of America's closest allies. Then, accepting an invitation to sit down with North Korea's Kim Jong-un.


ROBERTS: It would be the first face-to-face encounter between the two countries' leaders and while the talks have the potential to mark a breakthrough in tensions with North Korea, there are plenty of risks and preconditions before that could happen.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are making no concessions and we are not going to move forward until we see concrete and verified action taking place by North Korea.

ROBERTS: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on a weeklong trip to Africa appeared caught off guard.

REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE: We are a long ways from negotiations. I think it's -- we just to need to be very clear-eyed and realistic about it.

President Trump has said for some time that he was open to talks and he would willingly meet with Kim Jong-un when conditions were right and the time is right. And I think in the president's judgment that time has arrived now.

ROBERTS: Just a few short months ago, insults were flying between the two leaders, with Kim calling the president a mentally deranged dotard, and the president firing back.

TRUMP: North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury.

Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.

He is a sick puppy.


ROBERTS: No time or place has been set for what would certainly be a historic meeting and, of course, North Korea has a long and rich track record of making promises and then breaking them.

We'll discuss at all this hour with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Let's begin here in Washington with Director Pompeo.

Welcome back to "Fox News Sunday." Good to see you.

MIKE POMPEO, CIA DIRECTOR: Good morning, John. Good to be with you.

ROBERTS: So, between Thursday night when the president or the White House made the announcement that he'd be meeting with Kim Jong-un and on Friday afternoon, the White House seemed to shift a little bit. Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying that we need to see concrete and verifiable actions before meeting takes place. The NSC later said she wasn't putting preconditions on a meeting.

But should there be preconditions for such a meeting?

POMPEO: John, I think it's important to step back, to remember how we got to this place. For an awfully long time, America whistled past the graveyard while the North Korea regime, including this particular leader, continued to develop their nuclear weapons program.

This administration came in. The president talked about at this campaign and put enormous pressure on the North Korean economy and on the North Korean leadership. That gave us this opportunity where Kim Jong-un now has committed to stopping nuclear testing, stopping missile tests, allowing exercises to go forward, something that has been incredibly contentious in the past and at the same time saying that the denuclearization -- complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization as a topic for discussion.

And that's when Kim Jong-un said, I'd like to meet with the president. The president made the decision it was the right time to begin that conversation.

ROBERTS: So, again, should there be any preconditions put on a meeting? What do you think Kim needs to do in order to get that big meeting he's been looking for with the U.S. president?

POMPEO: John, I just mentioned. That's what he said, he can't conduct nuclear testing. He's got to stop the missile testing that he's been hard at for the last years. He's got to continue to allow us to perform our militarily necessary exercises on the peninsula and then he's got to make sure that he leaves on the table that discussion for denuclearization.

These are -- these are real achievements. These are conditions that the North Korean regime has never submitted to in exchange for conversations.

You know, John, I had a chance this weekend to reread the history, the CIA history of the negotiations that have taken the place over the last decades. I'll admit, I took a couple of hours to watch Wichita State basketball. But I reread them.

Never before had we had the North Koreans in the position where their economy was at such risk and whether leadership was under such pressure that they would begin conversations on the terms that Kim Jong-un has conceded to at this time.

ROBERTS: So, what are we willing to give him in exchange for concessions?

POMPEO: Nothing. You mean for the discussion?


ROBERTS: Are we willing to give a guarantee that we are not going to try to overthrow the regime? As Secretary of State Tillerson said last year. Are we willing to ease some sanctions? What are we willing to do?

POMPEO: Yes. Look, these discussions will play out over time. This first meeting I think is between the president and the leader of North Korea, the two people who are the decision-makers, who will ultimately decide what arrangements are acceptable.

But make no mistake about it: while these negotiations are going on, there will be no concessions made. The activity of this administration to disrupt the North Korean economy, to put pressure on North Korea, to galvanize the world in a way that you have countries from the Middle East to Europe and Asia, placing sanctions on the North Korean regime -- those will continue and we will see how the talks and the negotiations proceed.

ROBERTS: Intelligence experts remind me that the CIA does personality profiles of global leaders all the time. What can you tell us about Kim Jong-un's CIA personality profile?

POMPEO: Yes. So, we know a fair amount about him. We know that he is rational in the sense of the response to stimulus. We have seen this. We've watched this at administration apply pressure and now, we've watched him come to the negotiating table.

The CIA has an important role as these conversations take place. We need to make sure that we can inform the president of the history of deceit of this regime, where they have committed to things in the agreed (ph) framework and that subsequently, we need to make sure that we go into this discussion understanding those risks. The nature of Kim Jong-un himself, he's still a very young leader, but clearly in charge of his country.

Those are the kinds of things that we can share publicly about him and President Trump is now committed to having at least a first conversation.

ROBERTS: So, I'm curious, the president's tough-minded approach to North Korea, the things he said, the things he tweeted about, where those informed by your personality profile of Kim or did the president just freelance (ph) on that?

POMPEO: Well, the president had in his mind, even during the campaign, that North Korea was an enormous challenge. But I brief the president nearly every day and we have shared with the president every bit of information we have about the country, about its economy, about its missile systems.

ROBERTS: About what he might react --


POMPEO: About how Kim Jong-un might react and how North Korea might respond, how the globe might respond. And the president has built an enormous coalition aimed at the singular outcome, which is the denuclearization of the peninsula.

ROBERTS: So, where do they meet?

POMPEO: I don't know.

ROBERTS: What would -- what needs to be taken into consideration when discussing where they would meet? I mean, you wouldn't -- I assumed they wouldn't either meet in North Korea or the United States, probably not South Korea either. Geneva, Reykjavik as Gorbachev and Reagan did?

POMPEO: It seems to me, John, a lot less important about where they meet than the substance of the discussion. And I think that's different too. President Trump isn't doing this for theater. He's going to solve a problem.

And so, the location of the meeting will determine the exact timing of the meeting. The president and the team will figure out. But what's most important is what's discussed and the clarity and the strength and resolve of this president and this administration to achieve the outcomes that America so desperately deserves.

ROBERTS: Let's move on to Russia.

President Vladimir Putin did an interview with NBC in the last few days in which he says he could not care less if Russians try to hack the U.S. election because the people who were doing the hacking were not connected to the Kremlin. No connection to the Kremlin? What does the CIA know about that?

POMPEO: That's false.

ROBERTS: So, tell me what you know.

POMPEO: The Russians attempted to interfere in the United States election in 2016. They also did so before that. There's a long history of Russian efforts to influence the United States and conduct influence operations against the United States. And it was Russians who actually engaged in this, not somebody from outside of the country or disconnected from Russia.

ROBERTS: But when you say Russians -- Russians with ties to the Kremlin, Russian with ties to Putin's regime?


ROBERTS: So, do we know if their efforts actually affected the outcome of the election?

POMPEO: Yes, intelligence community has been clear that's not our role to discuss that, but there's not been a single indication that any vote was changed, that ballots were tampered with, or that there was any outcome determined by the intelligence community. The intelligence community has simply said that's not our role to make that determination.

ROBERTS: Is it fair to say you don't really know for sure?

POMPEO: The intelligence community's role is very clear. We talk about the things that happened, what the Russians did, what the other actors, not just Russians, have done historically in the United States to try and impact and influence America, American leaders. That's our function, we will stick to that.

ROBERTS: All right. The president said over and over again last year and in the campaign that there was no collusion with the Russians. He continues to say that. Has the CIA uncovered any intelligence that would suggest the Trump campaign did collude with Russia or try to influence the election?

POMPEO: John, there are multiple investigations taking place. CIA and White House have cooperated with those investigations. I don't have anything to add to that discussion.

ROBERTS: Putin bragged last week that he's got two new nuclear weapons with first-rate capability. One, a hypersonic reentry vehicle for an intercontinental ballistic missile, the other, a nuclear-powered cruise missile that has virtually unlimited range. Is he just blowing smoke or is that true?

POMPEO: Vladimir Putin says lots of things that are without foundation. I don't want to comment precisely on the details. I'll say that there was literally nothing that he said in a speech that surprised the intelligence community or the CIA. We are following and tracking all of this very closely, as are our brothers of the Department of Defense and Americans should rest assured that we have a very good understanding of the Russian programs and how to make sure that Americans continue to be kept safe from threats from Vladimir Putin.

ROBERTS: If he has such weapons, doesn't change the game at all? I mean, Russia has got enough nukes that they could probably overwhelm our defenses anyways?

POMPEO: Each time there's an advance in anyone's weapon systems, Russians weapon system, Chinese weapon systems, America is required to make sure that we have defenses that respond to them. As technology advances, not only the weapon system that he described, but cyber weapons as well. America has a responsibility, and national security team is fully engaged in making sure that we're prepared to protect America from those threats, from whatever regime that presents them.

ROBERTS: You mentioned China. Let's take a take turn to China. The Chinese leadership there just recently made a change where Xi Jinping can stay on past a second term which is supposed to end in 2023. Are we headed back to the bad old days of single person leadership, the days of Mao Zedong in China, and what are the implications of that?

POMPEO: So, it's the case that Xi Jinping has created an enormous personal power. He has taken many of the levers of power that were from time to time more dispersed. But from America's perspective, this administration has been very clear of pushing back against the Chinese threat.

If you look at the president's national security strategy, it was very clear that what the Chinese are doing, whether that'd be on trade or the theft of intellectual property or their continued advancement in East and South China Seas, this administration is prepared and engaged in pushing back against the Chinese threats so that we can have a good relationship with China in a way that the world desperately needs.

ROBERTS: I want to finish up with one question about the process. Several business writers caught this and wrote about it. Peter Navarro, who is the White House director of trade and industrial policy, talking about the president's imposition of tariffs, the other day say, quote: My function really is an economist is to try to provide the underlying analytics that confirm his, the president's intuition, and his intuition is always right in these matters.

The suggestion is that the president makes a decision about something and Navarro finds the facts to back it up.

Does that apply to the intelligence community as well?

POMPEO: Of course not. We are doing our level best to speak the truth each and every day. When it comes to trade, we are most focus on national security piece of that.


POMPEO: We try to inform the president as best our incredibly capable team at the CIA can about the facts and the data, the risks, the opportunities that are presented, the relative cost and we provide those to President Trump each and every day in an unvarnished way, and the president then makes his decision based on those facts.

ROBERTS: Director Pompeo, thanks for joining us today. We'll see you around the neighborhood.

POMPEO: Thank you, John.

ROBERTS: Always good to see you.

Up next, we'll bring in our Sunday group to discuss how the latest grand jury testimonies can shape special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Stay with us.



MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Progress is being made. A meeting is being planned. But the world should know this, North Korea should know this: all options are on the table.


ROBERTS: All options on the table. Vice President Mike Pence on the president's bombshell agreement for a historic face-to-face meeting with the leader of North Korea.

And it's time now for our Sunday group. Jason Riley from The Wall Street Journal, columnist for The Hill, Juan Williams, Catherine Lucey, who covers the White House for The Associated Press, yes, she shares my sentence, and Charles Hurt, the opinion editor for The Washington Times.

Just kidding, it's the best job in the world.



ROBERTS: Let me throw a jump ball up there. This meeting with Kim Jong Un, is it ever going to happen?

LUCEY: I think that's a good question right now, isn't it? I mean, there's a lot of things we haven't heard, about time, place, ground rules, and the president is clearly signaling, you know, we saw his rally last night and on Twitter, that he wants to do it. But there's a lot of folks out there questioning, how is it going to work?

JASON RILEY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: This is better than shouting insults over Twitter at North Korea. So --


ROBERTS: Unless the shouting insults is what got you to this point?

RILEY: But the question is, what are we getting in, in return for this? What are the concessions that we're getting just for the meeting? For Kim and for North Korea, the meeting is itself a very, very big deal, that he can use as propaganda back home. I'm on level with the president of the United States.

But we don't want them to be allowed to get away with that. We want something in return, and it's not clear to me what exactly we are getting in return.

CHARLES HURT, OPINION EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: I think kind of one of the scarier questions is, not just, does the meeting occur, but what happens after the meeting? And if they don't arrive at something that, you know, is acceptable to the world and to us, where do we go from there? Is the only option that remains a military one?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: So, what strikes me here, John, is that Rex Tillerson is very transparent and open in saying as our lead diplomat of the world as secretary of state, we're a long way from negotiations. We just agreed to talks, to a meeting. And it came as a surprise to us, says Rex Tillerson, which means that the Trump administration wasn't tapped into the idea, oh, yes, our rhetoric is forcing him to the bargaining table and he is now ready to make a deal.

That's not what happened. What happened was very dramatic. I think you were there, the president sticks his head into the briefing room, a big announcement is coming. It plays to the idea I think that President Trump wants the eyes of the world on him, that he's going to do something hopefully that his predecessors failed to do. And he's going to be able to say I did it.

ROBERTS: Jason was talking about how we got here. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina thinks that the president played this pitch-perfect all the way along. Listen here.


SEN. TIM SCOTT, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: Here's what we saw in January, we are seeing the manifestation of it now, presidential hubris. How do you deal with the North Korean bully? You've got to have hubris. And our president is the right person at the right time in the right place.


ROBERTS: So, all of this talk about little rocket man and fire and fury and all that, Catherine, it sounds like it was a strategy borne of hubris.


LUCEY: The White House's argument is that both the pressure campaign and the rhetoric got us to this point. I think the thing also that we see and we saw this on that very dramatic day that played out on Thursday, I mean, this really speaks to the president's belief that he as a negotiator can do things here differently than past presidents and this idea, he said, in the end, his speech at the convention, I alone can fix it. So, his idea that he can take different skills in to this conversation that other people --

ROBERTS: Did you have to do it differently, because what we've done in the past, all the way back to 1994 didn't work?

WILLIAMS: Well, true. But it's also still the case that what we know about the North Korean dictator is that he doesn't keep his word. He lies frequently, so we don't know exactly what is going to come of this.

My concern as an American is the president's strategy. Does the president have a strategy going into this? It's not clear to me that he does.

And all this talk about hubris, I don't know. I think it was the South Korean leader who had the teams marching together at the Olympics and said, I want to have talks. President Trump had been saying, no, let's not -- let's just put the sanctions. Sanctions, however, I think may have made a difference.

HURT: But I do think you have to give the president credit not only for the sanctions, increasing sanctions, and putting pressure on China, but also for some of the wild talk, you know, as he choked himself, you know, negotiating with the madman. Well, that's Kim Jong-un's problem, not his.

But, you know, there's so much that happens in Washington just sort of gets bog down in this analysis paralysis, and I do think that sometimes whether it's, you know, cutting regulations or cutting taxes or, you know, tough talk with a lunatic like this, it does sort of break the logjam.

ROBERTS: Time is ticking away. I want to get another issue while we still got the time.

The Russia investigation, Manafort pleaded not guilty, Cory Lewandowski testified before the House Intelligence Committee. He called it a, quote, waste of time. Adam Schiff complained that he refused to answer some questions. "Saturday Night Live" did a skit where the Jeff Sessions character said, I can't give you collusion.

Where are we going down with this?

RILEY: Well, it doesn't seem to be winding down, which is the rhetoric that have been coming out of the White House for sometime, oh, by Thanksgiving, oh, by New Year's. Now, we see the White House legal team being beefed up, or reports that --


ROBERTS: That's true. It's not going to happen is what I'm told.


ROBERTS: Moments ago, my text message told me it's not happening.


RILEY: But it doesn't look like this investigation is winding down. It also doesn't look like Mueller is any closer to proving collusion between Russia. None of this Manafort stuff which has to do with fraud and business ties show this. Still, no evidence of any collusion, but the drip, drip, drip continues, of course, to be a strain on the administration.

LUCEY: Yes. Of course, I don't think we know what Mueller knows or what he's doing right now exactly, which just know the little pieces in terms of what he has publicly released and what has been leaked out to the press. So, I think we're a long way from getting a full picture of that investigation.

But, yes, the point is right. It continues to shadow this White House and continues to frustrate this president.

ROBERTS: The fact, Juan, that Mueller it seems to be nibbling on the edges here, with, you know, the financial dealings as opposed to the actual core of the issue, which is collusion. Is that a suggestion that if he hasn't found it yet and made a charge about, that he's not going to?

WILLIAMS: No. I think we don't know. The big news this week, it's hard to remember, so much happens in a week in Washington, but Sam Nunberg, who was at the edge of all this, he refused -- remember he went on every TV channel in America and he said, oh, I'm not going to cooperate with the grand jury and then somehow with a threat of jail starting at his face, he did at the end of the week. But he said he thinks based on the questioning that Mueller has something. We don't know at this point.

ROBERTS: We've got to wrap. Speaking of how fast time passes, one of my producers said to me the other day, Gary Cohn, did he resign last year or two years ago?

We got to take a break here. We'll get you back in just a little bit.

When we come back, Senator Elizabeth Warren, a critic of the administration, on this week's moves on North Korea and trade and what she has planned for her political future.


ROBERTS: Coming up, Florida's passes sweeping gun legislation less than a month after the Parkland shooting.


GOV. RICK SCOTT (R), FLORIDA: We got legislation passed and enacted. That's how our government should work. I mean, you go elect people, you expect them to represent you. Get things done.


ROBERTS: We'll ask our Sunday panel if Congress will follow suit. Coming up on "Fox News Sunday."


ROBERTS: She is a rising star in the Democratic Party, known for her progressive ideas and fierce criticism of President Donald Trump. The senior senator from Massachusetts is touted as the potential candidate for president in 2020.

Elizabeth Warren joins us now from Boston.

Senator, welcome finally to "Fox News Sunday." Good to have you here.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASSACHUSETTS: Thank you. It's good to be here. Thank you for having me. I appreciate the invitation.

ROBERTS: Let's start first of all about North Korea. You have been very critical of President Trump and his policies on North Korea.

The day after he stood up at the U.N. and declared that Kim Jong-un was, quote, little Rocket Man, you said, quote: trying to bait a unstable dictator who has nuclear weapons is not a strategy that makes America safer.

Would you now acknowledge though after the news that came out late Thursday night that the president's combination of tough talk and maximum pressure through international sanctions has, in fact, come close to bringing North Korea to the table?

WARREN: So, I am very glad to see the Trump administration turn in the direction of diplomacy and the principal reason for that is because there is no military-only solution to North Korea. And this not just what I say, this is what our own generals who are experts in the area and responsible for the area say. So, that means we really do need strong diplomacy here.

But these are very complex negotiations, so I'm very concerned about the fact that the State Department has so many vacancies that much of the staff at the State Department has been decimated. We have no ambassador right now to South Korea. The assistant secretary in charge of this area, that's another vacant post.

And this is important because these are the people who know the economy, who know the language, who know the history, who know our military needs.

So I am very concerned that the president may be taking advantage of here. I want to see the president succeed. It is important for the defense of the United States. It is important for the security of the entire world.

But I'm worried about going into these negotiations without a strategy and without a strong full State Department to back him up.

ROBERTS: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who has found himself on the opposite end of the table of what President Trump many times in terms of opinion, issued a warning to Kim Jong-un saying if you try to play President Trump, that's going to be the end of you and the end of your regime.

Senator Graham doesn't seem to have any concerns that the president is going to get played here, why do you?

WARREN: Well, you know, one of the things we have to remember is that the Kim family, dictator after dictator for generations now, has been holding for a face to face negotiation with an American president. This is the big prize for them, just being able to be in the same picture with him. And a reason for this is the Kims have seen this as an opportunity both to legitimize their dictatorship and to legitimize their nuclear weapons program.

So, my view on this is before you let them have that big prize, before you announce that you're committed by a time certain to go to that prize, what we need to do is make sure that the North Korean regime has made real steps toward freezing their nuclear program and steps toward winding down their nuclear program and not just promises, but actual verifiable steps that we in the United States can see.

ROBERTS: Which we're --

WARREN: They shouldn't be able to get the prize of meeting with the president unless they've taken those kinds of steps.

ROBERTS: Which raises the question, though. How would you Senators suggest that that be verified? How do you verify something in North Korea?

WARREN: Well, that's the point. The North Koreans have to be willing to open the door. And if they're not willing to verify, then let's go back to the history we have with North Korea, promise after promise after promise after promise that they have broken. If we let them have a prize just based on a bunch of promises, knowing that they've broken every promise in the past, then shame on this administration, shame on the United States.

We have to say, you all have to be willing to open up so that we can verify. If they're not willing to do that, then they're not willing to take steps.

ROBERTS: Let's move on to trade. The president, as you know, slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum or restarted the 15-day countdown clock. Ahead of the announcement, you said, quote: The proposed tariffs take the right approach but they target a narrow section of the economy and put our allies in the same boat as countries like China that cheat constantly on trade all the while the administration ignores the root of the problem.

Now, the president started off by exempting Canada and Mexico, at least for the time being. Also said he'd be open to other exemptions. Has he met you half way here?

WARREN: So I was very glad to see what the president had done. Look, I have been a critic for a long time about U.S. trade policy. My view is that we have negotiated one deal after another that has been great for big multinational corporations and been lousy for American workers, lousy for American small businesses, often, not even good for American consumers.

So, what I'd like to see us do is rethink our whole trade strategy. And I'm not afraid of using tariffs as part of that trade strategy.

And I was glad when, after I made that statement, that the president distinguished our allies from China, and said, wait a minute we have to do something different here. But you can't do this. It's just a little tiny piece of the economy or a small piece of the economy.

It's got to be part of an overall trade strategy that puts American workers, American small businesses first. That's what I really want to see.

ROBERTS: Is that not what the president is doing?

WARREN: Well, he's got two industries in front of him. He started out with an announcement that was going to apply to everyone -- our enemies and our friends alike.

I think what it takes is you got to think about trade in a much broader way. It's very much about tariffs but it's also the negotiations, for example, have been about things like intellectual property rights and copyrights and access to domestic markets.

ROBERTS: But, Senator, he is talking about all of that.

Let's turn to another subject, we have minimal time here, so let me --

WARREN: And I hope he does, OK.

ROBERTS: Let me move to a topic that I know is very much in your wheelhouse.


ROBERTS: The banking bill. Some nine years --


ROBERTS: -- after the stock market hit a low, after the economic collapse, the Senate is poised to roll back some Obama era banking rules with the help of 17 Democratic senators. Let's listen to what you said last week on the Senate floor about that.


WARREN: In the next few days, with broad support among Republicans and far too much support among Democrats, the Senate is on the verge of passing a bill that puts American families in danger of that same devastation all over again.


ROBERTS: One of those 17 Democrats supporting that is your colleague from Virginia, Mark Warner, who said: The bill is mostly focused on community banks and credit unions. My state's lost 30 percent of such institutions. That does not help grow the economy, particularly in smaller communities.

The implication here, by virtue of your opposition, is that you're OK with losing community banks and credit unions?

WARREN: Of course not. And we have been in agreement for a very long time, the Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee that we need relief for community banks. And if this bill had been about nothing but community banks, I think it would sail through with very little opposition.

But what this bill does, is it takes 25 of the 40 largest banks in America, banks that collectively received $50 billion in taxpayer bailout and nobody went to jail for any part of it and says let's just treat them like community banks. The banks that is a quarter of a trillion dollars is not a community bank.

And you don't have to believe me on this, the Congressional Budget Office has said if this bill goes through, the chances that the American taxpayer will be called on to bail out Wall Street again go up. That's not where we want to be. This is not good for American taxpayers and it's not good for American consumers.

Can we just pause for one minute to remember, it wasn't just the stock market that went down? Millions of people across this country lost their homes, millions lost their jobs, millions lost their retirement savings. We cannot put the American people at risk for this again, particularly when the banks, all of the banks, are making record-breaking profits.

Our job in Congress is not to stand up for quarter trillion dollar Wall Street banks. Our job in Congress is to stand up for the American people.

ROBERTS: Let's look ahead to the 2018 election in 2020, and, Senator Warren, this is your first appearance on "Fox News Sunday," I'd like to give you the opportunity right now to declare, if you so choose -- are you going to run for president in 2020?

WARREN: I am not running for president in 2020. I have an election right now in 2018, here in Massachusetts and I'm out there talking to folks all across the Bay State. I just did my 23rd, I think it is, town hall in Weymouth on Saturday, my 22nd on Friday in Springfield.

You know, it's a chance to be out and talk to people. We really have to be in this fight for our democracy as we go forward and it's, you know, it's been an incredible privilege to serve the people of Massachusetts, to go down to Washington and to say, I'm not here to serve the rich and the powerful. I'm not here to fight for an American that works better and better for a thinner and thinner slice at the top.

I'm here to fight for working families like the kind of family I grew up in.

ROBERTS: Well, I know that you're looking ahead to November as opposed to 2020, but indulge me a moment here if you would. There are many people who are saying should you choose to run in 2020, and one of these groups is the Berkshire Eagle, Massachusetts newspaper that endorsed you in 2012, that the issue of your ancestry will come up and they're suggesting that you put it to rest saying, quote: Elizabeth Warren should screw up her courage and take the spit test, a DNA test, a positive test would permanently resolve the issue while possibly shutting down President Trump.

Would you be willing to take a DNA test to put this issue to rest?

WARREN: Look, let's start again, where you started. I'm not running for president. But let me tell you a little bit about my family.

You know, my mom and dad were born and raised out in Oklahoma, and my daddy was in his teens when he fell in love with my mother. She was a beautiful girl who played the piano. And he was head over heels in love with her and wanted to marry her. And his family was bitterly opposed to that because she was part Native American.

And eventually my parents eloped and they survived the Great Depression, they survived the Dust Bowl. They went through a lot of hard times. They raised three boys, my older brothers all of whom went off to the military. They raised me.

They knocked around and it was tough but they hung together. They hung together for 63 years. I know who I am because of what my mother and my father told me, what my grandmother and my grandfather told me, what all my aunts and uncles told me and my brothers.

It's a part of who I am and no one's ever going to take that away.

ROBERTS: Senator Warren, we'll leave it there. Thanks so much for joining us today and on behalf of Chris Wallace, please come back.

WARREN: Thank you, I'd love to.

ROBERTS: All right. Appreciate it.

Up next, Attorney Jeff Sessions sues California over its immigration policies and the NRA takes aim at Florida's new gun law in the wake of the Parkland school shooting. We'll bring back the panel to weigh in on both, coming up next.



JEFF SESSIONS, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open borders agenda.

LIBBY SCHAAF, D-OAKLAND MAYOR: My response to the attorney general statements this morning is as follows: How dare you vilify members of our community?


ROBERTS: Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Oakland's mayor, Libby Schaaf, battling it out over the mayor, warning her constituents recently of a coming ICE raid. The Trump administration is now suing California over it's so-called sanctuary laws.

The president is heading to California next week where all of this is taking place. The Department of Justice claims that it's unconstitutional for the sanctuary cities to exist.

Let's listen to a little bit more of what Jeff Sessions said on Fox News.


SESSIONS: Federal law determines immigration policy. The state of California is not entitled to block that activity.


ROBERTS: So, is that a case that he can win?

JASON RILEY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: I think you can. I think is on very solid ground and I'm someone who supports comprehensive immigration reform.

But in this case, I think the Constitution is very clear, the Supreme Court has been very clear. California is trying to block state and local officials from -- and businesses, by the way, from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. I think Sessions is on very, very solid ground here.

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think they're trying to block anybody from cooperating. The counterargument was an interesting one because remember, Barack Obama went after Arizona and the courts, that as Jason indicated, that U.S. federal law is supreme in the area of immigration.

But what California is doing is appealing to Tenth Amendment protections that are very interesting because this goes back to arguments in the Civil War about state supremacy, and say, guess what, when it comes to the safety of citizens, we do have a right to make the case that if we feel that this is endangering, that immigrant communities will not talk to law enforcement, that will create dangers and we will do that. And similarly, nonprofits that detain people, we have a right to check on them and make sure they are not dangerous environment.

CHARLES HURT, OPINION EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: You have local law enforcement agencies accepting federal grants to help enforce these laws or to house illegals that are detained. And then they're not doing it. That's a real problem. That's not just a Tenth Amendment thing.

ROBERTS: And what about the idea, too, that the mayor is saying to illegal immigrants in her city, the mayor of Oakland, is saying to illegal immigrants in her city, watch it, the feds are coming out for you?

CATHERINE LUCEY, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: The conflict is escalating on both sides and continuing right as the president is about to head to California for the first time since he was elected. So, I'm interested to see this week what he says when he goes there. He is expected to visit the prototypes for the border wall he's been trying to do. And I think it comes to this moment where really the state is in some ways at war with the Trump administration --

WILLIAMS: I think you're surprised -- you're interesting in what he has -- I can tell you what he's going to say.



WILLIAMS: Oh, these immigrants, these criminal immigrants, they're killing Americans. Come on, you know the rhetoric.

ROBERTS: I have a question, what happened to DACA?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think --

ROBERTS: And I'm looking at you because the Democrats were like, we've got to get this done --

WILLIAMS: Right, but he is the one who, of course, set the March deadline, right? Remember, back in September I believe it was, and then said let's force the Democrats to the table, let's make a deal. He has put forward a deal that the Democrats have rejected and now, the courts have intervened and said that he cannot unilaterally just do away with DACA at the moment.

But the question is, where is the pressure for a deal? And the Democrats are right now I think counting on the fact that they can embarrass President Trump.

ROBERTS: Let's move ahead to school safety and guns because the White House is announcing a policy later on today. Fox News has confirmed that it pretty much includes everything the president has been talking about because he didn't change his rhetoric that whole lot.

He's going to support -- this is kind of surprising based on what the NRA has been saying recently. He's going to support raising the minimum age to purchase some firearms, long guns, from 18 to 21, allow some members of school faculty and staff to be armed. He supports banning bump stocks. He's also got support for improved background checks. That's the Fix NICS, the Cornyn-Murphy bill, supports school safety improvements, that's to Stop School Violence Act. And create a task force to study gun violence.

So, it looks like, Catherine, that he's willing to go up against the NRA on this issue of raising the age.

LUCEY: Yes, I think we need to see the full (INAUDIBLE) of this proposal because I think some of it also might be what is done at the federal versus the state level. He's urging states to do things.

ROBERTS: Yes, a lot of this could be statement of support.

LUCEY: Yes, exactly. They're going to support. But, yes, I mean, he has made statements in recent weeks that the NRA isn't very happy with, although he's gone back and forth. And so, it is hard to tell exactly where this is going to end up.

RILEY: I also think -- I mean, I'm very aware of a one-size-fits-all policy coming out of Washington on many of these issues. Gun attitudes vary widely across this country from the South to the North, the West, the East, rural areas versus urban areas. I do think that local officials should be allowed to set policies that are going to make people in those communities feel better about how we treat guns.

ROBERTS: And local officials did set policy in Florida. Last week, Governor Rick Scott signed a school safety bill which puts in some new gun control measures. And he blamed the federal politicians for not doing anything. Listen here.


GOV. RICK SCOTT, R-FLORIDA: If you look at federal government, nothing seems to happen there. Here, this horrible thing happened, it happened three weeks and two days ago, we got legislation passed. It's enacted. That's how government should work.

I mean, you go elect people, you expect them to represent you, get things done.


ROBERTS: Charlie, Washington is really at the moment doing not much. Should it be left to the states?

HURT: I --

ROBERTS: When you look at the patchwork of gun laws across the country?

HURT: No, I do tend to agree with Jason on that, the states within limits, because obviously we're talking the constitutional rights and, you know, if states are going to pass law -- if they pass laws that infringe upon your constitutional rights, then I think federal government should be involved there. But I do think it's kind of interesting that, you know, in the first couple of days after the horrible tragedy, Donald Trump got a lot of heat about talking about arming teachers.

And which is actually, if you take a breath, step back, a lot of people think that's not an unreasonable thing for -- if you are --

ROBERTS: If they have the proper training.

HURT: Exactly. And even if you wanted to have special training for --

ROBERTS: You agree, Juan?

WILLIAMS: I'm very uncomfortable with it. I wish I knew more.

HURT: He's uncomfortable with guns.

WILLIAMS: I am uncomfortable with guns because I live in a city and, you know, the biggest threats to my life, Charlie, you lived in the district as well. One of these thugs driving by with a gun and they're fighting and shooting at each other and they hit me or my family.

But let's up my objection, I just don't know enough, but I will say that I know the teachers and police think, wow, to have teachers armed may not be the best solution. So, I'm aware of that.

ROBERTS: All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Time for a quick break.

We'll be right back, though, because all eyes are on Tuesday's special House election in western Pennsylvania, an election both parties view as a chance to show momentum ahead of the November midterms. That and how serious is the Stormy Daniels scandal? Coming up next.



DONAL TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I really feel strongly about Rick Saccone and I know him. I feel strongly about him. He's an incredible guy.

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: The man I'm campaigning for today, the highest compliment I can give him or anyone else is he reminds me of my son Beau Biden.


ROBERTS: President Trump and former Vice President Biden campaigning in Pennsylvania this week as Republican Rick Saccone faces off against Democrat Connor Lamb in a special election in the state's 18th congressional district, a district that technically will not exist come the end of the year. So, why the high-profile visits for that?

We're back with the panel.

First of all, who's going to win, Saccone or Lamb? And does it matter since it is being redistricted out of existence?

LUCEY: Well, it certainly matters. I mean, I think one thing that's important to remember the context is this is a district that Trump won by 20 percentage point. So, should the Republicans lose, it speaks volumes about Democratic enthusiasm going into the midterms.

WILLIAMS: And that's why the RNC has put a million in and other Republican outside groups have put I think $8 million. So, that's I think seven times more than the Democrats have put in this race, because they want to protect President Trump here.

RILEY: Even if Saccone wins by a small margin, I think the Democrats will be very, very happy with this. If they are forced, if the Republicans have been forced to spend this amount of money in a district that Trump won so handily in 2016, I think the Democrats will feel very, very good about the headwinds they put in the Republicans --

ROBERTS: I wonder, Charlie, did the president just when the 18th and Pennsylvania with the tariffs?

HURT: I think that is a huge issue. That's definitely driving things there, which is -- kind of way I sort of wonder, along with the fact that he won it by 20 points. Why -- I sort of wonder if this isn't some kind of head fake, to kind of make people think, oh, Republicans might lose it, but in the end they wind up winning it.

But regardless of whether they win, we know that the Democrats are very enthusiastic, but watching his performance last night, Trump's performance last night, he's back on the -- he's in his group again.

ROBERTS: And he revealed his theme for 2020. Watch this.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our new slogan when we start running in – can you believe it, two years from now -- is going to be: Keep America Great, exclamation point. Keep America great.

But we can only do that if we back people were going to back our agenda.


ROBERTS: Beginning of 2018, Juan, he's got this slogan for 2020, Keep America great.

What's Democratic slogan?

WILLIAMS: I think the Democratic slogan at the moment is get Trump out of here. We've had enough. Enough is enough.

But I don't know that that's good enough to win.


WILLIAMS: I think Democrats have to have a strong message. That's why the tariffs that we were talking about a moment ago, both the Democrat and Republican in Pennsylvania 18 are pro-tariffs. I think that President Trump especially with the energy that he demonstrated last night is still quite the campaigner and his rally still quite the TV show.

LUCEY: And he wants to be out there. We're going to see him a lot. This is just the beginning.

ROBERTS: He was in fine form last night.

LUCEY: He was on -- I mean, this is campaign Trump. I mean, this is what we've seen. He was all over the place. He was freewheeling. He was joking. He was sloganning (ph).

But also he really thinks that the tariffs help them in some of those key Midwestern states that carried him to the White House.

ROBERTS: You've got Marcy Kaptur saying, good on you, Mr. President.

HURT: And he even came up with a new nickname for Connor Lamb -- Lamb the Sham.

ROBERTS: Yes, lamb the sham.

WILLIAMS: Oh, my gosh. Come on --


WILLAMS: This is so childish. This is America.

ROBERTS: All right. The moment I know you've all been waiting for here in the panel at home. Stormy Daniels, is this going to stick?


LUCEY: It certainly picking up steam. I think the story has moved into the mainstream. We see in The New York Times and the Washington Post writing about it this week. She's taped an interview with Anderson Cooper.
So, I think it's not going away. I don't exactly know how it's going to unfold, but it's having some staying power.

RILEY: I will add, though, that President Trump's approval rating has been ticking up in recent weeks, even as the story has been playing out. So, again, it's another issue that his base doesn't seem to care a lot about. They seem to be focused on other things.

But there are some serious issues here. I mean, if there was no relationship, why were there hush payments? I mean, this is a very basic --

ROBERTS: But does that amount to a hill of beans? I mean, clearly, she wants to get out from a nondisclosure agreement because she sees a big payday.

HURT: People pay people to not talk about things all the time. If not a big deal and there's no evidence that there was any campaign funds used for this.

But back up a second, here's the problem with the Democratic approach to Donald Trump. This guy has been accused of everything under the sun and in a weird way, he's right about when he said, I could stand in Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any supporters.

He's been accused of so many things by so many people that a lot of his supporters are just like, I don't know, I don't know if it's true or not, I don't believe it.

ROBERTS: Politically, Juan, does this matter?

WILLIAMS: It matters in terms of whether there was a Federal Election Commission violation. That matters because that will drag out the story, to get back to your point, that will it keep it alive. I do think that while we have not seen in the polls any kind of denomination of white evangelical support for the president because of this, I think character flaw, guess what? People have to be intentional hypocritical --


ROBERTS: But here's a thing at play though. I mean, whether he did or whether he didn't have a relationship, people who voted for Donald Trump knew what they were getting before they voted for him. Does this change that at all?


LUCEY: Certainly, in the election, we saw his folks did not budge easily.

ROBERTS: All right. Great being with you today. Thanks so much. We'll see you next week when Chris is back.

And that is it for today. Have a great week. We will see you next "Fox News Sunday." And, honey, I've got your mug. I will bring it home for you.


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.