This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," November 5, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


President Trump travels across Asia while the fight over tax reform heats up here at home.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we get this through, and I think we will, you're going to see this economy take off like a rocket ship.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALI., MINORITY LEADER: This is a shell game, a Ponzi scheme that corporate America will perpetrate on the American people.

WALLACE (voice-over): We go to Capitol Hill for a wide-ranging interview with House Speaker Paul Ryan. The prospects for the Republican tax plan.

(on camera): How certain are you that the House will make the Thanksgiving deadline?

(voice-over): the Russia investigation.

(on camera): Some Republicans are arguing the president could fire Robert Mueller.

(voice-over): And the revelation the Democrats 2016 primary contest may have been rigged.

(on camera): That the DNC in effect made a deal with Hillary Clinton.

(voice-over): Paul Ryan, only on "Fox News Sunday."

Then, terror strikes New York City again.

REPORTER: Mr. President, do you want the assailant from New York sent to Gitmo?

TRUMP: I would certainly consider that, yes.

WALLACE: But Senator Lindsey Graham accuses the White House of going soft.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: I hope President Trump will break the cycle of turning the war into a crime by declaring this guy a suspected enemy combatant.

WALLACE: It's a "Fox News Sunday" exclusive.

Plus, our Sunday panel on terror, Russia and taxes.

And our power player of the week, becoming Mark Cuban.

MARK CUBAN, OWNER, DALLAS MAVERICKS: Prior to "Shark Tank", I was the crazy guy that just screamed at the referee at the Dallas Mavericks game.

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


WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

President Trump is two days into the longest and most crucial diplomatic trip of his presidency. He's meeting with allies in Asia trying to rally support against a nuclear armed North Korea, while back here in Washington, he leaves behind a fight over tax reform, indictments and the Russia investigation, and harsh words for his own Justice Department.

We begin with chief White House correspondent John Roberts, who was traveling with the president in Japan.


JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With tensions over North Korea's nuclear program building, President Trump shows a show of force in his first official event of this Asia trip talking to American troops at Yokota Air Force Base just west of Tokyo.


TRUMP: No one, no dictator, no regime, and no nation, should underestimate ever American resolve.

ROBERTS: The president will spend 11 days in the region, visiting five countries, Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Top of the agenda: how to put more pressure on North Korea to drop its nuclear weapons program, and the nagging trade deficits the U.S. has with all five nations.

TRUMP: We will seek free, fair, and reciprocal trade.

ROBERTS: But before the heavy lifting of security and trade talks begins, the president joined Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and PGA tour pro Hideki Matsuyama for lunch in an afternoon of golf with the host course for the 2020 Olympics event.

President Trump and Prime Minister Abe also signed hats for each other that read: Donald and Shinzo make alliance even greater.

Later, heading to dinner, President Trump said there's a lot to get done, and not much time in which to do it.

TRUMP: We are in the midst of having very major discussions on many issues, including North Korea and trade and other things.


ROBERTS: On his way to Japan, President Trump indicated that he will likely meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the conference this coming week in Vietnam. Not on the agenda, though, a trip to the demilitarized zone when he is in South Korea beginning on Tuesday. But the president did indicate he will likely re-designate North Korea as the state sponsor of terror sometime later in this trip -- Chris.

WALLACE: John Roberts reporting from Tokyo -- John, thanks for that.

Now to the sweeping Republican tax plan, which would cut rates for corporations and individuals, but would end some key deductions. On Friday, I sat down with the speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, to discuss the tax plan, and much more.


WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-WIS., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Thanks for having me.

WALLCE: Let's start with the prospects for this tax plan. You say you want the House to pass it by Thanksgiving which is less than three weeks away. You also say that K Street is coming after us, the lobbyists and the special interests.

So, how certain are you that the House will meet the Thanksgiving deadline?

RYAN: Yes, I feel very good about it. I think our members are very excited about this. We're pleased with what we've rolled out, and this is what we said we would do when we ran for office in 2016. We have to have tax reform. We have to have tax cuts for people in the middle.

This delivers that, and we really are convinced this is going to help get out economy growing and reaching its potential. You have to this in order to do that. And that's why we want to get it done this year so we can have a very good 2018 and get stronger economic growth.

And so, yes. We're on track for moving this through the House before Thanksgiving. That's our plan. We expect our friends in the Senate to be about a week behind us.

WALLACE: Well, let's talk about the Senate because, of course, the House passed ObamaCare. Repeal and replace you may remember.

RYAN: I do.

WALLACE: And it died in the Senate.

RYAN: Yes.

WALLCE: How worried are you with all of the complicated rules about budget reconciliation that the same thing could happen to tax reform?

RYAN: It's a completely fair and legitimate question. We feel very good, and we did things differently this time because of the health care experience. Like you said, we passed out health care repeal and replace bill back in May, and the Senate just couldn't get it done.

So, what we did this time differently was we worked for the Senate ahead of time from the summer on to put this bill together, to basically create a framework of this bill House, Senate, and the White House, and launch this thing together, and be very coordinated.

And then now, the budget rule. The budget that we passed in the House and the Senate paves the way for this to get done and get through the Senate. And this is in conformity of those rules. So --

WALLACE: But Orrin Hatch --

RYAN: The lesson learned was, coordinate with the Senate and then move together.

Orrin Hatch is going to be putting his bill out. All of those --

WALLACE: But he's saying he's going to pass his own bill which makes --


RYAN: That's the legislative process. But that's within the framework. That's the key here.

So, we had basically decided the big ticket items, the big 20 percent corporate- a 25 percent rate for pass through business, the middle class tax cut. All of those things are things we agree on, and so, these bills are written within those details. So, that's why those differences will be fairly narrow.

WALLACE: A month ago, you promised that tax reform would revenue neutral -- your words. But the bill that you just announced --

RYAN: I said budget neutral -- deficit neutral, because that's the way out budget rules work.

Let me just get you right there. You're going to say that the $1.5 trillion dollar tax cut, we are -- we are convinced that this is going to give us faster economic growth. I'm not saying every tax cut will pay for itself --

WALLACE: Let me just -- I just --

RYAN: Yes?

WALLACE: Let me ask a question. Then you can --


RYAN: I just know you so well, Chris.

WALLACE: Well, I know, I know.

But in January, when the new House, the new Republican Senate, the new Republican president were just getting started, you said this.


RYAN: We are fiscal conservatives. What that means is we believe government should not live beyond its needs. That means we have to get our fiscal house in order to prevent a debt crisis in the future.


WALLACE: Question: what happened to Paul Ryan the deficit hawk?

RYAN: Paul Ryan deficit hawk is also a growth advocate. Paul Ryan deficit hawk also know that you have to have a faster growing economy, more jobs, bigger take home pay -- that means higher tax revenues.

WALLACE: But your mark is $1.5 trillion added to the deficit.

RYAN: The reason we did it that way is because we believed that the Senate parliamentarian won't let us use what we call dynamic scoring which is --

WALLACE: Score keeping ground.

RYAN: -- that figures out growth. So, we basically did not want to lead the chance that some bureaucrat unelected would deny our ability to bring a tax bill through that is pro-growth and that reflects those pro-growth estimates. That's why it's done that way.

But we are absolutely convinced -- and we all have economic models that will show this -- that this will help grow the economy.

I wish the ObamaCare bill would have passed, which would have been good fiscal responsibility, entitlement reform legislation, it didn't pass the Senate, it passed the House. We're just going to keep going at entitlement reform all the way down the road. But we're going to make sure that we actually get this economy growing and this tax reform bill does that.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about ObamaCare because some Republicans are saying that as part of tax reform, there's a discussion about repealing the ObamaCare individual mandate, which would save about $400 billion, take it away from the deficit.

Is that on the table?

RYAN: Yes, we have an active conversation with our members in a whole host of ideas on things to add to this bill. And that's one of the things that's being discussed.

WALLACE: You say it's being discussed. So, there is a possibility the House could pass, as part of tax reform, doing away with the individual mandate?

RYAN: Again, we're listening to our members about what we can do to add to this bill to make it even better. So, that's among the ideas that a lot of members are suggesting that we could add to this bill to make it even better.

WALLACE: But it's on the table for this tax reform bill?

RYAN: It's one of the things that people have been suggesting. That's what I'm saying.

WALLACE: Then there's the question, who benefits? Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said this about this about the bill.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-CALI, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: To pay for all the tax giveaways in their bill, the Republicans are likely to make it worse for the middle-class, not just not help them but hurt them. Slash state and local deductibility, which is a bedrock middle-class and upper middle-class deduction, would hurt so many middle-class taxpayers.


WALLACE: Schumer says that you take away 70 percent of the state and local deduction and he points out that one third of taxpayers claim that. He says you're taking away almost three quarters of the value.

RYAN: Yes. So, here's what we're doing. You see this postcard? This is literally the kind of tax form that nine out of 10 taxpayers will be able to use. Right now, about 70 percent don't itemize.

By doubling the standard deduction, we're making it so that people don't have to itemize their deductions. So, instead of having the first $12,000 that you don't pay tax on, it will be the first $24,000 for a couple you don't pay your tax on and we're lowering people's tax rates.

The difference here is we're basically saying instead of using a tax deduction to lower your tax rate, lower your tax liability, we're just going to make it easier so you don't pay taxes in the first place.

But this is a clear middle class tax cut. No two ways about it, even for people in those high tax states.

WALLACE: Let's talk about it being a middle-class tax cut, which I know you say, the president says.

RYAN: Well, the math says it as well.

WALLACE: Let's talk about fairness. People will no longer be able to deduct medical expenses or interest on their student loans. As we've said, they're going to lose the deduction for what they pay in state and local income taxes, under your plan. But wealthy people will no longer pay any tax on estates worth millions.

Question --

RYAN: Yes?

WALLACE: Is that fair?

RYAN: Here's what fair. Clean out the special interest loopholes in the tax code and let people keep their money in the first place.

So, here's the discussion here. You just mentioned a couple of things that are good, that are valuable. Paying student loans, you have medical expenses. So, what we're doing here by raising the standard deduction, and lowering people's tax rates, we're saying, you do what you want with your money because it's your money. Instead of using a deduction to get some kind of a tax break based on this behavior. It's your money. You do what you want with it.


WALLACE: You're making it sound like it's a deal, Mr. Speaker, but if I have a student loan, and I've been getting -- able to deduct the -

RYAN: Yes. And instead of --

WALLACE: If I -- if I'm able to deduct the interest rate, now I'm losing that. If I have huge medical expenses and I'm able to deduct the medical -

RYAN: In exchange for a tax cut. So, you get to keep your money more in the first place, so you get to decide what you want to do with your money. That's the point I'm trying to make.

WALLACE: And why repeal the estate tax? We're only talking about like 5,000 people a year. There's already an $11 million exemption --

RYAN: I said two things. First of all, it's a fairness argument. Second of all, it's a job argument. You actually create jobs by getting rid of this death tax, because you know what kills one family business from passing their business on to the next generation? The estate tax.

WALLACE: But there are a lot of protections for family farms.

RYAN: But we believe that they're -- this is a fairness argument. People work hard to build up their business, their farm, their ranch, all their working lives. They pay taxes on that money all of their lives.

And then when you die, you get it taxed away from you and you can't pass it on to the next generation? We just think it's unfair. Death should be not a taxable event, and we should not be stopping people from being able to pass their life's work on to their kids.

WALLACE: I want to ask you briefly about the Russia investigation. The special counsel, Robert Mueller, has charged two top Trump campaign officials with various -- misconduct; one guilty plea by a campaign associate for lying to the FBI.

Some Republicans are arguing the president should fire Robert Mueller, in fact, several members of your own caucus have filed a resolution calling for him to step down. Some are saying Congress should cut off his funding.

Will you pledge that you will not allow the Mueller investigation to be curbed or stopped?

RYAN: Yes, as I've said all along. We need to let these career professionals do their jobs, see it through. So, no, I don't think he should be stepping down. I don't think he should be fired. I don't -- and the president's made it clear he's not going to do that.

So, no, we're not going to interfere with his investigation. The investigation will take its course, and we will let it take its course.

We're also doing our own investigations here in the House -- and the Senate has one as well -- into Russia and into Russia's meddling in our campaign.

So, these Russian investigations will take their course. We need to find out exactly what they did to our country, how and why they did it, and then how do we prevent them from doing it in the future. And let these career professionals at DOJ just do their jobs and finish their job, and that's what we're going to do. Let them do that.

WALLACE: And what about the revelations over the last few weeks about Hilary Clinton, about the fact that her campaign helped pay for the so called Russia Dossier? The revelation just yesterday that the DNC, in effect, made a deal with Hillary Clinton --

RYAN: Yes.

WALLACE: -- that she could control.

RYAN: So, the first part of your question, the dossier, that's part -- we were discovering that as well through our investigation, and the FBI has finally been releasing those documents so we could get to the bottom of that. And that is part of this Russia investigation.

The second thing -- that story just broke. I've never seen anything like that. I mean, we all said that the Clintons thought they lived above the rules. So, this takes the cake.

I mean, this is pretty amazing. For them to basically be running the DNC in a primary.

To see such a deck stack is really pretty jaw-dropping to me. No wonder the Democrats are ticked off. I would be, too. It's amazing to me on the Clintons, this live above the law or above the rules in this thing.

I understand why Democrats are mad about this. They should be mad about this, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like this frankly.

WALLACE: Is there any legislative remedy, or is this--

RYAN: Well, I don't know that there's a legislative remedy on how parties conduct themselves and how they're supposed to be neutral in primaries. Whether they broke campaign finance laws should be something that the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission, should have to look into.

But I don't -- we don't legally regulate how the parties set up their bylaws, but to have a primary -- it had one of the primary participants stacking the deck and running the party. That's -- I've never heard of that before. That -- it just takes the cake in my mind. It's amazing.

WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

RYAN: Yes, you got it, Chris. Thank you.


WALLACE: When we come back, more on that bombshell from former Democratic Party Chair Donna Brazile about Hillary Clinton's control of the DNC in 2016. We'll bring in our Sunday panel to discuss whether the party's primaries were rigged.

Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the Republican tax plan? Just go to Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air.



TRUMP: We are giving them a big, beautiful Christmas present in the form of a tremendous tax cut.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-NY, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Republican tax plan would put two thumbs down on a scale already tipped towards the wealthy and powerful.


WALLACE: President Trump and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer with very different views of the new Republican tax plan.

And it's time now for our Sunday group: GOP strategist Karl Rove, columnist for The Hill, Juan Williams. Rachael Bade, who covers politics for Politico, and Jason Riley from The Wall Street Journal.

Rachel, as our Congress watcher on this panel, I want to ask you about the tax plan. What you think of the prospects for the plan? What do you is the biggest challenge the Republicans face getting it through? And to follow up on the discussion I had with Speaker Ryan, what about this idea of adding -- repealing, killing the individual mandate of ObamaCare as part of tax reform?

RACHAEL BADE, REPORTER, POLITICO: I think the prospects are pretty good at this point in time. I mean, Republicans, after failing to repeal ObamaCare, they are feeling this pressure right now that they really have to deliver on tax reform.

I think I saw something this week on the Hill that bodes well for the plan, and that is the rollout went very fairly smoothly. I remember when they rolled out the ObamaCare replacement plan in the spring, and within two or three hours, we knew it was in some trouble because conservative groups started piling on, calling it ObamaCare light, and they've never recovered from that. And ultimately, the bill died.

This time around, we saw those same conservative groups come out and applaud the plan, say they like it, and that puts pressure on the House Republicans that are often divided and fighting about specifics on legislation, to actually get this done.

WALLACE: What about this idea of killing the individual mandate as part of tax reform? Is not going to help, or is not going to make it even more divided?

BADE: You know, Speaker Paul Ryan, who you just interviewed, he kind of sidestepped that a little bit. Turns out he thinks it's going to complicate the bill. We've heard this privately. He's very reluctant to mix health care and taxes because taxes are already complicated enough. When you add a repeal of the individual mandate, it could make things harder.

However, Senator Cotton is really pushing this in the Senate. He's close with President Trump and my understanding is he took this to the president and got him on board and President Trump obviously tweeted about this this week. That puts pressure on Speaker Ryan and the Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady to actually consider this.

So, right now, they are not panning it out right publicly. They don't like it privately. We'll just have to see where it goes.

WALLACE: We ask you for questions for the panel, and someone called Hopeful Skeptic, which is I think a good name, tweeted this: Why are we cutting taxes with the deficit? Where the cuts going to come from? Funding for disaster relief, increased military, infrastructure?

Jason, how do you answer Hopeful Skeptic, and what do you think, that going to try to finance this through spending cuts, or were they just going to add to the national debt?

JASON RILEY, COLUMNIST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, as Speaker Ryan said to you, this is about economic growth and that's how you're ultimately going to handle these deficits. You're going have to grow the economy, and that is what this plan is designed to do.

And I think on the corporate side, it would do that, as we see in the House proposal. You got something like $2 trillion sitting overseas, lowering the rate to 20 percent of corporate tax rate could bring a lot of that money back here. It could be invested in companies here. That's more hiring, that's higher wages.

We've all seen that unemployment rate come down, but wages have not been growing like they should be. Corporate tax cut like that can get the ball rolling here. So, that's ultimately what you're going to do.

The problem for me, however, is on the individual rate side. I think tax credits complicate the code, they are expensive, they do nothing for growth, and you have some senators like Mike Lee of Utah and Senator Rubio of Florida who want to put these credits in. They think it's good politics, but frankly, if you want to use -- if a voter is interested in using the tax code to redistribute wealth, they're going to vote -- they're going to vote for Democrats because that's what they specialize in doing.

I think Paul Ryan wants to focus on growing the economy and that's what I think this would accomplish, at least when it comes to corporate tax.

WALLACE: All right. Let's turn, if we can, to the Democrats. Well, yes, we can, because I'm running the panel here, so there you go.

Let's turn to the Democrats enter the bombshell revelation in Donna Brazile's new book that the Clinton campaign signed a deal with the DNC in 2015 that in return for fund-raising, the party gave the Clinton campaign considerable control over staff and strategy.

This put President Trump and Elizabeth Warren in rare agreement. Take a look.


TRUMP: You want to look at Hillary Clinton and you want to look at the new book that was just put out by Donna Brazile where she basically bought the DNC and she stole the election from burning.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Very quickly, Senator, do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?



WALLACE: Carl, the Clinton camp fires back. They say this was a deal that was made not for the primaries, but for the general election. That it was a way to raise money for the Democratic Party, that Bernie Sanders could have made the same deal. Do you buy it?

KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Baloney, complete and utter baloney. These joint fund-raiser agreements are a norm in presidential campaigns. But they're generally consist of very simple provisions. We'll let you use the party's mailing list and donor list for fund-raising purposes, and in return, we get access to your donors after you finish the primary campaign.

This gave in writing control over finance, strategy, operations and staffing of the Democratic National Committee to the Clinton campaign. It explicitly says, we get to name the communications director, we've given you two names, you pick from those two names. And any vacancies, staff vacancies in communications, tech and research, you're going to come to us and we have control over your budget. Anybody who has control over your budget has control over your operations, and anybody who has control over who you staff up in the committee has control over how that committee goes.

WALLACE: So, this was rigged?

ROVE: This was rigged. I got to tell you, it is jaw-droppingly amazing that in the fall of 2015, the Democratic National Committee signs this agreement and then for the next -- until their convention in the summer of 2016, the Democratic national chairman says, oh, no, no, we are being neutral in this.

This was a document that surrendered lock, stock and barrel control of the Democratic National Committee to Robby Mook and the Clinton campaign hierarchy in Brooklyn. It's just astonishing.

WALLACE: And we should point out in terms of timing that the time that this was signed, the primary battle with Bernie Sanders hadn't even begun and Joe Biden was still considering running.

Which brings up another point I want to ask you about, Juan, and that's another revelation in the book. We got to back, let's play the tape, 9/11/2016. You could see Hillary Clinton, this is where she fainted because of pneumonia, leaving the event, the ceremony at Ground Zero.

And Donna Brazile says in her book when she saw that, plus all the problems she had with the Clinton campaign, that she thought of getting the DNC to begin a process to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine on the national ticket with Joe Biden and Cory Booker.

I have a couple of questions -- first of all, what to make of that revelation? And two, you and I know Donna Brazile. We've known her for years. She's a sharp, strong, tough Democratic operative. Why do you think she is saying this?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think this is what happened to her. I mean, she was essentially pushed aside by the Clinton operation, and I think she feels disrespected by the Clinton operation to that extent, because when she comes in, it's very apparent to her as we just heard Karl described it, they have bailed out a financially ailing Democratic Party.

President Obama had created, you know, Organizing for America. He's taking money away. There wasn't really a fund-raising energy there. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had not been a success as the party chairman.

Donna comes in in a rescue operation and finds gee whiz, guess what, this is being run out of Brooklyn. I don't have that power.

So, I think that she has felt and she always felt, you know, some wise guys on the Democratic side who run the Democratic Party, they don't listen to her. They don't have value for people like her. So, I think that's why she did it.

WALLACE: This is what she said in conference calls -- this is what she says in her book, in conference calls with Democratic Clinton campaign operatives, you were treating me like one of the slaves in "12 Years a Slave".

WILLIAMS: Correct, that's what I said. That's how she felt.

So, this -- let me just finish this point, though. There's a civil war among Democrats going on. The rift between the Hillary people and the Bernie people, the Elizabeth Warren people has never healed. This morning, we know about a rift among the Republicans with George H.W. and George W. Bush going after Trump.

But what we have going on for the Democrats as they have been unable to capitalize on the tremendous anti-Trumped fervor because they haven't been able to somehow heal the rift in their own party.

WALLACE: And I think we would all agree that Donna Brazile's book pours a lot of salt on that open wound.


WALLACE: Panel, we have to take a break here. We'll see you a little later in the program.

Up next, President Trump takes on his own Justice Department from demands to investigate Hillary Clinton, to calls for the death penalty in the New York terror case, is the president crossing the line? We'll ask Senator Lindsey Graham, next.


WALLACE: Coming up, Senator Lindsey Graham urges the president to get tough on terrorists in the wake of the attack in New York, New York.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: The last thing I want this guy to hear tonight is you have the right to a lawyer. The last thing he should here is his Miranda rights.


WALLACE: We'll talk with Senator Graham about terror, justice and Russia, next.


WALLACE: Senator Lindsey Graham was one of President Trump's biggest critics earlier this year. But now the two are finding common ground on everything from health care to taxes. Still, after this week's terror attack in New York City, the senator called out the president for, quote, following the Obama playbook.

Senator Graham joins us now from South Carolina.

Senator, I want to start with two -- two terror suspects --

GRAHAM: Yes. Right.

WALLACE: Sayfullo Saipov has been charged in the attack in New York City this week that killed eight people. Mustafa al-Imam has been charged in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Now, in both cases, as you know, they were charged in civilian criminal court, not as enemy combatants. And you said in reaction to that, it as if Loretta Lynch, Obama's attorney general, never left. Is this president and his administration, are they too soft on terror cases?

GRAHAM: Well, I think the president's got the right attitude about fighting the war on terror. I complement him for taking the gloves off when it comes to our military. But clearly the Trump administration is doing exactly what the Obama administration did. It's hard to catch a terrorist alive, Chris. And when you do, you should try to gather intelligence.

I don't mind trying this guy in New York court, the New York terrorist, but want I wanted to do was hold him for a long period of time, let our military, CIA interrogate him about what he knows about terrorism, how he got radicalized. He said he was a soldier of the caliphate. ISIL says he was a soldier of the caliphate. We talked to him for one day in the hospital. We read him his Miranda rights. We throw him right in court and we can get any intelligence going forward because now he's been lawyered up. And that's exactly what Obama did.

So when it comes to Trump policy, they're using Obama's playbook. And they got a lot of the Obama people hold over. And I want to see that change.

WALLACE: How do you explain that? You know, this is a president who has talked tough on terror.

GRAHAM: Yes. Yes.

WALLACE: This is his own Justice Department.

GRAHAM: Right.

WALLACE: How do you explain the fact that they're, as you say, doing the same thing, which is not taking these people into the enemy combatant role, at least for interrogation --


WALLACE: But instead are putting them immediately into the criminal justice system and allowing them to lawyer up?

GRAHAM: Woefully unprepared for this moment. The explanations I got from the Department of Justice about their legal reasoning made me so mad I could not see straight.

They said the reason they didn't declare the New York guy an enemy combatant, even though he pledged allegiance to ISIL, ISIL said he was one of their soldiers, he killed eight people in the name of radical Islam, showing support for ISIL, because there's no evidence of command and control. That is ridiculous.

They're recruiting in cyberspace. They're trying to radicalize people in our own backyard. What makes you an enemy combatants is when you adopt radical Islamic philosophy and you act on it. When you kill in the name of ISIL, you're a soldier of the caliphate.

The guy coming back from Libya was one of the masterminds behind the Benghazi attack and under the Obama administration, at least they interrogated him while he was on the ship before they put him in federal court. The Trump administration took this man from Libya, captured by our military, and sent him right into federal court without any efforts to gather intelligence. And he was one of the masterminds of the Benghazi attack. This is ridiculous. It makes us less safe. And it needs to change.

WALLACE: You say woefully unprepared.

GRAHAM: Woefully.

WALLACE: Who do you hold responsible?

GRAHAM: Well, I know Jeff Sessions agrees with me in philosophy, but it's clear to me the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice have not coordinated how to handle a terror suspect. When we capture one of the soldiers of the caliphate alive, it is a tremendous opportunity to understand how the enemy operates, what they know, how they got radicalized. We should have long conversations.

They were not prepared for this moment. There are no protocols at the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense changing Obama policy. They're doing exactly what Obama did. And I'm urging the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, to come up with new protocols to hold terror suspects, soldiers of the caliphate, people who kill our ambassador as enemy combatants in the future.

WALLACE: Meanwhile, President Trump is urging his Justice Department and the FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton and the Democrats --


WALLACE: On everything from the uranium deal, to the Russia dossier, her e-mails --

GRAHAM: Right.

WALLACE: Her arrangement that we just talked about with the DNC.

Here's the president.


TRUMP: They should be looking at the Democrats. They should be looking at Podesta and all of that dishonesty. They should be looking at a lot of things. And a lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department, including me.


WALLACE: Senator, is the president crossing the line when he encourages, almost directs, his Justice Department and the FBI to investigate and perhaps prosecute his political opponents?

GRAHAM: Yes. It is my view that President Trump, as the commander in chief, should be focusing on his Department of Justice, his Department of Defense, to make sure that if we ever capture somebody who is involved in the Benghazi attack, who murdered our ambassador and three other Americans, that we don't ship him across the seas and put him in federal court without first interrogating him. I can only imagine how much intelligence could be gathered from one of the masterminds of the Benghazi attack.

So rather than directing his Department of Justice to go after Hillary Clinton, I wish he would direct his Department of Justice to come up with policies to hold terror suspects, soldiers of the caliphate, as enemy combatants.

WALLACE: Well -- so -- so why do think it's wrong for him to be pushing the Justice Department and FBI to go after Hillary Clinton?

GRAHAM: That's just not the way we do it in America. Here's what I do need -- believe needs to happen. I think we need a special counsel to investigate the Fusion GPS episode between the Democratic Party, Mr. Steele and Russian operatives. I think we need a special counsel to investigate the Uranium One episode of where thousands of dollars were given to the Clinton Global Fund and to former President Bill Clinton from groups tied to Russia. We need a special counsel because Mueller can't do this.

WALLACE: When you say that's not the way we do it in America, go after political opponents through the justice system, explain.

GRAHAM: Right. Well, the president of the United States is in charge of the executive branch. It's not his job to be telling the attorney general to prosecute a particular individual or a group. It is the attorney general's job to do that independent. We have a rule of law that's independent of political influence. And when you call on the attorney general to prosecute your former opponent, that is crossing a line.

But here's what I would say about Russia. Massive involvement in our election. The idea that the Democratic Party would pay millions of dollars to a foreign agent to go to Russia to gather dirt on President Trump, then candidate Trump, allows the Democratic Party to be manipulated by Russian operatives inside of Russia.

So I want to get to the bottom of Fusion GPS. And I'm really worried about what happened with the Uranium One deal because there was a woman in Clinton's inner -- inner orbit there in terms of campaign financing fundraising that was sent out of the country a suspected Russian spy. That needs to be looked at as much is the Trump campaign.

WALLACE: Who was that, sir?

GRAHAM: I can't remember her name, but he was associated with a big fundraiser of Clinton. She was expelled from the country as being a Russian spy.

And everything about Fusion GPS stinks. The idea that the Democratic Party would hire, though a law firm, a foreign intelligence officer, go to Russia and try to gather dirt means that they've set themselves up to be manipulated by the Russians.

The idea that the Russians didn't know that Mr. Steele was in town looking for dirt on Donald Trump is zero impossible. I can't believe that they didn't know. So you're setting yourself up to be manipulated by the Russians. And, to me, that's a terrible thing to do.

WALLACE: Finally, I want to ask you about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and statements he's made repeatedly to Congress that he knew nothing of any contacts between the Trump campaign, Trump world and associates. Here's an example.


GRAHAM: Did you ever overhear a conversation between you and anybody on the campaign who talked about meeting with the Russians?

JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have not seen anything that would indicate a collusion with Russians to impact the campaign.


WALLACE: Yes, I just want to correct the record. I was talking -- you were asking about Trump campaign in the Russians. But we now know that Carter Page has testified before Congress that he told Sessions he was going to Russia during the campaign and another advisor, George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, says he told both Sessions and candidate Trump in this meeting during 2016 about his contacts with the Russians. Question, do you believe that Sessions needs to come back before Congress and correct the record on his testimony?

GRAHAM: Well, this is getting a bit old with Jeff Sessions. I like him a lot. He's a dear friend. I think he's very qualified for the job. But I ask a question, did anybody ever talk to you about talking to the Russians. I didn't ask about collusion.

So we now know that somebody at a meeting, Mr. Papadopoulos, raise the idea of meeting with Putin. There's nothing wrong with Trump meeting with Putin if he wanted to. It would be wrong to have the Russians help the Trump campaign, or the -- or Hillary Clinton's campaign.

And here's what nobody talks about, the Russians manipulated Comey in getting involved into the election. It was Russian information that Comey used to jump into the middle of the 2016 election, not a meeting between Lynch and President Clinton on the tarmac.

But when it comes to Jeff Sessions, Jeff, you need to tell us everything you know about Russia. So, yes, he probably should come back and answer the question yet again, did you know anything about an effort by the Trump campaign to meet with Russia, not just collude with Russia?

WALLACE: I've got 30 seconds. Final question. Do you still have full confidence in Jeff Sessions as attorney general?

GRAHAM: I have confidence in Jeff that he can adjust his policies. But if we don't adjust our policies at the Department of Justice regarding how to handle terror suspects and soldiers of the caliphate, I will lose that confidence. We missed two opportunities to hold two terrorists as enemy combatants to gather valuable intelligence about the war on terror, and we blew it. And I hold the people at the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense accountable for that.

WALLACE: Senator Graham, thank you. Thanks for your time. Always good to talk with you, sir.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

WALLACE: Up next, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe starts with two indictments and one guilty plea. We'll ask our Sunday panel, who's next?



TRUMP: I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I'm not supposed to be involved with the FBI. I'm not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I'm very frustrated by it.


WALLACE: President Trump making it clear he's not satisfied with the way his prosecutors and investigators are doing their jobs.

And we're back now with the panel.

Well, Karl, I was thinking back, the Bush 43 White House, that you were part of, got in trouble for making what turned out to be a completely legal move to dismiss seven U.S. attorneys around the country. What do you make of the president's comments this week in effect challenging his Justice Department and the FBI to go after Hillary Clinton?

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think it's unseemly. And, more than that, I think it's dangerous. I think it's dangerous for our country to get in the habit of where it looks like the political winners direct their Departments of Justice to go after their political opponents and political -- the people they defeated at the polls.

I think it's dangerous for President Trump because, look, this simply -- once you unsheathe this particular weapon, you can never sheath it again. Imagine what would happen if a Democratic Congress got in, a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, and used their disagreements with political disagreements with the president to push for impeachment.

You know, and also it looks like he's got something to hide. Leave this whole thing alone. Move on. Be the president of the United States. Focus on the big things and leave it to the Justice Department to make a conscious decision whether they ought to -- I'm confident Mueller is looking at some of these questions. I'm confident the Justice Department is looking at some of these questions. Leave it over there. Don't have the president engage with it.

WALLACE: Juan, let me take the counter side of the argument. The president does nominate -- he's subject to Senate confirmation -- he does nominate the attorney general. The Justice Department is part of his administration. If there have been violations of the law -- and you just heard Lindsey Graham say there have been violations of the law by the Clintons, some of these deals, Uranium One, the GPS, Fusion, why not say to them, take a look?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, this is an authoritarian instinct, so I think Karl was exactly right when he says, you don't punish your political opponents by putting the mechanism of law enforcement on them without saying, hey, there has to be a real basis. This is a law enforcement decision. This is not a political act. And you don't go after the courts or the military courts in terms of some of the criticism we've had this week without understanding. You're undermining something that is core to America, which is our law enforcement system. And that's what he's doing by trying to pressure Attorney General Sessions into taking an act against Hillary Clinton.

Now, with regard to the dossier and this is a -- and Fusion GPS, this has a total false equivalency. There is nothing equivalent between opposition research, which is totally legal, and potentially colluding with a hostile foreign state to interfere with an American election.

WALLACE: Well -- go ahead.

KARL: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. They -- the Democratic National Committee hired a firm that paid money to a British spy in order to contact his Russian counterparts --


KARL: His Russian contracts --


KARL: To collect bad stuff on Donald --


KARL: Absolutely.

WILLIAMS: No. No, not at all.

KARL: There's -- I mean --

WILLIAMS: One is a Russian government.

KARL: Well, wait, who do you think he was talking to? Who do you think the former British spy was talking to?

WILLIAMS: And -- but -- but the point is, it's a -- now, Karl -- Karl, the Russians, not the Russian government necessarily.

WALLACE: Well, he was talking to people that were Russians.

WALLACE: Does it -- does it -- what's the difference? What's the difference?


WILLIAMS: But, Karl, one is foreknowledge --

KARL: Oh, please. Juan, please.

WILLIAMS: One is foreknowledge of working with the Russian government.

KARL: Please, this is embarrassing.

WILLIAMS: If -- I'll tell you what's embarrassing is the manipulation --

KARL: (INAUDIBLE) paying money to a British spy to talk to -- to -- (INAUDIBLE) checks.

WILLIAMS: Let me finish this point. Let me -- allow me -- allow me to finish this point.

WALLACE: Briefly, because I want to move on to something else.

WILLIAMS: One -- one is a matter of total distraction, diversion from the Russian probe, put up like a smoke screen by the Trump administration and by his stooges in the Congress.

ROVE: It is not appropriate for American political parties to be paying money to acquire information from the agents of foreign governments. Period.

WILLIAMS: They weren't. They were paying Fusion GPS which is an American company.

WALLACE: Wait, wait, wait, timeout.

Meanwhile, Special Counsel Robert Mueller made the first big salvo of his probe, let's take a look at that, announcing charges against two top Trump campaign officials, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and that a foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Here was the response from White House Spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders.


SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Today's announcement has nothing to do with the president. It has nothing to do with the president's campaign or campaign activity.

The real collusion scandal, as we've said several times before, has everything to do with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, and Russia.


WALLACE: Jason, what kind of statement do you think Robert Mueller made in terms of the nature, the strength, the momentum of this probe with what happened this week?

JASON RILEY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: I think the statement he made was, I'm just getting started. I think it's got a couple indictments now. He's got a guilty conviction. I think what he's going to do is squeeze now. He wants the people he's indicted and the person who has already pled guilty to talk about other people higher up the food chain and so forth. So I think that is -- that is the message.

And, again, we say it a lot, the president is helping himself or not by publicly commenting on the investigation. I mean what we've seen in the cases of the court response to his executive actions is often turning his words back on him. So I think the lesson from that would be to just say, let the -- let the investigation play out. But I think this is going to be a headache for the administration for the foreseeable future.

WALLACE: Rachael, what was the reaction from people you talked to on Capitol Hill? Were Republicans -- did they -- did they get the sense this president is going to have a problem and may be in trouble, or, gee, it's not as bad as we thought?

RACHAEL BADE, POLITICO: It was particularly surprising I think the Democratic reaction. And it's kind of muted. We didn't hear a lot of calls for impeachment following these indictments of Papadopoulos.

WALLACE: Well, that would be utterly premature.

BADE: And it sounds like Nancy Pelosi has been doing her best behind closed doors to tamp this down and -- because she doesn't want to overplay her cards here.

Republicans -- I think just yesterday we saw conservatives drop a bill calling for Mueller to step aside. And that leads me to one thing we're going to be watching in the coming weeks is, does Congress move to try to protect Mueller right now? The answer is no, even though they have bipartisan legislation in the Senate that would make sure that the president cannot get rid of Mueller. Mitch McConnell --

WALLACE: Paul Ryan made pretty clear --

BADE: Right.

WALLACE: He's not going to play that game.

BADE: Right. They feel like the president won't go there. They have an assurance privately that he's not going to do this. However, I'm wondering if this is sort of misplaced confidence at this point in time. We know that Steve Bannon has been talking to the president about going after Mueller. We also know that conservatives -- (INAUDIBLE) -- "The Wall Street Journal" said something about it this week as well. There's definitely a brewing storm right now around Mueller and so we'll have to watch.

WALLACE: Twenty seconds, Karl, your read on this first week?

ROVE: I think it is the beginning. But I also think it's a rapid beginning, which is a good sign. I think he's going to wrap this thing up quicker than we might expect. There's more to -- more to be done.

But, look, if -- if there was collusion, if there was something there, I think we would have had a bigger hit that these things that were done with Manafort, involved things that after a couple of -- happened -- end a couple years ago and Papadopoulos is a flimflam artist not at the center of the campaign.

WALLACE: Flimflam artist. I don't think I've ever heard that on "Fox News Sunday."

Thank you, panel. See you next Sunday. But we'll say it again.

Up next, our "Power Player of the Week." Mark Cuban on the secrets of his success and the lure of politics.


WALLACE: A billionaire businessman goes on reality TV and becomes a star, and then he toys with the idea of getting into politics. Think you've heard this story before? Here's our "Power Player of the Week."


MARK CUBAN, ENTREPRENEUR: I try to help entrepreneurs. I try to invest in companies. I guess I'm an entrepreneur who's also an investor and a geek.

WALLACE (voice-over): Mark Cuban is an Internet billionaire, but where America really got to know him is a reality TV show.

WALLACE (on camera): What has "Shark Tank" done for Mark Cuban's brand?

CUBAN: Oh, night and day different. I mean prior to "Shark Tank," I was the crazy guy that just screamed at the referees at Dallas Mavericks' games.

WALLACE (voice-over): More on that screaming in a moment.

On "Shark Tank" Cuban is a disciplined investor.

CUBAN: Ian, that's a bad idea, and I'm going to tell you why.

There's some businesses I just don't want to deal with. I don't want to deal with the music business. I don't want to deal with the pet business. I don't want to deal with businesses involving little kids. That's just not where I have my strength, right.

WALLACE: but, when he sees a good deal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So you're saying you're going to help us out?

CUBAN: Yes, all of it. (INAUDIBLE). Everything. I've done it before.


CUBAN: Thank you.

WALLACE: There's also his bumpy relationship with the show's lead character.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you thinking like an ice cream store?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that's a crazy idea.

CUBAN: Exactly.

WALLACE: Tell us about Mr. Wonderful.

CUBAN: Kevin's actually a jerk on camera. Off camera he's a great guy.

WALLACE: Which brings us back to the year 2000, when Cuban bought the Dallas Mavericks and got noticed and fined for going after the referees.

CUBAN: The refs were pitiful tonight and I don't care if I get fined.

WALLACE (on camera): Would it be fair to say that you were a bad boy when you came in as the owner of the Mavericks?

CUBAN: No, absolutely not. I was -- I was driven. I was an entrepreneur. And the NBA wasn't ready for that.

WALLACE: What was the business side of yelling at the refs?

CUBAN: The business -- OK, the business -- there was no good business reason for yelling at the refs.

WALLACE (voice-over): But he got the last laugh in 2011 when his team won the NBA championship.

Cuban says he was born with the entrepreneurial gene. At age 12, he was working his neighborhood.

CUBAN: And I went door-to-door, hi, my name is Mark Cuban. Do you use garbage bags? And it was easy, right? And so that's how I learned how to sell.

WALLACE: But Cuban says the key to selling is not convincing, it's helping. And years later, as a fan of Indiana basketball, living in Dallas, he came up with the idea and technology to stream audio of games over the Internet.

CUBAN: It was crazy. It just blew up.

WALLACE (on camera): And what did you sell broadcast.com for?

CUBAN: $5.7 billion in Yahoo! stock.

WALLACE (voice-over): Now, like another billionaire/reality TV star, Cuban is considering politics.

WALLACE (on camera): What do you think of Donald Trump?

CUBAN: When I interact with Donald Trump, the Twitter troll, he's like any other troll, I have -- there's no holds barred. And, you know, with Donald Trump, the president, there's some things I agree with and some things I disagree with.

WALLACE: How seriously are you thinking about running for president yourself in 2020?

CUBAN: Thinking? Quite a bit. Would I do it? I'd say right now it's 10 percent. My -- what holds me back more than anything is my family.

WALLACE (voice-over): If he runs, Cuban says it will be based on solutions he comes up with for the nation's problems.

Meanwhile, he's busy learning about artificial intelligence and thinking how he can add to his portfolio of more than 150 companies.

CUBAN: But I know that there's some 12-year-old kid somewhere that's trying to do the same thing. And that gets me fired up.

I used to be the youngest doing all this (INAUDIBLE). Now I'm too old to be learning the stuff. Nah, you know, I like that challenge.


WALLACE: Cuban says he's trying to instill his work ethic in his children, encouraging them to get jobs. But, he says, his daughter has made it clear she won't be selling garbage bags door-to-door.

And that's it for today. Have a great week. And we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."


Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.