Rep. Reschenthaler: Laughable to say Iran acted better under Obama
House Foreign Affairs Committee member Guy Reschenthaler reacts to attack on U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, comparison to Benghazi.
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," January 2, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
ED HENRY, GUEST HOST: Tonight, on "The Story," former Congressman Trey Gowdy with live reaction to a stunning admission that seem to prove President Trump right. One of the loudest pro-impeachment voices in Congress. Democrat Al Green revealing just how long he's been planning to impeach the president.
Plus, Sean Spicer and Richard Fowler on how the president is winning the battle of the biggest bank account heading into the 2020 election. Bernie outpacing Biden and the rest of the pack, but can any of the candidates compete with the president's massive fundraising haul.
And New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio slamming Domino's pizza for jockeying up the price of a pie around Times Square to 30 bucks a pop on New Year's. John Stossel joins the debate and says De Blasio needs a little lesson in the principles of supply and demand.
Good evening, everybody. I'm Ed Henry in for Martha MacCallum. And this is "The Story."
A lot to get to. But first breaking this hour, Iraqi security officials revealing at least three rockets were just fired at Baghdad International Airport. The rocket has landed near the cargo hall killing four people. No word yet on who is responsible for this fresh attack, but it comes as Iran is warning the U.S. tonight that it has, quote, unquote, "the power to break America." As hundreds more of our troops deployed to the Mideast in the wake of the Iranian-backed militias attacking the U.S. embassy in Iraq.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper acknowledged to Fox today tensions are high. He signaled the attacks on Americans may not be over and he had a blunt warning for Tehran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK ESPER, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: If anybody challenges us, they will be -- they will be met with a severe response. People know that we have vast capability to do any number of things. We will act in response to actions by Iran or its proxies and we will act to preempt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Some of the presidents' critics like Joy Reid at MSNBC try to label the embassy siege Trump's Benghazi, likening the situation to that 2012 terror attack in Libya where four Americans were killed.
Seem like a puzzling comparison. In this situation, no U.S. personnel were harmed and the embassy was not overrun. These as various figures from the Obama era blaming President Trump for the latest attacks and claiming he conducts his foreign policy based on, quote, unquote, "Obama envy."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: How much of his policy in Iran is simply about doing the opposite of that which President Obama, your old boss did?
BEN RHODES, FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA ADVISOR: Well, that's a big piece of this. There was no logic to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement. I think he wanted to show he was different from Obama. And this is what you get when you have a foreign policy it is not really about anything other than acting on Trump's reckless impulses undoing pieces of the Obama legacy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Well, all sides of this argument tonight with Republican Congressman Guy Reschenthaler, former Obama State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, and former National Security Council aide, Fred Fleitz.
But first up, Congressman Guy Reschenthaler who sits on the House foreign affairs committee. Welcome, Congressman.
REP. GUY RESCHENTHALER, R-PA.: Ed, thanks for having me on, and Happy New Year.
HENRY: Happy New Year. You say it's laughable to claim that Iran acted better under President Obama. How do you back that up?
RESCHENTHALER: Absolutely, it was laughable. We have to remember that under the Obama administration, the Iranians were funding Hezbollah, they were funding Hamas in the Gaza strip, we had chaos that was leading to the mass that we have in Syria. The Iranians were even backing Houthi rebels in Yemen. So, the chaos they cause during the Obama administration unfortunately it's carrying over now and President Trump has to deal with it.
HENRY: Has the situation in Syria gotten better, has the situation on the ground in Iraq gotten better?
RESCHENTHALER: Since Trump has been in office --
HENRY: Yes.
RESCHENTHALER: --Iran has been held accountable. What's going on right now is that because President Trump backed out of the Iranian deal, Iran no longer has money to fund these terrorist groups around the world. And applied maximum pressure where we are putting sanctions on Iran is working.
Now it might seem counterintuitive, Ed, that Iran is lashing out and we say that it's working, but the Iranians lashing out proves that the maximum applied pressure and the sanctions are working on Iranians and here is why.
HENRY: Yes.
RESCHENTHALER: The Iranians are trying to cause discord; they're trying to get the Europeans to back off those sanctions and they're trying to artificially increase the cost of petroleum to bring more revenue into their regime.
HENRY: Well, I hear what you are saying. There's also a school of thought that perhaps the Iranians are launching these kinds of attacks against the U.S. embassy, for example, in order to distract from what's happening in Tehran from the fact that their economy is in shambles, the fact that they are facing these protests. Do you believe that?
RESCHENTHALER: I do. There's always -- there can be several -- two things can be true at once. So, the Iranians can be doing this, I think it's part of it. They are doing it to bring to relieve pressure. Domestically you have a lot of folks in Iran. They are trying to move to a pro-western, pro-Democratic state and overthrow the ayatollah, that is true.
But it's also a way to bring discord to the Middle East, to try to drive a wedge between the Americans and the Iraqis, particularly the Sunni Iraqis. And a way to make sure that the Europeans are not going to increase sanctions with the United States on the Iranian regime.
HENRY: But you remember back in June when President Trump talked about airstrikes and walked right up to the line of launching airstrikes against Iran and then pulled back at the last minute. Did that send the wrong signal to Tehran?
RESCHENTHALER: I don't think it did. You have to -- we have to recognize that there is a new sheriff in town. President Trump is not President Obama. When he makes a threat, when he draws a red line, he is going to enforce that.
But there are a lot of ways we can strike Iran, just not with military force. We can also have a cyber-attack or we can have increased sanctions and just increase that pressure on Iran to drain them of the revenue they need to support their regime. They support terrorist activities around the region.
HENRY: So, what's your bottom line on the Iran nuclear deal? You hear former Obama officials basically saying we are going to hear one in a moment -- that basically the Iran -- pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal has made us weaker.
RESCHENTHALER: Totally absurd. We are now respected in the Middle East. The Iran nuclear deal just gave pallets of cash to Iranians for them to fund terror throughout that region. We are in a much weaken -- we are in a much weaker position now because of Obama's vacillation and because of his weakness on foreign policy.
Thankfully, we have President Trump that is making sure America is respected again around the world, but most importantly in the Middle East where we have troops that are stationed.
HENRY: Congressman, we appreciate you coming in.
RESCHENTHALER: Thanks, Ed.
HENRY: My next guest as I noted was a key player on President Obama's negotiations on that nuclear deal with Iran, Marie Harf, former State Department spokesman and a Fox News contributor. Happy New Year.
MARIE HARF, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Happy New Year, Ed.
HENRY: So, you heard the congressman, you heard this before, that President Obama made us weaker and President Trump inherited this mess.
HARF: Where we are sitting today, Ed, the question I have for the Trump administration isn't how they feel about Barack Obama and his policies. We are now almost at the end of the first term of President Trump. It's what his strategy is.
You know, I believe the point of the nuclear deal without having something to replace it was a mistake. A strategic mistake. People may not have liked everything about the nuclear deal but under that agreement there were severe restrictions on Iran's nuclear program. Today, those restrictions aren't in place and there is nothing to replace it.
HENRY: But on that point and we'll get to what President Trump is doing or not doing. But if the Obama nuclear deal was so good, why did you have to send pallets of cash to Tehran?
HARF: That's -- those are completely different issues here.
HENRY: How is it different?
HARF: Because --
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: If it's a great deal why did you essentially took a bribe on --
(CROSSTALK)
HARF: So, the concept of the nuclear agreement, the reason Congress passed sanctions was, under the premise, that if Iran undertakes severe restrictions to their nuclear program, they will get sanctions relief. That was always the trade-off that went into any concept of negotiation. The question was always what those restrictions should look like and what that sanctions relief should look like.
The money that Iran got back under the nuclear deal was its own money that had been frozen in accounts since we put sanctions in place. They undertook the severe restrictions; they got the sanctions release.
That was the deal. And we believed that that was the best way to get these restrictions on Iran on their nuclear program which is the biggest threat to Israel, the biggest threat to us and our allies. They've always had money, they used to fund Hezbollah. The Iran nuclear deal did not change that.
HENRY: Well, hang on. Our next guest is going to have a chance in a moment. Fred Fleitz. He is a Republican. And he has a new op-ed in Foxnews.com that says that some of the money you're talking about actually went on to fund terror. It went on to fund Palestinian terror, number one. And number two, that Iran's 2016 military budget after you had signed the nuclear deal went up 90 percent to $100 billion after the deal. Does that sound like Iran was pulling back?
HARF: No one ever said that Iran was going to pull back from all of their nefarious activity. That's why we maintain that the terrorism sanctions, the sanctions on their ballistic missiles and the sanction on human rights under the deal. We just release the sanctions on their nuclear program and we maintain the pressure on those other areas, Ed.
But you and I are having an interesting intellectual discussion about the deal that's no longer in place. Right? The question on the table today --
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: So, I told you we get to the chance of what the President Trump is doing.
HARF: That's right.
HENRY: So, tell me.
HARF: It's what President Trump is doing. There appears to be no strategy. He and his administration are racketing up the pressure on Iran taking these very public air strikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.
You know, the Israelis have been taking strikes against these same kinds of militias in Iraq and in Syria, but they are doing it more quietly. They're trying to send the message that this is unacceptable, that they have a red line that will not be crossed, but they are doing in a way that doesn't increase the tension on the ground which is really counterproductive for American interest.
HENRY: OK. I gave you a minute there to say that. You say the president has no strategy. I went, look, in May, he had a joint news conference with the Japanese prime minister. He was asked about the strategy with Iran.
In part, here's what he said. "We are not looking for regime change, I'm looking to have Iran say no to nuclear weapons. No nuclear weapons for Iran and I think we will make a deal." What's wrong with that? What's wrong with saying I want to make sure that one of our mortal enemies that funds terror around the world doesn't have nuclear weapons. Isn't that a strategy?
HARF: Well, it's not a strategy, it's a statement.
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: I know you have (Inaudible) of steps to get there.
HARF: And the Iranians --
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: But that's a strategy.
HARF: the Iranians signed an agreement that said they never want to nuclear weapons, they would not pursue them, that Donald Trump himself ripped up. So that's actually not a strategy, that's a statement of principle. Underneath that how do you go after Iranian-back militias in Iraq? How do you up the pressure on them in Syria?
The one thing that President Trump has done in Syria withdrawing our troops actually emboldened Iran there. It gave them more leverage there. So, when I look at the region, I see that Iran is doing a lot of very bad things. I see that they are a threat to our friends and partners.
What I don't see is anything from the Trump administration that is a strategic look, how are we going to get back to the nuclear deal? How are we going to bring our allies on board?
HENRY: But this attack on the U.S. embassy it was Iran's fault not President Trump's fault. Right?
HARF: It was Iranian-backed militias that did this. But I would say that the fact that we are caught in this escalatory cycle right now is a direct result of President Trump and his administration's policies that he has pursued in the region. His policies have consequences, Ed, and we are seeing that play out.
HENRY: Marie Harf, I appreciate you coming in.
HARF: Happy New Year.
HENRY: Happy New Year. As I mention, also here tonight, Fred Fleitz, former deputy assistant to President Trump, chief of staff to national security advisor John Bolton. He is now president of the Center for Security Policy. Happy New Year and thanks for coming in.
FRED FLEITZ, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Hi, Ed. Happy New Year.
HENRY: Fred, I'm going to give you a fair chance just like we've gone back and forth. Marie says your op-ed is essentially wrong.
FLEITZ: Well, first of all, the nuclear deal was a disaster. It allowed Iran to continue nuclear-related activity such as uranium enrichment, it was clear cheating. And as you said, it used the windfall of sanctions relief to spend on terrorism. It was a disaster the president did a good thing of getting out of it.
The president does have a strategy, it's called maximum pressure. It's denying funds that cause anti-regime protest in Iran, in Lebanon and in Syria. What we are seeing in Iraq right now is the Iranian regime trying to strike back at the president.
The president is going to keep the strategy in mind. But do you know why this is a success, Ed? Because the president knows there is no easy solution. There is no quick fix. He's not going to conduct air strikes against Iran without a clear strategy and a good justification, and he's not going to get back into a disaster of a weak deal like Obama's nuclear deal.
HENRY: So --
FLEITZ: He's going to keep the economic pressure up. That's a strategy.
HENRY: So, you answer that part of Marie's question. What about the other part of her claim that the president has no strategy to get to the principle? I laid out that back in May the president made clear. Look, they don't have nuclear weapons, they swerve off nuclear weapons, I'm going to make a deal with them essentially in 2020. She says there's no strategy to get there.
FLEITZ: The strategy is maximum pressure on Iran until it's ready to negotiate. If it's not ready to negotiate, we are going to keep the screws on. We are not going to start bombing Iran and we're not going to agree to this ridiculous Obama deal. It's not a perfect solution because this is such a difficult challenge.
But another part of the president strategy is no unnecessary wars. We are going to put maximum pressure on and the president will use military force if he has to.
HENRY: So last question on that, then. When you say we are not going to bomb Tehran, then what was Secretary Esper telling Fox today when he said there's going to be severe consequences if Iran keeps this up? You know, obviously he's not going to get into our military planning but he seemed to clearly be suggesting that U.S. airstrikes are on the table. How do you get Iran to knock this off without military action?
FLEITZ: Airstrikes against Iranian backed militias is different than attacking Iran, and I don't think we will do that either unless we have too, and unless they are posing a threat to U.S. citizens or U.S. allies.
But attacking Iran itself which we almost did over the summer which the president vetoed, I think that was the right decision. That's a very great step that the president will only take if absolutely necessary.
HENRY: All right. Fred Fleitz, we appreciate you coming in tonight.
FLEITZ: Good to be here.
HENRY: Next up, the first Democrat to officially call for President Trump's impeachment now openly admitting the genesis began before President Trump was even elected. Trey Gowdy on those who wanted the president removed from office simply because he won. That is next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. AL GREEN, D-TEXAS: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HENRY: President Trump wasting no time in the New Year railing against Democrats over impeachment, tweeting today that what he calls a partisan witch hunt is only bringing more division than ever.
And while the timing and scope of the eventual Senate trial are still to be determined, at least one Democrat is now openly admitting the effort to impeach the president goes way back to even before he was elected.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The argument goes like this of House Republicans and Trump and his allies the president and his allies is, basically the Democrats wanted to impeach Donald Trump from day one, they cast about looking for a set of facts that they could possibly use to do it, and all of it was pretextual and reverse engineered to get to this point.
Exhibit one, Congressman Al Green who's been calling for the man's impeachment for two years now. What's your response to that charge?
GREEN: Well, the genesis of impeachment to be very candid with you, was when the president was running for office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Here now Trey Gowdy, former chair of the House oversight committee now a Fox News contributor. Happy New Year and welcome.
TREY GOWDY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, sir. Happy New Year to you.
HENRY: The host there seem to be trying to get the opposite answer that this is not political or anything like that. And then Al Green says well, actually this is political, it goes even deeper. How does that square with the prayerful Pelosi that we heard about?
GOWDY: Al Green is a gift from God and we should buy him time during the Super Bowl so he just keeps on talking. Two years ago, Ed, he filed a resolute -- impeachment resolution and what the announcer that you just played didn't follow up on is 60 House Democrats joined with Al Green.
So, what else has Al Green said? He said the president should be impeached because he's fearful he may win again --
HENRY: Right.
GOWDY: -- in 2020. So, I always thought this movement began during the inaugural address. I thank Al for helping me better understand it actually running for office is an impeachable offense. Not just -- not just winning but running for office is an impeachable offense.
HENRY: You mention something a moment ago that seems important as well, that Al Green also said recently that Democrats needed to move forward on impeachment in part because they can't beat the president at the ballot box.
GOWDY: Yes, at least he's honest. I give him high marks for honesty. Not high marks for following the Democrat talking points. I think Tulsi Gabbard may be right. This may wind up costing them somehow seats but I don't think it will cost them the whole House. They're not going to win in November 2020.
I always thought, Ed, this is more about retaking the Senate, putting Cory Gardner, Susan Collins, Martha McSally, and Tom Tillis in tough spots.
Because even if President Trump wins in 2020, if he doesn't have the Senate, he's essentially a neutered president, he can't get his cabinet through and he can't get judges through, and he couldn't get the Supreme Court they can see through.
So, I've always thought this was much more about the Senate than it is about removing him from office because that is not going to happen.
HENRY: That's an interesting theory and it's also interesting because Mark Meadows today was talking about maybe beefing up the president's legal team and suggested they are going to win because there is no case here. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: If I had to pick a team, I would say you get in Jim Jordan, you get in a Matt Gaetz, you put your A-team -- a John Ratcliffe.
Listen, everybody wants to have their day in the sunshine. This is not a time to play politics, it's a time to put your best team on there. I think Matt Gaetz would be one of them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: What do you think about some of those players being added to the president's team if there is a Senate trial and how do you reach your own decision to say, look, I'm going to stay being an advisor on the inside, not the outside.
GOWDY: Well, the president has got a really good lawyer in Pat Cipollone. He is a fantastic lawyer. There is a political component to this and I am a huge John Ratcliffe fan. In addition to being an incredible courtroom lawyer, John was the United States attorney in Texas, he also understands the politics.
He's on the judiciary and House intel, so he's watched Schiff and Nadler. He's conducted the depositions, he's defended depositions. If there needs to be someone with a political background to understand the chronology and the process, Ratcliffe would be fantastic.
But the president would win if the vote was today. And I don't like surprises. I don't like witnesses that I don't know what they are going to say. If the vote were today, the president would win.
So, my advice to him is, go with the defense team you've got now. Cipollone, Ratcliffe, Pam Bondi, Jay Sekulow, and then get to the vote as quickly as possible. Don't inject any surprises or witnesses that you don't know what they're going to say. It's just not good in a trial for there to be a lot of surprises.
HENRY: The name you did not mention in that group is Rudy Giuliani. He was at Mar-a-Lago on New Year's Eve for the big bash. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER: I would testify. I would do demonstrations, I give lectures, I give summations. Or I do what I do best, I tried the case. I would love to try the case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: What do you make of that?
GOWDY: Rudy is a really smart guy. You don't get to be the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York without being smart. You can't be a witness and tried the case. I think he was being a little festive, a little hyperbolic. You can't be both.
I'm not sure that I would inject Rudy as a witness because I got no idea what's going to come out of his mouth. Not that I'm worried about it, you just don't -- you don't call witness -- it's not a drama. It's not an ending where you're sitting on the edge of your seat wondering what's going to happen. That's not what you do in litigation.
You need to know the answers before the witness says a word.
HENRY: Yes.
GOWDY: And to the extent there is uncertainty, don't call the witnesses. I like his current team. I think Pat Cipollone and John Ratcliffe --
HENRY: Yes.
GOWDY: -- are more than sufficient to defend the president on these facts.
HENRY: Congressman, last question when you mention witnesses a couple of times. the New Times had a big outtake a few days ago suggesting there's more to the story on Ukraine. And as they piece it together, they suggested there was this dramatic meeting in the Oval Office, defense secretary, secretary of state, White House chief of staff urging the president not to freeze the aid against Ukraine.
Doesn't that suggest there may have been going on behind the scenes and you hear Democrats now saying that some of those cabinet secretaries and other officials should testify?
GOWDY: Well, Ed, I am waiting for Adam Schiff to do what we had to do when we were up against Adam Schiff, which is go to court and have the other branch, and article three judge tell a witness to come before Congress.
Adam Schiff did everything in his power to keep Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS people from giving testimony to Congress. So, if he believes strongly that in these more witnesses go to a court and have the court order it, but he hasn't done that.
So, there's a way to do it. He just wasn't in such a hurry to get these impeachment articles through he didn't do it the right way.
HENRY: They were in a hurry, now they're trying to slow it down. They haven't even sent the articles over. We'll see where it heads next. Congressman, I appreciate you coming in.
GOWDY: Thank you.
HENRY: All right. The president's campaign starting the New Year off on a pretty high note, announcing its strongest fund-raising quarter yet. And more than $100 million in cash on hand already in the bank. What it means for his 2020 rivals next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HENRY: Senator Bernie Sanders announcing a major cash haul in the fourth quarter of 2019. The Vermont senator raised nearly $35 million, topping Joe Biden by more than $12 million. But neither came close to the Trump campaign's $46 million. It's biggest quarter ever. With a total war chest now of more than $100 million in the bank.
Here now, Sean Spicer, senior adviser for America First Action and former White House press secretary of course under President Trump, and Richard Fowler, national syndicated radio talk show host and a Fox News contributor. Happy New Year to both of you.
SEAN SPICER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Happy New Year, Ed.
RICHARD FOWLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Happy New Year, Ed.
HENRY: Richard, there's this fight among Democrats obviously, your front runner Joe Biden is trailing Bernie Sanders in the money race, but all of them are trailing the president.
FOWLER: Well, look, number one, I think it's a fight, we are just having a primary contest. That's what happens. And if you look at Bernie Sanders -- it's not a fight.
HENRY: It's not a fight?
FOWLER: It's a primary contest. We're trying to figure out who the nominee is going to be.
HENRY: OK.
FOWLER: That's what happens. If you look at -- if you tabulate back in the envelope math on Bernie Sanders numbers and Joe Biden's numbers, they both outraised, if you put those together, they outraised the president. If you add Pete Buttigieg to that, they definitely outraised the president this quarter and that's because we have multiple candidates in the field versus one Republican candidate.
That's what this is all about. Remember, this is not going to be just about fund-raising. It's about who can talk to voters, who is going to go out and vote for them, and most importantly who can convince people in the swing states that they are the best candidate in the race.
HENRY: Well, sure. And let me bring in Sean.
(CROSSTALK)
SPICER: And you know, can I --
HENRY: I mean, Richard, if you add it up to 15, 16 people it will more than the president.
FOWLER: Of course.
HENRY: But the president himself has 100 million in the bank, right, Sean?
SPICER: So, I think that there is something Richard said that's actually spot on. I mean, it's not just about the money. It's talking to swing voters. It's talking to people that make up the constituent and electorate that will be important in the cycle.
Here's the thing. While those candidates are running a primary campaign, trying to win states like Iowa and New Hampshire and focusing on super Tuesday, the president and his team have been focused on the general election on those swing-state voters in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania.
So, here is the important thing. For the first time in history, you have this political triad, you have the campaign and the RNC integrated and coordinated in a way that's never been done before focused on the general election.
And then you have us in America First Policies and PAC they are flying overhead supporting the president's allies' policies and reelection campaign and providing that support in a way that is never happened in terms of those three entities focused on a general election this early.
And I think that is going to be an advantage digitally and on the ground that will not, that will give a huge advantage to the president and his team in those final few months.
HENRY: All right.
SPICER: They can't catch up to the ground game in the digital game that this team has on the ground -- in the field.
HENRY: Richard, I'll give you a quick chance to respond to that and I've got to follow.
FOWLER: Sure. Listen, I think that's wishful thinking. Here's what we know. Since Donald Trump has taken office Republicans about to compete in 12 governor's races. And in those 12 governor's races they lost most of them. Same goes for the midterm election, right? They hadn't defended the House, they lost control of the House.
So, under Donald Trump, their ground game that Sean talks about has not been remarkable.
HENRY: All right. he's going to be on the ballot this time which will be a big difference.
SPICER: Yes.
HENRY: But I want to get back to your claim a moment ago, Richard, that this is not a fight, they're just having a little contest. This just came in from the campaign trail a few moments ago. Bernie Sanders, quote, "It's just a lot of baggage that joe -- as in Joe Biden -- takes into the campaign, which is not going to create energy and excitement. He brings into this campaign a record which is so weak that it just cannot create the kind of excitement and energy that is going to be needed to defeat Donald Trump."
It sounds like a fight. Sounds like Bernie Sanders is not sold on your front runner.
FOWLER: Listen, Bernie Sanders shouldn't be sold on our front runner. We want to have a very, very good contest. Right? We want to have a -- we want to have a debate about ideas, we want to figure out who is the best candidate represents the Democratic Party going against this president.
What we do know is that from the beginning of -- since the beginning of this race, Joe Biden and Bernie have been at the top of these polls. And so, the fact that these two individuals are exchanging blows are exchanging barbs shows this is a healthy primary, that this is a debate about ideas in which our candidates will do the best job to work for middle-class families, the best jobs and lowering --
HENRY: OK.
FOWLER: -- the lowering cost of prescription drugs, the best job at making early childhood more affordable.
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: Sean, last point.
FOWLER: These are all things that voters care about.
SPICER: Yes. I would just say, here's the problem. We don't need to have a debate about ideas. We have a debate about accomplishments --
(CROSSTALK)
FOWLER: On prescription drugs, we do, Sean.
SPICER: -- on record. That 2016 --
FOWLER: Because the president's record is --
(CROSSTALK)
SPICER: Richard, I let you talk.
HENRY: OK. Give him a chance, Richard.
SPIECER: Will you please, Richard. I think in 2016 we had this theoretical debate about the president's policies versus the hypothetical Hillary Clinton's policies. Now we have a record of results.
If you look at the economy, how many people are working, the growth in the economy, people going back to work, manufacturing, the military budget, plus veterans getting the care that they deserve. This president is going to the American people with a record result saying if you like what you see, let's keep the ball rolling.
HENRY: All right.
SPICER: If you want to go to the far left and embrace socialism, go for it. Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden that was with more --
(CROSSTALK)
FOWLER: I'm glad you brought up, Sean.
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: Quick last point.
FOWLER: Because as I remember this president promised there would be a nuclear -- a nuclear-free North Korea, and that's not -- that's not the case. He promised that he would bring peace in the Middle East then now we have a situation brewing in Iran.
HENRY: All right.
FOWLER: Not to mention the fact that right back here at home there are retirees going back to work because they cannot afford the price of their insulin and this White House has done nothing about it.
HENRY: Ok. No fighting here. Just a friendly contest between two friends.
FOWLER: Absolutely.
HENRY: Sean and Richard, I appreciate you coming in.
FOWLER: Good to see you.
HENRY: All right.
SPICER: Thanks, Ed.
HENRY: Still ahead, John Stossel with the message for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HENRY: A new twist tonight on Hunter Biden's ongoing paternity battle in Arkansas. The judge overseeing the case has now abruptly recused himself without any explanation.
Our chief breaking news correspondent Trace Gallagher has the story. Good evening, Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR & CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Ed.
The timing here could be key because the judge's recusal comes just days after a private investigator firm out of Florida filed a notice claiming Hunter Biden was part of a money-laundering scheme. But as soon as that claim was filed, Judge Don McSpadden struct it from the record, saying it wasn't relevant to the paternity case.
But the investigative firm then refile the claim, saying it provided bank documents to Lunden Roberts, she is the mother of Biden's child. Proving that Hunter Biden was involved in fraud and counterfeiting.
Judge McSpadden been recused himself before he could issue a new ruling. Biden's attorney called the investigative firm's documents a, quote, "scheme by a nonparty simply to make scandalous allegations." And the attorney for Lunden Roberts says the judge's recusal was a sign of integrity. Quoting here, "it highlights the ethos and values that make the judiciary such a powerful separate branch of government. Our client sincerely thanks Judge McSpadden for his time and attention to what has become a difficult and convoluted child-support matter."
But it is notable that Hunter Biden has refused to answer basic questions about his finances and has failed to abide by the judge's ruling that he released five years of bank records, including his time on the board of Burisma where he reportedly earned $50,000 a month.
Biden's bank records could also shed more light on his various investments involving China. Lunden Roberts says Biden hasn't given him any child support for more than a year. A hearing in the case is schedule for next week and a new judge has already been assigned, Ed.
HENRY: Trace, thank you.
Next, a message to America. It could be lurking behind Kim Jong-un's mountain top horseback ride.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong-un. He likes me, I like him. We get along. He's representing his country. I'm representing my country. We have to do what we have to do.
But he did sign a contract. He did sign an agreement talking about denuclearization. And that was signed. The number one sentence, denuclearization. I think he's a man of his word, so we're going to find out. But I think he's a man of his word.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Kim Jong-un says his country is no longer bound to a deal with President Trump. That put a pause on the testing of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. And now the emboldened dictator is out with a new show.
Right out on state TV, riding out a white horse up a sacred mountain, a propaganda that could prove symbolic.
Joining me now is "MediaBuzz" host, Howard Kurtz. Good evening, Howie.
HOWARD KURTZ, FOX NEWS HOST: Hi, Ed.
HENRY: What is it with these dictators riding horses? I mean, I guess at least compared to Vladimir Putin who rode around on a horse shirtless, at least Kim kept his shirt and jacket on.
KURTZ: Yes. I don't think Kim can quite pull off the shirtless look, but there is something about these totalitarians riding horses. They seem to think it projects an aura of brute strength. I think it is aimed at domestic consumption because one of the advantages of being a dictator is that Kim can simply order his state-controlled media to run that equestrian video round-the-clock.
HENRY: Yes. Apparently, he taped this earlier this year. Some of it had run in pieces and then right around the New Year's holiday. He knew this hour-long special suggesting maybe something is coming --
(CROSSTALK)
KURTZ: Happy New Year.
HENRY: Yes, something is coming just as they promised before Christmas, maybe there would be may be a surprise for the U.S. that didn't really materialize.
But for the president, talk about the stakes for him. We played that sound bite on the way where he said he thinks Kim is a man of his word, the president has been talking up the prospect of a nuclear deal just as with the China trade deal. Does this president need a deal with North Korea before the election?
KURTZ: Well, you know, at least with China there's a lot of for our economy at stake. And I think he had more or less a willing partner though the negotiations have been tough. There is mounting media criticism of President Trump on this because the question is being asked, what has he gotten for his year and a half of personal diplomacy with this dictator.
And I think it's a fair question because when Trump first had the original summit, he himself said, I'm trying something different. This may not work, and if it doesn't, I will admit that I will go back to a tougher approach. While as you saw in that clip, he's not acknowledging failure despite Kim's words. But I do think that any coverage that should point out that all the previous presidents, talking about here Obama, Bush, Clinton --
HENRY: Yes.
KURTZ: -- have failed to stop North Korea's nuclear buildup.
HENRY: Yes, absolutely. It's something he inherited. Let's shift gears to a New York Times story about their coverage of the attack on the U.S. embassy. At one point, they reported that there were mourners, quote, unquote, "mourners" who were outside the embassy when in fact these were Iran- backed militias.
You could see in that New York Times report, Congressman Lee Zeldin, a Republican, "Iraq mourners? It's like Zarif, as in the foreign minister of Iran has become the managing editor of the New York Times. These are Iranian- backed terrorists attacking U.S. military personnel and diplomats shouting death to America as they try to break into the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, setting fires on the way."
How could the Times do that?
KURTZ: I'm scratching my head over this one, Ed. I think it's outrageous that the Times tweet were referred to mourners, when as you say, I mean these weren't just a bunch of demonstrators who lost their heads. These are death to America type Iranian-backed militias who went there for the expressed purpose of causing havoc, setting fires, possibly doing harm, unfortunately our defense has held.
Now the Washington Post also getting some criticism for a front-page headline about protesters at the embassy. But most of the cable networks including Fox have said that Times use the word protesters.
What you've got to do is you got to make it clear to readers and viewers --
HENRY: Yes.
KURTZ: -- that whatever words you want to use that these are people who were intent on doing harm at our American embassy in Baghdad.
HENRY: Last question separate but related. We mentioned at the top of this broadcast, Joy Reid of MSNBC was tweeting in real time as some of this was playing out, maybe this is going to be Trump's Benghazi, essentially. What about that as our U.S. forces are sort of rushing to the scene to secure the embassy?
KURTZ: I don't think it's a particularly good idea for liberal commentators to bring up Benghazi because what the White House will say with some justification is, we avoided any situation like Benghazi. We are getting troops there, nobody breached the inner walls, and I think that is a losing argument. And thank God that that's been the case for our people stationed there.
HENRY: Right. Good of you to focus on the actual lives, you know, and potential deaths because four people died in Benghazi as you suggest, and there were some people on Twitter who seemed to be focusing on the politics of it immediately as opposed to the life and death situation.
Howie, we appreciate you coming in tonight.
KURTZ: Indeed.
HENRY: All right. Next, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio railing Domino's for charging New Year's Eve revelers $30 bucks for pizza. Why John Stossel calls that a bit ironic when The Story continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HENRY: Well, is it price gouging or just some good old-fashioned capitalism? Domino's pushing back today against New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for accusing the pizza chain of exploitation after city location sold pizzas that typically sell for 15 bucks for a $30 a pie to New Year's Eve revelers corralled inside Times Square security barricades.
De Blasio tweeting in part, quote, "To the thousands who came to Times Square, I'm sorry this corporate chain exploited you. Stick it to them by patronizing one of our fantastic local pizzerias."
Here now is John Stossel of Stossel TV, author of "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails but Individuals Succeed." Happy New Year and good to have you.
JOHN STOSSEL, AUTHOR, NO, THEY CAN'T: Happy New Year.
HENRY: What was your reaction to this De Blasio tweet?
STOSSEL: He's just so stupid about commerce, about daily life and I don't like your title about, is it capitalism or price gouging? Because price gouging can be part of capitalism. The beauty of it is that it's voluntary. And if someone charges prices that are too high, nobody will buy.
HENRY: Right. You don't have to buy the pizza.
STOSSEL: Right.
HENRY: Did you check the -- you know, I don't think the mayor check the hotel rooms or any of the restaurants or bars around New York City. The hotels, they charge you three, four, maybe five times what they normally would.
STOSSEL: But the prices should go up when there is demand. Then some other guy can come in and sell the pizza for $25 if he wants to wade through the crowds.
HENRY: What's that called?
STOSSEL: That's called competition.
HENRY: Or capitalism, right?
STOSSEL: Or capitalism. Only two ways to do things, right? Voluntary or forced. Government is forced. De Blasio spent his whole life in the world of force. Voluntary sector is better. I don't care what price they charge.
HENRY: Yes.
STOSSEL: It's better.
HENRY: I think there is a much bigger scene here. We looked it. We dug it up. twenty-fourteen Bill de Blasio was in Staten Island having pizza. And I think we have the photo. And he used a fork. He used a knife and fork. There he is. You are a New Yorker what do you say to that?
STOSSEL: Well, we don't know. Maybe he was eating a vegetable on the side?
HENRY: Is this fair?
STOSSEL: I would have to check that.
HENRY: I'm teasing the mayor. Let's get to a serious point from Domino's. They put out --
(CROSSTALK)
STOSSEL: I am hating the mayor. I'm sorry.
HENRY: I figured I enlightened after you said he was an idiot.
STOSSEL: Fair enough.
HENRY: OK. Domino's, every store in New York City is owned by a local resident. Every employee is a local New York resident. These stores provide jobs to thousands of his fellow citizens. With his comments, the mayor suggested that New Yorkers who own or work at a franchise are lesser than those who don't.
What about that? Because these are actually New York jobs.
STOSSEL: Wherever they are, they are jobs, that people voluntarily pay to support. De Blasio spends $30 billion of other people's money that he takes by force. He has no right to criticize anyone.
HENRY: There is interesting New York City college students. Ethan Case. He describes himself as supporter of both Cory Booker and Michael Bloomberg. On his twitter profile he says, "Stick with what you're good at. Arresting true churro vendors and turnstile jumpers -- are referenced to some of the controversies here in the city. A cheese pizza with two toppings at Joe's Pizza on Broadway on a normal day is 27 bucks. At New York City mayor should check his data before he harangues small businesses in his own city."
STOSSEL: I agree except I don't think he's good -- stick with what he's good at. He's not good at anything.
HENRY: You can't find anything that you think he's good at?
STOSSEL: No. No. Except I like it when he's late to meetings and goes to the gym because when he is not imposing force on people, he does less damage.
HENRY: What about the big picture which is last weekend I had an exclusive interview with him here on Fox and the mayor was -- I was pushing, you know --
(CROSSTALK)
STOSSEL: You had an exclusive interview with De Blasio?
HENRY: He came in. He came to Fox.
STOSSEL: OK.
HENRY: He took the tough question about a very serious issue, which is these anti-Semitic attacks we've seen increasing all around the city, and there was a horrible stabbing outside the city, as you know. And it seems to me the New York City mayor probably has bigger issues to deal with than $30 pizza.
STOSSEL: He does, presumable he could do both if he had any business talking about pizza. And it's true, the homelessness is up under De Blasio. But we are so irresponsible in the media because we over cover these events and scare people to death. By and large, crime is down. And way down from the point where it was before Mayor Giuliani.
HENRY: On the issue of homelessness I asked him about that and he claimed that he is making a lot of progress on that.
STOSSEL: Yes.
HENRY: You've been around the city for a long time.
STOSSEL: Well, he just lies. He lies. He gave his wife almost a billion dollars for mental health treatment. And instead of spending it on --
HENRY: On the city, a program.
STOSSEL: A program, right. Not personally to hand out. And the program focuses on the people who can't sleep, for walking well. They practically ignore the people who are cycling in and out of mental institutions who really need the help. The government misspends so much money. Let's not give them so much.
HENRY: Yes. John Stossel, we appreciate you coming in. Happy New Year.
STOSSEL: Thank you, Ed.
HENRY: That is "The Story" for Thursday, January 2, 2020. But as always, The Story continues online and also back here tomorrow night where I will be, 7 p.m. Eastern. In the meantime, Tucker Carlson coming up next.
Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox