Sen. Dan Sullivan: We need to do more on missile defense
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," August 8, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Breaking tonight, President Trump issuing an extraordinary dyer, and perhaps unprecedented warning to North Korea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury. Like the world has never seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: And just minutes ago, this breaking over the wires; reports from state media indicating North Korea is said to be "carefully examining a plan to strike the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam." That's "The Story" tonight and it's an alarming one. I'm Dana Perino, in for Martha MacCallum. The stunning back-and-forth comes as Fox News has now confirmed that U.S. Intel officials believed North Korea has successfully made a nuclear warhead that can be carried by their Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. This is the development our analysts thought was year's away but is now at our doorstep.
Remember, it was just last month that a North Korean ICBM test showed that the regime is capable of striking American cities. And now, with this new threshold crossed, the U.S. and our allies must come to a decision sooner than we might have thought. In moments, we'll be joined by Alaska Senator, Dan Sullivan, the citizens of his state already within range of the frightening weaponry. But first, we begin with Michael Malice, author of "Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong-il." Thank you so much for being here. So, Americans now are very concerned. This CBS poll: how do you feel about the North Korean situation, showing that 72 percent are uneasy about a possible conflict? And then, North Korea's development of a weapon is, 60 percent believe a threat that can be contained. Now, that was a poll taken days ago. I wonder what people would think now. What do you think?
MICHAEL MALICE, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Well, first of all, I think this Guam story is something that has to be taken with a deal of skepticism. From my understanding, it came from South Korean media, and South Korean media told us that Kim Jong-un's uncle was eaten by dogs and that was later proven to be just false. So, the very sensation to (INAUDIBLE) --
PERINO: Because they want to try to provoke a reaction from President Trump, like the one they had?
MALICE: No, it's just like the fake news here; they just want to run with another crazy story that makes him look interested.
PERINO: It's not coming from the government necessarily?
MALICE: Correct, exactly. So, at the same time, you know, when you hear an analyst on T.V. talking about how North Korea is crazy, and they're not rational actors. Think about it this way, we have a lot of people who watch this show who are strong supporters of the second amendment. If Rex Tillerson showed up at their house, and knock them doors, said give me your guns, you can imagine the reaction will be, no, and shut up. But then if he also said, let's sit down and talk, they'd be very skeptical of why do I want to this guy who wants to take away our guns. So, they are very rational in their behavior, but they are also very evil, sinister people.
PERINO: I understand that the North Koreans want survival of the regime.
PERINO: And they believe that having nuclear weapons helps ensure that survival.
PERINO: But using those nuclear weapons would ensure its demise.
MALICE: 100 percent. Now, if you have one shot to take it, you're not going to be taking it at Guam; you're going to be taking it at an urban center.
MALICE: So, that is the more reason why I'm very skeptical at this. However, this is the reason they're in power. Kim Jong-il's philosophy was called Sungan, which means military first. So, the entire basis of their ideology is our military comes first, and for our military, they will have food and would have a government. So, how do you convince the regime who operates under these assumptions, whose propaganda is based on assumptions to kind of de-escalate? It's almost impossible to figure out how to square this circle.
PERINO: What are the dangers having, you know, this man better than anyone? How would this regime react to something that might be an accident, right? Is there potential now that things could ratchet up so much that Kim Jong-un overreacts to something and sparks an actual military conflict?
MALICE: I think anything is conceivable. However, I mean, they want to survive. They have been around for 70 years, and they've outlasted everyone in the Soviet bloc except for Cuba. So, obviously, they're doing something right in maintaining their holding power. And in fact, when Kim Jong-il took over for his father, Kim Il-sung, his campaign slogan was "do not expect any change from me." So, they have had a consistent ideology for 70 years.
PERINO: How isolated do you think they feel after the U.N. Security Council vote on Saturday?
MALICE: They like being isolated because they call themselves a shrimp among whales. And they revel in the fact that they're a small country that slaps America across the face. So, this is a source of pride that it's us against the world for them, which makes it even more difficult to try to get them to engage with other countries.
PERINO: So then, as we look to China to try to help us with the sanctions that were put in place, it's about a billion dollars which will it hurt, but will hurt enough? Or do you think there needs to be more pressure brought to bear?
MALICE: I mean, they were more than happy to allow 10 percent of the population starve during the '90s and blame the U.S. imperialist forward, as they called it. So, I don't know if the sanctions are going to work in that way. However, the good thing about the sanctions is it showed that the international community allied against them. So, instead of them saying it's the Americans versus us; now it's the whole world against them, and it's a very different situation.
PERINO: All right. Good. Thank you so much, Michael.
MALICE: Thank you, Dana.
PERINO: All right. Here now is a senator whose state is within the range of North Korea missiles, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan. He also sits on the Arms Services Committee. And sir, I wonder if you could tell about what you hear from citizens back in your state? And I think you might be there now or maybe you're in D.C., but I showed that poll from CBS that, you know, people across America are concerned. What's the level of concern in Alaska?
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN, R-ALASKA: Well, Dana, there's concern like all Americans, but you know there's also pride. Alaska is the cornerstone of our nation's missile defense. I have a bill to bolster our missile defense, but right now, there's Alaskan's 24/7, our 49th missile defense battalion is literally protecting the country because that's where the missiles and our sensors to shoot down any missile coming from Kim Jong-un to America, that the Alaskan guard unit there calls themselves the 300. Protecting the 300 million, and so that's what they are doing right now -- protecting us.
PERINO: What would your legislation do and do you have a bipartisan support?
SULLIVAN: Yes, strong bipartisan support over -- we have 27 Democrats and Republican Senators right now. It would increase the number of ground- based missile interceptors. It would integrate our forward theater missile defense like THAAD, AEGIS with the homeland defense, and it would encourage much more testing. We've seen some real positive tests, but we need to do more on missile defense. Any strategy we have right needs to be including more robust missile defense for the homeland.
PERINO: So, I think all of that sounds well and good, but how soon do you need to do that? I mean, Congress won't be back for a while. I mean, is this something that needs to be on the fast track?
SULLIVAN: I think so. This is already part of the National Defense Authorization Act. And so, I'm very confident that my bill will be passed in the fall when Congress comes back in September.
PERINO: But are you concerned that something good happen in the meantime before we have that? I mean, it's not that there's really nothing you can do, you can try to get that legislation passed. But it seems like the urgency has been ratcheted up, and I wonder if the administration and White House could actually do anything without congressional support that would bolster these defenses?
SULLIVAN: Well, look, there's a lot they can do, but the broader point is I believe effective diplomacy requires credible military options. And you're seeing effective diplomacy right now. I applaud Ambassador Haley, Secretary Tillerson for what they did in the U.N. this past weekend. But if one of the military options that the administration is looking at is a preemptive war on the Korean Peninsula launched by the United States that would require the authorization of Congress -- Article I of the U.S. Constitution is very clear about that.
PERINO: I wanted to ask about that. I understand that the Congress would say, Mr. President, you need to come to us first. But if we're in a situation where we don't have time to have a debate at Congress and for a bill to be signed and all the rest, I mean what are the options at that point?
SULLIVAN: Well, look, you guys are talking about a launch by North Korea.
Say, you were talking about at Guam. Well, we have a missile defense unit-- a THAAD unit at Guam. Obviously, as the commander- in-chief, the president can react to attacks on the country in a way that he has broader authority on that. I was mentioning the discussions of a pre-emptive war on the peninsula that clearly goes into the realm of the authorization of Congress.
PERINO: Is there any talk about having that discussion sooner than later on the Hill?
SULLIVAN: Look, I've raised this with a number of administration officials, and I don't think -- none of them have pushed back on it. I think that one of the things that the president and his team have done very well in terms of their diplomacy up to this point, Dana, is they have included the Congress. And I think there's a lot of bipartisan support for what the Trump administration is doing, particularly on the sanctions both at the U.N. You may have seen that we passed sanctions just two weeks ago; very bipartisan there. So, right now, the administration's working closely with the Congress. And I think they need to continue to do that, but we're supportive of their diplomatic efforts right now.
PERINO: All right. Senator Dan Sullivan, thanks for being here tonight.
SULLIVAN: Thank you.
PERINO: Still ahead, an employee memo circulating internally at one of the world's biggest tech giants have sent off a firestorm tonight. Up next, we debate the last tale of P.C. culture and programmers, and whether this employee's reported termination was fair. Plus, the New York Times' under fire from the White House yet again; how a supposedly leaked climate change report set off the latest war of words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We would absolutely love to have a strong woman working here.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not a woman engineer. I'm an engineer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. No, no. Yes, of course. We want to hire the best people who happen to be women. Regardless of whether or not they are women, that part is relevant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: That clip from HBO's "Silicon Valley" tackling the subject female employment in the tech industry with a little bit of humor. But tonight, members of the real tech community are not laughing as Google has fired a software engineer, who questioned the company's attitude toward gender and diversity. In a memo titled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber: How Bias Clouds Our Thinking about Diversity and Inclusion," the engineer argues that the low number of women in the tech industry is a result of biology, not bias. Trace Gallagher has the fallout tonight, live from our West Coast Newsroom. Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANCHOR: Hi, Dana. Even after the 10- page memo went viral and stood up a horn through controversy inside Google, the company's V.P. of Diversity released a statement saying and I'm quoting, "Part of building an open inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternate views including different political views feel safe sharing their opinions." Then, Google apparently had second thoughts, reportedly firing software engineer James Damore, for sharing his opinion because portions of his memo "crossed the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."
That statement is in reference to Mr. Damore's comments claiming men have a higher drive for status and are more capable of physically demanding jobs, and that women have higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance and a stronger interest in people instead of things. Damore told the New York Times, his memo was written with the hope of having an honest discussion about how Google has an intolerance for ideologies that do not fit into liberal biases and how dissenters are shamed and silenced. Conservative commentators are all over Twitter going after Google, calling for what they call blatant hypocrisy.
Ben Shapiro writes, "'Diversity is our strength' this Orwellian claptrap coming from people who can't handle a memo that says men and women are different." Lila Rose says, "Earth to Google, men, and women are different. You can promote true diversity if you pretend differences don't exist." It's worth noting, Google and other tech companies are also dealing with ongoing criticism that they have not done enough to promote women and minorities. Software Engineer James Damore, by the way, says he will likely pursue legal action against Google. Dana.
PERINO: All right. Thank you, Trace. Here with more: Guy Benson, Townhall.com Political Editor and Co-Author of "End of Discussion", he is also a Fox News contributor; and Julie Alvin, executive editor of Bustle. And Julie, I want to start with you, because we're going to get through all of this commentary about -- you know like they say they want to open inclusive talks but then they fire somebody who actually expresses their thoughts. But this actually, I think, is getting to something that is lying underneath. Like, what lies beneath it? There must be a huge amount of tension in Silicon Valley about women not getting promoted or feeling that they're working in some sort of hostile place. What do you of that?
JULIE ALVIN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, BUSTLE: There's a lot of tension in Silicon Valley, and Google itself has been subject to a lot of that criticism. You know, they've come up against sexual harassment cases, they've been accused of paying their female employees considerably less than their male employees. Somebody from the Department of Labor, an official, said that Google was systematically discriminating against female employees. So, I think that in the tech world in general, and on Google specifically, this is really something that kind of gets to the heart of the issue. And I think this memo really touched on a lot of those points because, well, I think -- you know, I'm not denying that there are certain inherent biological differences between men and women.
I do think that this piece was improperly sourced. It really did not tell the whole story. And that sort of on two fronts. First of all, yes, there are some inherent biological differences but so much of how women are behaving, are treated in the workplace is because of socialization. And then, once they get into the workforce, women in tech are less likely to get promoted. They're more likely to be interrupted. They're paid less than their male counterparts. They're more likely to be sexually harassed. There's a ton of tension there, and there's really a flash --
PERINO: And of course, there are a lot of -- there are also lots of possible reasons for all of those things that you just said. Guy, let's talk about the fact that, you know, we have -- you know, the West Coast culture: police come after conservatives all the time, and yet when this memo, which was internal, suggests that maybe, well, maybe we should just have an open dialogue about these things that I think, then he ends up getting fired. Was that over the top?
GUY BENSON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND POLITICAL EDITOR AT TOWNHALL.COM: Of course it's over the top. It's not a fireable offense to state your opinion in the way that he did. So, this is the depth of debate, the depth discourse, it's exactly what we write about in "End of Discussion." Yes, where you have sort of these police minders from various sectors of society coming in and purging and punishing viewpoints that stray from a prevailing ideology or viewpoint in any given circumstance.
And so, to me, what's been very troubling aside from the decision to fire the guy -- and the irony was he was saying, people with alternative viewpoints are being stifled and Google said, OK, you're fired. Beyond that, a lot of the reporting on this controversy and it seems like even within Google itself, a lot of the folks spouting off about it haven't actually read the memo. It is 10 pages long, it's been described by many as this screed, an anti-diversity screed. It is nothing of the sort; it's neither a screen nor anti-diversity.
PERINO: No, I've read it. Yes. So, I got to ask you, Julie. So, there apparently were reports that some women at Google were so upset about this that they can go to work today. Do you know anything about that?
ALVIN: I did hear some of that. And my response, that's sort of two-fold. Like, on one hand, of course, is the proper response to necessarily say, I'm going to stay home and I'm going to hide from this. Maybe, not, but I certainly understand where they're coming from. If you are in a workplace that is kind of telling you, hey, you're too neurotic for this job. You know you have too many feelings; you're too emotional for this job. I certainly can understand why that kind of place I wouldn't want to go spend my day. And it sort of plays into a lot of these issues that Google is dealing with, and exacerbates them and it confirms that that's a really, you know, significant line of thought that exists in the tech industry.
PERINO: Let me ask you, Guy. Do think that he will have a successful legal case to bring against Google? Because it is a private company, they can do what they want. I mean, I'm not here to tell them what they can or can't do, of course, but what do you think about the legal case?
BENSON: Yes. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. I agree with you, as a private company and as a conservative, they should be able to make these decisions. They have the right to do what they did. That does not make it the right thing to do. I think it is exactly the wrong thing to do. And here's the thing: if this guy puts out this opinion and says, here are my thoughts, here's how we're really struggling to talk about issues openly here at Google, here's where I'm coming from on some of these questions. The appropriate response in a truly inclusive and thoughtful community is, great, let's debate that. Does he have a few good points?
ALVIN: I have a --
BENSON: Let's push back. Hang on. Let's push back against.
ALVIN: He has a lot of bad points too.
PERINO: I have a theory. You are both younger than me. So, I'm going to ask you this. I think one of the problems here is that nobody is actually talking to each other anymore. So, this is a ten-page -- who write the ten-page memo, posted on a Saturday on an internal board, and there's no chance for any sort of dialogue before the mob comes after you. And instead, if Google thinks that they had such a big problem, I would just say, Julie, that maybe it would be better to actually bring people together to talk face-to-face, and maybe nobody would have to get fired or have their feelings hurt so much that they stay home from work.
BENSON: And Julie, you said that he made some bad points. That's fine. I don't agree with everything that he wrote in that memo, but that's the whole point.
BENSON: If we have a disagreement, let's talk about it and not fire the guy.
PERINO: All right. Let's give Julie the last word.
ALVIN: Well, I think that a lot of the things that I'm hearing from. And I don't want to say this is, this is necessarily a right/leftist issue. It's being, it's being painted as conservative versus liberal. I really think this is about gender equality. I don't think that that's not something that either party has sort of, you know, full reign over. But you know, when people are sort of celebrating this and saying, oh, he's just speaking his truth. And just let him speak his truth and don't sort of pick it apart, and don't figure out where the holes are in that. He totally is ignoring the effects that decades of socialization have on the ways that women approach the workforce, and then decades of socialization have on the way that women are then treated in the workforce, which is unequally and with discrimination and with unequal treatment and with, you know, a sort of disregard for their skill set. If this is perfectly sourced, I'd say let's have the conversation.
BENSON: By all means. By all means.
PERINO: I don't know if this episode at Google actually advanced anything for either cause. At least, we're now talking about it like adults. All right, thank you so much.
BENSON: Thanks, Dana.
PERINO: Tonight, a top U.S. law professor says Deputy A.G., Rod Rosenstein, better recuse himself from the Russia probe. The man, himself, Jonathan Turley, is here to tell us why. Plus, President Trump, today acknowledging a source devouring American lives: the opioid crisis; so how do we make this better, and can Trump lead the charge? Governor Huckabee and Jessica Tarlov are next on the epidemic, killing nearly 80 Americans a day.
PERINO: New details tonight after the New York Times publishes details of a government climate change report, they say was leaked to them, noting in the headline: scientists fear Trump will dismiss blunt climate reports. But now, details claim this may have already been in public reports and the administration is pouncing. Chief national correspondent Ed Henry has been following this back and forth today. He joins us live from Washington, Ed.
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Dana, good to see you. It's remarkable because this was a screaming headline in a story on page one of The New York Times; it doesn't appear to be that new. The White House insists they never even got a call seeking comment for this big story. If the Times had spoken to top officials at the White House, they may have found out their ominous sounding story about the planet, and may not actually be as scary or as new as it claims.
They declared, "The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1500 years according to a sweeping federal climate change report, which is not yet been made public." The Times charged scientists figured President Trump was going to dismiss what they called a blunt report that needed urgent attention, except a co-author of the report quickly pointed out it had already been made public and is being reviewed by the Trump administration, actually.
Well, The New York Times' Brad Plumer clarified, this has been out there but it's still new. "The version posted yesterday was the third draft, which was public in March. This is the fifth draft which is now at the White House for review." White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders quickly lashed out saying, "It's very disappointing yet entirely predictable to learn The New York Times would write off a draft report without first verifying its contents with the White House or any of the federal agencies directly involved in climate and environment policy. Drafts of this report have been published and made widely available online months ago during the public comment period."
Now, the Times, does claim they reached out to the White House and the EPA for comment, either way, administration officials note that they have ten days to meet the August 18th deadline to review this report. And on the actual substance, the report says Americans are seeing more heat waves and rainfall because of climate change. So, despite any disputes about which version of the report, there is an action that's going to have to be taken at some point, Dana.
PERINO: All right. Joining me now with more: Governor Mike Huckabee, is a former Republican Presidential Candidate; And Jessica Tarlov, is a Senior Director of Research at Bustle.com, both are Fox News Contributors. I'm glad you are here. Let's talk about climate a little bit. So, I've worked at the White House Council on Environmental Quality; I think you were governor at the time. And there was always a push. I'm not going to blame The New York Times necessarily but from the left and the worry that climate change was going to take a backseat that the climate change is taking a backseat. We saw yesterday that Al Gore's new movie, the sequel, came in 15th over the weekend, on its debut weekend.
GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE, R-ARKANSAS AND FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It's a total flop, and the reason it's a flop is because I would say that the people on the left who rarely believe this is the greatest problem we have, you first, you go and show us that you're changing your lifestyle. Al Gore is living in a 20,000 square-foot home, flying around on private jets. When he lives a minimalist life, when gives up his air conditioning, and he rides on public transportation, then Al Gore can tell me how I need to change my life. So, you first -- that ought to be the push back to every person whose going how about we've got to change everything.
JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND SENIOR DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AT BUSTLE.COM: I'll go first and I'm sitting to your left.
PERINO: And I'm sure --
TARLOV: And on the political left.
PERINO: It's a lot easier to you.
TARLOV: It is. Yes, I am a subway gal, and I grew up in a house that actually uses solar panels which is rare for New York City, a little bit different. I take your point, the Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore should get off their jets, certainly, if they're going to go around preaching this. But I do think that the concern that comes out of the climate community, especially when you have the likes of Scott Pruitt running around, and Rick Perry, and the president himself, who is -- in D.C. style, running around is legitimate. I mean, the data in this report that talks about things like the European heat wave in 2003, and Australia in 2013, they said, actually, that there were 20 times more likely to have extreme weather in Texas, as a result of man-made climate change. Those are important findings.
DANA PERINO, THE STORY HOST: I think that the concern from the climate community was that the administration was going to try to suppress.
PERINO: . the document is actually online.
TARLOV: So will they highlight it? Will they take -- you said we needed -- taking action based on this? I mean, all they've done is pull us out of the Paris Accord thus far, which is not a good sign for making sure that we continue President Obama's legacy.
PERINO: I want to get to this other issue, because today President Trump called the opioid addiction for what it is, it's a problem of the like of which the nation has never seen before. Every day in America, nearly 4,000 people start abusing opiates, and an average of 78 people died because of them, that shocking reality, no doubt, weighing on the president when he addressed reporters just two hours ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Nobody is safe from this epidemic that threatens young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural communities. Everybody is threatened. A drug overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death in the United States. And opioid overdose deaths have nearly quadrupled since 1999. It is a problem the likes of which we have not seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: Governor, I want to start with you. Take me back when you were governor, if this had been happening then, what would you have wanted the federal government to do to try to help you?
MIKE HUCKABEE, FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: Not try to over help us. What they needed to do is provide resources because each state is going to approach it differently. But there's one thing that I would hope happens, and that is that we don't try to incarcerate our way out of this problem, because that's not going to be effective. You've got a serious issue. It's a medical issue. You're going to have to deal with treatment and prevention more than you are punishing people, who find themselves physically addicted to a very toxic drug.
PERINO: And this is certainly not a partisan issue.
TARLOV: Absolutely not.
PERINO: . Either way. This is affecting people of all stripes. What do you think would be a good approach, at least even on Capitol Hill, to actually try to do something that would be meaningful for governors that are dealing with this all across the country?
TARLOV: Well, I agree completely with Governor Huckabee's points. I would add using drug courts and mental health courts in terms of the criminal justice aspect as a key component here. And also making sure that whatever health care bill does comes out of the Republican Party -- make sure that they are not any cuts to drug programs. That was a big issue, actually, for moderates with the current bill in its form, which president Trump supported. But I wanted to say, going back to the primaries, I found some of the most moving moments out of the Republican primaries to be a discussion of this crisis with Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, both speaking incredibly powerfully.
PERINO: And John Kasich.
TARLOV: And John Kasich.
PERINO: And Chris Christie -- actually, one of the things that I found interesting was that everyone that was running for president, when they went to New Hampshire, the first question out of town hall was about this crisis.
HUCKABEE: Because it's a serious issue. Not just in New Hampshire, but everywhere. But there is an epidemic out in New Hampshire, and it's a very acute problem that people are aware of. But I still want to go back to the point -- I think the federal government always tries to take a template and put it over all 50 states. It's a huge mistake. The founders had the tenth amendment for a reason. We should let a lot of these, really, laboratories of democracy happened in the state level, find the ones that work and duplicate them.
PERINO: All right. Thank you, both. I appreciate it. Still ahead, a big city mayor taking a step many of his peers would not, changing his sanctuary policies to comply with the DOJ. He's here to explain how his community is now reaping the benefits. Plus, our next guest says its past time that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recuses himself from the Russia probe. Jonathan Turley is here, next, to explain his piece, driving a lot of debate tonight. And then, Karl Rove joins us with a first-hand perspective on what it's like to be under the microscope of special counsel probe when he's here inside the White House and the staff is there, and everyone is kind of stressed out. Karl will be up next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Bob Mueller, understand. And I understand the specific scope of the investigation. And so, no, it is not a fishing expedition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: If he finds evidence of a crime, can he look at that?
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Well, Chris, if he finds evidence of a crime that's within the scope of what Director Mueller and I had agreed as the appropriate scope in this investigation, then he can. If it's something outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting attorney general at this time, me, for permission to expand his investigation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: That was Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has come under fire from critics questioning his involvement in the Russia investigation. Constitutional law attorney, Jonathan Turley, echoed the criticism, arguing that Rosenstein should recuse himself, writing, quote, Rosenstein is not only the ultimate authority on the scope of the investigation, he's also clearly a witness. There are times when multitasking is a talent, but playing the role of investigator and witness is not one of them. Here now to talk about his beef is Jonathan Turley, who was also a George Washington University law professor, and those students are lucky indeed to have you. Sir, why do you think that Rosenstein should recuse himself, and do you think that that is actually in the cards?
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: I would think it would have to be weighing on his mind. He's made references before to the possible need to recuse himself. It seems to be perfectly obvious that he should have done so a considerable time ago. About 90 days ago. If you think that you're a material witness, I think it's demonstrably the case that he's a material witness, he should have taken himself out of the mix at that time. It's clear now that Mueller is investigating obstruction of justice. We've just saw a list of high-ranking FBI officials who have said they expect to be called before the grand jury. Rod Rosenstein would have to be at the top of that list. It was his memo that was cited by the White House to justify the termination of Comey. He reportedly clashed with the White House about its account related to that memo. He was there both before and after the termination. All of that makes him a very important witness.
PERINO: But do you that he was -- maybe be concerned that he would incur the wrath of the president who was so mad that Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself as well?
TURLEY: Well, this is an ethical issue, and that should not weigh in the decision. I think he has to remove himself. It's very odd to have Mueller reporting to an individual who has not only evidence but a personal or at least a professional stake in this. His actions, his decisions are going to come under scrutiny before this grand jury if it's looking at obstruction. He shouldn't have the investigator on the scope of that investigation reporting to him.
PERINO: If he refuses himself, then who would be in charge?
TURLEY: It falls to the next person at the Department of Justice, third in command. There's not going to be any interruption in supervision.
TURLEY: The special counsel investigation largely runs on its own. His role -- and I should say this in his defense, it's relatively limited, but it is still a supervisory role. And if he's delaying this until he's actually called before the grand jury, I find that deeply troubling. You don't wait to remove yourself for an actual call to the grand jury. Every indication is that he would have to be consulted if they're going to do a full investigation.
PERINO: All right. I mean, we have word tonight, apparently, there was some reporting that the president's lawyer may have reached out to Bob Mueller and was some sort of -- hello, thank you for what you're doing. Were you surprised by that?
TURLEY: Well, yes, I mean, it does come across as sort of a kiss of death. You know, it's good to see you. Some people have even said that it could constitute criminal intimidation, which is a rather odd idea. If that's criminal intimidation, then Hallmark executives are serial killers.
PERINO: Yeah. And Bob Mueller might have not a very strong stomach if that's intimidating. All right.
PERINO: Thank you, Jonathan Turley, appreciate it.
TURLEY: Thank you.
PERINO: Now for a unique perspective, a man who knows what it's like to be the subject of an investigation while working inside the White House. Karl Rove, former deputy chief of staff and senior advisor to President George W. Bush. Karl, what do you think it's like for the White House now? I mean, you and I, obviously, worked together. It's no secret when we were at the White House and I served as your spokesperson for a time, and we certainly know that it can be stressful, you hit it well, but there was stress.
KARL ROVE, FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: Yeah, sure. Better to deal with that stress in private. Don't let them see us sweat. Don't let your colleagues see you worry. Don't have that worry and fear pushed off in a box and deal with it after hours, and stay focused on your job. I had an advantage, one is I knew what I had done and what I have not done, and I knew I done nothing wrong. And second of all, I had a fantastic attorney whom I had every confidence in. And at the end of the day, it worked out just like I expected it would. What was surprising was that I didn't know who had leaked the name of Valerie Plame to a columnist and reporter Robert Novak until it was all over, and it turned out it was nobody in the White House. It was under Secretary of State Richard Armitage. And not only that, but we knew the Justice Department knew that.
PERINO: At the beginning.
ROVE: By the fall -- yeah, right at the beginning. And that the day the special prosecutor walked in office, he knew who had leaked the name and he also knew that there's been no violation of law in Richard Armitage leaking of the name.
PERINO: Do you think there is a concern for the Trump White House that Mueller might be going beyond his scope and looking into things that have nothing to do with the original allegation?
ROVE: Yeah. Look, I'm sure there will be some things that we don't know -- that were not publicly discussed at the beginning. But look, I have enormous respect for Professor Turley. He's a great constitutional scholar. And you're right, his students are lucky to have him. I have to say though -- I want to raise a cautionary note. In his piece in the hill, he said grand jury in Washington is now pursuing obstruction allegations against President Trump, and the link in the particular sentence, they have a link to his source, is a Wall Street Journal article that makes no mention of obstruction. And he then goes on to the next paragraph, quotes another report that senior FBI officials have been told that they're going to be called before the grand jury. This is from a fellow name Murray Wasp, writing for the left wing website Box. I knew Murray Wasp from my own experience. She was continually.
PERINO: I was going to say, this name ringing a bell.
ROVE: More than ringing a bell. He was continually writing the most ridiculous things, year after year after year. Even after Patrick Fitzgerald had told me -- had told my attorney, no problems for Rove, he's out. He continued to write as if I was going to be momentarily indicted. So my confidence in Murray Wasp as a source, if he quotes two senior law enforcement officials supposedly told -- I went back and looked at some of his reporting during the Valerie Plame, he was constantly quoting a senior law enforcement official.
PERINO: I remember that guy giving me heart attacks.
ROVE: Yeah, exactly.
PERINO: Can I ask you about this one other thing that happened today? This is separate, which was -- senate majority leader Mitch McConnell was back in Kentucky, speaking to the rotary club, and he was talking about some frustrations about getting some things done and expressing this. Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Now, our new president has, of course, not been in this line of work before. And I think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: And then, he went on to say, Karl, I'm not going to play it just for time, that there's a reality of the complexity of legislating and that basically it's better to under promise and over deliver. Do you think that has been a problem, and can they turn that around when they come back in the fall?
ROVE: Yeah, I do think -- this is interesting. I would not have expected the majority leader to make this kind of a comment. He's absolutely true and he's right on target. I wrote about this in my Wall Street Journal column last week. I said they needed -- the administration needed to under promise and over deliver. They're saying things are going to happen quickly, and that things are going to be completely solved easily. And frankly, the challenges the country face require difficult answers, and the problems are going to be solved easily, and quickly, and lower expectations, and people will be happily surprised when you exceed them.
PERINO: All right, Karl Rove, thank you so much.
ROVE: Thank you, Dana.
PERINO: All right. Earlier this year, Miami-Dade agreed to cooperate with the feds on immigration enforcement, the move was met by protest. But today, that decision is benefiting the county and the people authorities protect. Up next, the mayor joins us live with his message to other mayors across the nation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We will comply with the federal government request to keep a prisoner in our custody that may be an illegal immigrant for the federal government until they can pick them up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I strongly urge our nation's states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration law and to rethink these policies. Such policies make their cities and states less safe. Public safety as well as national security are at stake, and put them at risk of losing federal dollars.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERINO: That was Attorney General Jeff Sessions threatening to withhold funds from cities that fail to comply with immigration enforcement. Earlier this year, Miami-Dade became the first major jurisdiction to make changes to its own enforcement policy. At the time, that decision sparked protests among immigrant advocates, but today, the county is reaping the benefits of complying with the law, noticing both an uptick in the arrests of illegal immigrant, and in the way of federal aid. Joining us now, Miami-Dade county mayor Carlos Gimenez. Sir, you took a lot of heat at the beginning, but do you think that that was worth it based on the results that you've seen?
CARLOS GIMENEZ, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY MAYOR: It was definitely worth it. I knew that what we were doing was the right thing. We actually just went back to a policy that had been in effect since 2013. We tweaked it in 2013, and we went back to what was pre-2013. So really it wasn't a big change, and it was really the right thing to do. And I think that the actions and the letters that we've got prove it.
PERINO: I remember at the time, some of the protest that you're -- tearing apart families and hurting children, I guess that is also a concern, but I would imagine that immigrant communities do want people who are criminals to be taken away.
GIMENEZ: Exactly. And you know, when -- and the numbers prove it, really. We really had only about less than 500 detainer requests from ICE since we changed the policy back in late January, 75 percent of those folks that have a detainee requests are multiple offenders, repeat offenders, and ICE-- we really picked up less than 200 of them. So we're not really talking about a large number, but these folks that ICE is interested in -- by the way, ICE already had them on their radar before we arrested them. And so, we arrest them, we processed them like any other person here in Miami-Dade county gets processed, and then ICE tells us that they have interest and they come and pick them up within 48 hours.
PERINO: So yesterday, we talked about Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago, who wants now to file a lawsuit against the federal government about these funds. But have you ever had a conversation with mayors across cities -- maybe not Rahm Emanuel, but who are looking to you to say, tell us how you did that, was it actually easier than we thought? Are they reaching out to you?
GIMENEZ: No, not really. I think I'm one of the few mayors -- big-city mayors, I'm also --you know, I'm one of the few big-city mayors, I'm also a nonpartisan post. Maybe a lot of the party politics is playing into this, and so they haven't reached out to me. I know the mayor. I know both he and Mayor Garcetti from L.A., they haven't reached out to me. They have their own thoughts on the matter. I think that what we're doing here in Miami-Dade County is the right thing to do. Upholding the law, but also protecting our citizens. I don't think that there too many people in America that would want some of these individuals that we have picked up.
GIMENEZ: Through the charges, that they've been picked up on to be part of our society. And so, I think we're doing the right thing here. And for that, you know, we will now be eligible again to receive the federal funds that we've had in the past.
PERINO: How important are those federal funds to your operation and making sure the police and law enforcement can do what they need to do?
GIMENEZ: Well, we get a recurring fund on a formula basis every year, but we also apply for millions of dollars in grants. Look, we're the largest department in the United States to have body worn cameras. A million-dollar came from the Department of Justice for us to put body worn cameras on our police officers. So we get technology from these grants. We get hardware from these grants. We've also get personnel. We have police officers on the streets of Miami-Dade County right now that are paid through these Department of Justice grants. So it's very important that we receive these funds in order to enhance the safety of our citizens here in Miami-Dade.
PERINO: All right. Well, you've certainly shown other mayors across the country how it might be done, so hopefully they're watching tonight, and reach out to this mayor. He might be nonpartisan, that's a good thing. He will be able to tell you like it is. Mayor Carlos Gimenez, thank you so much. And we will be right back.
PERINO: Breaking tonight, the A.P. now confirming North Korea says it is examining plans for attacking Guam to create an area of, quote, enveloping fire. Important to note, the U.S. territory is home to Anderson Air Force Base. Stay with Fox as we continue to break news on this story tonight. Tucker is up next, and I'll see you at 9:00 for "The Five."
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.