'Special Report' panel on Russia policy, bipartisan deal on infrastructure

close

Video

Trey Gowdy: There needs to be a consequences for Russia

'Special Report' All-Star panel debates Biden's performance following of summit with Putin

This is a rush transcript of "Special Report with Bret Baier" on June 17, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

BRET BAIER, HOST:  Let's bring in our panel early Ben Domenech, publisher of the Federalist. Juan Williams, Fox News analyst, contributor and Trey Gowdy, former congressman from South Carolina.

Ben, your thoughts about what we heard today and what has come out of this?

BEN DOMENECH, PUBLISHER AND CO-FOUNDER, THE FEDERALIST: Well, unfortunately, I think that what we heard today is an indication that, once again, the Biden administration is going to give up the store when it comes to all of these different aspects of American policy.

And my question about their foreign policy in this early going, really is what are we getting back in return? When we give them the Nord Stream pipeline, when we eliminate the sanctions against the people involved in that, when we set these arbitrary red lines that will obviously not be honored when it comes to Russian cyberattacks, when we engage in restarting the Iran deal or any other number of foreign policy decisions, what is it that America is getting in return?

I realized that the criticism of Donald Trump's administration was that his approach to foreign policy was far too transactional. There's some validity to that. I think that American interests include an ideological interest in favor of freedom.

But there's also a transactional element to foreign policy, and one that we ought to respect. This is not in any way a situation that I think redounds to the American benefit. And if the outcome of this is that we have a stern talking to about the potential death of Alexei Navalny, we have some warnings that are given to the media and the like from Joe Biden and we have them oing and eyeing over his gift of American made aviators. We're not really emerging from this having achieved anything in the American interest

BAIER: Juan, you know, they had the dueling press conferences of Vladimir Putin's going for a lot longer and then, President Biden's, they were not together in answering questions.

You know, the build up to this was big. Foreign policy experts were waiting for this, like, you know, get around the T.V., get a bowl of Cheez-its and watch this thing. But what happened, did it -- did it deliver?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think from the Biden administration perspective, Bret, it did deliver because all they wanted to do was hammer in guardrails to set what they want, which is a more stable and predictable relationship here, I'm using their bare words on this, after the first very tense six months of their ties with Russia being strained.

And as you know, overall, I think the Biden administration has made it very clear, they view all world affairs at this point as a matter of democracies versus autocracies, China would be number one on that list.

But you know, Russia has the power, you know, in terms of distracting and disrupting everything from the hacking to involvement in Middle East peace deals, you know, aid to Iran, to Syria. Even in terms of Eastern Europe, Europe, with Belarus. And what's been going on in the Ukraine.

So, I think they wanted to just kind of say, here is what our American interest are. Here are lines that we are setting now in this conversation, especially on cyber security. I think that was probably the number one was in Biden's words at the press conference, he said he let Putin know that the U.S. has tremendous cyber capability if that's the game he wants to play.

And I think again, it's the cybersecurity, it's human rights, no revoking the Magnitsky Act (PH) on Russian oligarchs. And then finally, I think you have to think about the global stability, you know, stay out of our business.

BAIER: Right, Trey, what about giving a list of entities, facilities that are off limits to cyberattacks? I mean, are there others that are OK to attack?

TREY GOWDY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, apparently, that would include our 2016 election. You remember, Bret, our country has been torn apart for five years because of an allegation that a Republican candidate colluded with Putin. We don't have to wonder whether Putin colluded with Putin. You have the guy in front of you who tried to sow the seeds of discord in our democracy. Did you bring it up? How about the indicted? How about the people Mueller indicted, the Russians under indicted -- under indictment? I wonder if that came up.

So, I mean, if you got a list of things that are off limits, then you necessarily have to have a list of things that are within limits. And I'm just wondering where our election structure falls? In limits or out of limits?

BAIER: You mentioned, Ben, the kind of back and forth with the press. Here's a little clip of that with President Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PUTIN (through translator): We know that there were cyberattacks on a pipeline company in the United States. What are the state organs of Russia have to do with that? We are encountering the same threats.

BIDEN: What happens if that ransomware outfit were sitting in Florida or Maine, and took action as I said, on their single lifeline to their economy, oil? That'd be devastating. And they're like, you could see them kind of go, oh, we do that, but like, whoa. So, it's in -- it's in -- and everybody's interested these things be acted on.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He denied any involvement in cyberattack, he downplayed human rights abuses, he refused to say Alexei Navalny's name. So, how does that account to a constructive meeting as a president? --

BIDEN: If you don't understand that, you're in the wrong business.

To be a good reporter, you got to be negative, you got to have a negative view of life, OK? It seems to me, the way you all -- you never ask a positive question. Why, in fact, having agreement -- we'll find out. We have an agreement to work on a major arms control agreement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: A lot of back and forth there got testy at times, Ben?

DOMENECH: You know, Joe Biden has a long history both in the Senate and during his tenure as vice president of getting testy when he is challenged in some of these areas. But it is an aspect of his character that only seems to come out more in this day and age.

Unfortunately, all these questions are very valid, and ones that ought to be answered responsibly by the president. I think they would be directed at the president, any party engaged in this kind of interaction.

Unfortunately, I don't think that we got any real answers from Joe Biden. I don't think we're going to get any real answers from this administration. Because unfortunately, this meeting only redounded to the benefit of Vladimir Putin. It did not benefit us in any clear way. I have no idea what we got from this.

Putin got ambassador's back, he got to laugh at the press leaving the room, he got to assert that there were certain areas that were off limits and on limits when it came to the ransomware attacks and the likes as Trey said.

And unfortunately, I think that that is really an example of weakness when it comes to our approach to this. We never should have had this meeting in the first place given everything that's happened in recent months.

BAIER: Juan, I mean, just respond to that.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think it's important we had that meeting because of the tensions that have existed for the past six months. Because I think you want to avoid, you know, this is an old sort of archaic term, but Cold War. We're not interested in having any battles with Russia.

Look, we hold the aces in this, let's just -- I mean, I'm not trying to be, you know, overly boastful about the United States. But our economy is 15 times the size of Russia, Canada has a bigger economy than Russia. Their economy is basically a gas station, you know, based on oil and gas and that's a declining asset in the modern world.

So, when he does something, he is just basically a disrupter. And what you have, the President of the United States holding all the aces in the conversation saying, is here -- here's the deal, Mr. Putin, we'll see where this goes. But we're telling you, we don't want to fight with you, we want a stable relationship, don't antagonize.

DOMENECH: Juan, that's all the more reason that we didn't have to meet with him. That's all the more reason to say that this wasn't something that was necessary.

GOWDY: Last word is a country within an economy the size of Italy ripped apart the greatest super power on the face of the earth for five years. And there needs to be a consequence for that.

For Biden, it was a brave bipartisan moment, both Republican and Democrat presidents don't like CNN, so I'm marveled at the bipartisanship there for just a second.

BAIER: All right, we'll leave it there. Panel, we'll see in a bit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BAIER: A look live on Capitol Hill as a new bipartisan agreement perhaps in the making, 20 senators including 10 Republicans, 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans. Here are the 10 Republicans signing on to this five-year plan for infrastructure. Doesn't pay for it with raising taxes. No taxes raised and index in the gas tax. Uses unused COVID money. Five years, $953 billion total. 

Back with the panel with the breaking news. We're back with Ben, Trey, and Juan. Trey, it's 20. It's not 60. But hopeful sign? 

TREY GOWDY, FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA REPRESENTATIVE:  It is. The devil is going to be in the details, Bret. It reads to me like they are agreeing to split what we all call infrastructure from what the Squad calls infrastructure. So, notice the prior criticism was that the word "infrastructure" was being used to cover lots of other things. So we're going to split the two bills. 

But if they require Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin and all the other Democrats to vote for both bills, then what have Republicans gained? You still get the whole bill, you just get it on two separate days instead of the same day. So I'm not real sure what Republicans gain from this. But, look, infrastructure is always popular. It's usually bipartisan. But it is usually defined as roads and bridges and airports, and not daycare. 

BAIER:  Juan, there is a lot of talk about what Republicans would agree to or not agree to. But in reality now, if this deal starts to take shape, it's progressive Democrats who are really speaking out against this effort and think that a plan should be pushed through reconciliation with only Democrat votes. 

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST:  That's exactly right, Bret. And Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, has initiated that kind of conversation among Democrats. And, again, as you just said, quite rightly, it's the liberals who are saying, wait a second, why are we making a deal? 

Why are we compromising at this moment when we should be making an all-out effort to deliver on what is a popular plan? The infrastructure deal at the moment, is like almost two thirds of the country thinks it's a good idea and about a third of Republicans. 

But I think the whole notion that the president, Biden, holds in mind is it can be popular -- even more popular if he can assure people he's made every effort to achieve bipartisanship. 

BAIER:  Can Biden convince the left of his party to sign on, Ben? 

BEN DOMENECH, PUBLISHER, "THE FEDERALIST":  There are so many repeats here, shades of the Obamacare discussion that happened in 2009 when President Obama was desperate for a while there to get just one Republican vote or one non-Democratic vote to support his plan in order to have that veneer of bipartisanship. Meanwhile, the progressive flank of the party at the time was pushing them to use their far more significant legislative advantage to really press forward with the policies that they wanted to achieve. 

I think in this instance, President Biden similarly had wanted to have a veneer of bipartisan to this plan. We'll look into the details of what this proposal looks like, but I still feel like the progressive flank is a lot more powerful now than it was back in 2009 in directing the future of the party, and that's going to be a really tough in the for the White House to crack. 

BAIER:  Let's go back to the Putin meeting in Geneva, a bit of a performance review. As you might expect, Republicans not too keen on it. 

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE:  When president Putin stands there and says he didn't have any pressure applied to him, that suggests that this was just talking past each other. 

RIC GRENELL, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE:  Let me just compliment President Biden on one thing. Bringing up human rights is a very good thing. The Russians get very uncomfortable, and so do the Chinese, when you talk about human rights. 

SEN. TOM COTTON, (R-AR): Vladimir Putin doesn't care about how he is viewed by western democratic leaders. He cares about power, and he cares about strength. Joe Biden could have said that if the attacks continue, well, maybe Russia's oil and gas plants are going to go down. Maybe their electrical grid is going to go down. 

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator):  As for the soul, seeing it or not seeing something, well, this isn't the first time I have heard this. Frankly speaking, I don't recall this conversation, but I will allow that it happened, and it escaped my attention. But no, we have to represent our countries. And the relationship is a pragmatic one, primarily. 

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  This is not about trust. 

This is about self-interest and verification of self-interest. That's what it's about. Let's see what happens. You know as that old expression goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER:  Trey, interestingly in that kind of scrum of reporters shouting questions at the president at one point, they asked do you trust President Putin, and he looked at the reporter and nodded. The White House came out later and said it was a chaotic scrum with reporters shouting. He was not responding to any one question but nodding in acknowledgement to the press generally, to say he wasn't saying that he trusted Putin. What about all of this? 

GOWDY:  The president said if Russia violates norms -- and I keep thinking, you mean if they do it again? What else needs to happen? So, look, you are not going to start a war. I get all of that. But don't start the sentence with if you do things. You just got through hacking Colonial pipeline. You just got through messing with our election. There is some evidence you had bounties on American soldiers, or at least the media ran with it. 

Remember when they beat up Ratcliffe and everyone else about the Russian bounties? Remember when the media beat up the Republicans over that and Trump? I wonder if Biden brought that up? So don't tell me you do something when you have been doing it for 20 years. 

BAIER:  Juan? 

WILLIAMS:  Well, I think that Vladimir Putin had his own assessment, which he said was that this was a constructive meeting. And I think that the president, President Biden, for our part said he had established the parameters for that stable relationship.

So to Trey's point, that's right, we know the bad things they have been up to. The question is, do we engage in a new set of antagonistic actions aimed at Russia when we really think the problem is China? We now have the NATO allies, the Group of Seven, the European Union all behind us in terms of trying to put pressure on China. We don't want -- I think the Biden administration does not want to have the focus shift to Russia. And so if it's possible to stabilize things there, that's the immediate goal. 

BAIER:  I gave them a lot of face time today. Panel, stand by. When we come back, tomorrow's headlines. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BAIER:  Finally tonight, a quick, lightning look at tomorrow's headline. 

Ben? 

DOMENECH:  Kamala Harris laughs happily at the disastrous experience of Joe Biden's Europe trip as a distraction from her own trip to Central America. 

BAIER:  Juan? 

WILLIAMS: Bipartisan infrastructure deal lives, or bipartisan infrastructure deal dead. Just depends on which paper you read, Bret. 

(LAUGHTER)

BAIER:  All right, Trey? 

GOWDY:  From killer to comrade, Hallmark Channel announces a new miniseries on the Putin-Biden relationship.

BAIER:  Yes.

Thanks for inviting us into your home tonight. That's it for this SPECIAL REPORT, fair, balanced, and unafraid. FOX NEWS PRIMETIME hosted by Brian Kilmeade, and I'm taking his time, starts right now. 

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, 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 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.