Volatile global markets prepare for new week; Ex-lawmakers write Congress in support of Iran deal

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," August 30, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


Global markets on a roller coaster ride headed into a second week in a row as investors await what's next for the stock market rout.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Welcome to "Sunday Morning Futures."

With the price of oil reaching a record low and an upcoming critical meeting for the Federal Reserve as it hints at higher interest rates, one of the country's top economic advisers joins us to look ahead at your money.

Plus, summer coming to an end for members of Congress as they prepare to return to work and vote on the Iran nuclear deal. One of the greatest negotiators of our time, former Senator George Mitchell, which us, and the speaker of the Israeli parliament, with their takes on this nuclear deal.

Plus, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders closing the gap on Hillary Clinton in the latest Iowa poll. We cover the latest developments on the campaign trail with our panel as we're looking ahead this morning on "Sunday Morning Futures."

China's stock exchange set to open later today, kicking off a shortened week for China as the global markets prepare for what could be another volatile week of trading. Just yesterday, the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, Stan Fischer, saying the Federal Reserve will not wait for two percent inflation to raise interest rate. This as oil prices are rising after reaching a record low last week.

So what does it mean for your investments and the week ahead? Mohamed El- Erian is the chief economic advisor for Allianz SE and former CEO of Pimco, a global investment management firm.

Mohamad, it's wonderful to have you on the program. Welcome.


BARTIROMO: So much to talk about on the heels of that huge global route in stocks last week, ahead of the jobs numbers this upcoming week, and ahead of the important September meeting for the Federal Reserve. First, talk about the global markets that we just saw. What was behind all that volatility, Muhammad?

EL-ERIAN: And it was crazy, Maria. The Dow travels a total of 10,000 points during the week. Two things were behind it. One is the markets repricing the prospects for global growth because of evidence that China and other emerging economies are slowing down, and those countries have gone from being a locomotive for the global economy to actually detracting from global growth.

And then the second was a lack of confidence that the central back in China could respond quickly enough and effectively enough. Once you shook those two paradigms, then you got all sorts of behavior. Now, luckily the market came back and actually ended the week higher, but we learned a lot from this harrowing journey.

BARTIROMO: Yes, it was pretty unbelievable when the Dow Jones Industrial average opened down 1,000 points on Monday. And then as you say, Mohamed, the week ended with a gain of 1.1 percent for the Dow Jones Industrial average. Does that indicate to you that we're still in the middle of this volatility, that we will still see scary days ahead like that huge selloff at the open last Monday?

El-ERIAN: Yes, I think what we learned last week was that the journey mattered more than the destination. Yes, the destination was OK at the end of the day, but in the journey we learned a lot. We learned that the underpinnings of the recent rally in stock prices is pretty weak. We learned that people no longer trust unquestionably central bank. And we learned that the functioning of markets and the ETFs in particular have difficulties in this massive volatility. So I think it's important to internalize what we learned from the journey and not just focused on the destination.

BARTIROMO: All right, I want to ask you more about this, Mohamed, because I want to get your take on what this all means for the Federal Reserve in September and the impact of the Chinese economy slowing down. So, stay with us, Mohamed El-Erian, plenty to talk about with you this morning.

But first, let's get some context here as Federal Reserve officials weigh whether or not to raise key short term interest rates for the first time in more than nine years in just a couple of weeks. Fox News senior correspondent Eric Shawn looking at that angle.

Good morning to you, Eric.

ERIC SHAWN, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Maria, and good morning, everyone.

After Wall Street's wild ride, many wonders, again, should I buy, sell or hold. Well, the Fed at some point is expected to raise rates by a smidge, 0.25 percent, but the question is when.

Climate may soon be ripe for a hike, but not quite yet. Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer saying there was a strong case to raise rates at the next Fed meeting in September, but that before the events of last week. Fischer cited improved U.S. labor figures and a stronger U.S. economy. He said, quote, "we will most likely need to proceed cautiously in normalizing the stance of monetary policy. For the purpose of meeting our goals, the entire path of interest rates matters more than the particular timing of the first increase."

You may remember back in 1981, Fed Chairman Paul Volker sent rates soaring to 20 percent to curb inflation. You remember that hurt? But it helped salvage our economy. And the last time the Fed raised rates was in June of 2008. And even the hint of any change has shaken stocks.

Two years ago, the Dow dropped 200 points in one day when then Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed's economic stimulus program may slow.


BEN BERNANKE, FORMER FED CHAIRMAN (JUNE 19, 2013): If the incoming data supports the view that the economy is able to sustain a reasonable cruising speed, we will ease the pressure on the accelerator by gradually reducing the pace of purchases. However, any need to consider applying the brakes by raising short-term rates is still far in the future.


SHAWN: Well, it is not now that far in the future and the much anticipated Fed meeting on a decision comes on September 17th. But no matter what the Fed does, only one thing will really matter, the bottom line, will it work.


BARTIROMO: That's exactly right. Eric, thank you. Eric Shawn with the latest there.

We're back with Mohamed El-Erian talking about this.

And, Mohamed, the comments coming out of Stanley Fischer, vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, this weekend at the Jackson Hole Fed meeting, were interesting because he said that the confidence in inflation is moving up in pretty high numbers, but that the previous case for a September liftoff was not conclusive. He keeps mentioning China and the devaluation of the currency there. Why is the devaluation of the yuan in China so critical to whether or not the Fed raises rates, Mohamed?

El-ERIAN: For several reasons. One is that the Fed is worried about the unintended consequences of raising rates. So while the domestic indicators, especially the drop markets, are signaling, go ahead, Fed, raise in September, the international indicators are saying, be careful. If you move too quickly, then a few things are going to happen. One is you're going to strengthen the dollar and that's going to create a headwind to the economy. Second, you can contribute to financial instability globally and that will spill back onto the U.S.

So the Fed wants to keep its options open because there are conflicting signals coming from the domestic economy and internationally. And that's why they're going to make us focus not on the timing of the first hike, but on what comes afterwards, because this will be the loosest tightening in the history of the Fed.

BARTIROMO: So -- so you think even if they were to raise rates in September or maybe it's December, it will be one rate hike and then they'll sit tight for a while or it will not be followed by a string of interest rate increases?

El-ERIAN: So it's going to be unusual in three ways. First, like you say, it's not going to be hike at every meeting. This is going to be a stop-go process, very data dependent. That's the first difference. Secondly, the path itself is going to be very shallow compared to what we've seen. And, third, the terminal value, where they're going to end up, is going to be lower than historical averages.

So, you know, the timing matters and my gut feeling is they won't go in September. There's simply too much global uncertainty. As much as I would have liked it to go earlier, I think right now they will not go in September. But, importantly, the markets are going to have to start focusing not on the first hike but on this very shallow path.

BARTIROMO: Interesting. So no interest rate increase in September. What do you think the jobs numbers will mean to all of this? We've got the jobs numbers coming out next week, this upcoming Friday. Does that weigh into the Fed's plan?

El-ERIAN: Oh, absolutely. If they see two things, one is solid job growth, and by solid we mean in excess of 200,000 per month, and, second, if they see wages finally moving up, that for them is a signal that they better get going. I think we're going to see pretty strong job numbers but we're not going to see wages respond as of yet.

BARTIROMO: Well, that's the key, obviously the wages. So, given all of this, Mohamed, what would you be doing in terms of allocating capital right now? Do you want to keep to the sidelines given this nervous market? Do you think that the selling continues this week?

El-ERIAN: So I think the volatility continues over the next few weeks and there's going to be opportunity to buy good names at lower prices. You know, what we found out last week is the good gets flushed out for the bad. Why? Because investment managers need to raise cash. And when you need to raise cash, you sell whatever you can. You sell your winners, you sell your losers, you sell whatever you can.

So I think investors need to have some dry powder out there because good values get created. And also they need to ask the question, can I stomach this volatility? Because one of the disturbing things we -- we found out is a lot of people sold at the worst possible time on Monday and Tuesday. So it's important for people to be able to stomach the volatility of their portfolio. If you can't stomach it, then bring it down now rather than be forced to do it at the wrong time.

BARTIROMO: You're right. You had to have a strong stomach on Monday. Some stocks opened down 40, 50 percent as, as you say, people were just selling whatever they had to sell.

Mohamed, great to have you on the program today. Thanks so much.

El-ERIAN: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We'll see you soon. Mohamed El-Erian joining us right there.

With a looming political showdown over the Iran nuclear deal, meanwhile, and a crucial vote right after Congress returns from recess, why some are saying any deal with Iran is a threat to national security, while others argue it will only bolster it. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell is with us next to weigh in live.

And I hope you'll follow us on Twitter @mariabartiromo, @sundayfutures. Let us know what you'd like to hear from Senator Mitchell. He's got breaking news for us next up as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

We could be just weeks away from a high stakes congressional vote on the controversial Iran nuclear deal. That vote seeing influential critics and supporters of the deal come out of the woodwork to make their cases heard. More than 200 retired admirals and generals are sending Congress a letter condemning the deal, two weeks after three dozen other retired military leaders did the same thing, arguing the deal should go through.

Joining me right now is former Democratic Senator George Mitchell of Maine. He also served as former Senate majority leader and former chairman to the Mitchell Commission tasked with ending the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Senator, good to have you on the program.

FMR. SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, D-ME.: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Really important to hear your views on this. You have brought with you a letter where former members of Congress have signed. Tell us about this letter that you are putting forth today.

MITCHELL: Seventy-five former members of Congress have joined to write to the current members of Congress expressing our support and urging them to support the agreement when it comes up for a vote.

BARTIROMO: Why are you supporting this deal when we know that Iran is a supporter of terrorism? A lot of people question if, in fact, they're going to keep their word. Most people, Chuck Schumer, a colleague of yours, has said, we don't believe Iran will keep to anything in this agreement.

MITCHELL: Right. Well, there are many, many other senators who have come out in support of the agreement and a large number have also come out against the agreement. So there are arguments on both sides.

In my view, this is the best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Sanctions brought Iran to the table. The sanctions have been effective because they're universal, not just the United States. This is not an agreement between just the U.S. and Iran. On our side of the agreement are Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany. If the agreement is rejected by the Congress, the sanctions will erode. Russia and China have already said they won't go along. It's unlikely that the others will. And so Iran will then be in a position of having done nothing and getting relief from sanctions.

If, on the other hand, the agreement is approved and supported, Iran will have to take verifiable steps, verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that will prevent it from attaining a nuclear weapon through either the enrichment of uranium or the manufacture of plutonium.

It's an effective agreement. It has broad support. Not just the countries involved in the agreement. All 15 members of the United Nations Security Council support it. The overwhelming majority of countries around the world that have declared a position support the agreement. Rejection by the Congress would be a huge set back and would be more likely to trigger a nuclear Iran and a nuclear arms race in the region thereby undermining the nuclear nonproliferation regime, which the United States has led and which has been largely successful.

Keep in mind that there are many countries in the world who have or could quickly acquire the capability to produce nuclear weapons. The vast majority refrain from doing so in reliance on the United States --


MITCHELL: And the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection.

BARTIROMO: All right, you've said a lot of things there. I want to go back to -- to them one by one because in terms of the sanctions, are you saying basically that because the international community has agreed to this, we are too far along? I mean if perhaps we hadn't had their agreement, maybe had we pushed back earlier, this would have been different, because during this 10-year period, they will have $150 billion of sanctions money that will have been lifted. They could use that money to supporter terrorism. We know they've supported Hamas and Hezbollah among others.

MITCHELL: Yes. Once the sanctions are gone, they're going to get money in anyway. What they are -- what they're arguing, which you presented of the opponents, is that unless you can solve every single problem with respect to Iran, you shouldn't solve any. The fact is, whatever they do with those billions of dollars will be less effective without a nuclear weapon than it would be if they had a nuclear weapon. And so this agreement, which is focused on the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons, is the best and most reasonable way to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.

BARTIROMO: Dick Cheney wrote an op-ed in "The Wall Street Journal" this weekend, titled it "Restoring American Exceptionalism," by Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney. Here's what he writes. "Among the many dangerous deficiencies is his nuclear deal with Iran, it is the irreversible damage it will do to the international nonproliferation regime contained in the nonproliferation treaty. Allowing the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium and agreeing to the removal of all restraints, in just a few short years, will generally guarantee that they will become a nuclear weapon state and doesn't that guarantee an arms race?

MITCHELL: Yes, I think I like and respect dick Cheney. I served with him in the Congress. But I believe that it's the exact opposite of what he said. Scuttling this agreement will be the single most important factor in enabling Iran to proceed toward a nuclear weapon and will leave the United States isolated in the world and then having the choice of either a nuclear Iran or a war to prevent a nuclear Iran.

BARTIROMO: Do they get to inspect their military sites with their own inspectors?

MITCHELL: It's -- the opponents have conflated three separate issues into one to create a highly misleading impression. The first point to make is with respect to declared nuclear facilities, there is 24/7 inspection by the international agency, cameras inside of the facilities. The second point to make is that any secret currently unknown facilities that may develop in which the IAE develops suspicions, they can initiate a process to review those. That's the 24-day period. It applies only to currently unknown, possible future secret violations by Iran. The third point is, the agreement calls for a report by the international agency on Iran's past military activities. The first step in that process is that they get a report from Iran about it and the IAEA monitors that and then makes its own report. It is that tiny aspect of the third report that the opponents have tried to suggest applies to all inspects, which is not the case.

BARTIROMO: I see. All right. Well, you've clarified a lot. Senator, you think this goes through. This is a done deal, isn't it?

MITCHELL: Oh, I don't know about that. It's a tough vote. It's a very big vote. There's intense pressure on both sides of members of Congress. The process which has been established, of course, and the constitutional veto of the president, means that only 34 senators are needed to support the agreement.


MITCHELL: I think they're very close to that now. I hope that's what happens.

BARTIROMO: Senator, it's great to have you on the show today.

MITCHELL: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. Senator George Mitchell joining us.

President Obama, meanwhile, comparing tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the Iran nuke deal to a family feud. The speaker of the Israeli parliament will be with us next with his take on the agreement, what it means for the safety of his country. We're looking ahead this morning on "Sunday Morning Futures." Back in a minute.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

President Obama making a strong push for the Iran nuclear deal to Jewish Americans on Friday declaring, quote, "we're all pro-Israel. We are all family." The president then went on to detail key points in the agreement, noting that the deal, quote, "blocks every pathway Iran might take to develop a nuclear weapon," unquote. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, definitely not on the same page, arguing in a visit to Italy this weekend that the Iran deal will only fuel terrorism.

Joining me right now to talk more about it is Yuli-Yoel Edelstein, speaker of the Israeli parliament.

Mr. Speaker, nice to have you on the program.


BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: First off, give us your assessment of the Iran nuclear deal.

EDELSTEIN: The vast majority of the Israelis, including the vast majorities of the members of the Israeli Knesset of the parliament, both in the coalition and opposition, very much worried about the deal. We might have differences about the next steps, or how to deal with this new reality, but I think there's little doubt that the deal is a terrible one because it basically doesn't leave the international community, the International Atomic Energy Agency, any possibility to seriously inspect what is going on in Iran. There's this whole thing about certain suspicions that the international agency might have, then they have to inform the Iranians about their suspicions. Then the Iranians have to react to that without any defined timetable. And then even if they admit that they -- there is some basis for the suspicions, they still have 24-day period in order to get rid of any evidence. So it makes it quite obvious that there will be no serious inspection.

The sanctions, as you rightly mentioned in the previous interview, are lifted immediately. Estimated sum of at least $150 billion will get into the hands of the Tehranian regime. And at least part of it, if not the majority of this money, will very soon make its way into our area, into the Middle East, the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas and other proxies (ph) in Syria. It will make our life -- life there pretty hard.

BARTIROMO: What about what Senator Mitchell said that there are cameras in their military sites at all times, that the 24-day period is adequate, that this is going to ensure that they won't build a bomb versus exactly the opposite, what you and so many critics are saying?

EDELSTEIN: Oh, that's exactly the question, how would we know if they are building a bomb five miles away from the declared facility where they have these cameras? How would we possibly know? It's not a democratic country where an investigative journalist would make his or her way into this undeclared facility. And the problem is, the sanctions are not there. There is a kind of legitimacy given by this deal from the international community to the Iranian regime to develop nuclear weapons. And there's still another question. I think that Senator Mitchell was absolutely correct, the whole - - all the -- all the members of the Security Council and the vast majority of the countries around the world support this deal. So my question is, even if we learn about certain violations, American intelligence, Israeli intelligence will bring these facts say to the American president, to the Israeli prime minister, will make them public to the world community, what will happen next? Will the Security Council get together and cancel the deal? It's -- well, pardon my simple language, but they really need guts to -- to make a step like that. I am not sure that the international community, after all this work on the deal, will act this way. They'll say, well, it's minor violations, it's still better than no deal.

BARTIROMO: I think this is such an important point because George Mitchell was just saying, look, this is not about the U.S. and Iran. This is about the U.S. and five other super powers and Iran. The international community is there. But the point that you made earlier was, the U.S. was the leader here. The other countries were looking for some direction.

EDELSTEIN: Well, it's not always easy to be a leader under these circumstances, especially having China on board and Russia on board. Not easy. But at the same time, I think that the American administration still has a lot to say about it. And I am pretty pessimistic even if the American administration would work in the right way that it will be immediately followed by all the partners, including China, including Russia. But, still to continue with the crippling sanctions is a possibility. And I think that as former Secretary Hillary Clinton defined it, crippling sanctions really worked.


EDELSTEIN: And that was the reason the Iranian's got to the table. At the table they all of a sudden discovered that they can push and push and push without getting any push back.

BARTIROMO: That's right. And now those sanctions, $150 billion worth of sanctions, cannot be snapped back if, in fact, there is, you know, a problem. Let me ask you about the U.N. Security Council. Have you ever seen a situation where the U.S. goes to the U.N. to be the policeman, rather than actually through the structure of Congress?

EDELSTEIN: Well, actually, I think that the structure of Congress is important in any regime. As a speaker of the parliament, I have to say that, and I do believe in that, and I think that they will have to wait for the vote on The Hill. And if -- if and I'm not interfering in any way what the Congress will decide and the Senate will decide, but if they will not support the deal, I think that it will be a very serious sign to the international community, including to the U.N., everyone understands, Maria, what you just said, without U.S. leadership, it's really a non-deal.

BARTIROMO: And we know that many Middle Eastern countries are very unhappy about this deal, like Saudi Arabia, who no doubt will look to get a nuclear bomb.

EDELSTEIN: The nuclear race is just around the corner. If the deal is approved, and if someone would want to imagine a perfect nightmare, let him or her imagine the Middle East with three, four, or five countries rapidly developing nuclear potential.

BARTIROMO: Wow. Yuli-Yoel Edelstein, thank you very much for joining us today.

EDELSTEIN: My pleasure.

BARTIROMO: We appreciate it. This is a scary subject, and thank you for the clarity, Mr. Speaker. We will see you soon. We'll be watching the developments.

Up next, Democrats still waiting on a decision from Vice President Joe Biden. How Hillary Clinton's e-mail troubles could influence his next move. We're looking ahead to 2016 on "Sunday Morning Futures." We'll be right back.


SHAWN: From America's news headquarters, I'm Eric Shawn, here are some of the stories that are making headlines at this hour.

A night at the ballpark turns tragic after a fan falls to his death during a Braves-Yankees game at Turner Field in Atlanta. The crowd gasping as the man tumbled at least 40 feet from the upper deck onto an area near where the families of players sit.

The victim has been identified as a 60-year-old Georgia man, who, one witness said, excitement sadly propelled him over that railing.

And investigators this morning trying to figure out what exactly allegedly set off a Texas man to kill a sheriff's deputy while he was fueling up his patrol car at a gas station.

Matthew (sic) Goforth was a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff's Department. Police say they don't believe the suspect, 30-year-old Shannon Miles, there on the right, knew the officer and the attack was clearly unprovoked. Miles is charged with capital murder.

For now I'm Eric Shawn. Back to "Sunday Morning Futures" and Maria.


BARTIROMO: Thank you, Eric.

Vice President Joe Biden expected to announce a decision next month on whether he will be shaking up the race for the Democratic nomination. A potential Biden run reportedly infuriating former president Bill Clinton.

This as a new poll shows Hillary Clinton losing ground to Bernie Sanders in Iowa, the former secretary of state beating him by only 7 points.

Want to bring in our panel on that.

Ed Rollins is former principal White House advisor to President Reagan. He has been a long-time strategist to business and political leaders. He is a Fox News political analyst.  Judith Miller is adjunct fellow at The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. She's a Pulitzer Prize winning author and journalist and a Fox News contributor.

And Stephen Sigmund is the senior vice president of Global Strategy Group, a Democrat strategist and former communications director to former New Jersey Governor John Corzine.

Good to see everybody. Thank you so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: Joe Biden, does he enter the race, Ed Rollins?

ED ROLLINS, POLITICAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: I don't think he does at the end of the day. I think what he's discovering is that the Democrat establishment, pretty much in her camp; the White House may not be in her camp but the establishment is, the party types.

And my sense is it would be a very, very difficult task for him. He won't have the money. He'll basically divide the party up they'll have the chaos that we have on our side. And I think a lot of Democrats see Trump as the potential here disrupter that they have an excellent chance of winning the presidency with Hillary.

BARTIROMO: Yes. Really interesting stuff here because he doesn't have the money, Judy.

And isn't it late in the game?

I know we're only at the end of the summer '15, but still.

JUDITH MILLER, AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST: Yes, 430 days out is now considered late in the game. Look, I think everything depends on whether or not Hillary's candidacy falters and I think it's a moment, as Doug Schoen, who was a political insider, is a former Clinton pollster, said her candidacy is in mortal peril.

It's not just the e-mail scandal because a lot of Democrats aren't moved by that. It's the fact that, as a Quinnipiac poll showed, when people are asked what's the first word that occurs to them when they mention her name, many people said "liar." That is not the way you want to have your candidate perceived.

BARTIROMO: Actually, I saw that and I was just like, wow, when I read it because the first word was "liar," but the second word was "dishonest" and the third word was -- I mean, like the first three or five words were --

ROLLINS: The best positive word was "Bill," which is about five or six down.

MILLER: And so if she falters it seems to me that Biden will have to enter the race despite the fact that Bernie Sanders has picked up so much -- he was at 5 percent in January, now he's at 30 percent. That's really a stunning turnaround.

BARTIROMO: Stephen, jump in.

What are you hearing?

SIGMUND: Look, I think Biden would make a great president. It would be nice if he runs because it would inject some seriousness in what has been an unserious campaign so far.

But I agree with both, Judy, that I don't think he's going to run. It gets late early in presidential politics now.

But let me just address something that Judy said about the Clinton campaign because, despite everything that she just talked about and, you know, there are some serious self-inflicted wounds here, if the election for president were held today, she would be elected president. She's winning national polls. She's winning or tied in all of the swing states.

Bernie Sanders has made some inroads in New Hampshire, which is the state next to him and in Iowa, which is traditionally a very unpredictable state.  The rest of the country, which has a much bigger electorate in Democratic politics, she's dominant in.

BARTIROMO: Even though there were revelations in the e-mail server investigation that Clinton e-mails were classified under an executive order signed by the president. Also the State Department remaining quiet over the handling of the e-mails while former Secretary Clinton was in office.

SIGMUND: The e-mail stuff is sort of unfathomable. I can't understand why she made that decision or why they made that decision in the first place and how they -- it's a little bit of a 20th century political handling of all of this.

But my point is despite all of that, despite all of that, so the worst moment of her campaign -- sort of to Ed's point at the beginning -- because the Republican field is so weak and so unpopular -- I mean, you talked about her being referred to as "liar" in the Quinnipiac poll. There was another poll last month "The Washington Post" did, in which the leading Republicans candidates had higher unfavorables than Voldemort, the Harry Potter killer character.



BARTIROMO: Ed, what about that.

ROLLINS: She has run a terrible campaign. She's not -- for a person who's been running for eight years, she has really not got this thing unraveled.

But going back to all of this, unless there's something serious, where the FBI is now investigating or someone else says it was really criminal, obviously then something like that, then anybody can jump in.

But I think at this point in time establishment of the Democratic Party is going to get her across labor, African Americans, women voters --



All right, hold that thought, Judy.

Now we want to take a look at what's coming up in "MediaBuzz" top of the hour. Howard Kurtz also has a big show ahead.

Howie, what are you working on?

Good morning to you.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, "MEDIABUZZ": Good morning, Maria.

Donald Trump versus Jorge Ramos, the Univision anchor who disrupted that presser in Iowa, got himself kicked out then came back, got in a debate with the press -- with Trump.

We'll look -- take a broader look at the Hispanic media and Trump. And also, you're talking about Hillary Clinton. She likened Republican candidates to terrorists the other day. I thought there would be a media explosion, but there wasn't. And so we'll -- we're going to show how the press has basically given her a pass on that kind of inflammatory language.

BARTIROMO: All right. We will see you in 20 minutes, Howie. Thanks very much.

And before that, it was another controversial week for Donald Trump. Our panel reacting to the shouting match with Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, as you just heard, as well as Donald Trump's latest poll numbers. We're looking ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures." We'll be right back.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Donald Trump getting into another contentious feud this week. The GOP front-runner sparred with Univision anchor Jorge Ramos at a news conference and temporarily gave him the boot out of the conference, the shouting match making headlines as Donald Trump continues to make waves with voters. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows him gaining nine points, garnering more than double the support of second-place contender Dr. Ben Carson.

We're going to bring back our panel here, Ed Rollins, Judith Miller, Stephen Sigmund. What do you think that told us, this upset that he had with Jorge Ramos?

ROLLINS: Well, Trump has dominated since June 16th, the day he announced; he's dominated the Republican field. And what he's done is he's diminished the serious candidates in the sense of not allowing them to move forward. Bush is now way behind. Walker's eliminated, almost, in Iowa.

And so my sense is, you know, is he going to win this thing? I don't think so. But is he going to basically put a bunch of people together -- he's 25 percent, 30 percent leading the polls? Is he going to start demanding things in a platform? Is he damning us with Hispanic voters? These are irreparable things we can't get back. And my sense is he's hurting the ticket immeasurably at this point.

BARTIROMO: Well, I mean, at this point, you know, after the comments he made about Mexico and the immigrant situation, you would think that Latinas are not fans, but we have the numbers here from the latest poll showing that only 51 percent of that community disapprove of him. You would think it would be much higher, Judy?

MILLER: Well, you'd think it would be, and I suspect it would be if he succeeds in getting the nomination, which I don't think is going to happen. But I don't see how, when you had Mitt Romney, who only won 26 percent of the Hispanic vote last time and lost the election in part because he did so poorly with Hispanics, how you can continue to alienate 50,000 new voters every month and win an election, a general election, but he is doing incalculable damage to the brand.

He's forcing Jeb Bush to talk about anchor babies. He is really inflicting a lot of damage. He's doing the democrat's work for them.

BARTIROMO: Is that what you're saying, that he's inflicting damage on the ticket?

ROLLINS: My -- absolutely. Why didn't Bush step up and say "My wife is from Mexico; my children are Mexican children"?


ROLLINS: That was his perfect position. Mexico is one of our best neighbors. Mexico and Canada are two greatest friends in the world, and why are you insulting these people?


ROLLINS: I mean, you know, it just -- we need that vote long-term. I'm going to be -- I'm an old man and I'll be dead and gone, but at the end of the day, Republicans are never going to win the presidency if they don't get...


ROLLINS: ... Hispanic...


BARTIROMO: Well, it's interesting that you say this. And, Stephen, I want to get your take on this. Because Peggy Noonan, this weekend, in her op-ed -- the title is "America Is So in Play."

And the point of the article is basically that the base is changing. And the establishment of the GOP does not see who America is right now.

SIGMUND: Yeah, I mean, I think that's the problem here and that's why Jeb Bush, instead of reacting the way he should have reacted, doubled down on anchor babies, right? Because the phenomenon here is so unpredictable to the Republican Party and so unpredictable to what's happening when you think, every time he says something, you know, frankly idiotic, or does something like this, that he's going to implode.

I mean, when you watch that debate two weeks ago, he didn't know anything. I mean, the bluster was not about being politically incorrect; it was about the fact that he couldn't actually answer the question. But it didn't seem to matter. And that, I think, is what is making it so scary and unpredictable for Republicans like Jeb Bush. And instead of -- instead of running their race, they're doubling down on his race.

BARTIROMO: So he's a Dem's dream to run up against Hillary, right?


SIGMUND: Oh, absolutely. I mean, he's not...


He's not going to be the nominee, but more importantly, he's driving the conversation right now and driving huge amounts of the electorate towards the -- towards Democrats. It was exactly my point earlier that it's the reason Hillary Clinton, even when she's had a disastrous summer, would still be elected president if the election were today.

ROLLINS: But your point and Peggy's point is the establishment doesn't understand. The establishment that put in McCain and Romney and what have you did not understand the Tea Party put in the Congress. The Tea Party and the evangelical movement is very much a strong part of this party. They're outsiders. They're not insiders. They're not the money people. They're not the billionaires. But they care deeply about this party and he's tapping into that.

Now, at the end of the day, the promises he's making, "I'm going to get rid of all the gangs in America," that's just -- where are you going to put 'em?

First of all, it's not...

MILLER: He said he's "the king of the tax code."

ROLLINS: And, you know, so...


MILLER: And he's going to raise taxes on hedge fund guys, those bad hedge fund guys. He sounds like Bernie Sanders.


BARTIROMO: Right. Right. All right. We'll take a short break, then we're moving on to foreign policy. With the Iran nuclear deal gaining vote support and opposition, what it means for the upcoming congressional showdown over the matter, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures." That's next with our panel. Back in a minute.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back. The Iran nuclear deal this morning getting a big boost a month ahead of a possible congressional vote. As you just heard, former Maine Senator George Mitchell, along with 74 other former members of Congress, sending current Washington lawmakers a letter in support of the nuclear agreement, which we told you this morning, Senator Mitchell breaking that news on the program.

Where do things stand now?

Our panel is back, Ed, Judy and Stephen. What's your take on whether or not...


ROLLINS: Well, first of all, I think the president probably will get the votes to override the veto. But the truth of the matter is a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate are going to vote this down. This is a deal that we negotiated and we get nothing out of it. The Chinese will sell weapons. The Russians will sell weapons. The $150 billion the Iranians are going to get are going to be used to sponsor Hezbollah. They'll eventually get a bomb that (inaudible) matter.

At the end of the day, we get nothing. We don't even get to inspect. We basically have lost all power and we have abandoned our two greatest allies, the Saudis and the Israelis, by this deal.

BARTIROMO: And by the way, I know this is a side; it wasn't supposed to be in the deal, but we still have hostages in Iran right now. So we really do get nothing.

ROLLINS: We get nothing. We don't get to inspect.

MILLER: Well, I disagree. I think that four presidents have tried to get Iran to scale back the program. Nobody has succeed until Barack Obama. And while I have a lot of problems with a lot of his foreign policy, on this I think, even though it was -- is not the deal that I would have liked to have seen -- I would have liked a tougher deal, I think you see a lot of very prominent generals, military analysts, arms control people, saying this is the best we can get, and it's certainly better than any of the alternatives, which is a point that Senator Mitchell made.

And in terms of Israel, the Israeli military intelligence establishment is divided over this deal.

ROLLINS: But 200 -- 200 generals and admirals, four stars and three stars, all signed a document, versus about 25 a couple weeks ago that were pro. So don't say the military is for this. The military is totally against this.

MILLER: No, I said -- no, I said some are. What strikes me as interesting about this deal is it really has divided the -- the military and intelligence community.

BARTIROMO: Stephen, the op-ed in The Wall Street Journal this weekend by Dick Cheney, "The Iranians get to inspect themselves for these past infractions. Inevitably, these provisions will be cited by the Iranians as a precedent when they are caught cheating in the future."

How is it possible that we have a deal where they're inspecting themselves?

SIGMUND: I think Senator Mitchell took that apart. And Dick Cheney -- if Barack Obama said, you know, "The sky is blue," he'd say it was wrong.

The most important thing that Senator Mitchell said was the fact about the sanctions, right, that the sanctions and the five other countries who are part of this with us are going to rescind the sanctions, right?

So if you reject this deal, they will have the $150 billion and still have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons.

BARTIROMO: So that just tells me...

SIGMUND: That's really the argument for...

BARTIROMO: ... that we should have pushed back earlier.

ROLLINS: First of all, the United States...

SIGMUND: But you can do "should have" all you want. I mean, it's not -- it's certainly not a perfect deal. But this is the ultimate in the...


ROLLINS: It's not equal on the sanctions. We drove the sanctions from the start. We started in 1978 when they captured our embassy and we enhanced them each time they did that activity. We'll never get it back again, and we are the ones that don't benefit. Two-thirds of the country are against this deal. An overwhelming majority of the House and the Senate will be against this deal. And what do we get out of it?

MILLER: But the only alternative is military action. And I don't think you can do a military strike...

ROLLINS: We have 6,300 nuclear weapons today, down from 25,000. We're not going to be in a war in the Middle East again.

MILLER: We hope -- we hope not.

BARTIROMO: The military is much smaller than it ever has been.

ROLLINS: And they get -- they get -- they get one. They're not going to use it. And if they use it, there won't be any Iran left.

BARTIROMO: All right. We've got to find out what's most important to all three of you. The one thing to watch for the week ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" is next.


BARTIROMO: Back with our panel with the one big thing to watch in the week ahead. Stephen?

SIGMUND: Well, I'm really watching for whether the Yankees can turn it around...


... because it's a little bit disappointing to me. But, politically, whether any of the Republicans can finally set their own agenda and not just be responding to Donald Trump over and over again. Because, until one of them does, particularly the establishment candidates, he's going to keep dominating the field.

BARTIROMO: Good point. Judy, what's your one thing?

MILLER: I, of course, am watching the Iran deal and the Hill in support or lack of support for this deal. Only two Senate Democrats have come out against the deal, and 14 House members so far. But the president has to hold the line on that to prevent an override of his veto.

BARTIROMO: Ed Rollins?

ROLLINS: In fairness to the other team in New York, I want to see if the Mets can beat Boston today. They lost two games to Senator Mitchell's team.


What I'm really watching is the pressure being put on Democrats starting to come out against, and the House particularly, against the deal and how many they'll actually vote against this thing.

BARTIROMO: All right. We'll be watching all that. Thanks so much for joining us. Stephen, Judy, Ed, great to see you all.

I'm watching the jobs number out next Friday. That will be one more clue for the Federal Reserve on whether they raise interest rates come September 17th. That is it for "Sunday Morning Futures." Thanks so much for being here. I'm Maria Bartiromo. I'll see you on Tuesday on "Mornings With Maria" from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern on the Fox Business Network. Take a look at where you can find FBN on your cable network or satellite provider. Have a great Sunday, everybody.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 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.