AP NEWS
Related topics

GOP Lawmakers in 2 States Want to Spend State Funds on Trump’s Border Wall; Nancy Pelosi Just Pulled a Major Power Move on Donald Trump’s

January 17, 2019

xfdls KENNEDY-LIVE-00

<Show: KENNEDY LIVE>

<Date: January 16, 2019>

<Time: 21:00:00>

<Tran: 011601cb.234>

<Type: SHOW>

<Head: GOP Lawmakers in 2 States Want to Spend State Funds on Trump’s

Border Wall; Nancy Pelosi Just Pulled a Major Power Move on Donald Trump’s

State of the Union; Dem’s Blame Game; Future of America’s Left; Ocasio-

Cortez Says She Wants to Primary Moderate Democrats; Beto Questions

America’s Principles Set Down 230-Plus Years Ago; Christie: Trump is

Surrounded by Amateurs, Grifters, Weaklings - Part 1>

<Sect: News; Domestic>

<Byline: Trish Regan, Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, Leslie Marshall, Britt

McHenry; Andrew Napolitano>

<Guest: Chip Roy, Matt Welch, Christian Whiton; Chris Bedford>

<Spec: Nancy Pelosi; Government Shutdown; Border Wall; State of the Union;

Kirstjen Nielsen; United States Department of Homeland Security; Mexico;

Central America; Steve Scalise; Texas; ISIS; Syria; Middle East; Kenya;

Afghanistan; Iraq; China; John Bolton; Russia; Rand Paul; Lindsey Graham;

Barack Obama; Hillary Clinton; Kurds; Democrats; Republicans; Alexandria

Ocasio-Cortez; Barack Obama; Obamacare; Socialism; Beto O’Rourke;

Constitution; Principles; Rights; Goods; Chris Christie; Donald Trump;

White House; Clown Car; London; Dog; Tunbridge; Natural Light Beer; Student

Loans; Empty Cans; Reese’s; Valentine’s Day Bouquet>

TRISH REGAN, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK HOST: -- is at all. We will have more details for you on the show tomorrow. Have a terrific evening everyone. KENNEDY begins now.

LISA KENNEDY MONTGOMERY, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK HOST: Thank you, Trish. The bitter battle over the government shutdown today taking yet another crazy turn if you can imagine that. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempting to steal the president’s thunder by asking him to postpone or cancel the State of the Union Address. Now, Republicans are furious and they’re vowing to fight back hard. So did Nancy overplay her hand?

Well, as you know, Democrats and the White House have been locked in a nearly month-long feud over the president’s demands for a border wall money. Neither side has budged. So, today, Pelosi fired off a strongly written letter which reads in part, “Sadly, given security concerns that unless government reopens this week, I suggest we work together to determine another suitable date after government has reopened for this addressed or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union in writing to the Congress on January 29th.”

Reporters then asked her to elaborate (INAUDIBLE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: That would be a (INAUDIBLE) was exaggerating for the, you know, (INAUDIBLE) preparation required or not and that’s a security decision which is completely out of my hands.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- government shutdown?

PELOSI: (INAUDIBLE) this is a housekeeping matter when it comes to the United States (INAUDIBLE) responsibility (INAUDIBLE) extended to the president (INAUDIBLE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MONTGOMERY: She has a shriveled dream (INAUDIBLE) in her pocketbook. Unfortunately, for the speaker, the people who actually keep the place safe, they disagree with that entire notion. In fact, DHS Chief Kirstjen Nielsen tweeted, “The Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Secret Service are fully prepared to support and secure the State of the Union. We thanked the service for their mission and focus and dedication and for all they do each day to secure -- I don’t know what’s wrong. It’s just Nancy and her (INAUDIBLE) to secure our homeland.”

(INAUDIBLE) it’s giving me the giggles and that’s not OK. We have a very serious show to do and I’m (INAUDIBLE) going to move forward. So who told Nancy that the shutdown would make the State of the Union unsafe? According to a spokesperson for the speaker, one furloughed DHS employee was spreading gossip and reportedly expressed serious concerns that there weren’t enough people to keep an eye on things. That’s right. A single, unnamed staffer.

GOP lawmakers aren’t amused by Nancy’s stunt. House Minority Whip, Steve Scalise told reporters, “For Nancy Pelosi to withdraw the offer shows insecurity on their part and that they can’t defend their open borders policy.” So did House Speaker Pelosi bite off more than she can chew? And what does that mean for the border wall and the shutdown? Joining me now Texas Republican Congressman, new to Congress, it is Chip Roy. Welcome to the show.

REP. CHIP ROY (R), TEXAS: Good evening, Kennedy. How are you? Thanks for having me on.

MONTGOMERY: Good evening, congressman. So let’s talk a little bit about Nancy Pelosi because, obviously, she really wants to make her mark in this second speakership of hers. Did she overplay her hand by tinkering with the State of the Union?

ROY: Well, I think it’s obvious what the speaker is doing. She doesn’t want to give the president the bully pulpit to be able to speak directly to the American people about the travesty that is occurring on our borders. The cartels have operational control of our borders. The American citizens are less secure and the immigrants, the migrants who seek to come to the United States are actually endangered. In my own district in Texas 21, San Antonio, Jared Vargas, an American citizen was murdered last July unnecessarily by an illegal immigrant.

His mother Lori, his aunt Kristen, his twin brother, and sister are now without their wonderful family member because we refuse to do our basic duty as a sovereign nation to secure our border and Nancy Pelosi knows the American people are tired of it, and they’re of seeing women, little girls getting sold into the sex trafficking trade. And that’s was happening because we put our heads in the sands. Both of the sides of the aisle frankly refusing to secure our border and the president is winning that message that Nancy Pelosi --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: Let me ask you -- let me ask you this because I think there is something to the idea that there is so much chaos and (INAUDIBLE) and uncertainty at the border both physical and political that it is in some ways a magnet. But what if the border wall doesn’t cut down on narco trafficking and people who come to this country to work?

ROY: Well, I mean I’m glad you ask that question, you know, I spent some time as a border patrol and I’m glad they endorsed my candidacy last year and the 72-mile sector of the of the Laredo sector in Texas. There is exactly two miles of that 72 miles. It has even a navigable road along the Rio Grande River. We’re not talking about fencing. He’s -- our border patrol agents are down there without a cell signal. They’re down there without radio signal. The cartels have operational control. They can’t even see the river because the cane is so thick. Our --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: But you’re kind of making Nancy Pelosi’s point which is it’s hard to get through geographically parts of the border where you couldn’t even build a wall in the first place. And so, what you’re saying is there you need more technology and a good gardener? You will probably find some, community college dropout who was born in Iowa to do that I’m guessing.

ROY: No, there’s plenty of traffic coming across these areas I’m talking about. And the border patrol agents you talk to want fences because they know that a border is easier to secure when you have border patrol agents, drones, technology, but also fences.

MONTGOMERY: But Democrats are talking about that stuff. So these are the kind of things and I agree with you in that it’s not a one-size-fits-all build a wall solution. And there are a lot of complex problems along the border, and just slapping a wall on there, it seems like a quick and easy fix. But it really isn’t going to do a lot. So I wouldn’t say the El Chapo trial yesterday in Brooklyn, New York and it was a very curious exercise.

And I was listening to someone who is very high up in this organization testify about how they were using diplomatic planes to fly $100 million in cash and how they were using smaller planes to fly 400 and 500 kilos never at any point in the testimony that I heard were they talking about using little holes in fencing to get a few pounds of marijuana through.

ROY: Well, if you talk to border patrol agents, you’ll find that you’ll see massive stashes of narcotics that are coming across our border between the ports of entry. But this bill also by the way provides $600 million for intervention at points of entry. It includes $800 million of humanitarian relief, more beds, more immigration judges all of which is necessary including --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: I know. But, again, like all of this stuff you’re talking about, I think there is an absolute need for it. And I think part of the humanitarian crisis is legislatively forced. But you’re talking about 16 things before you even get to the wall and all of the things, you have areas of common ground with the Democrats. So can’t you find a rational person on the other side of your political wall who sees the same laundry list?

ROY: Well, I would come back to say that the wall is a necessary part of the entire security process. You and I agree and I think a lot of Democrats agree. In fact, Democrats have voted multiple times over the last 20 years to authorize fences including the Secure Fence Act. You know that and so your viewers. What’s happening is Democrats are to your point about the State of the Union seeking to try to make a political issue out of this over --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: Yes. They’re being big fat hypocrites and they do not want the same thing to happen to them when there’s a Republican controlled House and a Democrat president which will happen. I don’t know when, but it will happen.

ROY: That’s right. It will -- look, with $5.6 billion, that’s what we’re asking for to have 234 miles of fencing, more judges, more immigration judges, more of the technology, all the things that we know will work. And, again, talk to the border patrol agents. They’re down there defending our border --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: I do. I like them. I think they’re nice and they’re leaving because it can be a suck job.

ROY: Well, right. But they’re also down there and doing the job we need them to do without the resources they need. This is common sense. Look, if we -- if we --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: All right. So what happens -- I have to go unfortunately. But I want to ask you this quickly because you are from Texas. Your district covers a lot of this area where there could be eminent domain lawsuits. And, you know, I’ve seen quite a bit on social media from ranchers who have had farmland for generations who refused to give it up to the government and will not acquiesce to a government taking and will take it as far and as long as they possibly can through the court systems to protect their property rights. What do you have to say to them?

ROY: What I have to say is that there a lot of ranches who think that we do need border security and that we do need fencing and walls, and so start in Brownsville, work up the border. When you get to rancher who doesn’t want it, you know what, leave a space, let them have cattle get to the water, put up cameras, put up a guard, and move to the next ranch, moved up to, you know, Laredo and move all the way to El Paso. Let’s stop having excuses.

Let’s get the 234 miles or fencing bill where it needs to be built. Let’s get the place -- the stuff in place necessary to take operational control of our border, so little girls don’t get sold into sex trade and so that we have the ability to secure American citizens. This is common sense. I’m tired of excuses and so are the American people.

MONTGOMERY: All right. Chip Roy, thank you very much, congressman.

ROY: Thanks, Kennedy.

MONTGOMERY: So how far away are we from a compromise? That is a $64,000 question. But at least the two sides are kind of talking. The president today met with the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. We don’t yet have any details on their discussion. But if you recall two days ago, Democrats refused to even show up to the White House and after the meeting with Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said, “The president and his team had a constructive meeting with bipartisan members of the Problem Solvers Caucus. They listened to one another and now both have a good understanding of what the other wants. We look forward to more conversations like this.”

Here’s the rub, Democrats say they will not discuss border security until the government reopens. But we cannot have a reopened government until we have a secure border. And the president says he won’t reopen anything until he gets his wall money, so how do you get out of this catch-22? Let’ meet tonight’s panel. She is here Fox Nation Host and first-time panelist, Britt McHenry, oh, along with Reason Magazine Editor-at-large and Host of The Fifth Column Podcast, award-winning and devastatingly fantastic, Matt Welch, and talk radio host and Fox News Contributor, Leslie Marshall in house. Welcome everyone.

MATT WELCH, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, REASON MAGAZINE: Hi.

LESLIE MARSHALL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Hi.

BRITT MCHENRY, FOX NATION COMMENTATOR: Hi.

MONTGOMERY: So, you know, I can be really hard on Republicans when it comes to immigration. But I think Democrats could do a little bit more. You know, when Chip Roy talks about those things, when he talks about clearing cane, and having drones, and better border security, and more beds, and easing the humanitarian crisis, I mean you and some of your friends on the left how to listen and go, yes. No, I totally see this. And isn’t that a way out of this whole thing?

MARSHALL: Well, a few things. First of all, I want to say great interview because I was sitting here and (INAUDIBLE) you’re making all my talking points. First, I really -- I get so annoyed and being on, you know, boards of committees regarding human sex trafficking, you know, thinking that we only have a border with Mexico. We have four borders and, you know, people really just Google the numbers on sex trafficking and how many are going over or under the border of Mexico versus elsewhere.

So that kind of really irritates me. But to your point, Democrats and when he said the Secure Fence Act, Nancy Pelosi was one of the Democrats who voted no for that by the way. When you look at what Democrats have agreed to with Republicans, you have 1.3 billion that addresses a lot of what he says and it’s a start. You don’t need to build that wall. Drones and a wall don’t help with three tunnels, just three in the last three days that were uncovered, don’t help with 790 kilos that came in through the port in Pennsylvania, the largest cocaine bust in 10 years.

It doesn’t help with that. If we want and we need a comprehensive immigration reform package that includes extreme border security that’s effective, this is ineffective. And if he says, o, when you get to the ranchers house, if they don’t want it, just leave a hole. Well, then there goes the wall --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: Doesn’t everyone go through the --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: Well --

MARSHALL: And to your point about El Chapo, they did not go through any of those checkpoints. And you can watch Narcos Mexico for an exciting thing and that’s --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: No, it’s fantastic and Netflix also has a series on El Chapo. So we’ve seen the Problem Solvers Caucus. Would you be part of the troublemakers’ caucus if you were in Congress?

WELCH: I would be part of the, I want to go in and eat some of those Wendy’s burgers caucus I think with the hamburgers with the -- with the Clemson -- no, the problem is the political calculation here issues that it started off as an impasse and it’s not getting anywhere better. I mean the negotiating position that the president laid out for himself is terrible and it’s not going to get better with any passing second. So either he has to cave, the Democrats are not going to cave at this point.

It’s just not going to happen. They start it off with leverage. They now have more leverage and nobody supporting them (INAUDIBLE) want to do anything to try and have the president get out of it.

MONTGOMERY: Well, there are two things that I see here. One, there’s got to be more than 1.3 or 1.6 billion because we can’t do this every time. That’s number one. Number two, Democrats are supposed to be for workers and you have a lot of unionized workers who aren’t getting paid right now and Nancy Pelosi doesn’t seem to care. She just wears her little Harry Potter scarf and badmouths DHS --

(CROSSTALK)

WELCH: I think that she’s just not going to be feeling the heat for that right now such as the focus on Trump. He owned this thing in December and that’s it. And, you know, the American people through pools have said they’ve added more blame to him. They got -- the wall has become less popular. We are -- we are fetishizing the border at this point -- at some point --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: I want to move on to Britt. And this is a side you don’t hear a lot about. But there was a really interesting story on FoxNews.com about people in Mexico being really frustrated with some of their neighbors down south saying, don’t come through here. And a lot of people are saying, we don’t have the resources to support people. You’re going to be stuck here. The conditions are awful. And, you know, you hear a lot about the American side of the humanitarian crisis. But what they’re dealing with in Mexico sounds like it’s a lot worse.

MCHENRY: Yes. And there were reports a couple weeks ago of a lot of because what we’re seeing is a lot of these migrants from Central America coming up through Mexico, reports and accusations, Molotov cocktails being thrown in them not being able to contain it. Now, the truth to that or not I think all of you made really good points on this is an issue that is just so strong with the base, 61 percent of Republicans --

MONTGOMERY: Both sides.

MCHENRY: Yes. Well, 61 percent of his strong base number pure research center says they still want that wall. So the only problem is it’s a precarious situation because Nancy Pelosi may be the only one to play Donald Trump right now which is what she’s doing and putting that Gryffindor scarf on if it’s Harry Potter, and doing the deflection. He is a person that’s just going to keep going the other way. Like there’s no compromise there and when you see government workers in D.C., 2,200 people getting free food from the capital food bank.

And my friends filing for unemployment this week. Yes, they might get that money later. But I think you have --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: The deaths of federal program, is there anyone manning that program?

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: -- process those requests, are they also submitting them?

MCHENRY: Yes. I mean Jose Andres, a celebrity chef, you know, he’s giving out free food on Pennsylvania Avenue this week.

MONTGOMERY: Oh, have you ever been to (INAUDIBLE)

MCHENRY: No. But --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: Oh, it’s fantastic. Those gastromolecularonomy -- gastronomy with the molecules I believe is what it’s called. But he has fake olives and they taste just like real ones. (INAUDIBLE) all right. The panel is going to return a little bit later. First up, at least four Americans are dead including two U.S. service personnel after a suicide bomb in Syria. Will the president reconsider withdrawing soldiers from the war-torn country?

And later on, oh, Beto O’Rourke wonders if the constitution written 230 years ago still works. Thank God, Judge Andrew Napolitano is here. He’s going to lay down the law. That’s coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MONTGOMERY: ISIS is claiming responsibility for a suicide bomb attack in Syria. Unfortunately, it killed four Americans at least including two of our service personnel. This is video of the attack. It happened in a restaurant on a very busy street. President Trump met with his national security team and several Republican senators at the White House to discuss the situation. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (INAUDIBLE) senator of the moment, says it could complicate the president’s plan to withdraw troops from Syria and he has no doubt why ISIS did it. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: My concern by the statements made by President Trump is that it set in motion enthusiasm by the enemy we’re fighting. I hope the president will look long and hard about what we’re doing in Syria.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MONTGOMERY: The attack also cast serious doubt on remarks Vice President Pence made just hours after the attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thanks to the leadership of the commander-in-chief and the courage and sacrifice of our armed forces. We’re now actually able to begin the hand-off the fight against ISIS in Syria to our coalition partners and we’re bringing our troops home. The caliphate has crumbled and ISIS has been defeated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MONTGOMERY: Oh, slow your roll there, bro. Will the president pull troops out of Syria quickly or with today’s attack the game changer that keeps them there indefinitely? Here to tell me all about it, former State Department Senior Advisor and also Senior Advisor to President Trump and George W. Bush, Christian Whiton. Welcome back, Christian.

CHRISTIAN WHITON, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT SENIOR ADVISOR: Great to be here, Kennedy.

MONTGOMERY: So do you disagree with Lindsey Graham on this?

WHITON: I do. And it’s frankly fairly outrageous that he’s using this as an excuse or as a justification to get what he’s always wanted which is to get America involved in the Syrian Civil War, not just to kill ISIS, not just to reduce it a caliphate, but actually to start getting and choosing winners and losers within that civil war. How does Lindsey Graham knows what motivated ISIS today? You know, it’s just as likely that they attacked us because they think that’s a way to keep America involved because frankly if we are there then Assad and the Russians are prohibited from going in and cleaning out the remnants of ISIS.

And also, if we’re there then the Kurds aren’t to cut a political deal with Assad which is what they’re going to do and frankly what they ought to do. Luckily, I think Donald Trump sees pass this and we’re going to bring those troops home.

MONTGOMERY: All right. So does this do anything to the withdrawal timeline?

WHITON: I really don’t think so. You know, you do have a lot of preening on Capitol Hill. And, hey, that what senators and congressmen do. They go out and they, you know, say, oh, we should be more cautious about this. We shouldn’t do that and if they’re right then they look like there, you know, that they can see the future and if they’re wrong, no one seems to ever care. But Donald Trump I think is committed to this.

You know, it’s very interesting to me that in the several weeks since Trump first announced this, there hasn’t been a clear pole of the American people. Do you agree or disagree with bringing the troops home? And I hate to describe the conspiracy theories. I think it’s because that would show overwhelming support for that. There are certainly overwhelming support for drawing down in Afghanistan. It’s the right thing to do policy wise and it’s great politics for the president to do this --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: Well, and it’s also -- that is long overdue and we haven’t had a president stand up with very clear objectives in Afghanistan or Syria not to mention the rest of the Middle East. And knowing does a very good job of describing what victory looks like, and I think that’s quite problematic. I think it’s interesting that Senator Rand Paul has taken some heat for covering for the president on this and other foreign policy issues.

But he’s making the point that you can be strong and noninterventionist all at the same time and that’s what the president is doing. Do you agree with that assessment?

WHITON: I think so. And if you, look, you know, what are we going to accomplish in Afghanistan in another year or two that we haven’t accomplished in the 18 years since 9/11? What could we be doing with that $50 or $60 billion if you add up Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria whether we would use that to actually deter a much greater threat which is China or just, you know, actually cut some taxes and reduce some spending?

You know, if you look again at what Graham, what Dick Cheney, with the other super hawks are saying like, oh, well, you know, they are terrorists. They’re jihadists in Syria. We can’t get out. If that’s the criteria then we’re going to be at war forever --

(CROSSTALK)

MONTGOMERY: What you think about John Bolton is saying? What do you think John Bolton is saying because he’s National Security Advisor?

WHITON: Bolton is -- I think, you know, he’s cautious about removing forces. It does give commanders-in-chief flexibility to have them there. But, ultimately, I think he wants Donald Trump’s presidency to be successful. And I think Bolton also understands the apex -- again, it’s -- we can adjust our policy every decade or so. In the days after 9/11, it may have made sense to do cowboys and Indians and go after any big jihadist threat out there. But we have other concerns now.

And, again, if were -- if the criteria is we have to stay, if they’re jihadist then, you know, there is just a terrorist attack in Kenya. Why don’t we go invade Kenya?

MONTGOMERY: Oh, and going safari. Thanks so much, Christian Whiton. I appreciate it.

WHITON: Thanks, Kennedy.

MONTGOMERY: Very good. Coming up, many 2020 Democratic hopefuls will seek the blessing of party flag bearer Barack Obama. But what if all goes horribly wrong and Democrats lose again? Who gets the blame? Is it that guy? I’ll explain in my monologue next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MONTGOMERY: The news cycle moves so quickly. We no longer wait until after an election to place blame on someone, anyone for results we don’t like. Harping Hillary Clinton will never tire of chewing on her slobbery what happened bone because she knows the sad question answers itself.

The new strain of Saturday morning quarterbacking is now infecting the ones rosy review of the Obama presidency. By near contrast and sheer hatred, our 44th president has a perceptive edge over the current White House occupant. Their recent history is proving to be less kind to the Chicago superstar.

If President Trump wins the second term which is not as unlikely as his first victory, Democrats are preemptively blaming the two-term tepidity transformational president who, in the grand scheme of things, didn’t really do much. The fact he’s not Donald Trump, well, that isn’t enough to secure his flimsy legacy which president 45 has been easily dismantling, thanks to Obama’s addiction to disposable executive orders. Obama’s legislative center piece, Obamacare, is such a disaster; it has become more practical to replace it with a budget-gobbling-Medicare-for-all-monster that is the most conservative estimates, mind-numbingly expensive and wholly unsustainable.

Obama’s personal prickliness made it impossible, not only to reach across the aisle on immigration and taxes to test the elephants, he was also so distant from his own party. Socialist like Bernie Sanders loved pointing out his net loss of a thousand local and national seat that resulted from his frigidity. What kills Democrats as the begrudging realization that even though Obama was far more popular than Trump, D.T. has gotten a lot more done and will continue to fight to make good on past promises.

Obama ran as a progressive civil libertarian but his (INAUDIBLE) for spying, deporting an establishment appeasing allowed him to quickly abandon his social justice values. The best alternative young lefties have is cannibalizing their own party; not to grow it, but primarying moderate Democrats to move the party just left of Hugo Chavez. Will it work? Well, probably not, but at least they’ll have their blame and victimization ready to go long before election day. So, they can point fingers long before they cast ballots. And that is the memo.

AP RADIO
Update hourly