tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News November 30, 2014 11:00pm-12:01am PST
♪ i'm chris wallace. fallout from ferguson. officer darren wilson resigns. but the grand jury's decision to bring no charges in the shooting death of michael brown leaves a community and a country divided. we'll discuss the facts of the case and whether an indictment was warranted with attorneys on both sides. from police officer darren wilson's legal team, neil bruntrager and from the family of michael brown, daryl parker. president obama appeals for calm while the streets of ferguson
erupt. >> that won't be done by throwing bottles or smashing car windows and certainly won't be done by hurting anybody. >> how does the country ease the tension between race and law enforcement? we'll ask rudy giuliani and head of the national urban league, marc morial. plus, what role has the media played surrounding ferguson. >> the 24-hour news cycle. >> our sunday panel weighs in on that. all right now on a special "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. police officer darren wilson announced late saturday, he has resigned from the ferguson police force. but the decision not to indict him has left ferguson and the nation in turmoil. today we want to examine the fallout from several angles.
we'll discuss the facts in the shooting death of michael brown with attorneys from both sudz. what does the case say about racial discrimination in our police forces? we'll ask two leaders about the problem and possible reforms. but first fox news correspondent mike tobin with the latest from ferguson. mike? >> reporter: darren wilson explained in his resignation later that he wanted to continue with police work, but the department was receiving threats if he remained on the force. he didn't want to put citizens or other police officers at risk. he now hopes his resignation will allow this community to heal. news of the resignation renewed vigor in the ferguson demonstrations. >> hands up! >> don't shoot! >> reporter: supporters of the naacp set off on a 120-mile march they call march for justice. >> we're seeking federal, state and even municipal legislation to bring an end to racial profiling. >> reporter: demonstrators are
staging die-ins where they lay on the ground at clayton, missouri, and a missouri mall intended to disrupt holiday shopping. they did it in seattle as well. that was also the faktic in portland, where police ultimately made arrests and where reverend jesse jackson encouraged the crowd. >> we've seen a mean-spirited backlash in our country that does not represent the best in us. we must fight it in the face of michael brown. >> reporter: portland also produced a warm moment from the demonstrations. a photograph of a white police officer hugging a young, black protester. in ferguson volunteers pitch in and the people who made their living in the burned out stores wonder how they'll get by. >> being without a job around thanksgiving, then you don't have a job to buy your kids any christmas presents or even to provide food. that's sad. >> reporter: the state of missouri has already spent $4 million for national guard troops. $3.4 million on state trooper
and governor nixon's office says it's not enough. he's calling for a special session of the general assembly to fund all this. >> mike tobin reporting from ferguson, thanks. now, let's bring in members of the legal teams on both sides for a sense of the trial that won't happen. neil bruntrager, who's an attorney for darren wilson. one of the lawyers for michael brown's family, daryl parks. mr. bruntrager, before we get to the shooting i want to talk about breaking news. why did darren wilson decide to resign from ferguson police department and does he still fear for his life? >> he decided to rye sign because we got information yesterday directly from the chief in ferguson that they had some information that suggested they were going to be acts taken against either members of the department or the department itself related to his continued employment. when he was told that, he said
that was enough so he submitted an oral resignation followed by a written resignation letter shortly thereafter. >> he he still feel a a marked man in the st. louis area? >> he does, chris. it's a a shame and that's something he has to liv with for quite some time. >> mr. parks, let's get to the evidence in this case. what do you think is the single biggest hole in officer wilson's testimony? what do you think is the strongest reason that that grand jury should have indicted him? >> well, chris, i believe the strongest reason is the reasonableness of his so-called fear as michael approached him. for what i can tell thus far, and in my investigation of this case, almost one of the gunshots michael received he could have lived from except for the head shot. and so the head shot, the kill shot, was to the apex of his head. it is my opinion that given the fact where his head was
positioned at the time of that shot, that this officer had other reasonable means that he could have subdued michael and failed to do so. >> mr. bruntrager, let me pick occupy that because there seems little question that michael brown from the forensic evidence that michael brown attacked officer wilson in his car, grabbed for his gun, but here i think is the question that a lot of people ask. why did wilson get out of the car and follow michael brown? why not just stay in his car, follow him if need be in the car and wait for backup when there would be more people and they could subdue him without a shooting death? >> the information that we have is that michael brown immediately after the shots are fired in the car, immediately after the scuffle in the car, michael brown takes off. michael brown's running away. darren wilson's job is to keep his eyes on michael brown. he has said both in his statements on august 9th, august 10th, in front of the grand jury, in his statement to the feds, he has said, listen, the
reason i got out of the car was not to arrest michael brown. i couldn't. he didn't believe for a minute that he could subdue michael brown by himself. his job, getting out of the car, was to keep eyes on him. wherever he went, he had to see where he went because he believed -- >> but why not just follow him in his car and wait for the backup? >> well, because what if he gets off the road? what if he gets into the neighborhood, which is exactly where he was going? you can't follow everywhere in the car itself. >> mr. parks, your reaction? >> his job is to keep eyes on him. >> a couple problems, chris. one, when the officer got out of the car, witnesses have testified that he continued to shoot at michael as michael was running away. and there -- >> wait, wait, wait. he wasn't -- wait. mr. parks he wasn't shot in the back, he was shot in the front. >> just because you're shooting at him doesn't mean you have to hit him. you're confusing things. just because i shoot at you --
it's clear a few of the shots the officer shot missed him. it's possible one of the shots to his arm could have possibly come from the back. i don't think we need to confuse the two things. yes, witnesses say he shot at him. he may have missed him. at some point michael turned around and the officer testified as if his body jerked, as if he hit. other people glance over the fact of what made michael turn around. he didn't turn around by happenstance. he turned around because he was hit. and witnesses say, why are you shooting? quit shooting and trying -- >> was he turning around to give up or turning around to attack officer wilson? >> he was turning around to attack officer wilson. everybody has a right to their opinions. they don't have a right to their own set of facts. what we know, in my mind the inc. spgle most important evidence is the blood spot about 25 to 30 feet away from his body.
we know he went to a farthest point north because hi blood is there. that's irrefutable. he has come back towards officer wilson. that's when he is shot. when he is shot, he's about eight to ten feet in the final shot mr. parks referenced, he's about eight to ten feet from officer wilson. we call that the kill zone. at eight to ten feet, he can reach officer wilson. and officer wilson has indicated to everyone that will listen that he believed that michael brown intended to kill him. >> now, let me -- >> look at the shell casings on the ground, too. >> let me just pick up on this. because, mr. parks, missouri law is pretty clear. what it basically says is that a police officer is entitled to take deadly force if he, quote, reasonably believes his life or someone else's life is in imminent danger. here is what darren wilson told abc news. >> at that time, i gave myself another mental check, i can shoot this guy? you know, legally can i?
the question i answered myself, i have to. if i don't, he will kill me if he gets to me. >> mr. parks, doesn't what you just heard from officer wilson, doesn't that meet the legal threshold for an officer being allowed to use deadly force? >> well, chris, let's not confuse two things. number one, and i know we're going to deal with the issue of the grand jury's actions later in the show. however, that's a defense. whether or not his belief is reasonable. we believe, number one, there should be an indictment. there's enough evidence here that this officer should have been indicted. if you have issue or have that defense, which is fine, have that defense before a jury so the evidence can be properly presented by both sides in the case. we do not believe that the manner in which this was handled, where you have a prosecutor's office, both, one, putting on the evidence to indict, but also putting on other evidence that puts forth the possible defenses or actions
or justifications in the case. that's not how this process woshgs. >> mr. parks, you have called the decision not to indict, in your words, a travesty. and this prosecutor did something unusual but not unprecedented which is he simply presented all the evidence to the 12 grand jurors and let them make up their mind. why does the prosecutor have to seek an indictment? why can't he just leave it up to the grand jurors? >> well, without question, i mean, i think given the fact that you have this process where he goes in, if he goes in and, one, gives them all the evidence. it's not as if he's putting in a posture to get an indictment. from his action, it appears he does not want an indictment. thus, they don't indict. when a prosecutor wants an indictment, a prosecutor puts forth the evidence that is -- that will line up to give an indictment from the grand jury.
and the prosecutor by his actions, whether verbal or nonverbal, indicates to the grand jury that i want an indictment in this case. it is rather clear in this case that that was not the case. in this case. thus, that's why we should not be surprised by the fact there was no indictment in this case. >> let me bring in mr. bruntrager, because the fact is that the legal standard in grand juries, which is probable cause, is a pretty low standard. generally speaking, grand juries are instructed to indict if there is, quote, some evidence of guilt. didn't they reach that standard? obviously, the jurors didn't think so. >> look. when you look at grand juries, they're formed for one reason. one is investigation. they can be called to do just what they did here, and that's look at all this information and decide. i find it astonishing that we have criticism of this grand jury because people say they were given way too much information. they were given way too much to think about.
now, these grand juries operate in an entirely different way than a trial jury. they're given the opportunity to look at information. they can then leave. they have sometimes a week between sessions. they can ask questions if they want, unlike regular juries. this grand jury clearly looked at everything. they asked questions, they were engaged. don't know how mr. parks says we get in the head of the prosecutor by, perhaps, some means so sort of figure out that impliedly they don't want an indictment. don't see that. i've read the transcripts. i see a prosecutor who the information in front of a grand jury is says, you decide. >> i have time for one more issue. mr. parks -- >> chris, if i may though, chris, one important issue. >> real quickly. >> we're not indicting the grand jury. don't blame the grand jury. i think the process of flawed as laid out by the prosecutor. >> mr. parks, is the brown family which you represent, are they going to file a civil lawsuit against officer wilson?
if so, on what grounds? >> well, chris, obviously they have the option of a civil lawsuit. one, upon civil rights basis against officer wilson. two, against the police department and the city of ferguson when the time comes. those are not issues we discuss publicly upon our team. we'll certainly give the parties a chance to work that out, among the parties f they choose so, if and when we need to make a public issue, we will. but as of now, it's not. >> when you say give the parties to work it out, are you suggesting a possible settlement? >> no. i mean, i think the chance to resolve whatever differences we may have that could be a settlement. it could be some form of litigation if needed. it just depends. they'll have a chance to do whatever they deem proper in the situation and we'll react. >> finally, mr. bruntrager, reacting to that, what do you think of the merits of a civil lawsuit by the brown family against your client? also, what do you think of the merits of a federal lawsuit, if
they decide so bring it, which would have to prove that officer wilson intended to violate michael brown's civil rights? >> let me start with the latter. we know there's an ongoing federal investigation. if the feds decide they're going to bring an action against darren wilson, it would have to be some sort of allegation that he violated the civil rights of michael brown. in order to do that you have to show he intended to violate his civil right. it's not just that you intend to pull the trigger, it's that you intend to actually vie late his civil rights. that's a pretty high bar. that's a difficult thing for them to do. >> what about the civil lawsuit? well, that's an entirely different question. in most instances it's not directeded to the individual. it's directed to the police department itself for a variety of reasons. again, i think that they're going to have a difficult road to hoe. every american has a right to seek redress in the courts. of course, i would never begrudge that to anyone.
>> mr. bruntrager, mr. park, we want to thank you for joining us today. >> thank you, chris. >> up next, we'll examine the big picture. tension between police and black communities when is he we sit down with former new york city mayor rudy giuliani and the president of the national urban league. what's the lesson from the events in ferguson if let me know on facebook or twitt twitter @foxnewssunday and use the #fns. when i feel a cold coming on... (achoo) i hit it hard. new zicam cold remedy nasal spray shortens colds. and it reduces symptom severity by 45%. so when a cold hits, shorten it with zicam.
thank you. ordering chinese food is a very predictable experience. i order b14. i get b14. no surprises. buying business internet, on the other hand, can be a roller coaster white knuckle thrill ride. you're promised one speed. but do you consistently get it? you do with comcast business. and often even more. it's reliable. just like kung pao fish. thank you, ping. reliably fast internet starts at $89.95 a month. comcast business. built for business. the decision to bring no charges in the michael brown case has reopened old wounds of
mistrust between law enforcement and the black community. we'll talk with the head of the national urban league marc morial in a few moments but we'll start with former mayor rudy giuliani. i want to start with the federal investigation of officer wilson and the ferguson police department. here's what president obama said earlier this week. the frustrations we've seen are not just about a particular incident. they have deep roots in many communities of color who have a sense that our laws are not always being enforced uniformly or fairly. >> mayor, do you see any basis for either investigation by attorney general holder and his justice department? >> having read the transcripts now the grand jury, fbi interviews and all of that, and having been a prosecutor for 13 years, i don't see how this case
normally would have even been brought to a grand jury. this case doesn't have the racial overtones that a prosecutor would come to the conclusion that there's not enough evidence to present to a grand jury. there are seven witnesses who support the officer's testimony. when i was listening to the attorneys, a key witness, african-american witness, who says the officer was charged aggressively at the very end. >> but if i -- >> how fast -- >> if i may, sir, the question, though, is what do you think now of it going to the federal level and attorney general holder investigating? >> it's the same testimony. it's the same witness, the same testimony. in other words, the attorney general holder will have to take a case in which a jury couldn't find probable cause to indict and he's going to have to try to find probable cause in front of a federal grand jury when there
are seven african-american witnesses supporting the police officer's testimony. and the witnesses on the other side, not all, but almost all of them have impeachable testimony. in fact, a couple of them committed perjury saying he was shot in the back, when he clearly wasn't. it's a very -- it's an impossible case to present to a grand jury. a federal grand jury in my experience, having been in front of hundreds of them, would find no true bill here, just like this grand jury did. >> mayor, i want -- >> just leave -- >> mayor, if i can -- >> nobody wants to read these transcripts. >> mayor, let me move you on to the bigger issue. i want you to look at a poll. 70% of blacks say people in their community are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with the police. only 37% of whites make the same complaint. question, do you think that blacks have a legitimate complaint about racial discrimination by police in their communities? >> yes, i do. i do believe there is more
interreaction and more unfair interreaction among police officers, white and black, in the black community than in the white community. and i think some of that responsibility is on the police department. and on police departments to train their police officers better and to make their police departments much more diversified. but i think just as much, if not more, responsibility is on the black community to reduce the reason why the police officers are assigned in such large numbers to the black community. it's because blacks commit murder eight times more per capita than any other group in our society. and and i assign police officers with commissioner bratton, we did it based on sat statistics. we didn't do it on race. if there were a lot of murder in communities, we put a lot of police officers there. if i put all of my police officers on new york than
harlem, seven times more -- >> mayor, we're running out of time. i want to ask you about a specific case in cleveland this week. we'll put the video up. i'm sure you're familiar with the case. in was a 12-year-old boy who was walking around, waving what turned out to be an air pistol. police respond to a call and an officer comes up and shoots him dead in two seconds. mayor, i know it's one case. but does this give a sense of what the blacks -- black community's complaint about is that police are on a hair trigger in their communities? >> i mean, there's no question that individual cases have situations that are unjustified. but you have to put it in proper context. why is it happening? why is it happening more often in the black community? and doesn't it actually logically make sense it's going to happen more often in the community where there is five, six, seven, eight, nine times more violence than in another
community? so, if you want to work on the problem, have you to work on both sides. when the president talked about training, he talked about training the police. i'm all with him. train the police and make them better. i tried hard. we have a diverse police department in new york, but you've got to work on the other side of it, too. this is not a one-sided story and it is presented always as i one-sided story. >> that's why tear you canning to you. i have one minute left. i'm going to ask you to confine it to that. there are several reforms, critics of the police are talking about now. i want to get your reaction to them. putting body cameras on police. having a police force that reflects the racial makeup of the community. and the broken window. are those good ideas? >> yes, yes, and no. simple. i have changed my mind on body cameras. at one time i thought they were a mistake. now i believe they are a very
good idea because 90%, 95% of these situations, the police officers turn out to be justified. and had this police officer had a body camera, we would not be having this discussion. >> very briefly -- >> in the -- >> if i can, sir, what's wrong with the one you said no to, the aggressive policing? >> aggressive policing, stop and terrific means searching for guns. it's the reason why new york city reduced crime by 65%, 70%. if you're talking about massive stop and frisk, that's wrong. but stop and frisk is based on reasonable cause to believe someone is committing a crime. it's in the constitution. every police department does it. if you overdo it and some police departments have, then it is wrong. so, maybe the answer to that is yes and no. first two questions, the answer is yes. >> mayor giuliani, we want to thank you for coming in and talking to us. wish we had more time.
now let's bring in former mayor of new orleans, marc morial. i want to start with this question of black crime, mr. morial. mayor giuliani likes to point out 93% of blacks in america are killed by other blacks. so, the point he's making, and i think a lot of people are making, is when the protesters, when civil rights leaders are focusing on the problem with the police, aren't they ignoring the real problem in the black community? >> let's add another fact, and that is, about 84% of all whites are murdered by other whites. and the concern about violence in the black community is pervasive, the advocacy, the ral lis, the events that take place. should be no mistake that black-on-black violence is not tolerated in the black community. the protests are directed at the response of the system, to the killings of unarmed black men, and in the case of cleveland, a child. and the lack of accountability
when those events take place. it's also the fact that we've had five high proceed fife incidents in this country, and now the young boy down in -- out in cleveland. and combined with the fact that the number of killings of silt zens by police is at a two decade high. all of this is a perfect storm of events, which means that there's this response across the nation, peaceful protests for the most part, that says that this must change. >> well, let's talk about possible reforms. the urban league is calling for a number of reforms in the wake of ferguson, including federal reviews. federal reviews of every police killing. why is that necessary? why can't the -- why can't the local community handle that, sir? >> i think the history has
been -- i heard mayor giuliani talk about this, in the rodney king case, in the case in new orleans, those are all cases where local prosecutors failed to either seek or secure an indictment or conviction where the federal government stepped in after the fact and secured justice for the victims. the history is simply not good, the procedure prosecutors and local police departments policing their own. this is why it's a time for us to change how we handle these instances. and i think in the first instance, i support body cameras. i think every should should review their deadly force policy. i think cities should also completely revise how they train. they have to re-evaluate how
they hire police officers. this is a time when we have to promote positive change. i led a city, new orleans, at the same time that rudy led new york. we reduced crime by 60%. we did it with community policing. we also had a significant reduction in civil rights complaints against police departments. so, this is a false, if you will, narrative that you've got to be out there doing stop and frisk. you've got to be -- there's a tradeoff between what i would call safety and violations of civil rights. you can do both. that's the future we have to embrace in this nation. >> let's talk about that because you just heard mayor giuliani, and i put a list of what he -- he agreed with the body cameras, he agreed with a police force that makes up the racial makeup of the city, which wasn't the case of ferguson, where he disagreed with you, at least
partially, on the question of aggressive police forcing. you have called for an end to the broken window kind of policing and stop and frisk. but don't those -- doesn't the crime rate actually go down? it certainly did in new york when they did stop and frisk? >> you know, stop and frisk used selectively and in a targeted way is absolutely permissible and a valid police tool. using it comprehensively, all the way across the city. one of the experiences that caught my eye in new york was that many of these stops and these frisks did not yield the recovery of a gun or a prosecution or a conviction for weapons charges. it's an inefficient way. i think it's better. if you will to embrace a proactive, this is the term, proactive policing system where police officers are out on the beat, where they're building relationships with people in the community.
the way we bring down crime in a community is not arrests, it's preventing arrests. my experience in new orleans in the 1990s is that you could combine an accountable police force with public safety. bring down crime and reduce friction between police officers and the community. those are the kinds of things the urban league embraces. >> mr. morial, we want to thank you for coming in today. >> thank you. up next, we take a closer look at president obama's response this week. >> there are ways of channelling your concerns constructively and there are ways of channelling your concerns destructively. >> the image that said so much this week. the president appealing for calm while ferguson burns. our sunday group joins the
productive ways of responding and there are destructive ways of responding. burning buildings, torching cars, destroying property, putting people at risk, that's destructive. and there's no excuse for it. >> president obama trying repeatedly this week to put a lid on the anger that erupted across the country after the grand jury decided not to bring charges against the ferguson police officer. it's time now for our sunday group. kimberly strassel from "the wall street journal," julie pace who covers the white house for the associated press, "the washington post" robert costa and bob woodward also from "the washington post." let's start with that infamous split screen from the night of
the nonindictment and the picture on the one side of president obama urging calm and on the other side of the streets of ferguson erupting. how much hand-wringing was there at the white house after the fact about putting the president out so that split screen, that juxtaposition could be seen? >> i think the response you saw from them was to have him employ out and speak again on tuesday, the clip you just played. it was interesting on the day the indictment came down -- or the nonindictment came down. the white house really wanted the president to be out there. they kept reporters at the white house late. it's very unusual for him to speak that late into the evening. they wanted him to have a presence on this. and yet it created these awkward optics where you had the president calling for calm at the same time you're seeing unrest, and they felt he needed to go back out the next day. i felt his remarks on tuesday were much stronger because you knew how the situation played out. it was difficult moments after what happened for him to say something that really meant
something because we just didn't know yet how this was going to play out. >> it wasn't just the president ho came up for some criticism. we asked you for questions from the panel and we got a lot of questions about media coverage. take a look at this one. ellen asked on facebook, did wall-to-wall coverage help encourage outrageous behavior? matthew thursday matthew sent this on twitter, i know it is news, but some of the coverage soomed to be rooting for the worst. good questions. bob costa, how do you answer elen and matthew? >> i think the media criticism is somewhat fair. perhaps it was a bit heavy. i think when you look at people like the "st. louis post-dispatch," "the washington post" coverage, it's been solid throughout. when it comes to timing, the timing of the announcement of the grand jury at night. that seemed to provoke a lot of interest and questions about timing. i think the media coverage has been pretty deep, looking at the
family, the consequences not only within the town but nationally, politically. >> i think part of the question is you put on tv lights, you put on the cameras, they're there. and you're going to attract a crowd. >> you are. we saw that one burning car certainly got a lot of coverage on that one evening. but this is a major issue, a tragedy what happened to mr. brown. and i think this is causing a lot of discussion around the country about race, about politics, about even the media and i think the media has been subject to some unfair criticism for going overboard. >> i want to talk about that, the bigger picture, popp bob, because we've seen this before. we saw it, for instance, in los angeles -- the first verdict exonerating the police officer in the rodney king beating and then terrible riots there. what do you take assist the lesson here about tensions not just in ferguson but generally between the police departments and the black communities where they enforce the law? >> and there's always going to be criticism, but the media
always has to cover it. and i -- >> i'm not talking about the media. i'm talking about tensions between the black community and the police. >> then you need to do it and do stories about that. i think what's really interesting here is the prosecutor put out all the grand jury testimony. when you look at it, it is hopelessly contradictory. and he let people -- hey, look, this is what we base our decision on. >> some people said he was giving up, some said he was charging like a bull. >> i mean, it is a classic case of, you know, how do you find out what happened? and they didn't and so we're seeing this all play out. but i think that's fine. i think actually what obama had to say was sensible and reasonable and the issue here is the racial division in this country, which still exists, which everyone needs to address
a case like this enflames it, but you can't wake away from that. >> the racial divisions do exist and persist. one of the things, kim, that was so striking is the tremendously different reactions in the white community and the black community to this. i mean, the forensic evidence, at least in terms of what went on inside that car, all back officer wilson's story. clearly, wilson's dna was on the body, on the gun. seems there was clearly a strug that will went on inside there. one can argue if wilson should have gotten other. i found out this week that the number one cause of homicide in the black community between young blacks ages 15 to 34, is homicide. >> right. >> homicide. but yet it all goes out the window when one of these cases
happens. >> i think this is where there is some culpability on the white house, i agree with bob, the president has said all the right things this week once the grand jury decision was handed down. one of the questions leading up to it, in particular eric holder's decision to launch his own investigation into the wilson action and on a civil rights potential case, which is a very high bar, as you heard. to do a separate probe into whether the actions of the entire ferguson police department, to run their own autopsy. all of that led to the impression from the start that there was something not fair or right or suspect about what was going on in the justice system in ferguson. that has allowed a lot of people, a lot of the protesters to come out and say, and you get these varied reactions, like you were saying. a lot of people thought this was a sham from the beginning. no matter what the evidence says, that is not breaking through. i do think that was a problem. the president ought to be talking about those issues you
hour after hour of diving deep, touching base, and putting ducks in rows. the only problem with conference calls: eventually they have to end. unless you have the comcast business voiceedge mobile app. it lets you switch seamlessly from your desk phone to your mobile with no interruptions. i've never felt so alive. get the future of phone and the phones are free. comcast business. built for business. last month chuck came to me to discuss the final quarter of my presidency and determine that having guided the department through this transition, it was an appropriate time for him to complete his service. >> president obama putting the best face on what from all accounts was the forced resignation of defense secretary chuck hale hagel. we're back now with the panel. bob, you have reported in depth about president obama at his national security team.
aside from the personal stuff, hagel didn't talk up in national security meetings, what does his ouster tell us about obama and his policies in the last two years. >> first, it tells us the world has changed. hagel was brought in as a soul mate for obama, someone who wanted to get out of iraq, out of afghanistan and no new war and the situation has changed. and to shrink the military and kind of not be one of the a cabinet members. now we have the isis problem and the new war president declared. people keep saying no. this is a tough one for obama. he's got to find an authority figure. he has to find somebody who immediately people will say, that's a leader. >>. >> wait, wait. we've seen a couple of top
choices. there are a lot of people who say, you know, he wants to run it from his white house and his national security counsel and no authority figure would want to take that job. >> but that's what he's got to do. he's got to find one name that's been floated around. he's not going to be happy to hear this, is collin powell. now, he's 77 years old but there is an authority figure. someone who served as the chief military adviser in the first gulf war when he was chairman of the joint chiefs. secretary of state. somebody who's been the national security officer. somebody who could get up there and kind of -- you know, he's friends with obama. 77, that's the old 67. >> that's what we keep telling ourselves, right? ken, you wrote a column this week in which you didn't sugar coat it. you called obama a lousy boss
and you said anybody who doesn't want to be a doormat would be crazy to take this job. explain. >> look at the way hagel was ousted. the trash talking, behind the scenes, anonymously blaming the obama foreign policy failures on him. if you look back over the history of the obama administration, this is not an ab rag aberration. this is how this president rolls. they micromanage from the top. look at what happened with obamacare. look at what happened with veterans affairs. president was asked a few months ago, how are you so slow to recognize the isis threat? he blamed it on the director of his national intelligence agency. so, why would anybody want to come in and serve as a doormat? i think that is why a lot of people are, in fact, saying no. >> julie, one, do you think that's fair? two, since we've had a trial balloon here for collin powell, is that a serious possible? >> you look at michelle
flournay, two people close to her told me she doesn't want this job. number one, she didn't transport if she was going to be restrained in the same way hagel was. she wanted more freedom. number, two she looked at this point that we're at in the presidency and said, hey, wait, maybe i can get this job under hillary clinton, another democratic president, take it on at the time when the administration has a little more juice. powell name's has been out there. people in the administration say that's probably not where they're going to go on this. an interesting name that has been floated and administration officials say they are looking at this person very seriously is jeh johnson, the current homeland security secretary. is he well respected both at the pentagon where he came from and the white house. the obvious downside of nominating him is you risk having his confirmation hearing turn into immigration, which he's been deeply involved in, and an opening at homeland security -- >> why is it -- because you had gates, you've had pin ennetta,
hagel. why is it the of defense under this president have had unhappy experience. >> they say it comes from obama's views on the iraq war, on the afghanistan the way it's been managed. he just doesn't take his recommendations with the same weight at his some of his predecessors -- >> not just the military. >> his whole leadership. but he's skeptical of military options put before him. >> he doesn't like war. obama doesn't like war. that's reasonable, but he has declared one, essentially now. he's in a tight spot. >> there was one other big foreign policy development this week. and that involved the west's nuclear talks with iran. they had a deadline of last friday. they didn't meet the deadline. and they decided to extend the talks for another seven months. here is what secretary of state john kerry had to say about that.
>> we would be fools to walk away from a situation where the breakout time has already been expand rather than narrowed. and where in the world is safer because this program is in place. >> bob, they've already been talking for a year. any reason to think that another seven months is going to break the log jam? >> this could be the signature achievement for the president on his second term in foreign policy. i think they're going to try to continue to work in that direction. republicans are very critical of this. it's going to be hard to win widespread support in elongated talks. back to bob's point on authority figure on dwerngs have you to work with a republican congress if you're the new secretary of defense. have you to get authorization for war, authorization for new troops, that's an important part of what the white house is thinking through right now. >> i'm not sure if colin powell is republicans' favorite republican after he endorsed barack obama. >> he has close relationships with mcconnell and boehner. i think he should be a solid
person to help the president usher through his policies. >> how worried are white house republican -- as the white house about the fact that next year, when republicans take over the house and senate on this iran issue they may decide to impose new sanctions to try to ratchet up the pressure on iran. >> it's a big concern for the white house. even though the president could veto a sanctions bill, depending on how many votes it got, it's unclear whether republicans could override that, but they feel even the act of congress passing new sanctions, even if they never were implemented, could damage this extension that we're seeing right now. they do feel like the response from capitol hill over the last week has been okay. you've had some republicans that have come out, calling for new sanctions. you've had people like bob corker not necessarily calling for immediate sanctions. they do feel like maybe they're going to be able to keep a lid on this over the next coup le o months. >> what about if you put new sanctions on, it increases the pressure? it's a bargaining chip. >> we have iran at the table.
let's keep new sanctions -- put new sanctionses on them, keep up the pressure and then they'll be more likely to make a deal. >> thank you, panel. you next, our power player of the week. once again, i dance with the turkeys. if you suffer from constipation, you will likely also suffer from gas. introducing new dulcogas, which starts working to eliminate gas bubbles in minutes for effective relief. dulcogas, from the makers of dulcolax- nothing relieves gas faster.
>> sandy lerner is talking about sustainable farming. raising vegetables without the chemicals that are so common in factory farming. just a few days before thanksgiving, she took me out to see, and yes, to dance, with her 1300 turkeys. heritage breeds that traced back to the indians. >> come on, raise your arms, gobble, gobble, gobble. >> she is mist as interesting as her business is how she got here. she grew up on a farm in california. making enough from raising cattle to send herself to college. >> what i learned is to love work. i'm really happiest when i'm engaged and working and thinking and striving. >> she got into computers. in 1984, she and her then husband started cisco systems. then found a way to lend networks of computers, the foundation of the internet. but six years later, venture
capital people were running cisco. >> how do you get fired from a company you started? >> we just basically got taken to the cleaners and part of that was if you don't have an employment contract, i got fired by the same guy who fired steve jobs. >> lerner had a second act. she started a cosmetics company called urban decay, with edgey colors for women like her and in 1996, she bought the farm. >> it's historically been people with disposable impact who made strides in farming. you're such a pretty girl. pretty is as pretty does. she raises shires, war horses that go back centuries, scotch highland cattle and those turkeys which she says taste better because of the lives they lead. >> how much does that turkey cost compared to what i get in the grocery store?
>> our turkeys are expensive. between about 160 to $200. >> at those prices, there are questions about how to make this kind of farming profitable. but while lerner is determined to run a sound business, it's not just about the bottom line. there's a 40-room mansion on the farm. >> what's it like living there? >> i don't know. >> what do you mean? >> i live in a little log cabin and i love it. >> do you think you're a bit excentric? >> i am now that i'm rich. i used to just be weird. >> just days before thanksgiving, sandy lerner and i danced with the turkeys. she grew up on a family farm and she wants to see those values live on. >> i'm a cowgirl. i can tell what cows are thinking. it's very much my success as a farmer. which is what george washington was. he wanted to be b a really good farmer. i've become a good farmer. >> sandy lerner sold over 1,000 turkeys this thanksgiving and
donated almost 12,000 pounds of turkey to local charities. that's it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next fox news sunday. he was on a 42 years old but while he lived he revolutionized the industry and touch most of . >> we just love him. we love him, that is all. he has to be so happy. >> elvis presley, a and idle to millions of us growing up in the 1950s and '60s. elvis didn't invent rock 'n roll, but he made it