Wall Street PR

‘Fox News Sunday’ on August 27, 2023

This is a rush transcript of ‘Fox News Sunday’ on August 27, 2023. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


Donald Trump staring on the Republicans who want the GOP nomination, and the prosecutors vowing to put him behind bars. How will his fourth criminal indictment impacts the race for the White House?


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: We did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong and everybody knows it.

BREAM (voice-over): A snapshot in time, surrendering in Georgia a day after his rivals debated their support.

CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The conduct is beneath the office of president of the United States.

VIVEK RAMASWAMY (R), PRESIDENTIA LCANDIDATE: President Trump, I believe, was the best president of the 21st century.

BREAM: All 19 defendants now processed in a trial that for at least one could start as early as October. Now, Republicans in the House are demanding answers and documents from the Fulton County D.A. We’ll discuss what comes next with one of President Trump’s attorneys, Alina Habba.

Then, the odds of a 2020 repeat are very high. But a growing number of voters is open to backing a third-party candidate.

JOE LIEBERMANN, FORMER INDEPENDENT SENATOR: People are sick and fed up with the two major parties.

BREAM: We’ll discuss the prospects for third-party ticket with No Labels founding chair, former senator, Joe Lieberman, as critics insist it would benefit President Trump.

And —

AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER: They will not be able to turn back the clock.

BREAM: Civil rights leaders gather in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial, 60 years after Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech. We’ll ask our Sunday panel, what progress has been made and what still needs to be done, as the Biden campaign field criticism from Black voters.

Plus, as Russia’s war with Ukraine rages on, “FOX News Sunday” takes you to the front lines for a look at cutting edge battlefield medicine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When that patient recovers and looks in the mirror, they see themselves as a full human being.

BREAM: All, right now, on “FOX News Sunday”.


BREAM (on camera): Hello from FOX News in Washington.

We are following to breaking stories this morning. A military helicopter carrying nearly two dozen U.S. Marines crash this morning during an exercise on an Australian island. This is look at emergency crews at work this morning. Three marines were killed. Five more have been flown to the mainland in serious condition.

The Marines were taking part in drills with several countries at the time. The cause of the crash is under investigation.

We’re also following tragic news out of Jacksonville, Florida. Four are dead including the shooter and what the sheriff there is calling a racially motivated shooting. Authorities say the gunman, a white male in his 20s entered a Dollar General store wearing a tactical vest armed with an AR-15 and a handgun. One of them marked with a swastika.

Three Black victims, two male and one female were killed before the shooter took his own life. The sheriff says this suspect wrote several manifestoes that he, quote, hated Black people and previously been involuntary committed to a mental hospital for evaluation. Residents gathered in multiple prayer circles near the scene of the shooting. We’ll keep tracking those two stories.

Now to our other top story, 91 criminal charges and four pending criminal cases. There are three several cases looming as well, all standing in the way of former President Trump’s efforts to win back the White House, all of that leading to this picture — a mug shot for the history books taken by the Fulton County sheriff’s office in the Georgia case.

The former president, along with 18 codefendants, booked on felony charges related to election interference. Will any of them decide to now cooperate with prosecutors? That’s the question.

Trial dates are up in the air but starting as soon as this fall and then running for the first half of 2024 as a primary election will be in full swing.

Right now, Donald Trump is the undisputed Republican front runner in every poll. And his campaign confirms he’s raised a staggering $7 million since that mug shot was released.

We begin here with Trump legal spokesperson Alina Habba, also general counsel for the Save American Leadership PAC.

Alina, welcome back to “FOX News Sunday”.


BREAM: OK. So you call this mug shot one of the best things that’s ever happened President Trump. These indictments have been a boon politically and in fundraising. But in the months and years down the road, there are a lot of legal battles ahead.

We want to show folks. This is the timeline of all the impending court dates and trials in the coming months. He’s innocent on every criminal charge unless a jury finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But the maximum charges and convictions if all total together, they come to more than 700 years in prison.

Are there moments in talking this over and sitting with the president that the weight of that reality sets in for him?

HABBA: No, Shannon, because what you just displayed I think says it all. That is all intentional. That is exactly what they wanted to do. There’s very much a coordinated effort.

And if you ever doubted it, think about how Fani when she was asked at her press conference if she was coordinating with Jack Smith in D.C. and the government couldn’t give us a yes or no. That says it all.

So, we know this is intentional. We’re not concerned because we know the facts of the cases, which I can’t get into obviously for privileged reasons. But I can tell you that it’s to tie him up, it’s definitely political.

The motivation is now under investigation by Jim Jordan for Fani. And I believe Jack Smith should be investigated as well. And they intentionally waited years and years and years for something that happened to bring it now when he is the leading candidate for the Republican Party.

BREAM: Yeah, we’re going to talk about some of that back and forth with the House GOP now pressing on Jack Smith and on Fani Willis about that with our legal panel.

But let me ask you this, the logistics. You saw the timeline there. That’s in the middle of running for president, caucuses, primaries.

How do you logistically handle, you know, prepping a client for all those different trials and running for president of the United States?

HABBA: Yeah. If it was a normal person, honestly, Shannon I could understand the concern. President Trump is not your average person. He’s incredibly intelligent and he knows the ropes. He also knows the facts because he lived them.

These are — these are not complicated facts. Look at Fani — it was a phone call, a phone call that’s been around forever, that he refers to as a perfect phone call.

What is going to have to be prepped for? The truth? You don’t have to prep much when you’ve done nothing wrong. So, that I’m not concerned with.

These trial dates also are going to move. It’s unrealistic. It’s theatrics. And no judge is going to say that you could be on two trials at once in two different states but a lot of these overlap. They look at the start date of the trial.

But these are four to six-week trials at the least. So, there’s no way they’re not going to overlap. I mean, they’re going to have to go into October, November of next year, again, by design.

But in terms of President Trump, the candidate, I have zero concerns.


HABBA: Look at his poll numbers and he didn’t even go to the debate.

BREAM: Yeah, the numbers are through the roof, but to be fair, that Georgia indictment is very lengthy, ties in a lot of people, and a lot more than just one phone call. But that certainly seems to be at the center of what Fani Willis is building her case on.

There are also — let me look back at one of the federal cases. There’s been a change with regards to the Mar-a-Lago case. Special counsel filed a new document there, and it appears that Trump employee there has changed his story.

Jack Smith’s filing says this: Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, de Oliveira and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage.

“Newsweek” runs this headline about that employee: him flipping could spark domino effect against Donald Trump. There are a lot of people involved in a lot of different cases. They don’t all have the resources the former president does to defend themselves.

How worried are you about them flipping, working with prosecutors in any of these cases?

HABBA: So, the term flipping, Shannon, it — in itself implies that you’ve done something wrong and somebody’s going to turn on you. It’s not a concern we have.


BREAM: No, no, no, just flipping testimony. Meaning that he told one story, changed attorneys and now he’s changed his story, meaning he flips.

HABBA: Meaning that he possibly obstructive justice or said something different, I don’t know. I wasn’t there and I haven’t seen the testimony.

My point to you is this: It’s very nerve-racking from all these defendants — I just want to say — for all of them across the board. To go in front of a grand jury, which unfortunately I have had the pleasure of doing because I’m a Trump attorney, to go in front of grand jury even as an attorney is a very frightening thing. And they are intimidating. It is not normal.

And for these for these people that are literally the American dream, they’ve come in. Their parents weren’t born here. They’re immigrants and they’ve gotten a great job.

And then, all of a sudden, they’re thrust into a grand jury, why? Because they work for President Trump. And that’s what they do to you? It’s terrible.

And I feel for all these witnesses, including the one that you said got his new lawyer. Who knows what the facts are? They’re wonderful people. I know many if not all of them. And what they’re doing is intimidation.

So, I’m not going to speak to what happened in a grand jury testimony without speaking to that testimony. But I can tell you that we know (ph) one side, and that when we get our chance, we will show exactly what happened and how the president is frankly vindicated.

BREAM: And that is what our Justice Department is all about — our justice system is about.

Alina, thanks.


BREAM: We’ll continue to track the cases with you.

HABBA: Thank you.

BREAM: All right. Now to our legal panel, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, and Thomas Dupree, former principal deputy assistant attorney general.

Welcome back.

Tom, let me start with you. What you make of that? I mean, that filing by the special counsel says, clearly, this guy changed his story and that’s how they got to the superseding indictment which leveled more charges against the president, with respect to that security camera footage.

THOMAS DUPREE, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yeah, it’s intriguing. And, look, my sense is it may be a harbinger of what’s come. I mean, you look at the cases right now, in Georgia case alone, you have nearly 20 defendants.

And I suspect that as the months play on and a lot of these codefendants face the prospect of criminal incarceration themselves, they are going to start doing things like this. They’re going to start changing their testimony and they’re going to start having second thoughts. In some cases, they might flip, they might cooperate with the D.A.

So, I think this is going to be a bit of a moving target. I think it’s going to take sometime, probably few months before the dust starts to settle and things start to shake out, and we kind of figure out what every witnesses story is and how precisely they fit into the overall mosaic here.

BREAM: Yeah, and, Fani Willis had wanted to charge — or wanted to try all 19 together which most of us seems like a very ambitious undertaking. You’ve already had one split off and be granted a speedy trial. Sidney Powell is also speaking — seeking that. And then we have five at least, “The New York Times” reporting that they want to move over to federal court.

So, how would that work? Do you think there’s a chance it gets granted and how would it benefit these defendants?

JONATHAN TURLEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It’s going to be hard to make it work. It’s like a potato sack race with 38 legs. I mean, it’s hard enough to do it with two people.

And these people are very different in many respects. They’re charged with a wide variety of crimes. And she links them altogether with this conspiracy theory that at point seems to break down. But it’s going to be hard to see how you can do this.

There is a compelling argument for Trump and Meadows and perhaps others that they should be removed to federal court under a federal statute. Others are going to want a speedy trial.

And speedy trial may be an advantage if nothing else, not to be tried in mass. Because what the Georgia prosecutors want to do is to try to get a mass prosecution, hopefully a mass conviction. That’s not going to sit well.

So, some these people said, you know what, give me a speedy trial. So, you’re going to have all thing fractionally along those lines, because a lot of defendants like most defendants are going to say, no, we’re waiving a speedy trial. There is a lot of evidence here and we need time to get through it.

BREAM: Uh-huh. And the GOP is pressing hard on the Georgia prosecutors saying we want to know what your motivations were. Did you work with Jack Smith? Did you use federal resources? Which state offices do use federal resources.

Is there a problem there or as Republicans are accusing her of this being political, partisan in nature, but she can use federal fund. She could talk to Jack Smith.

DUPREE: She could. And, look, I mean, we saw the House attempt this sort of thing when the Alvin Bragg investigation began. They tried to get the prosecutors in. That really didn’t go anywhere.

I think the challenge here, and, look, I understand the frustration. In other words, when you’re talking about a local or state prosecutor, they don’t have that same built-in supervision that a federal prosecutor would. In other words, not that they’re rogue actors, but they kind of do what they want, and the ultimate arbiter, the ultimate check on them is the judge and the jury.

So, I understand why the House is doing it. My guess is that they may send letters. They may subpoena. They may try to bring prosecutors in.

But at the end of the day, I think it’s a uphill battle because even if the prosecutor decide to show, which is likely, they’re going to say, look, we’re in a middle of prosecution, we’re in the a middle of an investigation, we can’t talk to you now. We’ll come back later.

BREAM: Yeah, I think the Alvin Bragg case, as you cite, is a good example of how there could be a lot of angst but nothing actually comes to fruition as the House investigators would hope.

I want to talk about, too, this Viktor Shokin interview that our Brian Kilmeade did, this now tying into Hunter Biden, potentially Burisma.

This is the former general — prosecutor general there in Ukraine. He does this interview with Brian. He says that he believes — of course, he was fired based on pressure by then Vice President Biden, at least in part by then Vice President Biden.

But he also adds this serious allegation.


VIKTOR SHOKIN, FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL (through translator): I do not want to deal in unproven facts. But my personal conviction is that yes, this was the case. They were being bribed. The fact that Joe Biden gave away $1 billion in U.S. money in exchange for my dismissal, my firing, isn’t that alone a case of corruption?


BREAM: And the White House says these are false claims. They’ve been debunked. And this from Ian Sams over there, says: This is a former Ukrainian prosecutor general whose office his own deputy called a hotbed of corruption, drawing demands for reform not only from then-Vice President Biden, but also from U.S. diplomats, international partners.

Jonathan, what you make at these new claims by Shokin? Because the White House says everybody thought this guy was corrupt at a time.

TURLEY: Well, you know, I was really struck at how fast they came out and said don’t listen to this guy. You know, that always sort of sends off alarms, because one of the most interesting aspects of the Brian Kilmeade interview was that Shokin said, you’re the first ever to ask me for an interview.

And that really bowled me over. You know, after all these years, nobody has actually tried to ask one of the key figures about what happened. And it’s not that you should take his word for it. As you know, there were Republicans, as well as Democrats, raising concerns about Shokin.

But there are very serious allegations here. He’s making new ones. At least he’s supporting ones that have already been made. The question is, how do we resolve it? I think that in many ways, Merrick Garland has made the case for the start of an impeachment inquiry, because we’re not going to get these types of answers out of the special counsel. By making Weiss, a special counsel. He insulated Weiss from many of the questions that were going to be answered in Congress. We need answers to these things. And people need to talk to Shokin and need to talk to his critics.

But to have the White House say, just don’t listen to this guy, really raises its own questions. If there is a problem here involving White House officials in this narrative, could come back to haunt the president. I think it’s better just to say, look, have at it. Let’s interview all these people, bring them into Congress, and get to the answers.

BREAM: Well, we’ll see if that happens. They’re always investigating something. Multiple things over there. Jonathan and Tom, thank you both very much.

TURLEY: Thank you.

DUPREE: Thank you.

BREAM: All right, could a third-party spoiler tilt the White House back in President Trump’s favor? We’ll discuss new worries on the left when we sit down with the Founding Chair of No Labels on that group’s push for a third- party option.


BREAM: The group, No Labels, is increasingly grabbing headlines as it says it wants to provide an alternative to a Biden-Trump rematch and that it’s preparing a possible unity ticket. But many Democrats worry the group is just going to play the spoiler paving the way for a Trump return to the White House.

Joining me now, former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who is founding Chair of No Labels. Senator is a Democrat turned Independent, and a reminder, was the Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee in 2000.

Senator, welcome back to Fox News Sunday.

JOE LIEBERMAN, NO LABELS FOUNDING CHAIRMAN: Thanks Shannon. Good morning to you, good to be with you.

BREAM: All right, let’s start here. Data for Progress is a group that’s not a fan, it appears, of this idea. They’ve crunched a lot of data, numbers talked with potential voters. They say this, “With no feasible path to victory, such a campaign would only serve to split Independent voters, undermine Biden’s reelection campaign, and likely spoil the election in favor of Trump.”

So what criteria do you use to assess whether you think this is going to benefit once again inside or the other? And would you bow out if you think this No Labels Party run would actually benefit President Trump?

LIEBERMAN: OK, good and fair questions. Incidentally, groups like that, that have been attacking this No Labels exploration of a possible third choice for the American people next year, are not a surprise. Because No Labels is challenging the political status quo and in a way the control that the two parties have over our political system.

But the American people keep saying, one, that they’re worried about their own future, and the future of their country, our country. And two, that the two major parties spend more time fighting each other than trying to respond to the things that the people are worried about, like the economy and crime and cultural changes in our role in the world.

So we think there’s a real opportunity for a third choice and that it’s the American people are telling us on polling we’re doing and discussions we’re having that they’ve lost confidence in the two major parties and by large numbers they don’t want to have to choose again between President Trump and President Biden.

BREAM: But Senator —

LIEBERMAN: Why? Because —

BREAM: Let me just ask you, though, if that polling —

LIEBERMAN: They want a change.

BREAM: — if that polling showed you that you guys were going to tip in one way or the other and especially for President Trump, would you bow out and let the two parties go head-to-head?

LIEBERMAN: Well, here’s what we’ve said about that. We’re only going to run basically is to say to offer our ballot line, a third line on the 50 American states to a bipartisan unity ticket if we think it has a realistic chance to win.

And we’re not going to be a spoiler. By my definition I think most people would say a spoiler ticket would be a ticket that has no chance to win and would take votes disproportionately from one of the major party candidates.

Our plan is to only run if we think we have a chance to win realistically. And look, we just finished a poll of 10,000 voters in the eight battleground states. And we give them a choice of Trump, Biden and a moderate independent third choice and 63% say that they’re open to a moderate Independent third choice.

Now, I understand that’s not a ticket but it shows how much the American people don’t want to just have to vote for Trump and Biden. And incidentally, if — if we run, it’s going to be a bipartisan ticket, so not only will we have concluded that it really can win but because it’s bipartisan we’re confident it’s going to take equally from both parties so the idea that we’re going to spoil it and reelect President Trump is just not realistic.

BREAM: OK, so let’s talk about how you would choose the individuals who would end up on the ticket. A lot of attention given to an event you all had earlier this year with Senator Joe Manchin, former governor, former ambassador Jon Huntsman. Will you have a convention? How will people have a voice? How will you select who ends up on the ticket?

LIEBERMAN: Right. I mean, we’re breaking new ground here. You know, there hasn’t been a really strong or winning third-party ticket since Abraham Lincoln in 1860. But the last really successful but not winning third-party candidate was Ross Perot in 1992.

So, here’s what we’re planning. Right now we’re focused first on what’s most important. On getting on the ballot with a third line in all 50 states that we will then offer and give to a bipartisan unity ticket.

This fall we’re going to bring together a process that will be open where we’ll begin to consider what that ticket might be, who might be on the ticket. And we will offer this line if we think next year as the race clarifies and really if it is Trump and Biden whether we want to go forward and run according to the standards that I mentioned just a few moments ago and we already have scheduled a bipartisan convention. Think about it. We haven’t seen that ever in recent history. A bipartisan nominating convention for Dallas, Texas in April of next year.

BREAM: OK. All right, as we look ahead to that, there are three leaders of Democrat groups who are worried about this. They penned an opinion piece at the Washington Post. They say this is dangerous and they said, “No Labels has yet to say what makes Biden a ‘unacceptable’ candidate.” Bill Press writing over at The Hill, an opinion piece there, says, “There’s no need to search for a centrist candidate who is willing to work with members of the opposition to get stuff done. We already have one. He’s sitting in the Oval Office.” So what is your argument against President Biden being a reasonable option?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I know Joe Biden forever. I served with him — excuse me, for 24 years in the U.S. Senate. I like him. I admire him. But the reality is that it’s not what I like. The American people want a third choice. And they want a third choice because the two parties and these two candidates are not giving them hope that the U.S. government will really do something about all the things they worry about, crime, the economy, what we’re going to do in Ukraine and the rest of the world with China, for instance. And therefore, I think we’ve got an option.

And here’s the other thing. I think people are convinced, and I worry about this too, that if it’s Trump and Biden and one of them gets elected, in the end, we’re still going to have partisan gridlock and division. And what we want to do is offer an alternative, which is a bipartisan unity ticket. Think about it. A fresh start with some capable people who are not going to be accountable to the party and feel an obligation to slash the other party, but will really try to get something done together for our country.

BREAM: Well, Senator, we know this group has been in the works for a long time, and you have good goals. So we will see how this actually plays out with a name, and if it ends up on those state ballots, that convention in April next year. Senator, thank you.

LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Shannon. We’ll see you there. It’s going to be a great year ahead.

BREAM: OK. Well, growing concerns that President Biden could also meet resistance from a long, reliable Democrat constituency, black voters. We’re going to report on this weekend’s March on Washington, 60 years after Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. And ask our Sunday panel, what may be causing some voters to lose faith in the Democrat party?


BREAM: Tomorrow marks 60 years since one of the most famous speeches in our nation’s history. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Thousands gathered in our nation’s capital this weekend to celebrate Dr. King’s life and mission, highlighting how far we’ve come and how far we still have to go.

Fox News Correspondent Kevin Corke reports.


KEVIN CORKE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was the sweet serenade of progress. For the thousands of marchers who this weekend marked the 60th Anniversary of the historic 1963 March on Washington, remembered for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, an indictment of America’s unkept promise, witnessed by a quarter million people and delivered in the shadow of Abraham Lincoln.

By contrast, Saturday’s commemoration was more of a reflection of just how far the nations come. Along its journey toward a more perfect union and the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream.

DIANE MILLER, 1963 MARCH PARTICIPANT: Yes, it did come true in many, many ways. However, of course, you know, we are still in the struggle.

CORKE: A struggle that has Democrats facing increasing political pressure from black voters, whose disillusionment with the Biden administration is growing. And for the White House, that’s worrisome.

With the latest Quinnipiac survey showing 35% of black voters disapproving of the way Mr. Biden’s is handling the economy. Worse, black voter turnout dropped by nearly 10 percentage points to 42% during the 2022 midterm elections. A pattern that experts suggest could spell ruin for Biden’s reelection hopes.

Perhaps then, not coincidentally, the administration is reigniting its focus on affirmative action. Issuing informal guidance to colleges and universities that there are still legal ways for them to pursue racial and ethnic diversity in their student enrollments.

ANDREA WATERS KING, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.: We are here for a rededication to the fight for a future where at long last America’s practice will be as good as his promise.

CORKE: A promise 60 years in the making.


BREAM: That was Kevin Corke reporting here in Washington.

It is time now for our Sunday group, USA Today White House Correspondent Francesca Chambers, Juan Williams, Fox News Senior Political Analyst, former Chief of Staff to Mitch McConnell, Josh Holmes, and Penny Nance, President and CEO of Concerned Women for America.

Welcome to all of you. I want to look at some Pew Center research. They were looking at the effect of Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy. And they say this, 52% of Americans say there’s been a great deal or a fair amount of progress on racial equality in the last 60 years. A third say there’s been some progress, but 15% say there’s not been much or no progress at all.

60 years out from that speech, Juan, where do you think we are?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think we’ve made progress. I don’t think there’s any question. Now remember, Dr. King made that speech in 1963. That’s before passage of the 64 Civil Rights Act. So we still had segregated movie theater seating and water fountains and the like. So I don’t think there’s any question we’ve made progress.

But you can’t use that as an excuse to look away from the division, the disparities on race that continue to exist. Gallup had a poll out earlier this year, said 60% of Americans are dissatisfied with the state of race relations today. Because we live in an era, I think that dissatisfaction comes from the fact. We live in an era where we had the first black president. But we’ve also had a knee on George Floyd’s neck.

This is an era in which we have a monument to Dr. King on the Mall. But we also have efforts to strip black history out of some school books. This is an era in which, you know, the Supreme Court is undone much. I think hollowed out much of the Voting Rights Act and we ended affirmative action. So you have people who are saying, gosh, there’s still so much to be done and looking for answers.

And right now, I think a lot of that, you know, when I look at the question of how much progress we’ve made, you notice there’s a political division that Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to say they’re satisfied with race relations.

And, you know, I think they’re especially in the Republican Party, there’s a base there that is very anxious about the changes in American demographics, the rise in the number, the percentage of minorities in the population, the voice of minorities, the presence of minorities. And I think people — some people on the Republican side take advantage of that anxiety and it exacerbates our racial tensions.

BREAM: Josh?

JOSH HOLMES, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO MITCH MCCONNELL: Yeah, I have to say, I disagree with that last point. I agree with much of what Juan said before that.

I think part of the issue that we’ve had with Republicans and how they see race relations in this country is there’s a political effort by institutions across this country to try to equate the background of what we were seeing to that incredible speech 60 years ago and the fight over voting rights with like a Georgia voting law, which they called Jim Crow 2.0, which obviously wasn’t, right?

And there’s just a massive disconnect between recognizing the progress, but also not fanning of flames of resentment and ensuring that we get to a point where we’re actually trying to work through divisions rather than trying to pull things apart. And too often it feels like what we’re covering and what we’re talking about is exacerbating things that do not need to be exacerbated because largely we’re moving in the right direction.

BREAM: Well, and both of you have a lot that you’re in agreement on, which is a good thing. But as you said, moving forward, there’s more work to be done. I think everybody agrees that — with that.

Kevin Corke also cited in his piece, some of this political fallout and some of the polling that mirrors what we’re hearing — this political headline says they — pathetic is the word that they used in talking to a group of voters. They said, “In a focus group last week, eight men of color who voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 were asked to describe their feelings about the economy. The answers were bleak. ‘Discouraged,’ one said. ‘Pathetic,’ complained another. ‘Pessimistic,’ said a third.”

Francesca, a lot of them say that they were hoping for more action by this president that they’re not seeing. And they feel a little bit abandoned and unheard by him.

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, USA TODAY WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And President Biden will deliver a speech on Monday evening in which he’ll hit on some of these issues, such as the unemployment rate among black Americans, as well as his support for HPCUs, his attempts to ignite student debt relief, as well as some other things such as voting rights.

But one challenge that the President faces is between showing Americans and convincing black Americans that if reelected, he would be able to advance more of these things that he wants to do when there’s such congressional gridlock right now.

And allies of the president are encouraging him to draw greater distinction on this between Republicans. They’re very concerned that not only will black Americans not turn out in as great of numbers in the next election, but some of them could defect to Republicans.

You saw in the last presidential election that despite Donald Trump losing, he actually built within black Americans by four points. There were, you could see more of that in the next election.

BREAM: And so much of this goes back to the consternation over the economy that people don’t feel like it’s delivering. But yet the President is making it the centerpiece of his reelection campaign on Bidenomics.

Western Journal has this, they say, “According to Bank of America’s quarterly ‘Participant Pulse’ report, the cold, hard truth is that life is so expensive that many people are tapping into their retirement accounts to scrape by.”

The New York Post reported on this said, you know, cost for average Americans more than $700 extra a month for a family. It’s turned into more than $8,000 a year. So regardless of what voting block it is, people are very concerned about their reality.

PENNY NANCE, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA PRESIDENT & CEO: Well, let’s go back to — we were first talking about the fact that it is the anniversary of the Martin Luther King, “I Have a Dream” speech. And it was beautiful and it was a beautiful time for people to get together. But we also need to recognize that racism is real. It still exists. Men are broken. Jeremiah says that the heart’s deceitful and full of evil who can know it, right? And so if we didn’t recognize it, I think the shooting in Jacksonville reminded us of that.

So we can start there in agreement with that point. But look, the question is, where do we go next? And certainly this economy is not helping anyone. I think, you know, Bernie Sanders even recognizes that the Democrats have lost the working class. They’re losing black men because they want to be entrepreneurial and start businesses and they’re having a very, very difficult time.

But really, I think the issue that if Republicans want to win and want to win African-Americans and working class and minorities, they need to recognize the issue and speak more about the issue of school choice. 12 states now have now gone into school choice where the money follows the kid. Basically parents have a debit card and they can choose if it’s a public school they want to go to, if it’s a public school in a different zip code or whether they want to go to a private Christian school or a Catholic school or a Jewish day school, a home school, what is it they want. And what fits each individual kid.

And so I think we recognize there’s some places that we can go that is growing. 72% of African Americans said they support that position.

BREAM: I hope we hear more about education too in the conversations on the campaign trail. I think everybody wants to see where we can do better on that front.

OK, panel, do not go far. I’m got to take a quick break.

The winners and losers of the big debate this week on Fox News Channel, just a month out from the Republican candidate’s next face off at the Reagan Library on Fox Business.




NIKKI HALEY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You want to go and defund Israel.

RAMASWAMY: OK, let me address that.

HALEY: You want to give Taiwan to China.

RAMASWAMY: I’m glad you brought that up.

HALEY: You want to go and give Ukraine to Russia.


RAMASWAMY: I want to address each of those right now. This is —



RAMASWAMY: — the false lies of a professional politician. There you have it.

HALEY: Under your watch, you would —

RAMASWAMY: So, the reality is —

HALEY: — make America less safe. You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows.

RAMASWAMY: And you know what.


BREAM: Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who also served as Ambassador to the U.N., calling out fellow Presidential Candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, on his foreign policy credentials, which he was defending.

We are back now with a panel to talk about this. Josh, just one of the very heated moments of that night. I think a lot of people thought that Governor DeSantis would take all the incoming, but Vivek was in the middle of nearly every dust-up there?

HOLMES: Yeah, I mean, it felt like everybody on that stage had a wrench in their hands and they were going for Ramaswamy at some point. I thought that was one of the most powerful exchanges. Clearly, there’s a massive difference between where Vivek has been and where foreign policy, even Donald Trump’s foreign policy, has been over a period of time and within the Republican Party.

She was strong and she obviously knows what she’s talking about. When you get in her backyard dealing with foreign policy, she really delivers. I think that was a huge moment.

Obviously, I think Mike Pence interestingly controlled the pace of play in the whole second half of that debate.

BREAM: Very assertive.

HOLMES: In a way that — I think far exceeded the expectations of people coming into that. I think he did everything he needed to do and more. And then on the Ron DeSantis front, everybody would have guessed that people were coming from him. But, I mean, he’s clearly framed his campaign as the other, the alternative to Donald Trump. But they didn’t treated that way.

And he was able to actually deliver the talking points that he had worked through over the last couple of months directly to the American people, probably millions for the first time. So, in that of itself, I think that’s probably a win for him too.

I think the three of those stood out clearly as big winners on Wednesday.

WILLIAMS: You know what I thought was that DeSantis – it was almost like he was doing a place holder, Josh. I didn’t feel like he made any progress. And the fact is that going in, he was losing in terms of his standing in the polls, relative not only to Donald Trump, who still has a massive lead, but also in terms of Ramaswamy and some of the other candidates who had been coming up slightly.

HOLMES: But you’ve got to remember, Juan, the one thing is, just about the time you get tired of saying something is the first time anybody’s ever heard it (ph).

BREAM: Right.

WILLIAMS: Yes. That’s true.

HOLMES: And I think for this audience in particular, they haven’t been at everybody’s stump speech. They got to hear what Ron DeSantis was selling. And it’s pretty persuasive.


WILLIAMS: Well, he’s bumped up, but I think Ramaswamy was the lightning rod.

BREAM: Well, and the –

WILLIAMS: And the center of attention.


WILLIAMS: It’s interesting, he bumped up in the post – “Washington Post” had a post-debate poll.

BREAM: Right.

WILLIAMS: So, he bumps up. But, guess what, he also bumps up in terms of disfavor.

BREAM: Right, his disfavorables went up almost twice as much as his favorables did. So, you know, a lot of people are asking, who is this guy.


BREAM: And he certainly made a splash, Penny. But with that is going to come allot more scrutiny.

NANCE: Well, that’s right. And – but, you know, first off let me just say, I was there. There’s a lot of excitement in the room. A lot of cheering. You know, sometimes even stepping on the candidates lines because people were cheering so hard, or even booing for Chris Christie.

BREAM: There was a lot of booing.

NANCE: A lot of booing.

But I will say that I concluded, not surprisingly, that any one of those people would be a better president than Joe Biden. You had eight of the elite. You had five – you had – you had five governors, you had an accountant, your had a former vice president, you had a couple of billionaires. And although, you know, there are different opinions on who did the best, I didn’t think that DeSantis hurt himself.

Certainly, Vivek got more attention but now he’s going to have to answer some tough questions. For instance, what on earth was he saying about funding for Israel? Like, any Republican pretty much on either of the – of the sides of Republicanism, regardless of where they are, maybe there’s a Ron Paul version that doesn’t support Israel, but the vast majority do. And so I think he really hurt himself there.

But he’s going to have a lot more scrutiny going forward. He’s a very bright guy, but he’s going to have to think through some things and hopefully listen to some of his advisors a little bit better.

BREAM: Well, and he’s getting attention for something that he said on the radio this weekend. He talked about that he voted libertarian in 2004. Then he ticks through how, you know, most of the elections since then he didn’t find the candidates inspiring, didn’t get, you know, involved with voting for them.

But then he went on to say this, I’m using the Republican Party as a vehicle to advance a pro-American America first agenda, taking that to the next level.

But, Francesca, for a lot of people that — he used the words that he was using the party as a vehicle and that he had voted libertarian. They want to know where he’s really at.

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, “USA TODAY” WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, and he did take a lot of – of heat on the stage. And I talked to most of the campaigns of the candidates who were on stage that night. And it wasn’t actually planned that they were going to go after him. It wasn’t a strategy for most of them. In moments —

BREAM: But didn’t it even feel like to you he was going after people too? Like that was part of his strategy?

CHAMBERS: I – the moments present – yes, the moments presented themselves. So, for Nikki Haley, the moment presented itself –

NANCE: Yes. She did great.

CHAMBERS: And she took opportunity to capitalize off of it.

There were also other moments that weren’t planned, like the back-and-forth between Nikki Haley and Mike Pence over abortion rights as well. A lot of what happened there is that those moments were taking place and candidates capitalized off of them.

Now, my question is, heading into that second debate, is if Ron DeSantis will get off as easily the second time if these candidates are looking at that and saying, hmm, maybe we should focus more of our attention on him. But Team DeSantis, they’re feeling pretty good coming out of it.

BREAM: They are. Yes.

CHAMBERS: They think that they have an entire month now for him to focus on his reset, focus on his message before they have to get up on the debate stage again.

BREAM: OK, one of the issues were there is a splint in the — not only on the debates, the candidates on stage, but also on Capitol Hill is this issue of Ukraine funding because the White House is asking for billions more now and they’re tying it into supplemental to domestic funding as well.

Because you cover that beat, Francesca, I’m wondering what you think because the president was asked this weekend, any chance you split those apart, and he said none.

CHAMBERS: Yes. So, House Republicans are frustrated that the White House sent this supplemental spending request while they were in recess. They haven’t had a chance to fully go over it. Both sides agree that there’s going to be a continuing resolution. There’s not enough time once they get back to be able to get through all of the spending for the next fiscal year.

Whether this ends up being attached to it is pretty murky right now, Shannon. But this isn’t a situation where you’re not going to see Ukraine aid moving forward. It’s not that dire. It just may not be part of this upcoming bill.

BREAM: Well, and, Juan, quickly, it comes as there are all of those spending bills to be fought over in September.

WILLIAMS: Well, you know, I mean, for the Biden administration there’s been bipartisan support. You think about Mitch McConnell, he’s been a supporter on this issue. And there are lots of Republicans – I think of Mike Pence, I think of Secretary Haley, you know, they – they all support it. There’s got to be a sense that if you seed Ukraine to Russia, it’s a victory, not only for Russia, but for China. Those are America’s enemies.

BREAM: Well –

NANCE: I talked to some House members before I came on and their main issue is transparency.

BREAM: Right.

NANCE: They want to understand how the money’s being spent, where’s it going.

BREAM: Yes, and I think some of that — that legislation hasn’t made it across the finish line, but there is going to be more of a push for that too.


BREAM: All right, panel, thank you very much. We’ll see you next Sunday.

Up next, a breakthrough in medical technology is proving key in the war in Ukraine. How the technology born here in the U.S. is saving lives there on the front lines.


BREAM: It’s been more than a year and half since Russia launched its brutal invasion of Ukraine. U.S. officials estimate that in that time 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died. More than 100,000 additional have been wounded.

The war has kicked battlefield medicine into overdrive with new technology invented here in the us making its way to the front line in Ukraine. And a former U.S. military surgeon is also pitching in.

Jennifer Griffin shares how it’s all contributed to saving lives in our Sunday special.


JENNIFER GRIFFIN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: On Ukraine’s front lines, 80 percent of the wounds are traumatic brain injuries or amputations. On this day in June, Dr. Nikolay had just completed his third surgery when the air raid sirens went off.

If the air raid siren, do you need to go to the basement?


GRIFFIN (voice over): Every war leads to innovation, especially in battlefield medicine. A young American nurse named Florence Nightingale cut her teeth during the 19th century Crimean War.

Dr. Nikolay’s hospital is one of five in Ukraine using a technology born in a North Carolina medical lab. A new infection resistant artery not yet approved by the FDA.

DR. LAURA NIKLASON, FOUNDER AND CEO, HUMACYTE: This is a good size to repair most of the arteries in your body.

GRIFFIN: Laura Niklason is the head of Humacyte and discovered this new technology.

NIKLASON: We’ve implanted hundreds of patients in the U.S. and outside the U.S. and we’ve never had a single episode of rejection.

GRIFFIN: Perfect for a war zone.

NIKLASON: The surgeon can just pull out of the fridge, literally, and restore blood flow immediately. That’s a game changer. And it means that a lot of these soldiers can walk out of the hospital.

GRIFFIN: Doctor Rocco Armonda served as the U.S. military’s top neurosurgeon at Walter Reed before retiring from the Army. He says he wishes he had this technology while treating troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

DR. ROCCO ARMONDA, MEDSTAR WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER NEUROSURGEON: And I led one of the neurosurgery teams early on in the war 20 years ago to this day in Iraq where we were in the open desert for about the first six months. We were basically doing neurosurgery in the open field.

GRIFFIN: He recently volunteered to go to Ukraine’s front lines. Doctor Andre Circo (ph), Ukraine’s top neurosurgeon, met him at the Dnipro train station. He did 19 brain surgeries in four days.

ARMONDA: The volume of casualties is anywhere to five to 10 times of what we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. Twenty years ago we were out in the middle of the desert in Iraq. We felt isolated. We felt abandoned. You felt forgotten.

So, you can really relate to the way that they must be feeling. There’re on the forefront of the fight for humanity. They’re on the forefront for the fight of democracy.

GRIFFIN: If you think back to the history of that region, we think of Florence Nightingale, the Crimean War. What struck you?

ARMONDA: The hospital’s 226 years old. It existed almost 70 years before the Crimean War. They’ve been doing this for a long, long time. It’s like Poland in 1939.

GRIFFIN (voice over): In Ukraine Doctor Armando worked with the descendent of a famed Cosac (ph) general who never lost a battle. That same fierce warrior spirit lives on today.

ARMONDA: They would do surgery and then evaluate which patients they could then ship, that they would then move these patients to the train. And these hospital trains were just like a step out of World War I, World War II. And people weren’t whining. They weren’t complaining.

Air raid sirens would go off at 3:00 in the morning. You could hear bombs exploding.

GRIFFIN: Dr. Armonda invited two Ukrainian dentist who before the war focused on teeth cleaning and veneers to visit Walter Reed to share what they have learned treating compact injuries to the face.

ARMONDA: With they’re doing is they’re putting faces back together. They’re really putting humanity back together. And so that when that patient recovers and looks in the mirror, they see themselves as a full human being.

SOKOLOV: Every patient is a – is a story. A relive — because — I don’t know. These boys are our Ukrainian boys. They are brave. They are clever. They are strong.

GRIFFIN: Dr. Nikolay described a soldier who he treated with a Humacyte artery.

SOKOLOV: He was like corpse. My nurse said that he will not survive.

After the operation, he was in our ICU for three days. Then he became better. I’ve said to him, you know, this is your war. You should win. And he said, yes, Doc, we can do it.

GRIFFIN: The soldier was evacuated to a hospital in Kyiv.

SOKOLOV: And then they’ve got the first video when he started to walk.

It was miracles.

GRIFFIN: The Humacyte vessel saved his leg. Two months later, the soldier returned to thank Dr. Nikolay before returning to fight on the front lines.

SOKOLOV: He came with both legs. With huge wounds. And with, I don’t know, very, very cool heart.

I think the guys are the best. And we are trying to do the best for all the patients here.

GRIFFIN: At the Pentagon, Jennifer Griffin, Fox News.


BREAM: And some of these innovations in battlefield medicine in Ukraine may soon wind up back here in American emergency rooms where they could save lives here at home.

By the way, that top Ukrainian neurosurgeon, Dr. Andre Circo (ph), just received a very special honor. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy presented Dr. Circo and several others with the National Legend of Ukraine Presidential Award citing 700 complex surgeries he’s performed that have saved the lives of military members.

We want to update you to on detained “Wall Street Journal” reporter Evan Gershkovich. This week a court in Moscow extended his pre-trial detention on espionage charges by three months until the end of November. Gershkovich was taken into custody in late March. He, our corporate cousins at “The Wall Street Journal,” and the U.S. government deny he is a spy and all the charges against him. Evan’s legal team is appealing this latest ruling.

That is it for us today. Thank you so much for joining us. I’m Shannon Bream in Washington. Have a fantastic week. We’ll see you back here for the next FOX NEWS SUNDAY.


Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2023 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2023 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Source – https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/fox-news-sunday-august-27-2023

For consideration of being featured on WallstreetPR, contact: Editor@Wallstreetpr.com

Please make sure to read and completely understand our disclaimer at https://www.wallstreetpr.com/disclaimer. FOR EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY; NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE. Any content posted on our website is for educational and informational purposes only and should NOT be construed as a securities-related offer or solicitation, or be relied upon as personalized investment advice. WallStreetPR strongly recommends you consult a licensed or registered professional before making any investment decision. Neither WallStreetPR.com nor any of its owners or employees is registered as a securities broker-dealer, broker, investment advisor (IA), or IA representative with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any state securities regulatory authority, or any self-regulatory organization. WallStreetPR often gets compensated for advertisement services that are disclosed on our disclaimer located at WallStreetPR.com/Disclaimer.