00
The Threat of ISIS in U.S.; Rocking the Vote; Donald Trump bashes SNL;
Trump's Tweeting; Trump's Inauguration Party; The Zombie Party System; Time
to End the Parties? - Part 1>
Guilfoyle >
Media; Entertainment>
LISA "KENNEDY" MONTGOMERY, FBN HOST: Tonight, "Time" Magazine has announced its person of the year. Take a wild guess who took the crown. Libertarian-minded Congressman Thomas Massie is here to explain what Trump can do to earn it.
Plus, those pesky rogue electors are at it again, some have lawyered (ph) up, others switching sides. We've got Texas elector Chris Suprun who says that he just cannot vote for Donald Trump. And is the two-party system a brainless zombie that's barely hanging on? And if so, would a third party pump life back into it? Grab a scalpel, it's time to operate.
It's like election night all over again. The kind of display that has Lena Dunham packing her woolens for a four-year Canadian sabbatical and Antonio Sabato Jr. crying tears of manjoy (ph) and a polarizing movement to sell magazines and get foamy tongue swagging. "Time" Magazine has declared Donald Trump its `Person Of The Year'.
Last year, the Donald was simply a dark horse candidate, a rabble-rouser in a crowded field who in the minds of many skeptics didn't have a shot at a heck (ph) at winning the whitey house. "Time" snubbed him in 2015 and the soon-to-be nominee was not a happy billionaire tweeting back then, I told you @TIMEMagazine would never picked me as person of the year despite being the big favorite; they picked person who is ruining Germany.
That's right. Last year, "Time's" `Person Of The Year' was David Hasselhoff. Actually, controversial Germans have in fact made the list in the past. When he was just a gay painter, Adolph Hitler was the Man of the Year in 1938. "Time" of course fell all over themselves noting the distinction is not necessarily a positive one rather, it goes to, "The person who have the greatest influence for better or worse on the events of the year."
Last year, Donald actually landed in third place and share the podium with ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Angela Merkel who won, the two who sit on very opposite ends of the burqa issue.
Now this year, Hillary Clinton came in second. At least that's what "Time" says now. But here's a look at the cover. They are going to run calling her president of the year, you wishful thinking, as they mop up their liberal tears with the dying pages of a magazine now forced to put president lightning rod on its cover. "Time" of course has made some lazy choices in the past.
In 2006, `You' were person of the year. Meaning, internet users tickling digital keys with abandon. The earth was planet of the year in 1988. The first time plucky planetary fedacious (ph) Albert Gore ran for president and the mag crowned, the computer, the king of the hill back in 1982, pick a human people.
Well, this year they did with a resigned sigh, knowing one of the conventions torched by an unlikely Trump presidency is, of course, old establishment media. It's really the only time of year people talk about "Time" but my guess is, for better or worse, this issue will sell well -- so well in fact, they might have to dust off the honor for Donald once again next year. Oh, Donald.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, Donald, even in these desperate times, you still retain that dry sense of humor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY: I love his supporters. I'm glad you're here, sit on my arm. I'm Kennedy.
There it is. So Donald Trump is "Time's" `Person Of The Year' but what libertarian ideals can he follow to actually live up to that title? And what policy should he enact once he get into the oval office?
Well here, tonight, it's Libertarian-leaning Republican congressman from the great State of Kentucky, it's Thomas Massie, joining me now. Welcome back, Congressman.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R), KENTUCKY: Hey. Thank you for having me, Kennedy.
KENNEDY: Indeed. This is quite an honor for you (inaudible), I'm just kidding. So --
MASSIE: It is.
KENNEDY: -- "Time" Magazine's `Person Of The Year', you are a limited government Libertarian-leaning Republican. What does Donald Trump have to do in your mind to earn that distinction?
MASSIE: You know, at the heart of Libertarian principles is a non- aggression policy principle, which means that you don't attack somebody if they don't attack you. So the thing I'm most optimistic about is we're not going to war with Russia, which may have been the case with Hillary, I mean, whether it's in the Ukraine or Syria or even Georgia.
Donald Trump has not expressed a willingness to agitate Russia. And I think that's a good move. So I'm optimistic about that. I'm optimistic about some of these cabinet appointments. You know, I wouldn't call any of them Libertarian yet but, you know, on the spectrum of smaller government or bigger government, I personally know some of them and they're definitely small government type people and Trump's promise to roll back regulations.
And then, you know, when I saw you at the RNC, I'm sure you listen to Trump's riveting speech there. I was there on the floor listening to it. He took a swipe at the World Trade Organization which sort of warmed my heart. You know, Libertarians are for sovereignty and sovereign nations and we don't think we should subject U.S. citizens to a world government.
KENNEDY: No. I mean, I would like to see a few more liberty-minded people considered for some of these positions as John Allison was, formerly run the Cato Institute, he was being considered for treasury secretary that obviously did not go his way and a reason is reporting that you are being considered for two possible post including energy secretary. What do you think about that?
MASSIE: Well, I haven't been contacted about that or the other rumor from the Trump campaign which is the science policy advisor.
But honestly, Kennedy, if I were, you know, contacted about that, I would consider it seriously. I think they need some common sense in the White House as well as in congress so I think I can provide that.
KENNEDY: Yes, I think you could, too. I would love to see a voice like yours in that administration. I know that they are filling some of those posts rapidly. And one of the things that is something we're all going to be watching is the meeting next week with tech titans who have been invited to Trump Tower for a meeting with the president-elect.
Now, if you were in fact a science and technology policy advisor, what would you tell Donald Trump to ask some of the people from Silicon Valley who were pretty much disinterested in a successful campaign of his?
MASSIE: Well, I don't know what he needs to ask them. I think they're sort of coming hat in hand because none of them were for him. In fact, I think some of them worked on Hillary's campaign.
You know, there's more to tech than than just Silicon Valley. There's a lot of tech in manufacturing, there's a lot of tech in a bunch of different sectors. And I think the presumption in the previous White House was as long as you had Google people around you and Google is a fine company, but as long as you had Google people around you that you were tech and that's not necessarily true. There's a lot more to technology than just a few companies on the west coast.
KENNEDY: All right. So where do you stand? Should the government force tech companies to comply with some of their orders particularly when it comes to certain types of speech on social media platforms?
MASSIE: The government shouldn't be forcing anybody to do anything. We're getting back to the Libertarian principles here.
But, you know, one issue that's come up in congress is the subject of intellectual property and that's debated among Libertarians whether there should be patents or not. And, you know, I hold 29 patents and I'm one of those Libertarians that says their property rights, patents are property rights. And that's what makes this country better than other countries as we honor property rights.
So, you know, you've got some companies on the west coast that aren't keen on patents and I think that's going to be an interesting to see where Donald Trump comes down on that.
KENNEDY: All right. Well, we will be keeping an eye on you and, you know, see if you, in fact, do get the nod to go to Trump Tower. If you do, swing by here in person, OK, Congressman?
MASSIE: All right. And I'm going to personally invite you to the inauguration, Kennedy. I've got a ticket with your name on it.
KENNEDY: Consider it done. I will absolutely go. I'm going to start dress shopping tomorrow, not even lying.
MASSIE: All right.
KENNEDY: Congressman Massie, thank you so much.
MASSIE: Get a warm one. OK.
KENNEDY: Thank you. All right. Well, let me welcome the party panel into this discussion. Tonight, it's Dagen McDowell from the Fox Business Network. Metal. Dave Smith is also here. He's a comedian and host of the "Part of the Problem" podcast. A lot of alliteration there. And Tom Shillue, the venerable host of "Red Eye", also feeling very metal tonight. That's become (inaudible).
(LAUGHTER)
Welcome, everyone.
DAVE SMITH, COMEDIAN AND HOST, PART OF THE PROBLEM: Hello.
TOM SHILLUE, FOX HOST: Thank you.
KENNEDY: So we just heard Congressman Massie talk a little bit about Donald Trump, person of the year. And I want to talk about the titans of tech and this upcoming meeting with Donald Trump --
SHILLUE: At the Trump Tower?
KENNEDY: Yes. What do you think about that? What do you think the conversation is going to go like? I mean, a lot of people who emerge from those meetings, they are star struck by President-elect Trump and they have nothing but glowing things to say. Do you anticipate that is going to happen?
SHILLUE: Well, everybody is turning on Trump -- I mean, turning back. The people who were, you know, talking about Armageddon are, you know, they are now embracing him.
KENNEDY: They're appearing the gulag (ph).
SHILLUE: I mean, why not, right? The congressman made some great points though. If we think of tech as Silicon Valley -- I mean, the entire country is tech. Every company is a tech company now. So we should stop thinking of Google and everybody in Northern California as being the tech industry. I mean, that's a smart guy. I mean, I love listening to that interview.
SMITH: Yes, Tom, that's what Libertarians do, it makes sense.
SHILLUE: I know. It really is amazing.
KENNEDY: No. He's really bright and he's very much -- his heart is in the right place when it comes to limited government and I hope there are people like that who are welcomed into the administration. But I do have concerns, you know, and I shared the same concerns over Hillary Clinton than I do with the Trump administration. What is the government going to do in terms of some of these big tech companies and our privacy?
SMITH: Well, right in Trump hasn't -- from our perspective, I don't think hasn't really been on the right side of that issue, whether it was with the Apple and the FBI stuff. I don't know. I do think it's interesting. As you were saying, we don't really know what Trump is going to do.
KENNEDY: Yes.
SMITH: Trump is like door number three president, you know. It's like, do you want Hillary Clinton or what's behind door number three? And we all look at Hillary Clinton and we were like, we will take that door. And now we're going to find out.
I don't know. I mean, I'm a little bit concern about privacy issues of that. I don't think Sessions is exactly a friend of civil liberties and the (inaudible).
KENNEDY: Yes. And it's the Apple case. And we're talking about the government trying to force Apple to open that iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorists. Mike Pompeo also lame (ph) it on the wrong side of that issue. I think Tim Cook, I made this groove (ph) in my life (ph) but he was absolutely right about that, protecting the companies.
DAGEN MCDOWELL, FOX HOST: Silicon Valley hates Donald Trump.
SMITH: Yes, they do.
MCDOWELL: And so it's going to be hard for them to mask their loathing of him. You think that New York City is progressive and left wing and liberal and still crying over Hillary? Silicon Valley is a cauldron of anti-Trump sentiment.
I had people on my Facebook wall during the election cycle literally saying you're killing my children if you vote for Trump. He's going to destroy the future of America. So they've been living in this bubble.
And the irony of ironies is that these tech companies make money on disruption, on disrupting the future and building a better life for everyone. Well, who's the greatest disruptor of all, Donald Trump, the fact that he won the presidency.
What's very interesting is Google actually put out a want ad, looking for someone to do conservative outreach in Washington, D.C., the job title is conservative outreach and public policy partnerships. Because these technology companies have had a free ride and open road -- an open-door policy to the White House for eight years and they got whatever they wanted, privacy.
KENNEDY: And again, they're all part of the same bubble and they don't realize that there are a lot of people out there who perhaps think differently or they're no longer able to share their frustration and their day-to-day concerns.
MCDOWELL: Let's see if they show up. And by the way, Uber now tracking you five minutes after you get out of the car, after your ride (ph), speaking of privacy, yes.
SHILLUE: That's just when I get into trouble. It said five minutes.
KENNEDY: It's that five-minute window, a very precious time. We will fear sneaking in to holiday cheer. And the House Homeland Security Committee released a terror threat snapshot today. And according to the report, the United States is facing its highest threat from Islamic terrorists since 9/11, stemming from radicalization from within the country while ISIS conduct its own attacks worldwide. Now meanwhile, the president is downplaying the threats.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've attacked ISIL's financial lifeline, destroying hundreds of millions of dollars of oil and cash reserves. The bottom line is, we are breaking the back of ISIL.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY: All right. So if the back is broken, why is the terror threat so high?
SHILLUE: I mean, obviously, he's not breaking the back. You hear a lot of commentary though that he's done nothing to fight ISIL. I mean, he's done something. He's doing something. He's droning people. He's killing people. But, you know, I think he's not doing enough or I don't know what his approach is.
I don't know. I don't know what to do to deal with ISIS. I don't know with Trump's idea, you know. I don't know if the `Mad Dog' is going to have an idea. But I think that obviously -- the thing where Obama is wrong is he's saying that we're breaking their back, they're on the run, they're not.
They're growing. They're going into many different countries. So you can't say they're not metastasizing and growing very well in many countries.
KENNEDY: Well, and he's also just protecting himself and his legacy. And, you know, all he's hoping to do is say a bunch of stuff to keep people distracted so there's not a terrorist attack on his watch before Donald Trump takes the oath of office.
SMITH: Sure. And like you said, he's concerned about his legacy right now which is why he's lying through his teeth about, you know, hurting ISIS or whatever.
Look, Tom is absolutely right. I actually think a lot of Republicans give Obama cover for this. The truth is that Obama expanded the war on terror, OK? He continued the Bush wars and added new ones that expanded the drone program.
Here's the truth, OK, and this is what is amazing about the Trump moment. You actually have an opportunity for conservatives to returns where they've always been, the conservative wing of the Republican party always advocated for a non-interventionist foreign policy. We have dismissed people like Ron Pollen (ph), Pat Buchanan and Russell Kirk who warned us to not pursue.
Look what we have to show for this war on terror, it's hundreds of thousands of dead people, trillions of dollars wasted and destroyed nations. It's the most failed policy in modern American history. Maybe we can look at this. For once, where is the one victory in this war on terror?
KENNEDY: Yes. And you're just creating those environments where terrorists flourish.
MCDOWELL: And there's a blindness and deafness on the part of President Obama to the ideological threat. Yesterday, one of the quotes was, over the last eight years no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned or executed an attack on our homeland.
As Bret Stephens at the "Journal" pointed out, what about the 18 e-mails between Anwar al-Awlaki and the Fort Hood shooter? But that was workplace violence. Again, if the --
KENNEDY: No. They couldn't even call that terrorism.
MCDOWELL: If the president dismisses it, it doesn't --
KENNEDY: The same with Benghazi, they didn't want to call that terrorism.
MCDOWELL: I always look back to -- because he's always been so concerned about optics and the way things look. Well, you have a NATO ally, Belgium, being attacked by radical Islamic terrorists and he's at a baseball game in Cuba doing the wave, doing an interview with ESPN. I think that that kind of thumbs up his connection to the threaten to fight.
KENNEDY: Yes. And, you know, for him, it is about perception, it's not about reality. And, you know, the reality is, yes, he has been a warmonger; he has expanded this.
And, you know, his carelessness in trying to empty out Guantanamo, he was never going to get it closed but instead of giving people due process and trying them and holding them in this country, he let them go and they've returned to the battlefield.
MCDOWELL: And killed Americans which we know from people in government, in testimony, they have been released from Guantanamo Bay and returned to the battlefield and Americans have been killed in the process.
SMITH: Yes. The only two groups we've had a real problem with is Al-Qaeda and ISIS who we both armed and funded. All of this is our bad policies coming back to haunt us.
KENNEDY: Yes. Well, Thomas Massie is right when he talks about the incoming president being being more of a non-interventionist. That's coming from someone like Thomas Massie to whom that is very, very important.
The panel returns later. Thank goodness because the fundraising levels are of any indication, Donald Trump's inaugural party is shaping up to be a cosmic shindig, even by company standards (ph).
And the electoral college, back to actually select the president but some electors bolting from Trump even though there state went Republican. I'm going to talk to one of the rogue electors. That's happening next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KENNEDY: They've gone rogue, some of them -- very few of them. But let the legal battle over the presidency begin. Two rogue electors in Colorado have now filed a federal lawsuit challenging that state's law requiring them to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote is illegal and unconstitutional.
Now here's where it gets weird. Hillary won Colorado as you remember. But the plan is to undermine similar laws in 28 other states in an attempt to free up electors to switch from Trump to Clinton or even John Kasich. Now at the same time, two republican electors in Texas have said they will not cast their vote for Donald Trump when the electors meet up in just two weeks.
With us now is one of those Texas electors, Chris Suprun. How are you, Chris?
CHRIS SUPRUN, ELECTOR, TEXAS: Good evening, I'm well.
KENNEDY: So, Chris, let's talk a little bit with some of the issues you have with Donald Trump personally and politically. I know that you have some objections. Is that what's driving your defection?
SUPRUN: Well, they're not personal issues or not professional issues or political even, they're constitutional. During the campaign, we had more than 50 Republicans who are experts in foreign policy and national defense said that Donald Trump would be dangerous if he were president. And we've seen his foreign policy acumen tested already by his acceptance of a call or making a call to Taiwan.
Second, he was hopefully have been --
KENNEDY: How is a call to Taiwan unconstitutional? Like I understand some of the other challenges you have maybe with divesting from his businesses and the opinion of certain people. I don't think personal opinion necessarily disqualifies someone from the presidency, certainly not constitutionally.
But you have a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who say, you know what, breaking protocol with Taiwan not necessarily a bad thing when you're talking about a democratically elected president.
SUPRUN: And point of fact, I'm not sure I'm opposed to a China policy. What I'm opposed to is having someone who's not capable of executing that correctly in office.
KENNEDY: You know, Donald Trump won enough votes to win the presidency. The electoral college gave him 306 electoral votes. Do you think that we should disband the electoral college and amended the constitution?
SUPRUN: No, I do not. I am a huge fan of the electoral college. I think it protects smaller states and states' rights but I also think the electoral college was not devised under any circumstance to simply be a rubber stamp.
When you read Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton is clear that he thinks that the electoral college should be empowered to stop people they feel dangerous.
KENNEDY: All right. Let's talk about Hamilton a little bit. He certainly didn't want any of those electors to be pre-pledged (ph) and that is not what is being asked of you. However, you and I both know that Alexander Hamilton -- if we are playing WWAHD, Alexander Hamilton would be disgusted at the kind of chaos that would follow from a presidency being overturned by rogue electors, he would not approve of this system.
SUPRUN: I'm not sure that that would be his position but certainly the constitutions --
KENNEDY: It would absolutely be his position. I contacted a Hamiltonian scholar on this very issue and I was assured by someone who has a great deal and who has spent their life's work learning from Alexander Hamilton that that would in fact be his position that he was all in favor of a stable government.
SUPRUN: I'm all in favor of a stable government. However, our constitution is clear that the presidential election happens through the electoral college of December 19th. And if one of the two persons in our system right now don't get 270 votes, the top three vote-getters are considered by the house of representatives.
We have a system in place. I'm not sure why it's quite so scary to all the people who are out there screaming but there's a system in place for this and it's still a smooth transition.
KENNEDY: To what though? I mean, you're trying to get enough electors to lose their faith as you have to overturn the results of the election and then what? You're hoping that it goes to the house of representatives and the house votes for John Kasich? Is that the ultimate outcome?
SUPRUN: No. The ultimate outcome for me is to vote for someone who I'm comfortable is qualified to be president that doesn't invite foreign governments to engage in espionage against our country, who doesn't demagogue certain races and ethnic groups here in the country and who doesn't have a financial conflict of interest across the board. Someone who's not playing (inaudible) with the law.
KENNEDY: OK. I understand that. I didn't vote for Donald Trump for what it's worth and it may be worth nothing and that's fine.
Next week he's going to hold a press conference where he's talking about essentially divesting himself from his businesses and putting all of that into a blind trust. But the other questions that you raised, these are questions that should've been sold more forcefully to voters in this country and they're not necessarily a question of constitutionality or whether or not this person is qualified for the presidency.
The notion of qualification is in and of itself and incredibly subjective thing and treating it as though it is some objective set of criteria is doing a disservice not only to the position that you have sworn to uphold but also to the voters that have placed faith in the system.
SUPRUN: Well, we're going to disagree on that part. Again, I'm going to deliver the process. I didn't take this on lightly. If you look at backlash I've received, obviously, no one would walk into that willingly if their convictions weren't strong.
KENNEDY: All right. Well, if it is, in fact, Hamilton you're following, I suggest that you buy a couple of tickets to the musical because that might do you more good than barking up this tree. Chris, thank you very much.
SUPRUN: I appreciate it. I couldn't afford Hamilton but thanks.
KENNEDY: Nor could I but I hear it's wonderful. All right. Coming up. Is Donald Trump's Twitter account a direct line to the people or just a shovel use just to stir up trouble? Kimberly Guilfoyle joins me in moments. Hot pot (ph) of coffee. Please stay here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KENNEDY: Oh, Gwen. Welcome you. It is Wednesday and that means Donald Trump is still mad at "Saturday Night Live". In an interview on NBC's "Today" show, the president-elect said the skits (ph) are terrible and it hasn't been good years.
Now, of course, Trump has been waging war on Twitter for years as well. This morning, Matt Lauer asked if he plan to lay off the social medium a little bit. Donald response --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice over): I think I am very restrained. And I talked about important things and I get it out much faster than a press release. I get it out much more honestly than dealing with dishonest reporters. Because so many reporters are dishonest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY: So dishonest. In other words, he's not going to quit Twitter. Why should he? Joining me now, it's Kimberly Guilfoyle, co-host of "The Five" on the Fox News Channel. Hi.
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, FOX CO-HOST: Hello, Miss Kennedy. How's it going?
KENNEDY: So let's talk about Donald Trump a little bit. He has taken issue with SNL and Alec Baldwin in particular. He says that the impression is mean and it's not accurate. And he likes Alec Baldwin as an actor but thinks he's doing a horrible job here. Do you think Donald Trump is going to use the office of the presidency to ban SNL?
GUILFOYLE: Yes, exactly, immediately.
KENNEDY: Yes. Done.
GUILFOYLE: They're not going to get any good ambassadors whatsoever, none of that. Look, at first, he didn't like lay on that Alec Baldwin, he didn't kind of touched it. Then he started saying this isn't any good. It's terrible. It's not funny. And he says it hasn't been good in years.