The Christian Broadcasting Network

Browse Videos

Share Email

News on The 700 Club: April 5, 2017

As seen on "The 700 Club," April 5: Susan Rice unmasked: She denies she spied, but this is far from over; Syrian 'massacre' evokes Holocaust memories for Israeli leaders, and more. Read Transcript


Man, we've got a litany of terrible diseases,

Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, we can go down the list, stroke

and so forth.

And we've got a doctor that says,

I've got the answer to all of them.

You don't want to miss that.

And also, this woman, this woman who

apparently has a terrible time with the truth.

She just doesn't like the truth.

She's been unmasked.

Republicans want President Obama's National Security

Adviser Susan Rice to testify, and not just testify

but to do so under oath with a fear of perjury over questions

that she may have used government surveillance

for political purposes and quote,

"unmasked" the names of Trump officials

by linking them to the media.

You think she did it?

I think there's another one named Farkas, who

was clearly-- she said, we just can't

wait for him to be impeached.

And she's a high level official in the Defense Department.

You just can't believe what's going on.

Terry.

Well, the latest Washington controversy

comes as Congress is still working

on repealing and replacing Obamacare

and the Senate is getting ready to vote on Neil

Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

Dale Hurd has the story.

DALE HURD (VOICEOVER): Former National Security Adviser

Susan Rice claims there was nothing illegal and no smoking

gun, despite reports that she sought

to learn the identities of Trump campaign officials

swept up in legal surveillance of foreign targets.

And she says she never gave out any of the information she

learned to the media.

I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would.

There was no such collection, surveillance on Trump Tower

or Trump individuals.

And it's very important to understand,

by that I mean directed by the White House

or targeted at Trump individuals.

The White House is not supposed to investigate people.

That's done by agencies like the FBI.

And Rice's denial was not enough for Republicans.

DALE HURD (VOICEOVER): Kentucky Senator Rand Paul

tweeted, "Smoking gun found!"

So now we know that someone in the Obama administration

was eavesdropping and specifically

searching a database looking for the Trump people.

That's a big deal.

DALE HURD (VOICEOVER): Texas Senator John Cornyn

tweeted Tuesday that Rice needs to testify under oath.

The controversy around Rice comes

as House Republicans and the White House

are still at work to try to come up

with an agreement on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Vice President Mike Pence and House Republicans

emerged from a two-hour meeting last night just

before midnight.

It was a good talk, and we're making progress.

It was a very productive meeting.

We're making progress.

DALE HURD (VOICEOVER): The White House

is offering a revised plan, more to Republicans liking.

All of this is taking place amid the Senate standoff

and looming showdown on Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil

Gorsuch.

Because Democrats have enough votes

in the GOP-controlled chamber to filibuster President Trump's

high court nominee, which they did last night,

Republicans are expected to change the Senate rules

and use the so-called "nuclear" option

to get Gorsuch confirmed, changing voting

procedures to override the filibuster

and confirm Gorsuch with 51 votes instead of 60.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

has promised to have Gorsuch confirmed by Friday.

Dale Hurd, CBN News.

Well, with us now from Capitol Hill is Senator Rand Paul.

And Senator, I tell you, it's supposed to be Easter.

People are supposed to take a break.

It's crazy in Washington.

How are you handling it?

Very good, very good, thanks for having me.

And you're right, between negotiating on Obamacare

and trying to make it something that will help really

the public, and then the latest news of Susan Rice, you know,

we're right in the middle of all of it.

Well, you played golf with the President.

Did you guys come to some kind of an accord

that you can get this bill through on health care?

Well, I think sometimes it's good to be

in a social situation, where we did talk about the issues

but just getting to know each other a little bit,

and also exchanging ideas back and forth.

I think he wants the same thing I want,

and that is repeal of Obamacare.

What the conservatives, the House Freedom Caucus

and the Senate conservatives want is we want it to work.

We actually want lower insurance premiums for the consumer

and more freedom for Americans to choose their insurance.

We don't think the original bill was doing that.

But we think we're getting closer and closer to a bill

that maybe all Republicans can support.

What are the key issues?

Could you point out two or three sticking points?

It sounds like you guys are very close to a deal.

Of course, you're a senator, but you

seem to be the leader of that group in the House.

What are the sticking points?

I think the key thing is that under Obamacare, we

have a death spiral, which means that when you

go to buy insurance every year, there

are fewer and fewer insurance companies and the cost goes up

and up and up.

In some markets, like 50% of the country,

there's only one insurance company,

and the rates are going up between 25%

a year, in some states, 60% and 70% a year.

That's the death spiral of Obamacare.

We want to make sure when we get rid of it, when we repeal it,

that we get rid of that death spiral

so consumers can get cheaper prices.

A big chunk of the death spiral are these insurance

regulations, these mandates, that

say that you have to buy a certain kind of insurance.

We want people to be free to buy any insurance, including

inexpensive insurance.

Under Obamacare, it's illegal to buy inexpensive insurance.

We want to legalize inexpensive insurance.

May I ask why that very intelligent provision wasn't

included in that first vote that the House took?

I don't understand why it wasn't in the bill.

You know, it's kind of unusual to us, too.

We voted 60 times to repeal Obamacare.

And then instead of putting forward

what we voted on 60 times, they put forward

something else, which was sort of Obamacare lite.

They said, oh, we're just going to repeal part of it,

and then we're going to replace it with a Republican subsidy

plan.

And most of us think that this would be better handled

at the states and by individuals.

And that you know, the Constitution doesn't have much

or it doesn't really say anything

about the federal government being involved in health care.

And most time the federal government

gets involved with something, they mess it up.

They create monopolies.

They allow prices to go up.

They become crony capitalists and let the insurance companies

make too much money.

We want more competition.

But I also want the consumer to be king.

That's why I'm big on these buying plans.

You know, there are Christian organizations

where people join together, I think it's Medi-Share,

join together and they get cheaper prices.

I want everybody in America to have access

to something like that.

Well, you know, this deal, of course, comes out of the House,

goes to the Senate.

There's sort of a reconciliation concept up there.

But this would take a different kind of vote.

You're back again to the 60-vote rule,

aren't you, if you change the bill too much?

Yeah, and my friend Senator Lee

is a real expert on this, a great attorney

and really knows the law inside out.

He's convinced and others are, that when you bring it before,

that actually many of these things

could be under the budget rules and could be included.

The rules say basically it has to have a monetary effect.

So if I let you join a buying group, like a co-op,

you wouldn't be eligible for government subsidies

then because you'd be in a private alternative.

That would save the government money.

So I think allowing buying groups could be included.

But it all gets down to somebody's arbitrary decision

on judging, can it be included or not.

I can't tell you the final answer.

But I think a big part of making the consumer, the patient

in charge of their health care and getting better prices

is letting them join big groups so they can have leverage

to get cheaper prices.

Switching topics, Susan Rice apparently

has a real hard time with the truth.

She's the one, you remember, went on every talk show

talking about Benghazi was the result of a video, which

was just absurdly, patently absurd, and known,

by the way, the State Department that this was not true.

That it was indeed a coordinated terrorist attack.

How are you handling her?

Are you going to bring her before the Congress, I mean,

to testify under oath?

Can she be forced to do that?

Well, I've been warning for years that our intelligence

agencies are gathering the phone calls

and the information on millions of Americans.

They target foreigners, and we have a lower standard.

You don't have to get a warrant.

We get foreigners' information.

Like last year, we collected all of the phone

calls in Italy in one month.

We collected all the phone calls in Germany.

We collected Merkel's phone calls.

But they were collecting all of the information

of the Americans they talked to.

If a congressman or a senator talks

to a foreign person or a foreign leader, that should be private.

And We shouldn't let the executive branch

listen to that.

So when they say this is incidental and no big deal,

it is a big deal.

And I also think that it's going to come out

that Susan Rice had no real reason to be doing this.

The White House does not investigate any kind of crime.

If there was a crime to be investigated, which

I don't even believe that was true,

the FBI would be doing this.

But I think Susan Rice did this for political reasons.

I think there's going to be more information come out.

And when it comes out and we determine

that maybe other people were being searched,

other than just the Trump administration,

there's going to be really a penalty for her

to pay for this.

And I think she's been, she hasn't

been fully honest is the best way to put it.

Senator, last question, there's

10 years prison time for violating that particular law

and bringing out the name of an American

that's under surveillance.

Does she, is she subject to that kind of penalty?

If you leak the information, I think there is a jail penalty.

What's going to happen is it's somewhat murky

because you have to get in her brain to know her motives.

She's going to say, everything she did

was for national security.

But you know, that's in the eye of the beholder.

If she was searching political figures, including the Trump

administration or other political figures,

if that was happening, it's going

to be kind of hard for her to prove to people

and to say, you know what, this was for national security

purposes, if any other political figures turn up that she

was searching the records on.

And I think without question, this was politically motivated,

and it was out of unhappiness.

They didn't like losing the election.

And their way to get back was to use the enormous power

of the intelligence agencies to sift

through that to try to find information to damage a Trump

administration.

That should be illegal.

I think it is illegal.

Whether or not it deserves jail time, I think we'll find out.

Senator, thanks for being with us.

You're a terrific American.

Thanks.

Keep it up.

Thanks, Pat.

We're proud of what you're doing.

Thank you.

Terry, it's amazing, isn't it?

Well, you know, with regard to Susan Rice,

you also wonder, I mean, she wouldn't have just done

that independently on her own.

So she was given a directive from someone,

and so does she take the fall for that, then, or?

She's got a doctorate from some place or other.

She's been in government forever.

Smart enough to know better.

Forever, of course she knows better.

And she lies through her teeth.

The woman is a congenital liar.

And she's gone on television, maybe

they put her out as the fall guy for all these things.

But she sure took it, if in Benghazi,

then for Bowe Bergdahl, great American hero and all

that bull.

He was the guy that is up for desertion.

I mean, it's incredible what she said.

And now she said it again.

Now is this something, is she pathological?

If she is, she sure shouldn't be national security adviser

to any president.

But it may be she'll be wearing a striped suit

in some correctional facility.

We'll see later.

EMBED THIS VIDEO

Related Podcasts


CBN.com | Do You Know Jesus? | Privacy Notice | Prayer Requests | Support CBN | Contact Us | Feedback
© 2012 Christian Broadcasting Network