Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Panel Plus: 4/29

Details

  • Description

    'Fox News Sunday' panel on Obama campaign's scrutiny of Romney donors

  • Duration 6:54
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

And welcome to Fox's Sunday panel plus -- Brit Hume -- more Alanis Kimberly -- soul and Charles Lane.

And I want to talk today about a very interesting.

Column that -- -- also -- -- -- always insisting on Friday is the and the op Ed page of latter what page you called out of the -- and eleven of the Wall Street Journal.

What what the editorial editorial page but Somalia for a anyway.

And it very is an article about the Obama administration -- something they are putting off.

-- on their website -- Yet this didn't get a lot of attention but about a week ago the campaign team and they have a number of web sites that they put up with -- there exists to.

Keep the GOP on that and one of these me.

-- listed the names publicly of eight private citizens who had donated to Mitt Romney's campaign and then they.

Made some quite careful accusations without them -- suggesting that some of them were on the wrong side of the long hand.

In general just some demeaning -- what they did for a living -- all of these people are wealthy but they are private citizens.

And this is -- known -- for most presidents ever since Nixon had his enemies list because.

President is very powerful.

And he has a lot of he has the ability to to to sick people on you if you wanna do.

And -- really represent all Americans he holds a different position than most candidates in that regard and so.

I found it very notable that they resemble us the IRS is the velocity FBI yet right the Justice Department he has the power to indict your and your company he can obviate -- he can find -- he can do -- the things again just don't wanna be the president.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Stretch to say it that may not get it under this person is so let's -- they would have to give back their -- can I know that was not the argument the argument was that so some of their businesses what they engaged in somehow I don't know beyond the pale but mostly.

Mean these guys were lobbyists -- mom or work in the oil industry.

But as someone once worked for a dangerous right -- yeah.

Exactly but the argument was simply by existing and doing these jobs and they were being on -- -- -- Are you troubled by about why he's gonna say I I I think we're in a new.

-- because of the super pacs this year where donors are actually going to get a lot more scrutiny -- and they even have in the past and of course of the Pakistani Minnesota have to disclose their donors but that's like catnip for reporters trying to figure out.

-- and so it's I think.

There's going to be a lot of attention on donors particularly because this year we're likely to have some you know multi million dollar donors.

And there's been a lot of interesting stories recently I think.

In fact even just this week talking about how.

One of the things that's going on right now because that the Democrats of course are behind the Republicans in terms of super pac donations but there's this sense that.

Many of the individuals who potentially could contribute say a million dollars or more are.

Waiting to pull the trigger on those donations because they don't want -- kind of scrutiny that's likely to come.

We had the first few people who could make that -- -- so there's this there's this sense among the big donor community that.

There's going to -- sort of -- tipping point when the big donations really start to roll in and then you can jump in because if you -- you know the -- -- the -- -- won't -- all the press attention -- if -- the first second -- third person to contribute.

A really large amount to a super packed with supporting Obama you are gonna get a lot of attention and I think that's.

That's making people -- -- is somebody who was around for the Nixon in the enemy is less -- -- obviously doesn't even close to that spot does is it troubling to see the president.

Given the obvious power is stupid and going after or at least singling out and and as Kimberly suggests -- and they're on the wrong side of the law because.

A lot of business people end up you know having to pay fines or whatever with the government.

Campaign donors to your opposition.

Where else the singling out what is troubling.

Over the White House takes pain and individuals let us as a huge minutes.

I think we've all noticed there careers that that the journalists and and and the media in general.

Do not have all that much power when it comes to influencing the course of big institutions the Pentagon.

Congress from -- But we wield enormous Carl when we take out after individuals.

And the same is true for the White House.

And I think Liz was appropriately neutral in the use of the word scrutiny but others might call what they're doing demonization.

When you're getting -- demonization on behalf of the president of the United States I think it is strikingly un presidential.

It is this is cheesy.

It is it is in my view I think it diminishes him.

In the eyes of those who look closely -- but I also think that it may well have the effect of chilling effect on those and we wanna give to the to a super pac and supporter of ideas -- candidate they believe -- because they think they're gonna get on the -- analyst.

And -- and have there them and their business portrayed in a negative light.

From the highest office in -- -- -- before I bring you and I just wanna ask him did did you get any reaction to that from the White House or from the Obama campaigns.

I did not.

I did not hear anything from them and you know.

And I think the thing here too is that nobody has an issue with disclosure and that's fine and we we could use more on it.

The question is why the White House is doing this this also mean -- -- -- White House or the campaign.

That the campaigns are the campaign the campaign because the the point here is that means but.

We have often had that presidents were people -- their surrogate -- go out and do things like this but the fact of the campaign is doing itself prince of pop those questions -- -- -- And it's a two way street.

Because it Obama and his campaign are gonna play it this way you can be sure the other side is gonna start doing the same thing with their donors.

Makes you think like -- -- anybody wanna donate to anyone including Obama's own supporters that -- given the risks of being singled out but.

We're gonna leave it there it was a -- -- column.

Now I am I'm -- -- on -- -- pay walls can people let's go on -- -- to carry this on this one's not fine payoff is that right yeah let's go to the -- -- -- it -- out yesterday that's how you dot com the best things that who has owned by the apparent company of Fox News as part this area is full disclosure that the thank you panel let us know what you think second -- -- us throughout the way look for my Monday edition of Wallace -- -- would you confined right here at FOX News Sunday dot com.

And we'll see you back here that's.

Load More