♪ >> from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. john: issue one -- palin for trump. palin: are you ready to stump for trump? i'm here to support the next president of the united states, donald trump! john: republican presidential hopeful donald trump receiving the endorsement of former alaska governor sarah palin. mrs. palin, who ran as senator john mccain's vice presidential running mate during the 2008 election is popular with some conservatives for her vociferous 07 signatures to president obama.

how much will sarah palin's endorsement help donald trump? to susan ferrechio and welcome. susan: i think donald trump's teflon nature goes in both directions. when he says something that seems outrageous to people, it has no changes in the poll. and on the other hand i think a palin endorsement is going to neither help nor hurt him. i think trump is a rising star on his observe merit with the conservative base and with republican voters. it may help bring in some of the ehave been gel cal vote, which is what he needs flown iowa. she's very popular with those voters. in that sense she may help but he is rising ahead of the pack so far nationally, it's not going to have a huge impact on him. eleanor: i think it's a short-term ploy for iowa. she does have some appeal among the evangelical voters and that arer a large part of the

electorate in iowa. but let's remember, she helped destroy what little chance john mccain had of becoming president because as a vice presidential running mate she had zero credibility. and i think if trump continues to talk about how she'll play a role in his administration, that's not going to help if indeed he does win the nomination and wants to look like he's the leader of this country. she's basically regarded as a joke by much of the american electorate, i believe. tom: yeah, i think the problem with palin and my big grape with palin personally came in 2012 when she criticized -- there was a secret service agent who had been posting photos on his facebook page and she used it as this tirade against the secret service who had spent months 24 hours a day protecting her and her family during the 2008 campaign. to me that spoke so, and i think i've only increased in this view the degree to which sarah palin is in many ways perfect for trump, because these are two people who will say whatever and

without r they can respect to people in order to build themselves up. it is a real problem and on the other point, if conservatism is to persuade new people, i think she's irrelevant now but the reason she is irrelevant and the reason she could be negative is she speaks to a notion of conservatism that is designed to be deliberately simplistic and devoid of intellectual values a as a merit. that is not a merit. clarence: speaking of turncoats, interesting that sarah palin back in 2012 endorsed ted cruz and was helpful in his getting over the top with tea party support. now ted cruz is donald trump's principal competitor now and i wonder what impact that's going to have, if some of cruz's fans might switch.

i rather doubt that will happen but there might be some on the margins places -- susan: her biggest value for trump right now is iowa. if he can win iowa and new hampshire, that is a victory that could propel him to a much easier path to the nomination. her value hear -- for him i think is purely iowa. beyond that, negligible, i think. eleanor: i wonder what john mccain is saying because she's now endorsing the man who said mccain wasn't a war hero because he was captured. mccain has been very gentlemanly throughout all this but i do fault him for bringing palin into the national conversation in the first place when she was so clearly unqualified to be on that ticket. john: why did he choose her? eleanor: because he was behind in the polls and he was looking for that injection of excitement and she did do that. to this day he said he's grateful that she ginned up the campaign. they had tens of thousands

coming to the campaign rallies. she didn't wear well because she didn't have the credentials to step in as an instant president if he had gone on to win. anybody who regrets john mccain didn't win i think looks at sarah palin and says thank goodness. tom: i also think, one interesting thing is my conservative friends working on the hill or whatever, people my age, one of the things they really don't like about sarah palin, for a long time she dominated the discourse with some people on the fanatical left and she's such a non-representative of conservative women in terms of intelligent and passion. and willingtons engage with -- susan: however, you're leaving out the fact that everyone here putting down sarah palin that she has great appeal to the conservative base still. even though it's been a long time she's she's been on a ticket or involved in politics. she's still very popular and still well liked and in that

sense she can attract more of the type of voter that trump already attracted. tom: do you think she can get anyone who isn't already with trump? susan: probably not. eleanor: maybe has a value with voters because trump has been married a couple of times. john: iowa's governor said ted cruz's stance on ethanol would urt iowa's economy and he questioned why anyone would vote for him. between palin's endorsement of trump and bran stand's thumbs own, what can you expect next? susan: of course iowa's economy and ethanol are closely linked and everyone is making money off

the ethanol and there's a great deal of resistance to ridding that but in congress there's a lot of discussion about trying to get rid of ethanol. eleanor: the one thing i like about ted cruz is that he didn't bow down to the ethanol guys. he's in the pockets of big oil in texas so pig your poison. -- pick your poison. clarence: speaking of political correctness, which republicans ted pposedly opposed to, cruz was -- it's almost against the law in iowa to speak ill of corn. susan: in congress too, you get murmurrings of how are we going to deal with this and nothing ever happens because of the powerful senators in congress. and ted cruz has busted them from the beginning and he's willing to do it on this issue. clarence: they don't like him either, in congress. tom: on ethanol, governor branstad's son is the guy in charge of the ethanol. no better example of crony capitalism and political

patron image and when we're talking about engaging new people with conservatism, that is a good example of why you want someone like ted cruz because sarah palin is endorsing trump. she whines about these different things but at the same time there is no better example of crony -- clarence: as mayor daley in chicago said, if a man can't help his son, i have a -- on my coattails. eleanor: layers and layers of hypocrisy but in the end the grandstand criticism of cruz is going to hurt cruz more than palin's endorsement of trump. john: palin's track record with campaign endorsements. what is her track record? she's endorsed more than 60 candidates nationwide and more than half of those have won their races. that is a good track record.

clarence: cruz, ted cruz. john: am i right or what? eleanor: that was then, this is now. clarence: i wouldn't sell her short yet because sarah palin does have a lot of good will out here with folks. in her country. i call it palin land. we met at the gridiron dinner one winter. i must say i was charmed. it was back in 2012. eleanor: we sang "auld lang syne" with sarah palin. clarence: we did that with ted cruz too. a very charming woman. doesn't know squat about public policy but she's well-intentioned. tom: if you're concerned conservative, go with trump. i mean go with -- go with cruz because at least you have an intellectual caliber there and someone who wants to burn and has burned the system down, whatever you think of that. versus palin who i think follows

the path of her -- [indiscernible] john: did you get page's ultimate criticism of her? clarence: what did i say? she's well intentioned. eleanor: i'm not sure about that. john: how big a boost is palin's endorsement for trump? colossal? major, moderate, minor or negligible? susan? susan: negligible. eleanor: minor. tom: negligible. clarence: i'll say minor for the time being, until i'm proved wrong. tom: what are you saying? john: i'm just looking at some of the things that are involved here. i think it's pretty important. trump needs a strong ground game to get his voters to turn out for the caucuses and -- susan: in iowa it's important. i would agree with that.

john: i will say that palin has endorsed more than 60 candidates nationwide, more than half of those have won their races. that's a good track record. i'll stick with that. issue two -- israel west bank woes. >> we do not view labeling the origin of products as being from the settlements a boycott of israel. we also do not believe that's the equivalent to a boycott. john: the obama administration sparked controversy this week when it failed to condemn a european union e.u. product labeling policy that israel fiercely opposes. under recent e.u. regulations, member states can require israeli companies in the west bank to label their exported products as "west bank" rather

than israel in origin. the e.u. and the u.s. government oppose israeli settlements in the west bank, designated land, they say that must be held for a future palestinian state but israel believes these restrictions are prejudicial and even anti-semitic. what is the significance of "made in the west bank" labels? tom rogan? tom: the significance is the economic impact that israel concerns -- you have concerns in terms of europeans not wanting to buy these products because they believe that it's palestinian land and thus it's immoral to buy those products. the difficulty that you see is that on the one side, i think most people around the word would say and certainly i would also say that west bank settlement construction on the part of the israeli government is profoundly negative, both to the united states in terms of the interacting consequences and in terms of our relationships with important partners in the arab

world but at the same time putting boycotts on it, the negative impact is that it simplifies what is an incredibly complex issue and defers the diplomatic choices. the west bank, it will be 67 borders with associated what? eleanor: it's not a boycott, it's truth in advertising. these products are made in the west bank and for consumers who believe that israeli settlement building and manufacturing in the west bank is illegal, they then have to choice not to buy those products. clarence: sounds like a boycott to me. eleanor: yeah, but who's boycotting them? you're just putting on there where it's made. i don't think you can call that a boycott. john: issue three -- reading the ayatollah. president obama: for decades to come, inspectors will have access to irans entire nuclear supply chain. in other words, if iran tries to cheat -- if they try to build a

bomb covertly, we will catch them. john: the international atomic energy agency iaea says iran has sent 98% of its enriched uranium stock abroad and deactivated most of its nuclear centrifuges. as a result, iran is now receiving sanctions relief and approximately $100 billion in previously frozen assets. iran has also freed four americans, including reporter jason rezaian and amir hekmati, a u.s. marine veteran. iran says the u.s. paid a $1.7 billion ransom for the prisoners, but the white house says that payment was separate. regardless, tensions remain real. iran briefly detained 10 u.s. navy sailors last week and three u.s. citizens are missing in iraq. iranian supported militias are suspected. and in davos, switzerland,

irans foreign minister slammed new u.s. sanctions on irans ballistic missile program as proving a u.s. quote "addiction to coercion" endquote. are the iranians right? did president obama pay a ransom to iran for the release of four merican prisoners? susan: well, i think that we also let up on sanctions worth more than $100 billion, which is going to help them fund terrorism and who knows what else. overall i think the u.s. paid a heavy price for the nuclear agreement and to get those americans out. eleanor: the white house denies it paid any type of a ransom so i don't know we should necessarily take iran's word over the administration. secondly, the money going to them was part of the nuclear deal and it's their money that's been frozen and the administration has now gone ahead with sanctions on ballistic missile testing, which they're not supposed to be doing

but that's separate from the nuclear deal. the tensions are not going to go away but an important diplomatic channel has been opened up with this country. the fact that those sailors were field so immediately and the big game in the middle east now is to try to resolve the syrian civil war and you have to get iran and saudi arabia on the same page. so it's a lot of diplomatic maneuvering but i think the relationship with iran particularly, the foreign minister and between him and john kerry is a very positive and productive one. john: you wouldn't call it a ransom? eleanor: no. i wouldn't. john: but it is a ransom. tom: it is a an some. yes. here are a couple of problems, get dea that iran will not nuclear we said. they will use this money to expand their proxy of power

across the middle east, assembling people up they don't like. disappearing people they don't like and the saudi monarchy is going to throw money at groups like al qaeda. they'll cheat and they'll have a nuclear arms race. clarence: who's going to do a nuclear arms race? tom: the saudis are going to do it. they're the more dominant actor in the middle east. nuclear blackmail. clarence: what about the saudis? tom: the saudis will do it to counter balance iran. john: who was rob levinson and why was he excluded in the prisoner release? susan: he worked for the fick then the c.i.a. he's missing in iran and hasn't been heard from in five years. tom: the iranians killed him. susan: nobody knows where he is. john: welcome to davos. vice president biden: we will do our best at the federal level to make this a not just a moon shot but a priority. aware. everyone will be aware this is one of the priorities for this administration this last year. dicaprio: we simply cannot afford to allow the corporate greed of the coal, oil, and gas

industries to determine the future of humanity. john: seeking to counter cancer and climate change, its the 2016 world economic forums winter meeting in davos, switzerland. bringing together around 2,500 business leaders, politicians and celebrities, the forum facilitates discussion on key international concerns. established in 1971 by german professor klaus schwab, the forum is known for its exclusive guest lists. at davos, colored badges define a delegates access to events. still, this years forum is focused on climate change, terrorism, and fears over the global economy. one key concern is energy prices. with iran now entering the already heavily supplied global oil market and chinas economy in trouble, some believe oil prices could decline even further.

dennis nally, chairman of pricewaterhousecoopers says, quote, "some people are speculating oil could reach $10 a barrel." endquote. have energy prices bottomed out or will they continue to drop? clarence: well, i'm going to say that i don't know, because nobody knows for sure but i think they're going to go down more simply because of the way the saudis are flooding the market trying to actually undercut our fracking and our oil capacity in the u.s., among other things. probably going to fail but -- eleanor: steel containers that you put the oil into the transport it now are more expensive than the oil. it's a dramatic change and it's reshaping the politics of the middle east. now, if iran wants to come in and flood the market with cheap oil, hey, let them have at it but they wouldn't make much money at it and we can keep our

oil in the ground so i don't see that as a worrisome thing. susan: you have to look at china too. the economy there has not been as robust as it had been and that's a big factor in the oil prices decreasing and its impact here in america. tom: yes, the chinese restructure is that wealth gap in rural poverty and wage inflation. that was going to happen. i think the oil prices is very good. it keeps more money in american pockets. the shale boom is going to undertake it. they can't undercut it. unless they reform their political culture, there are a lot of very young people and not a lot of resources, that is a swamp for terrorism. susan: yes. john: that's interesting but here's the answer -- world growth was overestimated. china is not consuming as much oil as expected. the u.s. investment in energy projects lifts a ban on oil

exports and makes energy efficiency its aim. former oil producers' reaction made them pump and overstock oil. iranian oil to be added as well, sending oil prices to the bottom. you got it? clarence: those are good reasons. yep. john: you dispute that? eleanor: no, sounds about right. does your magic source tell us here we should invest? john: magic source is very concerned about some of this leaking out on an improper channel. eleanor: ok. john: he says you have it mclaughlin, but you know how to use it. you betcha, i'm with you. issue five -- hold the water. president obama voted a congressional resolution challenging the "clean water rule" established by the environmental protection agency, the e.p.a. the rule asserts that "small

waterways" fall under federal authority. president obama says he is veto is necessary for water quality protection but many republicans and some democrats disagree, saying his rule will hurt farmers, construction companies and local governments, forcing them to seek permits before dealing with a localized water supply entity. one such opponent, republican senator fromive joni ernst says "we all want clean water. this rule is not about clean water but ramp how much authority the federal government and unelected wrong kratz should have to regulate what's done on private lands." still, water storges -- shortages are an escalating concern and facing the ongoing drought in california, businessman scott slater is seeking to supply los angeles with water by pumping 00 billion

from s of l 2 o 200 miles the mojave desert. who is right? eleanor: these are two separate stories. the first story about the congressional resolution was introduced by senator joni ernst primarily to protect iowa pig farmers who were dumping hog waste into the waterways. that's a bad bill. it will be vetoed. the second story about pumping all that water from under the desert, i think that needs a whole lot more examination. that is a protected area. dianne feinstein, senator, thought of that a number of years ago. all kinds of ramifications if you're draining water from under the water table turned desert. it's a money-make venture for him so i'm highly suspicion of that. clarence: that is a big reason why it's preferable to be -- to

have federal oversight because you do this waterway that is cross over boarders and will impact multiple states and they'd wind up being the arbitrators anyway so you might as well have them early. but the states are going to fight back. john: slater is involved in this how much money could he make from taking money from the mo javy desert and selling it in san bernardino or los angeles? the theoretical answer is around $50 billion over several decades, but first he and his hedge fund backers would have to build a 200-mile long pipeline. what do you think of it? susan: water in the west is the biggest issue out there. if someone can figure out an innovative way to do it, it's going to get close examination and it's going to be very profitable. john: have you seen much of that

in the congress? susan: congress is focused on the waters of the u.s.a. bill because republicans feel it's an overreach by the president. i suspect it won't survive. a republican administration will probably roll that back. tom: if we have a situation like north carolina, or like in iowa with pig farmers, the federal law can punish. we should increase the fines if you're putting it into public wateraways. the president's state of the union says there are some bad regulations. what drives people in congress crazy is this is a crazy regulation because it will prohibits people from their own lands doing construction or operations -- that messes up economic growths. jim: is it a good idea to tap desert act fiers who water lawns and fill pools in southern california, yes or no? eleanor: there's probably an environmental cost to that.

i'd have to know a lot more about that. i'm very suspicious that can be done without creating bigger problems. john: you should remove suspicion, the answer is yes. it is prohibitive in cost. correct? clarence: yeah, and also you do run into politics when you're crossing state lines. john: darn right. susan: i think any way you can bring water to the west, i think that's going to be a topic of conversation there and people are going to try to do it. tom: yeah, people need water but in the middle east, talking about the oil prices declining. the next war could be the water warp. eleanor: desal anyization is probably a better idea. john: prediction for the panel -- the f.b.i. will recommend that hillary clinton face prosecution for mishandling

classified information. yes or no, suse season susan: no. john: eleanor? eleanor: no. clarence: yes, but she won't be indicted. tom: no. john: i'm with clarence. bye-bye. ♪ first

election? hello, and welcome to keek keek newsro -- qqed. super bowl and what a volatile stock market means for silicon valley. first, san francisco george gas con felony bribery and three former fund-raisers for mayor ed lee, zula zones and mohajer, $20,000 in bribes from an undercover fbi in exchange for political access. act in charge, david johnson spoke at this afternoon's press conference. >> no level of acceptable corruption, the violation of trust is the same