Sign in to comment!

Kelly File

Recent court rulings spurring religious liberty concerns

This is a rush transcript from "The Kelly File," June 30, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Breaking tonight, a major email dump by Hillary Clinton. The Clinton camp is now releasing a new batch of emails from the then-Secretary of State expected to total some 3,000 pages according to the State Department.

Welcome to "The Kelly File," everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. We are getting word that there may be new information about team Clinton having yet another private email account, Mrs. Clinton that is. And are expecting to learn more about the role of the Clinton's controversial assistant, Sidney Blumenthal, a man the White House banned from the State Department payroll but whom she used anyway. Our team is pouring through the emails right now.

And our Fox News digital politics editor Chris Stirewalt. There he is. See, is standing by. We will bring you the developments on what we find just as soon as we have them.

Also breaking tonight, what some are calling a new blow for the faithful. Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court redefined the tradition of marriage. Tonight, Oklahoma's attorney general is challenging a state Supreme Court decision there that's declared a monument of the Ten Commandments is a religious symbol and must be removed from the grounds of the state capitol. Attorney General Scott Pruitt had argued that the monument was identical to a Texas monument that was found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court not long ago. No matter the Oklahoma Supreme Court says, it has got to go.

Brit Hume is our Fox News senior political analyst. Brit, thank you for being here. So, I looked back because I was actually working for you down in the D.C. Bureau when the Federal Court case on the Ten Commandments was decided. And it was unusual collection of justices that upheld the monument on the ground of the Texas State Capitol. And the collection included Justice Breyer, one of the most liberal justices on the court.  And what he said when he said the monument can stay. It has been there for a long time. Yes, it is religious but it's also a historical symbol.

The Ten Commandments speak to our history. And what this liberal justice said at the time Brit was, a contrary decision would lead to the removal of many long standing Ten Commandments in public and could there by create the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the constitution seeks to avoid. And so, nonetheless, here we go with the religiously based divisiveness that he was concerned about and that apparently the Oklahoma State Supreme Court is not in a week when religious liberty is already coming under fire.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, there you go, Megyn. I mean, obviously, the Oklahoma attorney general is going to challenge this. It will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and we'll see if Justice Breyer and the rest of the majority feels the same way. They case has appeared to be pretty conferrable. So, perhaps this monument will end up surviving.

KELLY: What you are hearing from people online already, I mean, this story is going crazy on the FOX News website. People are clicking on it in record numbers. And, you know, they are interested. They want to know why the Ten Commandments can't stand because just days ago, we got a monumental Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. And many people felt, okay, even people who supported gay marriage, is that okay? Gay marriage is legal now, it's constitutional in every state, it's legal. And yet, what happens to people of faith who have a genuinely held objection to gay marriage.  What will happen to them? And on the heels of that, you get a court, a Supreme Court in the state of Oklahoma saying, here's what's going to happen to you, no more Ten Commandments on the public grounds. That we can have the White House in rainbow but cannot have the Ten Commandments on the state capitol grounds. And people are wondering whether this kind of -- what they view is intolerance is what the founders envisioned or what the country wants.

HUME: Well, Megyn, I don't think religious intolerance is what the country as a whole want. And I don't really associate with the Oklahoma Supreme Court has done here with what the Supreme Court did in gay marriage. Indeed, as I suggested and as you suggested the Supreme Court might well reverse that Oklahoma Court's decision. Having said that, it is fair to wonder however whether the gay marriage decision will prove as divisive as some fear. Certainly, the solicitor general suggested that the tax exempt status had religious institutions, would come under challenge because of this, that it would as he said an issue.

We are hearing some calls now, not many but some for the removal, the doing away with those religious exemptions. And one who is a person of traditional faith in this country to whom the idea of gay marriage seems alien to the concept of marriage as it has been known for the better part of millennia, such people feel alarmed and that the law of the land is now something that they don't recognize and they feel they are hearing as, you know, in some case -- happened to our friend father Jonathan when he was spat upon while witnessing, you know, gay pride parade in New York over the weekend. They're afraid that the attitude towards them will be if Justice Alito warmed in his dissent, one of treatment as if they are bigots and the rest of it. And as I say, it's a legitimate concern.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: -- majority opinion, Brit. Justice Kennedy says, basically, don't worry. You are still free to believe as you want to believe. If he's going to act on it, that maybe a problem.

HUME: Well, what he said was that you are free to teach the traditional faith that you know and you are free to advocate it. What he didn't say is you are free to practice it. That you are free to exercise it although the constitution's First Amendment would certainly on its face appear to guarantee that. But he didn't mention that. He mentioned the First Amendment without any reference to the pre-exercise of it. And I think that was probably intentional, he probably didn't want to go that far because he felt that this opinion would be in the way of that.

KELLY: Now, in the meantime, we heard from the President and he is saying, speaking of this being one of his best weeks ever, his best weeks ever. And talking about how he knows what he is doing and he is fearless and he is going to push for as much progress or progressive ideas as he possibly can in the remainder of his term. Is this a huge victory for him as many in the mainstream media are saying that this is like, this is his doing and this is his victory that should embolden him in his remaining time in office?

HUME: Well, he's had a pretty good week in the sense that the things that he supported have been vindicated. He had a good week on the trade measure that he wanted to give him this negotiating authority and which meant the -- it would have to be voted up or down, no amendments, by Congress. Of course, he couldn't get that with the support of his own party. It required the massive amounts of support for the Republicans for him to do it. Now, that's a victory nonetheless but it's certainly not a sign of his strength within his own party.

The Supreme Court decisions which he favored certainly the one on ObamaCare, I would rate that as a near death experience for ObamaCare because the sloppy drafting of it nearly, you know, the decision was after all, you know, fairly narrow 63, you know, to uphold, you know, came down to the wire really. I mean, the fact that he didn't think it should get to the high court but it did, it could have gone the other way. So, ObamaCare survives. It isn't necessarily vindicated. It still has sorts of problems that has to do with rising costs and people losing their insurance and all the rest of it.

KELLY: Uh-mm.

HUME: But nonetheless, it is something he wanted and he got it. He has every right to be happy about it. Similarly on the gay marriage ruling that was one he certainly supported and urged but the Obama administration was not a party to that case. It filed an amicus brief which means friend of the court. And the solicitor general as we mentioned earlier withhold on the subject. So, in a way that is a victory for a cause that he supported. But, you know, you look around the rest of the political landscape and it is not clear to me that he should have a great deal of encouragement about how well he is going to be able to put his agenda into effect for the next 18 months or so.

KELLY: Uh-mm. I mean, the gay rights decision last week was a long time coming as a result of the work of gay rights activist who had strategize this in a brilliant way. I mean, they made sure it did not go up to the high court before they thought they had a high court ready to rule in their favor before they got decision after decision. You know, all the case in all the states and it was not the administration pushing that along. It was their movement. Brit, I got to go.

HUME: Just one more thing.

KELLY: Sure.

HUME: Remember, Barack Obama was on the other side of this issue seven or eight years ago.

KELLY: And three years ago actually up until like a month before the last election.

HUME: You're welcome.

KELLY: Brit, it's good to see you.

HUME: Thank you, Megyn.

KELLY: Well, breaking tonight, big news out of Baltimore where police commanders are now just moments ago acknowledging they told officers not to engage as rioters burned and looted. Really? What happened to the claims that they didn't do that? Mark Fuhrman is here on what this admission now means for the city leaders already under fire.

Plus, the "New York Times" claimed the moral high ground when it decided not to run cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. But when an artist put together an offensive picture of the former pope, guess how that decision went.

Marc Thiessen is here with an unbelievable story. Well, you have to stick around for Marc. Trust me on this. Three minutes away.

And then when we took up the topic of Donald Trump's recent immigration remarks, watch what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GERALDO RIVERA, HOST, "GERALDO RIVERA REPORTS": Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizen population of the United States. And the United States is unique in this experience. Every poll shows that, virtually of its poll.

KELLY: All right. Simply Ann got to shiver down his spine. And I'm getting an e-mail soon asking her to come on debate you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: And sure enough, the e-mail came. Now Ann Coulter is here.  Geraldo is back and we are in for an unbelievable debates. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLY: Developing tonight, growing anger with the "New York Times" after the paper that went out of its way to protect the feelings of Muslims has now published a very ugly image of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. The paper decided to run a portrait featuring the now retired Benedict that is fashioned from 17,000 condoms. We've decided not to show it. Ironically the Times went with the picture five months after it chose not to show the cartoon pictures of Muhammad that led to a deadly attack on a French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Marc Thiessen is a Fox News contributor and former chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush. This is what they say. They say, "We don't want to gratuitously offend anyone's deeply held believes. That said, it is probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone."

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It's remarkable. And this is pure and utter hypocrisy on the part of the "New York Times." After the "Charlie Hebdo" attack when they refused to republish those cartoons which were by the way very news worthy because they were related to a major terrorist incident, the Times executive editor Dean Baquet was absolutely self-righteous about it. He said, I'm going to quote, I'll tell you what he said, he was doing it out of deference to his Muslim readers and he said, we have a standard that is long held and served as well, that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire. Most of these were gratuitous insult. Under times standards he said, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibility. Does the picture of the Pope made out of condoms deliberately offend religious sensibilities? Of course, it does.

KELLY: They now deny that.

THIESSEN: It's just pure hypocrisy.

KELLY: They now deny that. And say, that wasn't -- that the artist and the museum both say, it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against aids and they go on Mark, here it is, they go on to say this. Okay, this is associate managing editor for Standards Phil Corbett who says, quote, "While some people might genuinely dislike this work, there doesn't seem to be any comparable level of outrage to what we saw in the Muslim community with the Prophet Muhammed."  What -- of course there is not.

(LAUGHTER)

That the Muslim community to who he is referring, killed people. I mean, he is saying that the Catholic community needs to rise up and threaten to kill people in order to get the Pope honored by not showing him covered in condoms?

THIESSEN: Yes. Apparently if Catholics don't show up with the New York Times with oozies then they are fair game. I mean, this is just ridiculous. The fact that they are basically afraid of terrorism as just why they didn't do this. But look, they said, when it came to the "Charlie Hebdo" cartoons. First of all, those had news value. They were related to a major terrorist attack. And he said, he acknowledged they had news value but said that is not enough to override our standards. That is a direct quote from him. So, this is enough to open up the news of value --

KELLY: But he was worried when he justified that not running the "Charlie Hebdo" he said, let's not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who reads us. And they're offended by any depiction of what they see is a prophet. He said, I don't care about ISIS but I do care about that family and it is arrogant to ignore them.

THIESSEN: Yes. What about the Catholic family in Brooklyn who reads the "New York Times" or a loyal readers of "The New York Times" and are offended by a picture of the Pope made out of condoms? Is it arrogant to ignore them? And by the way, Megyn, this is not the first time they have done this. They have done this twice in one month. Last month they republished a picture of a painting of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung surrounded by pornographic pictures. That was a big controversy in 1999 when there was an exhibit in the Brooklyn museum. They just reprinted it last month. So, this is something that's ongoing.

KELLY: And this is what the impact had told the Washington Examiner about Muhammad images, he said, was it hard to deny our readers these images? Absolutely. But we still have standards and we involved not running offensive material.

THIESSEN: Yes. They have no standards --

KELLY: Offensive to whom, that's the question.

THIESSEN: Yes. "The New York Times" has no standards. If you're a Catholic or a Jew, you're fair game for "The New York Times."

KELLY: Because, there's no comparable level of outrage by the Catholic and the Jews versus what we see in the Muslim community when you ruin Muhammad.

THIESSEN: Exactly.

KELLY: You apparently have to start threatening people in order to get your own religious icons respected. Marc, good to see you.

THIESSEN: Thanks, Megyn.

KELLY: Taking your thoughts on that on Twitter at Megyn Kelly and on Facebook.com/TheKellyFile. We have breaking news next from the State Department that just released 17 minutes ago, thousands of new Hillary Clinton emails. We've been pouring through them. Stirewalt is here to tell us what we found.

Plus, police commanders in Baltimore are now acknowledging literally right before we came on the air tonight. That in fact, they did tell officers in Baltimore not to engage as rioters burned and looted. What happened to the denials we've been hearing on that for weeks? Mark Fuhrman is here.

And as concerns grow about religious freedom under fire from the courts, Senator Ted Cruz is here right after this break with his plan to fight back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLY: Breaking tonight. Intriguing new details on Hillary Clinton, her private email server, and what the White House knew. The Clinton camp is in the middle of releasing a new batch of e-mails from then secretary of state Hillary Clinton expected to total some 3,000 pages according to the State Department. Including a number of e-mails to and from the White House chief-of-staff and senior White House Advisor David Axelrod.

Our FOX News digital politics editor Chris Stirewalt is here. So, first of all, why are we getting these at 9:00 on a Tuesday night?

CHRIS STIREWALT, FOX NEWS DIGITAL POLITICS EDITOR: Well, I have read them all -- no, no. Look, there is a lot in here. And we are just going through it now. I am more than willing to give the State Department the benefit of the doubt that being a government agency they are bad at doing stuff and that given the sensitive nature and all this. And dumping all of this out probably takes time. So, I will give them the benefit of doubt that it takes more time. But there is a ton in here. We are reading about Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, Chris Stevens. It has got all of the wow words in there.

But we don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves yet. What we have seen so far, very interesting exchange, very early in her tenure as secretary of state that David Axelrod, senior White House advisor, the President's top political shaman. And more importantly Rahm Emanuel, the chief-of-staff, the boss reaching after the State Department asking, please, can I have Hillary Clinton's secret, not supposed to do it, private e-mail address so that I can send her e-mail? That is like a government within a government. That is pretty astonishing.

(LAUGHTER)

KELLY: Someday someone might submit a FOYA request. You'll never know.

STIREWALT: Exactly.

KELLY: Chris, thank you.

STIREWALT: You bet.

KELLY: Back to you for more.

Also developing tonight, new fallout from the Supreme Court decision to re-write the rules on marriage in America. Well, they found a constitutional right to gay marriage and they upheld ObamaCare, as well.  Senator Ted Cruz says that last week's Supreme Court rulings doing all of that in every state, marks quote, "one of the darkest days in our nation's history." And promptly calls for nine Supreme Court justices to face elections every eight years. Senator Cruz' critics say that if up for election, the justices might try to just serve public opinion rather than the constitution.

Joining me now, Texas Senator and republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz. His book, "A Time For Truth" hit stores today. Senator, good to see you. Okay, so let's start with that plan for the U.S. Supreme Court.  I know you are unhappy with the decisions but Alexander Hamilton, the complete independence of the courts is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution. Now you want to rewrite the constitution in response to a couple of decisions you don't like?

SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, Megyn, it is great to be with you. Thank you for having me. And last week's decisions were the latest in a long line and sadly were the nadir of the Supreme Court. It was majority of the justices on Thursday, rewriting ObamaCare, disregarding the law and forcing that failed law on millions of Americans, hurting millions of Americans. And then on Friday, the marriage decision was utterly contrary to the constitution. They are simply making it up.  And as Justice Scalia powerfully said in dissent, that decision was an assault on our democracy, it was five unelected lawyers setting themselves up and these are Scalia's words, as the rulers of all 320 million Americans.

KELLY: I get that.

CRUZ: It was illegitimate and it was wrong.

KELLY: But in response to the decision that you feel was politically motivated by the justices who are in the majority. You want to make the court more political?

CRUZ: It's pure politics. And, you know, the framers when they wrote the constitution, they believe the check on judicial overreach. The framers wrote about judicial overreach quite a bit. They believed the check would be impeachments. Now, here is the sad reality. Within a few decades, Thomas Jefferson said, impeachment had been not even a scarecrow.  Even 200 years ago, the Supreme Court wasn't afraid of it. Today, we have a United States Senate. We can't even muster 50 votes to defeat Loretta Lynch, an attorney general who tells us she is not going to follow the law or the constitution. There is no universe in which there are 67 votes to remove Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court.

KELLY: But what do you think -- how would an electorate that twice elected Barack Obama create a court that you like better than the one we have now?

CRUZ: Well, let's be clear. What I'm talking about, our judicial retention elections which means you'd had the same appointments, the same Senate confirmation but every eight years the people would have an up or down vote with the option --  

KELLY: What if the people bounced out Scalia and Alito and Thomas, and we had a President Obama in the White House?

CRUZ: Well, I can tell you that 20 states have put in place judicial retention elections and they have worked, the people have used them sparingly. But the alternative is, who in their right mind would design a system where every major public policy issue of the day is decided not by the people, not by the constitution, not by elected representatives but by nine elite lawyers in Washington, D.C. As Justice Scalia observed in dissent, all nine of them, they either graduated from Harvard or Yale. The eight of the nine are from the East Coast or the West Coast. Yes, I graduated from Harvard, too. But as you know, his dad refers to my time up there as missionary work.

(LAUGHTER)

Yes, you know, I think the problem was that I didn't learn what they wanted me to learn there. I was a little too thick headed to be indoctrinated when I was up there.

KELLY: Well, you worked for a justice who was respected by many. The Chief Justice William Rehnquist, when you clerked in the Supreme Court.  And I want to ask you about this because, one of the stories that I thought was so great out of your book was about Justice Thomas.

CRUZ: Yes.

KELLY: When you clerked for the Supreme Court you are a young guy, you are clerking for the chief justice, but Justice Thomas agreed to see a little boy, a little African-American boy who was paying a visit to the court. And tell the viewers what happened.

CRUZ: Well, sure. My co-clerk is a professor at Notre Dame now. He had lived the previous year in Little Rock, Arkansas and he and his wife had tutored this young African-American boy named Carlos who was a seventh grader. And Carlos had never left Arkansas. They decided to fly him to D.C. And they asked if any of the justices would meet with him. And two of them did. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was very, very nice of her to meet with him. And then Justice Thomas sat down with his little boy, spent two hours talking with this junior high kid. And I got to tell you, what particularly impressed Carlos was Justice Thomas is a big Dallas Cowboys fan. He had a framed picture of himself with Troy Aikman.

And the Supreme Court didn't matter much at all to Carlos. But the Dallas Cowboys, that was cool. At the end of two hours Justice Thomas walked to his desk and he had on his desk, a Super Bowl ticket in case in sight that was signed by Emmett Smith. And he picked it up, he gave it to Carlos and he said, Carlos, I'll tell you what. I'm going to give you this but I want you to promise me you will going to get As in school next year.  And Carlos with his eyes big and bright nodded and said, absolutely, sir, I will.

KELLY: Wow!

CRUZ: And, you know, Justice Thomas had moments like that over and over and over again. He is a man with an incredible heart. Heart for people. And in my new book "A Time For Truth" over and over again I tell stories about the Supreme Court, what is going on behind closed doors.  What's going on at the court and then also in the Senate.

KELLY: Yes, it's great stuff. Including at the time you watch hardcore pornography with Sandra Day O'Connor which, I mean, that's the reason enough to buy the book. I mean, that happened, so that happened.

Senator, thank you so much for being here. And good luck with the book.

CRUZ: Well, thank you. And let me say, we are say seeing incredible excitement.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KELLY: Oh, wow! Thank you.

CRUZ: In just a couple of months over 100,000 people have come to TedCruz.org.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(LAUGHTER)

KELLY: That's good.

CRUZ: Over 100,000 people have come to TedCruz.org. Tonight at midnight is the end of our fundraising quarter. We are at a packed fundraiser here in Houston. And I would encourage your supporters come to TedCruz.org. Thank you and God bless you.

KELLY: Good luck. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Wow!  Whiplash from everything that just happened there.

When we come back. We will have breaking news out of Baltimore where police commanders are now admitting that they told officers not to engage as rioters burned and looted. Really? What happened to everything we heard over the past of couple of months about them not doing that? We'll take a look at what this means for city leaders who are already under fire.

Plus, a professor at the publicly-funded University of Memphis turned some heads when she came out and equated whiteness with terrorism.  Tonight, see what the school is saying about the status of the thoughtful professor.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLY: Breaking tonight, a major admission from Baltimore's police commissioner and some top brass. The Baltimore Sun reporting they have now admitted that the officers who you see being pelted with bottles and chunks of concrete were given a "do not engage order" during the height of the riots. This is something our own Leland Vittert reported and then had denied to him, and then he later pressed the Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings Blake on this very issue and here is what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you have to say to the businesses who were looted because of your order to stand down.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excuse me one minute.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't have anything to say? Nothing to say to the business owners? What about to the police who were injured.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excuse me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why can't we ask questions? We can't ask questions? A public official, we can't ask questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will have an opportunity.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can ask questions?

You are going to answer them? You will answer our questions?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the press conference we will answer all the questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: Mark Fuhrman is a Fox News Contributor and Former LAPD Homicide Detective. And Richard Fowler is a Nationally Syndicated Radio Host. Guys, thank you very much for being here. And so now -- so this is just breaking as we go to air. So apologize while I look through my notes.  But it appears now -- OK so looking back at the record, the mayor specifically said the record will show she never ordered officers to stand down, never offered them -- order them to stand during the riots. Then remember this is the same mayor who said we gave the protesters space to destroy, and then she denied that she had done that. Now the top brass comes out and says yeah, we told them don't engage. Hold the line. Mark?

MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: Stand down, don't engage, be targets, do nothing. It's all the same thing. Stand down means you are stationary, do not move. Do not engage. Do not engage means do not engage the rioters. Let them burn, loot, let them throw rocks and bottles at the police and other citizens. Do nothing. And it's very clear that that's what was done. It just took them two months to figure that out. So that means for two months they have been lying to us, to all the media, to all the citizens, to all the police officers that have come on and told the truth and they have called them liars and now this comes out.

KELLY: Is it so hard Richard, is it so hard for them to just have said this is exactly what we told them and why? Why do we have to be mislead over and over and over, and over?

RICHARD FOWLER, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED RADIO HOST: I don't know if it is misleading Megyn, but I get where you are coming from. I think it is really important that we hear all sides of the story. One, I think we have to wait for foyer request to come out of the transmissions that's in the city hall, and the police department, and how that would then communicated to the officers, and the police is looking into that. And I think before we can make any assessments about the situation, we have to get all the evidence. I think Mark agrees there. I mean you have to have all the facts in place before you can make a determination of what really took place.

KELLY: All right, so she told -- Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake told our own Bill Hemmer, it is not holding back, it is responding appropriately.  That is what we did. We didn't hold back. We responded appropriately.  And now the latest report Mark is that the police were told to hold the line and not to engage. It's semantics. They told the cops not to do anything.

FUHRMAN: Well they did that. Richard is describing a process like we have to scratch our head and wonder what happened. We have the police commanders, the line commanders, there's the line commanders telling everybody today that that's what they said. We have Commissioner Batts that has been lying for two months and the mayor that has been lying for two months. And now they all come out and said yeah, we told them to stand down. We told them not to engage. So it's really not an investigation we need. We need a new police commissioner. You need a new mayor. You need some new leadership, you need some people that are actually going to be able to lead people in these kinds of situations instead of just worry about their own career.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Commissioner Bass, Richard, has repeatedly denied issuing a stand down order, repeatedly denied issuing that. In the face of his own cops coming on shows like ours and saying they were told that. So he basically called his officers liars, and now the Baltimore Police Commanders come out and acknowledge they ordered officers not to engage the rioters multiple times that day. What is the difference between don't engage and stand down?

FOWLER: The report indicates that they asked them to stand the line and stand down, meaning don't hit a protester. They didn't leave space for them to arrest individuals that were too violent. They didn't leave space for ambulances to come through. They said hold the line and protect property. Which are exactly these police officers did. Now the distinction now, if you look at the distinction in what happened Baltimore, happened in Ferguson. In Ferguson, the police officers used tear gas on American citizens because they were peacefully protesting.

KELLY: And in Baltimore they told cope to let the city burn.

FOWLER: I'm glad you said that, Mark. So it is OK to tear gas Americans, great?

FUHRMAN: Absolutely. Yes it is. When there's a civil disturbance...

(CROSSTALK)

FOWLER: Wow. You heard it here first, folks.

FUHRMAN: And they're violent.

FOWLER: They were not violent in Ferguson at all. They were peaceful protesters with no weapons. All they were saying were hands up, don't shoot. Justice for Michael Brown and it's OK to tear gas them.  

KELLY: Richard, OK, I got to go. But that is revisionist history.  That is not all the Ferguson protesters are doing. I remember the fire in Ferguson.

(CROSSTALK)

FOWLER: There were no weapons when they were tear gassed, Megyn? The fires have...

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Everybody was perfectly peaceful. It was a beautiful event.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: I got to go because there is another fiery panel coming up after you guys. Good to see you. A university professor is in hot water tonight, after she equated whiteness with terrorism. We'll show you how her bosses are handling that.

And then, when we took up the topic of Donald Trump and his immigration remarks last night, here is part of what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the citizen population of the United States and the United States is unique in this experience. Every poll shows that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: And I predicted Ann Coulter would be e-mailing us, and guess what, she did. And now Geraldo is back, and is here, and they are here together, next for a fascinating debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the citizen population of the United States and the United States is unique in this experience. Every poll shows that.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: All right, somewhere, someplace Ann got a shiver down her spine and I'm getting an e-mail soon asking her to come on debate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: That was Geraldo last night on "The Kelly File" last night, taking Donald Trump to task over Trumps claim that violent criminals from Mexico and elsewhere are illegally flooding over the border into the U.S.  Ann Coulter who happens to be the Author of Adios, America, the left's plan to turn our country into a third world hell hole doesn't agree with Geraldo, so she is here to respond and Geraldo is back, as well. He's Host of "Geraldo Rivera Reports," and a Fox News senior correspondent. So Ann, let me just tee it up for those who have forgotten somehow with Mr. Trump's remarks that started it all.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When Mexico sends its people, they are not sending their best. They are not sending you. They are not sending you. They are sending people that have lots of problems, and they are bringing those problems with us. They are bringing drugs, they are bringing crime. They are rapists, and some I assume are good people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: OK. Go ahead.

RIVERA:  If you want me to start...

(CROSSTALK)

ANN COULTER, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: OK. First of all, I'm not hesitating, there is a three second delay here. I want to thank both of you for doing this, a big part of my book is that we won't see them have the debate on this. I think the first most important point is these are not people who have a right to be here. So I don't care if they are two rapists. I don't care if there are two people coming in who are collecting welfare. Immigration is a government policy like any other and it ought to be used to benefit the people already living here. That includes recent immigrants. There should not be any criminals coming in. It is bad enough having people coming in who need government assistance, bringing in people who are felons, can't we cross that off the list? Secondly, I asked your producer if we can run this during the program. I got here a little bit late. Look at the Los Angeles County's most wanted list, whether it is top ten or top 100, the idea that immigrants are committing crime at a lower rate than the native population is preposterous. My complaint as described in the book and why this book became this book, other than just a few chapters, was that the government won't simply count and tell us. So whatever facts there are, it is always people looking at ancillary facts.  Why doesn't the government just count?

KELLY: Go head, Geraldo.

RIVERA: I think -- first of all, her basic premise, the title of the book, Adios, America is an insulting insinuation that Latinos are somehow going to pervert and drag down and degrade the America we all know and love. This is an insult. It is an insult that is -- I won't use terms like racism because I don't believe that Ann is a racist. What she is, is a polemicist. She has written a screed, a diatribe here, she had a point she wanted to make in her very sharp and witty writing has made it. Now when I say that immigrants commit less crime than native borne, it is from surveys that I have done for two books I have written on it, the Great Progression and Hispanic. Hispanic is appropriate especially for Ann, how Hispanics will lead America to a new era of prosperity, of that progression. This is why Americans fear Hispanics in the U.S. That's Ann, she fears Hispanics in the U.S.

KELLY: This is great. It's like going to the library.

RIVERA: Crime is at record lows in Los Angeles and in New York, the cities that you would assume would be the most impacted by the huge Latino influx.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Let Ann respond to that, but first, I want her to define polemicist.

COULTER: That's exactly what I am. I do want to say I don't think you are a racist, either, Geraldo. Though, I think you are going kind of close to the edge by insisting that Hispanics piggyback on to the black experience in America. The reason Americans are so concerned with racism and should be concerned with racism. The reason we have civil rights laws, racial set asides, affirmative action, is to make up for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow by Democrats, I might add. It is not for people who just set foot in this country yesterday to piggy back on that very unique history in America and start claiming affirmative action.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: And as I said, here it is -- this is not exactly a rigorous study saying there are lots of immigrants in L.A. and New York and the crime rate went down. Well yeah, that's because Giuliani, the prison building boom, its facts that only about a third of California prisoners are white. Are you saying two thirds of them are black? California has one of the smallest black populations in the country.

(CROSSTALK)

RIVERA: According to the Congressional Budget Office, these immigrants, the undocumented immigrants contribute more in revenue to the United States pot than they take out in benefits. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office. According to the Social Security Administration, there is $100 billion paid by undocumented immigrants into Social Security with fake numbers for benefits they will never retrieve.  That is their gift. That is their gift to us. They have remade entire neighborhoods, Passaic, Patterson. Go to Washington Heights. Unlike Ann who researched the book from her computer, I have been to all these neighborhoods, I've been to the border. I have seen the immigrant vitality. We are all immigrants here. Ann's family, you may go back decades but I think wasn't there immigrants on your grandfather's side? I mean, we're all immigrants, each of us. The language that this American hell hole, this is the language used against the Irish in the 19th century, against the Italians in the early 20th century, this is inappropriate.

KELLY: Just in case you were wondering, Polemicist, OK, here it is, a strong written or spoken attack against someone else's opinions, beliefs, practices, etcetera. That's it, she's right. She is that and she admitted it. We can end with that point of agreement in a very nice debate. I have to say they were -- they were civil.

COULTER: Everything Geraldo said was false.

RIVERA: Everything Ann has written is false. But I like her.

KELLY: OK. Good bye. Love them both. Does being white make you a terrorist? We're raising the level of debate next. You will meet the college professor who is advancing that theory right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLY: The University of Memphis professor is catching some heat tonight after going on her social media account, and suggesting whiteness is equated with terrorism. Katherine Timpf is a national Review Reporter and a Fox News Contributor, and joins us on the story of Professor Zandria Robinson. She sounds like a charmer.

KATHERINE TIMPF, NATIONAL REVIEW REPORTER: Yeah, that wasn't all she said either. She said that the ultimate expression of love for conservative whites is death threats and rape threats. She said that Dylann Roof did what he did not because he was crazy or even because he racist, but because that's what whites are conditioned to do. She's not working there anymore but it's up for debate whether she was fired, people can still see her account even though it's private now. She said she got a new job. Either way, a lot of people are upset about it.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: So the question is was she fired. We don't know because the university is saying well, she's no longer employed by the university as of 4:43 p.m. today. We don't know whether she was fired. And where else is she going, because prior to this they'd been standing by her not withstanding the fact Catherine, that a couple of months ago, she sided with another controversial professor out of Boston University, who had declared that white college aged males are a problem population. She came out and said I stand with her because she's right. White students threaten us and their racism and sexist evaluations of us factor into our job security.

TIMPF: Right and every time this happens, you have the two sides.  People saying this is horrible. People saying free speech, you can say what she wants. And that's true you do have free speech. But the line is -- it's not just a popular opinion, a controversial opinion versus one that demonstrates you might not be able to do your job effectively. If you're a professor your job involves being able to grade reasonably fairly, make your students feel comfortable in the classroom. I would maybe not feel so comfortable in this woman's classroom knowing that if she looked at me, she saw the face of terrorism apparently. But that's really where the line is drawn.

KELLY: We really enjoy seeing it. And thank you for bringing us the update.

TIMPF: Thank you.

KELLY: More on Zandria when we get it. Catherine, thank you. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLY: Chris Stirewalt is back with more on the Hillary emails.  Chris?

STIREWALT: Well, we got about 1,000 to go here. But in round one, David Axelrod clean up on aisle 5. He said he didn't know about the server, he e-mailed the server. That's not good.

KELLY: Interesting, more on that tomorrow. Chris, great to see you, follow me on Twitter, @Megynkelly, let me know what you think.   

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.