Undocumented journalist on being inside SCOTUS for hearing
Supreme Court hears arguments on president's immigration plan; Jose Antonio Vargas explains what the hearing means to him on 'The Kelly File'
This is a rush transcript from "The Kelly File," April 18, 2016. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Breaking tonight, Mr. Obama's legacy is on the line along with the future for millions who are living in the United States illegally as the divided Supreme Court now wrestles with immigration and the power of the President of the United States.
Welcome to "The Kelly File," everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. There is new fall out today from an historic day that the United States Supreme Court in a case that offers the justices a chance to define the power of the presidency. The eight justices heard arguments today from lawyers for some 26 states and the House of Representatives who say President Obama effectively trampled on the constitution when he issued his executive action on U.S. immigration policies. With the stakes running high thousands of protesters on both sides of the argument descended on the hearings today.
(PROTESTERS CHANTING)
Despite the fact that more than half of the states in the nation are arguing against them, we have confirmed that there was a large contingent of illegal immigrants both outside and inside of today's hearings. We'll hear from one of those protesters Jose Antonio Vargas who was inside the high court today in just moments. Before Judge Andrew Napolitano explains why he thinks the administration and some of the more liberal justices were trying to lead the court's chief justice into a trap.
But first Shannon Bream explains exactly what went down today. Shannon.
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Megyn, the court does appears split after top arguments today over whether the President overstepped his constitutional boundaries when he announced programs that essentially blocked the deportation of roughly four million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Thousands packed the streets in the plaza outside the court today. The two sides sometimes escalating into shouting matches. One side of course arguing the President acted because Congress wouldn't, while the other side says, that have no bearing on whether any president is allowed to step outside his or her enumerative powers.
Inside, the Justices pushed both sides with tough questions and the man who is often the swing vote justice, Kennedy expressed criticism about the way this all played out saying, quote, The briefs go on for pages to the effect that the President had admitted a certain number of people and then Congress approves it, that seems to me to have it backwards. It's as if the President is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it. That's just upside."
Supporters of the President's actions say they are backed by both authority and necessity. The Congress has given the President the discretion to set priorities for who goes and who stays and noting the discrepancy between the numbers of those here illegally and actual the funding provided for deportations. Today Justice Ginsberg say, quote, "Inevitably priorities have to be set." And with eight justices we are once again facing the possibility of a tie. If that happens of course, the lower court ruling remains in place and in this case the lower court put the President's programs on hold so supporters of them have to hope they convinced at least five justices today -- Megyn.
KELLY: Shannon, thank you.
BREAM: Well, as we mentioned a number of undocumented individuals were both protesting and attending today's hearing, including our next guest.
Jose Antonio Vargas. But Jose was not alone. He was joined by a six-year- old girl Sophie Cruz who has become a symbol for this issue after asking Pope Francis to make sure her parents were not deported during his recent visit to Washington. Jose Antonio Vargas is editor of #EmergingUS and founder of DefyingAmerican.com.
Great to see you, Jose. Thank you for being here.
JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS, EDITOR, #EMERGINGUS: Thank you so much for having me.
KELLY: So, you actually said that this was one of your proudest moments as an aspiring American today. Explain that.
VARGAS: Well, I have to say, you know, my mother sent me here when I was 12. Can you imagine a mom putting her son a plane and say, I'll see you later, a better future, you know, is in the U.S. and not in the Philippines. My mom made a tremendous sacrifice to do that. Right? That was almost 23 years ago. So to think that that 12-year-old kid was inside the Supreme Court courtroom today it still kind of bogles my mind. I have to say it's probably the greatest honor of my life here in America was being inside that court and hearing the justices really debate this with a kind of intellectual rigor that is missing from the conversation about immigration from Donald Trump and Ted Cruz for example.
And I was seated next to Sophie Cruz, the whole time, six-year-old girl. Both of her parents are undocumented. She's a U.S. citizen. She's a U.S. citizen. And if this executive action doesn't go through, what's going to happen to her parents. And if they get deported, the parents get deported, what happens to this six-year-old girl. You know, it's really interesting actually because we were talking, we were there for like two hours and so she was starting to write the names of the justices on her little notepad and she said to me, so how many votes do we need? And I said well, we don't want it to be a tie. So like a five, you know?
KELLY: It can't be a tie.
VARGAS: It can't be a tie.
KELLY: Yes. It can't be a tie for your side. I want to ask you Jose because you know what the argument is in part on the other side which is, without borders we don't have a country.
VARGAS: I get that, absolutely.
KELLY: And the second piece of it is, what about all of those people who want to come and live in America who have waited, quote, in line, who didn't break the laws and want to do it right. Are they getting the short end if this executive action goes through?
VARGAS: So, let's answer both of those points. One, absolutely a country has a right to define and defend its borders. Right? I respect that and I respect it so much that I outed myself as undocumented and said, okay, I'm here. I've been here since I was 12. What do you want to do with me? Well Congress hasn't figured out what it wants to do with us. President Obama has deported more than 2.5 million of us. So then, what? What do we do? And absolutely I respect anybody who is waiting in line to come here legally. I would be more than happy to wait in line. You want me to wait 15 years, 20 years to be an American, absolutely I'll wait, but there has to be a process and right now there's no process.
KELLY: Fascinating Jose. Thank you for being with us tonight.
VARGAS: Thank you for having me.
KELLY: Joining me now with more is Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, author of the "The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty." Judge, good to see you.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Likewise Megyn.
KELLY: You know, he's right about sitting in that U.S. Supreme Court which I did for three years covering a high court.
NAPOLITANO: Right.
KELLY: You know, I practiced law and I know obviously you're a judge. Let's start on a good point which is, the amazing process by which we decide certain things in this country and the dignity with which we have shout our disputes compared to other counties that we see.
NAPOLITANO: Well, Jose saw today an extremely dignified oral argument. Whatever side of this you're on. The eight members of the Supreme Court devour the legal briefs and come in there fully equipped with the exception of Justice Thomas who prefers not to ask questions. They come in there fully equipped to challenge the lawyers and by the manner in which they challenged the lawyers, they are challenging the other members of the court.
KELLY: That's right. They're trying to convince the other justices. Question. Why do you think some were trying to set a trap for the chief justice?
NAPOLITANO: There really were two oral arguments today. I mean, there was one, but there were two parts to it. In the first part it was very much four against four. The four conservatives who I think were prepared to vote that the President doesn't have the authority to do this, no matter how it tugs at the heart strings. Jose's story is a very, very sympathetic one. He is a unique individual. He's more American than he is Filipino if I can say that, having spent most of his life here.
And the court liberal justice is saying the president did the right thing. He has the authority and Congress has given him the authority. Then Justice Kagan said to the solicitor general --
KELLY: That's an Obama appointee.
NAPOLITANO: And the government's lawyer, is there a way we could salvage the President's executive orders by tweaking some language here and there. And she said that knowing that the Chief Justice likes questions like that. He likes being creative and he likes to be able to salvage things and he went along with it forgetting. This is not a statute. This is not a law written by Congress that is presumed constitutional. This is the President making up a law. It is presumed unconstitutional. It is not their job to try and salvage it.
KELLY: We might wind up with a law -- something that has the effective law that Congress has never approved that the President drafted it that the United States Supreme Court tweaked.
NAPOLITANO: Because John Robert thinks it's the right thing to try and salvage this.
KELLY: If you tell me it seemed to me that they were divided on the issue of whether the President had the power to do this.
NAPOLITANO: Yes.
KELLY: And if they're divided four to four then Texas and the 26 states win because they went in with a win and the President's executive action would fail.
NAPOLITANO: Right.
KELLY: But they seem to be finding a way to get out of this on a technicality to say, you know what, you states, you don't have a standing to be here. Do you think it's likely they're going to kick these things out by saying, we can't even hear this because you plaintiffs don't have a right to be here? And if so, what happens?
NAPOLITANO: I don't think that's going to happen because the chief justice himself said, you obviously have standing. You're being forced to get driver's licenses and spend money for people that you haven't budgeted, that's enough harm to give the standing. The right to sue standing. That's the constitution require.
KELLY: He needs more than himself to reach that conclusion.
NAPOLITANO: I think it's four to four on whether the President exceeded his authority and it's four to four on whether they're standing. The question is as the chief justice, do some cockamamie thing, like he did with the Affordable Care Act in order to try and save this. If he does not and it stays at four to four, then this thing dies.
KELLY: If Texas wins and the White House loses.
NAPOLITANO: Right. If Texas loses and the White House wins, the President will have a field day as to what he can do in the next eight months remaining of his term.
KELLY: The Attorney General of Texas told me on Friday that if Texas loses this case and President Obama wins, it will go back down to Texas for a trial. So, he thinks it will be another bite at the apple but I guess it depends on exactly what they say.
Always a pleasure, sir.
NAPOLITANO: Thank you.
KELLY: And while patriotic moment there thinking about the U.S. Supreme Court, it really is something everybody should do in the course of their lifetime, go in there and sit and listen to an argument. You will be proud of the way our system works. It's got a little kinks here and there in the system, but overall we're doing all right there.
Well, with only a little more than eight hours from the first polls opening here in New York state, early indications suggests it could be a very good night for Donald Trump. But there's a bigger issues for Republicans on the horizon and we'll tackle that when Rudy Giuliani joins us, next.
Plus, we're going to detail why Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have now split with President Obama over who may really be responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks. Dr. Sebastian Gorka is here with his take on the President. And Marc Thiessen is here on the politics.
And then a 19-year-old girl named Leslie Van Houten helped Charles Manson slaughter innocent people in a crime so horrifying. It is still making headlines almost 50 years later. Now she may go free. The sister of Manson's victim Sharon Tate is here tonight to detail why she thinks this woman could kill again. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Four of the Manson maniacs drove up secluded -- drive in old Ford. One of them takes Watson got out and he climbed the telephone pole, he severed the wires. Already it started to sound like a horror movie. They climbed over this embankment and swarmed into the Tate household with commando like position and proceeded to rewrite criminal history in blood.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KELLY: Breaking tonight with a little more than eight hours now until the polls open here in New York, Donald Trump looking to hold on to his home state and earn at a minimum a majority of the 95 delegates at stake. Right now his odds look very good. The latest Real Clear politics average shows Trump with a commanding lead over Ted Cruz and John Kasich. You can see Cruz coming in third according to those polls in this state, but that's just part of the story of tonight's big political action. In moments we'll be joined by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. We will ask him about his decision to support Donald Trump.
But we begin with our chief political correspondent, campaign Carl Cameron reporting from Buffalo in New York where Trump just wrapped up a rally. Carl?
CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And it was a ruckus one Megyn. Good evening. We're here at the First Niagara Center, home of the Buffalo Sabres, the NHL team here. And Mr. Trump put in over 11,000 people in a capacity of a 19,000 arena and it was a very ruckus rally. He has a good reason to be excited. He's looking for a sweep or the vast majority of the 95 delegates up for grabs in New York primary tomorrow night.
To do that, he'll have to get a majority statewide and then a majority in each of the state's Congressional districts. If he falls short of a majority, less than 50 percent, then they would become proportional and that would be a significant setback for Trump, but his goal is to get about 80 delegates. And they're very confident of that. And this evening, he gave Ted Cruz a big slap down. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Here's the man that turned down Sandy money for this state and plenty of other money. We had lots of things coming into New York and he voted against. No New Yorker can vote for Ted Cruz.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMERON: The latest polls from the NBC Wall Street Journal shows now that Trump has crested 50 percent in New York and has more support in that poll than both Cruz and Kasich combined. Cruz was holding nothing back today. He's been arguing for several months now that this is likely to go to a contested convention and he said today that there will be a battle in Cleveland signaling that he intends to fight all the way there. As for John Kasich, Trump gave him a bit of a whack to today saying, he's only won one of the 34 contests thus far.
And yet, Kasich says, he's going all the way to the convention too. His argument Megyn is that regardless of the delegates by the time the Republican Party gets to Cleveland for that convention in July, they'll recognize that Cruz and Trump are not the candidates to go up against Hillary Clinton and that Kasich who has been both a governor in Congress -- congressman is -- Megyn.
KELLY: Thank you.
Heading into New York, Donald Trump is enjoying a substantial lead in the overall delegate count. Nearly 200 ahead of Texas Senator Ted Cruz leaving Ohio Governor John Kasich way behind. But when it comes to securing the delegates he will need, if there's actually a contested convention and it goes to that second ballot, that is a different story.
Tom Bevan is the co-founder and publisher of one of the greatest website online RealClearPolitics.com my favorite.
Great to see you, Tom. Thank you for being here. So, I'll put it to you this way. Bucks (ph) has a piece out today that says, Trump is great at winning primaries, but bad when it comes to securing delegates needed in case of a contested convention. I mean, does that about sum it up?
TOM BEVAN, REAL CLEAR POLITICS PUBLISHER: It does. You know, I like to think it this way, Megyn. Trump is playing big ball. Right? He's trying to win votes, he's trying to win states and he's trying to accrue the delegates that are supposed to come with that. Cruz is playing small ball. Right? He is working these individual states, this sort of arcane process by which the delegates are actually selected and he's doing a pretty good job of putting his people in those positions so that when they get to Cleveland in July, even though Trump will have a lead in the overall delegate count of which of those folks are bound on the first ballot, Trump may actually have more folks who are loyal to him as delegates and that's what he hopes he can do if he goes to a second ballot.
KELLY: Cruz may have more folks who are loyal to him you're saying.
BEVAN: Yes, I'm sorry. Cruz may have more folks.
KELLY: Cruz's strategy is basically death by a thousand cuts to Trump. Like he can't knock him out with some big win certainly in New York. He's not going to knock him out with some big win in California according to the polls. You know, be proportional in wording of the delegates. So it's little bits here, there and everywhere.
BEVAN: Yes. But I mean, look, this is how it's done. This is Cruz's argument. These are the rules and everybody knows the rules and he's simply playing by them. And he does have a point. And that's how he's going to -- I mean, that's his only chance. He's mathematically eliminated from winning getting to 1,237 now at this point, especially after tomorrow night and so, this is his only hope is to get to a contested convention, get to an open convention and Trump is really I think most people think, Megyn he's one and done. If he doesn't win on the first ballot, it's highly unlikely that he's going to --
KELLY: And what are his odds now of getting Trump to 1,237, given how well he's likely to do in New York, of course it's a question of Indiana where Trump is expected to do well and then California where Trump is leading but Cruz is expected to do all right?
BEVAN: I mean, I think he's still, you know, he's still got a chance. It's slimmer than it was before because of the way some of these states Colorado played out in Wyoming. But it depends on, you know, tomorrow night if he does better than 80 delegates, if he gets 90-95, he does it full sweep, and what he does in the next two weeks in the northeast, he'll be in a good position. He won't have to kill it in California. If he doesn't do that well and if he loses in Indiana, he's going to be very, very tough. He would have to win almost every delegate in California and that seems unlikely.
KELLY: Tom, thank you.
BEVAN: You bet.
KELLY: It's crazy. Right?
Joining us now, Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City and a man who ran for president himself back in 2008. We were just talking about who would have thought New York City would be relevant.
RUDY GIULIANI, R-FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Who would have thought we would be coming down to New York and ultimately maybe even California.
KELLY: Right. You heard me on that say, the magic number for Trump is likely over 80 delegates in New York.
GIULIANI: Right.
KELLY: Do you think he'll make it?
GIULIANI: I think he'll go over 80.
KELLY: Okay.
GIULIANI: The 53-55 seems very solid to me. It's more of a question of how many of the Congressional districts go over 50. He's probably going do it in most. So, he's going to probably come out of New York with somewhere between 80 and 90 delegates.
KELLY: And how do you like his chances of getting 1,237 by June 7th which is last day of voting.
GIULIANI: I mean, they exist. I mean, they don't exist for Cruz. They don't exist for Kasich. The only person they exist for is Trump.
KELLY: Uh-hm.
GIULIANI: And the one thing is for sure. Trump is going to go in with a big lead.
KELLY: And with more votes. Yes, go ahead. Sorry.
GIULIANI: So the Cruz legal argument is correct. Those are the rules, I'm playing by the rules, I'm making deals behind the scenes. That's all fine. The political argument is very bad however.
KELLY: Uh-hm.
GIULIANI: We have a Republican electorate that is angry at Washington for deal making and angry at the elite and now we're going to reject the will of almost the majority of the Republican voters.
KELLY: Uh-hm.
GIULIANI: Man, that's tough.
KELLY: It slice it for the Republicans any way you slice it at this point, right? Given how divided they remain this late in the process.
GIULIANI: It is. It's not good, but I mean the reality is, if you look at the polls, 67 percent of the Republicans believe the person with the most votes should be the nominee.
KELLY: Yes. Right. Sixty four percent I think according to the Bloomberg poll.
GIULIANI: Which is called democracy. The other is a game playing. The other is the way we used to do it in --
KELLY: It's holding up the rule book.
GIULIANI: Yes. The 19th Century, you know, we sit back there with the cigars and we figure out who gets this and who gets that and who gets what position, who gets the other position. Having nominated presidents through primaries through most of the adult lives of the people of America, this is going to be seem very strange.
KELLY: Right. We're not used to this.
GIULIANI: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
KELLY: If some guy who was ahead by 300 votes loses to someone who is behind him by 300 votes and a bunch of people that nobody ever met picked that guy.
KELLY: You have -- you say you're going to vote for Donald Trump.
GIULIANI: Tomorrow morning I'll wake up early, I'm going to go vote for Donald. I've urged all my friends to vote for him. I think of the three candidates we have left in the Republican primary he's the best candidate. And I think he is by far the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton which is my major objective. If I thought Cruz had a better chance of beating Hillary Clinton, I would support Cruz. And I'll tell you why, I think Cruz is a fast ball that the Democrats have hit out of the park whenever they want. Straight, right wing, very doctrinaire, very easy to beat, can't win any of the northeast, can't win the west. Trump is a Mariano Rivera catch baseball.
KELLY: I know. He's a closer. He's a closer.
(LAUGHTER)
GIULIANI: No, no, no. He's unexpected. Hillary doesn't have a rule book for running against Donald Trump.
KELLY: Right.
GIULIANI: Donald Trump. She's got one for running against Cruz. She's run against Cruz before.
KELLY: So, why not endorse him?
GIULIANI: Only because I'm not part of the campaign. I mean, I don't want anybody to think that I am an official on the campaign, I'm part of the campaign. I take orders from the campaign.
KELLY: Nobody thinks that.
GIULIANI: So, I support him.
KELLY: Okay. I mean, the New York Post endorse Donald Trump. I don't think he may think that the New York Post is part of the campaign.
GIULIANI: But I'm a political person. Whatever I endorse, I go make speeches, I'm part of the campaign.
KELLY: So, you're like, I don't want to travel.
GIULIANI: Yes.
KELLY: I want to go on "The Kelly File." That is what I'm going to do.
GIULIANI: If they make some of the changes, I would like, maybe.
KELLY: Oh!
GIULIANI: You know, if the campaign organization were, what I would like to see --
KELLY: Well, they're shoring it up now. I think they're shoring it up now.
GIULIANI: So, maybe. Maybe that will come. But there is no question I believe he is by far the best candidate. And if people want to interpret that as an endorsement, it is, but it doesn't require any obligation on my part to, to have to defend every single thing they do. Because there are some of the things they do like with you, like the statement about, the Mexicans, things that I don't agree with. You know, I worked for Ronald Reagan and I agreed with Ronald Reagan eight out of ten times.
KELLY: Uh-hm.
GIULIANI: And that was enough.
KELLY: Right.
GIULIANI: And I agree with Trump about eight of ten times. He's also been a friend for 25 years and I trust him.
KELLY: That counts for a lot. Great to see you Mr. Mayor.
GIULIANI: Thank you.
KELLY: Thanks for being here.
It was almost 50 years ago when Charlie Manson and his so-called family carried out one of the most horrifying crimes in American history. Now, one of the women who killed for Charlie may be about to go free. The sister of one of the Manson's victims, Sharon Tate, who was eight-and-a- half months pregnant when she was murdered is here tonight on her fight to keep them the Manson family and all of their associates behind bars.
Plus, President Obama is headed to Saudi Arabia this week as the fight ramps up over the secret part of the 9/11 report. And what it says about the Saudi Royal family. Marc Thiessen and Dr. Sebastian Gorka are here next on that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KELLY: Breaking tonight, tensions may be near a boiling point between the United States and Saudi Arabia just two days ahead of President Obama's trip to the kingdom as Democrats and Republicans alike push for the full release of the 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report that remained classified.
Charlie Rose of CBS News just asked President Obama what is in these pages tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE ROSE, CHARLIE ROSE SHOW HOST: Have you read it?
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: You know, I have a sense of what's in there. Jim Clapper, our director of National Intelligence, has been going through to make sure that whatever it is that is released is not going to compromise some major national security interest to the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KELLY: Joining us now is Marc Thiessen, Fox News contributor and former chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush, and Dr. Sebastian Gorka, he is the major general colonel, distinguished chair of the Marine Corps University and the author of the brand new book "Defeating Jihad, the Winnable War."
Great to see you both.
MARC THIESSEN, FORMER GEORGE W. BUSH SPEECHWRITER: Good to see you, Megyn.
KELLY: Dr. Gorka, let me start with you on this. Do you -- what is your take because in some circles it's very controversial about whether these 28 pages should be declassified. Is it a good idea or no?
SEBASTIAN GORKA, "DEFEATING JIHAD" AUTHOR: Look, when you've had, Megyn, both republican and democrat congressmen say that these pages should be released and congressmen who have actually read those pages, I think the argument of the administration is lost.
We need to know what was the exact involvement. There are lots of stories floating around of Saudi embassy officials assisting some of the hijackers, at least two of them located in San Diego. We need to know that and there needs to be justice for the victims of 9/11, and I think after 15 years now could be the time to declassify these 28 pages.
KELLY: Marc, if what's the pages suggests that the Saudi government or top officials in some way were behind 9/11 or had a substantial role in 9/11, don't we need to know that or is that something it doesn't serve us to know?
THIESSEN: Well, I think it does serve us to know the details of it to the extent that it doesn't compromise sources and method that hurt our national security. Two administrations both the Bush and the Obama administration decided it would hurt the national security.
I haven't seen the 28 pages and neither has Dr. Gorka, so we don't know what's in them exactly. But we already know that Saudi Arabia was turning a blind eye to terror and was even in some ways complicit in terror. I mean, Saudi Arabia was one of three countries on the face of the earth that recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that was harboring Al Qaeda.
In 2003, Vice President Cheney gave a speech. Now I'll read what he said. "In Saudi Arabia, fundraisers and facilitators were providing money and logistical support to Al Qaeda." So, these are things that we already know. We don't know all the details, but President Bush, what he did was he made an ultimatum to the world.
He said you are either with us or you're with the terrorist and he gave the choice to countries like Saudi Arabia and they chose to be with us. And they are now a very important counterterrorism -- counterterrorism part and before 9/11 they were helping, absolutely.
KELLY: So, I mean, what is the takeaway on that, Dr. Gorka, that they did help, they participated in the 9/11 attacks, but they came over to the lightness after 9/11 and now what are we supposed to do?
GORKA: Look, the reality is Saudi Arabia like Pakistan is a fundamentally schizophrenic nation. We know that they cut a deal with the Jihadists in 1979 after the siege of Mecca. We know that elements of the regime have been supporting or funding Jihadi organization around the world. That doesn't...
(CROSSTALK)
KELLY: But we need them still. We need the Saudis.
GORKA: Right. But that doesn't mean as a government they're all bad guys. They're just conflicted and they're schizophrenic. And they need to get their house in order and decide whether they can clean internally their house and make sure they're on our side against to these Jihadists. They've been kind of half pregnant for the last 15 years, Megyn.
KELLY: So, it's like dealing with "Sybil." Do you remember "Sybil" the movie where she know the personalities in Cyrus so like the bad and then the good.
GORKA: Exactly:
KELLY: And we don't know which one we're getting, but we've decided that we need to sort of pretend that it's all good...
GORKA: Right.
KELLY: ... because they can provide some benefit to us. But, Marc, I ask you, you know, what -- did we -- are we gaining something at this point by keeping the 28 pages secret when Bob Graham, you know, of the 9/11 commission is saying release the pages that this classification stuff is nonsense that the American public has a right to know who was behind the attacks and there's no reason to continue protecting them.
THIESSEN: Well, I think that's probably true. Again, as long as it doesn't compromise sources and methods. And Bob Graham has seen the documents so he has -- so he knows better than either of us as to what's in it and whether it would compromise sources and methods.
But there are other people in senior positions who disagree. I can't make a judgment on that based on having not seen the documents, but we do know that the 9/11 commission found that the Saudi government as an institution and senior officials did not participate in the 9/11 attack. The question is whether -- whether...
(CROSSTALK)
KELLY: But that was worded very carefully.
THIESSEN: Yes, I know. But that's the question.
KELLY: Very carefully. You could drive a truck through that statement.
THIESSEN: So, the question is, were there people -- were there princes, were there people, you have a Saudi king who has dozens of wives and dozens of sons and dozens of grandchildren who are member of the Saudi royal family, were there people who were officials who did help not as a matter of government policy but as a matter of ideology help the 9/11 attacks. We do need to know that, absolutely.
KELLY: And so, Dr. Gorka, what's your take on where we should stand with Saudi Arabia because now some are pushing this bill that would allow the 9/11 family members to sue the Saudis and the Saudis are making all sorts of threats against us if we do that that they are going to pull all of their assets out of here, they are going to hurt the United States financially. So, I'm looking for the number here, it's a substantial sum. I don't have it right in front of me, but what do you make of their reaction?
GORKA: Seven -- $750 billion.
KELLY: There you go.
GORKA: They are threatening to sell $750 billion of U.S. assets. That's just a smoke screen never going to happen. That regime can't survive without us militarily and economically. And I'd like to emphasize what you said previously, Megyn. The wording of the 9/11 commission report is incredibly precise. The Saudi government as an institution and high ranking members of the government were not responsible for 9/11. That is very, very telling wording.
KELLY: I mean, as a lawyer it's like...
GORKA: As a lawyer you know it.
KELLY: That's on the nose. They could have done better. We get it.
GORKA: Right.
KELLY: All right, guys. Good discussion. Thank you both.
THIESSEN: Thank you, Megyn.
GORKA: Thank, Megyn.
KELLY: Well, the secretary of the treasury has just reneged on a major promise he made to America. I mean, at 180, and it may not sit well with at least half of the country. We'll show you why.
Plus, she was a promise queen before she became a follower of Charles Manson and went on a murder spree that shocked the nation. Now she may go free and the sister of a Manson family victim joins us next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LESLIE VAN HOUTEN, CHARLES MANSON MEMBER: I make no excuse for what I have done. My actions August 10, 1969 were contemptible and they were without justification.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KELLY: Developing tonight, outrage from the families of Charles Manson's victims as one infamous cult member could soon walk free. Leslie Louise Van Houten was 19 years old in the summer of 1969. That's her on the right smiling before her conviction in two horrifying slaughters, a Swastika she willingly carve into her own forehead visible.
This is Leslie today, 66 years old now and deemed eligible for parole.
Joining us tonight in a cable news exclusive, Deborah Tate, sister of the late actress Sharon Tate who was one of Mason's victims. But we begin with Trace Gallagher in Los Angeles with the latest.
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Megyn, supporters of Leslie Van Houten say that the time she murdered La Bianca in 1969 she was a misguided teen under the influence of LSD and the victim of Charles Manson mind control.
Her attorney says her release is long overdue and the state parole board cites her 46 years in prison without a serious rule violation. Van Houten has said she is remorseful and deeply ashamed. Here she is during a 2010 hearing. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VAN HOUTEN: I make no excuse for what I have done. My actions August 10, 1969 were contemptible and were without justification.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: But the Los Angeles County district attorney and several LaBianca family members and many others are trying to block her release reminding the public that van Houten was among the so-called Manson family members who invaded the home of Lino and Rosemary LaBianca and fully participated in the gruesome double murder.
During her 1971 trial, Van Houten spoke in chilling detail saying she held down Rosemarie LaBianca as her husband was being stabbed to death, and then testified how she and Patricia Krenwinkel finished the job quoting here, "And I took one of the knives and Patricia had one knife and we started stabbing and cutting up the lady."
Van Houten alone stabbed Rosemary LaBiancca 14 times. Now LaBianca's stepdaughter says quote, "My father will never be paroled. My stepmother will never get her life back." Van Houten release still needs the approval of state parole board lawyers and Governor Jerry Brown. Last year, Brown refused to sign the release for another Manson family member. Megyn?
KELLY: Trace, thank you.
Joining us now in a cable news exclusive, Deborah Tate who was in this parole board hearing that lead to the recommendation that Van Houten be deemed eligible for parole. Thank you so much for being here, Deb.
DEBORAH TATE, SHARON TATE'S SISTER. Thank you.
KELLY: So, your sister Sharon was brutally murdered by Manson and his so- called family and this woman who is now facing the likelihood of parole was also convicted of conspiring in that murder in addition to the double murder that she participated and we just discussed here.
TATE: Absolutely correct.
KELLY: You were in the hearing. How did they get to the point where they felt she should be paroled?
TATE: She has a master's degree. She's very well educated. She's used the rehabilitation program to its very best. In that way she looked great on paper. I'm not so sure that anybody that's capable of doing things like that, that is plunging a knife deep into someone's body 14 times, can ever be rehabilitated from that.
There's a mean and dark and ugly side and mind you, she did that after knowing full well what the carnage was the night before at my sister's house.
KELLY: Because they happened one day after the other.
TATE: Correct.
KELLY: And she admitted she put a pillow over her victim's face that she wrapped around a lamp cord and that she heard the guttural murder of...
TATE: Absolutely.
KELLY: ... the husband in the other room and then she went ahead and plunged the knife into her victim herself. However, you know her defense now which is I don't offer any excuses. I'm deeply ashamed. She said she was under the control of this madman and that she had never committed a violent crime ever before that moment.
TATE: I'm not sure I buy the under the influence of a madman. There were many Manson family members that chose not to participate in murder creepy crawlies that was the act of going into people's homes in the middle of the night. There were people that chose to leave the Manson family when things started turning to the dark violent classes teaching, the various family members how to use the knife in the correct way to take's somebody's life.
If she wanted to go, she could have gone. This is an upper middle class young woman who graduated and had a good set of skills that she could have started a life with and her father provided a great life.
KELLY: She says of course, she was on LSD and now they seem to be focused on her model behavior as a prisoner that she's gotten a bachelor's and master's and she's educated other women in the prison with self-help programs and they basically say that, you know, they are buying her contrition and that she would pose no danger to the public.
TATE: What else could someone do except use their time to the best of their ability to help plead for their freedom. That's exactly what the system is designed for.
KELLY: Do you think she's a danger or is this about punishment?
TATE: No, I absolutely believe in the bottom of my heart that this woman is fully capable of being a danger to society if not actively taking part in that active murder again, at least in the way that she influences young people's minds.
The Manson family have more followers today than they ever did through the internet. There's an organization called ATWA, which stand for airs, trees, water, and animals. So, young people join this organization thinking it's good, peace, love, just as it was in the 60s is the face of it, but underneath there's an agenda and that agency is race war.
KELLY: Which was Charlie Manson's goal.
TATE: Absolutely.
KELLY: I know you're petitioning Governor Brown to reject this parole. He did it as Trace outlined last year with another Manson associate. What do you feel your odds are given that he's already rejected parole in another Manson case? Do you think that makes it more or less likely in this case.
TATE: I'm hoping and praying that he does the same thing and rejects, however, I would like to implore the public go to no parole for Manson family.com and sign the petition to let the politicians know how we feel.
KELLY: Deborah, it's great to you. Thank you for being here.
TATE: Thank you.
KELLY: And I asked her to walk me through how she first found out about her sister's gruesome murder and where it went from there and she did so in a chilling exchange. We've posted that at facebook.com/thekellyfile. You can see that beginning now.
And up next, James Rosen joins us and how the Secretary of the Treasury just reneged on a major promise and why a lot of women and some men may be unhappy about it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KELLY: Well, a campaign to put a woman on U.S. paper currency has been in the works for some time. Previously, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew made it sound like the $10 bill would be the first to get a makeover. But now it seems like the hip hop Broadway musical "Hamilton" has influenced the secretary in ways no one could have expected.
Chief Washington correspondent James Rosen has more. Hey, James.
JAMES ROSEN, FOX NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Megyn, good evening. Not since President Obama declined to enforce his red line in Syria has an American public official so visibly reneged on a so highly publicized a promise as the treasury secretary has done in this case.
Jack Lew said last June that the $10 bill would be redesigned to include the portrait of a woman, alongside that of Alexander Hamilton, the founder of the New York Post who is better known to some as the genius architect of our nation's financial system.
But all that was before millions of people protested and before the Broadway musical "Hamilton" of re-telling of the founding father's story in hip hop idioms had demonstrated its Box Office appeal and critical acclaim indeed.
Just today, the play was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for drama. Now publish reports say Treasury is abandoning Lew's promise to have a woman share space with Hamilton on the $10. Instead, the plan calls for the back of a $10 bill to feature a panorama of dynamic women throughout history, a move that swiftly triggered comparisons to the demand of Rosa Parks seat at the back of the bus in Montgomery, Alabama, during the Civil Rights era.
As well, Treasury is said to be looking to evict Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States from the front of the $20 bill in favor of a woman yet to be named. As all along, the front-runners in this female race for immortalization on our currency are Rosa Parks, the Civil Rights icon who died in 2005, Susan B. Anthony, the suffragist whose image appeared on the dollar coin first minted in 1979.
And Eleanor Roosevelt, the First Lady who, following her husband's death championed human rights and left us causes. Even if announced later this week as expected these moves will take years to enact with the redesigned $10 bill to debut in 2020. The new $20 sometime thereafter, Megyn.
KELLY: So, in 2020, we're going to have some $10 bills with Alexander Hamilton on the front and some woman yet to be named on the back, a collection of women they said will be on the back.
ROSEN: Right.
KELLY: And so, we will celebrate the 100th year anniversary of women's suffrage with a bunch of women on the back of one bill.
ROSEN: Yes, you know, it's bad enough, Megyn, when our leaders cave into political pressure but it's downright contemptible when our leaders cave into Broadway pressure. I mean, "Jesus Christ Superstar" you can almost see tipping the scales of justice here, the invisible jazz hands of the elites.
KELLY: Where could this go next? You know, this little 9-year-old girl Sophia started this movement. She wrote, "I think putting women on the back of the bill would make women seem less important. You think?" Great to see you, James. Always a pleasure.
ROSEN: Likewise. Thank you, Megyn.
KELLY: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KELLY: Tomorrow night, continue on "The Kelly File" right here for the complete coverage of the battle for New York. We'll be live as the polls close here in the Empire State and we'll have live reports and complete coverage from Brit Hume, Stewart Stevens, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman- Schultz. That ought to be interesting. It was the last time. See you then.
Content and Programming Copyright 2016 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2016 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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox