Clinton emails show charity asking favors of State Dept.

'Clinton Cash' author Peter Schweizer weighs in on 'The Kelly File'


This is a rush transcript from "The Kelly File," August 10, 2016. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SANDRA SMITH, GUEST HOST: Breaking tonight, the focus back on Hillary Clinton's multi-billion family charity reigniting lingering questions over blurred lined between the Clintons' public service and their own personal gain.

Welcome to "The Kelly File," I'm Sandra Smith, in for Megyn Kelly tonight.  First, unconfirmed new reports, the Obama Justice Department may have spiked an FBI request to investigate the Clinton Foundation. Fox News is digging on this, but so far, the DOJ will neither confirm nor deny this report. Also tonight, a conservative watchdog group forcing the release of dozens of previously unseen e-mails from former Secretary of State Clinton's private server.

These e-mails were not included among the 30,000 already made public. The messages show conversations between a top executive at the Clinton family charity and Clinton's closest aides at the State Department. Including an urgent appeal to help a controversial foreign businessman, and a request to find a job for a mystery person whose name is being kept secret. Then, just hours ago, as we have seen repeatedly during her run for the White House, Mrs. Clinton's missteps forcing the Obama administration to handle the fallout. This time, at a contentious State Department briefing.  Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you tell us why the State Department redacted that name? And whether or not this person wound up getting a job or not?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay, well, I can't speak to a specific case, cases.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I need a little help understanding why this person's name cannot be shared.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't speak to specific cases.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would it be wrong to assume that, then, that this is, you know, a case simply of nepotism or something like that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't speak to specific cases. Justin.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don't feel like there was impropriety in the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We talked to a wide range of people at my level, at various levels.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has the department looked into this and determined that there was no impropriety?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The department is regularly in touch with people across the whole spectrum.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's not the question. Am I not speaking English?  The question is whether or not you have determined that there was nothing improper here?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We feel confident that all of the rules were followed.


SMITH: In moments, we will be joined by the man who quite literally wrote the book on the Clinton Foundation, Peter Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute and author of the "New York Times" bestseller "Clinton Cash."

But first, Trace Gallagher has the latest developments on this. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Sandra, when she was appointed secretary of state in 2009, Hillary Clinton took a pledge to remove herself from any Clinton Foundation business. But these e-mails raise serious questions about whether the foundation and State Department were instead working hand in hand, providing jobs for associates and favors to big donors. For example, in 2009, dug bend, a long-time adviser to Bill Clinton and the former head of the Clinton Global Initiative e-mailed Secretary Clinton's senior aides, Huma Abedin and Sheryl Mills asking for a, quote, "favor." Because an unnamed associate needed a job.

Ben writes, quoting, "It's important to take care of blank." Abedin responds, quote, "We all have him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options." Today, the State Department refused to identify the person or say if they got hired. But days later, Doug Band e-mails Abedin and Mills again, requesting that a big-time Clinton Foundation donor be put in contact with the American ambassador to Lebanon, quoting again, "We need Gilbert Chagoury to speak to the substance person reference Lebanon."

Abedin assures Doug Band that she will speak with the ambassador. Records show Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian citizen of Lebanese descent donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and is known for his association with Nigeria's military dictator, but the Clinton campaign says, quote, "Neither of these e-mails involve the secretary or relate to the foundation's work. They are communications between her aides and the President's personal aide, and indeed, the recommendation was for one of the secretary's former staffers who was not employed by the foundation." Today, Donald Trump responded to the release of the new e- mails. Watch.


DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: A couple of very bad ones came out. And it's called pay for play. And some of these were really, really bad and illegal. If it's true, it's illegal. You're paying, and you're getting things.


GALLAGHER: And "Judicial Watch," the conservative watchdog that obtained these e-mails accuses Mrs. Clinton of hiding the documents because she knows they contradict her pledge, and show a conflict of interest -- Sandra.

SMITH: All right. Thanks, Trace. Here now, Peter Schweizer is the author of "Clinton Cash" which has now been adapted into a graphic novel. Peter, what did you learn by looking at these 44 new e-mails?

PETER SCHWEIZER, AUTHOR, "CLINTON CASH": Well, I think Judicial Watch did a great job of getting them released. And what it does is, it's further confirmation to what we have been talking about for more than a year. That there's been pay to play at the Clinton State Department related to the Clinton Foundation, and the Clintons have failed to deal with any of the substance of these issues. Heck, you know, Trace talked about the agreement that Hillary Clinton had when she went in to become secretary of state.

Part of that agreement was that they were supposed to disclose all donors to the Clinton Foundation. They still haven't done that. There's more than 1,100 foreign donors that we don't even know the names about. So, this is further confirmation and the noose is tightening.

SMITH: They put those 30,000 e-mails out there and said that's it, nothing else to see here. And here, it's 44 new e-mails that reveal a lot about what was going on at that time. Where is this going to go? Are we going to see more of these? Are there more e-mails where these came from?

SCHWEIZER: Yes. I know there are more e-mails. There are e-mails that are being produced almost on a weekly basis for both Judicial Watch and Citizens United. You have Julian Assange saying that we're probably going to see more e-mails. You know, look, here's the bottom-line. You saw a little bit of it today with the State Department, but the media has to hold Hillary Clinton accountable and ask her to answer these questions. Here's why this is so troubling. This is not a typical money in politics story.

We're used to Wall Street oil companies, et cetera, giving donations to politicians, getting access. But federal law prevents foreign businessmen and governments from doing so. The Clinton Foundation is a gateway around that. Gilbert Chagoury is a perfect example. He's getting access to the U.S. ambassador. He's not a U.S. citizen. He's not a U.S. businessman.  He's getting access because he gave money to the Clintons. And to have foreign oligarchs talking to our ambassadors about policy is simply not appropriate, and it's probably illegal if it was pay to play.

SMITH: But then the State Department, I mean, even going to the Clinton response on this, I mean, they're basically saying that Mr. Band, who was working as an aide to Bill Clinton at that time, was acting in his capacity as former President Bill Clinton's personal assistant. Not in his role overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative. I mean, they're going to have to defend this for some time if it actually stays in the news cycle, I should say.

SCHWEIZER: Yes. I mean, look, if you look at their statement, my first question was, how stupid do they think we are? You know, because Bill Clinton's top aide talks to Hillary Clinton's top aide. That's not the Secretary of State talking about Clinton Foundation business. So there's nothing to see here. Come on. This is how it works in Washington. This is the role that aides play. They're gate keepers.

Doug Band knows who is important to the Clintons. In this case, a Nigerian billionaire who has given them a lot of money, and Cheryl Mills, the chief of staff of the State Department knows that he is important to them as well. That's the role that aides play. Their response is a total non- sequitur and has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of this.

SMITH: And what about the State Department response, in addition to saying, hey, we talked to a wide range of people, but being asked, who was that associate who was looking for a job, a favor? What was their name?  Who are they? Why has that been deleted and why won't they comment on that, and if this person was ever given a job?

SCHWEIZER: That's a great question. And why is the State Department struggling and resisting on the release of other e-mails? I mean, look, you talk to Judicial Watch and Citizens United, the State Department is fighting tooth and nail to prevent any e-mails from coming out. Federal judges are forcing them to do this. The State Department's not doing the bidding of the American people. They're doing the bidding of the Clintons, and it has to stop, and God Bless these federal judges for forcing them to release this material.

SMITH: Well, Peter, you have always been in charge with your book of not having the smoking gun. You had the story and you had a lot of details.  Was this your smoking gun?

SCHWEIZER: Well, I never had access to the e-mails. Now that we're getting access to the e-mails, yes, the smoking guns are appearing and the pattern of evidence is overwhelming. And again, two things to point out.  Number one, the Clintons, no one at the Democratic National Convention ever mentioned the word Clinton Foundation. It's toxic. They're running away from it.

SMITH: And coincidentally, all 44 of these newly released e-mails had to do with the Clinton Foundation. All right. Thank you very much, sir.  Good to have you.

SCHWEIZER: Thank you.

SMITH: Here now, Richard Fowler, is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and senior fellow at the New Leaders Council.


SMITH: Richard, how will the Clinton campaign continue to defend this smoking gun, as Peter just labeled?

FOWLER: I don't think Peter has a smoking gun. I think, you know --

SMITH: He doesn't. The e-mails that were just released he said are.

FOWLER: No, and I don't think -- and Sandra, I don't think those e-mails are a smoking gun, either. They point to some causation, but causation doesn't equal correlation. Or correlation doesn't equal causation in this case at all. These are e-mails that are not from the secretary. They're from close aides to Secretary Clinton and close aides to Bill Clinton, who let me remind you, are married. Right? So, they communicate just like Michelle Obama aides communicate with the President's aides.

SMITH: I know that is going to be your talking point, that this didn't directly involve Hillary Clinton. I'm wondering, what are the optics of this? Whether it's unethical or illegal, just for you, what are the optics of these 44 e-mails that were just released?

FOWLER: I'll tell you what the optics are, the more and more people bring up these e-mail thing around Hillary Clinton, here's what happened. We have seen this over and over again. She testified for almost 12 hours on the hill about e-mails. I think Republicans for some reason think that this is the field go or this is their pot of gold, but I'm here to tell you there's no rainbow on this one.

When they keep focusing on e-mails and the American people are worried about jobs, they're worried about re-growing our economy, they're worried about their kids going back to school in a couple of weeks, they don't care about e-mails. And Donald Trump has not pointed to any real substance with his campaign. Anything he's going to do for the American people. He's a narcissistic maniac who continues to talk about --

SMITH: All right. So, Richard, let's get back to the story though. And that is that we are talking about these e-mails. And let's talk about these Lebanese businessman, let's talk about that he pledged a billion dollars as part of his commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. Let's talk about that he donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. And then he asks for a favor, Richard. What does that tell you?

FOWLER: He asked to be put in contact with the ambassador from his home country.

SMITH: Is that okay? Is that okay?

FOWLER: Here, listen. Anybody who has worked in politics say, if you have a friend in politics, you ask them to help you out on certain matters. And so, yes, if I'm trying to reach out to the ambassador to Jubodi (ph) and I have a friend who knows the ambassador to Jubodi (ph), I am going to ask them to reach out on my behalf. It happens all the time, Democrat, Republican, Independent. As Peter said before, members of Congress with corporations --

SMITH: Okay. So if it's just any old thing, how about the associate who asked for a job? How come he has deleted his name --

FOWLER: That also happens all the time. I mean, we saw it happen in the Bush administration when George Bush hired Dick Cheney's daughter to work for him. I mean, isn't that not the definition of nepotism?

SMITH: There's no problem here, then?

FOWLER: No, here's the thing. I think the e-mails overall are problematic, all of these emails. But I think Republicans are overplaying their hand. They'll keep doing it over and over again. They'll lose this election because of it. Talk about issues. Talk about how you close the gap for the American people. That's what they want to hear. They don't want to hear about e-mails. And Donald Trump knows it. He can continue talking about it, though, and he'll lose, and it will be funny and we'll laugh.

SMITH: I wish we could. Richard Fowler, thank you for joining us tonight.

FOWLER: Thanks, Sandra.

SMITH: There's also breaking news today in the leak of internal e-mails from the DNC, as we hear suggestions that former DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was mysteriously murdered back in July, may have been leaking or about to leak information to Julian Assange and Wikileaks, and while Assange says Wikileaks doesn't comment on its sources, his unprovoked comments about Rich's death are raising some serious questions, as the Clinton camp deals with yet another embarrassing e-mail headline.

Correspondent Rich Edson is live with us tonight from Washington. Hey, Rich.

RICH EDSON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Sandra. And the Wikileaks editor is coyly implying a young Democratic National Committee staffer shot and killed last month may have leaked information about the DNC and may have lost his life over it. Late last month, Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 pages of stolen DNC e-mails. The embarrassing content showed DNC favoritism to Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders and forced resignations including that of then chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Now, on Dutch Television, Julian Assange, Wikileaks editor unprompted, brought up the murder of Seth Rich, the 27-year-old worked for the DNC for two years before he was shot and killed around 4:00 a.m. July 10th in Washington, D.C. The Dutch anchor then asked Assange if Rich was one of Wikileaks' sources at the DNC. Assange said he refused to comment on any Wikileaks sources. The anchor followed by wondering why Assange would even raise Rich's case.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. And our sources are, you know, our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity.


EDSON: Wikileaks then announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Seth Rich's murder. Local reports claim police officials believe Rich's murder is the result of a botched robbery. In a statement, the Washington Metropolitan Police Department says, quote, "At this time, there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC." Assange critics say he's promoting a conspiracy theory. Back to you, Sandra.

SMITH: All right. Rich Edson, thank you.

Growing questions over a DOJ investigation into one U.S. police force, as the Department releases a scathing review of the Baltimore PD just two weeks after all charges were dropped against the officers accused in Freddie Gray's death.

Plus, Hillary Clinton fires off a sharp reaction to Donald Trump's Second Amendment comment.




And if you are running to be president or you are president of the United States, words can have tremendous consequences.


SMITH: Since words have consequences, we look back at a controversy causing remark. Hillary Clinton made back in 2008 and discusses whether the media is treating both incidents equally.

Howard Kurtz and Katie Pavlich join me on that.


SMITH: Breaking tonight. Continuing fallout from Donald Trump's off- handed remark linking gun rights to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. Earlier today, the controversy spilling onto to the campaign trail, where his Democratic opponent called the comments out of line.

For more on that, we turn to chief political correspondent Carl Cameron who is been following Mr. Trump and this story for us today. Hey, Carl.

CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Sandra. And Mr. Trump here in Sunrise, Florida, right now was talking about how Hillary Clinton will appoint liberal judges. And if Republicans, if American voters want strict constitutionalists and conservative jurists they should definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton, which is what started his remark yesterday that so many people took as offensive and Hillary Clinton herself suggested was over the line because he suggested that those who support the Second Amendment should mobilize. Of course, critics, Democrats particularly, said that that was some sort of a threat, and today on the campaign trail in Iowa, Hillary Clinton picked up on it. Listen to how she put her counterattack.


CLINTON: We witness the latest in a long line of casual comments from Donald Trump that crossed the line. His casual inciting of violence.  Every single one of these incidents shows us that Donald Trump simply does not have the temperament to be president and commander-in-chief of the United States.


CAMERON: Well, Trump keeps talking about potential for a pivot, said he's not going to change his ways. He's going to continue what he's been doing.  And just a little while ago in talking about this very controversy, he said that there may be something actually worse than Hillary Clinton, what he calls her crooked dishonesty, and he's referring to the media. Watch this.


TRUMP: I would actually say that the media is almost as crooked as crooked Hillary Clinton. I mean, look at the way they covered that story yesterday. Was that disgusting? Was that disgusting? And by the way, we have our Second Amendment. We need our Second Amendment protected.


CAMERON: Donald Trump clearly not backing down, and there was a report today from the media, CNN specifically, that said that the Trump campaign and the Secret Service have had a conversation about this, and that the Trump campaign had said that there was no intent to incite violence.  Donald Trump tweeted today, the Secret Service and the Donald Trump campaign have said no such conversation has happened. The only public statement the Secret Service has made about this, that they were aware of the remarks, not that they were investigating anything -- Sandra.

SMITH: All right. Carl, thank you.

Well, Donald Trump is standing by. His headline-making comments, but he's not the only presidential candidate facing criticism this week. The Clinton campaign also stumbling into controversy when it was revealed that the father of Orlando terror attack shooter Omar Mateen was in attendance at Mrs. Clinton's Florida rally. Now, a new report from the Media Research Center shows that coverage of the two mishaps was far from evenly split.  With Trump's Second Amendment comment drawing four times as much attention.

For more on that, I'm joined by Howie Kurtz, host of FOX News "MEDIA BUZZ," and Katie Pavlich, and FOX News contributor. Howie, what do you make of that? I mean, that image of seeing that Orlando nightclub shooter's father's face standing behind Clinton at that rally, and it got, what was it, just over a minute of coverage on the major networks on Tuesday night, versus seven and a half minutes to Trump's remarks. Was that fair?

HOWIE KURTZ, HOST, "MEDIA BUZZ": I really don't think the two stories are comparable. While certainly the media in the past have been guilty, the crooked media, as Donald Trump now calls them, of taking small Trump controversies and blowing them up into major firestorms. In this case, it is Trump's own words that created this controversy. I don't believe he was trying to incite violence against Hillary Clinton. But at the same time, even a generous interpretation would suggest that he said something many people, including some Republicans found inflammatory, raising questions about his discipline as a candidate. Now, I don't see how Hillary Clinton can be held responsible for the fact that at a public event attended by 3,000 people, this guy, the father of the Orlando massacre --

SMITH: They're not even talking about it though, Howard. I mean, Katie, I want to get you in here because I want to get to the core of Donald Trump's words and how you perceived them before we talk about the media coverage.  How did you perceive his remarks on the Second Amendment?

KATIE PAVLICH, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Right. Well, quickly I think it's important to point out that Omar Mateen's father actually has supported the Taliban in the past so that's a whole other issue. So, in terms of Donald Trump's comments, he was absolutely referring to Second Amendment voters going out and mobilizing against Hillary Clinton. And this is well documented within the NRA. The NRA has entire campaigns dedicated to moving voters to the polls. They have bumper stickers that say, I am the NRA and I vote.

And it is no surprise that the mainstream leftist media and Hillary Clinton herself would take a comment about Second Amendment people, as Trump said, and immediately think that he's referring to violence, because the media has portrayed Second Amendment supporters as violent and unhinged gun nuts for decades. Even though there's no evidence to support their claim.

SMITH: Well, it's amazing that the left is using a word like assassination attempt labeled in there.


SMITH: That being said, Hillary Clinton had one of these moments herself, Hillary's 2008 Bobby Kennedy, assassination remark, Howie, I know you have thoughts on this. Let's listen to that and talk about why that was different than now.


CLINTON: My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June. Right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just -- I don't understand it. And you know, there's lots of speculation about why it is.


SMITH: Okay, so Howie, Clinton did later apologize for those remarks. Did that make it different that time because the media quickly moved on?

KURTZ: Yes, I mean, there was, having covered this campaign, that campaign, there was a media furor over that rather dumb and insensitive remark, bringing up Bobby Kennedy's assassination, but it was her apology that stopped the fire from ranging more out of control. I do think the tsunami of coverage over Trump's remarks, whether you think that they were, you know, in any way he's suggesting implicitly violent or not, has affected and overshadowed one important story. And the story you led with.  The story about the e-mails, about the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton State Department, not so much this whack job of a father of a killer showed up uninvited at a public event.

SMITH: So, we do know that Donald Trump's campaign continues to go after the media, the Trump campaign statement issued yesterday. Katie, Trump campaign statement on dishonest media. So he is not letting go of this one.

PAVLICH: Well, and that's fine. And I will admit that I think Donald Trump has done himself a disservice by indignantly standing by all of his past statements that could be perceived as inciting violence, talking about protesters being taken out on a stretcher, talking about maybe shooting someone on Fifth Avenue and still having support. Those in the background does not help him with these comments. But again, this isn't about Trump and the Second Amendment. This is about the media and Democrats like Hillary Clinton equating Second Amendment people and supporters with violence, which is exactly why he's calling and the NRA is calling for people to go out to the polls and to vote against her on Election Day.

SMITH: They did, and took out a $3 million ad buy attacking Clinton as a hypocrite, calling her out of touch.

All right. Howie and Katie, good to have you both tonight. Thank you.

Up next, Donald Trump's path to victory this November is narrowing by the day, but are reports of his defeat premature? Rove, Perino, Stirewalt, the A-team, they are here on how the New York businessman can get to 270 electoral votes.

Plus, you may have been glued to the screen today as this 20-year-old used suction cups to climb Trump Tower in Manhattan. We'll show you the moment New York's finest got him down from there.

Plus, two women brutally murdered 200 miles and just one week apart. Is a serial killer targeting young women out for their daily jog? "The Kelly File" investigates.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The whole entire world knows what a pathetic, puny, weak piece of filth (bleep) that you are.  




WILLIAM AUBRY, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF DETECTIVE: At no time did that he express that he wanted to hurt anybody. His sole intention was to meet with Mr. Trump.


SMITH: All tight. That was top New York City Police Department detective William Aubry speaking to reporters after cops arrested a man who was, believe it or not, scaling Trump Tower this afternoon.

He was 20 years old, and he managed to get all the way to the 21st floor, after an hours-long standoff, police removed a window and grabbed the climber, yanking him into the building, as you can see, and as you heard police say, the man said he just wanted to meet Donald Trump.

Also developing tonight, brand-new polling suggesting an uphill climb for Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton in key 2016 battleground states. That gap is why many republicans now say Trump has no room for error.

This all coming as the Fox News decision desk is predicting 13 states will be toss-ups this November. The question now is, how does Trump negotiate an increasingly tight window in the race to 270 electoral votes.

Our panel joins us now. Chris Stirewalt, Fox News digital politics editor, Dana Perino, co-host of The Five and former White House Press Secretary, and Karl Rove, Fox News contributor and former deputy chief of staff to President Bush.

Dana, I was saying you must be so excited to finally get to talk about this tonight because your whole hour was dominated earlier on The Five by the person scaling Trump Tower. So, Dana, I want to get your take first.

DANA PERINO, "THE FIVE" CO-HOST: Yes. Thank you so much, because we did study very hard for our show today.

SMITH: You always do.

PERINO: And then Shepard Smith took over for us. And as I believe Karl and Chris will back me up, most people believe that Hillary Clinton looking at the Electoral College map, starts at 242 votes.

So, if the goal is to get to 270 so you can win it, yes, she's got a pretty easy path unless Donald Trump can pull a rabbit out of the hat, and the state-by-state numbers, they don't look good right now.

I fully expect the race to tighten up in September. Even right after Labor Day when people start to come back. But right now, in the battleground states, it's going to be very tough.

And that means also that Trump's team is having to spend money in states where they wouldn't have had to spend it before, like in Georgia, Arizona, and probably Missouri. Maybe even Utah.

SMITH: And you talk about Georgia. The Real Clear Politics average right now, Clinton holding a 1.8 lead in Georgia. A state the GOP has carried since 1996. Chris Stirewalt, is there time for Donald Trump to turn things around?

CHRIS STIREWALT, FOX NEWS DIGITAL POLITICS EDITOR: Lord, yes, there's time. The question is; is there the means? And I think -- I think the means are available, but to Dana's point, we don't have to start worrying about the past, and we should point out, we don't say that there's going to be 13 states that are toss-ups in November.

There's 13 states that we have identified as potentially up for grabs in this cycle. We don't need to really start worrying about those states until, unless, it gets closer. Because if Trump is really trailing by nine points and an average of real polls would indicate, then we don't have to worry too much about states because he just get smoked like a ham.

But if it does get closer, if it does get closer, then we start looking at interesting states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota. States that normally aren't in the deck for republicans, where Trump does well with working-class white voters that maybe, maybe, maybe, there's an interesting different path for him.

SMITH: All right. Karl, let's talk about Florida and Ohio, because he is in striking distance there, as you say. And Quinnipiac has Clinton up just one point in Florida and Ohio, Clinton is up four points. What does he need to do there?

KARL ROVE, FORMER GEORGE W. BUSH SENIOR ADVISOR: Well, you know, if you look at the Real Clear Politics average of those polls, he's in striking distance in both Ohio and Florida, as you say, and also is in striking distance in North Carolina. He's down by 2.6 and 1.3.

He's actually ahead in the Real Clear Politics average in Iowa. But in all of those states, which he needs to win, if he loses Florida, Dana is right. The democrats have carried 242 electoral votes in the last six elections.

She lose -- he wins -- she wins Florida, he loses it. She's at 271, and she's president if she carries the rest. So, he's got to win Florida. He's got to win Ohio, and then he's got to find 17 more electoral votes. Either 20 from Pennsylvania or 17 from some of these other battleground states.

And I think the key to winning these states is attention, needs to focus on them. He needs to have a concrete plan that has day-by-day what he's going to talk about from a messaging perspective. Not just simply what is he going to say this day, but how does he build that to be sort of the arc of the narrative that draws people to his side.

He needs to have somebody monitoring Hillary Clinton so that when she says things that give him an opportunity, he jumps on them rather than letting them go.

And finally, he needs to watch what he says from the podium and get his fingers off that Twitter -- that Twitter account where he is feeling weird.


SMITH: Yes, you don't like the Clintons, not helping him?

ROVE: Well, I like it, but he gets himself into trouble with it. And it causes him to miss opportunities. I was sitting in the green room while Hillary Clinton was being interviewed. Her interview with Chris Wallace is playing.

And I look down at his Twitter feed, and he's talking about how he was attacked viciously by the Khan family on Thursday night. Doesn't he have a right to defend himself? He should have been tweeting about what she was saying in that interview, which would have gotten the e-mail scandal, gave him -- gave him a big opening.

SMITH: All right, I wish we had more time with you guys. But good to have you, Dana and Chris and Karl. Thank you.

Well, could a serial killer be targeting young women in the middle of their workouts? Trace Gallagher has the latest on two brutal murders just a week apart and 200 miles away from each other that has put a chill running through a hot and humid northeast.

And as the DOJ releases a blistering review of the Baltimore P.D. exactly two weeks after all charges were dropped in the death of Freddie Gray.

We'll examine why some folks are saying the timing of today's announcement is no coincidence.


SMITH: New questions tonight as to the timing of a scathing DOJ report into one U.S. Police Department. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division leveling some serious charges today against the Baltimore P.D. accusing officers there of violating the civil rights of Baltimore residents, particularly African-Americans for years.

This new report dropping exactly two weeks to the day after Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby announced that after two officers were acquitted in the death of Freddie Gray, her office would be dropping all of the remaining charges.

Correspondent Doug McKelway has more on this.

DOUG MCKELWAY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Sandra. This report is a damning indictment of the conduct of the Baltimore Police Department over the last six years. It found the force engaged in a pattern of discrimination against African-Americans. Subjecting them to, quote, "disproportionate rates of stops, searches, and arrests."

It also found that officers routinely used excessive force and retaliated against people using constitutionally protected speech. Blacks were arrested for drug possession at five times the rates of other ethnicities despite near similar rates of drug use.


VANITA GUPTA, U.S. DOJ CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION HEAD: Many of these stops and the resulting frisks lacked constitutional justification. And many of the discretionary arrests were simply street clearing activities.

Supervisors at BPD central booking and local prosecutors rejected over 11,000 charges made by BPD officers because they lacked probable cause or otherwise did not merit prosecution.


MCKELWAY: The city asked for this investigation after the death of Freddie Gray and the rioting that ensued. It blames no one in particular, but Baltimore zero tolerance policing began in 1999 under then-mayor democrat Martin O'Malley.

O'Malley's policies reduced the homicide rate by 16 percent, but it came at a cost. Arrests soared to a high of 108,000 in 2005. The equivalent to one sixth of the city's population.

With this report's release, the City of Baltimore and the Department of Justice now entered to an agreement in principle which sets in motion numerous reforms including better training, better equipment, and better community relations all monitored by DOJ observers, but it doesn't come cheap.

With an expected cost of $5 to $10 million a year. But there is another potential cost, the so-called Ferguson effect, where less aggressive policing has resulted in many other cities, of an increase in violent crime.

That apparently is a risk that the City of Baltimore and the Department of Justice are willing to take.

Sandra, back to you.

SMITH: All right. Doug, thank you. So, is the timing of this just a coincidence or not?

Joining us now to debate this, Dimitri Roberts, a former Chicago Police Officer who has worked on FBI task force, Joe Hicks, a former Civil Rights leader and vice president of Community Advocates, and Eric Guster, an attorney and political commentator.

I want to get to you first, Dimitri, using your long history in law enforcement. There are specifics in this report of officers conducting unlawful stops, using excessive force, routinely violated constitutional rights of the citizens of Baltimore. Your thoughts reading through that report.

DIMITRI ROBERTS, FORMER CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER: Well, my initial thought is that the citizens of Baltimore as well as the leadership there have a real decision to make and a very critical one. And that is, are they going to allow this report to further divide them or are they going to allow this to be a point for unification.

And my hope is not just in Baltimore but throughout the country that we can look at this report, understand where the issues have been that have divided our country and our communities for way too long, and then get back to some real community policing with the service first mentality.

SMITH: All right. So, Joe, but what politics are at play here, particularly with the timing of the release of this report?

JOE HICKS, FORMER CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER: Well, it's very interesting. Anthony Batts, the former police chief in Baltimore, entered into a special program of the Department of Justice under Obama of only eight selected cities that looked at special training and other kinds of programs to do exactly what this report, this lengthy, 163-page report claims now needs to be done.

It's very interesting that Obama administration, while they're working with Mr. Batts, didn't somehow seem to find anything there that was unnerving to them.

So, now, after this miserable, you know, attempt in Baltimore to prosecute these six police, all of whom now have been found not to be guilty of almost anything, all charges dropped.

Now it seems like this attorney general is acting more like a legal arm of Black Lives Matter and now is the clean-up team. It's very odd that this drops at this point, and I'm very suspicious that there's some politics at aim here coming from the Obama White House.

SMITH: All right. Eric, and as far as the specifics, I mean, this is a 163-page report. It cites a specific example of supervisors who ordered officers to arrest all the black hoodies in a neighborhood. And that is a quote from the report. You say it mirrors Ferguson.

ERIC GUSTER, ATTORNEY & POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, this report mirrors the Ferguson report, because what the Department of Justice was ask said to do was go into Baltimore, see exactly what's going on, and educate people about the statistics.

And this report is scathing in that it shows a pattern of discrimination. It shows police officers knowingly and intentionally discriminating get against a certain aspect of the population, being the African-American population, and the supervisors were showing the younger cops how to do it.

There was even one example, well, several examples of them showing them what to do and how to do it, but there was a fill in the blank example of how to write up an arrest to make it stick, even if there was no probable cause. That's a shame.

SMITH: All right. So, but, Dimitri, to go back to your original point, now it's what they do with this. OK, so what is the solution?

ROBERTS: Well, it's really simple. Diversity, inclusion, and emersion in both cultures. There are a lot of cultural differences at play here. There are community differences and police cultural differences as well.

And here we have a real opportunity here is to bridge the divide between those two cultures, respectfully bring each one to the table, and put forth some sustainable solutions that we all can agree to.

Because at the end of the day, regardless of what hash tag anybody promotes or what political agenda someone may have, we can agree to two things. No one wants to see any more killing. And at the end of the day, everybody bleeds the same color.

SMITH: All right. Joe, Dimitri, and Eric, thank you.


SMITH: All right. Well, up next, "The Kelly File" investigates the brutal murders of two young women just a week and 200 miles apart. Could a killer be targeting young women on their runs?

Trace Gallagher looks into this next.


SMITH: New details tonight on two brutal murders that have turned up no known suspects so far. Karina Vetrano and Vanessa Marcotte were killed within a few days of each other and the cases' similarities have left many asking if one killer is still on the loose, is targeting young women.

Trace Gallagher has the latest on this for us. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Sandra, even though these killings were 190 miles apart, they do have eerie similarities. Both women lived in New York, were avid runners, jogging in broad daylight, and both bodies were found in heavy underbrush.

The latest victim was 27-year-old Vanessa Marcotte who was up visiting her mom in Princeton, Massachusetts, about 40 miles west of Boston. Marcotte went for a run Sunday afternoon and never came back.

Her body was found later that night in a wooded area about a half mile away from her mom's house. She was found without clothes, burns on her feet and hands and head. Police say it's unclear if she was targeted.

And just five days before her death, a 30-year-old Karina Vetrano was murdered during an evening jog in Queens, New York. Vetrano was found by her father face down in some weeds in a park that's known as a dumping ground for trash and bodies.

Vetrano had been sexually assaulted, strangled, and beaten. Karina's mother lashed out at the killer, calling her daughter a force. Listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I guarantee you, you (muted), that you will be reckoning with that force. Not only for the rest of your pathetic life, but for the rest of eternity, as you (muted) burn in hell.


GALLAGHER: So far, no suspects or persons of interest and nothing to connect the killings, but police in New York and Massachusetts are certainly comparing notes and sharing evidence. We are told they may also be checking out some DNA evidence in this case. Sandra.

SMITH: I can't imagine what those families are going through. Trace, thank you. All right, we'll be right back.   


SMITH: Go to and tell me what you think about tonight's show. You can also tweet me @sandrasmithfox. I'll see you on Outnumbered on the Fox News channel at noon tomorrow.

Thank you for watching tonight. Good to have you all. I'm Sandra Smith. And this is "The Kelly File."

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.