First 100 Days

Assistant to Trump: 20 percent import tax 'just one idea' of many

This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," January 26, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS HOST:  Breaking tonight, a battle of wills between our new president and our neighbors to the south as President Trump doubles down on the border wall.

Now tonight, President Trump raising the stakes once again.  I'm Martha MacCallum.  Good evening, everybody.  This is day seven.

So Mexico's president under siege at home balked at any suggestion that they would pay the billions of dollars that it will take to build the border wall.

Mr. Trump then responded on Twitter, writing this. "If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting."

Hours later, the Mexican president did just that.

Mr. Trump, holding his ground.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  I've said many times that the American people will not pay for the wall.  The president of Mexico and myself have agreed to cancel our planned meeting scheduled for next week.  Unless Mexico is going to treat the United States fairly, with respect, such a meeting would be fruitless and I want to go a different route.


MACCALLUM:  A short time ago, the White House suggesting that one option they are considering would be for Mexico to pay for the border wall by imposing a 20 percent tax on Mexican goods coming into this country.

In moments, we'll be joined by deputy assistant to the president Sarah Huckabee Sanders.  She will give us the latest from the White House tonight.

But, first, we go to our chief White House correspondent John Roberts.

Good evening John.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT:  Hey, Martha.  Another interesting day here at the White House.  You know, up until now, the feud between Donald Trump and Enrique Pena Nieto had simply been a feud between a presidential candidate and a world leader.  But now that Donald Trump has become President Trump, it has escalated into a full-blown diplomatic incident with the two leaders canceling a summit that was planned for Tuesday.

It all started this past Tuesday when President Trump announced his policy, signed the executive order to build a wall.  Last night Pena Nieto went out on Mexican national television to denounce the whole idea.  Then the two leaders got into a Twitter war as you pointed out just a moment ago.  Then, today, in Philadelphia, President Trump refusing to back down at all to Pena Nieto saying Mexico will indeed pay for the wall.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Most illegal immigration is coming from our southern border.  I have said many times that the American people will not pay for the wall.  And I have made that clear to the government of Mexico.


ROBERTS:  Well, as all of this developed today, it delayed the signing of a proposed executive order on so-called extreme vetting.  That was initially going to happen tomorrow.  Then they were going to move it up to today and then everything kind of got delayed until at least Saturday, it looks like now.

But when he does finally get to this executive order, it will implement a 30 day ban on visa entries from countries that are hotbeds of terrorism.  It will impose a 120 day moratorium on admitting refugees into the United States. It will impose an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, create safe zones in Syria for them to stay in the meantime, and then implement a process of extreme vetting.

President Trump insisting that this measure is critical to America's national security.


TRUMP:  We are going to have extreme vetting in all cases.  And I mean, extreme.  And we are not letting people in if we think there's even a little chance of some problem.


ROBERTS:  And, Martha, the very top of this, coming back to the Mexico spat, you mentioned this idea of a 20 percent border tax to pay for the wall.  The way that that was proposed earlier in the day, look like the White House got a little too far out the word ski suggesting that that's what President Trump was thinking about doing now that Pena Nieto was saying that he's not going to pay for the wall or come here on Tuesday.

A lot of people took that as the opening shot in a potential trade war, so this afternoon Sean Spicer, the press secretary, invited a bunch of us into his office to say, oh, that's just one thing that we are thinking about.  It could be combined with a lot of other things.  At one point, Reince Priebus pointed just heading to the door and said we are thinking about a whole buffet of options here.  So they really try to walk back quickly, this idea of a 20 percent border tax leveled as a punitive tariff to pay for the wall.


MACCALLUM:  Yes.  It's fascinating.  I want to play a sound bite from President Trump today in Philadelphia, where he started to sort of wrap his arms around this idea with Paul Ryan right next to him.

Let's play that.


TRUMP:  Well, we are working on a tax reform bill that will reduce our trade deficits, increased American exports and will generate revenue from Mexico that will pay for the wall, if we decide to go that route.


MACCALLUM:  So, I mean, the question, John, is what the back-and-forth is here.  Is there an effort underway to sort of help President Pena Nieto save face a little bit so that he can walk towards them enough to put something together here?

ROBERTS:  That remains to be seen.  I mean, right now, it seems to be at a level of the he said/he said and oh, yes, well, take that.  We're not sure how this is all going to turn.

But I will tell you, though, Martha, that the relationship between the United States and Mexico is far too important for this feud to go on very long.  And plans are already being made to sort of regroup and sort of reassess and readjust and get those two leaders back together again.

And now the White House is saying, hey, it's not the Mexican government per se that is going to pay for the wall, it could be done in a number of different ways like the president just mentioned there about a comprehensive tax reform package.

You know there's something in the Republican tax plan as border trade for payments that would, you know, help pay for the wall, but not sticking them -- not only sticking the government with the bill, but doing it in a number of different ways where revenue derived from trade with Mexico somehow pays for the wall, which may indeed give Pena Nieto enough of a face-saving measure to get on board with this plan.

MACCALLUM:  All right.   We will see.  John, thank you very much. More to come on that.  And we hope to have the new White House deputy press secretary join us in just a moment.  Plus we are also having breaking news tonight on the issue that John Roberts just mentioned.  The president's plan to drastically reduce the number of refugees admitted to United States from some countries that they believe are sponsors of terror or would carry terrorist acts out here by some of these individuals that they were allowed in.

Charles Krauthammer joins us with his thoughts on that tonight.

Plus, mayors of sanctuary cities are doubling down on their refusals to comply with on the books federal immigration law. So, how was that going to play out?  Is there going to be some kind showdown between the United States government and these sanctuary cities?  We're going to talk to one of the most well-known immigration experts in the country on this, next.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I believe in our sanctuary city status. I think there are hundreds of mayors all over this country that are saying the same thing.  We stand united.  That a safer city is a city that doesn't allow its residents to live in fear.



MACCALLUM:  Still breaking tonight, moments ago, President Trump championing the ideas of what's going on at the border.  We're going to talk about the administration angle as well.

For all of this, I'm joined By Sarah Huckabee Sanders, deputy assistant to the president and principle deputy press secretary.

Sarah, welcome.  Great to have you here tonight.  Thank you for being here.


MACCALLUM:  So we were just listening to John Roberts.  He was talking about the latest iterations of how, you know, paying for the border wall is going to work.

Can you get us up to speed on whether or not this 20 percent border tax is something that the president can get behind?

HUCKABEE-SANDERS:  Look, right now, we are talking about a lot of different ideas.  Nothing is a set policy.  That's just one idea that we are throwing out there.  We're going to be talking to a lot of people. Members of congress and others to look for different ideas.  That's one of them.  And, again, it's not a set policy, but something we are certainly considering.

MACCALLUM:  So in terms of when that meeting might take place, when he might sit down with the president of Mexico, you know, just give me a sense of what you are feeling at the White House is about how all of this went down?

HUCKABEE-SANDERS:  You know, I know there was a lot of back-and-forth discussion.  I think the president made it pretty clear it was a mutual decision not to go ahead with the meeting.  And right now, we are focused on a lot of activity that has been going on at the White House.  The president is being incredibly engaged and active in the last four days of officially taking office.  And he's going to continue to be active and engaged throughout this process and continue making big and bold moves.

MACCALLUM:  Has there been any dialogue, any further dialogue between the Mexican government and the United States government today on this?

HUCKABEE-SANDERS:  I don't think -- as far as I know, not since the meeting was decided that it wouldn't go forward as planned.  But I know that we will probably have lots of conversations with Mexico over the coming weeks and months.

MACCALLUM:  No doubt.  And, you know, in terms of the extreme vetting, there was a draft of that that was circulated.  And I'm just curious, if you can characterize for us when you think we're going to hear more on that policy and what we can expect at this point it will include?

HUCKABEE-SANDERS:  You know, right now, that's still being ironed out. There's a reason that it wasn't signed and announced.  And that's because we want to make sure we get everything right.  We are being very thorough throughout this process.  But we have gotten a ton accomplished this first week.

I think we've probably gotten more done in these first four days than Barack Obama got done in his entire eight years.  We've got a lot of work left to do and we are going to continue working on that and make big announcements over the next few days.

MACCALLUM:  Well, there's no doubt as we are keeping track of the first 100 days.  A lot of boxes had already been checked off with a lot of campaign promises and the pace has been just incredible and historic when you compare it to any presidency that we have seen so far.

And as I just mentioned to you as we were coming to tonight, we have a tweet from President Trump, which says that the Miami-Dade mayor has dropped his sanctuary policy, "great decision," says the president. "Strong!"

What can you tell us about that?

HUCKABEE-SANDERS:  I mean, I think this is a huge moment.  I think it shows the type of precedent that Donald Trump is and the type of effect he is having on this country.  That is a major moment and a big victory for the president tonight.

MACCALLUM:  So I also want to talk to you about the March for Life, which is obviously a very big event.  And it's an event that we have not seen the White House involved in eight years.

We know that Kellyanne Conway is going to be part of that, speaking at that.  Mike Pence, the vice president of the United States as well.

Talk to me about the moment that this represents for this White House, Sarah.

HUCKABEE-SANDERS:  Look, I think it's one of the greatest contrast moments that we have between this administration and the past administration.  This is a president who values life.  That understands the value and importance of life is what sets us apart from all of the other civilizations out there.

This is a big moment for the president, for this administration.  And I think it's a really proud moment for America that we have a president so willing to take this bold stand and draw that contrast that we haven't seen from this past administration.

MACCALLUM:  Sarah, thank you very much.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders joining us this evening.  We look forward to seeing you next week in Washington.  Thank you very much, Sarah.  Have a good night.

HUCKABEE-SANDERS:  Thanks for having me, Martha.  You, too.

MACCALLUM:  All right.  So this immigration fight is very much front and center.  Mark Krikorian, executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies and Juan Williams, co-host of "The Five" joining us this evening.

Gentlemen, welcome.  It's good to have you both here.

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST, THE FIVE:  Great to be here.


MACCALLUM:  Mark, let me start with you on this.  This news from the mayor of Miami, Miami-Date mayor dropping the sanctuary policy.  Details are still coming in on this, but that's a pretty big development.

KRIKORIAN:  Yes, I think it is.  And because the idea of sanctuary cities really are indefensible.  Sanctuary city is not just a -- is not a place where the cops don't ask your immigration status.  They don't really do that anywhere.

What a sanctuary city does is when it gets a request for someone they arrested, the immigration wants them because he's deportable, that they let that person go instead.  That is just -- that's inexcusable.  And there are going to be some hard cases like San Francisco and New York that are going to stick to their guns.  So the administration has got some work ahead of it.  But a lot of jurisdictions are going to, you know, are going to change their tune I think pretty quickly.

MACCALLUM:  Well, when you have the threat of federal money being withheld, Juan, that may makes some of these mayors sort of look at this whole thing a little differently.

WILLIAMS:  It might, Martha.  I guess that's what behind the action in Miami.  But what we've seen so far is that the mayors of the big cities -- New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, D.C., even some of the smaller cities -- Syracuse, Austin and the like have said that they plan to fight this.

That they also point to the fact that Congress is not allowed to use federal funds or limit federal funds to coerce the states into doing their bidding.  That's not legal.

So there is a question about how extensive the damage would be in terms of limit on federal money imposed to punish them for remaining sanctuary cities.

MACCALLUM:  Mark, you know, back in the '70s, the federal government took away funding from states that wouldn't get in line with the 55 speed limit so there is a precedent for this.

KRIKORIAN:  And even more recently, the federal government basically force all the states to raise the drinking age to 21.  So, but Juan is right that there are limits that the courts have set on the federal governments using the power of the purse.

Although, when you get these grants, for instance these Justice Department grants that they can cut off and will, they say that the city or county or whatever has to be in compliance with all federal laws in order to get the money.

So it's not really an issue of if we the federal government want you to do X, Y, and Z and we are making you do it, it's more a question of the federal government telling you, you are violating federal law and therefore, you don't get the money.  So this is a little bit different example than the 55-mile an hour speed limit.

So I think it's going to be interesting how this plays out.  And it's not just going to be money, because of the money denying the money isn't enough, then the Justice Department will sue some of these jurisdictions. The same way or sort of the mirror image of what Obama did in suing Arizona for trying to help enforce immigration laws.

MACCALLUM:  You know, we've been hearing so much about this infrastructure bill, trillion dollar infrastructure bill that President Trump wants very much.  And it made me wonder if you are in a sanctuary city and you have one of these projects that they want to put through, will that money be withheld as part of that, Juan.

What you think?

WILLIAMS:  Well, again, I just go back to the law as it's written currently.  You can't do that.  You would have to say that it has some relationship to the area in which you believe that the local government is violating the federal law.  So if you were saying we are going to build a highway or a bridge, I don't see it.

You can't even do that in terms of criminal justice money unless the program is specifically about illegal immigrants and undocumented people. So if that kind of limit that's put in place -- I mean, what we see here, I think, is the start of what's going to be a very tense standoff I think between many of the big cities with their Democratic mayors, who back the sanctuary city status and from their perspective what they say is it improves their -- it is defensible.

It improves the quality of law enforcement in their cities, because you have people who don't have papers who will now talk to police, deal with police without fear that their neighbors or relatives may be deported once their immigration status is known to the police.

KRIKORIAN:  Yes.  If I can make a comment on that, Martha.


KRIKORIAN:  One is right that this is the beginning of a tense standoff.  But there is absolutely no evidence that having a sanctuary policy helps policing.  And, in fact, is some -- they've actually looked at jurisdictions where they instituted cooperation with federal immigration authorities.  And there was no drop in for instance reporting of domestic violence.  There was no drop in Hispanic reporting of crimes.

So this is an urban myth, quite frankly.  There's no evidence, whatsoever, because the police made clear that if you are a witness or reporting a crime, they are not interested in your immigration status.  
It's when they arrest people, scan their fingerprints when they are booked in, then if there is a hit on immigration's computer back in Washington, they hand them over to immigration if they ask for him.  That's all that the immigration service is asking of these cities.


WILLIAMS:  Well, I just think -- I just think the police know best, Mark.  And the police have said very clearly they think it's a hindrance to good policing and law enforcement in our country.

KRIKORIAN:  Your police chiefs are appointed by politicians.


MACCALLUM:  We've got to go.  Gentleman, thank you very much.

Mark and Juan, good to have you here tonight.

So, tonight, anger over new reports from a Democratic Super PAC announcing the best outcome against President Trump is one of scorched earth.  Dana Perino joins us on that.

Plus, the dramatic executive action anticipated from President Trump that would halt Syrian refugees into the United States indefinitely.

Charles Krauthammer joins us with his thoughts on that this evening, before reaction from CAIR Hassan Shibly.  His organization none too pleased with this coming action.  We will be back with more "100 Days" after this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Are you all concerned it's going to cost more anger among Muslims around the world?

TRUMP:  There's plenty of anger right now.  How can you have more?



MACCALLUM:  Breaking tonight, President Trump could be one step closer to implementing one of his most controversial ideas.  What he calls an extreme vetting process for refugees entering the United States from several Muslim countries.

The president is expected to sign an executive order any day now, a draft of which calls for a 120-day suspension of all refugee admissions, a permanent halt on acceptance of refugees from Syria until that has more clarity on it, and the blocking of visas for nationals from seven countries across the Middle east and Africa for now.

So just last night, the president was asked what message this might send to the Muslim world?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Are you all concerned it's going to cost more anger among Muslims around the world?

TRUMP:  There's plenty of anger right now.  How can you have more?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You don't it will exacerbate the problem.

TRUMP:  No.  David, David, I mean, I know you are sophisticated guy. The world is a mess.  The world is as angry as it gets.  What do you think this is going to cause a little more anger?


MACCALLUM:  Joining me now, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor.

Charles, good evening.  Great to have you here tonight.


MACCALLUM:   So what's your reaction to that exchange that we just played with President Trump?

KRAUTHAMMER:  I think Trump is right.  I mean, the left has been arguing, Obama during his eight years arguing that we mustn't do anything to anger people abroad, particularly the Muslim world.  And he cited Guantanamo, a great recruiting agent.

That's nonsense.  It wasn't even at all a recruiting agent.  9/11 preceded any of this.  Now it's the height of anger.  So I don't think.  I think the president is right.  We don't calibrate our position by calculating how much anger it will cost.  If we do that, we will end up doing nothing.  We have to calibrate our response by what makes sense to keep Americans safe.

Now I think what's happening here is the president is trying to walk back the ban on Muslims, the blanket ban that he announced after the San Bernardino massacre.  That, clearly, is unconstitutional.  It's unattainable and it would anger many governments who are cooperating with us, Muslim governments, in the fight against the Jihad.

So they've ended up with this, quote, "chop up policy," where some countries -- people from some countries that are in turmoil with Jihadist movement like Libya, you showed it on the map, the red countries -- Libya, Yemen, Iraq, all of those were going to reconsider our policies and suspend the visas for now.

The only thing that seems to me to be permanent -- there will be a reconsideration for 30 days from other countries, but that just means we're going to look at the policy as any new administration would.

But what looks to me to be more permanent now is the suspension of Syrian refugees and the reduction of the total number from 100,000 which was the Obama objective to 50.  That, I think, is serious.  And that is unlikely to be reversed.

MACCALLUM:  I mean, cut that number in half as you point out.  And when you go through the pieces of this idea, though, in this draft, Charles, I mean, many of them are things that already exist in immigration law.

You know, for example, in order to protect Americans, we must ensure that those admitted to the country don't bear hostile attitudes towards our country and its founding principle.

When you look into immigration law, most of these are things that anyone coming into this country has to sign as it is.  You know, a lot of this goes back to the border idea that the president is raising.  You know, let's enforce the laws that are already on the books.

KRAUTHAMMER:  Yes.  I think it's quite ridiculous how the left has attacked the idea that if you ask people questions when they want to immigrate, when they want to be a part of our country, such as -- and we used to do this in the '50s and the '60s.

Do you support the violent overthrow of the government of United States?  It's a perfectly legitimate question.  If your answer is yes --


MACCALLUM:  Then you're not allowed in.

KRAUTHAMMER:  You're not coming in here.


MACCALLUM:  Exactly.


KRAUTHAMMER:  Well, you may lie about it, but you may have a history that would imply that you do want to do that, in which case, go home.  You know, if you want to overthrow a government, overthrow your own government. Not ours.

So I don't think that those questions, which are essentially ideological, illegitimate.  But I do think there was one thing in this directive -- this executive order that we hear is coming probably Saturday. That was interesting and could be alarming.  He is instructing the Department of Defense to set up safe zones in Syria.


KRAUTHAMMER:  Well, that was a good idea five years ago.  When we had control of the skies -


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That was interesting and could be alarming. He is instructing the Department of Defense to setup safe zones in Syria.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Well, that was a good idea five years ago, when we had control, of the skies. The Russians hadn't arrived and the Assad Government hadn't become a puppet of the Iranian Government, but that's no longer true. Setting up a safe zone is not going to be something that we can simply say we're going to do and go ahead and do it like putting up a big apartment building.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That's not what happened.

MACCALLUM:  Yes. It's a great point.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  ...and I think it might pre-stage a Syria policy that could be dangerous.

MACCALLUM:  Yes. And that jumped out as me as well. And, you ask the question, you know, where is that safe zone? Where do you find that spot in this world?


MACCALLUM:  Charles, thank you very much. Great to have you with us tonight.


MACCALLUM:  So, with the debate raging over taking refugees from the Middle East, a horrific story out of Sweden, have now gotten international attention. Three men have been arrested there accused of raping a young woman and streaming it live on Facebook for three hours. Now the nationality of two of those suspects is coming into question. For more on this, we got Trace Gallagher on our West Coast, Newsroom. Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, TELEVISION NEWS ANCHOR:  Martha, this happened about 40 miles outside of Stockholm. Police there got several calls on Sunday morning from people who claimed they were watching a Facebook live stream of two men sexually assaulting a woman who appeared to be unconscious or intoxicated.

When police arrived in the apartment they found three men and a woman, all three men were arrested. A Swedish newspaper says the two men accused of the rape are Afghan immigrants, the other man whose charge with not stopping the assault is Swedish.

The nationalities of the accused are controversial because Sweden like Germany and other European countries is having a fierce debate over immigrants and refugees. And in Sweden, this will be the second rape in three months involving Afghan immigrants.

In October, five Afghans were convicted of raping a teen yet they were not deported and only one was given or they were only given a year in jail. In this latest case, the problem is, the alleged crime was broadcast to a Facebook group consisting of several 100 people. Many of them reported seeing the rape and some may have recorded it, but so far nobody has turned over a copy.

So, police haven't seen the alleged crime and legal experts in Sweden say that makes it tough to prosecute. Listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  There are gaps in the legislation that in principle allowed this kind of publishing. Possibly it could be a crime according to the law section of column or the acts of illegal violence depiction. But as I said, the gaps in the legislation unfortunately make it difficult to prosecute.


GALLAGHER:  And there reportedly was a second live stream where the suspects tried to force the alleged victim into claiming she had not been raped. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. So, joining me now with reaction to all of this, the draft that has been circulated that we think the president may bring out something that looks quite a bit like this, Hassan Shibly is Chief Executive Director at the Florida Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Good to have you with us tonight. Good evening, sir. What are your thoughts, you know, as you look at what you've heard so far in this plan, what do you think?

HASSAN SHIBLY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CAIR, FLORIDA:  Trump's policies are bad for America. They simply appear to be amongst the first of many discriminatory policies that disadvantaged America first and foremost, and hurt our fellow human beings after that. You know, one of the greatest Americans who passed away not long ago, Steve Jobs, is the son of a Syrian immigrant. Where would America be and what would it be missing? Had we not Steve Jobs immigrate to America?

MACCALLUM:  But the point of this - the point of this draft, and if you - you go to the language and read it, it's not about permanently keeping people out of the country. And it doesn't affect people who are in the country already. What it talks about is trying to vet properly so, you know, under the scenario that you just presented, nothing would have prevented that person from getting into this country.

SHIBLY:  And that's exactly right and the scenario that we've had, it works. Refugees are the most vetted people in the world that often takes him about 24 months of vetting before they are able to come to America, and that's why statistically you have a lot less crime, murder, and even terrorism coming out of refugees. In fact, statistically, the chances of being killed by a refugee is 1 out of 3.6 billion...

MACCALLUM:  And we've all seen that - we've all seen the issues that are happening in Europe, we have seen why there is so much concern to make it more difficult for the flood of refugees to go through. And nobody -- everyone is sympathetic to the needs of good, you know, people who want to leave their country and we all understand why they want to leave those countries, but you know, just going through some of this draft language, it says, you know, that people would be blocked -- have their access blocked if they engaged in acts of bigotry, hatred, honor killings, violence against women and persecution on the basis of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Can you agree that you would not want...

SHIBLY:  Well, yes that's already there of course, but it goes far beyond that. It goes far beyond that. It completely banned Syrian refugees and potentially completely banned...

MACCALLUM:  For a time...

SHIBLY:  ...any immigrants, yes...

MACCALLUM:  ...until...

SHIBLY:  ...for a time and then potentially...

MACCALLUM:  ...until the immigration process is refined to a point where the administration feels it's satisfactory. I mean the underlying crux here is that you want to keep people out of the country who wants to do harm or who are potential criminals. That's what everyone is talking about here...

SHIBLY:  Of course and we all agree with that.

MACCALLUM:  ...border or whether it's coming from Middle Eastern countries, it's the same aim is to keep people safe in our country. Doesn't every country want to do that?

SHIBLY:  Right, but these policies aren't aim at that what they actually do is not make America safer...


SHIBLY:  ...they just promote fear and hatred. You know, the chances of being killed by your close (ph) burning is greater than your chances of being killed by an immigrant. The chances of you being run over by a railway car is greater than chances of being killed by an immigrant.

MACCALLUM:  Well that's precisely why...

SHIBLY:  ...immigrants don't cause the threat from America...

MACCALLUM:  ...protective measures to protect from those things as much as possibly we can as well.

SHIBLY:  And we support the basic protective measure absolutely...

MACCALLUM:  ...and you want to protect from these issues as much as you possibly can about...

SHIBLY:  Absolutely, I just think...

MACCALLUM:  ...that's all that's going on here...

SHIBLY:  ...that Trump's positions are too extreme, yes. But, these positions are too extreme and it's important we don't lose who we are as Americans. America as a nation built on diversity, built on immigrant and we have to remember our enemies can never defeat us. We can defeat ourselves if we allow fear and hate interfere (ph) against each other and be willing to promote discriminatory policies.

MACCALLUM:  No one is talking about keeping while meaning people from entering the country...

SHIBLY:  ...and I think these policies go too far.

MACCALLUM:, we'll leave it there...

SHIBLY:  Trump was on the record - Trump was on the record saying he wants to ban all Muslims so it's scary, but thank you for having me. God bless you and God bless America.

MACCALLUM:  Thank you for being here. So, tonight, new reports of the Democratic Party that is bowing to stop at nothing to block President Trump's agenda, when notorious Super PAC director even floating impeachment as the only solution. Dana Perino joins us on how that strategy could set Democrats back even further, coming up straight ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  On most areas, we're going to have to fight him and we'll fight him tooth and nail.


MACCALLUM:  Still developing tonight, there are new reports surfacing on how the Democrats plan to deal with the Trump Administration. Immediately after the election, there were some suggestions that it was going to be an era of bipartisanship.

That came as pundits point it out the Democrats have not only lost control of the White House, the Senate, and The House in the last six years they were also in worse shape in state government than in any time since 1920.

But tonight, they are throwing question to the wind and deciding that basically, they're going to dig in their heels and go to war with this new administration. Dana Perino, on whether that is such a good idea, but first we go to Ed Henry, live in Washington with the latest on the Democrat strategy. Hi, Ed.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT:  Well, the good news here, remember that endless gossip during the campaign about in-fighting among Republicans, now it's Democrats who are at war with one another and it's getting a little ugly.

Controversial Liberal Activist, David Brock, who ran those Super PACs who backed Hillary Clinton of course, held a fancy Florida retreat for his campaign donors on the left over the inaugural weekend. And he argued privately that Democrats need to defeat President Trump by trying to impeach him even though it's not clear what their case will be here on week one.

In a 44-page confidential memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Brock added one of his PACs will also try to assault House and Senate Republican candidates "American Bridge will make running as a Republican candidate in the next four years painful. We will not only damage Trump, but also the candidates who enable and support him."

Yet, not all Democrats are on-board with the so-called resist movement with advisors of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders telling the Daily Beast today, they wish Brock would simply disappear who's actually hurting Democrats. Some of these liberal activists telling the Beast, they wish Brock would disappear because they want to actually fight it out on issues not dirt digging.

Sanders' former campaign manager, Jeff Weaver saying to Brock, "his ability to produce wins for Democrats is simply non-existent." Brock responded this is not about him and the goal should be to destroy Mr. Trump, not one another. Martha?

MACCALLUM:  Fascinating story. Ed, thank you very much...

HENRY:  Good to see you.

MACCALLUM:  ...for joining me. With more - good to see you too, co- host of The Five and former White House Press Secretary under President George W. Bush, Dana Perino. Hi, Dana.


MACCALLUM:  How are you?

PERINO:  Good.

MACCALLUM:  Good to have you here...


MACCALLUM:  ...on The First 100 Days. So, talk to me about, you know, Ed points out the battle and this is the decision that Democrats have to make right now. We just laid out quite clearly how rough a situation there and it correlates (ph), do they join, do they beat them or join them?

PERINO:  Well, I think this is interesting. So, Ed Henry just referenced this big donor conference they had in Florida...


PERINO:  ...over the weekend - inaugural weekend, and this is all the big donor Democrats. Meanwhile what was happening across the country in fact indeed around the world, the grassroots Democrats had turned out, in major numbers all across the country 850,000 people in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. was huge, New York was huge, Chicago, National Date and Ohio and where were the leading Democrats? At a donor retreat in Florida.

So, they're missing the grassroots moment that they actually - so, they have a chance to turn things around, but if they continue to follow in the footsteps of David Brock I think they won't learn the lesson of 2016. And this risk within the Democratic Party is going to be exacerbated. They haven't - they still don't have a leader at the DNC.

President Obama is no longer on the scene, he might come back a little bit, but they're going to be in the wilderness for a while and I think the other thing that's happening is that they're missing a real good opportunity to have some input on major policies that will affect all Americans while they're at the donor retreat while they're fighting...

MACCALLUM:  Great point.

PERINO:  ...Republicans are having a really good policy retreat. They have great things from the members that were there today.

MACCALLUM:  And the comparison is that these grassroots movement that you talked about has a sort of Tea Party model to it...

PERINO:  Absolutely.

MACCALLUM:  ...and they're doing a great job of getting everybody's information. Everyone has to text their contact number so that they can start building that database and you look at what the Tea Party, you know, sort of moved forward and the fall of the establishment that we just saw in the election of Donald Trump in this country, you know, Democrats should be looking at that model if they really want to make a comeback.

PERINO:  Well, the other thing is that they have a choice so they could work against him, work with him, or stall or some sort of combination of those. And it's pretty interesting to me that there are things that Donald Trump as for -- that the Democrats have wished for for a long time.

MACCALLUM:  Absolutely.

PERINO:  Having the government negotiate drug prices to insurance companies, Democrats have wanted that for years and Donald Trump says he wants to explore that. Why wouldn't they on the merits of the policies that they like like the infrastructure bank, they're not going to...


MACCALLUM:  Bernie Sanders said I'm all over that, you know.

PERINO:  He's actually giving them a lot of things that they could come to the table on but they have decided to fight against the person, not the policy. I think it's a big mistake. I don't think it's sustainable in the long run because I do think that some of these red state Democrats that are up for re-election...


PERINO:  ...where Donald Trump won big time...

MACCALLUM:  Absolutely.

PERINO:  ...and he's going to won a campaign for the Republicans in those Senate...


PERINO:  ...and if they lose more senate seats...

MACCALLUM:  ...come around a little bit...

PERINO:  ...they're going to have a hard time.

MACCALLUM:  Dana, thank you very much.

PERINO:  It's happening.

MACCALLUM:  Great to see you. So, coming up, President Trump's Treasury Secretary Nominee faced some harsh criticism over a particularly damning story that may not even be true. We're going to fact-check this for you coming up next before John Sununu, a Former White House Chief of Staff and Former Governor reacts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  There is some irony in so far as, you know, there's a 90 plus year old woman who missed $0.27 on a payment who ended up getting foreclosed on.


MACCALLUM:  President Trump's pick for Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin has faced criticism over widely disseminated report that he foreclosed on an elderly woman over a 27 cent mistake, but it turns out that there are maybe quite a bit more reality to that story. Trace Gallagher has the fact-check for us from our West Coast Newsroom tonight. Trace, what did you find out about this?

GALLAGHER:  Well, you know, Martha, Mark Twain once said a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts on its shoes but, you don't want to tell that to Treasury Secretary Nominee, Steven Mnuchin because he really got lambasted across the country over to something that clearly was not true.

It began from a political article that reads in part quoting here, One West of Bank Steven Mnuchin and his partners established during the collapse has taken steady fire from regulators and consumer advocates for a myriad failures ever sent in Florida," the company foreclosed on a 90 year- old woman after a 27 cent payment error.

Sure enough, the story was picked up by The New York Times, Vanity Fair, Huffington Post, CBS, MSNBC and many others. In fact, if you Google Mnuchin 27 cents, you get tens of thousands of results. And it might have gotten worse, if not for Ted Frank. He is an attorney who runs the Center for Class Action Fairness.

Frank did some research and proved that not only did Steven Mnuchin's Company not have anything to do with the 90-year-old woman's home the home was never foreclosed upon. In fact, the bank involved is, having to pay the woman for her troubles. And while the untrue story stirred up an audible roar across the country, the correction was largely taciturn.

A line at the very bottom reading and I'm quoting, "At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in One West and was on the board of CIT", which really is kind of a complicated way of saying, "Yep, we kind of screwed that one up". Martha.

MACCALLUM:  Wow, unbelievable. Trace, thank you very much.


MACCALLUM:  So, here to discuss this, is a man who is well-aware of what it's like to be part of White House Administration having served President George H.W. Bush., Former White House Chief of Staff, John Sununu. Good to have you here tonight, governor. Welcome to the program.

JOHN SUNUNU, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF:  Thanks for being here, Martha. Thank you.

MACCALLUM:  So, when you listen to the story, just one example for Steven Mnuchin, because we have seen so many of these cabinet nominees raked over the coals but this story, you know, sort of dubbed him the foreclosure king and he went before that panel and he said, you know, what we really did was try to help people work some of those loans out and keep them in their homes.

SUNUNU:  Look, what prompts the press to do this is a couple of things, number one, a desire to be first even if they are not correct and they are willing to do that. And number two, a desire to hurt the Trump Administration and its nominees and the third point I think is what people often forget, the press is stupid. Can you imagine believing that a 90- year-old woman with a 27 cent debt was foreclosed on?

I mean it just boggles the mind you would think that somebody in that court would reach into the - if it even came to the court, somebody in the court would certainly reach in their pocket and put the money on the table. For The New York Times amongst those that you talked about to have printed that, shame on them. They have seen their best days long long ago.

MACCALLUM:  There's so much discussion about fake news and, you know, not checking the facts and a story like that that has branded him in that way is a good place to start. I want to talk to you also about some of the shifting that we've seen because you have been in the White House as everybody knows as Chief of Staff, so what we saw today was the exit of a number of individuals from the top echelon of the state department and some of this is, you know, just sort of natural turnover.

But some of these people in other administrations have stayed on in this position to sort of help the administrative wheels of these different agencies. We also saw the head of the border patrol who was a former member of the FBI leave. And the earliest got about (ph) was, you know, it's because that that President Trump wants to build a wall and he said he would leave it if that happens.

But now, you know, it looks more and more as if the rank in file wasn't too happy with him in the first place, so your thoughts on these shuffles?

SUNUNU:  Look, you're seeing people that -- that in the last eight years enjoyed the policies of that administration. It's good riddance. There is nobody at those levels that's indispensable. They are easy to replace. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of good people qualified to do that and frankly it makes it easier for the president to staff the key positions at state, at homeland security, at the border patrol with people that are completely coincident with his agenda. The more the merrier, let them walk out as fast as they want.

MACCALLUM:  Governor John Sununu, always good to talk to you. Thank you, sir.

SUNUNU:  Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM:  Good to have you here tonight.

SUNUNU:  Thank you.

MACCALLUM:  So, we will be right back in a moment. Ed Henry will join us with some new information about some personal touches in the Oval Office when we come back.


MACCALLUM:  So, Ed Henry was going to join us and stop-by for the goodbye but he is now busy getting ready to host "Tucker Carlson Tonight." We are learning this week that President Trump was chosen -- has chosen some artwork for the oval office.

So, one of the newest additions is a freshly hung portrait of old hickory, also known as, Andrew Jackson. No doubt Jackson and Trump share a passion for striking when the iron is hot and shaking up the status quo, so tonight we leave you with this thought that could have easily come from the art of the deal but comes from the twice elected president Andrew Jackson and here it is.

"Take time to deliberate but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in", that from the soldier's statesman's 7th President on this 7th day of the Trump Presidency. We'll see you back here tomorrow night, everybody. Have a good night.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.