First 100 Days

Louise Mensch on being at center of wiretap story; Robby Mook talks role of allegations in 2016 election

On 'The First 100 Days' the journalist discusses her reporting about the controversial allegations


This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," March 6, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SHANNON BREAM, GUEST HOST: Breaking tonight in just the last hour, House Republicans unveiling legislation that if enacted, would repeal the central tenets of ObamaCare. Welcome to "The First 100 Days," I'm Shannon Bream in for Martha MacCallum, on this very busy day 46. Let's get right to Capitol Hill where this news just broke.  Our own Mike Emanuel standing by, weeding through all of the details. Hi, Mike.

MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, hi, Shannon, good evening to you. Yes, the Republican Health Plan would essentially scrap much of ObamaCare and offer tax credits to help lower income Americans buy coverage.

Let's take a look at some of the key points. Again, it would get rid of much of ObamaCare's taxes and also, the mandates requiring you to buy insurance. It would expand health savings accounts and provide a monthly tax credit to people who don't receive insurance through their employer.  It would call for a patient and state stability fund, giving states more flexibility.

Supporters say it would responsibly unwind ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion, and it would overall strengthen Medicaid. The two house chairman in the middle of this effort, talked about this plan with Bret Baier on "Special Report" tonight.


REP. KEVIN BRADY, R-TEXAS: The replacement of our long-standing Republican policies of giving control back to the states and to the individuals, as well.

REP. GREG WALDEN, R-ORE.: We've reached out to the states, they've said, "Please, please, a one-size-fits-all doesn't work for our state. This is part of why our markets are collapsing."


EMANUEL: And some Republican critics ahead of the release of the plan were warning it could be ObamaCare light, suggesting it might be too generous.


REP. MARK SANFORD, R-S.C.: There is a big divide between in essence the conservative camp within the caucus saying, "We feel uncomfortable at this point with the idea of a refundable tax credit. Then other folks saying, "Wait a minute, this is a way of funding an HSA, a health savings account that would be applicable to everybody."


EMANUEL: Two key figures for the Trump administration, our Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Tom Price, they are having dinner with President Trump tonight, as many lawmakers here on Capitol Hill are getting their first look at the GOP health care proposal.  Shannon?

BREAM: All right. It's a lot to digest. Mike Emanuel, thank you so much.  Also, breaking tonight, the White House at the center of a growing controversy after President Trump accuses his predecessor of spying on him during the 2016 campaign. The explosive allegations coming over the weekend with President Trump tweeting, "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my wires tapped in Trump tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

In moments, we will be joined by Louise Mensch, whose original reporting from last fall is now at the heart of all of these furious back and forth.  But first, Chief National Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge with the latest on what we know. Good evening, Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT:  Well, thank you, Shannon. Based in our reporting, there was at least one surveillance order for the phone calls and text messages of Russian Ambassador Kislyak because he's an agent of a foreign government, and that is routine surveillance. The former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn's phone calls and text messages were captured under that order. A second source believes there may have been at least one additional surveillance order that was nonspecific to Trump Tower, conflicting with the president's weekend tweets.

But the source said a second surveillance order may have intercepted with the Trump team's communications and operations. In the intelligence world, that is called incidental collection. Meantime, a government source tells Fox News FBI Director James Comey is so frustrated about the leaks, that he's asked subordinates to identify who had access to surveillance orders from the secret FISA Court, because it's a very small universe of senior government officials.

One Republican who sits on the House Intelligence Committee emphasized to Fox today that no cooperation between the Trump team and Russian intelligence has been found to date, and leaking FISA Court information for political purposes is unprecedented.


REP. PETER KING, R-N.Y.: If you're talking about FBI investigations and somebody in the Obama administration, somebody who had access to that leaking out partial details to make it look more incriminating than it is. That is almost like an alternative government working against the president.


HERRIDGE: This afternoon, the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sending this letter to the Justice Department's independent watchdog, calling on them to investigate whether the Trump team has interfered with or jeopardized the FBI case. And tonight, the House Intelligence Committee has set a March 17th deadline to get all relevant data, including those phone transcripts. Shannon?

BREAM: All right. Catherine Herridge live for us in Washington. Thank you.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

BREAM: And joining us now, the journalist whose reporting from last year is at the heart of this growing controversy. Louise Mensch vice president, Creative and Strategic division at News Corp, and for disclosure, the Executive Chairman of News Corp is Rupert Murdoch, who is also the chairman of this network. And she's also the former editor of Heat Streak where a November 2016 article she wrote is getting a lot of attention. And reportedly, some of that includes folks at the White House. The headline read, "Exclusive: FBI Granted FISA Warrant Covering Trump Camp's Ties to Russia." Well, she is here now. We'll separate fact from fiction. Good to have you, Louise.


BREAM: OK. So, you reported that their - that the FBI went to this FISA Court, which is secretive and often grant these warrants, initially not successful but ultimately did get some type of warrant. Explain what it was.

MENSCH: Yes, what I reported was that my source said, I should say, I actually don't have a piece of paper with the FISA warrant in front of me, but a warrant was granted on the communication between two Russian banks, and specifically, permission was granted to the FBI to look at U.S. persons incidentally caught up in that investigation. I can't say obviously if that's exactly what you're correspondent, Catherine Herridge was reporting just there. But it sure does sound the same.

BREAM: Yes. And that is a legal process. I mean, it's one that happens all the time. We know that there have been thousands of these requests granted in the years since the FISA Court has existed, but it is so secretive. Everything about it, where it's located, what they decide. And so, when people hear that, it sounds sort of covert, but it's legit.

MENSCH: It's legit; it's a court of the United States. Contrary to rumor, people just can't go around wiretapping everybody and et cetera. What was interesting to me, and I think probably many of the other journalists who later corroborated my story, or at least, reported the same thing, which includes the BBC and The Guardian, is that nobody that reported this warrant ever mentioned so much as a wiretap, at all. We just reported the warrant that our sources told us existed, and we all reported the same thing. So this - the only people that reported a wiretap at Trump Tower were Breitbart News, nobody else. And there's been some leaks. Maybe Steve Bannon or some of these other ex-Breitbart staffers have got something to answer to.

BREAM: Well, do think it's that they have more information then you initially had, or do you think it's a misunderstanding of what the FISA warrant is?

MENSCH: It could be a little bit of both. But after all, a tweet came out from the president's own account. Now, I don't know, I don't even know if he himself is making those tweets, but somebody made those tweets under his name and they said that he just found out about a wiretap just before the victory. Well, that's fascinating to me, because I never reported it. So, either the president has a terrific imagination or the president is receiving some solid information that somebody in his team just been caught up, like your correspondent Catherine Herridge said, an incidental correct - collection, and that's not very good for team Trump.

BREAM: What original sourcing of reporting on this, you mentioned, came from you, from the BBC, and The Guardian, all say that they've got sources as to these FISA warrants or FISA warrant, singular.

Now, the former DNI Director James Clapper, appeared on the Sunday shows yesterday. He said, if it existed, he would know about it. And he categorically denied it. What do you make of that?

MENSCH: Well, I don't know that he categorically denied what I reported, which was a FISA warrant on communications between two Russian banks. He was being asked about the president's accusations that President Obama had targeted a warrant politically at him or at team Trump and at Trump Tower.  There's no such FISA warrant, and it would be impossible to get one. And indeed, I faithfully reported that the couple of times that Director Comey apparently went to the court and ask for a warrant that named Mr. Trump, he was turned down flat.

So, I think you heard DNI Clapper, former DNI Clapper, denying that there was a politically motivated, targeted FISA warrant at Donald Trump. And I haven't reported that to my knowledge, nor has anyone else.

BREAM: Yes, my remembrance of his discussion was that he was asked if there was such an order.


BREAM: So -- but is it possible that the DNI wouldn't know about it?

MENSCH: I don't know because I don't - honestly, I don't -- I try not to bluff when I don't know things.

BREAM: Right. Good for journalists, we should stick to what we know.

MENSCH: I believe he has, but such an order. Does that mean no FISA warrant of any kind? Which I think will be really hard for DNI to deny or confirm.

BREAM: Right. I know.

MENSCH: I think that would be kind of illegal even. But I think what he was saying is there's no order of a politically targeted FISA Court warrant that was aiming directly at Trump Tower and the political campaign.

BREAM: And you're confident in your sources and what you've reported. And again, it was - it was dealing with banks that were communicating with each other.


BREAM: And if Trump's staffers or campaign officials or people connected to him in any way, were caught up in it, that would have been secondary.

MENSCH: It gave permission, incidental permission for people caught up in the secondary communication, incidental communication, that gave permission for the FBI to look at that. But they were not the target. Communications between two Russian banks were the target, my sources said.

BREAM: OK. Much more to come on this. Very interesting. Thank you for joining us to separate fact from fiction.

MENSCH: Thank you.

BREAM: Good to see you.

All right. We're going to continue to follow all the breaking news out of Capitol Hill tonight. There's a lot of it. On the house GOP's plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Coming up, we're going to break down what's in it, what it means for you.  Plus, new reaction from the former Intel chief under Obama who denies President Trump's wiretapping claims. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign manager, Robby Mook, and former KGB spy Jack Barsky are here to react.

Plus, President Trump today signs a new travel ban executive order. And at the same time undoes the one that's - well, it's been subject to 48 different cases, stuck in the courts still. What's going to happen now?  Judge Napolitano is here to explain it all.


ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: It is the president's solemn duty to protect the American people. And with this order, President Trump is exercising his rightful authority to keep our people safe.



BREAM: Also breaking tonight, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper denying President Trump's allegations of a pre-election wiretap after the Obama administration official insist to NBC's "Meet the Press" that no such surveillance of Trump Tower ever occurred.


JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I will say that for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president - the president-elect at the time or as a candidate or against his campaign.


BREAM: But some are now calling Mr. Clapper's credibility into question.  For more on that part of the story, we turn to Trace Gallagher in our west coast newsroom. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Shannon. The former National Intelligence Director even doubled down on his denials, saying there was no court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA as we know it to wiretap Trump Tower. James Clapper went on to say, "If there had been a FISA Court order, he would ‘certainly hope he'd be aware of it."

Clapper added that while he does believe the Russians meddled in the election, he has seen no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. But even conservatives who are not necessarily defending Trump when it comes to these wiretap allegations against the Obama administration, are also quick to point out that James Clapper has a bit of a credibility problem. Namely, his false statements to Congress concerning surveillance matters back in 2013. Watch.


SEN. RON WYDEN, R-ORE.: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

CLAPPER: No, sir.

WYDEN: It does not?

CLAPPER: Not wittingly. There are cases where they cold inadvertently, perhaps, collect but not wittingly.


GALLAGHER: But classified information later leaked by Edward Snowden showed the NSA did in fact collect data on U.S. citizens. James Clapper himself ended up acknowledging his answers to Congress were incorrect.

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham tweeted, quote, "Clapper was on 'Meet the Press' for the entire segment and Chuck Todd didn't ask him one question about his own lying to Congress."

Even liberal writer Glenn Greenwald chimed in with quote, "Shouldn't Democrats get someone more credible than James Clapper to make these denials? Like any randomly chosen person?"

And it's not just James Clapper. Conservative writer Ben Shapiro points out how the left has now re-embraced FBI Director James Comey. Just a few months ago, many liberals accused Comey of throwing the election. But now that he is asking the Department of Justice to publicly reject President Trump's wiretapping claims, Comey is back in their good graces. Shannon?

BREAM: Oh, Washington. Thank you, Trace.


BREAM: Joining me now to talk about allegations of wiretapping during the 2016 presidential campaign is Robby Mook, former Campaign Manager for Hillary Clinton.

Robby, thanks for joining us tonight.

ROBBY MOOK, FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR HILLARY CLINTON: Great to be here, thanks for having me.

BREAM: OK. Is it possible, as I was discussing with Louise, who broke a lot of this original reporting last fall, is it possible that DNI Clapper, former, would not have known about this request? I mean it goes to the FISA Court, somebody on the FBI goes and makes this request, it was a part reportedly granted, is it possible he wouldn't have knowledge of that?

MOOK: Well, I'm not a National Security expert and I've never worked at the DNI office, so I would defer to the specialists on that.

But I find this entire situation a little bit perplexing, to be honest with you. I'm --- that's why I'm actually glad you asked this question because the real story here, what we know is a true fact, is that members of the Trump campaign were caught on tape in the surveillance tapes because they were talking to Russian intelligence officials.

So we have this major national security issue staring us in the face, which is that Trump aids were repeatedly talking to Russians, they were repeatedly talking to Russians before and after the election. They were talking to Russians at the time that the Russians broke into the DNC, stole information, and leaked it out.

What we need to be focused on right now is figuring out, did any coordination take place there?

BREAM: Well, in so far, in every investigation we've heard and we've seen, and this is Democrats and Republicans alike, and including Mr. Clapper, they've all said so far, "Zero evidence of any collusion between the two."

And this has been going on for more than a year. I mean that Democrats have come out and said that. "Zero evidence so far."

MOOK: Well, there's no evidence of far that we know about. But a lot of this evidence is classified --

BREAM: That they know about.

MOOK: Well, but here, let's be fair for a second. Think about how many millions of dollars and how many committees were devoted to investigating Hillary Clinton and her emails, investigating the Benghazi scandal.

All of a sudden, when it comes that we have real evidence that communication was happening between Trump aides and the Russians, and there's a refusal to have any sort of open investigation, the way that we had for the last two years in Capitol Hill.

BREAM: Wait a minute, the House and the Senate Intel Committees, they both are having investigations. They've been having for months. And they've stepped up a -- number of Republicans have said --

MOOK: Have you seen --

BREAM: Listen -- "I am not going to -- I am not going to sign off on something that's not legit. I want to follow this where it is. Russians should never be interfering with what we're doing." We're hearing that from Democrats and Republicans alike. I mean those investigations aren't over so we're not going to have the results yet. But they are ongoing.

MOOK: Well, I -- look, first of all, I want -- I want to underscore something you said. Democrats and Republicans are concerned about this issue. And it is absolutely a bipartisan issue. But unless you've seen it or I haven't, I have not seen a single member of the Trump staff, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, anybody else, go up to Capitol Hill and testify about what they did or didn't say to the Russians.

BREAM: Maybe they have.

MOOK: All this -- all this is being conducted in secret. They will -- it's not being conducted in public --

BREAM: As intelligence investigation would be. Robby, you know that.

MOOK: Right. But again, when Hillary Clinton was being investigated, they brought her in and it was on live television. So what we are asking for is a nonpartisan independent review that is out in public, so that we can see what happened and make sure it never happens again, because to your point, this is a bipartisan issue. This affected a Democratic candidate. This time, it's going to affect a Republican candidate in the future. I'm very worried about Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Senator McCain and others, who've been so forceful in speaking out against Russia. We need an open, independent, bipartisan commission, and we look forward to having that.

BREAM: All right. We'll see if you get the independent part of it. But for now, it looks like those two committees are working together, along with the FBI, as well. A number of investigative tracks.

Robby, good to see you. Thanks for coming in.

MOOK: Thanks for the time. I appreciate it.

BREAM: All right. Here now with reaction, Jack Barsky, the former KGB spy, who was part of an elite group of undercover agents assigned to live in the U.S., eventually, his cover was blown and he since cooperated with the FBI. He's also, author of "Deep Undercover: My Secret Life and Tangled Allegiances as a KGB Spy in America".

Jack, your life sounds so much more fascinating than any of us who will be on the show tonight.

JACK BARSKY, FORMER SECRET AGENT OF THE KGB: Well, when you live with it, it's probably not as fascinating as if you look at it from the outside.

BREAM: Well, let me ask you this, because so many people who have been approached who have any -- even remote tie to Trump or to his campaign.  Many of them have said, listen, "We communicated with people. I do business deals in Russia. We don't know who's part of the Intelligence Community and who's not."

And when it comes to speaking with the ambassador, a lot of folks had said, "Listen, you have to assume that every embassy in Washington has got some kind of surveillance or Intel component to it." So, how do you separate what's legit legal communication and what would be shady?

BARSKY: That's a really good question. And the bottom line is, any diplomat in the past on the Soviet side and most likely today, and from the Russian side, is either part of intelligence or supervised by an intelligence officer, so, you got to be really careful what you tell people, even if they -- you think they are officially just diplomats or trade representatives.

BREAM: So, where do you think this investigation goes? Because now as I talk with Robby, we have several tracks that are on-going. We have denials all over the place. But we know that there were some kinds of communications from people who may have been legit business contacts, may not have been. How tough is it to actually get to who did what, who knew what, who was operating as an agent or a puppet of the Russian government and who wasn't?

BARSKY: The world of espionage is so murky that it's very often just nearly impossible to find the truth. When it comes to -- for instance, my book, there are so many things that I write in the book that only I know and, you know, who knows that I'm honest. See, my concern about this whole situation is that at this point, we have -- we have -- we've taking intelligence out of the intelligence realm and we are playing political football. Because I believe that there is some kind of a connection and sort of a tit-for-tat between the Russian hacking on the one hand, and now, the allegations that Trump was being hacked.

So in the meantime, Mr. Putin is probably sitting back in Russia and he's rubbing his hands, because that is what the Russians want to do and have always done, destabilize democracies. And we are -- right now, we are playing into his hands.

BREAM: Do you think that --

BARSKY: We need to -- go ahead.

BREAM: Yes, I was going to ask you, do you think folks on both sides of the aisle, as I said, there's been concern expressed by both Democrats and Republicans, do you think they get that enough about Putin? That they'll get their act together and say, "Listen, as you -- as Americans we're going to stand united and we're not give him what he wants?"

BARSKY: I would absolutely hope so because this is us, Democrats and Republicans, against them. We're not playing doubles in tennis. We are playing singles. And Putin is on the other side. He is the enemy.

BREAM: All right. Jack Barsky, no one else could offer that perspective that you gave us tonight. We thank you for it.

BARSKY: You're welcome.

BREAM: All right. Still ahead, we are following breaking news tonight on the house GOP's claim to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Marc Thiessen and Matt Bennett are here next to explain what it means for you and for your health care.

Plus, President Trump today signs a brand-new travel ban executive order and revokes the old one from January. So, what really changed and is this new version going to survive? What we know will be the oncoming court battles. Judge Napolitano has all the answers, just ahead.


JOHN KELLY, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: We do not make the law, but are sworn to enforce it. We have no other option.




BRADY: And so tonight, we deliver on President Trump's promise to repeal and begin replacing with two big principles: one, to restore state control of health care and get it out of Washington, and also, restore the free market. That second part is in the Ways and Means area.

So we begin by repealing the awful taxes, the mandate penalties, and the subsidies in ObamaCare. And to be -- give Americans the freedom to buy plans that they need.


BREAM: That was House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, who finds himself in his committee now at the heart of breaking news. Tonight, as we told you at the top of the hour, the House GOP releasing plans tonight that would strike at the central tenets of ObamaCare.

So, what will this look like for you and your family and your health care?  And how will the fight unfold in the coming days and weeks?

Here now, Marc Thiessen, former chief -- speechwriter for President George W. Bush and a Fox News Contributor, and Matt Bennett, former Deputy Assistant to President Bill Clinton.

Good to see you both.



BREAM: All right. Marc, are they at least making progress and that now the GOP appears to be for the most part, the leadership and the White House, on the same page with rolling something out, although, we know -- you know, they can't lose more than 21 votes in the house and there are conservatives there who are still skeptical?

THIESSEN: Yes, we don't know because they haven't put any -- put out any coverage estimates of this new plan, so we do know how many people are going to get covered. And that gets to the big problems that Republicans face. Many of the people who got coverage under ObamaCare did through the Medicaid expansion. There were some Republican governors like Scott Walker who said no and rejected it. But in 13 red states that voted for Donald Trump, the governors accepted the Medicaid expansion.

And so, if you just repeal ObamaCare without doing something to take care of those people, they're going to be millions of people who lose their health care plan.  That's the Democrats' job to take away your health care, right? So, you know, keep your doctor, keep your plan, right. So, the senators from those states -- many of those states are going to say --

BREAM: GOP senators.

THIESSEN: . Republican senators are gonna say, unless there is a plan to take care of these people, then, we're not voting for it. Then the other side, you've got some of the conservatives who ideologically want to repeal this mandate and the problem is, they really want to go back in a time machine to before ObamaCare existed and just say, let's get rid of it and start over.

The problem is we can't pretend it didn't exist. Millions of people got coverage. So we have to get and find a way to cover them in a better way that is more cost-effective, driven by the market, and is gonna cover those people. But any plan that has millions of people losing their health care is both morally wrong and politically a loser.  

BREAM: Well, tonight, Matt, leaders are saying that is not the case. There's a special fund to help those who are gonna have trouble transitioning. They say nobody is gonna get immediately kicked off their transition plans. So they are rolling out a lot of things that sound like they will help people because, of course, morally and from a P.R. standpoint, they don't want the nightmare of millions of people not being covered anymore.

So they've talked about a lot of things. They are gonna keep the pre- existing condition coverage. They are gonna keep people on until 26, but they are repealing the mandate, they are repealing the taxes. How are they gonna pay for this? Do you think the GOP will be able to sufficiently take the P.R. battle and explain how that is gonna get done?

BENNETT: No. And I have no idea. Those are exactly the right questions to be asked. I find myself in the unusual position of largely agreeing with Marc, but they have not answered any of those questions.


BENNETT: And those questions are being raised by senators in their own party, Democrats of course are coming out almost four square against this because there are so many questions. You know, one of the things that they really attacked Democrats for when ObamaCare was moving to congress was doing it too quickly. It took Democrats a year. They are trying to do this in like two weeks. No one knows how much it is gonna cost, as Marc pointed out.

Nobody knows how many people are gonna lose coverage. Nobody knows exactly what this thing is gonna look like. There are couple of things we do know. We know that there will be a huge tax break for highly paid executives in insurance companies. If you make more than 500,000 a year in insurance company, you get a big tax break. So that we know. We know almost nothing else about the finances and the impact of this bill.

BREAM: Well, we do understand that there are gonna be people who can get the tax credits, the wealthier folks, they are gonna try to award those based on age. They are going to apparently phase out the more money that you make. So it sounds like they are trying to find a balance here of paying for it and not overtaxing people.

Marc, tonight, Dr. Krauthammer on "Special Report," Charles Krauthammer  said, the GOP is gonna have to embrace the fact that this was a new entitlement under President Obama, so they can call it something else and move things around but essentially, he says, they are going to release the same thing. They have to embrace it.  

THIESSEN: It's not gonna be the same thing, but they do need to take care of the people who were covered. We can't have millions of people falling off of their health care. This should be a bipartisan effort. We should all agree that we don't want people to lose their coverage. Everybody agrees that ObamaCare is broken. It's not working the way it is and it needs fixes.

And the big problem with ObamaCare was that President Obama did this in a hugely partisan way. He didn't go go to the Republicans and say, let's include your best ideas, we'll take our best ideas, and work together on this. And so what you need to do if you want something that is politically sustainable is something that includes the best ideas from Democrats and the best ideas from Republicans and expands coverage for more people.

The problem is, Democrats are in complete resistance mode. They are not going to work with Republicans. They aren't even confirming Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees. They are not interested in helping him on bipartisan health care reform.

BREAM: And they have to admit, the numbers do not lie, that some of these deductibles and premiums are so high that people say, yes I have insurance, but I cannot use it, it's insane. I mean, if you're on bronze plan which is the lowest level, individual deductibles average $6,000 for families that have $12,000 to $13,000 range.

So even if they have coverage, if they have an emergency, you know, they are gonna have to shell out $12,000. A lot of them say they can't do it, it's not sustainable. So do you think there is anything that will work with this plan to make the situation better?

BENNETT: No, I think that situation is gonna get much, much worse because.

BREAM: How so?  

BENNETT: Well, look, I mean, first of all, if you are under $30,000 in income, you lose not only the premium support, you lose the tax deduction that you would get under ObamaCare.

BREAM: So this is tax credit.  

BENNETT: . sorry, tax credit under ObamaCare. And what we know again, there is a million unanswered questions about this plan. We are just beginning to peace through it. But what we can gather so far is that it will make deductibles and premiums more expensive.  

BREAM: Okay. That is not how the GOP is selling it. So we will leave it at that. Matt and Marc, thank you both. We know there is a lot to get through before we really understand all the details. Thank you. Good to see you both.

THIESSEN: Thank you.

BENNETT: Thank you.

BREAM: New reactions tonight to President Trump's updated travel ban after his January version prompted the protests you see here. So will this new version pass all the legal challenges we know we are gonna get? Judge Napolitano is here on that, to talk about what changed, what stays exactly the same.

Plus, new challenges tonight for the Trump administration as both North Korean and Iran are launching ballistic missiles. They are acting up. That story is just ahead.


BREAM: Breaking tonight, new reaction to President Trump signing a brand- new executive order on travel, and revoking the old travel ban in the process. Among the big changes, Iraq is now off the list of banned countries. The indefinite ban on Syrian refugees is lifted. And now, green card holders will not be affected.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is here to tell us if the changes will help the order get through the coming court battle. But first, we turn live to Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts for the very latest on the new so- called travel ban. Hi, John.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Shannon, good evening too. A noisy protest just down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, already going up against this new executive order, and it hasn't even been implemented yet. The president signed the executive order today more than a week after he really wanted to do it.

He signed it privately, not before the cameras, and he left it to his lieutenants of the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Department Of Justice to roll it out. Here is the Secretary Of Homeland Security, General John Kelly today.  


KELLY: I have spent much of the day today on the phone with members of congress, the leadership, explaining the ins and outs of this and I did the same thing last week. So, there should be no surprises, but it's in the media or in Capitol Hill.


ROBERTS: The effect of this new executive order is the same as the last but some notable changes. You mentioned a couple of them. The temporary visa ban now affects six countries. Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. Iraq was dropped from the list of banned countries after they promised that they would be better at screening and reporting the results of that screening.

The extra screening of Iraqis is to identify people who might be associated with ISIS or other terror groups. You mentioned there are no indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. They will not be considered the same as all of the other refugees. There is a 120-day ban on them coming into the country. This whole thing takes effect in March 16th.

And the president will revoke the original executive order. One of the problems the courts had with the original executive order was quantifying the threat posed by the six countries that were involved. It was seven back then. And the refugees, as well. Attorney General Jeff Sessions addressed that today. Listen to what he said.


JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL: In fact, today, more than 300 people, according to the FBI, who came here as refugees, are under an FBI investigation today for potential terrorism-related activities. Like every nation, the United States has a right to control who enters our country and to keep out those who would do us harm.


ROBERTS: The White House is hoping to get dismissed the dozens of lawsuits that were filed against the original executive order by revoking. Judge Napolitano, I'm sure, Shannon, will be able to articulate that point better than I. But Democrats already lining up to challenge this one, as I said, the protest is down the street, a lot of action planned in court as well.

BREAM: All right. John Roberts live at White House. Thank you. Here to weigh in on all of this, Fox News senior judicial analyst and best-selling author, Judge Andrew Napolitano. I have so many questions for you. I don't know where to start.


BREAM: Okay. Let's start with the revisions made today. You and I know the arguments that were made against the original order, does this resolve those issues?

NAPOLITANO: It does in part. So there are two categories of judicial objection to the original order. One is, there was no reason given in the original order for the selection of the seven countries. How did they address that? They reduced it to six and they gave a summary, a non- classified summary, of classified information, about the likely dangers posed from each of those six countries from whom immigrants have been banned. That is clearly enough to show a rational basis, which is what the legal standard is, as you know, to justify this.

Second part of the judicial objection as a little bit more troublesome. Second part, the judges call this a sort of mass anti-Muslim ban. And they based that on some of the more incendiary things that candidate Trump and some of his surrogate said during the campaign. Things that President Trump doesn't say anymore. So the issue, the challenge for the directors of this, was remove religious references in this. So the first one had exemptions for persecuted Christians and Jews.

BREAM: Right.

NAPOLITANO: This has no exemptions. So there is no mention of religiosity. There is no mention of any religion test at all. Will that pass master? I don't know. If you find judges who think that what candidate Trump said can impale President Trump, it will not pass muster.

If you find judges who believe that with the president now says he means, it will pass muster. Because all of the benefit of the doubt is to go to the president on this, not to his challengers. The president is charged with securing the borders.  

BREAM: Okay. Do you think like I do that this is gonna go right into the courts? The ACLU and other groups today saying it is same thing in a different package. That is their estimation of it. I think what will happen is it will probably go through the court system, maybe get different circuit court rulings, maybe an opposition, this thing ends up at the Supreme Court. I mean, is that the end game of how this thing was drafted, knowing.

NAPOLITANO: Well, okay, that is a great question. A couple of potential and games, as our colleague, John Roberts just pointed out. One of the purposes of rescinding the old is to undercut the 48 lawsuits that have been filed against the president.

BREAM: Right.

NAPOLITANO: This would automatically undercut them. The Justice Department will have to move to dismiss those. I think all of those motions will be granted. Then, some new cases will be filed. That will necessarily be filed before the same courts. You won't necessarily get the same judges. You may for example get the third circuit, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, rather than the ninth, where you'll get a different view of how this should be treated. So the first goal is to find a circuit court that will side with the president.

If that doesn't work, they expect that Judge Gorsuch will be Justice Gorsuch by the time this reaches the Supreme Court. There is no guarantee as to how he will go. He is not a rubber-stamp for the president. But he has a mindset closer to the president to break the likely 4-4 tie on the president of that court.

BREAM: That they will get now. It's interesting because you know this court has done a lot including justices Kagan and Sotomayor, president Obama's own nominees, they have ruled against him on executive power.


BREAM: We will see how they feel about this.

NAPOLITANO: Another hope they may have is that Justice Kagan recuse herself because her involvement in these very issues when she was the solicitor general of the United States. If that happens, score an extra vote.

BREAM: You know, there were big cases that she didn't recuse on. People were very critical also. You make an excellent point, as you always do, judge.

NAPOLITANO: Always a pleasure, Shannon. I started my day with you and ended my day with you.

BREAM: I know.


BREAM: I couldn't be luckier. All right. Straight ahead, a big test for the Trump administration as Iran and North Korea engage in further provocations. Both countries launching ballistic missiles. Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra and our own Julie Roginsky join us to talk about that.

Plus, a pro-Trump rally descending to a scene of violence from leftist agitators. Tonight, we are learning the chaos may be the result of some potentially insightful language from a former Obama official.


BREAM: Developing tonight, the Trump administration facing challenges abroad as well after Iran and North Korea both launched fresh ballistic missile test over the weekend. An Iran vessel came just 600 yards from a U.S. naval ship.

Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra is a former house intelligence chairman and former Trump campaign national security adviser. Julie Roginsky is a Democratic analyst and a Fox News contributor. Good to see you both.


BREAM: Congressman, I will start with you. What do you of this? I mean, any time we get a new administration, we know that foreign powers are going to saber rattle. Is this anything more than that?  

HOEKSTRA, FORMER HOUSE INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN: I think it is. They are being much more aggressive. You know, North Korea has been kind of an interesting case. Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, they never found a way to really slow down North Korea's nuclear program and ambitions.

That has been a bipartisan failure. Even with its meager resources, it has been able to continue its development program. Iran, we had gotten into a box. But when the sanctions were lifted with a nuke deal, the bottom line is, a bunch of money flowed into Iran. But the key point here is, Iran and North Korea work together.

They work together on their nuclear program, they work together on their ballistic missile program. When this money started flowing into Iran, you can be sure that that some of that money has made its way into North Korea. These countries now are better equipped and better financed to pose a challenge to the United States than what they have ever been.

BREAM: Julie, factually, that is true.


BREAM: We talk about the influx of cash and the lifting of sanctions. So what does a President Trump do now that he's in charge?  

ROGINSKY: You know, there is obviously no easy solution to this and nothing we can discuss in a few minutes segment. That will ameliorate the situation. I will say, the president has saber rattle quite a bit with China. And now, we come to find out that China is a very critical player, we've always known this obviously and North Korea specifically.

And we are going to have to work with China to some extent on this issue. The congressman pointed out exactly correctly that this has been an issue that has been ongoing, not just for the past four or five administrations, but really going all the way back to Eisenhower or even earlier, excuse me, to Harry Truman.

And so the North Koreans, obviously, rely on China for trade. They rely on China for whatever meager income they have. As the congressman pointed out, they also rely on former soviet engineers, nuclear engineers. They rely on Iran and other hostile powers, United States, and work in tandem with this, the Pakistanis and others.

And so, you know, I think the president may not understand how interconnected all of these different policies are, that when you accused China on the one hand of all the things he has accused China of, then, some case appropriately, he will have to work with them on issues like this. We cannot go it alone as places like North Korea.

BREAM: Congressman, what advice would you give to President Trump now? I mean, ballistic missile test going off from both of these nations repeatedly since he took office.  

HOEKSTRA: I think the Trump administration understands the threat very, very clearly. That is why they have engaged with South Korea, it's why one of the first visitors here to Washington and actually after the president won his election. He invited, you know, the leader of Japan here. He recognizes that this has to be a regional solution to box in North Korea and China is going to be a key player.

Like I said, no one has been able to pull that off again. He is also going to have to start working to try to tighten the screws on Iran if that is at all possible in any way or try to get around to change its behavior. Iran has not changed any of its behavior. It has helped North Korea in any of those things.

BREAM: We got to leave it there. We are gonna have a break. Thank you both for coming on tonight.

HOEKSTRA: Okay. Thank you.

ROGINSKY: Thank you.

BREAM: We are back with violent rally right after this.



LORETTA LYNCH, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: They marched, they bled, yes, some of them have died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.


BREAM: That is former attorney general, Loretta Lynch, seemingly calling for more marching and somewhat argue blood in the streets. Since those remarks, we have seen several examples of violence, actions by anti-Trump protesters. This was the scene at Middlebury College last week. Over the weekend, a pro-Trump rally in Berkeley, California erupted into chaos. For more, let's go to Trace Gallagher live in Los Angeles news room. Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Shannon. The actual clash happened about a mile away from the UC Berkeley campus. Our crew on scene said that Trump supporters have marched for several blocks that were then met by a group of counter demonstrators.


GALLAGHER: And as the videos and pictures on social media can attest, the fights began almost immediately.

A combination of punches, hair pulling, and pepper spray. Others were also trying to burn an American flag and knocked "Make America Great Again" hats off people's heads. Both sides are trying to make their voices heard or in some cases trying to silence the opposition. Watch.


GALLAGHER: In the end, seven were injured, ten arrested. And here are both sides of the argument. Watch.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am an immigrant myself. I wasn't born here. We actually came here from Algeria. So, I do think that -- I thought that Trump had a good message. I think if you listen to him, you would agree with me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't have honesty. We don't have transparency. I don't know if that has been a strong suit of the government. But it seems to be getting worse.

GALLAGHER: And not just Berkeley, six people protesting a pro-Trump rally in St. Paul, Minnesota were arrested on felony riot charges for lighting fireworks inside the state capital. In Denver, a march for Trump rally was interrupted by a group of anti-Trump protesters who ripped up an American flag and shared some select words for Trump supporters.


GALLAGHER: But supporters at Mar-a-Lago did get a wave from the president. Shannon.  

BREAM: All right. Thank you, Trace. Thanks for watching "The First 100 Days." I am Shannon Bream. We will see you back here tomorrow night at 7:00. The news keep on breaking. We'll keep you covered.

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.