This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," March 23, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM,"THE FIRST 100 DAYS" HOST: Breaking tonight in Washington, it is so not pretty to see how the sausage is being right -- made right now in Washington. There are a lot of scraps on the floor, you could say, it's pretty messy, but in the end, we will have either a new health care law or we won't. This is Sean Spicer pretty confident earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the bill does not pass tonight, what is the -
SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No, worry - don't worry, it's going to pass. So, that's it. Caitlyn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So, now the vote is not passing, and it is not tonight. In the last couple of hours, we had Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon rushing through the halls of Capitol Hill, huddling with Speaker Ryan, trying to figure out what to do next. The president over at the White House has his sleeves rolled up. He is working to get, you could say, an artful deal put together at the White House in hopes that perhaps they can take another crack at this thing as soon as tomorrow.
Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum. So, that is where we are. There's quite a bit of excitement on day 63 of "The First 100." We've got our cameras on the Hill. We'll head there, as news break throughout the hour.
But first, our other huge story tonight, brand new Fox News reporting on allegations that the Obama administration may have effectively used the FBI and the NSA to get inside information on the incoming Trump team. Today, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said that he was not sorry that he revealed to the president new information that U.S. intel agencies may have surveilled communications of involving members of the Trump transition team. And then, the intel agencies and perhaps the White House and the DOJ altered the rules to permit spreading that sensitive information around, so it could essentially be gawked at by a wider circle of insiders. So, is that OK?
Here is Chairman Nunes in an interview that will air later tonight on "Hannity."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEVIN NUNES, UNITED STATES HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN: I will say that the dissemination was pretty far and wide. And like I said before, I think, it appears to me that it was all legal. And the question is, "Should it have been done in the first place? Did it meet foreign intelligence value? And then, secondly, was any other - were any other American names unmasked, and I have information that says that there were.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: He has information that says that more names were unmasked.
Joining me now, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, Fox News contributor. Charles, good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here. So, you know, we're sort of on day two of this particular chapter of this story, and Devin Nunes says basically that he is not sorry that he went ahead and shared this information with the president. What do you think?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think he did make a mistake in the sequence of these revelations going to the press, then the White House, and going to his committee. In fact, we hear from reports that in meeting with his committee today, he did actually offer an apology for not having told the committee first, which is what you would expect.
The mainstream media have been harping on that, as if that is the story here. It's not. It's a sideshow of a sideshow of a sideshow. Something he shouldn't have done. But the fact is that he saw something that disturbed him and he thought it ought to be revealed. The problem we have is that we don't know enough of the facts. We do know there's a charge against the Trump administration that there was collusion with the Russian campaign. There is an investigation of that. We also know that it was Trump's own charge of being wiretapped for which there was no evidence, wiretapping of Trump Tower.
But, now, there is this third story, and we need to keep them distinct, which is Nunes' charge that there was improper use of the information picked up legally and incidentally in the surveillance of foreign folks. Which, of course, is allowed, which we do, but normally, you're supposed to mask the names. His charge -- and we have known that there was one improper use of that in the surveilling and the leaking of the name of General Flynn. Now, whether or not he acted properly or not is not the issue, but there seems to have been an abuse of the system here. The Nunes charge, as you just shown in that clip, is that it was widespread and systematic. That is what he said. We need to see the evidence.
MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, it goes back to The New York Times story; and in that story, it was revealed that they went to great lengths to sort of open up the channels and make it easier for more people in a wider circle to see the transcripts of conversations or the e-mails, the things that the NSA is allowed to get their hands on. And in that story, Charles, the overwhelming feeling is that there were do-gooders that that's how they saw themselves.
That, you know, we have to make sure that the country knows what the Trump administration was up to. So, if we didn't leave these tea leaves and open these doors, it was all going to go away, and they would never know. I mean, you know, that's a pretty big assumption to say, "Well, we're going to change these rules because we've decided that this is what's for the best of the American people."
KRAUTHAMMER: And there's a second problematic aspect, which is the way the information was achieved in the first place. You're supposed to -- when you are listening in on the foreign people, let's say ambassadors from other countries, and according to Nunes, this is not Russian.
MACCALLUM: Not - OK. Yes.
KRAUTHAMMER: These are non-Russian people. That's perfectly legitimate. When you pick up incidental Americans, you're supposed to protect their identities. Now, the question is, were they abusing the statute by using the foreign eavesdropping as an excuse or as an avenue to get in, and that the real purpose was to listen in on Americans. That's the larger charge. That would be a pretty big violation of what you're supposed to do. You might have - I mean, the lesser charge is, they overshot on Flynn or perhaps they improperly unmasked the name of somebody else. But the question is, was there an intent to abuse the listening in on the foreigners as a way to get inside and improperly listen in on Americans? And, as you know, that's the one thing these agencies are not supposed to do. In the absence of a court order, you don't go listening in on American citizens.
MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, the rules and the rules. They're supposed to be apolitical. And in support of the intelligence that's necessary to keep the Americans safe, that's the job.
KRAUTHAMMER: That's right. But it's important -
MACCALLUM: It is not to become, you know, an inside spy or to trade information into - to an outgoing administration about an incoming one. We got to leave it there. Charles, thank you so much.
MACCALLUM: Good to see you always, tonight. Thank you.
So, joining me now is the former Intel Committee Chair Pete Hoekstra, who says that the bottom line here is that if Chairman Nunes is accurate and there were raw intelligence reports in the White House of intercepted American phone calls. That is unprecedented. Julie Roginsky joins us also, she's Democratic analyst and Fox News contributor to weigh in here.
So, Pete, given what we know today, do you think that that's what happened, and what was the motivation? Why do they want to be able to gawk, is the word that we use, and you know, and sort of this free flow of information with the names peeled off and have look at what was going on in this conversations with the Trump administration?
PETE HOEKSTRA, FORMER HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Well, I want to make a couple of points here, Martha. The first is, I want to correct Charles a little bit. Not only when given foreign - this intelligence is collected on Americans, not only do the names have to be masked, but before that information is ever shared throughout the community or through the White House or wherever, there has to be a compelling reason for national security purposes, why this information has to leave. If you collect on Americans - it's our foreign intelligence agencies, that information should be deep-sixed unless there's a compelling reason. If there's a compelling reason, you can share it, but it has to be masked.
And what appears happened here is these transcripts were shared, and they went all the way to the White House. If it's raw intelligence, in my 10 years on the committee, I never saw raw intelligence. I only saw intelligence analysis. That is a huge breach of confidence.
MACCALLUM: Yes, it's a great point.
HOEKSTRA: Why? Who knows? It's interesting.
MACCALLUM: and the person who has your job now says that when he saw this free flow of information, these documents, he said he only saw about a dozen, but he said there's a lot more, that it alarmed him. He found it alarming that our intel agencies would be allowing this information to sort of free flow. Julie, what do you think about this? Because Democrats in the past, including Al Franken, have complained about this 702 rule, that it - that it can easily be misused and abused?
JULIE ROGINSKY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND DEMOCRATIC ANALYST: Well, there's two issues here. One is, we have some late-breaking news this afternoon and early this evening that Chairman Nunes conceded, that it may not even be that there were any Trump transition members on these interceptions, that it may have even been as little as foreigners discussing the Trump transition. He has to -
MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, just to clarify, there's -- he's not sure if, you know -- what it seems to say, that they could have been phone calls, they could have been e-mails. So, it's not sure how many people were grouped into those, perhaps, is the inference, but we've got a long way to go on that details. All right.
ROGINSKY: Right. But that detail is important because that actually means that they were not in the Trump transition people who were picked up; it was maybe foreigners discussing the Trump transition, which is a huge difference. But the larger point here is - and it was made really well in the Washington - in The Wall Street Journal today, which is this has gotten so toxic on both sides; that there's really no faith on either side that when or if the truth comes out, it will, in fact, be the truth. And I think it is time for Jim Comey or ultimately whoever is in charge of this operation -
MACCALLUM: And that's a good question in and of itself, who is in charge?
ROGINSKY: But that great - some excellent question, I think, none of us really knows. But it is up to the Intelligence Community to fish or cut bait, because it is unfair to both the Trump administration to have this hanging over their head since July, apparently, but it is also unfair to the American people to have speculation on both sides without any clarifying answers. And I think it's time that they come out with whatever it is that they have. I understand there's an investigation going on. This investigation is could go on into Trump's first term until the end, if not, longer. And that's just not fair to the American people or, frankly, to him.
MACCALLUM: Yes, we need resolution on it. I think all agree. Thank you so much, both of you.
ROGINSKY: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: We'll continue to talk to you about this as it moves forward.
HOEKSTRA: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: Thanks to you both. So, breaking tonight, House Republicans will be up late tonight, as in all night, perhaps, as they scramble to secure the votes needed to pass this health care bill. They may give it another go tomorrow, and we should find that out over the course of this evening. We're going to be joined in a moment by Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who may be there all right. We hope he brought his pillow. We'll talk about how he's trying to convince his fellow members that this whole thing is a good idea.
Plus, breaking news on the horrific rape case out of Rockville, Maryland, where there is quite a bit of new information tonight. Both illegals involved, so say the attorneys, are innocent. The latest when we come back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, what this policy would say is that, when our law enforcement arrests somebody, their hands will be completely tied as far as working with ICE and federal authorities, even if these people are dangerous, terrorists, gang members, no matter what they are, this bill has no exception.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, the vote on the House Republican Health Bill has been postponed on a day that was meant to have some powerful meaning, ObamaCare's seventh birthday is today. But instead, the battle over how this bill is going to go, is continuing to rage as the President Trump and his top advisors scramble to try to get those votes together on the floor. Vice President Pence saying moments ago that he believes all sides are making progress. That's sort of a broad term, but that's what he had to say on it right now. GOP members however really unsure about what happens next with whole thing. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think if there is a vote tomorrow, it would pass? Are you close to ironing out those difference?
RAUL LABRADOR, UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN FROM IDAHO: Well, not yet. That's why I believe the vote was postponed. And if it doesn't work tonight, we may have to wait until tomorrow or maybe have to wait until Monday.
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIFORNIA: The president had made great progress with individuals. We just need to make sure everybody is there, and we'd be able to solve this problem.
REP. MARK MEADOWS, HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS CHAIRMAN: We are going to get to the finish line because the president is committed to get to the finish line, and moderates and conservatives are committed to get to the finish line.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: All right. So, joining me now, Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger. He has met with President Trump on this bill, and will no doubt be burning the midnight oil to find a solution. Good to see you tonight, Congressman.
REP. ADAM KINZINGER, R-ILLINOIS: Thanks. Thanks.
MACCALLUM: Well, what's the mood there?
KINZINGER: Well, it's -- everybody is interested, right? We're all waiting. You know, I think we don't know exactly where the vote count is. That's hidden and that's changing every day, every moment. You know, we want to get this done. We want to move forward. We want to follow through on the promises we made to the American people, and we've got a conference that's happening here very soon. We're going to probably talk about this and figure out the (INAUDIBLE) going forward, but ultimately, we have to be able to get to yes. And that's the difference between being in charge now versus being in the opposition party, which we play in the past. Voting though is easy but governing and getting the yes is difficult, and we're all going to have to make that - make that decision on our own. I hope we can get there.
MACCALLUM: The president was meeting with members of the Tuesday group; you had people on the Hill, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus. So, it seems to me that they're trying to - you know, they sort of went a little bit towards the conservatives on this, and made some of them happy but then some of the moderates sort of fell off the front end of the - of the raft in the water, right?
KINZINGER: Yes. Look, it's -- again, the art of this is very difficult, as you make concessions to one group, another may be doesn't like it. And remember in the past, to pass the health care law, ObamaCare, the Democrats had the cornhusker kickback in the Louisiana purchase; they started putting- loaded it up with earmarks. We don't do earmarks, so we don't have that option. So, it has to be on people's goodwill that this is the right thing moving forward. So, I hope some of my friends and colleagues over in the Freedom Caucus can get to yes. That's where we need to be. Again, you'll never see a perfect bill and we have a very danger of letting good - letting perfect become the enemy of good. This is a good bill. We need to move forward.
MACCALLUM: Are you going to see a bill - a vote on this tomorrow?
KINZINGER: I hope so. I hope so. I think we'll get more direction tonight after our conference which we have media staked out about, so they'll find out very soon. And I hope we can get it done tomorrow, and go on to our next promises and getting some things done.
MACCALLUM: All right. Adam Kinzinger, thank you very much. Good to you tonight. Good luck.
KINZINGER: And to you back. Thanks.
MACCALLUM: All right. So, joining me now, David McIntosh, President of The Club for Growth, a group that is firmly against this bill in its current form; and Doug Holtz-Eakin is president of the American Action Forum and former director of the CBO. He said it's conservative enough and it repeals the heart of ObamaCare. So, welcome gentlemen. Good to have you both here.
DAVID MCINTOSH, THE CLUB FOR GROWTH PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DOUG HOLTZ-EAKIN, AMERICAN ACTION FORUM PRESIDENT AND FORMER CBO DIRECTOR: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: David, let me start with you. You know, if I were to bring -- or if the president were to bring, which might work better, Rand Paul into the room and Paul Ryan into the room, and say, we're going to have a bill at the end of this conversation, what would it look like, and what would your side be willing to concede?
MCINTOSH: Yes, I think the conservatives would say at this point, if you simply make sure you put some provisions in there that will really reduce the cost of insurance, that's the core of the promise they've made in four elections to get rid of ObamaCare. And Paul Ryan keeps saying, "I don't want to do that." And he kind of says the Senate can't, but he -- the House can, and he's in charge of the House. And the way you do that is you repeal the ObamaCare regulations, and you require insurance companies to compete nationwide, which is one of President Trump's key promises last year in the campaign.
So, I think they're getting close. If they can just get to the point where they'll keep those last two promises, then I think you'll see the votes to pass it.
MACCALLUM: Doug, what do you think about that?
EAKIN: I think that it has just two problems. Number one, CBO has already scored the bill as reducing premiums down 10 percent at the end of the decade, and that's (INAUDIBLE)
MCINTOSH: But they're doubled, so that's just a small amount, Doug. That's hardly anything.
EAKIN: Bu that's a - that's actually an artifact of the fact that CBO is using all data starting 2016. It doesn't have anywhere in this analysis, the 25 and 30 percent increase we saw in the past year. If you compare it to 2017 numbers, the numbers are down. This is a nonissue. The other problem is, everything David said requires you 60 votes in the Senate, you're not going to get 60 votes in the Senate. So, that's a nice fantasy, but it's not the boat they have to take, and the boat they have to take is one where this bill, which repeals a trillion dollars in taxes, does the greatest entitle reform this country has ever seen, relies on individual freedom and federalism. Take out these - the bad incentives that took 2 million workers out of labor force.
It does all of those things and is a great step toward a better place. It serves the political interest of the Republican Party, it serves the American people who are trapped in a - in a failing ObamaCare system and in an underperforming Medicaid system. That does this fully -
MACCALLUM: Yes, it didn't look like there's a lot of competition between the House and the Senate. And the Senate is probably looking at this and saying, you know, "Forget it. You guys do what you want over there." If you want to pass this thing and bring it on over, we're going to basically start from scratch, David, you know, is that - you would like to see to the repeal part passed in the House and then begin the replace part in the Senate? Is that right?
MCINTOSH: Well, I actually think that if they totally repeal it and they replace it with what they have in the House, conservatives would like that. So, I don't think they have to do a two-part bill. The House isn't constrained by the same rules, and then the parliamentarian is actually telling some senators -- I saw a tweet from one of them -- no, I haven't made a ruling yet on whether we can get rid of those regulations. So, pass it in the House and take it over to the Senate and see what you can get.
And by the way, those regulations that they're leaving in are responsible for 40, 50 percent of the increase due to the ObamaCare. So, they're leaving in the big increases and everybody is paying for, every year, in higher insurance. And it's disingenuous to say, "Well, they're going down a little bit, but then in a couple years, they'll start back up again."
MACCALLUM: So, we talked to a roomful of people in North Carolina last night, I asked them, you know, "Do you like the Paul Ryan version or do you like the Rand Paul version?" You know, a couple of hands went up for each one. I said, "Do you really not understand, you know, what this is all about, and how it's going to affect you? And, you know, pretty much every hand in the room went up. It's so - it's really heartbreaking, and, you know, so many - it's very difficult, I think, for people to wrap their arms around. But the number one thing is they want their costs to go down and they want to have more choice, right?
So, Doug, can you promise them with this bill that exists - the Paul Ryan bill, for lack of a better term -- that they will be able to have both of those things? Their costs will go down, they'll feel it, they'll see the difference, and they'll have more choice?
EAKIN: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. Some of the research is done by a nonpartisan group called the "Center for Help and Economy" [sp] shows immediate premium reductions from this. We've seen the ability of the states to take over a lot of the regulation, gives us a lot more flexibility and choice for individuals. And I have little doubt about that. I think that's a fantastic future.
The issue in the kinds of things that David and others have proposed is, they want to have it both ways, have the House at one bill; the Senate in another bill; everyone get to vote what they want. In the end, the House and the Senate have to vote on the same bill. You have the stretch from the Freedom Caucus to Susan Collins. And they're not going to love anything (INAUDIBLE) that's all there is to it.
MACCALLUM: And I think you have to start with the assumption that you're going to have a bill, and then you got to get it there from there. You guys, we've got to go. Thank you very much, good to see both of you tonight.
MCINTOSH: Yes, thank you.
MACCALLUM: So, also tonight, the death toll in the London terror attack rising at this hour. We are learning more now about the suspected killer and his very troubled past. Ahead, we're going to take you to live - London, too, and then live for the latest on that.
Plus, the confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch are over. But the real fight is about to begin, as the Democratic leadership in the Senate makes a surprising decision to filibuster this highly popular nominee. Karl Rove and Juan Williams standing by, up next.
MACCALLUM: Developing tonight, the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch wrapping up today after four days of hearings. And in the next couple of weeks, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold their vote and send a decision to the full Senate floor, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already pledged that he will take the extraordinary step of filibustering the vote of this nominee who has had broad support.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-NEW YORK: I say if this nominee cannot earn 60 votes, a bar met by each of President Obama's nominees and George Bush's last two nominees, the answer isn't to change the rules. It's to change the nominee.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Here now, Karl Rove, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush and a Fox News Political contributor; Juan Williams, co-host of "The Five" and Fox News political analyst. So, gentlemen, are we really in a place where someone like Neil Gorsuch who Democrats -- I think everyone would have to admit - we're scrambling to sort of find something that they could pin on him. And in most cases, he ran circles around them, that they cannot come to a vote on this individual, Juan?
JUAN WILLIAMS, "THE FIVE" CO-HOST: Well, I think obviously the real issue here is Merrick Garland, Martha, and the fact that Republicans blocked President Obama from advancing a nominee to the court for almost a year. So, there's a big, you know, problem, a big -- something is mysteriously missing in the room, which is Democrats. And you see even people who I would describe as moderates -
MACCALLUM: Juan, you know, even if -
WILLIAMS: Let me finish the point. Please.
MACCALLUM: -- one thing. You know, even in politics, even in Washington, you know, if you look at something and you think it's egregious, you do - your response is to do the same thing. I mean, it's like - it's like isn't that sort of eighth grade?
WILLIAMS: No, not in the current Washington where there's so much political paralysis to the point of dysfunction. I think what you're asking is that Democrats would lay down and say, "You know what, we understand that what Republicans did over the course of the last year and denying Merrick Garland the opportunity to meet and the opportunity to have hearings was wrong. But, we're not going to, you know, say that one wrong-- two wrongs make a right. But, in this current situation where you have Donald Trump in White House, where you - the question is all about wiretaps, collusion, all that, that that person should then immediately step in and be given the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, I think that is why you had even moderate Democrats like Carper and even Bob Casey of Pennsylvania saying they will filibuster.
MACCALLUM: I think the American people across the country look at that and they say, gee, if we ran our lives that way, we would be in pretty big trouble. If you have to overlook a person who is obviously qualified for the job, Karl, and you're going to bringing in every other dirty issue in Washington and pin it on this guy to make yourself feel better, that is not really where we want to be.
KARL ROVE, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Look, let's put this in perspective. We have the vice president of the United States when he was in the United States Senate, George Biden say that George W. Bush should not be allowed to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court in his last year in the presidency in 1992. We have a Democrat minority leader, Chuck Schumer, say in July of 2007, a year and a half before the end of George W. Bush's time in office that he should not be allowed to propose that have accepted by this Senate a nominee for the Supreme Court. So they set the rules. The rules were, for the last 80 years, no president has been able to nominate in the last year of their term in office. Now we get to this very able individual, and we have seen three days of unserious questions by the Democrats. I've been astonished. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat, normally a reasonable sensible person, said, and I'll quote her, here, you have been very much able to avoid specificity like no one I have ever seen before. That is why we pressed and press and press. I looked at what she asked in 1993 to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and they didn't ask specific questions. In fact Ruth Bader Ginsburg said doesn't even bother asking me specific questions.
MACCALLUM: That is how the game is played now. You don't have to ask specific questions, but now, apparently, the game is played to the point where you have to have the White House and the Senate if you want to get someone through. It makes me think, Juan, you don't need hearings anymore, right, because this whole (inaudible) becomes mute, quickly.
WILLIAMS: Quickly, the key point here is the court has become so politicized, Martha that everybody knows this is about Republicans wanting somebody who will support their point of view and not Democrats who will support another point of view. Quickly, in response to Karl, I seem to member that not Anthony Kennedy was nominated and confirmed in the last year Ronald Reagan.
ROVE: No, he was nominated two years -- a year and a half before President Reagan left office, confirmed five days.
WILLIAMS: Obviously, and the final year.
MACCALLUM: Thank you gentlemen, thank you Juan, thank you Karl. We will see you next time.
So we are learning more details tonight about a very disturbing story. It is any alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl and Rockville High School in Maryland. The case is sparking a lot of debate about immigration, about the loopholes that allowed these two young men to be here. We'll take you there for the very latest information that we have learned tonight in this case. Plus, the death toll is rising after the terror attack near the British parliament, terror scare in Belgium now has all of Europe on high alert. Lt Col. Tony Shaffer and former Islamic Extremist Maajid Nawaz are here to discuss next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are not afraid and our results will never waver in the face of terrorism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: We have some new details emerging now about the suspect and yesterday's deadly terror attack near the British parliament in London. The alleged terrorist killed four people including an American man from Utah, Kurt Cochran. ISIS has now claimed responsibility as we learned that the suspect had a history with law enforcement. Foreign affairs correspondent Benjamin Hall joins us live in London. The city is on edge, of course after the terror sweep late last night, Benjamin, good evening to you.
BENJAMIN HALL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Martha. Less than 24 hours after this brutal attack on Westminster Bridge, where it first started, it was already opened again. It was a clear sign from the U.K. government that they would not be brought to their knees by terrorists. As you say, we are now learning more about the attacker himself. His name was Khalid Masood. He was 52 years old, and he was born in Britain, and had a spate of prior arrests, possession of weapons and assault. He had also, tellingly, been under investigation for extremism. The government claims he had dropped off their radar. Today seven arrests were carried out in London, and principally in Birmingham, the city in which more terrorist has come in to U.K. than any other. Masood is believed to come from the city and that is what the car he uses also just a few days ago. Memories of yesterday's attacks are still strong. Four people are now dead and six remained in critical condition. The victims came from 11 different countries, Germany, China, South Korea, France, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and as you said, also among them, an American. Kurt Cochran was 54, he came from Utah, he ran a recording studio business and he was visiting London with his wife to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary. She remains in critical condition and condolences coming from around the world. This is seen not only as an attack on the U.K. parliament but very much as an attack on western values in general. Martha?
MACCALLUM: Absolutely, Ben, there was another story circulating this afternoon about a possible suspicious finding in Antwerp. But can you tell us about that?
HALL: A very similar kind of attack to the one we saw here, very fortunately foiled. A Tunisian man was driving his car at high speed into a shopping center, shopping street. He was stopped by the military, but they found in the trunk of his car weapons, military uniform, and a gas canister full of suspicious liquid. It does seem as though another terror attack was averted there, and it does seem as though ISIS are using vehicles more and more. It has become their favorite sort of weapon, because it is so hard to find a defense against it.
MACCALLUM: Absolutely, Benjamin Hall, thank you very much. Joining me know, Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer, a CIA trained intel operative and senior fellow at the London center for policy research, and Maajid Nawaz a former Islamic extremist and author of "radical, my journey out of Islamist extremism." Gentlemen welcome, good to have you both here. Maajid let me start with you. When you listen to the details of this story, what strikes you the most about what we need to be concerned about here?
MAAJID NAWAZ, FORMER ISLAMIC EXTREMIST: Unfortunately, as we just heard these sorts of attacks are going to be coming extremely common and increasingly difficult to predict and stop. What we do know is predictable pattern would exist in both of them, not just a random vehicle being used to attack people. We also know that these extremists will seek to pick out high propaganda targets such as (inaudible) they seek to attack police officers, as has happened here. And we have to acknowledge the loss of life of everyone, also of a very brave police officer. Finally, understand that because we can't predict them, the long-term solution is going to have to be building community resilience within Muslim communities who have to start speaking out against this sort of poisonous, extremist rhetoric that has so plague the minds of people like Khalik Masood, this 52 year old attacker.
MACCALLUM: There was a woman who was on with Tucker Carlson last night, a British author, and she has been criticized, because she has spoken out against multiculturalism. She said that this idea that London comes together as a city after something like this is not true, that there are such distinct sections of the city where people continue to live within their own culture that the cultures are not lending. Do you agree?
NAWAZ: It the way that multiculturalism was implemented in the United Kingdom in the '90s is largely responsible for the polarization and self-segregation and the social immobility in almost communities in Britain and across Europe as a result. We Muslims are disproportionately represented in prisons, underemployed, and we are suffering to progress and get ahead and advance in society due to some of those policies. And I think as someone who identifies as a liberal, perfectly consistent to speak out against this. Let me give you one example to really drive the point, this attacker lived in Birmingham. One in ten attackers in Birmingham, one in ten attackers from across the U.K., comes from just five wards in the city of Birmingham. If that is what multiculturalism has produced, then I'm sorry, something has gone wrong and we got to address it.
MACCALLUM: Tony, what do you think?
TONY SHAFFER, CIA SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVE: I agree that we've got to look at the root of this. You can take guns away, take explosives away, but this violent attitude will find whatever weapon is available. It is a cultural issue. That may be clear on this, we have faced here before. My first operations in Europe, chasing a group called the red army group, the ref, which was a terror group funded by the Russians as part of the effort against us. We need to look at how we defeated that sort of thing back during the cold war. We talked about, as part of Brexit, we have NATO to start working on this issue, not only as a military force, but as a way of countering the message, and then we have to work with people like the president of Egypt, who has said, Islam must give up violence as part of its faith. It is counterproductive. I think we have to work both at the tactical level to try to figure out what targets they are going to go after, how we could good counterterrorism operations, this can be done. But at the same time, you have to change the culture. Putting things together like in Birmingham -- by the way, I work with good Muslims in Birmingham, a group called the association of British Muslims, formed in the late 19th century, works to try to counter this. We have folks we have to work within the community to try to take the violence out of the message.
MACCALLUM: Thank you gentlemen, we have leave it there, our thoughts and prayers are with Kurt Cochran's family tonight, the American who was killed in that attack in that beautiful spot on Westminster bridge were so many people wanted to visit, as he did come up with his wife. So coming up next, to my attentions running high in Maryland tonight, after new details from the alleged rape at Rockville High School as this case continues to emerge. Doug McKelway joins us with brand-new information, and Katie Pavlich and Michelle Jawando here to debate.
MACCALLUM: All right we will get to the latest from the hill moments ago, White House Director Mick Mulvaney, the man that President Trump has largely tasked with running point on repeal and replace just told House Republicans a moment ago that the president is done with the negotiating and he wants a vote on this bill tomorrow. He has said basically, he is a master negotiator, he has been working this very hard, as a president he has been extremely involved in this process, but he says he is done and the vote will be tomorrow. We will keep you posted on new developments as that continue tonight also tonight, there is new outrage over a case we have been bringing you all week, the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl at a high school in Rockville Maryland. They are now growing demands for answers as to why these two suspects who reports suggest were both illegal immigrants were allowed not only to remain in the United States but to enroll as freshmen in a public high school. But even amid all of the controversy surrounding this, some lawmakers there have been pushing legislation to make Maryland a sanctuary state. Fox's Doug McKelway joins us live in Maryland with the details tonight, Hi, Doug.
DOUG MCKELWAY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Martha and tonight we are at the Montgomery county detention center where earlier this afternoon, the defense attorney for one of the accused, 18-year-old Henry Sanchez, had his first ever face-to-face meeting with his client. In an exclusive television interview with us, the lawyer, rated as one of the top 100 Maryland attorney by super lawyer magazine, described that first ever meeting with the man who has become a focal point over the immigration battle in the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW JEZIC, HENRY SANCHEZ MILLIAN ATTORNEY: We talked about the case, we talk about the facts, we talk about his background, and how he got here, what is his defense are, who he is as a person. He is a humble, soft- spoken guy who fled a lot of gang violence in his country, talked about his trek through Guatemala and Mexico, talked about his detention with ICE. He talked about how I see chose to let him go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCKELWAY: Jezic also told us he believes that his client is innocent of all charges. They plan to fight those charges and he believes they will be acquitted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEZIC: The physical evidence is not there. There are no scratches, there are no bruises, and there are no injuries like that. Also, this is a bathroom in the middle of the day where it doesn't appear that she was screaming or anybody heard anything going on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCKELWAY: That is a confident pronouncement from a defense attorney, who met with a very swift rebuttal from the Montgomery police earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is physical evidence of a rape and sex assault, very clear that there was no consent in this whatsoever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCKELWAY: When asked why Sanchez is not being charged with statutory rate, as he is after all 18 and the victim in this case was 14 years old, Maryland has a unique law that requires a minimum separation of age of four years, in this particular case, it was just under that, three years and some months, meaning it doesn't means make meets new make Maryland statutory requirements.
MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. Lets meet Katie Pavlich she editor of townhall.com Fox news Contributor and Michele Jawando, legal progress VP for the center for American progress, welcome, good to have both of you here tonight. Michelle, let me start with you. What do you say to those who say, regardless of the legal outcome in this case, these two young men do not belong in this school? They are too old to be freshmen in the public high school and they are illegal in this country.
MICHELE JAWANDO, VICE PRESIDENT AT THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I will say this, as a Montgomery county resident, as someone who is living in this community every day and raising young girls, I first have to say that the allegations of what happened are heinous. We'll start there. But I will tell you, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the ability of anyone who would like to attend a public school, prohibited in a 1982 decision, from inquiring about your status, your immigration status, and allows everyone access to public education. That is what our constitution says. So it is a horrible, horrible circumstance, let me start with that, but it is important to recognize what the constitution says on this issue.
KATIE PAVLICH, NEWS EDITOR AT TOWNHALL.COM: The constitution doesn't say as the Supreme Court precedent does. But this idea that Marilyn is now saying they want to be a sanctuary state four days after this horrific incident after two young men, they are not children like the 14 year old victim is, from very violent countries like Guatemala and El Salvador, where they have a very serious ms-13 gang problem, been put in our system using public school resources and enrolled as freshmen in order to learn English as adults is absurd, ridiculous, and a public risk, as we have seen. They should have never been in the country. The local authorities, who refused to participate with ICE to make sure the retainer was held on them, ICE letting them go in the first place under Obama's catch and release program, all of that has to change. If you look at the comments that were made by the parents who attended the superintendent meeting on Tuesday night, a number of them saying, look, we're happy to take our kids out of the schools, because we feel like they are unsafe. The idea that we have illegal alien young men using our public school system from very violent countries where they have no vetting on their criminal history was before they came here, it has to stop, putting people in danger.
MACCALLUM: Michelle, what do you say to those parents?
JAWANDO: A few things, because I am parent in Montgomery county. I will tell you first and foremost that the law in Maryland, local, federal, and state, it makes it clear, if you are between the ages of 13 and 21. You have a right and an opportunity to attend public schools in Montgomery County. That is the law. Secondly, there is no prohibition on working with ICE. I will make it known over and over. There is no prohibition on law enforcement cooperating with ICE officials. Let me just highlight this. This is a sexual assault issue. I worked on sexual assaults on a bipartisan basis in the Senate. Let's talk about that. Let's do it together. We can make that happen. This is that kind of issue.
MACCALLUM: Well, it's both issues. Thank you very much. Good to have you both here. We'll be right back.
MACCALLUM: Poor little bill, he is just sitting down on Capitol Hill and he is hoping to make his way to become a law. That is our quote of the night. Will it happen, a lot of developments in the last few minutes?
Mick Mulvaney has just said there will be a vote tomorrow. Apparently the boss, President Trump, has said he would like to see a vote on this. Kevin McCarthy also chimed in and said that is his belief as well. We will be with you tomorrow to see what happens. We'll see if that little bill on Capitol Hill it finds its way up to being a law. Have a great night, everybody, O'Reilly is up next. We'll see you here tomorrow.
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.