Gingrich: Why aren't Clinton ties part of Russia probe?; Dallas mayor shares his views on sanctuary policies

Former House speaker weighs in on 'The First 100 Days'


This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," March 29, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS HOST: On November 8th, 2016, and a stunning upset, Republicans swept into a powered triumvirate in the White House, the Senate, and the House.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.


MACCALLUM: So now, 69 days into that huge GOP win, are they leveraging that position or seeding it to the Democrats? That is the question tonight as we welcome you to "The First 100 Days." I'm Martha MacCallum.

It is a uniquely D.C. game of chess that is going on right now. The Trump White House is plotting a course correction. Who is leading that inside the Trump team and what exactly is their plan? Well, there is no short of it of advice out there. Wall Street Journal editorial calls for bipartisanship saying, that's the way to go. You must build the collation from the center out, they say. On the other hand, the New York Post Michael Goodwin argues the only way forward is for Trump to unite the Republican Party behind him. Informal advisor to President -- to the President Newt Gingrich, lays blame at the feet of Republicans in Congress who are leading these Russia investigations.


NEWT GINGRICH, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think it's very strange that both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are chaired by Republicans and yet, all the noise is about phony charges involving Donald Trump. Frankly, mystified why the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate have been so timid and so unwilling --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a great question.

GINGRICH: -- to just open up with a straight out investigation.


MACCALLUM: We thought so, too. It's a great question. The former speaker, author of Treason, Newt Gingrich, joins us now. Newt today, the Senate Intel Chair Richard Burr called the Russia case that they're now undertaking with 20 witnesses, the biggest investigation of his tenure. But I want to get back first to the big question that we posed here. Win, win, win across the board. There's a triumvirate of power that the GOP has and yet, what we have seen is the extreme vetting order go down, the healthcare proposition go down, all across the board, it seems the GOP is having a tough time keeping their head above the water.

GINGRICH: Well, I mean, first of all, I wouldn't exaggerate that. The extreme vetting order is being knocked down by liberal judges.


GINGRICH: That's a standard fight between a conservative President and a liberal judge. That's I think almost to be expected. The -- listen, the health bill was mishandled. You don't set an artificial deadline for defeat. It took us eight months to pass Reagan's tax cut in 1981 and we were giving away money. It took us 18 months to pass welfare reform when I was Speaker and 90 percent of the country favored the bill. It took Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama eighth months to pass ObamaCare. And then now were giving away healthcare. So the idea that we are going to rush in, set an artificial deadline, allow the Senate's very strange rules to define the bill, and then, allow the totally phony --

MACCULLUM: I hear you.

GINGRICH: -- congressional budget office to misreport with fake numbers. The whole project makes no sense to me. And very clear both in the --

MACCALLUM: So my question -- I understand the reasons that you -- that you point out for why these things take time -- excuse me -- but in terms of the White House right now, you know, who do you think needs to take the lead? Are you confident with the team that the President has around him, that they can turn the narrative? Because that is what needs to be done on their side.

GINGRICH: Well, I think, first of all, the White House team is pretty solid. I think with Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon go with Vice President Pence, with Jared Kushner, and with Kellyanne Conway, the President has a pretty good set of key players working on this. And I think that they're in the process of rethinking where they're going. The President had a very, very good event last night. He is doing much better, frankly, than the House Republican leadership. Trump last night had 67 senators down there, very bipartisan. Very well-handled. And I must say, Mrs. Trump did a very elegant job as first lady last night and a great job today giving a speech on courage and women. And so, you know, I think Trump has an opportunity by urging them, start with the bill in order to build infrastructure because you can talk to all 100 senators in all 435 House members. You can build a bipartisan good feeling. Second, make it a tax cut bill and make sure that places like North Dakota are going to do so well that Democratic Senator Heitkamp is pressure to vote for you. Make sure Missouri is going to do so well that Senator McCaskill is going to be pressured to vote for you. I think you can -- you know, you pass it.
Then go to healthcare.

MACCALLUM: Yes. They're states obviously that went for Trump but I -- in terms of the -- hold on one second I -- because I want to go back with what you just started with. You know, when you lay that out, do you think he needs to look for bipartisan support? Is there any hope that could actually happen when you look at the resistance that is out there?

GINGRICH: Well sure.

MACCALLUM: Or do you think you'd be better off -- you know, sort of putting his arms around the Freedom Caucus?

GINGRICH: On infrastructure absolutely. I have zero -- I have doubt, you can build an infrastructure bill that will get 65 or 70 votes in the Senate and get 300 votes in the House.

MACCALLUM: All right. Take a listen last night. You just mentioned last night. And we want to show you a moment from that that was kind of funny. Watch.


TRUMP: Nobody ever told me that politics was going to be so much fun. Hopefully, it will start being bipartisan because everybody really wants the same thing. We want greatness for this country that we love. So, I think we are going to have some very good relationships. Right, Chuck? I see Chuck. Hello, Chuck.


MACCALLUM: I think he's doing personally -- because I know you talk to him. How do you think he's doing amidst all this?

GINGRICH: Oh, I think he is fine. Look, he was -- he was very frustrated on Friday and Saturday and understandably so. He's very frustrated by the one-sided nature of these investigations, and the degree to which they absolutely refused to deal with clear facts about the Democrats, about the Clinton's, etcetera. But I think overall, he's having the time of his life, it turns out that he likes to work seven days a week. He likes to work 12 or 15 hours a day.

MACCALLUM: Yes, we noticed.

GINGRICH: He's been having great meetings. He's got a tremendous team in the cabinet. And maybe a strong a cabinet as we've ever seen. And I think that he is basically enjoying being President. I think he knows there are some tough things. But look, he once wrote a book called "The Art of the Comeback." And if you read the opening chapter of that, when he almost went broke in the early 90s, this said guy has been through some tough times. And he's going to do fine. I think he is having a better time right now than the congressional Republicans are.

MACCALLUM: Yes. He's not a quitter. That's very clear if you look at the history of President Trump. Let me play this from today and I want to get your thoughts on this from Richard Burr and Mark Warner.


SEN. RICHARD BURR, R-N.C., SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: We weren't given a free pass to do a witch hunt. We were asked to do a real investigation.

SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA., SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE VICE CHAIRMAN: I have confidence in Richard Burr that we together, with the members of our committee, are going to get to the bottom of this.


MACCALLUM: Richard Burr says this is the biggest investigation he has seen in his time on Capitol Hill. This Russia thing.

GINGRICH: Well, I'm very disturbed by the way they're defining this. You know, the fact is, John Podesta was Chairman of the Clinton Campaign. His brother took a great deal of money from a Russian bank, we just learned yesterday. His brother took a great deal of money from a Chinese company which was breaking the sanctions on Iran. Why isn't that part of this? We know that Bill Clinton got a $500,000 speech from a Russian bank and about the time that Secretary Clinton was allowing 20 percent of our uranium production to be taken over by a Russian company. I mean, a lot -- I am -- I am for a deep investigation of foreign influence, peddling foreign purchases, you know. But I also remember that in 1996, there was a Chinese donor illegally helping Bill Clinton. And I just think that it's a very one-sided right now. Both of the news media and frankly, from what I can tell so far, from Senator Burr and the way they're structuring this. They should be looking at both parties, they should be looking at all the relationships. And I think to not do that is to do a great disservice to the American people.

MACCALLUM: Yes, interesting to note too that today in the course of that news conference, there was not one question that was asked by the media about whether or not the Obama administration was essentially spying on the Trump transition team, not one single question about that. Newt Gingrich, thank you very much, Sir. Always good to see you.

GINGRICH: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So tonight, backlash across the country as sanctuary cities fight the Trump administration. Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings brought his message all the way to Washington today and he brings a tear to "The First 100 Days" live tonight. Then, Judge Andrew Napolitano on the very latest action against the White House which is just breaking as we speak. He joins us on that. And Democrats warning that a filibuster is coming for Judge Gorsuch. But what you hear what Chuck Schumer said when the shoe was on the other foot. And later, remember this, controversial professor called Trump selection an act of terror in her classroom in front of her students. So what did she get for that? An award, of course.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: White supremacist and a Vice President that is one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.



ERIC GARCETTI, LOS ANGELES MAYOR: We want to focus on the serious violent criminals. We want them to do our job, what they want us to do our job. And I think the rhetoric gets in the way of that.


MACCALLUM: So, that was L.A. mayor Eric Garcetti with some tough talk earlier as the sanctuary city fight heats up across the country really tonight. Today, Garcetti and other major city, Democratic Mayors met steps from Capitol Hill to make their case just 48 hours after Attorney General Sessions threatened to pull federal dollars from sanctuary cities if they refuse to play ball with the feds. Democratic Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings was in that meeting. He's going to join us in just a moment, talk about what went on there, behind the close doors. But first, we turn to Doug McKelway, he's live in Washington with some news that just broke on this front tonight. Hi, Doug!

That involves the Seattle, Washington Mayor who is now suing the Trump administration for its proposed crackdown on sanctuary cities. The lawsuit accuses the administration of using coercion and funding threats to enforce federal law. That occurring just hours after several other big-city mayors met here in D.C. with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who briefed them behind closed doors on what this policy entails. He promised them no sweeping roundup of illegals but many have other concerns. It threaten cities by hitting them where it most hurts with the potential withdrawal of funding for hugely expensive police equipment, lab technology and victims services.


TOM MANGER, MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE CHIEF: We are opposed to any funding being taken away, as a punitive measure.


MCKELWAY: But complicating this policy, no one can say what sanctuary, technically, means. The Center for Immigration Studies defines it as a, quote, "Policy that is non-cooperative and obstructs immigration enforcement." The center finds 306 jurisdictions across the United States meet that definition, but the leaders of many of those jurisdictions deny they provide sanctuary.


GARCETTI: Nothing could be further from the truth. We work every single day with ICE.


MCKELWAY: Trump administration officials disagree and so does Texas Governor, Greg Abbott. He's already targeted Austin and surrounding Travis County with a punitive withdrawal of state money.


GOV. GREG ABBOTT, R-TEXAS: I withdrew $1.5 million of funding from the governor's office to Travis County. On top of that, what the State of Texas is seeking to do is to make it so punishing for cities and counties that they simply cannot have sanctuary cities.


MCKELWAY: DHS has said that it is not making any decisions on withholding funding until a clearer definition of sanctuary is reached. And we're told there is no timetable for that decision. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Doug. Joining me now, a Democrat who is inside the meeting with Secretary Kelly today, Dallas Mayor, Mike Rawlings. Mayor, good to have you with us today. Thank you for coming. How would you characterize what went on in that meeting today?

MIKE RAWLINGS, MAYOR OF DALLAS: Well, I think it was a good meeting. It was a first meeting. We are starting to understand how we work with the administration. So, it's just the first date and we don't have a long-term relationship yet, and we're trying to figure that out. I was very impressed with Secretary Kelly. He has run a lot of great operations. And I think he wants the same things that we, as mayors and chief of police, want, and that is our citizens to be safe. We want the bad guys to be arrested. Nobody wants those murderers and rapists to live on their streets or their cities or the country. And so, we are aligned to helping them. We are pushing to make sure we depoliticize this and focus on what exactly we're talking about here. Let's get it down to dotting the i's and crossing the t's, so we can be aligned and do it together as a team to make America safe again.

MACCALLUM: Well, that's one of the big questions, "What's a bad guy?" And when you get into these debates, what always comes up is, you know, you can't pull someone over at a traffic stop for running a red light necessarily. And then, you know, remove them from their car and kick them out of the country. I mean, did you get any clearer definition on who falls into the bad guy category, as far as the administration is concerned?

RAWLINGS: Not yet. But I think he heard us loud and clear. That's work he has got to do. Look, there are 11 million undocumented residents in our country. The lion's share of them are very, very safe, if you will, and there are some bad guys and we've got to make sure we focus on that. But, look, when you change things and the Trump administration is definitely trying to change things in a market way, the way you've got to do it is with precision and with clarity. And that's what that we as mayors and chief of police are trying to figure out.

MACCALLUM: You have said, you know, after the travel ban, which I know you disagreed with vehemently, you said the time has come to open an office in Dallas City Hall that will serve refugees and immigrants, who amid rumors of raids and further threats of travel ban, don't know where to turn. Have you opened that office to welcome refugees and immigrants at Dallas City Hall?

RAWLINGS: Yes, we have. And we've hired a former ICE employee, somebody that knows how to work with a federal government because we want to work with the federal government.

MACCALLUM: So, how are you not harboring them in a sanctuary way?

RAWLINGS: By working with the federal government. We think working with the federal government is the right thing to do.

MACCALLUM: I know that Greg Abbott, who you just heard, is cracking down on Austin. He said he'll do the same with you about this office.

RAWLINGS: I haven't talked to the governor about this. I talk to him about some other issues yesterday. And, look, we both want Dallas safe. We both want Texas safe. We both want the bad guys gone. OK. Let's focus on that and we'll accomplish a lot, I think, as a -- as a country.

MACCALLUM: All right. Mayor Rawlings, thank you for your time. Good to have you here tonight.

RAWLINGS: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, here with reaction, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano. Judge, always good to see you.


MACCALLUM: First of all, let's talk about what Mr. Rawlings said. It's federal law, as I understand it, that if you take someone into custody, who is an illegal, it's your obligation to alert ICE, correct?

NAPOLITANO: Yes. Yes. It is, but there's really no sanction for not doing that, unless, you have agreed to that sanction. So, let me back up a little bit. The the secretary of Homeland Security, General Kelly, would like to take back some money that had been given to the cities that are not cooperating with ICE.

MACCALLUM: If he can prove they are not cooperating.

NAPOLITANO: Correct. But the agreement to cooperate in return for the receipt of funds must precede the funds. So in other words, if the Congress in the new budget, which starts October 1st of this year, says to Dallas, for example, "Here's $100 million. In return, you have to agree to cooperate with the enforcement of all federal law." And Dallas says, "Yes, we take -- they accept 100 million under those terms." Then, Dallas is required --

MACCALLUM: If they violated, it will be clawed back.

NAPOLITANO: Correct. But without that agreement preceding the receipt of funds --

MACCALLUM: There's no ability to take money back.

NAPOLITANO: Correct. So, we talked -- you talked earlier about the Seattle loss, so that's what the Seattle loss (INAUDIBLE) about. It was just given to us a few minutes ago. And Seattle argues quite properly that the federal government can't claw the money back because they never agreed to help ICE before they agreed to take --

MACCALLUM: Didn't they agree just by being a municipality to uphold the law?

NAPOLITANO: You know, there's a general agreement to that. You're right because the mayor of Dallas, the mayor of Seattle, the mayor of every city in the country, has taken an oath to uphold all state and federal laws. But they did not agree to the condition of "We will help enforce federal laws, unless, that condition is in the money at the time it's given." Short answer is, President Trump and the Congress can get their way, but only with the money that starts next October. Not with the money that started last October under Obama.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, we heard the Attorney General Sessions say about potentially clawing back, you believe will not happen.

NAPOLITANO: I believe it will not happen.

MACCALLUM: All right. Judge, good to see you.


MACCALLUM: Thank you very much.

NAPOLITANO: Of course.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up, two filmmakers caught Planned Parenthood staffers talking in horrific ways about harvesting organs from the unborn.
Now, the California Attorney General has brought felony charges against the filmmakers. Can you guess who funded the campaign of that attorney general and his predecessor, who is now in the senate? Don't miss this. Coming up.

Plus, Judge Neil Gorsuch facing some unprecedented opposition from Democrats. But is there hypocrisy in their opposition? What do you think? Marc Thiessen, Michele Jawando, join us next, right after this.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-NY, MINORITY LEADER: The answer is not to change the rules, it's to change the nominee. And if the nuclear option is invoked, it's because our Republicans in the senate chose to do so.



MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, the Gorsuch gamesmanship is heating up in what would be an unprecedented active obstruction. One more Democrats are threatening to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation. That includes de facto party head and senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer.


SCHUMER: If Judge Gorsuch fails to earn 60 votes and fails to demonstrate he is mainstream enough to sit on the highest court, we should change the nominee, not the rules. They're acting as if a rules change is inevitable, like it's the only choice of 60 senators don't agree that Judge Gorsuch should be confirmed. They're wrong.


MACCALLUM: That declaration, a far cry from what Senator Schumer said about the act of obstructionism, just four years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot. Watch this.


SCHUMER: We much prefer the risk of up-or-down votes and majority rule than the risk of continued total obstruction. That's the bottom line, no matter who's in power.


MACCALLUM: The bottom line. Let's go to Peter Doocy, live at the Capitol.
Hi, Peter.

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL GENERAL ASSIGNMENT REPORTER: Hi, Martha. Today, one of the senators really pushing for Gorsuch to be confirmed, speculated that Democrats who oppose him right now are just worried about upsetting deep-pocketed liberal groups from the outside, who may then try to run them out of town. That is how Senator Ted Cruz from Texas explains the difference between 2006, when Democrats overwhelmingly supported Gorsuch, and 2017, where Democrats don't.


SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS: It's a question anyone should ask, if they supported his being on the Court of Appeals a decade ago, what's changed? And the only thing that has changed is our energized activist friends that have Democratic senators terrified they will get primary from the left at a Democratic primary. That's the only thing that's changed.


DOOCY: But Democrats counter its conservative special interests, having the more pervasive impact on the confirmation process. There has been a multimillion dollar ad campaign backing President Trump's pick for the high court. And if Democratic detractors want to know who paid for all of that airtime.


SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONNECTICUT: The appalling unacceptable fact is that American justice is being bought. We want to know who is paying. And they bought the ads against Merrick Garland. Now, they're buying the ads for Judge Gorsuch, carefully targeted to have maximum political impact.


DOOCY: So, the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, is urging the GOP to think about nominating someone else who can get through the senate without a rule change, but his counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says, Gorsuch will be confirmed next Friday. Not that he will be considered, not that he could be confirmed, but he will be confirmed next Friday. And there is only that kind of certainty if the nuclear option is still a possibility. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Peter. Here now with more, Marc Thiessen, an American Enterprise scholar, former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor, and Michele Jawando, Legal Progress V.P. at the Center for American Progress. Welcome to both of you. Michelle, let me start with you. Do you expect that --


MACCALLUM: Good to have you. Do you expect that the Democrats will filibuster this nomination?

MICHELE JAWANDO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Martha, it's always great to be with you. You know, I think the point is this. That most Americans agree that whoever a nominee should be, particularly during this divided partisan time, they should be able to cross a 60 vote threshold. That says a few things, that they're mainstream, that they're fair, that they're impartial. And if a nominee can't do that, then you change the nominee. You don't have to blow up years, over 100 years of tradition for one nominee.


THIESSEN: Well, first of all, there is no 60-vote threshold for a nominee. Samuel Alito was confirmed 58-42. Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48. The only time you need 60 votes is if the other party filibusters and there has never in the history of the republic did a filibuster of an associate justice for the nominee for associate justice of the Supreme Court. So if the Democrats would be doing something unprecedented here in terms of filibustering Judge Garland. But more importantly, this attachment to 60 votes and super majority and all of the rest of it is kind of unique because in 2013, they didn't care so much about that. They were very happy to invoke the nuclear option for life time appointment to the federal bench of the circuit and district court level. And the reason for that was they were trying to help Barack Obama stack the course of liberal judges who couldn't meet the 60 vote threshold. So back then, 60 votes wasn't important. Today, all of a sudden, it's sacrosanct.

MACCALLUM: So what do you make of what T Cruz said in that introduction? So many of these senators voted for in favor of Judge Gorsuch on the federal appeals court, so why would they vote for him then and then, as Chuck Schumer says, you know, just find him so reprehensible and not qualified now?

JAWANDO: Well, I don't think it's a matter of background. I think this is about the Supreme Court. And everyone recognizes that this as a lifetime appointment on the most important court in the land. And actually, Justice Alito actually received 60 votes on cloture. So there's a difference there. Seven of the eight current sitting Supreme Court justices received over 60 votes.

MACCALLUM: That means that they proved that you should go ahead and have a vote.


THIESSEN: They didn't filibuster.


JAWANDO: It's actually very relevant. Because if you look at where we are, if we look historically, 125 years, every Supreme Court nominee, since the Eisenhower administration, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, was able to receive a threshold of more than 60 votes.

MACCALLUM: I don't think anybody could get that senate vote. If Gorsuch, who is considered to be someone that both sides could find quite palatable can't pass, I just don't see an environment where you're ever going to get 60 votes, so you're never have anyone fill this spot or you're going to go nuclear, Marc, that look like where we are.

THIESSEN: Unless President Trump had re-nominated Merrick Garland, they would filibuster anybody that Donald Trump would brought.

MACCALLUM: We would love Merrick Garland.

THIESSEN: I'm sorry, this judge -- Judge Gorsuch is such a boy scout. There is no ethical problems whatsoever. The only time there has been a filibuster was Abe Fortas back in 1968, who was an associate justice and was nominated by Lyndon Johnson to be chief justice, and that was Democrats filibustering a Democrat because of ethics problems. So it never happened. What would be unprecedented with be the filibuster.

MACCALLUM: In many way, this process reminds me a lot of Justice Roberts when he was nominated. Everybody sort of agreed that he was a very down the middle person, that both sides could agree on. And he ended up being the person who upheld ObamaCare. So, you know, you have to wonder if Democrats are going get the right route here because they may get someone who may be with them some of the time. And next time around, that might not be true. Michele and Marc, thank you very much. Always great to see you both.

JAWANDO: Thanks.

MACCALLUM: So coming up next, felony charges against two antiabortion activists because they did a secret filming of a conversation in an open environment in a public place with Planned Parenthood. Critics say that it's a violation of their first amendment. Tonight, we're learning something much more nefarious could be behind these charges. And students are concerned after their college rewards the school's most infamous anti- Trump professor.


UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: White supremacist and a vice president that is one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.


MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, we are now learning more about a horrible tragedy that has taken place outside of San Antonio, Texas. Twelve people were killed. At least three others were injured, when a pickup truck slam head-on into a van that was carrying senior citizens members of a Baptist church group. The back of the bus ended up on the rail. The victims were returning, we are told, from a church retreat. Governor Abbott has talked about his prayers and his thoughts are with the families of those who are lost in this tonight. And ours are certainly with them all as well. More information on that as we get it.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know what's kind of expected or what we need, versus.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: It makes a huge difference. I'd say a lot of other people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they'll know where they're putting their forceps.


MACCALLUM: That is still hard to watch. It is just a sample of the hours of undercover video that was shot of Planned Parenthood leaders which show them discussing the sale of fetal tissue and the procedures that would preserve the most tissue as they acted as buyers. But that woman, who you heard speaking there, Dr. Debra Nucatola, she is not the one who is facing charges tonight. Two pro-life activists who shot that video for the center for medical progress are, however, to the tune of 15 felony counts against them in California. So what makes this case even more shocking is the political ties between the charging attorney general, Xavier Becerra, and Planned Parenthood's pack, political advocacy arm that has given the former congressman more than $5,000 in campaign contributions over the years.
Mercedes Schlapp is a Republican strategist and Fox News contributor, Krystal Ball is the author of Reversing the Apocalypse, hijacking the Democratic Party to save the world. Good to have both of you with us tonight.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good to see you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Mercedes, let me start with you on this, your reaction to the charges that have been brought in this case?

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, these criminal charges were clearly a political attack on free speech. These are pro-life filmmakers. These are individuals that are like undercover journalists, trying to expose the atrocities of Planned Parenthood. You know, it's very clear that we saw this in Houston, when charges were brought against Dave down there, and those charges were dropped. We're going to accept the same results here in California. Obviously, there is that very cozy relationship between Planned Parenthood giving donations to the attorney general, as well as colluding with the former attorney general of California, in terms of crafting legislation to basically go after these pro-life filmmakers.

MACCALLUM: Krystal, what's your reaction? Fifteen felony counts, is that extreme or did they have a right to bring them against them? Were they, you know, performing, filming that was against the law in the state of California?

KRYSTAL BALL, AUTHOR: First of all, a little bit of background. Keep in mind that 13 states actually looked into these videos and found that there was nothing there in terms of Planned Parenthood having violated the law. On the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that if these filmmakers did what they are alleged to have done, which is to fake their identities and surreptitiously record what were supposed to be confidential conversations, then it's absolutely inappropriate for this indictment to have been brought. Also, keep in mind that this law isn't designed to protect Planned Parenthood, whatever you think about this organization what some do find controversial. This is a law put in place to protect individuals and make sure that they are able to keep their privacy. So, regardless.

MACCALLUM: This has nothing to do with privacy law.

BALL: Parenthood. You have to apply the law as it's found.


BALL: So I think this is appropriate. They'll have their day in court. They can present their side of the story. But to look into this, to have an indictment, it seems to me the absolutely appropriate.

MACCALLUM: I want to point out that Kemal Harris, who is now a senator, began this relationship in seeking these charges, or at least the beginning of this process. She's also got a fair amount of donations to her campaign from Planned Parenthood, which many, mostly Democrats, do, Mercedes.

SCHLAPP: Martha, and also -- I think it's very important to note that Cecile Richards in a congressional hearing basically said that this was non-confidential conversations that were happening. In anyway, they did not break privacy laws. They didn't break hippo laws. These are public conversations that were happening between Dave and these abortion providers. I mean, I think that this is a bigger story in a sense of the atrocity. When you look at the fact that even some Planned Parenthood officials believe that they could have broken the federal law for selling baby parts for profit, the fact that the comments they made it.

MACCALLUM: But Mercedes.

SCHLAPP: I want a Lamborghini.


SCHLAPP: But they're still investigation going on.


SCHLAPP: --Attorney general just came up saying that they are having an ongoing investigation on this issue. These are investigations that are happening across the country. I don't think this.


BALL: In addition to the 13, another eight states considered investigation and found there to be so nothing that it wasn't worth going forward.


MACCALLUM: We need to leave it there. Thank you both. So still ahead tonight, we will take you back to the nation's capital. Chris Stirewalt is standing by on a lovely evening. And there he is. Day 69 in Washington and across the country of the Trump presidency. Day 70 is ahead, though, folks. And Chris knows what you need to watch tomorrow morning. He will make his mark on that tonight. Plus, remember this college professor in the video who called President Trump's election, quote, an act of terrorism, to her class, in the classroom. Well, now, she was just named faculty member of the year. The president of the college Republican in that school has called her out. She'll like a little safe space of her own. He joins us next.


MACCALLUM: So growing fears among students at a publicly funded community college, has a controversial professor gets a top award just one semester after bashing President Trump in a classroom rant that went viral. Remember this?


UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: White supremacist and a vice president that is one of the most anti-gay humans in this country. And so we are in for a difficult time, but again, I do believe that we can get past that. Our nation is divided, we have been assaulted. It's an act of terrorism. One of the most frightening things for me and most people in my life is that the people creating the assault are among us. It is not some stranger from some other country coming in and attacking our sense of what it means to be an American and the things that we stand for. We are way beyond Republican and Democrats. And we're really back to being at civil war, and I don't mean that in a fighting way, but our nation divided us clearly as it was in Civil War times.


MACCALLUM: Joshua Recalde-Martinez is president of the Orange Coast College Republicans and he joins us tonight. Joshua, good to have you here tonight.


MACCALLUM: What did you think when you first heard that?

RECALDE-MARTINEZ: When I first heard what she said on that video, I was outraged. And when I heard that she had accepted and was nominated for the faculty member of the year award by a committee of just ten faculty staff and administrative officials at our college, not by any students, I was outraged, and I'm still am.

MACCALLUM: So what kind of recourse did you ask for from the college? I mean, how did you express your feelings on this?

RECALDE-MARTINEZ: Well, for the video, what we've done is we've asked specifically for her to have an apology letter. Go to an anger management class, and also to have our complaint filed in to her personal record. However, we found out after having submitted that, that she had also asked Trump supporters to stand in her classroom and was targeting them in that way.


RECALDE-MARTINEZ: Because of that, we pushed for her to be fired. Now, after all of this, she still remains at Orange Coast College. She's still teaching the same amount of classes, but with a close to 200 student drop- off in enrollment from last semester. It's obvious that students want faculty members that they can feel they'll receive a quality education from, not indoctrination.

MACCALLUM: Of course. And this has been tough for you. You stuck your neck out and you have received death threats?

RECALDE-MARTINEZ: Yeah. So, I have received numerous death threats throughout this entire incident. I've been called a coconut once, so that was pretty interesting.

MACCALLUM: We're just looking at your name that is flash across these windows. These windows are on your college campus? This is where you had to face this?

RECALDE-MARTINEZ: Yeah. I've also had graffiti recently on my campus where both myself and the club has been targeted, calling us fascists, calling for fascists to be punched, and to kill the alt-right, where they're associating us with that. And this was by supporters of the group antifa, which is anti-fascists, which we've see has been doing craziness over at UC Berkeley and other schools within California and the United States. And they mean business. They will do physical harm.

MACCALLUM: I can only imagine how you feel, having paid for this education, and then to be so vilified and to experience such a limited amount, really, no first amendment rights on your own college campus where you're supposed to be learning about such things.

RECALDE-MARTINEZ: Absolutely. And, you know, that's one of the things that the Orange Coast College Republicans have been around for and continue to be around for. We want to protect student's first amendment rights. We want to protect student's rights that are outlined in our student code of conduct. We want to make sure that professors like -- Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox do not get to teach at our school. We wanted education we do not want indoctrination.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Josh. Good to have you here tonight. Chris Stirewalt is up next on what you can't afford to miss for tomorrow.


MACCALLUM: Earlier in the show, former speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, stressed bipartisanship as a way for Trump to rebound, noting that a project like infrastructure could garner support. He said of all
100 senators and 435 house members. Here to give us his view, Chris Stirewalt, Fox News political editor, is the last thing he thinks that's hilarious.

CHRIS STIREWALT, FOX NEWS POLITICAL EDITOR: I mean, aim high, I guess. Well, why not? If 60 is good, 100 is better, get them all, right? Why not?

MACCALLUM: I mean, I don't know what you do when you get to the part about who pays the bill and how, right? That is where you're going to run into trouble.

STIREWALT: So borrowing and spending a trillion dollars to fix America's infrastructure -- obvious, infrastructural problems, and prepare America for the rest of the 21st century, is something that you certainly get every Democrat or almost every Democrat on board with. Whether or not you could get most Republicans on board with that is another question because that is a kind of stuff they voted against under Obama. The Trump administration reportedly said maybe we'll do tax reform concurrent with that, so that they can sweeten the deal for Republicans. Hey, spend a bunch of money you don't have, but fix the tax code, simultaneously increase growth, and maybe you can put together a path for you

MACCALLUM: And likely there's a sweet little something for everybody in every state along the way, right? Because you're going to build the bridge, you're going to build the airport, whatever you're going to do.

STIREWALT: That's right.

MACCALLUM: In terms of Devin Nunes, you say he in some ways is showing Republicans how to take one for the team.

STIREWALT: Well, he sure is taking one. This sort of a Michael Scott impersonation that he has been doing over the last several days has not done his career any favors. But he has helped President Trump substantially because he has made it pretty much a guarantee that the house intelligence committee is not going to be able to complete its inquest into the allegations of Russian interference. That's sort of a dead letter now. So, whether Nunes set out to do that or not, the net effect of what he has done has been that -- it's a dead letter. That's not going to happen. Now the ball moves over the senates.

MACCALLUM: I would imagine, you know, that the thinking is, if you let this investigation see the light of day, and as you just pointed out, it will in the senate for sure. No matter how it may exonerate, if that's the case, people at the White House, there will be something-something in there and it will just go on and on and on. So that's the reality.

STIREWALT: And that's why Democrats wants this because they know that even if they don't get to Yatsi, even if they don't get Vladimir Putin in a bathrobe cooing to Donald Trump, even if that's not there, what they could end up with is just enough to besmirch the administration and diminish credibility further. And Nunes knowing that basically throws himself on the grenade and he said we'll just shut it down. But the administration needs to be worried about what's going to happen in the senate because they will be affected. They have a good track record for bipartisanship. And there's two groups of people who ought to be worried. Anybody in the Trump administration who had the alleged problem, or if there is mischief in the Obama side, if there was inappropriate unmasking, et cetera, those people ought to be worried too, because the senate will probably get to an answer.

MACCALLUM: Chris, thank you.


MACCALLUM: See you soon. With all of this talk of attempted bipartisanship and coalition of the deeply divided, we leave you with something to ponder tonight, wise words from Bob Marley, OK. Your worst enemy could be your best friend. Your best friend could be your worst enemy. Think about that Republicans and Democrats. But don't worry, every little thing is going to be all right.

Thanks for watching, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum. We'll see you back here at 7:00. Bill O'Reilly is up next.

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.