Swalwell: Comey's answer on Russa should be wake-up call

Congressman reacts to FBI director's Senate hearing on 'The Story with Martha MacCallum'


This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 3, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, "THE STORY" HOST: FBI Director James Comey grilled on the Hill and in stunning testimony, he says that he felt the Obama Justice Department had no credibility and that forced his hand.


JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: A number of things had gone on, some of which I can't talk about yet, that made me worry that the department's leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and declined prosecution without grievous damage to the American people's confidence in the justice system. And then, the capper was - I'm not picking on the attorney General Loretta Lynch, who I like very much, but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was that capper for me. And I then said, you know what, the department cannot by itself credibly end this.


MACCALLUM: So interesting, right? There was a lot of heat in that room today. Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and here is the story on May the third. The art of the deal President needs to win over a rested GOP that is not happy in some quarters. Passage of the health care bill could go a long way toward that goal.


STEVE SCALISE, UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN FROM LOUISIANA: We've been - we've been gaining votes today and that's been a - that's been a real positive development.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To me, it is a very big amendment that helps close a bill.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you say close the bill -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How close, close? You're not quite there yet?



MACCALLUM: We are working on more news in the story, they may vote tomorrow. All that, as late-night star Jimmy Kimmel makes a plea for universal coverage essentially and he managed to animate the battle line.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE SPEAKER: We share that concern for the Kimmel's child, as well as any child that needs care. And that is frankly why the President fought so hard to improve the bill like he did this morning, to make sure there was that extra layer of protection for anybody with a pre- existing condition, no matter their stage in life.


MACCALLUM: And how about the spending bill, very controversial. Just past the House, some Trump backers are outraged though. Conservative Commentator Ann Coulter declaring quote, "we want the ruthless businessman we were promised." We will get to all of that tonight. But first our top story this evening. Back to FBI Director Jim Comey and his testimony. This was the first time that he spoke about the pre-election decision that he made that put him so much on the hot seat.


COMEY: And the team also told me, we cannot finish this work before the election. And then, they worked night after night after night and they found thousands of new e-mails. They found classified information on Anthony Weiner. Somehow, her e-mails are being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information by her assistant, Huma Abedin. And so they found thousands of new emails and then called me the Saturday night before the election and said, thanks to the wizardry of our technology, we've only had to personally read 6,000. We think we can finish tomorrow morning, Sunday.


MACCALLUM: What a story. So Judge Andrew Napolitano here with the potential fallout, but we begin tonight with House Intelligence Committee Member Congressman Eric Swalwell on Capitol Hill.

Congressman, welcome. Good to have you here today.


MACCALLUM: Very interesting back and forth here on the Intel Committee. This was the Senate Judiciary Committee that was grilling Comey today. What did you think?

SWALWELL: We're going to hear from Director Comey tomorrow. And you know, it's important that we have hearings like this and conduct the oversight that we're charged with. What was most striking for me was when he said that the Russians are still going at us. And so, I think that should be a wake-up call for both Republican s and Democrats that we have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure we're never in a position that we find ourselves in right now, which is divided because of interference in an election.

MACCALLUM: Do you think that that is going to be a bigger topic at your hearing tomorrow? Because some of the criticism today was that there was a lot of backward looking and that there wasn't enough update or he wasn't forthcoming enough on how that investigation is going.

SWALWELL: I'm most interested in what happens next. I want to make sure that the FBI has all of the resources they need to conduct its investigation. And I want to make sure that our committee gets back to being one that is independent, that's credible, and can show progress.

MACCALLUM: You know, it's interesting just from the Democrats' side for a moment, when you juxtapose something that Hillary Clinton said yesterday with James Comey today. Watch this.


HILLARY CLINTON, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The election been on October 27th, I'd have been your president.

COMEY: This has been one of the world's most painful experiences. I would make the same decision. I would not conceal that on October 28th from the Congress.


MACCALLUM: So he was saying today that given the magnitude of those e- mails that they found, going through Anthony Weiner's laptop, that the evidence that he was presented with made it impossible for him to say nothing, given the fact that he had already gone down the road far enough to say that there was a lot of negligence but that there was going to be no prosecution. He felt he need to - needed to update Congress that they were reopening the investigation.

SWALWELL: I wish that Hillary Clinton was president today but right now, I think the best thing we can do is look forward and do everything we can to find out what happened with Russia's interference, whether any U.S. persons were responsible and what we can do to make reforms that we're never in a mess like that again.

MACCALLUM: All right. So we'll be looking for questions of that nature from you tomorrow. It's interesting that Susan Rice has now said that she will not testify about the unmasking that was done that revealed certain members of the trump transition team. A lot of people are going to take issue with that.

SWALWELL: Well, it's also been a - you know, an issue that has been debunked, that Susan Rice did anything untoward or illegal. You know, Donald Trump put that out there. We believe, just to obstruct an investigation into his team's ties to Russia. And no evidence has been put forward that she did anything wrong. And so, I don't think we need to go on a fishing expedition for something that's not there and not backed up.

MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, you could say the very same thing about the other side of this investigation because there has been no evidence that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. So there are people though on the other side of your committee who very much want to know why she had the authority to unmask these individuals. I don't understand why you have such a problem with even having her there and asking those questions because it could very well be you or someone else on your Committee who is unmasked next time and you might not like it.

SWALWELL: And Martha, she certainly had the ability to review intelligence that came across her desk. But there has been not a shredded evidence -

MACCALLUM: She would have to prove that there was a national security imperative to do so. And there are legitimate questions about whether or not she had that or whether it was kind of a fishing expedition to look for dirt on the transition team. I still don't understand why you're not curious about what the answer to that question is.

SWALWELL: Because I don't - I'm not charged with being curious, I'm charged with following the evidence. And actually, what's frustrating, Martha, is that the White House is the only entity in the world that has the power to declassify what she reviewed and they want to do that. And that should tell you, I think, everything you need to know -

MACCALLUM: No, they have showed members of congress, they've showed people on this committee. And you probably had the opportunity to see it, as well.

SWALWELL: I've been briefed on it. And I am saying, Martha, that if they had evidence that she did anything wrong, I'm sure they would show us.

MACCALLUM: All right. I think most people want to see a fair hearing for both sides of the concerned that exist on this Russia investigation. Eric Swalwell, thank you very much. Good to see you again.

SWALWELL: My pleasure. You too.

MACCALLUM: Here now, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano. Judge, good to see you as always.


MACCALLUM: You watched all of this today.


MACCALLUM: Comey was grilled. Grassley got upset with him at one point. What do you think about it?

NAPOLITANO: I was very upset at the explanations that Director Comey gave. And as you know, for you and our colleagues, I've been watching this and monitoring it and talking about it and writing about it. His first mistake was on July 5th when he told the world that he was recommending to the Justice Department that Mrs. Clinton not be indicted because quote "no reasonable prosecutor would take the case." That's not a judgment he can make. Then, inexplicably, inconceivably, he outlined all the damning evidence against her, which is so overwhelming, it defied the logic of a statement he originally made. Then, when he revealed, we all know this history, two weeks before Election Day, that they found the Anthony - they obtained Anthony Weiner's laptop and they thought there were thousands of e-mails and then when they were reopening the investigation, he compounded this. All along, the FBI is investigating whether or not Donald Trump's campaign associates had any connection with the Russians, and Jim Comey, quite properly, remained silent on that. So, by speaking out about one of the investigations and remaining silent on the other, Mrs. Clinton has a legitimate argument. And unlike Congressman Swalwell, I'm happy she is not president but she has a legitimate argument that the FBI, under Jim Comey, did the unthinkable. It got involved in a partisan way in a presidential election.

MACCALLUM: You said that it made him mildly nauseous to think that he may have had any impact but that he felt that that was the only thing that he could do. One of the dynamics that I thought was so interesting today was that there was sort of an equal opportunity bashing of Jim Comey.


MACCALLUM: Because both Democrats and Republican s are nervous that he may not come down on their political side of the fence, whether it be of the Russian investigation -


MACCALLUM: You know, Trump says it's a phony investigation into Russia. You know, there's bad blood for both sides based on different moments of Jim Comey's experience. Has he become too political?

NAPOLITANO: Well, he has become political. And because of his personal opinions about Attorney General Lynch, and I share those opinions, and he knows a lot more about her behavior than I did, instead of acting like an FBI Director, which means he's in charge of investigations, he acted like the Attorney General, making final decisions.

MACCALLUM: But he thinks he this (INAUDIBLE) because he negated her own responsibility by getting on that plane, and he felt that the only thing he could do was to step in.

NAPOLITANO: His job is to silently, quietly hand the evidence over to the leadership at the Justice Department. There are three people in the Justice Department between him and Mrs. Lynch and he bypassed all of them.

MACCALLUM: Trump says is it a phony investigation into Russia. Is he doing the same thing that President Obama did when he said there was nothing with the IRS and that Hillary Clinton hadn't done anything wrong? Is he wrong to do that?

NAPOLITANO: He shouldn't say that because we don't know it is phony. It's been going on for a while and they haven't produced any evidence. Maybe it will just silently shut it down or maybe somebody will be indicted. But until then, we don't know what the FBI has.

MACCALLUM: Judge, thank you.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: So, breaking tonight, Republican s are in intense negotiations right now over health care. Word just coming out moments ago from senior sources on the Hill, this vote could actually happen tomorrow. But we've been down this road before, right? And there's 24 hours to go. Speaker Ryan said that he would only go forward with the vote if he thought he had the numbers to pass it. We're on the verge of major legislative accomplishment, potentially, for the President. Charles Krauthammer is here next on that. Plus, the story everybody is talking about. Jimmy Kimmel's emotional plea for health coverage after a personal trauma. ObamaCare architects Zeke Emanuel says he is right. Charlie Hurt has called the late-night host a quote, "an elitist creep." It's got a lot of heat for that. They're here next. Stick around.


If your baby is going to die, and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make. I think that's something that whether you're a Republican or Democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right? I mean, we do.


MACCALLUM: Still breaking just moments ago, a senior source on Capitol Hill is telling Fox News that the vote on the revised GOP health care bill is very likely to happen tomorrow. Dr. Charles Krauthammer will be with us and just moments to react to this. But first, let's go to Peter Doocy gets all the news on Capitol Hill where they're hammering this out. Apparently, we've heard this before, Peter, is it really going to happen this time?

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL GENERAL ASSIGNMENT REPORTER: It looks like it may happen tomorrow, Martha. The latest word officially from Republican leaders is that they have been gaining votes throughout the day, one Chief of Staff just told our Capitol Hill Producer Chad Pergram, they think that the vote total is on the button right now. And if you rewind the tape a couple of hours, it looks like the dominoes started falling this morning when a pair of Republican s who wanted to their party's ObamaCare replacement to do more to protect people with pre-existing conditions, sold President Trump on an idea that would do that, using $8 billion that was already in the bill. The leaders of that effort were Congressman Billy Long and Congressman Fred Upton, who told me the President agreed to their terms.


FRED UPTON, UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN FROM MICHIGAN: He - you know, accepted what we were trying to do and knew that we were trying to constructively improve the process. And at the end of the day, I think that it can bring enough votes to pass, which we're likely to see probably tomorrow.

Every time something changes with this bill, it either loses conservative support or it loses moderate support. And some moderates remain unmoved. They're going to vote no. But, one very influential member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus told me his group is still behind the bill.

JIM JORDAN, UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN FROM OHIO: While this is not full repeal, it is the best we think we can get out of the House. We're willing to support it and then keep working for the bill.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you think it's still going to have the full Freedom Caucus endorsement?

JORDAN: I do. I do.


DOOCY: The Vice President, Mike Pence, was on the Hill today for a couple of hours. So was the HHS Secretary Tom Price. They were pressuring members to support this bill and just while that Jim Jordan sound bite was playing, Martha, we got confirmation, there is going to be a vote tomorrow on the American Health Care Act, that is the latest word from leadership that just spent the last two and half hours in Speaker Ryan's office behind me. While that sound bite was playing, they came out, they said they're going to try it tomorrow, they think they have the votes.

MACCALLUM: That's what we call breaking news. Nicely done, Peter, thank you very much. Big information tonight on health care bill. A vote tomorrow. So joining us now, Nationally Syndicated Columnist and Fox News contributor Dr. Charles Krauthammer joins us. Charles, always good to see you. Thank you for being with us tonight.


MACCALLUM: It sounds like they're there although, last time it sounded like they were there and they weren't there. And they also said that it sounds like they basically are exactly at the vote they need. So they may not - they may be in a situation where they can lose even one. Your thoughts?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, look, it's good news to hear that they may actually call the vote tomorrow because as Paul Ryan had said, if they're not going to call the vote, if the votes are there. I mean, they think they are there. Look, I think this is a major achievement. I would have said so an hour or two ago before we knew this was certain. The major achievement is this. This administration working with this Congress has managed to achieve in less than four months what the Republican s were unable to do in six years. For six years, they railed against ObamaCare, they said they would repeal it and replace it, without, as we now know, having a clue how they were going to do it. And they were not that sincere about it, it turns out. People like Fred Upton, who supported bills to repeal when they knew it would be vetoed by Obama, all of a sudden, when it could be signed into law, got cold feet and then does abort it. I think this is a major achievement to find a consensus replacement for a very fractious undivided Republican caucus. And I think it is a cause for celebration among Republican s, even if, as I think is likely, the Senates won't go along with it.

MACCALLUM: We just want to let people know that Kevin McCarthy just confirmed that there will be a vote. It's going to happen tomorrow, he says between 12:30 and d1:00. That's when it's going to get started anyway. You know, Charles, you make a great point which is that we - it's been so long since we've seen this kind of function in the government, where we see things getting hammered out. And it will be at - it's all on the Republican side. But they have the majority, and they've been roundly criticized for not getting anything done in the first 100 days. And it sounds like they're getting there now. But you also mentioned that - we also have sort of crossed the Rubicon. We are now a country that expects there to be health care available to everyone. And that's a new place for this country to be. The government is now in the health care business and it looks like they're there to stay.

KRAUTHAMMER: I think that's the real story of this drama. The real story is that over these seven years, ObamaCare has been largely influential and has had this success. Maybe not on the ground in the real world with the premium problems and all that, but it has changed the zeitgeist. It has changed so the underlying assumption in the country that the government should guarantee in the end that everybody will get health care. That was- that did not exist before 2010. And I think the idea that some Republican s still have, that health care is a commodity like any other, should be allocated by price, it's all a matter of choice, I think that is such a minority position now. That's why you got the revolt from the moderate conservative Republican s in the House. They were getting the message from their constituents that something has changed regarding medical care. And you saw it in a reaction to the Jimmy Kimmel episode. People expect overwhelmingly that in the end, everybody gets the care. Now, once that happens in the country, all the calculations have to change. That's why we had 100 days of this infectiousness and argument among Republican s. But I think we're at a new place and Republican s are coming to terms with the fact that the repeal of ObamaCare idea, the idea that everybody should get health care one way or another.


KRAUTHAMMER: That's not going to happen.

MACCALLUM: Hard to take away an entitlement, once you've rolled it out -

KRAUTHAMMER: That's exactly right.

MACCALLUM: - it almost never, ever happens.

KRAUTHAMMER: It never gets rolled back.

MACCALLUM: So they're trying to make the best of it, I guess, from their perspective. And they're going to vote tomorrow. Charles, thank you very much. Good to see you, Sir.

KRAUTHAMMER: My pleasure.

MACCALLUM: So, just ahead. America first explained. Today, Rex Tillerson laid out the Trump foreign policy doctrine. And he is out there working to bring it to fruition. And let me tell you, it is boldly different; it is very, very blunt. You will hear his words when General Jack Keane joins us moments away. Also, you just heard Charles mention this. Jimmy Kimmel delivered an emotional monologue about his newborn son. So, why is Charlie Hurt calling the Late-Night host a quote "elitist creep." He and what Kimmel said about the coverage is that actually true. The architect of ObamaCare Dr. Zeke Emanuel tells us what would happen to a baby who's family couldn't pay if they turned purple in the hospital as happened to the Kimmel family when we come back.


KIMMEL: Let's stop with the nonsense. This isn't football. There are no teams. We are the team. It's the United States. Don't let their partisans' gobbles divide us on something every decent person want.



MACCALLUM: Moments ago, Kevin McCarthy walking through the halls of Capitol Hill nodding yes, it's going to happen. He says tomorrow the vote will be at 12:30 or1:00. We will be watching it closely. Big, big news tonight from Capitol Hill. And now, to this, also, the story that we have talked about, the powerful Late-Night TV moments that perhaps led to some of the concessions to moderates on this health care redo because there was so much focus on it. Jimmy Kimmel revealing that his newborn son needed emergency surgery at Cedars-Sinai - look how cute he is - at the Medical Center I Los Angeles. His life was saved by doctors and nurses, prompting this emotional plea on his show.


KIMMEL: Before 2014 if you were born with congenital heart disease like my son was, there's a good chance you'd never be able to get health insurance because you had a pre-existing condition. You were born with a pre- existing condition. And if your parents didn't have medical insurance you might not live long enough to even get denied because of pre-existing condition. If your baby is going to die and it doesn't have to, it shouldn't matter how much money you make. I think that's something that whether you're a Republican or Democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right? I mean, we do.

Let's stop with the nonsense. This isn't football. There are no teams. We are the team. It's the United States. Don't let their partisan squabbles divide us on something every decent person wants. We need to take care of each other


MACCALLUM: Those comments prompted this Washington Post headline, "The GOP has no good answer for Jimmy Kimmel" says the Post. In moments we'll hear from Charlie Hurt, who says that Kimmel is acting like an "elitist creep." He will defend those comments in a moment but first, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, known as the architect of ObamaCare, he is also Fox News contributor. Doctor, good to see you today.


MACCALLUM: What I'm - what I would like you to take us through is whether or not the second part of what Jimmy Kimmel said, and we all sympathize, any parent who has been through the frightening and joyful experience of having a child, and wanting to make sure everything is OK, feels for what he and his family went through. There is no doubt. But in terms of whether or not it would have been different, just the facts, beforehand, you know, when the baby is born, if his family is destitute, and the baby is in the hospital, and the baby starts, God forbid, turning purple. They don't walk away from that baby. They do surgery on that baby regardless of the insurance situation, correct?

EMANUEL: First of all, so, let's be clear. Yes, first of all, the mother might have been in a very different hospital than Cedars-Sinai. And so, the quality of the hospital would have been affected. Second of all the -

MACCALLUM: Well that's true under ObamaCare or not under ObamaCare.

EMANUEL: Let me just finish.

MACCALLUM: Go ahead.

EMANUEL: The second thing is, the idea of transporting the baby to children's hospital might have been different. And we do know just as a matter of fact, actually, that people are treated differently by their insurance. There was a study done by a Professor Doyle out of MIT that looked at accident victims in Wisconsin. And there was a very big difference in outcome as to whether you had an insurance, you are insured or uninsured, and the uninsured people actually died more frequently. We also have data from the American cancer society -

MACCALLUM: Let me just jump in. I understand - I understand what you are saying.

EMANUEL: Let me just finish.

MACCALLUM: No, but you're going into a lot of different scenarios. And just for the purposes of this discussion - because we only have a few minutes.

EMANUEL: That's because - that's because you want -

MACCALLUM: I want to talk about a baby in a hospital. Because what happens is, even before ObamaCare in fact, insurance companies added newborn infants at standard rates if parents have insurance regardless of the -

EMANUEL: You would - you would like to - you would like to narrow - you would like to narrow your case -

MACCALLUM: I'm just saying that we all felt for what he was saying, doctor, but I want people to understand that there is no mean being out there who is not going to help a child who was just born hours before if they're in dire need. Is that correct?

EMANUEL: It's very interesting how you want to narrow the case. Remember, Arizona?

MACCALLUM: We're just talking about the story.

EMANUEL: I'm about to explain something. Arizona, a few years ago decided that they were going to take away coverage from Medicaid patients for life- saving bone marrow transplants for children. And in fact, some children died. Oregon ended up doing the same thing. So the idea that we don't take care away, lifesaving care away from children because of their insurance status, whether it is Medicaid or being uninsured, your point is just wrong. We do that. And I think Jimmy Kimmel is making a very accurate claim, that your insurance.

MACCALLUM: That you're saying that although I'm right about this case, there are other cases where there are concerns, and I hear you. We all want children who are in these situations to be taken care of. But the other point that you made about ObamaCare is not going to cover some want to move to Cedars-Sinai or to move to children's hospital. I mean that .

EMANUEL: Excuse me. Again, you're not factually correct.

MACCALLUM: I have been factually correct all throughout, but go ahead.

EMANUEL: Half the people who got coverage have private insurance and often go to Cedars-Sinai. Cedars-Sinai takes patience with Medicaid, as well.

MACCALLUM: That's right.

EMANUEL: Let me just finish. The fact is what services are covered, do make a difference. And the uninsured, we know, have had a higher mortality rate in part for many reasons, but in part because of that insurance status, even in emergency circumstances like the one you're identifying.

MACCALLUM: All right. I think we can all agree that in this situation, any baby would be given care by the good doctors who would be in the hospital where the child is.

EMANUEL: Jimmy Kimmel's claim that your insurance status can determine the kind of medical care you get even in a hospital turns out factually when you look at the data to be true.

MACCALLUM: In that situation, he wants to make sure they're covered, and so do all of us.

EMANUEL: The situation is whether you have good insurance or not good insurance, and that is the situation.

MACCALLUM: And everybody.

EMANUEL: If you would like to look at only one case when we have 310 million.

MACCALLUM: Whatever. So because we're discussing this case specifically, and Jimmy Kimmel's comments touched off a firestorm, including this Washington Times opinion piece by our next guest, who writes that Kimmel, quote, wanted to know that if you're not for bloated federal bureaucracy, socialized medicine, higher taxes, and tons of more debt piled on to your grandchildren, then you're not a decent person. Actually, Jim, by Charles Hurt, if you're a decent person, you would shut your fat trap about partisan politics and go care for your kid who just nearly died, you elitist creep, Charlie Hurt, newly minted loser of the week by media. And normally a nice person joins us now. Charlie, was your head popping off last night when you're writing this? I mean, this is very, very harsh.


MACCALLUM: Given what this family went through.

HURT: Sure. But so is taking your ill child and inserting that child into the public arena and using them as a prop to push partisan political politics. I find that to be disgusting personally. Now, as you pointed out a minute ago, everybody, everybody, no matter what you're position on ObamaCare, I think everyone wants to find a way for children, all people, specifically children like this to get covered. The debate is about how do we do that. And for Jimmy Kimmel to use his position and to use this terrible situation that was heart-wrenching for anybody that listened to it, to take that and to jumped the rails into go into partisan politics with it, and it's kind of like a bully who wants to just shut down debate.

MACCALLUM: You could say the same thing about you. And you know, he has -- it's his show.


MACCALLUM: He has freedom of speech. He's ready to standup there and give his opinion about it, as do you.

HURT: That's a fair point.

MACCALLUM: You don't need to call him an elitist creep based on his opinions.

HURT: That's a fair point. But, I'm not -- again, I'm not taking a child and dragging them into this debate and then looking at everybody that disagrees with me politically and says, you don't like my child, you don't care about my child. That's no way to solve this. This is a very complicated debate. We want to figure out how to get -- I would like everyone to be covered. I would like everyone to get well. But rely on the federal.

MACCALLUM: I don't think he was pointing the finger at people and saying you don't want my child to be covered. But I do think that in many of these cases, there is much more emotion. And his emotion was rightly placed. I'm not making any comment on that. But in terms of coverage and health care because my first question was, is that true? And that's what I was trying to get out with Ezekiel Emanuel. Is it true? Because none of us want to live in a country where someone is going to walk away from a baby that is turning purple at a hospital and let them die, and that is not the case. That is not what happened. I have talked to doctors, I've read about the rules and the laws on this all day today. This is not what happens in America.

HURT: And ironically, that's part of the problem that we have it's because a hospital cannot turn away a child, we have.

MACCALLUM: You're not saying that they should be able to.

HURT: No. But what I'm saying is that because of that we sort of have de facto socialized medicine in this country.

MACCALLUM: We do. That was just Charles Krauthammer was just saying.

HURT: Because of that, we're doing it in a very ineffective way. But inserting the sort of thing into a hot political partisan debate I don't think helps anything.

MACCALLUM: As I said, normally a very nice person. This week's media's loser of the week, lambasted today for this comment. But, thank you. Thank you for coming on, thank you for talking about it, Charlie. Good to see you. All right, so you know that the resist movement is strong and there is a lot of money that is backing it. So now, you've got former President Obama and former presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, forming different entities to battle for who is the leader of the future party, who can pull in the most donors? This could get interesting, my friends. Chris Stirewalt here, though, Mercedes Schlapp is here, and Krystal Ball is here to weigh in on that. Plus, what does America first really mean on the world stage when it comes to things like human rights? Rex Tillerson is speaking out about where the White Houses is with the priority list these days. General Jack Keane joins us next.


MACCALLUM: So new clarity today from secretary of state Rex Tillerson on just what the Trump administrations America first notion means when it comes to who we're looking out for. With Syria, North Korea, Russia, all looking to expand their influence by any means necessary, Tillerson offering this candid assessment about how he sees our role now around the globe.


REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE: So let's talk first about my view of how you translate America first into our foreign policy. Look, things have gotten out of balance. And these are really important relationships to us, and they're really important alliances, but we've got to bring them back into balance. Guiding all of our foreign policy actions are our fundamental values. Our values around freedom, human dignity, the way people are treated, those are our values. Those are not our policies. They're values. At the end of it, it is strengthening our national security, and promoting economic prosperity for the American people.


MACCALLUM: Joining me now, General Jack Keane, chairman of the institute for the study of war. This sounds like, sort of the clarification and the expression of what the Trump doctrine is shaping up to look like, Jack, what do you think?

JACK KEANE, CHAIRMAN OF THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR: Yeah, I think so. I mean, this will play out all the time. And I don't think there will ever be a Trump doctrine written down. But there will be a national security strategy that H.R. McMaster's is crafting. What I see as happening, clearly, we're reassuring our allies. All the high government officials have gone around the world to do that and let them know that we stand behind them, we're supporting these alliances, we want you to board and share with us, we don't want to pay the disproportionate part of the funding for all of this, but we got your back. And that really is a reaction to the Obama administration, who truly aggravated and frustrated our allies because they didn't believe the United States still had their back.

The second thing, he mentioned our adversaries, the three of them, one of the problems we have with the Obama administration, many people felt that they cater more to our adversaries than he did to our allies. And I think there is some truth to that. I don't want to overstate it. But there is some truth to it. What Tillerson is saying, is that, look, we're looking at our adversaries clear-eyed. And their departure from just engaging our allies, excuse me, are our adversaries, like the Obama administration did, we're going to confront them. And they're doing that in North Korea, they're doing that in Syria, which means not just Syria, in terms of the Assad regime, but the Iranians and the Russians there. And we're calling out the Russians for their horrific behavior. Those are the different anchor posts that I see that are taking place. It's truly different from what we experience the last eight years.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let's listen to Rex Tillerson here for a moment. Some more from him.


TILLERSON: It's a pressure campaign that has a knob on it. I'd say we're about dial setting five or six right now, so we're trying to be very, very clear and resolute in our message to them that you're future security and economic prosperity can only be achieved through your following your commitments to denuclearize.


MACCALLUM: So that was Rex Tillerson. Sorry, I lost my audio. But I was able to hear the sound by Jack. But, you know, talk to me about what he means by, it's a pressure campaign that has a knob on it with North Korea. And now, we're about to dial five or six, very interesting.

KEANE: He's talking about an escalating campaign that we're giving the ball to China, to impose leverage on the North Koreans. They've stopped the import of coal. They're considering cutting off oil to North Korea. If they do that, that would be a staggering move on their part. And clearly, some of it would impact North Korea. We're imposing sanctions ourselves. And we have clearly told our allies and the North Koreans that a military option is on the table. And I think people know that's credible.

MACCALLUM: Jack, thank you very much. General Jack Keane joining us tonight. So coming up next, the two biggest names in Democratic politics returned to the public stage as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton look to exert their respective influence over the party's politics. Chris Stirewalt, Mercedes Schlapp, and Krystal Ball, debate the impact and who may be the winner in that interesting face-off when we come back.


MACCALLUM: We are back. So the Democratic Party at a bit of a crossroads tonight as they continue to struggle to find their path after the last election. So now, you've got two familiar faces who are now stealing the spotlight, kind of coming back on to the scene as the former president, Barack Obama, moves forward with his foundation that he is establishing, and new reports that Hillary Clinton is launching her own pack. So who will wield more political power? Because you know they're going to be tapping into some of the same wells. The two time presidential winner or the two time presidential loser? Chris Stirewalt, Fox News digital politics editor, and Mercedes Schlapp is a Republican strategist and Fox News contributor, Krystal Ball is a senior fellow at the New Leaders Council. Welcome to all of you up there on our big chandelier. Good to see you all tonight.

We usually do the quote of the night at the end of the show. But my good friend Chris Stirewalt said something that I thought was so quote worthy that we are going to do it right now. So, Chris, you basically were talking about whether or not Hillary Clinton should fade from the scene, and you said, decency would compel most politicians to have mercy on a party they failed so lavishly. Clinton couldn't even summon the same level of circumspection as Al Gore, who despite heroic levels of ego, was at least ashamed enough to grow a beard after he lost.


CHRIS STIREWALT: Lord, I'm as mean as Charlie Hurt.

MACCALLUM: You know what, it's hard to be as mean as Charlie Hurt, Chris, but you are entering the competition. So what do you think? You know, as they both do try -- and I also think it's interesting to point out that President Obama is starting a foundation. I don't know if he's going to use that word to name it because it might sort of bring up some of the memories of the Clinton foundation that didn't always have the best connotations in the last election. Chris, you go first.

STIREWALT: I think so for our President Obama -- President Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt on this. He seems to be trying to fulfill the role that his predecessors did, certainly what President Bush did for him in large form, which is to not be part of the day to day. Obama seems to be working hard here. In his first public comments, he elevated. He didn't talk about Donald Trump. He didn't talk about hard policy issues. He talked in generalities. And I think he deserves credit so far, that he is trying to adopt that approach, which is very different obviously than Hillary Clinton.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. Krystal, what do you think, you know, when you look at the future of the party, the Democratic Party, who do you think sort of deserves to stick around, deserves to get people to give them money? They're all going to make a ton of money. We know that President Obama has got a $400,000 speaking engagement from a Wall Street firm. Who's going to be, sort of, be the leader, the standard bearer of this party?

KRYSTAL BALL, SENIOR FELLOW NEW LEADERS COUNCIL: I mean, to be honest with you, as much as I respect both of them in terms of their careers in public service, I don't think either President Obama or Hillary Clinton needs to be the future of the Democratic Party. We have not only lost the 2016 election, we lost over 1,000 state legislative seats over the past six years because we've really failed to offer a big enough economic vision to deal with the massive changes facing the country. So I'm looking to people like Bernie Sanders, I'm looking to people like Congressman Tim Ryan from Youngstown, Ohio. Who aren't afraid of thinking big, of thinking bold, of thinking outside the box. And frankly, I don't want anyone who's pulling down six-figures for Wall Street speeches to be the future of the Democratic Party. Of course, we're going to love Barack Obama. Of course, he's going to have a role, reelected, first African-American president, health care reform, banking reform, all of those things, but we've got to look to the future into new voices.

MACCALLUM: OK. I want to put up a quote from Tom Perez because this has become an issue for the Democratic Party, whether or not they should include people who are pro-life. A lot of Catholics fall into that group. He said every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choice about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state. But, Mercedes, now you have Nancy Pelosi speaking out about this, and saying that she does and she is a catholic, believe that there ought to be room in the Democratic Party for people who are pro-life.

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, FOX NEWS CONTRUBUTOR: Well, I think that it's clear that the Democratic Party has become the abortion party. It's the one issue where they have focused on and taken it to an extreme position. I mean, so many Democrats voted against supporting the born alive infant protection act, which was one of those issues that most Americans agree on. And so, I do think that it's very fascinating to watch the Democrats being those who want to exclude pro-lifers, when you're talking about 51 percent of Americans, self-identify themselves as pro-life individuals. So I find it to be just shocking that the Democrats have decided that there is no room in the party for Democrats who support pro-life positions.

MACCALLUM: Chris, how's that going over politically? And do they need to embrace, do they need to widen the tent for people who are pro-life in the Democratic Party? They're used to be lot of them in the Democratic Party. Politically, how does this play for them?

STIREWALT: Well, look, Democrats do have a sound chance to win back the house next year. They could be in a very good position to do that. If they want to do it, they're going to do it with candidates that match their districts. They're not going to do it by trying to impose their view on these districts. They're going to find candidates who match up. And we saw that in the special election in Atlanta. We're seeing that in a special election that's going on in South Carolina. Democrats have to say, look, you can get certain kind of people elected in South Carolina. You can get other kind of people elected in the middle of Missouri. You've got to have candidates that match. And on the issue of life, if Democrats are so exclusionary as to say that they won't allow for pro-choice -- or for pro- life Democrats, then, they're going to leave seats on the table and they're going to make it that much harder to take back the house.

MACCALLUM: Krystal, they wouldn't allow the woman's march to have groups that were pro-life. Is this something they need to change?

BALL: Well, the women's march is different than the Democratic Party as a whole. And what you know, what Nancy Pelosi knows, and what is demonstrated in that quote, is when we passed health care reform, we had close to 40 pro-life Democrats in the house. So Chris is absolutely right. If we want to be serious about a 50-state strategy, we got to allow people to channel their communities particularly on abortion and on guns.

MACCALLUM: Thank you all.

BALL: We need to be focused on economics.

MACCALLUM: Quick break and we'll be right back after this.


MACCALLUM: So tonight, we'll leave you with this plea from the New York Post, John Podhoretz, who is calling on Americans to slow down and to marvel for just a moment at the brighter things that the world has to offer. Everyday miracles, he points out, like this one that he highlights, a baby fitted for a hearing aid and hearing his mom and dad for the very first time.





UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hello. He's smiling.


MACCALLUM: I love that smile. We wanted to leave you in a positive note. That's the story tonight. We'll see you tomorrow at 7:00. Tucker Carlson is 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.