Sen. Orrin Hatch calls for civility on Capitol Hill

Utah senator speaks out on 'The Story with Martha MacCallum'


This is a rush transcript from "The Story," June 29, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, "THE STORY" HOST: Breaking tonight, the White House claiming two big agenda victories this evening for the president's extreme vetting, which is about to take partial effect in under an hour from now at our nation's airport. And also Kate's Law, cracking down an illegal immigrant; the law in named for Kate Stanley who was shot and killed by a man who had been kicked out of our country five times. Just yesterday, the president met with Angel families, like Stanley's, who have lost loved ones.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My son is walking down the street and he shot him dead in the street.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was my only child. I want some action.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: American safety for people, that's all it's about.


MACCALLUM: It's an important night for these families. Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and here is "The Story" on a, let's say, a complicated day for the White House. First, you have the president's travel restrictions for about six countries that go into effect in part after the Supreme Court issued stays on the lower courts holds against this law. But the president overshadowed his own administration's accomplishments with a controversial tweet. Chief National Correspondent, Ed Henry, sums it all up for us; he is at Dallas International Airport this evening where these are set to take effect outside of Washington, D.C. Ed, good evening to you.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Martha, good evening. And that's what can be so damaging for the president about this tweet storm directed at MSNBC host, Joe Scarborough, and Mika Brzezinski. It could overshadow what is a night of some big victories for this president in terms of following through on campaign promises to keep America safe. Just moments ago, the House passed two immigration measures that will crack down on sanctuary cities.

Well, less than an hour from now, as you mentioned here at Dallas Airport; Airports all across America, the president's travel ban will get a green light thanks to Monday's Supreme Court decision. There was a 72-hour pause, as you remember, to give people a chance to prepare and avoid the confusion and chaos that we saw in earlier versions of this executive order. Here's how just to be clear, here's who is exempt from the latest travel ban from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Syria, and Sudan. Anybody who has what is called a bonafide relationship with an American or U.S. entity: a parent, spouse, children, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and siblings.

Those not considered to have a bonafide relationship or grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, fiances, and other extended family members. What's interesting is that, even though the court still has to work out the broader legal questions here in October about the travel ban, Democrats are ripping this temporary win for the president while his national security team is saying this is exactly what we need, the kind of extreme vetting to keep America safe.


SEN. MICHAEL BENNET, D-COLORADO: It's a terribly conceived plan, to begin with, it's an absolute attack on American values, and I don't think it's going to keep us safer.

JOHN KELLY, SECRETARY, HOMELAND SECURITY: Terrorists want to bring down aircraft, to instill fear, disrupt our economy, and undermine our way of life. And it works, which is why they still see aviation as the crown jewel target.


HENRY: Meanwhile, as I noted, the House has just passed these two pillars of the president's immigration agenda starting with that law named after Kate Stanley that will create harsher penalties for repeat illegal entry into the United States. And then, there's the no sanctuary for criminal's act that will block some federal grants from sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities; something the president highlighted a short time ago.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When liberating towns, those people are so happy to see our guys, and our guys are a lot tougher than the MS-13 characters. Let's pass these bills through the House, through the Senate, and send them to my desk.


HENRY: Now, critics are going to claim the president will not get the biggest plank in that immigration agenda: the wall on the southern border. But remember, we've been hearing the naysayers say for a long time that Russia was going to overshadow the rest of the president's agenda, except tonight we're seeing him rack up some victories. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Ed. So, here now with more on the ban, the new law, and the tweets: Bill Bennett, Host of the Bill Bennett Podcast and a Fox News contributor. Bill, good evening to you. As is usually the case with the Trump presidency, there is a mixed bag to talk about here tonight. What stands out for you?

BILL BENNETT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND HOST, BILL BENNETT PODCAST: Well, what stands out for me is not the ephemeral. The ephemeral is the tweet, this will pass. Critics and haters of the press will say, well, this is just what we expected, this is this gross man and all the horrible things they say about him and say every day on MSNBC on the "Morning Joe" show.

The defenders of the president, the supporters, a guy will shake our heads and say you didn't need to do that. That wasn't necessary, it wasn't right. And you stepped on your own great successes here. But it will be ephemeral because the lasting effect of the Supreme Court's decision and the putting in place of this ban plus these laws once they are signed will be really consequential. Just a couple comments if I can.

On the sanctuary, you could replay the election on the sanctuary city law except it will be a greater effect than even the election. The whole country understands that you cannot harbor these illegal aliens who've committed crimes, serious crimes, and the withholding of funds is perfectly reasonable. And if Democrats and liberals want to have a fight about that, Trump will win hands down, same with "Kate's Law." It's so crazy that these guys can come back and forth into this country and wreak havoc.

The only thing that I differ with, although the court said 9-0, and the fact that the president had the constitutional authority to do this; it isn't that interesting. Because remember, Martha, when the president announced it, people said, no person of goodwill or intelligence could ever, you know, want to do such a thing. Well, nine justices of the Supreme Court said the president has the authority to do that. And it doesn't shock the conscience.

My only difference here is that I don't think it matters so much, put it at the shorthand, what country people come from or what the relationships are. What matters to me is where they stand on the Constitution. What to them is superior? The Constitution, the laws of this country or Sharia Law? And that's the one that matters the most to me: what's in their brain, what's in their heart. And I hope as we get to vetting, that will be the issue that we'll find out about if we can and when we can.

MACCALLUM: You know, what strikes me is when you look at sort of the learning curve of this presidency. And you go back to the beginning when the initial extreme vetting, travel ban, there was a lot of arguing over the meaning of what the president wanted to do, was put into place that went in on a Friday afternoon. There was chaos at the nation's airports. People were stuck for days. There was so much backlash. That's what prompted this decision that we saw out of the Ninth Circuit Court. You know, slammed it back. It was a tough moment for this White House.

So, now, you look at tonight and we have -- you know, we're watching to see if there are protests at any of these airports, we're not seeing on that front so far. And they put it into place in a way that's going to allow people who already have their visa to come through. But it's interesting when the principal is pretty much the same in both places, the execution may prove this time to have this go through with a lot less ranker.

BENNETT: Yes. Well, maybe no demonstrations because if you stand up and you're honest, you have to say I hate Trump and he's an inhumane and inhuman. And so are Ginsberg and Briar, and the other justices on the court, especially the Liberals, so the Mayor, and so on. Because they smiled on this and said in effect this is a constitutional authority. I don't think you're going to see these kinds of demonstrations because the Supreme Court, you know, earned that adjective, that modifier, supreme and showed that it understands the Constitution in ways that the lower courts do not. They took their job seriously.

MACCALLUM: All right. I do want to ask you about the president. Because you know, when we all looked at our, you know, phones this morning or our computer screen and you read this thing that he put out, you've got to ask yourself: what was he thinking? I mean, he is president of the United States. He doesn't need -- I think of Michelle Obama talking about, you know, "When they go low, we go high." That might be advice that might be worth heeding for this president.

BENNETT: Yes. I have friends who say what they want to do is praise the president, get him to sign things, but learn to sign without his thumbs because they can break his thumbs and he doesn't tweet anymore. This doesn't help. And again, the word all day has been a distraction. It distracts from these accomplishments, major accomplishments. Plus, this huge win vis-a-vis CNN situation, where he's been saying they deliver fake news and boy, were they delivering fake news. But one thing people been saying all day, which is just historically inaccurate that no president has been vulgar before, no president has gone low. I don't approve of it, but read Alex's biography of Lyndon Johnson.

MACCALLUM: Oh, absolutely.

BENNETT: You'll find some pretty --

MACCALLUM: Yes. No, he was very crude in many ways. But unfortunately, he didn't have social media that was picking it all up on. Thank goodness he didn't, right, for some of those moments in, you know, the White House and other places.

BENNETT: And what about if Andrew Jackson had been tweeting when he said that, his only regret is that he didn't shoot Henry Clay and hang John Calhoun? That's pretty serious stuff too.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Press behavior is no stranger to some occupants of the White House. Good to see you tonight. Thank you so much, Bill Bennett. Good to see you.

BENNETT: Thank you for much.

MACCALLUM: So, we raise the possibility of last night's broadcast and moments ago, it has been confirmed: Susan Rice, now will testify on her role in the unmasking of American citizens. We're going to bring you that story, breaking news coming just in a moment. Also, the health care battle raging on as lawmakers raced against the clock to recess. So, could we have a new plan from the Senate? What will it look like and can it happen tomorrow? And a completely different type of battle breaking out on Twitter between President Trump and an MSNBC anchor; we just referenced this, we're going to dig into the back story here on the firestorm. And what happened on the other side of it that prompted this morning's reaction, when we come back.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the president go too far with this tweet? It's deeply a personal insult.


MACCALLUM: Back to THE STORY. We have breaking developments tonight in the Russia probe, a word that Susan Rice will testify now before the House Intelligence Committee as part of their investigation into the unmasking of Trump officials towards the end of the Obama administration. What was going on there? It looks like it's going to be a closed-door session. Of course, it's going to be very highly anticipated and it will happen, we're told, sometime before the August recess.

Joining us to react to this and other big foreign policy news tonight: Pete Hoekstra, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman; and Juan Williams, co-Host of "The Five." Gentlemen, welcome, great to have both of you here. There's a lot to get to, so let's get right to it. Pete, let me get your reaction first to the news that Susan Rice, who has been asked to testify and said "no" to the Senate Intel Committee reportedly, will now do so before the House Committee.

I'm glad that Susan is going to show up. I think the Congress wants to hear exactly what happened. You know, it's kind of interesting that we're at the point where, you know, Lindsey Graham, you've got Rand Paul, cannot get an answer to a very simple question: were they targeted, were they unmasked? Hopefully, we'll get answers to those questions. Also hopefully, get a better insight to exactly what the Russians were and were planning to do in the 2016 election. We haven't heard that much.

MACCALLUM: Yes. All right, you know its two parts of two very important elements of all of this. Juan, we need to understand why these names were unmasked? If it was proper that she claims, then that's fine. But if it was for some other reason, it's not.

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST AND HOST: Well, I'd be true. So, I think President Trump created the pressure here for Susan Rice to testify when he suggested that the unmasking is the real story, not what's going on with Russia.

MACCALLUM: But it's the only illegality that we know of so far.

WILLIAMS: Well, it's not illegal.

MACCALLUM: It is illegal.

WILLIAMS: It's not illegal to unmask somebody; it's illegal if you do it for political purposes. But unmasking happens all the time.

MACCALLUM: Well, we know that these names are leaked to the newspapers.

WILLIAMS: Well, that's, that's --

MACCALLUM: And it's really given to a small handful of people. So --

WILLIAMS: Right. But that -- we don't know who did the leaking. The leaking is what would be illegal and potentially, the unmasking of its done for political purposes would be illegal. But unmasking and I think Pete Hoekstra will confirm this, that unmasking is done by top military intelligence and political figures in the White House all the time.


HOEKSTRA: Yes. Juan is absolutely right. People are unmasked for very specific purposes. The question here is will be who was unmasked, why they were unmasked. It's going to be very difficult, I think, to reach a conclusion that the unmasking was done for illegal purposes. There may be suspicions, but again, people will look at the same information in two groups may come to very different conclusions. One saying it was appropriate; the other saying no, that is illegal.

MACCALLUM: I mean it's the only area of this Russia probe so far that has the potential for a discovery of an illegal act. So, we will see what happens when she goes in there and talks to them. Let's take a look at what's being said by first the new national security adviser Henry McMaster, and then the president just moments ago, with regard to the tensions in North Korea. Watch.


H.R. MCMASTER, ADVISER, NATIONAL SECURITY: We can't repeat the same approach, failed approach of the past. The president has directed us to not do that and to prepare a range of options, including a military option.

TRUMP: Tremendous discussions tonight. And I know you've been discussing with our people some of the complexities of North Korea and trade and other things, and we'll be discussing them all as we progress. And it could be very well late into the evening.


MACCALLUM: The president moments ago. Juan, obviously, the situation with North Korea is changed in this administration.

WILLIAMS: I think, right now, given their continued development of nuclear weapons and their testing of the missiles, I think we are at a critical moment in part because China has not delivered on what President Trump told would be their ability to rein in the North Koreans. So, you have President Moon visiting today, and it was an interesting dynamic to watch, Martha, because President Moon really so is different than the last two South Korean presidents.

He wants to go back to what was called the Sunshine Policy, trying to open relationships with the North, believing that there is an opportunity here for some kind of reproach, even as we see the U.S. and North Korea at a head. So, you know, he had to really, I think, get a feel for what President Trump is talking about, and try to say to the president: if there's a military showdown, a lot of South Koreans are going to get hurt.

MACCALLUM: Just have a few seconds left, but I want to get Pete's thought on that quickly. Pete.

HOEKSTRA: Martha, you're making news tonight. Juan and I absolutely agree we've to get on the same page with South Korea. We need to get the Chinese involved. And then this president needs to reach out to Congress to make sure that Republicans and Democrats are on the same page. Juan, great insights tonight, thank you.


WILLIAMS: It's the first, Pete.


WILLIAM: We got it, babe.

HOEKSTRA: Yes, we sure do.

MACCALLUM: I can feel the love all over the place tonight. Thanks, you guys, great to see you both. So, President Trump taking to Twitter today, speaking of love going around, the words that came from the White House fighting fire with fire is how it was characterized at the press conference, but did this burn go too far? "Morning Joe" versus the president, heats up big time tonight. We're going to show what they have said about him that may have led to this Twitter outburst, so you can decide at home.

Plus, GOP Senators working through the night to hash out a new model of this health care deal before their deadline and everybody takes off for the Fourth of July tomorrow. Avik Roy wrote the definitive report on how to get rid of ObamaCare; Jonathan Gruber was the Architect of ObamaCare, they face off here next. Not to be missed after this.


MACCALLUM: So tonight, Capitol Hill and America anxiously awaiting a new version of the Senate health care bill. The one that Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, is hoping, fingers crossed, he can get past as far as he sees it. So, the clock is ticking down. It looks more and more like they may be catching a plane before they're casting a vote. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is up to the leadership on the Republican side to decide if they want to fix things or just --

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, R-UTAH, SENATE PRO TEMPORE: We're making some progress, but we've got to make more than we have, I'll put it that way.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIFORNIA: We cannot be frozen out.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: It'd be good to replace ObamaCare because it is failing miserably. But if we can't do it alone, then it comes time to work together.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want President Trump's campaign contract with the American voter to be fulfilled. Until we get there, I won't really know how I'm voting.


MACCALLUM: Joining me now: Avik Roy, the president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and Opinion Editor at Forbes; and Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of ObamaCare and an economics professor at MIT. Gentlemen, welcome, it's great to have both of you with us tonight. Avik, I want to start with you. You said that this Senate bill is one of the best pieces of legislation that you have seen in your lifetime. Why, and are they running it with these changes?

AVIK ROY, PRESIDENT OF THE FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND EDITOR AT FORBES: Well, I said if they passed, it would be one of the biggest accomplishments; if not, the biggest by a Republican Congress in my lifetime. And that's because Republicans talk a lot about entitlement reform, but they have a real chance to do it. And to do it in a way that would actually make health care better for a lot of people. And so, we'll have to see whether they're able to get that deal together and get those 50 votes.

And it's a challenge because there are a lot of people in Republican Party on the moderate side who may be kind of uncomfortable repealing ObamaCare.
And there maybe people on the right who really aren't comfortable replacing ObamaCare. They'd rather just repeal it and go home, and that ideological and philosophical difference is playing a role in the balancing act that Senate leadership has to work on today.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Avik, staying with you for a moment; Rand Paul, basically says, this is a buyout for an insurance company. Why are we throwing money at insurance companies in the name of "stabilizing the marketplace?" They're not the people who need the money. What do you think about that?

ROY: Well, I don't think it's buyout of insurance companies at all. I think it's about making sure that sick people and poor people can afford health insurance, which is a goal that Republicans, in my view, should embrace. That's the principle behind the report transcending ObamaCare as you cited in the teaser. My foundation is all about market-based approaches to universal coverage. That's what we should be working on.

And I think the problem with Rand Paul is he doesn't believe in that. He thinks that it's OK for lots of people to be uninsured and that we don't have the money lying around to do it. We could, if we actually reform the health care system, reform entitlements, there's plenty of money to support covering the sick and the poor without spending more money. We can spend less, cover more people.

MACCALLUM: Jonathan, what's wrong with what he?

JONATHAN GRUBER, ARCHITECH OF OBAMACARE AND PROFESSOR AT MIT: Well, what's wrong with Avik said is that, basically, the market by itself cannot provide universal coverage. You're going to have to have government subsidies to make insurance affordable. So for example, take the Senate bill. The Senate bill in its current form would say that a low-income person would qualify for insurance, which would have a deductible of about half of their income. That's not affordable insurance.

It would say that a low-income 60-year-old would have to pay about six or $7,000 in premiums for insurance, for a deductible that could be a third or a half of their income. That's not affordable insurance. We can debate what's affordable, whether it's 10 percent of income, 15 percent of income, but we can't argue that an insurance product with a deductible of half your income is affordable.

So, basically, what this does is it takes a huge amount of money away from insurance for low-income people and redistributes it towards the tax cut for rich people. So, if you want to preserve affordability, you can't shift that kind of money away from the port to the rich.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, the CBO says that Medicaid spinning falls 35 percent over the next 20 years, Avik. So, you have a different way of addressing -- allowing the low earner to be able to have a deductible that they can live with, that gives them coverage that they can actually pay, how?

ROY: Yes. So, it's important to replace the Medicaid expansion of ObamaCare with tax credits so people can buy private insurance. And I would disagree with the least some of the numbers that Jonathan threw out there in the sense that, I think the premiums will be affordable. But he is right that it's important for the Senate to work on making those deductibles affordable as well. And at the Web site of our think tank, we'd put on a proposal to do that, to create a fund, a block grant that states could use to provide health savings account or other mechanisms to help those low-income people for those deductibles.

MACCALLUM: Why not push it back to the states, Jonathan? I got to go, I need a quick answer here. But why not push block grants back to the states let them manage the money on their own and find some savings in that program by having it closer to home?

GRUBER: Look, I've no problem with giving states more control. I think that's fine. But the difference is you're mixing up state control with cuts. If you're going to push it back to the states, you have to, with sufficient funding, so they can actually do what Avik said and protect a low-income people. A massive cut is not giving flexibility to the states, it's just the cut.

MACCALLUM: Well, it's a decrease and the increase in spending over years. It's not a cut out of the gate; it doesn't happen for at least a decade. So, they have plenty of time to manage that over time. Gentlemen, I got to leave it there, but I hope you'll come back. It's an important debate and I thank you very much for being here tonight on "The Story."

GRUBER: Thanks.

ROY: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, gentlemen. All right, so, debates in Washington like the ones surrounding health care can quickly turn very ugly. But one GOP Senator wants to change that by drawing on how Congress used to operate. Senator Orrin Hatch writing, "When I first came to Washington, the culture of Congress was vastly different than it is today. It was a level of respect and congeniality among colleagues that was hard to find anywhere else. Some of my best friends were Democrats. One moment we would yell at each other on the Senate floor, the next we would be laughing together over a family dinner."

Joining me now, the Senator from Utah, calling for those big changes over discourse, Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator, good to have you here tonight. Thank you for being here.

ORRIN HATCH, U.S. SENATOR: Nice to be with you.

MACCALLUM: So your piece that you wrote caught our eye yesterday, especially in light of all of the very rough talk that is flying around these days. So what prompted you to write this piece?

HATCH: Well, I think when you have too much rough talk, we have too much division, you know, I'll just say that being just 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats, and Trump having won the election has really created an awful lot of discord among both the Republicans and the Democrat. The Democrats have had a rough tough time accepting Trump, and accepting the Republicans. The Republicans, of course, have gotten -- they're not real happy with the Democrats. I think part of that is driven by the fact -- we're not really associating that much. There's so much pressure on us to get home and to travel and to raise money and do all the other things that count. And then also -- there's also the usual very, very discordant issues that come up in the senate, for instance, where we disagree with each other. But that doesn't mean you have to be disagreeable.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. I know you've said that people used to sort of -- they go to the same schools, they live in the same neighbors, now there's even distinct neighborhoods where the Republicans live and the Democrats live, and that's just not in Washington, that's across the country. Do you ever see that changing back to the way it was?

HATCH: Yeah, I think it can. I have to admit that Alain and I decided we were not going to be back here without our family, so we brought all six kids back with us. And because of that, we were able to assimilate into the community to a degree. Of course, I went home many, many times. But one of the big things that happen there's that I came back here to fight Ted Kennedy for instance. He was somebody that people in Utah really despised. And I found that when I became chairman of the labor community in 1981 with the advent of Reagan, Kennedy came over from the judiciary committee and became my ranking member.

And I had an ideological edge of 9-7 as far as number of Republicans on the committee, but two of them were very liberal Republicans, Senator -- from Connecticut, and Senator Stafford from Vermont. And so, I went to Ted Kennedy and I said, look, I can't run this committee without you. I'm going to need your help. And to his credit he leaped out of his chair and said I'm going to help. I think he sees the opportunity because he realized it was a good thing for him. It was a good thing for the country. It was a good thing for the senate.

MACCALLUM: Do think that's something that can happen with health care in this moment? Who's going to leap across the aisle? Who is that Ted Kennedy that you can get together with now and come to a conclusion that will make it this health care program better for Americans because that's the bottom line?

HATCH: Well, on the senate finance committee which I chair, there are a lot of really excellent Democrats. Ron Wyden, for instance, is they let him go, he's very capable of working with me, and he's very smart, very good. But there are a number of others on the Democratic side who once let go by the Democratic leadership I think will do a really good job with us. And I think it brings the Republicans along and we seems to get along well. We have a lot of bipartisan legislation on that committee, and I intent to see it continue.

MACCALLUM: All right, we will see what happens after the break. Thank you so much for being with us tonight, senator. Always a pleasure to see you.

HATCH: Nice to be with you.

MACCALLUM: Well, still ahead tonight, a former NFL star admits to sitting in a parking lot with a gun ready to kill the man who was about to walk out of the building. What happened next will shock you. And Morning Joe goes after the president pretty much every morning, calling him embarrassing, calling him a goon. Today he bit back and stirred a hornet's nest, Lisa Boothe and Julie Roginsky, next.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: A couple of the criticisms from supporters of the president had been -- this particular tweet was beneath the dignity of the office. Where does the president draw that line?




UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: The president of the United States, Mr. Trump, has violated any suggestion that he should be trusted with the oval office. And I would argue that our responsibility is not to him but to the American people, and he should resign.


MACCALLUM: That was Democratic congresswoman, Sheila Jackson-Lee, calling on President Trump to resign after the president added fuel to his ongoing media feud by taking to twitter and knocking MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski with this. I heard poorly rated Morning Joe speaks badly of me, quote, don't watch anymore, in parenthesis. Then how come low I.Q. crazy Mika, he said, along with psycho Joe, come to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift, and I said no. Yuck. So those words drew fast and furious criticisms, with MSNBC firing back in a public statement writing this. It's a sad day for America when the president spends his time bullying, lying and spewing petty, personal attacks instead of doing his job. Meanwhile, the White House is defending the president insisting the media fired the first shots.


UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: The only person that I see a war on this president and everybody that works from him. I'm a woman and I've been attack by this show multiple times, but I don't cry foul because of it.


MACCALLUM: She's got a point. Well, others point to evidence that the show is openly hostile to the president on a fairly daily basis. Watch.


UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he's such a narcissist. It is possible that he is mentally ill in a way. And if this is on the table, it's OK to say.


UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: . he's not well. At the very least he's not well.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's bad for the country. This is unprecedented to have a president that behaves this way. It's feels like a developing dictatorship.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Nobody is saying that what Donald Trump is doing now is right. In fact, we think it's extraordinarily dangerous.


MACCALLUM: There you have it. I'm joined now by Lisa Boothe, president of High Noon Strategist, Julie Roginsky, Democratic analyst. Both are Fox News contributors. So let me just ask you this. When you saw this, this morning, because I know how I felt when -- you know, you start getting all these -- your phone starts blowing up, right. Oh, my gosh, let me see what he said. What was your reaction, Lisa?

LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Look, I think everyone is wrong here. Of course the president shouldn't tweet this out, it's petty and juvenile. But you also read MSNBC statement. They accused the president of lying, bullying, spewing personal attacks. Is that precisely what their anchors did this morning and saying that the president was a liar? He's ruining the country and criticizing the size of his hands?

And look, I think the president has every right to be critical of the media. There's a media research center survey out just recently showing that the media has spent 353 minutes covering the Russia probe without a shred of evidence regarding collusion. Just recently, CNN forced three employees to resign over a fake news story. Another producer was caught on camera saying that it was all B.S. and it was for ratings. A contributor said that it was a nothing burger despite saying otherwise on television. So I think he's got plenty of ammunition here outside of resorting to personal attacks.

MACCALLUM: I mean, I'm sure there plenty of people who are very close to the president who didn't like this tweet. Who knows that it steps in the way of the other things he wants to get done. The news tonight was passing the immigration law and the beginning of the implementation of extreme vetting. So Julie, just politically, you know, he feels it works for him. He likes to fight back. Does it hurt them? Does it help him in the long run?

JULIE ROGINSKY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: He is the most powerful man in the world, and for him to take on cable news hosts is both beneath his office and is a horrible representation of what we as American stand for. Look, this network, I've been here long enough to know that this network has not always been complementary to Barack Obama. He didn't go after any of us in personal terms like that. He never accused any of us of bleeding after a post-surgery. I mean, the reality is, this is the president of the United States, and he's going out there and discussing somebody's surgery. An alleged surgery, I should say. There are many bigger issues to discuss. He is a toddler with a phone. My 5-year-old would not behave this way. It's disgraceful to our country and it's disgraceful.

MACCALLUM: You can't defend that tweet. It's in really bad taste. And it's not the kind of thing that anybody wants to see coming out of the White House. There are better ways to fight back. I mean, there's absolutely no doubt about it. There are better ways to respond to this type of thing. However, this is a very -- this is a unique presidency. It's unlikely to change, Lisa Boothe. It is unlikely -- and I also think that in a couple of days this probably blows over is my guest. Just based on what we have seen in the past. So does it help him, or hurt him, or what's the impact in the end, Lisa?

BOOTHE: Look, I think it's a little hypocritical of people to criticize the rhetoric of the president, and then use words like buffoon to describe the president. If you're going to hold someone to a standard you should also hold yourself to that standard. I do not think this is helpful for the president. I would rather have him focus on something -- energy policy is what he's been talking about this week, and important immigration laws that the house passed. Of course, this doesn't help the president, but I do think that he has exposed the media as being biased. And I think that you can look at polling to indicate that. There's a Harvard-Harris poll showing that a majority of Americans believe that there's fake news out there. And I think the media in their disdain for the president have been more focused on covering narratives as opposed to being.


MACCALLUM: But when he does this kind of thing, he fuels them.


MACCALLUM: So tomorrow morning now they're going to have this big respond, you know, either it eat it up and it's going to be completely sanctimonious is my prediction. So Julie, does -- he feeds the beast when he does this.

ROGINSKY: Sanctimonious? I mean, this network called Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, didn't (INAUDIBLE) his job.


ROGINSKY: It did, I'm sorry.


MACCALLUM: That's not what happened.

ROGINSKY: Let's look at the record, Martha. Let's be very clear about this. People have their opinions. We have the first amendment. The difference between the rest of us, who go on TV and voice our opinions, and the president of the United States, is that he represents all of us. He's the leader of the nation.

MACCALLUM: I agree with you. He should be held to a higher standard as cable news said. However, the rhetoric that we see every single morning and what this president has dealt with -- nobody is justifying -- nobody's justifying that tweet. Among other things it's just the worst possible taste, right? But the fact of the matter is that the level of vitriol coming at him is really -- I think it's unprecedented.

ROGINSKY: And that would happen towards Barack Obama?

MACCALLUM: Not in that way. Julie, it was really not happening in that way.

BOOTHE: In all fairness, I don't think there are a lot of people outside of the White House that are supporting the tweet and saying this was a positive thing, or this is good for the president's agenda. You've seen Republican after Republican say that -- condemned the twitter or the tweet, and saying that the president shouldn't be doing this.

MACCALLUM: All right, guys, we've got to go. We're way over. Thank you so much, great to see you both. So still ahead, a former NFL star admits that he contemplated killing a man, the story behind this, next. Plus, a Vatican official faces sexual assault charges. Also U.N. ambassador, Nikki Halley, fires a warning shot to Iran in a very forceful message. And the iPhone that changed your entire life pretty much, right? It's the anniversary when we come back.


MACCALLUM: Other stories making news tonight. A top advisor to Pope Francis charged with multiple counts of sexual assault. Cardinal George Pell says he is innocent. Pope Francis has declared a zero tolerance policy for these crimes in the wake of sex abuse scandals involving the church. And taking on the U.N. and Iran, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Halley, challenging the Security Council to hold Iran accountable for its actions.


NIKKI HALLEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Iran leaders abused their own people. The Iranian people deserve better. The Iranian people know the horror of chemical weapons attack. And so, it is sad and horrifying the irony that the Iranian regime now supports a dictator in Syria who uses these same evil weapons against his own people.


MACCALLUM: Watch that. So ten years ago our lives change, pretty much. The iPhone was born. Over 1 billion iPhones have been sold. It was the most popular smartphone in the world, and pretty much can't go anywhere without it if you're a regular human being. And this unbelievable story from the NFL tonight, a former football star in the Washington Redskins, was ready to commit murder over his money manager. Trace Gallagher has the details from our West Coast newsroom tonight. High, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS: Hi, Martha. During nine seasons in the NFL, Clinton Portis carried the ball more than 2,000 times and ran for just under 10,000 yards. He is number six all time in rushing yards per game. And in 2004, with the Washington Redskins, Clinton Portis was the highest- paid running back in league history. Over his career, Portis made more than $43 million and squandered every penny. Portis admits he had a weakness for women, cars, and homes. Several homes, including one featured on MTV Cribs. But Clinton Portis says the spending was only part of what led him to financial ruin. He blames his financial advisors for investing his money in shady deals or stealing it outright. Those advisors were eventually barred from the financial industry, but never saw jail time, and for Clinton Portis that wasn't justice.

So in 2013, just a few years out of football, Portis found himself sitting in a car outside a D.C. office building with a gun, waiting for one of his former financial advisors to walk out. Portis says he was there to kill, but as Sports Illustrated wrote, quote, Portis never pulled his gun because he couldn't put down his phone. The voice on the other line belonged to a television producer he met while he was auditioning for a reality show. That anonymous producer, trained as a family therapist, talked him out of hurting anyone and into turning his life around.

Portis has since filed multiple lawsuits against his former financial advisors, and is again working as a broadcaster for the Washington Redskins. He is also eligible for financial coverage as part of the NFL's concussion settlement, but to get the money he'd have to agree to be tested for neurological problems, which he won't do because he's, quote, scared of the results, Martha.

MACCALLUM: What a story. Trace, thank you. So here now with more, we're very pleased to have with us tonight, Andrew Brandt, former NFL and NBA player agent, and former vice president of the Green Bay Packers, he's also director for the center of sports law at Villanova Law. Andrew, welcome. Good evening to you. You know this player, and you know what happened. Tell me your thoughts on this.

ANDREW BRANDT, FORMER NFL AND NBA PLAYER AGENT: This is a cautionary tale. Players become businesses. A lot of people come at them, and they need a know-guy, they somebody to protect them from all of these people coming to them. I used to tell all these players it's not what you make, it's what you keep. And all these people want to get a piece of the action. It seems like Clinton Portis couldn't say no. And it is unfortunate because they have money, but it goes fast, and these careers don't last forever. Players think they're invincible. Players think it's never going to end. They're never going to have an injury. They're never going to lose this kind of lifestyle. So it is important for them to be protected. These careers are short, the money has to last.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. I mean, it's shocking that people like this can get a hold of these players. And part of this story, they opened an account in his name and stole $3 million out of it. Now he's wondering how you can do that and not end up in jail, and I'm wondering that, too. How is that any different than breaking into someone's home and stealing millions of dollars out of it?

BRANDT: You know these players are in their early 20s, and those that don't have protection, and by protection I mean someone really looking out for their interest as opposed to their own. There's a lot of people hanging around from when they grow up, they're maybe cousins, uncles, aunts, fathers, mothers, wives, girlfriends, wives, and girlfriends, all trying to get a piece of what is coming into them and not realizing players are inclined, their default setting is to say yes.

This financial advisor got access to Clinton Portis, maybe just talking to them, maybe getting to know them, introduced by friends, some mutual contact. It led to this tragedy where the money's gone, and obviously it led to this terrible behavior that did not happen, at least. And we just don't know where you can stop this because players need to understand the money can only last so long. They need to be protected. They need to say no. And hopefully, agents, advisors, around them will protect them from people like this.

MACCALLUM: Yeah, it's a big tale. We hope everybody heard it. Thank you so much, Andrew. Good to see you tonight.

BRANDT: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Quick break, we'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: So we have some big stories tonight that we don't have time for the quote of the night, but I promise it will be back tomorrow as we head into the 4th of July. Send us your stories. You can send me a quote too, if you want to see it on the show. We'll see you back here tomorrow night, 7:00. Tucker Carlson coming up right now.


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.