Jonathan Turley on Democrats snubbing the State of the Union

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," January 15, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Good evening, Bret. Good to see you. Here is the lead story tonight. As the Trump presidency hits year one, the battle and division over where we should be headed as a country could not be sharper. In a week when Democrats and Republicans need to come together to avoid a shutdown, four members of Congress pledged that they will boycott the president's State of the Union Address.


REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: I don't appreciate him and I wouldn't waste my time sitting in that house listening to what he has to say. He does not deserve my attention.

REP. JOHN LEWIS, D-GA.: I cannot, in all good conscious, be in a room with what he has said about so many Americans. I just cannot do it.


MACCALLUM: And there's this controversial reflection today from a reporter on Martin Luther King Jr. Day: "Martin Luther King Jr. was a socialist before it was cool. There was a time in American politics when calling someone a socialist was a slur. Not anymore, at least for many Americans who are developing a distrust of capitalism." Recent polling backs up his observation, shockingly, for the majority of millennials saying they do not support capitalism. Ironically, it comes as the Dow hits another record high last week, and American companies are raising wages and giving bonuses of their own accord. Not a government mandate to redistribute wealth. Chief National Correspondent, Ed Henry, joins us with the Washington part of this story. Good evening, Ed.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Martha, great to see you. All part of the resist movement, and actually it's been going on literally since day one of this administration because it started when Democrats began snubbing the president at his inaugural. Remember, some started boycotting the inaugural ceremony one year ago this week by not showing up.

The platform had empty seats on the west front of the capitol. Now they plan to extend that by also making sure there'll be some empty seats, potentially, at the House chamber for the State of the Union. In fact, new tonight, as you mentioned, the fourth person, Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, she has colorful cowboy hats, who feuded with the president last year, says she'll boycott because of what she called "racist and incendiary remarks about Haiti and various African nation" that the president made.

She declared, "I have no doubts that instead of delivering a message of inclusivity on an agenda that benefits all Americans, President Trump's address will be full of innuendo, empty promises, and lies." Now, the president has disputed that characterization of his remarks, flat out denied he's racist in an exchange with the reporters before he had dinner with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy last night, you see him there in Palm Beach.

Wilson now, at least the fourth House member to announce a boycott, joining Earl Bloom and our John Lewis and Maxine Water, who have already made it clear they have made up their minds before the president has even written the State of the Union, let along delivered it.


WATERS: Why would I take my time to go and sit and listen to a liar?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's past time, we stop dignifying the performance of this reality T.V. show performer. Let's get serious about governance. I will do that at home for the people that I represent.


HENRY: Now, there's also a report in the New York Post tonight suggesting that some House Democratic women who do attend the State of the Union address may wear black in solidarity of the Me Too Movement to try to bring awareness to allegations that'd been lodged against the president, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Got you, Ed. Thanks very much. So, my next guest has called political boycotts of this nature very troubling and a sad lesson for our nation. We'll see what he thinks about it now, though, with a year almost under our belt here in the Trump presidency. Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional Law Attorney and Professor at George Washington University. Professor Turley, good to see you as always. I mean, obviously, they have every right. You know, the president has to, according to Article 2, make a statement about the State of the Union. But there are no rules about who has to attend, right?

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY AND PROFESSOR AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Right. There's not even a rule that he has to attend. Many -- for many years, it was a written statement. Some presidents like Thomas Jefferson didn't like it as a speech because they felt it was too monarchical and didn't like the feel of it. Woodrow Wilson brought back giving the speech in person. So, it's not required that members attend. But having said that, it's a long tradition. This is all three branches coming together in one place at one time, much like the inauguration. And these members have to distinguish between the office holder and the office.

He's there representing the executive branch. They represent not just the legislative branch but their constituents, which include both Trump supporters and Trump opponents. But what's missing here is this idea that there are very few occasions where we come together as a unified government, and this is one of them. It doesn't mean you have to applaud, it doesn't you have to clap. But they're not representing themselves; it's not about them. They're representing political units making up the legislative branch.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, it seems to me that you lose some of your sways by checking out of the process. I mean, you can sit on your hands, you can, you know shake your head, no. You don't like what's being said out there, you've every right to express your opinion. You know, as you said back with the inauguration, you know, we're short on statesmen. And also, I would just add, if you don't like the president's behavior or you that think he said what he said didn't say, you know, you don't necessarily do yourself one better by also having behavior that perhaps is below your station, below your job.

TURLEY: I think also it misses what is desperately need right now. People are really upset with their government but they're also not confident that their government's able to work together. At this moment, more than any moment, I think the -- all of the representatives of these branches need to show the public that they are performing their duties, they are showing up and they are listening. That doesn't mean they have to agree with him. I can understand why they're upset with this last story by what was said in that meeting, these are good faith feelings on their part, there's no question about that. But you also have to look at your institutional responsibilities. They are not there like they're going to some, you know, bridal shower. You know, it is an official function for all three branches, and it's a symbol of a unified government.

MACCALLUM: Jonathan Turley, thank you. Always good to see you, sir.

TURLEY: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, the calls to boycott the President Trump's first State of the Union come as we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day. As we said, his niece, Dr. Alveda King, had this to say to the president's critics. Watch.


DR. ALVEDA KING, NIECE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.: President Trump really is draining the swamp. The employment rate is going up, the unemployment rate is going down, in the Black communities as well. People are getting bonuses at work; minimum wage is going up. All of that will help every community to come to have equality. One skin color, one blood. But getting equal opportunities to work and to be safe, that's what the president is doing. None of that is racist, Neil.


MACCALLUM: Charlie Hurt is Washington Times Columnist, Richard Fowler is a Nationally Syndicated Radio Host, and both are Fox News Contributors. Welcome to both of you. Good to see you tonight. Richard, let me start with you. Your reaction to Dr. Alveda King's comments, and also to the comment by Mr. Blake at CNN suggesting that we are, you know, potentially, it's cooler to be socialist.

RICHARD FOWLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND NATIONALLY SYNDICATED TALK SHOW HOST: Well, to Dr. Alveda King's comments, I think this goes beyond economics. I think if we look at every -- if you look at the civil rights movement as we commemorate it today on Martin Luther King Day, Martin Luther King will tell you it's more than economics. It was also talking about how we create actual equality and equity. And based off the president's quotes last week, where he, sort of, disparaged a country and an entire continent where the people that lived there look like me, that sort of speaks to why people are so upset. Like, for the four people boycotting, let's take Frederica Wilson, for example, her district is a major -- a lot of people in her district are Haitian, so it makes total sense for her to stand up for her constituency by saying, I'm not going because you disparaged by constituents.

On the socialism question, I don't know if socialism is part of the course, but I do think there are some policies that we could change in this country to make American lives a little bit better. One is properly funding public education; the second is probably funding health care so that everybody has access to a doctor without worrying about the bill. There are socialist elements one could argue. But, I think there's definitely some policies that you could see from socialism that would work here in America.


CHARLES HURT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND COLUMNIST FOR THE WASHINGTON TIMES: Well, I mean, you know, the most radical idea that Martin Luther King had and that he's remembered for is the idea that all Americans should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, which was a very radical concept back then, and apparently remains a very radical concept among Democrats today who continue to worry more about the color of people's skin than the content of their character.

They're obsessed with race. It's a very destructive thing, you know. But in terms of these members that are boycotting the State of the Union, I have to say, you know, I get the argument that the, you know, the constitution doesn't spell out that members of Congress have to be there. But it does say that the president has to deliver some sort of address, either, you know, a packet or an address explaining the State of the Union. And if Congress is not there to accept the delivery, I think that's a problem, and I think that what these people are doing is not only destructive but it's also an abrogation of their duties.

MACCALLUM: It also seems to me that it makes it about individuals. You know, it makes it about the person who doesn't show up rather than the collective, which is the responsibility that's given to all of these individuals and the president included, to represent us and to take good care of the country. There's also apparently a movement for some of the members as Ed Henry just reported to wear black, you know, as part of the #metoo movement. Ed Henry has reported that it may also be some sort of message sent to the president with regard to that. You know, I think that -- you know, what do you think? Does that set sort of a dangerous precedent for the State of the Union to sort of get into identity politics by all off the members who come in there that they make some sort of statement?

FOWLER: Well, I don't think -- I think it's a little more than identity politics. I think it speaks to a larger, sort of, a cultural movement that we have in this country that has sort of taken not only, you know, Washington by storm, but a lot of other states by storm. This idea that women are saying, you know, enough is enough. And quote/unquote as Oprah would say, "time's up." And so, this is not new, though. We've seen a woman in Congress wear different colors for different things over and over again, and this adds to that.

I want to push back on a point that Charlie made about Democrats being obsessed with race. I don't think it's true at all. And I think if you look at it, I think what we have here is you have a president who's a bad actor when it comes to issues of race. And we could start back from the Central Park Five in the early -- in the late 80s to all we've seen from this past year. Wanting to get Charlottesville, when there was violence on many sides to the comments that he made about Africa, the continent Africa and Haiti, which is not the first time he's made it, but the second. This all speaks to a president that doesn't understand what it is to be culturally competent or to understand that you're offending a fellow Americans when you make such disparaging comments about countries where they came from.

HURT: I have a hard time saying how he was being disparaging of anybody based on race.

FOWLER: When he called an entire continent of people that looked like me, called their continent an s-hole, that would be racial, don't you think, Charlie?

HURT: No, I really don't. I think that he was talking about a lot of countries that even the U.S. State Department, for example, El Salvador, which is one of these countries that he supposedly said this about. If you go to the State Department Web site, and you're planning to travel there, their advice to you is: don't travel there; reconsider your travel plans. And you know, while using whatever word he did or did not use may be something that we can all sit around and debate about, there's nothing racial about it. And to politicize it and make it about race, I think -- not only is it unfair to him, but it also kind of waters down the seriousness of true racism.

FOWLER: But let's be clear, so you picked out one country, he also disparaged an entire continent which is 50-somewhat.

HURT: Yes, I wasn't there, I don't know what he said.

FOWLER: I mean, to call an entire continent an s-hole is very problematic like when those are the majority African place, and not all of those places are s-holes. For example, South Africa, or Egypt, Morocco, or -- and I can go on and on, and on and talk about developed countries in Africa that shouldn't be referred to in that term.

MACCALLUM: All right. We've to go. Thank you very much, guys.

HURT: You bet.

MACCALLUM: Richard and Charlie, good to see you both tonight.

FOWLER: Thanks.

MACCALLUM: So are Democrats willing to let the entire DACA deal go up in flames over this controversy that you just heard discussed? Or did they use that as a cover for the fact that they don't really want a DACA deal that is bipartisan in the first place? And it looks like war games for real in Hawaii this weekend.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shall we play a game?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, weird, isn't it? Love to. How about global thermonuclear war?


MACCALLUM: So, thank God, a North Korean missile was not headed to Hawaii on Saturday. But what if the next time is for real? The very real plans being put together for a counter attack. Ambassador John Bolton, here to break it down for us next.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shall we play a game?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, weird, isn't it? Love to. How about global thermonuclear war?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Later. Let's play global thermonuclear war.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which side do you want?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll be the Russians.


MACCALLUM: That was from the movie "War Games" in the 80s. But that situation actually almost played out in Hawaii over the course of this weekend when a false nuclear missile threat went out and made clear that fears of nuclear war are all too real. The New York Times running this ominous headline: "Military quietly prepares for the last resort: war with North Korea." Trace Gallagher live in our West Coast Newsroom with the back story tonight. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Hi, Martha. Defense Secretary James Mattis is on the record arguing forcefully for using diplomacy to deal with the North Korean nuclear threat. But the New York Times is now reporting that Mattis is also getting the military ready for possible military action in North Korean. For example, last month at Fort Brag, North Carolina, the army conducted a military exercise called "Operation Panther Blade" where dozens of Apache gunships and schnook helicopters practiced moving troops and equipment toward various assault targets while they were under live artillery fire.

At Dulles Air Force Base, in Nevada, the 82nd airborne is practicing night jumps, parachute jumps using the cover of darkness to simulate a foreign invasion. And in February, more than thousands of reserve soldiers at army posts across the U.S. will practice setting up mobilization centers that are very quickly able to move military forces overseas. Army Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, who calls Pyongyang the biggest threat to American security has repeatedly said, the army needs to be prepared to meet that threat. And while U.S. military preparations are ramping up, U.S. anxiety is already way up and nothing illustrates that better than this weekend's false alarm in Hawaii where a state worker mistakenly sent out a warning of incoming ballistic missiles that caused 38 minutes of panic across the islands. Listen to a pastor on Oahu followed by a mother of five. Watch.


J.D. FARAG, PASTOR: My first response was, well, this is it. There's really nowhere to take shelter. We don't have basements here in Hawaii. We don't have, you know, bomb shelters. So, my family -- we're all together. My oldest son happened to be here at the time, and we just basically prayed.

JANE HEINEE, HAWAII RESIDENT: That's the kind of stuff that you see on the displays at Pearl Harbor where they are reporting a real attack. So, is this a real attack? OK, what do I do? I'm away from home. And my kids are alone at home without me. I need to get to my kids.


GALLAGHER: Yes, that mom then calmed down a little reasoning that things had kind of cooled off in North Korea. And U.S. authorities acknowledge, unlike the run-up to Iraq in 2002 where U.S. troops were being moved into the region, there are no plans to move troops on to the Korean Peninsula right now. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Here now with more, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, also a Fox News Contributor. Ambassador Bolton, always good to see you.


MACCALLUM: You know, it reminded me of that movie, you know, "War Games" where there's actually nothing incoming but the position of the other side is that they need to be prepared and the potential for somebody deciding to fire first is terrifying. Obviously, there's a lot of reasons why, you know, that particular scenario is unrealistic, but it did sort of make everybody feel the possibility of what that might be like this weekend.

BOLTON: Let's cut through this for a minute. What happened in Hawaii was bad and needs to be corrected. It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the U.S. military's nuclear command and control structure. Absolutely nothing. So, all of these headlines about pushing the wrong button, that is not going to happen at the national level. This was a state level mistake. The state has admitted that. And it needs to be fixed. Now, let's turn to the question of why people are concerned about a possible North Korean threat. It is right to be concerned about a possible North Korean threat, whether they push the wrong button in Hawaii or not.

We've had too big a vacation for too long from people appreciating that rogue states with nuclear weapons can be a problem for the United States. That's why George W. Bush wanted national missile defense capabilities. That's why stopping North Korea, stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is so important. So, if this mistake in Hawaii does anything, it ought to bring home the importance of preventing North Korea from getting a deliverable nuclear weapons capability, not worrying about the incoming missiles, making sure there aren't any missiles to come in.

MACCALLUM: But with regard to your first comment, here's Representative Tulsi Gabbard making the point that I think you just disagreed with. Watch.


REP. TULSI GABBARD, D-HAWAII: This is not just about what happened to Hawaii, and this is where I really hope that people across the country, that leaders here in Washington are paying attention to what people went through and what the consequences of that can be. So, we are facing a very direct nuclear threat from North Korea.


BOLTON: She went on to argue that we were responsible for North Korea's nuclear program, because of what we did in Iraq and Libya. When the North Korean program began about seven years after she was born, back in the late 1980s or maybe early 1990s. You know, this is the kind of irresponsible and ill-informed commentary that really makes it very hard to alert people to the real dangers and the important decisions that have to be made to prevent states like North Korea and Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

MACCALLUM: What about The New York Times' assessment that General Mattis is not in the same camp with others, potentially including president, who want to -- well, he wants to have, obviously, all the options ready, but then he prefers a diplomatic path with North Korea, rather than a potential --

BOLTON: So does everybody else.

MACCALLUM: -- for a limited strike that might take out some of their capabilities which are an option that's been discussed.

BOLTON: Yes, The New York Times discovers reality. Everybody wants a peaceful solution to the North Korean problem, but it's important to prepare for the military option. There is no contradiction between those two positions and no contradiction between people in the administration who hold both positions. In fact, the more serious, the more real the potential for American military action against North Korea becomes, the more that fact is appreciated in Pyongyang and Beijing, the greater the possibility that they'll wake up that we're not in the Obama administration and do something serious about denuclearizing North Korea. That -- there's no evidence that step has occurred yet. So, the question for the American people is, are you prepared to live with a nuclear North Korea? Susan Rice, Barack Obama's National Security Adviser has said, yes, she is. I am not.

MACCALLUM: Let's talk about for a moment the difference between an Apostrophe D in what someone says -- that someone is the president. Let's play these two tapes. The Wall Street Journal claims that, you know, he had said that he had -- I have a great relationship essentially with, or might have a good relationship, excuse me, with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. He says, he put that in the future potentially. Listen to these.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have a great relationship with Prime Minister Abe of Japan, and I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un of North Korea.

As you know, I have a great relationship with Prime Minister Abe of Japan, and I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un of North Korea.


MACCALLUM: What did you make of that Ambassador Bolton?

BOLTON: Look, you know, you can listen to those tapes a lot. It sounded to me like he did say, I'd have a great relationship. The president's an optimistic man. I don't think he would, but that's his opinion. And you know, honestly, it's hard to imagine that they have had conversations and after the positions of the two countries are understood, how they could have a good relationship via telephone or anything else. I think the Wall Street Journal was premature in coming to its conclusion. They should've gone back and said, look, this is how we hear this. Do you hear it differently? But they didn't, that's their problem.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I think the context of the rest of the sentence makes it sounds like it would be in the future, a potential.

BOLTON: That's the way I heard it. Honestly, that's the best I can say.

MACCALLUM: Yes, that's the way I heard to, but, you know, people differ. So, Ambassador Bolton, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

BOLTON: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, the other Russia investigation. Charges filed in the Uranium One case filed over the weekend. We're going to tell you against whom and why. And President Trump stokes the fire with a tweet about "Dickey Durbin", the new developments tonight of the DACA fight. Lisa Booth and Jessica Tarlov, debate next.


TRUMP: Honestly, I don't think the Democrats want to make a deal. I think they talk about DACA, but they don't want to help the DACA people.


MACCALLUM: So, is the bipartisan effort to pass immigration reform dead in the water? President Trump tweeting late this afternoon, Senator Dickey Durbin totally misrepresented what I said at the DACA meeting, deals can get done when there is no Trust. Durbin blew DACA and he's hurting our military. Which begs the question, what looked like it was this close to a deal early next week when they were all sitting around the table very cogently, fell apart potentially with one word? So how much do Democrats really want a deal for the DACA kids? It's a good question. Fox News correspondent, Peter Doocy, live in D.C. with the latest tonight. Hi, Peter.

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. It's the latest sign that a DACA deal remains distance. The president says he doesn't even think Democrats want to make a deal. And now, as you just mentioned in that tweet, he's giving the Democratic nominator -- negotiator, rather, who is accusing him of using harsh language something that Democratic lawmakers dread, a nickname. Senator Dicky Durbin. Now, Senator Durbin from Illinois is the reason the word s-hole has been splashed across newsprint and cable for the last few days because he's the one who first claimed the president referred to certain countries where some residents want to immigrate to the U.S. as s-holes. But, as long as the spotlight remains on the swear words, there's practically no discussion about what's actually going to happen to hundreds of thousands of young people brought to this country illegally as kids, whether or not there's money for a border wall, what happens to the visa lottery program, and whether or not negotiations about government funding are stalled now too.

And now, Republican rumored to want a job as a senator next year is piling on. Mitt Romney writes this, quote, the poverty of an aspiring immigrant's nation of origin is as irrelevant as their race. The sentiment attributed to POTUS is inconsistent with America's history and antithetical to American values. May our memory of Dr. King buoy our hope for unity, greatness and charity for all. Senator Lindsey Graham said today, the only hope for a DACA deal is if it's bipartisan. But something buried beneath all this is the possibility that if there's no immigration deal by Friday night, Democrats may refuse to support a bill to fund the government, which means the only way to avoid a shutdown Friday is for Speaker Ryan to unite all of the GOP's different factions. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Peter, thank you very much. Here now with more, Lisa Boothe and Jessica Tarlov, senior director of research at, both are Fox News contributors. Ladies, welcome. Good to have you both here. So, how much do they want a deal? If their main concern are these children who were brought here illegally with their parents, why would they let one word diminish all of the promise that they seem to had early in the week.

JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think that's if you're talking about a clean deal versus the kind of deal that was being proposed. Now, I'm a proponent of getting to the table and negotiating. I think that anything that was good enough for the gang of eight should be good enough for the gang of six, should be good for this congress. So, I don't think it's just the s-hole comment. I also think that that comment speaks to a broader issue with this presidency and the potential for shaping immigration policy about deeply held belief that are epithetical to American values. You know, making decisions based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, things like that. But, I think Democrats shouldn't let this get in the way of that, but it's certainly not just because he said that word. It's because he wants certain things in terms of wall and other immigration.

MACCALLUM: Definitely dragged all of that into a larger conversation.


MACCALLUM: Dick Durbin said how can you talk about chain migration? Suggesting that there's some kind of larger -- that it connotes something larger and that it has some sort of indication with regard to slavery. Now watch what Dick Durbin said about chain migration in the past and now. Watch.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: When it came to the issue of, quote, chain migration, I said to the president, do you realize how painful that term is to so many people? The dream act would not allow what is known as chain migration. In fact, dream act students would have very little abilities to sponsor their family members for legal status.


LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, we've also seen a change in rhetoric over the -- not specifically the wall but a physical barrier along the southern border. We had a ton of Democrats including Dianne Feinstein, Senator Chuck Schumer, voting back in 2006 for the security fence act. Literally a physical barrier along the southern border, and now they're all opposed against it. But to the issue of the comment, well, President Trump disputes that that was the exact language that he uses as did Senator Tom Cotton. Now, you think that it undermines and hurts the process when Senator Dick Durbin, you know, goes forward and then puts these statements out. And of course, it undermines the process because it erodes trust if there was any trust there from the beginning. So how does that President Trump believe that Democrats are acting in good faith on this deal when he simply can't trust them at all?

TARLOV: I don't think that being a tattletale about the fact that you made an incendiary.

MACCALLUM: Allegedly.

TARLOV: Not allegedly. You have Dick Durbin saying -- you also have Lindsey Graham, who apparently was the only one brave enough.


TARLOV: And Senator Tom Cotton and Purdue, they're saying the s-house version of this.


MACCALLUM: Hold on. Hold on. But look how ridiculous this conversation becomes, right? What we're trying to do is peel it back to the fundamentals of border security, which both sides have been absolutely in favor of. Here's President Obama and President Clinton talking about building a wall at the southern border. Watch this.


BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: That's why our administration has moved aggressively to security our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by borrowing welfare benefits to illegal aliens.

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We will authorize some badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders. And that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.


MACCALLUM: Both sides agree. You need to secure the border. You need to come up with a solution for these individuals. So, why are we letting this conversation about this word get in the way of all of that? Lisa?

BOOTHE: President Trump is not asking for much either. He's asking for an end of chain migration. Center for immigration studies going back to 1981 out of the 33 million immigrants that have come to the United States, 20 million have come through chain migration. You look at something like the visa lottery. We know that there's fraud there. It's been exploited. People have used it on fraudulently saying that, you know, with chain migration, that these people are their family members and they're not. And they bring them over to the United States. So these are real issues. And I don't think he's asking for a lot. He's also asking for funding for a wall, a physical barrier, which as I mentioned, and we saw the clip, Democrats once supported.


MACCALLUM: Were they trying to throw a grenade into the middle of potentially solvable problems by letting this whole story come out of that room, which was a close door meeting. Dick Durbin could have said to the president that offends me that you said that.

TARLOV: I wish all six senators present would have said that. But that would.

MACCALLUM: The point is they all used it. They used it to their benefit.

TARLOV: I think the point, actually, is that the president of the United States of America shouldn't use that kind of language to talk about people from any country, from his own country.

MACCALLUM: So let's get so absorbed with it that we prevent a better future for children that came here illegally.


BOOTHE: But when Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was throwing around f-bombs, it was like edgy and cool. And everyone was writing about the fact.

TARLOV: She wasn't saying that 55 nations worth of people were from s- holes or houses or whatever it is.

BOOTHE: People only seem to be offended if it's something that's coming from President Trump. It's policy that he's supporting. It's words that he's using. Senator Lindsey Graham, I saw him used words in the past calling various countries hell holes. So, we've seen, you know, President Obama said something similar about Libya. So, look, people have said similar statements, but it seems to only be offensive if it is coming from the mouth of President Trump.

TARLOV: I think that President Trump has a very special way of saying these things. And I think that he has shown by saying I want to ban all Muslims.


MACCALLUM: Do Democrats and Republicans -- forget President Trump for a moment, do they want to come to some sort of solution on this issue or not? And that's what we're going to see over the next.

TARLOV: I think that they do. They just have different ideas of what that looks like. But I hope that they find a way there. Like I said, gang of eight, gang of six.


MACCALLUM: We're all been onboard in the past. So let's see if they can come to the table again. Thank you very much. Good to see you both. So, coming up next, a big new development in the Uranium One controversy, the first indictment was handed down in a deal that has dog the Clinton surrounding the issues of their foundation. We'll tell you who this is against and why, coming up next. Plus, an unprecedented behind the scene look at the U.S. military fight against Islamic extremism. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer is one of the executive producers of this project. He lived it and now he's bringing it to American homes with never before seen footage after this.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: At the end of the day, what military service is all about is being a part of something that's greater than yourself.



MACCALLUM: Developing story tonight. Two former Trump aides, Steve Bannon and Corey Lewandowski, both expected to testify this week and tell the house intelligence committee what they know. We will be watching that very closely, of course. But meanwhile, another Russian investigation is also picking up some steam in Washington, as the probe into the Uranium One deal gets its first indictment. Trace Gallagher has details tonight live from our west coast newsroom. Hi, Trace.

GALLAGHER: Hey, Martha. A grand jury in the Uranium One investigation brought charges against a Maryland man for allegedly trying to bribe a Russian official. Court documents say, Mark Lambert, the head of a Maryland-based transportation company was indicted on 11 counts of money laundering and wire fraud. Authorities say lambert was trying to pay off a Russian energy official in return for his company being given contracts to ship uranium to the United States. Experts say the bigger picture here is that the indictment shows that Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice are keeping a promise to congress to examine whether a special counsel is indeed warranted to investigate Uranium One. That's the deal, remember, where the Obama administration allowed a Russian nuclear firm to buy U.S. uranium. The U.S. state department then headed up by Hillary Clinton was among the U.S. agencies that had to sign off on the deal. The state department says Hillary Clinton had no part in the approval, but her critics point out that people associated with Uranium One donated millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation. Additionally, a Russian investment bank with links to Uranium One and the transaction paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. Here's the president of the conservative judicial watch this morning on Fox and Friends. Watch.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We hope that Uranium One is part of it, but there's tens of millions of dollars that were laundered through the Russia -- laundered by Russian into the Clinton operation that needs to be thoroughly investigated in order for the American people to be rest-assured that our uranium industry hasn't been compromised.


GALLAGHER: We also learned last week that for several months the FBI office in Little Rock, Arkansas, has been investigating Clinton Foundation activities. A Clinton spokesperson said these are all efforts by the Trump administration to divert attention from Robert Mueller's special counsel. Martha.

MACCALLUM: We'll be watching. Trace, thank you so much. So coming up next, you have never seen the on-the-ground and in-the-sky reality of the fight to bring down the brutal ISIS terrorists in the way that you can see it now. Also, unprecedented access to joint chiefs-of-staff chairman General Joe Dunford. The executive producer of retired military intel officer, Tony Shaffer, joins us next.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: The number one priority for us is to protect the homeland and the American people from an attack, and also to protect our allies from attack against violent extremists. And this is a global challenge. We call it transregional challenge. But it's literally in every corner of the globe.



MACCALLUM: An unprecedented front row seat to the war against ISIS. That is what Chain of Command, a brand new series that begins tonight, it puts you literally in the cockpit to watch how all of this plays out with your own eyes.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: A camera has never been allowed to film inside the cockpit of an F-22 on a mission until now.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: In a very close fight from the tactical level, we basically look for any warehouse that may have held their weapons, command and control modes, vehicle-born IED factories. Those targets were all developed over the last month, and then, we started dropping bombs on them. If they're out there and they're driving in their vehicles, they ought to be scared because we're looking for them.


MACCALLUM: Joining me now, Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer, executive producer of this new series that debuts tonight. Colonel Shaffer, good to see you tonight. Thanks for being here.


MACCALLUM: What was the goal of this project? Because people watch this, they read about it. What did you want them to see here that they don't learn by doing that?

SHAFFER: Well, how real it really is. I mean, Martha, we have done something that people always talk about being -- this is truly unprecedented. This takes how we fight, why we fight, and we link it between strategy, how it's formed, how it's put together, how it's shaped, and all the way down, how it's implemented. And the implementation of this, Martha, as you know, is all about people. The hard work being done by the men and women who serve in uniform. And this, unlike any other series shows how it works and then it links it all together. And it's both to demonstrate the amazing talent, the amazing sacrifice of individuals serving to go after radical Islam, to defeat ISIS. And this thing went on for 18 months. Unfortunately, we were actually -- the Nat Geo team was with the team in Niger a week before they were ambushed by Boca Horam. That's how detailed -- these were -- we were able to cover this in Iraq. Despite the fact that the American public has been pretty well isolated from it, the camera crew and Captain Z, and some of the folks you'll see in the series were actually bombarded by ISIS drones carrying hand grenades. So, it doesn't get any more real than this. At the same time, we lay it all together and show how it works.

MACCALLUM: You know, we're sort of looking at the first year of the Trump presidency throughout the course of this week. The anniversary of the inauguration is on Saturday. What has changed in terms of the fight against ISIS under President Trump from what you saw, first hand, in the prior administration?

SHAFFER: Right. Well, looking back, and I think when your audience goes through and watches the series, you see an acceleration of the effort to go after ISIS. Essentially, if you will, you know, what President Obama said would take ten years we've seen happen in ten months. I don't think it's by accident. And again, credit where credit's due. I think President Trump gave the Pentagon the correct and proper global authority to go after ISIS everywhere it's at. General Dunford says this, talks about this is both a generational fight as well as a global fight. And I think we've seen now the correct use of a policy, of a strategy to go after a global menace. And I think that's why we've seen rapid result.

MACCALLUM: Quick question, I've got 20 second. Why did they give you so much access? What do they want people to know?

SHAFFER: I think the current leadership wants to see how well the Pentagon is executing its job to protect the American people. And that's what it's all about, protecting the American people.

MACCALLUM: We'll be watching. Tony Shaffer, thank you so much, great to see you as always.

SHAFFER: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, remember Martin Luther King Jr. is who we are watching and celebrating today, the life of him, and we will do just that with quote of the night, coming up next.


MACCALLUM: So it's important to remember why we honor Martin Luther King Jr. every year. Members of the Trump administration join the family of Dr. King in a replaying ceremony at the memorial in Washington. It would have been his 89th birthday. Dr. King, perhaps, best known for saying that we should judge others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, but everything he did took enormous courage. So we close with this other piece of good advised, he said this, courage is the power of the mind to overcome fear. That's "The Story" for tonight. Tucker Carlson is up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.