White House will not declassify Democrats' FISA memo

close

Video

White House will not declassify Democrats' FISA memo

Reaction on 'The Ingraham Angle' from attorney Leo Terrell, former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino and journalist John Solomon to the president's decision to halt the release of the document.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," February 9, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Good evening from Washington. Welcome to "The Ingraham Angle." I'm Jason Chaffetz in for Laura tonight. We have a great show for you full of big stories and breaking news. Democrats and Republicans actually cooperated to end a government shutdown, but many conservatives are not celebrating. We'll tell you why.

And we have Ambassador John Bolton on the odd couple at the Olympics. Vice President Mike Pence sitting almost next to the sister of North Korea's dictator.

But first, breaking news, President Trump has decided tonight he cannot release the Democrat's FISA memo, a rebuttal to the Republicans memo. Trump says he is inclined to release the Democrats memo, but it needs changes because it contains classified material and a very sensitive passage. Let's go to Fox's Ed Henry now with more.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jason, good to see you. This is a bit of a surprise because just a few hours ago lawmakers close to the process were predicting that the Democrats' memo would go public as early as tonight.

President Trump himself indicated to reporters in the middle of the day he was inclined to release this with at least some sensible redactions of national security information.

But I think a clue of this hold-up came later in the afternoon when the president huddled with lawyers from the White House Counsel's Office, Don McGahn, and lawyers from the Justice Department plus the FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Once you get the lawyers more deeply involved look out, the changes may be coming. Sure enough McGahn fired off a letter to House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes saying, quote, "Although the president is inclined to declassify the February 5th memo, because the memorandum contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages, he's unable to do so at this time.

However, given the public interest in the transparency in these unprecedented circumstances the president has directed that the Justice Department personnel be available to give technical assistance to the Intel Committee should the committee wish to revise the February 5th memo to mitigate the risks identified by the department."

Now allies of Nunes have been saying they believe it was a bit of a setup. Democrat Adam Schiff put classified information in there that he knew would trip this up and then Democrats would cry out that the president is hiding something.

Well, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer tonight pounced. He said, quote, "The president's double standard when it comes to transparency is appalling. The rational for releasing the Nunes memo, transparency, vanishes when it can show information harmful to him. Millions of Americans are asking one simple question, what is he hiding?"

Now the next step for House Intel is to either except the president's decisions, make changes and then send it back to the White House or they can try to override the president in a secret session of the House. There has been only six of those in history, very rare.

Regardless of how they do it, here's the bottom line, Jason. We're told the Democratic memo does not dispute the key point of Nunes's memo. FBI and DOJ personnel got the FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page after not telling the judge that the dossier was paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign. That will be a key issue moving forward -- Jason.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Ed, this was not expected at all. I think all of us thought that it was going to be released. That basic underlying premise as you said nothing is out there, is there, that refutes what the Nunes memo said?

HENRY: At least not yet. Now Democrat Adam Schiff and others are saying that if this memo sees the light of day, they are claiming that Devin Nunes cherry-picked information, intel and that parts of their memo will refute some of the Nunes memo. We simply don't know because we haven't seen it yet, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Ed, there was also some movement at the Department of Justice with the number three person leaving. What do you know about that?

HENRY: Yes, this seems strange because Rachel Brand had only been on the job for nine months seen as maybe a star who would rise through the ranks. She has been battling trafficking. She's really been at the forefront of domestic surveillance and chasing down terrorists.

Key Justice Department programs, but maybe she simply wanted a more lucrative gig. We are hearing she is moving to the top legal post at Walmart, but it is hard not to notice that if Rod Rosenstein gets fired or steps down, she would have been overseeing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe.

That would have put her in the middle of a political firestorm. A sign that it's going to be very hard for the president to find someone who wants to replace her, probably even harder to find someone the Democrats in the Senate will confirm.

He'll try to filibuster and most of all a lot of people in the White House are frustrated with Attorney General Jeff Sessions right now. This means Rosenstein, the deputy, may have even more influence, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Ed, thank you very much. Joining us for more reaction, we have John Solomon, a reporter for The Hill newspaper, former Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino, and talk radio host and attorney, Leo Terrell. Thank you all for joining us here tonight.

I want to start with you, Leo. We all thought that -- I thought and I think a lot of people thought that the president may have some redactions but would ultimately release this memo. It is not coming out tonight. How are you and the Democrats going to react to that?

LEO TERRELL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, it's a sham. I'll tell you why. Just last week, Jason, despite a public announcement by the FBI not to release the Republican memo, President Trump released the memo. Shame on the president because it is very clear he did not want this memo released because it negates his argument last week.

That he's exonerated. It is embarrassing and shameful. There is nothing in that memo that would have prevented its release today except that it was bad PR for President Trump.

CHAFFETZ: But Leo, did you see anything in the Nunes memo that was -- dealt with classified material about sources and methods?

TERRELL: I will pull rank on everybody. I'm the lawyer in this group. I'll simply tell you this. The FBI said don't release it and they released it notwithstanding --

CHAFFETZ: There was no classified material about sources and methods in the Nunes memo, correct?

TERRELL: The information about the procedure and manner in which a warrant is obtained. That information should not have been released to the American public, but it was beneficial to Donald Trump and he released it notwithstanding a public statement from the FBI and the Department of Justice not to release it.

CHAFFETZ: OK, John, let's go to this. There is also word about a second dossier that is out there. Tell us what you know about that?

JOHN SOLOMON, REPORTER, THE HILL: In the summer of 2016, there was another pipeline of Clinton-related information coming into the State Department and then to Christopher Steele and to the FBI. It comes through two guys that we've heard from the past in the old Clinton years in the 90s.

Tony Sheer, a private eye, hang around the Clintons a lot, and Sidney Blumenthal, one of their closest friends, kind of their eye spy inside the Clinton campaign. They put the information in and tracks close to what Steele had.

So, you have all this information coming in. I predict when we are done all four sources of the information that the FBI used the launch the investigation against Donald Trump every one of them is going to have a connection to the Clinton campaign.

CHAFFETZ: Dan, one of the concerns that's out there, Politico is reporting tonight that Steve Bannon may have actually been picked up on some of these surveillances. How does that strike you? It's right in the heart of the campaign and they've also got now Steve Bannon according to Politico that they were spying on as well?

DAN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Well, Jason, we know two things right now despite that interesting little opening by Leo there. We know that the Obama team spied on the Trump team. OK, that's not in dispute. How it happened may be in dispute, but we know that happened.

What we also know is we know because there are court transcripts, OK? There is an actual record of this that no Democrat is going to be able to run from and no Democrat will have plausible deniability on.

We know that the bulk of the material that went in front of those FISA court judges was provided by, in fact, the dossier, a dossier that came from two sources, Russians who passed it through Christopher Steele, and Clinton campaign associates. All the Democrat memos in the world aren't going to change those two simple facts. Full stop.

TERRELL: That's classic talking points, Dan. You know, FBI gets their information from all different sources. The bottom line is this --

BONGINO: No, no, no that's not right.

TERRELL: Come on now. Let me get a page out of Jason's book. Trey Gowdy, you know him, he said there is a need to proceed with the Russian probe. You don't disagree with Trey Gowdy, do you Dan?

CHAFFETZ: We're talking about the credibility -- surveilling people that now has expanded to include potentially at least we're looking at a report that's put out by Politico tonight that includes Steve Bannon. That does beg the question who else -- let me go to John for a second. John, where do you see this going in the next week or two?

SOLOMON: I think the last piece of the evidence that came in that substantiated the FISA warrant at the beginning came from this Australian ambassador who hears Papadopoulos in the bar drunk and having conversation with him.

I think we'll learn about that ambassador and where his loyalties might be. I think you'll find out four out of four things the FBI used to start listening on the Trump campaign comes back to the Clinton family.

CHAFFETZ: Leo, does any of this -- does any of this concern you? And I have to ask you give -- look right in the camera and tell us, if Donald Trump had done this against a Democrat, you can't tell me that you would just be sitting idly by saying the FBI just acted perfectly in this instance.

TERRELL: Jason, I'm looking you and the American public now and leaning forward. Donald Trump is basically attacking every institution in the American government that he controls, the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice.

You want me to drink that Kool-Aid and believe that the entire governmental security agencies are against Donald Trump? You want me to drink that Kool-Aid today on national today on national TV? Do you believe the entire Secret Service and the FBI -- and Department of Justice, everyone? Come on.

BONGINO: Leo, it's amazing. You do this -- liberals do this all the time. They never address what you say. They go on to something else. He never addressed at all the substance of what I said. We know for a fact the Obama team spied on the Trump team.

We know the information was provided by Steele through the Russians and we also know the information was provided through Clinton consiglieres. I know because one of them wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post today basically admitting to it and another one went on a weekend news show and admitted to it, too. (Inaudible) about the Russians again because that's what they do.

TERRELL: I'll play your game. Therefore, what? What are you making conclusion? Tell us your conclusion. Therefore what? Who can --

BONGINO: Therefore, the Obama team -- you may be hard of hearing, but I already said it. The Obama team spied on the Trump team. There is still no probable cause that anyone on the Trump team was a foreign agent in violation of U.S. law. No one has produced any evidence of Russian collusion and you are still sticking by it was all done great, because you're a police state supporter, end of story.

CHAFFETZ: Hold on. Let me go to John here. There are still a mountain of text messages that we have not seen.

SOLOMON: True.

CHAFFETZ: Is there any fallout you're seeing? I mean, the FBI put out there that they couldn't find these missing text messages.

SOLOMON: And they showed up.

CHAFFETZ: Only to have the inspector general found them.

I think his report will help to resolve how much politics was involved and how much legitimate law enforcement. When we see what the independent IG finds, and the debate will take a different tact. It will.

CHAFFETZ: Leo, are you willing to accept that the inspector general comes up with?

TERRELL: He is making this prediction about the inspector general report. Please have me on when this report comes out? I hope according to Dan there will be all the indictments against the Obama administration. It is doom. A great way to deflect from Donald Trump and the Russian probe. Great move, Dan. It's very smart.

CHAFFETZ: Leo, we have 15 seconds. What is your single best piece of evidence that Donald Trump colluded with Russians?

TERRELL: The Trey Gowdy approach, a couple Russians were meeting at Trump Tower. I will use the same one that he used. Trump meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower, pretty solid evidence there.

CHAFFETZ: You get the last word, Dan. Where do you see this going?

BONGINO: Genius case there. Maybe Mark Warner should be under arrest for trying to set up a meeting with the Russians, the Democrat senator from Virginia. Unbelievable. He has nothing.

CHAFFETZ: The one thing I think we can all agree about we'll talk about this next week. We've got to move on. Thank you all. Have a wonderful weekend. I appreciate you being here with us.

While all of this is going on, key players at the White House are suddenly accused of a cover-up. Up next, how the resignation of Rob Porter amid domestic violence allegations is being used to attack the entire administration.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: The Trump administration is under a fierce new attack by the left and media following the resignation of Staff Secretary Rob Porter of Wednesday. Porter was accused of domestic violence by two ex-wives.

Some are calling for the resignation for Chief of Staff John Kelly claiming he has known about the allegations for months. Today, the president urged everyone to withhold judgment until all the facts are known.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I found out about it recently and I was surprised by it, but we certainly wish him well. It is a tough time for him. He did a very good job when he was in the White House, and we hope he has a wonderful career. And hopefully, he will have a great career ahead of him. He says he is innocent. I think you have to remember that. He said very strongly yesterday that he is innocent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: But the Porter allegations are creating a feeding frenzy among the president's critics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Senior White House officials knew about these accusations against Porter by his ex-wives and they protected and promoted Porter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were really several other ways that the White House could have gone. The choices that were made by John Kelly and others are inexcusable.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They protect abusers. There is no way of getting around it. People will say you can still be a good president and do your job, no, any other White House as soon as you would hear that, you would get rid of the person.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president's reaction to this although fully in character is utterly repulsive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Also developing tonight a second White House staffer has resigned. Speech writer, David Sorenson, after his ex-wife claimed he was violent during their marriage, a charge that Sorenson is denying.

So, let's explore it with conservative review television host, Allie Stuckey, and Fox News contributor, Leslie Marshall. Thank you both for being here. Leslie, I want to start with you. How do you think that the president and the White House dealt with this situation?

LESLIE MARSHALL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: You know, Jason, they say sometimes it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. That's the problem here. It was who knew what and when and why or in this case why wasn't something done about it? We do know that Kelly knew about this in the fall.

We do know that this information was out there in the White House to the president's attorney back a year ago. And yet there was still not a thorough investigation, nothing was done, and they were still going forward-looking into possible high-level security clearance for Porter, for this individual. That's very troubling.

Further troubling for me, Jason, as a woman is that the president today wished an alleged accused abuser of women well and said nothing about the alleged victims. That's very troublesome for me.

CHAFFETZ: Allie, what was your reaction to it when you saw this story and how the White House dealt with it?

ALLIE STUCKEY, THE CONSERVATIVE MILLENNIAL: Yes, well, first of all, I take issues of domestic violence and allegations of domestic violence very seriously. I think we can all agree on that. I'm certainly not going to after over that simply because I voted for Donald Trump.

However, I think that we can also all agree that this was simply a bad situation that the White House has already admitted that they mishandled, and it was a bad situation that people who work for the president should be held accountable for.

However, I also think that it is completely dishonest and a little hypocritical of the liberal media to be issuing an indictment on the entire administration and the entire presidency for mishandling the situation in the same way that it was an indictment on the entirety of the Clinton campaign when she covered up for the sexually harassing advisor in 2008.

It is not an indictment on Trump's entire presidency. I find that hypocrisy from some members of the liberal media to be a little tired and very dishonest.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Leslie, even Hillary Clinton after the fact came back and said even though she had a report from her campaign manager that there were sexual harassment problems that she would not have fired that person. Did you speak out against that or are you just speaking out against Donald Trump?

MARSHALL: I'm glad you asked me, Jason. You can Google it. Yes, I did here on Fox on television, on my radio show, on my column, on Twitter and all other social media. I as a woman, a feminist and a woman first before my party, I have to say I was appalled by this, absolutely appalled by this. I was very open and verbal about that and I wasn't the only person on the left --

CHAFFETZ: Good for you.

MARSHALL: -- who felt that way and not the only Democrat that is just a woman that felt that way. The problem that I have when we talk about hypocrisy --

CHAFFETZ: I'm glad you did that. I want to speak out on this, too. If the White House knew about this, they have a problem and I think they have to also have an accounting. I think the chief of staff should get a list of everybody that is working in the White House who has passed a security background check, who has question marks, and who has failed.

I saw this as the Oversight chairman -- when I was the oversight chairman. I saw part of this in the Obama administrations. There were allegations. Again, I'm not trying to say that they are equal or anything else, but I'm just saying security clearances with the people in close proximity to the president is problematic.

So, I want to ask you and come over to you, Allie. Leslie, when you have somebody who denies it and there is an accusation, what is the right thing to do? Do you let them keep their job, have proximity to the president? What should happen?

MARSHALL: Well, first of all you read my mind because that's what I was about to say and to talk about. I have a problem here with the hypocrisy. Let me use as an example, Senator Al Franken, shall we? Although we had a photo, there were other allegations by not only the woman in the photos but others against the senator.

The senator said I didn't do this. These claims are false. Yet he stepped down and there was pressure among his own party and the president said negative things. He didn't say he denies it. Roy Moore, the president says he denies it. Porter the president says he denies it.

I feel that the president, Jason, made it worse with his remarks again today not mentioning the women. What should be done? In this climate where we have so many allegations of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, the "Me Too" movement, I think it would be wise for any administration left or right to have to remove these individuals because it will be a stain on their administration.

CHAFFETZ: Ali, what's the right thing to do in this situation. How do they deal with it, he said/she said, there is a disagreement? What is the right thing to do?

STUCKLEY: Well, right now, the only think that we can do is run on hypotheticals and that is really all this is. Like Leslie said in the beginning, we don't know who knew what when. All we know is what the White House is telling us.

What the White House is telling us is that Mike Pence and President Trump only found out about these allegations this week. Apparently, General Kelly only knew the full extent of these allegations last week and Porter submitted his resignation and it was accepted.

Mike Pence on top of that has even said you know what? I think that we could have handled this a little bit more appropriately, which I took as taking responsibility. So, at the end of the day, I think the right thing happened. Porter resigned, he is no longer in the White House where I personally think that he belongs, is not in the White House.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you both. It is a subject that's very worthy. My personal take on it is if there is any question about the people closest to the president of the United States, they are going to have to go take another temporary job until it gets sorted out.

You don't need people with that sort of access to highly sensitive information, top secret information in proximity to the president if there's any question marks. If you need a timeout, go sit outside and let the FBI help clean it up for you, but that's my take on it. I thank you both for joining us. Have a great weekend.

Republicans and Democrats came together to end a government shutdown, but we'll tell you why many conservatives are not celebrating. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: President Trump signed a bipartisan budget deal into law this morning that ended another brief government shutdown, but not everybody is thrilled. Many conservatives oppose the budget. which will put the nation back on track for annual deficits of more than $1 trillion for the first time since Obama's first term.

It also increases spending caps by $300 billion and suspends debt limits until March of 2019. In a series of tweets today, the president said the new budget will make the military stronger than ever and adds more jobs.

But he also acknowledged without more Republicans in Congress, we were forced to increase spending on things we do not like or want in order to finally after many years of depletion take care of our military. Sadly, we needed some Dem votes for passage. Must elect more Republicans in 2018 election.

Senator Rand Paul failed to block the bill, imploring Republicans to stick to the principles fiscal conservatives have preached for years, but he's being blasted by critics on the left and even some Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This shutdown was brought to you by Rand Paul, by the Kentucky Republican senator who wanted the make a stand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was self-indulgent because he has disrupted life today for hundreds of thousands of federal workers for no really discernable purpose.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, get us up to date.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, very unpopular among the folks here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have Rand Paul talking about, complaining about the Obama deficits. That's sort of rich. The reason for the last-minute drama was Republican Senator Rand Paul.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Clearly Rand Paul was very unpopular with his Senate colleagues.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This did not go over particularly well for Senator Paul. It was a promotional tactic on this issue, some would say on Rand Paul himself.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rand Paul did succeed in making everybody feel uncomfortable because they were exhausted.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHAFFETZ: I actually liked what Rand Paul had to say. But here to discuss the issue are Republican Congressman Sean Duffy of Wisconsin who voted for the bill and radio talk show host Garland Nixon. Thank you both for being here. Sean, Congressman Duffy, I was able to serve with you, and it's an honor and privilege to do so, and I thank you for joining us tonight. You voted for the bill. There is obviously a compelling reason you did that. Why did you vote for the bill?

REP. SEAN DUFFY, D-WISCONSIN: Listen, we're in a situation, Jason, where we have a dilapidated military. We have planes that can't fly because we can't get spare parts. We give our military a mission to accomplish but we don't give them the resources to accomplish that mission.

The sequester has crushed our ability to defend ourselves. And we have rising threats whether it's China, Russia, North Korea, Iran. And we passed a bill out of the House that was conservative, and I supported the bill. But as you know all too well and I think your listeners hear this quite a bit, when our bill went to the Senate. You can't pass it with just Republican votes. You need Democrat votes. So Schumer to deliver votes extracted additional spending.

And so we had a choice in the House. Do we take the deal that Chuck Schumer threw more spending into but also gets our military back on track to address the needs that we have in the world, or do we say no and keep these really horrible budget caps on the military that don't let them accomplish their mission? And for me I don't like the spending that's in this bill but I also want to make sure our military men and women can defend us and accomplish the mission we give them.

CHAFFETZ: Garland, if you were in Congress how would you have voted? Do you think this is a good bill or would you have voted against it?

GARLAND NIXON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Of course if I was in Congress I would have been pushing to hold out for DACA from the left side. But my feeling is this, I think that -- in my opinion I think there are some reductions we could do in the military and I think we could have done that by bringing some of our troops home from Afghanistan.

But additionally I think it's kind of disingenuous to say you came up with the bill and the you were shocked to find out there was another party in Congress that you were going to have to go through. I don't remember in my lifetime when one party had super majorities in both houses and the White House and didn't have to bargain for something.

DUFFY: Obamacare, think back in 2009 and 2010 when they got in ObamaCare. They had a super majority in the Senate and shoved Dodd-Frank and Obamacare down our throats.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, there were able to use the tool of reconciliation. But why didn't the Democrats unanimously vote for this? There was nothing that was cut of any substance, and it supported our military, something I thought Democrats were supportive of. And I understand the need to do DACA, but I don't think you go any further than what President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Mitch McConnell have done in saying we need to address it. By the way, Barack Obama was president for eight years, they never addressed the immigration issue.

NIXON: I agree, and I wish they had. I wish they would have addressed it when they had the majorities in the House, but they didn't. So we are where we are now. And the problem is now from the people that didn't go for it, the Democrats don't have leverage or DACA. They threw that all out, and so now may not even get anything. So I think the Democrats that held out, it wasn't because of the budget. It was for other reasons.

DUFFY: Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Go ahead.

DUFFY: We can't fall into the trap of thinking that the Democrats are supporting the military. They've been using the military as leverage to get all kinds of other spending. But if they really cared about the military we could have addressed this issue months ago and given the military the resources they need to accomplish the mission. And to come on here and say that they actually are supporters of the military, they haven't been. They're with Garland. They want to see military spending depleted, and they want us to pull out of very rough regions of the world, whether it's Iraq or Afghanistan. We saw how well that worked for us. That was the rise of ISIS when Barack Obama pulled out and left a vacuum in its place. All of a sudden you had people burning their enemies and beheading people. We have to be smart about our policy and cutting the military is not smart policy, again, with the rising threats that we have in the world.

CHAFFETZ: I have to go very quickly, but Congressman, how do you answer the question that Rand Paul was out there saying, look, Republicans were opposed to these deficits when President Obama was in place. But now that they're Donald Trump we seem to be OK with $1 trillion deficit next year.
How do you answer that?

NIXON: First of all, you using growth numbers that are Obama growth numbers. When you get Trump growth numbers that are 3.5, 4.5 percent growth, those deficits aren't going to be that big. But again, that's the problem when Chuck Schumer is a big spender and he's leveraging the military for additional spending in non-military discretionary spending. That's the deal that had to be made.

And again, for me this was a tough vote but I sided with the military because I think that's the most immediate threat. We're going to have to deal with it. And one last point. I know you've got to go. If we want to deal with that, you have to deal with entitlements. Entitlements are the key to reducing this massive outflow in the government. And until you get to that you're not going to address the massive deficit and debts.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you, Congressman. I'll give you the last word, Paul Ryan, the speaker, has said he wants to address the entitlement reform. Is that something that you or the Democrats do you think could get behind and support?

NIXON: I certainly hope not. I feel as though --

CHAFFETZ: There is the problem, ladies and gentlemen. I hope not, that's the problem. To suggest that we're actually going to address entitlements, that's going to be the problem. I've got to leave it there.

DUFFY: Hey, Jason, work requirements.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you. I have to go.

DUFFY: For Medicaid, simple.

CHAFFETZ: Coming up next, we leave it to Clint Eastwood to throw all film making norms out the window. The real-life heroes who stopped an ISIS terror attack is coming up next. You're going to hear their incredible story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Clint Eastwood's newest film is creating a big buzz, defying all conventional movie making norms by using real-life heroes to play themselves. The movie stars three Americans who stopped an ISIS terrorist attack on a train in France in 2015. Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo spoke with the stars of "15:17 to Paris."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Gents, I want to talk about this experience. Of course it made international headlines. It threw you all into the world's consciousness. Alek, you and your friends are on this train. They are sleeping. But you are awake. What did you hear and what made you take action and wake them up?

ALEK SKARLATOS, U.S. ARMY NATIONAL GUARD SOLDIER: I was just hanging out texting friends back home, and two hours, three hours into the trip I heard a gunshot and breaking glass. And I kind of put my head up because I wasn't sure if that's what I heard or not. I couldn't exactly define it at the time. And while I was thinking about that a train employee ran kind of past us, away from the noise at full sprint. And so that woke them up and we all looked back to see what he was running from. And there was a shirtless man with an AK-47. So we got behind the seats. And I was like, Spencer, go get him, and Spencer took off.

ARROYO: And that was it, let's go. And Spencer, you take off down the middle of this train heedless that the guy has an AK-47 pointed at you. What made you run at him at that moment?

SPENCER STONE, FORMER U.S. AIR FORCE STAFF SERGEANT: Honestly, it was just-- we just wanted the live and it was pure survival. I caught a moment down the aisle where I saw him maybe either jam the gun or maybe the safety was on. All I knew is that he hadn't started shooting yet. And so I pretty much just saw it as a window of opportunity. It is either now or never. We are going to die either way, so might as well give it a shot, and that's what really sprung me out of my seat.

ARROYO: Anthony, your two friends have military training. You do not. Yet you went after them up the aisle as well.

ANTHONY SADLER, STOPPED GUNMAN ON TRAIN IN 2015: I think my motivator was them being lifelong friends of mine that it shut down my brain process and it was like once they jumped into action I had to go help really at that point. It was an all in or nothing type situation.

ARROYO: Spencer, you grabbed this guy, a member of an ISIS cell, he's got an AK-47. That is not all he was packing apparently. What happened when you tackled him?

STONE: We I tackled him I was trying to grab the AK from him a little bit. I was practicing jujitsu at the time so I kind of just went straight to that. We both stood up and I put him in a choke and slammed myself against a window. So he is on top of me at this point and he pulls out a pistol that he had just shot Mark Moogalian with. And he tries to shoot me with that but luckily there was no ammunition in it. And Alek runs up, pries the pistol out of his hands. As soon as the pistol gets out of his hand he grabs a box cutter and starts cutting the back of my neck almost trying to slit my throat, and then comes across and slices my left thumb to the bone and servers my tendon and nerve.

And I looked over his shoulder, saw the knife and him flailing around. I screamed he has got a knife and I kicked him off me, and then we all punched and kicked him, and the fight went on from there, too, but unbelievable.

ARROYO: Do you believe, Alek, that there was a divine hand in all of this in the way these events transpired?

SKARLATOS: If you add up all the odds of us being in that time and place and all the circumstances that put us there, all the circumstances that went towards us surviving it, that is going to be in the movie, too. But it is just to me too astronomical to be a coincidence.

ARROYO: So as if all this wasn't terrifying enough, Anthony, you all decide we are going to approach Clint Eastwood with our book and our story. He decides to do this film and casts you all as yourselves. This had to be a little intimidating having never acted before. You didn't do theater.

SADLER: Never a school play or anything, nothing. So we thought when he picked up the picture that would be good enough. He wants to do our story, we thought that was great. And then three weeks before we start shooting we thought we were meeting the actors who were playing ourselves, and he is like, do you mind reenacting things for us on camera? We're like sure, we'll show the actors for accuracy. And he's like, says it again, and then we're like Mr. Eastwood, what do you mean here? You kind of sound like you are asking us to be in the movie. He's like, sure, why not. You boys should just do it.

ARROYO: Alek, you spent a lot of time with him on the set, Clint Eastwood.

SKARLATOS: We spent a lot of time with him on set. He worked longer days than we did, and we spent a lot of time with him hanging out and getting food, getting drinks. We even would work out with him from time to time. That's one of my favorite memories of him is Spencer and I were talking smack to each other about how many dips we do could do, and then Clint comes in and he's like that's nothing. When I was 75 I could do 25 dips. And so we're like, all right, let's see what you have now. Keep in mind he is 87. He hops up on the dip bar and knocks out 10 body weight dips just like nothing. He has still got it.

ARROYO: He is a tough hombre. What did you learn from him?

SADLER: He gave us a lot more jams and showed us a lot more about the industry and process than he had to to make the picture. So it felt like he was really invested in us and he really wants to see us do well, so we all want to continue to pursue acting for sure.

ARROYO: You will continue this, Spencer?

STONE: Absolutely. I feel like he blessed us with a great opportunity, and like Anthony was saying, he kind of raised us up in his world a little bit, and we want to see what else we can do with it.

ARROYO: And what do you want people to take away from this experience given that ISIS has proven itself that this is the kind of attacks they plan on enacting on the public from now on?

SADLER: Even those these two were off duty servicemen at the time. We were three ordinary guys. Ordinary people are going to watch the film. We don't have anything special. Us three it's -- we were put in an extraordinary situation, and we hope that people take that theme from the movie that if they find themselves in a situation with a terrorist or maybe any obstacle they're facing in their life that they have the ability to do something extraordinary themselves.

ARROYO: If they do it together.

SADLER: Most definitely.

ARROYO: Thank you, guys, thanks for being here. Pleasure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: That's an amazing story. And I love it when ordinary Americans do extraordinary things. "15:17 to Paris" opens nationwide today.

And up next, strange encounters at the Olympic opening ceremonies. Vice President Pence comes awkwardly close to the sister of North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Ambassador John Bolton joins us with his reaction in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Tensions are high in the Korean peninsula amid the nuclear standoff with North Korea. And that fact is making for some interesting odd images at the debut of the Winter Olympics in South Korea. Vice president Mike Pence watched the opening ceremonies just a few seats from the powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. That comes shortly after Pence delivered a tough new warning for the hermit kingdom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Our military, Japanese self-defense forces, our allies here in South Korea, all of our allies across the region are fully prepared to defend our nations and take what action is necessary to defend our homeland.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Let's get an assessment of the current situation from FOX News contributor and former U.N. ambassador John Bolton. Ambassador, thank you for joining us. What did you make of the proximity of these two people, and what about Vice President Pence's comments? What does that really mean, what is he trying to signal to North Korea?

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Well, the geography of the South Korea's president box at the opening ceremony obviously arranged by the South Koreans. They wanted to highlight the fact that North Korea was participating with them. I think this whole thing has been a propaganda charade by North Korea, but that's not the view of the South Korean president.

But in the first row he was sitting next to Vice President Pence and on Vice President Pence's left was Prime Minister Abe of Japan. So you had that triumvirate of South Korea, the United States, and Japan. I think the vice president was absolutely correct not to shake the hand of the dictator's representatives from North Korea. They didn't seem to want to press the point. So much the better. It's awkward. It happens a lot at the U.N., but I think the vice president handled it correctly.

On his comments about doing what's necessary to protect the United States and our allies, I think that's extremely important. And it leaves open the possibility of preemptive military force against the north's nuclear weapons program. We are not looking to do that. I wish we didn't even have to consider it as an option, but 25 years of failure to stop North Korea has brought us to the point where it has to be looked at very seriously.

CHAFFETZ: What is the significance of Kim Jong-un's sister? What is her role and what is the significance of her presence there in South Korea?

BOLTON: Well, she and the president of North Korea, nominally the highest official in the government, constitute a pretty high-level delegation, and the fact that she is related to Kim Jong-un, I think is intended to show the seriousness of North Korea's effort to accommodate the south.

This is all blue smoke and mirrors. And I think it is something that the North Koreans have done before in prior Olympics, obviously not in South Korea itself. But while all this is going on, their nuclear program, their ballistic missile program are continuing. So it is a misdirection play to get people to focus on how nice it is that the North and South Korean's women hockey team are playing as one team. It has nothing to do with stopping North Korea's efforts of bringing reconciliation between the two Koreas.

BERMAN: DO you think it was the right thing for the vice president to even be in that picture, in that presence?

BOLTON: Yes, I think it. I think the vice president, this is really a very delicate, difficult diplomatic assignment he has got to show solidarity with South Korea and Japan. Not to give the North Koreans an untrammeled propaganda field at the Pyeongchang Olympics. And I think he has carried it out very well.

There is a report just this evening that while the opening ceremony was going on, what you just showed on the screen there, somebody was hacking the servers of the South Korean organizers of the Pyeongchang games. Who do you think that might have been? This is the kind of fooling around that North Korea does all the time. It may seem sort of silly and childish, but when you are talking about a country ruled by this bizarre regime striving to get nuclear weapons, that strange behavior is worth worrying about.

CHAFFETZ: Ambassador, thank you. We do appreciate it.

FOX's Bret Baier made a huge splash at one of the biggest golf tournaments of the year. You've got to see this shot. Stay tuned. You won't believe it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Before we go, a big shout out to colleague Bret Baier who was red hot at the links at the Pro-Am golf tournament at Pebble Beach today.

Bret is paired with pro Russell Henley and they are lighting up the course. Some amazing shots from Bret. But check this out. He hits a shot. He ends up on the deck and he takes it. He doesn't take the penalty, he takes the actual shot. Puts it in the bunker. He is up, he is down, he actually makes an unbelievable shot right out of something like the movie of "Tin Cup." They are tidy think it's for fifth place at this point. Bret, who played college golf, is really good. His team is in contention and we wish him nothing but the best.

It's been an honor and a privilege to host this show. That's all the time we have tonight. I thank Laura Ingraham for allowing me to host tonight.

END

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.