Gowdy: Special counsel necessary to investigate FBI process

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 7, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: I hope to see you then as well. That's SPECIAL REPORT for now. I'm Bill Hemmer live in Washington D.C. The news rolls on from New York tonight in a snowy New York City, but 'The Story' and my colleague Martha MacCallum. How's the look up there, Martha?

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: It looks good. THE STORY goes on, regardless. Bill, good to see you tonight.

HEMMER: See you soon.

MACCALLUM: So, tonight on THE STORY, as call for a second special counsel grow, can the Republican majority actually get what they want from the Republican appointee at the Justice Department? In moments, House Oversight Committee Chairman, Trey Gowdy, who has suspended the Mueller investigation throughout, but is now demanding another front and a second special counsel to investigate the DOJ. But with Sessions recused from all things Russia, will that decision ultimately fall to the Deputy A.G., Rod Rosenstein? And what about the sticky issue of Rosenstein, in fact, being one of the people who actually signed off on of those FISA warrant himself with the Trump campaign volunteer. Let's get right to Fox News Chief Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge with the story. Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Martha. This two-page letter makes the case where second special counsel that would investigate alleged government surveillance abuse and allege political bias at the FBI and Justice Department. The Congressman make the argument, there is a potential and actual conflict of interest. The surveillance was an application for Trump Campaign Aide, Carter Page, was made in October 2016, just days before the presidential election, allowing the government to collect his phone records, e-mails and text messages. Under the statute because the bar is so high for the U.S. government to spy on the U.S. citizen inside the United States. The warrant had to be renewed every 90 days. Former FBI Director James Comey, Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and the current Deputy Attorney General and Trump Appointee Rod Rosenstein among others, signed off on the renewals. The question is whether Rosenstein who is charged with all things Russia with boss' recusal, would support a second special counsel that would investigate Rosenstein's own actions and decisions. Today the White House press secretary said the evidence calls out for outside review.


SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: They failed to disclose to the judge that the dossier was funded by the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, even as it was being used to spy on people associated with the Trump Campaign. Obviously, those details alone show that the process needs to be looked at closely and reformed.


HERRIDGE: Key section of the letter also got my attention because it appears that the chairman wants a second special counsel to go even further and investigate whether Hillary Clinton and her team got special treatment in the FBI e-mail case. The letter reads in part, 'To review decisions made and not made by the Department of Justice and the FBI in 2016 and 2017 between decisions to charge or not charge, and whether those decisions were made consistent with the applicable facts.' The focus here is on the system that may be broken, not relitigating the outcome, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Catherine, thank you very much.

HERRIDGE: Your welcome.

MACCALLUM: Joining me now is one of the people behind that big push to get a second special counsel, House Oversight Chairman and House Intel Committee Member, Trey Gowdy. Congressman, good to see you tonight. Thank you for being here?


MACCALLUM: So, you have as I said in the intro, you've been defending the Mueller investigation and believing that he is handling it well, you have no reason to not believe that. So, why the need for a second special counsel?

GOWDY: Well, Robert Mueller sure set out in the document that was issued by Rod Rosenstein. It is pretty specific; he has to stay within the structures of his jurisdiction. He can expand it on his own. I guess in theory, Rod Rosenstein or Jeff Sessions could expand his jurisdiction, but he can't do it himself. I think the better course is to have second special counsel. Let Mr. Mueller keep looking into Russian interference, let him keep looking for evidence of collusion, but have a separate special counsel looking to decisions made and not made in 2016 with the respect to the bureau and the department.

MACCALLUM: And that decision would fall to Rosenstein?

GOWDY: You know what, I'm not sure Jeff Sessions couldn't do it, Martha. For this reason, my qualms aren't necessarily -- the fact that it was a Russian investigation or a FISA application of Carter Page, you can be a bank robbery, you can be human trafficking ring. I want to look at the process and the procedures, and whether or not the bureau handled things the right way regardless of what kind of case it is. I think Sessions actually could appoint special counsel. I mean, Rod Rosenstein cannot supervise special counsel because he's a potential witness. So, Sessions is recused for making decision about Russia, but he's not recused from appointing a special counsel.

MACCALLUM: He did an interview with Shannon Bream, which is going to air tonight on her show, and he basically said that -- well, let's play it and you can hear what he said when asked about this.


JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have appointed a person outside of Washington many years in Department of Justice to look at all of the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us and we're looking at that investigation.


MACCALLUM: He's talking about Michael Horowitz. He said, we already have somebody doing that.

GOWDY: Yes, I think the world of Michael Horowitz -- I actually did not sign the letter that Attorney General Sessions is referencing, although most judiciary members did. Michael Horowitz is fantastic, he is great for looking at matters within the department, but he has no jurisdiction over witnesses who have left. You just mention Jim Comey and Andy McCabe, they're both gone, Jim Rybicki is gone. There are -- Loretta Lynch is gone, Sally Yates is gone. There are 24 witnesses that I've identified, and Michael Horowitz would not have jurisdiction over, and you can't compel their attendance and their testimony. Martha, that says nothing about the State Department angle or Fusion GPS or anyone not in the department. So, with all due respect to Attorney General Sessions, Michael Horowitz is not special counsel. All he can do is look at the department and the FBI, and nothing outside of it.

MACCALLUM: I mean, I guess, you know, one of the glaring questions is why wouldn't they? You know, why wouldn't they want to make sure that their own entity had operated properly and if it hasn't, want to shed light on that? And when you raise questions as Catherine Herridge pointed out in her reporting, about the Hillary Clinton investigation and whether or not it was completely aboveboard or whether there was some sort of bias shown towards her during the course of the election.

GOWDY: Yes, I don't have any interest in relitigating the decision, the conclusion reached by Jim Comey, but I have a lot of interest and understanding why in May of 2016 you admitted that you had the evidence of a crime that had already determined you were not going to prosecute. I would hope that every American would ask the FBI: if you have evidence of a crime, two months before you interview the target of the investigation, why have you already concluded you're not going to go forth? That is a fair question whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or Bull-Moose Party. Every American should want to have confidence in the FBI and DOJ.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

GOWDY: And if they are prejudging outcomes, you shouldn't.

MACCALLUM: What about, you know, the letter talks about the bias, concern about bias. Bias -- you know, we've all seen the Strzok and Page emails and the text messages, but bias and then turning that bias into action is a very difficult thing to prove, isn't it?

GOWDY: It is. This bias, I would argue, Martha, trends towards animus. It is not simply bias, it is an over disdain, talking about impeachment the morning after the election. That's more than bias, that is flat out animus.

MACCALLUM: But aren't there also elements -- I'm sorry to interrupt but aren't there also elements where it sounds like they're supportive of Hillary Clinton or negative on Hillary Clinton and couldn't they use that to balance, and say, look, you know, we were torn on this just most Americans, but it didn't affect our job.

GOWDY: Well, I think the proponents of the tax are anti-Trump. Now, whether or not they episodically criticize -- you know, they criticize Ted Cruz, I think they may have even criticized a Congress, God forbid, once or twice. So, clearly, had problems with a lot of people, but hated Donald Trump. And what's important about that is one of them had signed up to investigate Donald Trump while the other was a lawyer. So, bias is one thing, animus is another; it is possible for that animus to impact your decision-making. Look at what Strzok himself said, he had no interest in participating in an investigation that would exonerate Donald Trump. This is a counterintelligence expert who doesn't want to participate in investigating what Russia did if it does not result in the indictment of Donald Trump. That is in unprecedented level of animus.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much Chairman Gowdy. Good to see you as always.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, here now with more on all of these questions: Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Attorney and Law Professor at George Washington University. Good to see you tonight, Jonathan. Thank you so much. Welcome back to the program.


MACCALLUM: Do you think that they're going to get the special counsel, a second one?

TURLEY: I would think that it would be difficult. It's clear that a combination of Congress and the Inspector General, Mr. Horowitz, can investigate these types of claims, I think that however, there are two good arguments for the appointment of a special counsel. One, in this letter and one that's not. The one in the letter is that it's certainly true that Horowitz cannot really exercise jurisdiction over people like James Comey and others who have left the Justice Department. That's a very good point, there's a lot of witnesses that would fall into the purely voluntary cooperation category. And you might need more than voluntary cooperation.

The other reason is that we are a nation divided. Half of the people in this country believe that the FBI is biased and was targeting Trump and Republicans, the other believes that there was something criminally wrong about the Trump Campaign in Russian interference, both have raised legitimate concerns. We're not going to get past this. We're not going to get out of this quagmire until we can offer the American people an independent review -- and I don't think Congress at this point is going to offer that. I think that congress, there's so much infighting, so many leaks, so many spins. I don't see a point which the American people are going to say, all right, I get it, I think I know the facts here. So, that does weigh heavily here. But at the end of the day, I think that a strong argument can be made that there's not a compelling need as long as Congress and the inspector general both pursue these questions.

MACCALLUM: All right. Let me ask you about something that the New York Times is reporting tonight that has just crossed a few moments ago that President Trump may have spoken to some of the witnesses about the matters that they discussed with the special counsel. Problematic?

TURLEY: It is problematic. There has -- there have been serious problems in minding the line when it comes to these types of context, not just in the statements that are attributed to President Trump with regard to Mr. James Comey and others, but also speaking with witnesses, that's a very clear line that the White House council and other attorneys are supposed to watch and maintain. There should not be this cross pollination between people who are witnesses, and that's why we build what's called a wall around witnesses to say, this is off -- really off the table, you cannot talk to others, particularly the president, in this type of investigation. So, it is problematic. But that's an example of what has long concerned me about the lack of control and discipline. Those types of slips are making, are prolonging this investigation, fueling allegations when we still don't have a clear crime that is linked to the president.

MACCALLUM: Yes, it makes things more difficult for themselves at times, and, you know, these stories are, you know, problematic to be sure. Jonathan Turley, always good to see you. Thank you so much.

TURLEY: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: OK. So, it is being built as the biggest tech merger ever, but some say this is really becoming a hostile takeover. Handing over a technology that underpins our most advanced communication networks and you can imagine why that would be problematic for a country. And ultimately, they could end up in the hands of China.

Then, Democrats are celebrating a big blue wave in Texas, but was it really a washout? Chris Stirewalt and Karl Rove and Bill Bennett on what this means for Republicans, Democrats, of course, Oprah -- because we always like to ask Karl about what Oprah would think about all of this when we come back.


STEPHEN COLBERT, LATE NIGHT HOST: Have you had any signs at all?


COLBERT: I apologize, God stops by every once in a while. He's a fan.

COLBERT: I hear that we're seeking the sign? Well, is this clear enough?




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE, MSNBC: Democrats continue their surge to the polls having one of their largest midterm primary election turnouts in the state. In more than 16 years, could be blue enthusiasm in deep red Texas be a sign of things to come in the midterms?


MACCALLUM: Can you tell? The midterms are underway? Democrats celebrating record turnout in the first primary test of 2018, but the truth is that both Republicans and Democrats actually set new records for turnout in Texas on Tuesday. Senator Ted Cruz ended up with more votes than all of the Democratic candidates combined. And Karl Rove is going to tell us about some of those other folks that you have never heard of. He will face popular Democratic Congressman Beto O'Rourke, who we showed you here last night in November. Here now, our campaign experts, Karl Rove, former Senior Adviser to President George W. Bush and a Fox News Contributor; Chris Stirewalt, our Fox News Politics Editor. Gentlemen, welcome, good to have you here tonight. So, you think these headlines about Texas, Karl, are misleading?

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Laughable. Look, the Republicans had the biggest turn out ever after the -- all the hubbub coming in. This was the Democrats are having a fantastic night; they had a dreadful night. Their Leader, Robert F. -- Beto O'Rourke spent $4.2 million, won the Democratic primary with 62 percent of the vote -- that's half as many votes as Ted Cruz got on the Republican side. 38 percent of the Democrats voted for Ed Kimbrough, a retired postal worker who spent $785. Or 24 percent of the vote which is - -

MACCALLUM: He's very popular out there.

ROVE: It gets better. Sima Hernandez, a nurse, or maybe she's a former nurse -- her website suggests she used to be a nurse, she spends zero and got 24 percent of the vote. Now, she did have a Facebook page, but here's a guy who's supposed to be the darling of the Democrats and four out of every ten Democrats in the state, he loses 103 out of 254 counties after spending $4.2 million and being the glory boy, and now he has a tendency to swear profusely on the campaign trail. I bet he was swearing a lot on Tuesday night.

MACCALLUM: But he got the ticket he needed, right, Chris? He got the golden ticket that he needed to enter the primaries last night. What's your take on Texas, Chris?

CHRIS STIREWALT, FOX NEWS POLITICS EDITOR: Well, look, to take nothing away from the stage of the hill country, and he knows Texas better than I do, for sure, but we can both probably find good barbecue. But there is this, Democrats did score a ten-point increase in their share of the primary day electorate. Look, I think that in most likelihoods, Ted Cruz is quite safe in that Senate seat, though, this is turning into more of a marquee match-up. But the reality is, Democratic enthusiasm, and is a share of the primary electorate was up, and it was -- the last time we saw this level in Texas for the percentage of the electorate that were Democrats, was 2006. And 2006 was a no fun year for Republicans, so Democrats are looking at some Senate or some House pickups in Texas, and I think that it's indicative of whether --

MACCALLUM: Karl is shaking his head.

ROVE: Well, but one minor point: 2006, they didn't do too well, they lost every statewide race, they made no pickups in Congress in 2006. So, I'm not certain that I would point to 2006 as a great model for them. It's been 24 years since they won a statewide election having their best hope to step forward in such a terrifically bad way on Tuesday night and not a good sign for the fall.

MACCALLUM: All right. Now, for something completely different. Chris Stirewalt, Stormy Daniels, what do you think about what the president is facing there?


MACCALLUM: She says that the hush agreement means nothing that he didn't sign it, so she said it's invalid. How much of a problem is this for the president of the United States?

STIREWALT: It depends on how he and his attorney, Michael Cohen, navigate this. This starts to have a lot of -- this starts to have some reminders of the Whitewater investigation, where things that aren't a part of the original investigation could become material. There are a lot of legal snares here, and Stormy Daniels and her lawyer are -- aside from looking for publicity, are laying a snare for the president where it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't on how they answer these questions. They got a good break in court, but this is not going away right away.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, I was told this could go on for years that this could be tied up in a course. And when you look back at it, Karl, this is a president who weathered the Access Hollywood Stormy, and that was pretty stormy. So, do you think you can survive this too?

ROVE: Well, yes, but the damage is done. When the story line is a porn star was paid $130,000 by the president's personal lawyer in order to keep her mouth shut about an affair that took place just shortly around the time that where his son was being born. This is not a good storyline for the president. And if it hangs around for a couple of years, it's not going to be in the middle of a campaign with a -- against a terribly atrocious candidate, it's going to be a storyline while he's president of the United States -- not a good thing. I agree with the very professional view of my colleague, Mr. Chris Stirewalt, yikes!



ROVE: Yikes!

MACCALLUM: Thanks, you guys! Good to see you.


MACCALLUM: So, here now, Bill Bennett, Chairman of the Conservative Leaders for Education and a Fox News Contributor. Bill, good to see you tonight. So, you know, in terms of the midterm electoral picture and what happened in Texas, because everybody is trying to get a handle on what America is feeling right now. You know, as we head into this, you look at all of the numbers, we all remember the polling on election night, and you sort of scratched your head and wonder: are we getting a good sense of what's really going on in the nation right now?

BILL BENNETT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE CONSERVATIVE LEADERS FOR EDUCATION: No, but we can't resist, you know, looking at the tea leaves and making predictions. One this is for sure, I'm not going to disagree with Karl Rove when it comes to Texas, whether it's 2006 or 1806 goodness gracious.

MACCALLUM: He knows his stuff there.

BENNETT: He knows his stuff. I thought very interesting and an important story is the dynasty continues. George P. Bush, Jeb Bush's son, won big for land commissioner -- that's a very big office in Texas, usually leads to other things. And of course, the interesting thing about George P. Bush is that he endorsed Trump. His father was out at that point, but he endorsed Trump; he's a Trump-Bush, if you will. I don't know if that's a kind of plant, but that's an interesting story. But the main thing is, Martha, as you know, because you do this every night, how many stories are there between now and November? How many things will happen at the White House? How many policy issues will be discussed? How many policies will be put forward? What kinds of controversies and conflicts we'll be getting? What kind of legislation will we get? So, all of that will matter enormously. But I do think that Texas was underwhelming for the Democrats. I agree with Karl Rove on that. Can I say a word about the independent counsel?

MACCALLUM: Yes, go ahead.

BENNETT: I just wanted to say that, you know, with great reluctance, I agree with Trey Gowdy, we probably need for the reasons he so well cites, a second special counsel. But if you want in one sentence to understand what's wrong with Washington, it's Trey Gowdy leaving, that's what's wrong, because he's fed up with it. And I know you esteem him as much as I hold him, and as much esteem as I do. What a shame. This is one of the great shining lights of our time and I wish he could be talked out of it.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Well, you know, I mean, he definitely tries to be someone who plays it fair, I think. I mean, obviously, he has his politics, but I think he tries to play it fair. I think he's given Robert Mueller the benefit of the doubt in terms of the way that he's running the investigation, and I think that is something that Robert Mueller, I'm sure, respects. Condoleezza rice also said the same thing. So, that gives Robert Mueller room, you know, to do what he thinks is right.

BENNETT: You're absolutely right. He plays it fair, has praised Mueller. And I think the reasons for his leaving, he is dismayed to the bottom of his bones by the unfairness exhibited by other people. And I think that it just rifles him and he wants out. What a shame, what a loss.

MACCALLUM: Well, as you mentioned, these stories are going to keep growing and keep hanging around as we head into the election season, and one of them is clearly Russia, and the other side of it is what happened in terms of this whole investigation of both sides of the electoral process in 2016? Bill Bennett, thank you, sir. Always a pleasure to see you. Thanks for coming on 'The Story.' We appreciate it.

BENNETT: You bet. Thank you, Martha, as always.

MACCALLUM: So, this is a big deal, even if you don't like to follow technology, mergers, all of those words might seem like, you know, something that doesn't really matter a full hell of a lot to most people in America. However, this could matter to all of us. This tech merger may have a big downside for national security. If we hand over the 5G network capability, it could be the equivalent to World War II and steal if we don't have ownership of it. I'll explain that in a minute.

Also, David Beckham, one of People Magazines sexiest men alive -- you remember that? He's breaking the mold on masculinity. His message to all of you men around the world, is that it's OK to wear makeup. Jesse Watters, who likes his makeup, is coming up next.


DAVID BECKHAM: I think it's more important not to take in style or fashion too seriously. You only really need a couple of good products and a good point-of-view.



MACCALLUM: So, this is a big deal. It's $117 billion merger, the biggest ever in tech history. Qualcomm, a California company responsible for the technology that underpins all of our communications networks, and Broadcom, which is based in Singapore, and they make computer chips and components for smartphones. So, if this closes, some would say, a real concern for the national security. We're going to explain this. Trace Gallagher, live in our West Coast Newsroom with this story tonight. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: And for clarification, Martha, 5G is the next generation of mobile technology that promises an Internet connection 10 or 100 times faster than today, it will also greatly improve connectivity for cellphones, computers, even self-driving cars. Qualcomm, based in San Diego has led the way to developing 3G, 4G, and now 5G technologies. And if it is acquired by Broadcom in the $117 billion hostile bid, the fear is that the U.S. would automatically be less competitive in the overall telecommunications input structure.

In other words, once Broadcom gobbles up Qualcomm, experts believe China would fill that void with Huawei, its own telecom equipment giant, and that they argue would undermine U.S. efforts to stay ahead of China in the development of 5G. Here's the analogy drawn by California Congressman Duncan Hunter, watch.


REP. DUNCAN HUNTER, CALIFORNIA CONGRESSMAN: It is going to damage national security the same way that in the 1930s. If we let the Germans take over the steel industry, we would not be able to fight them, the Japanese and win in World War II. It's the same thing. Technology now is the steel of 70 years ago when it comes to national security.


GALLAGHER: And in the category of concern, Duncan Hunter has opening, the Committee on Foreign Investment U.S., a recipient as a government panel chaired by the secretary of the treasury and made up of numerous federal agencies. As a rule, CFIUS operates in secrecy and only weighs in after a deal is announced.

But in this case, the panel is being proactive, calling for Broadcom's bid to be fully investigated before any agreement is signed. We should note that they recently blocked several other deals by Chinese buyers. In fact, the very mention of the CFIUS investigation is often a deal breaker. Kind of the government's way of saying, can you hear me now. Broadcom by the way says that it will relocate from Singapore back to the United States, Martha.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, THE STORY HOST: Fascinating, thank you very much. My next guest says that this proposed deal will be a disaster, not only for national security but the district that he represents. Here now is Congressman Duncan Hunter who represents San Diego, California. Congressman, good to have you here, you made an interesting point about this in terms of -- explain to everybody what you meant by this being a national security concern in your eyes.

HUNTER: Number one, if I traveled to China, I have to leave my iPhone off, iPad off, and my laptop off when I am in Chinese airspace, all the way until I actually leave the nation. We have to throw away phones, because they hack everything. We have multiple committee hearings just last week and the defense committee is talking about how China is taking, over not just large companies but three and five person companies that has technology that they can weaponize.

That's what we are worried about that here. China does not make anything right now. China steals other people's things and then adds them into their toolbox.

MACCALLUM: But this company is in Singapore.

HUNTER: It is major Chinese interest, and nothing is to stop the Chinese. It is much easier to steal from an American company that has an American board than it is to steal from a Singapore company that is made up of mostly Chinese shareholders and board members.

MACCALLUM: I want you to watch this exchange and everybody at home between the CEO, Mr. Hak Tan, and President Trump. Watch this.


DONALD TRUMP, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: Broadcom Limited is moving its headquarters from Singapore back to the United States.

HOCK TAN, CEO OF BROADCAM: I am an American, as are nearly are all of my direct managers, my board members, and over 90 percent of my shareholders. So today, we are announcing that we are making America home again.


MACCALLUM: What do you think about that?

HUNTER: I do not buy it for a second. Not a second. And I've seen over and over and over again, talk to the actual companies that have been robbed by the communist Chinese, talked to the defense analysts that see this happen all the time, and the transfer of technology, no matter where Qualcomm is relocated to or Broadcom, if they take Qualcomm over, you're still going to have a massive transfer of technology.

And especially every chip that is in every cell phone that is going to have 5G, LTE and 4g LTE now is going to be in the hands of the Chinese. That is a no-go for us here in this country, and a no-go for the Defense Department. And if the finance guys -- if the Wall Street Guys on CFIUS think that that is OK, they have to get through Jim Mattis because the Secretary of Defense is also on the CFIUS board.

MACCALLUM: Here's a tweet that the president posted today, acting quickly on property theft as it has for many years but what is the president's take on this whole thing now?

HUNTER: I think he's going to stop it. Number one, you would lose 20,000 jobs in San Diego that is bad to start with. Number two, you're not in control anymore if Broadcom takes over Qualcomm, they would have the majority of board members. We are not in control anymore, and we do not know what they are going to be doing behind our backs.

It is easy enough to steal from American companies. It is easier by 100 percent to steal from a foreign company that has a hostile takeover of a U.S. company, if that makes sense.

MACCALLUM: Yeah, it is fascinating and you make a great point in terms of the national security issue and technology and international theft. We will see where this goes. Congressman, thank you very much.

HUNTER: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Breaking news just into Fox tonight, as the missed warning signs about the Parkland shooter add up. What we have now learned about the dots that actually were connected, and still no one followed up, brand new information right now. And 14 years ago, a very different outcome when a teen tried to shoot up his high school with an AR15. He was stopped by his principal. And the student who now calls that man his hero. The principal joins us next on The Story.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was just on his way walk into the classroom with a friend of his and they heard yelling, and when they walked into the classroom, there was another student there with a gun and he just opened fired and started randomly shooting.


MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, a chilling admission from the FBI on the three week anniversary of the Parkland school shooting. Remember the 13 minute phone call to the FBI from a family friend who was desperate. She said that she was sure that Nikolas Cruz was 'about to explode.' His mother had just passed away. The agent who took that call, it turns out, actually did link that Nikolas Cruz in that warning to the prior tip that we told you about on a YouTube video from Cruz, another Nikolas Cruz saying that I'm going to be a professional school shooter.

So despite the fact that this call center in West Virginia for the FBI was able to put these two different tips together with the same man, the agent and supervisor did nothing, telling Congress today 'we decided to not pursue the matter further and the case was closed.' That stunning admission comes as two survivors say that they plan to sue the FBI along with the school and the sheriff's office for what they call callous and negligent inaction.

Earlier today, a grand jury indicted Nikolas Cruz on 17 counts of first degree murder and 17 counts of premeditated murder. The charges make him eligible for the death penalty. Prosecutors have yet to indicate whether or not today will seek it. It is rare that we get to hear from a person who was able to stop a mass shooting at a school, but my next guest did exactly that.

It was 14 years ago, at an upstate New York high school, 16-year-old John Romano showed up at school that day with a 12-gauge shotgun and pockets full of ammunition. A New York Times reporter put it best, writing "the attack here could have been much worse if not for the intervention of the assistant principal, John Sawchuk who wrestled Mr. Romano to the ground." Anyone was killed or seriously hurt, and now in a letter that the young man wrote from prison, the shooter is thinking Mr. John Sawchuk, calling him a hero who that I owe my life to. We are now with former principal, John Sawchuk. Good to have you here on the program tonight.


MACCALLUM: Take us back to that day. What happened and what did you do?

MACCALLUM: Well, I was actually in a classroom at the time observing a teacher's lesson, and I heard what I thought was an explosion in the hallway. And everyone in the class looked at me and I said, everyone just stay here, we'll be right back. I'm sure that it is nothing. And I thought that it was nothing.

And as I said before, it was 2004 was a silly age of innocence. And I did not think that it was a shot, I thought that there might've been an explosion. There was a lot of smoke in the air, and a teacher popped his head out and I told him, hey, come out with me, we will check this out. So prior to that, the shooter had shot at a student who went down a hallway, but did not run past me.

So I did not see him run past me, so I ran around the corner and happened to run into John Romano as he had his back to me. And he was looking into a classroom, and I kind of got behind him. And at that point, I thought that it was going to be over with. And he was not dropping the gun, and the teacher who was coming down the hallway, I was asking them to come and help me.

And John started to level the gun, and I was pushing the gun down. He was pushing it up and then he fired a shot and the teacher was hit in the leg and we got jolted back and then we started to struggle. And it was bumping into walls and just terrifying.

MACCALLUM: Unbelievable. And what did you think when you sent this note, saying that you were a hero and then to saved not only all of those people at the school but you saved him as well.

SAWCHUK: I was kind of taken back. I never heard anything like that before, but it made me feel good to hear that he was regretful, because he did a lot of damage, a lot of damage to people, to our kids come, to our teachers. I was a little taken aback by it.

MACCALLUM: When you watch everything going on and you see what happened in Parkland, having been through your experience, what would you tell everyone listening tonight about what you think is really wrong here? And what needs to be fixed?

SAWCHUK: I think enough people need to say that enough is enough. How many more times do we have to go through this? There needs to be, with what is happening in Florida right now with those kids, it needs to spread to the rest of the country. It is the only way that things are going to change. And people right now are laying low. They are laying low until the smoke clears, and it is going to be back to normal.

And we really need to have a national movement. When there is more security when you visit a corporate to building then there is in schools, there is something wrong with that.

MACCALLUM: So you think that the schools need to be hardened, and what about families and people? What would have changed John Romano's story, do you think, if someone had known what he was about to do?

SAWCHUK: Well, when you talk about hardening schools, I think that there are things that you can do that we did, that schools need to invest and communities need to invest in. We were very lucky. One of the positive things that came out of it was that I worked in a great community that understood the need for safety. It is our number one job, and you have to invest in that. That is money. Schools are underfunded.

There are many things that schools can do that we did. We hired what we call security supervisors, which were ex-law enforcement. They were outstanding, full-time police officers that are in the building with us and working with us on a daily basis.

MACCALLUM: And they were armed, I assume. Were they armed? Mr. Sawchuk, those people that you hired, they were armed?

SAWCHUK: The police officer was armed, the security supervisors were not. But they were high level, ex-high-level law enforcement that provided us with outstanding experiences that I would never have. I am an educator. I'm not law enforcement. But all of those experiences help build your community a safety.

MACCALLUM: Thank you so much for sharing your story with us. You were a teacher, a principal, and you did provide law enforcement on that day, which helped so many people in your school, and we thank you very much for being here tonight. Thank you.

SAWCHUK: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: On a very different note to end the evening, coming up, what do you think about make up for men? Is that a good idea? Soccer star, David Beckham is building a business on it. He thinks it is a winning idea. But what about Jesse Watters, what does Jesse think, and is it OK with Jesse if I wear makeup, when we come back.

DAVID BECKHAM, SOCCER STAR: When you take care of yourself, you look good. And when you look good, you feel good.



BECKHAM: We have got skincare, hair care, big hair. We even have a specific product to cover your tattoos if you have any.


MACCALLUM: Goodness. Beauty brought to you by David Beckham, the former soccer star changing the game when it comes to grooming from hair products and beard oils and moisturizers and eye balms. David Beckham is launching his own line of cosmetics for men. Will guys buy it? We have to ask Jesse Watters because if Jesse will buy it, other guys will buy it, Co-Host of the Five and Host of Watters World.

JOHN WATTERS, WATTERS WORLD HOST: Why when you are thinking of David Beckham you think of me. I am much honored.

MACCALLUM: You are pretty sharp guy.

WATTERS: I'm feeling like you think it might be a little bit of a metro sexual.

MACCALLUM: It is not exactly makeup, it is really like grooming products. I have bought several grooming products that sit in our cabinets in our bathroom at home and never get touched, but are you a grooming products guy?

WATTERS: I just bought the eye balm from the David Beckham line.


WATTERS: It cost me $32. I don't know what it does, but I like the sound of it. It is like coffee for the eyes. So I paid a lot of money for it, some of the stuff I cannot do, like the beard oil. This is like five days right here, Martha. I cannot grow a beard. And it is a little bit expensive. The shampoo is $32, but you spend three times that on your shampoo.

MACCALLUM: Yeah, probably. But I do foresee a world where they sell actual makeup for men and regular guys who are in that category that you mentioned. Because I think when you look at David Beckham, when you wear make up all time on the show.

WATTERS: Yes, I do, and it takes a long time. I don't take it off if I am going out to dinner later, because I want to stay looking good. Without the makeup, it is a mess. But they know men, because you guys are really picky and social media is competitive, so we have to look the best we can.

MACCALLUM: So you like to like makeup.

WATTERS: No, I don't like wearing makeup. That is fake news. You are putting words in my mouth. I have naturally bushy eyebrows.

MACCALLUM: They just look like that naturally?

WATTERS: Nothing in the eyebrows, they do have a little afro pick for my eyebrows. You have got to work that up.


MACCALLUM: Let's watch this guy, who I love, Cincinnati News Anchor, Bob Herzog. Watch this.


BOB HERZOG, CINCINNATI NEWS ANCHOR: This as I understand it is called concealer. It is for concealing things, like the ridiculous circles under my eyes. This is foundation, I think. And this is to help make sure that I have a good solid foundation. Then I'm going to take this thing again, violently bland, violently bland, violently blend like you are ashamed of your face.


MACCALLUM: I love that guy.

WATTERS: We have people doing that for us. The best part about the makeup as you can go out and get trashed and then the next day you can go on air, and no one can tell. They get rid of all of the dark circles.

MACCALLUM: That happens to you a lot, I know.

WATTERS: And they can make you more tan so you look tan all year around.

MACCALLUM: Jesse Watters' makeup line, the makeup line for cool guys.

WATTERS: You are putting words in my mouth. I am anti-male makeup.

MACCALLUM: Everything is blending, so you should violently blend.

WATTERS: Martha, I don't like now that I did this segment. You are taking advantage of me.

MACCALLUM: You're such a manly man, that's why we brought you on. Thank you, Jessie.

So coming up next, one of the greatest athletes -- speaking of manly men of all time -- you are here for this. We will chat about the Super Bowl, and the message, Jesse, that you are going to want to stick around for this because Tom Brady has a message for his kids, your kids, something that everyone in America needs to hear from who else, Tom Brady.


MACCALLUM: And now a quote of the night from Tom Brady. You will recall he shares his life lessons with his young children.


TOM BRADY, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS, QUARTERBACK: They were sad for me and sad for the Patriots. But I said to them, this is a great lesson. We don't always win. We try our best. And sometimes it doesn't go the way we want.


MACCALLUM: I love Tom Brady. Those were some deep thoughts.


Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.