Rep. King on James Clapper's anti-Trump dossier leak

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," April 30, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Looking forward to that. We'll see you there. Thank you, Bret. I'm Martha MacCallum. Good evening, everybody. This is 'The Story.' South Korea's president says that Mr. Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize. That as an award given for reporting back here at home on the Trump dossier, raises new questions tonight over how the reporters got that scoop and whether President Obama's National -- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper may have been one of the sources. It's a question congress says, Mr. Clapper has been reluctant to answer directly. Despite the fact that he once told President Trump that he did not believe the leaks were coming from within the intelligence community. Now, a closer look at the timeline of all of the statements by James Clapper does not seem to add up. Trace Gallagher is live in our West Coast Newsroom tonight to explain. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Hi, Martha. The White House Correspondents Association gave CNN the Merriman Smith Award, saying the network made the Steele dossier part of the American lexicon. The dossier, of course, is opposition research that was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It was filled with salacious and unverified details including allegations that Russian operatives have compromising, personal, and financial information on Mr. Trump, like prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. In his memos, former FBI Director James Comey says, before the inauguration in January 2017, he was told by then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to brief President-elect Trump on the dossier. Comey said, it was important that Mr. Trump to know about these salacious details because the media, and specifically CNN, was about to run with the story -- which it did. Buzzfeed News then followed by publishing the dossier in full. Clapper then spoke with President Trump on the phone saying quoting here, I express my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security. Then, in March of 2017, James Clapper was asked directly on CNN if he leaked the dossier. Watch.


JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I mean, I talked about it after I left the government, but not during that period. And certainly not between the sixth of January and the tenth when the president-elect himself talked about it.


GALLAGHER: But House Republicans on the intel committee also interviewed James Clapper for their report which was released last Friday. The report says, at first, Clapper flatly denied leaking and contents of the dossier in early January but, then, quoting again, "Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the dossier with CNN Journalist Jake Tapper, and admitted he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic." And lo and behold, the report says Clapper's discussion with Jake Tapper happened in early January. Around the same time, President Trump was briefed by FBI Director Comey. Six months after Clapper talked about the dossier with Tapper, the former head of U.S. intelligence was hired by CNN. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Here now with more, New York Congressman Peter King, who sits on that House Intelligence Committee that has been going over all that has been going over all of this. Congressman King, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks for being here.

REP. PETER KING, R—N.Y.: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: I want to play Jonathan Turley who's on the show a lot. This is him this morning talking about the timing on what James Clapper has said.


JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY AND PROFESSION AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Clapper has already admitted that he did speak with CNN. Now, he is insisting that he didn't speak to any media until January 20th, but he indicated that he spoke to CNN in early January. CNN reported that high level people had confirmed this information with him. If one of those individuals is Clapper, then he has a serious problem. He could be accused again of perjury.


MACCALLUM: So, what did he tell your committee? The House Intelligence Committee, about the timing of this?

KING: Well, first, he denied ever speaking to CNN about it. You'll be involved in leaking at all. And then, when he was confronted, he said, well, he may have spoken to Tapper and it was inconclusive. But certainly, my impression was that he spoke to Jake Tapper, somebody at CNN, in early January. And that comment to me, is totally -- somebody in that level had since spoken to the media, because this is only known by a handful of people. And the whole conduct of John Brennan and General Clapper during that period, there were leaks coming from everywhere in the intel community. And this dossier as James Comey told the president, the president-elect at the time, that CNN had the dossier, there wasn't any excuse to release it. I mean, he wanted to give it to the president-elect so he'd be aware what was in it. And then, within a day or two ago or three days, certainly, CNN is going with it. And turns out now that Clapper did talk to Jake Tapper during that period. So, I think he has a real perjury issue. And again, the whole issue, Martha, of leaks coming out from the intelligence community.

MACCALLUM: I'm sorry to interrupt, will you ask him to come back to clarify these things?

KING: We may now. But again, as far as I'm concerned, this is going to be sent, I believe, to the Justice Department. They should look at it. And it's really up to them. And he's had his chance to clarify it, if you wanted to. Again, when he was showing it, the direct relation came back and he seemed to be confused. But right now, as far as we are concerned, our report is done. All this -- the Justice Department will have it. And I believe they should look at it carefully and probably take action.

MACCALLUM: You know, there's a couple of discrepancies too in the story. Here's what the CNN report said on January 12th when they broke the story and we know that James Comey said when he was interviewed for the book that he knew that CNN was looking for a news hook in order to start writing about the dossier because there was sort of generally known there was something out there. But once they sat down with the president and talk to about it that gave them the leak that they needed. It said the allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. That's the way it was in the CNN report. Now, watch this with Bret Baier.


BAIER: CNN reported at the time that you handed a two-page executive summary of the dossier over to him.


BAIER: Did not.


MACCALLUM: What do you make of that?

KING: It seems to me these guys can't get their story straight. And that again -- I mean, to me that whole interview with Bret Baier by the way it was amazing because Comey was saying things, yes, I just know it's not true. They're contradicting, as he said before. Also, his lack of knowledge. And now, this, the confusion -- whether it's him, whether it's Clapper, whether it's somebody in CNN. The fact is that this as a whole dark period in American intelligence. What happened between December 6th and January 20th, was really shameful. On behalf of the intelligence community, and I put Brennan and Clapper in the center of that. Comey, I'm not sure what his role was in all of this. I think it was a good but I do know -- I feel very skeptical about Brennan and Clapper.

MACCALLUM: Do you feel like I.G. is going to get to the bottom of this?

KING: The I.G. should -- so far, from all I know about the I.G. Horowitz, he does a great job. He certainly, did an excellent job with Andrew McCabe, and he's going to continue to do it. And also, I think the Justice Department -- the Justice Department should look at this really, to me, when it comes to Clapper, that clear contradiction in testimony.

MACCALLUM: All right. Peter King, Congressman, thank you very much. Always good to see you. Thanks for being here.

KING: Martha, thank you.

MACCALLUM: Joining me now, Joe diGenova, a Trump Legal Confidante and former Federal Prosecutor, and Former Independent Counsel; and Philippe Reines, a former Senior Advisor to Hillary Clinton. Welcome, gentlemen, good to have you all here.



MACCALLUM: I just want to play this one sound bite from President Trump when he spoke to "FOX & FRIENDS" last week with regards to the Justice Department.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, I'm very disappointed in my Justice Department. But because of the fact it's going on and I think you'll understand this, I have decided that I won't be involved. I may change my mind at some point because what's going on is a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace.


MACCALLUM: Joe, what did you make of that comment?

DIGENOVA: Well, I think the president is frustrated -- and he should be. I think what's going to happen, Martha, apropos of Comey's comments and Clapper's a parent lying, is that John Huber, who's been appointed to investigate the unmasking and the FISA illegality will be investigating all of the things that we just talked about. And in fact, the grand jury subpoenas will issue from Mr. Comey, Mr. Clapper, and Mr. Brennan. But pending that grand jury's subpoenas, those subpoenas, I think Mr. Clapper, and Mr. Comey, and Mr. Brennan should have their security clearances revoked until such time as the grand jury and Justice Department make determinations about their responsibility. I think their conduct from disclosed information shows that they have violated the standards for maintaining a security clearance and the current director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, should revoke all of their security clearances pending the grand jury outcome.

MACCALLUM: Philippe, what do you think about that?

REINES: Well, I think a couple of things. First, I agree with Congressman King when he says this is a very dark period of American intelligence in the sense that in the last 15 months, it's become very politicized, and I just don't think that that's good for America. But I want to look at what President Trump just said. He said "my Justice Department." And you know what, that's key. For 15 months now, he has been president. Attorney General Sessions is his appointee, the deputy attorney general, the FBI director, they're all his appointees. So, this notion on the one hand that he is being persecuted by them, which is something that Mr. diGenova believes, and believes he's being framed. And on other hand, he's in charge of the place, just doesn't make sense. If it were Hillary Clinton as president, and me as a White House advisor, and Chelsea Clinton as attorney general, I'd understand the notion of, like, oh, they can't be fair, they're picking on me. But I just I don't understand it now.

MACCALLUM: Joe, what do you say to that?

DIGENOVA: Well, I think the president's frustration stems from the fact that the appointment of Mr. Mueller was something that, in my opinion, never should have occurred because when Mr. Rosenstein appointed him, there was no evidence of a crime. And indeed, he mentioned no crime in the appointment papers. I do think that what's going to happen now is that the people at the Justice Department are doing their jobs. They've sent it out to Mr. Huber who has what now will be the single most important investigation of all. Because, I agree with Philippe that these -- those 15 months have been just awful. And I will tell you this, I think the worst part of an American intelligence and law enforcement came on July 5th 2016, when James Comey usurped the functions of the attorney general. That was the darkest day in American law enforcement in 100 years.

MACCALLUM: That is what the inspector general is looking into in terms of that part of the investigation. I do want to ask you both the question about this Nobel Prize, because we talked about the award that CNN was given for putting the Steele dossier into the lexicon the other night. And there's a suggestion by the president of South Korea that President Trump - - he said, President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. The only thing we need is peace. Philippe, what do you think about that? Do you think he should be considered for that?

REINES: He could be considered. I don't know what to say -- I do want to say because I'll never get a chance to say it again that I wholeheartedly agree with Joe diGenova on what he said about Jim Comey's behavior on July 5th, 2016. But on the Nobel, look, I think what's happening with North Korea is important. Let's let it play out. I don't think anyone is doing this for the prize. But, you know, I don't have --

MACCALLUM: I mean, it's certainly jumping the gun. I think anybody would say that. But you know, it certainly reminds people of perhaps when the Nobel committee jumped the gun and giving one to President Obama. He said that it was -- he thought it was too soon, but he said it was given, they gave it to him because he was trying to lower the temperature in terms of nuclear war in the world. And Joe, it looks like the president is making some, at least some progress for that.

DIGENOVA: The president has changed the paradigm and has made great success and momentum right now in North Korea. Let's all keep our fingers crossed. Nothing has been finally accomplished. But I must say, looking at it right now, we are at an amazing spot in the history of the relationship is between North and South Korea. And it's all because of Trump's aggressive agenda.

MACCALLUM: Well, it would be pretty hard for the committee not to consider it since the president of South Korea is the one who is suggesting that they should. That should be interesting to watch.

DIGENOVA: Of course.

REINES: I've been to the DMZ. I very much think he'd enjoy it. And that's where it should be.

MACCALLUM: I think they have an agreement on that.

REINES: The president tweeted it.

MACCALLUM: It's quite spectacular, and an amazing T.V. event to be sure. Thank you, guys.

DIGENOVA: That's where it belongs.

MACCALLUM: Thank you guys. Good to see you both. So, coming up tonight, the controversial comments that you haven't heard from the White House Correspondents' Dinner.


MICHELLE WOLF, COMEDIAN AND WRITER: Mike Pence is also very anti-choice. He thinks abortion is murder. Which, first of all, don't knock it until you try it.


MACCALLUM: I don't know what to say about that. Ben Shapiro is just one of those who are outraged by that so-called joke. He's going to be here with his very unique take on what happened. Plus, the standoff at the border as hundreds of illegals say that they are not going anywhere until they are granted asylum. Jason Chaffetz and Immigration Attorney Francisco Hernandez, on what needs to happened next.


TRUMP: We are a nation of laws. We have to have borders. If we don't have borders, we don't have a country.




MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've been watching with great interest the advance of the so-called caravan. And are grateful for the efforts, particularly of this weekend, that or border patrol has been making in ensuring that those some 150 individuals who are still part of the caravan are dealt with in a manner consistent with the law, and that our laws are enforced. A nation without borders is not a nation, as the president has said many times.


MACCALLUM: Vice President Mike Pence in Calexico, California where part of the border wall is being built a hundred mile away in a different spot along the Mexico border is this a showdown that was so dramatic over the weekend. You can see everybody just camped out there. That is the migrant caravan that he mentioned in a holding pattern tonight as they try to seek asylum in the United States. Jaime Chambers of our Fox affiliate is live at the sight in San Ysidro, California. Hi, Jaime. Good evening.

JAIME CHAMBERS, FOX5 REPORTER: Martha, we're looking at behind us is the west pedestrian entry. These are a lot of folks that are waiting, trying to determine what's going to happen with all these immigrants. A lot of these people are also waiting for their friends that are just on the other side of the border. A lot of these are commuters that walked through what they described is a refugee-like status for those immigrants who have traveled for over a month just to get to the really footsteps of a San Diego. So many people are trying to figure out exactly how they can seek asylum, get in there. But on Sunday night, when they got here, all of the beds, the 319 beds here for the border patrol were completely filled up, so the process is certainly being delayed, if not stopped. We're still waiting to see when this process will start in earnest. Speaking of the people that walked through these folks, there's a lot of empathy, a lot of sympathy with the plight that they are dealing with. All of them saying that they would try to do exactly the same thing, try to get to the United States, and try to celebrate some sort of new life from the countries they're coming through. But a lot also people understanding that these are rules and laws, the United States government that make sure that they have a process in telling some of those folks to go back to the embassies from their countries and start the process legally. Everybody here in San Diego trying to determine exactly what will happen next. From San Ysidro, I'm Jaime Chambers, Fox News.

MACCALLUM: Jaime, thank you very much. So, just a short while ago, President Trump tweeted this, "The migrant caravan that is openly defying our border shows how weak and ineffective U.S. immigration laws are. Yet, Democrats like Jon Tester continue to support the open borders agenda -- Tester even voted to protect sanctuary cities. We need lawmakers who will put America first." The president going after Jon Tester for a number of reasons over the past few days including the Ronny Jackson situation. Here now, Jason Chaffetz, former Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a Fox News Contributor; and Francisco Hernandez, is an Immigration Attorney. I think one of the things to lay out here is that this is not -- these are people seeking asylum. And there is a process to seek asylum. So, they have to wait in line until they can go through that process. Right, Jason?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Yes. I mean, they can claim asylum and go to United States embassy in their country of origin. And there is this principle of say, third country, where they don't get the caravan country to country and state to state, and then go figure out where they want to go. When you're trying to escape the oppression, then you need to stop where you are free of that oppression.

MACCALLUM: Yes, Francisco, what do you say about that? Because, you know, they came mostly from Honduras. Once they got into Mexico, they were free of the oppression that they were under according to them in their situation, in their application, in Honduras and Guatemala?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: No. Actually, no, because Mexico doesn't have a political asylum process like we do. What we're talking about is these folks are trying to apply to come here illegally. The problem with applying at the embassy in Honduras is if they're turned away, we are turning them away to the very same people that are prosecuting them or are going to kill them -- narco-trafficker, the cartels. The problem is that neither country can admit that Honduras cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Or we would have to let everyone in.


CHAFFETZ: Everybody wants to come here. It's the greatest country on the face of the planet. But we have a million people -- a million people, legally and lawfully, come to this country, and we're failing the people that are trying to do it legally and lawful, and they just want to go through the door.

HERNANDEZ: No, but there is no process where these folks can apply to come here other than knock on the door. And that is -- look, they could try to pay a smuggler to cross them with a tunnel or a tall ladder, but the problem is they're trying to apply to come here legally. And --

MACCALLUM: Yes, but Francisco, that's what we're talking about, there is a process. There's 150 and 60 of them, and they're already processing some 300 people, as you just heard in the report. So, the fact of the matter is that you have to wait your turn, and then you have to go through the application process. And whatever percentage of them may actually be granted asylum based on their situation. And we know that they're, you know, being advised in terms of how to, you know, kind of worked that system. But, they are in the process.

HERNANDEZ: The proof is in the pudding. They're going to be able to have proof of the persecution. And about 75 percent of all Honduran applications are denied anyway. The question is: what are we going to do with them? But you have to go back to the fact that they're trying to apply to come here legally. If you don't like the asylum laws, then change them. I agree, President Trump will --

MACCALLUM: Jason, my question: why are they denied?

CHAFFETZ: Well, again, he makes a point there. They changed the law.

HERNANDEZ: Because they don't have proof.

CHAFFETZ: But the law happens to be working. These people want to break the law. That's the problem. And they can go to the United States embassy in Honduras. That's where they should do it.

HERNANDEZ: You cannot apply at the United States embassy in Honduras! You cannot.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, you can.

HERNANDEZ: They will not let them apply! You can't. Because you've got to be able to get in the door. Here, they're knocking on the door to apply here legally. Can you all not get the point? You guys want them to obey the law, they're trying to obey the law. Now, we don't like the laws of political asylum, so let's change it.

CHAFFETZ: How could we change them?

MACCALLUM: It sound to me like they're going to have to wait their turn to go see the process, and that's what's happening. So, we're going to watch it playout. I got to leave it there, you guys, we're short of time. Thank you very much.

HERNANDEZ: That's what they are doing. So why are we complaining?

MACCALLUM: Thank you, both. Thank you. So, we are less than 24 hours away from the Fox News West Virginia GOP senate primary debate. Coming up, I will talk to two of the three men vying to get on the ballot in November. They all want to run against Joe Manchin and try to beat him in West Virginia. Congressman Evan Jenkins and Attorney General Patrick Morrisey are on the show coming up in just a little bit. Plus, new signs that the president and Kim Jong-un and the meeting is going to happen as both men seem to sort of soften their rhetoric. Senator Lindsey Graham up next on that.


TRUMP: If it's not a success, if it's not a -- they've got to get rid of the nuclear weapons. If it's not a success, I will respectfully leave.



MACCALLUM: Very big development today on President Trump's upcoming meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and where it might take place.


TRUMP: We're looking at various countries including Singapore, and we are also talking about the possibility of the DMZ. I think that some people may be, don't like the look of that, and some people like it very much. I threw it out today as an idea. There's something that I like about it because you are there. You're actually there. If things work out, there's a great celebration to be had on the site, not in a third-party country.


MACCALLUM: Interesting, right? This is North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, begin to soften his tone, telling South Koreans this, "I know the Americans are inherently disposed against us, but when they talk with us, they will see that I'm not the kind of person who will shoot nuclear weapons to the south, over the Pacific, or at the United States." So, the guy who was once dubbed "little rocket man" by Trump may actually be speaking the language of a peacemaker, at least at this point. Earlier this evening, I sat down with South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Armed Services and Judiciary Committee. Watch.


MACCALLUM: First of all, on the location, do you agree with President Trump, the DMZ is the place to do this?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R—S.C.: The war has never ended. And it reminds that we're still in a state of -- you know, hostilities have never ended. I like the idea of being where the armistice was signed is where you end the war. And you've got to remember, if this doesn't work out, peace or war is not your option. There is no middle ground.

MACCALLUM: If this does not work out is what the president has talked about. He said, I will meet with him. If he doesn't give us what we want which is a real guarantee, a verifiable guarantee that they are denuclearize. Not that they will, right?

GRAHAM: Right.

MACCALLUM: That's the deal.

GRAHAM: Well, Kim Jong Un's playing with fire. If he wants to meet with Trump and he doesn't deliver, and he tries to play Trump like his family has played other presidents, that's the worst possible thing he can do, because this president is serious about making sure they could never have a nuclear weapon to hit the homeland. I think signing a peace treaty for giving up North Korean nukes makes sense. He should get the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump, if that happens. But don't play Trump. We're going to play nice with North Korea. If he try to play this guy, you'll regret it.

MACCALLUM: Can he get some kind of protection promise because he looks at what happened to Gaddafi.

GRAHAM: Right.

MACCALLUM: And that's a real concern for this dear leader.

GRAHAM: The dear leader has a choice to make. Before he thought the best place to survive is to have a nuclear weapon that can hit America, then we'll leave him alone? Then along comes Trump, says I'll never let you have that capability. Now, the only he can survive is to give up his nuclear weapons with an understanding we're going to end the war, sign a peace treaty between us, South Korea, China and the United States. We're not going to invade North Korea, but have a treaty recognizing them as a separate country, try to normalize relationships, and for that you have to get out your nukes. And I think that's a good deal for everybody.

MACCALLUM: I do want to play something else for you. This is Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, today. Let's watch.


BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER: The Iran deal, the nuclear deal, is based on lies. It's based on Iranian lies and Iranian deception. And, in a few days' time, President Trump will decide, will make a decision on what to do with the nuclear deal. I'm sure he'll do the right thing, the right thing for the United States, the right thing for Israel, and the right thing for the peace of the world.


MACCALLUM: So, he says there's new evidence that they have continued elements of the program. This is from Javad Zarif, the foreign minister in Iran. He says President Trump is jumping on a rehash of old allegations already dealt with by the IAEA to nix the deal. How convenient. Coordinated timing by allege intelligence revelations by the boy who cries wolf just days before May 12th, but Trump's impetuousness to celebrate blue the cover.

GRAHAM: Well, number one, if you've asked the Iranians today, in the past, have you tried to build a nuclear weapon, they'll say no, they're liars. You don't build power plants at the bottom of a mountain. They had a nuclear program. They were testing weapons, a detonation device on a military base. Their whole program was to get a nuclear weapon. And what would they do with it? They've been lying about their ambitions toward a nuclear weapon. But they're not lying about what they would do. They write on to their missiles, death to Israel, death to America. You've got to understand that the ayatollah is a religious Nazi. The Iranian people are very cultured. They can be our friends, they could be our ally. This guy is a religious fanatic. The day that we voted on the nuclear deal in the senate, he tweeted out, Allah willing, the Zionist state will not exist 25 years from now. So, BiBi has called him out. He's a liar. And Trump understands the deal as -- is terrible for Israel, the Arabs, and us. If I were the president, I would get out if I could not get a better deal.

MACCALLUM: So, do you think there's any appetite in Washington to redo this deal in a bipartisan way?



GRAHAM: Trump had said three things need to change to make it a good deal. You can expect anywhere in Iran, including their nuclear bases, so they can't deny us access to military bases. Their missile program has to be part of the deal. And the sunset clause, 15 years from now all the inspectors leave Iran and they can march toward a nuclear weapon without cheating. You've got to change those three things. The one thing that I would say to my Democrat colleagues, you may have done this in good faith, you assumed that if we relieved sanctions and did a deal with Iran they would be a better nation. They have captured our sailors on the high sea and humiliated them since the deal. They test fired weapons and missiles in violation of the U.N. resolution. They have dismembered Syria. They've taken over Yemen. They constantly threat Israel -- threaten Israel. They've given Hezbollah 160,000 rockets. Everything they've done with the money since the deal shows that they don't want peace, that they really have a war agenda.

MACCALLUM: But, very quickly, you think there are Democrats who will come to the table on that?

GRAHAM: Chris Coons said he thought the president was right to make these three changes. Some ought to reach out to Democrats on this show. If you will get behind the president's desire to change this deal and vote for a new deal, I will work with you to ask the president to give them 90 more days instead of withdrawing on May the 12th. If I can get Democrats to support the idea the deal needs to be change, I would ask the president to give us 90 days, Pompeo, 90 days after May 12 to see if the Europeans can come on board, to the French. You say it's insane to get out of the deal, I say it's insane to stay in the way it is.

MACCALLUM: Senator Lindsey Graham, thank you, sir. Always good to see you.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Here's a question for you. Is this a joke?


MICHELLE WOLF, COMEDIAN: Mike Pence is also very anti-choice. He thinks abortion is murder, which, first of all, don't knock it till you try it.


MACCALLUM: Wow. Ben Shapiro says that that is just plain evil. And he's here to tell you what he things after what happened on Saturday night. Plus, ahead of tomorrow's Fox's West Virginia GOP senate primary debate, candidate's Congressman Evan Jenkins and Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, two of the three both here with what to expect.



DON BLANKENSHIP, FORMER CEO OF MASSEY COAL COMPANY: I think I'm behind in the polls because Senator McConnell has got a Super PAC that's running, I think, half a million dollars' worth of ads against me, but, you know, we were even before that. And before Election Day we'll be (INAUDIBLE).


MACCALLUM: A lot of money pouring into this race. That was former Massey Coal CEO, Don Blankenship, on Friday here on The Story. He's one of three candidates who made the cut for tomorrow's big Fox News, West Virginia primary debate hosted by yours truly and Bret Baier, live from Morgantown, West Virginia, at 6:30 PM tomorrow night. The candidates decided by Fox polling those who are 10 percent or above are going to be part of that, and you'll see the three of them pictured there. Don Blankenship will be joined on the stage tomorrow night by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, and West Virginia Congressman Evan Jenkins. And we begin tonight with Congressman Evan Jenkins. Sir, welcome. It's good to have you with us tonight. We're going to have time for a lot of questions.

CONG. EVAN JENKINS, R--WEST VIRGINIA: It's great to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you. I'm glad you're here. We're going to have time for a lot more questions tomorrow night. So, I have just a couple of quick one for you this evening that will give everybody a sort of a preview. I think one of the things that's most interesting is that you and Morrisey are really going at each other pretty hard in this campaign. And you seem to, sort of, ignoring Don Blankenship a bit. I guess you feel like the Republicans are taking care a lot of ads against him. But here's one that you just ran. Let's play about ten seconds of this.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Pat Morrisey betrayed Donald Trump, scheming again Trump's campaign and West Virginia, denying our choice for president. Morrisey refused to support Trump over Hillary.


MACCALLUM: All right. So, you know that Patrick Morrisey is fighting back. He doesn't like that ad at all. And here's what he said, he said that your campaign Photoshop his photo with Donald Trump and substituted it with Hillary, who he said he's always strongly opposed and he wants to know if you'll be called out for lying, dishonesty, and where is the accountability. What you say about that ad, Congressman Jenkins?

JENKINS: Well, Patrick Morrisey needs to be honest with the people of West Virginia. You know, Patrick Morrisey didn't even vote for Donald Trump in the primary. He was the delegate to the national convention, would not commit for about 2.5 months. He was a never-Trumper. And he's now being surrounded by all those other folks who are never-Trumpers in the 2016 race. So, Patrick Morrisey has not been a trusted supporter of Donald Trump. I have been. When they were throwing Donald Trump under the bus on October right before the November election, Patrick Morrisey was really denying any affiliation with Donald Trump.


JENKINS: Donald Trump, our president, needs a trusted partner and I am that.

MACCALLUM: And we're going to hear from Mr. Morrisey in a moment. We'll give him a chance to respond to that. But, you know, the obvious question for you then becomes, you used to be a Democrat, so what changed your mind? Why did you become a Republican after being a Democrat, I think a couple of times?

JENKINS: Well, you know what? West Virginia has lead -- West Virginia voted for Donald Trump overwhelmingly. Patrick Morrisey actually stood next to me four years ago and endorsed my candidacy for the U.S. Congress. My past didn't bother him back then when he endorsed me and said I was great for West Virginia to represent them in Washington. What's change since Patrick Morrisey now has been abandoning his attorney general.

MACCALLUM: Sir, I'm just asking about you. I was asking why your change of heart, why did you switch from being a Democrat to Republican?

JENKINS: Because I'm the true West Virginian. I'm the West Virginia story, standing up for what we believe. Barack Obama was devastating to West Virginia. He put literally tens and thousands of coal miners out of work, tried to infringe on our second moment, believe abortion on demand, it's outrageous. I can't be a part of that. I'm proud to be a Republican, proud to be a conservative, proud to be the only one in this race who actually supported Donald Trump and is working with him each and every day.

MACCALLUM: All right, Congressman Jenkins, thank you very much. Just a preview of what we're going to see tomorrow night. Thank you for being here. And we look forward to seeing you tomorrow night on the big stage. And now, we have West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is also a candidate for the West Virginia senate race. And I just want to tell everybody at home that we have a little bit of delay in his signal, so there's going to be a little hesitation between my questions and your answer. But, first of all, you know, what do you say to Evan Jenkins who you just heard? He said that you wouldn't come around. You never supported President Trump during the 2016 election, and didn't vote for him.

PATRICK MORRISEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL WEST VIRGINIA: Well, I think, most West Virginians know that Evan Jenkins is just really stretching the truth at a level that he couldn't possibly imagine. First, I was a member of the Electoral College that supported Donald Trump. Evan Jenkins can't say that. And that position is actually reserved for those who are really trusted to vote for the president. So, not only did I vote for him for Electoral College, I voted for him at the convention. I did ads paring myself to him in the 2016 campaign. What you really have here is a very desperate candidate, Evan Jenkins, that his liberal background is being exposed. Evan Jenkins was for Planned Parenthood, for gun control. He stumped for John Kerry, rallied for Hillary Clinton, supported Nancy Pelosi. This is a very liberal background.

And I think as more West Virginians are learning about my conservative record, standing up for the unborn, most people need to know I'm the only endorsed candidate in this race by West Virginians for life, and the second amendment groups, and all the conservatives are coalescing behind my candidacy. As that happens, I think Evan Jenkins is just getting very desperate making up a lot of lies. I think Fox did a very good job earlier today calling Evan Jenkins out on photo shopping an ad when -- meanwhile, Evan Jenkins is the one who rallied for Hillary Clinton. So, I think people are seeing through his nonsense. And I think that next Tuesday we're looking forward to having a good win if the people of West Virginia grant it to us.

MACCALLUM: So, obviously, you guys are going at each other pretty hard. I think everybody just got a taste of that and they're going to see quite a bit more of it tomorrow night, as the very intense battle going on in West Virginia. But neither one of you two seem to be talking about Don Blankenship. Why is that?

MORRISEY: Well, look, I think right now I'm putting forth my positive conservative vision for the state of West Virginia. I think what you're seeing out of both Don Blankenship and Evan Jenkins are a lot of the attack ads. We had a lot of positive ads up. We have some contrast as well. But, I'm emphasizing my record because I'm the only one in the race that has the proven conservative record and the conservative endorsements. I think late last week when Senator Ted Cruz come on board, Senator Rand Paul, obviously, all the major conservative leaders in the state are rallying behind my candidacy. That's why we're able to project a very positive vision that Evan Jenkins and Don Blankenship can't.

MACCALLUM: We will see.

MORRISEY: Blankenship has a very deep liberal past and he's not able to get away from it.

MACCALLUM: I've got to jump in because we're out of time. But I promise you, you will get more time tomorrow night and we really look forward to having you all on stage. All of these gentlemen hope to beat Joe Manchin, and turn West Virginia into a Republican senate state, so we'll see how that turns out. Thank you, gentlemen, to you both. Don't miss it, tomorrow night, West Virginia senator debate. Me, Bret, it's going to be a big deal starting at 6:30, and then it will crossover into 'The Story' from 7:00 to 7:30 tomorrow night. It's going to be fun. Looking forward to it. All right. So, did you see what happened over the weekend? I mean, really, nothing was left sacred at the White House Correspondents Dinner. I was about 10 feet away from where all of that happened. But, the jokes that you really haven't heard too much about today was one on abortion, if you can believe it or not. And a nice evening, supposedly, out in Washington. Our next guest, Ben Shapiro, editor in chief of The Daily Wire, had some thoughts on all this and he is my guest, next.


WOLF: I know a lot of you are very anti-abortion. You know, unless it's the one you got for your secret mistress.


MACCALLUM: Breaking news just moments ago, hot off his visit with the leaders of France and Germany, President Trump has now delayed his decision on steel and aluminum tariffs for the E.U. and other allies until June 1st. And, he is attempting to finalize the deal with South Korea in the trade front as well. So, a bit of a breathing room for Europe in regards to the steel tariffs. We'll keep you posted on that as we get more.

And the thought from Michelle Wolf's roast, if you could call it that, at the White House Correspondents dinner has been mainly focused on the insults directed toward Sarah Sanders, and a lot of intention, rightfully so, has been given to that, but what about the controversial so-called jokes about abortion? Watch this.


WOLF: Mike Pence is also very anti-choice. He thinks abortion is murder. Which, first of all, don't knock it till you try it. And when you do try it, really knock it. You know. You've got to get that baby out of there. And, yeah, sure, you can ground all you want. I know a lot of you are very anti-abortion, you know, unless it's the one you got for your secret mistress. It's fun how values can waiver, but good for you.


MACCALLUM: Wow. I don't remember that many people laughing as I heard on that track, but I don't know where they were in the room. But, anyway, my next guest wasn't laughing. Ben Shapiro joins me now, editor-in-chief of That one kind of got lost in the -- all of the talk about this, Ben, but I know it didn't get lost on you.

BEN SHAPIRO, DAILYWIRE.COM EDITOR IN CHIEF: Yeah, I mean, I thought that was the most egregious joke of the night. I mean, it's one thing to go after members of the administration in even the most egregious fashion and that happen, but I was really more troubled by the fact that there was a lot of people in audience laughing about a woman openly joking about killing a baby. Essentially saying openly that it was about killing of babies, right? The joke was saying that you need to knock the baby hard to get it out of there. Now, a joke is a joke, but I'm not sure where the humor in that lies. And I don't think I'm just being humorless. I mean, I think some of the other jokes that she told, believe it or not, were kind of funny. That one I didn't think was funny at all. And, again, the fact that she was saying that, you know, don't knock abortion -- they've tried - - substitute slavery for abortion in there and see how funny it is. Don't knock slavery until you tried it. And really, when you knock it, knock it hard because black people aren't really people. It's very awkward and terrible, obviously, and evil. And so, it's amazing so many folks on the left seems OK with that.

MACCALLUM: It was such an awful and strange moment, and it did prompt some people for them to walk out, and other people to laughed, as everybody heard on the track. But it's liberating, apparently, for some because Kathy Griffin said that, you know, she's tired of being nice, she's tired of the fact that she apologize for President Bush for, you know, the severed head thing. Here she is.


UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's been a year this month since that picture was released.



UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: By the way, I take the apology back. (BLEEP)



MACCALLUM: Yeah, I meant to say apologize to Trump. But what did you think about that, Ben?

SHAPIRO: Well, obviously, Kathy Griffin has been a charmer for a very long time. It's not really shocking.

MACCALLUM: She's so charming.

SHAPIRO: The fact that Kathy Griffin is taking it back. Look, the only person who really did well the other night was Michelle Wolf, because we're still talking about her on Monday, and she knows that. She knows that Stephen Colbert did this really nasty routine in 2005 about President Bush, and now the guy has David Letterman's old spot. And she figures that -- while there's going to be a lot of nastiness towards her, you have people who are angry at her right now, she will outlive it, the left will defend her and, eventually, she'll be seen as someone who spoke truth to power in front of the most powerful people in the world. Even though -- I'm sorry, but speaking in front of a bunch of leftist journalists at a cocktail party is not exactly social media type stuff.

MACCALLUM: Yeah, I mean, nobody really cares, in most America, what goes on at that dinner, that's for sure. But, you know, you look at these dinners and you wonder, you know, sort of, what happened to roasting? I mean, in my mind, roasting is sort of acerbic embrace. It supposed to make everybody feel like they get the funny things that are annoying about each other. Roasting is an art. But that is not what we would saw on Saturday night.

SHAPIRO: That's right. And, again, you know, if she wants to roast members of the Trump administration, you can't get up and say anything back like Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I think it's pretty nasty. By the same token for the White House to complain about, you know, a nasty comment when President Trump had said some things, I think is a little bit ridiculous. But, at the exact same time for the media to rip on President Trump for the stuff he's said and to defend Michelle Wolf for the stuff she said, that double standard is exactly the same sort in reverse.


MACCALLUM: So, I'm leaving in the morning on a jet plane on my way to West Virginia, Bret Baier and I will be hosting the senate debate. And, boy, based on tonight I think it's going to be pretty interesting. So, we will see you then. Tucker in D.C.

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.