Bolton on replacing McMaster as national security adviser

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 22, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Well, sometimes timing works out your way, Chris. We're looking forward to it. Thank you very much, Chris Wallace, in Washington. As we get started with this Fox News Alert tonight, General H.R. McMaster is out as National Security Adviser. Former U.N. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton will be his replacement in early April. Ambassador Bolton will join us in moments to speak about this very breaking news tonight, as he has just been announced in his position. Also breaking this evening, investigators in Austin now hunting for a motive, looking closely at a target list that they have found of future addresses that bomber, Mark Conditt, was looking to strike.


MARY CONDITT, AUNT OF AUSTIN BOMBER: He was at my Christmas table. He was a great kid. He was mart. He was loving. He was kind. I have no idea who this person is.

JEFF REED, NEIGHBOR OF AUSTIN BOMBER: It's extremely confusing and I don't make anything of it because it just is -- it doesn't make sense. And I suppose this type of thing never does.

BRIAN MANLEY, AUSTIN POLICE CHIEF: I know everybody is interested in a motive and understanding why, and we're never going to be able to put a ration behind these acts.


MACCALLUM: So, why do killings with no motives appear to be multiplying in America? The anguish search for what triggers the desire to kill total strangers, including as we remember too well what happened in Las Vegas. Tonight, we now have this chilling just-released video of the killer in the days before the largest mass shooting in American history. Looking, acting, pretty much like any other gambler or tourist going in and out of Las Vegas. Except for this one thing: throughout these pictures and videos, he's methodically loading 21 different suitcases over time into the elevators at Mandalay Bay and setting up a killing field from the 32nd floor. All the while, you can see happy concert-goers and other people in Vegas arriving for what they hoped would be a weekend of music and good times.


JOSEPH LOMBARDO, LAS VEGAS SHERIFF: There was only one person responsible and that was Stephen Paddock. This report is not going to answer every question or even answer the biggest question as to why he did what he did and whether we are ever going to find out why he did what he did.


MACCALLUM: Why did he do what he did? And the same question tonight in Austin as family and neighbors are in shock. The ones little boy who played in their yard, now meticulously constructing and then planting bombs that were designed to blow up in the faces of innocent people in his neighborhood. Ed Davis, served as Boston Police Commissioner, he has thoughts tonight on both of these cases. He oversaw the Boston marathon bombing investigation. But first, Jeff and Nancy Reed, long-time neighborhood of the Conditt family, who are trying to figure out tonight what turned 23-year-old, Mark, into a serial bomber. Good to have you with us, Mr. and Mrs. Reed. You know, I would imagine that when you even hear me say that sentence, you're wondering what the heck you're doing sitting here talking about this tonight, Nancy.


MACCALLUM: Tell me about him. Tell me how you saw him.

N. REED: I saw him and I still see him as the little 5-year-old boy who moved next door, who I was so glad to see move in because it gave my grandson a playmate. And you know, for the next ten years they -- Mark, his little sister, and my grandson just had an ideal life, time together growing up.

MACCALLUM: Jeff, what can you tell us about the family and what they're going through now?

J. REED: Well, I can't honestly imagine what they're going through. It's -- they're a really nice, caring, great neighbors. They were helpful to us. And, you know, they spent a lot of time with their kids with activities as they growing up -- sports, different things.

MACCALLUM: Jeff, let me ask you, if I could interject, have you spoken -- have either of you spoken to the family since this happened?

N. REED: yes.

J. REED: Yes, briefly.

MACCALLUM: Nancy, what did they say?

N. REED: When I first spoke to them yesterday morning, the authorities had not been there to confirm that it was Mark that had done this. And they were absolutely -- they knew what they knew from a reporter and from television, and just -- they were in disbelief. And Mark's dad, just like I would be, did not want to believe that this could possibly be his son. It was, you know, it's beyond belief for them.

MACCALLUM: But was there ever anything unusual? Any indication that you picked up on that he was troubled? Because when we listened to the sheriff last night, he said that Mark had recorded an electronic message 25 minutes long. And he said, what was clear from it, was that he wasn't a terrorist in the way that we sort of think of that today. And that he was not -- it was not a hate crime, because originally there was discussion that maybe he was targeting people of different ethnic backgrounds. But then, he was troubled, that he was very challenged and very troubled.

N. REED: Well, I can definitely say they're not a racist family. So, I don't think in anything was racially motivated. And as far as any signs, you know, he was a quiet kid. Very, very smart. Intelligent. And just, you know -- they just did the normal things kids do -- they built tree houses, they built forts, they played on the play scape. They were always outside. And the Conditts are everything you'd want in a parent. You know, they -- you hear, like, kids and these violent movies, violent games -- those kids didn't grow up with that.

MACCALLUM: He was home-schooled, correct?

N. REED: Yes, yes.

MACCALLUM: But you said that he made an effort to -- they made an effort to make sure that he was socializing with other kids, right?

N. REED: Oh, absolutely. They were part of a home-school community. And they had, you know, like baseball teams and once they were in the upper grades, like, you know, as a senior, they had proms.

MACCALLUM: Seems so normal.

N. REED: So, he was socialized.

MACCALLUM: Jeff, is there anything when you look back, you think, anything? Anything that crops up in your mind as maybe some indication that something wasn't right?

J. REED: You know, I've had some time to think about it and absolutely nothing comes to mind. And you know, granted we knew him as a kid and an early teenager, not so much as after he got out of high school.

MACCALLUM: Yes, along the way. I'm sure -- go ahead.

N. REED: Yes, absolutely something happened, and it's -- I can't put together that little boy with a person who did these horrible things. I just can't.

MACCALLUM: And I would imagine when we get to hear this statement, a lot of these questions are going to be answered. I got to thank both of you very much, Jeff and Nancy. It has been a tough week. Thanks for being here tonight.

N. REED: Yes, and I do want to say, it is a wonderful family. They are really, really good family.

MACCALLUM: As much as it does for these victims, they're all going through a horrific time.

N. REED: I'm so sorry for the victims.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, thank you so much. Good to talk to both of you tonight. So, here with more, Ed Davis, he was Boston's Police Commissioner during the 2014 marathon bombings and now a Fox News contributor. Ed, good to have you with us tonight. You know, you look at these, and you can't help but sort of look at Parkland and look this young man and look at this guy in Las Vegas who all these months later, we still don't know why. What was his motive? And it just raises questions, I think, about modern life, about America, about what if anything we can take away from the fact that nobody can seem to figure out why these people did what they did?

ED DAVIS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER BOSTON POLICE COMMISSIONER: It is striking, Martha, how normal these individuals are. When you look at that video from the hotel in Las Vegas, you've got a mild-mannered guy that was very relaxed in his dealings with people, even as he was moving these guns and bags of ammunition into his suite. You know, we talked to other police agencies to do profiling at airports and different cities across the world. And they have a list of things to look for. This guy exhibited none of those things. He was laid back, relaxed, not nervous, playing gambling games. And then, he goes upstairs and commits this atrocity. In the same similarity with this young man, he socialized, he got friends, he's playing baseball. And then, a few years later, he does what he does. Although, he described himself as a psychopath. And I think my friends in the forensic psychiatrist field will be working on this over the coming months and years, and we'll attribute some reason and meaning to what happened here. Even if it doesn't go to trial, even if the police aren't interested in it because the suspects are dead. I think you will see psychiatrists and researchers delving into this.

MACCALLUM: As you look at these investigations and, you know -- I mean, it's really striking, and we have this video, we can play it full and take a look at it. It's striking that we haven't seen this prior to now. I mean, there's been pretty much a tight lid on all of this, and I'll just tell people that as they watch, you know, this coming to view here, you can just see him sort of walking around, he's tipping the guy in the elevator, he's, you know, chatting with the person at the snack stand downstairs. But methodically, when you watch him bring in all of these bags in and out of this hotel and that doesn't raise any questions, apparently, from Mandalay Bay.

DAVIS: Right. That is a problem, clearly. These are indicators and with all the video surveillance and all the security people you have at these big hotels in Las Vegas, that is an issue that's going to have to be, not only examined but litigated.

MACCALLUM: Ed, thank you. Thanks for being here tonight. Good to see you.

DAVIS: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: And now back to the breaking news of the evening, this Fox News Alert: General H.R. McMaster, it has been discussed in recent weeks that, potentially, he might be on the way out. Tonight, we have an answer to this question. Ambassador John Bolton who will be taking over for him will join us live in just a moment and his first interview since that news broke within the last hour. We'll speak with him right after this.


MACCALLUM: Breaking just moments ago, the news that General H.R. McMaster, who is the second National Security Adviser for the Trump administration will be leaving that post in early April. Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, will be his replacement. Moments ago, President Trump, breaking the news -- as he often does -- about our next guest, sending out this tweet: 'I'm pleased to announce that effective April 9, Ambassador John Bolton will be my new National Security Adviser. I'm very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job and will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on April 9th.' Here now former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, former Fox News contributor. Good to have you here this evening, sir. Your reaction to your new job.


MACCALLUM: No, you're apparently.

BOLTON: Well, I didn't -- well, I haven't started there yet. So, that demonstrates I think the sort of limbo that I'm in, because I didn't really expect that announcement this afternoon. But it's obviously a great honor, it's always an honor to serve our country. And I think particularly in these times internationally, it's a particular honor. So, I'm still sort of getting used to it. And I'm sure it will take a little more getting used to.

MACCALLUM: You at the White House this afternoon, and the president offered you this position then or before then.

BOLTON: Well, it's -- it came to a conclusion this afternoon. And but as I say, there's still a transition. I look forward to working with H.R. and his team, and the other senior members of the president's team on national security. And I have no doubt there's a lot of work to do. And so, I'll be devoting myself to getting ready to fill in for H.R.

MACCALLUM: But let me ask you this, because one of the stories that was out this week in The Washington Post suggested that the president ignore the advice of someone who was involved in the national security conversation, not to congratulate Vladimir Putin when he spoke with him on the phone the other day. Is there any indication that that was the final catalyst that may have provoked this change?

BOLTON: No, I don't -- I have no idea about that. I will say, when I read about the leak of the notes and the subject of the conversation, I was outraged by it. I mean, it recalled earlier in the administration when somebody was leaking transcripts of the president's conversations with foreign leaders, it's completely unacceptable. You cannot conduct diplomacy, you cannot expect other foreign leaders to be candid and open in their conversations with the president if some munchkin in the executive branch decides they're going to leak the talking points to the transcript or any other aspect of it. And I think this is really a terrible reflection on the individual or individuals who did this. They should be ashamed of themselves. And I think whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, a Liberal or a Conservative, there ought to be unity on this point that leaking of that sort is simply unacceptable.

MACCALLUM: So, in terms of the substance of that discussion with Vladimir Putin, you know, your thoughts on the fact that the president did congratulate him on his election.

BOLTON: I don't consider it a significant point one way or the other, really. I've said congratulations to a lot of people of foreign diplomats and officials. It's a matter of being polite. The president had other subjects to bring up according to press reporting. I was not involved in any way in the preparations for it. The election just took place. And I think it's a matter of courtesy more than anything else.

MACCALLUM: Understood. Understood. But that aside, you know, I think in general, Ambassador Bolton, the way that you speak about Russia is quite a bit more hawkish than the way that the president does. In fact, you know, just in terms of being outspoken on this recent poisoning, you talked about the fact that chemical weapons poisons were used against Russians in London and that that is something that needs a very forceful response. What kind of response would you encourage the president to undertake as national security adviser?

BOLTON: Well, you know, in the 45 minutes or an hour since I understood the tweet went out, I've been trying to think about how to answer questions like that. So, I'll give you my first impression. You know, during my career, I've written, I don't know, how many articles and op-eds and opinion pieces I've given. I can't count the number of speeches. I've had countless interviews, maybe a majority of them on Fox in the past 11 years. They're all out there on the public record. I've never been shy about what my views are. But frankly, what I've said in private now is behind me, at least effective April 9th, and the important thing is what the president says and what advice I give him. So, with respect to the second part of your question, I don't think it's appropriate to tell you what advice I would give him. I mean, I think this is part of the difficulty of being in this limbo position tonight.

MACCALLUM: I understand that. You know, I was listening to the -- when the news broke, special report had their panel on. And you know, obviously, the questions that initially comes to mind are that you are obviously a person who is very strong-headed in your beliefs about things, it's gotten you into trouble in times in the past. There was one indication, you know, one indication, I think, on Twitter that said that you promised the president that you wouldn't start any fights. Is that true or is that the sort of mean that you want to come in the White House as more diplomatic that you've been seen in the past or are you going in there to shake things up?

BOLTON: You know, if I believe half of what I saw on Twitter, I probably withdraw from the world, which some people would prefer. Look, I have my views. I'm sure I'll have a chance to articulate them to the president. Some people don't like people who have substantive views. They're more processed oriented. But it's -- if the government can't have a free interchange of ideas among the president's advisers, then I think the president is not well-served and, you know, that's a view I've had -- that's the view I've had throughout government.

MACCALLUM: Well, let me ask you this with regard to that because -- you know, it seems as though the one person who, sort of, left is General Mattis who believes that the Iran deal should be maintained. You've made it very clear in your writings, in your interviews that you think that deal is an awful deal, that needs to be scrapped. Is he the odd man out now?

BOLTON: You know, for the reasons I just explained, I've said what I've said about the Iran deal before. I'm not sure I've ever met General Mattis. So, I'm not going to opine on what his views are, what he said to president in private or what discussions we may have the opportunity to have.

MACCALLUM: In terms of North Korea, do you believe that the president should sit down with Kim Jong-un? You have also said that the military option is very -- needs to be in the forefront, I guess, might be a fair way to say it from the statements that you've made, that it should absolutely never be off the table. Do you think you should meet with him?

BOLTON: You give a great interview. Same question, same answer.

MACCALLUM: All right. Understood, and I do appreciate the fact that you came in 45 minutes after this announcement was made. And that you are, as you say, in a bit of limbo. I guess, you know, just a big picture question for you. How do you see -- how do you want to have an impact on the White House in this job? You know, how do you see yourself changing perhaps the tenor of this administration, if you do?

BOLTON: Well, look, any president is entitled to have a national security decision-making structure the way he wants to have it, and the system is designed to be flexible. Different presidents have different approaches, different styles. But I think the consensus would be that the national security adviser among whatever other functions he or she might have has two critical roles: number one, making sure that the president has the full-range of options presented to him and to make the decisions that only the president can make, and that the options have to be presented in a way that gives the president the chance to weigh the pluses and minuses of all the options being presented. I think that's key.

And I think that is sometimes described as an honest broker role. I think the national security advisor, the president wants to hear his opinion, will give it as well. That's one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is when the president makes a decision, the national security adviser is, among others, but certainly one of the leading implementers of the decision, making sure that the bureaucracies out there get the decision and implement it. And I've been in lots of bureaucracies, and I've seen the way that bureaucracies that don't like decisions sit on them. So, I know my way around the corridors in Washington, and I think that role will also be important. So, those are the sort of two sides of the coin, I think, of the central role for the adviser.

MACCALLUM: So, what I'm hearing in that, and tell me if I'm wrong is that although you are an opinionated outspoken person, if the president does not want to take the advice that you're giving him, you will make sure that the White House is presenting a united front?

BOLTON: Absolutely. You know, Jim Baker, who taught me an awful lot about politics, about foreign affairs, used to end most discussions about things where clearly my suggestion wasn't going anywhere by saying, because, John, the guy who got elected doesn't want to do it. And I think that the rest of the bureaucracy needs to understand as well when the guy who got elected makes a decision, that's what the Constitution provides. And there's a famous story about Dean Atchison, the Secretary of State in the Truman administration, was asked by a reporter, maybe somebody like you, how is it that Atchison and President Truman had such a good working relationship? And Atchison said, basically, because neither the president, nor I, ever forgot who was president.

MACCALLUM: Well, this is an interesting president. And he does things in a very different way. There's discussion that if John Kelly does decide to leave that maybe the president wouldn't replace a chief of staff, maybe he would, you know, sort of run things more on his own. You think that would be a wise decision?

BOLTON: You know, if I were a completely private citizen, I might have a view on that. But I'm not sure that in the present circumstances I'm going to comment on that one either. Sorry.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you a more personal question then, because you're someone who over the years has entertained the idea of running for president at times, there was discussion that you would be considered as secretary of state at times during the construction of this administration. So, on a personal level, how do you feel about the job that you've been offered and what it means for you in your life and your future?

BOLTON: Well, it's still sinking in. So, I haven't thought about it a great deal.

MACCALLUM: But you clearly been thinking about it over the past few weeks, because I know you've made a few visits to the White House over the past few weeks and no doubt you've had conversations. I mean, you know, in terms of the way that you -- you know, the impact that you can have on America, on being in the White House, on being that close to the president. I know that you feel strongly about this president and his potential -- I know you've said you believe he has enormous potential. So, what do you think John Bolton can bring to the table?

BOLTON: I know, you've said more about my views than I have, which is an interesting observation. But look, you know, the national security adviser like all of the president's top advisers serve at his pleasure. And he may be a different kind of president than others, but I think that's what the people voted for, and that's the role I've been asked to take on that I sought certainly, and that I'm placed to have accepted it and honored to carry it out. We'll see what happens.

MACCALLUM: All right. I want to ask you one questions about the topic that we originally brought you on to talk about tonight, ambassador, because you've been -- I respect the fact that you are here tonight.

BOLTON: This is the longest interview on Fox that I've ever had and probably one where I've answered the fewest questions. So, congratulations, it's a mutual record, I'm sure.

MACCALLUM: We're working on it here. You know, in terms of the backup on appointments, and it's interesting because you also went through a very delayed appointment process for your ambassadorship to the U.N., which I believe ended up in a recess appointment in the Bush administration. So, you don't have to go through that process this time, but other people do and they're very backed up as you know. Rick Granell, who worked with you at the United Nations, is one of the people who was waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and the process is such that there have to be 60 hours of debate and discussion in the Senate, which is pretty hard to put together given the work week in the Senate. So, your thoughts on what can be done to make that procession move more quickly.

BOLTON: Well, I think the confirmation process is so far out of control, it is nothing like today what the framers of the constitution intended. I think the Senate rules are being grotesquely abused. And I think it just, it brings government to a grinding halt. Fundamentally, I think the Senate's role for executive branch nominee is different for judicial nominees because they have life tenure, really, not to be exercised because senators of the opposition party disagree with the philosophy of the incumbent president and the people he's trying to put in position. So, I think steps ought to be taken really to give people an up or down vote. If senators want to vote against them, that's obviously their prerogative. But have a vote, stand out in the rain, do what you're elected to do, don't hide in procedural delays.

MACCALLUM: John Bolton. Sir, very good to have you with us tonight. Obviously, a lot to talk about and we hope to continue the conversation as you move into this new very important position as you take on the next chapter of your life at the White House as the national security adviser, April 9th. Ambassador, thank you. Thank you very much for being here tonight.

BOLTON: Thanks very much for having me.

MACCALLUM: You bet. Joining me now, Bill Bennett, host of the Bill Bennett podcast, and also a Fox News contributor. Bill, welcome to you on another breaking news night on The Story. Where we brought time to talk about one thing, and now we're going to talk about John Bolton who, you know, clearly is in an interesting position tonight having just been offered this job. You worked in the White House, so your thoughts on this pick and this changing of the guards.

BILL BENNETT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, very interesting interview. Martha, Martha, you were relentless. I mean you.


MACCALLUM: Well, you know, he's in a tough position. It's interesting when you go from, you know, being a contributor and someone who talks very freely about his opinions.

BENNETT: I knew that.

MACCALLUM: And he's on the record on so many topics. But now, obviously, he's in a slightly different moment, but, yeah.

BENNETT: Well, like John Bolton, I'm a Fox News contributor, unlike him I'm going to stay at Fox News contributor. I've had three jobs in government, and after the announcement of each one I was told one thing, shut up, don't say anything. Anyway, I admired your tenacity and his. He's a very strong character with very strong views. As he said, it's a public record. His record on things is public. And interestingly, a different view of the world than Donald Trump's.


BENNETT: In terms of foreign policy, international policy. Interventionist, much more activist, much more engaged. Somewhat engaged in nation building. But, obviously, there's a connection on style. He's direct. He's strong. Trump likes that, admired that. And, you know, team of rival, a strong guy with a different point of view. Donald Trump says he likes to hear different points of views. Different points of views, he'll get one.

MACCALLUM: He certainly will. And, you know, it just makes you wonder because John Bolton is very outspoken. He is very hawkish on Russia. I don't know if he would agree with that characterization. But he, clearly, has been very outspoken on this most recent Russian poisoning that we've talked about. North Korea, he says a military option must be on the table in order to get somewhere in North Korea. So, really -- you know, you look around the globe and he is taken a different perspective than what we have heard from General Mattis. And you just wonder what that, you know, team of rivals is gonna produce.

BENNETT: No one has accused Donald Trump of lacking self-confidence. And when you have that kind of self-confidence that the president has, you don't fear someone with a different point of view. Though I'm not sure it is a different point of view. The fact that Donald Trump hasn't said things that people want him to say about Putin may not mean anything. You know, he feels he needs to negotiate with him. And he thinks, you know, the congratulations -- I agree with Bolton, it was pro forma. Congratulations are not policy. It's politeness, not policy, so we'll see. But I'm glad a strong guy is in there. By the way, the other thing is, John Bolton just knows a heck of a lot. He's truly very experienced in this and a great addition.

MACCALLUM: Very interesting. Interesting night. Bill Bennett, thank you, as always. Good to see you tonight.

BENNETT: You bet, you. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Thank you. So coming up next, Trump's top attorney, John Dowd, quits as the Mueller investigation heats up. So what does this mean for the president's legal strategy? Constitutional law attorney, Jonathan Turley, here on why he says Dowd's departure is not necessarily good news at the White House.



UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, would you like to testify to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, sir?



MACCALLUM: I would like to, said the president when asked that today. Maintaining that he wants to sit down and tell his side of the story on Russia. But the question is, if his lawyers will agree with him on that. A statement came shortly after President Trump's lead attorney in the Russia probe, John Dowd, resigned. Dowd did not want the president to speak to Mueller's team. He was a bit outnumbered in his contention on that. George Washington University law professor, Jonathan Turley, says the shakeup could signal a change in the Trump legal strategy. Writing in a new op-ed, quote, the combination of Dowd's resignation and the addition of Attorney Joseph diGenova is taken a sign of a more confrontational, combative approach by the Trump. If true, things could get demonstrably worse for the president. The greatest danger of a scoured-earth approach is when you're standing on that earth at the time. Constitutional law attorney, Jonathan Turley, joins me now. Jonathan, always good to see you. Thank you for being here tonight.


MACCALLUM: You know, it's interesting, I'm looking at the parallels between the conversation that I've just had with John Bolton, and the changes in this legal team, because you used the words full contact, that the president is entering into a full contact phase of this with the people he's bringing on board and, perhaps, the same could be said of his advisers at the White House as well.

TURLEY: I think that's right. I also think there's an analogy to a lack of communication. A sort of cool-hand-luke moment of -- what we have here is a failure to communicate. It does seem like there's been that failure with Dowd. Not always, I think, necessarily his fault. But he's had these public disconnects where his statements had to be pulled back or corrected. That really reflects a break down in the relationship to some extent. But the greater concern is whether we're going to see a significant change in strategy. Dowd -- while Dowd was against, reportedly, the president sitting down, because he was with Mueller, because he was afraid of a perjury trap.


TURLEY: He was also someone who advocated great cooperation with Mueller. Now, I've known Joe for many years. He's a very good lawyer. But he's a very aggressive lawyer. And he also takes a dim view of Mueller's investigation. I think the danger is that. If you try to take an aggressive approach at this time, it may play into the hands of Trump's critics. Mueller is not going to get spooked. You know, you don't spook a guy with a desk full of criminal subpoenas. He is going to pursue this as aggressively as the team itself may be in dealing with him.

MACCALLUM: You make a great point, which (INAUDIBLE). I'm sorry if I interrupted you. You talked about Roy Cohn and the president's relationship with him in New York, and that he was sort of raised as a businessman on a very confrontational approach when it came to business. You know, he said he never settled cases. He would always fight them head on. And it looks like he is falling -- you know, he's in that mode right now, it would appear, with these selections that he's making.

TURLEY: Well, I do think the president's view of lawyering was influenced heavily by Roy Cohn, who is a rather infamous figure, quite frankly. He ended up being disbarred. He died heavily in debt. But that is not what's called for her. The president has reportedly an offer on the table to speak to Mueller on four categories. Those categories are notable in major sense because they don't include a clear collusion category. There's a collusion light issue about the Trump Tower. I would actually be encouraged by those categories. They don't include Stormy Daniels, or the payments to any of these women. They don't appear to include the financial questions raised with the Moscow-Trump Tower. These were really seriously threatening subjects to go into an interview with. He could actually thread this needle. He could do those four categories, but he will have to be prepped, and he's going to have to listen to counsel, and he needs counsel that he communicates with. But it is a high risk strategy. False statements have always been the greatest threat for this president. But he could do this if he allows himself to be prepped and he stays close to that script.

MACCALLUM: Fascinating. I want to ask you one last question about the other side of the equation, those who are calling for a second special counsel to discuss the way that all of this was handled, the Hillary Clinton investigation, everything else. What has now come to light is a little-bit more information on the suggestion that James Clapper was misleading in his testimony to the house intel committee when he talked about his leaks, you know, or his decision to share information, however you want to put it, with CNN and other media outlets. What's your reaction to that part of this just-released information from the Republican side of the memo?

TURLEY: Well, in fairness to Clapper, we haven't heard his position. Of course, he was accused of false testimony before congress with regard to the surveillance program. He admitted that he did not tell the truth at that point.


TURLEY: But this would be a very serious question, particularly, about when he knew he'd be a CNN contributor, when these leaks occurred. I mean, we are really seeing a very transparent and not always pleasing view of how Washington works.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. You've got James Comey admitting that he leaked information that may have contained classified information.

TURLEY: That's right.

MACCALLUM: As you pointed out here. Also, Andrew McCabe being, you know, assessed, charged, or however you want to put it, with the same suggestion that he was leaking to newspapers as well. And now, James Clapper is on that list. So, we'll see where all that goes. Good to see you, Jonathan. Thank you so much.

TURLEY: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Great column as always. So, it has been a controversial practice in Iceland for years, abortions for nearly a hundred percent of unborn babies who are diagnosed with downs syndrome. But tonight, there is a push from the Vatican to end that practice. An inspiring story that will give everyone a lot to think about in terms of this, when Gina Loudon joins me, next.



UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We have basically eradicated, almost Down syndrome from our society that there is hardly ever a child born with Down syndrome.


MACCALLUM: It has been a controversial practice in Iceland for years as they've had terminated pregnancy after a test shows a higher risk for Down syndrome. We all know that many of those tests have false positives in them in the early stages of pregnancy. So, Iceland now has a 100 percent termination rate after the screening indicates that compares to the United States, which has a rate of 67 percent. It is a statistic that the Vatican is now speaking out about. They would like to see that number drop to zero, of course. Earlier this week, the Holy See sends parents of children with Down syndrome to a conference at the United Nation, calling out countries like Iceland and the United States, noting that the U.S. has laws that protect the eggs of bald eagles and sea turtles, but none to protect children who are born with Down syndrome.

Dr. Gina Loudon, psychology expert and creator of the non-profit, they all have names, to help families adopt children, like Samuel, who have Down syndrome. She is a -- she's devoted -- she's part of her life to this and many other things. Gina, good to see you tonight. Thank you very much for being here. I think we have a picture of your son, Samuel, who is beautiful up on the screen right now. And it's also worth pointing out that the Gerber baby this year, for the very first time, is a baby who was born with Down syndrome. There he is. There's little Lucas who is adorable. And that's a pretty strong statement on their part, Gina.

GINA LOUDIN, PSYCHOLOGY EXPERT: It really is. We've also had a Miss USA contestant this year that had downs syndrome. She's beautiful. People with Down syndrome are accomplishing major things, Martha. And that's why I'm so glad that you're covering this story, and also that printed my op-ed today on all of this, because this story is really culminating in what is, sort of, a cultural clash when we are talking in terms of eradication of an entire group of people that do nothing, inflict no harm. Name one time where you've ever heard of anyone with Down syndrome hurting anyone else, right? It doesn't happen. And yet, we're talking about eradicating them. We talk about eradicating pests from our house. We talk about eradicating deadly diseases. We don't talk about eradicating people. You don't have to be catholic to be pro-life and realize that adoption like my family and I enjoy with my son, Samuel, is a much better option than abortion or, certainly, any sort of eradication.

MACCALLUM: You know, one of the things that has, I think, promoted this in some ways are these testing -- the testing that's done on children. You know, when you are pregnant, you have an IP test. I had one that came back that indicated that, perhaps, the child might develop into a child with Down syndrome. It didn't happen. However, that's the stage at which so many people are making this choice. And, I, now, know a lot of people don't even have these tests anymore because they don't want that information, because it's not going to change how they feel. But it really is -- it's so sad when you think about the fact that even someone who -- you know -- I mean, I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't want to welcome a Down syndrome baby into their lives. But those positives are often false to begin with.

LOUDON: Let me speak to those families out there who have a test that comes back that's positive. My -- the lady that had my son, it did give him life after she had planned to abort him, actually, more than one time. She and I are very close friends now. And I can tell you, she would tell you, it's the best choice she ever made to give him life. I was in line for ten years to adopt Samuel, because most of the people who had a child with Down syndrome wanted to have a child with Down syndrome, Martha. And so, what happens is, families like mine were waiting for years to try to adopt a child with Down syndrome. There are families out there waiting, and I personally invite anyone who is facing this situation and doesn't want to parent a child to contact us. We understand that everybody has a different walk of life. But I can tell you, that the joy that is wrapped up in our son, Samuel, and the things that he teaches us as a family every day has made my family stronger and better, and more faithful, frankly.

MACCALLUM: How many kids do you have, Gina?

LOUDON: I have five children.

MACCALLUM: You're a busy lady.

LOUDON: And they would all say the same thing. They would all say the same thing, Martha, that he is the joy, he's the smile. We call him our belly laugh, because that's really what Samuel is.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Dr. Gina Loudon. Always good to see you.

LOUDON: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Thanks for being here tonight.

LOUDON: Thanks.

MACCALLUM: So coming up next, a very interesting story on 'The Story'. Why are top national security officials flocking to a network of backwoods doomsday camps just in case? Colonel Drew Miller runs one of these ranches and he will explain the lure of them, next.


MACCALLUM: Earlier this year, amid the threat of nuclear North Korea and more, a scientist sounding alarm over climate change. The bulletin of atomic scientists ticked their symbolic doomsday clock ahead, only two minutes to midnight, people. Pinning some of the blame on President Trump, I don't know if most of many people would agree that that's the cause of it, but there's a lot going on out there in the world, no matter what. Perhaps, this sparked a recent story in the Washington Examiner that claimed that more and more -- there are Washington officials, especially those who work in the intelligence agency, that are flocking to these doomsday camps and partnerships in them. Places called the Fortitude Ranch and others. That one is near D.C., and it helps people prepare for pending doom. Here now, Dr. Drew Miller. I was going to say Dr. Doom, but you're not. You're Dr. Drew Miller, CEO of Fortitude Ranch and retired Air Force colonel. Doctor, good to have you here tonight. So what is Fortitude Ranch? How does it work?

DREW MILLER, FORTITUDE RANCH CEO: Sure. Fortitude Ranch is a recreational and survival community. So, in good time we're a great place to go to vacation and hunt. But in bad times, we're a survival retreat. A place where you can go to survive a pandemic, or a long term electrical outage, or some other disaster that leads to collapse in economic activity and loss of law and order.

MACCALLUM: And you're genuinely concerned that this is something that we all need to be prepared for.

MILLER: We absolutely do. Government is not prepared to handle a pandemic. Government officials will be protected. We're not that far from Mal weather where government officials will go. Wealthy people can go to places like survival condo if you have millions of dollars. But most of us will be on our own with the loss of law and order from pandemic or loss of the electrical system. Police won't be able to protect you in your neighborhoods. There's going to be gangs and people out there marauding for food. And so, you need to be able to protect yourself.

MACCALLUM: It's horrible to imagine. But these are growing -- how many fortitude ranches are there around the country. I know you don't say exactly where they are, but they're mostly in the middle of nowhere, right?

MILLER: Well, we've located in remote areas. We're in West Virginia, west of D.C., and we're also in Colorado. And we're raising funds now to expand across the U.S.

MACCALLUM: And how -- you know, how would you characterize interest in them? Has it exploded over recent years?

MILLER: It's been high and it keeps getting higher. The North Korean threat is bad, for example. Former CIA director, James Woolsey, warned last year that just one North Korean nuclear weapon that's optimized for electromagnetic pulse exploding over the United States could take down our electric system, not for weeks or months, but for over a year. And the former CIA director warned.

MACCALLUM: I'm sorry. If that happened, how long would you -- how long could you survive at a fortitude ranch if this unforeseeable horrible incident were to happen?

MILLER: Well, we produce our own food, so we can last forever. But, as Admiral Woolsey warned, if there is this kind of attack and the electric system goes down, there'll be societal collapse. There won't be law and order. They'll be mass starvation. He estimated up to 90 percent of the U.S. population could potentially perish in a disaster like that. And the worst threat we face is pandemics. We're overdue for a natural pandemics. And there're bioengineered viral pandemics that could just cause a catastrophe that we can't imagine today.

MACCALLUM: This has been uplifting. I want to thank you. Thank you for being here and you're giving everybody an option. Dr. Drew miller, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight. Wow. What a show. That is our story for tonight. We will see you back here tomorrow night. Tucker Carlson is in D.C., coming up next. Have a good night, everybody.

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.