Brit Hume reacts to Trump's border policy

close

Video

Brit Hume reacts to Trump's border policy

Trump considering a 'plan B' if Congress rejects demand for border wall funding.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," November 27, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: So, breaking tonight, we are watching the final Senate race tonight in Mississippi, where GOP candidates Cindy Hyde-Smith and Democrat Mike Espy compete. Polls close in one hour. Hyde-Smith had been ahead despite missteps. A win would bring the GOP Senate to 53, and the Democrats to 47.  But who knows what's going to happen, and we will see how this thing unwinds.

Also tonight, Brit Hume on the president's brand new comments moments ago on plan B for the wall. And how Brit says, the president proved his critics wrong on this issue.

But first, the president versus Robert Mueller. Could we be getting close to the end of this saga? Both sides appear loaded for bear. The president slamming fired these tweets off today. Saying this and more, "The phony witch-hunt continues, but Mueller and his gang of angry Dems are only looking at one side, not the other. Wait until it comes out how horribly and viciously they are treating people, ruining lives for them refusing to lie."

So, the big question is when Robert Mueller shows his cards, what will we see? George Papadopoulos the center of lots of intrigues now in jail, but he will only be there for a couple of weeks.

And despite an explosive story that says Manafort met secretly with Julian Assange. He says this, "This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him."

As another character in the saga says that he refused a deal, saying that he simply would not lie about something he didn't do and that he would rather "rot in jail".

Our panel here on all of that in just a moment. But first, Trace Gallagher, gets us rolling tonight with THE STORY. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. If you look at the major players, Robert Mueller is focusing on the common denominator appears to be WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, with the questions being who knew Assange and who was in cahoots with Assange?

Let's begin with former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, who the Guardian newspaper says, met with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2013, 2015, and most importantly in 2016, just months before WikiLeaks released the hacked e-mails of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

Manafort denies he ever met with Assange. But now, Robert Mueller's investigators claim, Manafort violated his plea deal by lying to them repeatedly though they did not say about what.

Manafort denies lying, but could soon be sentenced to decades in prison for his recent tax and bank fraud convictions. Then, there's Jerome Corsi, a conservative author, and associate of Trump confidant Roger Stone.

The special counsel reportedly has evidence that Corsi knew WikiLeaks had John Podesta's e-mails two months before they were released.

And Mueller is examining whether Corsi passed that information along to Roger Stone. Remember, that's critical because the Podesta e-mails went public on October 7th, 2016 just hours after the Access Hollywood tape went public, where Donald Trump bragged about groping women.

Special counsel wants to know if there was coordination between Roger Stone and Julian Assange about when to release Podesta's damaging e-mails.  Jerome Corsi, says he didn't have insider information. Instead, he connected the dots and theorized that Assange had Podesta's e-mails.

Finally, there is low-level Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, who is serving a slap on the wrist, two-week prison term in Wisconsin for lying about his interaction with Russian contacts concerning among other things, the hacked Podesta e-mails.

And today, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz doubled down on his belief that Mueller won't be fair. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: He's going to produce what he believes is going to be a devastating attack, he's going to put together everything. He's going to use information from Manafort and others without necessarily disclosing that they're liars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Meantime, President Trump continues to call the Mueller probe a witch-hunt. But late this afternoon, he told The Washington Post that he has "No intention of doing anything about the Mueller Probe.

And earlier, press secretary Sarah Sanders, said the president is not worried. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I don't think the president has any concerns about the report because he knows that there was no wrongdoing by him and that there was no collusion. So, I don't think he has concerned on that front.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: As to when Robert Mueller wraps up, the smart money is betting on soon. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Soon has been soon. You could drive a truck through soon. We will see. Thank you very much. Thanks, Trace.

So, here now with more tonight, Jonathan Turley, Washington -- George Washington University constitutional law professor. Marc Thiessen, American Enterprise Institute scholar, and a Fox News contributor. And Richard Goodstein, former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns, and a Democratic strategist. Gentleman, thank you to all of you.

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You all been following this very closely. And there has certainly been some developments on it in the past 24 hours.

So, Jonathan Turley, let me start with you. You know, what do you make of what we've learned in terms of Manafort and the Mueller investigation saying that they think that he has been lying to them, and they sounds like they feel like they've got a lot on him?

JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:  Well, this is pretty rare when it comes to criminal cases overall. It's not rare when it comes to Robert Mueller, you know, he already has had problems with witnesses who have been involved in plea agreements, it's one stage or the other.

Papadopoulos essentially became hostile to them, even as a cooperating witness to the point that Mueller tried to increase his sentencing which the court rejected. Corsi, refused to accept the deal according to his own accounts because he felt that he was being told to lie.

This is fairly rare. Usually, these are witnesses who are desperate for deals and really would not risk ticking off a prosecutor. So, clearly, Mueller is not getting what he wants. The question is, is he getting enough to get him where he wants to go.

MACCALLUM: So, Mr. Goodstein, you know, I know that you don't believe that this is wrapping up anytime soon, and really nobody knows. You know, but one indicator that the president has responded to the -- to the questions, and that was considered to be one of the last elements of all of this.

But it does seem that the Mueller investigation is frustrated with what they're getting, as Jonathan Turley, says out of some of these witnesses.  So, what does that tell you?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER ADVISER, CLINTON CAMPAIGN: Again, it tells me really nothing, Martha. Go back to all the statements, Rudy Giuliani, the president's lawyer said a year ago. Before Christmas last year, about how soon in early 2018, and in the middle, and then by September one. And so, look, we don't know, the Trump people don't know.

I attach zero significance to these written statements that Donald Trump has submitted. What they say though is that he has acceded to Robert Mueller's jurisdiction, that he basically -- you know it's a legitimate special counsel. That's it.

If Robert Mueller is either got -- look, if Donald Trump is innocent, why doesn't he sit down, put himself under oath, and say whatever he knows to Robert Mueller? That's what an innocent person does. An innocent person doesn't make up a story about what happened at the Trump Tower meeting, for example.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So you're saying you have no idea where this is going, and you don't know when the time is going to be over. However, you are pretty sure that the president did something wrong. So, that's concern of a leak given what you just said.

(CROSSTALK)

GOODSTEIN: What I'm saying that he's acting like somebody -- he's acting like somebody who was not innocent. That's all I'm saying.

MACCALLUM: I think he's acting like somebody who's under an investigation for two years.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And isn't quite sure that he would get a fair shake if he sat down. His lawyers have clearly told him that, that, that would probably be a perilous situation, given the scope of this investigation which seems to be quite wide.

Marc Thiessen, you know, in Trace Gallagher's excellent setup piece, you know, he looked at the question of Julian Assange. I mean, you know often I think it's interesting to sort of peel back this investigation and say what are we talking about here, right?

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Like what are they accusing the president and the campaign of doing? So, when you get down to the -- to the knot of it, it's did Julian Assange and people who were connected to the campaign get together and figure out a way to release these e-mails from the Clinton campaign which were actually e-mails that the Clinton campaign was writing to each other, by the way.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And we're not really that terribly damning when you dig back in and look to them again. But that's, that's the heart of what we're talking about here, right?

THIESSEN: That is exactly the heart of what we're talking about here. And look, this story about Paul Manafort, I mean, the reality is, is that probably every inch of the city of London is covered by CCTV. So, there is a video of Paul Manafort either going in or not going into the Ecuadorian embassy.

So, that is a knowable fact as to whether he went into the Ecuadorian embassy and met with Julian Assange. So, we will -- that is something that Robert Mueller, a good Mueller, or somebody can find out.

And but the question is, is not did, did Paul Manafort meet with Assange, did Jerome Corsi meet with Assange? It's -- the question is, is did -- was Donald Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia? Was he connected? It doesn't matter, if Corsi, was connected to WikiLeaks, it matters if Donald Trump was connected to WikiLeaks.

And unless Mueller can prove that Donald Trump was somehow engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia, then he's not going to be removed from office.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

THIESSEN: It's just that simple. So, we have to -- we have to find out what he knows about Donald Trump's behavior, and we don't know the answer to that.

MACCALLUM: Jonathan.

TURLEY: Well, I think that that's a very good point. The key line here, legally is whether Mueller can establish that any hacking of the e-mails was done before the fact with knowledge of Trump associates or whether they became some type of accomplice after the fact.

The mere allegation that political operatives wanted to access to these e- mails from WikiLeaks is not a crime. And indeed, the status of WikiLeaks in getting this material is of greatly debated question.

WikiLeaks insists that they're more of a journalistic organization than the alternative, and that may have to be litigated. But in order to really get a clear shot at the president, they need to start with a foundation in the Criminal Code. And that's going to require either an accomplice before the fact or after the fact, but not someone who simply wants to get access to information they've been reading about for political purposes.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So, go ahead, Richard.

GOODSTEIN: So, there -- here's a -- here's a crime -- there's a crime.  Jonathan knows this because he teaches law. Misprision of felony is where you know that a crime has been committed. And we can talk about what that is, there's a long list. And you do nothing to tell the authorities and you could take steps to conceal it like -- again, making up a story, a cover story about the Trump Tower meeting. Among other things --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: But what's the crime? Tell me what the crime is, Richard.

THIESSEN: Yes.

GOODSTEIN: It's defrauding the United States government and the people of a fair election. 18 USC 371, have your viewers look it up. And incidentally, we're not just talking about the Russians, we're talking about tax fraud, and money laundering, and bank fraud --

(CROSSTALK)

THIESSEN: All right, here we go.

GOODSTEIN: And well, no, hold on --

MACCALLUM: Hold on, hold on, though you can't just throw those here, Richard.

THIESSEN: OK. This is a Russia probe.

GOODSTEIN: Let me just --

MACCALLUM: Hold on, you're talking a tax fraud and money laundering.

GOODSTEIN: That was this is about.

MACCALLUM: I guess you're pointing to the original charges against Paul Manafort that put him in jail. With regard to his Ukrainian connections from a long period before he started working for the president's campaign, is that correct?

GOODSTEIN: How about the hush money that he paid to all these women?  That's a campaign finance violation. And the list goes on and on if necessary.

(CROSSTALK)

THIESSEN: No, it's not. You can laugh about it, that it reminds me --

(CROSSTALK)

GOODSTEIN: It's not necessarily to (INAUDIBLE) violation.

MACCALLUM: That case is not in our very good shape at the moment.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: You know, so, I mean, I get -- I think whenever we have this conversation, you know, I think it's really important to step back and say what exactly are we discussing here?

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And Marc, you know, I know that you've followed this for a long time. And I think this is going to be the question, eventually, Robert Mueller is going to come forward with a report.

THIESSEN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And there's no doubt in my mind that whatever is in there, Democrats will continue to build the kind of story that Richard Goodstein just laid out that it doesn't matter if there's no crime there. There is still stuff that is going to allow them to sink their teeth into it for the coming years.

THIESSEN: Well, this is the huge danger for the Democrats. So, this is the American people looked at this and say, "OK, Mueller is investigating the possibility of a criminal conspiracy with Russia to affect the election results.

And so, if there is an evidence of a criminal conspiracy, then that's one thing, that Donald Trump will probably be impeached, and he might even be convicted in the Senate. If there is no evidence of a conspiracy that Trump was involved in with Russia, but they come up with -- you know, his to payoffs to porn stars or some other -- some other thing like that, and they try to impeach him on that, then --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Which would be a campaign finance violation, which usually goes to -- is a fine, essentially.

THIESSEN: Yes. And it wouldn't necessarily be a campaign finance violation because he could have very easily not wanted to be done the payoff so his wife wouldn't find out. I mean, there's lot -- it's not a show open and shut case.

And the fact that the president is not testifying before Mueller, most -- and you cannot under law. I'm not a lawyer but Jonathan can confirm this.  The fact that you're not willing to testify doesn't prove that you're guilty.

MACCALLUM: Right.

GOODSTEIN: But --

THIESSEN: So, you know, the idea that somehow, you -- if I hope that the Democrats -- the nightmare for Democrats right now is that Mueller comes up with no evidence of a criminal conspiracy with Russia, but some sort of tangential evidence about campaign finance or something like that, and they go after impeachment anyway.

Because what's going to happen is, it's not, there's no -- zero chance that other than a criminal conspiracy with Russia, that the two-thirds of the Senate is going to convict the president. And there's going to be a huge electoral backlash from the American people from the Trump voters. Because they will see this as an effort to invalidate their votes because this was supposed to be our Russia.

If it's about anything other than Russia, the Democrats are going to pay a very high price for this.

GOODSTEIN: Just --

MACCALLUM: All right, gentlemen, we got to leave it there.

GOODSTEIN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: I got three wonderful guests, and we will have you back because there's a lot to talk about here.

THIESSEN: Thank you. Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much to all of you.

TURLEY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, Jerome Corsi is actually going to be on Tucker tonight, which we will all look forward to, should be interesting. And in the meantime, President Trump foretold what we just saw happened at the border this weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM ACOSTA, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls, and so on.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, that's true.

ACOSTA: It for -- it -- but --

TRUMP: They weren't actors.

ACOSTA: They're not going to be doing that.

TRUMP: They weren't actors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: They're not going to be doing that, he said, and there they were. So, now, a scramble on Capitol Hill to get funding for the wall, or risk a shut down by next week. Brit Hume on all of that, coming up next

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA., HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP: Regardless of how you feel about immigration policy, you should at least agree that we have -- we have laws and we're a nation of laws and we ought to be able to keep our country safe and make sure that the people that are waiting in line to come into America the legal way are respected as well in this process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: That was House Majority Whip Steve Scalise earlier today following a GOP leadership meeting with President Trump at the White House about the recent chaos at the border and the possibility of a government shutdown with the whole package of whether or not there would be wall funding involved in that deal.

So President Trump has made it clear in no uncertain terms. He wants $5 billion for an expanded wall in order to keep that campaign promise to secure the border. He needs Democrats help and votes to do so. He told The Washington Post though tonight that he is considering Plan B if that doesn't happen saying this. "There are other potential ways that I can do it. You saw what we did with the military and with the barbed wire and the fencing and various other things."

While some are criticizing his decision to send troops to the border and the recent tear gassing of some migrants as they tried to force their way into the United States, his critics also seem to have a bit of selective memory on this issue according to Brit Hume our Fox News Senior Political Analyst. Brit, good evening. Great to have you with us.

Hi, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So let's start with that first and then get to the issue of funding the border because obviously there's been a ton of criticism of how the President's handled this situation which really shouldn't have come as a surprise to anybody. He's been nothing but clear on his approach to the border.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, that's certainly correct, Martha. And of course the -- his near hysteria over this episode of the border over the weekend where tear gas was used to repel these people who are trying to rush the border in some numbers was really a remarkable example of what we find all the time with Mr. Trump. Things that are that that that are done under his administration are considered outrageous and you know, violations of human rights and violations of chemical weapons treaties in the eyes of one Hawaiian Democratic Senator Brian Schatz.

Although he later took that down but it turns out you know this has been going on for some time. And one specific incident, Martha, was I guess November 27th, 2013 when at that very same entrance point at San Ysidro on the Mexican border near San Diego, a group of migrants rushed the border were repelled with tear gas and pepper balls in the same way that the group was over this weekend and nobody ever said much of anything about it. I don't remember even receiving any national attention.

It turns out according to a report in The Washington Times today that the Trump -- that the Obama administration regularly used tear gas to repeal migrants attempting to cross the border. So we -- as we often find out with things that Mr. Trump does, they're not so unusual or strange as people would have you believe.

MACCALLUM: Yes, people are horrified by an equal action and the response to it under different presidency in different ways that appears. You know, also when you look back in history, Richard Nixon closed the border, Reagan also closed the border at one point to fort the drug trade coming across.  And you know I don't remember back in those years the kind of outrage and humanitarian concern about the issue to just secure the border based on national security.

HUME: Martha, simply the fact is you know, he -- the President says this all the time which is if you don't have a border, an effective border you don't have a country and that's indisputably true. And his promise to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into this country it's a perfectly reasonable thing to promise. Now, you get into a question of whether we should have a better immigration policy to handle things like this attempt by people to get asylum, we obviously need that.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HUME: But that's not -- but he can't -- he can't wish that into being.  That is a responsibility of Congress which has been struggling with this issue for now for decades and has not been able to reach any kind of compromise. And the reason to look for that of course, Martha, is there's not any trust on both sides. The Republicans all think that Democrats want the -- want the immigrants to come in because they want them as voters and the -- and the Democrats think the Republicans don't want to let them in because they're racists. So --

MACCALLUM: That's exactly right. And I think the American people will cross the land would just like to have a solution and these people are pawns in that entire situation and people really would like you know, just an orderly process. That's all everybody is looking for, an orderly process here. So that's my last question to you on the politics side of this. The President wants, you know, $5 billion over several years for border security. He's already told Democrats he would give them 1.8 million DACA recipients who could stay. That deal ultimately got shot down. Any hope that he can accomplish anything on this front before the end of the term?

HUME: Well, that -- well, there's a deal to be had in which you get border funding in exchange for dealing with the -- with it with the DACA issue.  That's the, you know, the young immigrants who came here as children and never have lived anywhere else. And I think most people think that it's reasonable to have them stay. But under current law, they're really not supposed to. So that's a deal that's there to be had.

The question is you know, whether either parties is willing to make it.  And so far that hasn't proved to be true. But the -- but the situation is worsening and I think the case for Mr. Trump's border wall has improved. I mean that situation you see in Tijuana with all his people stacked up there causing all kinds of stress on the -- on the government down there is real as was what the incident happened over the weekend in which the tear gas was used. So this caravan which a lot of people said was a myth and was not really meaningful and pose no threat turns out to be pretty real and pretty serious.

So there may be a moment here where everybody kind of wise us up but having seen what I've seen over the last couple years, I wouldn't bet on it.

MACCALLUM: We doubt it. All right, Brit, thank you as always. Great to have you with us tonight.

HUME: You got it, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, sir.

HUME: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So this is Sergeant Leandro Jasso, an elite Army Ranger who was known as Lando to his good friends. He was killed this week in Afghanistan. He was not alone. Others have also lost their lives in the past few days as the situation with the Taliban escalates. Congressman and war vet Adam Kinzinger is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: A somber moment last night as the soldiers received the casket of Sergeant Leandro Jasso, 25-year-old Army Ranger. He was on his third deployment to Afghanistan. He is from the State of Washington. He was killed in Afghanistan on Saturday. Officials believe that he was accidentally shot by an Afghan partner force. His death now followed by the loss of three more American soldiers killed today when a roadside bomb detonated in the eastern part of the country and the Taliban-claimed attack believed to be the deadliest strike in Afghanistan in 17 months.

I'm joined for more by Congressman Adam Kinzinger, Republican from Illinois who serves as Deputy House Whip. He's also in Iraq and Afghanistan veteran. Congressman, thank you for being here tonight.

REP. ADAM KINZINGER, R-ILL.: Thanks.

MACCALLUM: Good to have you with us. I mean, obviously, it breaks your heart when you see the picture of this young man, loved by his friends, you know, the life of the party, according to these reports and extraordinarily dedicated to serving his country, at the age of 25, lost his life. And it makes a lot of people look at our situation and wonder, almost 18 years into this fight now, why we are still there. What do you say to them?

KINZINGER: Yes, look, it's tragic, it's sad, it's awful. But I think what's amazing about all of this is he's 25 years old and we have young people that, today, are going to still walk into the Army, the Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy recruiting center, still raise their right hand to protect and defend this country despite the fact this war has been going on a long time. Whether we fight -- terrorism is not our choice, where we fight terrorism is.

And I would much rather fight the terrorists in Afghanistan, as a brave soldier and the three that lost their lives yesterday did, instead of on the streets here in the United States of America.

I wear on my wrist, it's a buddy of mine, Captain Andreas O'Keeffe, I flew with him in Iraq in 2008. And he was just killed this year in Iraq. Think about that. Mr. O'Keefe has been in Iraq multiple times over a time of 10 years, at least over the time that I knew him, and he gave his life.

But, you know, we have a brave, brave group of people that still protect freedom and I think it's essential that we put the terrorists on their heels in their home area instead of let them come here.

Because unless we are willing to convert to their brand, there are strict, narrow brand of Islam as a country, they will be determined to kill us and we have the best fighting force in the world that's going to make sure they don't make it here.

MACCALLUM: I think that that is absolutely the reason that this young man was there. He said he wanted to fight for his country and he wanted to help people overseas and there has been certainly a lot of gains with regards to that.

We've lost a lot of people recently. Thirteen U.S. service members have now been killed in Afghanistan in 2018.

So, you know, in terms of how we are doing -- and the president has just spoken out about this in this new Washington Post interview tonight -- and he said -- you know, this is not a direct quote, I'm piecing at some of it together here. He said, experts have told him that we need to stay there.

He went on to say in a separate part of that response, you know, oil is now less of a reason. All of a sudden it gets to a point where maybe you don't have to stay, he said, the exact quote is up on the screen now.

But he said one reason now, are we going to stay in that part of the world, one reason is to stay is Israel. And then he went on to say what I just said, oil is becoming less and less of a reason. So, you know all of a sudden gets to a point where you don't have to stay there. What do you say about that?

KINZINGER: Well, I want to get to a point where we don't have to stay there. The president was right especially in the first part which is we can't leave. And the reason is this. The Taliban have a saying that, you know, America has the watches but we have the time.

President Obama -- I hate to do what about-ism but President Obama when he claimed that we were going to leave and he put a timeline, he emboldened the Taliban, he emboldened the enemy because these are people that are fighting a generational war.

They knew they just had to outlast us. Sending the message and meeting that which I think the president is doing now that we are going to win. We don't get defeated on the battlefield against the Taliban or Al Qaeda or ISIS or anybody. Where we get defeated is in our will. And it's tragic that we've lost 13 people and it's awful but we have the best fighting force, it's inflicting significant damage on the enemy and not on ourselves.

And the other thing to keep in mind, is the Afghan people, we are popular in Afghanistan, and they have stood up and have sacrificed to defend their country. There is a lot of work to do and I think we are going to be there a while. And I wish at the beginning of this war, we spent more time setting that table but if we leave, we will be back because fighting them is not our choice. It's just where we fight them that is.

MACCALLUM: Congressman Adam Kinzinger, thank you for your service there and to these young men and their families. We are thinking about all of them tonight and the extraordinary sacrifice that they have made to help people overseas, as Landro, as he was known friends say that he would often talk about. So, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight, congressman.

(CROSSTALK)

KINZINGER: God bless his family.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. We'll going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, the Supreme Court could soon hear a case that could potentially lead down the road to a test of Roe vs. Wade for this nearly conservative leaning highest court in the land.

So, groups are requesting a review of an Indiana law that was signed by then-Governor Mike Pence. The law required doctors to inform their patients that abortions were not permitted if the reason was the unborn baby's race, color, or potential of disability, such as down syndrome.

So, earlier this year, a federal appeals court found that the law unconstitutional. But that could potentially change under the new Supreme Court with the addition of Justice Kavanaugh.

Here now, Governor Mike Huckabee, a Fox news contributor and author of "Rare, Medium or Done Well." Good to see you, sir.

MIKE HUCKABEE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Thank you for being here. This is an issue that is very important to you. Why do you think that there may be, for a number of reasons, science, and a number of reasons, more of these cases that start to question the validity of Roe v. Wade?

HUCKABEE: Well, let's hope so. Because science has dramatically changed since 1973. We know things about the unborn child that we simply didn't know in 1973, about when life begins, and the viability, issues that were very different then.

But I think a lot of people may need to step back and realize that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it doesn't end abortion. You know, so many people think that is the end of abortion. It isn't. All it does is return it back to the decision of the states.

No in some states, like my home state of Arkansas, abortion would be abolished because there is a constitutional amendment that bans it. That would happen in several states.

In other states, there actually could be more abortions. My guess is, states like New York and California would likely see an uptick in the number of abortions because those dates would likely end any restrictions whatsoever.

Ultimately, this is the decision, we've seen incremental changes and the way people approach it legally at the state level. But ultimately, it's got to be decided by personhood.

This will be resolved when we determine that an unborn child is a person. That moment is when that child will be protected by the fifth and 14th amendments that says that you can't deprive somebody of life or liberty without due process, and in an abortion, there is no due process.

MACCALLUM: So, when you look at this Indiana case, for example, and it was signed under a governor but then it was overturned, you know, the question was, it's a discrimination issue, right.

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: You can't end a life based on race or color or creed or the potential that that child might have a disease like down syndrome, and we've done a number of stories, of, you know, countries that are cheering their success rate at not having any down syndrome children in the whole country--

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: Well, of course.

MACCALLUM: -- because they are ending that life the second--

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- that they understand that that could possibly happen. And we all know, you know, what a gift down children are--

HUCKABEE: Beautiful children.

MACCALLUM: -- to the families that they live in.

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: But Roe v. Wade, really just it made that the federal decision that really limited to the state's ability to make these decisions for themselves, and the people to vote and change the laws in their own states.

HUCKABEE: And, Martha, this particular law in Indiana, think about it. When the federal courts overturned that law, what they basically said was, we can't discriminate anywhere in our culture except we can discriminate when it comes to the gender or to the race of an unborn child. I find that appalling. I wish society would find that appalling.

MACCALLUM: What do you say about -- you know, obviously some of the toughest questions that Judge Kavanaugh got where whether, you know, with regard to this issue, of Roe v. Wade.

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Wade, and he, like everyone who sits in that chair, said, you know, I can't tell you that until I see the case before me and I look at the law that would direct it, but you know, I would imagine that to you, people who feel the way you do, are hopeful that this court will make this decision.

HUCKABEE: I would like love to see it happen. I just want people who are pro-life to recognize this is not the ultimate solution. This does not really fix the idea of what I think has been a horror on our civilization that we have taken the lives of almost a million unborn children a year in their mother's womb.

This is amazing. Sixty million -- if you want to know, well, how come we have to have so many people immigrating into the country just to supply jobs. A lot of it is, we've aborted our workforce over the past 45 years. Think about that.

Sixty million people that would be in our workforce were never seen the light of day. That's pretty tragic, Martha. And I think every time we can put a new hindrance on the wholesale slaughter of unborn children, it's a step for a more civilized culture and society.

MACCALLUM: Governor, thank you for being here tonight. We will see where this case goes and we will keep an eye on it.

HUCKABEE: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, sir. All right. So, still ahead this evening, why two Trump insiders say the president's worst enemies could still be within the White House walls. David Bossie and Corey Lewandowski coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: A bombshell new book by Trump campaign insiders says president Trump has embedded enemies with within his administration who are tirelessly working to halt his agenda. The authors describe a handful of White House aides as the November 9th club, establishment Republicans who didn't support the president until he won and then showed up looking for a job in the White House.

Joining me now, Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie, authors of "Trump's Enemies: How the Deep State is Undermining the Presidency." Good to see you, guys. Welcome back--

DAVID BOSSIE, CO-AUTHOR, TRUMP'S ENEMIES: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: -- to the program. My question about the November 9th club is, I mean, you know, you guys could run the whole place by yourselves. I mean, obviously they were going to have to be people who said after the election, well, I didn't support him in the beginning but I do now, and I want to help. What do you call of that?

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: And there are a lot of people like that. Let me give you a great example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was with somebody else on the primary but when he came to the administration, he was with the president's agenda 100 percent of the time.

But other people, not only do they work against him in the election process, they didn't vote for him on election day, but when they got into the White House, they have their own agenda. Gary Cohn, Sean Spicer, Rob Porter, and that agenda was to subvert the will of the president to move the country in a certain direction. That's not what they were there to do. They were supposed to be there to support the president and I think of people like--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: What direction were they trying to move the country?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, look, what we saw very clearly was that the president Trump want to sign a trade deal with South Korea and the Bob Woodward book says Rob Porter and Gary Cohn took the papers of the resolute desk because they didn't agree with the president's trade policies. They weren't elected to do that.

I think of people in the past like Jim Baker, who was a rival before he came in to be chief of staff to a different person, and that's what you are supposed to do. You put your personal differences aside, and the privilege of working in the administration means you support the president and his agenda.

You can have differences of opinion and you should air those differences but when he makes a decision, you don't use your position to subvert the decision that has been made.

MACCALLUM: Who is still in the White House that fits this category that you think is subversive?

BOSSIE: Martha, one of the -- the one perfect example is the author of anonymous. We don't know who that person is yet, and--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Who do you think it is?

BOSSIE: You know what, I don't know. I think it's easier to figure out who it's not then who it is because there are so many people that it could simply be.

But my point is, there are people there who, like the author, feel that it's their job to save the country from the president, as that person said in the letter. It is outrageous. people -- that person is a coward, should stand up and be counted and say, I'm against--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, why not just say, excuse me, I actually shouldn't be working here because I don't agree with what you are doing and I got to go?

BOSSIE: And that's really our point.

MACCALLUM: Right.

BOSSIE: That's only our point. we, and by the way, all presidents need to grow their administrations, all presidents bring people in that with different opinion.

MACCALLUM: Does the president, though, is he good at listening to someone who says, look, I support you but this is why this is a really bad idea?

BOSSIE: He is not only good, he's great at it. He wants people with differing opinions. That's one of the reasons that we think he needs a team who he's going to listen to and then make decisions based on--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Who does he need?

BOSSIE: -- all of the information.

MACCALLUM: Who should he put in place?

LEWANDOWSKI: You know--

MACCALLUM: Do you think John Kelly should go?

LEWANDOWSKI: Look, here is what I think. I think when the president makes decisions to bring people in like John Bolton and Larry Kudlow and Bill Shine, individuals who are there for one reason, which is to support the president, they have fundamental disagreements amongst them and they present those arguments to the president, and the president makes the final decision on what those policies are going to be. But that's a healthy thing to do.

Those are the type of people that I think the president needs to continue to bring in and surround himself with.

MACCALLUM: So, who would you replace John Kelly with, David Bossie?

BOSSIE: Well, whether or not John Kelly needs to go or not -- look, there's a bunch of people. This president has a lot of people who want to come work for him, that's a fact. So, in all sorts of jobs.

And I think this president, first and foremost, when he makes his changes post midterm elections, with which all presidents do, and we are looking forward to some of these changes, he needs to put together that team that is going to be solely focused on his reelection.

Seamlessly working the legislative agenda, the political agenda, and the communication aspect of it, the forward-facing 2020 agenda that is going to get this president reelected. That should be what people are thinking about when we are creating the new team.

MACCALLUM: All right. I want to pull up this tweet by James Woods because this is something that we have talked about. You know, the first lady, she said of that interview she did in Africa, she said, I'm the most bullied person in the world. She sort of, couched about a little better but she does feel like that sometimes.

She's really incredible in so many ways, and she is very supportive -- she is also the person that says that there are people in the White House who are against the president's agenda, you know. So, why do you think that she doesn't get the kind of attention that Michelle Obama got, for example, cover of that magazine--

(CROSSTALK)

BOSSIE: It's really respect. It's not just the attention, it is the respect. She deserves the respect that every first lady gets. She is a first lady. She is doing an amazing job with kids, going on that trip to Africa, bringing delight to the plight of some of those people over there that she is meeting with for her be treated in that way.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

BOSSIE: And by the way, James Woods, that tweet, I'm so glad that he did it. I follow him. He is an amazing guy, he makes people think about things every day.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And even House Beautiful. Did you know House Beautiful, it's a really political magazine, because I didn't know?

BOSSIE: I didn't.

MACCALLUM: They went after--

(CROSSTALK)

LEWANDOWSKI: Here's the interesting part. Do you remember about two weeks ago, her office said there was a person in the White House who didn't deserve the privilege of working there and the mainstream media said, my God, the first lady is being involved in personnel decisions.

What do you think the role of Hillary Clinton was when she was the first lady? Do you think--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: With the troubled office for one thing.

LEWANDOWSKI: He's exactly right. And she took over the health care for the country, and all these other things. And she, Melania Trump was chastised for making a statement for people who shouldn't be working in the White House. The mainstream media attacked her for that. It was disgusting. They never would have done that to Barack Obama's wife, they never would have done it to Bill Clinton's life, they sure didn't do it to George Bush's wife. There is a two -- there was a double standard and it's unfair.

MACCALLUM: They should give her a chance.

BOSSIE: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: Give her a chance.

LEWANDOWSKI: She is the rock of that family.

MACCALLUM: And you know what, we can agree on one thing. The White House looks beautiful at Christmastime and she did a lovely job with that. So, I think that should be noncontroversial.

Thank you, gentlemen. Good to have you here. Thanks for coming.

LEWANDOWSKI: Thank you for having us.

MACCALLUM: So, it's a way, the polls were close in Mississippi in the Senate race run off. That is a live look at the campaign headquarters where it's rather quiet right now as they wait for those polls to close and they get ready to see who is going to be a winner in Mississippi tonight. We go there on the ground coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, I am asking every citizen from every party, community background, race, color, religion, and creed, for the honor of your support. I need you to get your family, get your friends, get your neighbors, get your coworkers, and get out tomorrow and vote for Cindy Hyde-Smith.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So that was on Monday in Tupelo, Mississippi, as the president campaign across the states in hopes of increasing his majority in the Senate. Backing incumbent Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who faces Democratic challenger Mike Espy from the Bill Clinton administration.

That is what's happening in tonight's runoff. Polls close in about three minutes from now. And correspondent Peter Doocy is live with an update. He is at Hyde-Smith's headquarters right now. Good evening to you, Peter. Tell us what's going on down there.

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Martha, despite all the national attention about how this race could reshape the Senate, state officials are saying that the turnout has been steady but slow. As you just mentioned, Mike Espy is trying to become tonight the first African-American elected to the Senate in the state since reconstruction and he says he knows he needs crossover voters.

Because the state's Democratic base in the state's African-American base are not enough to lead him to victory. It still early but, so far tonight Democrats in the state are telling me they think the dynamics of this special election might be different enough from the general that they could be poised for an upset the way that Democrat Doug Jones upset Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last winter.

But unlike Alabama's special election, where top Republicans kept the controversial candidate at arm's length and the closest President Trump got to Alabama during election week was Florida. The GOP cavalry has been here in full force.

President Trump twice yesterday, Senators Lindsey Graham and Roger Wicker, the governor, Bill Bryant, the RNC chair, Ronna McDaniel, all with Cindy Hyde-Smith, appealing to voters, and a big part of their argument is just give Mitch McConnell a little bit of cushion so that senators who sometimes take a long time to decide how they want to vote in D.C. lose leverage when it comes time for a close vote on something like immigration or a Supreme Court justice.

And so, the real wild card tonight is who actually showed up. Because you could vote today, whether you voted three weeks ago or you didn't. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Yes. And obviously, you know, what may be helping Mr. Espy a bit is the controversy that has played out there over a couple of comments that Cindy Hyde-Smith made. I know Senator Graham was asked about it today and you said he was there supporting her. He said he didn't think people should be judged by one comment. But clearly, that open up some possibilities for Espy.

DOOCY: It might have. But again, the state is very, very red. Graham's point was Cindy Hyde-Smith wouldn't be such a proponent of criminal justice reform if she was this big racist that somewhat have you believe. But again, the Cindy Hyde-Smith team, very, very confident in their chances--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Well, we'll see.

DOOCY: -- to hold that conference seat.

MACCALLUM: We'll see what happens. Thank you very much, Peter. That is our Story for Tuesday night. We'll see you back here tomorrow night.  Tucker Carlson is up next. 
 
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.