Print
Close
Carter Page targeted by House Democrats in new probe
Published March 04, 2019
This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 4, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: So, in moments tonight, a "Story" exclusive. Interview with the man behind the effort to bring the ISIS bride back to Alabama. We will talk to him. They are suing Secretary Mike Pompeo and have breaking news on that case, coming up.
And William Barr, the new attorney general has just said that he will not recuse from the Mueller investigation. Those stories are coming up tonight.
But first this evening, the House Judiciary sends a letter to 81 Trump associates, demanding information, and it has an interesting line in the letter reminding the recipients, lest they forget that this committee has played a historic role as the primary forum for hearings on the abuse of executive power. Also known as the Watergate hearings.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD BAKER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: We will inquire into every fact and follow every lead unrestrained by any fair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: That was 1973, about how will Democrats do in their Watergate moment since this he was pretty clear that, that is where this seems to be heading. The chairman Jerrold Nadler, pointing out that the Mueller investigation is not going to be enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Mueller investigation, number one, we don't know when it's ending, in despite, lots of rumors. Number two, it's focused on specific crimes. And we have to focus much more broadly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: OK. So, good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is "The Story." The president was fired up about the growing list of investigations into him this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: There is no collusion. So, now they go and morph into let's inspect every deal he's ever done. We are going to go into his finances. We are going to check his deals. We're going to check -- These people are sick. They're trying to take you out with -- OK? With --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Now, there you have it. Today, he appeared unfazed by the latest probe.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to cooperate with Mr. Nadler?
TRUMP: I cooperate all the time with everybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: In moments, former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova reacts. But first, former Trump aide Carter Page, who is on that list of 81. Carter, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks for being here. So, you received this letter. Are you going to comply, are you going to turn over all of the information that they're asking you for which has to do with the Trump Tower meeting in 2016 and a lot of other things.
CARTER PAGE, FORMER FOREIGN-POLICY ADVISER TO DONALD TRUMP: What so funny about it, Martha is I've been complying for the last two-plus years, right? And a lot of the same questions or the things that were already wiretapped and hacked off of my private e-mails going back to earlier in 2016. So --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: So, you feel like between the FISA warrant that was cleared four times to listen to your phone calls and the Mueller investigation. How many times did you talk to the Mueller folks?
PAGE: Well, I typically don't out of respect for those proceedings. I don't talk about it. But since it was leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post that I spoke with them in November of 2017. I --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: And they haven't called you or contact you again since November of 2017?
PAGE: No.
MACCALLUM: So, they appear to have gotten what they want from you?
PAGE: Well, I gave them everything, you know. Again, they had already been through all of my personal records, you know, had through as we've learned with Spygate and all these other enlisted activities --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: I mean, at the mention all wisdom is that they got nothing from you, right? I mean, can you -- can you affirm that?
PAGE: There is nothing to get, right? And I was being so careful with every -- everything I've done, you know, throughout --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: So here's Andrew McCabe who was asked about the controversial FISA warrant, because he himself testified at one point that they couldn't have really gotten it without a dossier.
He said he turned over everything they needed to turn over. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: I think everyone was satisfied that we had represented that accurately and adequately in the package. A court was obviously satisfied, they signed it what, three or four times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Here he say.
PAGE: I was laughing at that because Adam Goldman from New York Times that he had that interview with. He used to grill me constantly throughout 2017, you know, and now he's close friends and his -- has his softball interview with him.
So, I mean, it's just absolutely outrageous. Somebody's comments --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Well, speaking of the media treatment, I'm about to talk to Joe Joe diGenova. And he says that you should sue everybody from McCabe to Comey, to Clapper, to some of the media, as well. Will you do that?
PAGE: I'm planning on it. Yes, absolutely. And, you know, the Democrats have thus far been completely stonewalling with the initial litigation that I've been involved with.
Kathryn Ruemmler, who's the head of the DNC's team in the Oklahoma. You know, I was in the Oklahoma over the weekend, get a lot of support from people, my old colleagues.
But you know, we'll have to see. So far, we have a couple of motion or I per se have a motion outstanding. We'll see how that plays out. But you know, I'm confident that as these -- the information continues to come out there, it will be clear that -- you know, there was a lot of wrongdoing. But wrongdoing on their side.
MACCALLUM: But let me -- were you surprised that all to be on this list to get this letter?
PAGE: I'm always happy --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Nothing surprise you --
PAGE: Nothing will surprise me after everything we've been through.
MACCALLUM: It's amazing. All right, Carter, thank you very much.
PAGE: Thanks, Martha.
MACCALLUM: Good to have you with us tonight. So here now, Joe diGenova, former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Sir, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks for being here.
JOSEPH DIGENOVA, FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Thank you. Sure.
MACCALLUM: Your thoughts on this letter that you have read through. And as I pointed out, you know, it basically uses language to sort of remind everyone that this is the committee that launched Watergate.
DIGENOVA: Yes. Yes.
MACCALLUM: So, although they don't use the word impeachment here, it's pretty clear that that's seems to be where they are thinking about going.
DIGENOVA: Yes. Well, this, this is a letter to 81 people to produced documents. Everyone should refuse, and when they're subpoenaed, they should all take the fifth, because this is a perjury trap. This is not a legitimate investigation. It is a fishing expedition.
They're trying to get people up there to make them look bad, so they can try and make the president look bad. Carter Page is the last person who should go and talk to them. And why is that?
He cooperated with the FBI and helped convict two Russian spies in New York. Then, all of the sudden the FBI decided to frame him and use him to try and gather fake evidence to use against the president of the United States in a FISA warrant.
What the committee is going to try to do with Carter Page, is make them look like he was a Russian spy when he wasn't. So, they can dirty him up and refer him to the Justice Department for perjury.
No one should talk to this committee. Everyone should take the fifth. And if everyone takes the fifth, the American people will understand that this is not a legitimate investigation. It is political theatre and it is disgraceful conduct approved of by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
MACCALLUM: Well, I mean that that's -- do you think there's any chance that all of those people are going to do that, and that includes Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. -- people that's on the list?
DIGENOVA: I am. You know what -- who knows? Who knows? But I know as a lawyer what I would tell them. Now, you know, the Trump family is in a different situation. The private citizens should all refuse to produce any documents. As far as government officials, they'll do what they're told to do. And anybody who works for the government can always quit and take the fifth.
But let me tell you some. This is a fraud, this investigation. It is designed to smear people as witnesses, and it is designed to perjury, trap them, and make phony referrals to the Justice Department.
This is all about dirtying up the president of the United States, who we has been proven thus far has done absolutely nothing wrong.
MACCALLUM: It's interesting when you look at the language in this letter, it says they are investigating abuse of power, corruption, and obstruction of justice designed to undermine our laws, and the agencies that enforce those laws. And you know, much of this does go to the Mueller investigation.
I thought and this very interesting that Jerrold Nadler is just basically admitting that he's impatient. He says, who knows what it's going to come out? I mean, you know, we keep hearings going to come up, but we don't know. So, we better just get on our way and start our own investigation, despite the fact there's already two investigations going on in the Hill?
DIGENOVA: Sure. Well, this is a joke. And Nadler is a joke, his investigation is a joke. Look, Mueller has produced not a single indictment involving Russian collusion. All of the people that have been indicted is see their processed crimes, or Russian bats, or people who tried in -- you know, get into computers.
Not a single collusion offense. Nadler knows that. Pelosi knows that. They -- Schiff knows that. They know there's nothing there with regard to collusion, and never has been because it was created by Hillary Clinton.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: So, but you know, I think, Joe, for a quite some time that has been the sense.
DIGENOVA: Yes.
MACCALLUM: And as we have -- we always say, we haven't seen the Mueller report. It might blow everybody away. We will see what happens on the Mueller report. Ultimately finds out I have no idea.
But the feeling is that it has shifted from that original collusion search which would be a conspiracy charge to obstruction of justice, which is clearly what they are focusing on here.
I think that the abuse of executive power, corruption, all really falls under that umbrella of obstruction of justice, correct?
DIGENOVA: Yes, but listen, politically, they can say whatever they want. They can publish a report. This is not a criminal proceeding. They can say whatever they want when they're done. They'll make up stuff. They have already made it up.
Just listen to Adam Schiff, every time he says, "There's lots of evidence of collusion." When he's asked about it, he can't name it. Senator Warner -- Mark Warner.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Well, he talks about the Trump meeting. He talks about the Trump Tower meeting. He talks about --
DIGENOVA: No, yes.
MACCALLUM: No, I'm just saying -- you know, when asked, that's what he points too. And says it that the best evidence.
(CROSSTALK)
DIGENOVA: All perfectly legal. Not a thing wrong with it. All perfectly legal. Not a thing wrong with it.
MACCALLUM: It's interesting also that they threw the line into this letter that it says that they are responsible for passing laws that will prevent this kind of activity from occurring again.
So, it's sort of like -- you know, we need to talk to everyone so that we can come up with some new laws that will prevent this from -- you know, from becoming a habit.
DIGENOVA: Well, it's interesting. Since there is no proof that anything happened, then, I'm not sure what they're going to legislate about. But this is a cover story for a smear job against all the witnesses who will appear.
I mean, if you go up, been talk to them, you're out of your mind.
MACCALLUM: Joe diGenova. Thank you, sir. Good to see you tonight.
DIGENOVA: Thank you, Martha.
MACCALLUM: So, coming up next, this is a tragic story. At least, 23 people have lost their lives. We're going to get an update in moments on the deadliest tornado to hit the United States in six years. We'll going to go live to Alabama with the new report after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My babies, I just hugged them just like this. And we calling on Jesus. Just keep on saying, "Jesus, cover us. Cover us, Jesus."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: Tonight, the search for the missing is ongoing as we get brand new numbers from the deadly tornadoes and the latest pictures of the devastation on the ground. Jonathan Serrie has been reporting from Lee County all day and he joins us from there tonight now in Alabama. Good evening, Jonathan.
JONATHAN SERRIE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Martha. It turns out this was a major tornado that this community was dealing with the national weather service now believes that it was a powerful Ef4 tornado packing winds of 170 miles an hour. Meteorologists based this conclusion on the extent of the damage that they've been seeing here on the ground in Lee County, Alabama.
They believe this tornado was as much as a mile wide as it blew mobile homes off their foundations, tarring roofs off of houses. One longtime resident says she's never seen anything so devastating.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKIE PHILLIPS, STORM SURVIVOR: Nothing happened to us and everybody's got all this done to them. That's what's so bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SERRIE: While the property damage is extensive, the human toll has been devastating. Among the 23 confirmed fatalities, authorities say there are at least three children who died ages six, nine, and ten.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. KAY IVEY, R-ALA.: We lost children, mothers, fathers, neighbors, and friends. To know Alabama is to know that we are a tight-knit community of people. And today each of us mourns the loss of life of our fellow Alabamians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SERRIE: And Governor Ivey says she spoke with President Trump this morning. In fact, she says he called her on her cell phone and promised A- plus assistance when it came to FEMA and federal aid to help Alabama rebuild. Also, help being pledged from the other side of the aisle today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised Congress's full support in helping these hard-hit communities rebuild. Martha?
MACCALLUM: Jonathan, thank you very much. Jonathan Serrie reporting from Lee County. Coming up next a story exclusive tonight with the attorney that represents ISIS bride Hoda Muthana who is suing Secretary Pompeo and the Trump White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HODA MUTHANA, ISIS BRIDE: I know I am an American citizen and I know I have a right to come back. I have no other citizenship anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: A judge in the case of the ISIS Bride who wants to come back from Syria today ruled against fast-tracking that case but it is still pushing forward.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President of the United States himself said you're not welcome back to America, what would you say to him.
MUTHANA: I would tell him to study the legal system because apparently I am allowed back. I have papers. I have citizenship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: American-born Hoda Muthana went from being a student in Alabama to leaving her home and going to Syria where she became an ISIS bride in 2014. In Syria, she had three different husbands who were members of the brutal terrorist group known as ISIS or the Islamic State. She had a child with one of them, and she eventually had a change of heart and escaped. And now her father is suing the Trump administration for denying her re- entry to the United States.
Here now in THE STORY exclusive is Charles Swift the attorney for Hoda Muthana. Mr. Swift, welcome. Good to have you here tonight. I guess, first of all, your reaction to the fact that the judge said that he doesn't see any need to fast-track this case.
CHARLES SWIFT, ATTORNEY FOR HODA MUTANA: Well, we were disappointed in one part but not terribly surprised. The -- to prevail, we had to show that she would suffer immediate and irreparable harm, and that was a difficult question. Although we were disappointed on that part of the ruling, we were encouraged by the judge's comments on the strength of our case which is another one of the prongs. And he did not rule that our case wasn't strong. Quite the contrary he indicated --
MACCALLUM: In what way did he indicate that the case is strong?
SWIFT: Well, he looked at the government's argument. The government's argument is that she's not a citizen not because she wasn't born here, and not because her father wasn't -- was a diplomat at the time, but the government argues that the fact that Yemen didn't notify them that they'd fired her father from his diplomatic post for five months meant he kept diplomatic immunity. That's a very difficult argument for the government to prevail on. Its contrary to the arguments that --
MACCALLUM: So just to be clear, just so everyone understands, she's a child of a diplomat but if she's -- if he's not a diplomat anymore which he was not when she was born as I understand it, then she is not a citizen, correct?
SWIFT: Then she -- no, wrong. If she's not -- if he's not a diplomat, she's a citizen.
MACCALLUM: Then she is. Correct. Correct. Because if you're the child of a diplomat, then you're you know, here as a diplomat you do not become a United States citizen.
SWIFT: That's correct.
MACCALLUM: She was -- she claims that she was issued two passports and that that proves that she's an American citizen. The U.S. government is arguing that they were issued in error. Can you explain what they're -- why they say that?
SWIFT: Well, their argument now is that the passports were issued to her erroneously because -- even though they knew at the time that Yemen had delayed, they misinterpreted the law or somehow -- it's hard to explain their argument. It's actually a pretty difficult argument to make -- is that they now is to say our interpretation of the statutes and conventions play are that he maintained diplomatic immunity for five months after he was fired. That's an incredibly dangerous argument as the court noted.
MACCALLUM: All right. I want to play a sound bite from Secretary Pompeo who you are directly naming in this suit. Here's what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: She's not a U.S. citizen. She has no claim of U.S. citizenship. In fact, she's a terrorist. And we shouldn't bring back foreign terrorists to the United States of America. It's not the right thing to do. President Trump is determined that she will not come back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So I mean, part of his argument is that she's a foreign terrorist, that she left voluntarily, that she married three different members of ISIS, and that she you know, she did that of her own volition. So in essence, that she gave up her rights as an American citizen when she joined the enemy.
SWIFT: Now, understand that's not the argument that Secretary Pompeo's attorneys are making in court.
MACCALLUM: Well, that may be the case. That's what he's saying, and you know, that I think is what is on most Americans Minds as they listen to this story, you know, that your citizenship and your rights as an American citizen are -- can be violated by your actions. If you turn your back on the country and you go join a terrorist organization, it seems like a pretty good argument that you shouldn't be allowed back into the country because you might pose a threat to the country.
SWIFT: But it's a very flawed -- it's a flawed constitutional argument. You can't revoke citizenship on that basis and that's why they attorneys aren't making it.
MACCALLUM: Well, you know, they're claiming she doesn't have citizenship.
SWIFT: If one understands, the Supreme Court has already said that the loss of citizenship isn't a punishment, it's an -- its conferred by the 14th Amendment. It cannot be taken away absent very unusual circumstances and absent a judicial action, none of which have occurred here.
MACCALLUM: So it sounds like you feel like you've got a pretty good case.
SWIFT: I think I have an excellent case.
MACCALLUM: So when do you expect this to move forward and you know, do you think that she's in any danger? What kind of contact are you in with her? And how sure are you that she doesn't get back to this country and present a threat to the country?
SWIFT: Well, let's -- there's a lot of those. Yes, I expect the case to move forward not on an emergency basis but on an expedited basis, I would expect, because there are really only issues of law, this case to be resolved in the next few months, at least at its first stage.
With regards to the threat that she may pose if she comes back, I think I put a lot of trust in the ability of law enforcement to prosecute if she's actually committed criminal actions. But we can't remove people from the United States we are citizens because we're concerned they might be dangerous.
MACCALLUM: No, I hear you.
SWIFT: Think about -- think about what might happen on a different group that was considered dangerous under a different president. You go over to France for a couple of days on the holiday, you can't come back, your dangerous.
MACCALLUM: I think that's a pretty tough argument. If you're joining ISIS and they're chopping off people's heads, I think that's a pretty clear-cut, I should say, argument that you are you've joined a clearly dangerous group. But you mean, it all boils down to the citizenship issue and I think that's the legal basis of the whole question here is whether or not you win or lose the fight that she's actually a citizen and then we'll see what happens.
SWIFT: Absolutely.
MACCALLUM: OK.
SWIFT: I'm not here to defend her actions.
MACCALLUM: No, I hear you.
SWIFT: I'm here to defender her citizenship. That is two different things.
MACCALLUM: Well, I -- she has every right to go through that process and you are representing her. Thank you very much, Charles Swift.
SWIFT: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: Good to have you here tonight. So Hillary Clinton now has another reason that she lost the election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act and I will tell you, it makes a really big difference.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So we're going to fact check the numbers on that when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: A miraculous end to a breaking story out of Northern California tonight where these two young sisters have been found safe after they disappeared in the woods for nearly two days. And tonight, how a granola bar and some survival training brought them home.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We found shelter, a tree branch close to the ground. And we had my sister's rain jacket to keep us warm. We turn it sideways so each of us had armful that would stick our arm into it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: My gosh. Correspondent William La Jeunesse has the story.
WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Martha, these girls were missing for 44 hours. They survived in part because of lessons they learned in a 4-H club wilderness court. So, it's Friday. Eight-year-old Leia Carrico and her sister Caroline asked their mother, can we go for a walk? She says no. But 30 minutes later mom recognizes they were gone. She calls police, that's 3 p.m.
Sunday morning two volunteers noticed some tiny foot prints about a mile from the house. They began tracking those prints and at around 10.30 they found Leia and Caroline huddled under a tree. Moments later the girls were united with their parents on a highway in this remote area of Northern California.
Now get this. The sheriff said these tiny girls survived because of training at the 4-H club which instructed them to stop if they got lost which they did and they also learned to harvest drinking water off of huckleberry leaves.
Other than being hungry and dehydrated officials say medically the girls are fine. The temperature overnight in the area 200 miles north of San Francisco 40 degrees. The other thing that happened point rescuers in the right direction a few granola wrappers the girls left behind. Martha?
MACCALLUM: Thank good ness they are OK. Thank you very much to William La Jeunesse.
And developing tonight, 846 days passed since the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton is still placing blame in different places at different times for her stunning loss. This time she was talking to a crowd in Selma, Alabama that the Supreme Court changes to the Voting Rights Act is one thing that hurt her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act. And I will tell you it makes a really big difference.
It made a difference in Wisconsin where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40 and 80,000 people were turned away from polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Is that what really happened? Here now Jessica Furst Johnson, a campaign finance and election lawyer and general -- former general counsel to the Republican Congressional Committee. Jessica, thank you very much for being here.
JESSICA FURST JOHNSON, CAMPAIGN FINANCE & ELECTION LAWYER: Thanks for having me.
MACCALLUM: You know, first of all, just to break this down. She said that she did not -- she is the first person to run without the protection of the Voter Rights Act. So, what changed and why did she not run under that protection?
JOHNSON: Well, you know, I think it's important to point out that statement is wildly inaccurate. And I am guessing what she is conferring to is the Shelby County case that came down from the Supreme Court in 2013 said that the criteria that would be used to determine whether a state or a locality was subject to a pre-clearance requirement by the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws, whether that pre-clearance would stand.
The Supreme Court ruled that the criteria had been outdated. It hadn't been revised since 1975. So, the Supreme Court said, you know, the Voting Rights Act, I think Robertson his actual opinion said it is responsible for really protecting the right to vote here for making sure that there aren't any discriminatory actions that takes place with the respect to their right to vote but this criteria is outdated.
You know, we can't rely on the things that had happened in the past when we're talking about over 40 years ago, so they said we need to go back and look at that criteria. And then the interim the pre-clearance provision will be invalidated.
MACCALLUM: All right.
JOHNSON: So, she is only, so she is still very much running she did in '16 under the Voting Rights Act. Section two of the Voting Rights Act makes sure that there aren't any discriminatory actions with respect to voting. It's a very broad provision. Section three actually allows a bailing in of a jurisdiction. So is there a discriminatory issue, jurisdictions can still and are still bailed in.
MACCALLUM: Well, and, you know, I mean, I think that the study that she is referring to is the University of Wisconsin, Madison. And they went to -- they looked at two counties that Trump won in Wisconsin and they said that eligible non-voters were deterred by the Wisconsin voter I.D. law. And it was probably between 16,000 and 23,000 people who answered that they, you know, didn't have I.D. or they -- what kept them from going to the polls.
JOHNSON: Yes. You know, this is something we hear very often from the left especially when they've lost. That photo I.D. loss are responsible for those losses. But I'll tell you something what else is responsible for that loss, particularly in Wisconsin is that Hillary Clinton lost 23 counties that Barack Obama previous carried.
If you look at voter registration numbers in the state the turnout was actually up 4.3 percent. So, you know, it's a little ridiculous too. I'm not aware personally of any of these stories that she cites I would love to hear about them. But you know, I think that here you have actually a problem where the people that were turning out weren't voting for her.
MACCALLUM: And I mean, it also worth mentioning that she did not, she chose not to campaign in Wisconsin.
JOHNSON: Correct.
MACCALLUM: All right.
JOHNSON: Correct.
MACCALLUM: Thank you very much, Jessica Furst Johnson. Good to see you tonight.
So, coming up next, the free speech battle that is brewing in Arizona where high school students claim that they were told that they should ditch the MAGA gear next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: Protests outside of an Arizona high school tonight where students claim that they were reprimanded for toting political signage including MAGA gear and a pro Trump flag during spirit week but the school insists that it did not infringe on their free-speech rights instead interfering out of concern for student safety.
Trace Gallagher has the back story from us for us from our West Coast newsroom tonight. Hello, Trace.
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. The controversy began on Friday when Perry High School in Gilbert, Arizona held a spirit day were the theme was party in the USA. The students said they were encouraged to wear clothing to celebrate our country but when they showed up in make America great again attire along with the Trump flag the students claim they were reprimanded and told to take the clothing off. They refused. And freshman Logan Jones picks it up from there. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOGAN JONES, STUDENT, PERRY HIGH SCHOOL, GILBERT, ARIZONA: As we were taking pictures a police officer approached us and said we are asking you to leave the campus right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: Jones then claimed she was suspended for 10 days for not giving the resource officer her name. Another parent says her daughter was also asked to leave the school which prompted that mom to confront the principal with her cell phone video camera turned on. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER FARRIS, PARENT: So, you're going to tell me that you're going to ask my daughter to leave school because she was wearing a Make America Great Again sweatshirt?
DAN SERRANO, PRINCIPAL, PERRY HIGH SCHOOL, GILBERT, ARIZONA: Nope, that's not what happened.
FARRIS: That is what happened. Then why is she asked and being asked to leave? She's not the one that had the Trump flag and even if she did, why can't she have a flag on America day for school that says Make America Great Again?
(CROSSTALK)
SERRANO: Because to carry a flag around is not good use of the flag. It's disrespectful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: Yes, except it's not an American flag, it's a Trump flag. The principal then sends parents a letter reading in part, quote, "After school ended for the day, the students unveiled the signage again, meaning the Trump flag, in a manner that again cause concern for student safety."
In other words, the Trump flag caused a verbal altercation between students and the school was concerned it would escalate. But the school maintains it was not stifling their political viewpoints. Today, some 30 parents and 10 students caring American flags protested in front of the school, they want the principal and assistant principal to apologize to students and lift the punishments that were handed out.
We'll see. Martha?
MACCALLUM: Very interesting. Trace, thank you so much. Joining me now, Sean Spicer, senior adviser for America First Action and author of "The Briefing," and Christopher Hahn, former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer and syndicated radio host.
So why do you think that this evokes so much passion, Sean?
SEAN SPICER, SENIOR ADVISER, AMERICA FIRST ACTION: Well, I think right now anything to do with Trump and the conservative movement is going to face of backlash on campuses whether it's high school or college campuses. Unfortunately, I wish there's a little bit more maturity here. The principal probably is claiming that it was not necessarily what they were wearing but the fact that they've unfurled a flag, though the parents were told one thing.
If they were going to be told to wear a spirit stuff for this day, I think that they should have been clearer as to what they were supposed to wear and what they weren't. The students are constitutionally protected whether it's spirit day or not by a Supreme Court case that allows them to express themselves.
I just I wish that it doesn't have to come to this. I mean, this is kind of silly, the idea of a principal getting involved and then saying that the flag was disruptive which is not.
MACCALLUM: Yes. But you know what, let me tell you. Then I think --
(CROSSTALK)
SPICER: But they should have been very clear from --
MACCALLUM: Any parent knows, Chris Hahn that, you know, spirit week has become like kind of a hot button thing at schools.
CHRISTOPHER HAHN, FORMER AIDE TO SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER: Yes.
MACCALLUM: And when have, you know, patriotic day it becomes -- it becomes an issue in schools are getting so that they're afraid to have USA day which is really, that's the problem, isn't it, isn't that weird?
Well, it was party in the USA day. And Sean will tell you that's all about Miley Cyrus so these kids were way with the MAGA gear.
SPICER: I don't want to go there.
HAHN: But that said --
MACCALLUM: That's funny.
HAHN: that said, you know, I'm all for free speech. I don't know what really happened here. It seems like the students were confronted and as for idea and they refused. That's not good when you're a high school kid and a person in authority is asking you for I.D. why you're on that campus.
So, look, no one should ever be banned for using a political slogan on a college campus on a high school campus anywhere but people need to respect the rules of those campuses where they can in fact --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: I don't think --
HAHN: -- demonstrate.
MACCALLUM: Do you think Chris, that anything would have happen if a bunch of kids showed up in, you know, hope, Barack Obama hope T-shirts. The thing would -- anybody saying on the 9Inaudible)
HAHN: Look, I'm sure there -- I'm sure things like this happened on the other side as they are happening here. Conservatives love to point to anecdotal evidence and say everybody is out to get them.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Well, I'm just asking. I'm just asking.
HAHN: But I just don't think that free speech is a great thing right now.
MACCALLUM: All right. I want to play this because this is interesting too and on the college level. This is what the president had says about free speech on Saturday. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Today I'm proud to announce that I will be very soon shining an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want Federal Reserves to follow --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So, this is going to be very interesting. So, if you don't allow a speaker, you know, if one of the political clubs on campus doesn't allow a speaker, Sean, they may risk losing their federal funding.
SPICER: Well, look, I've spent a lot of the time over the last year visiting college campuses. And one of the first questions I always ask is has there ever been a conservative speaker here before. And they'll list off of the folks the Democrats and the folks that have visited campus.
But in many cases on the first one or among the first that have visited college campuses for all of the talk about these liberal arts colleges and universities being inclusive intolerant they are as long as you go along with a far-left progressive agenda. They don't support tolerance and inclusion when it comes to other ideas that don't support a progressive agenda.
Conservatives people of faith people who support this president are constantly under attack. You saw that young man Haven get hit in the face - -
HAHN: Please?
SPICER: -- and it got virtually zero coverage. The idea that we're constantly outraged at all of the stuff that goes on the right --
HAHN: Stop.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: All right. Let's see what Chris what had to say about it.
SPICER: -- and I think -- yes, hold on, Chris, hold on, I'm about to make a point here.
MACCALLUM: Go ahead.
SPICER: I think that violence in any level is unacceptable but it's interesting when it happens on the right --
(CROSSTALK)
HAHN: Me too.
SPICER: -- when these students on the conservative side are not allowed to do at the young America foundation has been vigilant and trying to up bring and allows speakers to come to campus.
With so often the rules are put in place --
(CROSSTALK)
HAHN: Yes.
MACCALLUM: All right.
SPICER: -- rooms are change, funding is not available suddenly.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: All right. Let's give Chris a chance to respond before we ran out of time. Go ahead, Chris.
HAHN: I think -- I think if the president wants to issue a First Amendment executive order, he should start by making it illegal for anybody who worked in the federal government to sign a nondisclosure agreement and it should invalidate anyone that has ever done it including people who worked on federal campaigns.
I don't think that right now we have a crisis in America of free speech. I do think, Sean, that all viewpoints should be welcome. That's why I come here, that's why I'm happy that I'm invited here because I have a different viewpoint than most people I debate and I bring people from all walks of life onto my radio show to debate.
MACCALLUM: We like that.
HAHN: Because I think a robust debate is what this country needs and I hope we have more.
MACCALLUM: Absolutely.
HAHN: You're right.
MACCALLUM: And its way is needed on college campuses to be sure because you can't be educated unless you've heard both sides. Gentlemen, thank you. Great to see you both tonight.
SPICER: You bet.
HAHN: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: Coming up next, a very important story. A Fentanyl bust that was big enough to have killed two million Americans and the opioid crisis is ravaging our heartland. Geraldo Rivera with me next. Do not go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We cannot let Fentanyl into our country. It's devastating, as you know better than I do. It's devastating.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: President Trump warning of the horrific dangers of the drug Fentanyl and its role in the opioid crisis. These days after the DEA seized enough Fentanyl from a New York home to kill two million people. On average 130 Americans die every single day from an opioid overdose claiming tens of thousands of lives every year.
Roaming correspondent at large Geraldo Rivera recently traveled to one of the hardest hit states, Ohio, he didn't have to go too far --
(CROSSTALK)
GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE: It's not too far.
MACCALLUM: -- for an in-depth look at the crisis in America's heartland and he joins me now. Geraldo, great to have you here.
RIVERA: Thanks, Martha.
MACCALLUM: What's your -- what was the biggest take away from this?
RIVERA: Well, I went there to Dayton, Ohio specifically because Dayton was the capital of the opioid overdose epidemic. This little city of 140,000 was experiencing 10, 11, 12 overdose deaths a day. I mean, it was horrifying, over 80 in a month.
Now they've cut it really dramatically. They've done that with a combination the task force of a federal, state, county, local authorities. They've gotten to drug treatment centers involve, family counseling involved, they've got the word out that Fentanyl kills. They have now, even the junkies have tests for Fentanyl in their heroin.
MACCALLUM: It's just so incredible.
RIVERA: You know, so it has a balm (Ph).
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: It sounds like a Clean Needle Program --
RIVERA: It's like --
MACCALLUM: A way to, you know, make people figure out what they're in for if they take what's in their hand.
RIVERA: Absolutely.
MACCALLUM: I want to play a sound bite from this, it's very compelling. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I went back straight taking plain pills and then I got worse from there. I went to hear Fentanyl. My (Inaudible) that I needed it more than I wanted it.
RIVERA: And then were you then committing robberies to support your habit?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
RIVERA: You were (Inaudible) from your family?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
RIVERA: And so, do they still do they understand, are they sympathetic?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. No. I stole their happiness from them too.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
RIVERA: It's heartbreaking. Eighteen years old, hurt her back started on prescription opioids principally OxyContin, pharma, this pharmaceuticals OxyContin. The doctor cut her off eventually. She turned to heroin because she was now addicted to the opioid. The heroin laced with Fentanyl ends her up in prison, now she's 22 years old.
She's finally, Sheriff Streck there in Montgomery County in Dayton, Ohio has done a wonderful job. They have programs now in the jail so they're helping out folks like this young lady, but it is so heart wrenching, Martha.
MACCALLUM: We have the sheriff that you referred to. Let's take a look at that sound bite.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROB STRECK, SHERIFF, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO: We got sick of seeing our loved ones die. Everybody came together, law enforcement, the treatment providers, the government agencies and businesses and said you know what, we're done with this, so we're going to do whatever we can to make sure that our loved ones get the help they need.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Well, good for them. You know, you mentioned that she was prescribed painkillers and he talks about the treatment providers. Do you feel like there's enough progress being made in doctors not turning this stuff out there?
RIVERA: Yes. But the problem is when you cut someone off who is now addicted to a prescription opioid what are they supposed to do? Now you want them to soldier on, you want them to fight it off, you want to go through, you know, what violent detox --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: But why are they giving it in the first place. I mean, there's like a feeling this country that, you know, pain is something you should never ever have. Now I understand if you're a cancer patient and you're dealing with excruciating pain. But if you are kid and you just had, you know, your knee fixture or something, you know, in a lot of cases you can get by with a pretty heavy dose of Advil or Tylenol, right?
RIVERA: Well, that's absolutely true. Like in Cleveland Clinic where I had my back surgery, they have signs posted everywhere. In the immediate postop phase, you get the opioids then you don't expect it unless you're a terminal cancer patient. That's way different, Martha than it was just a few years ago in many health institutes around the country where they were throwing the stuff out there because the drug providers, the Purdue providers they were selling this jamming it down the doctors --
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: And they were convincing all the doctors that it wasn't addictive.
RIVERA: Absolutely. That is a long-term acting don't worry this is like the panacea. So rather than go through rehab, rather than go the route of the Advil or, you know, the Tylenol the people were going to these drugs, these very powerful drugs, many of them overdosing. But imagine what happened. It wrecked the families in Montgomery County.
MACCALLUM: Look at that poor kid who said "I stole their happiness." This is a little clip from "Ben is Back" which I watched last night. I didn't do too on the movie theaters but it's worth watching. Watch this little clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Pockets.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You kind of (Inaudible)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. This is love. All right. You're free to go.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You didn't check my shoes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: I mean, this is the life of these parents. She knows how to check his pockets. She knows where he might have it in his shoes. I mean, the panic that sets in on a daily basis when you love a child who you think is going down this road, it's devastating.
RIVERA: And 72,000 Americans dying of overdoses last year, I mean, we lost 50,000 in 12 years of war in Vietnam.
MACCALLUM: Yes.
RIVERA: I mean, 72,000 Americans.
MACCALLUM: Unbelievable.
RIVERA: And rich, poor, black, white.
MACCALLUM: I have two friends who have lost family members to this and everybody does in this country at this point.
RIVERA: Everybody.
MACCALLUM: Geraldo, great work. Thank you. On "Fox & Friends" tomorrow morning. That is it on this Monday night. March the 4th a brand-new podcast is up today as well. It's really good. It is my interview with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. That's where you can find it. "The Story" goes on as you know. Back here tomorrow night. Tucker Carlson is up next.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/carter-page-targeted-by-house-democrats-in-new-probe