Days after testifying, Comey tells America to oust Trump

close

Video

Days after testifying, Comey tells America to oust Trump

The former FBI director tells Americans to 'use every breath we have' to oust Trump in 2020; Rep. Jim Jordan reacts to Comey's statements.

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," December 10, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: All right, breaking here tonight on "The Story." Why is James Comey who claimed that the investigation into the Trump team was an apolitical process? Now shedding all pretense of that, and calling for Democrats to do whatever it takes to get rid of this president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: All of us should use every breath we have to make sure that the lying stops on January 20th, 2021.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: And he says this must happen because -- not because of the still unforeseen outcome of the investigation, but because of the president's values and accusations, which he finds offensive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMEY: We need a moment of inflection where we all get off the couch and say that is not who we are and in a landslide rid ourselves of this attack on our values.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Well, the former FBI director clearly felt put upon by having to come to the Hill and answer questions about whether the origin of this whole investigation into the Trump campaign was ethically handled or whether it was politically driven as an insurance policy against a potential Trump win.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMEY: The notion that FISA was abused here is nonsense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Nonsense he says, but he cited that he couldn't remember or didn't know who paid for Christopher Steele's work that led to the infamous dossier which was the basis for opening this investigation into Trump and Russia. He is back on the Hill next week.

And Congressman Jim Jordan is going to be one of those who gets to ask follow-up questions of James Comey. He says there's a lot that's still unanswered. And he joins us in just a moment.

But first, Trace Gallagher, live in our West Coast Newsroom with where we go from here tonight. Hi, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. The months-long public silence of former FBI Director James Comey came to a crashing halt Sunday night when Comey talked about everything from the investigation of Robert Mueller to the importance of the 2020 election.

Comey acknowledged he has no insight into the Mueller probe but suggested if President Trump isn't already an unindicted co-conspirator, he's on the verge. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMEY: But if he's not there, he certainly close given the language in the indictment -- in the -- in the filing that the crimes were committed at his direction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Comey is referring to indications by the government that President Trump directed his one-time lawyer, Michael Cohen to make payments to two women accusing him of affairs. Though, Comey says Trump should not be impeached because it would let the country off the hook and a significant portion of the population would consider it a coup.

Comey goes on to call the presidency an "attack on our values." Saying, he needs to be removed by voters in 2020. He also attacked the president's personality. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMEY: Donald Trump is a deeply, deeply insecure person. And so, I don't see any prospect that he would be able to be quiet for long enough to hear the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: But the feeling is mutual, President Trump tweeting, "Leaking James Comey must have set a record for who lied the most to Congress in one day. His Friday testimony was so untruthful. This whole deal is a rigged fraud headed up by dishonest people who would do anything to -- so that I could not become president. They are now exposed."

And when he was asked last night about the president criticizing him on Twitter, Comey said, Robert Mueller might take notice. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMEY: I'm a witness, potentially. Yes. I don't know how the special counsel thinks about it. But if -- I were a prosecutor, and a public figure started attacking the credibility of one of my witnesses in a pending investigation, that's something that I would look at very closely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Though it's interesting that during his closed-door testimony with House Republicans on Friday, James Comey reiterated that a nine-month FBI counterintelligence probe, he oversaw as director turned up no evidence that Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you. Joining me now, Congressman Jim Jordan. He is one of the lawmakers responsible for questioning James Comey. And will do so next week. Again, as a member of the House Oversight Committee, Congressman, good to have you here tonight.

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Good to be with you.

MACCALLUM: It's interesting to look at all the things that James Comey did not know.

JORDAN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Or apparently didn't care to -- think care to know. He did not know basically that Christopher Steele had ever worked in conjunction with Fusion GPS. He didn't know that they were hired by (INAUDIBLE). That was any connection to the DNC. And he seemed to suggest that he thinks that even asking that was just completely irrelevant.

JORDAN: Yes. And he -- and he didn't know that Bruce Ohr, a top-ranking Justice Department official was meeting with Christopher Steele. And then, Bruce Ohr was passing that information on to the FBI.

I mean, didn't know that the key guy, Christopher Steele, whose work product was used to go get the warrant, didn't know a darn thing about the guy. So, that I found hard to believe. But again, remember, 245 times, he said, "I don't know, I don't recall, or I can't remember," what -- to our questions in the interview on Friday.

So, it's good that he's coming back. I got a few more things I want to ask him, specifically about the Comey memos. And we'll have him back on Monday.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, it is interesting that he almost seems to think that it's silly. I mean, he basically said as much. He said it's silly or ridiculous or absurd. I think, "absurd" was the word.

JORDAN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: To question how the FISA warrant was established. That then, obviously he sees a very deep need for it. So, it doesn't seem to care how or why it came about.

JORDAN: Martha, here is what's scary. Here is what's absurd. Congressman Ratcliffe, asking, "Should exculpatory information be given to the FISA Court?" And his response was, "We have no legal duty to do that."

Stop and think about that a second. You don't have a duty to give all the information to the FISA judge when you're going to go get a warrant to go spy on a fellow American citizen? That was his response, and he's the top guy at the FBI. That was scary when we saw that. I thought it was a great question that John asked, and that was his first response. "I don't think there's a legal duty."

He said, "Certainly, we should do it. We should give the information."  But the fact that he doesn't believe there is a legal duty to present all evidence to the FISA Court. So, he didn't really think there was a legal duty to tell the court who paid for the document? He didn't think there was a legal duty to tell the court that the guy who wrote the darn thing had been terminated because he was out leaking information to the press.

I mean, that was a scary thing that we did learn from our conversation with Mr. Comey on Friday. And again, I look forward to the next one, next Monday.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, when you have the highest imaginable level investigation into the leading -- into the nominee for the presidency of the United States, you would think that there would have been a little bit more inquisitiveness and curiosity about the underlying elements of it by the director of the FBI.

But he seems to suggest this was all way below him, and not something he would get involved in.

JORDAN: Especially, Martha, remember that you would think that would be the case, especially in light of the fact that the same people who just cleared the other nominee from the other party, who just ran the Clinton investigation, those same people moved over and launched the Trump-Russia investigation.

So you would think in that context, he would -- he would be telling the court all the information.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. You know, and he's also 100 percent positive that there's no political motive in any -- in any of this, and it's an insult to ask, apparently.

JORDAN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: All right. This is Adam Schiff, talking about what he thinks will happen next for the president based on the memos that were released on Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF., HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: My takeaway is there's a very real prospect to that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him. That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Based on the campaign finance violations suggestion, your thoughts.

JORDAN: Yes, I mean, look, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler already got the president in prison. I mean, this is ridiculous. So, well, I thought our job was to get to the truth. And that's what I've been focused on. That's what Matt Gaetz, Mark Meadows, our whole team has been focused on.

Let's get to the truth of what the FBI did when they took Christopher Steele's work, paid for by the Clinton campaign to a secret court to get a warrant to go spy on the Trump campaign. Let's find out all the answers to important questions.

Let's get the truth for the American people. But here we have the guys who are going to be running the committees in the next Congress already got the president tried and convicted, and going to prison. That is ridiculous.  That is unfortunate.

Our focus as members of a separate legal branch of government should be simply on one thing. Getting the truth, getting answers for the American people. And it's unfortunate that Mr. Schiff and Mr. Nadler, I think said the things that they did over the weekend.

MACCALLUM: I want to ask you about Maria Butina who has reached a deal to cooperate with the federal government. She was here -- you know, doing work sensibly for the NRA, she is from Russia. If there's another American individual who is involved in all of this, what do you make of that? And how interested are you in what was going on there?

JORDAN: Yes. You know, it's not an area I've looked into. We'll wait and see what comes out. We wait and see. I'm waiting for Mr. Mueller's report. I mean, how long has it been now? 18 months, 19 months since he was -- he was -- he was first named special counsel. I'm waiting for that report. Let's get that done.

One thing we know though, Martha, all this time there is yet one bit, not one bit of evidence to show any type of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to impact the election.

But we do know all these things about how the FISA process was abused. We do know all these things about Christopher Steele. We do know all the bias that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had, all the -- we do know this too, the top five people at the FBI. James Comey fired. Andy McCabe, deputy director fired. Jim Baker demoted then, left. Lisa Page demoted then, left. And deputy director of the counterintelligence, Peter Strzok was demoted then, fired.

Those were the key people. We do know all that. So, let's get the Mueller report out there as quick as we can. Let's get answers for the American people.

MACCALLUM: Yes. That's what the Wall Street Journal wrote about today, as well. Saying enough -- you know, everybody deserves to see what is in all of this. There's also calls to release all of the transcripts from the Michael Cohen discussions to just get a really full picture about what exactly he said. Which I think would be fascinating to see all of that.  So we hope that will happen as well.

Congressman Jordan, thank you. Always good to have you here.

JORDAN: You bet, thank you. You bet.

MACCALLUM: So coming up next, new contenders emerging President Trump's hunt for a new chief of staff at the White House. Including my next guest, Republican Congressman Mark Meadows who says that this position would be an "incredible honor". Does that sound like he wants the job? Coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Tonight there's a growing list of candidates emerging of possible contenders to become the next person to be the chief of staff at the White House after the unexpected announcement this weekend from frontrunner Nick Ayers, current chief of staff to Vice President Pence, that he will be leaving the White House at the end of the year.

So, the list includes a wide range of players. Including U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, both of them are pretty busy with China and trade deals that are going on.

You've got Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey. Also on that list, my next guest, North Carolina Congressman Mark Meadows.

Congressman Meadows joins us now. He is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. Congressman, welcome. Good evening, and good to have you with us tonight.

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: Great to be with you, Martha.  Thanks so much.

MACCALLUM: You said when asked about this, that you think it would be an incredible honor to serve as chief of staff. So, do you want the job?

MEADOWS: You know, it's not been anything that I've been out advocating for. You know, my life changed over the last 24 hours when Nick Ayers decided not to do it and there was a story out there that I was on a list.  You know, I can't say this. It's going to be the President's decision.  It's going to be one that he gets to pick from a lot of well-qualified candidates as you just mentioned.

And at the end of the day, it's who's going to serve him best and serve this country best. And so right now I've got a great job in representing the people of Western North Carolina. I'm going to continue to do that and yet at the same time you know there needs to be someone to support this President and making sure that we indeed make America great again.

MACCALLUM: So it sounds like if you were offered the job, you would say yes.

MEADOWS: Well, you know, listen, there's a whole lot you don't answer a question before it's asked but I can say this that because it's an honor certainly I'm unfavorably inclined to at least have a discussion with the President. I have not -- I generally don't talk about my conversations with the President. But since Nick Ayers has stepped down, I have not had a conversation with the President about this potential. It's been more reporting than anything. But at the same time, we just want to make sure that he has a good partner to make sure that the White House works well and works on behalf of the American people.

MACCALLUM: Do you think John Kelly was not a good partner? And what do you think is missing? What do you think that that is needed in that job regardless of whether or not it's you?

MEADOWS: You know, I can tell you that I was a fan of John Kelly. I think he's not only served our country well as chief of staff but served our country and his previous career. I knew him in his previous career as a three-star general. And so this is nothing to do with his abilities or inabilities, as much it is really trying to make sure that the president has someone that can move it forward.

And you got to look at the chief of staff job, you know, historically, whether it's this president or any other president, the tenure of chief of staff's has not been a long four year or five-year process. And so, you know, it's a demanding job. It's a job that keeps you on call 24/7. And so you know, as the President looks to make a change, I think what you'll see is that he'll be thoughtful about it and ultimately make the right decision whether it's me or anybody else.

MACCALLUM: All right, I want to move on but just one last question on that. What would -- what would be the number one thing you think that the person in that job needs to do on day one?

MEADOWS: Well, I think the number one thing that he needs to do is make sure that you empower the staff there, allow the president to not only initiate the things that he thinks are important but prioritize those with Congress. And so whomever is chosen for that job, if they empower the current staff and making sure that they actually act on behalf of the American people, I think it'll be a chief of staff that serves the president and the country well.

MACCALLUM: All right. And you have no -- you've not discussed -- you don't have a meeting set up right now to talk --

MEADOWS: I don't. That's a good follow up question but I don't.

MACCALLUM: OK. With regard to the investigation which doesn't get a lot of attention into the Clinton Foundation, the DOJ designated John Huber to look into this. They have 6,000 pages of evidence that they've gone through. The Foundation raised $2.5 billion and they're looking into potential improprieties. What's next on this investigation?

MEADOWS: Well, I think for the American people, they want to bring some closure, not just a few sound bites here there. So we're going to be having a hearing this week not only covering over as some of those 6,000 pages that you're talking about, but hearing directly from three whistleblowers that have actually spent the majority of the last two years investigating this. Some of the allegations they make are quite explosive, Martha. And as we just look at the contributions.

Now, everybody is focused on the contributions for the Clinton Foundation and what has happened just in the last year. But if you look at it, you know, it has a you know, a very strong rise the minute she was selected as Secretary of State. It dipped down when she was no longer then, then rose again when she decided to run for president. So there's all kinds of allegations of you know, pay to play and that kind of thing. We just want the truth to be revealed.

MACCALLUM: Do any -- do these whistleblowers have evidence that there was ever a quid pro quo of a donation in return for some activity as Secretary of State?

MEADOWS: Well, they do. They've made some allegations there. And again, I want to stress their allegations and so we're hoping to get to the bottom of that. They've turned over their documents not only to the FBI but they turned them over to the IRS. And you know, I've been led to believe that there is actually an ongoing investigation with the FBI even though DOJ is not independently confirming that. But based on conversations that they have had and others it sounds like there's a real investigation going on that hopefully will provide some real fruits.

MACCALLUM: All right, we'll watch for that hearing because it's been going on a while and I think a lot of people wonder if there's actually an investigation there. So we'll see what you guys find out next week, all of you find out. Thank you very much, Congressman Mark Meadows. Pleasure to talk to you tonight, sir.

MEADOWS: Thank you, Martha. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Up next, a Heisman Trophy winner becomes the latest target of Twitter trolls digging up dirt from the athlete when he was 14 and 15. Ben Shapiro next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KYLER MURRAY, HEISMAN TROPHY WINNER: I've worked my whole life to fulfill my goals and you know -- but at the same time I know there's a higher power looking down on me. He enables me to do all things. And for that, I'm grateful for the many blessings that God has blessed me with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: A lot of backlash about this over a USA Today hit piece on a college athlete at the pinnacle moment of his college career. He won the Heisman Trophy on Saturday and that moment was nearly overshadowed by comments that were made when he was on Twitter back when he was 14 and 15 years old. Trace Gallagher has a story for us tonight from our West Coast newsroom. Trace?

GALLAGHER: Martha, the tweets in question from Oklahoma quarterback Kyler Murray's account were posted in 2011 and 2012 when the 21-year-old as you said was 14 and 15 and they include the word queer or queers. Most were deleted hours after he won the Heisman but it didn't take long for outlets like USA Today to write articles saying Murray's "memorable night also helped resurface social medias memory of several homophobic tweets" leading Murray to issue an apology saying, "I used a poor choice of words that doesn't reflect who I am or what I believe. I did not intend to single out any individual or group."

But the reaction on social media was largely supportive of Murray with people responding to USA Today's articles saying things like "can someone organize a boycott of USA Today?" And "they didn't surface, you dug them up." And that USA Today was "using dumb crap he tweeted when he was 15 to ruin the greatest achievement of his life."

The response to Kyler Murray was also positive like this quoting again.  You were a child. The media is despicable and I am sorry you have to deal with their witch-hunt. And this, "no need for an apology 14, 15-year-old guys say and do stuff that is mind-boggling in reflection. I know I sure did. It's part of growing up. Congrats on the Heisman.

Murray and the Oklahoma Sooners will face top-ranked Alabama in the college football playoff. If the Sooners lose, Murray is off to play major league baseball having already signed a multi-million dollar contract with the Oakland A's. And his controversy comes days after comedian Kevin Hart stepped down from hosting the Oscars after some anti-gay tweets surface from eight or nine years ago.

Hart set on Instagram that he hadn't change -- or he had changed but didn't apologize though he eventually posted this tweeting "I'm sorry that I hurt people. I am evolving and I want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart. Much love and appreciation to the Academy. I hope we can meet again. A replacement host for the ceremony has not yet been announced. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Wow, Trace, thank you so much. Joining me now Ben Shapiro, Editor in Chief of DailyWire.com. Ben. good evening. Great to have you with us tonight. You have gone after the writer of that piece in USA Today who said that the tweets had resurfaced and we all know that you know they were digging for them no doubt the second he won the award. You said, he should be fired that writer. His name is Scott Gleeson.

BEN SHAPIRO, EDITOR IN CHIEF, DAILY WIRE: Yes, I mean the idea that they just sort of resurfaced, what magically, is you're sitting there, boom, they sort of resurfaced in front of them or is it possible that this particular writer decided to resurface those tweets from when this kid was 15 years old.

The fact that we now have a social justice warrior class that sits atop the nation's sort of social judiciary and determines who gets to win an award and who doesn't get to win an award and they dig back into everything he possibly said on social media going back years earlier so we can wreck your career or force an apology out of you and this is supposed to make the world better is simply absurd.

I don't know a lot of people who haven't changed their opinions since there were 14 years old or don't regret dumb stuff they said when they were 14 or 15 years old. So to take a kid who just won the peak trophy in college football and then search backs when he was 14 for something bad he said and then shame him over it, it's just despicable stuff.

MACCALLUM: Charles Cooke wrote about National Review and he said you know, if he had done an actual crime like shoplifting or joy riding or something it would have been expunged from his record when he turned 18. But you know, an off-color tweet or an unkind tweet is just you know, it's like whack-a-mole. If something good happens to somebody, there's like you know, people coming out with hammers to hit you on the head and knock you back down.

SHAPIRO: It's a disincentive to success. You see it with Kevin Hart as well. I mean the minute that Kevin Hart finally achieves this lifelong dream presumably of hosting the Oscars within 24 hours he's forced to recant his hosting of the Oscars because of some old tweets that he put out back in 2010 in a comedy routine that he did in 2011. The idea that you're making the world a pure or a better place for investigating every single thing that a person put on a social media site back 10, 15 years ago is just absurd. It's making the world a much worse place a much more paranoid place.

And by the way, it's forcing people to shut up which is not actually what we want. If we want people to give their honest opinion so that we can have good discussions and maybe dissuade them of those opinions, this isn't helping.

MACCALLUM: Do you think -- do you think Kevin Hart should have pushed back and said no, you know, this is ridiculous. I'm sorry that I did that but I still want to host the Oscars. I mean, I feel like you know, someone like him needs to push back against this and just say point out how absurd the whole thing is.

SHAPIRO: Well, originally he did right. I mean, his initial response was I'm not going to apologize for something that I did eight, nine years ago and -- progressed. And then they was forced to back down. I'm sure his agent called them and said listen, you're going to start losing movie deals unless you do an abject apology and just get out of the spotlight as fast as humanly possible.

MACCALLUM: All right, I got a couple of other story I want to get your thoughts on. Beto O'Rourke is definitely spending some time talking to people trying to figure out if he can run for president. He spoke with President Obama and now he's hoping to get Al Sharpton's endorsement. Your thoughts on his future and on that?

SHAPIRO: Well, I mean the facts that people in the Democratic Party are still going on bended knee to Al Sharpton who still has not apologized for his role in the Crown Heights riots in 1991 or the Freddy's Fashion Mart that ended with the death of several people. The fact that he is still considered a Charleston to be a moral voice inside the Democrat Party to whom people need to pay obeisance is absolutely absurd.

Honestly, his following is minute outside of the kind of traditional Democratic elite class nobody else really cares what Al Sharpton thinks but as long as they can pay him a few hundred thousand dollars to stop bothering them and then he provides them racial absolution then I guess he'll continue to do this.

MACCALLUM: I want to play this piece of sound which I thought was pretty remarkable today. Emmanuel Macron looked a little bit like a hostage video begging people to understand how kind he is and how nice he is and how much money and how many more benefits he wants to bestow on everybody to stop the riots in Paris. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMMANUEL MACRON, PRESIDENT OF FRANCE (through translator): Now, I'm going to act very fast in order to resolve this problem. I'm going to ask the government to follow up, to make sure that all the students when they graduate, they are able to find work.

And I want to see an immediate and a real improvement in the salaries. This is why I'm ordering an end of the year bonus for all employees without any tax. How we treat you is very important part of the nation. In 2019 you are going to see this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What do you think of that?

SHAPIRO: And when politicians make promises to people about endless benefits and endless wage increases and endless job opportunities no matter what your educational background. And when those people don't get those things and when it turns out they have to pay exorbitant taxes in order to pay for all of those promises they tend to get kind of ticked off. And that's what you are seeing in France.

The unleaded gas tax in France is 64 percent. The diesel tax is 59 percent. The income taxes across Europe including the Nordic nations are exorbitantly high and that's to pay for these massive social programs.

All of which people want to see increase not decrease. Eventually, all of this stuff comes due and it turns out there is not a lot of upper income mobility when you are getting taxed and you are making base salaries of $60,000 and getting taxed 60 percent in Denmark.

MACCALLUM: Ben, thank you. Always good to see you. Thanks for being here tonight.

SHAPIRO: Thanks so much.

MACCALLUM: Ben Shapiro. So, coming up next, actress and Me Too activist Alyssa Milano denouncing Betsy DeVos changes in title IX in a beautiful Christmas story that goes something like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALYSSA MILANO, ACTRESS: So, go ahead, put one more thing on your list of holiday tasks. Take Betsy Devos' (muted) gifts and shove it up her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Me Too activists are calling Betsy DeVos out for the Grinch this Christmas season for the new rules for college campuses and how they deal with accusations of sexual assault and harassment. Supporters of these changes say that this rollback of the Obama rules that were unfair they believe to the accused is a good thing. But opponents are launching a full court press to try to stop that from happening. Actress and activist Alyssa Milano narrated a Christmas themed video to attack the education secretary's plan. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MILANO: This holiday season, Betsy DeVos sent a lovely gift to the students of America. New title IX guidelines. Here is a little story about it.

Title IX protects women. That much she knew. And something so good simply won't do. Sweep assault under the rug, walk back student rights. Protect creditors when they put up a fight. So, go ahead, put one more thing on your list of holiday tasks. Take Devos' (muted) gift and shove it up her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Lovely, right? But not every feminist agrees with Alyssa Milano. My next guest wrote this in an editorial in the New York Times. "I'm a feminist and a Democrat, and as a lawyer, I have seen the troubling racial dynamics at play under the current title IX system. And the lack of due process for the accused. Ms. DeVos' proposals take important steps to fix these problems."

Lara Bazelon is a law professor and author of "Rectify: The Power of Restorative Justice After Wrongful Conviction." Lara, thank you very much for being here tonight. What's wrong with what Alyssa Milano is getting at there?

LARA BAZELON, AUTHOR, RECTIFY: The problem here is that we have been hopelessly divided into team accuser and team accused. And what needs to happen is that we all should be on the same team, which is team process, team due process. What we should care about is getting to the truth.

And right now, in too many cases in too many colleges under the current regulation that is not happening. Because clients like mine are being subjected to what essentially amounts to a star chamber where they are not told that they are accused of, they are not given a hearing and they are not given any chance to question the people for making accusations and then subsequently they are expelled and branded rapists.

MACCALLUM: Yes. And their life is basically over. You know, I've seen cases where the person goes to their new school that they work hard to get into it. And within days they are also ejected from that school because the word has now followed them of what happened at their prior school that they felt they were falsely accused of.

This is from NARAL. They say the new rule from Betsy DeVos would require universities to allow accused sexual abusers to cross examine and retraumatize their victims. This is sickening. This is the kind of falsehood that is really poisoning this discussion. Is it not?

BAZELON: Yes. That is not true. So how it would work is that both sides would have the right to cross examine each other through an adviser. So, we are talking about an indirect process that would presumably be subject to reasonable limitations.

And that's not the only mistruth that is out there. Other organizations have claimed including the ACLU that these proceedings are going to favor the accused, which isn't true. All of the rights again are reciprocal and meant to benefit both sides.

MACCALLUM: You know, it always seems to me when I look at these situations and I've interviewed, you know, a number of young men who have been in situations that they felt were completely unjust to them.

You know, the problem is as you, I think so rightly say, you really need to strip away the sex of both of the people involved and just look at the evidence in front of the case and figure out who is the, who was wronged? Who was actually wronged?

BAZELON: Right. And to do that what you need to do is have some way of testing the truth of the allegation. We don't in this country accuse, condemn and ban people based on the untested allegations. That's just an undemocratic principle. That is not the way our country is supposed to work.

MACCALLUM: Yes. It's fair enough.

BAZELON: Unfortunately, in too many schools that's what's happening.

MACCALLUM: All right. Tell me is there anything in this new proposal you don't like that you think should be changed?

BAZELON: Yes. So, I'm not completely embracing every single suggestion. I think there is absolutely room for improvement here. My point is that the due process protections are completely in line with case after case of courts reversing what schools have done, reversing expulsions because they say the students were denied any semblance of a due process.

However, there is plenty of room for improvement. So, for example, there should be some redefinition of what constitutes sexual assault. I think the DeVos definition is unduly narrow. I also think it's incredibly important that we collect data on race and socioeconomic class.

Because in my experience and the experience of my colleagues, it is people of color upon whom these punishments fall the hardest. And yet, because the Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Education doesn't collect data and doesn't count, we don't know empirically know what's going on.

MACCALLUM: Very interesting work that you are doing. Thank you very much, Lara. Great to have you with us tonight. Thank you.

So, coming up next, the surprising new move from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on a case involving Planned Parenthood. Judge Andrew Napolitano up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRETT KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: Every American can be assuredly that I will be an independent and impartial justice devoted to equal justice under law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAVANAUGH: I do not decide cases base on personal or policy preferences. I'm not a pro-plaintiff or a pro-defendant judge. I'm not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I'm a pro-law judge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: A show of independence from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh siding with four liberal justices on this round. Opting not to hear a case that called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood in some state Medicaid programs in Louisiana.

Chief Justice John Roberts also voted against hearing that case but conservative justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch criticized the move by Kavanaugh.

Joining me now is Judge Andrew Napolitano. Fox news senior judicial analyst. Judge, good to see you on this Monday everything.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Likewise.

MACCALLUM: So what happened here?

NAPOLITANO: Well, this is the state of Louisiana lost in the lower courts as to whether or not the state has to use the state funds to fund Planned Parenthood. And the Medicare regulations and Medicaid regulations say you have to.

So, the regulations being challenged, the Louisiana wanted to argue the Supreme Court, we should be able to spend our money how we want. And the appeal process is to ask the Supreme Court for permission to hear the appeal.

Four justices is all it takes to require all nine to hear the appeal. In this case, only three voted yes. The three you mentioned, Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. And six voted no. So, the right to life community today is all a bother. Wait a minute. We thought Brett Kavanaugh was one of us. And I have to say the right to life community, Brett Kavanaugh may very well be one of you, but on the court, he is going to make a decision based on the law.

I wish he would have voted yes. I would have been with the state of Louisiana. I don't think like the president that the state should have to spend tax dollars on Planned Parenthood but there are a lot of reasons aside from ideology while just justices vote not to take a case. This is not the right case to take.

We have other cases that are more important and more timely right now. This is a very technical issue about the standing of a person to sue a state. This is not on the merits of whether or not Louisiana must spend this money.

When you vote not to take the case you don't give reasons why you are not taking it so we don't know what Justice Kavanaugh was thinking. But I'm suggesting to the people who are pro-life they should not assume he is a trigger to them. They should assume that he is doing what he believes is the right thing under the law.

MACCALLUM: Well, that's what he said to the entire hearing that he would be going to be independent--

NAPOLITANO: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- and that he was going to look at the case and decide whether or not he thought it merited the appeal.

NAPOLITANO: What is unusual is that the three dissenters taunted him.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

NAPOLITANO: It's not by name but it was obvious who they were taunting in the four-page as if they were not--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes. Because if he would have been with them, it would have been heard.

NAPOLITANO: Correct. Correct.

MACCALLUM: All right. I want to move on because I want to get your thoughts on the potential indictment of the president which you have said you think is possible. Even within the time frame of being president.

NAPOLITANO: I don't know why the federal prosecutors in their -- these are the federal prosecutors in New York City in their submission to a federal judge here in New York on the sentencing of Michael Cohen, added -- and this was direct and paid for by the president. But when they put that in there, they can't put it in there unless they have evidence. And they can't make an allegation against anyone.

MACCALLUM: Is there any -- I mean, what if they twisted his arm and said look, if this isn't in here if you don't say that this was at the behest of the president or that it had an impact on the election, you are not going to get a deal?

NAPOLITANO: Well, then they twisted him to lie. But look, they are not saying where the evidence came from. They are certainly not putting forth Michael Cohen and vouching for his credibility. He just pleaded guilty to lying under oath.

For them to have said this, and this is a very sophisticated federal prosecuting office, the most highly regarded in the country once headed by Rudy Giuliani and (Inaudible). Once headed by James Comey.

For them to have said that, they must have had some corroborated evidence for it. Because they can't ethically tell something to a federal judge they can't prove.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And the president says so what? It's not a big deal even if that, you know, it's not a big deal.

NAPOLITANO: I think it is a big deal.

MACCALLUM: It will be the lawyer's fault he said.

NAPOLITANO: Well, I don't know--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: For advising and--

NAPOLITANO: -- I don't know why they said it but the fact that they said it means they have evidence to prove it. And they can't leave it dangling out there. You accuse the president of the United States of committing a crime you better put up or shut up. You better prove it or you better withdraw it.

MACCALLUM: Judge, thank you.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: See you next time.

NAPOLITANO: You got it.

MACCALLUM: All right. Coming up next, the enduring legacy of Dr. Charles Krauthammer whose reflections on life and politics will forever live on through a brand-new book published by, with the help of his son Daniel who looks a lot like his dad, doesn't he?

NAPOLITANO: Yes, he is.

MACCALLUM: And he is coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FORMER SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: The one thing I do believe is that of all the possible views of God, atheism is the least plausible. The idea that there is no meaning or purpose or origin that the universe is and always was. I mean, that cannot be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRAUTHAMMER: All your life, and every once in a while, you get them in the right order and you gave the world a knowledge. So, I just hope I get the voyage (Ph) in the right order every once in a while. And give the world a knowledge. That's the most that I can hope for. But it's what I exist to do, really.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: He's a beloved icon of our Fox News family, the late Dr. Charles Krauthammer. Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, best-selling author, he passed away in June. But his legacy lives on in a newly published collection of columns, speeches, and other works. Some of them previously unpublished, called "The Point of it All." Don't we all want to know what the point of it all is?

His book was edited by his son Daniel Krauthammer who joins me now. Daniel, great to have you with us. Welcome.

DANIEL KRAUTHAMMER, CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER'S SON: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, tell me a little bit about the process of, you put this book together with your dad at the end of his life?

KRAUTHAMMER: Yes. Well, he had been working on it for quite some time before his health crisis struck last year. So, he was quite far advanced. But when he did get hospitalized and he was there for quite some time, 10 months, I helped set up his room so that he could work on it and continue chipping away at it. And helped him and got a sense of where he was going with it and what he wanted to do with it.

And then when we were given the final prognosis and knew the end was coming, he entrusted me to finish it for him. And that has been the most important thing in my life these last months to complete it and complete it well. As he would've wanted.

MACCALLUM: That must've been very emotional for you to finish that work after you lost your dad, who I know that you were so close to. And he would not have trusted this to anyone else.

KRAUTHAMMER: Yes. It was really hard. Both emotionally, and also practically speaking, I mean. He has a huge body of work that I went through in its totality to make sure that I could fill every gap and make sure that the whole book held together and expressed all of his feelings across all of the range of topics.

But along with being hard, I knew that it was what I needed to do. And it felt like the right thing to do. And it's been very rewarding to have it complete now and be able to have everyone who looked to him to look at it themselves.

MACCALLUM: Did you feel him guiding you in one way or the other when you were trying to figure things out?

KRAUTHAMMER: Yes. Well, I think, yes, because his words spoke to me. And that was one of the wonderful things about working on it actually. In some ways it was hard to hear his voice, but in other ways it was wonderful to read things I had never read before and listen to speeches I had never heard before. And here new things. And also hear how his ideas reverberated time and again with such consistency across decades. And it was really powerful to me. And moving to me to see both the political messages that he had and the personal ones.

MACCALLUM: Well, he of course knew that the point of it all in many ways is family. And here is what said about you when you were born. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

C. KRAUTHAMMER: When Dan was born, I wrote a column about his birth. And it was a good column, and it was nice. And then when he was one, I wrote one on his first birthday. And then I realized I'm never going to do this again. This is using him. This is going to be his vision of himself through my eyes. And I simply won't do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What you think about that?

D. KRAUTHAMMER: It's the refrain that I am used to. He was a private man in many ways. And doing that interview for him was not easy, actually, I know. But especially when it came to me and my mom, I think he wanted to protect us and not to use us, so to speak, for his career and for his writing.

And to him that was the most precious thing was what we had. And you know, that wasn't to be mixed up with the rest of it. But and it was something that I dealt with too, of figuring out how much to share in this book. But I decided looking to his example of how he spoke about his father and realizing that it's different when you are raising someone who is going to grow into the words that you've said versus someone who is left and who you want to honor and celebrate and let the world know about, which was--

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: What a beautiful job, Daniel. And he was so, so proud of you which goes without saying. Charles Krauthammer.com is the web site where everyone can go to find all of this together.

D. KRAUTHAMMER: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you. Thank you so much.

D. KRAUTHAMMER: Thank you so much.

MACCALLUM: That is it for tonight. We will see you back here tomorrow night with more of The Story as we move forward. Definitely get a copy of "The Point of it All" Charles Krauthammer, put it next to your bed.
 
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.