Former Clinton aide blasts Sen. Gillibrand as a 'hypocrite'

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," November 17, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: The 2016 election was on the 380 days ago, and Hillary Clinton has still not accepted that Trump won. How do I know that? The Democrat herself she just suggested, the elected may have been well rigged.


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that there are lots of questions about its legitimacy. And we don't have a method for contesting that in our system. That's why I've long advocated for independent commissions to get to the bottom of what happened.


HENRY: Wait, didn't Secretary Clinton say in the final presidential debate that it was critical to our democracy that the losing candidate accept the results? Yes, in fact, she accused Candidate Trump of charging the election was rigged every time things were not going his way -- she called that horrifying for our country. Yes, horrifying. Was that just because she was convinced she was going to win? Well, that question to our exclusive guest this hour: Top Clinton Advisors, Philippe Reines. Seen here, playing Candidate Trump in the Democrats mock debate sessions last year. He has a lot -- he wants to get off his chest about a civil war brewing within the Democratic Party. Senators like Kirsten Gillibrand suddenly turning on the Clintons over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is it your view that the President Clinton should've stepped down at that time given the allegations?

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-NEW YORK: Yes. I think that is the appropriate response. But, I think things have changed today, and I think, under those circumstances, there should be a very different reaction.


HENRY: Philippe is blunt about saying he thinks Senator Gillibrand is a hypocrite, because she gladly took Bill and Hillary Clintons' endorsements and campaign money, but is now running for the Hills. Is the nationwide sexual harassment scandal that's now reached Capitol Hill? Does Team Clinton have a point or are they just mad the Democrats no longer seem to fear the power couple? And what about President Trump? Why is he tweeting about Al Franken but ducking on Roy Moore? We'll dig into all of that fair and balanced as always. But we begin with our Chief Washington Correspondent, James Rosen, with more on Senator Gillibrand. Good evening, James.

JAMES ROSEN, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF WASHINTON CORRESPONDENT: Ed, good evening from Washington. As the occupants of the New York Senate seat once held by Hillary Clinton, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is frequently mentioned as a potential contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Early in her political career, she campaigned with former President Clinton, but now Gillibrand tells The New York Times that Mr. Clinton should've resigned the presidency amid the sexual misconduct allegation that led to his impeachment and acquittal at trial in the Senate.


GILLIBRAND: Things have changed today. And I think, under those circumstances, there should be a very different reaction. And I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump.


ROSEN: Former President Clinton's office did not respond to our request for comment but Gillibrand's comments provoked a furious reaction from Philippe Reines, the former Spokesman for Hillary Clinton, who tweeted, and I quote: "The Senate voted to keep President Clinton but not enough for you, Senator Gillibrand? Over 20 years, you took the Clintons' endorsements, money, and seats. Hypocrite. Interesting strategy for 2020 primaries. Best of luck."

Prominent figures at The New York Times, The Atlantic Magazine, MSNBC, and elsewhere have recently called for the Democratic Party and the Feminist Movement to have a "reckoning with their defense of the 42nd president" against charges, including rate, similar to those sweeping various industries today. Mr. Clinton belatedly acknowledged an inappropriate relationship with his 22-year-old intern, Monica Lewinsky, but he denied the rape allegations from Juanita Broaddrick.

In January of this year, a Gallup poll asked respondents to rank how various presidents will go down in history. 33 percent said Bill Clinton will be ranked above average; 33 percent said just average, 17 percent listed him below average with 10 percent, predicting he'll be ranked outstanding. Ed.

HENRY: Thank you, James. And here now, the aforementioned, Philippe Reines, former adviser -- still an adviser, really, to Hillary Clinton. Good evening, Philippe. Appreciate you being here.

PHILIPPE REINES, ADVISOR TO HILLARY CLINTON: Hi, Ed, thank you for having me, I think.

HENRY: We're old friends, so this should go well. I want to get straight to that tweet about Senator Gillibrand, and what you said: "Ken Starr spent $70 million on a consensual sex act; the Senate voted to keep the President William Jefferson Clinton, but not enough for Senator Gillibrand," and we'll get to the rest of it in a second. First of all, you seem unhappy that Ken Starr had $70 million in unfettered power to investigate a president. So, why are you cheering on Robert Mueller these days?

REINES: No. I don't think that's the point I was making. The point I was making -- and thankfully I had more than 280 characters to do so, because it's a pretty complicated subject -- is, what's happening now is that people are very bravely coming forward, whether it's Rose McGowan or Barbara Comstock or Leigh Corfman with accusations of things that they felt they could never come forward with before. That it's taken a tremendous amount of bravery, and it's important. What happened with Bill Clinton is a complete false equivalency. There's no human being in the United States whose personal life, their infidelities, were looked at more than Bill Clinton. His accusers were afforded the opportunity to confront him. He was afforded the ability to defend himself. And my point about the 70- million is that it was thorough.

HENRY: OK. I'm going to give you the time to go through it -- let's pick it piece by piece though. First of all, when you call Senator Gillibrand a hypocrite, are you admitting now that a lot of Democrats, back in the late '90s, did not call for President Clinton to resign over his relationship with an intern because they wanted him to stay in power? They wanted Democrats to keep power. Gillibrand wanted the Clinton money, she wanted the endorsements, so she didn't really speak her conscious?

REINES: I don't know why she chose yesterday. Part of me wants to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was baited by The New York Times. I don't think, to your viewers, I have to say much more than that about the Times. But her point was strange to me, because she probably didn't come to this feeling, and thought, and position yesterday. Why she wouldn't have in the last 20 years vocalized that? It's strange to me. Nothing was stopping her.

But what really was curious to me is: why she didn't -- what she didn't say, not what she did say. She didn't go on and say, I wish I had said something earlier, I regret not saying something earlier. And, you know, in the lead up to this, you talked about Democrats and Senators Gillibrand turning on the Clintons.


REINES: I don't think that's what happened. I think she turned to the Clintons, and that is just a false comparison.


REINES: I have a feeling there are people watching right now who said, I am done with the Clintons, stop talking about them.

HENRY: Right. So --

REINES: And it was unnecessary for her to do that because --

HENRY: Right.

REINES: -- again, this is someone who had, I mean, this country had a reckoning over Bill Clinton.

HENRY: OK. I want to press you, though. Isn't it, in fact, that there are Democrats, like Senator Gillibrand, Donna Brazile with her book, they no longer fear the Clintons. And part of your tweet, part of the reason why you're angry is that top Democrats are saying to the Clintons, get off the stage.

REINES: I don't, I don't think so. I think what Donna wrote in her book -- I'm not really sure what she was doing, I think more than anything the Democratic Party, people who know Donna are just flat-out confused by what she wrote, especially since what she wrote and then what she subsequently said on television --

HENRY: OK. We're running out time. So, I want to give you time -- I'm going to give you time in all of these, but I want to press you. You said, that Bill Clinton's accusers were hurt, and you talk about this, this sexual harassment, you know, movement around the country where people are saying, women need to be heard. Has Secretary Clinton done any soul- searching? Does she regret that she let Juanita Broaddrick and other women be heard?

REINES: I think if she were sitting here, she would say the same thing I'm saying, which is that -- Ken Starr -- I mean, you don't have to believe me.

HENRY: OK. Let's not go back to Ken Starr. I want to give you a chance.

REINES: No, but --

HENRY: Has she done soul-searching? She did not let Juanita Broaddrick because Ken Starr was about Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton -- go ahead.

REINES: Ken Starr looked into Juanita Broaddrick. Juanita Broaddrick gave Ken Starr a deposition where she said nothing happened. So, I think it's important to have those facts. Ken Starr, I think, we can all agree, was not looking to protect Bill Clinton. The point of that $70 million and multiple years is that: if he could find something, he would have found it. He didn't tell us everything he found. The names beforehand, it's not right -- it is not correct to say a name like Juanita Broaddrick. It came up only after --

HENRY: So, Hillary Clinton -- Hillary Clinton has not done any soul- searching, she doesn't have any regrets about any of the female accusers that were beaten up on, you know, verbally by anyone associated with the Clintons over the years?

REINES: I think she's addressed this many times. And I guess that's my point, is that: she's dealt with this, first of all, as a wife --


REINES: And then, as a public figure 20 years ago.

HENRY: OK. I want to shift gears to something I mentioned --

REINES: And I think, I think, again, you know, the point that you're making, that there should be some kind of renewed soul-searching or reckoning, that is absolutely appropriate when it comes to Harvey Weinstein or when it comes to Roy Moore. It is not necessary when it comes to Bill Clinton, because, in 1998, we all lived through the greatest reckoning in American political history.

HENRY: OK. Actually, I was going to shift gears, but when you mentioned Roy Moore, I know it was interesting, I believe it was yesterday after Ivanka Trump had said about Roy Moore that there's a special place in hell for people who prey on children. You tweeted on November 16th, "She took her sweet time, she didn't say Moore should drop out."

So, by your logic, isn't Senators Gillibrand right, at least, that if there's alleged misconduct, Bill Clinton should've stepped aside? You're saying, Roy Moore, should step aside. You haven't litigated it. You don't know what's true and what's not.

And yet, yesterday, you went out there, Philippe, and you said that Ivanka Trump should have told him to step aside, and instead you said about her, "There's a special place in hell for those who exist only to cover for Donald's sins," meaning the president. Aren't you being a hypocrite as well?

REINES: I don't think so. I think I was making two points. One, the larger point, is that for the last year and a half starting with the campaign, we've seen Ivanka play a role where she really was mostly enabling and then covering for her father. They'd trot her out -- and yesterday was a perfect example of this -- the president, for whatever reason, probably politically, doesn't want to loosen up --

HENRY: But hang on. The president said in Asia: if the allegations are true, Roy Moore should step aside. And then you say Ivanka Trump is "trotted out." She is a woman in her own right. If you allow other women to speak out who are Democrats, whether Senator Gillibrand or anyone else, why can't Ivanka Trump speak on her own two feet? Why do you have to demean her by saying she was trotted out?

REINES: Well I think Ivanka demeans herself with her behavior, but --

HENRY: What behavior?

REINES: I think, I think --

HENRY: She said that anyone who mistreats children deserves a special place in hell. Do you agree with her?


HENRY: OK. So, how did she do something wrong?

REINES: The deepest hottest place in hell, absolutely.

HENRY: OK. So, you agree with Ivanka Trump, so why did you, attacker? That's my question.

REINES: I agree with her, but she didn't go one step further. And the point I'd make that you're not making is that the hierarchy of the Republican Party wants this guy to go. They've been spending the last week thinking up every conceivable plan to get rid of him. The Trumps, including Ivanka, are out of step. And the other point is, she was speaking because her father wasn't. And I know what you just quoted, but everyone has been basically holding their breath for President Trump to say something and he really hasn't.

HENRY: He said in Asia that if the allegations are true, he should step aside. That wasn't good enough for you?

REINES: It's not a matter of what's good enough for me. The people of Alabama are going to decide.

HENRY: When there were allegations against Clinton --

REINES: The Republican Party wants him gone.

HENRY: When there were allegations against Bill Clinton, you wanted them -- you know, hey, it should be fairly litigated. So, in the case of Roy Moore, nobody here is defending him, but this happen 30, 40 years ago and it hasn't been litigated. So, why are you just saying throw him aside? You don't know the truth.

REINES: I think the distinction is, is that Roy Moore, his victims, his accusers have never been heard until now. They deserve to be heard and there's a problem in that -- unless I'm missing something, no one in the state of Alabama is in any way investigating these crimes because they're old.

HENRY: Alleged crimes, sure.

REINES: The only, the only way, the only time he is going to be held accountable is, first, at the voting booth on December 12th, and then second, if the Republican leadership is to be believed, when he is set and they try to expel him -- which is something I'll believe when I see. But the larger point, Ed, is that people need to have their day, both people who are accusing people of crimes and both people who are being accused.

HENRY: OK. I went over time already.

REINES: Roy Moore has not had that, and Al Franken has not had that; Bill Clinton has had that in --

HENRY: I've tried to let you have a lot. I want to play one more clip because I said that at the top of the show.


HENRY: Here's what Clinton said in the last presidential debate.


CLINTON: That's horrifying. You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is, is rigged against him. That is not the way our democracy works.


HENRY: Philippe, very simple last question: here we are more than one year later, and Hillary Clinton is saying, Donald Trump, was not legitimately elected.

CLINTON: She accepted his election at 2:00 a.m. in the morning on election night.

HENRY: No, she's not accepting it now.

REINES: I was there when she spoke to him.

HENRY: Right. And a year later, she's saying it was not legitimate.

REINES: No. What she is saying, is that what happened is something that can happen again. And it's unfortunate that the president won't take it seriously until he's at the wrong end of it. If she had been president, if had been elected, she would have -- and she learned that the Republicans, excuse me, the Russians helped her, she would have been furious. She would have said, this is unacceptable. We're going to figure this out, we're going to go after them. President Trump has not done that because he was on the right end of it, and that's a problem because the Russians want to disrupt and they're going to disrupt who is in office. And I would think the Republican majorities in Congress, the governorship, and the White House would be concerned because they are the biggest targets --


REINES: -- for a country helping on distracting us.

HENRY: Given you a lot of time, I appreciate you coming on. I hope you'll come back. And you have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

REINES: Anytime, Ed. Thank you.

HENRY: Thanks, Philippe. Here now to react, Katrina Pearson, former Trump Campaign Spokesperson, now Spokesperson for America First Policies; and Dr. Wendy Osefo, Political Commentator and Professor at John Hopkins University. Katrina, I want to start with you to get the Republican perspective. How do you react to what Philippe said?

KATRINA PEARSON, SPOKESPERSON FOR AMERICAN FIRST POLICIES AND FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SPOKESPERSON: Well, you know, leave it up to a man defending Bill Clinton to be so misogynistic and sexist with his tone regarding Ivanka Trump who is a very well educated and accomplished businesswoman in her own right, to insinuate that she can't speak without her dad's permission. It does shine a spotlight on why the people are fed up with the Clintons.

But I will agree with him on one thing. This isn't really about Bill Clinton, Ed. This is a much bigger picture because I just don't buy this sudden moral compass that the left has with regards to the way men are treating women. This is all about political expediency and we know this, because Senator Gillibrand who's out there now suddenly finding her moral compass after taking tons of money from the Clintons, hasn't said anything about Bob Menendez and the allegations about him with underage prostitutes, hasn't demanded anyone resigned today and we're seeing this all play out before our eyes.

HENRY: We should say Senator Menendez has vociferously denied that he engaged in improper conduct, as you suggested. But, Wendy, I want to get your reaction. Should there be a reckoning for Bill Clinton within the Democratic Party as some on the left have suggested?

DR. WENDY OSEFO, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR AND PROFESSOR AT JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: We can say that there can be a reckoning for Bill Clinton, but what needs to be underscored here and why Philippe was talking about that $70 million is this was consensual, it was consensual between adults. What we are seeing here from Franken, who is on the left, as well as Moore who is on the right, has nothing to do with politics. It goes to a broader issue of sexually predatory behavior that we see not just on Capitol Hill, we see it in Hollywood, and some of us see every day as we walked on the street. So, we have to keep that at the forefront of this discussion because once we make it political we are moving to the side the women, the men who have been victims of this action.

HENRY: But Wendy, you and Philippe are both right that the Monica Lewinsky situation was litigated a lot, and Bill Clinton paid a heavy price for that. But when you say it was consensual, there were other allegations that were not consensual. Allegations of rape, that I should say, in fairness, Bill Clinton has vehemently denied himself.

PEARSON: Absolutely.

HENRY: Why wasn't -- is there going to be a reckoning on that, is my question.

OSEFO: That's the answer. The answer is, that $70 million was to find any and everything as far as evidence to say that these accusations are actually correct. And with that money, what was found was the blue dress from Monica Lewinsky. Now, everyone deserves their day in court. Everyone deserves to have these accusations fleshed out, and we have to make sure that happens -- and that is the difference here. We have to make sure that the accusers on Moore's side are also heard. Where is the investigation or are we going to have one?

HENRY: Let's go to Roy Moore. All right. Let me get Katrina in here.

PEARSON: But at the end of the day, Ed -- here's the situation: this is not about a reckoning, OK? This is definitely political, and it's very highly charged.

OSEFO: That's not -- and that's the problem.

PEARSON: And it's about women, it is, was about the women. Senator Gillibrand herself said that there are sitting members of Congress who are preying on women, and she refuses to name those names. That is completely unacceptable and that is my point.

OSEFO: This is not political.

HENRY: Go ahead, Wendy, and I got the last question.

OSEFO: To say that this is political is to undermine everyone who has ever been sexually harassed. This is about a system problem.

PEARSON: It is exactly my point.

OSEFO: That's the point you made. So, you need to speak clearer because that's not what you just said. We need to make sure that everyone who's ever been harassed has their day in court.


OSEFO: This is not about politics.

HENRY: Katrina.

PEARSON: And have Senator Gillibrand name those names. The people need to know who are preying on the people here in Congress.

HENRY: I suspect that some of those on Capitol Hill are going to be coming out because there's a lot of public pressure.

OSEFO: Absolutely, Ed.

HENRY: Last question: Katrina, there's been a lot of pressure -- we're speaking a pressure on the president, on the White House, you heard from Philippe. I want to give you a fair chance to respond. I noted the president said in Asia that if it's true, Roy Moore should step aside. He hasn't commented in recent days and I want to give you a chance as somebody who supports him, should Roy Moore step aside, yes or no?

PEARSON: You know, Ed, I am someone who's worked on the forefront of insurgent campaigns against the establishment, being a candidate myself. And I just made it a point to never believe anything, weeks leading up to an election. The president is absolutely right.

OSEFO: That is terrible.

PEARSON: It is absolutely right that the people of Alabama need to make this decision. If Democrats in Washington can re-elect a mayor after being caught on video smoking cocaine with a prostitute --

OSEFO: A president who said grabbed women by the genitalia! That's a president that you --

HENRY: OK. Wendy goes ahead.

OSEFO: Are you serious?

PEARSON: If Democrats can do that, Republicans going to let their candidate as well.

OSEFO: Let's not talk about Democrats who elect a mayor who smokes some cocaine.

PEARSON: This is about elections!

OSEFO: Well, we have a president --


HENRY: Wendy -- I'm going to let Wendy talk. Wendy, let me ask you this.

OSEFO: Katrina, calm down.

HENRY: Hang on both of you. OK. Wendy, we got one minute left.


PEARSON: Calm down.

HENRY: Let's not shout at each other. Let's do this in a nice way, polite. Wendy, what about the fact that Al Franken has admitted that he did something wrong and it appears that he forced himself on the Radio T.V. personality in that case. And the White House said today, look, the president has not admitted any wrongdoing. Why is that not good enough for you?

OSEFO: We have to be clear. Al Franken said let's have a special counsel, let us investigate this. The president should also have a special counsel because he has over 12 women --

HENRY: He already has a special counsel.

OSEFO: He has over 12 women --

HENRY: You want another investigation?

OSEFO: -- who have accused him of that. It's not politics. It's about you supporting a man.

PEARSON: This is all about politics.

OSEFO: It's about you supporting the man who said I will grab women by the genitalia without their OK.

HENRY: All right. I want to thank you both. We didn't settle anything. We appreciate you both being on. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, if I don't see you. Up next, the FBI confidential informant who went undercover to investigate Hillary Clinton's role in Uranium One deal will soon be spilling his secrets. Michael Caputo, a former Trump adviser, and Marie Harf, former State Department spokeswoman, they've both here next.



JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: There was an FBI informant starting in 2009. I have not talked to him. But the Department of Justice, I understand, has approved him providing information to the Congress and he -- I understand it will be set up in a few days. And you'll be able to hear from him direct.


HENRY: That was Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier this week confirming that a confidential informant who was believed to be critical to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's role in the Uranium One deal will tell lawmakers about what he found out. His identity was secret until now. Our own Trace Gallagher, live in our West Coast Bureau tonight with the story. Good to see you, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANCHOR: Good to see you, Ed. The Senate Judiciary, House Intelligence, and House Oversight Committees are all looking into the 2010 sale of Uranium One -- that's the Canadian mining company that had rights to 20 percent of U.S. Uranium. And now, the Reuters news agency is identifying the man whose testimony could make or break the investigation. He is William D. Campbell, a lobbyist, who at the time of the Uranium One sale was a confidential informant for the FBI in a bribery investigation involving the head of Tenex. Tenex is a U.S. subsidiary of the Russian giants, Rosatom, the very same Rosatom that acquired Uranium One. William Campbell claims to have key information about the vast corruption in the Russian uranium industry, information he says he shared with the FBI back in 2009. Here's Campbell's attorney. Watch.


VICTORIA TOENSING, ATTORNEY FOR WILLIAM CAMPBELL: So here's my question: if he's telling this to the FBI, and at the time the FBI is telling him, oh, yes, we're briefing the Bob Mueller and we're briefing the president on this, why did this CFIUS deal get allowed to go through?


GALLAGHER: CFIUS is an acronym for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which gave the go-ahead for the Uranium One deal. CFIUS is made up of nine U.S. agency including the State Department, which was led by Hillary Clinton. Critics say multimillion-dollar donations made to the Clinton Foundation by people connected to Uranium One influenced the State Department to vote "yes." Clinton supporters say, nonsense, pointing out that all nine agencies along with the president signed onto the deal and that Hillary was not involved in the vote. For her part, Hillary Clinton says the congressional investigation is trying to shift attention away from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russian meddling investigation, and Clinton calls talk of the appointment of a special counsel could look into Uranium One an "abuse of power." There is still no word exactly when William D. Campbell will testify before Congress. Ed.

HENRY: Thank you, Trace. Here now with more: Michael Caputo, former Trump Campaign Senior Advisor; and Marie Harf, a former State Department Spokesperson during the Obama Administration, now a Fox News Contributor. Good to see you both. Marie, you were at the State Department, obviously, for a long time during the Obama Administration. You and I have spoken off the air, and you don't think there's a whole lot to this Uranium One deal. But how do you know that when we have not yet heard from this confidential informant?

MARIE HARF, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT UNDER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Well, because I've seen no evidence of any wrongdoing that involves Hillary Clinton here. There's a lot of insinuation, a lot of people throwing around accusations, but not one shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton herself was involved in this decision. And having worked at the State Department and knowing that there were these numerous cases under this CFIUS Committee going on, never did I know that a secretary of state was ever involved in them.

And the idea that the other agencies that had to vote on this would have somehow cared about the Clinton Foundation or its donations. I mean, truly, I served in this administration, nothing could be further from the truth. So, sure, let's hear from this confidential informant. I would love to hear from him because I don't think he's going to have anything to say that involves some of these conspiracy theories. He may have interesting information about Uranium One, but I don't think it's tied to Hillary Clinton.

HENRY: Michael, what about it? Is it a conspiracy theory, is it a whole lot of nothing, or might this informant finally blow the lid off something big?

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISOR: I've got a bit of a perspective on it. During the same time that CFIUS was examining the Rosatom purchase of Uranium One, I was -- you know, my firm does litigation communications. I was representing the French defense contract, their Saffron. Also, before CFIUS at the same time, Saffron was buying a U.S. biometrics company -- a company that does your fingerprints. And they went through two whole years, 24 months of examination as a close and historic ally of the United States.

And at the end of their CFIUS examination, they were forced to never speak to the company they purchased in America ever again. In contrast, Rosatom got approval to the Uranium One -- the purchase of Uranium One in 90 days. Let me tell you something, all those executives at that French firm I worked for, they know exactly what's going on.

HENRY: Marie, I want to try it one other way with you then, having heard that. Which is that how is it that you and other Democrats have spent the better part of the year suggesting that the contract that was going on between the Trump campaign and the Russians, that the Russians were up to something nefarious. But when it comes to them -- the Russians pouring money into the Clinton Foundation, and pouring cash into Bill Clinton's pocket in this form of speaking fees, you seem to think it was no big deal.

HARF: Well, I'm not saying I would have run the Clinton Foundation the way that they did. But these are two separate issues. Let's be very clear. You're trying to merge the two. The first is the intelligence community. This is not Marie Harf's perspective. The nonpartisan intelligence community has said that the Russian government intervened in our election to help elect Donald Trump because they didn't like Hillary Clinton. Now with the special counsel looking at it's whether there were people it in the Trump world working with the Russians. I don't know the answer to that and none of us do yet. Sure, did the Clinton Foundation do some things I wouldn't have done? Of course, but that is very different than a foreign power working to undermine our democracy. That's a very, very thing.

HENRY: Michael, I've got 15 seconds. Is there going to be a special counsel? Does the Justice Department going to move forward on Uranium One, yes or no?

CAPUTO: There really ought to be a special counsel. I know the half million dollars that Bill Clinton was paid by Renaissance Capital, there were a lot of people in Renaissance Capital and Russia, back in those days, who were westerners who could speak to this issue that were called. And there were 15 Democrats close to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama registered to lobby on behalf of the Kremlin and Kremlin companies at the same time.

HENRY: Michael, you know I love you, buddy. You're making a great case, but I can see it from the smile on Marie's face, she isn't buying it.

HARF: The tin hat looks good on you, friend. We'll see how this turns out.

HENRY: You both have a wonderful weekend.

HARF: You too, Ed.

HENRY: Still to come, the NFL now investigating sexual misconduct allegations against Jameis Winston, his back in trouble, and it's not his first time being accused of being appropriate with a woman. Plus, President Trump's promise to overhaul our complicated tax system could happen by the end of the year. One of the man who's helping to craft the plan, he's here next from the White House on what's in it for you.


HENRY: Developing tonight, a huge story for your wallet. Comprehensive tax reform is one step closer to reality for President Trump tonight on Capitol Hill. Late last night, a senate committee approved its version that includes a controversial provision to repeal Obamacare's individual mandate, but getting to 50 votes in the senate is going to be a tough all. Listen to this.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I never promised anybody tax cuts because I'm one of those desperate hawks, we don't even have enough revenue to pay for all of our expense...

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: There's a very narrow, 52 to 48 margin in the United States senate, and so when you lose one vote, it does gives you pause for sure.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I'm a, yes, on the senate bill today, but that doesn't mean we can't make it better.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: There is a long and very bumpy road ahead. In fact, I'm inclined to say that the house bill is dead on arrival.


HENRY: Here now, a key player for President Trump, Kevin Hassett, he's the chairman of the council of economic advisors at the White House. Kevin, we appreciate you coming on tonight. A victory for the president in round one, but the house, as you know, is the easy part. You heard right there from Senator Blumenthal, a long and very bumpy road. How do you convince skeptical senators, particularly, Republicans in your own party who say, look, the corporate tax cuts are permanent but the middle-class tax cuts are not?

KEVIN HASSETT, CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC ADVISORS: Right. Well, the objective, obviously, from the outset for everybody in the White House and everywhere in Washington is to get Americans the tax code they deserve, to get a tax cut for the middle class so the corporate rate reform that are all permanent. But we also understand that there's a legislative process that the people of the senate have to get something put together, we could have a coalition of at least 50 votes plus the vice president, and that they're working on that right now and we support that process. And if they have budget rules that they have to follow to make some of the stuff expire, then they're going to have to do that in order to have a bill that changes the law. But right now the law is completely unacceptable. And so, if they get something passed then it will be a step in the right direction. And then, what will happen, I really firmly believe, is that the tax cuts will have a positive effect on the economy and it will become easy to extend if there's something (INAUDIBLE)

HENRY: Kevin, I understand the process. People get feed up with the process in Washington, and that's going to change what may or may not be in the bill. But in terms of the substance of it there seems to be frustration even among some of the president's supporters. He talked in the campaign about finally doing away with the carried interest loophole, which really helps hedge fund managers and others, and they get to be able to have their income tax in at much lower rate than the 39.6 percent. How does keeping that in this GOP plan help the forgotten man, forgotten woman that the president talked about helping the campaign?

HASSETT: I think that the president's position on carried interest has been absolutely clear, but he also understands that it's a legislative process where he's not the dictator where folks have to negotiate and trade-off equity and efficiency and come up with a bill that can pass. The president has been a leader in this from the beginning. He's established non-negotiable's like the rate has to be 20 percent...


HASSETT: ... for the corporate tax and middle class, it's got to be simpler. All of that stuff is big picture leading by setting lines in the sand or drawing lines in the sand, but the details are things that the president recognizes that the members of congress are going to have to work out. And so, it's essential that we get a reform that changes the tax code because right now were chasing all of our businesses offshore and reducing the demand for American workers and driving down their wages.

HENRY: Kevin, take a listen to some of the fireworks in the senate finance committee as they were debating whether or not this helps the rich.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I really resent anybody saying that I'm just doing this for the rich. Give me a break. I think you guys overplay that all the time and it gets old. And frankly, you ought to quit.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, the public demands...

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not through. I get sick and tired of it. It's a nice political play.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Well, Mr. Chairman...


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: With all due respect, I get sick and tired of the rich are getting richer...


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: If we do a tax cut...



UNINDENTIFIED MALE: ... over and over again. How many times do we do this?



HENRY: Kevin, Democrats, you don't have a single Democratic vote on board, and they keep saying no matter what you put in the bill, this is for the rich. How do you get to 50 votes plus the vice president in the senate when you got Democrats basically completely opposed to this?

HASSETT: Right. Well, I think that exchange that you've just played is an example of people just, you know, opponents really of this bill at times losing track of the idea that the people who disagree with them do so honestly. And, you know, I think that I firmly believe that this tax bill is something that will help the economy. That will help the middle-class. I've written for more than a decade about how it benefits blue-collar workers to bring jobs back home. And now it could be that I'm incorrect about that. It could be Senator Hatch is incorrect about that. But to say that we're just, you know, the tools of the rich, so we're just trying -- that's just inaccurate and incorrect. And I just think that the debate would be much more productive if people would just think a little bit about what it looks like from a different perspective. Again, if you look at President Obama, he proposed a 28 percent corporate tax rate. They cited a lot of the stuff that we're citing. The economic report of the president even cited my own work a number of times.


HASSETT: Supporting their own corporate tax bill. It'd be better for America if people would remember those things.

HENRY: Kevin, 15 seconds, it was a rocky road on Wall Street. The president has been touting it yes. Big picture, the market has been way up since he was elected, but it's been very rocky this past week. Is that because the markets are nervous that -- I've got 15 seconds, are they nervous you're not going to finish the job on tax reform?

HASSETT: I think the markets would go down if the tax bill were to fail because this is really good for America. And I think the nervousness this week is in the markets as well.

HENRY: Kevin Hassett has to do the final word, appreciate you joining us, thanks.

HASSETT: It's great to be here.

HENRY: And the war of words within the NFL heating up tonight, as Jerry Jones, owners of the Cowboys, not backing down from his promise to take down league commissioner Roger Goodell. Can the NFL survive this? Plus, less than a week after President Trump returned from his historic 12-day Asia trip, there's a new North Korea nuclear threat. "The Story," next.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Do not underestimate us and do not try us. We will defend our common security, our shared prosperity, and our sacred liberty.


HENRY: It wasn't quite fire and fury, but that was President Trump last week in South Korea issuing one of his strongest warnings in recent days to North Korea. But tonight, there is an alarming new report on the rogue nation's nuclear ambitions. Greg Palkot has the story tonight from London.

GREG PALKOT, FOX NEWS: Ed, talks to try to deal with North Korea crisis revving up on both sides of the DMZ today. In Pyongyang, the highest level of Chinese official was there in two years talking with officials. President Trump had called this a big deal and it follows his recently completed trip to Asia. Still, the U.S. envoy on the issue in South Korea today said so far there been no signals from the regime of Kim Jong-un that it was interested in talking. And an official for the regime saying that there would be no talks as long as U.S.-South Korea military exercises continue. The U.S. just wrapped up drills with its aircraft carriers in the region.

This amid a new warning of the dangers from North Korea's missile and nuclear program. Japanese Prime Minister Abe saying today that the north present the biggest security threat to the region since World War II, along with new reports to say the regime is developing submarines that could put its missiles in closer range to the U.S. mainland. Finally, following a defection earlier this week of a North Korean soldier across the DMZ, another glimpse of how tough life is in the north, a doctor saying he had never seen the sort of parasites he found inside the soldier's body, a sign of the widespread nutrition and hygiene problems there. North Korea a threat to all side. Ed?

HENRY: Thank you, Greg. Meanwhile, the NFL's internal war is getting even uglier as new details fill out about a bitter call between Commissioner Roger Goodell and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. What does this mean for what they, at least, call America's game? I still love baseball. Guy Benson and Richard Fowler, they'll have all the fallout, next.


HENRY: Developing tonight, the NFL now investigating the allegations that Tampa Bay quarterback, Jameis Winston, and a female Uber driver claiming that he groped her in March of 2016. Winston denying the allegations saying, quote, while I'm certain that I did not make any inappropriate contact, I don't want to engage in a battle with the driver. I regret that my demeanor or presence made her uncomfortable in any way. Here now, Guy Benson, political editor of, Richard Fowler, senior fellow at New Leaders Council, both Fox News contributors. Good to see you both. Richard, what in the world is going on with the NFL?

RICHARD FOWLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: That is a good question. In this particular case, this was in case here, I think we need more facts before we can actually make a judgment on who's right and who's wrong. I think we have one story where it's her word against his word, and it's very hard to judge who's right. We've got to figure out if there're more people in the car. There needs to be more evidence and more facts before anybody can make a particular determination here. And I think what's the most interesting part of the story to me here is a fact that she didn't contact law enforcement, rather she reported it to Uber and then she called BuzzFeed. Very weird.

HENRY: Guy, I've seen you tweet about northwestern as I recall, so I know you're at least a bit of a college football fan. When Jameis Winston was at Florida State, he got into a little trouble for allegedly shoplifting crab legs. The trouble doesn't seem to stop.

GUY BENSON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think that's the context of this allegation that Richard just talked about against Winston. At the NFL level there was a big allegation against him when he was a student at Florida State of a quarterback there of forcible rape in 2012. Now, that was never proven. They ended up settling the case of to the side. And we really didn't know what the terms are of that. But one thing that the New York Times discovered and when they looked into the case was that Winston was never questioned by the police, and the school seemed to go out of its way not to really investigate the allegations very seriously. So I agree with Richard, we need more investigation. We should not jump to conclusions. But there might be a pattern of behavior here with previous lack of accountability being a factor.

HENRY: Guy, real quick, and then I'll get to Richard, what about Roger Goodell and Jerry Jones? We're hearing now about this explosive phone call they've had. This is getting pretty ugly.

BENSON: Well, I'm a Giants fans. So I'm triggered by any discussion of the NFL this year because we stink.

HENRY: Yeah, I agree.


BENSON: I read that story about Jones and Goodell, setting aside the details, I think the number of off field issues that have plagued the league for the last year have been dealt with in an incoherent and sometimes capricious seeming way to fans and it's turning a lot of people off.

HENRY: Richard, I want to shift gears because I've got to get this in. Today, we learned about the world's first human head transplant in Spain. It was done on a corpse. It was successful. And now a surgery on a live person might be imminent. If you had one person in the world who you think could get a head transplant, who would it be? And you can't say Guy, by the way.

FOWLER: Don't worry, I love Guy. But I would be Guy. I would definitely trade heads with Oprah Winfrey. Easy answer.

HENRY: You want her head on your body?

FOWLER: Yeah, like I would take the brain. I would definitely take the brain. She's a very smart woman.

HENRY: Guy is grabbing his chin. What do you, Guy, 10 seconds?

BENSON: How do this work? You get to pick up brain, can I do like Charles Krauthammer brain and Tom Brady's head? Like, how does this work?

HENRY: Maybe Tom Brady's body and Charles Krauthammer brain. I think that be a great combo. Both of you are awesome for coming on. Have a great weekend and have a great Thanksgiving.

BENSON: Happy Friday.

FOWLER: Same to you.

HENRY: All right, we'll be right back.


HENRY: Thanks for being a part of "The Story" tonight. I want to personally thank Martha MacCallum for letting me sit in tonight. As if you didn't get enough of me? You can watch me on "Fox & Friends" weekend, Saturday and Sunday starting 6 AM Eastern. My buddy Tucker Carlson is coming up right now.


Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.