Former Roger Stone aide challenges Mueller's authority

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

MELISSA FRANCIS, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Thanks, Bret. Breaking tonight: Day two of deliberations in the trial of President Trump's former campaign manager coming to a close with a bombshell revelation from the judge.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Melissa Francis in tonight for Martha MacCallum. We are still without a verdict in the trial of Paul Manafort. A verdict that could make or break the future of the Russia collision probe, but deliberation day two was not without drama.

Judge T.S. Ellis revealing a short time ago that he fears for the safety of the jury and he does not want their identities made public for now despite a media request to do just that. His reason, he says he's received threats as a result of his participation in the case.

So credible but he's under the constant protection of U.S. Marshals. The revelations come as the President himself weighed in on the trial and Paul Manafort sent a response back to his former boss through his attorney.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad. When you look at what's going on there, I think it's a very sad day for our country. He worked for me for a very short period of time. But you know what, he happens to be a very good person. And I think it's very sad what they've done to Paul Manafort.

KEVIN DOWNING, ATTORNEY TO PAUL MANAFORT: Great comments. Mr. Manafort really appreciates the support of President Trump.


FRANCIS: Peter Doocy is live outside the courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia with all of the of day's developments. Peter.

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS: Melissa, the reason Judge T.S. Ellis revealed that he's received threats in now is under the protection of the U.S. Marshals Service outside of court is because he wanted to explain why he's not comfortable releasing the names of the jurors before the end of the trial to a handful of news organizations like the A.P., the New York Times and CNN that want them released.

So, the judge said this about the jurors. "I've received criticism and threats. I can imagine they would, too." Those news outlets filed a motion to intervene. The judge heard him out but ultimately decided that anything sealed will not be revealed until the end of the trial with one exception. And we do not yet know what that one exception is.

The judge also expressed some surprise that this trial has been getting so much attention. The jury has now been deliberating for more than 14 hours over a two-day span. And apparently, we're not close to a verdict this afternoon when they asked to break for the day at 5:00 p.m. So, one of them could go to an early evening event.

The Manafort team believes, the longer the deliberations dragged on the better it is for their client who is no longer sitting in the courtroom waiting for news from the jury room. Fox News is told by a source on the Manafort side that the former Trump campaign chairman is being held instead in a small courthouse jail cell without access to a T.V. or reading material.

The jury deliberations are going to continue Monday morning 9:30 Eastern as six men and six women must sift through mountains of exhibits without an index or a key connecting particular documents to individual charges.

They asked for one, but the judge denied it. And its source close to the Manafort defense team tells me that when they were up there during closing arguments, they looked in the Mueller team had a chart that was going to show which evidence goes with which charge, and it was going to make life easy for the jury, but they never introduced it. And now it's taking the jury a while. Melissa?

FRANCIS: I mean, do you have any sense of why they didn't end up using it? Did they think they didn't need it? And now they're kind of sad about that or what's your guess?

DOOCY: No, and part of the reason is because the Mueller team really does not say anything. You can say hello to them in the elevator on the way up and down to the ninth floor, they'll just not at you.

And in fact, the New York Times reporter said that they saw one of the prosecutors, Doug Andres, staying at -- or rather, Greg Andres, staying at a hotel nearby waiting for a Shake Shack order to get dropped off.

And the reporter asked the prosecutor from the Mueller team, "Hey, what did you get at Shake Shack?" And he said, "I can't say." So, whatever's going on over there, whatever their reasoning is, we're not going to know until after everything is over. Melissa.

FRANCIS: They are redefining tight-lipped, I like that. All right, Peter Doocy, thank you. Here now is Jonathan Turley, he's a constitutional law attorney and law professor at George Washington University. What's your take? I mean, what do you make of what you just heard?

JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Why? I think we need to know what shake he ordered. I think we need to send Doocy back there and find out. Now, I've -- the fact is that this is not uncommon for it to go into the third day. It is certainly true that if a jury is getting close to a decision, they'll often to ask to extend the day.

But, you can't read too much into this. I took over a case in this very Court from another attorney who was the trial attorney. And in that trial, the jury went over a week and still ruled against him. I -- you know, they brought in verdicts against him on all of the counts. So, you can't really read that much into the time passage.

But as a general rule, the defense likes the passage of time. It indicates that the jury is questioning and really seriously considering each count. What you don't want is to be called back in the first 48 hours. Because that's when jurors tend to bring in fast convictions. So, I can -- I can see why they're hopeful, but I wouldn't get too hopeful, quite frankly.

FRANCIS: Yes. I mean, and then, there's that idea that they presented more than 300 exhibits. They said the documents are the star witness of this case, which I don't know. You know, I mean that to ask people sitting in a jury box for days and days to remember and sort through all these kind of documents they obviously felt very confident about that.

And then, the question comes back basically, can someone draw us a diagram of what exhibit goes with what charge?

TURLEY: All right.

FRANCIS: Their heart had to sync with that one. Or am I wrong?

TURLEY: Well, quite frankly, this I think is a failure of the special counsel's office. I do think that they have done a pretty good job in prosecuting this case. But part of your job is to make this as easy as possible for the jury.


TURLEY: You just can't dump a truckload of documents on a jury, and say find your way through it. It works to the advantage of the defense for the jury frankly to be buried under all this stuff.


TURLEY: Sometimes the prosecution has an advantage by making things so complex if they think the jury's default position is going to be with conviction. But this is not that type of case. Now, having said that, I think the odds are stacked heavily against Paul Manafort.

You got to understand, he's got to run the table. He's got to -- he's got to knock down every one of these counts turn around, have another trial in D.C., and knock down all those counts. Is he likely to do that? Probably not.

And if he gets convicted of even one count, we're looking at counts that bring a 10-year sentence with them.

FRANCIS: Yes. One question that they did ask was, "Can you define for us again what reasonable doubt is?" Go ahead.

TURLEY: Well, that's not uncommon, Melissa. Sometimes jurors will ask that question. It actually is brought up by counsel on both sides, by the judge, but when they get into the act of being a juror, they realize how important that is. Because things tend to get blurry in these trials.

It can also reflect a sort of an enter jury fight. You can have a holdout jury or difficult -- holdout juror or a difficult juror, you can have a disagreement as to its meaning.

And so, they send out this and sort of call a friend. And they t reach out to the judge, and he basically sends back what he told them in the courtroom.

FRANCIS: Yes. I talked to a lot of people that were juries in various cases during the course of today, and it sounds like this is the hardest part. You all sort of sit there and you make notes, and you think about things.

And then, I imagine when you're in the jury room, maybe you remember things a little bit differently. And you remember which exhibit -- you know, went with which charge.

The idea that you have to get these people to agree about more than 300 exhibits over 18 charges, and all of this information based on the notes that they took in their notebook, it sounds almost impossible.

TURLEY: It is. It's a fascinating dynamic. I'm a great fan of the American jury system. Jurors take this very seriously -- you know, it's fairly rare when you find someone who's just going through the motions. And you're right, once you get in there, things change when you realize you have to make decisions.

I tell my students all the time to watch 12 Angry Men because that is an outstanding movie because it does capture the dynamics of just having 12 individuals looking at the same evidence in sometimes 12 different ways.

FRANCIS: Absolutely. Jonathan Turley, thank you.

TURLEY: Thanks, Melissa.

FRANCIS: Up next, the man who is trying to shut down the special counsel in a way that many didn't see coming.


TRUMP: Mr. Mueller is highly conflicted. In fact, Comey is like his best friend. I could go into conflict after conflict. But sadly, Mr. Mueller is conflicted. But let him write his report. We did nothing, there's no collusion.



FRANCIS: As the jury deliberations continue in the case of Paul Manafort, we are learning new information about Andrew Miller. A close associate of Trump's former adviser, Roger Stone, who dodged the Mueller grand jury last week.

Miller was an assistant to Stone in 2016. His lawyers say that Mueller wants to pump him for information about Stone and Russian hacking among other things. But Miller refused to appear before the grand jury and is now being held in contempt.

His attorney Paul Kamenar, joins me in just moments. he says Miller's actions are all part of a strategy to challenge the authority and the validity of the Russian special counsel. But first, Trace Gallagher is live in our West Coast Newsroom, with the backstory. Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Melissa, Andrew Miller was in charge of Roger Stone scheduled back in 2016 and that subpoena you mentioned for Miller to appear in front of a grand jury was specifically aimed at gathering information on WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, as well as the infamous hacking group, Guccifer 2.0.

Miller's refusal to appear and the contempt charge leveled against him certainly made waves at the time, but Miller's legal defense team says, it's all part of a larger plan to prove that Robert Mueller's investigation is illegitimate, and here's why.

Miller's attorneys argue that only Attorney General Jeff Sessions has the power to appoint a special counsel. Mueller was appointed by Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein. Mueller also didn't go through a Senate confirmation process, and they argue that's a violation of the Constitution's appointments clause.

Therefore, any subpoenas Mueller issues are invalid. But in order to appeal Miller's case, they needed the contempt charge to go forward. And they maintained this could have big implications. Watch.


PAUL KAMENAR, LAWYER OF ANDREW MILLER: This case is likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court so this is a major precedent-setting case it raises serious constitutional issues on the appointments clause whether Mr. Mueller was properly appointed.


GALLAGHER: Andrew Miller also has some deep pockets in his corner the conservative Non-Profit National Legal and Policy Center or NLPC is bankrolling his entire case saying in a statement quoting here we needed one client for this project and we have him. We're committed to paying all the costs associated with this constitutional challenge.

Paul Kamenar is also taking a reduced fee for his work but even if Miller's appeal fails Roger Stone says there's nothing for him to tell saying in a statement "Andrew Miller has no knowledge or evidence of Russian collusion or WikiLeaks collaboration or any other illegal activity on my part. If and when he has ever compelled to testify I am highly confident that he would tell the truth. Roger Stone has also been quoted saying that Andrew Miller is like a son to him. Melissa?

FRANCIS: Interesting. Trace Gallagher, thank you so much. And here now as Paul Kamenar, he is attorney for Andrew Miller. Sir, your client right now is not in jail at the time even though he ignored that subpoena for the grand jury. Do you think -- how far is he willing to go in all of this eventually? Is he willing to go to jail to not testify?

KAMENAR: Well, let me explain what happened. He was interviewed by two FBI agents back in May. He told him everything he knew which was nothing other than what he read in the newspapers about Guccifer, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks. They asked him to turn over documents, he turned over all the documents he had, and then they said to testify before the grand jury on June 29th.

We filed a motion to quash that. The court heard the argument, denied our motion in order him to appear last Friday. The day before we asked the court he's not coming tomorrow please hold him in contempt and we wanted him to do so in order for us to appeal. The judge obliged held him in contempt but state our decision saying as long as you're appealing this case we will not put him in jail or hold him in contempt anymore.

So on Monday, we filed our notice of appeal this case is now being on a expedited briefing schedule and we will have a brief next month and an argument probably sometime in October.

FRANCIS: So it could go on and on and on and you think all the way to the Supreme Court?

KAMENAR: Well yes, because regardless of who wins in the Court of Appeals, the losing party will go to the Supreme Court. But I would like to say what our argument is and then just to clarify. We have two arguments, one is a statutory argument and the other one is constitutional. Statutory, we say there's really no statute that clearly allows for the appointment of the Special Counsel.

The government cites some FBI statute for appointing FBI officials, we say that doesn't apply. They cite some other statute from 1870 we think is not specific enough. And then our constitutional argument is this. If he is a lot of be appointed under the Constitution the either principal officers which like U.S. attorneys have to go through confirmation process.

Robert Mueller is more important than your average U.S. Attorney he can file indictments in Virginia, D.C. He can indict Russian for an agency. He's a super U.S. Attorney. He's the U.S. attorney at large. The government says well, he's really just an inferior officer. And we said, OK. If he's an inferior officer, the Constitution says he has to be appointed by the head of the department which is Jeff Sessions.

Jeff Sessions didn't appoint him. So we say that Robert Mueller flunks both tests under the appointments clause.

FRANCIS: If it gets all the way to the Supreme Court and they say he asked to testify, if you lose this, will he do it at that point?

KAMENAR: Sure. If the grand jury and Mueller is still investigating this. It sounds like they're trying to --

FRANCIS: At that point in time.

KAMENAR: It sounds like they're trying to wrap it up but who knows? Sure, of course, if we lose our case he will comply and go to the grand jury and tell them what he knows which is basically nothing anyway than they already turned over and talked to the FBI agents.

FRANCIS: Well, that's my next question is why is it that they want to bring him out there if he already talked to two FBI agents, if he already turned over documents, if he's already said everything that he needs to, what was it of interest that he may have that they want to have before their grand jury?

KAMENAR: Who knows? I mean, the government -- the special prosecutor is relentless and all their prosecution and they just went to I guess make sure they cover all their bases but we think that this is you know I'm unfair. He's been cooperative. He hasn't been recalcitrant but nevertheless, this is a principle that he strongly believes and Andrew Miller is a libertarian. He believes in less government and less governmental power and this is where he agreed to have this case bought before the Supreme Court that we -- and the National League of Policy Center is more than willing to bring this case up.

FRANCIS: All right. Well, we'll keep an eye on it. Paul Kamenar, thank you for your time tonight.

KAMENAR: You bet.

FRANCIS: President Trump warns the security clearance for one of these people on their screen right now could be stripped very quickly. We reveal who with Guy Benson, Marie Harf, that's next.


REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLORIDA: Bruce and Nellie or were like the Bonnie and Clyde of collusion. You had the spouse of a senior government official who was in collusion with a foreign spy.




TRUMP: Security clearances are very important to me, very, very important. I think Bruce Ohr is a disgrace. I suspect I'll be taking it away very quickly. I think that Bruce Ohr is a disgrace with his wife Nellie. For him to be in the Justice Department and to be doing what he did, that is a disgrace.


FRANCIS: So in the wake of those comments by President Trump, new tonight, 60 former CIA officers are now denouncing President Trump's decision to revoke or threaten to take away security clearance from former government officials. Here now direct from their D.C. studio Guy Benson and Marie Harf, they're Co-host of the Fox News Radio show "BENSON & HARF." Guys, thank you so much for joining us.


FRANCIS: All right, Marie, let me start with you. Why is it that Bruce Ohr should still have a security clearance when we now know that he continued to backchannel with spy Christopher Steele and funnelled information to the FBI after he was told not to while at the same time Steele was asking him can you please help me out with this Russian oligarch who is upset about the sanctions and needs help getting them lifted.

I mean, if that's not Russian collusion, I don't know what is. Why would you let this guy have a security clearance?

MARIE HARF, FOX NEWS RADIO HOST: Well, Melissa, there's a whole process for current officials to have their security clearances looked at and adjudicated. And if the Department of Justice through that normal process finds that he shouldn't have it anymore, that's the way it should be done.

FRANCIS: Do you think --

HARF: So far, there a lot of allegations and a lot of accusations and I think the Justice Department is looking at this, Melissa. What I don't like is President Trump targeting a currently serving civil servant in the government and injecting what appears to many people to be partisanship into this conversation. DOJ can handle it, and if they think his clearance should go away it should. The President should not make those decisions for partisan reasons.

FRANCIS: Really, do you think your security clearance would have been stripped if you were back channeling with a foreign spy when you were working on this case? Do you think -- I mean, would you have done that Marie?

HARF: Well, I would not have done that, Melissa. But I think you know, there have been a lot of accusations out there in the press and I understand --

FRANCIS: These are documents from Justice.

HARF: -- that they appear to be very damning but there's a reason there's a process at DOJ to look at clearances of currently serving civil servants. I am sure they will look at it but they shouldn't do it for partisan reasons because of Donald Trump's comments publicly. That would be a mistake.

FRANCIS: Guy, what do you think?

BENSON: Well, I hope that Robert Mueller is actually looking into this element of the story as well. I have long defended the Mueller probe but it can't just be about Donald Trump and the Trump campaign. I am still someone who wants to virtually constantly mention in the context of this controversy that on the day the Trump Tower meeting, that infamous meeting happened with Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort and others who were in that room, that very day the Founder of Fusion GPS met before and after with the Russian attorney who is in that meeting. That is very suspicious to me.

You have a DOJ employee in this case whose wife was working for Fusion GPS. It's the Democratic attack group. This is a completely legitimate realm for Bob Mueller and the Inspector General to be looking into. I hope they are both doing so.

FRANCIS: Marie, what do you think of what Guy just said? Where is he going wrong there?

HARF: Well, I think that Robert Mueller is focused on whether there was collusion with Russia in the 2016 campaign and whether there was obstruction of justice. And I have long said, Melissa, that there are questions we need answered about what happened at the FBI and at DOJ. What I don't want is for the President's supporters to try and use some of these other issues to distract from the serious questions that are being asked about them.

BENSON: Well, now --

HARF: And the fact that -- well, Guy, the fact that you know, now Republican and Democratic officials, former CIA directors across the political spectrum have come out and said what Donald Trump is doing with security clearances is a bad move. We should listen to what those Republicans and Democrats are saying and not just dismiss them out of hand because of their questions of Bruce Ohr.

FRANCIS: OK, but can you do both bring that once? You could say the President shouldn't be doing that, at the same time if you have somebody who's in the government, in the FBI investigating, they shouldn't be profiting you know through their spouse from contracts where they're highly--

HARF: I think they're allowed to be married to people. I don't know. I mean, I think they're allowed to be married to people who work on issues that are related to theirs. There's no rule against that.

FRANCIS: Should they be funneling in information, guy, to the FBI from a person that they've been told to stay away from that is not a legitimate source? Should they continue that going on in the back channel?

BENSON: No, especially after Christopher Steele lied to the FBI which is part of the reasons that they cut ties with him. So look to Marie's point, separate from the John Brennan security clearance thing, the goal of Robert Mueller first and foremost must be to determine the extent to which the Russians interfered in our election. We know that they did it, we want to know exactly what they did and with whom.

That is not only about Donald Trump. That is not only about the Republicans. If there are shady connections with the Democrats as well or the left side of the spectrum, that has to be part of it or else we're not getting a full and complete review which is supposedly the whole point here.

FRANCIS: All right, sounds -- I think you guys solved it, so there you go. Thank you.

HARF: That's what we're trying to do in our show.

FRANCIS: There you go. I love it. OK. Perfect balance, thank you. When we come back, Elizabeth Warren unveils her plan to fix capitalism. Chris Stirewalt is on that.


TRUMP: They're going to cover Pocahontas? Pocahontas, they always want me to apologize for saying it.




SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASSACHUSETTS: I am a capitalist. Come on, I believe in markets. What I don't believe in this theft, what I don't believe in is cheating.


FRANCIS: Senator Elizabeth Warren sending out to reinvent capitalism with new federal legislation not only that said that would essentially require big corporations to act in their employees interest as oppose to the company's own financial interest more or less.

Writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, quote, "America's biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer."

Joining me now is Chris Stirewalt, he is Fox News politics editor. What do you make of this?

CHRIS STIREWALT, FOX NEWS DIGITAL POLITICS EDITOR: Well, this is what in the Nixon administration they would've called it the modified limited hangout. She wants to embrace the socialistic verve in the Democratic Party, she wants to -- because what she's basically calling for it, let's simplify it, is a European model, something like they have in Germany. You have to have workers on your board, the government basically licenses you.

You end up with a cartel where government approved companies can operate under their license under these rules.

So she's going for this European-style model but that's not going to be enough. And that's the thing. What she misunderstands, she's in the position that I think a lot of Republicans were on immigration going into the 2016 campaign.

They said well, I've got to get right to the right on this issue, I've got to get out there, I've got to take a little harder line. I've got to do something. Unaware of the fact that Donald Trump was a like great white shark swimming out under the ocean waiting to come up and chomp them.

And she's going to get chomped too. Because she's sucking up to the Wall Street Journal, she's talking about it still capitalism. There will be people to her left that will steal the voters that she thinks that she can get.

FRANCIS: To the left of Elizabeth Warren? I mean, she's been pretty out there.

STIREWALT: Well, she is. No offense, I mean, politicians are opportunists by nature. She is not the kind, she is not Bernie Sanders. She is not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she is not bad.

She is a European model, a planned economy European-style socialist, not a Democratic socialist, rah-rah zizbumba (Ph) 'eat the rich.' So she is trying to have it both ways.


STIREWALT: And I promise you in presidential campaigns you're not allowed to have it both ways.


STIREWALT: If you want to flirt with the far left, you've got it -- you've got to go all the way. Flirting is not enough.

FRANCIS: She talks about that companies have to consider all stakeholders employees, customers, and shareholders, they're supposed to just profit, they already have to do that or else they can't profit.

If your employees hate you, if your customers think you're a jerk, if your community is boycotting you, you can't make a profit. So it just -- I mean, already the logic of what she's arguing I guess it goes to your point that it's neither here nor there.

Let's talk about our great governor here, though, in New York, Mr. Cuomo who even Stephen Colbert is coming down hard on, listen to this.


STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, CBS: Cuomo gave a speech at a bill signing event, and in doing so he said something stupid. It's subtle to pick out, let's see if you can spot it.

ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK: We're not going to make America great again, it was never that great.

COLBERT: That is the dumbest thing you can say as a politician. That's like closing your speech with apple pie sucks, I'm lukewarm on the troops and those stripes make the American flag look fat, thank you. I hate my mother!


FRANCIS: What do you think?

STIREWALT: Look, Cuomo has always been overrated, he's the legacy politician. And if you're a legacy politician you got to be better than the old man and he is not. And he has been -- he has been more hype than substance throughout his career.

FRANCIS: He's going to win anyway though, probably.

STIREWALT: Well, it's New York. You people have it. You want to -- the president talks about a rig system. New York is the incumbent protection unit, number one, they are the best. Though, I will say this, Cynthia Nixon is will put some marks on him. He is going to walk away from this experience. Sorry for being so bad at politics.

FRANCIS: It goes to what you said, though, trying to have it both ways and falling flat on your face. And that's what happened there, if he tries. I don't know what he was trying to say. I don't think it was what actually came out of his mouth but it was that trying to appeal even further left of where he is, no?

STIREWALT: Yes. I know I will never ride a horse in the Kentucky derby, I'm not going to try. He ought to not try such complicated verbal dismounts he ought to keep it simple and stick to the prompter.

FRANCIS: Chris Stirewalt, thank you, my friend.


FRANCIS: Up next, a story special investigation days after a sex abuse scandal rocks the Catholic Church. We send our cameras to D.C. to hear from lawmakers but it's what they won't say that has everyone talking.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How about Cardinal Wuerl do you think he needs to go?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really can't answer that question. Sorry.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unfortunately, I've got to head to the airport.



FRANCIS: Growing calls for a national probe into Catholic clergy abuse after this week's bombshell report from Pennsylvania's attorney general detailing more than a thousand cases of abuse over a 70 year period.

And as the Vatican now expresses shame and sorrow, the story investigation has found that many lawmakers on Capitol Hill are less than willing to address the scandal, watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Pennsylvania report 300 priests more than a thousand child abuse--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We really got to go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's not (Inaudible) I'm sorry. I'll probably need to take a look at it. I'm sorry. I have to spend time looking at it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Certainly it's horrible, it's a horrible thing to happen to children. So I haven't been close, you know, plowing every single detail. So.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Should there be a national federal probe do you think?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not sure I can answer that yet.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unfortunately, I got to head to the airport.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't right now because they just called the vote and I've got to run.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing about the church abuse scandal right now, though?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I think that it's heartbreaking. I would assume other attorneys general around the country would probably will be taking a look to see if this mess it's what they do everywhere in the country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've seen a whole lot of your colleagues not want to talk about this issue today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it's a hard issue to talk about. I mean, anybody that did, it's worse than a crime and they ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and those who conspired with them should be and those who covered it up.


FRANCIS: Joining me now is Father Jonathan Morris, he is Fox News religious analyst. That is not will be expected. That's not what we thought was going to happen. That we're going to send cameras and that lawmakers were going to deliberately run from the cameras. Why do think--


FATHER JONATHAN MORRIS, FOX NEWS RELIGION ANALYST: Imagine -- I certainly don't feel like talking about this but it has to be talked about, and that's why I am talking about it, and I'm glad that we are talking about it.

It's absolutely horrific. The Vatican said sorrow, that's great, I'm glad that the Vatican gave those words but much more has to be done. Because it's not just the crime of the abuse. I think everybody is saying yes, that happens in every sector of society.

But the cover-up doesn't happen in every sector of society. And the church, the Catholic Church in this case has covered up to protect the institution risking the individual over and over and over again.

And you know, can I tell you, Melissa, that I think it's wonderful that the bishops of the United States have now said we need to have the Vatican, they call it an apostolic visitation, the Vatican coming in, an independent investigation, lay people involve, wonderful.

But can I tell you and I'm going to be very clear here, if the Vatican doesn't open up its archives as well, is it's not transparent. The Vatican itself, who in the departments of the Vatican knew, for example, the payments that were made out to the accusers of -- the accusers of Cardinal McCarrick and yet, he was still made a cardinal?

Who knew within the Vatican that those payments were made? If that's not done, then any investigation is not independent. Even if the Vatican is involved.

FRANCIS: Right now in Pennsylvania which is where this attorney general's report came out, people are demanding that Cardinal Wuerl step down -- he is now in D.C. but he was in Pennsylvania at the time.

MORRIS: Right.

FRANCIS: He is accused of the cover-up. Here's what he had to say in his defense.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Should you resign? Should you be removed as the archbishop of Washington?

DONALD WUERL, ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON: I have tried to do my very best to deal with this whole question of allegations against a priest.

Now remember, were talking about a long spectrum of time. So how we dealt with things in the late 80s, early 90s is different than the way we would today.


FRANCIS: Is that meaningful? How we dealt with things in the 80s and the 90s is different from today?


MORRIS: That is true.

FRANCIS: So that's his defense--


MORRIS: So doubt. That is very true and thank God if you look at the numbers, I don't mean the numbers of the church but numbers of the independent investigators this grand jury report, thank God almost all of the cases were pre-1990, 80s, 70s, '60.

But that in terms of his resignation, that has to be decided by this independent investigation. He is 77 right now, he is actually already turned in his resignation to the Holy Father.

So whether, you know, it's another issue, it's not so simple but it's more like of a question of whether he would be turning in his resignation from the cardinal of the College of Cardinals, I have no idea. That has to be based on fact. Not just on us getting upset and a saying that something has to be done, it has to be based on facts. And I don't know the facts in terms of what he did.

FRANCIS: You want them to go back and look at how everybody dealt with it along the way in terms of covering it up and then what?


FRANCIS: Is there a punishment?

MORRIS: Of course, if anybody is responsible for it and they are still in a position of power they should first of all resign themselves. Or they should be asked to resign or they should be let go.


MORRIS: We have to rebuild trust and this is -- I mean, the morale of the Catholic priests around the country right now is very low.


MORRIS: It's very, very low. And I have to face my people in my parish every single Sunday and they have to know that they can trust me, not to in any way harm their children. And even to think about -- I have to prove to them than that I'm likely to harm their children? What you talking about?

FRANCIS: Absolutely.

MORRIS: I'm supposed to be not just not harming them but helping them and lifting them up and helping their parents to make their children lives better. So it's just crazy that we even have to talk about this, obviously it moves me deeply. But listen, we have to face the facts and I think times will be better.

FRANCIS: Great. Thank you for that.

MORRIS: Of course.

FRANCIS: Thank you. All right. Up next, the stars Netflix biggest new show shunned by the left for saying some Republicans aren't racist. And Dunkin Donuts faces off with Starbucks in the battle over pumpkin spice.

Our ladies' night panel takes on both sides of the story. A little lighter there, Lisa Boothe, Rachel Campos-Duffy and Jessica Tarlov are next.


FRANCIS: All right. It is Friday and on this Story that means that it is ladies' night. First on the menu. One of the stars of Netflix Queer Eye now coming under fire for trying to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans with this tweet. Are you ready?

Quote, "Not all Republicans are racist, just not all Democrats are evil. We have to stop demonizing each other. Unless you're actually racist, then you suck. Trump is racist, not all his voters are necessarily we got to remember we are all in this together."

OK, that was the tweet. It didn't sit well though, with some of his followers.

One responding, quote, "You're absolutely correct not all Republicans are racists but the ones still supporting Trump definitely are."

Another writing, "People who identify as Republicans are tacitly endorsing a party which has overt racism baked right into the party platform. That means they support racism which means they are racist. Opining politically is not for you, stick to doing hair."

I almost got to the end there. I'm just trying to do a little valley girl on that little from the (Inaudible).


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stick (Ph) with them.

FRANCIS: Here now is Lisa Boothe -- thank you, Rachel Campos-Duffy who by the way is hosting Fox and Friends weekend this weekend so make sure you watch that. And Jessica Tarlov. They are all Fox News contributors.



FRANCIS: I'm going to start with you, how dare someone go out there and try to make the case that not all Republicans are racist, did he deserve that that backslash?

BOOTHE: Well, what an evil man. Yes, I mean, if you don't just baselessly maligned, you know, tens of millions of people then you're obviously a horrible person.

I didn't like the comment about the president. But basically what he was trying to say is, look, we need to kind of get along, we need to be nicer to each other.

And I would just like for the record for everyone to know that Jessica and I went out for happy hour last night and you can have fun and be friends with somebody that you disagree with.


JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Someone racist and evil person throwing back a margarita.

BOOTHE: No, we had a great, I mean, I can't speak for Jessica but I had a good time.

TARLOV: I had (Inaudible) with fun, and we had a good time.

FRANCIS: I know. Well, that's what, I mean, to me that's something that's ironic, Jessica, so we all get on television kind of argue with each other or whatever then leave it, most of us.


FRANCIS: Ninety nine percent of it know that, but in the rest of America right now everybody is that each of other's throats for real.

TARLOV: They are. And also everyone is dropping the part of the tweet they don't like. Like, he called out the other side of it too that Democrats get demonized for being evil, on the right people say Republicans who support the president you're racist, and he's just asking for a little nuance in life.

It's not surprising for you to get that kind of reaction but I feel like people really need to lighten up.

BOOTHE: Well, but it does seem like you look at the responses, there is no room in the resistance for, you know, tolerance. I mean, everyone is complicit.

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I don't consider you part of resistance. I think you're pretty common sense Democrat. But I look at, you look at what I saw from the comments (Ph). By the way, that's the best we could get is him saying Republicans aren't racist, not all of them but the president is racist. I mean, I can't -- it's also silly.


FRANCIS: Really?

DUFFY: I get called racist, by the way. And I'm Hispanic and I don't know why they call me that. But I mean, if you're a Republican that's what they say.

FRANCIS: But if you look at the responses to everybody's Twitter, I mean the things that people on Twitter say to Jessica--


FRANCIS: -- are as over-the-top as the responses to him. It's on all sides.

BOOTHE: Yes. Sometimes I feel compelled to respond to them, and I'm like she's actually a really nice person if you get to know here.

TARLOV: You'll lose followers for that by the way.


TARLOV: So just stop doing it.

BOOTHE: But it makes me sad that like, everything is so personal now and people can't understand that you can fundamentally disagree with someone with politics and things like that--


BOOTHE: -- but still like someone as a human being and another person have respect for them and have interesting conversations, and still end the night in disagreement. But hey, I'd like you, let's do it again. And it makes me sad that I feel like we can't do that as a country.

DUFFY: It is one of the good things about working in this building. You do-- and people ask you all the time. What's Juan like, what's Jessica like? They do. Because you know--


TARLOV: They are aliens walking.

DUFFY: People want to know. But guess what? We all really do get along.

FRANCIS: And do they ask you if everybody on the right is a racist? More or less.


TARLOV: No, no. But I mean, people are curious on the other side of the fence like what's Sean like. You know, it's a complicated environment. Especially when you do have such deeply held beliefs.


FRANCIS: May be stay off Twitter for a little while. OK.

DUFFY: It's so hard though.

FRANCIS: Let me ask you about these cocktails that you have in front of you because I'm (Inaudible) it's Friday night maybe you've put a little something in there.

So Dunkin' Donuts is trying to stick it to Starbucks for the fall and they have announced that -- I've got to read this because I may get it wrong. Their pumpkin spice maple flavored offerings are returning to the menu for fall starting August 27th. I had no idea.

BOOTHE: It's too soon.

FRANCIS: It's summer.

TARLOV: It's so hot.

FRANCIS: It's summer.

BOOTHE: I would like to say that after we went to happy hour and went shopping which is not the best decision after a couple glasses of wine but there are already everything was fall gear. It was all fall. All this happens--


TARLOV: After (Inaudible) sweat a humidity.

BOOTHE: Well, I'm not ready for it. I'm not ready for pumpkin spice latte.


DUFFY: It starts pretty early in northern Wisconsin--


FRANCIS: All right. Well, fair enough. Fair enough.

DUFFY: Bring on the pumpkin latte, I much prefer early pumpkin latte's than at Christmas at Halloween.

FRANCIS: Which one is better? Did you guys do a taste test? Jessica, did you--


TARLOV: Actually I don't drink coffee because I used to think it would stop my growth. Obviously not going to -- no, I'm not having any.


TARLOV: But the girls can tell you.

FRANCIS: Yes, I'm a Dunkin girl.


BOOTHE: I don't like Starbucks anymore, they annoy me.


TARLOV: Dunkin' Donuts seems to have a better topic.

FRANCIS: That's how you're deciding which one of the two you're going to--


BOOTHE: I make my own lattes.

FRANCIS: OK. All right, guys. Well, thank you. I'm not sure we solve this, but I think the solve--


TARLOV: We solve the racist thing.

FRANCIS: -- many other issues in the world. Thank you so much. Don't forget to watch Rachel Campos-Duffy tomorrow morning. That is our Story here on this Friday night. I will see you again Monday on Outnumbered at noon and on Fox Business at 4 p.m. Eastern. Have a great weekend. Tucker is up next.


Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.