Fox News poll: Many Democrats want US to move towards socialism

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," January 25, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Thank you, Bret. So, tonight, as you just saw, the government, it's back open. But despite the president's efforts, so are many parts of the southern border, still.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Build that wall! Build that wall! Build that wall! We will build a great wall along the southern border.

Do not worry, we are going to build the wall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, tonight the question is, will the president's base stay with him? Will today be a moment that is looked back on as just a necessary evil of beltway politics? Or is it a moment of no return?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I will sign a bill to open our government for three weeks until February 15th.

MACCALLUM: With me tonight, to kick off the conversation. Steve Hilton, the host of "The Next Revolution". Steve, I put that question to you. You've been very supportive of this president and the border security. The wall has been central since day one. What happened today?

STEVE HILTON, HOST: I think that what he did today was make the right move. Because the big prize is getting that movement forward on border security and immigration that has eluded politicians of left and right for decades.

Let's be clear about this issue of immigration, which doesn't just mean the border. It means the whole system, which has been broken for so long. It has been something that has been defeated in the swamp for decades. It's been left to fester. It's been punted along.

And finally, you've got a president, Donald Trump, who's not going to let that happen. That's why he did the shutdown, that's why he forced attention on this issue. And even though today may look like a concession to some supporters, in many ways it is.

What he's still doing is forcing those people in Congress who have ducked this issue for so long to try and come up with a solution. He's given them 21 days at the end of that, that's when we'll really know whether he's been able to make a historic difference in the way that no politician has been for such a long time.

MACCALLUM: Well, we'll see. I mean, because he essentially said that if he didn't get what he wanted, he was going to use his executive powers to declare an -- a crisis at the border.

Now, I guess, at -- if, at the end of 21 days, they don't get where they need to be on this to satisfy his base, then, perhaps that option is still there. But -- you know, I mean, the backlash is pretty fierce.

So, let's look at some of the headlines out there. Donald Trump Just Lost His Leverage for Building a Wall, Why Trump Blinked. Those are some of what's being said out there. And some of those outlets are not particularly positive on the president in most cases anyway.

But, you know, also from Ann Coulter, you know, as you can imagine. She said, good news for George Herbert Walker Bush, as of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp to serve as president of the United States. What do you think, Steve?

HILTON: Yes, but this stuff is just childish. It's not helpful, it's not serious, OK? This is a really serious problem. Immigration has been growing as a problem and it will continue to grow as you get bigger and bigger migration flows around the world. You got technology, you've got the cost of travel. This is going to be a really serious issue.

And so, we have still, it's not the end of the process yet. The time to judge is in a few weeks. If Congress can use this period to finally deal with the problem, the answers are not that complicated.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I -- listen, I hear what you're -- I hear what you're saying, Steve. But, but this has been going on for 13 years, this discussion. And they've gone right up to the edge in many times.

HILTON: Right.

MACCALLUM: And said we're this close to doing comprehensive immigration reform. And you know, the indications are that Jared Kushner, advisor to the president, has really been wanting to make this a moment for comprehensive immigration reform. And you know, what? I think most of America feels exactly the same way.

HILTON: Yes.

MACCALLUM: But why would Nancy Pelosi want to give anything after what happened today? What is the incentive to her to start to negotiate with the president and leave him at the end with something that looks like or that is, because it has to be real, an actual border that works?

HILTON: This may sound like a weird thing to say at this moment. But, fundamental decency in the end. How long can she go on, saying that it doesn't matter what you put on the table? She's already said this, in terms of giving up what we want for the kind of priorities that our voters have. We just going to keep saying no, because we hate you, Donald Trump, OK?

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HILTON: If she continues to do that, she really will be exposed as a completely empty politician who only cares about those partisan points and does not care about the future of the country.

Because the president has shown he is interested in a bigger deal than just traveling over a scrabbling over a bit of money for the wall. And that's what we need.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Absolutely, I mean, he made a generous offer, I think. Yes, I mean -- you know, just looking at it -- you know, 30,000 feet, it's like you look at what he was offering. He was offering DACA relief, essentially. Huge program to allow people to stay here, increased technology at the border, increased border security in the form of new -- of more agents along that border, and also an actual physical barrier that prevents people from coming in.

HILTON: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And you're right, I think that it would reveal that what some on Nancy Pelosi's side of -- the end of the fence, so to speak, are pushing for, is basically that they want no barrier, no wall. And to that, you have to ask the question, do they want to remove what's there? You know, should it just be a completely fluid back and forth area.

HILTON: It's exactly. They have no serious argument, they have no substantive argument. It's purely political. But I just want to say this to every supporter of Donald Trump. Where are they are, they're watching tonight, whoever you are. If you want to support this president, if you want to see him re-elected in 2020, then you've got to get behind him right now, at this moment, and push for that kind of big, historic deal. Because that is the best way to make sure that he gets credit from a situation which we can all see has been messy, it's hurt his reputation, his poll numbers are down.

But we know at the end, we're halfway through. And he's still got the chance to have used the pressure of shutting down the government and now putting this deadline on it with the threat of the emergency action to get a really big, positive change. That will be the best way to ensure that he's re-elected in 2020.

MACCALLUM: Well, some on -- you know, when you look at the politics of it and where people were moving. One of the indications that we're hearing is that the two votes that they took in the Senate, where six Republicans said yes to the Democrat bill that had no border wall funding in it, got them unnerved at the White House. That they were concerned about the outcome of that vote and felt they were losing -- you know, folks even in their own party.

They expected they would lose Mitt Romney, but they lost six people on that vote. And they felt like basically, people were becoming a little weak- kneed about the government being closed for as long as it was.

HILTON: Yes, I think that's right.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

HILTON: And I think that they -- the fact that you had real-world problems emerging. Not just the terrible hardship for those many, many hundreds of thousands of people.

But you know, thinks that really, you know, you saw in LaGuardia Airport this morning. That was -- that was I think a shock to the system.

MACCALLUM: Right. I get you.

HILTON: And you think about the economic impact. You know, the president rightly considers the growth in the economy, which has benefitted so many people to be his -- you know, biggest single achievement. Do you know them that put -- been put at risk? And so, I think that all adds up to making the right -- the smart decision today.

OK, it will be panned, we've seen, you already has been panned by some as being a concession. But, it's -- as I say, this is just -- this is not the end of the process. Judge him by the results. And not just him, remember. Judge those people in Congress.

They're the ones who now need to put together that policy program. I think, by the way, the president can and should lead to this process. He should be out there and arguing for the kind of big, positive change that they can then make happen in Congress. Because the truth is, there's no way that anyone can dispute the fundamentals of the actual issue. He's on the right side of this.

MACCALLUM: Steve Hilton, thank you so much. Good to see you tonight.

HILTON: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, we will talk to Senator John Kennedy about this development, right after the break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, today was the day. Happened earlier this morning that Roger Stone, himself, said he would eventually come. This are the scenes at his house this morning during the FBI raid. Here's how the media reacted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN HENNESSEY, LEGAL ANALYST, CNN: There are clear coordination, there is clear links here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did any Americans participate in a conspiracy? Or we could call it collusion to encourage that and we encourage their release. Today's indictment suggests they did.

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: There was an extensive effort to try to influence the outcome of the election that involved the Russians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, here's what Stone said after he posted bail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER STONE, FORMER INFORMAL ADVISER TO DONALD TRUMP: I will plead not guilty to these charges. I will defeat them in court. There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president, nor will I make up lies to ease the pressure on myself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, what is this all about? The indictment says that Stone made false statements to Congress about his interactions with WikiLeaks. And that he tried to persuade one of the witnesses to lie. That's what the indictment says today.

So, the e-mails that were hacked and leaked, where you have heard so much about, that at the heart, really, of this entire Russia investigation. Roll back the tape and ask yourself, did they have an impact on the election? Did they have an impact on how the American people voted, because of these releases of these e-mails?

Remember, the first group came out around the time of the DNC, the convention for Hillary Clinton. What did they reveal? Basically, they reveal that Debbie Wasserman Schultz had sanctioned practices that made it pretty tough for Bernie Sanders to get a fair shake. So, you had that.

Then, you fast forward to October. What did those e-mails that, were hacked into, and revealed say right before the election? These are the Podesta e-mails. One, Donna Brazile had her hands on the debate question. And she gave that question to Hillary Clinton ahead of time.

And that some staffers -- were talking about things like this, that rich conservatives, probably found it more palatable to their friends to be Catholic rather than Evangelical. That was seen as a sort of slam against Catholics that might have turned off Catholic voters. Another one said they really should get into bolstering Hillary Clinton with "needy Latinos." That phrase was seen as something that could be troublesome to Latino voters and suggested trying -- that they should try to get an endorsement by Bill Richardson.

These are real e-mails that came out. They were embarrassing. Were they explosive? Where they vote changing? That's a question that is open to answering. This is what the Mueller investigation is trying to find out. Were they the result of Russian hacking and did they give them to WikiLeaks and did the Trump campaign conspire to then have this whole thing blow up? That's where we're at. The Mueller team did not make that link in this indictment. Stone says that they never will.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STONE: There's no evidence of Russian collusion or WikiLeaks collaboration. I reject the idea that I coordinated it all between WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. That is categorically false and I intend to prove it at trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So his arraignment is set for Tuesday. We bring in Michael Caputo who has also been on the Mueller hot seat and says it was pretty much about Roger Stone when they questioned him. Michael, good evening. Good to have you here tonight. You know, when you look back at that the chain of events here that we just went through and what lies at the heart of this, tell me a little bit about what you think -- who you call -- you call Roger Stone your best friend, correct?

MICHAEL CAPUTO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Certainly among my best friends. I've known him since I was a young man. I was his driver for a short time in my early 20s. I would -- you know, he's been woven in and out of my career for the last 30 plus years. I've known him a long, long time. I also know that Roger is in pretty good -- in a pretty good spot right now.

I mean, it's ironic but this slow role of Roger Stone day, it's actually been going on since July and every Thursday night reporters we're calling Roger, calling me, calling others that knew him, are you ready to get picked up tomorrow? And it went on and on, every Friday. Sometimes they'd skip a Friday but it went every week. Roger Stone day is Friday to the point where you know, they've got -- you know, I think Roger in some ways is relieved and he's ready to take these charges on you know, head-on.

MACCALLUM: You know, one of the questions is whether or not -- Roger Stone was involved with the campaign then he was fired after a couple of months. The word -- you know the feeling is they got pushed out by Corey Lewandowski, you didn't want him on the campaign. So then he's on the outside and he's talking to his you know, sort of like-minded political friends, talking to you, to Jerome Corsi, to Randy Credico, and you know, there's lots of buzz about oh I wonder if you know, there's going to be something that drops, some bad information about Hillary Clinton.

So this indictment says that basically, someone in the Trump campaign was nudging him along to say like, can you find out when WikiLeaks is going to drop this stuff? And he you know, was saying that he had a connection, that he could figure out when it was going to drop and making all these statements about this information that was going to drop. Was he doing that because he had direct information, that he had a link to the Russians, he knew when it was going to drop or was he trying to sort of puff himself up and make himself useful to the campaign?

CAPUTO: Well, first of all, you have to realize that at no time is Roger ever thought that WikiLeaks were the Russians nor did he know at the time he was interacting for a brief period on Twitter that Guccifer was somehow connected to the Russians. Roger has argued this point and still does. So he was never at any time thinking he was talking to the Russians when he was trying to reach out to WikiLeaks.

And we know now at least from the -- from the proof that we've seen and we'll find out through this trial that nobody ever got in touch with WikiLeaks when it came from -- to Roger trying to urge the you know, some - - you know, the contact to WikiLeaks through Jerry Corsi. Jerry Corsi has never once been in touch with WikiLeaks.

Now, the person who was giving him you know, kind of background information as Roger has always said was an intermediary named Randy Credico. And Randy said things about Roger what Roger believes are incorrect. And Roger now states and he has for weeks that he has chapter and verse, e-mails, texts, metadata that proved both of these men are lying.

I can tell you, when I sat down with Mueller's team, it was about collusion and conspiracy. Now it's about two men who are willing to lie about Roger Stone. I think it's about -- that's about where we're at.

MACCALLUM: Well, and also when you listen to the reports today and the way the indictment was interpreted, and I read through the whole indictment this morning, and you listen to some of the takeaways from that, that some people were reporting today. They laid out a direct link that you know, this is clear now. It goes from Roger Stone, to WikiLeaks, to the Russians. But in fact, that is not laid out in this indictment as it exists.

And I also just want to play one sound bite from an interview that Sean Hannity did with Julian Assange. You know, I just submit this for people to take what they will from it at home. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN ASSANGE, FOUNDER, WIKILEAKS: Our source is not the Russian government.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: So in other words, let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?

ASSANGE: That's correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: What did you make of that, Michael? I think that's what Roger believes as well. When the DNC documents came out, the e-mails that were purloined, I immediately thought it was Russia. I lived in Russia for many years. I was sent there by the Clinton administration, by the way, to meddle in their elections. I spent there a long time.

And I thought -- I thought the Russians work and I also thought that they had been so successful with their packing and social media programs in Ukraine and such that they were soon going to turn it on the United States. And in the days that had happened. I thought that Barack Obama should do something about it.

Roger didn't agree with that. Roger still believes to this day that what Julian Assange said in that interview that he's not in any way related to the Russians. But at -- the bottom of the line of this whole thing is, did Roger Stone ever get in contact with WikiLeaks whether Julian Assange got the e-mails from the Russians or Santa Claus, and there's absolutely no linkage.

MACCALLUM: Well, we'll see. As you say he's going to get his day in court and you say that he is looking forward to that.

CAPUTO: Oh, he's salivating.

MACCALLUM: We'll see -- we'll see where it goes. Thank you very much, Michael. Good to see you tonight. Thanks for coming in. So to 2020 now. This is fast becoming the mantra for 2020 Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS.: An America that works only for the wealthy and the well-connected, that's corruption plain and simple and we need to call it out for what it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Chris Stirewalt and Wendy Osefo coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: Senator Elizabeth Warren announcing a new wealth tax on the ultra-rich. This is her idea, campaign idea which would be two percent added on top for Americans with more than $15 million in assets. Warren saying in a fundraising push, "A lot of rich and powerful people won't like it but I don't work for them."

A new Fox poll shows that many Democrats think that socialism is a good thing. 40 percent say they think socialism is a good thing, 34 percent said that it was a bad thing. Here now Chris Stirewalt, Fox News Politics Editor and Wendy Osefo, Political and Social Justice Commentator. Good to have both of you with us. Thanks for being here.

WENDY OSEFO, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Wendy, let me start with you. What does that number say to you? You know, do you find that number disturbing or do you think it's something that's a good place for Democrats to look when they're putting together their policies for 2020?

OSEFO: Well, I think that Venezuela, North Korea, even China has shown us a socialism is not necessarily the way to go. But what people are looking for is the Utopian ideologies that underlie socialism. That is they want that you know, human beings don't want for anything and then we have equality. I think that that's what Warren is trying to say here.

Her approach may not necessarily be the best but a Gallup poll also showed that you know, most Millennials don't even know what socialism really is. So I think that that's another issue here is that when people are talking about socialism, they're thinking about the ideologies that speak to it but not necessarily whether it will take and how it could turn the government on this head.

But what cannot be lost in the conversation is the fact that when we have individuals who are not making any money and then others who are billionaires and that is a problem especially in our great nation which is supposed to be the leader. So that is the biggest issue.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, I think it's an interesting point. I mean, I think a lot of people on all sides of the fence agree that that that income disparity and how exaggerated it has become is probably not a great thing, but that's a long way away, Chris Stirewalt from deconstructing capitalism and the economy that has been so prosperous for the United States and exchanging it for something that looks like Venezuela which frankly looks a lot worse than not so good. It looks disastrous and catastrophic.

CHRIS STIREWALT, POLITICS EDITOR: Right. Now what Warren is proposing would be very popular with the general election.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

STIREWALT: A big tax on very rich people is always popular.

MACCALLUM: Over $50 million.

STIREWALT: Over $50 million, they like it. And guess what, our poll also found is that when you get over about $250,000, tax increases on the wealthy get quite popular. Remember, Donald Trump got elected president because he was a populist. The energy in the country right now is populist energy. It's eat the rich. It's against entrenched powerful people. Elizabeth Warren is trying to get in on that.

However, and this is the real danger the Democrats face now, if they allow their party no matter who the nominee is, I don't think they're going to nominate Elizabeth Warren, but if whoever the survivor is --

MACCALLUM: Who do you think they're going to nominate, Chris?

STIREWALT: I'd say the one to beat right now --

MACCALLUM: Kamala Harris?

STIREWALT: Yes. It's Kamala Harris is the one to beat right now. But for Democrats, if they're branded -- if the eventual nominee is branded as a socialist or branded in this way, if they allow the Republicans and Donald Trump to define them as that, then they got no shot because they need to make the election about Trump.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Let's put up the people that are declared so far and the people who have announced exploratory committees. I think it's very interesting that the two of you both said Kamala Harris is the one to beat here. Wendy, why do you say that?

OSEFO: I think Kamala Harris brings a new fresh set of energy to the Democratic Party. I think that she speaks to all of the marginalized populations that Donald Trump has just really outed during his presidency. She is an -- you know a daughter of immigrants. She's a female. She's a minority. She just speaks to so much of what people need right now and that new energy.

I do think that some people have touted a Biden-Harris ticket and what that would look like. I will actually flip that on this head and say a Harris and Biden ticket where Harris is the President and Biden is the VP. But I definitely --

MACCALLUM: He's done it before. He knows how to do that job.

OSEFO: Absolutely. And not to mention, she's my sorority sister. So you know, she has everything that we need to be the President the United States of America.

MACCALLUM: Five seconds, Chris. Quick thought.

STIREWALT: Happy Friday. Glad to be with you.

MACCALLUM: All right. Thanks to you, guys. Good to see you both.

OSEFO: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Still ahead tonight, actor Dean Cain on his latest starring role.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN CAIN, ACTOR: What's that smell?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Man, you got to see this.

CAIN: This is a woman? No. I've never been in an abortion clinic before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: They have been called the wealthiest family you've never heard of. Complete with philanthropic ties to prestigious universities and institutions around the world. But tonight, the Sackler family of Purdue Pharma, stands accused of the unthinkable, fueling the opioid crisis.

Trace Gallagher has the story from our west coast newsroom tonight.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Martha, from 1999 to 2017, almost 400,000 people in the U.S. have died from opioid overdose. Now, a lawsuit by the State of Massachusetts is accusing Purdue Pharma and eight members of the Sackler family of being, quote, "personally responsible for deceptively selling the addictively painkiller OxyContin."

The state's attorney general Maura Healey says "When it came to the Purdue Pharma sales campaign, the Sackler family micromanaged and personally hired hundreds of workers to carry out their wishes, including pushing doctors to get more patients on opioids at higher doses for longer periods of time while paying themselves billions of dollars in profits."

The litigation mostly centers on Richard Sackler, who became president of Purdue Pharma in 1999 and is still on the board. Documents released this week say that in 2001 when Richard Sackler found out that 59 people in one state had died from OxyContin, he wrote to Purdue Pharma executives, quote, "This is not too bad, it could have been far worse."

And that the launch party in 1996 Sackler posted that the drug would bring a, quote, "blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition." Prosecutors allege it ended burying the competition and the customers. Here's the Massachusetts A.G.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAURA HEALEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, MASSACHUSETTS: They don't want to accept blame for this, they blame doctors, they blame prescribers. And worst of all, they blame patients.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you say they you mean Purdue, the Sackler family or are they one in the same?

HEALEY: They're one in the same.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Purdue Pharma calls the allegations a rush to vilify the drug making, saying quote, "The complaint distorts criminal facts and cynically conflates prescription opioid medications with illegal heroin and fentanyl which are the leading cause of overdose deaths in Massachusetts."

But 36 other states are also suing Purdue Pharma. In fact, after a federal investigation in 2007, Purdue Pharma pled guilty to misleading the public about the effects of OxyContin and agreed to pay $600 million. None of the guilty executives were named Sackler. But the name is emblazoned on some of the nation's museums and universities, including the Smithsonian and Harvard. Martha?

MACCALLUM: The story is just beginning. Trace, thank you very much. Actor Dean Cain joins me in the studio, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: New fallout tonight from New York State's sweeping reproductive rights bill that allows for abortion up until birth in some cases. Some Catholics, so outraged at the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, who is Catholic, for signing this into law that they have called upon the archbishop in New York to excommunicate him from the church.

The legislation comes on the heels of a movie that was released late last year that highlighted the horror of the reality of late term abortions and the doctor who carried out so many of them Kermit Gosnell. He is now spending life in prison for murder and involuntary manslaughter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAIN: She goes in for a procedure with Dr. Oxy, now she's dead and no one seem to give a damn.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You seem to give a damn.

CAIN: I do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. All right. What kind of procedure was it?

CAIN: Abortion. What?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought you were pro-choice.

CAIN: What does that have to do with anything?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know. What does it have to do with anything, Dan?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It complicates things.

CASI: Am I in the right place here? This is homicide, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Actor Dean Cain, stars in "Gosnell" The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer" which is what he became called after the truth came out here. He's also writer and producer. The movie is now number one on Amazon's bestselling movies, which is so interesting, Dean, because it also had a very wide distribution in movie theaters too. It did a lot better than anybody thought movies like this could.

CAIN: Yes. Well, we fought to get into every theater we got into. We run about 700 theaters and we opened top 10, and then immediately we're getting dropped from theaters. So, there was a lot of -- we fought every step of the way to tell this story.

And this story doesn't take a position on pro-choice, pro-life, it just tells the story of Kermit Gosnell. However, when people see the story and they see what late term abortion is about and what this man was doing, and variably a lot of people turn pro-life, that's what happened, that's what we heard too.

MACCALLUM: And that's what happened. A lot of people who worked on this movie, went into it, as, you know, the story of this doctor and many of them were pro-choice, right?

CAIN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And the more they learned about how -- what he was doing the more it all opened their eyes?

CAIN: It was horrible, what he was doing. You know, he was actually inducing birth, having live babies born and then snipping their spinal cords with a pair of surgical scissors. Honest to goodness, the things that Kermit Gosnell is in jail for now forever, may very well be legal under this new New York law. It's going to be a very gray area.

I mean, the late-term stuff, he would do it 24 weeks, which is five and a half months, about an 80 percent chance of viability, he was doing it way past then. But that's the law in Pennsylvania, you know. Here, where it becomes really gray, is in the area of the woman's health. Is it mental health, is it emotional health? And so, it could be for a myriad of reasons it can happen.

And then the scary thing is, it doesn't have to be doctors, it doesn't have to be licensed physicians, it could be, you know, R.N.'s, it can be, you know, very -- some qualified people. But that's the problem that was happening in Gosnell's clinic. It wasn't safe for the mothers. It's a really frightening situation.

MACCALLUM: Yes. I mean, you know, probably proponents of this law would say that this would make it safer to carry out this kind of procedures. But you know, the fact remains, and one of the most compelling things to me, is that when people do get a better handle on these procedures, it makes it more and more difficult for them to be pro-choice, once they see how these -- and you know, you look at when this bill passed, and we showed it last night, they lit the tower up pink in New York City --

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: The tower lit up pink, yes.

MACCALLUM: -- and everybody is applauding and clapping. You know, I mean, no matter how you feel about this issue, I think everybody deserve, everybody should see this movie, and then if you walk away and you're pro- choice, that's fine, you know.

CAIN: I agree.

MACCALLUM: But just see it, right?

CAIN: Well, I think so. I thought I knew quite a bit about abortion, about the idea of it and how it took place. But we started shooting the film and I realized I didn't know anything about late term abortion, the way it actually goes through, and what happens and the barbarity of it and the viability of these children.

I mean, again, at 24 weeks, that's five and a half months, 80 percent chance of survival. It goes at 90 at 26 weeks. So, it's a really scary, scary thought. And being a father, you know, I've always called myself pro- choice and I've always supported that up until viability. But viability, it's a fungible thing, it changes as time goes, and it's becoming, you know, less and less time.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: And the more technology we have, the more we know about how early development is --

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: Heartbeat and things like that.

MACCALLUM: -- and how developed babies are early on. What's the response in Hollywood to this movie?

CAIN: Well, it hasn't been warmly received. It hasn't been warmly received. But, you know, again, we didn't take a stance on this. It just tells the story. So, if people want to say that, you know, we're providing propaganda, almost all of the dialogue was taken from court records and from the grand jury testimony and things like that. So, we just tell the story.

And if the story affects you this way or that way, then let the cards fall where they may. It turns out that most people are sort of changing their opinion. I hope people get out and see it, because I think it's very important.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I hope for it too. Yes. It's a very - it's a very powerful story. Dean, thank you very much. We're going to see you tomorrow morning on Fox and Friends, right?

CAIN: Yes. Getting too much of me. I'm sorry.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: No, it's great to see you. Thank you so much. Good to have you with us.

CAIN: Thank you, Martha. My pleasure.

MACCALLUM: All right. Look who's coming up next. Lisa, Jessica, and Harris Faulkner, we didn't let her go home today. Outnumbered overtime, overtime coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACCALLUM: So, this is a question I ask my safe lot this time of year.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really?

MACCALLUM: Why is there so much hate out there for Tom Brady? This is the kind of story that might surprise some people. It does not surprise me. Tonight, the proof that the Patriots quarterback, Tom Brady, is a class act.

After his win on Sunday night, the five-time Super Bowl champ, who could be on his way to another, that would make it six for those who are counting, speaking out the Kansas City Chiefs quarterback, Patrick Mahomes, who was in his first season, brought his team to all the way to the AFC championship.

Tom Brady knows what that's like, and he went to see him after the game when everything was over. He wanted to talk to Patrick Mahomes in their section of the stadium, when all of the Razzmatazz had died down.

"I just went and saw him, he's feeling like you think he'd feel when you lose a game like this. It hurts. What a great young player, so impressed with his poise, his leadership. He's spectacular," says Tom Brady. Brady headed over to -- has headed now to his third straight Super Bowl, to face another young quarterback, in Jared Goff.

Joining me for ladies' night, Harris Faulkner, host of Outnumbered Overtime, big Kansas City Chiefs fan.

HARRIS FAULKNER, HOST: I am, girl!

MACCALLUM: And incredibly good sport, Fox News contributor Lisa Booth and Jessica Tarlov. Ladies, welcome. Great to have all of you. I love this panel.

(CROSSTALK)

FAULKNER: Yes, this is fun.

MACCALLUM: So here we are, again, Patriot fans headed to the Super Bowl. It's very familiar territory for us. I don't mean to rub it in. But here's video of me and Harris, on our hall where we live, you know, where we hang out, all day long.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FAULKNER: You know what I mean, like NFL gear.

MACCALLUM: Come in.

FAULKNER: Let's go in. Shall we? Hey, girl, what's up?

MACCALLUM: Harris!

FAULKNER: Wow. Look at you.

MACCALLUM: Hi.

FAULKNER: Yes, it lights up.

MACCALLUM: You are wearing your gear.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACCALLUM: All right. You get the idea. So, that was us in our gear. And Harris popped in. And I just happened to be wearing my Rob Gronkowski jersey, which is what I wear when I need to think.

FAULKNER: You know what? I was so shock though. Because I mean, Martha MacCallum in NFL gear anyway --

MACCALLUM: Yes.

FAULKNER: -- but she was just sitting there getting ready for your show, and you're like dialing up your inner Gronkowski.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Yes, I like that a lot. It's a very inspiring to me, my inner toddler. All right. So, what do you think of the fact that he went in and saw him and sat down and talked to him?

FAULKNER: Well, I'm not shocked. Like you know how I feel about Tom Brady. I mean, if you are going to lose to somebody, why not let, be go greatest of all time, right. His is talent plus perspective. And I appreciated it so much. What is he, 41 now?

MACCALLUM: Forty-one.

FAULKNER: Mahomes just turned 23. It is man I've been there, that sort of thing. What I really appreciated, though, was when, and I don't know if you caught Mahomes, trying to recapture that moment.

JESSICA TARLOV, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.

LISA BOOTHE, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.

FAULKNER: And the moment was even big.

MACCALLUM: Right.

FAULKNER: He's like, yes, you know, he won the Super Bowl his first year. Actually, it was the second. Patrick, you got time. So, yes.

MACCALLUM: That's right, that's right.

(CROSSTALK)

FAULKNER: That was really sweet. Congratulations, by the way.

MACCALLUM: Thank you. Well, it's very exciting. You know, I mean, what do you think, Lisa. Everyone hates Tom Brady. I get so much --

BOOTHE: I'm a Red Skins fan, so I'm just used to losing. And so, the idea of my team being mentioned with the Super Bowl, it just never happened, so I'm a little jealous. But no, Patrick Mahomes, imagine how cool that is for Tom. I mean, obviously, getting to the Super Bowl would probably be cooler, no offense to Tom Brady. But he is the go, right? He is the greatest quarterback of all time, one of the greatest, you know, NFL players of all time. And so to have him come and speak to him, I think shows a tremendous amount of grace.

Also, if you are Patrick Mahomes, how cool is that, because I assume he's an idol, Tom Brady is an idol of his.

MACCALLUM: Right.

BOOTHE: And so just like with anything in life, if we have a mentor say, you know, positive comment to you or just give a, you know, good job, it means so much. So how cool is that for him.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Absolutely. And let's face facts. Patrick Mahomes, he was incredible.

TARLOV: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And if they lost that coin toss --

FAULKNER: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- that thing could have ended exactly the other way. And I think that, you know,--

(CROSSTALK)

FAULKNER: It's true.

MACCALLUM: -- Tom Brady recognizes in him, you're the future, young man.

FAULKNER: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And I want to be there to, you know, for you as a mentor or encourager.

(CROSSTALK)

FAULKNER: You know (Inaudible) us, Jessica?

TARLOV: What?

FAULKNER: Tom Brady had 29 touchdowns this year, OK? Patrick Mahomes had 50. We can see the future.

TARLOV: You can.

FAULKNER: And it's wearing red and yellow.

MACCALLUM: No. And I want to be here for you when that happens. I really mean it.

FAULKNER: I know.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Now I think he has an amazing future.

BOOTHE: We got our wings and our --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: So, speaking of strong men, the Rams are going to have male cheerleaders at the Super Bowl which I think is pretty cool. And it's actually, do we have pictures of the male cheerleaders that are going to be there? It's coming. I think it's very traditional actually, Jessica. I mean, male cheerleaders -

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: Well, it is.

MACCALLUM: -- have been around forever.

TARLOV: On every level of cheering --

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

TARLOV: -- starting in middle school and into high school, professional dancers there. I think it makes lot a of sense. I mean, people making hay of this, as if it's some affront to NFL history because they're upset that there is going to be some distraction from the little lady outfits is absurd.

Though the claim that it's going to fundamentally change sexist culture in sports, I don't think that. But I love that it's happening. And you can you do so many more interesting routines if you have people there that can be, you know, supporting a lift in a different way.

MACCALLUM: Well, I mean that, you know, I think --

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: Yes.

FAULKNER: Although this is going to be different, because the Baltimore Ravens and Indianapolis both have men doing those types of things. What makes this historically important, is that they are actually lined up doing the same dance moves as the women.

TARLOV: Like, you know.

FAULKNER: So, they're actually in there. And I checked them out on YouTube, if I were tasked with doing that, I'd be like, hold my beer. I mean, they got the moves. They look great.

BOOTHE: Well, I can't dance, so I'm not going to make the team anyways. But you mention sexist, so then it is sexist if there aren't any women playing in the NFL? I mean, to be honest I couldn't care less about this if male -- you know, there are male cheer leaders or not. I honestly think just get rid of all cheerleaders. I mean, I thought --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: I totally agree with you, honestly.

BOOTHE: I don't really know --

MACCALLUM: And I spent -- no, I spent so many years -- I spent so many years cheer leading on the side lines. It was -- you know, I am not a fan of it.

FAULKNER: I should see that by the way.

MACCALLUM: I think it should just disappear, it's a waste of time.

(CROSSTALK)

FAULKNER: You got moves too.

MACCALLUM: It's just -- you know.

TARLOV: I think it's fun. If you are sitting in your seat at halftime or between and they're doing a really great routine, like the next city dancers, I grew up here.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: It's better in basketball.

TARLOV: And they are sensational.

MACCALLUM: It's better in basketball.

FAULKNER: Yes.

MACCALLUM: It's better in basketball, I agree.

BOOTHE: And to that point, Martha, if you don't have good seats you can't barely see them anyway. So, I mean, I just like, I don't see it bringing any value.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

BOOTHE: But it's not an affront to NFL cheerleaders. Nobody gets mad at me. But I'd rather, you go, you just want to watch the game. I just don't - -

(CROSSTALK)

FAULKNER: So, what do you do during the time-outs? Because I like a little --

TARLOV: You drink beer.

MACCALLUM: That's when you go get your beer. Exactly!

BOOTHE: You get a hot dog, you know.

MACCALLUM: Do we have time for our last topic or we -- OK. So, I just want to play this, this is now for something totally different. OK. This is from the California Senate where they have decided to only use the pronoun "they" in terms of designation of gender. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are now a state recognizing the nonbinary designation as a gender. We are using the phrase "they" and replacing other designations so that it's a gender-neutral designation of "they."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: OK. So, then this happened just seconds later. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My grammar teacher is long gone and I won't be hearing from her. And if any of you --

(FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From them, exactly. From they.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So confusing. She forgot in the first sentence, Jessica.

TARLOV: But that's the beauty of the moment, that it is confusing and you can be light heartedly corrected. And I feel if there's even one individual who feels better represented, as more of an equal, because they do identify as gender binary or gender neutral, then it's a good thing. It becomes an issue when people, you know, are getting mad and they're calling, you know, you know, acting as if you don't care about how they want to be treated because you don't get it right.

FAULKNER: You know what would really make them feel respected then learn a name. Because changing him or her, he or she, singular forms has then bad grammar to say they and them. Learn the person's name and really show them some respect.

BOTHE: Well, as a she, I think what if I want to be called a she? I'm denied the right to it? No, they're saying you have to reference as a them or they.

TARLOV: It's in legislation. Obviously, you can go about your business and a lot of people now in e-mails, signatures are --

(CROSSTALK)

BOOTHE: Obviously she can do it because this is so engrained in our everyday language. It's completely off the reservation and political correctness run amuck.

TARLOV: That's not political correctness.

BOOTHE: Yes, it is.

TARLOV: It's a group of people --

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Everyone regardless of their gender, they. That's what they're doing.

TARLOV: No, it's in the legislation. It's not to say that you're going to be penalized if you are having a conversation and you use, I saw her in the hall, down the hall, she looks great. That's not the thing that's going to get you in trouble. If you're writing legislation, that why shouldn't it be in the most inclusive language possible.

(CROSSTALK)

BOOTHE: This doesn't help the case at all to me. I still think this is off the reservation personally.

MACCALLUM: All right. We're still going to call it ladies' night at least for the time being. Thank you very much. Great to have you all here.

All right. So, don't forget to subscribe to my podcast, The Untold Story in Foxnewspodcast.com, it is there. And wherever you listen. This Monday, we're posting a brand-new story on Republican Congressman Steve Scalise. This is a really special interview. So please tune in and don't forget to e-mail us at thestory@foxnews.com. Have a great weekend, everybody. It feels like a long week, right? Everyone did a great job. Tucker Carlson is coming up next with his special guest, Roger Stone, tonight.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.