Newt Gingrich: They should abolish the CBO
On 'The First 100 Days,' the former House speaker discusses the GOP healthcare plan, reports of Clinton campaign aides meeting with the Kremlin
This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," March 13, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Breaking tonight, brand-new revelations from the Russians about talks that their people had directly with the Clinton campaign advisors this time. And health care whiplash, as the bean counters tell us who wins and who loses. Newt Gingrich with his take on that in moments. Both of those stories and this shocker from the White House that went a bit under the radar today. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Today, we're beginning the process of a long-overdue reorganization of our federal departments and agencies. We have assembled one of the greatest cabinets in history. I believe that so strongly. And we want to empower them to make their agencies as lean and effective as possible and they know how to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: He is talking about doing something that never, never happens in Washington, folks. He's telling the people around that table, his Cabinet, to cut their agencies, in some cases, by 20 percent. So, in one day, we're talking about rolling back the biggest entitlement of our time, ObamaCare, and cutting the size of government. This is important because this is never, never done in Washington. Republicans don't do this, and democrats definitely don't do this.
So, welcome to "The First 100 Days," everybody, I'm Martha MacCallum. It is day 53.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There is duplication and redundancy everywhere. Billions and billions of dollars are being wasted on activities that are not delivering results for hard-working American taxpayers. This order requires a thorough examination of every executive department and agency to see where money is being wasted, how services can be improved, and whether programs are truly serving American citizens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Imagine that. Joining me now to talk about all of this, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Newt, good evening, good to have you here.
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: It's good to be with you.
MACCALLUM: So, listen to President Trump and that -- yes, that --
GINGRICH: And by the - by the way, that was really a -- I will say, what you just pointed out was really important, and you hit it right on the mark. This is potentially a really big move to gain control over their bureaucracies, to shrink the government, to eliminate waste, and to empower the president's appointees to really go out there very aggressively. And do the kind of entrepreneurial job that Donald Trump believes in, you know, not to waste any money, and then do -- and do run a streamlined, efficient organization.
If they can -- if they can keep driving at that, that's going to be a very, very major change in Washington.
MACCALLUM: And this is an executive order today that got almost no attention. But certainly, it made me sit up and pick up my ears when I was listening to this. In my (INAUDIBLE) I thought, wow, I mean, you know, I don't really think if any of the other people on the republican side running had won, we would necessarily be having this conversation now.
Of course, the proof is going to be in the pudding, as you well know, whether or not he can pull this off is a whole another thing. Because nobody shrinks the size of these agencies and nobody rolls back entitlements. So, will he be able to pull this off?
GINGRICH: Well, you know -- and you look at, for example, cutting back some of the costs for the brand-new Air Force One, cutting back some of the costs for buying the F-130 -- the F-35 fighter plane, every time you turn around, Trump is doing something. He's very - this is what people don't get in the city at, it's not about right or left. He's an entrepreneur. He gets up every morning and he tries to figure out five or six or eight things he can do that are real, that change things, that move us in the right direction.
And his instinct as a businessman, the reason he ended up being worth so much money, is he's very frugal. He came in, you know, under budget, ahead of schedule. If you look at the new Trump Hotel in Pennsylvania Avenue where the Post Office was, they did a wonderful job; Ivanka was in charge. They did a great job. But they came in under budget and ahead of schedule. And he's going to try to bring that attitude to the entire U.S. government.
MACCALLUM: Well, there's a lot of business people around that table, and he was criticized for putting so many business people in the cabinet. But they understand that kind of cost-cutting and the kind of decisions that CEOs have to make and make every day, so we'll see if it gets anywhere.
But Mr. Speaker, stay with us, because I do want to get your reaction to another big story tonight, a spokesperson for the Kremlin says that Russian officials did not just meet with members of President Trump's campaign, they also met with members of the Clinton camp. Doug McKelway lays it out for us tonight from the State Department. Hi, Doug.
DOUG MCKELWAY, WASHINGTON-BASED CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha. These Saturday comments from Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, basically confirm what many defenders of Attorney General Jeff Sessions have said all along, and what Sessions himself had said, that it is not unusual for a sitting senator or a high-level campaign advisor, to have a meeting with an ambassador, even if it's the ambassador from the Soviet Union or from Russia. Putin's spokesman was sitting with many would regard as simply obvious.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DMITRY PESKOV, VLADIMIR PUTIN'S SPOKESMAN: If you look at some people connected with Hillary Clinton during her campaign, you would probably see that he had lots of meetings of that kind. There are lots of specialists in politology, people working in think tanks, advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCKELWAY: And we reached out to former Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill about those comments, who told us, "It's not true, which is why they're using the word ‘probably' is my guess." Others had point out it was not the meeting that Sessions had with the Russian Ambassador, but his poorly constructed response to a question during his confirmation hearing for Minnesota Senator Al Franken. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. AL FRANKEN, R-MINN.: And if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?
JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn't have - not have communications with the Russians. And I'm unable to comment on it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCKELWAY: In the flurry of criticism that came after that remark, it came to light that many democrats had also met with Kislyak, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi denied having meet with the ambassador, but Politico found a 2010 photo showing her with him; same with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Senator Claire McCaskill also tweeted that despite having been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 10 years, she had never met with Kislyak. She apparently forgotten the 2013 tweet of hers with red quote, "Off to meeting with Russian Ambassador."
Indeed, in the midst of all of the Sessions controversy, Ambassador Kislyak was photographed at the speech that President Trump gave to a joint session of Congress surrounded by democrats. Martha, back to you.
MACCALLUM: Thank you, Doug. Now, back with more House Speaker - former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. And what do you make about all of that?
GINGRICH: Now, this is the sort of stuff that leaves the average American to be sick of politics. The democrats clearly in this whole case are just lying. They know that it's routine for a U.S. Senator to meet -- the truth is, the only person I know of who's getting direct money from a Russian company that came in ever close to a campaign was John Podesta's brother, who was paid, I think, over $100,000 by a Russian bank to lobby for them in Washington.
This whole thing is infuriating, because you take a guy like Jeff Sessions, who's a very honorable, very hard-working man. You listen precisely to the question being asked, which clearly is campaign related, and he gave a campaign-related answer. I think had he been asked, "Have you ever met a Russian Ambassador?" He would have said, sure. And a U.S. senator? "Of course, I have."
This whole thing, it is infuriating - and by the way, Secretary Clinton, I guess - let me go back and find out, how many times did she have dinner with the Russian foreign minister? How many times did she have meetings with the Russian foreign minister? How many times did she meet with the Russian ambassador?
MACCALLUM: Both Hillary Clinton and then-candidate Trump both said they wanted to start over with Russia. That they thought there might be some areas where they could compromise, where they could discuss. So, I don't think it's all that shocking that either side would have had some sort of outreach to try to see whether that might work.
Before I let you go in the last minute that I have here, I want to get your thoughts on the scoring by the CBO of this GOP health care bill, do you like it or not?
GINGRICH: They should abolish the Congressional Budget Office. It is corrupt, it is dishonest, it was totally wrong on ObamaCare by huge, huge margins. I don't trust a single word they have published and I don't believe them.
MACCALLUM: But the head of it was a -- is a Trump appointee. And in many ways, I think people -
GINGRICH: I don't -- I couldn't care less.
MACCALLUM: That people maybe misjudge what they're supposed to do.
GINGRICH: Look, this is a black box.
MACCALLUM: I mean, their job is to figure out whether or not this is something that can get through on reconciliation, right? Not to make a judgment about the --
(CROSSTALK)
GINGRICH: They lie. Let me - let me be very clear. No, let me be very clear. OK. I helped balance the budget four straight times, they only time (INAUDIBLE) lifetime. We fought the Congressional Budget Office every time.
When ObamaCare came out, they used the architect of ObamaCare as their adviser on how to score ObamaCare; and their scoring, you go back and look at it, it is a totally dishonest, disgustingly wrong, and it is a -- that whole thing should be abolished. They should replace it by putting out to bed and having three to five professional firms score these things. Nobody has an exact score. It's not possible.
And even tonight, Dr. Tom Price, the Secretary of Health and Human Services pointed out, there are whole sections of this bill they didn't score. So, I really do think it's disgusting; I'm really disappointed that the republicans have not abolished the Congressional Budget Office, because it is so profoundly dishonest.
MACCALLUM: All right. More to come on that. Newt Gingrich, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.
GINGRICH: Thank you.
MACCALLUM: So, breaking just moments ago, the Justice Department has now responded to congressional demands for any and all information on President Trump's allegations that former President Obama was spying on him during the campaign.
Judge Napolitano with his take on what they've said. Plus, two exclusives for you tonight. First, Sandra Duran was killed by a drunk driver who had been previously deported five times from this country. Her fiance joins us as he decides to speak out tonight.
Also a new documentary about the hours leading up to Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014 has created a firestorm. The filmmaker behind that film joins us. Before the prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch reacts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I couldn't believe what I had read. Michael was in the store the night before he died. St. Louis County saw the videotape and they didn't tell us. Well, guess what, St. Louis County, I've got the videotape.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: So, breaking tonight, just moments ago, the Justice Department responding to demands for the DOJ to come forward with any and all information on President Trump's allegation that then-President Obama was spying or wiretapping him during the 2016 campaign.
Chief Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge live in Washington on what the DOJ is saying about this on this evening of this deadline. Hi, Catherine.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, thank you, Martha. Within the last hour, Justice Department spokesman confirming to Fox News that they have asked the committee for more time to review the request and determine if documents exist. In the meantime, the White House spokesman telling reporters today, the president tweet, March 4th, was not meant literally.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president was very clear in his tweet that it was, you know, wiretapping, that that spans a whole host of surveillance types of options. The House and the Senate Intelligence Committees will now look into that and provide a report back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: House Intelligence Committee deadline comes just one week before the first public hearing on the Russian investigation, where current informer administration officials including FBI Director James Comey are invited witnesses. The committee's ranking Democrat believes the FBI director may be eager to testify.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The press reports are accurate that he asked the Department of Justice to knock this down, and they refused for whatever reason. He may welcome the opportunity but he'll certainly have that on March 20th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: And moments ago, we received this statement from a spokesman for the committee's republican chairman, who wants relevant documents before the public hearing, a week today. It reads in part, quote, "If the committee does not receive a response by then, the committee will ask for this information during the March 20th hearing, and may resort to a compulsory process if our questions to -- continue to go unanswered." And we're told tonight, that specifically means issuing subpoena for any records. Martha?
MACCALLUM: OK. Thanks, Catherine.
HERRIDGE: You're welcome.
MACCALLUM: Here now, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano. Judge, good to see you tonight.
ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS CHANNEL SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Oh, good evening.
MACCALLUM: What do you make of that latest report?
NAPOLITANO: I don't know that the Justice Department has what the intelligence committee of the House is looking for, because sources have told Fox that if then Mr. Donald Trump, President-Elect, was surveilled as he says he was, both during the campaign, Mr. - and after he was elected, President Elect, it was done by a foreign intelligence entity from a foreign country, an allies -- an ally of ours, the British foreign intelligence service, known as GCHQ, the initials for that entity, and that entity was able then to bypass the NSA, the CIA, the DNI, and the DOJ, the entities in the United States that would have jurisdiction over it.
MACCALLUM: Are you suggesting that President Obama went beyond our own intelligence agencies and through British surveillance, received transcripts of phone conversations that the Trump campaign was having?
NAPOLITANO: This is what sources in the Intelligence Community have told Fox. Now, just to give a little background here, the NSA has 24/7/365 access to all the computer servers and telecom server computers in the United States.
MACCALLUM: Metadata.
NAPOLITANO: Correct. They can actually -- well, they can actually download into digital form, the conversations and the text. They don't have time to read all of that, but they have access to it. Guess what foreign entity has access to the NSA database, this British spying entity, GCHQ? So they could have obtained this information, sources tell us, translated the raw data into actual transcripts, and shared it with someone in that the west wing. It probably wouldn't have been with the president personally, because he wouldn't want anybody to be able to say that I met with a British spy in the White House, but it would have gone through someone in the White House.
MACCALLUM: But you said, if he wouldn't require a FISA order, he wouldn't need that.
NAPOLITANO: Correct.
MACCALLUM: The president, he could get that directly, he could just call up our intelligence agencies and say, "I'd like to see that phone conversation."
NAPOLITANO: Absolutely. Absolutely.
MACCALLUM: Really?
NAPOLITANO: There's a paragraph in the FISA statute, which says, "notwithstanding anything in this law or any other law. The President of United States may order surveillance in any person in the United States.
MACCALLUM: They have to be a perceived security threat, I would imagine.
NAPOLITANO: Yes, but he doesn't need -- he doesn't need to persuade anyone of that other than himself. Now, he, according to --
MACCALLUM: There's no evidence that this -- that that is what happened.
NAPOLITANO: Correct. Correct. Because according to sources --
MACCALLUM: Just that the ability would be there for that to happen.
NAPOLITANO: The ability is absolutely there. But according to the sources with whom Fox has spoken, that is not what happened. Because for him, to do that, there would be a record of his ordering the NSA took off of these transcripts. By going through foreign entities, and the foreign entities are probably was another foreign entity, besides the GCHQ, between the White House and the GCHQ, by going through that route, then all of these people whose faces were on the screen, Jim Comey, Sally Yates, who is running the DOJ at that time --
MACCALLUM: Who have Clinton (INAUDIBLE).
NAPOLITANO: Correct. Jack Brennan was running the -- running the CIA, Admiral Rogers, running the NSA, they could all plausibly and legally and truthfully say, "We have nothing to do with it."
MACCALLUM: That's a lot. We will see. Interesting stuff. Thank you very much, judge.
NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.
MACCALLUM: Good to see you as always.
NAPOLITANO: Likewise.
MACCALLUM: So still ahead, "The First 100 Days" with an exclusive. After surveillance video featured in a new documentary about the 2014 death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, has touched off a huge round of controversy. The man behind that documentary is here tonight with us. After that, we will speak with Ferguson Prosecutor Bob McCulloch to react.
And a prominent U.S. attorney asked to resign from the DOJ, but he claims he was fired. We're going to tell you why critics call the latest act of political grandstanding in the age of Trump when Marc Thiessen and Mo Elleithee debate. Joining us right next. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: From new reaction tonight to a dustup that might have been viewed as business, as usual, after any other election, President Trump, like dozens of new presidents before him, requested the resignation of the U.S. attorney who's appointed by the previous president. The attorney for the Southern District of New York, however, refused. Instead, forcing the administration to fire him. Critics now charging that this act of defiance by an Obama appointee is nothing more than a political grandstanding. For more on that part of the story, we're joined now by Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts live at the White House. John?
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Martha, good evening to you. We're trying to find out exactly the answer to that question as a standard procedure or some political grandstanding, and nobody has yet given us a full accounting of it hard as we might have tried.
But here's what happened on Friday. The Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked for the resignation of the remaining 46 U.S. attorneys, that included a fellow named Preet Bharara, who is the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Now, asking him for a letter of resignation was a little unusual because back on November the 30th, then, President-elect Donald Trump, asked Bharara to come to Trump Tower, where, in a meeting, according to Bharara, the president asked him to stay on. Let's take you back to that day.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PREET BHARARA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: I said I would absolutely consider staying on. I agreed to stay on. I have already spoken to Senator Sessions, as you know, the nominee to be the attorney general. He also asked that I stay on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: So Bharara said that day, he believed he was going to be the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York for some time to come. When we heard that this -- the attorney general asked for the resignation of all these U.S. attorneys, we thought, well, maybe it's a pro forma thing, he's going to ask Bharara for the resignation letter, but he is not going to accept it. Now, Bharara, as far as we can understand, did not submit a letter of resignation. And then on Saturday, he tweeted out that he had been fired. Adding to the intrigue in all of this, Martha, it is the fact that a couple of days before Bharara was fired, President Trump called him to speak with him. I asked the Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, what that call was all about today? Listen here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Can you tell us what that was all about? And did the President change his mind?
SPICER: No, the President was calling to thank him for his service. This is a standard -- as I said, a standard action that takes place at most administrations. Then-Attorney General Reno sent out an almost identical letter in 1993. The Bush administration sent out a similar one, as well. So I mean, this is a very common practice for all political appointees.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Spicer claims it is a common practice. He mentioned Janet Reno in 1993 asking for letters of resignation from all of the U.S. attorneys. Among the U.S. attorneys who resigned that day was the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Jeff Sessions, who is now the attorney general. So, he's on solid ground, Spicer, when he says that this is standard operating procedure. We still don't know, Martha, exactly why Bharara was asked to stay on, and then, he was asked for his resignation and later, fired. Nobody is exactly saying, but both sides are digging in their heels, saying, "This is what we're saying and nothing more at this point."
MACCALLUM: Thank you so much, John. John Roberts at the White House. Still with more on this, Marc Thiessen, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush and Mo Elleithee, the founding Executive Director of Georgetown University's Institute of Politics and Public Service. Both are Fox News Contributors. Welcome, gentlemen. Good to see you both tonight.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You, too.
MACCALLUM: So Marc, it is a little bit of a strange twist on what we usually see. What do you think happened here?
MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, I think probably what happened is they decided to get rid of all of the attorneys. Preet Bharara wasn't -- well, he wasn't targeted specifically. They definitely - they asked for everybody's resignation. And Trump was probably calling him to explain to him that he had changed his mind. And he wouldn't take the call, and then when he was -- got the request to resign, he wouldn't submit his resignation. I mean, it's kind of outrageous. The fact is, every -- as was presented in the opening segment, every president has done this. Jeff Sessions got fired when he was as a U.S. attorney.
So I don't know who this guy thinks he is that he can resist this. But the larger question here, Martha, is, is Donald Trump allowed to staff his own administration? You know, on Capitol Hill, you got the democrats slow rolling, not just his cabinet nominees, but the sub-cabinet nominees, hundreds of positions to be filled to run the federal government. And now, this - they're creating this fake news outrage, about him firing Preet Bharara and these other U.S. attorneys. These people serve at the pleasure of the president; when the president's pleasure ends, so does their service.
MACCALLUM: Yes, but this, you know, I don't know whether he had told others in that group that they could stay and then changed his mind. I don't know, Mo, if, you know, most people in America really care whether or not, you know, he gets to keep his position if everybody else is going. It seems, obviously, it's the president's prerogative. But do you -- do you smell anything more than that here?
MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER DNC SPOKESMAN: 100 percent it's the president's prerogative. It is 100 percent common practice for this to happen, as has been noted several times. This feels a little bit different. It kind of raises three issues in my mind. One is the mass demand for resignation that asks people to clear up by the end of the day. That's not always normal. Most of the time, presidents will demand a resignation letter, but then, will stagger the acceptance of those resignations until they find a replacement or to allow ongoing investigations to run their course. The fact that they were asked to leave by the end of the day was a little bit abnormal.
Number two, as has been referenced, he did ask Preet Bharara to stay on. And so, it begs the question, what changed? Why did he suddenly decide - it is his prerogative, but it does raises some questions, which brings me to the third one that I have, and that is, did any ongoing investigations or potential investigations that Preet was looking at lead to this decision?
MCCALLUM: Yes. Well, that is definitely one of the questions that is out there. You know, you look at the southern district of New York, it has produced Rudy Giuliani, James Comey, it's quite possible that he is using this opportunity, as was suggested in the intro, to sort of boost his own political profile, which he certainly seems to have succeeded in doing, Marc.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He certainly has. This is, you know, this is launching his next campaign whether it's for mayor or governor, or whatever it is. But the idea that this is somehow affecting ongoing investigations is wrong. because what happens is, when the U.S. attorney in every other administration, when the U.S. attorneys step down, career prosecutors pick up the investigations and take them off.
So there are zero impact on any investigations. But I think what's happening here quite frankly, I think Donald Trump should be doing more of this. There is an entire federal bureaucracy and a bunch of Obama appointees in all these positions, because the Senate haven't confirmed people, they've all of these holdovers of people borrowing in who are undermining his agenda. He needs people in these positions who are loyal to him.
(CROSSTALK)
MCCALLUM: Yes, he's very concerned about that and concerned about the leaks that some of the lingers. Thanks you, guys. We got to go. Great to see you both.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks, Martha.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank to you, too.
MCCALLUM: So coming up next, our exclusive interview with the fianc, of Sandra Duran, the woman who was struck and killed by a five-time deported illegal immigrant who was driving drunk.
Plus, a new documentary has a set up a firestorm of controversy. We are back into this discussion and for good reason. Raising new concerns about the hours before Michael Brown's shooting death in Ferguson, Missouri.
We'll talk with the filmmaker, Jason Pollock, who says that the new video proves Michael Brown is innocent. We'll ask him to explain. And St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCullough who says the video was edited to fit a false narrative. You don't want to miss this. Coming up, right after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mike traded the store a little bag of weed and got two boxes of cigarillos in return. He left his items at the store and he went back the next day to pick them up. Mike did not rob the store.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MCCALLUM: Developing tonight, a new documentary featuring previous unseen surveillance footage has raised some questions about the hours leading up to the 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, which touched off so many events in the country. The documentary is called "Stranger Fruit" and it suggests Brown's appearance at Ferguson market and liquor was about an exchange of pot and cigarillos. It was not a robbery. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the early hours of August 9th, just 11 hours before Mike took his last steps, he went to his local convenience store to make an exchange. Look carefully at the counter and you can see a trade is made. Mike gives the store a little bag of weed. You can see the employee is smelling it, passing it around.
Then, you can clearly see Mike being given two big boxes of cigarillos. The store clerk puts the cigarillos into a bag for Mike with his other stuff and hands it over the counter. Mike is about to leave the store but decides to have the clerk called his things behind the counter for him. The next day, with his hands politely behind his back, Mike goes back into the store to get his stuff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCCALLUM: So now, but the convenience store in the St. Louis prosecutor's office are disputing that footage. And they are accusing the filmmaker of editing the video to fit a narrative.
In moments, we're going to hear from both sides. Filmmaker Jason Pollock and St. Louis County Prosecutor, Bob McCulloch. But first, Trace Gallagher on our West Coast newsroom with the newly unedited footage that was released just hours ago. Trace?
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Martha. Let me just go back and start with that documentary video, which was Michael Brown visiting that convenience store just after 1 o'clock in the morning, which was several hours before he was accused of robbing the very same store.
If you look, you can see Brown grab some drinks and ask for cigarillos. And when the clerk bags the sodas and many cigars, Michael Brown places something on the counter. The filmmaker, Jason Pollock, says it's marijuana and that Brown is making a trade. And it appears the clerks pick up whatever Brown put down and they look at it and they smell it. Jason Pollock then goes on to say, here is what really happened. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mike traded the store a little bag of weed and got two boxes of cigarillos in return. He left his items at the store and he went back the next day to pick them up. Mike did not rob the store.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: It was county prosecutor -- the St. Louis County prosecutor calls the filmmaker's claim, quote, "just stupid and nonsense, the poor the edited step it leaves out critical context." So we went back. We looked at the entire video sequence and it was agitated. And it did leave out context.
For example, the filmmaker did not show the clerk talking to Michael Brown, clearly debating whether to make or trade for whatever he had put on the counter. And the filmmaker did not show the clerk taking back the sodas and the cigars and putting them back on their shelves. The lawyer from the convenience store says Brown tried to barter but he failed. Listen to him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the argument that is going on between Michael Brown and the clerks. What do you mean? You know, you want to barter with me? What do you mean I can't trade with you? Why not? Come on, man. The language got heated and it got ugly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: The filmmaker stands by his claim that the footage would have changed the narrative that Michael Brown was shot after robbing a convenience store. Police say it was irrelevant because Officer Darren Wilson didn't stop Michael Brown for robbery, he stopped him for walking in the middle of the street. Martha?
MCCALLUM: Thank you, Trace. Joining me now is the filmmaker behind "Stranger Fruit," Jason Pollock. Jason, good to have you here. Good evening to you.
JASON POLLOCK, FILMMAKER: Hello. How are you?
(CROSSTALK)
MCCALLUM: Hello. I'm great.
POLLOCKPOLLOCK: I am simply stunned by that report. Simply stunned.
MCCALLUM: All right. Let me...
(CROSSTALK)
POLLOCK: Beautiful job. Thank you, 101.
MCCALLUM: You can simply be stunned, but hold on. Hold on. I have a question for you, OK?
POLLOCK: Yes.
MCCALLUM: Because to me, what are you proposing, legally? Does it make, it makes no difference whether a robbery happened or a trade for pot happened or whether, you know, a bank got robbed or he was home doing his homework.
What matters is what happens in the street when he and Officer Wilson encounter each other. So, why have you focused so heavily on what happened in the convenience store?
POLLOCK: That's a very interesting way to phrase this. Because I completely agree with you. And the reason we put out this convenience store tape now is so that people could get over it. Because he didn't rob the store. And anyone that sees the exchange that takes place with a conscience, a heart, two minds, and is not a bigot, pretty much understands what happened.
Unfortunately, there are some people in America with so much bias inside of them that they just want to think that Michael Brown is a bad guy. Yes, let's talk about the physical evidence on cam...
(CROSSTALK)
MCCALLUM: No, hold on, Jason.
POLLOCK: Yes.
MCCALLUM: They think that Michael Brown is a bad guy because 40 FBI agents went to Ferguson to investigate this case.
POLLOCK: Yes.
MCCALLUM: At the behest of Eric Holder, who showed up almost immediately after it happened. I think it is fair to assume that they really believed that they were going to be able to indict Officer Wilson, that he had acted wrongly.
(CROSSTALK)
POLLOCK: No, I don't that that's...
MCCALLUM: But when they got there. OK. All right.
POLLOCK: That is absolutely not true! Not true. Don't just say that!
MCCALLUM: So, you were just saying plenty of things. So, let me just...
(CROSSTALK)
POLLOCK: Those FBI agents...
MCCALLUM: So let me just throw in, the FBI agents went down there, Eric Holder went down there.
POLLOCK: To indict Darren Wilson? To indict Darren Wilson? No way! You know how the system works. These cops get off every single time. Bob McCulloch has been the prosecutor for over two decades. And for 23 years...
(CROSSTALK)
MCCALLUM: Here's the fact to the matter, Jason.
POLLOCK: Excuse me. Let me just finish this. Let me just finish this. For 23 years, according to The Washington Post, there has not been a prosecution of a single police shooting in St. Louis County.
MCCALLUM: So you believe, you believe, hold on.
POLLOCK: Every single one of them, every single one of them, none of them are indictable?
MCCALLUM: Now it's my turn. Now, let down. Listen to me. It's my turn. You are suggesting that 40 FBI agents were all...
(CROSSTALK)
POLLOCK: I'm suggesting the Department of Justice failed.
MCCALLUM: ... to make sure that this person was not indicted. Listen to me.
POLLOCK: They failed.
MCCALLUM: So, it is not possible -- it's not possible in your brain...
(CROSSTALK)
POLLOCK: And in my film, my film "Stanger Fruit."
MCCALLUM: ... that what happened was what was found by both a grand jury and 40 FBI agents...
POLLOCK: No.
MCCALLUM: ... you're discounting, you are saying all that doesn't matter?
POLLOCK: Yes.
MCCALLUM: Their investigation is absolutely not true?
(CROSSTALK)
POLLOCK: When Mike -- when the facts of this case come out...
MCCALLUM: That Michael Brown did not reach into that car, to grab his gun...
(CROSSTALK)
POLLOCK: Excuse me, can I speak now?
MCCALLUM: Yes.
POLLOCK: When the facts of this case come out in my film, "Stranger Fruit," the real facts of this case, the facts of this case that Bob McCulloch doesn't want us talking about, like the fact that Michael Brown was shot in the head and a bullet came out of his eye, do you know how that would happen when your head is down.
And there is a bullet in the ground. In the report, there is a bullet in the ground by Michael Brown's head. Now how would a bullet go through here out of his eye and go struck in the ground?
MCCALLUM: Look, what I know is that there was a...
(CROSSTALK)
POLLOCK: Excuse me, ma'am. Excuse me. I'm not through yet.
MCCALLUM: No. There were three different forensic investigations that were done that showed that he was shot in the front.
POLLOCK: I don't care! They failed him! They all failed.
MCCALLUM: Everyone in the country was told this narrative that he was shot in the back.
POLLOCK: They all -- do you know how many black men -- do you how many black men are in jail right now?
(CROSSTALK)
MCCALLUM: That he had his hands up and said "don't shoot." It was all discounted by 40...
(CROSSTALK)
POLLOCK: Do you how many black men are in jail right for nothing? For nothing? Because the department of justice failed them.
MCCALLUM: You know...
POLLOCK: You know how many black men are in jail right now? Don't tell just tell me because they closed the book on it.
MCCALLUM: I think you have absolutely...
POLLOCK: We're OK. My film will show the public the truth, ma'am. And if you want to know the truth, you should watch it.
MCCALLUM: I don't why you got -- OK. I don't know why you got so hung up on what happened whether he was trading pot or trading or stealing something, it's completely irrelevant to the outcome of this case.
Joining me now to respond to this is Bob McCulloch, who you just heard mention, he's the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney, and I would imagine that he has a response to a very heated Jason Pollock. Good evening, sir. Good to have you here. What do you think?
BOB MCCULLOCH, ST. LOUIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR: Well, good evening. I'm happy to be here. Well, he has his facts wrong, not shockingly. There was no bullet in the ground anywhere Michael Brown. There were three separate medical examiners, including one hired by the Brown family, the Department of Defense and the St. Louis County medical examiner all came to the same conclusion. He is making up facts, as he goes along, to push his film. You know, he's an amateur filmmaker and he is just making things up to do that. You look at the...
(CROSSTALK)
MCCALLUM: Is it true that no police officer has ever been prosecuted for shooting an unarmed person in Ferguson, Missouri?
MCCULLOCH: Ferguson, yes. In St. Louis County I think it's what you're asking with that. Over the years, there have been several shootings, all have been investigated. And none of them were indicted. Correct.
MCCALLUM: So he is claiming that...
(CROSSTALK)
MCCULLOCH: But all the evidence collected gathered presented.
MCCALLUM: He's claiming that they was -- that there were underhanded tactics, that things were hidden, that the story and the investigation it was done by 40 FBI agents, overseen by the Department of Justice and the grand jury...
MCCULLOCH: Right.
MCCALLUM: ... that they all were in cahoots with you, to make sure that Darren Wilson was never indicted.
MCCULLOCH: You know, I mean, that's just listen to what you just said and tell me how silly that it is. It really is silly, that somehow, I have this control over the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General of the United States, the FBI. It is just nonsense. And this guy is trying to push his movie, which is made up, makes up the facts on it. You saw the entire -- the entire surveillance video from all four angles, unedited. And he is trying to strike a deal with them. And when it fails they take the...
(CROSSTALK)
MCCALLUM: Is there any legal relevance to what happened in the -- and sorry for interrupting -- to what happened in the convenience store?
MCCULLOCH: No.
MCCALLUM: I mean, it seems to me that the whole question begins in the street when these two, Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, confront each other. Correct?
MCCULLOCH: Well, it begins there but it relates back to the incident at the store at about noon on that day. Because that plays into this. And that became relevant to what went on into the street. What happened at 11 o'clock, I'm sorry, 1 o'clock that morning, was both logically and illegally irrelevant.
And the material which is why it was never presented to the grand jury. That's not something I would be able to use in a trial, had there been any kind of an indictment coming out of this. So, it's not going to be presented to the grand jury. It is documented. This isn't new information. It's documented in the police report.
MCCALLUM: That's right.
MCCULLOCH: The conversation the police had with the employees of the store. The fact that we issued a search warrant so they could get the surveillance video that they looked at the surveillance video, examined it, documented that, describe what's on that video, all of which was released, November 24th 2014. It's all been sitting there. Open to the world, often to anybody who wants to look at it, including this fellow.
MCCALLUM: All right. Bob McCulloch, thank you very much. Good to have you here tonight, sir.
MCCULLOCH: My pleasure. Any time.
MCCALLUM: So coming up next, the unthinkable tragedy of Sandra Duran, who was killed by a drunk driver on her way home from church with her sister. This man had been deported five times from this country. Her fiance, Rodrigo Macias, saw a segment on this the other night here, and he is joining us now to speak exclusively to us.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MCCALLUM: An update on a story that we reported out of California last week where an illegal immigrant, who had been deported from this country five times, faced charge of manslaughter in a drunk driving crash that took the life of this mother of two, Sandra Duran.
Duran's fiance, Rodrigo Macias, was watching this program when we initially reported on her tragic death. And he reached out to our David Wohl about representing their family in this case.
So joining me now, in the First 100 Days exclusive is Rodrigo Macias, a fiance, of Sandra Duran, and his attorney David Wohl. Gentlemen, welcome. Good have you here tonight.
DAVID WOHL, ATTORNEY: Hi, Martha.
RODRIGO MACIAS, SANDRA DURAN'S FIANCE: hello, Martha.
MCCALLUM: Hello there. Rodrigo, I am so sorry for your loss.
MACIAS: Hello.
MCCALLUM: I read about Sandra.
MACIAS: Thank you.
MCCALLUM: She sounds like a wonderful person. And as I said, she and her sister were on her way back from church one Sunday morning and then, what happened, Rodrigo, tell us?
MACIAS: It was with her 18-year-old son, our 18-year-old son on the way back from church. So what happened was, they were on the way back from church, this illegal immigrant was evading and let me correct, and then he cross ran a red light, instantly killed my fianc,, Sandra Duran. He t-boned her.
MCCALLUM: Tell me a little bit about her.
MACIAS: Sandra was a great, loving, devoted mother, sister, and daughter. Great, great, wonderful person.
MCCALLUM: And she had an 18-year-old son and a 12-year-old son, is that right?
MACIAS: Yes, we do. A 12-year-old and an 18-year-old. The 18-year-old was in the vehicle when it happened. Unfortunately, he saw his mother dying in front of him which is very unfortunate. Which pieces back to us being big Trump supporters and his whole policy on sanctuary cities and then, we are victims of this, and this happens to us.
MCCALLUM: Shocking. David.
WOHL: Yes.
MCCALLUM: Tell me about the suspect, about his history, but what he was doing here and how he could possibly still be in the country.
WOHL: Yes. Martha, like you indicated, Mr. Alvarado has been deported five times since 1998. He has numerous convictions. Somehow, made his way back to Los Angeles or was let out of jail. The mayor and the police chief in Los Angeles, Mr. Garcetti and Charlie Beck, have basically engineer the sanctuary city in Los Angeles, and allowed his presence.
And how many Mr. Alvarado are running around Los Angeles under the same circumstances, posing a risk to innocent citizens like him, we don't know.
But Martha, this is essentially another Kate Steinle tragedy. The only difference is, Mr. Alvarado used a car as a weapon instead of a gun. But the tragedy in this is that we are trying to seek justice in a state where it's very difficult. The federal court just dismissed Kate Steinle's lawsuit.
MCCALLUM: Yes.
WOHL: Basically saying that local authorities don't have to comply with federal law when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants or notifying the feds of deportation. And we're not going to leave no stone unturned to try to seek justice for Mr. Macias and his family. Because this just can continue to happen.
And we are confident that Mr. Trump, by the way, who has this as one of his main target, he is going to help out, maybe passing laws, may be Kate's law, may be some other type of, maybe defunding Los Angeles from federal dollars because of this policy. I mean, he is a wonderful guy with a wonderful family. And this should never happen.
MCCALLUM: This should never, ever have happened.
MACIAS: If it, yes.
MCCALLUM: Go ahead, Rodrigo.
MACIAS: If it was an American -- again, if it was a regular American citizen, that was born in this country, and had the rap sheet that Mr. Alvarado had, there is no way that person would be out in public, he would be locked up in jail after all those felonies that he has.
MCCALLUM: Yes, that's a good point. Gentlemen, thank you so much. We're going to continue to follow this story. Thank you for being here.
So, roughly 60 million Americans right in the bull's-eye of a late winter storm. Who is expected to get hit? We will show you what's going on out there when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MCCALLUM: Top it off tonight, we have a Fox News extreme weather alert. There is a monster storm that is making its way up the East Coast, impacting nearly one in five Americans. Here's a look of the current warnings. Our nation's capital, as well as many other northeastern cities including the one where we live is right in the bull's-eye. So we could get as much as 2 feet, we're hearing.
Thousands of flights have already been canceled. The White House has postponed a planned Tuesday meeting between President Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Washington you know they shut down like there's a little bit of dusting of anything.
So, all of that brings us to our quote of the night because we didn't forget. And it is by the poet Shelley. "Oh, wind, if winter comes, can spring be far behind? Let's hope. Let's hope. SO hunker down, stay safe, everybody.
Thanks for being here tonight. Good to see you. I'm Martha McCallum. We'll see you back here tomorrow night at 7. Bill O'Reilly is up next.
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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox