Gowdy to Schiff: GOP doesn't give a damn what you think

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," July 5, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


Well, welcome to this special edition of 'Hannity: The Trump Agenda.' I'm Jason Chaffetz, in tonight for Sean.

Over 18 months ago, on January 20th, 2017, Donald Trump was sworn into office as the 45th president of the United States. And from day one, he hit the ground running, and now, we're seeing the impact of the Trump agenda, lower regulations, lower taxes, new diplomatic efforts abroad.

And now, President Trump will have the opportunity to nominate a second judge to the U.S. Supreme Court -- a task this president does not take lightly. Take a look.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As you know, there's now a vacancy on the Supreme Court. And if you turn in Monday at 9:00, I think you're going to be extremely happy with the Supreme Court, right? And they're all great. They're all great.

And I want to thank Justice Kennedy for his lifetime of truly distinguished service and he had confidence in me. He left because he said you're going to pick somebody great and so nice. So nice.

Great man. Great -- a great gentleman.


CHAFFETZ: Joining us now with analysis of the president's upcoming decision is constitutional law professor at George Washington University, Jonathan Turley.

Jonathan, thank you so much for joining us.

This is for conservatives, for Republicans, it's an amazing opportunity in the first two years of Donald Trump's presidency to have a second pick. And conservatives always want to have a conservative on the court.

But what is it do you think that they really mean when we say we want a conservative on the court?

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, I think that what president Trump has said is that he wants to get another nominee in the same mold as Neil Gorsuch. You know I testified in favor of Neil Gorsuch in the Senate Judiciary Committee because I considered him and intellect to the first order. I thought that President Trump did indeed find someone who legitimately could go to that court and contribute in a major way.

It's going to be hard to follow that home run quite frankly, but I think that is what really prompted Justice Kennedy to retire. I think that there was a certain comfort factor in the selection of Neil Gorsuch and I think that Kennedy wanted to spend a year or so with his former clerk on the court. But it's now time to leave and I think he's comfortable doing that.

CHAFFETZ: Now, with this pick that's coming up, the Democrats have already signaled that no matter who it is, they're going to go off the rails. Is there anything that the Democrats can actually do to derail a nominee if the Republicans all line up behind this for the person?

TURLEY: Well, Jason, as you know, what we're about to see is a time- honored performance of kabuki that occurs on Capitol Hill with every confirmation hearing. Roe v. Wade will once again loom greatly over the hearings.

Nominees are likely to refuse to answer questions about Roe v. Wade. They will cite ironically a rule created by the Democrats called the Ginsburg Rule, and that rule was stated by Joe Biden when he was chairman and he said that the nominee in that case, Ginsburg, would not be required to give her answer to how she would rule on an issue that might come before her.

Well, since this is a discretionary court, most anything could come before her. And so, the Ginsburg rule has been used since then, and it's going to be used again. So, we're going to see what'll happen.

The worst argument that I've seen put forward was advanced by a couple of senators and even a couple of academics who said that because of the Mueller investigation, it's simply improper for the president to nominate anyone. That argument I think is historically and constitutionally unfounded. There is no support for that.

President Trump has every right to make this nomination.

CHAFFETZ: Now, when Amy Barrett came up before the Judiciary Committee there in the Senate previously, they started to touch upon some of the religious aspects. Is there a religious litmus test that that they'll try to put in front of this nominee?

TURLEY: Well, that was a particularly raw moment when Senator Feinstein made a comment about her Catholic dogma, as she referred to it. Barrett could make for the most interesting hearing. The fact is that she has not been shy about tackling tough issues.

Yes, I often criticize nominees who are blank slates, people that spend their lives avoiding any interesting thought or interesting article. She's not one of those. She has been very much in the debate and she has not held back, and that would make her confirmation quite exciting to watch.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Senator Michael Lee is also one that's been mentioned on -- he's on the list from the president of the United States. Being a sitting senator, is there a special pathway or does that hinder his ability to actually be named by the president?

TURLEY: Well, you know, Jason, I think that in this environment, it's not necessarily a big advantage. I think every -- the positions on both sides are pretty much baked in.

The Democrats are looking at a very tough political environment for them to support any nominee, with the exception of a few of these senators in purple states, people like Claire McCaskill, Manchin in West Virginia. They're going to be in a tough position for this nomination, but it's a razor thin margin. You know, there are a couple of Republicans that could easily bolt.

That's what makes Barrett's nomination so fascinating. She's probably the most reliable pro-life nominee on the short list, and that could end up costing a couple of Republican senators.

CHAFFETZ: So, if you were the president, who would you nominate?


TURLEY: Well, you know, it's sort of funny because I actually -- he thinks he has some very good people on this on this list, I wouldn't pick -- I wouldn't pick a favorite. I think it is going to be very hard to find another Neil Gorsuch. I think there were other people off this list that would have been excellent.

I think that oftentimes we put people on short lists because of the ease of their confirmation or optics when we need to focus on intellect that's what will make Gorsuch a legacy nominee. He's going to create a legacy for himself and the man that put him on the court. Optics don't do that, intellect does that.

CHAFFETZ: Well, it does and I think the Democrats do a great disservice to the country, into themselves by already pre-making, pre-baking their decision and already announcing that no matter what, they're going to vote against this person.

But, Jonathan Turley, thank you this evening. I appreciate you joining us.

TURLEY: Thanks, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: The president's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court will impact this country for decades to come. Meanwhile, with just a few short months to go until the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats are already ramping up their divisive rhetoric surrounding President Trump's upcoming Supreme Court pick, and so much more.

During his rally in Montana earlier tonight, the president discussed just how low the left would go to malign the agenda. Take a look.


TRUMP: Democrats want anarchy, they really do, and they don't know who they're playing with folks. And the House just left them and they said, there's no collusion. Can you imagine this, it's all a ruse? This was an excuse for the Democrats who lost an election who actually got their ass kicked, 306 --


When you see "The Times" how dishonest they are, when you see "The Washington Post" how totally dishonest, when we leave -- and I actually say this -- they are all doing numbers that they've like never done. When I announce, they are going to endorse me, because if I lose -- should I lose or if I don't run, they're out of business. Who's going to cover? They're going to cover Bernie?

By the way, I call it the Democrat Party. It sounds better rhetorically. You know, I wrote bestsellers -- I guess I speak well -- you know, we turned away thousands of people. They never say I'm a great speaker. Why the hell do so many people come?


CHAFFETZ: Got to love the president.

Joining us is now is the Judicial Watch president, Tom Fitton, Republican National Committee spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany, and civil rights and criminal defense attorney, David Schoen.

Thank you all for joining us tonight, and particularly after the president was speaking there in Montana.

We -- but come Monday, I mean, we're not slowing down with July 4th, right? Monday, Supreme Court, Tuesday, Peter Strzok.

So, Kayleigh, I'm going to go with you first. How do you expect the Democrats to act this week, because they got a one-two punch coming at them right out of the chutes come Monday morning? Kayleigh?

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE SPOKESPERSON: They do. And, you know, we've told Democrats over at the RNC to go find a message. You know, we've been advising our counterparts, find a message. But we just didn't tell them to find an insane message.

And, you know, as the president continues to succeed, they lurch to the left. They rebel. You see people like Maxine Waters standing up, calling for absolute harassment of Trump officials. They are going absolutely nuts.

So, I imagine they will lurch farther to the left, farther towards their socialist candidate Ocasio Cortes, and call for anarchy and chaos, which is exactly what they've done. The president has them basically like a dog running for its own tail, in circles.

CHAFFETZ: David, the Supreme Court is such a pivotal pick. It's a reason why so many people were so excited about Donald Trump becoming the president. What do you -- how do you see this playing out for the president?

DAVID SCHOEN, CIVIL RIGHTS AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it's a huge issue. It's going to be a huge issue in the midterms also I think for at least two reasons. One, depending on the contentiousness of the hearings that we see the confirmation hearings and I know the president very much wants to have the nominee confirmed before the midterms.

But even if he or she is, it's still going to be a big issue in the midterms I think because I think voters think it's quite likely the president will get a third pick. So, look, he's -- right now in the shortlist that we see reported, were all three very bright, very capable people.

I'm sorry to have seen Dianne Sykes from the seventh circuit appear to be off of that list. She was on his short list before, also very, very capable. But it's going to be a contentious hearing, and it is a huge, huge issue, and we can certainly break down each of these three nominees if we have time on the show. They all have a great deal to offer.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Tom Fitton, I want to get to you, particularly as it relates to Peter Strzok. You have done, I could tell you, as the former chairman of the Oversight Committee, nobody was rooting more for Judicial Watch than me because you were amazing and it being with the extract documents out of the Department of Justice and they're still stonewalling.

But as we go into this Peter Strzok hearing, what is it that you would like to see and what documents do you still need to see at Judicial Watch?

TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well, it's hard to question someone when you don't have all the documents, and Congress still doesn't have all the text messages, all the emails.


FITTON: The government told us they want to take up to two years to turn over the communications between Page and Strzok.

In fact, they just gave us a batch of emails. As best as I can tell, you know, those are the first publicly available emails, we have between Page and Strzok. They don't talk about Russia gate yet, but at least a process has begun, which is better than what Congress is how facing with to Justice Department where they haven't committed to providing any information.

And Mr. Strzok himself hasn't committed necessarily to testifying on the Hill on Tuesday. His lawyer is, you know, arguing about whether he's going to testify or not. So, you know, Congress has got to decide to fish or cut bait on this and to continually threaten the administration or members of the administration with impeachment and contempt and not follow through doesn't seem to be getting them anywhere.

And they need to escalate it either by bringing the president in directly or coming up with other ways to force justices' hand in producing these records that Congress has a right to see under the Constitution and the law.

The Justice Department is thumbing its nose at Congress. It's thumbing its nose at the presidency and there's a real crisis here, and the document fight is just one symptom of it, and it's all designed to protect this in terrible corruption that took place during the Obama administration and it's continued into the Trump administration through the compromised Mueller investigation.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, you know, people talk about the deep state. But I tell you, when I went there, I didn't know much about it, but now, it -- I found that it's very real. In fact, I'm writing a book about it's coming out in September.

But, David, I want to go back to you. What is it that Congress could and should do in order to extract those documents and what would you ask Peter Strzok when he appears as he's supposed to under subpoena on Tuesday?

SCHOEN: Well, there's a whole set of questions, of course, that have to be asked. I think it's playing out like a circus now with his lawyer.

His lawyer first was boasting that Strzok, of course wants, to testify publicly. He's been a victim. He wants to clear his name. He's going to have to eat those emails.

Now, they allowed him to appear behind closed doors which I thought was a mistake. They -- there are no reason to license him to do that. They have the upper hand.

And now, the lawyer is saying, well, it's a setup. What do they think? He wasn't they weren't going asking about the emails? We need to know about that meeting in McCabe's office that Strzok says happened with Strzok, McCabe, Page, with the agenda of stop Trump.

But I just want to back up one second. What Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch is doing is tremendously important and it's a great service to the country. Those documents they're after, including Andrew Weissmann's emails, now that we saw the emails from Strzok, let's see what the people who we know there have an agenda on the Mueller team, let's see what their email said. He's after those emails.

We're after the FISA applications. Documents are power. This is a vitally important source, need transparency. The American people should all demand them and Congress is doing a great service to the greatest degree that they demand these documents and answers from Peter Strzok.

But don't stop with Peter Strzok. What's at risk is here making Peter Strzok the bad guys so that he's just a bad apple. It's a culture that he represents, because remember no one told him to stop doing this at the Justice Department what he was doing. It's a culture.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, good point.

Kayleigh, the president took the spotlight of the country to Great Falls, Montana. He's now traveling back across the country where he will announce the Supreme Court pick at nine o'clock on Monday night, then you have the Peter Strzok that's going to -- a hearing that's happening on Tuesday, and we see people climbing the Statue of Liberty and talking about the resistance movement.

You've been watching this up close and personal. Contrast what's happening with the Republicans and the message and what Donald Trump is doing, versus the flailing that we see from the Democrats.

MCENANY: Yes, it's quite a contrast. You know, over at the Republican Party, we celebrate these achievements that are happening every day. And you know, let's put this into context, the Supreme Court nomination.

You know, put aside the economy that's roaring, hitting historic heights, put aside the historic North Korean summit, put aside all of the great things this president has done -- this nomination alone will make this presidency one of the most consequential in modern history, changing the balance on the Supreme Court. We are celebrating over at the Republican Party because it's that phrase that I love so much that Reagan used, it's morning in America again.

And while we're celebrating this positive achievement record that's happening daily, Democrats are going farther and farther left. I mean, it's incredible the state of the Democratic Party when you're embracing socialism, when DNC chair Tom Perez said Ocasio-Cortez and socialism are the new face of our party. That is a striking moment that our Democratic counterparts not only are calling for basically violent harassment, but now embracing socialism which has failed across the world.

CHAFFETZ: Tom, do you ever get any support there at Judicial Watch from members of the Democratic Party? I mean, do they -- you would think the Democratic Party of the old was the one that wanted openness and transparency. But do they ever come to help you and support Judicial Watch's call for document transparency?

FITTON: You know, there are some Democrats, and you know this from the Hill, that do like FOIA, they like the Freedom of Information Act. They especially like it now that President Trump is in office and they're using it to investigate his administration, you know? But frankly, we've sued the Trump administration more than anyone else in the city for documents under FOIA.

Look, I think the big problem for Democrats and liberals generally is there's this pro violence virus percolating among its supporters and some of its elected officials like Maxine Waters who needs to be ethically censured or even expelled by the House for inciting violence against the Trump cabinet. You know, they're going to lose the Supreme Court nomination as surely as night follows day, and their members and supporters are going to get support -- are going to be frustrated.

And it's up to the leadership of the Democratic Party and liberal leaders to say we don't want violence. We don't want you attacking law enforcement. We don't want you breaking the law, and we don't want you attacking government officials who are serving in the Trump administration. And if you're an elected official who does it, we're going to drum you out not only the House but potentially the Senate if you do these things.

CHAFFETZ: David, I want to ask you --

FITTON: That's the problem they're facing politically.

CHAFFETZ: David, I want to ask you real quickly of just a moment. But Maxine Waters and what she said away from the Capitol where she is protected by advice -- the speech and debate clause, have you seen her step over the line? Has she done anything that's illegal?

SCHOEN: I don't know about illegal. She stepped over the line as a matter of judgment and she's doing a disservice. I know she's very passionate about what she's saying. There's absolutely no place in the public discourse for threats and that kind of conduct from a public official. There's no place for it.

CHAFFETZ: Well, I agree with you. Life is tough enough, I can tell you the members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, it's tough to be away from your family and it's tough to take the public criticism. They're there. They signed up for it. They got to be tough, but to have another member inciting that just steps over the line.

I thank you very much the three of you.

But please stay at home with us because coming up, Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy is here next to discuss anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok's public testimony on Capitol Hill scheduled for Tuesday as this special edition of "Hannity" continues.


CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to the special edition of "Hannity".

Anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok has been subpoenaed to testify before a public joint hearing of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees next Tuesday. But according to Strzok's attorney, Peter Strzok may not comply with the subpoena. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will your client comply with the subpoena or the request? Will he come in and do another interview?

AITAN GOELMAN, ATTORNEY: my client will testify publicly soon, somewhere and sometime. We just got this subpoena today, so I don't know whether or not we are going to be testifying next Tuesday in front of these two particular House Subcommittees.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is it an automatic yes, Aitan?

GOELMAN: Because we have come to the conclusion, we've been forced come to the conclusion that this is not a search for truth. It is a chance for Republican members of the House to preen and posture before their most radical, conspiracy-minded constituents.


CHAFFETZ: Joining me now with reaction is House Oversight Chairman South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy. He's the author of a book with the Senator Tim Scott called "Unified".

And, Trey, thank you so much for joining us tonight.


CHAFFETZ: Conspiracy theories he was talking about, that we -- the Republicans, you know, buy into this stuff. But I want to play a clip from Adam Schiff talking that you were one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. So, play this clip here.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D—CALIF.: Sadly here, we have all too many members of Congress willing to prostrate themselves before the executive and give him anything he wants.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You want to name names which members of Congress are in this cult like a group that you -- that you're suggesting?

SCHIFF: Well, you know, the four horsemen of this apocalypse have been Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy, Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. They have been leading the charge basically to require the Justice Department to give them materials that can be leaked or fed or misrepresented like the infamous Nunes memorandum in the service of the president.


CHAFFETZ: Interesting comments for Mr. Schiff.

Mr. Gowdy, how many times have you met and interacted with Donald Trump?

GOWDY: I've never met President Trump. Never had a conversation with him.

I do want to get to Strzok and Page in a second, but, Jason, initially, I took that as a compliment. I'm a huge Ric Flair fan. So, anytime somebody says you're part of the four horsemen, I thought it was a compliment.

It was my wife who later said I think he's talking about those four guys from the Book of Revelation. So, that's not a compliment.

Let me tell you this about Adam. Adam's had a terrible last couple of years. He wanted to be the attorney general under Hillary Clinton and no one in the country worked harder to protect her than Adam Schiff.

He wanted to be the head of the CIA. He wanted to run for California and the run for Senate and the People's Republic of California, but he couldn't win either of those seats. So, now, now, he wants to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Speaking of the apocalypse, Adam Schiff wants to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

If you ever have -- I don't know -- a couple of three months with nothing else to do, I want you to go back, Jason, and think of all the things you would not know if you had taken Adam Schiff's advice. You wouldn't know the whole -- the spontaneous reaction to a video was a hoax in Libya. You would never have read the first Chris Stevens email. You wouldn't know that Hillary Clinton had this unique email arrangement with herself because Adam Schiff did everything in his power to keep you from finding out.

You wouldn't know about the dossier. You wouldn't know who funded it. You wouldn't know it was used in a court proceeding. You wouldn't know about Strzok and Page. In fact, you wouldn't even be having the show tonight.

You wouldn't be having the show about Strzok and Page if Adam Schiff had had his way.

So, look, if they secede from the Union and President Maxine Waters wants to make him the attorney general in California, more power to him. Otherwise, I don't think anybody on my side of the aisle gives much of a damn what Adam Schiff thinks.

CHAFFETZ: Well, he certainly gets out there and says it a lot, whatever is he's saying, but he has I think misled and misused that position from my own personal vantage point time and time again.

Now, coming before you though is this Peter Strzok. As I recall, he originally said he would voluntarily testify, that he wanted to get out and tell his story. But then you heard his attorney in that clip say that he may not show up.

GOWDY: Well, I'm certainly sorry if anyone hurt his feelings last week during the 13 hours we spent. But the only thing I did was go over what he had written. So, if he's offended, he's offended with things that he wrote.

He wrote a lot of texts. There are emails. It's an unprecedented level of animus.

So, of course, he's going to be asked, what did you mean? I can't use all of the words on a family-friendly show like yours, but what did you mean by blanking abysmal? What did you mean by blanking this?

I -- we went through all of his text -- here's what's important, Jason, he's supposed to be investigating Hillary Clinton for potential violations of the Espionage Act. In March of 2016, when he's supposed to be investigating her, he didn't even interviewed her yet, he thinks that she should win the presidency 100 million to zero. Jason, she wasn't even the nominee at the time. They didn't even have a Republican nominee at the time, but she's going to win a hundred million to zero in March of 2016 -- and this according to the guy who's supposed to be dispassionately and objectively interviewing her.

Then in July when the Russia probe started, he is saying terrible things about the very person he's supposed to be objectively investigating.

And then we get to the Mueller probe. You know, I mean, he's been on all three. Hillary Clinton, Russian probe, Mueller probe until they found his text.

He's talking about impeachment even before the House Democrats and MSNBC were talking about impeachment. He hadn't been on the case three days before he's already talking about impeaching the president. So, of course, we're going to have a lot of questions for him and some of them might actually be uncomfortable.

But he's going to come before a public hearing whether his lawyer thinks he is or not, he's coming. I'm sure he would rather go in front of Adam Schiff. That -- that's what I read, he'd rather go in front of Adam Schiff. They got a lot in common. They both wanted Hillary Clinton to be president. I get why he wants to go there.

But he's going to come before our two committees whether he wants to or not.

CHAFFETZ: Well, you know, look, Peter Strzok did not have an insignificant job. Like I like to say, he didn't work for the Fish & Wildlife Department. He was the number two person and counterintelligence for the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. They have tens of thousands of people choose from.

Have you been able to find out why is it that he was selected or appointed to go be on the Mueller probe?

GOWDY: Well, you got to go all the way back to Clinton. He was on the Clinton probe, and then in July, not only was he on the Russia probe pre- Mueller. He was the lead agent on the Russia probe pre-Mueller. So, in July of 2016, we just got through Jim Comey with that unprecedented press conference and three weeks later, he's working on Donald Trump's campaign in the Russia probe. I think that group was then transposed over on to the Russia probe, and then many of them were transposed to the Mueller probe. I would give Mueller credit for this. The moment he found out about these texts, he got rid of Peter Strzok. But here's what you ought to be asking yourself.

If it was bad enough for Bob Mueller to get rid of him the moment he found out about the text, these texts weren't written in March 2017. They were written in March of 2016.

So he never should have been on any of these three probes. If the animus was enough to kick him up when you found it, the animus should have been enough to kick him off when he said it, which was early in 2016. Completely the wrong person. The FBI's reputation.

Look, there are lots and lots of fantastic FBI agents, 99.9 percent of them. But to pick this person, and not just him, Lisa Page, and other people here to for not identified FBI agents. Do you remember when Jim Comey, I think you were in the committee when Jim Comey said the FBI didn't give a hoot about politics.


GOWDY: Go read these texts. They gave a lot more than a hoot about who is going to be the Democrat nominee and whether Donald Trump would win.

CHAFFETZ: Well, real quickly because I only got a few seconds. Lisa Page was on the other end of those texts. What's going to happen with her?

GOWDY: She is coming too. I mean, I heard your guests that were on before me, Jason. I just disagree with him. I think anytime if you have a chance to spend 12 hours with a witness, you ought to spend it. I got five minutes with Peter Strzok in a public hearing.


GOWDY: I got 20 hours with him last week. So we're going to interview her, and then I hope we have a public hearing with her. But what's more important to me, that all these questions get asked on the record to talk about -- I mean, if you want a serious investigation, pick the 10 hours over the five minutes is what I would tell my fellow citizens.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. And they need to get the documents from the Department of Justice. Trey Gowdy, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

GOWDY: Amen.

CHAFFETZ: Coming up on the special edition of 'Hannity,' President Trump earlier previewed his upcoming foreign policy trip, including his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Wait until you hear what he had to say about this. That's after the break.



TRUMP: I'm going to tell NATO, you have to start paying your bills. The United States has to stop taking care of everything.


TRUMP: They go out and they make a gas deal, oil and gas from Russia when they pay billions and billions of dollars to Russia. OK? So they want to protect against Russia, yet they pay billions of dollars to Russia. And we're the folks that are paying for the whole thing.

So then, I -- and by the way, I have to say this. Since I came which is a year and a half, almost $33 billion is projected to be paid by those NATO nations. But it's not enough. Do they ever tell you that? No. They are going, will President Trump be prepared?

You know, President Putin is KGB, and this and that. You know what. Putin is fine. He is fine. We're all fine with people. Will I be prepared? I'm totally prepared. I've been preparing for the stuff my whole life.


CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to the special edition of Hannity.

That was President Trump at his rally earlier in Montana discussing his upcoming foreign policy agenda. He is preparing for a major foreign policy trip where he will visit NATO members in Belgium, travel to the U.K. and sit down one-on-one with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.

There are already reports of challenges the president will face while abroad. Trump is said to be met by protest in each stage of his U.K. visit. Plus reports that NATO allies hope for harmony fear trump ahead of summit.

Joining me now for reaction, they're Fox News contributors, Allen West and Richard Fowler. Gentlemen, thank you so much for being here tonight.

Richard, I'm going to start with you. You're here in studio with me. Is there anything wrong with Donald Trump meeting with Vladimir Putin one on one?

RICHARD FOWLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: No. I mean, I'm happy that he's meeting with him. I just hope that he would work on, you know, mending defenses of NATO. Mending defenses of Canada. Mending defenses of Mexico before we focus on dealing with our number one geopolitical offense.


CHAFFETZ: Mending defense with Mexico. How about building a fence with Mexico?

FOWLER: Well, I mean I think it's beyond that, right? Because this about this way. At midnight tonight we started trade war with China, right. When we put a 118 of their items tariffs they are going to respond right away. On top of that, we are already in a small trade war with the European Union, we're in a small trade war with Canada.

These, we need all of these countries to work with us if we really want to counterbalance China and if we really want to counterbalance Russia. So the fact that we are sort of playing this game of the U.S. is go it alone against the world that's problematic for foreign policy. Especially when we have allies that are willing to go with us against China and willing to go with us to counterbalance Russia.

CHAFFETZ: Allen West, Colonel Allen West, I should, colonel, how do you see this meeting with Trump playing out? And is Richard right or wrong about the meeting with Putin?

ALLEN WEST, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I find it very interesting my former colleague, Jason, that Richard would say that the number one geopolitical foe of the United States of America is Russia. Because that's something that President Barack Obama did not believe in that debate back in 2012.

Look, the most important thing is that we have to understand that you are dealing with someone, and Vladimir Putin who said that his number one disappointment of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. And it should be made explicitly clear to him that there will never be a restoration of the Soviet Union.

But over the last two months we have seen major military exercises. A special operations type exercise and also a conventional exercise with our Baltic state comrades, as well as the folks down there in Poland's. And i think it's very important that we continue to show that military cooperation of strength.

In my first assignment was with a NATO rapid airborne force. And we need the people, the countries of NATO to step up. And they should not be buying all the natural gas from Russia because that would help to undermine his economic viability.

CHAFFETZ: Let's go to a clip here. I want to show you President Trump 30 years ago when he was on Oprah Winfrey's show talking about the need for NATO to step up and pay their fair share.


OPRAH WINFREY, TV HOST: You took out a full add in major U.S. newspapers last year criticizing U.S. foreign policy. What would you do differently, Donald?

TRUMP: I'd make our allies, forgetting about the enemies. The enemies you can't talk so easily. I'd make our allies pay their fair share. We're a debtor nation. Something is going to happen over the next number of years with this country because you can't keep going on losing 200 billion. And yet, we let Japan come in and dump everything right in our market and everything.

It's not free trade. Kuwait? They lived like kings. The poorest person in Kuwait they live like kings, and yet they are not paying. We make it possible for them to sell their oil. Why aren't they paying us 25 percent of what they're making? It's a joke.


CHAFFETZ: That was 30 years ago. Richard, Donald Trump has held that position for a while. NATO they are our allies, they are our friends. But isn't the president right in saying they should be paying their fair share?

FOWLER: And every president of the United States has called for NATO to pay its fair share. But let's--


CHAFFETZ: And they never did. And they never did.

FOWLER: Let's remember why NATO exists. NATO is always existing. It was created to counterbalance the Soviet Union. And if Vladimir Putin, the number one thing is to bring back the Soviet Union, NATO is the only speed bump in the way of making that happen, which means--


CHAFFETZ: But he's asking them to do more to put more money in.

FOWLER: -- which mean, I get that. But which means if we are the world leader, right, and we are the number one leading democracy. And we are the city upon the hill and we are supposed to lead the free world, that's going to require that we put some skin in the game.

CHAFFETZ: We put 4 percent of our gross domestic product--


FOWLER: Absolutely, and I'm not saying that NATO--

CHAFFETZ: But Germany puts 1 percent!

FOWLER: I'm not saying that NATO countries shouldn't pay more. I'm just saying getting in a fight with NATO or getting in a fight with NATO is not the way to get there. And the president getting in a fight with NATO, and the U.S. go it alone mentality is not going to win us any new friends. It's going to create more enemies.

CHAFFETZ: I see that is not trying to go it alone. It's trying to say, hey, partners, pony up because we put in 3, 4 percent of our gross domestic product. And when Germany only puts in one and some of these others put in a paltry amount they need to catch up.

So Colonel West, these allies are pivotal to doing what we need to do there in making sure the world is safer and more secure. But isn't it fair for NATO to pay more and boost up and support the United States even though we're leading the way?

WEST: Well, I have to tell Richard that he is looking at a guy who wants to put his skin in that game for three years being stationed over in Europe, as well as my father in law. And hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been doing that. And we provided that defensive shields so that the European nations would be able to stand up on their own two feet.

And instead of them charging tariffs on our goods and services, they should be ponying up and assisting and helping us and standing up with us to push back against this incredible foe that we see. Now what you see with Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and also Poland, you see those countries that are standing up and doing exactly what President Trump is saying. Put your shoulder to the wheel, and stand there with us.

FOWLER: A couple of things there. I think thing number one to this, is yes that is true. But remember, us, where us having NATO is part of our strategic role in making sure that Russia doesn't expand, number one.

Number two, more importantly every time we -- when our troops are over there it is United States rank, it's United States power and I think that's important. If you want to be the world leaders, we're going to continue to show that power and we can't let the world show that power for us.

CHAFFETZ: Well, we are the world's--


WEST: We've always been NATO.

FOWLER: But starting a trade war is not the way to get them to come on board.

CHAFFETZ: It's making sure that things are fair and balanced. And I think Donald Trump putting America first is exactly what he campaigned on, and exactly what he is doing.

Gentlemen, thank you so much for coming in tonight. I really do appreciate it. I wish we have more time.

FOWLER: Thanks, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Coming up on the special edition of 'Hannity,' President Trump is once again going after the left and Democrats over their dangerous illegal immigration policies and their calls to abolish ICE. More on that, next.



TRUMP: If you look at Jon Tester he signed up for the Democrats radical immigration agenda. Which is let them come in. We believe they say, in sanctuary cities where they house the criminals and others.

We believe in strong borders, no crime. It's very simple. The new platform of the Democratic Party is to abolish ICE. In other words, they want to abolish immigration enforcement entirely. That's what they want to do. They want -- they want everybody coming in.


CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this special edition of 'Hannity.'

That was President Trump tonight in Montana blasting Democrats for their weak policies on illegal immigration, border security and their attacks on ICE.

The president's remarks come a day after several leftists unveil an abolish ICE banner at the Statue of Liberty. One radical anti-ICE protester even climbed the Statue of Liberty which led to her arrest. The president addressed the protester tonight at his rally.


TRUMP: You saw that clown yesterday on the Statue of Liberty? You see the guys that went up there? I wouldn't have done it. I would have said let's get some nets and let's wait till she comes back. Just get some nets.


CHAFFETZ: I think that would have actually worked. And a short time ago, the president took another shot at Democrats on the abolish ICE issue. Tweeting, quote, "Every day the brave men of ICE are liberating communities from savage gangs like MS-13. We will not stand for these vile Democratic smears in law enforcement. We will always stand proudly with the brave heroes of ICE and border control."

Joining us now with reaction, the author of the upcoming book, "Mad Politics: Keeping Your Sanity in a World Gone Crazy" member of the Donald J. Trump for president 2020 media advisory board, Gina Loudon. And also with us, joining us here in studio here in New York, Catalina magazine publisher, Cathy Areu.

Cathy, I want to ask you first.


CHAFFETZ: Do the Democrats, do they think they are scoring points with the American people by instituting this resistance movement climbing the Statue of Liberty on the Fourth of July? Does that really move their agenda?

AREU: Well, are you talking the resistance movement, the march, the Women's Marches?


CHAFFETZ: They seem to be all one together.

AREU: That 700 marches. Yes, that is a good movement. But this fringe movement with the abolish ICE and what's going on there. No, Americans are not siding with that. That is not the Democratic Party. That's not--


CHAFFETZ: I mean, you of members of Congress introducing pieces of legislation to abolish ICE?

AREU: It's a fringe moment. It's a fringe movement. I don't see that as the face of the party. That's not what we're going to see in November. It's going to be more moderate in November. This is just at the moment. No. No. The marches are the reality.

CHAFFETZ: I don't see any harm, right. Marching is the American way. I think that's actually a healthy thing and we should encourage more people to do on both sides of the aisle.

AREU: Right. Absolutely.

CHAFFETZ: But Gina, we have been seeing people that have been out there, abolish ICE. You know, they don't want any borders. They got piece of legislation say they shouldn't even arrest people within a hundred miles. You come to this country illegally you get a free pass for a hundred miles. Do you think that's resonating with the American people?

GINA LOUDON, MEMBER, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN MEDIA ADVISORY BOARD: No. I think that's why people like Cathy are trying to deny what's really going on. But let me ask you this, Jason. Where is the outrage today for what happened on the Fourth of July at our Statue of Liberty that impeded people who maybe have traveled all across the world and had one day to see the Statue of Liberty and they didn't get to.

Or the families that wanted to spend their Independence Day celebrating that way. Their days are ruined.

AREU: Ruined?

LOUDON: Where's the outrage from the Democrats if they don't stand by -- if they don't stand by what happened there yesterday?


AREU: Their day is not ruined.

LOUDON: And when it comes--

CHAFFETZ: If you want to go--

AREU: My gosh, their day was enlightened. They were actually able to see what Trump is doing to America.

LOUDON: Yes, they evacuated.

AREU: Trump is dividing America and they were able to see a perfect example.

CHAFFETZ: Wait, wait, wait.


LOUDON: Trump is uniting the country, you know it. Their day was made.

CHAFFETZ: Hold on. Hold on. A protestor climbed the Statue of Liberty and do you think that was enlightening?

AREU: Absolutely. This is what America is, the whole world sees--


CHAFFETZ: I thought you said it was a fringe movement.

AREU: It's a fringe movement, but this is what Trump is causing. He's causing--


CHAFFETZ: He's not causing the fringe movement. He is trying to protect America.

AREU: Donald Trump was a fringe movement himself. He was a birther. He was part of a fringe movement. So now he is causing people to practically lose their minds. Climbed the Statue of Liberty and show the rest of the world--


CHAFFETZ: So it's Donald Trump's. Donald Trump's fault.

AREU: Yes.

CHAFFETZ: That this person climb the Statue of Liberty.

AREU: He started the birther movement. He started the birther movement, please. He's familiar with these fringe movements.


LOUDON: Cathy, if I could just break in here.


AREU: Yes.

LOUDON: Ever since they have started this ridiculous immigration fight that everybody knows is a lie and I'm going to explain why. The president's numbers with Hispanics has gone up 10 points. So you just can't make the argument that thing is working.

But here's why it's really wrong because they are preying on the backs of children. Suppose the Democrats get their way, Jason, and they get to abolish ICE. And they get their way that when somebody crosses the border with the child and says they are the parents, that they are turned free in the United States and all is well and they can go live happily ever after.

You know what will happen? Every single criminal MS-13 rapist drug person wants to bring drugs across the border is going to grab a child on his way over so they can get into America.


AREU: My gosh. MS-13 is American-made. MS-13 is an American-made product.

LOUDON: Have you even considered?

AREU; What?

LOUDON: Have you even considered the actual outcome and the families that it will separate and the children that it will kill if you all got your way because you don't take it to a logical end.

CHAFFETZ: Cathy, do you guys support the abolishment of ICE?



AREU: Absolutely not. We have terrorists in the world. No, ICE, one of my best friends from high school works with the patrol -- or border control.


CHAFFETZ: So when you see the Democrats pushing to dismantle ICE--

AREU: No, that's like the birther movement. I see that as a fringe. I don't see that as what the Democrat Party represents.


CHAFFETZ: But when you support the person who is climbing the Statue of Liberty?

AREU: I support the person in--

CHAFFETZ: In the name of that.

AREU: -- exercising her freedom.

CHAFFETZ: She is free. She is breaking the law.

AREU: She is showing what this Trump moment is causing in America.

CHAFFETZ: She is breaking the law. She shut down the whole place. People pay money and take time then they going to go travel and tour.

AREU: And they are seeing. They are seeing exactly what the Trump administration has caused some people to do.


CHAFFETZ: No. They see somebody breaking the law.

LOUDON: No. They're seeing how radical the left and socialists the Democrats are right now. And Americans including black and Hispanics are walking away in droves.


AREU: No. I'm Hispanic and I'm standing here strong.

LOUDON: And they are going to take for 2020 election as well.

AREU: No. You definitely don't speak for all Hispanics. I'm sitting here.

CHAFFETZ: Well, listen--


LOUDON: I didn't claim to speak for all Hispanics. I'm just saying that the polls--

AREU: No, they are running away in droves. No.

LOUDON: -- suggested that numbers have increased since the left has taken on this a very deceptive fight against--


AREU: No, I just Trump deceptive fight against immigrants. It's not the Democrat.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you so much for joining--


LOUDON: Illegal immigrants and you need to stop conflating illegal and legal. They're not the same.

AREU: Undocumented immigrants.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you both for joining us. Coming up, more on this special edition of HANNITY. We'll be right back.


CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to the special edition of 'Hannity.' Unfortunately, that's all the time we have left this evening. Thank you for joining us. Sean will be back on Monday. Again, I'm Jason Chaffetz. Jason in the House if you follow me on social media. Jason in the House. But we're very fortunate we have Pete Hegseth who is filling in for Laura Ingraham up next. Pete, it's all yours.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.