Graham seeks answers from Rosenstein on Russia investigation

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," June 26, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: All right, breaking tonight, growing concern over the battle of civil behavior heats up on Capitol Hill. Watch this.




REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: Please come to my office and talk with me, we'll be happy to talk with you.

LOOMER: Where can a conservative eat at a restaurant in D.C.?

WATERS: Please come to my office and talk, and be civil. Please come to my office and talk with me.

LOOMER: I'm asking you right now. This is civil. You're talking about civility.


LOOMER: Do you think it's civil to call for the harassment of Trump officials?

WATERS: Please visit my office and sit down and talk with me.

LOOMER: No, I'm asking you right now.

WATERS: Well, you please come to my office and talk.

LOOMER: Are we supposed to sit at the back of the bus?


MACCALLUM: Oh, that was weird. Good evening everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is "The Story." Congresswoman Maxine Waters, now facing growing calls to apologize or resign.

Republican congressman Andy Biggs has introduced a measure calling her out for "Endangering their lives and sowing seeds of discord." Saying harassment or violence is not a form of protest. He joins us live with what he wants to see happen in moments.

Also tonight, there are protests outside an event for Attorney General Jeff Sessions in Los Angeles, this evening.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Sessions, you're not welcome in our communities. And there are people who will fight back and when we fight back --

CROWD: We win!

MACCALLUM: And on the sidewalks outside of Trump foreign policy adviser Stephen Miller's Washington, D.C. apartment, it looks like this. Complete with wanted posters of choosing him of crimes against humanity. All of this ramped up by some in the media.

BETSY WOODRUFF, POLITICAL REPORTER, THE DAILY BEAST: For Republicans to act like Maxine Waters has taken the discourse to a new low is just factually inaccurate.

WATERS: As a matter of fact, the president calls for more violence than anybody else.

CHRIS HAYES, HOST, "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES," MSNBC: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for example, is one of the most powerful people in the world. And in a very real and tangible sense, the defining feature of a free society is that you can tell one of the most powerful people in the world in your government get out of my restaurant.


MACCALLUM: But the top Democrat in -- is Senate Senator Chuck Schumer, excuse me, is urging a little bit of calm on this whole thing.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., SENATE MINORITY LEADER: No one should call for the harassment of political opponents. That's not right, that's not America.


MACCALLUM: Delaware Senator Chris Coons is the Democrat who agrees with that. He's also a member of the Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees. Senator Coons, good to have you here but that that's an ugly introduction. There is a lot of messy stuff going on out there right now. How do we stop this?

SEN. CHRIS COONS, D-DEL., SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, Martha, there's a great tradition in Delaware at the end of our political campaigns, opponents, Republican and Democrat who've run against each other often in very spirited campaigns meet in Georgetown, Delaware, the capital of our southernmost County. And they literally bury hatchet together in the beach sand of our Atlantic beaches.

I've tried to bring some of that spirit here to Washington. I do have a strong and vigorous debates over policy differences with the president, with some of my colleagues across the aisle. But tomorrow morning, I'll begin Wednesday, as I do every Wednesday with James Lankford, my good friend who is co-chair of the Senate prayer breakfast, breakfast with me. We'll be holding hands in prayer and listening to my friend Johnny Isakson, the Republican Senator from Georgia, as he shares with us about his faith journey.

Something I've learned here in the Senate, Martha, is that it's a little bit harder to throw a punch at someone on the floor if you start the day holding hands with them in prayer. I think that's a spirit we could all use.


MACCALLUM: Yes, no doubt. Know that, that sound -- yes. I think that sounds like something that everybody can get behind. But you know, obviously, there are issues that have gotten us here.

COONS: Right.

MACCALLUM: And the discourse in the country is very ugly across the board. The president though seems to believe that Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi are the face of your party. And that the more they do this kind of thing, the more he likes it.

According to a tweet that he put out, "The face of Democrats is now Maxine Waters who with Nancy Pelosi, have established a fine leadership team. They should always stay together and lead the Democrats who want open borders and unlimited crime." And that last part really goes to where this most recent dust-up has come. From the border issue, and then, today from the travel ban.

COONS: Well, Martha, to be clear, I'm a Democrat, and I don't want open borders and I don't want more crime. In fact, I have co-sponsored and voted for bills in the Senate that have made dramatic increases in investment for border security.

I do think these two issues, immigration and the president's so-called Muslim ban have been very divisive, have brought a lot of passion to our fights here in Washington.


MACCALLUM: Maybe Senator, let me (INAUDIBLE) because we just have limited time. You know, why have Dem -- you know, that the president put out a deal that would have allowed 1.8 million DACA family to stay in this country.

COONS: That's right.

MACCALLUM: He wants a wall, and I think Americans are disgusted really with both sides of the equation right now. Why can't Democrats come to the table on that issue? And why are they going to so many divisive tactics to make it look like this is -- you know, such a heartless move when they're not willing to do what needs to be done to fix it?

COONS: Martha, to be clear, a bipartisan group here in the Senate led by Mike Rounds, former Republican governor of South Dakota, now a senator. A bipartisan group spent weeks working hard on a bill that offered 25 billion dollars in investment in border security to see the president midway on getting DREAMers that path to citizenship. That was the bipartisan bill. It got 54 votes here in the Senate but it only failed because the president personally lobbied against it the day that it came to the floor.

We've had some challenges negotiating with the president, because he'll initially say, "I will accept a bipartisan bill that does A, B, and C." And then, we -- when we get that bill to him because I don't know -- I rejected if it doesn't have EFA.


MACCALLUM: You know, Republicans and the president would say the same thing about that in your side. But, you know, would stand shoulder-to- shoulder with the president in the White House and sign a bill that you could both agree on? Or is that a picture that Democrats never want out there before the midterms?

COONS: Earlier today, Martha, two different Senate committees voted out two different bills that are genuinely bipartisan and I've worked very hard on. The Foreign Relations Committee, a bill that I've moved forward with Bob Corker, that the president supports and where I hope to have a bill signing on it that helps us spend more private capital in the developing world, less government assistance. And then, in the health committee with Senator Rubio, Republican of Florida, a bill to help improve savings for college for American families, and in particular, first-generation college attending students.

I'm eager to find substantive ways that we can work across the aisle, and fix the problems that actually affect working Americans. I'm hopeful we can do that in immigration, as well.

MACCALLUM: Well, I think, there are a lot of people are hopeful that both sides can figure out. And it, it really ought to be able to be figured out in terms of some kind of deal.

Andy Biggs, his a Republican from Arizona, when I talk to in just a moment, he believes that Maxine Waters must apologize for these comments that she made. You know, saying that you can tell Republicans that they are not welcome anymore, anywhere. Do you think she should apologize, or even potentially resign?

COONS: Well, I'll remind you at the top of this story, you had Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer, saying that nobody should be using harassment or threats against political leaders as attack.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So what's the punishment for that?

COONS: So, I disagree with Congresswoman Waters, and I think she's going to have to come forward and make a decision about how she advances civility.

MACCALLUM: Did she apologize?

COONS: Which she had a contest here over which party is less civil, there's a lots of things I could point to that are uncivil about conduct of others. Let us instead agree that we should reject that sort of tactic, and we should be trying to work together across the aisle.

MACCALLUM: But you're not willing to call for her to apologize or resign?

COONS: I'm not going to call for her to resign. I do think that she should be saying that wasn't an appropriate statement, and I'm going to take a different course, and I'll apologize for that.

MACCALLUM: OK. Senator, thank you. Always good to have you with us. Thanks for being here tonight.

COONS: Thank you, Martha.


So as I mentioned, my next guest has introduced a measure to censure Maxine Waters. Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs is a Republican and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Sir, good to have you here this evening.


MACCALLUM: So, how far do you going to -- are you going to push this with Maxine Waters?

BIGGS: Well, I think we need to have a floor vote on this, unfortunately. But the reality is, I don't have anything personal against Miss Waters. I just think that her discourse was actually discredit to the House of Representatives, and that's the measure of whether somebody should be censured. I think she should be responsible for what she said and maybe that would be the measure that said, we've had some discipline and maybe now we can set aside some of the overly hot rhetoric that goes back and forth between us.

MACCALLUM: What do you say to those who say that this starts at the top of the Republican Party? And that the president is, you know like to say whatever he thinks about individuals and that that's where this started. What do you say to that?

BIGGS: Well, I don't know where it all started, but I know that he didn't call for people who disagreed with him to be harassed 24 hours, seven days a week wherever they go to have people protest outside their houses so they can't get any sleep. Having people say you're not welcome anywhere in this country anymore. I don't think he said that but that's what Representative Waters was saying.

MACCALLUM: Yes, It's hard to imagine if you know, it -- I always feel like in order to look at these things, you have to put them in a -- in a completely opposite spectrum, you know. Imagine if we were in the middle of the Obama administration and they were calls by a Republican member of Congress to harass cabinet members in the Obama administration everywhere they went, and try to make it so that they weren't -- they couldn't go anywhere safely. What do you think the reaction to that would have been?

BIGGS: Well, it wouldn't have been a censure motion, it would have been an expulsion motion that's what would have happened. And they probably would have gotten it, because it is outrageous -- it's an outrageous statement, and it puts a lot of people in danger.

Look at the situation that we have where you have a Florida congressman's kids were threatened with kidnapping, a man was arrested and charged with that. You have the shooting of Steve Scalise last year. We're in a tinderbox and I think that you can't be too careful.

I mean, I'm all for passion, I'm all for commitment to your principles and in debate and discourse. And sometimes it won't be fully civil but to actually openly ask people to get out and harass people and make sure that they don't feel safe and comfortable simply because they disagree with you on policy, that's wrong.

MACCALLUM: You know, it seems like grown-ups need to stand up and help solve this problem. And the sort of in excess of the most recent round of this that has escalated to such a frightening degree as you just pointed out, seems to be what's going on in the border. And I would imagine it's going to be quickly followed suit by the travel ban issue.

Can members of Congress get together and come up with something that makes our borders safe and also allows -- you know, perhaps, the number that the president suggested DACA children to be able to stay here. Why isn't there some way to solve this immigration problem once and for all so that there's a process that works at the border?

BIGGS: Well, it's obviously a complex issue because we've been fighting with it for the last 100 years. But my -- what I see as a big problem is that we tend to put things in these huge bills where maybe we get Andy to vote for it if we put this in, but if we do that, you know, Joe, over here is going to say no, I can't come on for that.

And maybe if we took these at a slice at a time and said, you know we all tend to agree that we need border security. We need more boots on the ground, we need -- we need a fence in places, we need border technology, we need to end the diversity lottery. Maybe if we did some of those things one -- at one-off bills, you might be able to see us get some -- in my opinion, some real movement to resolve this very vexing and troublesome issue.

MACCALLUM: Yes. That's why you're all there. So, we hope that some headway can be made. Thank you very much, congressman, good to see you tonight.

BIGGS: Thanks, Martha. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, still ahead, exclusively ours tonight. The Eagles Super Bowl MVP is here with his story of how he beat the goat. And why he says there are two Nick Foles.

Plus a huge win for the White House as the Supreme Court favors -- it rules in favor of the president's travel ban. But will this decision spark even more protests in America? One of the attorney's general who signed on to support the president's ban faces off against someone who sued to shut it down, next.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: This is a great victory for our Constitution. We have to be tough, and we have to be safe, and we have to be secure.



MACCALLUM: So any minute President Trump is set to take the stage in South Carolina to rally votes for Governor Henry McMaster who he strongly supports but while we wait for that Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intel committee Mark Warner reportedly joking to donors about revealing sensitive information on the Russia probe saying "if you get me one more glass of wine I'll tell you stuff only Bob Mueller and I know. If you think you've seen wild stuff so far buckle up it's going to be a wild couple of months. So does he know something that we don't? Here now Jonathan Swan National Political Reporter for Axios. Jonathan, good evening. Great to have you here tonight. What about that comment by Mark Warner?

JONATHAN SWAN, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: Well jokes aside he knows actually probably very little compared to Bob Mueller. If you look at the hierarchy of what people know it's not a secret that the congressional committees don't have anything near the powers that Bob Mueller has. And even people on the committee have joked to me that they don't know probably 50 percent of what Bob Mueller knows. So there's probably very few things that just him and Bob Mueller know because Mueller knows a lot more than Mark Warner.

MACCALLUM: So how significant is Peter Strzok and having him in front of the committee on Wednesday? I mean obviously, this is a huge development he has said he is willing to come so we assume he is willing to answer their questions.

SWAN: I think it's going to be one of the most politically explosive hearings certainly of the year perhaps of the last couple of years. We have a lot of members who are deeply engaged on this issue, people like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows they're going to be very well prepared, very aggressive in their questioning. Trey Gowdy -- even Trey Gowdy who's been much more moderate generally speaking is outraged by this issue so he's going to come under intense questioning. And that look there's a lot of material to work with.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely I mean you know Trey Gowdy has been very respectful of Robert Mueller and his process. He hasn't wanted to criticize that in any way but he has -- when he saw that I.G. report he was quite clear that he was horrified by the way that this high-level FBI agent was talking about the cases that he was covered. Here's a quote from Sharyl Attkisson who wrote a column about it in The Hill today entitled What Did Peter Strzok do? And she writes the earth-shattering finding on Strzok confirms a citizenry's worst fears. A high-ranking government intel officials allegedly conspired to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. And here's the chilling part. If it weren't for the I.G.'s investigation requested by Congress he would likely still be helping lead the Special Counsel's investigation of Trump today. Your thoughts on that Jonathan.

SWAN: Well any fair reading of that report, a reader who's not colored by partisan you know, objectives if you just read that report with intellectual honesty, you will find things in there that he has said privately that are disturbing, that you don't want to see in a senior investigator. I challenge anyone to say that you know, with a fair reading of that report that everything is fine. That being said there is no evidence that he liked -- the missing piece is what actions he took as an investigator to put his thumb on the scale. Because it's clear -- it's clear where his mind was, it's clear what he wanted to happen. The missing piece is the action.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, everybody is familiar with the text messages. We can put them up on this screen. The one where he said, Trump's -- in answer to -- he said Trump's never going to become president, right? Right? And the response from Page, no, no, he's not. We will stop it. Actually, that it's the other way around.

SWAN: Strzok was the --

MACCALLUM: Strzok was the one answering that. And then the one that we saw one time ago, I want to believe in the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40. So you know the question is what did he -- how did he act on that. And the Inspector General found that he could not draw a straight line between those comments and the action that the FBI took. But I think one of the interesting things, Jonathan, is going to be the questions that go around, how did you treat the two investigations differently because he was central in the Hillary e- mail investigation as well as being central in the Trump Russia investigation and the treatment appears to be very different?

SWAN: Yes but different in a way certainly during the campaign season that actually was advantageous to Donald Trump. I mean, we didn't know that Donald Trump's campaign was under investigation during the campaign. We sure knew about the Hillary Clinton investigation so that's the other piece where there's a missing link.

MACCALLUM: Yes, but I mean if you look at the way that Hillary's people were investigated and discussed and the fact that they you know, began putting together the report on her being not guilty a long time before they even spoke with her. I mean, those kinds of things were very different in terms of the way they were handled. I would imagine you're going to get questions asking him that to draw him out on that issue.

SWAN: There's no question.

MACCALLUM: Yes. All right, Jonathan, thank you very much. It's always good to see you.

SWAN: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: You bet. So here not with more Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst. Judge, good to have you as always. So what will he seek do you think? You believe that he will not take the Fifth which you said he could but he's agreed to come. But I'm curious if he may try to set parameters. I will answer questions with regard to this but not that.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: He would have a difficult time doing that. One thing he can't do is selectively take the Fifth because the Fifth is negated if you start answering the questions you want to answer but invoke the Fifth on the questions you don't want to answer. That would a tailor the whole hearing by the witness rather than by the questioners. But I have to comment on what you and Jonathan just talked about. The two of you created the most compelling case I have heard for why this hearing should be open to the public rather than behind closed doors. It is our representatives seeking the truth about our election in 2016 and we have the right to know how this guy defends what appears to be indefensible. He's not a dope. He's a very smart guy. He's interrogated, people. He's a master interrogator himself. I want to see those answers and the American public is entitled owes answers. Instead, we're going to get a Republican version and a Democratic version and we may never see the --

MACCALLUM: Which is so problematic.

NAPOLITANO: Yes, it is.

MACCALLUM: You're absolutely right. In terms of what we were discussing before because I want to get your thoughts on what the President said with regard to these families at the border and with regard to his desire to be able to push people back across the border before they need to enter into the judicial process.

NAPOLITANO: I wish that the President had asked one of the many lawyers that work for him is there any way we can avoid due process and they would have said a first-year law student can tell you no. As Ari Fleischer just quite properly quoted the Fifth Amendment, it protects persons it doesn't protect citizens. Once a person is on our soil, no matter how they got here they're entitled to protection. What can he do about it? He can ship judges from New Jersey and North Dakota -- my friends on the bench are not going to be happy at the suggestion -- down to the border and they can start these hearings which are not full-blown jury trials that take months. They're hour or two hour long hearings with one judicial officer. They can start these things immediately so the judges can find the facts and decide who stays who has a legitimate claim to asylum.

MACCALLUM: Is it true that there are different rules with regard to people coming from Mexico or from Canada and people who come from Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras?

NAPOLITANO: Yes. The President's contention that the immigration laws make no sense is an absolutely sound one. He is stuck with those laws. He does have some discretion as to how aggressively wants to enforce some or how lightly he wants to enforce others but it is a mishmash. There's one court decision that says you can't keep them more than 72 hours, there's another court decision that says you can keep them up to 20 days but not beyond 20 days no matter what. That stuff needs to be worked out. I was disappointed not only when he said let's get rid of due process, but when he said to the Republicans, wait till the summer is over. Wait till the summer is over? The crisis is here now, the Republican majority is in the House. They need to produce something that's fair, efficient, and workable.

MACCALLUM: And what about the 9th Circuit Court decision which insisted -- were found that you can't -- that you have to separate the family, that you can't incarcerate the family as a unit. It's not right to do that to the children.

NAPOLITANO: He, in my opinion, should violate that decision because of the bigness of his heart and the common-sense understanding that it is abusive to children to separate them from their parents particularly when they're in a foreign country and particularly against the will of the parents.

MACCALLUM: Do you find it interesting that all the same people who are so outraged right now has no problem with this same policy when it took place under the prior administration?

NAPOLITANO: Yes I do. Now, let's not mistake this, that Democrats are making tremendous hay out of it and the President needs to put the brakes on it. If this keeps going closer to November, forget those elections. This is gut-wrenching a series of events that tugs at the heartstrings up a lot of independent voters who are making up their minds now what they're going to do --

MACCALLUM: And policy-wise if the decision was made in order to make an example of these people and to discourage people from coming across the border, that obviously turned out to be a bad policy decision because that's going to blow up in their faces. Absolutely. Judge, thank you.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: Always good to see you.

NAPOLITANO: I think the President is waiting for you.

MACCALLUM: I don't know. We're waiting up for the President to land. A live look at West Columbia, South Carolina where we are expecting the President shortly as often happens in the summer. There are a bunch of thunderstorms that are moving through the area, and Air Force One does not just land. They are protecting the passengers aboard and we're going to wait for them --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- circles like the regular flights may take.

MACCALLUM: Like the rest -- exactly. They're waiting for -- they're landing any minute I am told. There's a couple of Delta flights in front of them, maybe United, something like that.

NAPOLITANO: That I believe. Let's see.

MACCALLUM: Also coming up, a growing number of Democrats demanding an answer to the question where in the world is President Obama and should he step back into the fray? Interesting answers on that. Marc Thiessen and Mo Elleithee coming up next.


MACCALLUM: So tomorrow, the elusive Peter Strzok who was the lead investigator for the FBI in both the Clinton investigation and exoneration, and the Russia-Trump campaign investigation, he did the interview of Michael Flynn and others, he will appear behind closed doors with the committees on Capitol Hill. But we are told that this may be just a warm- up, and that we can potentially expect him to testify publicly in the near future so we can all watch his answers to these questions as well -- a new piece by real clear investigations, very interesting story, quotes of former FBI agent as saying that he sees that there were seven attempts really by U.S. intelligence and Clinton operatives to essentially entrap members of the Trump campaign.

This former agent's name is Mark Wauck. And he says, quote, "What appear to have been repeated attempts to implicate the Trump campaign, in some sort of quid pro quo arrangemente with Russians who claimed to have dirt on Hillary look like efforts to manufacture evidence against members of the Trump campaign or create pretexts to investigate it." Tomorrow's hearing will drill down on that very essential question here.

And earlier this evening, I spoke with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.


MACCALLUM: So let's take a look, you were announcing tonight a letter that you wrote to Rod Rosenstein, who is very central to all of this, and in it, we're going to put up on the screen the two questions that you like him to answer. Number one, did Strzok and Page have any role in retaining or supervising the informant or directing the decision to use the informant?

Did Strzok or Page have any such role as to any informant used to investigate the Trump campaign or Trump associates? And number two, did Strzok or Page have any role in reviewing, approving or supplying information for the FISA warrant obtained to surveil Carter Page?

So, you know, when you put those two things together, your letter and that real clear investigation's piece, everybody is probing at how this whole thing got started and whether or not it was some form of entrapment.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Well, what we know now is that the person in charge of the Clinton e-mail investigation, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page were in the tank (ph) for Clinton and hated Trump. Now, did those two people start an investigation against the Trump campaign because they had a political bias or was it based on legitimate evidence.

How would you like this guy supervising a confidential informant against the Trump campaign given his bias and given his dislike for President Trump? He should be the last guy to go to court to get a warrant on anybody associated with the Trump campaign. My question is, what role did they play in the Russia investigation?

MACCALLUM: You know, and it follows up on their text messages, which, you know, I would imagine -

GRAHAM: Right.

MACCALLUM: -- he's going to say, look, those are just, you know, I was just being funny, I was just kidding around, you know, no, I didn't like the president.

GRAHAM: Sure, sure.

MACCALLUM: But it had no bearing whatsoever on my -- on my actions. But talking about the insurance policy, I mean talking about stopping him, and then, you know, late spring of 2016, all these efforts to try to poke for soft places within members of the campaign to see if they pick up on this stuff began it appears.

GRAHAM: Well, here's what's important. July 31st they clear Clinton. Now let me tell you this, if you had done what she had done with her e-mail systems and compromised classified information you would not have been cleared, so they could not stop Trump if they found her guilty of abusing classified information.

So there was no way in hell they were going to find Clinton liable if the goal was to atop Trump because she's given in the election.


GRAHAM: The question now is about the Russia investigation. Was it a counterintelligence investigation where they were worried about Russia trying to penetrate the Trump campaign? If that's the reason they investigated the Trump campaign, they should have told the Trump campaign hey, there are some associated with Russia--


GRAHAM: -- that you need to be aware of. The fact that they never told the Trump campaign about the investigation is very curious to me.

MACCALLUM: I agree. That would be a defensive briefing and there's a very clear--


MACCALLUM: -- mention of the decision not to do a defensive briefing and you know, hopefully we are going to get to some of the bottom of this with some of these questions.

John Brennan, who is no fan of the president has said this. "When the special counsel's work is done, the Republican Party must have its modern- day equivalent of Watergate heroes. Howard Baker, Elliott Richardson, Bill Ruckleshaus, John Dean who will put country, fellow citizens and law above any one person including Donald Trump." Your thoughts?

GRAHAM: The last person I would receive counsel and advice from about anything related to Trump would be Brennan. I think Brennan has shown a dislike for the president that questions whether or not he actually was fair as the CIA director.

You've got to remember that the people that we're looking at here hated Trump and I think they were all in the tank for Clinton and we will see what Mr. Mueller says, but I do know this. The primary investigator when it comes to the Russian-Trump connection early on was Mr. Strzok, who was clearly in the tank for Clinton and hated Trump.

I understand why Mueller fired him. I understand why he would fire other people given their behavior regarding the Trump campaign. So we will see what Mr. Mueller does.

But I'm shocked that nobody in your business really outside of Fox News seems to give a damn that the head investigator for the FBI wanted to stop Trump and basically baste diced an investigation of Clinton, had a bias that was beyond belief and started the Russia investigation.


MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, if there was any attempt to influence the presidential campaign on the part of these individuals--

GRAHAM: yes.

MACCALLUM: -- every American should be very, very concerned--

GRAHAM: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: -- about that possibility and if that's not what happened we should know that too.


MACCALLUM: Senator Lindsey Graham, always good to see you, sir. Thank you very much.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: All right. Coming up next, remember this moment? That was a high point, remember that? Former Congressman Michael Grimm is now in a heated battle to reclaim his seat in Congress from the man who replaced him. He will join me live exclusively next as the polls are about to close.

Also tonight, even though he beat my team, Nick Foles is here to talk about how he did it and now that Carson Wentz is healthy, will the MVP of the Super Bowl be a backup quarterback? Coming up, next.


NICK FOLES, MVP, SUPER BOWL: The big point of my career was a couple of years ago when I was going to step away, it was a time for me to step back and reflect on just the journey of my life and, you know, what God has done in my life. And you know, it was really humbling.



MACCALLUM: So it is election night again, we are keeping a close eye on the primary races out there in seven states this evening with the balance of power in Congress up for grabs.

One of them right here in New York where the bitter congressional race between two Republicans has got national attention between President Trump's endorsed candidate Don -- Dan Donovan and former Congressman Michael Grimm who is fighting to take back his seat.

Here now exclusively in his one on one interview until the results are called later New York Republican congressional candidate, Michael Grimm. Good to see you. Thanks for being here tonight.


MACCALLUM: So, you know, it's interesting to look at your recent history. I mean it's been well documented. You've talked a lot about the fact that you spent seven months in prison for tax evasion. I know that you feel that that conviction was -- that you were railroaded, that it was unjust.

But when you look at it from a political perspective, Don Blankenship had a similar experience, he spent some time in jail, felt that it was completely wrong. If it did not turn out working well for him. Why will you be different?

GRIMM: I think that the people of Staten Island and Brooklyn, they got to know me personally. No one does constituent services the way I did whether it was super storm Sandy or rebuilding the marina, bringing money home for hospitals, people got to know me on a personal level and I don't think they liked the, you know, the political corruption getting into our justice system.

You have to understand I have three delivery boys off the books at a restaurant. In the entire history of the city of New York everyone else was given a civil fine by the Department of Labor. I'm the only one in history that was actually criminally charged for that and people are rejecting that. They don't like that.

MACCALLUM: Yes. So, you have said -- you know, or people have said in talking about you that you are more Trump than Trump. Why do you think he didn't endorse you? Why did he endorse her opponent?

GRIMM: well, I think that's obvious. I mean, if there's a tremendous amount of pressure put on a president by the establishment that controls the House, leadership and so on. They don't want the president going against their incumbents and ultimately the president needs the team that's in office now to pass his agenda. So it would be very difficult for the president I think to go against the sitting incumbents unless there was an extremely good reason. So, that, to me, it's really not a surprise at all.

MACCALLUM: What's your take on what's happening at the border? So you think that it's wrong that those families have been separated? Are you worried about those kids?

GRIMM: What I think is wrong is that we're not worried about all 12,000. Right now I think -- I really think the left is only playing this up because it looks like it hurts our president.

But the fact is how about the other 10,000 that came by themselves? How about when they were ripped out of their mother's arms in Guatemala or Honduras or wherever they came from and then stuffed in a trunk, some of them, to cross the desert by smugglers and coyotes.

So I think if we want to care about children we have to close our borders once and for all so that they never make that journey in the first place because that journey, which is so dangerous and often ends in rape and being sold through human trafficking and other egregious things, if we really care about them then we have to close our borders once and for all so they never make that horrific journey.

MACCALLUM: How about running against the Max Rose is an army veteran. He would be the Democrat if you do win tonight, that's who you would run against. How are you going to run against him?

GRIMM: I'm just curious why you would say that. They have a primary tonight and the last time I checked we still have well over an hour left before the polls close so we don't know who the Democrat is going to be. But whoever it is I'm going to run exactly the way I've always ran.

You got to understand I won four elections for one reason, because I worked my tail off. I'm relentless, I go out there, I meet the people, I talk about the issues. I get to know them and make sure they get to know me. And I think that hard work is exactly why we are probably poised to win back by a big margin tonight.

MACCALLUM: All right. We are going to leave it there. Thank you very much. We'll see what happens and as you say, the outcome is still a ways away and we will report it as soon as we get the news. Thank you very much, good to see you tonight.

GRIMM: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So here now Tom Bevan, co-founder and publisher of Real Clear Politics. Tom, good to see you tonight. How do you think that New York race is looking and I made the Don Blankenship comparison? He is very similar in terms of the way that they tried to put themselves in office and to put the past behind them. What do you think?

TOM BEVAN, CO-FOUNDER, REAL CLEAR POLITICS: Yes. And similar that Trump came out -- he didn't actually say vote against Michael Grimm like tweeted against Don Blankenship, but obviously endorsed Dan Donovan. Look, it's going to be -- I think Dan Donovan is probably going to win this race but we'll see. I mean, in this day and age it's hard to count anybody out to primary, hard to pull, anything can happen so we'll have to wait and see.

But certainly this is the only Republican district in the city.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Staten Island.

BEVAN: It's a district -- Staten Island, correct. All of Staten Island, parts of Brooklyn and voted by for Trump by 10 points in 2016. So Republicans will definitely have the upper hand regardless of who the Democrats nominate heading into November in this district.

MACCALLUM: One Republican district in New York. It's pretty amazing. OK. Mitt Romney is also in the race tonight and he has a primary race that he's hoping to win this evening. Let's listen to this sound bite from an interview that he did earlier today.


FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY: I think it's very likely that the president will face a competitor in 2020. Don't know who that will be, may be multiple people, but I think given the support he has in the party it's very likely that he would be selected as the Republican nominee again.


MACCALLUM: What you make of that, Tom?

BEVAN: Something -- I don't think Mitt was talking about himself to be clear. But yes, it's interesting. Look, this is the return of Mitt Romney. He obviously he's running tonight because he didn't get the state, 60 percent at the state party convention which is a bit of a bump in the road for him but it looks like he's poised to win tonight and that would have obviously make him almost assure him of being the next senator from Utah.

I don't think Mitt has any presidential aspirations but Mitt might be right that someone might run against Trump. Mitt is probably also right that it's likely a suicide mission because Trump has a real grip on the party right now and high standing among Republican voters.

MACCALLUM: Yes, 90 percent approval in the Republican Party. Very interesting to see how that's going to play out. Good to see you tonight, Tom. Thank you.

BEVAN: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next, Super Bowl MVP Nick Foles is standing right here in the story studio. So how did he beat Tom Brady? He shares the secret sauce coming up next.


FOLES: Through prayer, through studying the word, through, you know, my relationship with my wife and family. I wouldn't be up here without them, without God.



MACCALLUM: So my next guest went from being backup quarterback considering retirement to this year's Super Bowl most valuable player leading the Philadelphia Eagles to victory over Tom Brady and the New England Patriots. Ouch.

And he is sharing his story and his new book "Believe It: My Journey of Success, Failure, and Overcoming the Odds." Here now exclusively on the story tonight, quarterback Nick Foles. Nick, it is so good to see you and congratulations--

FOLES: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: -- from me and all the Patriots fans and members of Patriots. Everybody respects what you did in that game.


FOLES: I appreciate it. Thanks a lot.

MACCALLUM: Yes, believe me.

FOLES: Thanks a lot of saying it. So, I agree.

MACCALLUM: So, you belong an elite club of quarterbacks who have Super Bowl rings and an even smaller club who have beaten Tom Brady in the Super Bowl. You and Eli Manning. So my question for you, when you walked in there that night, did you sense that that team was vulnerable, that he was vulnerable, that you could beat him after the hand injury and everything else that week?

FOLES: Yes. It was more so just from what I knew we had in the locker room just with the guys throughout the season, the adversity we faced as a team. Going against the Patriots, if not the greatest franchise of all time. I mean, that's we want to go against. Tom Brady, Belichick, that's we want to face.

So, you know, preparing for the game with my teammates, I was really confident. We play with a lot of swag, a lot of energy that you see in the locker room.

MACCALLUM: Sure did.

FOLES: A lot of dance in so we were ready to play.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I was there. And I have to say when you guys walked out you could feel the energy. You could feel how pumped up you guys were and I was worried from the very first second of the game.

I've got to ask you this, you know, Tom Brady try to catch a pass and run it in for a touchdown. He failed. Shortly later you try to do the same thing and you succeeded. Did you do that to kind of rub it in a little bit?

FOLES: You know, it does appear that way. And I know that, you know, Eagles fans will probably use it, but no, honestly we had the filling special in the game plan weeks prior and we were going to use it in the Super Bowl one way or the other and it just so happened that they tried to play a couple plays before we did.

And you know, if anything it reminded me make sure I look at all the way in and you know, once we executed it the filling special came to life.

MACCALLUM: You made it look easy and it was a great play.

FOLES: It's great.

MACCALLUM: I don't think anybody will ever forget. Malcolm Butler was not put in the game by coach Belichick and a lot of Patriots fans believe that that was one of the real vulnerabilities for them that night. Were you surprised that he wasn't in?

FOLES: You know, I was so into the game, we played against so many DBs. I've never really worried about the BD's too much. Butler is a great player. He is very physical with the line. he's got a great skill set. So I mean, I guess you are a little bit surprised but at the same time I'm not really focused on that. I mean, I'm not worried about what they are doing. I'm just going to go out there play.

I recognize their coverage and trust my receivers to, you know, beat the DBs, and beat them off the balls, beat them in the rows and I've got to expect to put the ball on the money every single time and that was my mind- set in the game. I wasn't drawn on him not playing though. You know, he's a tremendous player and watching him on film, he was going to be a great matchup.

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, you played so relaxed and so smooth. And I wonder -- you know, you've had a lot of adversity as you point out in your book. You almost quit the game a couple of years before you won the Super Bowl. So how do you get there? You say there's two Nick Foles and you needed to separate them. What does that mean?

FOLES: You know, I think sometimes we get an identity in what we do and it's not really who we are, it's a part of who we are. I think my identity as an athlete, you are treated based on how you play. So if you have a good game, you know, sometimes you are treated better.

If you have a bad name everyone's afraid you and I think that eventually wears on you. And you don't want to be treated as what your stats say. You want to be treated as the person. And you know, in dealing with that throughout my career and you know, facing that battle, that's been ongoing.

I think I finally came to that climax in St. Louis were after that season I lost the joy of the game. I need to step back a little bit and ultimately I decided that I was going to step away from the game. I thought that's what was the best and it's the best thing to just take a breath and breathe and then, you know, I was really facing the fear going back to the game because it sort of entrapped me. I didn't want to touch a football. I didn't want to play again.

And you know, a Texas boy saying that to grew up, you know, touching football the first day is boring, it's really hard. So you love something your entire life and all of a sudden you lose it. But, you know, the joy came back. I prayed about it with my wife and, you know, a lot of tears I said. But I play for Andy Reid, his entire staff and that came to see a team helped me get the joy and love of the game back.

MACCALLUM: You talk a lot about God and about your faith, how does that sustain you?

FOLES: Yes, I mean, I gave my life to Christ as a freshman at Michigan State. I knew who Christ was growing up but it didn't really give my life to Him until that year. Until basically I have my shoulder repaired, I was at Michigan State, you know, thousands of miles away from home from Texas and it was going through a lot with football once again and just being in school and college and everything that goes along with it and I would say that through that the trials, through the ups and downs, just leaning on Christ, leaning on God's word through prayer, you know, never for prosperity. Never for that.

I know that what I'm going through trials God is always trying to teach me something and allow me to grow. And I can tell you that through ups and downs my heart continues to shape even more so.

You know, a big thing throughout my career was my wife getting sick with this POTS. POTS Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome. So that's been a trial that's been in our life but it has grown us closer together. She's resilient, she's amazing and now she's got a platform to really spread awareness for POTS.

MACCALLUM: Beautiful family. No doubt that kind of experience gives you perspective on life--

FOLES: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: -- to what's important. In terms of next season, if Carson went healthy are you going to be the backup, what do you expect?

FOLES: You know, I expect Carson to get a full recovery be ready to go. I don't know when. You know, that -- I'm going to let the doctors do this thing. He needs to get healthy. I'm a big fan of him. He's a tremendous player. He's going to have a great career.

I'm excited to, you know, to be in Philly for this next year and be a part of this team. It's a great atmosphere. I will be the backup quarterback, probably the first quarterback ever in Super Bowl history to do this.

MACCALLUM: That's amazing, right. I mean, you win a Super Bowl and you come back and you've got the ring and you think you will be back up.

FOLES: I mean, Carson Wentz, you know, arguably going to be the MVP last year. He is a great player. I mean, we have such a stacked quarterback room.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

FOLES: You know, with Nate Sudfeld and Joe Callahan. I mean, the room is stacked. It's a great group of guys. You know, Nate is going to have an opportunity. Joe is going to have an opportunity to play. They're both tremendous players. It's just a very unique situation in Philadelphia right now.

MACCALLUM: All right. Stick around, one second because there are resident Eagles fan Jesse Watters is going to join us coming up next before we say goodbye. We'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: I didn't want to wear this Eagles jersey after the Super Bowl but I did it with my Patriots hat on. Nick Foles is back with us, the most valuable player, and there's Jesse. Jesse, you owe me big time now, right.



MACCALLUM: I mean, not only being (Inaudible) but I invited you to sit here with Nick Foles tonight.

WATTERS: I know. This is great. Although the audience doesn't know this, you try to injure him. When he was going wrong for pictures, she pulled some cables out and try to trick him. Dirty Patriots play.

FOLES: Hey, you know what, you've got to be an athlete, even onset.

WATTERS: I know. You are ducking and diving over there. Well, congratulations.

FOLES: Thank you.

WATTERS: Could I get some tickets to the home opener against the Falcons?

FOLES: We will see what we can do.

MACCALLUM: You are awful, that is so cheap.


WATTERS: I just asked one question.

MACCALLUM: That is so cute.

WATTERS: You said one question. That was my question.

FOLES: You know, that's a true Phillies fan right there.

MACCALLUM: Yes, tonight. We need to see him more.

WATTERS: That's right. We have the best fan.

MACCALLUM: That's Jesse on the awning; you broke the awning, right.

WATTERS: I did. That was me on the pole.

MACCALLUM: You were standing on top of the awning in the pole. Yes, that was pretty much too.

FOLES: How did you get up there, man?

WATTERS: Yes, I can't tell. I can't tell. I can't tell.

FOLES: That's your secret.

WATTERS: I spent a long night in jail that night.


MACCALLUM: He's such a nice man, do you think you could spread some of that good karma to some of the other Eagles fans?

FOLES: You know what?

WATTERS: You are outnumbered, Martha. Be careful. Did you hear in the opening statements, she blamed Malcolm Butler's actions for the loss? I mean--


MACCALLUM: Don't forget the injured hand. I brought that.

FOLES: You know, I did noticed that, anyway, I can't fault her, she's a Patriots fan. I let it all fly.

WATTERS: Yes. You handle it gracefully.

FOLES: I tried to handle it gracefully. But you know what, but I love our fan base and I love everything about them. They're too nasty on what they do. They've always been so supportive and --


MACCALLUM: Nick, congratulations.

WATTERS: Fly Eagles, fly.

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