Is Trump team's meeting with Russian lawyer collusion?

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," July 10, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum, and this is "The Story." A story of so-called collusion between top Trump campaign officials and a Russian lawyer that has the President's critics gleeful tonight, so is it? Let's hit the pause button as Jonathan Turley says there is "no clear criminal act in such a meeting." He joins us in just a moment with his legal opinion out of all this, but first, let's the story from Trace Gallagher in our West Coast Newsroom tonight. Hey, Trace!

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Martha! We found eight examples over the past year where members of the Trump campaign or Trump administration flatly denied having any contact with Russians trying to meddle in the election, including Donald Trump Jr., telling the New York Times in March quoting, "Did I meet with people that were Russian? I'm sure I did, but none that were set up, none that I can think of at the moment, and certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way." But now we know that in June of 2016, Trump Jr., Representing the campaign, did have a meeting set up with Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.

On Saturday, Trump Jr. said the meeting dealt primarily with primarily the program about the adoption of Russian children. On Sunday, he amended his statement saying the Russian lawyer was supposed to have proof that Russia was donating to the Democratic National Committee and supporting Hillary Clinton, but her information turned out to be vague and ambiguous. Today, Trump Jr. said there was no inconsistency in his statement, tweeting: "Obviously, I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent. Went nowhere but had to listen." In fact, Trump supporters say it is routine for political campaigns to gather opposition research. Here's Deputy Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders.


SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: The only thing I see inappropriate about the meeting with the people that leaked the information on the meeting after it was voluntarily disclosed.


GALLAGHER: Voluntarily disclosed; she's referring to White House Senior Advisor, Jared Kushner, and former Campaign Chief, Paul Manafort, who also attended the meeting with the Russian lawyer and disclosed it on government documents. But critics say the meeting between Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer goes to the very heart of the Russian collusion argument, proving that some in the Trump campaign was willing to accept Russian help. Though, it's worth noting the Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr. is a big advocate of overturning the Magnitsky Act, which bans Russian children from being adopted by American families. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Here now: Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional Law Attorney, and George Washington Law Professor. Jonathan, welcome back, good to see you tonight.


MACCALLUM: You wrote a piece on this today. And once again, you are sort of saying, you know, well, hold on a minute and don't get over skives on this, why?

TURLEY: Well, it's odd. It's like we have this giant work check test where everyone sees it in plots and sees crimes everywhere. I mean, the criminal code is defined elements to it. You just don't find these ambiguous crimes. Some people have said this could be treason. For the love of God, treason is defined in the constitution. This is not treason. Other people have said, this could be a Logan Act violation. Well, Logan Act has been used once in 200 years and is spatially unconstitutional. One said, well, if you take things of tangible value under the campaign laws and treat information like that, then maybe you have a campaign contribution violation.

Well, yes, but we haven't seen that done. You could also treat it like a Panda and say it's an endangered species violation. But courts haven't done that. So, I think that people need to take a breath. You know, this was a meeting where someone said they had evidence of a possible crime by the opponent of the Trump campaign. They met with this person. I think a lot of people in the city view that as naive. I think a lot of people say, my God, why didn't you use a surrogate, which is how it's done in Washington. But that itself is not a crime.

MACCALLUM: So, you know, and what you just touched on is what has been discussed a lot, which is the fact that this is a big moment in the campaign and shortly after Donald Trump secures the nomination. This is a very high-level meeting. This is Paul Manafort, the campaign manager; Jared Kushner, very close advisor to the President and his son-in-law; and his son, Donald Trump Jr. So, these were big guns at this meeting, and they claim that they didn't know why they were even there. That, you know, they had just been asked to join in this meeting. Do you buy that? And is there any significance to who was there?

TURLEY: Well, frankly, it does strike a lot of folks in the Beltway, sort of amateur hour. People like the Clintons are notorious for using surrogates, people like David Brock, who's rather notorious. But a lot of other people serve as surrogates or buffers to campaigns. It's very rare that you see something like this happened, but the fact that they're high ranking, the fact that they met with his lawyer doesn't constitute a crime unless we start to broaden the definition of criminal conduct.

What I've said to a lot of my friends who do legal analysis is, is this really the world you want to live in where we broaden the definition of crime so far that most any conversation could be a criminal act? That's a very dangerous world to live in. But more importantly, if the information is now a thing of tangible value under federal campaign laws, then the Clinton campaign could be charged with the same type of offense, and a wide variety of other campaigns could be charged. There's a point in which you have to show some element of maturity and stand back and tell people, look, this is worthy of investigation, but you shouldn't suggest that this is a clear evidence of the criminal act.

[19:05:40] MACCALLUM: Yes. I've been looking at, you know some of the tweets from other former campaign operatives for other campaigns they said, you know, yes, we do lots of opposition research, but not with foreign entities, not with someone from another country. First of all, doesn't appear to be true based on the Ukraine connection that we heard about today on the DNC side, but is that true? Does it complicate this legally that it was a meeting with someone from someone from another country who may have a tie to the Kremlin as those people do in some tangential way or otherwise?

TURLEY: No, it's only if -- certainly if would get more information, there could be some wire that's tripped. But the fact that you received information from a foreign source is not itself any type of crime unless you start to radically broaden campaign finance roles. The fact is campaigns and aides meet with foreign leaders and nationals all time. They share information about trade and other issues. Sometimes they share information that runs against their opponent, in the campaign. That is fairly routine.

Now, what is not routine is to have high-ranking people like this meet with someone without knowing the nature of the meeting. That was not a smart move to make, but it doesn't make it a crime. And so, people have to be very careful. If this is a crime that a wide array of contacts that routinely occurs between a politician and foreign nationals would also be a crime. And then you raise serious free speech, and associational concerns over the constitution.

MACCALLUM: Jonathan Turley, thank you very much; always good to see you, sir.

TURLEY: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So, here now: the possible political fallout here, Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary and brand-new Fox News Contributor, welcome to you; Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican Pollster and Columnist at The Washington Examiner; Zac Petkanas, a Democratic Strategist, and former Senior DNC Advisor. Welcome to all of you. Ari, let me start with you. What's your take on this, and also, sub-question here, the forms that weren't filled out? Because they put themselves up in many ways by not coming forward and saying, oh, this meeting on this day, this meeting on that day; here's what it was about.

ARI FLEISCHER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER PRESS SECRETARY: Well, one, take a deep breath. I do consider that's the best advice on how to get through any of these; probably two points beyond that. Well, I don't think team Trump has held this very well. All the issues relating to Russia they keep having to correct their forms, they keep having to remember things that they previously forgot. The best course is always when you get hit with something like this, disclose it all voluntarily upfront yourself. Frame it yourself, so your critics can't misframe it and get it out there. That's number one; they haven't done that.

Number two, you know, people ought to be precise in their language about what collusion means. There's a huge difference between having a meeting with a foreign official to ascertain if there is a fact that you can use the campaign. That is entirely different than working with a foreign nation to track a stolen material -- in this case, the emails from the DNC and from John Podesta. That would be a very troubled collision. Receiving the fact that matter from a foreign official, I don't that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, and that didn't even take place here.

MACCALLUM: Zac Petkanas, let me bring you in. A lot of talk in a lot of places today about this being collusion, this being the smoking gun. What we're hearing so far tonight is that it isn't. What do you think?

ZAC PETKANAS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST AND FORMER ADVISOR TO DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Well, look -- I mean, I don't think it's a smoking gun, and I don't know whether the act itself is criminal or not. I actually think that is less important than what we have established with this meeting. Donald Trump himself, Mike Pence himself said that none of his campaign officials met with Russian officials regarding campaign activities, and that just turned out not to be true. It's not only not true with Donald Trump Jr., there are five other Senior Trump Officials who also have met with Russian officials and have either lied about it or have conveniently forgotten about it.

And so, what I think that is the most significant thing that we have from this particular meeting is that we have the first public evidence that the Trump campaign senior officials, three of them, not only met with a Russian official with the connection with the Kremlin but try to coordinate their efforts in order to influence the election and swing it their way. And that's a pretty significant development.

MACCALLUM: The latter part of what we said, we do not know is evidence of what we've heard so far. Kristin, what's your take?

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER AND COLUMNIST AT THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: I think there are two big pieces to this. I think first is that this is the strangest cover-up for what may well not be a crime at all. You know, there are all of these allegations that there was collusion between the Trump campaign in Russia, and of course, no concrete evidence that it has happened, but there have been so many things that have been done that feel like a cover-up really unnecessarily. I think Ari was right, that this drip, drip, drip, has not served the Trump administration well. And what it's done has put a lot of Trump administration officials who may well be trying to do the right thing in a tough position.

You have, for instance, Vice President Pence who was told, look, none of these folks have had meetings with the Russians. You can go out, put your credibility on the line and say this is nothing, and that's the reason why Mike Flynn got shown the door, not just because he forgot that he had some conversations with some Russians but because he misrepresented it to people inside the administration. Now, nobody's going to be showing Donald Trump Jr. the door. He's got a pretty close relationship with the President, of course. But it does put a lot of these administration officials in a tough position when they come out, they say one thing categorically, and then a couple of days, weeks, and months later, new information contradicts that.

MACCALLUM: I mean, at a moment when they want to have good takeaways from the G20 when they want to be talking about health care, you know, and that's the big question, Ari. And let me put the last question to you here: is whether or not these are rookie mistakes or whether there's something more there, and whether they, you know, the fact that they keep forgetting the Russian part of these -- or did they think that it was going to look bad, so you better not put in on the form? I mean, these are outsiders. We said that from the beginning, right? And they are used to doing business the way they want to do business.

FLEISCHER: I suspect there was a nefarious French connection. They have forgotten all the French people too; we're learning that now as well. The problem with these forms, by the way, is you have to list every contact you've had with a foreign national, and contact is not defined. So, when I have to fill mine out, I was a Capitol Hill Staffer. I really didn't have it. Here, an international businessman like Donald Trump or Jared Kushner, you've met -- or Paul Manafort. You've met hundreds if not, more than that --

MACCALLUM: But do you know who they met with during the campaign?

FLEISCHER: No, but the question is --

MACCALLUM: I mean, this is June of last year.

FLEISCHER: It's not just this campaign, it's who have you met with, that what goes on the forms. And I think there's a three-year or five-year period.

MACCALLUM: But I'm just saying, this meeting was last June?

FLEISCHER: Well, and should they have remembered it if it was something, yes, they should've, that was my point earlier. But I'm also making the point: it's not necessarily a sign of wrongdoing if you get a form wrong. Now, it looks bad; everybody gets drip, drip, drip, but what you have to separate is, is it a mistake or is it criminal? And this is Jonathan's broader point, which we should all take to heart. We do not want to criminalize the normal mistake that people make; that is not the purpose of government; it's not the purpose of prosecution. And as what Bob Mueller, he's going to have to wrestle it.

MACCALLUM: And unfortunately, opposition research, everybody wants to dig up something on the candidate they're running against. It's in the air that you breathe in these campaigns for better or worse. Thanks, you guys, great to see you all tonight.

ANDERSON: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, coming up, James Comey now back in the hot seat tonight. This is a big story that we're going to be talking about in the moment. It's a bombshell report suggesting that he may have broken the law when he shared the details of his private conversations, which are deemed to be a government property when he was speaking with President Trump. So, what an inside source is now telling Fox News tonight, we will tell you in moments as details break on this story this evening. Also, an active U.S. Army soldiers stationed in Hawaii charged with regard to ties to ISIS, details also breaking on these moments away when we come back. Also, President Trump defends western civilization and the left accuses him of white supremacy; the Poland speech, and its significance next.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love to our people, our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.


MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight, James Comey's memos that resulted in the appointment of a Special Prosecutor into Russian collusion may have been leaked illegally. A bombshell report claims that the former FBI Director may have broken the law, and violated his own agencies protocol, potentially, when he handed over those conversations and the notes that he made of them with President Trump to a friend, who then took that information and gave it to the media.

The President reacted earlier. He tweeted this: "James Comey leaked classified information to the media. That is so illegal!" That was the President's charge this morning via Twitter. Fox News Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Catherine Herridge, joins us tonight. She's following this story with the very latest. Good evening, Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, thanks, Martha. Speaking to reporters late today on Capitol Hill, the Senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee gave the fired FBI Director the benefit of the doubt.


SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: There are very people that would know better how to draft a memo, so it wouldn't fall into the classified area than James Comey. And he testified to that before a committee to a question that I asked him.


HERRIDGE: A legal source close to the matter tells Fox News, Director Comey's memos documenting his conversations with President Trump aren't considered government records. All FBI employees sign these employment agreements; they're called FD-291 that blocked the unauthorized storage or sharing of government material. An FBI veteran said today, the rule is applied to a rank-and-file agent as well as executives.


TIM GILL, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, FBI: It is hard to believe that that information would not be classified, and further, if it is true, that the information secret and/or confidential, then that would be in violation of the rules.


HERRIDGE: Testifying before the same Senate panel last month, Comey explained his actions.


SEN. ROY BLUNT, R-MO.: You considered to be somehow your own personal document that you could share with the media as you wanted to? Through a friend?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Correct. I understood this to be in my recollection recorded of my conversation with the President. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that, though it's very important to get it out.


HERRIDGE: Comey then gave memos to a Columbia law school professor who told Fox today that he never gave hard copies to the media, no memos were marked classified at the time he received them, and none have classified markings. But Comey may ultimately be criticized for what's called retroactive classification or after the fact classification. And that was the same issue that damaged Hillary Clinton's campaign. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Retroactively Classified is a phrase we all remember well from the Hillary Clinton investigation. It's hard to believe, it feels like were going down that same road again. Catherine, thank you very much.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: So, joining me now: Pete Hoekstra, former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee; and Richard Fowler, Nationally Syndicated Radio Host, and a Fox News Contributor. Gentlemen, you know -- I mean, this is so cyclical, this whole crazy story as it continues to unfold. So, now you have James Comey, who says, you know, I purposely leaked my own notes to the media because I wanted to trigger a Special Counsel in this case. So, now, Pete Hoekstra, the question of whether or not he had the right to do that, and according to Catherine's reporting, anything that he writes on an FBI computer about a meeting with the President is government property.

PETE HOEKSTRA, FORMER CHAIRMAN, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, that's exactly right. He had no right to leak this information. And what we find out after he leaks this information, he basically becomes Hillary Clinton. Everything that he blasted Hillary Clinton for back on July Five, he now does. He expects us to believe that he really didn't understand is the difference between government papers and personal papers. He then expects us to believe that you know, he really didn't know that this was classified or potentially classified information and that he was just being sloppy.

You know, and then the explanation is, well, there are no markings on this, that it was classified. That would have been like me being Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, being in a top secret briefing taking notes, and then leaving the meeting and handing them to my friend and say give this to the media, share it with the media, and he look at it and say I guess it's not classified. The reason it's not classified is the classifiers never -- probably never saw the document. This is getting more and more bizarre. Remember, he was our top cop, the top cop in the United States is being just -- expects us to be very, very sloppy and hold them accountable.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it was a jaw-dropping moment, when you think about back to that hearing when he said that. You know, it's funny for him to take the notes on the FBI computer if he wants to record his meeting with the President. But then, he said, you know, so, I really wanted it to get out after I got fired. So, I gave it to my friend and told him to give it to the media, and you brought up Pete, you know, the reflection on James Comey's own words back on July Fifth about how hard he was on Hillary Clinton, for the way she treated government material. Watch this.


COMEY: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.


MACCALLUM: He may have done the same thing, Richard.

RICHARD FOWLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND NATIONALLY SYNDICATED RADIO HOST: Well, I think we have to wait and see. I mean, but it's very clear his friend, our Daniel Richman, who was the Columbia Professor, received the information told The Washington Post that there was no -- there were no classified markings. This information wasn't classified. And if you listen very carefully --

MACCALLUM: It's exactly what Hillary Clinton said, Richard. Exactly.

FOWLER: Right. In the Hillary Clinton case, what we found out as a lot of those were retroactively classified, right? We're back to where we started, where things could be classified after the fact. And I'm pretty sure that now the Justice Department and the Trump FBI is going to say these memos should be classified. But with that being said, I think we if you listen to his testimony very carefully, the sound that you played there, he talks about the fact that, you know, his personal recollection, as a personal citizen, which I'm pretty sure the language that Comey going to use to say, hey, listen, it wasn't classified, it's my personal thoughts, and I wrote down. I gave to a friend. The friend leaked the information to the media, but not the memo, and a memo had no classified markings at the time.

MACCALLUM: Pete, quickly, you know, your reaction.

HOEKSTRA: Yes. That's not how the process works. You can't work in the FBI or in the Intelligence Committee, make some personal notes, and decide: you know what, I think that's unclassified and I'm going to share it. There are classification procedures that you're supposed to follow, and I can bet that he never followed them. He cannot unilaterally take this stuff and say, it's not classified, I can share with whoever I want.

FOWLER: But Congressman, let me just make one point here.

MACCALLUM: And we got to go.

FOWLER: I think the larger question that we're having is not necessarily about Comey and his classification, not classification; it's whether or not Donald Trump or his administration engaged in some malfeasance with the Russian government. And so, I think he -- whether we like it or not, we have a larger conversation at hand and that's why the Justice Department hired a Special Counsel.

HOEKSTRA: There's no evidence --

MACCALLUM: All right. I got to leave there, guys. Thank you so much, Pete Hoekstra --

HOEKSTRA: There's no evidence after a year that, that ever occurred.

FOWLER: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: And Richard Fowler. Great to see you both, see you next time.

So, tonight, the fallout after Ivanka Trump is slammed for briefly sitting in her father's chair during the G20 meeting. She's a Senior Advisor to the President of the United States, but are critics forgetting their history on this?

As New York Police still reeling from the assassination of one of their own. A New York Judge just let a man intent on hurting police officers go free. We're going to tell you how New York's finest are responding tonight. Plus, as health care hangs in the balance, lawmakers are back to work today but for how long will they be there? When we come back.

Anthony Scaramucci on whether President Trump will ask them to skip their August break. We'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: So, I'm just back from vacation and Congress is also just back from vacation. And it seems Representatives on Capitol Hill are really not any closer to passing their promised health care reform than they were last week. So, here is my story on this. When one party wins control of Congress and the White House, they have a unique opportunity. During President Obama's time in office, the GOP railed on Obamacare, they said it was a disaster; terrible for patients and bad for businesses. Both, in fact, agree with them. And much the surprise of Republicans apparently, elected them and the President, to among other things to do away with it.

Now, imagine this in your own life as a company where you work. That you keep complaining the boss that if only he would let you, you could fix the company and it would be so much better if he would only give you a shot. So, one day the boss says, you're on, let's see what you got. And you say, well, I didn't think you would ever ask; see my team is not quite sure, and it's actually much more complicated than anybody thought.

You know what, faster than the limo could pull up in front of Trump Tower, you would be headed home with your suitcase on wheels and you would have a zero approval rating at your company. Or kind of like congress at 17 percent. So with 68 workdays in the summer for the rest of America, the senate will be in session for 35 of those as of now. There's talk that they might stick around. So the president is proving to be a rather patient boss and has given his party a nearly seven month extension on a project that could have been worked on and hammered out for six years. So likely, the boss, which is actually the American people in this case, will have little patience when they get their chance to weigh in on this. And all those elected in a sweep in November, could very well get swept out the door for congressional malpractice, and who could blame the voters because that's what the people who voted for them wanted to happen. So is that correct? Let's bring in Anthony Scaramucci, senior vice president and chief strategist officer at the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and a former Trump transition team executive committee member.

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES CHIEF STRATEGIST OFFICER: First of all, I'm glad I'm not in the congress after that whole speech.

MACCALLUM: I mean, I think that when you look at -- no matter which party wins, the people that elected them to do this, they don't have the patience outside of congress for the kind of timeline that they work on.

SCARAMUCCI: Well, and I understand that. I also think that it's very complicated, but I'm very optimistic. If you listen to the Senator Toomey remarks earlier today, there is going to be a plan in place that I think the president will accept. It will get signed. I think the president has been very effective legislative liaison. He's worked very well successfully not only with the majority leader and Speaker Ryan, but he's dug deeply.

MACCALLUM: I mean, he has to be frustrated with the pace of having this program ready. And you know, working in the private sector, that you can't simply come years later and then months later and say, oh, I'm really going to come up with something for this.

SCARAMUCCI: And listen, I'm new to Washington. I have new experience there. So I'll just make this observation as a business person and then eject myself into Washington. I think what happens in Washington is each little congressional district in each state, they're very cautious in terms of the way they're representing their constituents.

MACCALLUM: Of course.

SCARAMUCCI: They got to answer to them in the two years, in some cases six years and others, and so it's very different from a corporation. In a corporation, the president, for example, would hire his board, private corporation, he would hire his team, and then he would be able to dictate to them what he wanted to have done.

MACCALLUM: But their job is to hammer things out. That's what he's been doing since the beginning.

SCARAMUCCI: It is. But here's the facts of the matter, is the incentives are in place for them to stay in office. And so, sometimes incentives.

MACCALLUM: They may not get that.

SCARAMUCCI: They may not get that. That's correct. But I believe that they'll get to yes on the health care bill.

MACCALLUM: Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, late today, said that they believe that they're getting to something. Are they going to lean towards - - you know, is Republican bill or is it something where they're going to bring in some Democrats? Because they're definitely going to be some people who will not.

SCARAMUCCI: No, I'm not close enough to it more. It just smells like it will likely be all Republican bill, the same way the Obamacare act or the Affordable Care Act was all Democrat. And that sort of a shame because there's a lot of this bill that many of the moderate Democrats would like, but they now have built this anti-administration coalition. And I think my prediction is the president will get this done. He'll get some tax reform done. And then I think he's going to try to reach out to the other side and be the president for everybody. And so, he's got six months ahead of him that I think going to be a phenomenal six months for him. He's in a spot where I think he wants to be. He'll probably take a shorter recess if necessary. And I think they'll.

MACCALLUM: He's got to be frustrated.

SCARAMUCCI: . see to that.

MACCALLUM: I do want to ask.

SCARAMUCCI: Who wouldn't be frustrated? I think some of the congressmen are frustrated.

MACCALLUM: Especially people who voted for him and for these members of congress as well. I want to ask about the Don, Jr. situation because you work on the transition team. Why would they have this meeting where there are concerns about these kinds of meetings, and in terms of the disclosure, and the forms, and all of this bureaucratic stuff that needs to be filled out, it looks sloppy.

SCARAMUCCI: OK. Now I've got to really defend Don for a second because back then, I think he was just having another informal meeting. I traveled with Don on the campaign. I think he's a very highly ethical, you know, men with great integrity, a man with great virtue. He had the meeting. He probably didn't think it was a big deal to have that meeting. It seems like nothing came out of the meeting. Now as an example, I've had to fill out stuff. I took 102 trips overseas over the last ten years. People are asking me specifically who I met with, why I met with them, and so on and so forth. I have a pretty good memory. I'm going to those trips to the best of my recollection and telling everybody. And so, you're an American businessperson, and Donald J. Trump Jr. is an American businessperson.

MACCALLUM: But this was in June of last year. I'm just getting on the record because this wasn't years ago.

SCARAMUCCI: I understand that. But I'm telling you, I campaign with him. I traveled around the country with him. There were countless people that he saw. There were many, many meetings that he asked to take.

MACCALLUM: How come the Russian meetings are the ones that everybody forgot? What do you say to that?

SCARAMUCCI: See, I don't really think that's the case. I think that there are a lot of meetings that were -- when you say forgot, I just think it's one of these things. You're filling out these forms, their maniacally detailed, and if you have 102 trips which I did over ten years, it's impossible for me to -- every single person I met on these trips. And so, I think you have to be fair to him that way. The other thing I think you have to be fair to, he's not in the political system. He loves his father, but he's not working in Washington, OK. We can talk about Ivanka if you want to.

MACCALLUM: I've got it. You know, at the time, he was on the campaign.

SCARAMUCCI: He's on the campaign. And it's his dad, and he loves his father, and is out there helping his dad, and he did absolutely nothing wrong. And I have been in the situation where people are accusing you of doing something wrong when you know you've done absolutely nothing wrong, and I'm here to stand in support Donald J. Trump Jr.

MACCALLUM: Thank you.

SCARAMUCCI: Love the guy.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you. Thank you for being here.

SCARAMUCCI: All right, thank you.

MACCALLUM: So coming out tonight on the other stories, frat members accused of the Penn State hazing death of 19-year-old Timothy Piazza are back in court today. We have followed this story from the beginning. We will tell you what's going on. Also, an active army soldier from Hawaii accused of aiding ISIS. And speaking of ISIS, a huge victory in Iraq over the terror group. Those stories straight ahead. Plus, President Trump still facing blowback days after he returned from the overseas trip, we're going to show you the two stories that the media cannot seem to drop on this, when we come back.


MACCALLUM: Here some stories on the side for you tonight. Here is this one from Pennsylvania. Fraternity brothers in Penn State, in the hazing case back in court today for the preliminary hearing. They're facing charges in that hazing incident that led to the death of 19-year-old student Timothy Piazza. The hearing does resume tomorrow. The judge will weigh in on whether or not there's enough evidence to go to trial. We will keep you posted on that. Plus, the feds have arrested a U.S. soldier in Hawaii, accusing him of having ties to ISIS. Thirty four year-old, Ikaika Kang, was stationed at Schofield Barracks in Honolulu, charges claim that he swore allegiance to ISIS, attended to provide the military document to the terror group, and attempted to provide training to them as well. More on that as we get it. And coincidentally, a victory in the fight against ISIS, the Iraqi prime minister today declaring victory in Mosul over the terror group. This is a very big deal. In a written statement earlier, President Trump offered his congratulations stating that the victory in Mosul signals that the days of ISIS in Iraq and Syria are numbered.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Our citizens did not win freedom together. Did not survive horrors together, did not face down evil together only to lose our freedom to a lack of pride and confidence in our values. We did not and we will not. We will never back down.



MACCALLUM: That's President Trump in Poland last week, making a very strong case for western civilization, a case that some in the media are finding problematic still days later.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: The setting was interesting. This is not a speech he could have given really any place else, and this is a white America first kind of speech.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: That speech was the ultimate fulfillment of the Osama bin Laden's ideology of the belief that they would be a clash of civilizations between what he views as his crazy version of Islam and the west.


MACCALLUM: So here now, Ric Grenell, spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., and Jessica Tarlov, Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. Ric, you're shaking your head when we played some of those comments.

RIC GRENELL, FORMER SPOKESMAN FOR U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Well, from a purely political standpoint, I think, keep it coming. They're going to keep losing every time they clarify what they mean by that. Look, this isn't about western values. Western values is capitalism. Capitalism has done more to combat poverty than any other ideology ever. It is something we should celebrate. And American should be particularly proud when you look at how much money we give to international organizations and to the U.N. We give a quarter for peacekeeping, a quarter of the budget. We give a quarter of the U.N. assessed budget. That doesn't include world food program and UNICEF funding which we are 50 percent plus in feeding the world and being on the ground when there is a crisis. Americans are generous. We should be proud. And we are able to do that because of capitalism and our western values.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. I was really surprised by some of their reactions.

JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I was, too. I was shaking my head, I think just as much.

MACCALLUM: You know, this idea that western values that it is something that is exclusively for white people, which suggested is the absolute antithesis of what everything in this country was based on from its formation that all men are created equal.


TARLOV: Equality thing, but we straightened it out there. I mean, absolutely, it's not only capitalism that was freedom of the press. It's freedom of religion. I mean, we're a beacon of hope in that way, even though I think that we've had some strain to society in the past few decades, certainly in terms of freedom of religion. But I found it astounding. I found it surprising. And it is not as if I'm someone who's not looking for subtext in Donald Trump's speech.

MACCALLUM: If it's because he's Donald Trump?

TARLOV: I think has a lot to do with it. I also think it has a lot to do with what happened after that speech in the press conference, when he went after the intelligence community and how people may have perceived what he was doing with Vladimir Putin. And I think that color the whole trip for people. When I was watching the initial reaction to the actual speech, the scripted speech, it was all incredible positive. And then something shifted because Trump shifted himself, when he went off script and he was doing one of his press conferences, and he had an ax to grind with CNN and with the intel community. But I totally agree with you. I didn't see anything wrong in there.

MACCALLUM: I want to get a check on the Ivanka moment, of her sitting in for the president during this meeting, which on Angela Merkel was one of the people who suggested, apparently, that she sits in. They have talked about a lot of issues with regards to -- and Africa for women, and climate change, I mean, you name it. It amazes me that there's liberal outrage about her sitting there when she is one of the strongest proponents of many of the things that they really cared about.

GRENELL: And not only that. I've been in 1,000 of these meetings were the principal stepped out and somebody has to step back in.


GRENELL: What the people around the table, this is a multilateral diplomatic meeting. The other countries want to know whoever sits in that seat is close to the president, speaks for the president, effective ambassadors are people that are close to the president. Not someone with differing views. When Ivanka stepped in, they know that they are dealing with somebody who has very similar views or has a lot of access to the president. That is a very valuable thing to use Ivanka in these situations.

MACCALLUM: Is it sort of sexist to charge that she has no right to be at that table, Jessica?

TARLOV: I don't think it's about sexism. I think it's about nepotism. And I think that the fact that the right is defending this when we know what would have happened if that was Chelsea Clinton sitting in that seat herself. It would have been as if the world had exploded. And people brought up, you know, the Bobby Kennedy issue, and just because of Democrats, doesn't mean that I think that it was right than many Democrats thought that it was right for him to be appointed. There is an issue and it began in the transition.

MACCALLUM: There's a lot in the list here, about 14 different sons and daughters of presidents of the United States who had traveled diplomatically, who had attended meetings.

TARLOV: Yeah. It doesn't mean that it's appropriate. Her role is clearer now, but this began in the transition when she sat in on that first meeting with Prime Minister Abe, and she had no place in that meeting. I mean, during this G20, she and Jerry have had bilateral meetings. It makes people uncomfortable. This is not just people on the left.

(CROSSTALK) GRENELL: I don't think it should though. I don't think it should make people uncomfortable.

MACCALLUM: When you look at the history of family members who have had very high positions in administrations, it certainly as president you can like or not like her or the job she does, but there's certainly a strong presence -- I've got to leave it there, guys. Way over time. But thank you very much.

TARLOV: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So this story coming up, a New York City judge under fire tonight after she allowed a reportedly dangerous suspect in an attack on police to walk free. Her move comes as officers prepared to bury one of their own who was assassinated a few days ago, former NYPD officer Don Bongino response to that story coming up next.


MACCALLUM: Tonight, in a city still reeling from a horrible cop killing, officers are now watching their backs again after a man targeting the police walked free. According to court documents, on Saturday, 29-year-old Kurdel Emmanual, barged in to a New York City police precinct and attacked a female officer, reportedly tried to grab her gun before he was arrested. But tonight, he could be anywhere because the criminal courts judge released him without bail. Dan Bongino is a former secret service agent and former NYPD officer. Dan, welcome, good to have you here tonight. It's been a very tough week for New York city police officers, and now this.

DAN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Yeah. I mean, Martha, there is no easy reasonable explanation for this abomination of a legal decision. You know my nearly two decades in law enforcement and 42 years on this planet, I've never seen such a ground ball decision to keep someone on a heavy bail or, Martha, this is what's infuriating about this, the judge had another path here too. They could have pursued an involuntary commitment on a potential, you know, psychopathological problem here, and they chose neither. They just let this guy walk after an officer was assassinated and shot in cold blood in the face? I mean, what planet does this judge live on? This was an unexplainable decision by any reasonable person.

MACCALLUM: There's been a lot of insensitivity in this city with regards to what's going on. And the shooting of Officer Familia, heard at the services for her, she left three children behind, beautiful children and her family. She was also the caregiver for her 80-year-old mother, who is recovering from cancer. I mean, you can't even imagine an environment where Mayor de Blasio is not around. He leaves during this process. He comes back, apparently, he visited Officer Familia's family today, but to have this add insult to injury, I mean, what do police officers in New York saying about all this?

BONGINO: Yeah. I still have a lot of friends from when I was on the NYPD, and I don't say this because I was a former cop, although obviously it's hard for me to be totally objective. But these guys and these women out there, Martha, you know, they're banged up. They've got their heads on swivels. They've got to worry about being attacked by axes and cold-blooded shooters shooting at them. They've got to worry about terrorist attacks. Now you've got activist judges letting people out who literally attempted to murder a police officers. You've got black lives matter with these chants that happen, and a general climate against the cops. You know, these guys are really -- I was just up in New York, and I spoke to a port authority cop and he said morale is at an all-time low. They can't seem to catch a break ever. Thank God the general public still holds them in high esteem, but the politicians have really failed them. It's really a disgrace. The De Blasio thing, forget it. My temperature goes up 5 degrees when I talk about it.

MACCALLUM: You said it all. Dan Bongino, thank you very much, sir. Thanks for your service.

BONGINO: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Nice to have you here. We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: It's that time again for our quote of the night, and it comes tonight from an interview conducted by a high school sophomore, Teddy Fisher, from the state of Washington. Fisher who attends Mercer Island High School stumbled upon a leaked copy of defense secretary James Mattis' phone number. So he called and left a message. His decision resulted in an interview with Secretary Mattis who called him back being from Washington state as well. Teddy asked about the world, the military, and the future of our conflicts. And at the end he asked the defense secretary his advice to graduating seniors. Here's what the very thoughtful former history teacher, James Mattis, said, just look for ways to help others along the way, Teddy, and you'll never go far wrong if you're always looking to do that. There will be a lot of people who want to tell you what to think in this world, if you read a lot of history, you will thank them for their help, but you won't be governed by what someone else has told you to think, wise words from the defense secretary. Have a good night, everybody. Good to be back here on The Story. We'll see what your story is tomorrow at seven. Good night, everybody. Tucker is coming up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.