James Woolsey reacts to McCabe's Washington Post editorial

This is a rush transcript from "The Story," March 23, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Good to see you, Bret, thanks. So, breaking tonight, in fact, just moments ago, Andrew McCabe has published a stunning editorial in The Washington Post. In it, this piece is titled: "Not in My Worst Nightmares Did I Dream That My FBI Career Would End This Way." He goes on to say, "I have been accused of lack of candor. That is not true. I did not knowingly mislead or lie to investigators. When asked about contacts with a reporter that were fully within my power to authorize as deputy director and amid the chaos that surrounded me, I answered questions as completely and accurately as I could. And when I realized that some of my answers were not fully accurate or may have been misunderstood, I took the initiative to correct them. At worst, I was not clear in my responses. And because of what was going on around me, may well have been confused or distracted," he writes.

He goes on to say, "For that, I take full responsibility. But that is not lack of candor and under no circumstances could it ever serve as a basis for the very public and extended humiliation that my -- of me -- of my family, excuse me, and of me that the administration, but the administration and the president personally have engaged in over the past year." Not in my worst nightmare did I ever dream that my FBI career would end this way. Let's bring in Catherine Herridge with this breaking news tonight, Chief Intelligence Correspondent, also getting a look at this, and she has covered this story from the beginning. Catherine, good evening to you. Your thoughts on these very strong words tonight from the former deputy director of the FBI?

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Martha, I can't remember a time when a former FBI director has written such a personal op-ed in a major national newspaper about his termination at a top law enforcement agency.

What jumps out at me and I've just been skimming through as well because it's new, and within the last 10 minutes, is how he talks about he learned that he had been terminated at the FBI after 21 years, not from the Department of Justice, not from the FBI. But he says, third hand, from a friend of his, who saw the news breaking on one of the cable networks.

And I want to draw your attention to this one section, he says: "So, after two decades of public service, I found out that I had been fired in the most disembodied, impersonal way, third hand, based on a news account." He goes on to criticize the president pretty openly in this op-ed.

He says that he woke up the follow morning, March 17th, to find the president was celebrating his termination and he called that, I'm reading from, again, "unhinged public attacks on me that would continue into my life after my service to the FBI. President Trump's cruelty reminded me of the days immediately following the firing of James Comey," his old boss, the head of the FBI. On this lack of candor question, Martha, his explanation for what happened -- there has to be more to it for the Justice Department and the FBI and their internal affairs division to have terminated him for cause.

And I think it's worth reminding people that when the former national security advisor, Mike Flynn. was fired, what those close to him told reporters is that he also was kind of caught up in the confusion and the chaos of the new administration and he didn't remember the sequencing of events that well from his phone calls with the Russians. Yet, he still was prosecuted and pled guilty to lying to federal agents. So, it's a very similar story. And in this case, McCabe is asking us to believe that this was an honest mistake and that he should not have been punished for that, Martha.

MACCALLUM: I mean, it's a great point, Catherine, because it's impossible to completely separate those two things. It appears that when you're dealing with internal investigations within the Department of Justice, lack of candor is the term that is used --

HERRIDGE: That's correct.

MACCALLUM: -- in this other case for lying to the FBI. And everyone knows that you, you know, you can't lie when you are being questioned by the FBI. And as you also, I think, rightly highlight, this was an internal investigation. He is responding to how the president responded and clearly a lot of people have said that the firing could have been handled much better. But the reality of it is, in terms of how this works, that it was an internal Department of Justice investigation --

HERRIDGE: Correct.

MACCALLUM: -- that led to him first being sidelined and then ultimately fired, correct?

HERRIDGE: Yes. And what I find extraordinary is that he has published this piece in The Washington Post and this is coming just about 48 hours after his old boss, FBI Director Christopher Wray, told NBC News that the termination of Andrew McCabe was totally by the book and by the regulations. So, this op-ed on its face is really challenging the version of events that was presented by Wray earlier this week.

MACCALLUM: Just one last question for you, Catherine.


MACCALLUM: Because I want people to understand what he was accused of. You know, what are the things that surfaced in that report that forced his resignation, his stepping aside, and then ultimately his firing?

HERRIDGE: OK. So, the inspector general was charged with looking at the handling of the Clinton e-mail case by the FBI and the Justice Department and they also looked at media leaks. In this particular case, there was a conversation with a reporter at the Wall Street Journal in October of 2016 and that's kind of where there are different views on what happened. McCabe says he was within his rights to talk to that reporter about the Clinton e-mail investigation and the foundation investigation. And that he had the approval from his top boss at that time, FBI Director James Comey.

But, if you read the attorney general's statement very closely, what you'll see is that the language does suggest that there were other occasions that McCabe appeared to lack candor in their conversations with the I.G. So, based on my reading of the statement and just what I've learned through my reporting, I don't think it's limited to this one episode of the media leak in October of 2016. I think basically, there is more to it.

MACCALLUM: All right. Catherine, thank you so much.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

MACCALLUM: Glad to have you here tonight.

HERRIDGE: Sure, of course.

MACCALLUM: Joining me now: Former CIA Director James Woolsey. Sir, very good to have you with us this evening as well. Having spent your life serving the country in our intelligence bureaus, as leader of the CIA, and several prominent positions before that, your reaction to this very unusual, as Catherine points out, editorial that has been put out there tonight by Andrew McCabe.

JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Well, I think there are two things going here, and they clash. One is that it is understandable to have, perhaps, a very slightly less demanding standard for an internal investigation than for an external one. Internal one, you have to do better than just not lie. You have to have it sounds like from the statement full candor. And that's, I think, an appreciably tougher standard to have to deal with, and is something that could lead to confusion, and lead to people being argumentative about the questions that are being asked. So, I think that one -- that's a tough one.


WOOLSEY: And it is also important to consider some other factors -- what Mr. McCabe may have said at other times about various things. And that's part of being an FBI agent, you have to respond to your boss' questions, even if they are questions about nuances. And you put those two things together, I think, and you have a really very difficult set of judgments to make, and I'm glad that I don't have to make them.

MACCALLUM: Let me ask this because this is potentially part of larger piece. Because you have James Comey admitting at one point that he released information to the media in an effort to get it out into the bloodstream and, in fact, to prompt the special counsel because he had these concerns that he didn't want to bring out himself.

You have James Clapper, who at least, according to the House Intel Committee, they believe that he leaked information to CNN about the dossier, he has since said that that's not true. But, you have these three, you know, some of the most powerful people in our intelligence agencies all being accused of leaking things to the media that had potential political underpinnings as their goal and motivation.

WOOLSEY: Well, I can understand people getting lost in the nuances between candor and lying. I have difficulty understanding how one can deal with this situation. It's really extraordinarily difficult, I think.

MACCALLUM: You know, James Comey, at one point, in his testimony before Congress he was asked, have you ever leaked anything, you know, any classified information to the media? And he said no, never. Go ahead.

WOOLSEY: Well, that's pretty clear cut. And clear denial and there may be things that took place that are clearly on the other side of that and, therefore, the judgment could be made. But, all of this is swimming in a very murky stream. And I don't envy the investigators who are trying to sort this one out.

MACCALLUM: Troublesome allegations to be sure. And I'm sure having spent your life in intelligence it's bothersome to you.

WOOLSEY: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much, Former Director of the CIA, Woolsey. Thank you very much, Mr. Woolsey. Good to see you this evening.

WOOLSEY: Good to be with you.

MACCALLUM: Coming up next:


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was thinking about doing the veto but because of the incredible gains that we've been able to make for the military, that overrode any of our -- any of our thinking.


MACCALLUM: So, the president's critics today say that he got rolled on this one while Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are celebrating. Corey Lewandowski on whether or not they're right, coming up.


MACCALLUM: So, a live look at President Trump arriving in West Palm Beach, Florida this evening to spend the weekend at his weekend place in Mar-a- Lago. It's been quite a day for the president. Tonight, he vowed never again, reluctantly signing a $1.3 trillion budget bill. Watch this.


TRUMP: There are a lot of things that I'm unhappy about in this bill. But I say to Congress I will never sign another bill like this again. I'm not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It's only hours old. Some people don't even know -- $1.3 trillion. It's the second largest ever.


MACCALLUM: Nobody read it. Don't you love that part? But a number of Republicans are questioning exactly what the GOP got out of this deal and whether Mr. Trump, as some have said today, got rolled by the Democrats.


MSNBC HOST: This is Ann Coulter reacting, Jennifer, she tweeted out: "Congratulations President Schumer, essentially saying that the president got played here. I will never sign another bill like this again", she's quoting from the president. Yes, because you'll be impeached.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, this president promised to drain the swamp. He's a jobs program for the swamp. He says he's going to drain the swamp, but he's the best thing that's ever happened to the swamp.

JENNIFER RUBIN, THE WASHINGTON POST: The Democrats really got most of what they wanted in this bill. Democrats weren't necessarily opposed to more defense spending, they just didn't want to get defense spending until they got a lot on domestic spending, and they got most of what they wanted.


MACCALLUM: They sure did. Joining me now: Corey Lewandowski, Former Trump Campaign Manager and Chief Strategist at America First Action. Corey, good to see you tonight. The president is getting a lot of criticism on this from his base and from his supporters who believed that basically the Democrats did get everything they wanted in this very fat bill and that there's no fiscal responsibility happening on his watch at this point.

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER AND CHIEF STRATEGIST AT AMERICA FIRST ACTION: You know, what the president said today when he signed that bill was he was very disappointed in what the bill had in total. But there were some key components of this legislation that are important. And let me just highlight a few of them -- $650 billion for the military that will allow our men and women in uniform to get the first pay raise they've had, the largest pay raise they've had in over a decade. You know, we're talking about 24 new navy ships.

We're at the smallest navy we have had in a lifetime. We're talking about 90 new aircrafts -- new F-35s. We're talking about opportunity to rebuilding our military so we can continue to be the world's greatest super power. But in addition to the military, this bill funded $6 billion to fight the devastating opioid crisis which is wreaking havoc across our country. We need to get this under control. Is this a perfect bill? Absolutely not. Did the president say it was a bill for national security?
It is a bill for national security.

MACCALLUM: I got you, Corey. I got you. I got you. You know, last night he sort of stunned, I think, a lot of people at the White House by coming out and say he was going to veto the bill. Then, this morning, there was this whole scramble, he's going to do a news conference and he wasn't going to do a news conference. Then, they moved the reporters from the pressroom over to the diplomatic receiving room and gave a straightforward speech. You know, I think that there's a feeling that he didn't do what he wanted to do here, initially. His gut was telling him that he should veto this bill, get a lot of his supporters who wanted him to do that. So, the question tonight is what happened?

LEWANDOWSKI: I think you might be right. I think his gut was telling him that this was a bad piece of legislation. Many of the things that are in this bill, you know, he campaigned against. And what we've seen once again, you know, it's amazing, do you know what Congress did? They went home again. You know, the government is about to shut down. They put one piece of legislation in front of the president and say, we put a gun to your head, are you going to sign this and we're going to close the government, it's going to be your fault. Why haven't we been able to keep the government open for a multi-year period? This is astonishing to me. I don't get it.

MACCALLUM: Yes, but, Corey, what about those people who say, you've got Republicans in the House, Republican in the Senate, Republican in the White House. We thought this was going to be fiscally responsible White House and administration. And they're wondering what the heck is happening?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, look, I don't disagree with you. I think 85 or 86 members of the Republican Party vote against this bill and they're going to pass with 111 Democrats voting for it, because the Democrats do what the Democrats do. They know how to spend money. Look, the next generation, you know, our kids, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren are saddled now with 22 -- potentially, $22 trillion in debt. It's unsustainable. This can never happen again.

MACCALLUM: Well, that's what the president said. And I though, you know, I think a lot of people thought he hit it on the head when he looked at thing, and said they just finished this bill hours ago. Nobody has read it and we're at the deadline. And that's the way we do things. I think people look at that across the country and say, are you kidding me? You know, this is such an inefficient way to thing. Corey, as you are talking, we're watching the president walk down the steps of Air Force One. Looks like a beautiful night in Palm Beach as he begins this weekend. So, you have a good weekend, too, OK? Thanks for being here.

LEWANDOWSKI: Thank you. You too.

MACCALLUM: All right. Thank you. So, one group that especially unhappy with this budget is veterans. They saw a new health care provisions, allowing them to choose their own doctors stripped, because the bill just hours before it passed the House that part came out. Pete Hegseth, U.S. Army Combat Veteran and Co-Host of "FOX & FRIENDS WEEKEND" and spends a huge amount of his life and his time supporting the veterans of this country. So, what happened?

PETE HEGSETH, FOX NEWS HOST AND U.S. ARMY COMBAT VETERAN: Well, what happened was, the swamp happened. I hate to say it that way. But, first of all, on the larger deal, the president's Achilles' heel is the military. He wants to fund the military. He saw what happened under Obama and decimation of sequestration. That's why he voted -- that's why he supported this bill even though a lot of us hopes he might veto it. Ultimately, at the V.A., you had included in the bill was an opportunity for vets to choose their own doctor or the V.A. -- a private option, which the president promised. At the last minute, Representative Tim Walz, he's running for governor in Minnesota, he's a Democrat and Nancy Pelosi, conspired to pull it out of the bill and instead increase more funding of the V.A., which we've seen time and time again. So, you add more money to the V.A.

MACCALLUM: They took away the choice.

HEGSETH: They took away the actual reforms that would give veterans real choice and instead they said let's add more funding and they hood winked a lot of people at the last minute to do so. So, again, it's how the swamp works at the last minute to make a deal. Democrats to get their votes, to get more money, said we're going to take out the real reforms that would've advanced the president's agenda in exchange for money. And then, Democrats will say, we helped the vets. They're not helping the vets. And the president's heart is in the right place. But he's signing this bill because he supports the troops and the vets are in a tough spot.

MACCALLUM: Here's the political question which is, what Ann Coulter was talking about when she said congratulations President Schumer and, you know, here comes impeachment. Because the fear is that this alienates the people that support him and have supported the people who, you know, they believe are going to vote like him, and that you're going to end up with people who are in the middle deciding that Democrats are a better choice for them -- like we saw in Pennsylvania with the Conor Lamb election and, you know, he's going to lose his majority which hasn't, you know, worked well in some ways and not so well in others anyway.

HEGSETH: If feel like today may have been the day that the party of fiscal responsibility in the GOP died. I mean, there isn't real commitment to that today at all. If you're not committed to fiscal responsibility, then at least be committed to reform. And from the V.A. and across the board, you saw them give away the form in exchange for defense spending, which I'm in support of. I understand -- his heart is in the right place, but he lost on so many other places because members of congress, whether it's Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan don't want to fight the fight and bring it to the brink, and that's why a veto could've done that. I understand why he did what he did, but we gave away a lot and you're going to have to fight to take a lot of that terrain back.

MACCALLUM: Yes, and then they got so burned shutting down the government.

HEGSETH: Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer love it.

MACCALLUM: They're terrified to go ahead and, you know, to push that button again.

HEGSETH: They won the last one, Martha. The last shut down was one. Chuck Schumer knew he -- and then they got the item of DACA and the wall. I think it's a fight he can win. But I understand where he's at.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Pete, good to see you tonight. Thanks for coming in.

HEGSETH: Well, see you in the morning.

MACCALLUM: All right. Coming up next, a real story behind the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal; why it may not be the bombshell on corrupt campaigns that seems to be reported out there? My next guest knows firsthand how these things works, Former Director of Research and Analytics for the Cruz Campaign, he says it's not what it appears to be.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Universities throughout the country are struggling with what has become an epidemic and it must stop. No more college students should die for just wanting to join an organization.


MACCALLUM: The parents of Timothy Piazza making emotional plea today calling for more strict punishment for hazing suspects. Their son, Timothy, died in February of 2017 after a night of heavy drinking and hazing at Penn State University. He was left to die by the so-called brothers who were supposed to protect him. Today, Jim and Evelyn Piazza alongside Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Leader, Jake Corman, unveiled legislation called the Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing law.

The bill calls for more harsh penalties for people caught hazing it requires that schools have anti-hazing policies and reporting procedures in place and that it keeps students and parents in the know about what's going on their campuses. At the same time today in the courtroom behind them, a preliminary hearing on charges against 11 members of the now shuttered Beta Theta Pi fraternity. Today was the first of several hearings that will determine if there's enough evidence to take that case to trial. We'll keep you in a close on this story as you know, and we will continue to tell you all of the developments.

Also developing tonight, new questions about what, if any, role Cambridge Analytica actually played in the 2016 election? The acting-CEO for the consulting firm says none of the data that was mined from Facebook was actually used. Saying, in part, quote: "Please can I be absolutely clear? We did not use any GSR, Global Science Research data, in the work we did in the 2016 U.S. presidential election". Here now, Chris Wilson, Former Director of Research and Analytics for the 2016 Cruz for President Campaign, he's also CEO of Wilson-Perkins-Allen Opinion Research. Chris, good to see you. Thanks for being here tonight.


MACCALLUM: This story sort of has, you know, all of the potential drama that I think a lot of people are looking for. When you start to peel back, actually, what was in this data, whether or not it was actually used and whether or not it was actually effective, it appears that there's more to the story than meets the eye. Your thoughts?

WILSON: Well, it is. I think the Cambridge Analytica story has been tough because their marketing efforts are so overblown that you kind of have to separate what they did, from what they claim they did, from what they claim they can do, from what they actually can do. And all of those things come together and create a very confusing story for anybody just sort of listening to this. As you mentioned their acting CEO, the reason there's acting CEO is because the former CEO was suspended for making outrageous claims on camera about hiring Ukrainian prostitutes. I mean, that's just -- it's probably so outlandish and it probably never happened, but that's just the kind of things that happens. And as he was quoted saying today, marketing is not done under oath.

And so, I think you've got to really kind of look at what exactly is being considered here. Well, the first part is whether or not psychographic data, which is what Cambridge says they do was used during the presidential campaign. And they said they didn't do it for Trump. But even if they did, this research is all based on -- this psychographic target something based on academic research on ocean scores that has been widely published and is available open source online from several universities. So, this is not something that is some sort of secret sauce that is being done by a super villain. It's that it really is, even if it was effective, the fact that it would've been taken from Facebook, I think is outlandish on its face, and now they're saying that it wasn't anyway.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. Both the company and the Trump campaign say that none of the Facebook data was used in anything that they did. Now, the Cruz campaign also hired Cambridge Analytica at one point. Did you find their information useful?

WILSON: We did. There were data science staffing firm for us, and they did a very good data scientists. The people that were on my team in Houston, I think would define themselves as really Cruz for President employees, even though that's where we got them from. From an overall standpoint of their data, let me be clear, there're several sources that a campaign gets data from. Without boring your listeners, I'll just tell you that there are between warranty records or -- there're several companies that sell this type of information. And you can get multiple pieces of data on a person. Now, the Facebook data is kind of where this all comes down to.

And if there was something that was done that was wrong, it would be Cambridge gathering Facebook data under the auspices of -- using it for academic purposes and then repurposes it for campaign. That would be unethical. The Obama campaign used Facebook data in 2012. It was 100 percent legal for them to do it. And so did many corporations used it. And now, but the way they did it is by saying share your information with us on the Obama campaign and let us talk to your friends, and you chose whether or not to do that. You weren't doing it to take a personality test over academic reasons. But that wasn't really Facebook's fault. That was somebody doing something unethical if it occurred that way. And then, the way in which they used it would be the other part of it.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. Well, there's a lot of questions that you raise about whether or not this whole psycho-graphic thing works. (INAUDIBLE) who did some of this research said, they found it didn't really work that well in terms of determining or being able to influence someone's voting decision. The Trump campaign has said that they also found something similar. So, Chris, thank you very much. Just a tip of the iceberg on this, but we'll keep digging, thank you very much.

WILSON: You bet.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight.

WILSON: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: So coming up, you know attitude can be everything. And one familiar face here at Fox is living proof of that, senior meteorologist Janice Dean is here to share her personal journey battling a potentially disabling disease. But, first, the untold true story behind the infamous Chappaquiddick incident is now about to hit the big screen. We'll go behind the scenes with the movie's producer on telling the story which nearly derailed Ted Kennedy's political career. Then, Chris Stirewalt on why he says this movie is part of a larger cultural reckoning tonight.


UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do we do to help the senator?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: A dead body holds a lot of secrets. Those can be the difference between guilt and innocence.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Are you saying that there's a possibility that maybe she didn't drown?



MACCALLUM: Nearly, 50 years ago as man prepared to walk on the moon for the very first time, there was also something else going on here on earth, a tragic car crash that claimed the life of a promising young woman and derailed the political aspirations of the last Kennedy brother. We, of course, are referring to Chappaquiddick. When the late-Senator Ted Kennedy drove off the bridge that you see here in that authentic picture killing this young woman, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. And while many have heard about the scandal, and I think a lot of people are hearing about it for the first time if they're under a certain age, few really understand the details about what Ted Kennedy did and didn't do, perhaps more importantly that night. But a new movie that is set for release next month might change that, watch.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: To Ted Kennedy in the White House in '72.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We're family. There's no more important word. We share a lifetime bond.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We have a situation here on Chappaquiddick.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: There's been an accident. We can't find Mary jo.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: What the hell happened last night?


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any idea? Court of public opinion will have your head on a stake.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We tell the truth or at least our version of it.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I want you to know that every effort possible was made to save her.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do we do to help the senator?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: A dead body holds a lot of secrets. Those can be the difference between guilt and innocence.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Are you saying that there's a possibility that maybe she didn't drown?


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I could have had her out of that car in 25 minutes if I got the call. But no one called.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Sometimes the path you're on isn't always the path to choose.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's stopping you from making that choice yourself?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I can't watch you do this, Ted.



UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Oh my god, what have I done?


MACCALLUM: It's a chilling movie. Yesterday, I sat down with Chappaquiddick producer, Mark Ciardi.


MACCALLUM: There's a detachment in this movie, and I think a very clean, clear telling of what happened. It's so chilling. And the first thing that, you know, obviously, strikes anyone's mind when you watch what happened that night is how did he get out and why didn't she?

MARK CIARDI, PRODUCER: Yeah, you know, really, we try to go down the middle with telling the facts. The writers use the inquest as their source and, you know, we try not to editorialize at all. But, you know, he doesn't know how he got out and, you know, probably through a window. She wasn't able to get out. But, you know, we weren't there. But we try to put the pieces together as best we could and, kind of, have that narrative of the story that, you know, was really compelling and, you know, read like-- just a thriller, page turner.

MACCALLUM: I mean, obviously, it is such a tragedy for the Kopechne family, and they were dealing with a very powerful Kennedy machine. Here's a part of the movie that tells about how they came up with the strategy because they had to figure out a way to protect this young senator. Watch.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: This country has a deep connection to the Kennedy name, and that's a valuable thing, gentlemen. We can't just let that go to waste. We need to remind the American people what this family has been through and how much more we are left to achieve.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: How are you planning on doing that, Ted?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: A nationally televised statement, all three networks, prime time.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Why not have Ted fill in for Carson on The Tonight Show?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: That's actually not a bad idea. The networks will donate the time if it's part of their news coverage.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We can frame the national conversation the way we want it framed.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: How do we do that?

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: He's going to look sympathetic.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: It's easier to get him to fill in for Carson.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We tell the truth or at least our version of it. And it ends with an appeal to the voters, to the people that elected me, we need to remind them that this family perseveres, that we don't back down from a fight, that we don't get backed into a corner. We have a true compass and we follow it. Now, I followed mine the best I could that night. And me, and Paul, and Joe, we did everything we could to save that poor girl.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We've got a winner there, son.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: That's a hell of a winner.


MACCALLUM: You can just hear the spin machine as it gets going there. But the reality is, as you show in the movie, there were -- there was 10 hours in between. So he climbs out of the water, he goes back to his hotel. He takes a shower. He lays down. He wakes up. He goes for breakfast. In between, he's calling and consulting and his two -- his cousin and his friend go and try to get her out, down in the water again. So the cover-up has already begun and it's been in motion for 10 hours, right, Mark?

CIARDI: Yes. I mean, the facts that are -- that we know of lay it out. And it's really compelling, you know, what his choices were, you know weren't the best. But, you know, he certainly probably thought that she did not survive. They went there. He was supposed to report it. He did not. We know he called Hyannis Port. There're certain conversations and, you know, they decided not to -- he decided not to do anything until the next day. And then, you know, the island lit up and then he made a statement and, you know, the really interesting part of the movie too is what happens after and that was really kind of really interesting to explore and watch and, you know, it's a piece of American history. You know, it was all with the moon landing happening at the same time.

MACCALLUM: You know, you think of that weekend, so you're one year past the assassination of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King. You've got that weekend that they're all at this party in Chappaquiddick, the moon landing happening. And you think about how this would play out today with twitter, and social media, and people who would have been on the scene snapping pictures on their cell phones. He really did benefit from the time that he lived in when all of this went down.

CIARDI: Yeah. I mean, I can't imagine what would happen today. I mean, obviously, it would be a lot different. But, you know, that piece of -- certainly that week in 1969 that we examined and, you know, really retry to have that authenticity, and Walter Cronkite plays almost like a narrative throughout with the moon landing and also the Chappaquiddick, you know, reporting. And, you know, being able to kind of go to Chappaquiddick and go to that bridge and having a young boy found the car the next day, run to that dike house which he passed on the way going back in the party. You know, it's an indictment. But, you know, we try to humanize things as well and have the scenes emotional and make it a character study. But, at the end of the day, I think, you know, it's a compelling movie that has really kind of, you know, really hit a core with both sides of the aisle.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. It feels very authentic in terms of the way you captured that period and the moment by moment telling of that story. And Ted Kennedy himself said in his autobiography that it was something that he lived with, the responsibility of for the rest of his life, and people can judge for themselves as they watch it play out. Mark, congratulations on the film. It's very well done, and we thank you very much for being on The Story tonight. Good to see you, sir.

CIARDI: Thanks for having me.


MACCALLUM: Here with more, Chris Stirewalt, Fox News politics editor and political history buff. Chris, this is a fascinating movie. I think it's very well done. You know, as you point out, one of the characters that we didn't really know that well before this movie is Mary Jo Kopechne, as she looks very different in retrospect.

CHRIS STIREWALT, FOX NEWS POLITICS EDITOR: She looks very different in retrospect, not just because Kate Mara with a winning performance here, and the way that these filmmakers cast her and told her story, but how we see women now than how we saw them in 1969. She is not a footnote. Mary Jo Kopechne was not incidental contact. She was a vivacious 28-year-old woman. She was not a kid. She was a 28-year-old woman who had aspirations in politics. Saw herself on the national stage. She was not incidental contact. She was a real human being and this movie helps achieve that.

MACCALLUM: They talk about how he had no atonement, no process of ever really, sort of, paying the piper for what his responsibility was. It would have been a very different story if he had run directly to the authorities and said let's try to get her out. This chapter would be completely different, Chris.

STIREWALT: Well, the chapter would be completely different. But even if he hadn't, even if he hadn't done all of those things, he did, as you say, in his autobiography, say that he lived with that for the rest of his life. In the way you might live with any accident. He did not -- the culpability, right, so Ted Kennedy still, think about this, after this incident, the shocking, this appalling incidents, that offended the conscience of the country, after that he's still running for president in 1980. He did not understand. Ted Kennedy did not process at any point in his career the fact that this was a disqualifying kind of thing. And in order -- we're absolutely a country that believes in a culture that believes in very vigorously that people can be rehabilitated. That we believe in forgiveness. We believe in redemption here in this Lenten Season for sure. But atonement comes before you get -- before you get to be restored, you have to atone first. And Ted Kennedy never took ownership of it because as the movie very, very sneeringly depicts it was about spinning the narrative and controlling the discussion.

MACCALLUM: Yeah. I mean, she was dispensable, that's the bottom line. And the Kennedy machine clicked into high gear in order to fix his life.

STIREWALT: And they called her a boiler room girl. I think that's what it was, the dismissive term. And I just would bring up another figure from American history who we see differently now, Monica Lewinski and what happened with Bill Clinton. Twenty years later we now look back as part of this larger reckoning that's taking place in American culture and say, oh, my gosh, that was totally unacceptable. That wasn't boys being boys. That wasn't the way politics are. That wasn't the way men in power are. We are now going to get to look at Mary Jo Kopechne in different way too.

MACCALLUM: Chris, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight, sir.


MACCALLUM: So coming up next, she is working when most of us are sleeping, and she does it with a smile. But you may not know that our Janice Dean has another battle on her hands with a serious illness that she refuses to let slow her down. We admire her for that and we're glad she's here tonight to tell her story, next.


MACCALLUM: So, it is a phone call that nobody really wants to take. The one when your phone lights up and it's your doctor on a Friday night with some test results, and sometimes they're too important to wait. And Janice Dean got a call like that a couple of weeks ago, sitting around her kitchen table with her husband and a friend. It's been 13 years since she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and this time after having been good for so long was not good. But in the days and weeks since, her story has taken a turn for the better. She writes about it in a new op-ed on foxnews.com. This is my #MS, my journey with multiple sclerosis. Here now with more on that, Fox News senior meteorologist, Janice Dean. Janice, it's always great to see you.


MACCALLUM: So this was rough. I mean, I think, everybody can relate to that feeling of waiting for test results. Try to get your mind on something else.

DEAN: Yes.

MACCALLUM: Then when your phone lit up you knew.

DEAN: On my son's seventh birthday, having donuts and tea. And I knew. I was waiting for the result, and the fact she hadn't called me for a few days, usually, if I get the test results in this case was MRI's, which is one of the only indication that doctors get that there is a flair up or there's scaring on my brain or spine with MS. There is no cure for MS It's a chronic illness I'll have for the rest of my life. So, she called on a Friday night at 7:30 on my son's birthday, and I had to leave the room. And she told me that she was seeing new lesions on my spine. My brain was clear, but my spine was showing inflammation. And it was a punch in the gut because I have been doing so well. And the thing about MS is you can, you know, be in remission for weeks, months, years, and then it comes back. And it is literally one of those things where I wake up in the morning and if I can put my two feet on the ground and stand up I am grateful.

MACCALLUM: It's a good day.

DEAN: So, we decided on a different course of action. I've been on the same drug for -- on and off for 13 years to have my kids. I went off of them, and then I went back on them. And she said it's time to get more aggressive. And so, I'm on a new drug, it's an infusion once a month where I go into to the doctor's office. And it takes two hours. I brought my husband Sean with me this time around. But the op-ed was written because of the motivation and the words of goodwill and the cheering section that I have not only here at Fox News, but my family and my good friends. And Meghan McCain is one of my good friends and her dad, of course, everyone knows is going through brain cancer. And she knows doctors' offices and medical charts and all that.

MACCALLUM: Tell everybody what she reached out to you and said.

DEAN: So she said to me she wanted to know what I was taking and what the side effects possibly could be. And she said can I come with you to the doctor's office when you get your medicine? And it was just in that moment where I was like that's all a friend has to say to you is can I come with you? Can I sit with you? How are you doing?

MACCALLUM: Keep you company.

DEAN: And keep you company.

MACCALLUM: And a good friend.

DEAN: That's why I decided to write the op-ed. It was, you know, it's the encouraging words that you get. And that's what I wanted to do to people who have been diagnosed with MS. This is MS awareness month to let them know I'm in your cheering section. This is a tough road, it's a tough journey sometimes, but all you need sometimes is somebody to say I got you.

MACCALLUM: You know, you've been so wonderful at seeing the blessing from this experience and those are some of them, the friendships, the things that people tell you. So your son's teacher has MS and that was another one of those, sort of, signs, a blessing to help him get through it. So--

DEAN: Absolutely. Janice, we thank you very much.

DEAN: And thank you to you, because you're one of those people too that I see in the hallway and you just ask me how I'm doing--

MACCALLUM: We started together in a shared office--

DEAN: We did.

MACCALLUM: -- with no window in the middle of the building.

DEAN: And you were there when I was diagnosed, and I thank the people here at Fox News. Huge cheering section.

MACCALLUM: Everybody out there loves you and we thank you very much for staying late for us tonight. Good to see you, my friend. So here's another great story. Coming up, we're celebrating national puppy day.

DEAN: Oh, yes.

MACCALLUM: What could be better than that?

DEAN: I'm staying.

MACCALLUM: When we come right back. Stick around.


MACCALLUM: Finally, on this Friday, in honor of national puppy day, did you know that? We share this adorable tweet from economics writer, Brendan Greeley, whose daughter left him this note on his newspaper. Can I please get a puppy, underlined, and if you look at the little words underneath a real one. No stuffed animal, thank you very much. We're happy to report that she did. Do you know what? Persistence pays off. She got her puppy. This is my puppy, squire, which I got after many years of wanting one, too. He'll be certainly be spoiled tonight, but he's got a pretty good life once a week anyways, so he won't even know. That is "The Story" for tonight. Thank you very much for being with us, everybody. Have a fantastic weekend. Tucker Carlson in D.C., coming up next.


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.