This is a rush transcript from "The Story," December 14, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Hello there, Bret. But stick around for the next hour. Tonight, the special counsel, says Michael Flynn was not set up in his meeting at the White House with two FBI agents.

Mueller's latest filing comes as a judge demanded to see all the documents surrounding that meeting and force the Special Counsel to turn them in by 3:00 today. The filing disputed the notion that Flynn was misled in the meetings. Saying, he, "Agreed to meet with FBI agents, without counsel and answer their questions."

Adding this stinging line, "A sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired Lieutenant General and a 33 year veteran of the Armed Forces does not need to be warned that it's a crime to lie to federal agents."

But, nowhere in the filing does Mueller deny that Andrew McCabe told Michael Flynn, it'd be better not to have a lawyer there. And1 it was pretty clear from James Comey's own lips that the meeting and the questioning was actually anything but business as usual when asked what he knew about the agents just showing up at the White House that day in January of 2017, he said this.


JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I sent them. Something we probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with, in a more organized investigation. A more organized administration in the George W. Bush administration for example, or the Obama administration. The protocol, two men that all of us have perhaps increased appreciation for, over the last two years.

And in both of those administrations, there was a process. And so, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official you would work through the White House counsel, and there'll be discussions and approvals, and who would be there. And I thought it's early enough, let's just send a couple of guys over.


MACCALLUM: Let's just send a couple of guys over. Chief Intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge, here to break down what we learned from these new filings.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CORRESPONDENT: Martha, according to the special counsel during Flynn's January 2017 interview about his conversation with the Russian ambassador, "The FBI agents gave the defendant multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by revisiting key questions. But the defendant never corrected his false statements."

The filing also includes a memo that appears to be written by then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who set up the White House interview. According to the memo, Flynn explained that he had been trying to build relationships with the Russians."

Although parts are heavily redacted, the memo suggests Flynn knew any conversations with the Russian ambassador were monitored by U.S. intelligence. "He then, stated that I probably knew what was said."

Though Deputy Director McCabe seemed to discourage Flynn from having a lawyer present for the short notice interview and was not warned any false statements could be prosecuted. The special counsel said the circumstances of the defendant's interview are not mitigating.

The incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee weighed in a short time ago.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: When you look at everything Trump, Flynn included, it was a real all hands on deck. Whatever we need to do to find out what happened. Confidential informants, counterintelligence investigations, and not a finger lifted against the (INAUDIBLE).


HERRIDGE: The Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan gave the special counsel and Flynn's legal team less than 48 hours to file the records which include an interview of Peter Strzok, who said anti-Trump texts. He was one of two agents to question Flynn.

This record is heavily redacted, summarizing Strzok special counsel interview about Flynn seven months later. He described Flynn as having, "A very sure demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception. Flynn struck Strzok as bright but not profoundly sophisticated."

This comes as the former FBI director James Comey will answer questions behind closed doors Monday on Capitol Hill. And Flynn's sentencing in federal court is still scheduled for Tuesday next week, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Catherine. So, here now, Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University. And Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. Both are Fox News contributors, and both have followed this since day one.

Byron, let me start with you. Your initial reaction when you read through these documents today.

BYRON YORK, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it clears up a couple of mysteries. We had seen in court papers released not too long ago about an August 22nd report on this. And we didn't know what it was.

Now, it turns out that Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who had interviewed Flynn back in January of 2017 was interviewed himself by the FBI on August and he recalled some of those details.

By the way, the original report that the FBI agents wrote about that interview, again, on January 24th, 2017. The original report on that was not released today. It's possible that the prosecutors gave it to the judge under seal. Probably a good idea if they did, but we didn't get to see it.

MACCALLUM: So, what was not revealed as you point out is exactly what was said between those agents and Michael Flynn at the White House. So, we still don't have a record of that. Jonathan Turley.

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONTRIBUTOR: That's right. The record we have only gets worse. You know, with that clip that you played by Comey, is quite unnerving. I mean, the most unnerving thing other than what he's saying is the thrilled reaction of the audience.


TURLEY: I mean, here you have the FBI director who Republicans and Democrats called to be removed for his press conference during the Clinton campaign. Saying that -- you know what, I thought I could get away with just skipping all the protocols and rules and sending two guys over.

And that really is the sort of epitaph of his entire time as a director and but it's amazing to me how really duplicitous it is. You know, he says, well, you know if this was an organized administration, this was at the beginning of the administration. Right?

There was a White House counsel designee that you could speak to there were lawyers you could speak to. And also these filings indicate that Yates who was the acting Attorney General was actually quite angry when Comey told her that he just sent two guys over.

MACCALLUM: You know, I mean there's a lot of arrogance -- you know, this sort of is laced throughout this. Catherine mentioned one line that sort of jumped out at me that Peter Strzok talked about Michael Flynn as -- you know, bright, but not profoundly sophisticated.

I'm not sure what the meaning of that is or how that's relevant in terms of the information that was exchanged. And when I spoke with Trey Gowdy the other day about the meeting that's coming up, because they're going to get James Comey in front of their committee again on Monday. Here is what he said.


REP. TREY GOWDY, R-S.C.: It doesn't matter if everyone else concludes he did wrong. He knows better, so that's what it's like to interview an amnesiac with incredible hubris.


MACCALLUM: So, James Comey didn't take too kindly to that. Here is what he tweeted, "And I was worried this wouldn't be a dignified open-minded search for the truth." Which led to another tweet, "Which is the way things go these days from congressman Gowdy, who said, "Director Comey, I was disappointed in what you didn't remember, but even more disappointed in what you never knew. I will see you on Monday." Byron.

YORK: You know, I think the reason this case keeps getting so much attention is it's just -- there's something weird going on here. December 2016 is this conversation between Flynn and the Russian ambassador.

Mid-January, there's a leak about itself as a big crime. There's a leak about it, Flynn denies it. And on January 24th, the FBI agents come to interview him. We learn today, they did not think he was lying.

In March, James Comey goes to Capitol Hill and he tells lawmakers that the agents didn't think Flynn was lying and that they shouldn't expect any sort of charges against Flynn.

In May, Comey is fired. The new Special Counsel Robert Mueller comes in. In August, all of a sudden there's a new report about this January interview. And then, on December 1st, Flynn pleads guilty to lying.

Something is going on that we don't know about, and we still need to find out. And it's interesting to note. I remember, you know in one of the only statements that General Flynn made after this started to unfold, he said, "I have a story to tell. And when that time comes, I will tell it."

Jonathan Turley, your thoughts on that. And also on the fact that I'm not sure why there's this effort towards you know, the mitigation when the recommendation is for zero time in jail.

TURLEY: Yes, if he wasn't cooperating, he would probably still get zero time. I mean, if he's a first offender, this runs from zero to six months. It's doubtful that he would get any jail time in any circumstance.

Now, I think we have to be a little cautious with General Flynn. We don't know about some of the other things investigated. He had some very curious ties in these Turkish discussions. And there's been a lot of suggestions of rather a sort of seedy types of plans that went on. We don't know the truth or falsity of those facts, but there's a lot more to be told.

But what we do know is that for some reason, they were hunting for Flynn. You know, they say quite clearly, "We intentionally didn't remind him that he's got to be careful in what he says to us, and yes, that can be a crime." Which they did with other witnesses.

They skipped the protocols and went directly to him circumventing counsel on the White House. And then, when he finally did say something that they thought was not accurate, they didn't raise it, they just repeated it, they didn't correct it.

And so, the question is, why would they be hunting for Flynn at this point? That's what's not explained in any of these filings.

MACCALLUM: Well, we know that they had picked up on this intercept that he was discussing things with Kislyak. And then, they discovered that there was an inconsistency in what he was saying publicly about that.

TURLEY: Right. But you -- but even there, you know the fascinating thing in the -- in what we saw today is Flynn tells the agents, "Will you already know what I said to the Ambassador?" Which is seems to be a referral to the fact that he knew that he was being surveilled or there was a wiretap on that phone.

So that begs the question again, did he really intentionally lie when he assumed that everything that he was saying was being listened to by the FBI.

MACCALLUM: Quick, Byron.

YORK: But there was this question, why did the FBI go over and question Flynn? And one of the things we've learned in these court filings is that they did indeed suspect him of violating the Logan Act, which we've all learned about which is a law that has never been successfully prosecuted ever in the history of the country.

TURLEY: Such as flagrantly unconstitutional.

MACCALLUM: Thank you both. Until next time. Good to see you. Thank you.

TURLEY: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, breaking tonight at the White House, President Trump has a new chief of staff but there's a catch, next.


MACCALLUM: Breaking tonight at the White House. President Trump announcing Mick Mulvaney will be his acting chief of staff beginning next year. Taking the place of outgoing chief of staff John Kelly. Mulvaney tweeting just a short while ago, "This is a tremendous honor. I look forward to working with the president, and the entire team. It's going to be a great 2019!"

But the saga is far from over with speculation running rampant tonight over what the President meant by the word "acting" or why that word was inserted. Joining me now to dig into all this is Doug Wead, Author of Game of Thorns: Inside the Trump-Clinton Election. Doug, always good to see you. Thank you for being here tonight.


MACCALLUM: Your reaction -- this is a you know sort of a Friday evening news drop and it settles a question that was very open over the course of the week after several people said they didn't want the job.

WEAD: Yes. Well, I think Mulvaney, he's great. He's a brilliant economist, good politician, but best of all he's courageous. He's gutsy. He'll fire a whole board so he's a good choice. But it is very instructive that the President is leaving out this caveat acting chief of staff. He's speaking when he says that.

MACCALLUM: There's some reporting out there tonight that's not verified by us that was Mulvaney's idea that he wanted it to be acting. What do you read into that if that were to be the case?

WEAD: Yes, I've heard that. I suspect that but it may be true. It's obvious what that says. That says he wants to get the feel for this, to feel if he's the right guy for the job to do it. I don't think the president would have any trouble filling this with Bill Shine who's a deputy chief of staff who understands television, who's loyal, who's already vetted our Sarah Sanders the first woman chief of staff. She's it's a high-wire act what she's been through, brilliant. Or David Bossie who helped win the campaign and who wrote the book Trump's Enemies.

If Trump is going to survive these attacks from the House, he's going to counterpunch and he's going to need someone like Bossie that would know how the lead that. And Jared Kushner, I'm very impressed with Jared. I don't think he lacks someone who could step in and really run that job.

MACCALLUM: Well, those are all people that he absolutely trusts. And it's clear that he has a lot of respect for Mick Mulvaney because he's given him -- this really the third job that he's given him in the short time relatively that he's been president.

Ivanka Trump who you saw today put out a tweet right away. Her husband was also someone who was mentioned and you thought would have been doing a great job. Her tweet is up there congratulating Mick Mulvaney. Why do you think Jared didn't want it or wasn't chosen? What are your thoughts on that?

WEAD: Well, Ivanka told me he's trying to focus on these things. He wants to accomplish and he's been very successful with everything he touches turns to gold and if he's running the staff day-to-day he's going to be bogged down. He's a chance -- he's had a chance to see that. And by the way there would be criticism of him because he's a son-in-law of the President and that's bogus.

We -- there had been -- when Donald Trump named Ivanka Trump to senior staff she was the 19th son or daughter of a president to be hired at the White House. It's very common. And the early secretaries of the White House were what became the job chief of staff. They were almost all sons of the President up into modern times.

FDR's last year in office, the White House was run by his daughter Anna Roosevelt. So those are bogus report. Good for Jared, he should do as much as he can do.

MACCALLUM: Before I let you go, Jim Baker is the person that you hold up as the model chief of staff. I think we have a picture of him in the Oval Office. Why do you say that?

WEAD: Well, his experience and what he achieved from one administration to the next. But keep this in mind, he was a Democrat when George H.W. Bush tapped him, and he had no experience. He said I don't have any political experience. I've been in the law. So you can tap someone who turns out to be quite good who doesn't have all that experience right away and you've got a diamond in the rough.

MACCALLUM: Jim Baker is a true statesman and a treasure to this nation and we all watched him at the funeral recently but he's a good example to put out there. Doug Wead, thank you very much. Great to see you tonight.

WEAD: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So coming up, why the Governor of Kentucky is lashing out at a media investigation against him. Governor Matt Bevin responds tonight.


GOV. MATT BEVIN, R-KY.: Shame on you Courier-Journal. And this is why so many people in Kentucky no longer give you the time of day. It's why I encourage everybody to just disregard the nonsense that comes out of this biased left-wing organization.



MACCALLUM: An intense feud is heating up tonight between Kentucky's governor Matt Bevin who's a Republican and the state's largest newspaper over its plan to partner with a liberal back to investigative news outlet. The governor calls it a case of left-wing bias. He is here to explain in moments, but first Trace Gallagher has the backstory on this from our own west coast newsroom. Hi Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi Martha! The Kentucky based Courier-Journal announced on Wednesday that it was partnering with ProPublica saying ProPublica's year-long investigation into an unnamed state program would "strengthen coverage of state government at a time when many news organizations are cutting back because of economic conditions. That same day Kentucky GOP governor Matt Bevin posted a three-minute video on social media condemning the announcement, bashing Pro Publica for being partially funded by "George I hate America Soros," the left-wing billionaire who supports numerous liberal causes.

Governor Bevin also linked to an article headlined Pro Publica is the left's biggest muckraker you never heard of which called out the publication's founders Herb and Marion Sandler and there are millions of dollars in donations to left-leaning organizations. Here's part of Bevins video. Watch.


BEVIN: I encourage everybody to just disregard the nonsense that comes out of this biased left-wing organization. The Courier-Journal is a sad shadow of what it once was. It's a shame. It was once a great organization. Our state could use good news media. We don't have it. Certainly not from the Courier-Journal.


GALLAGHER: The Courier-Journal responded by saying "since 1868 The Courier-Journal has proudly served its readers earning ten Pulitzer Prizes and delivering fair and unbiased coverage. ProPublica also suggested that Bevin has an ax to grind tweeting a link to a Courier-Journal story that criticized Bevin for giving his friend a government job followed by a 134 percent pay raise. Others also cited with The Courier-Journal saying "only a governor who has something to hide would be afraid of the press. I look forward to what they uncover." And telling the governor, "preemptively dragging journalists before their investigation has begun makes you seem really scared, governor. What are you afraid they'll find?"

For the record, other organizations are partnering with ProPublica for state government investigations including the Sacramento Bee and the Charleston Gazette-Mail. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Trace, thank you very much. Here now exclusively Kentucky mayor -- governor rather, Matt Bevin. Governor, good to have you with us. I think that's the operative first question, what are you so concerned about?

BEVIN: There's nothing to do with whether or not there would be an investigation. I love how the courier-journal reminds people that since 1868 they've had 10 Pulitzers. Ask them the last time they had one it was the 1980s, the time -- last time they actually wrote anything that won them a Pulitzer Prize. They have been a shadow of what they once were. The thing that I'm calling out is not the fact that an investigation of anything is going on. They should do that. We need transparent government and I encourage people to dig into all facets of it.

Our state has not exactly been a bastion through the years of non- corruption, let's put it that way. There's been a lot of things that should be getting investigated. It's not the idea of that. It's the fact that a newspaper that wants to be seen as objective, that puts itself forward as being objective, would sell their soul to someone like ProPublica.

MACCALLUM: What's wrong with ProPublica?

BEVIN: ProPublica is not -- they are not an unbiased organization. They're not. They don't pretend to be, and nor should they. They're not funded by people who want them to be. They are a hard left-leaning publication. That is their prerogative.

MACCALLUM: All right, they would dispute that as you -- as you know. They're backers, you have pointed out. Here's what they said. We noticed that you mentioned two of our donors who just happened to be Jewish. So here are a few facts about our funding. We had 34,000 donors last year. George Soros provided less than two percent of our revenue.

BEVIN: Let's just say that less than two percent means one and a half. I have no idea what it is. Let's just say it's one and a half that would mean the other 33,999 donated an average of 0.000028 percent each. So why would I call out someone like that when I could call out someone who gave more than 500 times as much. Calling him out and the Sandler's out who are the two biggest funders of this is why they were called out.

The fact that these people use the cheap excuse of the fact that they are Jewish is the biggest cop-out on their part. That shame on them --

MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, the suggestion in that tweet is that they think there's something anti-Semitic about your criticism, so address that.

BEVIN: Yes. I mean, straight up that is the biggest canard and they know it. This is what weak minded people do. It's what the left does. They hide behind somebody's as something phob or this or that. I would ask them to ask Prime Minister Netanyahu or asked Ambassador Dermer to the United States from Israel. Ask them their thoughts take a look at the recent BDS legislation executive order actually that I passed in this state. This is a big canard and that's what the left does.

MACCALLUM: All right, let me ask you. All right, so they're going to dig in and I want to ask you just you know one example. Charles Grindle who you chose to serve as your state's chief information officer. After less than a year, you gave him a $215,000 raise. He is a friend of yours from the military. How do you explain that?

BEVIN: This is a somebody -- this is somebody that I know years ago. I spend more time talking to the head of the teacher's union in 2018 then I did to this guy Dr. Grindle. And they don't love me necessarily. The point is they are upset with the fact we are paying a person to do a job that they are doing well. This guy Dr. Grindle, he used to be instructor of cyber at the army war college. He's paid $375,000 a year. It is a fraction of what he could make in the private sector, two master's degrees, has a Ph.D. on information systems. He saves us more every two weeks than we pay him in a year. And we are getting him on the cheap.

MACCALLUM: All right, I got to leave it there.

BEVIN: And this is the guy -- I hope that is what they want to investigate but what a waste.

MACCALLUM: All right, we will continue to watch it and have you back. Thank you very much, Governor Bevin, from Kentucky.

BEVIN: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Still ahead, Nancy Pelosi praise.


MACCALLUM: New details in the horrific death of an American college student who was reportedly planning to be home for the holidays.

Trace Gallagher has this story for us tonight from our west coast newsroom. Good evening, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Martha. But instead of being home for the holidays, Sarah Papenheim's family is now planning her funeral. Papenheim a very promising drummer was studying abroad at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. On Wednesday, she was in her apartment, a mile from campus when neighbors called police to report fighting and screaming.

Minutes later authorities found Papenheim stabbed to death. Her 23-year-old male roommate was later arrested at a train station 65 miles away holding a suitcase and a cello. Sarah Papenheim's mom says her daughter and the suspect bonded over music and started sharing an apartment about a year ago.

But Sarah told her mom the roommate had recently become unstable and angry. The mother says days before Sarah was killed, some mental health professionals came to the apartment but Sarah, quote, "shooed them away because she was afraid he would think she called them."

Police have not disclosed the motive but Papenheim's family believes it happened after Sarah decided to leave the apartment to live with her boyfriend. She was apparently gathering her belongings at the time of the attack.

Sarah Papenheim was born in Minnesota, raised in California and because of her talent as a drummer she caught the attention of Prince's former band mate and legendary musician Gary "Jelly Bean" Johnson, who said after her death, I'm quoting again, "I liked her because she hit the drums just as hard as guys did. So, I nicknamed her 'thumper.' I can't believe something this bad happened to her especially because she was a great kid."

Even more heart wrenching is the fact that Papenheim was studying psychology with an emphasis on suicide because three years ago her brother took his own life. Here is her mom.


DONEE ODEGARD, SARAH PAPENHEIM'S MOTHER: I have been through this before. I cried so much my ducts are dry. But I'm in the angry stage.


GALLAGHER: And tributes continue pouring in. Among them a Facebook post from the Minnesota blue society showing Sarah drumming with a caption reading, "we have lost a great young musician and heaven has gained one." Martha.

MACCALLUM: Awful. Trace, thank you very much. So, coming up tonight, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is serving a 14-year sentence for corruption. Now his wife Patty is here exclusively with a warning about criminalizing what she says is the routine practice of politicians raising campaign contributions.


MACCALLUM: President Trump's inauguration committee is under some pressure tonight to reveal how they spend a record breaking $107 million in donations after a report in the Wall Street Journal suggested that some of that money might have been used to buy access to the incoming administration.

And according to a new report by ProPublica, Ivanka Trump may have been involved according to the report in the Wall Street Journal in some of those discussions and negotiations. Although the inaugural committee says they have not been approached about any investigation.

Last night I spoke with Press Secretary Sarah Sanders about the story. And here is what she said.


SARAH HUCKABEE-SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president was focused on the transition and building out a new government and preparing to take office. The role that the president had in the inauguration was to raise his hand and take the oath.


MACCALLUM: But my next guest says something about this investigation feels very familiar with her. Patty Blagojevich the wife of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich currently serving a 14-year prison sentence on corruption charges. Patty, good to have you with us this everything. What similarities do you see?

PATTY BLAGOJEVICH, ROD BLAGOJEVICH'S WIFE: Well, you know, it's a very dirty business, Martha, when these prosecutors with their unchecked power and no oversight on them at all can go after any politician they want. And so, you know, they say people those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. All they have to do is look at back at what they did to my husband 10 years ago to see what they are doing to President Trump now.

The same prosecutors, the same political assassins I'd like to call them, are trying --taking legal fundraising contributions and legal request for fundraising and turning them in to something that is, you know, they're trying to say are crimes. They're non-existent crimes. The prosecutor in our case actually told the jury that asking for a campaign contribution was the same thing as a dirty cop offering to tear up a ticket in exchange for a bribe.

MACCALLUM: So, your argument -- and everybody remembers, you know, the main comment from your husband where he said I've got the Senate seat and it's golden. And he's talked about being able to trade then Senator Barack Obama's open seat which as governor he had the opportunity to fill. That it was a great currency for him as a politician.

That got a ton of attention. But then when the jury saw this, the prosecutor as you say instructed them that they could basically infer that any contribution at all would be a criminal wrongdoing. Is that correct?

BLAGOJEVICH: Right. They just, they equated asking for campaign contributions with bribery. Without even having to prove that anybody asked for something in exchange for something, without proving what, you know, they call as quid pro quo. Just as long as it was connected in some sort.

Which this bar is so low that essentially every congressman who asks for a contribution from the special interest group would be guilty of the same crime. It's a dangerous stand for the president.


MACCALLUM: I understand your take on it. In your husband's second trial he was convicted on 17 counts related to an array of wrongdoing including the attempt to sell the U.S. Senate seat that I just mentioned. And then later on, five of those counts were thrown out.

So, you know, when you look at this discussion about raising funds for an inaugural, it's a little bit of a different situation. They are trying to figure out where the money went. They know that 60 something million dollars was spent on inauguration. They're trying to figure out where the rest of the money went and whether or not it was used to influence any policy or any part of the presidency.

BLAGOJEVICH: Well, it's interesting because people like to remember the selling of the Senate seat but those where the charges that were thrown out on appeal, those are the political log ruling that was deemed perfectly legal.

And all that's left of my husband's case are the three fundraising requests that they are trying to say are now crimes because he asked for campaign contributions and never ever received them. And so, this is the same thing.

You know, political fundraising is a first amendment right as deemed by the Supreme Court. And these prosecutors are trying to rewrite the law and say that just because somebody gives you a campaign contribution, and they hope someday you might talk to them about the legislation that's somehow a crime.

MACCALLUM: And you, you know, point out that you recognize some of the characters that are involved in your -- come of the players that were involved in your husband's case to today.

BLAGOJEVICH: Right. Of course. It's the same people. Mueller, Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald, that's the same, same group that went after my husband. They were successful going after my husband and locking him up and throwing him away the key. And because no one stopped them from doing that to my husband now they are going after a bigger target.

They've been emboldened because they got away with it with my husband and they, you know, undid an election. Going after somebody that they didn't like for some reason and use every means within their power to do it.

MACCALLUM: And as you point out, a number of the charges were overturned. And the ones that remained had to do with the campaign fundraising which you outlined. How many years has your -- it was 10 years ago that this happened? How many years has your husband been in prison?

BLAGOJEVICH: Well, you know, my husband has been in prison six and a half years now for a 14-year sentence. This started 10 years ago. He was arrested 10 years ago December 9. A day that I'll never forget. But the investigation was going on before that. And you know, they will keep at it. Once they set their sights on you, they will keep on. Until they have you sitting in jail for 14 years.

MACCALLUM: And do you see similar -- I know you said the investigation of your husband went on for five years. So, when you watch this investigation, people talk about Mueller wrapping things up. Do you think -- do you think that's the case? Or do you anticipate that it will go on and on and on?

BLAGOJEVICH: Well, it just seems like didn't they announce a new investigation into his campaign funds? So, I think that they just keep digging and digging and they keep putting pressure on people that are close to the president just like they did to us.

They find your friends and your associates. They find people that are close to you that are, that have committed wrongdoing that's unassociated with you and they put pressure on them to say whatever they want them to say.

MACCALLUM: Understood.

BLAGOJEVICH: They keep at it until they get where they want to be.

MACCALLUM: I'm almost out of time, but before I let you go, I know that you are hoping that your husband will be pardoned by this president. Is there any new development with regard to that?

BLAGOJEVICH: No. You know, I know the president is a very busy man, he's got a lot on his plate. I think that, you know, we have a petition for clemency into the president and we hope and pray, you know, this will be, you know, we won't have to go another holiday season without him. The president is about justice and fairness. You know, we hope that he looks at Rod and sees how unfair and unjust--


MACCALLUM: Hard to believe--

BLAGOJEVICH: -- what's been done to our family.

MACCALLUM: It happened 10 years ago. But I'm sure it's not hard for you, because you've been without him and your girls have been without him for a long time.


MACCALLUM: Patty, thank you very much. Good to have you with us tonight.

BLAGOJEVICH: I appreciate it.



MACCALLUM: So, the latest Russian hoax may be this dancing robot named Boris. My Friday night ladies panel weighs in. Come on over, ladies.


MACCALLUM: This is my favorite story of the day. This is Russia's latest attempt at collusion. Take a look at Boris. He dances, he can talk, he was even billed on the Russian state TV as one of the most advanced robots that they have the technology to produce.

But if you look closely, we have a shot of the back of his neck. You can see his hair and his neck. Then, there is the gap. That what I first noted in the video. That looks like a real person. It is. Just your average vlog (Ph) dressed up in a robot suit, folks.

Here now for ladies night, Lisa Boothe, Susan Li, and Jessica Tarlov. Jessica, let me start with you. I mean, I remember years ago I went to Russia during college and we were near Kiev. And they took us to the economic achievement museum and the agriculture museum. One of the agricultural museums have like a bunch of hay, you know, sort of like, with ribbon wrapped around it. It was very odd. And now this is their latest technological achievement.

JESSICA TARLOV, CONTRIBUTOR: I would probably stick to the military parades and the real stuff that they are innovating very quickly and racing ahead on. It's super embarrassing but it's also Russian state TV where I feel like these things happen every day. And this one was just funny enough that it caught our attention. But this is, it seems very Putin.


MACCALLUM: Anybody actually going to think, Susan, you are a big robot fan.


MACCALLUM: You are kind of like--


LI: The robot with the dance move. I would say it's disappointing, comedic at the same time. And I'm such a geek because I've been covering artificial intelligence all week with the China trade dispute and artificial intelligence is a real threat for the future. You heard that from Google CEO this week, Sundar Pichai.


MACCALLUM: I completely agree.

LI: Elon Musk.

MACCALLUM: This guy is not--


LI: He is not a threat. I'll tell you that. He's a threat to comedy, I'll tell you.

LISA BOOTHE, CONTRIBUTOR: I just find this hilarious. Because imagine being in the audience. You're like, my gosh. This is so cool, so life-like. And then it turns out the reason why it's so life-like because it's actually a human being in a costume.

So, I find this incredible and it's also super embarrassing for Russia because they are billing it as we are so technologically advanced. And then it just sends a thing with a Halloween costume.


MACCALLUM: Now I'm wondering about the ones that we've seen that, you know, turns the doorknobs and climbs the stairs and jumps over. Is that just a guy too?

LI: The Boston Dynamics.

TARLOV: No. They seem like the real deal and that's--


MACCALLUM: It is like--

TARLOV: -- super scary.

BOOTHE: They're not funny.

MACCALLUM: So, of course the natural segue from robots would be to the royal family. So, let's take a look at this picture. You know, Meghan Markle is picked on all the time. She's the American in the crew. And so, this is what she did at an award ceremony for a fashion. And she got a lot of heat for it. They don't mess around with this sort of protocol things in England.

BOOTHE: Right.

MACCALLUM: And they just went after her. That this was odd. That she was cradling her belly.

BOOTHE: Well, like, I don't have kids so I don't -- I don't really see this as an issue. I imagine if you have something growing inside of you it would be kind of weird. The only thing I've had food babies from liek eating too much pizza.


MACCALLUM: It is kind of weird.

BOOTHE: But I felt like food babies from eating too much pizza. I think the real story with Meghan Markle is the fact that people keep leaving and don't seem to want to work for her, so maybe she is a little bit maybe--


LI: Back story there nice as she is trying to present herself.

MACCALLUM: She may not be making as many friends she needs.

BOOTHE: Exactly.

MACCALLUM: But then they out these other pictures out of Kate and Princess Diana. Also, they claimed doing the same thing. But let me tell you something. That is not the same thing. It's very natural when you have a big baby in your tummy--

LI: Yes.

MACCALLUM: -- that you might rest your hand on top.

LI: Yes. I'm sure you don't do this.

MACCALLUM: Doing the full this is a, it's a different thing.

TARLOV: But I do that she did it intentionally. And I've been around many pregnant ladies who is definitely sitting there with the hand there. And you are naturally protective, right. Your child is with you and I get that.

But Meghan Markle's pregnancy has been, so much has been made of it that it was announced, that it was leaked out that it was twins. So, I do feel like she was actually going for making a bit of a statement. Like here I am.

She surprised them by showing up at that event. She wasn't supposed to be there in a very chic dress as usual and was saying hey, I'm here. It's legit. You know, Harry and I have these two coming and that's what I came here to do.


LI: More Demi Moore. It's a fashion event so she used it as a--


MACCALLUM: We have that prestige (Ph) anymore. She's the one who started the whole thing. I mean, it used to be that women wore really big tent dresses.

BOOTHE: Right.

MACCALLUM: And tried to not let on that they were actually pregnant.


MACCALLUM: But that is not -- that's not -- ever since Demi Moore was on. And put her up. Yes. So, she did that. She kind of changed the whole ballgame.


TARLOV: But Meghan done--

LI: I think -- I think I've done--

BOOTHE: This is different after like eating too much pizza or something walking at a rest room.

MACCALLUM: We also have the royal family Christmas card if anyone cares.

LI: I love.


MACCALLUM: And there was a lot of joking on social media today that -- it show the family. There they are.


BOOTHE: They are so cute.

LI: I love Kate.

MACCALLUM: A joke that I saw on Instagram or somewhere and said that they just dressed up like, you know, regular people just to make the rest of us feel bad.

LI: It's a Gap postcard.

BOOTHE: But they look so cute.


BOOTHE: It's adorable.

MACCALLUM: The babies are pretty cute.

So, let's -- Post Malone. I love the segues, right. So, whenever you see the royal family, Post Malone. So, he is, he's selling Crocs, that if you don't know who he is, he is a rapper.


MACCALLUM: And here is 10 seconds of his most famous song. Let's play it.

LI: Actually, I kind of like the song.

TARLOV: It is a great song.

MACCALLUM: So, the Crocs have barbed wire pictured on them which is what he has pictured on his entire face. Lisa?

BOOTHE: So, I'm just impressed that anyone can get anyone to buy Crocs.

LI: Excellent point.

BOOTHE: And they sold out in 10 minutes or less, no less.


LI: The second time in a month.

BOOTHE: So, I'm actually congrats, Post Malone. I mean, that, I think that is an achievement to get anyone to buy Crocs.

MACCALLUM: Nobody is happier than the croc people who thought their whole thing was so over.


LI: Yes, they are. Well, yes. I mean, Crocs were left for dead.


LI: A few years ago, and now that stock, because I know you love numbers. I know I do. It's tripled last month.

MACCALLUM: That's incredible.

BOOTHE: To what? Like $4?

LI: Something like that. Up 200 percent. That's impressive. Thank you, Post Malone.

BOOTHE: Yes. Well done.

MACCALLUM: There they are.

LI: Fashionably offensive--

MACCALLUM: Jess, you may have a pair of these because you like that kind of steps.

TARLOV: I don't have any Crocs. I might have Birkenstocks because they've also gotten super chic now.


MACCALLUM: I do, too.

BOOTHE: I have Birkenstock.

TARLOV: And the metallics and everything else.


MACCALLUM: Crocs is definitely trying to do what Birkenstock pulled off to become a fashionable shoe. But Post Malone, who I'm not a tremendous fan although I love that song had a great line at the VMAA where he said, you know, thank God this is working out for me because my mom warned me with all his tattoos on my face I was never going to get another job unless this all happened, and it is for him.


MACCALLUM: So, Nancy Pelosi said something, you know, I mean, you guess this will pass as the sweetest thing that Nancy Pelosi said about Donald Trump all week. Watch this.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., MINORITY LEADER: I did tell the president that I prayed for him. He said that's news. Go tell the press. So, I am.


MACCALLUM: A little bit of a--

BOOTHE: I think it's hilarious. President Trump told her you should go tell the press. That's good, Nancy, tell the press.

MACCALLUM: He keeps saying that.

BOOTHE: Yes. It's hilarious. You know, we should be praying for everyone.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

BOOTHE: I can't knock Nancy on this.

LI: They have more in common than they have apart, I think. Because they are probably what, the most hated on the opposite side of the aisle. And they probably have an iron grip on their parties, right. The most popular.

MACCALLUM: Absolutely do.


TARLOV: And they both liberals for a really long time. Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic. So, I don't think it was something that she was saying in that like, bless you, it was bless your heart" kind of way.


MACCALLUM: Bless your heart.

TARLOV: She probably really meant it.

BOOTHE: But it is kind of like I'm going to pray for you and then make your life miserable next caucus.


MACCALLUM: You are no longer president in 2020 probably. Thank you, guys.

TARLOV: I know.

MACCALLUM: Thank you to you. Happy ladies' night. That is our story on this Friday. Have a great weekend, everybody. Get that Christmas shopping done. We will see you on Monday night at 7. "Tucker" is up next. 

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